HomeMy WebLinkAboutLI's Home Water Treatment Dist Experience 1985LONG ISLAND'S nOME WATER TREATMENT DISTRICT EXPERIENCE
By Joseph H. Baler
Chief, Bureau of .Water Resources
Suffolk County Department of Health Services
'225 Rabro Drive East
Hauppauge, New York 11788
Presented at:
Point-of-Use Water Quality Improvement Industry
Regional Seminars
and
The Fourth Domestic Water Quality Symposium
on "Point-of-Use Treatment and Its Implications"
Chicago, Illinois
December 16-17, 1985
RECEIVED BY
SOUEOLD Tk~i~,N FLexi'tilinG
JUL B ? 3e87
DAT~
II.
III ·
IV.
VI.
VII.
CONTENTS
Introduction ...............
A. Water Supply ............
B. Water Quality ..........
Need for Point of Use ..........
Aldicarb Filtration Program - a/k/a Suffolk County
Filter District Project ...........
Implementing Point-of-Use (POU) District ....
A. Technical Guidelines ...........
B, Legal Problems ...........
C. Developing Institutional Structure .....
D. Equipment Certification ........
A Treatment Demonstration - Southold Township
Additional Local Efforts .........
1
3
5
11
15
17
17
21
22
22
23
24
25
26
Table 1.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
10.
11.
Fig. 1.
2.
LIST OF TABLES ~ FIGURIgS
Sugary of Private Well Organic Samples o
County-Wide Basis (as of January 1983) .....
Com~unities with Tetrachloroethylene Contamination
Co-~unitiss with Trichloroethane Contamination · ·
Communities with Nitrate Contamination ....
Nitrate Concentrations: North Pork .....
Aldicarb Survey Results: North Pork ......
Recommendation of the Plan ..........
Cost Estimate; Individual Home Well Systems
(R.O. Treatment) ..........
Treatment Determination ......
Contaminant Vs. Available Treatment . .
Participating Cospanies ......
Key Hap and Study Area .......
Water Table and Groundwater Flow Directions:
North Fork ............
i
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
18
18
24
2
4
LONG ISLAND'S HONE WATER TREATMENT DISTR]'CT EXPERIENCE
Long Island's sole source groundwater aquifers have been subjected to
a variety of contaminants. While 70 percent of the population is served by
community water supply that insures their not receiving contaminated water,
the remaining 30 percent still rely on household wells. This segment of
the population is generally unregulated and often unaware of any water
problems. When apprised of a quality problem, the solutions available to
the homeowner are limited to community water supply hookup (when avail-
able), bottled water, well deepening (when possible), and home treatment
units.
This paper will review the field experiences of Suffolk County
addressing homeowner well contamination and the steps being taken to move
toward establishing a point-of-use (POU) treatment district. Presented
· results from a water supply study showing the economics of home
water treatment systems;
· experiences with 2,500 activated carbon home treatment units for
the removal of aldicarb;
· technical and institutional questions that must be addressed to pro-
vide for potability using point of use;
· a device demonstration project in Southold Township;
· local and state efforts to assist and promote point of use.
The technology is available to treat water contaminants on the home-
owner level; all that is needed is for the regulators (EPA, health agen-
cies) to decide on the needed rules to provide that protection.
I. Introduction
Suffolk County, the easternmost county on Long Island (see Figure 1),
is 86 miles long, 12-20 miles wide and has 884 square miles of land area.
The major industry in the populated western portion of the county is high
technology, with farming and tourism predominating in the eastern sections.
The major focus of this paper is on an eastern area of the county known as
the North Fork, comprising the townships of Itlverhead and Southold. Figure
1 locates this area and also shows the high percentage of operating farm-
land.
The soil characteristics for Long Island consist of thin to several
feet of top·oil over thick layers of coarse sand and gravel. Once a chemi-
cal penetrates the topsoil area, it generally passes directly and unchanged
to the water table. This is the primary reason for the discovery of
volatile organics and other cesspool wastewater products in Long Island
groundwater.
FIG. I KEY MAP AND STUDY AREA
Fertilization practices, with as much as 250 lb-N/acre applied,
led to widespread nitrate contamination of the shallow aquifer. The
potato plant is susceptible to a number of pests, most notably the
golden nematode, which attacks the roots, and the Colorado potato
beetle, which eats the leaves. Since the early 1950s, pesticides con-
taining 1,2 dichloropropane have been applied to fields infested with
golden nematodes, particularly those fields quarantined by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. In 1974, the carbamate pesticide aldicarb
(trademark TEMIK, Union Carbide Corp.) was registered for use on pota-
toes, and by 1976 the chemical was being used by all growers at an
application rate of 3 pounds of active aldicarb per acre.(1)
The groundwater system on Long Island consists of five major geo-
logic units formed in part as the result of several glacial advances.
In the study area, the main unit investigated was the uppermost forma-
tion, termed the glacial aquifer, which is composed of highly perme-
able glacial ouCwash sands and gravels. In the study area, this
aquifer has limited quantities of fresh water bounded by saltwater at
the shoreline and below. The position of the interface is approxi-
mately that predicted by the Ghyben-Herzberg relation, which states
that the interface will be located 40 feet below sea level for each
foot of elevation of the water table above sea level.(2)
The direction of groundwater flow can be determined from pub-
lished water table maps*. Groundwater elevations are highest near
the center of the study area and lowest near the shoreline. Flow is
perpendicular to the water-table elevation contour lines, moving out-
ward from a central groundwater divide toward either shoreline (Figure
2). The rate of flow depends on the magnitude of the hydraulic gradi-
ent (slope of the water table) and on the hydraulic conductivity
(permeability) of the material.(2)
*"Water Table Map of Suffolk County." An annual publication (starting
in 1977) by the Department of Health Services.
For the North Fork, residence times (the length of time a water drop-
let resides in the aquifer from the recharge point to the discharge point)
for a conservative contaminant, such as aldiaarb or nitrate, may be as much
as 100 years.
Water Supply
The water supply in Suffolk County is best represented as follows:
community supplies
non-community supplies
private wells
Population
No. of Wells Served
561 1,100,000
725+ ---
66,000 year round 250,000
12,000 seasonal
1,350,000
3
From: SCDHS Bureau of Water Resources
FIG. 2 WATER TABLE AND GROUNDWATER FLOW DIRECTIONS: NORTH FORK
i
i
Water table contours for March 1981.
Datum is Mean Sea Level.
Groundwater divide.
The community and non-community supplies are regulated by federal,
state and local (county) regulations. Consequently, should a water quality
problem be detected in these wells, they are replaced, taken off line
permanently, or provided with treatment. The water quality and the treat-
ment provided are monitored to insure potability.
Private wells are not regulated, as the sanctity of the individual
home is still privileged. Health regulations allow for approval of water
and sewage facilities in new homes, but do not cover water quality problems
as they affect existing homes.
The rural nature of the eastern communities has made the extension of
traditional public water uneconomical and led to continued reliance on
private wells. The discovery of contamination in groundwater has resulted
in the development of a county program to provide inorganic, organic, bac-
teriological and pesticide testing. When a well is found to have a sub-
stance exceeding present standards or guidelines, a homeowner is advised
not to drink the water and then given several courses of action to pursue
on his own such as: connecting to public water if available; deepening the
existing well, if possible; provide a home treatment system. The homeowner
may choose one of these, or choose to do nothing; there are no regulations
requiring action. Should the choice be other than connecting to public
water, there are no standards for well replacement or home units. This
is a shortcoming in the public water supply system tha~ should be
remedied.
B. Water quality
In order to understand the groundwater quality problems for Suffolk
County in general and the North Fork in particular, data on organics,
nitrates and pesticides are presented. First, a list of identified
organics is shown in Table 1. Note the most prevelant compounds are the
degreas~rs and solvents (trichloroethane and tri- and tetra-chloro-
ethylene). To further enumerate this problem, Tables 2 and 3 present two
volatile organic compounds by community and percent exceeding 50 ppb. Each
of these represent an individual homeowner who had to solve a water quality
problem. The present county sampling program detects 5 to 10 wells per
week exceeding organics.
Nitrate is a primary drinking water contaminant that has not limited
itself to farming communities, although the situation around farmland is
far worse than the rest of the county. Table 4 shows some county-wide
private well results with as much as 24 percent of samples exceeding the
standard in one community. More specific data for the North Fork are shown
in Table 5 and indicate not only- 16-17 percent exceeding the standard, but
10-13 percent between 7.5 and 10 ppm. This is not surprising given the
predominance of farming shown earlier in Figure 1.
5
Table I
S~¥ OF SUFFOLK COUI'IT¥ PRIVATE I/ELL ORGADIIC SAHPLES
(AS OF JANUARY 1983)
Compound
benzene 95 (1.1)
toluene 17 (0.2)
m-xylene 2 (<0.1)
p-xylene 1 (<0.1)
o-xylene 4 (<0.1)
chloroform 8 (<0.1)
bromofor~l 3 (<0.1)
bromodichloromethane 1 (<0.1)
chlorodibromomethane 0 (0.0)
carbon tetrachloride I (<0.1)
methylene chloride 28 (1.5)
vinyl chloride 9 (1.0)
cis 1,2 dichloroeth¥1ene 0 (0.0)
1,1,2 trichloroethylene 165 (1.1)
tetrachloroethylene 177 (1.2)
l,l,1 trichloroethane 442 (3.0)
1,1,2 trichloroethane i (<0.1)
1,1 dichloroethane 7 (0.4)
1,2 dichloroethane 2 (O.1)
1,2 dichloropropane 10 (0.6)
ortho-dichlorobenzene 17 (0.2)
No. and (%) No. and (%) Average
Exceeding No. and (%) Below Total Conc.
Guidelines* with Traces Detection Samples Found**
7 (0.1) 8,180 (98.8) 8,282 204
52 (0.6) 8,210 (99.2) 8,279 138
1 (<0.1) 6.175 (>99.9) 8,176 743
2 (<0.1) 8,176 (>99.9) 8,179 706
7 (<0.1) 8,169 (>99.9) 8,180 261
506 (3.4) 14,420 (>96.5) 14,934 8
31 (0.2) 12,844 (>99.7) 12,878 14
33 (0.2) 14,481 (>99.7) 14,515 83
25 (0.2) 12,805 (>99.8) 12,830 4
56 (0.4) 14,804 (>99.5) 14,897 41
45 (2.4) 1,838 (96.1) 1,911 398
16 (1.8) 869 (97.2) 894 6
49 (3.3) 1,439 (96.7) 1,488 8
678 (4.5) 14,109 (94.4) 14,952 183
977 (6.6) 13,721 (92.2) 14,875 155
2827 (]8.9) 11,741 (78.1) 14,983 113
12 (0.3) 4,094 (>99.6) 4,107 396
156 (8.7) 1,624 (90.9) 1,787 14
30 (1.7) 1,763 (98.2) 1,795 60
99 (5.5) 1,691 (93.9) 1,800 26
51 (0.7) 6,856 (99.1) 6,924 45
*The allowable guideline levels for all organics ~q 50 ppb, with the exception
benzene and vinyl chloride for which the guidel is 5 ppb.
of
Maximum
Conc.
Found
2,500
1,900
2,100
2,100
840
404
214
2,710
16
2,200
19,200
33
41
32,600
17,700
100,000
5,100
770
1,500
55O
34O
Table 2
COMI~JNTT~ES W~T~
TETRACN~O~OETHYLENE CONTAH~.NATI'ON*
Co~mznit~ ~ Samples # Exceed % Exceed
Amityville 52 ? 13.5
Babylon 32 1 3.1
Comm~ck 31 7 22.6
Deer Park 63 4 6.3
E. Patchogue 788 22 2.8
Rauppauge 325 8 2.5
Lindenhurst 60 3 5.0
N. Amityville 58 16 27.6
Sayville 59 2 3.4
W. Babylon 196 35 17.9
W. Islip 32 1 3.1
*Communities %rith more than 20 samples, with
at least 2.5% exceeding the drinking water
guideline of '50 ppb.
