EPA/530/SW-151 3
JUNE 1976
hazardous waste disposal damage reports
LIBRARY *>
AL PROTECTION AGP-- d°cument no. V9
.**•
on so'
manageinent
EP 53Q/
SVf-151.3
-------
An environmental protection publication (SW-151.3) in the solid waste
management series. Mention of commercial products does not constitute
endorsement by the U.S. Government. Editing and technical content of
this report were the responsibilities of the Hazardous Waste Management
Division of the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs.
Single copies of this publication are available from Solid Waste
Information, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio
45268.
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL DAMAGE REPORTS
This publication (SW-151.3), the third 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
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1976
FNVIRONMENT^L PRCTCCTION Arr
.- N. j. 0831 /
-------
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 had 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:
o
severity of damage
0availability of supporting information
"availability 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
111
-------
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
Petrochemical Contamination of the Cohansey Aquifer
in New Jersey 1
Hexachlorobenzene Contamination of Cattle in Louisiana 6
Poison Fumes Overcome Workers at a Maryland Landfill 10
PREVIOUS DAMAGE REPORTS
EPA Publication No. SW-151.2 (December 1975)
Dioxin Poisoning Caused by Improper Waste Disposal in Missouri
Contamination of Groundwater Beneath the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
and Surrounding Area
Dumping into Sand Pit Pollutes Domestic Wells in Texas
EPA Publication No. SW-151 (June 1975)
Arsenic Poisoning in Minnesota
Industrial Waste Disposal on Farmland in Illinois
Fatality at a New Jersey Industrial Landfill
iv
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
DAMAGE REPORT
May 1976
Petrochemical Contamination of the Cohansey Aquifer in New Jersey
1. Personal Damage-None documented.
2. Environmental Damage-Contamination of an unknown portion of the
Cohansey Aquifer, a heavily used groundwater table aquifer
in the New Jersey coastal plain.
3. Economic Damage-Permanent loss of use of 148 private supply wells
as a result of condemnation. The direct monetary costs
associated with the incident are estimated at over $400,000.
4. Cause of Problem-The most likely cause of the problem was
the infiltration of contaminants from drummed industrial
wastes dumped on a former chicken farm (the Reich property).
Many of these drums are known to have leaked before being
removed, and at least some of the waste liquid was dumped
directly onto the soil.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste-At least 4,500 55-gallon
drums of liquid chemical wastes, containing a wide variety
of petrochemicals with toxic, flammable, explosive, and
oxidizing properties.
6. Source of Waste-The Bound Brook plant of the Union Carbide
Corporation (UCC). The wastes were hauled to the Reich
property by Nicholas Fernicola, an independent hauler.
7. Date of Incident-The drums were dumped between August and
December of 1971. In early 1974, contamination of
wells in the immediate vicinity became evident.
8. Location-Dover Township (near Toms River), Ocean County,
New Jersey.
-------
9. Status-The condemned wells remain closed, and a State-instituted
requirement that new wells in an area just outside the condemned
zone be drilled to the deeper Kirkwood Aquifer remains in effect.
10. Remedial Action-In April 1972, as a result of a court order, the
drums and contaminated soil were removed from the Reich property.
When additional drums were discovered in June 1974, these
were also excavated, along with the contaminated soil, and
hauled away for disposal.
11. Legal Action-On January 31, 1972, a complaint was filed with the
Superior Court of New Jersey on behalf of the Reichs against
UCC and Nicholas Fernicola. A second complaint was filed by
the Township of Dover naming the same defendants. These
complaints resulted in a court order that UCC stop dumping
or transporting any chemical waste in the Township of Dover
and that it remove all chemical wastes and drums from the
Reich property. In April 1972, when the area had apparently
been cleaned up by UCC, the complaints were dismissed. In
an out-of-court settlement with UCC, the Reichs received
$10,000 for damages to their property and were reimbursed
for the cost of a new well.
