National Clothesline

It’s a baker’s dozen now in the ranks of states that have established programs for cleaning up sites contaminated by drycleaning solvents. But for Texas, the 13th and newest member of the group, start-up of the program passed last year by the Texas Legislature hasn’t been easy.

For the other 12 states, where programs have been in place for years, the results are varied. While each state’s program is different, in general they all are based on building a clean-up fund through fees and taxes that can then be used by drycleaners to get their sites cleaned up to the satisfaction of state authorities.

The new Texas program has some of the highest fees in the nations. A $15 per gallon surcharge is added to perc purchases; $5 a gallon on all others except liquid carbon dioxide, which is exempt.

In addition cleaners pay an annual registration fee — $2,500 for plants with annual receipts of more than $100,000 and $250 for those under $100,000. Plants with drop stores also must pay a fee of $1,000 per store. Cleaners must have a registration number in order to buy solvent.

The fees were too much for some cleaners. A group called Concerned Drycleaners of Texas filed an injunction in District Court in January asking to delay fee collection until the court responds to allegations that the law is discriminatory, an unlawful tax and unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, the Southwest Drycleaners Association has tried to work with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality make to compliance more bearable. For example, SDA convinced TCEQ to let cleaners pay the annual registration fees in four installments.

TCEQ officials estimate the fees and surcharges will raise $6.1 million for the fund this year and $8.7 million next year.

If the experience of other states applies, Texas officials will be disappointed in the actual amounts. Several states have had to raise their fees to meet their funds’ goals. At the last meeting of the State Coalition for the Remediation of Drycleaners (SCRD), a group comprised of officials from states that have clean-up funds who meet regularly, status reports on each of the state funds were given.

Illinois reported that it raised solvent fees to $10 per gallon on perc and $2 per gallon on petroleum on Jan. 1 and license fees were increased too, now ranging from $500 to $4,500 annually. This, officials believe, will increase annual income by $5 million. The state had 232 open remedial claims with clean-up costs estimated at $13.7 million.

During the first few years of its program, Oregon regularly raised solvent fees trying to get the fund up to the expected levels. After solvent fees approached $30 per gallon, the entire fund-raising mechanism was revised. Now the fees take into account the risk that a site has for contamination — basically whether or when perc was used on the site.

Minnesota encountered a similar problem. Two years after starting its program, it became apparent that the $1 million goal for the fund would not be reached. A clause was introduced that allowed for raising the fees over a two-year period, but that period has passed and now the fees have reverted to their original level.

North Carolina ran into the same sort of problem. Part of the solution there was to divert the 4 percent sales tax on drycleaning services into the fund. That has created a healthy balance in the fund today.

Other states are finding their funds diminished by declining revenues. Tennessee received $1.3 million last year, a continuation of a two-year decline due in part to about a 10 percent reduction in solvent fees collected. In South Carolina, proposals have been made to increase the Department of Revenue’s enforcement and collection abilities. The surcharge on gross sales receipts was increased in hopes of reversing a trend of declining revenue. The fund received about $612,000 last year; it needs an estimated $2.8 million, state officials say.

Wisconsin reported a big drop in its collections in 2001 when word spread among cleaners that if the fees weren’t paid the state Department of Revenue would not come for them.

A concern expressed by several state officials is that state governments might take money from the drycleaners’ fund to help balance state budgets. So far, this has not occurred, but in some states nothing really prevents it and with state budgets in a pinch, the possibility is real.

So how are the funds doing when it comes to getting contamination cleaned up?

In Florida, which has one of the oldest and biggest programs, 79 sites had attained closure or clean-up as of last year and the program is meeting its goals of 15 site closures per year. At that rate, the programs can expect to meet its objectives 100 years after its inception. That will be in 2094.

To save on operating costs in Florida, active remediation is performed until contaminant levels fall to within 100 times the maximum contaminant level. From there, remediators rely on natural attenuation to complete the cleanup.

Oregon reports that 11 sites have been remediated through its program at a cost of $981,000. Underway is an attempt to estimate how many drycleaners are contaminated, the level of contamination, the cost of remediation and the length of time it will take to complete.

In Illinois, where 900 of the state’s 1,450 licensed drycleaners have been insured and are part of the fund, state officials estimate that 93 percent of the sites are contaminated about state EPA limits and that 55 percent will require some form of active remediation. The problem has proved to be worse than was anticipated when the program was started. The program’s sunset date has been extended to 2020 along with increased fees and tighter collection procedures.

North Carolina has identified 152 sites that have potential for contamination by drycleaners. Once the sites are prioritized based on the hazard potential, contractors will start working on the highest priority sites.

Tennessee had 55 sites participating in its Drycleaners Environmental Response Program. A unique feature of the Tennessee program is the requirement that all active facilities are Certified Environmental Drycleaners under the International Fabricare institute’s certification program.

In South Carolina, about 15 percent of the sites that have been investigated have been deemed “no action” sites. Most of those are petroleum solvent sites and are not required to be in the program. Ozone sparging systems have been installed at two drycleaning sites. One is being shut down and will be monitored to see whether contaminant concentrations rebound. A potassium permanganate injection system was installed at one site and preliminary results have been encouraging, a state official said.

In Wisconsin, potential claim notification forms have been submitted for 103 drycleaning sites. Site closure status can be granted even if it is not 100 percent cleaned up.