Table 3
COMMUNITIES WITH
TRICHLOROETMANE CONTAMINATION*
Community # Samples # Exceed % Exceed
Amityville 54 8 14.8
Bay Shore 169 13 7.7
Central Islip 135 6 4.4
Deer Park 63 9 14.3
E. Islip 85 13 15.3
E. Patchogue 811 33 4.1
Islip 190 24 12.6
Kings Park 88 4 4.5
Lindenhurst 60 15 25.0
Mastic Beach 1206 49 4.1
N. Amityville 58 20 34.5
N. Babylon 93 5 5.4
Patchogue 276 13 4.7
Remsenburg 83 4 4.8
Sag Harbor 65 5 7.7
W. Babylon 197 51 25.9
Wyandanch 169 8 4.7
*Comunities with more than 50 samples, with
at least 4% exceeding the drinking water
guideline of 5.0 ppb.
Table 4
COMMUNITIES WITH
NITRATE CONTAMINATION*
Community # Samples # Exceed % Exceed
Aquebogue 174 30 17.2
Bay Shore 189 32 16.9
Bellport 187 19 10.2
Central Islip 146 25 17.1
Calverton 144 17 11.8
Centereach 233 35 15.0
Cutchogue 344 50 14.5
E. Moriches 281 32 11.4
Holbrook 142 22 15.5
Holtsville 123 17 13.8
Jamesport 135 19 14.1
~ake Ronkonkoma 189 20 10.6
Mattituck 429 90 21.0
N. Patchogue 115 13 11.3
Nesconset 143 18 12.6
Orient 165 40 24.2
Riverhead 296 52 17.6
Ronkonkoma 257 39 15.2
Selden 174 37 21.3
Southold 456 58 12.7
Wading River 360 37 10.3
Water Mill 141 23 16.3
*Communities with more than 100 samples, with
at least 10% exceeding the drinking water
standard of 10 ppm.
Table 5
NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS: NORTH FORK+
Town of Riverhead
Co~m~nit7 # of Wells 0-5 5-7.5 7.5-10 >10
Aquebogue 116 54 (47%) 25 (22%) 15 (13%) 22 (19%)
Calverton 59 36 (61%) 8 (14%) 5 (8%) 10 (17%)
Jamesport 76 51 (67%) 13 (17%) 4 (5%) 8 (11%)
Manorville* 67 55 (82%) 2 (3%) 5 (7%) 5 (7%)
Riverhead** 179 88 (49%) 21 (12%) 27 (15%) 43 (24%)
Wading River 142 88 (62%) 33 (23%) 9 (6%) 12 (8%)
Total 639 372 (58%) 102 (16%) 65 (10%) 100 (16%)
Town of Southold
Community. # of Wells 0-5 5-7.5 7.5-10 >10
Cutchogue 210 92 (44%) 47 (22%) 33 (16%) 38 (18%)
East Marion 67 45 (67%) 12 (18%) 4 (6%) 6 (9%)
Greenport 72 44 (61%) 14 (19%) 7 (10%) 7 (10%)
Laurel 49 17 (35%) 12 (24%) 9 (18%) 11 (22%)
Mattituck 264 130 (49%) 46 (17%) 38 (14%) 50 (19%)
New Suffolk 25 18 (72%) 4 (16%) 3 (12%) 0 (0%)
Orient 98 52 (53%) 21 (21%) 7 (7%) 18 (18%)
Peconic 40 18 (45%) 9 (22%) 3 (8%) 10 (25%)
Southold 296 159 (54%) 40 (14%) 45 (15%) 52 (18%)
Total 1121 575 (51%) 205 (18%) 149 (13%) 192 (17%)
*Includes portions of Brookhaven.
**Includes Northville.
+Concentrations in ppm (mg/liter). Percentages are for the community (row).
Data taken from SCDHS Drinking Water Supply Section files on private wells
for which a specific value is recorded. (Values reported as less than
some number are not included.)
i0
the magnitude of the aldicarb contamination is difficult to comprehend
without appreciating the groundwater hydrology. "This chemical was used
extensively for four growiug seasons in the study area. Its use was dis-
continued by Union Carbide by requesting a modification of the labeling
permit for New York State to prohibit sale iu Suffolk County. This action
was taken as a direct result of the identified aldicarb residues in private
homeowner wells."(1) The N.Y. State guideline is ? ppb and as contamination
was discovered, a direct relationship between the prox/miL-y of a well to an
agricultural field and the presence of aldicarb developed. Even though the
sale and use stopped, aldicarb keeps advancingwith the groundwater flow to
continue to contaminate wells further downstream. The depth of penetration
into the aquifer has been 40-50 feet.
Some 2,500 activated carbon adsorption units have been installed by
Union Carbide (aldicarb manufacturer) since 1979 when the chemical stopped
being used. Over 20,000 samples have been taken by the county, and finally
in 1985, some of the initial wells, closest to the farm fields that were
originally contaminated, are beginning to clear. However, new wells still
further downgradient are appearing with aldicarb. Present estimates indi-
cate that the number of filter installations have peaked at 2,500, but the
length of time needed to totally remediate the problem may still be decades
away. Some representative data are shown in Table 6.
II. Need for Point of Use
Because of the continuing and increasing number of private wells with
contamination, Suffolk County undertook a water supply study for the North
Fork which was completed in March 1983(2). The water supply plan looked at
water quantity:
"Conclusion" - Sufficient fresh groundwater is available to satisfy
the needs of the overall planning area"(2);
and water quality:
"Conclusion" - Groundwater contamination is currently extensive and
will remain so for many years. As additional groundwater quality data is
collected, more contamination problems will be discovered. Water supply
implementation for the North Fork must proceed immediately. Alternative
solutions must consider the fact that the limited volume of fresh ground-
water is further limited because large portions have been contaminated by
agricultural chemicals."(2)
With the above conclusions at hand, the study then thoroughly investi-
gated the water supply alternatives' available to the community. The study
area was divided up into five zones based on groundwater and land mass
configurations.
Table 6
ALDICARB SURVEY RESULTS: NORTH FORK
Town of Riverhead
Communit~~ # of Wells None Detected <7 ppb >7 ppb
Aquebogue 261 167 (64%) 44 (17%) 50 (19%)
Calverton 464 322 (69%) 85 (18%) 57 (12%)
Jamesport 227 144 (64%) 23 (10%) 60 (26%)
Laurel* 299 108 (36%) 63 (21%) 128 (43%)
Manorville** 76 65 (86%) 10 (13%) 1 (1%)
Riverhead*** 604 451 (75%) 102 (17%) 51 (8%)
Wading River 230 208 (90%) 18 (8%) 4 (2%)
Total 2161 1465 (68%) 345 (16%)
351 (16%)
Town of Southold
Community~ # of Wells None Detected <7 ?pb
Cutchogue 579 415 (72%) 70 (12%)
East Marion 153 145 (95%) 3 (2%)
Greenport 45 39 (87%) 1 (2%)
Mattituck 984 742 (75%) 121 (12%)
New Suffolk 125 97 (78%) 13 (10%)
Orient 335 290 (87%) 27 (8%)
Peconic 225 160 (71%) 34 (15%)
Southold 714 539 (76%) 105 (15%)
Total 3160 2427 (76%) 374 (12%)
>7 p?b.
94 (16%)
5 (3%)
5 (11%)
121 (12%)
15 (12%)
18 (5%)
31 (14%)
70 (10%)
359 (11%)
~Mailing address.
*Includes some residents of Southold Town.
**Includes portions of Brookhaven.
***Includes Northville.
From: J. Baier and D. Moran, 1981, pp. 19 and 21.
12
Five water supply concepts, as listed below, were then applied to each
groundwater zone,
Level I
Individual Home Systems--In areas where groundwater is
degraded, these would include treatment of the home water
supply.
Level II - Neighborhood Systems--These are small municipal systems serving
25 to 50 homes.
Level III - Community Systems--These are systems serving individual commu-
nities with local groundwater.
Level IV - Subregional Systems--These are larger systems combining several
community and neighborhood systems.
Level V
- Regional Systems--Supply uncontaminated water to the area via a
major transmission main.
The North Fork, because of the rural nature of the community, has only
several small public water systems serving only a small portion of the com-
munity (approximately 20 percent). Thus, the application of these five
levels to each ~om~ required t~at preliminary engineering design for water
plants (with and without treatment) and distribution systems be performed.
The five levels were then evaluated for cost, reliability, implementabil-
ity, environmental consideration and their adaptability to future changes.
The economic factor became the most important consideration and the follow-
ing recommendations resulted:
Table 7
Zone Recommendation of the Plan
I Level III; otherwise Level I
2 Level I
3 Level I
4 Level III; otherwise Level I
5 Level I
Level I was the choice for three zones and the second choice in the
other two (should the community systems not be implemented). Table 8 pre-
sents a summary of the individual well system costs, using reverse osmosis
treatment (a conservatively high treatment cost).' The table shows the
various well depths encountered on Long Island, the cost differentials
between new homes and existing homes, and a comparison between kitchen tap
sys:ems (for contaminants such as aldicarb which are only acutely toxic if
ingested) and whole house systems (needed for volatile organic compounds,
iron or chloride). Some surprising costs are shown in the column repre-
senting a mew home well with an amortized mortgage (14 percent, 40 years).
13
Table 8
COST ESTIMATE
INDIVIDUAL HOME WELL SYSTEMS (WITH TREATMENT)
Well Depth/Diameter
A. New Homes
200'/4"
100'/2"
75'/2"
B. Existin~ Homes
200'/4"
100'/2"
75'/2"
Treatment(l)
System
Installed Amortized
Cost Cost(2)
($) (S/yr.)
Individual Well
Installed Amortized
Cost Cost(3) O&M(4) Total
($) (S/yr.) (S/yr.) (S/yr.)
kitchen tap 650 80
entire home 1,800 220
kitchen tap 650 80
entire home 1,800 220
kitchen tap 650 80
entire home 1,800 220
4,500 645 265 990
365 1,230
1,600 230 272 582
372 822
1,200 170 255 505
355 745
kitchen tap 650 80
entire home 1,800 220
kitchen tap 650 80
entire home 1,800 220
kitchen tap 650 80
entire home 1,800 220
NA NA 265 345
365 585
NA NA 272 352
372 592
NA NA 255 335
355 575
(1) Treatment system for nitrates, pesticides and brackish water consisting of prefilter,
reverse osmosis unit and carbon filter.
(2) Assumed to be owned by central authority; 12%, 40 years.
(3) Assumed to be included in mortgage; 14%, 40 years.
(4) Iucludes two service visits per year on RO unit; power; sinking fund (10%, 10 yrs.) for pump
replacement every 10 years (4") or well replacement every 10 years (2"); semi-annual replacement
of filters, routine maintenance of well system, insurance. Each service visit would be by one man
for approximately one hour. One sample per year would be taken and be tested for nitrates plus
one or two organics.
This is a hidden--but real--cost that a new homeowner must bear, when mort-
gaging a home with a well system. Should treatment be required, $80-220
per year may be expected, plus a considerable annual maintenance cost of
$255-372/year. The final cost rangin~ from $335-1230 per annum was still
lower in most cases than the installation of public water facilities.
The conclusion of the North Fork Water Supply Plan was that individual
home treatment (point of use or water quality treatment districts) was
essential for the public water suppl~ of the North Fork and that some form
of direct government responsibility was needed for implementation.
