PB-250 717
M.  Gh^ssemi,  et al
TRW Systems Group
Prepared for:
Environmental  Protection  Agency

November 1975
                       DISTRIBUTED BY:
                       National Technical information Service
                       U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


                    1. Report No.
PB   250   717
 4. Title and Subtitle
   A Study of Selected Landfills Designed  as  Pesticide Disposal
                                                                   5. Report Date

                                                                     Nov.  1975
 7- Author(s)

   Mi Gha^seml and  S.
                      Ou in 1 f ua n
                                                                   8* Performing Organization Kept.
 9. Performing Organization Name and Address

   TRW Systems Group
   One Space Park
   Redondo Beach,  California
                                                                   10. Project/Taslc/Work Unit No.
                                                                   11. Contract/Gram No.

 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address

   U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
   Office of Solid  Waste Management Programs
   Washington, D.C.   20460
                                                                   13. Type of Report & Period

 15. Supplementary Notes
u. Abstracts , -f
                        presents the results of an in-depth study of historical,
     environmental, political, social, economic, and institutional aspects of
     selected landfills used for the disposal of pesticide waste.  Information from
     the ten sites studied indicate that while there are similarities in certain
     features of the establishment and operation of sate of the sites, the landfills
     also differ in a number of respects.  The similarities and differences reflect
     the similarities and differences between applicable state regulations, local
     waste disposal needs, and cost factors.  At the present time in many areas of
     the country there is a great need for the establishment of pesticide disposal
     sites or the development of alternative disposal methods.  This report which
     presents the results is intended to serve as  an information transfer publication,
     making available to  pesticide disposal site planners and other interested
     parties the experience gained at the operating sites. _
 17. Key Words and Document Analysis.  17a. Descriptors

     Pesticide, disposal, hazardous waste, landfill, environmental cost
 17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms

    Hazardous waste disposal
 17c. COSATI Field/Group
18. Availability Statement
19.. Security Class (This
20. Security Class (This
No. of Pages
* i t <*+
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-72)


Tftie final report (SV-114c) deeeribeo tiork performed
  foe. the Office of Solid Vaete Management Progvme
  under Contract So. 68-01-2966 to T8H STSTSMS GROUP
  and ie reproduced ae received from the contractor

     The mention of commercial products and organizations in this report
does not imply endorsement or recommendation by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.


     This report presents the results of an in-depth study of historical,
environmental, political, social, economic, and institutional aspects
of selected landfills used for the disposal of pesticide waste.  The
study was conducted by TRW Systems under Contract BOA 68-01-2956, Task
Order 68-01-3204, for the EPA Office of Solid Waste Management Programs,
Hazardous Waste Management Division.  The Project is deeply indebted to
the EPA Project Officer, Mr. Harry Day, for his continuing advice and
guidance during the course of the study.  Thanks are also due to other
staff members of the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs for their
critical review of the draft final report.
     TRW wishes to express its sincere gratitude to the technical and
management personnel at landfills which participated in this study and
which arranged for site visits and provided information for use in the
report.  The assistance received from various State agencies and regional
EPA offices are gratefully acknowledged.

                            TABLE OF CONTENTS



LIST OF TABLES 	 ....	     vl


I.     SUMMARY	     1


IV.    .METHODOLOGY . .	    12

V.     CASE STUDIES	    15

       Case Study No.  1  - Big Blue Hills Disposal Site,
                           Coalinga, California  .	. .    16

       Case Study No.  2  - Agriculture Chemical Container
                           Disposal Sites, State of Nevada ....    23

       Case Study No.  3  - Simi Sanitary Landfill.
                           S1m1 Valley* California   .......    35

       Case Study No.  4  - Ues-Con, Inc., Titan Site,
                           Owyhee County, Idaho  .... 	    44
       Case Study No.  5  - Imperial County Pesticide Container
                           Disposal Sites, Imperial County,
                           California	 .    58

       Case Study No.  6  - Powersvllle Sanitary Landfill,
                           Powersvllle, Georgia  .........    72

       Case StUdy No.  7  - Concrete Culverts for Pesticide Waste
                           Encapsulation In Sanitary Landfills,
                           State of Mississippi	    78

       Case Study No.  8  - Wheel ing Disposal Site,
                           Andrew County, Missouri . .	    87

       Case Study No.  9  - Browning-Ferris Industries Landfill,
                           Darrow, Louisiana .  .  . .	 .    92

       Case Study No.  10 - Des  Moines Metropolitan Area Solid
                           Waste Agency (Metro) Sanitary
                           Landfill, Polk County, Iowa  ...  . . .    97

VI.    DISCUSSION	   105
       w             •  •   .            .          .         ""'
VII.   REFERENCES	  ... .......   Ill

                      TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
       Appendix A  (Abbreviations for Units of
                   Weight and Measure)	     113
       Appendix B  (California Disposal Site and Waste
                   Classification Systems)	     115
       Appendix C  (For Case Study No.  1)	     119
       Appendix D  (For Case Study No.  3)	     124

                             LIST OF TABLES
  1    Landfill  Sites and Sources of Data for the Case Studies ...   13
  2    Characteristics of the Disposal  Sites and Approximate
       Number of Users	25
  3    Agencies  Involved and Their Responsibilities  	 ...   28
  4    Pesticide Containers Handled at  the Disposal Sites	30
  5    Public Information Bulletin on Site Operation	33
  6    Member Agencies in VRCSD	   38
  7    Monthly Total  Waste Quantities Handled at the Wes-Con
       Site (August 1974 to August 1975)  	  .........   49
  8    Pesticide Disposal Site Operating  Schedule	 ...   65
  9    Area, Capacity, Depth to Fill, and Estimated Life
       Expectancy of Sanitary Landfills	  ....   71
 10    Governmental Jurisdictions or Political  Units which
       Comprise  Des Moines Metropolitan Area Solid Waste
       Agency		98
 11    Hazardous Waste Characterization Data Request Form  .  . .  .  .101
 12    Summary of Pertinent Features of the Ten Landfill Sites .  .  .  106

                            LIST OF FIGURES

   1     Vicinity Map for the Big Blue Hills Disposal Site 	    17

   2     Lovelock Disposal Site  	    26

   3     Vicinity Map for the Simi  Valley Sanitary Landfill   ....    37

   4     Vicinity Map for the Wes-Con Site	    45

   5     Photographs of the Wes-Con Disposal Facility  	    47

   6     Certificate of Disposal  Issued for Wastes Accepted  at
        the Wes-Con Site	    50

   7     Assumption of Risk and Release from Liability Form
        Signed by Individuals Entering the Wes-Con Site 	    54

   8     County of Imperial Solid Waste Disposal  Sites . 	    59

   9     Calexico Disposal Site  	    63

  10     The Operating Disposal Trench at Calexico and Imperial
        Sites	    67

  11     Waste Disposal Trench and Gate, Lock and Danger Signs
        for the Hazardous Waste Disposal Section of the
        Powersville Sanitary Landfill 	  ....    74

  12     Installation of Concrete Culvert Containers and Actual
        Deposition of Waste in a Container  	    80

  13     Metal Frame Support and the Cover and Lock System for
        Concrete Culvert Containers 	    81

  14     "Pitch In" Containers for Waste Collection and
        Environmental Park Developed on Recovered Land from a
        Sanitary Landfill Operation 	  	    86

  15     Site Development Plan, for Wheeling Disposal Site  	    89

                              I. SUMMARY

     Under a contract with the EPA Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, Hazardous Waste Management Division, TRW undertook a study of
the historical, environmental, political, social, economic and institu-
tional aspects of establishment and operation of IQfTanclfilEB used for
pesticide disposal ...jThls/report which presents the results is intended
to serve as an information transfer publication, making available to
pesticide disposal site planners and other interested parties the expe-
rience gained at the operating sites.
     The selection of the 10 sites was based on considerations of design
and/or use of the site for pesticide waste disposal, extent of cooperation
offered by the sites contacted, amount of data available, representation
of spectra of geographic locations, waste processing/disposal methods,
site characteristics, and type of the operating agencies.  The data col-
lection involved visits to the sites and contacts with appropriate
governmental agencies.
     The data collected in this study on the 10 landfill sites indicate
that while there are similarities in certain features of the establishment
and operation of some of the sites, the landfills also differ in a number
of respects.  The similarities and differences reflect the similarities
and differences between applicable state regulations, local waste dis-
posal  needs and cost factors.  At the present time in many areas of the
country there is a great need for establishment of pesticide disposal  sites
or the development of alternate disposal methods.
     The data collected in the study are presented and discussed in this
report as 10 individual case studies.
Case Study No. 1.  Big Blue Hills Disposal Site, Coalinga, California.
The site is a California Class I site established in 1973 by the Fresno
County Department of Public Works for the disposal of unrinsed pesticide
containers from the agricultural industry in Fresno and adjacent counties.
The site is open four weeks per year.  The site operates under a permit
from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board.  The site develop-


 ment cost was  $12,711,  paid  for from the  county's  general  funds.   The
 operating cost ($5,000  to  $10,000  per year)  is  paid  for in part by a gate
 fee  of $2.29/m3 ($1.75/yd3)* and in  part  by  county general  funds.   Wastes
 are  taken to the site by commercial  haulers  and waste  generators.   Each
 waste load is  accompanied  by a  California Liquid Waste Hauler Record.
 Waste disposal  is  by the trench method.   The operating area is fenced  off.
 The  site  was selected after  an  environmental  impact  study.   An explosion
 in 1974 damaged   landfill equipment.  The estimated site  life is  20

 Case. Study No.  2.  Agricultural  Chemical  Container Disposal Sites, Nevada.
 These are  four  sites for the disposal of  empty and rinsed pesticide con-
 tainers.   The sites were constructed in 1971 at a cost of $5,800 to $7,500
 per  site.  Two  sites are on Bureau of Land Management property, and' two
 are  on  county land.  Eighty percent of the construction costs were assumed
 by the  Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service  and 20 percent
 by users.  There is no charge for use of  the sites.  Major  impetuses for
 the  development of the sites were dumping on BLM land and incidents of
 poisoning with  pesticide residue in containers.  Only empty pesticide
 containers are  accepted at the sites.  Each site 1s open six to seven days
 per year.  Two of the sites are  operated  by farmers cooperative
 organizations'* one site by a, rancher,, and one site by a farnir product
 distributor.  Waste disposal  is by the trench method and. containers1, are
 crushed on site prior to disposal.   The anticipated life of each site is
 about 10 years.  Three times a year, samples of air, soil,  vegetation,
wildlife, and water from the surrounding  area are collected and: analyzed.
 One problem with the operation of the site which is being corrected
 through public education relates to containers left outside or thrown
 over the fence when the sites are not open.
   See Appendix A for the abbreviations used in this report for units
   of weight and measure.

Case Study No. 3.  Simi Sanitary Landfill, Simi Valley, California.
Established in 1970, this is a sanitary landfill containing a California
Class I site, a section of which is used for the disposal of pesticide
containers which originate mainly from agricultural uses within the county.
The site is 'operated by the Ventura Regional County Sanitation District
(VRCSD) under a permit from the State Regional Water Quality Control Board.
VRCSD has as its member agencies the Ventura County and nine cities and
14 special districts within the county.  The initial capital investment
for the entire site ($431,000) was paid for by funds from member agencies.
The operating cost is about $3.30/t ($3.00/tpn) of waste, about 1/3 of
which is paid for from a tax base and 2/3 from the gate fee.  About 64 t
(70 tons) per year of pesticide containers are handled at the site.  Up
until recently, pesticide containers were only accepted on Wednesdays.
This coupled with a relatively high gate fee and the requirements for
detailed waste documentation had resulted 1n the use of other sites by
potential customers.  To encourage the use of the Simi site, the waste
documentation  regulations are now modified, the gate  fee  lowered to
$2.40/t  ($2,20/ton), and pesticide  containers  are accepted  five days  a
week.  There are five  test wells for leachate/gas monitoring.  The
anticipated life of the site is 7 to 8 years.
Case Study No. 4.  Wes-Con, Inc., Titan Site,  Owyhee  County, Idaho.   A
7-ha (17-acre) former  missle launching site is used by Wes-Con, Inc.  for
hazardous waste disposal.  About 90 percent of the waste  handled is
process waste  from two out-of-state pesticide  manufacturing plants.
Major impetuses for site establishment were protection of Idaho's environ-
ment and potential for a profitable business.  The site was established
at a cost of about $55,000 and operates under  a State permit.  The dis-
posal fee ranges from  $6.10 to $7.70/t ($5.60  to $7.00/ton).  Waste
quantities for January to August 1975 ranged from 60  to 558 t (66 to  582
tons) per month.  The wastes are unloaded into concrete silos.  Clay  and
water are also added to absorb the impact of the dropping load and to
minimize potential for explosion/fire.  Because of a  very effective public
relations program including cooperation with civic groups and donations

to community and cultural projects, the operation of the site has been
well accepted by the public.  The estimated life of the site 1s about 10
Case Study No. 5.  Imperial County Pesticide Container Disposal Sites,
Imperial County, California.  At six county refuse disposal sites a
section has been fenced off and used for the disposal of empty and rinsed
pesticide containers.  The operation was started in 1972 to serve the
County agricultural industry and to comply with State regulations.  The
site is open one or two days per month.  The cost for the development of
pesticide disposal sections were absorbed in the total cost of solid waste
disposal.  The annual operating cost for the six pesticide disposal
sections is about $5,000.  The annual quantity of pesticide containers
handled at the sites range from 204 to 500 m3 (267 to 653 yd3).  Waste
disposal is by the trench method.  To discourage improper disposal,
pesticide containers are marked with the agricultural pesticide dealer's
license number and the number of Imperial County permit to apply pesti-
cides.  To encourage proper disposal, there are no disposal fees for
pesticide containers.  Some fires have occurred due to the presence of
residual sulfur in certain waste paper bags.   The fire hazard has been
eliminated through waste segregation whereby paper bags are deposited at-
one end of the disposal trench (away from the metal  cans).   The anticipated
life of the sites varies from 20 to 50 years.
Case Study No.  6.  Powersville Sanitary Landfill, Peach County, Georgia.
This is a State-approved county landfill, a section of which 1s fenced
off for Us§ b^ a fbrmulating plant for disposal of empi# pesticide con-
tainers (9.2 m3 or 12 yd  per week).  The formulating company paid only
for fence installation ($3,000 to $4,000).   The disposal trench 1s on
high ground and is protected with 3 m (10 ft)  of dense clay.  The Instal-
lation of the fence and the danger signs Initially arouse concern of some
area residents.  The advantages and the objective of the effort were
explained to them by the State.  The estimated life for the entire site
is about 25 years.

Case Study No. 7.  Concrete Culverts for Pesticide Encapsulation in
Sanitary Landfills, Mississippi.  At 17 of the 52 State-approved sanitary
landfills, vertical below-ground concrete culverts have been installed
for disposal of small quantities of calcium arsenate which is no longer
used in the field.  The culverts sit on a concrete base.  To increase
capacity, the base may be located at a deeper depth and several culverts
joined together to increase the height.  Ordinarily, the top culvert
extends aboveground and is provided with a metallic frame and a cover
fitted with a lock.  When a capsule becomes full, concrete is poured to
seal the top.  When large centralized hazardous waste disposal facilities
become available, the content of these culverts may be transferred to
such sites for permanent disposal.  The culvert encapsulation is a very
new program.  Originally there was some reluctance pn the part of the
landfill operators to use the concrete containers.  The value of the
project was explained to them by the State.
Case Study No. 8.  Wheeling Disposal Site, Andrew County, Missouri.  The
site is a large municipal/industrial disposal  facility owned and operated
by Wheeling Disposal  Service Co., Inc.  The site operates under a permit
from the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.  Pesticide disposal
was started in July 1975, and all wastes handled (de-registered and
off-spec products, clean-up material, and used containers) have been from
a local formulating company.  Wheeling provides hauling service to its
customers.  The operation is at its infancy and very new to Missouri.
There are several monitoring wells at the site.  Originally, the State
received some inquiries from certain area residents concerning potential
adverse environmental effects of the operation.  The State gave assurance
on the adequacy of the protection measures.
Case Study No. 9.  Browning-Ferris  Industries, Inc. Landfill, Darrow,
Louisiana.  Browning-Ferris Industries  (BFI) purchased the site in 1972
from a private party.  The site  is operated under a State permit and
handles industrial dry trash.  The load from one company contains up to
272 kg (600 Ib) of maleic hydrazide per year.  BFI offers hauling
service to its customers.  Wastes are deposited in a pit, and compacted

 with a bulldozer.   Monitoring consists  of periodic air sampling and
 Inspection of drainage water for leachates.   The estimated life of the
 site 1s about 20 years.

Case Study No. 10.   Des Molnes Metropolitan Solid Waste Agency (Metro)
Sanitary Landfill,  Polk County, Iowa.  This Is a regional  sanitary land-
                                          2        2
fill with a service area of about 1,554 km  (600 ml ).   Metro 1s a quasi-
public agency comprised of 15 cities and Polk County.   The operation
started In 1972. The Initial capital cost was financed through revenue
bonds.  The disposal fee 1s $0.98/m3 ($0.75/yd3).  About 7.6 m3 (10 yd3)
per week of empty pesticide containers from a local formulating plant are
currently accepted  at the site on a regular basis.  Waste  disposal 1s by
the trench method.   Initially there was  considerable opposition to the
proposed location of the site and the disputes were resolved by court
action.  The estimated life of the site Is about 7 to 8 years.

                              II.  CONCLUSIONS

     Each of the 10 landfills considered 1n the study is unique in many
respects and has been designed and tailored to serve specific disposal
needs and for specific hydrogeological and environmental conditions.  Every
case study, however, offers certain valuable lessons which are of some-
what broader applicability in connection with planning,  establishment, and
operation of pesticide disposal  sites and potential  problems which may be
anticipated and methods for their resolution.   Based on  the cases studied,
the following general  conclusions can be offered:
     1.    In many areas of the country there is a  great  need for
          establishment of pesticide disposal  sites  (or  for
          development of alternate environmentally acceptable
          disposal  methods).
     2.    When technically feasible and economically justifiable,
          a spars*iy populated or isolated  location  is most
          desirable for locating  a landfill.
     3.    In landfills  which  receive both pesticide  and  non-
          pesticide wastes and which are hydrogeologically
          suitable  for  accepting  pesticide  wastes, it would be
          environmentally more suitable and operationally safer
          if a portion  of the site is  fenced off and devoted
          solely to the disposal  of pesticide wastes.
     4.    NMlries  or  signs  such as  "containment site","environmental
          protection site", etc., which emphasize  the positive
          aspect of a landfill operation  are generally psychologically
          more acceptable to  the  general  public than such titles as
          "hazardous waste" or "toxic  chemical" landfill.
     5.    An effective  public  relations program is valuable to the
          acceptance of a pesticide disposal site  in  a community;
          such programs may include but not necessarily  be  limited
          to:  (a) consultation with and solicitation  of  support from
          key members of  the  community  throughout  the planning,

     design, and operation of the site, (b) providing free
     disposal service to local residents, public Institutions,
     etc., (c) conducting educational  tours of the disposal
     operation, (d) review of and Immediate consideration of
     complaints received from any Individual or organization,
     and (e) mailing Information circular to potential  site
     users Informing them of the existence of the site and
     the services offered.
6.   Regulations requiring rinsing of pesticide containers
     are usually very difficult to police and enforce.  Certain1
     Regional Mater Quality Control  Boards in California require?
     that pesticide containers should only be accepted in Class
     I sites (which are for the disposal  of hazardous chemicals;),
     as there are no guarantees that the  containers received at;
     Class II-l sites (used in other areas for rinsed containers)
     are indeed rinsed as required.   In one state, the Use of an?
     "honesty system" whereby the fanners would be required  to
     sign a form stating that the containers are Indeed empty and
     rinsed is being investigated as a deterrence against
     disposal of unrinsed containers.
7.   Unreasonably high gate fees, elaborate requirements for
     waste documentation, and use of very narrow and limited
     site opening hours and schedule can  discourage some
     potential site users who may find it more attractive to
     take wastes to other disposal sites  which may offer them a
     more favorable treatment.  Disposal  rates should be
     competitive with those charged  at other landfills  1n the
     general area, and the operating schedule and waste docu-
     mentation requirements should consider, whenever possible,
     the views and preferences of the potential  site users.
     Many large pesticide applicators  prefer to accumulate
     containers and use^the services of their own employees  to
     haul the containers to the disposal  site during days when
     no pesticides are applied (e.g.,  due to poor weather

     conditions).  Some sites prefer to absorb the cost of
     pesticide disposal elsewhere (e.g., in the cost of an
     overall program of solid waste management) and charge
     no gate fees for the disposal of pesticide wastes.
     Such a policy is considered to encourage waste
     generators to bring in their wastes for proper disposal.
8.   Many industrial waste generators which use services of
     off-site waste disposal facilities prefer to deal with
     disposal companies which are financially sound and con-
     duct an environmentally acceptable operation.  The
     practice of sending a technical representative to
     Inspect and approve of the site prior to signing a
     contract for waste disposal 1s an outstanding approach
     and reflects the position that the responsibility for
     safe disposal of waste does not terminate when the waste
     leaves the plant premises.  It 1s also a good practice
     to hire reputable commercial waste haulers and to send
     an observer to the disposal site with each waste load
     to assure that the wastes Indeed reach their intended
     destination and that they are disposed of in an approved
9.   When carried out in accordance with recommended procedures,
     resource recovery involving reconditioning and reuse of
     rinsed large pesticide containers and shredding of rinsed
     containers to salvage metals is environmentally more
     desirable than container disposal in landfills.   In certain
     areas where resource recovery 1s economically attractive,
     refuse disposal  sites or other locations may be designated
     as centers where waste generators can bring in their con-
     tainers for shipment to recycling centers.  The public
     support for the program can be broadened if a portion of
     the revenue from the recycling operation 1s donated to
     charitable organizations or used to support community


     Each year the agricultural Industry 1n the United States uses large
quantities of pesticides and generates a significant amount of wastes which
have to be safely disposed of In order to protect the public health and
minimize-the potential for environmental contamination.  Based on the U.S.
Tariff  Commission preliminary report for 1973, approximately 585 t (645
tons) of synthetic organic pesticides and related products, valued at $1,445
million dollars, were produced 1n the United States in 1973.  Pesticide
wastes originate in the manufacturing, formulation, distribution and use of
the pesticides and include production/formulation process wastes, unwanted
and banned products and empty pesticide containers.  Although no accurate
data are available on the total quantity of pesticide wastes which are
generated in the United States, the magnitude of the waste disposal need
of the industry can be appreciated when it is considered that In California
alone an estimated 7 million agricultural chemical  containers (metal drums,
cans, glass jars, plastic bags, paper bags) were generated in 1974. This
number 1s In addition to an estimated 10 million small containers which
resulted from household and garden use.
     Of the several methods available for the disposal of pesticide wastes,
disposal, in properly engineered and operated landfill and land burial  sites
have gained considerable popularity in recent years.   A number of states,
most notably among them California, have developed programs regulating the
land disposal of pesticide wastes and have authorized specific sites for
the disposal of such wastes.  Similar programs are currently being developed
in a number of other states.  In some heavily agricultural states, because
of the heretofore unavailability of suitable disposal sites and a lack of
other environmentally acceptable disposal/reuse alternatives, large numbers
of empty pesticide cans have been accumulated in temporary storage
facilities (barns, hangers, fenced areas, etc.) or have been or are dis-
carded in municipal refuse dumps or burled in scattered locations on the
farmland.                                                       .       >  .

