The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutWater Resource Needs of LI - 1989TOWN OF $OUTHOLD Progress Report of the NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE NEEDS OF LONG ISLAND 1983 Senator Caesar Trunzo Assemblywoman May W. Newburger Co-Chairman Co-Chairwoman I I I I I I I I -I I I I i I I I I "The need for better integration of land and water management is widely accepted. There are several reasons for this. One is that land and water are so closely related as natural, physical systems that it is impossible to fully understand, wisely uso or effectively manage one without considering the other. Sound · decisions regarding the uso and protection of water cannot be made without considering the effects of land use...Second, it is highly in- efficient to attempt to manage land or water in isolation." Frank E. Maloney - 1981 NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVi:: COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE NEEDS Of LONG ISLAND I March 31, 1983 I I I I I I I I I I I I The Honorable Mario Cuomo Governor of New York Albany, New York The Honorable Warren M. Anderson Senate ~{ajority Leader The Honorable Stanley Fink Speaker of the Assembly The Honorable Manfred Ohrenstein Senate Minority Leader The Honorable Clarence Rappleyea Assembly Minority Leader Dear Sirs: The third report of the New York State Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island is herewith submitted in ac~- cordance with the provisions of Chapter 50 of the Laws of 1980, which as amended, established the Commission. The most notable of the Commission's third year activities has been the development of a significant number of legislative propo- sals which address critical, as yet unresolved problems facing Long Island's water resources. Examination of these proposals will show that a philosophy of prevention has been incorporated in several of the bills and articulates a commitment by the Commission toward a policy of taking preventive action whenever possible. The Commission has continued as an active participant in a va- riety of studies and committees, conferences, seminars, and work- shops pertaining to the protection of the Island's groundwater re- sources. Additionally, the Commission has further explored the rather extensive literature available concerning the many aspects of Long Island's groundwater supply. I iii I Community awareness has been.broadened through presentation of programs by the Commission to various associations, clubs, and school groups in an effort to explain the nature of the Island's groundwater reservoir 9nd the regulatory programs that have been developed to safeguard lt. ' As evidenced by the material in the third progress report, par- ticularly in the Legislative section, the Commission has b~gun to elaborate upon the foundation which it has ably established during the first two years of its tenure. Much more remains to b? accom- plished, however, before the enabling mandates of the Commission are adequately f~lfilled. With your support we look fo~ard to continuing this important work.. Respectfully submitted, iv I I I I I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL .............................. LIST OF FIGURES ................................... LIST OF TABLES .................................... MEMBERSHIP OF THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE NEEDS OF LONG ISLAND.. PROFESSIONAL STAFF OF THE COMMISSION ............... ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR THE NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE NEEDS OF LONG ISLAND ............................... ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................... EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................. SECTION: I. REVIEW OF EVENTS JANUARY, 1982 - FEBRUARY, 1983 .............. II. CRITICAL WATERSHED PROTECTION PROTECTION .............................. D. DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES ................... E. HYDROGEOLOGIC ZONES ......... FEDE STATE SOLE SOURCE G. SCHENECTADY UPDATE ...................... H. CLEAN LAND POLICY ....................... I. PINE BARRENS ACTIONS .................... J. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... III. WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY A. INTRODUCTION ............................ B. CURRENT PROBLEMS ........................ C. POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS ......... D. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......... v iii vii viii ix X xi xiii XV 1 29 32 42 49 59 62 63 65 70 74 79 81 95 111 IV. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT A. INTRODUCTION ................................ B. SYNOPSIS OF LANDFILL DATA ................... C. CASE STUDIES ................................ D. SOLID WASTE LEGISLATION ..................... E. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. V. COMMUNITY A~RENESS AND INVOLVEMENT ............. VI. CONSERVATION .................................... VII. COMMISSION LEGISLATION .......................... APPENDICIES .......................................... CLOSING STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSONS ................ vi 117 118 134 141 143 147 155 181 225 251 ! I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. XIII. XIV. XV. LIST OF FIGURES TYPICAL LAYOUT FOR LAND SUBDIVISION ........... 35 PROPOSED CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT .................. 36 CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT: SCHEMATIC VIEW ........... 37 TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON ........................... 41 CONCEPT PLAN FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION ......... 48 PRIORITY ACQUISITION AREAS .................... 52 SOUTH FORK ACQUISITION AR~%S .................. 53 PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT - BROOKHAVEN TOWN ............................... 56 LONG ISLAND HYDROGEOLOGICAL ZONES ............. 60 CRITICAL GROUNDWATER WATERSHEDS ............... 73 DEEP FLOW RECHARGE AREAS ON LONG ISLAND ....... 94 LANDFILL SITES OF NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES ...................................... 122 QUANTITY STRESSED AQUIFER SEGMENTS ............ 159 ANNUAL WATER SAVINGS IN PILOT AREAS ........... 173 ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS IN PILOT AREAS .......... 174 vii II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII. IX. LIST OF TABLES GOVERNMENTAL TECHNIQUES FOR WATERSHED PROTECTION .................................. SUFFOLK COUNTY PESTICIDE SAMPLING OF WELLS.. SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND QUANTITY OF PETROLEUM PRODUCT SPILLS IN NASSAU COUNTY - 1982., .... SIZE DISTRIBUTION ~D QUANTITY OF PETROLEUM' PRODUCT SPILLS IN SUFFOLK COUNTY - 1981 ..... ORGANIC CHEMICALS DETECTED IN COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY WELLS, NASSAU COUNTY - 4/28/78 ....... A RANKING OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS BY THE FREQUENCY OF REPORTED PRESENCE IN FINISHED SURFACE WATER ( SRI, NOMS, NORS) ............ COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY WELL CLOSURES (ORGANIC) NASSAU COUNTY .................... COMMUNITY WATER SUPPLY WELL CLOSURES SUFFOLK COUNTY .............................. LOCALITIES RECOMMENDED FOR COMPREHENSIVE WATER CONSERVATION PROGRAMS ................. X. DESCRIPTION OF PILOT PROGRAMS ............... viii 46 89 91 92 99 100 107 108 158 171 I I i I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I THE COMMISSION CAESAR TRUNZO CO-CHAIRMAN Senate Member MAY W. NEWBURGER CO-CHAIRWOMAN Assembly Member CAROL BERMAN Senate Member GEORGE J. HOCHBRUECKNER Assembly Member JAMES J. LACK Senate Member JOSEPH SAWICKI, Jr. Assembly Member PROFESSIONAL SENATE GEORGE PROIOS Co-Executive Director JOHN L. TURNER Assistant Co-Executive Director WILLIAM T. DAGHER Special Counsel MARYELLEN SUHRHOFF Research Analyst SUSAN M. FARON Research Analyst JAY ANDREASSI JR. Research Analyst DEIRDRE E. McLAUGHLIN Executive Secretary BARBARA ANN HOFFNER Commission Secretary JOHNATHAN A. WEINSTEIN Minority Counsel STEVEN I. SLIBERFEIN Minority Counsel TIMOTHY P. FINN Special Assistant -Minority PATRICK DOHERTY Research Analyst - Minority x STAFF ASSEMBLY SARAH J. MEYLAND Co-Executive Director SHELDON LOBEL Special Councel ELLEN GREENBERG Research Associate KAREN HOLMBERG Research Associate PHYLLIS JOSEPH Administrative Aide MILDRED REINER Executive Secretary STEVE ENGLEBRIGHT S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook Principal Consultant JULIAN KANE Hofstra University Consultant MAYA ALTMAN Research Coordinator I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION ON WATER RESOURCE NEEDS OF, LONG ISLAND (CHAP 50) The legislature hereby finds and declares that the state has the sovereign power to regulate and control the water resources of this state, including the counties of Nassau and Suffolk and an adequate and suitable water supply for two such counties for water supply, domestic, municipal, industrial, agricultural and commercial uses, power, irri- gation, transportation, fire protection, sewage and water assimilation, the growth of the forest, maintenance of fish and wildlife, recreational enjoyment and other uses is essential to the health, safety and welfare of the people and economic growth and prosperity of two said counties. Recent studies and reports have been made which indicate that due to many diverse reasons, the water supply and water resources of the two said counties may be in jeopardy. Accordingly, a legislative commission is hereby establish- ed (a) to investigate and evaluate said reports; (b) to make recommendations for provisions to be made for the regulation and supervision of activities that deplete, defile, damage or otherwise adversely affect the waters of the two said counties, and the land resources assoc- iated therewith; (c) to determine where uncontaminated or virgin sources of water exist in both counties; and (d) to recommend legislative or administrative actions that are required to preserve and protect such resources for future use. Such Commission shall consist of six members to be ap- pointed as follows: twc members of the Senate shall be appointed by the temporary president of the Senate; two members of the Assembly shall be appointed by the Speaker of the Assembly; leader of the Senate; and one member of the Assembly. Any vacancy that occurs in the Commission shall be filled in the same manner in the original ap- pointment was made. Co-chairmen of the Commission shall be designated by the President Pro-tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the Assembly respectively. No member, officer, or employee of the Commission shall be disqual- ified from holding and other public office or employment, nor shall he forfeit any such office or employment by reason of his appointment hereunder, notwithstanding the provisions of any general, special, or local law, ordin- ance, or city charter. xi The Commission may employ personnel required and fix their compensation within the amount appropriated there- fore. The Commission may meet within and without the state; hold public and private hearings and otherwise have all of the powers of a legislative committee under the legislative law. The members of the Commission shall receive no compensation for their services but shall be allowed their actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of their duties hereunder. The Commission may request and shall receive from any subdivision, department, board, bureau, commission, office agency or other instrumentality of the state or of any political subdivision thereof, such facilities, a ' ssa.stance and data as it deems necessary or desirable for the proper execution of its powers and duties. The Commission is hereby authorized and empowered to make and sign any agreements, and to do and perform any acts that may be necessary, desirable or proper to carry out the purposes and objectives set forth herein. The Commission shall submit a report to the governor and the legislature containing its findings on or before March thirty-first, nineteen-hundred eighty-three. The Commission shall continue in existence until March thirty- first, nineteen-hundred eighty-three. xii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXPRESSION OF APPRECIATION The Commission gratefully appreciates and'acknowledges the cooperation and assistance extended by the many public and private agencies, groups and individuals that have generously given their time and energy in furthering the Commission's mandates. xiii I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Progress Report of the New York State Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island, high- lights the activities of the Commission during the 1982- 1983 Legislative year. Although substantial progress has been achieved in many areas during the past year, the numerous pieces of legislation the Commission pro- poses indicates that many water resource issues remain unresolved. It has become increasingly well known, both among the general public and experts in the field of water resource protection and management, that due to the particular characteristics and quality of the ground- water system on Long Island, water resources are espec- ially vulnerable to, and easily impacted by, human activities. To develop programs which provide adequate protection to the groundwater supply of Long Island from already id- entified contamination sources, while at the same time developing initiatives which address newly emerging problems, has been, and will remain, a substantial chal- lenge for all individuals, agencies and institutions in- volved in water resource management and protection. Section I of this report, Review of Events, documents many of the major actions occurring over the past year which have had an actual or potential effect on the groundwater resources of Long Island. The Commission has devoted substantial effort toward the accomplishment of the topic that comprises Section II -Critical Watershed Protection. This issue has been addressed extensively in the past two Commission Reports. Section III and IV also represent elaborations of topics that were in the previously published Commission Reports, and are fields of study which the Commission has found to be worthy of further investigation. Section V, Community Awareness and Involvement, represents an expanded initia- tive of the Commission. Section IV contains legislation proposed by the Commission. Section II of the report (Critical Watershed Protection) is one of the basic tenetS of the Commission. The Commission cannot overemphasize the importance the protection of the remaining critical watersheds on Long Island plays in the future viabilit~ of the Island's water resources. It is significant to ~Dte that a pre- ventative approach, such as that embodied by safeguarding important watersheds, is preferable and less costly than depending upon remedial techniques to ensure water xv quality. This section identifies the tools available for initiating watershed protection programs and high- lights such a program as originated by the Town of Southampton. It also discusses development threats which exist in the critical watersheds of Long Island and discusses what progress has been made in securing the protection of Long Island's largest woodland water- shed - the Pine Barrens. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CRITICAL WATERSHED PROTECTION Drinking water is contaminated or jeopardized in many parts of Long Island due to existing land use activities. Water quality degradation is, and should be, a major cause for concern. Watershed preservation based on a non-degradation standard in undisturbed areas is the wisest and most practical approach to protecting Long Island's groundwater. The preservation of the Long Island Pine Barrens as a groundwater and ecological resource will benefit residents of the entire region. The Commission recommends that the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk designate those critical watersheds within their county, as "Critical Environmental Areas" pursuant to section 617.4j of the States Environment~ Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Such designation requires that any action proposed within,or contiguous to, such areas be declared a Type I action, which means that it is an action that may have significant impact on the environment. The Commission commends Southampton in imple- menting the various land use tools available for the protection of critical watersheds. It is our recommendation that each town on Long Island take a similar approach by utilizing techniques such as mandatory clustering, up- zoning, and transfer of development rights. Other valuable tools include acquisition and conservation easements. The Commission recommends that all towns on Long Island review and update their town master plans to achieve a common objective with South- ampton in detail and sensitivity to water supply preservation. xvi I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Commission recommends the appropriation of E.Q.B.A. monies for the acquisition of Hither Woods. The Commission recommends the expeditious trans- fer of the Oak Brush Plains from the Office of General Services to Department of Environmental Conservation. The Commission recommends that the area in South- ampton known as Red Creek Ridge be upzoned because of the sensitivity to the underlying watershed area. The Commission recommends that the critical recharge areas located in northern Oyster Bay Town and North Hempstead should be upzoned to five acres per unit commensurate with the protection afforded the Pine Barrens in South- ampton. The Commission recommends that Hydrogeologic Zone boundaries be drawn to coincide with existing roadways in order to facilitate land use and groundwater management. The Commission recommends that Nassau County create a fund, with a portion of the revenue collected from the rental of Mitchell Field (which is estimated at $6 million), for water- shed planning and protection. The Commission recommends that Nassau County in- stitute a surcharge on water, and use the revenue from such a tax to acquire critical watershed lands. The Commission reconnnends the appropriations of E.Q.B.A. monies for the preservation (acquisition) of critical watersheds in Nassau County, under the Metropolitan Parks category. The Commission recommends that the counties of Nassau and Suffolk negotiate a bi-county ground- water protection plan. The Commission recommends the incorporation of watershed protection as a vital component of the Nassau County Water Master Plan. Subsequently, the County should hold hearings for the adoption of a comprehensive water management plan. The villages and towns in Nassau County in which watersheds are located should reevaluate present zoning to determine if it affords the necessary protection these recharge areas deserve. xvii The Commission recommends that land which is under public ownership be upzoned to provide protection should the land change to private ownership. The Commission supports all of the recommendations stated in the report of the Coalition for the Pro- tection of Long Island's Groundwater completed in 1982, entitled, Watershed Plannin~ for the Pro- t¢ction of Lonq Island's Groundwater. The Commission recor~ends the continued involve- ment of local and regional governmental and non-governmental groups in the formation of a Pine Barrens Management Plan. The Commission recommends the expansion of the State Department of Health's watershed rules and regulations to provide for additional protection for points of recharge. The Commission recommends the passage of the legislation introduced by the Commission in which DEC is given the authority to apply stricter regulations in deep flow recharge areas. The Commission recommends the passage of Federal and State sole source aquifer legislation and the appropriation of monies for the comprehensive management plan encompassed in the legislation. Section III highlights some of the major water supply and quality problems which are found on Long Island. It must be noted that the problems delineated in this section such as petroleum spills, pesticide contaminat- ion, and the ramifications of chlorinating water supplies and sewage are not meant to be inclusive of all sources which impact the quality of our groundwater supplies. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY The Commission recommends that the Department of Environmental Conservation add the follow- ing sections to Part 617 Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). These amendments would require certain con- ditions to be considered Type I actions, trig- ering a closer environmental review process: xviii I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section 617.12(5) Any number of units with a singular or collective sanitary discharge to groundwater, exceeding 3,000 gallons per day located in a sole source aquifer as identif- ied by the Administrator of the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency. Section 617.12(6) Any facility discharging industrial effluent to groundwater located in a sole source aquifer so identified by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Commission recommends the p~ssage of a state amendment in which the lead content in solder is limited to a maximum of 0.2% when used in drinking water pipes. The Commission recommends that studies are needed on the existence and concentrations of viruses in drinking water and the levels at which they pose a threat to the public health. The Commission recommends a reevaluation of local building codes and health department re- gulations which require that septic systems be installed not less than 100 feet from water supply wells, due to the detection of viruses 200 feet from septic tanks. The Commission recommends that Nassau County adopt a bulk storage regulation similar to Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. The Commission recommends that monitoring ~d vent- ing pipes of gas and oil tanks be equipped with locking caps, and can be easily identified to distinguish them from the refill pipes. The Commission is concerned over the growing levels and types of agricultural chemicals ap- pearing in the groundwater under active farming areas and, therefore, recommends efforts to pro- vide better management practices and controls over agricultural applications of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. The Commission recommends that DEC actively monitor licensed pesticide applicators to determine if they are in compliance with rules and regulations. Add- itionally DEC should require and enforce back flow prevention devices for all commercial pesticide vehicles and require permission to use fire hydrants. xix The Commission recommends that the New York State Department of Health review the requirement for chlorination of public water supply and the criteria under which such requirements can.be waived. Evidence indicates the chlorination of sewage can result in the formation of carcinogenic chlor- inated hydrocarbons~ therefore, the Commission recommends the Department of Environmental Conserv- ation and the Department of Health reevaluate chlor- ination of sewage discharged to groundwater. The Commission recommends that the nitrate drink- ing water standard of 10mg/1 be reevaluated in relation to the possible formation of nitrosamines. The Commission recommends the Health Department vigorously enforce the cross-connection control pro- gram which was recently updated. The Commission recommends that the State Health Department reevaluate interim guidelines and develop and adopt standards for synthetic organic chemicals. The Commission recommends that the State and County Departments of Health undertake a study focusing on commercial pesticides such as: chlordane, dieldrin, heptachlor, and aldrin and their possible presence in groundwater. The Commission recommends passage of the following Commission legislation: An act to amend the County Law to authorize the counties of New York State to create water quality districts to aid in the develop- ment and monitoring of contaminants in areas dependent upon private wells. An act to amend the General Municipal Law requiring industrial and commercial facilities to report the storage of hazardous materials to DEC. The amendment also changes the enfor- cement provisions from a civil penalty to a violation, which will allow local enforcement officials, in addition to fire districts, to issue notices of violation. To amend the Public Authority Law to prohibit the appropriation of Job Development Agency loans to industries that are in violation of any State permit. To amend the Environmental Conservation Law to require DEC to notify water utilities I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I when reviewing a permit application or re- newal that deals with discharges into a sole source aquifer. To amend the Environmental Conservation Law to require industries to use state certified laboratories when testing effluent discharges. To amend the Environmental Conservation Law to require DEC to notify water utilities when a facility in their district is in violation of any dJ. scharge permit. One of the most serious threats to the quality of the nation's groundwater is the presence of solid waste disposal facilities. This is certainly exemplified on Long Island where scores of closed and operating land- fills sit above the groundwater reservoir, leaching serious contaminants into it. Section IV provides an update on the solid waste situation on Long Island. The Commission believes the impact that sanitary land- fill facilities have on groundwater quality must be minimized to the greatest extent possible. This is the intent of the legislation the Commission has drafted which regulates the siting of landfill operations on Long Island. It is of concern to the Commission that two proven alternative methods to burial of untreated garbage-resource recovery and source separation-remain essentially unutilized. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT The Commission recommends the passage and im- plementation of its landfill legislation as an attempt to alleviate the groundwater degradation that has originated from solid waste land burial. The Commission recommends the implementation of the New York State Bottle Bill as soon as possible. The Commission recommends that each and every landfill must have an adequate number of monitor- ing wells surrounding the facility with barrier wells installed to quickly begin retrieving any toxic material that has moved beyond the confines of the landfill boundary. The Commission recommends that sections of active landfills that have reached their maximum heiqht xxi should be immediately capped to prevent leachate generation. Similarly, all closed landfills should be immediately capped. The Commission recommends that the long term integrity of synthetic liner materials and their ability to retain leachate and protect the environ- ment be evaluated and incorporated as state of the art developments in productio~ installation and research are made. The Commission recommends that local municipal- ities should investigate the feasibility of modifying their landfill designs and operating pro- cedures to incorporate similar techniques applied to "secure" landfills. These types of landfills are filled in small vertical sections, and capped to minimize leachate generation. Further pro- tective measures are needed especially now that there are serious questions as to the degree of protection synthetic liners afford our ground- water resource. The Commission recommends more comprehensive testing of gases in addition to methane, with state-of-the-art instrumentation capable of measuring one part per billion of vinyl chloride. The Commission commends those towns that have employed methane resource recovery until they are able to cap filled portions of their landfills. The Commission recommends that the DEC complete a study evaluating available resource recovery technologies, most effective sizing of facilit- ies, and most appropriate sites on Long Island. The Commission commends the Town of Islip for initiating its source separation program, and recommends other towns should implement similar recycling efforts. Although the general public has become more knowledgeable over the past few years concerning Long Island's ground- water system and the many problems that confront it, the Commission believes that most Long Islanders do not have more than the most fundamental understanding of this im- portant issue. In an attempt to correct this situation, the Commission has broadened its community awareness and involvement programs which is presented to interested service, garden, and civic organizations. xxii ! I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMMUNITY AWARENESS The Commission recommends that the State Legis- lature appropriate monies for an Island-wide ed- ucation program relating to Long Island's ground- water resources, similar to the one previously proposed by the Commission. The Commission recommends that the State Board of Regents require that science regents examinations, particularly earth science, be tailored to the specific regions of the State by incorporating questions that pertain to local environmental problems i.e. sole source aquifers, critical re- charge areas, volatile organic contamination, etc. The Commission recommends that the Department of Environmental Conservation incorporate into its Long Island Groundwater Management Program a "speakers bureau" to help educate interested citizen groups. Speakers should include water specialists from the many agencies which share the responsibility of groundwater management on Long Island. The Commission recommends that the State develop public service broadcast announcements to the Long Island residents to explain how citizens can help prevent water contamination and waste. The Commission recommends the passage of its legislation requiring each water utility to annually report to its customers on its operations, including water pumpage, contamination problems, new or lost supply capacity, violations, and the types of water treatment employed. xxi~i CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMME~DATIQ~S FOR WATER CQNSERVATION The Commission recommends that communities which have a limited supply of potable water amend their town or village ordinances to include water conservation codes, such as irrigation restrictions, and limits on the per- missible square footage in fertilized turf. The Commission recommends that all water purveyors in- stitute a rate structure which discourages over use and excessive use of water. The Commission recommends the implementation of a compre- hensive pilot water conservation program, which includes retrofitting device distribution. Such areas for the pilot programs could be: the Great Neck peninsula of Nassau County, and the Village of North Haven in Suffolk County. The Commission recommends plumbing fixture retrofitting of all public facilities. The Commission urges Nassau County to implement an aggres- sive county,wide conservation program. The Commission recommends that all agricultural wells be metered. The Commission recommends and supports the passage of state legislation introduced in the 1983 session which would provide tax credits to those who install water conservation systems. The Commission recommends the passage of its legislation which requires all water purveyors to inform its customers about how to conserve water in the home. xxiv I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I JANUARY, SECTION I REVIEW OF EVENTS 1982 -February, 1983 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.REVIEW OF EVENTS January, 1982 - February, 1983 I GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION Viruses A study by Brookhaven National Laboratory has found that disease - causing viruses can contaminate drinking-water wells by traveling more than 200 feet through groundwater from septic systems. This proves that viruses can travel further than the 100 foot minimum separation between drinking wells and septic systems required by health reg- gulations. The study, completed in November of 1982, is based on groundwater samples taken during a 13-month period at the Speonk complex in Suffolk County. Viruses were found in all 11 test wells up to 200 feet away from the septic system and up to 40 feet deep in the ground- water. The viruses found included strains of polio, cox- sackie, and echo. The Brookhaven Laboratory is now study- ing whether viruses are present after sewage treatment at the Cedar Creek plant in Nassau, and the impact of viruses on proposals to recycle waste to groundwater. Jet-Fuel Dumping The State Attorney General's office filed suit against the federal government in July, 1982, charging that the Air Force dumped "tens of thousands of gallons" of jet fuel into the groundwater at the Suffolk County Airport during a 20-year period ending in 1974 while the airfield was a military base. State and local health officials believe a huge plume of the highly toxic fuel-more than 100,000 gallons-is slowly moving south, where it will eventually empty into Moriches Bay. According to court papers filed in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, the largest spills occurred in 1962, 1967, and 1974. Nathan Reilly, a spokesman for Attorney General Robert Abrams. said jet fuel and "other toxic chemicals" were spilled into the ground by Air Force personnel who improperly maintained storage tanks. A cleanup of contaminated groundwater would cost at least $45 million. As of 7-30-82, thirty homes have been connected to public water systems. Suffolk Toxic Storage Law The Suffolk Board of Health adopted amend, ments to the County Health Law, governing storage of petroleum and other toxic materials, in order to protect the county's water supply in the underground aquifer. One of the changes requires that home heating fuel oil tanks of more then 1,100 gallons installed after November 1, 1982, be made of a noncorrodible material. A second change brings forward the deadline for upgrading underground storage tanks for toxic materials. Thirteen Long Island W.aste Sites The State Department of Environmental Conservation, under its "superfund/' named 13 Long Island hazardous waste dis- posal sites to be investigated for cleanup. The sites included municipal landfills, such as the two Islip Town landfills, and industrial disposal areas of the Hooker Chemicals and Plastic Corporation. This is only the be- ginning of the comprehensive listing, and will be con- tinued as long as there is enough money in the program to carr~ out detailed studies of each site. The cost of preliminary evaluations to determine the extent of con- tamination and design clean-up procedures will be about $2,000 to $3,000 per site. Owners of sites will be asked to carry out more detailed field studies following the recommendations proposed by the consulting firms conducting the preliminary evaluations. (2-16-83) Toxic Dumping Illegal dumping of hazardous waste in an East Hampton Town landfill has forced the town to develop stringent controls on its scavenger waste facilities. A Suffolk County Health Department test in March 1982, indicated the presence of two solvents used in furniture refinish- ing and machine work in the town's scavenger waste lagoon on Accabonic Road. Police determined the t~xins were illegally flushed by employees of the Eastern Machine and Manufacturing Company. The information has been turned over to the Health De- partment. Recommendations were made to hire station guards at the site on evenings and weekends and to keep records of cesspool service trucks. (10-21-82 Chemicals Cleanup The Town of Babylon has obtained a showcause order in State Supreme Court which seeks to hold Hazardous Waste Disposal, Inc., and its owne~ in contempt for not obey- ing a court order demanding the removal of some 1,900 barrels of toxic chemicals from the company's property. The company's owner, George Lawrence, claims that the Department of Environmental Conservation has denied his I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I company the permits needed to expand and finance the cleanup, and instead, has ordered the plant to cease operations. According to Lawrence, the granting of permits would allow him to raise the necessary clean- up by conducting business at another location, in Glenwood landing. (3-30-82) Dumping Ban The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency reversed it- self and reinstituted a ban on dumping hazardous liquid wastes in landfills. The agency will allow liquids to be present in a barrel as long as no "free standing" wastes are visible. This requirement would remove about 95 per cent of the liquids from each barrel. The EPA reversed its action due to public outcry. Environmental groups,too, contended that without the ban, up to 20 mil- lion gallons of liquid wastes would be dumped during the next three months. Disintegrating drums storing chemicals that leak their contents into the ground and subsurface water have been blamed for health problems. (3-19-82) Town Sues Firm Over Chemical Spill Hempstead Town is sueing Purex Industries, Inc. for $40 million to cleanup a chemical spill beneath Mitchel Field. The Town claims pollution has damaged the e~viron- ment and its drinking water supply. The suit is the third to be filed against Purex. State officials said the chemical solvents that include the cancer-causing agents toluene, xylene, and trichlorethylen~ seeped into groundwater that supplies drinking water to two wells in the Uniondale Water District which serves 25,000 customers. A/% environmental scientist estimated in 1981 that the chemical was moving toward wells at a rate of one to three feet a day. (8-4-82) In another similar law suit by Gilbert Font, formerly of Center Moriches, against the Long Island Nuclear Services Corp., the contention was that the owner, John LaGrua of Smithtown sold trucks to Gilbert Font which contained dangerous radioactive wastes causing dangerous levels of human exposure. George Proios, then head of the Brookhaven Town Department of Environmental Protection, urged the proper agencies to conduct a full and concise investigation of possible site dumping of these materials by LaGrua's organization. Preliminary surface testing did not result in high levels of contamination. However,the deep test borings requested by Proios in 1981 were finally conducted recently with recordings of higher then normal back- ground readings. Unique to most testing of this type, the deeper borings registered greater contamination readings. When metal was discovered beneath the surface, the excavation was halted and Dr. Harris, Suffolk County Health Commissioner, requested state officials to assist the county with further testing. MEK Spill in Hicksville On February 16, 1982, a tanker truck overturned in a parking lot in Hicksville when the asphalt beneath it gave away, spilling approximately 4,800 gallons of methyl ethyl ketone (MEK) onto the street and ground. The Mattiace Petrochemicals Company, which owns the truck, and the property owners and their tenants, originally denied any responsibility for the incident. Voluntary clean-up by the three parties was requested by the Nassau County Health Department, and by December 1982 only the Mattiace Petrochemical Company agreed to begin preliminary clean-up operations. Meanwhile, the Hicksville Water District had conducted a water quality sampling program, and discovered that MEK was found at a concentration of 1,100ppm in a test well located on the property. The State guideline for this organic com- pound in drinking water supplies is lppm. Recent est- imates of groundwater flow in the area state that ground- water is moving approximately 0.5 feet/day, and has moved in a southerly direction (nearly 100 feet) since the spill occurred, however, testing in the area suggests that the MEK itself is moving to the north. In February 1983, nearly a year after the spill occurred, the Mattiace Company halted its clean-up operations on the premise that it no longer believed it was liable for the incident. USEPA promptly notified Mattiace that it, as well as the other companies, were in violation of EPA administrative orders to clean-up the site. Until this legal conflict is resolved, EPA is negotiating with NYSDEC to fund the clean-up operations with Federal Superfund monies. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7 II WATERSHED PROTECTION Southampton Upzonin~ Proposal In January, the Town of Southampton proposed to upzone 27,000 acres of the Town (most of which lies in the Pine Barrens) to five acres per unit. Town Supervisor, Martin Lang, designated six areas for upzoning which will be voted upon separately in early March. The purpose of the upzoning is "to further the public welfare by providing necessary land use protection for lands which possess public value from an open space, groundwater recharge and supply, and ecological standpoint." (1-20-83) Southold Moratorium The Town of Southold has proposed a local law establishing a 90-day building moratorium on 4,700 acres in East Marion and Orient which was defined in The Suffolk County North Fork Water Study as having an "extremely limited" pesticide con- tamination. Councilman Joseph Townsend suggested the mor- atorium be imposed until the town's planning consultants update the Town Master Plan. (2-3-83) Open Space Law The Southampton Open Space Law, based on the State enabling legislatio~ would give the Town the right to require a de- veloper to create a cluster plan. It would set minimum requirements on the amount of open space to be preserved, ranging from 25-65 percent of total area in a subdivision. In addition, it would permit the town to demand that all or some of the units be "manor houses", which is two, three, or four family dwellings. The intention of the law is to "enable and encourage flexibility of design and development of land" while providing larger areas of open space, both for recreational and conservation purposes. Thus far, the following Towns have utilized mandatory clustering as a tool to preserve open-space: East Hampton, Southampton, Brookhaven, and Islip. (11-11-82) Proposal for Brookhaven Water Authority Victor Yannacone, an environmental attorney hired as a consultant for Brookhaven Town, recommended that the town form a water authority in order to sell water to the Suffolk County Water Authority. Yannacone suggests that Brookhaven sell water at special rates to towns that are in short supply, and in return the towns accept Brookhaven's garbage to avoid water pollution in the Town's pine barrens. Fees received would be used to sup- 8 port the Town's program of protecting its watershed and recharge areas. The Town hired Yannacone in reaction to County Legislator Prospect's Bill that would declare all of Suffolk's pine barrens a watershed preserve, giving the County Planning Department environmental re- view over the area. (2-16-83) East Hampton's Future In November, two referendums were passed in East Hampton. One authorized the expenditure of $1.5 million to save a woodland area in Montauk, known as Higher Woods, and the other authorized $1.5 million to finance a town version of the county's Farmland Preservation Program, which maintains agricultural acreage by buying the development rights from the land owners. (11-9-82) Suffolk Seeks to Drill Wells in State Parks In an effort to find clean drinking water, the Suffolk County Water Authority wants to drill five wells in state parks in the county. The Suffolk County Water Authority wants easements and contracts on five acres in Ni'ssequogue River State Park, 3.5 acres in Connetquot State Park, 10 acres in Sunken Meadow State Park and 4 acres in Hither Hills State Park in Montauk, according to John Sheridan', General Manager of the Long Island State Park Commission. The water would be free to the Authority, and the wells would cost between $400,000 and $500,000 each to develop. Several environmentalists cautioned that the Authority's request should be care- fully studied because the wells might lower the Connetquot and Nissequogue Rivers, and because it would establish a precedent for consumption of natural resources in State Parkland. (1-11-82) A Clash of Ecology, Economy The planned industrial Park, Brookhaven R & D (Research and Development) Plaza, has become a symbol of the clash between protecting the high quality of groundwater for future generations and encouraging economic growth that creates jobs and enriches the tax base. This is the largest industrial development planned in the pine bar- rens. In an unprecendented move, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services recently urged Brookhaven Town to impose stringent controls on R & D Plaza and on all future industries in the key watershed area that covers the northern two-thirds of Brookhaven, but Town officials criticized the proposed restrictions as too broad. The dispute comes down to a difference of opin- ion over whether officials have the resources and the I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 9 ability to enforce regulations governing toxic chemicals. Negotiations finally led to the formation of covenants between the Town and the Health Department which requires monitoring wells up and down gradient from the park; pro- hibits industrial discharge, and restricts the amount of area used as fertilized turf. (9-2-82) Proposed Legislation The East Hampton Town Officials at a Planning and Zoning Committee meeting in August discussed three pieces of proposed legislation: a farmland trust fund, an aquifer protection law, and an amendment that would limit re- zoning exemptions to subdivision maps with final approval. The revised draft of farmland trust fund law, sets up a procedure by which the Town can purchase development rights to farmland and then resell the rights to developers. The law makes the Town a middleman in a transfer of develop- ment rights, under which a "receiving parcel" can be de- veloped at greater density than zoning permits. The aquifer protection law will be incorporated into a packa'ge of water- shed legislation, based on the study by Rochris an~ Assoc- iates who are the Town's Planning Consultants. This document would regulate certain land covering major water recharge areas, limit wastewater discharges to on-site septic systems to 350 gallons a day per acre and prohibit road salt storage and landfills in these zones. The amendment that would limit rezoning exemptions would result in town law conforming to state law. (9-9-82) 10 III ,PESTICIDES Carbide Agrees After five months of negotiations with Suffolk County, Union Carbide will assume the cost of replacing the carbon elements found in Temik filters previously in- stalled in East End homes. The Manufacturer said the decision of when to replace filter elements in individu- al homes will be based on questionnaires mailed to each homeowner and on a water monitoring program conducted by Union Carbide and the Suffolk County Health Department. (11-18-82) Mosquitoes In August, Suffolk County Health Commissioner David Harris, approved aerial spraying of Dibrom-14 for mosquitoes over the wetlands of Fire Island National Seashore. He stated this became nec6ssary due to the large amount of rain Long Island experienced. There has also bee~_J'gropnd spraying" done in Southampton and East Hampton, in which they used a biological pesticide, Bacillus Thuringiensis Israelensis. This is preferred (over chemical pesticides) by most environmentalists but is still subject to criticism because like most pesticides it is not species-specific. (8-12-82) Gypsy Moth Spraying The Suffolk County Legislature voted in March to parti- cipate in a state program for spraying parklands to fight infestation by gypsy moths. The legislation passed, by a thirteen to five vote, a resolution calling for the County to select the first option offered under the state's gypsy moth control program. Under the first option, the state will pay 80% of the cost of the spraying program. John Gallagher, Chief Deputy County Executive, emphasized that the program will not bring the gypsy moth problem in Suffolk under control, because by law, they can only spray public land, and eggs hatching on private property will remain. Potato Pests The House Appropriations Committee voted in September to include full funding for the golden nematode program in a bill appropriating money for agriculture and rural development. This 40 year-old federal program is impor- tant to the future of interstate commerce in agricultural I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 goods between New York and other states. The $1 million pays for the management of a quarantine program to assure that no produce carrying soil contaminated with the golden nematode leaves New York. Suffolk and three upstate counties are covered by the quarantine. If the Department of Agriculture were to stop managing the quarantine, other states would be free to bar produce from these infected areas. At present this appears to be the best way to manage this pest-control program. (9-20-82) Weed Killer in Orient ~ells Diamond Shamrock, which manufactures the weed killer - Dacthal - found the chemical in well tests at three Orient farms in 1980 and notified the United States Environmental Protection Agency. However, the federal agency never forwarded the report to Suffolk Health Officials. Dacthal is the fourth agricultural chemical found in East End drinking water, and because of the number of chemicals found, the area may eventually have to pipe in water from outside their region. The State Health Department issued a warning against using the water because Dacthal was found in concentrations ex- ceeding the state safety standard of 50ppb. The high- est concentration found was 891ppb. (3-18-82) IV LANDFILLS Expansion of Landfill The Town Board of Smithtown has agreed to spend more than $460,000 to excavate a fourth cell at the landfill, which would expand the facility's capacity by 220,000 tons of garbage. The expansion area will receive a double PVC liner and leachate collection system to pre- vent leachate from entering groundwater. The cell will hold two years worth of garbage. (8-25-82) Opposition to Brookhaven's Waste Plan Brookhaven officials announced a plan to build a $1 mil- lion, three-acre tank farm for cesspool wastes near the Yaphank landfill, and promptly ran into opposition from more than 100 residents in the area. The tank farm would serve as a temporary holding station for cesspool wastes until they can be taken by truck for disposal at the Southwest Sewer District's treatment plant at Bergen Point. The tank farm would take two years to design and 12 build, and in addition to the cost of the farm, it would also cost $1.13 million to buy trucks for transportation and $875,000 annually to operate the facility. State environmental officials had been trying to get Brookhaven to close the obsolete sludge-dumping facility because of traces of pollutants which were found in drinking water. The Town instead chose to close Manorville and require all private scavenger waste haulers to cart their sludge directly to Bergen Point. (3-5-82) Waste Plant Developments in East End The Town of East Hampton is planning to construct a $2.9 million scavenger waste treatment plant. A Melville engineering firm has decided on the Accabonack landfill site on Springs-Fireplace Road. Federal and State aid are to be used, reducing the town's cost to $489,794. The plant should be completed by Spring of 1985. South- ampton Town and Riverhead Town have joined together to build a joint $4.7 million plant, which will be located in Riverhead. The plant will discharge its treated water into the Peconic River. The EPA will pay for $3.9 mil- lion, New York State $352,763, and Riverhead and South- ampton Towns will pay $176,381 each. (11-11-82) East Northport Closure Huntington Town has developed a plan to close its land- fill in East Northport. It will be closed in "sequential order" as areas reach the maximum state allowance of 235 feet above sea-level. It may take as many as 10 years to complete at a cost of $2.25 million. Clay material is recommended as covering for the fill, and a drainage channel would go around the landfill to collect runoff. Once the landfill is closed, the three existing inciner- ators are to be "phased out and demolished." (8-10-82) Babylon's Dump a Legal Battle The Town's 82-acre landfill is now a 175 foot mountain of garbage. The $2 million budget deficit is the reason why the Town cannot afford the $1 million it would cost to install a clay liner, which was authorized by the State to prevent groundwater contamination. The liner would be placed in an ll-acre extension of the landfill that would be used until the long-delayed opening of the Multi-Town facility, in 1985. The concern of the State enviroamental officials has been the plume of groundwater pollution, which extends two miles south of the dump. The contamin- ation of shallow wells is evidence of the need for a liner. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 13 The challenge is over whether Albany has the right to devise regulations without consent of the governed, and without any regard to the financial impact the regulation will have on the municipality. Merrick Landfill Closur.e Hempstead Town Board agreed to close Merrick landfill to all refuse by March 1984. The Merrick dump accepts 450 tons of raw refuse per day, and when closed the refuse will go to Oceanside. Negotiations also are under way to close Oceanside dump, but it is dependent upon the re-opening of Hempsteads Resource Recovery Plant. The troubled $140 million Hempstead plant has been closed since 1980, due to a labor dispute and the discovery of dioxin in stack emissions. The plant is expected to.reopen in 1983 after various modifications are completed and approved. (10/5/82) Suffolk Landfills to be Inspected Detection of gaseous emissions of vinyl chloride, at the North Hempstead facility in Nassau County, has caused a large-scale testing program of landfills on the East End. The landfills include, Southampton, North Sea, Riverhead, Cutchogue, Shelter Island and Accabonic in East Hampton. Plastic products disposed of at landfills over the years are suspected of being the cause of vinyl chloride contamination. If any carcinogens are detected at the East End landfills, the towns will be encouraged to install gas collection and ventilation systems. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation also announced a check of other landfills in Nassau County for vinyl chloride emissions. Toxic Chemical Found at Accabonic Landfill Methylene chloride, a chemical solvent used in furniture stripping, was found in a concentration of 42,000ppb at the East Hampton dump in March of 1982. The Town will begin a system to "log in" trips made to the ces- spool "lagoon" by commercial haulers, including the amount and source of their loads. The Health Department suggested that the Town's planned "scavenger" waste treatment plant could take care of small amounts of some organic chemicals, if the Town could "restrict the major sources". A special taxation district to maintain the facility will include Sag Harbor and East Hampton Village. (10-21-82) 14 Syosset Landfill Arsenic, lead, and other heavy metals at levels above drinking water standards have been found in the ground- water beneath the closed Syosset landfill. ERM-North- east, a Plainview consulting firm, reported that cadmium, zinc, copper, chromium and nitrates also were found at elevated levels in a plume of contaminated water that is flowing at one foot a day in a north-easterly direct- ion from the center of the county's major groundwater recharge areas, atop which the landfill sits. No contamination was found in public water wells in the vicinity at this time. (1-26-82) Brookhaven Landfill Shows Contaminants The U.S. Geol®gical Survey team, under a two and a half year $100,000 matching grant study of the Brookhaven Town facility at Yaphank, revealed the presence of what they termed "constituents in excess of background levels" of chlorides, nitrates , iron, sodium, potassium and highly dissolved solvents. Contaminants were found as far as 1,500 feet from the site on the south side of Sunrise Highway, and in a well under the landfill, 90 feet below the liner. (12-23-82) V. SEWAGE Northwest Nassau 201 Study Nears Completion A federally funded report by the Nassau County Public Works Department contained a series of options to solve the wastewater problems in northwest Nassau County. The following options were presented: expansion of four sewage treatment plants in the Great Neck and Port Washington areas; construction of mid-bay outfalls into Manhasset Bay and Hempstead Harbor to reduce pollution, establishment of regional facilities in Port Washington and at the county's Cedar Creek plant in Wantagh to treat sewage from the four plants and from an additional plant at West Shore Road in Port Washington; and retention of unsewered sections of both areas, now served by septic tanks and cesspools. (1-11-83) Southold Sewage Plan Approved The Town Board of Southold voted to create waste-water districts as a first formal step toward obtaining state and federal funding for a $1.3 million sewage treatment plant for Southold. Town officials want to tie into I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 15 the Village of Greenport's sewer system and construct a pretreatment facility to allow the system to accept wastes pumped from cesspools in the Town. The Federal government is providing 75% of the funding, with 12.5% of the financinq coming from the state, and the other 12.5% from the ~own. (10-6-82) Cedar Creek Plant Begins Operation for Artificial Recha2 In 1973, a program which would recharqe the groundwater with treated sewer-plant effluent, was first suggested as an obvious long-term water manaqement plan. The pilot project is based at Nassau's Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant in Wantagh, which generates 30 million gallons of effluent a day. A special plant was built there to provide additional purification for about 5 million gallons, 'which is piped to a recharge site in East Meadow. The Federal government paid 75% of the cost, with the remaining 25% split between the state and the County. The pilot project is now in operation and is being tested for adequacy of the water purification process. About 1 million gallons per day of treated water is being recharged at this time. (3-8-82) Sewage Odors A plan to limit sewage odors at the Bergen Point Treat- ment Plant, which treats and detoxifies sewage from the Southwest Sewer District, included a number of steps, such as repairing the broken doors at the plant and keeping the doors closed as much as possible, and removing the treated sludge from the plant as soon as possible. The county will also investigate methods for burning off noxious gases, and will be looking at the possibility of treating sludge only at night. (7-13-82) VI WATER SUPPLIERS Captain Kidd Water Company Experiences Problems In February, the water piped into homes served by the Captain Kidd water company were found to be contaminated with bacteria. The Suffolk County Health Department ordered homeowners to boil the water before use. In March, the Public Service Commission granted Captain Kidd Water Company a 43.3 per cent rate increase to con- struct new wells and pumping stations to replace the old, 16 contaminated system. In July, a dozen homeowners in the sub-division were not getting any water at all. Low pressure has been a longtime problem of the company. Despite the rate increase, no wells or pumping stations have been constructed to date. (3-18-82) $3.1 Million Water System Approved for Hampton Bays A $3.1 million plan to improve and expand the public water system in the Hampton Bays Water District was approved in September, and expected to begin in November. The approved Hampton Bays Master Water Plan includes extending water mains throughout the hamlet, demolition and removal of old pipes, construction of transmission mains at various locations to improve north-south and east-west distribution, and improvement of the avail- able fire flow capacity throughout the district. The plan is part of a 20-year project to increase the Town tax rate from $1 to $1.6 per $100 assessed valuation. Shirley Rates Increase The Public Service Commission found the Shirley Water Company in violation of its tariff for failing to supply new service to customers who requested it. The Shirley Water Company said it can't hook up more cus- tomers due to limited capacity of the well. PSC's admin- istrative law judge ruled that the company should put in a new well, meter all customers, and install new mains to serve new customers. In addition to the re- quired improvement, Shirley Water has filed for an 82% rate increase. (1-28-82) VII SURFACE WATER Oil in Oceanside Canal An oil spill of undetermined origin polluted part of a canal running between two industrial streets near Ocean Harbor, in Hempstead Town. The canal,which is 50 feet wide and two blocks long, was covered with a sheen of oil. The Coast Guard rigged a container boom at one end of the canal to keep the oil from spreading. (7-25-82) Protection for Nissequogue River A bill was signed by Governor Carey to keep the Nisse- quogue River in the state of "natural crystalline beauty." The 7.6 mile stretch of river is now included in the State I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 17 Wild, Scenic and Recreational River System. Once a river is included in the state system, existing land uses along its banks cannot be altered or expanded. More than half of the 5,300 acres now covered by the Nissequogue is res- identially developed. In sections of the river that will be designated scenic, a minimum of four-acre zoning per house will be imposed. In sections designated for rec- reation, a two-acre minimum will be in effect. The rest of the land is publicly owned parkland. There is little commercial development in the area. (7-15-82) Peconic River - Possible Protection As a preliminary step toward having the River nominated as Scenic and Recreational, the Riverhead, Brookhaven, and Southampton Town Conservation Boards have sponsored the Peconic River Screening Study. The study contains a general description of the conditions in the area of the river, and includes an analysis of the river and shorelands within one-half mile from each bank of the River. Once the study is accepted, the River must be approved for designation by the State Legislature and the Governor. A management plan will then be developed to contain guidelines to be used in review of zone changes, improvement and protection proposals for the river. The power to implement the management plan is divided between the local and state governments. According to the study, the 15 mile long Peconic River, which flows through three townships, is one of the most ecologically diverse rivers in the state, and contains pine barrens plants and animals which are rare or absent elsewhere in New York. (11-18-82) Town, Counties Sue Corps for Dumping In March 1982, two days after the U.S. Army Corps of Engi- neers began dumping dredge spoil in Long Island Sound, Suffolk and Nassau counties initiated court action to stop future dumping. Despite local oposition at public hearings, the Corps approved the site on March 16, allow- ing about 24 waterfront communities east of the Throgs Neck Bridge to unload their spoil there. The main object- ion was that the Corps does not have proper control over what material is actually dUmped in the Sound. Town and county officials are also concerned about the ecological impact of the dumping on fish life in the area, which includes lobster breeding grounds. (3-23-82) Nassau Wins OK on Sludge Dumping County officials signed an agreement with the U.S. EPA that would allow dumping of sewage sludge at the existing 18 site, 12 miles off shor~ until new federal policies are adopted. But, after protest of charter boat operations and seafood merchants, Nassau County Executive Francis Purcell announced that the county would accept the re- commendations of the study conducted by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which suggests dumping at 65 and 106 miles. Carrying the sludge that far off shore would add $1.2 million to the County's $800,000 sludge-dumping bill. The fishermen presented a petition from a scuba diving group, stating that a permanent three-foot high haze has settled over the bottom where the sludge is being dumped. Marine life has been severely impacted with mussel beds no longer existing in the area; porgie~ a commercially important fish having disappeared; and some yellow flounder having been discovered with sludge in their stomach. (11-23-82) Raw-Clam Warninq In July, 1982, the New York State Health Commissioner issued a warning not to eat raw clams, because of a number of outbreaks of food poisoning and Hepatitis. Health officials blame the recent outbreak of disease on the clam shortage that has sparked increased illegal harvesting from polluted waters. In addition, heavy rains last spring increased the runoff of contaminated water, polluting many areas that are usually safe for clamming. There is also a possibility that clams are being imported into New York from other states, but it is difficult to trace shipments of clams from their place of harvest to point of sale. The health depart- ment sent out hundreds of inspectors to look at shipments of clams at restaurants, dealers, and wholesalers, with instructions to embargo any clams that are not properly marked. (7-24-82) Shellfish Ban in Long Island Sound Ail shellfish from the New York City line to the entrance to Oyster Bay in the Long Island Sound was prohibited in January. The action came in response to a malfunction in a New York City sewage treatment plant which caused the city to dump an additional 300 million gallons of raw sewage a day into the East River. New York City waters have been closed to shellfishing for years, because of the dumping of 200 million gallons of untreated sewage, since it has no plants to treat that effluent. New York City is building new plants and hopes to end all sewage dumping by 1987. I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 19 VIII RESOURCE RECOVERY Multi-Town Project Ends More than a decade ago, it was proposed to build the world's largest garbage recycling plant. After a $9 million debt for Babylon and Huntington taxpayers, and 500,000 tons of garbage piling up each year, Multi-Town Solid Waste Disposal Authority died. The Authority became defunct because the law that created it stated that unless a contract to build the plant was signed by March 1, 1983, the authority would go out of exist- ence. There were claims of mismanagement, and questions about the visibility of joint town ventures on an Island with 666 separate taxing districts. Despite the dis- olution, af Multi-Town, Huntington Supervisor Butterfield and Babylon Supervisor Noto are considering a new joint recycling venture which, if pursued, is at least three years away. (3-3-83) Fuel Firm Works on Recovery of Landfill Gas Getty Synthetic Fuel, Inc. will begin drilling test wells at North Hempstead landfill, in order to establish Long Island's first commercial methane recovery plant. Under the agreement, the firm will design, build and operate the recovery plant at no cost to the Town. The Town will earn at least $30,000 to $50,000 a year from a 6% share of sales of natural gas from the methane. The test wells will enable the company to determine the quality of gas the landfill will produce. Solar Use of Dump Sought Charles Hope, owner of Solwin Industries, filed papers with Southold Town seeking permission to establish a wind farm - a series of electricity-producing windmills on industrial land in East Marion. The application is pending. Hope would like to set up a similar system at the dump where he would also construct solar collectors and turbines. The turbines would draw methane, a by- product of rotting garbage, from the dump and convert it to electricity, which would then be sold to LILCO. (8-25-82) Old Bethpage Site-Conversion The Town of Oyster Bay announced plans for a $58.5 million resource recovery plant, to be built by 1985 at Old Bethpage landfill. Engineering costs and interest on the 20 20 year Industrial Development Agency Bonds that would be used to fund the plant would increase total costs to $117 million. The three-burner, three-boiler, one-flue system will be built by Waste Management, Inc., which is using technology developed by Volund, a Danish Firm. This mass-burning technique has been used in Europe, and in a 20 year-old Chicago plant. Heat generated during burning will be used to make steam, which will be sold to LILCO. Fans will pull air from the garbage pit into the furnaces, eliminating odor and dust problems. The plant will generate enough energy to meet the annual electric needs of homes. The as~ 5% of the volume of the original garbage, will have to be landfilled. (2-9-82) Islip Receives Money for Methane In July, 1982, Islip became the first municipality on Long Island to receive revenues derived from the pro- duction of energy. Getty Oil Company paid the Town $40,000 for the recovery of methane gas from the Haup- pauge landfill. It is estimated that Islip could re- ceive between $100,000 and $200,000 annually based upon the receipt of one eighth of the royalties generated from the sale of electricity to LILCO. Brookhaven Sells Methane The Town of Brookhaven approved a contract with Wehran Energy Corp. of Mahwah, New Jersey to mine methane from the.Town landfill in Holtsville. Brookhaven will receive at least $150,000 annually or 12.5% of the gross revenue, whichever is larger, over a ten-year contract. The pro- ject was expected to begin in six months. (9-22-82) IX DEVELOPMENT Teamsters Proposing Subdivision in Pine Barrens After Southampton's rejection of a 1,647 acre housing and hotel development plan in the pine Barrens, the Teamsters submitted a plan to subdivide the property into two-acre lots to accommodate more than 700 one- family homes. This is the largest zoning application to come before the Town. It calls for abandonment of the Hampton Hills Country Club and golf course, and division of the union's property into individual two- acre lots to accommodate 757 homes. The Teamster prop- erty, between Riverhead and Westhampton, is considered I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 21 an important groundwater recharge area. The original proposal needed town board approval because it involved zoning changes, but the new proposal meets current zoning requirements and only needs to be approved by the plan- ning board. (12-15-82) Major Development in Oys.ter Bay Watershed Rejected The first proposed development to come up for approval before the town board will be a rezoning request by Gilbert Tilles, a Woodbury developer, who wants to build 220 homes on 81 acres at the intersection of Route 107 and Jericho Turnpike. Tilles is seeking to change the zoning to permit lots smaller than the current one-acre requirement. Foxwood Association is requesting rezoning of 33.7 acres to the west of Tilles land to build 496 attached condominium units. We're Associates Company has constructed two office buildings in the Jericho Quadrangle and is now building a third to the west of the Foxwood Property. The firm is now asking the Town to rezone residential land to permit construction of a 300 room hotel and convention facility on 8.6 acres to west of office building. Under the town master plan., the remaining parcels in Jericho are all zoned for single-family homes. The Tilles plan and Foxwood's proposal are backed by local civic groups, which gives them a good chance for approval. (5-28-82) A Rare Breed Concerns Zoning Foes A Brookville civic association has prepared a battle to fight the proposed downzoning of an 80-acre site that sits atop Nassau's primary watershed area, where the only known breeding habitat of the Tiger Salamander exists in the County. The