HomeMy WebLinkAboutGroundwater Protection 1980Proceedings
of the Seminar
November 17, 1980
Long Island Regional Planning Board
James M. Shuart
Chairman
NASSAU COUNTY
Michael R. Pender
Commissioner
Department of Public Works
Peter T. King
Comptroller
Honorable Francis T. Purcell
County Executive
Thomas S. Guloffa
Vice Chairman
County Board of Supervisors
John V. N. Klein
Robert Scheuing
Joan Wachtler
John Wickham
Lee E. Koppelman
Executive Director
Ex Officio
Advisory
John J. Hart
Vice Chairman
SUFFOLK COUNTY
Rudolph M. Kammerer
Commissioner
Department of Public Works
Joseph J. Caputo
Comptroller
Honorable Peter F. Cohalan
County Executive
Honorable William Richards
Presiding Officer
County Legislature
This document was prepared by the Long Island Regional Planning Board pursuant to Section
208, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (PL 92-500). This project has been
financed in part with Federal funds from the United States Environmental Protection Agency
under Grant Number P002211-01-0. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views and
policies of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, nor any state, county, regional or
local agency participating in the 208 program, nor does mention of trade names or commercial
products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.
Seminar on the Protection of Groundwater
From Toxic and Hazardous Materials
November 17, 1980
Long Island Regional Planning Board
Held at the Suffolk Academy of Medicine
850 Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York
Foreword
The Seminar on the Protection of Groundwater from Toxic and Hazardous
Materials took place under the auspices of the Long Island 208 Plan Implemen-
tation Program. This program is funded by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency for the purpose of helping to carry out the recommendations
of the Long Island 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Plan, July 1978.
Among a number of other tasks named in the program, the Long Island
Regional Planning Board is required to run a series of workshops and seminars
on topics related to Areawide Waste Treatment Management. The first in the
series, "208/201 Workshop" was held on March 31, 1980, and was attended by
public officials and engineering consultants interested in the interrelationships
between 208 Areawide Planning and 201 Facility Planning. No proceedings
were issued.
The present seminar has importance for a much wider audience, including
industry and the public. Consequently, it was felt to be necessary to publish
these proceedings.
Speaker
Dr. Edith Tanenbaum
M. Fleisher
S. Costa
R. Larsen
M. Pelley
P. Simpson
G. Naginey
M. Bruckman
J. Proudfit
M. Fleisher
Dr. M. Zaki
G. Lawrence
R. Macchio
Panel Discussion
Table of Contents
Affiliation
Long Island Regional
Planning Board
Title of Preaentatlon
Opening Remarks
Nassau County
Department of
Health
Long Island's Problems:
Nassau County
Suffolk County
Department of
Health Services
Long Island's Problems:
Suff(31k County
United States
Environmental
Protection Agency
How the U.S. Government Addresses
These Problems: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
New York State
Environmental
Facilities Corp.
How New York State Addresses These
Problems: N.Y. State Environmental
Facilities Corporation
New York State
Department of
Transportation
How New York State Addresses These
Problems: N.Y. State Department of
Transportation
New York State
Department of
Environmental
Conservation
How New York State Addresses These
Problems: N.Y. State Department of
Environmental Conservation
New York State
Attorney General
How New York State Addresses These
Problems: N.Y. State Attorney General,
Environmental Protection Bureau
Nassau County
Department of
Health
How the County Health Departments
Address These Problems: Nassau
County Department of Health
Suffolk County
Department of
Health Services
How the County Health Departments
Address These Problems: guff'olk
County Department of Health Services
Association for
Processors of
Liquid Resources
Industry Views: Association for
Processors of Liquid Resources
Long Island Liquid
Waste Association
Industry Views: Long Island Liquid
Waste Association
Page
3
13
17
21
23
27
31
39
43
45
iii
Opening Remarks
DR. EDITH TANENBAUM
Long Island Regional Planning Board
I wish to welcome you to the second in a series of technical seminars
sponsored by the Long Island Regional Planning Board, and the 208 Technical
Advisory Committee.
I am delighted to see that so many of you share our concern for the
protection of the groundwater from the effects of toxic and hazardous materials.
As many of you know, the 208 Areawide Waste Management Plan of 1978
for Long Island called attention to the problem and called for the regulation of the
storage, transport, and disposal of such materials. We have already seen some
progress, particularly on the local level; and, if ali goes as planned, Wednesday,
November 19, 1980 should usher in a new era in the handling of toxic and
hazardous materials.
Our program this morning will include a brief summary of the problems here
on Long Island, fo/lowed by a discussion of Federal and State activities. After
lunch, we shall hear from Nassau and Suffolk Counties and from representatives
of the handlers and processors of toxic and hazardous substances. We will close
with a panel discussion of the overlaps and duplications in the regulatory
process, the gaps or omissions and, hopefully, with some recommendations for
improvement.
At this time, I should like to introduce Dr. Israel Wilenitz of our staff. He will act
as alternate Chairperson and timekeeper. Since our schedule is extremely tight,
Dr. Wilenitz and I have decided to omit the usual, somewhat lengthy introduc-
tions./hope that our speakers, who are, indeed, expert in their respective fields,
will not feel slighted.
iv
Long Island's Problems: Nassau County
M. FLEISHER
Nassau County Deartment of Health (NCDH)
Abstract
Nassau County's concern with toxic and hazardous waste problems is related to Long Island's
sole source aquifer and public water supply systems. The underlying cause of recently dis-
covered problems and costly cleanup efforts is our past ignorance of the toxicity and
environmental side effects of chemicals and waste materials. In genera/, the more we/earn, the
more we wi// find in the groundwater. Many materials now discovered to be toxic were
unregulated and in common use in past years. Many environmentally harmful~;hemicals are still
in common usage in homes and are still disposed of improperly. The recently passed State and
Suffolk County Cesspool Cleaner Bans represent an important step towards control of toxic
discharges to groundwaters, but there are many other consumer products we are interested in
controlling. Two fiscal year 1981 research projects, to be conducted by NYSDEC, will address
these problems. The projects consist of a study of consumer products in groundwater and the
preparation of an emergency response and control plan to deal with storage tank leaks and
accidental spills or discharges of hazardous materials. Nassau and Suffolk's problems are
essentially the same. The major question that remains unanswered is who will pay for cleaning up
the environment--the consumer who drinks the water; the generator who faces more and more
regulations and costs as public awareness grows; or governments who failed to regulate past
disposal practices proper/y? The one thing we do know is that cleaning up after ourselves wi//be
very, very expensive.
Basically the problems that Nassau County has am
specific to Nassau County because we have both a sole
soume aquifer and public water supply systems. As you all
know, I am sure, our only source of water is from the
ground and not from reservoirs, lakes or rivers, as other
people have. Anything that spills on the ground is eventu-
ally going to wind up in the ddnking water, with rare excep-
tions, of course.
The problems we have am caused by a lack of under-
standing, in the past, of the toxicity of chemicals and their
side effects, and the deleterious effects of chemicals on
the environment. Many of the cleanup programs we have
were undertaken because of actions by companies, doing
things that they didn't understand. Them were no govern-
ment regulations against certain of these actions, no
understanding of enfomement of any sort, or guidelines.
Many of the substances that we believe today to be
toxic, even some of the expected carcinogens, were every-
day consumer or medical products in past years. One of
these products (1,1, 1-trichloroethane), formerly used as
an anesthetic, is a very dangerous substance in drinking
water. Any water containing more than 50 parts per billion
may not be drunk. Of course, people working in hospitals
disposed of it every day. There are many other chemicals
that we used every day in the home. Some of them are still
being used. People are disposing of them constantly, often
by methods that am not proper environmentally.
A lot of our problem is because of a lack of under-
standing of the toxicity of the products, and we am finding
out more about these as we go on. In fact, where there is no
regulation, people say, "We always threw it out in the back
yard before. Why not continue to do so." If it didn't have
enought value to warrant salvaging, it was dumped. Now
we are encountering very serious problems because there
are many areas with very highly contaminated soils. Every
time it rains, materials on the ground are washed into the
groundwater aquifer, and eventually get into the drinking
water.
There are many other problems due to the type of
products that am used in the home. Nassau and Suffolk
Counties, together with the State Attorney General's
Office, finally had a law passed by New York State banning
the use of certain consumer products. There are many
other consumer products that we are interested in control-
ling, and we will be getting funding for Nassau and Suffolk
Counties, in association with the Long Island Regional
Planning Board, to carry out a program to investigate other
consumer products. Using the results of this program, we
will try to alert the public to what consumer products they
should be more cautious of using. In particular, we expect
that there will be legislation against some of the sprays that
are being sold today that have methylene chloride as a
propellent. If you are standing in the bathroom spraying
your hair, you are breathing in a chemical which is danger-
ous. This study will be starting in 1981.
Another study will be initiated on trying to determine
methods of controlling the leakage from underground stor-
age tanks. In particular, we have a very serious problem in
both counties with the leaking of gasoline tanks. Many of
you, at least those from Nassau, have known of the major
spill in East Meadow. There is now a major spill in
Cedarhurst, and nearly every time we investigate an old,
established gas station we fi'nd trouble. Local ordinances
on storage tanks have been passed in Suffolk County. The
Health Department in Nassau County is very much in
accord with the control of fuel and chemical storage tanks,
and there is legislative action in Albany to try to make it a
statewide regulation.
The third problem with groundwater is chemical spills.
These are by industries which, either through careless-
ness or through a lack of understanding of the environmen-
tal impacts of certain substances, allowed them to spill
without attempting to clean them up. Many people in the
solvent selling and recovery business would transfer
chemicals from one drum to another and then shake the
empty drum out on the ground because it was the easiest
place to put the drippings. This has resulted in highly
contaminated soils.
This afternoon, I'll get into what the County is doing in
trying to correct these problems and enforcing regulations.
However, one of the problems that comes up with enforce-
ment is the lack of legislation, and, in many cases, the lack
of a sufficient number of secure landfills or disposal sites,
or chemical destruction equipment for getting rid of these
chemicals. This has to be a Catch 22. We tell generators
they have to be permitted and have their wastes taken
away by a licensed scavenger to a legal disposal site, but
there are very few legal disposal sites; and, of course, as
the cost of transportation and disposal goes up, it is getting
more expensive to get rid of them that way.
A great deal of attention is paid to controlling gen-
erators of toxic and hazardous wastes. Most of the Federal
legislation considers that the top ten percent of the
generators produce 90% of the waste. This is probably
correct for the largest companies, like DuPont, but we don't
have anybody of that magnitude on Long Island. We have
many, many small generators, and when you consider that
we are talking about contamination in the parts per billion
level, you don't have to spill very many gallons from each of
several hundred small sources to create a very serious
groundwater contamination problem.
That's basically the problems that we are faced with in
Nassau County. Mr. Costa will go into some of them more
specifically, including some of the problems that face Suf-
folk County. Basically, Suffolk County problems are the
same as Nassau County problems except that, in Suffolk,
they have many small wells for water supply, whereas
Nassau County has fewer wells, connected to municipal
water supply systems. Anything you put into the ground will
get into the aquifer, and when it gets into the aquifer, you
are going to be drinking it.
The question is should the consumer pay for removing
what some of the contaminators, knowingly or unknow-
ingly, have spilled? Needless to say, none of us want to
drink it, but who is going to get it out, and pay for the
technology to get it out?
2
Long Island's Problems: Suffolk County
STEVE COSTA
Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS)
Abstract
Suffolk County uses one mi#ion pounds of carcinogenic pesticides and aromatic compounds
each year. They are used as fuels (gasoline and oil), paint strippers, industrial so/vents, degreas-
ers, cleaners, and plating chemicals. Electroplating is a significant industry in the County. This
presentation concerns the various routes by which toxic and hazardous wastes reach the
groundwater. In genera/, methods of discharge can be separated into four categories: perma-
nent discharges (which the State and SCDHS are trying to regulate through the SPDES prog-
ram), unintentional and intentional illegal discharges, and discharges by small unregulated
industries. Given the subtlety and complexity of the many avenues through which toxics reach
groundwater, regulation and enforcement become very difficult. Adding to the difficulty are a
number of serious problems. Governmental budgetary restraints have meant critical manpower
shortages. There is an urgent need for adequate laboratory capability to Support the enforcement
effort. The SCDHS /ab spends most of its time sampling drinking water supplies. There is never
enough capacity for efficient sampling of industrial wastes. The State's Environmental Conserva-
tion laws are vague with respect to toxic materials. The rigid #ability requirements render the
statutes weak in court cases, since it is extremely difficult to prove direct responsibility. In
addition to manpower and increased laboratory capability, licensing of private laboratories in the
County is needed. Private laboratories range in quality from excellent to very poor. Poor facilities
do a disservice to industry and simply add to regulatory problems. There is a need for increased
data processing capability. At present, SCDHS cannot effectively handle the amounts of data
collected. Final/y, it will eventually be necessary to control the type of industries that locate in
Suffolk County. Since it is apparent that regulatory efforts wi//not keep pace with the problem and
some discharge of toxics to groundwater is inevitable, what is needed is a form of regulatory
zoning that will safeguard critical recharge areas. SCDHS' A/licle 6 is an important first step in
this process.
What I would like to discuss is some of the routes by
which toxic wastes reach the groundwater. I would like
to start with some incidents we have had to investigate
within the last six months.
We had a gasoline truck overturn on Nesconset High-
way in Smithtown. The truck spilled several gallons of
gasoline, which reached a stormwater collection system,
and ultimately got into the recharge basins in the area,
causing gasoline to be introduced into the groundwater.
We are currently involved in a cleanup of over five
thousand gallons of toxic sludge, which, until the recent
~)assage of Article 12, a local Suffolk County Law, was
stored in a totally legal manner. The industry, itself, is
performing the clean-up operation.
On another occasion, an ind~stry found one of its
sealed waste drums bulging and apparently ready to
explode as a result of the pressure generated by the reac-
tion of the chemicals inside it. Before we could respond,
the police responded, took the drum out to a field, blew it
open by gunfire and allowed the contents to leach into the
ground.
We found a barn in Calverton filled, floor to ceiling,
with toxic wastes. Many of the drums were leaking. Much
~f the leakage was flowing under the door, and onto the
ground outside. People in the area were complaining that
they were affected by fumes.
During a fire in an electroplating plant, quantities of
toxic solutions were spilled, under the impact of the water
from the fire hoses. Luckily, all the liquids were contained
in a collection surop. Hew~v~r, the Fire Department
pumped out the collection sump, and discharged the liquid
into a recharge basin, from which it percolated into the
ground.
Another spill involved five gallons of tetrachloroethy-
lene, which was used to clean grease and oil from cables in
a telephone company manhole. Upon finishing the clean-
up, the solvent in the manhole was flushed into a local
pond, which had to be closed for at least five days while the
pond cleaned itself of the tetrachloroethylene.
Obviously, these things don't happen every day, but
they happen more and more frequently. We have to deal
with such situations at least once a week, and it does touch
on some of the more uncommon ways that toxics get into
the ground.
In general, you can separate the methods of disposal
into four categories. One is permanent discharges, and I
won't go any further except to say that we are doing our
best to regulate them. The other categories are: intention-
ally illegal discharges; illegal discharges that are not really
intentional; and discharges by unregulated industries, or
industries that previously were not regulated because they
were very minor in nature.
In Suffolk County, we use approximately one million
pounds of carcinogenic pesticides and aromatic com-
pounds every year. These materials are used in a wide
variety of ways, but you can break them down into fuels
(such as gasoline or oils) and chemicals (such as strippers,
solvents, photochemicals, and plating chemicals). Plating
is a very large industry in Suffolk County.
I have outlined about seven or eight different types
of disposal methods which we would consider intentionally
illicit. Recently, we found an old asphalt plant which had
several hundred drums of material in a field and another
one where we found several large glass bottles of con-
centrated nitric acid sitting in an alley where children were
playing.
We have a lot of problems with solvents in landfills.
There have been some famous cases recently, one with
regard to the disposal of solvents in the Islip landfill comes
to mind immediately. A company or lecal disposer, who
was not licensed to handle solvents, placed them in the
dump, supposedly unknowingly. However, proof in these
cases is almost impossible after all the material is buried,
and no one actually saw him put the solvents there. So, it
becomes a problem of enforcement.
We have encountered discharges onto roads. One of
my more dedicated inspectors recently climbed a tree for
three nights in a row trying to catch an illicit disposer
emptying materials along a road in Southampton. In defer-
ence to the legal waste haulers, if there are any in the
audience, I am not talking about them.
We have encountered burial on private property. We
have dug up drums occasionally in areas where there was
supposed to be no discharge or no usage of toxic chemi-
cals, and we are investigating another area in Calverton
right now where there is evidence that some drums are
buried. Some people get rid of their waste by blending it
into waste oil, which is then hauled away.
One of the biggest problems we have in enforcement
is hidden pipes. We have industries that place pipes into
catch basins: others that run pipes from industrial pro-
cesses into sanitary leaching pools, or into storm drains;
and still others that pipe their wastes into roof drains.
In Suffolk County, traditionally, many of these dis-
posal points, such as leaching pools, are below ground
and inaccessible, and unless you can prove by some other
means that a company is discharging, it is very difficult to
have someone dig up these pools just to prove that wastes
are being dumped.
A lot of wastes are dumped into collection systems.
The Southwest Sewer District has found quantities of toxic
wastes in sewers, which were supposed to be dry.
Factories have been simply abandoned. Two such
factories, in the Town of Babylon, were recently found to
have left a yard full of ketones and resins. Ultimately, the
landlord of the property was charged with the expense of
getting rid of all these materials.
We have an abandoned fish factory in Montauk on
property now owned by the State. The State is in the
process of cleaning up fuel tanks that were left on the
property when the fish factory went out of business.
Next, I would like to talk about some unintentional
ways of discharging. Most of these methods will be
covered under the Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Article
12. One of these is leakage from tanks. There has been
approximately one to two million gallons of gasoline spilled
in the region in the past two years. That figure may be
conservative. It is difficult to tell. Some of it has been
recovered, but a lot of it does not get recovered, and
remains in the ground. Inspectors, on a daily basis, seem
to find more and more leaking gasoline stations. We have
problems with overfills. Many buried tanks in the County
are filled by gravity, and some of the truck drivers
determine that they are full by watching them overflow.
That is one of the reasons why the law specifically states
that overfill protection had to be installed on these tanks.
Some companies that have had fires, accidents and
spills are not indicated as existing on any official record. In
Smithtown, a company that mixed paints burned down
recently. Yet, the company's existence was not recorded
by the Town, the Fire Department or the County. That's
another problem we have--uncontrolled storage. In the
County, there are hundreds of warehouses storing flam-
mable liquids. Each one of them has a floor drain to a
leaching pool. In fact, most prior codes required that they
have a floor drain into a leaching pool if possible. In
examining the leaching pools, we always find that they are
contaminated. This is another area in which we have tried
to work with the Fire Departments in order to come up with
solutions that will not violate Fire Codes, and yet protect the
groundwater from contamination.
There are many miles of pipelines in Suffolk County,
and many miles of insulated cable. So far, these have not
been a problem, but there is a great potential.
Under the category of unregulated or poorly regulated
industries, there are sources such as small businesses run
by homeowners. We have many garage businesses in
Suffolk and Nassau Counties. We have people electroplat-
lng baby shoes, to name just one. We also have many
people doing photo finishing. In fact, we came upon an
interesting case a year ago. Of course, he wasn't causing
any pollution. He just took all his waste and dumped it in his
mother-in-law's toilet in Nassau County. We have rug
shampooing operators dumping cleaning solutions. Some
of these people use pretty strong solvents.
We have commercial establishments that were not
previously regulated. The reason for this was that they had
very, very small discharges; and, when regulatory agencies
were dealing with conventiona. I p.ollutants, small discharges
did not have a great effect on the groundwater. However, in
dealing with toxic organics with a greater impact, these dis-
charges have to come under the regulatory eye. These
companies include machine shops, fork-lift repair stations
and dry cleaners, which cause a lot of problems with dis-
charges of tetrachloroethylene. We also have paint strip-
pers, furniture refinishers, and fence installers, who use
large quantities of solvents.
Normally, one wouldn't think of fence installers as a
cause of pollution, yet many of them creosote ~n their back
yards and spill the excess.
We have many chemical suppliers located in Suffolk.
A lot of materials, in this case, are stored outside.
Occasionally, sloppiness causes leakage and spills which
go into the nearby sumps. Mixing and handling operations
are also significant. Doctor Zaki, later on, will talk about
what we are going to do with these. I would now like to take
a second and talk about some of the needs of the regula-
tory agency.
With budgetary restrictions, we never have enough
people. However, in order to get good support, we do need
laboratory capacity. Our laboratory in Suffolk County does
a great deal of work, but most of their time is tied up
4
sampling water supplies, and rightly so. However, when it
comes to industrial waste, which is the cause of the prob-
lems, there is never enough capacity. So, we do need
more laboratory capacity. We also need private laboratory
licensing. The quality of labs in the County runs from
excellent to very poor. Some people, running around with
little ten dollar test kits, are approaching industries and
offering to test their waste. This sort of thing really does a
disservice to industry, but since there is no control and no
licensing when dealing with discharges, it becomes a reg-
ulatory problem and we are not now in a position to judge
the capability of these laboratories.
The Environmental Conservation Law is not specific
when it comes to toxic materials. The law is quite weak
when you try to prove a case, especially a criminal case.
All told, we need manpower, equipment, laboratory
capabilities and good data processing. The latter would be
a great help, since we handle scads of data and don't have
the people to look through it all and summarize it. So, data
processing is important in analyzing more efficiently the
day-to-day data we collect. Lastly, some regulatory zoning
is definitely needed. Many spills are inadvertent and will
always occur, no matter how much regulation there is. The
chances are that one will cause less of a problem by
applying regulatory zoning restrictions to certain types of
industry, preventing them from locating in critical recharge
areas.
How the U.S. Government Addresses These Problems:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
RALPH LARSEN AND MARK PELLEY
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.E.P.A.)
Abstract
Federal jurisdiction relates to the life cycle of a chemical through 15 pieces of legislation (see
Figure 1), of which the two most important (for this Seminar's purposes) are the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). Long
Island's malOr problems seem to be hazardous material spill response, hazardous waste
disposal, enforcement, and lack of laboratory capacity. EPA hopes that RCRA will solve or at
least set in place the mechanisms to solve most of the Island's environmental problems.
Enforcement under environmental regulations is complex and difficult. Agencies can act if an
imminent hazard exists, but since there is a lack of data on long-term, chronic effects of
chemicals in drinking water, it is difficult to prove imminent hazard in court. RCRA attempts to
remedy this by dealing with the concept of endangerment of public health. It merely requires
proof of potential harm, which is much less burdensome and is expected to lead to a significant
increase in agency action.
I think the easiest way to describe all the relevant
Federal regulatory authorities is to trace a chemical from
the time it is manufactured, follow where it goes and see
what authorities apply. Referring to Figure 1, you can see
that, from the time it's manufactured, OSHA Regulations
apply in the work place. What comes out of the stack in the
plant is under the authority of the Clean Air Act. What
comes out of the pipe into the river comes under the Clean
Water Act and a few other acts.
The transportation comes under either the Hazardous
Materials Transportation Act or under the Resoume
Conservation and Recovery Act. From thero, a chemical
usually goes to some processor who, again, can handle a
lot of waste products coming under the authority of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean
Water Act or even the Clean Air Act. He will take the
chemical and formulate a product. It can either be an
industrial product or a consumer product, and, at this point,
it comes under the jurisdiction of some other agencies or
acts, such as the Consumer Product Safety Commission,
the Federal Hazardous Substances Act, the Poison
Prevention and Packaging Act, or, as you can see at the
top of the Figure, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act.
At the bottom, you will see "TSCA," the Toxic
Substances Control Act, which was passed in 1976.
Theoretically, that law can be used to regulate anything
regarding chemical manufacturing, use, handling,
labeling, and disposal. It is supposed to fill all the gaps not
covered by other laws. TSCA is only to be used when
another existing law cannot solve a problem. In other
words, not every problem will be regulated by the Toxic
Substances Control Act.
