[Durham INC] FW: Clarification: Contaminated Dry-Cleaning Sites
TheOcean1 at aol.com
TheOcean1 at aol.com
Thu Jun 25 17:49:17 EDT 2009
Barry
You're probably right, made the comment mostly in response to the "There's
a couple hundred children within that potential plume range", since I don't
think those kids are in danger.... at least not from the plume.
Rabid foxes might be a more immediate concern.
But mainly wanted folks to be aware of the movement underway by the dry
cleaning industry to shorten the notification period. That might indeed be an
immediate concern.
Frankly it just toasts my buns to see an industry waging such a battle,
because who is on the other side to defend? Generally the corporations are
organized, can hire attorneys, etc. while the citizens who do object to the
shortening of notification, don't even know where to contact other concerned
citizens.
That is exactly why I felt this issue is INC turf.
How much opposition should that industry expect from other cities that have
no organization like InterNeighborhood Council?
Our only other line of defense is that of our elected officials.
Fortunately Mike Woodard seemed more than casually interested, for which we all
should be thankful.
All that just to say we have two things to be concerned about, the plumes
and the industry itself.
Bill
In a message dated 6/25/2009 3:23:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
bragin at nc.rr.com writes:
for what it's worth, i have received a couple of emails from John Powers
at NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources in response to my
query about participation in the program. They are copied below, in reverse
chronological order.
I don't think anyone is overreacting to this, Bill. Just asking for
clarification about a potential carcinogen in our drinking water, and the
programs that are currently in place to remediate this situation, which i think
it's fair to say, virtually no one on the list knew about before this week. I
am so far satisfied with the level of communication from the state.
Barry Ragin
===============
Mr. Ragin,
The site is called Model Laundry (032-0007). I am checking with the
Inactive
Hazardous Sites Program to see if they have assigned it a priority ranking
and
will get back to you on that this afternoon.
Thanks,
John
-----Original Message-----
From: bragin at nc.rr.com [bragin at nc.rr.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:21 AM
To: Powers, John
Subject: RE: [Durham INC] FW: Clarification: Contaminated Dry-Cleaning
Sites
Thanks for the response. Can you clarify which site is not participating
in the
voluntary program, and where they stand on the "priority list for
cleanup"?
thanks,
Barry Ragin
---- "Powers wrote:
=============
Mr. Ragin,
The Dry-Cleaning Solvent Cleanup Program that I oversee is a voluntary
program
that persons responsible for dry-cleaning contamination can participate
in. If
they elect not to volunteer or withdraw from the program, their site is
referred
to the Inactive Hazardous Sites Program within the Division of Waste
Management
where they will be placed on a priority list for cleanup. Here, they will
be
required to clean up the site at their own expense. The site may also be
screened by the Federal Superfund Program if significant threat is posed
to
human health or the environment and the responsible party will also be
required
to pay for cleanup if it qualifies for that program.
Thanks for your question.
John Powers
---- TheOcean1 at aol.com wrote:
=============
There is a need for quick reaction, but not to dig up parking lots.
Definitely think we should NOT over react to this.
Rather doubt folks standing at the bus stop next to the Trinity
Park/Northgate Site, are in any danger, any more than the employees of the
Bank were
long ago, and then a Men's clothing store for many years, and later a
church, all operated on that site without much difficulty.
But we do have a right to know, and we've asked for information, and
answers seem to be forthcoming.
Transparency is the objective, but I don't see too much urgency in the
need
to react to the 12 sites in question, specifically.
What requires our instant attention is a movement underway from the dry
cleaning industry, to shorten the notification time. I'm speaking from a
great
lack of information, don't know what the current "notification period" is,
but doubt we'll be served well by shortening it.
Just don't think we need to worry about the kids playing near the old
Scott's and Robert's site off Washington, after all, the site that brought
this
into focus was a dry cleaning establishment that operated 35 years ago.
The urgency as I see it, is not permitting any changes in this particular
law until we better understand the problem at hand. (and remaining calm
while we do that)
Just my two cents,
Bill Anderson
In a message dated 6/24/2009 10:44:44 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
forchange at earthlink.net writes:
Thanks for the information from all.
