United States
Environmental Protection
Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics
September 1996
Apparel Care and the
Alternative Technologies and Labeling

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                           Prepared by Eastern Research Group, Inc. for the Office of Pollution Prevention and
                           Toxics, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Points of view expressed in this pro-
                           ceedings document do not necessarily reflect the view of policies of the U.S.
                           Environmental Protection Agency or any of the contributors to this publication. Mention
                           of trade names and commercial products does not constitute endorsement of their use.
                           Conference  Planning
                           Chad Jehassi, Coordinator
                           Economist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                           401 M Street, SW, Mail Code 1102
                           Room 2714B Mall
                           Washington, DC 20460

                           Jo Patton
                           Coordinator, The Center for Neighborhood Technology
                           2125 West North Ave.
                           Chicago, IL 60647
                           312 278-4800

                           Manfred Wentz
                           184 Shuman Blvd.
                           Naperville, IL 60563-8464

                           Eastern Research Group
                           2200 Wlson Blvd., Suite 400
                           Arlington, VA 22201
                           703 841-0500
Project Manager: Judy Usherson
Editors: Larry Reppert, Laura Speare
Desktop Publishing: David Cheda
Cover Art: Amy Chou

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
Alternative Technologies and Labeling
Foreword  	5

Agenda 	7

Sponsors	9

Speakers and Participants  	11

Session I

Welcome and Introduction
William H. Sanders
                       EPA's Design for the Environment (DfE) Program for the
                       Dry Cleaning Industry	19
                       Ohad Jehassi

                       EPA's Cleaner Technologies Substitute
                       Assessment (CTSA)	27
                       Joseph Breen

                       EPA's ORD Research Program on Alternative Textile
                       Care Technologies 	37
                       Charles Riggs

                       EPA's ORD Research Program (continued)	49
                       Perry Grady

                       Discussion Summary I 	55
Session II

Textile Care Research Programs in Germany .
Josef Kurz

Textile Care Technology Spectra and
Care Labeling Issues  	
Manfred Wentz

Report of Professional Wet Cleaning in Europe
/Caspar D. Hasenclever

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
Alternative Technologies and Labeling
                         Report on the European Wet Cleaning Committee
                         Walther A.J.L. den Otter
Report on the European Care Labeling Status
Helmut Kruessman
                         Results and Conclusions from Wet Cleaning
                         Demonstration Projects	
                         Jo Patton
               • -^
Discussion Summary II	137
                         FTC Care Labeling Revisions
                         Connie M. Vecellio
                         Status Report from ASTM's Care Labeling Committee ... .153
                         Jo Ann Pullen

                         Care Labeling and the Textile Industry  	165
                         Kay M. Villa

                         Care Labeling and the Apparel Industry  	175
                         Carl Priestland
One Retailer's Perspective on Care Labeling,
Consumers, and the Environment	
Jennifer Holderness
                         Care Labeling and the Fabric Care Industry 	181
                         Mary Scalco

                         Care Labeling and Consumers	185
                         Nancy L. Cassill
                         Discussion Summary
                         Summary and Final Discussion Minutes:
                         Development of an Action Plan	211

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

    Representatives of textile and apparel manufacturers, the dry
cleaning industry, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
international standards organizations, and others gathered in
Washington, DC on September 9-10, 1996, for "Apparel Care and the
Environment: Alternative Technologies and Labeling."  The confer-
ence was co-sponsored by the American Apparel Manufacturers
Association, The American Association of Textile Chemists and
Colorists, the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, the American
Society for Testing and Materials Committee D13 on Textiles, the
Fabricare Legislative and Regulatory Education Organization, the
Professional Wet Cleaning Partnership, and EPA. Approximately 90
people attended.

    "Apparel Care and the Environment" brought together key stake-
holders to learn about developments in alternative technologies and
care labeling, and to discuss the focus of future efforts.Participants
shared a common goal: to reduce the impact of apparel care on the
environment. Although most dry cleaners currently use the toxic
chemical perchloroethylene to clean garments, alternative technolo-
gies such as wet cleaning are emerging and becoming commercially
viable. Wet  cleaning is a professional garment cleaning process that
uses the controlled application of soap and water. One barrier to the
expansion of alternative technologies is current garment care labeling
practices which specify dry clean only for most garments requiring
professional cleaning. If a garment labeled "dry clean only" were
damaged by a professional cleaner using a wet cleaning process, the
cleaner would be liable for the damage. Revisions to the Federal
Trade Commission's (FTC) Care Labeling Rule are being considered
to address such issues.

    The conference was divided into three sessions, each of which
was followed by a discussion period. The first session focused on
EPA's initiatives in partnership with industry. European develop-
ments on wet cleaning, other alternative technologies, and care label-
ing were discussed during the second session, which also featured
results from a U.S. wet cleaning demonstration project. The third ses-
sion covered presentations on care labeling by FTC, textile and appar-
el manufacturers, the fabricare industry, a retailer, and a consumer
representative.  The conference concluded with a facilitated discussion
and development of an action plan. These proceeding contain tran-
scribed presentations, copies of the papers presented during the con-
ference, and a summary of the discussion sessions.

Apparel Care  and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling



Session I:










                                          Registration and Coffee
   Moderator: Ohad Jehassi
   U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Welcome and Introduction
   William H, Sanders, Director, Office of Pollution
   Prevention and Toxics, EPA

EPA's Design for the Environment Program for the
Dry Cleaning Industry
   Ohad Jehassi, EPA

EPA's Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment for the Dry
Cleaning Industry: A Real World Industrial Ecology Example
   Joseph Breen, EPA

EPA's ORD Research Program on Alternative Textile Care
   Perry Grady, North Carolina State University
   Charles Riggs, Texas Woman's University


LUNCH (on your own)

   Moderator: Manfred Wentz, Fabricare Legislative and
   Regulatory Education Organization (FLARE)/American
   Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC)

Textile Care Research Programs in Germany
   Josef Kurz, Hohenstein Institute, Boennigheim, Germany

Textile Care Technology Spectra and Care Labeling Issues
   Manfred Wentz, FLARE/AATCC

Report on Professional Wet Cleaning in Europe
   /Caspar D, Hasenclever, Kreussler, Wiesbaden, Germany


Report on the European Wet  Cleaning Committee
   Walther den Otter, TNO Cleaning Techniques Research
   Institute, Delft, The Netherlands

Report on the European Care Labeling Status
   Helmut Kruessmann, GINETEX-wfk, Krefeld, Germany

Resub and Conclusions From Wet Cleaning Demonstration Projects
   Jo Patton, Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT)


End of First Day's Sessions

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                        Agenda  (continued)
                        Tuesday, September 10,1996
Session III:








   Moderator: Jo Ration, CNT

FTC Care Labeling Revisions
   Connie Vecellio, Federal Trade Commission

Status Report From ASTM's Care Labeling Committee
   Jo Ann Pullen, American Society for
   Testing and Materials

Care Labeling and the Textile Industry
   Kay M, Villa, American Textile Manufacturers Institute

Care Labeling and the Apparel Industry
   Carl Priestland, American Apparel Manufacturers

One Retailer's Perspective on Care Labeling,
Consumers, and the Environment
   Jennifer Holderness, Gap, Inc.


Care Labeling and the Fabric Care Industry
   Mary Scalco, International Fabricare Institute

Care Labeling and Consumers
   Nancy Cassill, University of
   North Carolina-Greensboro


Summary and Action Plan
   Facilitator: Jan Connery, Eastern Research Group

End of Conference
             This meeting is supported by the
             U.S. Environmental
          Protection Agency's
          Design for the         §/

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling


                                                                                     AMERICAN APPAREL
                                                                                 MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
   The mission of AAMA is to help create an environment
in which the U.S. apparel industry can operate competitive-
ly and profitably in a global economy. Association objec-
tives to accomplish this mission include: providing informa-
tion and educational services to the membership to enable
it to respond to a changing apparel environment; educat-
ing and informing  the public, decision makers, and the
media regarding industry trends, issues,  and concerns; providing a forum for
members to meet and exchange views; promoting awareness of and respon-
siveness to the legitimate needs and concerns of apparel customers and con-
sumers; representing the interests of the membership on legislative, regulatory,
and administrative issues; and anticipating emerging issues affecting the indus-

   Contact: Dick Yardley, Director of Technical Services, 2500 Wilson Blvd.,
Suite 301, Arlington, VA 22201. Phone: 703 524-1864, Fax: 703 522-6741.

                                 Established in 1921, AATCC is a technical and scientific
                             professional society dedicated to the advancement of knowl-
                             edge relating to the application and use of dyes and chemi-
                             cals in the textile industry. The association encourages
                             research work on chemical processes and materials and establishes channels
                             to increase interchange of professional knowledge among members.

                                 Contact: Jerry Tew, Technical Director, Box 12215, Research Triangle Park,
                             NC 27709-2215. Phone: 919 549-8141, Fax: 919 549-8933.

                                 ATMI is the national trade association for the domestic
                             textile industry. Member companies operate in more than 30
                             states and process approximately 80 percent of all textile
                             fibers consumed by plants in the United States. The industry
                             employs 656,000 people, AT Mi's activities encompass govern-
                             ment relations, international trade, product and member ser-
                             vices, communications, and economic information.
                                 Contact: Kay Villa, Asst. Director, Product Services Division, 1130
                              Connecticut Ave. NW,, Suite 1200, Washington, DC 20036. Phone: 202 862-0500,
                              Fax: 202 862-0570.
                                         SOCIETY FOR          AND
                              D13 ON TEXTILES

                                 ASTM D13 develops standard test methods, specifications practices, and
                              guides for textiles and related material including fibers, yarns, fabrics, apparel,
                              care labeling, ropes, tire cord, pile floor coverings, home furnishings, nonwoven
                              fabrics and subassemblies.

                                 Contact: Bode Buckley, Manager, Technical Committee Operations, 100
                              Barr Harbor Drive, West  Conshohocken, PA 19428. Phone: 610 832-9740, Fax:

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                              Sponsors    (Continued)

    FLARE is a national, grass-roots organization com-
posed of volunteers from within the fabric care indus-
try. FLARE's mission is to foster an environment for the
Fabric Care Industry to prosper. The organization seeks
to accomplish its mission  by providing a communications channel for the fab-
ric care industry to facilitate discussion and education amongst industry mem-
bers, regulators, legislators, and the general public on fabric care issues and
on the benefits of fabric care to society.

    Contact: Dr. Manfred Wentz, FLARE, 184 Shuman Blvd., Naperville, IL 60563.
Phone: 630 416-4244, Fax: 630 416-4150.
    PWCP has three goals: to encourage the develop-
ment and demonstration of professional wet cleaning
methods; to promote increased professional wet clean-
ing of clothes that previously would have been dry
cleaned; and to assist those presently in the clothes care industry to survive
and prosper in the face of heightened regulatory pressures. Participating orga-
nizations in the Partnership include: the International Fabricare Institute,
Greenpeace, the Neighborhood Cleaners Association, the Center for
Neighborhood Technology, FLARE, Massachusetts Toxics Use Reduction
Institute, the Federation of Korean Drycleaning Associations, and the Union of
Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees.

    Contact: William Fisher, International Fabricare Institute, 12251 Technology
Rd., Silver Spring, MD 20904. Phone: 301 622-1900, Fax: 301 622-1568.
                                                                                      U.S. EPA

   EPA, through its Design for the Environment (DfE)
Program, is working with a variety of industries—from dry
cleaners to printers to metal platers—to encourage the
design of safer processes and products by eliminating or
minimizing pollution. DfE conducts collaborative studies
and shares research with government agencies, industry
groups, public interest groups, universities, and others. The overall mission of
DfE is to cultivate pollution prevention strategies that  integrate both environ-
mental and economic objectives. In this way, a critical link can be forged
between the need to protect the environment and economic productivity. As
part of its DfE program, EPA formed a partnership with the dry cleaning indus-
try and public interest groups  in 1991 to minimize perchloroethylene exposures
and evaluate alternative technologies.

   Contact: Chad Jehassi, Project Manager, 401 M Street SW. (1102),
Washington, DC 20460. Phone: 202 260-6911, Fax: 202 260-8511.

Apparel  Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                             Speakers  and

                             Breen, Dr. Joseph
                             Chief, Design for the Environment
                             Office of Pollution Prevention and
                             U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                             401 M Street, SW. (7406)
                             Room E- 318
                             Washington, DC 20460
                             Tel:  202260-0686
                             Fax: 202 260-0981

                             Cassill, Nancy
                             Associate Professor, Textile Product
                             School of Human Environmental
                             Department of Clothing and Textiles
                             University of North Carolina,
                             210 Stone Building
                             Greensboro, NC 27412-5001
                             Tel:  910334-5250
                             Fax: 910 334-5614
                             E-mail: cassillm@iris.uncg.edu

                             Conncry, Jan
                             Vice President and Senior
                               Communications Specialist
                             Eastern  Research Group, Inc.
                             110 Hartwell Avenue
                             Lexington, MA 02173-3134
                             Tel:  617674 7200
                             Fax: 617 674-2851

                             den Otter. Walther A.J.I,.
                             Manager, Dry Cleaning Department
                             TNO Cleaning Techniques Research
                             P.O. Box 6062
                             2600 JA  Delft
                             Schoemakerstraat 97
                             Delft, The Netherlands
                             Tel:  +31 15 269-6933
                             Fax: +31 15256 0258
                             E-mail: denotter@ir.tno.nl
Grady. Perry
Associate Dean
College of Textiles
North Carolina State University
Box 8301
Raleigh, NC 27695-8301
Tel: 919515 6651
Fax: 919515-3057
E-mail: perry_grady@ncsu.edu

I lasenclever, Kaspar D.
Managing Director
Kreussler Chemical Manufacturing Co.
Postfach 12 04 54
Rheingaustrasse 87-93
D-65082 Wiesbaden, Germany
Tel: +490611-9271-0
Fax: +490611-9271 -111

I lolderness, Jennifer
Manager, Product Standards
  Department and Environmental
Gap, Inc.
2  Harrison Street
San Francisco. CA 94105
Tel: 415995-6619
Fax: 415 536-5242

Jehassi, Ohad
Economist, Administrator's Office
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW. (1102)
Room E-539B
Washington, DC 20460
Tel: 202260-8617
Fax: 202260-8511

Kruessmann,  Dr. Helmut
Scientific  Director
Adlcrstrassc 42
D-47798 Krefeld
Tel: 14902151-770072
Fax: +4902151-770075

Kurz, Josef
Business Manager. Textile Care Research
Hohcnstcin Institute
D-74357 Boennigheim
Schloss Hohenstein
Tel: +4907143-271-718
Fax: +49 07143-271-746

Apparel  Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

Fatten. Jo
Coordinator, Center for Neighborhood
2125 West North Avenue
Chicago, IL 60647
Tel: 312 278 4800 ext.120
Fax: 312 278-3840

Pricstland, Carl H.
Chief Economist
American Apparel Manufacturers
2500 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 301
Arlington, VA 22201
Tel: 703524 1864
Fax: 703522-6741

Pullen. Jo Ann
American Society for Testing and
  MaterialsCommitt.ee D 13
46 Maple Street
Northfield,  MA  01360
Tel: 413 498 2931 (office). 413 498 5015
Fax: 413298-5015 (dial*)

Riggs, Charles
Fashion and Textiles
Texas Woman's University
Demon, TX 76204
Tel: 817898-2670
Fax: 817898 2711

Sanders, Dr. William H.
Office of Pollution  Prevention
  and Toxics
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW. (7401)
Room F-539B
Washington. DC 20460
Tel: 202 260-3810
Fax: 202 260-0575

Scalco, Mary-
Director of Government Relations
International Fabricare Institute
12251 Tech Road
Silver Spring, MD 20904
Tel: 301 622-1900
Fax: 301 236-9320
Vecellio, Connie
Attorney. Bureau of Consumer
  Protection, Division of Enforcement
Federal Trade Commission
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room
4302  (S)
Washington, DC 20580
202 326-2966
202 326-3259

Villa. Kay M.
Assistant Director, Product Services
American Textile Manufacturers
1130  Connecticut Ave., NW.. Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202 862-0518
Fax:  202 862-0570
E-mail:  kvilla@atrni.org

Wentz. Manfred
Fabricare Legislative and Regulatory
  Education Organization
184 Shuman Blvd.
Naperville,  IL 60563-8464
Tel: 708416 4244
Fax:  708416-4150

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling


Adalr, Patricia K.
Special Technical Assistant
National Cotton Council of America
1521 New Hampshire Ave., NW.
Washington, DC 20036
Tel: 202745 7805
Fax: 202 483-4040
E-mail: padair@cotton.org

Adamson, K.C. (Ken)
General Manager
Langley Parisian Fabricare Services
P.O. Box 91128
Hamilton, Ontario L8N 4G3
Tel: 905 522-4651
Fax: 905 529-5856

Arroyo, Albert
Health and Safety Training
Department of Occupational Safety and
275 Seventh Ave.,  6th Floor
New York, NY 10001
Tel: 212 691-1691
Fax: 212807-0874

Baraona, John C.
The Fussy Cleaners
323 West Market Street
Akron, OH  44303
Tel: 330535-1303
Fax: 330 535-3617

Belluscio. Jack
President, Global Technologies
222 North Sepulveda Blvd., Suite 2200
El Segundo, CA 90425-0997
Tel: 310414-9680
Fax: 310414-9682

Brodmann, George L.
Senior Scientist, ITT
2551 Ivy Road
Charlottesvillc, VA 22901
Tel: 804296-5511
Fax: 804296-2957

Chadbourne, Joseph H.
Project Manager
The Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing
4600 Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, OH  44103
Tel: 216543-7303
Fax: 216543-7160
Chadbourne, Mary M.
Project Manager
The Cleveland Advanced Manufacturing
Organochlorine Project
Prospect Park Building
4600 Prospect Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44103-4314
Tel: 216 543-6674
Fax:  216543-7160
E-mail: mary.chaclboiirne@camp.org

Cho, Jenni
Outreach Consultant
Korean Youth and Community Center
680 South Wilton Place
Los Angeles, CA 90005
Tel: 213 365-7400 ext. 143
Fax:  213383-1280
E-mail: jcho@kycc.apnet.org

Cohoon, Angel
Campaign Assistant
847 W. Jackson, 7th Floor
Chicago, IE 60607
Tel: 312 563 6060
Fax:  312 563-6099

Gumming, Brad
Head. Pollution Prevention
Environment Canada
4905 Dufferin Street
Toronto, Ontario, M3H 5T4
Tel: 416739 5883
Fax:  416739-4251

Darvin. Charles H.
Physical Scientist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Tel: 919541-7633
Fax:  919541-7891

DeRosa, David
Campaign Associate
847 W. Jackson, 7th Floor
Chicago, IL 60607
Tel: 312 563 6060
Fax:  312563-6099

Dean, Julie
Apparel-Design Technician
1365 Enterprise Drive
West Chester, PA 19380
Tel: 610701-8553
Fax:  6107018455
E-mail: juliedean/qvc@qvc

Apparel  Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

Elfers, Melissa
Lever Brother Company
45 River Road
Edgewater, NJ  07020
Tel: 201 943-7100
E-mail: elfers.melissa@unilever.com

Engelbach, Peggy-
Program Coordinator and Assistant
  Professor, Textiles, Apparel, and
Indiana State University
Department of Family and Consumer-
Terre Haute, IN  47809
Tel: 812237-3305
E-mail: p-engelbach.indstate.edu

Engle, Mary K.
Assistant Director for Enforcement
Federal Trade Commission
601 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room
4302  (S)
Washington, DC
Tel: 202 326-3161
Fax:  202 326-2558 or 3259

Ewers,  Lynda M.
National Institute for Occupational
  Safety and Health
4676  Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 45226
Tel: 513841-4314
Fax:  513841-4486

Eyring, Bill
Senior Engineer, Center for
  Neighborhood Technology
2125  West North Avenue
Chicago, IL 60647
Tel: 312 278-4800 ext. 116
E-mail: bille@cnt.org

Frumin, Eric
Department of Occupational
  Safety and Health
275 Seventh Ave., 6th Floor-
New York, NY 10001
Tel: 212691-1691
Fax:  212 807-0874
Gamet-Corinaldi, Nathalie
Project Manager and Secretary of Legal
37 rue de Neuilly
B.P. 249
Tel: -i-l 47-56-31-80
Fax: +1 47-30-27-09

Goodheart, Jessica
Project Manager
University of California Los Angeles
Wet Cleaning Demonstration Project
Pollution Prevention Education and
  Research Center
Box 951656
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656
Tel: 310206-4450
Fax: 310825-1575
E-mail:  goodhear@ucla.edu

Gouveia, Patrick A.
Textile Technologist
Navy Clothing and Textile Research
P.O. Box 59
Natick, MA 01760
Tel: 508 233-4740
Fax: 508 233-4683
E-mail:  pgouveia@natick-

Gregson, Martin F.
Group Technical Director
Johnson Croup Management Services,
Mildmay Road
Bootie, Mcrscyside, L20 5EW
United Kingdom
Tel: 0151 933-6161
Fax: 0151-922 8089

Halii day, Brian L.
Marketing Manager
Paxar Corporation
P.O. Box 735
Lcnoir, NC 28645
Tel: 704 758-2338
Fax: 704 758-2038

Hindermith, Astrid
Director, Ecomat, Inc.
147 Palmer Ave.
Mamaroneck, NY 10543
Tel: 914 777-3600
Fax: 914 777-3502

Apparel  Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

! loenscheid, Joseph
SPY, Hazardous Materials Manager
Defense Logistics Agency
JJ Klngman Drive
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
Tel: 703 767 2543
Fax: 703767-2628

Jackson, Hazel O.
Associate Professor, Apparel Design and
California State University, Long Beach
1250 Bellflower Boulevard
Long Beach, CA 90840-0501
Tel: 310 985-7491 or 4484
Fax: 310985-4414

Kelly, Douglas J.
Sales Manager
Boewe  Passat
2154 West Northwest Highway, Suite 200
Dallas.  TX 75220
Tel: 319 393-8890
Fax: 319 393-8958 or 214 490-0388

Kelly, Frank X.
Vice President, Customs and
  International Trade
Liz Claiborne, Inc.
One Claiborne Ave.
North Bergen, NJ 07047
Tel: 201 295-6425
Fax: 201 295-6118 or 6302
E-mail: frank  kelly@liz.com

Kolish, Elaine D.
Associate Director for Enforcement
Federal Trade Commission
601 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
  Room 4302  (S)
Washington, DC 20508
Tel: 202 326-3042
Fax: 202 326-  2558 or 3259

Leppin, Betty
13452 Lord  Dunbore Place
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772
Tel: 301 627-2971
Fax: 301 627-2971

Licnharl, R. Bradley
President. CEO
Performance Solutions,Inc.
206 Old Pro's  Way
Gary, NC 27513
Tel: 919380-7078
Fax: 919380-7740
Loop, Robert
Corporate Retail Marketing Manager,
Paxar Corporation
105 Corporate Park Drive
White Plains, NY 10604
Tel: 914697 6808
Fax: 914 697-6892

Macklin, Chris
Procter & Gamble
6060 Center Hill Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45224
Tel: 513634-7285
Fax: 513 634-1811

Machacek, Margit
Ph.D., Divisional Merchandise
Evaluation Manager, Men's Division
JCPenney Company, Inc.
Quality Assurance Center
1505 Wallace Drive, Suite 102
Carrollton, TX  75006
Tel: 214431-9816
Fax: 214 245-1147

Marcus, Patricia N.
Senior Program Officer
Industry Canada
Place clu Portage I
50, rue Victoria
Hull, Quebec Kl A OC9
Tel: 819953-3647
Fax: 819953-2931

McCall, Robert E.
Research Assistant
College of Textiles
North Carolina State University
Box 8301
Raleigh, NC 27695-8301
Tel: 919515-6591
Fax: 919515-5123

Michener, Dr. John W.
Senior Scientist
Millikcn Research Corporation
P.O. Box 1927
Spartanburg, SC  29304
Tel: 864 503-2502
Fax: 864 503-2903
E-mail: jmichener9@aol.com

Milbrath, Dean S.
Ph.D.. Senior Research Specialist
3M Specialty Chemicals Division
3M Center, Building 236-1B-07
St. Paul, MN 55144-1000
Tel: 612 736-4951
Fax: 612 733-4335

Apparel  Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

Mills, James G.
Federal Trade Commission
601 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.
Washington, DC 20580
Tel: 202326-3035
Fax:  202 326-3259

Minster, Stanley
Chairman of the Board
Belenky, Inc.
1601  Frederick Blvd.
Akron, OH  44320-4092
Tel: 216867-3333
Fax:  216867 7798

Ouimet, Albert B.
Corporate Technical Director
Warnaco Technical Center
Airport Industrial Park
Westerly, RI 02891
Tel: 401  596-2836
Fax:  401 596 2318

Peterson, Jacqueline
Chairperson, Merchandise Management,
International Academy
1 North  State Street, Suite 400
Chicago, 11,60602
Tel: 312541-3910
Fax:  312 541-3929

Porter, David
Garment. Care. Inc.
2018 Swift Ave.
North Kansas City, MO 64116
Tel: 816221 1066
Fax:  816221-1067

Regazzi. Marilyn
Technical Manager, Softlines
Gap, Inc.
2 Harrison Street
San Francisco, C A 94105
Tel: 415995-6689
Fax:  415536-5242

Rindosh, Lesley
Manager, International Textile Services,
ACTS Testing Labs
276 Main Ave.
Clifton, NJ 07014
Tel: 201  470-2200
Fax:  201 470-8115
Ruder, Avima
Section Chief
National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health
R16, 4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, OH 43226
Tel: 513841-4440
Fax: 513841-4486

Seitz, William
Executive Director
Neighborhood Cleaners Association-
252 West 29th Street
New York, NY 10001-5201
Tel: 212697-3002 ext. 231
Fax: 212967-2240

Shady, Kim M.
North American Sales Manager,
  Raytheon Appliances
Commercial Laundry
Shepard Street, P.O. Box 990
Ripon. WI 54971 -0990
Tel: 414748-4437
Fax: 414748 1664
E-mail:  kim.shady@ccmail.eo.ray.com

Siegel. Jodie M.
Research Associate, The Massachusetts
  Toxics Use Reduction Institute
University of Massachusetts  Lowell
One University Ave.
Lowell, MA 01854-2881
Tel: 508934 3142
Fax: 508934-3050
E-rnail:  siegeljo@turi.org

Sinsheimer, Peter
University of California Los Angeles
Wet Clean Demonstration Project
Pollution Prevention Education and
  Research Center
3258 Public Policy Building
Box 951656
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656
Tel: 310825 2654
Fax: 310825-4339
E-mail:  pperc@ucla.edu

Slaven, Pat
Project Leader
Consumers Union
101 Truman Avenue
Yonkers, NY 10703
Tel: 914378 2322
Fax: 914378-2910

Apparel Care  and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

Smith, M. Tacy
Technical Account Representative-Sales
and Marketing
SGS U.S. Testing Company, Inc.
291 Fairfleld Ave.
Falrfield, NJ 07004
Tel: 201 575-5252
Fax:  201 575-1193 or 0799

Smith, Paula M.
Environmental Manager
Indiana Department of Environmental
ISTA Building
150 W. Market Street, Suite 703
P.O. Box 6015
Indianapolis, IN 46206-6015
Tel: 317233-6663
Fax:  317233-5627
E-mail: psmit@opn.dem.state.ln.us

Spendel, Wolfgang U.
Ph.D., Principal Scientist: Laundry
The Procter & Gamble Co.
Ivorydale Technical Center
5299 Spring Grove Ave.
Cincinnati, OH 45217-1087
Tel: 513627-4916
Fax:  513627-6773
E-mail: spendelwu@pg.corn

Stanley, Sue M.
Ph.D., Area Coordinator, Apparel
  Design and  Merchandising
Department of Family and Consumer
California State University, Long Beach
1250 Bellflower Blvd.
Long Beach, CA 90840-0501
Tel: 310985-4483 or 4484
Fax:  310 985-4414

Tew, Jerry G.
Technical Director
American Association of Textile
  Chemists and Colorists
P.O. Box 12215
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2215
Tel: 919549-8141
Fax:  919549-8933

Trevorrow, Ann
Product Evaluation Specialist,
Associated Merchandising Corp.
1440 Broadway, Room 1150
New York, NY 10018
Tel: 212596 4723
Fax:  212 596-4469
Tseng, Tom
Manager, Toxics Prevention Division,
Environment Canada, Ontario Region
4905 Dufferin Street
Downsview, Ontario M3H 5T4
Tel: 416739-5853
Fax: 416739 4159

Unger, Geri
Terramar Environmental Science and
18310 Scottsdale Boulevard
Cleveland, Oil 44122
Tel: 216921-6700
Fax: 216921-6700

Vasquez, Diane
Research and Development Lab
Phillips Van-Heusen
112 South Union Street
Ozark, AL 36360
Tel: 334774-4418
Fax: 334 774-4398

Vozar, Nancy J.
Associate Director, Textiles
Good Housekeeping Institute
959 8th Ave.
New York, NY 10019
Tel: 212 649-2353
Fax: 212489-8139

Warren, Barbara
Project Director
Consumers Union
101 Truman Ave.
Yonkcrs, NY 10703
Tel: 718984-6446
Fax: 914378-2928

Weinberg, Jack
Toxic Campaigner
847 W. Jackson Street, 7th Floor
Chicago, IL 60607
Tel: 312 563-6060
Fax: 312563-6099

Weiser, Diane
Ecomat, Inc.
147 Palmer Ave.
Mamaroncck, NY 10543
Tel: 914 777-3600
Fax: 914777-3502

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

Wituschck, Ed
Head, Toxic Chemical Controls Section,
Environment Canada
4th Floor, 224 West Esplanade
North Vancouver, British Columbia V7M
Tel:  604666-2815
Fax: 604 666-6800

Wiley Jean C.
Program Analysts
Defense Logistics Agency
JJ Kingman Drive
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060
Tel:  703767 1639
Wolfe, James A.
Senior Process Development Engineer,
Lever Brothers Company
45 River Road
Edgewater, NJ 07020
Tel:  201 943-7100 ext. 2577
Fax: 201 943-7649

Apparel Care and
the Environment
Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                Session  I


William H.
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Sanders is Director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT). OPPT plays a lead role in promoting
pollution prevention both within the Agency and with states, tribes, communities,
and industry. Previously, Dr. Sanders served as the Agency's Senior Executive for
Resources Management Training  in the Office of Administration and Resources
Management and as the Director of EPA Region 5's Environmental Sciences
Division. Dr. Sanders holds a Ph.D.  in Environmental and Occupational Health
Sciences from the University of Illinois, an M.S. in Management of Public Service in
Quantitative Methods from DePaul University, and a B.S. in Civil Engineering from
the University of Illinois.
Vic orne  to  "Apparel   Care  and  The
Environment: Alternative Technologies and
  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's)
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) is
proud to co-sponsor this conference and bring togeth-
er members of the textile, apparel, and cleaning Indus
tries to discuss the issue of reducing the environmental
impacts of apparel care.

  Our goal for this conference is two-fold:

1. To inform you about current alternative technologies
  and care labeling issues that may affect your industry.

2. To foster a working relationship among all of you
  that will lead to positive environmental changes in
  your industry.

  An additional challenge for us over the next 2 days
is to map out an action plan that will ensure protection
for  the  environment and continued  success for  the
apparel  care  industry.

  More broadly, we hope this meeting  will help  the
apparel  care  industry in their continuing quest to pro-
vide high-quality, cost-efficient, and environmentally
sound goods and service to their customers.

  We've got  a full agenda ahead for the next 2 days. In
the  first  session this morning, we will review what EPA
has accomplished in the past few years in cooperation
with the dry cleaning industry, and current projects
that are  underway.

» I  will be speaking to you about the Design for  the
  Environment  (DIE) Program.
» Ohad Jehassi will provide details about the Design
  for the  Environment  Program's  Dry  Cleaning

« Joseph Breen will give a report on one aspect of the
  Dry  Cleaning Project,  the Cleaner Technologies
  Substitutes Assessment.

  • Over the past few years, EPA has used this tool to
    evaluate the cost, performance, and environmen-
    tal and health risks of individual technologies as
    well as the respective "trade-offs"  for a given

» EPA has also sponsored a research program on alter-
  native textile care technologies. Perry Grady (North
  Carolina State University) and Charles Riggs  (Texas
  Woman's University) will share their research find-
  ings with us.

  In this afternoon's session, we are going to discuss
recent  developments in  textile care and begin to
address care labeling issues.

• International  colleagues will  share developments
  that have emerged and techniques  that have been
  tried in Germany, the Netherlands, and France.

» Jo  Pattern  of  the  Center  for  Neighborhood
  Technology will share the results  of wet  cleaning
  demonstration projects conducted here in the United

  Tomorrow we explore  in depth one of the main
issues of this conference	Care Labeling:

                                     Aparel Care and the Environment
« Representatives   from   the   Federal   Trade
  Commission; the textile, apparel, and  fabric  care
  industries; and retailers and consumers will all share
  their perspectives on this issue.

« With the help of a facilitator, we will be summariz-
  ing the meeting and developing an action plan for
  the future.
  While we do not necessarily expect to reach any final
decisions on the complicated issue of care labeling, it is
our hope that the perspectives presented here  and the
discussions  that follow will  help define the issues
involved and focus  our efforts.  In addition, we hope
that all of you will take advantage of the contacts made
here and continue  to  work  together  in  good faith
toward the common goal of a healthy environment.
  And now, I'd like to briefly share with you some of
the history and background of  OPPT's involvement
with the apparel care industry
  In 1990, OPPT was looking for ways to streamline
the regulatory risk process.  In  the past,  this  process
relied heavily on controlling the  release of  specific
chemicals into  a particular environmental media	
water,  air, or  land.   With this  approach, EPA  had
accomplished much, but along  the way some draw-
backs had emerged:

« Regulations sometimes  proved to be burdensome,
  inflexible, and resource intensive for both govern
  ment and industry.

» While  some regulations solved one environmental
  problem, they sometimes created a different prob-
  lem at the same time, often by transferring pollution
  from one media to another.

« Some industries replaced regulated chemicals with
  other nonrcgulatcd chemicals that were also haz-
  ardous to the environment.
  At the same time, however, industry was respond
ing to regulations in positive, proactive ways:

« A number of companies discovered that pollution
  prevention was a  cost-effective way to comply with
  regulations and help) the environment. Many busi-
  nesses  devised  innovative  ways to  substitute,
  reduce, or eliminate toxic feedstocks  and waste

« Industries that were already designing products for
  marketability and safety began to "design for recy-
  clability" and "design for the environment" as well.
  In the early 1990's, the Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics established its DIE Program.
« DIE was created to help the private sector develop
  alternative approaches to environmental manage-
  ment as well as to leverage government resources to
  accomplish public sector environment goals.

» DfE has worked toward these goals through volun
  tary partnerships with industries such as printing,
  metal finishing, and, of course, dry cleaning.
  In its partnerships with industry, EPA's Design for
the Environment Program systematically:

» Identifies alternative  technologies, products,  and
  processes for preventing pollution.

» Evaluates and compares the risk, performance, and
  cost tradeoffs of these  alternatives.