So far, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the
only two regulations issued concern PCB's and chloro-
fluorocarbons, and I believe there is an asbestos regula-
tion now proposed. There is, also, the pre-manufacturing
notification (PMN) process which is now in effect. Under
Section 5 of the law, it says that if you intend to
manufacture a new chemical, you must notify the EPA of
that intent ninety days in advance. At that time, you have to
submit environmental data and health data to show that
the chemical will not be harmful to public health or to the
environment. The final regulations are not yet in place,
and, as a result, a lot of data has not been coming into the
agency. I think that, this fiscal year, over three hundred
PMN notices have already been received. Only a few have
been rejected. Generally, the data that's missing is what
we want, namely data on the long-term chronic effects of
the chemical.
You have heard from the previous speakers that the
major problems on Long Island involve emergency
response to hazardous wastes spills; disposal of hazard-
ous wastes, possibly pesticides; enfomement, and the
need for laboratory capacity.
Certainly, we hope that the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act will solve or at least set in place the
mechanism to solve most of the environmental problems
on Long Island.
Enforcement under most of these authorities is very
difficult unless there is a regulation in place that permits
reference to a particular paragraph or section. All of the
environmental authorities have an imminent hazard
section which says that the agency can take certain steps if
the substance presents an imminent hazard. However, to
claim imminent hazard is one thing; to prove it is another.
There is not much reliable data around concerning the
long-term, Iow-level chronic effects of chemicals. It's very
difficult to prove in court that a chemical in drinking water,
for example, will pose some kind of risk.
In the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the
wording has been changed and discusses endangerment,
and anyone contributing to endangerment. Endangerment
can be described by the example of a tornado threatening
a town. While it remains outside of town, the town is said to
be endangered. The tornado may never hit the town, but
7
still the town is endangered. Through this kind of reason-
ing, it Js hoped that you will see more action on the part of at
least the Federal agencies.
I did bring with me today Mark Pelley from the Hazard-
ous Waste Section, who knows the details of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. We won't be able to stay
until the panel discussion, so we thought we could take
some questions now.
Floor: After November 19th, if a generator doesn't have an
EPA number, what will happen to his waste?
Mr. Pelley: Well, the generator will have a problem in that
instance, because he could generate waste, but he wouldn't
be able to haul it off, and he would have to store it on-site. If
he stores it on-site, of course, he has to notify the EPA of
his hazardous waste activity as a storer, and would have to
receive interim status, which involves the submission of a
permit application.
In essence, the generator is in tough shape if he has
not received an EPA identification number by November
19th. Of course, you may be referring to a generator who
has notified EPA, but EPA has not, for one reason or
another, gotten back to him with the number. My belief is
that that would happen very rarely. If such a situation were
to develop, I think the only problem would be to convince a
transporter that it was EPA's fault, and that he could take
the waste legally.
In that situation, I would certainly think that EPA would
be willing to confirm the matter on behalf of the generator.
I don't know exactly how that is going to be worked
out, but I don't think that's going to be much of a problem.
Mrs. Richard: Mary Ella Richard. I am only an elected
town official. I would like to know if there is any mechanism
worked out for Federal, State, County or Town coordina-
tion on jurisdictions, regulations and enforcement, or will
one jurisdiction be saying, "Oh, that's the State," or "That's
the Feds," or "That's the County"?
Mr. Pelley: The way the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act is supposed to work is that the whole
management of hazardous waste will be turned over to
State jurisdiction as soon as the states have designed a
program which qualifies for authorization.
Dr. Tenenbaum: Would you ask the questioners to give
their names, please?
Mr. Pelley: All right.
Mrs. Richard: Is there a deadline for doing that?
Mr. Pelley: Not specifically a deadline, but there are fairly
extensive requirements placed upon the state to modify
their hazardous waste management programs so as to
qualify for authorization. Right now it appears that what is
referred to as "Phase I interim authorization" will be forth-
coming for New York State in the Fall.
Mrs. Richard: Thank you.
Mr. Pelley: Yes?
Ms. Saltzman: Friends of the Earth. I understand that
there are plans, starting now, for the composting of sludge
in Nassau County by 1981. The question I have for EPA is,
what is the status of the pretreatment standards that EPA
is supposed to be drawing up in terms of the heavy metals
that may be dumped directly into the sewage system? Are
standards being drawn up so that the sludge which is
presumably to be reused will not contain heavy metals?
Mr. Pelley: I am not terribly familiar with pretreatment
standards for heavy metals. That is something to be taken
up in a different office under the Clean Water Act. That is
not under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
Ms. Saltzman: You don't know anything about the treated
sludge?
Mr. Pelley: If sludges are generated that are toxic by virtue
of their concentration of heavy metals, such sludges would
be regulated as hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act hazardous waste
management program. They would have to be pretty high
in concentration of heavy metals. The concentration for
heavy metals identified in the regulations under the
Resource Conservation Recovery Act are the concentra-
tions specified for Federal drinking water standards
factored up by one hundred. That drops most municipal
sludges out of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act hazardous waste universe.
Me. Saltzman: You mean that there can be a hundred
times higher concentration of heavy metals in a hazard-
ous waste sludge than in minimally acceptable drinking
water?
Mr. Pelley: Right. There will be some sludges that will be
hazardous waste and will have to be managed as such. If
every sludge generated by a municipal treatment plant
were to be considered a hazardous waste and were
subject to the same requirements as any other hazardous
waste, it would overwhelm the system by anybody's
estimation. It simply could not be managed.
Ma. Saltzman: You are aware that the sludge is going to
be available for public use and, possibly, could get into
groundwater?
Mr. Fleleher: That's an error. It will not be available for
public use.
Mr. Pelley: I am not familiar with this issue, but I am told it
will not be available for public use.
Mr. Flelsher: The sludge that will be generated in the
Nassau County Compost Sludge Program will not be avail-
able for general use. It will be used only in specific places
where the soil won't be used for growing crops. You
couldn't go and get a couple of yards to put on your garden
or front lawn, but a professional who maintained your
house might use it in the garden. It won't be completely free
of all heavy metals. So, it will only be employed in certain
nonagricultural uses, possibly for the growing of potted
plants, for example.
The present program is a'st~dy and no compost will be
released at all for any reason until it does meet at least the
minimum standards that we are setting.
Mr. White: Michael White. I am with the Town of Huntington.
Just to bring back a point from an earlier questioner.
You are saying that RCRA will eventually go into the
State's jurisdiction for enfomement. However, we are
finding that the State is already having difficulty enforcing
its own SPDES regulations. I don't see how they are going
to be able to do this. I was wondering what your feelings
are.
Mr. Pelley: I don't know how the grant mechanism works. I
expect that the State will expand its hazardous waste
program in proportion to the extent of this task, and it is
enormous. We are pretty stretched at the Regional Office
right now. We are near the limit of our administrative
resources, and I certainly expect the State will need more,
but there are sound reasons for turoing it over to the State.
One of'the earlier questions reflected a concern about
multiple jurisdictions, and the confusion that people
complain about, understandably, in dealing with govern-
ment agencies. The whole intent in turning this program
over to a state is not to do so until such time as the state is
9
fully prepared and has demonstrated its preparedness and
has the proper resources, and then to turn it over in order to
maximize efficiency, by letting each state handle the
problems that are specific to that state.
There are, of course, requirements that states have
relatively consistent planning so that no drastic differences
will exist from state to state, and that there is a relatively
uniform national hazardous waste management program.
Hazardous waste management will not be turned over
to the states until they have fulfilled fairly extensive require-
ments under the whole authorization process, which will
' demonstrate to EPA that they are up to speed.
Mr. Bradley: Can I ask two questions?
One is, where does the medical use of any hazardous
chemicals fit into the scheme of things, both in developing
new drugs, and in other medically related research?
It would be a strange oversight, considering that a lot
of these chemicals cause cancer.
The second question is, why is there no list of radio-
active wastes in the regulations?
Mr. Pelley: That is correct, there is no list of radioactive
wastes in the RCRA System right now. There will be. That
particular list of hazardous wastes is still being developed
at headquarters.
Also, another list, that has either just been issued or is
very soon to be issued, is the list of infectious wastes.
Those are the wastes that we associate with hospitals,
veterinary hospitals, etc.
You mentioned your concern about the hazardous
wastes generated through medical research. There is no
special treatment accorded that category of wastes under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. I don't
know if the states are going to opt for some kind of special
treatment for that category, but the feeling is that they are
just as hazardous, regardless of their origin in medical
reseamh. There is no intent to reduce medical reseamh.
Such institutions will simply be required to follow the same
cradle-to-grave hazardous waste management that we
require of all categories of generators.
A listing of radioactive hazardous wastes will be prom-
ulgated, but I don't know exactly when.
Mr. Lawrence: George Lawrence from Hazardous Waste
Disposal, Incorporated.
I have attended various seminars where studies have
been reported indicating that only approximately ten per-
cent of the industrial waste generated in this country can
be handled properly.
Now, with that in mind--and I hear it from various
people--from your Department and State agencies--with
that in mind, can you tell us how the EPA expects these
new regulations, on a Federal level and State level, and
various other levels, to provide a workable system when, in
fact, the capacity to handle the industrial waste is not
available to the generator? If you are in agreement with
that, what steps will the EPA take for other State agencies
to increase the capacity to deal with the hazardous and
toxic wastes that are generated?
Mr. Pelley: It is a good question. I would like to say at the
beginning that I don't think it is a question of there being
inadequate technology or, let us say, that the state of the
art is such that we are capable of addressing only ten
percent of the hazardous waste that's generated. That isn't
true. However, it is true to say that there is a shortage of
capacity for proper disposal, treatment or storage of
hazardous waste, and it is something that, quite frankly,
RCRA hardly recognized at all.
In fact, RCRA really says nothing about the siting of
hazardous waste facilities, which are in very short supply,
as everybody knows. What we have encouraged gen-
erators of hazardous wastes to do all along is to construct
storage capacity on-site, or to notify EPA of an existing
installation by applying to EPA for a permit for storage
capacity on-site. It is a very short term, interim kind of
measure to take, but we did anticipate the problem that
once November 19th arrives, the hazardous waste man-
agement program will be in effect. We are now talking
about cradle-to-grave hazardous waste management, and
one management practice that many generators may find
themselves almost compelled to adopt will be on-site stor-
age of hazardous waste during the period prior to the
construction of adequate management facilities, disposal
facilities, etc.
My understanding is that that's what many generators
are doing; and many who were not in a position to construct
new facilities or to make use of existing storage facilities,
for which they could receive interim status, are sometimes
in the difficult position of having to pay substantially more
for hazardous waste management because of the shortage
of facilities. It is a very real problem, and there is no easy
way of getting from where we are to where we want to
be--where we think most people, most of the public at
large, nationwide, want us to be.
It is going to be a period of difficult transition. I do know
that there is a great deal of interest, in certain circles of the
private sector, anyway, to get started with the construction
of hazardous waste treatment facilities. I have talked to
people recently from the private sector who want to know
what they might expect EPA to require in the way of high
temperature incinerator design so that they can start
developing preliminary designs and cost estimates.
Final detailed technical standards for the second
phase of the permitting of hazardous waste treatment
disposal or storage facilities are coming out now. The
standards are coming out in sections early next year, and
when they do come out, these questions will be answered.
Then the private sector, which wants to get on with building
the incinerators and with building the chemical and biologi-
cal treatment facilities can do so. In the meantime, there is
a shortage of facilities, and, therefore, higher prices to be
paid, as you would expect, and there will be generators
who will be starting to have this waste stored on-site.
That's one of the reasons we urge these generators to
get into the system and notify us if they want to store
hazardous wastes, and be sure to get their permit applica-
tion in to us prior to November 19th, so that they can get the
automatic interim status and continue to operate the way
they have been operating.
Mr. De Costanza: Anthony De Costanza, New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
I think you are not answering Mr. Lawrence's ques-
tions. I think he is saying that there are not facilities already
located or running to handle hazardous wastes dght now.
As I understand the issue, it seems that siting is the crucial
issue, the same as it is with sewer plants, garbage
incinerators and what have you. Where do you put these
facilities, and who has the power to make the decisions
stick?
10
If you go through all the technical aspects, if you say
that environmentally a certain spot is best, who has the
authority to make this stick as the best spot?
Mr. Pelley: I think I did answer that question. As I indicated,
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act does not
address siting right now. That is a problem, and I
acknowledge that it is a problem. You are simply pointing
out again that it is a problem, and I agree with you.
Mr. De Costanza: You are talking about storing more
waste, yet you can't handle what you already have to store,
so there is no point in marshalling the fomes to store in a
more elaborate fashion. You t~ave to immediately address
how are you going to handle what you now have to store.
Mr. Pelley: Our thrust is not to go on doing what we have in
the past in the way of inadequate storage. We are talking
about permanent storage facilities which, presumably,
would meet higher technical standards of operation.
You may feel that you don't see it happening. That's
an opinion, which, of course, you may advance. The
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act has not come to
terms with siting, and I am not going to stand here and try to
tell you that it has. I do not see a problem with this, but I
don't think that what the U.S.E.P.A. is doing is not con-
structive, and I don't think that we are simply forcing
generators to turn to the alternatives; that is, to continue
bad practices from the past. We are urging, and, in some
cases, the system does rome generators to store hazard-
ous waste on-site for lack of somewhere to send it. That's
not the best situation imaginable, but it is reality at this point
in time.
We do want to make sure that those storage facilities
do, in fact, store the hazardous waste rather than allow it to
enter the environment. We will be out inspecting the stor-
age facilities and we will be enfoming the law, and I don't
think that it is going to be twenty-seven years until new
facilities for treatment and disposal are available.
Mr. Santlno: Alex Santino, Suffolk County Department of
Health Services.
i'd like to know if the EPA plans any kind of workshop
for local government officials. I work with industrial wastes
and hazardous materials in Suffolk County, and we are
starting to get calls from concerned industries about their
compliance efforts. So far, the best I can do is refer them
back to the EPA, which is getting jammed up with phone
calls.
I was wondering if the EPA has any plans to conduct a
series of conferences or workshops to, perhaps, update
local officials about what they should be doing for RCRA.
Also, I would like to know about your Industrial ROg-
ulatory Interpretive Memoranda (RIM). Have any been
published? What are the publication dates? Do you expect
to have a lot of them published soon, or will they be gradu-
ally published over a series of years?
Mr. Pelley: As far as the first part of your question goes, we
did have a number of seminars ova,~ the Summer. I spoke
at, I think, five seminars this past Summer, presenting
RCRA and getting started with an awareness of what
RCRA involves in specifics. The training of the regulatory
community is clearly not complete at this point. I don't know
exactly what EPA is planning in the future with regard to
more seminars. I do see a need for them, and I expect
more will be scheduled. I know that a lot of private con-
cerns are conducting RCRA seminars. I was at one just
this week, given by Dow Chemical in New Jersey, which
was extensive and very good. This kind of thing is going to
be prevalent in the future.
I think, as we pemeive the need for seminars for
people like yourself, we will, indeed, be providing some
kind of workshop or seminar.
As for your second question, the appearance of the
RIM's in the Register has been delayed, as much to my
regret as everybody else's, because I get questions regu-
larly about material that I have been told over and over
again is going to be issued in the Regulatory Interpretive
Memoranda. I can't recall exactly; I am not sure this is
correct, but I think one of them did appear recently, and I
haven't had time to read it. The last time I asked, I was told
that they would start coming out in October, which, of
course, has come and gone.
I really don't know what to tell you to do, except to call
the Headquarters' office which generates these things,
and place your inquiry with them. As a matter of fact, what
you can do is call our Cincinnati Office of Solid Waste
Publications. It's listed in the May 19th issue of the Federal
Register, which came out with the bulk of those Federal
regulations. A gentleman by the name of Ed Cox, whose
name, phone number and address are in there, will place
you on the mailing list, and you will get these things as soon
as they are available.
Mr. Fleisher: You made some reference to biological
infectious hazardous wastes. This is something that's been
forgotten in setting the regulations. It was supposed to be
done in October, and from what I understand from a meet-
ing last week, it is only now being thought about. We have
hospitals that don't have proper waste disposal. We would
like to see something in writing that we can use for enforce-
ment. We don't want these wastes to go indiscriminately to
the landfills and incinerators, if not to protect the general
public, then at least to protect the people that work there.
We have some very uncomfortable and sloppy things
happening that we won't go into at the moment. If we could
say that the Federal Government declares that everything
that comes out of certain sections of hospitals is hazard-
ous, we could do something about it. Right now, we are
trying to control infectious hazardous waste without the
force of regulation behind it.
Do you know for sure this is coming out very shortly?
Mr. Pelley: I know for sure that infectious wastes are
supposed to be on the next list' of hazardous wastes that
are issued. They will be coming out prior to radioactive
wastes. They were supposed to have been out now, as you
indicated. If you could call me in my office in New York, I
can find out specifically when they are going to be avail-
able. I recognize that what you are referring to is a serious
problem, and I'd like to see those infectious wastes
identified once and for all, also.
Floor: I would like to ask if there is significant potential as
far as industrial waste changes are concerned?
Mr. Pelley: Can you elaborate on what the industrial waste
changes may be?
Floor: There may be particular by-products of a particular
industry that another industry can use in their process.
Mr. Pelley: Well, that can be done, and I wouldn't be at all
surprised if that becomes far more common in the future,
because special consideration is given to the need to use
resource recovery in the hazardous waste regulations
under RCRA, and this is something that's already occur-
ring. it probably will occur more in the future, because a
recycling or recovery operation, until now, has been more
costly than disposal according to conventional, tradition-
ally practiced methods. It may now be far less costly than
the newly required methods of disposal or treatment.
11
So because this is an area that we are interested in
encouraging, thero aro special considerations right within
the regulations to do just that.
There is a certain danger, of course, in letting this go
totally unregulated, a danger that is particularly trouble-
some with respect to certain industries, such as ones in
solvent recovery. Historically, the solvent recovery industry
has not been the cleanest, smoothest running, most
environmentally aware sort of operation. So, regulations
to elaborate upon the provisions that are now in the
regulations for recovery/rouse types of operations, are
also forthcoming. However, I don't know exactly when they
will be out.
Mr. Newing: Bernard Newing from Newing Laboratory
and Stony Brook Department of Chemistry.
Mary Fleisher made a comment before on the pro-
tection of workers against biologically hazardous waste,
and it would seem to me that the regulations for protecting
workers from biologically hazardous waste should be quite
different from those protecting the groundwater and the
environment from biologically hazardous wastes. Would
you comment on that?
Mr. Pelley: That would be the case. I don't know what
OSHA prescribes in this regard, but the standards that
apply to work places are almost always far more lax than
the standards that apply to the environment at large. All I
would say in response to that question is that infectious
hazardous waste is to be regulated under the Federal
Hazardous Waste Management System as prescribed by
RCRA, and the regulations will be forthcoming fairly
shortly. In fact, the proposed list of infectious wastes may
have come out this morning while we were on the way
here; I don't know.
Mr. Newing: Where are they coming from?
Mr. Pelley: In the case of most process wastes, numbers,
in terms of concentration, are not prescribed. For example,
you might list a particular spent solvent as a hazardous
waste, regardless of the concentrations of contaminants in
that spent solvent. On the other hand, there are some
wastes that can only be identified by specific tests to
determine the concentrations of heavy metals in them. I
don't expect the infectious wastes to be so identified by
concentrations, or any such parameter. It will probably be
just like the other process wastes listed in the hazardous
waste regulations, identifying infectious hazardous wastes
simply as something like specific types of dead cultures,
not by some particular kind of biological test.
I am not terribly familiar with biological laboratory
wastes, but they will be identified shortly.
12
How New York State Addresses These Problems: NYSEFC
PICKETT SIMPSON
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (NYSEFC)
(Read by Dr. I. Wilenitz)
Abstract
The 1978 Industrial Hazardous Waste Management Act directed NYSDEC to develop regula-
tions to implement RCRA, and mandated a siting board and criteria for the siting of hazardous
waste disposal facilities. The siting board, composed of the Commissioners of Health, Transpor-
tation, Environmental Conservation, State, and Commerce, and three lay people (two from the
Judicial District where the facility will be located) is to be appointed by the Governor. Siting
criteda include consideration of adjacent lands, population density, transportation routes,
groundwater conditions, surface water and flow, air pollution criteria, public health risks and type
of facility to be constructed. Siting procedures have been coordinated with SEQRA to minimize
paperwork. The implementation portion of the law assigned NYSEFC responsibility for the
design, construction, operation and financing of hazardous waste treatment and disposal
facilities (HWTDF's). In addition, NYSEFC was to have studies done on HWTDF technology and
the advantages of public and/or private management of HWTDF's. Alternative management
plans were developed for one, two or three high-technology HWTDF's, using methods such as
resource recovery, solvent recovery, fuel blending, high temperature processing, land disposal
of residues, aqueous treatment, and possible stabilization capability. The financial analysis
re vealed that the Internal Revenue Code doesn't allow tax-free interest to be applied to revenue
bonds issued for the purpose of treating hazardous waste, since it fails to meet the present IRS
definition of solid waste. The Hazardous Waste Disposal Adviso,7 Committee developed a
summary report to the Governor and Legislature. They recommended that NYSEFC should
prepare an RFP for a high technology HWTDF to be designed, constructed, operated, main-
tained, and financed by a private entrepreneur, on a state-owned site whose location is to be
determined by the State; that NYSDEC should develop disposal standards, a waste transport
manifest system, final siting criteria, lists of high priority wastes targeted for the facility, and
should examine high technology disposal options; and that the Governor and Legislature should
develop appropriate financing, including tax benefits, financial incentives and federal financial
assistance. The major problem that ~s foreseen is local opposition to HWTDF siting. PuDhc
opposition Ilas frustrated sibng efforts/n other states. It ~s hoped that greater emphasis on puDlic
involvement, input and understanding will mean greater public acceptance.
The drama of Love Canal, West Glens Fails, and the
Hudson River PCB problems have resulted in New York
State taking definitive steps toward solving its manage-
ment problems with industrial hazardous wastes. Two
major pieces of legislation indicate the forward progress
being made and are those which specifically address
responsibilities of the New York State Environmental
Facilities Corporation.
The first of these is Chapter 639 of the Laws of 1978,
the Industrial Hazardous Waste Management Act of 1978,
which gave specific responsibilities to the Environmental
Facilities Corporation and the Department of Environmen-
tal Conservation, the former with implementation direction,
and the latter with regulation direction.
With respect to the regulation of the generators,
transporters and disposers of industrial hazardous wastes,
the New York State Department of Environmental Conser-
vation was charged with specific responsibility to develop
regulations tied very closely to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. Also, under that same section of the
law, a siting board and criteria for the siting of disposal
facilities was mandated. The siting board is to be appointed
by the Governor, upon receiving notice from the Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation that a request for
certificate and permit have been received. The board,
itself, will be comprised of the Commissioners of Health,
Transportation, Environmental Conservation, State and
Commerce, and three lay people, two of whom must be
from the Judicial District in which the facility is to be located.
The siting criteria include such things as adjacent
land, population density, transportation routes, ground-
water conditions, surface water, surface water flow, air
pollution criteria, public health risks, and type of facilities to
be constructed. The procedures for the siting have been
meshed with the procedures for SEQRA so as to avoid
duplication of paper work and public hearings.
The implementation portion of that law required the
New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation to
add the design, construction, operation and financing of
hazardous waste treatment and disposal facilities to the
kinds of facilities which it was already empowered to con-
struct, such as sewage treatment plants, water manage-
ment facilities, storm water collection systems, sanitary
sewer collection systems, etc. An additional mandate to
the Environmental Facilities Corporation was to have
studies performed on technology and the advantages of
public and/or private management of disposal facilities.
The management study was performed by Booz-Alien &
Hamilton, the technical studies by Rensselaer Polytechnic
Institute. The law further established a technical advisory
committee to the Environmental Facilities Corporation,
consisting of various State Commissioners and representa-
tives of the industries affected.
The study performed by Booz-Allen & Hamilton was
entitled Options for Establishing Waste Management
Facilities. It covered a number of issues relating to the
future of hazardous waste management in New York State
and included why new hazardous waste facilities were
needed, a strengthened regulatory program that would
insure that future facilities are properly operated, a recom-
mended State strategy, and the presentation of options
with respect to ownership and operation. These options
included no additional State actions, private initiative with
private development, State ownership and operation, and
private development with State assistance. Each of the
advantages and disadvantages for these options was
evaluated in this report. In submission to the Governor and
the Legislature, the Environmental Facilities Corporation
recommended public ownership of the site with private
development of the facilities so as to take advantage of the
expertise available within the disposal industry and to
minimize the financial risk to the State.