salamander, an endangered species, was found in one of the 10 kettle-hole ponds on the Under- hill property. The property vertically absorbs rainwater and runoff into the underground aquifer that supplies Nassau's drinking water. Although the development would be hooked into the Jericho Sewer District, contamination of the groundwater is expected from fertilizer and other organic substances. The association also proposes saving the area's knolls and trees. (6-17-82) Orient Development on the North Fork In 1975, a subdivision called Land's End was approved, removing 35.5 acres from a 93 acre park originally sought by the Suffolk County Legislature. Local opposition to the park had become so intense, the County scrubbed the plan to acquire the remaining Orient Point land. In 22 November, 1982, Manhattan developer Nicholas Schick pro- posed to build 150 condomimium units and a conference center on the remaining 48 acres of Orient Point. Resid- ents of Southold opposed this application at the Town Board Public Hearing, on the basis of an inadequate supply of water. Some Orient residents might be regret- ting the lost park now that major development is in the works. (11-18-82) Brookhaven Settles Two-Acre Zonin~ Suit In December, the T~wn Board approved an application, made on the Town's own motion, to rezone seven acres from A-2 residential to J-3 business for a shopping center in Manorville, and to rezone 43 acres from L-1 industrial to A-2 residential. The two motions to rezone were part or a settlement of a three-year-old lawsuit brought against the town by Omnia Properties, Inc. and 18 other landowners in the Manorville-Calverton area. Red Creek Ridge Development The Southampton Town Planning Board voted to require the developers of the Red Creek Ridge subdivision in Hampton Bays to submit an Environmental Impact Statement. De- velopers have proposed that the 290-acre parcel south of Red Creek Road be divided into 101 single-family lots and 34 multi-family lots, yielding 115 attached housing units for a total of 216 residences. In addition, a community center, swimming pool, and tennis courts are planned. The property is zoned for 1-acre residential use. The Planning Board, in its environmental report, has predicted the potential impact that the proposed subdivision could have on the land, water and resouroes. They have suggested a community water supply and indi- vidual sanitary septic systems. Regarding community services, the report states: "The proposed subdivision will induce a substantial amount of vehicles to use Red Creek Road and it will involve the extension of existing LILCO electricity lines for 50 or more homes. The En- vironmental Impact Statement for Red Creek Ridge is being prepared by the H2M Corporation in F,~rmingdale. (11-4-82) Hither Woods East Hampton Town held a public hearing in October, 1982, on a plan to put a 96-unit subdivision on the 263 acres, at Benson Point. Approved by Mr. Thorsen, the former Town Planner, called for clustering so as to leave 80% of the Benson Point acreage open, much of it bordering on the State Park. The plan, based on the Dune Associates I I I I i I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I 23 second proposal of 53 lots and 32 apartments in clustered units on 192 acres, would yield the same number of units and save the developer $440,000. (10-28-82) X MISCELLANEOUS "Acid Rain" Conference Northport High School held a conference in January of 1983, on the problems of Acid Rain. The feature of "Acid Rain Day" was a panel discussion that offered a spectrum of views on acid rain - a poorly understood menace that kills fish in lakes in the Adirondacks and may damage crops, national monuments, car finishes and drinking water. Stuart Hughes, a Canadian government official, said, "acid rain from Midwest power plants blew into his country, killing fish and destroying forests, both essential in major Canadian industries." Hughes told of his government's wishes that the Reaqan Administration cut utility-plant emissions. Washington wants to study the matter, and Brookhaven National Lab- oratory stressed how little is known about acid rain. (1-14-83) Ban on Deter~ent Additive Proctor and Gamble, looking for approval of NTA (a polysyllabic chemical), received a "no soap" answer from local health and water officials. Nassau and Suffolk Health Departments and Suffolk County Water Authority urged the state to ban its use on Long Island. Proctor and Gamble disputes any health threat and points to Canada's use of NTA since 1971 without adveTse effects. (6-29-82) Long Island Groundwater Levels Will Drop County officials announced that water levels in lakes and ponds will drop over the next eight years. Vir- tually no federal money would be available for building sewage treatment plants and installing wells to replen- ish surface water in areas served by sewers. Failure to replenish streams and lakes would have an impact on the intrusion of salt water into the underground drinking water supply. The new amendment to the Federal Clean Water Act leaves the State with only one-third of the money it needs to complete current wastewater projects across New York. Total funding through 1984 will not exceed $1 billion, although New York needs $3 billion to 24 complete existing projects. The cutbacks are forcing financing of only those projects that will best improve state waters. Refilling lakes, creeks, and ponds on Long Island is not a high State priority, because the affect is aesthetic, rather than improving the quality of critical underground water. Water Purifiers Planned Air-stripping, one of several treatment methods now commercially available, has suddenly become the cheap- est way for many suppliers to satisfy the Island's grow- ing demand for water. The Hicksville Water District, the Suffolk County Water Authority and the Garden City Park Water District plan to put such units into operation this year. Aeration, or Air Stripping units, blasts air into a column of tumbling water to remove volatile, cancer-causing chemicals. Volatile chemicals separate from water when exposed to air. The cost of each aeration machine will be $225,000 per well. (1-12-82) LILCO Switch to Coal The State Department of Environmental Conservation held a hearing in December on a proposal to convert its oil- fired plant in Port Jefferson to burn coal. The Village Mayor, Harold Sheprow, said the increase in tax receipts would be enormous because of the plant's valued asses- sment. The tax revenues from the plant would end up pay- ing 90% of the village budget compared to the current 60%. The opposition claims that the conversion will increase the amount of acid rain. The estimated cost of convert- ing the Port Jefferson Oil Furnaces to burn coal is $370 million. LILCO had estimated that the change would save customers between $600 million and $1.6 billion during the plant's lifetime. Revised figures, due to the drop in oil prices, however, now indicate that the conversion would cost LILCO's customers a $1,070,000 penalty. (12-1-82) Counties Dispute Water Policy The Master Plan for Nassau County's Groundwater generated controversy among Suffolk officials, because of Nassau's demand for 27 million gallons a day from Suffolk, which would dry up Huntington streams and cause chemical con- tamination. Instead, it was suggested that wells to supply Nassau that would not damage Suffolk's water supply could be built in southern Huntington town, where Suffolk's water table is the highest. (3-23-82) I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 25 Bott.led Water An increased dependence on bottled water due to contam- ination of groundwater may result in stricter regula- tions and tax-exempt status. County Legislator Gregory Blass petitioned the State to require all bottled water labels to clearly indicate the water's chemical content and place of origin, on the basis of the April 1982 report by the Drinking Water Supply Section of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The county report revealed that some pro- ducts had "questionable chemical quality." (4-20-82) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION II CRITICAL WATERSHED PROTECTION I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I 29 II. CRITICAL WATERSHED PROTECTION 1 A. INTRODUCTION A groundwater watershed may be defined as that portion of a landscape through which groundwater recharge occurs. On Long Island, naturally vegetated groundwater water- sheds have been much reduced in area due to extensive development. The Commission has introduced the term "critical groundwater watershed" to describe these re- maining vegetated watershed areas which still possess an abundant, pristine water resource of significant public value. Critical groundwater watersheds are generally located in the center of Long Island. Here, the depth to which water recharges is at its greatest -- a phenom- enon that causes the interior of Long Island to act as a deep flow recharge zone. The precipitation recharge~ through the center of Long island,the area known as a critical groundwater watershed, has a long residence time, mea- sured in terms of decades, centuries or longer. A similar process operates on the North and South Forks but the depth of recharge is shallower and the residence time is shorter. Since the precipitation recharged in the center of the Island stays in the groundwater system longer than that absorbed at the Island's periphery, a substantial frac- tion of all groundwater in storage is recharged through the critical watershed areas. Thus, protection of a given area of critical watershed land has a dispropor- tionately greater effect on the quality of the ground- water in the aquifer system as a whole. Additionally, the sandy soils that are characteristic of the middle portion of Long Island mean that rates of recharge are somewhat higher there than elsewhere. Finally, because of these geologic and geographic conditions, contaminants on the land in the middle section of the Island readily enter the groundwater and, once there, slowly move deep into the aquifers and remain underground for long periods of time, measured in terms of hundreds or thousands of years. An understanding of the physical nature of Long Island's hydrogeologic system sheds light on why most serious Parts of this section were first published in the report entitled, Watershed Planuin~ for the Protection of Long Island's Groundwater, the Coalition for the Protection of Long Island's Groundwater, September 1982, Greenberg, Meyland, Tripp, eds. 44pp. 30 regional groundwater contamination problems result from pollution sources -- landfills, industrial impoundments, highways, commercial areas, fertilizers, pesticides and septic systems -- located within critical groundwater watershed areas. These factors demonstrate why improper land use and the presence of contaminants in critical groundwater watershed areas are the principal factors , determining the long-term quality of most of Long Island s groundwater. This analysis suggests that protection of the remaining naturally vegetated critical groundwater watersheds of Long Island is essential for the maintenance of a large reservoir of high quality groundwater. In surface water watersheds (impervious impoundment basins) the accepted means of protecting water quality is to rigorously restrict human activity within the run- off catchment area. The Commission has concluded that the same basic principals that are now generally accepted for surface water watersheds should be applied in a closely analogous manner on Long Island where longer contaminant residence times render its critical groundwater watersheds more vulnerable to permanent contamination than their sur- face water counterparts elsewhere in the State. The rationale behind this conceptualization becomes readily apparent if the public-use functions and long term water quality predictability characteristics of critical groundwater watersheds on Long Island are compared with those of conventional surface water water- sheds in, for example, the Catskill Plateau region of New York State. It is a matter of concern to the Commission that all of the most important critical groundwater watersheds on Long Island lack legislative or de-facto protection and remain, at this time, vulnerable to new development- induced degradation. In Nassau and Suffolk Counties there are respectively, one and two major regions that should be the focus of legislative initiatives. Nassau County's last remaining critical groundwater water- shed is the morainal forests and fields that form an east- west band of open space across the north-central portion of the Towns of North Hempstead and Oyster Bay. Develop- ment pressure is intense within this westernmost intact watershed on Long Island, and its unique potential to protect groundwater quality is in danger of being per- manently compromised unless prompt governmental actions are initiated. I I I I i I I I I I I I I i ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 31 The largest remaining natural recharge area on Long Island is the Central Pine Barrens of Brookhaven, South- ampton, and Riverhead Towns. It alone has the potential for facilitating large-scale export of groundwater for blending or direct consumptive purposes elsewhere on the island. However, even if it is never utilized as a bi- county source of water, this region would, if it is soon protected by legislative initiative, continue to supply parable water to the densely settled coastal communities that occupy the coastal fringe of central and eastern Suffolk County through natural recharge-discharge ground- water flow patterns. On the east end of the Island, the oak and pine forest watersheds of the South Fork straddle segments of the Ronkonkoma Terminal Moraine that form a sinuous ridge along the topographically high central region of the peninsula. Protection of the surficial character of these critical groundwater watersheds is fundamental to any long-range water supply strategy for the towns of Southampton and East Hampton. During much of this past year, the Commission worked in close cooperation with the Town of Southampton in an effort to help protect the critical watershed areas within that town that were described in the Commission's previous report. After careful consideration, the South- ampton Town Board proposed comprehensive rezoning for each of the two major critical watersheds within the Town. The Commission believes that it is instructive to examine closely this example of governmental initiative to protect large parts of two of Long Island's critical groundwater watersheds. 32 B. SOUTHAMPTON: A CASE STUDY Introduction Encompassing 145 square miles (92,000 acres), the Town of Southampton has a year-round population of almost 40,000 residents. Located on eastern Long Island, it is bisected by the Shinnecock Canal, thereby being composed of two distinct land areas(see Figure IV). To the west lies the Town of Brookhaven, to the north is Riverhead and the famous Peconic Bay(one of the rich- est scallop grounds in the world), and to the east is the Town of East Hampton. The Town, which has a mixture of land uses, is rich in natural and cultural resources. The eastern portion of the Town holds some of the richest farm land in New York State, while the beaches along the south shore are of international acclaim. There are several distinctive and attractive villages in the Town, such as Sag Harbor, Quogue, and Bridgehampton. Recently, the Town has recog- nized the great value of one of its basic resources- the critical watershed land that sits atop the east-west trending row of hills known as the Ronkonkoma Moraine. The moraine is one of two primary geological features in the Town and from a hydrological point of view is the most important. Starting from the Brookhaven Town line, the moraine traverses the western portion of the Town, becoming slightly depressed in the Shinnecock area, and then rising in the eastern portion of the Town towards the East Hampton Town line. The topographically high morainal regions of Southampton Town are important because, as a general rule, the contours of the water table, that being the upper-most surface of the groundwater reservoir, follow in a subdued fashion, the contours of the land surface. It is the downward pressure exerted by this mound of water which underlies the moraine, that drives the movement of water in the groundwater system on Long Island, and in Southampton Town. Under gradients of pressure, water in the morainal areas is "pushed" verti- cally downward recharging the deeper portions of the groundwater reservoir. This is significant since the lower sections of the reservoir contain the greatest amount of pure water. Once the Town understood the importance of the morainal lands within the context of the groundwater system, it began to pay greater attent- ion to potential land uses in this area because water- borne contaminants from these activities will also move into deeper reaches of the groundwater reservoir. I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I 33 Response to Development Pressures Over the last several years, the Towns of Long Island's South Fork have experienced unprecedented development. The preponderence of this development are residential sub-divisions in the Towns of Southampton and East Hampton. In 1975, approximately 350 acres were sub- divided in Southampton Town; this average was typical of the previous few years. From 1976 to 1981, however, an average of 1,525 acres per year were sub-divided, for a total of 9,150 acres. This accelerated rate of develop- ment continued in 1982, with 1,050 acres in the first six months of the year. With over 1/10 of Southampton Town irretrievably committed to land development in just seven years, and the realization by the Town of the relationship between land use and groundwater quality, it began form- ulating strategies to insure adequate protection of its groundwater supply. Since Southampton Town has been at the forefront of developing a watershed protection pro- gram, as an outgrowth of a comprehensive land use re- evaluation, the program is illustrated here in the hope that other towns both on and off Long Island will utilize similar approaches in formulating their own watershed protection plans. The 1970 Master Plan for Southampton delineated a number of areas in the Town which were called "water catchment" residences. Not surprisingly, these areas were along the terminal moraine which, because of their hydrological function previously described, are important watershed lands. Additionally, throughout specific portions of this morainal watershed land the master plan delineated extensive green belt park systems. As a first step in establishing one such green belt system, the Town is pre- sently in negotiation to protect six acres by purchasing some of the parcel's development rights, while acquiring the fee title to the remaining acreage. This parcel is located in the western portion of the moraine in the section of the Town east of the Shinnecock Canal. In 1982, the Town Board took an important step in develop- ing a watershed protection plan by utilizing the "Critical Areas of Environmental Concern" designation of the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The designation in- cluded 17,400 acres of land in the Town; 10,500 acres in the western portion, and 6,900 in the eastern section. Virtually all of the acreage found along the moraine was included. (see legislation in Appendix) 34 Although such designation under SEQRA does not impose any specific restrictions, it does require that all proposed actions within the designated area be considered Type I actions. Type I actions are those which are likely to have a significant effect on the natural environ- ment and usually result in a greater environmental review through the preparation of an environmental impact state- ment. It is the Town's expectation that with this desig- nation, groundwater quality concerns, and other environ- mental impacts resulting from developmen~ will be more fully and adequately addressed. In November of 1982, the Town implemented another im- portant component of its watershed protection program- the Town's Open Space Law. When New York State passed enabling legislation during the 1982 Legislative Session (which the Commission supported), authorizing the use of mandatory clustering, the Town Board then adopted local legislation establishing conditions and regulations on development which, if utilized, will preserve important open space through clustered residential housing. This Open Space Law empowers the Southampton Town Planning Board to require that certain percentages of a property to be subdivided remain as open space, with the result of some form of clustered residential housing in the portion of the parcel being developed. With the utilization of the Open Space Law in Southampton Town, it can be expected that the impact of clustered subdivision development on groundwater quality will be mitigated. This is based on three main precepts. First, the amount of fertilized turf in square footage is less than that of a typical subdivision of the same number of units. Since nitrate contamination from turf fertilizer is a pollutant of great concern, as are pesticides, herb- icides, and fungicides, a reduction in lawn area will result in a decrease in contamination from these materials. Second, since a developer achieves substantial savings during the construction phase of a clustered subdivisions as compared with a conventional development due to the close proximity of the building units, there exists an opportunity to construct, in many subdivisions, an on-site sewage treatment plant. In some areas, county health code requires on-site treatment. Third, most clustered developments have some attached housing, which are smaller units than single and separate homes. There- fore, average family size liwing in attached housing is generally smaller than that of detached homes. When extrapolated to include all the units in the development, clustered housing often contains less people which results in less sanitary waste being generated. I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I mm m m m m m m m m m m m mmm ,m m m m m m TYPICAL LAYOUT FOI~ I.AHD 8UBDIVI.~IOI4 FI(~3~E I P~OPOSL~D CLU6T£R DLrV~'LOPM~.NT PO~$1~LZ ~)0 P~$VAT~ HOME. 8UBZ)IVIS~ON I CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT: SCHEMATIC VIEW Residents benefit from scenic views; property ~ FIGURE III N~tural floodplain and Smaller lot sizes can reduce housing Source: Based upon dragram in City of Grand Ra~id~ "Planned Unit Development" brochure. Reduction in paved surfaces allows natural infiltration and r~luces aedimentatJon and water quality problems 38 It should be noted that while protection of open space and groundwater quality were prime reasons for the Town effecting the local Open Space Law, other important concerns, such as preservation of open space, retention of environmentally fragile areas, community identity, and natural resource conservation were also considered (see legislation in Appendix). Perhaps the most significant aspect of the Town's water- shed protection program, is the recently passed compre- hensive up-zoning of 25,600 acres of land to a minimum of five acre lots. The zoning districts which were upzoned include R-60 (1% acre residential), CR-60 (1% acre residential), CR-80 (2 acre residential), and L 1 (2 acre light industrial). Of the 25,600 acres, about 18,700 acres are in the western portion of the Town, and the remaining 6,900 acres are in the morainal portion east of the Shinnecock Canal (see map). Almost the entire acreage within the area upzoned functions as important watershed land, recharging high quality water to the deeper layers of the groundwater reservoir. This initiative is import- ant in that it substantially decreases the amount and extent of land development allowed in these watershed areas. The rezoning will reduce the amount of units permitted in the 25,600 acres by approximately 64%. As with the Open Space Law, protection of groundwater quality was a leading, but not sole consideration in the Town putting forth the upzoning initiative (see legislative findings in Appendix). At a public hearing on these proposed actions held on January 18, 1983, the Co-Chairpersons of the Commission indicated their strong support for the proposed rezoning. Assemblywoman May Newburger said: "Toxic contamination of groundwater on Long Island is largely, if not entirely, the ultimate result of human land use activities. This fundamental truth has too often been peripheral to legislative and administrative programs designed to protect the present and future quality of drinking Water on Long Island. The problem of toxic contamination of groundwater cannot be addres- sed solely or primarily on the basis of regulating the use of toxic chemicals. It is also the use of land which must be regulated to protect water quality. I wish to draw your particular attention to pages 116 and 117 of the Commission's 1982 report which describe and figure the Commission's determination of the critical watershed areas of the South Fork. You will find that I I I i I i I I I I I ! I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 39 the Commission's boundaries closely approximate that por- tion of your Town east of the Shinnecock Canal which you are considering today for rezoning. Similarly, on the western side of the canal, the areas that you are today considering for rezoning are part of Coastal (Central) Pine Barrens which the Commission's 1981 report identified (p.79) as "the most efficient groundwater recharge area in the bi-county region." The 1981 report (pp. 79-80) went on to say that human activity and development within the Coastal Pine Barrens must be managed so as not to compromise the integrity of this critical watershed area. We believe that rezoning those areas on both sides of the canal that are under consideration here today to a minimum of five acres per developmental unit is consistent with recommendations of the New York State Legislative Commission on Water Re- source Needs of Long Island." Senator Caesar Trunzo said: "The proposed amendment to Southampton Town's Zoning Law, Chapter 69, allowing for the upzoning to five acres of critical watershed areas throughout the Town, is an action that our Legislative Commission feels is both necessary and proper to maintain and protect the water resources of this area. It will only be through strong and aggres- sive action today that we may be able to stop the spread of groundwater contamination." While we may not be able to control the various noxious elements present in our air that drifted in from other industrialized areas, nor analyze all food consumed to determine what levels of nitrates, heavy metals, pesti- cides or other organics may be present, we can protect our water supply and should therefore make that goal a primary concern of local government. Therefore, our Commission strongly urges the adoption of this proposed upzoning, and offers whatever assistance it can to support the Town in following this course of action." Another watershed protection tool which the Town is presently exploring the feasibility of, is the procedure of transferring development rights (T.D.R.) from one parcel to another. By this process, the amount of de- velopment in a given area can be appreciably reduced, while allowing another parcel to accommodate the dis- placed development from the parcel where it has been diminished. Having established the necessary statute 40 in their zoning code, the Town is hOpeful of using T.D.R. to funnel growth from environmentally sensitive proper- ties, such as watershed land, to parcels where develop- ment is more desirable. Concerning protection of open space in important watershed land, the Town of Southampton has voiced its support for the retention by Suffolk County of several hundred acres in the western reaches of the Town. The County has ac- quired through default of property tax payments, approx- imately 370 acres in the Long Island Dwarf Pine Plains. The Suffolk County Planning Department and the Legis- lative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island have been working on having these properties placed in the "forever wild" category as provided for in the County Charter. By doing this, the County will no longer have to pay local school and special district taxes on the parcels. To the degree that many towns are particularly concerned about any loss of school district revenue, the support for the protection of these watershed prop- erties by the Town of Southampton is especially signif- icant. At the present time, the Town of Southampton is involved in a groundwater study with Cornell University. The study has a number of purposes; to determine, within more specific ranges, the relationship among land use activities, densities and the quality of groundwater; to evaluate the relative impact of various land uses on groundwater quality, to identify and evaluate land use management practices which can help protect ground- water quality; to assess present and potential future contaminations of groundwater recharge in the Pine Barrens; and to evaluate, where possible, the relative importance of different areas within the central Pine Barrens with regard to groundwater recharge. The study is expected to be completed in the Spring and will provide useful information concerning the groundwater resources of Southampton Town. With the adoption of the initiatives previously outlined, and those which will be implemented in the near future, the Town of Southampton has successfully undertaken a major effort toward properly controlling development in its critical watershed lands. The Commission has supported the development of this multi-faceted program to protect the Town's water resources, assisting on several aspects of it, and we highly commend the Town of Southampton for its prompt and decisive formulation of the program. I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I Town of Southampton FIGURE IV Riverhead Great Peconic Bay Atlantic Ocean Areas upzoned 42 C. STRATEGIES AND TECHNIQUES FOR WATERSHED. PROTECTION In addition to the protection techniques discussed in the Southampton Case Study, there are other strategies that are effective in protecting critical groundwater watersheds. These are described below: Acquisition Public ownership of critical watershed areas allows for complete control of land use activities. In certain areas, acquisition may be the only way to guarantee total preservation of natural vegetative and soil cover as well as total prohibition of contaminating activities. Pri- ority protection areas, areas requiring acquisition for effective protection, are determined by both ecological and hydrological significance. In the Pine Barrens watershed regions, these two criteria are intertwined. Areas which are of great ecologic and hydrologic value are generally found along the midline of the Ronkonkoma moraine and along the upper reaches of the outwash plains. Following the designation of priority parcels for acqui- sition, potential funding sources must be identified. Below is an outline of potential sources which should be considered in attempts to make funding arrangements for acquisition of priority protection parcels. Fundin~ Sources for Acquisition of Priority Parcels GOVERNMENT: Towns Counties State Federal May purchase watershed lands indepen- dently or jointly through cooperative or matching funding arrangements. PRIVATE: - Foundation grants - Land bequests to public jurisdiction - Acquisition by private conservation organizations CONSUMER/PUBLIC Bond issues (For acquisition of specific parcels or for establish- ment of a watershed preservation fund) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 43 Surcharge on water (A water surcharge imposed by water suppliers would broaden water suppliers'concerns beyond single well sites and would benefit present and future water consumers. The imposition of a surcharge would establish a fund for acquisition of priority parcels of watershed lands.) As the largest water supplier in Suffolk County, the Suffolk County Water Authority could, for example, in- itiate a water surcharge program to support a fund to acquire Pine Barrens recharge watershed areas. LAND USE REGULATIONS: Given the limits of acquisiton as a watershed preserva- tion strategy, land use regulation must play a pivotal role in watershed planning. Land use controls can be used to direct growth out of critical areas and to con- trol discharges in developed areas as well. The following suggest the areas where land use controls can be used -- planning, density control, discharge control, economic incentives and disincentives, and government programs -- and the specific mechanisms which can be implemented in watershed protection plans. PLANNING AND ZONING: Updating of town master plans to include watershed protection plans. Identification of critical watershed areas and priority acquisition parcels Development of a fire management plan Conservation easements Changes in zoning ordinances (Downzoning in designated growth areas, upzoning in preservation areas) Mandatory clustering (Ail municipalities within New York State now have the authority to enact a mandatory clustering law.) Transfer of Development Rights (A transfer of develop- ment credit program would designate protection and growth areas, and would provide property owners in the protection area with credits representing lost development value which could be sold to a developer in a growth area who would use it to build to higher 44 densities than would otherwise be allowable. Such a system will function only if one planning or land use control entity has the authority to limit control and/or expand development in designated protection and growth areas. Burlington County, New Jersey has recently funded an exchange board to facilitate the exchange of Pinelands development credits estab- lished as part of the New Jersey Pinelands Comprehen- sive Management plan. (A moratorium may be instituted pending the creation and adoption of these activities). DISCHARGE CONTROL: Performance Standards (Zoning ordinances incorporating performance standards should be used to focus on the impacts of development and should be quantifiable and capable of being mea- sured). Prohibition of Contaminating Activities (Including dumps, landfills, and other major point sources, and non-point sources such as fertilizers and pesti- cides). ECONOMIC INCENTIVES AND DISINCENTIVES: Infrastructure Investment (Public funds for infrastructure should be invested in such a way as to discourage private development in the protection area and to promote it in designated growth centers. Public funds for major prcjects should be contingent upon watershed protection plans). Tax Incentives (Tax incentives should encourage retention of large land holdings, donation of land to the public, and private development in growth areas rather than in preservation areas). Fairer allocation of the tax burden for watershed/ open space acquisition. GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS: New York State Programs State Environmental Quality Review Act(SEQRA) (all proposed development projects within the Pine Barrens watershed area should be designated as Type 1 actions I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I 45 requiring preparation of an environmental impact statement.) State Freshwater Wetlands Act (No permits under the Act for dredging, filling or drainage of wetlands within the Pine Barrens protection area should be issued.) Federal Programs Clean Water Act (No permits under the Act for dredging, filling or drainage of wetlands within the Pine Barrens protection area should be issued.) Safe Drinking Water Act (The Sole Source Aquifer Pro- gram, under the Safe Drinking Water Act, reviews fed- erally financially assisted projects on Long Island and in other designated sole source areas throughout the country. This program would be greatly expanded by the passage of the proposed Sole Source Aquifer Protection Act as an amendment to Section 1424(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. That-Act would provide federal funds for local planning for management of special protection areas (critical groundwater re- charge watersheds) within sole source aquifer areas following designation by the Governor of such water- shed areas. It would also provide some federal funds as seed capital for land credit exchange institutions to facilitate transfer of development out of critical watershed areas into appropriate growth areas. In addition to these specific in-place and pending govern- mental programs are a variety of generic programmatic options that the various levels of government can exer- cise so as to protect critical groundwater watersheds. These are summarized in the following table which is a prioritized list. The degree to which a given tech- nique will assure protection of a watershed is reflected by the numbers at the left of the table. Those tech- niques listed toward the top of the page, those with the lowest numbers, are more certain to protect water- shed quality than those toward the bottom of the page. 3 4 5 6 10 TABLE I Governmental Techniques for Watershed Protection Special distric:s in- Sc~e public propeL*t~lef amy 46 I I I i I I I I I I I I i I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! 