More about
the bill...

Barton's bill gains support

Two dozen Members of Congress sign on as cosponsors of the Small Business Remediation Act

Texas cleaner wins cruise drawing in $50,000 fund-raising effort

Support for Rep. Joe Barton's Small Business Remediation Act grew in the House of Representatives after Congress returned from its summer recess after Labor Day.

Barton introduced the legislation (HR 2726) just before the recess with five House members joining him as original cosponsors. By the end of September, 26 representatives were listed as cosponsors. They included 21 Republicans and 5 Democrats from 17 states.

Most of those were also cosponsors on Barton's Small Business Remediation Act in the last Congress. However, 6 of the HR 2726 cosponsors were not on the bill last year, lending credence to the belief of industry supporters of the legislation that the revised version of the bill will bring more backers in Congress.

While the aim of both versions of the legislation is the same -- to establish reasonable and attainable clean-up standards for drycleaning solvents in soil and groundwater -- the new version underwent substantial retooling before Barton introduced it in August.

The previous version, which gained 95 cosponsors before Congress adjourned last year, tied the clean-up standard for drycleaning solvents to the workplace exposure standards set by OSHA. Basing the soil and groundwater cleanup on OSHA's workplace exposure standard was not acceptable to some members of Congress. The search for a new solution occupied the legislative campaign's steering committee for most of the year.

"A number of congressmen were opposed to the bill because of the OSHA tie-in," explained Barney Deden, the chairman of the steering committee. With the OSHA connection out of the legislation, some members of Congress who opposed the old bill are now expected to support it, Deden said.

Another point of opposition to the old bill was the "state preemption" clause which said, in essence, that a state or local government could require a more extensive site clean-up than the federal level set by the Barton legislation, but the local entity would be responsible for paying the additional cost of that clean-up.

Although that language was dropped in the new bill, Deden said that thus far none of the legislators who said they opposed it on that basis have indicated that they will now support the bill.

Still another sticking point in the old bill arose in cases where some states considered all groundwater as drinking water, thus making it subject to maximum contaminant levels allowed under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. For perc, that level is 5 parts per billion, far below the maximum of 11 parts per million that could be allowed if standards envisioned by the new Barton legislation were adopted.

The new legislation adopts EPA's Soil Screening Guidance Document (SSGD) as the basis for setting clean-up standards. The SSGD sets limits below which drycleaning solvents in soil, including soils affecting groundwater, would require no further action or study. According to the text of the legislation, several states have adopted remediation cut-off levels based on this range.

Under HR 2726, the interim standard for the maximum level of remediation for a drycleaning solvent in soil, surface water, groundwater and other environmental media not used for drinking water would be equal to the generic soil screening level for the solvent set in the SSGD.

An 11 ppm level has been indicated by EPA for perc contamination in soil, which is considered the "prime pathway" to inhalation.

This standard would apply to all contamination except drinking water sources until a site-specific determination is made of the necessary clean-up level that would take into account factors unique to each facility for an appropriate remediation level.

HR 2726 does not address contamination in the groundwater or surface water that is a source of drinking water and it specifically does not change the drinking water standards as set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The new, revised language "is the most plausible legislation the industry has crafted in our long campaign for reasonable rule-making," according to Bill Fisher, CEO of the International Fabricare Institute.

Fisher noted that the new language "was developed collectively by the industry steering committeeŠ which includes IFI, Baise, Miller & Freer and IFI's legal counsel, Patton, Boggs.

"Everyone involved is to be commended for their hard work, thoughtful insight and dogged determination to deliver substantial regulatory relief to the drycleaning industry," he said.

Much hard work remains. Deden, who chairs the steering committee, said that at least one "committed person" is needed in each of the 435 congressional districts to secure sponsorships for the legislation.

Also needed is companion legislation in the Senate. Deden said that should come once there are more sponsors, particularly Democrats, signed up on the House side.

Only a few weeks remain this year for business in Washington; Congress has targeted Oct. 29 as its adjournment date. However, once adjourned, representatives will likely be in their home districts where they will be available for meetings with constituents.

Part of the effort towards passing the bill involves raising money to support the Washington lobbying. Throughout most of this year, fund-raising has centered on a drive initiated by the MidAtlantic Association of Cleaners which sold $25 chances in drawing to win a cruise for two on this fall's Seminars at Sea.

Deden and MAC executive director Dave Norford drew the winning ticket from among XXXXXX entries during MAC's Maxpo/4 convention in Baltimore September 25-26.

The winning ticket belonged to Brian Newbold of Comet cleaners in San Antonio, Texas.

Norford reported that sales of chances raised $50,885 for the Dry Cleaners Association fund of America, which is the central collection point of money for the legislative campaign.