U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-SURVEILLANCE AND ANALYSIS DfVSS
REGION 2
ft£W YORK, NEW YORK 1000?
-------
Kin-Buc Landfill Investigation
2/27/76 - 3/23/76
Prepared By: Surveillance and Analysis Division
Region II
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Edison, New Jersey
June 30, 1976
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS .
Page No.
SUMMARY i
FIGURES ii
TABLES iv
SECTIONS
INTRODUCTION 1
Background 2
Preliminary Survey 5
Liquid Chemical Waste Disposal Practices at
Kin-Buc 8
Sampling Survey and Results 9
REFERENCES 18
APPENDICES
A. State of New Jersey Citations and Fines for
Violations of the State Permit to Operate
B. Sampling Station Descriptions
C. Photographs
-------
SUMMARY
After becoming aware of the present and potential problems associated
with the Kin-Buc landfill the Director of the Surveillance and Analysis
Division initiated a study of the Kin-Buc landfill operation located
in Edison, New Jersey.- The purpose of the study was to determine whether
or not the present procedure for disposing of liquid chemical wastes
resulted in the subsequent discharge of these wastes to contiguous
tributaries and hence into the Raritan River. It was decided that, due
to the press of time, the most appropriate technique would be the use of
a dye tracer technique to follow the movement of waste from the middle
of the landfill where the liquid chemical wastes were being deposited
through the mound of solid waste to the river. Three sampling points
were located based on observation by preliminary survey teams and 24-hour
sampling monitors were put on line. The samplers were picked up daily
and replaced with samplers containing new sample bottles. All samples
were returned to the laboratory and analyzed for dye concentration
immediately. Monitoring was continued over a 17 day period. The follow-
ing conclusions can be made as a result of this survey:
1. A comparison of results between materials collected at five
monitoring stations and those collected at the top of the mound in the
chemical leach pits, gives a strong indication that the materials being
dumped on top of £he pile find their way to the tributaries and hence to
the Raritan River.
2. No dye was found in effluent samples over the entire course of the
study. Although no dye was detected it can not be concluded from these
data that the liquid chemical waste materials do not percolate through the
mound to the river, but only indicate no conclusion can be made. It was
-------
possible that sampling was not conducted for a long enough period to
allow percolation to proceed through the mound and to the tributaries.
It is also possible based on the types and amounts of material being
dumped at the liquid chemical waste site, that the chemical dye,
Rhodamine B, reacted with these materials and destroyed the fluorescent
nature of the dye.
3. Based on exposure response of field personnel (see affidavits -
Appendix) and surrounding environment of the chemical pits and landfill,
personnel operating in this area can expect to be adversely affected with
regard to their personal health. Further investigation as to the potential
effects from airborne pollutants on the residents of the surrounding communi-
ties should be pursued. Based on visual sitings by personnel, materials
with a low flash point and high flammability are routinely being dumped into
the liquid chemical waste pit. Explosions accompanied by associated fires
appears to be a routine operating hazard at this landfill.
4. Based on the data provided by Kin-Buc landfill personnel with
regards to the amounts of liquid chemical waste and solid waste, our calcula-
tions indicate complete absorption of the liquid material by the solid
waste is beyond theoretical capability.
5. The Kin-Buc landfill at the time of the survey was discharging
materials to the navigable waters of the United States via a point discharge,
and therefore can be classified as a non-filer in terms of the NPDES permit
V
program.
6. Concurrent data gathered by the Emergency Response and Investigations
Branch indicate numerous violations of Section 311 of the Water Pollution
Control Act of 1972, as amended.
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page No.
1 Sketch of Kin-Buc Landfill Area 3
2 Location of Sampling Stations 7
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page No.
I Organics Data 14
II Kin-Buc Landfill Station KIN-003A and
Raritan River Station KBR-01 Data 15
III Emission Spec Scan (Semi Quant) Data 16
IV
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Kin-Buc, Inc. landfill located on Meadow Road in Edison, New Jersey
is a 220 acre site leased by Kin-Buc, Inc., 1703 E. Second Street, Scotch
Plains, New Jersey from Inmar Associates, Inc., 1703 E. Second Street,
Scotch Plains, New Jersey.
The landfill accepts as part of its operation municipal, industrial,
and institutional refuse and solid waste. It also accepts liquid chemical
industrial waste from a number of sources located in different states within
a 200-300 mile radius of the site. According to Kin-Buc officials, in 1975
the landfill accepted 230,000 tons of solid waste, and 12.3 million gallons
of liquid chemical waste. Currently, according to Mr. Gary Hall,
the landfill accepts on a 6-day per week operation schedule, approximately
100,000 gallons per day of liquid chemical waste, or 31.2 million gallons
of liquid chemical waste per year. A figure of 50 million gallons per year
has also been reported.
Of the 220 acre site only 14 acres are actively being used for solid
and liquid chemical waste disposal. This 14 acre active area has been worked
by refuse disposal and fill covering to a height of approximately 80-90
feet. At the top of this 80-90 foot mound, pits are dug which are several
feet deep and approximately 75-100 feet in diameter. Liquid chemical industrial
waste is transported via tank trucks from industrial generators to the top
of the landfill, and are dumped with no treatment whatsoever into these pits
t
and allowed to percolate into the mound. Tests conducted by Kin-Buc, Inc.
prior to disposal are limited to pH and flammability on each tank truck load.
In the past, Kin-Buc, Inc. has had a number of operational and environ-
mental problems:
-------
1. The State of New Jersey has issued a number of citations and
fines for violations of the State permit to operate, (see Appendix A).
2. Many major fires have erupted, the latest on May 3, 1976. As of
May 3, there have been four major fires in the past 11 days.
3. An on-the-job fatality of a bulldozer operator.
4. Oil and chemical spills into the Raritan River as a result of
percolation or dike failure. The most recent spills occurred in January,
1976 and on April 30, 1976.
5. A number of local complaints that indicate the operation signifi-
cantly contributes to air, water and ground water pollution.
