18050_CENCO_L_19971105

H_ Glenn Dunn
Partner
Direct Dial: 919/793-2842
RiNEReSPRU1LL,z,LP.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
November 5, 1997
Mr. James A. Carter, Chief
North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
Hazardous Waste Section
401.0berlin Road
Raleigh, North Carolina 27605
3600 Glenwood Avenve
Raleigh, North Carolina 27612
Mailing Address-
Post Office Box 10096
Raleigh, North Carolina 2760-0096
9191783-6400
Fax: 919ln3-1075
ogicrs.
Raieigh/Rockv MoundCharlone
Re: Request for Meeting to Discuss Transfer of Regulatory
Jurisdiction Honbarrier, Inc. (Formerly Central
Transport, Inc.) Facility Charlotte, North Carolina
EPA ID# NCD 046 148 540
Dear Mr. Carter:
As requested by Ms. Surabhi Shah of your staff, we are
providing you with agenda items for a meeting between Honbarrier,
Inc. personnel and the Hazardous Waste Section (Section) concerning
the former Central Transport, Inc. (CTI) facility in Charlotte,
North Carolina hereinafter referred to as "Honbarrier, Inc." As
discussed in previous phone conversations, this meeting is
requested to discuss transfer of regulatory oversight of the
Honbarrier, Inc. Charlotte facility from the Section to the
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Following are the items we would
like to discuss at the meeting:
1) Honbarrier, Inc. does not believe it should be re fired
to obtain a --Part B IDermit and complete remediation of the site as
a'RCRA facilit.y and requests that the Charlotte site be moved from
,---he RCFA 'Process tc the roundwater re,.iediation process. The
Section has previously reached the conclusion that the site was not
a RCRA facility. In the early stages of the RCRA program, the
Section argued that the surface impoundments at the site were
Hazardous Waste Management Units (See attached letters 9/27/82 from
Babb to Moore, 4/16/84 from Gary to Strickland)_ To counter this
argument, Honbarrier, Inc, provided evidence that the wastes which
had entered the lagoons were not hazardous wastes, the tankers
rinsed at the facility (which discharged to the wastewater
treatment system) were 11RCRA" empty when rinsed, and empty tankers
were cleaned by triple rinsing which is not considered a treatment
procedure (See attached letters 8/8/83 from Moore to Babb, 4/4/84
from Fogel to Strickland). The evidence provided by Honbarrier,
Inc. initially appears to have clouded the issue for the Section
(See attached letter 1/13/84 from Lawson to Strickland, 1/26/84

Mr. James A. Carter, Chief
November 5, 1997
Page 2
from Lawson to Strickland, 7/11/84 Liability Coverage Compliance -
Second Review, 7/26/84 from Allen to File). The Section then
decided to end RCRA status for the facility and cancel its EPA ID
number (See attached letter 1/8/85 from Meyer to Moore, 1/24/86
from Dawson to Moore, 3/10/86 from Lawson to Moore). Honbarrier,
Inc-'s EPA ID number was reinstated on 1/3/89 This appears to be
a reaction to the facility's 1987 Clean Water Act violation (See
2/21/90 Consent Order). Honbarrier, Inc. was ordered to remediate
the site under the direction of the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources but not specifically the
Section (See 3/5/90 Negotiated Plea Agreement).
From the evidence provided, it appears that the Section
decided in 1985-1986 that the facility was no longer a RCRA
regulated facility. Then in 1989, the Section appears to have
changed its opinion and concluded that the site was a RCRA
facility. As none of Honbarrier, Inc.'s operations had changed at
the site, it is our contention that the Plea Agreement of 3/5/90
was the driving force behind the Section's decision to reinstate
RCRA status for the facility. As you can see in the Plea
Agreement, Honbarrier, Inc. agreed to xemediate the site under the
direction of the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources. Both the Section and DWQ are Divisions within this
Department. It is our opinion that the facility was placed under
the Section not because the Department had a basis for concluding
the facility managed a hazardous waste and fell within RCRA
jurisdiction, but simply because the facility had a previous
history with the Section. It is our position that the AOC was
entered under a mistaken assumption and should not be considered
binding.
2) Termination of RCRA Permit process end ccm-Dietion as
groundwater remediation under DWO oversicrht. As we believe ^the
site is not properly subject to RCRA requirements, we want to
discuss how we might go about removing the site from RCRA
regulation and transferring oversight to the DWQ. Please rest
assured that Honbarrier is not trying to avoid thorough groundwater
remediation. However, we believe that a totally adequate clean up
can be accomplished at less unnecessary expense under groundwater
guidelines-
3) Request for extension of due date for the revised Part B
Application submittal. The due date for Honbarrier, Inc.'s revised
Part B Application is November 15, 1997. Although Honbarrier, Inc.
realizes that the original due date for the revised application has
been previously extended, we request an additional extension so
that the issues of RCRA jurisdiction can be resolved. Honbarrier,

Mr. James A_ Carter, Chief
November 5, 1997`
Page 3
Inca has completed approximately 90n of our response to the
March 26, 1997 Notice of Deficiency issued by the Section for our
original Part B submission. The remaining NOD items are
essentially assessment related and will require a substantial
monetary investment to complete. Honbarrier, Inc. requests that
the issue of RCRA jurisdiction be resolved before completing this
fieldwork.
Hcnbarrier. Inc. would .like to arrange a meeting to discuss
this important issue. Please contact me at [phone] or Mark
Wilkins at [phone] so that we can decide on a mutually
agreeable date and time.
Sincerely,
H. Glenn Dunn
HGD/mew:jsh
Attachment: Correspondence Regarding Facility
Regulatory Status