Document r35oXrm2yXea7X62Ob5p2Nz7

icn--hone. r # c;. N e l s o n S t . L o u i s B 3 N J 4 -2 0 2 5 January 12, 1979 TANK CAR SPILL NEAR COLUMBIA, MISSOURI 1/12/79, 8:00 AM telephone conversation between RSN/MAP File 1. Monsanto has taken air samples in the immediate area surrounding the chlorophenol spill. Early samples indicate exposure level to be less 1 ppm chlorophenol and 1/10 ppm phenol. Mike Pierle reports that these are below the OSHA exposure levels. 2. EPA has estimated that there is some level of soil contamination over an area of 10 yards wide by 1,000 yards long. Mike was not able to substantiate the level of contamination referred to. It is presumed that this may mean that some drippage from the tank car while still in motion may have contaminated the track bed until it came to its final resting point. 3. Contrary to early reports of this material seeping into the ground, it appears that most of it has crystallized on top of the ice layer and therefore should be easily recovered into drums. Little to no groundwater contamination is expected. 4. Lime has been placed over the major portions of the spill area to neutralize the phenol and also reduce the odors that had been given off. 5. EPA Region VIL who are at the site of the spill, have given their permission to move railroad ties, sand and some lime used'for barricading > n //<? _>;//; to the Wright City landfill. However, the state still has to give their approval to this mode of disposal. 6. The material, which has crystallized and is directly in contact with the ground ice, will be picked up and placed into drums along with the neutralizing lime. The disposition of this material has not been ' decided at this point. File Page 2 January 12, 1979 7. This morning, as well as yesterday morning, since I talked to Mike Pierle I informed him that MIC has visited and approved the Wright City landfill (Bob's Home Service) and KIES, at Wichita, Kansas. We strongly recommended that this material not be taken to either of the two landfills near Kansas City since they have been frequently closed due to litigation and poor performance as viewed by the state EPA. It is our opinion that the soil may also be marginal in that area and would not want to see Monsanto material disposed at this site. r ! / . jb R. S. Nelson