Conference Call Minutes from August 4, 2004

State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners

State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners
Conference Call
August 4, 2004

Conference Call Participants
  • Pam Wilson
  • Wendy Cohen
  • Ray Frigon
  • Bill Burns
  • Jen Farrell
  • Bill Linn
  • Beth Walker Florida
  • Pat Eriksen
  • Bob Jurgens
  • Steve Chustz
  • Karen Kromar
  • Dale Trippler
  • Ken Koon
  • Jim Harrington

Connecticut Florida
Florida (SCRD Chair)
New York

  • John Powers
  • Mary Siedlecki
  • Scott Stupak
  • Dick DeZeeuw
  • Bruce Gilles
  • Craig Dukes
  • Richard Haynes
  • Nancy Frazier
  • Steve Goins
  • Shannon Minto
  • Meade Anderson
  • Robin Schmidt
  • Jeff Soellner

North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
South Carolina
South Carolina

Also participating in the State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD) conference call were Carolyn Perroni of Environmental Management Support, Inc., Cheryl Joseph from the National Ground Water Association (NGWA), and Christine Hartnett from ERG.

Bill Linn opened the call by welcoming Ray Frigon and Meade Anderson and saying that he is glad to hear that Connecticut and Virginia are interested in participating in SCRD. Linn also mentioned that the National Clothesline tracks SCRD closely, as is evidenced by the fact that it recently released an article summarizing SCRD statistics. (The article, entitled "Progress Report: Slow But Steady," can be found at

Bob Jurgens said that the Technical Committee is currently working on the following projects:

Goins said that the Program Development/Administration Committee has completed a draft of the "Components" document and has sent it to EMS for editorial review and posting on the SCRD Web site. With that project completed, he said, Committee members are ready to launch into a new project that focuses on resource allocation issues. Goins said that Pat Eriksen has been laying the ground work for that initiative and is planning to distribute a document to Committee members a couple of weeks before the fall 2004 SCRD meeting to spark discussion on resource allocation issues. This document will address several questions: (1) Do the states have enough money to address all of the contaminated drycleaning facilities that have been identified? Do the states have enough money to staff cleanup fund programs? (3) What limitations does each state have when it comes to allocating its resources in the most cost-effective manner? Eriksen said that the information that Committee members provide will be compiled and distributed internally among SCRD members. At this point, it was agreed, any documents produced should remain internal so that Committee members feel free to speak frankly and to provide honest critiques of their states. In the future, however, the Committee might consider developing a brief summary paper that is available to the public. Craig Dukes expressed support for the idea of releasing something to the public, noting that information on resource allocation issues will be of interest to states that are setting up new drycleaner cleanup fund programs.

Schmidt complimented Perroni on a job well done in developing and maintaining SCRD’s listserv. In addition, Schmidt noted that some SCRD members have expressed interest in ordering shirts with the SCRD logo. Schmidt said that Cohen has made progress on this front and turned the discussion over to her. Noting that she had emailed SCRD members information about different possibilities for shirts and caps prior to the call, Cohen asked call participants to provide feedback. Call participants expressed various opinions about the style and color of shirts and the design for the SCRD logo. Linn asked those who had opinions about these matters to send Cohen an email or to sketch their ideas and fax them to Cohen offline.

The fall 2004 SCRD meeting will be held at the Quarterage Hotel in Kansas City, Missouri, during the last week of September 2004. The meeting will have three components:

Call participants talked briefly about the logistical arrangements for the meeting. For example, the following topics came up:

Perroni said that the following changes have been made to the SCRD Web site over the last month:

Linn said that the SCRD Web site currently provides links to vendors that manufacture drycleaning equipment. He asked call participants to comment on the appropriateness of providing such links. Perroni said that the links have been there since the Web site was created, but that it would be simple to remove them if that is what the group desires. Call participants discussed the matter and agreed to remove all links that direct users to drycleaning equipment manufacturers. Goins advised moving the links to the non-public portion of the Web site so that SCRD members can still access them. Perroni agreed to make this change. She asked whether the group also wanted to remove the links and references that are currently provided for the Color-Tec technology. Call participants advised retaining these links, since they pertain to a specific technology rather than a specific vendor. In the future, Jurgens advised, if SCRD members want to add technology links, this should be proposed and decided upon during an SCRD meeting or conference call. While call participants clearly felt that it was inappropriate to provide links to drycleaner equipment manufacturers, they did think it was useful to provide information about innovative assessment and remediation technologies. Rather than putting the onus on SCRD to identify links for these technologies, call participants agreed that it would be best to simply provide a link to EPA’s Reach-It site. Perroni said that she would add that link to the Web site.

Dick DeZeeuw said that some drycleaners in Oregon have stopped using tetrachloroethylene (PCE) as a drycleaning agent, switching to more environmentally benign solvents such as GreenEarth® and DF-2000™. Those who have made the switch are asking state regulators whether they need to handle alternative solvents as hazardous waste. DeZeeuw said that Oregon is still formulating an answer, and he asked call participants to let him know how their states have addressed this issue. Trippler said that this question had come up in Minnesota: a drycleaner using GreenEarth® asked the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) whether GreenEarth®-sodden filters had to be disposed of as hazardous materials. MPCA responded that there was currently no indication that such measures were necessary, but warned the drycleaner that he would be responsible for the materials then and in the future. Thus, if 5 years from now information is released indicating that GreenEarth® is hazardous, the drycleaner might come to regret throwing the filters in the dumpster. In Tennessee, Goins said, drycleaners are prohibited from throwing any waste into the dumpster and alternative solvents, such as GreenEarth®, are considered industrial solid wastes rather than hazardous wastes. Bill Burns said that General Electric—the company that makes GreenEarth®—recommends handling its product as an industrial waste or a hazardous waste.

While on the subject of alternative solvents, DeZeeuw asked call participants whether their states have established a toxicity ranking for drycleaning solvents. He said that Oregon is considering embarking on this effort and exploring the possibility of providing incentives that encourage drycleaners to move down the toxicity scale. Dukes said that he thinks it would be difficult to establish such a scale, noting that it would be hard to come up with meaningful comparisons and to weight environmental toxicity against human toxicity. In Minnesota, Trippler said, solvent fees provide incentives for drycleaners to move down the toxicity scale. For example, those who use PCE are required to pay fees of $3.5 per gallon, but the fees drop to $0.70 per gallon for Stoddard solvent and $0.35 per gallon for alternative solvents. Jurgens said that lower solvent fees also provide an incentive in Kansas. In addition, one drycleaner in Kansas indicated that the reduced environmental liability associated with alternative solvents provides enough incentive to switch from PCE.

DeZeeuw thanked the call participants for talking about this topic, and said that he is interested in discussing the issue in more detail in the future. If enough interest exists, Linn said, a small subgroup could be formed to address the topic.

Call participants talked about several miscellaneous topics during the conference call, including the following:

The next SCRD conference call is scheduled to take place on September 15, 2004, between 11:00 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.