HomeMy WebLinkAboutSolid Waste Management Plan & Report Town of Southold June 1979
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
. j.~
:-: "e.
......0
...............
lil~ii:ll
l!I'~I\i
::~:)~:>:::::.
..............
.:.:.;.:.;.;.:.
...............
Rive r head
.;.:.;.;.;.:.:.
...... ..
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY
NEW YORK
SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT
PLAN AND REPORT
JUNE 1979
'{/).:.::';.;.
c::J
Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, PoCol H2M Corpo
Consulting Engineers. Planners and Environmental Scientists
Melville, N. Y. Farmlngdale. N.Y. Aiverhead. N.Y. Newton, N.J.
I
ROBERT G. HOLZMACHER, FE. PoP"~ LS.
SAMUEL C. MclENDON. P.E
NORMAN E. MURRELL, P.E
HAROLD A. DOMBECK, P.E.
HUGO D. FREUDENTHAL. Ph. D.
CARL E. BECKER, P.E
FRANK N. COPPA, P.E.
JOHN J. MOLLOY, P.E
DONALD A. SlOSS. P.E.
CHARLES E. BANKS. P.E
ANTHONY SIMONE. LS.
JAMES S. KELLEY, P.E
GARY E. lOESCH. P.E
BR1J M. SHRIVASTAVA, P.E
H2M Corp.
I HOLZMACHER,McLENDON andMURRELL,P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS
I
'Am dfi()f,n H()~ L O'N "lOAD, MELVillE, NY 117t..ll',' Ii, 694.;)IWI '
:F/,:A,,) ,~(:'/d'. MI ! V 'i F _ r-j'" _ 1;', 1"/2 '!(,I/,
I ' " r )"'1 C; f! 't t. FA f i ~/ i r j (, i...1"'. LL r l' e C<i, - l-Il C
,', "cr, ::;-CilE' ;lj'/l!;IIl'^-i), r" ':~:__II j.IMC
:')i',A1iKf-'L."CLr,L',.';!;)r,' r-j,j ,>;" ')Wil~,14
I
June 29, 1979
I
Town Board
Town of Southnld
530-95 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
I
I
He: Town of Southold
Part 360 - Solid Waste
Management Plan & Report
I
Gentlemen:
I
In accordance with our proposal of March 23, 1978, the Town
Board's Resolution of ,January 23, 1979 authorizing us to proceed,
and our letter of March 26, 1979 confirming the Step I scope of
services, we have completed a solid waste managLfficnt study for
the Town of Southold. This study is a follow-up on the pre-
viously submitted app"1 ica tion for approval to opera te a soU d
waste management facility, prepared in accordance with the New
York State Dep:ntment oJ Environmental Conservation Part 360
guidelines.
I
I
We wish to acknowledge the co-operation of Superintendent
Raymond C. Dean and other Town officials who assisted us in
preparation of the data contained herein.
I
I
After you have had an opportunity to review the report and
recommendations we would be pleased to meet with you to discuss
any aspect of it. As a reminder, please noV" that this report is
to be submitted to the NYSDEC by July 10, 1979.
I
Very truly yours,
I
cLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
II, A. Dombeck, ~~
Viee President
I
~~~1'~~J~
I
Brij M. Shrivastava, P.E.
Project Manager
I
BMS/pak
Elle.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOWN OF SOUTH OLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN AND REPORT
JUNE 1979
ACTING SUPERVISOR
James F. Homan
TOWN BOARD
COUNCIL MEMBERS
TOWN JUSTICES
Henry W. Drum
William R. Pell, III
Francis T. Doyen
James H. Rich, Jr.
Martin Suter
TOWN CLERK
SUPT. OF HIGHWAYS
Judith T. Terry
Raymond C. Dean
SOHT 79-1
~
Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell. P.C.' H2M Corp.
Consutrmg Engtrleer') Pldnners and En.....ronmental SClentl~ts
Melvllle,N.Y. FarmlnQOdlle,NY. Alverhead,I'-J,V, Newton.NJ.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLIn WASTE MANAGEMENT
PLAN AND REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I NTRODUCT ION
REPORT SCOPE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
SEC. 1.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
1.1 Study Area
1.2 Population
1.2.1 Permanent Population
1.2.2 Seasonal Population
SEC. 2.0 - SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION AND QUANTITIES
2.1 Solid Waste Composition
2.2 Solid Waste Quantities
2.2;1
2.2.2
2.2.3
Present Waste Generation
Per Capita Waste Generation
Projected Waste Generation
SEC. 3.0 - EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
3.1 Collection and Treatment
3.2 Disposal
3.2.1 Existing Disposal Costs
3.2.2 Unit Costs of Disposal
3.3 LandfiLl Site Life
3.4 Scavenger Waste Disposal
3.4.1 Future Scavenger Waste Quantities
i
JUNE 1979
PAGE NO.
1
1
2
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.3
2.1
2.5
2.5
2.8
2.9
3.1
3.3
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.10
3.15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTD.)
SEC. 4.0 - EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
4.1 Inroduction
4.2 Location
4.3 Transportation Systems
4.4 Topography and Subsurface Conditions
4.5 Climate
4.5.1
4.5.2
Temperature and Humidity
Precipitation
4.6 Site Description
4.7 Groundwater Depths and Flows
4.8 Adjacent Ground and Surface Water Quality
4.8.1
4.8.2
Groundwater
Surface Water
4.9 Leachate Generation and Movement
4.9.1
4.9.2
General
Leachate Control at Southold Landfill
4.10 Methane Gas Generation and Control
4.10.1
4.10.2
4.10.3
General
Methane Gas Control
Methane Migration at Southold Landfill
SEC. 5.0 - EXISTING LANDFILL OPERATIONS
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Receipt of Solid Waste
5.3 Method of Disposal
5.4 Cover Material Management
5.5 Personnel Requirements and Responsibilities
5.6 Convenience/Transfer Stations
5.7 Landfill Records
ii
PAGE NO.
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.9
4.13
4.13
4.19
4.21
4.21
4.26
4.27
4.29
4.30
5.1
5.1
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTD.)
SEC. 5.0 (contd.)
5.8 Winter and Inclement Weather Operation
5.9 Facility Control
5.10 Traffic Flow Control
5.11 Contingency Plans for Control of Undesir-
able Conditions
5.12 Equipment Needs
5.13 Illustration of Fulfillment of Regulatory
Requirements
5.13.1 Section 360.8 Facilities Requirements
SEC. 6.0 - ALTEHNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Alternative Solid Waste Management Systems
6.2.1
6.2.2
6.2.3
Immediate Future
Intermediate Future
Long Range Future
6.3 Alternative Courses of Action for
Scavenger Waste Disposal
6.4 Cost Comparison of Loni' Range Alternatives
SEC. 7.0 - LEACHATE MONITORING PROGRAM
7.1 Purpose
7.2 Procedure
7.3 Well Construction
7.4 Baseline and Routine Water Sampling Analysis
7.5 Cost
Hi
PAGE NO.
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.10
5.11
5.11
6.1
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.5
6.12
6.12
7.1
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P,C, / H2M CORP,
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTD.)
PAGE NO.
SEC. 8.0 - FUTURE SITE UTILIZATION PLAN
8.1 General
8.2 Southold Site Utilization Plan
SEC. 9.0 - FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Existing Sanitary Landfill Facility
9.2 Immediate Future
8.1
8.1
9.1
9.4
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX NO. OF PAGES
A SITE PLAN, REGIONAL PLAN AND VICINITY 1 page
MAP OF EXISTING SOLID WASTE FACILITY
B LISTING OF PROPERTY OWNERS NEIGHBORING 1 page
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SITE
C SAMPLE MONTHLY LANDFILL RECORD SHEET 1 page
D RECORD OF BORINGS - 1974 1 page
E SOUTHOLD LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 4 pages
iv
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
1-1
1-2
1-3
2-1
2-2
2-3
2-4
2-5
CURRENT POPULATION
POPULATION PROJECTIONS THROUGH 2000
MONTHLY VARIATION OF POPULATION
PRIMARY CONSTITUENTS OF CATEGORIES
OF MIXED MUNICIPAL REFUSE
MUNICIPAL REFUSE COMPOSITION
SEASONAL VARIATION OF MUNICIPAL REFUSE
COMPOSITION (1970)
SUMMARY OF LANIIFILL SURVEY
ESTIMATED MONTHLY BREAKDOWN OF SOLID
WASTE QUANTITIES RECEIVED AT TOWN
LANDFILL IN 1978
2-6 PROJECTED WASTE GENERATION
3-1 VOLUMETRIC CAPACITY OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
3-2 YEARLY LANDFILL DEPLETION
3-3 SCAVENGER WASTE DISCHARGED AT TOWN LAND-
FILL DURING TWO WEEK PERIOD
4-1 PRECIPITATION IN INCHES DURING 1958 AND
1959 AT TEN STATIONS IN SOUTHOLD AND AT
THREE NEARBY STATIONS
4-2 TOTAL PRECIPITATION IN INCHES RECORDED
AT VILLAGE OF GREENPORT POWERHOUSE
(ELEVATION 16 FEET)
4-3 DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
4-4 COMPLIANCE DATES, FREQUENCIES AND VARIOUS
REQUIRED ANALYSES
4-5 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER QUALITY
FROM WELLS WITHIN TWO MILES OF SOUTHOLD
LANDFILL
v
PAGE NO.
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.7
2.10
3.11
3.12
3.17
4.5
4.7
4.14
4.17
4.20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
TABLE NO.
6-1
6-2
7-1
LIST OF TABLES (CONTD.)
PROJECTED POPULATION AND SOLID WASTE
QUANTITIES FOR FIVE EASTERN TOWNS
THROUGH 1995
PRELIMINARY COST COMPARISON OF LONG
RANGE SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ALTER-
NATIVES
PRELIMINARY COST BREAKDOWN OF RECOM-
MENDED LEACHATE MONITORING PROGRAM
vi
PAGE NO..
6.8
6.13
7.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
LI ST OF FIGURES
FIGURE NO.
1-1 STUDY AREA
2-1 PROJECTED WASTE GENERATION
3-1 LOCATION PLAN
3-2 TYPICAL PERSONNEL ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE
AT SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
3-3 SITE LIFE DETERMINATION OF SOUTHOLD
LANDFILL
3-4 LAND VOLUME DEPLETION OF SOUTHOLD
LANDFILL
3-5 SCAVENGER WASTE
4-1 GEOLOGIC FENCE DIAGRAM FOR SOUTHOLD SITE
4-2 FLOOD PLAIN AREAS
4-3 GENERALIZED ISOMETRIC GEOLOGICAL CROSS
SECTION OF THE SOUTHOLD PENINSULA
4-4 EXISTING GROUNDWATER MONITORING LOCATIONS
WITHIN TWO MILES OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
7-1 LEACHATE MONITORING SYSTEM WELL LOCATIONS
9-1 TIME TASK CHART
vii
PAGE NO.
1.2
2.11
3.4
3.6
3.9
3.13
3.16
4.3
4.10
4.12
4.18
7.2
9.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOlZMACHER, MclENOON and MURREll, P.C. / H2M CORP.
INTRODUCTION
The Town of Southold authorized the firm of Holzmacher,
McLendon & Murrell, P.C. (HM&M) to conduct a study and prepare
a Solid Waste Management Plan and detailed report for the Town's
existing solid waste disposal facility in accordance with the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
Rules and Regulations, Part 360. The purpose of this study is to
meet the follow-up requirements on the preliminary application
for approval to operate a solid waste management facility which
was submitted to the NYSDEC in February 1978.
REPORT SCOPE
The scope of this study includes:
1. Evaluation of existing operation conditions of the
Town's landfill and to make recommendations regard-
ing improvements of landfill operation in order to
comply with Part 360 Regulations.
2. Short and long-term solid waste disposal alternatives.
3. Future utilization of the completed site.
The scope is generally in accordance with the NYSDEC's "Content
Guidelines for Plans and Specifications" as they apply to an
existing solid waste management facility such as the Town of
Southold.
1.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
_____.~__~.___~_......___ ...,_.._.__.n______.__
This Solid Waste Management Plan and Report, pr~pared for
the Town of Southold as a part of regulatory requirements of the
NYSDEC, NYCRR Part 360, contains the following information:
1. The Town of Southold comprises approximately 53 square
miles and presently has 20,022 permanent inhabitants. The popu-
lation for the year 2000 is projected at 33,630.
2. The existing sanitary landfill located on North Road,
east of Depot Lane in the north-west section of the Town of Sout-
hold, currently receives 34,000 tons per year of municipal solid
waste and demolition waste. The entire Town with the exception
of Fishers Island is served by this landfill facility. Per capita
waste generation by the permanent population is estimated at 6.9
pounds per day. The projected waste generation for the year 2000
is 60,420 tons.
3. Approximately 1,130,000 gallons of scavenger waste, mainly
liquid pumpings of cesspools and leaching systems, was received
and disposed of at the landfill during 1978.
4. At the projected rate of solid waste deposited in the
landfill, the 41 acre site will reach its volumetric capacity by
the beginning of 1985.
5. A 201 Wastewater Management Facilities Plan is underway
for the Town of Southold/lnc. Village of Greenport. Incorporated
within this report will be an 0valuation of alternative methods
for treatment and disposal of Southold's scavenger waste. A
selected plan and implementation will follow.
6. The existing site does not have a groundwater monitoring
system. Data obtained from groundwater monitoring and public
2.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P,C. I H2M CORP.
supply wells in the vicinity of the landfill do not indicate
the presence of leachate.
7. The existing landfill is not provided with a conventional
leachate collection or treatment system. Existence of adequate
amounts of fine soil underneath the landfill have presumably mini-
mized leachate migration by natural attenuation. To date, no
complaints from the neighboring landowners regarding methane migra-
tion or vegetation kills have been registered by the Town.
8. An evaluation of the existing operations at the Southold
sanitary landfill shows that most of the landfill operations are
carried out in an environmentally acceptable manner, and in accor-
dance with the State guidelines. Solid wastes are properly spread,
compacted and covered with on-site available cover material. Site
facilities and access roads are maintained on a regular basis. Re-
commendations have been made to reduce the problem of blowing litter
and debris.
9. At this writing, the existing equipment at the landfill
is inadequate. The Town, however, is in the process of acquiring
State funds for new landfill equipment.
10. Pending the approval of NYSDEC of the application for a
permit to operate a solid waste management facility; the Town will
continue sanitary landfilling in the immediate (present to one
year), and the intermediate (one to six years) future. However,
during this period, it is recommended tha t the Town evaluate long
range alternatives, including resource recovery and applicable
State and/or Federal financial assistance. Several long range
3.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
future options are available to the Town such as straight sani-
tary landfilling (if landfilling is permitted by NYSDEC), modular
incineration with energy recovery, transfer haul to Brookhaven's
proposed resource recovery facility and composting (of refuse
alone or co-disposal of reluse and sewage sludge).
11. Development of solid waste disposal ordinance to control
refuse management is recommended.
12. Immediate installation of a three well groundwater moni-
toring system and periodic check of methane gas migration at the
Southold landfill is recommended.
13. Several future site utilization vians for the completed
landfill have been delineated. It is recommended that the Town
consider these plans and explore potential funding sources for
implementation.
4.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
1.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Study Area
The Town of Southold, located on the eastern portion of Long
Island, Suffolk County, New York, is comprised of a total of
twelve communities of which eleven are unincorporated and the
Inc. Village of Greenport. The study area comprises approximately
53 square miles. Figure 1-1 is a location map of the study area.
The Town is presently serviced by one sanitary landfill located
on North Road between Depot Lane and Cox Lane.
1.0
1.1
1. 2 Population
1.2.1 Permanent Population
For the purposes of this report we have used the population
projections as adopted by the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning
Board (NSRPB) in the November 1976 208 Wastewater Management Study.
The same projections have also been used by the Long Island Light-
ing Company (LILCO) for their planning purposes.
The census enumerated in 1970 showed 16,804 permanent resi-
dents in the Town of Southo1d. The population increased at an
average rate of 166 persons per year during the period 1950-1960.
The rate of increase between 1960 and 1970 was 351 persons per
year. The 1979 LILCO population estimate for the Town is 20,022,
amounting to an increase of 357 persons per year between 1970
and 1979. The 1995 estimate is 29,972. The NSRPB carried their
projections through 1995 only. However, based on the projected
trend as a percentage of the saturation population of 72,921 for
1.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE N2 I-I
NEW
'-...-
"
/'
~
CONNECTlC UT
NEW
JERSEY
\
...\ E~ . _ .. .
o \ \..IloOR ,'......'I;~...:.',:. M. . ."
\0 . -~..l~;;t::':.,.,..~,.;. R)
'\ ~,i,i't;":',' ',..'h~;
0\. . .
STUDY
AREA
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REPORT
JUNE 1979
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON & MURRELL. P.C.I H2M CORP.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
M.LVILLe:, N. Y.
FARMINGDAlE. N.Y.
R1VERHEAO. N.Y.
NEWTON. N.J.
1.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
the Town of Southold, we have estimated the population for the
year 2000 as 33,630. The current population and the projec-
tions in five year increments are shown in Tables 1-1 and 1-2,
respectively.
1.2.2 Seasonal Population
During summer months, the population of the Town of Southold
increases substantially due to arrival of residents of summer
homes, tourists and vactioners. Determination of the seasonal
increase in population is essential in order to compute the
yearly solid waste quantities brought to the Town landfill.
The NSRPB 208 Study listed the number of homes with summer occu-
pants which was utilized for estimating the seasonal population.
In addition, the Village of Greenport water supply pumpage re-
cords were utilized to establish the number of tourists and vaca-
tioners, and the monthly distribution of the entire seasonal
population. Table 1-3 shows the monthly breakdown of population
under various categories.
1.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL. P,C. / H2M CORP.
TABLE 1-1
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CURRENT POPULATION
POP U L A T ION
CENSUS CENSUS ESTIMATE ESTIMATE
COMMUNITY 1960 1970 1/1/78 1/1/79
Greenport (Inc.) 2,608 2,481 2,503 2,534
Laurel 689 1,130 1,480 1,496
Mattituck 1,485 1,995 2,265 2,301
East Mattituck 542 582 741 768
Cutchogue 1,418 2,540 3,093 3,137
Peconic 862 943 1,160 1,190
North Southold 659 872 1,111 1,121
Southold 1,285 2,030 2,311 2,245
Bayview 680 847 1,204 1,225
Greenport (Uninc.) 1,142 1,303 1,540 1,541
East Marion 720 832 1,041 1,089
Orient Point 697 787 942 954
Fishers Island 508 462 414 421
TOTALS 13,295 16,804 19,805 20,022
(Source: Population Survey 1979, LILCO)
1.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
TABLE 1-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
POPULATION PROJECTIONS THROUGH 2000
YEAR PROJECTED POPULATION (TOTAL)
1980 21,016
1985 23,814
1990 26,716
1995 29,972
2000 33,630
(Source: 208 Study, NSRPB 1976)
1.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
TABLE 1-3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MONTHLY VARIATION OF POPULATION
PERMANENT
POPULATION
(EST. 1/1/79)a
SUMMER
HOMES b
(EST.)