III. Aldicarb Filtration Program - a/k/a Suffolk County Filter District
Pro~ect
The experience with aldicarb contamination and the subsequent install-
ation of carbon removal units (sometimes termed filtration units bu~ tech-
nically an adsorption process) gave Suffolk County a Unique opportunity to
study home treatment systems. The use of activated carbon (GAC) for remov-
ing many organics is an accepted technique e~pecially "where analysis
clearly indicates the existence of a potential health hazard .... "(3)
After a field trial and laboratory investigation of carbon removal at
various aldicarb concentrations, it was decided to use a standard carbon
unit, manufactured by the Brunet Corporation, containing ! cubic foot of
carbon (GW 12~40 mesh carbon). A series of tables and nomographs were also
assembled estimating the carbon life based on family size (consumption),
aldicarb concentratiou and a safety factor of 1.5 (4).
The units were installed either for whole house or single faucet
(kitchen) use depending on customer preference, and an automatic backwash
system was included. Some 2,500 units--excluding replacement units--have
been installed by Union Carbide.
To monitor the GAC performance, 25 units were selected for bimonthly
testing. The homes varied in family size, whole house and single tap
installation, and aldicarb concentration. Each had a water meter installed
with the filter so consumption could be observed together with water quali-
ty (raw and treated). Results of this effort, together with a detailed
discussion of filter problems, are in "Report on Granular Adtivated Carbon
Treatment Units . . ." (see reference 4). The tests yielded valuable
information on the length of service for each unit, which led to a modifi-
cation of the original homographs and tables developed for the carbon.
More concerns and issues were uncovered with these 25 units and with
an additional 80 randomly selected homes. These were: competitive
displacement, microbial activity on adsorbents, varyin~ influent concentra-
tions, equilibrium adsorptio~ factors and operational difficulties--which
are discussed below.
Because other adsorbable compounds were present in some well waters,
two concerns developed: early exhaustion due to other adsorbed compounds;
desorption of aldicarb due to displacement by more adsorbable compounds.
The other pesticides did affect the reduction of carbon life. but although
many of the 25 sites did have other pesticides (carbofuran, oxamyl.
dacthal) present, none of tb~ test sites revealed this occurrence. In
addition, a spent carbon filter was tested using contaminant-free municipal
water, and no aldicarb or "mass discharge of aldicarb residue"(4) was
observed.
The possibili~y of microbial activity in the carbon media was investi-
gated through special coliform, place count and pseudomones sampling. Raw
and treated samples were analyzed and no coliform or pseudomonas were
found. Changes in plate count between raw and treated were observed but no
pattern developed. Some counts increased between raw and treated, others
decreased, some were unchanged and still others showed no bacteria (5).
The bimonthly testing showed aldicarb concentrations varied four-fold
which caused concern over the life of the carbon. The variations are
thought to be hydrological in occurrence, and explain why some filters
exhausted earlier or later than predicted.
Operating difficulties observed during random checks of units and from
comments made from filter users include:
--Failure to have treatment unit in automatic backwash mode or not
having the unit connected to electrical outlet.
--Raw untreated water bypassing filter resulting from piping arrange-
ments which cannot he easily determined; i.e., buried pipe in concrete
slaps or concealed piping in walls.
--Failure of homeowners to place filter back into treatment mode after
manually bypassing system for lawn watering, etc.
--Inadequate backweshing cycle resulting in plugging or reduction of
water pressure through the filter caused by accumulation of sediment
(specific to Long Island because of iron and manganese).
--~echanical failure of some components of the treatment unit and
plumbing accessories caused by sediment blockage and/or corrosion of treat-
ment unit materials.
The above information points out the need for: adequate treatment
unit design; an active maintenance program to regularly inspect each unit;
and t~lrd-party certification of removal capabilities.
16
IV. Implemennln~ Point-of-Use (POU) District
Establishin~ a POU district or defining a land area where treatment
devices will he provided was recomended by the North Fork Water Supply
Plan. A further recomendacion was that these districts be the responsi-
bility of a municipality. From a regulatory position, this would establish
groups of POU devices as co.unity water supplies and subject the supplies
(districts) to local, state and federal regulacioas.
Applyin~ existing re~ulacloas to POU districts presents certain diffi-
culties, shortcomings and questions Chat need to be addressed. These con-
terns can be grouped into four areas:
B.
C.
Do
and discussed
Technical Guidelines,
Legal Problems,
Developing Institutional Structure, and
Equipment Certification,
in more detail below.
A. Technical
Guidelines can be categorized into four discussion areas:
1. equipment selection
2. equipment installation
3. water testing (sampling, monitoring, surveillance)
4. repair and maintenance
These four are discussed wit~ the idea that a community water supply
POU district would be formed and how guidelines would be applied to the
district, The North Fork is used as the example.
1. Equipment Selection
The selection of appropriate treatment equipment is totally dependent
upon the contamination present and the degree of concern (toxic, carcino-
genic, aesthetics, etc.) that each contaminant presents. For the North
Fork, the contaminants are: pesticides aldicarb, carbofuran, vydate,
1,2 dichloropropane, dacthal (acute toxins); nitrates (acute toxin for
infants); iron (aesthetic--staining of fixtures and clothing); chlorides
(aesthetics--Caste); pH (aesthetic--pipe corrosion). Table 9 lists these
contaminants, their health effects and the degree of concern which deter-
mines whether a whole house unit or a single tap system will be selected.
Single tap appears where acute toxins occur, because concern for them
develops only when water is consumed. The whole-house system is always
given as an option.
17
Table 9
TREATMENT DETEgMINATION
Contaminant
Health Effect* Type
De~ree of Concern
Preference Option
carcinogenic VOC
pesticide
whole house
whole house
acute toxin
pesticide
VOC
some metals
nitrates
single tap
whole house
chronic toxin
VOC
pesticides
heavy metals (some)
whole house
whole house
aesthetic
iron whole house
chloride single tap
pM whole house
hardness whole house
whole house
*determined by federal and/or state health toxicologist.
Table 10 lists the contaminants of concern for Suffolk County and the
type of home treatment(s) presently recommended.
Table 10
CONTAMINANT VS. AVAILABLE TREATMENT
Contaminant
organics
pesticides
nitrates
iron & manganese
chlorides
Treatment
aeration (where feasible)
GAC
RO (where feasible)
GAC
~D (where feasible)
ion exchange
RO
softening
sequestration
cartridge filtration
(where feasible)
18
For a POU district,, this information can be used by a community to
contact equipment manufacturers and secure particular products data. This
should include as a minimum: size; cost; available historical removal
data; warranty; prior installation information; and expected life. After
appropriate engineering review, a list of qualified manufacturers and
equipment costs can be established.
2. Equipment Installation
This item adds cost and, if not properly adminis~ered, problems to
POU. When the alidcarb filters were installed, the homeowner was given
three options:
a) use a Onion Carbide trained installer;
b) given $75 towards hiring their own installer;
c) keep $75 and install yourself.
Subsequent random installation inspections yielded a number of prob-
lems for those homes where option b or c were used. There is a certain
degree of training and experience that a manufacturer (or his representa-
tive) has acquired. A homeowner or plumber unfamiliar with the apparatus
or plumbing requirements (cross connection in particular) has limited
knowledge. Therefore, any POU equipment installation must be performed by
trained personnel.
Various types of ins~allers may be used depending on the community
preference: equipment dealer; subcontracted local plumber; citizen volun-
teers. Each of these must receive proper training and be able to demon-
strate their skill, because POU devices require a variety of installation
skills including:
· electric - solenoid valves; power generation (RO).
· plumbing - soldering; waste disposal (cross connection).
· mechanical - valves; pipe layout; selection of special regulators
or cross-connection devices.
· structural - location and'physical installation.
In a regulated district, the installers should be required to possess
a license from local or state government. The requirements for that
license must include satisfactory training from a repudiable manufacturer,
training in cross connection and backflow prevention, and proven demonstra-
tion of skill. Finally, any POU district should require a certain number
of spoc-check reinspections to insure compliance.
19
3. Water Testing (Sampling, Monitoring, Surveillance)
These three programs are all part of the regulatory and operational
structure of any co~unity water supply and they can he applied to POU.
a) Sampling. While this activity is often thought of as collecting
water for analysis, in regulatory work "sampling" is the testing performed
by the water supplier to provide operational control. The conventional
Long Island groundwater supply might look at pH, TDS (conductivity) and
chlorine residual. For a POU community system, however, field testing
of treatment units establishes a reliability and historical performance
record. North Fork "sampling" would include field testing for: iron;
conductivity (for RO product); nitrate; pH; hardness; chloride. As these
sampling results accumulate (both raw and treated must be tested), a
certain confidence and consistency will develop for each type of device,
leading to reduction in "sampling" and a standard maintenance schedule
for non-organic units.
b) Monitoring. This represents the analytical laboratory requirements
mandated by a regulatory agency for a community water supply. Requirements
can be as frequent as daily, or as sporadic as annually. No regulations
exist for POU but some typical requirements for the North Fork might be:
(1) A select number of units for each treatment type (RO or GAt for
pesticides; ion exchange or RD for nitrates) would he sampled monthly to
build up a performance record and an operational history. As confidence
under different household use and contaminant loading were accumulated,
this monitoring requirement would be reduced. This testing could also be
used for "third party certification" as discussed later.
(2) Regular sampling of each type of unit. For example: should 12
whole-house RO units be installed for chloride removal, one unit would be
sampled each month in addition to that required for ~1 above. For POU,
this sampling would include raw and treated. This may become a significant
burden to a POU district intially, but as confidence and data accumulate,
this requirement can be reduced.
c) Surveillance. This is work performed by the regulatory agency and
is not part of the monitoring requirements. The amount is dependent upon
the resources of the agency. For a North Fork POU district, the SCDHS
would probably perform surveillance on all types of units. This effort
could assist a POU district for third-party certification.
Additionally, all water testing would have to be performed by a state
approved laboratory, samples would need to be collected by trained person-
nel, and submission of results would have to he to the local regulatory
agency.
20
4.. Repair and Maintenance
For POU this is an extremely important area. Water quality and water
use vary between homes so that the servicing of units before exhaustion is
critical. The records from sampling, monitoring and surveillance will
prove invaluable towards establishing regular servicing increments. The
use of water meters, although adding to the cost, would greatly assist this
task. Meters were only used on the special monitoring samples in the aldi-
carb program and as a result, the analysis of the carbon life vs. water use
vs. aldicarb concentration w~s more difficult.
Another method of servicing each type of unit would be to replace
cartridges, membranes, carbon, etc., before their respective exhaustion.
Two methods are available: using a strict calendar replacement (example:
every six months); or using flow shut-offs or alarms to signal when service
is due. The latter type requires the customer to call for service, but the
alarm can be preset conservatively to allow adequate time for response.
The cost of each of these maintenance schemes must be evaluated for a
POU district before the appropriate method is chosen.
There is an additional cost factor in repair and maintenance and that
is complaints. A certain number of complaints will arise and of these,
some will require attention. By properly designing, installing and main-
taining the POU devices, this can be kept to a minimum.
B. Legal Problems
e'Legality of POU. In New York State, this was solved when the
existing state law, which gives towns and counties the authority to
establish certain districts (sewer, drainage, lighting), was amended to
allow the formation of water quality treatment districts (specifically
defined as home treatment devices). The legality of POU must be assessed
in other states.
· Right of access and subsequent liability to a POU district was
raised. However, municipalities, water purveyors and mauufacturers normal-
ly carry liability insurance for a variety of circumstances, and claims
arising from consumer dissatisfaction with water received would normally be
covered. Furthermore, the district would be operatiug under regulations,
and with approval, of tb~ health authorities.
® The for~ation of district boundaries; the method of assessment; the
mechanism of taxation or charging~while legal concerns~are more institn-
tional in practice. They are discussed below.
