Butzel, Long, Gust, & Van Zile Letter Re
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BUTZEL LONd GUST KLEIN & VAN »TTORNCTS AND COUNSELLORS 'N'A r M( r I65O FIRST NATIONAL BUILDING flMlAN O H(MNr -'UIM r o SHCA DETROIT, -MICHIOAN 4B226 EPA Region 5 Records Ctr. I 3ID) «>R3 ftlrtj Cn ( 31^1 ??5 7OOO • TELEX RIO ??I3O60 o STCWAMT G»rrN 223622 Ol*4H>4 • SCWVJV.M L 9ADLCH MAH« T NClSON DAM*itL F* MALONf OSCAft H riLOMAN CO*GC CONSTANCE M ITTlNCC" MUGCT 'BIRMINGHAM OFTICC • CPtr •UMOOVNV. PC "Circ * B»OO«S HICHAM C PtTCK TMIUT. ^C . QH* M SUITE aoo 3?2?o TELEGRAPH ROAD C OMAN i GOLD BIRMINGHAM. MICHIGAN AOO HO I 3131 ?5O. 1616 Jt«tO JOMHftTON JOHN j HUMM MtCMAlL ^ CO\.*« TEUECOPIEU 13131 256 1139 JAMCS D KITCMIC C OWAMD M HALINU* MANY MAT 0*viO j F »« I » ( S' I ** Detroit Office April 21, 1989 Ms. Fran Allans U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region V 230 South Dearborn Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 Re: Sea Ray Boats, Inc. Metamora Landfill- Dear Ms. Allans: your .recent correspondence, including the copy of Russell Parrish's deposition- transcript and the updated list of PRPs. We were very pleased to note that the PRPs now include many of U.S. Chemical's customers, and hope that our investigative materials were of some help. The §104 (e) letters were very skillfully drafted, and if properly complied with, should yield valuable and - signi f icant information. We did wonder why General Motors was not sent a §104 (e) letter. Our materials indicate that at least since 1977 General Motors was sending waste to U.S. Chemical in Roseville, during -the time when U.S. Chemical was accepting waste in quantities well beyond its processing ability. You might review Dr. Halfen's "Investigatipn Report - U.S. Chemical Company" at pp. 16, 23, 25, 26, 27, 29 and 31 (reference to Chevrolet). Ms... Fran Allans April 21, 1989 Page 2 Per our earlier discussion, and following your suggestion, we have had our consultant draft an analytical protocol designed to "fingerprint" U.S. Chemical's wastes ,at the site, and-thus help EPA to meet its burden of proof under CERCLA as to the new PflPs. He suggeste'd that the samples be analyzed for the following materials: Trichloroethylene . Methylene Chloride- .''**• 1,1,1-Trichloroethane Xylene Acetone Ethyl Acetate Methyl Isobutyl Ketone Isobutanol 'f n-Butyl° Acetate Methyl Amyl Ketone Naptha Fractions • ' . Cellosolve Acetate Lead • . ' Zinc. • Unfortunately, the protocol which MJDNR has been following to date does not 'already adequately test for the above, so the addition of these analytes would be advisable.' Dr. Halfen has had some discussion with Seth' Phillips with regard to expansion of the analytical protocol. Although in theory Mr. Phillips recognizes the value af the additional.analysis,.his hands are somewhat tied as a practical matter, as to- actually getting the job done. If Sea Ray engages in its own separate sampling program, Mr., Phillips would have to enforce upon Sea Ray the same safety procedures .and QAQC which the MDNR is now follcv.'ing. This would make the additional analysis prohibitively expensive. ; . There may be a solution to this dilemma. , "It would bfe a simple natter to split samples with MDNR, and have MDNR"s present laboratory co'nsultant.perform the suggested analysis. In this way; MDNR does not have the inconvenience of additional personnel on site, it would kn^w.that the work was being done properly, and would be able to depend upon the quality of the results.. Further, the cost of this approach woulfPiikely be far more palatable to Sea ) ' ' ' ° ' We are going to discuss this/with Mr. Phillips, but we want to obtain your feedback-with regard to this matter°as well. Please Fran Allans 21, 1989 let us have your reaction at your earliest convenience, as the drum removal will begin at any time now that spring is upon us. Very truly yours, BUTZEL LONG GUST KLEIN & VAN ZILE ~" ' ' ' . • -^ ,-xAx' Darlehe Domanik DD/ab cc: Mr. Rhett Nelson Mr. Seth Phillips , Jack D. Shumate, Esq. Henry G. Kolb, Esq. John A. Cronkhite, Esq. ,.