     In recent years, a number of documents    have been published on the
engineering aspects, of site selection, and construction and operation of
landfills for the disposal of pesticides and other hazardous wastes.  Very
little Information, however, Is currently available to pesticide disposal
site planners on potential economic, political and social problems asso-
ciated with establishment and operation of such sites and on possible
approaches to the mitigation of such problems.
     Under Contract No. BOA 68-01-2956, Task Order 68-01-3204, with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste Management
Programs, Hazardous Wastes Management Division, TRW undertook an in-depth
"case study" of 10 selected landfills which: (a) have been designed and are
used specifically for the disposal of pesticide wastes and pesticide con-
tainers; and/or (b) have been designed with consideration for accepting
pesticide wastes but are used for the disposal of a variety of wastes in-
cluding pesticide wastes.  The case studies have involved visits to the
disposal sites and collection of data on historical background and environ-
mental, political, social, economic and Institutional  aspects of establish-
ment of the selected sites.  The data collected are summarized,.iresented^,.'
and discussed in this report which 1s Intended to serve as an in£6nnat£on  •
transfer  publication whereby the experience accumulated at the operating
sites is made available to all Individuals, industrial firms, and local
and State agencies interested in or involved with the selection, design,
operation, and upgrading of sites for pesticide disposal.
     Before presenting and discussing the case studies, the details of the
methodology used for data collection will be reviewed.

                              IV.  METHODOLOGY

     The-10 landfill sites for which detailed Information have been
collected in the present study were selected from a larger 11st of disposal
sites which was Initially prepared based on the review of the literature,*
and discussions with the EPA Project Officer, the Solid Waste Mangement
representatives at EPA Regional Offices, appropriate state agencies, and
the technical staff associated with the operation of pesticide disposal
facilities.  The basic criteria for the selection of the 10 "finalists"
Included the following: (a) the site has been designed and 1s used
specifically for the disposal of pesticide wastes or that the site has  been
designed with the consideration of suitability for accepting pesticide
wastes but 1s used for the disposal of a variety of wastes Including
pesticide wastes, (b) extent of cooperation offered by agencies/personnel
associated with the operation of the site, (c) amount of data available,
and (d) consideration for the representation of spectra of geographic
locations, waste processing/disposal methods (storage, container crushing,
encapsulation, etc.), site characteristics, and type and organization of
the operating agencies (e.g., private companies versus public agencies).
The collection of data on the 10 sites Involved visits to the sites and
discussions with Individuals responsible for the operation of the sites.
In most cases the data collected during the site visits were later supple-
mented by additional Inquiries directed at state/county agencies and con-
sulting engineering firms which were Identified as possessing additional
data on certain aspects of the establishment or design of the sites.
     The 10 sites which were studied in detail in this Investigation are
listed in Table 1.  Also Included in this table are dates of the site visits
and the Individuals who were contacted (at the sites and elsewhere) for
data acquisition.  In three of the Case Studies (Nos.  2, 5, and 7)  each
"s1te"consisted of several  disposal locations.  In each case only one or
two of the representative disposal locations were actually visited, although
   The document listed as Reference 8 in Section VII  which was  made available
   to TRW by EPA 1n the draft form was most helpful  1n the preparation  of
   the Initial  11st of pesticide disposal  sites.


Cast Study
                Disposal Site/location
                                                         Operating Agency/Conpany and Address
                                                                                                                 Date of VliU
                                                                                                                                         Persons Visited/Sources of Oati
             6(9 Blue Hills  Disposal Site;
             Coallnga, Ca.
             Agriculture Chemical Container
             Disposal Sites; State of Nevada
                Lovelock Disposal Site
                Fallen Disposal  Site
                Onvada Disposal Site
                Middle Reese Disposal Site

             S1«1 Sanitary Landfill;
             S1«1 Valley, Ca.
Hes-Con,  Inc., Titan Site
Owyhee County, Id.
              Imperial County Pesticide
              Container Disposal Sites;
              Imperial County, Ca.
                 Calexlco Disposal Site
                 Holtvllle Disposal Site
                 Imperial Disposal Site
                 •lland  Disposal  Site
                 Palo Verda Disposal  Site
                 Plucho  Disposal Site

              Powersvilie Sanitary Landfill;
              Powersville. Ga.
                                  Fresno  County Department of Public Works
                                  4499 East Kings Canyon Road
                                  Fresno, Ca.  93702           >
                                  Farmer Cooperative Organization ("Heed Control District*)
                                  Fanner Cooperative Organization (•Moso.ulto Abatement District")
                                  Northrup King Seed Coipany (a private fin)
                                  A Private Rancher

                                  Ventura Regional  County Sanitation District
                                  181 South Ash Street
                                  P.O. Box AB
                                  Ventura, Ca.  93001
                                                Ues-Con. Inc.
                                                P.O. Box S64
                                                Twin Falls, Id. 88301
                                  County of Imperial  Department of Public Works
                                  Courthouse, El Centra.  Ca. 9Z243
                                   Peach County/City of Fort Valley
              Concrete Culverts  for Pesticide
              Haste encapsulation in Sanitary
              Landfills, State of Mississippi;
              Seventeen State-approved County
              Sanitary landfills 1n Mississippi

              Kneeling Disposal  Site
              Andre* County, Mo.
               Browning-Ferris Industries,  Inc.
               Landfill. Damn, La.
               Des Molnes Metropolitan Area
               Solid Haste Agency Sanitary
               Landfill. Polk County. la.
                                                                                                                October 23,  1974
August 14,  197S
August 20, 197S
                                                                                                                August IB. 1975
                                                 Various Counties 1n Mississippi
                                   Wheeling Disposal Service Co.
                                   1805 South 8th Street
                                   St. Joseph, Mo. 64503
                                   Browiing-Ferris  Industries
                                   P.O. Box 3111   •
                                   Baton Rouge, La.  70821
                                   Des Mines Metropolitan Area Solid Haste Agency
                                   3121 Dean Street
                                   Des Molnes, la.  50309
 July 10. 1975

 July 10. 197S

 August 8.  197}

 August  7.  1975

 August  4.  1975

 July 7. 19*75

 July 5. 1975
 Fresno County Department of Public Works:
 Clinton 0.  Beery
 1C.  0.  Swarts
 Edwrd Hade (209) 488-3820

 University  of Nevada Cooperative Extension Service:
 Dr. Harry Smith (702) 784-6911

 Nevada Environmental Protection Services:
 A.  J.  Vandenburg  (702) 885-4670
 Ventura Regional County Sanitation District:
 Mohammed Hasan  (80S) 648-2717
 John A. Laabie
 Phillip A.  BeautrOH
 Robert L. Hart
 Lewis A. Thompson
 Michael E.  Williams
 Noreland Investment Company:
 Carl Vogel  (805) S26-425S

 Hes-Con. Inc.:
 Gene Rlnebold (208) 734-7711
 State Dept. of  Environ, and Com. Services:
 Ed Baker
 EPA Region  »:
 Stan Jorgensen

 County of Imperial Department of Public Marks:
 Harold Goff (714) 3S2-28S5
 Alan R. Crossman
 David E. Pierson
 County of Imperial Agricultural Coon! it toner:
 Claude Finnell  (714) 352-3610
 Georgia Department of Natural Resources
 Environmental  Protection  Division:
 Clyde F. Fehn (404) 656-2833
 Howard L. Barefoot
 Woolfolk Chemical  Horks,  Inc.:
 J. H. Thurman (912) 8ZS-5S11

 Mississippi State Board of Health:
 Jack McMillan (601) 354-6616
 Curtis Gamer
 Kneeling Disposal Service Co.. Inc.
. Clay Buntrock (816) 279-0815
 Emcon Associates:
 Don Andres (408) 275-1444

 Browning-Ferris Industries:   Harley Brown,
 (504) 356-2478; Ben Glllesple (713) 790-1611;
 Louisiana State Department of Health:
 G. Roy Hayes (504) 527-5123

 low* Department  of Environmental Quality:
 Peter Hanlln  (515) 265-8134
 George Welch

 DOS Molnes Metropolitan Solid Haste Agency:
 Robert Porter (S15)  265-8106
 Helena Chemical  Company:
 Larry Tylor (901)  761-0050
                                                                                  TABLE  1
                                    LANDFILL  SITES  AND SOURCES  OF  DATA  FOR  THE  CASE  STUDIES

pertinent data were collected on the operation of all sites.  At the Wes-
Con Site (Case Study No. 4), pesticide wastes are disposed of 1n de-
activated Titan missile silos.  Although waste disposal In 49-m (160-ft)
deep reinforced concrete structures cannot be considered a "landfill"
operation In the strict engineering definition of the term, the site was
Included 1n the study, as It has much to offer to the pesticide disposal
site planners, specifically from the standpoint of an effective public
relations program for staving off possible public opposition to the
establishment and operation of the site.
     To assure accuracy and thoroughness of the coverage, an advance copy
of the draft write-upion each case study was submitted for review to the
individual(s) interviewed during the site visits.  The reviewers were
asked "to feel free to make any changes (deletions, additions, and
modifications) as deemed necessary in the Tight of the objective and the
overall goal of the program".  The comments received from the reviewers
were studied and incorporated in the Final Report as necessary.

                              V.   CASE STUDIES

     The data collected on the 10 landfill  sites  are presented in this
Section as 10 separate individual case studies (designated 1  through 10).
For each case study, the data are arranged  and discussed under the follow-
ing nine headings:  "Site Location", "Operating Agency", "History and
Background", "Factors/Agencies Contributing to the Establishment of the
Site", "Sources, Nature, Quantities and Handling  of Pesticide Wastes",
"Sources of Funds and Cost Data", "Social Problems and Their  Mitigations",
"Environmental Considerations" and "Anticipated Site Life/Future Use".   In
a number of cases certain Items of data which did not directly pertain  to
the case study but were relevant  to the overall study objective,  are
presented at the end of the case  study under the  heading "Miscellaneous".

                             CASE STUDY NO. 1
             Big Blue Hills Disposal Site, Coalinga, California

Site Location - Fresno County, California; site located on the eastern
slopes of the coast range, approximately 16 km (10 mi) northeast of Coalinga
and 64 km (40 mi) southwest of Fresno.  A vicinity map for the site is
shown in Figure 1.
Operating Agency - Fresno County Department of Public Works.
History and Background - The site is a California Class I* disposal site
which accepts primarily, unrinsed pesticide containers.  The site has been
designed and is operated to serve the waste disposal needs of the agricul-
tural industry in Fresno and adjacent counties.  The operation  at the site
was started in November 1973, and the site is only open a total of 4 weeks
each year (2 weeks in the fall and 2 weeks in the spring).  The land 1s a
13-ha (32-acre) parcel which was purchased from the Standard 011 Company of
California.  There are numerous oil wells In the area and the site is
enclosed within Standard Oil Company property.
Factors/Agencies Contributing to the Establishment of the Site - Each year,
the agricultural industry in California uses large quantities of insecticides,
herbicides, defoliants, and related chemicals for crop production.  Safe
disposal of the empty chemical containers and the discarded and reject
chemicals is essential to avoid widespread environmental  contamination.
Prior to the development of the Big Blue Hills disposal site, many thousands
of empty containers were accumulated in hangers, barns, or fenced areas
throughout the heavily agricultural Fresno County and adjoining crop-
producing communities.  Since an effective industry program involving
reclamation/reuse of empty containers was lacking, Fresno County assumed
the responsibility for developing and operating a Class I landfill site for
the disposal of such agricultural wastes.
  Under California Classification System,  Class I  sites  are those which
  present "no possibility of discharge of  pollutant substances to usable
  waters".   Class I sites can be used for  the disposal, of all  waste groups
  including those containing hazardous chemicals (see Appendix B  for the
  description of the California disposal site and  waste  classification
  system).                                                .     .      •'

Figure 1.   Vicinity Map for the Big Blue Hills  Disposal  Site

 Sources, Nature, Quantities, and Handling of Pesticide Wastes - Before the
 actual opening of the Big Blue Hills disposal site, an extremely heavy In-
 flow  of waste had been anticipated for at least the first few seasons of
 the operation due to expected rapid "unloading" of the empty containers
 which had been accumulated over the years at various temporary farm storage
 facilities.  Indeed the possibility of traffic jams was a serious concern
 to the local authorities.  Since the site became operational, however, the
 farmers and the agricultural chemical distribution houses have been some-
 what  slower than expected in unloading their stored material.
      A copy of a summary report submitted to the State on the disposal
 operation during October 21 to November 1, 1974, 1s presented 1n Appendix
 C.  The material handled during this period of operation consisted of 5,050
 m  (6,600 yd ) of various pesticide containers (crushed and uncrushed),
 180 t (198 tons) of zinc sludge waste 15 t (17 tons) of diluted pesticide
 residue, and 24 m  (31 yd ) of mercury contaminated seed.  Approximately
 42 percent of the material received at the site originated from some 33
 California communities outside Fresno County (primarily from adjacent
 counties).  The California "Liquid Waste Hauler Record" form (see
 "Environmental Considerations" below) which 1s used for waste documentation,
 does  not require chemical identification of the waste, except for gross
 classification into such general  categories as pesticides, solvents, tank
 bottom sediments, etc.  A partial  listing of the various chemicals received
 at the site during the fall 1974 operation is presented in Appendix C.
      In the spring of 1975, the site was opened for operation on April 21
 and was scheduled to be open for a 10-day period through May 2.   Due to an
 explosion and fire (see section on "Environmental  Considerations"), which
 caused extensive damage to the crawler tractor dozer, the site was closed
 on April  24 and the spring operation was terminated.  During the 3.5 days
 of operation, approximately 1,071  m  (1,400 yd ) of material was received.
About 38 percent of the loads of  hazardous waste received was from outside
 of Fresno County (primarily from  adjacent counties).  Except for one time
when a load of contaminated material  from Guam was accepted, none of the
wastes received to date at the site have been from sources outside

     Wastes are hauled to the site by commercial waste haulers and by the
waste generators.  The general disposal procedure consists of first
excavating a 6.1-m (20-ft) deep trench.  The waste material is then
emptied into the trench at one end and dozed and compacted with a'bulldozer.
At the end of each working day, the waste is covered with   15 cm (6 in.) of
fresh dirt.  A minimum of 30 cm(12  in.) of dirt cover is provided when the
site is closed for the season.  When a trench is filled to full capacity,
it will be covered with 1.8 m (6 ft) of dirt as a final  cover.
Sources of Funds and Cost Data - the total initial cost for the development
of the Big Blue Hills disposal site was $12,711 which was paid for from
county general funds.  The initial cost consisted of the following items:

           Land - $3,176.00          r             .
           Trench excavation (7,650 irr or 10,000 yd15) -  $3,735.00
           Fencing (610 m  or 2,000 ft) - $2,100.00
           Safety equipment - $850.00
           Access road, signs, incidentals - $2,850.00

     The operating costs (labor, equipment, maintenance) for 1973-74 were
$5,731.00 and for 1974-75 were $9,777.00, financed in part by disposal fees
with balance from county general funds.  The gate fee consisted of $0.98/nr
($0.75/yd3) county fee and $0.67/t or $0.60/ton ($1.00 minimum) State fee.
The county fee has just been increased to $2.29/m3 ($1.75/yd3).  The
total State fees collected were $144.60 for the 3.5 days of operation in
1975, and $930.25 for the fall 1974 operation.   The tonnage of the containers
in each waste load is estimated at the gate through actual  measurements of
the bulk volume and an assumed bulk specific volume of 10 and 2.5 nr/t (12
and 3 yd /ton) for crushed and uncrushed containers, respectively.  Unless
prior credit arrangements are made,  fees are collected in cash at the gate.
Social  Problems and Their Mitigations - The need for the establishment of
a site in Fresno County for the disposal of the pesticide containers was
well  recognized by the agricultural  and community civic  leaders.  There were,
however, some questions and reservations as to  the exact location for the
site.  Originally, a site in a different location in the general area was
proposed and tentatively approved by the California Water Quality Control
Board (Central  Valley Region) for use as a Class I site.  In a public

hearing the Board heard and considered all comments pertaining to the
proposed site including geological data which indicated a possibility of
hydraulic continuity with usable ground waters.  The proposed location was
thus abandoned in favor of the existing location.  As will be discussed
below in connection with "Environmental Considerations", prior to the
activation of the present site an environmental impact study was conducted
and the findings were made available to all interested parties for review
and comment.  Since the Inception of the operation there has been no public
objection to the operation of the site.    .
Environmental Considerations - Selection of the B1g Blue Hills disposal
site was based upon recommendations from geologists representing the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Division of Oil
and Gas, and the Standard Oil Company from whom the property was purchased.
The geological formation at the site is classified as Santa Margarita
formation.  The upper soil is Kettlemah-Linne, moderately shallow alkaline
sandy loam, overlying soft calcareous sand stone.  Permeability is moderate
to low, surface runoff is rapid, water holding capacity is moderate to low
and erosion hazard is moderate.  The site 1s not 1n hydraulic continuity
with fresh water-bearing zones in adjacent areas.  The area 1s semi-arid
with a mean annual precipitation of about 25 cm (10 in.) and annual
evaporation rate of about 165 cm (65 in.).  The topography is hilly and
the surface  run-off is generally very rapid.  The elevation at the site
varies from 250 m  (820 ft) at the eastern boundary to 299 m (980 ft) along
the western boundary.
     Prior to the purchase of the land and site preparation, and In
compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act, Fresno County Department of Public Works prepared a draft environmental
impact statement (EIS) which was then submitted for review and comment to
all interested parties including a number of local, State,'and Federal
agencies with expertise and/or interest in the proposed action.  The
reviewers' comments were discussed and adequately responded to in the final
EIS.  The final EIS concluded that the adverse environmental effects •
associated with the operation of the Big Blue Hills disposal site'are of
limited"nature and are outweighed by the environmental benefits accrued from
controlled disposal of pesticide wastes and containers at a centralized

       .:                             20

 location.  The following were identified as probable adverse environmental
 effects which could not be avoided: (a) increased traffic flow during days
 that the site is open; (b) removal of a relatively small grazing area; (c)
 disruption of wildlife during operating periods; and (d) introduction of
 hazardous chemicals into the soil.
     To contain the operation, the actual operating area (a segment within
 the total land parcel) is fenced off.   There is a field office at the site
 which is housed in a trailer house.  There is one operator and a "fee
 collector" at the site.  There is two-way radio communication between the
 field office and the headquarters (Department of Public Works) in Fresno.
 There are a safety shower and an emergency eyewash at the site.
     California regulations on hazardous waste management require the use
 of "The California Liquid Waste Hauler Record (Manifest)." for recording and
 documenting all liquid and/or solid hazardous wastes transported to waste
 handling facilities, including processing plants, resource recovery
 facilities, or disposal sites.  The Manifest, a blank copy of which is
 included in  Appendix  C  has three sections: one section must be completed
 by the waste producers, one by the waste hauler, and one by the hazardous
waste disposal facility operator.  When completed by the disposal site
 operator, the document will be in duplicate; one copy for the State and one
 copy for the county.  The State copies are sent to the State on a monthly
 basis. California is contemplating the use of a computerized system for data
 processing which would enable "tracking" of hazardous wastes from the point
of generation to the point of ultimate disposal.  The system would provide
for effective policing and enforcement and would assure that a hazardous
waste hauled away by a waste hauler would reach its intended destination and
is disposed of at an authorized site and in accordance with State regulations.
On the Manifest form,  spaces are provided for code numbers to be used in the
computer programs and data processing  system.  No code numbers are required
at this time.
     Since the site was first opened in November 1973, there has been only
one incident of explosion and fire at  the site.   This incident, which
occurred on April  24,  1975, caused extensive damage to the crawler tractor
dozer and resulted in  the closing of the site after only 3.5 days of


operation.  The explosion occurred when the dozer made its first pass over
an area of uncrushed cans in the first step to crush and compact the cans
prior to covering with dirt.  The dozer track ran over a drum full  of
inflammable liquid, not identified on the Waste Hauler Record, which
ruptured and started the fire.  There were no serious injuries to personnel,
however, two firemen and two county employees were taken to the Coalinga
Hospital as a precautionary measure.
Anticipated Site Life/Future Use - According to estimates by the Fresno
County Department of Public Works, the present site would be adquate for at
least 20 more years of service.  No plans have been formulated for future
use of the land when the site becomes full.

                            CASE STUDY NO. 2
             Agricultural Chemical Container Disposal Sites,
                             State of Nevada
Site Locations -
               Site                          Location               .
     Lovelock Disposal Site        Lovelock, Nevada (Pershing County)
     Fallen Disposal Site          Fallen, Nevada (Churchill County)
     Orovada Disposal Site         Orovada, Nevada (Humboldt County)
     Middle Reese Disposal Site    Middle Reese, Nevada .(Lander County)

Operating Agencies - Lovelock and Fallon disposal sites are operated by
farmer cooperative organizations ("Weed Control District" and "Mosquito
Abatement District", respectively).  The Orovada disposal site is oper-
ated by Northrup King Seed Company (a private firm).   A private rancher
operates the Middle Reese disposal Site.  (The Middle Reese site is
currently inactive).
History and Background - The four disposal sites which are located in the
State of Nevada are on land obtained under special  land use permits from
the county (Lovelock and Fallon sites) and from the Bureau of Land
Management (Orovada and Middle Reese sites).  The operation of the sites
was started in 1971-72 and the current land use permits are for five years
and are to be renewed in 1976-77.  The sites were developed to serve the
need of the agricultural industry in the area.
     The working area at each site (roughly 0.2 to 1.0 ha or 0.5 to 2.5
acres)  is secured by a "no-climb" 1.8-m (6-ft)  fence  topped with strands
of barbed wire.  Except during operating days,  the entrance gate is
securely locked.   Ordinarily, each site is open only  a total of six to
seven days per year, usually during the months  of May through November.
On special occasions and by prior arrangement,  a site may also be opened
to accept special  waste loads.
     Physically,.each facility consists of a disposal  pit, an adjacent
sump (for container draining and rinsing), and  a storage shed which


houses a water tank and a container crusher.  The water tank is used as
a safety shower and for flushing chemical spills from the operating
personnel and their equipment.  A description of the sump and data on the
original dimensions of the four disposal pits, the approximate distance
from each site to the nearest residence, and the number of parties (crop
dusters, individual farmers and ranchers) served by each disposal site
are presented in Table 2.  Three of the sites (Lovelock, Orovada, and
Middle Reese) are located in areas which are readily accessible to all
users.  The Fall on site is located in a rugged terrain and pesticide
containers are taken to the site by the site operator who uses a 4-wheel
drive vehicle for container transportation.  In general, the maximum
distance that a farmer or rancher has to travel to get to a disposal site
is 97 km (60 mi).
     Figure 2 contains some photographs of the Lovelock disposal site,
including the sump in the covered and uncovered positions, the general
background topography, the storage shed, and the can crusher and storage
tank in the shed.
Factors/Agencies Contributing to Establishment of the Site - The problem
of the disposal  of pesticide containers in the agricultural areas of
Nevada was of a long-standing nature.  Impetus for the development of the
pesticide container disposal sites was gained about 1970 when several
illegal dumps were discovered (mostly in Middle Reese, Lander County) on
lands belonging to the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).  This, coupled
with several incidents in which area residents (a child in one case) were
poisoned with residual pesticides in the containers, brought attention to
the need for safe disposal of the containers.  Several area ranchers re-
quested assistance from the Cooperative Extension Service of the Univer-
sity of Nevada in Reno for development of an environmentally acceptable
means for disposal of pesticide containers.  At about the same time, and
in response to the recognition of this same need, the 1971 Nevada
legislature enacted a law which delegated responsibility to the State
Department of Agriculture for the safe disposal of pesticides and
pesticide containers.

                                                                   TABLE 2
Site Area, ha
m (ft) 1
x w x d Sump Description
No. of Par-
ties Served
Distance to
Nearest Res-
dence, km (mi)
     Lovelock    .            4(10)
     (Pershing County).
     Fallen                  2  (5)
     (Churchill  County)

     Orovada                 2  (5)
     (Huratoldt County)
    Middle Reese             2  (5)
    (Lander County)
61 x 6 x 3 (200 x 20 x  10)
61 x 6 x 3 (200 x 20 x  10)
61 x 6 x 3 (200 x 20 x 10)
30 x 3 x 3 (100 x 10 x  10)
 Two 208-liter (55-gal)  drums placed          100          8 (5)
   at a  depth of 7.6 m (25  ft),
   covered with a metal  lid.