21
C. Developing Institutional Structure
A POU water supply could be a public or private entity. The important
feature is that it has boundaries defined by the local municipality that
establish the area and a charter (agreement or franchise) under which the
water supply operates. In Suffolk County and New York State, the primary
responsibility for establishing the POU district has been given to local
government. Three possible institutional structures could develop:
--town operated district;
--town franchised district;
--county circuit rider franchise.
The town district would provide day-to-day operation by town employ-
ees. Installation,' maintenance, purchasing, billing, taxation and adminis-
tration would be provided by local government. Private enterprise would be
limited to purchase and possibly installation of devices.
The franchise district would allow a private company, under a town
contract, to provide all of the needed POU services. The contract would
have to specify equipment specifications, set guarantees, establish
installation, monitoring and maintenance requirements, and probably he at
least three to five years in duration. This institutional method would
free the municipality from the routine workings of the district, but it
would still have overall responsibility.
- The circuit rider approach would be similar to the town franchise only
on a county level. This method would be used in communities where the pop-
ulations are small, water quality problems few and town government minimal.
The county could contract with a company to serve a certain portion (cir-
cuit) of the county or to handle certain types of water quality problems.
Another variation of a circuit rider would be where a county establishes
rules and regulations for water treatment companies to follow, and then
licenses companies to provide devices under the direction of the county.
O. Equipment Certification
The question of product reliability and performance is of primary
concern to regulatory agencies. It has been identified by the National
Sanitation Foundation (NSF) in a recent EPA funded study(6) as an area that
needs attention both from industry and government. There are many good
products marketed today, and there are also bad products with questionable
advertising. To minimize this and to protect the consumer, water treatment
devices need to be performance-certified.
22
The NSF has already begun equipment Certification or "third-party
certification" work by establishing standards for materials and hydraulic
operation. They have also developed criteria for some quality certifica-
tion (turbidity, taste and odor, iron) and device testing procedures, but
more is needed. Unfortunately, with the increasing numbers of contaminants
of concern nationally (129 priority pollutants for example) and the number
of marketed devices that could treat them, the task of certification is
One solution may be the use of "in situ" (on site) certification.
This method would test a product (a particular model), for a specified time
period and under specific guidelines in several homes. Before allowing
home testing, the device would have to be using a demonstrated removal
technique with standard media (example: GAC for organics removal) and
would have been tested for structural and hydraulic integrity. The public
would not be the "guinea pig."
Certification would be done under the auspices of the NSF or some
other established and recognized testing group, but not by the regulatory
agency or industry organization. The system would allow for maximum
product utilization and certification while still affording the consumer
safe potable water. The development of a uniform set of guidelines for
"in situ" testing is still to be undertaken. Industry should participate
with EPA, NSF and other regulatory agencies in their development.
V. A Treatment Demonstration Project - Southold Township
"How do we know these devices will work? What does a typical
installed unit look like? How much room do they take up? How long Will
they last?" These are some of the questions that the Southold Town Board
and the $outhold Water Advisory Committee (WAC) asked a group of manu-
facturers one summer evening in 1984. These questions and the determina-
tion of the manufacturers to convince the town of the reliability and
quality of their products has led to a unique demonstration of water treat-
ment devices. To answer the town's questions, the WAC, SCDHS and the Water
Quality Association (WQA, an organization of manufacturers and dealers of
home and industrial water treatment devices) put together a program to
demonstrate how different devices solve various water quality problems.
The WQA sent a memo to its manufacturers/suppliers requesting a pro-
duct sponsoring for field demonstration purposes. Twenty-five companies
responded positively, and the WAC then requested specific product litera-
ture containing contaminant ranges.pins independent testing data on their
units, cost data, and installation requirements. Fifteen companies
responded offering a total of 32 units. The WAC then established criteria'
for testing:
23
--installation and removal performed by the company;
--six samples will be taken: half analyzed by SCDHS and half at the
companies' expense;
--SCDHS will collect all samples;
--specific unit was requested;
--homes will be selected by SCDHS.
A total of 23 units were installed by 9/30/85, with a two-month
testing period to follow. Organics. nitrates, chlorides and iron are the
contaminants being addressed.
As of this paper's writing, there are no results available, although
no initial installation problems developed. The demonstration will address
the concerns of the town officials and should provide additional confidence
in POU devices. Tb~ particpatin~ companies are:
Table 11
Kinetico
Everpure, Inc.
William R. Hague, Inc.
Kane International, Inc.
Lindsay Co.
Water Enhancement Technology, Inc.
Culligan International
Stanley Manufacturing
Aqua-Flo, Inc.
Nimbus Water Systems
NeoLife, Inc.
VI. Additional Local Efforts
1) SCDHS, in cooperation with WQA, NSF and the Town of Southold, has
submitted a preproposal to EPA to evaluate the institutional arrangements,
third-party certification and implementation of a point-of-use district.
Tb~ district would be first community water supply to rely on home treat-
ment devices to treat contaminated private wells.
2) Both Riverhead and Southoid Towns have recognized that point-of-use
water supply is necessary. The Town of Southold does not provide any
public water service, and is interested in establishing point-of-use es its
principal mode of water supply. The Town of Riverhead is a community water
supplier and is actively extending water mains ava service. Riverhead does
recognize, however, that POU becomes an excellent interim solution before a
permanent water supply can be installed or to alleviate emergency water
quality problems. The towns have pursued the POU effort by hiring a con-
sulting firm to provide them with technical, operational and cost informa-
tion necessary to implement point of use. The results are due by the end
of 1985 with implementation to proceed in 1986.
24
VII. Conclusions
1) The studies that have been discussed and the information assembled
by SCDHS provide the assurance that home water treatment devices can be
used to mitigate private well contamination.
2) If home water treatment devices are to be used in individual homes
to provide potable water, they must be regulated as a community water
supply. The responsibility for the supply must reside with a municipal
agency.
3) While water treatment concepts and devices have been in use for
some time, their reliability and their acceptability by the non-technical
community must still be publicized.
4) In order to prove the viability of a POU district, an initial dis-
trict should be evaluated. Results would be helpful to local, state and
federal officials.
5) Third party, in situ, certification of treatment devices should be
pursued by the development of testing criteria by regulatory agencies.
25
REFERENCES
1. Baier, Robbins. Groundwater Contamination from Agricultural Chemicals
on North Fork, Suffolk County, 1983.
2. North Fork Water Supply Plan, gPM-Northeast, March 1983.
3. Drinking Water and Health, National Academy of Science, Vol. 2, p. 257,
1980.
4. Moran, Dennis. Report on Granular Activated Carbon Treatment Units
Used for Removal of Aldicarb Residues in Private Wells of Suffolk
County, Suffolk County Department of Health Services, December 1983.
5. Baler, Joseph and Thomas Martin. Carbon Filter Sanitation, SCDHS,
January 1983.
6. Guidelines for Management of Point-of-Use Drinking Water Systems,
National Sanitation Foundation, 1985.
26
,.~ DRAFT: 7/7/86
· ~;
POU/POE:
HOME DEMONSTRATION IN SOUTHOLD TOWNSHIP
Introduction
The Town of Southold, located on the northeaetern portion of Long
Island, New York has traditionally been a rural farming community. The
town relies on groundwater for its source of water supply. Due to the
rural nature of the community and the limited public water systems, private
wells are used to supply the majority of home water needs. Agriculture, or
more appropriately, the application of agricultural chemicals, has taken
its toll on the groundwater quality. The extent of this contamination was
documented in a study performed by Suffolk County called the North Fork
Water Supply Study. In addition to examining the quality and quantity
issues, the study evaluated alternatives for supplying potable water to the
residents. The report concluded that home treatment devices is an economi-
cal method for providing public health protection and potable water for the
North Fork.
Early in 1984, a group of home treatment device manufacturers met with
representatives of the Towns of Riverhead and Southold to discuss these
devices and to answer questions from town officials such as: How do we
know the home treatment devices work? What do they look like? How are
they installed? How are they maintained? One conclusion reached was the
need to test different devices that solve various water quality problems
within the community.
Ob)ective
The objective of this study was to demonstrate the removal capabili-
ties of a variety of home treatment devices and to obtain firsthand per-
formance data. The study was conducted by Southold Town's Water Advisory
Committee (WAC), in cooperation with the Water Quality Association (WQA)
and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS).
Procedure
In June of 1984, the WQA canvassed their members explaining the need
to demonstrate various water quality techniques in Southold and seeking a
response from interested companies. Fifteen companies were interested, and
in October 1984, a letter was sent to each company by WAC requesting pro-
duct information including: type of s~stem; size; plumbing requirements;
pressures; installation information; testing data; costs; etc. After
reviewing the responses, companies were then invited to submit specific
unit(s) for the program; a May 1985 letter indicated the requirements
(including installation and half the water quality testing). Between
September and December of 1985, 18 units from 10 manufacturers were
installed in private homes served by individual wells.
Discussion
Table 1 summarizes the water quality problems, types of devices, and
date installed. Participating companies (10) are listed in Table 2.
Table 1
Unit Water Quality Date
No. Problem Device; Treatment Method Installed
I NO3 Countertop; carbon + ion exchange 9/16/85
2 N03 9/16/85
3 NO3, C1 Third tap; RO + carbon 10/10/85
4 NO3 " " 11/25/85
5 NO3, Cl " 11/4/85
6 NO3, VOCs Countertop; distiller 12/2/85
7 NO3 Third tap; RO + carbon 12/2/85
8 NO3 .... 10/15/85
9 VOCs Whole house; carbon 10/22/85.
10 NO3 Third tap; RO + carbon 10/21/85
11 VOCs Whole house; carbon 10/15/85
12 NO3 Batch; distiller ~0/14/85
13 Fe; carbofuran Countertop; filter + carbon 10/21/85
14 Mn Third tap; RO + carbon 10/19/85
15 NO3 " " " 10/18/85
16 Fe Whole house; aeration, carbon, filter 10/25/85
17 NO3 Third tap; RO + carbon 1/30/86
18 NO3 Whole house; ion exchange 1/31/86
Table 2
Stanley Everpure
Nimbus Hauge
Lindsay Neo-Life
Kinetico Culligan
Water Equipment Technologies (WET) Agway
Ail units have satisfactorily demonstrated their ability to remove the
contaminants of concern, and the consumers were satisfied with their units.
Sampling results did uncover some problems that could be traced back to
inadequate installation and/or maintenan6e. They included:
a) Positive coliform in the effluent. Three different units had
problems; resamples proved satisfactory. Two of these units were counter-
top models which would be most susceptible to cross contamination by the
homeowner. These units also contained silver-impregnated carbon, which is
supposed to be bactericidal. More positive disinfection procedures should
be followed. Another problem lies with the type of carbon used and the
source of that carbon. Industry should begin to manifest its carbon and
develop standard disinfection procedures for devices before installation.
b) Plate counts from carbon units. Fifteen devices had carbon used
as either the primary treatment (as with whole house) or secondary treat-
ment (polishing after RO). A total of 13 raw and treated samples were
taken on 9 devices (4 had 2 samples). Table 3 shows the data,
Table 3
Unit
No. Raw Treated
5 37 2100
7 10 1300
7 <1 220
8 6 >6000
8 4 >6000
9 1100 1600
11 <1 4
12* <1 < 1
12 1 <1
15 6 2100
17 18 4
17 100 >6000
18 25 36
*distillation unit
The raw water showed plate counts in 10 of 13 samples with a range of
1 to 1100. The treated water showed counts in 11 of 13 with a range of 4
to >6000. In one instance, the treated was less than the raw plate count.