TOURISTS &
VACATIONERS
(EST.) C
JANUARY
20,022
FEBRUARY
MARCH
APRIL
2,500
4,610 500
4,610 2,000
4,610 5,000
4,610 4,000
3,000 500
MAY
JUNE
JULY
AUGUST
SEPTEMBER
OCTOBER
NOVEMBER
DECEMBER
20,022
a LILCO
~ 208 Study, NSRPB 1976
Based on 1977 records, Water Supply Operations,
Water Department, Village of Greenport
1.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
2.0 SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION
AND QUANTITIES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
SOLID WASTE COMPOSITION AND QUANTITIES
Solid Waste Composition
Because of variations in the use of materials throughout the
United States, the composition of solid waste differs from muni-
cipality to municipality. Only by separating and weighing samples
of refuse can waste composition be determined precisely for a
particular locality. Such preciseness is not necessary for a
study of this type and since exact data were not available for
the study area, general compositional data have been obtained by
examining figures for similar communities and for the nation as
a whole.
Table 2-1 indicates the primary components of various cate-
gories comprising municipal refuse. Studies have been made to
determine the percentage of the waste stream that falls into
each of these categories. Table 2-2 shows the results of these
studies. As shown, paper constitutes the major portion of muni-
cipal refuse.
The proportion of food wastes in municipal solid waste has
been declining in recent years. This downward trend will prob-
ably continue as the use of preprocessed, frozen and packaged
foods expands. Home garbage disposal units also help decrease
the amount of food wastes entering the municipal solid waste
stream. Glass and metal wastes will probably increase if the
present popularity of non-returnable liquid containers persists
without regulation. The composition of municipal refuse also
varies by the time of the year as presented in Table 2-3.
2.0
2.1
2.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
TABLE 2-1
PRIMARY CONSTITUENTS OF CATEGORIES
OF MIXED MUNICIPAL REFUSE
CATEGORY
DESCRIPTION
Paper
Various types, some with fillers.
Plastic
Polyvinyl chloride, polyethylene, styrene,
etc., as found in packaging, housewares,
furniture, toys and non-woven synthetic
fabrics.
Rubber & Leather
Shoes, tires, toys, etc.
Textiles
Cellulosic, protein, woven synthetics.
Wood
Wooden packaging, furniture, logs, twigs.
Food
Garbage.
Yard
Grass, brush, shrub trimmings.
Glass
Bottles (primarily).
Metal
Cans, wire, foil.
Miscellaneous
Inorganic ash, stones, dust.
2.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
TABLE 2-2
MUNICIPAL REFUSE COMPOSITION(a)
(PERCENT BY WEIGHT)
ESTIMATED
HEMPSTEAD, PROJECTED COMPOSITION
CATEGORY NY(b) EPA(c) 1980(b) (1978)
Paper 46 34.9 36.1 37
Plastic 2 3.8 2.5 4
Rubber & Leather 2 2.6 1.3 2
Textiles 3 1.7 1.9 2
Wood 7 3.8 1.7 4
Food 12 14.9 14.1 14
Yard 18 16.3 24.1 16
Glass 4 10.5 9.0 10
Metal 4 9.8 8.1 9
Miscellaneous 2 1.6 1.2 2
TOTALS 100 100.0 100.0 100
(a) Obtained from the on-going Multi-Town (Babylon, Huntington &
Islip) Solid Waste Resource Recovery Study, Metcalf & Eddy,
Inc. and Holzmacher. McLendon"" Mnrrp.ll. P.r.. (1979),
(b) Based on 1966 and 1967 analysis. Composition includes resi-
dential and commercial, excluding bulky and industrial.
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare and the National
Air Pollution Control Administration. Svstems Study of Air
Pollution from Municipal Incineration (1970).
(c) As fired in 1975. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Fourth
Report to Congress: Resource Recovery and Waste Reduction (1977).
2.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
TABLE 2-3
SEASONAL VARIATION OF
MUNICIPAL REFUSE COMPOSITION (1970)
(PERCENT BY WEIGHT)
% BY WEIGHT
CATEGORY SUMMER FALL WINTER SPRING
Paper 31.0 39.0 42.2 36.5
Plastic 1.1 1.2 1.4 1.1
Rubber 8> Leather 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.2
Textiles 1.8 2.5 2.7 2.2
Wood 2.6 3.4 3.6 3.1
Food 17.7 22.7 24.1 20.8
Yard 27.1 6.2 0.4 14.4
Glass 7.5 9.6 10.2 8.8
Metal 7.0 9.1 9.7 8.2
Miscellaneous 3.1 4.0 4.2 3.7
TOTALS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
(Source: Handbook of Solid Waste Management, Wilson 8> David)
2.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
2.2 Solid Waste Quantities
2.2.1 Present Waste Generation
The precise determination of incoming refuse quantities at
the Southold landfill is difficult due to the absence of weighing
apparatus at the site. A solid waste survey of all refuse haul-
ing vehieles entering the landfill site was conducted by HM&M on
April 17, 1979. By estimating the quantities carried by each
vehicle, the total quantity of waste entering the landfill was
calculated as shown on Table 2-4. These results were confirmed
by a simJ.lar survey previously conducted by the Town on
March 28, 1979. Extensive discussions with the landfill offi-
cials were held to determine various characteristics of the waste
generated within Southold. Through these communications it was
learned that on an annual basis, approximately 12 tons per day
of agricultural waste (potato culls) are disposed of at the land-
fill. Also the brush, leaves and wood quantities increase suffi-
ciently during the early spring and fall seasons due to a clean-up
program initiated by the Town.
Using this information, municipal solid waste (MSW) genera-
tion rate by permanent population was estimated, which was then
utilized for computing MSW generated by the seasonal population
(summer vacationers) during the period April through September.
Finally, the total quantity of solid waste received at the land-
fill for the year 1978 was determined by summing up the MSW gen-
erated by permanent and seasonal population, demolition waste,
potato waste and brush. Table 2-5 shows a monthly breakdown of
these quantities. On a daily basis, it is estimated that the
2.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
TABLE 2-4
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUMMARY OF LANDFILL SURVEY
TYPE OF VEHICLE
NO. OF
VEHICLES
Municipal Solid Waste
Large Collection Vehicles
5
Small Collection Vehicles
3
Small DUJ:lp Trucks
6
Private Cars
240
Small Pick-ups
136
Others
Brush
28
Demolition
10
Mixed Waste
14
TOTALS
442
Date of Survey:
Time of Survey:
April 17, 1979 (Tuesday)
7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
(a) Based on size of vehicles and various estimated
practical refuse densities.
2.6
ESTIMATED
TONS(a)
18
4
5
15
25
5
12
10
94
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
TABLE 2-5
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
ESTIMATED MONTHLY BREAKDOWN OF SOLID WASTE
QUANTITIES RECEIVED AT TOWN LANDFILL IN 1978
SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES
TOTAL TONS TPD
JANUARY 2,100 68
FEBRUARY 1,900 68
MARCH 2,480 80
APR IL 3,140 105
MAY 3,280 106
JUNE 3,170 106
JULY 3,600 116
AUGUST 3,520 114
SEPTEMBER 2,940 98
OCTOBER 3,100 100
NOVEMBER 2,670 89
DECEMBER 2 ,100 68
TOTAL 34,000
2.7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
landfill received a minimum of 68 tons during the months of Janu-
ary, February and December, and up to a maximum of 116 tons dur-
ing July.
The 1978 breakdown by category of the total solid waste re-
ceived is as follows:
Permanent Population 24,800 tons
Seasonal Population 3,800 tons
Potato Waste 4,400 tons
Extra Brush 1,000 tons
TOTAL 34,000 tons
2.2.2 Per Capita Waste Generation
Utilizing the data obtained through the solid waste survey,
characteristics stated in conversations with landfill officials,
and the average daily quantity of waste generated by the perman-
ent population of 19,601 excluding Fishers Island popula-
tion, the actual per capita waste generation is computed as 6.9
pounds per day. Disposal of solid waste generated by 421 persons
in Fishers Island is reportedly carried out within the Island
boundaries. Based on 6.9 pounds per capita per day, the waste
quantity for Fishers Island is estimated at approximately 1.5
tons per day. The per capita generation rate is generally higher
than the national and regional averages of per capita refuse gen-
eration. This can be attributed to several factors including
excessive amounts of brush and agricultural waste brought into
the landfill throughout the year and perhaps disposal by non-resi-
dents. However it should be emphasized that the per capita
2.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. I H2M CORP.
generation rate is based on the estimated quantities of solid
waste received at the landfill. A precise determination can
only be made by weighing and identifying all incoming waste.
2.2.3 Projected Waste Generation
The projected solid waste generation for the Town of Southold
through the year 2000 is presented on Table 2-6. Using 1978 as the
base year, the per capita solid waste generation rate of 6.9 lbs.
was escalated at one percent per year on a linear basis. Using
the population projections presented in Section 1.0 (Table 1-2),
solid waste quantities generated by the Town's permanent popula-
tion were computed. To these were added the waste quantities
produced by seasonal population, potato waste and extra brush
to arrive at the total waste quantities requiring disposal, ex-
clusive of Fishers Island. These quantities are data utilized
to calculate the remaining life of the Town's existing landfill.
Quantities for Fishers Island are projected separately. The last
column of Table 2-6 shows the total solid waste quantities to be
disposed of for the Town of Southold. These projections are
graphically illustrated in Figure 2-1.
2.9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
TABLE 2-6
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PROJECTED WASTE GENERATION
BY TOWN'S ADDITIONAL WASTE TOTAL WASTE
YEAR PERMANENT POPULATION(a) BROUGHT TO LANDFILL REQUIRING DISPOSAL (a)
lbs/cap/day tpy tpy (b) tpy
Col.1 Col.2 Col. 3 Col. 4 Col. 5
1978 6.9 24,800 9,200 34,000
1980 7.0 26,300 9,200 35,500
1985 7.4 31,600 9,200 40,800
1990 7.7 36,900 9,100 46,000
1995 8.1 43,400 9,000 52,400
2000 8.4 50,600 8,900 59,500
a. Excluding Fishers Island
b.
Includes seasonal population, potato waste and brush. Projected waste
are based on an annual increase of approximately one percent from the
is assumed to decline based on the agricultural land use projections.
constant.
FISHERS ISLAND TOTAL TOWN
POPULATION WASTE GENERATION OF SOUTHOLD
(c) tpy (d) tpy
Co1.6 Col. 7 Col. 8
421 550 34,550
395 500 36,000
423 570 41,370
481 680 46,680
579 860 53,260
600 920 60,420
quantities by seasonal population
base figure of 1978. Potato waste
Extra brush is assumed to remain
c. 208 Study, NSRPB, 1976. Projections for the year 2000 is estimated based on NSRPB trends.
d. Use same lbs/cap/day as for Town's permanent population.
2.10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
60,000
50,000
40,000
0:
<(
w
>-
0: 30,000
w
ll.
en
Z
0
.... 20,000
10,000
FIGURE N2 2 - 1
1978 80
85
90
YEAR
95
2000
PROJECTED WASTE GENERATION
FOR THE ENTIRE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REPORT
JUNE 1979
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.I H2M CORP.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
MELVILLE. N.Y.
FARMINGOALE, N.Y.
FlVERHEAO. N.Y.
NEWTON. N. J.
2.11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
3.0 EXISTING SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
3.0
3.1
EXISTING SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Collection and Transport
Collection and transport of refuse generated in the Town of
Southold is accomplished by private haulers with large collection
vehicles as well as by residents self-hauling their waste in in-
dividual cars and small pick-up vehicles.
The private haulers directly charge the residents for the
collection and haul of their waste to the Town landfill. At this
wri ting, there are no dumping c harges at the landfi 11. Approxi-
mately 60 percent of the total waste is collected privately and
the remaining is brought in individual cars and small pick-ups.
In the Town of Southold, solid waste operations are adminis-
tered through the Department of Public Works. The Superintendent
of Public Works is in charge of the disposal facility operations
and personnel. Also, for the Town of Southold, the Superintendent
of Public Works holds the position of Superintendent of Highways.
This dual-departmental relationship is both advantageous and
disadvantageous in the operation of each department.
The existing budget allocated to the landfill operations is
not sufficient to cover proper operation of the facility and main-
tenance of the equ ipmen t. When a vai la ble, the highway equ ipmen t
are reportedly brought into the landfill to supplement the exist-
ing landfill equipment. This method on one hand, does allow con-
tinuous operations of the landfill in an environmentally acceptable
manner, but on the other hand puts a heavy burden on the highway
equipment availability, maintenance and repairs.
3.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
Currently there are no dumping fees for solid waste disposal
at the Town landfill facility. This system is believed to have
several drawbacks when compared to a system of operating the fac-
ility with an imposed disposal fee. These include:
1. Surround ing townships impose disposal fees at their
landfill facilities. Therefore, with Southold not
charging dumping fees, it is conceivable that some
"out of town" refuse may be brought into the Southold
landfill. This not only results in the handling of
additional quantity of refuse being deposited in the
landfill, but also decreases the potential life of
the facility.
2. Presently, the Southold landfill facility does not
enforce a residency requirement, as do other town-
ships within the surrounding area. This again may
encourage "out of town" refuse disposal at the site.
3. Potential revenues, which could help offset the cost
of landfill operations, are lost by not imposing a
dumping fee.
Currently the Town Board is in the process of organizing
a "proof of residency" program. This will require all resi-
dents of Southold to obtain a car sticker to indicate residency
and prevent non-residents from utilizing the disposal site.
This report will recommend that the Town consider institut-
ing a dumping fee on private collectors who bring waste to the town
landfill. This will be discussed further in Section 9.0.
3.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
In addition to solid waste, the Southold landfill also ac-
cepts scavenger waste. As in the case of solid waste, there are
no dumping charges for disposal of scavenger waste at the site.
The NYSDEC and the Town of Southold have agreed on a compliance
schedule to abate this practice.
3.2 Disposal
Sanitary landfilling is the only method of solid waste dis-
posal in the Town of Southold. The Town landfill is located on
North Road between Cox and Depot Lanes in Cutchogue (see Figure
3-1). The existing site consists of approximately 41 acres and
has been the designated area for solid waste disposal under Town
supervision since 1954. It was reported that unsupervised dis-
posal of refuse at this site took place even before 1954. The
landfill procedures consist of the trench fill method in which
solid waste is placed in excavated trenches and the excavated
earth, mainly fine sand and gravel occasionally mixed with clay,
is used for cover material. Excess quantity of excavated mate-
rial is both sold to a private contractor and utilized by the
Town's Highway Department. Due to adequate supply of on-site
cover material, all wastes are properly covered at the end of the
day's operation. Scavenger waste is discharged into separate
settling lagoons situated at the northwest corner of the landfill.
The landfill facility remains open between 7:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.,
all year-round except on four legal holidays designated by the
Town as listed below:
1. Christmas Day
2. New Year's Day
3.
Easter Sunday
Thanksgiving Day
4.
3.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
FIGURE N!! 3-1
",
0'(4.\(;. ...
,0'"
vt'O
50
//~
~~O
\5~
./
/
./
~
I
\
~,,<>
,,>"
SOUTHOLD
LANDFILL SITE
O~G
~
,
\
.
\
\
8~i
LOCATION PLAN
~\c
. CO
p~
9.'V'
~_\\
"L. "'"
~\~
~_\("a
'6\
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REPORT
JUNE 1979
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.I H2M CORP.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
MELVILLE, N. Y.
FARMINGDALE. N Y
RlVERHEAO. N V
NEWTON. N J
3.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. I H2M CORP.
The operating personnel normally consists of four full-time
persons plus one CETA (Comprehensive Employment and Training Act)
worker. A rotating schedule is used so that each full-time
employee works a four day, 40 hour week, with at least two Town
employees at the site during operating hours. The CETA worker
is employed by the County and placed under the supervision of
the Town's Department of Public Works. The CETA worker will re-
main with the Town so long as the County funds are available. A
typical personnel assignment schedule is depicted in Figure 3-2.
The existing equipment at the Southold landfill facility con-
sists of a front-end loader with the following features:
1. Allis-Chalmers - Model AC-llOOO, rubber tired.
Hours of Operation (as of 5/79): 9,000 hours.
Year of Purchase: 1972.
Rebuilt Motor.
Bucket: 4 cubic yards, general purpose.
Additionally, a portable conveyor equipment is also available
at the site for the purposes of loading the excavated sand unto
trucks. The Highway Department's trucks are utilized for on-site
transporting and stockpiling cover material for landfill opera-
tions.
The front-end loader is utilized for excavating sand and
spreading, compacting and covering of solid waste.
At the time of preparing this report, the front-end loader
was out of service, in need of repairs. The Town Highway Depart-
ment front-end loader is at the site performing the landfill
operations. The Town is currently in the process of acquiring
State funds, under Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972, for
3.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE N2 3 - 2
1st WEEK
2nd WEEK
M T W T F S S
M T W T F S S
EMPLOYEE #1
EMPLOYEE #2
EMPLOYEE #3
-
EMPLOYEE #4
CET A EMPLOYEE
NOTES: (1) Daily Operating Hours are 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
(2) Town Employees work on a Rotating Schedule.
TYPICAL PERSONNEL ASSIGNMENT SCHEDULE
AT SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REPORT
JUNE 1979
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.I H2M CORP.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
M.LVILLI" N. Y.
FAAMNGDALE,N.Y.
FlVERHEAD. N_Y.
NEWTON, N. J.
3.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P,C. / H2M CORP.
the purchase of new landfill equipment. Equipment needs at the
landfill are discussed later in this report.
3.2.1 Existing Disposal Costs
The following is the 1978 breakdown of the expenses for the
operation of the Southold sanitary landfill, as reported by the
Town officials:
Personnel Services
(Labor plus Benefits)
$ 59,000.
Contractual Services
(Includes lights, power,
contractual repairs of
equipment, materials and
supplies)
18,000.
TOTAL 1978 BUDGET
$ 77,000.
Town of Southold does not have a separate budget for its sani-
tary landfill facility. All capital and operating expenses are
appropriated from the General Funds Account as approved by the
Town Board.
3.2.2 Unit Costs of Disposal
Based on the above cost of landfill operations, and 1978
quantities of solid waste received at the landfill (34,000 tons),
the unit cost of disposal is computed as $2.26 per ton.
3.3 Landfill Site Life
The useful life of a sanitary landfill is a function of
several parameters such as the rate at which solid wastes are
deposited, the in-place compaction density, the cover material
requirements, and the volumetric capacity of the site. To
3.7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
calculate the remaining life of the Southold landfill, we have
established these parameters as follows:
1. Rate of solid waste deposited: 34,000 tons for 1978,
and according to Table 2-6, Column 5, thereafter.
2. In-place compaction density: 600 Ibs.jcubic yard.(a)
3. Ratio of refuse to cover material, by volume: 4:1.
The volumetric capacity is determined by establishing the
final grade and the depth of fill for various sections of the
site. These sections are shown in Figure 3-3. A large scale
site plan showing the existing contours and the site facilities
is included in Appendix A of this report. In accordance with
the NYSDEC Regulations for Mining Operations and Sanitary Land-
fill a number of design criteria have been used to arrive at the
fill volume available for each of these sub-areas. They include:
1. The fill areas terminate at a minimum of 50 feet
from the property-line.
2. Side slopes of the excavated areas are at 300 to
the horizontal.
3. The existing elevations are as of April 1979.
4. The final grade of the filled areas is brought to
the original contours (prior to any excavation).
Of the total 41 acres at the Southold landfill site, approxi-
mately 12 acres are completed to the final grade. The areas lost
due to the 50 foot margin, slope of excavation, scavenger waste
(a) This is assumed to be the most practicable density achievable
at the Town landfill under the existing operating conditions.
3.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOTAL AREA OF 41 ACRES LANDFILL
SCAVENGER WASTE
DISPOSAL LAGOONS
F-
I
CD
@
EXISTING DISPOSAL
AREA
COMPLETED AREA
50'-ldr:
PROPERTY LINE
@
.--
ENTRANCE AND BUFFER
,~-
-:-
- t/I\OOL.E
RO~O
tc.R 2:71
AREA
ACREAGE
2
2
6
3
8
* AS OF APRIL 1979
SITE LIFE DETERMINATION OF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
FIGURE Nil 3 - 3
FUTURE
LANDFILL AREA
FUTURE MINING
AND LANDFILL
I AREA
J
-
AVAILABLE VOLUMETRIC
CAPACITY (AC.-FTJ*
30
210
317
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REPORT
JUNE 1979
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
3.9
MI!LVILLI:, N. Y.
FAFlMINGDALE,N.V.
flVEAHEAO, N.Y,
NEWTON. N. J.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
lagoons, buffer zones and access roads amount to 13 acres. Thus,
the remaining area available for existing and future landfill
operations is approximately 16 acres which is further divided into
three sub-areas. Based on the information portrayed in Figure 3-3,
the volumetric capacity of the sub-areas as of April 1979 is com-
puted and presen ted in Table 3-1. The .total remain ing capaci ty
of the landfill site is computed as 898,600 cubic yards.
Yearly landfill volume depletion calculations beginning
April I, 1979 are presented in Table 3-2. These calculations
are based on the aforementioned parameters for the projected
waste quantities deposited in the landfill, the in-place com-
paction densities and the cover material requirements. The
landfill volume depletion is graphically illustrated in Figure
3-4.
It can be seen that the entire site volume of 898,600 cubic
yards will be exhausted by the beginning of the year 1985. Thus,
the life of the Southold landfill site calculated as of April
1979 is 5.75 years.
3.4 Scavenger Waste Disposal
Scavenger wastes are the liquid pumpings of cesspools, leach-
ing systems that failed to operate properly. The general nature
of the leaching systems causes ultimate failure. The typical
residential system has an average life of 8 to 12 years. Commer-
cial establismnents and restaurants require more frequent pumping.
A leaching system fails due to various causes such as high ground-
water conditions, poor soil characteristics for leaching,
3.10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURREll, P.C. I H2M CORP.
TABLE 3-1
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
VOLUMETRIC CAPACITY OF SOUTH OLD LANDFILL
AVERAGE AVAILABLE AVAILABLE
AREA TOTAL DEPTH VOLUMETRIC VOLUMETRIC
DESIG- AREA OF FILL CAPACITY CAPACITY
NATION (ACRES) (FEET) (ACRE-FT.) ( CU . YD. )
1 2.0 15 30 48,400
2 6.0 35 210 338,800
3* 8.0 40 317 511,400
TOTALS 16.0 558 898,600
*Within this area is situated a LILCO high tension steel tower.
LILCO has indicated that a 20 ft. clearance and a minimum of
450 slope is required when excavating around the tower. The
resulting loss of site volume due to this requirement amounts
to approximately 4,800 cubic yards (3 acre.-ft.).
3.11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
TABLE 3-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
YEARLY LANDFILL DEPLETION
SITE VOLUME REMAINING
AT YEARLY YEARLY REFUSE SITE VOLUME
BEGINNING REFUSE PLUS COVER AT END
OF YEAR QUANTITIES MATERIAL OF YEAR
YEAR (CU. YD.) (CU. YD.) (CU.YD.) (CU. YD. )
1979* 898,600 86,900 108,600 790,000
1980 790,000 118,400 148,000 642,000
1981 642,000 122,000 152,500 489,500
1982 489,500 125,700 157,100 332,400
1983 332,400 128,900 161,100 171,300
1984 171,300 132,200 165,300 6,000
1985 6,000 136,000 170,000 **
*Site 1if~ determined as of April I, 1979.
**6,000 cu.yds. will be utilized in approximately two weeks
beginning 1985.
3.12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE N!! 3-4
01
,....
01
..J
1000 0:
!l.
<(
900
UJ
l-
(/)
~ 800 .J
0
0 .J
G:
0 0
" 700 z
<(
>- .J
U
- ~
UJ 600 0
::;:
::> z
.J 0
0 500 ~
> UJ
.J
0 l1.
Z ::;:
<( 400 0
.J U
UJ 0
.J 300 UJ
1Il I-
<l U
.J UJ
...,
! 200 0
&:
JOO
0
1979 80 81 82 83 84 85
YEAR
LAND VOLUME DEPLETION
OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REPORT
JUNE 1979
HOLZMACH~R, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.I H2M CORP.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
MI!LVILU:,N.Y.
FARMtNQOALE, N.V.
FllVERHEAD. N.Y.
NEWTON. N. J.
3.13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOlZMACHER, McllNDON Ind MURREll, P.C. I H2M CORP.
overloading of the leaching system, grease build-up of soil pores
and long-term accumulation of solid matter. Failures are noticed
by owners when backups occur and liquids cannot enter the leach-
ing system. Once failure has occurred, the leaching system is
pumped bY scavenger trucks and the waste disposed of at the sani-
tary landfill facility. Usually, the frequency of pumping in-
creases after the first failure. Recent legislation by Suffolk
County to eliminate the sale of detergents, so not to degrade
the groundwater quality, has caused a return to the use of soap.
This material coats and clogs soil pores and has caused a notice-
able decrease in the life of cesspool-leaching systems.
Sources of scavenger wastes include residences, restaurants,
commercial establishments, industries, laundromats and sewage
pump-out facilities. Sewage pump-out facilities are located at
marinas and docks in order to aid boats in disposing of their
wastes.
At the present time, the scavenger waste is discharged into
either of two uncovered 100 x 75 foot leaching lagoons located in
the northwest corner of the Southold landfill site. A third
lagoon was previously utilized, however, excessive usage and soil
pore cloggage has necessitated the ~bandonment of this lagoon.
The scavenger waste is received on a seven day a week basis in
tank trucks with capacity ranging from 1,000 to 3,000 gallons.
Presently no records of the scavenger waste quantities re-
ceived are maintained at the landfill site. A daily count of
vehicles and gallonage has been recommended in this report.
3.14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENnaN Ind MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
In 1978, a scavenger waste study was conducted over a two
week period at the Southold landfill site. The gallonage of
scavenger waste discharged on any particular day during the
study period is depicted in Figure 3-5 and Table 3-3.
3.4.1 Future Scavenger Waste Quantities
It can be expected that the increase in the volume of
scavenger waste will follow the same general pattern as the
growth of population for the area. At present, the only com-
munity sewered is Greenport (Incorporated and a small portion
of the unincorporated) with an estimated 1979 service popula-
tion of 4,075. A wastewater facility plan is currently under-
way for the Town of Southold. This plan is expected to recom-
mend the expansion of the existing sewered area to include an
additional 1,000 persons, which is only 6 percent of the total
unsewered pOPulation of Southold. Therefore, this change will
have a minor effect on the total scavenger waste volume received
at the landfill. The Town of Southold has applied to the NYSDEC
for a SPPES permit to continue the present means of scavenger
waste dieposal until a more environmentally acceptable method
can be developed in accordance with a compliance schedule keyed
to the 201 program. Until then, the scavenger waste from the
unsewered areas of Southold will continue to be disposed of at
the landfill.
Alternate means of disposal for the scavenger waste is not
expected to be implemented until 1983. Inclusion of the details
of the alternate means of disposal is beyond the scope of this
report. Projected scavenger waste quantities that might be ex-
pected at the Southold site are as follows: 1980 - 1,230,000 gal-
Ions; 1981 - 1,260,000 gallons; and 1982 - I, 290,000 gallons.
3.15
-------------------
w
.....
Cll
~s
@j:;j
~~
tl.~
mO
zZ
~m
Z21
m.
~~
SJlO
"r-
s;m
zz
ZC
mO
i]lz
~go
m~
Zc
$JI
2J1
~l!!
mr-
z-
-1'11
)> .
""0
00.
Q....
mZ
!iN
!!l~
000
o
:II
'11
~~!"t
~m ~
~! e
Z~ .
'-z ~
. :<z~
:.c
c:...
C
Z
IT!
lD
-..j
lD
(I)
o
r-
o
~
~
(I)
-t
",
~
~
Z
~
Ci)
",
~
",
Z
-t
"lJ
r-
~
z
~
z
o
;:u
",
"lJ
o
;:u
-t
-t
o
~
z
o
"TI
(I)
o
C
-t
%
o
r-
o
(I)
(")
~
fTI
Z
Ci)
fTI
;:u
~
(J)
-I
fTI
GALLONS OF SCAVENGER WASTE DISCHARGED
o
4/7 RES I.
.....
o
o
::>
4/8 RESTAURANT
4/10 RESIDENTIAL
4/11 RESIDENTIAL
4/12 RESI.
" 4/13 COID\.
.....
tI.l
(34i18 RESI.
:;
-
~
C) 4/19 RES!.
t<l
~ 4/21 RESL
..,
t<l
4/23 COMM. REST.
4/24 RESIDENTIAL
4/26 RESI.
4/28 RESL
4/29 RESL
5/1 RESI.
5/2/78 COMM.
r-o
""
-
o
o
o
o
o
o
j
I
I
1
i
i
I
I
I~
10
I~
Ig
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
RES!.
~
01
Cll '-l
c
co
o
.
o
o
p
o 0
o c
o p
RESIDENTIAL
COMMERCIAL
o
o
p
00
to
o
o
o
.....
o
o
o
p
I
;<l::l:()
t'lt=::O
C/)tI.lE:
..,HE:
I I I
~::tlO
t=jt=jO
CDCfJS::
I-3HE:
:>t:1t=::
c::t=::::o
::::zn
:>..,H
ZH:>
"':>1:""'
I:""'
.....
.....
.
o
o
~
I:""'
t=::
C)
-
z
"
:!!
(i)
c:
::u
IT!
Z
10
(>I
I
UI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. I H2M CORP.
TABLE 3-3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SCAVENGER WASTE DISCHARGED AT TOWN
LANDFILL DURING TWO WEEK PERIOD
GALLONS
RESIDENTIAL
33,650
RESTAURANT
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRY
LAUNDRY
3,700
12,000
TOTAL
49,350
3.17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLI!NDON .nd MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
4.0 EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
4.0 EXISTING SITE ANALYSIS
4.1 Introduction
This section provides a site analysis of the Southold exist-
ing solid waste disposal facility. The scope of this section
was determined after conversations with the NYSDEC officials re-
garding the applicability of the Part 360 gUidelines to an exist-
ing solid waste landfill.
4.2 Location
As mentioned previously, the Southold landfill site is
located north Qf North Road between Cox and Depot Lanes. The
facility is situated in a rural, agricultural-industrial zoned
area, approximately 2.5 miles east of Mattituck, one mile north
of Cutchogue aqd 8 miles west of the Inc. Village of Greenport.
4.3 Transportation Systems
The major access road leading to the landfill is North Road
(County Road RQute 27), which is rated' as a four lane divided
highway. North Road runs in the east-west direction from one
end of the towqship to the other. All refuse collection vehicles
use the North aoad since the entrance to the landfill is situated
on North Road.
The Southo1d facility does not require a rail transporta-
tion system and is not serviced with a spur from the Long Island
Railroad.
Operational airports in the vicinity of the landfill in-
clude Mattituck Airbase (3.0 miles southwest) and Suffolk County
4.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER. McLIlNDO'" and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
Airport at Westhampton (17 miles southwest). The locations of
these airports are not considered factors in the landfill opera-
tions.
4.4 To~ography and Subsurface Conditions
Southold Township is located on the north-east protrusion
of Suffolk: County known as the "North Fork". This region of Long
ISland is an e~tension of the Harbor Hill moraine (along north
shore) which was produced during the advance of the last period
of continental glaciation in this area of the north-east. The
Southold solid waste disposal facility is situated on an outwash
plain, south of the Harbor Hill moraine. The topograhpic fea-
tures of the site area are described as that of rolling moraines
and level to gently sloping outwash plains. From the surface
down to a depth of more than 100 feet, the principal soils en-
countered are classified as well graded sand and gravelly sand.
The landfill site is underlain by a minimum of 60 feet of sand
and gravel with local discontinuous zones of silt and clay.
Figure 4-l displays a fence diagram representing the local geo-
logy, three dimensionally.
4.5 Cli!Jlate
4.5.1 Temperature and Humidit~
The Town of Southold lies within the northern temperate
belt and has a climate that is the result of both continental
and maritime influences. The air masses and weather systems
affecting the township have their origin principally over the
North American Continent, but are in turn moderate and affected by
the adjacent waters of Long Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean.
4.2
I
. I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r~'::7;:' "~""I
" .... ......
;,'. - . ',.. ,:... ,-: .. .....
[2'
. ..-......
:-,.......,..
.... " .
.-:.-.,
E~B.
-........-
.......--...--.
..,.... . .-..
~~:~
'-'-'
-'-'
w.
SAND a GRAVEL
SAND
CLAYEY SAND
SANDY CLAY
CLAY
TILL (POORLY SORTED SAND,
GRAVEL AND CLAY}
.4!1............ .....
..-.................
....;:::;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::;:::;:;:::;:::::::;:;:::;::
.... j)i" LANDFILL SITE
FIGURE N2 4 - I
stJUt4D
ISI.A14D
NORTH RO.
o
I
SOUTHOLD
LANDFILL SITE
200'
o
50d
500' BELOW SEA LEVEL
GEOLOGIC
FENCE DIAGRAM FOR SOUTHOLD SITE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REPORT
JUNE 1979
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL. P.C.I H2M CORP.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
MBLVtLU!. N. Y.
FARMINGOAL.e. N. v.
A1VEFtHEAO. N.Y.
NEWTON.N.J
4.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
Long Island is located between 400 and 420 north latitude
in a temperature climate belt. The mean annual temperature in
Southold is about 510F. (lloC.), a few degrees higher than the
mean annual temperature for New York State. This is due to the
tempering influence of the bordering Atlantic Ocean and the Long
Island Sound. The minimum average monthly temperatures occur in
February with a range of about 280F. to 320F. (_20C. to OOC.).
The maximum average monthly temperatures occur in July with a
range from about 690F. to 750F. (200C. to 240C.). Average tem-
peratures decrease as one travels eastward and, in general,
temperatures found on the south shore are lower than those of
the north shore at similar longitudes. High humidity is also
a characteristic of Southold climate strongly influenced by the
low altitude of the land mass and its proximity to large water
bodies.
4.5.2 Precipitation
The mean annual precipitation for Southold Township ranges
from about 41 to 50 inches (104.1 to 127.0 em) per year and
varies considerably throughout the Town*. An average annual pre-
cipitation of 42 inches is equal to 730 million gallons per square
mile per year (one inch of water per square mile is equivalent to
17.4 million gallons). Table 4-1 shows the monthly and annual
inches of precipitation for ten stations within the Town and for
*Crandell, H.C., Geology and Groundwater Resources of the Town of
Southold, S.C., N.Y., USGS Water Supply Paper 1619-GG, 1963.
4.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
three nearby stations for the years 1958 and 1959. The precipi-
tation regime in Southold Township is characterized by increased
precipitation in the months of March, August, November and Decem-
ber, with a brief dry spell occurring in the summer. Table 4-2
lists the precipitation in inches taken at the Greenport power-
house from 1964 to 1976.
4.6 Site Description
The existing landfill site is located on a 41 acre tract of
land north of North Road. The Town first initiated landfill
operation at the existing site in 1954. Prior to this time, the
residents utilized this as a dump site without supervision since
1940.
Access to the site is through the main gate off North Road.
The designated dump areas for self-haulers, private collections
and scavenger waste vehicles are serviced by well maintained
hardpacked dirt right-of-ways that emanate from the main access
road reaching into the facility. Numerous hardpacked dirt right-
of-ways are observed in the central interi~r of the facility.
The natural environment surrounding the Southold landfill is
typical of the type common throughout the entire length of Long
Island's North Fork. Vegetation is predominantly oak-pine forest
intermixed with northern hardwoods common to the Island's north
shore. Pitch pine (Pinus ri~ida), white oak (Quercus alba), black
oak (Quercus velutina) and red and sugar maples (AceI' rubrum and
A. saccharum) are the specific dominants. Common herbaceous species
include goldenrods (Solidago spp.) and numerous tall and short grass
4.6
I HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and Ij'IURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
I
I TABLE 4-2
TOI'IlJ OF f,OIlTflOLD
I T0T.^ L Plmr:IPITATION III Im:lIES llECORDEll AT
VILLAGF OF GREENP0RT P01'lET'1l0m;E (FLEVATION 16 FEET)
I
HONTlI 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964
I -
Jan. 3.08 6.39 5.96 4.09 3.98 2.14 1. 05 1. 32 3.34 1.18 4.61
I Feb. 2.21 2.88 4.54 2.10 2.99 5.31 2.96 0.40 2.05 3.87 2.67 3.65
Mar. 5.02 2.99 3.34 4.26 3.93 4.49 2.72 5.86 5.53 2.15 1. 92 2.49
I Apr. 3.84 1. 87 4.24 3.23 7.21 4.13 4.20 0.94 3.16 1. 36 3.45 6.54
May 1.95 2.84 3.30 3.33 4.26 4.80 2.38 3.40 7.25 6.31 2.01 0.86
I June 3.82 1. 20 4.41 2.72 3.63 8.64 1. 44 3.70 3.52 1. 67 1. 93 1. 77
I July 1. 98 4.28 4.35 0.63 7.89 2.38 5.38 0.65 5.08 0.96 2.94 3.94
Aug. 6.98 10.83 2.16 2.32 3.66 1. 04 3.30 2.30 2.67 1. 89 2.95 1. 32
I Sept. 5.31 3.19 5.58 4.38 1. 98 3.52 1. 08 2.52 5.12 1. 93 3.09
Oct. 4.85 5.92 3.11 2.05 3.42 5.78 2.92 2.55 1. 97 3.07 2.03 4.99
I Nov. 3.21 0.73 5.11 1.43 2.33 6.98 5.86 3.78 3.71 1. 37 2.64
I Dec. 2.93 3.48 6.16 6.41 6.30 6.33 6.04 3.18 1.56 5.46
Avg. 46.05 49.58 36.70 51. 69 55.51 34.12 44.89 36.63 25.94 41. 36
I !lean Annual (1964-1977) : 42.2 inches
I *Precipitation was not recorded during 1970 and 1971
I Ref: Climatological Data, National Oceanographic &
Atmospheric A<!ministration
I
I
I 4.7
---- .-.--
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
species typical of old fields and coastal regions. Many agricul-
tural species occur in outlying areas due to extensive agronomic
production in this region.
The composition of fauna on-site is the same as that found
in landfills allover Long Island. Gulls, crows, starlings, field
mice, rats and other small to medium sized mammals are abundant.
Outlying areas provide habitat for higher vertebrates such as
raccons (Procyon lotor), opposums (Didelphis marsupials) and
raptorial bird species. The invertebrate community on the land-
fill consists of mostly insects, specifically flies (Order Diptera)
and a wide arraY of soil arthropods and microorganisms associated
with organic matter decomposition.
Adherence to NYSDEC Part 360 regulations for solid waste
management prevents any of these species from becoming a nuisance
or public health threat.
Peripheral fencing at the Southold landfill consists of a
5 foot chain link fence. This fence circumscribes the entire
landfill except for the two acres of buffer at the entrance to
the site.
Numerous groundwater aquifer formations at varying depths
underlie the landfill site. The shallowest of these, the glacial
aquifer, is cOmPosed of mostly stratified sand and gravel de-
posita and is the only domestic water source for the area. From
available water table contour maps and soil borings completed
at three on-site locations, the groundwater levels at the land-
fill reportedly varied from 3 to 5 feet above mean sea level.
Surface water at the landfill is non-existent.
4.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLINDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
The location of the Southold landfill facility does not fall
within the delineated flood boundaries determined by USGS. These
boundaries have been plotted and are shown on Figure 4-2. The
maximum flood boundaries represent the 100 year flood zones.
Sandy soil characteristics and sound management practices
preclude any problems with drainage at the landfill site. Final
cover material on completed sections is graded to prevent pond-
ing and erosion, and to reduce water infiltration into the solid
waste cells to a minimum.
Site utilities consist of an electric service line and a
telephone line located in a booth in the central section of the
landfill. Potable water and sanitary facilities are located in
the maintenance building.
Due to the remote, rural location of the landfill facility,
noise geperated by excavation and landfill operations do not
have a significant impact on the surrounding environment. All
landfill equipment are fitted with ade~uate noise attenuation
fea tures.
4.7 Groundwater Depths and Flows
In 1974 HM&M under contract to the County of Suffolk, con-
ducted a subsurface investigation for the Southold landfill site.
Three core borings were taken at locations depicted in the site
plan. The records of these borings are included in Appendix B
of this report. The groundwater depths for the three locations
are as follows:
4.9
I
, I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE N2 4-2
LON G
I S L A 11 JJ
SOUND
".
'.
"
.,......
<
'. .
<
.
CONNf:CTICUT
""
",
.
~ ~ .. '"
.
.
o
",
200CI 0 4OQO
""
FLOOD PLAIN AREAS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REPORT
JUNE 1979
HOLZMACHER, Mct.ENDON & MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
MELVILLE. N.Y.
FARMlNGOALE. NY
FlVERHEAO. N.Y
NEWTON. N J
4.10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLIlNDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
Depth Below
Ground
Surface
16'0"
43'0"
26'6"
Surface
Ground
Elevation
19.22
46.56
29.51
Water
Table
Elevation
3.22
3.56
3.01
Boring Location A
Boring Location B
Boring Location C
Based on data maps obtained from the on-going 201 Wastewater
Facility Plan of the Town of Southold/Inc. Village of Green-
port, and a USGS report on the Hydrogeology of Suffolk County,
Long Island, New York, by Jensen & Soren (1974), the altitude
of the water table on the Upper Glacial aquifer is positioned
approximately 5 feet above sea level. The landfill is positioned
near the center of the groundwater mound. Below this aquifer is
the Magothy aquifer, the upper surface of which varies from 100
to 150 feet below sea level.. Separating the Magothy from the
underlying Lloyd aquifer is a semi-permeable layer of Raritan
clay which somewhat inhibits the vertical flow of water from the
Magothy to the Lloyd aquifer. The Magothy and Lloyd aquifers are
not usable for potable purposes.
A general geological cross-section of the Southold peninsula
is shown on Figure 4-3.
Accretion, the portion of precipitation which is not lost
to evapotranspiration or direct runoff will flow in a vertical
direction until it reaches the zone of saturation or water
table. Upon reaching the water table the water will flow in
a somewhat horizontal fashion in the direction of decreasing
hydraulic gradient. The direction of flow is perpendicular to
the groundwater contours.
Groundwater flow of the Upper Glacial aquifer, in the
area of the landfill site, is apparently in a northwesterly
direction perpendicular to the 5 foot water table contour.
4.11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE N2,4-3
Raf. USGS Water Supply
Paper 1619-GG, 1963.
----
..0
.,
SIi.:'" t..Evf.L
-200
[Jric
Otij'.
t..)PJ~
'I.it
.v
-200
-300
~400
{j
.Qc-
uiii'
OJ:>i11:t.t
'.v
-500
-60Cl
----..-;,,-r:"~.
.41.....
.,~o-
~ r~..
GENERALIZED ISOMETRIC GEOLOGICAL
CROSS SECTION OF THE SOUTHOLD PENINSULA
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REPORT
JUNE 1979
HOLZMACHt:R. McLENDON & MURRELL. P.C. I H2M CORP.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
M_LVILLK,N.Y.
F~E,N.Y.
R1VERHEAO, N.V.
NEWTON, N. J.
4.12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON end MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
This flow continues in this direction until it reaches the
Sound. Direction of this flow can be influenced by local well
withdrawals. Water in the Upper Glacial aquifer flows at an
approximate rate of 0.5 feet/day. Due to hydraulic differences,
horizontal flow in the underlying aquifers is somewhat slower,
with flow rates of approximately 0.2 feet/day in the Magothy and
0.1 foot/day in the Lloyd aquifer.
If leachate plumes are generated by the landfill they will
usually flow in the same direction as the water in the upper por-
tion of the water table.
4.8 Adjacent Ground and Surface Water Quality
4.8.1 Groundwater
Groundwater is the predominant source of drinking water
supply in Suffolk County. USEPA requirements for the quality
of drinking water are listed in Table 4-3. Alongside these
standards, the New York State (NYS) and 1962 U.S. Public Health
Service (USPHS) standards are listed. Prior to promulgation of
the USEPA and NYS standards, the USPHS standards were the guide-
lines followed by most water suppliers. Compliance dates, fre-
quency of sampling and required analysis are shown in Table 4-4.
The absence of water quality monitoring wells at the Southold
landfill site preclude any detailed analysis of groundwater quality
and specific flow patterns at this time. Groundwater and surface
water data derived from the 201 Study (HM&M), and Long Island
Water Resources Bulletin (LIWR-8) is, however, available for
the nearby wells and surface waters. Figure 4-4 shows the
4.13
HOLi;MACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TAfiLE 4-3
DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
SCHEDULE OF PERMI 5Sl fiLE Lnn TS
(Units arc mg/l, !JlIless Otherwise Stated)
PARAMETER
Standard Plate Count
Total Coliform MPN
Fecal Coliform MPN
Corrosivity
pH
Hardness
Alkalinity
Total Solids
Total Dissolved Solids
Turbidity
Color
Odor
Threshold Odor Number
Nitrite
Hydrogen Sulfide
Nitrate (as N)
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
Totll1 Phosphorus
Detergent (MBAS)
(Foaming Agents)
Phenols
Cyanide
Ammonia
CCE
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
USPHS
1962
2.2
500
5 Units
15 Units
3 Units
10.0 (C)
250
250
1.0
0.5
0.001
0.01/.2
0.2
0.01/.05
1.0
0.01
4.14
EPA 1977
(PI. 93-523)
2.2
Non-Corrosive
6.5 - 8.5
500
1 Unit
15 Units
3 Units
0.05
10.0(e)
250
250
2.4
0.5
(A)
(G)
0.05
1.0
0.010
N.Y.STATE
EFFECT IVE
6/24/77
(F)
(11)
5 Units
15 Units
3 Units
10.0(C)
250
250
(E)
0.05
1.0
0.010
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M COHP.
TABLE 4-3 (CONT'D.)
PARMIETER
Hexavalent Chromium
Total Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
~1ercury
Selenium
Sodium
Silver
Zinc
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDT
Dieldrin
Endrin
Lindane
~1etho)[ychlor
Toxaphene
2, 4-D
2, 4, s.rp Silvex
Organophosphates
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
I, 1, 2 Trichloroethylene
Trifluoro-trichloroethane
Tetracqloroethylene
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
I, 1, 1 Trichloroethane
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Rad ium 226 & 2 28
Strontium 90
Tritium
N.Y.STATE
USPIIS EPA 1977 EI'I'ECTIVE
1962 (PL 93 523) 6/24/77
0.05
0.05 0.05
1.0 1.0 1.0
0.3 0.3 0.3(B)
0.05 0.05 0.u5
0.05 n.05 O.3(B)
0.002 0.002
0.01 0.01 0.01
(D)
0.05 0.05 0.05
5.0 5.0 5.0
0.0002 0.0002
0.004 0.004
0.1 0.1
0.01 0.01
0.1 0.1
0.01 0.01
1000 pcll
3 pcll
10 pcll
Tentative
15 pcll
1000 pell
5 pel1
2 pell
20,OnO pell
15 pell
5 pcll
8 pe/1
20,000 pe/l
4.15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P,C. I H2M CORP.
TABLJ: 4-3 (COIJT'D.)
NOTES: pcll indicates "pico-curies per liter"
MPN indicates "Most Probable Number" per 100 ccs
(A) - Since some of the chlorophcnols produce a dtltectable taste
or odor at concentrations as low as 1 p.p.b. which can
easily be detected by the odor test, the inclusion of a
limit for phenols is unnecessary.
(B) - Iron & manganese not to exceed 0.5 mgll if hoth present.
(C) - Should not be used for infant feeding if in excess of
limi t .
(D) - Water with 20 mgll or more should not be used by those
on severely restricted sodium diets.
(E) - Where the annual average of the maximum daily air tempera-
tures for the location of the community water system is
the following, the maximum contaminant levels for fluoride
are:
Maximum
Contaminant Level
Temperature
53.8 to 58.30P.
(12.1 to l4.60C.)
58.4 to 63.80f
(14.7 to l7.60C.) 2.0 mgll
(P) - When the fermentation tube method is used, coliform bac-
teria shall not be present in any of the following:
(1) more than 10 per cent of the portions analyzed in
any month.
(2) three or more portions in more than one sample \,hen
less than 20 samples are examined per month; or
(3) three or more portions in more than 5 per cent of
the samples when 20 or more samples are examined
per month.
(G) - Since cyanide rarely occurs in drinking water, the Ad-
ministrator (EPA) has decided to withdraw cyanide [rom
the Interim Drinking Water Regulations.
(H) - Corrosivity shall be determined by calcium carbonate
saturation or other method acceptable to the commissioner.
A water other than non-corrosive may be allowed by the
State based on justification submitted by the supplier
of water. Such justi.fication shall include, but may not
be limi ted to:
(1) Data concerning increases in metal concentrations of
point of use water as compared to source water metal
content; .
(2) Districution water quality characteristics such as
calcium hardness, alkalinity, total dissolved solids
and pH;
(3) Documentation of the lack of conplaints or potential
adverse effects; and
(4) A report summarizing, for at least a period of one
year, the above.
2.2 mgll
4.16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
,pBLE 4-4
rn!'p L IAliCF J\L\TfS, F~E()l'T:!Tr I r.S Aim v ARlOPS RE('lT'l PEf' MJAL YSES
INTERIM
COMMUNITY:
POPULATION
LESS THAN
1,000
SURFACE GROUND
PRIMARY DRINKING WATER
COMMUNITY:
POPULATION
MORE THAN
1,000
SURFACE GROUND
STANDARDS - COMPLIANCE
COMMUNITY:
POPULATION
MORE THAN
100,000
SURFACE GROUND
REQUIREMENTS
NON-COMMUNITY:
AT LEAST
25 SERVED,
15 OUTLETS
SURFACE GROUND
REQUIRDIENT
Total Coliform Count
June 1977
One/month
June 1977 June 1977 June 1977
One/month /Population /Population
Substitute Chlorine
Residual
Up to 75% Up to 75%
of Coli of Coli
Counts Counts
June 1977 June 1977
Daily Daily
June 1979 June 1979 June 1978 June 1979
then Annual then Tri- then Annual then Tri-
Annual Annual
June 1978 June 1979 June 1978 June 1979
then Annual then Tri- then Annual then Tri-
Annual Annual
June 1978 by State June 1978 by State
then Tri- Regula- then Tri- Regula-
Annual tion Annual tion
(To be set at
Turbidity
Nitrate
Maximum Contaminant
Levels
Pesticides
Radioactivity
June 1977
/Population
Up to 75%
of Coli
Counts
June 1977
/Population
Up to 75%
of Coli
Counts
June 1977
Daily
June 1978 June 1979
then Annual then Tri-
Annual
June 1978
then Annual
June 1978
then Tri-
Annual
later
June 1979
then Tri-
Annual
by State
Regula-
tion
date)
4.17
June 1979
Four/year
June 1979
Daily
June 1979
the by
State Re-
gulation
June 1979
Four/year
June 1979
then by
State Re-
gulation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE N2 4- 4
NOTE: i) 4BOVE FIGURE SHOWS .
ONLY THOSE OBSERVATION
WELLS FOR WHICH DATA ARE
AVAiLABLE.
2)THERE ARE NO
EXISTING PUBLIC SUPPLY WELLS
WITHIN TWO MILES OF THE
LANDFI LL.
,.-
/'"
./
/
/
/
/
/ o~G
I\;
/ ~.
1/
t~ c.
SOUTHOLD.L/
LANDFILV51TE
-------
,;:,~Q
SO
-
.........
"
~~Q
,s\;
EXISTING GROUND WATER MONITORING LOCATIONS
WITHIN TWO MILES OF SOUTH OLD LANDFILL
SOURCE: SCDHS 1977
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REPORT
JUNE 1979
t-IOLZMACHER. McLENDON & MURRELL. P.C.I H2M CORP.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
MELVILU!:.N.Y.
FAAMINGDALE, N.Y.
FlVERHEAO, N.Y.
NEWTON,N.J.
4.18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
location of the monitoring well stations within a two mile
radius of the landfill. The chemical analysis for the water
samples from these wells is presented in Table 4-5.
There is insufficient data and monitoring wells present
to determine if the existing landfill has generated leachate
and/or a leachate plume and if the leachate has travelled be-
yond the landfill site. Recommendations for monitoring wells
are made in a subsequent section.
4.8.2 Surface Water
There are no surface water bodies in the close proximity
of the Southold landfill. The two closest water bodies lie
approximately 2.2 miles to the south and southeast of the land-
fill site. No chemical analysis is available for the pond to
the south of the site. However, a chemical analysis for the
southeast pond, also known as Wolf Pit Pond, was performed in
1974 with the following results:
Parameter
Wolf Pit Pond
(Mattituck)
Sample Results (mg/l)*
0.4
11.0
8.0
Nitrates (-N)
Chlorides
Hardness
*Holzmacher, et al., 1974 "Water Quality Study in the
Town of Southold".
With groundwater in the area of the landfill flowing northwesterly,
and no surface water bodies located between the landfill and Long
Island Sound, no surface water should be affected by the landfill.
4.19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
TABLE 4-5
TOWN OF SOUTH OLD
CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF GROUNDWATER
QUALITY FROM WELLS WITHIN TWO MILES OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
(Note: All Parameters are in mg/l Units, Unless Otherwise Noted)
PARAMETER
S-53324
Depth of 60
Well (Ft.)
Date of 10/18/74
Sample
Silica 9.9
Iron* 60
Manganese* 100
Calcium 26
Magnesium 8.4
Sodium 23
Potassium 3.2
Sulfate 53
Chloride 48
Nitrate 2.7
Nitrogen 2.8
Ammonia .01
Nitrogen
Dissolved 202
Solids
SpeCific** 400
Conductance
Tempera- 12.0
ture (OC.)
Dissolved 9.2
Oxygen
Total Organ- 2.0
ic Carbon
pH 5 . 5
MBAS .00
S-53326
89
10/22/74
11
140
120
41
13
15
3.0
110
28
8.4
8.5
.01
262
520
11.0
10.1
6.0
.10
S-53327 S-53329 S-53332 S-53334 S-53336
42
10/10/74
7.7
80
100
43
8.6
8.7
3.8
70
21
14
14.2
.01
228
435
12.0
7.5
2.2
5.5
.11
71
2/4/75
11
130
50
70
20
13
2.2
200
32
15
1.5.2
.04
715
11.0
7.2
4.8
.10
43
10/3/74
6.4
o
10
14
1.5
8.0
3.2
28
11
3.2
3.2
.02
89
160
11.0
7.7
4.8
5.9
.05
51
10/8/74
7.4
70
90
26
4.7
5.6
2.4
65
12
6.5
6.6
.01
138
285
11.5
9.1
2.8
6.0
.07
40
11/4/74
6.9
30
30
31
4.9
21
6.6
75
32
6.9
7.0
.00
212
460
12.0
8.1
2.9
5.9
.10
*Iron & Manganese measured in ug/l **Specific Conductance measured in umho
SOURCE:
(1)
(2 )
Groundwater Quality Near the Water Table in Suffolk County,
Long Island, NY, LIWR Bulletin 8, SCDEC, 1977.
201 Wastewater Facilities Plan of the Inc. Village of Green-
port/Town of Southold, HOlzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C.
1978.
4.20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. I H2M CORP.
4.9 Leachate Generation and Movement
4.9.1 General
When water from precipitation, surface runoff, or groundwater
comes in contact with solid waste material in a landfill, a highly
mineralized liquid is produced termed "leachate". Leachate has
been defined as "a liquid, high in biological and chemical oxygen
demand and chemicals (particularly iron, chloride and sodium), and
hardness". As long as any moisture is present in a landfill,
leachate will be produced. Fortunately, the landfill itself has
the ability to absorb much of the leachate that is produced in the
site. In a typical landfill site, approximately 75 percent of the
refuse by weight consists of dry materials such as paper, rubber,
glass, etc., that supplies little or no moisture to the site and
in some cases, such as paper wastes, has the ability to absorb
moisture in a landfill. The leachate will remain confined to the
landfill site until the refuse reaches a point of saturation
known as the "field capacity". The field capacity of a landfill
is defined as "the liquid that can be retained by the fill against
the action of gravity. The field capacity is rapidly obtained in
humid areas of the country, but may not ever be reached in arid
areas of the country. With the normal moisture content of refuse
being 20 percent by weight, on Long Island for every foot of re-
fuse, 6 inches of water entering the refuse would be required to
produce leachate. After the field capacity is reached, any
moisture entering the landfill site will displace an equal amount
of leachate.
The quantity of the leachate produced will be dependent on
factors such as climate, topography, vegetation cover at the
landfill, the type of material deposited in the landfill, and
4.21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURREll. P.C. I H2M CORP.
the degree of compaction of the material deposited. The quality
of the leachate produced will be affected by the composi tion and
amount of refuse, its sorting, the amount of water in contact
with the refuse, the temperature of the air and the interior.
Leachate is produced when water comes in contact with re-
fuse. This water is made available in several ways:
1. Direct precipitation and infiltration into the
landfill.
2. Runoff from precipitation flowing down-slope,
across the surface of landfill and percolating
into the refuse.
3. Directly from the water table where refuse may
be deposited. (Not the case at Southold).
4. Moisture contained in certain types of refuse
(fruits and vegetables may contain up to 80%
water by weight).
In warm, humid climates leachate production is usually
high because of the increased chemical and biological activity
due to the high annual temperature, and the abundance of mois-
ture. In cooler climates the production of leachate may be
reduced near the working surface of the site, but because of
the exothermic nature of the chemical and biological activity
in the site, tempeatures at depth in a landfill may exceed
80oF. all year-round. Landfill sites in arid and semi-arid
climates produce little if any leachate at all. The precipi-
tation that is not lost to evaporation is usually rapidly ab-
sorbed in the dry sections of the landfill site.
The topography of the area around the landfill is also an
influential factor in the amount of leachate a landfill can
4.22
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1-.---
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
potentially produce. Landfill sites located on flat areas or
areas with gentle slopes are less likely to produce leachate
than sites located in gullies, valleys or on hill slopes. The
reason for this is that there is less likely to be runoff enter-
ing a landfill site on a relatively flat area than in a valley
or man-made depression. Steep slopes along valley walls, and
excavation encourage runoff, and the flow is often directed
into a landfill rather than away from it. Man-made and natural
depressions also are often closer to the groundwater table than
hill tops or flat plains. Proper site engineering can usually
correct problems associated with topography.
By definition, the working surface of a sanitary landfill
should be covered daily by a thin layer of soil. The thickness
of this cover ideally should be based on the thickness of refuse
deposited that day. Ratios of 1:4 and 1:8, depth of cover to
depth of refuse, are mentioned as being suitable for a daily
refuse cover formula. The cover material should minimize the
amount of moieture entering the landfill; be able to attenuate
a portion of the leachate produced in overlying refuse cells;
and reduce odor, entry by pests, the blowing of paper; and pro-
vide a more eethetic appearance to the site. To reduce infil-
tration of moisture, the solid cover should characteristically
have low permeability and be resistant to shrinkage or cracking
in dry weather. If the recommended ratios of cover to refuse
are not acceptable for reasons of economics or availability of
cover material, the USEPA recommends at least 6 inches of soil
cover daily, one foot of cover for cells left unattended between
4.23
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. I H2M CORP.
one week to one year, and a minimum of two feet of cover for
completed working areas of a landfill. Field observations of
the landfill sites in Suffolk County have shown that the land-
fill operators deposit anywhere from no daily cover to a maximum
cover of 8 inches per day. The average depth of daily cover at
landfill sites in the County, including Southold, is between 4
and 6 inches.
Vegetative cover on and around the site can have substan-
tial influence on the amount of water that will eventually
infiltrate into the refuse in a landfill site. Trees and low
dense vegetation around a landfill site will reduce runoff by
disrupting surface sheet flow and by keeping soil pores open.
The same vegetation will also affect the annual evapotranspira-
tion rate, which may in turn affect the groundwater table.
Vegetation with high transpiration rates should be planted on
the landfill cover in areas where work has been completed, and
in areas surrounding the landfill site as a means of coping
with excess runoff and high water table.
The larger the landfill, the greater the potential volume
of leachate produced. The amount of leachate produced is direct-
ly dependent on the amount of refuse available in a landfill.
However, the amount of leachate that will ultimately pass from
a landfill is generally controlled more by landfill design than
landfill size.
Classification of refuse can be made on the basis of its
potential to produce leachate. General industrial wastes, con-
sisting of liquid and soluble industrial wastes and toxic
4.24
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
industrial ash have the greatest potential to produce leachate.
Household and commercial refuse and rubbish, which includes
empty tin cans, metals, paper and paper products, cloth and
clothing, lawn clippings, sod, shrubs, dead animals and ashes,
have a moderate potential to produce leachate. Solid inert
wastes are least likely to produce leachate. This last group
consists of earth, rock, concrete, asphalt, glass, plaster,
manufactured rubber products, and clay and clay products.
Slow refuse decomposition and leachate production are
especially common in fills that are placed below groundwater
level. (This is not the case in Southold where the landfill
is above the groundwater table.) The slow stabilization is
thought to be caused by anaerobic conditions that develop in
such landfills. Conversely, aerobic conditions with an adequ-
ate supply of moisture will cause rapid refuse decomposition
and leachate production.
Leachate production is also affected by the degree of com-
paction of the refuse. Highly compacted refuse is less perme-
able and porous than uncompacted refuse. In highly compacted
fill there is less surface area exposed to chemical and bio-
logical decay process. Compacted refuse also acts as an
inhibitor to the downward percolation of fresh water and
leachate.
Fungaroli* examined the production of leachate in a land-
fill site and in a laboratory model. From his investigation
he was able to deduce certain facts regarding the quality of
*Fungaroli, A.A., 1971 Pollution of Subsurface Water by
Sanitary Landfills, USEPA.
4.25
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
leachate produced. Fungaroli found the chemical quality of the
leachate varied with the rate of leachate production. The
following are characteristics of increased leachate production:
1. Drop in the value of pH.
2. Increase of iron concentration.
3. Increase in sulfate concentration.
4. Increase in the concentration of suspended solids.
Landfills where refuse is buried beneath the surface of the
groundwater table will typically undergo anaerobic decay. The
products of anaerobic decomposition of solid wastes include:
methane, CO2, high levels of nitrate, BOD and COD, and very often
putrid odor due to the saturated landfills and the anaerobic de-
compos%tion products created. Aerobic decay produces end products
such as S04' H20 and inert residue since chemical and biological
activity are a function of temperature, BOD and COD values usu-
ally are directly proportional to changes in landfill temperature.
4.9.2 Leachate Control at Southold Landfill
Existence of large amounts of soil underneath the Southold
landfill provides an adequate buffer zone between the refuse
fill and the groundwater, which presumably minimizes leachate
collection or treatment system at present. Proper daily opera-
tion of the sanitary landfill controls leachate pollution.
Surface water is kept from entering the landfill site which
reduces the rate of leachate production and the time it takes
for the landfill to reach field capacity. Runoff and surface
water flow are controlled by terracing and grading.
Operating methods for leachate control include proper
spreading and compaction of refuse to a layer not exceeding two
4.26
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
feet in depth, application of adequate daily, intermediate and
final cover, and seeding the completed area with transpiration
type of vegetation. Good mixing, spreading and compaction of
solid waste allows for improved leachate absorption in the land-
fill and prevents excessive differential settlement as refuse
decomposes.
As pointed out in the previous section, the chemical analy-
sis of the groundwater samples about a mile south of the landfill
does not indicate contamination of groundwater. Since no data are
available for the groundwater conditions in the immediate vicinity
of the site it is difficult to predict the level of contaminant
addition by the landfill to the groundwater. In accordance with
the NYSDEC requirements, a leachate monitoring program for the
Southold landfill is recommended. Details of this program are
discussed in a separate section of this report. Due to the proxi-
mity of the landfill to the center of the groundwater mound, this
program should be given the highest priority.
4.10 Methane Gas Generation and Control
4.10.1 General
The conversion of organic wastes to methane with the sub-
sequent use of the methane for useful energy purposes has been
common-place in sewage treatment plants for more than half a
century. The bacterial-chemical processes used in the sewage
sludge digester are the same as those that occur in a landfill.
A significant difference exists between the two systems, how-
ever, in that, in the sludge digester, it is possible to care-
fully control the environmental factors and the nutrient feed
4.27
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER. McLENOON and MURRELL. P.C. I H2M CORP.
rates in a way that optimiz.es the bacterial activity, while the
landfill is a very haphazard biochemical processing facility.
In fact, when one considers the narrow range of environmental
factors and nutrient levels in which the bacteria thrive, it is
amazing that gas production in a sanitary landfill takes place
at all. The less-than-optimum conditions that exist in a typi-
cal sanitary landfill may very well result in a total gas gener-
ation potential equal to but less than a few percent of the
theoretical maximum. A number of investigators have over the
past 15 years or so attempted from both theoretical and experi-
mental approaches to determine the ultimate gas production that
could result from the decomposition of solid waste.
The three chief constituents of solid waste are carbon
(C), oxygen (0) and hydrogen (H); some nitrogen (N) and a little
sulphur (8) are also present. Through microbiological fermenta-
tion, these five constituents in different combination likely
produce four gases: chiefly carbon dioxide (C02) and methane
(CH4), and with minimal production of ammonia (NH3) and hydro-
gen sulfide (H2S).
Aerobic action is produced by microbes that live on the
free oxygen derived from air; anaerobic action, by microbes
that live in conditions of oxygen deprivation. Since CO2
results from the former and CH4 from the latter, the produc-
tion of CO2 is highest in the first months of a landfill's
existence. As CO2 production declines, CH4 production rises;
then both level off to about equal levels (45 to 50 percent)
after about 2 to 3 years. Gases are generated for long periods
4.28
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
of time, in some cases up to 50 years, until all biodegradable
material has been exhausted.
Methane, a major constituent of "landfill gas", is lighter
than air, and therefore, tends to rise and escape from the land-
fill. However, the density and depth of earth cover over the
sanitary landfill tend to prevent the methane gas from escaping
upward. The entrapped gases will, therefore, develop a positive
pressure sufficient to develop equilibrium between the rate of
generation and the rate of escape. This pressure exerts itself
in all directions within the confinements of the sanitary land-
fill and not only will the gas migrate upward, but also downward
and laterally.
4.10.2 Methane Gas Control
In spite of the uncertainty with regard to the quantita-
tive production of methane gas in sanitary landfills, it is
certain that enough gas will be produced in even the least
active site to require the designer to consider the potential
migration of gas beyond the boundaries of the landfill property.
The cause for concern lies in the fact that methane is a com-
bustible, and in certain mixtures with air, (5 to 15 percent
by volume) an explosive fuel. If it were to migrate to adjoin-
ing property and be accumulated in a confined space where it
might be ignited, the potential for explosion does exist and
there are indeed a number of reported instances where this has
happened. Fortunately, the technology of gas migration prevention
systems is sufficiently developed that the designer can provide
4.29
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
a system that will provide adequate protection to adjoining pro-
perty. In many instances such as in the case of the Southold
landfill, depending on soil type and the extent of the peri-
pheral undisturbed soil buffer area, it will not be necessary
to construct any gas evacuation system. Where it is necessary,
however, to locate sanitary landfills in close proximity to
other developments, such systems may be required, and monitor-
ing systems will be absolutely mandatory. Monitoring will re-
present a continual on-going expense, for the extent of gas
migration at a given site can vary from time to time depending
on such factors as rainfall, gas generation rate, and applica-
tion of irrigation water.
4.10.3 Methane Migration at Southold Landfill
To date no complaints from the surrounding landowners have
been registered with the Town of Southold concerning lateral
methane gas migration or vegetation kills on the adjacent un-
developed areas.
Although methane migration poses no significant problems at
the present time, as a precautionary measure this report recom-
mends routine methane monitoring at the landfill site and sur-
rounding structures.
4.30
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
5.0 EXISTING LANDFILL OPERATIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
5.0 EXISTING LANDFILL OPERATIONS
5.1 Introduction
This section evaluates the existing operations at the Sout-
hold sanitary landfill. A brief discussion relating to landfill
operations was provided in Section 1.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS. A
detailed operating plan is presented herein which illustrates
fulfillment of the regulatory requirements applicable to the Sout-
hold landfill.
5.2 Receipt of Solid Waste
The landfill accepts residential, commercial, institutional
and some agricultural waste generated from within the confines of
the Town of Southold. The commercial and agricultural waste that
are permitted include waste cardboard, packaging materials, scrap
materials, plastics and waste vegetation. At this writing, the
Town is installing a spotting booth at the entrance of the land-
fill area where all incoming vehicles will be identified and
directed to their designated disposal areas. Improvements and
relocation of access roads within the site is also being consider-
ed to achieve more efficient landfill operations.
Ordinary refuse, both residential and commercial arriving in
private collection vehicles, is directly dispatched to its desig-
nated ultimate disposal area. Private cars and small pickups
carrying refuse are diverted to an area where they discharge into
an earth carved storage pit. Once filled a pay10ader scoops up
the refuse from the pit and transports it to the designated land-
fill area. Bulky materials (demolition debris, tree stumps, wood
5.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
and brush) are disposed of in the northern section of the land-
fill where they are leveled to the surrounding elevation. Scaven-
ger waste vehicles are directed to two separate, uncovered, un-
lined, 100 x 75 foot lagoons located in the north-west section of
the landfill site. Here the waste is dumped and allowed to leach
into the soil. Approximately 25 feet separates the bottom of the
scavenger waste lagoons from the groundwater table in this area.
Bundled newspapers are separately collected in a 25 cubic
yard container. Residents are required to bundle the newspapers
themselves. The collected newspapers are periodically hauled
away by a private contractor for recycling purposes. Approxi-
mately 200 tons of newspaper'is received at the landfill site
annually. Similarly, the Town maintains a separate facility for
container storage of bulky metal items such as refrigerators,
stoves, washing machines, etc., which are also removed from the
site periodically by a private contractor.
The Town reportedly does not receive any revenues for the
recyclable materials collected at the landfill. It is recommended
in this report that the Town have firm contracts for the collec-
tion of such materials including certain schedule of revenues pay-
able to the Town. The revenue schedule should be prepared on the
basis of prevailing values of the recyclable materials.
The Southold solid waste facility is not equipped to handle
and does not accept any form of hazardous wastes. These hazardous
wastes include any radioactive materials, toxic chemicals (i.e.
spent industrial acids, pharmaceuticals, irritants, corrosives,
industrial by-products), biological wastes, flammable and/or
5.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
explosive materials. In the event of an unauthorized disposal,
the landfill foreman is directed to notify the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services and the Regional Office of the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation. The land-
fill also does not accept any derelict vehicles or grossly over-
sized scrap.
5.3 Method of Disposal
The Southold landfill utilizes the "trench fill" method for
its solid waste disposal. This technique involves placing refuse
in an excavated portion of the site, spreading and compacting it
to smallest possible volume, and then covering it with the ex-
cavated soil.
The site preparation procedure currently being implemented
at the landfill consists of excavation of soil to a point where
the vertical separation between the flat bottom of the excavated
trench and the existing groundwater table is a minimum of 5 feet.
Refuse is then spread and compacted in2 foot layers and covered
daily with 4 to 6-inches of excavated soil. Lift heights are
limited to between 4 and 6 feet including an approximate 12-inch
layer of intermediate cover.
Present fill sequence at the Southold facility is accomplish-
ed by the placement of solid waste into cells along an approximate
300 foot horizontal (east-west) face in the designated disposal
area. The brush and demolition wastes are deposited immediately
east of this area, progressively in a north-south direction.
Additional rows of solid waste cells are compacted against this
face in a southerly direction until a completed lift covers the
5.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
disposal area. The operation is then repeated beginning at the
north end of the disposal area with the construction of a new
cell face on top of the existing lift layer. As the various
northern sections of the landfill reach their final lift heights,
the disposal operations will gradually shift to the newly excav-
ated southern and eastern ends of the site.
The elevation control of solid waste lifts is accomplished
by the personal jUdgment of the experienced equipment operators.
Compaction of solid waste in the landfill is attained by
multiple passes of the landfill equipment consisting of a rubber
tired wheel loader over the refuse along the sloped working face.
A compaction density of the in-place refuse is estimated at 600
lbs./cu.yd.
5.4 Cover Material Management
Cover material quantities at the landfill can be considered
virtually unlimited given the available on-site excavation. Ap-
proximately 80 cubic yards of cover material (sand, gravel, mixed
with some clay) is mined each day for uses within the landfill.
In addition, on an average 35 cubic yards of material per day is
used by the highway department, and 40 cubic yards of sand is sold
to private contractors. Calculations, which follow, of available
cover material indicate that if current practices are maintained
that sufficient on-site cover material will be available until
the landfill reaches full capacity.
Total volume of cover material available at the landfill site
has been computed as 490,000 cubic yards. The land volume available
5.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
for refuse placement is calculated to be approximately 903,000
cubic yards. Thus, cover material required for landfill opera-
tions over the life of the landfill, assuming a 4:1 ratio by
volume of solid waste to cover material, is approximately 181,000
cubic yards. This leaves about 309,000 cubic yards of sand for
utilization by the highway department and for sale to private
contractors. At the existing rate of 75 cubic yards per day or
27,000 cubic yards per year, it can be safely assumed that con-
tinuation of present cover material management practices will pro-
vide adequate supply of cover material for the remaining life of
the landfill site. Any surplus material can be sold to generate
additional renvenues.
5.5 Personnel Requirements and Responsibilities
As previously discussed (Section 3.0) the work force at the
landfill site consists of four full-time employees with rotating
schedules such that at least two persons are at the landfill at
all times. Overall control of the facility is the responsibility
of the Superintendent of Public Works. Maintenance and adminis-
tration are under his authority. However, the landfill foreman
is responsible for site operations and any immediate problems that
may arise at the site. Spreading, compacting and covering of solid
waste in an environmentally safe manner are the prime responsibil-
ities of all personnel. Their duties also include the excavation
and transport of cover material from the mine site as well as
general clean up.
5.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
5.6 Convenience/Transfer Stations
The Town of Southold does not maintain any convenience cen-
ters or transfer stations for private vehicles. From its source
of origin, all solid waste is directly brought to the existing
Southold sanitary landfill facility in private cars, small pick-
ups or collection vehicles for final disposal.
5.7 Landfill Records
Due to the absence of a weighing scale, accurate records of
solid waste received at the Southold landfill are difficult to
maintain. Only large size collection vehicles which carry a
specific volume of solid waste can provide a fairly accurate
count of waste quantities. Amounts arriving in private cars and
small pickups can only be estimated. As a part of our recommenda-
tion, a sample monthly landfill record sheet has been developed
and included in Appendix C of this report.
Scavenger waste trucks entering the landfill site must fill
out a record sheet indicating basic information required by the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The driver of
each scavenger truck is required to record the date, company and
location of pump out on sign-in sheets located at the personnel
shelter. No records of the quantity of scavenger waste are main-
tained.
5.8 Winter and Inclement Weather Operation
No major problems concerning winter and inclement weather
operations have been reported in conversations with the Superin-
tendent of Public Works. Good drainage at the site together with
5.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON end MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
well maintained roadways keep the facility operable during incle-
ment weather.
5.9 Facility Control
Signs: Adequate signs are posted in full view at the entrance
of the landfill giving all pertinent information as to the days
and hours of operation, restrictions and regulations. Installa-
tion of additional signs is presently being considered by the Town
as a step toward improvement of traffic flow within the site.
Regulations: The Southold facility has few regulations that
pertain to the disposal of wastes at the landfill. Signs indicate
that the facilities are for use of residents of Southold only.
However, there is no enforcement of the residency restriction.
The employees only enforce that refuse be disposed of in its
designated area and that no hazardous wastes are disposed of at
the landfill. The Town presently does not have a solid waste
disposal ordinance.
5.10 Traffic Flow Control
The small scale of this rural operation combined with the
low volume of on-site vehicles at any given time, precludes any
major problems with traffic flow. The traffic is adequately
handled by the existing on-site primary right-of-ways with re-
quired width and shoulders to accomodate most two-way traffic.
During peak flows of the summer months, an employee occasionally
is needed to direct the incoming vehicles.
The peak disposal time is during the weekends of the summer
months when the population increases by 50 percent. Despite this,
no unusual vehicle traffic problems occur.
5.7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C.! H2M CORP.
5.11 Contingency Plans for Control of Undesirable Conditions
Reportedly to date, there have been no prolonged work stop-
pages at the Southold landfill site due to uncontrollable circum-
stances. Undesirable conditions include fires, dust, litter,
water contamination, odor, noise, vectors, unusual traffic con-
ditions and equipment breakdowns.
An on-site well provides supply of potable water and water
for fire fighting purposes to extinguish any small refuse fires.
In the event of large fire emergencies, additional aid can be sum-
moned from the Cutchogue Volunteer Fire Department located approxi-
mately 1.5 miles southeast of the landfill.
Dust at the facility is. kept at a minimum due in part to
well maintained dirt roadways. Water spraying techniques are
employed if dust becomes a nuisance.
The most frequent undesirable condition that must be dealt
with at the Southold Landfill, is that of high velocity winds which
in turn cause litter problems. The combination of being surrounded
by flat plains and being situated near the shore causes the area
to receive a predominantly westerly wind. This, therefore,
creates a problem of litter being blown about the landfill
site and surrounding properties. The landfill utilizes highway
snow fencing in strategic locations opposing the prevailing winds,
to control the litter nuisance. This method of control has, thus
far proved inefficient, collecting only a fraction of blowing
litter. To overcome the problem of the blowing litter, in addi-
tion to the existing snow fencing, this report recommends confining
the landfill operations to a more manageable area, covering
5.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C.! H2M CORP.
the refuse immediately following placement and compaction in the
landfill and creating some type of permanent buffer zone against
the wind direction. The Southold facility presently employs a
laborer under the Federal CETA program to aid in litter control
and general landfill clean-up. Periodically, landfill employees
police the areas outside the site to collect blown litter.
Care is taken at the landfill to inhibit the amount of water
infiltration into the solid waste cells. The procedure is accom-
plished by grading the cover matter in such a way as to prevent
ponding and erosion. The uppermost 4 to 6 inches of cover mate-
rial placed on completed cells is also of a composition suitable
for plant growth. Promoting vegetative growth on solid waste
cells is an important method of removing infiltrated water by
means of evapotranspiration.
Odors emanating from the landfill do not have an impact on
the surrounding environment due to its remote location. Prompt
compaction and covering of the refuse during the entire working
day eliminates many of the odor problems commonly associated with
landfill operations. A problem does exist, however, at the site
of the uncovered scavenger waste pits. The noxious odor of con-
centrated raw waste is quite distinct in the northwest section
of the site, especially following disposal by a scavenger waste
vehicle. No odor complaints from the adjacent residents have
been registered.
The isolated location of the landfill precludes any noise
problems to surrounding areas caused by landfill operations. All
landfill equipment, however, are fitted with suitable noise
.suppression devices.
5.9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
The vector problems at the landfill are kept to a minimum
by the application of good landfilling techniques. The daily
cover placed over the refuse has been found to be effective in
denying food sources and harborage to common landfill vector
such as rats, mice and insects. The seagull population that
frequent the site is substantial but is not considered a seri-
ous nuisance or health hazard.
5.12 Equipment Needs
As previously discussed, the existing equipment at the Sout-
hold landfill, without the assistance of highway equipment, is
inadequate until the Town acquires new equipment to replace the
existing front-end loader.
The equipment needs at the site can be fully met by a new
payloader in combination with an open body dump truck. During the
hours when the solid waste arriving at the site is at a minimum,
the payloader could perform the daily duties of excavating cover
material and top loading the dump truck for hauling and stock-
piling at the designated areas. For the rest of the day, the
payloader could be utilized for refuse handling duties. This ar-
rangement could result in improved landfill operations, increased
equipment life and lower equipment operating and maintenance costs.
The existing front-end loader can either be repaired and kept on-
site as a back-up equipment or be traded in to offset the cost of
purchase of new equipment. In the latter option, the Town will
have to rely upon highway department equipment during downtime
of the regulation landfill equipment.
5.10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
5.13 Illustration of Fulfillment of Regulatory Requirements
In accordance with the NYSDEC Part 360 Regulations, the Town
of Southold is required to illustrate its compliance with the
360 Regulations inasmuch as they apply to an existing solid waste
disposal facility. Following is an itemized delineation of the
Sta te regulations as they are out lined in Sec tion 360.8 of "Pro-
posed New Rules and Regulations - Solid Waste Management Facilities
6 NYCRR Part 360". Under each item is presented the fulfillment
of the requirement by the Town 's existing landfill.
5.13.1 Section 360.8 Facilities Requirements
A. General Requirements for all Solid Waste Management
Facilities -
1. Solid waste shall not be deposited in and shall be pre-
vented from entering surface waters or groundwaters.
At the Southold landfill site, the solid wastes are deposited
a minimum of 5 feet above existing groundwater levels.
2. Solid waste management facilities shall not be placed
on agricultural land designated Class I and/or Class II land, if
such land is being actively used as cropland within an agricultural
district formed pursuant to the Agriculture & Markets Law.
The land now being used for the Southold solid waste facility
is zoned for industrial use. The landfill location has been
used continuously since 1954.
5.11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. I H2M CORP.
3. Leachate shall not be allowed to drain or discharge
into surface water (except pursuant to a SPDES permit issued
pursuant to ECL Art. 17 Title 8 Parts 750-757) and shall not
contravene groundwater quality standards established by the De-
partment pursuant to ECL Sec. 17-0301.
The Southold solid waste disposal facility is not provided
with a conventional leachate collection or treatment system such
as an impermeable liner. Additional groundwater monitoring is
recommended to evaluate the potential for groundwater contamina-
tion, in this sensitive area.
4. Salvaging, if permitted, shall be controlled by the
facility operator within a designated salvage area and shall not
interfere with operations, create hazards or nuisances.
Only authorized salvaging of scrap metal and newspapers by
private contractors is permitted at the site. Two roll-off con-
tainers are kept on-site and designated as storage for metals
and newspapers.
5. Access to facility shall be permitted only when an
attendent is on-duty. This provisions shall not apply to facil-
ities such as transfer stations without operating mechanical
equipmen t.
The landfill is bordered by a 5 foot chain link fence, cir-
cumscribing the entire site. Authorized access to the site is
only permitted between 7:30 A.M. and 5:00 P.M., 7 days a week.
The Town does not operate an off-site transfer station.
6. Access to and use of the facility shall be controlled
by fencing, gates, signs or other suitable means.
5.12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
Access to the landfill facility is controlled by a main gate
off North Road. Adequate signs are posted detailing the hours
and restrictions of operation. However, it is recommended that
additional signs be posted within the site to help locate the de-
signated disposal areas.
7. Blowing papers and litter shall be confined to refuse
holding and operating areas by fencing and other suitable means.
The landfill employs highway snow fencing in designated dis-
posal areas. These current practices are inadequate and it is
recommended that additional controls be provided to confine blow-
ing litter.
8. Vectors, dust and odors shall be controlled by effec-
tive means so that they shall not constitute nuisances or hazards
to health, safety or property.
Adequate supplies of on-site cover material and good land-
filling techniques minimize vector and odor problems. This is
accomplished by 4 to 6 inches of daily cover applied to the dis-
posal area in use. Dust problems are controlled by hardpacking
of road surfaces and with the utilization of water spraying tech-
niques.
9. On-si te roads used to transport solid wastes shall be
maintained passable and safe at all times.
All roads within the site are well maintained, hardpacked,
dirt surfaces. These roads have adequate drainage and remain
passable at all times.
10. Safety hazards to all persons on the facility shall be
minimized.
5.13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
Traffic and disposal within the site is strictly controlled
by landfill personnel to minimize safety hazards. All landfill
equipment is regularly maintained and provided with safety fea-
tures (i.e. back-up warning horn, roll cages). Personal safety
equipment (i.e. hard hats, gloves) are also provided.
11. Noise levels at solid waste management facility shall
be controlled.
No monitoring of the noise levels at the landfill has been
performed to date. However, due to the remote location of the
site, the noise intensities are barely detectable beyond its
property boundaries. Several site visits by the Engineers also
substantiate this statement.
12. Adequately heated and lighted shelters for operating
personnel shall be provided for at the facility. A safe drink-
ing water supply, sanitary toilet facilities and telephone or
radio communication shall also be provided.
A heated and lighted shelter with a telephone is provided on-
site for operating personnel. Water supply and sanitary facilities
are located in the maintenance building.
13. Adequate numbers, types and sizes of properly maintained
equipment shall be available to the facility during all hours of
operations.
Available equipment on-site is properly maintained at all
times. However, requisition of additional heavy equipment is
necessary. The Town has initiated the process of acquiring State
funds for purchasing new landfill equipment.
5.14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
14. Shelter for mobile equipment shall be provided for
routine maintenance and repair.
A maintenance garage is located in the southwest corner of
the landfill site for storage and light maintenance of landfill
equipment. Extensive repair work is performed in the Department
of Highways garage.
15. Open burning shall be prohibited except pursuant to
permit issued by the Department under Part 2B of the Title Mea-
sures shall be taken immediately to extinguish any non-permitted
open burning.
Open burning of solid waste material is prohibited at the
Southold landfill. However, brush material has occasionally
been disposed of through controlled burning. This practice has
been discontinued since notification from NYSDEC.
16. Solid wastes shall be confined to an area which can be
effectively maintained, operated and controlled.
Final deposition of solid waste at the landfill site is
spread, compacted and covered in a prescribed, environmentally
safe manner. Procedures used to transfer the refuse to the final
disposal area are ineffective. Recommendation to improve opera-
tions and control of the landfill is provided in Section 9.0 of
this report.
17. Hazardous wastes shall be accepted only at facilities
which have been specifically approved by the Department for the
processing Or disposal of the specific waste.
The Southold landfill facility is not equipped to handle
hazardous wastes. However, in a recent incidence some 55 gallon
5.15
.'Ii......
" /1.'-'\'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON end MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
drums of waste oil from Mattituck Airbase unnoticeably were dis-
posed of at the landfill site. Personnel are now instructed not
to allow any of these wastes.
18. Records shall be maintained at every facility receiving
hazardous wastes detailing the physical and chemical nature, ori-
gin, quantity, disposal location within the facility disposal
methods for said wastes, and such other information as the Depart-
ment requires upon closing of the facility the said records shall
be filed with the Department.
This regulation does not apply to the Southold facility.
19. Reports on forms acceptable to or provided by the De-
partment shall be submitted at a frequency specified in the opera-
t ion permit.
The Town of Southold stands ready to provide any information
or reports requested by the Department.
20. Facilities shall be maintained and operated to func-
tion in accordance with the permit issued pursuant to this part
and the design and the intended use of the facility equipment
in use at each facility shall be maintained to operate effectively
contingency plans approved by the Department for emergency situa-
tion shall be implemented in accordance with the plans terms.
The landfill is maintained and operated SO as to function in
an environmentally acceptable manner. The equipment at the site
is maintained to operate effectively. Contingency plans for emer-
gency situations are in effect.
21. Solid waste management facilities shall not be operated
or constructed on flood plains unless provisions have been made
to prevent encroachment of flood waters upon said facility.
"
5.16
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
The Southold landfill is not situated on a designated
floodplain.
B. Requirements for Specific Solid Waste Management Facil-
ities Sanitary Landfill -
1. A vertical separation of at least 5 feet shall be
maintained between solid waste and the groundwater table or
bedrock.
The Southold landfill does maintain a minimum of 5 feet
vertical separation between the deposited solid waste and
groundwater table.
2. The required horizontal separation between deposited
solid waste and any surface waters shall be determined for each
sanitary landfill by reference to soil attenuation characteris-
tics, drainage and natural or man-made barriers.
There are no substantial surface water formations in close
proximity to the landfill site.
3. A minimum of three groundwater monitoring wells, or
more as determined by the Department, shall be provided at a new
or modified facility and at least two wells shall be located
downgradient from the solid waste fill area. Appropriately loca-
ted, constructed and monitored wells off-site may be used to
satisfy this requirement. Where determined by the Department,
monitoring wells may be required at facilities in existence on
the effective date of this part.
As of now, the Southold facility does not have the required
three groundwater monitoring wells. however, monitoring wells
are recommended in this report.
5.17
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
4. Water monitoring programs shall be undertaken where
required by the Department to meet testing and frequency sche-
dules established in the Operation Permit.
The landfill presently does not have any water monitoring
programs. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services main-
tains records on groundwater quality by regularly analyzing water
samples taken from wells in the vicinity of the landfill.
5. Baseline water quality conditions (reflecting annual
seasonal data) of both groundwater and surface waters shall be
established prior to depositing solid waste at a new site.
This provision is for a new landfill and does not apply to
the existing facilityat Southold.
6. Decomposition of gases generated within the sanitary
landfill shall be controlled so as not to create hazards to
health, safety or property.
To date, there have been no problems with health, safety or
complaints associated with decomposition gases generated within
the landfill. The porous nature of the sandy soil allows the
gases to vent vertically throughout the landfill and there is no
present evidence of widespread horizontal gas migration. This
report recommends that the Town periodically monitor the peri-
phery of the landfill for methane migration.
7. Specific cover and compaction requirements:
(a) Solid wastes shall be spread in 2 .foot layers or
less and compacted upon decomposition at the working face. The
working face shall be restricted to the smallest area practic-
able.
5.18
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
The Southold landfill conforms to the regulation by compact-
ing the refuse in 2 foot layers and adding cover upon compaction.
The working face is kept to an area of manageable proportion.
(b) Lift height shall not exceed 10 feet.
Lift heights at the landfill are limited to between 6 and
8 feet.
(c) Daily cover shall be placed upon all exposed solid
waste prior to the end of each working day.
A daily cover of 4 to 6 inches of soil is applied prior to
the end of every working day at the landfill.
(d) Intermediate cover shall be applied whenever an
additional lift of refuse is not applied within 30 days.
An intermediate layer of 12 inches of cover material is
applied at the landfill in an additional lift of refuse is not
to be applied within 30 days.
(e) Final cover shall be applied:
(1) Whenever an additional lift of refuse is
not to be applied within one year.
The Southold landfill deposits a 24 inch soil
cover to any area not to be used for additional re-
fuse disposition within one year.
(2) To any area of a landfill attaining final
elevation within 90 days after such elevation is at-
tained.
A 24 inch final cover is applied to all areas
that have attained final elevation.
5.19
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
(3) To an entire landfill which is the subject
of an application that is denied or a permit that ter-
minates for any reason within 90 days of such denial or
termination.
Does not apply to the Southold facility.
8. Cover material and drainage control structures shall
be designed, graded and maintained. to prevent ponding and ero-
sion and to reduce to a minimum infiltration of water into the
solid waste cells, consistent with the operation permit and with
this part.
Cover material at the landfill is graded and maintained to
prevent ponding and erosion and to reduce to a minimum infiltra-
tion of water into the solid waste cells.
9. A grass or ground cover crop shall be established and
maintained on all exposed final cover material within four months
after placement.
Upon completion of the landfill and placement of final cover,
standard operating procedure at the landfill is to have the top
6 inches of cover material composed of loamy soil on which to
establish a grass cover to reduce infiltration and blowing sand.
A final site utilization plan dictating specific requirements is
discussed elsewhere in this report.
10. Soil cover integrity, slopes, cover vegetation, drain-
age structures, groundwater monitoring facilities and gas venting
structures established pursuant to a permit shall be maintained
for a period of 5 years after the completion of the landfill and
placement of final cover material.
5.20
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P,C. / H2M CORP.
Soil cover integrity, slopes and cover vegetation are ex-
pected to be maintained for a minimum of 5 years after the comple-
tion of the landfill and placement of final cover material.
11. No hazardous or industrial wastes materials, which
when combined together will produce hazardous wastes, shall be dis-
posed of in a sanitary landfill except pursuant to specific opera-
tion permit authorization.
The Southold landfill does not accept hazardous wastes of
any kind.
12. All fill areas or excavations at a sanitary landfill
shall terminate no closer than 50 feet from the boundary lines
of the property on which the sanitary landfill is operated.
At the present time, no fill areas or excavations are opera-
ted within 50 feet of the property boundary lines.
13. A survey bench mark shall be established and maintained
on the site.
A survey bench mark is established and maintained on the
Southold landfill site.
14. Upon transfer of ownership of a sanitary landfill site,
a provision shall be included in the property deed indicating the
period of time during which the property has been used as a land-
fill, a description of the wastes contained within and the fact
that the records for the facility have been filed with the Depart-
ment. Said deed shall also reference a map which shall be filed
with the County Clerk, showing the limits of the landfill areas
within the property.
Does not apply to the Southold facility to date.
5.21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
6.0 ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C, I H2M CORP,
ALTERNATIVE COURSES OF ACTION
Introduction
Given present quantities and methods of solid waste disposal,
the life of Southold's existing sanitary landfill facility, as
estimated in earlier sections, is six years. Accordingly,the
Town must begin to find alternatives for disposal of its solid
waste between now and 1985. Various alternatives that are avail-
able to Southold are presented in this Section. Detailed evalua-
tion of these alternatives as to their technical, environmental
and economical feasibility are beyond the scope of this report.
The Federal Resource Recovery Act of 1976, which is now be-
ing implemented, is likely to require the closing of all Long
Island landfills. This is primarily due to the designation of
Long Island of having a soie source of potable water. Present
draft regulations may require such closings by July 1984. Pre-
liminary State guidance may require double lining of new or un-
used landfills together with leachate collection and treatment
systems. As these requirements are developed and enforced, the
Town will be required to conform accordingly.
6.0
6.1
6.2 Alternative Solid Waste Management Systems
Any alternative course of action must, of course, be consider-
ed in its proper time phase. We have divided the solid waste man-
agement plan for the Town of Southold into three distinct time
periods:
1.
2.
3.
Immediate future (present to one year).
Intermediate future (one to six years).
Long range future (six to 20 years).
6.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
A discussion of alternatives and proposed courses of action
for the Town are presented in the following subsections.
6.2.1 Immediate Future
Pending the approval by NYSDEC of the application for permit
to operate a solid waste management facility, we anticipate that
the Town will be able to continue its present method of solid
waste disposal (i.e. sanitary landfill). The contents of this
report will fulfill the present Part 360 requirements after the
installation of groundwater monitoring wells. We have recommend-
ed initiation of a groundwater monitoring program by constructing
three monitoring wells at specified locations at the landfill
site. Methane venting systems are not deemed necessary at this
time, and therefore, are not included in the recommendations.
Methane monitoring, however, is recommended. There are a few
other minor recommendations which should be implemented in order
to improve the operating conditions at the site. For the purpose
of the development of solid waste disposal alternatives, we are
assuming that the Town will be permitted to use its present land-
fill until its available capacity is exhausted.
It is recommended that the Town closely examine various long
range alternatives outlined herein regarding their costs, bene-
fits and associated environmental constraints.
The examination of long range alternatives could be performed
in cooperation with other Eastern Long Island towns individually,
jointly or by Southold on its own.
6.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
6.2.2 Intermediate Future
During this time frame, the Town must begin to plan for long
range solid waste management alternatives to assure their avail-
ability for implementation well in advance of complete utilization
of the existing site. Contingent upon the results of an in-depth
evaluation of the long range alternatives, the Town may opt to:
1. Consider acquisition of additional landfill space within
the Town, preferably near the existing landfill site. Located
adjacent to the northeast corner of the site, are approximately
10 acres of privately owned land. This land is presently being
utilized as a sand pit mining operation. Further evaluation of
this site will be discussed later within this report. This alter-
native would enable the collection system to remain unchanged,
providing that environmental factors will permit this. If the
waste generation were to escalate as projected, approximately
1,500 acre-feet of land volume is estimated to be required for
straight landfilling during the period 1985-2000. The new site
will have to be designed to meet the stringent and exacting stan-
dards of the NYSDEC outlined in Part 360 as it pertains to opera-
tions and leachate/gas monitoring and control and pending Federal
regulations.
State and Federal funding for a new sanitary landfill is not
available for engineering and site preparation. State funding
(25%) is available for site buildings, equipment, etc. Straight
sanitary landfilling is not viewed as a resource recovery method
of solid waste disposal.
Whatever the case may be, if landfilling is selected as the
most feasible alternative (provided this is a permitted option)
6.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
the Town should commence planning for land acquisition and prepara-
tion in order for the new site to be available to receive solid
waste by the beginning of the year 1985.
2. Initiate planning for a solid waste resource recovery
program. The resource recovery option may be divided into two
major categories: low technology option and high technology op-
tion. Low technology options include source separation and
recovery of items such as newspapers, tin cans and glass. The
cans are separated by a magnet, and the bundled newspapers re-
moved by hand. As pointed out previously, the Town already has
a small scale voluntary newspaper separation program at the land-
fill. This program can be scaled-up, or perhaps made mandatory,
for additional recovery of newspapers. It is estimated that
approximately 20 percent of newsprint in the waste stream can be
recovered by source separation. Recovery of about 50 percent of
aluminum and tin cans can be achieved using a magnet. The re-
maining solid waste will require landfilling. The cost of re-
covery materials under low technology option will have to be
weighted against the revenues obtainable from the prevailing
markets.
The high technology options consider recovery of energy and
secondary materials. These include incineration with heat re-
covery, shredded refuse as RDF (refuse derived fuel), hydrosposal
(Black Clawson system being used at Town of Hempstead), and pyro-
lysis. Other alternatives include shredding with ferrous and/or
non-ferrous metal recovery, shredding and high compaction baling,
with metal recovery and composting. The amount of residue requiring
6.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
ultimate land disposal for the high technology alternatives varies,
as do the capital and operating costs, and revenues from the re-
covered resources.
The small quantities of solid waste generated within the Town
of Southold (113 tpd in 1985 and 165 tpd in 2000) would rule out
as economically prohibitive the construction and operation of the
Town's own high technology resource recovery facility. The cost
of initiation, construction operation and maintenance of such a
facility, coupled with the small return on recycled materials would
make it economically non-competitive with other methods of dis-
posal. However, larger regional resource recovery alternatives
may well be economically feasible, attributable mainly, to the
economy of scale. Several regional resource recovery options are
available for the Town of Southold and discussed in the subsequent
long range future alternative courses of action (see Section 6.2.3).
As stated previously, the Town must further explore these options
in the immediate future time frame for their availability as a
means of solid waste disposal in 1985.
6.2.3 Long Range Future
The solution to Southold's future solid waste disposal problems
may ultimately be in a regional, or bi-town resource recovery pro-
gram. The increased volume of solid waste from a number of sur-
rounding towns combined with better recovery technology and more
markets for recovered materials may make resource recovery econom-
ically feasible. Only extensive cost evaluation will determine the
most feasible, long range alternative for Southold. A Town-owned
high technology resource recovery program may prove expensive and
6.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
may not provide economics of scale. On the other hand, a two
town or regional approach may introduce political, economic and
implementational problems, particularly in terms of solid waste
collection and site selection process. Considering the present
solid waste disposal situation that exists with the neighboring
Towns, we have briefly examined the following alternatives.
1. Continued land disposal: As pointed out in the inter-
mediate future plan, sanitary landfill may prove to be the most
economical alternative despite its increased capital costs due
to regional environmental considerations and lack of aid. How-
ever, the Town should consider regional resource recovery options
in terms of overall benefits derived from such planning and pend-
ing Federal requirements.
2. Solid waste composting: Composting of refuse is defined
as "the aerobic, thermophilic degradation of putrescible refuse
by micro-organisms." Using large volumes of oxygen, bacteria and
other micro-organisms to stabilize putrescibles and kill pathogens,
producing a uniform, relatively dry, humus like material.
Current American composting is limited to a few non-subsidized
commercial plants, pilot research facilities and small municipal
operations using windrow composting.
The prospects for successful composting in the United States
have been hampered primarily by two factors:
(1) Composting at best represents only a partial solu-
tion to the disposal problem.
(2) The economic viability of the process is determined
by the sale price of the end product (fertilizer).
6.6
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
Although composting is one of the oldest solid waste manage-
ment practices, its full use has yet to be realized. The almost
uniform record of failure of commercial composting plants in the
United States, coupled with the lessening percentage of food waste
in refuse, indicates little promise for this system as the sole
method of municipal refuse disposal.
3. Five Town Resource Recovery Program: A regional resource
recovery facility comprising the five eastern towns of Suffolk
County, namely Southold, Southampton, Riverhead, East Hampton and
Shelter Island could be constructed at a centrally located site.
This facility would be served by direct haul in collection vehicles
from the communities located within economical haul distances. Re-
motely located communities would transfer haul in large tranfer
trailers from one or more transfer stations. An optimum transpor-
tation network could be developed to divide the direct haul and
transfer haul communities.
Table 6-1 shows projected population and solid waste quanti-
ties for the five towns through 1995. The combined waste genera-
tion on a 7 day week basis is estimated at 389 tpd in 1980, 466
tpd in 1985, 555 tpd in 1990 and 661 tpd in 1995. If a regional
resource recovery facility were to be built for the design year
of 2000, it would probably be sized for 1,000 tons per day includ-
ing an additional 25 percent to account for peak periods. While
initially, the solid waste quantities may not be adequate to main-
tain the cost of operation at an acceptable level, the increased
future quantities certainly seem to be in the capacity range of a
number of resource recovery facilities in planning or operation
6.7
-------------------
TABLE 6-1
PROJECTED POPULATION AND SOLID WASTE
QUANTITIES FOR FIVE EASTERN TOWNS THROUGH 1995
POPULATION (1) SOLID WASTE QUANTITIES (2), t~y
1980 1985 1990 1995 1980 1985 1990 19 5
Southo1d 21,016 23,814 26,716 29,972 36,000 41,400 46,700 53,300
Southampton 47,200 54,837 64,352 75,518 56,600 68,400 83,500 101,500
Riverhead 23,412 26,529 30,363 34,572 28,100 33,100 39,400 46,700
East Hampton 15,549 18,992 22,066 25,637 18,700 23,700 28,600 34,500
Ol Shelter Island 2,228 2.790 3,324 3,960 2,700 3,500 4,300 5,300
.
00
TOTAL FIVE
TOWNS 109,405 126,962 146,821 169,839 142,100 170,100 202,500 241,300
(389 tpd) (466 tpd) (555 tpd) (661 tpd)
,
NOTES: (1)
(2)
1978 Population Survey - LILCO
The solid waste quantity projections for the three Towns are based on
both estimated regional per capita generation rates and per capita
generation rates for the Towns of Riverhead and Southo1d.
tpy indicates "tons per year"
tpd indicates "tons per day" (7 days/week)
:I:
o
r-
N
;:
)>
o
:I:
m
:0
;:
n
r-
m
Z
C
o
z
..
"
a.
;:
C
"
"
m
r-
!""
."
~
-
:I:
N
;:
o
o
"
:0
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
throughout the United States. An extensive marketing analysis
would have to be performed to determine potential revenues from
the recovered energy and/or secondary materials.
4. Disposal at the Town of Brookhaven's Proposed Resource
Recovery F~cility: Preliminary planning is underway for construc-
tion of a solid waste resource recovery facility in the Town of
Brookhaven. The design capacity of the proposed facility is un-
known at this time. This facility is scheduled to be operational
in 1985 and can be considered a viable future alternative for
Southold. A transfer station facility can be located at Southold's
existing landfill site. This would compact the solid waste into
large transfer trailers for transportation to the Brookhaven fac-
ility. expected to be situated in the proximity of the Brookhaven
National Laboratory. The haul distance of approximately 30 miles
would justify the construction of the transfer station. Arrange-
ments could be worked out as to the extent of Southold's involve-
ment in the on-going resource recovery planning. Mutual benefits
could be realized by both towns. They include:
(a) Brookhaven facility will tentatively become opera-
tional at approximately the same time the present Southold
landfill reaches capacity.
(b) Because of a projected significant growth in Brook-
haven from 1985 to 2000 and beyond. the facility will pre-
sumably be designed with considerable excess capacity.
This could be available to Southold and/or other eastern
towns for a period of years until Southold and/or the eas-
tern towns could justify their own facility.
6.9
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
5. Extending alternative 4 above, a regional transfer sta-
tion facility linking Southold with Riverhead and/or all four
towns with Brookhaven facility may also present a feasible alter-
native.
6. Regional sanitary landfilling: If the resource recovery
options are found uneconomical, consideration could be given to a
regional sanitary landfill combining one or more towns with Sout-
hold. This may prove to be the most attractive alternate. The
sanitary landfill, if at all permitted by the NYSDEC, would be
designed to comply with the prevailing regulations. Specifically,
Towns of Southold and Shelter Island could join to form a regional
landfill since the Town of Shelter Island is in need for a long-
term method of its solid waste disposal due to the Town's non-
compliance with Part 360 regulations.
7. Baling system: For the past several years, Southold
Town officials have been considering installation of a high den-
sity solid waste baling facility. There are several baling fac-
ilities in operation throughout the United States, the closest
being in the Town of Smithtown.
High pressure compaction is a volume reduction process where
the air filled spaces (voids) are removed from the solid waste.
The formation of solid blocks of refuse will decrease the volume
required for disposal resulting in an extension of site life of
a landfill. Studies have shown that average volume reduction
ratios can range from 5:1 to 10:1 (loose refuse to baled refuse)
depending on the effectiveness of the compaction process.
Baling of solid waste results in improved refuse management
practices. The bales can be easily deposited one on the top of
6.10
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
the other, similar to building blocks, and heavy duty landfill
equipment requirements are also reduced since no further compac-
tion of in-place bales is required. The problem of blowing litter
due to disposal of loose waste, particularly at the Southold land-
fill, can be alleviated by baling.
Environmental impact of bale disposal at sanitary landfill
is similar to that of common loose refuse disposal at landfills.
The solid waste bales do resist water percolation to a certain
extent which in turn impedes leachate production in a landfill.
However, the bale fills still require expensive leachate collec-
tion and treatment systems. There may be some reduction in cover
material requirements particularly in daily and intermediate
cover.
Major drawbacks of a baling system include high capital and
operating expenses, landfill preparation requirements and its
inability to offer resource recovery which is so highly empha-
sized in these days.
Costs associated to a baling facility and bale fill shall be
compared with the cost of straight landfilling. For the Town of
Southold, due to availability of adequate inexpensive land for
waste disposal purposes, the baling option does not appear to
be economically justifiable.
8. Regional Co-disposal Facility: Co-disposal is defined
"as a method in which solid waste is disposed of with sludge from
sewage treatment plants utilizing a process such as incineration
with or without heat recovery." A regional facility could be
established combining one or more towns with Southold. Sewage
6.11
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
sludge from throughout the area could be disposed of at the fac-
ility. The attractiveness of this alternative will depend heavily
on the quantities of sludge generation from within the service
area. Federal funding is available for sludge handling which can
be utilized to partially offset the disposal costs. Here again,
economics of co-disposal for the Town of Southold alone does not
seem favorable.
6.3 Alternative Courses of Action for Scavenger Waste Disposal
As discussed before, the Towns of Southold and Shelter Is-
land are presently undertaking a scavenger waste study (septic
and cesspool waste management) as a part of the 201 facilities
planning for their respective areas. Upon completion of a scaven-
ger waste disposal system, all scavenger waste now received at the
Southold landfill will presumably be diverted and processed at
the proposed facility. Therefore, for this report, development
of alternative courses of action for scavenger waste disposal is
eliminated from consideration. Treatment of scavenger wastes is
mandated under a SPDES permit issued to Southold.
6.4 Cost Comparison of Long Range Alternatives
In this section we have presented a preliminary comparison of
long range solid waste management alternatives applicable to small
communities such as the Town of Southold. It should be emphasized
that the costs developed herein (Table 6-2) are to be used for com-
parison purposes only and that selection of any of these alternatives
requires detailed technological and economical evaluation.
6.12
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
TABLE 6-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PRELIMINARY COST COMPARISON OF LONG RANGE
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
NOTES: (1) All costs in 1979 dollars.
(2) Unit costs ($/ton) are computed using 1979 solid waste quanti-
ties of 35,600 tons.
(3) Applicable State and/or Federal fundings are not included.
STRAIGHT
SANITARY
LANDFILL
( a)
Initial Capital 1,700,000
Cost ($)
Annual Capital 271,000
Costs ($/year)
Annual Operating 165,000
Cost ($/year)
Total Annual
Cost ($/year)
436,000
Unit Cost
($/ton)
12.50
Residue/Refuse
Disposal Cost
($/ton)
Total Unit
Cost ($/ton)
12.50
Potential Re-
venues ($/ton)
o
Net Unit Cost
($/ton)
12.50
BALING
&
SANITARY
LANDFILL
2,500,000
320,000
295,000
615,000
17.30
17.30
o
17.30
MODULAR
INCINERA-
TION
w/ENERGY
RECOVERY
4,100,000
480,000
480,000
960,000
27.00
4.50
31. 50
11.50 (b)
20.00
TRANSFER
HAUL TO
BROOK-
HAVEN
PROPOSED
FACILITY
COM-
POSTING
675,000
96,000
241,000
337,000
N/A
9.50
15.00(c)
24.50
o
24.50
26.70(d)
(a) Sanitary landfill costs are based on 10 year planning and include all
required environmental protection measures.
(b) Based on replacement cost of fossil fuel (coal) at $40./ton.
(c) Assumed tipping charges at resource recovery facility.
(d) Waste Age - March 1979.
6.13
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
1. Straight sanitary landfilling: This alternative calls
for acquiring additional land beyond the lifetime of the existing
landfill, preparation of the site to ensure proper environmental
protection and operating the site in conformance with the State
regulations. This option is of course predicated on the fact that
Southold will be allowed land disposal.
2. Baling with sanitary landfill: The only significant
difference between this alternative and straight landfill is the
high compaction of solid waste achieved during baling process
thereby reducing ultimate land volume requirements. Since baling
does not offer recovery of resources, no potential revenues are
available to reduce the operating expenses. Environmental con-
straints of straight sanitary landfill are equally applicable
to the baling alternative.
3. Modular incineration with heat recovery: Although com-
paratively higher than the two previously mentioned alternatives,
modular incineration offers Southold a resource recovery potential.
In recent years, small incinerators equipped for energy recovery
have proven beneficial to small communities. Several companies
manufacture small incinerators that can recover energy and meet
air pOllution standards. A regional facility, perhaps with the
Towns of Ri verhead and/or Shelter Island, and increased energy re-
venues may well bring the net cost of disposal within the accept-
able range of straight land disposal. State and Federal funding
are also available for such type of energy recovery systems. The
Town is strongly recommended to further explore this alternative.
6.14
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
4. Transfer Station at Existing Site and Haul to Brookhaven's
Proposed Resource Recovery Facility: The overall cost of this alter-
native greatly depends on the tipping fee Southold would be required
to pay at the Brookhaven facility. A transfer station facility with
stationary compactor would be constructed at the existing landfill
site and all of Southold s solid waste would be compacted in large
transfer trailer vehicles for haul to the proposed resource re-
covery facility approximately 30 miles away. The existing personnel
would be utilized to operate the transfer station. With the assump-
tion of $15. tipping charges, this alternative presently does not
appear to be economically attractive.
5. Composting: Cost-effectiveness of solid waste composting
for Southold lies in the sustained market availability of compost
products. Composting in the United States has been unsuccessfully
tried in many places using different concepts. Reliable costs for
composting are not readily available. The most recent composting
cost of :j)26.70 was reported in March 1979 issue of "Waste Age".
If this cost were to apply to Southold, composting indicates little
promise as the sole method of municipal refuse disposal.
6.15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
7.0 LEACHATE MONITORING PROGRAM
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
7.0 LEACHATE MONITORING PROGRAM
The Southold landfill site does not presently have a leachate
monitoring well system. As part of requirements to comply with
360 regulations, we are recommending the immediate installation
of such a system inasmuch as it applies to an existing site in a
sensitive area. A detailed description of the program, based on
the criteria outlined in the NYSDEC Content Guidelines for Plans
and Specifications for Solid Waste Management Facility, follows.
