'
PB-250 717
A STUDY OF SELECTED LANDFILLS DESIGNED AS PESTICIDE
DISPOSAL SITES
M. Gh^ssemi, et al
TRW Systems Group
Prepared for:
Environmental Protection Agency
November 1975
DISTRIBUTED BY:
D^DTh
National Technical information Service
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
-------
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA
SHEET
1. Report No.
EPA/520/SW-lll»c
PB 250 717
4. Title and Subtitle
A Study of Selected Landfills Designed as Pesticide Disposal
Sites
5. Report Date
Nov. 1975
6.
7- Author(s)
Mi Gha^seml and S.
Ou in 1 f ua n
8* Performing Organization Kept.
No.
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.
68-01-2956
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
Covered
Final
14.
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
Report)
UNCLASSIFIED
20. Security Class (This
Page
UNCLASSIFIED
21.
No. of Pages
* i t <*+
2
FORM NTIS-35 (REV. 3-72)
USCOMM-DC
-------
A STUDY OF SELECTED LANDFILLS D€SIGNED
AS PESTICIDE DISPOSAL SITES
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
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A6EWCY
1976
-------
NOTICE
The mention of commercial products and organizations in this report
does not imply endorsement or recommendation by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
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.
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............. 111
LIST OF TABLES .... vl
LIST OF FIGURES v11
I. SUMMARY 1
II. CONCLUSIONS 7
III. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY 10
•
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
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Page
VIII. APPENDICES 112
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
-------
Table
No.
LIST OF TABLES
Page
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
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
No.
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
vii
-------
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-
1
-------
k't/
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
years.
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
years.
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
8
-------
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
niariher.
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
projects.
-------
III. INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
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,
2
cans, glass jars, plastic bags, paper bags) were generated in 1974. This
number 1s In addition to an estimated 10 million small containers which
2
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. . > .
10
-------
3-7
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.
11
-------
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.
12
-------
Cast Study
Ho.
Disposal Site/location
Operating Agency/Conpany and Address
Date of VliU
Persons Visited/Sources of Oati
10.
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
Inc.
Browiing-Ferris Industries
P.O. Box 3111 •
Baton Rouge, La. 70821
Inc.
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.
14
-------
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".
IS
-------
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). . . •'
16
-------
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
33
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
33
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
California.
18
-------
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
•5
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
19
-------
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
21
-------
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.
22
-------
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
23
-------
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.
24
-------
TABLE 2
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DISPOSAL SITES AND APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF USERS
Total
Site Area, ha
Land
(acre).
Original
Dimensions,
Disposal
m (ft) 1
Pit
x w x d Sump Description
Approximate
No. of Par-
ties Served
Approximate
Distance to
Nearest Res-
dence, km (mi)
Lovelock . 4(10)
(Pershing County).
Fallen 2 (5)
(Churchill County)
Orovada 2 (5)
(Huratoldt County)
ro
en
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)
-------
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
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.
26
-------
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-
77.
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.
27
-------
TABLE 3
AGENCIES INVOLVED AND THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES
Agency
Responsibility
Cooperative Extension Service,
University of Nevada
State Department of Agriculture
Bureau of Environmental Health
Agricultural Stabl11zatlon and
Conservation Service (ASCS)
Soil Conservation Service
(SCS)
Farmers/Ranchers
Bureau of Land Management
(BLM)
County Commissioners
Consults operators of the site and
periodically monitors the sites for
residues.
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
specifications.
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.
28
-------
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
29
-------
TABLE 4
PESTICIDE CONTAINERS HANDLED AT THE DISPOSAL SITES
Chemical Class of Pesticide
Specific Members of
Each Pesticide Class
Organophosphorous Compounds Parathion, Guthion, Co-Ral, Diazinon,
TEPP
Carbamates
SEVIN, Zectran, Mobam, TEMIK, Dimeton,
Eptam
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Aldrin, Dieldrin, Heptachlor, Mirex,
Strobane-T, Lindane, Toxaphene,
2.4-D
Inorganic Compounds
Calcium Arsenate, Lead Arsenate, Calcium
Hydrogen Arsenate, Arsenic Pentoxide
Botanicals
Sabadilla, Rotenone, Pyrethrlns
30
-------
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
31
-------
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
32
-------
TABLE 5
PUBLIC INFORMATION BULLETIN ON SITE OPERATION
COOFEPATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE::UNIVERSITY OF fJEVADA
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 '°»
TO FARMEKS AIM MtrCEMS:
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.