With respect to technical studies, Rensselaer Poly-
technic Institute completed two studies. The first one was
entitled Hazardous Waste Processing and Disposal
Practices, Best Technology. This was a review of the
various technical processes which could be used in the
disposal and management of hazardous wastes generated
within New York State. The second study was on the
potential for the application of rasoume recovery practices
in the hazardous waste processing and disposal industry,
again as it related to waste generated principally in New
York State. A third study, generally describing the health
and environmental effects of hazardous waste generation
and disposal practices was performed by RPI, but to date,
this report has not been released by the Corporation. The
main thrust of these studies showed the need to establish a
varied technology treatment train to encompass the wide
variety of wastes that are generated by the various
industries in New York State. This was to be borne out in
later studies conducted by the Corporation.
As these initial reports were completed, the State
Legislature saw the need to expand this effort and, sub-
sequently, passed a law in 1979, specifically Chapter 283
of the Laws of 1979, which mandated further action by the
Environmental Facilities Corporation. This required an
additional study on the need of regional hazardous waste
management and disposal facilities, including the best
technology for said facilities, and the necessary marketing
and financing of these facilities, including the use of
revenue bonds. The law further required the establishment
of yet another Committee known as the Hazardous Waste
Disposal Advisory Committee. This Committee was, again,
made up of both State Commissioners of Departments and
lay people involved with technology and business. The
Committee was chaired by Dr. William Shuster of RPI.
To perform the major technical study, Camp, Dresser
& McKee, environmental consultants of Boston, was
retained by the Corporation to do technical, marketing, and
financial studies. They produced a report entitled Techni-
cal, Marketing and Financial Findings for the New York
State Hazardous Waste Management Program. This
report was used in the deliberations of the Hazardous
Waste Disposal Advisory Committee and is background
material for their subsequent report.
Major findings of the Camp, Dresser & McKee report
were:
1. There is an estimated three hundred twenty-five
million gallons of non-radioactive industrial hazardous
waste generated each year by some four thousand State
industries.
2. One thousand one hundred seventy of these firms
generate more than ninety pement of the total.
3. On-site capital intensive facilities dispose of
approximately one hundred eight million gallons of the
waste, while major off-site commercial hazardous waste
facilities process an estimated nineteen to twenty-three
percent of the remaining two hundred seventeen million
gallons of wastes. The balance of one-hundred seventy-
one million gallons of hazardous wastes may be dis-
charged into municipal sewers, transported to unapproved
disposal sites, shipped out of State, or disposed of by
on-site non-capital intensive methods.
4. Almost as much waste is shipped out of the State as
is imported to the State for treatment.
5. A proposed plan of three major alternatives for
treatment facilities was developed by CDM. These were
options for three, two and one regional facility(les). These
facilities would be High Technology Treatment Facilities
involving a number of methods, including resource recov-
ery, solvent recovery, fuels blending, high temperature
processing, land disposal of residues, aqueous treatment,
and possible stabilization capability.
6. The report also performed an in-depth study of the
marketing and financing of these facilities and included a
number of interviews with industrial companies, present
disposal firms, potential generators and present gen-
erators, and covered the areas of the need for the facilities,
the interest in long-term contracts; and the financial poten-
tial for developing and maintaining the facilities. Among the
financial alternatives studied were general obligation
bonds, revenue bonds, and private financing. A major
impact on potential development is represented by the fact
that the Internal Revenue Code does not allow for the
same tax-free interest to be applied to revenue bonds
issued for the purpose of hazardous wastes since it does
not meet the present IRS definition of solid waste.
7. A special section of the report dealt with various
means of disposal with an extra dissertation of the effective
use of cement kiln technology.
The plan presented a number of interim plans, since
the major facility development was estimated to take from
six to eight years from start of planning to full operational
mode. These interim plans included techniques of
segregated secure storage for organics, secure storage
for inorganics, and physical stabilization of wastes.
Temporary storage for organics is considered to be
important so as to allow for their ultimate destruction and to
minimize the effects on health and the environment.
During the writing of the CDM report, the Hazardous
Waste Disposal Advisory Committee, referred to above,
met on a regular basis during the months from October
1979 tO February 1980. This Committee was comprised of
William W. Shuster, P.E., Ph.D., Acting Chairman of the
Chemical and Environmental Engineering Department of
RPI, Chairman of this Committee, Robert S. Amdursky,
Esq. of Wilkie, Fart & Gallaher, John V. Connorton, Esq.,
of Hawkins, Delafield & Wood, L. Eugene Crowley of
Solomon Brothers, Jeffrey A. Lane of Associated Indus-
tries of New York State, David Axelrod, M.D., Commis-
sioner of Health, Robert F. Flacke, Commissioner of
Environmental Conservation, William D. Hassett, Jr.,
Commissioner of Commerce, and Howard F. Miller, Ph.D.,
Director of the Budget.
The Committee's function was to advise the Corpora-
tion and the Governor's Office on the progress of the
Camp, Dresser & McKee report, and to review other
matters related to a well-planned implementation program
for the State of New York. To complement the CDM efforts,
the Committee also reviewed legal issues on the control of
hazardous wastes, closure and post-closure analysis, the
effects on industry of regulation, generic environmental
impacts, public information and citizen participation pro-
grams, and implementation vehicles that could be
employed by the Corporation in developing facilities.
Culminating the Hazardous Waste Disposal Advisory
Committee efforts was a summary report on the various
issues studied and a compilation of a list of recommenda-
tions to the Governor and the State Legislature. These
include:
1. The Environmental Facilities Corporation should
prepare a Request for Proposal for a High Technology
Treatment Facility on a site to be owned by the State; these
facilities would be designed, constructed, operated,
maintained and financed by a private entrepreneur.
2. A franchise area for a sector of the State should be
established so as to insure an adequate waste stream for
purposes of marketing. Also, certain high priority wastes
should be qualified and quantified and mandated for treat-
ment at this facility.
3. The State should search for and find a site for this
facility.
4. Determine the high priority wastes and disposal
options so as to make the ultimate disposal of wastes by
land prohibited.
5. DEC and EFC should study the EPA cement kiln
demonstration program and encourage its development
so as to evaluate the potential use of that capacity within
New York State for the disposal of hazardous wastes.
6. The State should investigate the potential for at-
sea incineration, using such ships as the Vulcanus, which
has recently been purchased by Waste Management
Services of Illinois.
7. DEC should develop a manifest system for the
transport of wastes, finish the siting criteria required by the
Industrial Hazardous Waste Management Act, adopt
closure and post-closure requirements and develop
standards for generators, transporters and disposers of
industrial hazardous waste.
8. The Governor and the Legislature should develop
an appropriate legal and funding mechanism to limit the
liability and provide funds essential to satisfy the level of
liability so identified.
9. Petition the Internal Revenue Service to include
hazardous wastes within the definition of solid wastes
disposal facilities, which are eligible for tax benefits.
10. Extend the State tax benefits, presently available
to water pollution and air pollution control facilities, to
hazardous waste disposal facilities.
11. Develop a small industry package to provide techni-
cal assistance for proper management of hazardous
wastes and to provide financial incentives for good dis-
posal practices to the smaller industries such as tanning
and electroplating.
12. Encourage Federal financial assistance in any
program for the disposal of hazardous wastes.
13. Explore agreements with other States and
Canadian provinces.
14. Develop an extensive Public Education and Infor-
mation Program.
15. Identify sufficient funds to implement the recom-
mendations of the Hazardous Waste Disposal Advisory
Committee.
Since the time of the Committee Report, the Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, the Department of
Health, and the Environmental Facilities Corporation have
been making efforts to implement the recommendations of
the Committee. This progress has been inhibited some-
what by the present State Budget situation. The report was
issued in March 1980, and unfortunately, was timed too
late for adequate legislative and budgetary action in the
present fiscal year. Further, the Legislature adjourned in
June without passing either a Supplemental or Deficiency
Budget.
However, efforts ars proceeding on a number of the
recommendations, using redirected funds from other pro-
grams for which activities are being postponed, until other
funds are identified. These current efforts include the
development of a detailed work plan by EFC, DEC and
DOH on the Committee recommendations, following the
cement kiln program of EPA, determining the availability of
at-sea incineration, investigating the preliminary needs
for programming a small industry package, continuing
efforts on the promulgation of regulations on siting and
manifesting by the Department of Environmental Conser-
vation, the development of a Public Information and
Education Program, the preparation of a generic Environ-
mental Impact Statement, and the development of a
Request For Proposal orr the High Technology Treatment
Facility.
These last three items have been the areas of most of
the work accomplished to date. The Environmental
Facilities Corporation in concentrating its major effort on
the development of the Request For Proposal. The
development of the Request For Proposal will include the
issuance of a public Request For Qualifications. These
qualifications will include experience in the hazardous
waste treatment field, the ability to design facilities, operat-
ing experience, construction experience, knowledge of
storage techniques, transportation and processing of
wastes, as well as the financial capability of the respondent
to handle the financing of the facility development.
The specific Request For Proposal that is being de-
veloped will call for detailed planning, design, construction,
operation and maintenance, and the financing of a High
Technology Treatment Facility on a site to be identified and
secured by the Environmental Facilities Corporation. By
locating the facility on State-owned or State agency-
owned land, it is hoped that not only will acquisition be
facilitated, but wider acceptance will be gained by the
general public in assuring proper development and long-
15
term care of the facility. The RFP document, itself, is being
prepared by specialists in environmental engineering,
environmental law, financing and environmental analysis.
In order to secure a proper site for the facility, a con-
sulting geological and geo-technical firm has been placed
under contract to examine the potential for siting facilities
in the State. They will be examining not ony surficial, but
sub-surficial geologic conditions. In gathering information
for the project and Request For Proposal, a number of
large waste disposal firms, consultants, and construction
firms have been consulted on the relevant issues.
Complementing the EFC proposal development are
two major elements being conducted simultaneously by
the Department of Environmental Conservation. These
are the preparation of a major public information and
education program, and the preparation of a detailed
generic Environmental Impact Statement.
To assist in these efforts, a special ad hoc hazardous
waste advisory committee has been established by
Commissioner Flacke, comprising representatives of vari-
ous State Departments, the public environmental interest,
local government, industry, and the State Legislature. They
will be advising on various elements of the overall effort.
Scheduling of this program is very key, and it is hoped that
a responsive program can be developed by the end of
January or the early part of February of 1981.
Finally, let me summarize by stating that the major
problem we foresee is the siting of the facility and public
opposition to these efforts. In reviewing the recent news
literature in this area, one comes across the term "NIMBY,"
which stands for "Not in My Back Yard." Efforts in other
states have been frustrated by this public opposition and,
in Massachusetts, have resulted in the banning in perpe-
tuity of sites initially selected by that state for the disposal
of hazardoas wastes. It is hoped that by getting greater
public involvement, input and understanding, the program
will gain greater public acceptance.
16
How New York State Addresses These Problems: NYSDOT
GEORGE NAGINEY
N.Y. State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
Abstract
NYSDOT's authority is based on the State Transportation, Environmental Conservation,
Navigation, Highway and Vehicle, and Traffic Laws. The regulations promulgated under these
laws are contained in Title 17, Transportation, of the N. Y.S. Official Compilation of Codes, Rules
and Regulations (NYCRR). These regulations are based on the premise that package design
should be strong enough to prevent damage or release of material when in the transportation
system. The shipper bears the primary responsibility for proper packaging and identification.
NYSDOT is responsible for cleanup and removal of spilled petroleum products. Cleanup may
occur through the spiller, a contractor called in by NYSDO T or by the use of town, county, or state
forces. Operation of the Oil Spill Prevention and Control Program is covered by four separate
parts in Title 17 of NYCRR. Part 30 pertains to the licensing of major facilities, part 31 covers
financial responsibility, part 32 lists actions to be taken in case of discharge and part 33
describes duties of county and town superintendents. NYSDO T is not an emergency response
organization. Initial response to a hazardous material incident is the responsibility of local
government. In the event of a hazardous incident, four named organizations can provide
assistance. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences has
identified the ten most critical issues in hazardous materials transportation, and these are
discussed.
This speech is a paint-brush approach to a complex
problem. The longer I work in hazardous materials, the
greater is my appreciation of how well the shippers and
carriers are doing their job. I will cover six points.
First, I will cover the DOT's legal authority. Second,
the rules and regulations adopted; third, our oil spill pro-
gram. Fourth is to explain what State DOT is not.
I will then suggest four useful phone numbers, and
finally, I will report on the ten most critical issues in hazard-
ous materials transportation.
First, DOT's legal authority. Five laws--Transportation,
Environmental Conservation, Navigation, Highway and
Vehicle and Traffic Law--are the base for DOT's authority.
DOT's primary regulatory authority in hazardous
materials evolves from Article 2, Section 14f of the Trans-
portation Law. This section, added in 1976, authorizes the
Commissioner of Transportation to promote safety in the
transportation of hazardous materials by all modes.
Article 7, Section 161 of the Transportation Law, pro-
vides additional authority in regulating common and con-
tract carriers of property, who operate under the authority
of the Commissioner of Transportation when they are
transporting hazardous materials.
Under Article 23, Section 23-1713 of the Environmen-
tal Conservation Law, DOT, in consultation with the
Department of Environmental Conservation, was man-
dated in 1976 to develop a system of certified routes for the
transportation of liquefied natural and petroleum gas in
their cryogenic state. Action by DOT or DEC relating to
establishment of this routing system is currently under a
legislative moratorium until April of 1981.
Article 12, Section 191 of the Navigation Law, known
as the Oil Spill Prevention and Control Law, authorizes
DOT to control the transfer and storage of petroleum, to
provide liability for damage sustained within this State as a
result of the discharge of said petroleum by requiring
prompt cleanup and removal of such pollution and
petroleum and to provide a fund for swift and adequate
compensation.
Article 2, Section 10, Subdivision 9-a of the Highway
Law provides DOT authority to prescribe rules and regula-
tions fixing the duties of county and town superintendents
in respect to oil spill control.
Two articles from the Vehicle and Traffic Law require
mention to complete the legal picture. Article 9, Section
380a gives DOT authority .to .require the recovering of
loose cargo and Article 10, Section 385, allows DOT to
issue Special Hauling Permits for overweight and over-
dimensional loads.
My second point, State DOT's Rules and Regulations.
The regulations promulgated under these five laws are
found in Title 17, Transportation, of the New York State
Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations.
They are referenced by part numbers. Part 507, Transpor-
tation of Hazardous Material, promulgated under Section
14f of the Transportation Law became effective on April 1,
1977. In this regulation, we adopted by reference Parts
170 to 189 of Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, the
Federal Hazardous Material Regulations.
Title 49 in the portions adopted covers shipping paper
preparation, packaging, marking, labeling and placarding
requirements for the hazardous materials identified and
listed by the Secretary of Transportation. It covers carriage
by rail, aircraft, vessel, and public highway, shipping con-
tainer specifications and specifications for tank cars.
In referencing the Federal Regulations, which are
republished October 1st each year, we worded our regula-
tion so that revisions in Title 49 at the Federal level are
automatically incorporated into our rules and regulations.
17
These regulations are based on the premise that
package design should be strong enough to protect the
hazardous material from damage or release when sub-
jected to the normal rigors expected in movement through
the transportation system.
The shipper bears the primary responsibility. He must
identify the commodity, properly package it, and prepare
the shipping papers before he offers the package for ship-
ment. The regulations have been developed over a period
of one hundred fourteen years, and as Ben Davis, a former
Assistant Secretary of Transportation pointed out back in
', 1975, "most of the problems in the movement of hazard-
ous materials stem not from a lack of regulations, but from
lack of compliance with those regulations."
Under Section 161 of the Transportation Law, Parts
822 and 823, have been adopted. Part 822, Transportation
of Explosives and Other Dangerous Articles by Motor
Vehicles primarily addresses driving rules. Part 823, Tariff
Publication of Rules Governing Transportation of Explo-
sives and Other Dangerous Articles prescribes the Federal
DOT Rules and Regulations for Motor Carriers of Property
and requires participation in the Motor Carriers Explosive
and Dangerous Articles Tariff. This tariff is basically a
restatement of the Public Highway and Container Specifi-
cations of Title 49. Carriers operating under the authority of
the Commissioner of Transportation through this tariff
publication requirement have for many years been follow-
ing the applicable portions of Title 49.
Part 159, Transportation of Liquefied Natural and
Petroleum Gas, was promulgated under Section 23-1713
of the Environmental Conservation Law, on February 25,
1977 before the moratorium. It is a very brief regulation and
all it requires is that the applicant furnish a description of
the route proposed, together with the name and address of
all municipal police and fire agencies affected by the pro-
posed routes. We intended, as a first step in this, that any
application for a certified route would be a party to Federal
Exemption DOT-E 6113, the Federal Regulation covering
interstate transportation of liquefied natural gas in its
cryogenic state.
Parts 30 to 32, our Oil Spill Prevention and Control
Program, became effective April 1, 1978 under authority
granted in Section 191 of the Navigation Law.
Part 33, addressing Oil Spill Prevention and Control,
Duties of County and Town Superintendents, became
effective on the same date pursuant to Section 10, Sub-
division 9a of the Highway Law.
I will go into more detail on Parts 30 to 33 later.
Part 154, Special Hauling Permits promulgated under
Section 385 of the Vehicle and Traffic Law contains, in
Section 154.12, Special Requirements for Overweight
Vehicles Transporting Large Quantities of Radioactive
Materials. Prior to issuance of this type of Special Hauling
Permit, the vehicle must have been inspected by a New
York State DOT Motor Vehicle Inspector and carry a valid
Certificate of Inspection. Any application for a Special
Hauling Permit, such as moving a radioactive load, must
have a certification attached, indicating compliance with
Title 49.
Part 158, covering Loose Cargo, we promulgated
under Section 380A of the Vehicle and Traffic Law, on
January 1, 1976. This was primarily written to address the
problem of loose material falling or blowing off a heaping
truck. It has been of some assistance in regulating the
haulers of hazardous waste.
DOT is responsible for cleanup and removal of spilled
petroleum products. This cleanup may be accomplished
by the spiller, by a contractor called in by DOT or by the use
of town, county or state forces.
Operation of the Oil Spill Prevention and Control
Program is covered by four separate parts in Title 17 of the
State Code of Rules and Regulations.
Part 30, Licensing of Major Facilities.
Part 31, Financial Responsibility.
Part 32, Actions to be taken in Case of Discharge.
Part 33, Duties of County and Town Superintendents.
The fourth topic is what DOT is not. With the single
exception of our Oil Spill Cleanup Program, State DOT is
not an emergency response organization.
Initial response to a hazardous material incident is a
responsibility of local government.
In the past few years, the Bureau of Fire Prevention
and Control in the Department of State has provided an
eight hour course on Emergency Control of Hazardous
Material Incidents to over seventeen thousand police and
fire personnel.
The Office of Disaster Preparedness in the Division of
Military and Naval Affairs currently has available a two and
a half hour slide and tape presentation for fire and police
personnel. This course focuses on immediate actions upon
arrival at the scene of an incident involving cargo vehicles.
Requests for this training course can be made to your local
county disaster preparedness officer.
My fifth point, four useful phone numbers for use in the
event of a hazardous incident.
First, CHEMTREC, 800-424-9300.
CHEMTREC stands for Chemical Transportation
Center, a public service of the Manufacturing Chemists
Association at its offices in Washington, D.C.
CHEMTREC provides immediate advice for those at
the scene of emergencies, then promptly contacts the
shipper of the chemicals involved for more detailed assist-
ance and appropriate follow-up.
The second phone number, National Response
Center, 800-424-8802. The Response Center performs
these functions:
First, to receive mandatory reports to the Federal
Government in cases of .diScharge of oil or hazardous
polluting materials into the waters of the United States.
Second, it is the focal point in the chain of rapid notifi-
cation of Federal authorities when a pollution incident
occurs; and third, it provides advice and assistance to
users of the system via the Chemical Hazard Response
Information System and the Hazard Assessment Compu-
ter System.
CHEMTREC and the National Response Center are
not in competition; they are actually complementary to
each other and cooperate fully to provide information or
assistance.
The third number, State DOT's Oil Spill Prevention
and Control Number, is 518-457-7362. This number will
accept collect calls.
The fourth number is the Division of Military and Naval
Affairs State Warning Point, 518-457-2200. Calls to this
number will alert the State Office of Disaster Preparedness
to your problem.
All these phone numbers are manned twenty-four
hours a day, seven days a week.
My last point, the ten most critical issues in hazardous
material transportation.
18
At this year's meeting of the Transportation Reseamh
Board of the National Academy of Sciences, these ten
issues were presented by the Subcommittee on Hazard-
ous Materials Transportation.
The issues were developed in a four-stage question-
naire process and represent the replies from hazardous
materials transportation leaders in industry, government
and trade or professional organizations.
Regulations--the greatest concern from virtually all
quarters was with regulatory controls. Two issues emerged:
issue 1. Harmonious international, federal, state
and local hazardous materials transporta-
tion regulatory controls; and
Issue 2. The complexity of DOT hazardous
materials regulations and the need to con-
vert some of them from detailed specifica-
tions to performance based criteria.
Four issues emerged, which shared in common,
specific applications of a Coordinated Systems Approach
to hazardous materials transportation needs. These needs
are for:
Issue 3. A national strategy for control of hazardous
materials risks.
Issue 4. Training for all persons involved in the
transportation of hazardous materials, in-
cluding shippers, carriers, and emergency
response personnel.
Issue 5. A single, national response system for in-
cidents and accidents involving the trans-
portation of hazardous materials; and
Issue 6. An integrated hazardous materials trans-
portation administrative communication
system among Federal and State Gov-
ernments.
Two critical issues, which related to data and its use,
were placed in the top ten. They were:
Issue 7. A comprehensive data system for the flow
of hazardous materials by quantity, general
hazard class, route and mode; and
Issue 8. The state of the art for hazardous materials
transportation cost-benefit risk analysis
methodology.
Legal responsibilities. The following issue received
strong support from respondents to the survey:
Issue 9. Clarification of the legal responsibilities of
government and private agencies involved
in hazardous materials transportation.
The final issue the committee presented was:
Issue 10. The awareness of the public for the need
for safety on hazardous materials trans-
portation.
In summary, I feel the greatest benefit at the least cost
could be achieved by concentrating on two of these issues:
Issue 4, training of all persons involved in the transporta-
tion of hazardous materials, including shippers, carriers
and emergency response personnel, and Issue 10, the
understanding of the public about the relative safety of the
transportation of hazardous materials.
How New York State Addresses These Problems: NYSDEC
MORRIS BRUCKMAN
N.Y. State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
Abstract
NYSDEC's Solid Waste Division regulates industrial and hazardous wastes, transport and
storage of such, and, when material must be landfilled, the landfilling operations. NYSDEC
attempts, in conjunction with other divisions, to prevent accidents to and abuses of groundwater.
Prevention must be the key concern, because cleanup of contaminated groundwater is an
extremely tough, lengthy and expensive task. Solid waste management is extensive in scope,
since the legal definition of solid waste management facilities (SWMF's) also includes liquid
wastes. Thus, NYSDEC's Solid Waste Management Division (SWMD) is involved with the
cornposting, transportation and storage of industrial and septic waste§. NYSDEC adopted a
Long Island waste management policy on June 1, 1979, relying heavily on recommendations of
the LIRPB. The po/icy states that (1) no new landfill sites will be approved ih hydrogeologic
zones, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5; (2) new landfills or extensions of existing landfills in zones 6, 7 and 8 will
require a degree of protection dependent on specific site evaluations; (3) all existing landfills
require final capping. It is the policy of the State to encourage resource recovery. NYSDEC is
involved with incinerators and resource recovery facilities. Organic materials that could poten-
tially pollute groundwater if landfilled will be incinerated. This will also mean, where resource
recovery is practiced, that residual materials to be landfilled will pose much less of a threat.
Non-hazardous industrial wastes may be disposed of at County landfills, but each waste stream
must first be approved by NYSDEC.
First, I would like to explain a bit about our organization.
Region I comprises Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
The section I am in is called Environmental Quality, and
has three subdivisions: Air, Water, and Solid Waste
Management. I am Regional Solid Waste Management
Engineer.
Solid Waste Management has a scope beyond what
might appear from its title. Basic regulation of solid waste
management facilities, for instance, defines solid waste as
including liquid waste.
Therefore, I am not involved only with landfills; I am
involved with composting transportation, the storage of
industrial waste, including liquid waste, and also the trans-
portation of septic wastes and other industrial wastes.