On October 11, 1974, a class action suit was filed by
local property owners against UCC. The plaintiffs are
demanding $14 million in compensatory and punitive damages
on the grounds that UCC was negligent in its disposal of
chemical wastes which contaminated the plaintiffs' ground-
water. Litigation has not yet been completed.
The most recent legal action is a suit being brought by
the State of New Jersey against UCC demanding that the Company
remedy all remaining problems resulting from the incident,
cease further violations, and be judged against for compen-
satory and punitive damages.
12. Narrative*-In March 1971, UCC contracted with Nicholas Fernicola,
an independent waste hauler, to remove and dispose of an
unspecified number of 55-gallon drums of chemical wastes
from its facility at Bound Brook, New Jersey. These wastes
were composed of organic wash solvents, still bottoms, and
residues from the manufacture of organic chemicals, plastics,
and resins. Although some of the drums were taken
* Documentation for this Damage Report was obtained through an EPA-
sponsored study (see Reference 2).
-------
initially to the Dover Township Landfill as intended, the bulk
was dumped on a former chicken farm belonging to Mr. and Mrs.
Samuel Reich, in the Pleasant Plains section of Dover Township.
This land was leased to Nicholas Fernicola by the Reichs in
August 1971, on the assumption that he was in the drum salvaging
business and empty drums would be stored there to allow accumulation
of a sufficient quantity to constitute a full load for delivery
to ultimate purchasers. A few months later, the Reichs began to
notice unusual odors emanating from the leased area of their property
and upon inspection discovered that there were thousands of drums
of chemicals both buried and strewn about. In December of
the same year, they notified Mr. Fernicola and subsequently UCC, and
requested that the drums be removed. Getting little response, they
contacted the New Jersey State Department of Environmental Protection,
which advised them that storage of chemical wastes on private land
was outside the jurisdiction of the State and that they should
take the matter up directly with the parties involved. This led
the Reichs to initiate court action against Mr. Fernicola and UCC.
They were joined in a similar action by the Township of Dover which
acted on the grounds that the storage of these chemicals constituted
a public nuisance and endangered the lives and property of the
Township's residents. On January 31, 1972, the court ordered UCC
to remove the drums and clean up the premises. The Reichs received
an out-of-court settlement of $10,000 plus compensation for the con-
struction of a new well from UCC for the damages they were claiming.
In April, when all the wastes had apparently been removed, the
complaints against UCC were dropped. In June 1974, a tip led to
the discovery of 51 additional drums in another part of the Reich
property and also a trailer containing drummed wastes in a wooded
area near Winding River, four miles away. These were also
removed by UCC. Some of the drums removed prior to April 1974 were
taken to a UCC plant in Ohio for incineration. Other drums were
taken to the Rollins-Purle industrial waste disposal facility in
Logan Township and the Kin-Buc Landfill* in Edison Township, both
located in New Jersey. The additional drums discovered later and
the contaminated soil were disposed of at the Kin-Buc Landfill.
The quantity of these wastes actually entering the soil is
unknown; however, between 5,000 and 6,000 drums of wastes were hauled
away from the site where they had been generated. Since only about
4,500 drums were discovered, those missing are believed to have been
deposited in the Dover Township Landfill or poured directly on the
Reich property and elsewhere, and the empty drums salvaged. Also,
about ten percent of the drums discovered on the Reich property were
either partially or completely empty. Presumably, they were full
when deposited.
Subject of a previous Damage Report (see first document in the
series).
-------
Early in 1974, about two years after the first discovery
of the chemical wastes on the Reich property, some of the residents
in the immediate vicinity began having taste and odor problems
with their well water. Sampling and analysis performed by the
State indicated the presence of petrochemicals in the ppm range
in the wells of those complaining, as well as in other wells
in the area. These analytical results, the very strong and
persistent taste and odor problems associated with the water
from some of the wells, and the documented dumping and burial
of the chemical wastes at the Reich property led the State
Department of Environmental Protection to conclude that the
groundwater in at least the immediate vicinity of the disposal
site was contaminated with hazardous organic chemicals. The
Dover Township Board of Health then passed an ordinance forbidding
the use of well water within the contaminated zone for any
purpose, permanently condemning 148 private wells, and ordering
that they be capped with cement.