Three whole house units (9, 11, 18) showed results that were all quite dif-
ferent from each other, yet similar in range to the 6 other devices. No
conclusions can be drawn at this point without looking into flushing versus
non-flushing (first-draw samples)~ Based On limited epidemiological study,
no illness has been associated with this phenomenon (verbal communication
with L. Cole, Water Quality Association).
- 3 -
c) Three units were found to have organics present in the effluent
that were not found in the raw water. In one instance, a plastic collector
provided with the unit was the source. In the other two, possible leaching
of solvents used in product manufacture or assembly may be the cause.
d) Silver was found in the effluent of one silver carbon unit.
e) Installation difficulties. Several units developed plumbing leaks
that required repair. Two units were found to have copper discharge lines
which showed high effluent copper. The lines were replaced with standard
plastic tubing. One unit was found defective after the first water sample
result, and it was replaced. Problems such as these can be easily cor-
rected with a~propriate installation requirements.
The type of units installed were:
4 countertop;
9 third tap;
I batch unit;
4 whole house (POE).
Of the four types, only the countertop is questionable for use in a
water quality treatment district.* It requires the homeowner to perform
some cleaning and regeneration functions which could lead to difficulties,
not the least being potential cross-contamination. Requiring homeowner
self-maintenance is not a recommended procedure.
Another concern is the silver-impregnated carbon. The aggressiveness
of Long Island groundwater may be a factor that could leach the silver, and
the positive coliform values encountered are not unusual (other studies
have found bacterial contamination). Silver-impregnated carbon devices
cannot be recommended at this time. The specific data results for each
unit can be found in Appendix A. Results are included through May 1986
where applicable. It should be noted that three units were removed after
the agreed three-month testing period and two countertop units are no
longer sampled.
One whole house carbon unit (#11) exhausted after 5 1/2 months of
operation. By comparison, unit #9--which has twice as much carbon (1 cubic
foot)--is still operating. Although this comparison ignores flow and
concentration (unit #9 had higher concentrations of 1,1,1 trichloroethane),
it does indicate a need to have either two 1/2 cu. ft. cartridges in series
or one 1 cu. ft. container with a 6-month plus (as of this report) operat-
ing life.
*established under bill A-6254-B, July 27, ~984, and now Chapter 622
of the Laws of 1984.
- 4 -
Conclusions
1) POU/POE can be used as a solution to homeowner well contamination
from primary and secondary contaminants provided that proper controls are
developed for the use of the devices and a central agency (local govern-
ment) is responsible for implementation.
2) Silver carbon units and countertop units should be viewed cau-
tiously or studied in more detail before installing in homes.
3) Carbon used in devices should be checked to insure that virgin
carbon is used and that it is the proper type of carbon.
4) Although trace quantities of organics were found, they do not pre-
sent a problem to the use of the devices. Industry should look at this
problem more closely.
5) A disinfection procedure for manufacturing and shipping should be
developed as an industry standard. All parts and units should be disin-
fected immediately prior to installation.
6) Equipment installers should be trained, both mechanically and
technically, before performing device installation.
7) Monitoring of devices by generic type (i.e., an RO unit used for
nitrate, an RO unit used for chloride, etc.) must be carried out to obtain
efficacy and performance data needed for maintenance schedules.
8) Minimum of 1.0 cu. ft. of carbon is needed for a whole-house (POE)
system. A minimum 6-month life should be required.
Recommendations
1) Continue to test the available units to obtain additional device
performance data (new results will be available upon request).
2) The experience gained with the units and unit processes has pro-
vided confidence and customer satisfaction on POE/POU devices. With these
results and previous studies by the Towns of Riverhead and Southold and
Suffolk County, water quality treatment district regulations could be
established and implemented.
- 5 -
APPENDIX A
SAMPLING RESULTS
FOR FILTER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TYPE: STANLEY WATER-MILL
coliform .............. ~ z,% IV
nitrate ............... ~.~ 0.3
MBAS (detergents) ..... ~o.~ ~o.[
chloride .............. ~l. ~0.
sulfate ............... ~. ~..
trane dichlo~oethylene
I bromo 2 chloroechane
1,2 dichloropropane ..o
1,1,2 trichloroechylene
chlorodibromomethane ..
2 bromo I chloropropane
bromodlchloromechane ..
2,~ dichlo~opropene
chloride .............. ~.
sulfate ...............
vinyl chloride ........
methylene chloride ....
1,1 dichloroethane ....
trans dichloroethylene
1,2 dichloroethane ....
carbon tetrachloride ..
! bromo 2 chloroethane
1,2 dichloropropane
1,1,2 trichloroethylene
chlorodibromomethane ..
1,2 dibromoethane ..... --
2 bromo I chloropropane
tetrachloroethylene ...
tis dichloroethylene ..
freou 113 .............
bromodlchloromethane ..
tis dichloropropene
1,1,2 trichloroechane
chlorotoluenes ........
1,2.4 trimethylbenzene
m,p dichlorobenzene ...
o dichlorobenzene .....
p dlethylbenzene ...... _
1,2,4,5 tetrmethylbenze
1,2,4 trichlorobenzene
1,2,3 trlchlorobenzene
1,~,2,3 tetrchlorpropan --
1,2.3 trlchloropropane
aldicarb ..............
TYPE~ STANLEY WATER-MILL
LOCATION INSTALLED: NEW SUFFOLK AVENUE, MA~'fITUCK
copper ................ ~o.~o o,~
l,l dlchloroethane ....
chlorodibromomechane .. ~.~___.
2 bcomo I chloropropane
~reon [13 .............
2,3 dichloropropene ...
,h o ob,n,e e ..".'"'
chlorotoluefles ........
1,3,5 t rtmethylbenzene
TYPE: NIMBUS CS-1
R F R F
1,1 dfchloroethylene ..
cia dichloropropene ... ~
chlorobenzene ......... ~
1,3,5 trimethylbenzene ~
m,p dichlorobenzeue ... z~
p diethylbenzene ...... ~3
1,2,3 crtchlorobenzene z~
1,2,2,3 tetrchlorpropan ~
methomyl .............. ~[
Zl
UNIT #3 (cont.)
SOUTHOLD FILTER DE[4ONSTRATION PROJECT
eanple dace
MSA$ (detergence) ....
pq · ~L_
Xron ................. · ..-9-0'1-3--
sodium ................ ~ ~
£reon 113 .............
dtbromomethane ........
1,1 dichloroethylene .,
bromodichloromethane ..
2,3 diehloropropene ,.,
cls dlchloropropene .,.
trans dlchloropropene
benzene ............... _._~__
toluene. .......... . . .,
m,p dtchlorobenzene ...
I ,2,4 crlchlorobenzene ~L__ ..~
copper ..
vinyl chloride .......
methylene chloride ..
trans dichloroethylene
chloroform ............ ~
carbon tetrachloride .. ,% _~___
2 broao i chloropropane _!~_ _iL__ .....................
cis dichloroethylene ..
bromodichloromethane
2.3 dichloropropene ...
cis dlchloropropene ...
frans dlchloropropene
ethylbenzene ..........
1,2,4 trimethylbenzene
m,p dichlorobenzene ...
o dichlorobenzene .....
p diechylbenzene ...... --
1,2,4,5 tecrmethylbenze --
1,2,4 trichlorobenzene
1,2,3 tr/chlorobenzene
chloride ........
~C .......
2 bromo [ chloropropane ~__
echylbenzene .........
m,p dichlorobenzene ... ~q
p die~hylbenzene ...... ~)
1,2,4,5 cetrmethylbenze z)
1,1,1,2 tetrchlorethane ~ zz
1,2,2,3 ~ecrchlorpropan zu x~
sample date
Raw
coliform .............. ·
free ammonia o.o......
MBAS (detergents) ....
specific conductivity
chloride ............. .~.
sulfate ...............
1,2 dichloropropane ... .IQ .... ~._ _ Il
1,2 dibromoethane ..... ~ ~3--_ ~3: L_ _ .f~'J ..........
tis dichloroethylene .. ~ __53___ ~ .... f~ ...........
dibromomethane ........
bromodlchloromethane ·
2,3 dichloropropene ..
tis diehloropropene ..
trans dichloropropene
chlorotoluenes ........
1,3,5 trimethylbenzene
1.2,4 trimethylbenzene
m,p dichlorobenzene ...
0 dichlorobenzene ..... z q
1,2,3 trlchlorobenzene
1,2,2,3 tetrchlocpcopan
PLASTIC COLLECTION CONTAINER
UNIT #?
SOUTHOLD F~LTER DEMONSTRATIO~ PROJECT
8~.mple date
M~AS (detergenCe)
cia dlchloropropene
chlorotoluene8
1,2,3 crichloroben~ene
TYP~: KINETICO DRINKING WATER SYSTEM
free amaonla .......... ~,0~
MBAS (detergents) .....
p~ .................... .~.o
specific conductivity · ~0.
chloride ..............
vinyl chloride ........
methylene chloride ....
l,! dichioroethane ....
trane dichloroethylene
chloroform ............
1,2 dichloroethane ....
carbon tetrachloride ..
[ bromo 2 chloroethaae
1,2 dichloropropane ...
chlorodibromomethane
1,2 dlbromoethane .....
2 bromo [ chloropropane
tetrachloroethylene ...
cie dichloroethylene ..
freou !13 .............
bromodfchlorome~hane ..
2,3 dichloropropene ...
cie dlchloropropene ... --
traus dichloropropene .
1,1,2 trichlotoethane · --
e~hylbenzene ..........
chlorotoluenes ........
1~2,~ trimethylbenzene
m,p dichlorobenzene ... __
o dichlorobenzene
p diethylbenzene .... ,. --
Filter R F R F
,4o.q
.~.'7 .
Z%O.
SOUTHOLD FILTER DEMQNSTRJlTION PROJECT
TYPE: KINETICO DRINKING WATER SYSTEM
sulfate ...............
trans dichloroethylene
1,2 dichloroethane ..**' ~
I bromo 2 chloroethane
1~2 dichloropropane
chlorodibromomethane oo
1,2 dibromoethane .....
2 bromo ! chloropropane
tetrachloroethylene ... _--
cis dichloroethylene ,. --
bromodlchloromethane ..
2,3 dichloropropene ...
cia dichloropropene ... --
~rans dichloropropene . --
bromobenzene .......... ~ ~
1,3,5 trtmethylbenzene c% z~
m,p dichlorobenzene ... ~ z~
p diethylbenzene ...... ~ ~}
SOUTHOLO FILTER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
KINETICO DRINKING WATER SYSTEM
sample date ~' ~'~
nitrate ............... ~.J
MBA$ (detergents) ..... --
p~ .................... ~_ ¢.~
specific co~ductivity ·
chloride .............. ._L~.
· ulfmte ...............
methylene chloride .... __
1,1 dtchloroeChane .... __
trane dichloroethylene
I broao 2 chloroethane
1,2 dlchloropropane ..o
1,1~2 trichloroethylene
chlo~odlbromome£hane .,
tetrachloroethylene ,,, --
cia dichloroethylene .o --
freou 113 .............
dibromomethane · .... ...
bromodlchloromethane
2,3 dichloropropene ... __
ci$ dlchloropropene ... --
trane dlchloropropene · --
1,1,2 trichloroethane ·
echylbenzene .......... --
1,3,5 Irimethylbenzene
1,2,4 trlmethylbenzene
m,p dichlorobenzene ,., --
o dichlorobenzene .....
p diethylbenzene ...... --
O.ZO
UNIT #9
$OUTHOLD FILTER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
WATER ENIIANCEMENT TECHNOLOOY MODEL 747
MBAS (detergent:s) ..... ,~o,)
chloride ...........
sulfate · ·
copper ................
sodium ............. · · ·
~,~t. ~k~,~ t~% ........
chloroform · ·
sample date
specific conductivity .
copper ................
trans dichloroethylene
1,2 dichloropropane ... _~__
chlorodibromomethane ..
tls dichloropropene ... ~z ~t
manganese ............. .~.~
sodium ................ ~.~
R F R F
2,3 dichloropropene ...
cis dichloropropene .,.