In order to cover the title of this talk fully, I shall go
beyond technical regulatory control, and present the pro-
gram that we have, and the regulations that we enfome. In
all fairness, I must say that, if the people with whom we are
dealing encounter long delays in response situations, it is
because, in the face of expanding responsibilities, my staff
has recently been cut back for reasons of economy. I shall
go into the matter of landfills very briefly. Although the
landfills of the Island are not supposed to receive hazard-
ous or toxic wastes, we do know that things have happened
in the past and, unfortunately, may occur again in the
future. In addition, even an ordinary landfill that does not
receive industrial waste can be expected to generate a
leachate that makes water unfit to drink.
As most of you know, we have special problems on
Long island because of the fact that we have sole source
aquifers. We drink whatever goes into the ground. On June
1, 1979, we adopted a solid waste management policy,
that applies only to Long island, and in which a great deal
of attention was paid to recommendations of the Regional
Planning Board.
We have several rules in our policy, one of which is
that no new landfill sites will be approved in hydrogeologic
zones 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. New landfills or extensions of
existing landfills in hydrogeologic zones 6, 7 and 8, will
require a degree of protection that will depend on the
specific site evaluation. All existing landfills require final
capping. These are measures which we are taking to help
safeguard our groundwater supply.
We are also concerned with incinerators and with
resoume recovery facilities. With incineration, some
organic materials that might affect the groundwater if they
were landfilled will be burned. In addition, where we have
materials recovery, the residual materials to be landfiiied
will no longer contain the materials that might possibly
pollute groundwater. It is the policy of the State to encour-
age resource recovery. In the matter of industrial waste
collection and septage, I should mention that our setup is
such that the County acts as our agent under the local
assistance program, so that there is greater coordination.
We rely heavily upon the Counties for the last part of our
inspection. In addition, we coordinate with the Counties,
and are greatly in debt to them for their expertise in many
fields.
As regards the collection of septage, that is
administered entirely by the Counties. It has been turned
over to Nassau County and Suffolk County, respectively.
Industrial waste collection is handled under a permit
system. The permits are issued in Albany in close conjunc-
tion with the Region. In order to get an Industrial Waste
Collector's Permit, the collector must file an application
which will show the materials to be handled. In addition, the
application will show where the materials are to be de-
livered; and furthermore, there must be a signature from
the receiving station.
When it comes to permitting activities, the processing
of industrial waste, as well as resource recovery, also
requires a permit from our division, so that we have
knowledge of, and a measure of control over, the receiving
site. There are no qualifications for an industrial waste
collector. All a collector has to do is to file an application,
have a vehicle at his disposal, have a customer and have a
disposal site, and that's it. I think that is a serious flaw
because as time goes by, I think we are going to require a
greater knowledge on the part of the haulers as to what
they are hauling. Otherwise, we are going to have
mistakes, some of which may be honest mistakes. I don't
think that the EPA manifest system for handling these sorts
of things in the future addresses the matter of qualifica-
tions. However, that's a digression, since I am here to
speak primarily, on what we are doing.
In addition to these permits, we also have a permit
called Load-to-Haul Permit, required where a company,
generating industrial waste, stores it on-site for sub-
sequent removal instead of discharging into the ground, as
might happen sometimes under a SPDES Permit, atype of
sewage permit handled by our Water Division.
I am going to road a typical Load-to-Haul Permit
with typical conditions, so as to show the scope of our
regulations:
1. The following minimum standards will apply for
storing and handling wastes:
a. There should be adequate control in the stor-
age area, for example, impervious storage pad
or floor, with berms to facilitate containment of
spills. Storm wails should be directed to pre-
vent entry into the pad.
b. Building and Fire Codes should be met where
required.
c. Wastes should be stored in leak-proof contain-
ers which are compatible with the waste
materials. The container should not be corrod-
ed or leaking, and should be tightly closed.
d. Wastes which deleteriously react with each
other must not be stored directly adjacent or
mixed together.
e. Waste containers should be labeled, number-
ed and distinctly coded, and identified as to
content in accordance with Department of
Transportation Regulations.
f. Waste drums should not be stacked more than
two high, and aisles should be provided so that
all drums are accessible and clearly visible for
inspection.
g. Waste drums should be stored off the ground a
minimum of two inches to facilitate detach-
ment.
h. Wastes should be stored in a secure area.
2. Removal of wastes should be only by registered
industrial scavengers.
3. Records should be kept on the premises and
made available to personnel from the Department
of Environmental Conservation or its agents (usu-
ally the County) upon request.
The following should be included:
a. Quantity and type of waste generated.
b. Waste container inventory identification, in-
cluding starting date of collection.
c. Waste removals by scavengers including con-
tainer I.D. numbers, scavenger I.D. numbers
and final disposal sites.
d. Spills. Notification should be made immediately
to NYSDEC and the County Health Dept.
e. Sampling results.
4. All records should be kept a minimum of three
years.
5. A report shall be in approved form by the 15th date
of each month of each year, and the report should
be filed with the County Department of Health.
6. Limit the maximum time the wastes shall be
stored on the site. In this particular instance it
happens to be ninety days, with a maximum of
forty drums. We may have sampling problems in
addition.
These basically are the things we look at when it
comes to Load-to-Haul Permits. Obviously, when the
system is in effect, it will be able to be modified at that time,
but we are keeping tabs on storage of these waste mater-
ials. We wish to stop any abuses. In the past, we have had
cases of leaks that found their way into the ground, and
under this system, any leaks will be in an area where they
can be prevented from entering the ground.
In addition, my Division handles various odds and
ends of activities, in the matter of non-hazardous industrial
wastes, it wou~d be a particular hardship to have to dispose
of them at hazardous waste disposal sites. So landfills are
allowed to accept industrial wastes, but each waste stream
must receive the specific appr~3val of my Division, namely,
of me or of one of my assistants.
So, within the limits of our manpower, my Division
regulates industrial waste, hazardous waste, transport,
and storage. When material must be landfilled, we regutate
the landfilling.
We hope that, in conjunction with our other divisions,
we can help prevent accidents and abuses to our ground-
water supply. Of course, there is the question of what can
be done to restore groundwater quality once it has been
contaminated. Generally speaking, that is such a tough,
arduous task that our key concern has to be with trying to
prevent accidents or deliberate violations.
How New York State Addresses These Problems:
NY State Attorney General
JOHN PROUDFIT, Esq.
N.Y. State Attorney General, Environmental Protection Bureau
Abstract
Initial legislation dealing with the various aspects of hazardous waste is passed by the State
Legislature· The Departments (N¥SDEC, NYSDOH, NYSDO7, etc.) then develop rules and
regulations, and enforce these programs administratively. The Attorney General's office comes
into the picture only after the departments have acted, and as a last resort. There are three stimuli
that lead to legal action: (1) The Attorney General will take a case to court upon departmental
request when the department is unable to enforce a regulation or permit requirement; (2) When a
departmental enforcement action is challenged, the Attorney General will defend the action on
behalf of the department's commissioner; and (3) The Attorney Genera/will bring cases to court
independently, usually in the form of public nuisance actions. The Attorney General's office
contains approximately 20 different bureaus operating in different areas. The Environmental
Protection Bureau acts as lawyers for NYSDEC and other State Departments, brings cases to
court independent/y, and drafts proposed legislation. The technical staff is small, consisting of
two scientists and one engineer. The Environmental Protection Bureau must rely on departmen-
tal expertise, particularly that of NYSDEC. It handles oil spill cases, and is looking into landfills.
The Attorney General's Special Prosecutions Bureau, which deals with criminal prosecution, is
working with the Environmental Protection Bureau to develop a unit and approach to deal with
criminal prosecution for environmental cases on Long Island. Criminal actions are taken only in
cases of flagrant violation. The Environmental Protection Bureau concentrates on civil enforce-
me~t, which is much less time-consuming· NYSDEC has been developing its own enforcement
unit, which will work cooperatively with the Environmental Protection Bureau to solve matters first
through administrative procedures, then through civil litigation. If the situation is flagrant and still
unresolved, criminal prosecution will be used as a last resort.
The Attorney General's office really comes into the
picture after the Departments have acted. I am talking
primarily about the Department of Environmental Conser-
vation, and also the Department of Transportation. In other
words, the Legislature initially has passed the laws on the
various aspects of hazardous wastes. The Departments
develop rules and regulations, and enforce those pre-
grams. They do so administratively, and it is only as a last
resort that the Attorney General comes in.
We are the lawyers for the State agencies, so that we
get into the act in two ways. First of all, a department
attempts to enforce a regulation, or to enforce a permit
requirement. They will come to the Attorney General and
say, "We have tried to do this administratively. We haven't
been successful. Will you take action?" Then, we will fol-
{ow up and go into court.
Now, that also may come about in another way, where
a department has taken an enforcement action. For
instance, they may revoke a permit, and the company or
individual who has lost his permit will challenge that deci-
sion and go into court· We will then defend that action on
the part of the Commissioner.
We do, in a third category, bring affirmative actions on
our own behalf. Those have generally been done in the
form of public nuisance actions. For instance, several
years ago, Marvin Fleisher raised the problem of cesspool
cleaners. We have a very small technical staff. Basically,
we rely on the staff of the Department of Environmental
Conservation, but we do have two scientists at this time
· and one engineer. Marvin Fleisher came to us and said,
"We have a problem with cesspool cleaners that have
toxics in them. They are getting into the groundwater on
Long Island. We have a critical situation here. Can we do
something about it?"
We met and, with his help, we were able to formulate a
plan. We went to the manufacturers and asked them to
stop using and to stop selling these toxic products on Long
Island. I think we contacted thirteen manufacturers, and all
but two of them agreed to do this. We instituted suit against
the largest manufacturer, Jancyn, who manufactures
Drainz, and that went into litigation.
Now, this case indicates some of the problems that we
have, and that a number of the other speakers have spo-
ken about, namely proof. That, for us, is a critical problem. It
is very easy to talk about enforcement and say, "Well,
somebody is doing something wrong. Let's enforce the
law." Fine, but when it comes down to it, we have to go into
court and we have to prove to a judge that, in fact, a law
was violated, that there was a violation that requires some
action on the part of the court; and that's a problem for us.
In this case we had a manufacturer who was man-
ufacturing a product which we knew contained toxic ingre-
dients. It happened that, in that product, there were two
chemicals, and these chemicals had been found in the
groundwater on Long Island in quantities which were un-
safe. Wells had to be closed, but there was no way that we
23
could prove that the chemicals found in the wells were
actually coming from Drainz. The only thing we could do
was develop a case to establish the probability, indeed, the
certainty, that this material was getting into the ground-
water, and that's how we instituted that case.
As it turned out, the company entered into a consent
judgement, and they did stop manufacturing the product as
it had been constituted, and reformulated their product.
We knew, at that time, that this was going to be a
problem because of the proof requirement with respect to
other products, since their constituent chemicals had not
been found in the groundwater, and we knew that we were
going to have difficulty in proving our case with respect to
those products.
So, from the very beginning, we sought legislation that
would ban those products that had toxic chemicals in them,
and we were finally successful in getting the Legislature to
pass that law.
Marvin previously mentioned the law that is in effect
now. It will make our job much easier because it names
particular restricted chemicals, and it says what a man-
ufacturer can do and what product he can manufacture. If
he doesn't comply with the law, then it's much easier for us
to secure enforcement than for us to do so where there is
no law.
These, then, are the areas that we operate in. We
operate as lawyers for the Department. We bring some
affirmative actions, and we also draft proposed legislation.
At the present time on Long Island, we are handling, or
have handled, several oil spills for the Department. We
have handled a spill at a chemical storage facility, and we
are looking into a number of landfill situations. We do have
one pending case involving the Islip landfill, which was
mentioned here previously.
Let me say that we, like the Department, have, in the
past, concentrated on civil enforcement. That's where our
strength really has been.
Civil enfomement, we feel, is an area that we can
operate quickly in. When you get into the criminal area, it's
much more restrictive. You have to move at a slower pace.
However, we have brought some criminal actions, and we
will be bringing more.
I am with the Environmental Protection Bureau of the
Attorney General's office. The Attorney General's office
has about twenty different bureaus operating in different
specialty areas. We have a Special Prosecutions Bureau,
which deals with criminal prosecution. They are now work-
ing with our bureau to develop--and this is of particular
interest for Long Island--a unit and an approach, so that
we will be taking more criminal actions out here.
Basically, we take criminal act!ohs only in the case of
flagrant violations. We and the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation, in the first instance, will attempt to
solve the problem administratively, then possibly through
civil litigation. But if it is a flagrant situation, if we are
not getting anywhere, then we may resort to a criminal
prosecution. The Department has also been developing its
own enforcement unit.
Now, part of the reason that we have been moving at a
less than rapid pace in this area has been the resoume
problem. It requires a tremendous amount of resources,
both in manpower and in expertise, to develop these
cases. I believe we have now reached the point where we
are going to be bringing more cases and more significant
cases.
I might just mention that we do have a unit within the
Environmental Protection Bureau that is dealing solely
~vith Love Canal, and that has tied up quite a bit of our
resources. That litigation is ongoing, as you know, and it's
very comprehensive litigation.
There are two bills which the Attorney General is
working on now with respect to landfills. One of these bills
would require the posting of a bend as a condition of the
permit, and that bonding would go towards defraying the
cost of closure. One of the problems that we have with
landfills is that, once the landfill is filled and there is no
more room, the operator has been able to, more or less,
walk off.
They may have complied with some of the cover
requirements, but we know now there is a long-term
maintenance problem. We are just beginning to find out
with these various landfills that it takes many, many years
for problems to become evident. The resources needed to
handle these landfills are going to be enormous. One way
that we are hoping to cope is to have a bond which would
not only defray the cost of the initial cover, but would go
towards long-term maintenance.
The other bill has to do with the banning of certain
toxics in landfills. That's a technical bill. We are going to
have to have a lot of input in that. Where that's going to go, I
don't know at this point, but it is something that we are
considering now. What that bill would do is to completely
eliminate any of the toxics that are now prohibited from
going into the landfills out here on the Island. However,
they are not prohibited from going into the licensed land-
fills. There are two landfills for hazardous substances in
the Buffalo area. We feel that even those landfills, restricted
as they are, should be restricted even further. There are
certain chemicals that should not be put into landfills at all,
and as the technology develops these chemicals should
be disposed of in a different way, probably, ultimately,
through some kind of recapture and incineration.
The Attorney General is very concerned about this
matter. I think that all of us in the Attorney General's office
who are involved in hazardous wastes, feel that, in the
environmental field, this will be the prime issue for many
years to come.
Our involvement hera is in the litigation aspects, and
for that we rely very hea~,ily on the State agencies. I
mentioned the Department of Transportation and the De-
partment of Environmental Conservation. I left out the
Department of Health, which is also very much involved in
this area.
Dr. Tanenbaum: Thank you, Mr. Proudfit.
We are pretty well on schedule, so that I think we could
have a few questions now, after which we will break for
lunch, and plan to reconvene promptly at one-thirty. I hope
you will all be with us at that time.
Mr. Newman: I have a question. I think, as our analytical
technology improves and as our instrumentation improves,
we are going to be finding more and more materials in our
drinking water at lower and lower concentrations. Now, the
fact that they are there doesn't mean they are harmful.
Have any judicial decisions been made on appeals from
the lower concentration levels that have been set for many
of the compounds that are found in the water?
In other words, numbers have been picked, literally
picked, and the fact that these numbers can be either too
Iow or too high is subject to appeal by scientific evidence or
discussion. Has any decision been rendered?
24
Mr. Poudflt: I am not aware of any particular case. I think
your question is very well taken, however.
One of the reasons why we brought the Drainz case,
and why Marvin Fleisher became concerned about the
cesspool cleaners, is the fact that we have become more
and moro sophisticated in testing, and will become moro
and more sophisticated. It is logical to say, "Well, maybe
those chemicals, those organics or what have you, have
been in the water for centuries and only now we are discov-
ering them in our testing." But as a legal issue, we haven't
gotten there yet, to my knowledge. We would really have to
defer to experts on that.
Mr. Newman: How do you feel about an appeal from one
of your cases, from the legal aspect, on a point like that?
Mr. Proudfit: Well, I would say, as a lawyer, I wouldn't
have too much trouble if the Health Department came
along and said, "We think that this is a safe level," because
in litigation, as far as experts go, we can get an expert to
testify to anything. One will always be able to find an
expert who disagrees with a given permissible level, but
the court is not going to put themselves in a position of
making that decision. I once had a case which involved
clamming out in Great South Bay. There is a standard level
of fecal coliform count, used to determine when to close a
water body to shellfishing. That standard was challenged
and was upheld. It's a very difficult thing to challenge
standards.
There are people, even in our Department, who,
amongst themselves, are not sure that this is a rational
standard. We are not sure that this is the best standard, but
it is the only standard we have, and the court was not going
to upset it.
Mrs. Richard: Mary Ella Richard; East Hampton Town.
We have a problem that came up of a gasoline leak
from a gas station contaminating some groundwater. Now,
I don't like to see government and business in an ad-
versary relationship because we want business to suc-
ceed as much as we want to have clean, safe drinking
water. I was notified, through the property owner, that the
company owning the gas tanks will not roplaca those
tanks, which means that the establishment is out of busi-
ness. What is the function of government in this case? Is
there any recourse that the towns have to insure safe
drinking water, but also to insuro that businesses don't go
bankrupt?
Mr. Proudflt: I don't know whether I can answer the bank-
ruptcy part. I can tell you when we get a complaint of a
gasoline storage leak, the Department of Transportation
will go in, first of ail.
ars. Richard: They have been most helpful.
Mr. Proudflt: They test the tanks. If, for some reason, they
are not permitted to go in and do that, we have gone into
court and obtained Court Orders. Under the Navigation
Law, the Department of Transportation has an absolute
right to inspect for oil leaks.
Mrs, Richard: That's fine, but the company doesn't want
to replace them with new tanks.
Mr. Proudfit: If they aro going to stay in business, they
would have to, and that would get at your question in a
bankruptcy. If they can't afford to replace those tanks--
Mrs. Richard: (Interposing) But whose rosponsibility is it?
Is it the oil company's that owns the tanks.?
Mr. Costa: You are saying they are not going to roplace
them?
Mrs. Richard: The tanks are sealed. They can't be used at
the moment. They are temporarily out of business. Who
gets the new tanks?
Mr. Proudflt: I think that's got to be between the local
operator, whoever is running the station, and the company.
We wouldn't become involved in that. Under the law, the
only area we can be involved in is the safe operation.
Mrs. Richard: It is not the Town's responsibility either. In
other words, it is between the property owner and the oil
company?
Mr. Proudflt: That would be right.
Mrs. Richard: Thank you.
Floor: You mentioned the Drainz product earlier. Since
they removed the questionable chemicals, why is the
product still illegal in Suffolk County?
Mr. Proudflt: The product is not illegal in Suffolk County
under State law. In fact, after it was brought to us and we
had initiated the lawsuit, they roformulated the product,
and then when this law went into effect, the reformulated
product would not have met that standard, so they had to
reformulate again. I believe we have just gotten test results
on it, and it does comply with the new law.
Mr. Costa: There are two separate laws we are dealing
with here: the local Suffolk County Law, and the State law.
The local Suffolk County Law puts the onus on the
company to prove their products will not damage the
groundwater in any way. To my knowledge, they haven't
submitted the evidence to Suffolk County yet. I believe our
office is working on protocol to determine the proper level
of testing we will accept for proof. When that is done, the
product may be accepted. I don't know for suro at this time.
incidentally, the law does not address the effective-
ness of the product at all. It is only whether it poses poten-
tial harm to the groundwater.
Mr. Kane: Julian Kane.
I have looked over the Suffolk County Regulations for
septic tank installation and maintenance and as I recall,
they prohibit any chemicals from being used and just call
for periodic dumping, preferably at least once a year.
Now, we have different regulations in Nassau. I won-
der if my interprotation is corroct with respect to Suffolk?
Mr. Costa: The rogulations disapprove of anything being
added to cesspools, including acid, but to my knowledge,
that regulation has not been enforced. I don't know whether
it is a law or a policy.
Mr. Ackrose: Pete Ackrose:
it is a standard of the Suffolk County Department of
Health Services.
Mr. Kane: If it is a standard, does that mean it is not a law?
We have regulations with a small "r" and with a large "R,"
and we have differences between the Counties as to how
the regulations are written or enforced.
Mr. Costa: It has always been an enfomement problem, as
you know with regard to the detergent ban, for example,
that Nassau County had one law and Suffolk County had
another.
With respect to additives, something might be banned
under County Law, but generally acceptable under State
Law. I would hope that some coordination would come with
those laws. I can't say at this point what's going to happen.
I do know that, with regard to the acids, there has been little
enforcement of that rule, although it is a rule on the books.
Dr. Tanenbaum: I think we have time for one more ques-
tion. There will be an opportunity to ask questions this
afternoon. So, if I don't get to you this morning, write your
questions down and ask them then.
Mr. White: Michael White, Town of Huntington.
I have been trying to get a list of all certified industrial
25
waste staff engineers who are licensed in New York State,
and there seem to be some problems. We have been
forwarded a list from Mr. Bruckman's office, but it lists only
six percent of the total. We have been reviewing, for
instance, the SPDES Regulations, which refer to a listing
of certified firms, but we can't find the list. I wondered if
there was a list immediately available to Suffolk County.
Mr. Bruckman: The permits are issued in Albany, and we
get lists from Albany which are not always up-to-date.
Because of limitations in the size of my staff, we find it
difficult to keep the list current at all times.
Our latest list, which is, I think, a couple of months old,
is available. At the same time, I cannot guarantee that it is
accurate. If you ever come across someone not on that list,
the only thing to do is call up my office. If I don't have it
available, I will have to call up Albany.
Dr. Tanenbaum: If you will be kind enough to save your
other questions for this afternoon, we will see you at one-
thirty.
26
How Nassau County Addresses These Problems: NCDH
MARVIN FLEISHER
Nassau County Department of Health (NCDH)
Abstract
NCDH acts on behalf of NYSDEC in enforcing permit requirements, particularly those of the State
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES). Companies not having permits or whose
discharges exceed groundwater standards are given a compliance schedule for meeting permit
requirements. When compliance schedules are not met or NCDH finds permitted discharges
exceeding groundwater standards, meetings with the company are scheduled to try to solve the
problem administratively. Legal action by NYSDEC is a last resort. The use of chemicals by
concerns not having permits constitutes a significant problem. Each year in Nassau there is
approximately a 10% turnover in business and industry, so monitoring and the administration of
the permit system are ongoing activities. Periodic reinspections and monitoring surveys are used to
insure that companies' activities coincide with those described on their permits. The provision of
sewers and adoption of sewer use ordinances also help to protect groundwater. Nassau's
ordinances require that homes hook up to sewers wherever possible, but it is unlikely that this
could be enforced, due to lack of manpower. Despite preventative efforts, many harmful products
find their way into the groundwater. A consumer survey done several years ago identified
potentially harmful household products used in large quantities and in ways which allowed them
to enter the groundwater. This/ed to passage of the State Cesspool Cleaner Ban. Dry cleaning
establishments are a widespread problem. NCDH has instituted a program that requires that
those dry cleaning establishments connected to sewers route the drainage from their steam
condensing units to sewer drains. Establishments not connected to sewers must collect and
store the wastewater in 55-gallon drums which are to be taken away by a licensed scavenger. A
NCDH survey of commerce and industry has been used to begin development of a comprehen-
sive, computerized data base. Information acquired includes the company name, zip code, the
state industrial classification code, the appropriate water and sewer district, any sewer connec-
tions, types and amounts of chemicals used, chemical code numbers, licensed scavengers
used by the company, etc. With this information, NCDH can correlate findings of contamination
with the probable source(s). Inventories will be sent to the Fire Marshal to make him aware of
potential dangers in case of fire.
I would like to cover in a little more detail some of the
things we were talking about this morning on the subject of
how the Nassau County Health Department addresses the
problems of toxic and hazardous materials handling. We
are an agent of the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation and act in their behalf in
seeing that anyone who is permitted is following the permit
requirements. We collect samples for analysis to check
against the companies' self monitoring program. One of
the main programs is the State Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation System (SPDES). This is a p"ogram in which a firm
which is discharging a liquid into the ground or surface
waters, or anywhere other than into a sewer, has to have a
permit. There are, at the present time, about fifty-five
companies in the County that are permitted, and about
twenty more that are in different stages of the permit
application process. Companies having good quality
effluents (when they are first permitted) are notified of
effluent discharge limitations and given a schedule indicat-
ing when they have to have samples analyzed. We inspect
them at intervals, and they have to report on the quality of
the wastes that are being discharged into the ground. We
check and make sure, of course, that what they do
discharge doesn't exceed the groundwater standard limi-
tations that are set.