During the six-month interim between condemning of the
wells and extension of a public water supply line from the Toms
River Water Company to the area, emergency water supply was
provided through the use of tanker trucks. Some residents and
public facilities used bottled water for drinking and cooking.
In the area just outside the contaminated zone surrounding the
Reich farm, where construction of new wells was still allowed,
the State imposed a greater minimum depth for wells in order
to tap the underlying uncontaminated Kirkwood Aquifer. This was
enforced through the State's already established well drilling
permit program.
There are several other waste disposal sites which may
contribute to groundwater contamination in that area of Ocean
County. These include the Dover Township Landfill at which
chemical wastes have been deposited, the Toms River Chemical
Corporation plant in Dover Township, and various locations in
which unauthorized industrial waste disposal has allegedly
taken place. Although these possible sources of groundwater
contamination relate to the Cohansey Formation, they do not
appear to bear on the Pleasant Plains problem directly.
Monetary damages directly resulting from the contamination
of the Cohansey Aquifer, in which the affected wells are located,
amounted to more than $400,000.
-------
The direct damages can be broken down as follows:
Estimated cost of capping the condemned wells 44,400
Removal of drums 25,750
Interim emergency water supply 4,900
Drilling of 20 new wells to deeper aquifer 46,000
Cost of sampling and analysis 38,900
Extension of public water supply 249,100
Construction of observation wells . .8,300
$417,350
Indirect costs, such as the cost to residents in
inconvenience and devaluation of property, the time spent by
Federal, State and local authorities in dealing with the problem,
and possible future spread of the contaminated zone, have not
been calculated. While no public health problems appeared to
arise from this incident, the possibility of chronic health
effects could not be evaluated.
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
DAMAGE REPORT
May 1976
Hexachlorobenzene Contamination of Cattle in Louisiana
1. Personal Damage-None documented.
2. Environmental Damage-Contamination of air, soil, and vegetation over
an area of about 100 square miles by a toxic substance.
3. Economic Damage-Expenditure of over $380,000, including monitoring
and enforcement. This amount does not include losses incurred
from delayed marketing of about 30,000 head of cattle.
4. Cause of Problem-Most likely cause was the volatilization of
hexachlorobenzene (HCB) from landfilled wastes and subsequent
bioaccumulation in cattle grazing in contaminated areas.
Other possible sources were industrial processing air emissions
and practices involving storage of contaminated products and
transport of HCB-containing wastes.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste-Wastes containing about 15%
HCB were generated at the Vulcan plant in the amount of 5,400
tons/year. Because escape of contaminants in the course of
production and disposal occurred continuously over a number
of years, the total amount of HCB involved in this episode
cannot be estimated.
6. Source of Waste-The Vulcan Materials Corporation plant at
Geismar, Louisiana, where the manufacture of perchloroethylene
(tetrachloroethylene) and carbon tetrachloride produces HCB as
a by-product. Several other plants in the area, which manu-
factured similar products, probably contributed HCB-contaminated
wastes to one or both of the landfills at which HCB levels were
found to be high.
7. Date of Incident-Contamination of beef was discovered in a routine
sample taken in December 1972.
8. Location-A 100 square mile area around Darrow and Geismar, Louisiana.
9. Status-Vulcan Materials Corp. is now burying its wastes on-site and
has reduced emissions of HCB into the air to the ppb range.
Monitoring for HCB continues.
10. Remedial Action-The two landfills which previously received HCB
wastes no longer do so, although one is still in operation.
These sites have been covered with 4 to 6 feet of soil, and a
-------
polyethylene film has been placed approximately two feet below
the surface. Vulcan's current practice is to temporarily store
HCB wastes underwater in a lagoon and subsequently landfill
them on-site, utilizing a cover system similar to the one
described above.