1,1,2 crlchloroethane
benzene ..............·
chlorobenzene .........
xylenes ...............
bromobenzene ..........
1,3,5 trimethylbenzene
1,2,4 trimethylbenzene
m,p dlchlorobenzene ,.,
o dichlorobeuzeue .....
UNIT #11 (cont.)
SOUTHOLD FILTER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
eample date
0
dibromomethane ........
1,2,~ trtmechylbenzene '3 ~3
TYPE~
cfs dichloroethylene .. --
2,3 dichloropropene ..,
o dlchlorobenzene ..... z~
methomyl .............. ~ [
methylene chloride ....
1,2 dichloroethane ....
1,2 dichloropropane ...
2 hcomo 1 chloropropane
freon 113 .............
2,3 dichloropropene ...
Filter
R F P~ F
O.~L' __ o .,.UJ p.,.t (,,
vinyl chloride ........ __
methylene chloride ....
Crans dichloroethylene
chloroform ............
carbon tetrachloride ..
I bromo 2 chloroechane
1,1,2 trichloroethylene
chlorodibromomethane ..
2 bromo I chloropropane
tetrachloroethylene .
tis dichloroethylene
dibromoIethane ......
1,1 dichloroethylene
bromodichloromethane
2.3 dichloropropene ·
cis dichloropropene
frans dichloropropene
1,1,2 trtchloroethane
ethylbenzene .........
chlorotoluenes .......
1,3,5 trimethylbenzene
1,2,4 trimethylbenzene
1,2,4,5 Cetrmethylbenze
1,2,3 trichlorobenzene
1,1,1,2 tetrchlorethane
1,2,2,3 tetrchlorpropan __
1,1,1,2 tetrchlorpropan
1,2,3 trichloropropane
aldicarb ..............
methomyl ...... * .......
Filter
b~ e.~ ~,t ~.~
o.0~. _ %,~_ 0.07 I,~7 o.ot
1,1,2 trichloroethylene
cis dichloroethylene ..
2,3 dichloropropene ...
1,1,2 trichloroethane .
bromobenzene ..........
m,p dichlorobenzene .,.
o dlchlorobenzene .....
HBAS (detergents) ..... ~o,~ 4o.I
chloride ............
vinyl chloride ........ __
methylene chloride
chloroform ....... , ....
1~2 dichloroethane
carbon tetrachloride ..
I bromo 2 chloroechane
1,2 dlchloropropane ..,
1,1,2 c£ichioroethylene
1,2 dibromoethane ..... __
2 bro~o I chloropropane
ci$ dichloroethylene ..
cis dichloropropene
crans dlchloropropene . __
ethylbenzene
carbaryl ..............
¢ ,%t o ,'17
freon 113 .............
UNIT #17
· SOUTHOLD FILTER DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
Filter R
F R F
I bromo 2 chloroethane ~l
chlorodibromomethane ..._~ .... ~% ..........
1)2 dtbromoethane·.... ~z
2 bcomo t chloropropane .~.__ ~2 ....
benzene ............... ~ '~.
chlorobenzene ......... ~ ~
xyleues ............... ~ ~
m.p dichlorobenzene ... ~ ~q
..%
R F
R F
1,2 dichlocopropane ...
cis dlchloroechylene ..
bromodichloromethane ..
ets dichloropropene ... --
],3,5 tr/methylbenzene
1,2,3 trichlorobenzene
1,2,2,3 tetrchlorpropan
1,1,1,2 cetrchlorpropan
1,2,3 trichloropropane
B. SPECIAL SURFACE WATER PROTECTION AREAS
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
LONG ISLAND REGIONAL PLANNING BOARD
SECTION ONE: STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION,
FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES.
1.1 Statutory Authorization.
New York State enabling legislation under Article 12B of the
General Municipal Law (or Article 2A of General City Law, or Ar-
ticle 16 of Town Law or Article 7 of Village Law) authorizes the
(governing body) of (local unit) to provide and maintain for its
citizens standards which insure their health, safety and welfare,
including those land use regulations intended to promote the
most appropriate use of land throughout the municipality.
1.2 Findings of Fact
The Town of (municipality) finds that the spread of develop-
ment resulting from rapid growth has placed increasing demands
on natural resources and is encroaching on sensitive surface
water drainage areas. These nigh quality surface waters are a
unique resource that should be preserved or protected in order to
sustain native aquatic or marine resources, significant recrea-
tional, environmental and aesthetic characteristics for current
and future residents of the town. These resources also serve to
provide the basis for economic ectivities wnieh will falter should
these resources be neglected.
The Town recognizes that increased population density and
certain land*use activities have definite impacts on surface water
quality.
The Town Master Plan has designated geographic areas eom-
prised of undeveloped or partially developed lands located directly
adjacent to surface waters wnich are designated as Special Sur-
face Water Protection Areas.
It is necessary to regulate the development and use of lands to
be included in Spoeial Surface Water Protection Areas so as to
minimize the impacts of erosion and sedimentation, to prevent
the destruction of vegetation and wildlife habitats, and the
damage due to flooding and to minimize the impacts of pollution.
1.3 Statement of Purpose
It is the purpose of tnis ordinance to create a Special Surface
Water Protection Overlay Area to regulate land use in designated
undeveloped areas located directly adjacent to surface waters in
order to promote the goals of the Town Master Plan and the
policy of the Town Board to maintain high quality surface
waters.
SECTION TWO: DEFINITIONS
2. Definitions
The following terms shall have meanings as indicated.
(a) Cluster Zoning, shall mean a provision in the zoning or-
dinance that allows t~e Planning Board to vary the
development pattern for residential, comrnercial, in-
dustrial, institutional or a combination of uses so as to
permit a grouping or "clustering" of uses on a portion of
the site rather than spread evenly throughout the site.
Zoning may permit the use of smaller lots in exchange for
the preservation of a portion of the site as open space, or
its dedication for community purposes.
(b) Crops, shall have the same meaning as provided in section
301(4) (a), (b), (c), (d) of the Agriculture and Markets Law
of the State of New York.
(c) "Fertilized Vegetation" shall mean areas of cultivated
vegetation which require the application of fertilizers,
pesticides or other substances in order to survive or
flourish.
(d) Special Surface Water Protection Areas, shall mean
watershed areas requiring management to protect the
high quality of selected surface waters.
(e) "Natural Vegetation" shall mean existing and naturally
occurring indigenous vegetation that grows and is main-
tained without need of irrigation or applications of fer-
tilizers, pesticides or other substances.
(f) "Hazardous Materials or Waste" shall mean those
substances so defined and identified as hazardous waste
pursuant to Article 27, Title 9, of the Environmental Con-
servation Law of the State of New York and rules and reg-
ulations promulgated thereunder.
(g) "Tract" shall mean any parcel of real property capable of
subdivision pursuant to all applicable requirements.
SECTION THREE: GENERAL PROVISIONS
3.1 Applicability.
The provisions of this section shall apply to lands outside of in-
corporated villages located within the boundaries of the Tow~,
superimposed upon the Zoning Map of the Town of
and delineated as Special Surface Water Protection Areas.
3.2 Activities Requiring a Permit.
No site preparation, grading, filling, excavating or develop-
ment affecting property within the Surface Water Protection
District shall begin prior to the issuance of a permit.
3.3 Construal With Other Statutes.
(a) Lands within the overlay district are designated critical
environmental areas pursuant to the State Environmental
Quality Review Act.
(b) Lands within the overlay district are consistent with
those situated adjacent to the River
(creek, stream) which is designated as a (Wild, Scenic
and/or Recreational) River under the New York State
Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers Act.
3.4 Compliance.
Development shall comply with the provisions of any Special
Groundwater Protection Area Plan that has been adopted by
the (municipality).
3.5 Hazardous Materials and Waste.
Any new'land use or activity that involves the generation,
transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous
materials or waste shall be prohibited in the overlay area.
3.6 Exemptions.
No person shall be required to obtain a permit for utilization of
those lands included in the Special Surface Water Protection
Areas for passive recreation, such as hiking, fishing, etc. as long
as this usage does not cause changes in existing conditions (ie. in-
creased erosion and sedimentation. See Handbook Ordinance
number 19 b for additional exceptions).
SECTION FOUR: PERMIT PROCEDURES
4.1 Permit Requirements.
Development permits for sites located within the Special Sur-
face Water Protection Areas shall be required for all development
activities not exempted in Section 3.6. The applicant shall be re-
quired to submit the following information to the governing body
of municipality for approval prior to any development, construc-
tion or excavation activity.
1. Name and address of the a. pplicant.
2. An environmental assessment form supplied by the
municipality.
3. Description and map of '~roposed site development plan
which includes:
a) percentage of site in building including actual location.
b) percentage of site in vegetation and areas where natural
vegetation will be removed; where it will remain (see
Ordinance #22).
c) location of areas to be planted in fertilized vegetation.
d) location of on-site system where feasible in relation to
the surface water body.
e) type of stormwater management systems.
4.2 Performance Standards.
Development Requirements.
(a) To minimize pollutant loadings, residential development
shall be limited to one dwelling unit or less per acre or to
open space.
(b) All new structures shall be located no less than 100 ft.
from the mean water level of the stream, river, pond or
lake or marine waters.
(cl Extensions or additions to existing structures shall com-
ply with the 100 ft. setback requirement.
(d) Development shall be prohibited on slopes greater than
25%. Extensive grading of lots shall be avoided. All
slopes shall be stabilized with seeding or other approved
plantings.
(e) Where feasible subdivision plats shall provide for the
clustering of structures to reduce impacts on surface
waters. Wherever possible the area located closest to the
surface water body shall be dedicated as open space.
(f) Stormwater detention facilities (temporary detainment) of
stormwater runoff, with gradual release to surface or
groundwaters shall be provided as necessary to maintain
the same volume and rate of site runoff after development
as that which existed prior to the development.
(g) Natural vegetation located on the tract shall be preserved
to the maximum extent possible consistent with this
policy.
(hi To minimize the potential for groundwater contamination
from fertilizers, pesticides and other substances, fertilized
vegetation shall not exceed square feet or
that specified in Handbook Ordinance #22. Lands current-
ly utilized or utilized within the last five years for the pro-
duction of crops shall be excluded from the requirements
of this provision.
SECTION FIVE: PENALTIES
5.1 Restoration.
Any development, construction or excavation undertaken in
violation of this ordinance shall forthwith be corrected after writ-
ten notice by the (local authority). In the event that corrective ac-
tion is not taken as directed within a reasonable time, the
(governing body) may, at its own expense, take correctiv~ action
to restore the property. The cost thereof shall become a lien upon
the property upon which such illegal activity occurred.
5.2 Fines.
Any person undertaking development, construction or excava-
tion in violation of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by a fine of not ]ess than ($ ), nor more than ($
Such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each
day during which a violation of this ordinance is committed or
continues.
SECTION SIX: SEVERABILITY.
Each separate provision of this ordinance is deemed indepen-
dent of all other provisions herein so that if any provision(s) of
this ordinance be declared invalid, all other provisions thereof
shall remain valid and enforceable.
SECTION SEVEN: EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall take effect on
Prepared by the LIRPB as a part of the 208 Implementation
Project.
SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION AREAS
OVERLAY DISTRICTS
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
LONG ISLAND REGIONAL PLANNIN(I BOARD*
SECTION ONE: STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION,
FINDINGS OF FACT, PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES
1.1 Statutory Authorization.
The Town Board of the Town of is em-
powered by Section 263 of the Town Law of the State of New
York to enact zoning regulations which in accordance with the
Comprehensive Plan facilitate the adequate provision of water to
the residents of the Town and promote the health, safety and
general welfare. Underground aquifers provide the sole source of
drinking water for the Town of.