« Disseminates this information  to the industry com-
  munity and other interested parties.
  In addition to these voluntary partnerships, EPA's
Design for the Environment Program sponsors  two
other key initiatives:

« DfE's Institutional Projects work with the account-
  ing, insurance, and finance industries to ensure that
  the environmental and economic savings of imple-
  menting innovative pollution  prevention methods
  are adequately measured so they can be  factored
  into business planning.

» DfE's Green Chemistry program, through research,
  review, and curriculum development, recognizes
  and supports fundamental breakthroughs in chem-
  istry that are cost-effective, useful to industry, and
  prevent pollution.
  The Design for the Environment Program does not,
however, recommend specific alternatives. Instead, it
provides decision-makers with information, tools, and
incentives so that they can make informed decisions
that integrate risk, performance, and cost concerns.
  There  are many potential benefits to DfE projects,

» Consumers and workers  benefit from reduced
  health, safety, and ecological risks.

• Preventing pollution can help an industry's bottom
  line. A successful project reduces regulatory burden,
  reduces liability and insurance costs, and at the same
  time it increases efficiency, increases customer accep-
  tance, and improves worker moral and productivity.

« The relationships developed during the cooperative
  effort of a DIE project can, in the future, contribute to

                                       Welcome and Introduction
  increased efficiency in handling environmental con
  In the  1990's,  businesses  face  many competing
demands—keeping costs low and quality high, com-
peting  in  the global marketplace, and  meeting con-
sumer preferences for environmentally friendly goods
and  services.  EPA's Design for the  Environment
Program strives to assist companies in meeting all of
these goals while at the same time lessening an Indus
try's impact on the environment. Through this confer-
ence and other key initiatives, we hope to help all of
you, and the public at. large, become more  aware of
technologies and issues that  are shaping the garment
care industry. It. is our hope that armed with this infor-
mation, you can make decisions that are both good for
business and good for the environment.

                              for the
                     for the Dry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Jehassi is an economist currently working with the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) Administrator's Office. In this role, he evaluates the
effectiveness of EPA's voluntary and partnership programs. Formerly with  EPA's
Design for the Environment Program, he managed the development of the dry
cleaning project. Mr. Jehassi's experience includes work on various regulations
covering lead, cadmium, and formaldehyde, and the development of models
predicting the effects of risk communication on consumer behavior. He holds an
M.S. in Public Management and a B.S. in Economics from Carnegie Mellon
I   am honored to be here today to speak to you about
   EPA's Design for the Environment Dry Cleaning
   Project. Dr. William Sanders has given  us an inter-
esting glimpse inside the Design for the Environment.
Program's history, initiatives, and goals.

  In my work on just one of these initiatives, the Dry
Cleaning Project,  I  have witnessed  many positive
changes	and encountered  a few  obstacles as  well	
during the Project's  4-year  quest, to explore environ-
mentally responsible cleaning methods.

  In my remarks today, I would like to discuss EPA's
role in these changes.  EPA initially became involved
with the dry  cleaning  industry because of its  use of
pcrchlorocthylcnc (pcrc), a chemical that has been des-
ignated as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean
Air Act. Perc has been found at the highest concentra-
tion in urban outdoor  air, the  indoor air  of cleaning
shops and nearby residences, the homes of dry clean-
ing workers and customers,  as well as in the food, soil,
and groundwater near dry cleaning sites.

  The  dry cleaning  industry's use of perc  affects a
large number of people. In fact, with more than 30,000
commercial dry  cleaning shops in neighborhoods and
malls across the  country, dry cleaners make up one of
the largest groups of chemical users that come  into
direct contact with the general public.

  From the beginning,  EPA recognized that the dry-
cleaning  industry  consists  primarily  of  small,
marginally profitable businesses that are least  able to
absorb the impact of increasing regulations. With these
facts in mind, EPA forged a voluntary partnership with
the industry to  reduce exposure  to dry cleaning sol-
vents through safer work  practices  and alternative

  Toward this end, the Project's primary objectives
are to:

» Identify and evaluate pollution prevention options

« Empower dry cleaners and the public with informa-

» Provide incentives for dry cleaners and the public to
  change behavior

  The birth of the Dry Cleaning Project marked a fun-
damental shift in the way EPA does business.  EPA had
never before  attempted to  work together so closely
with an industry. In addition, rather than reducing risk
through command and control regulation, EPA used its
resources  to  support innovation  and  research and
development. This project also marks the first time
EPA has  convened a group as diverse as  the Dry
Cleaning Project's stakeholders.

  The partners in this project, include:

« Environment Canada

« Trade associations

• Labor unions

« Chemical companies

» Government purchasing authorities

» Academia

« Environmental and consumer groups

                                     Apparel Care and the Environment
  The Dry Cleaning Project has accomplished much
since its inception in 1992. The project has:

« Formed partnerships among industry, labor, envi-
  ronmental,  and  consumer groups.  Among these
  partners are the co sponsors of this conference, and I
  would like to take this opportunity to thank:

  • American Apparel Manufacturers  Association

  • American Association of Textile  Chemists and
    Colorists (AATCC)

  • American Textile Manufacturers Institute

  • American Society for Testing  and  Materials

  • Fabricare Legislative and Regulatory  Education

  • Professional Wet Cleaning Partnership (list part-

» Jointly  identified and evaluated alternative tech-

  The alternative technologies identified have includ-
  ed wet cleaning, a process of controlled application
  of soap and water,  and alternative solvent-based
  cleaning. The Project is also examining other alter-
  native cleaning  methods, including liquid carbon
  dioxide and  ultra-sonic technologies. Dr. Joseph
  Breen will  discuss the technologies assessed in the
  Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment,  or
  CTSA, in more detail immediately following  my

» Successfully tested alternative wet cleaning methods

  In 1993, in preparation for producing the CTSA, EPA
  compared the costs and performance of perc-based
  dry  cleaning against  a cleaning method  known as
  multiprocess wet cleaning. Findings from this pre-
  liminary, short-term study encouraged us to further
  research wet cleaning.

• Established demonstration sites

  Two machine wet cleaning demonstration sites, one
  in Chicago and the other in Los Angeles  have been
  established to collect information on performance,
  cost, and customer satisfaction. The sites mirror typ-
  ical neighborhood dry cleaning shops and offer dry
  cleaners the opportunity to observe wet cleaning
  under long-term "real-world"  conditions.   This
  afternoon,   Jo   Pattori   from  the   Center  for
  Neighborhood Technology will present some of the
  results of these demonstration projects.

• Developed a training program for dry cleaners

  EPA is sponsoring the development of a curriculum
  and related workshops to reduce the use  of perc.
  Focusing on alternative cleaning technologies, espe-
  cially machine wet cleaning, this course also covers
  economics, worker health and safety, and  liability

« Outreach activities

  To educate consumers and dry cleaners about ways
  to reduce the risks associated with dry cleaning, DfE
  and its project partners  have created a  variety of
  informational materials.   These  materials include
  brochures, fact sheets, case studies, televideo confer-
  ences, educational videos, and pollution prevention

« As a direct result of the project's involvement in wet
  cleaning, nearly 100 shops that offer wet cleaning
  services have  opened  or made the switch to wet
  cleaning in the past 18 months.

• Initiated changes in care  labels to  allow for alterna-
  tive care methods

  Early on in the evaluation process, the Dry Cleaning
  Project recognized that one of the key obstacles to
  implementing alternative, environmentally  friendly
  technologies is care labeling.  Accordingly,  the DfE
  Dry Cleaning  Project asked  the Federal Trade
  Commission to  revise its Care  Labeling  Rule  to
  require textile manufacturers to  explicitly state
  whether a garment can be safely cleaned by solvent-
  based methods, water-based methods, or both.  We
  believe  this change is necessary to advance the use
  of water based cleaning methods.

  The Care Labeling Rule now states "if either washing
  or dry cleaning can he used on the product, the label need
  have only one of these instructions."  We believe that
  amending the rule would allow consumers, as well
  as professional cleaners,  to make  more informed
  choices as to whether garments can be dry or wet
  cleaned. It would also encourage the use of water-
  based cleaning methods without the threat of result-
  ing garment damage and subsequent damage claims
  on professional cleaners.
  There are also a number of ongoing activities:

« U.S. Small Business Administration Workshops to be
  held across the country

                 ERA's Design for the Environment (DfE) Program for the Dry Cleaning Industry
  « U.S. Navy/Army  Testing Program will lest  the
    wet cleaning process on "dry clean only" military

  In the next day and a half we will be hearing differ
ent perspectives on the care labeling issue and hope-
fully reaching some agreements on how best to address
the questions and concerns of everyone here today.

  I hope that my remarks this morning have provided
all of you with an  adequate overview of the DfE Dry
Cleaning Project. EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention
and Toxics is committed to helping the  garment care
industry continue its history of customer satisfaction
during this time of change. Working together, we can
reduce the risks of dry cleaning solvents and provide a
safer, healthier environment for dry cleaners and their
customers.  All of the apparel care representatives here
today  	 from textile  manufacturers, trade associa-
tions, the Federal Trade Commission, researchers,  to
our European colleagues — have a role to play in pre-
venting pollution. We hope this meeting will serve  as
a constructive forum to exchange ideas about where
we now stand, and what is indeed possible for the

           Apparel Care and the Environment
 Design for the Environment
      Dry Cleaning Project
Partnerships For a Cleaner Future

     Technical lllork
      Goal: A Ctoanar Technology Substitutes Asseaamant
         (CTSA) provides a comparative •valuation of
         alternative* in terma of rMg p«rfornt*nc0, eo*ti and
         othar envlranmantal efhota to prevent pollution,
         r*duce riak, and Improv* economic productlvltv



 ERA's Design for the Environment (DfE) Program for the Dry Cleaning Industry
      Dry Cleaning Project
   Partnership formed in May 1992
   Goal: Reduce exposure to dry cleaning
   • Identify and evaluate pollution prevention
   • Empower dry cleaners and public with
   • Provide incentives for dry cleaners and
      public to change behavior
                    4 Amalgamated Clothing and Taxtil*
                     Wo*** Union
                    4 Canadian Fabricate Aaaociation
                    4 Consumer* Union
                    4- Dow Chemical Company
                     Environment Canada
                     Halogenated Solvanta bidurtry
                     International FabHcara ln*titut*
                     MaasachiiMtte Toxlca Uca R*duction
                     Neighborhood Cleaners Association
                    4 U.S. Envvonmontal Protection Ag«noy

             Apparel Care and the Environment
        • American Apparel Manufacturers Association
        • American Association of Textile Chemists
          and Coloriste (AATCC)
        *> American Textile Manufacturers Institute
        * American Society for Testing and Materials,
          Committee D13 on Textiles (ASTM)
        • Fabrlcare Legislative snd Regulatory
          Education Organization (FLARE)
        *> Professional Wet Cleaning Partnership
        • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
     Project Accomplishments
 Formed partnerships among industry,
 labor, environmental, and consumer
 Jointly identified and evaluated alternative
 Successfully tested alternative wet
 cleaning methods
 Established alternative technology
 demonstration sites

ERA's Design for the Environment (DfE) Program for the Dry Cleaning Industry
    Project flccomplishments
 Developed training curriculum for dry
 Outreach activities
 More than 80 wet cleaning shops have
 opened in North America in the last 18
 Initiated change in apparel care labels
     Ongoing flctiuities
  »r    **   **
     SBA workshops
     U.S. Navy/Army testing

Running Header from Title

                             for  the  Dry
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Breen is Chief of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Design for
the Environment Program within the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics
(OPPT). OPPT plays a lead  role in promoting  pollution prevention  both within the
Agency and with states, tribes, communities, and industry. Prior to assuming his
present duties as head of the Design for the Environment Program, Dr. Breen
served as Chief of the Field Studies Branch and Industrial Chemistry Branch in
OPPT. Dr. Breen earned a Ph.D. in chemistry from Duke University.
   I'd  like to add an  industrial ecology perspective
   before I  get into  a discussion of the Cleaner
   Technology Substitutes Assessment (C'l'SA). What I
want to share with you is this graph (slide 2). It's from
the President's  Council on Sustainable Development
and it lays out a 50-year strategic plan for technology
development at the  end of the 20th century and  the
first part of  the 21st century.  What it shows are four
lines, one each for remediation and restoration, control,
monitoring and assessment, and  avoidance or pollu-
tion prevention. The point is that at the end of the 20th
century, we're spending a lot of effort and monies on
remediation, restoration, and control. The  long-term
strategic plan, however, is to have pollution prevention
be the paradigm in order to  avoid having to expend
major effort on remediation and restoration or, for that
matter, on control. If you don't create the pollution in
the first place, then you don't have the cost of cleaning
it up, controlling it, or the liabilities associated with it.

  The Dry Cleaning Project is an excellent illustration
of industrial ecology because, although it started  out
dealing with the issue of environmental  and worker
exposures to pcrchlorocthylcnc (pcrc), we now have
new technologies that  are corning forward and we've
even changed the  people that are participating in  the
process.  It's not only  the small "mom and pop" dry
cleaners,  the franchise  people, or the hardware and the
solvents people who are involved in this, but also we're
now talking to  the people who actually  produce  the
garments themselves and to the people who produce
the textile fibers from  which the garments are made.
This is part  of  the ecological web notion here in an
industrial setting. We are trying to influence the chem-
istry of the polymers and the surface finishes used in
and  on the garments in  order  to make them  more
amenable to pollution prevention technologies for the
fabric care industry.  I think that is pretty exciting.

  Just to quickly reiterate the Design for Environment
(DfE) vision, it's the simple notion of taking classical
cost  and performance parameters as a basis for deci-
sion-making and including an environmental compo-
nent. The mission of our program is to use the Office
of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) risks man-
agement expertise to help) inform business decisions to
affect behavioral change. As Bill Sanders, the Director
of OPPT, has indicated in his remarks, one of the hall-
marks of the DfE program is that it is a voluntary pro-
gram involving partnerships to empower the partici-
pants to move forward toward pollution prevention.
Ohad Jehassi has indicated that the stakeholders in the
Dry  Cleaning  Project include not  only the  U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  and industry,
but also the public sector and environmental and labor
groups as well.

  Which brings me to what I have been charged with,
to provide you with a thumbnail sketch of what a
CTSA is all about.  A CTSA is a systematic comparison
of the performance cost and human health and envi-
ronmental risks associated with  chemicals, processes,
and technologies. The goal is to evaluate the tradition-
al as well  as the alternative technologies, to evaluate
substitutes, and to evaluate control options.

                                     Apparel Care and the Environment
  The  idea is  to  lay  out  the  tradeoffs among  the
options in  order to facilitate informed decisions.  It
turns out that if you look at what is required to go into
a CTSA, you create a rather daunting matrix of mod-
ules. They  include basic chemical information, human
health and  hazard summaries, the environmental haz-
ard summaries, and the market information process
description. The modules also include exposure issues
that get compiled into a risk assessment including safe-
ty and  process hazard issues,  evaluation of the P2
options, and some ancillary information on the regula-
tory status and performance and social costs and bene-
fits. Completing this matrix is a rather formidable task.
In this  particular case where we are looking at substi-
tute technologies, we take all of those module elements
and array them for the  various substitute technologies
in a data matrix.

  In the case of the dry  cleaning  technology assess-
ment, we've been charged  with taking the existing
technologies and some newly available ones to fill in
the matrix that I've just presented. The more challeng
ing aspect is to also get a handle on those technologies
under  development and  for which the data base is
extremely limited.  These new  technologies include
efforts  to deal with petroleum solvents, various fluoro-
carbons, and liquid carbon dioxide. What's unique or
exciting, for me at  least, is the emergence by virtue of
this process here in the United States of us giving seri-
ous consideration  to  substitutes for traditional  dry
cleaning.  We've been  working  on the wet  cleaning
processes with our colleagues here in the United States
and in Canada, and we've had more recent efforts with
the people  in Europe such as in Germany.  Again, the
challenge is to pull together the  information which, in
many cases, is somewhat limited because the technolo-
gies are fairly new.

  What  Lynn  Blake-Hedges,  the  CTSA Project
Manager, and the Dry Cleaning Work Group at EPA are
doing is assembling a table that  looks something like
this.  It takes all of the modules I showed in the previ-
ous graphic (slide) and fills in the boxes to make a com-
parison across the  technologies.  The objective of the
comparison is not to dictate what technology to choose.
The objective is to provide the information so  that
informed decisions can be made. A decision one indi
vidual might make may differ from another individual,
depending   on   their   particular   circumstance.
Circumstances such as the capital investment they're
confronted with, and  whether they've recently made
investments in a particular technology or not.

  Once the CTSA is  completed, the challenge is  to
communicate it to  the  industry and to consumers.
Lynn Blake-Hedges and the Work Group are working
diligently to integrate Phase I, which is the CTSA for
the perchloroethylene (perc) and petroleum  solvents.
The Phase II document covers all  of the other tech-
nologies listed in the matrix. The timetable is to com-
plete that process by the end of the year.  This particu-
lar document has to go into peer review, and we look
for that to happen this winter. We're optimistic we will
release the integrated Phase I and Phase II CTSA some-
time in late spring of 1997. For those of you that have
been involved in the process, you know there has been
some difference of opinion associated with the CTSA,
particularly in  the area of risk characterization. We
continue  to work with Bill Sanders and Lynn  Blake-
Hedges to come up with an appropriate presentation
of the risk characterization, in order to meet our objec-

  I must tell you,  as  someone who has been at EPA
since 1977, the DfE Program and particularly the fabric
care project (I find myself no  longer using the word
"dry cleaning" because I think we've gone beyond that
to include other processes) is one of the most exciting
things that I've been involved in professionally.  We're
really making a change in the way people do business.
We are now starting to impact the garment  industry,
and ultimately we'll be impacting the polymer Indus
try. For us, that comes full circle, because OPP'F also
has the Green Chemistry program which is trying  to
come up  with environmentally benign ways of doing
chemical  synthesis.  All of  a  sudden,  we  have this
unusual circumstance  of us working with chemists like
Professor  Joe DeSimone  at  the University of  North
Carolina on the Green Chemistry side, who runs poly
rner reactions in environmentally benign solvents such
as liquid  carbon dioxide.  That information has impli-
cations for developing chemicals, such  as surfactants
and finishes, that will  be used in the fabric care indus-
try particularly the use of liquid COj as  a fabric clean-
ing solvent.  It's a  marvelous example  of  industrial
ecology at work.

EPA's Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment for the Dry Cleaning Industry: A Real World Industrial Ecology Example
           Design for the environment
          Partnerships for a Cleaner Future
       Industrial Ecology: Technology Development
                                             MONITORING &

                                             REMEDIATION &
Stephen M. Edgington, "Industrial Ecology. Biotech's Role in Sustainable Development." Bio/Technology, Vol. 13, p. 31.

          Apparel Care and the Environment
Business decision-
makers integrate
concerns into cost
and performance
    Df C mission:
  • Use the Office of Pollution
    Prevention and Toxics' risk
    management methodology to
    inform business decisions
+                  _  Behavior
                  ""   Change

EPA's Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment for the Dry Cleaning Industry: A Real World Industrial Ecology Example
           What Is a Cleaner Technology

           Substitutes flssessment [CTSfl]

           A systematic comparison of the
           • Performance
           • Cost
           • Human health and environmental risk
           associated with chemicals,
           processes, and technologies
            Goal of the CTSfl:
            To evaluate
            • Traditional and alternative technologies
            • Substitutes
            • Control options
            To lay out the trade-offs among the

            to facilitate informed decisions

                  Apparel Care and the Environment
      CTSfl Hlodules
       II IrllffTllfl llOIl
       Human ttaaltti  I
     Hazard Sumnaria*!
       &ivl mi
     Hazard Sunvnaiwi
       li !• urnifluon
                         Polutlon Pravarrtlonl
                          & Control Options I
Fed oral R«gidntorr I
     Statue     I
   Baalc Coat
  Troda laauaa
  Social Coata
   & Banal it*

EPA's Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment for the Dry Cleaning Industry: A Real World Industrial Ecology Example
                               •Oxygn Vacuum
(  by Clean j
   Air Act
                                MFCs & PCs
                                  Liquid CO,

                Apparel Care and the Environment
    Clothes Cleaning Alternatives
                               1CPC-113 ?,
                                TCAJ*	V
                               *	-      :PtujCdOatb7
                                HFC* i PCs
                                        Nitrofco bdeetiait
                                Hand Washing
; Multiprocess
  Wet Cl
Machine Wet Cleaning
 Microwave Drying

 EPA's Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment for the Dry Cleaning industry: A Real World Industrial Ecology Example
           Alternative Fabricare Technologies Comparison Chart

     Wtzfeiv ttoE^

Running Header from Title



Texas Woman's University
Dr. Riggs is a professor at Texas Woman's University (TWU) in the Department of
Fashion and Textiles, He  has been involved in research, teaching, and profession-
al service to the laundry and dry cleaning industry for more than 20 years. In
addition to  teaching and research duties at TWU, he serves as Director of the
Texas Research Center for Laundry and Dry Cleaning. The Center was founded in
1983 as a cooperative effort between TWU and the Southwest Dry Cleaning
Management Institute. Dr, Riggs holds a Ph.D. in Chemistry.
I   wanted  to  give  you a  little  bit of history. The
   Research Center for Laundry and Dry Cleaning at
   Texas Woman's University  (TWU) was founded in
1983 with the sole purpose of providing a center in Texas
for research and training in laundry and dry cleaning.
The Texas Laundry and Dry Cleaning Association uses
the center as a  training facility. The association worked
with the manufacturers of professional cleaning equip
ment to provide the  university with the equipment. In
1983, it amounted to about a half million  dollars of
donated equipment to put. the center together. Since that.
time, there  has been some evolution of the equipment
and some replacement; we  are trying to keep it up to
date. This project will probably bring us to the cutting
edge of technology at the center. TWU also runs the cen-
ter as a production plant where we service the uniforms
on campus  and do over-the-counter work. The project
will, indeed, give us access to typical customer items,
and we can collect data in that. form.

   TWU has very active participation  with  industry,
and I wanted to give credit to our partners within the
industry who have long supported our research pro-
grams  at TWU. We have worked with the Southwest
Drycleaners Association, the Textile Rental Service
Association of America,  and the Uniform and Textile
Services Association of America. For the project we're
speaking about  today, we  are in partnership with
North Carolina State University (NCSU). The two uni-
versities jointly responded  to  a request for proposals
for Testing  and Development  of Pollution Prevention
Alternatives to Reduce  Indoor Air Emissions from
Pcrchlorocthylcnc Dry Cleaning  and Dry Cleaned
Fabrics from  the  U.S. Environmental  Protection
Agency (EPA) and we were successful in receiving the
funding. IL  was mentioned earlier thai  I would speak
about results, but results are not yet completed. In fact,
the project is just, beginning, so, rather than talk about.
results, Dr. Perry Grady and I will talk about our inten-
tions. I think the timing is excellent because this gives
us a chance to respond to your concerns and input as
to what, directions we should follow with the project.
NCSU, with its  engineering capability, will  identify
and screen new technology, and, in many cases, build
equipment to evaluate how well it will clean and pier-
form. At TWU, with our operating plant, we will be
looking at technology currently available to the Indus
try. Then together, we intend to develop) a protocol that
would  be universally acceptable to evaluate cleaning
technology. Certainly our intention is to learn from the
European research organizations and not try to deviate
from what's being done in Europe. In fact, one of our
students has  just returned from  2  weeks  at  the
Hohenstein Institute, learning the European protocol
for wet cleaning assessment, which we will try to adapt
as closely as possible in our trial efforts.
  Perchloroethylene (perc) is indeed the most, com-
monly used solvent. There's also solvent cleaning with
hydrocarbons, and both hand and machine wet clean-
ing.  What we're  talking about here today is  more
machine wet. cleaning and the distinction is more of a
production technique. At this point companies have
already contributed to help support this  project with
EPA. We have the wet cleaning machine from UNI-
MAC in place and running and a drying cabinet, from
Aquatex (a central part of the wet cleaning procedure
is to be able to dry without agitation). Boewe-Passat,
Pcrmac  division  is sending two  machines, a perc
machine and a hydrocarbon dry cleaning machine. We
will be using the Exxon synthetic hydrocarbon solvent
DF2000. Our assessment is that this solvent, would pro-
vide the most  reproducible results since  distilled
hydrocarbons vary somewhat in composition from one

                                     Apparel Care and the Environment
manufacturer and one distiller to another. We are still
optimistic that we can  actually evaluate the carbon
dioxide technology. It's  not currently available to the
industry, but projections are that it will be available in
the near future. So,  if we have a  machine available
which is characteristic  of what will be sold to  the
industry, then we will also include that, technology in
our assessment.

  I wanted to review some of the basic concepts so you
would appreciate some  limitations of the project.  In
typical solvent cleaning, the process is one of cleaning,
filtering, distilling, and reusing the solvent within the
cleaning plant. So, this industry is indeed one that is a
recycling industry  and always has been. Solvents are
most effective on oily type soils. In fact, very little addi-
tive is necessary to remove oily soils from fabrics, but
it's quite difficult to remove water-soluble soils such as
perspiration, salt, and sugar. Some  fibers are sensitive
to solvents,  and some dyes and finishes are removed
by solvents. As has already been stated,  perchloroeth-
ylene has the advantage of not being flammable, but it
has health  and environmental concerns; whereas,
hydrocarbons are flammable, and they may also pose
some  long-term health  and  environmental concerns.
For wet cleaning, we want to distinguish that this is not
laundering; this is not a technique that would be prac-
ticed at home. It would require the care and training of
a professional. In the case of wet cleaning, the water is
discharged to the sewer so there may be some environ-
mental consequences to consider. Wet cleaning is most
effective on water-soluble soils, and the problem soils
are oil based and would require additives to remove.
Again, we have a fiber compatibility problem. We may
see some shrinkage with fibers  such  as wool and
rayon, and some dyes are water soluble. In the past, the
garment manufacturers  have selected care  labels for
laundering instructions  or dry cleaning instructions
based upon those compatibility problems with  fibers
and dyes. As we began to look at. using wet cleaning as
an alternative  to dry cleaning, we find  compatibility
problems that require careful attention. Our objective,
in part, is to  evaluate  the  cleaning technology  We
looked at this from a consumer's perspective in  terms
of what does the consumer expect,  from  taking some-
thing  in to have it cleaned. Getting the garment back
clean  without, damage is a prime consideration.  And,
indeed, our protocol  would be to look at the ability to
clean  as well as the consequences to different kinds of
  For each technology, we want, to identify problem
soils.  We  already know  part of our  results  for wet
cleaning	problem soils are those  containing an oily
component.  For solvent cleaning,  it  would  be those
containing a water-soluble  component. We also want.
to identify for each technology what fabrics create
problems. We have some indications in terms of what.
can be possible for care labels. We also, at some point,
(and this is  not currently funded  under the project)
need  to evaluate variables brought  about, from  the
manufacturers in terms of how the garments are con-
structed. We've already found some anecdotal cases in
terms of how fabrics that are fused respond differently
to the different cleaning technologies.

  To  evaluate cleaning  performance, our plan is to
look at  some  of the standard  cleaning  assessments
swatches available  from the International Fabricare
Institute and European laboratories. The objective is to
adequately represent what a consumer might expect in
terms of soil removal from a garment. We also  are
going to be selecting fabrics to evaluate. The ones that
we  feel  are  fairly  obvious  to look at  are those that
would be difficult to launder, or those that would nor-
mally be sold at. this time with a "dry clean only" label:
wools, silks, rayons, and some acetates. The project is
not designed to look at the  whole laundering issue in
terms of evaluating launderable fibers like cotton and
polyester, but to look at  the fibers that would be diffi-
cult if we had to suddenly eliminate solvent, cleaning.
The objective for each of these technologies is to iden-
tify problem areas and limitations, specifically with
regard to what soils they can handle and what fabrics
can be safely processed. This research would provide
the  American  Association  of Textile  Chemists and
Colorists and  the American Society  for  Testing and
Materials with information that would have an impact
on revisions of care labels, so that the care label coming
to a cleaner would give them proper instructions as to
what they can and cannot do with a garment.  One of
the  keys is to provide a technology or a protocol by
which we could look  at cleaning technologies and
make a comparison of how the technologies perform in
terms of soil limitations and fabric limitations. Being
optimistic, what kind of objectives might we then  fol
low up with when this project is finished? The objec-
tive would be certainly to  continue this kind  of dia-
logue with this kind of group and continue to establish
better communications  between the cleaning indus-
tries and the apparel manufacturers.  We wish also to
acknowledge that we plan to learn from our colleagues
in Europe. I see no reason  for us to spend money to
evaluate technology that they've already looked at, so
we're looking  forward to an ongoing dialogue with
European and  other  international organizations  in
terms of this technology.

      ERA's ORD Research Program on Alternative Textile Care Technologies: Part I

Texas Research Center


• Established in 1983 to provide a facility for research
  and training in laundering and drycleaning
• Donation of equipment by manufacturers
  coordinated by the Texas Laundry and Drycleaning
  Association (TLDA)
Texas Research Center

Industry Partners

• SDA (Southwest Drycleaning Association) previously
  TLDA (Texas Laundry and Drycleaning Association)
• TRS A (Textile Rental Services Association of America)
• UTSA (Uniform and Textile Services Association of

              Apparel Care and the Environment
Texas Research Center

Related Programs

• Drycleaning and laundering courses—sponsored by SDA
• Production Management Institute—cosponsored by TRSA
  and UTSA
• Maintenance Management Institute—cosponsored by UTSA
• Research—sponsored by Texas Food and Fibers Commission
  (TFFC) and EPA

     ERA's ORD Research Program on Alternative Textile Care Technologies: Part I


NCSU—Identify     Screen New Technology
TWU—Evaluate Currently Available Technology
Both—Develop Universally Accepted Procedures to
Evaluate Cleaning Technology

                Apparel Care and the Environment
Current Cleaning
  Solvent Cleaning Using Perchloroethylene is Most
  Common Method
  Solvent Cleaning Using Hydrocarbons
  Wet Cleaning—Machine and Manual
Plant  Scale Equipment

Texas Research for Laundry and Drycleaning
Project Contributors:
UniMac Company— Wet Cleaning Machine, Model UA230,
              with Seitz Chemicals
              ADC Dryer Model UD80 with Microcomputer
              $10,000 for supplies
AquaTex—       Drying Cabinet
Bowe Passat—    P546 46 Ib, Perchloroethylene Drycleaning Machine
Exxon—        DF2000 Hydrocarbon Solvent
Pending—       Liquid Carbon Dioxide Cleaning Machine

        ERA's ORD Research Program on Alternative Textile Care Technologies: Part I
  Solvent Cleaning
    Solvents are filtered, distilled, reused at the cleaning
    Most effective on oily type    —require additives to
    remove water soluble
    Some fibers are sensitive to solvents
    Some dyes     finishes are removed by solvents
  Solvent Cleaning
    Perchloroethylene—nonflammable—health and
    environmental concerns
    Hydrocarbons—flammable—may be health and
    environmental concerns

                  Apparel Care and the Environment
  Wet Cleaning
    Not laundering
    Water discharged to sewer
    Most effective on water soluble soils—additives
    required to remove oily type soils
    May     shrinkage of wool, rayon
    Some dyes are water soluble
  • Ability to Clean
  • Minimum Damage to Garment

       ERA's ORD Research Program on Alternative Textile Care Technologies: Part I
  Performance Criteria
  • Soil Removal—Identify Problem Soils
  • Fabric Damage—Identify Problem Fabrics
  • Variables in Garment Construction
  Soil Removal Standards
    IFI Cleaning Performance Test
    Krefeld Standard Soils
    TNO       Soil

                 Apparel Care and the Environment
  Fabric Selection
  • Wool—Lightweight, Worsted, Woven
  • Wool—Heavyweight, Woolen, Woven
  • Wool^Medium Weight, Woolen, Knit
  • Silk—Lightweight, Woven
  • Rayon—Lightweight, Woven
  • Acetate—Lightweight, Woven
  Final Report
    Identify problem     and limitations of each
    Provide input through AATCC and ASTM to update

    To provide a universally accepted method of
    evaluating cleaning technologies

        ERA's ORD Research Program on Alternative Textile Care Technologies: Part I
  Future Objectives
    Establish better communications between cleanin|
    industries and apparel manufacturers
    Form cooperative        with international

Running Header from Title

Perry Grady
North Carolina State University
Dr. Grady is the Associate Dean of Textiles and Professor of Textile Engineering,
Chemistry, and Science at North Carolina State University, He has taught and
conducted extensive research in textiles, instrument and control system design
and development, computer applications, energy utilization and conservation,
and fiber production and properties. Dr. Grady received a Ph.D. in Fiber and
Polymer Science, as well as his M.S. and B.S. in Electrical Engineering, from North
Carolina State University.
       At North Carolina State University, we are prin-
       cipally working on the development of new
       and existing technologies that may prove to be
viable  alternatives to the  use of  perchloroethylene
(perc) and other presently available systems. One of
the things we're currently working on is ultra-sound
cleaning.  As most of you know, cleaning variables
involve time, temperature, agitation, and  chemistry.
Ultra-sound may prove to be a substitute for mechani-
cal agitation, water, perc, and hydrocarbon cleaning. It
also may substitute, partially at least, for temperature.
That, is, we may be able to clean at a much lower tem-
perature than we would without ultra-sound. We are
looking at ultra-sound both for solvent-based and
water based systems.   The  ultra sound for solvent
based cleaning will use perc and DF2000 systems as
benchmarks.  Just by looking at their properties from
the literature  and so forth, we have actually screened
about 135 different solvents. I think we've used 11 or 12
to actually do some preliminary tests.  We have done
this as very rough testing. Later, we will use the suc-
cessful preliminary experiments to  do standard  tests
on fabrics and soils.

  Preliminary results for ultra-sound  solvent-based
cleaning indicate that solvents that  work on a soil in
normal type drycleaning  will work on the same soil
much faster with the use of ultra-sound.   And the
opposite  is also true—solvents that don't work  on a
soil are not going to be effective with ultra-sound. So,
in essence, ultra-sound will enhance whatever a sol-
vent's ability  has to take  off a soil  to begin with.  In
using ultra sound cleaning on a water based system,
our objective  is to develop a greener cleaning system
that removes  complex soils and eliminates  the use of
non aqueous solvents. This may prevent shrinkage in
such fabrics as wool because it eliminates most of the
usual mechanical agitation that is one of the primary
causes of shrinkage, rather than the water. So ultra-
sound may give us a way to apply water based clean
ing without all of the agitation.  We're finding that a
temperature of 122° Fahrenheit gives good results.  We
get some very good cleaning from this. We have found
that using ultra-sound and wet cleaning may give you
hand problems, but that's probably due to the fact that
we're not tumble drying the garments.  We  would
probably need to find a way to dry them that, would
enhance the hand by giving some kind of substitute for
agitation.  As we find systems that work in both the
water-based and solvent-based tests, we will use the
standard samples and soils so that, we will  be  able to
compare all these types of cleaning. In the initial work,
which has been going on for some time in ultra-sound,
however, we  have done very crude screening-type
research because it would be too expensive to run all of
the standard type soils  and samples with this type of
experimental apparatus.