The Surveillance and Analysis Division conducted an investigation of
the Kin-Buc landfill to determine:
1. Whether liquid chemical waste being dumped at the Kin-Buc landfill
was leaching through the 80-90 foot mound into navigable waters of the
United States.
2. Whether point source discharges exist, thus requiring compliance with
the requirements of the NPDES program. In addition, an air monitoring survey
was conducted to determine the impact on the air environment of the Kin-Buc
operator. The results of this work will be summarized in a separate report.
The water survey consisted of preliminary inspection of Kin-Buc on
February 27, 1976 and a sampling survey from March 3, 1976 through March 19,
1976. This report summarizes, the results of this work.
t
Background
Figure 1 shows the Kin-Buc landfill, its relative location to the Raritan
River, and the main features of its operation.
Access to the landfill is by Meadow Road. Kin-Buc's offices and
laboratory (not indicated) are on the east side of Meadow Road, on the north
-------
Figure 1 - Sketch of Kin-Buc Landfill
-------
bank of Martins Creek. The access road after crossing Martins Creek divides
as indicated; the east fork climbs up to the top of the present solid waste
operation. At the time of the EPA investigation herein reported, there
were two pools on top of the landfill mound where liquid wastes were
being dumped, shown as A and B in Figure 1. At ground level, to the east
or southeast of the landfill mound, is a marshy area "C" that, during our
survey was black with oil-like organic material. This area is drained by
a ditch as indicated into Edmonds Creek, a tidal stream and thence to
the Raritan River.
A series of prepared ponds at ground level "D" approximately north of
Pool A, are apparently used at present as neutralization ponds for liquid
wastes and are understood to be included in a contemplated expansion referred
to as "Kin-Buc II". Another series of ponds ("E") lies at ground level
north of Pool B; their current function if any is not clear and were not
observed to be active during the present survey.
That part of the former waterway, along the north face of the mound,
from just east of Pool "D", still contributes flow to present waterway,
Martins Creek, along the indicated route. The two southerly pools of
group "E" contribute flow to this waterway; connection with the existing
waterway is completed by culverts through the dikes east of "E".
-------
Preliminary Survey
On the morning of February 27, 1976, an inspection on foot of the
Kin-Buc area was made by Walter Andrews, Randy Braun, Bernard Hornstein,
Clark Price (who had been there before) of the Environmental Protection
Agency, and by Kin-Buc personnel Gary Hall and Jim Torello. That afternoon,
an inspection by boat, along the Raritan River, from the mouth of
Martins Creek to east of the canal (Figure 1), was made by Randy Braun,
Joseph Chabak, Bernard Hornstein and Warren McHose, of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
On top of the landfill mound, the west pool, ("A" in Figure 1) contained
trash and debris, mixed with the liquid waste dumped there. The liquid
was a mixture of black, oily looking material and other wastes of various
colors (Photo 3). The east pool, "B" appeared primarily composed of black
oily looking material mixed with trash and debris (Photo 4). Near the
liquid waste pools, especially "A", there was discomfort (eyes, nose,) from
irritating vapors. Photo 4A shows the relative locations of these two
pools.
Descending to the southeast, we encountered a marshy area covered with
trash mixed with black oily looking liquid. This is pool "C" (Figure 1).
It appeared as in Photo 5. Leachate was percolating to the surface in
several places, as shown in Photo 6. At one point, there was a spring-
like flow of brown-colored water. Estimated flow was 10 gpm. (This
*
eventually became sampling point KIN-001).
Leading south from this leachate marsh was a ditch, whose surface
and banks were coated with black oily material (Photo 7) all the way
to where it joined Edmonds Creek (Photo 8). This latter point became
sampling point KIN-002.
-------
We walked along Edmonds Creek from this point to the Raritan River.
The black contamination was evident on the surface of the creek from
where it entered via the ditch (Photo 9) along its length (Photo 10)
to its mouth at the Raritan River (Photo 11) and thus into the Raritan.
The banks of the creek were heavily stained black with an oily material.
From the mouth of Edmonds Creek we walked north to return to the
Kin-Buc landfill and enroute saw a large cloud of what appeared to be
NOg vapors rise from the landfill mound, or, more probably, from the "D"
pools (Figure 1) to its north (Photo 12). From our later observations
and according to other observers this is a repeated occurrence. These
occurrences are most likely the result of the disposed liquid chemical
waste reacting with each other producing a visible gas.
We then walked upstream along Martins Creek towards the "D" group
of pools. A pipe was encountered, coming from the direction of the landfill
mound, from which flowed a black liquid at an estimated 5-8 gpm (Photo 13)
into Martins Creek (Photo 14). Location of this pipe is shown in Figure 2.
This became sampling point KIN-003A; sampling point KIN-003 was established
just downstream in Martins Creek.
Further upstream, and approximately west of the Kin-Buc II (D) area,
there was sign of a previous flow of dark liquid down the bank to Martins
Creek (Photo 15). The Kin-Buc II area pools (D) are shown in Photo 16.
The pools were stated to be for the mixing and neutralization of basic
t
and acidic wastes. This was supported by strongly ammoniacal odors and
other vapors that were extremely irritating to eyes and nose.
The inspection by boat provided additional indication that oily material
had entered the Raritan from the leachate marsh (C) via the ditch and
-------
Figure 2 - Location of Sampling Stations
-------
Edmonds Creek. The north bank of the Raritan was stained black for a
considerable distance downstream from Edmonds Creek, but not upstream
(Photos 17 and 18).
Liquid Chemical Waste Disposal Practices at Kin-Buc
Kin-Buc was originally used as a sanitary landfill only, thus
receiving municipal, industrial and institutional refuse. It later
received authorization from the State of New Jersey Bureau of Solid
Waste Management to receive liquid chemical waste. According to Kin-Buc
spokesman, they receive 100,000 gallons per day of liquid chemical waste
operating on a six (6) day per week basis.