11. Legal Action-In the spring of 1973, the State of Louisiana ordered
Vulcan to landfill its HCB wastes on-site, using plastic and
soil as cover. At about the same time, the State obtained
a cease-and-desist order directing Vulcan to reduce its air
emissions of HCB to below detectable levels (in the ppb
range).
12. Narrative*-In December 1972, a routine sample of beef fat taken
as part of the U.S. Department of Agrigulture's (USDA) Meat and
Poultry Inspection Program, showed 1.52 ppm HCB. Until that
time, HCB was rarely encountered, and the level found far
exceeded the USDA action guideline of 0.3 ppm then in effect.
When it was discovered that the sample came from a steer
belonging to W. I. Duplessis of Darrow, Louisiana, inspectors
from the program returned to the area and took three additional
samples from the Duplessis herd. These also showed high levels
(0.99, 1.11, 3.07 ppm) of HCB. Further sampling was conducted
in the vicinity, and an area of about 100 square miles was
found to contain highly contaminated cattle.
The State of Louisiana was notified, and its officials
began an investigation to identify the sources of contamination.
Initially, a number of HCB sources were thought possible, because
in addition to being a by-product of the manufacture of
chlorinated solvents, HCB is also present as a contaminant in
certain pesticides and is itself a registered fungicide used for
treating seed grain and vegetable seeds. Numerous sources were
considered but most of them were ruled out in the course of the
investigation. Soil and vegetation samples confirmed the area
of contamination and showed concentrations of HCB at high levels
near the Vulcan Materials Corporation plant at Geismar, the
Ascension Parish Landfill (which was receiving Vulcan's wastes),
and another landfill operated by Browning-Ferris Industries.
Levels as high as 5,000 ppm were found in the soil at the disposal
sites, and it was later learned that HCB-containing wastes were
being employed as a cover because they were so effective at keeping
birds away. Storage areas for products containing HCB appeared to
be minor sources, as did the routes along which Vulcan's wastes
were transported. Although a Dow Chemical plant in the area was
manufacturing similar products, it had instituted a program of
incinerating its wastes, and did not pose the problem identified
at Vulcan.
* Documentation for this Damage Report was obtained from the internal files
of the U.S. EPA Office of Toxic Substances and Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs.
-------
The specific mechanism of bioaccumulation of HCB in the
cattle has not been determined. It is thought that ingestion
(via settlement of HCB on the pastures) and inhalation by the
animals were both contributing factors.
At the time of the incident, no tolerance level for HCB
had been established and although USDA used an action guideline
of 0.3 ppm, this did not have legal force. Therefore, USDA peti-
tioned EPA to establish a tolerance for HCB in livestock products,
and the State imposed a quarantine on livestock produced in the
100 square mile area identified earlier. The State also obtained
a cease-and-desist order requiring Vulcan to stop emitting HCB
into the air during its operations, and to bury its HCB-laden
wastes on-site, using a plastic and soil cover.
Based on USDA's action level, 42 percent of the quarantined
cattle would have been unacceptable for marketing. The USDA,
in its petition, asked that the tolerance level "be established
as high as possible, consistent with providing consumer safety."
After review of the available scientific literature and consul-
tation with the USDA, the Food and Drug Administration, and
appropriate Louisiana State Agencies, EPA recommended an interim
tolerance level of 0.5 ppm HCB, finding that the data needed
to justify a final tolerance did not exist. The USDA adopted
the interim tolerance level, and along with EPA, began the studies
needed to establish the final tolerance. This change from the
action level to the interim tolerance resulted in a reduction
of unmarketable animals to 29 percent.
Initial estimates of losses to be incurred by ranchers were
as high as $3.9 million, based on the assumption that approximately
30,000 cattle would have to be destroyed. This did not occur
because levels of HCB dropped with time as the cattle were removed
from contaminated areas and fed an uncontaminated diet. Only 27
animals proved unmarketable by the end of 1974, when the quarantine
was lifted by the State.
The total direct cost of this incident was in excess of
$380,000, primarily due to monitoring and enforcement costs of
$143,000 and the loss of use of grazing land estimated at $200,000.