PESTICIDE CONTAINER DISPOSAL PIT INFORMATION
SCHEDULE OF RECEIVING DATES:
JUNE 27
JULY 25
AUGUST 29
SEPTEMBER 26
OCTOBER 24
NOVEMBER 21
9:00 AM
"
"
n
u
n
TO
u
u
u
u
n
1:00 PM
"
n
• //
n
n
NOVEMBER 21 WILL BE THE FINAL CLEANUP "FOR THE 1975 SEASON, THE
DISPOSAL PIT WILL BE CLOSED ON NOVEMBER 21. UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE,
II, A, THE LOVELOCK VALLEY WEED CONTROL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
REQUESTS YOUR FULL COOPERATION IN:
1, MAKING THE PIT A SUCCESSFUL OPERATION,
2, REDUCING PESTICIDE HAZARDS,
3. REDUCE DISPOSAL OPERATION COSTS,-
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.
2. COVER WITH ENOUGH OIRT TO PREVENT THEM FROM BEING
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.
Sincerely,
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,
33
-------
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
pesticides.
(3) Air samples taken downwind of the sites.
34
-------
(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.
35
-------
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.
36
-------
co
TOLAND RD
^
ANTA PAULA
Figure 3. Vicinity Map for the Simi Valley Sanitary Landfill
-------
TABLE 6
MEMBER AGENCIES IN VRCSD
County
Cities
Special Districts
Ventura Camarillo
Flllmore
OJa1
Oxnard
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
38
-------
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
39
-------
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.)
40
-------
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
41
-------
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.
42
-------
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.
43
-------
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
44
-------
01
NAMPA
Reproduced from
best available copy
WES-CON
TITAN SITE
/-5 MILES
OREANA
MILES
GRANDVIEW
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
Division.
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
46
-------
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
containers.
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.
48
-------
TABLE 7
MONTHLY TOTAL WASTE QUANTITIES HANDLED AT THE
WES-CON SITE (AUGUST 1974 TO AUGUST 1975)
Month
Waste Quantity
t (tons)
1974
August
September
October
November
December
40 (44)
20 (22)
38 (42)
20 (22)
95 (105)
1975
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
81 (89)
60 (66)
133 (1.47)
398. (439)
528 (582)
558 (615)
274 (302)
157 (173)
49
-------
1614
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 !
tn
o
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"- •
.;^...:v#:;
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
51
-------
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
52
-------
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 $350,000 liability insurance. Persons entering
the disposal site are required to sign the form which releases the com-
pany of any liability in case of an accident while on the site. A copy
of the form which is used is presented as Figure 7.
Social Problems and Their Mitigations - Wes-Con considers itself a good
"citizen" and "neighbor" and makes all attempts to please the local
community, its clients, and the county and State agencies. As part of
its public relations program, Wes-Con provides a number of specific public
services including the following:
1. Free pesticide and container disposal to residents of Owyhee
County.
2. Free disposal to approved educational establishments in Idaho.
3. Free disposal, under emergency conditions, for material within
Idaho, including highway wrecks when requested by State or
Federal agencies.
4. Free disposal for material in Idaho (when ownership can't be
established) that may become hazardous to the environment.
5. The ifacilities will be made available to State and Federal
agencies or institutions for experimental studies, schools,
and demonstrations for training purposes.
Although it was not required under any applicable regulations, at
the very beginning, Wes-Con discussed its waste disposal plan with the
Owyhee County Commissioners and solicited their approval. Wes-Con has
donated steel stairs, valves, pipes and other material salvaged from the
site to local schools, farmers, and private citizens. The company has
invited local citizenry and representatives from universities, industry,
and governmental agencies to see the disposal site and its operation. To
avoid any possible adverse publicity, Wes-Con has intentionally stayed
53
-------
ASSUMPTION OF RISK AND RELEASE FROM LIABILITY
I, the undersigned, being fully aware of the dangers inherent in going
on and about the property which formally constituted Missile Site Titan "I" S2,
more particularly described as follows:
The Uk of the NE$; 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
WITNESS:
Figure 7. Assumption of Risk and Release From Liability Form
Signed by Individuals Entering the Wes-Con Site
54
-------
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
55
-------
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.
