Zweidinger and E. Environmental Protection Agency Washington, D. Environmental Protection Agency- and approved for pub- lication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Summary and Conclusions 1 2. Introduction 3 3. Method Validation 4 4. Field Sampling 12 5. Results of the Analysis of PBB's 18 6. Discussion 34 References 36 Appendices A. Sample Preparation Procedures 37 B. Bursey and Mr. The technical assistance of Mr.
Steve Burke is gratefully acknow- ledged. Valuable assistance and discussions were obtained from Mr. DeCarlo and Mr. Lastly, we wish to thank the many people at each sampling site who permitted use of their yards, business establishments, etc. Access to suitable sampling locations was severely limited for the air monitoring and somewhat limited with respect to soil sampling. In all, 14 air samples were collected over 4 days.
The meterological conditions varied over the 4 days with strong winds on January 24, Soil samples were taken along an ENE transect upwind and downwind near within a block and far 1 km from the facility. Although previous environmental studies have centered around facilities manufacturing PBBs, little attention has been given to their impact on the environment via user facilities.
Questions about their environmental distribution through wide- spread use have been aroused by the recent major environmental catastrophes 2 in Michigan. The extent to which generalized pollution results from normal usage of PBBs throughout the United States is still undefined.
The subject of this report is an assessment of the environmental contami- nation in the vicinity of a user facility, Borg Warner Co. To assess the contamination two types of environmental samples were collected, soil and air. The former represents an environmental sink which for persis- tant compounds such as PBBs gives a historical picture of PBB contamination. Since air is the most probable transport medium, air samples were also taken.