There are other companies that are either new or
whose discharge doesn't meet the ground water stan-
dards, and they are put on a compliance schedule, which
lists dates when they have to hire a consultant, design a
facility, and install the facility. We follow up on those dates
and make sure that the compliance schedules are met.
There are occasions when a compliance schedule is
not met, or when a company exceeds one or more of the
established discharge limits. In that case, we collect the
information, and try to correct the problem in meetings with
the company. If the problem cannot be solved by informal
meetings, we refer the matter to the Department of
Environmental Conservation, where a legal hearing is
held, and action is taken.
Another large category of possible problems com-
prises the use of a discharge permit. In a survey a few
years ago administered by the Nassau County Depart-
ment of Health and financed by the CETA Program, we
surveyed all the manufacturing facilities within the County.
We believe that about eighty-five pement of all dischargers
were contacted. The program produced thirty-five hundred
survey forms. There are about three hundred companies
that use chemicals, but not all generate waste.
Someone who buys a fifty-five gallon drum of
chemicals and bottles it doesn't necessarily have a waste
product. We identified all the ones that did have wastes
and we tried to get them under the permit program. Our
point is that if a company claims that it is not discharging
waste, it is obviously storing it, and having it taken away by
some method or other. Initially, we call it a no-discharge
situation.
Everybody was required to have a permit--a rather
simple one--and had to report to us the quantity of chemi-
cals used and what waste was generated. Only licensed
scavengers were allowed to take away the wastes, and
they had to report to us on a yearly or six-month basis as to
what wastes were taken away.
This program has recently been switched over to the
Part 360 Solid Waste Management Program because
Albany thought it would be a better method of handling it
legally. Under this new arrangement, the program is being
handled in about the same way. In his talk, Morris
Bruckman read off some of the requirements that we put in
permits, i.e., storage in suitable containers, drums that
won't leak and so on. That's our "no-discharge" program.
About one hundred and eighty companies are permit-
ted in this manner, and, eventually, about two hundred and
fifty companies will be covered. There is about a ten per-
cent changeover in business and industry in the County
every year, so that some companies will be going out of
business and new ones coming in. It is an ongoing pre-
gram, an ongoing monitoring program.
We do reinspect and, occasionally, test the industrial
cesspools outside a plant to make sure that all the waste is
going into drums to be shipped out via licensed scavenger,
and not simply into the cesspool. Information on the
quantities of raw chemicals that a company is buying must
be provided fcr our department. Then, if there are four
industries of the same type, say electroplaters, using sol-
vents for cleaning, and three of them have ten pement
waste, whereas the other claims to have only one percent,
we can go in there and say, "Prove what you are doing
differently." We have devious minds.
Another method of attempting to eliminate sources of
groundwater contamination is the provision of sewers and
a Sewer Use Ordinance. Nassau County has a Sewer Use
Ordinance. Any home located close to a sewer system has
to connect up within two years. This hasn't been enfomed
vigorously because of the limited capacity of existing sew-
age treatment plants. With regard to industrial discharges,
the Ordinance says that no more than certain levels of any
chemical may be discharged into the sewer system. The
groundwater discharge limit is approximately the same as
can go into a sewage treatment plant. So, just because an
area becomes sewered, it doesn't eliminate the problem
that we still have with industry. The problem still exists: if
we purify the effluent enough to get into the system, we
concentrate the contaminant in the sludge and are required
to have it hauled away for proper disposal.
There are many other sources of groundwater con-
tamination besides industry. It is very easy to take the
attitude that big industry is the bad guy, and is responsible
for all the contaminating. We did another study several
years ago, also funded under a CETA Program, to look into
consumer products that are used by people in the County.
We did a survey with one of our permanent staff and
several CETA people, looking at the retail stores, hard-
ware stores, supermarkets--any place that would sell the
products that you might use in your home. These products
were broken down into categories of paint and varnish
removers, cesspool cleaning chemicals, solvents, etc.
There were about twelve different categories, and we tried
to determine, by categorizing within them, which products
were used in large quantities, which were used in a manner
that would most likely result in their getting into the ground-
water, and which of the products had substances in them
that are harmful to the environment. Using this information,
we did our first test of the program and, of course, came up
with several cesspool cleanin~ chemicals.
That was the first part of the consumer products study
which resulted in state legislation banning the use of cer-
tain cesspool cleaning chemicals in Nassau and Suffolk
Counties. We have, however, identified other categories of
compounds, used by the homeowner, which are serious,
potentially polluting chemicals, paint removers in particu-
lar. You either wash them off the side of the house or wash
out your paint brush in them and pour them down the drain.
They are, for the most part, if not in all cases, more than
95% methylene chloride, which has been identified as a
hazardous chemical substance. It is questionable whether
it is cancer-producing or not.
There are many other products containing trichloro-
ethane and tricloroethylene, which are hazardous chemi-
cal solvents, and there is, at present, no restriction on their
sale. You can mix them with the paints and then pour them
down the drain.
There are several substances sold as laundry addi-
tives that can be sprayed on your clothes before you put
them into the laundry. There is a solvent product that is
100% 1,1,1 -trichloroethane. These are products that have
to be looked into.
We did a study a couple of years ago, and it is slightly
out of date now. We have recently been notified that there
is going to be some funding under a program that we
requested, for Nassau and Suffolk Counties to look into
consumer products and try to determine what other
consumer products should be, if not regulated, at least the
subject of some kind of educational program for the
consumer.
We have identified some'consumer products that are
not necessarily a water hazard, but at least the public
should be notified of them.
Many hair sprays and room deodorants have propel-
lants. In many cases, the propellant is methylene chloride.
We are all concerned about fluorocarbons affecting the
atmosphere, but if you are spraying in a bathroom with the
door closed, you may be doing considerable damage to
your health and if you happen to be smoking a cigarette at
the same time, you could be causing tremendous problems.
I can see somebody spraying a baby's crib because it
smells a little bit, and putting the baby back in. The baby is
now breathing methylene chloride. It is not a water prob-
lem, but I think the public should be made aware of the
situation.
Other consumer products we are talking about include
the dry-cleaning chemicals used by professional dry
cleaners. These fluids, for the most part, contain tetra-
chloroethylene. The dry cleaners are very, very careful
about collecting any of the solvent. It is a very expensive
chemical, so they don't want to waste it. They use an
exhaust system that actually sucks in the vapors at floor
level. The vapors are then adsorbed in activated carbon
filters, which are steamed to drive off the solvent. The
steam-solvent mixture is condensed, and the solvent is
separated from the water layer. They pour oft the solvent
and return it to the system, while throwing the water out in
the back yard. If you ask them, "Don't you realize you are
doing something wrong?" they reply, "No, it's insoluble in
water."
Nothing is insoluble in water! The solubility of tetra-
chloroethylene is 0.02%. This is two hundred thousand
parts per billion. If there are fifty parts per billion in the
drinking water, we shut your well off. So you can get the
magnitude of the problem.
We surveyed all of the dry cleaners in the County, and
found that each one dumps a couple of gallons a day. If you
multiply the amount over a number of years, that's an
unnecessary amount of chemicals going into the ground-
water. We are undertaking a program with them. Any who
are connected to the sewers are made to change their
plumbing so that the drainage from the steam-condensing
units go into the regular drains to the sewer. The treatment
at the sewage treatment plant will remove the material by
aeration and/or dilution to a safe level.
Any who are not connected to a sewer have to dump
their contaminated water into fifty-five gallon drums, to be
taken away by a licensed scavenger.
The part they don't like is that it costs them about a
dollar a gallon to get rid of the contaminated water,
whereas they used to dump it in their back yard at no cost
Io them. We are looking at the environment, of course, and
not the cost. The cost will have to be passed on.
As I said before, we did a survey of the commerce and
industry in the County. All of the data from the survey that
showed companies using chemicals we put onto compu-
ter cards, ordinary IBM cards. We categorized the com-
panies, and each card now gives us the name of the
company, the zip code, the state industrial classification for
the industry, the water district, the sewer district, if any,
whether the company is connected to a sewer or not, code
numbers for the chemical, how much chemical is used,
who the scavenger is and so on. With this particular pro-
gram, we can run the cards through the sorter, and, for any
given district, we can print out who uses what chemicals
and in what quantities. This is the start of what I hope will be
a good computerized file. We will then be able to query the
computer as to who uses a particular chemical in a given
area, and receive an immediate listing. We will send copies
of these lists to the Fire Marshal so that when there is a fire
in an industrial building, they know what chemicals are
being used there. On one occasion, a few firemen died by
running into a fire in a facility that stored chemicals,
because they didn't know it was necessary to use their
Scott Air-Packs.
We are faced with a number of problems in getting our
work done. The first one, of course, is a problem that every
governmental agency has, and one that is probably going
to get worse. We don't have enough people to handle, or
enough funds to pay for, the tests and the work. When I say
not enough people, I mean not only in my section, but also
in the county laboratory that does the analyses for us. They
can handle a certain amount of work, and are overloaded
half the time doing the drinking water well analyses. Our
work is necessary because we are the section that is
responsible for preventing the contamination.
Another problem is the need for specific standards.
There are many, many chemicals being used in industry
and commerce, for most of which there are no'specific
effluent or drinking water standards. The standards that
were set up by DEC under Part 703, the Effluent Discharge
Standards, list eighty-seven compounds, most of which
are pesticides, with limitations on what can be discharged
to groundwaters. However, there are very few of these
compounds, other than the heavy metals and nitrates, that
are addressed in the drinking water standards.
We tell dischargers that, according to Part 703, there
is a zero discharge standard for benzene, and they can
turn around and point out that you are allowed to have
benzene in your drinking water--since it is not restricted by
the drinking water standards. The guideline suggests that
you shouldn't have more than fifty parts per billion in drink-
ing water. It makes it a little difficult at times to tell a man to
spend thousands of dollars to build a treatment system to
remove all benzene in a situation like that.
There have to be more specific standards. I don't
know whether they should be set by the State Government
or the Federal Government, but certainly it ~sn't within the
authority of the County Health Commissioner to set up
standards of this type. We are working, at present, under
guidelines. Although we are enforcing them as standards,
they are not written legal standards. The drinking water
and discharge standards must be expandec~ to include
most, if not all, of the chemicals in use.
Some of the present limitations are for nondetectable
concentrations. That is, by the means available now. We
are now testing, without difficulty, for parts per billion, and
we will very shortly be testing for parts per trillion.
We do not have sufficient background information.
Are these chemicals normally in the environment? If we
find them at the parts per trillion level, does that mean they
are environmentally unsafe, or that there has been indus-
trial contamination?
Another problem, of course, is what do you do with the
waste that you have now isolated from treated effluents
and that has to be taken away by industrial scavengers?
We require that the company generating the waste store it
and have a licensed scavenger take it away. Later, a
gentleman representing the scavengers will explain their
problems. There is no place in Nassau and Suffolk County
for the legal landfilling of hazardons wastes. There are very
few places in New York State other than in the Buffalo-
Rochester area. New Jersey is cutting out its facilities or
restricting their use by out-of-state scavengers. It is costing
more and more to dispose of industrial wastes. We even
have some products for which we have no disposal options
at all. There is no place to get rid of PCB's, or wastes
contaminated with high levels of PCB.
We have had chemical spills where the soil is con-
taminated and from what I understand, the only place to
which you can haul it is southern Maryland. At forty dollars
a yard, or at costs of that magnitude, it gets a little expen-
sive, expecially when you have thousands of yards of
contaminated soil to dispose of.
This morning someone spoke about a company that
went out of business, rather than put in a new tank. What
do you do about a company that is filing bankruptcy be-
cause it can't afford to spend fifty thousand to one hundred
thousand dollars to meet the regulations? Places in Suffolk
and Nassau Counties have huge quantities of contaminat-
ed soil. We have a huge company that filed for bankruptcy
and has thousands of yards of contaminated soil. Right
now, we are digging it up, putting it on the ground on plastic
29
sheets and covering it, and hoping we can find someone to
haul it away or treat it. Probably, the property will have to be
sold, and, hopefully, there will be enough money from the
assets to take care of the contaminated soil.
AS was mentioned this morning, in a paper that was
read by Dr. Wilenitz on behalf of Pickett Simpson of the
Environmentai Facilities Corporation, this agency was set
up to try to determine what are the methods for treating and
disposing of these materials, and where best to place
them. A study was done by Camp, Dresser & McKee,
based on data collected by the Department of Environ-
mental Conservation some years ago. At best, that data
was faulty. We checked out the list for Nassau County and
found that they were greatly underestimating the quantity
of hazardous wastes that was generated in the County. It
was a mail-in survey. People mailed in forms indicating
what chemicals were used, and many of those who got the
forms said they didn't understand what was asked for. In
particular, many of the industrial chemicals have a com-
mon name, and a proper chemical name. The dry cleaner
refers to using PERC, and many of them insist it has
nothing to do with tetrachloroethylene. They claim PERC is
PERC and tetrachloroethylene is something different,
whereas PERC is the common name for tetrachloroethy-
lene. When we surveyed printers, we asked "What do you
clean the rollers of your printing press with?" They clean
with "roller wash." Roller wash happens to be methylene
chloride and other similar chemicals.
One company was asked if it uses vinyl chloride, and it
said it used twenty-five thousand gallons of vinyl chloride.
So, as soon as you get the form, you know there is a
mistake because vinyl chloride is a gas and doesn't come
in gallons. When we investigated the discrepency it turned
out that what was used was a wash for vinyl wallpaper.
I point this out to show that you can't conduct studies
based on erroneous information.
If the Environmental Facilities corporation were to
start to build a plant today, it would probably be ten years
before it was in operation. It hasn't even been decided
whether there is to be one major facility for the State; two of
them, one for the northern tier and one for the southern tier;
or four, one for each corner. Once that is decided, it has to
be determined where the Environmental Facilities Corpo-
ration is going to put them, and there will have to be a Siting
Committee. Obviously, we are not going to allow one on
Long Island; Westchester is not going to allow one there.
Once it is decided where to put them, the type of facility has
to be decided and the design prepared.
Meanwhile, we have this huge quantity of chemicals
that are being generated that the EPA said we are going to
' stack up and store. However, Nassau County doesn't per-
mit you to store for more than ninety days in a given
quantity. So, we are back to Catch 22 again. We don't want
generators to store because, obviously, we don't want
thousands of drums of hazardous chemicals stored on
anyone's property in Nassau County, since hazardous
materials are the cause of all the problems we have been
having throughout the country now. So, something is going
to have to be done, and done a lot faster than it has been.
There are some interim methods devised to get rid of
chemicals, whether it is disposal on the ship, Vulcanus,
which is the floating incinerator that has been used for
years in other countries, or whether it is in destruction by
high temperature in a cement kiln, or by other various
methods. Something has to be done, and we can't keep
studying and studying. Something has to be done today.
A final topic that I want to mention is one of what is
clean. We have a chemical spill, caused by an accident or
other cause. We have a chemical spill contamination prob-
lem, and the one who caused it has to clean it up. How
clean is clean? Do you clean it up to the pristine condition
we want the environment to be? Do you clean it up to a
condition comparable to that of the water in other parts of
the County? Do you clean it up in the place where it is
spilled, or the plume also? Do you clean it up to the degree
that's economically feasible?
Economic feasibility depends on whom you are ask-
ing. If it is not my money, it is economically feasible. If it is
somebody else's money, it may not be economically feasi-
ble to him.
In cleaning up some of the major gasoline spills (which
are not even considered major any more because there
are worse ones), we are talking about millions of dollars
and that's before we even started cleaning up the environ-
ment. Something is going to have to be done. Whether it is
by establishing new laws, or whether it is by the courts
deciding on the basis of laws already enacted, someone is
going to have to determine what's clean.
Somebody caused a spill. The ground water is con-
taminated. Either he is going to have to clean it up or pay
for someone else to clean it up. You can't expect someone
ten years from now to pay to clean it up. Something must
be done now.
We need programs to insure cleanup of abandoned
waste sites. Someone is going to have to put up the money
to clean up and restore these areas and groundwater to
suitable environmental conditions. The groundwater is a
resource we can't do without. Certainly the one who
caused the pollution should be the first one required to
clean it up, not the people who drink it.
How Suffolk County Addresses These Problems: SCDHS
DR. MAHFOUZ ZAKI
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
Abstract
SCDHS initiated an extensive groundwater monitoring program in late 1976. To date, nearly
8,000 samples from community water systems, non-community water systems, and private wells
have been tested for halogenated hydrocarbons in common usage and for other organic
compounds. N. Y.S. guidelines (50 ppb for individual compounds and 100 ppb for total) have
been exceeded by 4. I% of community water systems and 6.0% of non-community water
systems and private wells. The distribution of contaminated wells is widespread and not highly
centralized. SCDHS advises owners of community water systems to stop using the contaminated
we/Is and switch to alternate, uncontaminated ones. For non-community water systems and
private we#s, the owner or manager is advised to either connect to public mains, if feasible;
deepen the contaminated well; relocate the well; or use activated carbon treatment to purify
the water. To prevent further groundwater contamination, Suffolk County has enacted the
following: (1) Article 12 of the Sanitary Code (adopted 7/79, effective 2/80), regulating the
storage and handling of hazardous and toxic materials: (2) A local law (effective 9/15/80)
enacted by the Suffolk County Legislature, banning the sale of any cesspoo! additive containing
organic materials unless authorized by the Commissioner of SCDHS; and (3) Article 6 of the
Sanitary Code, limiting the use of on-site treatment facilities in certain areas of the County on the
basis of land use and population density. Aldicarb contamination, detected in 1979 in Suffolk's
East End groundwaters, has emerged as a serious public health problem. An initial survey of
some 330 wells near potato farms indicated that 23% exceeded the recommended 7 ppb
guideline for Aldicarb. Union Carbide and SCDHS combined their efforts to conduct an extensive
eight week sampling effort for Aldicarb. Nearly 8,000 samples were collected from wells within
2,500 ff. of potato farms. Of the private, community and non-community wells tested, 13.5%,
7.4% and 8%, respectively, exceeded the 7 ppb guideline. Very high concentrations were rare.
The critical question that must be addressed is the health effects of long-term, Iow Aldicarb
concentrations in groundwater.
My presentation is on the extent of groundwater
contamination, Suffolk County's actions and programs for
handling the problem, and the problems encountered in
enforcement and recommendations for future action.
For years, groundwater has been considered immune
from contamination by organic compounds. When Suffolk
County became aware of the identification of a few
synthetic compounds in Nassau County, in late 1976, an
extensive monitoring program was initiated to determine
the presence and concentrations of selected halogenated
hydrocarbons in groundwater.
At first, the program concentrated on community
water systems, but was later expanded to cover non-
community water s~;stems and private wells. To date,
almost eight thousand samples from community and non-
community water systems and private wells have been
examined for the most commonly used halogenated hydro-
carbons; namely, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene,
trichloroethane and f{richlorotrifluoroethane. On a few
occasions, testing was performed for other organic com-
pounds such as benzene, toluene and vinyl chloride.
Of all the five hundred twenty-seven community water
systems tested, twenty-two, or 4.1 percent, exceeded the
New York State guidelines of fifty parts per billion for
individual ingredients and one hundred parts per billion for
the aggregate. Of the forty-five hundred non-community
water systems and private wells, two hundred sixty-nine,
or 6.0 percent, exceeded the guidelines in certain areas
such as East Patchogue, Nprth Amityville, Centereach,
Hauppauge, Matt/tuck, Deer Park, Bellport, Holbrook, Bay
Shore, Medford, Islip Terrace, Wyandanch, West Babylon,
Patchogue, North Lindenhurst, South Farmingdale and
elsewhere.
Irrespective of the validity of the actionable levels
which have been utilized since 1976, Suffolk County, as a
responsible health agency, had no alternative but to
assume that drinking water containing the organic con-
taminants above the recommended levels is hazardous,
and to act accordingly.
In the case of community water systems, the purveyor
was advised to refrain from using the contaminated well
and to switch to alternative uncontaminated ones. So far,
this has been accomplished because of the availability of
alternative uncontaminated wells in the same well field.
In the case of non-community water systems and
private wells, the owner or manager was advised to take
one of the following steps; connect to public water mains if
accessible and fiscally nonprohibitive; deepen the well;
relocate the well; use an activated carbon treatment unit.
The diversity of the products identified in the wells
examined in East Patchogue, and the high concentrations
31
encountered, were indicative of industrial discharges and/
or accidental spills.
In an effort to locate the possible source or sources of
contamination, an industrial survey of the area was under-
taken. The investigation revealed that an illegal industrial
discharge or spill might have occurred northeast of the
contaminated wells. The New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation has taken legal action against
a certain industrial concern. The case is still in litigation.
The joint efforts of the Town of Brookhaven, the elected
officials, the Suffolk County Water Authority, the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation and the
Department of Health Services were instrumental in hav-
ing public water mains extended to the area.
In the North Amityville area, water samples from thirty-
eight wells indicated that thirty-six, or 94 percent, had one
or several halogenated hydrocarbons in concentrations
above the guidelines. Again, the joint efforts of municipal
agencies were successful in having public water supplies
extended to the area.
Extensive monitoring of groundwater, however, can
help only in determining the type and extent of contam-
ination, but does very little toward preventing future con-
tamination. To this end, the Suffolk County Board of Health
in September of 1979, adopted Article 12 of the Suffolk
County Sanitary Code, which regulates the storage and
handling of hazardous and toxic materials. This Article
became effective on February 1, 1980. To our knowledge,
there is no other ordinance or regulation similar to this
Article in New York State.
In addition, the Suffolk County Legislature passed
a local law banning the sale of any cesspool additives
containing organic materials unless authorized by the
Commissioner of Health Services. This local law became
effective on September 15, 1980.
Another piece of legislation currently under consid-
eration is a new Article of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code
entitled "Realty Subdivisions and Developments." This
Article, which restricts land use and population density in
certain areas of the County, is another aggressive attack
by the County to further protect the groundwater. It draws
upon the findings of the 208 Study, which delineated the
sensitive hydrogeologic zones in the County.
In addition to the recently adopted and proposed regu-
lations, the Department of Health Services is strictly
enfoming all state and local rules and regulations to abort
illegal industrial discharges. This effort will be comple-
mented by the recently passed State Law allowing District
Attorneys to prosecute violators of the State Environmen-
tal Conservation Law.
Another potential source of groundwater contamina-
tion is the sanitary landfill. At present, there are twenty
active and thirteen closed landfills in Suffolk County. There
are no sites in Suffolk or Nassau which are designated to
dispose of hazardous solid wastes, nor is there any loca-
tion in the two Counties which could be considered for such
a purpose.
Apart from the traditional problems of odors, dust,
rodents and insect infestation and abundance of birds
often associated with landfills, two problems stand out.
These are methane and other toxic gas migration, and
groundwater contamination.
During the past two years, methane gas was found in
high concentrations in two homes adjacent to two landfills.
In addition, detectable concentrations of vinyl chloride
were found in the vents of a few landfills. In one instance,
measurable concentrations were found in one abandoned
house and traces in another.
It is well known that when rainwater infiltrates a land-
fill a leachate is discharged which contains numerous
materials, such as iron and manganese; it is highly corro-
sive because of its high carbon dioxide content. This helps
to dissolve additional contaminants in the subterranean
soils through which the leachate passes.
The Department of Health Services' position regard-
ing landfills can be summarized as follows:
1. Existing landfills in environmentally sensitive areas
should be phased out. Alternative solid waste dis-
posal methods should be initiated.
2. During the interim period, landfills should be pro-
vided with appropriate air pollution control devices
to prevent the accumulation of high concentrations
of methane gas and other toxic gases. Wherever
needed, liners or capping should be installed.
3. All structures down-gradient of a sanitary landfill
should be connected to public water supplies.
4. The Department is currently entertaining the
principle of resource recovery as a means of solid
waste disposal.
Contamination of groundwater with pesticides is an
emerging serious public health problem which has attracted
national and local attention during the past year. For the
first time in the country, the pesticide Aldicarb was
detected in groundwater in eastern Suffolk County in
August of 1979. Aldicarb is a highly toxic carbamate
pesticide manufactured by Union Carbide under the trade
name of Temik. It was found to be very effective against two
pests which plagued potato farms for years, the golden
nematode and the Colorado potato beetle. Because of its
universal use on the estimated twenty-two thousand acres
of potato farms in the County, an extensive monitoring
program was undertaken by the Suffolk County Depart-
ment of Health Services. Initial testing concentrated on
wells within the farming areas or in close proximity to
potato farms.