56
-------
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.
57
-------
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
58
-------
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
•--•'"j^i^erir'----'
utnco
MCXICO
LEGEND
• 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
f;
r - •
HOLTVIU.E AIR 5TRIF
•«:•
\ • \ • ' V V • ^; ..
MEXICO
Figure 8. County of Imperial Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
59a
-------
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.
60
-------
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
formation.
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
61
-------
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
follows:
(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.
62
-------
(a)
(b)
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.
63
-------
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,
o
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
64
-------
TABLE 8
PESTICIDE DISPOSAL SITE OPERATING SCHEDULE
Site
Days of the Month
Time
Holtville
Nil and
Calexico
Imperial
Palo Verde
Picacho
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
65
-------
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
66
-------
(a)
(b)
Figure 10. The Operating Disposal Trench at Calexico (a),
and Imperial (b) Sites.
67
-------
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
for:
(1) Funds for a solid waste disposal sites development
program.
(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
68
-------
33
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
69
-------
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
disposal.
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.
70
-------
TABLE 9
AREA, CAPACITY, DEPTH TO FILL, AND ESTIMATED LIFE EXPECTANCY OF SANITARY LANDFILLS
Site Name
Area
ha (acre)
Original Capacity
m3 (yd3)
Remaining Capacity
m3 (yd3)
Maximum Estimated
Depth to Life Expec-
Fill m (ft) tancy (yr)
Calexico
Holtville
Imperial
Nil and
Palo Verde
Picacho
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)
27
1*
20
50
20
40
*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
wastes.
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
72
-------
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
73
-------
(a)
HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
DUMP
KEEP OUT
(b)
Figure 11. Waste Disposal Trench (a) and Gate, Lock, and
Danger Signs for the Hazardous Waste Disposal
Section (b) of the Powersville Sanitary Landfill
74
-------
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,
75
-------
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
76
-------
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-
rinsed.
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.
77
-------
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
Mississippi.
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
78
-------
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
79
-------
(a)
(b)
(O
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
81
-------
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
$1,000.00.
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
82
-------
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;
83
-------
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
84
-------
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.
85
-------
(a)
VIROKMENUL
PARK
(b)
Figure 14. "Pitch In" Containers for Waste Collection (a)
and Environmental Park Developed on Recovered
Land from a Sanitary Landfill Operation
86
-------
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.
87
-------
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
88
-------
o of/a fo ay f*co/s
PROJ. No. /J7-/.3 \ PLATE /
89
-------
} tufi
\
Figure 15.
Site Development Plan for
Wheeling Disposal Site
89a
-------
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
use.
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
90
-------
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.
91
-------
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.
92
-------
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.
93
-------
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
94
-------
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
site.
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.
95
-------
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.
96
-------
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
97
-------
TABLE 10
GOVERNMENTAL JURISDICTIONS OR POLITICAL UNITS WHICH COMPRISE
DES MOINES METROPOLITAN AREA SOLID WASTE AGENCY
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.
98
-------
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
99
-------
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.
100
-------
TABLE 11
HAZARDOUS WASTE CHARACTERIZATION DATA REQUEST FORM
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
disposal.
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
101
-------
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.
102
-------
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
equipment.
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
103
-------
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.
104
-------
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
105
-------
' •— __CASE STUDY NO.
ITEM ' — -^_^_
SITE LOCATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
SITE START-UP DATE
TYPE OF OPERATING AGENCY
BUSINESS/SERVICE AREA
FOR PESTICIDE WASTES
IMPETUS FOR PESTICIDE
DISPOSAL SITE ESTABLISH-
MENT
PERMIT ISSUING AGENCY
MAJOR TYPE OF PESTICIDE
WASTES; WASTE QUANTITY
PESTICIDE WASTE HAULING
SERVICE
ON-SITE TREATMENT
WASTE DOCUMENTATION/
RECORD KEEPING
OPERATING /USE SCHEDULE
DISPOSAL METHOD
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
INCIDENTS OF FIRE,
EXPLOSION, ETC.
