CCPIA Articles - Certified Commercial Property Inspectors Association

Dry cleaners pose environmental and health risks that can persist long after operations end. Properties with a dry cleaning history often carry risks, from indoor vapor exposure to subsurface contamination requiring costly remediation. Whether current or former, full-building or partial use, inspectors can help flag potential issues by understanding these common risk factors.

Dry cleaner properties also present fire and life safety considerations. Refer to the article Inspecting Dry Cleaner Properties: Fire and Life Safety Risks for information about considerations for those hazards during an inspection, and to the Dry Cleaner Property Inspection Checklist for reference. The article also explains how dry cleaners are classified based on solvent use and flashpoint.

Chemical Exposure and Solvent Hazards

Chemical exposure, particularly from perchloroethylene (PERC), represents a major hazard in dry cleaning facilities. PERC rose to dominance in the 1960s, largely replacing more flammable petroleum-based solvents, such as Stoddard solvent, which had been widely used in earlier decades. Although effective for cleaning, these solvents introduced significant fire and environmental risks.

PERC is highly toxic. Exposure can lead to depression of the central nervous system, liver and kidney damage, memory impairment, confusion, dizziness, drowsiness, and irritation of the eyes, nose, and throat. The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies it as a probable human carcinogen. As of 2023, the use of PERC was banned in California. While still legal in many states, PERC is being phased out due to its health and environmental risks, and other jurisdictions are adopting similar restrictions.

Other solvents to be aware of in relation to dry cleaning operations include carbon tetrachloride (commonly known as carbon tet) and trichloroethylene (TCE). Carbon tet was used early in the industry as a substitute for Stoddard solvent but was phased out by the 1950s due to its high toxicity and effects on equipment. TCE was not typically used in dry cleaning machines but was widely found in spotting agents through the 2000s. While no longer common, TCE is still used in some pre-cleaning or spotting formulations.

Risk Considerations of Dry Cleaning Solvents

Airborne

PERC vapors can be released into the air, especially when freshly cleaned garments are removed from machines. These vapors may be inhaled or absorbed through the skin and eyes by workers and nearby occupants. Note that oftentimes contaminated vapors are odorless and colorless.

In some cases, PERC has been shown to migrate into neighboring businesses or residences through shared walls or ventilation systems. A 2010 study published by the National Library of Medicine found elevated levels of PERC in apartments located above dry cleaners. It was also found in outdoor air near or adjacent to dry cleaning facilities.

Groundwater and Other Contamination

PERC and other solvents are commonly stored in drums or tanks, where leaks, spills, or historic disposal practices can result in serious soil and groundwater contamination. These solvents are denser than water and can sink below the water table, where they may persist for decades. Even small or older releases can form toxic groundwater plumes or release vapors into buildings, including from outdated equipment or leaking containment systems.

Inspectors should also be aware that TCE is a degradation byproduct of PERC and is frequently detected during environmental investigations, even when it was not directly used on-site.

Phase 1 ESA Considerations

Due to these risks, commercial property inspectors may want to recommend to their clients to consider a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for any property associated with current, past, or nearby dry cleaning operations.

Many dry cleaners operating into the early 2000s are likely to have some level of environmental concern. It’s widely recognized by environmental professionals that a Phase I ESA at a dry cleaner site often leads to a Phase II because of their high probability of recognized environmental conditions (RECs).

If your client hasn’t already ordered a Phase I ESA, consider recommending it as part of their due diligence. If you work with a trusted environmental consultant, offer to make the contact. Keep in mind that even if the dry cleaning business was not in the immediate past, previous spills and leaks may still pose risks for the soil and groundwater. Refer to the article Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Overview for Inspectors to learn more about ESAs.

Outdoor and Ancillary Areas

While commercial property inspectors aren’t responsible for performing environmental assessments, it’s helpful to understand where contamination is often found at current or former dry cleaner sites.

Contaminated soil and surface staining are frequently linked to historic waste handling practices, particularly near dumpsters, boiler rooms, and rear exits. In the past, waste materials like separator water or still residues were sometimes dumped out the back door or disposed of improperly down the boiler’s floor drain. Separator water is wastewater from the cleaning process that may contain traces of solvents, while sill residues are the toxic sludge left behind in the machine’s distillation unit.

Even today, poor storage or disposal practices can result in localized contamination in these zones. During the inspection, note any exterior solvent storage, staining, or chemical odors. Look around loading areas and waste bins.

Lint traps are a secondary source, as they are a low point in the sewer line. They are intended to capture fibers before wastewater enters the municipal system, similar to grease traps in restaurants. Since chemicals like PERC are heavier than water, they tend to settle in low points like these traps, where they can remain for decades and slowly leach into the soil or groundwater if the system leaks.

While these observations alone don’t confirm contamination, they may help a client understand why a Phase I ESA might flag those areas for further review.

Alternative Solvents and Their Risks

Although some alternatives are considered less toxic than PERC, they can still be dangerous. These include petroleum-based hydrocarbon solvents like Exxon-Mobile’s DF-2000 and Chevron Phillips’ EcoSolv®, which both contribute to smog by emitting volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Both of these solvents require proper ventilation, containment, and fire protection in dry cleaners or stored areas.