  In carbon dioxide (CO2) cleaning, we will focus our
research  on   liquid  or  subcritical  technologies.
Originally,  we had thought, in terms of supercritical
carbon dioxide cleaning, but it turns out that supercrit-
ical CO2 may damage buttons and zippers, while sub
critical CO2 seems to work well.  When Charles Riggs
[EPA's ORD Research Program on Alternative Textile
Care Technologies, Part  Ij was talking about the super-
critical or the liquid CO2 work that they were doing, he
was referring to a prototype commercial machine.  We
are in the process of building a benchtop experimental
apparatus so we can get a very wide range of variables
and look at the use of surfactants and examine the vari-
ables in liquid carbon dioxide cleaning. This will allow
us to look at many more things than we could in a pro-

                                   Apparel Care and the Environment
Lotype system arid should tie in very well.  Again, for
the things we find  successful in carbon dioxide
cleaning, we will then run those experiments on stan-
dard samples, and so forth.
  At North Carolina State University, we're using our
testing lab to  run most of the tests on the samples that
Charles  Riggs produces as well as those that we pro-
duce, so that, we can compare them all in one place. As
much as possible, we're trying to use American Society
for Testing and Materials  American  Association of
Textile Chemists and Colorists type  standards so that
we will  be able to compare with the work that other
people do and not have to generate or produce entire-
ly new test methods,  although some of that may be
  I have a lot more details on what we're planning to
do  and even  some of the preliminary results.  I'll be
happy to discuss those now or in the discussion ses-
sion.  I want to reemphasize what Charles Riggs has
said, that this project is just getting underway. Most of
the work will be done in the corning months. It was
proposed and accepted as a 3-year project, but. we've
only been funded for 1 year. Our results obviously will
depend on whether we're able to secure second and
third year funding for this work.  What we've laid out.
is primarily for 3 years, but we've tried  to adjust the
project so that if funding does not corne forward for the
second and third year we will still produce some use-
ful results even in the first year.  We have formed an
advisory committee for this project and the first meet-
ing will be Wednesday, September 12, 1996, in Raleigh.
We think this is an excellent forum and we would vvel
come any input you have into the design and direction
of this project.

   ERA's ORD Research Program on Alternative Technologies, Part II
  Testing And Development of
Pollution Prevention Alternatives
 to Reduce Indoor Air Emissions
  from Perchloroethylene Dry
   Cleaning and Dry Cleaned

       By Perry L. Grady
       College of Textiles
 North Carolina State University
      Ultrasound Cleaning

 Cleaning Involves
 - Temperature
 - Agitation
 - Chemistry
 US May Substitute for
 - Mechanical Agitation in Water PCE &
   Hydrocarbon Cleaning
 - Temperature

           Apparel Care and the Environment
      Ultrasound Cleaning
Solvent Based
 - Benchmarks
   • DF-2000
 -135 Screened, 11 Used
Preliminary Results
 - Solvents That Work on a Soil Will Work Faster
  With US
 - Solvents That Don't Work on a Soil Are Not
  Effective With US
       Ultrasound Cleaning

 Water Based
 - Objective:
    * Develop a "Greener" Cleaning System That
     removes Complex Soils and Eliminates Use of
     Non-Aqueous Solvents
 - May Not Cause Shrinkage
 - Eliminates Most Mechanical Agitation
 Preliminary  Results
 - 122 Degrees F Gives Reasonable Results
 Standard Samples & Soils Will Be Tested

  ERA's ORD Research Program on Alternative Technologies, Part II
   Carbon Dioxide Cleaning
Focus on Liquid (Subcritical)
 - Supercritical May Damage Buttons and Zippers
Bench Top Experimental Apparatus
Wide Range of Variables

Running Header from Title

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                            Summary   of
Session  I
                            Ohad Jehassi of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) opened the
                            floor to questions.

                            Jack Weinberg of Greenpeace remarked that the Design for the Environment
                            (DfE)  Dry Cleaning Project has been a great success so far. He stated that the
                            project had been very successful and should be highly lauded. On the other
                            hand, it's far, far from complete. Mr. Weinberg closed by asking what the
                            future holds for DfE and for the Dry Cleaning Project.

                            Dr. William H. Sanders of EPA responded by stating that what is happening
                            with the program is the same as what's happening with lots of programs that
                            are funded by the Environmental Technology Initiative out of Congress.
                            What happened this fiscal year is that the money the agency  received was
                            reduced. The scope of work the Agency is allowed to do has also been
                            reduced. The hope is that next fiscal year the money will be back up to where
                            it has been in previous years. This year the DfE program didn't get full fund-
                            ing. Money out of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) was
                            used to help keep the DfE program going, because they recognize the value of
                            the program.

                            Mr. Weinberg asked if it. was reasonable to assume that the level of activity
                            might not be the same, but that the Dry Cleaning Project would be going on
                            for some time into the future.

                            Dr. Sanders replied that it is a priority at OPPT to make sure that it does con-
                            tinue  on.

                            Manfred Wcntz of the Fabricarc Legislative and Regulatory Education
                            Organization voiced his support for the DfE program. It is absolutely essen-
                            tial for the dry cleaning industry to be supported by somebody because the
                            industry itself does not have sufficient funds to attack and resolve some of the
                            larger issues.  Dr. Wentz expressed his pleasure that the apparel care industry
                            is making progress towards solving problems.

                            Ed Wituschek of Environment Canada asked if anyone had information on a
                            human health risk assessment for petroleum solvents. If perchloroethylene
                            (perc) is regulated in Canada petroleum solvents may increase.

                            Dr. Joseph Breen of EPA noted that the Cleaner Technologies Substitutes
                            Assessment (CTSA) was moving forward.

                            Kaspar Hasenclever, Kreussler, Wiesbaden,  Germany, provided a response to
                            Mr. Wituschek's question. In metal cleaning and dry cleaning, hydrocarbon
                            solvents are used in processes that have recycling, so that these solvents will
                            not directly affect, the workers. It was judged that the risks coming from
                            hydrocarbon solvents in dry cleaning was low enough that you could negate


Apparel Care and
 the  Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                            I  (Continued)
Bill Scitz of the National Cleaners Association - International (NCA-I) cor-
rected a statement made by Mr. Jehassi stating there were currently about
100 shops doing wet cleaning in the United States.  There are approximately
36,000 dry cleaners in the United States. Probably 95 percent of those dry-
cleaners do a percentage of wet cleaning as part of their daily functions,
because there are garments that require wet cleaning in addition to or
instead of dry cleaning. Perhaps what Mr. Jehassi meant to say was that
there are doing wet cleaning exclusively.

Mr. Jehassi clarified that he was referring to machine wet cleaning.

Mr. Seitz responded that there are different kinds of wet cleaning machines.
Domestic washing machines are machines.  Wet cleaning is not new to the
dry cleaning industry.

Paula Smith from the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
questioned Mr. Jehassi about, the  Small Business Administration (SBA) work-
shops being held concerning dry cleaning.  She asked if the states were
involved with these workshops.

Mr. Jehassi said that a number of the state programs have worked with the
SBA small business development centers. Currently, EPA is simply design-
ing the program, and have not yet decided what states will host the work-
shops.  It depends on our funding.

Kay Villa of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI) asked Dr.
Breen to clarify an earlier comment.  Near the end of your presentation he
made a comment about finding environmentally friendly cleaning systems.
Alternative cleaning methods may require different techniques to produce
textiles and these techniques may not be the most  environmentally friendly

Dr. Breen responded that the point he was making was that rather than
thinking of dry cleaning as an isolated piece of a process, it really should be
thought of as part of an industrial ecological web.  Those pieces of the puz-
zle are starting to come together and that sometimes when you look at those
interconnections, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts in terms of
the gains you can make.

Ms. Villa stressed that even though the textile industry may come  out with
fabric that can be cleaned using alternative processes that does not necessari-
ly mean what we have done upstream in terms of the manufacturing of the
fiber will necessarily be environmentally friendly.

Dr. Breen responded that Ms. Villa was correct and that those parts of the
process need to be factored in to  discussions about the environmental impact
of apparel care.

Jodie Siegel of the University  of Massachusetts - Lowell added that it is real-
ly important to look at everything in the entire life cycle of the textile and
not just the cleaning because otherwise  problems  are created  upstream.

Apparel Care and
 the  Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                             I (Continued)
Jack Belusci of Global Technologies asked Mr. Jehassi what type of financial
incentives were in place to help) small cleaning establishments jump to the
new technology.  Global technology is working on carbon dioxide. Dry-
cleaners are very concerned about the financial bottom line and even though
there are initiatives for new technology there doesn't seem to be a founda
tion either on the state or federal level for the tax incentives for additional
labor that may be coming from wet cleaning or additional capital invest-

Mr. Jehassi said he was not aware of any federal programs that provide
funding to help cleaners move over to safer technology The state of
California does have a program in place. It would be a good idea to engage
the Small Business Administration to try to create that type of program.

Doug Kelly of Boewe Permac added that the state of Minnesota is offering 3
or 4 percent loans for environmentally friendly projects for new business.

Ms. Smith said that Indiana has a $200,000 available in challenge grants for
states.  Dry cleaners are included in that. Two applications came in  this year
for wet cleaning.  One is the converting of the transfer machine to a  wet
cleaning machine. Funds are  not available for equipment but funding for
the education to run it and the training needed is available.

Eric Frumin of UNITE commented that it's good to know that in some places
around the country the industry is looked at in realistic terms with regard to
its ability to handle this transition but that in some places the sympathy just
isn't there. Right now the industry is getting very little help.  It really isn't
getting any attention in most places where it really needs it.

Mr. Weinberg agreed that financial support for the transition to wet  cleaning
was a vital topic. He urged EPA to help facilitate some stakeholder  process
and hoped the wet cleaning partnership would be willing to participate as
well.  EPA should work with slates or other agencies that have financial sup-
port programs and help them configure those programs so they can be of
specific assistance to this industry.

Dr. Riggs expressed his support for what Ms. Villa and Ms. Siegel said with
regard to the need to look at the upstream aspects, but believes the aspect of
final disposal should also be looked at. Once clothing has served it's useful
life span in the hands of the consumer, how difficult is it Lo dispose  of at that
point.  Looking at the chemistry from a very simplistic view, the more
resistent the fibers and dyes are to damage from these various cleaning
processes the more difficult they are going to be to dispose of at the  end of
the garments life.

Eric Frumin commented that within the European Community the green
labeling issue provokes some  discussion  about the environmental hazards
from fibers all the way through to disposal that incorporated some attention
to working conditions in the different sectors of the industry.

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                            I  (Conntinued)
Dr. Kruessman built on Mr. Frumin's comment saying that eco labeling for
textiles, at least in Europe is at a point where some important issues have
been discussed. A lot of these issues, especially in terms of the life cycle of a
textile, are very difficult to resolve.

Ms. Villa of ATMI was involved in developing a U.S. position policy state-
ment on these eco standards.  It's more of a trade issue than a true technical
issue. These methods were developed without any testing to validate them.
Don't look at them for any specific details to really clearly differentiate what
is going on here.

Mr.Frumin clarified his comment, saying that Europeans have a very differ-
ent perspective on what they would claim as a life cycle analysis. There are
a lot of other technical difficulties in the way they describe what happens to
the effluent downstream. They have a totally different method of water
treatment, so it's really trying to compare apples and oranges.

Ms.Siegel attempted to sum up the comments, saying Eric is talking about
the European care label and not the eco label. The Europeans are further
ahead of us on developing care labeling for wet cleaning.

David Porter of Garment Care, Inc. commented that his main competitors
are customers that clean their own clothes.  He urged participants to keep in
mind the economic ramifications of whatever environmental technologies
come to the forefront.

Jermi Cho of the Korean Youth and Community Center in Los Angeles
asked if EPA could possibly work with either Korean community groups or
the Korean Dry Cleaning Associations.
Mr. Jehassi responded that EPA does work with the Korean Dry Cleaners
Associations and would welcome any participation of any additional orga-

Mr. Wcinbcrg commented that the CTSA was supposed to be out in 1994.
Since then, in terms of the technical issues addressed in Phase I, there has
been little  new research or development. The delay, on the part of the EPA,
in publishing it has contributed to conflict between partners. Clearly there
has been an area of on-going contention about just how toxic is perc? Is it
not toxic?  Is it a threat? Is it a risk? How do you characterize the risk?
That's always been a division.  There is a general agreement that there is an
environmental and health concern but beyond that, the characterization has
always been a matter of some disagreement. The inability, up to now, of the
EPA to speak on this question has contributed to tension between partici-
pants that  can be avoided once we get that behind us.

Dr.  Breen responded saying the decision had been made to do an integrated
Phase I and Phase II. Both should be out in 1997.  There is a formal peer
review process that the agency goes through where a particular panel of
individuals are identified to serve as peer reviewers. The input for names of

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling
                                         I  (Continued)
people to serve on the panel are solicited by individuals who may well serve
as stakeholders. The process where the materials are sharer] with all of the
stakeholders, will not happen until after the peer review process is complet-
ed. The current plan is to complete phase I and phase II together. Phase II is
almost completed, and both phases are pretty close to being ready to go.

Mr. Jehassi formally ended discussion.


Apparel Care and
the Environment
Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                Session  II

Josef Kurz
Hohenstein Institute, Boenningheim, Germany
Mr. Kurz is Business Manager of the Textile Care Research Division, and
Manager of Laundry and Textile Hygiene for Hohenstein, a research insti-
tute in Germany. Under Mr, Kurz's leadership, Hohenstein established itself
as the leading European textile care research institute where alternative
cleaning technologies are systematically developed, studied, and
evaluated. Mr. Kurz earned a Professional Engineering degree in Textile
Chemistry from The Technical Academy in Hohenstein, Germany,
I   have prepared my presentation with four parts:
   marketing data, environmental regulations, the pre-
   sent situation in Germany, and current and  new
research programs.

  The domestic care of apparel in Germany is about 90
percent  home laundered and  only 10 percent dry
cleaned, wet cleaned, or washed via professional tex-
tile care.  That means about 200 million articles  are
cleaned  every year in the dry cleaning industry, or an
average  of 2.5 articles per capita.  We also have about
2-3 kilograms of textiles per capita per year.  In terms
of the composition of the care properties, about 30 per-
cent are washable and can be dry cleaned, and about 70
percent are dry clean only.

  In the development of the net sales of the German
dry cleaning industry, there was a  decline from 1990 to
1995.  I  think  in the United States it's similar to the
German situation. In Germany, expenditure per capita
for dry  cleaning services is  about $13.  We must ask
what is the reason for this decline.  The first question to
ask is what  has happened to the average disposable
income people in Germany have  to spend on things
such as dry cleaning services. There has been a decline
in average disposable income since 1992, so people
have less money for dry cleaning services.

  Another question is how have clothing  habits
changed (if at all) in the past few years. Slide 6 shows
the development of clothing habits and the percentage
or average values for formal clothing and casual cloth-
ing. From 1986 to 1996 there was a  strong decline in the
purchase of formal  clothing and an increase in the pur-
chase of casual clothing. Casual clothing is more wash-
able and involves more domestic care. To summarize
this market data, there are three important possible
reasons for decline in per capita expenditure for dry
cleaning services: (1) decline in disposable income per
capita caused by a declining economy, (2) change in
clothing habits, and (3) change in the development of
apparel construction.
  It is important to look at these regulations because
the industry has had to invest money, and will have to
invest money in the next few years to protect the envi-
ronment. The two most important regulations are the
Clean Air Act (similar to the  Clean Air Act  in  the
United States and Canada)  and the  Water Resources
Acts (also similar).  Slide 11 shows  the dry cleaning
industry  and dry cleaning plants, different parts of
which are regulated by different acts. The Clean  Air
Act  regulates the  machine,  condensation  in  the
machine, and the still.   One difference between
German and U.S. regulations, is that, in  Germany we
have to put diffusion barriers at the wall and at the ceil
ings to protect the adjacent rooms from the  impact of
solvents such as perchloroethylene  (perc).  All other
aspects are similar to the regulations in the United
States. The Water Resources Act  regulates the handling
of the waste, the contact water treatment, and the  fig-
ures for the drains.
The                              in
  The following types of solvents are used: water (for
washing and wet cleaning), organic solvents, perc, and
petroleum solvents.  In Germany as well  as  in the

                                     Apparel Care and the Environment
United Stales, we are also doing research on carbon
dioxide. With regard to wet cleaning, we have a special
problem in Germany.  About 30 percent of the apparel
which comes to the dry cleaner every year is washable.
The washability is expressed by a care labeling symbol
and  the  dry cleaner  sees that the garment can be
washed.  For 70 percent of the apparel there is no label
that  indicates  that the garment can be washed, and
therefore, 70 percent is dry cleaned. In reality, within
this 70 percent of articles which are dry cleaned are a
lot of articles which  could  be wet cleaned but not
washed.  But the dry cleaners do not know which arti-
cles can be wet cleaned. If the cleaner wet cleaned such
an article and damage occured, the dry cleaner would
have to take responsibility for these damages and pay
for them.  If the  care label indicated that these pieces
could be wet cleaned, then about 20 percent of apparel
could be wet  cleaned by the  dry cleaning  industry.
That means that indication of wet cleanability is essen-
tial for progress in wet cleaning all over the world. We
would then only  have 50 percent of apparel that would
have to be dry cleaned.   Perhaps we can reduce this
amount by new constructions in the textile  apparels.

  When  I prepared my  presentation for today last
week in Germany, I collected all the programs, all the
research objectives we had in Germany from our col-
leagues  in  Krefeld,  in  industry,  at  Kreussler, at
I lohenstein, and other places.  I had a list of programs
with very awfully long titles. Instead of telling you all
these titles, I tried to make three groups of programs. I
thought it would be a good idea to take  the color of
these solvents to indicate the groups. But unfortunate-
ly, all solvents are colorless.  So, I looked for another
color. I decided the solvents have psychological colors
and not real colors.  I developed the following colors
and I hope you will all agree with me. The first is a
Green Program that means water.  And the second will
be Red for perc. So with perc as a Red program, and
petroleum solvents as a Yellow Program, the mixture is
an Orange Program.  The Blue Program  is liquid or
supercritical carbon dioxide.

  The Green  Program  studies the  applicability of
water-based cleaning procedures.   Despite the care
labeling problem, we have two directions in which to
do research  work.  The  first one is properties of the
clothing in harmony with care properties; this is a task
for the apparel industry. The other one is the treatment
of clothing in dry cleaning plants	the improvement of
wet cleaning technology In regards to the harmoniza-
tion of care properties, in cooperation with the apparel
industry, we have to select the fabrics with regard to
colorfastness, shrinkage, and surface properties.   We
also have to select linings, interlinings,  threads, and
accessories, and we have to modify design and per-
haps workmanship by manufacturing the textiles for
the consumer.  As an example of our current research
work  under the Green Program, slide 19 shows two
samples  before and  after each garment  was wet
cleaned seven or eight times. There was a shrinkage of
the shape of the woolen garment.  However, if there
was an antifelting finish on  this material, then  the
shrinkage could be avoided,  or  it  would have been
only 1 or 2 percent. Slide 20 shows a picture under the
microscope of the difference between wool with and
without antifelting finish.  You can see the scales very
sharply defined on the wool fiber and you  can see a
very thin layer of resin on the surface of the wool that
helps  it to endure the mechanical friction during the
wet cleaning procedure and helps avoid the shrinkage
and the felting of wool.

  Another example  that is very important for  the
development of wet  cleaning is  a  problem with  the
shrinkage of rayon. If rayon has a resin finish on it, the
shrinkage is very small. In regard to the clothing in dry
cleaning plants, the reduction of impact on textiles and
the optimization of soil removal are very important to
the dry cleaner.  Adequate finish  processes for wet
cleaned garments are also very important for the prac-
tical work in dry cleaning installations.  I  have one
example  that indicates the  necessity for  international
cooperation. Slide 23 shows results from a round robin
trial in  Europe. The  trial  was for  professional wet
cleaning.  It was a process for sensitive garments and
they used different types of machines with  different
kinds  of mechanical action  but the same  program. In
one of the machines  the shrinkage was 1 percent, in
another it was 2 percent and both machines were oper-
ated according to the  sensitive garments process. That
means we have to standardize the  procedures  in the
machines and the test methods.

The  Orange  Program

  The  hope here is  to reduce the  emissions  in  the
atmosphere and ground water. The sources for emis-
sions into air are the dry cleaning machine and the still
and these are  regulated by the Clean Air Act.  The
Water Resources Act regulates waste water and contact
water management.  The  current research strives to
develop cost effective devices to measure the concen-
tration of perc within the dry  cleaning machine. This

                                     Overview of Exposure Pathways
process must be better controlled and the final goal is a
self-controlling machine.  If there are any leaks in the
machine, devices must tell the dry cleaner to repair the
machines. The aim is to produce very cheap devices to
indicate such leaks. The second objective of research is
the reduction of residual perc in cleaned garments.  I
will give you an example of this problem.  Retension of
adhesives in fusible interlinings is different. Polyester
and polyarnide inlerlinings were tested for retention of
perc.  Slide 21  shows that two of these linings, -#2 and
#5 have the highest retention rale, about three or four
times higher than one of the other samples. We recom-
mend that the  apparel industry not. use #2 and #5. We
recommend the use of interlinings that, are not able  to
retain the perc. So, there is a tight connection between
the apparel industry and the dry  cleaning research

Petroleum  Solvents
  We have three important research directions: control
of the safety aspects  under practical conditions in the
dry cleaning industry, minimization of the fire hazards
of petroleum solvents, improvement of the energy bal-
ance by combination of distillation with absorption
systems.  One  of these programs could be very  inter-
esting to the dry cleaners here in the room. We have a
test panel of 210 machines in 180 plants.  The solvents
used are isoparafflns in  different modifications, and
the test parameters are flash point, boiling range, flash
point decreasing and halogenated solvents, fatty acids,
nonvolatile residue, and color.
The       Program
  For carbon dioxide, we have a similar test program
as you have in the United States and I think it would be
good to  have tight  cooperation  in the  work.   The
approach, at the moment, in Germany  is relatively
wide and we are trying to find more applications for
carbon dioxide than only the dry cleaning industry. It
is important to study the fundamental impacts on tex-
tiles on  the practical condition and  the scientific
research  programs  and then  develop  cost effective
cleaning  systems consisting of a drum,  filtration unit,
recovering units, and measurement devices.  I know
that you  have in  your country a machine which is new
to the  practice.  One of the most important research
goals is the improvement of cleaning efficiency. We are
studying whether to use liquid carbon dioxide since all
the organic  solvents use a small amount of water to
remove the  water soluble soils.  Perchloroethylene,
hydrocarbon, and especially carbon dioxide in liquid
form only can dissolve oil and fatly dirl from the gar-
ment but not salt and other polar substances. So we
have to add  1 or  2 percent, of water in order to dissolve
these water soluble parts.

  Perhaps, it's a long way to Ihe Blue Program  or a
short way. Many people do not believe that it. is possi-
ble to clean garments in carbon dioxide.  For those peo-
ple who ask if it  is possible, I'll leave you with a quote
from Geraldine Ferraro, "It was not so long ago that
people thought, semiconductors were part-time orches-
tra leaders and microchips were very, very small snack

            Apparel Care and the Environment

             Josef Kurz

Hohenstein Institute, Schloss Hohenstein
         D-74357 Boennigheim
    A  Market Data
                         §»»<»"¥'«'. '~ ?.", '•>*!» "


             Overview of Exposure Pathways
       Volume of Clothing
                   = 200 Mio. Articles
                   = 2.5 Articles per Capita
                   = 2 -3 kg Textiles per Capita
                   and Year
                              Dry Clean and
                              /  Washing
Textile Care
                                  • - Was h i n g
                                 •>'    Only
                                :/     1%
      Net Sales of the German
        Dry Cleaning Industry
        HH = Expenditure per capita and year

          60 Mio
                        80 Mio
        1986  1988  1990 1992 1994  1995

              Apparel Care and the Environment


co 200


              (per Capita)
        1991   1992
1994   1995
   Development of Clothing Habits
          Formal Clothing    Casual Clothing
        86 88 90 '92 94 *96   86 88 90 92 94 96

           Overview of Exposure Pathways
Possible Reasons for Decline in
   Expenditure per Capita for
     Dry Cleaning Services
 Decline in disposable per capita income
 (caused by declining economy)

 Change in clothing habits

 Development of apparel
B  Environmental Regulations

               Apparel Care and the Environment
     Environmental Regulations for
        the Drycleaning Industry
             Clean Air Act
             Water Resources Act
                Clean Air Act

                  Overview of Exposure Pathways
      C  Present Situation
       Present Situation "Solvents" in
            Dry Cleaning Industry
         Water    Perchloroethylene Carbon Dioxide
        Washing     Dry Cleaning         in
      Wet Cleaning
                  Petroleum Solvent
                    Dry Cleaning

                   Apparel Care and the Environment
       Present Situation "Wet
-70% Dry Cleaning
     by care labels
                   Wet cleanable (not washable) -
                If wet cleaned and damage occurs the
               dry cleaner has to take the responsability

            With care label for wet cleaning:
     by care labels
        wet clean-M Only dry cleaning
                                           f^;*p? '
                                          t ?&-iy lt!*i^ *^"

                                      lfeivv'*""V!''^>V>.'-*';'-'-~ '
                                     iS&W'^'ff^ iV1 V ''>*> " -

                                        • ";*i"V"">.N--'v^ '>,. ,' _

          Current and New Research Programs

                   Overview of Exposure Pathways
              Research Programs
        Green Program
            m  Water
        Orange Program:
            •  Organic solvents
               - Perchloroethylene
               - Petroleum Solvents
             ftr omim: • "V^V,;;^- \\- .'••;"..- ''..,"
             » - -., 'Hi- "., ~ " :' "••„'-",',-  ';..'.  , '
              '                         dioxkle

                 Green Program

        Extension of the applicability of water
             based cleaning procedures

       Properties of the     Treatment of Clothing
           Clothing         in Dry Cleaning Plants

       Harmonization of         Improvement of
        care properties           wet cleaning

                  Apparel Care and the Environment
                Green Program

      Harmonization of Care Properties

    in Cooperation with Apparel Industry

     •  Selection of fabrics in regard to color fastness,
        shrinkage and surface properties

     •  Selection of linings, interlinings, thread
        and accessories

     •  Design and workmanship

     Period: 1996 and 1997

                  Green Program

                               Wool with
            Before and after wet cleaning

                  Overview of Exposure Pathways
                 Green Program

               Magnification: x 2000
        Wool without
      antifelting finish
   Wool with
antifelting finish
                 . G ree n Program
             Before and after wet cleaning

                 Apparel Care and the Environment
               Green Program
          Treatment off Clothing in
             Pry Cleaning Plants
           Reduction of impact on textiles
           Optimization of soil removal
           Adequate finishing processes for
           wet cleaned garments
                Green Pro g ra m
           Professional wet cleaning '
         process for sensitive garments
     0) q
     rtl O
1S8    187   192
                 Mechanical action (in)

                 Overview of Exposure Pathways
               Orange Program
           Reduction of emission into the
           atmosphere and ground water

            Sources for Emission
    Dry Cleaning Machine       Waste
            Still            Contact Water

        Regulated by           Regulated by
        Clean Air Act        Water Resources Act
               Orange Program


               Current Research:

      • Development of cost effective devices to
        measure the concentration of perchloro-
        ethylene within the dry cleaning machine

      m Reduction of residual perchloroethylene in
        cleaned garments

                   Apparel Care and the Environment
                 Orange Program

    Organic Solvents - Perchloroethylene - Example
                 Orange Program

    Residual Perchloroethylene in Cleaned Garments;

                 of adhesive® lr» fysltole Inteflinirigs





Recommendation to the apparal industry:
        Do not use No. 2 and 5

                   Overview of Exposure Pathways
                 Orange Program
                 Current Research:

        Controlling of safety aspects under practical
        conditions in the dry cleaning industry

        Minimizing of the fire hazard of petroleum

        Improvement of energy balance by combi-
        nation of distillation with adsorption systems
                 Orange Program

                         o                    *

           Controlling of Safety Aspects:

    Test Pannel:      210 machines in 180 plants

    Solvents:         Isoparaffins in different

    Test Parameters:  Flash point, boiling range, flash
                     point decreasing and  halogenated
                     solvents, fatty acids, non-volatile
                     residue, color

                   Apparel Care and the Environment
                 Orange Program
            Leather and Suede Cleaning Plant
                  (5 g/l butylacetate}
                   Blue Program

     Liquid Supercritical Carbon Dioxide

                 Current Research:
     I Research on fundamental facts of the impact
       of CO2 on apparel under practical conditions

     • Development of a cost effective cleaning system
       consisting of drum, filtration unit, recovering unit
       and measurement devices

     • Improvement of cleaning efficiency of the liquid
       resp. supercritical carbon dioxide

                Overview of Exposure Pathways
               Blue Program
     "It was not so long ago that people
       thought semiconductors were
        part-time orchestra leaders
         and microchips were very,
          very small snack foods."
                Geraldine Ferraro

Running Header from Title


American Association of Textile Chemists and Coiorists and Fabricare Legislative and
Regulatory Education Organization
Dr. Wentz is Corporate Vice President of Research and Development and
Environmental Affairs at R.R,Street & Co., Inc. in Naperville, Illinois. As a stakeholder in the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Design for the Environment Program Dry
Cleaning  Project, he co-chairs EPA's Dry Cleaning Technical Working Group for Cleaner
Technology Substitutes Assessment. Dr.Wentz earned a Ph.D.in Fiber and Polymer in
Science from North Carolina State University and a Professional Textile Chemistry and
Engineering degree from the Technical Academy in Hohenstein, Germany,

       Apparel  and textiles fulfill essential functional
       and  aesthetic  needs.   Social-psychological,
       physiological, physical, cultural, and economic
parameters traditionally influence apparel selection,
purchasing,  and wearing decisions.   As we  become
more aware of the impact of our activities on the envi
ronment, questions about the interface between appar-
el and the environment are raised and enter into the
decision making process.

  Apparel and textiles are soiled during normal use.
Economic realities require that apparel and textiles be
cleaned and refurbished for reuse without substantial-
ly  altering their functional and aesthetic properties.
Consumers have  the  choice to clean and refurbish
apparel at home or have it  done in professional clean
ing establishments. It  is essential that available clean-
ing processes  maintain or restore the desirable and
functional attributes of the textiles.  This is the joint
responsibility and opportunity of the textile and appar-
el industry, the textile care industry, and the consumer.

  The Federal  Trade Commission (FTC) promulgated
a trade regulation rule on  the care labeling of textile
wearing and certain piece goods in 1971 and amended
it in 1983. The rule requires that apparel items have  a
permanent care label that provides written information
about their regular care.  The purpose of the rule is to
give the consumer accurate care information to extend
the useful life of a garment.

  The  formation of the  North American Free Trade
Agreement between the United States,  Canada, and
Mexico provided the stimulus for using care symbols
instead of words.  The American Society for Testing
and Materials  has  developed laundering and dry
cleaning symbols  which  the  FTC  is  about to
implement. FTC's current rule requires that manufac-
turers and importers of textile wearing apparel have a
reasonable basis and reliable evidence in support of
care instructions.  Both subjective and objective selec-
tion criteria are allowed.

  This presentation outlines the complexity of textile
care  and addresses  the difficulties encountered in
defining reliable care instructions.  Conceptual textile
care  spectra for nonaqucous  and aqueous cleaning
processes will be presented and technology options,
cleaning mechanisms, textile property issues, and gar-
ment damage potentials will be discussed.


  At the Hamilton Environmental Summit in 1993,
textile cleaning was redefined  as a generic process.
This redefinition dispels the paradigm that dry clean-
ing means cleaning in  pcrcholorocthylcnc (pcrc) only.
To initiate textile cleaning, we must break the soil-tex-
tile interaction forces to loosen and transport the het
erogeneous soils away from the textiles.  It  does not
matter if the medium is a liquid, a gas, or even a solid.
We must be able to purify and reuse the chosen medi-
um. The soils should  be concentrated for proper dis-
posal, preferably as nonhazardous waste.  But what is
more important, the process must clean clothes  to
satisfy consumer needs, and it must be economically
feasible  and environmentally acceptable.  Today, let

                                    Apparel Care and the Environment
us consider  two practical boundary  technologies:
nonaqueous and aqueous cleaning.

Nonaqueous Textile Cleaning
  There will always be a need for a nonaqueous textile
cleaning technology. It is dictated by the properties of
textiles and soils, but the medium does not have to be
perchloroethylene only.  We know that perchloroethyl-
ene is a proven medium for professional textile clean-
ing.  Any other noripolar media, such  as petroleum,
carbon dioxide, or other nonpolar liquids, which meet
the textile cleaning  performance requirements, could
be chosen.

Aqueous Textile Cleaning
  At the other end of the spectrum is aqueous clean-
ing.  We showed that the advanced professional wet
cleaning  technology makes it. feasible to clean many
textiles that are traditionally cleaned in nonaqueous
media. The challenge for our industry is to prove that
this professional aqueous cleaning technology offers
sufficient advantages to consumers so that they do not
do more wetcleaning at. home.

  Colloid chemistry in  nonaqueous  and  aqueous
media allows  satisfactory textile cleaning. The mecha-
nisms which  govern polar, nonpolar, and particulate
soil removal  are reasonably  understood  for both
media.   We  know  that polar soils are more easily
removed in water than in nonpolar solvents and that
nonpolar soils are more easily removed in nonaqueous
solvents. Professional textile cleaners can optimize soil
removal if they have access to both media.

  The structure and properties of fibers,  yarns, fabrics,
and colorants ultimately  determine which cleaning
process is best for them.  Professional cleaners cannot
change textile properties, but. they must, know as much
as possible about them in order to choose the best
textile  cleaning process.  The spectrum of textile
properties dictates which cleaning process technology
(nonaqueous  or aqueous) is best to maintain desirable
textile attributes.

         Care            Spectrum;
  Based  on field studies, we established preferred
methods for cleaning specific garments.  Tailored or
structured garments and high fashion items often have
linings,  interfacing, trims, and other accessories  or
have complex design features. They often behave dif-
ferently in the same cleaning medium.   Damage  to
these items is less likely to occur in nonaqueous media
than in aqueous cleaning media.  Thus, these garments
are best cleaned  in a nonaqueous media.  Many gar-
ments, such as overcoats, trousers, raincoats, parkas, or
sweaters may be cleaned in either media.  Shirts, blan-
kets, sleeping bags, and linens are best wetcleaned.
Occasionally, excessive  polar or nonpolar soiling dic-
tates and overrides textile cleaning media selection cri-

Garment             Potential
  A deviation from care label instructions increases the
risk of garment, failure.  We do not. recommend it, but.
each operator, of course, has the option to ignore care
instructions. But if the cleaner damages a garments,
they will be responsible for it. The potential damage to
garments  during cleaning is generally  higher with
aqueous media than with nonaqueous media. This fact.
is the  major reason why dry cleaning  is so highly uti-
lized.  Often, manufacturers low-label their garments
as "Dry Clean Only" to reduce garment damage and to
ensure customer satisfaction during the  use of their
products.  I would now like to discuss the more irnpor
tant types  of garment damage that, can occur.

Practical Shrinkage Potential
  When garments shrink more than 2  or 3 percent, the
garments do not fit. well anymore and consumers will
notice it. Shrinkage can occur during the cleaning, dry
ing, or finishing process. The new wet cleaning tech-
nology optimizes and controls the well-known process
parameters  to  reduce shrinkage:   time,  mechanical
action, heat, and chemistry. Practicing textile care spe-
cialists classify shrinkage into two categories:  felting
and relaxation.