CAPITAL COST OF SITE
ESTABLISHMENT; SOURCE
OF FUNDS
OPERATING COST;
SOURCE OF FUNDS
SOCIAL PROBLEMS;
THEIR MITIGATIONS
ANTICIPATED SITE LIFE
PLANS FOR FUTURE
SITE USE
1
COALING A, CA.
CA. CLASS 1 SITE MAINLY
FOR PESTICIDE CONTAINERS
1973
CO.' DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS
AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
IN FRESNO AND ADJACENT
COUNTIES
PESTICIDE CONTAINER
BUILD-UP/IMPROPER
DISPOSAL
STATE REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
CRUSHED AND UNCRUSHED,
UNRINSED PESTICIDE CON-
TAINERS; 5,200 M3 IN
1973
COMMERCIAL HAULERS/
WASTE GENERATORS
NONE
CA. STATE WASTE HAULER
RECORD; INSPECTION/
WEIGHING AT GATE
TWO WEEKS IN FALL;
TWO WEEKS IN SPRING
TRENCH METHOD; 51 CM
DAILY DIRT COVER; 61 CM
FINAL SEASON COVER
SITE SELECTED BASED ON
ENVIRONMENTAL CON-
SIDERATION; FENCE
ENCLOSURE
ONE EXPLOSION IN
1974
$12,711; COUNTY
GENERAL FUNDS
$5, 000 -$10,000 YR;
GATE FEE $2.29/M3 AND
COUNTY GENERAL
FUNDS
NONE
20 YR
NONE
2
NV.
4 PESTICIDE CONTAINER
DISPOSAL SITES
1971-72
FARMERS /FARMER
COOPERATIVES
LOCAL AGRICULTURAL
INDUSTRY
ILLEGAL DUMP SITE;
CHILD POISONING
STATE DEPT. OF AGRI-
CULTURE; BLM
EMPTY, RINSED PESTI-
CIDE CONTAINERS;
NOT AVAILABLE
WASTE GENERATORS
CONTAINER CRUSHING;
EMPTYING /KlNSING
IF NEEDED
NONE
6-7 DAYS AEAR OR BY
PRIOR ARRANGEMENT
EXCAVATED PIT; 45 - 61
CM FINAL SEASON DIRT
COVER
SITES SELECTED BASED ON
ENVIRONMENTAL CON-
SIDERATION; FENCE
ENCLOSURE
NONE
$5,800 -$7,500 PER SITE;
60% ASCS, 20% USERS
$300/YR/SITE;ORIGINAL
DEVELOPMENT FUND;
NO GATE FEE
CONTAINERS TAKEN
TO SITES DURING NON-
BUSINESS HOURS;
PUBLIC EDUCATION
10 YR
NONE
3
SIMI VALLEY, CA.
CA. CLASS 1 SITE WITHIN
SANITARY LANDFILL
1970
REGIONAL SANITARY
DISTRICT
AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY
IN VENTURA AND
ADJACENT COUNTIES
PESTICIDE CONTAINER
BUILD-UP/IMPROPER
DISPOSAL
STATE REGIONAL WATER
QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
RINSED PESTICIDE CON-
TAINERS; 77 T/YR
COMMERCIAL HAULERS/
WASTE GENERATORS
NONE
AGRICULTURAL/INDUSTRIAL
EMPTY CONTAINER DISPOSAL
PERMIT; INSPECTION/
WEIGHING AT GATE
7KWA.M. - 4:30 P.M.;
MONDAY - FRIDAY
AREA METHOD
RUNOFF CONTAINMENT;. .
OBSERVATION TEST HOLES
NONE
$431,000; MEMBER
AGENCIES
$3.30 A OF SOLID WASTE;
1/3 TAX BASE, 2/3 GATE
FEE; $2.43/T GATE FEE
FOR PESTICIDE CONTAINERS
FARMERS USING OTHER
LANDFILLS; DISCUSSIONS
WITH WASTE GENERATORS,
EXTENSION OF SITE OPEN
DAYS, RELAXATION OF
DOCUMENTATION REQUIRE-
MENTS
7 - 8 YR
PUBLIC PARK, GOLF COURSE,
OR LANDSCAPING FOR
ADJACENT DEVELOPMENTS
4
OWYHEE CO., ID.
