•PA/530/SW-151
IUIME1975
hazardous
disposal
re
ports
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE REPORTS
This publication (SW-151), the first in a series of reports
to document incidents of improper land disposal of hazardous wastes,
was prepared by the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs
1 !! I'-,'1 |i ''•' f \ s- • •
U 5 ifi^.^V.tM-L fROIECTiOr?
ED!SOX N. J. 08812
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1975
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE REPORTS
On June 30, 1973, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
submitted a report to the U.S. Congress on the subject of hazardous
waste disposal as Jiad been required by the Solid Waste Disposal Act
Amendment of 1970.' That report concluded that the prevailing methods
of land disposal of hazardous wastes are largely inadequate and cited
numerous case studies pertaining to improper hazardous waste management.
Since the 1973 Report to Congress, EPA has continued to study hazardous
waste disposal. A portion of these studies has consisted of more detailed
investigations of improper land disposal practices to determine their
impact on public health and on the environment. Case studies have been
compiled within the framework of these investigations.
The problems associated with improper land disposal of hazardous
wastes—unlike the problems of air and water pollution—have not been
widely recognized by the public, although the damages may be as severe
and difficult to remedy. In addition, the hazardous waste disposal
problem continues to become even more significant, as the progressive
implementation of air and water pollution control programs, ocean
dumping bans, and cancellation of pesticide registrations results
in increased tonnage of land-disposed wastes, with adverse impact on
public health and the environment. The problem is manifested in ground-
water contamination via leachate, surface water contamination via runoff,
air pollution via open burning, evaporation, sublimation and wind
erosion, poisonings via direct contact and through the food chain, and
fires and explosions at land disposal sites.
The objective of publishing these damage reports is to bring about
national awareness of the problem, which is essential to its solution.
These reports will be published from time to time as resources permit.
No systematic effort has been made to concentrate on any one parameter
of interest, be it geographical, industrial, type of disposal site, or
type of damage. Similarly, it is not the purpose of this series of
reports to single out any particular person, firm, or industry. Cases
are investigated as information becomes available. The only criteria
used in the selection of incidents for these reports are:
oseverity of damage
oavailability of supporting information
oavailability of EPA personnel for investigation
The data base for these damage reports varies widely. In some
instances, official public records will be available for documentation;
however, in most cases the reports will have to be based on inspection
-------
by EPA personnel, interviews with parties involved or having first-
hand knowledge of specific incidents, technical investigations by
consulting firms, newspaper accounts, etc.
The authority for the publication of such reports derives from
Sec. 204 (a)(l) and (b)(l) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965
(P.L. 89-272)--as amended by P.L. 91-512, P.L. 93-14, and P.L. 93-611
CONTENTS
Report Page
1. Arsenic Poisoning in Minnesota 1
2. Industrial Waste Disposal on Farmland in Illinois ... 3
3. Fatality at a New Jersey Industrial Landfill 6
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
DAMAGE REPORT
March 7, 1975
Arsenic Poisoning in Minnesota
1. Personal Damage - Eleven persons developed arsenic poisoning.
Two required hospitalization and treatment.
2. Environmental Damage - Contamination of the soil and groundwater
3. Economic Damage - Discontinued usage of contaminated well.
Installation of public water supply cost approximately
$3,000. Removal and safe disposal of contaminated soil
is estimated at $25,000.
4. Cause of Problem - Subsurface migration of arsenic compound.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Haste Involved - Grasshopper bait,
consisting of arsenic trioxide, bran, sawdust, and molasses.
Total quantity disposed estimated at less than 50 pounds.
6. Source of Waste - Local farmers
7. Date of Incident - Burial of grasshopper bait estimated between
1934 and 1936. First case of illness reported in May 1972,
with other cases following during the next 10 weeks.
8. Location - EPA Region V, Minnesota, Perham
9. Status - Problem of how to deal with contaminated soil still
requires resolution. Samples from 12 nearby wells are being
analyzed at six-month intervals by the State Health Department.
10. Remedial Action Taken - The well has been capped. Cost considera-
tions have prevented permanent correction of the situation at
this time.