  Felting Shrinkage: This type of shrinkage is unique
to wool because wool fibers have surface scales that
cause  differential friction  effects.  When  wool  fibers
swell, as they do in water, the scales  expand and are
lifted.   This increases differential friction  between
fibers  and  interlocks and compacts them which causes
felting shrinkage. It is possible to reduce but not elirn
inate the felting potential of wool with process addi-
tives that,  lower interfiber friction and  reduce fiber

  Relaxation Shrinkage:  During  fabric and garment
manufacturing,  textiles are often stretched,  shaped,
and dried  under tension. This causes latent stresses al

                         Textile Care Technology Spectra and Care Labeling issues
the macroscopic level (between fibers arid yarns) and
at the microscopic level (within the fiber morphology).
The macroscopic stresses  are  generally  relaxed by
mechanical  action  that  allows movement  between
fibers and yarns.   Microscopic stress is released by
plaslicizalion.  Plasticization occurs when fibers swell
in a liquid medium  or when excessive energy (heat) is
applied during drying. Either action lowers the cohe
sive energy between amorphous polymer segments
and causes relaxation within the fiber matrix, leading
Lo shrinkage.

Theoretical Aspects of Shrinkage
  Like all processes in nature, shrinkage is governed
by the potential that it can occur (thermodynamic) and
by  the rate  at which it  can occur  (kinetics).  These
aspects are fundamental issues in polymer science and
have  been  studied  and  documented extensively for
natural and synthetic fibrous polymers.

  Thermodynamics theory predicts that there is a bal-
ance between  cohesive  energy  and  entropy when  a
process is at  equilibrium.   The  cohesive energy
between molecules retains the shape and dimension of
a fibrous polymer solid, while the entropy opens it and
allows the scgmcntal relaxation that leads to shrink-
age. This balance establishes the fibrous shape and sta-
bility that is disturbed and temporally fixed into a non-
equilibrium position during textile and garment man-

  When fibers swell in  a liquid or  are heated above
their glass transition temperature during cleaning  or
drying  in air,  cohesive  energy force weakens and
entropy forces dominate.  This relaxes the morphology
and the fibers shrink. But because polymeric fibers are
visco-elastic,  the thermodynamically  feasible end
points are not reached instantaneously.  Under these
conditions, the kinetics of the process will determine
the dimensional properties of fibers. Therefore, we can
only delay relaxation shrinkage during textile cleaning,
we  cannot stop it.

  The practical consequence is that relaxation shrink-
age takes  lime and occurs  cumulatively over several
cleaning cycles.  All textile cleaning professionals are
very familiar with  the phenomenon and  know it  as
progressive shrinkage.  If we can find a cleaning and
finishing process that delays perceivable relaxation
shrinkage long enough to exceed a garment's life cycle,
consumers will be  satisfied.  Nonaqueous  cleaning
does this readily, but it is much  more difficult to man
age with aqueous cleaning.

  The research efforts and assessment of the feasibility
of  professional wetcleaning within  the Research
Committee RA-43  of the  American Association  of
Textile Chemists and Colorisls will focus on practical
and fundamental principles of shrinkage.  This will
allow  us  to establish  fundamental  guidelines  for
shrinkage prediction and control.

Potential   Appearance   and   Tactile
  Consumers purchase  new textiles  based on visual
and tactile perception. Cleaning experts strive to retain
or restore the physical properties that cause the desir-
able sensory attributes of textiles triggering positive
purchasing decisions. This means to retain the original
colors, textures, and finishes during  cleaning, or to
restore them if undesirable changes  have occurred.
Again, it is easier to retain these properties  during
nonaqueous cleaning than during aqueous cleaning.

  Claims that dye bleeding and staining can be pre-
vented need to be verified.  While it is possible  to con-
trol selective colorant removal and staining, the diverse
nature and properties of colorants and textiles suggest
that it. will be difficult to live up to such a broad claim.
The real issue here is proper dyeing and colorfastness
evaluation  during textile manufacturing.  Textile and
apparel manufacturers, retailers, and textile care spe-
cialists must work together to establish quality and test
protocols  that  predict satisfactory  cleaning perfor-
mance of textiles.

  Most dry cleaners use fabric finishes to restore or
improve  the hand  and  feel of drycleaned  fabrics.
Fabric  finishes for aqueous cleaning are also available
to achieve the same desirable effects.
1.   Textile care professional need access to nonaque-
    ous and aqueous cleaning technologies.

2.   Care label instructions can be derived from objec-
    tive national and international test methods.

3.   Conceptual textile care spectra  for nonaqueous
    and aqueous processes can assist in selecting prop-
    er textile cleaning processes.

4.   Garment shrinkage potential can be explained by
    considering practical and theoretical principles.

5.   National and international organizations coordi
    riate their efforts to establish objective test methods
    for care label instructions.

6.   It is necessary to work closely with all members of
    the  apparel industry to optimize garment perfor-
    mance as new textile care processes emerge.

         Apparel Care and the Environment
Textile Care Spectra
& Care Labeling
Dr. Manfred Wentz
Apparel Care and The
Washington, DC
September 9-10, 1996
 Criteria for Selection and
 Use of Clothing:

 ^ Social - Psychological
 >- Aesthetic
 >. Physical
 *- Economics

     Textile Care Technology Spectra and Care Labeling Issues
Traditional Criteria
 Care Requirements:
 ^ home laundering
 K professional wetcleaning
 Environmental Concerns
All Members of Apparel
Chain Affected:
  Fiber, Yarn & Fabric Producers
  Apparel Manufacturers
  Retail Industry
  Textile Care Industry

          Apparel Care and the Environment
Care Labeling Rule
  Care labels must give full
  instructions for at least one
  satisfactory method of care

  Must give warning about any part
  of the recommended care method
  that would harm the garment
Care Labeling Rule
Requirements (continued):

>• State when there is no
  method for cleaning without

>• Must have a reasonable basis
  for care instructions

        Textile Care Technology Spectra and Care Labeling Issues
 Reasonable Basis Requirement
 for Care Labeling:
  Reliable Evidence That:

  >• product not harmed after repeated
   cleanings as recommended

  >- product was harmed when cleaned by
   method warned against
Reasonable Basis Requirement
for Care Labeling (continued):

>- Reliable Evidence That:

  K product was successfully tested

  ^technical literature, experience or
   expertise supports care instructions

  ^ other evidence

               Apparel Care and the Environment
      Care Label Instructions
      Can Be:

      v Subjective
      Care Label Instructions Based
      on Subjective Judgments:

      *- Risky, more likely to be wrong

      K Relatively inexpensive

      >• Method of choice for short runs

      *• Low labeling more likely

           Textile Care Technology Spectra and Care Labeling Issues
      Based on Objective

      >• More reliable if done right

      *- Relatively expensive

      *• Method of choice for long runs

      K Low labeling less likely
      Objective Test Methods
      ^American Association of Textile
       Chemists & Colorists (AATCC)

      ^American Society for Testing &
       Materials (ASTM)

      K International Organization for
       Standardization (IOS)

                Apparel Care and the Environment
     Textile Care Process
       Non-Aqueous Cleaning
       K non-polar solvents

       Aqueous Cleaning
       *- polar solvent
     Requirements for Any
     Textile Cleaning Process:

     *» Must Clean Clothes Satisfactorily

     ^ Must Extend Useful Life of Garments

     ^ Must be Economically Feasible

     >• Must be Environmentally Acceptable

            Textile Care Technology Spectra and Care Labeling Issues
       Textile Care Process

       +• Technology Options
       ^Cleaning Mechanism
       ^Textile Property Issues
       >- Preferred Methods for Garments
       *- Garment Damage Potential
      Textile Care Process Spectrum
              Technology Options
      Non-aqueous Cleaning
         Carbon Dioxide (?)
         Others (?)
Aqueous Cleaning
 K Manual
   >- Household
   K Commercial


                     Apparel Care and the Environment
       Textile Care Process Spectrum
                Cleaning Mechanism
        Non-aqueous Cleaning
                   Aqueous Cleaning
      Solution ^	
Water Soluble (polar) Soil
Oil Soluble (non-polar) Soil
                    Participate (solid) Soil
	^ Solution
.. Suspension
       Textile Care  Process Spectrum
               Textile Property Issues
        Non-aqueous Cleaning
        Low twist ^
        Low count
                   Aqueous Cleaning
^  High twist
  High count
                                            ©May 1996; KA/MW

              Textile Care Technology Spectra and Care Labeling Issues
       Textile Care Process Spectrum
         Preferred Methods for Garments
        Non-aqueous Cleaning +
                +  Aqueous Cleaning
       Men's Suits     Overcoats Parkas       Shirts
       Women's Suits   Trousers  Windbreakers  Blankets
       Tailored Jackets  Dresses  Raincoats     Sleeping Bags
       Fashion Items   Skirts    Sweaters     Linens
                                          ©May 1996; KA/MW
        Textile Care Process Spectrum
             Garment Damage Potential
        Non-aqueous Cleaning
                   Aqueous Cleaning
                     Shrinkage Potential
Potential Appearance Change
  Potential Tactile Change
        Dryclean Only
                        Care Label
                      Do not dryclean
                                           ©May 1996; KA/MW

                   Apparel Care and the Environment
       Textile Care Process Spectrum
                  Finishing Costs
                      drycleanable items
                      when washed
            Non-aqueous Cleaning         Aqueous Cleaning

                 Selection of Cleaning Process
                                       ©May 1996; KA/MW
        Mechanisms of Shrinkage

        K Felting
                                      ©May 1996; KA/MW

              Textile Care Technology Spectra and Care Labeling Issues
       Felting Shrinkage

         >• scales of wool cause differential friction
         * leads to interlocking and felting of fibers


         >- lower inter-fiber friction with additives
         >• reduce mechanical action

                                        ©May 1996; KA/MW
        Relaxation Shrinkage


         K water plasticizes fiber structure
         ^ releases latent tension in fibers and yarns

          - can only be delayed, not stopped
          i- reduce mechanical actions
                                        ©May 1996; KA/MW

                   Apparel Care and the Environment
        Thermal Shrinkage
         >- heat plasticizes hydrophobic fiber
         >• releases latent tension in fibers and yarns


         >• keep all process temperatures below
          glass transition temperature
                                      ©May 1996; KA/MW
       Color Fastness of Textiles:

       ^Mode of Application (dyeing, printing)

       ^ Solubility Properties of Colorant

       >- Dye Transfer Potential

            Textile Care Technology Spectra and Care Labeling Issues
         Textile care professional need access
         to non-aqueous and aqueous
         cleaning technologies

         Care label instructions can be derived
         from objective national and
         international test methods
        Conclusions (continued):
        ^Conceptual textile care spectra for
         non-aqueous and aqueous processes
         can assist in selecting proper textile
         cleaning processes

        ^Garment shrinkage potential can be
         explained by considering practical
         and theoretical principals

                  Apparel Care and the Environment
      Conclusions (continued):

      >- It is necessary to work closely with all
        members of the apparel chain to
        optimize garment performance as
        new textile care processes emerge
      >- National & international organizations
        coordinate their efforts to establish
        objective test methods for care label

         D. Hasenclever
Kreussler Chemical Manufacturing Company, Weisbaden, Germany
Mr. Hasenclever is Managing Director of Kreussler, a chemical manufac-
turing company in Germany. He is chairman of the scientific advisory
board of the Laundry Research Institute, Krefeld and  member of the DIN
Committee of Standardization. Mr. Hasenclever works in research and
development of detergents and textile chemicals as well as in process
technology for laundry and dry cleaning. Mr. Hasenclever has a Diploma
in  Engineering in Textile Chemistry from the Textile Engineering School at
Krefeld, Germany.
         When dry cleaning was discovered some 120
         "Vears ago, neither  manmade  fibers  nor
         drmensionally stabilizing finishing processes
\\eie a\ailable.  Dye fastness was poor, sewing tech-
niques and garment construction gave little considera-
tion to aftercare, and fashion was not anywhere near as
user-oriented as today. This is not to mention the then-
current laundry equipment technology, processes, and
the standard detergent—soap.

  For  a great  proportion  of textiles  in general use,
washing would spell complete ruin. The discovery of
dry cleaning thus  meant progress and provided  an
answer to textile care problems. With the  application
of modern technology, today's textile items are closely
oriented to serviceability.  Choice of material, design,
cut, dyes, wear-comfort,  and  aftercare methods  all
meet the needs of the user.  Textile retailers and manu-
facturers  research  such aspects very  thoroughly, in
order to offer attractive  incentives for purchase of new
textile items. Simple problem-free care possibilities are
an important consideration.

  The selling point of "easy-care" calls for textiles to be
cleanable with normal domestic methods.  This is the
reason why only a minority of outerwear textiles today
are not washable. This proportion too, is continuously
getting smaller since trends are  towards  the natural
looking fabrics, ecological labeling, and protection of
the environment.

  With most garments, the textile care industry  is in
competition with domestic alternatives and has to rival
its quality features, efficiency,  acceptance, and avail-
ability. During the past 10 years, the textile care indus-
try has constantly decreased its share of the outerwear
market. The new wet cleaning technology offers the
industry an opportunity to regain its ability to compete
in the areas of quality, material conformity, efficiency,
and acceptability. Looked at in this way, the use of wet
cleaning in textile care is of vital importance for future
development in this sector.
  In central Europe, outerwear is mostly soiled by air
pollution, body excretions, foodstuffs, and direct dirt
contact. Slide 1 provides data about approximate dis-
tribution of quantities, components and solubility.

  Slide 1 shows that only about 10 percent of soiling
on outerwear is soluble only in solvents. Some 40 pier-
cent is water-soluble, and the greater proportion con-
sists of pigments.  Thus it already becomes clear how
advantageous a combination of water and surfactants
is for removal of soiling from textiles and how much
more demanding are the conditions for using solvents.
In order to remove  water soluble straining  during
cleaning with solvents, the addition of water as well as
detergent is necessary.  At  the same  time that these
water additions are active in cleaning, they also cause
natural fibers to swell and so increase risk of shrinkage.

  Slide 2 shows the absorption of moisture by fabrics
depending on the relative  humidity as well as the
swelling produced  as  the  maximal  cross-section

  The most interesting aspect is the difference in water
content of the fibers between that at 90 percent relative

                                    Apparel Care and the Environment
humidity arid the maximum value.  It is here that the
fundamental difference lies between wet cleaning and
use of solvents, at least when "water-based soiling"
(meaning  soiling from  body excretions, food,  drink
etc.) has to be removed with solvents.

  Water absorption by textiles  in solvents  is directly
proportional to  the relative humidity in the air space of
a dry cleaning machine.   Immediately  after one
employs water  additions of as little as 1 percent to 1.5
percent of the weight of work,  this  results  in relative
humidity of 85-90  percent which then leads to  corre-
sponding  fiber swelling.  This is  to say  that fiber
swelling occurs even with the use of solvents.  At 90
percent relative humidity, it is only a  little  below the
maximum  swelling for viscose, silk, cotton, and
                        as  a

  In December 1991, during a trade press conference at
Kreussler in Wiesbaden, the LANADOL process based
on Kreussler patents was introduced jointly by Miele
and Kreussler.

  In November  1993, this new technology was hon-
ored with  an award  for innovation  by the  Hesse
Minister of Economies,  Technology,  and Transport.
Based on the experience of more than 500 users of wet
cleaning machines, one can make the following com-
parisons with solvent processes:

» Better cleaning effects.

• Clearer colors.

« Fresher smell for cleaned work.

• I ,ower costs.

« Enhanced service capability.

« Unanimous acceptance by customers.

• Greater risks with "non-washables."

« Increased finishing  requirements  for multi-layer

» Longer completion time.

  The  majority  of companies where wet cleaning
machines are installed also operate solvent cleaning in
parallel.  During the summertime approximately 50 70
percent of garments can be wetcleaned without risks.
During winter, that rate drops to 30-50 percent. The
other articles	mainly suits and  costumes	will  be
processed using solvent. The advantages of wet clean-
ing include lower investment and processing expendi-
ture, better cleaning quality, and higher customer satis-

  Approximately a third of the 500 plants using wet
cleaning, use the process exclusively to handle those
articles which present problems when treated in sol-
vent:  microporous membrane fabrics, sports  and rain-
protective clothing, very heavily soiled articles, or spe-
cial classifications. Although such items comprise only
some 30 percent of the total intake, this option saves
about 50 percent of the solvent, because the portion of
the workload which is being wetcleaned is that which
would otherwise be responsible for particularly high
solvent loss.

  Of those cleaners using wet cleaning, only  a minori-
ty are working exclusively with these process and thus
no longer use solvents.  In some cases, occasional items
considered risky will be drycleaned by a co operative
companies, but most of the time the cleaners can cope
on their own. Most of the cleaners working in this way
report reduced costs and increasing demand.

  This gives an impression, about  the proportion of
wet cleaning, which is already realized at European
textile cleaners.  But the possibility of wet cleaning is
much more. Slide 4 shows the kind of garments peo-
ple normally wear or use.  The slide shows the prefer-
ence of the best cleaning method—wet cleaning or dry

  The result: most of the garments of the day-by-day
use are better wetcleaned than drycleaned.

  Textile cleaning is necessary in terms of hygiene and
attractiveness, but is irksome because of the effort and
expenditure involved.  The primary needs are cleanli-
ness, shape, and finish. With easy-care textiles, cleanli-
ness can to a large extent be achieved in the household
without difficulties. Shaping and finishing are some-
times very laborious.  It is here that the usefulness of
professional cleaning becomes evident. Conventional
professional cleaning  processes  using solvents  have
system-related advantages as far as shape and  finish
are concerned but disadvantages with cleanliness and
hygiene aspects.

  This gap is closed by wet cleaning. In cleanliness
and hygiene, it is equal to the high standard of house-

                               Report of Professional Wet Cleaning in Europe
hold care, while for shape arid finish H offers all the
advantages of professional cleaning to the customer.

  Compared with  easy-care  processes  in  domestic
washing machines, wet cleaning offers  considerable
advantages. The mechanical stress is clearly less.  In
addition to comprehensive  cleaning  efficiency, the
chemicals which  are used provide considerable fiber
protection, color stabilization, and  rctcxturing, and
give an anti-electrostatic finish.  With appropriate elec-
tronic control of dryers, the maintenance of form and
shape in easy-care textiles is ensured so thai finishing
effort is  lower,  even in comparison with a solvent

  For this category of easy-care textiles, wet cleaning
offers considerable  qualitative  advantages  compared
with domestic care; costs are also clearly lower corn
pared to conventional solvent processing.

  Wet Cleaning therefore provides an opportunity to
widen the range of services for the textile care trade.
This would involve introducing a  special  service of
easy-care articles, in addition to the established clean-
ing of high-value garments which  are not washable
and thus justify the appropriate expenditure and costs.
Only in this way could  a clearly lower price level be
achieved that would be attractive  to customers on a
cost basis.

  Anyone who raises the question of what, proportion
of garments handed in for cleaning can be processed
with  wet cleaning  and what proportion  must  be
cleaned in solvent, has not fully understood either the
challenge to the cleaning industry's  future  or the
opportunities of wet cleaning.  As a new processing
method, wet cleaning must be viewed as dynamic, not
static.  It offers an extension to professional dry clean-
ing's capacity.

  A wet cleaning installation provides the capability
for  a complete processing spectrum ranging from silk
articles, knitted wool garments, practically all trousers
and skirts, all  easy-care articles, jeans, household tex-
tiles, bed linen, pillows, shirts, towels, and table linen.

  Wet cleaning therefore broadens  the profile of ser-
vices from pure dry cleaning of conventional outer
wear to  the comprehensive handling of all  cleaning
requirements for private households. This brings new
customer contacts.  This in turn leads to greater  vol-
ume.  It takes the cleaner out of a narrow niche  into
becoming a general provider of services for customers'
textile needs. It should furthermore be taken into con-
sideration that  competitively  priced  processing of
easy-care textiles will also inevitably lead to increased
turnover in conventional dry cleaning work.

  Why not offer a special service for easy care goods
with new approaches and precisely tailored pieces, to
entice people who are using their household washing
machines to return once more to the trade.  If such  cus-
tomers find satisfaction they will come back and bring
their conventional clothing—in addition—for cleaning.

  Such consistent use of wet cleaning demands com-
pletely new thinking from the dry cleaner, however. It
is thus  quite possible to break up present structures
and win new customers. We must be aware, however,
that these "new" customers also need new reasons to
have their cleaning done. In addition to gains in qual-
ity of life and free time, arguments can be based on care
for  the environment and on  textiles retaining  their
value.  In practical terms, professional wet cleaning is
more effective than home processing, while offering a
guarantee  of safety and efficiency through specialist
processing techniques and trained operators.

  From this standpoint, wet cleaning is also an entre-
preneurial challenge.   Even without an appropriate
care symbol for wet cleaning an absolute imperative
we  must  not forget that commercial textile  cleaning
offers advantages, even for easy care textiles.  Why
should we not take up this market actively?

           Apparel Care and the Environment
                  Table 1
    Average soiling of garments In Europe
Soil type
Polar subst.
dust, soot, metaloxides,
rub-off, pollen, aerosols
sugar, salt, drinks, body
starch, albumen, milk, food
skin grease, resin, wax,
oils, hits
                  Table 2
Water content in Textile fabrics dependent on
              relative humidity

relative humidity


           Report of Professional Wet Cleaning in Europe
                      Table 3
Proportion of Wet Cleaning in European Textile Care
20 - 30%
35 - 50%
70 - 80%
kind of garments
"washable" textiles
easy finishing
no high risks
                       Table 4
       Preference of Cleaning Method dependent on
                   Kind of Garments
       better for dry cleaning
       equal dry/wet clean
       better for wet cleaning
       new business




Running Header from Title

                 on the

         A. J. L. den
TNO Cleaning Research Techniques Institute, Delft, The Netherlands
Mr. den Otter  is Manager of the Dry Cleaning Department at the Cleaning
Techniques Institute. He is developing alternative cleaning  methods for dry
cleaning, as well as cleanup methods for soil and ground-water pollution. In adi-
tion, he serves in a  workgroup of the Dutch Ministry formulating the update of
the General Administrative Order (Dutch Environmental Act) involving safe work-
ing conditions for the Dutch dry cleaning industry. Mr. den Otter holds
Engineering and Physical Chemistry degrees from a technical college in
I   have been a research manager and senior adviser at
   the TNO Cleaning Techniques Research Institute in
   Delft, The Netherlands for 26 years. Wet cleaning
has been one of the major areas of our activities, and
will continue to be so in the near future.

  Throughout. Europe, discussions have been taking
place about wet cleaning. IDRC (a collaborative bond
of European institutes for dry cleaning) and CINET (an
international committee on textile care), has discussed
this subject extensively. The heart of the matter is how
to show consumers that garments have to be treated by
a professional wet cleaner; it is absolutely necessary to
distinguish between washing and wet cleaning.

  The  members  of IDRC and CINET  unanimously
agree an adequate care label must therefore be devel-
oped. Efforts to produce a wet cleaning label, and a test
method which satisfies the demands of wet cleaning,
have to be discussed at  a national and international

  In order  to create a  professional platform  for
European discussions and decisions, British, Dutch,
German, and Swedish research institutes organized a
summit held in Delft on October 23, 1995.  At this sum-
mit, after intensive discussions of all technical possibil-
ities and operational requirements, the European Wet
Cleaning Committee (FWCC) was founded. In addi-
tion to providing a professional platform, EWCC's aim
is to establish wet cleaning as an adequate cleaning
method in the field of dry cleaning, without the risk of
textile damage. The founding members of the EWCC
are the European members of the IDRC, members of
CINET,  and  the  European Manufacturers Council (a
group of manufacturers of special innovative textiles
and garments). EWCC associated members  include
manufacturers of wet cleaning  machines/systems,
supplier of detergents, and companies which can con
tribute technical and organizational expertise. The
founding of EWCC created a professional platform on
which factual and objective discussions and prepara-
tions for the wet cleaning care label can take place.

  One of the aims of EWCC is the development of an
official, accepted care label symbol indicating that a
garment can be wet cleaned. In order to create this care
label symbol, a test method must be defined. This test
method would be used to test garments to see if they
can be wet cleaned safely. If the garments pass this
test, they can obtain the wet cleaning care symbol.

  At the moment,  a  label  for wet cleaning has been
determined by GINETEX for three categories: normal,
gentle, and very  gentle processes. For the label  to be
used, a test method is required. For this test method to
be established, a round robin trial  (RRT) is necessary.

  An RRT is a test in which different laboratories par-
ticipate in order to discover the reliability and repro
ducibility of the specific test method. Most RRT's are
performed more than once, since during the process of
a trial, improvements in the test method will emerge. In
the case of EWCC's  RRT, the draft test method had
already  gone through a  first trial  to  optimize the

  The 11 participants of EWCC's RRT are:

« Research  institutes:  FCRA  (United  Kingdom),
  Forschungslitul Hohensteiri (Germany), IFP-TEFO
  (Sweden),  TNO  Cleaning Research Techniques
  Institute (The Netherlands), WFK Forschunginslitut
  fur Reinigungstechnologie (Germany).

                                    Apparel Care and the Environment
« Machine/system manufacturers: Electrolux  (Sweden),
  John  Laithwaite Association (United Kingdom),
  Miele & Cie. Professional (Germany).

• Detergent and agent suppliers: Busing  & Fasch
  (Germany), Kreussler (Germany), Chemische Fabrik
  Seitz (Germany).

  In the first EWCC RRT, two processes were tested: a
gentle process for sensitive materials and a very gentle
process for very sensitive materials.  The RRT tested
the dimensional  change that occurs with wet cleaning.
The 11 participants of the RRT used five different types
of  machine systems (Miele,  Electrolux,  Boewe,
Aquatex, and Ipso). Each type of machine has different
processes and mechanical actions. In the RRT, it must
be proved that the same results can be obtained with
different  machines and program designs. To limit the
number of variables in the RRT, process parameters
were fixed: washing and drying times and tempera-
tures, liquid ratio, loading ratio, ballast and  detergent.
  The gentle process was:

wash      pre wash
           pump off
           main wash
           purrip off
30"C      5 min.

30°C      10 min.

cold      5 min.
drying     inlet temperature    60°C
           drying to 12-15 percent residual moisture

  The liquid ratio had  to be 5 liters-per-kilograrn (kg)
load and the loading ratio 1 kg load in 25 liters volume.

  The very gentle process was:

wash      main wash          30°C     10 min.
           rinse               cold
           pump off
drying     inlet temperature    40°C
          2 min.
  The liquid and loading ratios of the very gentle
process were the same as in the gentle process.

  To  determine shrinkage,  the  processes were pier-
formed on  an  untreated woven wool  fabric  of the
International Wool Secretariat (IWS) called Al  wool.
This wool is especially prone to shrinkage, therefore
differences between processes can be seen easily. Of
course, such wool will not be used for garment manu-
facturing. The shrinkage in the  test method  is mea-
sured relative to a household washing process. The aim
of the first RRT was for the gentle wet cleaning process
to have a 60 percent shrinkage  rate as compared to
home laundering, and for the very gentle process to
have shrinkage rates of 30 percent. The shrinkage rate
is determined after one to five complete (washing and
drying) wet cleaning cycles.

  Slide 6 shows the results of the RRT for the gentle
process.  In this figure, the results of the participants
with  similar machines  are  grouped  together. The
results are given for each of five (and in some cases six)
complete wet cleaning cycles. The shrinkage listed in
Slide 6 is the area felting shrinkage of the IWS wool test
pieces. The x-axis represents the  different laboratories
and the y-axis the percent of area felting shrinkage.

  One laboratory had very high shrinkage values. In
evaluating the process parameters, it became clear that
the cause for this high level of shrinkage was that, the
rinsing part of the  process was carried out without
detergent and the mechanical action in this particular
process (pumping off) was very high. These  results
show  two  important parameters for wet  cleaning
which negatively influence shrinkage.  Slide 7 shows
the same type of figure for the very gentle process.

  These results show us that in  order  to receive low
shrinkage levels, special attention must  be given to the
performance  of the wet  cleaning process;  washing
without special settings and additives results in  a
much higher shrinkage level.

  An inventory of the process conditions of the differ-
ent participants revealed a number of differences in the
process conditions.  These differences may be the rea-
son for the variations in results. The first difference is
the type of machines used. However, there are still dif-
ferences in the results from the same type of machine.

  Causes for these differences might be:

• The mechanical action during washing.

« Rinsing with or without detergent.

» The centrifugation speed.

• To reach the goal  of 12-15 percent residual moisture,
  drying time for different participants ranged from
  4.5  to 11 minutes.

• The hardness of the water at  different sites varied
  from 1 to 20  degrees  DH  (A  German method for
  measuring hardness).

  As  this was the first RRT and there were many pos-
sible causes for differences in results, the participants
were  all satisfied  with  the  results.  They  laid  the
groundwork for a second RRT which is more defined
than the first. For example, in the gentle process in the
second RRT, drying  time is restricted to  a maximum of

                             Report on the European Wet Cleaning Committee
7 minutes (in case a 12 to 15 percent residual moisture
has not been reached), with 5 minutes being the pre-
ferred amount, of time. The pH and the hardness of the
water will be measured, and the amount of detergent is
specified more  precisely The detergent used in the
RRT is a solid and becomes a liquid by warming it  to
25-30°C. In the first RRT, we noticed variations in the
way detergent was used.  One participant dissolved
the detergent in water.  Others heated the detergent
and poured it into the detergent hopper. For the second
RRT, detergent will be dissolved in 25-30°C water and
the detergent hopper will be rinsed with warm water.

  During the wet cleaning  process, shrinkage occurs
during the washing cycle as well as the drying cycle.  In
the first RRT,  a  few of the participants  measured
shrinkage after the washing and  drying parts of the
process separately. Approximately 75-95 percent of the
total shrinkage  occurs in the washing part of the wet
cleaning process, if the settings for drying are installed

  Another result  of the first EWCC RRT was the
shrinkage of a gentle wet. cleaning process was only
approximately 50  percent of  the  shrinkage resulting
from household washing machines. For  a very gentle
wet cleaning process, it was  only about 25 percent.
That's  why there's an  urgent need  to distinguish
between washing and wet cleaning.

  The  results of the first RRT allowed the EWCC  to
optimize the test method for wet cleaning for the sec-
ond RRT, which will lead to the development of a care
label symbol for wet cleaning.

  The manual of the second RRT specifies

Composition of      50 percent PES/50 percent CO
 the ballast:

Reference material:  A1/SM 12
Number of
 Reference Pieces:

Preparation of
 Reference Pieces:
3x8 gentle process; 3x4 very
gentle process

IEC 456, sections and


                    softened water (hardness and
                    pH to be measured)

                    2.0 g/1 of C13 oxoalcohol 7EO
                    (Luterisol A07/BASF)/ one in
                    each bath

                    * IEC 456, section
                      (under water)

                    * after each washing and
                      drying cycle

                    * eight washing and drying

                        gentle process   four
                        pieces after washing and
                        four after washing and

                        very gentle process—four
                        pieces after washing and

                    shrinkage values set at (50 + 5)
                    percent gentle and (25  i 2.5)
                    percent very gentle

                    after five working cycles ISO
                    6330 program 7A in reference
                    machine WASCATOR FOM 71

                    each deviation from test
                    conditions must be registered
  This second RRT is planned to be carried out in the
fall of 1996 in order to gather enough data for the
International Organization  for Standards meeting in
early 1998.  EWCC wants to cooperate with the North
American Institutes in the United States and Canada in
order to get an international test method and labeling
as soon as possible. EWCC welcomed North American
delegates to the June meeting at Hohenstein this year
and is  looking forward to cooperation which benefits
all parties.

             Apparel Care and the Environment
      European Wet Cleaning Committee
   IDRC Research Institute
   France, Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden,
   United Kingdom

   International Committee of Textile Care

   European Textile Manufacturers Council

   Associated Members
   - Machine/system manufacturers
   - Suppliers detergents, agents etc.
   - Technical and organizing contributions
     attributing companies
            Aims of EWCC

  To assist and support the cleaner to do a good

  To develop test methods for wet cleaning
  cleaning efficiency, dimensional stability, colour

  To propose a care label system for wet cleaning
In general:

Establishing the wet cleaning processes to an
adequate cleaning method in the field of dry
cleaning with no risks of textile damages for the

         Report on the European Wet Cleaning Committee
                 Test method
                   C EN/I SO
           to be added to ISO 3175
             Round Robin Trial
              Round Robin Trial
  11 Laboratories
  FCRA, Holtenstein, IFP-TEPO, IR-TNO, WFK,
  Electro lux, JLA, Miele, BuFA, Kreussler, Seitz

  5 different types of machines
  (different processes)

  Process parameters
  washing times, temperatures, drying
  temperature, drying time, liquid ratio, loading
  ratio, detergent

Development of a test method for wet cleaning
to become a correlabel symbol for wet cleaning

                   Apparel Care and the Environment
          2 processes:    Gentle
                              Very Gentle
pump off
main wash
pump off
inlet temp.
drying time
3O* C. 5 min.
                         3O*C, 1O min.
                         cold, 5 min.
to 12-15 %
residual moisture
                                 Very gentle
                   3O*C, 1O min.
                   cold, 5 min.
                                           2 min.
             Liquid ratio        1 : 5
             Loading ratio      1 : 25
% Area felling shrinkage
                       Gentle process
        5     678
           9  10
                                      washing cycles
                                               • 1
                                               • 4
                                               • 5

                Report on the European Wet Cleaning Committee
 % Area felting shrinkage
                       Very Gentle process
                washing cycles

                         •  1
                         [2  2  I
                         •  3
                         •  4
                         •  5
           2345     678
9 10    11 12
                         Gentle process
                    before tumbling C  after tumbling

    Apparel Care and the Environment
       Manual 2nd RRT
* Composition of the ballast
* Reference material
* Number of reference pieces
* Preparation of reference pieces
• Processes
• Water
• Detergent
• Measurement
• Aim
• Calibration procedures
• Deviation

               of the
Helmut Kruessmanm
GINETEX-wfk, Krefeld, Germany
Dr. Kruessrnann is Scientific Director and General Manager of the Research
Institute for Cleaning Technology. The Institute develops methods to reduce envi-
ronmental impacts from dry cleaning processes and establishes performance
testing methods for textile care. He also serves as Executive Vice President of the
International Cleaning and Care Research Association, which coordinates
research on dry cleaning. Dr. Kruessrnann holds a Ph.D. in Textile Chemistry from
Aachen Polytechnical University, Germany.
I   was asked  to tell a little bit about the status of
   European care labeling.  The European GINETEX
   care labeling system has been accepted by a majori-
ty of the countries of the world as an international care
labeling code. The care label itself was introduced in
Europe about 1950. It originated in The Netherlands
and then spread to France and the other European
countries as a  voluntary service  to  the consumers
offered by the textile and apparel industry. It's not reg-
ulated by government. It's a voluntary service. To con-
trol the correct application, the care labeling code was
protected by an international trademark. The owner-
ship of this international trademark belongs GINETEX.
GINETEX itself grants the ownership to the national
bodies. The reason for this is to control its correct use.
If you have no governmental regulation, then you have
to have someone to control it. We thought it was best to
have the industry and the consumer organizations do
the controlling  themselves.  One big advantage is, if
technology develops, it takes us just a few months to
change our labeling system. We just need a meeting of
the board to decide, we don't need any changes in gov-
ernmental regulations or laws.