The loss due to unmarketable cattle was reduced to $38,000. Another
cost, which has not been estimated, is that resulting from delays
in the marketing of about 30,000 head of cattle.
As a result of the incident, a number of HCB-related studies
were initiated by EPA and other agencies. One of these has
shown disproportionately high plasma HCB levels in people living
-------
in the area of Louisiana where the contamination occurred.3
The highest level encountered in the general population was
23 ppb, and a waste disposal facility worker was found to
have a level of 345 ppb. The average level was 3.6 ppb.
No toxic symptoms were evident. Two additional recent reports
bearing on the subject of this Damage Report are cited among
the references.4*5
HCB is a pollutant of concern because it is persistent
in the environment and is chemically and biologically stable.
It is a crystalline solid, but appears in a variety of forms,
including vapor, industrial dust, and suspended particulates
in water. Under normal environmental conditions it can sublime
into the atmosphere. While not acutely toxic in single doses
due to poor transfer through the gastro-intestinal tract (the
LDg o being on the order of 10 mg/kg of body weight), continued
low-dose exposure to HCB by ingestion or inhalation causes
bioaccumulation in animal adipose tissues. This can result
in chronic damage to the liver and affect enzymatic function.
An outbreak of HCB toxicity in humans occurred in Turkey
during the 1950's. This resulted from the human consumption
of HCB-treated feed grain which had been accidentally distri-
buted by the Turkish Government. As many as 5,000 people
are believed to have sustained poisoning, 80 percent being
children between the ages of 4 and 14. Effects observed
included liver deterioration, acute skin sensitivity and
blistering, uncontrolled hair growth, and ultimately, tremors,
convulsions, and death. Doses were estimated to be 50 to
200 mg/day for a long period of time, with symptoms continuing
to appear for several years.
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
DAMAGE REPORT
May 1976
Poison Fumes Overcome Workers at a Maryland Landfill
1. Personal Damage-Six men hospitalized.
2. Environmental Damage-Pollution of the air with hydrogen
sulfide.
3. Economic Damage-Medical expenses and loss of work time by
those injured. Closing for six hours of nearby plant
which manufactures concrete blocks.
4. Cause of Problem-Liberation of toxic fumes when dumping of
an industrial waste solution at a landfill resulted
in chemical reaction.
5. Type and Quantity of Hazardous Waste-Two thousand gallons of
an industrial waste solution consisting of iron sulfide,
sodium sulfide, sodium carbonate, and sodium thio-
sulfate, along with smaller quantities of organic
compounds.
6. Source of Waste-The waste was generated in the manufacture
of agricultural chemicals at the F.M.C. Corporation
plant in Baltimore.
7. Date of Incident-July 1, 1975.
8. Location-Norris Farm Landfill, near Dundalk, in Baltimore
County, Maryland.
9. Status-The landfill is presently in operation and, under
Baltimore County order, no longer accepts toxic
industrial wastes or any wastes which are likely to
endanger the safety of landfill workers or others.
10
-------
10. Remedial Action-Caustic solution was poured on top of area
where the waste had been dumped. The area was sub-
sequently covered with refuse and graded.
11. Legal Action-A citation was issued to the landfill owner, Browning-
Ferris Industries (BFI), and its subsidiary, Johnson and
Speake, Inc., by the Maryland State Occupational Safety and
Health Administration. This has resulted in an appeal by
the cited parties, and the case is presently in litigation.
12. Narrative*-0n the morning of July 1, 1975, Leroy Grove, a driver
for the Johnson and Speake trash hauling firm, picked up a
full 2,000-gallon waste storage tank containing industrial
waste liquid from the F.M.C. Corporation in Baltimore.