DEACTIVATED TITAN
MISSILE SILOS
1973
1
PRIVATE COMPANY
2 PESTICIDE MANWAC-i
TURERS IN OREGON
AND COLORADO
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION; PROFIT
POTENTIAL
STATE DEPT. OF
ENVIRONMENTAL AND
COMMUNITY SERVICES
PESTICIDE MANUFAC-
TURING WASTES
73 - 642 T/MONTH
COMMERCIAL HAULERS/
WASTE GENERATORS
ADDITION OF CLAY,
WATER AND LIME (IF
NEEDED) TO SILOS
CERTIFICATE OF WASTE
DISPOSAL; RECORD KEPT
ON QUANTITY/NATURE
OF WASTE
PRIOR ARRANGEMENT
UNLOADING INTO
SILOS; WATER AND
CLAY ADDITION
FENCE ENCLOSURE;
SILO AIR MONITORING
NONE
$55, 000 PRIVATE FUND
$6. 18 - $7.72 A GATE
FEE
1
NONE
(EFFECTIVE PUBLIC
RELATIONS PROGRAM)
.10 YR
NONL
106
-------
TABLE 12. SUMMARY OF PERTINENT FEATURES
OF THE 10 LANDFILL SITES
s
IMPERIAL CO., CA.
6 CA. CLASS II SITES
WITHIN SANITARY
LANDFILLS
,1970 (PESTICIDE SEC-
TION: 1972)
CO. OEPT. OF PUBLIC
WORKS
'AGRICULTURAL
INDUSTRY IN
IMPERIAL COUNTY
STATE REGULATIONS;
CONTAINER BUILD-UP/
IMPROPER DISPOSAL
! STATE REGIONAL
WATER QUALITY
CONTROL BOARD
EMPTY, RINSED, AND
PUNCTURED PESTICIDE
CONTAINERS; 204 -
500M3AR
COMMERCIAL HAULERS/
, WASTE GENERATORS
NONE
RECORD KEPT ON
VOLUME OF CONTAINERS
ACCEPTED
1 - 2 DAYS/MO. OR BY
PRIOR ARRANGEMENT
' TRENCH METHOD;
30 - 41 CM DAILY
DIRT COVER
< FENCE ENCLOSURE
SEVERAL SMALL FIRES
$4, 500 FOR 6 SITES;
COUNTY AND
MUNICIPALITIES
$5,OOOAR. FOR 6
SITES; COUNTY AND
MUNICIPALITIES; NO
GATE FEE
NONE
.20-50YR
•
NONE
6
PEACH CO., GA.
HAZARDOUS WASTE SEC-
TION WITHIN A SANI-
TARY LANDFILL
BEFORE 1960 (PESTICIDE
SECTION: 1972)
COUNTY/CITY
ONE LOCAL PESTICIDE
FORMULATOR
PROTECTION OF PUBLIC
HEALTH; SAFE
OPERATION
STATE DEPT. OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
EMPTY PESTICIDE PAPER
BAGS AND CONTAINERS;
41 M3/MONTH
WASTE GENERATOR
NONE
RECORD KEPT BY THE
WASTE GENERATOR
TWICE/WK
TRENCH METHOD; 15 CM
IMMEDIATE DIRT COVER
FENCE ENCLOSURE
NONE
$3,000 -$4,000; THE
SITE USER
COUNTY/CITY
LOCAL CONCERN
WHEN HAZARDOUS
SIGNS INSTALLED;
EXPLANATION BY
STATE
25 YR
NONE
7
MS.
CONCRETE CULVERTS IN
17 SANITARY LANDFILLS
(1975: CONCRETE
CULVERTS)
VARIOUS COUNTIES
FARMERS/RESIDENTS
IN MS.
PROTECT ION OF
PUBLIC HEALTH
STATE BOARD OF
HEALTH
BANNED CALCIUM
ARSENATE; NOT
ESTIMATED
INDIVIDUAL FARMERS/
RESIDENTS
NONE
RECORD KEPT AT
LANDFILLS
—
CONCRETE CULVERTS
USED
COVER AND LOCK
FOR CULVERTS
NONE
COUNTIES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
COUNTIES AND
MUNICIPALITIES
RELUCTANCE OF
SITE OPERATORS TO
INSTALL CULVERTS;
EXPLANATION BY
STATE
WASTES TO BE
TRANSFERRED TO
MORE PERMANENT
DISPOSAL SITES
'
8
ANDREW CO., MO.