Routine operation is that a pit about 75-100 feet in diameter is
bulldozed out at the top of the landfill site. Eight thousand gallon
and 4,000 gallon tank trucks come to the Kin-Buc entrance gate and report
to the receiving office. A sample of their load is taken and pH and
flammability test run in a small adjoining lab. The tanker then proceeds
to the top of the dump site where it is backed up to the liquid chemical
waste pit and the discharge ports opened, allowing the liquid waste to
empty into the waste pool. Visible clouds of fumes can often be seen
rising from'the waste pools. Strong irritating odors are evident at the
top of the landfill site. EPA personnel experienced eye, skin and nose
irritations while observing the operation. Subsequent visits were made
using Scott air packs.
«
Kin-Buc also receives liquid chemical waste in 55-gallon drums. These
drums are received at an area located at the base and on the northeast side
of the landfill (Kin-Buc II area). The drum contents are emptied into ponds
from which the contents are pumped into the waste pools at the top of the
landfill site.
-------
According to the landfill operator, Gary Hall, these waste pools
at the top of the mound are filled in from time to time and new pits
dug for a new liquid chemical waste pool.
The Oil and Hazardous Materials Spills Section of the Emergency Response
and Investigations Branch at Edison has had several reports of spills from
the liquid waste pools at the landfill. What usually happens is that
the refuse and dirt barrier nearest the edge of the landfill site breaks
and the liquid waste from the waste pool will escape into a nearby
tributary and often into the Raritan River. Kin-Buc, Inc. recently submitted
an SPCC plan to EPA at Edison, New Jersey.
Sampling Survey and Results
A sampling and analysis plan was desired that would document any flow
or migration of pollutants from the Kin-Buc landfill to the Raritan River.
The visual evidence from the preliminary survey showed that some such flow
must have taken place, but did not reveal unequivically the route of flow
or migration. The path of any percolation from where liquid wastes were
dumped at the top of the landfill could not be identified from visual
inspection. The compositions of the liquids being dumped could not be
known, so that the possibility of tracing liquid transfer by chemical
analysis could not be determined a priori.
It was therefore decided that a reasonable approach would be to use
dye as a tracer. Three locations were selected to introduce dye at the
^
top of the landfill mound. They are indicated on Figure 2 as KBE-01,
KBE-02, and KBE-03. From the preliminary survey and the indicated waterways,
it was judged that leachate would probably appear in Martins Creek or the
ditch leading to Edmonds Creek. The sampling locations chosen to monitor
the appearance of dye are also indicated on Figure 2; they are KIN-001,
-------
KIN-002, and KIN-003. These points were monitored by automatic ISCO
samplers. The ISCO samplers would provide 24 discrete samples every 24
hours. Additionally, it was decided to take daily grab samples at-the
pipe to Martins Creek, KIN-003A, and from the Raritan River near the
mouth of Edmonds Creek; Station KBR-01 as shown in Figure 1.
On March 3, 1976, two drums (550 Ibs.) of undiluted Rhodamine B
solution were introduced into Pools A and B, divided more or less equally
between the three locations indicated. Brief notes on these locations
are:
KBE-01. Pool A, east side. Dye was introduced
into the main pool just to the left of Photo 19 and
could be seen draining into the subsidiary pools. A
grab sample was first taken; its black oily character
is shown in Photo 20.
KBE-02. Pool B. Photo 21 shows the similar appear-
ance of a grab sample from the point of introduction.
KBE-03. Pool A, northwest corner. At the point of
application there was a rapid flow of liquid into the
ground, s-imilar to flow into a bathtub drain. This does
not show closely in our pictures (Photo 22). On a subse-
'quent visit, this past flow was no longer observed; it had
apparently been plugged by dumped material. No grab was
v
taken.
Photo 23 shows liquid waste being dumped into Pool A
while we were introducing the dye.
10
-------
While the dye was being introduced, automatic ISCO samplers were
set up at the indicated locations. Photos 26, 27 and 28 show the
samplers in place and the appearance of the locations being sampled.
Grab samples were also taken at the place and time of setting up these
samplers.
Photo 24 indicates visually the relative dispositions of the
sampling points and the landfill pools. Photo 25 shows more clearly
the location of KIN-003 (the sampler can be seen) and KIN-003A.
Starting March 3, 1976 and ending March 19, 1976, the samples, 23
to 25 bottles per station, representing hourly samples, (each discrete
hourly sample was a composite of four sampling at 15-minute intervals),
were removed from the ISCO samplers and fresh bottles were installed.
Each day that KIN-003A was flowing, a grab sample was taken at the same
time the ISCO samples were picked up. Also a grab sample from KBR-01,
the Raritan River, was taken each day about one hour before low tide.
A sediment sample was taken from KBR-01 on March 5, 1976.
In addition to the automatic sampling, monitoring of the North Shore
of the Raritan River was begun. A small boat was used to observe and
collect river samples between Martins Creek and the long canal (see Figure
2), east of Edmonds Creek. Monitoring by boat was done each day about
one hour before low water slack tide.
Monitoring at the three automatic sampler stations and-4'n the Raritan
t
River was carried out seven days per week on a 24-hour basis. No traces
of the fluorescent dye were found as of March 19, 1976 at which time the
sampling was terminated. Laboratory tests showed that the dye fluorescence
of the dye is severely degraded in the presence of the liquid chemical
11
-------
waste from the waste pools.
During the study period other grab samples were collected from the
pipe discharging to Martins Creek at Station KIN-003A. This 12-inch
metal pipe drained a leachate pool that collected at the base of the
landfill about 75 feet away from Martins Creek. Flow was intermittent.
The discharge was smelly and black in color. Two separate grab samples
showed a 8005 of approximately 1000 mg/1. Analysis by GC/EI and CI
(methane) MS shows that the Station KIN-003A discharge contained ten
(10) of the nineteen (19) or 53 percent of the constituents found in
the sample collected from waste pool "A" (see Table I). This pipe
discharge should be considered to be a NPDES violation of non-filer for
a permit to discharge. Kin-Buc admitted that they installed the pipe
expressly for the purpose of draining leachate from the leachate pool
into Martins Creek.
