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.