7.1 Purpose
Leachate monitoring well system has a two-fold purpose. First,
the wells are utilized as piezometers to observe and measure fluc-
tuations of water table; and second, to collect samples of ground-
water for periodic analysis and monitoring.
7.2 Procedure
The spacing and number of wells depends on the direction of
groundwater flow which, in case of the Southold landfill, is north-
easterly. A minimum of three monitoring wells should be installed
at locations shown in Figure 7-1. Two of the wells should be in-
stalled downstream of the landfill in order to intercept ground-
water flow from the site. The third well should be located in
the landfill site. Based on the depth of the water table, as shown
in the 1974 core borings, or obtained from the new soil borings
during construction of the monitoring well system, placement of
screens should be determined. The top and bottom of the screen
should be below the lowest seasonal groundwater level.
7.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FIGURE N2 7-1
/
/'
/
/
/
/
/
I
I
,
\
\
\
DIRECTION OF \
REGIONAL
GROUNDWATER
FLOW
---
o
'"
'"
"-
"-
\
\
\
\
\
o \
\
I
I
I
I
/
/
/
/
/
\
\
\ CD
\
CD
LEGEND
LANDFILL SITE BOUNDARIES
LEACHATE MONITORING WELL
LOCATION
~FERRED BOUNDARY OF
LEACHATE
SCALE' 1"~400'
LECHATE MONITORING SYSTEM
WELL LOCATIONS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND REPORT
JUNE 1979
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.I H2M CORP.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
MELVILLE, N. Y.
FARMNGDALE. N.Y.
RlVERHEAD.N.Y.
NEWTON. N. J.
7.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
7.3 Well Construction
The proposed wells will be a minimum of 4 inches in diameter
(i.d.) and will be constructed of plastic pipe or galvanized steel
depending on well location. Similarly, the screen will be plastic
or galvanized steel.
Each well will be constructed with an impermeable seal of
either bentonite or cement grout in the annular space between the
bore hole and the well casing preventing infiltration of surface
water into the well.
Initially, one small capacity well pump and associated pip-
ing will be furnished and used to obtain water samples from all
wells. After all construction is completed and a follow on moni-
toring program is implemented, it will probably be cost-effective
to purchase additional pumping units for permanent installation.
A portable generator set will be used to supply power to the well
pumps.
7.4 Baseline and Routine Water Sampling Analysis
Initially, two samples from each sampling point will be taken
approximately two weeks apart. The sampling parameters will be
determined as required and approved by the NYSDEC. The routine
sampling will be performed quarterly and as additionally required
by the NYSDEC.
7.5 Cost
A breakdown of the preliminary cost of the recommended leach-
ate monitoring well system is presented in Table 7-1. The total
cost of proposed construction, engineering, initial laboratory analy-
sis, final evaluation report and contingencies is estimated at
$75,000. in 1979 dollars.
7.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
TAIlLE 7-1
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PRELIMINARY COST BREAKDOWN
OF HECOMMENDED LEACHA'l'E MONITORING PUOGRAM
ITEM
1. Mobilization and demobilization of all
equipment to and from the site for the
construction of all borings and sample
wells.
LUMP SUM
2. Construction of six (6) well points.
LUMP SUM
3. Construction of three (3) core borings
and the installation of three (3) sample
wells (Wells #1, #2 & #3).
LUMP SUM
4. Furnishing one (1) small capacity pump,
associated piping and portable generator.
LUMP SUM
SUBTOTAL - Core Borings & Well Construction
(Items 1, 2, 3 & 4)
5. Engineering, Construction Observation &
Administration (Preparation of plans and
specifications for sample wells and core
borings and observation of contractor).
LUMP SUM
6. Laboratory Analyses (Obtaining groundwater
samples and performing two (2) complete
chemical analyses per well).
LUMP SUM
7. Final Evaluation report (Evaluation of the
groundwater data and chemical analyses ob-
tained from this program and preparation
of final report including recommendations
for follow-on monitoring).
LUMP SUM
8. Contingencies (Approximately 12%)
TOTAL COST (Sum of Items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6,
7 and 8)
7.4
1979 DOLLARS
$ 5,000.
3,000.
30 ,000 .
6,000.
$ 44,000.
$ 15,000.
3,000.
5,000.
8,000.
$ 75,000.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
8.0 FUTURE SITE UTILIZATION PLAN
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
FUTURE SITE UTILIZATION PLAN
General
Any proposal for future use of a sanitary landfill site must
be made with full recognition of the characteristics of the de-
posited material. Decomposition of solid waste material in a
landfill may take up to 20 years depending on the climatic condi-
tions. With decomposition of the contained refuse, settlement of
the landfill must take place. Generally, the settlement is about
20 percent of the initial lift heights. Construction of a struc-
ture on such sites must be carefully planned not only to overcome
the landfill bearing capacity problems but also the detrimental
effects of both leachate and methane gas generated beneath the
structure.
The future site utilization plan must be compatible with the
surroundings, zoning and esthetics of the area. Potential land
uses must be consistent with the Southold future solid waste man-
agement plans.
8.0
8.1
8.2 Southold Site Utilization Plan
Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. contracted with Land De-
sign Associates (LOA), Landscape Architect-Land Planners, to pre-
pare a land development program for the Southold landfill. The
LOA report and plan has been incorporated in the appendix of this
report. Potential uses of the site are:
1. Revegetation - nursery liner stock for municipal land-
scaping material.
8.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
2. Wildlife refuge for both birds and small game.
3. Agricultural - lease for farm use only after possible
effects from methane gas production proven harmless.
Potential users of the site may include general public,
schools and universities with earth science programs, bird
watchers and naturalists.
In addition to the above mentioned users, the site could
also be utilized as a nine hole golf course, motorcycle course,
athletic fields or cross-country running course.
Because of the site's centralized and remote location, the
existing landfill would be an ideal place for installation of a
transfer station facility, should the Town elect to transport
its solid waste long distance to a resource recovery facility
such as Brookhaven or a regional facility with the five eastern
towns. Multi-fold benefits could be derived from such planning:
1. No alterations in the existing collection practices
would be required.
2. Availability of existing facilities such as maintenance
building, roadways and fencing could result in substantial sav-
ings in capital investments.
3. Obstacles generally associated with site selection for
a new solid waste facility such as public resistances and inter-
communi ty political jurisdictions could be minimized.
8.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
9.0 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
9.0 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend the following courses of action for the Town
of Southold solid waste management.
9.1 Existing Sanitary Landfill Facility
A. Acquire landfill equipment. (NOTE: the Town is present-
ly in the process of acquiring the recommended landfill equipment).
Replace the existing Allis-Chalmers payloader with a new payloader
for excavation and refuse management duties. Additionally, ac-
quire a new open body dump truck to assist the payloader in cover
material hauling and stockpiling. Retain the existing pay loader
as a backup machine or trade-in provided Highway Department equip-
ment are available during downtime.
B. Immediately implement a groundwater monitoring program.
Install three monitoring wells at proposed location for baseline
and routine water sample analyses. This is to meet minimum re-
quirements for NYCRR Part 360.
C. Periodically monitor methane gas migration. The fre-
quency of such monitoring is suggested as quarterly. Methane
migration tests should be conducted around the periphery of the
existing and old landfills and the surrounding buildings. The
Town could either purchase a portable methane gas detector and
conduct the test or contract the testing services.
D. Control blowing litter. Existing management practices
induce the problems of blowing litter and debris, as well as ex-
cessive equipment manuvering. As previously discussed under
existing operating methods, private collection vehicles follow
9.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
the perimeter road to the north of the landfill to discharge
directly into an open waste cell. Private cars and small
pickups discharge into a storage pit located towards the south
side of the site. The front end loader clears out the pit when
full and unloads the refuse into the same open waste cell as the
collection vehicles. The open transporting of refuse some 300
feet between the storage pit and waste cell causes wind blowing
of refuse throughout the site.
It is recommended that the collection vehicles continue to
discharge at the designated waste cell. However, after the
front end loader clears out the storage pit, it should discharge
the refuse into a separate waste cell located in closer proximity
to the storage pit (maximum 100 feet). This will reduce the manu-
vering time of the front end loader between the storage pit and
waste cell and also refuse exposure to the wind. Both waste
cells should be maintained at a minimum operating size, to help
lessen effects of the wind. These practices should continue for
the subsequent operating areas of the landfill. This may require
relocating the storage pit so it remains relatively close to the
waste cells. In addition to confining the operating areas to a
manageable size, all deposited solid waste shall be covered as
soon as possible.
Other recommendations to alleviate the blowing litter problem
at Southold landfill have been delineated elsewhere in the report.
E. Maintain daily records of all incoming solid waste and
scavenger waste. A sample record sheet is included in this
report.
9.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
F. Continue landfill operation in an environmentally sound
manner such as proper spreading, compaction and covering of
solid waste material, maintenance of equipment and site facilities.
G. Develop refuse disposal ordinance. The Town of Southold
presently does not have an ordinance to control its refuse manage-
ment. It is recommended that the Town initiate development of an
ordinance, similar to neighboring towns such as Riverhead, out-
lining terms and conditions for the waste haulers. The new or-
dinance shall include, but not be limited to:
1. A dumping license fee schedule for various types
of collection vehicles (such as household refuse, land
clearing-demolition waste, etc.)
2. Residency requirements.
3. License fee for scavenger waste disposal.
4. Special permits for unusual municipal solid waste.
5. Prohibition for disposal of hazardous wastes.
H. Separation of recyclable materials. Separation of re-
cyclable materials such as newspapers, white goods (refrigerators
and like), etc., not only reduces the volume of solid waste to be
disposed of, but can also generate additional revenues. It is
recommended that the Town further encourage separation of news-
papers at the source as well as at the landfill site by locating
the recyclable receiving containers in close proximity of the
waste disposal areas convenient to the haulers. The Town should
also bid annual contracts with the collectors of recyclable
materials.
9.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
9.2 Immediate Future
A. Initiate detailed evaluation of various long range alter-
natives available to the Town as described in the report.
B. Commence planning for final utilization of existing land-
fill site. Explore various alternative uses best suited for the
Town of Southold.
C. Con tinue mon i tori ng of grolwdwa ter and methane gas migra-
tion.
A schedule for implemen ta t ion 0 f the a foremen tioned recommend-
ations is presented in the Time Task Chart see Figure 9-1.
9.4
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
APPENDICES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
TIME-TASK CHART
FIGURE N2 9 - I
TASK 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 2000
A
.
Immediate (Present to 1 year)
Continue Landfill (1) t<:I
Install Leachate Monitoring System rn
.....
Procure New Landfill Equipment 1-"
3
Adopt Site Recommendations p:l
Monitor Groundwater A .J2 .....
CD
Monitor Methane Migration ^~---i2) p.
Initiate Long Range T (1
0
Alternative Evaluation 3
."
I-'
CD
Intermediate (1 to 6 years) .....
1-"
0
Continue Landfill(l) t:l
0
Continue Alternative Evaluation ....,
Review Alternatives t<:I
Select Long Range Alternative - x
1-"
Prepare for Implementation of rn
Long Range Alternative .....
1-"
Prepare Closing Plan for t:l
Existing Site I)q
t'"
p:l
t:l
Long Range (6 20 years) p.
to ....,
1-"
I-' .A
Implement Long Range Alternative I-'
Close Existing Site and Implement ...
Final Site Utilization Plan
A
.
(1) Pending approval of "Application to Operate Landfill" by NYSDEC
(2) Duration and frequency to be determined by NYSDEC
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.I H2M CORP.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
MELVILLE, N. Y.
F AAMINGDAlE N V
R1VERHEAD. '" Y
NEWTON. N J
9.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
APPENDIX A
SITE PLAN, REGIONAL PLAN AND
VICINITY MAP OF EXISTING
SOLID WASTE FACILITY
(1 page)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
APPENDIX B
LISTING OF PROPERTY OWNERS
NEIGHBORING SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SITE
(1 page)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
LISTING OF PROPERTY OWNERS
NEIGHBORING SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SITE
~
North
Leander Glover, Jr.
Albin Pietrewicz
East
John S. Wickham
Nathan Harris
Baptist Church
Samuel G. Brown
James Mason
Leslie Bates
Walter Merritt
Claude Wilson
South
Frank M. McBride
West
Frank M. McBride
Leander Glover, Jr.
B-1
APPENDIX B
MAILING ADDRESS
Cox Lane
Cutchogue
Cutchogue
Main Road
Cutchogue
Cutchogue
Cutchogue
Cutchogue
Cutchogue
Cutchogue
Box 184
Cutchogue
Cutchogue
Box 159
Cutchogue
Box 159
Cutchogue
Cox Lane
Cutchogue
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER. McLENOON and MURRELL. P.C. I H2M CORP.
APPENDIX C
SAMPLE MONTHLY LANDFILL RECORD SHEET
(1 page)
I
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUGGESTED MONTHLY LANDFILL RECORD SHEET
MONTH OF 19
SOLID WASTE SCAVENGER WASTE
SPECIAL WASTE
OTHERS
NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF VEHICLES AGRI. TIRES, ETC.
COLLECTION PRIVATE SMALL WITH BRUSH, DEBRIS NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF
DATE VEHICLES CARS PICKUPS & DEMO. WASTE VEHICLES GALLONS VEHICLES TRUCKS REMARKS
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
MONTHLY
TOTAL
MONTHLY SOLID WASTE TONNAGE COMPUTATIONS: No. of Collect1on Veh1cles X 3
No. of Private Cars X 0.06
No. of Small Pickups X 0.18
No. of Vehicles with Brush,
Debris & Demo. Waste X 3
tons
tons
tons
tons
TOTAL MONTHLY TONNAGE
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
APPENDIX D
RECORD OF BORINGS - 1974
(1 page)
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. I H2M CORP.
.
APPENDIX E
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
"-
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL ANALYSIS
EXISTING SITE PROBLEMS
1. High exposure
a. wi nd
b. visual
Result: extensive dust blowing, paper and debris blowing
SITE SOLUTIONS
1. Reduce exposure
a. Plant wind screen buffer around perimeter of
site where fence is open.
Result: will produce reduced wind impact; will produce
visual barrier; and will prevent paper and
debris from blowing off site
POTENTIAL SITE USES
1. Revegetation
a. perimeter wind screen buffer
b. plant nursery liner stock which can mature and be
used as material for municipal landscaping
2. Wildlife Refuge
a. When the plant material and grasses grow for a few
years, the revegetated areas will provide refuge for
birds and small game.
3. Transfer Station
a. When the Brookhaven Facility is under construction
a transfer station can be incorporated on the front four
acres.
b. This facility is normally a two-story structure and can
be buried in the hillside on the front four acres so
that the building will not be obtrusive.
'"
page 2
LONG TERM SITE USES
1. Recreation
a. Presently, the area has extensive recreational resosurces.
Therefore, this site has no practical recreation potential
within the next 10-15 years.
b. In the far future, the site may offer the following
poss ibfl iti es:
9-hole golf course
motorcycle course
athletic fields
cross country running course
2. Agriculture
a. Experimental plot can be planted to determine the
potential for crop production and the possible effects
of methane gas on various crops.
b. If crop production proves feasible, the land could be
leased for farm use.
SITE ANALYSIS
The landfill site lies north of Route 25 in a wide open field condition, with some
stands of woodland on the northern extremities of the site.
This wide open condition presents several problems. The landfill operation is
extremely visible and unsitely. The wind exposure is severe and results in dust,
trash and debris blowing over the surrounding area.
The soil conditions are essentially an extremely sandy loam base friable soil that
has high porosity. The deeper soils are essentially sand with spotty clay lenses.
IMMEDIATE SITE SOLUTIONS
The most immediate problem to be solved is the high visibility and the wind blowing
problem. A wind screen and visual buffer should be planted at the perimeter
boundaries of the property that do not contain any vegetation. As the landfill
develops hedge rows should be planted intersecting the landfill too.
In addition to the screen planting, grasses should be planted to prevent wind and
water erosion of the soils. The enclosed specification suggests the types of
grasses and procedures.
" .
page 3
POTENTIAL SITE USES
Due to the extensive amount of open land in the area and the high quality
of existing recreation lands around Southold this landfill site does not
have great potential for the next 15 to 20 years. However, in the meantime,
the site could serve other uses.
Revegetation of the site with nursery liner stock could serve as a poten-
tial source for landscape material for the town to use on municipal plant-
ing projects in parks, roadways, etc. Another use could be to plant a
few blocks of crops to see how they react to the landfill conditions. If
the crops do well, the land has lease potential for agricultural uses.
When the Brookhaven facility is ready the site is well situated to serve
the North Fork as a transfer station site. This would require about 4
to 5 acres, leaving the balance of the site available for the other uses
previously listed.
Other potential use in the far future may be a golf course, motorcycle track,
equestrian center, or let it remain a revegetated nature preserve.
.. . ......
NOTES FOR THE HANDLING AND CONTROL OF EROSION
1. Where possible, all lo.Oods and natural slope areas shall
be left undisturbed. Construction equipment and materials
shall not be stored in areas designated "trees to remain".
2. No slopes are to exceed 1 on 3.
3. All swales are to be constructed as shown, meeting all
grades as specified on "grading plan".
4. All re-graded areas are to be cultivated to a depth of
at least 6" and must be of a topsoil nature - containing
a minimum of fine-grained materials (over 25% silt and
clay) to provide a water holding capacity necessary to
sustain plant growth.
5. All finished graded slopes shall be stabilized as soon as
possible after construction with a permanent type of seeding
protection in the following manner:
A. Installation of necessary erosion control practices where
applicable; such as terraces, contour furrows, drainage
systems, dry wells, etc.
B. Spreading of topsoil, where needed, to a minimum depth
of 4". Topsoil should contain a minimum of 35% fine-
grained material and 1.5% organic matter.
C. Apply ground limestone at the rate of 2 tons per acre.
n. Apply a .10-6-4 (or equivalent) fertilizer at a rate of
1000 pounds per acre scarified into top 3" of seedbed.
E. Seeding:
sprii3 or Fall Plantin~S
seede at the rate of -2~ lbs. per 1000 square feet.
30% Common or Merion Bluegrass
65% Creeping Red Fescue
5% Red Top
Summer Plantings
1. April 15 to July 15
Weeping Lovegrass - 3-5 Ibs./acre.
Sericea Lespede3a - 20-25 lbs./acre.
2. August 1 to November 1
Tall Fescue
Red Top
Annual Rye or Spring Oats -
20-40 lbs ./acre.
2 lbs./acre.
~ bushel/acre.
F. Seed shall be broadcast or drilled uniformally to the
depth of between ~ - 2" and scarified into seedbed.
G. All seeded areas shall be mulched immediately after
completion of the seeding operation with unweathered small
grain straw or regular hay at the rate of ll;; - 2 tons/acre.
H. All planted areas shall be regularly maintained until
permanently stabilized. Inspections should be made
periodically to aSsess erosion damage.