1.2 Findings of Fact.
The federal government has designated Nassau and Suffolk
groundwater as a sole source aquifer. These aquifers must be pro-
tected if a continued source of potable drinking water is to be
available for future generations. It is the policy of the Town
Board to protect the Town's supply of drinking water in its
pristine state and prevent the degradation of this valuable and
essential resource.
The Long Island Regional Planning Board's (LIRPB) Long
Island Waste Treatment Management Plan identifies deep
recharge areas where the greatest amount of recharge may be ex-
pected to occur and significant shallow recharge areas underlain
by saltwa[er. Other studies have indicated additional areas where
special management is required to protect existing groundwater
quality. The LIRPB's 208 Nonpoint Source Management Hand-
book and the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation's Long Island portion of the New York State
Groundwater Management Project have identified Special
Groundwater Protection Areas (SGPAs). These SPGAs affect
the water quality for the entire Town. The types of land use which
occur in the SGPAs directly impact upon the aquifer and its
quality. The SGPA concept has been adopted by the Town Board
and is reflected in the Town's Comprehensive Plan.
The type of land use in these Special Groundwater Protection
Areas must be compatible with the function of water recharge to
insure the goal of protecting the drinking water supply of the
Town. The Town Board has already recognized that the density
of population and intensity of land use are variables that affect
beth water quality and water quantity. Land use measures must
be implemented to preclude or mitigate the impact of land uses
that are incompatible with water recharge and protection of the
Town's supply of pure drinking water.
1.3 Statement of Purpose.
It is the purpose of this ordinance to create a Special Ground-
water Protection Overlay District for the further regulation of
land use in those portions of ~lae Town which have been found to
be catchment areas for high quality groundwater in order to con-
trol the quality of recharge and prevent degradation of the sole
source aquifer, in accordance with the goals of the Town Master
Plan and the policy of the Town Board.
*Source: Partially adopted from the Town of Southampton's
Aquifer Protection Overlay District Ordinance.
SECTION TWO: DEFINITIONS
The following terms shall have mearfings as indicated.
(a) Aquifer shah mean a geologic formation, group of formations
or part of a formation that contains sufficient saturated material
to yield significant quantities of water to wells or springs.
(b) Crops shall have the same meaning as provided in Section
301(4) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Agriculture and Markets Law of
the State of New York.
(c) "Fertilized Vegetation" shall mean areas of vegetation
cultivated by man and requiring the application of fertilizers,
postic/des or other substances for their growth or ma/ntenanca.
(d) Special Groundwater Protection Areas shall mean a relative-
ly undeveloped portion of a deep recharge area or of a shallow
recharge area underlain by salt water that requires comprehen-
sive msnagement to maintain existing water quality and quan-
tity. These areas may include:
- a relatively undeveloped groundwater recharge area where
groundwater withdrawal is occurring or is expected to
- an area underlain by a high quality aquifer that may be con-
tamlnated if the land is developed according to existing
zoning.
- an area where the presence of extensive groundwater con-
tamination limits or can be expected to limit the amount of
potable water that can be made available at a reasonable
cost.
(e) "Natural Vegetation" shall mean existing and naturally oc-
curring indigenous vegetation that grows and is maintained
without need of irrigation or applications of fertilizers, pesticides
or other substances.
~t) "Hazardous Materials or Waste" shall mean /hose
substances so defined and identified as hazardous waste pur-
soant to Article 27, T/tle 9, of the Environmental Conservation
Law of the State of New York and rules and regulations pro-
mulgated thereunder.
SECTION THREE: GENERAL PROVISIONS
3.1 Applicability
~..
The prowslons of this section shall apply to lands in the Town,
outside of incorporated villages, superimposed upon the Zoning
Map of the Town of , delineated as Special
Groundwater Protection Areas in the Long Island Regional Plan-
ning Boards' Nonpoint Source Handbook and the New York
State Dept. of Environmental Conservation's Long Island por-
tion of the New York State Groundwater Management Project as
Special Groundwater Management Areas.
3.2 Activities Requiring a Perm/t.
No site preparation, grading, excavating, filling or other
development within the Special Groundwater Protection Overlay
District shall begin without a permit, except for those activities
listed in 3.8.
3.3 Construal With Other Statutes·
Lands within the overlay district are designated critical en-
vironmental areas pursuant to the State Environmental Quality
Review Act.
3.4 Compliance.
In order to minlm/ze pollutant loadings, the density and the
layout of the development shall comply with the provisions of
any Special Groundwater Protection Plan that has been adopted
by (municipality).
For needed erosion and stormwater runoff controls see the
related ordinances within the Town Code·
3.5 Protection of Natural Vegetation.
In order to insure max/mum recharge, a rn/nimal amount of
natural vegetation should be removed from the site.
3.6 Fertilized Vegetation.
To minimize the potential for groundwater contamination from
fertilizers, pesticides and other substances minimize the use of
fertilized vegetation used in site development.
3.7 Hazardous Materials and Waste.
The generation, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal
of hazardous materials or waste shall be prohibited in the overlay
district.
3.8 Exemptions.
(a) No permit shall be required for the utilization of those lands
included in the Special Groundwater Protection Areas (SPGAs)
for passive recreation such as hiking, picnicking, etc. so long as a
preliminary review by the Planning Board indicates that this
usage will not cause unacceptable changes in existing conditions
lie. an increase in lo0dings from fertilizers).
lb) No permit shall be required for the thinning of natural
vegetation required for normal maintenance.
(c) See Handbook Ordinance number 19b for additional
exceptions.
SECTION FOUR: PERMIT PROCEDURES
4.1 Permit
Development permits for sites located within the Special
Groundwater Protection Areas shall be required for all develop-
ment activities not exempted in Section 3.8. The applicant shall
be required to submit the following information to the (governing
body) of (municipality) for approval prior to any development,
construction or excavation activity.
1. Name and address of the applicant.
2. A completed environmental assessment form supplied by
the municipality.
3. Description and map of proposed site development plan
which includes:
a) percentage of site in building including actual location.
b) percentage of site in vegetation and areas where natural
vegetation will be removed; where it will remain (see
Ordinance//22).
c) location of areas to be planted in fertilized vegetation.
d) loc~tion of all site development facilities.
e) tYPe of stormwater runoff management systems (sea
Ordinance//18).
SECTION FIVE: PENALTIES
5.1 Restoration.
Any development, construction or excavation undertaken in
violation of this ordinance shah forthwith be corrected after writ-
ten notice by the (local authority). In the event that corrective ac-
tlon is not taken as directed within a reasonable time, the
(governing body) may, at its own expense, take corrective action
to restore the property. The cost thereof shah become a lien upon
the property upon which such illegal activity occurred.
5.2 Fines.
Any person undertaking development, construction or excava-
tion in violation of this ordinance is guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by a fine of not less than ($ ), nor more than ($ ).
Such person shah be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each
day during which a violation of this ordinance is committed or
continues.
SECTION SiX: SEVERABILITY
Each separate provision of this ordinance is deemed indepen-
dent of all other provisions herein so that if any provision(s) of
this ordinance be declared invalid, ali other provisions thereof
shall remain valid and enforceable.
SECTION SEVEN: EFFECTIVE DATE,
This ordinance shall take effect on
INDUSTRIAL ZONING ORDINANCE FOR
SENSITIVE K BUSINESS DISTRICT
HYDROGEOLOGIC ZONES
TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN CODE
Article XXXIII
B. [Added 5-16-83, effective 6-6-831 Property located within
certain hydrngeelogic sensitive zones. In the event that L
Industrial 1 zoned property is located within the
geographical area described in § 85-367 of this Article, the
following standards shall apply:
(1) Height. No building or structure shall be erected or
altered to a height in excess of fifty (50) feet.
(2) Building area. The total building area shall not exceed
thirty percent (30%) of the total lot area.
Lot area. No building, structure or prem/see shall be
used or occupied, and no building or structure shall be
erected or altered on a lot having an area of less than
two (2) acres or upon a lot having a frontage of less
than two hundred (200) feet. The average lot area shall
not be less than three {3) acres.
(4) Front yard. There shall be a front yard having a depth
of not less than fifty (50) feet. If the street frontage on
the same side of the street between the two (2) nearest
intersecting streets shall have been improved with two
(2) or more industrial or business buildings or in the
event :hat building permits shall have been issued
therefor and work commenced thereon, not less than
the average front yard depth as so established by such
existing or permitted buildings shall be mnintalned;
provided, however, that any such front yard depth
shall not be required to be more than sixty (60) feet.
(5) Side yards. There shall be two (2) side yards, one (1)
on each side of the building, the total width of both to
be fifty (50) feet and no one (I) side shall be less than
twenty (20) feet wide.
(6) Rear yard. There shall be a rear yard having a
minimum depth of fifty (50) feet.
(7) State Environmental Quatity Review Act. All pro-
posed actions and changes in tenants or occupants,
or new tenancies or occupancies, shall be considered as
having a potential significant effect on the eh-
vironment which will require notification and coor-
dinated review pursuant to' the State Environmental
Quality Review Act, Part 617, with possible
preparation of an environmental impact statement.
(8) Natural vegetation. As much of the site's natural
vegetation as is possible shall be reta/ned in
preparation of the final site plan and final develop-
ment, including necessary actions to protect natural
vegetation during s,~te development.
{9) Landscaping. No greater than fifteen percent (15%) of
any lot shall be established in turf and landscaped
areas. Ail other disturbed areas are to be established
in a natural type vegetation pursuant to plans which
shall be approved by the Town of Brookhaven,
Department of Planning, Environment and
Development.
(10) Toxic or hazardous materials; financial assurance. All
industries, owners, tenants or occupants, whose ac-
tivity conducted on site involves storage and handling
of toxic or hazardous materials and/or industrial
discharges, shall be required to submit adequate
financial assurances guaranteeing the immediate
cleanup of spills or illegal discharges. The Planning
Board, as part of its site plan review, shall fix the
amount of such assurance in such an amount as it
deems adequate for the cleanup of spills or illegal
discharges. In addition, said Pisnning Board shall
approve the sufficiency of the financial assurance. In
addition, the Planning Board shall not approve any
site plan for industries involving storage and handling
of toxic or hazardous materials and/or industrial
discharges unless an irrevocable consent to enter the
property for the purposes of inspection and
monitoring is supplied by the owners, tenants and
occupants. The owner of any such property shall be
required to file a covenant on behalf of himself, his
heirs, assigns and successors for the Town of
Brookhaven to enter said property and clean up any
spills or illegal discharges and to assess the costs of
any such cleanup against said property to the extent
the costs of said cleanup exceeds the amount re-
covered from any financial assurance.
Industrial discharge. No industrial discharge shall be
permitted unless in conformance with a treatment and
disposal system to be approved by Suffolk County
Health Department and the Town of Brookheven,
Department of Planning, Environment and Develop-
ment. This subsection shall not apply to an approved
sanitary disposal system, a noncontact cooling water
discharge system or precipitation collection and drain-
age facilities. Sampling accessibility must be provided
to the above discharges.
§ 85-360. Height.
In the L Industrial 1 District, no building or structure shall be
erected or altered to a height in excess of fifty (50) feet or three (3)
stories.
§ 85-361. Building area.
In the L Industrial 1 District, the total bufldin~ area shall not
exceed sixty percent (60%) of the ~otal lot area.