47 The Commission is of the opinion that Long Island resi- dents are faced with some basic policy choices reqarding the Island's critical watershed areas. The protection of Long Island watersheds necessitates a firm area-wide commitment to the preventive approach of watershed pre- servation based on a strict non-degradation standard in critical recharge areas. Planning for, and enforcing such a regulation will assure communities of future high quality water supplies without costly infrastructural improvements for treating water, such as the Southwest Sewer District. Such a commitment will require the adoption of a positive attitude towards regulated growth and land use activities and the acceptance by local governments of their responsibility to protect environ- mental quality and public health. Concept Plan for Watershed Protection FIGURE V Long Island Soured (A-eat Atlantic Ocean CENTRAL PINE BARRENS L~qBS IN PUBLIC OWNERSHIP PRIORITY ACQUISITION AREAS POTENTIAL GROWTH AREAS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 49 D. DEVELOPMENT PRESSURES HITHER WOODS A watershed of profound importance to the Montauk Peninsula is the 1,357 acre Hither Woods property located immediately east of~Hither Hills State Park in the Town of East Hampton. Being hydrologically disassociated from the main groundwater reservoir of the South Fork, the groundwater resources of the Montauk area are especially limited and vulnerable to contamination. The most significant water supply source found here is that beneath the Hither Woods property. Due to its importance as a watershed area, in addition to being a significant wildlife habitat, possessing great recreational potential, and having several miles of ragged, undisturbed coastline, voters of East Hampton Town passed a referendum in 1982 appropriating 1.5 mil- lion dollars towards the total acquisition cost of the parcel. Additionally, the Suffolk County Water Author- ity, which plans to establish six well sites on the property to supply the residents of the Montauk Penin- sula, is willing to expend $500,000 toward the overall acquisition of the parcel, instead of buying the par- cels for the well sites only, if it is able to install the necessary wells. An organization known as the Hither Woods T~sk Force, which the Commission serves on, has been coordinating efforts to investigate funding sources needed for ac- quiring the entire tract. The Task Force has determined that several possible funding sources exist, including a substantial sum of money remaining in the Parkland Expenditures Program of the Environmental Quality Bond Act of 1972, which is administered by the New York State Office of Parks and Recreation. OAK BRUSH PLAINS In the 1982 Progress Report, the Commission voiced its support for the preservation of a 640 acre tract of state-owned Pine Barrens land in Edgewood, New York. Through procedures of the New York State Public Lands Law, the Department of Environmental Conservation has requested title to the environmentally important un- developed portions of the tract from the Office of General Services. In addition to the support of the Department of Environmental Conservation and Legisla- 50 tive Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island for the establishment of an Oak Brush Plains/Pine Bar- rens Watershed Preserve, the entire Long Island delega- tion to the New York State Senate and Assembly, in 1982, expressed its support for this proposal. Further- more a number of civic and governmental groups re-~ iterated their support to Governor Carey to transfer jurisdiction to the Department of Environmental Con- servation. The transfer did not take place, however, during the Carey Administration. As a first step in completing the transfer, the Office of General Services is initiating the necessary admin- istrative procedures to give title of the 270+ acres in northern portions of this tract to the Department of Environmental Conservation. This is expected to be accomplished once the Department of Mental Hygiene, which still holds title to the northern portion, declares the parcel "surplus" to its needs. This is to be completed soon. RED CREEK RIDGE In January of 1983, Southampton Town proposed to upzone 27,400 acres of land to five-acres per unit for purpose of open space, groundwater and ecological protection (see Southampton Town Case Study). The 27,400 acres are subdivided into six parcels. The most controversial issue of the upzoning is the inclusion of parcel six, consisting of 1450 acres in the Red Creek Ridge area of Hampton Bays. The majority of the parcel is zoned one acre; therefore, passage would result in a considerable jump in acreage per unit. Some suggest utilizing the parcel as a transition zone to act as a buffer between relatively low and high density housing. An issue of major concern in regard to the inclusion of parcel six is the potential impact upon a 290 acre subdivision proposal called Red Creek Ridge. The development proposal includes the construction of 216 units, 101 of which will be single family lots and the balance clustered in multi-family residences. Also planned are a community center, a swimming pool and tennis courts. Actively opposing the Red Creek develop- ment has been a group called Save Good Ground Water, formed by Southampton Town residents. The group con- tends that: the tract meets the hydrogeological and ecological requiremen'ts set forth in the legislative findings of the upzoning proposal; the tract is in the Pine Barrens and partially in hydrogeologic Zone III; I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 51 (a critical recharge area); and the tract is designated as a Water Catchment and Open Space area in the Town's 1970 Master Plan; therefore, the parcel should be upzoned to five acres. Due to the fragile nature of the site, much care must be taken to afford the greatest protection as possible to the land surface, thereby protecting the groundwater beneath. There are several concerns that have to be addressed regarding the proposal in order to properly plan and construct the development. The subdivision proposal would require the installation of private wells for drinking water, with an estimated water withdrawal of 80,600 gallons per day (gpd).. A hydrology report conducted by Zane Spiegel in 1975, entitled, Environ- mental Consequences of Groundwater Development of the Hampton Bays Water District, calculated the "safe yield" of this area to be 22,500 gpd. Tests taken from 1975- 77 by Berkebile and Anderson indicated saltwater intru- sion in two wells along the shore north of the develop- ment. Surely this great increase in demand will accele- rate saltwater intrusion unless public water is extended to the development. The extension of the Hampton Bays Water District service area is being considered. In order to supply water of sufficient quality and quantity, a new well field must be drilled. Wells must be care- fully placed so not to affect the adjacent wetlands and to avoid contamination from the nearby landfill. The proposal also includes the installation of individ- ual septic tanks and cesspools for the discharge of approximately 69,800 gallons of wastewater per day. Discharge from cesspools, "... will pollute shallow groundwater and the drainage paths to Red Creek and Penny Ponds will carry that nutrient-rich effluent in- to these water bodies: (Dr. Rene Easton, Associate Professor of Geology)." Clustering the development would permit central sewage treatment which could then be discharged back into the groundwater. The projected generation of income includes $581,000 in tax revenues, but increased traffic congestion and the need for in- creased municipal services must also be considered. On March 9, 1983, each parcel had been separately voted upon by the Town Board. All parcels were approved ex- cept parcel six, which was referred back to the Town Planning Consultant for further review. Meanwhile, the required Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the Red Creek Ridge proposal was submitted to the Town Planning Board and later rejected as being incom- plete. The Planning Board now awaits a revised DEIS. Priorit$; Acquisition Areas ~. FIGURE VI x. m 2. 3. 5. 6. 7. J 9. 10. 11. 12. 13, m --, m --, m m m m m m m m m mm m m m m Warbler %-73ods (Gi~ce Estate) Red Maple Swamp in Peconic Rivem Headwatei~s Peeonic Rive~ Water~hed in Rive~head Town Peconic Rive~ Watershed in Br~okhaven Town Manorville Hills in Brookhaven Town Rivemhead Hills in Southampton Town Pine ~s on the Ou~w-ash Plains in Bzookhaven and Southampton Towns Dwarf Pine Plains Spinny Knob and Kettle Barrens Maple Swamp and Bir~_h Creek MoPainal Forests in eastern Southampton Town and western East Hampton Town Stony Hill/ Amagansett area of East Hampton Town Hither Woods SOb'I'H FORK FIGURE VII i2. L.--- 5 54 BROOKHAVEN Brookhaven Township is geographically the largest Town- ship on Long Island, encompassing 320 square miles. It transects the Island, stretching from Long Island Sound to the Atlantic Ocean, and contains some of the best examples of unspoiled watersheds of any locality on Long Island. The majority of its 375,000 residents reside in the western half of the Town. Approximately 40% of the land,.mostly in the eastern portion, remains undeveloped. It contains both the largest remaining segment of the Long Island Pine Barrens as well as the major portion of ~ydro- geologic Zone III, a major groundwater watershed identi- fied in the Lon~ Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan of 1978 as the most significant untapped water reserve on Long Island. In 1975, as part of the Town's update of their Master Plan, approximately 36,000 acres in the eastern portion of the Town were upzoned from ½ and 1 acres to 2 acres, primarily on the assumption that groundwater quantity was in jeopardy from saltwater intrusion. Several legal actions were instituted in local and Federal Courts against the Town by major landowners. In New York Federal Dis- trict Court, Omnia Properties claimed that the Town's action was confiscatory and unconstitutional. The Town successfully defended its action both in State and Federal Court, due in large part to the documentation presented in the Lon~ Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Manage- ment Plan which had recommended upzoning in this region as a primary mechanism for assuring groundwater quality. Omnia Properties filed an appeal, but agreed to withdraw it in early 1983 as a result of a settlement with the Town which allows them to build a 567 unit clustered development on 1,200 acres they own. They also received a downzoning for 7 acres of land presently zoned 2 acre residential to J-3, allowing for the construction of a shopping center, while 400 acres was agreed to be dedicated to the Town. This proposal in Hydrogeologic Zone III is not an isolated example of development in this critical watershed, but typical of the activities this region is beginning to experience. Although single family home construction within this critical area had slowed down for several years, attached housing, especially condominiums, has accelerated. Of greater concern than the residential development, however, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! 55 are several proposed major industrial parks. Using the term "high-technology", which has no legal definition either under State law or the local Town zoning code, the Town has been actively promoting the development of these critical recharge areas. The first high-tech park, Westpor t, wa s approved in 1980 for 100 acres of Pine Barrens in South Setauket. Although a site plan was approved, the Town had no information as to what indus- tries would be located here, and at present, none have. Similar proposals include the 238 acre Brookhaven Re- search and Development Park located at the south-east corner of the Long Island Expressway and William Floyd Parkway; two parcels adjacent to the Town airport in North Shirley, one 38, and the other 92 acres; an 80 acre park along Sills Road in West Yaphank; the con- troversal downzoning of 62 acres of residential land in North Bellport known as the Farber Research and Development Park; and numerous spot developments in Holtsville, Coram, and Yaphank. There is also the re- furbishing of existing buildings, either for expansion or to house new industrial facilities. The major con- cern associated with the renovations of existing build- ings is that such changes are not often reported to government agencies. The consequence is that toxic or hazardous wastes that may be produced by such facilities are often discharged directly to the ground via the exist- ing sanitary cesspools already in place. The establishment of a local Industrial Development Agency has been a major catalyst for the recent upswing in industrial development in Brookhaven Town. This quasi-~nicipal entity has the ability to acquire land and thus make it tax-exempt as well as issue low in- terest loans to help firms finance construction activi- ties. Additional benefits include an exemption from planning and building department fees as well as land transfer tax costs. This agency has approved over 15 industrial projects, apparently without complying with New York State's Environmental Quality Review Act, Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law. As of January 17, 1983, the Industrial Development Agency had not filed its implementing procedures for SEQRA as required in Article 8-0113, para. 3, and 8-0117 para.5-d, which required the publication of these procedures by November 1, 1978. A strong argument can be made for industrial growth in Brookhaven Town. However, such growth needs to be plan- ned not only from the initial construction, but for many years after its completion. Each park should be planned S PROPOSED INDUSTRIALDEVELOPMENT FIGURE VIII Nesconget Hwy. O 238acres 3. Two parcels-Town Airport .... 38acres .... 92acres 4. Sills Road Park .............. 80acres 5. Farber Research & Development,.~.~ ........ Zone Boundaries. 62acres ('~) Brookhaven Airport ~ 57 with the complete knowledge of the types of industry to be located there. Certain industries should be directed away from the critical watersheds, while others must be placed in buildings designed for that particular industry and thus safeguard the environment through physically constructed controlled mechanisms. For ex- ample, a new industry experiencing considerable growth on Long Island is biogenetic engineering. If such a facility is proposed for a particular site, it should have a closed loop .wastewater collection system, lab- oratory rooms under negative pressure, and advanced activated carbon air filtration systems. For other types of industries, however, their presence poses a potentially serious threat to the grgundwater resource, making their location in these regions questionable at best. The enthusiasm with which the Town is promoting "high- technology" parks, however, has so far not been matched with careful organized planning to adequately protect the Town's critical watershed area. The results of such haste are best exemplified by two facilities the Town allowed to be constructed in critical recharge areas without permits of any kind. These industries, one a pharmacutical manufacturing firm, the other a com- mercial pesticide storage and mixing facility, have the potential for contaminating large segments of the Town's groundwater resources if improper handling of toxic materials occurs. Both facilities have apparently vio- lated certain provisions of their health department permit and neither firm has purchased pollution liability coverage as originally agreed to when their site plans were finally approved by the town. Since the type of enforcement necessary to prevent either accidential or intentional contamination in critical recharge areas is economically and practically unobtainable, and since accidents can happen in even the most carefully managed operation, such potentially hazardous facilities should be precluded from locating in these sensitive watersheds. OYSTER BAY Much of the remaining critical watershed area in Nassau County lies north of Jericho Turnpike in the Town of Oyster Bay. This area is important due to its location along the moraine where the greatest amount of precipita- tion recharges the aquifer. Moreover, this region of Oyster Bay possesses the best water quality in Nassau, 58 because the area is largely characterized by wooded estates. Unfortunately, this source of pristine water has been threatened, especially since 1977, by continued industrial and residential development spurred on by the sale and subdivision of estates and the consequent down- zonin~ of these properties by the Town. The Commission recommends that the remaining undeveloped land be upzoned in view of the contamination problems and the overwithdrawal Nassau County is experiencing. The Commission petitioned the Town board through corres- pondence and testimony at hearings to reject the down- zoning of two subdivision proposals. The Underhill property subdivision proposal would almost quadruple the number of units permitted by present zoning, amounting to 220 single-family plots on 81 acres. The construc- tion would permanently alter the wooded estate and its 10 vernal ponds which provide a habitat for many species, including the endangered tiger salamander. A second sub- division in the watershed area proposed by Foxwood Assoc- iates would construct 496 attached units on 33.7 acres of land. The Commission commends the Town for its recent disapproval of these subdivision plans. If high density subdivision development continues, it will further tax the already overburdened aquifer sys- tem beneath Nassau County. In the County's 1980 Master Water Plan, the consultants estimate the daily permis- sive yield for groundwater in Nassau County before the rate of withdrawal exceeds the rate of recharge (known as groundwater mining), is 180 million gallons per day. The consultants also estimate this yield to be reached by 1990. Certain areas within Nassau County are pres- ently superseding this withdrawal rate. Yet, not one of the alternatives considered in the plan as ways to extend the water supply addresses preservation of un- developed land or upzoning. The Commission urges the Town Board to foresee the impact of downzoning and continued development on the present and future water supply needs of the rest of the Town, as well as their inherent strain on the Town's services and facilities. Conversely, upzoning would better conserve the recharge capability of the land and extend the viability of the aquifer both in terms of quality and quantity. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 59 E. HYDROGEOLOGIC ZONES I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I The Lon~ Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 plan) prepared by the Long Island Regional Planning Board established eight hydrogeologic zones based upon major patterns of groundwater flow and ground- water quality. Increasingly, these zones have been used as management tools for land use, groundwater protection, and industrial and wastewater discharge. Although these boundaries have been adopted by the New York State Depart- ment of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and the Federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), they have been challenged twice, as a result of local projects. In 1980, the Multi-Town Authority contested the Zone I- Zone VI boundary in Huntington. The Authority requested permission to site a landfill in a deep flow recharge area (Zone I), on the premise that a clay layer existed beneath the proposed site, thereby meeting the criteria for Zone VI. In response, the Technical Advisory Com- mittee (TAC) to the 208 Plan adopted a resolution stating, zone boundaries are dynamic because of cyclical changes in rainfall; the presence of clay is not a primary deter- minant of horizontal (shallow) flow; and there is a lack of significant data in some areas of the Island, and the boundaries must be made on a conservative basis to pro- vide groundwater protection for the present and future needs of residents on Long Island. The TAC concluded that any such study indicating the (non) existence of a clay layer would not qualify a site as being in an area of shallow groundwater flow, and therefore, would not justify constructing a landfill in the requested location. A second challenge has arisen as a by-product of the Nassau County Northwest 201 Study conducted to assess sewering needs in North Hempstead. The consultants used 1955-57 United States Geological Survey data in- dicating deep aquifer pressures and flow patterns and overlayed a 1981 water table map to determine areas of recharge and discharge between Zones I and VIII. The uses of 1957 data generated controversy because the changing conditions caused by precipitation, sewering and groundwater pumping that have impacted the aquifer system in this area since 1957 are not reflected in this data. A second major criticism of the work completed by the 201 study was its failure to incorporate large areas of undeveloped land into their calculations when projecting the future sewering needs of northwestern Nassau County and its impact on water resources. The 'Xydrogeologic zones ~ere developed based on the theory FICklE IX I I 61 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I redrawn boundaries are incomplete;again not addressing the undeveloped area and leaving their hydrogeologic zone designation unresolved. The boundaries do, how- ever, suggest that one of the few remaining regions of undeveloped land is Nassau County, surrounding and in- cluding the Payson-Whitney Estate, is in Zone VIII(a shallow flow area), rather than Zone I, despite its inclusion as a critical recharge area in several region- al management plans. The Federal 201 studies are sup- posed to be an extension of the 208 region-wide plan. Unfortunately, these 201 studies are often undertaken independently. The consultants have stated that the objective of the study was to assess sewering needs without addressing the larger implications of their recommendations, such as the stress on groundwater re- sources and land use planning. Planning boards, when making land use decisions, such as zoning and subdivision regulations, are encouraged to refer to these zones as general guidelines concerning the impact a proposal will have on water resources. A change in zones may affect the density of any future development on the tract, and the Town may dismiss its value as a recharge area. Efforts are being undertaken to obtain more recent data of the present aquifer pressures and flow patterns with the assistance of the Manhasset-Lakeville Water District. Unfortunately, to date, there has been no officially- adopted procedure for any revision of the 208 plan. In reference to zone changes, the policy of the TAC has been to oppose any proposed changes which are based upon local studies, rather than an in-depth, area-wide undertaking. The DEC suggested a procedure in its draft Long Island Groundwater Management Plan which reflects the original 208 plan approval process; re- quiring consecutive approval from the LIRPB, DEC and finally EPA. As groundwater protection becomes a more widely-recog- nized critical issue in the planning process, the hydro- geologic zone concept is being applied and utilized by local, county and state agencies. Article Six of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code applies stricter regulat- ions to subdivisions within Zones III and IV in ref- erence to wastewater discharge. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has proposed a more pro- hibitive policy for industry in Zone III. Hydrogeologic ~ones have been used as a rationale for upzoning, chang- ing zoning from industrial to residential use and for requiring clustering of development in many towns. 62 DEC solid waste management policy prohibits any new landfills in Zones I-V and requires a double liner for any extension of existing landfills within these zones. The Commission now supports two bills which employ this management concept in order to mandate stricter regulat- ions within the deep flow recharge zones. One of these bills is the landfill legislation (see Commission legis- lation). The second bill which applies the hydrogeologic zone concept gives DEC the ability to enforce greater restrictions in Zones I-IV in relation to hazardous waste discharge and storage (see Commission legislation). In order to implement Article Six, the SCDHS used exist- ing roadways to more closely define Zone boundaries III and VI for management purposes. The Commission recom- mends the same to be done for the rest of Suffolk County and all of Nassau County in order to ease the implement- ation of present and future laws and regulations. More importantly, the Commission urges the TAC to adopt cri- teria and procedures for the review and approval of proposed zone changes or any other revisions to the 208 plan. F. SOLE SOURCE PROTECTION BTT.L The Federal Sole Source Aquifer program was instituted in 1974, and consists of two basic components: 1. The designation of areas having a water supply aquifer(s) which provides 50% or more of an area's drinking water as a sole source aquifer; and which, if contaminated, would create a "significant health hazard" to the public. 2. The review of Federal financially assisted projects which may contaminate the desig- nated aquifer. This program is administered by the United States Environ- mental Protection Agency (EPA), and emphasizes the need to protect the groundwater resources of areas that are heavily dependent on underground water supplies. At the Federal level, there are approximately ten desig- nated sole source areas across the country. In New York State as of March 1983, only the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk on Long Island have received Sole I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 63 source Aquifer designation, which occurred in 1978. The Counties of Kings and Queens have applied for designation, as well as Schenectady and Vestal, New York. However, these applications are still under review by the EPA's Region II office. Last year the Commission drafted an amendment to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act to provide for the planning and management of special protection areas within designated sole Source Aquifer areas. The Senate Committee on Environmental and Public Works held several hearings to gather comments and reactions to the bill. Suffolk County Supervisor Peter F. Cohalan and Southampton Town Supervisor Martin Lang both test- ified in support of the legislation. Despite the con- siderable support and publicity the bill generated, it remained in committee, and no action was taken in the House. The amendment will be reintroduced this year in the Senate by Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and is supported by Senator Alfonse D'Amato. In the House, the bill has already been introduced by Representative william Carney and is supported by Representatives Robert Mrazek and Norman Lent. This bill will apply to areas such as Long Island which are solely-dependent on groundwater for their drinking water supplies. Companion legislation has been introduced this session at the New York State level, establishing a program for the management and protection of critical water- sheds within designated sole source areas such as Northern Nassau County and the Pine Barrens on Long Island. This comprehensive management plan, which is outlined in the legislation, (see Commission legislation) is aimed at preserving environmental quality while re- cognizing the need for economic growth and development. G. SCHENECTADY, NEW YORK UPDATE In Schenectady County, New York, nearly 85% of the residents depend on groundwater for their water supply needs. This dependence has spurred the County and the City of Schenectady to develop a groundwater management plan to protect its aquifer. As part of Schenectady County's Critical Aquifer Pre- servation Program, Schenectady has applied for U.S. EPA Sole Source Aquifer designation. A hearing was held March 3, 1983, regarding designation, and the public 64 comment period will end in April. Reactions to the Schenectady Sole Source application have been positive, and it is possible that approval could be announced this year. A comprehensive set of Watershed Rules and Regulations have been drafted which strictly regulate activities within the three critical aquifer areas outlined in the protection plan: Tier one aquifer areas comprise those sites "most currently and potentially productive including all public water supply well fields" Tier two sites are identified for "preservation to ensure a resource for adequate future supply development. Although not yet exploited, these sites should be protected for future expansion of production to respond to in- creased demand, or for possible relocation as a result of well field contamination." Tier three sites contain "those remaining critical areas identified...for preserv- ation because of their high productivity potential." These regulations were developed in response to the strategies recommended by the consultants to Schenectady County. These rules and regulations are now being re- viewed by the Department of Health, which has indicated its support of the concept. The City of Schenectady will hold a public hearing on the proposed regulations once the Department has completed its review process. The City is also attempting to condemn portions of the land surrounding the wellheads, and trying to obtain restrictive easements on the residential property in the vicinity of the well fields. In additions, the City is asking for the right of first refusal at the time of sale of land in these areas. Another component of the aquifer preservation program is an emergency spill clean-up program to handle accidental spills along the New York State Thruway and its feeder which runs through the city. Within the last year the City has developed these water- shed rules and regulations, applied for Sole Source Aquifer status, developed a spill contingency plan, and started proceedings to acquire control of its well- fields. All of these actions are major steps in I I I I I I I i I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 65 Schenectady's attempt to protect its groundwater sup- plies and recharge areas. These positive measures taken by another groundwater-dependent area can serve as examples of aquifer protection strategies that are easily implemented. H. CLEAN LAND POLICY As can be seen by the contents of this 1983 Progress Report, and the two previous reports, one of the primary initiatives of the Legislative Commission has been the protection of the quality of Long Island's groundwater reserves. It has become increasingly apparent to the Commission that the degree to which any such program accomplishes this necessary and important objective is dependent upon the success it achieves in controlling land use activities which take place on the land surface overlying the groundwater supply. Unfortunately recog- nition ofthis fundamental relationship between the ex- tent of land development and the quality of groundwater beneath the surface has not been forthcoming until re- cently in efforts to safeguard groundwater supplies. This is in marked contrast to surface water supplies, where extensive efforts have been made to strictly control land use activities in the watersheds which surround these surface water resources. The following discussion paper entitled "A Clean Land PoIicy for Long Island", typifies this approach, which has been widely applied for groundwater systems, and points out its applicability for groundwater systems. Goal: Establishment of a program for Long Island which will regulate contaminating discharges through the control of land use activities. Areas which are not pristine groundwater watersheds will be given maximum attention under the program, and will be regulated under a non-degradation standard, i.e. maintenance of existing water quality. The program will serve as a model for other areas, and will have three major ele- ments: policy, documentation/planning, and implementation. Policy: A long-term water quality goal for the program has not yet been developed. This goal should embody all of the policy statements listed below, and should be re- flected in the program's documentation/planning and implementation phases. The water quality goal might address drinking water quality, e.g. "drinking water 66 quality without treatment", or draw from ambient con- ditions, i.e. an island-wide non-degradation policy. The former type of goal requires the selection of a particular set of standards against which to measure water quality, and uses water withdrawn from the aquifer system as an index of the achievement of the program, while the latter highlights the quality of recharge and thus does not allow for improvement of water quality by dilution. Six basic policy statements have been identified. These should be incorporated in goal articulation as Well as in documentation/planning and implementation, and are as follows: 1. Non-structural approaches should be used in groundwater protection whenever possible. These are long term strategies which will conserve resources, rely on natural processes and protect environmental integrity. 2. Land use planninq must be an integral part of a clean land policy. The range of contaminating activities is so great that only strict regulation of land use act- ivities in critical watersheds (not merely discharges) will effectively create "clean land". 3. Non-degradation should be the standard for Long Island's pristine recharge areas. This will assure a reservoir of pure water and will perpetuate the beneficial diluting effect to the areas surrounding the undis- turbed lands in the deep flow recharge zones. 4. Future sources should be protected if they have the capacity to serve as public supply areas. Current use should not be the determining factor in assessing what areas to protect, but rather should be one of a set of criteria. The irrevers- iblity of development should be kept in mind, and preservation efforts should be overly rather than insufficiently extensive in debated cases. 5. Preventive action should protect Long island's watersheds, not crisis responses which are characterized by high cost and limited effectiveness and which preclude long-term management of the aquifer s~stem. I I I I I I I i I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 67 Once contaminated, groundwater reserves are virtually impossible to cleanse, thus prevention is the only approach to main- taining pure water quality. 6. Effective utilization of funds should be achieved by allocating available funds to those watersheds which have the greatest value as current or future sources, which are subject to intense development threats, which benefit a wide area and which will be protected through watershed planning efforts. 