The initial survey, which included some three hundred
thirty wells, indicated that 23 percent of the wells selected
for testing had Aldicarb above the recommended guide-
lines of seven parts per billion. Although it was made clear
that these wells were selected because of their presence in
potato farms or in the direction of groundwater movement,
the erroneous asumption was made by some officials and
the news media that one-fourth of the wells in eastern
Suffolk County were contaminated with Aldicarb. We took the following steps:
Our first action was to contact the local hospitals and
the Poison Control Center to inquire about their receiving or
treating any cases of carbamate poisoning during the past
few years. Our investigation revealed that no cases were
known to these agencies.
Next, for those residents whose well water exceeded
the seven parts per bitlion level, the homeowner was
advised not to use the water for ddnking or cooking
purposes, and to obtain an alternative supply of potable
water.
Third, in the case of community water systems, a
recommendation was made to the purveyor to suspend the
use of the contaminated well and to switch to other uncon-
taminated ones. This was not always possible, and in one
particular situation, that of the Greenport Water Company,
32
the purveyor had to resort to treatment through the use of
activated carbon because there were no other wells in the
immediate vicinity.
Fourth, an attempt was also made to reduce further
contamination of groundwater with Aldicarb. In view of the
fact that it was the State of New York which requested from
EPA an amendment of the AIdicarb label to increase the
allowable dose of application from three pounds an acre to
seven pounds per acre, we asked the State to take the
necessary action to reduce the allowable dose to three or
four pounds per acre as an interim solution to the problem.
While this recommendation was being considered, Union
Carbide itself asked EPA to amend the Aldicarb label to
ban its use in Suffolk County, which request was granted.
This request was precipitated by the massive publicity
which accompanied the detection of Aldicarb in Suffolk
County and by EPA's refusal to raise the acceptable no-
adverse effect level at the meeting of its Toxicology Panel
on February 1, 1980.
The Department of Health Services, in addition,
requested assistance from the Environmental Protection
Agency in testing for other pesticides in groundwater.
Because of the Agency's involvement in other problems
throughout the country, such continued laboratory support
was not available. A request was then made to several
pesticide manufacturers to test a few water samples for the
possible presence of their products in groundwater. Some
manufacturers responded positively to our request, and a
rather limited survey was initiated. It revealed the presence
of other pesticides such as Carbofuran, Dinoseb and 1,2
dichloropropane.
In the meantime, negotiations between the State and
the County Health Departments and the Union Carbide
Corporation culminated in a mutual agreement between
Union Carbide and Suffolk County whereby the corpora-
tion agreed to provide laboratory assistance to the County
in what is considered to be the most extensive survey ever
conducted in the United States for a pesticide in
groundwater.
During an eight-week period between May and July of
1980, almost eight thousand water samples were collected
from wells within twenty-five hundred feet of potato farms
and were shipped to Union Carbide Laboratories in
Charleston, West Virginia for testing.
Of the seven thousand eight hundred and nine private
wells tested in Brookhaven, Riverhead, Southold, East
Hampton and Southampton, one thousand twenty-three,
or 13.1 percent, had AIdicarb concentrations above the
recommended guideline of seven parts per billion.
Within the same township and within the two thousand
five hundred foot distance from potato farms, marked vari-
ations occurred in the Aldicarb concentrations encountered.
Community and non-community water supplies were
also tested. Of the sixty-eight crmmunity water wells
tested, five, or 7.4 percent exceeded the guideline, and of
the two hundred seventy-four non-community water sup-
plies, twenty-two, or 8 percent did so.
The critical question which has to be addressed is the
health effects of these Iow concentrations of Aldicarb in
groundwater. Unfortunately, hardly anything is known
about the long-term health effects of trace concentrations
of Aldicarb.
Because of the hardships encountered in obtaining
alternative sources of potable water, especially on the East
End, treatment of existing sources was considered. A
cooperative study with Union Carbide was initiated in
December of 1979 to test the efficacy of two sizes of
activated carbon filters. This study demonstrated that the
large filters are effective in removing most of the Aldicarb
and its metabolites for extended periods while the small
ones are not.
These preliminary findings, coupled with Union
Carbide's interest in alleviating the hardship imposed on
residents with contaminated wells, prompted the signing of
an agreement between Union Carbide and Suffolk County.
Under the terms of this agreement, Union Carbide agreed
to provide an activated carbon filtration system, free of
charge, to residents whose well water exceeded the seven
parts per billion level.
It should be emphasized that activated carbon filters
are not the optimum solution to the problem of ground-
water contamination with Aldicarb, other pesticides and
synthetic organics. It should only be viewed as an interim
solution to a rather complex, multifaceted and long-term
problem.
The recent detection of synthetic organics and
pesticides in groundwater in Suffolk County brings into
focus serious issues and practices which should be
addressed.
The first is to what extent is our groundwater con-
taminated with organics and pesticides. A detailed profile
of groundwater should be developed so that rational deci-
sions relating to the ban, restriction or modification of use
of certain chemicals and pesticides can be made. Such
decisions should take into consideration realistic health
effects, economic impact and practicality of enforcement.
Probably one of the most crucial issues is the action-
able levels at which a water source is considered
unacceptable. This applies to halogenated hydrocarbons,
pesticides and other toxic contaminants.
During the past few years, attention has been focused
on the association between halogenated hydrocarbons in
drinking water and the incidence of human carcinoma.
Several studies compared the incidence of cancer among
populations receiving surface waters (which presumably
have more organic matter and are subject to chlorination)
with the incidence among those using groundwater (which
supposedly contains less organiC: matter and is also sub-
ject to less chlorination). Very few studies utilized quantita-
tive measurements of the trihalomethanes in water. At the
same time, the National Cancer Insititute demonstrated
an increase in liver and kidney tumors in animals exposed
to high doses of chloroform. In the case of pesticides, the
situation is even more nebulous.
It is thus evident that, between the limitations inherent
in extrapolation from animal experiments and the uncon-
trolled epidemiologic studies used in determining the
health effects, the actionable levels which are currently
being employed are based on many stipulations and
assumptions which are subject to serious questions and
challenges.
Another issue is the lack of controlled epidemiologic
studies to assess the health effects of long-term exposure
to Iow concentrations of pesticides and halogenated
hydrocarbons. Because of our inability to test for the
various pesticides and halogenated hydrocarbons in these
trace concentrations in the past, the prospective approach
is the only one which could yield meaningful results.
It is fully realized that it might be very difficult and
practically impossible to design a study which could
33
establish a cause and effect relationship between halo-
genated hydrocarbons or pesticides and the incidence of
cancer or other clinical manifestations characteristic of
pesticide poisoning. This is attributed to the various
etiologic agents which could be incriminated, the varia-
tions in the degree of exposure to contaminants in water,
and other nonaqueous soumes and the long follow-up
period.
Despite these anticipated difficulties, it is of para-
mount importance that studies to explore the presence of
associations be initiated. These studies should be funded
by the Federal Government and conducted in cooperation
with the State and local health agencies which have been
heavily involved in the problem, and which have the
expertise and manpower to do it.
Now, before I go on, let me show you a few slides
summarizing the results of the Aldicarb survey conducted
during May to July, 1980.
Table 1 lists the number of wells sampled, by Town.
The wells were located in the eastern towns. This was a
mass survey, which was designed to show what proportion
of the wells sampled contained Aldicarb at levels exceed-
ing seven parts per billion. As you can see, the number was
13.1 percent.
Table 2 lists results for communities in the Town of
Riverhead. The numbers for wells with levels between 1
and 7 ppb are very interesting. You find areas like Manor-
ville, with 1.3 pement, and Laurel, with 42.8 pement.
All the wells sampled were located within twenty-five
hundred feet of a potato farm. Of course, the tremendous
variation is due to the groundwater movement, the source
of application, and several other factors; but, we take it for
granted and say that 13.1 percent represents the overall
extent of the contamination exceeding the 7 ppb standard.
TABLE 1
Suffolk County, N.Y.--Groundwater Aldicarb Survey
May--July 1980
Summary by Town
Town
Brookhaven
East Hampton
Riverhead
Southampton
Southold
No. of Wells Percent of Wells Where Aldicarb Detected
Sampled 1-7 ppb In excess of 7 ppb
222 8.1 0.9
434 10.6 9.9
2,161 16.0 16.2
1,832 14.0 14.7
3,160 11.8 11.4
TOTAL 7,809 13.3 13.1
Zaki et al, 1980
TABLE 2
Suffolk County, N.Y.--Groundwater Aldicarb Survey
May--July 1980
Town of Riverhead
No. of Wells Percent of Wells Where Aldlcarb Detected
Community Sampled 1-7 ppb In excess of 7 ppb
Aquebogue 261 19.2 16.8
Calverton 464 12.3 18.3
Jamesport 227 26.4 10.1
Laurel 299 42.8 21.0
*Manorviile 76 1.3 13.2
Riverhead 604 8.4 16.9
*Wadin.q River 230 1.8 7.8
TOTAL 2,161
'Includes homes in portions of the Town of Brookhaven.
Zaki et al, 1980
34
16.2 16.0
0
C~
C~O
Zl-
C~'IOHJ,.~IO$
N3AVHNOO~I8
Table 3 is for the Town of Southold. Again, you see
some variation, but it is not like Riverhead because the
groundwater goes in all directions, north, south, east and
west. So, you find that there is not the same extreme
variation.
Table 4 is for the Town of Southampton. Again, you
see great variation. There is 1.6 percent in East Quogue
and 39.1 percent in Remsenberg-Speonk, a tremendous
variation.
in East Hampton (Table 5), if you look at Amagansett,
there is no contamination in excess cf 7 ppb becaue the
local groundwater gradient is southerly. The same is true
of the Village of East Hampton. The highest concentrations
are found in Wainscott.
The last town, Brookhaven (Table 6), had very Iow
concentrations.
Table 7 summarizes the survey results on the basis of
the Aldicarb levels measured. Of all the wells sampled,
nearly three-quarters showed no detectable contamination,
whatsoever. On the other hand, 13.5 percent of wells had
Aldicarb concentrations higher than the 7 ppb standard. Of
these, more than half had levels in the range 8-30 ppb.
Table 8 displays the maximum Aldicarb concentra-
tions measured, categorized by the type of well. It is
interesting to note that no water supply well had an
Aldicarb level greater than 59 ppb, whereas one private
well reached 515 ppb. However, as Table 7 indicates, very
few wells exceeded 75 ppb overall. Of all the eastern
towns, Riverhead is the most strongly affected. Figure 2 is
a map of Riverhead with a computer-generated display of
affected groundwater areas. It is strange to see some
areas of high Aldicarb concentration surrounded by areas
of lower concentration, and these, in turn surrounded by
areas of high concentration. No explanation for this
phenomenon ha~ yet been achieved.
We found that contamination did not usually travel
beyond well fields. In other words, most of the con-
taminated wells were found in much closer proximity to the
potato fields than the twenty-five hundred feet that was
mentioned earlier.
TABLE 3
Suffolk County, N.Y.--Groundwater Aldicarb Survey
May--July 1980
Town of Southold
NO. of Wells Percent of Wells Where Aldicarb Detected
Town Sampled 1-7 ppb In excess of 7 ppb
Cutchogue 579 12.1 16.2
East Marion 153 2.0 3.3
Greenport 45 2.2 11.1
Mattituck 984 12.3 12.3
New Suffolk 125 10.4 12.0
Orient 335 8.0 5.4
Peconic 225 15.1 13.8
Southoid 714 14.7 9.8
TOTAL 3,160 11.8 11.4
Zaki et al, 1980
TABLE 4
Suffolk County, N.Y.--Groundwater Aldicarb Survey
May--July 1980
Town of Southampton
No. of Wells Percent of Wells Where Aldicsrb Detected
Town Sampled 1-7 ppb In excess of 7 ppb
Bridgehampton 290 16.9 12.4
East Quogue 124 1.6 1.6
Remsenberg/Specnk 69 21.8 39.1
*Sag Harbor 28 6.9 0
Sagaponack 216 20.4 28.2
Southampton 380 12.1 11.1
Water Mill 722 13.4 14.1
TOTAL 1,829 13.9
Zaki et al, 1980
*included are a few homes from the Town of East Hampton
14.8
36
TABLE 5
Suffolk County, N.Y.--Groundwater Aldicarb Survey
May--July 1980
Town of East Hampton
No. of Wells Percent of Wells Where Aldicsrb Detected
Community Sampled 1-7 ppb In excess of 7 ppb
Amagansett 42 4.8 0
East Hampton 92 6.5 2.2
Wainscott 300 12.7 13.7
TOTAL 434 10.6 9.9
Zaki et al, 1980
TABLE 6
Suffolk County, N.Y.--Groundwater Aldicarb Survey
May--July 1980
Town of Brookhaven
No. of Wells Percent of Wells Where Aldlcerb Detected
Community Sampled 1-7 ppb In excess of 7 ppb
East Moriches 17 17.6 5.9
Mount Sinai 49 26.5 2.0
Ridge 94 1.1 0
Shoreham 6 0 0
Yaphank 48 2.1 0
TOTAL 214 0.9 8.4
Zaki et al, 1980
TABLE 7
Suffolk County, N.Y.--Groundwater Aldicerb Survey
May--July 1980
Summary of Aldicerb Concentration
Concentration Numbr
in PPB of Wells Percent
None detected 5896 73.2
1-7 1068 13.3
8-30 565 7.0
31-75 345 4.3
More than 75 177 2.2
TOTAL 8051
Zaki et al, 1980
TABLE 8
Suffolk County, N.Y.--Groundwater Aldicarb Survey
May--July 1980
MAXIMUM ALDICARB CONCENTRATIONS
BY CATEGORY OF WELLS SAMPLED
Parts per
Billion
Community Water Supplies
Non-Community Water Supplies
Private Wells
Others
27
59
515
493
Zaki et al, 1980
Because of the hardship encountered in obtaining
alternative sources of potable water, especially on the East
End (i.e. the Towns of Southold and East Hampton), treat-
ment of existing sources was considered.
Our problem now is that spent activated carbon has to
be changed and is due to be changed within a few months.
We don't now know what to do with spent carbon, and we
are trying to find a manufacturer wino will take it.
I have spoken, in general terms, about quality deci-
sions, recommendations and facts of life. The last point
which I would like to make is that our sophistication in
technology will enable us, in the future, to detect traces of
many contaminants previously unidentified. Some of these
may have deleterious effects on health at higher concen-
trations, but not in minute traces. Other compounds may
be potentially hazardous even in trace concentrations. It is
most desirable, of course, to avoid exposure to all possible
risks.
Society, while it seems to be willing to accept real,
tangible and measurable risks in our daily activities as a
result of cigarette smoking, excessive food and alcohol
intake, the use of the automobile and several others, is
totally unable to tolerate potential, nontangible, unmeasur-
able risks from food additives, pesticides, air pollutants
and water contaminants.
Industry Views: APLR
GEORGE LAWRENCE
Association of Processors of Liquid Resources, Inc. (APLR)
Abstract
The Association of Processors of Liquid Resources, Inc., serves that portion of the industrial
waste disposal industry that is subject to federal, state, and local hazardous waste regulations.
There are three types of members: licensed industrial waste haulers; businesses that use
industrial waste and by-products as stocks and fuels; and, citizens concerned about protection
of the environment. The Association believes that there are two ways to prevent groundwater
contamination from toxic or hazardous chemicals: first, the elimination [rom use of hazardous
chemicals, which is not feasible; second, the provision of an organized system for the collection
and disposal of these wastes. At present, there is a substantial shortfall in available capacity in
the industrial waste disposal industry. Without this capacity, the many laws being promulgated
(e.g., RCRA) will not protect the environment from toxic and hazardous wastes. Three years ago
APLR members submitted proposals to various county agencies, including LIRPB, for the
establishment of an organized system on Long/s/and to deal with hazardous wastes. Although
supportive of the idea, the independent town and county governments were unable to develop a
coordinated approach on a regional basis. There is a tremendous need for a transfer center,
where wastes can be collected in an organized fashion, repackaged, and, if need be, decanted
and put in a form acceptable to out-of-state secure disposal facilities. At present, many of these
facilities will only rarely accept materials as generated on Long Island. Over the last three years
there has been too much talk and not enough resources devoted to encouraging new capacity in
the industrial waste business. The only solution to hazardous waste is to be able to dispose of
100% of the industrial waste that's generated. The industrial waste generator will find some way
to dispose of its wastes. This means that wastes will find their way into town sewers and
cesspools. The generator will not store them, as EPA suggests, until they rise to the height of its
buildings. Ail the laws in the world won't change this until government recognizes that it must
encourage increased capacity in the waste disposal industry.
I would like to start off by thanking the Planning Board
for inviting industry to make their comments here.
I'd like to explain to you what our Association is, and
the type of membership that we have made available.
First, our Association consists of the people from the
industrial waste disposal industry who are faced with living
up to the various regulations promulgated by the Federal
Environmental Protection Agency, the State DEC, Suffolk
County and Nassau County, and all of the towns and all of
the Departments of Transportation and the rest of the
agencies that seem to be concerned.
We are very happy that the Planning Board has recog-
nized toxic and hazardous waste as being a problem on
Long Island. Unfortunately, three years ago things were
considerably different, and before the Love Canal days
and before the Chemical Control days, there was very little
attention given to the hazardous chemicals that are pollut-
ing our groundwater here on Long Island.
Our Association is made up of three different types of
membership. The first type includes those people that are
licensed industrial waste haulers, and with all due respect
to Marvin Fleisher, we don't particularly care for the word
"scavenger," by which we are constantly being identified.
We are hopeful that some day we won't be using that word
anymore.
The second type of membership includes those
businesses that may use the various different kinds of
waste that are suitable for use as feed stock or alternate
fuel.
The third category of meh~b'ership is open to environ-
mentally aware citizens who are concerned about the
protection of the environment. We hope that their input and
their experience with the other members of our Association
will help us all to stay on the right track, and, hope-
fully, resolve some of the problems that we have had to
deal with.
Our feeling is that there are two ways to prevent the
contamination of groundwater by toxic or hazardous
chemicals. The first way is to eliminate the use of hazard-
ous chemicals. I don't think anybody !n this reom would
support that position. So with that in mind, we feel that the
second way, and probably the only way to resolve this
problem, is to provide an organized system for the collec-
tion and disposal of these industrial wastes.
There has been a lot of talk here today about all kinds
of new laws, including RCRA and others. We feel that
without the proper capacity to handle all of the hazardous
and toxic wastes that are generated, all the laws in the
world are not going to protect our environment. I might add
that there is a substantial shortfall in available capability in
the industrial waste disposal industry to handle the huge
volume of industrial toxic and hazardous wastes that are
39
generated.
Three or four years ago our members--and we have
been at this for a while; the Association is rather new, but
our members have been around for a while--submitted
proposals to various county and town government
agencies to establish an organized system on Long Island
to deal with all of the hazardous chemicals that are
generated. Unfortunately, these independent county and
town governments, while supportive of the idea of a
regional system, were unable to coordinate this type of
approach.
We submitted a proposal to the Long Island Planning
Board (Suffolk County Planning Commission) about three
years ago. Unfortunately, previous to the Love Canal era,
there were very few people, apparently including the Plan-
ning Board, who considered hazardous and toxic waste a
significant problem. It was very frustrating for us, who had
to live with this, who had to deal with the disposal of
hazardous wastes on a day-to-day basis, that the proper
attention was not paid by these government agencies.
When the 208 Study was first made available, it
seemed, at the time, that the major problems we were
faced with on Long Island were the excessive use of
fertilizer on lawns and a dog population that created a
substantial problem with respect to contamination of
stormwater runoff from the animal wastes.
I don't have to tell you that it was very frustrating for us,
who were acutely aware of where all the hazardous waste
was going. We are dealing then with industrial waste
generators who were finally calling for the first time
because of pressure from the County Health Department.
We would ask them, "Where, up until this time, has your
industrial waste been going?"
In ninety percent of the cases, they would tell us, "We
give it to the garbage man and he takes it to the landfill." I
am sure nobody in this room can dispute it. All of the
landfills on Long Island have gotten their fair share of toxic
wastes. As a result of this lack of interest and unawareness
of how severe the problem was, and the inability of govern-
ment to deal with us in helping to resolve this problem, our
members took it upon themselves to determine how we
would proceed to develop a safe disposal system.
Three or four of us operating on Long Island estab-
lished what we feel is a very thorough and complete man-
agement service that we offer to the industrial waste
generator. The services offered by our members accom-
modate approximately sixty percent of the industrial waste
generators on Long Island. Primarily, our members start
off by managing the industrial waste generator. By that we
mean we'll interview a particular generator who is seeking
our help, and we will try to identify the hazardous waste
streams that he generates. For identifying those waste
streams, we offer them laboratory services. After the waste
stream has been identified, we will advise them as to the
proper method of collecting that waste, storing it, segregat-
ing it and generally making the waste as easy to handle as
possible. Without this type of a service, the generators
collect their materials haphazardly, mix it all together and
generate a waste stream that is virtually impossible to
dispose of in any economical fashion at all. I venture to say
that there are many generators, who, because of improper
collection or segregation of the material, generate a waste
stream that cannot be handled, regardless of price.
Most waste is collected in a fashion that is not accept-
able for disposal. People collect material in drums in which
the contents may consist of twenty-five percent solids and
seventy-five percent liquids. It may contain water.
The specific need of the Long Island industrial com-
munity is not necessarily to have a tremendous treatment
plant here that is capable of incinerating or landfilling. I
don't think any one of us in the Association would attempt
to convince any of the officials here on Long Island that we
want to landfill industrial waste or chemical waste, or that
we want to put up a big incinerator to burn hazardous and
toxic industrial waste. However, there is a tremendous
need for what we call a transfer center, where this material
can be collected in an organized way and repackaged, if
necessary, decanted and put in a form that is acceptable
for some of the larger disposal facilities located out of state.
Most chemical landfills will not accept materials as
generated on Long Island except in very rare cases, so that
this transfer center concept has been developed by our
members, and we feel it is an acceptable alternative for the
various government agencies on Long Island who have to
deal with industrial waste problems.
All wastes will be collected and brought to these trans-
fer centers and put in the appropriate form for disposal out
of Long Island. We are not suggesting that Long Island, as I
said before, should develop a capital intensive industrial
waste disposal plant. We, in general, will handle all indust-
rial waste, other than shock sensitive or radioactive waste,
under the comprehensive system we have established to
deal with those particular types of materials.
We remove it in drum, bulk or whatever is appropriate
for the customer. In many cases, the generator, if he
adheres to our advice, will realize substantial savings in
the cost of disposal. Generators who do not advise us will
not be served. It is our feeling that the industrial waste
generator is obligated to manage his waste material in the
best manner possible. We are available, our members are
available, to provide all of the advice and the backup
services so that generators can do so. We expect that they
will do it and we demand that they will do it.
A few of our members have spent a considerable
amount of time in developing an alternative fuel program.
Much of the industrial waste that is generated on Long
Island is of a heat-bearing nature, such as an oil or a
solvent, or some other material that has a heat value. Our
feeling is we have an energy problem in this country. Any
material that can be made into a product whose heat can
be recovered and utilized should be. Our members are
doing this on a daily basis on Long Island. As a result,
generators of heat-bearing materials will experience an
economic benefit.
We would also provide the combustion engineering
sevices for those companies that have an industrial boiler
or a rotary dryer (e.g., an asphalt plant) to convert their
system to burn this type of fuel.
People whom we are presently dealing with are
experiencing tremendous savings in fuel costs by using
our products instead of Number 2 fuel oil, which we feel
should be reserved for the homeowner during the winter
months.
Our members, also, in conducting this business with
the generator, may take the appropriate records that are
required by the various Federal, State, and local environ-
mental agencies, and provide, in an organized way, the
disposal information with regard to any particular
generator's waste stream.
I might add that all of the material, or the greater part of
the material, generated on Long Island has to be removed
from Long Island. That's the basic purpose of the APLR.
We will receive waste in an organized fashion, put it in bulk
to take advantage of the economies of moving material in
bulk and transport it to an approved disposal facility in the
northeast.