This tank is regularly deposited there by the hauler for use
in accumulating a waste which results from the manufacture of
agricultural chemicals. A chemist at F.M.C. had allegedly
checked on the waste liquid before it left the plant and found
the pH to be about 13. Upon arriving at the working face of
the Norris Farm Landfill (which was receiving both municipal
and industrial wastes), Mr. Grove opened the valve to allow
the liquid to discharge into a depression atop an earth-
covered area of the fill. He noticed that the material was a
darker color than usual and as soon as it reached eight to ten
feet below where the truck was, the discharging liquid began
bubbling and forming a blue smoke. The smoke quickly streamed
toward the truck and soon enveloped it, causing the driver to
fall to the ground. Several landfill employees who rushed to
his aid were also overcome. All five of these men were taken
by ambulance to Baltimore General Hospital, and Mr. Grove was
admitted in critical condition. The area was then cleared and
County firefighters were summoned to clean up the liquid.
During the operation, one of the firefighters also became ill
and had to be hospitalized.
In order to stop the chemical reaction which was creating
the fumes, a 2,000-gallon load of caustic solution was sent
from the F.M.C. plant and discharged onto the area where the
waste had been dumped. This increased the pH of the liquid
on the ground, and the reaction was halted. Analysis of air
* Documentation for this Damage Report was obtained from the records of
the Maryland State Department of Health and Mental Hygiene (Division of
Solid Waste Control) and the Baltimore County Department of Health.
11
-------
samples taken at locations around the site before the wastes
were neutralized showed 5 to 10 ppm hydrogen sulfide. The area
was later covered with refuse and graded. Mr. Grove, the most
seriously injured of the men admitted to the hospital, was
released five days after the incident, still suffering residual
effects.
The fumes which injured the men contained hydrogen sulfide
(H2S), a highly toxic gas which is somewhat denser than air.
An analysis of the original waste showed that it does liberate
HaS when acidified, but it is not certain whether the waste liquid
came into contact with a substance on the ground at the landfill
which lowered its pH, or if it left the F.M.C. plant in an unstable
form. A similar occurrence at a landfill in England (March 1975)
did result in a fatality. A lorry driver died from the inhalation
of HaS fumes after he discharged his load of sulfuric acid into a
ditch which had just received another load of liquid waste.
At the time this incident occurred, the Norris Farm Landfill
was receiving an average of 1,800 tons of waste a day, of which
a substantial amount consisted of liquids from industrial sources.
There was no system for segregating wastes and according to a
statement by Mr. Grove, no one ever checked or sampled the wastes
he hauled between the time he picked up the material and then
dumped it at the landfill. All types of solids and liquids were
therefore accepted at the landfill in spite of a Baltimore County
code prohibiting the acceptance of "hazardous and special wastes"
without consultation with appropriate County officials. Liquids
were indiscriminately dumped at the working face or sometimes on
the cover over completed fill areas, without recording the
specific locations. While the landfill is located just 100 feet
from the Back River and contains very large volumes of liquid
chemical wastes which can be assumed to be leaching or perco-
lating from the site, the area is already highly polluted
from other sources. Consequently, the contribution of this
waste disposal site to the pollution of the river and ground-
water is difficult to document.
12
-------
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste
Management Programs. Disposal of hazardous wastes; report
to Congress. Environmental Protection Publications SW-115.
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 110 p.
2. Ghassemi, M. Analysis of a land disposal damage incident
involving hazardous waste materials, Dover Township, New
Jersey. Draft Report on EPA Contract No. 68-01-2956,
Task Order No. 68-01-3187, May 1976.
3. Burns, J.E., F.M. Miller. Hexachlorobenzene contamination:
its effects in a Louisiana population. Arch. Environ.
Health, Vol. 30, p. 44-48. January 1975.
4. Booth, N.H., J.R. McDowell. Toxicity of hexachlorobenzene
and associated residues in edible animal tissues. JAVMA,
Vol. 166, No. 6, p. 591-595. March 15, 1975.
5. Quinlivan, S., M. Ghassemi, M. Santy. Survey of methods used
to control wastes containing hexachlorobenzene. Final Report
on EPA Contract No. 68-01-2956, Task Order No. 68-01-3203,
November 1975. 87 p.
yoll83c
U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE • 1976 O - 209-778
------- |