7. Degradation should in no areas be permit- ted to go unchecked. While there will, by necessity, be areas where contaminating acti- vities will take place, discharges should always be kept to an absolute minimum, whatever existing water quality. Documentation/planning: Development of land use regula- tions for watershed protection necessitates the identi- fication of Long Island's watersheds and their relative present and future value as supply sources. The doc- umentation/planning phase will thus involve three steps: identification, prioritization and recom- mendation of action for all of Long Island's watersheds. The identification phase will consist of data-gathering and categorization of groundwater watersheds.* Four basic parameters in use in the categorization are: pre- dictability of water quality supply, aquifer storage capacity, land uses, and average soil permeability. Together these factors determine a watershed grade, ~ being highest grade, B good grade, and ~ signifying a poor grade groundwater watershed. Obviously, ~ water- sheds would be of the highest priority for receipt of funds and watershed protection planning, ~ the second, and C the lowest priority. Prioritization of watersheds will be followed by design of a set of recommended allowable land uses and dis- charges for each category of watershed (such a system is in use throughout the state of Connecticut and in the aquifer protection program in Schenectady, New York). The highest grade watershed lands would be those where the most restrictive land use controls would apply. * This categorization scheme was developed by Steven Englebright. 68 Implementation: While recommended activities can be enumerated for each category of watershed fairly easily, the actual regulation of activities is extremely difficult. Many activities can be controlled through local process - zoning is the most obvious example. Zoning, however, is subject to variance and to change, and is thus not reliable as a principle component of a watershed pro- tection program. The far-reaching nature of a water- shed protection plan for all of Long Island suggests that such a program would appropriately fall under the jurisdiction of a state agency - either the State Department of Environmental Conservation or the State Department of Health. One possible implementation scheme would be to use the Department of Health's Rules and Regulations program, which was recently examined in a report prepared by Robert Hennigan at SUNY in Syracuse. The Rules and Regulations established by Article II, Title 1 of the Public Health Law (sec. 1100) program, may well be the only existing program in New York State which deals expressly with prevention of water quality degradation. As it deals with watershed protection for both ground and surface waters through regulation ~f land uses, the program lends itself toward implement- ing a progressively restrictive set of regulations for different categories of watersheds. In fact, such a progression was suggested in the Hennigan Report, which put forth model rules and regulations. These included three categories of groundwater protection regulations, decreasing in severity with increasing dis- tance from the well head. Hennigan notes that: "Existing rules and regulations should be revised to address all identified activit- ies likely to cause surface and groundwater problems including, but not limited to sed- iment generated by farm, forest transport, mining and construction activities, pest- icide and herbicide use; fertilizer use; toxic chemical use and disposal; onsite disposal systems; and residual wastes". Whether or not legislation would be necessary in order to use DOH Rules and Regulations for an island-wide watershed protection program is unclear. Use of DOH Rules and Regulations program appears to have the fol- lowing assets: it is a program already in place; it I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 69 was designed to protect rather than remediate; it rec- ognizes the need for protection of groundwater as well as surface water watersheds; and the program has already been examined in detail in the Hennigan Report. The Report's recommendations support many of the ideas of a clean land program for Long Island. Further inquiry into the possible use of the Rules and Regulations pro- gram is definitely needed. In some of Long Island's critical watershed areas the implementation of a non-degradation policy will mean prohibition of development. In such cases public ac- quisition of watershed lands will be appropriate. The ownership and management of these lands might fall under the State Department of Parks and Recreation, or under the Department of Environmental Conservation. If watershed lands became the property of the Department of Parks and Recreation their use for passive recreation only should be assured. There currently exists a program that recognizes the nature of the Nassau/Suffolk aquifer system and its importance to Long Islanders. Theoretically, this pro- gram would prevent the construction of many infrastruct- ural improvements and other types of development in Long Island's recharge areas. In practice, the program has been barely more than a designation which brings attent- ion to the fact that Long Island is a groundwater- dependent area. This program is the Sole Source Aquifer program, established by the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 and implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Long Island is one of ten areas in the country that is designated as a sole source aquifer. The review process that accompanies the designation should result in the blocking of federally financially assisted pro- jects which are likely to result in aquifer contamination. Regrettably, the sole source program has never been utilized to its full extent. Full or even extended use of the sole source review pro- cess would allow some degree of management of the aquifer system, and would permit the directing of development to lower grade aquifer areas. A fully operating sole source review process, in conjunction with acquisition of key parcels, management of public lands as critical watersheds, use of an expanded DOH Rules and Regulations program, and enforcement of strict discharge control regulations by the DEC, could establish clean land areas on Long Island's grade A watersheds and curtail deterioration of water quality in lower grade areas. Clearly, local, state and federal programs need to op- erate in concert for maximum effectiveness in this area. 70 I. PINE BARRENS ACTIONS A vast reservoir of high quality groundwater exists beneath the Pine Barrens and is both a potential water supply source and an extremely important aspect of the Pine Barrens ecosystem. It is estimated that between 3.5 and 5.2 trillion gallons of water are stored in the saturated layers of the aquifers beneath Long Island's pine-oak forests. Approximately 175,000,000 gallons of water are recharged daily through the 112,000 acres of the Long Island Pine Barrens. Through sub- surface flow, this high quality groundwater supply reaches far beyond the surface boundaries of the Pine Barrens landscape. One of the important water qua.lity functions of the Pine Barrens and other critical groundwater watersheds stems from the constant subsurface flow of groundwater, and extends well beyond the actual surface boundary of the pine and oak forests of the Island's interior. Because precipitation which enters the ground in the middle of the Island moves through the pore spaces of the sandy substrate toward the marine waters that surround Long Island, wells in the surrounding coastal communities receive a continual influx of pure water. This effect is enormously important because it flushes pollutants away from coastal community wells and helps to maintain their overall water quality. If the remaining Pine Barrens and oak pine woodlands watersheds are not pro- tected, the cleansing action now provided to the drink- ing water wells of coastal communities by the natural flow of groundwater towards the sea will be forever compromised. While groundwater quality in the Pine Barrens is gener- ally high, monitoring wells indicate that it has been degraded in localized areas due to a variety of land uses. The writing is on the wall: if initiative is not taken now to control land uses and preserve the Pine Barrens and other critical watershed areas, all of Long Island will be faced with health, environmental and economic problems of immense magnitude. The character of the Long Island Pine Barrens, the nature of the Island's hydrogeology and groundwater watersheds and the history of development and degradation in the Nassau and Suffolk Counties all point to the need for a drama- tic departure from traditional growth patterns. I I I I I I I I i I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I 71 Pine Barrens Legislation Various proposals to help protect the Island's largest woodland watershed were introduced in 1982. Last summer, Suffolk County Legislator Wayne Prospect introduced a local law establishing the Suffotk County Pine Barrens Watershed Preserve. This proposal, which is still under consideration, would create a 100,000 acre preserve encompassing all of Hydrogeologic Zone III, as identified in the Lon~ Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan. This region includes sect- ions of eastern Brookhaven, southern Riverhead, and western Southampton Townships. Under the provisions of this draft bill, any proposed action occurring within the boundaries of the watershed preserve requires the submission of a detailed environ- mental assessment to the County Planning Commission which would have the authority to either approve, modify, or deny the activity. If the project is denied on the basis that it would jeopardize the groundwater reserve, then no other local agency would be allowed to engage in any further consideration of the proposal. The affected towns and building interests have expressed opposition to this proposed legislation. The Towns claim that local control would be usurped under this bill. This claim has been voiced many times in the past. However, it was precisely the failure to utilize local control that New York State was forced to enact the Tidal and Freshwater Wetland's Laws before all such remaining areas were destroyed by local develop- ment. Similarly, no local initiative has resulted in any viable means to protect this critical watershed. The building interests have objected to this proposed law on the basis that it will add another layer of governmental review to the many existing review process requirements. The combined efforts of these two factions may succeed in defeating this proposal. Should this proposal fail, we strongly recommend that the local governments utilize their option to designate this particular region as a "Critical Environmental Area" pursuant to Part 617.4 of the Rules and Regulations of Article eight of the Environ- mental Conservation Law. The effect of such a design- ation would be that any activity occurring within this region must be treated as a Type I activity, requiring 72 the completion of a long-form environmental assessment, and coordinated review by all involved governmental agencies. Since all municipalities must presently utilize this State Law, the designation is simply in- corporated into their existing review procedures, while giving other concerned agencies the opportunity to comment on each activity. Pine Barrens Planning Council During 1982, the Pine Barrens Planning Council continued its valuable work of compiling specific information on various aspects of the large central Pine Barrens region. As an advisory body to the Long Island Regional Planning Board, the Planning Council established three committies- Water Resources~ Economic, and Ecological, to most ef- fectively gather data in this large area which encom- passes about 90,000 acres. The primary task of each group is to compile and, if necessary, develop infor- mation pertinent to its committee. For example, the Ecological Committee is presently mapping the vegetation of the Pine Barrens by forest type; mapping the extent and distribution of selected rare and endangered species; and determining the regional fire freauecies in the Pine Barrens. From this and other information gathered by the Ecological Committee, it can then propose recom- mendations which will protect the ecological integrity of the central Pine Barrens. These recommendatio~swill be synthesized with those of the two other committees and collectively will form the framework for decisions concerning land-use, economic growth, water-auality pre- servation, and environmental protection for ~he Pine Barrens. The Commission has played an active role on the Pine Barrens Planning Council. The Commission staff serves on two of the three committees, while the Co-Executive Directors of the Commission serve as Chairpersons of the Economic and Water Resource Committees. The Commission looks forward to continuing its active involvement with the Pine Barrens Planning Council, and working toward the goal of creating a comprehensive plan for this significant watershed. The Council ex- pects to complete and publish its plan in the fall of 1983. I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Critical Groundwater Watersheds FIGURE X Cen~ Pine Barrens of Long Island 74 Conclusions and Recommendations for Critical W.atershed Protection Drinking water is contaminated or jeopardized in many parts of Long Island due to existing land use activities. Water quality degradation is, and should be, a major cause for concern. Watershed preservation based on a non-degradation standard in undisturbed areas is the wisest and most practical approach to protecting Long Island's groundwater. The preservation of the Long Island Pine Barrens as a groundwater and ecological resource will benefit residents of the entire region. The Commission recommends that the Counties of Nassau and Suffolk designate those critical watersheds within their county, as "Critical Environmental Areas" pursuant to sections 617.4j of the States Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Such designation requires that any action proposed within or contiguous to such areas be declared a Type I action, which means that it is an action that may have significant impact on the environment. The Commission commends Southampton in imple- menting the various land use tools available for the protection of critical watersheds. It is our recommendation that each town on Long Island take a similar approach by utilizing techniques such as mandatory clustering, up- zoning and transfer of development rights. Other valuable tools include acquisition and conserva- tion easments. The Commission recommends that all towns on Long Island review and update their town master plans to achieve a common objective with South- ampton in detail and sensitivity to water supply preservation. The Commission recommends the appropriations of E.Q.B.A. monies for the acquisition of Hither Woods. The Commission recommends the expeditious trans- fer of the Oak Brush Plains from the Office of General Services to the Department of Environ- mental Conservation. I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 75 The Commission recommends that the area in South- ampton known as Red Creek Ridge be upzoned to three acres because of the sensitivity to the underlying watershed area. The Commission recommends that the critical recharge areas located in northern Oyster Bay Town and North Hempstead should be upzoned to five acres per unit commensurate with the protection afforded the Pine Barrens in South- ampton. The Commission recommends that Hydrogeologic Zone boundaries be extended to coincide with existing roadways in order to facilitate land use and groundwater management. The Commission recommends that Nassau County create a fund, with a portion of the revenue collected from the rental of Mitchell Field (which is estimated at $6 million) for water- shed planning and protection. The Commission recommends that Nassau County in- stitute a surcharge on water, and use the revenue from such a tax to acquire critical watershed lands. The Commission recommends the appropriations of E.Q.B.A. monies for the preservation (acquisition) of critical watersheds in Nassau County, under the Metropolitan Parks category. The Commission recommends that the counties of Nassau and Suffolk negotiate a bi-county ground- water protection plan. The Commission recommends the incorporation of watershed protection as a vital component of the Nassau County Water Master Plan. Subsequently the County should hold hearings for the adopt- ion of this plan. The villages and towns in Nassau County in which watersheds are located should re-evaluate present zoning to determine if it affords the necessary protection these recharge areas deserve. The Commission recommends that land which is under public ownership be upzoned to provide protection should the land change to private ownership. 76 The Commission supports all of the recommendations stated in the report of the coalition for the Pro- tection of Long Island's Groundwater completed in 1982, entitled, "Watershed Planning for the Protection of Long Island's Groundwater". The Commission recommends the continued involve- ment of local and regional governmental and non-governmental groups in the formation of a Pine Barrens Management Plan. The Commission recommends the expansion of the State Department of Health's watershed rules and regulations to provide for additional protection for points of recharge. The Commission recommends the passage of the legislation introduced by the Commission, in which DEC is given the authority to apply stricter regulations in deep flow recharge areas. The Commission recommends the passage of Federal and State sole source aquifer legislation and appropriations of money for the comprehensive management plan encompassed in the legislation. I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION III WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY 77 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 79 III. WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY A. INTRODUCTION Much of the rationale for watershed protection on Long Island that is described in the previous section is derived from an examination of groundwater contamination trends. Well closings due to toxic contamination have become numerous in those portions of the Island where land uses involve domestic or industrial chemical con- sumption or chemical application to the soil. There is also a clear linkage between identifiable contamination and the length of time that has elapsed since a given intensive land use was initiated. It is sobering, for example, to note that of a total of 68 operating wells owned by the Jamaica Water Supply Company that were tested in 1981, organic contamination was detected in 64 wells (94.1% of the wells surveyed).1 Land use patterns in Queens County are similar to those common to much of Nassau and western Suffolk Counties. The geo- logical substrate is closely analogous in.each of these regions and the main differential between them regarding the present quality of water seems to be closely linked to how much time has passed since each of these areas was developed. Queens County, where the Jamaica Water Company is located, was developed earlier in this century than Nassau County, which, in turn, experienced land use- intensive growth earlier than Suffolk County did. If the present water quality of southern Queens County is a model for the future of Nassau and Suffolk, and there is good reason to believe that it is, then even a crude extrapolation of these relationships suggests that Long Island's current water supply system will experience pro- gressive, and perhaps accelerated, contamination in the years ahead. The problem of chemical contamination of Long Island's groundwater has, in the opinion of most experts, dis- placed in recent years the primary historical concern of regional water managers and researchers: adequate water supply reserves. Indeed, it is now apparent that a large volume of groundwater is of little value if it is contaminated. It is, therefore, prudent to now pro- tect rigorously the critical groundwater watersheds of Long Island so that a future supply of potable water is assured. Indeed, if one accepts the following three fundamental premises, the concept of groundwater water- shed preservation becomes compelling: 80 1. that public water supply sources on Long Island must remain predictably untainted for the pro- jected longevity of our society (forever, pre- sumably); 2. that human activities such as in residential, commercial, industrial, and modern agrarian settings are too chemical-intensive to preclude the likelihood of purposeful or accidental introduction of toxic contaminants into the Long Island aquifer system; 3. that the long-term, perpetual costs involved in the pre-treatment of contaminated ground- water will eventually exceed the short-term, up- front investments required to adequately protect uncontaminated groundwater catchment areas. The following discussions evaluate certain contamination threats that the Commission has examined closely during the past year. REFERENCE 1. New York City Department of Health, Jamaica Water Supply Company Wells Sampling and Wellfield Surve~ 198] Summary Report, January 1982. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 81 B. CURRENT PROBLEMS LEAD A new water contaminant made headlines in late 1982, prompting the Suffolk County Legislature, several State officials, as well as local townships to call for new standards regarding the use of lead solder. Although lead is not found naturally in Long Island's aquifers, it can be found in drinking water supplies through one of two ways. In older homes and buildings, lead piping may still be present. If the water supply is corrosive, as it is on Long Island, or if the residential electrical system is grounded to the water piping system and then experiences a malfunction, lead concentrations in excess of drinking water standards may be found in the water. The most recent instances of lead in drinking water occurred in three houses in the Town of Smithtown. An investigation of these homes by the engineering firm of Holzmacher, McLendon, & Murrell lead to their ~ssuance of a report which concluded that the use of solder made up of 50% lead and 50% tin, produced the high levels of lead in the water supply. They also found that if water is allowed to remain in contact with the lead solder for an extended period of time such as overnight, the levels are significantly increased to as much as 7,100 ppb (the standard is 50 ppb). Conversely, if the water in the piping system is flushed for at least two minutes, there is a significant reduction in those levels. Since lead is bioaccumulated in the human body in such organs as the kidney, and can cause functional disorders of the nervous system and blood protein sys- tem, all steps should be taken to eliminate this poten- tial problem before it becomes widespread. The Suffolk County Health Services Department has re- commended that there be a reduction to 0.2% or less of the lead content in solder used for water systems. The Commission is drafting appropriate legislation to implement that recommendation. We also support the recent amendments made to the New York State Building Code proposed by the Building Codes Council whiuh pro- hibits the use of lead pipes for drinking water pur- poses. The Commission further strongly recommends that all existing homes with such lead piping have that piping replaced, and in new homes or where plumbing systems have been recently modified, the water from the tap should be allowed to run for at least two 82 minutes before drinking it, if the water has not been used for an extended period of time. MARGINAL WATER SUPPLIERS In Suffolk County, an overwhelming majority of residents are served by public or community water suppliers, such as the Suffolk County Water Authority, or a municipally run water district like the Brentwood Water District. The remaining segment serviced by a community water sup- ply obtain water from smaller water companies. Due to financial and manpower limitations, some of these small water supply companies do not operate as efficiently as governmental agencies require, or the general public would like. Similarly, while some companies provide adequate service, they do not possess the necessary ad- ditional resources to accommodate periods of emergency. These companies have been identified as "marginal water suppliers" by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. The Department issued a report, in July of 1981, on the issue of marginal water suppliers. The most significant aspect of the report was the cri- teria established for identifying and classifying mar- ginal water suppliers. It should be understood that although some companies have been classified as such, it does not mean the company necessarily provides "mar- ginal'' service. Being included indicates that due to the nature of the operation, failure of some aspect of it may cause a significant loss of service; rapid dimin- ishment in water availability; water at inadequate pres- sure; or water of inferior quality. The Department developed six criteria for determining if a water sup- plier is a "marginal water supplier". They are; 1.) One person operations 2.) Single-well systems 3.) Systems without standby power 4.) Systems with significant water quality deterioration 5.) Systems exceeding the nitrate standard 6.) Systems with inadequate pressure Utilizing these criteria, the Health Department came up with twelve community companies and twenty-three seasonal as being marginal water suppliers. Although a substan- tial minority of all residents served by public water suppliers receive water from one of the companies I I I I ! I ! I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I 83 classified as marginal, it represents an important segment. As an outgrowth of this report the Department developed a number of recommendations to alleviate the problems often associated with marginal water suppliers. It should be noted, as the following synopsis of the rec- ommendations indicate, that substantial progress needs to be accomplished in this area. 1.) Develop an emergency response procedure - In case of emergencies, water suppliers should have an estab- lished emergency response plan to handle contingencies which might arise concerning the operation of the sup- ply. A revision to Section 5-1.33 of the New York State Sanitary Code, became effective June 16, 1981, mandating the development of such plans. On Long Island, this has met with limited success, the larger water sup- plies having written them, while many of the smaller companies have not. 2.) Interconnections - Many of the marginal water sup- pliers are in close proximity to one another.with an opportunity to physically interconnect. With an inter- connection existing between suppliers, if one of these experiences serious and sudden water quality problems, the supplie~ through the interconnection, can receive an alternative source of water until the contamination issue can be addressed. Oakwood-on-the Sound, a season- al water supplier, has recently interconnected its four well systems so if one well fails or malfunctions, the homes served by it can receive water from the other "on-line" wells. Additionally, not so much an intercon- nection but an incorporation, the Suffolk County Water Authority has acquired the infrastructure system of the Towd Point Association's area. 3.) Standby power - Some of the smaller companies oc- casionally experience power outages. If a water sup- plier has no standby power source in the event of an outage, the residents affected must do without. Since many of these outages occur during periods of inclement weather such as heavy snowstorms and hurricanes, when water is essential, it is important that water suppliers have standby power capability. At the time the report was published, nine community supplies lacked standby power. The Department of Health Services has proposed to revise Article IV of the Suffolk Count~ Sanitary Code to grant the Commissioner the power to require that water suppliers obtain standb~ power. The proposed re- vision is now being drafted. 84 4.) Town GOvernment - Ail Towns on Long Island have the ability under municipal law to form water districts. The establishment of water districts is often preferable since it develops as a centralized operation in which water quality control, water at adequate pressure, and sufficient storage and infrastructure can be more greatly effectuated. Both Towns on the North Fork, Riverhead and Southold, have recently released Request for Proposals for an engineering feasibility study to determine the costs that would be incurred by forming water districts in portions of their respective towns where some of the highest ranked marginal water suppliers are located and significant deterioration in the quality of private wells has taken place. If the studies indicate that the creation of water districts in these areas is feas- ible, and is subsequently accomplished, major progress in the issue of marginal water supPliers in Suffolk County will have been achieved. VIRAL CONTAMINATION INTRODUCTION A virus study as part of the federally funded 208 pro- gram, revealed that the major human virus groups known to occur in sewage were also present in the surface and groundwaters of Long Island. These viruses include Enteroviruses - transient members of the human alimen- tary tract consisting of over 100 species; Adenoviruses - upper respiratory viruses which are able to withstand the acidity of the human stomach and may be shed in the feces; Hepatitis virus and Reoviruses. GROUNDWATER A more recent study conducted by Brookhaven National Laboratory, released in 1981, specifically addresses the movement of human enteroviruses through the shallow, sandy soil of the Upper Glacial aquifer in the Town of Southampton. Viruses from septic systems were shown to travel at least 200 feet through the aquifer, and'were detected at depths as great as 59 feet. Although viral concentrations are shown to decrease with distance from the septic tank, there is concern that water supply wells located down-gradient from a septic system could become contaminated with a variety of enteric viruses such as polio, coxackie or echoviruses. This concern is founded I I I I I I I I i I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 85 on the fact that local building codes currently require that septic systems be installed not less than 100 feet from water supply wells. Another study conducted in Arizona reported that viruses, as well as bacteria, could survive longer in groundwater than surface water due to lower groundwater temperatures and the absence of ultraviolet light. The study had several recommendations including: 1. Water supply wells should be in areas up-gradient of all sources of septage, or in down-gradient areas which are not affected by septic systems. 2. Water quality parameters such as pH, conductivity, total and fecal coliform counts were not found to have a significant relationship to human viruses in groundwater. 3. Studies are needed on the movement of other viruses such as rotaviruses, Norwalk agents and hepatitus A virus, since the data amassed for the Brookhaven study dealt only with human enteric viruses. 4. Additional studies should be conducted on-site in order to predict viral movement through groundwater, particularly for single family residences with private wells and septic systems. SURFACE WATER A 1980 United States Geological Survey study prepared for the Long Island Regional Planning Board investigated the presence of microorganisms in stormwater. The re- port stated that as long as stormwater containing viruses and bacteria is contained in storm sewers or ditches, it did not pose a serious threat to human health. Once stormwater enters a receiving water body, however, it could become a problem. Bacteria do not easily survive in a surface water environment, but viruses have survived for longer periods of time, up to 154 days in one in- stance. Problems arise when stormwater is used to recharge shal- low groundwater aquifers or stored in basins that allow seepage to groundwater. Viruses can adhere to clay par- ticles and be retained in the soil, however, they can also be released from the clay when it is flushed with rainwater that is recharging the aquifer. Another study by Yeager and O'Brien (1979) reported that drying is the 86 most important factor in the inactivation of viruses in soil. Therefore, recharging an aquifer with stormwater or wastewater could introduce viral contamination to the water supply. There has been increasing concern over the likelihood of human virus transmitted by shellfish. There are a number of reasons why a potential health hazard exists. These reasons include: the waters in which shellfish are harvested are continually being subjected to high levels of pollution from sewage; shellfish are filter- feeders, and are thus able to efficiently concentrate viruses from the water; a majority of viruses are con- centrated in the digestive organ of the mollusk, which is eaten along with other parts of the animal; and shell- fish are often consumed raw or with minimal cooking that may not be sufficient to kill all of the viruses within the animal. VIRAL CONTAMINATION: REFERENCES Microorganisms in Stormwater - A summary of Recent Investigations, Gail E. Mallard, U.S. Geological Survey, Open-File Report 80-1198, Syosset, N.Y. 1980. 