11. Legal Action Taken - None
12. Remarks - In May 1972, a local building contractor occupied a new
office and warehouse structure at the outskirts of Perham, a
town of 1900 residents in western Minnesota. At that time, a
well was drilled to supply drinking water for about 13 people
who worked on the premises.
-------
Early in May, five employees became ill with gastrointestinal
symptoms. Following this, and continuing throughout the next 10
weeks, other employees also became ill. Arsenic poisoning was
determined to be the cause, which affected a total of 11 out of 13
persons exposed to the water. Two required hospitalization and
treatment. One of the victims lost the use of his legs for about
six months due to severe neuropathy. The medical aspects of this
groundwater contamination incident have been well documented by
Dr. E. J. Feinglass.2
Chemical analysis of samples taken from the affected well
established arsenic concentrations of up to 21,000 ppb. (The U.S.
Public Health Service drinking water standard for arsenic is 50 ppb.)
As Dr. Feinglass pointed out in his article, the particularly
serious consequences of chronic arsenic poisoning were probably
avoided in this instance because of the extremely high concentration
of arsenic in the drinking water. The acute course of the illness
allowed early recognition of the problem.
The source of the well water contamination has been traced back
to the mid-1930's, at which time grasshoppers had constituted a
serious problem to farmers in the area. Some old-timers recall that
excess grasshopper bait had been buried at the former County Fair-
grounds, in a corner which was used as the village dump in those days.
That area is now directly adjacent to the new facilities of the
building contractor whose well became contaminated.
The exact area of disposal was located approximately 20 feet from
the well. The well is 31 feet deep and the arsenic trioxide was buried
at a depth of about 7 feet. Analysis of soil samples established a
maximum arsenic concentration of 40% at the spot where a white
crystalline material was found. The Minnesota Department of Agriculture
has estimated that less than 50 pounds of grasshopper bait was disposed
in the trench about 40 years ago.
Several options have been proposed for solving the problem. These
include the following: (a) removal of approximately 2,000 cubic yards
of contaminated soil to sealed vaults; (b) chemical fixation of the soil;
and (c) covering the area with asphalt to retard further leaching of
arsenic into the groundwater. The estimated costs of these solutions
range from $25,000 to $2,5CO. Due to budgetary considerations, the
problem has not yet been resolved. There are current plans to install
a monitoring well in the immediate vicinity in the direction of the
estimated groundwater flow.
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
DAMAGE REPORT
March 7, 1975
Industrial Waste Disposal on Farmland in Illinois
1. Personal Damage - None
2. Environmental Damage - Contamination of the soil, surface- and
ground-waters with toxic materials; destruction of wildlife,
stream-dwelling organisms, and local vegetation
3. Economic Damage - In excess of $250,000 has been spent to date by
one property owner for clean-up and monitoring operations; at
least three cattle were killed by cyanide poisoning.
4. Cause of Problem - Dumping and burying of hazardous industrial
wastes on land
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste - At least 1,511 containers
(mostly 55-galI. and 30-gal. drums) of industrial wastes
containing cyanides, heavy metals, and miscellaneous other
materials
6. Sources of Waste - Mostly metal finishing operations
7. Date of Incident - Three dead cattle discovered on May 20, 1974;
however, the dumping had been going on for an unknown number
of years until about 1972
8. Location - EPA Region V, Illinois, near Byron, on the Johnson
Property and the former Dirks Farm, which was purchased by
the Commonwealth Edison Company in 1973
9. Status - The dumping and burying ceased around 1972, but the disposal
site has sustained long-range environmental damage, which
is particularly evident during periods of heavy rainfall. An
unknown quantity of deteriorating drums of chemical wastes are
estimated to be still buried at the Johnson Property.
10. Remedial Action Taken - Commonwealth Edison's contractor, the
Conservation Chemical Company, removed a total of 1,511 con-
tainers from the former Dirks Farm for controlled disposal.
Of this quantity, 576 fifty-five gal. drums and 425 thirty-
gal, drums contained spent cyanides, which were incinerated.
Earthen dams and trenches were constructed to confine the
toxic runoff, which was treated with calcium hypochlorite
to destroy the cyanide. A surface- and ground-water monitoring
-------
program was initiated. No known remedial action has been
taken at the adjacent Johnson Property.