PESTICIDE DISPOSAL SEC-
TION IN A SANITARY/
INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL
1970
(1975: PESTICIDE WASTES)
PRIVAfE COMPANY
ONE LOCAL PESTICIDE
FORMULATOR
TO REMAIN "FULL
SERVICE" DISPOSAL
COMPANY .
STATE DEPT. OF
NATURAL RESOURCES
OUT-DATED PRODUCTS,
CLEAN-UP WASTES;
RINSED, AND CRUSHED
PESTICIDE CONTAINERS;
NOT AVAILABLE
DISPOSAL COMPANY
NONE
R1CORDKEPTBYTHE
DISPOSAL COMPANY
PRIOR ARRANGEMENT
BURIAL; 41 CM IMMEDIATE
DIRT COVER
OBSERVATION WELLS;
RUNOFF DIVERSION
NONE
NOT DISCLOSED;
PRIVATE FUNDS
NOT DISCLOSED;
DISPOSAL FEE
SOME INQUIRIES ON
SITE OPERATION; ASSUR-
ANCE BY STATE
NOT ESTIMATED
NONE
9
DARROW, LA.
INDUSTRIAL LANDFILL
BEFORE 1964 (1972: ONE
PESTICIDE WASTE)
PRIVATE COMPANY
ONE LOCAL PESTICIDE
MANUFACTURER .
COMPANY'S EXPANSION
PROGRAM
STATE DEPT. OF HEALTH
EMPTY PACKAGING
MATERIAL CONTAINING
23 KG/MO MALEIC
HYDRAZIDE
DISPOSAL COMPANY
NONE
RECORD KEPT BY THE
DISPOSAL COMPANY
MONDAY- SATURDAY
DISPOSAL IN EXCAVATED
PITS, WATER SPRAY,
DAILY DIRT COVER
FENCE ENCLOSURE;
ENVIRONMENTAL
SAMPLING
NONE
NOT DISCLOSED;
PRIVATE FUNDS
NOT DISCLOSED;
HAULING /DISPOSAL
FEE
SUSPECTED INVOLVEMENT
IN HCB -CONTAMINATION
EPISODE; CLEAN-UP
OPERATION
20 YR
NONE
10
POLK CO., IA.
REGIONAL SANITARY
LANDFILL
1972
QUASI-PUBLIC AGENCY
ONE LOCAL PESTICIDE
FORMULATOR
REGIONAL DISPOSAL
SERVICE
STATE DEPT. OF ENVIRON-
MENTAL QUALITY
EMPTY PESTICIDE CON-
TAINERS; 8 MJ/WEEK
COMMERCIAL HAULERS
NONE
RECORD KEPT AT SITE
MONDAY- SATURDAY
TRENCH METHOD; 30 CM
DAILY DIRT COVER
MOVABLE LITTER FENCE;
RUNOFF DIVERSION;
MONITORING WELLS
NONE
REVENUE BONDS
$0.98/M3 DISPOSAL FEE
INITIAL PUBLIC OPPOSI-
TION TO SITE LOCATION;
COURT ACTION
7-8 YR
GOLF COURSE
106a
-------
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.
107
-------
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.
108
-------
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
109
-------
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.
110
-------
REFERENCES
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
report.)
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.
Ill
-------
VIII. APPENDICES
11?
-------
APPENDIX A
ABBREVIATIONS FOR UNITS OF WEIGHT AND MEASURE
113
-------
The following abbreviations for units of weight and measure which
i?
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
o
cubic meter m
3
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
2
square foot ft
2
square kilometer km
2
square mile ml
ton ton
114
-------
APPENDIX B
CALIFORNIA DISPOSAL SITE AND WASTE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS6
115
-------
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
accepted.
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.
116
-------
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
containers.
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
117
-------
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
conditions.
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,
etc.).
118
-------
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.