 3 x 3 x 4.6 m (10 x 10  x 15 ft) deep         200          13 (8)
   open  pit, covered with a metal lid.

 2.4 x 1.8 x 4.6 m (8 x  6 x 15 ft)         150 to 200      23 (14)
   deep  open pit built-up with sand,
   covered with a metal  lid.

Same as  for Orovada                           30          5.6 (3.5)

                        Figure  2.   Lovelock  Disposal  Site

(a)   The sump in the uncovered  position and  the disposal  pit in the background.
(b)   The sump in the covered position and the general  background tonography.
(c)   Storage shed.
(d)   Inside the storage shed, showing the can crusher and the storage  tank.


      Responding to the farmers/ranchers' request for assistance, Dr. Harry
Smith of the University of Nevada, who had prior experience with the
disposal of pesticide wastes in, Oregon, conducted a general survey of the
Reno  area and other parts of Nevada and suggested a total of 10 sites
located throughout the State which could be used for the disposal of pes-
ticide containers.  Four of the sites suggested are those which are
currently in operation.  (The other six sites were never constructed be-
cause of a lack of funds.)  These sites were designed by Dr. Smith, who
also solicited assistance and received commitments from a number of State
and Federal agencies on matters related to land acquisition, funding,
disposal site operation and environmental monitoring.  The agencies in-
volved in the development and operation of the sites and their responsi-
bilities are listed in Table 3.
     In acquiring land for the Orovada and Middle Reese sites, there was
some reluctance on the part of the BLM to grant the use permits primarily
due to possible adverse environmental  impacts of the disposal  operation.
Dr. Smith had to emphasize that, compared to other possible sites, these
two sites were most favorably located from the standpoint of environmental
considerations.  BLM agreed to grant the use permits provided that ade-
quate measures would be taken to protect the environment and the
resources.  The current permits for these two sites will expire in 1976-
Sources, Nature. Quantity, and Handling of Pesticide Wastes -  The four
sites serve 16 to 18 crop growing regions in Nevada.  The major crops are,
in order of decreasing production quantities, alfalfa seed and forage,
potatoes, onions, and garlic.  As was  indicated above, each site is open
only for a total of six to seven days  per year.  Most of the wastes are
received during May to June (beginning of the growing season).   Smaller
quantities of wastes are brought to the site during July to August
(mid-season) and in autumn (the end of the growing season).  Wastes re-
ceived in autumn are primarily herbicide (2,4-D)  containers.  Pesticide
containers are brought to the site by  individual  farmers/ranchers and
crop dusters.   All containers are supposed to be  empty and rinsed before
being taken to the site1.


                                 TABLE 3
Cooperative Extension Service,
  University of Nevada
State Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Environmental Health
Agricultural Stabl11zatlon and
  Conservation Service (ASCS)
Soil Conservation Service
Bureau of Land Management

County Commissioners
Consults operators of the site and
  periodically monitors the sites for

Makes regulations for the sites and
  enforces them.

Inspects site for possible contamination
  of air, soil and water.

Through the Rural Environmental
  Assistance Program, assumed 80 percent
  of construction costs and crushing
  equipment for the four existing sites.

Determined need and practicability of
  the site prior to construction;
  after construction, determines the
  extent of fulfillment of site

Assumed portion of the cost not covered
  by ASCS.  Available growers associa-
  tions also assume responsibility for
  site operations.

Provides property on special land use
  permits to the county.

Apply for 1.2 to 2.0 ha (3 to 5 acres)
  of BLM land under special land use
  permits.  Grade the road to the sites
  and maintain same.  Periodically
  bulldoze  earth over pesticide
  containers in each pit when not
  available elsewhere.

     Pesticides most widely used in the region fall into five chemical
classes . These classes and the specific pesticides which are most
frequently used are listed in Table 4.  By far the major pesticides used
are organophosphorous compounds, carbamates, and dinitro compounds.
     The pesticide containers handled at the site consist mainly of 208-
liter  (55-gal) and 114-liter (30-gal) drums, glass containers, and card-
board  boxes.  No accurate quantitative records have1 been kept of the
material deposited at each site.  However, according to Dr. Smith, on the
average each site user generates three to four 208-liter (55-gal) con-
tainers each year.  For the approximately 480 to 530 parties which use
the four sites, the total number of 208-liter (55-gal) drums brought to
the sites each year would be in the 1,400 to 2,200 range.  According to a
State  Department of Agriculture agent, since 1972 a total of about 1,500
208-liter (55-gal) drums have been accepted at the Lovelock site.
     Pesticide containers brought to the site are first dumped at the edge
of the pit near the sump.  If a container is not completely empty, it is
"drained" into the sump and is rinsed with water before crushing.  The
rinse water is also added to the sump .  The waste material dumped in the
sump is neutralized/detoxified by addition of sodium bicarbonate (for
organophosphorous pesticides) and sulfuric acid (for chlorinated
pesticides).  There is no chemical  testing (e.g., pH measurement) during
neutralization/detoxification procedures.   The crushers used are old log
crushers which have been modified to crush containers.  Depending on the
unit, one or several  containers can be crushed simultaneously.  The
crushed containers are then manually deposited in the disposal pit.  After
the site closes, a bulldozer is brought to the site by the site operator
and the waste is covered with 46 to 61  cm (18 to 24 in.) of soil removed
from a mound of dirt adjacent to the pit.   (The cover dirt is the material
originally excavated from the pit.)  A bulldozer from the County dump is
used at Fall on and Lovelock sites.   The bulldozers used at Orovada and
Middle Reese  belong to the local  farmers.
Sources of Funds and Cost Data - Construction costs of the four pesticide
container dump sites  were borne by  the  USDA Agricultural Stabilization and

                               TABLE 4
Chemical Class of Pesticide
         Specific Members of
         Each Pesticide Class
Organophosphorous Compounds      Parathion,  Guthion,  Co-Ral,  Diazinon,
SEVIN, Zectran, Mobam, TEMIK, Dimeton,
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Aldrin, Dieldrin, Heptachlor, Mirex,
  Strobane-T, Lindane, Toxaphene,
Inorganic Compounds
Calcium Arsenate, Lead Arsenate, Calcium
  Hydrogen Arsenate, Arsenic Pentoxide
Sabadilla, Rotenone, Pyrethrlns

Conservation Service (ASCS) and by potential site users, i.e., area
farmers, ranchers, and crop dusters .  The actual costs were $5,800 for the
Lovelock site, $7,500 each for the Orovada and Middle Reese sites, and
$5,800 to $6,000 for the Fallon site.  These costs include the following
i terns:
     •  Excavation of the pit and sump and initial back filling of the
        sump with sand.
     t  Fencing and gate to protect the pit, sump and related facilities.
     0  Water storage facilities to provide water for flushing accidental
        chemical spills from operators and equipment.
     •  Equipment to crush containers and render them useless.
     Under the Rural Environmental Assistance Program, the ASCS provided
80 percent of the cost of site construction.  The remaining 20 percent of
the costs were assumed by the site users.  ASCS local representatives
conducted a survey of the area farmers/growers to determine potential site
users and to enlist their commitment for financing the project.  Each
user was assessed a certain portion of the total users costs, calculated
by dividing the amount by the total number of potential site users.  The
maximum amount assessed to any one user was $30.  The users contributions
were then collected by the ASCS local  representatives.
     The annual operating cost is estimated at close to $300 per site and
includes labor fees charged by the site operators, cost of fuel for can
crushers, and costs for maintenance of the equipment and site.  To date
the operating costs have been paid for from the excess funds which were
originally collected for the construction of each site.  When the excess
funds are depleted a system of users charge will be adopted to cover the
operating costs.  A user charge system currently under consideration for
the Orovada site includes charges of $0.50 for 208-liter (55-gal) drums,
$0.35 for 114-liter (30-gal) or smaller drums, and $0.15 for glass
containers.   It is expected that collection of users fees may have to be
started sometime in 1976 at the Orovada site and in the next few years at
the Lovelock and Fallen sites.   Because of the smaller load which is
handled at the Middle Reese site and a lower operating cost, it is not


anticipated that the collection of users fee will be necessary at this
site 1n the near future.
     As was indicated above, a total of 10 disposal sites had been orig-
inally proposed for the State of Nevada.  Six of the sites have not been
constructed primarily because the Rural Environmental Assistance Program
which covered 80 percent of the costs of the four existing sites is no
longer available for cost sharing.  A new system whereby the construction
costs will be shared jointly and on an equal basis by the users and the
Individual counties is currently under review.  Four of the planned sites
are located in the vicinity of Mason Valley, Las Vegas, Ely, and Elko.
Social Problems and Their Mitigations - Since local farmers and ranchers
Were Instrumental in establishing the disposal sites, there has been no
local opposition to the construction and/or operation of the sites.  Even
today, the actual operation and maintenance of the sites is the respon-
sibility of indivdual ranchers, growers and farmers cooperative associ-
ations in the area.
     The operation of the sites, however, has not been totally trouble-
free.  A number of problems which have been encountered stem from lack of
public responsibility and social awareness on the part of the very small
fraction of the site users and community residents.  These problems, how-
ever, are very minor and are being overcome through a program of public
education involving posting of the disposal site regulations in community
bulletin boards and making regular announcements in the local papers and
radio and television stations on the schedules for the operation of the
sites.  A typical Information bulletin which 1s posted in public places
in shown in Table 5.  The minor problems which have been encountered
include the following:
     (1)  In some cases pesticide containers are brought to the site on
          off-business days and are stacked at the gate or thrown over the
          fence into the disposal site.  This presents a hazard to the
          site operator who has to go Into the pit and remove the con-
          tainers.   Stacking of the containers (some containing resld-
          usal pesticides) outside the disposal area presents potential


                                    TABLE  5
   Max C. Melscl.marm CoM. of  Agriculture            PERSHING CO. EXTENSION  SERVICE
   Nevado Counties, University  of Nevada, and         B«x 233, Lovelock NV
   U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Cooperating                              Juno '°»


         Mike Goitaahalk, Chm. of the Lovelock  Valley Weed Control Dietriot  lias
    foruardad to ma the follouing information w'nieh is important to each farmer'a
    paatioide oafety program.


9:00 AM
1:00 PM
• //



      B,   Follow the CONTAINER RINSE and DRAIN PROCEDURE on the enclosed  form.

      Ci   "  you cannot RINSE and DRAIN containers prior to delivery,  after
           unloading at  the pit:

                I.  DRAIN and RINSE Into the sump ai the pit.

                2.  Stack containers away from the sumps so they can be  crushed
                   prior to placing In  the pit.  PLEASE 00 NOT UNLOAD OR THROW
                   CONTAJNERS INTO THE  PIT  III

III,  REMEMBER  —  Empty papers bags  and cartons cannot be burned at  the pit.
                     They must be covered In the pit.  Your help Is requested
                     when delivering paper containers by: —
                        1.  PLACING THEM IN THE PIT.
                            BLOWN against the fence by winds.

 IV,  THESE PROCEDURES will save us all  time, Inbor, operation costs, chemicals,
      chemical  costs and reduce pesticide hazards to us all.
                                     Tow Ayres
                                     County. Extension Agent -  In Charge
      Til* prtfifftl ill fh« N««odo Ceu»«•• <: irt r.- ql! witli4.ii- •oguirf *n >oc«. re'o> O' notiu*ol Or

                   UNIVCISIir Ot Nfv»t» » UHill DSIAUS in "-'' .MM of MJI'tl'littl COOK «M INC,

          for the spread of contaminants and is a health and safety
          hazard to youngsters who might play in the area and use the
          containers as play objects.
     (2)  On occasions, the aluminum framed storage sheds which are used
          to house the safety shower and equipment, have been used by
          some teenagers for target practice.
     (3)  Although site users are advised to empty and rinse their cans
          before bringing them to the disposal  sites, in many cases the
          cans are not rinsed and contain residual pesticide.
Environmental Considerations - The sites were selected to provide minimal
adverse environmental impacts, particularly with regard to the possibility
of groundwater contamination.  Initially, a variety of alternate sites,
both on private and public land, were considered and the most suitable
sites were chosen based on soil characteristics and location of the water
table.  The distance to the groundwater at the  four operating sites is
between 61 to 76 m (200 to 250 ft).  The subsurface soil is generally
granite or silica-based and relatively impervious to infiltration.  The
sites are located on the brows of hills so that runoff from adjacent land
will not run through the sites.  At the Lovelock site a 61-cm (24-in.)
bank of soil has also been erected along the north side of the site to
divert runoff.
     The University of Nevada Cooperative Extension Service conducts peri-
odic monitoring of groundwater, soil, wildlife, air, and vegetation in the
surrounding area.  The sampling and analysis are usually conducted three
times per year and after unusually heavy rains.  The sampling program
includes the following:
     (1)  Water samples from wells and streams  downstream of the sites .
     .(2)  Soil  and vegetation samples taken at  locations about 15 m
          (50 ft) outside of site fences; the samples are analyzed by
          gas chromatography having parts per billion sensitivity for
     (3)  Air samples taken downwind of the sites.


      (4)  Wildlife  (lizards, rats, etc.) samples are caught, sacrificed,
          and vital organs are analyzed for pesticide residues.
      The sumps used for container draining and rinsing are designed and
operated in a manner which minimizes environmental contamination (see
Table 2 for the description of the sumps).  When not in use, the sumps
are covered with metal lids to make them Inaccessible to the wildlife
(see  Figure 2).
Anticipated Site Life/Future Use - As indicated in Table 2 the total land
area  available at each site for waste disposal is between 2 and 4 ha (5
and 10 acres).  Currently, only a portion of the available land is fenced
off for waste disposal.  The actual area of the disposal pits are only
0.37  ha (0.92 acre) each at Lovelock, Fallen, and Orovada sites, and
0.09  ha (0.23 acre) at the Middle Reese site.  When the existing pits be-
come  full, additional pits will be excavated to allow the operation to
continue.  Based on the total land available for pit excavation and the
expected waste volumes, each site is expected to have sufficient capacity
for about 10 more years of service.
      The sites were specifically selected with the intent that the land
will  never be reclaimed for reuse.  Accordingly, there are no plans for
future use of the site areas.
Miscellaneous - Currently, there is a great need in Nevada for opening
additional sites for the disposal of pesticide containers.  In addition
to the four sites currently in use, the only other site in Nevada which
accepts pesticides is the Nuclear Engineering Site in Beatty which is
located at the far southern border of the State.  The operators of the
four  Nevada sites and the agencies involved have received numerous re-
quests from growers in other parts of Nevada and in border areas in adja-
cent states for permission to dispose of their pesticide containers.  In
one instance a party in California was willing to pay $1 .00 for the dis-
posal  of each pesticide container .  To date, however, no out-of-state
wastes have been accepted at the sites.

                             CASE STUDY NO. 3
              Simi Sanitary Landfill, Simi Valley. California

Site Location - Simi Valley (Ventura County), California address:  1011
Los Angeles Avenue, Simi Valley, California.  Figure 3 is a vicinity map
for the disposal site.
Operating Agency - Ventura Regional County Sanitation District (VRCSD),
181 South Ash Street, P.O. Box AB, Ventura, California* 93003.
History and Background - Simi Sanitary landfill is a 90.3-ha (223-acre)
site of which 32 ha (80 acres)is used as a California Class I site*for the
disposal of hazardous wastes (pesticides, sewage sludge, animal carcasses,
and chemical wastes).  Within the Class I section of the site,  there are
signs indicating the specific areas which have been set aside for the
separate disposal of pesticides, sewage sludge, etc.  The site is located
in a relatively isolated area and meets all California requirements for
Class I sites.  It operates under a permit from the Regional Mater Quality
Control Board and is subject to all the rules and regulations of the County
Environmental Resources Agency.  Large metal cans and objects are manually
removed from the regular refuse during the disposal operation and trans-
ferred to large storage carts for subsequent shipment to recycling yards.
     The Simi site went into operation in 1970 as a county site, replacing
the old Tierra Rejada site which had become full.  On July 1, 1972, the
operation of the site was taken over by Ventura Regional County Sanitation
District (VRCSD) which was created as a result of the decision by the County
Board of Supervisors to consolidate all solid and liquid waste management
activities within the county and to provide for a more effective operation.
Member agencies which are listed in Table 6 consist of Ventura County and
nine cities and fourteen districts within the county.
     The VRCSD organization consists of a Civil Engineering Unit and a
Sanitary Engineering Unit which are responsible, respectively, for solid
  See Appendix B for a description of California disposal  site classification.

                                                   TOLAND RD

                                              ANTA PAULA
                            Figure 3.   Vicinity Map for the Simi Valley Sanitary Landfill

                                 TABLE  6
                        MEMBER AGENCIES IN  VRCSD
Special Districts
Ventura       Camarillo
              Port  Hueneme
              San Buenaventura
              Santa Paula
              S1m1  Valley
              Thousand Oaks
                  Camarlllo Sanitary
                  Camrosa County Water
                  Channel Islands County Water
                  Meiners Oaks Sanitary
                  Montalvo Municipal Improvement
                  Moorpark County Sanitation
                  Oak View Sanitary
                  Satlcoy Sanitary
                  Sim1  Valley County Sanitation
                  South Coast County Sanitation
                  South Coast County Sewer Maintenance
                  Triunfo County Sanitation
                  Ventura Avenue Sanitary
                  Ventura County Waterworks Districts
                  Nos.  1,8 and 16

waste management and liquid waste management.  VRCSD currently operates
three sanitary landfills (including the site in Simi Valley), and two anti-
litter stations (for collection of large municipal and agricultural  waste
items that trash collectors cannot carry away).  The Simi site is the only
sanitary landfill  which accepts pesticide wastes.  VRCSD provides no waste
collection or hauling service to the users of the Simi site.
Factors/Agencies Contributing to the Establishment of the Site - Ventura
County is one of the major agricultural counties in California and ranks
first in the production of a number of specific crops.  The use of large
quantities of pesticides in the county also results in the production of
significant quantities of pesticide wastes.  The pesticide disposal
operation in Simi  sanitary landfill was established primarily to serve
the need of the agricultural industry in the county.  The operation  provides
for safe disposal  of pesticide wastes in an environmentally acceptable
manner.  As was mentioned above, the site was originally established by the
County of Ventura  and was taken over by VRCSD in 1972.
Sources, Nature. Quantity and Handling of Pesticide Wastes - Pesticide wastes
handled at the site are primarily empty pesticide containers which are
required to be triple-rinsed before being brought to the site.   The
containers received at the site however, are not always tripe-rinsed.   Most
of the pesticide containers are from within Ventura County with some origi-
nating in neighboring counties (primarily Los Angeles and Santa Barbara).
On the average, the Stint site as a whole handles 363 t/day (400 tons/day)
of solid wastes.  Empty pesticide containers account for only a small
fraction of the total waste.  Based on past records, approximately 64 t
(70 tons) of empty pesticide containers are handled at the site each year.
However, a significant increase in the quantity of pesticide containers is
expected as a result of changes which have been instituted to encourage a
greater use of the site by the pesticide waste generators (see discussion
below under "Social Problems and Their Mitigations".)
     In general the area method of sanitary landfill ing is used for  the
disposal of empty pesticide containers.  The containers are crushed  and
compacted as the bulldozer .makes passes over the deposited waste. Highly

hazardous pesticides are usually buried In drums.  Pesticide containers
and wastes which are burled received 15 to 61 cm (6 to 24 in.) of Immedi-
ate dirt cover.
Sources of Funds and Cost Data - The land at Simi site 1s leased from
Morel and Investment Company which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Union
Oil Company.  A portion of the leased parcel is on  Union Oil Company
property and the remainder is owned by Morel and Investment Company.  The
lease 1s for $20,000/year and will expire in December 31, 1987, or when
the site is filled, whichever comes first.
     The total cost for establishing the site (site preparation, road
construction, etc.) was $397,000 (1970 dollars).  When VRCSD took over the
operation of this and two other county  landfills in 1972, $34,000 was
transferred to the county for purchase of equipment used at the three sites.
The current operating cost at the Simi site is approximately $3.30/t ($3.00/
ton) of waste handled.  About one-third of the operating cost 1s paid for
through the tax base and the other two-thirds through the gate fee charged
to the users *
     Since July 1, 1975, when new regulations went into effect (see dis-
cussion below under "Social Problems and Their Mitigations") the fees for
the disposal of pesticides and pesticide containers have been as follows.
Empty pesticide bags and containers, except those "of extremely toxic and
water reactive chemicals" are considered "low risk" agricultural wastes
and are charged at the regular refuse rate of $2.42/t ($2.20/ton).  Before
this material can be brought to the site, the hauler must complete an "Empty
Container Disposal Permit", which, when validated,  allows the hauler a
"blanket" usage for a period of one calendar year.   A $10 annual fee 1s
charged for review and administration.  Fu.ll and partially full containers
and bags and empty containers of "extremely toxic and water reactive"
pesticides are considered as "industrial" hazardous waste and are charged
a disposal fee of $8.47/t ($7.70/ton) and a State fee of $0.66/t or $0.60/
ton ($1.00 minimum).   Application for the disposal  of hazardous wastes,
along with $25 processing fee should be submitted to the VRCSD office at
least 3 days prior to anticipated disposal date.  (See Appendix D for
detailed requirements for the disposal of hazardous wastes.)

     Prior to July 1, 1975, empty pesticide containers were considered
 "industrial" hazardous waste and were charged a disposal fee of $8.47/t
 ($7.70/ton) plus the State fee of $0.66/t or $0.60/ton ($1.00 minimum).
 Under California regulations, rinsed pesticide containers can be legally
 disposed of in Class II-l disposal sites which are suitable for "low risk"
 wastes.  Accordingly, the lowering of the gate fee for empty pesticide
 containers from $8.47/t ($7.70/ton) to $2,42/t ($2.20/ton) could be
 justified and was initiated to encourage the use of the site for such
 purpose (see also discussion below under "Social Problems and Their
 Mitigations").  According to VRCSD, the current fee schedule is probably
 insufficient to pay for the actual expenses incurred in the disposal of
 pesticide containers.  However, the benefit derived .from the increased use
 of the site by the agricultural industry in the county is considered to
 outweigh the monetary loss.
     The $20,000/year current lease fee is considered by Morel and Investment
 Company to be significantly below the going market value for a similar
 parcel of land in the area.  Accordingly, the lease fee would most likely
 be increased, if a new lease has to be negotiated to permit site expansion
 and remove certain restrictions in the existing lease agreement (see dis-
 cussion below under "Anticipated Site Life/Future Use").
 Social Problems and Their Mitigations - The Simi site is located in a
 relatively isolated area and there are currently no residential developments
within the immediate proximity of the site.  Accordingly, there has not been
 any public opposition to the establishment and operation of the site.  This
 is in contrast to significant public opposition encountered when Toland
 sanitary landfill (also in Ventura County) was being established.  In recent
years public opposition has resulted in the cancellation of two plans to
establish a second Class I disposal  site in Ventura County.
     Prior to July 1, 1975, empty pesticide containers were considered
 industrial hazardous waste and were accepted at the site only on Wednesdays.
The disposal fee was also $8.47/t ($7.70/ton)  plus a $0.66/t ($0.60/ton)
State fee.  Furthermore, as for all  hazardous  waste which are destined for
disposal in Class I sites, the California Waste Hauler Record had to be
completed for each load by the hauler and the  producer.  Some waste generators


and haulers considered these requirements to be unduly rigid and, accord-
ingly, took their wastes to disposal sites in adjacent counties where they
could get a more "favorable treatment".  To encourage waste generators and
haulers to use the Simi site, VRCSD contacted the major waste generators
1n the county and arranged for a meeting (held on June 9, 1975) 1n which
VRCSD explained the reasons for operating the Simi Class I disposal site
and  solicited suggestions for improving service to the agricultural
community within the county.  As a result of this meeting, new regulations
were drawn which went Into effect on July 1, 1975.  Under new regulations,
(a) empty pesticide containers can be hauled to the site throughout the
week during the business hours, (i.e., Monday through Friday, 7:00 AM to
4:30 PM), (b) for a $10 annual processing fee and submission of an "Empty
Container Disposal Permit", the hauler can obtain a "blanket permit" for
the use of the site during an entire year, and (c) the gate fee 1s reduced
to the regular refuse rate of $2.42/t ($2.20/ton).  A blank copy of the
"Empty Container Disposal Permit", and the current procedures and require-
ments for the disposal of Industrial hazardous wastes (which Include full
and partially full pesticide bags and containers and empty containers of
extremely toxic and reactive chemicals) are included in Appendix D.
     Since the new regulations went into effect, there has been a noticeable
increase in the quantity of pesticide containers hauled to the site.
Environmental Considerations - The Simi site 1s located in a semi-arid area.
Soil boring tests made to a depth of 274 m (900 ft) have not indicated the
presence of any groundwater.  There are a total of five observation wells
(12 to 18 m or 40 to 60 ft in depth) on and 1n the immediate vicinity of the
site.  These observation wells are Inspected on a monthly basis: no
leachate formation has been observed at any of the observation wells.  Run-
off from the site 1s collected and contained within the site.  Because of
the very dry climate, and the carefully controlled nature of the operation,
there has been no problems with rats, flies, or odor.  There have been no
explosions, fires, or personnel injuries at the site.  Several safety
showers are available at the site.