11. Legal Action Taken - In December 1974, the State Attorney General
Office, at the request of the Illinois EPA, filed a complaint
against Byron Salvage Company and its listed owners, Mr. and
Mrs. W.E. Johnson. The complaint alleges that the company
allowed contaminants to be placed on land so as to create a
water pollution hazard; polluted Woodland Creek with dis-
charges of cyanide, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, manganese,
nickel, silver and zinc; conducted a refuse disposal oper-
ation without a permit; contaminated underground water with
phenol, cyanide and cadmium; and did not have a state wastewater
discharge permit.
12. Remarks - In May 1974, three dead cattle were discovered on
Commonwealth Edison Company's recently acquired property
(formerly known as the Dirks Farm), and pathological exam-
ination established that the cattle had died of cyanide
poisoning. Further investigation revealed that the approxi-
mately 5-acre area, which is part of a large property set
aside for a nuclear power plant, had been for several years
a repository of large quantities of toxic industrial wastes.
According to information furnished by the Illinois EPA,
Mr. Johnson, owner of the Byron Salvage Company, initially
hauled industrial wastes to his own property for dumping
and burial. Later, Mr. Johnson allegedly negotiated with
Mr. Dirks, owner of the neighboring farm property, for
permission to dump more industrial wastes there. In 1974,
when Commonwealth Edison Company learned of the potential
problems associated with its acquired property, it hired
the consulting firm of Dames and Moore to study the nature
and magnitude of the environmental damage and to recommend
a proper clean-up procedure. Dames and Moore prepared a
comprehensive study which documents the substantial damage to
wildlife (birds, downstream aquatic community, stream
bottom-dwelling organisms, frogs, etc.) and local vegetation
(trees, shrubs, etc.). Also, the study points out the
severity of the contamination of nearby soils, vegetation,
and surface- and ground-waters by toxic materials. The
following tabulation will serve to illustrate the contamination
of the surface-water runoff which ultimately enters the
Rock River, situated 1 1/2 miles east of the site:
U.S. Public Health
Maximum Concentration Service Drinking
Contaminant Detected in Runoff Water Standards
(parts per billion (parts per billion)
Arsenic 60 50
Cadmi urn 340 10
Chromium 17,200 50 (W.H.O. standard)
Cyanide 365,000 200
Phenols 8 1 (recommended)
4
-------
Ongoing surface- and ground-water monitoring efforts by
Commonwealth Edison testify to the long-range nature of the problem
posed by toxic pollutants that had drained into the soil. Also,
it is too early to predict what time period will be required
before farm crops can be safely harvested on the affected
property. As far as the Johnson Property is concerned, an unknown
quantity of chemical wastes is estimated to be buried there,
awaiting the outcome of current legal proceedings.
There are two recent significant developments surrounding
this case study:
1. In February 1975, Mr. Johnson brought to the attention of
local public health officials several additional sites
within one mile of his property where other parties
allegedly dumped liquid industrial wastes on land. These
sites are currently being investigated.
2. As of March 1975, owners of at least forty-six private
wells within a three-mile radius of the Johnson Property
have been warned by the Illinois Department of Public
Health that their drinking water is unsafe due to
unacceptable levels of lead and mercury. One of the
wells was found to have an unsafe concentration of
cadmium and many contained cyanide; however, the cyanide
concentrations were within U.S. Public Health Service
drinking water standards. Investigations by State
authorities are in progress to determine the source(s)
of these contaminants.
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
DAMAGE REPORT
March 7, 1975
Fatality at a New Jersey Industrial Landfill
1. Personal Damage - Bulldozer operator killed in explosion at landfill
2. Environmental Damage - None which resulted from incident
3. Economic Damage - Bulldozer destroyed; approx. $91,000 damage
4. Cause of Problem - Explosion while burying and compacting drums of
unidentified industrial waste chemicals
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste Involved - From one to five
55-gallon drums of unidentified chemicals
6. Source of Waste - Unknown industrial origin
7. Date of Incident - October 11, 1974
8. Location - EPA Region II, New Jersey, Edison Township, Kin-Buc
Landfill
9. Status - Landfill remains active. The case was investigated by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and New
Jersey State authorities.