  There were two discussion points for the basics of
this care labeling system. One was optimum process,
but when you discuss optimum care process, you need
to discuss optimum  to  what.  Optimum cleaning  is
always a problem for the lifetime of a textile, and some-
times  this is a  problem with environmental  impact.
GINETEX decided on a maximum process. Even with
a maximum process, however, there are problems with
material changes ranging from bleeding of color to
irreversible damage to the textiles.

  The next thing was it was produced by the textile
chain. The textile and apparel manufacturer can and
will, for cost reasons, only apply a very limited variety
of care label combinations. The number  of choices or
symbols, therefore, has to be reduced to  the lowest
possible level. Each symbol has to be based on a testing
procedure in order  to  verify the  correctness of the
choice. The reason we could  have  a small  number of
symbols was that we omitted all the general informa-
tion. For instance, you  can give general information,
such as if you have a loose structure, then you have to
dry flat. Or if you have a colored fabric, it's better to
dry in the shade, or turn it inside out during washing.
So all this information is just given as general informa-
tion to the consumer and not given as a label, as the
information is true for almost everything.

  Slide 3 shows the resulting care labels. The first is the
washing symbol, which is a little bit different from the
washing symbol in the United States. It's only a wash
ing symbol for home laundry. This is advice to the con-
sumer, not including the industrial  launderer. The
industrial  launderer can use it as  additional advice
according to his own knowledge and  experience as a
professional  for how to treat fabrics.  Two additional
symbols were also used. One is the bar under it for a
gentle cycle, and the  broken bar for  a very gentle  cycle,
which actually is only used for the wool wash  cycle.
Then a hand-wash symbol. We have  included at the
moment five temperatures. It is still being discussed
whether two temperatures should be deleted from the
process, as only the remaining temperatures cause irre
versible damage.

  The second symbol on Slide 3 is a  chlorine bleach
symbol, as oxygen bleach was a general technique in
Europe. The  ironing symbol has three different possi-
bilities. The dry cleaning symbol is also a little bit dif-
ferent from  the American type. We  only  have one
restriction, which  is symbolized by a bar under the
symbol. Our experience shows us  that a dry cleaner
has only two processes, one for regular work and one

                                     Apparel Care and the Environment
for sensitive work. Actual restrictions are then water,
mechanical action, and/or temperature in drying.

  Finally, we have the tumble drying symbol. We think
natural  drying methods are well known to the con
surner, and you can give  information in the  general
form, for instance, dry flat or dry in the shade.

  To  summarize, we have a system  on a  voluntary
basis and we have a system that is registered  as a trade
mark. Now  let's turn to  alternatives techniques.
Available alternative techniques are hydrocarbon sol-
vents, wet cleaning and perhaps liquid or supercritical
CC>2.  For hydrocarbon  solvents we normally do not.
have  a  big problem, as the hydrocarbon  already is
labeled  with  F. The  only  difference is with modern,
explosion-proof machines and modern solvents. There
might be some problems with the drying temperature
and the drying time, as drying temperature is a little bit
higher, approximately 60°C compared to the labeling
of the mild process  which has 40°C. This will be dis
cussed by GINETEX in the future.

  Now  let's turn to wet cleaning, which was the major
part of this discussion. We had no care  labels for the
wet cleaning process. The wet  cleaning process was
introduced in  1991.  Even before the official introduc-
tion of this process, the discussion about introducing
the wet cleaning symbols started in  GINETEX. It is
important when introducing a new care symbol that
we have an internationally  accepted  care technique.
That  was not realized when the discussion  started.
When wet cleaning started in 1991, it was not interna-
tionally accepted. The second point is that we should
have an internationally accepted test method. And the
third  point is the integration into the  registered trade
mark. That is only true for GINETEX countries, but it
raises some difficulties that we will discuss later on.

  Three proposals for labeling of wet cleaning within
the limitations of the trademark were discussed. One
proposal is for the alternative use of dry and wet clean
symbols, two symbols, allowing both possibilities. The
second  proposal  was the application of a modified
washtub as a symbol for wet clean. A problem with this
is the consumers' trial-and-error practice which will
lead to  home  laundry  and perhaps to liability risks.
And of course you can  understand that the  dry clean-
ing industry doesn't want this possibility, as it would
promote home laundry. If professional cleaning is done
according to the state-of-the-art, it is always more envi-
ronmentally  friendly  than  the home laundering
process. So even  from  an environmental standpoint,
labeling should not  be going in this direction. This is
especially true for  the American type of washing
machines which use quite more water and energy for
washing than the European type of machines. The
third  proposal was for  information in addition to the
registered trademark, either by words (but you have a
language barrier in Europe), an additional symbol out-
side the care label, a combination of symbols and Ian
guage, or a new extra symbolization.

  These were the three possibilities discussed, and the
decision  was  rather  simple.  The  decision  was  to
include it into the normal dry cleaning labeling. The
reason for this was that the consumer should get the
right information that he should bring this kind of arti-
cle to the professional dry cleaner. If you create an extra
symbol, you need extra information which would con-
fuse the consumer. It has to go to the same shop but the
cleaning method is identified by an additional symbol.

  The wet clean classification would have three syrri
bols. A normal W is used for washable  articles, wash-
able textiles or apparel, that, for performance reasons,
should be professionally wet cleaned.  This was what
Kaspar Hasericlever mentioned, to invite the consumer
to bring more articles to  be professional wet cleaned.
The second symbol is for gentle process. This was men-
tioned for "do not wash" articles  according  to  the
International  Organization for  Standards  (ISO) 6330
test. The third one was a very gentle process for articles
that also  could  not be washed according to ISO 6330,
but have a higher sensitivity towards mechanical
action as defined by the  standards. Examples for the
one bar process given  here are normal wool articles.
Examples for the very gentle process are angora, silks,
and similar very sensitive articles.

  We have one  problem within our GINETEX system.
This was very elegantly solved. Given that there are
only two possibilities of registered symbol combina-
tion	they allow only one symbol for each treatment	
what, do you do when you have dry clcanablc and wet
cleanable articles? The decision  made here was rather
simple. As I already told you, the W was introduced to
label wet. cleaning. If an article can  be either dry
cleaned or wet cleaned, then the dry clean symbol has
a priority The reason for this is 95 or 90 percent of all
dry cleaners still have perchloroethylene cleaning, and
they should have the  priority  information. The W is
put in a circle under the  dry cleaning symbol outside
the  combination. If an article is not dry cleanable, then
the  W can be put in the normal combination.

  We already discussed the test methods. As I said, if
there are no accepted test methods, then there is no
label.  We need  the accepted test methods, reasonable
evidence for the correctness of the label chosen, and
why an article is  sensitive towards wet cleaning. Wet
cleaning  is the  interaction of washing in detergents.
These can already be tested by conventional methods,
ISO 105 or ISO 6330. But there are a lot of articles that
are  sensitive because of the interaction of water, deter-
gent, and mechanical action. The testing, therefore, has

                           Status of the European (International) Care Labeling
been done under wet clean conditions. A novel testing
procedure has been developed. Round robin tests are
carried out. The momentary situation is that the test
procedure or the demand for this test procedure has
been brought in by the British Standard Organization
to send to the European Standard Organization (CEN),
which finances research programs. They proposed a
new work item on wet cleaning testing  in April  1996.
At the vvfk a group has been developing a testing pro-
cedure for over a year. This proposal was accepted by
the German  Standard Organization and sent to CEN.
CEN transferred this proposal to the ISO T3-38-SC2.
We hope the proposal will be discussed by the profes
sional cleaning group  during the next meeting to be
accepted as a new work item for ISO.

              Apparel Care and the Environment
               Helmut Kruesamann
      writ-Research Institute for Cleaning Technology
           QINETEX Technical Commission
             CARE LABELING
            Apparel Car* and Tfia Environment
           Alternative Technologies and Labeling
            Washington D.C., Sept. 9/10, 1998
History of the Symposium/Ginetex
     Care Labeling System
  Care Labeling was Introduced around
  1950 as  a Voluntary Service to the
  Consumers by the Textile  and Apparel

  To Control the Correct  Application
  it was Protected  by an  International
  Trademark Registration  in Geneva

      Report on the European Care Labeling System
ISO 6330
ISO 3T76
ISO 6330
95, 60, [50], 40, [30] C V
normal gentle very Wash
gentle 30 C
jt?\ cold and at low concentration
999 99
200 C 150 C
Steam possible
110 C
Wate r /Mechanics
and/ or Temp.
• • *
ao-io c < eo c
   Care  Labeling  and the Textile  Chain
The Textile and Apparel Manufacturer
Can and Will for cost reasons only apply
a very limited variety of care label

The number of choices [SYMBOLS] there-
fore has to be reduced to the lowest
possible level

Each symbol has  to be based on a testing
procedure in order to verify the correct-
ness of the  choice

         Apparel Care and the Environment
     Basics for  Care-Labeling
 OPTIMUM Process
 Convenience for the Consumer
 Lifetime of Textiles

 MAXIMUM Process
 Material Changes  "'"f  all
                    irreversible damage
  Basics of ISO/GINETEX Care-Labeling
The Care-Treatment of
Maximum Severity
a Textile/Garment Can Withstand without
Irreversible Damage

         Report on the European Care Labeling System
      "Available" Alternatives in "Dry'cleaning
      Hydrocarbon Solvents
     Carbon Dioxide
  Time/Temperature-Diagram of F-Processes
          Applying R113 and HCS
R 113
          10   16   20   25  30
                 TIME [mln]
                         30   4O   40

                   Apparel Care and the Environment
            for the Introduction of a
                  Care Symbol

     Ef Internationally  accepted technique
     Ef Internationally  accepted test method
     Ef Integration into the Registered
        Trademark (GINETEX countries)
       Proposals for a Labeling of WETCLEAN
       within the Limitations of the  Trademark

      1.  Alternative Use of Drv- or Wetclean
         What is with Wet- and Dryc lean able Go ode

      2.  Application of a Modified Wash Tub
         Symbol for Wetclean
         Consumers' TrlaHl-Error Practice will lead to Home
         Laundering; Liability Risks

      3.  Information Additional to the  Registered
         m^ By Wordings (Language Problem)
         an^ Additional Symbol Outside Care Label Combination
         iiii^> Extra Symbol! sat I on (Extra Trademark)

           Report on the European Care Labeling System

Decisions of Ginetex Consell (3/1996) with
Regard to Wetcleaning Symbol isation

1.  The circle with  a W shall be introduced
    to  label WETCLEAN with three severity

2.  If an article can either be drycleaned or
    wetcleaned  then the dryclean symbol has
    the priority  in the registered combination.
    The W then shall be put in  a circle under
    the drycleaning  symbol  outside the

3.  If an article is not drycleanable, then the W
    may be used in the circle within the regis-
    tered combination
Classification of Textiles and Apparel
into the 3 Levels of Severity of Symbols
1 . normal ©

     Washable textiles and apparel which for
     performance reasons preferably should be
     professionally wetcleaned (»i». oompiici
2,   gentle         ©
     "DO-NOT-WASH"-art!cles according to ISO 6330
     because of sensitivity towards mechanical
     action as defined by the standard inwrwui wwiana)

3.   very gentle  ©S
     "DO-NOT-WASH"-articles according to ISO 6330
     because of high sensitivity towards mechanical
     action as defined by the standard  (a*aor*, «niu)

                  Apparel Care and the Environment
               Another BASIC CONDITION
                NO  ACCEPTED
                TEST METHOD
                   NO  LABEL
      Reasonable Evidence for the Correctness of the Label Chosen
      I Wash Temperature [c]
       Load Factor [kg/L]
       Liquor Ratio [L/kg]
       Wash Time [mini
      | Mechanical Action
       Rinses (No./Temp.)
     ffil t n I et - Tempe ratu re* [Cl
       Endpoint Moisture [%]
      [Drying Time [mini
40 - 96
« 8


very gentle
20 - 30
very gentle

                     preheating to 00/40 C
                     '   2.0 fl/L detergent

                    Report on the European Care Labeling System
            Maximum  Shrinkage  Requirements
            for the different  sensitivity levels
               very gentle
Relative shrinkage [%1
no requirements
        The shrinkage of the A1 test monitors should not exceed
        the above relative values compared to the A7 wool wash
        program of ISO  6330.
        The test procedure is described in EC 456.
        The figures are  still in discussion
              Calibration Process
              Calibration of the IWS A1 test monitor
              according to IEC 456 in the reference
              washing machine according to ISO 6330

              Normalisation Process
             . Validiaatlon of the gentle and very
              gentie process (washing and tumble drying)
              using the calibrated monitors
              Wetcleanina Procedure (TEST)
              includes washing and p re- dry ing or drying according
              to the definitions of the test procedure for the
              care label and the finishing process aa appropriate
              for the specimen tested

                    Apparel Care and the Environment
    Status of the Situation for a Testing
Procedure Concerning Wetcleanability of Textiles
          Positive Vote by CEN on a BSI Paper
          Proposing a NWIP on Wetclean Testing
          Procedure [4/961

          German Proposal for a Testing
          Procedure for Wetclenable Articles
          Sent to CEN [5/961
          prepared by an International Working Group

          Transfer of the German Proposal
          to ISO TC38 SC2 as a  Consequence
          of the Vienna Agreement [5/961
          TRADEMARK PROBLEMS in Care Labeling

          1.  Care labels can only be used with
             the permission of G1NETEX

          2.  GINETEX will only allow the use of
             the registered trademarks

          3,  There are only two  registered symbol
             combinations. They  allow only one sym-
             bol for each treatment.

                   Report on the European Care Labeling System
                   Permitted Symbol  Combinations
                      neither dry- nor wetcleanlng
                    only wetcleaning/no drycleaning
                     only d rye lean ing/no wetcleanlng
                         dry- and wetc lean ing
                   Not Permitted Symbol Combinations
                   dry-  and  wet clean ing

                           Apparel Care and the Environment
            RESEARCH  in the  WETCLEAN Field
           •   Pre-Research Work;
               Defect Analysis and Fault Localisation after Wetclean
               WETCLEAN r&clinlaal Plant In Dnntd«n/ wife and Irtstituta for Tex ilia
               and Apptrol Tvohnofogy of th« Technical University Drosdan

           1.   Production  Requirements  for Wetcleanable

               Apparel / Part I: Career Apparel
               Institute for Tex Ilia mad Aaptral Technology /Tmahnioat Unlv»r»ity Dresffsa

           2.   Improvement of Cleaning  Performance by
               Process Optimization
               wtk ana Par Inarm (CRAFT, Pltsae 1}
           3.  Optimization of Finishing Technology after
                    for Tsxttls anil Appmrml TwbnolOQy Dresden /


"Dr /"cleaning Symbols
Description of
temp./ C
load L/kg
Water yea
temp./ C
moist ure%
time /mln
33 33
20 10
20 30
yea no

and the Technical

)® <
• i
60 40 80
30 20
10 10
25 40
5 5
60 60

        Action    normal  gentfe  normal   gentfe  normal   gentle  very


Center for Neighborhood Technology
Ms. Patton is Coordinator of the Center for Neighborhood Technology's (CNT's)
Sustainable Manufacturing and Recycling Program, which helps small businesses
comply with environmental regulations through recycling and pollution prevention. In
her current position at CNT, Ms. Patton serves as Project Manager for the Alternative
Clothes Cleaning Demonstration Project, which she developed. Ms. Patton earned a
B.A. in Latin American Studies from the University of Illinois-Chicago.

   In 1992, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
   (EPA) initiated a partnership with the dry cleaning
   industry  and others  to  address  ways to reduce
exposure to perchloroethylene (perc), the solvent used
by 90 percent of U.S.  dry cleaners. This partnership
provided a springboard for a variety of research pro-
jects on alternative  technologies and substitute  sol

  One alternative identified early in this process was
wet cleaning, a  range  of techniques and technologies
that use water as the primary solvent to clean clothes
labeled "dry clean only." Several of the research pro-
jects designed to evaluate wet cleaning are being con-
ducted in real world commercial settings. This paper
describes these research projects and summarizes some
preliminary findings.

  The Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) is
an independent, nonprofit research and technical assis-
tance organization with a tradition of working with
industry partners to find practical solutions to environ-
mental problems. Through funding from EPA, CNT ini-
tiated the Alternative Clothes Cleaning Demonstration
Project with the goal of evaluating the performance and
commercial  viability  of wet  cleaning.  This  CNT
research project includes the design, monitoring, and
evaluation of all aspects of a commercial clothes clean-
ing shop using only wet cleaning (called The Greener
Cleaner) and data  collection at two shops relying on
both water and traditional dry cleaning solvents.
  CNT designed The Greener Cleaner to mirror an
average commercial dry cleaning operation in volume
and rates as well as  fabric, fiber, and garment types
cleaned. The difference is that all items brought in for
cleaning are wet cleaned. The shop has a wet cleaning
system manufactured by Wascator in Sweden and dis-
tributed by Aqua Clean Systems,  Inc. in the United
States. The demonstration shop) is privately owned and
a lease agreement ensured CNT control of all testing
and demonstration aspects of the shop's operation to
carry out the research.
               the                       of

  The project gathered and compiled data regarding
cleaning performance over time and with a full range
of fabrics. Two test  protocols  were developed  that
address critical performance issues for tests on sepa-
rate groups of garments.

  The first test "Wet Cleaning: Performance on  Full
Range of Typically Dry Cleaned Garments" includes
documentation of all garments cleaned at the shop,
assessment of customer  satisfaction,  and  intensive
evaluations of a random sample of garments cleaned at
The  Greener  Cleaner. During the course of the 12
months of research, the  demonstration shop  wet
cleaned 31,734 items. Of  those  garments, 60 percent
were of fabric types often labeled "dry clean only"—
wool, silk, rayon, and linen.

  To assess customer satisfaction, two telephone  sur-
veys of The  Greener Cleaner's customers were  per-
formed by an independent survey firm. The first  sur-
vey of 203 customers was conducted in November
1995, and the second, of 100 customers, was conducted

                                    Aparel Care and the Environment
in June 1996. Results were consistent between the two
surveys with 86 percent of customers rating the shop's
overall service as "excellent" or "good" in the first sur
vey and 87  percent responding positively in the sec-
ond. Similarly, 85 percent of respondents in the  first
survey and 84 percent, in the second said they would
recommend The Greener Cleaner to a friend. Several
questions were added to the second survey to gauge
customers'  knowledge of and  attitude toward  wet
cleaning. The following  question and responses  indi-
cate the extent, to which  environmental  concerns
played a part, in customers' initial interest.

"Why did you first take your clothes to The Greener

    Concern about the environment.    64 percent
    Convenient location/parking      18 percent
    Curious                         16 percent
    Other                           14 percent
    Reputation for quality service      11 percent

  In another measurement of customer satisfaction,
shop records on customers indicate a steadily increas-
ing base of return customers. In September 1995, repeat
customers represented 60 percent of total visits for the
month. By April 1996, that figure was 81 percent.

  The first  test also included intensive evaluations by
independent evaluators  of a random sample of gar-
ments cleaned at The Greener Cleaner.  Results of the
intensive evaluations of 460 garments,  conducted on
the garments before and after cleaning, indicated that a
majority of the garments were  cleaned and finished
satisfactorily. A  central  concern is  the dimensional
change noted in sample  garments. Of the woven gar-
ments evaluated, 62 percent had shrinkage or stretch-
ing within the acceptable rate of 0-2 percent. Shrinkage
or stretching in the range of 2-4 percent was measured
in 27 percent of the woven garments, and  11 percent
with over 4 percent shrinkage or stretching. Shrinkage
and stretching in the knit garments was greater,  with
21 percent  measured with over 6 percent shrinkage
and 15 percent with stretching over 6 percent.

  The  second test, "Comparative Analysis of  Wet
Cleaning  and Dry  Cleaning  Performance  After
Repeated Cleanings," compares the performance of wet
cleaning and dry cleaning on 52 sets of three identical
garments. All the test garments specified dry cleaning
in their care instructions and many were selected as
likely "problem garments" for wet. cleaning. In each set,
one garment, was wet cleaned, one dry cleaned and the
third was stored and used as the control.

  These garments were evaluated after being worn
repeatedly and cleaned six times. In 13 sets, evaluators
judged the general appearance of the dry cleaned gar-
ment to be better than the wet cleaned garment. In two
sets, evaluators judged the general appearance of the
wet. cleaned garment to be better than the dry cleaned
garment. On color change, evaluators rated seven wet.
cleaned garments and eight dry cleaned garments to
have unacceptable color change.

  As had been noted  in the evaluations of customer
clothes, dimensional change was far greater  in knits
than in woven garments for both wet and dry cleaned
garments. A total of 16 dry cleaned  woven garments
and 15 wet  cleaned woven garments  had shrinkage
within the acceptable  0-2 percent,  range. However,
while there is little difference in shrinkage within this
range, the difference in the upper ranges of shrinkage
is significant. None of the dry cleaned woven garments
had shrinkage of 6 percent or greater, while four of the
wet cleaned garments did.

  Systematic observation of the shops has provided a
basis for process evaluation including work flow, plant
layout, water and energy use, and identifying process
inefficiencies. In addition, several hundred cleaning
professionals have taken advantage of the opportunity
to tour the shop during business hours, watch the wet.
cleaning  process from  start,  to finish,  and interview
shop personnel.

  Research on the volume and quality of water dis-
charge from The Greener Cleaner was done in partner-
ship with the Illinois Hazardous Waste Research and
Information Center and the  Metropolitan  Water
Reclamation District. Water testing was conducted for
3 days during which time volume was monitored and
a composite sample was taken each day. Each sample
underwent, comprehensive lab analysis, with the fol-
lowing results:

• The pH of the wastewater was neutral.

• The biochemical demand was no higher than typical
  residential wastewater.

» The phosphorus concentration was  approximately
  one-tenth that of typical residential wastewater.

« There were no significant concentrations of metals or
  toxic chemicals.

                    Results and Conclusions From Wet Cleaning Demonstration Projects
                     in        "Mixed"

  CNT is also conducting research at two other com-
mercial sites. These are professional garment cleaning
businesses in which a significant percentage of gar-
ments are wet cleaned and the remaining portions are
cleaned off site in traditional dry cleaning solvents.

  One of these sites is a small shop) in Florida that uses
two  Kenmore washing  machines manufactured by
Sears in the United States for home use. The move to
wet  cleaning  at Orange  Blossom Garment Care was
driven by necessity. When concern regarding the envi-
ronmental impacts of  the solvent Valclene prompted
the phase out of this solvent, Orange Blossom owner
Ruth Wedenburg decided to maximizes her usage of
her two washing machines rather than invest in new
perc  or  petroleum equipment.  During the research
period, Orange Blossom wet cleaned 43 percent of total
customer garments, laundered  an additional  44 per-
cent  of shirts, and had the remaining 13 percent dry
cleaned  off site. Seventy-seven percent of the wet
cleaned garments had  care instructions specifying dry

  Located in Bettendorf,  Iowa, Brix Cleaners was pur-
chased by its current owner in January 1996. They use
the Aquatex system developed  by JLS with the wash-
er/extractor manufactured in Belgium by IPSO and the
dryer manufactured in the United States by American
Dryer Corporation. This system is distributed in the
United States and Mexico by Iowa Techniques, Inc. The
new  shop owner purchased the Aquatex with the goal
of wet cleaning approximately 80 percent of their cus-
tomers'  garments by  the end  of 1996. During the
research period in June the shop wet cleaned 43 per-
cent  of the total 1,846 garments cleaned.

              of California-Los

Pollution Prevention Education and
Research Center
  Last year, the University of California Los Angeles
(UCLA)  through its Pollution  Prevention  Education
and Research  Center, initiated a wet cleaning research
and demonstration project that parallels the Center for
Neighborhood Technology project. It is  focused  on a
private wet cleaning  operation, Cleaner  by  Nature,
which includes both a drop-off store, located in Santa
Monica, California and a  plant, located in Los Angeles.
The business opened in February of this year.

  UCLA is measuring  performance at Cleaner by
Nature using  test protocols developed in cooperation
with CNT. This will provide  a broader data set upon
which to draw conclusions regarding many aspect of
wet cleaning performance. In addition, UCLA will  be
comparing the environmental impacts such as chemical,
energy, and water use, of a wet cleaning shop to a typi
cal dry cleaning shop. UCLA has also developed a part-
nership  with the Korean Youth  Community  Center
which will  help disseminate research findings  within
the Korean  dry cleaning community, which is approxi-
mately 30 percent, of the total industry. An interim report
of research findings will be available this month, and the
final report is scheduled for release in spring of 1.997.

University  of

Toxics  Use Reduction  Institute
  The Toxics Use Reduction Institute (TURI), located
at the University of Massachusetts-Lowell, has been
involved in the evaluation of wet cleaning for 4 years.
It is developing a training program for the wet clean
ing process that will include the development of a
training manual. In addition, TURI is working  closely
with a professional garment cleaning business,  Utopia
Cleaners, that  has recently replaced its dry  cleaning
machine with wet cleaning equipment. This shop is
part   of   the   recently-launched  TURI  Cleaner
Technology Demonstration Sites Program. It will pro-
vide further research data on wet cleaning as well as an
opportunity for dry cleaners and others to observe the

  Many have asked, "Is wet cleaning the answer?" The
answer depends on the question. If the question is "is
wet cleaning a 100 percent drop-in replacement for tra-
ditional dry cleaning solvents?" the answer is no. If the
question is "can wet cleaning safety clean a significant.
percentage of  clothes now considered  'dry  clean
only'?" the answer is yes.

  While the CNT research has raised many new ques-
tions that, will require further research, several conclu-
sions can be made. A significant portion of garments
now cleaned in traditional dry cleaning solvents can be
safely wet cleaned. Given the variables that effect per-
formance, however, it will be difficult to develop a sim-
ple guide, appropriate for use in commercial cleaning
shops,  indicating which garments can be easily wet
cleaned. In both performance and commercial viability
wet cleaning has demonstrated enough promise to
warrant increased investment in research and develop-
ment, accessible training programs, and a concerted
effort to reshape U. S. care labeling rules.

                   Aparel Care and the Environment
                 Total Garments at the Grecoer Cleaner
Results and Conclusions from Wet Cleaning Demonstration Projects
   Fiber Types of Wet Cleaned Items at
          The Greener Cleaner
                19M - May 11,19M)
     Customers at The Greener Cleaner

  Aparel Care and the Environment
     fcr Itrt Swnjfe Gmrmtmta
    (AH Wot denud -
      I  I  I.  Ill
     Wnwi QinMBli - MB ho*
    fat Jdcotk*] Teat Gannsaito
         (52 Sets)
              I    I
   li if I! li li I!

Results and Conclusions from Wet Cleaning Demonstration Projects
              IMhudbonynodi IMMNEXudmui duunc
               for Identical Tart Gn-mnrb
               W*t «ud Dry Cleucd Gumtta
              I   I  I  I   I  .   I   I
          I  J   i   «  j
               i   I  ij   »1   M   *

         Aparel Care and the Environment
          Wft m4 Dry OtHiii Gwmiti
          •i limp moan™ GnmaiCiM

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                             Summary   of
Session  II
                            Dr. Manfred Wentz of Fabricare Legislative and Regulatory Education
                            Organization (FLARE)/American Association of Textile Chemists and
                            Colorisls (AATCC) opened the discussion and asked for questions about tex-
                            tile care technology development.  He asked that specific questions about
                            care labeling (with the exception of questions for Helmut Kruessman) be
                            reserved for the following day's discussion.

                            Jack Weinberg of Greenpeace questioned Dr. Wentz's conclusion that aque-
                            ous and non aqueous cleaning of garments will always be with us. He point
                            ed out that aqueous systems are relatively new and there may also be
                            changes in garment construction, in fabric manufacture, and in customer
                            demand.  Mr. Weinberg indicated that he didn't believe that the case has yet
                            been made that non-aqueous systems are going to be with us forever.

                            Dr. Wentz replied that in the recent Canadian study he mentioned they
                            pushed the envelope as far as they could on the basis of value judgments
                            and experience and were able to wet clean 75 percent of the garments enter-
                            ing into that plant. Dr. Wentz continued, saying that unless social engineer-
                            ing is instituted, limiting consumer's choices by saying "you can't have this
                            anymore," than indeed there has to be a co-existence between non-aqueous
                            and aqueous cleaning. The reason for this is the properties of the textile and
                            the dyes and construction of the garments.

                            Mr. Weinberg reiterated his points: (1) in terms of the study in Canada, it was
                            built into the design of the study that non-aqueous cleaning would still be
                            necessarily. It wasn't the conclusion of the study, but merely the value judg
                            merits that were brought to it.  (2) The conclusions presented by Dr. Wentz
                            are based more on the opinion of the presenter than on the academic materi-
                            al presented in the speech.

                            Dr. Wentz said he would throw the ball in Mr. Weinberg's court and chal-
                            lenge him to prove that you can wet clean everything.  Dr. Wentz added that
                            in terms of the common goal of reducing the impact of our action on the
                            environment, he is convinced that we can do better and we are doing belter.

                            Diane Weiser, President of Ecomat cleaners and laundromat franchise, asked
                            the European speakers what the current status  is in Europe of perchloroeth-
                            ylene (perc) and other solvents in terms of either being controlled or phased
                            out or neither.

                            Dr. Josef Kurz, from Hohenstein Institute, Germany, replied that perc is very
                            well controlled by the authorities, and the dry cleaners have invested a lot of
                            money  to comply with these regulations. Wet cleaning is improving and is a
                            very  good supplement for the non-aqueous treatment in the dry cleaning
                            industry.  Dr. Kurz said he is convinced that all the dry cleaners have accept-
                            ed wet  cleaning as a supplement to the solvent treatment, but sometimes
                            they have not had enough courage to use wet cleaning because of the risk of

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                            II (Continued)
Ms. Weiser asked if in Germany they have cleaners in buildings where they
also have residential tenants living.

Dr. Kurz replied that they do.

Jodie Siegel from the University of Massachusetts-Lowell Toxics Use
Reduction Institute, had a question for Walther den Otter about the round
robin trial test methods. She noted that the temperature used for the gentle
and very gentle processes were 60°C and 40°C which translates to 140°F and
104°F respectively. Ms. Siegel asked why they are using such high tempera-
tures. The experience that she has had in the United States with wet cleaning
is that people are not using such high temperatures.

Walther den Otter said those temperatures were used for the drying part of
the process, not the washing.

Ms. Seigel asked what, washing temperatures they used.

Mr. den Otter replied 30°C.

Ms. Siegel remarked that that is still higher than what we use in the United

Dr. Wentz said  he thinks it's very common to have 30°C as a basis for wash-
ing sensitive items.

Bill Seitz of the Neighborhood Cleaners Association-International pointed out
that 30°C converts into about 85 86°F, which is cool.

Ms. Siegel said that, is considered a warm wash, not a cold wash.

Mr. Seitz replied that it's a cool wash, not a cold wash, and not a hot wash.

Connie Vecellio of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said the Care
Labeling Rule defines 30°C as cold water.

Dr. Wentz added that, the AATCC's test methods book has a whole outline of
the definition of these temperatures.  One of the problems is  that with lower
temperatures, certain fats and oils are very difficult to remove so from a
cleaning perspective higher temperatures are better.

Helmut. Krucssman of the Research Institute for Cleaning Technology, said
that, the International Wool Secretariat. (IWS), which is really  the expert on
wool treatment, proposes an even higher temperature to get  wool clean.  30°C
is really a precaution. IWS proposes 40°C for wool.

Dr. Wentz said that research done some years ago  demonstrated clearly that
to  get good cleaning, you need temperatures of 38-40°C.

Kaspar Hasenclever of Kreussier Chemical Manufacturing Company, added
that shrinkage is not so strongly influenced with temperatures up to 40°C, but
the bleeding of dye starts above 35°C.

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                             II  (Continued)
David Porter, President of Garment Care, Inc., wanted to thank Josef Kurz for
the market data he provided.  He remarked that he has not found compara-
ble data for the United States. Mr. Porter asked if when Dr. Kurz said that he
expected wet cleaning to increase by 90 percent is that because wet cleaning
would allow them to do shirt laundering which is now done at home in

Dr. Wentz confirmed that shirt laundering in Germany is not done in dry
cleaning plants at this lime.

Mr. Seitz added that he thought Dr. Kurz, rather than talking about shirt
laundering, was refcring more to blankets, outerwear, and other articles cur-
rently done in the home that could be wet cleaned instead. He also noted
that there is an old attitude in Germany about the importance  of shirts being
done at home.  Many housewives are beginning to change that attitude, but
it's a slow process.

Mr. Porter said that he was trying to point out that there is cultural difference
between the potential U.S. market and the European market. He said his
concern is there has been  a decline in the market share of dry cleaning,  which
is very alarming.

Mr. Seitz noted that the dry cleaning share in the United States has been
down the last 4 or 5 years and the reason has a lot to do with the economy.
It's coincidental that the economy has been down for the last 4 or 5 years,
both in the United States and in Germany.

Mr. Porter expressed concern about the cost of new equipment for dry clean-
ers. He asked what would prevent appliance manufacturers from making
wet cleaning machines for the home? Mr. Porter said his goal  is to increase
business. In addition to having an environmentally acceptable process, we
also make sure that we have an economically acceptable process which will
not allow the continued decline of the professional garment care market.

Mr. Seitz responded that what we're attempting to do is point  out that there
are alternatives. Nothing prevents Whirlpool from making a home wet
cleaning machine.  It didn't prevent Whirlpool from making a coin dry clean-
ing machine 20 years ago. The question is, will it work in reality, and the dry
cleaning machine didn't.  A home wet cleaning machine may work, it may
not.  Bui nothing will stop Whirlpool from producing what they think  is a
marketable product.

Eric Frumin of Unite asked if, within the scheme of efforts that the European
industries have underway, it is conceivable that an effort could be made to
test the limits of machine  wet cleaning or other wet cleaning methods
beyond that which is being undertaken now. The Center for Neighborhood
Technology (CNT) approach is to try to operate 100 percent wet cleaning, not
to  find a balance between wet cleaning and perc, or wet cleaning and non-
aqueous solvents.

Mr. Hasenclever said that to ask that question is the wrong way of thinking
because textile cleaning means serving customers.  That has nothing to  do

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                            II (Continued)
with processes. Of course, the better process from environmental, ecological,
and economic aspects will also be the better process for consumers.  Mr.
Hasenclever pointed out that 90 percent of apparel is cleaned in the home
and that home laundering processess are not friendly to the environment
because they use too much water and chemicals.  Wetcleaning these articles
would be better for the environment than home laundry.

Mr. Frumin asked if what Mr. Hasenclever meant was that rather than focus-
ing on the balance of wet cleaning versus non-aqueous cleaning within the
percentage of articles already brought to industry to clean, what Mr.
Hasenclever is doing is trying to develop a wet cleaning method which can
address the environmental concerns of all the laundering  that is being done,
including the  90 percent done in the home.

Mr. Hasenclever replied that he was.