2. Entrainment of Human Viruses in a Shallow Sandy Aquifer, J.M. Vaugh and E.F. Landry, Brookhaven National Laboratory, UPton, N.Y. for Suffolk County Department of Health Services, September 1981. I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 87 ALDICARB AND OTHER ORGANIC PESTICIDES GROUNDWATER SAMPLING PROGRAMS At a meeting held in August of 1979 by all concerned agencies to discuss groundwater monitoring for aldicarb, the Suffolk County Health Department pointed out the scarcity of laboratories capable of testing for this pesticide, and therefore requested assistance from the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Health Depart- ment and Union Carbide. Union Carbide stated that they would be able to provide immediate laboratory support. By the end of December 1979, four (4) months later, 333 samples had been analyzed from 174 community, non-com- munity and private wells: Union Carbide analyzed 204;the Environmental Protection Agency analyzed 120; and New York State analyzed 9. Of those 174 wells tested, 36 exceeded guidelines, and 22 had traces. The news headlines at that time read -"Pesticide Contam- inating 23% of Eastern Suffolk's Water Supplies". Those reports were criticized by government agencies for fail- ing to point out that the samples were all collected at potato farms where Aldicarb had been used for several years. The County requested, and Union Carbide agreed to a greatly expanded testing program in 1980. They entered into a legal agreement with the County to analyze at no cost any sample collected by the County which had Aldicarb in concentrations above 7ppb. If levels were below 7ppb, or not detected, the C~unty would pay $50/sample. For each well that exceeded the 7 ppb level Union Carbide agreed to be responsible for the installa- tion of activated carbon filtration units, free of cost to the county and homeowner. (Cost =$600-$?00/unit + $150 installation fee.) In September of 1981, the Suffolk County Health Depart- ment released a report on their findings to that time. Their conclusion was "that substantial contamination of the groundwater aquifers in eastern Long Island has oc- cured from Aldicarb." They also noted that although Aldicarb was no longer being used, it was still present in the soil and would therefore continue to leach for some time. They anticipated several decades before any improvement in water quality could be seen. A second major sampling program was conducted from April 88 through June of 1980. Almost 8,000 wells were sampled, the majority being private wells, in addition to the few public supplies found in this area. Based on groundwater hydrology, several hypotheses were made and only wells within 2,500 feet of potato farms were analyzed. This still represented an area over 100 square miles. It was divided into grids of approximately 1,500 feet by 1,500 feet. Block by block searches were conducted to locate all private wells. All of the information was fed into a newly acquired computer. Of the 7,809 samples collected, the following results were obtained: 5,745(73.6%) had no detectable concentrations 1,025(13.1%) had concentrations over the recom- mended standard of 7ppb. 1,032(13.3%) had traces detected. The range was lppb to 515ppb. Of the wells which exceeded 7ppb: 52% were between 8-30ppb 32% were between 31-75ppb 16% were in excess of 75ppb. The study also indicated that most contamination was limited to 1,500 feet from the potato farms but was expected to increase as groundwater movement spread the Aldicarb. The sampling program was again expanded to include wells adjacent to the area first tested, eventually including 500 wells within farmlands, and 15,000 wells from ad- jacent areas. In September of 1982, the Suffolk County Health Services Report published a report entitled "Report on the Occur- rence and Movement of Agricultural Chemicals in Ground- water: South Fork of Suffolk County". One of the report's conclusionswas that "Aldicarb contamination has spread throughout the upper portions of the aquifer within the shallow flow region; maximum vertical penetration is about 40 feet below the water table, and concentrations are generally less than 40ppb." The report further stat- ed that if one considers Aldicarb as persistant in ~round- ~ster, then it "will eventually contaminate most of the Upper Glacial aquifer within and downgradient of farm- ing areas" Testing was also done for the chemical 1,2 dichloro- propane, used since 1950 to control the golden nematode. I I I I I ! I I i I I I I I I I I ! I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 89 Out of 117 samples collected from private wells located in the South Fork, 16 had concentrations ranging from 2-60ppb, with two samples above the NYSDOH guideline of 50ppb. All of these samples were taken as a result of a request by the homeowner. An additional study of 36 wells located adjacent to potato farms resulted in 12 having concentrations averaging 23ppb (the highestbeing 52ppb). Various other organic pesticides have also been tested for by the Suffolk County Health Department including oxamyl(Vydate) the primary replacement for Aldicarb, and carbofuran (see Table II beloW, It should be noted that although the County Health Department tests for 40 organic compounds when they suspect contamin- ation, the majority of the samples analyzed for organics have only included several from that list. Even if the departments were able to test for all 40 compounds, there are still numerous other pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides that are being used, or have been used, that could be present in the Island's groundwater sys- tem. It is therefore imperative that additional funding be made available to expand the present sampling programs. TABLE II 1 Pesticide Total Wells Samples as of 2/24/83 Wells exceedinq Guidelines * Wells having Trace Amts.of Contamination Aldicarb 2,964 331 *(7ppb) (300 - est.) Carbofuran 2,964 103 *(15ppb) (300 - est.) Oxamyl 2,964 1 (50ppb) 26 Methomyl 2,964 0 13 Carbaryl 2,964 0 5 1. Data compiled by Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 9O PETROLEUM SPILLS AND LEAKS In 1977, the New York State Legislature enacted Article 12, the Oil Spill Prevention, Control, and Compensation Law, which is administered by the Department of Trans- portation with the assistance of the Department of En- vironmental Conservation. This law became effective on April 1, 1978, and has three major objectives: To prohibit petroleum discharges, provide for the cleanup of any spills, and impose penalties up to $25,000 for any illegal spill. To license all facilities which have the cap- ability of storing or transferring 400,000 gallons or more of petroleum products and collect fees for such licenses. To create the New York Environmental Protec- tion and Spill Compensation Fund from such license fees for utilization in cleanup costs and damage claims arising from petroleum spills. During the fiscal year 1980-81, 1902 spills occurred statewide involving 2,068,398 gallons of petroleum pro- ducts. In fiscal year 1981-82, the number of spills reported in- creased by 6% to 1,920 (this number does not include 426 spills that still remain active from previous years). Eighteen percent of these spills were greater than 100 gallons and 10% exceeded 10,000 gallons. The majority of these spills were due to tanks leaking (495), while tank overfills and system failures were also a prime contrib- uting factor (470). In the bi-county region of Long Island during the 1980-81 fiscal year, 19 groundwater spills occurred in Nassau County involving 24,000 gallons, while Suffolk County had 39 totaling 72,000 gallons. The fiscal year of 1981-82 saw an increase in spills in the Long Island region with Nassau having 83 spills, and Suffolk County having 80 spills. Since April of 1978, until February 1983, a total of 898 groundwater spills have occurred in Nassau and Suf- folk, resulting in an estimated discharge into the en- vironment of over 1 million gallons. Of this number only 335,000 gallons or 35% of the total volume of the documented spills has been reclaimed. The remaining 665,000 gallons remain as long term threats to the region's drinking water supply. What is even more alarming is the fact that until recently, many of these I I I ! I I ! I i I I I i I I I I I I I I I I 91 T~RT .F. III SIZE DISTRIBUTION AND QUANTITY_ OF PETROLE[~4 PiW3DUCT SPTLT~ IN ~SAU (/~3~fY - 1982 Size of Spill No. of Spills Total Estimated (C-allons) Recorded* Quantity Spilled I I I I I I I I I I 1- 199 36 118~ 200- 399 6 1595 400- 599 2 1000 600- 799 3 2200 800- 999 - 1000-1199 - - 1200-1399 - - 1400-1599 - - 1600-1799 1 1700 1800-1999 - - 2000-2199 - - 2200-2399 1 2300 2800+ 1 200D00+ Total : 50 SPTT~. INCID~q~S BY TYPE OF SPTT~ - NASSAU COUNTY - 1982 1. Surface Water Spills 4 2. Under~ound Ta~ Leaks 3 3. Gas St~t~on I~aks 32 4. P~adway Spills 75 5. MiSCellaneous Spills 1--2 Total of Spills: 126 I I ! * Where quantity spilled is known. Note: Figures c~t~iled by Nassau County Depazht~nt of Health. 92 TA~.w IV SIZE DI~,'KIBUTI~ A~D QUANTITY OF ~rNDLl-~ PRODUCT SP?T.T~ IN SUFFOLK O0t~TY - 1981 Size of Spill No. of Spills Total estimate (Gallo~s) Recorded Quantity Spilled I I I I I 1- 199 26 2117 200- 399 6 1565 400- 599 2 1000 600- 799 1 600 800- 999 2 1600 1000-1199 2 2000 1800-1999 1 1800 2000-2199 1 2000 2600-2799 2 5300 2800+ 7 3%800 Total : 50 SPTT~, INCID~WTSBYTYPE OF SPII~,- SUFFOLK COUNTY- 1982 1. Contaminated Wells 48 2. Surface Waterspills 8 3. Chemicals Spills 33 4. Pesticide Spills 1 5. MiscellaneousSpills 13 6. Gas Stat/on/Underground Tank Leaks 27 7. Roadway Spills 6 8. Hazardous Materials Incidents -Not resulting in spills Total of Spills: 42 178 NOTE: Figures c~%~iled by Suffolk County Annual Environmental I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 93 spills were discovered only after traveling beyond the confines of the subject property where they contaminated a private well. From this we can assume that an even greater number of spills presently exist that have yet to be discovered. Suffolk County has enacted an extremely important and significant law, Article 12, to regulate all hazardous materials stored in or above ground. Unfortunately all existing facilities dealing with these hazardous products, such as gas stations, are not immediately required to come into conformance and instead can rely on a timetable which may extend into 1993. In Nassau County a much weaker version of the Suffolk County law has been in existence for several years. Some of the problems with this par- ticular law include the fact that the Kent-more Test is not required to test underground tanks and the testing period required is only once every five years. The pro- visions for instantaneous monitoring, cathode protection for inground steel tanks, and the requirements for fiber- glass or double-walled steel tanks are all provisions which are lacking in this particular law. The Bi-county region has approximately 2,400 gas stations of which at least 10% are presently leaking. Considering our technological inabilities to remove a majority of this material once it has entered the groundwater system, than not only this number but any possible increases, represents a substantial threat to the quality of our groundwater re- sources. FIGURE XI Deep Flow Recharge Areas on Long Island (From the Long Island Cc~prehensive Waste %¥eatment Management Plan, also kno~ as the 208 S~udy, authored by the Long Island ~e~ p~in~ retard) Indicates deep flow rechaz~e areas on the North and South Forks not delineated by the 208 Study m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m -- m m m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 95 C. POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION PROBLEMS CHLORINATION OF PUBLIC WATER SUPPLIES Chlorination is the most widely used method for disin- fection of public water supplies. Chlorine is added to the water to kill pathogens (bacteria) that are re- sponsible for water-borne diseases such as typhoid, cholera, salmonellosis, and shigellosis. Despite its highly effective performance as a disinfectant, there has been growing concern over the past decade about the use of chlorination due to the potential simultaneous formation of trihalomethanes (THM's) and other chlor- inated hydrocarbons. Trihalomethanes are derivatives of methane where three of the four hydrogen atoms are substituted by three atoms of chlorine, bromine, or iodine. THM's are formed when an oxidizing agent, most commonly chlorine, reacts with organic molecules already present in the water. The specific nature of the reactions which take place is not clearly understood, because the chemical structure of the precursors are highly varied and complex. The precursors are believed to be primarily humic substances which are derived from the' structural components of living 9~d decaying plants and/or soil dissolution and runoff,x3 Four recognized THM's are; trichloromethane (chloroform); tribromomethane (bromoform); bromodichloro- methane; and dibromochloromethane. Chloroform is a known animal carcinogen. Additionally, many studies have suggested that a positive correlation exists be- tween high levels of THM's and cancer of the bladder, stomach, colon, large intestines, esophagus, breasts, and lungs. THM concentration increases as it flows through the water treatment process, and continues to increase throughout the distribution system. Therefore, the consumer is likely to receive the highest concentra- tion at the tap. Other factors affecting THM concentra- tion include pH, precursor concentration, precursor type, and temperature. The humic substances and other organics which act as precursors, naturally exist in surface waters. Further- more, contamination of organics induced by man more easily and readily enters surface waters. Although groundwater does not naturally contain organics, they do find ~heir way into the aquifer via contamination seepage from landfills,cesspools, industrial discharges, ~pills and runoff. Therefore, the formation of THM's 96 and other toxic chlorinated organics in groundwater is possible, and is occurring more frequently, as evidenced by studies undertaken across the country (see references), In response to these findings, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency promulgated regulations in 1979 for the monitoring of trihalomethanes. They established a maximum contaminant level of 0.10 milligrams per liter (mg/1) for the sum of the concentrations of all THM's (TTHM's) present in any water sample. This standard applies to all community water systems serving 10,000 or more persons. Generally, sampling is required for each treatment plant. Special consideration is given to water suppliers which draw water exclusively from the ground since,"...water taken from a surface source is more likely than groundwater (with notable exceptions) to produce high THM levels.''12 The State is permitted to reduce monitoring requirements if such a system can demonstrate by one sample for each treatment plant that it has a maximum total THM potential of less than 0.10mg/1. If so, the supplier may test for THM's only once per year. As previously mentioned, chlorination may result in the formation of chlorinated hydrocarbons other than THM's. Chlorine reacts in solutions of organic compounds by one or more of three basic mechanisms: addition, during which chlorine atoms are added to a compound; oxidation, during which microorganisms are inactivated; and substitution, during which chlorine atoms are substituted for some other atom that is present in the organic compound. Ad- dition and substitution reactions produce chlorinated organic compounds.13 Some chemists believe that halo- genated hydrocarbons can be synthesized naturally in groundwater, although the origin of these chemicals on Long Island is believed to be primarily from industrial discharges of cesspool additives which contain these chemicals. This group of organics includes methylene chloride,trichloroethane, and carbon tetrachloride, which are suspected or known carcinogens, and are listed on EPA's list of 129 priority pollutants. Public water suppliers must test for selected organic pollutants once per year. The New York State Department of Health per- forms random sampling and requires further testing if contamination is discovered. The New York State Depart- ment of Health guidelines limit each organic chemical to 50 parts per billion (ppb) equivalent to 1,000 mg/1, or the combined level of all organic chemicals to 100 ppb. Chlorinated organics have been found in groundwater throughout the United States, including New York State and Long Island. tn 1978, a sampling program undertaken I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I 97 for Nassau County detected chloroform, 1,1,1 trichloro- ethane, and carbon tetrachloride, as well as other brganic chemicals in public supply wells (see Table V ). A similar study was conducted in Suffolk County. The find- ings resulted in the closing of 13 public supply wells in Suffolk County, and 23 public supply wells in Nassau County. Accumulated data from federal nationwide studies show high concentrations of organic chemicals in both surface and groundwater sources. Many of the organics found were THM's and other chlorinated hydrocarbons (see Table UI ). Most studies which have researched the formation of THM's have concentrated on surface water supplies. A few marked exceptions exist, including studies in Miami, Florida, where a significant amount of interchange exists between surface and groundwaters, due to vast areas of marsh land; therefore, high concentrations of THM's have been found. However, federal data on volatile organics has been obtained from only twenty of the sixty-seven aquifer systems in the United States serving over 100,000 people.22 The first major study which reported the form- ation of chlorinated organics during the treatment of drinking water was by Jo Rook in 1974, who suggested that any colored raw water (a result of the reaction with humic substances) whether from ground or surface sources that is chlorinated will contain trihalomethanes.1 Humic substances can leach into the groundwater through Long Island's porous soils or through runoff. Little attention has been given to the formation of toxics other than THM's. Consideration must be given to the longterm aggregate health effect of the injestion of perhaps several hundred (synthetic organic) compounds. Organic molecules naturally exist in the human body. If a chlorine residual is maintained throughout this distribution system, and is present at the tap, THM's or other harmful chlorinated hydrocarbons can be formed inside the body. Concentrations, however, would be much lower than the amount found in the distribution system49 No comprehensive study has been conducted on Long Island with regard to the effects of chlorinated public water supplies and chronic health disorders. As long as the formation of toxic compounds can result from the chlorination of public water supplies, a logical step is to reevaluate the need for chlorination and de- termine alternative methods for disinfection. Since the advent of water filtration and chlorination in the United States, water-borne diseases have been uncommon. As stated before, chlorination kills bacteria present in the 98 water supply. This is a valid concern for surface water sources, but not for groundwater supplies. Bacteria do not naturally exist in groundwater in depths at which public wells withdraw water. Chlorination of ground- water on Long Island was instituted many years ago be- cause of the unreliable, low-grade distribution systems used. Long Island's distribution systems have since been improved; consequently, bacterial contamination has not been a problem. If initial disinfection of the well- head during installation is properly undertaken , and if adequate water pressure is maintained pursuant to state law, contamination~by bacteria should not occur, except in rare circumstances. These requirements, however, are not always met by marginal water suppliers (see Marginal Suppliers). Bacteria counts are taken by the public water suppliers daily and reported to the health depart- ments at a frequency based upon the population served by the water utility. A bacteria count of less than lmg/1 must be maintained at all times. Thus, there is little chance of bacterial contamination if the count at the wellhead is zero, unless a break in the distribution main occurs, or the system experiences a negative pres- sure, allowing bacteria to be drawn into the water mains. The State Department of Health Regulations require chlor- ination of public water supplies, whether if it is needed or not. However, in recognition of Long Island's dependence on groundwater, the~Department has granted waivers to many Long Island public water suppliers who have requested them and have demonstrated that bacteria is not a problem. Twenty-five out of forty-eight com- munity water suppliers in Nassau County and forty-four out of fifty-four in Suffolk County do not chlorinate. However, if one looks at the total population served by those who do chlorinate, data reveals that the great majority of people receive chlorinated drinking water in both Nassau and Suffolk Counties. All of those who do not chlorinate daily in Nassau County have available emergency chlorination. A survey was taken by the Com- mission to assess the need for chlorination on Long Island by interviewing those who do not chlorinate daily in Nassau County. Out of the twenty-five companies that chlorinated for emergency purposes, eight companies had to chlorinate according to state health regulations be- cause of the construction activities involved in the in- stallation of sewers. Otherwise, the suppliers expressed no problem with bacteria. Certain officials in the De- partments of Health and Environmental Conservation con- tend that bacterial contamination is not a serious pro- blem on the Island. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I An alternative to the elimination of daily chlorination would be to change the water treatment process to re- duce the chance, or lessen the concentration, of THM or other chlorinated hydrocarbon formation. This can be achieved by changing the point at which chlorine is added to the water at the treatment facility. Chlorina- tion should occur after any filtration, sedimentation, coagulation, or iron removal has taken place. These processes remove or substantially decrease the amount of organic particles suspended in the water. Other disin- fection methods using ozone, bromide, or chlorine dioxide also have adverse effects and must be studied further. If disinfection is not necessary under normal conditions, it is surprising that public water suppliers would want to bear the expense of daily chlorination. Chlorination does provide a health safeguard, therefore it is advised that emergency chlorination be available. The Commission questions the need for daily chlorination of Long Island's public water supplies. The possible health effects from chlorination on Long Island should no longer be disre- garded. Studies should be conducted on the possible health effects of chlorination on Long Island. The Health Department and the public water suppliers should not dis- miss the fact that they are allowing the use and possible consumption of another chemical that appears to be un- necessary. Chlorination of public water supplies should be based on need and should not be considered a panacea as it had been years ago. TABLE V Organic Ch~micalsDetectedinCcm~mznity Water Supply Wells Nassau County - 4/28/78 ~J~ ~J~ PE~ ~ LEVEL TEb~r~ POSITIVE POSITIVE DETE~'i'~3 (~Q/~) Tetrachloroethylene 372 57 1,1,2-Trichloroethylene 372 50 (~loro form 372 41 1,1,1-Trichloroethane 372 33 Carbon Tetrachloride 372 20 Tr i f luorotr ichloroethane 372 4 15 375 13 300 11 67 9 310 5 21 1 135 Source: "Organic Chemicals and Drinking Water." New York State Department of Health, January, 1981, p.9. TABLE VI A RANKING OF ORGANIC CHEMICALS BY THE FREQUENCY OF REPORTED PRESENCE IN FINISHED SURFACE WATER (SRI~ NOMS, NORS) SHRFACE **CHLOROFORM **BROMODICHLOROMETHANE **CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE PENTACHLOROPHENOL DIETHYL PHTHALATE DICHLOROIODOMETHANE DIBUTYL PHTHALATE ATRAZINE 2,4-01CHLOROPHENOL *BENZENE PHTHALIC ACID TOLUENE *~ETRACHLOROETHYLENE *CARBON TETRACHLORIDE *TRICHLOROETHYLENE SIMAZINE *P-D[cHLOROBENZENE ~*BROMOFORM *i,3,4-TRICHLOROBENZENE DICHLOROMETHANE *i,I,I-TRICHLOROETHANE DISDLFOTON BENEFIN MALATHION FLUORANTHENE PHENYL ACETIC ACID CYANAZINE PROPAZINE *CIS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE FREQUENCY §9.6 95.0 79.3 38.1 36.1 35.2 33.3 27.8 21.8 21.6 20.4 19.4 17.8 16.0 15.5 13.0 12.5 12.4 ll.5 10.0 9.9 9.2 9.2 6.5 5.g 4.6 ti. 6 4.6 4.6 4.6 GRO{IND **CHLOROFORM **BROMODICHLOROMETHANE **CHLORODIBROMOMETHANE **BROMOFORM DICHLOROIODOMETHANE DIBUTYLPHTHALATE *TETRACHLOROETHYLENE *I,I,I-TRICHLOROETHANE *I,I-DIcHLOROETHANE *CIS-I,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE PHTHALIC ACID 2,4-DICHLOROPHENOL *TRICHLOROETHYLENE DIETHYLPHTHALATE *P-DIcHLOROBENZENE BIS(2-CHLOROETHYL)ETHER *BENZENE ETHYL CHLORIDE TRICHLOROFLUOROMETHANE *I,I-DICHLOROETHYLENE *TRANS-1,2-DICHLOROETHYLENE *CHLOROBENZENE SIMAZINE METHYL PARATHION MALATHION PENTACHLOROPHENOL FLUORANTHENE *DICHLOROMETHANE *CARBON TETRACHLORIDE BIS(2-CHLOROISOPROPYL)ETHER **THM REGULATION. *PRESENTLY BEING CONSIDERED FOR MCLs. Source: "The Occurrence of Volatile OrganicsinDrinking Water." EnironmantalProtectionAgency, March1980, p.4 FREQUENCY 70.3 69.2 64.5 36.3 30.3 28.6 26.1 22.2 21.4 21.4 21.4 17.2 16.4 12.9 8.7 8.5 ?.1 ?.1 7.1 ?.1 ?.1 ?.1 ?.1 7.1 6.9 6.9 6.7 5.5 0 ! I I 101 FORMATION OF TOXIC CHLORINATED ORGANICS IN PUBLIC WATER I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SUPPLIES DUE TO CHLORINATION: REFERENCES e 10. 11. 12. 13. "A Preliminary Survey of THM Levels in Selected East Texas Water Supplies." American Water Works Asso- ciation Journal, September 1979. "Alternative Disinfectants 1: Principles." Research and Technology, January 1981. "An Empirical Kinetic Model of THM Formation. Applications to Meet the Proposed THM Standard." Research & Technology, October 1980. "An Exposure and Risk Assessment for Trihalomethanes." Environmental Protection Agency, November 1980. "Chlorination of Organics in Drinking Water." The American Water Works Association Journal, November 1980. "Controlling Trihalomethanes While Attaining Disin- fection.'' American Water Works Association Journal, March 1977. "Disinfection - Where are We?" Management and Opera- tions, March 1977. "Drinking Water Chlorination: A Practice Unrelated to Cancer Mortality." Research and~Technology, October 1980. "Haloforms in Drinking Water." Water Technology, March 1976. Hearings on, "Organic Chemicals and Drinking Water." New York State Department of Health~ January, 1981. "Measurement of THM and Precursor Concentration Changes." Water Technology/Quality, October 1977. "National Interim Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Control of THM's in Drinking Water." Environmental Protection Agency, 40 CFR Part 141, November 1979. National Research Council. Drinking Water and Health National Academy Press Washington, D.C. vol. 2, 1980. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 102 O~anic Chemicals and Drinking Water. New York State Department of Health. 1980. Personal Communication, T.A. Bellar. 1983, Environ- mental Protection Agency, Environmental Research Center. "Planning Workshops to Develop Recommendations for A Groundwater Protection Strategy." Environmental Protection Agency, June 1980. "Preliminary Assessment of Suspected Carcinogens in Drinking Water." An Interim Report to Congress, June, 1975. "Community Water Supply Survey: Sampling and Analysis for Purgeable Organics And Total Organic Carbon." Environmental Protection Agency, June, 1981. $chroeder, Roy A. and Deborah S. Snavely. Survey of Selected Organic Compounds in Aquifers of New York State Excluding Long Island. New York, 1981 Symons, J.M. "National Organics Reconnaissance Survey for Halogenated Organics," American Water Works Association Journal, Part 1, November 1975. "The Occurrence of Trihalomethanes in Public Water Supply Systems of New York State." New York State Department of Health, September 1979. "The Occurrence of Volatile Organics in Drinking Water." Criteria and Standards Division Science and Technology Branch. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1980. "Trihalomethane Reduction in Operating Water Treat- ment Plants." American Water Works Association, September 1979. "Water Chlorination." Environmental Impact and Health Effects, (vol. 3), Michigan: Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc., 1980. ! ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 103 Chlorination of Sewage Effluent A greater source of chlorinated hydrocarbons is the use of chlorination to disinfect sewage effluent. Studies have been conducted to determine the adverse health effects of sewage chlorination. As a result, the need for sewage chlorination has been seriously questioned. As of 1958, only 30% of all sewage treatment plants in the United States had been using chlorination.1 In 1972, as a result of the environmental movement, dis- infection was mandated by the Environmental Protection Agency. On a year-round basis, although there were no occurrences or outbreaks of water-borne diseases at this time. Neither the Environmental Protection Agency reg- ulations of 1972, nor the State regulations today, pro- vide flexibility in regard to the need for chlorination and the functions the water bodies serve. Using chlorine to kill bacteria in treated sewage was expected to make the receiving waters swimmable, and to minimize the chances of spreading water-~orne.diseases. However, besides disinfecting, chlorine affects the environment upon which fish and shellfish depend. Chlorination of sewage effluent has formed toxic chlorin- ated organics in streams, shellfish, fish, and may con- taminate our groundwater supply from treatment plants which discharge to groundwater. Very iow levels of chlorine even the equivalent of a quart of laundry bleach in two million gallons of water - can inhibit fish reproduction and growth. Excess chlorine in sewage has been a suspected cause of many major fish kills. In a 1980 report by Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, chlorine discharges from 36 sewage treatment plants in Anne Arundel, Maryland amounted to 372 tons of chlorine during a 12 month period.2 The report also stated that spawning and har- vest of fish in Chesapeake Bay plummeted during the 1970's when chlorination of sewage tripled. Chlorine residuals may retard growth of aquatic grasses and other aquatic life. In recognition of the toxic effect of chlorinated discharges on aquatic life, the effects of chlorinated organics on public health, the cost of chlorination and the energy needed to produce it, the Environmental Pro- tection Agency in 1976 removed th~ bacterial limitation on secondary treatment of sewage.~ However, Environmental Protection Agency standards for bacteria in swimmable waters, and state water quality standards, usually make chlorination necessary. 104 As with drinking water chlorination, the need for sewage chlorination must be reevaluated. Incidents of water-borne diseases are almost always transmitted by inadequately treated drinking water.4 The British have reacted to the United States, stating that no other country in the world uses such stringent bacteria standards for water used for boating and swimming.2 Incidents of bacterial diseases in other industrial countries are not significantly different than in the United States. The Assistant Director of the Bacterial Disease Division of the United States Center for Disease Control stated,"With rare exceptions, there is absolutely no need with respect to health, in attempting to control microbial contamination after secondary sewage treatment.2 There has been little improvement in public health since the extensive use of sewage chlorination. The United States General Accounting Office (GAO) sub- mitted a report to Congress in 1977 on the harmful effects of sewage chlorination. The information gathered sug- gested that there is no justification for public health reasons to disinfect sewage in water not used for swim- ming or during cold months when swimming is unlikely. In New York State, only 15% of the 500 treatment plants discharge into water used for swimming, but 90% of the plants disinfect. The GAO concluded that wastewater disinfection may be required in areas where shellfish are harvested in order to reduce bacterial contamination. Chlorination is not needed in the absence of swimming activities. Most importantly, free chlorine remaining in wastewater discharge is often far in excess of levels safe for aquatic life. EPA should promulgate regulat- ions which would limit chlorine residuals and promote the use of equipment which would improve chlorination efficiency. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 105 Chlorination of Sewage Effluent References o "Let's Be Sane About Chlorination". American Water Works Association, 1970. Berlitz, August, "Chlorine: Villian in Disguise". Annual Report of the Atlantic States Marine Fish- eries Commission to Congress, 1980. Comptroller General of the United States, "Unneces- sary and Harmful Levels of Domestic Sewage Chlorina- tion Should Be Stopped". Report to the Congress. (CED-77-108), 1977. Raymond, L. "Benefits of Sewage Chlorination Ques- tioned'', 1977 Publication. 106 Nitrosamines Another group of synthesized chemicals that may be a threat to the quality of our drinking water and our health is nitrosamines. Nitrosamines are known to cause cancer in various organs of many animal species, and have been strongly implicated in human cancer. Two types of compounds - nitrates and.secondary amines - are the necessary presursors for the formation of nitros- amines. Secondary amines, the organic precursors, can react with nitrites, the inorganic precursors, to form nitrosamines in conditions similar to the mammalian stomach, and in vitro in gastric juice. However, these compounds can form under other conditions. Both reac- tants must be present for the reaction to occur. It should be noted that not all secondary amines react with nitrite to form nitrosamines, and not all nitrosamines are carcinogenic. Unfortunately nitrosamines are very difficult to detect because they have a wide range of physical characteristics. The precursors of nitrosamines are common throughout the environment. Nitrite is readily formed from nitrate re- duction, nitrification and denitrification. An abundance of nitrate is artifically introduced into the environment from fertilizers, herbicides, sewage, and stormwater run- off. In Nassau County, despite its extensive sewering infrastructure, wells have been closed due to excessive concentrations of nitrates (Table VII) Apparently the indulgence of fertilizer application commonly practiced in suburbia may very well have a greater deleterious effect on groundwater than human waste. High concentra- tions of nitrate in drinking water can produce toxic or fatal methemoglobinemia in infants up to 1 year old. Me~hemoglobinemia refers to the condition in which nitrite in the blood oxidizes the hemoglobin to methemoglobin which is then unable to carry oxygen to the tissues of the body. Nitrates also exist naturally in soils and leach into surface water and groundwater. Nitrites are intermediate in the reduction of nitrate by bacteria in plants. The existence of nitrates from these sources result in the accumulation of nitrates and nitrites in stored green vegetables, in plants, and in decaying meat. Methemo- globinemia can occur in cattle from nitrite poisoning resulting from injestion of grasses and animal feeds. In addition to nitrates and nitrites formed in the food chain, they are also used as preservatives in fish and meat in permissable levels of 500 and 200 ppm, respectively. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 107 TART.R VI I C~,,~nity Water Su~iy Well Closures (Organic) NaSsau ~Cour~t~; I Locations Garden City Park 3 Glen Cove City 3 Jamaica Well New Hyde Park 1 Bethpage/Farmingdale 1 Gnmman Wells [Bethpage] 8 Total 17 No. of Wells Closed Chemicals ~-~ceeding Trichloroet/~ylene Tetr. achloroethyl~-~ Tetrachloroethyle~e Trichioroethylene Tetracb I oroet]Tyl~_ne Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene Trichloroethane Vinyl Chlo=ide I I I I I I I I I (inorganic) Bayville 1 Nitrate Carle Place 1 " East Me~dow 1 " Garden City 5 " Hicksville 2 " Levittown 2 " L.I. Water Corp. 1 " Mineola 1 " N.Y. Water Service 1 " Roosevelt Field 1 " Williston Park 1 " Eisenhow~r Park (E. Meadow) 1 " Citizens Well (Vally Stream) 1 Chloride 1 M_~neola Village 1 Corrosivity 1 Total 21 2 1. Data compiled by Nassau County Department of Health. 