10. Remedial Action Taken - Management has agreed to make every effort to
keep out unknown chemical wastes.
11. Legal Action Taken - The OSHA issued six citations (covering thirty-
six items) for violation of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970. A formal settlement of contested items was reached
between OSHA and the management on March 4, 1975.
12. Remarks - The Kin-Buc Landfill, located on 30 acres adjacent to
the Raritan River, has received both municipal and industrial
wastes for about twelve years. It is owned by Kin-Buc, Inc.,
a subsidiary of Scientific, Inc., of Scotch Plains, N.J.
-------
According to Mr. James Stroin, Vice President of Scientific,
the landfill receives approximately 200 truck!oads of waste
per day, 25% of which is industrial waste. This includes wastes
from such industrial categories as organic and inorganic
chemicals, Pharmaceuticals, paints, plastics, and others.
The wastes are delivered to the site in tank trucks and in
containers. Bulk liquids are poured out of the tank trucks on
top of the previously deposited waste, while those in containers
are buried and then compacted with bulldozers. Mr. Stroin
explained that two tests are conducted as a means of identifying
the wastes. The first, a test for flammability, is conducted by
igniting a sample in a glass beaker. The second is pH testing
by indicator paper.
The acceptance of unidentified chemical wastes at landfills
has been deemed an unsafe practice by the State of New Jersey and
is specifically prohibited in recently promulgated solid waste
disposal regulations. However, these regulations had been sus-
pended by court order at the date of the explosion; they have
since been reinstated.
According to the OSHA investigation, eleven 55-gallon drums
of unknown chemicals had been stored at the site for about six
weeks prior to the explosion. On October 11, 1974, one of the
managers of the Chemical Waste Division of Scientific, Inc.,
told an employee to remove these drums for burial. Mr. Donald
Amatel, one of the two bulldozer operators working there at
the time, had covered five drums of the unidentified industrial
waste chemicals and had begun the compacting operation when an
explosion occurred. According to the OSHA investigation, a large
flame enveloped the bulldozer. Mr. Amatel jumped out of his
cab and another explosion followed, which caused burns covering
approximately 85% of his body and destroyed the bulldozer beyond
recovery. Mr. Amatel died the following day. He had been active
in his line of work for about fifteen years.
When interviewed by an EPA official, Mr. Stroin attributed
the fatal outcome of the accident to the faulty judgment of the
bulldozer operator. He indicated that Mr. Amatel should have
stayed in the cab and backed out with the equipment to avoid
injury. Witnesses, however, stated that this would not have been
possible. In response to questions about possible environmental
problems with the landfill, Mr. Stroin conceded that there
were occasional problems with contaminants being drained from
the landfill after periods of heavy rainfall.
-------
For the first ten months of 1974, six other obviously chemical
waste disposal-related occupational injuries were recorded in the
Kin-Buc logs, the maintaining of which is required under the Williams-
Steiger Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (excluded from
this requirement are minor injuries requiring only first aid treatment),
The recorded injuries affected two bulldozer operators, a laborer,
and two drivers. These injuries, as obtained from the OSHA files,
are as follows:
1. Eye irritation sustained while bulldozer operator was
pushing drum which split, squirting liquid into eyes.
2. Smoke inhalation which caused respiratory and stomach
conditions while operator was fighting a fire on a
bulldozer.
3. Conjunctivitis of eyes caused by fumes from waste
products. Safety glasses were being worn at the
time of injury.
4. Burned foot when driver stepped out of truck into a
hole containing 250°F acid waste.
5. Chemical burns to hands and other parts of body as a
result of pushing a drum with bulldozer. The drum
split open and liquid squirted out.
6. Sustained burn of the cornea when dumping acid from a
tank truck.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs. Disposal of hazardous wastes; report
to Congress. Environmental Protection Publication Sto-115
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 110 p,
2. Feinglass, E.J. Arsenic Intoxication from well water in the
United States. The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol.
288, No. 16, pp. 828-830 (April 19, 1973).
pal!83aR
8
------- |