Analysis of the grab samples collected on March 3, 1976 were made by
GC/EI and CI (methane) MS. Waste Pool "A" contained nineteen (19) different
compounds such as PCBs, nine other chlorinated hydrocarbons, benzene,
toluene, xylenes, alky! substituted benzenes, biphenyl, methylated
napthalenes and napthalene. Waste Pool "B" contained six of these same
compounds. Station KIN-001 contained ten of these nineteen compounds while
Station KIN-002 had only three of the nineteen compounds. The Martins
Creek station KINr003 contained eight of the nineteen compounds. PCBs
were only found in the Waste Pool "A" sample (see Table I).
Samples collected from Raritan River Station KBR-01 on March 5, 1976
showed 75 ug/1 of PCBs in the water column. The sediment sample contained
12
-------
7.6 mg/kg of Aroclor 1016 and 3.17 mg/kg of Aroclor 1254 for a total
of 11.3 mg/kg of PCBs (see Table II). A sample collected on March 14,
1976 from this same station was analyzed by GC/MS and shown to contain
the following:
1.9ug/l carbontetrachloride
1.4.ug/1 trichloroethane
3.7 ug/1 benzene
4.2 ug/1 trichloroethylene
15 ug/1 toluene
6.0 ug/1 tetrachloroethylene
6.9 ug/1 xylenes
All of the above compounds were also found in the Waste Pool "A"
sample (see Table I).
A semi quantitative emission spec scan was made on samples collected
from Stations KBE-001, KBE-002 and KIN-001. The highest metals concentra-
tion were found at Waste Pool "B" Station KBE-002 (see Table III).
During the latter part of April and early May 1976, many fires have
occurred at the top of the landfill. Kin-Buc said that they were started
by lightning. . Attempts to extinguish these fires were unsuccessful because
they were too hot. Kin-Buc did not allow local fire departments onto
the. property to fight the fires. The fires burned for several days
creating large plumes of very black smoke (see Photos 38-48). EPA
V
personnel photographed the fires. One consequence of the fires is that
Kin-Buc is no longer dumping liquid waste chemicals into the pools on
top but are dumping the liquid chemical waste over the side of the mound
on the northeast side and on the south side of the landfill (see Photo 46).
13
-------
Table I
March 3, 1976
Kin-Buc Landfill - Organics Data
Compound
di chlorodi f1uoromethane
methylene chloride
chloroform
trichlorethane
trichloroethylene
tetrachloroethylene
chlorobenzene
dichlorobenzene
trichlorobenzene
dichloroaniline
dimethyl aniline
benzene
toluene
xylenes
C3 alkyl
04 alkyl
biphenyl
naphthalene
methylnaphthalenes
dimethylnaphthalenes
trimethyTnaphthal enes
PCBs
Station No..
KBE-01 KIN-003A KIN-001 KIN-003 KIN-002 KBE-02
substituted benzenes
substituted benzenes
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
* = Sample collected on 3/6/76
x = Present in the sample
Note: All samples were extracted with benzene and with hexadecane and analyzed
for organics by computerized GC/EI and CI (methane) MS.
14
-------
TABLE II
Kin-Buc Landfill - Station KIN-003A Data
Date
Collected BOD mg/1
3/07/76 22,000
3/09/76 65
3/10/76 1,100
Ran'tan River - Station KBR-01 Data
Date
Collected Compound
3/05/76 75 ug/1 PCB
3/14/76 1.9 ug/1 carbon tetrachloride
3/14/76 1.4 ug/1 trichloroethane
I
3/14/76 3.7 ug/1 benzene
3/14/76 4.2 ug/1 trichloroethylene
3/14/76 15.0 ug/1 toluene
3/14/76 6.0 ug/1 tetrachloroethylene
3/14/76 6.9 ug/1 xylenes
3/05/76 (sediment) 7.6 mg/kg Aroclor 1016
(sediment) 3.7 mg/kg Aroclor 1254
Total 11.3 mg/kg PCB
15
-------
TABLE III
Kin-Buc Landfill - Emission Spec. Scan (Semi Quant) Data
Metal (ug/1)
Silver
Aluminum
Arsenic
Boron
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Cobalt
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Manganese
Molybdenum
Nickel
Phosphorus
Lead
Antimony
Tin
Strontium
Titanium
Vanadium
Zinc
Zirconium
Calcium
Magnesium (mg/1)
Sodium (mg/1)
Silicon
Station No.
KIN-001
<11,000
13,000
-------
These liquid chemical wastes are flowing directly into Martins Creek
and into Edmonds Creek at a very high flow rate. Little or no adsorption
is taking place. If Kin-Buc is now receiving 100,000 gpd, estimates
are that a minimum of 90,000 gpd is going into the Raritan River. EPA
personnel have collected samples for analysis and made photographs.
As a result of this study, documentation showing that the Kin-Buc
landfill is polluting the Raritan River is available. Kin-Buc, Inc. has
a pipe discharge directly into Martins Creek which discharges into the
Raritan River.
17
-------
REFERENCES
1.) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976. Gas and
Leachate from Landfills. Formation, Collection and
Treatment. Office of Research and Development,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
2.) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1971. Pollu-
tion of Subsurface Water by Sanitary Landfills, Volume I,
National Technical Information Service, Springfield,
Virginia.
3.) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975. Sanitary
Landfill Stabilization with Leachate Recycle and
Residual Treatment. Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio.
18
-------
APPENDIX A
STATE OF NEW JERSEY CITATIONS AND FINES FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE STATE PERMIT TO OPERATE
-------
UN IT f:l) .' HIS ENVIRONMENT, ,L I'liO ITC ill y\GENCY
A
Kin-Buc Landfill ''* UATK, l 7 ?r3
FROM: Gerald H. Hansler, P.E.
Recji ynal Adi.iini s tra tor
T0: Russell Train
Administrator
This is in response to Steffen Plehn's recent request for
information concerning Kin-Buc Landfill in Middlesex County
New Jersey.
The Kin-Buc Landfill is located south of Meadow Road, east
of the Ran tan River and adjacent to the Edison Municipal Landfill
in Edison Township, New Jersey. This 220 acre site is owned and
operated by Kin-Buc, Inc., a Division of Scientific Chemical
Freatnient Co., Inc., Elizabeth, New Jersey.
The Kin-Buc, Inc. landfill is by far the largest and most
important industrial waste disposal area in New Jersey. The
facility accepts mixed municipal refuse, normal commercial,
institutional and industrial refuse, industrial process,waste
and industrial liquids and chemicals from five counties in
central New Jersey and industrial wastes from northern New
Jersey, New York, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. In "1975 this
landfill accepted 230,000 tons of solid, and 12.3 million gallons
of liquid wastes.
In addition to conventional landfill operations, temporary
seepage pits are also used at the Kin-Buc landfill for the
disposal of oils, acids and industrial liquid wastes. The
seepage pits are made by excavating about 12-24 inches of the
existing fill and allowing deposited liquids to percolate into
the landfi-11. No other means of pre-treatment are presently
employed at this landfill. Tests on industrial wastes are
limited to pH and flammability.
During the past five years, 12-15 major fires have occurred
at this facility. The most recent fire in October 1974, resulted
in tho death of an equipment operator (attachment A). Th?re are
also constant small fires arid fire equipment is kept on site
Form 1320-6 (R,.,. 6-72}
APPENDIX A
-------
-2-
Although the Kin-Buc landfill includes a total area of 220
acres, active landfill operations are presently confined to a
14 acre parcel adjacent to the Ran'tan River. The estimated
remaining life of this existing disposal site is 1-2 years.
This landfill also abuts marine tidal marsh of the Ran'tan
estuary and appears to overlay the northern extension of the
Farringtnn Sands aquifer, which is a major source of County
groundv/ater. Specific occurrences of surface water contamination
from the Kin-Buc landfill have recently been documented by New
Jersey and Middlesex County solid waste staff. The possibility
of present and future groundwater pollution must also be considered
a real and persistent possibility at this site because of the
sandy soil on which the landfill is located and because of the
probability that the groundwater table may be above the bottom
of the fill.
4
Kin-I3uc is registered with the Mew Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection Solid Waste Management Administration
but is constantly in violation of New Jersey's Solid Waste
Management Rules and Regulations. Mew Jersey conducts routine
inspections of Kin-Buc about 20 times per year; an additional
15-20 inspections are made annually in response to complaints.
There has been an average of 3 violations per inspection; however,
Kin-Buc paid only $500 in fines during 1975 because the State
didn't feel that it had enough evidence for legal action on
most of the violations.
According to the Mew Jersey Rules and Regulations:
"It shall be the responsibility of the
registered operator of each solid waste
facility to maintain records and furnish
. -to the flew Jersey Solid Waste Management
Administration a list of all hazardous
wastes received for disposal treatment
or storage during the past calendar
year. The list shall be forwarded by
the 15th day of ft-bruary annually,,
Thev list shall identify the material,
the source, quantity, type of container
in which disposed or stored, if any,
and how marked, carrier delivering the
material, shipping document reference
number, date received, type of treat-
ment if any, and the location where
disposed or stored (this last item
-------
-3-
should be exact enough to permit recovery
of the material if so desired)."
The operators of Kin-Biic have never filed this list because
they claim that since there is no formal definition of .hazardous
wastes, they don't know which wastes they have micjht be hazardous.
New Jersey iias gone along with this in the past and has accepted
total volume of waste rather than specific quantities.
Also according to New Jersey's Rules and Regulations:
"Any solid waste facility accepting pest-
icides (or contaminated containers), hazardous
wastes, chemical wastes, bulk liquids or
semi-liquids for disposal or storage on
or in the ground, shall install monitor-
ing wells which are constructed and located
in accordance with instructions available
from the Department."
The Kin-Buc facility has no monitoring wells at this time
and, as far as we know, no intention of installing any in the
riyar future.
The New Jersey Deparfanent of'Environmental Protection appears
to have been hesitant to press enforcement action against Kin-Cue
in the past because of the lack of alternative facilities for
hazardous waste disposal in New Jersey. There are no other land
disposal facilities legally permitted to accept hazardous wastes
in the State. There are several registered treatment facilities
in the State, but they are incapable of handling the magnitude .
of wastes currently going to Kin-Buc. In addition many of these
facilities including Rollins Environmental Services are also
suspected of polluting the environment (attachments B and C).
However, flew Jersey would prefer to seo chemical wastes going
to a, waste treatment facility rather than to a landfill.
ScientifMc, Inc., the owner and operator of the Kin-Buc
landfill, has recently filed a new engineering design with
the State Department of Environmental Protection for the
development of a new industrial solid waste disposal site
adjacent to the existing Kin-Buc landfill. If approved, this
new facility would be approximately twice as large as the
existing landfill, wc:i!'i be land-filled to a height of
approximately 85-90 feet and would operate until 1990 or
later. The daily operating capacity of this site, including
ri'unicipal and industrial waste, could approach 1500-1800 tons
par day by 1900. New Jersey has made no decision yet on this.
-------
-4-
Our Surveillance and Analysis Division and ORD, in Edison,
M.J. have recently taken leachate and air samples from Kin-!3uc.
The following is a report from S&A on their involvement:
In late October 1975, an informal report
from ORID, Eclison, N.J. on vinyl chloride
measurements in tha ambient air in and
around. Kin-Buc showed VCM concentrations
at four stations ranging from .19 ppm
to .49 ppm." It appeared, at that time,
that the Regional approach should consider
the overall environmental problems, water
and air, associated with the Kin-Buc
operation. Coincidentally the Region,
at that time, was already taking steps
to get the landfill under NPDES permit
to control the discharge of waste into
the Ran" tan River.
On January 16, 1976 the S&A Division staff
made an investigation of the landfill
operation. This investigation was initiated
by a report of leachate emanating from
a landfill adjacent to the Raritan River.
Although this potential spill was within
the response jurisdiction of the U.S.C.G.
(tidal waters), we initiated an investi-
gation. Our initial response revealed
only minor pockets of oil-like material.
An overflight by the C.G. on the follow-
ing day, however, showed that a fair
amount of black oily material had reached
the Raritan River. The C.G. advised that
they plan to cite Kin-Buc for violation of
'Section 311(b)(6).
EPA, along with State environmental personnel,
made an inspection on January 19, 1976 of
the Kin-Buc facility. Normally, the land-
fill evacuates seepage pits into which oils,
acids and industrial waste liquids are
deposited. Garbage is added to the pit
to absorb the liquids, thus, reducing
percolation. Approximately 100,000
gallons of waste liquids are dumped
daily in this manner. Once filled, the
APPENDIX A
-------
-5-
pit is closed and another one started.
The landfill operator indicated the
spilled material, estimated at 20,000
gallons, was caused by the collapse of
a dike containing the liquid waste. Six
waste samples were collected for laboratory
analysis which is underway at this time.
As a result of the field work thus f»ir
accomplished, we believe that: 1) "leachate
from the Kin-Buc landfill may be entering
the waters of the U.S.; 2) the Kin-Buc
facility may be in violation of the oil
pollution' prevention regulations 40 CFR
112 by construction of seepage pits that
ultimately receive oily waste; and 3)
additional water and air sampling should
be accomplished as soon as possible.
Our Enforcement Division is currently examining what legal
measures, if any, EPA can take against Kin-Buc.
APPENDIX A
-------
!}
HAZARDOUS HASTE 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 - Hone 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 Haste Involved - From one to five
55-gallon drums of unidentified chciiiicaTs
6. Source of Haste - 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 (OSIIA) 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 o.n 30 acres adjacent to
the Raritar\ River, has received both municipal and industrial
wastes for about twalva years. It is owned by Kin-Buc, Inc.,
a subsidiary of Scientific, Inc., of Scotch Plains, M.J.
6
APPENDIX A
-------
According to Mr. Jan;es Stroin, Vic»: President of Scientific,
the landfill receives approximately 200 truckloads of waste
per day, 25% of which is industrial v/aste. 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 flarrmability, 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 flew 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 SB-gallon drums
of unknown chemicals had been stored at the site for about six
weeks prior to tiu: 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 OSIIA investigation, a large
flame enveloped the bulldozer. Mr. Amatel jumped out of his
cab and another ^xplosion followed, which caused burns covering
approximately QS% of his body and destroyed the bulldozer beyond
recovery. Mr. Arruitel died the following day. He had been active.
in his line of work for about fifteen years.
When interviewed by an L?l\ official, Mr. Stroin attributed
the fatal outcome of the accident to the faulty judgrntMit of the
bulldozer operator. !io indicated that Mr. i^nntel 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 poriods of heavy rainfall.
7
APPENDIX A
-------
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),
Tha recorded injuries affected two hull dozer 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 opera torj was fighting a fire on a
bulldozer.
3. Conjunctivitis of eyes caused by fumes from waste
products. Safety glasses were being v/orn 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 SW-115
Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974. 110 p.
2. Feinglass, E.J. Arsenic Intoxication from well water in the
United States. The Mew England Journal of Medicine, Vol.
283, Mo. 16, pp. 828-830 (April 19, 1973).
pal!83aR
-------
Rollins !:::\'iro;::i-:::i ral S-:.-rv.i O1 -
(nairi of;" ices) C::c- . k'o.l. 1 i us 1!.-'---i
'/,';. Liii ing co:i, l)& iav/a re L93'L>
I. IV.CKGROUND
A. Service?, provided
0 C o .1 I : o t. o n / i; r, u 1 i i'. (g
0 Process..r.i-/r.re,-i-tirio(;t
i1. r id;.;op or i".,
. B. Service area - .Vat Lortv; i.dc
C. D.'iut! es f.aij.i i.shvi-d - COP..S I rue t i on coiiiplcj i:e 1 o s .i. v <.: s o r i; o i s o n s , in c 11; d i n;;:
acids, caustJC-s, chlorinaled and. nonrc.ii ior Ln;i tscl
organici;, pickl ing solut. ions, paiiit sludges, pcdLic
cyanide, scrubbe-r ei:riaents, etc.
P..
one. t ivo -v/Uiite j .
C. Volu:;!c- - f. ;.(;,''' 00 r. a.! ions/day at uapac i'}'.
III. iVASTE HANDLING
A, C.ol lect ion/.'iaulinr, - servico provid.r;.i by Matiaci-:
Trucki;;^ .subsidiary. Complete line o.L: bulk and
drum h a r. d ling ' e q u L p rt a n t .
B. Receiving /storage - Facilities ayailulvle For rocci'.' iny,
and storir.g hulk or driunned wa.slos, capacity - unkno'.v^.
C. Laboratory analysis - sample ana lysis and rope a ted
analysis upon receipt o I" shipment.
I). Treatment ;
1. Chc-:;.ical degrad.it ion
0 .y."«'a t ral Lna t ion of acids avui nl";r:Lio:i --- .1 ;ijo lu
salts art* lanuJ: i I led , so'.ub.le salts recoi.rc- ocv
' » c Lspo?. a I . -'
0 Ox L -i.?i t ion or rcjctiic t ion OL co r t'i .i n orc'.anj.f.: c-v:i;">t'
arid r.ioi.alfi --- non- tox.i c. ci-s i J::i.-:; ( Land f i 1 i. >- J j
or r-jco>. orcd material., Co.;;., copper).
0 Proc .: p i ta Li oil of:' dissolved and. co.'l Loidal -.\i\ ter \.:
Tn;: .i a :. r;v t j OM.
' p i' .i i.-.nr i.i.y LUfa ids
.
0 i?oL::--y kilu (1^00"
0 J",'1':-: to ,'0,(M';0 '.laL./dny ( ". ; Ur . opor;! f. .io'il
0 i)ouL)io caa;il;:;red ci to;;oh - scriil.- soc. t. io:i
"' '' i'' ' -i i . / i' i :"! . . ! ! f'a 1 i ;> n r. '!*.'.
0 ;.i lud;:; '.-., :-; ia , .i !" i. I i <\i , I: r in-..- -;u:..?a:'. vlisposal.
-------
I
5 . 1; io !. o_, i. .:;. I L ;:::!. !:.M ;M :..
F Lc-.:c:;; L:i L i.o.i ruid :; Lud;.>c- srpa ra f J o;i .
0 S'j5 i .'.--. are landn I. led .
0 S:i: ernntant ---- equ.H L i/.a I i <>u , ---- t r i.c kl i.:ic,
filter --- equal izv.i Lou , --- o:-; i.d.-iUion ---
;;t?ihilirar: io:i --- discharge to crook.
I:. f! is;>05;.i.; .;'.:.; i...... : ;al"d :.l.rjv. ;
0 [-jtnb i.L ii ::-.! OL f j. uciits d I scha -r^ytl i:t> aqu-itic op.vi foaneiiL.
0 lii;»o j u:; lo .:;''il:. ; ;.i.;!;L inert sludges .-iro J ar;U i* i 1 f.s-j .
D Soluble ''s-::I ts and brine :;u lu .t i o;i rocc.ivo r.ce-o..! J.isi)orsal
. HCONOMfCS
A. L'iior c-iar^as
3 Trarisp^rt.ttiori costs - ic/^ul. par 100 ::: ies (1972).
0 Disposal c.;;ar£ss - JO - ^0-;/oal.
H. Costs - C.'o:'.^ : riivj:; io:-. cos'i: s t:«.ir '~> p ]. -:i n " .s (Br i-.b;eport ,
i'lton. K'.ou^e, a;ii Houston)- $^2 in i.l L ion. .
C. Resource recov^r;-' ro\rcnu'.:s - Coppcf recovery, revonues
uni'.nov. rx.
D. Percent capacity - unknown
Li. Fxpansion jiotent i-:.i I - Invus t j j'.a'Liiig Clovoland , Chicago,
a n d D e t r o I "c a :: c a s .h' o r a d d L t i o n a 1 5 1 'cos .
. COMMENTS
0 ricv.iPton, 'rit:r;; :'i. .;',:-, '<\:\d J.o^an Tovi'.s'-.j.p- (Vci-: J^rs^y"*
f -.'.c il i i Les r. :'.. ^ i :: i 1 .". r :i. :' .ios.L1. t; a:\-j t.jpov.1. i. I a:;
c;:aracte;- i j. :. Lc = .
0 i 'on s ton facility has bean taken ovor by ciulf Coast
Vi'.-iiittj Disposal ALII no r ity.
. SOURCf; - Trip report (nemo August 5, 1972) by Sani /Jorckiis.
APPENDIX A
-------
Gloucester County
I lev; Jr.rs
LEAKING IMDU5TRIAL LAGOOMS POLLUTE GROUM'uHATER :
(C"> \ I * f I \ <> * V
i\Q\|«>tS c.vtftromrt£ir?oi oar-<\Ci-ss)
In li.e late 1950!'s, an industrial waste processing firm began
operations at Logan Tovmship. Part of the waste treatment and
«
disposal process consisted of a series of "lagoons on an area of
about 15 acres.. Before too long, chemical pollutants leaked
into the groundwater. By 1972, the volume of polluted grounclwater
in the.area was estimated at 20,000,000 gallons and the dimensions
of the plume were calculated ac 2,200 x 1,200 feet, dov;n"to a
maximum depth of 30 feet. Analysis of the groundv/atar yielded cha
follovn'ng results: 150 ppm total chromium, 135 ppm'copper, 50 ppin
zinc, 10 ppm nickel, and 5,000 COO. The lagoons have since bei-n '
sealed with cement and plastic liners, anc! continuous pumping of
thii fjrci:ndvttt2r has been successful in containinq the problem.
The y.!j:r;p2d v.'ater receives chemical treai-iiianc before discharge.
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLING STATION DESCRIPTIONS
-------
Station No.
KBE01
KBE02
KBE03
KIN001
KIN002
KIN003
KIN003A
Sampling Station Descriptions *
Eastern side of liquid waste pool "A" located at
Northwest quadrant of landfill mound. This pool
appeared to be receiving most of the liquid
chemical waste.
South side of liquid waste pool "B" located at
Northeast quadrant of landfill mound. Th4s pool
appeared to be receiving only waste motor oil.
Northwest side of liquid waste pool "A" located
at Northeast quadrant of landfill mound.
Located at base of landfill mound on Southeast
side. Samples collected at point of exit for
subterranean (leachate) stream. Effluent entered
leachate pool "C". Flow at sampling point is
estimated to be about 10 GPM. Flow estimate
was done using bucket and stopwatch.
Located in leachate drainage ditch just before
confluence with Edmond's Creek. Drainage ditch
drains area "C" leachate pool located at base
of landfill on Southeast side.
Northwest side of landfill located in Martins Creek
about 75 feet upstream of main entrance gate bridge.
Northwest side of landfill twelve-inch metal pipe
discharge into Martins Creek. Pipe located about
15 feet upstream of Station KIN003. Flow inter-
mittent.
See Figure 2
APPENDIX B
-------
APPENDIX C
PHOTOGRAPHS
-------
Contiguous Waterways at Landfill Site
Photos 1-2
-------
Raritan
River
Photo 1. Aerial view of Kin-Buc area, looking west. Pools
A, B, & C to upper right. Ditch & Edmonds Creek
running right to left. Tidel nature shown of present
waterway and part of former waterway.
-------
x^&ss^**st
Photo 2. Aerial view of Kin-Buc looking slightly north of west.
Pools A and B left above center, Pool C center foreground,
Pools E and D (Kin Buc II) respectively above (north west-
ward) of Pool C. Nature and course of former and present
waterways are evident and their communication with the
Raritan via Edmonds Creek (foreground running right to left).
Course of Martins Creek in background indicated by line of
trees, oriented right-left, between Kin Buc II and groups of
white buildings.
-------
Kin-Buc Landfill Site and Environs
Photos 3-18
-------
Photo 3. West
Pool (A), top of
landfill mound.
Photo 4. East pool (B) top of landfill mound.
-------
Photo 4a. Looking southeast relative location (lower right
to upper left) of west pool (A), east pool (B),
leachate marsh (C) and Edmonds Creek.
Photo 5. Black leachate marsh (area C) southeast of landfill
mound.
-------
" "
Photo 6. Leachate bubbling up in black leachate marsh.
Photo 7. Ditch leading south from black leachate marsh.
This view looking north towards marsh.
-------
Photo 8. Ditch from leachate marsh flowing into Edmonds Creek.
Photo 9. Black material on Edmonds Creek entering from ditch.
-------
Photo 10. Edmonds Creek between ditch and the Raritan River.
Note black material on water surface and on bank.
Photo 11. Mouth of Edmonds Creek, at Raritan River.
black material on surface.
Note
-------
Photo 12. Looking north to Kin-Buc landfill. Orange-brown
NCU vapors from landfill or behind (north of it).
i
Photo 13. Pipe along Martins Creek.
-------
Photo 14. Flow of black liquid from pipe into Martins Creek.
Photo 15. Previous flow of dark liquid into Martins Creek,
west of Kin-Buc II area.
-------
'&
-------
Photo 18. North bank of Raritan Riv,er (looking towards Kin-Buc
landfill) upstream of Edmonds Creek. Note absence
of black stain on bank.
-------
The Sampling Survey
Photos 19-28
-------
Photo 19. Looking approx. north from KBE 01. Point of dye
introduction is in main pool A to left of photo.
Photo shows subsidiary "pools" into which pool A
was actively draining, carrying dye with it.
-------
Photo 20. Grab sample from KBE 01 (Pool A)
Photo 21. Grab sample from KB'E 02 (Pool B)
-------
""SS***^
^ T''*^-^8*^" ^sufO^
Photo 22. KBE 03 looking approx. north west.
Photo 23. Liquid waste being dumped into Pool A,
-------
Photo 24. Looking approx. west, showing sampling locations
relative to the Kin-Buc layout.
~
ry»~ -.; ,r'V~
Photo 25. Looking approx. east, showing locations of KIN 003
and KIN 003A. The stream is Martins Creek.
-------
Photo 28. KIN 003
-------
Observations During Study
Photos 29-37
-------
Photo 29. Oil film rainbows at KIN 002 on March 10. This is
near high tide at the confluence of the ditch (foreground
and Edmonds Creek.
Photo 30. Typical relatively clean water samples in ISCO
sample bottles at KIN 003 (samples for the period 3/3 - 3/4)
-------
Photo 31. Typical relatively clean & slightly colored water
sample in ISCO bottles at KIN 002. (Samples for period
3/3 - 3/4).
Photo 32. Typical dark brown coloration of water samples from
KIN 001. This is excess water from over-filling of
ISCO bottles. (3/8/76).
-------
Photo 33. Typical darkly colored water samples at KIN 001
with floating organic material in ISCO bottles, plus
liquid from over-filling bottles. (Samples for period 3/3-3/4)
Photo 34.
Oil film rainbows
on Raritan River at
mouth of Edmonds Creek.
March 3, 1976
-------
Photo 35. Oil film on Martins Creek downstream (west) of
Meadow Road Kin Buc Entrance. This film lasted from
1215 PM to I'OO PM on on March 3, 1976.
t
To
Raritan
River
Photo 36. Oil film on Martins Creek upstream of Meadow Road
Kin Buc entrance. Film lasted from 12«L5 PM to WO PM
March 3, 1976.
Raritan
River
I
-------
Photo 37. Black oil like material and oil film rainbows
on Edmonds Creek issuing from the mouth of the
ditch (left margin) (KIN 002). March 19, 1976.
-------
APRIL 22-23, 1976 Fire at Kin-Buc
Photos 38-47
-------
Photo 38. Fire at west end of Kin-Buc. Afternoon of Apr. 22,
Photo 39. Fire at west end of Kin-Buc. Vehicles at base of
plume attempting control. Afternoon of Apr. 22.
-------
Photo 40. Fire moved to east end of Kin-Buc. Orange flames
and black smoke typical of petroleum-type fires.
Afternoon of Apr. 22.
-.- . .
Photo 41. Fire at east end of Kin-Buc. Flames are about 80-
100 feet high (c.f. dumpster at lower right).
Afternoon of Apr. 22.
-------
Photo 42. Fire at east end of Kin-Buc. Kin-Buc fire truck
(right) and Gaess Environmental tank truck with
water (base of smoke) standing by ineffectually.
Afternoon of Apr. 22.
Photo 43. Fire at about 3:30 pm at east end of Kin-Buc, some-
what subsided. Afternoon of Apr. 22.
-------
Photo 44. Tank truck from North Carolina prevented by fire
from dumping at Kin-Buc. Afternoon of Apr. 22.
Photo 45. Morning after, about 8:15 am, Apr. 23. Fire
smoldering and solid waste operations in progress
at Kin-Buc.
-------
II
-,.
*^k^_ --.: '
Photo 46. Kin-Buc, morning after, 8:15 - 9:15 am, 23 Apr.
Fire smoldering, liquid & solid dumping top of
mound, liquid dumping on terrace.
Photo 47. Kin-Buc, morning after, about 9:15 am, Apr. 23.
Solid and liquid dumping on top of mound, liquid
dumping on terrace (note discharge stream under-
neath tank truck).
------- |