108 TABLE VIII Ccamunity Water Supply Well Closures Suffolk County i No. of Wells Locations Closed Centerport 2 Bohemia 2 Brentwood 4 Bay Shore 1 N. Bay Shore 1 Ronkonkcma 1 S. Huntington 2 Total 14 Chemicals Exceeding Stan~R~ds Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene Trichloroethylene, Benzene, Trichloroethane Trichloroethylene Trichloroethylene Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene, Trichloroethylene Tetrachloroethylene 1. Data compiled by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services . I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 109 The estimated average daily intake of nitrate is 22 micromoles; equivalent to 1.5 mg of sodium nitrate. Only low levels of nitrite are needed for the formation of nitrosamines. Secondary amines can occur naturally in water, can be found in industrial effluent and agricultural pesticides and can be formed by bacteria. Secondary amines can also be found in fish meal, fish products, cereals, tea, to- bacco, and tobacco smoke. Cooking protein foods can be a source of these chemicals, as well as the fermentation of alcohol. Secondary amines, like nitrites, are added to our diet as meat and bread flavoring agents, in tooth- paste and in certain drugs. The two precursors, besides combining in saliva and the stomach, can easily be combined in water, sewage or soil to form nitrosamines and are likely to enter or be formed in granular activated carbon (GAC) filters.2 GAC filters have been used at the wellhead in areas of contamination, particularly on the North Fork of Long Island, to cleanse the waters from pesticides. This possible formation of nitrosamines on GAC filters has not been thoroughly in- vestigated. The State Department of Health ~tandard for nitrate in drinking water is 10 mg/1. The study of known cases of methemoglobinemia led to the belief that 10 mg/1 is a safe level of nitrate in water for babies. Later, how- ever, a small percentage of cases were found with concen- trations somewhat less than the standard, and enhancement of methemoglobin levels have been affected by water slightly in excess of 10 mg/1.3 Therefore, there appears to be a small margin of safety for some infants at this concentration.3 Furthermore, no safe level of nitrates in drinking water has been assessed to guard against the formation of nitrosamines. The Commission, therefore, recommends a reevaluation of the nitrate standard, be- cause of the unknown accumulative effects of nitrates and its potential to form nitrite and eventually nitrosamines. The public should become aware of the sources of nitros- amines, such as fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide ap- plications, and the use of nitrites, nitrates, and flavoring agents as food additives. Domestic and agri- cultural fertilization practices should be managed to educate users and to promote proper application. The public should also be educated about the effectiveness, availability, and maintainence of GAC filters, as well as their negative attributes. These filters are effective in the removal of certain organics, but'not so in the re- 110 moval of nitrates or other inorganics. The occurence and adverse health effects of nitrosamines, particularly in drinking water, should be thoroughly studied. Nitrosamines References 1. Lijinsky, W. and S. Epstein. Environmental Carcinogens", January 3, 1970. "Nitrosamines as Nature, Vol. 225, 5 National Research Council. Drinking Water and Health, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, Vol. 2, 1980. 5 National Research Council. Drinkin~ Water and Health, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, Vol. 1, 1980. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 111 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WATER SUPPLY AND QUALITY The Commission recommends that the Department of Environmental Conservation add the follow- ing sections to Part 617 Regulations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act ~EQRA). These amendments would require certain con- ditions to be considered Type I actions, trig- gering a closer environmental review process: Section 617.12(5) Any number of units with a singular or collective sanitary discharge to groundwater, exceeding 3,000 gallons per day located in a sole source aquifer as identif- ied by the Administrator of the U.S. Environ- mental Protection Agency. Section 617.12(6) Any facility discharging industrial effluent to groundwater located in a sole source aquifer so identified by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Commission recommends the passage of a state amendment to the executive law proposed by Senator Lack and Assemblyman Wertz in which the lead content in solder is limited to a maximum of 0.2% when used in drinking water pipes. The Commission recommends that studies are needed on the existence and concentrations of viruses in drinking water and the levels at which they pose a threat to the public health. The Commission recommends the reevaluation of local building codes and health department re- gulations which require that septic systems be installed not less than 100 feet from water supply wells, due to the detection of viruse~ 200 feet from septic tanks. The Commission recommends that Nassau County adopt a bulk storage regulation similar to. Article 12 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code.' The Commission recommends that monitoring or ' ~ .'~ vent pipes of gas and oil tanks be equipped with locking cap, and can be easily identified to distinguish them~from the refill pipes. 112 The Commission is concerned over the growing levels and types of agricultural chemicals appearing in the groundwater under active farm- ing areas and, therefore, recommends efforts to provide better management practices and controls over agricultural applications of pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides. The Commission recommends DEC to ensum~active monitoring of licensed pesticide applicators to check if they are in compliance with rules and regulations. Additionally DEC should re- quire and enforce back flow prevention devices for all commercial pesticide vehicles and re- quire permission to use fire hydrants. The Commission recommends discontinuence of daily chlorination of public water supplies providing chlorination treatment is available where warranted for emergency use. Evidence indicates the chlorination of sewage results in the formation of carcinogenic chlor- inated hydrocarbons, therefore, the Commission recommends reevaluation of chlorination treat- ment of sewage discharged into groundwater. The Commission recommends that the nitrate drink- ing water standard of 10mg/1 be reevaluated in relation to the possiDle formation of nitrosamines. The Commission recommends that the Health Depart- ment vigorously enforce the cross-connection control program wnlch was recently updated. The Commission recommends that the State Health Department reevaluate interim guidelines for synthetic organic chemicals established by the EPA. The Commission recommends that the State and County Departments of Health expand groundwater testing to include more of the priority pollut- ants, including chlordane,dieldrin, and heptac- hlor which are known animal carcinogens. The Commission recommends passage of the fol- lowing Commission legislation: An act to amend the County Law to authorize the counties of New York State to create water quality districts to aid in the devel- opment and monitoring of contaminants in areas dependent upon private wells. I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 113 An act to amend the General Municipal Law requiring industrial and commercial facilities to report the storage of hazardous materials to DEC. The amendment also changes the enfor- cement provisions from a civil penalty to a violation, which will allow local enforcement officials, in addition to fire districts, to issue notices of violation. To amend the Public Authority Law to prohibit the appropriation of Job Development Agency loans to industries that are in violation of any State permit. To amend the Environmental Conservation Law to require DEC to notify water utilities when reviewing a permit application or re- newal that deals with discharges into a sole source aquifer. To amend the Environmental Conservation Law to require industries to use state certified laboratories when testing effluent discharges. To amend the Environmental Conservation Law to require DEC to notify water utilities when a facility in their district is in violation of any discharge permit. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION IV SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT 115 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 117 IV. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT INTRODUCT ION Landfills continue to pose a serious threat to Long Island's groundwater resources. As the Commission documented in its two previous reports, most of the Island's municipal landfills suffer from a long his- tory of inadequate planning, designing, and manage- ment. Unfortunately, that history is continuing to repeat itself. Although it is an undisputed fact that every landfill on Long Island is producing large volumes of leachate, few steps have been taken to ad- dress that critical problem. Resource recovery has been considered as an alterna- tive to landfilling on Long Island for at least eight years. However, resource recovery operations have suffered from problems associated with the emissions from facilities such as the Hempstead Resource Recov- ery plant. Traces of dioxin were found in the plant's emissions in 1980, and the plant has been out of com- mission since that date. NYSDEC has stated that the facility will reopen for testing during the summer of 1983. It is hoped that the problems associated with resource recovery can be resolved so that the process can eventually replace landfilling here on Long Island. Resource recovery is a sound solid waste management strategy, one that will assist in the protection of Long Island!s drinking water supply. The Commission's two previous reports describe the many problems facing each landfill here on Long Island. The following briefs are simply updates to augment the more detailed reports already presented. Several land- fills, however, have developed serious or unusual prob- lems that require further discussion, and are therefore also presented in this section. 118 SYNOPSIS OF LANDFILL DATA: NASSAU COUNTY TOWN of He~0ste~d POI~LATIC~ 772~590 %1~4~ GARBA6~ PBODUe.:*, PER DAY 1,300 tons (6 da~zs)PER YEAR 405,600 tons IAND~LL LOCATIC~S Oceanside~ New York SIZE: TOTAL ~ 160 acres IN USE 160 acres I~24AINING ~ YEAR OPE~ 1964 YEARS OF USE ~MAINING see below MAJOR PBOBLEF~: 1) LEACPLa~E - Leaking into salt water bay. No contravention of water quality standards reported. Impact on surface watars will be examined in detail durir~ the S~mner of 1983. 2) ~'A~%NE (~S - NO reported problens. 3) OOVER - NO p~ohlem. BRIEF SUMMARY: The Hempstead Resource Recovery Facility, which was shut down in 1980 when dioxin was found in the emmissions, is scheduled to reopen for testing purposes in Summer, 1983. The Town is currently conducting a study to pinpoint future landfill sites if the recycling plant is not reopened. Hempstead's other landfill in Merrick is scheduled to close in 1984, increasing the amount of waste disposed at the Oceanside landfill by approximately 650 tons/day (six days a week). The Oceanside incinerator handles approximately 10 percent of the Town's waste. A consent order was signed on December 14, 1982, specifying a long-term plan for the closure of the Oceanside landfill. I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 119 TOWN of Hempst~ad POP~LATIf~ 772,590 VOL~ ~ PBODUCED PER ~ 650 ~ (6 ~ys) ~ ~ 202,800 ~ ~I~S ~i~, N~ York SIZE: ~ P~ 50 a~ ~ ~E 50 acres ~G 0 ~ O~ C. 1952 ~ OF ~ ~G 13 ~n~s ~OR P~: 1) ~l~: ~ ~ g~cial ~f~, ~ ~ ~ fl~ ~ s~ace ~s. ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~pplies, ~ct of 1~ on s~face wat~ ~11 ~ ~es~ga~ ~g S~,,~ of 1983. 2) ~ ~ - No re~rt~ ~1~. 3) ~ - No p~bl~, BRIEF SUMMARY: The Merrick landfill is scheduled to close in March, 1984. A final coDtour plan of the land- fill site and a proposed surface water monitoring pro- gram were submitted to the NYSDEC in December, 1982. The Merrick incinerator is closed and unlikely to open. 120 TOWN of North POPULATIC~ 218,624 'v'OL[~ GArbAGE PR0f)Dc:.:~J PER DAY 800 tons PER YEAR 290,000 tons LhNDFILL LOCATIC~S Port Washington, New York SIZE: TOTAL PLA~qED 134 acres IN USE 53 acres R~AINING 82 acres YEAR OPEneD 1974 YEARS OF REMAINING USE 20 y~s MAJOR PROBIF_F~: 1) LEAf~{ATE - Collected, pretreated at a t~L~orary facility and pumped to Port Washington Waste Water Treatment Facility. 2) ~'I~ANE GAS - T~orary peripheral venting system installed by Town when methane found in residences west of landfill. Getty Synthetic Fuels Co. is planning methane reoovery. Methane venting and flaring syst~u will be installed o~r Shore Road. 3) COVER - Not a majOr problem. BRIEF SUMMARY: In December 1982, the Port Washington landfill was listed by the U.S. EPA as one of the 418 worst toxic waste sites in the U.S. EPA and the Nassau County Health Department have detected low levels of vinyl chloride at two off-site locations in the ground- water near the landfill. EPA has recommended that the Town decrease methane emissions from the area that is close, to the residential neighborhood, preferably through the use of methane manifolds to disperse the gas. Also, EPA has said that additional monitoring must be done to assess the effectiveness of the corrective measures. The Town is currently constructing a 15 acre emergency site to handle immediate waste disposal needs. The Town is also negotiating with the Power Authority of the State of New York to build a resource recovery faci- lity on the site of the old incinerator in Roslyn. I I I I I i I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 121 TOWN of O~ster Bay POPULATIC~ 330,368 VOI/~ GAI~B~ PBODUCED PER DAY 800 tons PER YEAR 292,000 tons LANDFILL LOCATIONS Old Bath~e, _New York SIZE: TOTAL PLA~ED 71 acres IN USE 63 acres~EMAINING 8 acres 1957-ash YEAR OPES~D 1967-municipal waste YEA~S OF USE REMAINING 2 years MAJOR PROBTRMS: 1) LEA//=J~TE - Presently constructing a leachate treatment facility. 2) h~iHANE GAS - Found in excess of five percent explosive limit at property boundary. Gas also found in nearby Nassau County Fire Training Acac~ and Bethpage State Park. 3) OOVER- Lack of cover is a problen. BRIEF SUMMARY: The State of New York filed suit against the Town of Oyster Bay,Grumman Aerospace Corporation, Cerro Wire Company, and Hooker Chemical Company, in Novem- ber 1982 for damages to the air and groundwater resources of the State. EPA has stated that toxic wastes were dis- posed at the Old Bethpage facility by the three companies, and as a result, groundwater standards have been violated for a number of substances, including vinyl chloride, ben- zene, chloride, zinc, iron and manganese. The site is listed as an "open dump" due to methane migra- tion problems. The Town is currently pursuing a resource recovery operation with Getty after negotiations with Waste Management, Inc. broke down in December 1982. The old Bethpage landfill is of major concern since it is in a critical hydrogeologic zone (Zone 1). This landfill has been cited twice as a superfund landfill. LANDFILLSITESOF NASSAU & SUFFOLK COUNTIES FIGURE XII ACTIVE LANDFILLS CLOSED LANDFILLS I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 123 SYNOPSIS OF LANDFILL DATA: SUFFOLK COUNTY T0~g of Babylon POPULATI~ 202,387 VOLL~ GARBAGE PRDDOu~D PER DAY 950 tons PER YEAR 300,000 tons LANDFILL LOCATI~S Gleem and Hall Street, Wyar~anch SIZE: TOTAL PLAR~ED 47 acres IN USE 36 acres R~.MAINING 11 acres YEAR OPENED 1952 YEARS OF REMAINING USE 4 MAJOR PRC~LES~: 1) LEACHATE - Pl~e identified by USGS in 1976. 2) 5~THANE GAS - Methane off site. 3) COVER - (~hronic violation re~orted by EEC. BRIEF SUMMARY: Because of the sand mining operation; a huge lake has resulted with an average depth of 60 feet. Due to the shortage of landfill space, DEC al- lowed the Town to fill the lake with inert demolition debris and brush. The Town is presently seeking approv- al to expand into 3.2 acre lined area, and has applied for a variance from liner requirements on Part 360 for an 11 acre extension. The landfill is classified as an Open Dump due to methane, leachate and cover problems. 124 ~ of Brookhaven POPULATI~ 367,846 VOLUM~ GA~A6~ PBODUC~ PER DAY 1,200 tons PER YEAR 438,000 tons IANDFILL LOCATIC~S N.E. of Sunrise Highway and Yaphank Ave. ,Yaphank SIZE: TOTAL PLANNED 80 acres IN USE 40 acres REMAINING 40 acres YEAR OP~qED 1975 YEA~S OF USE REMAINING 14 M~JOR P~C~LEF~: 1) ?.~ - Overflow f~L~ lined area caused pl~e which Town is trfin~ to loca~e. 2) Mm,r~NE C~S - Wehran Energy is ins~allin~ wells for mebbmme reoover~ project. 3) OOVER- Periodic lack of cover causes hlowin~ refuse. BRIEF SUMMARY: The facility has not been issued a permit due to a lack of Regional staff, although it appears to be eligible for a Part 360 permit. The leachate is now being trucked to Bergen Point Sewage Treatment Plant. I I I I I I I I i I I I i I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12§ TOWN of East H~L~ton POPULATION __ VOL~ GAI~AGE PRODUCED PER DAY 50 tons PER YEAR LANDFILL IDCATICNS Fire Place Road, Acubonack SIZE: TOTAL ~ 60 acres IN USE R~/NING YEAR OP~qED YEARS OF USE ~INING 25 MAJOR PROBTR~S: 1) LEA(~ATE - NO major problems. 2) ~iF~NE GAS - NO major probl~ns. 3) COVER - No major problems. 14,072 Approximately 18,000 tons 4 acres BRIEF SUMMARY: The landfill does not have a Part 360 permit. A four-acre portion of the landfill was double-lined without a Part 360 permit. Refuse hasn't been disposed of and a com- pliance conference is scheduled to resolve the permit problem. 126 TOWN of Huntington POPLKATI~N 202,107 VOL~ GARBAGE PI~;D~:,:n PER DAY 800 tons PER YEAR Approx.290,000 tons LANDFILL LOCATI~S W. of Townline Road, E. Northport SIZE: TOTAL PLANNED 50 acres IN USE 46 acres R~4AIN/NG 4 acres YEAR OP~NED 1940 YEARS OF USE R~AINING 5 MAJOR P~0BLEFB: L) LEA(~L%TE - Violation of New York State groundwater standards. 2) ~ GAS - Methane excursion, therefore it is listed on the 3) OCHER - No major probl~us. BRIEF SUMMARY: The landfill is used for municipal waste. Incinerator residue is mainly recycled. The proposed four acres will be lined with leachate collection and disposal systems. The landfill is operating under an Order of Consent. i I ! I i I I I i i I ! i i I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 127 TOWN of Islip POPULATION 299,960 (6 days VOLU~ GARBA(~ PNODUCED PER DAY 900 a week) PER YEAR 280,800 tons LANDF~.L ~IONS Hauppauge SIZE: TOTAL PLANNED 76 acres IN L~E 60 acres REMAINING 16 acres YEAR OPENED 1920 D~moliton YEARS OF USE REMAINING 1978 Municipal Waste MAJOR PROBLEMS: Groundwater contamination is showing up in private wells. The Town has installed public water supply for affected hc~es. 2) ~'£'HANE GAS - Methane migration off-site has affected 3 hcmes. The Town has purchased one hc~e and is attempting to purchase a second. 3) 00VER - No reported problems. BRIEF SUS~I~RY: Odor is a serious proble~ at the lan~fi-l~. Whip- porwil School was closed by the school Board, in re- sponse to public concern over the vinyl chloride ~manating frc~ landfill vents. The Town initiated new 16 acre landfill without a Part 360 permit, and the Attorney General's Office and Town has brought a lawsuit against the Commissioner, Regional Director and ~=gional Solid Waste Engineer. A settl~nent has been reached and an agreement will be signed shortly. The Town is engaged in materials recovery (WRAP Program). In December 1982, the Town received proposals in response to their RFP for constr~ction of a 400 TPD facility at MacArthur Airport. The proposed site has been relocated to the west in re- sponse to FAA concerns. 128 ~ of Riverhead POPULATI(~ 20,384 VO~ GA~A~ PNODUCED PER DAY 100 tons PER YEAR apprc~. 365,000 tons LAND~/LL LOCATIf~S W. of Osborn Avenue, Riverhead SIZE: TOTAL PLA~N~/) 40 acres IN USE 40 acres ~EMAINING 0 acres YEAR OPENED YEARS OF USE ~EMA//qING 4 MAJOR PRORT.~a{S: 1) LEAC~ATE - Monitoring wells have not been instal led yet. 2) ~'I~J~NE C4~ - Control syste~ required by permit has not been i~l~mented. Membrane has migrated off-site into one oa.,~rcial building. 3) (X)VER - No major probl~ns. BRIEF SUMMARY: The landfill is being operated under a Part 360 permit which will expire on November 14, 1983. Methane has migrated off-site into one commercial building. I I I ! I I I I i I I I ! i i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 129 TOWN of Shelter Island VOL~ ~ PRODUCED PER DAY LANDFILL LOCATIfXTS SIZE: TOTAL PLAR~D YEAR OP~gED MA3OR PRC~LE~: POPULATICN 2,079__ 10 tons PER YEAR 3650 tons S. of Bowditch Noad 10 acres IN USE 10 acres YEARS OF USE R~L%INING 20 1) T.FAf~L~TE - No leachat~ monitoring program. 2) ~-i?LANE GAS - No gas collection or monitoring progrsm. 3) OOVER - No major probl~. BRIEF SUM~RY: No permit has been issued for this site. The site should eventually be phased out to protect ground- water. Involved in Five East End Town Study which indica- ted that resource recovery was not cost-effective at this time. 130 TOWN of Smithtown POPULATICN 116,015 VOLI~ GA~k~3E PRODUCED PER DAY 300 tons PER YEAR 109~500 tons LANDFILL LOCATIONS N. of Old North~ort Road, Kin~s Park SIZE: TOTAL PLANNED 70 acres IN USE 12 acres RS~I~INING 58 acres YEAR OP~NED 1979 YEA~S DF USE RE~4AINING 25 MAJOR PROBI294S: 1) LE~CHATE - No major problems. 2) M~'I'HANE GAS - No major probl~ns. 3) COVER - No major probl~ns. BRIEF SUMMARY: Landfill has a double plastic liner and a leachate collection system. Refuse is baled in a high- density baler. The present permit has expired, and a re- newal application has been deemed incomplete. The Part 360 permit has not been renewed because the Town has not adequately investigated resource recovery. I I I ! I I I I i I I ! I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 131 Tf~/q of So, thoLe, ton POPULATIC~q 43,438 VOLUF~ GARBAGE p~DUf~D PER DAY 210 tons PER YEAR ~T,T, LOCATIC~S Major's Path~ North Sea SIZE: TOTAL YEAR OPEb~D MAJOR PBOBI2~S 70 acres IN USE 30 acres ~ OF USE ~mV~INING 76,650 t~ns REMAINING 4 acres 20 1) LEACHATE - A groundwater plane has been found, affected wells closed and public water supplied. 2) ~i~%NE GAS - Minor methane migration exists. 3) fDVER- Probl~ns due tD inadequate equi[anent on site. BRIEF SUMMARY: The part 360 permit will expire September 20, 1983. A new double-lined seven-acre extension was completed in the summer of 1982, but wasn't used until December 1982. 132 TOWN of Southold POPULATION 19,253 V~L~ GARBAGE P~fH)~:,:,) PER DAY 75 tons PER YEAR 27,000 tons LANDFII,T, LOCATI(I~S N. of North Rd., Between ODx & Depot La.,Cutchoque SIZE: TOTAL P~ 41 acres IN USE 41 acres R~AINING 0 acres YEAR OP~qED YEARS OF USE REMAINING 4 MAJOR PROBLEMS: 1) ~ - Pl~e exists and is flowing in a northwesterly direction just beyond landfill boundary. 2) ~THANE C~S - Has migrated beyond landfill into adjacent farmland, r~ings of 10% and 30% concentrations. 3) (/)VER - No reported problems. BRIEF SUMMARY:Town has purchased 15 acres of additional land directly north of existing site for future landfilling use. A long range goal for the construction of a modular incin- erator has been proposed, but not formally adopted by the Town. i I I I I I I I I ! i I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I 1. New York State tion, 133 LANDFILL SYNOPSIS: REFERENCES Department of Environmental Conserva- Long Island Fact Book, January 1983 134 C. CASE STUDIES Syosset Landfill During the past several years the Syosset landfill, in the Town of Oyster Bay, has been the object of close public scrutiny. In late 1982, th~ U.S. EPA announced that the Syosset landfill was one of three Long Island landfills on the Agency's list of the nation's most dangerous toxic waste disposal sites. The landfill was ranked 101 out of 418 such sites in the country, and is eligible for Superfund money to conduct clean- up operations at the site. The 44 acre Syosset landfill was in operation from 1940 to 1975, and until 1967 there were no restrictions on the types of wastes accepted at the landfill. From 1967 to 1975, scavenger and industrial wastes were ac- cepted at the site. A January 1983 study conducted by ERM Northeast for the Nassau County Department of Health investigated the impact of the landfill on ground- water quality and found that the leachate plume is mov- ing laterally at the rate of approximately 0.46 feet per day in a north and northeast direction. The report concludes that: a. an impermeable cap should be installed over the landfill to reduce infiltration; b. a methane venting system should be incorp- orated into the capping of the landfill; additional deep monitoring wells should be installed so that the extent of the groundwater plume can be determined in both the vertical and lateral directions; de additional wells should be placed near residential areas, adjacent to the land- fill, and near the area's public water supply wells, to monitor the water table changes and potential plume movement. Another issue of major concern to residents adjacent to the landfill is the problem of methane gas migration from the facility. The South Grove Elementary School and annex are situated on the eastern border of the landfill, and recent studies have shown explosive levels of methane gas on the School property, although never above background readings of 0.0003 to 0.0007 in the school building. I I I I I I I I I I i I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 135 To alleviate the gas migration problem, the Town of Oyster Bay installed a vent gas monitoring system in September 1981 along the school-landfill boundary. The Nassau County Department of Health sampled three times from October to November 1981, and found high levels of combustible gas. In December, 1981, a gas survey was conducted on school property by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., and methane concentrations ranging from eight tenths to five percent were detected (five percent is the lower explosive limit). As a result of the various sampling reports, the Town installed a gravel trench along the landfill-school boundary to control methane gas migration. Despite the trench, methane levels were still recorded at levels greater than the five percent limit. Add- itional sampling was planned, and in March 1982, the Health Department tested for 22 gases other than meth- ane. Twenty of the 22 gases sampled for were not detected; of the two found, vinyl chloride was not quantifiable due to interference, and chloroform was found at 20 ppb (threshold limit is 10,000 ppb). Malcolm Pirnie recommended the following strategies: The trench should be monitored on week- days over a 90 day period to determine its effectiveness. If the trench is not effective in reducing methane readings below the five percent level, a forced draft blower system should be installed. The Nassau County Department of Health should annually sample for gases other than methane. 3. High grade continuous gas alarms should be installed in the school buildings. The methane control provisions instituted as of February 1983 have proved to be unsatisfactory since methane is still being discovered within school property. Add- itional documentation of the full extent of the methane migration from the landfill into the surrounding neigh- borhood is needed. Also, an expanded analysis of other landfill gases such as vinyl chloride should be under- taken, particularly since the landfill was a known haz- ardous waste disposal site. At the least, better data collection, monitoring and a positive methane collect- ing and venting system appear to be necessary to ensure the health and safety of the landfill's neighbors. 136 Yaphank Landfill In December of 1~82, the United States Geological Survey released its first set of data regarding a two and one half year, $100,000 study of the Brookhaven Town Landfill. This initial data, retrieved from 85 monitoring wells placed in and around the sanitary landfill in Yaphank, indicates that leachate has escaped the polyvinyl chloride liner installed by the Town, and is moving south- east towards the hamlet of Brookhaven. The majority of the residents in this community rely on private wells as their only source of drinking water. The 85 monitoring wells range in depth from 10 to 250 feet and showed traces of groundwater contamination 90 feet under the landfill liner as well as 1,500 feet south of Sunrise Highway. In order for the leachate to have moved so far, it is believed that it must have begun discharging in late 1976, less than two years after the landfill first opened. This can be attributed to the leachate seeping through the seams of the liner, spil- ling over the liner's lip, or rupturing. The Yaphank facility was designed as a "state-of-the-art" sanitary landfill using a PVC liner which has been in place since the landfill began operations in 1975. The liner is pitched to the north, where a collection system has been installed to remove the leachate. It should be noted that until June of 1982, leachate was never pumped (except for test purposes) in spite of evidence presented to the Town nearly a year earJier by th~ engineering firm of Dvirka and Bartilucci that at least 37,200 gallons of leachate was being generated each day. In fact, in attempting to verify this number determined by water balance calculations~ Dvirka and Bartilucci conducted field tests on the leachate by pumping it to the top of the landfill, hoping to measure any change in the lower leachate levels. After 1,270,000 gallons had been pumped out over a 16 day period, no noticeable decrease in levels were ~bserved. The engin- eering firm attributed this to the rapid percolation of the pumped leachate through channels that had formed throughout the landfill. Since June of 1982, the Town began a regular program of pumping 120,000 gallons of leachate each week, trar, sporting it to Bergen Point in Babylon. By January of 1983 the estimated seven feet of leachate that existed throughout the 50 acres of the landfill presently in use had only been reduced by a couple of inches. Therefore, the engineering firm's initial estimate of the large quantity of leachate based on their field test was apparently more accurate ! I I I ! I I I i I I I i I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 137 than they suspected. It is apparent that as the landfill reaches its maximum design capacity~o~ 85 acres, the volume of leachate will likewise increase. ~he 1981 report estimated that by 1990, 139,000 gallons p~r day would be produced if the landfill remained uncovere~' Providing a sand cover would reduce that number to ~2,000 gallons per day. The report Stated that a le-s _~rmeable cover, such as "sand-clay and slx inches of seed~ d loam, could reduce leachate production "to 26,800 gallo.~s per day in 1990. An impermeable membrane could reduce q~ntities even further." In view of the inability of th~ existing liner to contain the present leachate volumes, an~~ additional leachate that is generated will continue to po~e a major threat to the groundwater resources of tha~ region. It is therefore imperative that all steps be taken to immediately seal the completed sections of the landfill, increase leachate pumping to at least 47,000 gallons ~er day, and install a sufficient number of barrier wells to withdraw as much of the leachate as possible which has already escaped the landfill bbundaries. Port Washington Landfill The Port Washington Landfill, in the Town of North Hempstead, continues to be a subject of local concern. A U.S. EPA air quality monitoring program was conducted at the landfill site and in nearby homes from July to October 1982, in conjunction with the Nassau County Department of Health's groundwater sampling program. The study was conducted to determine the extent of methane and other gas migration from the landfill as well as groundwater quality beneath the facility and its possible impact on the Southport Water Supply Well No. 5 of the Port Washington Water District. The EPA reported that methane gas migrated up to 100 feet into the adjacent residential area under certain meter- ological conditions. Vinyl chloride was found to be a component of the migrating gases, since levels of 1.9 ppb were found at the North Hempstead Country Club golf course and 1.0 ppb at the South Salem School parking lot. Both samples are evidence of off-site gas migration. In fact, vinyl chloride was found at a concentration of 240 ppb in a home on Wakefield Avenue near the western boundary of the landfill, however, during subsequent testing no vinyl chloride was found. The acceptable ambient level is 0.16 ppb, based on average annual exposure. 138 Groundwater quality is another issue of conCQrn. The Nassau County Department of Health stated ~n their November 1982 report that groundwater ~uality beneath the landfill is "degraded by severa)_ organic and in- organic chemicals which are indic~tive of leachate constituents, but may also originate from site usage prior to the landfill operat~on' discharge of leachate to the ground during earlier operation of the landfill, and influence of uplan~ contaminant sources." (p.5) The report states that the hydrology of the Port Washing- ton peninsula is such that the contaminants will not reach the publJ~ well situated 1,200 feet west of the facility. As part ~f the stipulations agreed to between the Town of North ~empstead and the Parties-in-Interest, the Town has agreed to install a series of groundwater monitoring well~'and gas monitoring wells. Initial results from thQ new groundwater wells between the landfill and ~outhport No. 5 show that groundwater is contaminated with organic chemicals and vinyl chloride. There is a strong likelihood that should the Southport well be brought back on-line, these contaminants could be drawn into the well's cone of influence, causing it to be closed once again. This is in direct contradiction of the Health Department's conclusions on this issue. The Nassau County Department of Health report recommends the following remedial measures: Steel vents be immediately equipped with vacuum blowers with emission points as far east as possible. Perimeter PVC vents adjacent to the residential community be equipped with caps to prevent emissions during periods of easterly wind. Emissions from perimeter vents should be closely monitored. Off-site monitoring vents should continue to be used to detect gas migration. 4. Permanent abatement of gas emissions should be accelerated. The permanent gas manifold system should be expanded to include perimeter vents if the system fails to significantly reduce levels of toxics emitted from the peri- meter vents. I I I ! I ! I I i I I i I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 139 Additional air sampling should be con- ducted at the site as well as in the residential area, Limited testing should be done in homes adjacent to the landfill during prolonged freezing weather to establish evidence of gas migration. Limited testing should be undertaken at the South Salem School for vinyl chloride. Getty Oil Company is investigating the possibility of tapping the methane gas generated by the landfill to generate electrical power or steam. This would allevi- ate the gas migration problem at the site, but the pro- posal is still under negotiation. The Town is currently considering signing a contract with the Power Authority of the State of New York (PASNY) or some other contractor to build a resource recovery facility for the Town, which would burn garbage and produce electricity. The Town has installed temporary carbon filtration cannisters on the steel vents in the landfill. The plastic perimeter vents are being interconnected with blowers on them to move gas emissions away from the residential area. The methane gas migration, and the possible existence of other toxic gases such as vinyl chloride emanating from the landfill are being investigated further, and remedial measures such as those outlined by the NCDH are being implemented. The Health Department is now involved in initiating a wide range of air quality sampling in the residential areas near the landfill. This study will involve the use of new air analysis equipment recently purchased for this purpose. e 140 CASE STUDIES: REFERENCES Landfill Gas Migration Study, Malcom-Pirnie, Inc., for Syosset Central School District, Syosset, N.Y., June 1982. Investigation of Landfi.i1 Impact on Groundwater Quality, Syosset and New Hyde Park Landfills~ ERM- Northeast, Inc., for Nassau COunty Department of Health, Mineola, N.Y., January 7, 1983. Long Island Fact Book, Long Island Office of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, .January, 1983. Report of Investigation of-Port Washington Landfill, November 1982, Nassau County Department of Health, 1982. ' Environmental and Public Health Implications of the Port Washington Landfill, Walter L.T~ Hang and Steven Rogers, New York Public Interest Research Center, Inc., New York, N.Y. 1982. i I I I I I I I I I I i i I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 141 D. SOLID WASTE LEGISLATION LANDFILL LEGISLATION The Commission has reintroduced an amended version of its landfill legislation which regulates the construc- tion and location of landfills in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Although the legislation in 1982 was passed unanimously by both the Assembly and the Senate, it was vetoed by the Governor. The newly introduced legisla- tion incorporates changes which provide flexibility for implementation and addresses other concerns voiced by several groups. According to the legislation, no new landfills would be permitted in deep flow recharge areas (Zones I-III); existing and future landfills would re- quire two liners, monitoring systems and financial sure- ty against possible contamination; and all landfills, within seven years, would be permitted to primarily ac- cept residue from resource recovery facilities, (see Commission legislation). The legislation is consistent with the intent of Article 27 of the Environmental Conservation Law and is an ela- boration of the DEC Region I Solid Waste Management Policy of 1979. The Region I Policy: 1. Prohibits any new landfill sites in Zones I-V; 2. Requires double liners and two collection sys- tems for all landfill extensions within Zones I-V; 3. Requires at least a single layer for new land- fills or extensions of existing landfills with- in Zones VI-VIII; 4. Requires final capping for all landfills. The Commission anticipates support from the towns, the State Legislature, and DEC. It is also hoped that the Governor will support the legislation, as he has ex- pressed a desire to phase out landfills in Long Island in his State of the State Address. 