Such disposal facilities are becoming very rare. We
suggested, two years ago, to various officials in govern-
ment, including the Planning Board, that Long Island could
not be dependent on out-of-state disposal facilities for all of
its needs. We suggested, at that time, that we anticipated
many of these disposal facilities being closed down as a
result of the way they operated. We suggested that the
market demand in their own home states would increase
significantly, and that the availability of these companies to
service Long Island industry would diminish.
This is exactly what has happened in the past three
years. It would be very difficult for a generator here on Long
island to expect Rollins Environmental Service or CECOS,
or a number of the other major facilities, to come in here
and take care of our problems. I think we have an obliga-
tion to manage these problems ourselves, and I feel that
our members have certainly taken that responsibility and
proceeded with it. I think they have done a fine job.
Another service that's offered by our members is
response to chemical emergencies. There have been a
variety of businesses which, for one reason or another,
went bankrupt, and left a "present" behind for the County
or landlord. The resulting clean-up has required the
services that our members provide.
There are, also, other emergency situations. An an
example, one of our members responded to a call on a
Sunday evening around eleven o'clock. A building in Great
Neck caL~ght fire, and the batteries that operated the
emergency lighting system were heavily damaged. As a
result, a lot of concentrated acid flowed down into a floor
sump and began to corrode a tremendous amount of
wiring that was hooked up to a computer. Our member
responded to that emergency by getting over there,
neutralizing the acid and getting the problem under control.
To give you an example of why we can't be dependent
on out-of-state companies to do this, when our member
company finished the job and was in the process of moving
all of the batteries and concentrated acid out of the build-
ing, in came Rollins Environmental Services from New
Jersey, perhaps eight hours after the initial call. The fact is
that it would have been too late, at that time, for Rollins to
effectively resolve the problem. There would have been
too much damage. Furthermore, when they respond to an
emergency such as this, in an area that's not local to their
operations, their charges are extremely high, perhaps
three times what our members charge to do the same job.
Our members have developed an organized approach
to the industrial waste disposal problem in spite of the
extremely complicated laws promulgated by a multitude of
government agencies at all levels of government. I think
one of the biggest problems we face is to determine, first
off, who it is that has requirements. That has been a major
job. You figure you are complying with everyone's require-
ments, and all of a sudden you find out there is another
government agency that has jurisdiction. Certainly, there
should be some method whereby government can coordi-
nate their regulation of our business. There are just too
many government agencies involved, all with overlapping
requirements. All of them are unclear, themselves, as to
what the interpretation of their new laws are. Most of the
laws that we have to comply with are brand new. The
agencies themselves have not interpreted their own laws.
We have to make an interpretation of these new laws and
hope that our interpretation will stand up in the future.
In spite of hysterical and inaccurate publicity that has
directed a tremendous amount of animosity about hazard-
OUS waste against our members, against people who are
trying to resolve the problem, I think it has been good, in a
way, that the press has publicized this issue. It is time that
the press began to publicize or to talk about the whole
problem, and to give the proper perspective on companies
in our business that are dealing in hazardous and toxic
wastes. We are not the people who are discharging into the
environment. We are not the people who are creating the
problem of hazardous wastes. We are the ones who are
resolving the hazardous and toxic waste problem.
You have to understand we are subjected to extremely
complicated laws, and there is a multitude of agencies that
we have to deal with. Although we try our damnedest to
comply with everything, I think it is a physical impossibility
tO comply with all these laws one hundred percent of the
time.
We have had to deal with local governments who
disregard the real issue of our existence here and the
benefits that our members bring to the community. They
read the newspapers for a couple of years, and all they
know, when they hear about hazardous waste, is "not in
my town; go to some other town." Of course, when you get
to the other town, they have the same opinion.
I have been promised for four years that a siting com-
mittee would be formed, and I have yet to see a siting
committee. I wonder if we will ever see a siting committee,
and if we do, if that siting committee can cut through some
of the municipal problems or the local government prob-
lems that our members have experienced.
The Long Island Regional Planning Board, probably
unknowingly, has rejected a proposal by one of our mem-
bers for an application for a zoning change without ever
getting information from our member companies and, obvi-
ously, without speaking to New York State DEC, the local
Health Department, or the other environmental agencies
concerned. Arbitrarily, without very much information, they
ruled against this application.
We feel that the true fac~s (~oncerning this application
would have caused the Long Island Planning Board, or the
Suffolk County Planning Department, to rule in our favor.
We, as an Association, will reject irresponsible
attitudes by government officials on whatever level, who
act in opposition to the best interests of our environment,
our industrial community and the peopte who live here. The
time has come for everybody to respond to the environ-
mental problems we have. There has been so much talk
over the last three years about solving these problems,
and so little resources devoted towards encouraging new
capacity in the industrial waste disposal business. The
only way you are going to solve the problem is to be able to
dispose of one hundred percent of the industrial waste
that's generated. All the laws in the world, as I said before,
are not going to change that until government recognizes
that they must focus their resources and their attention on
encouraging new industry by means of incentives or by
means of some consistent policy that we can all depend
on. The laws are terrific and they are a good start, but they
are not going to solve the problem.
If the garbage men were to stop coming to your house,
you would eventually find something to do with your
41
garbage, and it holds true, also, for the industrial waste
generator. If the service is available to him, and he can
dispose of his waste in an organized fashion, he will do it.
We have had no problem with the industrial waste gener-
ators. They are anxious to comply; but if the services are
not available, the generator will find something to do with
his industrial waste. That means it goes down the town
sewer and into the cesspool or whatever. He is not going to
store it like the EPA suggests until it rises in a pile by the
building.
In closing, I ask, who is controlling the environmentally
toxic materials on a day-to-day basis? If you are familiar
with our members, you will realize we are the ones out
there every day responding to the problem, helping the
generators comply with the regulations. Who responds to
the disasters around Long Island? Our members do. When
thero is a problem, we get the call. We are at the grass roots
end of this business. We have to deal with all of these new
regulations in helping the generator. When is government
going to actively encourage and provide incentives to our
members and other companies who are willing to involve
themselves in hazardous and toxic waste disposal? I think
once the government recognizes that they have to encour-
age increased capacity in the disposal industry, that we will
finally solve our problems.
42
Industry Views: LILWA
RALPH MACCHIO
Long island Liquid Waste Association (LILWA)
Abstract
LIL WA is an association of carters pledged to working cooperatively with municipalities, govern-
ment agencies and the private sector in an effort to protect Long Island's groundwater and to
insure proper waste disposal Based on its involvement in the transportation of toxic and
hazardous materials, LILWA feels that improvements in the following areas would benefit both
transporter and generator and would result in the speedy and efficient transfer of industrial
waste. If the generator were to have its own waste composition analysis done and submitted with
a sample, this would accelerate its acceptance by the disposal site. Proper sampling is
important. The sample must be representative of the waste stream being generated. Generators
should decide whether to store wastes in drums or in bulk, which is less expensive, offers a more
consistent waste stream and is easier and safer to load. Storage facilities should be easily
accessible, and generators should retain a sample of each bulk load removed from their sites in
case the disposal site questions the wastes. There should be at least one person at each
generating facility who is responsible for the waste program and who will be available at the time
of pickup. Protective clothing, goggles, and eye wash should be provided at the waste genera-
tion site at all times. Waste materials should be clearly and correctly identified. Vacuum loading
equipment, which is much safer than conventional pumps, should be used when bulk loading. In
addition, vacuum equipment can be used to clean up spilled material Buckets of sand should be
kept in the disposal area. In case of a spill, it can be used to seal off storm drains and prevent the
spill from reaching groundwater.
A lot of the material in my presentation has been
covered by previous speakers. Therefore, rather than to go
over the material a second time, I would like to discuss and
explain what the Long Island Liquid Waste Association is,
and how it can work with the generator in doing the job of
industrial waste disposal.
LILWA is an association of carters pledged to working
together with municipalities, government agencies and the
private sector in an effort to protect Long Island's ground-
water and to insure proper waste disposal. LILWA's
contribution to this seminar stems from its practical
involvement in the transfer of waste material from
generator to disposal site. Although the transporting of
waste is a very basic area of industrial waste disposal,
nonetheless, it is important in getting the job done. Being
involved with the transportation of these materials, we have
come across situations where we feel improvement would
be beneficial to both transporter and generator and would
result in the speedy and efficient transfer of industrial
waste. We cannot cover all situations and have therefore
compiled a short list of items in areas we feel are of major
concern. These areas are: analysis--storage--super-
vision--personnel safety.
Analysis: Currently it takes between 2 to 6 weeks from the
time we submit a sample to the time the disposal site
analyzes and accepts the waste material. That is the
normal period of time. We can accelerate this in emer-
gencies or in special cases, but that is the general rule.
Therefore, if time is important, we would recommend that
the generator have his own analysis done and submitted
with the sample, to accelerate acceptance at the disposal
site. Proper sampling is very important in order to receive
the lowest disposal cost and avoid costly return loads. The
sample must be representative of the waste stream.
Disposal sites have become increasingly sensitive to vari-
ations in waste streams and would think nothing of return-
ing the load or increasing the waste disposal fee for not
being representative of the sample submitted. Sampling
should also be done periodically by the generator to
determine the range of waste parameters. We would also
caution the generator at this'time against employing any-
one who would dispose of his waste without first taking a
proper sample and having it analyzed.
Storage:
A. A determination should be made whether to store in
bulk or drums. Normally, bulk storage is less expensive,
offers a more consistent waste stream and allows easier
and safer loading.
B. It is very important to allow for a reserve capacity in
your storage facility. By reserve capacity, we mean an
amount in excess of your normal pick up. We would recom-
mend a minimum of one week's additional storage if possi-
ble. Bear in mind, most disposal sites are not located in the
vicinity of Nassau and Suffolk. A large majority are located
outside the State of New York and may not be dependable
with regard to your scheduling of pick-ups.
C. If possible, storage facilities should be located in
areas with easy access. It should not be necessary to run a
hose through shop areas to get at drums. We've had
examples of pickups where we end up winding the hose
around the equipment and machinery, past employees, to
the far corner of the plant where they have the waste
disposal tanks. This is dangerous and costly.
D. Another good practice for the generator would be to
43
retain a sample of each bulk load removed from his site
until final disposal is completed. This would act as verifica-
tion should there any question about the waste material
from the disposal site.
Supervision: There should be at least one person at the
generator's facility with total responsibility for the waste
program and who will be available at the time of pick up.
Quite often this responsibility is left with the maintenance
personnel who are not familiar with industrial waste. The
result may be a great deal of lost time and dangerous
actions such as the mixing of loads.
On occasion, after the material has been sampled and
approved by the disposal site, the carter will then go pick it
up at the plant, and be informed by someone that he
doesn't know exactly where the material is, but is pretty
sure its out back past the second pile of drums on the right.
He will go on to tell the carter to take all he can get, but not
to take the ones with the green dot, because they react
violently with the other material. Well, this is dangerous
and someone should be there who knows what the waste
material is.
Personnel Safety:
A. There should be a minimum of an eye wash and
hose bib available at the waste material pick-up point. If the
generator's employees are in the immediate area during
loading, whether supervising or working, they should be
furnished with protective clothing and goggles.
B. Waste materials must be plainly marked and in
such a way as to truly represent the container contents,
especially when loading from drums or small containers
into bulk loads.
C. Vacuum loading equipment should be used when
bulk loading. Vacuum units are much safer than conven-
tional pumps, which pressurize the discharge line and are
a potential hazard to all personnel in the area. In the event
of a ruptured hose or connector, the vacuum system would
tend to draw air in and keep the waste matedal inside the
hose, whereas conventional pumps under the same condi-
tion would spray the area with industrial waste. In addition,
the vacuum system has the added ability, in case of an
emergency spill, to rapidly clean up the material spilled.
Another suggestion would be to keep several buckets
of sand in the disposal storage area. Should there be a
spillage outside the diked area and there be a Iow point
such as a catch basin or storm drain in this area, the
buckets of sand can be poured around the storm drain to
prevent the industrial waste from being injected into the
storm drain and, therefore, into the water table.
This concludes our short list of recommendations. If,
however, in the future you require any further information,
feel free to call the association's office at 293-4325. Lee
Daniels, our executive director, can be reached there and
would be happy to help in any manner, or to put you in
touch with someone who can.
PANEL DISCUSSION
PANEL MEMBERS:
Marvin Fleisher, Nassau County Department of Health
Stephen Costa, Suffolk County Department of Health Services
George Naginey, New York State Department of Transportation
Morris Bruckman, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
John Proudfit, Esq., Attorney General's Office
Dr. Mahfouz Zaki, Suffolk County Department of Health Services
George Lawrence, Associated Processors of Liquid Resoumes, Inc.
Ralph Macchio, Long Island Liquid Waste Association
MODERATOR:
Dr. Israel Wilenitz, Long Island Regional Planning Board
PANEL DISCUSSION
Dr. Wilenitz: We have all heard a bewildering array of
opinions and facts today. Now is the time to try to clarify
some of those points by bombarding the panel with ques-
tions. I hope you continue the procedure of stating your
name and affiliation when you get up to ask your questions.
I suppose you can designate the member of the panel to
whom your question is addressed, but I would hope that
other members of the panel would join in if they have any
contribution to make on any point raised, even though they
may not be directly responsible.
Mr. Lawrence, I would like to ask you a few questions if
I may.
You spoke of the transfer station operation in Suffolk
County, and talked about the repackaging of waste loads
into a form acceptable by the ultimate disposal facility. I got
the impression that you meant that on some occasions,
waste loads delivered by different generators might pos-
sibly be incorporated in a single shipment, and I was
wondering how that was reconcilable with the cradle-to-
grave manifest system in which a particular load has a
particular manifest.
The second question I want to ask--you have been
very eloquent about the Long Island responsibility for dis-
posing of toxic and hazardous material--is whether APLR
has investigated the question of the kind of high technol-
ogy disposal system that the Environmental Facilities
Corporation report envisages?
Mr. Lawrence: In response to your first question about
bringing various generators' waste materials to a central
location such as a transfer center, we fully intend to. In your
question you refer to a manifest that would cover that
material from cradle to grave. Our suggestion, which we
will make formally to the appropriate Environmental Pro-
tection people, is that possibly a facility, such as a transfer
facility, be given the authorization to act as an end point for
the various industrial wastes that are generated and
initiate a new manifest from our point of transfer to the
ultimate disposal facility.
With respect to the Environmental Facilities Corpora-
tion, I know they have been looking into who should
operate a facility and who shouldn't. It is very unfortunate
that we haven't been involved with them up to this point,
and we hope that the information that they use to draw their
conclusions is up-to-date and is relevant to the problems
that we are dealing with.
We are hopeful that we will be permitted to communi-
cate with them in the near future to provide some input from
our end in developing some sort of a regional or State-run
facility.
Mr. Bruckman: I cannot speak for the manifest system as
such, but it would be in accordance with our procedures in
the Department of Environmental Conservation. We do
have provision under Part 360 for permitting transfer sta-
tions, and I think the type of station that Mr. Lawrence
recommends would be environmentally desirable.
On the other hand, I can't speak for this manifest
system. That's something that's being set up by EPA.
Dr. Wllenitz: Any other panel members want to comment?
Any other questions from the audience?
Mr. Mclntyre: I am Mark Mclntyre from Newsday.
There was a conflict between you two gentlemen, I
think, in your statement concerning wastes properly dis-
posed. I am trying to get what percentage of Long Island
industrial waste goes to disposal facilities in New York
State. You said there were no facilities in the State, or you
said there were a couple somewhere, but those were
dwindling. What percent of industrial waste that comes off
Long Island has to go out o.f the State?
Mr. Macchio: Very little gbes into New York State,
currently.
Mr. Mclntyre: Over the last five years?
Mr. Macchio: Really, no one has the total of the amount of
waste that is disposed within New York State. The greater
part would go outside the State. As far as the quantity is
concerned, I don't have a handle on the figure, and I don't
think there are too many people who do, because no one
really knows how much waste is generated on Long Island;
and in !erms of what percentage of that waste would go
here, it changes constantly. There are disposal sites avail-
able from time to time, and at other times they are closed
up for one reason or another.
Mr. Mclntyre: But Alabama and Arkansas and Ohio have
facilities which will take anything you send them?
Mr. Macchlo: Pretty much, no matter what consistency.
They are not as particular.
Mr. Mclntyre: Thank you.
Mr. Lawrence: I might add that New York, until recently,
had two of the most prominent secure landfills in the
country operating in the Niagara Falls area. The DEC, a
couple of years ago, should have provided for the con-
tinued use of these facilities. Instead, they would only
approve a particular cell, and then without thinking how
quickly that cell would fill up, they did not prepare them-
selves for the approval of additional cells. What has been
happening, and CECOS is a particular example, is that the
cell that has been approved has been filled. No further area
of that particular landfill has been permitted by the State;
and, therefore, New York State is out one secure landfill.
Another one, operated by SEA Services, has a similar
problem, in that it's reached its capacity, and there has
been very little anticipation on the part of the government
as to what would happen when we reached this point. We
have very few places to go now with that type of industrial
waste. The nearest available landfills of that nature are in
Ohio and South Carolina. At this time, New York has very
little disposal capability.
Mr. Meyer: My name is Warren Meyer, and I am represent-
ing the County Comptroller.
I have actually four questions which tie in with my
concept of four main points that I think were made at one
time or another during the day.
I hear, number one, that we need to determine the
extent and the effect of pollution; and when I say effect, I
mean the health effect, because we don't know all there is
to know about it. I hear, number two, that we need, at least
in some areas, to attempt to clean up existing pollution. I
hear, number three, that we haw to attack the causes of
pollution. Number four, I hear that we need to consider one
hundred percent disposal of waste. These four points gen-
erate a lot of interesting questions. In many respects we
are liable to find ourselves in the area of metaphysics
before we are finished, because it seems to me that if we
are going to dispose one hundred pement of hazardous
waste, it doesn't make any sense to talk about disposing of
it in somebody else's back yard. I think there has got to be a
limit to that eventually.
That raises the question of new technology. What is
being done in this country and in the rest of the world
toward developing new technology, not so much to dis-
pose of these materials as to convert them into something
which is usable and necessary?
Secondly, how vigorously are we going to attack the
causes of pollution? We could go to the illogical extreme of
putting all of the polluting industries out of business. We
could even put homeowners out of business if we wanted
to go to such extremes. How reversible is pollution? I
remember when I started to do some research for a study
that I am now doing for the Comptroller, I came across a
Newsday article quoting a man, who I belive was in charge
of the Department of Planning at the University of Penn-
sylvania, as having said that one-third of the Long Island
groundwater supply was irreversibly polluted. I wrote to the
gentleman and asked him on what facts he based that
conclusion, and I never got a response. I address these
general questions to the panel at large, whoever wants to
attack them.
Mr. Lawrence: I can respond to part of it.
In response to your question concerning new tech-
nologies, it is my feeling that the technology required to
deal with most industrial wastes is already available. It is
not a matter of developing so much new technology; it's a
matter of encouraging those companies with the resources
to implement this technology into getting into the industrial
waste disposal business. I can assure you that most major
companies that have the financial capability to implement
this new technology are quite uncertain as to what the
future will bring and, therefore, are very concerned about
making any substantial investments.
That comes back to my argument about the govern-
ment providing incentives, in some manner, to bring these
resoumes into the industrial waste disposal market, so that
we can employ the technology that is available to us now,
and can use that technology to solve the problems that we
are faced with.
As far as your other questions are concerned, they are
really not in my area of expertise.
Doctor Zaki: (Interposing) I would like to respond to the
question of health effects. As I mentioned in my presenta-
tion, So far, unfortunately, we don't know what the health
effects of most of the contaminants are. In particular, when
we consider Aldicarb, the level we are enforcing is seven
parts per billion. The study we conducted between May
and July of 1980 cost almost one million dollars, most of it
paid by Union Carbide. However, when you consider the
effort and manpower which was put forth by the County, it
is very easily in excess of one million dollars.
Now, for what? For a level of seven parts per billion? If
you ask me, I don't know whether there are any effects or
not. I don't find anything in the study, in terms of pathology
and toxicology, that shows that seven parts per billion has
any effect.
There was a scare in 1977, when some people ate
cucumbers which contained eight thousand to ten
thousand parts per billion. These people experienced only
vomiting and some discomfort for forty-six hours, with no
long-term effect whatsoever. At the same time, we are
enforcing here a level of seven parts per billion as hazard-
ous. One million dollars was spent to establish realistic
health effects, not extrapolations from manmade experi-
ments. I think we should establish a national level, but the
problem is who is going to find it? Hardly anyone,
toxicologist or pathologist, knows the extent of the occupa-
tional exposure, the long-term exposure. Nobody knows
anything as to its long-term effect on the population.
Mr. Finkenberg: John Finkenberg. I am with Suffolk
County.
Mr. Lawrence mentioned that sixty pement of indust-
rial waste generators on Long I.sland are being serviced by
members of APLR. Mr. Fleisher'mentioned a study that
was done with CETA workers, and I was wondering how he
came up with his sixty pement figure.
You also mentioned you were using hazardous waste
for fuel oil. I was wondering what kind of waste would be
acceptable for fuel.
Mr. Lawrence: As far as our figure of sixty percent goes, it
certainly is an estimate based on what we know, based on
who the industrial generators are, and what percentage we
are servicing as an Association. It certainly is an estimate
and will be revised in the future when further information
becomes available.
The types of hazardous wastes that can be used as an
alternative fuel are, generally speaking, all those heat-
bearing materials that are free of PCB's, free of halogens
to a great extent, and compatible either with residual fuels
or with the other feed stocks that are available. There has
been experience with Brookhaven Labs, with Celite
Corporation in upstate New York, and with various other
industrial burning operations that indicate that this material
is quite suitable as a fuel and, in fact, has certain
advantages over a residual fuel, such as Number 2, 4 or 6.
Generally speaking, most heat-bearing material would be
acceptable as an alternative fuel product. There is a cer-
tain amount of technology in the blending process that has
to be known, but once that is available, materials can be
quite easily blended together in certain preportions and
used as an alternative fuel.
Mr. Mc Intyre: How much energy is being preduced here
on Long Island from hazardous waste?
MI'. Lawrence: Maybe twenty thousand gallons per day is
being utilized. That's a considerable saving in Number 2
fuel.
Dr. Wilenitz: I think we are going to find that some familiar
materials will have to be redefined as hazardous and toxic
wastes. For instance, crankcase drainage is now con-
sidered a toxic waste, but it is not something that is new.
Floor: We don't really have any evidence about long-
range effects or acute effects from some of these chemi-
cals. In light of that fact, doesn't it make good sense in
terms of public health to keep the permissible concentra-
tions as Iow as possible until you have done substantial
long-term and defensible ecological studies to show if
there is an effect? If you find no effect, then you can raise
the standards. Doesn't that make more sense?
Doctor Zaki: I fully agree with you. As a matter of fact, I
said absolutely that we should enfome permissible levels
at the lowest value. Yet, at the same time, we should be
more realistic. We are in the process of testing and detect-
ing many contaminants which have never been identified
before. As a matter of fact, some of the tests are being
developed right now. I mentioned AIdicarb in particular,
because the level of seven parts per billion is, in my
opinion, very Iow. In reading over reports of animal
studies--and we have had four groups of volunteers who
were working in a human experimental manner--this level
I think was particularly Iow. As a matter of fact, attempts
were made to push the permissible level to forty-two or
even two hundred.
I have met with EPA representatives in Washington
several times on the AIdicarb preblem. They have asked
me, "Would you like to push the permissible level from
seven to seventy?" I told them, "1 don't want to push it
anywhere. It is your responsibility to study and re-evaluate,
and come up with realistic values, because everything has
a price tag on it."
Mr. Proios: Over a year ago, the Regional Director of
State DEC made a statement that over fifty percent of the
toxic materials generated on Long Island were being
dumped. Whether that's an accurate figure or whether ten
percent is more accurate, I don't know, and I don't think
anybody really knows. The question is, how often do your
agencies actually conduct surveillance pregrams without
telephoning the industry beforehand? Do you really follow
waste loads on a regular basis to the points where they are
actually discharged wherever it may happen to be--New
Jersey or Maryland--to find out how often the materials are
being disposed of properly? I have seen no data on such
monitoring, and I would be curious to know if it is being
done on a regular basis, just to know that someone is
following up to see that these materials are being handled
in a proper manner.