§ 85-367. Delineation of hydrngeologlc sensitive zones. [Added 5-
16-83, effective 6-6-83]
A. All property located within the following bounded and
described area shall be considered located within a
hydrogeologic sensitive zone:
Beginning at a point where the center line of Sunrise
Highway, New York State Route 27, meets the town line of
Southampton and Brookhaven; running thence in a
westerly direction along the center line of Sunrise Highway
to a point where the center line of Barnes Road and the
center line of the Sunrise Highway meet; running thence in
a northerly direction along said center line of Barnes Road
to the school district line between School District No. 21
and School District No. 32; running thence in a westerly
direction along said line to a point where the projected
center line of Cranford Boulevard meet; running thence in
a northerly direction along the center line of Cranford
Boulevard to a point where said line meets the center line of
Moriches - Middle Island Road; running thence in a
generally westerly direction along the center line of
Moriches - Middle Island Road to a point where the
projected center line of Moriches Road meet; running
thence in a northerly dlmction along the center line of
Moriches Road to a point where said line meets the center
line of property of the Long Island Railroad; running
thence in southwesterly and westerly direction along the
center line of Long Island Railroad property to a point
where said line meets the center line of Sill Road (C.R.
101 ); running thence in a generally southwesterly direction
along the center line of Sills Road to a point where said line
meets the center line of Southaven Avenue; running thence
in a westerly direction along the center line of Southaven
Avenue to a point where projected l~ne meets the center
line of Old Medford Avenue; running thence in a northerly
direction along center line of Old Medford Avenue to a
point where said line meets the projected center llne of
Cedar Avenue; running thence in a westerly direction
along center line of Cedar Avenue to a point where said line
projected meets the center line of North Ocean Avenue
{C.R. 83); thence in a northerly direction along the center
line of North Ocean Avenue to a point where said line
meets the projected center line of Old Fish Road or Fisk
Road; thence in a generally northwest direction along the
center line of Old Fish Road to a point projected to the
center line of Jamaica Avenue; thence in a westerly
direction along the center line of Jamaica Avenue to a point
projected to meet the center line of Blue Point Road;
running thence in a northerly direction along the center line
of Blue Point Road to a point where said llne meets the
center line of Long Island Expressway (N.Y.S. 495);
running thence in a westerly direction along the center llne
of the Long Island Expressway to a point where said line
intersects the center line of Nicol[s Road (C.R. 97); running
thence in a generally northerly direction along the center
line of Nicolls Road to a point where said line meets the
projected center line of Mark Tree Road; running thence in
a northerly direction along the center line of Mark Tree
Road to a point where said line meets the center line of
Pond Path; running thence in a continued northerly
(25AI to a point where said line meets the town line be-
tween the Town of Brookhaven and the Town of Riverhead
being the easterly boundary of the Town of Brookhaven;
direction along the center line of Pond Path to a point
where said line meets the projected center line of Upper
Sheep Pasture Road: running thence in an easterly
direction along the center line of Upper Sheep Pasture
Road to a point where said line meets the center line of
Lower Sheep Pasture Road; running thence in a continued
easte~y direction along the center line of Lower Sheep
Pasture Road to a point where said line projected meets the
center line of Old Town Road; running thence in a
generally southeasterly direction along the center line of
Old Town Road to a point where said line intersects the
center line of Port Jefferson. Neeconeet Highway (N.Y.S.
347); running thence in a northeaster[y direction along the
center line of Port Jefferson ~ Nesconset Highway to a
point where said line meets the center line of North
Country Road (N.Y.S. 25A); running thence in an easterly
direction along the center line of North Country Road
running thence along the easterly line of t, he Town of
Brookhaven in a generally southerly then easterly then
southerly direction to the point and place of beginning.
Said bounds shall be delineated on the Zoning Map of the
Town of Brookhaven and is intended to include the Zone
III hydrogeologic area as described by the Nassau. Suffolk
Areawide Waste Treatment Management 208 Plan and the
hydrogoologic sensitive area known as the "South
Setauket woods."
WATER RECHARGE OVERLAY DISTRICT
DISTRICT USES
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON CODE
ARTICLE IV
§ 153-24.2. Water Recharge Overlay District. [Added 8-5-83]
A. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms
shall have the meanings indicated:
FERTILIZED VEGETATION -- Unnaturally occurring
areas of vegetation Iturf, grasses, plants, etc.) cultivated
by man from either the planting of seedlings, etc., or place-
ment of sod, which requires applications of a fertilizer,
pesticide or herbicide in order to grow or maintain its exis-
tence.
HAZARDOUS WASTE -- A waste or combination of
wastes which, because of its quantity, concentration or
physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may:
(I) Cause, or significantly contribute to, an increase in
mortality or an increase in serious irreversible, or in.
capacitating reversible illness; or
(2) Pose a substantial present or potential hazard to
human health or the environment when improperly
treated, stored, transported, disposed or otherwise
managed.
NATURAL VEGETATION -- Existing and naturally
occurring indigenious vegetation which grows and is main-
tained without need of applications of fertilizers, pesticides
or other substances.
SEPTAGE -- The contents of a septic tank, cesspool or
otheg individual sewage treatment facility which receives
domestic sewage wastes.
WASTE -- Any garbage, refuse and other discarded mat-
erial, including solid, liquid, semisolid or contained gaseous
materials.
B. The provisions of Chapter I10 (Open Space) shall be appli-
cable to lands in the Residence Districts AA and A located
within the overlay district, including its special provisions
for preserving open space and directing development away
from areas of prime recharge within the overlay district.
C. Lands located within the Water Recharge Overlay District
are found to be Critical Environmental Areas pursuant to
the State Environmental Quality Review Act and Chapter
154 of the Town Code.
D. Any action within the Water Recharge Overlay District re-
quiring an approval from any Town Board or agency may
be conditioned upon a grant to the town of covenants and
restrictions regarding the protection of natural vegetation,
limitation on clearing of land, landscaping, the use of ferti-
lizers, the manner of disposing of waste materials, or any
other reasonable condition or restriction necessary to
ensure the continued integrity of the town's groundwater.
Town boards and agencies shall seek to minimize clearing
of natural vegetation and disturbance of lands within the
overlay district.
E. Fertilized vegetation on any lot within the Water Recharge
Overlay District shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of
lot area, or twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, which.
ever is less. This provision shah not be construed to limit
existing agricultural activities.
F. No new landfills or private dumping'areas uti'lized for but
not limited to the disposal of waste or septage shall be per-
mitted in the overlay district.
AQUIFER PROTECTION OVERLAY DISTRICT
TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON--DRAFT
69-9 OVERLAY DISTRICTS
F. Aquifer Protection Overlay District
1. FINDINGS
The Town Board of the Town of Southampton is empowered by
Section 263 of the Town Law of the State of New York to enact
zoning regulations which in accordance with the Town Master
Plan facilitate the adequate provision of water to the residents of
the Town and also promote the health, safety and welfare of the
Town. The sole source of drinking water for the Town of
Southampton is its underground aquifers. The federal govern-
ment has given sole source aquifer designation to this area. These
aqnifers must be kept pure if a continued source of potable drink-
ing water is to be available for future generations. It is the policy
of the Town Board to protect the Town's supply of drinking
water in its pristine state and prevent the degradation of this
valuable and essential resource.
The Town Master Plan and subsequent studies and updates have
located geographic areas in the Town where water recharge into
the aquifers is the deepest and greatest recharge occurs. These
areas have~ been designated as water catchment regions.
These water catchment regions affect the water quality for the
entire Town. The types of land use which occur above the water
catchment regions directly impact upon the aquifer and its qual-
ity. Thus, the type of land use in the water catchment regions
must be compatible with the function of water recharge to insure
the goal of protecting the drinking water supply of the Town.
The recent Cornell University Water Study clearly indicates the
importance of regulating certain uses to preserve pure water
quality.
The Town Board has already recognized that the density of
population and intensity of land use are variables which affect
beth water quality and water quantity. Programs to reduce
population density and promote open space have already been ira-
plemented which benefit both water quality and water quantity.
Of equal importanq,e in protecting v,~ater quality is the types of
land uses which are permitted in water catchment regions. Land
use regulations must be implemented which strictly regulate land
uses which are incompatible with water recharge and protection
of the Town's supply of pure drinking water.
It is the purpose of the ordinance in accordance with findings of
the Corneli University Water Study to create an aquifer protec-
tion overlay district to regulate land use over those areas which
have been found to be water catchment regions m order to pro-
mote the goals of the Town Master Plan and the policy of the
Town Board to promote water recharge and prevent degradation
of the sole seurce aquifer.
2. APPLICABILITY
The provisions of the section shall apply to lands in-the Town,
outside of incorporated villages, superimposed upon the Zoning
Map of the Town of Southampton, delineated as Aquifer Protec-
tion Overlay District.
3. DEFINITIONS
The following terms shall have meanings as indicated.
(a) Crops, shall have the same meaning as provided in Section
301(4) (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the Agriculture and Markets Law of
the State of New York.
(b) "Fertilized Vegetation" shall mean areas of vegetation
cultivated by man which requires the application of fertilizers,
pesticides or other substances in order to grow or maintain its
existence.
(c) "Lot" shall mean a single piece of land or building plot which
is incapable of further subdivision under Chapter 69 of the Town
Code.
(d) "Natural Vegetation" shall mean existing and naturally oc-
curring indigenous vegetation which grows and is maintained
without need of irrigation or applications of fertilizers, pesticides
or other substances.
(e) "Septage" shall mean the contents of a septic tank, cesspool or
other individual sewage treatment facility which receives
domestic sewage wastes.
If) "Hazardous Waste" shall mean those substances so defined
and identified as hazardous waste pursuant to Article 27, Title 9,
of the Environmental Conservation Law of the State of New York
and rules and regulations promulgated thereunder.
(g) "Tract" shall mean any parcel of real property capable of sub-
division pursuant to all applicable requirements.
(h) "Waste Materials" shall mean unwanted or discarded solid,
liquid or gaseous materials.
4. CONSTRUAL WITH OTHER STATUTES
(a) The provisions of Chapter 52 (Open Space Preservation) of this
code shall be applicable to lands located within the overlay
district zones for residential use.
(b) Lands within the overlay district are designated critical en-
vironmental areas pursuant to the State Environmental Quality
Review Act.
5. PROTECTION OF NATURAL VEGETATION
(a) To insure maximum water recharge, a minimum of eighty (80)
percent of each tract located in the overlay district shall remain
undisturbed and in its natural state. Natural vegetation located
on the tract shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible
consistent with this policy.
(h) The Pla~ng Board, when considering the subdivision of a
tract within the overlay district, shall utilize development or
building envelopes, scenic easements, reserved areas, covenants
and restrictions or any other reasonable means to implement the
requirements of this section.
6. FERTILIZED VEGETATION
To minimize the potential for groundwater contsmination from
fertilizers, pesticides and other substances, fertilized vegetation
shall not exceed fifteen (15) percent of any tract or lot within the
overlay district or 20,000 square feet, whichever is less. Lands
currently utilized or utilized within the last five years for the pro-
duction of crops shall be excluded from the requirements of this
provision.
(b) Any application for a building permit within the overlay
district shall provide a landscape plan if fertilized vegetation is to
be utilized.
7. DISPOSAL FACILITIES
The location of new public or private disposal facilities to be used
for but not llnfited to the disposal of septage or waste materials
shall be prohibited.
8. HAZARDOUS WASTE
The generation, transportation, treatment, storage or disposal of
hazardous waste shall be prohibited in the overlay district.
9. FERTILIZERS AND OTHER SUBSTANCES
The Town Board shall cause to be prepared an inventory of fer-
tilizers, pesticides, herbicides, or other substances which are
deemed to be a serious threat to the public welfare. Said inven-
tory shall be adopted as an appendix to this law and the use of
said substances shall be prohibited within the overlay district.
(Appendix)
Inventory of Fertilizers, Pesticides, etc.