Anticipated Site Life/Future Use - The Class I disposal  section of the S1m1
site has a capacity for approximately 8 more years of operation.  The
remainder of the site where regular refuse 1s disposed of will  reach Its
full capacity in approximately 9 years.  The lease on the site  is for 18
years (I.e., to end by December 31, 1987) or until the site is  filled,
whichever comes first.  Several plans are currently being investigated to
extend the life of the site.  These include: (a) renegotiating  the conditions
of the lease or purchase of the land so that current restrictions which
prohibit removal of certain hills to expand capacity can be removed; and
(b) purchase or lease of an adjacent land to increase site capacity.  If  a
suitable site for landfill  can be located in another section of the county,
the Simi site may be abandoned when it becomes full.
     Neither Union Oil Company nor Moreland Investment Company  has formulated
a definitive plan for future use of the site after it becomes full.   Since
Moreland Investment Company is involved in land development and Union Oil
Company in oil exploration  in the area, the two companies'  plans for future
use of the site may not-necessarily coincide.  Several  plans which are under
consideration include: (a)  sale of the property to the City of  Simi  Valley
for the purpose of developing a public park; (b) landscaping and development
of a green open space to be surrounded by residential/commercial  developments;
and (c) construction of a golf course.

                           CASE STUDY NO. 4
            Wes-Con, Inc., Titan Site, Owyhee County, Idaho

Site Location - Owyhee County, Idaho, approximately 16 km (10 mi) north-
west of Grand View, Idaho, and 63 km (39 mi) south of Mountain Home,
Idaho.  The site was formerly known as "Titan 'I' Missile S-2 Mountain
Home A1r Force Base D-Ida-468A".  Figure 4 is the general vicinity map
for the disposal site.
Operating Agency - West-Con, Inc., 409 Shoshone So., P.  0. Box 564, Twin
Falls, Idaho 83301; telephone:  (208) 734-7711.  Wes-Con is an Idaho
Corporation, composed of the following three major stockholders:  (1)
Gene Pinebold, Twin Falls, former staff member University of Idaho,
Manager Agricultural Chemicals, Van Waters & Rogers, Chief Agronomist for
Pure Oil Company; (2) Warren Shillington, Twin Falls, owner-manager of
Chemical Supply Co., Inc. Involving Chemical Sales and Specialized
Chemical Application; and (3) Roger Ling, Rupert, Attorney at Law.
History and Background - In 1973, at a discussion meeting at the Univer-
sity of Idaho on control of hazardous waste spills, Mr.  Gene Rinebold,
then a potato specialist on the University staff, asked  a question as to
how and where wastes from spill clean-up operation would be disposed of
in Idaho in the event of a major accident in the State involving a truck
or railroad car transporting  harzardous chemicals.  Further exploration
of the topic clearly indicated a need for a facility (or facilities) 1n
the State where hazardous wastes from all sources (industrial and
agricultural) could be contained or safely destroyed.
     Because of his military service experience and familiarity with
missile sites construction, Mr. Rinebold thought that perhaps deactivated
missile sites could be used for containment of hazardous chemicals.   Being
aware of the Titan missile sites in Idaho which had been deactivated by
the Air Force, Mr. Rinebold began inquiring whether any  of the sites
were for sale.  Since a site near Grand View was for sale, this site was

                                           Reproduced from
                                           best available copy
                                   TITAN SITE
  /-5 MILES

                                        MT. HOME
                                      AIR FORCE BASE
                          Figure 4. Vicinity Map for the Wes-Con Site

purchased and Wes-Con, Inc., formally went Into operation on
November 9, 1973, as a hazardous waste management company.
     The primary working area at the Wes-Con site consists of a 7-ha (17-
acre) former missile launching complex secured by 1,615 lineal m (5,300 ft)
of 2-m (7-ft) fencing plus three top strands of barbed wire.  This
working area is within a 40.5-ha (100-acre) "buffer" area of fee simple
ownership.  The structures are underground and consist of a series of
silos and vaults designed to withstand a ground zero atomic blast (and
still remain functional), and capable of containing an internal explosion
and fire in the event of accidental ignition of the missile propellant
fluid (liquid oxygen).  The walls and floors are of concrete which 1s re-
inforced with 1.9 cm (3/4 in.) of steel and treated with asphalt emulsion
on the outside to withstand complete water immersion and/or containment.
The silos are approximately 49 m (160 ft) deep with 1.8-ra (6-ft) thick
walls and 4-m (13"ft) thick floors.  Some photographs of the Wes-Con fa-
cility are shown 1n Figure 5.
     The operation at Wes-Con 1s fairly new and very little of the total
site capacity has been utilized to date (see discussion below under
"Anticipated Site Life/Future Use").  Most of the activities to date have
been related to site preparation; salvage operations involving removal  of
certain metallic structures (ladder, frames, valves, fitting, etc.) are
still continuing.  The tunnel entrances and exits  to some of the silos
are being permanently sealed off so that each silo can be operated inde-
pendently and for the disposal of a specific class of wastes.  The vaults
will be used as temporary storage facilities, work areas, or warehouses.
The site 1s currently operated intermittently, depending on business
volume.  There is a resident attendant at the site and 24-hour surveil-
lance of the site is provided.  The site is operated under a license from
the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Environmental Services
Factors/Agencies Contributing to the Establishment of the Site - As was
indicated above, the use of abandoned missile sites for the disposal of
hazardous  wastes was conceived by Mr. Gene Rinebold and Wes-Con was

           Main Gate
Toxic Material Being Lowered Into Vault
                                                           Encapsulation  Covers in Seal Position
                                                            Encapsulation Covers in Open Position
                                                            (100 t or 110 tons each)
                  Figure 5.   Some Photographs  of the  Wes-Con  Disposal  Facility

formed primarily to protect Idaho's environment by developing a safe
storage and disposal facility for toxic chemicals and used pesticide
Sources, Nature, Quantity, and Handling of Pesticide Wastes - Wes-Cori has
been approved by the State of Idaho as a pesticide disposal site and the
quantity of pesticides received accounts for about 95 percent of the total
wastes handled.  The other five percent of the wastes are miscellaneous
hazardous wastes, including PCB, laboratory wastes, electroplating
sludges, etc.  Almost all kinds of hazardous wastes are accepted, excfep't
radioactive materials, military poison gas and pressurized gas.  Through
agreements with major power companies and the Bonneville Power Adminis-
tration, Wes-Con is currently handling most of the PCB generated within
EPA Region X.
     The pesticide wastes are primarily pesticide manufacturing process
wastes from the Chipman Rhodia plant in Portland, Oregon, and from the
Shell Chemical Company plant in Denver, Colorado.  (Pesticide containers
generated by farmers in Idaho are usually taken to local sanitary land-
fills.)  Non-pesticide wastes originate from within Idaho, other states
(mostly neighboring states), and Canada. Most of this business 1s with the
Federal Government.  A summary of the total monthly quantity of waste
handled is presented in Table 7 for the period of August 1974 through
August 1975.  It is-pnly since December 1974  that the volume of the
waste has been substantial.
     The Wes-Con site has been approved by the State as a pesticide waste
disposal facility and has a "blanket" permit for accepting pesticide
wastes.  Disposal of hazardous wastes other than pesticides, however,
requires specific State approval which is granted on a case-by-case basis.
As a matter of policy, however, Wes-Con keeps a record of all pesticide
and non-pesticide wastes which it handles and the records would be avail-
able to the State for review upon request.  A copy of the "Certificate of
Disposal" which is issued to the waste haulers/clients is shown as
Figure 6.

                      TABLE 7
Waste Quantity
  t (tons)
    40 (44)
    20 (22)
    38 (42)
    20 (22)
    95 (105)
    81  (89)
    60  (66)
   133  (1.47)
   398. (439)
   528  (582)
   558  (615)
   274  (302)
   157  (173)

                       laws of the state^of Idaho) does hereby certify  that the  waste material of
                                      ••.••v,. 'A.-.',.  .VSAV   •, V-y>>-,.'^ . • .^.^L- >*£><.._*.,•;_. i~fc.u<~J*i.ati££ik..jfc jii- ,^;**r !
        t» t^
County, IdahO) which.
purposes by the Department
.1   ys§»  •   * » »~» f.  _. . *  . • • -*
                                                                            » uvN»,»              "
                                                                             ij  located, vn Owyhet
                       I/MJ otut-e 07 ivwuw amu,Tvnwn-cvmpiyivnt:ri\au,7-utv8 wnu, -rvynwkvivnB ooo]
                       6y the Environmental Prot^tton/^M^ /^etwh/ttciKHcs.  v? • ^   : _
                                                                           "ssst"- •
                                Figure  6.  Certificate  of Disposal  Issued for Wastes
                                            Accepted  at  the Wes-Con  Site

     Wes-Con does not own or operate its own waste hauling trucks.  Under
 agreements with Chipman Rhodia and Shell (two of Wes-Con's major clients)»
 however, hauling of the wastes from these clients is Wes-Con's
 responsibility.  Wes-Con hires commercial waste haulers for hauling in
 wastes  from these two companies.  Only licensed commercial waste haulers
 are admitted to the disposal site.  Currently, Wes-Con does not have on-
 site laboratory facilities for waste analysis and the customers are re-
 quired  to identify the content of their shipment.  In most cases, major
 waste producers send a technical representative along with the waste
 shipment to assure that the waste load reaches its intended destination
 and that the waste is disposed of properly.  The customers are usually
 consulted and their recommendations on proper waste handling methods and
 pretreatment (if any) procedures are solicited.  Wastes received at the
 site are disposed of immediately.  The disposal consists of unloading the
 wastes  into one of the silos by Wes-Con employees.  The carriers usually
 pull to within  12 m  (40 ft) of the silo and unload into the silo via a
 steel roller ramp which is set at an inclined angle.  A cable or a grasp
 hook is used to pull  the load off the carrier and onto the inclined ramp.
 The cable is pulled by a truck or tractor located on the opposite side of
 the disposal opening and in line with the carrier bed.  Unloading by hand
 is generally discouraged.  In certain cases, waste containers are lowered
 into the silo by a crane.  During the unloading, the workers are required
 to wear complete rubber outfits, hard hats and face shields.  Oftentimes,
 a disposable paper cover-all is worn underneath the rubber suit to
 absorb moisture and keep the body comfortable.
     Bentonite clay hauled from a nearby hill on Bureau of Land Management
 property is added to  the silo prior, during, or after waste unloading.   The
 purpose of the clay addition is threefold:   (a) to suppress odor, (b)  to
 make a "mud mix" from the liquid waste; and (c) to absorb the free-fall
 impact of the loads.   Water is also added during the disposal operation to
 suppress dust, to obtain a mud of proper consistency, arid to reduce the
 possibility of spark  formation and hence explosion and fire.  Water is
 sprayed into the hole using a fire truck or a battery-operated pump which
 are available at the  site.   The quantities  of clay and water used vary
with the nature and quantity of the waste and with the season.  In


 general, for the same waste about twice as much clay is used in the
 winter than in the summer.  In the winter time the air within the silo 1s
 warmer than the outside air and tends to rise to the surface, and hence
 there 1s a greater need for odor control.  Wes-Con is currently experi-
 menting with two deodorizing chemicals; if a suitable product can be
 found, the quantity of clay used can be significantly reduced.  There 1s
 a 914-m (3,000-ft) deep well at the site.  Some water from this source
 has been used in the disposal operation.  Wes-Con, however, plans to seal
 off this well and hauls 1n water from the outside (because of its poor
 quality, the well water is unsuitable for domestic use).  The fire truck
 at the site can also generate foam for use in case of fires.  Lime 1s
 usually added to the silo on an "as needed basis" to effect neutraliza-
 tion/detoxification of certain pesticide wastes.  Vehicles used to trans-
 port the material to the site are inspected for contamination prior to
 release.  Chemicals, equipment, and procedures are available at the site
 for decontamination in case of spills, or container leakage.
 Sources of Funds and Cost Data - The Wes-Con property was purchased 1n
 1973 from a private party for $25,000.  An additional $30,000 has been
 spent for site preparation, and purchase of equipment (including safety
 equipment such as gas masks, and respirators).  Users charges for the
 site are usually negotiated on a case-by-case basis.  Except for empty
 pesticide containers which are charged on a different rate schedule, the
 users fee on the average is between $0.0061 to $0.0077/kg ($0.0028 to
 $0.0035/lb) of waste.  The rates for empty containers are as follows:
 pick-up trucks, $50; 1-ton trucks, $100; 2-ton trucks, $200; and senri-
 loads, $450.
     The current cost for the operation of the site 1s about $4,000/month.
 Up until very recently, the volume of the business was not very substan-
 tial and the company was operating at a net loss.  Now that the operation
 has become profitable, Wes-Con anticipates a growing increase in business
 volume.   In the past many of the potential customers had indicated that
 they prefer to deal with waste disposal companies which are financially
 sound, as a profitable business is a guarantee to them that the company
will stay in business to handle their wastes for at least several years

to come.  Wes-Con is currently accumulating some funds in a reserve
account for dealing with possible emergencies or in the event that future
stringent regulations' require expenditure of additional funds.
     Ues-Con carries a $350,000 liability insurance.  Persons entering
the disposal site are required to sign the form which releases the com-
pany of any liability in case of an accident while on the site.  A copy
of the form which is used is presented as Figure 7.
Social Problems and Their Mitigations - Wes-Con considers itself a good
"citizen" and "neighbor" and makes all attempts to please the local
community, its clients, and the county and State agencies.  As part of
its public relations program, Wes-Con provides a number of specific public
services including the following:
     1.  Free pesticide and container disposal to residents of Owyhee
     2.  Free disposal to approved educational establishments in Idaho.
     3.  Free disposal, under emergency conditions, for material within
         Idaho, including highway wrecks when requested by State or
         Federal agencies.
     4.  Free disposal for material in Idaho (when ownership can't be
         established) that may become hazardous to the environment.
     5.  The ifacilities will be made available to State and Federal
         agencies or institutions for experimental studies, schools,
         and demonstrations for training purposes.
     Although it was not required under any applicable regulations, at
the very beginning, Wes-Con discussed its waste disposal  plan with the
Owyhee County Commissioners and solicited their approval.  Wes-Con has
donated steel stairs, valves, pipes and other material salvaged from the
site to local schools, farmers, and private citizens.   The company has
invited local citizenry and representatives from universities, industry,
and governmental agencies to see the disposal site and its operation.  To
avoid any possible adverse publicity, Wes-Con has intentionally stayed


     I,  the undersigned, being fully aware of the dangers inherent in going
 on and about the property which formally constituted Missile Site Titan "I" S2,
 more particularly described as follows:
                The Uk of the NE$; and E^ of the E^ of the NW^; of
                Section 19, Township 4 South, Range 2 East, B. M.,
                Owyhee County, State of Idaho.
 do herby assume all risk of loss, damage or injury to myself or to my prop-
 erty while I am in, on or about said premises.
     And I do further release Warren Shillington and Gene Rinebold and their
 respective partners and affiliated companies, owners of said premises from any
 and all actions, causes of actions, claims, demands, damages and costs which
 may or might accrue to me by reason of injury to myself or my property
 occasioned by my presence in, on and about the above described real property.

      Dated this.	day of	19
      Figure 7.  Assumption  of Risk and Release From  Liability Form
                 Signed by  Individuals Entering the Wes-Con Site

clear of nuclear wastes and nerve gases, even though the site is consid-
ered to be most suitable for the containment of such wastes.  In reviewing
its operation with non-technical persons, the company emphasizes that its
operation is primarily aimed at protecting Idaho's environment.  The de-
tailed technical aspects of the operation and the fact that a significant
volume of the waste currently handled originates from other states are
only discussed with the individuals familiar with the technical aspects
of hazardous waste management.
     As a result of its effective public relations program, Wes-Con has
not received public opposition or major complaints from local citizenry
(see below for one complaint from a local resident).  The site is located
at a very isolated and barren area and its operation is not "visible" to
the Idaho residents.  In one instance one woman residing about 2.4 km (1.5
mi) from the site had complained that the hazardous chemicals and the odor
associated with their handling may be harmful to the eagles who may be in
the general area.  The woman was invited to tour the facility and see for
herself that birds still live in silos not used for waste disposal.  It
was also explained to her that the wastes are sealed and that the birds
cannot get into the waste.   Before wastes are deposited in operating
silos, firecrackers are set off to drive away any birds which may be in
the silos.   In general, as  soon as Wes-Con learns that somebody in the
community is suspicious of the operation, the company invites him to the
site for .a personal tour and inspection.
     The name "Wes-Con" stands for Western Containment and was selected
to emphasize the positive aspect of the operation.   The company intention-
ally stayed away from such  names as refuse disposal, hazardous waste
disposal and industrial waste disposal, which were considered to be
psychologically less acceptable to the general public than "Wes-Con".
Environmental Considerations - The thick-wall, reinforced concrete
construction of the missile silos are considered to be a strong assurance
against possible contamination of the subsurface soil.  As was indicated
above, in addition to clay, lime is added on an "as needed basis" to
effect waste neutralization and minimize possible chemical attack and
resultant deterioration of  the concrete.  The groundwater table is


 approximately 914 m  (3,000 ft) below the bottom of the silos.  The sub-
 surface soli above the water table contains Impervious strata of clay,
 shale and consolidated cinder beds.  The existing well at the site has
 904 m (2,965 ft) of  0.58-cm (0.229-in.) steel pipe casing.  The water has
 an artesian head and is very hot.  Because of its poor quality, 1t 1s
 unsuitable for drinking, but if its heat content can be economically
 harnessed, it may be a valuable resource.  The area is semi-arid with an
 average annual precipitation of about 25.4 cm (10 in.) per year.
     The vegetation  cover in the general area are June grass, Russian
 thistle, and Salt sage.  There is limited grazing in the general  area
 (about one animal per 6 ha or 14 acre) and the area 1s not suited to row
 crop farming due to  large areas of volcanic ash that will not sustain
 crops of economic value.  The closest source of irrigation water 1s the
 Snake River, located approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) north of the site.  To
 obtain its State permit, Wes-Con prepared an environmental Impact report
 which indicated that because of the unique location and characteristics
 of the site, waste containment in the deactivated silos would have a
 minimal adverse environmental impact.
     At the present  time, environmental quality monitoring at the site
 is limited to measurement of participates which is done by the State
 on a periodic basis.  A portable sampler is brought to the site to
 sample the air from the silos.   As was indicated above, Wes-Con 1s
 currently experimenting with two deodorizing chemicals.  In addition to
 odor control, the use of chemicals can reduce the quantity of clay used
 and hence would extend the life of the site.
 Anticipated Site Life/Future Use - The total capacity of the present
 Wes-Con site is estimated at about 42,000 m3 (1,500,000 ft3).  Due to
         '                                          3           3
 heretofore low volume of business, only about 280 m  (10,000 ft ) of
 disposal volume has been expended to date.   Based on projected future
waste volumes and the plans for use of vaults as warehouses, work areas,
 etc., the anticipated life of the site is estimated at about 10 more
years.   Wes-Con is in the process of purchasing a second Titan missile
 site in Idaho for waste disposal, and has started negotiation on  possible
 purchase of a third site.

     The Wes-Con operation is essentially in its infancy.  The company
would very much like to establish facilities at the site for waste re-
cycling, resource recovery, or disposal by other methods (e.g.* incin-
eration, or biodegradation of certain non-hazardous wastes by surface
disposal).  No specific plans have yet been formulated for future use of
the facility when the silos become full.  The vaults can probably be
used as a commercial warehouse.  Because of the availability of heat and
water from underground (groundwater), the possibility of using the vaults
for growing mushrooms has also been considered.

                             CASE STUDY NO. 5

            Imperial County Pesticide Container Disposal Sites,
      ,                  Imperial County, California

Site Locations - Imperial County, California (see Figure 8).

       Site                        Location
     Calexlco    -   South of Highway 98 west of Calexlco adjacent to the
                     New River
     Holtvllle   -   East of the Intersection of the East Hlghllne Canal
                     and Norrish Road
     Imperial    -   West of Imperial, adjacent to the New River at  '
                     Worthlngton Road
     Niland      -   Northeast of N1land and north of the East Hlghllne
                     Canal adjacent to Cuff Road
     Palo Verde  -   Located southwest of Palo Verde near old Palo Verde
                     Road                                            ;
     Pi cache
East of Picacho Road, north of the All  American
Canal in the Bard-W1nterhaven Area
Operating Agency - County of Imperial Department of Public Works, Court-
house, El Centre, California 92243; telephone (714) 352-2851.
History and Background - Imperial County operates 10 sites for the disposal
of solid wastes generated within the county.  These 10 sites provide for
waste disposal within a 24 km (15 mi)  radius of virtually all permanent
Inhabitants of the county and within 18 km  (11 mi)  of the seven
Incorporated cities of the county.  To serve the need of the agricultural
Industry (see below) and in response to State Water Quality Control Board
regulations on disposal of empty pesticide containers, in March 1971 the
County of Imperial, in cooperation with the Regional  Water Quality Control
Board (Region VII, Indio), set aside a special  area within six of the 10
county disposal sites for the disposal of empty pesticide containers.
These six sites are those listed above under "Site Locations".  The pesti-
cide container disposal areas are fenced and are open only one or two days
per month and upon special requests (see below).  The sites are classified


                                            HOT-MINER*! 3PA  -iff

                                            i	 •.  .  \.  :
i- ; "!- i ,y<> s- • . •  , _
                       ^---^^^SH^H^^'^S^^^jppt-fVi":'l  "::i:;:i-j"|'jz-t:Hj

                       ^ ""  ^^^^^^-^^f^^-^t^^^  -'F'tl1
                       ...... _    ,   ^^|*T^^4;.^tl4-^ fete ::»S4~-4"~i.-^»^?	T";T'

                       T--	:		u£j±^^T>Sf =fv	t"- •   -^"<—*~i
                       	^	,—L.	 . V »-T ,^,,-;.\  /.A...^.rlaM~ ••ai--fi	••              •

                       :  :     is       • -c&44X^-CLaJ&4
•*-.i£44-.iJji< »;•.::j::^L

^£Tl F B:.il-v

                               • SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES

                               • SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL SITES WITH A SECTION

                                 FOR THE DISPOSAL OF PESTICIDE CONTAINERS

                  "••—- -  i/5rT'TTT'TT""f"Prt'    ' •
                  V^L/TV  .   Ui;l' ,  \  \\   .  f*b
                      * "  'N »f   '     '   '   I 9  -u---5
	r - •


                                        \  •    \ •                     '  V  V    • ^; ..
                                                      Figure 8.   County of  Imperial  Solid
                                                                  Waste Disposal Sites

as California Class II sites and are approved for the disposal of empty
pesticide containers.
Factors/Agencies Contributing to the Establishment of the Sites - Major
factors which contributed to the decision by the Board of Supervisors of
the Countyof Imperial to create selected areas within the county's dump
sites for the disposal of empty pesticide containers were: (a) to serve
the waste disposal needs of the agricultural industry in the county; (b)
to prevent environmental contamination and to protect the health and safety
of the county residents; and (c) to comply with California State require-
ments for the disposal of pesticide containers in State-approved landfills.
     The County of Imperial is a major agricultural county in California
and ranks sixth or seventh in the United States in terms of total crop
production.  The total annual value of the crops produced in the county is
estimated at $450,000,000.  Each year approximately 20,250 ha (500,000
acres) of land are cultivated.  Major crops produced include: lettuce,
carrots, cabbage, wheat and small grains, sugar beets and alfalfa.  Each
year the agricultural industry uses large quantities of pesticides and
generates a significant number of empty containers which have to be safely
disposed of in order to avoid widespread environmental contamination.  Prior
to the establishment of the six pesticide disposal sites, empty pesticide
containers were accumulated in temporary storage areas on farms or were
disposed of in scattered locations throughout the county.  Some which were
disposed of in the county landfills along with municipal refuse.presented
potential for fire and explosion and constituted a health hazard to the
site operators.  Some discarded containers were often collected and used
by some individuals for household use.
     Under the California waste disposal site classification system (see
Appendix B) pesticides and unrinsed containers should be deposited in Class
I sites only.   Only rinsed pesticide containers and bags and cartons may be
disposed in Class II-l sites, which are a subclassification of the Class
II sites.

