Conference Call Minutes from June 6, 2000

State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Conference Call, June 6, 2000

State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners
Conference Call

June 6, 2000

Conference Call Participants

• Brent Hartsfield Florida • Nancy Gillard New Mexico
• William Linn Florida • Bruce Nicholson North Carolina
• Leo Henning Kansas • Scott Stupak North Carolina
• Bob Jurgens Kansas • Lisa Appel South Carolina
• Pat Erickson Illinois • Craig Dukes South Carolina
• Harold Ethridge Louisiana • James Gilbert Tennessee
• Dale Trippler Minnesota • Steve Goins Tennessee
• Kären Kromar Minnesota • Michael Smith Vermont
• Tim Eiken Missouri • Robin Schmidt Wisconsin

Also participating in the State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD) conference call were Richard Steimle from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Technology Innovation Office, Cheryl Joseph from the National Ground Water Association, and Christine Hartnett from Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG).

Battelle's May 2000 Conference
Battelle's Remediation of Chlorinated and Recalcitrant Compounds conference took place in Monterey, California, on May 18-21, 2000. Two of SCRD's Subgroups presented information. David Anderson said that he presented a poster for the Project Management/Technical Issues Subgroup. About 100 people took handouts, he said, and about 20 people asked questions about the poster. (About half of the people he talked to were vendors.) Robin Schmidt presented a paper for the Program Development/Administration Subgroup. She said that audience members expressed great interest in SCRD; they were particularly interested in SCRD's efforts to create site profiles, provide information on lessons learned, and identify the technologies that are being used in different states. The editor from Hazardous Waste News was in the audience, Schmidt said, and expressed interest in publishing SCRD's press releases and articles. (Richard Steimle said that he saw the publication's May 29, 2000, edition and that it summarized Schmidt's presentation. The publication can be obtained through http://www.bpinews.com.)

Proposed Model Legislation
At SCRD's April 2000 meeting, Janet Hickman presented a model legislation package compiled by the Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA). Henning asked whether SCRD wanted to submit comments on the model. Call participants decided not to do so at this time. Nicholson advised sending HSIA a letter making it clear that SCRD does not endorse the model legislation. Dale Trippler said that he already indicated this in an e-mail he sent to Hickman. He asked if something more formal was needed; call participants agreed that the e-mail was sufficient.

SCRD participants did make some informal comments on the model legislation at their April 2000 meeting. During this comment period, one attendee questioned why drycleaners are the only responsible parties expected to pay into Fund programs. Dick DeZeeuw said that this question brings up interesting issues. In Texas, he said, as part of the Pilgrim lawsuit, efforts have been made to obtain money from solvent suppliers, solvent manufacturers, and drycleaning equipment suppliers. (DeZeeuw agreed to send call participants a summary of the Pilgrim lawsuit, along with a legal citation.) DeZeeuw asked call participants whether their states are considering initiating a class action lawsuit. Two participants said that they have discussed it with their Attorney General offices, and another plans to do so in the near future. DeZeeuw asked call participants to find out whether their states are interested in pursuing a joint lawsuit, and whether they have resources to put toward such a suit. Call participants agreed to report their findings during the next SCRD conference call. Henning said that resources might not be a huge issue, noting that the lawyers who presented the Pilgrim case would probably be willing to work on a contingency basis. DeZeeuw said that this is true, but that the lawyers plan to ask for as much as 50% of the money recovered. These lawyers have indicated, however, that they will still provide information on the Pilgrim case even if they are not chosen to represent a state-led civil action suit. Useful information was collected for the Pilgrim case, Henning said; for example, evidence was identified showing that manufacturers misrepresented their drycleaning equipment.

SCRD Site Profiles and Technical Profiles
Schmidt said that the Outreach Subgroup plans to create site profiles. Each profile will provide information on a site's physical setting, geology, hydrogeology, contaminant profile, remedial effort, lessons learned, and cleanup costs. Schmidt said that Carolyn Perroni sent her a form that was used to gather information for a similar database. Schmidt said that she will use this form to develop one that is more appropriate for drycleaning sites. She said that she will use the latter to gather information on sites in Wisconsin. (Contractors will receive the form and will be asked to return it when they submit requests for reimbursement.) Schmidt will send the form to SCRD participants for review. Once other states are ready to start collecting information, the form can be tweaked as necessary.

Bill Linn said that the Project Management/Technical Issues Subgroup is planning to generate a series of one-page technical profiles. These will be generated for sites that have innovative technologies established. Each profile will provide information on a site's geology, the remedial system used, costs incurred, problems encountered, recommendations, and critical things to consider.

Listing Technologies That Can Be Used to Address Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
In Wisconsin, Schmidt said, there are 60 different project managers who could be assigned to address drycleaning sites. Many of them do not have experience working on such sites. Thus, Schmidt wants to give managers a table that lists the technologies used to clean up PCE and says what is known about their efficacy in different geological settings. Linn said that Brent Hartsfield has developed a remedial alternatives analysis sheet, which is used in Florida. This may provide Schmidt with useful information. Hartsfield also recommended looking at a matrix prepared by the Federal Remediation Technologies Roundtable (http://www.FRTR.org). Nancy Gillard said that EPA's REACH-IT Web site (http://epa.reachit.org) may also provide the type of information that Schmidt is looking for.

Future SCRD Meetings
Call participants talked about the location and date for their fall 2000 meeting. They decided that their first choice would be Tampa, Florida, on September 26-29, 2000. (Tampa was chosen because potential non-SCRD speakers have been identified in the area. The dates were chosen because instructors are available to present a 1-day Biochlor training on these days.) Call participants decided that the training should be given on September 26, and that a 2½-day SCRD meeting should follow. They agreed to end the meeting around noon on September 29, 2000.

Schmidt proposed a location and date for SCRD's spring 2001 meeting: she proposed holding it in conjunction with the "Fractured Bedrock 2001" conference, which will be held in Toronto on March 26-28, 2001. Cheryl Joseph said that she would check to see whether an SCRD meeting can be held outside the United States. Steimle agreed to e-mail the conference's draft brochure to call participants. Schmidt said that abstracts are due on October 16, 2000. She did not think that SCRD would present a paper, but wanted to announce the deadline in case anyone wanted to submit a paper individually.

Miscellaneous Topics

Next Conference Call

ERG agreed to set up the next conference call for July 11, 2000, between 11:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. EDT.