Peter Sinsheimer with the University of California-Los Angeles (UCLA) eval-
uation team said that at UCLA they are doing a comprehensive evaluation of
100 percent wet cleaning both in terms of the performance and the economic
viability.  They're looking at the  question of transitions between dry cleaning
and wet cleaning and the extent to which both could work simultaneously
through a transition period. At the  California Fiber Care Institute, there was
a dry cleaner who was cleaning  garments using dry cleaning, but certain gar-
ments had water-based stains that he couldn't get out with dry cleaning. The
dry cleaner would then wash those  garments in a domestic washer on site
which would  clean the water-based stains, but the consequence was that the
perc on those  garments would go down the drain. This was a real problem.
They actually were in violation of waste water treatment standards in
California.  This is a real problem for care labeling as well if we change Lo
having a care  label listing both wet clean and dry clean. Mr. Sinsheimer said
he wondered how to deal with this problem of residual perc on a garment
that could be wctclcaned and. the environmental consequences.

Mr. Seitz replied by citing a problem that existed in the dry cleaning industry
and how it got solved. A number of years ago, there were chemical compa
nies who  made stain removers for laundries and made specific chemicals for
the removal of oil and grease stains.  Many of those chemicals were perc-
based.  The way they solved that problem is they stopped making chemicals
with perc bases for laundry. The dry cleaner who is dry cleaning a garment
and while it is still damp), putting it in the washing machine, is in violation
and the way to slop it is to dry the garments properly.

Dr. WerHz added that in the 70's and early 80's, there was a dual cleaning
process proposed where this problem of residual perc  was even worse.
Sterling Laundry had a big project going on there funded by the U.S. Army.
They had a group of people monitoring the effluents coming from a laundry
and dry cleaning combination. What Mr. Seitz said is  true.  If you dry the
garment properly, you will have very little residue corning out in the water.
The question is whether the dry cleaner does dry the garment properly.

Charles Riggs pointed out that if you do the wet cleaning part of the job first,
dry the garment, and then clean it in a solvent, you eliminate that problem.

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                             II  (Continued)
He also wanted to respond to Mr. Porter's concerns about the cleaning indus-
try and what they're seeing in terms of the declining business.  Dr. Riggs said
that another reason why consumers are cleaning more at home than they're
sending out is that they're not satisfied with the job that they're getting at the
cleaners.  To increase the market share, three factors need to be taken into
account: convenience, cost comparison, and quality.  Dr. Riggs said that he
hears over and over from consumers that they don't like to take things to be
cleaned because they come back and they're not pressed properly, or they
smell bad. Dr.  Riggs said that when he addresses a cleaners group, he
always gets the question, "what should I do now, because we're here in a
state of limbo," and his response is "whatever you're doing now,  do it bet-
ter."  It's important to get that customer as an ally who supports your busi-
ness  regardless of what technology you're using, rather than  someone who is
looking for another alternative to running into your shop).

Paula Smith of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management asked
Jo Fatten if, with the water issue, they had tested for bubbling at the  Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW).

Ms. Patton of the Ceriler for Neighborhood  Technology, responded thai they
did the sampling right at the discharge and on the basis of the sample, they
gave feedback.

Ms. Smith asked if they had any contact been made with the  POTW.

Ms. Patton replied that that's who did the sampling. The Metropolitan Water
Reclamation District is the sanitary district for Chicago. They were our
research partners in this.

Ms. Smith asked if they noticed increased bubbling at the plant when it got
down stream. They tested right at the site, but did they test when it got
down to the treatment plant.

Jo Pal ton said that by the lime it got down to any treatment plant in Chicago
we're talking about very large quantities.

Ms. Smith pointed out that, in other cities, that might be a problem.

Ms. Patton said that the testers had considered bubbling and in their judg-
ment, based on what they saw in the sample, it was not a problem.

Jessica  Goodheart of the UCLA Wet Cleaning Demonstration Project, asked
what the timetable is for developing a new care labeling system?  She also
asked what the relationship is between the European community's develop-
ment of care labeling and what goes on in the United States.

Dr. Wentz responded to the second question about what the United States is
doing with respect to developing test procedures for care labeling in this
regard. AATCC has a committee, RA43, which had a meeting on  May 7. A
resolution was passed to participate in the European round robin trials.
They have also recently attended a meeting of the European Wei Cleaning
Committee working group).  Our efforts are definitely coordinating and our

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                            II  (Continued)
goal coincides with the European Wet Cleaning Committee's goal, which is
to have some information available and take some action, if possible, in 1998
at the International Organization for Standards (ISO) meeting.

Ms. Villa of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI), pointed
out that in the United States, more than 500 technical standards for textiles
have been developed and that there are textile test methods to assess color
fastness to ozone, color fastness to water.  She also asked Ms. Goodheart if
she was she talking about wet cleaning standards or care symbol standards?

Ms. Goodheart remarked that she understands that a testing protocol for
professional wet cleaning must be developed prior to implementing care
labeling policies, but her question was when will the whole process be com-

Connie Vecellio from FTC pointed out that the FTC process for amending the
Care Labeling Rule has already begun. FTC has asked for comment on two
federal notices already, and they will issue another notice beginning a rule
making hopefully this year. Ms. Vecellio added that FTC will be very inter-
ested in the development of the necessary test for the wet cleaning process,
as FTC is dependent for testing on AATCC or ASTM or the European organi-

Mr. Weinberg had a question for Josef Kurz. One of Mr. Kurz's slides
showed supercritical CO2, but one of the U.S. speakers had talked about sub-
critical. Mr. Weinberg asked if the German experiment, is with supercritical
CO2- His question was does Germany use the same kind of CO2.

Mr. Kurz replied that it's the same.

Mr. Weinberg had a question for Helmut Kruessman about the way wet
cleaning was listed on the GINETEX proposed care labels. Mr. Weinberg's
concern is that for an increasing number of garments, both methods will be
technically possible and what is the best way to signal that a garment should
be professionally cleaned without specifying wet or dry.

Mr. Kruessman responded that the problem is really a trademark problem of
GINETEX. GINETEX currently has a combination of home laundering, chlo
rine bleach, and ironing symbols, with only one symbol for professional
cleaning. For this reason, they needed to have some regulations if an article
can be wetcleaned  and  drycleaned. The market will regulate and the con-
sumers will regulate. GINETEX decided there are some possibilities. For
example, if an article can only be wetcleaned, then the wet clean symbol can
be included in this row of four or five symbols. If an article can only be
drycleaned, then there is no problem.  If the article can be wetcleaned or
drycleaned, GINETEX decided  that you cannot put both circles on the same
row. It was decided then the wet clean symbol should be put under the
symbol row. It's purely a question of trademarks.  It's not. permitted to put
the  dry cleaning and wet cleaning symbols in one row.  That's just a decision
for the moment.

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                             II  (Continued)
Mr. Weinberg asked if there would be a copyright problem if a third symbol
were used that meant both wet cleaning and dry cleaning.

Mr. Kruessman responded that this issue was discussed, but the problem is
some articles may be considered sensitive in wet. cleaning which are not. con-
sidered sensitive in dry cleaning. That would make it difficult to determine
whether or not to put a bar [meaning sensitive] under the symbol.  GINE--
TEX decided two symbols was the easiest way to give the information to the
dry cleaners.

Ms. Villa wanted to inform everyone about the U. S. position with  regard to
GINETEX. This method was promulgated in ISO in 1991 and it passed by a
75 percent majority, but there were five major western nations that voted
against the standard including South Africa, Japan, Australia, Canada, and
the United States. The United States has  not accepted or recognized the
GINETEX system, and one of the technical hang-ups with the particular
standard itself was the instructions that were given to the consumer about
the order. The United States also would not accept the standard because of
the trademark issue.

Mr. Frumin noted the broad nature of the participation at the conference
from many different sectors. He said he was curious  to hear from the acade-
mics and industry participants which industry or industries, in the  chain,
from fiber to textile to apparel to retail, bear the greatest burden for the cur-
rent changes.

Carl Priestland of American Apparel Manufacturers Association (AAMA)
noted that the apparel industry in the United States produces something like
$50 billion worth of apparel domestically and that means about 6.5  billion
garments that have to have labels on them. So the biggest problem that the
apparel industry faces is to make sure that what we put on those labels actu-
ally works. We have to get the information from the textile industry, and we
have to give it to the consumer. The real  problem is that apparel manufac
turers are not the first ones Lo get this apparel back. It's the retailers and the
dry cleaners.  But the  apparel manufacturers are the ones that have the
biggest responsibility for care labeling changes.

Ms. Siegel asked Josef Kurz about his slides showing  the rayon and wool
swatches with different finishes on them. She asked if any research was
being done about adding these protective finishes to the wet cleaning
process such as in the detergent used.

Mr. Kurz replied that  anti-felting finishes on wool and anti-shrinkage finish-
es on rayon are stale of the art. But these finishes can't be  added to the

Mr. Seitz commented that cleaners have a number of problems with the fin-
ishes that manufacturers currently use.

Mr. Wentz concluded  the discussion by thanking all the speakers for excel
lent presentations. He said the message he would like Lo give all partici-
pants is: we are breaking the paradigm that dry cleaning means dry cleaning

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling
                                         II  (Continued)
in perc. However, based on what we learned this afternoon, what we proba-
bly will also learn also tomorrow, and. based on his own experience with
AA'i'CC and ASTM it's clear that it is a complex issue.  There is no easy
answer; however, if every one of us continues to participate in the process,
we will hopefully reach our goals of environmentally responsible textile care
and meeting the needs of the consumers. We are trying to influence them by
giving them choices, but in the final analysis, the market place will make the
final decision.


Apparel Care and
the Environment
Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                Session  III

Connie Vecellio
Federal Trade Commission
Ms. Vecellio is an attorney in the Division of Enforcement of the Bureau of
Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission. For the last several
years, her responsibilities have included enforcing the Commission's Care
Labeling Rule, which requires care labels on textile wearing apparel. Ms,
Vecellio has a J.D. from Harvard Law School and a B.A. cum laude in
Economics from University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill.
   I'm an attorney at the Federal Trade Commission,
   and one of the main things I do is enforce the Care
   Labeling Rule. Also, in recent years, thanks to those
of you in this room, I also work on the  amendment of
the Care Labeling Rule.

  I want to tell you a little about the history of the rule,
why it was promulgated, when it was promulgated,
and when it was amended. I'd like to tell you what it
does and does not do. Then, I'm going to tell you a lit-
tle about the history  of the current revisions we're
working on, and the kind of information that's relevant
to those  current  revisions. These  revisions  include
revising the rule  to allow for labeling for professional
wet cleaning; and possibly revising the  rule to require
that any garment that can be laundered at home be so
labeled. Also, revising the rule to allow the use of sym
bols in lieu of words.

  The rule was promulgated in 1971 by the Federal
Trade Commission. The Federal Trade Commission is
composed  of live commissioners appointed by  the
President. I am required to tell you that the  opinions I
express today are my own, and do not necessarily rep-
resent the view of the Commission or of any individual
commissioner,  although I  hope they  do.  Our basic
statutory authority is to prevent unfair deceptive acts
or practices in commerce. In 1971, the Commission pro-
mulgated the Care Labeling Rule, saying that it was
unfair and deceptive to fail to include care instructions
on garments. The Commission has said  that the rule is
intended "to  assist  consumers in making informed
purchase decisions, and to enable consumers  and
cleaners to avoid product  damage."  The  rule only
requires that one method of cleaning be given. That
method can be either washing or dry cleaning. The rule
does not require that directions for both be given on a
label, even if a garment could be cleaned in both ways.
In 1983, the Commission amended the rule to be more
specific as to what, must be included in a care instruc-
tion either for dry cleaning or for washing.

  The Commission defined dry cleaning in 1983. Prior
to that time, there was no definition for dry cleaning.
That caused a number of problems. The rule currently
defines dry cleaning in the following way:

    "a commercial process by which soil is removed
    from products or specimens in a machine which uses
    any   common   organic  solvent  (for  example,
    petroleum, perchloroethylene [perc], fluorocarbon)."

  I guess that's already a little out of date because flu-
orocarbon is only available now  to those who stock-
piled it.  The dry cleaning process may include mois-
ture  addition to solvent up  to  75 percent  relative
humidity, hot tumble drying up to 160°F, and restora-
tion by steam press or steam air finishing. The rule was
also modified in  1983 to require a warning if any part
of the normal dry cleaning process as defined in the
rule would harm the product. For example, if a special
instruction is given for professional dry cleaning, that
means that dry cleaners should use the process above
but modify it. One example given in the rule is if steam
should  not  be  used.  The  label  should  stale
"Professionally dry clean; no steam." Other warnings
are "short cycle," "low heat," and  "low moisture."

  The other requirement that was  added in 1983 is that
a manufacturer must have a reasonable basis for the
care instructions it puts on a garment. One  example  of
a reasonable basis would be positive test results show-
ing that the garment can be dry cleaned. However,
there are other bases such as reliance on technical liter-
ature, past experience, and industry expertise. So, the
rule currently requires one adequate method of clean
ing with warnings  against, any  part of the normal
process that, cannot be  used  and it requires  that, the
manufacturer have  a reasonable basis  for that  care
instruction including any warnings.

                                     Apparel Care and the Environment
  I want to talk a little about what the rule does not do.
It does not govern liability for consumer claims. The
fact that a label recommends dry  cleaning does not.
insulate the dry cleaner from liability  Liability with
respect to consumer claims, depends on the laws of the
slates. And in  many  states, I've been  told, the dry
cleaner   is  basically  held  liable  on  a theory of
bailment—he took the product, he's a professional,
he's liable if something goes wrong. The rule does not
insulate him against that  liability.  I want to make a
point of that because the same is going to be  true if we
allow an instruction for professional wet cleaning. That
will not insulate cleaners against liability. It's also true
that  the  rule does not require the  dry  cleaner to do
what's on the label. He is not breaking the  law if he
chooses to do something else. So, the rule is  not going
to solve all problems that might be encountered with
professionally wet cleaning.

  Let me go over what we would need to include pro-
fessional wet cleaning in the  rule. We would need the
same elements that I just went through  for dry clean-
ing. We would need a standardized definition of pro-
fessional wet cleaning, similar to what we have for dry
cleaning, so that  warnings could be given  if certain
parts of the wet cleaning process would damage the
garment. And we  would also need a way of  determin-
ing whether a manufacturer had a reasonable basis for
placing a claim on the care label that the garment, could
be professionally wet cleaned. That's where the impor-
tance of the development of the  test method  comes in.
Tests are not the only way of having a reasonable basis,
but for a very new technique like this,  they certainly
would be more important than they are for more estab-
lished techniques that have been around for  decades.

  The third important element  is  that wet cleaning
would  have to  be available  to  most consumers. We
need information  about how available it is  before we
can allow garments to be labeled simply  professionally
wet. clean. If there's no professional wet cleaner in an
entire state, it's not really fair to  the consumers in that
state to put garments on the  market labeled  "only for
professional wet  cleaning."  However,  I gather  wet
cleaning is growing very quickly Someone said yester-
day that there are at least 80 in the North  American
Continent,  but I hope there are  more. Someone from
Indiana  said she  thought  there were 100 in Indiana
alone. So hopefully, it's growing by leaps and bounds
and  the availability problem will be solved. But we
need information  on all those points; a standardized
definition, what would be a reasonable basis  for such a
care label claim, and the availability of the service.

  Let me tell you what's being done  currently and
what we've already done to start revising the  rule, with
respect  Lo professional wet cleaning  and also wilh
respect to home laundering. In June of 1994, we issued
a Federal Register (FR) notice asking for comment on a
variety of subjects about  the rule. The comments we
got generally expressed satisfaction with the  rule. It's
one of our  most popular rules, so we're definitely
going to keep) it. We also noted that garments that are
labeled  "dry clean" may also be washable,  but. con-
sumers and  cleaners have no way of determining that
from the label. We asked for comment on whether a
garment  that could be either washed or dry cleaned
should be labeled for both washing and dry cleaning.
We asked about, the costs and benefits, including envi-
ronmental benefits, of such an amendment.  Now, in
analyzing those  comments, the  Commission actually
announced in a  second FR notice in December 1995,
that amendment of the rule might be necessary, and it
issued what's called an advance notice  of proposed
rule making, asking for comment on more specific pro-
  Based on the comments we got to the 1994 FR notice,
the Commission indicated it was not proposing dual
disclosure; that is, that both washing and dry cleaning
appear on the label of a  garment which can be both
washed and  dry cleaned. Several commentors  had
noted that dual disclosure would require a dry clean-
ing label on all washable garments such as tee shirts,
which  generally are not dry cleaned. According to
these commentors, this would require manufacturers
who do not currently test for dry cleaning because they
don't, make anything that they label for dry cleaning, to
begin testing  for dry cleaning. That would be counter
productive  as it would  increase the use of perc. Other
comments indicated that consumers would not want to
spend money to dry clean garments that are washable.
So for those reasons, the Commission indicated in the
1995 FR notice, that it was not proposing dual disclo-
sure but, rather, proposing that for a garment that can
be home laundered, it be so  labeled. Dry  cleaning
instructions could also  be added, if the manufacturer
wanted to have both, but that would not be required.
That's  the  current proposal that the  Commission
requested comment on in 1995.

  In the 1995 FR notice, we also specifically sought.
comment on professional wet cleaning. We asked for a
very specific  description of the process. We got good
comments  providing that description, but  I gather
that's all still  in a state  of flux and we'll probably get
more specific  comments on our next round.

  We also  asked how  many businesses provide  this
service. We're going to be asking that again on our next
round, because  this is a very important element  that
will go into whether we can change the rule  to either

                                      FTC Care Labeling Revisions
require or allow for profession wet cleaning instruc-

  We also asked whether fiber identification should be
on a permanent, label.  Some of the wet cleaning com-
panies commented that they needed fiber identifica-
tion and that it's not always available because it can be
listed only on a label that can be cut off'. We're  explor-
ing whether we should require that to be on a  perma-
nent label. Industry people have told me that most
people in this country, at least, already put it on a per-
manent label. We are also proceeding on another front
to allow all this information to be conveyed in symbols.
Jo Ann Pullen will tell  you  what's available on  that.

  The next step in our rulemaking will be the publica-
tion of a more specific proposal and notice of proposed
rulemaking for comment. Then we will analyze those
comments and determine whether we need to have
hearings to complete the rulemaking  process.  That
depends on how controversial all these things are and
whether people want hearings. The 1983 amendments
were quite controversial  and hearings were held at
several  different cities  around  the country and  the
process  took quite a long time. The rulemaking process
can take a long time or it can be done quickly, depend-
ing on how controversial it is.

  I want to finish by asking all of you to please com-
ment when we do issue our  next FR notice. Somebody
yesterday said that most  of the answers to all these
problems are  in  the heads of the people here in this
room. I certainly  hope you'll comment, and give us the
benefit of that information.

             Apparel Care and the Environment
                16 CFR 42
 a process by which soil may be removed
 from products or specimens In a machine
 which uses any common organic solvent
 (for example, petroleum, perchlorethytone,
 f I uorocarbon) located in any commercial
 establishment. The process may include
 moisture addition to solvent up to 75%
 relative humidity, hot tumble drying up to
 160°F(71°C) and restoration by steam
 press or steam-air finishing.

Professionally dryclean:
 use the drycleanlng process but modified
 to ensure optimum results either by a
 drycleanlng attendant or through the use
 of a drycleaning machine which permits
 such modifications or both.  Such modifi-
 cations or special warnings must be
 included  In the care instruction.

                FTC Care Labeling Revisions
      ASTM D54B9 symi
 drvcleaninq per FTC Ti
   Rule 16 CFR 421

- "If a drydeanlng Instruction Is Included on the
  label, it must also state at least one type of
  solvent that may be used."

- "If all commercially available types of solvent
  can be used, the label need not mention any
  types of solvent."

- "If there Is any part of the drycleanlng proce-
  dure which consumers or drycteaners can rea-
  sonably be expected to use that would harm
  the product or others being cleaned with It,
  the label must contain a warning to this effect.
  The warning must use the words "Do not/
  'No,' 'Only,1 or some other clear wording.9
- ''If a product can be drycleaned In all solvents
  but steam should not be used, its label should
  state 'Professionally drvclean. No steam.'"

Running Header from Title

Status  Report From ASTM's

Care  Labeling  Committee

Jo Ann PuIIen
American Society for Testing and Materials
Ms. PuIIen  is the K-12 Health Coordinator, Department Head, and Teacher of
Family, Consumer, and Health Sciences at Pioneer Valley Regional School in
Northfield, Massachusetts. She has been an active consumer member of the
American Society for Testing and Materials Committee D13 on Textiles for 19
years. Ms. PuIIen is a doctoral student in Occupational Education at the
University of Massachusetts, holds an M.S. in Textiles and Clothing from Cornell
University, and earned a B.S. in Family and Consumer Sciences Education from
Pennsylvania  State University,
     First,  I'm going to give you a little background
     about the American  Society for Testing and
     Materials (ASTM). ASTM's Committee D13 on
textiles is  82 years old, and I'm the first woman chair-
man of the Subcommittee of Care Labeling. We also
have committees for writing various  standards. The
D13 committees include producers, users, government,
academia, and consumers. We write consensus stan-
dards, which  are approved  by ballot. If the draft of a
standard receives a negative vote, it has to be in writ-
ing, it has to be technical or editorial, and we have to
resolve that negative in writing before we can proceed
with revisions. We have  been through many ballots.
Committee D13 has over  325 standards in their hand-
book. We work together with the American Association
of Textile  Chemists and  Colorists, which also writes
standards, so that we're harmonized in that sense. Our
standards are backed by  research, member expertise,
and confirmation testing,  if it is something that needs a
round robin trial to prove that it works.

  Our goals are to promote knowledge of textiles and
develop consensus standards for textiles and  related
material. We have four standards. We have one that is
the care symbols. We have another that is evaluating
care information, which is simply a guide that tells the
manufacturer to set some  criteria and then to test it and
write their report. We also have a standard definition of
terms for apparel, and we  have  one for  pile floor

  The care symbols system is based on a simple pat-
tern: three dots is hot or high, two dots is  warm or
medium, and one dot is cool or cold, or low setting. So
in the washing, there's high, medium, and low for tem-
peratures. If it is the washing machine, the  tumble
dryer, or the iron, three dots is always hot or high, two
dots is warm or medium, and one dot is cool or cold.

  On the cycles for the appliances, a plain symbol is
the normal cycle, one underline or minus sign is per-
manent press (meaning reduce the action), and two
minus signs mean delicate or gentle. We  also have a
symbol for hand wash. In the United States we specify
temperature. In Canada, I think their standard is 30°C,
and in Europe it's 40"C, so that is one point for harmo-
nization. In  addition, there is a symbol for machine
wash warm, or the permanent press cycle.

  Regarding bleaching, ASTM  was working with the
Federal Trade Commission rule. We took the glossary
of terms and decided to work on a symbol for each
term, to make us harmonize the best we can. We took
all the International Organization for Standards (ISO)
comments on that draft and standards that weren't met
in the ISO standard, then we invited Canada and sev-
eral other countries	Japan, Australia, and Mexico	to
work with us. We had 15 countries in ASTM's D13
committee at. the time  we developed this. We have a
symbol for  only non-chlorine  bleach  (which is very
commonly used in the United States), any "bleach,"
and "do not bleach." The reason for the solid "do not
bleach" symbol is that the regular triangle with an "X"
in it means  "do not chlorine bleach." In the United
States, you need to have an instruction, not a warning
for bleach; you say "only non chlorine bleach"  when

  The drying symbols are the same as Canada's and
Mexico's. The European or ISO system has no natural
drying symbols, and they do not have a non-chlorine
bleach symbol, so the European or ISO system partial-
ly meets U.S. needs. The ASTM system has symbols for

                                    Apparel Care and the Environment
tumble dry,  normal, permanent press, delicate, three
temperatures, no heat, and do not tumble dry. For iron
ing, we have high, medium, low setting and an addi-
tional symbol to warn "no steam."

  Now  we  get  into what  you're interested in:  dry
cleaning. Currently, AS'l'M adopts the ISO terminology
for solvents.  For example, there is a symbol that stands
for  any  solvent (which is  used  mainly for  per-
chloroethylene [perc]). The beauty of the ASTM system
is that as we are reaching out more and as  people are
becoming more interested, it. simply takes a draft we all
agree on, and then we revise the standard.  We do not
have to wait 5 years. If technology changes and a new,
more environmentally friendly dry cleaning solvent is
found, the entire industry and government agree on a
symbol through ASTM, we ballot it, and it's added to
the standard.

  The reason that the  single underline  (used in
Europe, meaning short cycle and/or reduce moisture,
and/or low heat, and/or no steam finishing) was sep-
arated is because ASTM  is not allowed to put out  one
symbol that  means four things. In that situation, the
person who is reading the symbol has to make the deci-
sion  which of those four things it means.  At ASTM,
we're proud of the fact that, our standards  are techni-
cally  clear. One  underline that means  four different
instructions  is  not  technically clear, so it goes against
the way ASTM is allowed to do business. In the stan-
dard, you may use a symbol and then spell out. what.
that  means.  If you want to say low heat, or reduced
moisture, you don't have to use that symbol. You may
use symbols and words together. So it will work for a
Canadian system where they have the dry clean circle
and they use words. The  difficulty in North America is
you need words in three  languages.
  In speaking with Helmut Kruessrnan who is chair-
man of the GINETEX Technical  Committee, he says
that P is commonly used to indicate "professional dry
cleaning." I have also learned that GINETEX proposed
a W for wet clean and Japan proposed a W for "white
spirit" if F was not acceptable as a clear instruction. So
you see we're ready to discuss this and figure out. what
works and revise the standard if we  need to for dry
cleaning. But we  need some symbols to identify the
solvent, perc and/or petroleums or  petroleum only,
and as wet  cleaning becomes more  common, we'll
need a symbol for that as well. We had originally
begun with a symbol with WC in it  for professional
wet. cleaning to  alert people that this  is a  different.
process than dry cleaning. Now Europe is considering
redefining the circle as professional cleaning. Then we
could use the WC or W, but come to an  agreement on
what the letters would be for wet clean, petroleum, and

  The good news is we're all here together working on
this, and the better news is  that when  we  decide it,
we'll all do it. together. It takes about  3 months to get.
through the balloting process. I am so glad that, we're
internationally discussing  these  situations  and  will
come to agreement. As you can see, in  two days my
overheads are out of date, because I've talked to more
people and it looks good.

  When I go to a classroom, I use a chart that has a lot
of lines on it and a chart with no lines breaking things
up, and have children decode four symbols. Then I ask
them to do some mcta-cognition, thinking about the
thinking. Which  chart  were  you most comfortable
with? The random thinker, or the creative thinker, likes
the chart, with no constrictions. The organized, sequen-
tial thinker likes the chart with the lines. So I thought
I'd  educate you about that, that when it  comes to con-
sumer education,  you've got two different frames out

       Status Report from ASTM's Care Labeling Committee
   Committee D-13 on
 •  Promotes knowledge of textiles
 •  Develops consensus standards for
   textiles and related materials
Yarns and Cords
Fabrics and Fabric Systems
Physical Testing
Home Decorating Products
Apparel Products
Care Labeling
Inflatable Restraints
                                   Copyright ASTM.
                                   Reprinted with permission.

        Apparel Care and the Environment
   Committee D-13
      on Textiles
Working together
       General Interests
Writing consensus standards
                      Copyright ASTM.
                      Reprinted with permission.

   Status Report from ASTM's Care Labeling Committee
  Over 325 Standards
Standards development
      backed by
  member expertise.
 confirmation testing.
                    Copyright ASTM.
                    Reprinted with permission.

                    Apparel Care and the Environment
                    •ami  pmmt Orient*'
                    uc TOC
                    ••• •••
                    ••• *r
         A      A
                                                    do Ml mil
                                                    flQ HlfllMOn
            eve tea
nOBT BBfttlllP
                           100 C
              110 C
                                                     do not

                    •tot  HIM   taf  noffctfn
1«7Jbmi«] Bocks* MTU Btwiidi                   ini«iwwiMw wntc«iikoiw*.,H 11
ma It*FltaillM«aia»«»-*<* urtItehu»a«*nmaitnoaihahinnfan*. ^g-lr*M>.itaUtrtnnJBttuJnaHaMMaaaf.

                  PH. 1  ComiMifeMlMdHDMiLMMidflrlnaandDTyctocnln^ViinMi*
                                                Copyright ASTM.
                                                Reprinted with permission.

            Status Report from ASTM's Care Labeling Committee
\I/ ^

nncrant wuhj
permanent pmt
do not
hand wash hond wavh
40C(106F) 30C(6&^5F)
                                             Copyright ASTM.
                                             Reprinted with permission.

                   Apparel Care and the Environment
                    A      A
                 any btoadi   only noftcMorirro
                when needed  bleach when netdtd
                                           do not bleach
                 BnichyS    efc*4y    cfcyltat   bitfwihade
                 hang to dry
                                               Copyright ASTM.
                                               Reprinted with permission.

             Status Report from ASTM's Care Labeling Committee
    Tumble Dry
        =  SYMBOL
                                  no heat
                                             da no* tumbte dry
                                                Copyright ASTM.
                                                Reprinted with permission.

                     Apparel Care and the Environment
    [dry or •team)
  high     medium     low
HJOC(3SOF)  150C(300F)  11DC(Z30F]
                          medium iron
                                                    Copyright ASTM.
                                                    Reprinted with permission.

               Status Report from ASTM's Care Labeling Committee
 normal,    normal, any Ml-    nwmil,
•rynbent   vwrtexcspt    petntaum
         trtcWoroethytene   lohrantonly
                                                         do not
                         o    o    o    o
no steam
                                                       Copyright ASTM.
                                                       Reprinted with permission.

Running Header from Title

Kay M. Villa
American Textile Manufacturers Institute
Ms. Villa is the Assistant Director of the American Textile Manufacturers
Institute's (ATMI's) Product Services Division and serves as the staff secre-
tary to the Consumer Affairs and Upholstery Fabrics Committees. She is
responsible for coordinating ATMI's strategic standardization initiative
under the Board of Director's Task Force on Global Competitiveness.
Ms. Villa holds an M.S. in Textile Engineering and Science from North
Carolina State University and degrees in Textiles and Interior Design from
the University of Wisconsin,
   I'm going to talk today about care labeling and how
   the textile industry interfaces with that. I'm going to
   reserve most of my comments to talk about the new
care symbol systems. I  want to  talk about how the
industry interfaces in terms of wet cleaning. I also want
to thank the  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(FPA), Dr. Went.7, and  Ohad Jehassi  for inviting the
American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI) to be
a co-sponsor for this program. We were first aware that
EPA was looking at alternative dry cleaning techniques
about \ years ago. At that time, and since then, we have
been  contacted twice by EPA to  find out what  our
industry's position is on this. Basically, however, we
have not been involved in this process. We have a great
deal at stake and in order for you to be successful, you
must engage our industry in this process.

  First of all, I want to talk about what ATMI is and
what we represent. I also want to  describe to you the
fiber, textile, apparel, retail  pipeline. It is a commerce
stream, and it starts at one end with raw fibers—both
natural fibers such as cottons and wools, and synthetic
products such as nylons and polyesters.  We convert
them into fabrics which are handed over to an apparel
manufacturer who cuts and sews  the fabric into gar-
ments. The garment is then transferred downstream to
the retailer who provides that product to the end con-
sumer. ATMI  represents  one segment within this
pipeline. We are involved in the actual manufacturing
of textile products. This includes yarns, threads, fab-
rics, and in some cases, end products. We use tech-
niques such as weaving, knitting, non-woven paper-
type production,  printing, dyeing, finishing, and tuft-
ing of these fibers into textiles or fabrics. We also have
members that produce products such as bandages, car-
pets, comforters, sheets, linens, and literally thousands
of different end products. But as an association, we do
not represent apparel interests.
  There's one other issue  I'd like  to  address  here,
which is some of the terminology that has been floating
around. I've often heard the discussion of garment care
as being fabric care and textile care. From an industry
perspective, we would prefer to use the terminology
"garment and apparel care," because that's really what
we're talking about. We're talking about a specific end
product and addressing its cleaning techniques.

  ATMI's member companies, consume approximate-
ly 80 percent of all fibers utilized in U.S. textile opera-
tions. The gross domestic product (GDP) of this fiber,
textile,  and apparel pipeline is $60  billion. It is  the sec-
ond largest industry in the United States, following the
auto industry at about $67-69 billion. The fiber indus-
try  is about $8 billion,  textiles are $25 billion, and
apparel is $28 billion. Textile sales in 1995 alone were
$69 billion.  The GDP is an integration which takes out
the value added in all of those steps. Over the  past 10
years, our industry has been spending approximately
$2 billion annually to modernize our facilities. We're
doing this for several reasons: to increase our produc-
tivity, increase our efficiency, and improve the  quality
of the products we're providing. We're also moderniz-
ing for a  lot of environmental reasons: to reduce ener
gy consumption,  reduce water consumption,  and to
produce a more environmentally friendly product.

  When  we talk about consumer labeling, I want to
make you aware of the fact that the industry actually
complies with four different labeling regulations.  At
this point, we've only discussed one, which is Trade
Regulation  Rules on Care Labeling of Textile Products
for  General  Wearing Apparel  and  Certain  Piece
Goods—I will just call it the Care Labeling Act. The
other two regulations that are enforced by the  Federal
Trade Commission include  the Textile Fiber Products
Identification Act  (TFPIA)  and  the Wool Products
Labeling Act. The Wool Products Labeling Act goes all

                                    Apparel Care and the Environment
the way  back Lo the 1930's arid is essentially a con-
sumer protection regulation. So when you go out and
buy your cashmere sweater,  you in fact, are getting
cashmere, not mohair.  The other regulation that the
industry  deals with is one on a state level. It's called
The Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation, and
it basically deals with the physical dimensions or char-
acteristics of products. So when you go to the grocery
store and you buy a can of tomato paste, and it says
that, it's 8 oz. or 12 oz., that in fact is  a requirement.
under this rule. The enforcement under that rule occurs
at the state level, so state metrology or state weights
and measures offices are responsible for it. Our  seg
merit of the industry, in terms of producing carpets and
home furnishings products, must include dimensions
to describe to the consumer what they're buying.

   The Care Labeling Act requires a number of different
things. In fact, it requires different things of the textile
industry  than it does  of the apparel  industry. It  is
mandatory for apparel, but it is not required for home
furnishings products. Our industry, since the promul-
gation of the rule in 1971, has provided care instruc-
tions to the  consumer on a voluntary basis. The rule
does not  address industrial products. What happens  in
this pipeline stream is that we do not provide a perma-
nent care label to each bolt of fabric that we sell to our
customers. We typically provide Lhal information on
the invoice as the product is transferred downline.

   TFPIA  is  really  a very important  regulation. It's
applicable to apparel and home furnishings. There are
mandatory requirements. Country of origin and man-
ufacture  identification is required to be permanently
attached  to the product at the point of sale. Fiber type,
however, is  provisional. Most industry people in the
United States automatically provide this on a perma-
nent care label, but it is a voluntary option. It  is an
important piece of information, however,  because
when the consumer goes Lo purchase an  article  of
clothing,  their decision is made based on previous
experience with the  product. So when I pick out a suit
in a store and it says wool, I'm going to know based on
the fiber type, what I can do with  this product and
whaL the expected life of H will be. Again, as we trans-
fer the fabrics downstream to our customers, this infor-
mation is generally provided on an invoice.