     The six pesticide disposal sites in Imperial County are approved by
the Colorado River Basin Region Water Quality Control Board (Region VII,
Indio, California) for the disposal of rinsed pesticide containers which
have been rendered useless (by puncturing) prior to disposal.   These sites
are generally considered as Class II sites.  Although these sites were
selected based on consideration of subsurface geology and the depth to the
groundwater, the protection of groundwater is not a major concern in
Imperial County, since the groundwater is unusable because of its very high
salt content (in excess of 4,000 parts per million).  A larger number of
possible sites were originally suggested by a committee consisting of the
Director of the County Department of Public Works, the County Agricultural
Commissioner, and the Farm Advisor.  The committee studied a number of
possible locations within the county which could be used for the disposal
of pesticide containers and selected the existing six sites, based on
proximity to major sources of waste generation, environmental  considerations,
and discussions with the Regional Water Quality Control Board.   In the light
of additional data which have become available since the Holtville site was
placed into operation, this site is no longer considered to be located in
the most geologically desirable location and hence will soon be closed and
the operation transferred to a different site.  The Holtville  site is under-
lain by sandy material and the new site will be located on a dense clay
Sources, Nature, Quantity, and Handling of Pesticide Wastes -  Only empty
rinsed pesticide containers are accepted at the six disposal sites (Calexico,
Holtville, Imperial, Niland, Palo Verde, and Picacho).  Wastes  which are
brought to these sites include 208-liter (55-gal) drums, 114-liter (30-gal)
drums, 19-liter (5-gal) and 3.8-liter (1-gal) metal cans, 3.8-liter (1-gal)
plastic containers and miscellaneous paper, cloth, glass and plastic sacks.
On a number of occasions, pesticide wastes and structural material con-
taminated with pesticide which had been detoxified or decontaminated (e.g.,
by treatment with lime and/or Purex) have been accepted at these sites after
securing permission from the Regional  Water Quality Control Board.  All
pesticide container disposal  sites are securely fenced and the  gates locked
except at such time when an attendant (from the Department of  Public Works)
is present at the site to direct the operation.  Signs proclaiming the


hazard of these sites are prominently displayed in both  English  and  Spanish

(see photographs in Figure 9).

     The current regulations governing waste disposal  in the  pesticide

disposal sites are:

     •   Every container is to  be empty,  rinsed and drained as


         (a)  1)  Use the following amount of water or other
                  designated spray carrier for each rinse.

                      Size of Container         Amount of Rihse  Water

                  3.8-liter  (1-gal)  or less    1/4 container volume

                  19-liter  (5-gal)             3.8 liters (1 gal)

                  Over 19-liter,  (5-gal)         1/5 container volume

              2)  Place recommended amount of rinse solution
                  in the container, replace closure securely
                  and agitate.

              3)  Drain rinse solution from container  into tank
                  mix.   Allow container to drain 30 seconds
                  after normal  emptying.

              4)  Repeat 2) and 3)  above  a minimum of  two times
                  so as to provide a  total  of three rinses, or

         (b)  Other approved rinse methods, at least equal in
              effectiveness to  the above.

         (c)  After the final rinse,  metal  containers  should  be
              punctured on the  top at the rim to allow remaining
              rinse solution to drain.

     •   All containers are to  be punctured by the applicators
         (waste generators)  rendering them useless  as  they are

         deposited in the dump  site and before leaving.

             Figure 9.   Calexico Disposal  Site

(a)   English/Spanish direction sign.

(b)   Fence surrounding  the pesticide  disposal  area,  a danger
     sign and a sign indicating the operating  schedule.


     t   No actual pesticides, waste pesticide spray residue,
         liquid and/or soluble industrial wastes or toxic ash
         are accepted.  Containers containing any pesticide
         in any form or concentration will be rejected and
         returned to user,

     •   No empty pesticide containers are to be disposed of
         at any site unless an attendant is present.  All
         dumping should be directed by the attendant.

     Although all the county sites for the disposal of regular refuse are
open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, the six special sites for the disposal
of pesticide containers are usually open only 1 or 2 days per month and
upon special requests.  The current schedule for the operation of the sites
is shown in Table 8.
     Over 90 percent of the pesticides used in Imperial  County are applied
by professional applicators and crop dusters.  These individuals/companies
have found it convenient to use the services of their own employees for
hauling containers to the site on days which no crop dusting is done (e.g.,
on account of bad.weather conditions).
     Of the six pesticide disposal sites in Imperial County, Palo Verde and
Picacho sites have been used very little to date.  Only about 250 to 300
cans have been deposited at the Picacho site and less than a dozen have been
taken to the Palo Verde site.  The applicators which service the Palo Verde
area are primarily from the adjacent Riverside County and dispose of their
containers elsewhere.  Similarly, the Picacho area is served mainly by crop
dusters from Yuma, Arizona, and presumably have access to other facilities
for waste disposal.  Based on waste disposal records to date the average
annual  volume of containers (uncrushed) deposited in Calexico, Holtville,
Nil and, and Imperial sites are 204, 302, 411, and 400 m3 (267, 395, 537,
and 653 yd ) respectively.
     With the exception of pesticides designated as "exempt" by the
California Director of Food and Agriculture, a permit is required for the
agricultural use of any pesticide in Imperial County.  To assure that

                                 TABLE 8
 Days of the Month
Nil and
Palo Verde

1st and 3rd Tuesday
1st and 3rd Wednesday
2nd and 4th Tuesday
2nd and 4th Wednesday
Upon Special Request
  on 1st Tuesday
Upon Special Request
  on 1st Tuesday
 8:30AM to 3:00PM
 8:30AM to 3:00PM
 8:30AM to 3:00PM
 8:30AM to 3:OOPM
11:00AM to 3:00PM

11:OOAM to 3:00PM

pesticide containers will not be disposed of at unauthorized sites, on
March 16, 1971, the County Board of Supervisors adopted an ordinance
requiring the marking of all pesticide containers with the
agricultural pesticide dealer's license number and the number of Imperial
County Permit to apply pesticides.  These markings should be at least 13 cm
(0.5 in.) in height, indelible and in plain sight.  Thus any pesticide
container found at illegal dumping sites can be readily traced to its
original owner.  When a person has been found to leave pesticides or
pesticide containers unattended, that person's permit to use pesticides in
Imperial County is cancelled and all pesticide dealers in the County are
notified.  When such a person has demonstrated that he will remedy such
action, he may be issued a new permit by the Agricultural Commissioner.
     The general procedure for the disposal of pesticide containers consists
of deposition of the wastes in a disposal trench (see photographs in Figure
10) and compaction of the waste with a bulldozer.  A cover material con-
sisting of 30 to 46 cm (12 to 18 in.) of dirt is provided at the end of
each working (open) day.   When a disposal trench becomes full, a new trench
is excavated and the operation is transferred to the new trench.  So far one
trench has been totally filled and covered at the Calexico, Nil and, and
Holtville sites.  An original trench excavated at the Imperial site has not
yet been filled to capacity.  Because of the very limited use, the trenches
at Palo Verde and Picacho remain practically empty.
     In the past, several fires have occurred in the pesticide disposal
trenches during the site operation.   These fires were traced to the presence
of residual  sulfur in certain discarded paper bags.  The mixing and joint
handling of these bags with the metal cans were apparently responsible for
the fires.  To minimize the possibility of such fires, a segregated waste
disposal'system is currently utilized whereby the metal  cans are deposited
at one end of the disposal trench and the paper and cardboard material  at
the other end.  No fires  have occurred at any of the sites since the new
segregated disposal procedure was put into effect.
Sources and  Funds and Cost Data - The operation of the pesticide disposal
areas within the county landfill  sites are tied into the operation of these
sites as a whole, and no  special  separate funds were used or are being used

Figure 10.   The Operating Disposal  Trench at Calexico (a),
            and Imperial  (b)  Sites.

for the development and operation of these sites.  The total initial-cost
for the development of six pesticide container  disposal sections within  the
solid waste disposal sites was $4,500 which consisted of the following items:

                 Fence                     $2,500
                 Trench excavation          1,200
                 Installation of signs        300
                 Testing for water            500

Based on the labor hours devoted to site maintenance and operation and the
estimated portion of the charges for the maintenance of equipment which may
be attributed to the pesticide disposal sections of the landfills, for
fiscal year 197.4-75 the total direct operating cost for the six pesticide
disposal sites is estimated at close to $5,000.
     In response to a need for better control  of the operation and main-
tenance of disposal sites within the county to meet the standards  established
by the State of California, on January 27, 1972, a Joint Power Agreement was
signed by the incorporated cities in Imperial  County (with the exception of
El Centre).  The cities signing the agreement are: Brawley, Calexlco,
Calipatria, Holtvllle, Imperial, and Westmorland.  The agreement provided
     (1)   Funds for a solid waste disposal sites development
     (2)   City funds for the operation of the disposal sites -
           $2 per capita per annum.
     (3)   Controls on the development of the sites to comply
           with State requirements.
     (4)   Authorization for the County to manage the program,
           acquire and operate the sites.
     The use of the disposal site 1s free of charge to: (a) all county
residents disposing of their own solid wastes;  (b) members of the  Joint
Powers Agreement; (c) State and public utility vehicles; and (d)  all
vehicles containing empty pesticide containers.  Another Individuals,
companies, or vehicles are charged a disposal  fee which varies from $6.00
per load for those trucks larger than p1ck-up trucks to $15.00 per load for


 15-m   (20-yd ) or over "non-packers" refuse collection vehicles.  The
 charges for disposal of solid waste are by permit which can be obtained
 from the Department of Public Works for no fee.  Permittees receive a Load
 Ticket from the Solid Waste Site Attendant at the disposal site and are
 billed from the Office of the Department of Public Works at the end of
 each month by the load count and vehicle size on the tickets.  The County
 Department of Public Works operates the equipment necessary for the main-
 tenance of each disposal site and is responsible for all labor forces.
 Loads  of pesticide containers are specifically exempted from payment of a
 disposal fee to encourage farmers, crop dusters and ordinary county
 residents to bring their empty containers to the site for disposal.
 Social Problems and Their Mitigations - Pesticide waste disposal sites in
 Imperial County were developed and are operated primarily to serve the
 agricultural industry which directly or indirectly provides jobs for the
 majority of the county residents.  Accordingly, the establishment and
 operation of these sites have been well received and have not encountered
 any public opposition.  The general areas where the sites are located are
 also very sparsely populated.  Periodically there has been some murmurs by
 some residents expressing unhappiness over the fact that they can no longer
 use empty pesticide cans as gasoline tanks.
     Prior to the use of the current "cut-and-cover" method of landfilling,
 some solid wastes were disposed of by open burning at the dump sites.  The
 present engineering method of land disposal has been welcomed by county
 residents, especially those who were located downwind of the burning sites.
 Environmental Considerations - The pesticide disposal sites are approved by
 the California Regional Water Quality Control  Board, and are considered to
 present little potential for environmental degradation.  The groundwater 1n
 Imperial County is considered essentially useless because of its very high
 salt content.  There is only 8 cm (3 in.) of annual rain and the county has
 essentially a desert climate.  Water for irrigation is brought 1n from the
 Colorado River through the All-American Canal.  The irrigation return flow
 discharges to the Sal ton Sea through the New River and the Alamo River.
Minimization of the potential for the contamination of these drainage rivers
was a major consideration in selecting the current sites for pesticide


 container  disposal.   Prior  to  the selection of the six sites, test holes
 were  dug to  determine the location of the water table.  The depth to the
 water table  was  82 m  (270 ft)  at the Nil and site and 2.1 m (7 ft) at the
 Calexico site.   No water was found when the test holes were extended to a
 depth 6.1  m  (20  ft) at Holtvllle. 15.2 m (50 ft) at Imperial, 15.2 m (50
 ft) at Palo  Verde, and 4.6  m (15 ft) at Picacho.  As was indicated above,
 in the light of  some  new data  on subsurface geology, the Holtville site
 will  soon  be closed and a new  site will be opened at a more appropriate
 location.  Currently  there  are no programs for environmental monitoring
 on or adjacent to the disposal sites.  Except for some fires which have
 occurred at  the  sites as a  result of mixing and co-handling of metal cans
 and paper  bags containing residual sulfur, there have been no other fires,
 or any explosions or  personal  injuries at the sites.  The potential for
 fire  has now been eliminated through the use of a system of segregated
 waste disposal.
 Anticipated  Site Life/Future Use - The operation of a pesticide container
 disposal section within a county dump site is tied into the operation of
 that  site  as a whole.  Although only a limited area within each site is
 currently  fenced off  and devoted to pesticide disposal, depending on the
 capacity requirements, the  fence line can be extended to cover an addi-
 tional  section of the site  which can be used for container disposal.  The
 actual  total site areas, the estimated life of the sites (based on the
 total  quantity of solid waste  handled), the original and remaining site
 capacities,  and  maximum depth  to the fill  are shown in Table 9 for the
 six disposal sites having a section fenced off for pesticide container
    No  plans have yet been  formulated for the future use of the land when
 the sites become full.  The fenced off areas within which containers have
 been  disposed of will most  likely continue to remain locked and inaccessible
 to the  general  public.  It  is planned to prepare  and file an official  map
of the pesticide  disposal  area  to denote the exact area of pesticide con-
 tainer  use within the solid waste disposal  site.   This map filed in the
 Recorders Office and in the Department of Public Works, will  be available
 for future development of the area.


                                                  TABLE 9
Site Name
ha (acre)
  Original  Capacity
      m3 (yd3)
  Remaining Capacity
       m3 (yd3)
 Maximum     Estimated
 Depth to    Life Expec-
Fill m (ft)  tancy (yr)
Nil and
Palo Verde
 32 (78)
 16 (40)
 24 (60)
 32 (80)
 16 (40)
 16 (40)
1,925,400 (2,516,800)
  394,950   (516,270)
1,481,040 (1,936,000)
  789,900 (1,032,500)
  394,950   (516,270)
  494,700   (646,670)
1,747,630 (2,284,480)
  365,330   (477,550)
1,431,700 (1,871,500)
  770,130 (1,006,700)
  375,200   (490,450)
  455,200   (595,040)
 6.1 (20)
 2.4  (8)
 6.1 (20)
 2.4  (8)
 2.4  (8)
 3.0 (10)
     *The Holtville site will  soon be  closed and  the  operation  will  be  transferred  to a more geologically
suitable location (see text).

                            CASE STUDY NO. 6
           Powersville Sanitary Landfill, Powersville, Georgia

 Site Location - Powersville, Peach County, Georgia
 Operating Agency - County Commissioners of Peach County in association
 with the City of Fort Valley.
 History and Background - The site is a county-operated, state-approved
 sanitary landfill which has been in use for over 15 years.  Since the site
 was also receiving pesticide wastes, in 1972 a decision was made to fence
 off a section of the site and to use it solely for the disposal of pesti-
 cide wastes.  The fenced off section is on a high ground and is protected
 by about 3 m (10 ft) of dense clay.  Access to the hazardous waste disposal
 area is limited to Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc., of Fort Valley, Georgia,
 which is in the agricultural pesticide business.  The hazardous waste
 section is kept locked and immediate dirt cover is provided after each
 disposal.  The entire landfill is about 8.1 ha (20 acres) and the hazardous
 waste site portion is about 0.2 ha (0.5 acre).
 Factors/Agencies Contributing to the Establishment of the Site - As
 originally operated, the uncontrolled disposal of pesticide wastes in the
 sanitary landfill posed serious public health hazards stemming from:
 (a) pesticide dust blown in the face of landfill equipment operators;
 (b) illegal scavenging activities at the site and potential for removal
 of pesticide containers/packages for personal use; (c) the unsultability
 of major sections of the site for containment of hazardous wastes and
 potential for groundwater contamination; and (d) difficulties with strict
 control of the operation including providing immediate cover for pesticide
     To eliminate the above-mentioned hazards and to provide for effective
operational control, the Environmental  Protection Division of Georgia State
 Department of Natural Resources exerted "pressure" to establish a separate
hazardous waste disposal  section within the Powersville landfill.   Both
the County and Woolfolk Chemical Works  indicated a strong interest in this
suggestion and after some discussions  agreed to establish a pesticide


disposal site within the landfill for use by Wool folk.   The details of
the agreement and the specific arrangements for allocating the costs
involved were subsequently worked out between Peach County and Wool folk.
Sources, Nature, Quantity and Handling of Pesticide Wastes - The pesticide
wastes disposed of at the site originate from the  Wool folk Chemical Works,
Inc., which operates a pesticide formulating plant in Fort Valley, Georgia
(about 8 km or 5 mi from the site).   Wastes from this plant are primarily
empty pesticide paper bags and corrugated boxes which are tied in bundles
and hauled to the site about twice every week.  Occasionally the waste
may.also contain damaged containers  containing contaminated raw or formu-
lated products.  The estimated average volume of each haul (uncompacted)
              3      3
is about 4.6 m  (6 yd ).  The plant produces dust, liquid and granular
formulation products for agricultural and household use.   Chlordane and
Sevin are apparently the major pesticides used in  product formulation.
     When the site first went into operation, Wool folk,  Peach County and
the State received numerous inquiries from other companies in Georgia and
in neighboring states who wanted permission to dispose of their hazardous
wastes at the Powersville site.  Except for one occasion  when a small
quantity of chemical wastes from USDA laboratory was accepted at the site,
to date the use of the hazardous waste site has been limited to pesticide
wastes from the Wool folk plant in Fort Valley.
     The trench method of landfillihg is used for  waste  disposal in the
hazardous waste section and an immediate dirt cover is  provided after each
disposal operation.  When not in use, the hazardous waste section is kept
locked.  Photographs of the disposal trench and gate and  lock system for
the hazardous waste section are shown in Figure 11.
Sources of Funds and Cost Data - The final  agreement which was worked out
between the Peach County and Wool folk plant required the  latter to pay for
the cost of site preparation and fencing (estimated at about $3,000 to
$4,000), and to provide for the hauling of its waste to  the site.   In
return, the county provided the land and agreed to provide free equipment
and labor for waste disposal at the  site (estimated at about 1 to 2 hours
per week).  There are no user fees at the Powersville site and the overall
cost of landfill operation is apportioned among the various users  (cities


                                      KEEP OUT
Figure 11.   Waste Disposal  Trench (a)  and Gate, Lock,  and
            Danger Signs for the Hazardous Waste Disposal
            Section (b)  of  the Powersville Sanitary Landfill


and the county) according to their waste loads.   Woolfolk estimates  that
the labor which it provides for the packaging and hauling of its  waste 1s
about 8 man-hours per week.
     The Woolfolk plant employs about 125 persons.   The Company  is  consid-
ered important to the local economy and its  services are highly  valued.
The working arrangement whereby the waste from Woolfolk is handled  at a
public landfill at no extra cost to the Company is  considered "equitable"
and in the best interest of the community as a whole.
Social Problems and Their Mitigations - When a fence was first put  up
isolating a specific section within the landfill  for pesticide disposal,
and warning signs were installed designating the  area as a "Hazardous
Materials Dump" (see Figure 11), a man residing in a house about.0.4 km
(0.25 mi) away contacted the State complaining over the selection of the
site for the disposal of hazardous wastes and indicating his concern over
the potential environmental implications of the action.  The State  explained
to the man that chemical wastes which will  be disposed of in the  designated
area had been entering the landfill for the  past  10 to 12 years  and that
separate disposal of the pesticide wastes in an isolated section  of the
landfill is primarily aimed at containment of the operation and  protection
of the groundwater and adjacent land.  The argument was convincing  and the
man even agreed to periodically visit the site and report to the  State if
the disposal operation is not carried out in accordance with State  recom-
mendations.  On one occasion the State received a call from this  man
indicating that the waste material had not been covered properly.   The
State immediately contacted Woolfolk and the landfill  operator and  the
situation was corrected.
     Aside from the above-mentioned incident, there has been no  major
complaint concerning the operation of the site.   One resident in  the area
recently wrote to the Region IV EPA office in Atlanta complaining about
the operation of the Powersville site.  The  complaint has been turned over
to the State which has in turn referred it to a landfill inspector  for
investigation.  The complaint refers to the  lack  of daily dirt cover on
the refuse disposal section of the landfill, however, and does not  involve
the hazardous waste disposal operation.  There have not been any  accidents,


 fires,  or  explosions  at  the hazardous waste portion of the site.  There
 has  been a history of occasional small fires in the refuse disposal
 portion of the site.  Cover material which is stockpiled at the site is
 usually used  to put out  these small fires.
 Environmental Considerations - To minimize groundwater contamination, the
 trenches in the hazardous waste disposal section were required to have
 3 m  (10 ft) of impervious clay protection.  Surface runoff from adjacent
 land is prevented from entering the site by proper grading and use of
 diversion  ditches.  There are no monitoring/observation wells at the site
 and  no  data are currently available on the distance to the groundwater
 table.  The new State guidelines for the management of hazardous solid
 wastes  (developed in  July 1974), would require borings to determine soil
 character, sites and  depth to the groundwater table, and installation of
 at least one  groundwater monitoring well at the site.  In general, haz-
 ardous  wastes disposed of in a landfill are to be covered immediately with
 at least 15 cm (6 in.) of compacted earth.  As required by regulations
 under Section 8 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
 as amended, Woolfolk  keeps a record of the quantity of waste which it
 hauls to the  Powersville site; upon request, the record would be available
 to the  State  for inspection.  Like other state-approved landfills, the
 Powersville site is inspected every three to six months by a State landfill
 inspector who reviews the operation of the site and assigns a numerical
 "grade" to the environmental adequacy of the operation.
 Anticipated Site Life/Future Use - The operation of the hazardous waste
 disposal area within the Powersville site is tied into the operation of
 the site as a whole.   The overall  anticipated life of the site is limited
by the  availability of adequate cover material.   Unless some adjacent
property is purchased to obtain sufficient cover material, the anticipated
 life of the Powersville site would not probably extend beyond an additional
five years.  Through  the purchase  of an adjacent land, the operation can
probably continue for another 25 years.   At the present time, no plans
have been formulated for future use of the site.
Miscellaneous  -  There are about 20 pesticide formulation  plants  in Georgia
of which the Woolfolk operation at Fort Valley  is  the largest.   The Fort

Valley plant is also the only formulating facility which disposes  of its
waste in a limited access site within a sanitary landfill.   No such arrange-
ments exist for wastes from other formulating plants  which  are generally
disposed of in state-approved, general-purpose landfills.   The unique
arrangement at the Powersvilie site has proven successful  and the  State is
exploring opportunities for designating similar areas within other suitable
landfills for the disposal of pesticide and other hazardous wastes.  The
current plan calls for establishment of eight to 10 such sites in  Georgia.
     It is estimated that close to one million pesticide containers are
generated in Georgia each year.  The State strongly advocates the  recycling
                                                            ' Q
of large containers in accordance with recommended procedures,  and the
208-liter (55-gal) containers are largely recycled.  At the Woolfolk plant,
the drums containing raw chemicals are largely used for the shipment of
the formulated products.  Woolfolk gives credit to farmers  who bring in
their pesticide containers for refill provided that they sign a form
releasing Woolfolk from any possible liabilities.   According to State
regulations, all  containers taken to sanitary landfills must be triple-
     Since considerable quantities of waste pesticides have been placed at
the Powersville site, the State is very much interested in  any in-depth
field study which can document the fate of the pesticides  in the soil and
evaluate the possible impact of pesticide disposal  on groundwater  quality.