To add to Barry's concerns which I share, it seems from the map that the
'certified' site right across from Central Park School for Children may
be
'decertified' if the owners don't sign on.
"DSCA Site ID 320011Scott And Roberts Dry Cleaners Site Status: On
HoldProject Manager: Dianne ThomasThis site is on hold. It will be
decertified if
petitioner refuses to sign new Assessment and Remediation Agreement."
Clarification of what makes a 'certified' vs not 'certified' site more or
less active--or toxic for that matter--would be welcome.
There's a couple hundred children within that potential plume
range--certified or not.
Thanks,
Mary Wible-Brennan
-----Original Message-----
>From: Barry Ragin <bragin at nc.rr.com>
>Sent: Jun 24, 2009 10:22 PM
>To: INC INC <inc-list at durhaminc.org>, john.powers at ncdenr.gov
>Subject: Re: [Durham INC] FW: Clarification: Contaminated Dry-Cleaning
Sites
>
>"Just to clarify (as stated in the site update) one of the 13 sites
>(032-0007) _was_ in our cleanup program but was removed when the
>property owner refused to cooperate with the program."
>
>I confess that i don't always get it when people talk about property
>rights, but how is it possible that a property owner can opt out of a
>program like this? Doesn't this kind of contamination often extend
>beyond the property line to affect groundwater that other property
>owners draw from their own wells? Is it just a coin toss whether you
>live next to someone who chooses to participate or not when it comes to
>having con-carcinogenic groundwater?
>
>Barry Ragin
>
>Hester, Rick wrote:
>>
>> Here is the website that Burt received that shows you all of the sites
>> in North Carolina. The interactive map is very easy to use. Please
>> read the response from John Powers.
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.ncdsca.org/welcome.htm
>>
<https://exchange.ci.durham.nc.us/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.ncdsc
a.org/welcome.htm>
>>
>>
>> */Rick Hester/*
>> *NIS Manager*
>> *Neighborhood Improvement Services*
>> *560-1647 x 236 Office*
>> *730-6349 Mobile*
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Powers, John [mailto:john.powers at ncdenr.gov]
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 24, 2009 4:11 PM
>> *To:* Rauch, Burton
>> *Cc:* Meyer, Billy; Butler, Jack
>> *Subject:* Clarification: Contaminated Dry-Cleaning Sites
>>
>>
>>
>> Burt,
>>
>>
>>
>> Just to clarify (as stated in the site update) one of the 13 sites
>> (032-0007) _was_ in our cleanup program but was removed when the
>> property owner refused to cooperate with the program. There is a
>> chance it will come back in if property ownership changes and the new
>> owner wants to participate. So technically, there are 12 sites that
>> are now in the program.
>>
>>
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Powers, John
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 24, 2009 3:48 PM
>> *To:* Burt Rauch (Burton.Rauch at durhamnc.gov)
>> *Cc:* Meyer, Billy; Butler, Jack
>> *Subject:* Contaminated Dry-Cleaning Sites
>>
>>
>>
>> Burt,
>>
>>
>>
>> Attached is the site status update. Annual reports for our program
>> can be viewed at the following link:
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.ncdsca.org/welcome.htm
>>
>>
>>
>> There are actually 13 contaminated sites in Durham County that are now
>> in our cleanup program. Please let me know if you have any questions.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>> /John Powers <John.Powers at ncdenr.gov <mailto:John.Powers at ncmail.net>>/
>>
>> /Head, Special Remediation Branch/
>>
>> /NC DENR - Div. of Waste Management - Superfund Section/
>>
>> /(919) 508-8470/
>>
>> //
>>
>> /E-mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the
>> North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third
parties./
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C.
>> Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Durham INC Mailing List
>> list at durham-inc.org
>> http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
>>
>_______________________________________________
>Durham INC Mailing List
>list at durham-inc.org
>http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
**************Shop Popular Dell Laptops now starting at $349!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222031056x1201446063/aol?redir=htt
p:%2F%2Fad.dou
bleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215910283%3B38350812%3Ba)
**************Shop Popular Dell Laptops now starting at $349!
(http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1222031056x1201446063/aol?redir=http:%2F%2Fad.dou
bleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215910283%3B38350812%3Ba)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090625/4ac8c589/attachment.htm>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list