[Durham INC] FW: Clarification: Contaminated Dry-Cleaning Sites
Melissa Rooney
mmr121570 at yahoo.com
Thu Jun 25 18:47:59 EDT 2009
Couldn't agree with you more, Bill. And I'm experiencing it first-hand with this Jordan Lake Watershed Boundary dispute. Of course, since that issue is so close to home for EVERYONE in the Triangle, we citizens have been able to get elected officials to hear us...so far (touch wood). But something like this dry cleaning bill is likely to go under the radar....or anyon
e who is concerned will be so frustrated by their lack of information and knowledge regarding how to work the system that they will give up before they've even begun (I've been there too).
In fact, the dry cleaning contamination could cause even more damage to our waterways, depending on what actually happens to eventually render it neutral. I've had extensive experience in analytical chemistry laboratories, and I have never seen a chemical that just disappeared on its own, without any need for protection/precaution/etc...that's why every laboratory is equipped with a hood.
Melissa
--- On Thu, 6/25/09, TheOcean1 at aol.com <TheOcean1 at aol.com> wrote:
From: TheOcean1 at aol.com <TheOcean1 at aol.com>
Subject: Re: [Durham INC] FW: Clarification: Contaminated Dry-Cleaning Sites
To: inc-list at durhaminc.org
Date: Thursday, June 25, 2009, 5:49 PM
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.ncdsca.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=http:%2F%2Fad.dou
bleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215910283%3B38350812%3Ba)
Shop Popular Dell Laptops now starting at $349!
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________
Durham INC Mailing List
list at durham-inc.org
http://www.durham-inc.org/list.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.deltaforce.net/mailman/private/inc-list/attachments/20090625/592b3f9e/attachment.htm>
More information about the INC-list
mailing list