                             CASE STUDY NO. 7

           Concrete Culverts for Pesticide Waste Encapsulation
               in Sanitary Landfills, State of Mississippi

Site Location - Seventeen state-approved county sanitary landfills in
Operating Agency - Various counties.
Hi story and Background - There are currently a total of 56 state-approved
public sanitary landfills in the State of Mississippi.  In 17 of these
landfills, concrete containers have been installed for the disposal of
arsenic pesticides which are no longer used on cotton crops.  The system
which uses ordinary construction culverts for containerization is somewhat
unique and was engineeered and its use advocated by the Division of Solid
Waste and Vector Control of the Mississippi State Board of Health.  The
program was Initiated early in 1975.
Factors/Agencies Contributing to the Establishment of the S1te - The major
single reason for the installation of concrete containers within sanitary
landfills for the encapsulation of hazardous wastes was the protection of
the health of the general public and the landfill operators.  Because of a
USDA ban on the use of calcium arsenate on cotton crops, some farmers were
left with small quantities of this chemical which had to be safely disposed
of.  The concrete containment system was developed to provide for safe dis-
posal of the limited quantities of arsenic pesticides held by Individual
farmers, and hence to eliminate the possibility of environmental contamina-
tion through Indiscriminate and inappropriate dumping or disposal methods.
The system was engineered and its use advocated by the Solid Waste and
Vector Control Division of the Mississippi State Board of Health.  The
Division also provided technical  direction for the construction and
operation of the units.
Sources, Nature, Quantities and Handling of Pesticide Wastes - As was
indicated above, the concrete containers which have been installed 1n the
sanitary landfills are primarily for the disposal of limited quantities of
calcium arsenate.   Before it was  banned by USDA, calcium arsenate was


widely used on cotton crops for boll weevil  control.  (Cotton is the
dominant crop in Mississippi; about 80 to 85 percent of all  insecticide
applications in the State is for cotton.)  Through a program of advertise-
ment and public education, the people have been informed that facilities
are available for safe disposal of any stored calcium arsenate, and people
are now bringing the old material to the designated landfills for disposal.
In some of the landfills, limited quantities of DDT have also been disposed
of in the concrete encapsulation systems.  Although the landfill operators
keep a record of the quantity of wastes placed in the concrete containers,
the data have not been analyzed to determine the total  amount of waste
contained in each unit.
      The concrete containment capsules are made of ordinary construction
culverts which are installed in a vertical position in  the landfill.  To
increase the capacity of a capsule, several  culverts are often placed on
top of each other to form a deep containment "well" in  the landfill.  The
bottom culvert sits on a 7.6 to 10.2 cm (3-4 in.) thick cement slab which
is poured before the culverts are lowered into the "well".  The joints
between the bottom culvert and the base and between overlying culverts are
sealed with cement.  The top culvert usually extends about 30 to 46 cm
(12-18 in.) above ground.  Most units currently in use  are provided with a
metal lid which is supported on a frame structure.  The cover can be
secured with a lock when the system is not in use.  When a container
becomes full, it is cemented on the top and the operation is transferred to
a new container.  Depending on the diameter of the culvert,  the wall thick-
ness of the containers may vary from 5.1 to 7.6 cm (2 to 3 in.).
      Several photographs showing the actual installation of the containment
culverts, deposition of waste into the containers and the metal support and
cover structure are shown in Figures 12 and 13.
Sources of Funds and Cost Data - In Mississippi, the Boards  of Supervisors
of various counties and municipal officials  are responsible  for the collection
of solid wastes and design and operation of public landfills.  There are
currently very few private waste disposal contractors in the State.  The
source of funds for the establishment and operation of  the county landfills
are county  ad valorem taxes.  There are no gate fees for the use of the


    Figure 12.   Installation  of Concrete  Culvert Containers  (a,  b)  and
                Actual  Deposition  of Waste  in a Container (c)-

Figure 13.   Metal  Frame Support and the Cover and Lock
            System for Concrete Culvert Containers

 sites.  The County Board of Supervisors feels that a free disposal service
 will encourage people to bring their wastes in for proper disposal.
      The costs associated with the installation and use of the concrete
 encapsulation culverts  are probably a small fraction of the total cost for
 the establishment and operation of the sanitary landfills.  The exact cost
 for the installation of a culvert container has not been determined.
 Although judging from the simple construction of the system and the
 relatively inexpensive nature of the construction material used, the cost
 for the construction of a culvert container would probably be less than
 Social Problems and Their Mitigations - Concrete encapsulation program is
 a very new program in Mississippi.  To date there has been no known public
 opposition to the installation and use of the concrete containers.  The
 sites in which concrete containers are installed are not identified as
 hazardous waste disposal sites and hence they do not arouse public curiosity
 and concern.  Originally, some of the sanitarians and landfill operators
 were against the concrete encapsulation program.  The State, however,
 convinced them of the value and practicability of the program and solicited
 and obtained their cooperation.
 Environmental Considerations - Concrete containers installed in the
 sanitary landfills are considered as temporary containment facilities,
 pending the development and availability of more suitable methods for the
 disposal of hazardous wastes.   Since concrete containers are subject to
 chemical attack and deterioration in a landfill  environment and may possibly
 be cracked during installation, the State plans  to install a monitoring
 system around each container to detect possible  leaks so that corrective
measures can be immediately implemented.   As was indicated above, the
 culvert containers are equipped with a cover and lock system which can
 secure the unit (and also keeps the rain water away)  when the unit is not
in use.
Anticipated Site Life/Future Use - The use of concrete containers for the
disposal of pesticide wastes is considered only  a temporary  measure and when
a more suitable method is developed, the material  contained in the concrete


containers will be removed and disposed of accordingly.  The containers
have been Installed essentially for the disposal of limited quantities of
calcium arsenate which were left over after the chemical was banned for
use on cotton.  When all the calcium arsenate material held by farmers and
residents are collected, there probably will not be a further need for
the construction of additional containers.  At the present time, when a
concrete culvert container becomes full, a new container is constructed
and the operation 1s transferred to the new container.
Miscellaneous - Mississippi State Solid Waste Management Program is a new
program and was initiated only 3 years ago.  Prior to the development of
the program, solid wastes including empty pesticide containers were dumped
in rivers, along roads and river banks, and in scattered locations through-
out the State.  The State (Solid Waste and Vector Control Division of the
      • •   ti.     •                                            ' '         ;•'  '
Board of Health and the Bureau of Environmental Health) initiated an extensive
campaign of public education persuading the public and the major waste
generators to take their wastes to the state-approved sanitary landfills or
deposit them in refuse collection containers ("pitch-in" boxes, see Figure
14a) which were placed by counties and municipalities at strategic locations
to serve areas where regular refuse collection service was unavailable.
                                 3        3
The pitch-In boxes are 3 to 4.6 m  (4-6 yd ) in volume and are placed at
such locations as major crossroads, new construction projects, etc. so that
no waste disposer has to drive more than a few kilometers (miles) to reach
the nearest disposal container.  On the average, there is one  container for
every 150 individuals.  The containers are emptied twice a week (and more
often 1n areas where the containers tend to fill up more quickly) and the
content taken to sanitary landfills.  There are 52 state-approved sanitary
landfills in Mississippi.
      It 1s estimated that about 13,605 t (15,000 ton) A.I. of insecticides
(mainly methyl parathion and toxaphene), between 4,535 and 6,800 t (5,000-
7,500 ton) A.I. of herbicides and less than 454 t (500 ton) of fungicides
were applied 1n Mississippi  1n 1974.    The estimated numbers  of various
types of Insecticide containers used 1n 1974 are as follows: 90,900 208-liter
(55-gal)  metal drums; 24,000 114-liter (30-gal) metal  drums; 334,000 19-liter
(5-gal)  metal drums; 620,000 3.8-Hter (1-gal)  glass and plastic containers;

and 180,700 other types of containers.  Thus a total of 1,249,600 con-
tainers were used in 1974 for insecticides alone.  The number of containers
would have been significantly more had it not been for the use of bulk
pesticide tanks (1,893 to 18,930-liter or 500 "to 5,000-gal capacity) which
are placed by a number of chemical companies on large farms for use by area
farmers.  The product is metered directly from the tanks and the tanks are
refilled as necessary by the chemical companies.
      Under current solid waste disposal regulations, pesticide containers
should be triple-rinsed, crushed and buried in approved sanitary landfills.
Larger containers, such as 114 and 208-liter(30 and 55-gal)drums may be
sold to reconditioners.  Disposal of unused pesticides and pesticide wastes
are referred to the Bureau of Environmental Health and are handled on a
case by case basis.
      Individuals using small quantities of pesticides usually deposit
their 3.8, 19, and 57-liter (1, 5, and 15-gal) metal drums in the solid
waste ("pitch-in") collection containers which are located throughout the
State.  Larger pesticide users which may generate a greater number of con-
tainers are encouraged to take their empty containers directly to approved
sanitary landfills.  The State has initiated a program for the collection
and recycling of large (e.g., 114 and 208-liter or 30 and 55~gal) metal
containers.  The program involves establishing "holding sites" within
sanitary landfills where users can leave their empty containers when a
landfill is open.  When a sufficient number of drums are accumulated, a
cooperage company is called in to pick up the drums for reconditioning.
The money derived from the operation is given to the Boy Scouts or charity
organizations and this provides an additional impetus for the pesticide
users to participate in the program.  In 1974, about 700 drums were
collected in a holding site which was established in a sanitary landfill
serving two delta counties.   The State plans to extend the recycling
program to all landfills.
      The "North-West Jackson" site is the largest sanitary landfill in
the State.  The site is considered suitable for the disposal  of hazardous
wastes and has accepted wastes such as soil contaminated with pesticides
and spill clean-up chemicals.  When an incident involving the contamination


of chicken feed with dieldrin was discovered 1n a chicken farm 1n
Mississippii about 9 million chickens had to be sacrificed.   The remaining
quantity of contaminated feed was brought to and disposed of In the North-
west Jackson site.  The site 1s located over a 91.4-m (300-ft) thick dense
clay and is considered to provide adequate containment for hazardous
chemicals.  A portion of the site which has been filled and covered is now
planted and converted to an "environmental park" for use by the public
(see Figure 14b).
      The State has just completed a state-wide hazardous waste survey
and hopes to utilize the data on waste quantities and characteristics as
a guide for the selection, design, construction and operation of two to
three centralized facilities for the disposal  of hazardous wastes.   The
calcium arsenate wastes which are now temporarily encapsulated in concrete
containers 1n sanitary landfills will probably be removed and transferred
to these hazardous waste facilities for ultimate disposal.

Figure  14.  "Pitch In"  Containers for Waste Collection (a)
           and Environmental Park Developed on Recovered
           Land from a Sanitary Landfill  Operation

                            CASE STUDY NO.  8
             Wheeling Disposal Site, Andrew County, Missouri

Site Location - Andrew County, Missouri; about 9.7 km (6 ml)  north of
St. Joseph and 1.6 km (1 mi) southeast of Amazonia.
Operating Agency - Wheeling Disposal Service Co., Inc., 1805  South 8th
Street, St. Joseph, Missouri 64503
History and Background - The site is a 97-ha (200-acre) parcel  acquired
in 1970 by Wheeling Disposal Service Co., Inc. for development  as a
disposal facility for both municipal and industrial wastes.   Portions of
the site had been used for the disposal of municipal refuse  and some
industrial wastes (primarily wastes from a local  tannery).  With the
passing of the Missouri  Solid Waste Management Law, all disposal sites
are required to receive operating permits from the S,tate Department of
Natural Resources.
     Wheeling has retained Emcon Associates (San  Jose, California) as
consulting engineers on site development and related studies.   A geo-
technical feasibility investigation by Emcon in 1973 indicated  that the
site could be developed as a disposal facility in accordance  with regu-
latory agency requirements.  The report on the study was reviewed by the
Missouri State Division of Health which concurred with the findings sub-
ject to submission of supplementary data on subsurface soil  testing and
preparation of detailed engineering plans, specifications and operating
procedures.  The supplementary data were submitted to the State oh
December 12, 1974, 1n an Emcon report entitled Supplemental  Geotechnical
Investigation and Disposal Site Design Report for Wheeling  Disposal Site.
The supplemental data were reviewed by the State  and in August  1975 the
site was formally approved for disposal of municipal/industrial  wastes.
Factors/Agencies Contributing to the Establishment of the Site  - Wheeling's
decision to accept pesticide wastes was based on  its desire  to  remain a
"full service" disposal  company and to serve the  needs of Industrial
clients within Its service area of St. Joseph, Missouri.

Sources. Nature. Quantity and Handling of Pesticide Wastes - To date al1
the pesticide wastes accepted at the site have been from a local pesticide
formulation/packaging ("tolling") company.  Under normal conditions, solid
wastes generated at these facilities are small In quantity and limited
primarily to waste cartridges and empty containers.  However* when the
Wheeling disposal site became available for the disposal of pesticide
wastes, the local company disposed of outdated products, clean-up materials
and used containers which had been accumulated over the years .
Most of the wastes which have been taken to the disposal site to
date consist of steel drums, mixed emulsifiers, de-registered products
and miscellaneous chemicals (e.g., 1n one instance, some old soda ash).
The rate at which the wastes have been hauled to the site has varied.
Data for one week of operation indicate the following quantities:  5,000
208-liter (55-gal) drums, 945 liters (250 gal) of mixed emulsions, and
    3        3
76 m  (100 yd) of outdated products.  When the local company clears Its
warehouses of unwanted chemicals and accumulated wastes, the quantity of
wastes from the company which will be regularly hauled to the site will
be very small.  (The drums are washed with a caustic solution, rinsed
with water, and crushed prior to hauling to the disposal site.)
     The site development plan for the Wheeling disposal site Is shown In
Figure 15.  A section within the area designated as "Solid Waste Disposal
Trench Area" 1s currently used for the disposal of pesticide wastes.  The
deposited wastes are immediately covered with 61 cm (24 in.) of dirt.
Sources of Funds and Cost Data - Wheeling Disposal Service Co.,  Inc., is
a private company and company funds were used to purchase and develop the
disposal  site.  Information on the purchased price of the land,  engineering
and site development costs, and the users fee for pesticide disposal
charged to a local company are not disclosed.  In general, for container-
ized hazardous wastes, and depending on the quantity of the waste handled,
the users fee may vary from $5 to $30/bbl.  Wheeling Disposal Service
provides  the hauling service for the transport of the pesticide  wastes
to the disposal site.
Social  Problems and Their Mitigations - When the site first went into
operation, a number of area residents contacted the State inquiring about


           o   of/a fo ay f*co/s
PROJ. No. /J7-/.3      \ PLATE     /


}  tufi
                              Figure 15.
Site Development Plan for
Wheeling Disposal Site

the nature of the operation and the precautions which were  being taken  to
adequately safeguard the quality of groundwater and adjacent lands.   These
inquiries were satisfactorily answered by the State which briefed them  on
the geological studies which indicated the suitability of the site for  waste
containment, and on the State requirements for site design  and  disposal
operation.  At one time, one resident in the area suspected that its  well
was contaminated with leachates from the disposal  site; a sample of water
from this well was tested by the State and found satisfactory for domestic
Environmental Considerations - The site development plan for the Wheeling
disposal site (Figure 15) is based on engineering and field investigations
by Emcori which has identified the ridge tops as the most preferable areas
for the disposal of industrial wastes and the southerly opening canyon  in
the central portion of the parcel as the most suitable area for disposal
of municipal refuse in a sanitary landfill operation.
     Figure 15 also indicates the locations of test borings which are
drilled to obtain data on the characteristics of the subsurface formation.
The eight supplemental borings (solid circles in Figure 15) which were
drilled in August 1974, indicated a minimum of 7.6 m (25 ft) thickness  of
                                                         -9      7
relatively impervious clay (permeabilities ranging from 10    to 10   cm/sec)
in areas proposed for waste disposal.  The clay layer is expected to  pro-
vide excellent hydraulic barriers to infiltration of surface waters and
for containment of waste in disposal trenches.   Test borings have indicated
the presence of groundwater 11 to' 12 m (36 to 40 ft)  from ground surface in
borings 7, 8, and 9.   No groundwater was encountered in borings 10, 11, 12,
and 13, which were drilled to depths ranging from 7.6 to 11 m (25 to  36 ft)
from ground surface.   Boring 14, drilled in the valley base, below the
proposed municipal waste disposal area, encountered groundwater approximately
3 m (10 ft) from ground surface.
      The engineering plan for the development of the site  calls for
installation of a system for interception and collection of leachates from
the sanitary landfill, interception and diversion  of surface run-off  from
adjacent areas, and development and implementation of a monitoHng-
surveillance program.  As Indicated 1n Figure 15,  two monitoring wells


have been installed and four additional  monitoring wells are planned .
The two existing wells extend to a depth of 11 m  (35  ft), and the four
wells which are  planned will extend to a minimum of 3 m (10 ft) below
the  layer where  the wastes  are placed.  The surveillance program will
include  inspection of the monitoring wells on a quarterly basis for
leachate formation; if leachates  are found, samples of the fluid will
be collected and analyzed for specific constituents as recommended by
the  State.
     The area where pesticide wastes and containers have been buried will
eventually be filled  and covered  to above the existing ground surface.
Currently, each  time  a waste load is deposited, it is immediately covered
with   61 cm (24 in.) of a  clay cover soil.  Wheeling Disposal  Service
keeps a  record of the quantity and type of pesticide wastes which are
deposited at the site.  Upon request, the record will be available to
the  State for inspection.                          '
Anticipated Site Life/Future Use  - Since the disposal operation at the
site has been initiated only very recently, sufficient data are not yet
available to make a reasonable estimate of the anticipated incoming waste
loads and hence  the expected life of the site.  Because of the  very infant
nature of the operation, no specific plans have yet been formulated on
possible future  use of the site when its capacity becomes fully utilized.
Miscellaneous -  The disposal of pesticide wastes in a state-approved
sanitary landfill is  a new  undertaking in Missouri.   Since operation at
the Wheeling disposal site has just begun, sufficient data have not yet
been generated to judge the effectiveness of the operation and  the nature
and extent of socio-economic and political problems  which would be
associated with  any large-scale landfill operations, specifically those
involving disposal of hazardous wastes.
     The State of Missouri is currently involved in developing  a program
in hazardous waste management.  At the present time, because of lack of
appropriate regulations and absence of centralized facilities  for the
disposal of hazardous wastes, most fanners and pesticide formulators are
apparently either stockpiling their empty pesticide containers  or disposing
of them  in the farms and/or sanitary landfills.

                              CASE STUDY NO. 9
      Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. Landfill, Darrow, Louisiana

Site Location - Near Darrow, Louisiana; on State Highway 75, approximately
0.8 km (0.5 mi) from Mississippi River.
Operating Agency - Nelson Industrial Services, Inc.  ("BFI-Baton Rouge"),
a wholly-owned subsidiary of Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.
History and Background - Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc. ("BFI") is the
largest waste systems company in the United States and has landfill operations
in many states.  The site near Darrow, Louisiana, occupies a long strip of
land about 21 ha (52 acres)in size and is surrounded by a number of major
chemical and petrochemical production facilities (Allied Chemical, Borden,
Uniroyal, BASF Wyandotte, Rubicon, Vulcan Materials, Dow Chemical, Monochem,
etc.).  BFI-Baton Rouge purchased the site in July 1972 from a private
individual who had purchased the site 6 years earlier from another private
individual.  The site previously had been operated as a sanitary landfill;
it was not designed as, nor intended to be, a pesticide disposal site.  BFI-
Baton Rouge has State approval  to accept a maximum of 23 kg (50 Ib) of a
pesticide waste which is contained in empty packaging material from an
industrial plant (see below).
     When BFI-Baton Rouge purchased the site in 1972, there were a total  of
six disposal  pits on the site,  ranging from approximately 0.12 to 0.20 ha
(0.3 to 0.5 acre) in size.  Of  these, only one pit currently is in use;
another has only recently been  excavated and is about to begin accepting
wastes.  One pit which had been used as a depository for a nonpesticide
industrial liquid waste is being emptied, with the material being taken by
a company in Alvin, Texas, and  used in the production of a low-sulphur fuel.
As of September 1975, approximately 1.1 million liters  (0.3 million gal)  of
the 18.9 million liters(5 million gal) of this waste contained in the pit
had been pumped out and hauled  to Texas.   The remaining pits have been
landfilled with dry trash, covered with dirt, graded, backfilled with soil
and planted with grass to give  the area a  park-like appearance.  There is
an access road from the highway.   The road passes through the facility and
terminates at the active pit at the far end of the property.


Factors/Agencies Contributing to the Establishment of the Site - The site
in Darrow was purchased by BFI-Baton Rouge as part of the BFI's nationwide
expansion program and also in response to the waste disposal needs of the
industrial complex in Southern Louisiana.
 Sources, Nature, Quantity and Handling  of Pesticide  Wastes  -  Under  its
 current permit from the  State,  BFI-Baton Rouge  facility  accepts  only  in-
 dustrial dry trash, nonhazardous, nontoxic solid wastes  (corrugated boxes,
 rags, office refuse, process  sludges, warehouse and  lunch room wastes,
 etc.).   Only a small quantity of pesticide waste which is contained in  dry
 trash from one industrial  client is  disposed of at the site at the  present
 time.  This, however, is with the approval of the State  which permits the
 site to accept from a plant  approximately 40 km (25  mi)  away, empty pack-
 aging which  had contained maleic hydrazide.   This dry waste contains
 approximately 0.4 percent maleic hydrazide,  or  about 2.2 kg (4.8 Ib)  per
 5.4-t (6-ton) load.   BFI-Baton  Rouge has state  approval  to  accept a maxi-
 mum of 23 kg (50 Ib) per month  of the residual  malei'c hydrazide  contained
 in this empty packaging  material.  These small  quantities are considered
 by the State to be "nontoxic" and "nonhazardous" and, thus, are  in  compli-
 ance with permit requirements.   The  maximum  of  272 kg (600  Ib) of maleic
 hydrazide which may be accepted at the  site  in  a year represents an in-
 significant  fraction of  the  total  of 8,698 t (9,600  tons) of  wastes which
 are handled  at the site  each  year.   BFI-Baton Rouge  officials state they
 will not accept any significant quantities of pesticide-containing  wastes
 at this site; any that may be accepted  in the future will be  with the know-
 ledge and consent of appropriate State  agencies.
      Prior to BFI-Baton Rouge's acquisition of the site,  a total  of 907  t
(1,000 tons)of a chlorinated solvent waste, containing  75 percent hexachloro-
benzene  (HCB) had been accepted by the then operators of the site during  1970-71
from  a chemical plant in Plaquemine,  Louisiana.   Since,  as  a chemical commodity,
one use of HCB is in the formulation of  certain  seed  protectants, HCB-conta1n1ng
wastes may thus be considered as pesticide waste.  The  HCB waste was originally
deposited in two 38 x 38 m (125 x 125 ft) pits.   When these  pits were filled,
they were covered with dry trash to a depth of 0.6 m  (2  ft), and that, 1n
turn, was covered with 0.6 m (2 ft) of compacted soil.