119
-------
am
WORKS
•tncctM •»«:*«« «•«•**
MCM*V CHIN
WALTCMN.Ci.ANK
•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
Gentlemen:
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
120;
-------
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
KDS/ms
Attachment
121
-------
T-3* ? w-.?., jTT.iW >i«V
tat «. «ms» (Mfoa «o*»
ettHTbl»; 6. OECRT
W. CtiMI*
S
or WtfRtAl
,
TuhQusot •• •
OlamonJmum PKe
' fci*->'S -,*«'
T«person
* AH,:
tref Ian
Pfits ."3i- • _^I;
Adjurvarit «tfl
Oletdrin
Isotox
Bitano
Igrl MytiA *7
r.roquot
«alathibh
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
*- •-•-••
•- •,-.
KOS/mJ
122
-------
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*)
rrj.
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
Q Feint
~
ttiraathfl 1«M
ciMBical tailat eeataa
10. a Brilllm •>'
11. D C4
I*. Q Hu4 •><
tl.
plwnollo, ••l««i» (lltt).
•rivoci (Hit), cyeMei)
ItB*. uxtlc
UU dill),
Canc.Uiatlaai
UK*. U-. X
(_Ji~lc Qllaaeabl* Q»r»llv<
jt«u Qkimli
<42 gait
canwt O>>M* Qothar.
rjt«u Qkimli QotKti
<42 gait
>tat<:
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)
*)(ktraal)
____ Flak Dei ,
ceitj)
Dae
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
o>411ll
i»««lfy)i
»»»ct>itatt»«)-c«4«
t.Jtctlo wit
I**
clfy flul
If
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)
WHTURA REGJOML COUHTT S/WITATIOU DISTRICT
CLASS I KASTE OISMSAL INFOflHATlflN
124
-------
VENTURA REGIONAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
CLASS I HASTE DISPOSAL INFORMATION
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.
DEFINITIONS
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.
PROCEOURES
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.
7/21/75
125
-------
(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.
126
-------
PERMIT NO. _
DATE ISSUED
VENTURA REGIONAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
AGRICULTURAL/INDUSTRIAL
EMPTY CONTAINER DISPOSAL PERMIT
(Not Transferable)
NAME OF HAULER
FIRM OR AGENCY . PHONE
ADDRESS CITY ZIP CODE
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIALS TO BE DISPOSED OF:
(Attach additional sheets if necessary)
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR HANDLING
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.
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: •
FACILITY TO BE USED:.
VENTURA REGIONAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
BY DATE
VRCSD-212
6-24-75
127
-------
VENTURA REGIONAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
Permit No.
APPLICATION FOR INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISPOSAL
. (Type, or Print)
(By District)
No, of
Wt. or
VoUpnc
DESCRIPTION OF MATERIAL
(Please also complete referee)
128
-------
PRODUCER OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE
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.
Date
Signature of Producer or Authorized Agent, and Titl<
IjAULI-K
Name Phone No.
Business Address
Street City Zip C
-------
VENTURA REGIONAL COUNTY SANITATION
CLASS 1 WASTE DISPOSAL INFORMATION
mOCEDURES fc RATES - AGRICULTURAL «• INDUSTRIAL
Type of Waste .'<
Low Risk'
Sewage Sludge:
Member Agencies
Private Sources
Toxic*1
: " California Liquid
; Waste Hauler's -
Record Required
;No
Yes, for each
delivery
Yes. for each
delivery
Disposal Plan
Required
No
No
No
Yes
Disposal
Permit
.Required
Yes
No
No
Yea
rDisposal
Permit
Fee
VlO.OO/vr
No
No
f25. 00
/type
Disposal
Fee
$2. 20/ton
$3. 63 Am:
|7. 25/tim
$7.70/ton
-tState Fees
Disposal
Schrtkite
Daily
8:00-4:30
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. .... ^ ^
7/21/75
-------
VENTURA REGIONAL COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT
FEE SCHEDULE
PLAN CHECKING FEES
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.
FEES FOR PREPARING OR CHECKING SPECIAL STUDIES
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.
MISCELLANEOUS
Industrial Waste Disposal Application
Outside Consultant
Chemical Analysis
Special excavations at Sanitary Landfills
Authorized Travel
Printing and Blueprinting
Telephone
$25.00
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.
U01306
131
------- |