As PERC has become more regulated and more awareness has grown around the risks associated with other petroleum-based solvents, many dry cleaners have transitioned to alternative solvents marketed as safer or “greener” options, such GreenEarth® and liquid CO₂. While generally less toxic and considered safer for the environment, the silicone-based solvent GreenEarth® has fewer known health hazards, but it is still combustible. GreenEarth® is classified as a Class IIIA Solvent with a flash point between 140° F (60° C) and 200° F (93° C). Liquid CO₂ is non-toxic and non-flammable. It leaves no chemical residue but it’s less commonly used due to the high cost of equipment, and it’s typically found in boutique or high-end operations.

Professional wet cleaning is another alternative that excludes solvents altogether. It uses water and biodegradable detergents in precision-controlled machines. It is considered the most environmentally responsible option and poses minimal chemical or fire risk, but it does require trained operators to avoid damaging sensitive fabrics.

Operational Safety

When inspecting an active dry cleaner, and if permitted to disclose the inspection, consider asking staff what solvent is currently used and whether there have been any strong chemical odors or reported health concerns. Vapor exposure most likely occurs during machine loading, unloading, and maintenance. You may also find the solvent labeled in a designated storage spot inside the facility.

If possible, inspectors should also note how solvents and waste byproducts (like still residues and separator water) are stored or disposed of. These are common sources of overlooked contamination. Solvents should be kept in sealed containers, and closed-tube systems (instead of manual pouring) are preferred to reduce handling and exposure.

Older machines required manual transfer between units, increasing the risk of spills and vapor release. These transfer machines were banned for PERC use after 2008. Newer machines (especially those introduced after the 1990s) typically include sealed systems, vapor recovery, and emission controls to help limit release into air, soil, and drains.

For these reasons, inspectors may also recommend the following tips to dry cleaning business owners/managers:

  • Keep machine doors closed whenever possible, and do not open them while they’re in operation.
  • Wait for machine and solvent temperatures to drop before performing maintenance.
  • Do not load dry cleaning machines beyond their capacity.
  • Immediately flush eyes with water if they come into contact with PERC or other solvents.
  • Use soap and water to wash skin that has come into contact with PERC or other solvents.
  • Keep the face turned away from the machine while handling solvent-laden clothing.
  • Store solvent in airtight containers.
  • Clean up solvent spills immediately.
  • Install a closed-tubing system so that employees are not required to manually transfer the solvent to dry cleaning machines.

Ventilation

Ventilation plays a key role in controlling airborne hazards. If no local or general ventilation is visible near the machines, or if fans or ductwork are damaged, disconnected, or exhaust to the interior, it may indicate poor vapor control and other ventilation-related issues. A lack of operable windows or fresh air exchange can worsen indoor air quality, especially in older buildings not originally designed for dry cleaning operations.

A case study from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) found that a dry cleaner operating in a repurposed gas station had poor ventilation and no operable windows. The facility used a transfer system with a washer and reclaimer vented to the outdoors, but fumes were pulled back into the building through nearby doorways. The case highlights how building layout and exhaust placement can undermine otherwise compliant equipment.

However, note that most mechanical and fire codes require mechanical ventilation in dry cleaning and drying rooms.

Understanding the Scope of the Inspection

Commercial property inspections performed in adherence to the ComSOP are visual-only. Inspectors document conditions at the time of inspection and are not expected to perform environmental assessments or testing services unless qualified to so. However, certain issues, such as past dry cleaning operations, may arise during the research phase and warrant further consideration.

Keep in mind:

  • You are not required to:
    • perform environmental testing or assessments;
    • determine the combustibility or flammability of materials in use or storage;
    • verify what type of solvent is currently or historically used at a dry cleaning facility; or
    • determine ventilation rates or the adequacy of any ventilation systems.
  • You may choose to:
    • Ask your client or building occupants (if permitted) about current or former dry cleaning operations.
    • Recommend further investigation, such as a Phase I ESA, if the property has a known or suspected history as a dry cleaning business.
    • Go beyond the ComSOP to explore additional concerns in order to better serve your client.

Note that some key considerations are already built in to the scope of the ComSOP, such as inspecting vents, flues, outdoor air intakes, and exhaust components, including termination points that could create a nuisance or hazard. It also includes checking for exhaust systems in occupied areas where excess heat, odors, fumes, spray, gas, or smoke may be present.

Conclusion

Understanding the risks associated with dry cleaning operations, both current and historical, can help inspectors protect their clients and building occupants. From vapor intrusion to contaminated groundwater, these sites carry long-term implications that may not be visible during a standard inspection. Staying alert to red flags, asking the right questions, and knowing when to recommend further evaluation can add significant value to your service. Also, while this article covers a lot of information about dry cleaning solvents, it serves as background and context and is not required knowledge for completing a visual inspection of a dry cleaning facility.

Authors: Lance Coffman, CCPIA® Director of Professional Development & Training
Contributors: Britt Baker, CMI® of LunsPro Inspections; Maggie Aey, CCPIA® Executive Director

 

Additional Resources for Commercial Property Inspectors: