Skip to main content

Full text of "Hazardous and toxic waste disposal : joint hearings before the Subcommittees on Environmental Pollution and Resource Protection of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, United States Senate, Ninety-sixth Congress, first session ..."

See other formats







AND ^""^ 








MARCH 28 AND 29, 1979 



Printed for the use of the Committee on 
Environment and Public Works 

44-978 O WASHINGTON : 1979 

JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia, Chairman 


MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee 


QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota JOHN H, CHAFEE, Rhode Island 


GARY HART, Colorado LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota 

John W. Yago, Jr., Staff Director 
Bailey Guard, Minority Staff Director 

Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution 
EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine, Chairman 

QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 


Subcommittee on Resource Protection 
JOHN C. CULVER, Iowa, Chairman 

EDMUND S. MUSKIE, Maine HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee 

MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island 

GARY HART, Colorado LARRY PRESSLER, South Dakota 





Bentsen, Hon. Lloyd, U.S. Senator from the State of Texas 5 

Burdick, Hon. Quentin N., U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota 243 

Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 6 

Culver, Hon. John C, U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa 1 

Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick, U.S. Senator from the State of New York 8 

Muskie, Hon. Edmund S., U.S. Senator from the State of Maine 4 

Randolph, Hon. Jennings, U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia 2 

Stafford, Hon. Robert T., U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont 30 


March 28, 1979 

Allen, David T., M.D., director. Community Health Services Administration, 

Tennessee Department of Public Health, Nashville, Tenn 38 

Prepared statment 76 

Bender, Michael E., director. Environmental Sciences, Virginia Institute of 

Marine Sciences 34 

Prepared statement 64 

Clark, James 11 

Hillis, Ann and James Clark, Love Canal Homeowners Association, Niagara 

Falls, N.Y 8 

Kaler, Frank, Jamesburg, N.J 26 

Morgan, W. Cranston, president, W. F. Morgan & Sons, Inc., Weems, Va 31 

Prepared statement 58 

Jorling, Thomas C, Assistant Administrator for Water and Hazardous Materi- 
als, Environmental Protection Agency 42 

Prepared statement 81 

March 29, 1979 

Beasley, W. Howard, vice chairman of the board, Velsicol Chemical Corp., 

Chicago, 111 259 

Prepared statement 317 

Davis, Bruce D., executive vice president. Industrial Chemicals Group, Hooker 

Chemical Co., Niagara Falls, N.Y 248 

Prepared statement 288 

Javits, Hon. Jacob, U.S. Senator from the State of New York 243 

Prepared statement 283 

LaFalce, Hon. John J., a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York 271 

Prepared statement 322 

Rovers, Frank A., on behalf of Conestoga-Rovers and Associates, Ontario, 

Canada 275 

Prepared statement 341 



American Petroleum Institute 347 

Ecumenical Task Force to Address the Love Canal Disaster 25 



ViiELLESLEY, iwA02181 



U.S. Senate, 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

Subcommittees on Environmental Pollution 

AND Resource Protection, 

Washington, D.C. 
The subcommittee met at 9:35 a.m., pursuant to call, in room 
4200, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John C. Culver presid- 
Present: Senators Culver, Muskie, Bentsen, Stafford, and Chafee. 


Senator Culver. The subcommittee will come to order. 

I am pleased to welcome you this morning to the first of 2 days 
of hearings on hazardous and toxic wastes to be conducted jointly 
by the Subcommittee on Resource Protection and the Subcommit- 
tee on Environmental Pollution. These hearings are the first in a 
series over the next few months examining the serious and alarm- 
ing problems that have developed because we, as a nation, have for 
too long paid little attention to the generation, distribution, and 
disposal of toxic and hazardous materials. 

We now face the formidable task of trying to correct past errors. 
Some of these errors, as we will learn, cannot be corrected: The 
damage to human life and to the environment is in some instances 

I am reminded of the statement by the philosopher George San- 
tayana who said that those who are ignorant of history are doomed 
to repeat its mistakes. I would paraphrase that, however, to say a 
society that ignores the environmental and health effects of its 
chemical wastes is doomed to pay an enormous premium later. 

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, passed by Con- 
gress in 1976, requires that future hazardous wastes be contained 
more safely and effectively. There are, however, several major gaps 
in that act, largely because there was little recognition at that time 
of the significant number of abandoned disposal sites which contain 
hazardous and toxic substances. Now, every week we read about 
chilling new examples of human suffering and environmental deg- 
radation resulting from inadequate disposal practices. 

In my own State of Iowa, chemical waste leaking from one dump 
site spews hundreds of pounds of hazardous waste daily — including 
arsenic and benzene derivatives — into the Cedar River. Traces of 
some related chemicals have now been detected in the drinking 


water of a city 140 miles downstream. The price tag to clean up 
this one site near Charles City may be several million dollars. 
However, if the waste spreads into the Cedar Valley Acquifer, this 
principal water supply for 330,000 lowans — more than 10 percent 
of the State's population — would be contaminated. This is a health 
problem of the first magnitude which we cannot ignore. 

We will hear today from people who have been directly and 
personally affected by several such abandoned dumps. In addition, 
we will receive testimony from scientific and medical experts on 
the long-term consequences of these environmental catastrophes. 
And, finally, officials from the Environmental Protection Agency 
will provide their perspective on the scope of the problem 

In later hearings, the committee will consider a series of legisla- 
tive proposals, including the establishment of a fund to provide 
some type of permanent containment or disposal for wastes in the 
abandoned sites. During this effort I look forward to working close- 
ly with Senator Randolph, the distinguished chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Environment and Public Works, Senator Muskie, the 
chairman of the Environmental Pollution Subcommittee, and Sena- 
tor Chafee and other members of the Resource Protection Subcom- 
mittee. And, of course, the ranking committee member on the full 
committee. Senator Stafford. 

I look forward this morning to the testimony of our witnesses. 
We thank them for taking the time to join us, and for their 
willingness to share their experiences with the subcommittees. 

I would like, at this time, to enter Senator Randolph's statement 
into the record. 

[The statement referred to follows:] 

Statement of Hon. Jennings Randolph, U.S. Senator From the State of 

West Virginia 

Mr. Chairman, management and disposal of hazardous wastes and toxic sub- 
stances may very well be one of the most pressing issues confronting the Congress 
this year. 

Certainly it will be among the most significant where public health and environ- 
mental factors are concerned — a fact already evident from the nature of emerging 
problems in those areas. 

The subject clearly warrants immediate attention and the type of high priority 
you have assigned it in the joint hearings of the Environmental Pollution and 
Resource Protection subcommittees. 

You are to be commended for your assessment of its importance and for your 
discernment in selecting witnesses qualified to focus on the situation from a wide 
variety of viewpoints. 

They can contribute much to our understanding of the nature and scope of the 
problem with which we will be dealing. I look forward, as I am sure all of us do, 
with much interest and anticipation to their testimony. 

It is not over-stating the case to suggest that the dimensions of the dilemma are 
awesome and that its implications are vast and far-reaching. 

As I envirsion the task before us, we must device new and much more effective 
ways to protect health and safety in the storage, transportation, treatment and 
disposal of toxics and hazardous materials. 

We must, I am convinced, also develop a system for compensating those who incur 
cleanup costs, loss or damage resulting from release by others of such materials in 
dangerous form or quality into the environment. 

Those are clear-cut goals. Their attainment, however, will be a very formidable 
task. Yet it is one that we cannot shrug off or ignore. 

I will cite few statistics to indicate what that will involve. 

Better controls must be established for an estimated 275,000 generators of hazard- 
ous wastes, about 90 percent of whose output is now being disposed of in ways 
falling short of Federal standards. 

Between 35 million and 50 million metric tons of industrial waste produced each 
year is now considered hazardous, with the total increasing at about three percent a 

Present estimates, about which we may be hearing more in the next two days, are 
that hazardous waste may be improperly buried in at least 1,200 sites around the 
country. There could be more. As you may already know, the EPA thinks it may 
take as much as $22 billion to clean up those already in their projection. 

Obviously, it will require either amendment of existing legislation or development 
of a new management and disposal control package to deal with these and related 

These hearings are a starting point for your deliberations on the sound course to 

Regardless of what course is followed, however, I suggest that it should address at 
least three basic goals. 

Top priority must be assigned to devising procedures for cleaning up inactive or 
abandoned disposal sites, with recovery from former users or other responsible 
parties where identifiable. 

I believe, too, that we must consider a funding mechanism based on contributions 
of generators, perhaps along the lines of the oil spill liability and compensation bill 
proposed in the Senate last year. We may be able to avoid sporadic, inadequate and 
after-the-fact responses to separate spill and damage situations and instead make 
advance preparations for orderly handling and effective remedies in cases of this 

Finally, I suggest the need for more effective provisions for siting of approved 
hazardous waste disposal facilities with maximum exercise of State jurisdiction and 
incentives. We may also want to consider prohibiting generation or interstate trans- 
port of such waste or associated products where a State has not provided adequate 
waiste management capacity within its own borders or by agreement with an adjoin- 
ing State. An exception could be made where an affected industry had made its own 
arrangement for adequate and safe disposal. 

Such provisions would be fully consistent with other objectives of the solid waste 
program and would, I believe, offer the best prospect of success. 

These aims are ambitious, certainly, and will require full partnership and maxi- 
mum consultation between Congress and industry if they are to be achieved in a 
practical and effective way. The basic principle will be the ultimate responsibility of 
the generator of hazardous wastes for their acceptable disposal. 

That is the challenge and the obligation we face in fashioning any new legislation 
to address the hazardous and toxic management and disposal issue. We must not 
settle for less. 

Senator Culver. I wonder at this time if Mr. James Clark would 
come forward. But before he does that, I wonder if you, Senator 
Chafee, or you Senator Stafford, have a statement. 


Senator Stafford. I have a short statement, Mr. Chairman. It is 
important to emphasize, I think, at the outset that these hearings 
deal with more than just the problem of abandoned hazardous 
waste sites. The orphaned site problem is important, and it is justly 
receiving a great deal of attentione. Not only are water supplies 
being contaminated, but untold numbers of innocent persons are 
exposed to extremely toxic and hazardous chemicals. Some places, 
such as Love Canal, have become environmental ghettos. But these 
hearings are to inquire into the universal problems caused by the 
release of toxics into the environment. 

If these hearings were to deal only with the Love Canal or 
Toone, Tenn., we would be neglecting the radium sites in Denver. 
And if we were to deal with the Denver sites as well, we would still 
be neglecting PCB's in the Hudson River and PBB's in Michigan. If 

we restrict ourselves just to the waste, we will leave a large gap 
because in the chemical business one man's meat is literally an- 
other man's poison. Waste from one company is feedstock to an- 
other. What we must explore is the entirety of how and why toxics 
are entering the environment, whether they are injuring people, 
and if so, how. Then we must decide whether there should be a 
scheme to compensate victims, and if so, for what injuries. Ulti- 
mately the committee may decide that a legislative solution should 
be restricted just to the abandoned site problem or that a fund 
should pay only for cleaning up the Love Canal. But in the begin- 
ning, at least, we must take a broad view, not a restricted one. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Culver. Thank you, Senator Stafford. 

Senator Muskie, did you have a statement at this time? 


Senator Muskie. It is a very brief statement, Mr. Chairman. 

I am sure that all that needs to be said has been said, but that 
has never prohibited Senators from saying more. 

I would just like to say this, that I approach these hearings with 
a sense of urgency as well as a sense of hope. 

We have a sense of urgency because the chemical horror stories 
across the Nation will not go away and, in their path, hazardous 
chemicals continue to seep into the environment with no parties 
clearly held responsible. 

We have a sense of hope because this committee is resolved to 
address those problems. 

Last week Senator Culver and his subcommittee held oversight 
hearings on the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and its 
solid waste regulations. 

Today and tomorrow we seek more information on the problems 
of dangerous chemicals and hazardous waste which were not ad- 
dressed in the solid waste regulations. 

I commend Senator Culver for his commitment and interest in 
this very important subject. It seems to me we have three clear 

First. We must begin the difficult chore of identifying and clean- 
ing up the inactive or abandoned disposal sites in this country. 

Second. We need to discuss the ramifications of a fund, based on 
contributions from the generators of hazardous waste, to provide 
compensation and liability so we may have an effective and orderly 
mechanism through which to resolve chemical catastrophes. 

Third. We must begin to address the great difficulty in siting 
approved disposal facilities. 

The problems we will explore in the next 2 days are not regional 
problems. The potential for disaster exists in every region and 
every State. 

Today, we will hear from witnesses who have had personal con- 
tact or involvement with incidents involving hazardous chemicals 
in four States. Their testimony will be important. We need to know 
the scope of the personal suffering, the scope of economic hard- 
ships, and the personal loss which has been experienced, so we may 
determine how broad the legislative proposals should be. We also 

need to know what damage is caused to our natural resources from 
hazardous chemicals. 

Tomorrow, we will deal more specifically with industrial prac- 
tices and responses to hazardous waste accidents. 

I am sure this is only the beginning of a much larger discussion 
in this Congress on the issues involving chemical management. 

I welcome our witnesses here today. I am most appreciative to 
Senator Culver for offering his leadership in this very important 

Senator Culver. Thank you very much, Senator Muskie. I do 
want to thank you very much for all your efforts and leadership in 
this area and also to say how very much we appreciate the invalu- 
able work of your staff in helping organize these hearings that we 
are having jointly. 

Senator Bentsen? 


Mr. Bentsen. Mr. Chairman, today's hearing addresses an issue 
that has grown in importance and complexity as more and more 
knowledge has been obtained. The impact of hazardous substances 
on our lives has generated a widespread sense of urgency that 
these compounds must be somehow controlled. A responsible Con- 
gress must now begin to understand the complexities associated 
with the manufacture, emission, discharge, and disposal of these 
materials. It must devise a system that can responsibly respond to 
inadequate past practices in the use of these materials. 

It would be unrealistic to believe that this task of creating effec- 
tive hazardous substance legislation will be either easy or straight- 
forward. While Congress cannot ignore the national concern that 
hazardous substances are not adequately controlled, it cannot con- 
clude that all hazardous substances can be eliminated, that life can 
exist without risk. Rather, we must realize that where circum- 
stances dictate the use of hazardous substances, it must mandate a 
prudent use. It must foster effective control of hazardous substance 
emissions, discharges, and disposal; must weigh the ability of State 
and local governments to control these wastes versus the ability of 
the Federal Government to participate across the Nation in their 
control; and must recognize that some who are controlled by such 
legislation will attempt to avoid it while others who sincerely 
attempt to comply with it will fail. We must understand that our 
knowledge of hazardous substances is constantly changing, con- 
stantly growing. Judgments that were made in the past would not 
be made the same way now. Control technology that is available 
now may not have been available in the past. 

I believe that the questions of hazardous substance impact and 
control may well be the most complex and perplexing issues of 
pollution control that this committee has yet to confront — and we 
have confronted many of them hammering out the environmental 
legislation of the past decade. The decisions we make on developing 
new legislation in this area must be made on a clear understanding 
of the risks, the benefits, and the costs of hazardous substances 
exposure and control. We will need to view our options here 
against the existing laws we have passed. We must look at the 

priorities we have set in those laws and the priorities we may wish 
to set here; we may need to reprioritize our efforts — we must 
assure the American people that the most pressing environmental 
problems are resolved first. Today's hearing should begin the proc- 
ess of defining the impact of hazardous substances. 

A second issue that must be addressed is how to determine the 
degree of hazard associated with these substances. It is important 
to recognize that there is a broad range of effects which may be 
considered hazardous. It is equally important to insist that the 
laws we pass and the regulations that are subsequently promulgat- 
ed recognize these differences. 

We must seek to attack the most hazardous waste problems first. 
If we do not, we may well frustrate our entire effort. Not all 
hazardous substances require the same degree of control to assure 
protection to the population. If the definition of highly hazardous 
substances is too broad, our ability to properly store, handle, con- 
trol, or dispose of these materials may be overwhelmed. For exam- 
ple, the Texas Department of Water Resources has executed a 
successful solid waste disposal program during the past 2 years. 
One of the key elements of this program is the division of waste 
material into different classes based on degree of hazard. It was 
fundamentally necessary to create divisions to assure that high 
hazard wastes received priority treatment and that high hazard 
disposal sites were not overwhelmed by less hazardous material. 
Recently, EPA has proposed regulations to control hazardous mate- 
rial disposal. The Texas Department of Water Resources tell me 
that the hazardous definition within these regulations would shift 
material from its moderately hazardous category to its highly haz- 
ardous category — altering a well formulated, efficient system. This 
same question of hazardous definition has been voiced by the Texas 
Railroad Commission, which controls oil and gas production within 
my State, and by the Texas Department of Agriculture. These are 
issues that I will explore further during the hearing. 

Clearly, in my view, Congress must address the issue of hazard- 
ous substances control; I believe that every Member sincerely 
wants to correct the appalling abuse of hazardous substance dispos- 
al and provide sound practices where past efforts have failed. But 
Congress must focus its efforts to assure that adequate protection 
of the public is provided. Our resources must be devoted to those 
problems where the needs are greatest. 

Senator Culver. Senator Chafee? 


Senator Chafee. Good morning. Today's hearing will have a 
sobering effect on all of us. We have witnesses here from areas all 
over the country who have borne the horrible effects of hazardous 
and toxic wastes in their environment. Their thoughts, along with 
the testimony from the Environmental Protection Agency, will 
help the Environment and Public Works Committee to investigate 
the extent of the abandoned hazardous site problem, as well as 
other serious releases of toxic substances. But I suspect that we are 
only beginning to chip away at what is really buried or otherwise 
present in our land and water. 

I see the next few years as being the time when all of us, the 
Congress, local government, industry, and the public will have to 
face the discouragingly stubborn and infinitely more serious pollu- 
tion problems. In the early and mid-1970's we passed several major 
environmental laws: the Clean Water and Air Acts, the Toxic 
Substances Control Act, and the Resource Conservation and Recov- 
ery Act. In the water pollution area, for example, we have spent 
this decade in cleaning up our rivers and controlling normal mu- 
nicipal and industrial wastes and raw sewage. And there is much 
basic work still to be accomplished. 

But now we are moving into a tremendously more complicated 
and expensive task. We are entering the time when the really toxic 
and hazardous bad actors must be dealt with. I am talking about 
the problems created in the past, such as abandoned chemical 
dumps, as well as hazardous substance releases that will occur in 
the future. 

The question of what to do with these substances is always there. 
It seems that we are hemmed in on all sides: if you burn the 
substance, it goes into the atmosphere and its sludge still remains; 
if you bury the substance or its sludge, it seeps into the ground 
water and seeps up into our homes. If you put the wastes into our 
waters, it must be treated or pretreated. But what is the alterna- 
tive? Less regulation? Should we assume that environmental needs 
will be met in the free marketplace? I am not very sure that is the 
way to proceed. 

The most sobering thought as we act on the policy for dealing 
with these substances is that our decision now affects generations 
to come. Or else the number of abandoned sites will only increase 
far beyond the thousands that may already be out there. 

When you consider that the women who live in Love Canal area 
have experienced a high rate of miscarriages and birth defects — 
that is the kind of effect that is devastating and understood. It is 
not stated in confusing scientific terms. Ground water pollution by 
land disposal of hazardous wastes in the past is an ominous threat 
to our Nation's drinking water supply. More than 100 million 
Americans depend on ground water for their drinking water 
supply. Springs and wells form the main drinking water reservoir 
in 32 States. 

This morning is the beginning, as Chairman Culver stated, of a 
detailed investigation into the scope of the hazardous waste prob- 
lem and the health and natural resource damages suffered as a 
result. My own State of Rhode Island has 40 sites which may have 
received significant quantities of hazardous wastes. 

Tomorrow we will meet with companies who have been connect- 
ed with Love Canal and Toone, Tenn. And the Resource Protection 
Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the Resource Conserva- 
tion and Recovery Act, and the Environmental Pollution Subcom- 
mittee investigation will take us into the field in the months to 
come, so that a background and suggestions for legislation can be 
explored and finalized. 

The toxic substance-hazardous waste problem is a monstrous one 
to solve. But if we in the Congress think it is overwhelming, that is 
minute compared to what is happening to our people and re- 
sources. So, Mr. Chairman, I look forward a great deal to these 


hearings and to the leadership which you are giving to this situa- 

Senator Culver. Thank you very much. Senator Moynihan has a 
statement which will be made a part of the record at this point. 

[Senator Moynihan's statement follows:] 

Statement of Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Senator From the State 

OF New York 

I wish to thank the distinguished Chairmen of the Subcommittees on Environ- 
mental Pollution and Resource Protection for allowing me an opportunity to say a 
few words about this most serious environmental problem: the grave threat posed 
by the existance of hazardous and toxic pollutions. 

This is a problem of which New Yorkers are all too intimately aware. Toxic 
chemical poisoning at the Love Canal and the threat posed by the PCBs (polychlori- 
nated biphenyls) in the Hudson River represent only two such examples of this 

As my colleagues are aware, the Love Canal situation is only the first and 
perhaps the most publicized of many potentially similar disasters, in which the 
disposal of hazardous chemicals has caused the environmental and health trage- 
dies with which we are now attempting to deal. Your all know of the basics of the 
catastrophe in Niagara Falls, New York: the Love Canal was used as a dump for 
many kinds of toxic chemicals during the period just after the Second World War. 
These chemicals infiltrated the homes of residents who later settled on the land- 
filled Canal, and polluted the environment at the Canal. The presence of chemicals 
found in concentrations far surpassing those accepted as safe posed an immediate 
threat to the livelihood and well-being of hundreds of people. 

I will not belabor these points, but would note to you that these people were the 
victims of a technological assault that demonstrates the grave problems associated 
with toxic waste disposal in a most dramatic and forceful way. It is incumbent upon 
us to take prompt and responsible steps to address this problem. This hearing is 
demonstration of our intention to do so. 

This is not a problem of which either States or the federal government have been 
unaware. Indeed, in the Love Canal situation, each level of government moved with 
admirable swiftness to cooperate in mitigating this disaster. The State is relocating 
the residents of the Canal; the Federal Disaster Administration has provided aid to 
residents to help in meeting the demands of their situations; and the Environmental 
Protection Agency, through an amendment attached to their budget last year by 
myself and the senior Senator from New York, will contribute up to $4 million to 
help clean up the Canal site. The State will continue to monitor the situation and is, 
I know, committed to its rapid resolution. 

We must, in our deliberations, consider the appropriate roles the government, 
industry and the public can take in the process of alleviating these problems. We 
must consider what the proper mechanism might be to permit the federal govern- 
ment to take a uniform and active role. We must be part of the solution. Notions of 
a "superfund" to provide funds allowing an immediate response to spills or cleanup 
of sites that pose an imminent health hazard have been tentatively discussed, and 
certainly well deserve further attention. We must begin to consider a national 
response to a problem that is growing. I look forward to working closely on its 

I understand that our witnesses from the Love Canal wish to discuss their 
interactions with various governmental institutions. I am anxious to hear their 
testimony, and know that it will contribute greatly to our consideration of these 
matters in the future. I look forward to hearing them, and welcome them to the 

Senator Culver. I wonder now if we might have Mr. Clark and 
Mrs. Hillis. 

Good morning. It is a pleasure to welcome you folks here. Who 
would like to begin? 


Mrs. Hillis. I will. 

Senator Culver. Mrs. Ann Hillis, Love Canal Homeowners Asso- 
ciation, Niagara Falls, N.Y. 

Mrs. Hillis. Thank you, and good morning ladies and gentlemen. 
My name is Ann Hillis. I am a wife and a mother, and I live in 
Niagara Falls, N.Y. I also live close to a dump, a dump called Love 
Canal. I don't want to live there any more. I hate Love Canal. I 
hate my life at Love Canal. The strange life that I lead now is 
filled with disruptions and frustrations and sleepless nights and a 
grip of fear that only those in similar situations could understand. 
My family and I live on a historically wet area east of Love Canal. 
From State air testing, my home, like most homes, shows chemical 
contamination. Homes along the canal edge are empty. A green 
fence surrounds them now and the fence, I feel, is far too late 
because the contaminated water has been running in our homes, 
our cellars and yards for years. 

We lived in the home for 13 Va years. We lost a child there. My 10 
year-old son went to 99th Street School as did other children in the 
neighborhood. Some of these children are gone now after the 
August 1978 emergency was declared by Dr. Whalen, New York 
State Health Commissioner at the time, and President Carter. The 
remaining children are still in the homes, the same bad air and the 
same horrible environment, despair, hopelessness. We ask, What 
are we doing to our children and to our own bodies by staying? The 
stress alone is enough to break anyone. I think many of us are at 
this point. 

Our homes are valueless. We can't sell. Who would buy a house 
like this? Some have thoughts of trying to rent. But how could we 
rent a contaminated house, a house we ourselves fear to live in. 

I want to tell you a little bit about my son. As I said before, he is 
10, and he is a bright boy. He has a 91 average in school. But as a 
baby, he never required much sleep. He was put on a sedative at 
age 7 months to about 18 months. He developed rashes, frequent 
bouts of diarrhea and respiratory problems, always respiratory 
problems. His first year at 99th Street School, kindergarten, he was 
admitted to the hospital very ill. The diagnosis was acute gastroen- 
teritis, cause unknown. After that, more respiratory infections and 
tonsilitis. At age 6 the tonsils and adenoids were removed but the 
respiratory problems did not improve and he developed asthma. 

In 1977, we were told to consult an allergist. He was tested and 
he was found to have many allergies. He has been on a desensitiz- 
ing program for a year and a half but with no improvement. 

He started school last September, 7 miles across town. His school 
was closed due to chemicals, chemicals in the air and chemicals on 
the playground where he and all the children played. He started 
the school year off with an abscess in his nose and he was on 
antibiotics. He had repeated respiratory infections and bouts of 
asthma. By this time we the people were well aware of Love Canal 
as were our children. My son went into a depression, withdrawing 
from school, from his mother and his father, and he begged to 
leave. I promised that we would soon. One night last winter I got 
up to go to the bathroom and I looked in on him and his bed was 
empty. I looked all over and it was 2 a.m. I heard a cry from under 
the couch. My son was under there with his knees drawn up to his 
chin. I asked him to come out and tell me what was wrong, and his 


reply was, "I want to die. I don't want to live here any more. I 
know you will be sick again and I will be sick again." 

My husband and my son and I cried together that night. We 
went to a counselor with family children services. The counselor 
arranged for a change in school because he was refusing to go to 
school. He would stay in bed night and day. We did all we knew to 
reassure him. We changed the school and he had been out about 8 
weeks at the time. We did get him back into school and he was 
doing fine and then 2 weeks ago another bronchial infection, more 
antibiotics and medication. 

March 22, back to the doctor, the antibiotics didn't work. He was 
changed to another. He went to the hospital for more blood work 
and chest X-rays. The doctor knows my son is sick, but they don't 
know how to help him. I do — get him out, him and all sick people 
out, out of the contaminated hell that we live in. 

December 8, 1938, was my birth date. December 8, 1978, I cele- 
brated my 40th year by getting up at 5 a.m. and going out in zero 
weather to walk a picket. The air we breathed was cold and so 
heavy with chemical stink that you could taste it. We neighbors, 
out of desperation, walked together to halt the movement of trucks 
from the canal site into our neighborhoods, for now we knew of 
over 200 chemicals brewing beneath our soil, and dioxin, one of the 
most deadly poisons known to mankind. We also knew radiation 
was at Love Canal. We publicly protested these crimes. We had 
been made to feel that we were the criminals, but were not. We are 
the victims, so we protested. 

I was arrested, as 15 others were, for being victimized by Occi- 
dental Petroleum Co., the parent company of Hooker, the U.S. 
Army, the State of New York, the city of Niagara Falls and the 
school board, for knowing from day one, knowing the chemicals 
were there. Hooker knew. Why did they not stress this to the 
school board? They are a big company. They produce the chemi- 
cals. Surely they have some idea of what the chemicals can do. The 
people of Love Canal now know what they have done. They have 
produced children with extra fingers, extra toes, double rows of 
teeth, cleft palate, enlarged hearts, vision and hearing impairment 
and retardation. State officials announced February 8, 1979, that 
all children under 2, and pregnant women should be moved out of 
the area. If it is not safe for them, what about my child? He is not 
2 now but he was 2 once. He was sick when he was 2 and now he is 
10 and he is still sick. 

How about pregnancies? Many women cannot get pregnant be- 
cause they have had hysterectomies due to excessive bleeding, 
tumors, cancers at an early age, age 20 to 30. I myself am in this 
group. Dr. Beverly Paigan, a cancer researcher at Buffalo's Roswell 
Park Memorial Institute, who has worked with the Love Canal 
Homeowners Association, says analysis of health data collected by 
the association shows incidents of attempted suicide, nervous 
breakdowns, hyperactive children, epilepsy, asthma, and urinary 
tract problems occurring three to four times higher among the 
residents living in the wet areas compared to the dry areas. 

Dr. Paigan says the data indicates 24 out of 120 children born to 
women who live in the wet areas have birth defects. In the 5 years 


from 1974 through 1978, 9 of 16 children born to women in this 
area had birth defects, a rate of 56 percent. 

Dr. Paigan says that 39 out of 155 pregnancies in this area end 
in miscarriages, a rate far above national average. The wet areas 
that she refers to are swales, are old stream beds that are carrying 
chemicals from the former Hooker landfill or Love Canal. I am a 
sick woman and I am nurse to a sick child. My thoughts are will he 
live to have children? If so, will they be sick or deformed? Man- 
made chemicals are not to be lived with 24 hours-a-day for years. 
We are not guinea pigs. We are human with human needs. We 
want hope and hope for our children. 

We want simple things like a spring garden. Even this has been 
denied us since the State has said the vegetables may not be safe 
for human consumption. But for years my family has eaten vegeta- 
bles grown in our yard, also vegetables grown at the canal edge 
where a friend lived on 99th Street and she grew them there. Her 
husband died 5 years ago from cancer, her son 6 months later from 
cancer. The State moved her out, out of a home that she lived in 
over 20 years. The State air tests showed chemicals in her home, 
but there are readings outside of the 99th Street area higher than 
hers were. Such a home is up the street from mine. 

A 9-year-old child asked State officials at a public meeting, "Will 
I grow up to be a normal man?" The State told his parents not to 
let him sleep in his bedroom, for chemicals were found there. The 
boy has asthma. His father has asthma, his mother and his little 
brother have epilepsy. They remain in that home, for they do not 
have the financial means to get out, like everyone else. 

I believe most Americans assume that the Government will be 
there when they need help. The people of the Love Canal area are 
now very disillusioned. Is this belief wrong? Do the people of Love 
Canal have to feel a hopelessness? Are we not Americans? Our 
city, our State has done nothing to help the people in the area 
outside of 99th and 97th Street. If our Federal Government does 
not help us, we are all doomed at Love Canal. May God help us 
and our country, for we need it. We need help desperately. Thank 

Senator Culver. Thank you very much, Mrs. Hillis. 

I wonder if we might have Mr. Clark's testimony now, and then 
we will ask some questions. 


Mr. Clark. Good morning. My name is James L. Clark. I am a 
disabled American veteran having served approximately 14 years 
in various paratroop. Green Beret and Guard units. I have lived 
over 8 years in the Love Canal area. Since living there my family 
has suffered many serious health problems. The adverse health 
effects in that area are real. These people need to be immediately 
evacuated from that contaminated area. 

Dr. Beverly Paigan's findings in many cases substantiated by 
surgery. The New York State Health Department's attempt to 
disprove the illnesses seems to be working against the purpose of a 
health department. With all the contaminants found, one can only 
assume that there is a definite risk to the population of the Love 


Canal area. They found over 200-something, I have them all here. I 
would like to put this in the record, my testimony, too. 

Senator Culver. We will review that material and, without ob- 
jection, if it is appropriate, we will put it in. I don't know what the 
limitations of space might be, but we will certainly try to accommo- 
date that request if we possibly can. 

[The material referred to may be found beginning at p. 98.] 

Mr. Clark. We had another suicide discovered this past Friday. 
A 22-year-old male shot himself. No one knows why, nor will they 
know why the next one will do it. This is a fact of life we live with 
every day. 

New York State Health Commissioner, Dr. David Axelrod's state- 
ment before the congressional subcommittee that "The cancer data 
could not be substantiated," is absolutely ludicrous. New York 
State law requires that all cancer and tumors be reported to the 
New York State Health Department. 

Besides our area has one of the finest cancer research institutes 
in the world, Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, and New 
York City has Sloane Kettering Institute. Why can't cancer find- 
ings be substantiated? 

The blue ribbon panel that was secretly assembled to look into 
the health problems — and no names revealed to the public — was an 
absolute insult to our intelligence. I wrote Dr. David Axelrod advis- 
ing him of the New York State law on freedom of information. 
When a panel rules on a matter affecting the health and lives of 
my family, I would like to know who they are, if they are qualified 
individuals who can tell what is wrong and what course of action is 
to be taken to alleviate any problems. I have received no answer. 

In the first two rows of houses, the people were removed without 
any scientific investigation, solely on a political campaign promise. 
When the human cry went up from the people, the Governor 
promised them on national TV: Allow us to move these two streets 
and anyone with health problems or chemicals also will be re- 

Approximately 23 families submitted their health records, under 
a short time limit. Our answer back was this enclosed form tele- 
gram — even people with heart conditions got it, but were afraid to 
open it; 3 days later we receved a certified letter saying the same 
thing. Gentlemen, the evidence is in. The chemicals have leached. 
The health problems are real. These people must be relocated. You 
do not solve a problem of this magnitude by arbitrarily drawing a 
line on a map, putting up a fence, at our expense, and have the 
Governor say, "That is all the houses we are going to buy." 

Only now are they doing hydrology studies in the outer area. 
They have drilled 18 holes and 12 are contaminated, and the people 
are telling them that they are drilling in the wrong places. 

This document from the State tells of the fact that the ambient 
air in the Love Canal area is infested with chlorinated hydrocar- 
bons 80 times greater than in downtown Niagara Falls, which isn't 
too sweet. 

The New York State Health Commissioner at every meeting 
simply states there is a risk of flying in an airplane, that there is a 
risk in crossing a street. We want to know what the risk is of living 
in an environment with known human carcinogens where the 


quantities are 80 times greater than in the downtown air of an 
industrial city — Niagara Falls. We know the effects of dioxin. 
These are the only statements that we have on dioxin that we 
received from the Health Department. "We anticipate no prob- 
lems," one of them says. 

Hooker's role in this entire affair has been to launch a massive 
advertising campaign, in essence claiming that the victims caused 
the problem by moving into the area and disturbing the clay cap. 
The Love Canal dump, according to Hooker, was done in the most 
scientific, expertise manner of the times: A secure landfill, meeting 
all the requirements of a secure landfill: isolation, barrier, sealed 
vault, clay cap, and so forth. All of this is readily disputed by this 
1952 photo showing it leaching into the river. 

Here is the Love Canal. Hooker has stated many times that it 
was buried in secure sealed vaults, stacked the barrels. In the 
graph you see the barrels were open, dumped into open pits. There 
are no security. There is houses here. There is no fence up to keep 
the children out of it, and even down here where it is leaching into 
the river. This is the 102d Street dump, which is also Hooker's. 
And if anyone was ever going to put in a dump, you would never 
put it on top of your drinking water supply. Yet they have five of 
them: the S dump, N dump, 102d, the Love Canal. At one time this 
was all a swamp. It is going to wind up in the river because the 
bedrock 40 feet down is limestone. This area, some of these dia- 
grams I have here, states it has silt, sand. So whatever was 
dumped here, anybody with commonsense can see that is going to 
wind up in the river. Why wasn't it corrected then? Why are we 
using approximately the same technique now? It did not work then 
and it will not work now nor 10 years from now by the State's own 
admission. The whole remedial plan — their 6-inch pipe — is only an 
engineering hypothesis which has yet to be proven. The chemicals 
that have and are leaching from the canal are not going to be 
brought back into the canal. The people are, and will be continual- 
ly exposed to, dangerous toxic chemicals. 

This remedial plan was drawn up between city, State, Hooker, 
and an engineering firm which happens to be a Hooker business 
associate. The construction work for this plan was awarded, with- 
out bid, to another Hooker business associate: The Newco Chemical 
Corp. Our city manager, who awarded the contract for the con- 
struction work, resigned and moved to Florida to work for Newco. 

If the construction work had been implemented all at once, in- 
stead of in three phases, there might have been the possibility of 
containing some of the chemicals. Just the other day, north of the 
completed construction site, this fact was clearly shown by chemi- 
cals leaching from the ground, running into the storm sewers, and 
into the Niagara River for 3 days. After news coverage, the remedi- 
al construction crew instigated emergency procedures. "Emergency 
Procedures" because the insurance policy did not cover this — an 
insurance policy that New York State paid $1.3 million for to cover 
approximately 40 workers. In the next 3 days, over 12,000 gallons 
of leachate were sucked up. I wonder how much they did not 
contain from going into the river. With hundreds of chemicals, of 
dioxin, of radiation, how much longer will these people be forced to 

44-978 0-79 


stay? Niagara Falls itself is a scenic wonder. Why are they allow- 
ing to be turned into a chemical dump? 

I have about 6,500 signatures on a petition here that is begging 
please stop the dumping. I have letters from unions, church groups. 
They formed an ecumenical council. I think in the task force there 
were 16 different denominations, including Roman Catholics, Pro- 
testant, Jewish, and Unitarians, and they are all begging the Fed- 
eral Government to identify the Love Canal as a disaster area. The 
community extends from 93d to 103d and they insist upon the 
complete neutralization of toxic wastes and complete regional in- 
cineration for toxic wastes and to make safe disposal of toxic 
wastes a top national priority. As I said, they represent over a 
million people. So the need the cry is up from the people. 

Newco, while doing the remedial work at the 16.5 acre Love 
Canal, is building a potential 400 acre Love Canal on 56th Street. 
Another secure landfill? This is what a secure landfill looks like. 
This is SCA right below the falls. And SCA is building a 900 acre 
site below the falls that affect our friends to the north in Canada. 
SCA has permission from the Department of Environmental Con- 
servation to dump up to 3 million gallons per day of so-called 
treated waste into the Niagara River starting in late March 1979. 
Presently they are dumping only 550,000 gallons. This is a new 
secure landfill under here, while at the same time the one they 
just closed, they are digging the leachate up and taking it to the 
brandnew secure landfill. 

There is no such thing as a secure landfill. While being the 
greatest industrial Nation in the world, we are using antiquated 
methods of waste disposal and of regulating it. What we are actual- 
ly doing is regulating the slow, systematic poisoning of our citizens. 
The people want this dumping to stop. We have letters from unions 
and religious leaders to this effect. The technology for a total, safe 
method of waste treatment exists. We must initiate a national 
program on the mandatory industrial high temperature inciner- 
ation of toxic wastes. 

But this solution cannot be left to private industry. It has been 
proven time and time again that industry will not police its own 
garbage even though laws and regulations exist. I know it is not by 
design or intention, but a situation could exist where a company 
that pollutes forms another company to clean up the pollution at 
the taxpayer's expense. 

A national program would be expensive, but we cannot afford 
not to start it. What is one child worth? What is the next Love 
Canal worth? We cannot victimize our Nation's children through 
carlessness and greed. The Niagara Frontier will be a perfect place 
to initiate a pilot program with over 50 chemical dumps identified 
and more being built. 

Thought must be given to the identification, registration and 
exchange of waste among industries because one industry's waste 
is another industry's raw material. Recycling, reclaiming and de- 
toxifying these wastes would help the energy crisis. Even electric- 
ity could be generated from the steam created by the high tempera- 
ture incineration. 

Consideration must be given to the transportation of chemicals 
to be incinerated. Something such as MS-5 could be added to them, 


it would turn the wastes to jelly to prevent spillage. If an accident 
occurred during transportation, at least people surviving the acci- 
dent will not be splashed with acid. 

This would open up a whole new area of environmental studies 
where the cause and effect of waste-induced environmental prob- 
lems and the use of industrial byproducts could be explored. And 
more exploration could be done in the area of solar furnaces for 
incineration, and for high energy ceramic magnets for detoxifica- 
tion. Without such a program, we will continue to have one Love 
Canal after another with its disease, its birth defects, and jeopardy 
of the next generation. 

Gentlemen, to show what the Love Canal really means, a little 
girl in the neighborhood asked me to show you this photo. Her 
condition came about when the remedial digging started and it has 
grown steadily worse. Several doctors have said it is definitely not 
teen-age acne. Last Friday she was taken to Roswell Park Memori- 
al Institute. They did not know what is causing the severe rash. 
That girl, gentlemen, is my daughter. 

Thank you. 

Senator Culver. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark, and Mrs. 

I believe your tragic experience and the experiences of your 
neighbors are certainly very grim and frightening proof that old 
waste dumps can be nothing but environmental time bombs that 
can spew forth human suffering and tragedy. 

It is my understanding that, as you mentioned here, there has 
been some efforts by the State of New York to evacuate a number 
of homes, I believe 200 homes. 

Mrs. Hillis. I think 237. 

Senator Culver. 237 homes. Will the owners of these homes ever 
be able to return to them in safety? 

Mrs. Hillis. I don't think so. 

Senator Culver. Can you give the committee an idea of the 
typical sale prices of these homes before this crisis erupted? 

Mrs. Hillis. They were in different ranges. I would say probably 
from in the $20,000 up to $35,000. 

Mr. Clark. You mean in neighborhoods that have been evacuat- 

Senator Culver. Yes. 

Mr. Clark. Probably $25,000 to $48,000. 

Senator Culver. And their value now is zero or virtually zero. 

Mr. Clark. They are even less than zero. They are a detriment. 

Senator Culver. What alternative living arrangements are being 
made for those people? 

Mr. Clark. You mean the ones outside of 97th and 99th Street? 

Senator Culver. The ones that have been moved. 

Mr. Clark. Some of the people bought new homes. 

Mrs. Hillis. Some moved to temporary housing and some are 
still in temporary housing. They are looking for new houses. 

Senator Culver. Who was paying for the homeowners' losses to 

Mrs. Hillis. The State has helped, has taken these losses; yes. 

Senator Culver. Can you supply the committee, either one of 
you, with information on how many people have lost their liveli- 


hoods as a result of this disaster? And if you don't have it handy, 
maybe you could provide it for the record. 

Mr. Clark. I don't know. In my case, I haven't worked since 
November 14. I have kidney problems, high blood pressure, enor- 
mous other problems. I broke out in a terrible severe rash when we 
were picketing because they weren't washing trucks, which is ridic- 
ulous anyway, because that doesn't take away dioxin. We were 
trying to bring this to the world's attention. What is sort of ridicu- 
lous, now, as we left yesterday from Niagara Falls, they had a film 
on television where they were taking spray cans containing 245T 
off the market. Right behind my house there is 200 tons of 245T. At 
the end of my street, there is 200 tons of 245T. Down the river 
there is 200 tons of it, 200 tons in the N dump. 200 in the S dump. I 
don't know where they got the 200 tons in each of these dumps, but 
it works out nice. On Bloody Run we have 3,300 tons and they are 
taking little spray cans off the market. I thought that was good. 

Senator Culver. Could you give us some information on that 
issue of loss of livelihood in the area? Could you get it for us? Do 
you know of any available statistics? 

Mrs. HiLLis. No, I don't; I really don't. 

Mr. Clark. The Homeowners Association itself has never even 
considered that, because they have so many health problems and 
other related things. I know we have a lot of people out of work 
because of nervous conditions and kidney problems. 

Senator Culver. You have commented that the hazardous chemi- 
cals may be moving out of the Canal through dry stream beds and 
endangering the other residents of the area. Do you have any 
information on this? Do you have any idea how many homes may 
be ultimately threatened? 

Mr. Clark. Well, from 93d to 103d, I think at the last rate it was 
200-something homes they think was affected. You have to under- 
stand some of these streets are only half streets, like 100 Street is 
only a half street. I have a unique case. The State calls this a 
unique case. This is on the street that Mrs. Hillis lives. That family 
just has a multitude of problems. They live on 102d Street. They 
have readings in the basement. They were told, "Don't go into your 
basement, don't go into the bedroom." The State is doing $7,000 
remedial work in their yard. They had a sewer in the middle of 
their back yard. What it actually was was from the old swales that 
used to drain off that area when they first started construction. 
Somehow it got tied up into the sewer. But by the State's own 
admission, the stuff is leaching and it has leached for years. Every- 
one has known that. All this stuff, the photographs of the old 
swales, the swale beds 

Mrs. Hillis. You can see the old swale in that one black and 
white photograph and there are other swales in the lower park, 
and the freshwater streams 

Senator Culver. Could you bring that up here, Mr. Clark? 

Mr. Clark. To show the magnitude, you see this here? This is all 
fill. You see how the shoreline is changed. This is Hooker's 102d 
Street dump. This highway you see ends here. We have all this. 

Senator Chafee. This is the old 1952 picture, is it? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. 

Now, over here, this is what I was talking about, the old swales. 


Senator Chafee. A swale is an abandoned river? 

Mr. Clark. According to the geological studies, the water goes in 
one way, may go out the other way, depressed area. You can see 
this is the Canal itself and 99th Street School is here. My house is 
here. It wasn't built at that time but it is approximately here. 
What happened, all these white spots and ever3rthing, when they 
started construction here — they never bring this up but all the 
oldtimers will tell you this. The farmers sold the top soil to the 
contractors and they would dump that filth there. What you have 
is an indiscriminate dump over here in this area. 

Senator Chafee. These are the houses, the 237 houses? 

Mr. Clark. These are gone. They weren't even built in this 

Senator Chafee. Right along there? Is this where the 237 are? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. This is 100 Street. They put the fence right 

Senator Chafee. Now, where does Mrs. Hillis live? 

Mr. Clark. She lives over in this area here, sir. 

Senator Culver. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Clark. This is the new 900-acre site below the falls. This is a 
covered secure landfill that is leaching. I have another picture that 
shows that, with the crane picking up the leachate to take it to the 
new secure landfill. 

Senator Chafee. Where it will have a chance to leach again. 

Senator Culver. Senator Muskie? 

Senator Muskie. I think we ought to have for the record some- 
thing that picture may answer. What was the basis for the decision 
to relocate 200 families on the two streets? 

Mrs. Hillis. 239. I think there are about four families that still 
remain that refuse to move out of the area. 

Senator Muskie. What was the basis for selecting those families 
and not others? 

Mrs. Hillis. They were right around the outer edge of the canal. 
The school sits right on the canal, or just the edge of the canal, and 
the homes were on both sides of the canal proper. 

Senator Muskie. Before that decision was made, did the State 
undertake to make a health survey of the people in that area to 
determine the extent of health effects, defects and so on that you 

Mrs. Hillis. In the immediate area? 

Senator Muskie. In the area that was relocated. 

Mrs. Hillis. They did somewhat of a survey, yes, they did. 

Mr. Clark. The State moved into the area on August 2nd, and 
the Governor came around the 8th, because the people were in a 
rage. You can imagine. And they printed a book — it was released 
in September. It was a special report to the Governor and the 
legislature. Here they said they ruled because of an imminent 
health danger. But every other document we got from the State, 
the people were removed because of remedial construction. See, the 
construction — we don't understand where construction was a 
danger. When they formulated this construction plan, they had no 
provisions for safety for the resident that had to remain. We 
screamed and made noise about that and they finally put us on a 
bus program. If they unearthed chemicals that were dangerous, or 


explosive or radiation, or something, they were supposed to pick us 
up in buses. 

Senator Muskie. What I am trying to get at is the basis for the 
State's decision on the 239 families that were relocated. Were they 
families whose problems relate to this dump and nothing else? I 
would like to know whether or not there is a rational basis for 
choosing these 239 families and no others. As I understand your 
testimony, this problem spreads far beyond the two streets. I think 
you mentioned 93d to 103d Streets. Now, has anything been done 
since the decision to relocate these 239 families? Has anything 
been done by the State to determine whether or not areas outside 
those two streets are similarly affected and ought to get similar 

Mr. Clark. Right, sir. The first program they came out with, the 
first initial evacuation — at that time it was Commissioner Whalen. 
Commissioner Whalen was the Commissioner of Health. He said 
they were going to move the children and the pregnant women. 
This was on an initial evacuation. February 8th, after Dr. Beverly 
Paigan's statistics and everjdhing was finally brought out, the 
State agreed that there was a danger existing to the fetus. So the 
other areas, only pregnant women and children under 2. This is 
the February 8 decision. 

Senator Muskie. That is February 8, this year? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, of 1979. So there were approximately 30 people 
in that area that came under this. And at this time only 7 have 
taken the State up. But that is only temporary relocation until the 
child becomes 2 years old. And then they are to move back. 

Senator Muskie. Let me ask you this question. 

Mr. Clark. I see you are confused, because I was confused by 
that one myself. 

Senator Muskie. I don't expect to get all the answers from you, 
but I expect to get some indication of what hasn't been done. Now, 
is there a comprehensive survey underway, a continuing survey 
underway to determine to what extent these health effects are 
above what would normally be expected and over what area? Is 
that kind of health survey being done? 

Mrs. HiLLis. It has been to a certain extent. They did come into 
our area with forms to fill out, and questionnaires. But there has 
been a lot of conflict between the State's findings and some other 
researchers' findings, as they do say, yes, definitely there is danger 
to the fetus and to young children, and possibly other people. 

Senator Muskie. Well, how thorough has that survey been? 

Mrs. HiLLis. I don't think it has been very thorough, sir, as far as 
I am concerned. 

Senator Muskie. Has it been limited to that questionnaire? 

Mrs. HiLLis. Yes. We have had a few phone calls from Albany 
and that has been the limit. 

Senator Muskie. But there have been no medical teams in the 

Mrs. HiLLis. No. The medical team that came in, they just came 
in with questionnaires, that is all. This was from Dr. Vianna's 

Senator Muskie. So the selection of the 239 families, that deci- 
sion was a geographical one? 


Mrs. HiLLis. Yes. 

Senator Muskie. It was not a health decision? 

Mrs. HiLLis. Excuse me, sir, but we have had a lot of blood work. 
We have had blood work drawn. 

Senator Muskie. Over what area? 

Mrs. HiLLis. Over the entire area of the Love Canal area, as well 
as people that have formerly lived in the area that came back for 
blood work. We have had repeated blood work. 

Senator Muskie. On a regular basis? 

Mrs. HiLLis. Well, yes. Some children that have liver problems, 
or whatever, are still having blood tests. 

Senator Muskie. I take it with health problems of this kind that 
most families have had to go to their own doctors? 

Mrs. HiLLis. Yes. 

Senator Muskie. Have those doctors been surveyed by the State's 
health team? 

Mrs. HiLLis. From my viewpoint, sir, I don't think a lot of the 
doctors have been very cooperative. My own doctor, my family 
doctor, refused to send my health data to the Health Department. 

My son's pediatrician did very good in that. But my doctor did 
send a statement, but he did not release my health data. 

Senator Muskie. What is the basis for his refusal? 

Mrs. HiLLis. He said: "The Health Department is a bunch of 
dumb asses". 

Senator Muskie. Has any other organization, your own organiza- 
tion, tried to assemble the medical records? 

Mrs. HiLLis. Yes, we have; from the homeowners' association we 
have, with the help of Dr. Beverly Paigan, and we made a fairly 
good survey; yes, I would say so. 

Senator Muskie. Have you had any professional analysis? 

Mrs. HiLLis. Dr. Paigan who is a professional. 

Senator Muskie. Is she a public health doctor? 

Mrs. HiLLis. She is a researcher for Buffalo's Roswell Park Insti- 
tute Cancer Hospital. 

Senator Muskie. Now, when you mention the value of the homes 
of the 239 families, those were values as of what period? 

Mrs. HiLLis. Sir, I didn't understand. 

Senator Muskie. You gave us the value, I think of $20,000 to 
$30,000 — as of what date? You have had a lot of inflation. 

Mr. Clark. The 239 homes the State was going to buy, the actual 
purchase was %1V2 million. They threw some other things in like 
moving costs and things of this nature, and I think the total price 
of evacuation was $8 million plus. 

Senator Muskie. Senator Culver asked you about loss of work. Is 
there any data at all on the extent to which people have lost work 
because of their health problems in this area? 

Mr. Clark. I don't think we have ever assembled any, but just 
the people that live in the area, all you would have to do is contact 
the plant and see how many days they have missed. See, we expect 
to have asthma and colds and all these other things that you get 
once a year; that is a continual process with us. 

Mrs. HiLLis. We have had so many things, this is one thing we 
have not done. 


Senator Muskie. Now, it is your feeling that there is at least a 
10-street area — occupied by people whose homes are now valueless? 

Mrs. HiLLis. Yes, definitely. 

Senator Culver. Senator Chafee? 

Senator Chafee. Mr. Clark, as I understand your testimony, you 
indicated that Dr. Axelrod said that people are going to get hurt 
crossing a street and there is a risk in flying an airplane? Is there 
some particular report he is working from? In other words, is it the 
State's contention that this incidence of cleft palates, deformed 
children, were just coincidence, that they weren't directly related 
to the situation in the Love Canal? 

Mr. Clark. Well, I really can't speak for him because apparently 
he is trying to put a medical connotation to a political decision. 
And when they drew the line on the map without any scientific 
investigation at that time, I told all my neighbors, I said: "They 
will put up a fence, and that's the ball game." Sure enough, they 
put up a fence and have not brought anything out of the fence 
except four or five houses to the north of the canal, with no fence 
around it. But they were contractors and 

Senator Chafee. I am confused a bit here regarding the fence. 
They put a fence around the property where it had been con- 

Mr. Clark. There is the area right there, and the fence is beauti- 
ful. It matches just what they drew on the map. 

Senator Chafee. So that was where the houses, the 237, or 239 
houses were? 

Mrs. HiLLis. Yes; all but just a few that were on the outside. 

Senator Chafee. So they took that area and now have closed off 
the fenced-in area? 

Mrs. HiLLis. No; it is not closed off. You can go in. The school is 
still open and you can go in, anyone. 

Senator Chafee. The school is still open? 

Mrs. HiLLis. Oh, yes. No children, no. It is used for offices. 

Senator Chafee. Is there some kind of report? I think we ought 
to get hold of it and see the doctor's report, because the statistics 
that you give — that is, Mrs. Hillis and all — in connection with the 
childbirths, the miscarriages, the deformities, defects, seem ex- 
traordinary. Yet I gather that the New York State Health Depart- 
ment says that there is nothing extraordinary. 

Mrs. Hillis. They do say there is something extraordinary, but 
they just have limited it to the possibility of pregnant women and 
children under 2 being damaged. 

Senator Chafee. These reports you have given me, Mr. Clark, 
who prepared this material? 

Mr. Clark. Dr. Beverly Paigan did. 

Senator Chafee. She is the doctor from Roswell Park? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. 

Senator Chafee. Now, I missed the last part of your testimony. 
What specifically are you recommending to us? 

Mr. Clark. Specifically we have to move the people out of that 
affected area. We have to stop dumping 

Senator Chafee. How far would you go? Do you have a geograph- 
ic area that you would suggest? 

Mr. Clark. I would say 93d to 103d. 


Mrs. HiLLis. As of this time. That would include that picture. 

Would the people go? 

Mr. Clark. Some of them wouldn't, believe it or not. In fact, I 
doubt if 50 percent of them would leave. You have to understand, 
most of these people are old. They have already suffered the effect. 
A lot of the people have their homes paid for. And, you know, with 
inflation and everything, buying another home would put a burden 
on them, and they just wouldn't do it. 

Senator Chafee. Did the price New York State gave for the 
homes seem like a fair price? 

Mr. Clark. Everybody at first was pleased with it. But I think 
the first batch that they purchased were just overjoyed to get out. 
Those homes on 97th and 99th Streets were mostly younger people 
in the 30 age group, working, who had been there probably 5 to 8 

Senator Chafee. The other suggestion you had to us was develop- 
ing a high-temperature incineration, a national program on that? 

Mr. Clark. That has to be done. And you can't leave it up to the 
States, because it is a very amusing thing. One of the members of 
the regional planning board is also a partner with NEWCO, who at 
the same time they are so-called cleaning up the Love Canal, they 
are building a 400-acre site almost in the middle of the city. It has 
to be set up with a scientific community. The Europeans have it. I 
have all the data on this. 

We look forward to getting some information out of that. We will 
certainly ask Mr. Jorling about the possibilities in that area. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Culver. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark, Mrs. Hillis. 

Senator Muskie. May I ask you one question? There is a great 
drive on in this city and across the country to get government out 
of the regulation business. Government gets into regulation and 
the clean air field and clean water field, safety fields, and the 
health field, and it is being argued over and over again that gov- 
ernment is overregulating, imposing unacceptable costs on indus- 
try, particularly. Now, what you are saying here is there was 
underregulation that led to this problem. Am I correct? 

Mr. Clark. No, sir. I said you are regulating the most antiquated 
and ridiculous system in the world. You are regulating secure 
landfills. Secure landfills do not exist. This is a result of a secure 
landfill. We are living in a result of a secure landfill. 

Senator Muskie. You say the means used are inadequate. Are 
you saying there should be no means? 

Mr. Clark. No; we should set up a regional incineration program 
where all things are identified, computerized. Don't bring those 
5,000 gallons of acid to this place; take it over to this other gentle- 
man's industry. He needs it. 

Senator Muskie. You want government to be doing something it 
is not now doing? 

Mr. Clark. Absolutely. It has to be, because all we got is this, 
and that is not worth it. 

[An attachment to Mr. Clark's statement follows:] 



1. Why is Niagara Falls, New York as a scenic wonder, allowing SCA, Hooker, 
and Newco ti turn it into a chemical dump? 

2. Why was the engineering study turned over to a Hooker Associate who is doing 
the remedial work for Hooker at Bloody Run? 

3. Why was Newco, a Hooker associate, given remedial construction of Love Canal 
with no bids asked for? 

4. Why did Donald O'Hara leave the City of NiagaraFalls to work for Newco in 

5. Why can't we get straight answers from New York State Health Department? 

6. Why, if this was declared an Emergency Disaster area can't we get help from 
the Federal Government? 

7. Why, when we can bring home 900 dead bodies from Guyana, can't we get the 
Governemt to help in Love Canal? 

8. Why, if we can send billions of dollars to Egyot and Iran can't we help in 
Love Canal . 

9. Why did Hooker receive three million dollar grant for a building downtown. 

10. Why did our Mayor, with the taxpayers money, build Hooker a parking ramp for 
their new building, which by the way was built not for them but for Carborundum. 
Hooker is now planning to build their own and the City is also agreeing to 

put up another parking ramp. 

11. Why was our Mayor so intent on reviewing the television documentary which 
brings to light all the truth in regard to the anguish and suffering of the 
people of the Love Canal and the like canals in our country? 

12. Why did Hooker receive a ten million dollar grant for municipal garbage 

13. Why did Hooker turn this property over to the Board of Education for the sum 
of $1.00? 

14. Why did the Board of Education sell this property to contractors for the 


construction of homes when they knew there were reservations 1n their deed. 

15. Why must we. '-d?^ here while blame is affixed. Their chemicals came in my 
yard, I did not go in their yard and mess with their chemicals. 

16. Why did Dr. David Axelrod refuse to testify before the subcommittee? 

17. Why is the New York State Health Department do diligently trying to disprove 
that Love Canal caused health problems? 

18. Bruce Davis, Head of Hooker, says that Dioxin in those minute levels will 
not harm you. Dr. Axelrod, New York State Health Commissioner, says it will 
kill you. Why are we still here? 

19. Why are out children still attnding 93rd Street School where they have 
proven that radiation levels are higher than the maximum permissable dose 
level (yearly) than a worker around a nuclear reactor? 

20. How can a fence stop leaching? 

21; Why does the City of Niagara Falls have Hooker do their water tests for our 
drinking water? 

22. Why, if Dr. David Axelrod is ■^concerned about kidnapping wasn't an arrest made? 

23. Why are they pumping leachate from Storm to Sanitary Sewers during high rains? 

24. Why was all the workers with rashes sent to Roswell for first aid? 

25. Why is the sewage treatment plant unable to filter all the known chemicals 
out of our effluent. This treatment plant has not worked since March 1978. 

26. Why have soil samples of yards not been taken? 

27. Why did our Governor say he was definitely not going to buy anymore homes 
which is reality if( tantamount to a death sentence. 

29. Why, if this is a demonstration project, are we not demonstrating to the world 
that we can clean up and not cover up and protect our citizens? 


Senator Culver. Thank you very much, Mr. Clark, Mrs. Hillis, 
you have been extremely helpful. 

Mr. Clark, a member of our staff would like to go over some of 
those materials with you before you leave to see what might be 
proper for the record. 

[A statement from the Ecumenical Task Force To Address the 
Love Canal Disaster follows:! 


Ztiril [-^reSbtflerian Church 


TEl.. 716-754-4945 

Dt. Paul L. Moo 
BfflWB M Pascot 

Founded 1817 

March 27, 1979 

The Honorable Edmund h^uskie, Chairman 

Senate Sub-Committee on Environmental Pollution 

Room ^202 

Dirl^sen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Senator Muskie: 

As official representatives of the Ecumenical Task Force to Address the Love 
Canal Disaster in Niagara Falls, New York, we are sending this communication 
of concern with James L. Clark, resident of Love Canal. 

The Ecumenical Task Force, composed of representatives from 16 denominations 
including Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews and Unitarians, as well as the 
New York State Council of Churches, Buffalo and Erie County Council of Churches, 
Niagara Council of Churches and Catholic Charities, together represent a com- 
bined membership of one million people from the Western New York area. 

The Ecumenical Task Force is calling upon the federal government identify the chemically contaminated Love Canal neighborhood 
as a disaster area; execute the immediate evacuation of all families who live 
between 93rd and 103rd Streets who wish to leave, and to make 
reparation for their worthless homes tff those who wish to stay; insist upon complete neutralization of toxic wastes and to 
take the lead in establishing regional incineration facilities 
for toxic wastes; make the safe disposal of toxic wastes a top national priority. 

We strongly urge that this appeal be shared with the appropriate governmental 
oPricials, nnd thn L prompt nction be tnkoii to relieve the phy.Ticnl , emoLlntinl 
nn'l oconomtn distre.';;; nC citizens llvinf^ in ImmodlnI.e danger iind .■ifrocLot) by 
this ecological tragedy. 

We are grateful for your concerned interest and stand ready to assist in the 
implementation of relief efforts. 

, — ~§incerely, /^' 
Paul L. Moore , 

^nna H . Ogg V ff 

Officers Pro-Tem 


Senator Culver. Our next witness is Mr. Frank Kaler, James- 
burg, N.J. 

Mr. Kaler, it is a pleasure to welcome you here this morning. I 
notice your statement is rather lengthy. We are under some consid- 
erable time constraints trying to accommodate all the witnesses we 
have scheduled, so the extent to which you could perhaps summa- 
rize the highlights of that testimony would be appreciated by the 
committee and it would give us time for questions. 


Mr. Kaler. Sir, I was told I had 15 minutes to speak. I timed this 
at 14 minutes and 10 seconds. I have come down here at my own 
expense, at your invitation. I would appreciate it if I would be able 
to read the entire statement. I am not that comfortable with this 

Senator Culver. You may proceed. Why don't you read your 
entire statement. 

Mr. Kaler. My name is Frank Kaler. I live in South Brunswick 
Township, Middlesex County, N.J. 

I should like to thank this committee for having given me the 
opportunity to testify here today about the problems I have had in 
a case involving the pollution of the aquifer from which thousands 
of central New Jersey people draw their water. But after hearing 
of the Love Canal situation, I feel my problem is like the acorn 
which did not become an oak tree only because I was fortunate 
enough to have detected the problem early and persisted enough to 
have gotten some sort of ameliorative action going. 

My well became polluted as a result of uncontained leachate 
from an adjacent landfill which was licensed by the State of New 
Jersey and regulated by the New Jersey Department of Environ- 
mental Protection. 

Upon first discovering the contamination, I followed the chain of 
command from the municipal and county level to the State, and 
finally to the EPA. The course was a rocky one, replete with 
bureaucratic obstruction, reluctance to act, inefficiency, and incom- 

The township, county, and State all told me that there was 
nothing wrong with my water, but one sniff of the samples which I 
have provided for you will, I am sure, convince you that I was 
justified in my complete lack of confidenc^e in officialdom's compe- 
tence or sincerity. 

I was going to pass the water samples around, but maybe in a 
break you can check them out. 

The specifics of my difficulties in prompting any sort of positive 
action could easily consume the entire day, so I shall have to 
confine myself to a few of the most blatantly frustrating incidents 
with only a reminder that for each incident recorded here, there 
were dozens of others of a similar nature. 

When I first discussed my water problem with the DEP's Chief of 
the Bureau of Potable Water, his reply was, "Y'know, Mr. Kaler, 
you keep this sorta thing up, first thing's gunna happen, they're 
gunna condemn your well." 

A State test of my water in the summer of 1975 declared it to be 
potable. Later analyzed by the EPA, it showed the presence of 


chloroform, toluene, xylenes, trichloroethane, trichloroethylene, 
benzene, dischloroethylene, and other organic compounds, in most 
cases in shockingly high concentrations. 

In spite of the wide dissemination of a private lab's report which 
showed five wells in this area to be dangerously polluted, all test- 
ing stopped until I petitioned the township and shotgunned copies 
of the petition to Governor Byrne and many other legislators. 

When I asked a top county health official why they were not out 
testing in ever-widening circles to determine the extent of the 
contamination, his reply was: "Oh, c'mon, Frank, you know as well 
as I do that if we tested all those wells out there, they's all come 
up bad." 

Samples which my neighbor, Ted Kordus, and I collected in the 
landfill, and photographs I had taken of landfill scenes were lost by 
the DEP personnel at whose request I had delivered them. 

Telephone reports of illegal deposits in the landfill, which I made 
to the DEP, very often appeared to trigger frantic coverup activity 
on the part of the landfill operators. 

A DEP official, upon being chided by me for not going into the 
landfill to sample a load of waste from BASF Wyandotte, gave as 
his reason for inactivity: "We have our jobs to worry about." A 
mayor of our township told me that the reason he did not want to 
issue summons to the landfill for violations for local codes was that 
he was afraid the landfill would sue the township for harassment. 

A township committeeman, upon first being apprised of this 
problem at a board of health meeting, addressed that group and 

Landfills being a necessary part of the industrial scene, and there being only a 
limited number of landfills in the State of New Jersey, with little likelihood that 
any new licenses will be issued, we're going to have to be very careful how we 
handle this. 

His remark was a harbinger of the general attitude which ap- 
peared to prevail among township and State officials and bureau- 

And I cannot leave out the comment of still another of our town 
fathers who was quoted in a local newspaper with this model of 
specious stupidity in defense of everlasting pollution, he said: 
"What good will clean air and clean water be for the people if they 
don't have jobs?" 

When my township officials first began investigating the prob- 
lem, it appeared as though the main thrust of their activities was 
to attempt to show that I, being a painting contractor, had in fact 
polluted my own well, not to mention the entire aquifer and the 
landfill itself. County and later State DEP people followed the 
same sort of trend and by the time we arrived at the stage of 
litigation, the thrust of all defense counsel was such that I began to 
feel like a woman who, having been brutally raped by 14 escaped 
sex maniacs, is accused of being the town trollop. 

After having failed to obtain satisfactory results, either through 
test results or ameliorative action up through the DEP, we man- 
aged to enlist the aid of the EPA Division II Laboratory in Edison, 
N.J. On October 3, 1975, I picked up the results of the first of many 
tests that were done for us there. That report showed the presence 
of five of the organic compounds mentioned earlier. 


Without the help, cooperation, and understanding of the people 
of the Edison Labs, I should in all likelihood have had to abandon 
my home. 

The EPA's assistance, however, was limited to testing and adviso- 
ry matters. It did not appear to me that this organization had any 
real capacity or authority to enforce or correct. As is the case with 
the township, county, and State, the EPA, ostensibly designed to 
regulate, depends, finally, on the courts, and one judge, making one 
wrong decision, will either tragically delay or totally prevent cor- 
rection. Our regulatory agencies thus become powerless to be effec- 
tive in doing the job for which they were created. 

With confirmation that my well was indeed polluted, and with 
what we thought was adequate proof of the contaminant's source, 
we acquired an attorney who immediately filed suit against indus- 
trial giants such as BASF Wyandotte, Phelps Dodge, General 
Motors, Shell Chemical, Ortho Pharmaceutical, Cities Service, and 
others who had used the landfill. 

Then finally our day in court arrived and after 4 days of trial 
our attorney informed us that even if the court found in our favor, 
there was not likely to be more than a $10,000 award, and that if 
the court should find in our favor, the landfill and Patterson Sar- 
gent — the only remaining defendant long with the landfill, all 
others having been released in summary judgment before trial — 
would "appeal and appeal and appeal." 

I asked what opposing the first appeal would cost us, and he said 
$5,000 to $8,000, and finally facing up to reality, we verbally agreed 
to settle for $10,000. We had paid one expert witness about $7,000. 
We were economically bludgeoned out of the courtroom. 

Judge Furman was quoted in a local newspaper as saying that he 
would not close the landfill as requested to by the DEP because the 
man has a considerable investment in equipment. He apparently 
did not take into consideration the considerable investment a 
parent has in four children, or the considerable investment my 
coplaintiff, Ted Kordus, had in his nursery. He also said that he 
would not close the landfill because we and the State had not 
proved that the landfill had irreparably damaged the aquifer. He 
did not deny that the landfill had damaged the aquifer. In fact, he 
implicitly agreed that it did, so what he really said was that the 
landfill had poisoned my well and maybe my children, but perhaps 
in a 1,000 years the pollution might dissipate to the point where it 
would be undetectable, so no harm was done. 

With litigation at an end, we returned home to our newly in- 
stalled waterline complete with chlorine, water bills, and an assess- 

The township also assessed the landfill for its share of the line, 
and they assessed Ted Kordus, my coplaintiff. Mr. Kordus is a 
nurseryman who used to irrigate profusely. In New Jersey, land 
used for agricultural purposes earns a deferral on assessments for 
such improvements as waterlines, therefore Mr. Kordus is not re- 
quired to pay the near $10,000 fee his broad frontage demanded 
until such time as the land goes out of agricultural use. However, 
the township has decided that interest must be charged against the 
original assessment, or to put it another way, Mr. Kordus must pay 


interest on money which he does not owe, and will not owe until 
the land usage changes to other than agricultural. 

This assessment and its cumulative interest, should Mr. Kordus 
or his sons operate their nursery long enough, will amount to a 
confiscatory tax. He would lose his land for interest on money he 
doesn't even owe. 

Aside from that he stands now, afraid to chance harming deli- 
cate clones by irrigating with water laced with phenols, zinc, trich- 
loroethane, trichloroethylene, chloroform, selenium, and no one 
knows what other chemicals or compounds which have as yet been 

He stands, however, in a position where he could hazard irrigat- 
ing with municipal water containing, hopefully, only chlorine, 
which alone is considered by nurserymen as being harmful to 
young and tender plants, and in addition, should he elect to risk 
this path, he hazards bankruptcy from the cost of municipal water 
during one dry season. 

In looking back at the whole picture, one finds that industry, 
through the landfill, by and with the at least tacit, and often the 
explicit, permission of government, polluted my well, and under 
the present system which is heavily loaded in favor of industrial 
interests, as opposed to private citizens, individually or in groups, I 
was, almost totally, legally impotent. 

I am forced to the conclusion that there was no equity in our 
courtroom because I did not have enough money to pay for it, for 
under the present system equity is a very high-priced commodity. 

There appears to be an unspoken but clearly understood Malthu- 
sian theory of ecology among many of our lawmakers. That law 
says that the public shall be allowed a good enough environmental 
quality to survive and produce without being driven to the wall of 
rebellion, and no more. 

In looking back in another direction, I see our institutional struc- 
ture, where it was not simply and honestly incompetent, inefficient 
and uncaring, desperately eager to protect industrial tax ratables, 
frantically appeasing industry lest those industries be scared off to 
less ecologically harsh climates. I have to consider the possibility 
that our Government is operating the premise that clean air and 
clean water will be useless to the public if they don't have jobs, but 
should like to remind them that jobs will be useless to the public if 
their air and their water is allowed to die. 

What were we really up against? I thought that we were fighting 
a totally obvious and just fight against parties which had wronged 
us, parties which had violated my property and personal rights, 
and that in the United States of America, with liberty and justice 
for all, it was simply a matter of fairly presenting the facts and 
being fairly judged on the basis of them. 

What we were really up against was more like this: Picture a 
flock of birds, posed tremulously on a branch, ready for instant 
flight at the first pop of an ecologist's gun, and one has a picture of 
New Jersey industry today. If the court had found in our favor, the 
precedent set would have changed the face of industry throughout 
the United States. 

Industry feels persecuted by ecological interests. They claim that 
cleanup is too expensive, but cleanup will cost industry nothing at 

44-978 0-79-3 


all if all industry is made to clean up at the same time so that one 
will not gain a competitive edge over the other. Industry will not 
pay the cost of a clean environment, the consumers will. They will 
pay that cost either through taxation or through an increased cost 
of goods. There is no escape from that, but the consumer has to be 
convinced that not only is the price of cleanup necessary, it is also 
the week's best buy. 

Once uniform ecological regulations are established, the battle 
will have been only half won. There will remain the problem of 
enforcement, and without enforcement, all the regulations in the 
world will be less than useless. 

New Jersey's title 7:26, a DEP regulation, contains enough good, 
solid throught on the subject of waste management to make it 
truly a Garden State, but the DEP is like an old lion sitting in the 
Sun, it has a loud voice, but no teeth and no claws. 

It is patently ridiculous for Government to set up a regulatory 
agency and then permit its entire function to be negated by politi- 
cal and economic interests which are often diametrically opposed to 
the original goals of those agencies. 

Legislation must be enacted of such a nature that control of 
environmental matters is safe from arbitrary handling by the judi- 
ciary and placed with the agency structured to intelligently and 
fairly regulate. 

I see two other ways in which pollution could be stopped almost 
entirely. The hard way would be for 10 million families to be 
burned the way we were. The other involves what I feel may very 
well be a now almost totally capable technology to the point where 
one may be able to illustrate precisely who did what to whom. 
Polluters then placed in a position where they know they will most 
certainly be held accountable for their depradations will, as a 
simple matter of self defense, be forced to run a clean house. 

There were heroes involved, and because they were so grand, I 
feel that I should name those with whom I had dealings. I know 
there had to be many other sincere, capable, honest and caring, 
who were in one way or another involved, and to all these I offer 
my deepest gratitude and hopes that the political and bureaucratic 
tangle which hampers their good intentions will lessen and their 
accomplishments increase. 

I heartily commend: Mr. Francis T. Bryzenski, Laboratory Direc- 
tor, Division II, U.S. EPA, Edison, N.J.; Dr. Theodore P. Shelton, 
Rutgers University, department of environmental science; Mr. Wil- 
liam Althoff, DEP, Trenton, N.J.; Ann Kruger, environmental com- 
missioner. South Brunswick, N.J.; and deputy attorney general. 
Jack VanDalen, Trenton, N.J. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Culver. Thank you. 

Senator Muskie? 

Senator Muskie. I appreciate that statement very much. I hope 
that we can create that kind of regulatory environment. 

It is frustrating, and we seem to be again at a point where, as 
the regulatory impact of laws already written begins to bite, those 
who are regulated will begin to resist again, as they resisted the 
writing of the laws in the first place. And the laws that have been 
written really are not sufficiently comprehensive to deal with the 


kind of problems that you and the Love Canal people have brought 
before this committee this morning. 

I simply want to commend you for your persistence. It isn't easy 
as an individual citizen to come down here at your own expense 
and speak your piece. You have spoken it and you have spoken it 
well, and I compliment you. 

Senator Culver. Senator Chafee? 

Senator Chafee. I would like to join, Mr. Kaler, in those compli- 
ments. There was a Norwegian author who wrote a play called 
"The Enemy of the People." The person complained to the authori- 
ties that the local town beach was being polluted, and the authori- 
ties wanted to ignore it because it would destroy the summer trade. 
I suppose, as you indicated in your testimony, you have run, into a 
lot of harsh remarks because you might be harsh on industry 

Mr. Kaler. Yes. 

Senator Chafee [continuing]. In your area, which is all-control- 
ling. I thought the point you made was good at the end of your 
testimony, that if these regulations can be evenly applied across 
the Nation, then industry won't be able to flee from New Jersey to 
an area where it is less environmentally conscious. I think that is a 
very good point. I am glad you are here and appreciate what you 
have said. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Culver. Thank you very much, Mr. Kaler, We appreci- 
ate your appearance here and your testimony. 

Senator Chafee. Mr. Kaler, are you going to be around, or are 

Mr. Kaler. I am going to stick around for the rest of the day. 

Senator Chafee. I would like to chat with you a bit. 

Senator Culver. Our next witness is Dr. Michael Bender, and 
also Mr. Morgan. 

It is a pleasure to welcome both of you gentlemen here and I 
wonder if you might find it possible to summarize the highlights of 
your statement. We will make the full statements part of the 
record, if you are comfortable doing that. 


Dr. Bender. I think I would like to let Mr. Morgan go first 
because he is going to talk about the economic impact on the 
industry, which many people are interested in, and then I will 
summarize mine. 

Senator Culver. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Bender. Mr. Morgan is president of the W. F. Morgan & 
Sons, Inc., from Weems, Va. 

Senator Culver. We are delighted to welcome you here. 

Mr. Morgan. I thank you for having the opportunity to speak. I 
would like to speak about the kepone effects on the James, Hamp- 
ton Roads, and Elizabeth Rivers. 

I am in the seafood processing industry. The word that describes 
what happened to us is simply "disastrous." I don't think the 


horrible example mentioned in the Love Canal area, while being 
more of an impact on some people, was as far-reaching as the 
kepone. In the early 1960's after testifying for clean water in our 
Nation, for many years we had Rachel Carson's book that kicked 
off our 1964, 1968, 1972, and amended 1974 Clean Water Acts. We 
need such a book today. However, in lieu of the book, we have 
certainly had an example in kepone that resulted in the State of 
Virginia and the Nation getting the Toxic Substances Act. I think 
that is all the good that came out of kepone. 

We have about 8,000 licensed watermen in the State of Virginia 
who fish for oysters, crabs, eels, what-not, from our waters. 

The closure included 75 miles of the James and Hampton Roads 
and the lower bay area. Unlike New York, our State health offi- 
cials acted commendably, I think, in creating a task force to ob- 
serve what could be done about kepone. And I think they did the 
best that they could out of the situation. 

The unfortunate part and the most damaging part to our indus- 
try watermen was in the fact that these people on the James were 
equipped with small boats, gillnets, and other devices for catching 
the fish. And these are not adequate for fishing elsewhere. We had 
1,070 licensed catchers of fish and gillnets in 1975 when kepone 
was discovered. And last year this was down to 300 and some 
gillnetters. A way of life had been destroyed. The livelihood of very 
independent people was destroyed. It was most difficult to help 
these people because they are what I fondly believe to be the same 
type that created our nation. They are tough, they are independ- 
ent, they are basically uneducated, but they are diligent people. 
And to give you an example of the type of people. Governor 
Godwin bent laws and other things in order to make money availa- 
ble to these fishermen during the cold winter of 1976. And only 
three of our fishermen accepted this money that he made available. 
I think that tells the story of the type. 

Our marine resources commission estimated in an evaluation to 
the Governor that our losses would be projected at $2 million per 
year for 40 years. However, Dr. Bender will comment on other time 
projections today. 

We believe this to be extremely low. For instance, we were 
taking a million pounds of crabs out of the James-Hampton Roads 
area. This is completely gone. Our last year's records in VMRC 
admits these are very low figures. Our striped bass amounted to 
460,000 pounds, and they are bringing about $1.50 a pound. And, of 
course, we have large catches of croaker, flounder, spot, and other 
species in the area. 

The unfortunate part of the evaluation of this is that our nation- 
al marine fisheries service have not been able to evaluate the 
catches. Many of these fishermen load their catches on small 
pickup trucks and take them in to wholesalers or into the cities as 
well. The remainder of our fishermen in the James have had larger 
boats and have gone to other areas for harvesting. This is very 
deceptive on their ability to harvest. In our oyster production, both 
in the Nation and the State of Virginia, we have lost over a third 
of our grounds to pollution. This impairment of harvesting area 
cuts down on the total catch. 


In a nation that needs high proteins in great quantities, and in a 
nation where the 200-mile limit has just been enacted, it seems 
incongruous that we should be restricted in our areas of catch. 

We in the State of Virginia have been awarded the dubious 
honor by the Environmental Protection Agency of being declared 
in the James River, one of the four worst polluted areas in the 
nation. However, some of those industries the New Brunswick 
person mentioned, they have adequate climate in the State of 
Virginia to come down our way, and we are being invaded in great 

Our lower Hampton Roads area, five-city area, is the fastest 
growing area in the Nation. Also, I would like to point out that our 
pollution grows correspondingly. We have recently engaged in a 6- 
year fight about the mislocation of a refinery in Portsmouth, Va. I 
had better be careful with that. 

However, I will say this: Our entire scientific community de- 
clared that this was the worst possible place to locate a refinery 
due to its being adjacent to the richest seed oyster beds in the 
world. And in spite of all of the scientists cooperation, our political 
world creates bad water quality on the State level. And, unfortu- 
nately, the same procedure is going on at the national level, as 
with the refinery. 

Senator Chafee. Is that refinery being built, or where does it 

Mr. Morgan. General Morris, after much agonizing, decreed in 
favor of the refinery last week and passed on his conclusion to 
Secretary Alexander. We are engaged in letter writing and asked 
Congressmen who object to send letters to Alexander, and many 
other activities which I hope will be more successful than we have 
been in the past. 

In the State of Virginia, now that you ask, we have article XI of 
the constitution of the State of Virginia, which particularly pro- 
tects these shell fish areas. However, in court, we didn't get very 
far with that. Although the article is still there, we approved the 
refinery decision anyhow. I had hoped, also, that the State of 
Virginia would pass a coastal zone management plan, which they 
rejected in our general assembly this year. 

We have many things going for us in the way of laws and 
agencies. And as has been mentioned before, when laws and agen- 
cies in the political world come up against major siting, we general- 
ly lose. 

I would like to comment on the last part. Inflation is a hypersen- 
sitive issue at this time. The battle for the control of toxic sub- 
stances has just begun. We will be determining very minute 
amounts of toxics, because of our sophisticated equipment. And I 
am hoping that this Senate committee and our Congress can get 
into this battle and try to stop the various contaminants that are 
going into our streams. 

One final comment. The Orient, for 5,000 years, has been using 
their sewage as an asset. About three-fourths of Europe today is 
using their sewage as an asset. We are treating it and dumping it 
in our streams, or dumping it in landfills. I regret that this atti- 
tude is hard to change. And when you come up against a sanitary 


engineer, it is like coming up against a brick wall. But this must be 
changed if we are going to survive in the fishery industry. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator Culver. Thank you very much, Mr. Morgan. 

Dr. Bender? 


Dr. Bender. I would like to summarize on kepone and there are 
two things that often get confused in the public's mind about how 
it, or any chemical, can have an effect. The first one is that the 
resource can be contaminated to the extent that someone declares 
it unfit to eat; that agency is usually FDA or in the case of 
pesticides with recommendations from EPA. The other avenue is 
that the resource itself can be damaged; that is, fewer crabs be- 
cause the chemical or whatever it is is harming resources. In the 
case of Kepone, we know that the resource is contaminated and 
there is information for your reading in that regard. Laboratory 
studies do also indicate that the resource in the river, some of the 
resources are being influenced, being harmed by the presence of 
kepone. But the biggest effect by far is probably on the utilization 
of the resource. In other words, there are still plenty of crabs and 
fish in the river. It certainly hasn't killed them to the extent they 
have been wiped out. And as Mr. Morgan mentioned, the present 
estimates are $2 million a year for commercial fishing; that is, 
harvest that has been lost due to the presence of kepone. 

We don't know how much sport fishing would have been in- 
volved. We know that it is considerable. I would guess in the 
neighborhood of at least double the commercial fishing. 

Senator Culver. What was your comment on the harvest? 

Dr. Bender. We aren't harvesting except for a very limited spe- 
cies. It is closed to harvest. It is $2 million a year lost through 
commercial harvest. 

Senator Culver. You are saying even though you still have 
substantial fish concentrations, that the way they are contaminat- 
ed has stopped commercial fishing? 

Dr. Bender. No, they can't be legally sold because they are 
contaminated with kepone, PCB's, or whatever else. In other words, 
the level of kepone in most species in the James River is so high or 
is above the action level so they can't be marketed. 

Senator Chafee. And if they are eaten, you get the slurred 
speech and all the problems that come? 

Dr. Bender. No. If they are eaten, you might in 20 years develop 
cancer. That is the projections made by FDA. That is the reason 
they can't be harvested. Kepone caused cancer in laboratory ani- 
mals. It is just as it is with PBB's and PCB's. It hasn't caused 
anything in humans. Now, we are not talking about industrial 

Senator Chafee. Those people that had industrial exposure in 
that plant, did they have cancer? 

Dr. Bender. They had motor disorders and neurological disorders 
which were related to very high levels of industrial exposure, 
mainly absorption in the skin or inhalation, not food containing 
very small levels, which is what we are talking about with kepone 
in the river. 


Senator Culver. Dr. Bender, you mentioned it may take 50 to 
100 years for the James River to cleanse itself through natural 
processes. Is there any effective remedial action that industry or 
Government could take to clean up the river in a shorter period of 

Dr. Bender. Yes, I believe there is. This is where I was trying to 
get the economics into it. If we take the $2 million loss of commer- 
cial fishery and double that for the recreation fishery you can fish 
but you have to throw them back; most people won't go fishing 
that way — you can say it is $4 million a year. Now, if that were to 
extend for the 100 years — now, these are estimates — that is $4 
billion, not accounting for inflation. This is in present dollars. The 
estimates that have been made on at least a partial cleanup on the 
river are in the order of nuclear aircraft carrier, about $2 billion. 
The fines leveled — of course, this is the largest suit the EPA han- 
dled — were minuscule to the projected cost to clean up the river, 
which is around $2 billion, as I say. Whether that could all be 
cleaned up or not is probably questionable, because the damage 
done if you cleaned up the whole river, the damage to the river 
would probably exceed the benefit. But certainly the timespan that 
exists could be shortened, in my mind. 

It may need more research on how to best do it, but there 
certainly is something that I think should be done. And to my 
knowledge we in the State government, anyhow, are proceeding the 
way we can with trying to come to a solution. The Environmental 
Protection Agency at the moment is not, at least in my view, doing 

Mr. Morgan. May I interject, the State pursued a possibility of 
dumping the residue from Bailey's Creek, which was highly con- 
taminated by kepone, in Germany. And an arrangement was tenta- 
tively made, and then at the last minute, this was rejected by 

Dr Bender. No, we have done that. It was kept quiet. But that 
was just high contaminants. 

Senator Chafee. It wouldn't be now. 

Dr. Bender. Let me make one general point, if I might. I would 
like to say something about damage assessment in a general sense. 
That is, the present system of damage assessment, as it has evolved 
through the courts and I have been involved with at least 10 
different firms in various lawsuits — at present the system of 
damage assessment involves doing counts of dead bodies, how many 
dead worms were there after an oil spill, or perday fines for efflu- 
ent violations. And it is a simple way to write a law, but it doesn't 
really solve the problem. I think EPA has just addressed that in 
that they are considering changing the daily charge because it is 
often cheaper to pay the daily charge than to clean up your act. 
And second, body counts don't take into account the length of time 
a resource may be damaged. It may take a year, if an oil spill kills 
half the worms, in half a year they are back, or a year they are 
back, whereas with the kepone the problem might be there for 50 
years. It is not an equitable means of assessing fines in one way. 
And also, if we are really assessing what the amount of damage 
was because it is readily apparent when you kill a canvasback 
duck, that he is dead, so I think there needs to be, in an adminis- 


tration order, or legislation, an ability to put together a reasonable 
package on damage assessment, not as they do in California, 
charge per barnacle killed and per sea urchin killed. 

Senator Culver. Dr. Bender, do you foresee the James River 
being reopened to commercial fishing within the foreseeable 

Dr. Bender. Not unless some action is taken, maybe by changing 
the action level, which would allow harvesting, and this does not 
appear likely to me at this time. Something must be done other 
than that or it will stay closed. 

Senator Culver. Mr. Morgan, did you know any reduction in the 
size or quality of your catch before commercial fishing in the 
James River was completely discontinued? 

Mr. Morgan. Well, actually, it had been going down in the 
James for about 12 years preceding knowledge of kepone. 

Senator Culver. It had been going down. 

Mr. Morgan. The catches have been generally going down. Our 
total catch of species as recorded by national Marine Fishery Serv- 
ice has been retarded. 

Senator Culver. For 12 years you say? 

Mr. Morgan. Over at least that period. And while we have not 
been able to associate this with kepone, it is a fact that it had been 

Dr. Bender. If I might add, it had been going in the river for 12 
years, too; we just didn't know it until 1975. 

Senator Culver. Is it beyond the scientific confidence and capa- 
bility to confidently make these correlations? 

Dr. Bender. It is in a way because the James also receives a lot 
of other waste from other industries. It is also, other than the 
Potomac, the most polluted by domestic sewers also. It is the only 
one we knew about that had that amount of kepone in it. It is like 
correlating the birth rate of babies in Hawaii to the snowfall in 
Alaska. They correlate fine but it doesn't prove them. 

Mr. Morgan. Before, the determination on kepone, Virginia 
marine scientists made a statement about the pollution of the river 
to the Governor, and to all concerned on the refinery issue, because 
the refinery determined that the pollution was such that the addi- 
tion from the refineries would add to this pollution. So there were 
previous determinations. 

Senator Culver. Now, we don't have that hard in numbers, but 
the Environmental Protection Agency says it may cost $7 billion to 
clean up the river. You are quoting ballpark figures. What has 
been the economic loss to the commercial fishermen in the area? 

Dr. Bender. The most precise number we have, the only number 
we have, is the one Mr. Morgan gave and that is $2 million a year. 
So that is what it costs. And the real problem is if it extends any 
real length of time. How long is that going to continue? 

Senator Culver. Mr. Morgan, you indicated these fishermen 
were reluctant to accept various forms of help the State was appar- 
ently trying to provide. What have they done to earn their living, 
those that have depended on the James River, since this commer- 
cial ban was imposed? 

Mr. Morgan. As I mentioned, over 800 of the fishermen are no 
longer in the industry. The State tried to incorporate some of them 


in the WIN program, some have gone to work, full work in the 
shipyard, shipbuilding, drydock, service stations and other types of 
work which they were capable of. And in the larger fishermen, as I 
said, which was the bulk of the fishermen, with their larger rigs 
and their equipment that will stand rougher waters of the bay, 
have gone up the bay to make their catches. So the solution seems 
on the surface to be that the James River fisherman should be 
equipped with equipment that could go elsewhere to take his catch. 
This will be a transmigration problem that I don't know whether it 
would be successful or not. In the Appalachian, and the coal 
miners, they didn't work very well. So these people are relatively 
the same makeup. 

Senator Culver. Senator Chafee? 

Senator Chafee. Dr. Bender, maybe you can answer this one, or 
Mr. Morgan. What are the possibilities that the kepone in the 
James River will get into other parts of the Chesapeake? 

Dr. Bender. I can answer that. 

Senator Chafee. Is it going to work its way up? 

Dr. Bender. Under normal conditions it has not and it has been 
there long enough. We have studied it and are fairly certain about 
that. The real thing that concerns the scientists involved is that if 
we have a major hurricane, which we have not had — we have had 
tremendous storms that have dumped tremendous amounts of rain 
but they have not caused high tides and this sort of thing associat- 
ed with a hurricane — that it could transport a good deal of it to the 
mouth of the bay or further down the bay. The contaminants 
sediment are fairly far up the river. If that were to move down 
river in a slug or with a big storm, it could very well endanger 
possibly the whole bay, which is a frightening aspect. Talking 
about a couple of billion to clean up the river doesn't bother you if 
you are talking about the whole bay being closed. That would be a 
disaster of worse proportions. 

Senator Chafee. Now, in order for the river to become clean 
once again in the traditional way we use that term — in other 
words, be able to take fish there — has the bottom sediment got to 
come out? 

Dr. Bender. At least the first couple of feet in many places do. 
The kepone is stored in those sediments. It has to come out or in 
some way magically be fixed so it doesn't desorb or come off the 
sediments. The things we have looked at to do that chemically 
have not worked. 

Senator Chafee. Your comments on damage assessment, environ- 
mental damage assessment, I thought were good ones. We might 
ask you if you could provide some thoughts on how to do the 
assessment. Perhaps you could do that for the record. Have you 
written out anything on that? 

Dr. Bender. Not with me today. I didn't have time to do that, 
but I can do that if you will hold the record open for a little while. 
I will provide it to somebody; yes. 

Senator Chafee. Why don't you send it to me and I will distrib- 
ute it to the others on the committee. I would appreciate more 
information on how to arrive at a damage assessment. 

Dr. Bender. I can give you what I think. 

Senator Chafee. Fine. Thank you very much. 


Senator Culver. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your 
appearance here today. 

Our next witness is Dr. David Allen. Dr. Allen is the director of 
community health services administration, Tennessee Department 
of Public Health, Nashville, Tenn. 

It is a pleasure to welcome you here this morning. 


Dr. Allen. Thank you. I think all the members have a copy of 
the testimony and I would like to review a couple of highlights and 
make a couple of points at the end. You will have a complete 
record for the committee. 

A brief history: The Velsicol Co. plant disposed of its waste in the 
Hollywood Dump in Memphis until a major fish kill in the late 
sixties, and they changed their site to a very isolated site in a 
Hardeman County farm, 240 acres. About half of that particular 
farm was covered with a landfill and 300,000 barrels or around 16 
million gallons of chemicals and various intermediates used in the 
manufacture of pesticides were buried on this farm. 

Despite a of clear lack of knowledge of identifiable hazards to the 
public, an order was given by Commissioner of Public Health 
Eugene Fowinkle, in February of 1972, to stop the dumping by 
August 31, 1972. Yet from that time in 1972 we had no complaints 
of water contamination until November of 1977, when some neigh- 
bors to the north of this landfill first complained of odors coming 
from their water supplies. 

The first water samples tested were negative for the chemicals 
for which qualitative analyses were done. But in March of 1978, 
the first two wells were found to be contaminated with measurable 
levels of chemicals and shortly thereafter three more wells in this 
area adjacent to the dump were found to be contaminated. 

At that time the residents were told not to drink the water and 
not to use it for food preparation. But we were not sure of levels of 
contamination and not sure of what the impact or the health 
effects might be. 

Immediately a temporary water supply was provided with tank 
trucks and then studies were initiated to determine whether in fact 
this contamination was coming from the landfill. 

In October 1978, a hydrologic study was completed that showed 
the migration of the chemicals from the landfill. It had been 
thought in the 1960's to be impermeable clay, but there are sand 
lenses in the clay and the direction of groundwater migration was, 
in fact, found to be in a flume that encompassed these homes. The 
Velsicol Chemical Corp. joined the Department of Public Health, 
EPA, and others, in a vigorous pursuit of solutions, which is, I 
think, worthy of note. 

The corporation also assisted in totally replumbing the houses, 
and putting in a permanent alternate water supply. That was 
beginning in October of 1978. I think that it is also worthy of 
noting that the contamination to date is predominantly low molec- 
ular weight solvents that are migrating the fastest and in the 
highest concentrations. There has been a continuous increase in 


the concentration of these contaminants. In fact, the highest con- 
tamination level in one of the wells now is carbon tetrachloride at 
18,700 parts per billion. 

I would like to make a couple of points relative to protection of 
the public. The first point is that as soon as we suspected there was 
chemical contamination in the wells, the Department of Public 
Health felt the first order of business was to provide alternate 
water supplies for drinking. 

Senator Chafee. Twenty-five parts per billion of carbon tetra- 
chloride doesn't mean much one way or the other. What is a lot? 
What is dangerous? 

Dr. Allen. Senator, I am glad you asked that question because 
one of the points I want to make at the end is that nobody knows 
the level at which any one of thousands of chemicals changes from 
a coincidental, insignificant exposure to one that constitutes a true 
health risk. One of the real dangers that we face, I believe, is panic 
precipitated by lack of knowledge. If any one of us here were 
examined carefully, if we were to donate a fat tissue biopsy, we 
would find DDT in everybody sitting in the room, probably 9 or 10 
parts per billion. That, as far as we know, has had no negative 
physiologic impact on any of us. We have DDT in us because we 
eat vegetables grown in fields that were sprayed with DDT years 
ago. So one of the real problems we run into is that we do not 
know what these threshold levels for danger are. I noticed in the 
testimony on the kepone incident, the fish harvest was discontin- 
ued because of the presence of kepone in fish. We know that 
certain parts of food chains contain chemicals. I don't know much 
about the biology of fish and kepone. We don't know about the 
concentration of these chemicals in Towns, Tenn. either, the ones 
that have migrated. 

Our best guess, though, is that with the low molecular weight 
solvents the health impacts would also be short term. You can get 
serious liver damage, as an example, if you have a heavy exposure 
to carbon tetrachloride, chloroform et cetera. But if you eliminate 
the exposure, and if the exposure was low to begin with, we don't 
know what a long-term effect might be. In other words, if you had 
low levels of exposure for a long period of time, what would the 
cancer rate be in 20 years? We really don't know that answer. 

Senator Chafee. Thank you. Go ahead. 

Dr. Allen. So that we in fact felt the first thing to do was 
provide alternate water supplies in this particular case. And as 
written in the complete testimony, the testing of people can be 
valuable when there are problems that can be corrected if found, 
or if one wishes to document the negative effects of an experiment 
in nature. The risk one runs when extensive testing is done is that 
a false sense of security can be transmitted when the health effects 
of the chemicals have a long incubation period. Cancers are now 
showing up in certain factory workers who were exposed decades 
ago. Many of these had had extensive physical examinations and 
blood tests with no abnormal test result found. 

In the recent kepone tragedy in Virginia, the exposure and ill- 
ness was short and dramatic; that is following the industrial expo- 
sure. However, these exposures were very, very high and the 
kepone incident is the exception to the rule. While we applaud 


testing human beings when it helps, we must remember that the 
important action to protect the public health is to fmd out the 
source of potentially hazardous contamination and stop that con- 

Parenthetically, one of the risks that we run where examining 
any one of these experiments of nature is the creation of unneces- 
sar>- anxiety. That is, if we go into neighborhoods that have had a 
potential, physiological insult that is we examine the people who 
have been exposed to chemicals that could do harm, we have to be 
ver>- clear in sa\'ing that studies are done to tr>' to identify wheth- 
er or not damage was done, and if damage was done what kind of 
damage was done. And further that the studies do not necessarily 
translate to a cure or treatment if damage is found. 

Many times we ^^ill find something that is out of the range for 
normal but we don"t know what that slight abnormality means. Let 
me give you an example. Some of these chemicals involved in 
Tennessee would be expected to change liver function. If we were 
to test indi\"iduals and fmd that they had levels of enz^Tnes in their 
bloodstream higher than the normal, but only slightly higher, we 
could say to those indi\'iduals. "You have elevated enz^-mes. but we 
don't know what that means." If a person has an overt case of 
hepatitis, he may have a tenfold, or even a hundredfold increase in 
certain enz>Taes. But if the level is just slightly above normal, we 
really don't know the significance of that. I think it is a mistake to 
lead people to believe that what they are getting is examination 
and treatment when in fact what we are doing is trsing to identif)' 
that there have been measurable physiologic changes. 

Senator Culver. You also don't know in a situation like that 
whether continued expKDsure to low incidents might have effects in 
terms of cumulative concentrations. 

Dr. Allen'. That is absolutely correct. So the State health depart- 
ment position was to tr>' to discontinue the exposure. You have in 
your prepared testimony the positions of various experts relative to 
human testing. I v^ill skip over that and just make a couple of 
summarj' points. I think that some of the things that are needed 
are: No. 1. we need a mechanism of establishing relative risk 
associated v^ith levels of exposures in the occupational setting. 
There are certain threshold levels that have been set for certain 
chemicals, for ambient concentrations in the air, et. cetera. But we 
don't have any thresholds for various items that in all probability 
are fmding their way into our water supplies. But we have never 
looked for them. In this particular instance, when we looked for 
tetrachloroethylene, that was one of the first compounds we found. 
When we looked for that same substance in neighboring water 
supplies totally unrelated to this particular landfill, we found it 

The point is that our abilities to detect trace amounts of thou- 
sands of chemicals far exceed our ability to identify physiologic 
damage. So we need relative risk rather than absolute risk. 

Second, we ^;^*ill need an assignment of responsibility for the 
ultimate disposition of hazardous materials. If anyone makes some- 
thing that is not biodegradable, somebody has to see to it that it is 
disposed of ultimately rather than concentrated in the food chain. 


The third point, we need to be careful we do no harm at the time 
we are doing examinations of indiWduals who are exposed. We 
need to be careful that we make no false promises as to expected 
outcomes from these examinations. \Mien you are testing for 
damage we should not mislead by imphing we have treatment 
available if we detect damage, when in many cases there is no 
treatment kno\^'n. 

Fourth, we have to admit we do not know the significance of 
sUght elevations of many kinds of physiological variables. Liver 
enz>Tnes are used frequently as an index to damage, but we really 
don't know what slight variations mean. 

We need to have more studies done methodically to determine 
relative levels of exposures that create toxicity. And then we need 
dollars committed to clean up. if it is possible, improperly disposed 
wastes. But I suspect in many cases cleanup ^;s'ill not be possible, 
and then we will need to study alternatives for containment. And 
this containment problem 'will cover a wide array of things. 

Perhaps this is dreaming, but it would be desirable if we could 
find in a few instances industries that will have made commit- 
ments to take care of the whole chain of ramifications of their 
production. I think those may be available if we look. 

Senator Culver. Dr. Allen, thank you ver\- much. When you 
speak of the need to continually monitor those exposed to contami- 
nated well water, for example, to determine the potential impact 
on their health. I guess it is just an open-ended question as to the 
duration of that monitoring. Is that right? 

Dr. Allen. It certainly is. I think that many of us here know- 
that it took 20 years for us to know that mothers treated vsith 
diethylstilbesterol had daughters who had an abnormal incidence 
of vaginal cancer. It has taken years of research and hundreds of 
thousands of exposures for us to begin to be able to assess cumula- 
tive risk. If you take oral contraceptives and smoke, you have a 
compounded risk for heart disease. For those exposed to certain 
kinds of chemicals, it \st.11 take years for us to know the full range 
of risks. 

Senator Chafee. Doctor. I am not sure I followed all your testi- 
mony, at least the last part. It seems to me what you are saving is 
that we just don't know what quantity of these chemicals are 

Dr. Allen. Well, there are very large numbers of chemicals that 
we know to be harmful in massive quantities. For many of these 
we have set exposure limits in industrial settings. But what we 
haven't done is take those chemicals and calculate relative risk for 
lower levels of exposure, for example, carbon tetrachloride or chlo- 
roform would be good examples, and we have not built a relative 
scale of risk outside of industrial setting. If this material should 
make its way into a water supply, what is the normal level that a 
human being can continue to live vvith without expectation of 
harm. We don't know those limits. 

Senator Chafee. Thank you ver\' much. 

Dr. A t T.F. N. There are some chemicals that do people good at 
certain levels, but if you increase those same chemicals too high 
they can do you in. For a long time in the United States more 
people died of aspirin px)isoning than any other kind of chemical — 


that is, children who got overdoses. But aspirin is a very good 
chemical by and large. We just don't know where the breaks are 
between an acceptable and a nocuous levels for many chemicals. 

Senator Culver. What about the general problem of shortage of 
toxicologists as we get into this whole area, Dr. Allen? It seems to 
me we are going to be increasing demands in the private sector as 
well as the Government for people who can marshal and mobilize 
the critical mass to give us 

Dr. Allen. I definitely concur in that. Even if you were to 
launch something that was funded and said we want tomorrow to 
study the 200 most toxic things that get into the water courses, it 
would be difficult to get an immediate response. And then it would 
take years to do the studies. 

Senator Culver. Thank you very much, Dr. Allen. We appreciate 

Senator Chafee. You painted a difficult picture for us. 

Dr. Allen. Yes, I think this is something very difficult — it took 
us a hundred years to make and bury all these chemicals. It will 
take us many decades to approach the problem. It is difficult. I 
don't think we will have an immediate solution. 

Senator Chafee. I think all the companies will be saying what 
you have been saying. 

Dr. Allen. I suspect some of them will. 

Senator Chafee. Thank you. 

Senator Culver. Mr. Thomas Jorling, the Assistant Administra- 
tor for Water and Hazardous Materials, Environmental Protection 

I want to thank you very much for your appearance here, Mr. 
Jorling. We look forward to your testimony. 


Mr. Jorling. Thank you. We have submitted a statement to the 
committee yesterday which I think it would be helpful to avoid 
reading in its entirety. 

I will only make a few comments and then I am sure you have 
additional questions. 

First, I would like to commend the committee for bringing the 
reality of these fact situations to those of us who are increasingly 
forced to evaluate these problems on an abstract basis — an abstract 
procedure, I might add, that often serves to do one very important 
thing, and that is to immunize us from the human dimensions that 
are revealed here today and which are in fact the reason Govern- 
ment exists. 

Government exists to prevent that suffering and from having 
those adverse effects. I think it is very helpful for us to have 
firsthand reports on these kinds of incidents. 

The second point would be simply that because of these hearings, 
the scrutiny and the attention that they bring to these issues, we 
will get improved Government performance, not only from EPA, 
but I think from State and local governments as well. It is refresh- 
ing, very refreshing, to come before a committee and in effect be 
asked to explain why we are not doing more rather than the more 


frequent visits to Capitol Hill to explain why we are doing too 
much. So these kinds of scrutinizing exercises will improve our 

With those introductory comments, I would like to turn to a 
couple of issues which are very important for this committee to 
consider which the administration is also very concerned about; 
that is, with respect to these abandoned site problems with respect 
to the movement and transport of hazardous materials generally, 
what is the status of our legislative authority and what is the 
status of agencies' implementation of it. 

In the prepared statement, there are a series of summary tables, 
conclusions, and what have you, describing current and past inci- 
dents of improper disposal. Unfortunately, the magnitude of this 
problem was not well perceived by EPA, or the Congress, at the 
time the Resource Conservation Recovery Act was enacted. As a 
result, RCRA is not well suited to remedying the effects of past 
disposal practices which were unsound. RCRA does provide author- 
ity to deal with imminent hazards under section 7003. It is a 
section similar to the similar authority in the Clean Water Act, 
Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Toxic Substances 
Control Act. It authorizes EPA to bring suit in Federal district 
courts to enjoin an owner or other responsible party of an active or 
inactive site to take remedial action to abate an imminent and 
substantial danger to human health or the environment. 

At the outset, we know we can effectively exercise this authority 
only where there is an owner or responsible party identifiable and 
financially or otherwise able to remedy it. However, where these 
circumstances are not present — and we have a disconcerting feel- 
ing that that is the great predominant number — section 7003 is not 
an effective tool. We can also take similar actions under these 
other authorities as appropriate, and if you would read the com- 
plaints in the cases we have filed to date, we generally use all of 
them as authority for the action. 

The States have various authorities to take enforcement and 
injunctive actions. In fact, the States with their plenary power 
have considerably more authority than the Federal Government. 
We are increasing our efforts to use section 7003 and other authori- 
ties to control these problems. 

Last November the agency launched a campaign to evaluate 
particular disposal sites which may provide or pose an imminent 

On December 8 the Office of Enforcement established an immi- 
nent hazard task force. Three evaluation teams consisting of per- 
sonnel from the Office of Enforcement, Office of Solid Waste, De- 
partment of Justice, and National Enforcement Investigation 
Center visited five regional offices during December to review 
available data. EPA reviewed site evaluation process in each 
region. These efforts have resulted in technical assistance and en- 
forcement actions such as the following: 

Kin-Buc landfill, Edison, N.J., where the U.S. attorney for the 
district of New Jersey filed an action in U.S. district court on 
February 7, 1979. 

Lee's Lane landfill, Louisville, Ky., where NEIC and region IV 
personnel have made an extensive investigation and determined 


that an imminent hazard does not exist but where continued sur- 
veillance has been established. 

Chemical Control Co., Elizabeth, N.J., where the State of New 
Jersey, with cooperation from EPA personnel, initiated a State 
court action on January 19, 1979. 

Sangamon Grain Co., Fort Worth, Tex., where EPA effected the 
proper disposal of a cylinder containing hydrogen cyanide prior to 
bringing suit against the recalcitrant property owner at a prehear- 
ing conference before filing of such an action in U.S. district court. 

Other cases are in preparation and will be filed as soon as they 
are completed, and still other sites are being intensively investigat- 
ed for possible case preparation. Approximately 30 work years are 
currently being devoted to these efforts. In addition, EPA is closely 
monitoring the status of the 103 sites identified last fall. Corrective 
action on some of these has already been taken and State or 
Federal action is under way on the remaining. 

The problem of improper disposal is made more difficult by the 
fact that many former waste disposal sites have now been aban- 
doned. In many cases the property used for waste disposal has 
changed hands; in other cases the companies responsible for the 
problems are either no longer in business or do not have the 
resources to pay for cleanup of the sites. As I mentioned earlier, 
section 7003 is often not effective in these situations. Further, 
certain of the sites operating today may very well be abandoned in 
the future, especially as the regulations under the Resources Con- 
servation Act creating a hazardous waste management structure 
come into effect. 

With regard to discharges of hazardous substances and oil, sec- 
tion 311 of the Clean Water Act establishes a control program for 
certain of these incidents. For discharges into navigable waters, 
section 311 provides for reporting of discharges, establishment of 
penalties, and liability limits, mitigation by the Federal Govern- 
ment, and a revolving fund to pay for mitigation. There are, how- 
ever, limitations to the use of section 311. First, section 311 is 
limited to a discharge or substantial threat of such discharge into 
navigable waters. 

Thus, spills which threaten or contaminate, for example, soil or 
air, but not surface water, are not addressed by section 311. This 
jurisdictional limitation prohibits the application of section 311 to 
most hazardous waste disposal sites and all spills into other than 
navigable waters. 

Second, section 311 is only applicable to designated hazardous 
substances. A discharge of a substance not designated under sec- 
tion 311 would not be covered by the section's revolving fund. 

A second limitation relates to the size and nature of the 311(k) 

Senator Chafee. But that limitation you can do something about, 
can't you? If you find that a problem, can't you come to the 
committee and try to get the limitation changed? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. Yes. And we will be doing that in effect in legisla- 
tion we will be proposing. Senator. The limitation is also subject to 
our control in that we do have authority to add substances to the 
311 list. 


We now have on the list 299 chemicals and half of those go into 
effect in June of this year, and we will turn our efforts to increas- 
ing the universe of provisions. 

The 311(k) fund was established at $35 million and currently has 
approximately $5 million. It is drawing down very rapidly as the 
hazardous waste program comes into effect. 

It is appropriated originally and maintained by any funds re- 
ceived by the Government under section 311 and additional appro- 
priations. As I described earlier, estimated costs for remedy of 
hazardous waste problems range from $3.6 to $44.1 billion. Even if 
the fund were somehow applicable to the bulk of hazardous waste 
disposal sites, the size limitation on the 311 fund would preclude its 
use in most cases. 

The emergency powers provision of section 504 of the Clean 
Water Act is another relevant authority for addressing hazardous 
materials and waste. Although it does not have the jurisdictional 
problems associated with section 311, section 504 is authorized at 
only $10 million, which might be inadequate for even a single 
abandoned site. Furthermore, section 504 has no cost recovery 
provision. It must rely totally on appropriations. The administra- 
tion has not requested funds, and the Congress has not funded this 

In summary, there are existing provisions of statutes which EPA 
administers which apply to parts of both the hazard6us waste and 
hazardous substances and oil spill problems. Taken together, how- 
ever, these provisions are inadequate to solve the environmental 
and social problems caused by improper hazardous substances and 
waste management. 

EPA is presently working with other Federal agencies on an 
approach to solving hazardous materials management problems. 
Our current thinking is that a comprehensive scheme to address 
environmental problems of hazardous wastes in abandoned sites, 
hazardous substances, and oil is necessary. We believe that to the 
extent feasible such a scheme should be compatible with the Gov- 
ernment's emergency response program under section 311 of the 
Clean Water Act. 

We believe that environmental problems from oil and hazardous 
substance spills and hazardous wastes from abandoned sites raise 
complex questions of cleanup, damages, compensation, and Govern- 
ment response which are interrelated. In addition, these types of 
incidents frequently occur together. As a result, we believe that the 
public interest would best be served by a comprehensive approach 
to the problem of hazardous materials incidents. 

With regard to financing the fund, we believe that the burden of 
responding should be upon those who have benefited and those 
connected to commercial practices involving the substances in ques- 
tion. Difficult issues involving equitability among parties contribut- 
ing to the fund and collection and administration of such a fund 
must be resolved. 

We expect to develop recommendations on how to establish and 
administer the fund and to forward a legislative proposal to Con- 
gress in May of this year. 

44-978 0-79 


That completes my prepared remarks, and I will be happy to 
answer questions regarding the general or the specific issues that 
you might have. 

Senator Culver. Thank you very much, Mr. Jorling. I want to 
say at the outset how much we appreciate the cooperation your 
office has provided the subcommittee in its consideration of this 
general subject. And I think we will undoubtedly want you back 
for an entire day of hearings when we get to these particular 
legislative proposals to respond to this situation. 

Could you elaborate just a little bit more on why the Agency 
favors this comprehensive fund to cover hazardous waste sub- 
stances and oil spills, rather than separate funds to cover each 
form of environmental accident? 

Mr. Jorling. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If we start with an identifica- 
tion of the problems that we think do not have sufficient authority 
under present law, they include the ability to respond to hazardous 
substances spills, to oil, to the problems associated with abandoned 
sites. And in that description I would include the types of situa- 
tions we have been hearing about this morning. There are others. 
How broadly we would make it will, I am sure, ultimately be 
decided by Congress. But there are problems associated with radio- 
active materials that have accumulated in various places, and 
there are also problems associated with events which, while caus- 
ing harm, are not typically addressed by the standards and envi- 
ronmental control legislation, such as explosions at refineries of 
chemical companies and those types of situations. When you look 
at that series of problems and investigate the ways we can go about 
solving them, the principal impediment that we see now is re- 
sources, is the generation of a resource base, dollar resource base, 
which would enable response by Government to these situations as 
they are identified and as they are identified to be acute and in 
need of immediate Federal or State response. 

When we begin to look at that fund and the ability to generate 
it, we have basically several early threshold choices. One is, should 
we generate the fund by using the general taxpayer as section 311 
is currently supported? It is our judgment that it should not be; 
that it should be transferred to those who have benefited in the 
past or who continue to benefit in a commercial sense from the 
movement of these materials. Therefore, some kind of a fee struc- 
ture begins to emerge. 

With respect to the specific legislative proposals, there is a track 
record of legislative proposal in the area of oil where a fee would 
be attaching on movement of oil incorporated into this fund and 
disbursed accordingly. 

We believe that a single fund is a better device, singly managed, 
reduced overhead and a lot of administrative reasons, but also 
because the people who will respond, who will have authority to 
make disbursements from this fund frequently respond to situa- 
tions where oil, hazardous subtances are both involved, and they 
need to have a single reference authority to make the judgments 
that they must make on the very few situations. It is not frequent 
that our officials. Transportation, Coast Guard, will make a deci- 
sion to evacuate a town. When they act, they need to have the 
security of what authority they are acting under. 


We feel a single comprehensive set of principles, authorities, is 
necessary to have good government result in these situations. 

Senator Culver. Now, as we are all painfully aware, most exist- 
ing landfills today do not contain features to prevent the leaching 
of these chemical wastes. To what extent is this fact attributable to 
just the absence of appropriate technology at an earlier time when 
most of them were built, established, or is it more likely because 
this is a cheaper way to build with no regulations required? Is it a 
little bit of both? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. As a general matter, it is not a function of technol- 
ogy but rather a function that most individuals who manage mate- 
rials will manage them the most cheap way they can until they are 
told otherwise. So the practices in the past are not a function of 
technology, necessarily — there are some situations where that is 
the case — or lack of knowledge, but rather it was cheaper. And 
they have chosen it. 

Senator Culver. We still have a lot to learn about technology 
here, don't we? This is also something through vigorous R. & D. 
and other things where we are still very much on the cutting edge 
of some of this, aren't we? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. There are areas where technical innovation is oc- 
curring and should occur in the future. In proposed regulations we 
expressed strongly two policies or two preferences in that. The first 
of those preferences is that waste should be disposed of, not in the 
conventional sense of ultimately disposed of but rather reprocessed, 
recovered, recycled. There are areas where technology can be im- 
proved in those areas, especially with certain waste streams. So 
that is one area we are trying to generate increased research and 

Senator Culver. On that one point, which nations in the world 
have become more advanced in that regard than we have? Is there 
anyone that has been particularly effective? 

Mr. Jorling. I think whenever you fly the national flag in 
competition with others, one is hesitant, but I think there are other 
nations that 

Senator Culver. We are not hesitant to talk about the Soviet 
military buildup, are we? 

Mr. Jorung. No. 

Senator Culver. Let's see who is doing anything on waste. 

Mr. Jorling. I think the German Government and the German 
industry have moved further, not with innovation or discovery, but 
with application, than this country. And in certain waste streams 
there are other countries that have moved more quickly than we 
have. But there is, within this country, a large number of industri- 
al facilities that have adopted these types of techniques for their 
own use very extensively. So there is that kind of technology 

The second point on technology that I would like to make, be- 
cause it bears on some of the comments earlier this morning, is the 
preference toward incineration of certain waste streams. We have 
expressed a preference in the regulations that high temperature 
incineration and the standards for that technology are set forth in 
regulations — it is normally 1,000°, 2 seconds of combustion — 
that is a preferred method of disposal for liquid organic wastes. 


That is based on our experience with combustion, with inciner- 
ation, in the industry with herbicides, originally conducted by the 

Under EPA instruction, where we reached 99.99 percent destruc- 
tion of the pesticides, including the component dioxin which was 
included within it. 

The experience in Europe is also much more long-term than in 
this country on high temperature incineration. We used the Euro- 
pean ship for that particular episode. 

Senator Culver. You mean much more long-term or much more 

Mr. JoRLiNG. They have a longer track record. They have been 
doing it for a longer number of years. 

Senator Culver. You said apparently to a House subcommittee 
the other day that licensing of all firms that are handling the toxic 
wastes will take up to 10 years due to funding limitations in the 
EPA budget. How are funding and time of licensing related? What 
would be a reasonable time and how much more would it cost 

Mr. JoRLiNG. The cost dimension has two features. One is dol- 
lars; the other one is personnel. And the more scarce currency is, 
the more lack of personnel at both EPA and State level, which is 
going to be administering the bulk of that program. That figure is 
based on an estimate that we have 20,000 permits to issue. Some of 
these permits will be complicated and require considerable techni- 
cal and legal personnel in the issuance. It is also based upon the 
experience that the agency went through in the permit program 
under the Clean Water Act. I might add there we still have 20,000 
unissued permits under the Clean Water Act. We have begun to 
focus our efforts on more major sources and issue those permits. 
But the cost requirement is for the processing, evaluation, the 
procedures that must be gone through, and any permit issuing 
process, and we estimate that to cover the universe that we esti- 
mate is out there will take 10 years. 

We do not believe, however, that that is necessarily a bad thing. 
We do believe that our first priority will be to permit those offsite 
facilities which are necessary to bring these wastes under proper 
control, and on issuing or commencing the permit process on those 
facilities which we think will not survive the permit process and 
therefore should be closed, or at least upgraded. Those are the two 
areas we will come at this as we commence the program. 

Senator Culver. How much will you use the State governments 
in this? It seems to me it is an enormous undertaking for the 
Federal bureaucracy to do. Almost all these regulatory schemes are 
way behind, as you know, meeting any mandated timetables. Isn't 
it just essential that taking on something this ambitious is going to 
require vigorous participation by State government? 

Mr. Jorling. It is absolutely essential, Mr. Chairman. As a gen- 
eral formula, 80 percent of the environmental control management 
resources in this country are under State authority. In other words, 
EPA at the national level is only 20 percent of manpower that are 
applied to these programs. That will continue and must continue 
under the implementation of the hazardous waste program under 
RCRA. Our estimates now are that 45 States will assume, after a 2- 


year period, the responsibilities for managing the hazardous waste 

There is, however, a very powerful political dynamic occurring 
around hazardous wastes, and many people, when the political 
liabilities associated with managing hazardous wastes will tend to 
transfer to another arm of government, another level of govern- 
ment. So it is possible programmatic assumptions on State exercis- 
ing this authority may be overestimates. We hope that there will 
be political leadership in the State governments, by the govern- 
ments and their legislatures, and we will have that kind of per- 
formance. The statute says if they do not, EPA must bear the 
burden of managing the program and we will attempt to carry that 
mandate out in those States that do not assume responsibility. 

Senator Culver. In designing regulatory schemes to effect the 
kind of compliance and responsible participation you are speaking 
of, to what extent do you give consideration to using tax incen- 
tives? For example, you could reward outstanding efforts, and let 
them reap benefits because of the public being served. Is this in 
any way being seriously considered? 

So much of this has to be up front to do it right, to do it well. 
And the earlier you can get to this waste and reprocess or recycle 
it to stop it from ever getting into the stream, the better. What 
kind of incentives can we really give by way of carrots rather than 
just sticks to industries to do this? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. In theory, there are some aspects about that which 
are quite attractive. In practice, however, the programs operate to 
produce incentives much more from a different direction. We find, 
for instance, that as environmental controls are placed on waste 
streams, industrial waste streams, industries begin to review 
whether or not there is a better way of producing their widget and 
avoiding some of the costs associated with environmental controls. 

In that process they have found in many industries that they 
achieve savings because they are using different raw materials, 
fewer raw materials, much less water. And they have achieved that 
kind of benefit. But as far as an overt Government structure, we do 
not have in our present arsenal of tools very much in the way of 
carrots in the front end of the process. It rates more after the effect 
of our regulatory structures have been applied. 

Senator Culver. You say that the second-level costs, so-called, to 
clean up a dump site are estimated to be an average of $25.9 
million per site? 

Mr. JoRUNG. There is a study which I believe I made available to 
this committee earlier. 

Senator Culver. What is EPA's estimate of the cost of construct- 
ing these sites in an environmentally sound manner? For example, 
how much would it have cost in retrospect to assure that no waste 
leaked out of Love Canal? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. I think we have some formulations of specific cases 
where we can guess what the cost would have been to do it proper- 
ly in the first instance and what the cost will be now to repair it. 
My memory is that on Love Canal the volume of waste disposed 
there could have been properly managed for $4 million. 

We are now estimating that the permanent remedy for Love 
Canal, without taking into account the hardship costs, the third 


party costs which you have heard very eloquently described to you 
this morning, will be on the order of something like $50 million. So 
you have that kind of ratio. 

Senator Culver. And of course those third party costs, potential- 
ly outstanding legal liabilities, are in the billions of dollars. Isn't 
that correct? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. They could be in the billions, but I am very sympa- 
thetic to the comments made by the citizens that the normal 
processes of the law to get that redress are insufficient, so it is 
unlikely they will ever be compensated properly. 

Senator Culver. Did you have another point? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. On the PCB disposal in North Carolina, where an 
individual took a waste stream that was generated elsewhere under 
contract to dispose of it properly and simply operated it along the 
roadside at night, the costs of that would have been less than 
$100,000. It is now going to cost many millions and unknown 
millions until a site is found, sited in the State of North Carolina 
and elsewhere and the material actually excavated and moved. So 
we can draw these kinds of post evaluation estimates, and I think 
they demonstrate conclusively that regulations are very cost effec- 

Senator Culver. Thank you. 

Senator Chafee. 

Senator Chafee. Mr. Jorling, I take it from your testimony that 
indeed safe disposal sites can be built. And I am interested in that. 
In other words, through some reaching process the carcinogens or 
the toxics can be gotten out of the chemicals. Is that right? Or is it 
just a permanent holding pool that is built? 

Mr. Jorling. Senator, we in our proposed regulations establish 
the standard or the criteria governing safe practices for a wide 
range of practices — incineration, recycled, reuse, landfilling, land 
spreading, storage, what have you. All those can be made safe 
given the use of those facilities for the proper waste streams and 
proper operation of maintenance and custody over time. We are 
concerned, however — I remain concerned. There is a preference 
stated in the policy that the last resort should be land spreading — 
not land spreading because that can be the incorporation of sys- 
tems in productive systems, but landfill should be a last resort over 
time, because of the fact you are dedicating increasing portions of 
our landscape. I refer to them as the pyramids of our society. We 
can't afford to devote large amounts of landscape to that use. It is 
not prudent. But they can be made safe and we will need landfills 
for certain waste that there are no other preferred alternatives for 
alternate disposal. But we think there are ways of making these 
facilities safe and bringing into control the roughly 35 million tons 
of hazardous wastes we estimate will be included in this program. 
We estimate of 35 million metric tons that more than 80 percent is 
now being improperly disposed of, so that we can bring this about. 

Senator Chafee. 35 million tons what? A year? 

Mr. Jorling. Yes. 

Senator Chafee. Now, in that high temperature incineration you 
were discussing, is that extremely costly? Let's take this situation 
down to Kentucky, Valley of the Drums. Suppose they went in 
there now and tried to pull those drums out and stop burning the 


materials. You have to have a very speciaUzed type of facility to do 
that burning in. Do they exist? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. Mr. Chairman, while I respond to that, I am going 
to ask the staff to take up the recent pictures of Valley of the 
Drums, because it is one of our success stories. I do think evidence 
of government acting responsibly can also be used occasionally. 

Yes, incineration of organic materials is used presently by indus- 
try, and it is used in some other countries by government, and it 
has been used with great success. I don't know whether any of the 
corporations that you will be hearing tomorrow have their own 
industrial incinerators. My instinct is that if they do, they would 
be in a better position to respond. But the track record is quite 
good in the destruction of toxic organic chemicals through high 

Senator Chafee. What do they do with the ash? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. There is very little ash. If you combust organic 
material, physically and in theory, you should get CO2 and water 
as the combustion byproduct. 

Senator Chafee. Back in 1976, as I understand it, EPA recom- 
mended to Virginia and Maryland that the Chesapeake be closed to 
blue fishing as a result of the kepone levels. Now EPA, as I 
understand it, is saying it is doubtful kepone will noticeably spread 
from the James River out into the bay and that it may be unneces- 
sary and too expensive to remove the kepone from the James River 
itself. This seems to be a change of approach. In other words, in 
1976 you were saying to Maryland and Virginia to close the Chesa- 
peake to blue fishing. Now you are saying that it is doubtful the 
kepone will spread from the James to the bay and that it may be 
unnecessary and too expensive to take the kepone out of the James 
River itself. 

Mr. JoRLiNG. I think the change — and I will confirm this and 
supply a different answer for the record if this is not correct — in 
1976, it was shortly after the episode was discovered, and the 
activity was in an enforcement mode and reactive mode. As a 
result of the disclosure of roughly 38,000 pounds of kepone that had 
been discharged into the James River sediments, in part because of 
the settlement agreement and the litigation against the corpora- 
tion, a $1.4 million feasibility study was performed that went into 
questions of whether or not the materials could be removed, wheth- 
er there was technology to remove it and what the effects were and 
what have you. 

During that period, the same period, there have been continuous 
dialog between EPA, Federal Drug Administration, State of Virgin- 
ia, State of Maryland on what were the species that brought this 
material into their biological systems and which were in commmer- 
cial or recreational financing practice. That has led to changes over 
time. The important change that you mentioned is in the figure 
that was mentioned earlier by the chairman: $7.2 billion is the cost 
estimate that resulted from that million dollar study. If the remov- 
al and mitigation were undertaken because of the unavailability of 
that amount of money, it is our recommendation at the present 
time that the sediment be allowed to stay stable and hopefully the 
hurricane that was mentioned earlier will not occur and that the 
various species be restricted from harvesting. That is our present 


and the State of Virginia's present plan for protection in that area. 
The costs of sediment removal are extremely high. 

Senator Chafee. Two doctors that testified, Dr. Bender and Dr. 
Allen, and both said there is a great gap apparently in our knowl- 
edge as to the level of contaminants that are considered to be safe. 
And you heard them testify to that. 

Now, is your agency completing research to see what these safe 
levels are? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. Yes. 

Senator Chafee. And can you acquire this information fast 
enough to carry out a regulatory program for the chemicals? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. We cannot bring to empirical results the evidence 
on the myriad of chemicals out there in the environment at the 
present time fast enough to assure the public is protected, no. But 
what I do think it demonstrates and what I strongly support is the 
posture that is in the legislation which we are implementing, and 
that is prevent the release of these materials into the environment. 
Ultimately, that can be done. The elimination of discharge into the 
environment of industrial synthetic chemicals is a doable task over 
time. That is the better protective mode than to release this mate- 
rial and try to determine for each of the chemicals what the 
threshold levels will be. Soon as you get into that framework, you 
have multiple chemicals coming out which may have thresholds on 
them. But on carcinogens I don't believe anyone will agree on a 
threshold. Then you have the accumulative effects on a wide range. 
So you are putting the protective elements of our society into an 
impossible task. 'There are better ways of achieving that than 
allowing it to happen and then trying to determine safe levels. 

Senator Chafee. Thank you. We will be hearing from you again 
as we complete our hearings and then come back. Thank you. 

Senator Bentsen [presiding]. Mr. Jorling, I am pleased to have a 
chance to visit with you on some of these problems concerning 
hazardous substances. I think probably the most difficult problem 
we yet have to deal with in this committee is how we dispose of 
hazardous substances. And certainly the public has every right to 
demand that they have protection from the abuse of the use or the 
disposal of them. I am equally convinced that unless any legislation 
congress develops reflects the degree of hazard that is associated 
with hazardous materials with the different materials, that such 
legislation will have a very difficult time in its implementation. I 
want to pursue that. 

Recently, EPA proposed regulations that controlled hazardous 
waste disposal, and these regulations represent an effort to define 
hazardous substances. I would like to use them to focus on the 
problem of defining hazardous material. While much of the propos- 
al is clearly necessary, there are certain elements that bear direct- 
ly on the issue of degree of hazard. 

Now, Mr. Jorling, I am particularly concerned because the Presi- 
dent is about to come out with a new energy proposal. We are 
facing an increase in the price of oil from the OPEC nations. 

We have further uncertainty about our sources of supply. We 
have a standby energy program that is proposed to us. So trying to 
bring about the most effective, efficient, and safe means of produc- 
tion of energy in this country is terribly important to us. I would 


like to examine the impact of these proposed regulations on certain 
aspects of oil and natural gas exploration and production. It is my 
understanding that the drilling muds and production water associ- 
ated with exploration are tested to determine whether they meet 
EPA's hazardous waste definition. Is that correct? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. Yes. There is a special provision in the regulations 
for oil and natural gas drilling muds and brines. 

Senator Bentsen. Now, one part of this provision includes an 
extraction procedure to determine the toxicity of leachate from the 
tested material. Can you describe the procedure and the basis for 
its development? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. Senator Bentsen, there is a model, the use of a 
construct, to help us evaluate what constitutes the threshold of 
hazard under RCRA. The basic statute says a material is hazardous 
if, when improperly disposed of, it poses a risk to public health or 
welfare. We have chosen a leaching model to determine that in a 
hypothetical fact situation, which is that if materials are disposed 
of in an abandoned gravel pit and they are subjected to a certain 
amount of rainfall per year, will that material reach the ground- 
water? That was the use of that test. 

We could have chosen under RCRA, dumping material in a 
schoolyard and whether or not that would have posed a risk. That 
certainly would have broadened the universe of the regulatory 
program much beyond what we could carry out. So we adopted this 
to give us a threshold when something is on the hazardous side of 
the ledger or on the nonhazardous side of the ledger. With respect 
to the drilling muds and brines, there is a separate provision in the 
proposed regulation for that. They are identified as special waste 
stream and the regulation does not anticipate them to come into 
the general fabric of biodegradable management, but rather at the 
Federal level we imposed practices from those materials being 
released into groundwater, which is where the concern is primarily 
with those activities. 

I would be happy to supply specific evaluation of the regulation, 
proposed regulation to oil drilling muds for you, and then we could 
perhaps engage in additional dialog to see if we are having a 
meeting on the minds of these. 

Senator Bentsen. I want to do that, but I want to engage in a 
little additional dialogue at the present time. Let me talk to you 
about drilling muds and there use at the pi;esent time. They are 
used to cool drilling bits, remove rock fragments, reinforce well 
walls. They are primarily water based floods, viscosity agents such 
as bentonite and viscosity thinners. They are stored in reserve pits 
during drilling operations. They are subsequently covered with soil, 
becoming part of the soil base. The betonite is a strong sealant and 
that limits migration of other materials from the pits. I want to 
make sure your prototype is in conformity with the real practices 
and what is happening out in the field, tinder normal conditions 
these areas would be subjected to limited further modification. 
However, I am told that use of the EPA extraction procedure, 
which puts acid in the water that is leached through the drilling 
muds, extracts chemicals that would normally stay within the drill- 
ing mud. Now, is that correct? That is what I have been told. 


Mr. JoRLiNG. I am going to have to supply a specific answer to 
that for the record. I cannot respond to that description of our 

Senator Bentsen. If you are not following the ordinary proce- 
dure of what actually happens out in the field, then you are going 
to have some real problems in the application of a regulation. 

Mr. JoRLiNG. I can assure you that the regulation, both under 
RCRA and under the underground injection program, which also 
addresses itself to drilling operations, are aimed at being tailored 
to fit the practices in the field. 

Senator Bentsen. I am told in this instance it is not. That is why 
I want to be further assured of that. 

Does failure to meet the limits of this test then subject these 
drilling operations to the proposed EPA regulations if those are the 
conditions, if I am correct and have been told correctly the condi- 

Mr. JoRLiNG. I simply will have to review your articulation of 
what you have been told would operate with what we think and 
supply you the answer. 

Senator Bentsen. I suppose if it fails to meet the limits of the 
test, it is subject to the EPA regulations, isn't it? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. It is not that simple. We are treating oil and gas 
brines not in the fabric of the regulations generally. I am having 
trouble understanding how the leaching test, when applied to that, 
would alter that. I will have to evaluate that. 

Senator Bentsen. I have been talking to the Texas Railroad 
Commission and they have been in this business longer and are 
probably more sophisticated than anyone else in the country in 
that regard. I am told that they have been controlling drilling 
operations for some 30 to 50 years, and they tell me that they have 
never had any hazardous problems associated with the proper use 
of drilling muds. 

Now, that is quite a statement for them to make. That is the 
statement they have made to me. I am also told by many oil 
producers that the cost and burden of drilling muds being consid- 
ered hazardous could be enormous and far reaching. They come up 
with a figure that is, frankly, hard for me to accept. And if it 
approaches reality, it poses an incredible economic problem to the 
country in trying to solve our energy problem. They say it could 
cost as much as $10.8 billion. And that is a year. Now, that is more 
than the total cost, more than the total cost of drilling domestic oil 
and gas wells in 1977. 

Mr. JoRLiNG. Senator, I do not share that cost estimates accura- 
cy. The evidence that we have of the effect of our regulations as 
proposed is not anything like that. I will provide you, however, 
with why we disagree, for the record. 

Senator Bentsen. Other elements of these regulations that affect 
production water threaten the continued operation of domestic 
stripper wells that account for over 12 percent of 1977 domestic 
crude production. I have another piece of legislation that calls for 
deep stripper well exemption. If they also get affected in this 
regard, we are talking about a lot more than just 12 percent. 

Mr. JoRLiNG. Again, both the underground injection regulations 
and these regulations can affect drilling operations and the oil and 


gas industry generally. From the figures that you have described, I 
believe they have been submitted to our rulemaking record and we 
will then be required to distinguish what our data is from those 
data. But I can assure you that it is our intention to implement 
these programs in a way that incorporates the experience of the 
State governments in regulating oil and gas production does not 
add unnecessary redundant or conflicting requirements and incor- 
porates those regulations and activities at the State level as much 
as possible. I think in the end we will be successful in doing so. 

Senator Bentsen. Mr. Jorling, I agree totally with this statement 
that you have just made, if you can achieve it and if you can bring 
it about. But if these figures that they have provided to me ap- 
proach being accurate, we are talking about an incredible impedi- 
ment in our drilling operations at a time when we are desperately 
trying to stem the hemorrhaging of our funds through trade for the 
importation of great amounts of oil. 

Mr. Jorling. Senator, we have received some estimates of cost 
from both the petroleum industry and others, chemical industry, 
which have projected what we think are outrageous costs. The 
concern I have with those costs is that they are introduced in a 
way to discredit the rulemaking efforts. I don't think they will be 
realized. I hope we can work, and we have worked very effectively 
in developing these regulations. We have had a task group with the 
oil industry in developing these regulations. We have had a task 
group with the chemical industry. They have now come to us after 
they participated in those activities in which they didn't raise any 
of these concerns and now have raised these concerns. I don't know 
why they do that. But I don't think we will be what you are 
suggesting, and that is irresponsible in this rulemaking activity. 

Senator Bentsen. Well, you certainly won't be as far as I am 
concerned, because I intend to follow the problem. I can't imagine 
that you would intentionally do so. But I want to be sure that we 
have fully checked out these concerns by those who are actually 
carrying on the operations out in the field and by those Commis- 
sions that have been at this business for a long time and have very 
substantial experience in that regard. 

I would like to go on in this discussion of hazardous substance 
definition a little longer. A material either passes or fails one of 
several tests. Now, if it fails that test, it is considered hazardous, 
whether it exceeds the limit by 1 percent or by 500 percent. Once it 
exceeds the limit, it must meet the regulations, regardless of the 
degree of hazard. Is that correct? 

Mr. Jorling. Yes, Senator. If a material is either listed or deter- 
mined through testing to be hazardous, it must comply with the 
program. I must add that all that means is that it has to go either 
to an onsite or offsite permitted facility. It does not necessarily 
have other significance that has great economic impact. 

Senator Bentsen. My concern, Mr. Jorling, is if you have some- 
thing that is an extreme violation that adds very substantially to 
the degree of hazard, that the correction should be substantially 
greater, it seems to me, and that there ought to be some means of 
variance in the application to the degree of hazard. 

Mr. Jorling. Senator, I can understand that, and it is of concern 
to us. But what we are regulating here are thousands upon thou- 


sands of chemical substances and mixed chemical substances of 
different order. The degree of toxicity, degree of hazard, is the 
function of circumstances under which they are managed. So you 
can understand if you begin to take thousands of chemicals, over- 
lay the thousands of circumstances of management, of movement, 
of transport, of disposal practices over on that, coming up with any 
kind of indicator of degree of toxicity for purpose of regulation 
becomes an impossible task. 

We do share, however, your concerns that some waste present 
inherent — kepone, dioxin, those kinds of materials present — be- 
cause of the inherent nature of the chemical compound, there is 
very extreme risk. So we are evaluating our regulation to deter- 
mine whether or not, with respect to those acutely toxic, extreme 
toxicity is a function of chemical compound, a different and more 
onerous requirement, such as required incineration, as was done in 
PCB under the Toxic Substances Control Act. But with respect to 
the great bulk of chemicals, the hazard is a function of how it is 
used. So it becomes very difficult to create a regulatory structure 
that anticipates that. We don't like complicated regulatory struc- 
tures. They are hard to manage. We like simple regulatory struc- 

Senator Bentsen. I agree with that totally. But if you have 
something that varies over the line 1 percent and you put 100 
percent application on it, you have serious problems in implemen- 
tation, I believe. 

Mr. JoRLiNG. Let me also add in the regulations as proposed, 
there is special accommodation of certain waste streams because of 
basically your concern; that is, the degree of hazard. We have listed 
as special waste streams, I think, six categories of waste. Some of 
those that I can think of are the ashes and remains of combustion 
of coal, the cement kilns, the various types of mining operations. 
They contain heavy metals, they can leach, but we create a differ- 
ent regulatory structure for those. So we are recognizing that to 
the extent we can identify a manageable and administrable system. 
We are aware of that. Where there are great volumes of waste that 
are only hazardous in certain circumstances and they can be man- 
aged effectively through a different scheme, we are trying to adopt 

Senator Bentsen. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
defined hazardous wastes based on its quantity concentration or 
infectious characteristics. One of the most frequent criticisms I 
have heard regarding the proposed regulations is the failure to 
include quantity in the definition of hazardous wastes. Why do 
these regulations, which can impose such significant burdens on 
those who meet them, limit the consideration of quantity? Has 
Congress failed somehow in providing guidance on this issue? How 
does the failure to include quantity affect material such as oil 
production waters? 

Mr. JoRLiNG. We have taken quantity into account in several 
different ways. First of all, one of the most criticized portions of the 
regulations is an exemption based on quantity. We have a hundred 
kilogram per month cutoff. If the generator of the waste, even 
though it be hazardous by the criteria, generates less than a hun- 
dred kilograms per month, it is outside the system. We have re- 


ceived considerable criticism for that cutoff, that we should not 
have used that amount or any amount to determine whether a 
substance is in or out. An ounce of dioxin can destroy a city 
whereas a hundred kilograms of an oil brine may not cause a 
problem. We have taken quantity into account in the exclusion and 
also in the special waste streams where the quantities are high, the 
management systems are usually on site, and an alternative 
scheme of regulation can be established. We have used quantity in 
those two instances. 

Senator Bentsen. Without objection, I want the record kept open 
for several days for additional statements. 

Mr. Jorling, in talking about the delayed reaction of some of 
these people in the industry, whatever that reason, I don't want it 
dismissed. I want some deep and careful research in regard to this, 
because the fallout on our production in this country, if their facts 
approach what they allege, could be an extremely serious problem 
to this country. 

Mr. Jorling. Senator, we take these new figures very seriously, 
and we are evaluating them very seriously. I welcome your scruti- 
ny of us and we will participate with you and your staff in assuring 
you we are evaluating them prudently and that our responses to 
them are responsible. 

Senator Bentsen. These hearings will continue tomorrow at 10 
o'clock and we will recess until the morning. 

[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the subcommittee recessed, to recon- 
vene at 10 a.m., Thursday, March 29, 1979.] 

[Statements submitted for the record by today's witnesses and 
the material submitted by Mr. Clark follow:] 


restimony On hffect '>ore On r'lsneries 

To: Joint hearings of tne Kesource Protection and i-nviro- 
nmental Pollution j\io Comiuittee of the Senate Lnviro- 
nmental eno 'Public n'orks Committee Marcn 28, 1979. 

By: V. Cranston I'lorgan-Pres. '-v, ?. Morgan d- oons. Inc. 
-eens , Va . 

Mr. Chairiian: 
i'y narae is Cranston i-Iorgan, a former oysterman and nov; a seafood 
Dacker-orccessor, from .veems, Viroinia. The oroducts ve handle 
are o-sters ano finfish frc;i the Chesaoeake Say and its tributa- 
ries. I have oeen asked to talic about the effect Keoone has 
had on those oeople both cirectly ano incirectly connected to 
this incustry. One wore ciescrices it, "cisasterious. " The 
only e^.ceotion being that kepone vas resoonsicle for state and 
federal to cic substances lav.'s being enacted. The problem has 
oeen recognized and the next aecace *ill see the s&rae effort? 
to curb toxics as has oeen seen in tiie curtailing of sevage 
discharoes. .^ur industry aust have clean water in order tc 
survive, n great and successful fight has oeen fougnt tc clean 
u .■) our. nations vaters and in ray coinior , wit'" some e .ce"~'tier", 
we fre --.linrinrT cl'ct bottle. In to.-cics we aze only seeir.g tl'r 
"tiT of tbe iceburg" at this tine. Vith increasing aoility, 
srientif icalJ V, the more soohisticatec test er\iipment will 
oomt un laany unoesiraole conpounds in our streams and on land. 

ihere are aoout SbOO watermen in Virginia who aie licensee to 
fisn coiiinercially for oy.'jters, crabs and finfish. i'h'ire are 
riany times tnis nuiober who fish as a recreation. The closing 


of 75 Tiiles of tne James .xiver, nd.n-^toii r.oac'S ano the iov/vr 
Chesa-^edke hdve seriously i,-.iDaireo rxie v/ater-nen 's dxjilitly co 
'iid'ce 9 livi.ic. rirsily, it rib cut cov.;-. oi' ncrvtstxi.g 
-: rt'-i . ^or instance, when bhac' come in the Day, they h^i.c for 
r/ftce rt tiey -ere b.^rn . .-. 'jr'r.-.i: ni.. 'l^er, by f-r the rnej- 
crity, ^•^vfe tlicii s-v-v.ning area un the ^ave.? r-iv-r. iill netf; 
tra'i the shar", nor:, c-lly, in the tiainntcn rcoacs nree. ane t>ien 
they -^roceeH to hana their nets in front of the shar- until 
they reech their oestination. ,?his was a way of life to hun- 
dreds cf ^illnetters. Their boats and er'uioraent v.ere created 
fcr this tyoe of harvesting. *dth the closure because of K.etx5ne, 
they can no longer make a living in the traditional manner. 
X'hcse who had larger boats went uo the riay crabbing and oys- 
termg. xhis, however, has narrowed down the harvesting cap- 
abilities of even the larger fishermen, fhe closea area 
before Keoone caucnt 137o of the crabs Virginia oroctucec. i'his 
is now 0%. bluefish , croaker, flounders and othej soecie were a 
significant oart of Virginia's total landings. 1 have a laore 
orecise statement from the Virginia iarine k'esources Commission 
that v/ill give some idea of the extent of the disaster. But 
even this statenent is only a oartial nicture of the great loss 
suffered bv the watermen and their on-shore suonort oeo-^le. 
There has not been any way to record small fishermen's catches 
because .-cany of them out their fish on sirall trucks anc trans- 
Dort tXiera to wholesale dealers. 

Vi'lKC has orojected in the governor's seitlement with Allied 
Chemical there would be a vii, 000, OOO.UU loss oer year for 
forty years. A/o weeks ago the Virginia Institute of ilarine 


Sciences, Ir. bender said that it may be 100 years. The first 
closure by the Governor covered all soecie. nfter 4 months 
oysters were releasee fzor.^ this restriction when it wc.s found 
that tney were oeing usee, foi seec and transolantec to other 
rivers wnere they cleanseo tnemselves raoioly. iihao, catfish, 
striped oass, croaJcer, srxst and flounders, as well as i..ale blue 
crabs reniained under the closure. Shad were releasee this year 
but all blue crabs were olaced under restrictions. The loss of 
the craD catch is in eccess of lMi'-^'=**lbs. Strined i) amounted 
to 460, OCO Ics. at 1.50 otr oound. I'he alar:ning part of this 
is that licensed fisheriuen in the Jai^es drooped fron 1012 in 
1975 to 570 by Noveirber, 1978.. This does not indicate the total 
loss to the industry, hs indicated oreviously, the laroer boats 
have mover, to other areas w^re catches are not easy to extract 
from nature. i'he ability of Vi-ixiC to evaluate this shift in 
harvesting areas and its effect on the total industry will take 
time and rurther statistics. 

This year Virginia j-larine kesources Coioinission has devised a 
syste.-ii that srould recoro uiost cotmiercial catches. The loss 
of fishing areas has not only been restricted by Keoone Jjut also 
by other tyoes of ">ollution ever the years. For instance, we 
have lost abc-;t one-thirc of our oyster harvesting botcons both 
in virgii'i?. o-nc the 22 -^ror'ucirg ste-tes of !.>ur nation, 
^'ecorf'l'', wR hn\'v pyFfered econo'iic losses b«tcause of the e^- 
hraor'~in.t'. ry news releases of the ne'-'ia. ..e have been lioabarded 
locallv, stcite-wide and naticn-vide v.-ith stories aboiit the 
contaiiimated seafood froi. Virginia, nctually after the closinr/ 


of ihe ja-nes ;.iver tc the ta'-ripg of f isr , the cocc-- -- Druc 
-i.'-niristration in three vears of s^j^ioling have not fcunc 
erour sar-les in e rceps of action levels tc either seize 
or orosecute, I'm sure the ".enoe:s of this ror.i, :ee are 
highly dv.:dre cf .^aecia ca -laJoili ties --ranch laore so than '.ve 
in iisheries. i^ut we nave hoc sn 'anbeiievaole mcoctrination 
tnat has .lace believers of al^ of us. c>o nucn so tuc^t we 
creaiec a otate beatooc I'laiketing Coiiiiission runoed with new 
taxes tvn voter uoon our catciies. ^ve none to becin this with releases anc otner j.iarketii.g acti'.ns that will 
unco sov.e of che daniace inflictec^ u )cn us. i. nfortunately -ve 
.lave fou. c thrt this costs a:.iounts of 'aoney v.'e, alore, are 
not ca-^^ble of raising with :.ur taxes. 

Lo.stlv, anc oerhaos the nest cifficult of al] , >e have an in- 
cust^y co'r,-?risec of the most inc'eoendant anc basic '^eo-ile in 
the ccantry. ,'. like to b€-lieve these are the same toiich, 
harci-wcr<ing and tenacious neoole that settled cur country 
and :id.cle it great. To further indicate this, I would like 
to tell you about bov . j-jcv^m's effort to helo these fisher- 
;ien. he tooKexceotional action and bent regulations m orcei 
Co made e.-nercency funds availaoe to helo then through a deso- 
erate, keoone laden, l'j7b cold winter. Jhree oersons out of 
ell the fisher-'ien acceotet thesa funds. While ve think trest 
cualities are fine, they lead to orobleir.s of wnat to do to hel ' 
the;u make changes in their v;ay of life to offset the disruotion 
• ro; ; x>lluticn of the ' iver. Incidentally, the i-nvironnental 
Protection .-icency has recently naned the Iiamoton koads area as 
one of the four most nollutec-' waters in the United btates. und 

44-978 0-79-5 


our state continues to orooose raajcr siteing such as a refinery, 
that vrill further nollute. a^herefore, in rur foreseeable future, 
hundreos of small rirs rust be converter to boats that vill be 
able to harvest in rcu'-rher waters ano farther awav harvestir.q 
prcuncs than hdve teen used in the -^ast. fhe vcsterr.en also 
have to be educated to new inethods, rev eruionent, anc nev; 
specie. ^Tiis will re ciificult if not ii,v.x>s5ibie. 

In the broader as"iects of cbtaining clean vaters for cur fish- 
eries, we are grateful for the efforts of Lcngress to create 
laws anc agencies to bring axxut oreater incentives anc cond- 
itions that would increase havesting for dorae..tic fisaeinen. 
!<e have testified for the Clean" ..>ter jvcts frou 1564 until no;;; 
the >"c;/jstal oone .^cina €: er.t e:;'= the 200 ;nile limit, t'.-e Ervir- 
cr cental "'rotection Ag&ncy, the -'ianac.'tFient Councils (with re-- 
ervations) and Tnenv other lavs such as the Toxic substances ..ct 
have Tiven us tec Is to ]:eln fishermen. The mechanical e.ecuticn 
and carrying out of these efforts is e/trenely difficult. In 
"che state of Viri.:inia, vher the ^v..litical v/orlr crashed into 
the scientific vrorlc, all nhe lavs, jgtncies (.octh naticj:al 
c local), anc even Article Xl of the Constitution of Virginia 
did not persuade the oolitical w-orld from their proposed des- 
truction of the enviroruaent and m the long run, the oysternen. 
• ur long effort to adopt a Coastal Zone .Janageraent olan went 
oy cne board in the fioht. The State water Control Board, 
The ytate iiealti; re-nartiient, and the Virginia Institute of 
Marine Sciences all beca:ne hit targets and have suffered inany, 
in, r.v onirion, indignities. 

Inflation has resulted in hynersensitivity to econcnirs. J?h« 
ro,.ic duostances battle will be the foremost r^-llution control 


activity for at least t"-e re <t r'ecarie anc it will be harrer to 
cum because of -icney, Hur.-. f ^ c5 tiestiri.-V.s, eotic cc:v-iounr's 
forner^ by c'^lcrination ir "ji;-.niciia 1 and cthf.r ;cint scjrre dis- 
charges, t-'.e id--?r.'';: .'^ic-jtior. of r.on-pcint sources of cischarae, 
v/:.l?. be investi^,5atec'' arc vill rt-veal startlinc facts. -Jhe for&- 
ri.nner o ' this, of ccurse, is Kepone. :i very lame battle iz 
nov enjar;ed arc I ho')e y./a car. help ug vir it oecause it en- 
comaGtes all of us. 


Statement of ,1^, E. Bender 


Joint Hearings of the Resource PROTEaioN 


OF THE U. S. Senate Environment & Public Works 


ON the 

The General Problem of Hazardous 

Chemicals in the Environment 

28 .^Iarch 1979 


OF THE Virginia Institute of Marine Science and a professor of .iIarine 
Science at the College of William and Mary in Virginia. 

My professional experience in pollution matters extends over a 
period of 20 years, during which time I have been employed in various 
capacities by both state and federal governments, private industries, 

AND universities. 

For the past ten years I have been involved in studies of several 




Today I would like to make some general comments on natural resource 


to begin withy i would like to emphasize that the effects of 
chemical contamination on marine life and its impaa on marine resource 
utilization arise from tv« quite different avenues: the biological effects 
on the resource and the effects of the contaminated resource on man. 

Effects on the growth and reproductive ability of marine and fresh- 

Uptake of chemicals by these organisms can occur from the water 
they live in or from the food they eat and certain of their vital biological 


The SECOND MA.J0R avenue by which chemicals can affect NATURAL RESOURCES 

is by limiting their utilization. this is due to the fact that a number of 
species have been found to contain residues of chemicals which are over 
established "action levels". 

Action levels are established by the Food and Drug Administration 



In the CASE OF PESTICIDES^ "mE ENVIRo^^lENTAL Protection Agency has the 


During this level setting procedure^ EPA reviews studies conducted 


The maximum allowable intake of a substance is then determined by 


MAN. This results in the prediction of a quantity of the substance which 


The next step is to determine how much of a given type of food an 



Another general point which needs to be considered^ and often is not 


STATES^ California for example, assess fines of over 5n«{: for each barnacle 
KILLED. In the Chesapeake Bay region boat o^^^jers usually e^ boat yards to kill 
barnacles, and I wonder if the boat yards in California are fined for 
cleaning boats. 

Although this example may seem ludicrous, heavy fines are often 
imposed on such a basis. Take for example the recent settlement in the 
CASE of the Tot Colqcotronis oil spill near Cabo Rojo, Puerto Rico. In 
this case millions of dollars in fines were assessed for the temporary 
destruction of bottom dwelling animals, many of which were AmosT micro- 
scopic in size and of little or no direct economic SIGNIFICANCE. PERHAPS SUCH 


Kepone emtered 7WE James River estuary from a point source at 


IN Hopewell^ Virginia^ U.S.A. Approximately 1.5 x 10^ kg were produced 
BETVEEN 1966 and 1975. At PRESBfr an estimated 0.5 tons of Kepone reside 
in the source area (Battelle^ 1978). Reportedly Kepone wastes were dumped 
both as solid and in solution. It entered the estuary by discharge through 
A municipal sewage system and by leaching of contaminated soils and solid 


runoff. Little is known however about the rates of iriTRODucTioN. None- 

Although contamination of the estuary was not recognized until 1975, 


shortly after production started and continued to the present spanning at 
least 12 years. 

The data presented in Table 1 show Kepone contamination at all levels 


OF Kepone, a level at least 10^ times that estimated in solution. Zoo- 


Table I 
Ketone Residues (ug/g) in Biota from the James River 






LoNG TERM R eside nts 

Stottail shiner (Noi 
Channel catfish ( Tctalurus m^ 
White catfish ( I ctalurus caujs ; 
American, eel CAnguilla rostrata ) 
Black crappie ( PnMpyT.<^ nigromacuu\tijs) 



...iiTE Perch (Roccus americanusT 
Bay anchovy ( Anchoa mitchilli) 

Atlantic silverside , 


Grass shrimp (Pal^^neies. pugio ) ^ 
Sand shrimp ( Crangon sfptfmspinosa ) 
Xanthid crabs 

Blue crab (Callinectes sapidus) female 
Blue crab ( Callinectes sa p idu s ) male 
Oyster ( lrassostrea virginica j ^ 
Hard ham (I^frcfnaria mercenaria ) 

Short-Term Residents 

American shad ( Alosa sapidissima ) 
Atlantic menhaden Cf 



Std. Error 




*Seston samples reported on dry weight basis, all others are as wet. 
**Blends of H individuals. 




and shad increased as they stayed longer in the estuary. therefore, the 
residue levels for these species reported in the table are averaged over 
their period of residence. residue levels in long-term residents, £.£. 
hogchokers, white perch and catfish, did not fluctuate seasonally. 
Although the data are limited, no trends in residue levels in the James 
River could be detected as a function of distance from the Kepone source 
AT Hopewell, either for estuarine species or for the freshwater REsiDEm-s. 

Considerable variation in Kepone residue occurs between species 
CTable I). Freshwater species, which are resident their entire lives, 


species of catfish in the river which are of major commercial importance, 
the channel catfish ( ictalurus punctatus ). and the white catfish ( ictalurus 
catijs ). the former exhibited lower levels by almost an order of magnitude. 

Long-term resident estuarine (brackish water) fin fish varied 
Less than the freshwater species in their Kepone residues, with average 
levels between 0.6 and 2.7 ug/g. 

Short-term marine fish species, £.£. American shad and menhaden, 
exhibited low levels of Kepone averaging less than 0.1 ug/g while spot 
and croaker, which usually reside in the river for somewhat longer periods, 
had residues averaging 0.8i and 0.75 ug/g, respectively. 

Blue crab residues averaged 0.19 ug/g for females and 0.81 ug/g 





Stations in Chesapeake Bay were sampled for five fin fish species 
DURING April, June and September. 0(jr most complete set of data is for the 
21 June 1976 sampling period, when at least 10 and usually 20 fish of each 
species were obtained. The results of this survey showed similar residue 
patterns for croaker, spot, trout, and flounder with residues declining 


Bay, mixing with populations which have not stayed in the Lower James River 


At present we do not have any direct evidence that toxic EFFECTS DUE 

TO Kepone exposure are occurring in the biota of the James River. Hoi'/ever, 




The RESULTS of TV/O of the above studies indicate that toxic EFFECTS 

Kepone is indicated by the fact that Kepone RESIDUES IN MOST James River 



River animal species. The abundance estimates were made from trawl and 
benthic survey data and from catch statistics, and as such, probably under- 

Table II 

Estimated f^ss of Kepone Contained in Biota in the James River 

Biota Kepone (KG) 

Blue crabs 3 

Freshwater fishes 18 

iIigratory fishes 87 

Benthic fauna (mollusks) 6 

zooplankton 1 



Bed sediment cdntami nation extends from the source at Hopewell seaward 
TO Hampton Roads, a distance of 88 kilometers (55 miles). As shown in Figure h 
concentrations along the estuary channel averaged from three sets of samples 
collected December 1976> iIarch and July 1977. range from 1.93 ppm to less 
THAN 0.02 PPM. Sandy sediments rom 8 km landward of the source and from 88 


LESS -mAN 0.016 PPM Kepone. Although near-source sediments wimiN 4 km of 


reaches are the most widely contaminated. 

Patterns of contamination vary laterally across the axial channel and 


TavN Island. ^Iajor Kepone sinks form in the Jamestown-Dancing Point reach 


Using this estimate for the Ketone reservoir and rate loss of 
DISSOLVED Kepone from the Bay. we estimate that the problem will remain 
with us for between 50 AND 100 years. 



DupuY^ J. L. 1976. Unpublished data, Virginia Instjliute of Marine 
Science. Environmental Protection Agency. 1975. Fact sheet 


Va. AREA. Health Effects Research Laboratory, EPA, Research 
Triangle Park, N.C. unpublished, 15 p. 

Hansen, D. Ji.i„D. B' Nirt^, S. C. Schimmel, H. E. Walsh and Aj, J. Wilson, 



Schimmel, S. C. and L. S. Bahner. 1977. Bioaccumulation of Kepone 


Environmental Research Laboratory, Rjlf Breeze. Kepone Seminar II, 
Easton, ,'^ryland, Sept. 1977. 



Testimony on Hazardous Chemicals 
in the Environment 

before the 
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee 

Subcommittees on Resource Protection 
and Environmental Pollution 

March 28, 1979 

David T. Allen, M.D., M.P.H. 
Tennessee Department of Public Health 



The Velsicol Company plant in Memphis, Tennessee, disposed of its waste chemicals 
at the Hollywood Dump in Memphis on the ixinks of a watercourse leading to the 
Mississippi River until a major fish kill resulted in a change of disposal site in the 
mid I960's to a farm in Hardeman County. Between 1965 and 1972, approximately 
300,000 barrels of chemical wastes were buried in trenches over about one-half the 
acreage of the farm. A geological survey in 1967 indicated that the flow of the 
local water table aquifer was away from the homes to the west and north of the 
burial site. Velsicol continued dumping until Eugene W. Fowinkle, M.D., Commis- 
sioner of Public Health, issued an order in February 1972 to stop the dumping by 
September I, 1972. 

The first complaints of contaminated water were received by the local health 
department in November 1977, and water samples at that time revealed no 
measurable levels of chemicals. Surveillance was increased by the State, Local and 
Federal governments in late 1977 and 1978. In March 1978 the first measurable 
contaminants were found in two wells, and shortly thereafter three more wells 
were found to be contaminated. Residents were told not to drink the water or to 
use it for food preparation and a temporary clean water supply was provided. 

In April 1978, a permanent, alternate water supply was suggested by the Water 
Quality Division of the Tennessee Department of Public Health. Plans were begun 
at that time to pursue the alternative of a water line from the town of Toone. 

In May 1978, B. D. Hale, M.D., local health officer, initiated epidemiologic studies 
of the families in the area and continued to advise them not to drink any of the 
suspect water. He developed a list of symptoms experienced by any member of the 
families, and took blood and urine samples to test for various chemicals. Results 
were unclear since control persons not exposed to the contaminated wells had 
levels of chemicals equal to the levels in persons that were exposed. And 
symptoms did not correlate well with contamination levels. 

Prior to September 1978, most of the action relative to the Hardeman County 
problem was initiated at the State and Local government levels due to the high 
level of demand from local citizens, in September 1978, the Federal government, 
i.e., EPA, greatly expanded its role, although the State is still in charge of local 
investigations and solutions for this specific problem. However, we appreciate all 
continuing assistance from CDC, EPA, and other agencies. We particularly need 
assistance in the establishment of guidelines at the Federal level for the thresholds 
of exposures that constitute realistic threats to human health. At this time no one 
in Tennessee knows when a specific exposure level of any one of thousands of 
chemicals should be expected to change from a contact which is an insignificant 
exposure to that level which constitutes a true health hazard. That responsibility 
is, I believe, one assigned by statute to EPA. ~ 

In October 1978, when the most recent groundwater studies showed the possibility 
of a flow from the burial site to the private wells to the north and northwest, the 
Velsicol Chemical Corporation joined in a vigorous pursuit of solutions, both 
temporary and permanent. The accomplishments realized to date have reflected 
coordination and cooperation among all levels of government and several private 

Page I of 4, March 28, 1979 

44-978 0-79 


entities. These successes would not have been possible if an adversary position had 
been maintained, or if no agreennerit had been reached on which steps were most 
important and which should come first. 

Data available to date suggest that the concentration of contamination is 
increasing as a function of time, and that the low molecular weight solvents are 
migrating fastest and in highest concentrations. A summary of the EPA and State 
Health Department laboratory results of chemicals in wells is available in a letter 
dated March 8, 1979 from Kathleen Taimi, EPA Region IV to Mr. Terry Cothron. 
The most recent results show at least 13 wells contaminated with some carbon 
tetrachloride, and the range of contamination levels is wide. Well #5 was reported 
as 25 parts per billion carbon tetrachloride, while well #10 was reported as 18,700 
parts per billion in the most recent analyses. Unfortunately, we have no way of 
knowing the level of contamination during the time of exposure before the people 
were told to stop drinking the water. 

In other instances of accidental exposure to chemicals, all or nearly all damage, 
injury, and illness appears to be dose related. That is, the higher the exposure, the 
worse the illness and the lower the exposure, the less the illness. 


Some of the chemicals found in the wells are known to be dangerous at higher 
concentrations. Some, like carbon tetrachloride, which is found in the highest 
concentration, can cause cancer. Low dose health effects of the chemicals are 
unclear but the potential for danger is real. Whether or not certain individuals 
received a high dose is unknown. The only prudent course of action for protecting 
the health of the public who may be exposed is immediate substitution of safe 
water for contaminated water. This was done as fast as could be done. There are 
no medical or surgical treatments for exposures to those chemicals found in the 
wells. Monitoring the area forever may be necessary to track future migration of 
these chemicals and to avoid any new exposure to contaminated water. 

The testing of people can be valuable when there are problems that can be 
corrected if found, or if one wishes to document the negative effects of an 
experiment in nature. The risk one runs when extensive testing is done is that a 
false sense of security can be transmitted when the health effects of the chemicals 
have a long incubation period. Cancers are now showing up in certain factory 
workers who were exposed decades ago. Many of these had had extensive physical 
examinations and blood tests with no abnormalities noted. In the recent Kepone 
tragedy in Hopewell, Virginia, the incubation period between exposure and illness 
was very short and dramatic. However, exposures were very, very high and Kepone 
is the exception to the rule. While we applaud testing when it helps, we must 
remember that the important action to protect the public health is find out the 
source of contamination and in this case to substitute safe water for bad water. 


in the late summer. Dr. C. S. Clark from the University of Cincinnati Medical 
Center, a grantee of the EPA-Health Effects Research Laboratory, met with B. D. 
Hale, M.D. and his staff to discuss a health survey. Some samples and histories 
were obtained on October 2, 1978 by Dr. Clark's group but further studies were 

Page 2 of 4, March 28, 1979 


postponed until November 6 through November 8, 1978. Additional health 
questionnaires were completed on December 4, 1978. On January 9, 1979 Dr. Clark 
met with members of the Tennessee Department of Public Health staff to discuss 
the protocol for a health survey to be done on January 13-14. 

Dr. Clark has promised us a written report as soon as his data are analyzed. He has 
told us verbally that the tests done the first time in 1978 showed some abnormal 
liver functions, but that the results done in 1979 were less clear. We hope to see 
provisional laboratory results soon. 

We wish to find out whether those individuals with high levels of contamination in 
their wells now ore those with the most abnormalities found by Dr. Clark. B. D. 
Hale, M.D., has a complete list of the persons who may have been exposed to the 
contaminated wells and intends to keep their names and addresses current into the 
future so that long term follow-up can be done. The water in the wells may have to 
be monitored forever. 


1) C. S. Clark, Ph.D., grantee of EPA-HERL suggests that careful testing and 
history taking will give all a good opportunity to onswer the question of what 
the health effects of the unfortunate exp>osure to chemicals in well water 
might have been. He told us he t>elieves the testing will be of great benefit 
to the persons who have had the exposure since they will know what the 
results of their tests are. 

2) John C. White (Regional Administration EPA/Region IV) states in a letter 
(attached) to William H. Foege, M.D. (Director CDC), "I believe that it is 
absolutely imperative that some kind of study be performed if for no other 
reason than to allay the very high degree of anxiety currently being 
experienced by the affected residents." He goes on to say, "we believe the 
staff of CDC is most qualified to address this problem in Hardeman County 
and we have the highest degree of confidence in the medical expertise 
available to this agency through the Center for Disease Control." 

3) R. J. Garner, Director, Health Research Effects Laboratory-EPA Cincinnati," 
in a memo to John White, Regional Administrator, EPA/Region IV dated 
December 21, 1978 (attached) states in the memo that the University of 
Cincinnati is conducting activities in Hardeman County and that "hopefully 
the medical results will indicate the type of effects resulting from human 
exposure to organic chemicals. This type of information can be used by EPA 
and other regulatory agencies in setting exposure limits for these chemicals 
and promulgate cppropriate hazardous waste management procedures so as 
to avoid harmful effects." 

4) The CDC response to John C. White, Regional Administrator EPA/Region IV, 
was written by Philip J. Landrigan, M.D., for William K Foege, M.D. 
(attached). He points out the risk of doing health effects studies when he 
states, "if however there has been subtle damage done to residents of 
Hardeman County and we cannot assure you that damage has not been done , 
we would commit a considerable error in professional judgment if we were 
to do physical examinations, find nothing amiss, and then provide residents 

Page 3 of 4, March 28, 1979 


with bland reassurances that all was well. A nornnal examination today 
provides no assurance that an adverse health effect caused by exposure to a 
chemical in contaminated water will not surface one year, five years, or ten 
years or more hence." He goes on to state the CDC's recommendation of 
finding out the names of all the chemicals that are in the Velsicol dump, to 
look for any chemicals not previously looked for but known to be in the 
dump, to continue sampling all the wells, and with that data collaborate with 
the Tennessee Department of Public Health in the next step. 

5) The Tennessee Department of Public Health's position is in line with that of 

CDC. We recognize that the EPA needs data for regulations. But we 
believe that the individuals tested should be told the purpose of the testing. 
It would be unwise to mislead those citizens exposed to a potential 
physiologic insult into believing that the broad-spectrum search for 
symptoms which relate to a known exposure level would lead to a treatment 
for any condition found. Many professionals believe testing people is never 
hurtful - often helpful. Most medical schools do not. Harm can sometimes 
be done by the testing process itself. 

However, since the individual clinical tests have been done, we are anxiously 
awaiting the report with the data. The Department will wait to initiate 
additional epidemiological studies of health effects until we have an 
opportunity to see these data and consult with the Center for Disease 
Control. We are prepared to undertake long term follow-up as indicated by 
the data. 










MARCH 28, 1979 

Good morning. I am here today to discuss what may well be the most 
serious environmental problem facing the nation today: the poor and/or 
illicit practices for handling and disposing of hazardous materials and 
wastes. I testified before this Committee last week on EPA's developing 
program to regulate hazardous waste management under the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act of 1976. Once in place, this program will control future 
hazardous waste management practices. Today I will focus on current and past 
hazardous materials and waste management practices, the problems these 
practices have caused, our existing legislative authorities to address the 
problems, and finally, our future plans to resolve the problems. 

Recent months have brought to public attention a series of 
incidents of improper hazardous waste management. The tragedy at 
Love Canal has demonstrated all too clearly the unacceptable costs 


of Inferior hazardous waste disposal -- not only the pain and suffering 
borne by the more than two hundred families evacuated from the site, 
but also the staggering financial cost of containing and cleaning up 
the wastes. The illegal spraying of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB's) 
along 210 miles of roadway in North Carolina; the discovery of up to 
20,000 - 30,000 barrels of discarded, unlabeled wastes in the "Valley of 
the Drums" in Kentucky; and scores of other cases in states throughout 
the nation are revealing a pattern of current and past improper hazardous 
waste management which is both alarming and dismaying. 

Why has it taken so long for government to recognize the hazardous 
waste problem? Unlike air and water pollution which are obvious to 
citizens, the problems of disposal of hazardous waste are not as apparent. 
It has largely occurred on private land -- literally out of sight. In 
addition, the pathways by which adverse effects become evident are generally 
indirect. For instance, the slow movement of leachate can contaminate 
groundwater where it reaches people through their water supply; or leachate 
can enter basements as in Love Canal. In fact, not until the last few years 
have we developed methodology to sample such leachate and trace groundwater 
contamination. Even now, these methods are expensive, difficult to apply 
and obtain precise results, and not widely used. 

Most of the solid wastes, and in particular hazardous wastes, 
produced in the U.S. in the past have been disposed of using environmentally 
unsound methods. Given a relative surplus of land, an economic system 
which failed to incorporate environmental damages into product costs. 


and ignorance of what was occurring underground at disposal sites, 
past disposal practices have created a large number of situations in 
which the environment and public health are threatened. These past 
practices include poorly designed and poorly sited landfills, industrial 
waste lagoons with leaking bottoms, uncontrolled incineration, and 
illicit dumping of waste materials. In summary, the standard practices 
were, and still are improper. 

Landfills can be proper disposal sites. It is possible to retard 
or prevent the movement of wastes away from the fill using impermeable 
liners or systems to remove the leachate. However, the overwhelming 
majority of landfills built in the past have failed to incorporate these 
features. In areas of the country where some portion of the precipi- 
tation moves through the soil and enters the water table, a medium 
exists to transport hazardous materials underground. A 1977 EPA 
study of industrial waste landfills indicated that, in 47 of 50 cases 
studied, hazardous substances had migrated beyond the boundaries of 
the disposal area. Approximately one fourth of the incidents of 
reported damage from improper disposal are groundwater pollution cases 
of this type. 

One fourth of the reported damage incidents are due to improperly 
designed industrial surface impoundments such as lagoons and ponds. 


In those areas where precipitation exceeds evaporation (roughly all 
of the U.S. east of the 100th Meridian, plus the mountain and coastal 
areas of the west), surface impoundments will eventually either leak 
or overflow and discharge to surface waters. If the hazardous materials 
in the lagoons are not being removed, via biological action or filtration, 
then they are being discharged into the environment. During 1973-75, 
approximately half of the hazardous waste generated went into unlined 
surface impoundments - approximately 0.01% went to lined impoundments. 
After abandonment, surface impoundments frequently contain oily matter 
or tars or sludges consisting of concentrated hazardous materials. 
These may continue to discharge to the surface and subsurface environment 
long after they have ceased receiving waste materials. 

Approximately 15% of hazardous wastes during the period 1973-75 
were incinerated, two thirds by uncontrolled incineration. Air 
pollution problems occur during operation. After closure or 
abandonment, problems of spills, improper storage, and site 
contamination caused by wastes that were not incinerated are a common 

Illicit dumping, improper storage, or other haphazard land disposal 
accounts for approximately half the problem. This would include such practices 


as dumping of residuals on land, haphazard dumping of drummed or liquid 
wastes, dumping into sewer systems, or dumping along roadsides. One 
very conmon problem at the present time is the operator who accumulates 
wastes in drums or bulk tankage and then abandons the site. After a 
period of time the barrels and tanks begin leaking, allowing contamina- 
tion of surface and ground waters and frequently producing a severe fire 
or explosion potential. Under the present unregulated system, this 
practice can provide the operator with sizable profits. 

The effects of the abandoned waste disposal sites are contamination 
of surface and goundwaters including drinking water supplies, fish and 
wildlife kills, vegetation destruction, threats to public safety because 
of fires or explosions, and direct exposure of people to hazardous 
substances as happened at Love Canal. Of 421 tabulated damage incidents, 
a total of 52 involved "direct contact poisoning." 

The number of individuals exposed to hazardous materials through 
contaminated drinking water may be sizable. Last year Niagara Falls 
officials discovered that approximately 100,000 people were drinking 
water containing toxic chemicals at levels 4 times that recommended by 
EPA as a maximum safe limit. On Long Island 54 public water supply wells 
serving over 100,000 people have been found to be contaminated by 
chemicals. In Grey, Maine 750 families drank polluted goundwater for 
four years. In Hardeman County, Tennessee forty families drank from 
wells polluted with high levels of extremely toxic chemicals; In 
Grants, New Mexico 200 families drank radioactive water contaminated 


by Uranium mining wastes, niegal disposal of hazardous wastes near 
Byron, Illinois contaminated wells serving 68 families. A dump in 
Charles City, Iowa has been found to be polluting groundwater with 
arsenic and orthonitroaniline; the pollution threatens an aquifer serving 
300,000 people. This is only a partial listing of the cases in EPA's 

The types of hazardous waste which are being improperly disposed 
of include pesticides and highly toxic organic chemicals, other organic 
chemicals whose toxicity is unknown, inorganics, radioactive substances, 
and explosives and flaimables. These wastes are capable of producing 
the full range of toxic effects in humans including acute poisoning 
and such chronic responses as carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, and 
promotion of miscarriages and birth defects. Personal injuries from 
fire or explosions are another threat. In addition to these health 
hazards, social damages such as property loss or devaluation and loss 
of economic livelihood are potential consequences of improper hazardous 
waste disposal . 

It is extremely difficult to estimate the full extent of the 
problem. Varying amounts of information have been accumulated by EPA 
on approximately 700 damage incidents. Many hundreds more are suspected 
but undocumented. Cleanup has been attempted in only a fraction of the 
reported cases and some remedial action may be necessary in a majority 
of the cases. Since there is little or no incentive, and considerable 
disincentive, for a site owner or operator to publicize his environmental 
problems, these reported damage incidents probably represent only a 
fraction of the problem sites. 


Last fall the Agency conducted a very rough survey of hazardous 
waste sites. Each of EPA's ten regional offices was asked to provide 
information on those sites potentially containing hazardous wastes 
for which data on size, waste volume, site conditions, and related 
areas were available. Additionally each regional office was asked to 
estimate total numbers of sites containing some hazardous wastes and to 
estimate those with potentially significant problems. The combined 
responses from the Regions estimated over 32,000 sites with some 
hazardous wastes and over 800 sites with at least potentially significant 
problems. Varying amounts of information were provided on 103 specific 
sites. These estimates — the 32,000 and 800 -- are very crude and 
are based on professional estimates and, in some cases, guesses. 
There currently is no available inventory or other basis on which to 
predict the number of hazardous waste sites created over the past 
several decades. 

A recently completed EPA study, done under contract and based on 
the same rough data, has attempted to augment the regional estimates 
with some further analysis. The results are expressed as a range of 
total sites and sites with potentially significant problems. The 
study estimates a range of about 30,000 - 50,000 sites containing 
hazardous wastes, of which about 1200 - 2000 may present potentially 
significant problems. I want to re-emphasize that these figures are 
very rough and should only be used as "ballpark" estimates. 


This study also attempted to estimate order of magnitude costs 
associated with remedying the situation at sites with potentially 
significant problems. Costs were estimated at two different 
levels of remedy. The first level estimated costs for measures 
taken on an emergency basis to contain the wastes to prevent existing 
problems from becoming worse. The second level reflected costs 
that would be associated with an ultimate remedy such as excavating v/astes 
and contaminated soil and disposing of them properly. Cost estimates 
for both levels of remedy were made from data on over two hundred sites. 
An average cost per site for each level was derived taking into account 
size and type of facility. Based on the available data the average cost 
for the first level of remedy was estimated at $3.6 million per site. 
The second level average was estimated at $25.9 million per site. 

Excluding cases for radioactive wastes and cases judged to 
have no costs, the range of costs for iiimediate remedy nationwide 
is estimated at $3.6 - 6.1 billion. For permanent r medies, the 
nationwide range is estimated at $26.2 - 44.1 billion. These estimates 
do not include compensation for property damage, direct or consequential 
economic losses, or personal injury costs. While these are the best 
estimates available at this time, they are very rough estimates. 
We believe, however, that they provide a reasonable order-of magnitude 
estimate of the minimum cost that the Nationa faces in correcting past 
mismanagement of hazardous wastes. 


I would like to turn now to the related problem of spills of 
hazardous substances and oil. From an effects or damages point of view, 
spills, especially of hazardous substances, can have consequences very 
similar to improper hazardous waste disposal practices. Environmental 
damage resulting from such spills can result in massive fish kills, 
destruction of wildlife, air pollution, and loss of livestock by 
contamination of drinking water. Spills have also resulted in loss of 
life and posed direct threats to human health. Most frequently, spills 
have caused the temporary contamination of municipal drinking water and 
the long-term contamination of wells. On several occasions, accidents 
involving freight carriers have resulted in the sudden or potential release 
of pollutants, requiring evacuation of populated areas. 

Concern with hazardous substances discharges is not limited to 
transportation accidents but also includes spills originating from 
processing, manufacturing, storage, consumption and disposal activities. 
Each year new commercial chemicals are developed and millions of tons 
of hazardous substances which could cause a serious pollution problem 
are manufactured and entered into commerce. The entire growth rate of 
the chemical industry is on the order of six percent per year, and 
that of the transportation industry is of equal magnitude. Transportation 
spills data developed by a contractor in 1970 for the Council on 
Environmental Quality, predicts that 2000 tank truck spills, 1000 railroad 
spills and 500 barge or tanker spills will be occurring each year by 1980. 


Sources of hazardous substance spills include both transportation 
and non-transportation facilities, such as vessels, tank trucks, 
rail cars, storage tanks, pipelines, holding lagoons and chemical 
manufacturing and processing plants. The number of spills resulting from 
fixed facilites and the various transportation modes is not available 
since mandatory reporting of such incidents, as required by Section 311 
of the Clean Water Act, is not yet in effect. Numerous independent data 
sources exist which may be used to characterize the occurrence of 
hazardous chemical spills. However, these sources are of limited value 
since some only address particular types of spill sources, while 
others combine statistics for oil and related material spills with those 
for hazardous substances spills. 

An analysis of the various reporting systems indicates that there 
are about 3,500 incidents involving chemicals per year from sources 
which have the potential of releasing significant quantities 
of hazardous substances either onto land or into water. Of these, it 
is estimated that about 50 percent or 1,700 spills would reach navigable 
waters. The Agency estimates that for 299 hazardous substances designated 
in accordance with the requirements of Section 311, there are about 
700 to 1,200 significant spills per year. 

In the absence of mandatory reporting and an operational hazardous 
substances program, there are no reliable data available on the removal, 
treatment, disposal and restoration costs for hazardous substances 
incidents. A 1978 report, prepared by A. D. Little, on the "Estimation 
of the Frequency and Costs Associated with the Cleanup of Hazardous 


Materials Spills", states that the most probable annual cost for Federal 
cleanup of chemicals is $13.0 million.. Cleanup costs may range from 
$6.5 million to $26.1 million per year. 

There is considerable disagreement relative to the above cost 
estimate because it was based on the assumption that 90 percent of the 
cleanup will be performed by industry. A slight decrease in industry 
participation could easily result in a two to three fold increase in the 
annual cost for Federal cleanup of chemicals. In addition, the annual 
cost figure above did not include: administrative costs, long-term 
environmental restoration, third party damages, evacuation and public 
safety costs, some deliberate dumps of hazardous chemicals, and especially 
leaching from abandoned disposal sites, which as I have indicated, 
may require billions. 

In the Agency's judgment, the estimated annual cost figure in the 
A. D. Little report appears to be too low. First, the assumption of 
90 percent industry participation was made in the absence of an operational 
National Hazardous Substances Program which would subject a discharger 
to notification, cleanup liability and penalties. Second, until now the 
estimated unit costs for cleanup per chemical have been derived from 
existing data which do not reflect a minimum standard or safe 
concentration level. When statutory authorities under Section 311 of 
the Clean Water Act go into effect shortly, the Agency can then insist on 
a minimum cleanup effort to insure the adequate protection of public 
health and the environment. Third, the projected costs excluded spills 
of less than 100 gallons. It is generally accepted that hazardous 


substance spills in the most toxic category, such as pesticides, can 
cause severe environmental emergencies in less than TOO gallon 

What legislative authorities do v/e presently have and how 
effective are they in solving hazardous waste and materials problems? 
With regard to hazardous waste management, I have pointed out the 
nature of the problem of current or past incidents of improper disposal, 
especially those related to abandoned and inactive sites. Unfortunately, 
the magnitude of this problem was not well perceived by EPA or the 
Congress at the time that the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, or 
RCRA, was enacted. As a result, RCRA is not well suited to remedying 
the effects of past disposal practices which are unsound. 

RCRA does provide authority to deal with imminent hazards under 
Section 7003. Section 7003 authorizes EPA to bring suit in district 
courts to enjoin an owner or other responsible party of an active or 
inactive site to take remedial action to prevent or abate an imminent and 
substantial danger to human health or the environment. We can effectively 
exercise this authority where the owner or responsible party is identifiable 
and financially and otherwise able to remedy it. However, where these 
circumstances are not present. Section 7003 is not an effective tool. We 
also can take similar actions under the imminent hazard authorities of 
the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, as appropriate, and can take enforcement 
actions under various other authorities, where appropriate. The states 
also have various authorities to take enforcement and injunctive actions. 


We are increasing our efforts to use Section 7003 and other 
authorities to control past and current problems. The Agency last 
November launched a campaign to evaluate the status of particular 
disposal sites which may pose an imminent hazard. On December 8, 
1978, the Office of Enforcement established the Imminent Hazard Task 
Force. Three Evaluation Teams consisting of personnel from the Office 
of Enforcement, Office of Solid Waste, Department of Justice, and the 
National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEIC) visited five regional 
offices during December to review available data. EPA Regional 
Administrators have personally reviewed the site evaluation process in 
each region. These efforts have resulted in technical assistance 
and enforcement actions such as the following: 

" Kin-Buc Landfill, Edison, New Jersey, where the 
U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey filed 
an action in U.S. District Court on February 7, 1979. 

° Lee's Lane Landfill, Louisville, Kentucky, where 
NEIC and Region IV personnel have made an extensive 
investigation and determined that an imninent hazard 
does not exist but where continued surveillance has 
been established. 

° Chemical Control Company, Elizabeth, New Jersey, 
where the State of New Jersey, with cooperation 
from EPA personnel, initiated a state court action 
on January 19, 1979. 

44-978 0-79-7 


*• Sangamon Grain Company, Fort Worth, Texas, where EPA 
effected the proper disposal of a cylinder containing 
hydrogen cyanide prior to bringing suit against 
the recalcitrant property owner at a prehearing 
conference before filing of such an action in U.S. 
District Court. 
Other cases are in preparation and will be filed as soon as they are 
completed, and still other sites are being intensively investigated for 
possible case preparation. Approximately 30 work years are currently 
being devoted to these efforts. In addition, EPA is closely monitoring 
the status of the 103 sites identified last fall. Corrective action 
on some of these has already been taken and State or Federal action is 
underway on the remaining. 

The problem of improper disposal is made more difficult by the 
fact that many former waste disposal sites have now been abandoned. 
In many cases the property used for waste disposal has changed hands; 
in other cases the companies responsible for the problems are either 
no longer in business or do not have the resources to pay for cleanup 
of the sites. As I mentioned earlier. Section 7003 is often not effective 
in these situations. Further, certain of the sites operating today may 
very well be abandoned in the future. 

With regard to discharges of hazardous substances and oil. 
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act establishes a control program 
for certain of these incidents. For discharges into navigable waters. 


Section 311 provides for reporting of discharges, establishment of 
penalties, and liability limits, mitigation by the Federal Government, 
and a revolving fund to pay for mitigation. There are, however, 
limitations to the use of Section 311. First, Section 311 is limited 
to a discharge or substantial threat of such discharge into navigable 
waters. Thus, spills which threaten or contaminate, for example, 
soil or air, but not surface water, are not addressed by Section 311. 
This jurisdictional limitation prohibits the application of Section 311 
to most hazardous waste disposal sites and all spills into other than 
navigable waters. Second, Section 311 is only applicable to designated 
hazardous substances. A discharge of a substance not designated under 
Section 311 would not be covered by the section's revolving fund. 

A second limitation relates to the size and nature of the 311(k) 
fund. The 311(k) fund was established at $35 million and currently has 
approximately $5 million. It is appropriated originally and maintained 
by any funds received by the Government under Section 311 and additional 
appropriations. As I described earlier, estimated costs for 
remedy of hazardous waste problems range from $3.6 - $44.1 billion. Even 
if the fund were somehow applicable to the bulk of hazardous waste 
disposal sites, the size limitation on the 311 fund would preclude its 
use in most cases. 

The emergency powers provision of Section 504 of the Clean 
Water Act is another relevant authority for addressing hazardous 
materials and waste. Although it does not have the jurisdictional 


problems associated with Section 311, Section 504 is authorized at 
only $10 million, which might be inadequate for even a single abandoned 
site. Furthermore, Section 504 has no cost recovery provision. It must 
rely totally on appropriations. The Administration has not requested 
funds, and the Congress has not funded this section. 

In summary, there are existing provisions of statutes which EPA 
administers which apply to parts of both the hazardous waste and 
hazardous substances and oil spill problems. Taken together, however, 
these provisions are inadequate to solve the environmental and social 
problems caused by improper hazardous substances and waste management. 

EPA is presently working with other Federal agencies on an 
approach to solving hazardous materials management problems. Our 
current thinking is that a comprehensive scheme to address environmental 
problems of hazardous wastes in abandoned sites, hazardous substances, 
and oil is necessary. We believe that to the extent feasible such a 
scheme should be compatible with the government's emergency response 
program under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. 

We believe that environmental problems from oil and hazardous 
substance spills and hazardous wastes from abandoned sites raise 
complex questions of cleanup, damages, compensation, and government 
response which are interrelated. In addition, these types of incidents 


frequently occur together. As a result, we believe that the public 
interest would best be served by a comprehensive approach to the problem 
of hazardous materials incidents. 

With regard to financing the fund, we believe that the burden of 
responding should be upon those who have benefited and those connected 
to commercial practices involving the substances in question. Difficult 
issues involving equitability among parties contributing to the fund 
and collection and administration of such a fund must be resolved. 
We expect to develop reconmendations on how to establish and administer 
the fund and to forward a legislative proposal to Congress in May of 
this year. 




Information Dossier 78.1 
Noveniber 1, 1978 

Toxic Substances Ccxjrdinating Unit 

Division of Pure V.'aters 

htew York State Department of Envircnn;ental Conservation 

50 Wolf Road 

Albany, New York 12233 


statement of the Problem 

The Love Canal is a 16-acre fcelow ground-level daup containing both 
municipal and chemical waste. It is located in the southeast corner of the 
City of Iliagara Falls (Niagara Coujity) close to the Miagara River. Houses 
built close to the durip site after duir^ping stopped are now suffering from 
chemical leach^te intrusion into hisenients. A school has been built close 
to the site. In addition, chemical wastes, includLng the insecticide 
lindane, have been found exposed on the surface of the dump. Both the leachate 
intruding into liome basen;ents and exposed chemicals on the land surface are 
a potential p'oblic health hazard. 

Extent of the Problem 

During the 1890 's the dump site was excavated as part of a proposed canal 
linking the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. When the canal was abandoned 
the excavation was used as a dump site for chemical wastes by Hooker Chemical 
and Plastics Corporation over a period of 25 to 30 years. Municipal wastes 
were also placed in the excavation by th£ City of Niagara Falls. After 1953 
the dump was covered with earth and sold by Hooker to the City of Niagara Falls 
Board of Education. The ownership of the site is currently shared as follows: 
City of Niagara Falls - 5.58 acres; City of Niagara Falls Board of Education - 
3.53 acres; and L.C. /'xmstrong - 5.38 acres. The southern and northern sections 
of the site are borden-d by single family homes while the middle section is 
totxlerod by a gr, minnr school. 

Tlie soil sLrata surrounding tli'^ wastes arc rour.hly as follows: 
to U-5' silts and fine of low pxTrii/^ability 
U-6' to 19-2G' silts and clays of very lov; pomrability 
•40' + liiKGtonc bedrock 


An excavation that does not roach bedrock in such soil will act like a 
bathtub and gradually fill with water. When chemical waste is present the 
water dissolves or solubilizes sorr.e of these chemicals and floats others 
contained in oils to the surface, ^^/hen the water eventually overflows 
(either over the surface or through the cracked and porous upper 6 feet of 
the ground) the cheiricals are carried along with the water. 

This is apparently what has happened at the Love Canal site. The water 
entering the duirp has mixed with the chemical wastes and overflowed into 
adjacent property and ciround the basement walls of many homes. The chemicals, 
carried by the overflow waters, are drawn into basement sump pumps where 
chemical vapors then enter the basem.ents or the contaminated water permeates 
the basem.ent walls directly thirough cracks and pores. The contaminated water 
from the sumps is pumped into the storm sewer system where it is conveyed 
directly to the Niagara River. 

During the period in which the canal was used by Hooker the original 
canal excavation was dug out in places to an unkno'-m depth and expanded 
latterly in other places. 

Measurement of the air in selected basements shows that numerous 
chlorinated organic chemicals and benzene are present in the basements at 
levels of 1 ug/m and higher, y^jnbicnt outside air near the landfill has teen 
louiid to have livels ol cjrtciin chTdrin.ilfal liydixDC. ifl-oii:: 0') L UviL in dov;n- 
town Niagara Falls. / 

Alttiough c\ ii'liilcatn'TTT^e'Tnov.ii 1o bo Icavinf, th-- r.ilc via nnrfiicc ruhoCf 
and evaporation the jToi.sibility cxIdLs that they iruy also be contanui-sating the 
groundwater in the bed:v>ck 40 feet b'C.'low the surface. 


Health Effects 

The KYS Department of Health has carried out epidemiological 
studies of Love Canal area residents as well as extensive analysis 
of air in basements of homes in the inner and outer ring of houses. 
The evidence of a significant excess of miscarriages in residents living 
in certain places near the CcU-'al together with other health-related 
findings led the Commissioner of Health to proclaim a tiealth eiiergency 
on August 2, 1978. 

Environmental Effects 

The primary environmentc^J. concern is the extent and pathways 
of leachate escape from the Canal. In addition to bearing on the 
extent of health-related problems in the Love Canal area, leachate leaving 
the site either through natural or man-made paths such as sewers, culverts, 
or road bc-ds, will eventually end up in the Niagara River where chemicals 
could, as happened with mirex, accumulate in the Lake Ontario biota. 

The near-surface movement of leachate has been documented but the 
extent of this irovement has not yet been completely established. The 
possibility that chemicals are leaching into the deep groundwater in the 
bedrock hi:j been iiive::;Li;>iti ■ 1 by DLC. Arulyccs of the dcri) gtxDundwatcr 
Gug^'.est such ion tvu'' not occurred. 

M^air.ement Status 

Ihie Comnis.'.ioncr of Health's August 2, 1978 order declaring a health 
eir.ergency also required, among other things, tliat the remedial action for 
the southern section of the Car-al proposed by Cones toga-Rovers Inc., 
consultants to the City of Niagara Falls, bo implcmentcl under the suf.^rvision 


of DEC but only after the plans had been approved by the Commissioner of 
Ihvironraental Conservation. Such approval has been given and actual 
construction of the leachate drainage systen for the southern section has 
started. The rer.edial action consists basically of a French drain system 
to intercept leachate, a granular carbon treatment system to remove toxic 
chemicals frcra the leachate before it is discharged to the Niagara Falls sewer 
system, and a clay cover over th/e site to cut down further water infiltration. 
After the remedial action has been completed on the southern section, 
construction will move to the central and northern sections. 

The following actions have taken place: 
1. Kost of the residents have been evacuated from the inner two rings of 

houses and relocated. 
2- The area has been fenced, and on the southern-third, haul roads have been 

constructed, test holes are being dug along the proposed drain lines, 

and a ground radar and magnetometer survey to better define the extent 

of the fill has been completed. 

3. An extensive soil and sump sampling program is underway to define more 
precisely the extent of leachate migration from the site. 

4. The EPA portable activated carbon treatment unit and portable 
laboratory arc at the site to treat leachate produced during construction 
and until a liore penrvuicnL treatment system am be built. 

5. Epidemiological testing is continuing. 

6. Thie groundv;.itcr levels in the three deep wells will continue to he 
monitor-xl, ai^J a fourth well will be placoJ so that groundw^iter movement 
under the site ain be better defined. 

Congress Kts appropriated $4 i;'illion in funds to l>e nutcb.ed by the State 
for a den'o::Gtration grant that will pay for rorncdial actions, field studies 


related to the remedial actions, ard a monitoring program to evaluate the 
effectiveness of the remedial actions. 

For core information, contact: 

Mr. Charles Goddard 

Division of Solid V'aste 

NYS Departm.ent of Environmental 

50 Wolf Road 
Albany, New York 

(518) 457-6505 








Report prepared by: 


Roger C. Herdman, M.O., Director 

Low CirMi Hwhh Coordinator 

Glenn E. Haughie, M.O. 

Dflpuiv Director of Public Health 
Love Canel Deputy Coordinator 

LaVerne E. Campbell. M.D. 

Buffalo Regional Public Health Director 
Chief Environmental Invastigvtor 

David AlexfOd, M.D. 

Director, Division of Laboratories & Research 
Chief Epidemiological Inveslt^tor 

Nicholas Vianna, M.D. 

Director, Bureau of Occupational Health & Chi 



William Hennessy, Department of Transportation 
Governor'! OHice Rapresanlstive 

Jeffrey Sachs, D.D^. 
State Agency & Community Relations Coordirutor 

Cora Hoffman 
OnSiie Teak Force Coordinator 

Michael Cuddy, Department of Transportation 

Member Agenciaa: 

Department of Transportation 

William Hennessy, Commiisioner 
Department of Health 

Roben P. Whalen, M.D., Commissioner 
Department of Environmental Conservation 

Peter A.A. Berle, Commissioner 
Department of Social Services 

Barbara Blum, Commissioner 
Division of Housing and Community Renevwl 

Victor Marrero, Commissioner 
Department of Banking 

Muriel Siebert, Superintendent 
Department of Insurance 

Albert 8. Lewis, Superintendent 
Division of Equalization and Assessment 

David Gaskell, Executive Director 
Office of Disaster Preparedness 

Arnold Grushky, Deputy Director of Civil Defense 

State of New York 

Hugh L. Carey 


Department of Health 

Robert P. Whalen, M.D. 


To Governor Hugh L. Carey 

and Members of the 

New York State Legislature 

In accordance with Chapter 487 of the New York State Laws of 1978, I hereby 
submit to you a Special Report on the Love Canal crisis. 

The profound and devastating effects of the Love Canal tragedy, in terms of 
human health and suffering and environmental damage, cannot and probably will 
never be fully measured 

The lessons we are learning from this modern-day disaster should serve as a 
warning for governments at all levels and for private industry to take steps to avoid 
a repetition of these tragic events. They must also serve as a reminder to be ever 
watchful for the tell-tale signs of potential disasters and to look beyond our daily 
endeavors and plan for the wellbeing of future generations. 

We must improve our technological capabilities, supplant ignorance with 
knowledge and be ever vigilant for those seemingly innocuous situations which may 
portend the beginning of an environmental nightmare. 

The issues confronting our citizens and their elected and appointed leaders in the 
Love Canal situation are unprecedented in the State's health annals. We can be 
proud of the swift and compassionate response to the crisis by our leaders and the 
agencies they direct in easing the plight of those affected and removing the hazards 
to their health and safety. 

Under Governor Carey's personal direction, State agencies moved with dispatch 
to deal with a variety of complex problems associated with the Love Canal. The 
Governor asked President Carter to declare the area eligible for Federal disaster 
assistance - a request which was granted - and enlisted and received the support of 
Senators Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Jacob Javits, Congressman John LaFalce and 
others m Washington in expediting the approval of Federal assistance. 

Assemblymen Matthew J. Murphy and John B. Daly of Niagara Falls and their 
colleagues in the New York State Legislature richly deserve the praise of New 
Yorkers for their bipartisan efforts in passing legislation proposed by Governor 
Carey authorizing $500,000 for the State Health Department to conduct long-range 
health studies and in granting me the additional authority necessary lo direct local 
governments to correct the problems in a timely fashion. 

This report embraces the major activities of the various government entities 
involved in identifying and dealing with the problems encountered. 

It also describes in some detail the findings of intensive health studies. 

As we proceed, we will be continually asking ourselves if we are following the 
right course. Yet, history will be our judge as future scientists and government 
leaders, armed with better information and greater technological know-how, will 
assess the fruits of our endeavors, benefitting from our precursor experience, to 
deal more effectively with future potential Love Canals. 

For the present we must continue to pursue with the same vigor and dedication 
that has prevailed over the last several months, the long-range health studies 
necessary to learn more about the risks associated with human exposure to toxic 

We cannot undo the damage that has been wrought at Love Canal but we can 
take appropriate preventive measures so that we are better able to anticipate and 
hopefully prevent future events of this kind. 

With these observations in mind, I respectfully submit this report to you. 

Robert P. Whalen, M.D. 
Commissioner of Health 


Love Canal: 
A Brief 

• • • Love extensively 

promoted his model city 

through ads, circulars and 

even brass bands playing 

his "original" ditty. 

In 1 836, a U.S. Government engineer surveyed the Niagara County area, looking 
for a possible -site for a ship canal to connect the lakes Erie and Ontario. He 
reported that Lewiston, New York, by virtue of its location on the Niagara River at 
the base of a 300-foot escarpment, not only was an excellent place for a ship canal, 
it also had excellent potential as a source of cheap water power. 

Despite many public pronouncements over the years, nothing came of the 
engineer's report until May of 1892, when a man named William T. Love arrived in 
Niagara Falls. Love came to town with a long-held dream: to build a carefully 
planned industrial city with convenient access to inexpensive water power and 
major markets. 

Mr. Love proposed to construct a navigable power canal between the upper and 
lower Niagara Rivers which would service a massive industrial complex and thereby 
provide the matrix for his dream city. The site he chose is approximately seven to 
eight miles northeast of Niagara Falls. Water transportation was afforded directly to 
the site by the lower Niagara River and Lake Ontario. Within a radius of 
one-hundred miles there was a population of over two million people. 

The heart of Love's plan was a power canal that would connect the upper and 
lower levels of the Niagara River. With a canal only six or seven miles in length, 
water could be conveyed to the Niagara Terrace, from which there was a drop of 
over 300 feet to the lower level. 

He could create immense water power on his townsite by virtue of the fall the 
water would take, and water power was the cheapest available means of power 
generation. At the time, it was essential that power users be located near the source 
as it was virtually impossible to transmit electricity over any great distance. 

By January of 1893, Love felt he had enough prominent people in favor of his 
idea to publicly announce his plan for a model city which would accommodate up 
to 600,000 people. He claimed before he could advance his plan further he would 
need control of 10,000 acres. Over the space of a few months, he managed to buy 
or secure options on 20,000 acres and began actual detailed laying out of the site. 

Obviously a man of considerable energy and charisma. Love came to Albany, 
where he personally poUticked for a law that would charter his newly founded 
company. He became only the second private citizen in history to address a joint 
session of the State Senate and Assembly. After his bill passed. Love met privately 
with Governor Roswell Flower, who not only signed the legislation but also issued 
glowing testimonials about the project. 

The charter granted to Love's company, appropriately dubbed the Modeltown 
Development Corporation, stands today as one of the most liberal ever granted any 
private developer. He had the authority to condemn properties and to divert as 
much water from the upper Niagara River as he saw fit, even to the extent of 
turning off Niagara Falls! 


I Tune of Yankee Doodle) ^ 

Every body's come to town. 

Those left we all do pity. 

For we 'II have a jolly time 

At Love 's new Model Gty. 

; (Chorus). 

If you get there before I do 
Tell 'em I'm a comin ' too 
To see the things so wondrous true 
At Love's new Model City. 


They 'r building now a great big ditch 

Through din and rock so gritty, 

'twill make all very rich 

Who live in Model Gty 

is true I ^^ 

ttv ^^^ 


This tale I tell is no less 
Though in a silly ditty. 
They give free sites and power too 

In Love 's new Model Gty. ^ 

(Chonts) »/♦ ^^ 

Our boys are bright and well-to-do 

Our girls are smart and pretty 

They can not help it nor could you 

If you lived in Model Gty. 


Then come and join our earnest band 

All who are wise and witty. 

Here 's our heart and here 's our hand 

To build the Model Gty. 


Armed with his newly won charter, Love quickly lined up backing from financial 
giants in New York City, Chicago and England. In October of 1893, the first 
factory on the townsite was opened for business. In May of 1894, work on the 
canal was begun. Steel companies and other manufacturers lined up for the chance 
of opening plants along the Love Canal. 

Everything was looking extremely good for Love and his project when the 
country suddenly found itself in the middle of a full-scale economic depression. 
Money and backing began to slip away from William Love and his Model City. 

Louis Tesla delivered the coup-de-grace. Tesla discovered a way to transmit 
electrical power economically over great distances by means of an alternating 
current. No longer was it necessary for industry to locate near the source of 
electrical power. Love's project was dealt a death blow. 

His backers deserted him, and the last of the property owned by his corporation 
was subjected to mortgage foreclosure and sold at public auction in 1910. 

The sole surviving monument to William Love and his Model City was a partially 
dug section of canal in the southeast corner of the City of Niagara Falls. For several 
decades of the Twentieth Century, this portion of the canal reportedly served as a 
swimming hole for children living in the LaSalle section of the city. 

But in the 1920's the excavation was turned to a new and ominous use. It 
became a chemical and municipal disposal site for several chemical companies and 
the City of Niagara Falls. Chemicals of unknown kind and quantity were buried at 
the site for a 25-30 year period, up until 1953. After 1953, the site was covered 
with earth. 

In the late 1950's homebuilding began directly adjacent to the Love Canal 
landfdl. Over a period of time about 100 homes were built and an elementary 
school was opened. 

Thus were sown the seeds that became the human and environmental disaster we 
know today as Love Canal. 

And Then The Rains Came . . . 

Love Canal is a name which until recently was relegated to the back pages of 
history along with the unspent dreams of a visionary for whom it is named. 

Today, more than three-quarters of a century later, this 16-acre rectangular piece 
of land, located only a few miles from the world-famous waterfall which each year 
attracts thousands to the honeymoon mecca of Niagara Falls, has again become the 
focus of international attention, but not as the centerpiece for a dream city. 

Instead the center of attention is an ominous array of chemicals buried within 
the boundaries of the unfinished canal for more than 25 years - toxic ingredients 
which are infiltrating scores of nearby homes, posing a serious threat to human 
health and upsetting the domestic tranquility of hundreds of families living in this 
middle class community. 

Situated only a few blocks from the Niagara River in the residential southeastern 
section of the highly industrialized but tourist-oriented city, the Love Canal 
problem began to surface in recent years as chemical odors in the basements of the 
homes bordering the site became more noticeable. This followed prolonged heavy 
rains and one of the worst blizzards ever to hit this section of the country. 

Thus began a series of events and momentous decisions involving city, county. 
State and Federal governments to cope with what can only be described as a major 
human and environmental tragedy without precedent and unparalleled in New York 
State's history. 

Described as an environmental time bomb gone off. Love Canal stands as 
testimony to the ignorance, lack of vision and proper laws of decades past which 
allowed the indiscriminate disposal of such toxic materials. 

The consequences of these transgressions are mirrored by the planned exodus of 
235 families and the public monies and herculean efforts which now must be 
expended to contain the disaster and restore a degree of normalcy to the lives of 
those affected. 

For those responsible for containing the problem and for government leaders in 
New York State and throughout the nation. Love Canal represents what may very 
well be the first of a new and sinister breed of environmental disasters. 

• • • advances in 
electrical technology 
ended Love's dream. 

• • •toxic chemicals 
dumped in the Canal 
begin invading homes 



• The Love Canal is a rectangular, 16-acre, below-ground-level landfill located in 
the southeast corner of the City of Niagara Falls, Niagara County, about 
one-quarter mile from the Niagara River. 

• In 1970, the population of Niagara Falls was 85,615. 

• Manufacturing, particularly of chemical and allied products, is the major 
industrial enterprise of the county and city. According to 1970 data of the New 
York State Department of Commerce, nine major chemical-producing companies 
employing a total of 5,267 people were then located in the county. 

• The Love Canal landfill is bordered on two sides by single family homes with a 
pubhc elementary school separating the northern and southern sections of the 

• In July, 1978, in the homes immediately adjacent to the landfill there were 
resident 97 families composed of 230 adults and 134 children. During the 1977-78 
school year, 410 students were enrolled at the school. 

• At this writing, scientific analyses have identified 82 different chemical 
compounds at the landfill, of which one is a known human carcinogen and 1 1 are 
known or presumed animal carcinogens. 

44-978 O - 79 - 

Infra-red aerial photo of Love Canal area, showing 
elementary school in center and two rings of homes 
bordering the landfill site. White patchy areas visible 
in photo indicate barren sections where vegetation 
will not yow presumably due to leaching chemical 




• • • priority given 

to testing basement 

air samples 

The State Departments of Health and Environmental Conservation in the early 
spring of 1978 launched an intensive air, soil and groundwater sampling and 
analysis program following qualitative identification of a number of organic 
compounds in the basements of 1 1 homes adjacent to the Love Canal. 

The new data collected by the two agencies confirmed not only the presence of 
a variety of compounds but established precise levels for many of the chemical 
constituents. It became immediately apparent from the data that the problem was 
not limited to a few homes and that a potential health hazard existed from long 
term exposure to the chemicals. 

Based on this latest information, the Commissioners of Health and 
Envirormiental Conservation instructed their respective staffs to explore every 
remedy available to the State to protect the public's health and safety. 

The two commissioners along with local officials inspected the site on April 13, 
1978 Based on their personal observations and the recommendations of public 
health specialists in the Health Department, Dr. Whalen, on April 25, 1978, 
officially termed the Love Canal ". . .an extremely serious threat to the health and 
welfare. . ." and ordered the Niagara County health commissioner to immediately 
undertake remedial measures to remove visible chemicals and restrict access to the 
site and initiate health and engineering studies. 

Commissioner Whalen's order set into motion a coordinated plan of attack by 
local. State and Federal agencies to further delineate the nature and extent of 
environmental and public health hazards. 

Public health concerns prompted the Health Department to give priority to 
evaluating basement air samples from all homes contiguous to the Canal, before 
ground and surface water samples, to minimize the risk of chemicals entering the 
human body by inhalation 

As data flowed in, it became evident that unacceptable levels of toxic vapors 
associated with more than 80 compounds were emanating from the basements of 
many homes in the first ring directly adjacent to the Love Canal. (See Figure I) Ten 
of the most prevalent and most toxic compounds — including benzene, a known 
human carcinogen - were selected for evaluation purposes and as indicators of the 
presence of other chemical constituents. 


rflfcrfltrfl ft^fc^^ft^ft^fc^^^fc^ft^ft^fc^^^ft^^ft^^ftrf^fc^^^^ft^^fc^^^^^^^fc^^^^^^^^^^^fc^^^^^^^^^^H 


NO. 99 










> air contamination 
greater in first 
ring of fiomes 

I • • tests indicate 

further migration 

of chemicals 

Air samples were taken in rooms on the first floor of several homes in the first 
ring. The data showed, however, that vapors had infiltrated beyond the basement in 
only one case (the residence which had the highest readings of all basements 

Scientists concluded: 

1) Outside surface contamination and overt signs of basement contamination 
were greater in the southern portion of the landfill site, but air quality data 
suggested no such clear distinction. 

2) Although homes with a poured concrete foundation had lesser 
contamination than homes with block foundations, no correlation between air 
quality and the use of sump pumps, with or without covers, was apparent. 
Armed with additional information showing the extensive contamination of 

homes directly adjacent to the Canal, Commissioner Whalen ordered an extension 
of basement air sampling to include homes across the street from the Canal — 
approximately 138 residences. The preliminary basement air data indicate much 
lower levels of selected contaminants compared to the first ring, both in the 
number of compounds and the concentrations present. (See Table 1 1 

A further comparison of air samples from the first two rings of homes indicates 

* 55 percent of ring 2 homes were free of chemical contamination as 
compared to only 5 percent of homes in ring 1 ; 

* 30 percent of ring 2 homes showed the presence of only one chemical as 
compared to 16 percent for ring 1 ; 

* 1 5 percent of ring 2 homes showed the presence of only two chemicals as 
compared to 40 percent for ring 1 ; 

* 3 percent of ring 2 homes showed the presence of three chemicals as 
compared to 30 percent for ring 1 ; 

* Only ring 1 homes showed the presence of more than three chemicals - 7 
percent had 4 chemicals and 5 percent recorded 5. 

The five chemicals monitored were chloroform, trichloroethene, tetra- 
chloroethene, chlorobenzene and chlorotoluene. 

The full extent of migration of chemical leachate is being determined (as this 
report is being prepared) by extensive analyses of soil samples, shallow wells and 
sump drains at intervals extending in all directions beyond the Canal. A review of 
results for a small number of soil samples taken in mid-August from areas near 93rd 
and 95th Streets suggests migration of chemicals, including lindane and toluene, 
outside the immediate Canal area. This information was transmitted to the Chief of 
Toxic Substances for Region II of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on 
August 23, 1978, reiterating our recommendation that remedial action be 
undertaken immediately to prevent fiiture contamination of private property and 
additional human exposure to unacceptable health risks. 

It should be restated that basement air samples taken from homes in the 
outlying area have thus tar shown significantly lower levels of contaminants as 
compared to the first ring of homes, both in numbers of compounds and 
concentrations present. 

As part of the State Health Department's investigation, radiological health 
specialists conducted a scan of the Canal surface for radioactivity and found three 
spots - all within the Canal's boundaries - where radiation levels slightly exceeded 
normal background radiation jctivity Additional samples were being taken at 
various depths to ascertain the source of the radioactivity. It should be emphasized 
that the radioactive readings found did not exceed safe levels and are not hazardous 
to health. 

Hydrogeologjcal analyses of deep groundwater aquifers are being conducted in 
the Canal area but sufficient information is not yet available to permit any 
definitive conclusions. 

An agreement also has been worked out with Environment Canada - Canada's 
national environmental protection agency — to bring in its air sampling field 
laboratory. The unit, the most sophisticated mobile system available for air 
evaluation, has a 50-foot detector which can be brought into each home and 
provide on-the-spot results. 




JUNE-AUGUST, 1978 (microgram$/m3) 


Totat of 5 


North 97th 
Ring 1 
North 99th 
Ring 1 
North, Total 

No. Lowest Highest 

Houses Value Value Median Mean 

393 17 67 

142 9.5 29 

393 .12 47 

Ring 2 





% with 




Ring 1 
South 97th 






South 9»th 






South, Total 






Ring 2 
North 97th 





Ring 2 
North 99fh 





Ring 2 
North, Total 





Ring 2 
Central 97th 






Ring 2 
Central 90th 





Ring 2 
Central, Total 





Ring 2 
South 97th 






Ring 2 
South 99th 





Ring 2 
South, Total 









Governor Hugh L. Carey discusses 
Love Canal problems with Lois Gibbs, 
president of the Love Canal 
Homeowners Association, during the 
first of several visits the Governor 
made to the site. 

Karen Schroeder, who lives in the 
first ring of homes bordering the 
landfill, pours out black chemical 
sludge taken from ground surface near 
the 99th Street Elementary School. 



At the direction of Dr. Robert P. Whalen, State Health Commissioner, the 
Health Department's Bureau of Occupational Safety and Chronic Disease Research 
dispatched teams of investigators to the Love Canal area on June 19, 1978 to begin 
a house-to-house health survey of the 97 families living immediately adjacent to the 
landfill. A 29-page questionnaire, seeking information on present and past health 
status, family, social, occupational and residential history, was developed for use by 
health department interviewers. 

Based on preliminary analysis of data collected from these families, the survey 
was expanded to include all residents living within a four block radius of the landfill 
site. As of August 20, 1978 medical investigators had spent 13,000 man-hours 
interviewing residents and had obtained detailed health histories from all persons 
residing in 250 houses in the Love Canal area. 

To contact persons who once lived on the Love Canal but subsequently moved 
to other areas, a nation-wide toll-free hotline was established on August 14 and 
publicized in major news media outlets throughout the country. During the first 
four days of the hotline's existence 256 calls were received from people now living 
in 30 different states, 100 of whom identified themselves as prior Love Canal 

In addition, with the assistance of technical staff from Roswell Park Memorial 
Institute (the Health Department's cancer research and treatment center in 
Buffalo), blood samples were drawn from more than 2,800 persons living in the 
Niagara County area. Due to public interest and concern, additional blood sampling 
clinics were scheduled for various locations throughout Niagara County to assure 
that samples were obtained from all persons with past associations with the Love 
Canal who wished to be tested. 

The ultimate goal of the Health Department's long-range epidemiologic 
investigation is to obtain a detailed health profile of all persons who presently or 
ever lived near the Love Canal landfill to determine whether these individuals are at 
higher risk for acute and/or chronic health disorders. 

HUMAN TOXICITY OF CHEMICALS: To date, more than 80 chemical 
compounds have been identified in the landfill by the Health Department's Division 
of Laboratories and Research and the U.S. Envirormiental Protection Agency 
(EPA). Eleven of these are known or suspected of causing cancerous growth in 
laboratory animals, and one - benzene - is a well-established human carcinogen. 


> • nation-wide hotline to 
contact former residents 

• 2,800 blood samples taken 



• • • four health 

indicators selected 

for initial study 

Following is a list of some of the more important chemicals identified at the 
Love Canal site and the human biologic hazards associated with them. 





Skin irritant 

Acute leukemia 
Aplastic anemia 
Chronic lymphatic 

Lymphomas (probable) 


Narcosis (more powerful 
than benzene) 

Anemia (possible) 
Leukopenia (possible) 

benzoic acid 

Skin irritant 



High white cell counu 


Central nervous 

Skin irritant 
Liver damage 

Paralysis of fingers 
Respiratory and cardiac 

Visual defects 


Skin irritant 



methylene chloride 

Anesthesia (increased 
carboxy hemoglobin) 

Respiratory distress 

carbon tetrachloride 

Rertal damage 

Liver tumors (possible) 


Central nervous narcosis 
Skin irritant 
Respiratory irritant 
Gastrointestinal symptoms 

As can be seen from this list, virtually all of man's physiologic systems can be 
pathologically influenced by exposure to chemicals identified to date at the Love 
Canal site - a list which must be viewed as incomplete since the types of chemicals 
dumped into the landfill and the chemical reactions which may have occurred over 
time cannot be fully documented. 

PRELIMINARY DATA ANALYSIS: Based on current knowledge about the effects 
of certain chemical agents on the human body, Health Department researchers 
initially selected four health indicators for assaying potential human toxicity in the 
Love Canal area: miscarriages, birth defects, liver function and blood mercury 
levels. Complete blood counts also were performed because of the established 
chronic toxic effects of benzene on blood cells. 

Miscarriages and birth defects are considered prime indicators of human toxicity 
since recent studies in developmental pharmacology estabUsh that the prenatal 
period is characterized by a unique susceptibility to certain chemical agents. In 
addition, several known or suspected teratogens (producers of physical defects in 
fetuses) have been identified among the chemicals dumped in the Love Canal area. 



Liver function, as determined through blood analysis, was chosen as a factor for 
immediate investigation because current experimental studies suggest that many of 
the chemical agents identified at the site may play a role in development of cancer 
or direct injury to the liver. Analyses of the 2,800 blood samples taken to date have 
been completed and all individuals have been notified of test results via their private 
physicians. No conclusions relative to residence on the Canal can be drawn at this 
time with regard to the significance of minor abnormalities detected. Efforts will be 
made to confirm and more fully investigate abnormal test results. 

Since mercury is an established teratogen and is readily identifiable in blood 
samples, blood mercury determinations were conducted on some area residents 
during the early investigative stage. Results of all mercury tests performed were 
within normal Umits. 

The initial epidemiologic investigation was based on historical information and 
blood test results from the ninety-seven families in the first ring of homes bordering 
directly on the Love Canal site. The families comprised 230 adults (18 years of age 
or older) and 134 children. General health information was obtained from 97 
percent of the adults and 92 percent of the children. 

MISCARRL\GES AND BIRTH DEFECTS: For the purposes of the analysis all 
women in the study population who had ever been pregnant were categorized as to 
their present area of residence on the Love Canal (northern or southern section); 
and the pregnancy histories of these women were compared prior to and following 
their move to the Canal area. 

All reported birth defects were confirmed through medical records, and the past 
medical and drug histories of the mothers were evaluated for possible confounding 
influences. Reported miscarriages also were confirmed through private physicians' 
and hospital records. 

Miscarriages per 100 pregnancies and birth defects per 100 Uve births were 
calculated. As indicated in Table I, the percentage of miscarriages and birth defects 
was higher for pregnancies occurring on the Love Canal, particularly among women 
living in the southern Canal section 


Pregnancy History of Females 
Prior to and During Residence on the Love Canal 

History on Canal Prior History 

Present Resident Area Present Resident Area 
South North South North 

Number women ever pregnant 
Total number pregnancies 
Number women with miscarriages 
Total number miscarriages 
Total number live births 
Total number stillbirths 
Children with malformations 
Sets of twins 

Mean Age at first pregnancy 
Percent women with miscarriages 
Miscarriages per 100 pregnancies 
Children with malformations 

per 100 live births 
Expected number of twins 

Because maternal age and birth order (1st, 2nd, 3rd pregnancy etc.) can 
influence the frequency of miscarriages, Health Department researchers calculated 
the expected number of miscarriages among pregnancies occurring on the Love 
Canal, based on the womens' ages and number of pregnancies reported. As 
















































• • pregnancy history of 
women compared before 
and after moving to site 



• • • women living in 

southern section show 

highest risk for miscarriages 

and birth defects 

indicated in Table II, tlie relative odds ratio for miscarriages among women living 
on the Canal was 1 .49, or nearly one and one-half times the expected rate vrithin 
the general population. 


Maternal Age and Number of Miscarriages (Observed and Expected*) 
Among Residents of the Love Canal 


Number of 

Relative Odds Ratio 

Maternal Age 







< 20 


























All Ages 77 

* BasedonWarburton and Fraser: "Spontaneous Abortion Risks in Man: Data 

from Reproductive Histories Collected in a Medical Genetics Unit." Human 

Genetics Vol, 16, No. 1, 1964, Page 8. 

A more detailed breakdown of this data by residents of the northern and 
southern Canal sections indicated that the highest frequency of miscarriages (up to 
3.45 times the expected frequency for women ages 30-34) occurred among 
residents of the southern Canal section. 

Investigators next examined groups of women living in the four naturally 
defined geographic sections of the Canal: 99th Street north, 99th Street south, 
97th Street north and 97th Street south. As indicated in Table III, more than twice 
the anticipated number of miscarriages (2.08) occurred among women living in the 
99th Street south section. There were no significant differences between the 
observed and expected distributions for the other sections. 

To examine the possibihty that women living on 99th Street south might have 
more frequent miscarriages for reasons unrelated to their residence on the Canal, 
Health Department investigators examined the observed number versus the 
expected number of miscarriages (by maternal age and birth order) for this group 
prior to moving to the Love Canal area. No significant differences were observed. 

If the higher frequency of miscarriages is related to chemicals leached from the 
Canal over a period of many years, researchers hypothesized that women living in 
older homes or those living on the Canal for the longest time period might represent 
the highest risk population. Investigators therefore examined the age of houses, the 
age of women who had ever been pregnant since Uving on the Canal, and their 
duration of residence at the site. 

This analysis showed that the average age of pregnant women was comparable 
for residents of both 99th and 97th streets. However, the houses located on 99th 
Street, especially those in the southern section, were found to be the oldest and the 
average duration of residence on the Canal was longer for 99th Street women. 

These findings led investigators to compare the average duration of residence on 
the Canal for all women with and without miscarriages. They found that women 
with miscarriages had resided on the Canal an average of 18.58 years versus an 
average length of residence of 11.52 years for those without miscarriages. The 
difference between these two means is statistically significant, representing a chance 
occurrence probabihty of 4 in 1 ,000. The data also indicated that this occurrence 
was not apparently due to differences in age or number of pregnancies reported by 
the women. 

Table IV provides information on the documented birth defects of five children 
bom on the Love Canal. As was true for miscarriages, there appears to be a 
concentration of malformations on 99th Street. 



Although further investigation obviously will be required, data analyzed to date 
seems to suggest that the rislc for miscarriages and birth defects might be localized 
in 99th Street, particularly the southern section. Researchers are now examining 
the possibility that this phenomenon may be related to the higher concentration of 
benzene (a known inhibitor of cell division) found in the southern Canal section. 

Based on preliminary epidemiologic investigations, the Commissioner of Health 
recommended immediate relocation of all pregnant women and all children under 
two years of age from the Lxjve Canal area. He also ordered delayed opening of the 
99th Street elementary school which is situated in the central Love Canal section 


Maternal Age and Number of Miscarriages (Observed and Expected*) 

Among Residents of Four Specified Areas of the Love Canal 


99th. South 

99th. North 

97th. South 

97th. North 









. Exp. 



. Exp. O/E 












0.106 - 












0.281 - 












0.968 - 












0.391 - 












0.486 4.12 

All Ages 











2.232 0.90 

Chi Square 

: P= 





* Based on Warburton and Fraser: Spontaneous Abortion Risks in Man; Data from Reproductive 
Histories Collected in a Medical Genetics Unit. Human Genetics Vol. 16, No. 1, 1964, page 8. 

obs - observed exp. - expected Q/E - Observed/expected 

Relative Odds Ratio 


Documented Congenital Malformations Among Children 

From the Love Canal 

Type of Malformation 

Date of Birth 

Location Radiation 

(North, during 

South Canal) pregnancy 

Cleft palate, deformed 
ears and teeth, 
hearing defect, mental 
retardation, heart 

99th Street 


Abnormalities of renal 
pelvis and reflux 

99th Street 

Mental retardation F 


97th Street 

Congenital deafness 

99th Street 


99th Street 



Reloc3tion of 

William Hennessv, Commissioner, 

Department of Transportation 

Chairman, Governor's Love 

Canal Task Force 



Well before completion of the Department of Health's preliminary assessment of 
the scope of the health hazard posed by the Love Canal leachate, the Ck)vernor's 
Office began making preparations to mobilize the expertise and resources of key 
State agencies, including the Departments of Transportation, Health, 
Environmental Conservation, Housing, Social Services, Banking, Insurance, Office 
of Disaster Preparedness and Division of Equalization and Assessment. An initial 
step was a market survey by Department of Transportation real estate experts to 
determine availability of temporary and permanent replacement housing and to 
estimate the cost of relocating Love Canal residents and purchasing their homes. 

The day after Commissioner Whalen's August 2 declaration that a medical 
emergency exists, interviewers from the regional offices of the Department of 
Transportation and the Department of Social Services opened a relocation 
assistance office at the 99th Street School - center of the stricken area. 

Priority was given to securing temporary housing for families with children 
under two years of age and pregnant women. Some 41 top priority families were 
identified in the first two "rings" of homes - the 235 properties nearest the former 
canal bed. 

Following Governor Carey's visit to the area on August 7, teams of interviewers 
began visiting homes to expedite the process of gathering the personal information 
needed to match families with available housing. By August 10, the scope of the 
relocation effort reached its present dimension with the decision to offer to 
relocate and purchase the homes of aU 235 families in the first two rings. 

Appraisal of properties which the State will offer to purchase, was begun August 
15 by a team of Department of Transportation real estate appraisers, with purchase 
negotiations expected to begin within two weeks. The Urban Development 
Corporation will become the owner of the properties. 

At this date, the relocation effort is well advanced with some 136 families having 
accepted alternative housing. Of these, about 85 have already moved out of their 
canal area homes. 

Following issuance of Health Commissioner Whalen's August 2 order, the 
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) assumed overall responsibility 
for reviewing remedial engineering plans at the Love Canal. 

Specifically, DEC would: 

• Provide onsite supervision of construction activity at the Love Canal site; 

• Assist the Niagara County Board of Health in its mandate to abate the public 
health nuisance at the site; 

• Consult with the Niagara County Health Department, the State Department of 
Health and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop a 
long-range engineering solution; 

• Review the cleanup actions proposed by the county in the consultant report by 
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, which proposed the construction of a tile drainage 
system in the southern section of the Love Canal site; DEC also must give final 
approval to the detailed design and engineering plans; 

• Review and approve plans to minimize hazardous exposure during 

• Conduct additional studies, in cooperation with the State and County Health 
Departments and the City of Niagara Falls, to define the boundaries of the Love 
Canal landfill; to measure, through continued air, water and soil sampling, the 
extent to which contaminated waters have moved away from the site; to determine 
the extent of groundwater aquifer contamination; and to determine the 
effectiveness of the proposed drainage system to contain and remove the 
contaminated groundwater from the site. 

WORK UNDERWAY; Since August 2, 1978, DEC engineers and geologists have 
worked with representatives of the City of Niagara Falls and Conestoga-Rovers & 
Associates to review and improve the proposed short-term cleanup plans. 

The major changes made in the plans were to dig the proposed drainage trench in 



the backyards surrounding the chemical disposal site rather than into the landfill 
site itself, and to extend the tile drains to include the northern and central sections 
of the Canal as was suggested in the plan first submitted to the city on June 13. The 
Department of Environmental Conservation wanted to avoid disturbing the buried 
chertucals and accidentally releasing toxic substances into the environment, to 
protect the healtli and safety of workers and area residents. 

EARLIER INVOLVEMENT: The Department of Environmental Conservation's 
concern over the Love Canal situation dates back to September of 1976 when DEC 
engineers visited the site to investigate the Hooker Chemical and Plastics 
Corporation's suspected discharge of the chemical mirex. Through the fall of that 
year, basement sumps and storm sewer water samples were taken and discussions 
were held with the chemical firm about previous dumping at the site. 

In January 1977, at the strong urging of DEC, the City of Niagara Falls hired a 
consultant to conduct a hydrogeologicai investigation of the site and to develop a 
conceptual pollution abatement system. The report was completed by Calspar 
Corporation of Buffalo in August 1977 and was reviewed by DEC staff. 

Preliminary work indicated the need for more intensive investigations. In 
October 1977, DEC sought the assistance of the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency in conducting an expanded study of the groundwater pollution. In 
February 1978, the City of Niagara Falls hired the consulting firm of 
Conesto^-Rovers to develop the groundwater pollution abatement plan. 

SOILS AND GROUNDWATER: A cross-section of soils at the site shows that the 
top 4 to 6 feet of soil is moderately permeable; beneath thai is 30 to 40 feet of 
highly impermeable day; and 40 feet below the surface is limestone bedrock. The 
pollutants move easily through the top layer of soil, which has allowed the 
contamination to infiltrate the basements. Although the pollutants probably don't 
move in the lower tight clay soils, the pollutants may be leaking to the bedrock, 
which contains a supply of groundwater. 

INTERIM CONSTRUCTION PLAN: The proposed interim plan is designed to 
prevent more water from soaking into the chemical waste disposal area, described as 
an overflowing bathtub; halt the outward flow of chemicals seeping into the upper 
groundwaters around the landfill; and reverse the flow of these groundwaters away 
from the surrounding basements and back toward the Canal. 

The project consists of a drain tile collection system and a new, impervious clay 
cover which will prevent any more surface water from entering the Canal, (see 
Figure 2). This will accomplish two things: lower the groundwater levels in the area 
and prevent further precipitation from entering the Canal. In this way, the present 
surface runoff and leachate, which is in the upper soils, will be contained, and the 
contaminated waters will flow back lo the drain system 

The underground tile drainage system will be put through the adjacent 
backyards to collect the contaminated groundwaters. To avoid disturbing chemicals 
in the landfill, the trench lines will be dug in the backyards about 40 feet from the 
houses and well away from the Canal edge and waste disposal area. The drain tile 
system consists of an 8 inch perforated pipe surrounded by gravel. 

The drains will be 7 to 12 feet below the surface sloped to drain to pumping 
stations. From there, the leachate will be pumped into a holding tank, then to a 
special treatment system on (he site. This treatment is expected to remove more 
than 99 percent of all the organic chemicals of concern from the leachate, and 
produce a high quality water before it is discharged to the city's sanitary sewers and 
then to the City of Niagara Falls treatment plant. Asa backup, a tank truck loading 
station will be built so thai leachate can be hauled to another treatment facility. 

The trenches will be dug using a trench box or sleeve, which will hold the 
sidewalls in place Only enough trench to install a length of pipe will be opened at 
any one time, and then will be backfilled when the pipe and graded porous fdl are 
in place. This will minimize the amount of contaminated soil exposed to the 

Peter A. A. Berle, Commissioner, 
Department of Environmental 




Soils excavated during construction will be handled as if they are highly 
contaminated. The soils will be covered immediately with a plastic sheet to prevent 
vaporization of gases from within the soils. After construction of the leachate 
collection system, the site will be covered with at least three feet of highly 
impervious clay. The clay cover will be contoured to direct all rainfall into surface 
drains leading away from the site. In this way, only a small amount of rainfall will 
percolate through the chemical waste and become contaminated. 

The work, described here, involves the southern third of the Canal site. While 
this work is being done, engineering plans for continuing the tile drain system along 
the other two-thirds and for building the clay cover will be prepared. These plans 
also will be reviewed by DEC staff, other agencies involved and concerned citizens. 

LONG-TERM REMEDIAL PLANS: Critical to the design of long-term remedial 
plans will be the test results from three monitoring wells which are now being 
drilled into the bedrock in the land adjacent to the canal. The wells will be sampled 
to determine whether contamination has spread to the deep groundwater aquifer. 
Once the aquifer has been sampled and the effectiveness of the drain tile system is 
measured, DEC engineers will determine if additional steps are necessary for 
long-term cleanup of the canal. 

OTHER D^VESTIGATIONS: Environmental Conservation Commissioner, Peter 
Berle, also has initiated an investigation of the wastes in the Love Canal, and other 
disposal sites in Erie and Niagara Counties to find out what chemicals are buried, 
who IS responsible for dumping the wastes, and whether other closed chemical 
landfills pose potential hazards to human health or the environment. 

The investigation will be carried out jointly by staff of the State Departments of 
Health and Environmental Conservation, under the direction of a hearing officer 
with the power to issue subpoenas and require disclosure of relevant documents. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE LEGISLATION: New York State adopted legislation in 
July, 1978, giving the Department of Environmental Conservation full regulatory 
authority over the generation, transportation, treatment and disposal of hazardous 
wastes in the state. While DEC had the soUd beginnings of such a program, the 
"cradle-to-grave" provisions of the Industnal Hazardous Waste Management Act 
enable the State to control hazardous wastes from their generation to their disposal, 
and thereby prevent the creation of future "Love Canals". 








A comprehensive safety plan is being developed to protect workmen, residents 
and the pubUc during construction at the Love Canal site. The plan will be designed 
to guard ag3inst and provide emergency procedures for all possible hazards incident 
to the construction project, such as gas leaks, chemical spills, fires and dust. 

An onsite safety officer, representing the State Commissioner of Health, will 
have final responsibility for safety at the worksite and initiation of protective 
measures in the surrounding community. 

Development and implementation of the safety plan is being coordinated by the 
New York State Department of Health with the advice and assistance of numerous 
governmental agencies and community groups, including the Love Canal 
Homeowners Association, the State Office of Disaster Preparedness, State 
Departments of Transportation and Environmental Conservation, American Red 
Cross, Niagara County Civil Defense unit, state, county and city police 
departments, Niagara County Fire Department, local hospitals and ambulance 

While the plan is still in the preliminary stages and subject to modification, the 
provisions outlined below will provide some indication of the scope of safety 
precautions to be taken during the construction period. 

SECURITY & COMMUNICATIONS: Two-way radio communications will be 
maintained at all times between the worksite and the safety command post to be 
estabUshed at the 99th Street school building. A direct hotline to the fire dispatch 
office at the Public Safety Building will be installed at the command post. 

All vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the worksite will be restricted, with 
twenty-four hour patrols to maintain security. Contractor personnel will sign in and 
out daily, and all visitors will be required to check in at the command post to 
receive identification, safety indoctrination and equipment. The immediate work 
area will be fenced and posted at all times. 

PERSONAL HYGIENE & SAFETY: Prior to commencement of duties at the 
worksite, all workmen, site representatives and emergency personnel will receive a 
physical examination and an intensive safety indoctnnation program. Washing 
facilities will be provided at the worksite and all personnel will be required to 
shower and change clothing before leaving the work area. 

Workmen will wear safety glasses and protective clothing, including rubber 
^oves and boots which must be washed daily to remove chemical residue. If 
necessary the safety officer may mandate use of special equipment such as plastic 
face shields and respiratory protection. Rotation of workmen may be necessary to 
avoid excessive or prolonged exposure to contaminants. 

MONITORING: The State Health Department will establish an onsite monitoring 
and sampling program to assure that workmen are not exposed to unacceptable 
levels of contamination. On-line analytical equipment will be installed to detect 
flammable concentrations of gases and toxic concentrations of specific chemicals 
known or believed to be present. The monitoring system will be equipped with an 
alarm which must be audible throughout the work area. 

EMERGENCY EVACUATION: In the unlikely event of such need arising, a 
comprehensive evacuation plan is being developed to provide maximum protection 
for the resident population adjacent to the worksite. The area and distance out 
from the worksite to be evacuated will be determined by periodic readings and 
evaluations of wind/weather data. The evacuation plan will be coordinated by the 
New York State Office of Disaster Preparedness and the Niagara County Civil 
Defense unit with the cooperation of the American Red Cross and state and local 
police, fire, and medical services. The onsite Health Department Safety Officer will 
have final authority to initiate an evacuation order. 

Household surveys will be conducted by the Red Cross and the Love Canal 
Homeowners Association to determine any physical limitations of the 
approximately 500 people living in the four block area sunounding the work area. 

Safety Plan 

• • • access to worksite 
will be restricted 

• • • numerous agencies 
to cooperate in 
safety program 



Homes with occupants who are other than fully ambulatory will be identified with 
a front door marker, and a "Neighbor Help" program will be developed to assure 
evacuation assistance to physically disabled residents. 

Buses will be used for evacuation, with pickup locations clearly marked 
throughout the evacuation area. Evacuation maps and instructions wiU be 
distributed to all residents and media outlets in the vicinity. 

Detailed plans for traffic control, fire support and emergency medical care will 
be developed and coordinated with state and local service units including police, 
fire departments, ambulance services and hospitals. Four police vehicles equipped 
with public address systems, an ambulance and a fire pumper with crew will be 
stationed at the worksite during all work hours. 

Congressman John LaFalce. 
who has spearheaded efforts on 
the federal level to deal with the 
Love Canal problem, answers 
reporters' questions at the 99th 
Street School. 

One of hundreds of Love 
Canal families begin packing 
their belongings in preparation 
for evacuation to other housing. 


44-978 0-79 


April 13- Health Commissioner Robert P. Whalen and Enviioiunental 
Commissioner Peter A.A. Berle personally inspect Love Canal site after State Health 
Department ascertained a potential health hazard may exist. 

April 25- Dr. Robert P. Whalen, State Health Commissioner, says conditions at site 
represent serious threat to health and welfare and orders county health 
commissioner to remove exposed chemicals, install fence to restrict access, initiate 
immediate health studies and take other appropriate measures to protect health of 
residents and correct the environmental problems. 

April 26- Top staff of State Health and Environmental Conservation Departments 
meet in Albany with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency representatives to map 
out a plan to attack the Love Canal problems in terms of protecting the public's 
health and removing the environmental hazards. 

May 1 1 - Commissioners Whalen and Berle convene meeting to explain State's plans 
for Love Canal to elected officials and representatives of State legislative leaders in 
anticipation of proposed legislation. 

May IS- U.S. Envirormiental Protection Agency concludes from air samphng of 
basements that levels of toxic vapors suggest a serious health threat. 

May IS- State officials meet with Love Canal residents at 99th Street School to 
provide them with information on the state's plan. 

May 19- Health Department toxicologist meets with residents to explain hazards 
from exposure to toxic chemicals. 

May 21- State Health Department reveals plan to conduct short and long-term 
medical studies involving residents of the Love Canal area. 

June 13- State officials meet a^in with residents and local officials to discuss 
implementation of the Conestoga-Rovers engineering plan as an interim corrective 

June IS- State Budget, Health and Environmental Conservation officials and the 
Niagara County health commissioner meet with representatives of the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency and Research Triangle Institute, consultants to 
the E.P.A., to share information and obtain advice relating to environmental health 
studies at the canal. 

June 19- State Health Department medical investigators begin house-to-house 
health survey of residents Uving in first ring of homes and also collect blood samples 
for laboratory analysis. 

Week of June 2S- State Health Department's Division of Laboratories and 
Research collects air samples outside the homes contiguous to the Love Canal site. 

June 28- Pentagon officials repeat their denial of any knowledge of records 
pertaining to possible disposal of U.S. Army wastes in the Love Canal at a meeting 
in Washington 

July 7- Health Department researchers issue results of analysis of air samples 
collected fiom basements and other rooms of homes showing high level of toluene, 
chlorotoluene and chloroform. 

July 14- Commissioner Whalen convenes meeting in Albany of all interested 
parties to report on epidemiologic findings and air sampling and to discuss the 
various engineering studies proposed. Attending were representatives of the State 





Health and Environmental Conservation Departments, State Division of the Budget, 
Niagara County health department. City of Niagara Falls, Hooker Chemical 
Company, Congressman LaFalce's office and Fred Hart Associates and 
Conestoga-Rovers Associates, consultants to EPA and Niagara Falls City 

July 19- State health officials conduct public meeting at 99th Street School to 
keep residents informed of State findings and actions to date. 

July 20— Governor Carey signs legislation granting additional emergency powers to 
the State Health Commissioner to deal with the Love Canal problem and 
appropriating $500,000 in State funds to conduct long-range health studies. 

July 31- Commissioner Whalen convenes six-hour meeting at LaGuardia Airport of 
nationally prominent experts in toxicology, epidemiology, and industrial hygiene to 
present State's findings and seek recommendations and review of further actions to 
protect the public's health and correct the environmental problems. 

August 1- Commissioner Whalen orders extension of house-to-house health survey 
to include residents within surrounding blocks and also announces plans to trace 
individuals who had Uved in the area over the last 30 years. 

August 2- Representatives of interested parties who met July 14 called to Albany 
by Commissioner Whalen for further update of State's actions. 

August 2- Commissioner Whalen, acting under additional authority granted him by 
the new legislation, declares a state of emergency exists at the Love Canal site and 
issues order to Niagara County, City of Niagara Falls, and Niagara Falls School 
District reaffirming previous directives, issuing new orders including closing of 99th 
Street school pending completion of corrective construction, and making a series of 
recommendations includmg evacuation of pregnant women and children under two 
years of age living in homes in the first two rings. 

August 2- Governor Carey directs his staff to explore what means of assistance 
may be available to help individuals affected by Commissioner Whalen 's August 2 
order and appoints an inter-agency task force to assist residents under the personal 
direction of WQliam Hennessy, State Commissioner of Transportation. 

August 3- Governor Carey directs his staff to explore all forms of possible Federal 
assistance and telegraphs President Carter requesting Federal aid; enlists support of 
Senators Jacob Javits and Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Congressman LaFalce for 
legislative action to deal with the Love Canal situation. 

August 3- Thomas Frey, Director of State Operations, Commissioner Whalen, and 
other State officials meet with 600 homeowners at Governor's request and assures 
those forced to evacuate that State will pay for their housing. 

August 3- Governor Carey directs his special inter-agency task force to find 
housing for families iirunediately affected by Dr. Whalen 's order; directs that State 
Banking Department work with local banks to prevent foreclosure on homes and 
calls on banks to be flexible in their policies to help affected homeowners meet 
unforeseen financial responsibilities. The Governor also directs the State Division of 
Equalization and Assessment to prepare emergency legislation which would allow 
for evaluation and reduction of property taxes until the health emergency has been 
resolved; the State Insurance Department is directed to provide technical assistance 
to the homeowners to help assure they receive full benefits from their insurance 



August 4- Governor's Task Force opens relocation and health offices at 99th 
Street School seven days a week to assist residents. 

August S— William H. Wilcox, director of the Federal Disaster Assistance 
Administration, accompanied by State officials, tours Love Canal site and promises 
an array of Federal assistance. 

August 7- Governor Carey goes to Niagara Falls and tells residents that State 
Government will purchase homes identified by the task force as affected by the 
Love Canal chemicals. 

August 7- President Carter approves emergency financial aid for Love Canal area. 

August 7— U.S. Senate approves by voice vote a "sense of Congress" amendment 
saying a serious environmental disaster had occurred and that Federal aid should be 

August 9— State officials meet at the White House with representatives of the 
President, Congress, and Federal agencies to discuss aid for Love Canal. 

August 9- Love Canal residents at a meeting in the 99th Street School receive 
message from Governor Carey that State has decided to evacuate all 236 families 
living on both sides of 97th and 99th Streets. 

August 10- State Health Department's chief medical investigator meets with group 
of Niagara Falls physicians to outline medical findings and assist the physicians in 
evaluating their patients' conditions. 

August 14- State Health Department installs nationwide toll-free hotline to trace 
former residents of the Love Canal area. 

August IS- Governor Carey visits the Love Canal site to assure residents that a 
safety plan will be in place for the residents as well as the workers. 

August 18- State Health Department medical investigators and technicians from 
Roswell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo complete two weeks of drawing blood 
samples from more than 2,200 area residents, bring the total to more than 2,800 
persons since testing began in June. 

August 22- Installation of an 8-foot high chain hnk fence around the second ring 
of homes begins, preparatory to the start of corrective construction. 

August 29- 98 Love Canal families have been evacuated as of this date while 46 
others have found suitable temporary housing and are ready to move. Task Force 
relocation staff is working with 91 remaining families. 




Love Csnal 




June 22. 1978 

Introduced by COMMITTEE ON RULES— read once and referred to the 
Committee on Ways and Means 

AN ACT to amwid th« puUie hutth law, in rtlation to tht study and 

alitviatiofl of tha hazard of toxk tubstancas from certain iandfiii sites and 

makini an appropriation tharafor 

The People of the Slate of New York, represented m Seruile arid Assembly, do 
enact as follows: 

Section 1 Article thirteen of the public health law is hereby amended by 

adding a i 

Section 1385- 

title twelve, to read as follows: 
Legislative intent. 
Duties of the commissioner. 

Powers of the commissioner; emergencies. 

10 i 1386. Legislative intenL Sites formerly operated as landfills to dispose of lone 

1 1 substances are exposing the citizens of the state to unnecessary hazards, the duration 

12 and extent of which is unknown. To develop a plan for the alleviation of these 

13 conditions, it ta necessary to conduct a study to determine the extent of such hazards. 

14 The potential hazard believed to exist at a specific landfill site m the county of 

15 Niagara, has precipatated the need for immediate action to authorize the department 

16 of health to undertake such study and to conduct a pilot program to evaluate the effect 

17 of individual corrective systems in affected residences 

18 I 1386 Duties of the commissioner. The commissioner of health shall conduct a 

19 study of both the long arid the short term effects of health hazards associated with 

20 exposure to toxic substances emanating from certain landfills. 

21 § 1387 Contracts The commissioner of health is authorized to enter into 

22 contracts and agreements with individuals, corporations and municipalities to 

23 perform the study herein directed to alleviate the specific hazard to which the general 

24 public or members thereto may be exposed as the result of toxic substances emanating 

25 from landfills. 

26 I 1388. Powers of the commiaioner; emergencies. In case of great and imminent 

27 peril to the health of the general public from such hazards as may be identified as 
A. 13149 

1 resulting from exposure to toxic substances emanating from landfills, the 

2 commissioner may declare the existence of an emergency and lake such measures and 

3 do such acts as he may deem reasonabtn necessary and proper for the preservation 

4 and protection of the public health 

5 § 1389 Reports The commissioner of health shall make an initial report to the 

6 governor and the legislature on or before September fifteenth, nineteen hundred 

7 seventy-eight of his progress and a further report to the governor and the legislature on 

8 or before September fifteenth, nineteen hundred eighty-one. 

9 § 2 Appropriation The sum of five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000), or 
10 80 much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated to the department 
n of health from any moneys in the state treasury in the general fund to the credit 

12 of the state purposes fund not otherwise appropriated, for itj expenses, including 

13 personal service, maintenance and operation, in carrying out the provisions of 

14 this act. Such moneys shall be made payable out of the state treasury after audit 

15 by and on the warrant of the comptroller upon vouchers certified or approved 
IS by the commissioner of health. 

17 § 3 This act shall take effect immediately 

EXPLANATION-Maner ,n 'falici <i n«w. maiter in bracheti 1 ) >1 old law to W om,tliKJ 








I, ROBERT P. WHALEN, M.D , Commissioner of Health of the State of New 
York, pursuant to the statutory authority conferred upon me, having conducted or 
caused an extensive investig3tion to be conducted in relation to that certain site 
known as the "Love Canal Chemical Waste Landfill" located in the City of Niagara 
Falls, County of Niagara, and State of New York, and having determined, by 
previous orders made and issued by me in this matter, that said site constitutes a 
public nuisance and an extremely serious threat and danger to the health, safety 
and welfare of those using it, living near it, or exposed to the conditions emanating 
from it, consisting, among other things, of chemical wastes lying exposed on the 
surface in numerous places and pervasive, pernicious and obnoxious chemical 
vapors and fumes affecting both the ambient air and the homes of certain residents 
living near such site and having directed that certain remedial action be taken with 
respect thereto and, pursuant to my order and direction, further inquiry and 
investigation of the said Love Canal Chemical Waste Landfill site having been made; 

NOW, THEREFORE, based upon epidemiological studies made by personnel of 
the State Department of Health and air quality sampling and studies made by 
personnel of both the Stale Department of Health and the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency of both the ambient air and selected homes at or 
near the site, and upon a review and examination of matters contained in Calspan 
Report No. ND-6097-M-I prepared for the City of Niagara Falls by the Calspan 
Corporation of Buffalo, New York; a review and examination of the 
Conestoga-Rovers and Associates proposal, entitled "Proposal -Love Canal 
Chemical Landfill-Niagara Falls, New York - Site Study and Preliminary Design of 
Ground Water Pollution Abatement Plan," commissioned by and presented to the 
City of Niagara Falls; and a review and examination of a report entitled, "Phase I - 
Pollution Abatement Plan - Upper Groundwater Regime" prepared by 
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, jointly commissioned 
by the City of Niagara Falls, the City of Niagara Falls Board of Education and the 
Hooker Chemical Corporation; and, further, upon a review and due consideration 
of discussions held and reports submitted at a meeting held in the Conference 
Room, Division of Laboratories and Research, State Health Department, on June 
15, 1978, attended by representatives of the State Health Department, the State 
Department of Environmental Conservation, the United States Environmental 
Protection Agency, the State Division of the Budget, the Commissioner of Health 
of the County of Niagara and by representatives of the Research Triangle Institute, 
consultants to the U.iited States Environmental Protection Agency, which such 
meeting was convened to share information and obtain advice in relation to 
environmental health studies planned by the Department of Health with respect lu 
the Love Canal Chemical Waste Landfill site; and, further, upon a leview and due 
consideration of discussions held and reports submitted at that certain meeting held 
on July 14, 1978 in the 14th floor conference room. Empire State Plaza Building, 
Albany, New York, attended by representatives of the State Department of Health, 
the State Department of Environmental Conservation, the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Board of Health of Niagara County, 
including the Niagara County Health Commissioner, the City of Niagara F-'ls, 
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates, Fred Hart & Associates, consultants to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, and by representatives of United States 
Congressman John LaFalce, and New York State Assemblymen Matthew Murphy 




• • • serious threat and 
danger to residents 



• • • Commissioners of 

Environmental Conservation 

and Health visit site 

> used for disposal of 

cfiemical wastes for 

25 years 

> 97 families living in 

houses adjacent 

to site 

and John Daly; and, further, upon a personal visit made to the Love Canal Chemical 
Waste Landfill site on April 13, 1978 by me in company with Peter Berle, State 
Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, and others, and upon all other 
proceedings, reports and discussions heretofore held herein and considered with 
respect to the Love Canal Chemical Waste Landfill site, including information that 
between the period 1940 and termination of the Korean War, that the Department 
of Army deposited chemical wastes in said Love Canal landfill site. 


1. The Love Canal is a rectangular, 16 acre, below ground level landfill site 
located in the southeast comer of the City of Niagara Falls, Niagara County, New 
York, known as the "La Salle" area, with the southernmost portion of the site 
about 1/4 mile from the Niagara River near Cayuga Island. 

2. The site is bordered on the north by Colvin Boulevard; on the south by 
Frontier Avenue; on the west by 97th Street; and on the east by 99th Street. 

3. The southern and northern sections of the site are bordered by single family 
homes on 97th and 99th streets, while the middle section is bordered by a grammar 

4. In the late 19th Century the site was excavated as part of a proposed canal 
project linking the Niagara River and Lake Ontario. 

5. The Love Canal project was abandoned and never completed and the 
abandoned canal subsequently was used as a chemical and municipal waste disposal 

6. The Hooker Chemical Company, Niagara Falls, New York, used the site for 
the disposal of drummed chemical wastes, process sludges, fly ash, and other 
wastes, for a period of nearly 25 years, from on or about 1930 to on or about 

7. The City of Niagara Falls, New York, also used the site for the disposal of 
municipal wastes for many years prior to and including 1953. 

8. In or about 1953, the site was covered with earth and sold by the Hooker 
Chemical Company to the Board of Education of the City of Niagara Falls, New 

9. The City of Niagara Falls Board of Education subsequently sold part of the 
site to others. 

1 Ownership of the site is currently shared as follows: 

City of Niagara Falls - 6.58 acres 

City of Niagara Falls - Board of Education - 3.53 acres 

L.C.Armstrong - 5.98 acres 

11. There are presently 97 families with 230 adults and 134 children living in 
the houses adjacent to the northern and southern sections of the Love Canal. 

12. The basements of homes bordering the site are now suffering from toxic 
chemical waste leachate intrusion from the site. 

13. The grammar school on the site has no basement, but a crawl space only, 
however, the possibility of standing water next to classroom windows provides a 
mechanism for the transportation of and exposure of the school children to toxic 

14. The soil strata surrounding and underlying the wastes, generally, consists of 
silts and fine sands of low permeability in the levels 4 to 6 feet below the surface; in 
the next levels 19 to 26 feet below the surface, the soil is silts and clay of very low 
permeability; the next level to about 40 feet below the surface consists of compact 
loamy glacial till of low permeability; and the level 40 feet more or less below the 
surface consists of limestone bedrock. 

15. The clay strata acts as a barrier and creates a perched groundwater 

16. Leachate containing both halogenated and unhalogenated organic 
compounds migrates in the top soil layer and is the conduit by which it reaches the 
basements of homes adjacent to the site. 

17. More than 80 chemical compounds have been identified at the site itself. 



18. Air samples taken in the basements of 14 houses adjacent to the site by the 
United States Environmental Protection Agency in February 1978 resulted in the 
identification of 26 organic compounds. 

19. Air samples to monitor 10 selected compounds were taken by the Division 
of Laboratories and Research of the State Health Department in July 1978 from 
the basements of 88 houses peripheral to those built adjacent to the landfill site 
with the following results: 













24 ugln-r 




270 ug/m^ 




73 ug/m^ 




570 ug/m^ 
1 140 ug/m^ 







240 ug/m^ 




6700 ug/m^ 

m+p xylene 



73 ug/m-' 







74 ug/m-' 

20. Seven of the chemicals identified in the air samples taken by the Division of 
Laboratories and Research are carcinogenic in animals and one, benzene, is a known 
human carcinogen 

21. In one home, in particular, the concentration of organic chemicals in the 
living space was well beyond the concentrations measured in the basement of any 
other house. 

22. An epidemiologic study to determine whether residents presently living 
adjacent to the Love Canal are at increased risk for certain disorders was conducted 
by the Bureau of Occupational Health of the State Health Department in June 
1978, utilizing spontaneous abortions and congenital defects as indicators of 
potential toxicity. 

23. Based upon information obtained relating to maternal age, pregnancy order, 
and number of spontaneous abortions observed and expected among females 
residing in different sections of the Canal, the mean ages of females ever pregnant at 
the Love Canal, the duration of residence, and the mean age of the houses, the 
following was determined: 

(a) A slight increase in risk for spontaneous abortion was found among all 
residents of the Canal and for the northern and southern sections, with the 
overall estimated risk 1.5 times greater than that expected. 

(b) A significant excess of spontaneous abortions was localized among residents 
of 99th Street SouUi 

(c) The miscarriage experience in the 99th Street North and 97th Street North 
and South sections approximated that which could be expected. 

(d) A significant excess of spontaneous abortions occurred during the summer 
months of June througli August. 

(e) Congemtal malformations were found among 5 children of adults presently 
residing on the Love Canal, with the distribution being 3 children from 99th 
Street South, I chUd from 99th Street North, and 1 child from 97lh Street 

(0 The mean ages of females ever pregnant on the Love Canal were comparable 

for 97th and 99th Streets. 

(g) The average duration of residence on the Canal for 99th Street females was 

16.5 years and 10 8 years for the 97th Street females. 

(h) The mean ages of the houses located on 99th Street South was 26 years, for 

99th Street North 21.6 years, for 97th Street North 18.6 years, and for 97th 

Street South 13.6 years. 

• • air samples reveal 

high level of toxicity 

in basements 

• • • increased risk of 
spontaneous abortion and 
congenital malformations 



• • • indepth health 

and environmental 

studies ordered 

• • pregnant women 

and small children 

recommended to 

vacate site as 

soon as possible 


1. A review of all of the available evidence respecting the Love Canal Chemical 
Waste Landfill site has convinced me of the existence of a great and imminent peril 
to the health of the general public residing at or near the said site as a result of 
exposure to toxic substances emanating from such site and, pursuant to the 
authority conferred upon me by Pubbc Health Law section 1388, enacted by 
Chapter 487 of the Laws of 1978, the existence of an emergency should be 
declared by me. 

2. That the Conestoga-Rovers report, subject to appropriate modification and 
approval by the State Department of Environmental Conservation, represents a 
feasible plan to halt the migration of toxic substances through the soil of the Love 
Canal site to the houses at or near such site. 

3. That the orders and directions heretofore given by me to the Niagara County 
Board of Health, and its Health Commissioner, to take certain remedial actions to 
alleviate the hazards emanating from the Love Canal site were reasonable and 
should be reaffirmed. 

4. That further studies should be made to: 

(a) delineate chronic diseases afflicting all residents who lived adjacent to the 
Love Canal landfill site, with particular emphasis on the frequency of 
spontaneous abortions, congenital defects, and other pathologies, including 

(b) delineate the full limits or boundaries of the Love Canal with respect to 
possible toxic effects; 

(c) determine, by continued air, water and ground sampling, the extent that 
leachate has moved out of the site to the surrounding neighborhood; 

(d) identify which groundwater aquifers, if any, have been contaminated by 

(e) determine the possibility of minimizing the introduction of noxious odors 
and chemicals by way of drainage from outside the homes and to consider the 
utility or feasibility of installing customized fans or the special venting of sumps. 


1. That the families with pregnant women living at 97th and 99th Streets and 
Colvin Boulevard temporarily move from their homes as soon as possible. 

2. That the approximately 20 families hving on 97th and 99th Streets south of 
Read Avenue, with children under 2 years of age, temporarily move from the site as 
soon as possible. 

3. That residents living in the vicinity assist local and State agencies in defining 
and abating hazardous conditions arising from the Love Canal landfill site. 

4 That residents living on 97th and 99th Streets avoid use of their basements as 
much as possible, thereby reducing their exposure to elevated levels of organic 
compounds present in the air of their basements. 

5. That consumption of food products home-grown by residents of 97th and 
99th Streets and Colvin Boulevard be avoided. 

6. That the Department of the Army continue the investigation initiated by it 
to determine the extent to which the United States Army was involved in chemical 
waste disposal at the Love Canal landfill site and inform the New York State 
Department of Health of significant findings obtained through its search of army 
archives and records, on-site inspections, or other sources utilized. 

7. That the Niagara County Medical Society cooperate with staff of the State 
Health Department and the Niagara County Health Department in any study 
undertaken to identify former residents of the Love Canal area to determine what, 
if any, chronic or adverse health effects they now exhibit; further that private 
physicians and the hospitals of Niagara County also cooperate with such staff; the 
physicians to assist in identifying and obtaining the necessary consents from such 
former residents and the hospitals with respect to supplying the necessary medical 




1. ANfD DECLARE, pursuant to the authority conferred upon me by ^^lblic 
Health Law, Section 1388, enacted by Chapter 487 of the Laws of 1978, the 
EXISTENCE OF AN EMERGENCY and direct that the measures herein ordered 
are deemed reasonably necessary and shall be taken for the preservation and 
protection of the public health, and by virtue of the limited emergency nature of 
the action immediately necessary, which is herein directed to be taken, that the 
requirements of the State Environmental Quality Review Act are not applicable, 
except that neither any long-range plans to decontaminate the site, nor the 
implementation thereof, shall be exempt from the req\iirements of such Act. 

2. The Niagara County Board of Health and the Niagara County Health 
Commissioner to take the following definite actions: 

(a) Take adequate and appropriate measures to cause the removal from the 
Love Canal Chemical Waste Landfill site of all chemicals, pesticides and other 
toxic material which lie exposed or visible on the surface of the site. 

(b) Take appropriate and adequate measures to Umit accessibility to the site 
by the installation of suitable fencing or other effective means, together with 
periodic surveillance and monitoring, to assure that access to the site is properly 
restricted or limited. 

(c) Take all other appropriate and necessary corrective action to abate the 
public health nuisance now existing at the Love Canal Chemical Waste Landfill 
site, including immediate steps to determine the feasibility of lowering the 
elevated levels of organic compound contamination in the air of basements by 
the moisture-proofing and venfing of such basements in cooperation with the 
New York State Departments of Health and Environmental Conservation. 

(d) Take all appropriate and necessary steps to undertake necessary 
engineering studies to provide a long-range solution to decontamination of the 
site In connection therewith, that consultation and cooperation of the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency, the New York State Department of 
Environmental Conservation and the New York State Department of Health be 
sought, and approval of the New York State Department of Environmental 
Conservation be obtained. 

(e) Inifiate, and periodically repeat, in collaboration with the State 
Department of Health such epidemiological studies as may be required to 
determine any excess morbidity or school absenteeism associated with proximity 
to the landfill site. 

(0 Make an initial report to me not later than 30 days from the date of 
service of this Order, concerning the progress made in implementing the orders 
and directions herein given, and thereafter report on the monthly basis as to 
such progress. 

3. The City of Niagara Falls and County of Niagara Board of Health shall 
forthwith take ail appropriate steps to implement the Conestoga-Rovers report 
entitled "Phase I Pollution Abatement Plan Upper Groundwater Regime," subject, 
however, to the approval of the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, and 
they are hereby directed to respond to requests made by the Department of 
Environmental Conservation for additional information in relation to said report. 

4. The City of Niagara Falls and County of Niagara Board of Health to report 
monthly as to progress in implementing the Conestoga-Rovers report. 

5. That the City of Niagara Falls and Niagara County Board of Health, provided 
they receive approval of the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation for the 
implementation of the Conestoga-Rovers report, shall develop suitable plans for the 
safety of the workers employed to do the necessary work to implement the plan 
and to minimize hazardous exposure to residents that may occur during the course 
of the work, including appropriate steps to maximize dust control and minimize 
airborne pollution; such plans shall be submitted to the State Department of Health 
for its review. 

6. That the City of Niagara Falls Board of Education temporarily delay opening 
the elementary school on the Love Canal site to minimize exposure of school age 

• • • Niagara County 
Board of Health 
ordered to take 
remedial action. 

• • • progress report 
ordered in 
30 days. 

> delay opening 
of school 



children to waste chemicals while corrective construction activities at the school 
take place. 

7 The Niagara County Department of Health and the City of Niagara Falls, in 
cooperation with staff of the State Department of Health, to undertake additional 
studies to: 

(a) delineate chronic diseases afflicting all residents who lived adjacent to the 
Love Canal landfill site, with particular emphasis on the frequency of 
spontaneous abortions, congenital defects, and other pathologies, including 

(b) delineate the full limits or boundaries of Love Canal with respect to 
possible toxic effects; 

(c) determine, by continued air, water and ground sampling, the extent that 
leachate has moved out of the site to the surrounding neighborhood; 

(d) identify which groundwater aquifers, if any, have been contaminated by 

(e) determine the possibility of minimizing the introduction of noxious odors 
and chemicals by way of drainage from outside the homes and to consider the 
utiUty or feasibility of installing customised fans or the special venting of sumps. 

8 That if monitoring shows that the levels of organic compounds in homes are 
not reduced to ambient levels at the expiration of 12 months following corrective 
construction, that a complete re-evaluation of the health hazards at the site shall be 
made by the Niagara County and State Health Departments agencies at that time. 

9. That this Order supercedes all other previous orders and directions heretofore 
made and issued by me In connection with this matter, except as may otherwise be 
specified herein. 


Commissioner of Health 
DATED: August 2, 1978 




A Special Report to the Governor and Legislature, September 1978 

Co-editors: Marvin G. Nailer, Frances Tarlton, John J. Cassidy 

Production Coordinator: Frances Tarlton 

Graphic Design: Gerard E. Mealy 

Composition: Eileen B. Rocco 

Editorial Assistance: Joan Harvey 

Art Assistance: Earl Strickland, Allen Michael McLaughlin 

Photo^aphy: Jan Galligan, Health Department Division of Laboratories 
and Research (cover) 

J. Goerg, Department of Environmental Conservation (p. 5) 
Reprinted with permission of the Niagara Falls Gazette 
(p. 10, 11, 16, 17,22) 

Requests for copies of this publication should be directed to: 

Office of Health Communications 
Room 1456, Tower Building 
Empire State Plaza 
Albany, New York 12237 




Date: Dec. 19, 1978 
To: Lois Gibbs, tove Canal Homeowners Association 

Elena Thornton, Love Canal Renters Association 
From: Dr. Beverly Paigen 

Subject: Miscarriages in Love Canal residents 

The State of New York Health Department examined the miscarriage 
rate in residents who lived along 97th and 99th Sts. and found a sig- 
nificantly elevated rate of miscarriage in those women. The State also 
examined the rate of miscarriage in women who lived between 93rd and 103rd 
Sts outside of the evacuated area and found no evidence of increased 
rate of miscarriage in these women. 

An examination of the data on which the State based its conclusions 
indicates that the miscarriage rate increased in both sets of women. 
For those who lived on 97th and 99th, the miscarriage rate before moving 
to Love Canal was 8.9%; the miscarriage rate after moving to Love Canal 
was 21%. For women outside the evacuated area the miscarriage rate 
before moving to Love Canal was 8.5%; the miscarriage rate after moving 
to Love Canal was 16.5%. 

The State made 3 errors in its examination of the data. First they 
failed to notice an apparent miscarriage rate lower than the expected 
rate calculated by the State in these women before they moved to the 
Canal . 

Table 1. Women living betweeen 93-103rd excluding 97th & 99th 


. observed expected observed expected 

miscarriages 61 98 

no miscarriage 653 616 

total pregnancies 714 714 

% miscarriages 8.5% 13.7% 







probability that the difference between observed and expected could 
have occurred by chance is less than 1/2 chance in 100 ( p < .005, 
chi square analysis) 


The difference between 37 observed miscarriages and 34.4 expected mis- 
carriages is not statistically significant. This is the information 
the State used to say that there was no increase in miscarriage rate. 
However, the observed 61 miscarriages before moving to the Canal is 
very significantly different from the expected rate of 98 miscarriages 
and indicates that women who had a significantly lower than expected 
miscarriage rate before moving to the Canal suddenly had an increased 
rate of miscarriage after moving to the Canal. Any scientist would 
have said that there was definitely a change in the pattern of miscar- 
riage rate before and after living on the Canal. At this point, a 
scientist should have questioned whether the calculations for expected 
rate of miscarriage were correct. 

The second error the State made was that they did not calculate 
the expected rate of miscarriages correctly. They used data from a 
Montreal population (Warburton and Fraser, 1964). This data base 
included miscarriages which were self-diagnosed by women and never 
reported to a doctor, yet the State counted only miscarriages that could 
be confirmed by physicians. The fact that the Montreal population is 
not appropriate for comparison should have been immediately apparent 
to a biostatistician since the miscarriage rate in Montreal was 14.7% 
and the miscarriage rate for Love Canal residents prior to living on the 
Canal was 8.5%, a statistically significant difference. 

The third error the State made was to ignore a striking piece of 
information in their data base. Women who have miscarriages in 3 or 
more pregnancies are very rare in the general population. The Montreal 
study quotes two other studies which give frequencies of 0.4% and 0.5%, 
although this will vary depending on the average family size in the 
population. Information gathered by Love Canal residents on women 
living from 100th to 103rd Sts . indicate that there are 7 women with 3 
or more miscarriages out of 187 women (3.7%) currently living in this 
area. (The percentage is actually higher since the homeowners counted 
all women and not just women who have had a pregnancy while living in 
the Canal area.) This number of women with 3 or more miscarriages is 
very high, much higher than expected. If the State had been carefully 
looking for evidence of increased miscarriage rate, they would have seen 
this striking fact immediately. 

Even more striking is that all 7 of these women who have had several 
miscarriages live along a swale. The State has said that it finds no 
evidence of increased miscarriage rate along swales. The data backing 
up that statement is not available to me so I cannot evaluate it. How- 
ever, the information gathered by residents indicates that miscarriage 
is increased along the swales and is probably even higher than the 
miscarriage rate in women living on 97th and 99th Sts. 

Reference: Warburton, D., and Fraser, F. C. Spontaneous abortion risks 
in man: Data from reproductive histories collected in a medical 
genetics unit. Am. J. Human Genetics 1_6: 1-25, 1964. 


Appendix : Statistical Notes 

It would have been more appropriate to use the women as their 
own control and compare miscarriage rates before and after moving to 
the Canal as follows: 







no miscarriages 







chi square =180 

p < .001 

The only disadvantage to the above method is that miscarriage 
rate does depend to some extent on the age of the mother and the 
number of previous pregnancies. To overcome this problem the State 
could have: 1) compared age and number of pregnancies before and 
after to determine if a correction was important, or 2) used the 
Warburton and Fraser data but adjusted it for the very different 
miscarriage rates between the 2 populations. To correct for a small 
difference (the age at pregnancy) by introducing a large difference 
(the miscarriage rate between the 2 groups) is simply not good science. 


Testimony Presented to the House Sub-coimiittee on Oversight & Investigations 

March 21, 1979 
by Dr. Beverly Paigen 
RoGwell Park Memorial Institute 


My name is Beverly Paigen. I am a cancer research scientist at 
Rosv/ell Park Memorial Institute in Buffalo, Kev/ York. Roswell Park 
is part of the Mew York State Department of Health. I have a Ph.D. 
in biology and my research interest is genetic susceptibility to envir- 
onmental toxins. I served on the Environmental Protection Agency's 
Toxic Substances Advisory Committee from 1977-1979. I currently serve 
on an Environmental Protection Agency group (the Carcinogen /^sessment 
Group) that makes quantitative risk assessments of hazards from cancer- 
causing chemicals. 

Summary of Health Effects 

The studies that I will present concern the health hazards e.xperi- 
enced by the people still living from one to five blocks from the Love 
Canal dump site. I will present information that leads me to conclude 
that toxic chemicals are presently migrating through the soil along 
the paths of old streambeds that once criss-crossed the neighborhood. 
Families whose homes border these old streambeds show an increase in 
several health problems including miscarriages, birth defects, nervous 
breakdowns, asthma and diseases of the urinary system. These studies 
have' led me to conclude that a minimum of 140 additional families should 
be evacuated immediately and evacuation may need to be extended to as 
many as 500 more fam.ilies. In addition, the results raise questions 
about whether the presently planned remedial construction to prevent 
further outflow of toxic wastes is adequate. 


Originally, the State of Hew York investigated miscarriages and 
birth defects in the residents living in rings 1 and 2 immediately 
surrounding the Love Canal and concluded that both v;ere increased. 
On the basis of this they declared a liealth emergency and evacuated 239 
families from rings 1 and 2. The residents left behind living in the 
area from one to five blocks from Love Canal also felt that birth defects 
and other diseases were higher than should bo expected in their neigii- 
borhood. Those residents began collecting information in an informal 
way on diseases in the nelcjhborhood and olottinc these on a map. The 
diseases seemed to cluster in particular areas of the neighborhood. 


Older residents suggested that the clusters seeded to follow the path 
of old streambeds that had intersected the Love Canal many years ago 
and had been filled v;hen houses were built. At this point the resi- 
dents contacted me for help since I am known locally as an environmental 
scientist. I discussed with area residents how to collect health infor- 
mation in a scientifically acceptable way. They put aside all the 
information they had gathered and started making a systematic phone 
survey to each home, collecting information about the number of persons 
in each family, the length of time they had lived in the Love Canal 
area, and the health problems experienced by the family. More than 
75% of the homes cooperated in the survey. This information provided 
the data base I used. I should point out that this survey suffers 
from several problems. First, a layperson reported diseases to a 
layperson and some of the people involved may not understand the true 
nature of their illnesses. Second, both the people reporting and the 
people collecting the information have a vested interest in the outcome 
and there may be over- reporting of disease. And third, I did not have 
any resources so I could not verify independently the reports of disease 
with physician records. To overcome these problems I concentrated 
primarily on those health effects that are diagnosed by a physician 
and that the layperson knov/s by name. To correct for over-reporting 
I used internal controls in the neighborhood. I will present the 
health effects in 3 categories of confidence: the first are those 
diseases for which there is clear and convincing evidence of an increase; 
the second category are those diseases that are probably elevated but 
v;hich have some problems with the data; and the third category includes 
health problems for which there is suggestive evidence, but which I 
v;as not able to evaluate for lack of sufficient information. 

The Swales 

The first step v;as to locate the old stream beds. This v;as done 
by examining old aerial photographs and geological survey maps, obtaining 
photographs from residents' family albums, and talking to older resi- 
dents. In addition, the State of New York sent interviev.'ers from home 
to hom.e to determine which houses had been built in historically wet 
or swampy areas. During this process we discovered that in addition 
to the streams, there had been a lake and several sivamps in the neigh- 
borhood. I have here, for instance, a photograph of tlie Love Canal 
area (Figure 1) taken in the early 1950 's at the time that Hooker 
Chemical v;as still dumping toxic v/aste. The canal is partially filled. 
Here is the path of a stream bed that intersected Love Canal. Area 
residents tell us that this could flow in either direction. When the 
Niagara River flooded in early spring it flowed to the north. At other of the year it flowed to the south. Here is an old, family photo 
from 1958 which shov/s tvra children claying in the stream bed (Figure 2) . 
It appears to be about 10 feet deep and more than 20 feet wide. The 
soil in this area is clay and is relatively imnermeable to the flov/ 
of liquids. VJhen the area was developed, the streams were filled with 
building rubble through which water flows easily. The result is that 
today, even though there is no surface evidence of these old streams, 
liquid contami-iated v/ith toxic chemicals is m.igrating along them under- 
ground. The next photograph has on it in red the stream beds that were 

44-978 0-79-10 


present in a 1938 aerial photograph (Figure 3) . In yellov; are the 
stream beds present in a later aerial photograph indicating that sone 
relocation of streams occurred during the construction oeriod. The 
yellow dots in this photograph indicate each home that lies along a 
stream bed or in a historically v;et place, that is v;here a lake or a 
swamp was. In the health studies which I will be showing you, I have 
compared the disease incidence in these homes on historically wet areas 
with the disease incidence in homes in dry areas. The collection of 
health data to the west of the canal are still not complete. 

The data I will show you are limited to this area (indicate on photo- 
graph) . The first map (Figure 4) shows the homes in the study area; 
each home that cooperated in the study is covered by a dot. More than 
75% of the homes participated in the survey and the homes which did 
not are randomly scattered through the neighborhood. At some points 
the study area was divided for statistical purposes into north and 
south along this line (indicated on map) . 

It is important to keep in mind that the health effects I will be 
presenting are probably serious underestimates of the true health effects. 
One reason is that I don't have a normal control population. I am 
comparing a heavily exposed population - those in wet homes - to a 
moderately exposed population - those in dry hones - and I don't have 
any unexposed population. A second reason is that my data usually do 
not include the evacuated families who were the most heavily exposed. 
A third reason is that people with no health problems readily cooperated 
in the survey, but some families with serious health problems did not 
wish to participate in a survey conducted by their neighbors. 

Toxicity to the Very Young 

One of the most susceptible groups in the general population to 
the toxic effects of chemicals are the very young. In tlie Love Canal 
area, miscarriages, still birtlis, and crib deaths are increased. This 
table (Table 1) indicates total pregnancies and miscarriages verified 
by physicians in these women before they moved' to the Love' Canal and 
after moving to wet areas in Love Canal. The frequency of miscarriages 
before moving to Love Canal was 8 1/2% and this increased to 25% for 
women when living in Love Canal homes in wet areas. This is a risk 3 times 
greater for women living in the wet areas. 

This map (Figure 5) indicates each miscarriage, still birth, or 
crib death with a blue dot. I have omitted the houses and streets to 
protect the identity of the individuals v;ho gave confidential medical 
information, but I have indicated the stream beds and have outlined the 
swampy areas. Each dot is about the v.-idth of a house lot. The stream 
beds are indicated by a line even though they have considerable width. 
Miscarriages are more frequent in homes lying in wet areas than in the 
homes in dry areas. 



/ o b □ 

OaaOaQD o o 

°s 0^ H - 


p 0=3 

O o 

o O 

o o 

O O 3 

U O 







a o 

io o 

O >> r. 
O 9 U 

r> o 

O o 


2 o 

W D O 

o o *■» 














3 D 



O c 








FIGURE 4. Study Area. Each home that participated 
survey is covered '.vith a circle. 



Number of Number of 

pregnancies miscarriages %^ 

Before moving to ,^^ 3^3^ 

Love Canal 

After moving to wet ,__ -_ __ .% 

area of Love Canal 

Relative risk 3.0 

chi square 35; probability that difference is due to 
chance is much less than .0005 





A number of women have had multiple miscarriages; these women 
live in or very near the wet places. This woman, for instance, had 
2 normal pregnancies resulting in healthy children before moving to 
the Love Canal. When she moved to Love Canal she had 4 miscarriages 
in a row; the last miscarriage occurred at 5 months and the child v;as 
deformed so the distraught woman decided not to have any more children. 
This woman had 3 miscarriages; one of the children she managed to 
have was born with 3 ears, and another has deformed ears. 

Within the last month, the Environmental Protection Agency halted 
the use of herbicide containing dioxin (TCDD) after 8 Oregon vjomen 
wrote that they had 13 miscarriages among them. Two hundred tons of 
this banned herbicide are buried in Love Canal and the toxic contam- 
inant dioxin has been found in the leachate migrating from the canal. 

The presence of birth defects is another sign of chemical toxicity 
in the very young. In this map (Figure 5) each blue dot represents a 
child born with, a birth defect. Again clustering occurs with more - "■ 
birth. defects in those homes in wet areas as compared to homes in dry 
areas. This table (Table 2) indicates the percentage of birth defects 
in the official study by the New York State Department of Health. All 
these have been verified by physician records. Twelve percent of 
children born in the wet areas had birth defects compared to 5% of 
children born in dry homes . My own survey includes more birth defects 
than the official study by the State of New York. Hy information 
indicates that 20% of children born in the v;et areas have birth defects 
compared to about 7% of children in the dry areas. I am currently 
corresponding with the State over the differences, and I believe the 
true incidence will lie somewhere betv;eon the incidence I have and 
the incidence that the Health Department has. I do not knov; v;hether 
the rate of birth defects for children in dry areas is higher or com- 
parable to that expected for a normal control population. 

Some of the birth defects in this survey v;ere minor or easily 
corrected by surgery, such as webbed toes, an extra toe or extra or 
unusually spaced teeth. Others, however, were much more serious 
including a deaf child, 5 children with mental retardation, 6 v;ith 
kidney abnormalities, and 3 with heart defects. 

Most people believe that the flov; of chemicals into the neighborhood 
has gotten worse in the recent past - perhaps because the drums con- 
taining the taxic wastes are rusting through and perhaps because we 
have had 2 winters of abnormally heavy precioitation . Wo therefore 
asked whether there has been a particularly noticeable increase in birth 
defects among the children born in the last 5 years to women living 
in wet areas. From 1974-1978, 16 children were born in homes in wet 
areas; 9 of these children had birth defects (Table 3). This gives 
an incidence of over 50%, clearly an unacceptable health hazard. 





Table 2 

Wet areas i_ Dry areas %^ 

N""*^^ °^ K 120 176 

children born 

Number with birth 

defects (New York 15 12.5% 9 5.1% 

Health Dept. data) , 

Number v/ith birth 

defects (residents' 24 20.0% 12 6.8? 

^Relative, risk (residents' data) 2.9 

chi square 12; probability that difference is due to chance 
is less than .001 

Table 3 


Children born 16 

Number with birth defects 9 
Percentage 56° 


Central Nervous System Toxicity 

In addition to causing birth defects, some of the toxic chemicals 
found in Love Canal are known central nervous system poisons. Lindane 
is found in the yards and in 75?; of the sump pumps of homes in wet 
areas. Lindane causes hyperirritability and convulsions. Three other 
central nervous system poisons have been measured in the air of these 
homes; tetrachloroethylene, chloroform and trichloroethylene. 

Central nervous system poisons can produce convulsions, loss of 
coordination, headaches, insomnia, hyperirritability and psychological 
depression. There is strong evidence that symptoms of central nervous 
system poisoning are occurring in the population surrounding the Love 
Canal. Each dot on this map (Figure 7) represents a nervous breakdovm - 
either a suicide attempt or an admission to a mental hospital. I did 
not place on this map the many reports of "nervous condition". Most 
of the nervous breakdowns .occurred in homes in v;et_-£ir:eas . Those. _t)aat>,. . 
occurred in dry areas (indicate on map) are very close to wet areas.. _ . 
This table (Table 4) shows that almost 9% of adults living in wet ar-€ra>s 
have had a nervous breakdown compared to 2.2% of adults living in dry . 
areas in the southern section and 0.7% of adults living in dry areas 
in the northern section.-' The risk of an adult in the wet area having _ : 
a nervous breakdown is 7 times the risk of all adults in dry areas. 

Living in wet areas 

Living in dry areas- 
south section 

Table 4 


Number of 

Number of 













Living in dry areas- 204 2 0.7% 

north section 

Relative risk wet areas to all dry areas: 6.9 

chi square v;et/dry south 8 

probability that difference is due to chance is less than .005 

Other Health Effects 

Several chemicals in Love Canal are known to be toxic to the kidney 
and urinary system. This table (Table 5) shov.'s that urinary disease 
occurs in 7% of persons living in homes in the v/et areas as compared 
to 2.5% for homes in dry areas. Those represent a variety of disease 




including congenital malformations of the urinary system, loss of 
kidney function later in life, injured ureters or urethras leadina to 
incontinence and severe, frequent bladder infections. Persons living 
in Viet areas are 2.8 times as likely to have urinary disease as persons 
in dry areas. This map (Figure 8) shows the clustering of urinary 
disease in the wet areas. 

Table 5 

Nximber of Number with 
people disease %^ 

Living in v;et areas 314 22 7.0 

Living in dry areas 825 21 2.5 

Relative risk 2.8 

chi square 13 

probability that difference is due to chance is less than .0005 

Respiratory disease of all types are common in the neighborhood. 
This table (Table 6) indicates that persons living in wet areas are 
3.8 times as likely to have asthma as persons living in dry areas. 

Table 6 


Number of Number with 
people asthma %^ 

Living in wet areas 314 14 4.4% 

Living in dry areas 826 11 1.3% 

Relative risk 3.8 

chi square 10 

probability that difference is due to chance is less 
than .00 5 




Health Hazards for Which There is Probable Evidence 

I would like to turn now to the health hazards that are orobably 
present but for which the data are less certain. If there are central 
nervous system poisons in the Love Canal neighborhood, then other 
types of central nervous system effects would be expected. My data 
indicate that the frequency of suicides, convulsive dosorders such as 
epilepsy, and hyperactivity in children are elevated. However, I have 
less confidence in these data due to the small number of cases or due 
to problems in diagnosis. 

For instance, over the past 10 years 6 suicides have occurred in 
the Love Canal area when 1.7 would be expected for a pooulation this 
size. Five of these 6 could be related to living in a wet area and 
the 6th may possibly be related. The 6th suicide occurred in a person 
who had lived directly along the canal for most of her life but had 
moved elsewhere in the neighborhood about a year before committing 
suicide. This increase in suicides is statistically significant;' 
nevertheless a scientist -feels uncomfortable working with such small '~ 
numbers. Other medical studies have shown an increase in suicides in 
persons exposed to central nervous system poisons. 

The data indicate an increased incidence of hyperactivity in 
children. I feel less confident about hyperactivity because this 
diagnosis can be misused but I think it is relevant that 11 of the 13 
hyperactive children live in wet areas. 

I also think it possible that chemicals in the Love Canal neigh- 
borhood may be causing convulsive disorders such as epilepsy. Twelve 
persons with a convulsive disorder live in the neighborhood. These 
are more likely to live in wet areas (chi square 3, probability that 
this difference is due to chance is less than 0.1). One. nine % of 
persons living in wet areas have epilepsy compared to 0.7% of persons 
living in dry areas, a relative risk of 2.7. Indeed one home whose 
basement air has one of the highest readings of tetrachloroethylene 
now houses 2 epileptics. This horns is in a dry area but is obviously 
contaminated. It is also striking that most epilepsy has been diag- 
nosed in the last 7 years, even in adults with no prior history of 
childhood convulsions and no other known medical cause of epilepsy. 

Health Effects for t'fhich There is Suggestive Evidence 

In addition to these health effects, there are other health prob- 
lems in the neighborhood that it has not been possible to evaluate 
statistically. These require further study. One is a very high fre- 
quency of skin disease. Second is a strong suggestion that the 
chemicals these people are exposed to may be interfering with their 
body's immune response. The residents report an unusual frequency of 
upper respiratory infections, pneumonia, and ear infections. In fact, 
several children have suffered some liearing loss due to constant ear 
infections. Third, there seems to ba a definite impairment of the 
blood clotting system in these people. There are many reports of 
bleeding problems such as severe and frequent nosebleeds, unexplained 
uterine bleeding severe enough to require hysterectomy, and gastro- 
intestinal or rectal bleeding for which physicans cannot find a cause. 


Fourth, chemicals may be interfering with bon<2 metabolism. Three 
persons have Paget' s disease which is a demineralization of the bone. 
Other bone problems are not diagnosed at this time. Fifth, several 
carcinogens are in Love Canal and I suspect that cancer is elevated 
in the area. Sixth, I believe that heart disease may be elevated in 
the area. 

In this last map (Figure 9) I have superimposed many of the diseases 
I have talked about including miscarriages, birth defects, nervous 
breakdowns, hyperactive children, epileptics, and urinary disease. 
The concentration of disease is very heavy in certain areas. These 
data have led me to strongly recommend that the 140 families living in 
wet areas be evacuated immediately. 

All of this evidence is statistical. It's important in establishing 
the magnitude of the problem, but it-does not convey the human dimen- 
sions of what is involved. For that, I would like to tell you briefly 
-about-the history of one tiouse in a wetatea.' This house is r&rited' and"-'~-" 
4 families have lived there during a 15 year period. In family number 
1 the wife had a nervous breakdown and a hysterectomy due to uterine 
bleeding. In family #2, the husband had a nervous breakdovm, the wife 
had a hysterectomy due to uterine cancer, the daughter developed epilepsy 
and the son asthma. In family S3, the v/ife had a nervous breaTTdown and 
both children suffered from bronchitis. In fa.T.ily S4, who lived there 
less than 2 years, the wife developed severe headaches after moving 
in the house. She also had a hysterectomy due to uterine bleeding and 
a premalignant growth. 

Health Studies of Evacuees 

Epidemiological studies can never prove cause and effect; these 
studies only show an association of disease with geographical location. 
To obtain further information on whether these diseases are related to 
chemicals from Love Canal, we conducted a health survey on the people 
evacuated from rings 1 and 2 4 to 6 months earlier. I did not know 
what to expect since studies of people who have lived through disasters 
show an increased incidence of disease in the years following the 
disaster as a result of the stress. In addition, many toxic organic 
chemicals are stored in the body fat and tend to remain in the body 
for long periods of time. 

As a result of these 2 factors, I did not expect much improvement 
in health after such a short time. One hundred and 1 families were 
surveyed. I v;as surprised to find that 67 reported a major improvement 
in health since moving (Table 7). 

Table 7 

Nupber of ..fanilies reporting 

Improved health C7 

No change 34 

Poorer health 


FIGURE 9. MiscarriaQ«;, still births, crib deaths, nervous 
brenkdov.'ns , hyperactivity, epilepsy, and urinary 
disease in Love Canal area. 


Of the 9 families who reported that frequent ear infections was 
a major problem while liviny on the canal, all 9 reported a major 
improvement in this problem. Of the 50 families who reported that 
colds, pneumonia, bronchitis and sinus infections v/ere a major problem 
while living on the canal, 49 reported an improvement. Of 12 asthmatics, 
11 reported an improvement; some of these have not had a single attack 
since moving. Of the 17 families who reported skin rashes as a problem, 
14 have experienced improvement since moving. Of the 12 families who 
reported that severe depression or a nervous condition were health 
problems, 11 have reported major improvements. Of the 39 families 
that reported migraine or frequent headaches were a problem, 38 have 
reported a major improvement. 


Number of Families Responding 
Health Problem Improved Health No Change 

Ear infections 

Upper respiratory infections 


Skin rashes 



One individual case is illuminating. One child had been extensively 
studied at Buffalo Children's Hospital for severe growth regardation. 
At age 3, she had a bone age of 1 year. Her doctors told the parents 
that they didn't knov; the cause of the growth retardation but that the 
child would probably be a midget. Since leaving the canal this child 
has begun to gain weight and grow rapidly. 

I believe that even this limited survey of people v.'ho have been 
evacuated indicates a major improvement in tho health problems can be 
achieved by evacuation despite the stress of loss of home and community. 

In contrast, the people who have been left behind, particularly 
those v/ho live in wot areas, arc still facing a serious health hazard 
which they are pov;erless to correct v.'ithout governmental action. 













Rocommenda t ions 

Based on these studies, I liavo made several recommendations: 

(1) The 140 families living in wot areas in the section studied 
be evacuated immediately. 

(2) All women of childbearing age who wish to have more children 
should be evacuated. They should be advised to wait 6 months to a 
year before getting pregnant to allov/ chemicals to be excreted from 
the body . 

(3) Sick people who live in dry areas should be evacuated if 
they wish to move. There are some home's in dry areas with very high 
levels of chemical readings in their basement air and there are families 
in dry areas ill with multiple diseases. We do not know enough about 
what is occurring underground. Chemicals might be migrating along - ■ 
sewer pipes and service lines. Drums of toxic v/astes may be buried in 
discrete areas separate from the Love Canal, as some truckers have 
claimed. Toxic wastes have migrated into the storm sewer system and 
these storm sewers back up and saturate yards with toxic chemicals. 

(4) Detailed studies must be initiated on the west side of the 
canal where I have not done any health studies. A major swale runs 
through a housing development knovm as Griffin Manor. It touches 15 
apartments. In fact, the entire Griffin Manor area was once low and 
swampy. It is possible that the area has been heavily contaminated. 
If it is, more families would have to be evacuated. 

(5) The remedial construction work was planned before the 
importance of the stream beds was understood. It is important to 
modify the plan. Otherwise it may be that the construction of a 
drainage ditch parallel to the canal will simply lead to an increased 
flow of toxic waste down the stream beds. 

(6) The stream beds may be so contaminated that they will have 
to be dug out, contaminated soil on either side removed, and drainage 
tiles be placed in each one. However, it may be necessary to abandon 
the entire neighborhood. 

(7) Love Canal is as much a disaster as any hurricane, earthquake, 
or flood. The Federal government has accepted the responsibility of 
aiding areas hit by natural disasters. In 1977 our area in Western 

New York suffered a blizzard. Millions of dollars in aid vjere provided 
in. response to the financial loss and inconvenience involved. Now 
we have a disaster that involves not only financial loss but also 
terrible health effects from a catastrophe that was totally beyond the 
control of the victims. Thsy are trapped in a more serious and long- 
lasting way than any of us were by the blizzard. Their chemicals v/on't 
melt away in springtime. One of the neighborhood residents has expressed 
it very sim.ply . He said, "I've been through a fire, I've been through 
a flood, and this is fur v/orse". 

79 - 11 


wet areas 

pregnancies 155 
miscarriages 39 25% 

relative risk - State 2.0 
relative risk - Paigen 3.5 

1974 - 1978 

live births 16 
birth defects 9 


live births 

birth defects-State 

birth defects-Paigen 

















south wet vs north dry 



















tive risk 




north & south 

















ve risk 




south wet/south dry 2.8 

south & north wet/south & north dry 2.9 
south wet/north dry 3.3 

south & north 
















south & 




















ve ris 






















ve risk 





















Relative risk 




wet vs north dry 


















Relative risk 








































ive risk 



News Release, Docemljer 11, 1978 XiE\-l VOR-; STATIC lIEALTil D[;PARTMh:KT 

Received at Buffalo Are,\ CUiicc 
at 11:00 a.m., 12/11/78 

A Dayton, Ohio laboratory requested by the State Health Department to 
test ieachate from a Love Canal for dioxin has detected rniEiute 
quantities of the substance Dr. Robert P. ii.'halen. State Health Commissioner, 
said today. State Health Department scientists v.'ere v/orking over the 
weekend to confirm the findings Dr. V.'halcn said. The satr.ple was taken 
from a trench being dug in connection with remedial construction work at 
the Canal to halt the further migration of chemicals. "We selected the 
Ohio laboratory located at Wright State University because of its prior 
experience in testing for dioxin and because we .xjanccd to utilize at least 
two laboratories, including our own facilities, to insure the highest degree 
of proficiency possible," the Commissioner said. 

Dr. Whalen said there is no evidence to indicate that the trace amounts 
of dioxin found in the leachare pos.-'. an imnedinte health hazard to residents 
of the area. "We are naturally concerned over finding dioxin but it does not 
come as a surprise nor does it cause us to change our position or make any 
further lacommendations at this time, particularly, in view of the small 
amounts found," he said. "However, we will continue to evaluate all of the 
evidence and now will begin testing additional soil and sump water samples 
for the presence of dioxin." 

The Coirciissioner said the discovery of dioxin in amounts of between 
4 and 17 parts per trillion "confirm.s our earlier assumption and public 
expression that we would expect to find it after detecting the presence of 
trichlorophanol , a substance used widely in the manufacture of herbicides." 
"Dioxin," he said, "is a containinani by-product which has occurred in tha 
icanuf^cture of trichlorophenols." 


DATE- D£cembar 14, 197f^ Of f ice^f ile ' ( 5 ) 

SaaJECT: Observations and Suggestions for Alterations 
in Safety Plan with the findinc,- of Dioxin at 
the Love Canal. 

FR0>1: Steve U. Lester 

TO: Lois Gibbs and Robert Huf faker 

It is unclear precisely where the dioxin is, i.e. What 
is contaminated with Dioxir:. Therefore in order to ensure 
minimum spread of contamination, the following procedures 
are suagested: 

1. All soil dug up from tha excavated areas must be covered 
with plastic or clay to reduce possible spread of contaminated 
soils by winds over tha soil. Thic practice t^as abandoned 
upon order by Dr, Huf-^aker who evaluated the circumstances 

at the time and concluded that covering of this soil v/as 
no longer necessary. With the finding of Dioxin this 
situation no longer exists. 

2. All trucks coming to and leaving fron the site area, as 
defined by the snov; fence, must be monitored each day to 
ensure that trucks are minimumly exposed to contaminated 


3. 97th Street repesents a greater area for exposures due 
to continued movement of trucks from within the snow fence 
to other areas of the v/ork site (i.e. tha loading truck 

and vacuum trucks earring leachate to the Calgon Unit) . There- 
fore no clean trucks or cars should be using this street 
south of Wheatfield. 

4. Procedures should be implemented to provide access to 
the truck v/ash area for all trucks v;hicl'. may be exposed to 
contam.inated soil upon entry of the site area. 

5. All excavated holes or areas v/hich expose contaminated 
soil to open air must be covered each night or v/henever v/ork. 
is not preceding i.e. Sundays. As v/ith the covering of the 
excavated soil, this procedure one--? abandoned mu s t ba re- 
instated and inforced to ensure minimal exposure to contciminated 
soil , 

6. All excavation v/ork which takes soil n.ccross the haul 
road should proceed v;ith plastic sheeting to protect the haul 

road from dirt falling upon it. 

7. All trucks coming and leaving the v/ork site should be 
directed to use 95th Street to minii-Lza pos.olb^'.c exposure 
throughout the neighborhood. 

Circumstances regard ingdecir-ions to v/ish trucks should be 
evaluated on a dailv basis to ensure- rainimr.Ti exnosure in the area. 




Question : Are you confident of the exact location 
of the swales? 

Answer: We are reasonably confident at the present 
time with regard to the location of historical 
swales. Our evidence is based on aerial photography, 
pi'ctures and photographs. 

Question : Are you going to complete the interview 
of area residents to locate historically wet areas? 
If so, will this be completed by the time the health 
data are entered into the computer? 

Answer : Interviewing of area residents to locate 
historically wet areas has essentially been completed 
and this data is presently being analyzed. Only 
objective documentation has been accepted. 

Question : Doas the environmental data indicate that 
chemicals migrated beyond ring 2? 

Answer : Yes, there is some indication. As more 
data are collected, a more definitive answer should 
be possible. 

Question ; Do you find any unusual patterns of chemical 

Answer: Yes. 




Question : At the meeting of November 21, you said 
that: 1) There v;as not an abnormal liver disease fre- 
quency in the area, but that 2) using "relaxed" 
standards, abnormal liver values were found in young 
boys concentrated along swales. May v/e see data and 
statistical analysis for these two points? 

Answe r: No. Further testing of young boys is 
presently underway which will hopefully more clearly 
establish the significance of preliminary findings. 

Question : Have white blood cell counts, red blood 
call counts and hemoglobin values been recorded for 
the blood samples? Could we see the results of these? 

Answer : Yes. No. The results of tests on individuals 
are only being made available to the private physician 
of that individual. 

- continued - 


Questions Raised in December 7, 1978 Memorandum 

CO Doctor Haughie from Homeowners ' Association Page 2 

Miscarriage Data 

1. Question : For the miscarriage data previously 
given to Steve Lester and Bev Paigen, how did 
you calculate the "expected" frequencies? 

Answer : Expected frequencies were calculated 
; based on the distributions indicated in a 
• • paper written by Warburton and Frasier. These 
estimates take into account the potentially 
confounding factors of maternal age and parity. 

2. Question : What are your conclusions concerning 
the miscarriage rates in the Love Canal area? 

Answer : This qpaestion is too broad to answer at 
present. Available information indicates an 
excess of miscarriages along certain sections of 
the first ring and that no significant excess in 
miscarriages is present on other streets. How- 
ever, we are presently analyzing the possibility 
that an excess of miscarriages might be present 
along the swale and other historical wet lands. 

3. Question : May we see the data indicating that 
miscarriages do not occur more frequently along 

Answer : All summary data concerning studies on 
miscarriages and other, biological markers v/ill 
be made available upon completion of analyses. 

Future Analysis of Health Effects 

1. Question : What plans do you have to define a 
control group? When do you expect to collect 
health data on this control population? 

Answer : We are presently developing a control 
group within the Canal area itself. We also 
expect to develop additional control groups in 
other areas over the next several months. 

2. Question : What questions are being asked in the 
epidemiological study? 

Answer: All epidemiological studies are designed 
to test specific hypotheses with regard to possible 
health hazards associated with residing on the Canal. 

continued - 


Questions Raised in December 7, 1978 Memorandvua 

to Doctor Haughie from Homeowners' Association • Page 3 

3. Question : VVhat are the short term and long term 
goals of the State's epidemiological analysis? 

Answer : Both the short- and long-term goals of 
epidemiological studies have as their central 
theme an effort to determine whether or not any- 
biological effects are associated with residing 
on the Canal. 

4. Question : Are the swales being considered in 
the data analysis? If so, how will this be done? 

Answer : Swales are being considered in the data 
analysis and preliminary observations will 
probably be available by the end of January, 1979. 

5. Question : Will you submit your experimental design 
to outside experts and to our consultants before 
you analyze the health and environmental data? 

Answer : As has always been the case, the study 
design and results of all epidemiological studies . 
are reviewed by outside experts. 

Relocation of Families 

The identity of the "expert committee" who evaluated families 
requesting relocation was kept secret from our consultants. 

1. Question : Could you tell us the specific 
reason why? 

Answer : The names of consultants are not •■ 

made available inasmuch as we sought their S 

expert clinical advice with this assurance. "^ 

2. Question : Do these experts have special 
expertise in the health effects of toxic 

Answer: All experts have special expertise 
with regard to specific issues that might be 
relevant with regard to Love Canal studies . 

3. Question ; What questions were these experts 
asked to answer? 

Answer : This question is too general to be 
answered specifically. All relevant issues 
pertaining to specific studies are discussed 
with qualified experts who have a particular 
expertise with regard to the subject matter 
under consideration. 

- continued - 


-Gu'o^tions Raised in December 7, 1978 Memorandum 
to Doctor Haughie from Homeowners' Association Page 4 

4. Question : What information were these experts 
given in addition to the health records? 

Answer : All available information is given to 
the experts in asking them to render opinions 
(e.g., environmental data, histology slides in 
certain instances) . 



1. QUESTION : Since Dioxin is being found in the trcncTi does 
that moan it has migrated? 

ANSWER: It has not been established v;}iether dioxin has 

; tnigratcd beyond the trenches being dug in 

connection with remedial construction. Further 
soil testing outside the iirunediate Canal area for 
dioxin is underway. 


^-Jhat are the health effects of dioxin on the human 

World literature on the effects of dioxin on the 
human body is scarce. Attached are papers v;hich. 
should shed light on the subject. 

3. QUESTION: Is there an antidote to dioxin? 

There is little knov/n about the short- and long- 
term toxic effects of dioxin on the human body. 
Thus the question of an available antidote cannot 
be adequately addressed. 


Have the soil samples taken several weeks ago been 
checked for dioxin? If not, will they be? 

Soil samples are being collected and analyzed for 
dioxin but the process is a difficult and long one. 

5. QUESTION : Can dioxin be airborne? From the trench and/or 
surface of the Love Canal? 

ANSWER : Airborne dispersal of dioxin resulted from an 

atmospheric explosion involving between 2 and 11 
pounds in Sevcso, Italy (see attached paper) . 
Because of its very low vapor pi'cssure it is unlikely 
that amounts found in the Love Canal trencb leachate 
would become airborne. Furthermore, 90 percent of 
the dioxin residue on the ground at Seveso dissipated 
after three weeks. Scientific studies indicate that 
dioxin is highly susceptible to photo-oxidation. 

QUESTION : Is dioxin being carried about through the streets on 
the. tires of the trucks working on and at the 
construction site? • 

ANSWER : Unknov/n, but steps taken as a result of the stringent 
construction safety plan minimize this possibility. 





Lois Cibbs Outstions at Dec. 11, 1978 ineiiting. 

Pnyc 2 



Vfhy does the Stnte say that tVic presence of clioxin is 
not significant v;hen other credible people say it is? 

The State has said that amounts found in the trencli 

leachate was barely detectable (4-17 parts per trillion) 

and cannot be corapared in any way to the Seveso or ' 

St. Louis incidents in terms of human exposure. The 

State has e>rpressed concern over finding dioxin and 

said it would conduct further tests but did not view 

its discovery in amounts stated in trench leachate 

as posing an immediate health hazard. The State has 

never minimized the danger of dioxin in low concentrations. 

How long does it take before the effects of dioxin on 
the human body show up? Or produce death? 

Best available answers are contained in world litera.ture 
v;hich is attached. . - 


Trichlorophenol was found on the surface of the CanaX 
fill as it was in the trench. Does that mean that <3ioxin 
is on the surface of the Canal as well? 

There is no definitive ansv;er to this question. It would 
depend on the amounts, of trichlorophenol found, the , 
extent of contamination during its production and the 
effects of photo-oxidation on dioxin as previously mentione 

Does dioxin produce genetic effects that' may show up in 
the children or their children? 



Best available answers are contained in v/orld literature^ 
some of which is attached. " ' 

Has the Department tested the filtered leachate for dioxin 
prior to flushing the treated leachate do\v-n the City sev;er 
system? . . . . ■ 

No . 

12.) QU ESTION : Can the Calgon machine filter out dioxin? 

^NSWER: The Calgon water treatment will effectively reduce fhe 
trace levels of dioxin by many orders of magnitude. 






N. R. 
































of colvln 














"65 total 

(+) = Positive data 

C-) = Negative data 

HR = No Results 

Id = Less than the level of detection 

32 Samples are not in y°t,. so 165-32 = 133 
133 samples are the data base 

over all data 
Positives 60/l33 = 45^ 
Negatives 46/133= 35JJ 
Not Detective 27/133= 29^ 


A. Main swale has 18 samples 

(*) 12 
(-) 1 

LD 3 

NR 2 

C+) 12/16 

B. *n swales has 28 samples 

(+) 1 8/26 i 10$ 

M 1.8 

(-) 1 

LD 7 

NR 2 

Generalizations (l) all samples taken east of canal (99th Street side) on main swale are 
positive with 1 exception. 

(2) trends indicate that positive values follow the swales 

(3) west side of canal (Griffin Manor) shows much less contamination away from the canal, even 
along the swales 

(4) of the samples found along the main swale 12/18 are (•+) with one exception the remaining 
6 are either not completed (2) distance from the canal(l) or at the norther,, ^i* 
canal \d.) " ^dge of ^^ 


Remember, this data means little by itself in terms of trends or patterns. Not enough 
data is avail able to draw any conclusions or make ai\y recommendations. However, upon 
gather tlie incomplete data, further analysis of the "historically wet" areas and addition 
of the newest soil tests, maybe certain trends or patterns can be estimated, the extent 
of the migration of the chemicals found in the canal is a question that has yet to be 
answered, and this information is helping. 

The same qualification mentioned above also hold for the sump data. Im fact, it is possible 
that the sump data maybe less representative of contamination. Sumps work during time of 
flooding due to rains. This leaves open the possibility that contaminants from any-where 
maybe carried along with the overflow from rain fall and settle in homes as a transcient 
event, (ie it only occurs during the rainf n1 1 ) If this is true, it does not mean that 
the homes in which BHC ( hexachlorocyclohexane is it's real name) are found represent con- 
tinues mirgration of chemicals. Some homes may have chemicals washed in during a storm 
while it's neighbors do not. This is just one factor, there are others which might alter 
the "expected" pattern of contamination. 


LD m 

(street) ) 







97 th 



















101 st 















Iforth of Colvin 








102 samples-22 = 80 samples (4- in canal) 

excluding canal positives (all four) 

(+) 16/76 = Z\% 

C-) 60/76 = 1^0 

On the suale : 

A. main suale 3 samples 

B. all other swales 16 samples 

C. together 24 samples 

5 (+) 2 (-) 1 NR 
■''- (+) 10 (-) 5 «R 

6 (+) 12 (-) 6 MR 

Generalization- main suale appears contaminated - or as an avenue for water/leachate movement 
as reflected in a paragraph listed above. 







Heretofore, by Order dated August 2, 1978, ROBERT P. 
WHALEN, M.D. my predecessor as Commissioner of Health of the 
State of New York, declared the existence of an emergency, pursuant 
to Public Health Law § 1388, because of a great and imminent 
peril to the health of the general public residing at or near 
the Love Canal Chemical Landfill site in the "La Salle" section 
of the City of Niagara Falls, New York, resulting from exposure 
to toxic substances emanating from such site and by said Order 
directed that certain corrective action be taken including, among 
other things, that the City of Niagara Falls and the Niagara 
County Board of Health take all appropriate steps to (1) implementi 
the Conestoga-Rovers Report, entitled "Phase I- Pollution Abate- 
ment Plan - Upper Groundwater Regime," subject, however to an 
approval of a detailed safety plan for workers and persons living 
near the site, including monitoring and evacuation contingencies, 
which was required to be in place before the beginning of any 


corrective construction work; and to (2) undertake additional 
studies in cooperation with staff of the State Department of 
Health and the State Department of Environmental Conservation 
to (a) delineate chronic diseases afflicting all residents who 
live adjacent to the Love Canal site with special emphasis on 
the frequency of spontaneous abortions, birth defects and other 
pathologies, including cancer; (b) delineate the full limits 
or boundaries of the Love Canal with respect to possible toxic 
effects; (c) determine by continued air, water and ground sam- 
pling the extent of lateral migration of toxic chemicals from 
the site to the surrounding neighborhood; and (d) identify which 
groundwater aquifers, if any, have been contaminated by leachate;! 
such measures directed to be taken were, of course, only a part 
of the massive total effort undertaken by both State and Federal 
officials to assist affected families and residents of the area 
in dealing with their evolving health, environmental and social 
problems, as more particularly exemplified by a grant of disaster 
assistance monies by the Federal Disaster Assistance Administra- 
tion upon the application of Governor Carey on August 2, 1978, 
with the support of President Carter, Senators Javits and Moynihari 
and Congressman La Falce following the issuance of the aforesaid 
Order; by the appointment on August 2, 1978 by Governor Carey 
of an interagency Love Canal Task Force headed by State Transpor- 
tation Commissioner Hennessy; by the several public and group 
meetings held by State officials with residents of the Love Canal 
area, including several visits by both Governor Carey and variously, 

44-978 0-79-12 


by Commissicnet Whalen and by me during the months of August, 
September and December; by the appropriation of more than 
$18,000,000 in the Supplemental Budget by the New York State 
Legislature to deal with the problems arising from the Love Canal 
Chemical Waste Landfill site, including relocation where deemed 
necessary; by additional grants for similar purposes forthcoming 
from the Environmental Protection Administration; and it appear- 
ing, further, that the State Department of Health has obtained 
invaluable additional ^idemiological and environmental infor- 
mation through its institution of a comprehensive medical survey 
and testing program to evaluate the health of residents of the 
Love Canal area by the establishment of blood clinics and house- 
to-house surveys, where necessary, resulting in the taking, com- 
pletion and review of more than 4,000 medical questionaires and 
blood samples; through the creation of a nationwide hotline to 
search cut former residents of the Love Canal area to determine 
what, if any, illnesses or conditions they might have developed 
in connection with their exposure to toxic chemicals emanating 
from the Love Canal Chemical Waste Landfill site, with the result 
that more than 400 phone calls from former residents living in 
31 states were received within a few short weeks of the hotline's 
creation; through the taking of air, sump water and soil samples 
to determine the presence of chemicals in the homes and soils 
of the Love Canal area; and through a request made of staff of 
the Cornell University NASA-sponsored Remote Sensoring Program 


to interpret extensive aerial and infra-red photographs of the 
area to obtain information on the hydrogeology of the Love Canal 
Landfill site and an assessment of potential sites of leachate 
contamination, including locating any existing or formerly exist- 
ing ponds, swamps, drainageway or stream bed sites; and further, 
upon a review and due consideration of discussions had and reports 
submitted at those certain meetings convened, respectively, 
on November 10, 1978 at La Guardia Field, New York, on January 
16, 1979 at the Empire State Plaza Tower Building, Albany, New 
York, and on February 7, 1979 at La Guardia Field, New York, 
separately and variously attended by several of the nation's 
leading experts in pediatrics, epidemiology, toxicology and 
various other scientific and medical fields, including clinical 
experts involved in the treatment and pathology of liver disease, 
which said meetings were convened for the purpose of obtaining 
expert advice relating to the health hazards associated with 
the Love Canal Chemical Landfill site and surrounding areas; 
NOW, TH£R£FOR£, based upon the foregoing and, more 
particularly, upon the additional epidemiological and environ- 
mental information obtained since the issuance of the Order dated 
August 2, 1978, and the right and power specifically reserved 
in said Order to completely reexamine and reevaluate any of the 
health hazards that might exist at the site if new evidence of 
hazards of a serious nature previously unrecognized should be 
forthcoming at any time, and to amend such Order or issue addi- 
tional or supplemental Orders and public health advisories, where 
necessary, I, DAVID AXELROD, M.D. as Commissioner of Health of 


the State of New York, do hereby reaffirm said Order and make 
the following Supplemental Findings of Fact, Conclusions, Recom- 
mendations, Orders and Directions: 


1. Following the issuance of the August 2, 1978 Order 
in this matter, all residents residing in homes on 97th Street 
near the Love Canal site were relocated as well as most residents on 
99th Street and on Colvin Avenue between 97th and 99th Streets. 

2. To date, the New York State Department of Health, 
Division of Laboratories and Research, has carried out analyses 
of 656 air samples, 143 sump samples and 133 soil samples. 

3. In response to a request from the Interagency Task 
Force on Hazardous Waste, the Hooker Chemical Company submitted 

a declaration of estimated disposition of chemical wastes in 
Niagara County. Portions of the declaration which may be pertinenjt 
to the Love Canal site are attached hereto as Appendix A. i 

4. The City of Niagara Falls hired the Newco Chemical 
Company as its contractor to implement the Conestoga-Rovers Reporl 
entitled "Phase I - Pollution Abatement Plan - Upper Groundwater 
Regime," as modified after consultation with appropriate Federal 
and State Officials. 

5. Construction to implement the Conestoga-Rovers 
Report, as modified, was begun on or about October 10, 1978, 
by Newco Chemical Company after a detailed safety and emergency 
evacuation approved by the State Commissioner of Health was put 
into place. 



6. Remedial construction in the southern third of | 
the Love Canal utilizing a tile drain system designed by Conestogal- 
Rovers, and as modified by the New York State Department of Envir-I 
onmental Conservation has begun the process of lowering the water 
level within the canal. 

7. About 20,000 gallons of leacheate are collected, 
treated by an on-site treatment plant, and released into the 
sanitary sewers each day, the partial chemical composition of 
which is shown on Appendix B. 

8. The tile drain system is controlling lateral migra- 
tion not only by lowering the water level in the canal but also 
by intercepting chemical migration from the canal. 

9. Installation of a clay cap to control surface water 
infiltration is scheduled for completion in the spring. 

10. Preliminary specifications for remedial construc- 
tion in the middle third of the Love Canal have been submitted 
for review with construction scheduled to begin this spring. 

11. Three deep wells have been sunk in the Love Canal 
area to obtain chemical data relating to the deep aquifers. 

12. During the trenching for the tile drain system, 
an east-west sand lense present on both sides of the canal was 
found . 

13. Leachate collected from a hole dug in said lense, 
in what was the backyard of 775 97th Street, has shown the pre- 
sense of trace amounts of 2, 3, 7, S-tetrachlorodibenzodioxin 

as well as the presence of at least 200 different organic compounds. 


14. Such extremely permeable sandy soil is charac- 
terized by qualitatively obvious chemical contamination both 
to the east and to the west. 

15. Borings in the sand lense to the west of the Love 
Canal between houses at 771 and 775 97th Street revealed that 
qualitatively obvious chemical contamination had reached the 
eastern edge of 97th Street. 

16. Holes dug on the westerly side of 97th Street 
did not indicate obvious chemical contamination. 

17. Chemical tests are now underway to quantitate 
the level of chemical contamination in such soils. 

18. Examination of a series of aerial photographs 

of the Love Canal taken during the period 1938 - 1953 indicates 
that the process of filling the Canal was carried out by damming 
small sections of the canal starting from the south and from 
the north. 

19. Displaced water in the dammed areas apparently 
flowed along existing surface drainage pathways to locations 
outside the Canal proper. 

20. New York State Department of Transportation topo- 
graphic maps made in 1956 show the existence of a 20-foot hill 

in the southern portion of the Love Canal and two slightly smaller 
hills in the northern portion of the Love Canal. 

21. Examination of aerial photographs made in the 
1960's shows the absence of such hills. 

22. Utility conduits underlie both Read Avenue and 
Wheatfield Avenue where they traverse the Love Canal and provide 
a possible channel for migration of chemical contamination. 


23. Toxic chemicals have been found in the storm sewers; 

draining to the south of the Love Canal and into the 102nd Street i 

storm sewer which drains into the Niagara River. 

24. Toxic chemicals have also been detected in sewers 
draining to the north into Black Creek. 

25. During times of high water the 102nd Street storm 
sewer backs up and floods portions of 102nd Street and Frontier 

26. An area between 96th Street and 97th Street direct- 
ly north of Read Avenue is also subject to flooding from backed 

up storm sewers draining north to alack Creek. 

27. Directly north of Wheatfield Avenue between 100th 
Street and 101st Street is an area approximately 12 lots in ex- 
tent which was a topographically low spot that was filled with 
various waste materials, mainly asphalt shingle clippings, before 
houses were constructed on the site. 

28. The area presently known as Griff en Manor formerly 
was a low lying swampy area requiring filling before dwelling 

29. Blood samples of Love Canal area residents show 
a rate of abnormal combinations of liver tests which variously 
exceed an expected rate of 2.7% based on a survey of laboratory 
records for 26,000 persons tested at a Rochester hospital. 

30. Liver tests relating to residents of the 1st and 
2nd rings, to wit, those residing, respectively, in homes direct- 
ly adjacent to the Love Canal and those residing in homes located 
across the street therefrom on the average reverted to normal 
ranges after relocation from the Canal site area. 


31. Repeat blood samples of residents of the 1st and 
2nd rings show that initial normal liver test levels on the aver- 
age remained normal after relocation from the Canal site area. 

32. Children residing in homes in an area bounded 

by 100th Street, 103rd Street, Frontier Avenue and Colvin Avenue 
whose initial liver tests were in some instances abnormal, upon 
repeat examination had liver test results in normal ranges. 

33. Spontaneous abortion or miscarriage rates are 
higher than expected among female residents of homes located 

in an area bounded by 97th Street, 103rd Street, Frontier Avenue, 
and Colvin Avenue and built on historically "wet" properties 
(that is, homes built on former drainageways, stream bed sites, 
swales, ponds or historical wetlands) , adjusted for age and paritij, 
compared with actual rates occurring among female residents of | 
homes in the same neighborhood built on historically "dry" proper-; 

34. In addition, infants born to female residents 
living on historically "wet" properties had a higher rate of 
occurrence of congenital defects as compared with children born 
of female residents of historically "dry" properties, with such 
conglnital defects among the former group constituting about 
13% of live births compared with a rate of about 5% among the 
latter group. 


35. In addition, the percentage o£ infants of low 
birth weight born to mothers living on historically "wet" proper- 
ties was significantly different from that of infants born in 
New York State (excluding New York City) ; in contrast there was 
no significant difference noted between infants born to mothers 
living on historically "dry" properties and infants born in New 
York State (excluding New York City) . 

36. Chemical studies of air samples collected in the 
basements of homes in the Love Canal area, to date, generally 
show no consistent correlation between concentrations of chemi- 
cals identified and the occurrence of birth defects, liver test 
abnormalities and spontaneous abortions. 

37. Chemical studies of soil samples collected from 

various sites in the Love Canal area and samples of water collected 

from basement sumps show the presence of various isomers of | 

hexachlorocyclohexane . 

1. Review of the approximately 1000 environmental 
samples corroborates the August 2, 1978 conclusion that there 
is substantial chemical contamination in houses in ring I and 
evidence of some chemical contamination of basement air, soil, . 
sump water, and storm sewer waters collected from homes and proper- 
ties beyond the 1st ring of homes of the Love Canal site. I 


2. Examination of the declaration of estimated disposi- 
tion of chemical wastes submitted by the Hooker Chemical Company i 


indicates the deposition in the Love Canal of many hazardous 

and toxic substances in large amounts. I 

3. Remedial construction when completed should provide ' 
an effective means of controlling lateral migration of toxic 
chemicals from the Love Canal site. 

4. If downward migration of toxic chemicals into the 
deep aquifer is occurring the presently proposed remedial con- 
struction will not control this vertical migration. 

5. Special soil conditions (i.e. sand lenses), surface 

drainage of displaced water contaminated with toxic chemicals/ 

relocation of contaminated soil from the Love Canal, manmade 

paths of high permeability and transport and flooding of contamina- 
tion storm sewer waters represent actual and potential mechanisms : 

for movement of Love Canal chemicals to the surrounding area. 

6. Liver test abnormalities alone, in the absence 
of other clinical signs and symtoras of liver disease, are not 
diagnostic of liver disease per se but may reflect varying levels I 
of exposure to chemicals in the environment over relatively short : 
periods of time. 


7. The consistency of observations relative to the 
outcomes of pregnancies of residents of historically "wet" 
properties when compared to pregnancy outcomes of (a) residents 
of historically dry properties, (b) residents of New York State 
excluding New York City, and (c) subjects studied and reported 

by Warburton and Freser, as reported in "Human Genetics," Volume 
16, No. 1, 1964, together greatly strengthen the hypothesis of 
past adverse health effects resulting from residence in such 
homes likely contaminated by chemicals. 

8. That there is no generally consistent correlation, 
to date, between concentrations of chemicals identified in air, 
soil and sump water samples and the occurrence of birth defects, 
spontaneous abortions and liver test abnormalities is not sur- 
prising inasmuch as the occurrence of birth defects and spon- 
taneous abortions extends over many years, the availability of 
environmental samples is limited to samples collected at a single 
point in time within recent months and the extent of chemical 
analyses of environmental samples is limited to nine chemicals. 

9. While remedial construction is designed to contain 
any future lateral migration of chemicals, the mass of previously 
transported toxic chemicals outside the boundaries of the reme- 
dial construction is not known. 

10. An estimate of the mass of toxic chemicals, and 
their location is required to evaluate the need for additional 
remedial construction outside the immediate vicinity of the 
Love Canal. 


11. Presence of chemicals to the east and west of 
the Love Canal may be due to separate and discrete dumping of 
contaminated wastes and/or transport through natural or manmade 
hydrogeologic pathways in the area. 

12. A review of all the available evidence respecting 
the Love Canal site shows that the health emergency declared 
by the August 2, 1978 Order should be continued. 

13. Remedial construction in the middle and upper 
third of the Love Canal, subject to approval by the New York 
State Department of Environmental Conservation and the Environ- 
mental Protection Agency of preliminary specifications submitted 
for review, should be undertaken. 

14. While a great deal of environmental and epidemio- 
logical information has been obtained since the August 2, 1978 
Order, further studies must continue to obtain additional infor- 
mation to delineate the full limits or boundaries of the Love 
Canal with respect to possible toxic effects? to determine by 
continued sampling, the extent to which toxic chemicals have 
migrated from the site to the surrounding neighborhood; to iden- 
tify which groundwater aquifers have been contaminated by leachate, 
if any; and to identify adverse health effects and the presence 
of toxic chemicals and their masses located outside the Love 
Canal in the area bounded by 93rd Street on the west, 103rd Streetj, 
on the east. Frontier Avenue on the south, and Black Creek on 
the north. 




1. Based on the best available data, that pregnant 
women and children under two years of age presently residing 

in homes between 97th and 103rd Streets bounded by Colvin Boule- 
vard and Frontier Avenue and in those homes which abut Colvin 
Boulevard on the north between 97th Street on the west and 100th 
Street on the east , temporarily move from such homes. 

2. The Niagara County Medical Society and private 
physicians and hospitals in Niagara County should continue their 
cooperation with staff of the State Health Department and the 
Niagara County Health Department in studies undertaken to iden- 
tify former residents of the Love Canal area exhibiting chronic 
or adverse health effects. 

3. That the Commissioner of the Department of Environ- 
mental Conservation continue on-site supervision of the on-going 
remedial work at the Love Canal Chemical Landfill site. 

4. That appropriate public officials diligently pursue 
and explore all avenues or sources of potential funding to assist 
those affected by toxic hazards emanating from the Love Canal 
Chemical Landfill site and to develop procedures for abating 
confirmed exposure to chemicals in the environment. 

5. That studies undertaken to estimate the mass and 
location of toxic chemicals in the Love Canal area be continued. 

6. That geological and engineering studies be under- 
taken to assess the feasibility of corrective action. 



1. That the emergency declared by the August 2, 1978 
Order issued by former Commissioner Whalen, shall continue in 
full force and effect. 

2. That the on-going remedial corrective work be 
continued and the the tile drainage system installed to implement 
the Conestoga Rovers Report entitled "Phase I - Pollution Abate- 
ment Plan - Upper Groundwater Regime" be extended to the central 
and northern sections of the Love Canal site, subject to approval 
of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 

3. That the Niagara County Department of Health and 
the City of Niagara Falls in collaboration with the staff of 
the Department of Health and Department of Environmental Con- 
servation continue studies to: 

(a) delineate the full limits or boundaries of the 
Love Canal with respect to possible toxic effects; 

(b) determine by continued sampling the extent that 
toxic chemicals have migrated from the Love Canal 
site to the surrounding neighborhood; 

(c) identify which groundwater aquifers may have been 
contaminated by toxic chemicals; and 

(d) to identify adverse health effects and the presence: 
of toxic chemicals and their masses located outside 
the Love Canal in the area bounded by 93rd Street on 
the west, 103rd Street on the east. Frontier Avenue 
on the south, and Black Creek on the north. 


4. This Order supplements the previous Order issued 
on August 2, 1978 and periodic reevaluation of the situation at 
the Love Canal shall be made with further additional orders and 
public health advisories to be issued by me as I deem necessary. 

Commissioner of Health 

DATED: February 1979 


Section rv 
2. Products (1930-1975) 

Over 2S0 chaavLcals, xany with numarous variations, were produced between 
1930 and 1975. We have therefore grouped the products into 28 categories which 
are the nost aeaning£\il for determining the types of hazardous matarials produced. 

These catagorias do not include landfilled wastes which are considered to 
ba nonhazardous* Specifically, the excluded wastes were: 

Fly Ash 

General Plant Refuse 



Construction debris 

Cell Components 

Brine Sludge (except from mercury abatement) 

Seme hazardous*wastes produced were by necessity classified into a miscell- 
aneous category. This category was developed in order to account Cor such items as: 

1. Off-grade material from processes not normally producing wastes. 

2. Materials from processes which never became commercial in size (pilot 
plant and scmi-coninercial quantities, however, are included in the figures for those 
processes which became connercial) . 

3. Operating matarials such as trzmsformer oils and cleaning solvents. 

4. Byproducts, if euiy, from defense projects during WW II (no records exist). 
It is estimated that the 27 major categories represent. over 90% of the total 

<!i.-.ount of hazardous'wastes generated. 

The waste categories developed and the approximate dates are: 

1. Benzyl chlorides - includes benzal chloride, benzyl alcohol, benzyl 
thiocyanate (1930-1967) . 

2. Thiodan (Endosulfan) (1958-1975). 

3. Sodium sulfides/sulfhydxates (1939-1975). 

1. Kexachlorocyclopentadiana {C-S6) (1949-1975). 

5. Kexachlorocyelohexane (Lindane/3HC/HG1) (1946-1975). 
f. Chlorobenzenes (1930-1974). 



7. Benzoyl chlorides (1930-1975) and benzotrichlorides (1930-1967). 

8. Benzotrichlorides (1968-1975) . 

9. Liquid disulfides (LDSADSN/BDS) and chlorotoluenes (1930-1967). 

10. HCl purification and chlorotoluenes (1967-1975). 

11. Metal chlorides (1930-1967) 

12. Banzotrifluorides - organic residues (1960-1975). 

13. Calcium fluorides (from benzotrifluorides) (1973-1975) 

14. Benzotrifluorida derivatives (1965-1975)- 

15. Dodecyl (Laoryl, Lorol) mercaptans (DDM) , chlorides and misc. organic sulfur 
compounds (1940-1975) . 

16. Trichlorophenol (TCP) (1949-1972) . 

17. Thionyl chloride and misc. sulfur /chlorine compounds (1930-1975) 
13. HET acid, anhydride and KETRONS (1953-1975) 

19. Misc. chlorination - includes waxes, oils, naphthalenes, aniline. 

20. Misc. acid chlorides other than benzoyl - includes acetyl, caprylyl, 
butyryl, nitro benzoyls 

21. Dechlorane (Mirex) 

22. C-56 Derivatives - includes Dechlorane Plus, Dechlorane 602, Dechlorane 604, 

23. Phenol tars (from Durez) 

24. Organic phosphorus coaipO'jnds - includes phosphites, phosphonates , acid 
phosphates, thiophosphates. 

25. Phosphorus and inorganic phosphorus derivatives other than sodium 
hypophosphite - includes chlorides sulfides 

26. Sodium hypophosphite 

27. Brine sludge - mercury abatement process 
23. Misc. unidentified materials. 

*The word "hazardous" as used throughout this report should be read as 
"potentially hazardous" and is not intended to signify any actual or 
observed hazard and is used without reference to any laws or regula- 
tions wherein that term is defined. 


44-978 0-79-13 


4. Once the quantity o£ waste was derived for a given year, it was 

then n^cess€Lry to allocate this waste to specific disposal sites. 
Again, a great deal of judgment was recuired. This judgment 
was based upon the type of residue, the tiae it was generated, 
which disposal sites were possibly in use, and an assumed 
philosophy of disposal operations for the period under study. 
The net result, as explained earlier, is that the results of the 
calculations should not be construed to have a high degree of accuracy. 
They should only be interpreted as our best efforts to describe wh*t might. 
have occurred in the distant past. 

In responding to this section a n«nber of synvbols were used which 
require further explanation. These are: 

I. liquid waste under normal conditions 
S solid waste under normal conditions 
L,S sludge or a combination of liquid and solid wastes 
B bulk shipment of residues 
D drum shipment of residues 
C nonmetal containers of residue 

y "less than", used whenever the quantity was estimated to 
be less than 100 tons, but where th<:re was some degree 
of certainty that a specific residue was at that site 

Also note that the number following the name of the type of waste, refers 
to the class of waste listed in Section IV-2. 

APPEiroiX A 


SMtlon ZV-5 

a. Noma I Love Canal 

b. Location: 97th - 99th Stxeata, Niagara Falls 

c. Owner: Hooker - until 1953 

d. Tlsie Csed: Approximately 1942 to 1952 

Total Estimated 
•• Type of Waste Category 

Misc. Acid Chlorides (20) 
Thionyl Chloride (17) 
Hise. Chlorinations (19) 
DOM (15) 
TCP (16) 

Benzoyl Chloride (7) 
Metal Chlorides (11) 
LDS/MCT (9) 
BHC (5) 

Qilorobenzenes (6) 
Benzyl Chloride (1) 
Sulfides (3) 
Misc. 10% of above 

TOTAL 21,300 

fi. Wastes were land disposed 

g. No records exist as to waste haulers used, other thjui Hooker 

h. Other than the City of Niagaura Falls, no Hooker records exist as to the 
use of this site by others 

Physical State 

Quantity - Tons 


L. S 



I» s 



L, S 



L, S 



X., S 



L, S 











D, C 

L, S 


D, C 






Note that the above tabulation is based on a very limited amount of 
documented information. Many estimates, as outlined in other sections 
of this report, were required in order to derive the information listed. 




Love Canal Confirmed Compounds : 
























Alpha benzene hexachloride 

Beta benzene hexachloride 

Delta benzene hexachloride 











Methyl napchalene 

Dimethyl napthalene 

Hexamethyl cyclotetra siloxane 


2,3.7, 7, tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) 






by Charles H.V. Ebert 

The following observations are made to possibly point out some inherent 
weaknesses in the proposed pollution abatement plan with particular reference 
to horizontal leachate migration and soil drainage. These comments are offered 
to any persons who are interested in making the abatement plan as realistic 
and effective as possible under the circumstances. 

The abatement plan, with the suggested modifications, can be divided 
into three major components: (1) containment, (2) removal of toxic materials, 
and (3) continued monitoring. 

A. Containment 

I am of the opinion that the overall plans for preventing additional 
toxic materials from spreading from the Love Canal into surrounding areas 1 
probably is the best under the existing circumstances. 

B. Removal of Toxic Materials 

The removal of toxic materials can be divided into two major problems: 

(a) the removal of both liquid and solid materials from the Love Canal itself, 

and (b) the extraction of polluted soil water and ground water from the area 

beyond the canal borders. While the plans for removal and/or containment of 

toxic waste from the canal itself appear to be realistically perceived, 1 am 

of the opinion that the second aspect, i.e. the leaching of soils beyond the 

canal border, is more (jucstionable and sliould be carefully reviewed. ^ 


The foJlowing points arc mnilc to stimulate such a review and to siiggi'st 
appropriate modifications: 
1. A thorough surface and subsurface survey, preferably to bedrock, should 

be made at increising distances and in all directions from the canal to 



determine, as quickly as possible, the geographical extent of the toxic 
diffusion. This survey should not be restricted to superficial soil 
tests but must include water sampling from the water table. Care must 
be taken to identify perched water tables [at times produced by under- 
lying clay strata) and to distinguish them from the permanently saturated 
soil and/or rock zone. 
2. Before installing the drainage pipes a careful soil texture analysis 

must be made in order to determine (a) soil permeability and capillary 
conductivity, and (b) the depth and spacing of drainage pipes since 
soil characteristics largely dictate the depth, length, and spacing 
of both pipes or ditches. For example, an extra 3 or 4-foot depth 
that terminates in layers of lower permeability than those above 
lowers the effectiveness of such installations. 
3. A major problem in unsaturated soil systems is the fact that capillary 
water will not, or insignificantly so, move from fine-textured soils 
into coarser media. This is true for vertical capillary conductivity 
where the height of capillary rise is mostly determined by pore size. 
The smaller the pore size [as in the silty clay loam bordering the 
canal] the greater the capillary rise because of the greater tension 
[negative pressure] in such soil. However, water under high tension, 
in unsaturated soils, will not easily be drawn oujt of such soil. 
These two relationships are expressed in tlie a) basic capillary rise 
equation, and b) in the capillary pull equation: 


a) h = 2T/rdg b) p = 2T/r 

h = height of rise in cm 

r = radius of capillary pore 

T = surface tension 

d = density of soil solution in grams/ cm 

g = acceleration constant 

In other words, the smaller the radius of the capillary system the 

greater a) capillary rise and b) the force that is needed to remove [pull] 

the water from the soil pore. 

If a drainage pipe is installed in a fine-textured soil only a specific 

amount of water will drain out. The amount declines with declining texture 

size, i.e. with smaller pore space and increasing tension. Some clay soils 

actually have a drainage capacity of zero. 

Once drainage sets in, i.e. the drying process begins, water tends to 

be held back in the pores until the capillary potential, or tension outside 

this soil, exceeds the tension of the narrowest parts of the pore passage 

since water will only move from zones of low tension to zones of high tension. 

Since soil pore tension declines sharply as a soil becomes saturated 

with water, and all water-air interfaces are removed, it is recommended that 

water will be introduced into the border zone of the polluted area to leach 

toxic materials both out of the ground water zone and the soils. To avoid the 

spreading of toxic materials beyond the point of water introduction, i.e. into 

non-polluted soil, a second drainage interceptor system should be installed 

along the margin. 



by Cli.iil.vs H. V. Ebort 

Hie first set of coninients were submitted in Scptcmbr-r. Since then the 
actual work on the Abatement Plan has started. Additional information Items 
became av.iilable, sucli as aerial pho tOf^raphs , infrared pliotoj^raphs , field 
data, and anecdotal iiiCorma ticn. 

Of particular interest was the identification of narrow drajn.ige swales, 
mostly located to the east and southeast of the Canal. These swales, now 
filled in or obscured by construction, unfortunately vera first identified, 
although not by this v;riter, as "streams", as published prematurely in the 
Buffalo Evening News of October 18, 1978. Moreover, it was implied that 
"canal -rola ted illnesses" correlat'-d with the location of these "slrcanis." 
While such a correlation is potentially possible neither the exact iocation 
of the swales had been positively ascertained, nor had there been any positive 
identification of toxic materials in such swales. 

The following set of comments is to offer my own opinion about the 
location of these swales and the implications thereof. Furthermore, additional 
observations wiJl be presented concerning other points, such as the nature of 
the subsoil properties, ar;pocts of the clay cap now being installed, the main 
drainage pi|H' .-.ystim, ind soiiie Lhoiij'hl;; conn- rii i n;-, future vjork in I lii^ rein. lining 
sect ions ol I lu' Cin.i 1 . 

A. The nrainaj'.e Swales 

The r-.oil.'-. in Ihi''i' C.uial ll.-i'.inn are veiy loinplcx .iiid are a riixlute of 
lacustrine, glacial oulwasli, and alluvial materials. 'ilius it is to be expected 
t!iat vertical and later al changes .mc nu:r.erous and often un[)rcd i.c tab le . 


Tlifoir-,1ioM u tin- .lie. I, ,is cTi-itly i ml i i-.i Li'il "ii .loi ial [ilio loiiiMpIis in lliG IQTO's, vjlion most oF Llie I,o\.' l{0|;inu v;.!:; ;;Lill, one roc:o];ii i zc-s 
1 iiioar mill ili'iiilri l i c snli MirTai-.o il t ,i iiia;^/; pallL-rn^; [iiatkid Iiy <laikor colcirs. 
T]\c. darker .shades air tlie rcfuiLt oC liif^Iicr .soil v;ari-r coatoiit and the acciinu- 
lation of nryanLc ma Lir ials. Sonio o£ Lhcse drniiiajjc arteries took on the form 
of more, pi-rs ir; I iMit sv.alf.T wliich, in contrast to .streams, do not nc<coss.irily 
show a coEisistiiit flow direction .'ud may even be dry during p^irts of the year. 

The swali -. are of particular significance to the Problem 
t1iey could, pot L-nt ial 1 y , repro.scnl nairow in wliiih toxic material could 
mij^rate both faster and further from tlic than in adjoining areas. Since 
these swales ha/e been filled in ever the decades, as the area became 
built up, it qulti' difficult lo pini)oint their specific location. This 
investigator attempted to locate I ■.■o of the more pronounced swales by using 
a) an aerial bl '.ck and white photi :'.raph taken in I 9 3H , (li) infr.ared pho ti)j;i .iphs 
taken this year in conai'ction \jith the prelinln.iry i nves t ig.i t ion of the Canal 
Problem, (c) independr-ut field inv.'Stiga tions on site, .and (d) anecdotal data 
from residents in the .area. As a result of these efforts it is the opinion of 
this writer tliat the two major sw.iles, origin.iLly cutting .across the site of 
the Canal, arc . (iprox i m.iLel y locat.d as iiuli ci teil on the atl.u:Iiod map. Whether 
or not ^w^_U? A^ origin-illy linkeil up witli Iliac k Crock is imt cert.aiii, but i;: of 
uo |).ir t icii 1.1 r ;; i c.n I f i r.inrc ,i I ihL:; liiiio. 

'I'lie pi is<iiie of ihisc :.w,ile:., p.i i l_ i i n 1 ,i i 1 y on 1 ho (.isli'tii side of I he, could be in the rxlont o) clif fusion of tt);-.ic materials from 
the hove Tho rollowiiij; aspects .should he (-.irofully con.s idi-rod : 

(I) Hvcn hrfore ilioy were filled up the sw.i Les ie[ire:c'nted natural 
dra inagevMys, i.e. low points, attract inf, runoff from .ill higher r.ections. 


(2) Thi' biLLom of llic y.u. ilor. .iHow.l w.ilor, <1ri'ciiil i ii;; oil I lu' w.iL(-C li^vel 
in tlie Canal, Lc move (■iLluT into nr out of the C.iiinl. 

(3) Aftoi llie sw.ilrs IkuI been f i 1 1 cil in, w.iLei wnuld sLiil \:cik\ to col- 
lect, and to nio'.'i!, more effectLvely in tlic fijriner swale beds. The reason for 
this is that r.e. ondary fill niateri il usually is less conpacLed and cemented 
than the, origin il soil material on either side. Furthermore, the heterogeneous 
nature of the [ill malorJal may re.ult in ops-n spaces and cracks. Tliis is 
particularly true of fill wliich contains garbage items (glass, pottery, bricks, 
plastics, cans, etc.) v;hich degrade only very slowly or not at all. Conse- 
quently both air and water may migiate quite readily in SLich fill. 

(4) Since llie toxic material;; of the Love Canal were raised, as a result 
of hydraulic pre :sure in the Canal itself, as it filled up with surface runoff 
and seepage, it i an be stipulated that such materials, if tliey did this at all, 
diffused more readily, and further, within the swales than in the low-porme- 
ability silty cl.iy loam soils underneath. For the above stated reasons it is 

(a) Test wells are to be drilled across suspected swale areas to pinpoint 
their exact location, to examine the nature of the fill, and to test the soil 
and water for the- possilile presence of toxic mati'ruils. 

(b) If the svmIcs, uuleed, contain significant toxic aecunuila t ions, one 
shiMiId eonsiih'r I'lacin)- a ilrainage. pipe into I lu> swales lo elfeelively ((niiuct 
Ihi'iii In (lie main pipe diain.ij'.e tin iinw being ciim-, I rnc I eil pitallel lo the 

(c) A study should be made wbetlier the swales Intersect utility ditches 
(gas lines, cable chaiuiel, ^itorin sewers, etc.) wh i ( li would make for fvirtlier 
diffusion of toxic materials. 


B. Su bsoil Cluii.ictcr i sLi.cs 

The subsoil properties nrouiul the itnmeJiate Canal area are presently 
being investigated by Donal Owens, soil scientist and head of Earth Dimensions, 
a private firm. llicse investigations include drillings along the sections 
slated for the Installation of the drainage pipe system parallel to the Canal. 
It is not surprising that the clayey subsoil, containiiig Montmorillonite 
and Illite clays, has a tendency to form dehydration cracks which tend to 
impart a polygonal structure to some of the soil sections. Since the soil 
properties apparently vary considerably over short distances, due to the hetero- 
geneous nature of the parent materials and depositional processes, the extent 
of such dehydration cracks cannot be accurately estimated. However, close 
attention sliould be paid to them, |)ar I i culi r ly wlion they indicate (a) coatings 
by substances not indigenous to the soil, and (b) when, they intersect utility 
channels of the nature indicated above. 

Tliese dehydration cracks may lead to an erratic pattern, both as to 
direction and distance of diffusion of subsoil water andpotcntia I ly that of 
toxic materials. 

C. The Clay Cap 

The clay cover, primarily designed to form an impervious cover over the 
Canal surface, sliould be carefully inonLtored since its presence means an addi- 
tion 111 llic rjilirc sys.lcin. M.iin inrr; Id he inonitoicd iiiusi incliidc: 

(1) Till' I'xLent to wliirli Liu- <lay, prcs'-n 1 1 y driiosiled in mas.ser; of 

inu I t L-s izi'd clods, can hi' cniiiiiac I rd to cliiiiinate air' r.iiaci'S I hriiuj'.h wliicli liolh 
air .'ind water r.iw pass. 

(2) The extent of natural settling within the mass of the clay cap which 
may indicate its ability to maintain its designed shape and dLiiiensious. 


(3) ICiosioii .tIoii;; it;; sitleu i/liich may ilopt):; i L lliia l.iyi-rs df eroded 
ni-iterials over the adjoining areas. This may extend Llic runoff beyond tlie 
location of the main drainage pipon. 

(4) The extent to which the entire mass of clay may depress the Canal 
surface and thus exert pressure on the system. If the weight appears to be 
excessive it may be necessary to reduce the amount of clay when the central 
and northern sections will be capped. 

D . T he Main Pipe Drainage System 

According to the Abatement Plan the Canal will be flanked by drainage 
pipes running parallel to the Canal and under the adjoining backyards of the 
evacuated houses. Some of my conmients in the first report (9/28/78) addressed 
themselves to the effectiveness of this system and to some of the potential 
problems with it. These comments are not repeated here; however, the following 
additional suggestions are being made: 

(1) It is strongly recommended, if feasible from a technical point of 
view, that these main pipes are inr.talled before tlie completion of the clay 
caps. This should increase the system's ability to contain lifiuids which may 
be moving out of the Canal proper due to pressure exerted by the clay cover. 

(2) Since the subsoil does contain a considerable amount of clay it is 
possible tliat tho infiltration holes of the pipes (perforations), and possibly 
Ihc pipes theirr-,i' 1 V(-s , .mild lu'coiiio clocked uhicli will .'.liarply rrclnti' tlieir 

I'f Ice t i vciii':;s . This :,liiiuld In.' iimiu i I oi ((.I al sunie conlrol. lidiiil:; which rdiould hi! 
(hvs i gned in .■;ucli a way .is to ca.sily reopen fur sporadic i n.'.pcc t i on . 

(3) If at all po;;r;ihle, i.e. if tlie drainage gradient permits tliis, tlic 
[lipt's should be placed en lop of the dl•nse^■,t clay layer so tliat Lhoy can 
effectively intersect tlie perched water table. 



E. Cen tral ami N(ir_Lli(r_ii Soc^l.iojis 

A geiieial , thoiif.h iirgpiit, r.nj'.j^ost ioa is to cvaliiato Llioi iiii;',li I y the pro- 
cccUiros ami exiu'rienci s La couin'cl ii>ii with the work (h>iic-, (ir in pioi^ross , in 
the southern section of the Canal. In addition the following ideas are pre- 
sented for consideration: 

(1.) As indicated previously, all major drainage pipes should be installed 
before capping loads are placed on the remaining sections. S 

(2) It may be possible, especially for the central section, to work with 
a sharply reduced clay capping load, or to leave it out altogcthfjr to allow 
natural leacliing and drainage processes to drive toxic materials into the 
drainage pipe system. V.liether or not this should be considered depends, in 
part, on what kind of materials are contained in the central section. In any 
way, this aspect will have to be discussed further and carefully evaluated 
since there may be highly undesirable aspects connected with it. 

(3) The storm sewers, and other potential drainage ways, at the northern 
end of the Canal, and to the north-end sides of it, sliould be monitored now 
and in the future. It is potentially possible that fluids from the Canal area 
may find their way into these stonu sewers. This may bcronie a possibility if 
we got heavy amounts of precipitation before all section;; can be capped and 
all drainage pipes are installed. 



I I/I !//)•; 




,//?.> ^ ^-/. ^"-^"^ 

by Charles H.V. Ebert 

Two sets of comments have been submitted on September 21, 1978, and on 
November 13, 1978, respectively. Since then the first phase of the Abatement 
Plan, dealing with the installation of the parallel drainage pipes and with 
placing a clay cap on the southern section of the Love Canal, has been com- 
pleted. Furthermore, additional soil test drilling was carried out and, in 
more recent weeks, short exploratory trenches were dug in several locations, 
to ascertain whether or not water and/or toxic materials had migrated away 
from the Love Canal proper in random fashion or in restricted areas. 

The following observations and recommendations will deal with three 
general areas: (1) Comments on the Suspected Migration of Toxic Materials; 
(2) Recommendations for Specific Test Drilling Locations; and (3) Suggestions 
as to Additional Tests for the Summer of 1979. 

A. Migration of Toxic Materials 

From various reports and discussions it can be concluded that the migra- 
tion of toxic materials from the Love Canal, wherever it did occur, took place 
in highly erratic and mostly unpredictable patterns. The difficulty in pre- 
dicting the pattern, in terms of distance and direction, did not come as a 
surprise in view of the great complexity of the overburden: soil layers of 
variable permeability, clisLurbed noils, backfill material, old nccpage ways 
[swales], and the density, or lack Llicrcof, of the soil Ler.tin{', pattern. 
Wliile all who are concerned with soils research agree that there exist at 
least three major soi] layers, mostly composed of lacustrine materials under- 
lain by glacial till, there is also agreement that within the soil proper are 



a great number of local, and suspectedly unique, variations in texture to com- 
plicate the picture further. Particularly the occurrence of isolated, and 
apparently discontinuous lenses of sandy material, could add new dimensions to 
the direction and distance over which groundwater, and potentially chemicals 
also, could migrate. The definite identification of desiccation cracks in 
the subsoil clays was discussed in previous reports. Mr. Don Owens has 
repeatedly commented on these phenomena, and 1 referred to thera in my second 
report [11/13/78]. 

Disturbed soils, and backfill materials, are mostly found in the so- 
called swales. This material is not homogeneous and consists of trash, sur- 
plus soil from previous excavations, and possibly fill material that was 
brought to the site from other areas in the Niagara Falls region. Some of 
this backfill, therefore, could contain contaminants [not necessarily toxic 
in nature] reflecting urban and industrial waste. 

Some of the trenches dug across suspected swale areas showed, apart 
from smell, very little chemical contamination. I am referring to the west- 
east trench dug across 99th Street south of \^eatfield, where only the western 
side of the trench revealed strong chemical odors, and the trench dug near the 
intersection of Read Avenue and 99th Street. However, since tlie trenches were 
dug in the middle of the winter, when little subsoil water migration takes 
place and the rate of evaporation of clicmicals [odors!] is very low, it seems 
advisable not to jump to rash conclusions an to tlie complete absence of chem- 
icals in said areas. Nevertheless, tlie level of contaminants seemed to be low 
at that time. 

B. Additional Test Drilling and Excavations 

From additional studies of aerial photographs and U.S.G.S. maps, dating 

44-978 0-79-14 


back to 1948, additional information concerning the largest swale, cutting 
across the northern section of the Love Canal, came to the surface: 

(1) This swale did form a gully-type cut on both the western and 
eastern side of the Love Canal. The depth of this gully did not exceed 10 
feet below the original soil surface and its width, at the original soil 
surface must have been about 40 feet near the Canal and probably not more 
than 20 feet immediately west of 99th Street which it intersected at a dis- 
tance of about 728 feet north of l^heatfield. The edge of the swale coincides 
with the 570-foot contour, the same contour which surrounds the Love Canal. 
Since the 560-foot contour does not show in the gully bottom the. depth of the 
swale, at that location, did not exceed ten feet. Two small mounds of spoil 
material can be seen on the contour map rising above the 580-foot contour. 
This material could have been used to fill the swale between 99th Street and 
the Love Canal and, therefore, should be composed mostly of natural soil 

(2) On the west side the swale first maintained the appearance of a 
gully having roughly the same dimensions as on the east side, as shown by 
the contour depression symbol [see attached map]. Subsequently, the swale 
sx>?ung back eastward, in a crescent shape, and narrowed substantially before 
it reached Colvin Boulevard. The swale then linked, apparently by going 
through a culvert unchrnoath Colvin Blvd., with Black Creek. The original 
passageway of the swale was about 145 feet west of 99th Street on Colvin Blvd., 
while the junction between the swale and Black Creek was about 160 feet NNW 
of the culvert. It should be determined whether drainage from the Love Canal 
moved northward along this drainageway or whether the construction of Colvin 
Blvd., and the west-east utility ditches, presented an effective barrier 


against such migration. It is therefore strongly recommended that test drill- 
ings, to a minimum depth of 14 feet, be carried out along 30-foot transects 
between 99th Street and 98th Stret^t immediately to the north and south side of 
Colvin Boulevard. 

C. Additional Testing 

With the advent of a new summer season, the first after the completion 
of the clay cap covering the southern section of the Love Canal, it appears 
necessary to conduct a number of additional tests which may confirm: a) the 
effectiveness of the clay cover already installed, and b) the possibility that 
groundwater, including chemical pollutants, may still be engaged in active 
migration away from the central and northern sections. The following sug- 
gestions are made: 

(1) Under the influence of melting snow and spring precipitation the 
soils on the eastern and western side of the north-to-south drainage ditches 
should be checked for water content and leachates. This should be correlated 
with as many water sampling tests in sump pump holes along 99th Street and 
97th Street so that the new tests can be compared to the ones made last year. 
The soils, very soon, should reach their maximum saturation before higher 
seasonal temperatures increase evaporation from the surface materials. 

(2) The sides of the clay cap should be inspected for seepages and ero- 
sion. Water samples .should be collected at the surface whoro the clay cap 
intersects the natural surfaces. In addition the surface of the clay cover 
should be inspected for major cracks developing during the drying period over 
the summer months to determine whether contaminants are escaping in vapor form 
in harmful concentrations. [The latter is unlikely.] 

(3) If it is decided to plant vegetation on the clay cover it is strongly 


recommended to: a) place at least a foot of loamy soil on top of the clay cap 
to fill all surface cracks and even out the surface, and b) use a grass cover 
only. Trees should not be planted at this stage. Their roots could create 
root channels at undesirable depths, particularly should the trees die after 
a certain time, which may induce water to enter the canal proper or may allow 
water to rise up. In addition, the cost factor of planting trees at this 
time, facing the possibility of later removal, appears unwise. A grass cover 
would help to prevent erosion and will absorb precipitation more uniformly. 
(4) It may be possible to detect chemical migration by examining tree 
wood cores and sap samples. Plants, including trees, have a tendency to 
incorporate materials which are not necessarily plant nutrients. Older trees 
have a root system of considerable depth, extending readily into the suspected 
soil layers and cover an area roughly corresponding to the diameter of the 
tree crown. Thus it would be possible to test tree sap, and plant fibers, for 
trace elements which could possibly be helpful in tracing contaminants without 
doing constructional damage to real estate. This problem should be discussed 
by chemists and plant physiologists. Infrared photographs may indicate trees 
having abnormally low metabolic activity which may be caused by harmful 

(5) The last suggestion is simply another appeal to check out the inner 
coatings of storm sewers and the outer coatings on utility installations 
around the northern section east of 96th Street, south of Grceuwald and geu- 
erally the arc;i bctwicii the now i:l i".'i i ghLcncHl course of lU.Tck Creek nnd Colvin 
Blvd. Similar tests are recommended in the area east of 99th Street, south 
of Wheatfield, in a general southeasterly sector extending to 102nd Street. 








September 20, 1978 

Mr. John McColf 
799 101st Street 
Niagara Falls, NY 1A301 

Dear Mr. McColf: 

After considering the problem you outlined, the best solution seemed 
to be to advise you of the limits for chemicals in workroom air adopted 
by the American Conference of Governmental and Industrial Hyglenists 
(ACGIH) . The limits for the chemicals that were detected in your house 
are as follows: 

Chloroform 50,000 ug/m^ 

Trichloroethene 535,000 pg/m^ 

Toluene 375,000 yg/m^ 

Tetrachloroethene 670,000 wg/m^ 

We would not recommend these limits for a person exposed to these chemicals 
2A hours/day, 365 days/year. The limits quoted are intended for use in the 
practice of industrial hygiene. The ACGIH states "they are not intended 
for use: (1) as a relative index of hazard or toxicity, (2) in the evaluation 
or control of community air pollution nuisances, or (3) in estimating the 
toxic potential of continuous, uninterrupted exposures or other extended 
work periods." 

I hope this information will help you; if I can be of further assistance, 
please feel free to contact me. 

Sincerely yours, 

Nancy K. Kim 
Research Scientist 




\k^ ^Ai^?l 


AOORESS I^O) -'^< 

COMPOUNDS uq/m^ (micrograms per cubic meter) 

Chloroform * 





Te t rach 1 oroethene 



^y 1 §ne 








; 79^- /o/'^'zr 



ug/m (micrc 












— . 





i/A rA i^ 








October 11, 1Q78 

Mr. James L. Clark 
736 101st. Street 
Niagara Falls, NY 14304 

RE: Review of I'edical Records 

Dear Mr. Clark: 

All of your medical records submitted to my 
office have been thoroughly examined. Our review 
of this information and all currently available 
data relating to the Love Canal, the planned remedial 
construction and associated evacuation and safety 
programs has resulted in the decision that temporary 
relocation is not warranted at present. If you have 
any additional information you wish to present, please 
do not hesitate to write me. Meanwhile, \ie will 
continue to monitor and evaluate the progress of 
remedial work at the Love Canal site for potential 
hazards . 




Nicholas J. Vianna, M.D. ,M. S . P. H. 





October 12, 1973 

Mr. and Mrs. James L. Clark 
736 lOlsC. Street 
Niagara Falls, NY 14304 

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Clark: 

RE: Edmund Clark 

All of your medical records submitted to my 
office have been thoroughly examined. Our review 
of this information and all currently available 
data relating to the Love Canal, the planned remedial 
construction and associated evacuation and safety 
programs has resulted in the decision that temporary 
relocation is not warranted at present. If you have 
any additional information you wish to present, please 
do not hesitate to write me. Meanv/hile, we will 
continue to monitor and evaluate the progress of 
remedial work at the Love Canal site for potential 
hazards . 


Nicholas J. 

Vianna, M.D. .M.S.P.H. 



NEW YORK STATE pg^ release: EMBARGO: For 



Release after 

7 p.m. 

Feb. 8, 1979 



ALBANY, Feb. 8— A recently completed State Health Department study suggests 

a higher than expected frequency of miscarriages, birth defects and lower infant 

birth weight among residents living in homes located on former ponds, stream beds 

and other historically "wet" areas near the Love Canal section of Niagara Falls. 

Dr. David Axelrod, State health commissioner, released the information 
today after receiving the reconmendations of an outside panel of scientific experts 
at a day-long meeting yesterday in New York City. 

The Conmissioner said the incidence of miscarriage among women living 

in the former "wet" areas between 97th and 103rd Streets and Colvin Boulevard and 

Frontier Avenue was about twice as high as that of residents of "dry" areas in 
the same neighborhood and that of a control group in a similar study of miscarriage 

frequency in Toronto. He noted the miscarriage rate for the "wet" area residents 

was slightly lower than that found among residents living in the Love Canal area 
along 99th Street. 

The frequency of birth defects among families in the "wet" areas was more 
than twice as high as that of families living on "dry" properties and the number 
which would be expected for the general population. Dr. Axelrod said. 

Dr. Axelrod also expressed concern over preliminary data showing a higher 
percentage of low birth weight babies being born to women living in "wet" areas 
as compared to women living in New York State, exclusive of New York City. "Low 
birth weight (under 5 1/2 pounds) is a broad indicator of a greater susceptibility 
to a variety of health problems during childhood," he said. 

"We cannot say with certainty that the higher rates found in each of the 
categories are directly related to chemical exposure but the data do suggest a 
small but significant increase in the risk of miscarriages and birth defects," 
he said. "Although the magnitude of the additional risk to this population is 
indeed small, prudence dictates that we take a most conservative posture to minimize 
even that small additional risk," he added. 

Or. Axelrod said that the studies to date did not document any increased 
incidence of liver disease, except among residents of the first two rings of homes 
which have been evacuated, nor was an increase noted in abnormal blood problems, 
except for some cases of iron deficiency anemia which he described as being fairly 
prevalent among the general population. He also said there was no evidence of 
toxicity related to exposure to benzene, a known human cancer-causing agent. The 
data also failed to produce evidence of excess neurological disorders, including 
epilepsy, or cancer among current residents of the Love Canal area. 

Dr. Axelrod said his agency would continue to monitor the area for 
health problems by refining existing data and conducting additional studies, 
including one which will concentrate on respiratory illness with a particular 
emphasis on asthma, and another, already under way, which expands the current 
Love Canal study to include homes north of Colvin Boulevard. 

"In the meantime, I am recommending that all pregnant women who live 
between 97th and 103rd Streets, and including several homes abutting the north side 
of Colvin between 97th and 100th Streets, consider temporarily relocating because 
of the potential effects on the fetus, particularly during early pregnancy," the 
Commissioner said. 

"I am also recommending the temporary relocation of children under two 
years of age who live in these same areas. While we have no direct evidence to 
indicate a problem with children under two, our recommendation for relocation includes 
this group because of scientific data that toxic exposure can interfere with the 
development of the nervous and immunological systems in the very young," he stated. 

2/8/79-19 PH 


Dr. Axelrod said, "These concerns for the child and the potential increased 
risks of miscarriage, birth defects and low birth weight, prompt me to make these 
recotmiiendations even though the total additional risk for residents of 'wet' 
properties is, in fact, small." 

He said the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a total evacuation of 
the area, and does not establish a direct cause-effect relationship between chemical 
exposure and illness. "I am making the recommendation as a conservative and 
reasonable measure and I am directing the advisory at all pregnant women and 
children under two — not just those living in the 'wet' areas -- because the 
environmental data have not been sufficiently refined to the point where we can 
clearly distinguish 'wet' and 'dry'." 

The Commissioner said miscarriages were selected as a focus for the study 
because of the known sensitivity of the human fetus to toxic exposure and environmental 
insult. He noted that there is a growing body of knowledge about fetal pathology, 
and that behavioral and other factors, such as cigarette smoking and drug usage 
during pregnancy, can also have deleterious effects on fetal development. 

The former "wet" areas, which include swales or former stream beds, 
marshlands and seasonal ponds, were identified through interviews with longtime 
residents, maps, aerial infra-red photographs and personal snapshots. 

The Health Department observations are based on a study of 155 pregnancies 
in so-called contaminated areas, including 99th Street in Ring I and purported "wet" 
areas between 93rd and 103rd Streets in which medically-confirmed miscarriages were 
reported. Thirty-nine miscarriages were reported as compared to an expected 19 
miscarriages, based on studies of pregnancies and miscarriages in "dry" areas and in 
the Toronto study, Dr. Axelrod said. 

The Commissioner pointed out most of the miscarriages (16) occurred among 
residents living in homes on former swampy areas as compared to 9 occurring among 
residents living in homes along former stream beds or swales. The study also 
showed that 15 persons living in "wet" areas were reported to have birth defects 
as compared to nine reported among residents of "dry" areas. 

A public health emergency was declared in the Love Canal area by the 
State Health Department on August 2 of last year. In the intervening period, 
the State has undertaken remedial construction, including removal of 20,000 to 
30,000 gallons daily of chemically contaminated liquids from the landfill site, 
building of a tile drain system to lower the water level of the former canal site, 
and installation of a clay cap to control surface water infiltration. 

Dr. Axelrod said these measures would continue. He said his department 
and the State Department of Environmental Conservation will continue to perform 
environmental sampling in the Love Canal area until such time as they are convinced 
that health and environmental hazards have been lowered to acceptable levels. 

-30- 2/8/79-19 PH 



okcamk: coMi'oufiDs idi:nlif[eu in three types 








Te trachlorobenzenes 

TctrJchloro toluenes 




Chlorobenzoic Acid 
■•B.H.C. Acid 
-B.H.C. Beta 
-B.H.C. Delta 
■'■"Chloro form 

•■•Tetrachloroethane (1,1,2,2) 



5-Methyl Benzacradine 
'•Dichloroe thylene 

Methylene Cliloride 

1,1,1 Trichloroe thane 
"Carbon tetrachloride 

■'•'1,3 Hcxachlorobii tadicne 

1,2 Dibromoe thane 

1,2 Dichloropropane 

1 , 2-bis- ( tr if luorome thy 1) benzene 

Ch lor obenzotrifluo rides 


Ch lor obenzodichlorofluo rides 



Bromo chloro toluenes 

Dichlorobenz aldehyde 







"Associated with cancer or leukemia in humans 

'•Evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals only 


Chloronaph thalene 
Methyl Formate 
Ethyl Acetate 
Isopropyl Acetate 
N-Butyl Acetate 
Benzyl Acetate 
Methyl Salicylate 
Alkyl 'Butyrate 
Vinyl Acetate 
Methyl Furan 
2,5 Dimethyl Furan 

Di-n Butyl Ether 
Butenal Isomer 
N-Hep tanal 

Methyl Vinyl Ketone 
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 
Methyl Isopropyl Ketone 
C][2"180 Ketone 
2-Pen tanone 

(2-Bu tyoxye thoxy ) Ethanol 
Acetic Acid 
Ueptanoic Acid 
Me thoxy -Di-T-Butyl phenol 
Benzo th iazole 
Pcntachloro toluene 
Hexachloro toluene 









Residents of Lovo DATE: February 9, 1979 
Canal Area 

Temporary Relocation sudjecT: Eligibility Requirements for 
Intake Staff Temporary Relocation 

The following information is provided to help you under- 
stand who is eligible for temporary relocation, and how 
you can apply for these benefits. 



Families with children under the age of 2 years of age. 
Pregnant women. 


Family applying must live in the area bounded by 93rd 

Street on the west, 103rd Street on the east, Colvin 

Boulevard on the north, (including several homes on the 

north side of Colvin between 97th Street and 100th 

Street) , and Frontier Avenue on the south; 

Must have been a resident on February 8, 1979. 


Call 283-8713 for an Intake appointment. 

New York State Dept. of Social Services staff will inter- 
view you to get needed information about eligibility 
and housing needs. 

When you go to the appointment, take the following docu- 
ments with you: 

1. Proof of pregnancy (if there is a pregnant woman in 
your home) . A simple -note from your doctor is all 
that is needed, stating date baby is due. 

2. Proof of age for all your children, for example, 
birth or baptismal certificates. 

3. Proof that you live in the Love Canal Relocation Area, 
for example, current mortgage or utility receipts, rent, 
etc. . . 

Nev; York State Dept. of Social Services staff will inter- 
view you and get all the information necessary to determine: 

1. If you are eligible, and 

2. What your housing needs will be. 

The Intake interviewer will photocopy the documents needed 

to verify your eligibility. 

If you have any special needs for financial, marital, 

or other counseling, the Intake interviwer will assist 

you in obtaining these services. 


We must verify all eligibility requirements in order 
to meet the audit requirements of the State Comptroller, 
and also to protect residents from allegations of wrong- 
doing at a future time. 


If you are found to bo eligible for relocation, your 
case will be assigned to a New York State Dept. of Trans- 
portation Relocation worker. 

You will be working with the same DOT Relocator in order 
to ninrmi:^e confusion ancl provide von v;ith the be^t 





[The following articles are from the Niagara Gazette] 
[Dec. 3, 1978] 

Photo Shows Love Canal Chemical Burial 
(By Mike Brown) 

An aerial photograph taken at least 25-years ago of the Love Canal and the 
nearby Upper Niagara River shoreline reveals nearly as much fill in northern part 
of the old dumpsite as the more-often-cited southern end of the residential area. 

And the photograph, purportedly taken in 1953 by a local resident when the canal 
had not been totally backfilled, clearly shows how close wastes were buried to 
homes on 99th Street. White areas indicating backfill are located very near back 
property lines. 

Included also is a line curving around the northern part of the canal, just the 
backfilled area and onto homes to the southeast, that may be a swale. It roughly fits 
descriptions by the state of an old drainage area. 

But the photograph has not yet been interpreted by experts. The state plans a 
close review of it during the coming week. 

Especially interesting is the area alongside the Niagara River, including the 
102nd Street dump and Griffon Park, as well the extreme southern end of the canal. 
If the white area represents chemical landfill area — and that appears to be the case 
at other sections of the canal — the photograph means that the riverside contains 
more contaminants than has been previously described. 

Those white portions, near the residential areas peripheral to the canal, perfectly 
match earlier definitions of where the chemicals were buried, except for the fact 
that the north end appears to contain more than officials thought. 

Under magnification, a cyclindrical darkened area at the northern end looks like 
a tank truck pushed into the fill. 

There are similarly interesting dark areas near the river that have not been 
defined. They look like stacks of chemical drums but could also be isolated vegeta- 

About a quarter of a mile above the mouth of the Little River, a white area is 
clearly shown in the water. It is not clear if that represents algae, a peculiar 
current, other natural phenomena, or chemical leachate surfacing from the Love 

The photograph clearly shows that, before the area was completely filled in, there 
were residential neighborhoods to the east and west, as well as rows of vegetation 
resembling orchards. 

Part of the parcel on which the 99th Street School playground now rests appears 
to have been filled with chemicals while the other stretch behind the school was a 

Just south of where Wheatfield Avenue is now located is a square darkened area 
that has not yet been identified. There are also a number of what appear to be bike 
paths or small creeks to the west of the canal's middle portion. 

A white area similar to the canal blotches is also located on Cayuga Island and 
various smaller spots east of the canal. 

The photograph is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Hillis of 432 102nd St. 

Officials have a 1951 photograph of the Love Canal, and there are also graphics 
predating chemical burials. But they do not illuminate the problems as well as the 
1953 photograph. 

For months investigators have wondered why a certain section of the southern 
residential area of the canal had a 20-foot hill at one time. 

They speculate that it was either a random piling of material or that there was 
something below that those who backfilled the canal were taking special measures 
to protect from the environment. 

The state is only now collecting aerial photographs of other parts of the city. 
There are dozens of suspected disposal sites throughout the municipality and the 
county in general, most of which have not been positively identified and their 
contents inventoried. 

What may lie underground between the 47th and 60th Street area is an especially 
irksome question. 



[Aug. 15, 1978] 

Landfill Ruling Hailed 
(By Jerauld E. Brydges) 

A judge's ruling that the owner of a disposal site near St. Louis, Mo., must close 
the landfill and remove the dangerous liquids was hailed today as a "landmark in 
environmental law." 

Macoupin County Circuit Court Judge John W. Russell Monday ruled in favor of 
the residents of the tiny community of Wilsonville, 111., all of whom sought to get rid 
of a 130-acre disposal site owned by the Earthline Corp. 

The 700 Wilsonville inhabitants were joined in a law suit by the Macoupin County 
attorney and Illinois State Attorney General William J. Scott. 

Scott said Monday that Russell's decision "can help protect the basic human right 
to food and water that is not contaminated." 

Attorneys for Earthline said they will ask for a delay of the ruling while they 
appeal the decision. Scott said he expected the ruling to be upheld. 

Russell ruled that Earthline must shut down the disposal site, remove the discard- 
ed chemicals "and all contaminated soil to be found on the site." 

A spokesman for the Illinois attorney general's office told the Niagara Gazette 
this morning that Scott's complaint was filed under three sections of law. 

He charged that Earthline was in violation of the Illinois Environmental Protec- 
tion Act of 1970 and that it was contributing to the pollution of land, water and air. 

Furthermore, he acted under the attorney general's statute that permits seeking 
injunctions where allegations of pollution are involved. 

He also acted under a "common law" which permits him to investigate "public 

Earthline is a division of SCA Services Inc., Boston, Mass. SCA is also the parent 
firm of Chem-Trol Pollution Services Inc., which operates a waste disposal plant in 
the Town of Porter. 

The landfill was opened in November 1976 and Wilsonville residents began their 
fight to have it closed in April 1977 when they learned that polychlorinated- 
biphenyls were being deposited there. 

Exposure to PCBs can cause liver damage and skin ailments, and poses dangers to 
fetuses as well as the possibility of stillbirths. 

A source familiar with the Wilsonville case said, however, that no sicknesses have 
been found related to the deposits at the landfill. 

Unlike the Love Canal situation here, there was no evacuation of residents in the 
tiny town. The dump is located just outside the community limits. 

Nearly 60,000 gallons of the chemical waste was sent to Wilsonville under federal 
auspices. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency supervised trucking of the 
waste material after ordering the wastes removed from an unregulated landfill near 
Dittmer, Mo. 

Missouri officials had found evidence that the seepage from the Dittmer dump 
had killed fish in a tributary of the Meramec River. Chemicals there had been 
disposed of by a nearby salvage firm. 

The Wilsonville site was licensed as a "hazardous waste disposal area" by the 
federal government and the state of Illinois, and is one of just a few sites in the 

The Wilsonville residents were led in their fight by a Roman Catholic priest, the 
Rev. Casmir Gierut. 

They held several meetings protesting the use of the disposal site and were later 
joined in their fight by Scott. 

Pending a full hearing of the case, Russell's ruling will not take effect until the 
judge signs an order. That order is being drafted today. 

Meanwhile, the New York State Farm Bureau has called for a moratorium on 
proposed dredging of the Hudson River, charging that a state plan for disposing of 
PCBs may endanger surrounding farmlands. 

Private Farmers' Organization President, Richard McGuire, said plans to deposit 
the dredged mud containing PCBs contains "too many similarities to the process 
used by a chemical company in creating the so-called Love Canal in Niagara 

McGuire said the Department of Environmental Conservation plans to dump the 
dredgings on 75 to 175 acres of land offered by two Washington County farmers. 

The DEC is seeking $25 million in federal funds to remove the most highly 
concentrated deposits of PCBs. 

44-978 0-79 


[Nov. 3, 1978] 

Adjacent Canal Homeowner Going To Give His House Away 

Declaring that "the mental anguish is just not worth it," James L. Clark, of 736 
101st St. has decided he is going to give his home away. 

Clark, one of 20 homeowners whose pleas for evacuation from their property 
bordering the Love Canal site were rejected by the state, said today he is "not going 
to wait seven years while they decide" whether more homes should be evacuated. 

Claiming he and his family suffer from a "multitude of health problems" includ- 
ing kidney ailments, Clark said he could no longer bear the uncertainty of living in 
the area. 

Clark, a Union Carbide Corp. employee, said, "I went for three blood tests. The 
state told me something was wrong. Now they say they don't have evidence." 

He said his family is "more important than anything else," and he wants to get 
out as soon as he can. He has a wife and three sons, aged 15 to 19. 

So, Clark said he plans to give away the house Saturday to anyone who will 
assume the mortgage. He said he has arranged with his attorney to transfer the 
title at 10 a.m. It only has to be notarized, he said. 

Clark said his family has lived in the home, a raised ranch, for seven years. He 
said the remaining mortgage on the home is "around $19,000," at monthly pay- 
ments of $214. He said the home includes a new garage and is "probably worth 

"I'm not a radical," Clark said, "It's just the only alternative. I can't walk away, 
or my credit's no good. I can't rent — I'd face a pile of lawsuits. So I'm going to give 
it away." 

He said he hoped his action would call attention to the plight of the homeowners 
he feels have been neglected. But Clark said he was not doing if for personal gain. 

"I don't represent anybody," he said, "I just represent Mr. Clark with common 
sense, and he wants out." 

Clark said he was unsure whether he would donate the home to a charity or 
raffle it off. 

He said he and his family would not be prepared to move out until they find 
another place to live. 

[Nov. 5, 1978] 

Home Giveaway Makes Man "Lose Faith" 

(By Eric Stutz and Francine Delmonte, staff writers) 

A Love Canal area resident who offered to give his house away as a public protest 
Friday found a buyer, but said the episode made him "lose faith in the American 

James L. Clark of 736 101st St., said his offer "worked" but would not identify the 
buyer except to say that he lives outside the Niagara Falls area. 

Clark said he received about 20 calls for the home, but said most of the callers 
missed the point of his effort. 

Clark, one of 20 homeowners whose pleas for evacuation were rejected by the 
state, said the giveaway was not a gimmick. 

"Somebody had to make a sacrifice to bring national attention to the plight of 
these people," he said, "Somebody had to be a martyr. I'm giving up everything to 
make the world realize what's happening here. 

But he didn't get quite the response he expected, he said. 

"I've lost faith in the American people," he said. "I'm trying to make a point, and 
the ones who called just wanted to profit from it. They just asked if they could have 
my refrigerator and stuff." 

A unique legal stipulation is attached to the deal. "He (the new owner) has got to 
live in the house," Clark said, "That's what's so beautiful. He thinks he got a deal." 

Clark, a former Green Beret and demolitions expert, has a medical disability. His 
kidney is failing, he said, and doctors for years had been unable to figure out the 
cause. He said he first got sick a year after moving into the house seven years ago. 

He said Gov. Hugh Carey had reneged on his pledge to get 23 seriously ill people 
out of the Love Canal area. "We have stood back and watched the bureaucratic 
machine run over us," he said. "Getting the sick people out is the first thing they 
should have done." 


Clark, his wife, daughter and two sons plan to move to Montgomery, Alabama, 
after the deal closes next month. He admitted his family was upset about his 
decision, but added, "I'd be remiss as a parent if I didn't get them out, and who'd 
ever buy a house out here?" 

The home, which is a raised ranch, has a remaining mortgage of about $19,000 at 
monthly payments of $214, he said. He estimated its market value at about $48,000. 

Clark is certain the city and the state will never help any of the families located 
in the outside "rings" adjacent to the canal. 

"The city has closed its mind to what's happening," he said. "The New York State 
Health Department only cares about numbers, when they should care about 

He said his neighbors think he is either crazy or scheming, but he denied doing it 
for personal gain. "The only thing I want out of this deal is out of this deal," he 
said. "I told my wife if we get the 23 people out of here it'll be worth it. If not, at 
least we'll be out. 

"It's funny, I used to hate the young people of this country for protesting the 
things I believed in," Clark said. "Now I m a protester. I've never been a radical. 
The only thing I'm crusading for is common sense." 

[Nov. 22, 1978] 

Public Bias Against EPA, Plants Cited 

(By Mark Francis) 

The public's prejudice against the chemical industry and federal environmental 
officials will make the selection of an impartial jury in the Olin Corp. criminal trial 
"troublesome," a federal judge has written. 

Federal Judge John T. Elfvin, in a six-page written decision, said the Love Canal 
situation in Niagara Falls and other recent environmental developments have re- 
sulted in "bias and prejudice" among potential Olin jurors. 

"Love Canal and its problems will be before the public and in the minds and 
hearts of the local citizens for a substantial period of time due to ongoing remedial 
efforts, the private lawsuits, the criminal investigations, and the state and federal 
legislative inquiries," Elfvin wrote. 

"It will continue to be troublesome insofar as securing an unbiased and unpreju- 
diced jury. The bias and prejudice, while mainly directed towards the chemical 
industry, also bears against the prosecution and particularly against the Environ- 
mental Protection Agency. It probably will require at any reasonably foreseeable 
future time a tedious and time-consuming jury selection process." 

Elfvin's statements were contained in a decision granting a request by the Olin 
Corp. and three former employees to delay the start of their trials because of recent 
environmental developments, particularly the Love Canal. 

Their trial had been scheduled to begin next week. They now are scheduled to 
begin early next year. 

Failure to delay the trial, Elfvin said, "would seriously impede the trial of this 
case and would result in a miscarriage of justice." 

Olin and its three former employees were indicted in March on federal charges of 
falsely reporting the discharge of mercury into the upper Niagara Rvier from the 
company's Buffalo Avenue plant from 1970 until 1977. The indictment charged the 
four with reporting far lesser amounts than were actually discharged into the river. 

Elfvin said attorneys for the defendants submitted about 750 articles published 
since Aug. 1 in the Niagara Gazette and two Buffalo newspapers. Those articles 
dealt mainly with the Love Canal. 

Other articles were published regarding environmental problems in other states, 
criminal charges brought against three Jamestown men for allegedly violating 
North Carolina anti-pollution laws, and chlorine leaks at Olin's Niagara Falls plant. 

[Nov. 22, 1978] 

200 Chemicals Found in Canal 
(By Mike Brown, Staff Writer) 

State health officials have now indentified about 200 chemical compounds in the 
Love Canal, including what one researcher described as "organic curiosities." 


That figure is more than double the 82 chemicals originally identified at the old 
Hooker Chemical Co. dumpsite, but it remained unclear today whether the number 
represents distinctly different substances of simply means the wastes dumped there 
years ago have degraded into variations and melded together. 

Dioxin, the extremely potent chemical that usually accompanies 2,4,5-trichloro- 
phenol, has not yet been singled out of the landfill, although officials consider it 
highly likely that the by-product is in the canal. Up to 200 tons of trichlorophenol 
was dumped there. 

Dr. Glenn Haughie, director of public health, said he doesn't believe the list of 
new substances contains repetitions of what was previously listed. 

Dr. Robert Huffaker, the state's safety officer for cannal remedial work, said 80 to 
85 percent of the chemicals are chlorinated hydrocarbons of some sort. But unlike 
Dr. Haughie, he said he believes "there are some repetitions." 

"In the event we find it (dioxin) we'll tell you," Dr. Haughie, said. Dr. Huffaker 
added that "it is very likely" that dioxin, described as one of the most dangerous 
substances created by man, exists somewhere in the leaching. 

Steve Lester, consultant for the Love Canal Homeowners Association, said he 
doesn't know if any carcinogens are contained in the revised list of chemicals. 
"What you have, because of the combinations in the canal, are a bunch of organic 
curiosities," he said, referring to the blending of substances. 

Meanwhile, at a raucous meeting with about 190 residents of the area. Dr. 
Haughie said there is some evidence of soil contamination along routes that served 
as dranage points for the former canal. 

But he said there is no evidence, at this point, backing the theory that those who 
live along former swales and stream beds suffer an unusually higher number of 
various illnesses. 

The meeting, held in 99th Street School's auditorium Tuesday night, was fre- 
quently interrupted by shouting citizens who accused the state Health Department 
of covering up the full picture of the Love Canal and its health effects. 

At one point early in the session, a group of about 40 people left the auditorium 
to protest that homes in outlying neighborhoods have not been evacuated. 

There were also several moments when residents began to argue among them- 
selves, shouting and refusing to yield the floor to the experts they came to hear. 

Even the credentials of those who spoke were questioned. When Dr. Huffaker 
explained that he was a veterinarian, the auditorium erupted into derisive laughter. 

"It's a complex situation and the people don't understand much of it," said one 
official, looking on from the audience. "Now they're going too far." 

State officials gave a slide presentation showing the results of sump-pump, base- 
ment air, and soil tests. It took about three hours for Dr. Haughie to finish the 

'The slides showed several points to the north, east and west of the landfill where 
swales once ran. In an area east of the canal's middle portion, Dr. Haughie said 
there was once a pond that probably carried contamination. 

While overall health effects are not higher, Dr. Haughie said children, especially 
boys, appear to have indications of abnormal lover functions along formerly wet 
areas. "But there is no more epilepsy or asthma," he said. 

Whether those blood samples that show abnormalities are representative of sig- 
nificant liver disorders has not been determined, Dr. Haughie said. 

[Dec. 12, 1978] 

Dioxin Is Confirmed 

The presence of dioxin, perhaps the worst of the poisonous by-products of chemi- 
cal manufacturing, has at last been confirmed at the Love Canal. 

Yet state officials, hitherto so cautious, are proceeding with remedial work there 
as though there were no dioxin. 

When residents of the area picketed the work site to prevent vehicles from 
carrying out mud that might be contaiminated with dioxin, state officials kept the 
trucks going, so city police had to arrest six of the demonstrators immediately after 
the picketing began. 

State officials say the dioxin discovered at the Canal does not present a health 
hazard, since it was measured only in extremely small quantities — parts per million. 

But it seems to us the presence of any dioxin at all ought to call for the 
imposition of the most stringent security measures until the extent and danger of 
the contamination can be thoroughly assessed. It is not known how extensive the 
dioxin contamination is at the Canal or how far it may have leached out of the 


Canal. It is not known whether the dioxin is concentrated in one or a few places, or 
whether it is widespread. It is not known whether vehicles and workers at the site 
may be carrying away dioxin in the mud that clings to their wheels and boots as 
they leave the Canal. It is not known what sorts of solutions or compounds the 
dioxin is in, or how it will react when exposed to air, rain cold, or heat. 

In short, so little is known besides the fact that dioxin has had terrible effects in 
other places and other circumstances, that it seems to us quite foolhardy to carry on 
as before at the Love Canal. 

We have been disturbed by some of the things residents of the area have been 
saying lately. 

At a meeting last week, one resident said he would try to keep workmen out of 
the site "even if it causes a riot." Another said, "If our lives aren't worth $150 a day 
to the construction workers, then their lives aren't worth a nickel to the residents of 
the Love Canal area." 

We try to understand the fears and tensions that afflict residents of that area. 
But we don't think anything justifies that sort of inflammatory talk. We hope Love 
Canal people will make a special effort to avoid any more of it. 

Nevetheless, we think the Love Canal people are right to be deeply perturbed 
about the apparently casual response of state officials to the presence of dioxin. We 
think they are right to picket and we think they performed an important public 
service when they tried to tell workers at the site about the dangers of dioxin. 

They were also right to try to prevent vehicles from entering or leaving the site. 
This is what they were arrested for, and probably the police had no choice since this 
was a clear violation of the rules that generally apply to picketing. But the possible 
danger of spreading even tiny quantities of dioxin around the city is so great that is 
justifies the picket's civil disobedience. 

Their disobedience would not have been necessary if the state officials in charge 
at Love Canal had treated the dioxin discovery as seriously as it deserves. 

[Mar. 10, 1979] 

Cleanup Ordered for Canal Leakage 
(By Thad Komorowski, staff writer) 

While others may be welcoming the recent mild weather, the intrusion of Mother 
Nature into the cleanup operations at the Love Canal has caused headaches for 
officials and has stirred concern among residents there. 

Immediate cleanup operations were ordered by state officials Friday when it was 
noticed that unidentified liquids were leaking from the canal site near the 99th 
Street School and flowing onto Read Avenue and into the city's storm sewers. The 
recent spring thaw and rains were blamed for the unexpected flow. 

Michael Cuddy, on-site director for the state's Love Canal Task Force, had work- 
ers on the scene Friday, containing the escaping liquids by blocking the flow with 
soil and then vacuuming the liquid into a tank truck. Workers dug a drainage ditch 
to contain the liquids. 

The liquids will be treated at the on-site filtration system. 

Lois Gibbs, president of the Love Canal Homeowners Association, said today that 
"this is only the beginning." She said the situation will worsen when warmer 
weather arrives. 

"It's going to be a disaster," Mrs. Gibbs said of the problem. "It (the leachate) was 
black, smelly and appeared to have oil slicks. . . . some of the workers said it might 
be C-56." 

C-56, a chlorinated hydrocarbon, was found to be one of the chemicals buried by 
the Hooker Chemical Co. during its operation of the former landfill in the 1950s. 
This chemical has been linked to nervous-system disorders in humans. 

According to Mrs. Gibbs, the state officials "stood there and shook their heads in 
disbelief when they investigated reports of the problem. Mrs. Gibbs said she didn't 
know if the problem was related to the remedial work being conducted at the site. 

Both Cuddy and Joseph McDougall, city project manager, could not be reached 
Saturday for comment. 

Gibbs said some residents said the leaking has been going on since Wednesday. 
Mrs. Gibbs said she expected to meet with state officials Monday to discuss more 
efficient monitoring of the remedial work and related problems. 

Cuddy compared the situation to original problems last spring at the southern 
portion of the Love Canal when rains caused chemicals to ooze from the soil. 


For the time being, workers appear to have the problem under control, but 
officials are worried that some of the chemicals may have flowed through the 
sewers and into the Niagara River. The association and the state have taken 
samples of the leachates for analysis. 

[Mar. 13, 1979] 

State May Sue Hooker for Canal Cost 
$20 million spent on cleanup eyed 

Albany (AP).— The state may sue the Hooker Chemicals and Plastics Corp. and 
possibly other industries for the $20 million it has spent to contain toxic chemicals 
leaking from the Love Canal area of Niagara Falls. 

Gov. Hugh Carey's office announced Monday that the governor has written to 
Attorney General Robert Abrams asking him to prepare for legal action in toxic 
pollution cases. 

And Abrams indicated that he would quickly do so. 

Neither man made any public statement about the form the lawsuits could take, 
or even about who might be sued. Staff aides were to meet later this week to map 

But one obvious potential target is Hooker, which owned the canal site until 
selling it to the Niagara Falls Board of Education in 1953. Hooker buried chemical 
wastes in the Love Canal in the 1940s and early '50s. 

The site was covered with dirt and clay before being sold. The 99th Street School 
was later built over part of the canal, while more than 200 homes were erected 
immediately adjacent to the site. 

The Niagara Gazette reported in 1976 that chemicals from the site were leaching 
into nearby homes, creating a potential health hazard. State officials agreed last 
August to purchase 239 adjacent homes prior to the start of remedial work. 

Carey said the state has already spent more than $20 million on clean-up costs 
and on buying the homes of the evacuated families, and that more would have to be 
spent before the problem is solved. He asked Abram.s to consider a suit "to protect 
both the public health and the pecuniary interest of the state." 

The attorney general is an independent office-holder and does not have to do what 
the governor requests. 

But in this case, Nathan Reilly, a spokesman for Abrams, said that "this is a 
matter of great personal concern to the attorney general." 

If the lawsuit is filed and is successful, it could set a precedent under which the 
state could collect the clean-up costs of future toxic pollution problems from the 
industries which caused them. 

Estimates of the potential sites for such problems in the state range into the 
hundreds, although the survey information on them is acknowledged by state offi- 
cials to be inadequate. 

The Carey administration has appeared in the past to be reluctant to sue Hooker 
over the Love Canal problem. 

The governor has been anxious for Hooker to continue operating in New York. 
His aides have said that assigning full legal blame for this and similar problems 
could prove difficult. And he was hoping to recover the clean-up costs from the 
federal government. 

But in recent months it has become clear that the federal government does not 
intend to pay the clean-up costs. Homeowners outside the evacuated area also are 
demanding that the state buy their houses. And there have been promises that some 
of the homeowners in the area would sue Hooker if the state did not. 

All those factors, sources said, led state officials to give new consideration to the 
idea of suing to recover the costs. 

Hooker recently completed a $60 million modernization of its Buffalo Avenue 
production facility in Niagara Falls. It is now building a $70 million steam produc- 
tion plant and has plans to erect a $12 million office building in downtown Niagara 

Although Hooker officials were not immediately available for comment this morn- 
ing, Stanley Smith, president of the Rainbow Center Development Corp., said he did 
not believe legal action by the state against Hooker would affect the firm's building 

Smith said there has been "absolutely no discussion" linking those plans with 
Hooker's environmental problems. 


"1 don't think it (legal action) would have any adverse effect for Hooker to 
develop," Smith said. "They are moving along in a positive fashion continuously." 

Hooker officals offered last August to pay $280,000 towards the cleanup of the 
south end of the canal, while denying any legal responsibility of the problem. At 
that time the cleanup cost was estimated at $840,000. State officials reportedly 
declined the offer because of the possiblility of later legal action. 

[Mar. 23, 1979] 

AxELROD Tells of Kidnap Threat 

Washington. — State Health Commissioner David Axelrod said Thrusday that the 
emotionally charged situation at the Love Canal in Niagara Falls, N.Y., has pro- 
ducted at least one serious kidnapping threat. 

"There was a threat to kidnap one of the members of our task force; it was not an 
idle threat," Axelrod said in testimony before a congressional subcommittee. He 
apparently was referring to the governor's Love Canal Task Force. 

Axelrod would not publicly indentify who had made the threat. He also did not 
identify the person intended for kidnapping. 

The commissioner's comments came in response to questions from Rep. Bob 
Eckhardt, D-Texas, as to why the state refused to publicly identify a "blue-ribbon" 
panel of experts advising the state Health Department on health issues involved in 
the Love Canal controversy. 

Eckhardt heads the House commerce Committee's subcommittee on oversight and 
investigations, which is holding hearings on hazardous waste disposal. 

Axelrod said that medical experts might be unwilling to get involved if they were 
identified, because of the "notoriety" of the situation and the emotional intensity of 
the residents of the area. He then related the kidnapping threat, and noted there is 
a state law that protects the identify of the blue-ribbon panel. 

That, however, failed to satisfy Eckhardt. "It really astounds me that is contained 
in New York law," he said, questioning whether the state is properly interpreting 
the law. 

"I'm concerned about any citizen of New York having the right to know under 
whose advice the public decision is being made," he said. 

Much of the questioning of Axelrod by the subcommittee involved his differences 
with Dr. Beverly Paigen, as research scientist at Roswell Park Memorial Institute, 
Buffalo, who has recommended that at least 140 more families be evacuated from 
the Love Canal area. 

Paigen, testifying before the committee Wednesday, had contended that there was 
an unusual incidence of miscarriages and various physical ailments in the so-called 
"wet areas" of the Love Canal neighborhood. 

The wet areas are along old stream beds, which Paigen said facilitated the flow of 
dangerous chemicals from the old dump site. 

Axelrod, however, questioned the validity of Paigen's studies because "the data 
she provided is not data she personally collected." He noted that Paigen's conclu- 
sions were based on surveys taken by residents of the neighborhood. 

"It has not been validated by examining the child or discussing the claim with the 
physician responsible," he said, noting that the state Health Department's data had 
been validated in that manner "in 90 percent of the cases." 

Under close questioning by Eckhardt, Axelrod said some of the data provided by 
Paigen had been investigated for validity. 

"We have not been able to substantiate the health risks she says exists in these 
areas," he said. 

He said he questioned her findings concerning respiratory and blood diseases in 
the wet areas. 

However, in his prepared testimony, Axelrod told the committee that a higher 
incidence of miscarriages and birth defects in the wet areas had led to his order of 
Feb. 8 recommending that pregnant women and children under 2 be relocated. 

Axelrod also said he has reservations about Paigen's "swale theory:" that those 
living along the old streambeds, or swales, are more susceptible to medical prob- 

"The area is hydrologically very complex; the swales are not the only source of 
migration of chemicals) from the canal," he said. He added that there are sandy 
fissures underground that may be a greater source of migration of chemicals than 
the swales. 


[The following articles are from the Buffalo Evening News] 
[Aug. 9, 1978] 

53 Dumps To Be Tested for Toxins 
state probing six sites in niagara now 

(By Paul MacClennan, News Environmental Reporter) 

The state's regional environmental director said today that each of the 53 Niagara 
County dump sites listed in Tuesday's Buffalo Evening News will have to be tested 
to determine if they contain toxic chemicals or hazardous wastes. 

William M. Friedman, the regional director for the state Department of Environ- 
mental Conservation, said the state already is testing or monitoring six of them. 

Sampling or remedial work is currently under way at three Hooker Chemical and 
Plastics Corp. sites in Niagara Falls, a former Olin Corp. site along the Niagara 
River near Griffin Park, an E.I. Dupont De Nemours site on Pine Avenue, a Van De 
Mark Chemical Co. site in Lockport and an abandoned Stauffer Chemical Corp. 
dump on the Artpark grounds. 

The latest wave of concern has been generated by the contamination of homes 
and the underground movement of highly toxic chemical wastes out of the aban- 
doned Hooker dump site in the Love Canal section of Niagara Falls that has forced 
evacuation of 100 families and led to the declaration of state and national emergen- 

Several federal and state officials voiced surprise at the number of dump sites and 
said they had been unable to determine the exact extent of the problem until they 
saw the list and map in Tuesday's News. 

A number of top government officials over the past two weeks have used the 
figure of 38 sites, but the up-to-date listing obtained by the News indicates that 
there are 40 abandoned dump sites and 13 disposal areas still in use. 

Disclosure of potentially toxic dump sites in Niagara County has led to demands 
by Erie County legislators and the Erie County Department of Environment and 
Planning that the state do a similar survey of dumping areas in Erie County. 

The DEC Tuesday disclosed a score of companies in the six-county area that are 
heavy users of toxic and hazardous substances and an inquiry is underway to 
determine the exact method the companies use to dispose of waste materials. 

Records obtained by The News indicated that more than half of the 40 abandoned 
dumps in Niagara County apparently contain industrial wastes, and a state official 
said "historically everyone had access to any disposal area, so you can't say what 
will be found." 

Regional DEC Engineer John C. McMahon said: "We're concerned about these 
chemicals escaping and possibly entering the river. Many of the chemicals involved 
are carcinogenic (cancer causing) to animals, and some have been identified as 
carcinogenic to man. 

State-federal studies already have determined that the toxins in the Love Canal 
have migrated two blocks west to 95th Street, and the U.S. Environmental Protec- 
tion Agency announced that it is more than doubling a $20,000 contract to widen 
the boring of test holes to pinpoint where the chemical has gone. 

A second EPA study will start deep-well tapping into bedrock groundwater to 
determine if the canal wastes have leaked deep underground. An EPA team from 
Rochester also is scheduled to start sampling storm sewers to see if chemicals are 
flowing into the system, which in many cases feeds direfetly and untreated into the 
Niagara River. 

Mr. Friedman said that during a closed-door working session, officlas agreed that 
engineering plans to excavate and install a special sewer system to catch toxic 
chemicals moving out of the canal dump site will be submitted Friday to state DEC 
officials in Buffalo and Albany. 

Exactly when work will start depends on state approval of the plans, a determina- 
tion of how many residents will be evacuated and from how wide a distance, and 
working out details such as safety of workmen and inspectors. He said a meeting 
with potential contractors was held Tuesday. 

Contracts will be awarded on a cost-plus-profit basis, without bidding. 

While the focus continues on serving the 100 or more residents being moved from 
the Love Canal site, federal, state and local officials continued to scramble today on 
an everwidening set of remedial measures, including: 

An engineering plan for containing toxic chemicals at the canal site is scheduled 
for completion Friday, and officials hope actual work can start in a week to 10 days. 



Area communities are calling on the state to hold public hearings before allowing 
Chem-Trol Pollution Services Inc. in Porter to divert treated wastes into Twelve 
Mile Creek. 

The Love Canal emergency has focused new attention on the fact that while 
Congress in 1976 passed sweeping legislation for control and safe disposal of toxic 
chemicals, none of the machinery for carrying out the program is yet in place. 

Regional Director Friedman of the DEC said today "as we bring the Love Canal 
situation under control, and as resources permit, DEC will look at each and every 
one of the abandoned dump sites in Niagara County. 

"Were stuck now on the Love Canal an remedial work here, but we'll expand our 
work taking them in order of priority." 

Raymond P. Griffin, chairman of the Erie and Niagara Counties Regional Plan- 
ning Board Utilities committee, said the unit has asked Niagara County communi- 
ties to join with the board in asking a public hearing on proposals by Chem-Trol to 
divert part of its flow of wastes from Six Mile Swail into Twelve Mile Creek. 

[Aug. 27, 1978] 

1954 Alarm Ignored on Canal Site 
(By Agnes Palazzetti) 

Niagara Falls. — Records uncovered by The Buffalo News show the Niagara Falls 
School Board was advised against continuing construction of the 99th Street School 
early in 1954. 

The problem below the surface of the Love Canal came to light some 24 years ago, 
when contractors building the school had to stop work and pour a new foundation 
away from the soggy chemical dump site. 

The school site was moved 85 feet and the building constructed. The school was 
closed this summer in the wake of the Love Canal contamination crisis. 

The land where the work started was so full of soft spots and holes that one 
workman actually had to be rescued from the site with a crane. 

And in January 1954, when construction of the school first got under way, 
workmen discovered strong chemical fumes sifting out of the ground. 

School records show the Albert Elia Construction Co. made contact with a pit 
"filled with chemicals" early that month. 

The records show the Falls School Board was aware of the existence of a chemical 
dump on the site they had chosen for their elementary school designed by the 
architectural firm of Cannon, Thiele, Betz and Cannon. 

They also show the School Board was advised against continuing construction at 
the site. 

"We believe it is poor policy to attempt to build over this soil, as it will be a 
continuous source of odors, and until more information is available regarding the 
materials dumped in this area, we must assume that it might be a detriment to the 
concrete foundations," Charles I. Thiele, architect for the school, told Wesley L. 
Kester, chairman of the board's education committee. 

The board responded by ordering the building moved 85 feet north. 

As it turned out, the school was built with a crawl space instead of a basement. 

The chemicals beneath the surface presented school officials with problems even 
after the school site was shifted and the foundation pillars were sunk into the 
Niagara Frontier rockbed. 

Mr. Thiele said at the time that the chemical dumps "present an unattractive 
nuisance with a number of definite hazards to adjacent property owners and neigh- 
borhood children." 

Mr. Thiele, who today believes the school board was primarily concerned with 
saving taxpayers' money, recommended that the contractor "clean up and bury as 
much of the debris as possible. 

"Fill up the two open chemical pits toward the north end of the southerly section 
of the property but it should be pointed out that when fill is placed in these pits, the 
liquid is then likely to overflow and cover adjacent areas . . ." he warned at the 

Mr. Thiele called his proposal a "relatively minor effort" that would help limit 
the hazardous conditions at the site but would fall short of placing it "in satisfac- 
tory shape." 

The building records for the school indicate the school board subsequently ordered 
drain tiles for any runoff to channel into city storm sewers. 


[Oct. 1, 1978] 

Air Samples Find Hazardous Toxins Beyond Canal Area 

(By David Shribman) 

Elevated levels of benzene, which is known to cause leukemia in humans, have 
been found in basements as far as three blocks outside the Love Canal hazard zone. 

Results of air samples obtained by The Baffalo News confirm that benzene and six 
other chemicals suspected of causing cancer are present in basements within a 
seven-block area, posing a possible health threat to families whose homes are not 
covered by the state's relocation and purchase program. 

The chemicals also are known to cause a wide range of liver and blood diseases as 
well as nervous system and gastro-intestinal disorders, skin and respiratory irrita- 

The air samples suggest that the toxic chemicals leaking out of the old Hooker 
Chemical and Plastic Corp., dump may have drained farther than earlier believed, 
or possibly that the homes are being contaminated by another toxic source. 

The chemical readings turned up in a survey of the basements of 40 homes 
beyond the fences of the Love Canal hazard zone. 

Although state health officals have maintained that the presence of more than 
three toxic chemicals is confined to 97th and 99th Streets, the air sample results 
demonstrate for the first time that four toxins — and, in some cases, more — are 
present as far east as 102nd Street. 

The amount of benzene found in the homes ranges from none to 82 micrograms 
per cubic meter, more than 400 times the suggested limit for 24-hour exposure over 
the course of a lifetime. 

State scientists minimize the danger of exposure to the levels of benzene found in 
the homes, but independent environmental health scientists and a spokesman for 
the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health have expressed alarm at 
the findings. 

"It's an absolute health hazard," said one scientist involved in advanced research 
in human responses to toxic chemicals. 

"I'd advise pregnant women and children to stay away from that," said Robert 
Delmage, a technical information specialist with the National Institute of Occupa- 
tional Safety and Health in Cincinnati. "There could be real problems." 

The air samples also showed high readings of toluene, which is not regarded as a 
major threat to health but which is nearly always contaminated with benzene, one 
of the first compounds scientists linked to cancer. 

Benzene posed a particularly strong threat to pregnant women because the com- 
pound is known to travel across the placenta and into the bloodstream of growing 
infants, possibly affecting the infant's bone marrow. 

It is also known to cause aplastic anemia, the failure to produce bone marrow, in 
humans. Aplastic anemia has been reported to precede luekemia in humans by as 
many as 15 years. 

Hazard levels of toxic chemicals such as benezene, chloroform, trichloroethene 
and the other toxins found in the air samples are a matter of considerable contro- 
versy within the scientific community. 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration has set hazard levels of 
30,000 micrograms per cubic meter for benzene and 535,000 micrograms per cubic 
meter for trichloroethene but these are workplace standards based on males work- 
ing only eight hours per day. 

Dr. Stephen Kim, a research scientist with the state laboratories in Albany, set 
0.2 micrograms per cubic meter as the suggested lifetime exposure limit based on 
24-hour exposure. 

The amounts found in the Niagara Falls homes fall well below thresholds estab- 
lished by OSHA, but above those set by Dr. Kim and well above limits recommend- 
ed by other scientists in the environmental health sciences field. 

Most of the studies on toxin chemical exposure have focused on the workplace 
conditions, but it is known that health risks rise with exposure inside homes 
particularly when pregnant women, young children and the elderly are involved. 


[Feb. 20, 1979] 

Researcher Warns State on Health Risks 
(By Paul MacClennan) 

Citing abormally high health risks, a medical researcher at Roswell Park Memori- 
al Institute today called for evacuation of 236 more families from contaminated 
areas near the Love Canal. 

Dr. Beverly Paigen, who based her evaluation on interviews with 1,140 resi- 
dents— 75 percent of those still living near the canal— said families face these risks; 

A 3y2 times greater chance of women having miscarriages during pregnancy. 

A 20 to 50 percent chance of birth defects in children born to parents living in the 
most seriously chemically polluted areas. 

A 27-fold increase in the prospect of nervous breakdowns including suicide at- 
tempts and admission to mental hospitals. 

A fourfold increase in the chance of epilepsy. 

A 3 V2 times greater risk of asthma. 

A 2.9 times greater chance of contracting urinary disorders, including kidney and 
blatter problems. 

A 15 times greater chance of experiencing hyperactivity in children. 

Dr. Paigen said she plans to detail the risks at a community meeting this evening 
in the 99th Street School that lies within the boundaries of the old Hooker Chemi- 
cals and Plastics Corp. dump site. 

The researcher said the state Health Department's decision to move only preg- 
nant women and children under two years old is "scientifically not acceptable. 

"I will stress to families that until they leave the canal they should avoid 
pregnancies," she said. 

Given the high risk, she argues against a proposal of some canal area residents 
that wives become pregnant so the state will relocate the families. 

Dr. Paigen attacked another state contention that the risks of birth defects among 
mothers living in the contaminated areas are no greater than those among mothers 
who smoke or take drugs during pregnancy. 

She said that is based on minimized risk evaluations and not on evidence she 
developed that shows risk levels ranging from 20 to 50 percent. 

Asked about the long-range state plan to dry up the flow of chemicals out of the 
Hooker dump, Dr. Paigen said she thinks the present construction wont do the job. 

Dr. Paigen contends that the present trench — 10 to 12 feet deep — is too shallow 
and that the chemicals may continue to flow out of the area under the state's 
trench system and into homes along underground streambeds believed far deeper. 

Dr. Paigen said any woman of child-bearing age who intends to become pregnant 
should be moved out of the area at least six months in advance to enable the 
individual's body to rid itself of harmful chemicals. 

"To wait until a woman is pregnant to have the family move is wrong because the 
first weeks of pregnancy are the time when the fetus must be protected, and it is 
often past the time of greatest risk when the persons becomes aware of the pregnan- 
cy," she said. 

Dr. Paigen said health data released thus far by the state "tends to minimize the 
risks" and ignores some of the data. 

She said, for example, that four children have been born with birth defects since 
the state Health Department began its studies in the canal area, and the state data 
upon which its evaluates health risks does not include a dozen children who have 
birth defects. 

Dr. Paigen said the state estimates that the families in the canal area face twice 
the risk of miscarriage, but her evidence supports a risk rate of 3 ¥2 times. 

In the area of birth defects, she said the state projects a rate of 5 percent among 
those living in non-contaminated areas and a rate of 12.5 percent in wet or contami- 
nate areas. 

Dr. Paigen said the rates based on her interviews set rate of 6.8 percent for those 
in dry or non-contaminated areas and 20 percent in the wet or contaminated areas. 

Examining the data in five-year blocks on the assumption that chemical leaking 
has increased in the past few years. Dr. Paigen said the risk rises dramatically — one 
out of two sufferend from birth defects in recent years. 

She said the evidence for those familes living on or along underground stream 
beds where chemicals are believed to flow that nine out of 16 children born in the 
last five years have suffered from birth defects. 

Dr. Paigen said she has asked Dr. Axelrod, the state health commissioner, to 
reexamine the state date in terms of five-year blocks. 


Dr. Paigen — the first person to call for evaculation of canal residents in August 
said the state should relocate immediately 136 more families and offer relocation to 
100 other families who live in an area bounded by 100th and 103rd streets from 
Frontier to Colvin, plus those living north of Colvin from 96th Street to 101 Street 
south of Bergholz Creek. 

Her proposal would double the present relocation program that has seen the state 
offer to evacuate and buy homes of 239 residents along 7th and 99th streets. 

"There are some residents on portions of some blocks in the southern area where 
there has not been much disease who might perfer to stay, but I think everyone who 
lives along a streambed or wet area or who wishes to move should be given the 
opportunity to get out," she said. 

Dr. Paigen said residents of Griffon Manor, a housing project, currently are being 
interviewed, and results of those findings could lead to a futher call for evacuation. 
The state has offered relocation to about 100 families in the apartment areas, plus 
30 homeowners. 

She said she intends to hand out a list of homes with addresses of those residents 
she feels should be evaculated immediately. 

"There is enough evidence of disease in other homes and enough uncertainties 
about the flow of chemicals in soils ... so the entire south area should be evacuat- 
ed," she said. 

Dr. Paigen said the homes may not be livable again until the state constructs 
another trench system along a major east-west stream bed leading from the canal to 
the home area. 

That trench is necessary, she said, to collect contaminated groundwater leaking 
from the canal and entering area basements. 


State University of New York at Buflalo 


March 21, 1979 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The tragedy of Love Canal with all of its attendant personal, health 
and social costs has dramatized the necessity for finding some other way of 
disposing of toxic wastes than placing them in landfills. Preferably, as 
many of these chemicals as possible should be recovered at the manufacturing 
site and recycled to become a raw material in appropriate production processes. 
That still will leave some wastes that must be disposed of and we urge that 
further research be conducted to find a completely safe method for disposal. 

While that search continues, we should neve quickly to study and 
adopt a high temperature incineration method which already is in operation, 
or under construction at six major sites in Europe. The best known of these 
sites is at Nyborg in Denmark. That plant is called Kommunekemia and it is 
jointly owned by the National Association of Municipalities in Denmark, the 
City of Copenhagen, the Borough of Frederiksberg, and the Danish Gasworks Tar 
Company at Nyborg. These plants generate electricity and provide district 
heating from the heat value in the toxics as well as provide a reasonably 
secure method for disposal of residue. 

This technology has been known in the United States for some time but 
has not been widely adopted because it is more costly than disposal in landfills. 
The tragedy of leaching landfills has demonstrated graphically that it would 
have been much better to dispose of the toxics properly and safely in the first 
place even if the initial cost had been higher than placement in landfills. 

Experience in Europe has shown that these plants must be fairly large 
to achieve adequate economy of scale and also to derive the benefits of district 
heating. In order to receive a sufficient load of toxic materials, countries 
such as Denmark and Sweden have passed laws requiring that all toxics generated 
in the country be disposed of through the plant in that country. Similar laws 
must be passed in the United States. It would make sense for example that all 
of the toxics generated in the State of New York be disposed of through some 
central high temperature incinerating plant. Such a plant could be owned 
jointly by relevant industries and state and local governments. 



March 21, 1979 

The undersigned concerned faculty members at the State University of 
New York at Buffalo strongly urge speedy and thorough investigation looking 
to the establishment in the United States as soon as possible of district 
high temperature incineration toxic disposal plants. We believe that this 
will require enabling and supporting legislation by federal, state and local 
governments and urge speedy action in that respect. We believe it also will 
require disposal of all appropriate toxins through such a plant once it is in 
operation and this should be enforced through law. Since it will take some 
time to get this new infrastructure in place, we urge that initiating steps 
be taken with all due haste. 

Charles K.V. Ebert 
Prof, of Geography 

Fred Snell 

Prof, of Bio-physics 


Lester W. Milbrath 



Paul H. Reitan 
Prof, of Geology 



Carmelo Privitera 
Prof, of Biology 

Peter Gold 

Acting Master 

Rachel Carson College 



State University of New York at Buffalo 



March 27, 1979 


TO: Mr. James Clark 

FROM: George C. Lee (_\.^._j- . 

With respect to the questions on toxic waste disposal in your 
recent letter, I am happy to supply you with the following information, 

1. Regarding the feasibility of constructing toxic waste 
facilities, a prospectus on this issue has been prepared by our 
environmental engineering faculty members, 1 believe it summarizes 
the fundamental issues of dealing with the various types of toxic 
wastes, and for each different type a different approach and different 
consideration must be given. In general, it may be stated that such a 
development is an extremely costly project but the possibility exists 
for developing some of these special types of waste treatment facilities. 
It would be difficult to assess the problems that may arise if such a 
facility is in operation because the state-of-the-art of knowledge is 
such that there are definitely many unknown factors associated with 

such a development. 

2. You have requested a map which identifies the potential 
landfill sites containing hazardous wastes. As you know, publication 
of the New York State Task Force Report has been delayed. Therefore, 
I could not receive a copy of the map in advance. On the other hand, 
based on the presentation of the Task Force Chairman, Mr. Peter Millock, 
at our recent seminar, he has clearly stated that there are many 
additional dumping sites in Western New York which have been uncovered 
and of these, several can be as severe or more severe than the Love Canal 
problems. I believe we can take that statement seriously. For details, 
we will have to wait until the Task Force officially releases the report. 

3. A set of cnssettes recordinRs from the toxic waste seminar 

are enclosed nt your request. I'Icose iinLe tliat a purtioii of the recordinRS 
was missing because the original tape did not function at the seminar. 

1 hope this material can provide some assistance to your 
efforts. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can help generate 
additional information for you. 





(New Vork) 


Republic Insurance Company 
INSURANCE . 129 Fulton Street 
COMPANY New York, New York 10038 

Edmund A„ Se Marie A. Pozniak 
NAME AND . 10002 Colvin Blvd. 
MAILING .Niagara Falls, New York 14304 


(Anplicabte Item marked 0^1- 



245 30 33 



New York 

P T Carella Agency 
529 Cayauga Drive 
Niagara Falls, N.Y. 


n Effect iv 

_, at 1 I noon/ I i 12:01 AM (Standard Time), we hereby cancel the above mentioned policy issued to 

13 Effectii 


Edmund A. & Marie A. 

Re3Son(s) for cancellation otber than statutory reasonts):. 

^ at 1 I noon-' IxJ 12.01 AM, (Standard Time), we hereby cancel the above mentioned policy issued to 

Pozniak on 12/15/78 

New YofV Insurance Law stales that "nonpayment of premium" means the failure of the named insured to discfiarge any obligation in connection with 
the payment of premiums on a policy of insurance or any installment of such piemium, whether the premium i> payable directly to the insurer or its 
agent, or indirectly under any premium finance plan or extension of credit The law further provides that payment to the insurer, or to an agent or 
broker authorized to receive such payment, shall be timely if made within 15 days after the mailing to the insured of a notice of cancellation for 
nonpayment of premium.) 

Premium Adjustment: 



Please return the policy to us with remittance of $ 

being the amount of earned premium for time it has been i 
at date of cancellation 


pro rata rate for the i 

I I We hereby notify you in accordance with New York taw that the above mentioned policy will expire effective 

at LJnoon/LJ 12:01 A.M. (Standard Time) at the location of the property. involved, and the policy will NOT be renewed. 
Reasonts) for nonrenewal: 


C 35g (Ed, 1-78). 


of information con- 


Cancellation is based on one or more of the following which ate leprodjced Itom Section 167-d of the New Vofk Insuronce Uw: 

Cujj ,- ,-. ■ • 


1 noppaymenl of premium; 

2 conviction of a Cfime arising out of acts increasing tfie hazard insured against; ^ 

3 discovery of fraud or material misrepresentation; 

4 discovery of wilful or reckless acts or omissions increasing the hazard insured against; 

5 physical changes in the property insured occurring after issuance or last annual anniversary dale of ttie policy which <esult in the property 
becoming uninsurable in accordance with the msurer's objective, uniformly applied underwriting standards in effec;t at the time the policy was 
issued Of last voluntarily renewed; or 

5 a determination by the superintendent that the continuation of the policy would violate or would place the insurer in violation of this chapter. 


You have been notified herewith that this Company does not desire to carry your insurance any longer. If you wish to replace your policy you should 
make an effort to oblatn insurance through another company in tf'e normal market, If you have difficulty m procuring replacement coverage in tlie normal 
through the New York Property Insurance Underwriting Association. For further information please contact your agent or broker or the following office 
of the Association: 



ch insurance rnay be available through the Federal Insurance Administra- 
may be purchased through any licenced agent or broker. 


The following petition was accompanied by 6,500 signatures: 

We, the undersigned, hereby petition the Town of Fort«r» 
Niagara County, and all levels of State and Federal government- 
to take immediate action to terminate the dumping, storing, and 
burial of all lethal and toxic wastes in the Town of Porter. 

'Ve also petition the State of New York Department of En- ' 
vironmental Conservation to assume- the cost of perpetual care \ 
of those landfills already in existence under pri^ DEC permits. " 


A Message From The Industrial Chemicals Group 
Executive Vice President bruce d. davis 



On landfills 
and the 

In view of the amount of public attention tliat 
continues to be focused on our company's 
operations in Niagara Falls and Montague, it 
might be well to review these situations and 
discuss with you how your company is dealing 
with them. 

As a concerned and responsible corporate 
citizen, Hooker Chemical intends to continue to 
obey the law and all regulatory guidelines, 
edicts, and orders, including those dealing with 
employee health and safety and the protection of 
'the workplace and the environment. Both 
Hooker and its parent company. Occidental 
Petroleum Corporation, are committed to this 
principle in formal, written policy statements. 
There can be no deviation from this 

The difficulties receiving wide attention at 
Niagara Falls and Montague are largely linked to 
former landfills that were used and closed down 
before present-day regulations and the proposed 
new Federal Resource Conservation & Recovery 
Act (RCRA) were even drafted, let alone made 
the law of the land. The remedial work now 
underway at Love Canal, as well as the 
programs we have adopted and are 
Implementing for former company landfills at 
Hyde Park Boulevard and Montague, utilize the 
very latest In technology, in keeping with 
regulations as proposed under RCRA. 


Many people date the nation's first general 
awareness of the environmental movement to 
the publication in 1962 of Rachel Carson's 
"Silent Spring." Even then — just 16 years 
ago — the analytical capabilities of the most 
advanced laboratories were somewhere in the 
range of 10 parts per million. Now, through the 
development of highly sophisticated 
Instrumentation and improved techniques, it is 
possible to detect trace quantities of chemicals 
In the range of parts per billion and even parts 
per trillion. 

To really understand and appreciate vthat our 
scientists are talking about when looking for 
compounds in those amounts, it becomes a little 
mind-boggling. Perhaps these examples might 
help: one part per billion is akin to locating one 
bad apple among 2,000,000 barrels of apples; 
one part per trillion is the equivalent of mixing 
the world's driest martini by following this 
formula — shake together 520 30,000-gallon 
tank cars of gin and add one drop of vermouth! 

In interpreting the discovery of a highly toxic 
substance in very low concentration, one must 
take into account the quantity found and the 
means of exposure before determining the 
degree of hazard. A substance, such as carbon 
monoxide, may be classified as toxic, but this 
doesn't necessarily mean that its sheer 
presence in the atmosphere creates a hazardous 
situation. If it did, automobiles would have been 
banned long ago. By the same token. Hooker 
makes products intrinsically toxic, but they are 
beneficial to mankind when used properly. We 
attempt to make absolutely sure that all of our 
plant practices in handling and disposing of 
toxic materials do not present a hazard to our 
people or to the surrounding communities. 


Should any evidence arise to the contrary in any 
of our plant communities, we will move promptly 
to eliminate the problem. 

Even under today's best technology and 
landfill management, highly impermeable clay is 
the recommended material of containment for 
landfilled substances.^he restoration of the clay 
cap at Love Canal, plus the installation of other 
remedial work as recommended by th e city's ^^i*^'" 
consultants, should restore and ensure the 
'^Tntegrny'bfthls site. As many of you are aware, 
your company has worked closely with city and 
county officials over the past 18 months when 
the Love Canal problem first was brought to 
public attention. 

At Montague, we have been working 
diligently and cooperatively with the Michigan 
Department of Natural Resources to resolve solid 
waste and groundwater problems associated 
with our operations and past practices. It is our 
intent to continue to work closely with the 
official agencies in all our plant communities 
while reserving our right to question, within the 
framework of the regulations, rulings or 
decisions which we may deem to be unfair, 
unreasonable, unworkable or demonstrably not 
cost effective. 

In summary, let me say that your company is 
dedicated to doing whatever has to be done to 
protect the health and safety of workers and the 
total environment. Along with many others, we 
are committing large sums for capital projects 
and operating expenses to meet rapidly 
proliferating regulations in the face of advancing 
knowledge and technology. Our goal is total 
excellence in everything we do, in every product 
we make, in every practice, in every 
management decision. This is the Hooker way. 






Wh«tiCT vw're dnving d 


htt the jd vantage of bring jh immt 
di*te solution is it dpo not involve 

sublc. nvn when healed. iKit they 

smokers who hive be«n breathing the 
smokers, Nail polish ren>CT«T and 

That will give you wtne idea ot 
« m^ilude of ihe task (.icinE ihe 
ew Wi Health Department It 15 

lemKats, it is arwther thins crilirely. 
[«gjnl to Low Cwul 

h defects. Although 


like a bathtub Jnd overflowed. The 
water mnwd with chemical wastes 
pnxlunng a lk]iud called leachate 
»**ich seeped into wtrw bjsemeni.-- n 

Engineenng consultants wre 

lulled T 

htton pond To date, buildinf; 
hese facilities have not been granted 

Another pan of the Hyde Park 

hemkab^errleakins into the' 
iroundnaler 1b do this mDnilon.nR 
,^e1!sh;<v«N>en installed l.>d>ffe>mi 
Jcpth* The isbcinji^Qn- 

hat it is today Over 
■a* leclaimed ficm th 

area where dnimsof wastes vwr? cv.1- 

ItYtcd prior to being sent to landfJIs 

The "S' aKa is located across the 

hotiws in NwRan Falls .s tTgulariv 
tested by Cilv -tnd Slate af^enoes and 

than most cities in Ihe US 

Id the Summer of 1978, the Citv 

I'f the water treatment plant on a (ou- 


foufid. VN^ are now in Ihe process 
around the Niagara plant and tiic 

whole compter subtect 

npected to be adopted 

the Clean Wfater Act Tltis is a prrtni 
system goverrung the disduige of 
effluent into navi^ble ' 

3l exceeded 
n CMmple, the coolmg water 

nited to about 2 lbs 




•ntually dewloped a high temptra- 

destTO>«I. thifi reducing the t 

^iiK. Owr the wars many im 
meots hJve been made and w 

eral populahon The Department al 

nder Hooker control for 25 yeat> 
le company committed to help fi 

because of a hq^l 
possibly attribut 
seplic sy«ems ir 

Is havF been discAvred 


supply is being legularly 




Dykes aie built around al 

that miftht accidentally le 
chemicals can then be pu 
T proper disposal This 

rogram at Hte workpUc 


create an ait pc4lubon problerti tvhen 
v^ neutralize solid or liquid wastes 



>d<-rrd an 
usrd Itwg 

addition to an impervious da^ 

snow; a drainage tile system is 
installed around the site to col 
liquid that rnq^t otherwise se 
arid a monitoring system to w 
any potential hazard 


deal of attention is the Hyde Park 
'Ct any landhll site located in an 
p out. lied se<t>on of the lown of Niagara 
m ot TV site was acquin^j by Hooker in 

195^ and iweived Ihe chemical and 
lat other wastes fmm Ihe Niagara plant 

for the Dunnt: 1974 and IWS. the pi>r- 

impervious clay which prevented ih 
time H.xAer began using it was sp^ 

w State and federal rrpjla 

NuKaraRi^r When wr later 
*rqu.r«J the Niagara Alkali and Old- 
6ur\ Electrochemical companies in 
ihcmid-CSOs «eab.. acquired their 
landfill operations in the same area 

Griffin fbrk which was the site of a 
lormer municipal landfill, and exlend- 
inj; eastward toarwlher mdustrul 
landfill site Some chlorinated org.inic 
b flaw been deposited at the 

and should not pose a hazard. 

The "iite was closed m 1«7Z in 
■tocordance with a plan apprcvcd b 


in cooperation « 

>troundwater from four dispxsal sites 

. analyses This figure indudes not onS 
irgular lesnng of the water dlschaI^(^ 
indirect cooling at our Niagara plani 


DEC. we developed a 
and a well drilling pref;ram to del 
mine the flew* of givundwater anc 
eweni of any possiUe chemical 
1 lliis program will be 

analyzed, a 


are constantly being developed l>: 


Maybe >nu'd like to know m 

ws on what M- had 10 say 
If so, dnjp a line to lim Cni-r 


Listen to the people wtio know. 



U.S. Senate, 
Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

Subcommittees on Environmental Pollution 

AND Resource Protection, 

Washington, D.C. 
The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., pursuant to recess, in room 
4200, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Quentin Burdick presid- 
Present: Senators Burdick, Chafee, and Simpson. 


Senator Burdick. Good morning. As a concerned member of the 
Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution, I am pleased to wel- 
come you to the second day of our joint hearings with the Resource 
Protection Subcommittee on the issue of hazardous wastes and 
toxic chemicals. 

Recently we have seen rise before us from the accumulations of 
past neglect a grim specter that threatens our future across the 
entire Nation. Poisons in our land, our water, threaten the health 
of all. These problems present a challenge both vast and complex. 
To remedy the situation, if, where, and however possible, will 
require solutions that may be costly and controversial. Nonethe- 
less, we must begin now the search for the best answers we can 

Therefore, in these hearings we hope to learn more about the 
nature and the extent of these problems so that our decisions may 
be informed and wise. 

This morning, in addition to the distinguished Senator from New 
York, Jacob Javits, and Representative LaFalce, we will hear from 
some of the industries that have been involved recently in signifi- 
cant and dramatic incidents that have in no small measure 
brought us to this room today. 

Gentlemen, we will be pleased to hear first from the Senior 
Senator from New York, Senator Javits. 


Senator Javits. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

May I express my deep appreciation for taking me promptly. I 
am due before the Appropriations Subcommittee in 25 minutes. 



I also want to thank you for having this hearing. It is very 
important to us. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that my statement may 
be made a part of the record. 

Senator Burdick. Without objection, it is so ordered. [See p. 283.] 

Senator Javits. As the Chair knows, we have a very sick situa- 
tion in the Niagara Falls area, with the remains or seepage of 
chemicals which come from, we think, the operations of the Hooker 
Chemical Co., which was a fixture in Niagara Falls for many years, 
so much so when I was in the Army, which goes back 34 years, I 
was in the Chemical Corps and a good deal of our business was 
done with Hooker, so I know something about the situation. 

Also, I have been up on the grounds and it is really a mess. The 
area is probably a couple of miles square, but no one knows what 
the seepage is, and will be. 

The area has been evacuated. The houses are boarded up and the 
ground is very soft. You can actually put a stick down in a hole 
and come up with a stick full of pollutants. It is that close to the 
surface. So it is very, very serious. 

We, of course, have a State problem, we understand. Collabora- 
tively with the Federal Government, we hope that we can be 
helped to help ourselves. 

The three major points which emerge from my statement are 

One, that we need to identify first and foremost where the prob- 
lems are, and also where it is indicated they will be. 

The grave problem with Love Canal is before we began to do 
something about it, we had already had many problems and for a 
time nobody knew what it was all about, except for the smell, 
which, by the way, was clear when I went in there. When you go 
into any basement — and they are all pretty much one-story 
houses — you had the chlorine and other chemical smells hit you 
very hard. 

So, one, the abandoned sites need to be abandoned, and we need 
to do something about them. 

Second, there need to be some guidelines on an interstate com- 
merce basis to deal with the sealing up and cleaning up of these 
abandoned sites. I think that would be a responsibility of the 
Federal Government because it relates not only to a particular site 
and place, but it relates to this same problem everjrwhere. 

As we all know, this pollution is by no means confined by State 
lines or confined to an individual State. 

Then, comprehensive liability and compensation legislation needs 
to be considered by the Congress. 

By the way, there is some analogy here, Mr. Chairman, which 
might be useful to the committee. With the problem we had with 
oil spills and cleanups, that might be an analogy as to the legisla- 
tive technique with which this particular problem, which is a first 
impression, might be approached. 

Those are the essential elements of my testimony. 

The Federal Government has given us a little bit of assistance 
with the Love Canal, a few million dollars which we managed to 
get for the purpose of helping us with this rather huge problem, 
but there is available a section of the Water Pollution Control Act 



amendments, section 504, which has never been funded, which 
could be considered for this purpose, because that section provides 
assistance, and I quote: "Provide assistance in emergencies caused 
by the release into the environment of any pollutant anticipated or 
presenting potential danger to the public health." 

That is in the amendment, but has never been implemented. 

We have a projected cleanup cost of $25 million, an emergency 
$4 million, which was the particular approach which Senator 
Moynihan and I sought and received from the Congress and $2 
million from the Federal Disaster Assistance Agency when the 
President declared a state of emergency in the Love Canal area. 

Aside from the section 504, which I mentioned, there apparently 
is no specific law on the subject. The most that we could get with 
the Federal Disaster Assistance Agency was $2 million for certain 
remedial construction, to deal with what they were permitted to 
help under their law, "Chronic Health Problem." 

When we remonstrated, we were advised the Federal Disaster 
Assistance Agency deals with immediate emergency situations, and 
the Administrator told us, "If the FDAA were to continue to pro- 
vide emergency assistance over a period of years, we would be 
operating outside the restraints intended for this program." 

To show this is quite a widespread problem, it is our understand- 
ing from the Environmental Protection Agency that there are some 
32,000 landfills containing hazardous materials in the United 
States, and as many as 1,200, the EPA estimates, may be immi- 
nently hazardous to the public and, of course, the range of costs is 
astronomical, if you are going to look for complete reconstruction 
as a solution. 

So it is a very serious matter, as far as we are concerned, and it 
is very serious as far as other States in the United States are 
concerned, and, therefore, deserves fully the attention of this com- 
mittee, which is what I am here urging today. 

Senator Burdick. Thank you. Senator, for your contribution this 

To what extent has the State of New York committed itself 
financially to the problem? 

Senator Javits. The State has put up $15.5 million and has 
evacuated the area, and really has knocked itself out in the proc- 
ess. I think you know the problems of States, Mr. Chairman, which 
are now in a declining rather than ascending curve. I think that is 
a very fair assessment on the part of the State. I am sure with the 
Federal Government the State would be prepared to go further, but 
really we ought to see a little light at the end of the tunnel, and 
that is the reason I am here today. 

Senator Burdick. Senator Chafee? 

Senator Chafee. Senator, you mentioned the Federal Disaster 
Assistance Group had put in $2 million to assist here. I have some 
qualms as to whether that is really the correct way to proceed. I 
wondered if you had any thoughts on this. It seems to me it goes 
quite beyond the charter, as we traditionally think of the Federal 
Disaster Assistance Group Agency. 

Senator Javits. As far as they went, I think they are OK. One 
cannot often say that. We are not miracle men, but it just happens 


that Love Canal is such a shocking thing and physically, on the 
ground, it is such a deplorable situation, it is a mess. 

For example, I wore a pair of loafers. I walked across a field and 
that was the end of the loafers because they shriveled on my feet. 

I can see within their mandate a chronic health problem. I was 
literally assaulted by a group of 50 women because everybody knew 
I was coming up, or at least the papers told them so. They lived a 
mile away, and they were having fumes and skin irritants and 
nasal congestion. True or not, I think it qualified for an immediate 
emergency health problem, which they are mandated to do some- 
thing about. It is not a great sum of money, as these things go. 

Senator Chafee. But the real long-term solution, as you pointed 
out, as you referred to the oil spillage legislation, and restricted 
funds, are you suggesting something like a specialized tax on the 
producers, or transporters involved in the whole area? 

Senator Javits. And if liability is to be fixed, how far back 
should it go, and would proof be required? I think it is a matter of 
first impression for the law, and I think a statute is so much 
better. These litigations will take 20 years in the sense that they 
are very, very difficult to prove that buried drums were the cause 
of a public nuisance, et cetera, et cetera. I think law is essential in 
this matter. 

Senator Chafee. Yesterday, we had two of the residents of the 
area come and testify, Mrs. Hillis and a gentleman who lives right 
in the area. They indicated that the State of New York had sug- 
gested that as far as they were concerned, one of them was not in 
the immediate area that was evacuated — I think there were 337 
families evacuated in the immediate area — they indicated the State 
of New York suggested these were things that just happen, these 
miscarriages, these abnormal youngsters who were born, all the 
problems that came with those births, and with the children there, 
and they quoted that the health director had said, "Well, you get 
dangers just crossing the street, or flying in an airplane." 

Was it your impression that New York treated that quite as 
cavalierly as that? 

Senator Javits. No, and these are hearsay statements. You never 
know who said what, or why he said it. Authoritatively, Senator, 
there is no control group to go by. All you can go by is the fact that 
there was a greater incidence, significantly greater incidence in 
this area than in contiguous areas. 

That is the best you can do. States are very jittery about State 
liability, too, being sued by citizens for negligence, or allowing a 
public nuisance to maintain. 

I just cannot speculate. 

Senator Chafee. But New York stepped in with $17 million. 

Senator Javits. $15 million. 

Senator Chafee. New York did purchase these houses? 

Senator Javits. That is right. They bought them all. 

Senator Chafee. The people indicated the price was fair, plus the 
moving expense. I am not suggesting that that fully compensates 
anybody for moving. 

What we have here, as you well know. Senator, is an incredible 
problem of difficulty. We had testimony yesterday on the James 
River, and the Kepone incident, the lasting effects that come from 


these, and in the attempting to clean them up, you are talking 
about millions for one incident. They had some cost analysis yester- 
day to disclose the situation, such as in Love Canal. If they had 
taken modern precautions to prepare the site as it should have 
been prepared, the cost was minuscule compared to cleaning up 
when it gets out of control. 

So, we are going to require the sympathetic understanding, I 
believe, of the whole Senate when we come up with a program 

Senator Javits. I think. Senator Chafee, you are absolutely right. 
We need a program for the past and for the future, also. I think 
that is essential in the legislation. We do require today, for exam- 
ple, when you are dealing with chemicals, which are the subject of 
this kind of disaster, that you take certain given precautions when 
you transport them in interstate commerce. We require certain 
precautions respecting nuclear waste today. 

I think that has to be analogized with this situation. I think 
personally if an agency is put in charge of what you do with some 
guidelines, that you will find this happens in so many of these 
situations, that the cost tends to settle down in terms of the practi- 
cality of what you are facing and what you can really do about it 
in terms of the past. 

It may very well be that some of these areas have to be perma- 
nently abandoned for at least a good, long time. It is a question 
which I cannot answer, and which I think the committee will, 
through its own good resources, and through our Government 
agencies, have some options as to what you can or cannot do. 

All that I can say is that experience has indicated that these 
estimates of billions for doing something generally tend to fade 
when you get down to the reality and practicality of what you can 
do within a reasonable, at reasonable cost, as well as to prepare 
against any future neglect, which is what it is, as of this time, for 
which nobody can be blamed, because ours has been a new country 
and we have not heeded what we can do with our land. 

I wish I could help. If I were on this committee, I would work 
diligently to try to guide the Senate to choose the right option. 

I am sure that your staffs and the Government departments can 
place the proper options before you. 

Senator Chafee. It is interesting that in this mood in the coun- 
try, when everyone is portraying themselves for less regulation, 
when we get to the specifics, it turns out here is an area where 
there has been an absence of regulation, and look at the results. 

Senator Javits. I don't want to delay you or myself— I have to 
get to another committee — but let me say this idea of Proposition 
13 psychology assumes every morning you are going to die, you are 
not going to eat all day, there are no crooks on the street, and 
everybody is beautiful, and everything is child's play. 

If you cut the whole deficit $500 billion a year, it is a sum even 
impossible to imagine and that has to be spent somehow with some 
priority. It is just childish. We have to continue to do our business, 
and the people know that. They have the pleasure of amusing 
themselves thinking you can operate with no Government and for 
nothing. They know that is not true. We are here, and at least let's 
keep our feet on the ground and not go off on cloud nine. 

248 I 

Senator Chafee. I share those sentiments, Senator. " 

People rail against Government regulation, and then you ask 
them for specifics, "Are you for removing regulations on clean 
water?" "No." "How about the clean air?" "No, perhaps not there." 
They set a few minor examples under OSHA, but they don't deny 
that OSHA basically is saving lives, and here is another area 
where it seems to me we have had in the free market system work, 
let people dump where they want, and look at the results. 

Senator Javits. May I call attention to the deregulation of truck- 
ing? Those small businessmen who were in here tearing us to bits 
and pieces because we were the devilish regulators are now going 
to tear us to bits and pieces if we take off the regulations. 

Senator Burdick. As I listened to your testimony. Senator, it is a 
very graphic description of a pretty bad situation. I think back to 
my law school days. Do we have a public nuisance here? 

Senator Javits. I think so. I really can't define it legally off the 
top of my head, but certainly if you talk about public nuisances, 
that is what this is, in the colloquial sense. 

Senator Burdick. Has there been any attempt by the Attorney 
General to abate it? 

Senator Javits. They evacuated the areas. The polluters are 

Senator Burdick. Thank you for your testimony. 

Senator Javits. I think you will find our Attorney General very 
diligent in anything we can do along that line. 


Senator Burdick. The next witness is Bruce D. Davis, executive 
vice president. Industrial Chemicals Group, Hooker Chemical Co., 
Niagara Falls, N.Y. 

Welcome to the committee. Your full statement will be made a 
part of the record, and you may proceed as you wish. [Statement 
appears at p. 288.] 

Mr. Davis. Good morning, members of the Subcommittees on 
Environmental Committee and Resource Protection. I am Bruce 
Davis, executive vice president of the Industrial Chemicals Group 
of Hooker Chemical Co. 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before this joint 
subcommittee hearing and to share with you and your colleagues 
some facts and some of our views in the management of hazardous 

With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to depart from 
the testimony which I previously submitted for the sake of brevity 
and also, for the sake of clarity, I would like to use these charts, 
and I would like to have my submitted testimony received for the 

Senator Burdick. It has already been received. 

Mr. Davis. Hooker Chemical Co. is 75 years old. In 1907, it 
located in Niagara Falls because of the attraction of cheap hydro- 
electric power and available natural resources. At the turn of the 
century, an industrial entrepreneur named William Love envi- 
sioned a model city powered by a hydroelectric plant involving 


substantial industry. He started to build a canal out of clay ap- 
proximately 6 miles above Niagara Falls. 

For economic reasons, and for financial reasons, his vision went 
bankrupt and he discontinued his project in 1910. 

For 30 years a 3,000 foot by 60 foot by 10 foot deep excavation lay 
idle in the Niagara Falls area and it was called Love Canal. 

In 1940, Hooker Chemical, who was manufacturing chemicals at 
its Niagara Falls plant, felt that the Love Canal site could serve as 
a very suitable area for disposal of residue of materials primarily 
because it was excavated with clay and the permeability of the 
canal made it ideal for the disposal of chemical materials. 

From 1942 to about 1946, it disposed of the chemical materials in 
the northern end of Love Canal, with the permission of the owner 
at the time. 

In 1947, it purchased the property but in 1946 it began to use the 
southern end of Love Canal for the disposal of chemicals. The 
practice that was employed was to take the chemical residue mate- 
rials from the operation of the plant, place them in drums, store 
them on the property until there were sufficient drums, and then 
in a short period of time, move them to the Love Canal area. The 
clay in the canal at the bottom was excavated down to 20 or 25 
feet. The drums were placed in miniclay vaults that were excavat- 
ed. When the vaults were filled, they were covered over with 
approximately four feet of clay and compacted. Then at the next 
requirement for disposal, an additional minivault was built and 
covered over. 

Gradually, the southern end of the Love Canal was filled with 
chemical residue material. 

In 1952, the Board of Education of the city of Niagara Falls came 
to Hooker Chemical and said they wanted to purchase the Love 
Canal site for a school location. The management of Hooker Chemi- 
cal at the time advised them of the nature of the chemicals that 
had been disposed of in the Love Canal site, and warned them of 
the dangers of any excavation or construction work anywhere on 
that landfill site. The board of education persisted and insisted 
upon the transfer of title to them. 

In 1953, the company did transfer title, but incorporated in the 
deed of transfer was clear notification of the presence of these 
chemical wastes in that property, but it also clearly showed they 
advised the board of education of the nature of these materials. 
The board of education assumed full responsibility and full liability 
for any injury to persons or property that occurred from the chemi- 
cal properties stored therein. 

In fact, the center section of Love Canal was never filled in at 
the time of the deed, but it was subsequently filled in with flyash, 
municipal waste, and cinders. The property was then leveled and 
they were ready to build the school. The school was not built on 
the canal itself, but adjacent to it. 

From 1953 to 1978, Hooker Chemical had no connection with this 
property, no ownership of the property. It was owned by the school 

In 1976 

Senator Chafee. Mr. Davis, I wonder if I could interrupt 1 


In the transfer to the school district in 1953, you indicated that 
there had been these warnings in the deed. Is that included in the 
record, the excerpts? 

Mr. Davis. Yes; a quotation from the deed is incorporated in the 
testimony we previously submitted in the written statement. 

Senator Burdick. Did the school district get title to the whole 

Mr. Davis. Yes; they got title to 3,000 feet, even though the canal 
site is only 60 feet wide, the property transferred to them was 200, 
which is the property we owned. 

Senator Burdick. That includes all the yellow matter on the 

Mr. Davis. Yes; It is on page 6 of the submission. 

In 1976, Hooker Chemical was advised by the city and the county 
of Niagara that there was a problem associated with the chemicals 
that had previously been stored in the landfill site. Prior to that 
time, we had not been aware of any problem. We felt we had built 
a secure and clean clay vault. That was called to our attention. We 
immediately assigned some of our technical and engineering people 
to work with the city and county to define programs to correct it. 

Two engineering firms were brought in, the second one being 
Conestoga-Rovers & Associates. Finally, a plan was developed in 
1978 to install a correction system to take care of the chemical 
leachate, which came out from the chemical landfill site. Sometime 
during this 25 years when Hooker did not have control or posses- 
sion or ownership of this property, a portion of the clay cover we 
put on had been removed. This apparently allowed rainwater to get 
into the vault and mix and develop this chemical leachate material 
and cause the Love Canal to overflow into the adjacent property. 

The plan, started in August and almost completed in February, 
involves installation of drain tiles and drain ditches about 20 feet 
from the canal site sloping to the center, where collection tanks are 
located, which collect the leachate. 

The leachate is pumped through carbonate absorption beds and 
the water is sent to the sewage treatment plant where it is further 
processed before it is discharged. 

Senator Chafee. Are you suggesting because of the removal of 
the cap that you had over it, that water then seeped in and because 
of the clay base, it was rather like filling up a bathtub? There was 
no way for the water to get out of there, just like there is no way 
for the chemicals to get out of there. 

Mr. Davis. That is correct. 

The clay was very permeable. Its rated permeability is one-third 
of water for 25 years. 

Senator Burdick. Was there reason for removing the cap? 

Mr. Davis. There was construction of homes alonside the canal. 
When we deeded it, it was a rural area at the time. Subsequent to 
that, approximately 200 homes were built in that area. Apparently 
during the construction of either roadways or homes adjacent to 
the property, some of this covering and clay cap has been removed. 
We do not have conrete evidence of that, but the clay cover is in a 
different form from what it was when we completed the closing. 

Finally, the clay can is being renewed, sloped, 6 inches of soil 
and gas will be put on it according to prescribed State regulations 


with respect to solid wasteland refills. This should secure the land- 
fill site and prevent the chemical migration of any further leachate 
from the canal and prevent any going to the adjoining homes, and 
to date it seems to be working very well. 

For a few minutes, I would like to address myself to the landfill 
sites that we used subsequent to Love Canal. When we closed Love 
Canal, in 1952, we had to find another place to store our materials. 

Senator Chafee. You are moving away from Love Canal? 

Mr. Davis. Yes. 

Senator Chafee. I would like to ask a few questions here. 

I have a clipping here from the Times dated February 11, where 
it says 100 Love Canal families are urged to leave the area. This is 
in addition to the 239 that left previously. 

As I understand, what has happened is they have built a fence. 
Were the 239 houses within the fence? 

Mr. Davis. Yes; with a few exceptions. 

Senator Chafee. This indicates that 100 more are being asked to 
leave. The State will pay for moving costs and rent or hotel bills 
for any family living between 93d and 103d Streets and Frontier 
Boulevard. In the drawing you show of the new cap plus the 
drainage, you said it was apparently working, the drainage not 
only from the area, but you indicated it was also draining from the 
materials — go to your next slide — that were going into the base- 

Mr. Davis. Yes; it appears to be working satisfactorily to date. 

Senator Chafee. If so, why are they going way over to 93d Street 
and 103d Street? And 93d Street is pretty far away, and 103d gets 
you pretty far over. If it is working, why are they evacuating more 

Mr. Davis. The project was just completed in February. It will 
take some time to recollect any leachate that got out previously. 

We ourselves in the data provided by the State have not seen 
evidence it has migrated beyond 103d Street. The New York De- 
partment of Health Commissioner apparently has evidence that 
beyond the 93d-103d periphery, for the sake of conservatism on his 
side, he evacuated pregnant women and any children under 2 years 
of age. 

He gave that order February 8, 1979, and included in my written 
submission, on page 11, is an excerpt from the press release he 
made at the time he made that announcement. 

This is the health commissioner of the State of New York, Dr. 
David Axelrod. 

Senator Chafee. Thank you. 

Mr. Davis. Returning to the Hyde Park landfill site, this site was 
used from 1953 until approximately 1974. It also was constructed 
from clay. It was an ideal clay location — bedrock underneath the 
clay, consisting of approximately 16 acres. At the interface between 
the town of Lewiston and the town of Niagara, the chemical resi- 
due materials were installed in the center section of the property, 
excavations were dug about 25 feet deep, and the drums were 
stored in that and then covered over with clay. 

In the eastern end, flyash and rubble and so forth were installed. 
Then when the facility was closed up in 1974 in conjunction with 
the county health commissioner, a leachate tile system was in- 


stalled around the landfill site very similar to that installed around 
the Love Canal. The purpose is to collect any material that might 
escape from the landfill and collect it in these leachate tiles. 

Two sump pumps were installed, and a leachate lagoon was 
installed. Periodically it is pumped out and waste is placed in a 
disposal area which is monitored by State environmental authori- 

A clay cover was put over the top and at the time it was closed, 
it was fenced in. 

Contiguous to the Hyde Park land area shown in blue, it shows 
where the runoff in that entire section flows down toward Niagara 
University. This is referred to as Bloody Run. 

As you can see, around the Hyde Park landfill site, there are 
several industries. 

From samples we have taken, and which the EPA has taken, 
some of those chemicals include products uniquely manufactured 
by Hooker Chemical. Other chemicals that have been found are 
fairly common chemicals used by many industries. 

We have an extensive program under way at the present time 
which we have developed, and it has been approved by the State 
DEC to install wells adjacent to this landfill site. These lands are 
just below the surface, halfway down the bedrock, and into the 
bedrock. The purpose of these is to monitor the flow of water and 
determine if there is any chemical contamination in the ground 
water in that area. 

I might point out evidence to date from homes which have well 
water for drinking purposes indicates there is absolutely no chemi- 
cal contamination of those wells. The wells are safe for drinking. 

As far as chemical materials are concerned, when in fact they 
have been condemned, it has been because of the presence of 
bacteria from nearby septic tanks. 

We also have a program to sample and monitor the soil sediment 
of the area of Bloody Run to see the content of any contamination. 
This will be completed by the end of this year and if a corrective 
program is required, we will get the approval of the State in the 
second half of 1979. 

Next, I would like to take a few minutes to talk about the 
landfill area at our Niagara Falls plant. 

This is a busy chart. Notice the green line down at the bottom. 
This line shows the approximate configuration of the shoreline 
back in the 1920's. From the 1920's through the 1930's that was 
used as a landfill site by industry and by municipalities in the area 
and gradually the shoreline was built out. 

In 1947, Hooker Chemical acquired that property, that reclaimed 
property and, first of all, in the so-called "N" area we provided 
inorganic primarily insoluble materials. In addition to that, we also 
saved drum material which we later moved to Love Canal. 

In the next area, the "S" area, we disposed of chemical residue 
materials until about 1974. Until 1962 or 1963, we placed chlorinat- 
ed hydrocarbons, residues, but prior to that, primarily insoluble 

Across 73d Street, we have an infiltration plant. 

In 1978, through routine inspection, a diver went down in one of 
the sumps off the plant and found sediment. The sediment was 


brought to Hooker Chemical for analysis. We identified certain 
chemicals that were unique to Hooker and found some that were 
fairly common. 

We immediately alerted the city and together with the city we 
went over and examined their property. There was an excavation 
at one end, 20 feet deep. 

That showed no sign of chemical contamination. We also took 
samples of water from an old pumphouse that had lain idle for 
many years and there was no evidence of water in that pump- 

Senator Chafee. I will be interrupting you on occasion here. 

Isn't it odd that the city worker who brought up the sediment 
takes it to Hooker to analyze it? Isn't that a conflict of interest 
there? Wouldn't Hooker tend to find as little as they could find? 

Mr. Davis. On the contrary, I would like to think we found what 
we found was there. 

Senator Chafee. I am not surprised at that, but it would seem to 
me bad practice for the city to bring sediment to be analyzed by 
the possible offenders since you are right next door. You must have 
a close relationship with the city. 

Mr. Davis. I think they respect our technical capability. We also 
have a laboratory which is able to respond very quickly. They also 
did send out samples to other laboratories for verification, so they 
did not rely solely upon us, but I think they brought it to our 
attention because they felt we could provide them with very 
prompt analytical appraisal and feedback. 

We immediately alerted them to the materials found in the 
sediment and then we began to develop a program to determine if 
there was any migration of landfill on our property. 

That program has been implemented. We have drilled 70 moni- 
toring wells around the entire perimeter of our plant, as well as 10 
monitoring wells on the water treatment plant property. To date 
we have no evidence that there is migration from the chemical 
areas to the plant. 

The data we have is preliminary and inconclusive and will take 
several more months before the data we are collecting from those 
wells is truly meaningful. 

In summary, I would like to state we have a fairly complex, 
fairly extensive program for monitoring the various landfill sites 
we have in the Niagara Falls area. To point up the complexity, we 
will be taking 3,500 samples of water in the first quarter of this 
year, which will all require a very complex chemical analysis. 
There are only a few labs in the United States capable of handling 
these analyses. We are using labs in California, Texas, Nebraska, 
and Iowa in order to get these results as quickly as possible. 

Because of the complexity of this, we have had to intermix the 
timetables for these programs at each of our landfill sites so that 
we can accomplish the more urgent analysis and results as quickly 
as possible. 

Senator Chafee. How old is that "S" disposal site? 

Mr. Davis. We stopped using it in 1974, and we closed it up at 
that point. 

Senator Chafee. But you opened it when? 

Mr. Davis. We began to use it about 1956. 

44-978 O - 79 - 17 


Senator Chafee. So you were using the most up-to-date tech- 
niques at that time, I presume, and this plus the capping was just a 
couple of years old, so you have done what the technology permits 
you to do, but then suppose there are leaks. What can you do then? 

Mr. Davis. There are a variety of engineering solutions to the 
problem. Senator — things like barrier walls, power grouting, and 
things like that. I am not a civil engineer, so I am sorry I cannot 
give you the details that could be employed to prevent any migra- 
tion, if there were any migration from that site. 

The most undesirable solution would be to remove the materials 
and relocate it somewhere else. That very likely would cause addi- 
tional environmental problems through relocation. 

Senator Chafee. Are the substances in drums? 

Mr. Davis. The purpose of using these was merely to facilitate 
the collection of the material and then the ability to locate it 
within excavated landfill sites. There was no intention on any- 
body's part, I don't believe, that these containers would last for- 

I believe that constitutes the balance of my summary, sir. 

Senator Chafee. You represent a major chemical company. We 
have a problem here in disposal. What do you propose? Do you 
think the current situation is adequate? Do you think there should 
be some law providing for an indemnification fund for victims of 
improper storage? What do you think? What are your suggestions 
to this committee? 

Mr. Davis. Senator, this is an extremely complex matter, and I 
am sure you appreciate it. Our position is that the Resource Con- 
servation and Recovery Act of 1976 does not adequately address the 
Nation's concerns relating to closed or abandoned landfill sites. 
Additionally, it is Hooker's view that additional protection will be 
required. Consideration of this matter shows the legislation might 
well consider a national inventory to identify closed or abandoned 
landfill sites known or believed to contain toxic materials. Many in 
the chemical industry and other industries are now giving consid- 
eration to the concept of a superfund. Hooker's management is 
addressing this question as well, and is working very closely with 
the manufacturing chemicals associations, the industry associ- 
ations. It is fair to say to the committee that the superfund concept 
is one possible legislative solution. 

Our management, however, is not prepared to say at this time 
that this is the best solution for the reason we have not completed 
our analysis, nor are we certain how the funding mechanism would 
work. Our management remains committed to responsible correc- 
tive action and is looking toward the drafters of any proposed 
legislation at the appropriate time. 

Senator Chafee. Obviously that is your position for the future. 
Hooker, as you said, is not yet firm in what it wants to do. 

Do you think Hooker has any liability in the Love Canal situa- 

Mr. Davis. I think our position right from the start is we do not 
have any legal liability connected with the canal. That was clearly 
spelled out in the deed of transfer. We alerted the board of educa- 
tion at the time about the dangers in use of the property. On two 
separate occasions following the deed, they attempted to transfer 



the property to others, and the management appeared before them 
and warned them about the chemical residues and the dangers 
associated with any excavation going on on that site. 

Senator Chafee. Slow down 1 minute. That was the school 

Mr. Davis. Yes; and we appeared before the school board at one 
of their monthly meetings, and advised them again of what we told 
them back in 1952. On the second occasion, they, however, proceed- 
ed to transfer property title to the northern section, transferred it 
to the city of Niagara Falls and in the southern section they 
transferred it to a developer, but nobody has built any homes on 
the old canal site to date. 

Senator Chafee. The school board did not acquire this property 
by condemnation. Hooker sold it to them for a modest amount. 

Mr. Davis. We sold it to them for a dollar. 

Senator Chafee. In other words, they wanted it, and you, in 
effect, gave it to them. 

Mr. Davis. They had begun condemnation proceedings against 
the owners of the property adjacent to the school, and they advised 
Hooker they would do the same if we did not transfer the property 
to them. So there seemed no point in exercising resistance, and the 
management deeded the property to them, but incorporated the 
caveat and the warning we gave them in letters previously. 

Mr. Truitt. I am Mr. Truitt. I am counsel the company had in 
condemnation proceedings. The fee would have passed automatical- 
ly to the school board without the covenant in the deed setting up 
the facts as to what was in the property. It was in that context that 
it was determined wise to deed over so that the deed language 
would be clear. 

Senator Chafee. When construction began on the site, did your 
company do anything, or was it the company's feeling that they 
had washed their hands of the affair? 

Mr. Davis. Senator, there has never been construction on the 

Senator Chafee. I don't mean on the site. But originally you 
mentioned this was rural land, and a school went up right next to 
it, and then a host of houses nearby, which had been affected. I 
don't think there is any dispute on that. 

Mr. Davis. When we closed up the property, we closed it up in a 
manner so that we felt it would be closed for a long time. We felt 
we had no further responsibility for that property. 

They talked about converting that property adjacent to the 
school to a park. This was all part of the plant at the time. We did 
not feel we had the responsibility to advise every buyer of property 
adjacent to the Love Canal about the properties stored therein. 

Senator Chafee. At the time the chemicals were disposed of, 
neither the company nor the chemical industry as a whole, nor 
scientists appreciated the deadliness of the chemical dioxin, for 
example. Subsequently, it was discovered that this chemical is 
incredibly lethal, whatever it is. Where is the company's responsi- 
bility as regards former disposal sites that it has used for these 
deadly chemicals that are subsequently ascertained to be more 
deadly than originally anticipated? What do you do? You say, "It is 
not our worry because when we disposed of it, it was regarded at 


that time, if not innocuous, nowhere near as lethal as subsequently 

Mr. Davis. Senator, there are several parts to the answer to that 
question. As far as the answer to the question of toxicity and the 
lethal nature of the chemical, even though a property may be 
lethal or toxic, you have to have an exposure level to a human 
being or organism that would cause some injury. 

Even though toxic chemicals may be disposed of in solid landfill 
sites, if those sites are kept secure, they do not constitute a hazard. 

As far as the responsibility of a corporation to old landfill sites, 
Hooker's position on this can be clearly demonstrated by its actions 
in that where we own the property and where we have control of 
the property, we have continued to maintain that property and 
make sure there is no chemical migration to the best of our ability. 
We have just done some additional work at our Hyde Park site at 
the request of the State to improve that site. We are doing the 
same thing on our landfill sites at 102d Street and the Niagara 
Falls plant. It is a different situation where you have sold the 
property, lost control of the property, no longer have the ability to 
maintain and monitor what is going on on that property, and that 
is a different situation. 

Senator Chafee. I just wonder, because of the discovery and 
developments of new information about chemicals, whether a com- 
pany should ever be absolved of the responsibility for a fill in a 
disposal site. I have serious reservations about whether you should 
ever be changing title to property. When you do, you could then 
say, "We have done our part. It was all right when it left our 
hands." Then we get into this problem such as has come up here. I 
suspect if Love Canal had remained in the ownership of Hooker, 
this situation probably never would have developed. 

Mr. Davis. I think that is a fair assumption. Senator. 

Senator Chafee. But you left, maybe unwillingly. In retrospect, I 
think you could have done more. I am sure you are covered in the 
deeds and all that, but there has been testimony that the clay was 
hauled away. We had some testimony yesterday about some resi- 
dents claiming there was further dumping there directly from 
tanks into the area — not Hooker, there was no suggestion it was 
Hooker — there is probably no question but that clay was taken off 
the top, which led to this whole problem developing. 

You mentioned that you continue to monitor the other sites that 
you have. Is that true of all sites that you have, or are these they? 

Mr. Davis. We have another site which I did not mention be- 
cause it is not a large site, or one we consider a potentially serious 
problem, and that is the 102d Street site. We also have a program 
there where we will install monitoring wells and test to see if there 
is any chemical migration from that site, but basically the chemi- 
cals are insoluble inorganic materials and any leachate from those 
would be considered harmless, but we will install monitoring equip- 
ment later. 

We are monitoring Hyde Park and the periphery of our Hyde 
Park plant. We have installed wells around Hyde Park and deter- 
mine if there is any chemical migration from that plant. The 
evidence to date indicates there has not been such migration. 

Senator Chafee. Have you transferred title to other sites? 


Mr. Davis. I have no knowledge of the company having trans- 
ferred any other landfill sites. 

Senator Chafee. Could you provide that for the record? 

Mr. Davis. Yes, we shall. 

[The information requested by Senator Chafee was not received 
by time of publication.] 

Senator Chafee. Do you have a company policy of not transfer- 
ring title to disposal sites? 

Mr. Davis. No, sir, we do not have a policy at this time, but I am 
sure we can put together a comprehensive policy that will be 

Senator Chafee. I think it would be wise. 

Yesterday we had some testimony about what they called high- 
temperature incineration for disposal of waste. What do you think 
of that? 

Mr. Davis. Hooker developed the technology for that. It is li- 
censed technology which we licensed to others. We had a high- 
temperature incinerator put in operation in 1962. It was designed 
to destroy hydrochlorinated wastes which are fire-retardant materi- 
als, which are very difficult to burn. 

It involves a chemical reaction, as well as high-temperature in- 
cineration. You have to make certain you don't create an air 
pollution problem when you are taking solid waste material. We 
burn these in the incinerators, and the materials break down to 
water, so we end up with basic innocuous materials as a result. 

In the last 15 or 16 years since we put that in, we have disposed 
of over 200,000 tons of chlorinated hydrocarbon materials that 
would otherwise have gone to a landfill site. We think the technol- 
ogy is extremely good. We are disposing now of ever3rthing that we 
can through that means. 

However, when you get to solid waste materials, I am talking 
about liquid waste now, when you get to certain chemicals or 
unique chemical characteristics, they cannot be incinerated, or 
some of them cannot be incinerated. Anjdhing containing asbestos 
cannot be incinerated. 

Senator Chafee. Do you incinerate everything that can be incin- 

Mr. Davis. We incinerate all chemicals that we can. There is an 
awful lot of material that still goes to a secure landfill site which is 
monitored by the State and run by a private firm, but we have in 
the last 5 years reduced the volume of material that we are send- 
ing to fill sites by 50 percent. We have programs moving forward in 
an effort to eliminate almost entirely the materials we send to the 
landfill sites, but I would like to emphasize that 

Senator Chafee. You use what you called public disposal sites. 

Mr. Davis. It is not a municipal landfill site. It is a site that 
conforms to the very rigorous New York State legislation, section 
360, which is monitored by the DEC. It is in clay vaults, it has 
monitoring wells, and so forth. This is run by a private concern 
and we take our materials to them and they dispose of them, and 
they keep the necessary records. 

To get back to the point I was making 

Senator Chafee. You are not using your own sites anymore? 

258 i 

Mr. Davis. No, sir, not on our land, or other landfill sites. They 
are closed up. We are using this private site for the disposal. 

Senator Chafee. Do you think you can get your disposals down 
to — what do you say — zero? 

Mr. Davis. No, sir, there is no way we can get to zero. There is 
no way all chemical residue materials can be completely eliminat- 
ed from going to landfill sites. There will always be some materials 
that cannot be incinerated. Asbestos-containing materials are a 
good example. Other materials won't burn. If they are of a toxic 
nature, they will have to be placed in some sort of secure landfill 
area so we will always have to face the problem in our society and 
in the manufacture of chemicals to find a way to securely dispose 
of toxic chemical materials. 

Senator Chafee. I thought you were saying you were getting this 

Mr. Davis. We are working to get it down as low as we can. We 
are trying to approach zero and become completely independent 
from having to use a landfill site, but we can never reach that 

Senator Chafee. I thought you previously indicated that you 
incinerated everything that could be incinerated, so aren't you as 
close to zero as you can get now? 

Mr. Davis. No, sir. Perhaps I have not been as clear as I should 
be on this point. We are incinerating all of the liquid residue which 
is a lot different technology than solid chemical residue inciner- 
ation. We are able to place and burn the liquid chemical residues 
in the incinerator, but you need an entirely different technology 
for the solid waste. So all the liquid chemicals that we manufac- 
ture we are currently incinerating. ■ 

Senator Chafee. Now you will move to the solid? ■ 

Mr. Davis. We are working on technology to allow us to do that. 
There is some technology already available and there are some 
incineration units in this country. 

Senator Chafee. What are the economics of incinerating the 
liquid wastes versus disposing of them? 

Mr. Davis. This incinerating is not a self-sustaining operation. 
You must provide additional heat to incinerate this material. We 
are currently sending some waste to disposal sites at our Niagara 
Falls plant. 

We are spending approximately $200,000 a month which is con- 
siderably more than we are spending to run our incineration oper- 

Senator Chafee. Do the economics favor the incineration? 

Mr. Davis. Yes, sir. 

Senator Chafee. What is the capital investment in the inciner- 
ator or is that figured in your statistics that show it is less than 
the $200,000 a month? 

Mr. Davis. The only figures I have seen. Senator, and these are 
very crude and preliminary figures, the thought has been solid 
waste incineration units would cost between $5 million and $10 
million for a plant of our size. 

Senator Chafee. What about the liquid? 

Mr. Davis. Approximately half a million dollars in 1982 to install 
the unit we currently have in place and operating. 


Senator Chafee. It is my understanding that your parent compa- 
ny, Occidental, was attempting to take over Mead Corp. and in 
connection with that there are two environmental consulting firms, 
Howard Hart Associates and Barr Engineering that were hired to 
review your disposal sites and practices. 

The committee has copies of those reports and Senator Stafford 
has and is going to submit them to you for comment and reply. Has 
that been done yet? 

Mr. Davis. We have not had an opportunity to reply yet. 

Senator Chafee. Can we expect your reply quickly because it 
would be Senator Stafford's intention to release those along with 
your reply? 

Mr. Davis. We will make every effort to reply as quickly as 
possible and we will be in contact with his staff. 

Senator Chafee. You can do that directly with Senator Stafford. 
Thank you for testifying. We appreciate it. 

Mr. Beasley, you are vice chairman of the board of Velsicol 
Chemical Corp. in Chicago. 


Mr. Beasley. We appreciate the opportunity to testify today 
concerning our efforts to rectify a situation where a former landfill 
appears to have been contaminating approximately a dozen wells 
adjacent to it. 

With your permission, I would like to submit my written testimo- 
ny and paraphrase it for the sake of brevity. 

Senator Burdick. That would be fine. [See p. 317.] 

Mr. Beasley. My task and charter in coming to Velsicol 5 
months ago is to devote substantially all of my time to bringing the 
company to the forefront of environmental security. We have been 
using some of the finest consultants in the country and have dedi- 
cated a substantial part of our staff to this effort. 

The environmental security of Velsicol is considered our first 
priority before profits or growth. I think our expenditures and 
problem-solving approaches in Tennessee as well as other environ- 
mental matters reflect this commitment. 

This landfill in Tennessee was used between 1964 and 1973. 
Approximately 45 acres of the 243-acre property were used to dis- 
pose of residues. 

There is always a question as to whether or not a landfill could 
cause contamination of ground water. Soon after the landfill was 
started, the U.S. Geological Survey indicated that if this did 
happen, the slope of the ground water movement was away from 
the area where people were drawing their water. It concluded that: 

There is, therefore, no possibility for any existing water-table wells to produce 
potentially contaminated water from the water-table aquifer. * * * the potential 
contamination hazard for such wells is nil. 

I might also say that our own monitoring well has been clean 
since its inception. 

I might digress a little bit from my statement to say that it is an 
interesting paradox that there are certain wells, some 50 feet 
apart, where one well is contaminated and one well is clean. 


Senator Chafee. Could you tell us about the preparation of this 
site when it was built in 1964? I would be interested in that at this 
point because, as I look at your statement, you don't deal with the 
preparation of the site. 

You heard the testimony of Mr. Davis about how Hooker pre- 
pares their sites. Tell us a little bit about how Velsicol prepares its 

Mr. Beasley. This is the only offsite disposal area Velsicol has 
ever had. I am not familiar with the history of it. It predates my 
joining the company by a substantial amount. I understand that 
drums were hauled from the Memphis plant, put in trenches ap- 
proximately 15 feet wide and 40 feet long. The trenches were either 
12 or 15 feet deep. Once the trench was filled, 3 feet of soil was 
placed back over it. 

Senator Chafee. What was the makeup of the trench? Was it 
clay or did you take the regular soil that was there, scoop it out 
and bury the barrel? 

Mr. Beasley. I am not familiar with any special preparation that 
was put on the bottom of the trenches. Whether or not there was, I 
don't know. 

Senator Chafee. We will assume nothing special was done unless 
you submit something to us. That puts a burden on you. If the 
company did in fact make some special preparation, let us know. 
Otherwise, we will assume you scooped out the dirt and threw in 
the barrels. 

Mr. Beasley. In the past 15 years, a number of families located 
on the property adjacent to the landfill, a few additional wells were 
added and certainly more water was drawn from the existing wells 
that were there. 

Approximately a year ago, a few of the residents began to detect 
a funny smell in their water. The compounds were identified with 
our assistance, as being similar to the chemicals that were located 
in the landfill. 

We immediately commenced a joint study effort with the State of 
Tennessee. We contracted with an independent hydrology company 
to determine how these chemicals got to the wells. Did they mi- 
grate directly from the landfill or did they get there through other 
means? This may have happened by rinsing a barrel in a well area 
10 or 15 years ago, or by some other technique. 

On October 6 of last year, which happened to be my first week of 
coming to Velsicol, a preliminary opinion from our hydrologist was 
that the landfill possibly could be the cause of the well contamina- 
tion. We immediately set in motion a plan of action to rectify the 
situation. I went immediately that evening to the EPA in Atlanta 
and told them of the situation. 

They gave me a briefing the next morning as to what they knew 
about the situation. They had some facts and figures that we had 
not been privy to before. We also told the press, and we told the 
local residents. We offered to pay a water connection hookup fee 
for these dozen families for a permanent water supply which was 
in progress. We also offered to reimburse the State of Tennessee for 
having provided freshwater to these people for the few preceding 


I then went down and talked to the families involved, met with 
them, had dinner with them, and met in their house. I asked them 
what to do to rectify the situation. I even agreed to purchase their 
homes at the fair market value, by getting three appraisals and 
dropping the lowest one and averaging the top two. I also agreed to 
ipay them for inconveniences of having to move. Their attorney 
turned this down the next day. By this time, it appeared that the 
! permanent waterline that was coming through this valley would 
not be ready for a number of months. We started a construction 
effort of our own and started installing a temporary water supply 
for them. I use the word "temporary" guardedly. It is actually a 
permanent system but it will be replaced when the final waterline 
comes through. This happens to be costing us $1,200 a week simply 
to truck the water from nearby Jackson, Tenn. 

Furthermore, we went in and plumbed all of the affected homes, 
replaced all of the water fixtures in their houses, replaced all of 
their hot water heaters. We replaced washers, dishwashers, dryers, 
icemakers until their attorney hit us with a restraining order 
prohibiting us from contacting the people directly. We also re- 
placed their pots and pans, plastic dishes until, likewise, he got a 
restraining order on us. We reimbursed the families for their pre- 
pared canned goods as well as frozen foods. 

We contributed $25,000 to the town of Toone in order to speed up 
the construction of the permanent waterline. We made air samples 
of two of the homes with the highest concentrations to make cer- 
tain the environments were safe. We have soil studies underway to 
determine if they can continue to use their orchards and outlying 

In addition to those efforts extended directly to the residents, we 
have set up a task force with the State of Tennessee, Department 
of Public Health, the EPA, and the Center for Disease Control for 
medical studies for the affected families. 

We have also assembled a consortium of first-class consulting 
firms and have in progress studies to determine what corrective 
actions are necessary for the landfill site. 

As of this time, we have made settlements with about half of the 
families involved and we have offers outstanding for most of the 

We decided from the very beginning that if we thought we were 
responsible, we would move in immediately and do what was right 
for the people. We decided we would not be unduly concerned 
about protecting our legal flanks and we would confront the situa- 
tion directly. 

More importantly, in my opinion, we took expedient action to get 
these dozen families' lives back to normal. I don't minimize the 
situation, Mr. Chairman, but we tried to do whatever we could to 
facilitate their getting back to normal. 

With the exception of the normal concern someone has with 
having been exposed to contaminated water, I think that their lives 
are headed back in this direction. 

Senator Chafee. What did the tests show in the water of these 
dozen houses? What did the tests reveal? What is in the water? Do 
you have 300,000 drums? 

262 I 

Mr. Beasley. No, sir. The press reports said 250,000 to 300,000. 
Our calculations indicate that approximately 100,000 drums are 

I don't want to give you too simple an answer to a complex 
question. There are 13 wells involved with approximately a dozen 
chemicals in each well. They vary all over the lot. The higher 
concentrations are primarily for carbon tetrochloride. Dr. David 
Allen's testimony yesterday provided th.? contamination level for 
each chemical for each well at each period of time at which it has 
been tested. 

Senator Chafee. Doesn't this go back to the preparation of the 
original site? We had testimony here from Mr. Davis which indicat- 
ed if the site is properly prepared in the beginning it can be pretty 

Obviously, this was not the case with your company. 

Mr. Beasley. I don't want to make any admissions against inter- 
est because, as you know, we have a $2.5 billion lawsuit against us. 
But I am of the opinion that landfills can be constructed in certain 
ways to prevent the migration of chemicals from them. 

Senator Chafee. That did not happen here. 

Mr. Beasley. No one knows that better than I, sir. 

Senator Chafee. It has been alleged that your company and EPA 
and the State all knew of this chemical contamination considerably 
before it was known by the residents and nothing was done to 
warn the residents. Is that true? 

Mr. Beasley. No, sir, not to the best of my knowledge. 

Senator Chafee. Your company is involved in other problems 
with disposal sites, is it not, such as Barry Creek, N.J.? 

Mr. Beasley. Yes, sir, we have other problems around the coun- 

Senator Chafee. What would you recommend to this committee 
that we do? 

Mr. Beasley. In vhat respect. Senator? 

Senator Chafee. In respect to preventing situations like this 
again from recurring and then providing for compensation for the 

As you indicated in your testimony, you have gone to consider- 
able expense to take care of the people affected and that, indeed, 
was only 12 families, but you put in new dishwashers, you put in 
new icemaking machines, plastic plates, a whole host of things. So 
you have the monc.-/ to do it and you have done it so far. 

What do we do about a company that cannot or will not afford to 
make these replacements and leaves it up to the individual home- 
owner to sue? 

Mr. Beasley. I can certainly say we tried to address this in as 
forthright a way as possible. We did not want the publicity or 
expense involved in litigating many, many cases like this and 
found it was cheaper to go in and replace this than to fight it. I 
don't think there is a good answer to the situation where a compa- 
ny is going bankrupt or is no longer on the scene. Certainly, you 
don't want the residents left holding the bag in that situation. In 
that situation, I think some type of funding pool might well be 


I personally have trouble in simplifying the complexities of how 
that fund should be financed in an equitable way, but I don't think 
there is any dispute that residents who are affected need to be 
compensated and put in as good a situation as they possibly can. 

Senator Chafee. Do you think the funding should come totally 
from the companies and those who generate the problem in the 

Mr. Beasley. No, sir, I don't think so exclusively. I think the 
benefits of chemicals are dispersed through our society. I don't 
think that the chemical companies are the only ones who have 
benefited from the making of chemicals. I think consumers and the 
Government have benefited. 

I think the critical question is the allocation of financing for that 
particular fund. I do not think that existing chemical companies 
alone should be taxed for the past practices. I do not believe that 
those chemical companies who are now existing should finance 100 
percent all the potential problems that have been buried over the 
past generations. 

Senator Chafee. Suppose it were solely for future incidents, that 
is, sites that are constructed as of, let us say 1980. 

Mr. Beasley. I think that is an entirely different matter. 

Senator Chafee. That is where the chemical companies should 
take care of the funding? 

Mr. Beasley. We now know today where these chemicals are 
going to a greater degree than in the past. You can track responsi- 

Senator Chafee. Yes, sir. Dr. Allen from the Tennessee Depart- 
ment of Health was here and he testified your company had helped 
to rectify the situation at Toone and we commend you for that and 
the activities you have undertaken with these families. 

I must say you must feel a little upset when an injunction is 
gotten against you to prevent you from doing these activities by 
the people you are helping or some of them. 

Did all of them participate in that? 

Mr. Beasley. It is a very interesting situation. Senator. The 
attorney brought this $2.5 million lawsuit without the explicit 
knowledge of the residents. We were actually negotiating with 
them for settlement when he initiated the lawsuit. It is clear they 
signed up with him previously but they were unaware that he was 
going to bring this action. A number of residents said they were 
going to withdraw from the suit and settle. At that time he got the 
temporary restraining order to prohibit me from going down and 
meeting with the residents and offering settlements. 

Senator Chafee. Going back to this situation in Toone, my ques- 
tion to you is: How long did it take you to react here? You have 
outlined what you did. Did you have any notions that your old 
dump might be involved in the Toone problems or did you wait 
until some more conclusive studies were taken? 

Dr. Allen's testimony indicated that only after the most recent 
conclusive tests were completed did your company start into high 

Mr. Beasley. A lot of this was before I joined the company so I 
am simply reconstructing what I heard. Please keep in mind that 
the USGS hydrology study upon which we were relying said there 


was no way these wells would get contaminated. If the ground- 
water ever gets into the aquifer, it will be moving in an easterly 
way, not toward the wells. Our own monitoring well toward the 
west has always been clean. 

When the wells started smelling last year, we helped analyze 
them. They were similar chemicals. The question therefore was, 
How did they get there? An immediate study was commenced with 
the State of Tennessee to see if the previous hydrology study was 
incomplete or did not contain sufficient data concerning these 

At the very first moment when the hydrologist gave an opinion 
there could be a gradient toward these wells, we told the State and 
EPA and the residents within hours. 

Senator Chafee. Did you own this site and do you still own it? 

Mr. Beasley. Yes, sir, we have owned it continuously since it was 
purchased a year before 

Senator Chafee. What do you do on other sites closer to your 
facilities? How do you handle those? 

Mr. Beasley. Fortunately, this is the only offsite disposal area 
that the company has, so this is our only experience. 

Senator Chafee. Do you do something when the sites are on your 
own property? 

Mr. Beasley. Now we are incinerating as much as we can and 
sending to landfills. 

Senator Chafee. Are you using this high-temperature inciner- 
ation that Hooker was talking about? 

Mr. Beasley. It is not precisely the same process but it is similar. 

Senator Chafee. Is that a financially attractive route to go? 

Mr. Beasley. I am not a chemist, and I obviously don't have the 
vast experience that Mr. Davis does in the chemical industry. I was 
surprised by the numbers he gave the committee. 

Our estimate is that it costs four to five times as much to 
incinerate our waste as to take it to a secure landfill. 

Senator Chafee. Could you submit for the record your people's 
closest analysis of those figures? 

Mr. Beasley. I would be very glad to. 

Senator Chafee. Have somebody back there from your staff 
make notes on these things because we are making notes. That is 
important to us. I was surprised by the figures Mr. Davis gave from 
Hooker. It seemed to me from his figures, judging upon the original 
capital investment — what did he say — half a million dollars in 

Obviously, there are operating expenses that are quite high, and 
he indicated you have to bring this up to a high temperature. 

Mr. Beasley. I might add since I joined the company we have 
started to design our own incineration plant for all our waste. The 
cost appears to be in the $5 million to $12 million range to do so. 
Of course, there are other problems with that even though inciner- 
ation might be the socially preferable way to go about that, it is 
extremely energy-intensive and we will have to cross interstate 
lines if we locate a centralized one. I am not certain what the 
future will be with respect to States' allowing interstate transpor- 
tation of chemical waste. That should be kept in mind by the 
committee when we search for better solutions than landfill. 


Senator Chafee. Senator Simpson? 

Senator Simpson. Thank you, very much. 

I apologize for being late. I was headed for Three Mile Island, Pa. 

I understand the thread of your testimony was that you endorse 
I a Federal funding pool. What is your thought about the extent of 
I the participation by the chemical companies in such a pool, wheth- 
! er it would be a commingling of Federal funds or industry funds? 

What is that area of financing obligation? 

Mr. Beasley. Senator, I hasten to say I don't consider myself to 
be an expert in this area. I dealt primarily with our abatement 
problems in Tennessee in my testimony. We have been working 
with the Manufacturing Chemists Association. I would be willing to 
give my personal view as opposed to an official view. 

I think chemical companies have a responsibility to make sure 
these wastes are disposed of properly and to make sure individuals 
will not be injured in the future. 

I have personal trouble seeing how one allocates responsibility 
today in 1979 and collects funds from existing chemical companies 
to pay for past practices as well as how one derives some money 
from other beneficiaries of those chemicals which have been con- 
sumed in the past. These beneficiaries include the Government, 
consumers, businesses, farmers, and all sectors of society. 

These waste disposal costs are going to be passed on in the form 
of higher prices in the future. If that is true, it follows that con- 
sumers paid less for their chemicals in the past than they other- 
wise would have had expensive abatement practices been undertak- 

You may be interested in knowing that many chemical contracts 
for commodity chemicals have escalator clauses in them specifical- 
ly for waste disposal cost. As disposal costs escalate, the cost of the 
chemical escalates much like a labor contract would with the cost 
of living. I don't think that any of us suspect that society in its 
totality will not bear the cost of more appropriate waste disposal. 

Senator Simpson. As I understand it, under Tennessee law, the 
contamination of the aquifer, and I don't know if that was under 
their water law or civil law, apparently there is a common law 
trespass which I think would make your company strictly liable for 

In most cases, the particular rule of law simply would be negli- 
gence. Here we are in the area of strict liability, much as we would 
be in if we were dealing with a gas utility that furnished gas. 

What is your thought about the issue of whether these chemicals 
might begin to fall in the law under the definition of an inherently 
dangerous substance and, therefore, the issue of strict liability that 
would embrace that type of subject? 

Mr. Beasley. If I may, I would like to confine myself to the facts 
I know best, and that is the Tennessee law. We are acting as if we 
are liable in this situation. Under Tennessee law, one first deter- 
mines whether it is a temporary nuisance or permanent nuisance. 
It is clear that if either be the case, the company is responsible. 

We have gone in with a degree of expense and a degree of 
abatement that far exceeds even what equity in common law in 
Tennessee would provide. 


I might say we are doing so under the reaHzation that in many 
of these cases, it is simply cheaper to replace the articles or put the 
people back in their original position than it is to test the article to 
see whether it was contaminated in the first place. 

A classic example we had was with their washing machines. The 
test to analyze whether a washing machine had a few parts per 
billion exceeded the cost to replace the machine. So, in this in- 
stance, we are replacing rather than testing and trying to convince 
people that it is safe. 

Senator Simpson. To what degree are costs a consideration in 
deciding landfill versus incineration? 

Mr. Beasley. Senator, I really have no idea. Company employees 
15 years ago are long gone and I obviously was not there 15 years 

Senator Simpson. I have a sense of your frustration, yes. 

I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Chafee. You were here when we were questioning Mr. 
Davis of Hooker. I would like your answer to the question: How far 
do you believe your responsibility extends, you, a chemical compa- 
ny, after a site has been sold or title transferred? 

I am not asking you to answer for Hooker. I am asking you to 
answer for your company. 

These chemicals are subsequently ascertained to be far more 
deadly than they were originally thought to be and go way beyond 
any dangers that people thought when they were disposed of exist- 
ed within them? 

Now, where does your responsibility end? 

Mr. Beasley. That is very interesting, Senator, because I find 
myself on the receiving end as well as the other end because we 
have purchased properties with chemicals in the ground which 
came to us undisclosed. 

I have to be guarded because I have a number of litigations 
underway. I think there is no substitute for full disclosure as to 
what you know about the properties that you are transferring, I 
am not certain one can ever avoid retaining that liability if in fact 
it is not properly disclosed by the seller to the purchaser. 

I think it is a far different question if the buyer knowingly 
accepts that responsibility and says, "We understand everything 
that is there." I think it has to go on a case-by-case basis. 

Senator Chafee. Often you are dealing with unsophisticated 
buyers or who are not aware or do not choose to be aware of the 
dangers in there. You can tell him there is dioxin in there. 

It does not seem to me that it is enough to say, "Well, I told him, 
I did my part, so I am through." 

Mr. Beasley. I think you have to have a sophisticated person. 
The test is whether they know or are capable of knowing what 
they are getting into. I am not certain I would go as far as you and 
say that buyers of chemical plants are necessarily unsophisticated. 
I might say our company has bought a piece of property where the 
presence of chemicals was not disclosed. This goes both ways and 
even chemical companies can get fooled. 

Senator Chafee. We have a very difficult problem here. 

What do you think of some form of inventory of what you put in 
a dump with the location of it so that when you dispose of some- 


thing in 1978 in a dump and the properties are not fully appreciat- 
ed but subsequently in 1990 it is determined that the properties in 
that site or in that particular area in that chemical are lethal and 
then you proceed to do something about it? 

What do you do about it? 

Mr. Beasley. I think that is an excellent idea. We have already 
commenced a study of our previous residue and we are trying to 
calculate from production records going back 30 or 40 years to 
determine where our residue inventory might be. 

The key is not to overreact, but certainly you have to have the 
information with which to react quickly and decisively. I think 
knowing what is in these dumps is extremely important. 

Senator Chafee. You are talking about 100,000 barrels minimum 
at your Toones site. Do you have dioxin? 

Mr. Beasley. I have other problems but I don't have dioxins. 

Senator Chafee. If you had inventory, where would you put it? 

Mr. Beasley. We don't know the location of each barrel. 

Senator Chafee. The next question is. Who should be responsible 
for the testing of that, industry or Government? 

Mr. Beasley. Let me state what we have done without commit- 
ting the entire industry. We have assumed the full responsibility 
for testing this site and have paid for every aspect of that. Certain- 
ly in the future, industry will bear the cost and have an opportuni- 
ty to get compensated from consumers if they can or cease doing 
business if that is the case. But in this particular situation, we 
have borne the expense. We have had some technical assistance 
from the State. 

Senator Chafee. Thank you, very much, Mr. Beasley. 

[The following additional information was supplied by Mr. Beas- 
ley subsequent to the hearing:] 



3-4T EAST OMIC STREET • CHICAGO ILLINOIS 60B1 1 ' 312/670.4572 

V^m Howard Beasley, III 


April 23, 1979 

Dear Senators: 

In response to your questions for which I did not have specific 
data at the hearing on March 29, 1979, I would like respectfully 
to submit the following: 

1. Senator Chaffee asked what specific preparation was made to 
the disposal site before its use. I have been unable to 
locate anyone who was around at that time who can tell me any 
more than that a trench was dug approximately 15 feet deep, 
the drums were unloaded into the trench and then covered by 
approximately 3 feet of top soil. I am told by consultants 
that this was a standard procedure of this era and that it 
would have been most unusual for anyone to have lined a trench 
with clay. If the clay happened to have been there, that 
would have been fine, but the importation of clay was virtually 
unheard of. 


2. A list of chemicals that were found in the well has been 
supplied by Dr. David Allen of the State of Tennessee Health 
Department in his testimony. 

3. Attached is a current comparison between the disposal cost 
using a landfill and the disposal cost using incineration. 
This is an actual situation and represents what outside 
contractors are now charging. I feel that this is a relevant 
comparison, since these costs should represent full costs of 
disposal including operating costs, capital costs, and future 
maintenance of the site. 

This analysis shows that landfilling costs approximately $66 
per barrel, while incineration costs $210, or over three times 
as much. If transportation costs are excluded, the costs are 
$46 versus $183, or four times as much. Due to the short 
supply of acceptable secure landfills, I would expect the 
landfill costs to escalate more rapidly in the future than 
the cost of incineration. However, this large gap is not 
likely to disappear in the foreseeable future. It should be 
noted that it takes 66 gallons of fuel oil to burn 50 gallons 
of residue and obviously the cost of fuel will increase 
substantially in the future. 




Page 2. 

4. Senator Simpson asked about my personal thoughts on how funding 
might be approached if a super fund were created. My personal 
view is that the funding responsibility should be assumed 
proportionately by all of the sectors of our society that have 
benefited from the manufacture and use of chemicals. One must 
keep in mind that as this additional cost is imposed by taxation 
or by regulation, it will naturally follow that prices will be 
higher than otherwise, capital formation will be lower than 
otherwise, government tax revenue will be lower than otherwise, 
and profits will be lower than otherwise. On the other hand, 
the social costs imposed by improperly disposed of chemicals 
are high even though they are difficult to quantify. Addition- 
ally, the economic consequences for existing, financially 
responsible firms for previously improperly disposed of 
chemicals can be severe. Because of these consequences, it is 
difficult for me to imagine a responsible company knowingly 
disposing of chemicals in an improper way. For all of these 
many reasons, social as well as economic, there can be no 
substitute for the proper manufacture and disposal of chemicals. 

Velsicol Chemical Corporation is doing everything it can to improve 
continually its disposal techniques and will do so whether or not 
new legislative initiatives are undertaken. 

I appreciate the opportunity to express my views to you and the 
courtesy that you extended to me at the hearing. 

Sincerely , 


The Honorable John H. Chaffee 
The Honorable Alan K. Simpson 
United States Senate Committee on 

Environmental and Public Works 
United States Senate 
Washington, D. C. 20510 





April 1, 1979, Costs 

SCA SERVICES, INC. — Secure Landfill 

Disposal cost (50 gallons/705 pounds) 

Transportation cost (633 miles) 

Drum cost 

TOTAL COST for disposal of 705 pounds net 

(50 gallons) 

COST PER POUND — $0.0934 

5 25.00/drum 
21.00 /each 

$ 65.91 


Shipments consist of 60 per cent PCL, 40 per cent 
fuel oil by weight . Cost of fuel oil — $0 . 4703/gallon. 

Weight of PCL Bottoms (undiluted) — 14.1 pounds/gallon 
Weight of fuel oil — 7.0 pounds/gallon 

Disposal cost (30 gallons=423 pounds) 
Fuel oil cost (40.2 gallons=282 pounds) 
Transportation cost (235 miles) 
Cleaning of tank truck 
COST PER POUND — $0.2978 

For 30 Gal. 

For 50 Gal, 

$ 84.60 












Senator Chafee. Our next witness is Representative LaFalce. I 
understand he is here. Would you like to go on now? 

Mr. LaFalce. Yes. 

Senator Chafee. We were ready for you earlier but I understand 
you were tied up in the air somewhere. 

Mr. LaFalce. Yes. 

Senator Chafee. Why don't you summarize your statement, Mr. 
LaFalce. Perhaps that would be helpful. 

We welcome you here. 


Mr. LaFalce. I would like to express my appreciation to this 
joint committee for having me here to testify before them and ask 
unanimous consent that the full text of my remarks be incorporat- 
ed in the record. [See p. 322.] 

As you know, I am the Congressman of the people in the Love 
Canal area of Niagara Falls, N.Y., so I have been living with the 
problem of human exposure to toxic substances for some time now. 

I first became aware of the potential of the problem in 1977 and 
began at that time an almost daily battle to bring to the attention 
of the appropriate authorities the potential plight with which we 
were truly faced. It came to light after August 2, 1978, when the New 
York State Commissioner of Health issued an order stating that an 
emergency health situation existed in that area and strongly ex- 
horted pregnant women, and children under 2 years of age to 
evacuate posthaste. There was a similar order on February 8, 1979, 
for people living in a wider perimeter from the dump sites. 

What caused this horror story? 

Well, we know now that some 25 years ago, hazardous substances 
were dumped there. We know that schools and homes were built on 
that property. But the tragedy of the Love Canal is not unique, 
Senator. Within one county in my congressional district, we have 
39 abandoned landfills. Last week, the House Interstate and For- 
eign Commerce Oversight Committee held hearings on some of 
those sites in my one county. 

The stories are truly tragic and EPA has indicated it is not 
peculiar to my one county. There are perhaps close to 1,000 aban- 
doned sites across the country which are imminent hazards to the 
health and welfare of the people of this country as well as our 

Congress did enact some legislative framework to deal with the 
problem of hazardous waste. In 1978, when we passed the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act, we hoped to provide for such inci- 
dent by providing for a program to eliminate open dumping; a 
program for financial and technical assistance for planning en- 
hanced solid waste managment system; and authority for research, 
demonstrations, and studies. 

However, that law dealt only with current and future handling 
of solid waste. It did not take into account the wastes that were 
generated in the past. It is this issue which I would like to discuss 
with you primarily this morning. 

I have introduced H.R. 1048, the Hazardous Waste Control Act, 
which I believe will fill some of the gaps in RCRA. I hope that 


my bill at least will provide a vehicle for discussion and delibera- 
tion. We would recommend establishing a program for the identifi- 
cation, reclamation, and monitoring of abandoned waste sites. 

It would set fees to be paid by private organizations which would 
dispose of hazardous waste. It would also call upon the Government 
to provide a fair portion of that total fee and it will provide a 
process for the selection of future sites for disposal of hazardous 

The fees against the private sectors would be collected from 
permit-holding operators of hazardous waste treatment storage 
facilities. Fees would be placed in a reclamation fund which would 
be used in combination with State and Federal contributions to 
deal with abandoned sites. 

Another provision would establish contingency funds for pay- 
ment of costs to clean up hazardous waste situations which threat- 
en the health or safety of individuals. This bill would also author- 
ize Government legal action against such persons responsible for 
such emergencies in order to recover the cost of cleanup oper- 

The Comptroller General in a report to Congress in 1979 agreed 
with many of the concepts that I have embodied in my bill to fill 
the gaps in RCRA. The Comptroller's report is called, "Hazardous 
Waste Management Programs Will Not Be Effective: Greater Ef- 
forts Are Needed," and I commend that report to the study of this 
joint committee. 

Before going on to other initiatives directly related to RCRA, I 
would like to talk about another bill I have introduced which is 
relevant to hazardous waste disposal and their effects on people. 
That has to do with the compensation for the victims of exposure 
to toxic substances. I have introduced a bill which I call the Toxic 
Tort Act. It would accomplish the following objectives: 

One, it would create a Federal cause of action for victims of toxic 
substances permitting them to seek redress against the negligent 

Two, it would create an independent agency within EPA to com- 
pensate injured individuals regardless of fault. This would function 
like the workers compensation program. 

Three, it would require studying of exposure to toxic substances 
and human disease and authorize EPA to make a requisite nexus 
finding. This requisite nexus finding between the toxic exposure 
and human effect would overcome the problem of proving causa- 
tion with additional proof requirements which are extremely diffi- 
cult, if not inseparable. 

Four, it would modify the proof and time limitation requirements 
which claimants must meet in both State workers compensation 
proceedings and in court actions permitting the use of a rebuttable 
presumption based on EPA's requisite nexus finding. 

Five, it would subrogate the rights of the injured party, therefore 
enabling EPA to seek reimbursement from whatever parties they 
deemed negligent. 

Senator Chafee. That certainly sounds like a thoughtful bill, and 
we certainly will give it a close look. You have introduced that in 
the House? 

Mr. LaFalce. Yes, and I thank you for your comments. 


There are some other legislative initiatives that I believe are 
necessary and I would like to talk about section 311 in particular of 
the Clean Water Act and the possibility of a super fund concept 
based upon the concepts in section 311. 

I believe EPA is working on a proposal which as of now, still has 
not been formulated too thoroughly nor has it become the adminis- 
tration position. But this concept would create a superfund which 
funds would cover not only oil spills but also hazardous waste spills 
and abandoned waste sites. 

I don't believe DOT would favor that approach but I am hopeful 
0MB will be the referee between DOT and EPA and will come 
down strongly on the side of EPA. 

I certainly support the concept of a superfund to deal with such 
environmental calamities. If we enact such a fund, it would be 
structured to achieve a number of goals rather than just as a 
means of raising the necessary funds without becoming an undue 
burden on the Federal budget. 

My suggestion is based on the view that we should develop a 
truly comprehensive program to manage hazardous waste and, to 
do so, we should have a funding mechanism that not only gener- 
ates sufficient revenue to do the job but which also encourages the 
private sector and others involved to keep future problems to a 

The superfund concept generally would use a tax on oil and 
natural gas, as one revenue source. I believe this would be appro- 
priate, but a broad tax on the natural resources alone would not 
achieve other goals which a funding mechanism could help with 
greatly such as conservation and, therefore, reduction of waste, and 
recycling of wastes into other manufacturing processes, thus reduc- 
ing the quantity of wastes to be handled; otherwise reducing the 
amounts of wastes to be handled, treated or disposed of; and reduc- 
ing the toxicity of waste that cannot be eliminated. 

The bill that I introduced has within it a funding mechanism for 
dealing with abandoned sites which might help meet these goals. My 
approach is one approach, but I offer it for your consideration as you 
enter into the superfund concept. 

Senator Chafee. I think that is the first time we have had this 
suggestion. The fund would go into store for those who clean up the 
abandoned sites. That is certainly a worthwhile suggestion. 

One of the problems, of course, as you know, is the incredible 
costs of cleaning up these abandoned sites. 

Mr. LaFalce. The costs of cleaning up the sites range anywhere 
from a few billion dollars to perhaps $50 billion. I think the first 
thing we have to do. Senator, is to identify the sites and then make 
a determination whether the prospects of human exposure to toxic 
substances in that site is great, moderate, or minimal. 

I would think that in a good many instances, all we would have 
to do is monitor those sites rather than actually reclaim them. 

So while the costs are going to be great, I suspect they might be 
on the lower order of the range rather than the higher order of the 

In any event, I do think we need an immediate injection of funds 
and I think the superfund concept presents a possibility for imme- 


diate injection of funds much more so than just simply going it 
alone as I did in my bill, H.R. 1048. 

Therefore, I would strongly support the concept of a superfund, 
and I believe this is in keeping with the concepts advanced by 
Senator Muskie and actions taken in the past Congress, at least in 
the Senate. The House has shown a great degree of reluctance in this 

It is important, though, no matter what program we devise, we 
do not relieve past, present, or future manufacturer disposers of 
liability for negligence on their part in dealing with hazardous 

It is also important our actions find the important delicate bal- 
ance between encouraging entities in the private sector to take 
part in the disposal business and the need to assure victims that 
government will be able to hold irresponsible or negligent parties 
accountable for their actions. 

So, if we do create a fund, we should permit the government to 
step in and deal with the problem immediately. We don't have 
time for 5 years of litigation. The problem must be dealt with and 
dealt with immediately, and I don't think any entity other than the 
Government can do it. Then we should permit the government to 
seek recovery from those companies where negligence is involved. 

This should apply where, despite greater regulatory efforts to 
assure safe and careful handling of hazardous materials, problems 
may also arise. 

The superfund concept, too, should include the mechanism to 
obtain third-party damages by innocent victims because those dam- 
ages are as real as if the people were involved in an automobile 
accident or a fire, and, yet, those people are frequently left with no 
means of redress whatsoever. Again, if we provide for third-party 
damages within the superfund concept, the Government should 
have the right of subrogation, to seek reimbursement from negli- 
gent parties. 

The concepts within my Toxic Tort Act could easily be included 
within the superfund concept. 

Furthermore, within my Toxic Tort Act, I call for punitive dam- 
ages, particularly for flagrant instances of irresponsibility, but I 
would not have them flow to any one victim who would get com- 
pensatory means of replenishment. 

There are a great many other laws that are on the books that 
would offer the potential to deal with the problem if used creative- 
ly. For example, the Clean Water Act, particularly sections 201, 
208, 311, and 504. My prepared remarks go into each of those 
creative uses in some detail. 

Let me pass over sections 201 and 208 and even 311. 

Now, to go to section 504 in particular because 504 specifically 
authorizes EPA to provide assistance in emergency situations caused 
by the release into the atmosphere of any pollutant or other con- 
taminant including but not limited to those which present or may 
reasonably be anticipated to present an imminent and substantial 
danger to the public health and welfare. 

This section would address such situations as the Love Canal. 
Unfortunately, while Congress saw fit to authorize a minimal 



amount of money for section 504, approximately $10 million, Con- 
gress, perhaps, because of its reluctance to put its money where its 
mouth is, or perhaps, because of the inhibitions brought about by 
0MB, Congress has not appropriated 1 penny toward section 504. 

In this Congress, whether it be in the supplemental budget, 
or whether it be in the fiscal 1980 budget, I strongly hope that efforts 
will be made by each and every member of this committee to 
appropriate moneys for section 504. 

Senator Chafee. I know you are aware the President did not put 
any in for this section. 

Mr. LaFalce. I am well aware of that. That is because of OMB. 

Senator Chafee. When you indicated it was an uphill fight, you 
have labeled it correctly. 

Mr. LaFalce. If we are going to do something about this problem, 
we can because we have an existing vehicle which would permit us to 
take immediate action. We need action now and there is a vehicle for 
doing that. I know Senator Muskie made a valiant effort last year on 
the floor, with the assistance of Senators Moynihan and Javits; but 
because of the constraints and objection to funding 504 at that time 
their efforts failed. 

I believe we must appropriate money for section 8001(a) of 
RCRA, which provides for a similar program to Love Canal. That 
demonstration program never received appropriations. Last year, 
however, we were able to get $4 million appropriated in the fiscal 
1979 appropriations process for 8001(a). 

Senator Chafee. That was on a matching basis. 

Mr. LaFalce. Yes, it was on a matching basis. However the 
contributions of New York to Love Canal makes the Federal contri- 
bution pale in significance to the point where almost everyone in 
New York has said, "Why hasn't the Federal Government done 
anything to alleviate our problems." 

Senator, with that I will conclude my remarks and if you have 
any questions, I would be pleased to answer them. 

Senator Chafee. Mr. Representative, this is very, very thought- 
ful and you have given this a lot of time, 8001 plus 504 suggests 
and your comments on 311 plus the superfund, the approach to it, 
the tax on the original supplier, that is the oil industry and then 
on the operators of the dumps — very very helpful. 

As a matter of fact, that gives us kind of a guideline to go by as 
we delve into this particular area and we appreciate your coming. 

Our next witness is Mr. Frank Rovers, Conestoga-Rovers and 

Do you have a statement, Mr. Rovers? 

Mr. Rovers. Yes, sir, I do. 

Senator Burdick. This is not too long. If you would like to read 
that, why don't you do that? 


Mr. Rovers. I consider myself privileged as a Canadian to be 

Senator Burdick. We are delighted to welcome you and we are 
glad you are here. 


Mr. Rovers. Inactive and abandoned hazardous waste disposal 
sites have been identified in recent years to pose a significant 
potential for detrimental environmental impact. At the present 
time, the North American Society is expending significant re- 
sources to control this potential. This hearing is a most significant 
example of this expenditure. Although the North American Society 
recognizes the significance of inactive and abandoned hazardous 
waste disposal sites, it does not know the true dimensions of the 

Senator Chafee. I am glad to have your optimism that North 
American Society is well on its way to solving the inactive and 
abandoned waste disposal sites. That is not an optimism I share, 
but we are glad that you do have that view. 

Mr. Rovers. The solving of the problem commences with the 
recognition that a problem exists. This recognition is the first and 
singly most important step to problem solution. The North Ameri- 
can Society is therefore well on its way to solving the problem of 
inactive and abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites. Only now 
are we doing anything about it. We are recognizing the problem 
and I have considered the recognition the most important to prob- 
lem solving and I do feel with that recognition the problem will be 
solved over the next few years, a problem which has existed for 
decades will be solved in the next few number of years. 

Senator Chafee. If we get high points for recognizing it, high 
points are recognizing it, then I suppose we score, but I think the 
toughest part is yet to come. 

Mr. Rovers. Significant activities to control the problem of inac- 
tive and abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites include, but are 
not limited to, the following: 

One, industrial in-house reviews of past practices. 

Two, industrial in-house monitoring of past practices. 

Three, government monitoring of past practices. 

Four, implementation of remedial work programs. 

Five, the formulation and writing of legislation. 

The problem of and the solution to inactive and abandoned haz- 
ardous waste disposal sites can best be defined in a responsible 
atmosphere. A responsible atmosphere is one which recognizes the 

One, ideal solutions often are economically impractical. 

Two, practical solutions may often requirfe innovative engineer- 

Three, the problem is societal in nature. 

Four, inadequate past practices in general were not irresponsible. 

Five, society, where possible, must be given an adequate time 
frame for problem definition, solution definition, and solution im- 

Senator Chafee. I could not agree with you more. We had testi- 
mony yesterday if we handled some of these problems in advance 
before they get out of control, the cost-effectiveness is incredibly 
high. For a modest expenditure, we can right many wrongs if we 
know it in advance rather than waiting until the damage is done 
and the material has seeped out. 

If the sites are only correctly prepared in the beginning, much 
damage can be averted. 


Mr. Rovers. I would like to make one comment. 

From experience with Love Canal, geologically, it is a good situa- 
tion. Today we could design that site for hazard waste disposal. 
That is the type of situation we are in. 

Senator Chafee. Would you say that again? 

Mr. Rovers. Using RCRA regulation guidelines of hazardous dis- 
posal site design. Love Canal in fact fits the requirements for 
hazard waste disposal. There are a number of houses close by and 
now that requirement does not but if the Love Canal did not have 
the houses near by would be acceptable. The big cost comes for lack 
of monitoring, where impact was allowed to get to the homes prior 
to the identification of a problem. 

The installation could have been done prior to hitting the homes, 
affecting the people and the problem could have been controlled. 

Senator Chafee. Do you think the original construction of the 
Love Canal as a disposal site was correctly done? 

Mr. Rover. The hydrogeologic situation for the waste disposal is 
excellent. Niagara County has a situation in general which is good 
for hazardous waste proposal and I think it is fortunate many 
people and the waste disposed of in that area have that hydrogeolo- 
gic environment. However, there is a serious flaw that exists in 
waste control and this flaw is follows: 

When we can secure disposal of something and when we sanitary 
landfill, we must consider it as an engineering structure. If the 
chair we are sitting on is not maintained over a long period of 
time, that chair will eventually collapse under us. If we maintain 
it, fix it up, it will not collapse. With everything man structures, 
we do the same thing if we do not maintain the buildings, they will 
fall down. If we maintain them, they will stand. 

Secure disposal must be done in the same way. We must monitor 
and look after it as long as the waste it contains continues to be 
defined as hazardous. This is a most important criteria for design. 
This is something that people are addressing in a minor fashion 
but not in as strong a fashion as I believe they should. 

I believe that the single act which can reduce most significantly 
hazardous waste cost as hazardous waste disposal is a relatively 
inexpensive act. This includes not ground monitoring but all kinds 
of water. 

Senator Chafee. It includes what? 

Mr. Rovers. Not just ground water monitoring. You insure that 
the whole secure design is monitored continuously like you do on a 
bridge, like you do on a building. You look after the whole struc- 
ture, not just a part of it. 

Senator Chafee. Take the Love Canal situation. 

Are you suggesting if that had been properly maintained, that 
would have been a secure disposal site? 

Mr. Rovers. If it had been properly maintained and moni- 

Senator Chafee. Was it properly built in the beginning? 

Mr. Rovers. Yes, it was in a good environment and it was 
properly done at the time. If, for instance, certain things were left 
out that we would do today by monitoring you would have detected 
those failures and we would have corrected them. That is why it is 
so important to monitor, that we do things in engineering all the 


time that later on we find out has a flaw in it and we correct that 
flaw, and monitoring would detect those flaws and correct those 

Senator Chafee. Suppose the clay cover on the Love Canal had 
not been removed. Would the problem that is presently being en- 
countered have occurred sooner or later? 

Mr. Rovers. Yes, sir, it would have occurred later but it would 
have occurred. 

Senator Chafee. As a result of what, lack of maintenance? 

Mr. Rovers. It is a bathtub effect. It would have taken longer for 
the bathtub to fill up but it would have filled up. 

Senator Chafee. In other words, the rain eventually would have 
gotten through the clay cover? 

Mr. Rovers. Rain gets through a clay cover. There is no such 
thing as an impermeable clay cover. 

Senator Chafee. What could have been done? 

Mr. Rovers. By monitoring, you would have detected the fact 
that contaminants were collecting. You would have monitored 
more and you would treat leachate collected as you would do at 
any other normal site. 

Historically, the problem at an inactive and abandoned hazard- 
ous waste disposal site was defined following an offsite detrimental 
impact. As a result, remedial work costs are extremely high. Reme- 
dial costs can be significantly reduced by site monitoring and there- 
fore problem identification prior to significant offsite detrimental 

We believe that the single act which can reduce most significant- 
ly remedial work costs at hazardous waste disposal sites, is the 
relatively inexpensive act of monitoring. This is a difficulty. I have 
addressed it as if it were a simple question and I do not intend to 
do that. 

Having identified the problem of inactive and abandoned hazard- 
ous waste disposal sites, the North American Society is faced with 
the responsibility of funding site investigations and remedial works 
which may be required to secure the sites. 

We believe that inactive and abandoned hazardous waste dispos- 
al sites are a societal responsibility. The North American Society 
which includes the general public, governmental agencies, indus- 
tries and professions, at the time, generally did not conceive the 
disposal of hazardous waste in the hydrogeologic environment, as 
being practiced, to be unsafe. 

The disposal practices being condemned today were accepted 
standards in the past. At the same time, the whole of society 
benefited from the products made which resulted in the hazardous 
byproduct waste. 

Increased environmental awareness, refined scientific technology 
and detailed environmental research are now identifying that past 
practices were unacceptable. Society, however, benefited from the 
products which did not include a cost for the secure disposal of the 
waste byproducts. It is recognized that hazardous waste disposal 
significantly below the accepted standard can be defined as being 
irresponsible. In general, industry has not acted in this fashion. It 
is for the above reasons, we believe, that the problem of hazardous 


waste disposal sites which are inactive and abandoned are a "soci- 
etal" responsibility. 

With the problem being societal in nature, the following funding 
formula for site investigation and remedial work is proposed. It is 
proposed that the fund be funded from the following source. (1) The 
general public; (2) industry; (3) waste disposal surcharges. 

The fund would be used for remedial works on present and 
future inactive and abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites. 

A number of immediate actions can be taken which would have a 
significant impact on the problem of inactive and abandoned haz- 
ardous waste disposal sites. To be complete, proposed and presently 
operated sites are included in this discussion. 

(1) Establishment of, wherever possible, buffer zones which would 
allow for the monitoring of the hydrogeologic environment, and the 
implementation of a remedial control program within this bound- 
ary should such a program be required. For all sites, remedial 
control programs should be designed for implementation, if re- 

Do you have a rule of thumb on buffer zones, how wide they 
should be? 

Mr. Rovers. No, we don't. They should be significant and at 
every new site a remedial action program should be designed 
today, not when a problem happens, but today. If we say we are 
going to do it this way, and nothing migrates, let's assume it will 
migrate and design something that will take care of it. 

If I have to dig a trench 700 feet wide, I have to have the buffer 
zone to do it, and that will tell you what that should be. That is 
why it is important to design today the control program for the 

You might find you cannot design a control program. You are 
doing industry great injustice if you do not tell them, as a profes- 
sional, the responsibility they have should migration take place. 

An example, in the past designs of sanitary land sites secured 
disposal sites have never included the cost for the possibility of the 
contaminants moving. We then have a false sense of what a secure 
disposal site really costs, and there are certainly many industries 

Senator Chafee. Everybody thinks the contaminant won't move. 

Mr. Rovers. That is true. You have a false sense of security and 
you have other methods that are much higher in cost. 

No. 2, the establishment of the monitoring of the site — you must 
monitor the site on a continuous basis to be sure you have security. 
If you don't have security, you must fix it so that you do. 

No. 3, the implementation of a "responsible atmosphere" regard- 
ing inactive and abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites. 

This concludes my statement. 

Senator Chafee. I don't know what number three means. What 
is the implementation of a responsible atmosphere regarding inac- 
tive and abandoned hazardous waste disposal sites? What does that 

Mr. Rovers. I talked about responsible atmosphere previously. 
Here is what I consider one to be: An ideal solution, but one which 
is often impractical — very often we run across a problem and some- 
one demands of us an ideal solution — the perfect cleanup. That is 


often economically totally impractical. Two practical solutions may 
require innovative engineering. A problem occurs. It is a problem 
that has never occurred before. We are faced with new, innovative 
engineering solutions. We present the ideas and we are faced then 
with the problem of saying, "Have you ever checked it out before," 
and we say, "No; we have never checked it out before," and they 
say, "No; we can't approve." In other words, if it requires innova- 
tive engineering, at least allow the industry or the community to 
clear up with innovative engineering. 

Engineering often does not have a proof of success. Three, the 
problem is societal in nature; four, inadequate past practices in 
general were not irresponsible, and, five, society, where possible, 
must be given an adequate time frame for problem definition, 
solution definition and solution implementation. 

If this can be possible, if you can remove the dangers of health to 
individuals, for instance, then the society should be given an ade- 
quate time frame to do this, but costs very often are significantly 
less if enough time is given to do the job properly. 

Senator Chafee. In your funding, as I recall, you had three 
methods of funding. You had the public 

Mr. Rovers. They would all add to this fund. 

Senator Chafee. Three contributors — the public, industry, and 
the disposable sites themselves. 

Mr. Rovers. Right. 

Senator Chafee. Have you found in your experience that putting 
a heavy charge on the disposal sites encourages the cornercutters 
to avoid the sites and just dump recklessly in other areas? 

In other words, it seems to me there is a curve here which we 
can track, which shows that people will use safe sites if the safe 
sites are not too expensive and the responsible companies will 
continue to use the safe sites, but with the irresponsible ones, the 
number of them will increase directly as the cost of the disposal 
goes up. They are the people we are worried about. Do you have 
any thoughts on that? 

Mr. Rovers. Yes, I have. Safe sites are costly. There is no way 
that we can avoid that. It is therefore imperative that the people 
who recognize that they must use a safe site, if they don't use it 
will be harshly dealt with. 

Senator Chafee. I would agree with that, but the trouble is we 
have this incident in North or South Carolina where they dumped 
the stuff along the road. It was a very modest cost for them to 
dump that stuff in the right place, but they chose to be reckless. I 
don't know if they were driven by ignorance or a desire to avoid 
any expense. 

Mr. Rovers. There is no question that the correlation you have 
identified is real. You increase the cost and the chances of roadside 
dumping, and so on also increases. 

However, I don't really know how you can avoid that. Secure 
disposal is costly and there is only one way to avoid it, and that is 
have the public pick up part of the tab. I don't really agree with 
that, so I must believe that the cost must be there and you must 
pay that cost, and if you do not pay it, and choose to do otherwise, 
you must be very harshly dealt with. 

Senator Chafee. Let me get back to the Love Canal situation. 


You testified a few moments ago with that cap on, despite the 
cap being there, that actually there would have been leakage. The 
bathtub would have filled up and it would have gotten out. Now, 
was that knowledge known in 1953? 

Mr. Rovers. No, that was not understood at that time. There are 
many things about secure and hazardous waste that are understood 
today that were not understood at that time. 

Senator Chafee. It is not a question of hazardous waste. It is a 
question of seepage through clay. In other words, what you are 
saying, as I understand it, is that water gets through clay. 

Mr. Rovers. Yes. 

Senator Chafee. When water gets through a clay cap and into 
the tub, it fills it up. We had testimony earlier from the Hooker 
people that water seeps through clay a third of an inch every 25 
years. It must take a long time to fill up that trench at that rate. 

Mr. RoERS. The problem at the Love Canal was a fracture flow 
system. You do not have a tight clay. The clay Hooker was talking 
about was the clay at depth which was not fractured. You have a 
small sand layer at the top of the site and below that you have an 
extensive fracture zone. Flow-through fractures are significantly 
different than normal clay though systems. There are only two 
places in North America where any attempt is made to define 
fracture flow and the porosity associated therewith has never been 
defined. Go to western Canada. Great scientific efforts are being 
made to define fracture flow. That is how new the science is. You 
are talking about a science that is relatively new. 

It would not have been understood at that time to be that way. 
This is with many cases and many hydrogeologic environments. 

Senator Chafee. It would not have been understood in 1953? 

Mr. Rovers. No. 

Senator Chafee. It would have been understood since, though? 

Mr. Rovers. I don't even believe it is fully understood today. The 
bathtub effect is a theory that has been postulated but it has not 
been proven. Other people believe other things have happened at 
the Love Canal. Scientific people feel that theory is not sound. It 
has not been proven. We don't understand fully even today the 
Love Canal system. 

Senator Chafee. What is not understood, the bathtub filled up 
and the chemical filled up and ran over. There is no suggestion the 
chemicals did not leak out. 

Mr. Rovers. No, it didn't. There is a strong suggestion that the 
grading is upward and you had water flowing into the tub from the 
bottom of the site into the bathtub. 

Senator Chafee. Therefore, their original clay bottom was not 
good enough? 

Mr. Rovers. There is an upward grading which is the ideal place 
for a disposal site. You can never have downward migrating con- 

Senator Chafee. Therefore, it seems to me what you are saying 
is — you have just said, coupled with the fact that it requires con- 
stant maintenance, any disposal site, as I understand your testi- 
mony, requires constant maintenance and monitoring? 

Mr. Rovers. Yes, as long as 


Senator Chafee. Or constant monitoring which will then result 
in maintenance? 

Mr. Rovers. That is correct. 

Senator Chafee. Therefore, it seems to me nobody should ever 
dispose of one of these sites to somebody who is not going to do 

Mr. Rovers. It should never be disposed of to somebody who is 
not going to do it, but you can give it to someone who will do it. If I 
want to accept your landfill and continue to monitor it, under- 
standing what my responsibilities are, I think that is possible and 
could be done, but continuous monitoring and maintenance, as long 
as the waste that is in that site can be considered to be hazardous, 
is of utmost importance. Otherwise, we are never going to solve the 
problem of abandoned and inactive hazardous waste. We keep gen- 
erating them and closing them up and forgetting about them, but 
they will come back to haunt us. 

Senator Chafee. Are you convinced it is possible to build a site 
today using today's technology monitoring and maintaining it that 
will be safe? 

Mr. Rovers. Yes. 

Senator Chafee. Why do you say that? 

Mr. Rovers. I believe that you can design a secure site to mini- 
mize the possibility of movement by monitoring. You will detect 
any movement that takes place and the technology is adequate to 
control that movement in a fashion which will not cause a detri- 
mental environmental impact. That is the only way we can ever 
expect to clean up our existing problems, and they are being 
cleaned up and it is unfortunate that in many cases they were not 
cleaned up prior to any Mrs. Smith's water supply wells. 

Senator Chafee. How is Canada doing in this? 

Mr. Rovers. The same problem we have here. They are watching 
to see what the United States is going to do so they can follow the 

Senate Chafee. Thank you very much for coming. We appreciate 

[Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed to 
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.] 

[Statements submitted for the record by today's witnesses and a 
statement from the American Petroleum Institute follow:] 







Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before 
the Subcommittees on Resource Protection and Environmental Pollution 
to present my views on the Federal role in the disposal of hazardous 

It was just seven months ago that Senator Hoynihan and I alerted 
our colleagues to an emergency situation in Niagara Falls, New York. 
A relatively obscure site known as Love Canal became the focus of 
national attention when it was discovered that chemicals, buried more 
than twenty-five years ago, had surfaced and infiltrated scores of 
nearby homes, posing serious health hazards to the residents and 
the environment. The events which followed are now history. Hundreds 
of families have been evacuated, but not without preceeding serious consequences - 
birth defects, miscarriages, skin irritants and respiratory ailments. 

What also surfaced last summer was the realization that the 
Federal government lacks the authority to deal with abandoned hazardous 
waste sites. The Congress, and this committee in particular, has been 
diligent in recognizing environmental hazards which threaten our 
ecosystem and pose problems for the health and safety of our people. 
Accordingly, relevant laws have been enacted such as the National 
Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Air Act, the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act and the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act. Although RCRA establishes a comprehensive 
program for the management of dangerous wastes, the issue of how to 
deal with abandoned sites had seaningly been forgotten. Love Canal 
was a tragic reminder that the issue can neither be overlooked nor ignored. 


The projected cost of clean-up, reconstruction and relocation 
of the Love Canal crisis is $25m. The only Federal response has 
been an emergency appropriation of $4m by the Congress, and $2ni 
from the Federal Disaster Assistance Agency pursuant to a Presidential 
declaration of a state of emergency. 

Here again. Federal law is lacking. Following the declaration 
of emergency. New York State submitted a series of project applications 
totaling $23m. Subsequently, FDAA cited Love Canal as, "a chronic 
health problem" and denied all but $2m for remedia] construction of the 
southern portion of the Love Canal site. The FDAA Administrator in- 
formed New York that, " the legislation under which FDAA operates 
is designed to deal with immediate emergency situations. If FDAA 
were to continue to provide emergency assistance over a period of 
years, we would be operating outside of the constraints intended 
for this program." 

Unfortunately, the incident is not isolated, nor a'-problem only 
for New York State. Since last summer, a number of additional sites 
have been identified including "Valley of the Drums" in Kentucky, 
Meadowlands in New Jersey, and leaking landfills in Iowa and 
Massachusetts. No one, including the Federal government, the states 
nor the industries which produced the chemicals, know how many landfills 
are leaking dangerous chemicals or where they are located. More 
importantly, no one is able to determine the number of people 
exposed, or what chemicals they are being exposed to. 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, there are 
approximately 32,000 landfills containing hazardous materials. Of 


these, EPA estimates that as many as 1200 may be imminently hazardous 
to the public. Furthermore, EPA estimates that the costs associated 
with clean-up for the 1200 sites range between $3m for temporary 
action, and$25-44b for a permanent solution. It appears that 
our industrial dreams of the 1940 'c could turn " into a toxic 
nightmare for the 1970 's. 

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, abandoned sites are not the only 
hazardous waste issues presenting problems to New York and the 
other states. As I mentioned, a portion of the needed regulatory 
framework dealing with active and future sites is already law. Sub- 
title "C" of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act establishes 
a "cradle to grave" regulatory program which mandates Federal or 
state approved, monitoring of hazardous wastes beginning with the 
manufacturing process and ending with the disposal of wastes in a 
permitted site. It also provides for Federal -funding for state 
hazardous waste programs." 

The Act called for EPA to issue final guidelines by April 197?,. 
However, the final regulations are not expected until early next 
year. Therefore, nearly two years after enactment, the majority of 
hazardous wastes continue to be disposed of improperly The lack 
of Federal guidelines/hampers states which are attempting to 
establish their own disposal laws. 

In the absence of Federal guidelines for both abandoned sites 
anc current disposal sites, the problem solving has been left to 
the states. New York has been pursuing the problem through a number 
of aggressive initiatives: (1) Under the direction of Govenor 
Carey the Dept. of Environmental Conservation and the Health Department 

44-978 0-79 


are preparing a comprehensive strategy of programs and funding 
for a Fedeal-State-local approach to the problems of hazardous wastes; 
(2) established an Erie/Niagara Task Force to Identify industrial waste 
disposal sites in Erie and Niagara Counties (Love Canal area) , and so far the 
task force has identified 200 sites in these two counties; (3) estab- 
lished a Statewide Study of Toxics in the Environment to identify 
statewide durao sites, contaminated groundwater and lake and river 
sediments and to date the Statewide. Study has identified nearly 500 
locations which may havebeen used for the disposal of toxic or 
hazardous materials; and (4) enacted the Industrial Hazardous Waste 
Management Act to provide for the identification and listing of 
hazardous wastes, monitoring, storage and disposal. 

Clearly, the states cannot afford to assume all of the costs 
associated with the management of hazardous wastes. The Federal 
government must share in the task. 

First, I encourage and support the establishment of a comprehen- 
sive liability and compensation act, or, "superfund" which would make 
money available on an emergency basis for hazardous waste spills. 
In that way, those responsible for the wastes will help pay to clean 
them up. States could also consider a fee system as a means of 
financing their waste programs. 

Second, Federal regulations for abandoned sites need to be 
established, and states with programs meeting those standards should 
be entitled to Federal aid. Without uniform guidelines states with 
strict guidelines run the risk of turning away industries which will 
seek to locate in states with less stringent laws. 

Third, the level of Federal funding available for state clean- 
up programs needs to be increased. 


Finally, we need to address the problem of public opposition 
to siting facilities. EPA estimates that when RCRA is implemented 
50-60 additional sites for commercial use will be needed. Situations 
such as Love Canal have understandably made the public sensitive to 
the siting of hazardous waste facilities in their areas. 

Mr. Chairman, I realize that the suggestions I have made 
are broad and raise a number of questions which need to be resolved. 
I urge the- Congress and this committee to explore fully the 
alternatives and to develop responsible solutions to the problems. 

In summary, the disposal of hazardous wastes must be regulated. 
If new laws are needed, let's legislate. If existing laws need to 
be amended, let's amend them. And in the interim, the Federal 
government should be prepared to assist the states faced with 
emergencies such as Love Cana . For example, the emergency 
contingency fund contained in section 504 of the Water Pollution 
Control Act Amendments was established to, "provide assistance in 
emergencies caused by the release into the environment of any pollutant. 
anticipated to present an imminent and substantial danger to the 
public health." This section has never been funded. The financial 
costs will be high, but we have already witnessed the human cost 
of not regulating. 

# # # # 



Of the 

and the 

March 29, 19/9 
Washington, D. C. 


Good morning. Senator Muskie, Senator Culver, 
members of the Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution and 
Resource Protection. I am Bruce Davis, Executive Vice Presi- 
dent of the Industrial Chemicals Group of Hooker Chemical 
Company. I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear 
before this Joint Subcommittee Hearing and to share with you 
and your colleagues some facts and some of our views on the 
management of hazardous wastes. 

Our company celebrated the /5th anniversary of its 
founding in 19/8; for most of that time the Niagara Falls area 
has been the focal point of our chemical manufacturing opera- 
tions. The location has served the Company well; it now has 
five divisions headquartered there, employing approximately 
3,100 people. At Niagara Falls, our major products include 
chlorine, caustic soda, and a number of chemical intermediates 
and specialty products which find a wide assortment of end uses 
in practically everything you see or use around you in daily 
lite. Our Durez Division, in nearby North Tonawanda, New York, 
supplies phenolic molding compounds and industrial resins which 
are used by the transportation, electrical and construction 
industries, to name a few. 

In the manufacture of all of these chemical 
products, v;aste or residues, are inherently generated. In 
fact, I know of very few chemical or other manufacturing 
processes that fail to produce some waste or byproduct. 


Likewise, every one of man's activities produces 
waste of one kind or another. It does not matter if the 
activity is eating food or driving a car, wastes are produced. 

The chemical industry usually calls its wastes 
"residues." Sometimes the only problem with a residue is that 
it takes up space, or is unsightly, or has an unpleasant odor. 
The problems in disposal of these residues are relatively small. 

But if the residue is potentially harmful to human 
health or the environment, it must have special storage and 
disposal considerations — isolation or destruction. Isolation 
— storage in disposal sites — has been, and still is, the 
principal method of industry handling of potentially harmful 
residues . 

By way of example, I will discuss four closed-out 
landfill disposal sites which Hooker Chemical has used for the 
isolation of chemical residues. (See attached map.) 

The first site I'd like to discuss is the Love Canal. 
(See attached map.) Thirty-seven years ago, the Love Canal 
offeree a rather ideal, isolated site for chemical residue 
storage. It was in a sparsely populated area. The surrounding 
soil was an impervious clay through which buried residues 
would not migrate. 

However, in order to have a better appreciation of 
the suitability of the Love Canal site, it is necessary to 
have a little of the historical background of Niagara Falls 
and the Love Canal, itself. 


Niagara Falls is known mainly as a tourist center. 
Interestingly enough, though, the Falls attracted not only 
tourists, but industry as well, and both have contributed to 
the growth and economic well-being of Niagara Falls and the 
surrounding communities. 

The availability of salt, water and abundant 
electrical power ruade Niagara Falls a very logical place for 
industry to locate in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. 
In fact. Hooker built its first chemical plant in Niagara Falls 
in 1905, since the electro-chemical process developed by Hooker 
for the production of chlorine and caustic soda depended upon 
economical and adequate supplies of salt, water and electric 

By the time Hooker located in Niagara Falls, the 
area, with its vast power potential and easy access by river 
and lake, had already attracted several industries and many 
ambitious business schemes. Perhaps the most visionary was 
that of Mr. William T. Love. He proposed in 1892 to build a 
power canal betv^een the upper and lower Niagara Rivers, util- 
izing the 300 foot drop in water level to generate electric 
power to drive the machinery of industry that he had persuaded 
to locate in his "Model City" a few miles north of Niagara 
Falls. In those days, long power transmission lines were 
impractical, so power users had to locate close to the generat- 
ing station. 


In 1894, having gained a generous charter for his 
company, work started on the Love Canal about six miles upriver 
trom the Falls. Soon afterwards, the country found itself in 
the middle of an economic depression and support for the I 
project faded. The final blow came when the inventor, Louis 
Tesla, developed an economical method of transmitting electric 
power over great distances by means of alternating current. 
The need for a "Model City'' no longer existed, and by 1910 the 
last of Love's property including the partial excavation that 
was to be his canal, had been auctioned. 

For 30 years, the site lay essentially abandoned. 
Then, in 1942, permission was granted for Hooker to use the 
Canal as a residue disposal site while purchase of the land 
was pursued. 

The canal site, located in an undeveloped, sparsely u 
populated area, was ideal for the disposal of chemical residues 
since by design it was built to retain water within the impervi- 
ous clay walls. In fact, tests recently conducted indicate 
that the clay has a v;ater transmission rate of only one-third 
inch in 25 years. 

The Canal, itself, was a trench about 3,000 feet 
long (approximately one-half mile), 60 feet wide and 10 feet 
deep. The property subsequently acquired by Hooker was a 
200 foot wide strip with the canal in the approximate center 
of that strip. 



It must be understood that detailed records of the 
operations, quantities and types of chemicals deposited in the 
canal 30 years ago are no longer available. However, we have 
attempted to reconstruct many of the operations based upon 
knowledge of the various processes then being conducted in the 
plant, and the recollection of old-time employees. 

Disposal of chemical residues began about 1942 in 
the northern section of the Canal. Portions of the section 
were divided or dammed off as needed. Then, chemical wastes 
which had been hauled to the site in drums were placed 
generally in the original trench and covered with several feet 
of clay material. 

It should be recognized that the life of a steel drum 
is limited and the practice of placing residues in drums before 
disposal v;as not intended to insure permanent containment of 
the residues in the drums. This is another reason why the 
impervious clay of the Canal made it such a good disposal site. 

About 1946, the disposal of residues began in the 
southern end of the Canal. In this portion of the Canal, 
smaller sections were excavated within the original trench 
and, in some cases, outside the trench, but within the property 
boundaries. The excavations were then filled with residues 
that had been accumulated in drums at the plant and covered 
with clay material v/hich was then compacted. Another small 


section was then excavated to receive more residues and the 
process repeated. 

In 194/, negotiations for the purchase of the land 
were completed and the property was acquired by Hooker. 

When Hooker stopped using the Canal, about 22,000 
tons of chemical residues, mostly chlorinated organics, had 
been deposited. 

By 1952, the Board of Education of the City of 
Niagara Falls had begun to express interest in acquiring the 
Hooker property for a school. As a result of the School 
Board's insistence. Hooker deeded the property in 1953 for $1 
on condition that the deed include a clause which gave notice 
of the past use, and under which the School Board released 
the Company from claims that might result from the buried 
chemicals. The pertinent part of that deed reads as follows: 
"Prior to the delivery of this instrument 
of conveyance, the grantee herein has been 
advised by the grantor that the premises 
above described have been filled, in whole 
or in part, to the present grade level 
thereof with waste products resulting from 
the manufacturing of chemicals by the 
grantor of its plant in the City of Niagara 
Falls, New York, and the grantee assumes all 
risk and liability incident to the use there- 
of. It is, therefore, understood and agreed 


that, as a part of the consideration for this 
conveyance and as a condition thereof, no 
claim, suit, action or demand of any nature 
whatsoever shall ever be made by the grantee, 
its successors or assigns, against the 
grantor, its successors or assigns, for 
injury to a person or persons, including 
death resulting therefrom or loss of damage 
to property caused by, in connection with or 
by reason of the presence of said industrial 
wastes. It is further agreed as a condition 
thereof that each subsequent conveyance of 
the aforesaid lands shall be made subject 
to the foregoing provisions and conditions." 

For the construction of the school, the School Board 
chose land adjacent to the central part of the Canal, which 
had not been utilized by Hooker for disposal of chemical 
residues. Subsequently, however, portions of the central 
section of the Canal which were previously unfilled, were 
filled primarily with municipal refuse, fly ash and cinders 
and eventually a playground was built. 

The Board of Education subsequently deeded the 
northern section of the site to the City for the purpose of 
building a park, and the southern part passed into private 



With the building of the school, development of the 
privately-owned adjacent properties was accelerated. By 1964, 
there were over 150 homes; and by 19/6, there were over 200 
homes in the area. No homes were ever built directly over the 
disposal site. 

Sometime over the years after Hooker deeded the 
property, the clay covering was disturbed, apparently during 
the construction of homes or roads in the area. Surface water 
resulting from heavy rain and snow entered the Canal, which J 
gradually filled up just like a bathtub, and then overflowed. 
The water mixed with chemical wastes, producing a liquid called 
leachate, which seeped into some basements of houses built 
on adjacent properties. 

In late 19/6, local authorities received complaints 
from Love Canal area residents of odors and chemicals in their 
sump pumps. In IS//, the City commissioned a firm of consult- 
ing engineers to study the site and recommend remedial action. 
Hooker engineers and scientists provided the City consultants 
with technical information and assistance. A report was is- 
sued by the consultant, but it was felt that further studies 
were needed. On March 31, 19/8, the City commissioned another 
engineering consultant, Conestoga-Rovers and Associates, to 
develop and submit a comprehensive groundwater pollution 
abatement plan covering the southern section of the Canal. It 
was agreed that the costs of this study would be shared equally 


by the City of Niagara Falls, the City of Niagara Falls Board 
of Education and Hooker. 

A report was submitted in June 19/8, containing a 
proposal for remedial work, the estimated cost of which was 
$850,000. Hooker offered to contribute up to one-third of 
that total estimated cost of $850,000 to expedite the implemen- 
tation of the corrective program; that offer still stands. 

On August 2, 19/8, the New York State Health Commis- 
sioner recommended the temporary relocation of pregnant women 
and children under age two, living within the first two rings 
of houses adjacent to the site, and closure of the school pend- 
ing completion of the remedial work. 

A short time later, the State of New York embarked 
upon a plan to purchase the first and second "rings" of homes 
surrounding the Canal. 

The remedial work, as proposed by Conestoga-Rovers , 
was accepted by the State at that time, but did not begin until 
October 19/8. (See attached drav/ing.) 

The remedial plan consists of laying a drainage tile 
system through the backyards of the houses to collect leachate 
from the Canal and adjacent properties, and to drain contami- 
nated soils. In this way, the area will eventually be cleansed 
of chemicals. The tile system is designed to drain into a 
large collection tank and from there the liquid will pass 
through a bed of activated carbon that will absorb most of the 


chemicals. To be doubly sure the water has been cleansed, the 
water will then be sent to arid processed by the City Wastewater 
Treatment Plant before discharge to the River. This work has 
continued through the winter of 19/8-19/9. 

The final stage of the remedial work is the installa- 
tion of a clay cap over the Canal and drainage system to prevent 
rain and snow from seeping through to the Canal. The clay cap 
will also be provided with its own surface drainage system to 
prevent erosion of the clay. The cap will then be covered with 
topsoil and grass to prevent the clay from drying out and crack- 
ing. There are plans to extend remedial work to the central and 
northern sections of the Canal later this year under an EPA 
demonstration grant. 

Test wells have been drilled in several locations 
around the area down through to the top level of the bedrock 
to discover if there has been any leakage of chemicals into- 
the groundwater. No traces of chlorinated organic chemicals 
have been detected but the groundwater was found to contain 
naturally occurring sulfides making the water unfit for drink- 

Further tests are being carried out in the Love 
Canal area to determine if the natural drainage of surface 
water has carried the buried chemical residues further afield. 
Hooker has assisted the various environmental agencies in 
these tests, and we will continue to offer our technical 
advice and assistance. 


Health surveys are under way to try to determine 
any possible health effects resulting from exposure to low 
levels of chemicals. It is one thing to identify minute 
quantities of chemicals — a technique which has been greatly 
improved. It is another thing entirely to assess what effects 
these traces may have had on living organisms. This is why 
medical research in the area has been intensified. 

With regard to the Love Canal, the New York Depart- 
ment of Health recently issued the following statement: 
'•We cannot say with certainty that the 
higher rates found . . . are directly related 
to chemical exposure but the data do suggest 
a small but significant increase in the risk 
of miscarriages and birth defects. Although 
the magnitude of the additional risk to this 
population is indeed small, prudence dictates 
that we take a most conservative posture to 
minimize even that small additional risk." 
The Department said that studies to date did not 
document any increased incidence of liver disorder, except 
among residents of the first two rings of homes which have 
been evacuated, nor was an increase noted in abnormal blood 
problems, except for some cases of iron deficiency anemia 
which were described as being fairly prevalent among the 
general population. The Department also said it had found 
no evidence of toxicity related to exposure to benzene. 


a known cancer-causing agent. Likewise the Department said 
it has found no evidence of excess neurological disorders, 
inducing epilepsy, or cancer among current residents of the 
Love Canal area. The Department is continuing to collect 
and evaluate aata. 

The second area that I would like to discuss is the 
Hyde Park lanafill site, which is located north of the City 
of Niagara Falls — in the Town of Niagara. {See attached 
Hap.) It is in an industrialized area with companies such as 
Niagara Steel Finishing Company, N. L. Industries, and Grief 
Brothers Corporation in the immediate vicinity. 

When Hooker stopped using the Love Canal for disposal 
of chemical wastes in 1953, another site was needed. The Hyde 
Park site seemed to have ideal characteristics and was purchased 
by Hooker. Aerial photographs indicate that part of the general 
area had been used by others as a dumpsite as early as 1938. 

Hooker began disposal operations at Hyde Park in 
1953. At that tiiTie, a fence was erected around the site and 
dikes were constructed to prevent the infiltration of surface 
v/ater. Chemical residues were then placed in excavations 
approximately 25-30 feet deep in the central portion of the 
site . 

In 19/2, Hooker, in conjunction v;ith Niagara County 
health officials, began to prepare the site for closure. 
V^ith clay covering, the contours were improved tor better 


drainage. Also, drainage tiles were put in around the entire 
perimeter of the landfill site to collect any possible leachate, 
and sump pumps were installed in two locations to pump collected 
leachate into a holding lagoon. The lagoon serves as a collec- 
tion basin to hold leachate until it is removed for subsequent 
off-site disposal. 

by 19/4, we were disposing of very few chemical 
residues in the Hyde Park landfill, but we continued until 
19/6 to use the eastern tip of the site to dispose of rubble 
and fly ash. 

In 19/8, additional clay was placed over the entire 
site. New drain tiles were installed and lowered several feet 
to improve the efficiency of the drain tile system. Planned 
improvements include enclosures over the sump pumps and a 
covered leachate collection pond. However, we are still wait- 
ing for the Town of Niagara to grant building permits to allow 
the completion of this plan. 

Another part of the Hyde Park program is to determine 
if any chemicals are leaking into the groundwater (underground 
water). In conjunction with the Nev/ York Department of Environ- 
mental Conservation, monitoring wells have been installed in 
three different locations surrounding the site. We have three 
wells at two sites and tv/o wells at another. One well is near 
the surface; one is about halfway down to bedrock; and the 
other is in bedrock. Our plan includes the drilling of even 
more wells if needed. 

44-Q7R n - 7Q _ on 


The noted wells were completed two to three months 
ago and to date we ao not have satisfactory samples to analyze 
because it takes a tew months for wells to reach a state where 
the samples consistently duplicate one another. When this 
happens, the wells are "equilibrating," and until that happens, 
the samples cannot be considered reliable. 

In addition, we have sampled the water from the 
wells of three residents in an area about 300-500 yards north 
of the site. The v/ell water was checked for 129 chemicals, 
and found to be well within New York State levels. However, 
a high bacteria content was found, possibly attributable 
to household septic systems in the area. Health officials have 
said that because of the high bacteria count the v;ater should 
not be used for human consumption. 

The natural drainage channel for this industrialized 
area is called "Bloody Run."' The tributaries of this creek 
branch out around the landfill site, join together, flow under 
Grief Brothers, then out into an open channel past a few homes 
in the area leading to the edge of the Niagara University 
campus where it drops into an underground storm drain that is 
20 or 30 feet down below ground level. It then runs west and 
into the Niagara gorge. 

There are signs of chemicals present in the sediment 
under Bloody Run, and this has led us into a sophisticated 
program to determine their nature, source and extent. We have 


detected certain chemicals in samples that we, the EPA, and 
other agencies have taken. These samples indicate the pre- 
sence of chemicals which Hooker produced and could have 
disposed of in the Hyde Park landfill . Some of them include 
mirex. Lindane and certain chlorinated hydrocarbons. There 
are also some additional chlorinated hydrocarbons which are 
fairly common to industry and could have come from several 
sources. Out of samples which we took last December, one 
analysis showed dioxin at a level of / parts per billion in 
the sediment about 6 to 8 inches down from the surface. We 
then advised EPA and various state and local officials of the 
results of the analysis. Vve do not believe the chemicals (at 
the levels found) constitute a health hazard. They do, however, 
warrant additional investigation. 

We expect to have new analytical data as quickly as 
possible as a direct result of an accelerated testing program 
developed in conjunction with various agencies. In addition 
to the test wells earlier mentioned, the program includes 
surveying and contour mapping and the identification of 
pollutants that may be present in sediment. Analysis of soil 
samples throughout the area should help us determine if there 
is contamination other than in the seaiment of Bloody Run. 

We have been working closely with the State Depart- 
ment of Environmental Conservation. We meet with them monthly 
to report on our programs and discuss technical viewpoints. 


At this point, the sampling program is the most important part 
of the investigation. Upon concluding the sampling program, a 
final report, including any necessary corrective program, will 
be filed. Implementation of a corrective program would follow 
shortly thereafter. 

The third site is known as the 102nd Street landfill. 
(See attached map.) The property acquired by Hooker in the 1940's"' 
lies south of the Love Canal with the LaSalle Expressway dividing 
the two sites, and is adjacent to the Niagara River. In the 
mid-lS50's, Hooker acquired the Oldbury Electrochemical and 
Niagara Alkali Companies, as well as their landfill operations 
which were adjacent to our landfill site. Hooker's property 
is in an area which has been used for waste disposal for sometime. 
The property adjacent on the west is a park — and former municipal 
landfill. On the east is another industrial landfill site. 

Some chlorinated organic chemicals have been 
deposited at the 102nd Street site, but the majority of the 
material deposited there was inorganic wastes that are 
generally insoluble in water. Any leachate from such wastes 
should not pose an environmental hazard. 

The site was closed in 19/2 in accordance with a 
plan approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and respon- 
sible State and local agenices. Per that plan, a wall was 
built at the water's edge and clay and soil were placed over 
the whole site. 


In 19/8, in cooperation with the Department of 
Environmental Conservation, Hooker developed a site survey 
plan and a well drilling program to determine the flow of 
groundwater and the extent, if any, of possible chemical migra- 
tion. This well drilling program v/ill be started this summer, 
and if any remedial action is necessary, it will be started 
early in 1980. 

The last of the sites which I would like to discuss 
is the Niagara plant. (See attached map.) 

Aerial photographs taken in 1938 show the Niagara 

River shoreline at the plant to be very different from what it 

is today. Over the years, land was reclaimed from the river, 

by the use of fly ash, slag and municipal and industrial 

wastes . 

In 194/, the land was purchased by Hooker and became 

known as the "N" and ''S" areas. Records indicate that the 

materials deposited in the ''N'' area were similar to those 

deposited in the 102nd Street site, which were primarily 

inorganic wastes. The "N"' area was also used as a staging 

area to temporarily store drums of wastes until they were 

moved to the Love Canal or Hyde Park. 

The ''S" area and the City Water Treatment Plant 

are essentially adjacent to one another, but are separated 

by a street. The "S" area served as a disposal site for a 

wide variety of chemical wastes — mainly chlorinated organic 

residues . 


In the summer of 19/8, the City sent divers down 
into the shore shaft of the water treatment plant on a routine 
inspection and maintenance check. A sludge sample from the 
untreated water was brought to the surface and found to contain 
various chemicals, many of which were made by Hooker. The 
treated water, however, has been found perfectly safe for 
drinking. In fact, the total amount of chlorinated organics 
found in the drinking v^ater from the Niagara F'alls water treat- 
ment plant is far lower than the national average as reported 
in the National Organic Monitoring Survey (NOMS) by EPA. For 
example, Washington, D.C. has 100 to 200 parts per billion 
of chlorinated organics in its drinking water while Niagara 
Falls has approximately one-tenth of this amount. 

The fact that contaminants were in the shore shaft 
is not easily explained. 

Those are some of the facts that must be considered. 
In order to determine whether any off-site migration of contami- 
nants has occurred at the Niagara Falls Plant, Hooker has 
implemented a comprehensive plan of action. The plan is to 
drill over 100 monitoring wells - including several wells 
on the water treatment plant property. At many locations, 
two wells will be used. One is drilled down in bedrock, the 
other is located near the surface. These wells will be used 
to determine the direction of groundwater flow and also the 
presence of any chemicals in that groundwater. Over /O wells 


have already been drilled, and it will take a few months 
before information from the test wells is reliable and useful. 

In the meantime, the city water supply is being regu- 
larly tested and continues to maintain a high level of quality 
and purity. 

With the benefit of our experience, and the develop- 
ment of new technology to meet new demands, Hooker is continuing 
with its long-range program to solve residue disposal problems. 

We have been reducing the volume of waste by 
by redesigning our chemical processes to improve efficiency 
and produce less waste. We are also recycling materials 
to extract more chemicals the second time around. This also 
reduces waste. 

We are also destroying destroy certain toxic wates 
by incineration. This has the advantage of being an immediate 
solution as it does not involve either moving bulk materials or 
maintaining a land disposal site. 

We have recognized for some time that burying 
liquid wastes is not the ideal method of disposal. It appears 
that the only way to break down some chemicals is v;ith heat, 
but the problem is that many of these chemicals are so stable, 
even when heated, that they are used to make f ire-retardant 
fabrics and plastics. Nevertheless, Hooker has developed a 
high temperature incinerator that can break down these liquid 
wastes. This major technological breakthrough is a patented 
process and has been used by others as well as by Hooker. 


since the incinerator was put into operation in 1961, 
about 200,000 tons of liquid v/aste have been destroyed, signi- 
ficantly reducing the burden being placed on chemical landfill 
sites. Over the years many improvements have been made and 
we are now working on a process to destroy solid wastes. 

These programs have achieved dramatic reductions in 
residue volume over the past few years. (See attached chart.) 
Although a majority of our wastes are incinerated today, 
we will never be able to totally eliminate the need for 
landfill sites. There are some materials which cannot be 
destroyed by heat, and are best isolated in landfills where 
they can be monitored. Constantly improving technology and 
new government regulations concerning landfills are helping 
to insure that landfills will help provide environmentally 
responsible solutions to the hazardous waste disposal problem. 

We understand that Congress will soon be considering 
new legislation relating to hazardous waste disposal. The 
complexity and far reaching societal concern asociated with 
this nation-wide problem -- past, present, and future 
is certainly of considerable interest and concern to Hooker 
Chemical Company and the entire chemical industry. We are 
working closely with the Manufacturing Chemists Association 
to develop industry-wide recommendations in this area. 

In summary. Hooker has designed and is implementing, 
a far-reaching, comprehensive and complex program for testing 
and monitoring the various landfill sites at Niagara Falls 


upon which sound plans for any corrective action can be based. 
These programs are so extensive, and the chemical testing 
required is so specialized, that qualified laboratories 
have been employed in Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, and California 
to supplement our own capabilities and those in the nearby 
areas. Deadlines, milestone dates, and program content have 
been developed in detail for each landfill site, then care- 
fully integrated into an overall program, with review and 
approval for the DEC. VJe are on schedule and have met all 
milestone dates. 

In every field of endeavor, our knowledge has been 
increased dramatically in the last decade. V^'e know much more 
about chemicals. We know much more about handling the residues 
of chemical production. We knov; how to analyze for the presence 
of chemicals in much lower quantities than was possible 10 to 20 
years ago. We know much more about the environment and human 
health. Hooker will continue to develop programs to utilize 
this increased knowledge to keep in the forefront of technical 
solutions for the protection of the environment. 








The Love Canal Site is located 
about six (6) miles east ot the Falls. 


97th ST, 

99th ST. 



The remedial plan consists ol a 
drainage system, and a clay cap 
over the site. 






The Hyde Park disposal site is 
located four 14) miles north of the 




The 102nd Strtet site is located about 
six (6) miles east of the Falls. 







Map of the Niagara Plant, four (4) 
miles east of the FaUs. 




> 20000- 


^ 15000- 
g 10000- 



















MARCH 29, 1979 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today 
concerning our efforts to rectify a situation where a former land- 
fill appears to have been contaminating approximately a dozen wells 
adjacent to it. 

At the outset, I think it is important to point out that my 
charter at Velsicol is to bring this company to the forefront of 
environmental security. My full-time efforts, along with using 
the resources of some of the nation's top experts in this field, are 
devoted to this goal. In fact, environmental security at Velsicol 
is the first priority — beforp profit, before growth. Our expendi- 
tures and problem- solving approaches with the Hardeman County, Tennessee 
situation, as well as other environmental matters, reflect this 

By way of background, this landfill was used between 1964 and 
1973. Approximately 45 acres of the 243 acres of the property were 
used to dispose of residue. 

There is always a question as to whether or not a landfill 

could cause contamination of groundwater. Soon after the landfill 

was started, the United States Geological Survey indicated that if 

this did happen, the slope of the groundwater movement was away 

from the area where people were drawing their water. It concluded 

that: "There is, therefore, no possibility for any existing 

water-table wells to produce potentially contaminated water from 

the water-table aquifer." . . . "the potential contamination 

hazard for such wells is nil." 


In the past 15 years, a number of families located on 
property adjacent to the landfill added additional wells and 
drew more water from the existing wells. Approximately a year 
ago, a few of the residents began to detect a funny smell in their 
water. The compounds in the water were identified, with our 
assistance, as being chemicals similar to those in the landfill. 
We immediately commenced a joint study with the State of Tennessee 
with an independent hydrology company to determine whether the 
chemicals got into the well through underground migration or through 
some other means. Other ways could have included the inadvertent 
dumping or rinsing of a drum in the well area. At that time, we 
were relying on the earlier scientific report that it would be 
most unlikely that the landfill could have been causing this problem. 

On October 6, 197 8, which happened to be the first week of my 
coming to Velsicol, a preliminary opinion from our hydrologist was 
that the landfill possibly could be the cause of the well contamination, 
and we immediately set in motion a plan of action to rectify the 
situation. The State and EPA officials, as well as the residents, 
were immediately notified of this opinion. We also initiated contact 
with the news media and provided them with the facts we had. Velsicol 
offered to pay the water connection fee for the dozen families 
affected so that they could be hooked up to a permanent fresh-water 
supply. We also agreed to pay for the fresh-water which was then 
being provided by the state. 

I personally went down to talk with the families and sought their 
advice as to what they wanted to have done and even offered that very 
day to purchase their homes at fair market value before contamination, 
as well as to pay them for the inconvenience of having to move. 
Their attorney turned this down. By this time, it appeared that a 
permanent water system would not be available for at least five months, 
so we installed a water system of our own for the families, with 
underground piping. Trucking water from Jackson, Tennessee to the 


residents costs us approximately $1,200 per week. Furthermore, 
we did the following: 

1. Replumbed all affected homes. 

2. Replaced all hot water heaters. 

3. Replaced washers, driers, dish washers, ice makers, until 
their attorney obtained a restraining order prohibiting us 
from contacting the people. 

4. Replaced all pots, pans, plastic dishes, coffee pots and 
other cookware, until their attorney obtained the restraining 
order prohibiting all contact. 

5. Reimbursed the families for all home-prepared canned and 
frozen foods. 

6. Contributed $25,500 to the town of Toone, Tennessee when the 
city council appeared to be reluctant to commit city funds for 
extending a permanent water supply to this area which, by the 
way, will serve many more families than just the dozen adjacent 
to our landfill. 

7. Made air sample studies in two of the homes with the highest 
well contamination concentration in order to make certain 
that the air was satisfactory. 

8. We are now conducting soil sample studies in garden plots and 
orchards to see if there is any reason not to continue to use 
these areas. 

In addition to the effort extended directly to the residents, 
we have set up a number of task forces dealing with related concerns; 

1. We are working with the State Department of Public Health, the 
EPA and Center for Disease Control on medical studies for the 
affected families. 

2. We have set up a consortium of the finest consulting firms in 
the country to help us determine what corrective actions are 


As of this time, we have made settlements with about half 
of the families involved and have offers outstanding for most of 
the others. 

We decided from the very beginning that if we thought we were 
responsible, we would move in immediately and do whatever was right 
for the people. We decided that we would not be unduly concerned 
about protecting our legal flanks and that we would confront the 
situation directly. More importantly, we took expedient action to 
get these dozen families' lives back to normal. With the exception 
of the normal concerns someone would have with having been exposed 
to contaminated water, their lives appear to be heading in this 

The approach we have taken in Hardeman County has been that of 
a responsible corporate citizen. I believe that you would find this 
to be the case if you talked to people who know the details, and we 
encourage you to do so. 

For example, as part of a series on the national waste disposal 
controversy, the Boston Globe reported: 

"Since it is likely to be years before the EPA actively 
enforces hazardous waste regulations, the current unfold- 
ing of the environmental mess in Toone, Tennessee could 
provide a model for voluntary action by other chemical 
companies as future hazards are uncovered." 
Mr. Chairman, I am not proud of the problems which this land- 
fill has created, nor do I minimize the inconvenience that this has 
caused these dozen families. However, I am very proud of our dedication 
and actions to resolve this situation. We set a written goal at the 
beginning that our behavior would be guided in such a way that this 
might serve as a model of how business and government, as well as 
affected individuals, could work together to solve such problems. You 
may ask what has made it work as successfully as it has. I would 
answer that this particular solution has been due to the good faith ■ 
efforts by state and federal officials — particularly the Tennessee 
Division of Water Quality and EPA Region IV — as well as our repre- 
sentatives working on the problem. 


We let government know from the beginning that there would 
be no need to threaten us with any legal sanctions because we would 
act more speedily and more fully than any court would have had us do. 
The state and the EPA told us what they knew about the situation, 
candidly and completely, and we did the same. We did not try to hide 
anything, nor minimize any of the problems. We told it as it was and 
worked together toward a mutual solution. Of vital importance was that 
all of our efforts were directed toward helping the people, as opposed 
to fighting each other. 

We are very fortunate in this case because our situation was 
well contained within a very small local acquifer and there does not 
seem to be at this time any additional well which might be subject to 
contamination. With the completion of the permanent water main next 
month there should be no need ever to use these wells again. 

Perhaps the biggest burden these families have had to live with 
the past year has been the mental concern of trying to deal with many 
of the fallacious, greatly exaggerated rumors that have been created. 
I do not mean to minimize the situation; I am simply pointing out that 
many people, while trying to help these individuals, probably have 
caused them a great deal of needless anguish. 

In closing, I would like to point out that while this initiative 
worked for us in this particular situation, I cannot recommend^ it 
universally for every company that has a landfill problem. The risks 
one takes when assuming such a move are tremendous, and one is con- 
tinually subjected to fallacious claims and over-anxious lawyers. 
Furthermore, when one starts such a program, particularly with a land- 
fill, he simply does not know where all bis. problems might be and he 
lays himself open if the problem turns out to be far greater than ever 
anticipated. We at Velsicol are pleased that we took such an initiative, 
It has turned out well for us, well for the state and federal agencies 
and most importantly, very well for the people. 

44-978 0-79 




The Environment and Public Works 

Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution 

and the 

Subcommittee on Resource Protection 


March 29, 1979 



Introducti on 1 

Summary of Environmental and Health 

Data at the Love Canal and Hyde Park Landfill... 1 

The Hazardous Waste Control Act .3 

The Toxi c Tort Act 6 

The Counci 1 on Envi ronmental Qual i ty Study 7 

Other Legislative Initiatives 8 

Related Legislation Already Enacted 12 

Conclusion 17 


Mr. Chairman: It is an honor to testify before you today on the 
the reauthorization of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 
1976 (RCRA) and related issues. 

Before I discuss ny feelings about how current law should be 
changed and improved, I want to share some facts which will provide a 
context for my reconmendations and make you aware of how urgent I 
believe it is for Congress to take action to fill the gaps in existing 
1 aw . 

On August 2, 1978, the New York State Commissioner of Health 
advised pregnant women and children under the age of two to evacuate 
the Love Canal area of Niagara Falls, which is in my Congressional 
District. This order led to the permanent relocation of 236 families 
inmediately adjacent to the site. Why had this order been issued? 
Because health data had shown that the women living in this area 
suffered from a high rate of miscarrigage, and children who were bom 
to couples living there had a high rate of birth defects, ranging from 
cleft palates to mental retardation. 

Again on February 8, 1979, New York's Conmissioner of Health had to 
issue a similar order for a wider geographic area surrounding the Love 
Canal. This order involved the temporary relocation of approximately 50 
families for the same reasons as were given in August of 1978. This time 
the f&milles who had to move were those who lived along swales - old 
streambed paths - which formerly flowed out from the Canal. These areas 
proved to be extremely permeable and leaching toxic chemicals flowed along 
these paths of least resistance. 



What caused this horror story?^ The U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, with assistance from the NYS Department of Environmental 
Conservation and the New York State Department of Health, identified over 
200 chemicals, many of which are suspected carcinogens, to be present in 
the soil and ambient air emanating from this abandoned landfill and 
polluting the environment in which these people lived. This 
terrible tragedy has brought fear, sickness, and serious personal 
In.iury to the innocent victims of toxic wastes which were indiscriminately 
buried in the Love Canal over 25 years ago. 

But the Love Canal is not unique. Approximately 39 abandoned 
landfills have been identified in Niagara County alone, the Love Canal 
being only one of them. Last week, the House Interstate and Foreign 
Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations held hearings on 
some of these sites in Niagara County. One which was discussed was the 
Hyde Park Landfill, which sits in the midst of factories and a university. 
Workers from the factories testified that illnesses such as growths, skin 
lesions, childbirth defects, (one child being born with 3 ears), are now 
comnon among the workers and their families. It was made known that over 
the last eight years more than half the workers in one factory have 
had serious health problems,and eight out of sixty workers have contracted 

These stories are truly tragic. EPA has stated that there are perhaps 
close to 1,000 abandoned sites across the country which are imminent 
hazards to the health and welfare of the people of this nation as well as 
our environment. EPA has also said that there could be as many as 30,000 


- 3 - 

abandoned sites "out there" waiting to be indentifed, and the costs of 
cleaning them up are staggering. Estimates are that approximately $20 
to $25 billion will be needed to clean up the inuiinently hazardous ones, 
and an additional $24 billion to monitor those that need not be reclaimed, 
a total cost of $50 billion. The Love Canal price tag so far is 
approximately $13 million to abate the leachate, clean up the environment 
and temporarily relocate the affected families. This figure does not 
Include the permanent relocation costs which the State of New York has 
chosen to assume for all those living within the geographic scope of 
the August order. 

It is because we have these abandoned sites and we know that they 
are potential timebombs that I believe we should act on the issue of 
abondoned sites during the reauthorization process. 

When Congress passed RCRA in 1976, we hoped to prevent such Incidents 
by providing for a hazardous waste regulatory program; a program to 
eliminate open dumping; a program for financial and technical assistance 
for planning enhanced solid waste management systems; and authority for 
research, demonstrations and studies. Essentially, Congress passed a 
law which would regulate solid waste and track hazardous waste from 
"cradle to grave". 


However, RCRA dealt only with current and future handling of 
solid waste; it did not take into account the mismanagement of wastes 
that were generated in the past. It is this second issue which I wish to 
discuss with you first. 

I have Introduced a bill, H.R. 1048, the Hazardous Waste Control Act , 
which Is intended to fill some of the gaps in RCRA which have become 


evident since its enactment three years ago. I hope this bill will serve 
as a basis for discussion during the reauthorization process. 

My bill would amend RCRA by establishing a program for the identifi- 
cation, reclamation 'and monitoring of abandoned hazardous waste sites; 
setting fees to be paid by private organizations which store or dispose of 
hazardous wastes, and providing a process for the selection of sites for 
future disposal of hazardous wastes. 

More specifically, ny bill would mandate a.concerted effort to 
identify all abandoned landfill sites that do or may contain hazardous 
wastes (a program which, I am pleased to say, is currently being conducted 
in ny own state of New York). Once they are identified, they would be 
reclaimed, If desirable and feasible. If reclamation Is not feasible, they would 
be monitored- to ensure that public and environmental health and safety are 
not endangered. 

Fees would be collected from permit-holding operators of hazardous 
waste treatment* storage or disposal facilities. Revenues from these 
fees would be placed in a reclamation and maintenance fund, which in 
turn would be used, in combination with state and federal contributions, 
to deal with abandoned sites. 

Another provision in the bill establishes a contingency fund for 
emergency assistance and payment of costs to clean up hazardous waste 
situations which threaten the health of the general public. This portion 
includes an authorization for the government to bring legal action against 
those responsible for such emergencies to recover the cost of clean-up 


- 5 - 

tly legislation also deals with the question of where to locate new 
hazardous waste disposal sites, an issue not presently covered by RCRA. 
When RCRA was passed in 1976, few foresaw the widespread public 
opposition to new hazardous waste disposal sites which has swept the 
nation. The general public was not then fully aware of the large number 
of abandoned sites throughout the country, the deleterious effects they 
were having on people's health and safety, and their dire impact on the 
environment. Now that public awareness has grown, in part due to the 
Love Canal, the Valley of the Drums, and other such infamous sites, 
citizens are understandably leery about the dubious honor of having a 
new site proposed for location in their backyeards. 

However, if we are to continue to accept the benefits from our 
highly technological society, we must provide for the selection of new 
hazardous waste disposal sites. Hazardous wastes continue to be produced 
at an exponential rate as by-products of our manufacturing process, and 
they should be buried in safe sites instead of along the roads or in 
the ocean. Further, dangerous wastes from mismanaged older sites will 
have to be moved to new and safer locations. 

EPA has estimated that municipal solid waste alone amounted to about 
130 million metric tons in 1976, enough to fill two New Orleans Superdomes 
each day, 365 days a year. By 1980 the annual total is projected to 
increase to 180 million tons, almost 40% more in four years. 

Industrial waste generation is estimated at 344 million metric tons 
a year, with a growth rate of 3% per year. EPA estimates that 10 to 15 


percent of industrial wastes will be classified as hazardous under RCRA. 

In addition, our municipal wastewater treatment systems generate wastes 
known as sludge, and agriculture produces even more wastes. All these residues 
need to be recycled, incinerated or disposed of safely. My bill aims to provide 
a program to achieve safe future disposal by setting up a program for the siting 
of new hazardous waste disposal sites. This would be accomplished by having the 
EPA Administrator approve or disapprove an application after having consulted with 
the National Academy of Sciences, state and local governments, and a public hearing 
in the area affected. 

The Comptroller General, in a Report to Congress published on January 23, 1979, 
agreed with many of the concepts I have suggested for legislation to fill the gaps 
in RCRA. The Report is entitled. Hazardous Waste Management Programs Will Not Be 
Effective: Greater Efforts Are Needed . It is, I believe, a careful analysis and 
agenda for action in this troublesome area. 
Before I discuss other legislative initiatives relating directly to RCRA, I 
would like to take this opportunity to tell you about another bill I have introduced. 
While this legislation is not meant to be part of the RCRA reauthorization process, 
It is relevant to the problem of hazardous waste disposal and its effects on people. 

As we all know, perhaps the greatest tragedy of the Love Canal experience and 
most cases of chemical poisoning, is that those who suffer physical injuries and 
other damages have no effective means of obtaining compensation for their losses. 
The lack of scientific and medical knowledge relating exposure to toxic substances 
with human illnesses, when combined with traditional proof requirements of our 
judicial system, almost preclude compensation for injured persons. 


- 7 - 

I have, therefore, introduced the Toxic Tort Act, H.R. 1049, to 
address some of these problems. My bill would accomplish the followtftfl ■'--• 
object! ves : 

1. It would create a federal cause of action for victims of 
toxic substances, permitting them to seek redress against 
negligent manufacturers. 

2. It would establish an independent Board within EPA to 
compensate victims of pollution-related injuries 
regardless of fault. This agency would function, in 
principle, like a workers' conpensation system. 

3. It would require EPA to study the relationships between 
exposure to toxic substances and human disease and 
authorize EPA to make a "requisite nexus" finding. 
This would overcome the problem of proving causation 
with traditional proof requirements. 

4. It would modify the proof and time limitation requirements 
which claimants must meet in state workers's compensation 
proceedings and in court actions, permitting the use of the 
presumption based on EPA's "requisite nexus" findings. 

5. It would subrogate EPA to the rights of the injured 
party, enabling EPA to seek reimbursement from 
negligent parties. 


Last Tuesday I proposed an amendment to the Toxic Substances Control 

Act which would improve the government's research into effects of toxic 

substances exposure. I am happy to say that the House Comnerce 

Subcoimittee on Consumer Protection and Finance adopted it oh Thursday, March 22. 

The amendment directs the Council on Environmental Quality to 

conduct a comprehensive study on the compensation of victims of exposure 

to toxic substances, authorizing $2 million to carry it out. The study 

would be done in consultation with other agencies, such as the Department 


of Labor, EPA, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the 
Justice Department and others, that are currently studying toxic 
substances questions. This study should be completed and submitted to 
Congress within 18 months after enactment. It is, I believe the next 
logical step in a program to guard our health and our environment from 
unreasonable risk or injury caused by toxic substances exposure. The 
study will provide reconmendations to improve the system of compensating 
innocent victims of toxic exposure, such as the residents of the Love 
Canal and Hyde Park areas in my congressional district; East Gray, Maine; 
Toone, Tennessee; Cancer Alley in New Jersey; Charles City, Iowa; and 
countless others. The amendment also provides a mechanism to collect 
much of the information which will be needed in order to implement the 
Toxic Tort Act. 


Other legislative initiatives which have been developed deal not only 
with abandoned sites - as my bill does - but also with existing and future 
sites. It is my hope that these two prongs of the hazardous waste problem 
can be melded together, along with funding concepts capable of dealing with 
both of them in a reasonable time frame, in one comprehensive program. 

Many proposals suggest that the only way to ensure a sufficiently large 
fund with which to handle all environmental calamaties - such as oil spills, 
hazardous waste spills, and abandoned sites - is to develop an all-encompassing 
"superfund." This concept was raised during the 95th Congress by Senator 
Muskie; the Senate passed a bill including it, but the House rejected it. 


- 9 - 

The Administration's position remains unclear, unfortunately. I am 
advised that EPA supports a "superfund" concept based on the concepts in 
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act. Their fund would cover oil spills, 
hazardous waste spills and abandoned waste sites. The Department of Trans- 
portation, with prime responsibility for oil spills through the Coast 
Guard, favors keeping a separate oil spill fund, rather than having a fund 
for multiple purposes. 0MB, refereeing between these two, is awaiting the 
recommendations of a Justice Department coordinated Task Force, due in May, 
before developing a final Administration position. 

Knowing as I do how difficult and potentially costly a problem we 
face in trying to mount an effective effort in the area of hazardous wastes, 
I support the concept of a "superfund" to deal with a number of environmental 
calamaties. I would suggest, however, that it be structured to achieve a 
number of goals, rather than just as a means of raising the necessary funds 
without becoming an undue burden on the federal budget. 

This suggestion is based on my view that we ought to develop a truly 
comprehensive program to manage hazardous wastes, and to do so we ought to 
have a funding mechanism which not only generates sufficient revenue to do 
the job but which also encourages the private sector and others involved 
to keep future problems to a minimum. 

The "superfund" concept generally uses a tax on oil, or on both oil and 
natural gas, as its revenue source. These are both appropriate, in my view, 
as oil and natural gas, in addition to being hazardous substances themselves, 
constitute primary natural resources in the manufacture of many chemicals 
and other dangerous materials. 

But a broad tax on the natural resources alone would not achieve other 
goals which a funding mechanism can help greatly with, such as: 


- 10 - 

* conservation, and therefore reduction of waste; 

* recycling of hazardous wastes into other manufacturing processes, 
thus reducing the quantity of wastes to be handled; 

* otherwise reducing the amounts of wastes to be handled, treated or 
disposed of; and 

* reducing the toxicity of wastes that cannot be eliminated. 

My bill, in the funding mechanism suggested for dealing with abandoned 
sites, contained one approach which would help meet these goals. This is 
the suggested fee to be paid by those who store or dispose of hazardous wastes. 

I'm not wedded to this approach - there are many ways to achieve these 
same goals and I put mine forth as just one for your consideration. But I 
do feel that a fee system which derives its revenues from both the producers 
of the raw materials, at the start of the production cycle, and from those 
who dispose of the wastes at the other end, can provide both needed revenues 
for a comprehensive program and desirable incentives to keep the dimensions of 
the problem to a minimum in the future. 

So I propose that we combine the two revenue sources and then use 
them both, through a "superfund" concept, to deal with all of these problems. 
I would also suggest that the states be asked to supply at least some of 
the funds needed to deal with problems within their borders, inasmuch as 
they have benefitted from having the industrial processes which produce - -■ 
wastes and they ought, therefore, to carry some of the societal burdens 
associated with them. Nly bill suggests 10%, but on reflection I think that 
perhaps 5% is more equitable. 

In no way should any program we devise relieve past, present or future 
manufacturers or disposers of liability for negligence in dealing with hazardous 


- n - 

substances. It is important that our actions find the proper balance between 
the need to encourage responsible entities in the private sector to take part 
in the disposal business and the need to assure that both victims and the 
government be able to hold irresponsible or negligent parties accountable for 
their actions. 

If we do create a "superfund," then, it should be done in a way which 
permits the government to step in, deal with a problem, and then seek 
reimbursement from those who caused the problem if negligence was indeed 
involved. This concept should apply to abandoned sites and to those future 
situations where, despite greater regulatory efforts to assure safe and 
careful handling of hazardous materials, problems may also arise. 

Some of those involved in developing legislation in this area have 
expressed reservations about including damages beyond the costs of ameliorating 
the physical problems themselves within the funding mechanism. I understand 
these reservations, but I would suggest that unless we take third-party 
damages into account, and try to deal with them, we will not have tackled 
the entire problem. 

Innocent victims are involved- people who have suffered personal injury, 
temporary or permanent loss of income, deep psychological scars and often 
severe reductions in the value of property. These damages are as real as if 
they were in an automobile accident or a fire, yet they are frequently left 
with no means of redress whatsoever. 

I would reconmend, therefore, that these third-party damages also be 
part of a "superfund" concept. Again, the government would have the right of 
subrogation and could seek reimbursement from negligent parties. My Toxic 
Tort Act, described earlier, includes a punitive damages section for particu- 
larly flagrant instances of irresponsibility, the revenues from these damages 


- 12 - 

would flow to the government - another source for the "superfund." 

I am hoping to refine these new concepts and to introduce new legislative 

proposals in the near future, but felt I should share them with you now for 

your consideration. 

By not having a program which regulates all aspects of solid 
waste, we have created a gaping hole in our national policy to reduce 
the amount of pollutants in the environment. Congress has passed 
other landmark legislation, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean 
Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water 
Act and others. RCRA is only one link in the chain of environmental 
safeguards Congress has enacted. Yet a chain is only as strong as its 
weakest link. Without full implementation and full funding for each 
of these laws, we will be unable to fulfill the promises they made to 
present and future generations of Americans. J^ 

EPA and the Administration have been criticized, often with 
cause, for serious delays and other problems in implementing these and 
other laws. Yet Congress has also been lax, in that we have not 
provided appropriations to fund many of the sections of these laws, 
fly efforts to find sources of assistance for the Love Canal emergency 
provide examples of both Administration and Congressional reluctance 
to deal forcefully with hazardous waste issues. 

The most likely source of assistance seemed at first to be the 
Clean Water Act, containing several sections which seemed relevant to 
the Love Canal. I discussed four of them -- sections 201, 208, 311 arid 
504 — with EPA Administrator Douglas Costle and 0MB Director James 
Mclntyre. I believe that each, if applied creatively, could have been 
most useful in dealing with the Love Canal and similar situations. Let 
me explain. 


- 13 - 

Section 201 provides for grants for construction of wastewater 
treatment works. It is a $40 billion program. The solution which has 
been designed for the cleanup of the Canal is, in effect, a micro 
sewer system. French tile drains are being laid so the leachate can be 
collected. The contaminated wastes will then be flushed through an 
on-site pretreatment plant, and eventually through the municipal 
sewage treatment plant. If EPA were to recognize the fact that this 
plan of action is, in essence, part of a municipal sewer system, then 
201 funds could have been used in this innovative way. However, EPA 
resisted this approach, stating that it is not a "traditional" use of 
these funds. Love Canals are not traditional problems, and I think 
that EPA should be looking for innovative uses of its programs for new 
problems as well as traditional ones. 

Section 208 provides funds for state and areawide planning and 
management programs to address non-point source discharges. It provides 
for local input and localized planning. "208 agreements" must be 
certified by the Governor and no 201 grants can be awarded without the 
208 agreement in place. It must be reviewed and updated each year as 

I attempted to get New York State to use some of its funds for 
planning at the Canal. This also met resistance, because it was unknown 
whether or not the toxic contaminants from the Canal had yet polluted 
the groundwater or deep water aquifers. It seemed to me that the 208 
planning program was ideally suited to addressing the questions 
(a) whether water contamination had occurred and, if so, how to alleviate 


- 14 - 
or (b) if contamination had not taken place, how to make sure it didn't 
in the future. This, I felt, would have been a creative use of an existing 
program, implementing laws to address problems of which we are only 
now becoming aware. 

Section 311 provides for the designation of hazardous substances 
which, when discharged, present an imminent and substantial danger to the 
public health or welfare. It also provides penalties for discharges of 
such substances. A National Contingency Plan is to provide for effective 
action to minimize damage from oil and hazardous discharges. A revolving 
fund is authorized to pay for clean up of spills of oil and hazardous 
wastes, with EPA's Administrator given authority to seek to recover costs 
from polluters through the judicial process. 

The section provides the basis for the "superfund" concept which 
I discussed earlier. It is unfortunate that EPA has taken over five years 
to promulgate regulations for the hazardous substances portion of Section 
311. I am hopeful that the new set of standards -- the first was thrown 
out in a court action — will take effect, as scheduled, at an early date. 

Finally, Section 504 authorizes EPA to provide assistance in emergencies 
caused by the release into the atomsphere of any pollutant or other 
contaminant including, but not limited to, those which present, or may 
reasonably be anticipated to present, an irmiinent and substantial danger to 
the public health and welfare. 

This Section addresses most fittingly situations such as the Love 
Canal. With the assistance of my Senate Colleagues from New York, I tried 
to obtain funding for the Canal under Section 504 last year. Both Senator 
Javits and Senator Moynihan - as well as Senator Muskie - spoke eloquently 

44-978 0-79-23 


- 15 - 
in support of the amendment to the Supplemental Appropriations bill to 
provide funds to clean up the Love Canal and abate the health and 
environmental emergency. However, 0MB objected to funding under Section 
504 because it would open the proverbial "floodgates" for funding any 
situation. Thus far, not one penny has been appropriated under Section 
504 for use anywhere. 

Section 504 is relevant to hazardous waste problems and a wide 
variety of other environmental problems. It would have been ideally 
suited to provide a flexible source of federal help for the Love Canal 
and other such situations, and presumably this is why it was enacted. 
Yet, I regret, we have not appropriated one penny for it to date. 
Regardless of whether we succeed in devising a comprehensive way of 
dealing with toxic and hazardous wastes, I am hopeful that the 504 
program will be funded this year. 

Proponents of the "floodgates" argument expressed concern that 
providing funds for the Love Canal under this provision ran the risk of 
"busting the budget" when viewed in the context of the overall problem. 
However, Congress can easily control this by deciding precisely how much 
money it wishes to provide. EPA would then have to use that money selectively. 
We would be derelict in our duty to protect the health and welfare of 
American citizens if we once again fail to fund Section 504. 

The one area of law where we were able to convince the Administration 
to provide more than the emergency assistance funds that were approved 
under the President's declaration of the Love Canal as a federal emergency 
was under Section 8001(a) of RCRA for a demonstration 


- 16 - 
grant. 0MB insisted that the $4 million provided in the supplemental 
appropriations bill for this purpose be matched by non-federal — i.e., 
state and local — funds on a 50-50 basis. Nevertheless, this was a 
breakthrough, as it was the first time Section 8001(a) was funded. I 
hope it will not be the last. 


% primary goal in this Conqress is to help bring about the 
creation of a comprehensive program to deal with hazardous wastes, 
both those from the past in abandoned sites and those from the present 
and future in more effectively controlled means of disposal. The 
"superfund" concept discussed earlier, combined with the incentives I 
have tried to put in my suggested fee system for users and handlers of 
hazardous substances and wastes, offers one way of approaching the difficult 
questions of funding solutions to these problems. I hope that it or 
something similar can be enacted at any early date. In the interim, I 
will continue to urge funding for the provisions I've outlined here, for 
they can help, pending the comprehensive program I am convinced we need. 

I have tried to emphasize that there is a greater role for Congress 
to play in controlling toxic substances in the environment, particularly 
with regard to their ultimate disposal. As members of the national 
legislature, we have both moral and legal obligations to the citizens 
of this country to protect their health, environment and welfare. The 
people look to us to make sure that our world will be safe for them and 
for succeeding generations. 

Your deliberations will lead to the writing of legislation on which 
we will all have to vote. I know you share my goal of making your 
legislative proposals as good as they possibly can be; my testimony 


- 17 - 

today is intended to provide such ideas as I can, based on ny 
experience with the Love Canal and other similar problems, in hopes 
that they will be helpful to you in your deliberations. 

I and my staff stand ready to do whatever else we can in this 
process. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to share my 
views on these difficult issues with you today. I would be pleased to 
entertain any questions you might have for me. 



MARCH 29, 1979 










































American Petroleum Institute 

2101 L Street, Northiwest 
Washington, D.C. 20037 
(202) 457-7300 

Charles J. DiBona 


March 28, 1979 

Honorable Edmund S. Muskie 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environmental Pollution 

United States Senate 

4204 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 

Honorable John C. Culver 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Resource Protection 

United States Senate 

4204 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, DC 20510 


I am pleased to forward to you the comments of the American 
Petroleum Institute on the subjects of hazardous waste dis- 
posal, hazardous substances spills and other related matters. 
Please make these comments a part of the record of the 








pursuant to 


March 28, 1979 




The American Petroleum Institute shares the deep concern of 
the Senate Subcommittees on Environmental Pollution and on 
Resource Protection regarding specific toxic substances like DDT, 
PCB, and kepone and grave incidents like Love Canal and "Valley 
of the Drums," which appear to involve a variety of toxic sub- 
stances. The pressing need for protecting health and the environ- 
ment from such threats is indisputable. And to that end the 
following comments are devoted. 

Section I of the Institute's comments. Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act, deals with the importance of developing levels 
of control appropriate for different hazardous materials and 
toxic substances and their accompanying conditions instead of 
seeking blanket solutions. Section II, The Concept of Superfund, 
provides a summary of existing and proposed compensatory funds at 
both the federal and state levels. It makes the point that while 
the concept of a superfund may be serviceable and valuable when 
properly applied to a specific area, attempts to include all 
pollutants in all media under a single umbrella are virtually 
certain to end in unmanageability , staggering costs, and failure. 



The American Petroleum Institute (API) appreciates the 
opportunity to submit these comments pursuant to the joint Senate 
subcommittee hearings on hazardous wastes and toxic chemicals 
held on March 28-29. It is fully in accord with the goal of 
protecting the public and the environment generally. At the same 
time, API recognizes the extreme complexity of the problems 
presented in attempting to implement the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA). This statement summarizes the petroleum 
industry's concerns and, by way of amplification, carries as 
Attachment A API's comments on some of EPA's efforts to date, 
submitted to EPA on March 16, 1979. 

API commends EPA for its willingness to receive information 
from affected members of the public and for its conscientious 
attempt to develop a regulatory program that will satisfy con- 
flicting needs in a reasonable manner. Nonetheless, API regards 
the framework of regulations so far proposed by EPA with serious 
misgivings and believes that EPA, perhaps driven by unrealistic 
statutory and court-imposed deadlines, has adopted an approach 
which is fundamentally unsound and which will prove to be unwork- 
able from administrative, economic, and, ultimately, environmental 
points of view. 

RCRA addresses solid wastes, liquid wastes, semi-solid 
wastes, and gaseous wastes. It applies to industrial, agricul- 
tural, municipal, and other wastes. It is concerned both with 
exceedingly toxic wastes which in minute quantities can threaten 


human health and with low-risk wastes which present a hazard only 
if massive quantities are involved or unusual circumstances 
arise. While certain wastes in RCRA's purview are of concern 
because they are acutely toxic, others entail long-term, chronic 
toxicity problems. Likewise, RCRA must oversee wastes which 
degrade quickly, as well as those which are persistent and v?ill 
not degrade biologically. Finally, in addition to the diversity 
that characterizes the wastes which RCRA encompasses, there is an 
equal diversity in the manner in which such wastes have tradi- 
tionally been handled, the nature and location of disposal sites, 
the movement of wastes through the environment, and the exposure 
of human population to wastes. 

Given this bewildering diversity, it is essential that both 
legislation and regulation identify and respond to the- varying 
degrees and types of risk and appropriate requirements. In API's 
best judgment, the regulations proposed by EPA under RCRA fail to 
achieve these goals. Again, these comments address EPA's efforts 
under RCRA and the major difficulties encountered to date. 

1. EPA Has Failed to Differentiate Among Relative Degrees 
and Types of Risk, Which Results in a Scheme of Regula- 
tory Control Requirements That Make No Adjustment for 
the Level of Hazard Involved. 

The fundamental conceptual problem which pervades EPA's 

entire effort surfaces in the regulations proposed under Section 

3001 of RCRA, which would establish a single category of hazardous 

wastes. V'Jhile EPA employs a variety of characteristics, criteria, 

and other means of identifying a hazardous waste, the information 


generated in this process is used only to make a simple yes-or-no 
classification, that is, a waste becomes either "hazardous" or 
"non-hazardous." Any waste adjudged to be "hazardous" is then 
subjected to the entire panoply of control measures spelled out 
in the regulations pursuant to Sections 3002, 3003 and 3004. In 
the application of this full battery of control requirements, no 
distinction is made to reflect differences in relative risk 
resulting from the peculiarities of the waste to be regulated. 

The shortcomings of this approach are obvious, numerous, and 
severe. Application of the EPA definition of "hazardous waste" 
to the universe of wastes will result in a hopeless deluge of 
random candidates for regulation. There is no logical second 
step to prioritizing wastes to assure that regulatory attention 
and control expenditures will be directed first at those wastes 
and disposal practices presenting the most serious threats to 
human health and the environment. The regulatory scheme contains 
no distinctions by which more extensive controls will be required 
to regulate the more hazardous cases. The very concept of the 
regulations therefore virtually guarantees that massive efforts 
will be required in all cases, including those where present 
practices present little or no actual risk. 

The only rationale which could support this approach is the 
assumption that the resources available to implement this program 
are limitless and that society is willing to commit such resources 
to eliminate virtually every risk wherever a hazardous waste is 


identified. Such an approach is inconsistent with the statute 
and certainly with the recent promist made by EPA Administrator 
Douglas Costle. " [W] e will," he said, "(1) regulate only when 
the benefits exceed the costs and (2) find more efficient ways of 
meeting environmental goals in the least costly manner. "1/ 

2. EPA's Approach Ignores the Statutory Mandate to Impose 
Only Those Requirements Which are Necessary to Protect 
Human Health and the Environment. 

EPA's simplistic, non-discriminatory approach to regulating 
hazardous wastes by imposing the same rigid control requirements 
on all hazardous wastes without consideration of costs or benefits 
associated with controlling differing degrees of risk violates 
its statutory obligations. As explained in detail in the legal 
section of Attachment A, the statute and its legislative history 
contain specific references to the need for EPA to consider 
different types and magnitudes of risk factors in determining 
which solid wastes should be considered hazardous and what degree 
of control should be imposed. 

EPA is obligated to consider such factors as quantity; con- 
centration; physical, chemical, and infectious characteristics, 
including toxicity; persistence; degradability in nature; and 
potential for accumulation in human tissue. It is also obligated 
to consider other factors such as flammability , corrosivity, and 
location of generation and disposal, all of which may contribute 
to the hazardous nature of a given substance. Indeed, each of 

1/ 9 Env. Report (BNA) Cur. Dev. 5 (May 5, 1978) 

44-978 O - 79 - 24 


these factors may affect the seriousness of the risks and, 
therefore, the extent of control necessary. 

Not only the requirements of law, but also common sense 
should preclude EPA from establishing and enforcing a regulatory 
framework based on oversimplification. The need to show a 
reasonable relationship between costly requirements and the 
problems they address has recently received renewed emphasis. In 
Executive Order 12044 and related actions. President Carter and 
his Administration (again, described in more detail in the legal 
section of Attachment A) have established additional requirements 
beyond the statute. These compel EPA to insure that its regula- 
tory requirements do not impose unnecessary costs upon the 
nation. Likewise, EPA Administrator Costle has pledged: "We are 
reviewing the marginal costs of pollutant removal for all future 
regulatory proposals to be sure that we adopt the least costly 
approaches to clean-up that are statutorily allowed.'—/ 
Unfortunately, while it has developed cost studies and has 
evidenced some concern about costs, EPA nonetheless has failed to 
assess properly the economic impacts of its currently proposed 

3. EPA Methodology Contains a Number of Specific Defects . 
In developing the regulations under Section 3001, EPA has: 
o Identified a group of characteristics — for example, 

27 9 Env. Report (BNA) Cur. Dev. 5 (May 5, 1978). 



toxicity, corrosivity, ignitability , and reactivity — to deter- 
mine whether the waste is hazardous; 

o Prescribed a series of tests to determine whether a 
waste possesses these characteristics; and 

o Listed a series of wastes claimed to possess some or 
all of those characteristics and designated other wastes for 
which tests have not been prescribed, such as mutagenicity and 

Under the EPA proposal, a waste would be classified as 

hazardous if it satisfied any of the tests prescribed to show 

toxicity, corrosivity, ignitability, or reactivity. In addition, 

a waste listed by EPA would be presumed hazardous. EPA has not 

revealed what standards or data it relied upon in compiling the 

list of wastes presumed hazardous. Nor has EPA explained what 

tests it applied to the listed wastes or the nature of any 

results. It is therefore impossible to evaluate what consistency 

exists between the tests and the list. 

a. EPA's Scheme Ignores the Fact That Some Wastes 
Are More Hazardous Than Others. 

Each of EPA's tests is designed to give the either-or 

classification of a substance as hazardous or non-hazardous. For 

example, a waste is corrosive if its pH is less than or equal to 

3, or greater than or equal to 12, or if it corrodes steel under 

the SAE 1020 test at a rate greater than 0.250 inch per year. As 

a result, lemon juice or coffee would "fail the test" -- just as 

would an 80 percent solution of sulfuric acid. 


A similar situation is found in the test for toxic waste. 
If the test extract contains any substance covered by a National 
Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard in excess of 1 times 
the standard, it is classified as hazardous. Thus this test 
procedure establishes an arbitrary classification scheme, which 
in turn causes wastes of widely varying toxicity to be treated as 
if they were identical. 

It also appears that EPA has placed emphasis primarily on 

industrial waste and has excluded other wastes such as municipal 

wastes. It has been documented that such excluded wastes, 

especially when they are chlorinated, can contain high levels of 

organics suspected of being carcinogens. Of similar concern is 

the fact that the proposed rules are not fully consistent with 

existing rules which are part of the National Pollution Discharge 

Elimination System.—' 

b. EPA's Toxic Extraction Procedure Is Unrealistic if 
Applied to All Situations. 

EPA's test procedure for toxicity utilizes an acetic acid 
solution with a pH of 5 to simulate worst-case conditions that 
might exist in a municipal landfill. Conditions in most indus- 
trial facilities differ from municipal operations. EPA provides 
no evidence, nor is there any reason to believe, that the acetic 
acid procedure is appropriate to identify hazardous wastes in 
industrial waste disposal sites. 

37 40 C.F.R. Part 136. 


Another major defect lies in EPA's presumption that leachate 
from a facility will be diluted in the groundwater system by a 
factor of 10 within a distance of 500 feet from a disposal 
facility. This approach arbitrarily assumes worst-case ground 
conditions throughout the country and has no basis in fact. 
Dilution of wastes varies greatly from site to site, depending 
upon a variety of factors, including soil permeability and the 
hydraulic gradient of the groundwater system. Additionally, 
the EPA procedure also fails to take into account the wide 
differences in the mobility and solubility of different chemical 

c. The Volume of Waste Must be Considered . 

The proposed regulations, except peripherally in Proposed 
Subpart B, do not distinguish between hazards, or related control 
requirements, on the basis of differing volumes and quantities. 
Again, the failure is rooted in oversimplification. If, for 
example, the harm EPA is seeking to prevent by the imposition of 
its rigid control requirements is contamination of groundwater, 
then clearly the actual danger from one small pit is much less 
than that from a huge lagoon. The EPA approach would treat them 
both in the same way. 

d. The Proximity of a Hazardous Waste to Human Popula- 
tion or Water Supply Must be Given Attention. 

EPA's failure to give proper consideration to location 

presents still another weakness in approach. The risk of harm to 


human health and the environment posed by otherwise identical 
surface impoundments, for example, differs tremendously, depending 
upon proximity to drinking water wells or water supply aquifers. 
A surface impoundment located in an area with brackish groundwater 
should not be compelled to install the same type of impermeable 
liners that might be justified to protect a drinking water source. 
Likewise, air contamination may be a concern for facilities 
located in urban areas, but is very unlikely to present a problem 
in remote, isolated areas. 

e. Other Site-Related Factors Such as Geology, Hydrology, 
and Climate Should Also be Considered. 

As noted above, EPA's methodology for identifying wastes as 
toxic is founded on the erroneous assumption that all hazardous 
materials will leach through soil and be diluted by the same 
factor within a given distance, regardless of the composition and 
geo-chemical properties of the leached materials. As documented 
in the reports by API's engineering consultants in Attachment A, 
there are wide differences in the geo-chemical properties of 
soil, especially ion-exchange capacity, which significantly 
affects dilution rates. 

Climate is another significant site-related factor for 
which EPA has not properly accounted. The problems posed by a 
lagoon in a net evaporation area may be substantially different 
from those related to a lagoon in an area of net precipitation. 


f. The EPA Regulations Make No Effort to Relate the 

Control Requirements to the Type of Risk Presented . 

The proposed regulations prescribe the same sets of control 

measures for any waste deemed "hazardous" regardless of the 

reason for the classification. This leads to the absurd result 

that a waste which is classified hazardous because it is ignitable 

must be disposed of in a leak-proof facility, the purpose of 

which is to prevent leaching of the material into groundwater. 

In this case the requirement would be unnecessary because the 

risk of ignitability in groundwater is zero. 

4. The Notes Procedure Does Not Provide Adequate Relief 
from Unreasonable Control Requirements. 

In an effort to satisfy the clear need for flexibility in 
applying control requirements to widely varying cases, EPA has 
included in its proposal a system of Notes which purportedly 
provide some latitude in issuing permits for hazardous waste 
facilities. The Notes procedure, however, fails to redress an 
approach that is flawed by excessive rigidity and oversimplifi- 
cation. The Notes provide no authority to exempt a facility from 
the basic control requirements, even in situations where the 
degree of risk does not justify those requirements. 

The control requirements for the design of liners underneath 
landfills and surface impoundments illustrate this problem. The 
Notes system fails to allow an exception based upon a showing 
that such leakage containment is unnecessary because migration of 
the leachate could not possibly cause any harm to human health or 


the environment. The Notes system would not allow the owner 
of a landfill to demonstrate that such containment is unnecessary 
because the hazardous wastes involved would degrade rapidly upon 
contact with the soil. Finally, the Notes system would not allow 
an exemption from the containment requirements for wastes desig- 
nated hazardous only because of ignitability characteristics, 
which are not of concern if such wastes leach into the groundwater. 

5. The Overly Broad Definition of Hazardous Wastes Combined 
with the Stringent Requirements for Their Disposal Will 
Lead to a Situation Where Compliance Is Impossible 
Because of the Unavailability of Approved Hazardous 
Management Facilities. 

As a result of the overbroad definition of hazardous waste 
and of the stringent and inflexible requirements imposed on 
hazardous waste management facilities, many existing disposal 
sites which have not caused damage in the many years of operation 
will be unable to meet these standards and will have to shut 
down.—/ The same stringent and inflexible requirements will 
likewise severely hinder the establishment of new qualified 
hazardous management facilities. It should be noted that even in 
the event that an owner/operator can demonstrate that a proposed 
facility will comply with EPA regulations, an applicant must deal 
with additional obstacles in the form of state and local govern- 
ment requirements and possible public opposition. 

The public's perception of hazardous waste is linked with 

substances like DDT, PCB, or kepone, and with incidents like Love 

37 The proposed regulation will apply equally to both existing 
and new facilities. 


Canal. This regulation will lump together substances which 
possess a much smaller hazard with those which are extremely 
hazardous. The net effect is likely to be public resistance, 
even to sites which would be involved only in the disposal of 
low-hazard materials. 

The point is that the broad definition of hazardous wastes 
in the regulations will create a quantum jump in demand for 
disposal facilities which meet the Subtitle C requirements. 
Given this jump and the difficulties discussed immediately above, 
the availability and capacity of qualified disposal facilities 
are almost certain to fall short. There is no system by which 
the limited number of sites available will be allocated for waste 
having highest priority for control. Instead, there will be a 
squeeze in which generators of hazardous wastes will be forced to 
compete for a limited and possibly diminishing number of disposal 
sites. Such a result would clearly violate the specific Congres- 
sional intent that the hazardous waste program not require 
changes in generators' operations. 

6. EPA's Proposed Regulatory Framework Is in Conflict With 
t he Basic Principles of All Other Environmental Programs . 

EPA's approach in establishing only a single classification 

of hazardous waste and in requiring the same control measures for 

every case falling within that classification appears even more 

doubtful in comparison with the requirements of other environmental 

programs. It is difficult to find examples where the Agency has 

felt compelled to act on such oversimplification. 


since the purpose of environmental regulation is to protect 
identifiable environmental values, the essential goal of most of 
EPA's programs has been to define the specific environmental 
objectives, then to tailor control requirements necessary to 
achieve those objectives. Certain requirements have been imposed 
on an across-the-board basis, but normally such requirements have 
been developed for individual industries, one at a time, and only 
after thorough evaluation of probable environmental harm, techno- 
logical considerations, and costs. In no case has EPA successfully 
implemented such a flawed program as reflected in the proposed 
RCRA regulations. 

7. API Suggests Alternative Approaches for Implementation 
of RCRA. 

The proposed framework cannot be defended on the grounds 
that it is the only feasible way to implement RCRA. There are 
many available alternatives. Many states, for example, already 
operate regulatory programs to control the disposal of hazardous 
wastes. Nearly all such programs provide flexibility to adjust 
control requirements to the varying factors of individual cases. 

One approach, as illustrated by the V'Jashington state program, 
is to create more than one category of hazardous waste, with 
varying control requirements applicable, depending on whether the 
wastes present a more or less serious environmental hazard. 
Another approach, employed by the State of Texas, differentiates 
among the facilities which are allowed to handle certain types of 


wastes, thereby preventing high risk wastes from being improperly 

Although EPA faces statutory deadlines, the Agency should 
develop a more flexible and sophisticated regulatory system which 
would reasonably reflect degrees of risk, cost, and benefits. It 
could, for example, begin a phased program imposing uniform 
control requirements on a narrowly defined category of hazardous 
wastes which would include only the highest priority cases where 
the risk of human health or environmental damage is the greatest. 
Then, in an orderly fashion, EPA could expand the coverage of the 
regulatory framework to include other classes of hazardous wastes 
as these are identified- 

Under another approach, develped and supported by API, the 
level of of the hazard presented by the waste is ascertained 
through a circumscribed set of tests. The wastes are categorized 
on the basis of the level of hazard presented, as determined by 
the tests. Unlike the EPA approach, there is no single hazard/no 
hazard determination, but a ranking of wastes. Furthermore, the 
API approach would allow for a "rebuttal" of a listing or deter- 
mination that the waste is hazardous through additional test 
results or other pertinent information. 

Once a waste was categorized by its degree of hazard, the 
API approach would then employ the permitting procedure to match 
the site with the waste. Some sites would therefore not be 
required to meet "no-discharge" requirements, but such sites 


would not be allowed to handle highly toxic wastes either. The 
party seeking a permit would have the responsibility to identify 
the nature of the proposed site and the wastes to be disposed. 
In this manner, only those requirements which are necessary to 
prevent the risk posed by the waste would be required. API 
believes this is a cost-effective scheme which avoids the imposi- 
tion of costs that confer little on no benefit on the environment. 


API's General Position 

For a number of years, API has strongly supported establish- 
ment of a comprehensive, uniform oil spill liability and compen- 
sation fund bill at the Federal level. It has supported a 
federal law which would preempt state funds and liability laws; 
be adequately sized to protect the public interest; set liability 
limits at workable and insurable levels; provide for a fund to 
compensate for all real, proven cleanup costs and third party 
and natural resource damages, after the spiller's liability and 
other compensation schemes are exhausted; ensure that the spiller 
had first responsibility for cleanup and claims settlement; and, 
be administered by an existing federal agency without creating a 
new government bureaucracy. 

But API has opposed the inclusion of hazardous substance 
spills and disposal of hazardous waste in oil superfund legisla- 
tion on the grounds that such issues should be addressed by 
separate legislation. It has also opposed assessment of damage 
caused by oil spills based on cost-per organism affected or 
destroyed, pointing out the necessity for considering the natural 
recovery rate of the ecosystem. 

It now appears that the concept of a superfund is spreading 
tohazardous substances and hazardous waste disposal. Certainly, 
there is increasing legislative interest in hazardous waste 
control, clean up, third party and natural resource damages, 


liabilities, and a compensation mechanism. Legislative action on 
these points should await EPA's completion of the Congressionally 
mandated hazardous substances study required by the 1978 Amend- 
ments to Section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 
The API believes that the body of law now existing and the 
superfund bills currently before Congress argue for separate 
legislation for oil spill compensation and hazardous substance 
spills and hazardous waste disposal. 


Before the Torrey Canyon incident in 1967, no adequate 
national or international legal regimes existed to compensate 
for damages from oil pollution or to enable governments to 
recover costs incurred in cleaning up oil spills. As a result of 
this major pollution incident, four major international regimes 
were developed to help compensate for loses caused by oil spills. 

TOVALOP (Tanker Owner Voluntary Agreement Concerning Liabi- 
lity for Oil Pollution), set up by the tanker industry in 1969, 
provides a compensation mechanism for oil spill cleanup and 
pollution damage. Its terms encourage prompt cleanup and claims 
settlement. TOVALOP provides coverage of $16.8 million per 

CRISTAL (Contract Regarding an Interim Supplement to Tanker 
Liability for Oil Pollution) is a cargo owners' contract to 
provide supplemental compensation for tanker owners' cleanup 
costs and third-party damage claims after remedies available to 


claimants under other regimes have been exhausted. Member 
companies contribute to a fund based on each company's annual oil 
movements or transfers. CRISTAL became effective in 1971 and 
provides coverage of $35 million. 

In addition to these voluntary agreements, the Intergovern- 
mental Maritime Consultive Organization (IMCO) set up two oil 
spill compensation regimes. First, the International Convention 
on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (CLC) came into 
force in June 1975. To date, it has been ratified by 35 nations. 
It imposes liability on shipowners for cleanup and other third- 
party damage. Second, the International Convention on the 
Establishment of an International Fund for Oil Pollution Damage 
(Fund Convention) came into force in 1978. The Fund Convention 
provides compensation supplemental to that available under CLC 
and indemnifies tanker owners subject to CLC for a portion of 
their CLC liability. The industry believes it is regrettable 
that the U.S. has not ratified CLC or the Fund Convention and 
urges Congress to do so as soon as practicable. 

Existing and Proposed Superfund Legislation 
Attachment B, in tabulated form, contains additional details 
regarding legislative actions, existing and prospective regarding 
superfund. The number and variety of such actions at both the 
federal and state levels, as indicated in Attachment B, are 
perhaps the strongest argument that can be made in support of a 
comprehensive federal statute which would preempt state laws and 


funds, and in support of limiting superfund to oil rather than 
attempting to apply it to all hazardous materials and toxic 

Although not mentioned in Attachment B, it is interesting to 
note that Maine and Florida, for example, already maintain 
sizeable funds to pay claimants above the limits of the spillers' 
liability. While these funds have collected millions of dollars 
in taxes, only a relatively small amount has been spent for 

Other issues of concern to industry are how oil spill damage 
to natural resources should be assessed and whether the superfund 
should provide for prepositioning of oil spill equipment and 
funding of research. 

It now appears that the House may pass a superfund bill 
similar to one which it passed last year. On March 13-14, Rep. 
Biaggi (D-N.Y.) Chairman of the Subcommittee on the Coast Guard 
and Navigation, held hearings on his bill H.R.85. API supports 
this bill with some modifications and urges the Senate to give 
serious consideration to this approach to oil spill compensation 

An administration bill creating a compensation fund and 
liability regime for oil only will be introduced into both Houses 
shortly. Although EPA has urged that hazardous substances be 
included along with oil in any superfund, the administration has 
decided to treat the issues separately. As noted above, the API 
concurs with such an approach. 


As matters now stand, the major piece of existing legisla- 
tion concerning oil spills is the Federal Water Pollution Control 
Act, Section 311 as amended. This authorizes a revolving fund of 
$35 million to pay for removal costs of oil spills and any damage 
to the environment. By comparison, the proposed superfund would 
be available up to $200 million for cleanup and damages. 

Exclusion of Hazardous Substance Spills 
from Oil Spill Superfund Legislation 

/VPI believes strongly that hazardous substances spills should 
be excluded from legislation addressing oil spill liability. 

In 1972, the Federal VJater Pollution Control Act, as 
amended, included, among other things, the control of hazardous 
substances with potential to enter the waters of the United 
States in addition to the similar control of oil existing in 
previous law. Although extensive definition was given to what 
hazardous substances were and how they were to be defined by the 
EPA Administrator, their control and enforcement was specified to 
be parallel to that existing for oil discharges into navigable 
waters. The Administrator, however, was charged with designating 
hazardous substances and distinguishing among them on the basis 
of their removal characteristics and with developing a civil and 
criminal penalty structure. 

The difficulty of accomplishing this task was demonstrated 
by the fact that it took the Administrator six years, until March 
1978, to issue the final regulations on hazardous substance 

44-978 0-79-25 


control. Following promulgation, but before the effective date 
of these regulations, they were judicially challenged and their 
implementation and enforcement was enjoined. The challenge 
centered on claims that EPA had illegally determined the actual 
removability of the materials and that the harmful quantity 
determination had been arbitrary and capricious. The court, in 
due course, declared that the regulations were "invalid, void, 
unenforceable and of no legal effect. " 

In its closing hours, the 95th Congress took action to amend 
Section 311 of the Water Quality Act so as to provide a program 
on hazardous substance control that could be administered. 
Important to this discussion is the fact that the amendments also 
included the requirement in §31 1 (b) (2) {B ) for an 18-month study 
on "methods and mechanisms to achieve a higher standard of care 
in all aspects of the management and movement of hazardous 
substances. " 

In light of this history, it seems most unwise to continue 
to try to consider the spill of "oil" and "hazardous substances" 
in one and the same manner. EPA obviously had difficulties in 
proposing such regulations even over a six year period, and 
the Federal District Court agreed. EPA itself asked for, and 
Congress granted, a change in the way such materials were to be 
controlled. Finally, Congress asked that a further study be made 
on control of hazardous substances that would include "management 
and movement of these materials on the part of owners, operators, 


or persons in charge of onshore facilities, offshore facilities 
or vessels . " 

The Congressionally mandated study will be obliged to 
consider the many differences between oil and hazardous sub- 
stances. Almost 300 materials have been listed as hazardous. 
Many, but not all, are derived from oil. Most, but not all, act 
quite differently from oil when released in water. Handling 
methods may be similar to, or differ greatly from those of oil. 
Manufacture of the designated hazardous substances may be accom- 
plished by one or by several intermediate, different processors 
and owners. Volumes in commerce vary greatly, and product values 
differ by many orders of magnitude. The study should address 
these as well as other considerations which would equitably 
differentiate between rules and regulations for oil and hazradous 

EPA is proceeding with implementation of regulations for 
the control of hazardous substance discharges from facilities 
and transporters in navigable waters with penalties already 
prescribed by law. This approach will provide a mechanism for 
control of hazardous substance spills during the time that the 
congressionally mandated study is being made. It is therefore 
premature to propose legislation that includes hazardous sub- 
stance spills. 

API has long sought legislation which would create a single, 
adequate, equitable, and comprehensive oil pollution liability 


and compensation fund. Four steps are esential to the develop- 
ment of such a fund: 

1. API believes that the uniformity provided by preemption 
is absolutely essential to effective administration of 
any comprehensive oil spill legislation. Present state 
laws are duplicative, inequitable, and costly both to 
the industry and to the public. A single, adequately 
sized federal law preempting state oil pollution liabi- 
lity and compesnation funds is the key to establishing 
a workable solution to proliferating, conflicting state 
funds. One stop claims processing would avoid confusion 
on where to file claims, avoid wasteful litigation, and 
be least costly to the public. At the same time, costs 
to the state and to the public would be reduced, within 
a framework of adequate compensation for proven losses. 

2. Past experience has clearly demonstrated the difficulty 
encountered in attempting to define and control hazard- 
ous substances. The petroleum industry is deeply 
convinced that the question of hazardous substances and 
hazardous wastes should be addressed in separate legis- 
lation and that its inclusion in a comprehensive oil 
pollution liability and compensation fund bill could 
slow or jeopardize passage of essential superfund 


3. On the broad issue of natural resource damage assessment 
and compensation, API recommends that: 

o Compensation should be provided to claimants for 
economic losses to natural resources with tradi- 
tional or historical value, but not on the basis of 
spurious or arbitrary assignment of values to all 
living creatures; 

o Compensation should only be provided for all prov- 
able economic losses; and 

o Compensation for proven economic losses should be 
based only on the extent to which the damaged 
ecosystem will not recover through natural regenera- 
tive processes to prespill conditions. 

4. Proposed superfund legislation should take into account: 
o Workable and insurable liability limits; 

o Uses of the fund; which do not result in unnecessary 

drains on the fund; 
o First responsibility of the spiller for cleanup and 

claims settlement; and 
o Adequate defenses of the spiller and the fund. 







J 4.) (1> 

ij C O rH 1 X 

DjO-h.-h Vj >,4-I d) 

1 1 


•rH j-1 fa 0) 1— 1 cr 
Cu ^o 4J Dj 4-) s-1 ro 


x: -H 



in ^o o vj u 


C to Vj O C O 6 


(N C — 1 o <u 


x: ro o •H 4H fg 


«- fo x: iw iw 


C to 4-1 T^l O XJ 



V> rH 5 


3 - CJ C -r-l <y 


C '0 


O cr4-'--^(0^-<-H4-i 
ti C rj 4-) X! O 



O -H ■> C S-l 




-P o CO o 

X -H 0) rH VJ rH fO 



vj o x: 






Du O o — w 


m o fo c to .H o 



O i;^ ..5-14-1 


"HO 44 5 to -H 




Ln 0) 4-1 

•H rH C O Q) '-~ --1 




W C (N -1-) 


O O O > >i'-l 



-U o >- fO 


rH -rH C X: rH •H 




W 4-> o> 0) Tj 

4-l<U4J~— 4->(DX!E 


O Sj C 
O U) S-i CJi to 


O to TO -H x: <o 





to c >, ^ 4J ^4 '^r 


O -H 

en o 

4J 0) •H 4J <U «- 


rH W (1) 


C:>4J-H k4H>C0- 



f3 U to --H Vj 


<U to r-l 0) O (U 




> D- O O 


6 «. (D -H cr to 4-) 



Q CT vj x: 


a <U 'D ^ f^ S-i to 

> c ^ e o -ri vj 




6 ij i-( q; w 







O -rH -H (0 4J C -H 
E:rH4JrHrQ fO (0 ^ 




O X3 





■H ox; 


-tJ >-4-> 



QJ 'O 

-D O X! 




<U 0) 4J 

• «. 



^ 2 

S-4 W CO "O o 




V4 S o X . 

O fO i4 -H nn 

4-1 -H r-l O 

O vj 01 ra 



M-4 D x: -J-J 





O -U U X 





■O > <Ll > 

W C -H CU o 


O 4-4 


to c c > o 
a> fo -H vj 

0) •■H > <4-l -H 




cr. 4-( X 





Cri rH D4 

ra w 0/ fo s 





n3 to o 

e -p o 




E 4J X o gj 

<3 CO 4J -H JQ 

f3 w c CO 0) 



ro P fO QJ cr 






'O O E 

o o c 


en CO 


o vj fO fd 





O 4J C (0 

-.H r-H Q -t-J X 

E (0 O CO O 





•H rH 5 O 

E <T5 q; O 






O > U CO 





o > D' <D x; 
core tJ 

C Q (0 'VrH 




O S •- fQ 






O E E T! -H 

o fl3 c .- 





o <Li (3 c x: 

[ij vj -H m fc 






W >4 'O (0 > 


»-l rH 


fc m -H X • 

C >, D4 O CTi <U 

C 4-1 • 

.Q DC 

O no 

•H to C O -rH 

■■-t CT <y 

■H 'n 4J O V4 rH 

rH flj c x: 0) 

•H 4J (D X 4-> tX 

E O O fO -rH 

.H C N 

r-l -H -W 

■rA > U 

e .H o 

(D 4-) cr> a 


O r-( O C 

in > -P 

O rH > ,-i -^ dJ 

ro 0) D 

»- p H X! OX 
<o- O 4H X! cr 4-J 

<Ah >-i (0 


o -— 

>=C M 

-« "^ ^ L 

(0 4-1 fl3 fO 

U r- 

M O ^i -H rg 

10 <c CO J C 

<L) »- 

4J ro 

03 (0 D 


Is c 

3 g^s^ 


1 -H 1 rH >, 

C -H 

t/l rH to rH 4J 

(3 4-1 

C 0) C 0) -rH 

(0 a TO OirH 

o o 

rH 0) 

>H H Vj -H •H 

cj ui 

Eh Ph Eh ^ X) 


O D 4-> O 

V4 -r-i ro 

w c c w 

<4-l 10 -H CO 

O u-l o 

W ^ >- O -H 

c; >i 

Cr> — 4J C T! 

ro w vj o c 

g 4J <u — ^ ro 

ro 10 ct -P 

'D 5 o u .- 

Vj D to 

-H M 4-1 O 


E ro u-4 to ^ 

O > O (U D 

CO 'O o 

o e (D to 

O <U to V-i OJ 

W M D O >-< 


o u 

■H Oj— 1 ' .) 

•-H >i O O 

— t X! to 

e 4-1 c E 

'P c o o 

O 4-> U X in 

CN o ro 

1 <L) 0) 4J C 

O iH (U (D 

O rH VJ rH ^f 

•- o x: XI ^ 

W- O +J X> 4J 




-H C 


•H O 



o --^ 


O <U 

C 4J 



0) o ro 

W 4J 

U -H to 


-H —1 

O 4J C 


C H 

jc a cj •• 


Ol — 

W .H a'D 
'+-< -H E C 




T! ^ 

<J-i O O 3 


O P- U Cm 


m r~- 


5 *^ 






in fa 

o ro 

4-) c 


(D to 


























to en 

a* H >> 

tr^ ro 4-1 

ro x: cj 

" CJ M-l 

to ro 

•H CO 


O cr-H 

•H -H 
ro 4-J >H 
> rH -H • 

Q a o 
E to c 

0) (U M-l O 
« Vj O Csl 

o c 


(U 4-) 

cu u 

-H 4J 

E O 
4J to 

O rH 4J 

J-> O rH C 

o >- p o 
^: v> o o 

4J Vj 

O 4-> 4J 

fij ro -H 

. ^ -' 

Vj -h 

4J (u ro 

ro (I) -H 

& D J 

d ^ 4J 'O 

(L> 4J M c 

0) o o 3 

Q <C a, fc. 



X 4J 

ro ro 

4J ^ 








in . 

v> w 


o •-• 


c <0 

O >W 

\ Vj 
O^ O 

in it-i 


■-H no 

ro o 
•M iw 

r-l to 

c w 




</>- no 



C w 







• • 




.. -P 

































1— 1 




































XXX xxxxxxxxx 

X X X X 




X X X X 


X X 






















M en 



•S ■"• 



































































• ■ 


















.. OJ 

• • 







• t 









































(X X 

Dj ro 
ro 4-> 

aro <u 
0) Vj 

Q ro 

g Vj XI 

6 a Vj 

W C Ci 

^ -^ 

Id -HO) 

</> (0 

u-i to 

rH x: 

•H u 

cl ro 

10 01 




a > 




O O 



o © 


•rl O 


O rH 


•V -r- 


o •-< 

•H ro 




> e 


vo a- 

o , 


to TJ 
O -U 

ro -r) 

ro -H 

N rH 



QJ ns 
s: >-* 

4J D 

tr. QJ 
Vj C 

a D 

Vj to 
D W 

to <u 
c c 

•rl -rl 






• • 




• • 



















































































c • 

o S 

O to 



C J-> 




<4-l .H 




O Vj 


•w en 


■u ja 


o T 



Q) U 






















ra Q) 



o x: 






































0) o 
u m 

en CO 
C C 
•H O 







«d CO 
c c 

■H O 

03 «4-i 
to O 

-P X) CO 

to X! Vj Vj e 'tJ 

(U (0 3 CP D 
^ ;^ y CPT) C >,-tJ 
C (0 C •'^ O >-• CO 



<U X! JJEO-UO'O&i tOD 

jciw DCtc-H-^nji-irooioo-u 


0) c 

Qj x: Vj -H c 

I U V-i -U O I 'O o 



CT' x: oj ■-! c ij 
c — -u 

4J CO 

<u c c 


O <D 
N to 

—I x: I 

CO o 

X3 ^3 



o . 
.. 4J ro jj Qj 

>,-H CO CO o 

JJ rH V4 H C 

•-H -^ 0) U (0 
O X! Gj 01 +J 

•H ro CO 4J to 

X "D —t OX! 

o <o ^o ro D 

-P u i-i CO 

cv "a r3 

u^ oi c x: n-1 

O T! to O O 

V) J-l > 

o tu 


CO c o 

OJ o •-! 

cr-u X 

vj > 

(0 CO 

X) to o 

O o 

•a J-j c3 

a rji " 

(0 IT) 

.-H Jj (N 

C QJ r- 

o •-. 

O M i> 

O <U CO 

- 4J <U 

Vj O (0 -iH 

o> cr>-i 

O -rH 

>J lO M CO O 

o -- O -H to 

in </> M-l 

c u 

.> •« o <u <u 

Vj CO -P > Vj 
-H (U O 

4-> Qj to x: x; 

(0 CO CO U CO 
QJ (0 O —I U-l 

vj cu vj x: tw 
Oi > CP s o 

o u 
in (0 



CO (U 

D ^ 


■U CO 

u m 

(0 0) 

N i-H 

(0 c 

x: D 


rH O (0 

CJ10 o 


c •• 


.H in 

O J u 

o 6 o • 

O (0 U-J CO 

^ M C —I 

IT) Dj (D -H 

V> ••H 

. iH C -H -U Q) -H 

H Q) -H -^ ro 4J O 




S X 


































< — 





















U IW 4J 




C5 r-l D 


8 CTl 





in -o 







Vj (0 O 


^ o .- o 









U 'O u 

ro O o 




Qj TD 




-u C 

>j ro T! 








oj en N 


m o 

V4 P4 C 




TO S d 



.-1 c m 










■»-> o x: 



"i .-2 ^ 






cr 4-> 


•H •.^ 


2 '-* 




QJ • 


•-i k 



4-1 -p x; 



QJ (Tl 4J CN 









XI (0 4-> 


o c 

o r- O c 






D ^ -H 


U -H 

(U <T> 0) G 



C <T, 


o 4-1 fa 

W D > 



Q •- W ro 



O r- 


iJ TO -D 
D.'O fO 








10 C 
TO TO • 




— 1 




4J TD 



e o 

m C 4J 
iX TO ••H 



OJ x: >, in 


U jC 

C tl 



f-i TO 

4-1 U -U QJ 


in QJ 4J 

TO —1 






n o -^ c 

c ns (0 x: > 



•. •--.H 

e oj 

.-H in .H QJ 


O c u 




>i O J3 

3 D 

Q) •-^ > 


•H D 

>, 01 



4-J CJ TO 


o tn 

vj in X3 — 1 


4J 4-1 



•'^ C ^O 


o in 

Vj TO in 



.-1 q5 <: 

ro QJ 





(0 ••H 

i4 O E O 






•H 4J U 



QJ 4-> E Vj 


D D 




X cn CT -u 


x; o B vj 


cr in QJ 


O — 1 01 


o c 

4J ra ^ 


0) in X x: o 


Eh tn -o 


u-i -H 


Vj -H 4J 

4J 4-1 





- ■ . I, in 

o a. p u QJ 

u-i Du O O 4-1 

ro in 

O QJ in 35 s 

•H > C 4J 

in -H -H TO in 

•W 4-1 (U QJ D 

> o cr >-j o 

O <t3 (0 O "D 

J-i o ^ 

D4 Vj C 4J fO 

4J o ro N 


2; w 4.) 4J X 



•■H in 

o a o 
o e -H 

O >, p 4J 

-"D C r-l 

in o 3 
CN X c cr- 

V> O 0) 

O 01 35 
4J ax: 

Vj C 4J 

a o —I -rf 

D «*-! 4J S 

QJ «J T) 

o > c 

Vj U TO 

a QJ 

in c o 

QJ o — ' 

« U 4-1 





in in I 

D rH u 

o fo p 

TD -H a 

M vj in 


N 4J TO 

(0 (0 n 

ffi s: H 

&I 8 



10 Vj IB 

o o 

V) o 


in 0. 

B jj &■ 


>w 13 JJ x: 
era "D 1-' ■ 

I S D 

(0 r-H 

IJ 4J 


C 4-1 M O 

4J 10 Id 

ra -H 

10 -l-l 

IJ rH 

a c 

rH 4J 

•rH O U -rH 

in .u 4J 

.-H l4 

•H -M 


N —1 


10 <u 4J e 

.U H-l M HI 

•H c in 

§1 4J 

&■ 10 


(U c 

0) V4 

XI M-i -1 x: 

lU l4 O 

(1) 10 

G 3 

K -H 

« o 

O 01 "O o 

« O JJ 

« E 

« cr 

O -u vj in "O 

fc, (1) <U 4-1 c 

p. 4-1 

in 0) 
C •« 

5 10 

o -H ^ 

CO ro 

Ij 4J 

01 in 

O 10 E-i u 










































3 9999 06351 601 5 


^+iA'^S^S?^s? • Senate . Commit- 
tee on Environment&PubVWks, 

Hazardous and 
toxic waste dispos-