Secondly, of all the data collected under the SPDES
Permits, what percentage is being verified by the State
agencies, and what percentage is supplied by the in~
dustries, themselves. Is there a regular program whereby
the government goes back and takes its own samples and
doesn't rely on figures solely provided by industry?
Mr. Costa: Well, as to the first part of your question, you
have the problem of jurisdiction on following someone to
New Jersey, and I really think that's where you have to get
into the higher levels of government for enfomement in
those areas. We have had occasion to follow some trucks,
but only within the County. We have never done it outside
of the County line.
As for the second part of your question, we currently
have laboratory capacity available to us one day a week for
sample analysis. We sample all of the industries permitted
under SPDES, and many of the industries that have a
discharge not covered by SPDES, or have a SPDES permit
being processed at the State level. I can't give you a
number off the top of my head, but I do know that my staff is
sampling each day, and whenever we find a violation, the
company gets a Notice of Violation. That leads either to
legal action by the State, or to our working with the com-
pany to solve the problem. It is not done as much as we
would like, but it is being done. As I said before, under
current restrictions, we have lab capability only once a
week. If someone chooses not to pollute on that specific
day, we have a problem following up on it.
I think I brought that up before when I said we need a
lot more laboratory capability. We have a pretty good capa-
bility when it comes to heavy metals, but when it comes to
organics, we don't have the lab facilities. The people in the
lab don't like to see our samples. They explode on them at
times; they dirty their equipment. They have to dilute them
sometimes fifty times before they can run them threugh
their equipment. Furthermore, if we don't have the staff,
there is practically no enforcement other than a coopera-
tive effort. Most times, the cooperative effort does work.
Mr. Fleisher: We have about the same situation in Nas-
sau. We did have occasion once to follow somebody. He
was of questionable repute, so I sent somebody to follow
him as far as the County line. As long as he kept going,
that's all we could do about it. As far as checking on
SPDES self-monitoring, which is where the company does
the sampling and sends in their own results, we do try to
get back twice a year to each company. However, I lost
four weeks recently, because I had no personnel to do it. I
had a CETA employee who wasn't rehired for about four
weeks.
Also, our lab makes the's~me complaint as they do in
Suffolk. When I send them an industrial waste sample that
can have any one of hundreds of different compounds, it
takes them much longer to do than a water sample, be-
cause they can overload their gas chromatograph, and it
takes them three days to clean up the mess. If I knew what
was in it, I wouldn't have had to send it to them, so I can't tell
them beforehand. We need more assistance in the collec-
tion and more assistance in the lab in getting the tests
done.
I don't know about Suffolk County, but Nassau County
does have some undercover detectives working for the
County Attorney, and the County District Attorney, who are
looking for illegal dumpers. It is publicly known, at least
within the industry, that they are around. We are following
up, and we are not going to let anything we know of get
away; but there is a limit to how many places you can be at
the same time with a small staff.
Mr. Costa: On that same comment, it's suspected at least
that a lot of waste is entering the scavenger plants;
Babylon Town runs several such plants. At the County
level, I know they sample every truck. That does not mean
they analyze every truck, but they do grab a sample from
47
every truck. So if they have a problem on a specific day,
they can isolate it and sometimes find out where the Icad
came from. They have found loads coming from fictitious
locations on occasion. We have found a lot of metals in the
effluents from some of the town scavenger plants, but it is
rather difficult to determine where it came from. It does
require a good staff. I think the Suffolk County District
Attorney has recently assigned a special investigator to
look into some of these toxic problems.
Mr. Bruckman: New York State DEC has assigned two
conservation officere who operate in plainclothes and
unmarked care. They are engaged in surveillance related
to any type of complaint or anyone suspected of illegal
dumping.
If you see an act of illegal dumping, I would suggest
calling up the County Health Department immediately. If
you have any problem reaching them, call up the State,
751-7900, and either the County or we will get somebody
sent out immediately.
Mrs. Richard: I would like to ask a question of the Attorney
General's Office and Mr. Bruckman.
Mr. Proudfit, we are spending eighty dollars a day,
according to a conference I attended Saturday, to house
inmates who are in prison on misdemeanors. Do you know
how much a day we are spending on criminal polluters who
are, perhaps, poisoning all of us?
Mr. Proudfit: I can't answer your question. I think your
question is well taken. That, of course, depends on
priorities, and we are not always in a position to determine
our priorities. That is determined by the Legislature and,
specifically, by the budget.
Mrs. Richard: Do you feel you have enough funds to
handle the possible criminal polluters who may be coming
to your door regardless of route?
Mr. Proudflt: I think you will see an improvement in the
situation because, as one of the speakers mentioned, a
new law has been passed, which gives the District
Attorney authority. Most people are confused as to the
amount of criminal work that the Attorney General's Office
does. We are primarily a civil office. We do some criminal
work, but most of the criminal enforcement is done by the
District Attorney. We do have a Special Presecutions
Bureau, and our Bureau is forming a unit to do some
criminal prosecutions, but it will be limited by resources.
Mrs. Richard: I guess you would have interstate and
intrastate preblems.
Mr. Proudfit: There is certainly an interstate problem.
Mrs. Richard: Mr. Bruckman, I would like to ask this. If the
problem of finding a solution to waste disposal is such an
urgent one, is it not a State responsibility to mandate a
timetable immediately and to provide a financing mech-
anism to begin to find a solution.
Mr. Bruckman: I am very much involved in battling for
more State funds for my own particular section. The Solid
Waste Management Division in Region I consists of my-
self, an assistant engineer and a part time technician,
shared with someone else. That is the entire technical
staff. I recently lost an engineer who went to work in private
industry. I am told he will not be replaced because he was
on a Federally-funded program. The Federal funds have
diminished, and the State will not provide funds of its own.
Certainly, I feel that what is needed is coordinated
effort, involving a realistic appropriation of funds. I think
that we have an analogy. I was in Amsterdam recently, and
as we know, the Dutch have had a problem with tides. They
appropriated the required money and built dams. On the
other hand, there is the legendary King Canute. When the
tide came rolling in, he commanded the tide to stay back. I
feel that I am in the position of King Canute. There are lots
of laws, but I don't have the means to do much about them.
Mrs. Richard: I see. What worries me, I guess, is that the
funds are decreasing in direct ratio to the increasing prob-
lems. I find your answer very sad.
Mr. Kane: Julian Kane, Citizens Advisory Committee to
the Long Island Regional Planning Board Water Manage-
ment Study.
This is a question to Mr. Buckman, although I think,
perhaps, Mr. Fleisher would also want to comment on it.
A comparison between the discharge standards in the
DEC Regulations to Class GA Potable Waters, which in-
cludes our groundwaters, and those of the Nassau County
Regulations, Ordinance 401 for Sanitary Sewere, shows
that they do not, in fact, tally very closely. For instance, of
about sixty synthetic organics on the DEC list, only one is
on the County list. There are many other organics on the
DEC list besides pesticides. There are three items on the
DEC list which are not on the County list, and six items on
the County lists that are not on the DEC list. One of these is
radioactive substances. Of twenty-six substances in the
County Regulations, the DEC Regulations are more re-
strictive in seven cases, and similar in seven cases.
Standards for the other three substances are yet to be
determined. The pH limits are 6.5 to 8.5 in the DEC Regu-
lations, but 5.5 to 9.5 in the County Regulations.
Such items as cadmium are higher in the County
regulations than in the DEC regulations. Mercury is twenty
pement higher in the County standards than in the DEC
standards. Although the Nassau regulations are primarily
to protect the sewer treatment plants and to set standards
for effluent discharge to marine waters, a comparison with
DEC Regulations for effluent discharge to potable waters
is in order because of the high estimated rate of sewer pipe
leakage in Nassau. It has been estimated that there is as
much as a ten percent leakage rate frem Nassau sewer
pipes into the greundwater. Should there not be closer
coordination between the sewer discharge standards and
the State standards, since leakage can get into Class GA
groundwaters?
Mr. Fleiaher: You actually ~.nswered part of the question
yourself when you said that one is to pretect the sewer
system and one to protect the environment. It is one thing
to protect the organisms in a sewage treatment plant, but
bear in mind that a waste water treatment plant is not
allowed to discharge effluent into the groundwater until it
reduces all contaminants to at least the levels of the
groundwater discharge standards.
Obviously, you have to increase surveillance on
industries dumping into the sewers, because it is a lot
cheaper to keep contaminants out than it is to remove them
at the other end. As for Part 703, the DEC's discharge
standards, most of the DEC's standards are for pesticides
which have little to do with substances being dumped in the
sewers. We don't have any industries manufacturing pes-
ticides.
The sewer ordinance is also concerned with items like
benzene because of the possibility of corroding pipe fit-
tings, and the danger of explosions.
Connection to a sewer does not solve an industry's
problem. A manufacturer might think that he has the
County Health Department off his back now that he is
going over to the sewers. You are not getting rid of conta-
minants; you are simply putting them into sewers, and you
still have to treat to meet standards. If we find that for some
reason the sewer standards aren't stringent enough, I am
sure we will change them. Now we are going to advanced
waste water treatment, and one of our problems is not
being able to dispose of the resulting sludge if it has too
much heavy metals. It is best to keep the heavy metals out
so that the sludge is acceptable at the other end. Unless
we do that, we are never going to get rid of sewage. Just to
treat sewage to make sludge and then dump it back into
the ocean isn't going to help us very much. We want to
make it into usable products, and the only way to do that is
to keep out the heavy metals.
Mr. Kane: What about the leakage into the groundwaters?
Mr. Fleieher: There is a certain amount of leakage allow-
able in all sewage systems. I don't think it is ten pement. It
is something like a thousand gallons per day per each mile
of sewer. It is impossible to make a pipe that doesn't leak,
and that's all there is to it. We are not encouraging anybody
to pump industrial wastes into a sewer unless they meet a
standard. If the standard isn't high enough, I am sure we
can do something about changing it.
Mr. Trarnel: My name is Richard Tramel. I teach political
science in Suffolk Community College; and to state the
obvious, this is a very, very serious and complex problem.
We have heard people speak about overlapping govern-
ment agencies, overlapping jurisdictions, what the various
rules, regulations, et cetera are. We discussed this in our
classes and young people in America are very, very con-
cerned about what our generation, if I may use that term
somewhat loosely, is going to leave to them.
I am wondering, and this is more than merely a rhetori-
cal question, I am wondering whether it is possible to
eliminate these problems unless we let a very strong gov-
ernment handle these matters on a nationwide basis.
Dr. Wilenitz: Does anyone want to pick up that hot potato?
Mr. Bruckman: This actually is out of my sphere since it
deals with other government agencies. As I understand the
intent of the EPA, they wish to set broad basic guidelines
and then delegate powers to the states. Then, of course,
we have a question as to how much you believe in local
government as opposed to federal government.
On manifest systems, for instance, I understand that
eleven states have met and are drawing up a regional
manifest system. It might be better if the EPA were to draw
up one document for the entire fifty states. It is a question of
how to organize things. The Federal Government is going
to dictate certain minimum standards. In the past, New
York State has generally imposed still stricter standards.
For instance, our groundwater standards are much more
extensive and much stricter than Federal standards. I don't
know how it is in other states, and, as a matter of fact, it
varies in different parts of our state' Dut on Long Island we
work very closely with the County Health Departments.
They get State aid from us, and they act as our agent, in
addition to enforcing some of their own regulations.
I must say, though, I don't think complete Federal
control and regulation is desirable for several reasons.
There are regional differences. We here on Long Island,
for instance, rely on a sole source aquifer; we drink what-
ever goes into the ground. I understand the same situation
exists in southern Florida. It does not occur in most of the
rest of the country. Consequently, we have a special en-
vironmental problem. There may be reasons specific to a
county where it may feel that it wants a regulation of its
own. For example, Suffolk County has a special ban on
certain detergents and now has regulations regarding the
underground storage of certain materials. Is it desirable for
the Federal government to establish regulations that would
apply throughout the country, when different parts of the
country may have unique problems?
Dr. Wilenitz: Any questions?
Mrs. Lundegaard: I would like to ask Morris Bruckman a
question.
In 1978 Long island was divided into hydrogeologic
zones, each having an important designation with respect
to discharge. The DEC, in June 1979, discovered resoume
recovery as a way to handle solid waste on Long Island.
The following November, the Multi-Town Authority pur-
chased a parcel of land for its three-thousand-four-hundred
ton per day incinerator. Even though this piece of land is
located in the 208 Zone One Primary Recharge Area, there
was no assessment by the Office of General Services as to
the impact a waste facility would have here.
With this in mind, I would like to know if the State and
the DEC, in particular, places any value on coordinating
the findings of the 208 with its own environmental recom-
mendations?
Mr. Bruokman: The policy of June 1979 that you enun-
ciated was the landfill policy. Multi-Town plans to put an
incinerator in a sensitive area. We have no restriction as to
where an incinerator may go. An incinerator is not a landfill.
The amount of garbage stored is very much less. At the
present time, there has been no statement by Multi-Town
as to where it would put residue, as to where it would
landfill. When a decision is made by Multi-Town, it will be
reviewed. But the June 1979 policy has not been changed
in any way.
Dr. Wilenitz: Yes?
Mrs. Bradley: Letitia Bradley.
It is not clear to me whether or not you feel it is
appropriate to have some kind of regional hazardous
waste treatment facility. It seems to me, even in the best of
circumstances, with industry trying to cut down the genera-
tion of various undesirable wastes and so forth, that we are
still left with a certain amount of stuff that has to go some-
place, or somebody needs to do something with it. I don't
think it's right to ship it to Arl~ansas because their require-
ments are not as high as ours. We are special on Long
Island, but it also seems to me that we have a responsibility
to take care of our own waste.
I would like the various authorities to discuss that
question, please.
Mr. Bruckman: We have a severe problem. I have had
occasion to consider various types of solid waste facilities
in various parts of the Island. Whenever I do, there is
invariably local opposition even to some facilities that I feel
may be relatively innocuous. As regards disposal facilities
here on Long Island, our original policy, which I think is a
wise one, recognizes the fact that this is a sole source
aquifer. We have restrictions on landfilling that do not apply
elsewhere in New York State. There are possibilities of
certain technologies. For instance, I could see having an
incinerator here on Long Island, a resource recovery
system that would burn the hazardous waste, subject of
course to the approval of our air quality people. It may or
may not leave a residue that is hazardous. So, I would say
that that particular type of facility would be in line with our
current policies.
49
When it comes to the question of landfilling, our policy
would really prevent any landfilling of hazardous waste.
Someone here mentioned a possibility of advanced tech-
nology. There are some procedures for burning at least
ordinary garbage to produce a glasslike material that
would be insoluble. If hazardous waste would remain insol-
uble, it would no longer be a hazardous waste; but that, I
think, is pretty far in the future.
To the extent that industry has to ship vast distances,
this burden may be intolerable. I think our number one
consideration is protection of our groundwater, and if a way
can be devised to have a hazardous waste facility and to
protect our groundwater, then certainly we very definitely
should consider that.
Dr. Wilenitz: Any other questions?
Me. Paidoussia: Olga Paidoussis from Chem Tech
Consultants.
I would like to know if the State is considering any
superfund legislation to pay for spills, or grants-in-aid for
remedying contaminated wells? Is the taxpayer now as-
suming most of the burden of cleanup, or who is assuming
most of the burden?
Mr. Proudfit: I really can't answer. For the moment, we are
going to rely on Federal funds, but there is, obviously,
going to have to be additional funding, and I can't tell you
where that is going to come from. It is going to come from
the taxpayer ultimately anyway, however it is done.
Ms, Paidoussis: I mean, is the private citizen paying for
most of it now, or is industry going to be required to pay the
larger pementage?
Mr. Proudfit: We are taking the approach, for instance
with Love Canal, which will establish a precedent as far as
the expense of cleanup goes, that it will be industry. There
are landfills that have been closed down, some for many
years. We have a statute of limitations, possibly lots of
legal problems. Even if we could identify the industry that
had disposed of its wastes in that landfill, it may be out of
business. The resources will have to be found somewhere.
If we want to find those resources and we want to take care
of the problem, then we have to treat that as a priority.
That's something that, ultimately, the legislators will have
to decide.
Mr. Fleisher: One point on that. The U.S. House of Rep-
resentatives is considering legislation for hazardous waste
funding. Half of the money is to come from a tax on in-
dustry, so much per pound of inorganic chemicals, so
much per pound of petroleum feed stock. The only thing
exempted was imported oil. I don't know if it will pass the
Senate. The funding level considered is one hundred mil-
lion the first year, one hundred million the second year, and
two hundred million the fourth year.
As far as the State Government goes, every year the
Legislature asks the Counties what additional laws they
would like to see in the State. Every year, Nassau County
has asked for a cleanup fund for waste disposal, as there is
for oil cleanup. We are always making requests but so far
we haven't seen any results.
Ms. Paidoussis: Would that also include cleanup of public
wells that have been closed due to high concentrations of
toxics?
Mr, Fleisher: So far, the ony thing I have seen addressed
in the Bill was the cleanup of the site, itself. The one from
the Feds is written pretty much like the Navigation Bill of
New York State. If you can't get an owner to clean it up
immediately, you go in there anyway and clean it up. Then
you sue him for the cost. The owner may be bankrupt, or
there may be an emergency and you can't wait for legal
action. The Bill only addresses inactive hazardous waste
sites. It doesn't address navigable waterways, and I doubt
if it has anything to do with the cleanup of the water, itself.
That certainly should be considered because, obviously,
the people in Bethpage shouldn't have to pay for the spill of
the industry that's down there, and the people in East
Meadow shouldn't have to pay for the cleanup of the
petroleum product. They didn't cause it, so why should
they pay for it?
Funds are very important, and they should include the
cleanup of the source.
Dr. Wllenltz: I have a definite impression that we are all
getting very tired. So, we will entertain one more question,
and then I think we will call it a day.
Mr. White: Michael White, Town of Huntington.
We heard Mr. Lawrence, in Nassau, speak about in-
dustry that's generating a great amount of toxic waste. I
think they have addressed some of the problems, but there
is something else which, however, may be minor.
We have an industry that clearly has to take on the
economic burden of waste disposal. We also have house-
holds that are potential generators of small volumes of
waste. At the Town level, we have people calling us saying
they have collected flashlight batteries or old paint cans
and solvents, or moved to a house and found ten pounds of
old pesticides in the basement. These people can't get rid
of the stuff, and we don't want them getting rid of it in a
landfill. We can tell them to call a contractor; but to the
householder, it doesn't really make economic sense to call
up one of these firms. Maybe we should have some type of
agency or governmental program to remove this stuff out
of the environment and keep it out of the landfill.
Mr. De Costanza: Anthony De Costanza: New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation.
People have called the State, and we have been
turning it over to three or four scavengers.
Dr. Wilenitz: Do you send somebody to pick up the stuff?
Mr. De Costanza: We have had to rely on the householder
bringing it to them, or in some cases, my bringing it to them
myself. We are trying to set up a place to which people can
bring these materials, and have the collectors pick it up en
masse, but that only started Friday.
Mr. Lawrence: Concerning residents and the various types
of waste that they may have around their homes, one of our
members once tried to provide an open house at which he
would accept all of that type of material at no charge. Let
me tell you some of the problems this member ran into.
First of all, we spoke to a reporter from Newsday in an
attempt to publicize our open house. Unfortunately News-
day didn't consider it important enough to run any sort of an
article to make the public aware of it. Second, there is a
requirement that one must have a permit to transport this
type of material, and we requested Mrs. Scherb, of the
DEC, to give us an exemption on this particular day. Un-
fortunately, we were unable to get any sort of official posi-
tion from Mrs. Scherb or any publicity with respect to our
open house. Consequently, nobody was aware of it and no
one was able to take advantage ot it.
We hope that, if we were to do something like this
again, it would receive the appropriate publicity and the
DEC would give the appropriate exemption so that these
homeowners could bring us the pesticides from their gar-
ages, the old laquer thinners that they might have around,
5O
and whatever else, and have it disposed of properly. We
hope that, in the future, we will get more cooperation from
both the government and the newspapers in bringing this
to the people so they can take advantage of it.
Dr. Wilenltz: I couldn't possibly begin to summarize ev-
erything that was said today regarding all the facts and
opinions thrown at us. A few things are abundantly clear,
though. That is, there are very, very few specific answers
to specific questions. We seem to be in a state of chaos,
and before I appear to contribute to the general Iow spirits, I
think we have to recognize that we have a political system
and a judicial system that can only operate in this way. I
don't mean to say that they solicit chaos, but there is a
certain step that has to take place after the promulgation of
legislation or regulations. These are never promulgated in
enough detail to satisfy or answer every question. Conse-
quently, there has to be years, maybe decades, during
which every individual case gets thoroughly reviewed
technically and legally. Eventually, we build up a body of
precedents and solve our future problems by relying on
those precedents.
We also have some very significant problems apart
from that. One of the things that seems very evident from
everybody's comments is the fact that it is not always
possible to find the individual agency responsible in any
given situation. There is such a multiplicity of regulations,
and so many agencies involved, that at first glance, you
may feel that everything has been covered, but when you
get down to cases you find something had been missed.
On the one hand, you may have government regulations
with overlapping requirements, for instance, as was Mr.
Lawrence's experience; and on the other hand, you find
things that are not covered in the regulations.
A primary problem that is expressed time after time is
where is the money going to come from? The generating
industries are subjected to considerable economic burden
which, as any rational person must agree, should be part of
the working cost of doing business in the field. On the other
hand, as Morris Bruckman pointed out, you have regional
differences across the country, and a fellow in one area,
perhaps like on Long Island with a particular aquifer
problem, may have a hell of an expense in disposing of his
waste, where a direct competitor somewhere else in the
country may be sitting on five thousand acres of solid
granite, and doesn't have that problem.
Another question, of course, is the availability of funds
for regulation. How many times have the fellows at this
table here remarked that they are going to do something
once a week, if once a week somebody indeed makes
something available to them? I think everybody agrees the
problems are enormous, but unfortunately, as I said
before, we have a system in this country, in which the
problems get stated first of all, and then we have to work
ourselves through to the solution. A case in point is the
whole question of treatment facilities. As Mr. Lawrence
properly pointed out, through the method of licensing, an
individual landfill has to have a whole cell filled before
another cell can be licensed.
What are we going to do about high treatment costs?
You heard me read this morning the Environmental Facil-
ities Corporation remarks about the studies they carried
out. You may recall the sarcastic remarks by Mr.
Lawrence commenting on this. It may be very insufficient
information, but it is the only information we have. Now we
have to decide how many facilities we need and who
should own them. As came up on the recommendations,
the State will own them and they will be located on State-
owned land. We will get industry in to do the design,
construction, maintenance and operation. Well, where is
there enough State-owned land on Long Island where we
can put one of these and not run into a terrible "not in my
back yard" problem ? This is not a factor involving only toxic
waste treatment plants. We have a big problem which we
continually refer to: the location of landfills. We have to
protect our aquifers on Long Island. We have to dispose of
our garbage on Long Island.
As somebody pointed out--the gentleman from the
Comptroller's Office--one solution is to drive all the con-
taminating industries out of Long Island. We don't want
to (~o tl3at. So, the question is what are we going to do about
it, and there are no answers. It would be very, very neat
and proper to have a regional facility. Everybody seems to
think that would be nice. Certainly, in view of the fact that,
whatever we do, we have to go through New York City to
do it, it would seem to be to our advantage to keep all our
waste here. But where are we going to locate it? How
secure can the facility be made? Can we say we will put it
on a five foot thick piece of concrete, cover two hundred
acres, and that will surely keep it from contaminating the
environment?
I may be stretching the point a bit, but maybe that's
what we have to do. Maybe sometime we will have
answers, but I sure didn't hear them today, and I am not
criticizing the participating speakers. This is simply the
state of the situation. We have big problems, serious prob-
lems, in terms of public health and in terms of quality of life.
The Federal Government and the State Legislature have
defined some of these problems. That's about what they
have done--define the problem,s. Now we have to wrestle
and struggle and find out how we can solve these problems
and how we can pay for them.
Before I close, there are some people I would like to
thank. First of all, I would like to thank the speakers, who
have given us their all in this dangerous trade. I don't see
too many bloodstains.
I would also like to thank Doctor Harris, who is
the Health Commissioner of Suffolk County, because it is
through his kind auspices that we have this nice room free.
I would also like to thank an absent friend, Jim Pim,
together with our friend over there, Anthony De Costanza,
who helped us put this program together. I don't know
whether you found anything interesting here, but clearly
the problem hasn't been solved.