Many State legislatures are taking a look at potential pollution-related problems caused by a solvent solution used by many of the nation's dry cleaners. The reason for this is that the way dry cleaners clean, without using soap and water, is by using a chemical compound called perchloroetylene, or "perc" for short. Perc is now on a growing number of legislative Public Enemy Number 1 Lists.

Possibly, for good reason. Some scientists believe that there are several problems with perc. First, perc is alleged, by many experts, to be linked to cancer. This means that people who work around it might be at increased risk. Recently, some health officials even suggested that all dry cleaning goods be aired outdoors before being taken into the house and stored inside.

Another problem is that older dry-cleaning operations tend to lose some of their perc in the process. This, in turn, has historically caused air pollution and contamination to groundwater. Since many people use water drawn from underground streams as drinking water, this threat can pose a particularly serious health hazard. Depending of the severity of groundwater contamination, it can cost millions of dollars to remove this kind of substance from drinking water.

While the real risk associated with perc is unclear, even the industry recognizes that these problems warrant attention. And the really good news is that the industry, itself, has become a very important part of the solution.

Whenever one industry is under scrutiny, the industry can respond in one of two ways. It can deny everything and do nothing, or it can admit there is a problem and work to find a solution. The dry-cleaning industry was not about to wait and do nothing. Instead, starting in the mid-1990s the industry began to lobby state legislatures to create programs designed to cleanup soil and water contaminated by perc.

Florida's program started in 1994 with special taxes that have been imposed on dry-cleaning. Whenever Floridians pay for their dry-cleaning, they pay an additional 2 percent tax. In addition, there is also a five dollar per gallon tax on the purchase of perc. This tax has been imposed on the industry in order to fund some of the State's cleanup initiatives.

Florida has created a special fund which is available for cleaning perc-related contamination. The fund is intended to pay all cleanup related costs, less a deductible.

Oregon also enacted an industry subsidized environmental fund to address this problem. State law limits dry cleaner monetary exposure in the event of a perc release, and also outlaws installation of dry-cleaning equipment using perc after 1998.

Similar funds are now found in Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. New Jersey has done a lot of talking about creating a fund for several years, but thus far no fund has been created. Since 1993 California has required mandatory training for perc handlers and Kansas adopted the Kansas Dry Cleaner Environmental Response Act to address Perc release problems.

Technology is making the cleaning process more eco-friendly as well. New technologies for cleaning "delicate" clothing are emerging in response to all of the problems associated with perc. One that is already being used by some professional laundering businesses are "wet-based" systems. Similar to home washing machines, these competing systems rely on soap and water. Unlike home systems, professional systems contain computer chips which match agitation and soap concentration with the type of fabric being cleaned.

What is most impressive about these new laws and technological innovations is that they have been industry driven. The dry-cleaning industry understood that there was a problem and instead of ignoring or denying it, it sponsored initiatives on a national basis to address the problem. This kind of responsible industry response should be widely applauded.

The information provided in this column is written by Stuart Lieberman,a practicing environmental attorney, and is for general information purposes only. It is not legal advice and should not be used in place of legal advice.

Stuart Lieberman, Esq., and IRED.Com, Inc., will not accept any responsibilty for any reliance on the information in this column or any damages whatsoever resulting from reading this column.