   Now, I want, to talk a little bit about. ATMI in terms
of how we relate to the environment. In 1992, we start-
ed a new program called Encouraging Environmental
Excellence (E3). At this point in lime, more than 50 pier-
cent of our members are  involved in  this program.
What  the program  does is ask our members to go
above and beyond local, EPA, and state  environmental
requirements. In our F,3  1994  annual  report, it.  talks
about our 10 point program representing the minimum
criteria companies must meet in order to participate in
the program.

  I think the real selling point of the program is  the
fact that if a member goes through this process, they've
essentially qualified for International Organization for
Standards (ISO)  14001, the new  environmental man-
agement system standard that will come out next year.
I think it's a real feather in our cap that our members
have done this. The only thing that would be required
for our companies to meet. ISO 14001 is for an outside
third-party certifier to come in and audit the books.
The E3 logo is essentially a marketing program for our
members to show that they in fact, are a company that
is committed to environmental initiatives. Some of you
may have seen this logo in the  L.L. Bean catalog.

  Now let's talk about ATMFs position on the Care
Labeling Rule, with regards to the new wet and "eco-
cleaning" techniques. ATMI does  support the proposal
to  change the rulemaking to allow the optional use of
symbols to provide consumers with care instructions.
Additionally,  we support the dual  labeling require-
ment  to provide dry cleaning and  eco options  (I'm
going to use eco not just wet),  meaning alternative
technologies,  to describe to the  consumers that they
have these options. Our support of that is based on the
provision that the requirement would only be applica-
ble to items that normally would be dry cleaned. If it
were applicable to products that would normally only
be laundered it would lead to increased testing for us,
increase labeling costs,  and could increase the con-
sumption of perc and other solvents.

  I think our E3 program demonstrates that AFMI
does support eco initiatives.  We do have some con-
cerns about the potential of moving forward with these
new technologies because these technologies have not
been used with the pipeline of products  that are out
there. If the consumer has the idea that they can just
take any of their clothing out of their closet and take it
to  a  local Greener Cleaner, we would expect to  see
more damage claims. We would expect to see problems
including  shrinkage,  color loss, dye  transfer, color
bleeding, felting of wools, stiffness in some fabrics, and
water stains and water marks. 1 was very interested in
the comments that were  provided yesterday, both on
the Greener  Cleaner project  in Chicago  and in
Germany, and I'm very pleased to hear that there are
now up to 31,000 garments that have been tested with
this new technology. We need more testing. The 31,000
samples that have been tested are  minuscule compared
to  the 12 billion garments thai are sold in the United
States annually.

  Yesterday,  Dr. Josef Kurz  told us about  research
being carried out in Germany. He indicated  that
approximately 200 million garments are cleaned annu-

                                  Care Labeling and the Textile Industry
ally. Please note that these 200 million garments only
represent slightly over one and a half percent of the
U.S. annual market. The German experience is a very
good example, but it does not automatically correlate
to the size and scope of the U.S. marketplace.

  The industry will not be able to automatically modi-
fy our product, or reformulate to meet the rigors of
these new  cleaning technologies.That would  include
our spinning operations, how we lake fiber and spin it
to make it into yarn, how we take those yarns and then
convert them into woven goods or knit goods. It would
include how we scour, that is,  how we clean the fabric
before we prepare it. for adding dyes and finishes. The
technology that exists in the textile industry today is
based on 300 years of product development. A lot of
that product development, has come over the last. 50
years with  the advent of a number of synthetic prod-
ucts and synthetic fibers. That, doesn't, mean that we
won't, change, but I'm not going to stand up here and
say that our industry is automatically going to accept
all of this and reformulate our products.

  I also want to emphasize that, as we discussed yes-
terday, just because a product  can be eco cleaned does
not. necessarily  guarantee that  the manufacturing
processes that went into the development of that end
product were done  in an  environmentally friendly
manner. So we have to be able to weigh these options.
If it's more important on  one end, what, does it. mean
we give up on the other end?

  I also want to stress the kind of time line that we're
talking of in terms of taking fibers from one end of the
pipeline and getting it. down  to the end  consumer.
Normally, most, textile operations can take anywhere
from 6 to 18 months to transfer the raw fiber to the end
product that goes to the consumer. It will require a very
large amount of time for the industry to make modifi-
cations. In some cases, it might be an easy fix; it might
be something the company can do within a 2-month
period of time to reformulate to develop a better prod-
uct. But in some cases, we may never be able to find a
solution that, will take every single fiber, every single
product, and guarantee that it. can be cleaned with  these
new technologies.

  The other major factor that will really drive whether
or not we are all successful is whether the consumer
will  accept  the end  product  that  comes out of the
pipeline stream.

              Apparel Care and the Environment

September 9-10, 1996
This is ATMI
  End Products

            Care Labeling and the Textile Industry
This is ATMI
  Membership represents 80% of fiber consumption
  GDP > $60 B
  Modernization - $2 B
Consumer Labeling Rules

and Regulations
     and            To Meet Four
• Care Labeling Act
• Textile Fiber Products Identification Act (TFPIA)
• Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation
• Wool Products Labeling Act

               Apparel Care and the Environment
Care Labeling Act
Promulgated in 1971
• Labeling Requirements for Product Disclosure to the
     "       —Mandatory
     "                —Voluntary
     "         —Mo
     »         Manufacturers Supply
        Care Instructions Via Invoice
• Products
• Product Information
     • Fifer Type, Country of Origin,    Manufacturer's
• Manufacturer's Supply Information Via Invoice

            Care Labeling and the Textile Industry
ATMI and the


        Environmental Excellence
Promulgated in 15§2
• > 50% of ATMI        Enrolled
• Company Programs Exceed EPA, State, and Local
ATMI and the


• Environmental
  10 Point Program
• E3 Members    ISO 14001

              Apparel Care and the Environment
  ATMI and Care Labeling

  • Support Current FTC Rulemaking To Change Care
   Labeling Act
  ATMI and Care Labeling

  • Support Dual Labeling of Dryclean   Eco-Clean
      "      ^Ppfy Only to Products Normally

            Care Labeling and the Textile Industry
 Implementation of Eco

 Cleaning Systems

 • ATMI Supports Eco-Initiatives
 • More         if Customers Perceive
   Methods Work for All Products
 Implementation of Eco

 Cleaning Systems

 • Industry cannot Automatically "Turn Over" or
   Modify Products
     • Mew               New

             Apparel Care and the Environment
  Implementation of Eco

  Cleaning Systems
  • Fiber, Textile,    Apparel    Pipelines
     • 6 to 18 Months
  • Phase-In Time Required by Industry
     »       of Several

American Apparel Manufacturers Association
Mr. Priestland is chief economist for the American Apparel Manufacturers
Association (AAMA). For over 2 decades, Mr. Priestland has represented AAMA
and its members at international  negotiations on bilateral and multilateral trade
agreements. He is also active in the International Apparel Federation, for which
he developed the current structure for reporting world-wide apparel production
and trade. Mr. Priestland holds an M.A. in Economics from American University
and a B.A, from Western Michigan University.
   It's a pleasure for rrie to be here today. American
   Apparel Manufacturers Association (AAMA) mem-
   bers make about 70 percent of all the apparel pro-
duced in the United States, and they have plants in
almost every state. So we contribute a great deal to the
economic well-being of the United States.

  Half of all the garments purchased in  the  United
States are made here. The apparel industry has sales of
$50 billion, provides 860,000 jobs, and makes 6.5 billion
garments  that require care  instructions.  As  you've
already heard, the  United  Slates is about to adopt a
care symbol system that will provide an alternative to
written care instructions.  To  be  acceptable  to  the
Federal Trade Commission, this system must relay the
same  information to the consumer  that, is now given
via written instructions. We've been working on this
for some 4 years now; it isn't something new that has
just come up in the last 6 months or so.

  When we started, the change was brought about  by
the needs  to  harmonize the  labeling  requirements
within the North American Free Trade Act. (NAFTA).
In the NAFTA text  itself, it says that the members are
committed to harmonizing the required labeling rules
of the three countries, that's why we're here. Since the
United States was the only country that did not have a
care symbol system, it was up) to us to change. In the
case of Canada, it's  voluntary, but in the  case  of
Mexico, it is required if you don't use written care

  The proposed care label system in NAFTA is also an
American  Society for Testing and  Materials  system,
and it. is  fairly compatible with  the  International
Organization for Standards (ISO) system. There are a
number of points I think we should make here when
we talk about, this care symbol system and care label-
ing in general. U.S. industry has a vested interest in
providing consumers with the information they need
to maintain garments. There is a desire to have this care
symbol system, and it is something that we all feel is
very important.

  When  consumers look at. garments, they  look  at.
labels for two things:  fiber content, and care  instruc-
tions. Whether or not they buy that garment depends
on what they find. If the care instructions are too com-
plicated, they may not buy it. If the fiber content, is not
right, even if there are good care instructions, they may
not buy it. So, it's very important that we have a sys-
tem  that will provide the consumer with what they
need and also have consumer satisfaction.

  While the apparel industry has the primary respon-
sibility for care labeling (because we put the labels on
the garment during assembly) retailers at the other
end—and the yarn  and fabric producers—also have a
vested interest in ensuring that the consumer receives
proper care instructions. The use of incorrect  care
instructions for the materials used  in the garment can
cause damage, and damaged  garments  cause con-
sumer dissatisfaction.  That's the one thing we don't
want. We want to make sure when we put something
out to the consumer, it has the instructions necessary to
maintain that, garment properly for its useful  life. All
the materials in it have to be tested. We have to know
what those materials will do as we go along, as the gar-
ment is being used  and cared for.

  Care labeling is  not new; we've had a  mandatory
care labeling requirement for 25 years. The important
thing here is that the United States is one  of the very
few countries that  requires this. Most countries of the
world that accept a care symbol system or written care
instructions do not  require it to be put on the garment
permanently. There are very few countries that require
it. So we're very concerned that we have the time frame

                                    Apparel Care and the Environment
necessary to do what we decide to do. We believe that
it's extremely important that any modification of care
labeling rules be done with great care and with suffi-
cient lead time to adjust to the changes. We've talked
about this in the last 2 days in terms of wet processing
and  dry cleaning in general, which, as everybody
pointed out. yesterday, is  only 10 percent, of the total
amount of  garments being  cared  for. It  is  important
that we put out care instructions that say the kinds of
things we need the  consumer to know. We  need to
know what's going  to happen when the  consumer
throws a garment in the  laundry or the professional
cleaner takes it and puts  it in their system, whatever
that system is.

  It's important also that we have a system that is use-
ful not only in NAFTA, but also worldwide. Almost
$100 billion in garments are sold worldwide just to the
developed  countries; the European Community and
the United  States each import about. $38 billion worth
of apparel  a year, Japan imports another $16 billion,
and $8 billion is imported by the rest of the developed
countries. Ninety  percent of these imports come from
the emerging countries  of the world. We have a huge
amount of  international trade. One of the things that
we were cognizant of  and wanted to make sure of
when we develop the system is that this system be
compatible  with the ISO system to the extent possible.
We want to have a single worldwide care label symbol
system that will provide  icons for consumers world-
wide to understand how to care for their garments.

  The only major  concern  we  have  between the
NAFTA rules and the ISO is that we believe that any
system developed worldwide should not be encum-
bered by any type of proprietary trademarks. We will
work with the ISO system and try to arrive at some-
thing because we believe sincerely that one worldwide
system is important. I think we're going to be able to
do that. It will take a little time, but I think it's possible.

  In conclusion, the apparel industry is committed to
working with its suppliers to make sure the materials
we use in garments are compatible, and that, how the
consumers take care of those garments will  provide
them with a long useful life. The worst thing we can do
is to  make a garment that shrinks, or the colors run, or
print falls, or whatever. The retailers are the first line to
get  hit with  this problem, but we also run into it
because we have  the primary responsibility for what.
we use in garments.

  We need time to adjust. We cannot, adjust, in a few
weeks or a few months. It takes 6 to 9 months just to get.
new  woven labels to put on garments and to utilize the
inventory of current labeling. It is not an easy task. And
that's just one area; we're talking about changing the
way  garments are dry cleaned and the way in which
consumers perceive proper cleaning for their major
garments. The worst, thing I think we could have is to
have an expensive wool suit, coat, or  jacket,  shrink.
Consumers would be  up in arms immediately if that.
happened. Besides, we not only have to worry about
shrinkage of the shell fabric, but there are  five or six
different fibers and fabrics in most tailored clothing,
and that's the area where most of the dry cleaning and
refurbishing  on  a  professional  basis takes place.
Anything that we do to utilize wet cleaning in this
whole process needs to be clone very carefully, but it.
needs to be clone and that's why we're here today.

Gap, Inc.
Ms. Holderness is Manager of Product Standards and Environmental Assessment
for Gap, Inc. She is responsible for developing product standards, including the
environmental evaluation of products, as well as for assessing the environmental
performance of the company's current and potential suppliers, Ms, Holderness
holds an M.S. in Natural Resources Policy and Management from the University of
Washington and a B.S. in Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia.
I   want to thank you all on behalf of the Gap for invit
   ing us to participate today.  This is a very exciting
   initiative. When I came to the Gap two and a half
years ago, we sat down and started prioritizing our
environmental impacts and some of the initiatives we
wanted to tackle. We looked at these issues, not only in
relation  to manufacturing and our suppliers, but also
our products. It was clear that one important issue was
the care of the garment, based on the  chemicals that
were used. Based on all the work that's been done over
the last few years, my comments are probably a sum-
mary of what's already been stated. Also, while I don't
really have any legal obligation to provide you with a
disclaimer, I  do want to say that my  comments are
reflective of what we  believe at the Gap, and they're
not necessarily representative of our industry.

  I want to give you a little  bit of background on the
Gap, especially for our European visitors who may not
see the Gap in every mall, yet. We are a specialty retail-
er providing casual clothing for men, women, and chil-
dren under five brand names,  the Gap, CapKids,
babyGap,  the Banana Republic,  and the Old Navy
Clothing Company. We operate  approximately 1,800
stores, and this  number goes up almost  daily, in the
United States, Canada,  United Kingdom,  Germany,
France, and Japan.  Currently, we also  employ some-
where in the neighborhood of 66,000 employees world
wide. It's a pretty extensive  organization and because
of this, the impact we have on the environment is not
insignificant.  It is obviously not something we can
ignore. When I came to  the Gap, we began looking at
ways to influence not only the manufacturing of our
products, but also other  areas. We looked at construc-
tion, looked at our internal practices, and looked at any
areas where we could have an impact. I think that any-
one in the company would agree that profitability and
responsibility are not exclusive and in fact someone
argued that these circles should overlap.  I just wanted
to make it clear that we do believe that these two will
work in sync and are looking for ways to support this.
Initiatives such as this conference really get to the heart
of this issue. Not only are we talking about enhancing
customer satisfaction but we're also talking about
improving environmental performance on a very large

  In terms  of customer satisfaction, we have found,
through numerous focus  groups both  here  and in
Europe, that the care of the garment is something that's
important to customers.  It's something that  they do
look at, particularly  for the shoppers of  Banana
Republic, which features  higher end, more  tailored
clothing. As Jo Patton mentioned, I am serving on the
University of California, Los Angeles Advisory Board
on their wet cleaning demonstration project, to support
their research. The retailer really is on the front line of
garment care issues. It's our label, and it's our reputa-
tion that's at stake here.  We need  to make sure that
these initiatives are going to work. Inclusive in that is
looking at whether this process  is  going to perform
well on all  fabrics.  We also want to make sure that
when we go ahead with something like this  that  the
environmental reductions are measurable. We're look-
ing closely  at the tradeoffs involved in  wet cleaning
and in the life-cycle of a garment from textile manufac-
ture through to disposal.  Also, we can't forget  the
financial impact both on the manufacturer and the cus-
tomer.  Obviously, we're going to need to put a lot of
testing  into this to make sure it's going to work.   On
the issue of care labeling,  we want to make sure  the

                                    Apparel Care and the Environment
customer is not going Lo be confused. We find that we    There are things the retailer can do, but other forms of
really only have about 10 seconds with the customer    education such as advertising may be needed.  The
during their decision-making time, and we want to    success of this initiative really will be determined in
make sure that,  in that time, we're giving them the    the market place, and I think that we really have to
information that they need in the way they can easily    make sure that the marketplace is ready when we have
understand. That brings me to the next point, educat-    it together.
ing the customer and how we are going to do  that.

One Retailer's Perspective on Care Labeling, Consumers, and the Environment
      A Retailers Perspective on
         Apparel Care and the
  Gap, Inc.
  * Specialty retailer - casual clothing
  • Five brand names - Gap, GapKids,
                    Banana Republic &
                    Old Navy Clothing Co.
  • 1756 stores  - U.S., Canada, U.K.,
                Germany, France, Japan

            Apparel Care and the Environment
   Profitability    Responsibility
* sourcing&
* construction
* internal
Apparel Care
  Support initiatives to: enhance customer
  satisfaction and improve environmental
   • does process perform well on all fabrications?
   • are the environmental reductions measurable?
   • what is the financial impact on both the
    manufacturer and the customer?
   • will the customer be confused by a new label?
   • how can we best educate the customer?

Mary Scalco
International Fabricare Institute
Ms. Scalco is Director of Government Relations at the International
Fabricare Institute (IFI), the association of professional drycleaners and
launderers. Ms. Scalco, formerly Supervisor of Textile Testing at IFI, monitors
and responds to state and federal legislative issues and oversees IFI's
care labeling program. Ms. Scalco previously worked in quality control for
a drapery manufacturer and worked in research and development for a
prominent carpet manufacturer.
     The International Fabricare Institute (IFI) is a trade
     association  for professional  dry cleaners and
     launderers.  IFI's membership is primarily corn-
prised  of dry cleaners—approximately 6,000—but we
also have members from Better Business Bureaus, retail-
ers, educators, allied trades, and apparel  and textile
manufacturers. IFI is affiliated, or works closely with
local and state drycleaning associations as  well as the
Neighborhood   Cleaners  Association-International
(NCA-I).  NCA-I has approximately 4,000 dry cleaning
members. IL is estimated  thai there  are between 30-
35,000  dry cleaning  plants in the United States.  Since
many of the members we represent have more than one
operating plant, I arn confident in saying that we repre-
sent the interests  of the dry cleaning industry.
  Professional cleaners depend on care labels.  Their
ability  to provide to consumers a quality,  serviceable
garment depends on the care label providing  accurate,
and complete information. Cleaners are professionals.
They have a working knowledge of fabrics. There's no
way, however, that they can  test each and  every com-
ponent which goes into manufacturing a garment  to see
how it will respond to cleaning. The dyes, fabric finish-
es, trims, interfacings, interlinings, and linings are often
not visually  or readily indentifible as  presenting  prob-
lems during cleaning. As Carl Priestland indicated, in
most tailored garments, there are five to six fibers and
fabrics  that go into  the inner workings of a garment.
Think of your local  dry cleaner, of who that  business
person is. He's usually not a textile  graduate. About
one third of our industry is now Korean owners. They
have an additional barrier with the language problem.
So, yes, dry cleaners are professionals. No, dry cleaners
cannot be expected to figure out how  every single gar-
ment can be processed. That is why the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) requires the garment manufacturer
to determine the appropriate method of care. The man-
ufacturer has the  resources available to evaluate each
and every component that goes into the make-up of a
garment. This is especially true as new processes  are
being looked  at and developed for the  cleaning of tex-

  Unfortunately, what the fabricare industry experi-
ences is that the method of care specified is not always
appropriate for the garment. All too often the following
scenario occurs:

    A customer's garment is damaged in cleaning even
    though the dry  cleaner followed the care instruc-
    tions. Because the care instructions were followed
    the cleaner informs the customer that  they should
    return the garment to the retailer because the man-
    ufacturer  did. not provide adequate or proper
    instructions. The retailer tells the customer, "If the
    dry cleaner were  a professional and handled  the
    garment properly it would not have  been  dam-
    aged." The customer then returns to the dry clean
    er unsatisfied and, to say the least, unhappy. The
    dry cleaner pays the customer,  not because he  felt
    he was responsible, but to retain the business. Still,
    the customer often loses faith in the dry cleaner's
    ability to do a good job.

  The average dry cleaner has an average yearly rev-
enue of $200,000 with a profit margin of 2-3 percent.
The above referenced scenario cannot happen too many
times before that profit is seriously depleted.

                                     Apparel Care and the Environment
  As I stated, the fabricarc industry does find that gar-
ments are damaged all too often even when the care
instructions are  followed. Both IFI and NCA-I each
house an analysis laboratory which attempts to ascer-
tain  how damage to a garment occurred and if that
damage could have been prevented. Consistently, over
the years, the highest percentage of garments received
in IFFs laboratory have been damaged as the result of
inaccurate or incomplete  care labeling. Statistics from
NCA-I's analysis laboratory support IFFs experience.

  IFI developed a database which is regularly shared
with the FTC. The database contains garment manu-
facturer name, RN Number, fiber content, country of
origin, garment description, and  damage type. In the
past  IFI has shared information in the  database  not
only with the FTC but with apparel and  textile manu-
facturers. NCA-I has made available to the FTC photos
of damaged garments and corresponding care labels as
well  as the  analysis laboratory report.

  As an educational tool for the dry cleaner to use with
consumers, IFI and NCA I  produce bulletins which
give  details on garments which have been damaged
during cleaning. These are garments which the labora-
tory  has received a number of times. IFI's bulletin "Not
In Vogue" provides photos as well  as a description of
the garment. In addition it gives the results of IFI's con-
tact with the manufacturer. In most cases IFI has found
that  the manufacturer  is more than willing to  work
with the consumer either in the  form of a  refund or

  Because the fabricare industry is so dependent on
care labels providing  accurate information,  IFI has
made sure that it has played a role in the development
of the FTC's Care Labeling Rule. Industry members
have provided not. only written comments but oral tes-
timony, both prior to the adoption of the Care Labeling
Rule in 1972 and  in the years leading up to the FTC's
revision in 1984. Members of the fabricare industry are
active members of the textile organizations influencing
care labeling both  in  the  United States  (American
Association  for Textile  Chemists and  Colorists and
American Society for Testing and Materials) and inter
nationally (International Organization for Standards).

  The  fabricare industry has long held the position
that alternative labeling should be required. That the
care label should provide all appropriate methods, not
just one which may not even be the best care method
for  the garment. Providing all methods of care gives
not only the  consumer, but the professional cleaner the
option of choosing how that garment, should be han-
dled. The availability and breadth of options becomes
especially important when discussing alternatives to
dry cleaning, specifically wet cleaning. Unless an alter-
native  is  a  100  percent replacement, the  fabricare
industry  would have trouble. It  couldn't financially
accept  the liability of cleaning a  garment unless the
procedure is recommended on the care label.

  Another position  the fabricare industry strongly
believes in and continually works for is that the reliable
evidence requirements of the Care Labeling Rule be
strengthened. Currently the Rule states that "the man-
ufacturer must establish a reasonable basis for the care
information." "Reasonable  basis"  includes: tests, cur-
rent technical literature, past experience, and industry
experience. The information can be subjective as well
as objective; testing is not required. That results in a
number of garments being damaged after  cleaning.
This is a  disservice not only to consumers, but  also to
the fabricare industry. Professional cleaners are experi
encing financial losses, not only because of reimburse-
ment, to the customer for a garment, but also more seri-
ously because of the loss of consumers' trust and future

  Manufacturers  need  to  be  held  accountable and
responsible for the care information they provide. The
FTC needs to do a better job of enforcing the require-
ments of the Care Labeling Rule.  Since it's inception,
the FTC has only prosecuted a handful of companies
for  violation of the Care Labeling Rule while thou
sands of consumers have had the unfortunate experi-
ence of having a garment damaged after cleaning.

          Care Labeling and the Fabric Care industry
Care Labeling and the
Fabric Care Industry
Mary Scalco
International Fabricare Institute
Industry's Position on

Care Labeling
• Support Alternative Labeling
• Strengthen "Reasonable Basis" Requirements

               Apparel Care and the Environment
Fabric  Care Industry's
• Oral Testimony
• Written Testimony
• FTC Access to
« Active Member of AATCC, ASTM, and ISO
• Participate in DfE Program
 Year  Total Garments  Approx. % of      Attributed
        Received      to Inaccurate Care Labeling
 1988                        45%
 1989                        41%
 1990                        38%
 1991     46,760               41%
 1992     44,080               41%
1993     36,294              33
 1994                        35%
 1995     25,160               41%


Nancy L. Cassill
University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Dr. Cassill is Associate Professor of Textile Products Marketing in the Department of
Clothing and Textiles at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro (UNCG),
At UNCG, Dr. Cassill teaches courses in merchandising, retailing, textile products
marketing, textile products consumer behavior, and international sourcing. She
serves as President-elect for the International Textile and Apparel Association
and is a member of the International Fabricare Institute Technical Advisory
Board. Dr. Cassill holds degrees from Purdue University, Indiana University, and the
University of Tennessee-Knoxville.
     Today's consumer wants apparel that is easy to
     care for, comfortable, and priced affordably to fit
     their budget arid lifestyle. These apparel prefer-
ences have challenges for fiber producers, fabric mills,
apparel manufacturers,  retailers,  and  fabric care
  Today's consumer is educated and demanding.  The
consumer has two thoughts:  "save me energy"  and
"save me stress."  Save me energy translates into the
following apparel preferences:

« Make it simple to buy apparel

« Make it simple to care for apparel

» Make it simple to understand and to wear apparel

  Save me stress means:

« Reduce problems

« Guarantee fair prices

» Offer a simple return policy

  Today's consumer also  has attitudes about "casual
workplace apparel" and new apparel products.  The
casual workplace (also known as dressing down) has
been in the U.S. corporate environment since 1979. In
the past 3 years, there has  been an increase in wearing
casual wear to work.  This increase has been evident
by: the growing number of companies that have insti
tuted casual day, and the increased number of casual
days for companies.

  In 1996, casual apparel for the workplace translates
as "casual and comfortable" apparel.  Recent research
examining the casual workplace with  U.S. Fortune 500
companies has found that the casual workplace has not-
peaked. There has been a rapid acceleration of Fortune
500 companies adopting  this practice  within the last 2
years (1994-96) and the number of companies institut-
ing the casual workplace  continues to  increase. Casual
apparel has become part  of  the corporate culture.
Research has found that casual apparel  improves
workplace morale and is a no cost benefit to compa-
nies. No wonder over two-thirds of all U.S. companies
have established some form of casual dress  for the

  New apparel products are the life of the textile and
apparel industry.  Today's  consumer is searching for
new,   exciting   and  different  apparel products.
However, one remembers the distressing apparel retail
environment in 1995 and  1996, when consumers opted
to purchase hard goods, such as computers, instead of
soft goods, such as apparel products.  Lack of product
innovation, purchasing computers instead of apparel,
and consumers viewing apparel product sameness, has
caused consumers to push the limits on life expectancy
of apparel (a real challenge  for fabric care specialists).

  Consumer attitudes about shopping are interesting.
In 1996, traditional shopping is less leisure driven and
more of a chore.  The retail marketplace presents pric-
ing games. Time and energy constraints, lack of con-
venience (consumer may be less brand and less store
loyal),  and less interest in shopping are three reasons
why some consumers are shopping less than 1 hour a

                                    Apparel Care and the Environment
  Many educated consumers are label conscious.  For
these consumers, care is an important criterion. Care
labels become increasing important with the in-store
wrinkle resistant merchandising that emerged in  the
early 1990's. In addition, consumers silll look at brand
labels, fiber content, and now closely examine country
of origin labels since child labor issues have come to

  However, consumers are not educated about the  dif-
ference between dry cleaning  and laundry services.
Specifically, consumers are not educated about the  dif-
ference  between  wet cleaning and home laundry.
Consumers distrust, low labeling;  "Dry Clean Only"
may mean other  (successful) methods.  Many con-
sumers do not. read care labels while others do not take
care labels seriously. Manufacturers and retailers are
making guarantees about the finished apparel product
and consumers  have  guarantee  expectations  (not
always  consistent, with  manufacturer and retailer

  Distrust with labeling is but one part of a larger
issue	honesty with all packaging is an issue. In addi-
tion to distrust (with care requirements, country of ori
gin, and  fiber content), some labeling  information is
not understood by the consumer. For example, the U.S.
consumer still does not. understand "microfiber" and
"denier," even though these products have been in the
U.S. marketplace for several years.
  If the consumer interpretation of "Apparel that, is
easy to care for, comfortable, priced affordably to fit
budget and lifestyle" is not enough of a challenge, the
fabric care industry has wet cleaning and dry cleaning

  Research  conducted at. the University of North
Carolina  at. Greensboro has found interesting results
related to wet cleaning perspectives.  Consumers do
not differentiate products that should be wet cleaned
versus home laundered. In addition, the consumer has
not. been educated that the fabric care specialist wet.
cleans.  Opportunities exist, for consumers to utilize
wet cleaning services since many consumers: (1) want
professional appearance (including casual wear appar
el), (2) are concerned with the environment (but may
not practice environmental actions), and (3) realize the
cost (in time and appearance) of home laundry.  For
fabric care specialists, wet cleaning services may be tar-
geted to consumers by exploiting these opportunities.

  It is important to know that consumers can use (but
are not using) high temperatures  in home laundering
of many apparel products. Results of using lower tern
peratures  (such  as soil  retention, unsuccessful stain
removal, and product appearance in jeopardy) result in
dissatisfaction with the apparel product.

  Research results also indicated that, most consumers
think  all products are  dry cleaned by the fabric care
specialist.   In addition, consumers question environ-
mental issues, view the dry cleaning process as costly,
attempt to launder "Dry Clean Only"  items, and  use
the dry cleaner to correct, stain and appearance prob-

Get/Remain             in the
          ted                  Correct

  This conference  is a proactive step in addressing
consumer challenges—and  identifying opportunities
for  the fiber, textile, apparel, retail, and fabric care
industries.  The entire product chain (which includes
the  fabric care industry) is concerned with consumer
apparel  product satisfaction.  Continual  information
exchange, and problem solving should occur with the
following groups:

« Fabric care specialists

« Fiber producers

• Chemists and colorists

• Testing - Standards

» Textile mills

» Manufacturers (apparel, home furnishings)

• Converters

« Retailers

« Importers/Exporters

                                     Care Labeling and Consumers
« Government

  Topics of primary importance should include:

» Care labeling.

« Product/service trends.

» Fabric care industry's expertise and service at the
  product development stage.

  This conference should be a starting point for future
industry-wide task force(s) with quality assurance per-
sonnel.  Panels and/or seminars at industry-wide con-
ferences in addition to committees (such as American
Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists commit-
tees) are excellent, problem identification and problem
solving forums.  Product/service planning and pur-
chases directly impact everyone's bottom line.

Talk To  Your
  Communicating  with  consumers is imperative in
today's competitive environment.  Fabric care special-
ists must get consumers to plants for wet cleaning and
dry  cleaning.   Verbal and  written  communication
should include the following 4 C's:

» Communicate why wet cleaning is better for casual
  apparel  than home laundry

• Clarify at home laundry v. wet cleaning

» Control: Quality assurance of appearance

» Convenience
  Consumers are aggressive  and demanding  when
dissatisfied.  I ,isten to consumers—they will appreciate
your listening. Consumers offer good ideas and solu-
tions, especially  in test  marketing new ideas.   This
communication will  help reaffirm  your marketing
strategies.  Benefits can include: store,  brand, fiber,
country loyalty, and a cost effective strategy to  main-
tain your customer base.

                 Your Technology

  Technology is changing rapidly and it is imperative
to re-evaluate your technology approach. An updated
customer data base provides opportunities with prod-
uct and service sales history, consumer products pref-
erences, and data sharing with other product channel

  One final challenge: provide not simply knowledge,
but education. This will illustrate your understanding
of consumers' apparel needs and your interest, in keep-
ing the consumer satisfied with apparel products and

          Apparel Care and the Environment


Nancy L. Cassill
Department of Clothing and Textiles
University of North Carolina at Greensboro

"Apparel that is easy to care for,
comfortable, priced affordably
to fit budget and lifestyle"

                Care Labeling and Consumers


   A)  Who are today's consumers?
       1)   Consumers Have Two Thoughts:
           •      it       to buy
           •      it       to     for
           •      it       to

             Apparel Care and the Environment
       'Save Me Stress"
       I Offer a     return policy
 (Adapted from Yankelovich Partners)
Consumer Attitudes about
 CASUAL WEAR on       ... for now
 • Casual     at work
 •     "The                 to Me"
 (Yankelovich Monitor)

                 Care Labeling and Consumers
•         Cycle: Where is        workplace?
   • Casual workplace has not peaked
   • Rapid acceleration of U.S. Fortune 500 companies
     adopting within last two years (1994-96)
   • Has become part of "corporate culture"
   • Improves workplace morale
   • No cost benefit to companies
• 2/3 U.S. Companies

               is             for

            "limits" on life                of

                 Apparel Care and the Environment
                      is less
              of a
  • Pricing
  • Time/energy constraints (less time)
  • Convenience     (may be    loyalty)
  • Absence of fun/experience     interest)
  • Overall "pain" to consumer (shopping   than
   •                  who are "label conscious"
     • Care is important criterion
     • Care                with
       "wrinkle resistant"
     • Country of
     • Fiber

                 Care Labeling and Consumers


     •                 do not
     •            do not
     • "Dry      only"


             Apparel Care and the Environment
    •          all        is an
    •                    of

    •                   not
    "Apparel that is easy to care for,
    comfortable, priced affordably to
    fit budget and lifestyle"

                  Care Labeling and Consumers
  Wet Cleaning Perspectives
  • Can use (but not using) high temperatures,
    resulting in:
     • Soil retention
     • Unsuccessful     removal
     • Appearance in jeopardy
     • Dissatisfaction with product    service
  • Want professional appearance with "casual wear"
  • Concerned with environment (may not practice)
  • Has not been educated that fabric    specialist "wet
  • Does not differentiate products that should be wet
    cleaned vs. home laundry
  • Wet cleaning not at    of dry cleaning
      • At cost (time, appearance) of home laundry

                Apparel Care and the Environment
  •       all          are
  • Views        as
  •           to          "Dry      only"
  •                  to
                 in the

        • Fabric    specialists   • Converters
        • Fiber producers       • Retailers
        • Chemists and colorist   • Importers/Exporters
        • Testing - Standards     • Government
        • Manufacturers
         (apparel, home furnishings)

                    Care Labeling and Consumers



      • Task force (s) with Quality Assurance
      • Panels, seminars at conferences
      • Industry-wide conferences/committees

      m Their product/service planning
        purchases directly impact
        bottom line.

                    Apparel Care and the Environment
        get            to dry                for
  m               why wet cleaning is "better" for
     casual apparel
  •  Clarify "at home" laundry vs. wet cleaning
  •  Control: Quality assurance of appearance

  • They will appreciate your "listening"
  • Consumers offer good      and solutions
  • Test        new
  • Reaffirm your strategies
  • Benefit—store, brand, fiber, country loyalty
  • Benefit—cost effective strategy to maintain

            Care Labeling and Consumers
Re-Evaluate Your
"Technology" Approach
• Opportunities with product/service    history,
• Data "power" with retailers   manufacturers

Use Consumer and Product
Information Provided
• Provide not simply knowledge, but education

Running Header from Title

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                            Summary  of
Session  III
Jo Pattori of the Center for Neighborhood Technologies (CN'I) opened the
discussion by thanking the speakers. She said that the conference had been
informative and provided an opportunity to hear from apparel and textile
manufacturers, communicate new developments, and decide where to go
from here. She said the conference had made her optimistic about the future.
She then opened the floor to comments and questions about what the next
steps might be.

Bill Seitz of the Neighborhood Cleaners Association-International (NCAI)
stated he had waited 45 years for the kind of dialogue that took place at the
conference, and he couldn't be more pleased with the results.  He stated that,
in the final analysis, all the participants really serve the same master—the
consumer.  As a result, everything and anything that  gets done jointly will
benefit everybody.

Mr. Seitz stated that many people in the dry cleaning industry have looked
upon the industry as a kind of necessary evil, but it is an extremely impor-
tant part of the process. Talking about the textile industry in general  terms is
really a mistake, because the textile  industry, just like the dry cleaning indus-
try, has broad ranges of expertise and problems.

Mr. Seitz stated that NCAI's 1996 report on 1995 garment analysis (a  copy of
which is available) addresses these issues. It not only talks about the types
of problems but the types of companies who are creating the problems.
Sears, JC Penney, K Mart, and the Gap do not appear in the garment  analysis
reports, because they never have problems. Some of the companies in the
report, however, are among the "who's who" of fashion: Arm Klein,
Burberry, Calvin Klein, DKM, Ellen  Tracy, Gcorgio Armani, Jones New York,
Liz Claiborne, Nordica, Tommy Hilfiger,  and so forth. These companies use
labels that say "dry clean only."  The NCAI report makes the point that con-
sumers blame the manufacturer  or the retailer for damages, but only  after
they place blame on the dry cleaner. Dry cleaners end up paying for many
garments that they shouldn't because they want to keep the customers'
goodwill.  Mr. Seitz said that it's not just  a question of paying for the  gar-
ment. The lost customer in many cases is more expensive than the garment,
and that's a decision the dry cleaner makes that he would estimate is in the
area of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. I le said that dry cleaners
need a better  and closer working relationship with the textile industry.

Mr. Seitz expressed concern about remarks made about the Federal Trade
Commission's (FTC's) future responsibility. He stated that regulations don't
mean much unless there  is enforcement.  He reiterated that there have only
been six or seven cases brought against manufacturers in 25 odd years of
enforcement, yet thousands and thousands of garments fail every year. I le
said he would like to see the enforcement gap close up a little bit  so dry
cleaners are not faced with the responsibility for failed garments.  There are

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                            III (Continued)
many garments that are improperly labeled, many are not labeled at all, and
many are imported and have misleading labels. He stated that the notion
that dry cleaners encourage low labeling in order to get more business is not
true. Low labeling happens  because the manufacturer often perceives thai
the dry cleaner will clean the garment better than the consumer.  Given the
changing world for the textile industry, dry cleaners, and the consumer,
working together will be the solution to solving the problem.

Connie Vecellio of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stated that the FTC
does enforce the care labeling rule and estimated that in the last 4 years they
brought six cases.  Prior to that FTC only brought one case because FTC
spent quite a few years promulgating and amending the rule, a process that
was quite lengthy and took up a lot of resources. FTC is now committed to
enforcing the rule  and is doing so. Ms. Vecellio requested the information
referenced by Mr. Seitz.

Jack Weinberg of Greenpeace began his comments by thanking those respon
sible for making the meeting possible and expressing his belief that the meet-
ing had been very productive.  He explained that he had learned a lot about
the labeling issue and was pleased that many people were discussing envi-
ronmental concerns. He reminded people that as a representative of
Greenpeace, he was most concerned with the  environmental impact, but
respected other people's interests.

Mr. Weinberg referred to the discussions concerning consumer education and
suggested that  if people could identify areas where the various interests can
agree on consumer education, Greenpeace can be helpful in getting the mes-
sage out. He believes Greenpeace can be very helpful in consumer education
on the environmental issues  where environmentalists can in good conscious
have the same opinion.

Mr. Weinberg expressed some concern about care labeling.  He wants to
ensure that wet clean labeling actually achieves its intended objective. His
concern is whether a wet cleaning label will be part of a transformation of
moving more garments from dry cleaning to wet cleaning or whether a wet
cleaning label will become a  mechanism for fabricating a market and rein-
forcing that some garments need to be dry cleaned and some garments need
to be wet cleaned. Mr. Weinberg expressed his belief that some substantial
portion of clothing marked dry clean only can be very successfully wet

Mr. Weinberg said that waiting to put wet clean labels on clothing until
enough professional cleaners have the capability is a "chicken and the egg"
problem. Cleaners will not do it until manufacturers require it.  If only one
label is required and it is either a dry clean label or a wet clean label, this
will lead to additional problems while the professional garment care indus-
try works to improve their techniques. I le recommended a label that essen-
tially says "professionally clean this garment." He suggested that this will
allow wet cleaning technologies to be phased  in as they become available.

Ken Adamson from Langley Parisian Limited in Ontario, Canada, provided
some additional information on the Canadian wet cleaning project.  He

Apparel Care and
 the  Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                             III (Continued)
decided to use care labeling as a guide, but leave it to the operators to decide
which cleaning method to use.  I le believes that the worst thing we could do
is to end up) with a wet cleaning ghetto and a dry cleaning ghetto.  He thinks
that the fabric care specialist has to balance the two cleaning processes to
optimize their operation based on environmental concerns and the garments
that he or she is handling.

Jo Ann Pullen of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
expressed her pleasure with the openness of the meeting. She explained that
ASTM standard is a very easy standard to revise and improve, as long  as
technical information is available on which to  base the revisions. She
expressed some concern with Mr. Weinberg's proposal for a single  label,
unless that label has very specific information.

Ms. Pullen encouraged everyone to work with Europe and Europe to work
with the United States through the American Association of Textile Chemists
and Colorists (AATCC) to gather the information needed for specific condi-
tions.  Certain categories of textiles with trims  may need a specific  condition.
She explained that there are different detergents for different libers or varia-
tions in how to do things.  Ms. Pullen encouraged the group to develop a
label that has technical information that meets the needs of industry  and wet

Manfred Wcntz of FLARE/AATCC thanked Ms. Pullen and explained that,
as discussed the previous day, they have already established a close working
relationship) with the European developments  as well as a collaborate effort
to do international round robin testing to assess individual parameters neces
sary for identification. He mentioned that they have already received a pro-
posal from the European Standard  Organization on wet cleaning that will be
scrutinized  and adapted to the needs of the U.S. market.  He repeated from
the  previous day's discussion that Dr. Charles  Riggs already had one of his
students visiting Hohenstein to get familiar with European wet cleaning
testing protocol. The challenge, he suggested,  is getting the appropriate
information necessary to the apparel and textile industry so that they feel
comfortable in identifying the proper care methods.

Ms. Pullen mentioned that in the ASTM system you can put both dry clean
and wet clean on the label and report both processes.

Kay Villa of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATM!) asked Mr.
Weinberg to clarify Greenpeace's goals.

Mr. Weinberg explained that Greenpeace originally became involved in the
issue because they are involved in a worldwide campaign to faze out pro
duclion and use of certain substances, including perchloroethlyerie (perc).
That is the primary goal, although  Greenpeace has other goals. He stated
that one of the intermediate goals is promoting wet cleaning. Another
Greenpeace goal is to help cleaners make the transition to alternative meth-
ods. Greenpeace, according to Mr.  Weinberg, is working with the entire fab-
ric care industry, including manufacturers, to change care practices and
whatever else has to be changed to move to a time  when perchloroethlyerie

Apparel Care and
 the  Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                             111  (Continued)
and presumably many other organic solvents are no longer a part of clothes

Mr. Seitz explained that the Neighborhood Cleaners Association (NCA) is
involved in wet cleaning for a number of reasons, including environmental
reasons.  He explained that they are not convinced that perc is going to be
eliminated, but are working towards reduction, an important part of the
process.  He suggested that the feet perc consumption had decreased a third
over the last 10 years speaks well for the industry.

Mr. Seitz explained that the reason for the move toward wet cleaning is not
just environmental, but also to satisfy the customer.  I le repeated a dry clean-
ing slogan, "dressing casual doesn't mean you have to look like a casualty."
He reminded the audience that the dry cleaning industry has been wet clean-
ing for over 60 years. The big breakthrough is not equipment as much as it is
chemistry and technology. There are better detergents, better solvents, better
fabric softeners, better fabric finishers, and changing textiles (such as the
move towards polyester, which lends itself better to wet cleaning). He sug-
gested that it is up to the NCA to educate  their members who in turn will
educate the consumer. The NCA, according to Mr. Seitz, is not advocating
the use of perc, but at the moment there is nothing better to replace it with.
Unless and until that time comes,  cleaners will continue to use it with  all of
the environmental constraints, controls, and requirements.

Margit Machacek from JC Penny's quality assurance center near Dallas noted
that at JCPenney they check garments for quality, performance, and the accu-
racy  of the label.  The experience problems with low labeling.  She suggested
that suppliers be encouraged to provide accurate labels.  It is not sufficient to
educate the consumer without also educating the suppliers.  She asked Ms.
Vecellio what the current status of care symbols at FTC is. Many suppliers
have been saying they can use care symbols without accompanying words as
long as they attach information. Is this the case?
Ms. Vecellio replied that currently the FTC requires labels to have words.

Ms. Machacek asked for clarification and Ms. Vecellio explained that it is per-
missible to have symbols in addition to the words, but words are required.
That is the law. Ms. Vecellio explained that the FTC has indicated it will
eventually allow the use of symbols without words, which may be confusing
Ms. Machacek's suppliers. Ms. Vecellio expects a final FTC decision to be
published in the Federal  Register this year, but based on the public com-
ments, there probably will be some delay before garments can be sold in
stores with only symbols because time is needed for a public education cam-

Ms. Machacek asked if it was acceptable to the FTC  to have a label containing
symbols if it was accompanied by something explaining the  meaning of the

Ms. Vecellio replied that it was not acceptable at this time. The permanent
care label must have words, but FTC proposed that for some first period,
rnaybe the first year, rnaybe the first eighteen months that symbols are

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                             III  (Continued)
allowed without words, there should be some additional material like a
hang tag explaining these symbols.

Ms. Vecellio also elaborated on Ms. Machacek's earlier comments about low
labeling. Under the current law, a garment can be labeled either "dry clean
only" or indicate that it can be washed. She explained that a garment cannot
be labeled "dry clean only" if it can be washed because thai is an untrue
statement and is a violation of the rule. The FTC asked for information on
that type of labeling in a Federal Register (FR) notice and some people indi-
cated that the low labeling practice exists.  If so, according to Ms. Vecellio, it
is a violation of the rule.

Ms. Machacek asked about a scenario in which a label said line dry only.
Wouldn't that be a violation of the rule because it could also be machine

Ms. Vecellio replied no, if it. says line dry to avoid shrinkage because the gar-
ment might be damaged if it were tumble dried.

Jessica Goodheart  of the University of California  Los Angeles (UCLA) Wet
Cleaning Demonstration Project, expressed her agreement with earlier com-
ments that it is important to involve the garment and textile industry in the
discussion and is happy they participated.  She explained that is one reason
that they invited the Gap to serve on their advisory committee, along with
the President of the Fashion Industry Alliance in Los Angeles, the largest
apparel  manufacturing center in the country.  Ms. Goodheart invited every-
one to visit the Los Angeles wet cleaning demonstration site. They have
washed  more than 9,000 garments in a 100 percent wet clean shop) and will
be hosting tours through January 1997.

Ms. Goodheart asked if people from the textile and apparel industry feel
they understand what wet cleaning is because it is a new technology. There
is talk about multi-process wet cleaning, machine wet cleaning, and other
new equipment. She also asked if there was any information that, would
facilitate the industry's adoption of the items being discussed at the seminar.

Ms. Villa responded to Ms. Goodheart's inquiry by explaining that although
she has  a degree in textile engineering and has a strong understanding of
what wet cleaning is, she does not feel that information on wet cleaning has
been exchanged adequately between the industries.  She suggested that this
kind of seminar facilitates full communication and allows others to learn
about, the textile industry, the way it. is configured, the way  it works, and
how products are  transferred down the chain to the consumers.

Dr. Wentz reiterated Ms. Villa's comments about the need to foster commu-
nication. He suggested, however, that the dry cleaning industry, a $60 bil-
lion a year industry, is familiar with wet cleaning and understands the vari-
ables that affect textiles. He referenced a book that lists over 500 standards
that describe the property changes or potential changes of textiles under
variable conditions. Mr. Wentz explained that as a Design for the
Environment stakeholder committee member and having worked as a mem
her of the professional wet cleaning group that Mr. Weinberg alluded to, his

Apparel Care and
 the  Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                            111  (Continued)
objective is to educate all parties. Dr. Wentz also explained that there is a dif-
ference between hearing and acting upon information. His objective when
putting together the conference was to develop an objective basis for
exchanging information between affected industries.

Dr. Wentz also mentioned the activities of the AATCC Committee. At their
May 1996 meeting, they had over 30 people participating and he mentioned
that it was Ms. Villa who introduced a  motion that AATCC participate in the
European Wet Cleaning Committee Round Robin Trial and that they partici-
pate in the International Activities to the Evolution and the Assessment of
Wet Cleaning.

Dr. Charles Riggs of Texas Woman's University expressed his concern that a
standard definition for wet cleaning does not currently exist.  He suggested
that the AATCC and ASTM develop) a standardized definition of wet  clean-
ing.  Dr. Riggs warned that if people move ahead with new labels before
developing a standard definition, everyone will be going in different direc

Mr. Weinberg continued the discussion of a standard definition because he
believes that the point has been reached where it has to occur. He also sug-
gested that there is a lot of discussion about whether wet cleaning is a new or
old cleaning method.  While the technique may be old, there are new soaps,
new machines, new processes, and a new revitalization of something  that
certainly looks new. Mr. Weinberg suggested that it is something that is sig-
nificantly different from home laundering and that old wet cleaning methods
might not have been.  He stated his belief that what needs to occur is  a move
towards an operational definition of wet cleaning.
John Michener from Millikon pointed out that IFI often gets items into their
laboratory that are label "dry clean," but the lab analysis reveals that the gar-
ment should have been laundered, it wasn't dry cleanable.  All to often peo-
ple are misusing care labels. Mr. Michener stressed the importance of having
the apparel and the textile industries work with ASTM and AATCC as the
test procedures are developed so that we can label apparel properly. On mis-
labeling, Mr. Michener said he did some research for IFI to find out if fabrics
and garments originating in the United States had mislabcling problems or if
it was mainly an import problem. It turns out that while the United States is
about four times better than China in terms of proper labeling, there are
some countries that are four times better than the United States. Mr.
Michener didn't think the FTC was the place to go to for enforcement of
proper labeling. Consumer Reports, Greenpeace, and other organizations
probably get more media attention than the FTC. For Ms. Vecellio to do any-
thing, she has to go into court and that's  expensive for all concerned includ-
ing those who have to pay a higher price for clothing as a consequence of the
legal cost.   I le has seen what JC Penney  does in the way of testing and they
do a  pretty good job of enforcement of proper labeling for the products that
they  sell. They are doing an enforcement job and that's something everyone
should be doing. Information about companies that are mislabeling should
be publicized.

Apparel Care  and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                             111  (Continued)
On the subject of wet cleaning, Mr. Michener expressed his concern about
whether wet cleaning would get clothes as clean as dry cleaning.  In the
interest of the environment, we have eliminated phosphates, and that has
made it more difficult to make effective detergents. Also, we have been
dropping the temperature on our water heaters and that makes it more diffi
cult Lo get our clothes clean.  Mr. Michener said that for him, his environ-
ment starts with his underwear, and he wants his intimate environment to be
clean. The data presented has focused on shrinkage and dye loss and not so
much on cleanliness.

Doug Kelly of Boewe-Permac thanked the organizers, speakers, and modera-
tors. He offered Boewe Permac's assistance, and said he was sure many
other manufacturers would be happy to assist with the process of producing
proper care labels.

Jermi Cho from the Korean Youth and Community Center stressed the
importance of reaching out to the Korean American population because they
really are a significant part of the industry.  She pointed out that the UCLA
Wet Cleaning Demonstration Project is in partnership with Korean
Americans.  Ms. Cho said her organization is putting together Korean tours
and also working on tours in Spanish, as many dry cleaning pressers are of
Latino origin. They are trying to also establish a Korean demonstration site
in the Los Angeles area.   They are producing Korean brochures and flyers
and information and would ultimately like  to produce a bilingual video on
wet cleaning in Korean and English.  She noted that Los Angeles has the
biggest population of Korean Americans and demonstration sites in other
parts of the country might not have the same level of resources. She offered
to provide copies of information in Korean that participants could pass on to
train dry cleaners. She expressed interest in networking with other organiza
lions in order to reach out to Korean Americans.

Ms. Patton closed the discussion by commenting that they had heard a  lot of
offers for exchange of information and assistance and asking Jan Conncry to
begin the final session focusing on the next  steps to take.

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

Final  Summary  and


Development  of an

Action  Plan

Facilitator: Jan Connery,

Eastern Research Group


We are now at the final session of the roundtable where we are going to talk
about developing an action plan.  We have a tremendous opportunity with
such a broad spectrum of stakeholders together for the first time, so this final
session is a very important part of the roundtable. I'm going to start with a
summary of the previous sessions and then I'll set forth the framework for
the discussion.

During the first session, the theme was the activities that the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has initiated or catalyzed in this
area.  In particular, we heard about EPA's Design for the Environment. (DfE)
Program and their partnership for voluntary environmental improvement
for the dry cleaning industry.  That partnership was formed in 1992. They
have made a lot of progress since that time, particularly in exploring the via-
bility of wet cleaning and other alternative processes. Also, they've done
extensive outreach concerning wet cleaning and they are working to help
eliminate some of the barriers to moving these processes forward. We also
heard that the integrated Cleaner Technologies Substitutes Assessment, docu-
ment will be out sometime next year.

From Dr. Riggs and Dr. Grady we heard about an EPA-sponsored research
project, to evaluate current, technology and to identify and screen new tech-
nologies. Also, the project will seek to develop a universally accepted proce-
dures to evaluate wet. cleaning technologies and will provide input through
the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (AATCC) to
update care labels.

The subject of the second session was textile care technology developments.
We had number of very interesting presentations including some about, excit-
ing developments in Europe. Our first speaker was Josef Kurz. He talked
about the textile care research in Germany concerning use of water cleaning
and organic solvents in carbon dioxide. This research includes efforts to
reduce the impact of wet cleaning on textiles and to optimize soil removal.
Our next speaker was Manfred Wentz. He gave us a very comprehensive
overview of the textile care technology spectra and the care labeling issues.
He made three key points: the care labeling instruction should be based on
objective rather than subjective criteria; all members of the apparel chain

Apparel Care and
 the  Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                                          of  an
should be working together to optimize garment performance as new tech-
nologies emerge; and national and international organizations also need to
work together. All of these themes were echoed by other participants.

Kaspar Hasenclever talked about professional wet cleaning in Europe. They
have found that it provides better cleaning and smell, clearer colors, lower
cost, enhanced service capabilities, and full customer satisfaction. Mr.
Hasenclever also mentioned that a number of dry cleaners have had increases
in their business since adding wet cleaning services to their portfolio.
Another benefit of wet cleaning is that it might help) catalyze the shift of some
of the 90 percent of garments that are currently cleaned in a home to the dry
cleaning industry, at least in Europe.

Our next speaker, Wallher den Otter talked about the European Wet Cleaning
Committee that was established in 1995.  He spoke about their Round Robin
Trial of two wet cleaning processes and another round  robin that is planned
for later this year. He stressed that the committee wants to cooperate with the
North American institutions in getting an international test method and label-
ing system established as soon as possible.

Helmut Kruessrnann talked about the status of European care labeling.  A
number of issues have been resolved and a symbol for wet cleaning has been
developed. He stressed that more information is needed about what articles
can be damaged by the combination of water, detergent, and mechanical

Finally, yesterday we heard from Jo Pattori about a 1 year demonstration pro
ject sponsored by the Center for Neighborhood Technology.  It was a wet
cleaning-only operation.  One of the important results of that project was that
they found the use of wet cleaning does not mean that you are simply shifting
the air pollution concerns associated with dry cleaning to water pollution con-
cerns. There was pretty much a clean bill of health there. Jo Pattori also
pointed out that wet cleaning is complex and more information is needed
about what fibers and textiles work with wet cleaning.

The third session was about care labeling. We had a very interesting range of
perspectives on that, issue beginning with the origins of care labeling and
comments from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the American
Society for Testing and Materials, then working through the  textile industry,
the apparel industry, the retailers, fabric care specialists, and finally con-

Connie Vecellio from the FTC talked about the current  care labeling rule and
efforts to change that rule, particularly with regard to labeling for wet clean
ing.  A couple of Federal Register notices have already  come out asking for
comment and the FTC will publish a notice of proposed rule making soon.
Connie encouraged everyone to comment on the notice when it comes out.

Jo Ann Pullen from the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)
gave us a "tour" of the ASTM standard for care symbols. There is work to be

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                                          of an
done in harmonizing cleaning symbols with Europe and it sounds like there is
the will to make this happen.

Kay Villa from the American Textiles Manufacturing Institute (ATMI) talked
about her industry's perspectives on "eco cleaning" developments. We
learned that ATMI supports dual labeling of dry cleaning and "eco-cleariirig,"
if it applies only to items that are normally dry cleaned. She expressed con-
cern about the potential damage claims associated with the use of wet clean-
ing and stressed the need for more testing.  We have heard that theme a lot in
the past day and a half. She emphasized particularly that, for her industry,
new cleaning  methods require a new formulation and this will take time. She
also stressed that we need to make sure that we are not solving one environ
mental problem by creating other problems somewhere up or down the chain.

Carl Priestland talked about the apparel industry's perspective on changes in
care labeling.  He said the apparel industry has a vested interest in good care
labeling and he also stressed that any modification of the care labeling rule
requires great care and time for the industry to adjust. lie was one of the peo-
ple that stressed that the U.S. labeling system needs to harmonize with inter
national labeling — that we need one system worldwide.

Jennifer Holderness from the Gap gave us one retailer's perspective.  There
were a couple of concerns that she noted such as customer confusion regard-
ing care labels and how can we best educate customers.

Our next speaker was Mary Scalco from the International Fabricarc Institute.
She made a number of very important points. Dry cleaners are on the front
lines when there is damage and there is a need to educate dry cleaners about
care labeling.  She  thought the care  labeling rule needed to be better enforced
and she echoed Manfred WeriLz's statement that there needs to be a strength-
ening of the reasonable basis requirement.

Nancy Cassill gave us some very interesting facts about trends in consumer
attitudes and perception related to care labeling. One of the bottom lines was
we are going casual in the United States.  She encouraged an integrated part-
nership and particularly recommended that the stakeholders representation in
the future be expanded to include converters, importers, and exporters. She
noted opportunities in the consumer trends and "eco-cleaning" developments
for the fabric care industry. Dr. Cassill particularly recommended listening to
consumers and learning from them as a means of maintaining a growing cus-
tomer base. She also stressed the importance, as did others before her, of edu-
cating the consumers about the advantages of wet cleaning especially for
casual apparel.

That brings us to this final discussion.  First off all, it's striking to me that so
much of the important activity that has been mentioned taken place in the
past four years or less. It's all very  recent and this whole "eco-cleaning"
movement has acquired a very strong momentum in a short time. As Manfred
Wentz mentioned there has been a paradigm shift  and things are moving for-
ward. Another point is, from what I've heard, there appears to be a consen-
sus among the many stakeholders that these developments are good as long

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                                         of an
as the "eco-cleaning" processes are economically viable and acceptable to the
consumer. Fabric care is a business and it has to succeed as a business, but
as long as some of these environmentally friendly alternatives meet those
two criteria everyone agrees this is a good area to move forward on. Also, a
number of people have mentioned that it's a very good thing that broad  a
spectrum of stakeholders are together.  This is the first time that there has
been such a broad spectrum working together. As someone recently said
"working together will be the solution." We would like to capitalize on that
right now by using this final session to talk  about how we might move "eco-
cleaning" forward. We have called the session Development of an Action Plan.
I would like to focus most of the time on an action plan to move things for-
ward and reduce barriers to "eco-cleaning."

Ohad Jehassi commented that using the phrase "eco-cleaning" to stand for
environmentally friendly cleaning alternatives presents some difficulties
because "eco-cleaning" used to mean something else a few years ago and eco
clean is a registered trademark.

Jan Connery continued, by reiterating that in the final session most of the
time will be spent talking about action ideas and then time will be spent talk
ing about the mechanisms to move this forward. This forum has brought
stakeholders together and there will be other forums in the future. Perhaps
there are other ideas about how stakeholders can continue to work together.

There are a couple of things I would like to note about this session. I would
like you to think about this as a brainstorming session.  These  are prelimi-
nary ideas.  I hope people will feel free to put their ideas on the table and
focus. While we won't have a time to really fully explore every idea, the
point here is to get some ideas on the table so they can be taken forward in
other forums.  And I would also like everyone to understand that if the idea
is put forward that does not committee that person's organization to follow-
ing through on it.

We are particularly interested  in opportunities and ideas for stakeholders to
work together. And we want to be forward looking and action-oriented.
Every idea has potential merit and we want to take note of it.

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                           of an

                               Robert Loop from Paxar Corporation, suggested that, a newsletter be pub-
                               lished that would focus both on the testing as well as apparel manufacturers.

                               Ken Adamson of Langley Parisian Limited, mentioned that a number of pro-
                               jects already exist including the Professional Wet Cleaning Partnership
                               (PWCP) and the North Carolina State University (NCSU) and Texas Woman's
                               University (TWU) joint research project.

                               Dr. Manfred Wentz of R.R. Street & Co. commented on Jan Connery's use of
                               the abbreviation WC to stand for wet cleaning. He pointed out that in
                               Germany WC stands for water closet, or toilet, so that perhaps it would be
                               best to use a different abbreviation.

                               Mary Scalco with the International Fabricare Institute (IFI), extended IFI's
                               education services to the conference participants, in particular through the
                               PWCP, part of whose goal is education.

                               Jerry Tew of the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists
                               (AATCC), noted that AATCC publishes a newsletter and a monthly magazine
                               called Textile Chemist and Colorist (CH) that is goes all over the world.
                               AATCC recently initiated a monthly update on environmental issues that
                               will be included in CH. AATCC would be happy to include information
                               about wet cleaning in those updates.

                               Bill Seitz of the Neighborhood Cleaners Association International (NCA-1)
                               said that NCA-T has a monthly bulletin that is disseminated world-wide.  He
                               said he would be happy to add participants to that mailing list in order to
                               keep them up-to-date with what NCA-I publishes on wet cleaning and dry
                               cleaning. He added that NCA-I has a school, the New York School of Dry
                               Cleaning with a complete wet cleaning facility including the most modern
                               equipment. Mr. Seitz said he would be happy to give interested parties a tour
                               of this facility to give them a better understanding of what the wet cleaning
                               process is. NCA-T also offers wet cleaning courses to teach the dry cleaning

                               Jack Wcinbcrg proposed that an updated participants list with names and
                               phone numbers and addressees be mailed out to everybody. Mr. Weinberg
                               remarked that he would like the participants to find a way to continue work-
                               ing together based on specific goals that may take some  time to define.  There
                               are some very specific common goals that a large portion of all the stakehold-
                               ers can subscribe to and it may be possible to create the framework limited to
                               those goals for ongoing work. He noted that a version of "eco-cleaning"
                               may be such a common goal. Mr. Weinberg expressed his hope that U.S.
                               Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will  be  involved enough in the next
                               period to help facilitate exploration of specific goals and changes.

                               Jody Siegel said she receives Textile Chemist and Colorist and is always looking
                               for articles relevant to her work with the environment. She proposed that an

Apparel Care and
 the  Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                                          of  an
action item be to publish in Textile Chemist and Colorist and any other relevant
trade and technical publication. She also suggested that, there be an effort to
have speakers knowledgeable about, wet. cleaning and other alternatives
speak at forums such as the AATCC international conference and dry clean-
ing trade shows.

Paula Smith of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management pro-
posed that the first item on the action plan be to develop a definition of wet.
cleaning. She noted that many of the  states including Indiana, Ohio, and
Illinois have already developed their own definition of wet cleaning.

Ms. Smith also  proposed further educating consumers on wet cleaning. A lot
of dry cleaners don't want to advertise how much wet cleaning they do
because they are afraid people will stop bringing items to their shops.

Dr. Wcntz pointed out that the goal of the join research project, at NCSU and
TWU is to develop objective data based on the scientific method rather than
on the advocacy method.  Dr. Wentz responded to Ms. Seigal's proposal
about publications by noting that technical publications such as Textile
Chemist and Colon's/, are peer reviewed. This assessment is based on objective
evaluation rather than advocacy.  Having scientific and research papers peer
reviewed lends them credibility. The same review process is often involved
at professional meetings.

Mr. Adamson proposed that one action item be to assess the resources
already available such as ongoing committees to see if they adequately meet
the need for creating sustained dialogue. There has to be a careful assessment.
of the mechanisms that currently exists and how  they might be enhanced and
preserved to insure that this dialogue continues.

Me. Weinberg said that he doesn't feel there is a clear distinction between
objective science and advocacy. Many of the people on the research project's
advisory board have very clear economic interests in certain outcomes and
other outcomes  are less well represented. He suggested that review processes
be opened up to a larger number of stakeholders.

Jo Ann Pullen of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM),
pointed out that the United States is different from most other nations with
respect to voluntary standards. In other nations,  voluntary standards are
developed in the private sector. ASTM is made up of producers, users, gener-
al interests, and consumers and is a broad forum  for develop)ing the stan-
dards needed for communication and business. A standard definition for
professional wet cleaning that matches AATCC's  and is reviewed by ASTM
would be an appropriate part of ASTM's work. States are developing their
own definitions and should be participating in voluntary standards group to
develop a common definition.  Ms. Pullen proposed that an action plan goal
be that standards are in harmony in Europe, Japan, and North America, so
that we are one global voice. She said the way to achieve this is through vol-
untary standards.

Apparel Care  and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                                          of  an
Kay Villa of the American Textile Manufacturers Institute (A'i'MI) said that in
order for ATMI to move forward with a clear definition of wet cleaning, it
would help to have someone from the states coordinate a state position or at
least put together some background information on the definitions that exist.

John Michener of Millikon, commented that one way to get. information out.
quickly is by using the World Wide Web. He suggested setting up a web site
were a wet cleaning definition could be discussed by a number of partici-

Connie Vecellio of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), commented that
most dry cleaners have not only participate in IFI and NCA-I, but they also
have state trade associations with yearly conventions with speakers. She
suggested thai those conventions would be a great place Lo have speakers Lell
dry cleaners about professional wet cleaning.

Ms. Scalco responded that she thinks dry cleaners are well aware of what
wet cleaning is. What, is new to the dry cleaning industry is machine wet
cleaning. IFI, NCA-I, as well as the manufacturers of wet cleaning equipment
have been educating dry cleaners about how to use this equipment. What
hasn't occurred is that type of outreach and education directed  toward the
textile and the apparel manufacturers. Although, both AATCC  and ASTM
have formed wet  cleaning committees and are already working on that, par-
ticular issue.

Ms. Vecellio responded that she  had not meant to suggest that dry cleaners
don't know about wet cleaning.  Ms. Vecellio stressed that what the FTC
needs in order to  produce a new label for wet cleaning is a definition of what
professional wet cleaning is as opposed to washing—a definition for what a
professional cleaner can do that  someone can't do in their home.

Mr. Seitz commented  that almost all conferences held by cleaning industry
today have a significant amount of wet cleaning technology being presented
to the dry cleaning industry.

Ms. Villa requested that the Center for Neighborhood Technology (CNT) and
the University of  California-Los Angeles Program provide her with literature,
background studies, or information that she could disseminate  to ATMI's

Ohad Jchassi of EPA, noted that. EPA would be publishing and distributing
the proceeding of the Apparel Care and the Environment conference which
would include participants names and addresses. He also asked for com-
ments on the best way to follow up on the momentum of this conference.  He
also commented that EPA's role  next year is somewhat uncertain as to how
active they are going to remain with this project.

Ms. Vecellio commented that, for the purposes of the Care Labeling Rule,
FTC need to distinguish between things that can be home laundered and
things that could  be washed in water but by a professional. If a professional
has special knowledge, chemicals, or finishing equipment that a consumer

Apparel Care and
 the  Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling

                                                          of an
wouldn't have, that could be part of the description. It does not necessarily
have to include a machine.  The key is to make a distinction between home
laundering and laundering that, has to be done by a professional.

Dr. Wentz observed that a consensus process is used whenever a national or
international standard is developed. He indicated that AATCC would be inte
grating proposed definitions being developed in Europe as consensus is pur-
sued in the United States.

Mr. Wcinbcrg expressed concern that the definition might incorporate all
kinds of equipment, which would mean that less things are wet cleanable
than if a definition required a certain more sophisticated kind of equipment.
He observed that the definition of wet cleaning and how it interfaces with
equipment may impact what proportion of clothes will be able to get that

Mr. Wcinbcrg encouraged all the people involved  in the discussion to partici-
pate  in the consensus process. He also emphasized how important it is for
EPA  to continue its support of the wet cleaning project. I le observed the
meeting had initiated a new dialogue on the issues and rioted that there
appears Lo be agreement on the need for changes in clothing care practice dri-
ven by environmental and other concerns.

Ms. Seitz agreed with Mr. Wcinbcrg that it is important to continue the dia-
logue initiated at the meeting.  He suggested another roundtable with broad-
ened participation in early in 1997.

Ms. Pullen commented that it is good to consider the state definitions,  mod-
els for definitions in the FTC rule, and AATCC and ASTM's standard defini-
tions, all of which serve as good models. She indicated that AATCC and
ASTM have worked closely together on developing consensus definitions
and that will continue to do so with definitions for professional wet cleaning.

Patrick Couvcia of Navy Clothing And Textile Research, urged everyone to
contact their corporate leaders, Congressional representatives, and state gov-
ernment officials to provide EPA with the funding to continue the project. He
shared that the Navy  is involved in discussing a uniform testing project with
Dr. Riggs at T'WU, using the wet cleaning. Dry cleaning is a concern  to the
Navy, which is the biggest user of dry cleanable items in the Department of
Defense. He indicated that he has already petitioned the Secretary of the
Navy for funding to help) support the effort.

In her closing summary Jan Connery of Eastern Research Group, Inc.,
observed that there had been a number of very specific suggestions regarding
enhancing communication.  She noted a strong will expressed to proceed into
the future and to stay in touch and to find other venues to continue working
together.  She also remarked on suggestions about outreach to dry cleaners
and ideas around the  need to develop the standard definition for wet clean-
ing.  She thanked everyone for their participation, particularly the speakers.

Apparel Care and
 the Environment
 Alternative Technologies and Labeling
                                                     of an
Mr. Jehassi thanked the speakers for their excellent presentations and the
attendees for their thoughtful questions and comments. He said he appre-
ciated the feedback indicating that the forum had been a positive, open, and
honest dialogue. He stated that everyone has a role to play in preventing
pollution and expressed his hope that the dialogue that had been started
will help move toward the mutual goal of both improving the environment
and continuing to satisfy customers needs.