Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNCD980602163_19811110_Warren County PCB Landfill_SERB C_Oct 29 letter from Thomas W. Devine and Response from O.W. Strickland-OCRr. Thomas W. Devine Director 0 r O, l Air & Hazardous Materials Di vision U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 345 Courtland Street Atlanta, Georgia 30365 Dear Mr . Devine: /k~-:1 [.µ, I have discussed your letter of October 29, 1981 with r. Robert Jansen, Senior Policy Advisor to the Governor. He informed me that the Governor 's position has not changed. The State of North Carolina and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are both parties defendant in litigation which is awaiting a ruling by the court. Nothlng should be done which might adversely influence the disposition of that case. At the September 19th meeting, we agreed that the sampling program might be conducted under joint State/F deral sponsorship at EPA's expense . We also agreed that if the litigation was not concluded in time for EPA to conduct the sampling program from these special funds, the same activities could become a part of Pha e I of t he Superfund project . Theref ore, with the litigation still pending, the s ampling program cannot be car r i ed out at this time. The Governor is looking to Secretary Mitchell,of the Division of Crime Control and Public Safety, for overall coordination of this project. Any future decisions concerning the PCB spill/dumping, will be cl eared through Secretary Mitchell. OWS:sms cc: Mr. Dave Kelly Mr. Robert Jansen Sincerely,, • Strickland, Read Solid & Hazardous Waste Management Branch Environmental Health Section UNITED STATE~ ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IV Ref: 4AH Mr. 0. W. Strickland 345 COURTLAND STREET ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30365 OCT 29 1981 Solid Waste and Vector Control Div. Division of Health Servi es Dept. of Human Resources P. 0. Box 2091 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Dear Mr. Strickland: Following relates to our meeting in your offices on September 19, 1981, during which we discussed the North Carolina roadside PCB spill/dumping and the desirability or lack of same for obtaining definitive data describing present conditions. My understanding, as a result of that meeting, was that we were to continue to develop a study plan to physically sample roadside areas to define the extent of contamination as it exists today. This data would be used to provide a base for developing a remedial action plan. It was generally agreed among the attendees that it was difficult to estimate cost of removal without knowing what had to be removed. Because of concerns that were evidenced by the State Attorney present, we further agreed that any effort would be discussed with counsel prior to implementation. I now understand that further concerns have developed and that the State quest ions the need/desirability for conducting any sampling at all. EPA has come to the point where we have to make a decision as to whether we are going to continue to attempt to hold funds (up to $150,000) to conduct the detailed sampling and analysis program. As has been discussed with members of your staff, in order to properly design the full sampling ~rogram, it is necessary to conduct an upfront screening. Said screening should be conducted as soon as possible. I need to know from you or an appropriatly authorized State representative whether it is the State of North Carolina's position that this activity should be carried out at this time, or postponed, or not carried out at all. Your response within two weeks would be appreciated. Sincerely yours, I -~ ,,,,(.~~~:s::.J~c_~~~~ Thomas Director Air & Hazardous Materials Division cc: Sarah T. Morrow, M.D., M.P.H.