      In 1973, after these pits had been closed, covered, and no further HCB
was being received, there was an episode of widespread HCB contamination of
land, air and livestock In Southern Louisiana.  Ten facilities. Including
the BFI-Baton Rouge waste disposal site, were suspected as possible sources
of contamination.  Investigations by the State determined that the BFI-Baton
Rouge site was a very minor and Insignificant source of contamination; other
sites, none of which were owned or operated by BFI, proved to be the major
contributors to this pollution incident.  However, BFI and the customer from
which it had received the HCB-conta1n1ng wastes Initiated a clean-up
operation, including removal of the dirt and trash covers from the pits and
their replacement with a new cover, consisting of a total of 1.83 m (6 ft)
of fresh, compacted soil.  A 0.025-cm (10-mil) sheet of polyethylene film
was placed approximately at the middle depth of the soil cover.
     As previously Indicated, there is only one pit currently active at the
BFI-Baton Rouge site.  Industrial wastes (predominantly dry trash) are
hauled to the site in vehicles owned by BFI-Baton Rouge, with all  pesticide-
containing wastes transported in enclosed truck bodies.  The active pit
currently is filled to ground level, and it is planned to continue the
operation to landfill this area to an elevation above ground level, give
it a final cover of fresh topsoil, and seed it with grass.   Waste deposited
at the site is compacted dally with a bulldozer and covered with 15 cm
(6 in.)of compacted dirt at the end of each day of operation.
     Although there are no laboratory facilities at the site, before any new
types of materials are accepted,   BFI-Baton Rouge requests  State approval  to
do so.  There are no facilities for waste storage at the site.
Sources of Funds and Cost Data -  In 1972, BFI-Baton Rouge acquired the site
(land, improvements and disposal  equipment) as part of a larger acquisition.
An additional $126,000 was subsequently spent for site improvements,
including construction of drainage ditches to collect run-off water from the

 site  (Southern Louisiana 1s characterized generally by low topographic
 elevations  and high annual rainfall).  The fee charged for hauling and
 disposal of the wastes containing the very small quantity of raaleic hydrazide
 is $75.00 per load, or $13.70/t ($12.50/ton).  The customer which generated
 the waste containing 75 percent hexachlorobenze_ne contributed almost $30,000
 to the cleanup operation in 1973.
 Social  Problems  and Their  Mitigations  -  With the exception of the  suspected
 involvement in the HCB-contamination episode in 1973 discussed earlier, there
 have  been no problems or public opposition related to the BFI-Baton Rouge
 Environmental Considerations - The BFI-Baton Rouge site is located in a
 region of flat, low-elevation terrain and high annual rainfall.  Considerable
 efforts have been made and are continuing to assure proper site drainage.
 There is currently a sump and drainage ditch for the collection and diversion
 of the run-off water.  The soil in the general area is classified as silty
 clay  loam.  The entire property is fenced off from the surrounding pastures.
      Currently, air sampling of the area including the BFI-Baton Rouge site
 is conducted by the Louisiana State Air Control Commission approximately
 every 4 months.  Drainage water is inspected for the presence Of leachate
 by the Louisiana State Stream Control Commission every 90 days.   Periodic
 site  inspections are also conducted by the Louisiana State Health Department.
 Anticipated Site Life/Future Use - To date only 4.9 ha (12 acres) of the 21-ha
 (52-acre) parcel have been used for waste disposal  (including pits used by
 previous owners).  Based on the anticipated volume of business, it is
 estimated that the BFI-Baton Rouge site will provide service for an
 additional 20 years.   As was indicated above, disposal pits used previously
 have been covered and planted with grass to give a park-like appearance.
Any pits excavated for future use will  also be covered with dirt and planted
when landfill ing operations are completed.  As presently visualized, when
 the operation at the site is terminated, the area would be a green area
elevated about 1.8 in (6 ft) above the surrounding terrain.

     The BFI-Baton Rouge site has received requests from certain industries
in the area for the disposal  of liquid chemical  wastes.   One such request
from a local company has been for the disposal  of waste  "neu-oil" used as a
detergent to clean pipes.  None of this material, or other industrial
liquid waste, has been or will be accepted at the site.

                            CASE STUDY NO. 10
        Des Moines Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency (Metro)
                  Sanitary Landfill, Polk County, Iowa

Site Location - Polk County, Iowa, 16 km (10 mi) east of the City of
Des Moines (Section 7, Twp. 79, R25).
Operating Agency - Des Moines Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency;
3121 Dean Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50309; telephone (515) 265-8106.
History and Background - In 1967, under a demonstration grant from the
U.S. Public Health Service, Department of Health, Education and Welfare
(now, the Office of Solid Waste Management Programs, EPA), the City of
Des Moines, Iowa, undertook a comprehensive study and analysis of solid
waste collection and operations in the Des Moines metropolitan area, and
developed recommendations for a regional system for the collection and
disposal of solid wastes;    Under a follow-on demonstration grant, the
Des Moines Metropolitan Area Solid Waste Agency (Metro) was created in
July 1969 as a single agency to provide solid waste management services
on an area-wide basis and to replace the individual programs of several
governmental entities.
     Metro is a self-supporting organization, designed to operate much
like a public utility.  The Agency is run under the authority of a 16-
member Board representing 15 cities (each represented by one Board
member), and Polk County (one Board member).   Member agencies which
comprise the Metro are listed in Table 10.
     Although Metro was created in 1969, the actual operation of the
existing Metro landfill did not start until 1972.  The current site is
                                                         2        2
162 ha (400 acres) in size and serves an area of 1,554 km  (600 mi).
The Metro site is essentially a large sanitary landfill which handles
primarily municipal  refuse.  The quantity of pesticide wastes handled
at the site is negligibly small  (see below).
Factors/Agencies Contributing to the Establishment of the Site - Prior
to the creation of Metro, solid waste management in the Des Moines area
was splintered among more than a dozen separate jurisdictions, with


                           TABLE 10
 l.!  City Of Altoona
 2.  City of Ankeny
 3.  City of Bondurant
 4.  City of Cliye
 5.  City of Des Moines
 6.  City of Grimes
 7.  City of Norwalk
 8.  City of Urbandale
 9.  City of West Des Moines
10.  City of Windsor Heights
11.  City of Mitchelville
12.  City of RunnelIs                         f
13.  City of Elkhart
14.  City of Johnston
15.  City of Polk
16.  Unincorporated townships in Polk County,  including Crocker,
       Webster, Saylor, Delaware, Clay, Four Mile,  Allen,
       Bloomfield, Walnut, part of Douglas, and part of Franklin.

waste  collection through various municipal, contract and private systems,
and with disposal operation conducted at ten dumps scattered throughout
the area.  The City of Des Moines metropolitan area, the largest solid
waste  generator in the region, was generating approximately 509,730 t
(562,000 tons) of solid waste per year.  This quantity of solid waste was
projected to almost double by year 1990.  Faced with such an anticipated
large  increase in the quantity of solid waste, and the inefficient oper-
ation  of the existing waste collection and disposal systems, the City of
Des Moines solicited and received Federal grants to study, develop and
implement a regional plan involving establishment of a single solid waste
agency and program to replace the individual programs of several govern-
mental entities and hence provide for a more efficient collection of the
waste  and its disposal in a properly located and operated site.
     At present there are three other disposal sites and one transfer
station permitted in Des Moines.  Of the three disposal sites, only two
are operating at present, and they dispose of construction and demolition
waste  only.  The transfer station accepts mainly industrial, wood pallets,
cardboard, etc., and is disposed in a permitted disposal site in Madison
County, about 64 km (40 mi) from Des Moines.  The City of Des Moines
operates a tree disposal site and two other disposal site permit appli-
cations have been filed with the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality.
Sources, Nature, Quantity, and Handling of Pesticide Wastes - Wastes
handled at the Metro disposal site are essentially all municipal/commercial
                                           3       3
refuse.  With the exception of about 7.65 m  (10 yd ) of pesticide wastes
from Helena Chemical Company, which is brought to the site each week, any
pesticide wastes or containers received at the site are incidental and
would  probably originate in household use.   Compared to a total of
18,000 m3 (23,000 yd3) of solid waste which is handled at the site each
week, the waste from Helena Chemical Company is negligibly small.  Helena
Chemical (headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee) operates a contract pesti-
cide formulation plant in Des Moines.  The formulated products are
primarily herbicides and insecticides, with a smaller quantity of fungi-
cides.  The waste material  consists of paper bags, cardboard boxes and
19-, 114- and 208-liter (5-, 30- and 55-gal) containers.  The paper bags

 and cardboard boxes are compacted Into a dumper and  the metal containers
 are hauled to the disposal site by a commercial hauler.
      In general, Metro is very cautious as to  the kind and quantity of
 hazardous wastes which it accepts at the site.  In the past, and as a
 matter of policy, it has turned down requests  for the disposal of large
 quantities of hazardous wastes.  Requests for  the disposal of smaller
 quantities are referred to the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality
 (IDEQ) for review and advice.  If the IDEQ indicates that the waste can
 be safely handled and should be accepted at the site, the waste will be
 accepted.  In general IDEQ requires that a waste generator provide a
 fairly detailed description of the waste before a request for disposal
 can be processed.  A copy of the "Report of Hazardous Waste" which the
 waste generator is required to complete is shown as  Table 11.  Two ex-
 amples of recently approved requests for disposal of hazardous wastes are
 a request from a Diamond Shamrock laboratory for the disposal of small
 quantities of Ramrod (2.3 kg or 5 Ib), atrazine, and Rotox (request
 approved on May 1, 1975); and a request from Farmers Grain Company
 (Carlisle, Iowa) for the disposal of 3,000 empty containers (request
 approved on June 17, 1975).
     Under a contract with the City of Des Moines, Metro has been pro-
 viding once-a-week backyard collection and hauling service for 60,000
 single and four-family residences within the city.  All other Metro mem-
 bers provide their own arrangement for waste collection and only utilize
 Metro's service for waste disposal.  As a result of  a recent decision by
 the Des Moines City Council, effective January 1, 1976, the City of Des
 Moines will take over Metro's waste collection service for the city.
 Since currently a large portion of the Metro's income is from the waste
 collection/hauling service, the loss of this business to the city is con-
 sidered to reduce Metro's income significantly.
     The Metro site is open for business six days per week.  The disposal
 method is "cut-and-cover" with a cover of 30 to 40 cm (12  to  18 in.) of  dirt
 provided at the end of each working day.  Sections of the landfill  com-
 pletely filled with solid waste are graded to promote run-off, covered
with low permeability soil  and provided with surface trenches as required.


                                   TABLE  11
 Inc1ude.                 REPORT OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
   1.  Quantity of waste 1n terms of total  volume or weight of over-all  material.
   2.  Where over-all waste may be broken down Into several different waste
       mixtures, give weight or volume quantities of each.
   3.  Composition of each mixture specifying:
         a.  Chemical Composition
         b.  Physical state of mixture, I.e., solution,suspension,powder,  etc.
         c.  Possible or existing Impurities.
   4.  If dissolved or suspended, give vehicle.
   5.  Toxlclty If known, of every component or  other hazard.
   6.  Solubility If product 1s unusual or  carries  only a trade-name.
   7.  Manufacturers name and address  If known.   Expeclally necessary where
       only a trade-name 1s  available  with  no chemical  data.
   8.  Distributor name and  address where known,  especially for products bearing
       only a trade-name.
   9.  Mode of transport of  material and packaging  type and condition prior to
 10.  Suggest method or methods of disposal  available.
 In addition:
 11.  Is  future  use of material  a  possibility?
 12.  May the material  be used 1n  Us  original  Intended fashion to effect disposal?
 13.  Can It  be  returned to manufacture for  disposal or recycling or  can  It be
       recycled on a local basis?
 14.   Has any disposal  action  been taken to  date?
 15.   What are previously employed methods of disposal?
 Return to:  Michael  I.  Hanson,  Ph.D.
            Hazardous  Substance Section
             Iowa  Department of Environmental  Quality
            3920  Delaware Ave.  - P. 0.  Box 3329
	Des Molnea.  Iowa    50316

 A movable  litter fence is used to control litter and blowing paper.  Any
 litter which has lodged against the peripheral fence or which has been
 blown beyond the fence, is  picked up daily or as often as required to
 maintain an acceptable standard of appearance and sanitation.  Surface
 water is diverted around the area being filled and any accumulation of
 water in excavated trenches is drained or pumped out before solid waste
 is placed  in the trench.
 Sources of Funds and Cost Data -  There has been no Federal or State
 support for site development or current operation of the site.  The ini-
 tial capital investments and annual operating revenue were financed
 through revenue bonds.  The required annual operating cost including the
 debt service on the bonds is raised from fees charged by the agency for
 collection and disposal services rendered tc the member communities . A
 monthly fee of $3.25 per resident is charged by Metro for the once-a-week
 backyard collection service in the Des Moines area.  Other member agencies
 have their own collection fees based on negotiated rates with private
 waste collectors/haulers.  The gate fee is currently $0.98/m3 ($0.75/yd3)
 of compacted or loose refuse.  The disposal fee for non-member agencies
 is 150 percent of the rate for the member agencies i.e., $1.46/m3 ($1.12/
yd3); to date, however, there has been no identifiable load from a non-
 member city.
 Social Problems and Their Mitigations - Initially the actual start of the
 operation of the Metro site was delayed by about two years because of
 opposition by local  residents and property owners (mostly from the Town
 of Pleasant Hill) who feared that the operation of the landfill would
 result in devaluation of their property and could attract rodents.  It
was also asserted that debris which would fall off the refuse trucks en
 route to the disposal site could litter roads and the vibrations due to
 the passing trucks could be damaging to the structures.  A petition
which was originally submitted by residents in Pleasant Hill and some
neighboring communities against the operation of the site carried 2,260
signatures.  The complaints were taken all  the way to the Iowa Supreme
Court before the site operation could be formally initiated.

     Aside  from  the initial public opposition to the establishment and
operation of the site, there have been no significant complaints against
site operation.  At one time there were some citizen complaints asserting
an abundance of  rats in an area near the site.  The presence of rats,
however, was traced to a hog-feeding operation in an adjacent location.
     The original Metro plan called for the construction of two disposal
sites.  The construction of a second site on the western side of the
service area which would have eased the "pressure" on the currently used
site, however, has not materialized due to strong public opposition.
Environmental Considerations - The location and operation of the Metro
site meets  the very stringent requirements for solid waste disposal set
by the Iowa Department of Environmental Quality's Solid Waste Disposal
Commission.  The requirements are purposefully stringent since about
78 percent of the water in the area is derived from groundwater.  The
Metro site is underlain by about 61 m (200 ft) of dense glacial clay.
The movement of groundwater is in the southwesterly direction and at the
southwest corner of the property there are 13 observation wells which
extend to  3 to 6 m (10,to 20 ft) below the base of the operation.   Iowa
State University has a monitoring program whereby the observation wells
are sampled every three months and the water samples tested for certain
water quality characteristics.
     The Metro site operates under a permit from IDEQ.   The site is in-
spected once every six months by the County Health Department and two or
more times every year by IDEQ.   To date there has been  no incidence of
fires, explosions, or personal  injuries at the site.   Several  times
there have been cases of drums  containing paint thinner which were re-
ceived in a load of refuse and which splashed over the  landfill  equipment.
As a matter of policy, no waste drums are accepted at the site unless the
drums are empty or contain material which will  not be damaging to the
Anticipated Site Life/Future Use -  The Metro site is  estimated to provide
seven to eight more years of service.   The tentative  plan is to convert
the site to a golf course when  it becomes full.   To date about 20 percent

 of the land parcel  which has been filled has been contoured and has been
 planted as an interim measure.
 Miscellaneous - The disposal of pesticide wastes and pesticide containers
 is a problem of significant magnitude in Iowa.   Because of certain iso-
 lated incidents of fires,and personal injuries  which reportedly have
 occurred in a number of landfills in the past,  most public landfills are
 very hesitant to accept pesticide wastes and pesticide containers.
 Accordingly, many pesticide containers are currently accumulating in
'temporary storage places throughout the State.   The new State regulations
 on solid waste disposal cover only waste disposal on public lands, and
 waste disposal on private property (e.g., on-site disposal  of industrial
 wastes) still remains unregulated.  Accordingly, some pesticide waste and
 containers are undoubtedly currently landfilled or buried on private
 property in different locations throughout the  State.
      To encourage return of pesticide containers for detoxification/
 disposal at a centralized location, the IDEQ recently studied a plan
 whereby the containers would be plated with tin to increase their value.
 Working through a youth organization, such as the Future Farmers of
 America (FAA), the  farmers would then be encouraged to return the tin-
 plated empty containers for cash or credit reimbursement.   The containers
 would then be taken to the city of Ames, Iowa,  solid waste-to-energy
 conversion facility for shredding and subsequent chemical  processing (at
 the same facility or elsewhere) for tin recovery.  Vulcan  Materials Co.,
 which has a plant in Council Bluffs, Iowa, reportedly has  a process for
 tin recovery involving treatment with a hot alkali  solution.   The tin-
 plating approach would have provided incentive  for private  industry to
 participate in the  program.  A  detailed investigation of the approach by
 the State of Iowa,  however, indicated the concept was not  practical.   The
 IDEQ is currently embarking on  a recycling program where the cans will  be
 sold for steel  scrap.   To encourage farmers to  rinse their  containers
 prior to return, an "honesty system" approach whereby the  farmers would
 be required to sign a form stating that the containers are  indeed empty
 and rinsed may be utilized.

                             VI.   DISCUSSION

     Table 12 presents a summary  of the pertinent features  of the 10
landfills studied.   The objective of this section is to present an over-
view of the data collected in connection with the case studies and to
highlight similarities and differences between the various  sites.  Based
on the summary data in Table 12 and the detailed discussion in Section V,
the following are some generalizations/statements on the 10 landfill sites;
     1.  Controlled disposal of pesticide wastes in the 10  sites
         studied is a relatively  new operation, with the operating
         histories  ranging from as short as  a few months (Case
         Studies 7 and 8) to a maximum not exceeding 4 to 5 years.
     2.  Some landfills have been designed and are operated pri-
         marily for the disposal  of pesticide wastes (Case  Studies
         1 and 2).   In Case Studies 5 and 6, a section within
         sanitary landfills is fenced-off and used solely for the
         disposal of pesticide containers.   The sites in Case
         Studies 3  and 4 are general-purpose hazardous waste man-
         agement facilities accepting a variety of hazardous wastes
         including  pesticide wastes.   Landfill  sites in Case Studies
         7 through  10 are solid waste disposal  sites which  accept
         limited quantities of pesticide wastes.
     3.  Landfill disposal  sites  are owned and operated by  public
         agencies (Case Studies 1, 3, 5, 6,  7, and 10), private
         companies  (Case Studies  4, 8 and 9) and site users (Case
         Study 2).
     4.  In Case Studies 1, 2, 3  and 5, the  pesticide disposal  sites
         have been  designed and are operated primarily to serve the
         needs of the local  agricultural  industry.   At some sites
         (Case Studies 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10),  most of the pesticide
         wastes are from one or two industrial  clients.
     5.  Major impetuses  for the  establishment  of the pesticide dis-
         posal sites  include serving the waste  disposal  needs of


' 	 •— __CASE STUDY NO.
ITEM ' — -^_^_
TAINERS; 5,200 M3 IN
$12,711; COUNTY
$5, 000 -$10,000 YR;
20 YR
$5,800 -$7,500 PER SITE;
60% ASCS, 20% USERS
10 YR
7KWA.M. - 4:30 P.M.;
$431,000; MEMBER
1/3 TAX BASE, 2/3 GATE
7 - 8 YR
73 - 642 T/MONTH
$6. 18 - $7.72 A GATE
.10 YR

TION: 1972)
1 - 2 DAYS/MO. OR BY
30 - 41 CM DAILY
$4, 500 FOR 6 SITES;
SECTION: 1972)
$3,000 -$4,000; THE
25 YR
BEFORE 1964 (1972: ONE
20 YR
7-8 YR

    the local agricultural industry, compliance with state
    regulations, protection of public health and safety of
    the landfill operator and equipment, and opportunity for
    a profitable business.
6.  Operation of a site generally requires some form of permit
    and approval from one or more state agencies.  Permit reg-
    ulations and approval conditions vary from state to state.
7.  The type and quantity of pesticide wastes handled vary
    among different disposal sites.   In Case Study 4, most of
    the wastes are process wastes from the manufacturing of
    pesticides.  In some sites (Case Studies 1,2, 5 and 6)
    pesticide wastes are primarily empty containers.  In Case
    Study 7, the concrete culverts installed in sanitary land-
    fills are for the disposal of limited quantities of calcium
    arsehate which is no longer used on cotton crops.
8.  In most cases there are certain  regulations and requirements
    governing the type of pesticide  wastes which can be accepted
    at the landfill site.  All types of pesticide wastes (manu-
    facturing wastes, rinsed and unrinsed containers, outdated
    products, etc.) can be accepted  at the disposal facility in
    Case Study 4.  Only empty and triple-rinsed pesticide containers
    are to be accepted at sites in Case Studies 2 and 5.  To
    qualify for a lower disposal fee, pesticide containers taken
    to the site in Case Study 3 must be empty and rinsed.  The
    requirement for rinsing of pesticide containers is very dif-
    ficult to enforce and containers received at the disposal
    sites are not always rinsed.  Even though under California
    disposal site classification, Class II-l  disposal sites are
    suitable for the disposal  of triple-rinsed pesticide containers,
    some California Class II-l sites no longer accept pesticide
    containers, since it cannot be guaranteed that the containers
    received at the sites are always rinsed.

 9.  Hauling of the waste to the site Includes use of commercial
     haulers (Case Studies 1, 3, 4, 5, and 10), company disposal
     trucks (Case Studies 8 and 9) and private vehicles (Case
     Studies 2 and 6).
10.  there are no on-site pre-dlsposal waste treatments at eight
     of the 10 sites studied.  On-s1te waste treatment in Case
     Study 2 consists of container crushing and emptying and
     rinsing of containers, 1f necessary.  Clay and water are
     added to the waste disposal silos 1n Case Study 4 to absorb
     the Impact of the dropping loads, to suppress odor, and to
     reduce possibilities for explosion and fire.
11.  The procedures and requirements for waste documentation
     vary from site to site.   Some sites use an elaborate pro-
     cedure for waste documentation and keep a detailed record
     on the quantity and type of wastes handled.  In some cases
     (e.g., Case Study 1) copies of the  Waste Hauler Record.
     must also be submitted to the state.  In Case Studies 4,
     8 and 9, the disposal companies operating the sites keep
     records of the type and quantity of pesticide waste handled;
     upon request, these records would be available to the state
     for review.'
12.  The operating schedule varies among different sites. .Some
     sites (Case Studies 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6) are open only during
     certain specified days in a month or In a year or by prior
     appointment.   To encourage farmers to bring in their con-
     tainers for disposal, in Case Study 3, the schedule for
     accepting pesticide containers has been extended from one
     day per week  to five days per week.
13.  With the exception of Case Studies 4 and 7 which represent
     unique disposal conditions, the disposal operation at the
     landfill  sites generally use either the trench (pit) or
     area method of landfilling.  The deposited wastes are
     covered with  dirt layers Immediately, after each day of
     operation, and/or when the site 1s closed for the season.

