Conference Call Minutes from September 15, 2016

Untitled Document

Thursday, September 15, 2016


Bonnie Temple, Alabama
Jim Fish, Alaska
Nathan Casebeer, California
Bob Asreen, Delaware
Bill Linn & Jenn Ferrell, Florida
Joe Dom & Jessie Brannon, Kansas
Scott Huckstep, Missouri
Steve Hoke, New Jersey
Peter Doorn, North Carolina
Erin Samwel & Jordan Caldwell, Oklahoma
Paul Bergstrand, South Carolina
Allison Hensley & Charles Rowan Tennessee
Brian Campbell & Rob Timmins, Virginia
Alyssa Sellwood, Wisconsin
Kristi Dobra, Wyoming
Rob Langston, EMS

Attendance & Opening Remarks - Scott Huckstep (MO)
Scott welcomed everyone to the conference call.

Outreach Subgroup Report - Jennifer Feyerherm (WI)
Jennifer dialed in late; Scott gave an update that the summer newsletter has gone out, it is posted to the SCRD website, and he has received some requests from website visitors to be added to the SCRD mailing list. Scott also mentioned his recent inquiries from remedial product vendors, and will continue to forward them to the group so anybody interested can follow-up.

Administrative Subgroup Report - Pete Doorn, (NC)
Peter gave an update; Bill Linn (FL) is compiling site cost & closure data into a spreadsheet. He has compiled roughly 280 sites that can be compared and analyzed. Scott indicated he continues to receive inquiries concerning the average cost of dry cleaner cleanup, and directs people to the 2007 SCRD publication Comparison of Remedial Systems Employed at Drycleaner Sites, that has some cost comparison information.

Project Management/Technical Subgroup Report - Don Hanson (OR)
Don was absent and no members of the subgroup had updates to report.

Old Business
There was no old business to report.

New Business
Scott indicated he had a staff member in their Voluntary Cleanup Program seeking information about using Vapor Pins to collect sub-slab soil gas around actively operating dry cleaner machines. Bill Linn commented that if they looked, they will find solvent vapors under the slab. Peter and Bill also commented that they were unfamiliar with the Vapor Pin; Jim (AK) explained that it is simply hardware to collect a sub-slab soil vapor sample. Peter indicated that NC does not allow soil vapor data - but only soil or groundwater data -to be used as criteria for inclusion of a site into their dry cleaner program.

Bill mentioned the difficulty in discriminating VOCs in indoor air from indoor air sources versus vapor intrusion from soil gas (sub-slab contamination). Jim briefly mentioned ESTCP studies that have evaluated the use of Compound Specific Isotope Analysis (CSIA) to discriminate between indoor air and subsurface sources of VOCs. He will follow-up by sending information to Scott, who can distribute to the group.

Scott will be talking to Greg at EPA (John Quander’s replacement) concerning what EPA can do to continue supporting SCRD and keep the group viable. Scott indicated the top priority was support for a face-to-face meeting for SCRD members; the last meeting was 2012 in Oklahoma City. Bill indicated that SCRD could have support in updating some of the SCRD publications, such as the Chemicals Used In Drycleaning Operations (2009), because there have been new solvents that are being used in the industry.

Peter (NC) also re-mentioned the SCRD efforts to update cost estimates for clean & closure.

Scott inquired if members were finding it more difficult to devote some time to SCRD participation. Peter responded that North Carolina was using their dry cleaner program as a model for other risk programs in the department. No other members gave input.

Joe (KS) indicated they were sampling for 1,4-dioxane at some superfund sites and wanted to know others’ experiences with finding 1,4-D at dry cleaners. Bill reported that they have been sampling for 1,4-D in Florida for quite some time and they have looked at many active and past dry cleaning operations, as well as in groundwater plumes, and they haven’t seen it associated with dry cleaners. Bill described how PCE is one of the most stable chlorinated solvents, and how 1,4-D has been used to stabilize TCA and methylene chloride, and other solvents like Picarin, and 1,4-D may be found in recycled PCE. (Bill also indicated a former chemist from DOW Chemical knew of 50 dry cleaners in the Unites States that used TCA as their dry cleaning solvent). Bill thought any 1,4-D found at a dry cleaner site would be unrelated to dry cleaning solvents, and is likely from somewhere else.

Peter asked about dry cleaner program rule revisions, and whether any other State programs focus on spotting agents - some sites in NC have indoor air problems because of spotting agents (which may contain PCE/TCE or other solvents). Do other States include spotting agents, or only focus on dry cleaning solvents? Bill responded that the Florida definition of dry cleaning solvent was essentially anything non-aqueous, so the interpretation would include spotting agents and any solvents used in the dry cleaning process. Thus, sites that are dry drop-off locations that do spot cleaning and pressing (but no active cleaning) are considered dry cleaners in the State of Florida.

Jenn (FL) asked about other States’ rules and scoring procedures for inclusion of a site into their dry cleaner program - do sites with pending redevelopment prioritize higher? Do other States consider redevelopment during their evaluation of a site? Peter (NC) responded that they do not specifically, but that they have a provision in their rules to prioritize and “bump a site to the top,” if it will potentially save the State money. Peter will send a copy of North Carolina’s rule language to Jenn.

State Spotlight Presentation
No State Spotlight this month.

Next Teleconference: Thursday, November 10, 2016