14.  In some cases (notably Case Studies 1 and 4) detailed
     environmental studies and preparation of environmental
     Impact statements have preceded the actual site selection
     and operation.  Observation wells and sampling and analysis
     of air, water, and land are used In a number of cases for
     environmental monitoring.  In most cases, the pesticide
     disposal operating area is fenced off and is kept locked
     when not in use.
15.  Only in two cases (1 and 5) have there been incidents of
     fire and explosion.
16.  Capital cost varies  widely for different sites, reflecting
     differences in the size of the operation and site location.
     Source of the capital funds have been Federal support (Case
     Study 2), public (Case Studies 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7), private
     (Case Studies 4, 8,  and 9), assessment to users (Case Study
     2), and revenue bonds (Case Study 10).
17.  Operating costs and  revenues vary widely reflecting dif-
     ferences 1n the size of the operation, labor cost* local
     and state regulations, and geographic location.  In some
     cases (Case Studies  5, 6, and 7) cost for the disposal
     of  pesticide wastes is absorbed in the overall cost of
     solid waste disposal; no gate fees are charged at these
     sites to encourage the waste generators to bring their
     pesticide wastes in  for proper disposal.   The operating
     revenue in Case Studies 1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 10 1s
     derived wholly or in part from the gate fee.
18.  The establishment and operation of certain landfills have
     generally been well  accepted by the area residents.   In
     a number of cases, there has been some public complaint
     and objection and in one case (Case Study 10)  citizens'
     objections to the specific location proposed for the site
     were taken all the way to the State Supreme Court prior
     to final  resolution.   A few problems which have been

     encountered in the operation of some of the landfills
     include waste generators taking the waste to the site
     during non-business hours (Case Study 2) and use of
     other landfills for reasons of economics and convenience
     (Case Study 3).  In Case Study 2, the problem is being
     resolved through public education; in Case Study 3, the
     problem has been mostly resolved by extending! the business
     hours, lowering the disposal fee, and modifying the waste
     documentation requirements.  To guard against disposal of
     pesticide containers at unauthorized locations,, in imperial
     County, California, (Case Study 5), the pesticide containers
     are marked, for identification purposes, with the pesticide
     dialer's license number and the number of Imperial County
     permit to apply pesticides.
19.  fte anticipated site life Is dependent on the size of the
  ".  c.  ....'.-
     land parcel and the estimated volume of business; for the
     cases studied, the estimated life varies from 7 to 50
     years.   .        ;                 .-'••"'.
2&.  No definite plans have been formulated for future use of
     most of the sites studies.  Plans considered in Case Studies
     3 and 10 Include use as a golf course (Case Study 10), and
     development of a public park or landscaping for adjacent
     commercial/Industrial development  (Case Study 3).
21.  In the majority of the cases studied and in a number of
     additional cases which were Initially reviewed for inclu-
     sion in this study, the site operators and public agencies
     Which oversee the operation of certain sites, indicated
     ih"«tthey rcwtifteiy receive Inquiries and requests for
     permission to dispose of wastes from waste generators
     located outside their normal service areas.  These waste
     "generators have no access to Bother sites or to other  .
    'acceptable means of waste disposal.   In one Instance (Case
     Study 2), a waste generator offered to pay $1.00 for the
     disposal  of each pesticide container.

 1.  U.S. Tariff Commission, Chemical Division.  United States production
       and sales of pesticides and related products- 1973.  Washington, U.S.
       Government Printing Office, June 1974.  12 p.

 2.  Personal communication.  J. Shumaker, California Department of Food
       and Agriculture, to S. Quinlivan, TRW Systems, Inc., Sept. 29, 1975.

 3.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Thermal processing and land
       disposal of solid waste; guidelines.  Federal Register, 39(158):
       29327-29338, Aug. 14, 1974.

 4.  Geswein, A. J.  Liners for land disposal sites; an assessment.
       Environmental Protection Publication SW-137.  (Washington), U.S.
       Environmental Protection Agency, 1975.  66 p.

 5.  Fields, T., Jr., and A. W. Lindsey.  Landfill disposal of hazardous
       wastes: a review of literature and known approaches'.  Environmental
       Protection Publication SW-165.  (Washington), U.S. Environmental
       Protection Agency, June 1975.  36 p.

 6.  Waste discharge requirements for waste disposal to land; disposal site
       design and operation information,  rev.  ed.  Sacramento, California
       State Water Resources Control Board.  Nov. 1975.   63 p.

 7.  Baum, B., and C.H. Parker.  Solid waste disposal,   v.l.  Incineration
       and landfill.  Ann Arbor, Mich., Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc.,
       1973.  397 p.                             :

 8.  Farb, D., and S. D. Ward.  Information about hazardous waste management
       facilities.  Environmental  Protection Publication SW-145.   (Washington),
       U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Feb. 1975.   130 p.

 9.  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.  Pesticides  and pesticide containers;
       regulations for acceptance and recommended procedures for disposal
       and storage.  Federal register. 39(85):15235-15241, May 1, 1974.

10.  Arthur D. Little, Inc.  Economic analysis  of pesticide disposal  methods;
       final report.  Washington,  U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
       Strategic Studies Unit, Mar. 1975.  various pagings.  (Unpublished

11.  Henningson, Durham & Richardson, Inc., and Veanstra & Kimm.   Collection
       and disposal of solid waste for the Des  Moines metropolitan area; the
       planning phase.  Environmental Protection Publication SW-14d.   Washington,
       U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.  (321 p.)

12.  National Bureau of Standards  Miscellaneous. Publication No.  233.   Spelling
       and abbreviations of units,  'in R.  C.  Weast, ed.  Handbook of chemistry
       and physics.  49th ed.  Cleveland,  The ChemicFTRubber Co., [1968].
       p. F-213.



                  APPENDIX A


     The following abbreviations for units of weight and measure which
are based on the system adopted by the National Bureau of Standards
have been used In this report.
                Unit                               Abbreviation
                acre                                acre
                centimeter                          cm
                cubic foot                          ft3
                cubic meter                         m
                cubic yard                          yd
                foot                                ft
                gallon                              gal
                hectare                             ha
                Inch                                1n.
                kilogram                            kg
                kilometer                           km
                liter                               liter
                meter                               m
                metric ton                          t
                mile                                ml
                pound                               lb
                square foot                         ft
                square kilometer                    km
                square mile                         ml
                ton                                  ton

                       APPENDIX B


     On March  2,  1972, the State Water Resources Control Board adopted
 Subchapter  15  as  ah addition to Chapter 3 In Title 23 of the California
 Administrative Code.  This new Subchapter governs waste disposal to land
 and establishes a disposal site and waste classification system on a
 statewide basis.  The classification of disposal sites 1s based upon the
 geologic and hydrologlc features of the disposal area and the capability
 for protection of surface and groundwater quality.  The categorization of
 wastes Is based upon the threat that the type of waste material presents
 to water quality,  these additions to the Administrative Code were made
 pursuant to an amendment to Water Code Section 14040 made during the 1970
'legislative session Instructing the regional water quality control boards
 to approve  sites  suitable for disposal of wastes "consistent with the
 classification that shall be adopted by the State Board".

 Disposal Site  C1 assl f1 cations
 Class I - there must be no possibility of discharge of pollutant substances
 to usable Waters.  Artificial barriers may be used for control of lateral
waste movement only.  Usable groundwater may underlie the site, but only
 under extreme  cases and where natural geological conditions prevent move-
 i*nt of the wastes to the water and provide protection for the active life
 of the site,   inundation and washout must not occur.  All waste groups may
be received'.
ililCted JlastS .1 - A special case of Class I site is established where a
threat of inundation by greater than a 100-year .flood exists.  A limitation
is placed oh the type and amount of Group 1 wastes that may be accepted.
       ^.-.*. Tttese sites may overlie or 'may be adjacent to usable ground-
        AKtficial barriers may be used for both vertical and lateral
waste Confinement 1n the absence of natural conditions.  Protection from
a 106-year frequency flood must be provided.  Group 2 and 3 wastes can be
accepted and under special conditions, certain Group 1 materials may be
       Ir'2 -- these sites may have vertical and lateral continuity with
usable groundwater, but have features that provide protection of water
quality.  Group 2 and 3 wastes can be accepted.


Class III - These are sites where Group 3 wastes would be dumped directly
into ground or surface water, or where there is inadequate protection to
water quality.  Only Group 3 wastes may be accepted.

Classification of Wastes Discharged to Land
Group 1 Wastes - Group 1 wastes consist of or contain toxic substances and
substances which could significantly impair the quality of usable waters.
In the agricultural waste category, examples of Group 1 wastes include:
chemicals such as pesticides or chemical fertilizers; discarded containers
of chemicals unless adequately cleansed.
Group 2 Wastes - Group 2 wastes consist of or contain chemically or
biologically decomposable material which does not include toxic substances
nor those capable of significantly impairing the quality of usable waters.
In the agricultural waste category, examples of Group 2 wastes include:(a)
plant residues from the production of crops including, but not limited to,
stalks, vines, green drops, culls, stubble, hulls, lint, seed, roots,
stumps, prunings, and trimmings, and (b) adequately cleansed pesticide
     To be adequately cleansed, the pesticide containers should meet the
following conditions:
     a.  Metal, plastic and glass containers ,used for liquids shall
         have been processed by rinsing and draining  or by other
         decontamination techniques.  The processing  procedure shall
         include or be equivalent to at least triple  rinsing and
         thorough draining of the containers.  Rinse  waters produced
         shall be placed in the spray tank or disposed of in
         accordance with requirements of the regional board.  To
         ensure that the containers have been cleansed as directed,
         the County Agricultural Commissioner must certify to the
         regional board that such programs exist and  are utilized by
         pesticide users in the County.
     b.  Paper or plastic sacks and bags used for pesticide dusts and
         wettable powders which are empty are suitable for disposal
         as Group 2 wastes in Class I1-2 sites which  are protected from


         flooding and where the depth to groundwater Is greater than
         10 feet.
         For public health and safety reasons, the local  health officer
         or agricultural commissioner may permit the pesticide con-
         tainers used for liquids, dusts and .powders to be disposed  of
         only at supervised disposal  sites or under supervised
Group 3 Wastes - Group 3 wastes consist entirely of non-water soluble,
nondecotnposable Inert solids; examples Include but are not limited to the
following:  construction and demolition wastes (earth, rock,  concrete,
etc.), vehicle tires, inert industrial wastes (glass, Inert tailings,

                           APPENDIX C
                     (FOR CASE STUDY NO.  1)
1.  Hazardous Waste Disposal  Summary report submitted to the
    State for the fall  1974 operation.

2.  Partial  listing of hazardous materials or material  containers
    received during the fall  1974 operation.

3.  A blank copy of the California Liquid Waste Hauler Record.

•tncctM •»«:*«« «•«•**

                                                           •sr* cmMcrat (ot»r.e»*t*»
    November lt», J97*»
    California State Department of Health
    Vector Control Section
    7l*> P Street
    Sacranento, California
                                             RE:  Hazardous Material
                                                  Disposal Summary

    Fresno County opened Iff Class t  Pesticide Container Disposal Site near
    foaliriga for a 10 day period between October 21 and November I, I97**-
    the majority of material received was various empty pesticide containers,
    however, some partially full and  full containers wore received.  There was
    also some contaminated seed, diluted pesticide residue and zinc sludge re-
    ceived at the site.   The following is a general summary of material received:

               6600 c.y. of various pesticide containers
                199 tons of zinc sludge waste
                 \i tons of diluted pesticide residue
                 31 c.y. of mercury contaminated seed

    It was extremely difficult to identify the material which had been contain*
    e^f in the containers,  because many labels were missing and some containers
    had been stored for  years.   Attached is a summary of some hazardous .-aterials
    or containers for these materials which were received at the site.  Also
    under separate cover Is a copy of all manifests received.

    It Is "Interesting to note that *»2% of the material received was generated
    outside of  Fresno County.  Material was received from the following California
    communities outside  of the  County:

               Arvin                   Exeter              Oi Idale
               Atviater                 Hanford             Porterville
               Bakersficld             Hughson             Sacramento
               Quttonwi llow            Ivanhoe             Shafter
    ;           Chowchilla               Lathrop             Snelling
               Corcoran                 Lemoore             Terra Be I la
               Court land               linden              Tipton
               Delano                  Lindsay             Tulare
               Dos  Pal os               Los Banos           Visalia
    •           Edison                   Nadera              Woodland
               Emeryville               Modesto             Wood lake

   Tlte  total State; fee  was  $930.25, which was based on the attached  schedules
    for crushed  and uncrushed containers.   For materials  other than' containers,
    the  $0.60 per  ton  State  fee  was collected,  based- on an estimated  weight of
    the material.   Since many customers charged the  fee to their account,  all
    fees have not yet  been collected.   Submitted is  $20U.?5 which is  the total


California State Department of Health
Page 2
November  ]k, 197**
State fee collected to date.  The balance of $725-50 will be
submitted upon collection.

Very truly yours,

Cl in ton D. Beery
Director of Public Works
K. D. Swarts
Asst. Maintenance Engineer


T-3* ? w-.?., jTT.iW >i«V
tat «. «ms» (Mfoa «o*»
                                                          ettHTbl»; 6. OECRT
                       W. CtiMI*
                or  WtfRtAl

   TuhQusot   •• •
   OlamonJmum PKe
  ' fci*->'S -,*«'
  * AH,:
  tref Ian
  Pfits ."3i- • _^I;
                                           Adjurvarit «tfl
                                           Igrl  MytiA *7
                                           ftif^et ,,     •  '  '
                                           Abate 50% WP  •
                                           Thimet ZJnophos  7-5%
                                           lasso E C
Tok DOT *4-2 Emul.
tcx 6 Cmul.
TrJnao 2-2 EC
TrJnao 2-3 EC
*- •-•-••
  •- •,-.

                                             CALIFOINIA  LIQUID  WASTE  NAULU  IECORD
                                                           ITATC WATM •UOtmCEl CONTftM. eOAAO
                                               	          STAtl OlfARTMiNT Or HEALTH
                                                                                                       I   I  I  I  I  I  I   L.LJ
PKODUCEt OF WASTE (Nu«t  bo filled by  producer)
        (•treat]      [City]
       _ r.O. « Caatraat »«,,
                                                  . Balai
•Mtk rn*w*4 »•«€•.
iUit »u
  .t«r tra
                                                  iMlng. ill lillirii
                                             talk, r«tril«a reflata*)
                                         4-^eli I
OESCaiPTIOK Or *A*TI  (MMt  b« flllwl  by producer)

Ck«ck ky»« •! ««t
                      8*cl4 ..UtiMi               I. D Tank katl« nTn	
                      Mkalln >.Utl«i            I. D Ml
                    Q Feint
                       ttiraathfl 1«M
                       ciMBical tailat eeataa
                        10. a Brilllm •>'
                        11. D C4
                                               I*. Q Hu4 •><
 plwnollo, ••l««i» (lltt).
 •rivoci (Hit), cyeMei)
                        ItB*. uxtlc
                         UU dill),
UK*.     U-.      X

(_Ji~lc   Qllaaeabl*  Q»r»llv<

           jt«u      Qkimli
                        <42 gait

           canwt    O>>M*        Qothar.
                                 rjt«u       Qkimli      QotKti
                                                <42 gait
              iMtnctlcM (if
T»r .<•!• la daieribed to lha beat of ay ability and It vea delivered to
• utanaed liquid »a«ta hauler lit applicable).

1 certify lor derlarel under penalty
of parjufy that the foregoing la tree
•nil cotrtct.	
                                      •tfnature ef authorliod agent andtltl*
                                                                             HAULM OP KASTI  (Nut  be filled by b«uler)
                                                                                                       ____  Flak Dei ,
                                                                             Itat. U laiutratlea •>. (if ae>llaakla)i_
                                                                                                               «r Trt»«i.
                                                                             * cnck
                                                     Th» d«aerlb«4 out* ••• h*ul«d by M  I* th« 41«pe««l
                                                     (Mtltty niMd k«lov and vu accepted.
                                                     I certify lor declare I under penalty
                                                     of perjury that the feretolno; ie true
                                                     and correct.                           _
                                                                             DlSPOtn Of Vtm U*Wt b» filled by dlepcwer)
                                                               er trp*>i
                                                                             lltt AMraiai    •

                                                                             The hauler aMva delivered the deecrlbed uaete  to thie dlapoaal facility and
                                                                             It uaa an aceept4»la aatarlal under  the terae of IMC* requlreaeata. (tate
                                                                             Departeent ef Health regulatlona,  end local  reetrictiene.
                                                             Mwca* at lit. (If -IT' *""•'•
                                                                                                         *t"* '" "' *">!
                                   Q ncavary

                                   P tmiaeet <»««iU»)i
                                                      CT»e»Dl««i ^Bclixratlo. jautral
                                   n«ii>>aal (•t*cliy)i  LJ»«>4  Qi»t*.4tM   Qlo>41
                                                                                      ixratlo. jautralliaua
                                                                                                                                  t.Jtctlo wit
                                                                                                                clfy flul

                                  Dlapoaal Bale:

                                  1 certify (or declare)  under penalty
                                  of perjury that the foregoing  ia true
                                  end correct. .
                                                                        Signature of authorised agent  and  title

                                  The  TO SPILLS OR OTHER EMERG0CIES  INVOLVING
                                                              HAZARDOUS WASTE OR OTHER MATERIALS CALL <800) 424-9300.
                                                        DOT Proper Shipping Hame 	

               APPENDIX 0
         (TOR CASE STUDY NO. 3)



 The Regional District operates a Class I sanitary landfill 1n Sinii Valley.
 Group I wastes may be accepted under rigidly controlled conditions.  Liquid
 wastes, regardless of grouping, and all hazardous wastes require the filing
 of a California Liquid Waste Hauler's Record (Rev. 12/74) prior to accept-
 ance.  District permits are also required under certain conditions.


 Group I wastes consist of or contain toxic substances which could signifi-
 cantly Impair the quality of usable waters.   Examples are:

      paint sludges            chemicals           spent washing fluids
      chemical fertilizers     cleaning fluids     pesticides
      saline fluids            adds & alkalis     metallic compounds

 "Toxic" means lethal, Injurious, or damaging to man or other living
 organisms Including plants, domestic animals, fish and wildlife.


 Permits are Issued for disposal of all hazardous wastes.  Two types are
 used:  agricultural  and industrial.   The first allows disposal of miscell-
 aneous , VovT^TTrirr'empty pesticide cans; the  second, full pesticide containers
 and all types of hazardous wastes.  Procedures are:

 Agricultural !  Empty pesticide and herbicide bags and containersi except
 extremely toxic and  water-reactive chemicals, are included.  Before this
 material  can be brought to the site, the hauler must complete an "Empty
 Container Disposal Permit" in duplicate.   This permit, when validated, allows
 the hauler "blanket" usage for a period of one year.  A $10 annual fee is
 charged for review and administration.  These procedures can also be used for
 disposal  of certain  industry-generated empty chemical containers.

 Industrial:  All  liquids,  hazardous  wastes,  and full pesticide containers
 fall  under this category.   The California Liquid Waste Hauler's Record must
 be  fully  completed each time by the  hauler and producer.  District permits
 are required  for all  materials except sewage sludge.  Procedures are:

 (1) Hauler  completes application form in triplicate, giving complete description
     of material  to be disoosed of, quantities involved, and submits with
     $25 fee.
 (2) Within  three  days, District will  respond indicating action r»aded. Typically,
     this  could  be:   approval  to haul  waste to site, a request for additional
     fees,  request  for disposal  plan.   If unusual wastes are involved, s-irples
     may be  required  and a  consultant retained to make analysis and recommendations;
    ahplleant is responsible for all costs.
 (3)  District  will  issue a  permit after appropriate feas have been paid.  The
     same  permit  can  be used  continually if waste is unchanged, but a new
     Liquid  Waste  Hauler's  Record is  needed every time; hauler should notify site
     24 hours in advance by calling (805) 522-1116.


(4) Hauler wMI present Permit and Liquid Haste Hauler's Record at gate.   Fee
    to b<» paid In cash unless prior credit arrangements are nade.   Credit
    application forms are available upon request.     '                     .
(5) Helghina.ster Mill check permit against load.  Any materials not conforming
    wHf be rejected.  All dryms, boxes, or other packaging must be clearly
    labeled and match the Inventory record exactly.   Liquids 1n tank trucks
    and barrels may be checked for odor, temperature, flammability, and pH.
(6) District personnel will direct hauler to disposal area.  Hauler shall
    comply with applicable federal, state, and Industry safety regulations.
    «f}d shall be responsible for safe unloading,

The attached forms are: samples; extra forms are available from the District
upon request by calling (805) 648-2717.

                                                                   PERMIT NO. _
                                                                   DATE ISSUED


                            EMPTY CONTAINER DISPOSAL PERMIT
                                     (Not Transferable)


FIRM OR AGENCY            .                                    PHONE
ADDRESS                                       CITY                  ZIP CODE
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
I hereby certify that the Information provided above is complete, true, and correct to the best of my
knowledge.  I agree to indemnify and hold harmless the Ventura Regional County Sanitation District
and their agents and employees from and against all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including
attorneys' fees arising out of or resulting from the unloading of and placing of the described waste in
the disposal area,  t further agree to abide by all the conditions of this permit and adhere to the rules
and regulations of the District.

                     SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT                             DATE
                             DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE
                              (TO BE FILLED OUT BY VRCSD)

This permit allows the applicant to dispose of only the materials described above. The District can, at
any time, add or eliminate any or all conditions and withdraw the permit completely with 10 days' notice.
$10.00 application fee for each calendar year is non-refundable.


                                             FACILITY TO BE USED:.
                                            VENTURA REGIONAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT

                                            BY                            DATE


                                                    Permit No.


                 .     	    (Type, or Print)	
                                                   (By District)
No,  of
Wt.  or
                                   DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
                          (Please also complete referee)


 Name	•	Phone No.	

 Pick up Address	
                             Street                      CityTip Oulc
 'lyix1 t>( Process
 Which  Produced  Wastcs_	     •         _._.._
                         (examples: metal plating, equipment cleaning, chemical formulation, etc.)

        I certify  that the described waste was delivered to the hauler  named below for legal
        disposal at the site indicated.
                                              Signature of Producer or Authorized Agent, and Titl<

 Name	Phone  No.

 Business Address
                             Street                     City                          Zip C
                                   CLASS 1 WASTE DISPOSAL INFORMATION
                            mOCEDURES fc RATES - AGRICULTURAL «• INDUSTRIAL
Type of Waste .'<
Low Risk'
Sewage Sludge:
Member Agencies
Private Sources
: " California Liquid
; Waste Hauler's -
Record Required
Yes, for each
Yes. for each
Disposal Plan
f25. 00
$2. 20/ton
$3. 63 Am:
|7. 25/tim
-tState Fees

Won - Fri
Special Services
•'~.. " '/
••,•• T
• Cost of any
consulting service
and/or testing
required for
unusual wastes

 •l.rnv Risk includes: Rmnty (triple rinsed) pesticide and herbicide containers,and empty chemical containers.

* -Toxic liu-ludss: Materials lethal, injurious or damaging to man or other living organisms including plants, domestic animals,
                fish and wildlife.                         ....                    ^      ^

                                FEE SCHEDULE

       If the total valuation  of the proposed work, as determined by the Chief Engineer-
       General  Manager, is  $2,000.00 or less,  the plan checking fee will be $50.00.

       For each $100.00 or  fractional part thereof, of the total valuation of the  proposed
      Avork in  excess of $2,000.00, and not exceeding $10,000.00, an additional $2.00.

       For each $100.00 or  fractional part thereof, of the total valuation of the  proposed
      work in  excess of $10,000.00,  an additional $1.50.

       If there  is an Increase in the valuation of the  work after  the plans have been sub-
      mitted and the fee paid, the applicant shall pay a  supplemental checking fee
      based on the additional valuation of the proposed work.

      The minimum supplemental  checking fee will be  $20.00.


      Before proceeding with special  studies, the Chief Engineer-General Manager shall
      collect from the person making the request for the work a fee in the amount of
      the estimated  cost of doing  the work,  as determined by the Chief Engineer-
      General  Manager, but not less than $100.00.  If,  after the fee is paid, a change
      in the study is requested which will increase the  cost of doing the work,  a supple-
      mental fee shall be collected in the amount of the estimated additional work.

      Studies prepared  by others and submitted for checking  by  the VRCSD shall be
      subject to the  fee requirements stated above,  except that the minimum fee  shall
      be $50.00.  However,  there shall be no additional fee  collected for  the checking
      of a study required in connection with plan checking for which a fee has been paid.

     Industrial Waste Disposal Application
     Outside Consultant
     Chemical  Analysis
     Special excavations at Sanitary Landfills
     Authorized Travel
     Printing and Blueprinting
Actual Cost
Actual Cost
$32.00 per hour  (1/2 (hr.  min.)
$ 0.11 per mile
Cost   10%
Actua  Cost
     Cost of furnishing personnel services shall  be  at the current rates
     on file in  the office of the Clerk of the Regional District.