142 BOTTLE BILL With the passage of the Beverage Container Law, often referred to as the "Bottle Bill", during the 1982 Legislative Session, the State of New York has taken a first and significant step forward in reducing the serious solid waste problem which plagues many munici- palities in the state. Applauded by environmentalists statewide, the law is expected to create a substantial increase in the use of returnable and recyclable con- tainers by placing a minimum five cent deposit on all beverage containers. This shift towards returnable containers has been evident from the experiences of other states which have enacted such legislation. It is anticipated that with the enactment of the beverage container law, the solid waste stream entering the landfills of New York State will be decreased by six to nine percent. Of perhaps greater significance is the expected substantial reduction, if not total phase- out, of plastic containers due to their difficulty in bein9 recycled. From a groundwater and air quality point of view this is important because the decay of plastics in landfills, and the burning of these mate- rials by incineration, have been implicated in the formation of serious and toxic pollutants. It is pri- marily because of these reasons the Commission supported the passage of the Beverage Container Law. As the implementation date for the law of July 1, 1983 draws near, the beverage industry has become more vocal in requesting for a delay of several months, claiming they would suffer undue hardship since during the July 4th weekend more containers are discarded than at any other time of the year. Although the State Legis- lature will make the final determination concerning a delay in the implementation date, Department of Envi£on- mental Conservation Commissioner Henry Williams has stated his strong support for the retention of the July 1st date. I I I I I i I I i I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 143 Conclusions and Recommendations for Solid Waste Management The Commission recommends the passage and im- plementation of its landfill legislation as an attempt to alleviate the groundwater degradation that has originated from solid waste land burial. The Commission recommends the implementation of the New York State Bottle Bill without delay. The Commission recommends that each and every landfill must have an adequate number of monitor- ing wells surrounding the facility, with barrier wells installed to quickly retrieve any toxic substance that has moved beyond the confines of the landfill boundary. The Commission recommends that sections of active landfills that have reached their maximum height should be immediately capped to prevent leachate generation. Similarly, all closed landfills should be immediately capped. The long-term effectiveness of various synthetic liners to collect leachate must be evaluated. The Commission recommends that local municipal- ities should investigate the feasibility of modifying their landfill designs and operating procedures to coincide with the techniques ap- plied to "secured" landfills. These types of landfills are filled in small vertical sections, and capped to minimize leachate generation. Further protective measures are needed, especi- ally now that there are serious questions as to the degree of protection synthetic liners afford our groundwater resource. The Commission recommends more comprehensive testing of gases in addition to methane with state-of-the-art instrumentation capable of measuring one part per billion of vinyl chloride. The Commission commends those towns that have employed methane resource recovery until they are able to cap filled portions of their landfills. The Commission recommends that the DEC complete a study evaluating available resource recovery technologies, most effective sizing of facilit- ies, and most appropriate sites on Long Island. 144 The Commission commends the Town of Islip for initiating its source separation program, and recommends that other towns implement similar recycling efforts. i I I i I I I I i I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION V COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT 145 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 147 V COMMUNITY AWARENESS AND INVOLVEMENT In keeping with the Commission's belief that widespread public understanding of, and involvement in, the issues concerning the Island's water resources are prerequisites for the success of all programs developed by government to manage, regulate, and protect these resources, the Commission has continued its important role of presenting programs on the water resources of Long Island to various environmental, civic, and service groups. The topics discussed in the presentation entitled "An Introduction to Long Island's Water Resources", include: 1. The physical nature and characteristics of the Island's groundwater system. 2. The types and trends of groundwater contamina- tion. 3. The regulatory programs that have been devel- oped by various levels of government to pro- tect the Island's groundwater supplies. 4. The role watersheds serve in the present and future supply of groundwater to Long Island residents. Perhaps of greatest significance, the Commission describes how residents of Long Island can incorporate protection of groundwater resources into their everyday lifestyles, and the importance of public participation and involve- ment in the policy making decisions of various govern- mental bodies and agencies concerning the Island's only source of water - the groundwater supply. Groups which the Commission has addressed include many local chapters of community service organizations as the Lions Club, Rotary Club, and Kiwanis Club; local garden and horticultural clubs; and the local chapters of various environmental organizations, such as the Sierra Club and the Audubon Society. In accordance with the Commission's view that there is a need for increased public input in the field of Long Island's water resources, it was instrumental in 1982 in assisting the creation of a "Coalition for the Pro- tection of Long Island's Groundwater". An amalgam of numerous civic, environmental, and educational groups, the Coalition has four main objectives. They are: 1. To educate the public about Long Island's 148 water resources, focusing on the need to pro- tect the critical watershed areas of the Island. 2. To support or initiate efforts to implement local and regional watershed protection and management programs. 3. To communicate to local and regional leaders our concern about water quality deterioration and our support for responsible actions to prevent further destruction of the water supply. 4. To promote the non-degradation of our water resource, especially in the critical recharge watersheds of northern Nassau County; the Ronkonkoma Moraine and Pine Barrens of Suffolk County;' and the critical watersheds of the North and South Forks. The COalition,which was founded in the fall of 1982, meets on a monthly basis to discuss water resource topics and issues of interest to the member groups. Important in this regard, groups discuss the results of meetings they've had with various elected officials concerning the development of the aforementioned objectives. On October 2, !982, the Commission co-sponsored, with the Coalition for the Protection of Long Island's Ground- water, a major conference entitled "Protecting Long Island's Groundwater: Grass Roots Strategies and Water- shed Planning" (see pamphlet agenda). Held at Farming- dale University, the day long conference was attended by 400 individuals. Attendees heard various discussions and presentations covering many aspects of Long Island's groundwater resources. These were: 1. A presentation on how Long Island's groundwater system functions. 2. An historical overview of the utilization and development of Long Island's water resources. 3. The rationale for protecting those portions of Long Island's land surface which serve as im- portant groundwater watersheds. 4. The fiscal, legal, and administrative mecha- nisms available to safeguard Long Island's groundwater watersheds. 5. An account of local and regional responsibil- ities and efforts at watershed protection. 6. A presentation on the Pine Barrens, the largest i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 149 AGE~DA FOR ~I~i']~SHED C(1NFJf~t~-.E OCTOBER 2, 1982 Protecting Long Island's Groundwater: Grass Roots Strategies and Watershed Planning MORNING SESSION 9:30 Registration and Coffee 10:00 WELCOME and INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ... Steven Englebright Museum of L.I. Natural Sciences S.U.N.Y., Stony Brook 10:45 PLANNING for WATERSHED PROTECTION -- The PiNE BARRENS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY -- ... James Tripp, Environ~nental Defense Fund 11:15 WORKSHOPS I. INTRODUCTION TO L.l.'s HYDROLOGY and WATER RESOURCE ISSUES ... Steven Englebright, Museum of L.I. Natural Sciences, S.U.N.Y., Stony Brook 12:00 12:30 II. GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION ... Sarah Meyland, NYS Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island II1. THE LONG ISLAND PINE BARRENS ... John Turner, John Cryan, Pine Barrens Society IV. LAND USE and WATERSHED PLANNING ... James Tripp, Environmental Defense Fund, Nancy Kelley, Group for the South Fork, Lorna Salzman, Friends of the Earth LUNCH Preview of new film ... "LONG ISLAND'S WILDERNESS ... THE PINE BARRENS" AFTERNOON SESSION 1:00 KEYNOTE ADDRESS The Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan U.S. Senate Introduction by Assemblywoman May W. Newburger 2:00 PANEL I - REGIONAL EFFORTS at WATERSHED PROTECTION - What responsibilities do county, regional, state and federal agencies have for safe- guarding L.l.'s groundwater? Appointed and elected officials discuss their efforts at watershed protection 2:45 PANEL Il - LOCAL EFFORTS at WATER- SHED PROTECTION - Find out what's being done to protect your town's ground- water recharge areas. Town supervisors pre- sent their perspectives on watershed planning. Question and answer period to follow both panel presentations. 3:30 COFFEE BREAK 3:45 ACTION STRATEGIES SESSION- Learn how concerned citizens can become involved in efforts to protect our groundwater supplies. Activists and environmentalists lead a dis- cussion on how L.I. residents can take part in watershed planning and protection. 4:30 CLOSING REMARKS DIRECTIONS FROM THE NORTH ._ Take L.I.E. or Northern State Parkway to ROUTE #110. Follow #110 South to Mel- ville Road entrance... Look for signs to ROOSEVELT HALL THEATRE. FROM THE SOUTH ... Take SUNRISE HIGHWAY or SOUTHERN STATE PARKWAY to ROUTE #110. Follow #110 North to Melville Rd. entrance. Look for signs to ROOSEVELT HALL THEATRE. 150 watershed on Long Island. A session on how the general public can be an effective voice in the protection of the Island's groundwater supply. From the completed assessment forms, which were provided for each participant, the response to the conference was overwhelmingly favorable, with most attendees finding it to be well planned, interesting, and informative. In 1982, another major effort of the Coalition, in which the Commission played a vital role, was the development of a report entitled "Watershed Planning for the Pro- tection of Long Island's Groundwater". Forty-three pages in length, the report highlights the rationale for watershed protection; the various tools available to accomplish this; the Coalition's concept plan for the 112,000 acres of the Long Island Pine Barrens; and the legal framework for Pine Barrens preservation. The only report to date devoted to this important issue of safeguarding watersheds on Long Island, it has been well received by the general public and academicians in the field of groundwater protection and management. The Commission will continue in 1983 to play an active role in the previously described initiatives aimed at heightening public awareness and involvement on Long Island concerning the increasingly important topic of groundwater protection and contamination. It will do this by offering, on an expanded basis, the "Introduction to Long Island's Water Resources", and by maintaining its involvement, in an advisory capacity, with the Coalition for the Protection of Long Island's Groundwater. I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 151 ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION P~OGRAM In March 1983, the State Legislature approved a funding request from Commission Co-Chairpersons Senator Trunzo and Assemblywoman Newburger to develop a water resource curriculum for kindergarten through the 12th grade for Long Island's public schools. The program will be de- veloped and administered by the Museum of Long Island Natural Sciences at SUNY, Stony Brook, under the guid- ance of Steven Engelbright, the Museum Director. The Museum has been an effective educational facility, which serves nearly 30,000 school children per year with an assortment of environmental education programs. The funding of this education program is appropriate at this point in time, when there is a growing contamin- ation problem of our public water supplies. It is a constructive response to the problem and a long- term investment in the young people who will inherit the responsibility for water resource management. The ed- ucation proposal, which was developed as an outgrowth of the Commission's long-standing concern for public educatio~ was designed to inform students, teachers and ultimately the general public about the need to preserve and protect the water resources, especially groundwater, of Long Island. The project is expected to take about two years to com- plete. The first year will involve preparing the cur- ricular materials while the second year will be used for field testing the materials and providing teacher train- ing programs on how the materials can be used. Once instituted, it is hoped that the program will be incorp- orated into a larger public education effort focusing on water resource issues. 152 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMMUNITY AWARENESS The Commission recommends that the State Legis- lature appropriate monies for an Island-wide ed- ucation program relating to Long Island's ground- water resources, similar to the one previously proposed by the Commission. The Commission recommends that the State Board of Regents require that science regents examinations, particularly earth science, be tailored to the specific regions of the State by incorporating questions that pertain to local environmental problems i.e. sole source aquifers, critical re- charge areas, volitile organic contamination, etc. The Commission recommends that the Department of Environmental Conservation incorporate into its Long Island Groundwater Management Program a "speakers bureau" to help educate interested citizen groups. Speakers should include water specialists from the many agencies which share the responsibility of groundwater management on Long Island. The Commission recommends that the State develop public service broadcast announcements to the Long Island residents to explain how citizens can help prevent water contamination and waste. The Commission recommends the passage of its legislation requiring each water utility to annually report to its customers on its operations, including water pumpage, contamination problems, new or lost supply capacity, violations, and the types of water treatment employed. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION VI CONSERVATION 153 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 155 VI. CONSERVATION Introduction One major water management alternative that has been recommended, but not implemented on Long Island, is water conservation. As the previous sections have indicated, insuring a plentiful supply of high quality water to the residents of Long Island is often a difficult task to accomplish. Non-structural strategies for protection of our water resources such as land use controls, promulga- tion of stricter regulations, enforcement of existing regulations, and, to a lesser extent, education have 'been actively pursued strategies. Conservation, however, remains an "untapped" component of a comprehensive ground- water management plan. There are several reasons for this omission. Water conservation is often looked upon as a last resort only to be implemented during extreme conditions inclu~]in? droughts. As with our utilization of most natural re- sources, their conservation is recommended and achieved only when they become a rare or restricted commodity. Water is a natural resource that has been taken for granted in northeastern United States due to its plenti- ful nature. Indeed, it was the abundance of this resource which has permitted extensive industrial development throughout the northeast. Governments and water sup- pliers have not proposed water conservation programs, per- haps not acknowledging the problems that exist or perhaps believing it will not be widely accepted by the general public due to its connotation of lifestyle change and sacrifice. Although some conservation strategies involve. capital-intensive projects, most conservation measures can be implemented with little cost, effort and change in lifestyle, while saving millions of gallons of water per day. Water conservation is important, because it extends the longevity of the water resource. Wells withdraw, gro~nd- water in order to support human activities'. Repleni.sh~ ment of the groundwater, however, is primarily d~pendent upon precipitation on Long Island. High density.devel6p- ment and/or the development of hydrogeologically ~ensitive areas can result in the overpumping of groundwater for several reasons: it decreases the amount of land surface through which water can percolate; it increases the pop- ulation, therefore, the amount of water consumed; it in- creases the demand for water-related activities (i.e. swimming pools, irrigation, parks); it increases the 156 number of contamination sources; and it substantially increases water consumption due to sewering. When the rate of groundwater withdrawal exceeds the rate of groundwater recharge, groundwater mining occurs. Ground- water mining accelerates the drawdown of contaminants into deeper sections of the water supply, permits the · ntrusion of salt water, and results in the drying up of surface water bodies. However, as previously demon- strated in the Southampton Case Study, both development and groundwater protection can be achieved with proper' planning. It is in this context that conservation can also play a key role. Conservation can prevent groundwater mining by minimizing water misuse and overuse. A conservation education pro- gram can teach the public how to efficiently use water, thereby decreasing the demand on water resources. Con- servation may eliminate the need for, or at least pro- ong the time until structural alternatives for water supply management must be employed, such as treatment at the wellhead by filtration or aeration in order to rid the water of volatile organic chemicals, installa- tion of barrier injuction wells in order to hinder the movement of saltwater further inland, and the importation of water. The Commission is concerned with the signifi- cant reliance on technology to solve the problems attend- ant with water resource protection and management on Long Island. Most "technological fixes" are very expensive and are not fool-proof. The water conservation approach, on the other hand, provides for proper use and protection of groundwater to prevent groundwater quantity and quality problems in a very cost-effective matter. Conservation employs innovative methods to use different grades of water for different purposes. For example, in Nassau County alone, 123 million gallons per day of waste- water are discharged into coastal waters. Extensive sew- ering in Nassau County has greatly lowered the water table and stream flows in certain areas of the County. After the Southwest Sewer District in Suffolk County becomes fully operational in the near future, water table eleva- tions in the area are expected to drop appreciably. Important water bodies such as Belmont Lake, in Belmont Lake State Par~ may dry up altogether within two to three years. Conserv'ation can mitigate losses due to sewering by techniques such as large scale wastewater reuse, highly treated wastewater recharge, improving the efficiency of toilets and urinals, and by the introduction of dual water systems. Dual water systems would use Upper Glacial wells for non-drinking purposes such as sewage, irrigation, clothes washing and air conditioning. The Magothy aquifer could then be reserved for drinking and cooking purposes. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 157 Conservation can also save money. By conserving hot water, households can save 50 to 60 cents of energy a day.1 By fixing leaks and conserving water, customers can substantially decrease their water bills. Water utilities have wells which are only used during the summer months when extra capacity is required. By re- ducing peak demand, particularly during summer months, conservation can reduce the stress placed on the aquifer and the water treatment plant while reducing the costs needed for maintenance and operation of additional wells. In 1980, water conservation had been recommended as one of the management alternatives in the Nassau County Master Water Plan. It was estimated that a 15% reduction in water use could be achieved through the use 6f water- saving fixtures, educatio~ and the restructuring of water utility rates. Water conservation was to be im- plemented during Phase I of the P/an. Strategies in- cluded: modifications of building codes; encouraging water suppliers to adopt water rate structures which promote conservation; county-wide public education; pos- sibly a levyi~q of variable unit surcharge; and encour- aging use of the Upper Glacial aquifer for non-potable use. The Plan has not yet been adopted; therefore its conservation recommendations have not been implemented. A program such as the one the Nassau County Master Water Plan suggests, is long overdue considering these factors; the loss of 15 million gallons per day (1980) 10st to Queens County due to overpumping by the Jamaica Water Supply Company; the several communities on the north and south shores of Lona Island that are withdrawing water from the deepest part of the groundwater system--the Lloyd Aquifer, and the lost well capacity within some water districts due to contamination, requiring the temporary importation of supplies from adjacent water districts. Furthermore, conservation should be a primary objective for the County, since the Nassau County Master Plan estimated a groundwater supply deficiency of 21.8 mil- lion gallons per day by the year 2020. The Commission supports an island-wide conservation pro- gram beginning with education, the retrofitting of water fixtures, and the promotion of conscientious use of our water supply. More complex programs should be undertaken in localities where a high degree of contamination, salt- water intrusion or hydrogeologically fragile areas exist (Table IX and Figure X III ). Conservation measures should involve efforts from all sectors of society: residential, industrial, commercial, agricultural, governmental, and TABLE IX Localities Recom~uended for Comprehensive Water Conservation Programs Areas with thin Industrial Pesticide Primar~ Concern: Saltwater Intrusion Long Beach Han~pton Beys, S.H. Grea~ Neck Penninsula Port Washington penninsula East Marion Eayville Freshwater Lens Medford Bethpage Plainview Hicksville North Haven Shelter Island Nassau Point Orient Point Montauk Penninsula Great Hog Neck '~ont aminat ior Contamination North Fork Quantity Stressed Aquifer Segments FI~JRE XIII Long Island Sound ~folk .b. J e ~ty Atlantic 1. Montauk Peninsula 2. Orient Peninsula 3. North Haven Peninsula 4. Great Hog Neck 5. Nassau Point 6. Bayville Area 7. Manhasset Neck 8. Great Neck 9. Five Town/Long Ben-ch Area 160 municipal and priVate water utilities. Below is a com- prehensive, although not an all-inclusive list of strat- egies for water conservation. Strategies for Water Conservation 1. Public education programs for all water consumers and water suppliers 2. Replacement or retrofitting of plumbing fixtures, appliances and pipes in the home 3. Water utility rate restructuring to promote con- servation 4. Leak detection and monitoring of public water supply distribution mains 5. Regular maintenance and replacement for water mains and water meters 6. Metering of agricultural wells 7. Industrial reuse of water 8. Promotion of proper irrigation practices 9. Private Upper Glacial wells for uses such as irriga- tion and air conditioning and cooling 10. Native plant gardening 11. Organic farming 12. Advance wastewater treatment and reuse 13. Advance wastewater treatment and recharge 14. Dual water systems for separate potable and non- potable water supply 15. Pilot programs for conservation, education and home retrofitting device distribution 16. Island-wide conservation program I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 161 LEGISLATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF STRATEGIES 1. State mandated water rate structures which promote conservation 2. Require water utilities to provide information ser- vices on how to conserve water 3. Require the retrofitting of all public facilities 4. Provide tax credits for those who implement conser- vation measures 5. Lawn ordinance which restricts irrigation on certain days and at certain times and/or limits the area of fertilized turf 6. Make appropriations for: a. Conservation-education programs b. Water-saving device distribution c. Research and capital needed to reuse and recharge sewage effluent d. Research on dual water system feasibility and analysis e. Research on organic farming f. Water conservation pilot programs Implementation of these strategies must originate from different sources ranging from the will of individual residents to county and state mandated regulations and programs. The following sections briefly mention what has been done and what can be done by the different sectors of society to conserve our water supply. Agriculture Agriculture has been identified as one of the largest single water-consuming activities in the nation. Con- trary to popular belief, most water used for irrigation is not recharged to the groundwater, but is lost through evaporation, plant uptake and evapotranspiration. On Long Island, irrigation is an essential part of the farming process. Theoretically, farmers who irrigate try to conserve as much as possible, because of the cost of fuel used to operate irrigation pumps. However, it is still unknown at this time how much water is used for agriculture on Long Island. 162 The Commission, as well as the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, ha s recommended that all agricul- tural wells be metered and that an annual report on water consumption be sent to the Department of Environmental Conservation. This is a first and necessary step in de- termining the impact agricultural irrigation has on ground- water. The Suffolk County legislature is examining a proposal to fund a study to help make this same determina- tion. Another action that can help conserve water used for aqriculture is to increase the practice of organic farming. Studies are needed on the feasibility of large- scale commercial organic farming which would decrease the need for fertilizer and pesticides, thereby decreasing irrigation requirements. Decrease in fertilizer and pesti- cide application would also conserve the quality of the groundwater Crop rotation should be employed to grow less water-intensive crops. Finally, certain soil types on Long Island are not well suited for some of the crops attempted to be grown on them. A better pairing of soil type to crop type would decrease the need for intensive irrigation in order to make certain crops grow. Industry Industries which use significant quantities of water may have their own wells for process water, irrigation, air conditioning and heating. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation regulations require that water removed from the aquifer for non-contact purposes (i.e. once-through air conditioning) be recharged at a depth not more than 50 feet from the depth of withdrawal. Re- cently the Department has attempted to require all new construction that proposes to use groundwater to use Up- per Glacial water -- which often times is not of drinking water quality. This is one effort to help reserve the deeper, cleaner groundwater for potable purposes only. In addition, the Department is examining a requirement that non-potable waters used for air conditioning or processing be treated to drinking water quality before recharge. In order for non-potable waters to be used, the plumbing design of a facility must be separated. In older facilities on Long IsLand, this separation is not typical, thus making the use of non-potable waters more difficult. However, the Department of Environmental Con- servation could require all facilities to use Upper Glacial wells for irrigation purposes. Two other ways in which industry can conserve water is through the use of cooling towers, which can recycle I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 163 cooling water, and by recycling process water so that it can be used more than once. Counties - Towns A. Wastewater Recharge Nassau County is conducting a pilot study whereby highly treated sewage effluent from the Cedar Creek Sewage Treat- ment Plant is being recharged to the groundwater via basins and wells in East Meadow. The capacity of the plant is four million gallons per day (mgd) although one mgd is being recharged at present. Large scale wastewater re- charge can substantially mitigate groundwater losses due to sewering. The cost of treatment and the high quality of water needed to prevent adverse health effects are major factors involved in the widespread use of this alternative. Plants must employ denitrification treatment and high metal and organics removal. Other concerns are viruses in effluent and chlorination of effluent. B. Wastewater Reuse Treated sewage effluent can be reused for irrigation of parks and golf courses. Costs may be prohibitive unless the parks or golf course is adjacent to the treatment plant. On Long Island, an excellent site for such a pilot project would be Bergen Point Sewage Treatment Plant in the Southwest Sewer District of Suffolk County. The Bergen Point Golf Course is adjacent to the plant which has a capacity of 30.5 mgd. Besides being a plant with a high capacity and secondary and tertiary treatment, there would be little threat to the quality of the ground- water supply since it is located on the south shore where shallow groundwater flow occurs. Water Utilities Commonly, water suppliers charge a flat or a decreasing rate. According to a flat rate structure, the customer pays a base price,usually for the first 1,000 gallons of water consumed, plus a constant rate for each additional block of gallons consumed; therefore, the rate drops as water usage increases. Such rate structures neither promote conservation nor reflect the inherent worth of water. Appropriate rate structures which encourage con- servation include increasing and seasonal rate structures. With an increasing rate structure, the customer pays a base price and an increasing rate for each additional block of gallons consumed. With a seasonal rate structure, the customer pays a fixed service charge plus either a 164 winter or summer rate. The summer rate reflects the higher operating costs associated with peak production. Only one water supplier on Long Island has a seasonal rate struc- ture, and none have an increasing rate structure. Perhaps water suppliers are fearful to promote water conservation because of the potentiaI reduction of revenues as less water is used, and the possible obstruction of the economic efficiency inherent in large scale production. However, water districts in other states such as the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission in Maryland, have success- fully instituted a water conservation program and an in- creasing rate structure without decreasing its revenues. Another measure water utilities should implement is a leak detection program. An average of 10-12% of total water pumpage is unaccounted for in Nassau County.2 This represents a waste of money, energy and loss of treated water, which requires additional pumpage. State-Public Service Commission Each privately owned water ~upplier establishes its own rate structure which is subsequently submitted to the Public Service Commission (PSC) for approval. The PSC can disapprove of the utility's request and set a rate structure as it sees fit, based on the utility's needs. The PSC could mandate an increasing rate structure or a similar structure which promotes water conservation when water utilities request rate increases. State - Department of Environmental Conservation In 1980, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) took a major step in reducing wasteful consumption of water across the state by amending the Environmental Conservation Law in order to institute performance standards for plumbing fixtures. The amendment requires that certain plumbing fixtures distributed, sold, offered for sale, imported, or installed in New York State meet the following efficiency standards.3 (a) for sink and lavatory faucets, at a constant water pressure of sixty pounds per square inch, maximum flow shall not exceed three gallons of water per minute; and (b) for shower heads, at a constant water pressure of sixty pounds per square inch, maximum flow shall not exceed three gallons of water per minute; and (c) for urinals and associated flush-valve, if any, each flush shall not exceed one and one-half gallons of water per flush; and I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 165 (d) for toilets and associated flush-valve, if any, each flush shall not exceed three and one-half gal- lons of water per flush. The Commissioner must publish an up-to-date list of fixtures that meet these standards. Anticipated compliance of retail stores, manufacturers, wholesalers and plumbers for toilets and urinals is nigh since there are only six major claywork manufacturers in the country. The standard requires reduction in the size of the toilet tank which is economically advan- tageous to manufacutrers. A problem is foreseen, however, with showerheads and faucets, because they are easy to make, inexpensive, and often replaced. In addition, there are approximately 40 major manufacturers of faucets, and inter- state commerce will be difficult to control. New Jersey, for instance, is a major distributor that does not have a state standard such as New York's. Residences Ail of the previous conservation measures should be considered and evaluated. However, the most promising strategy for water conservation is to decrease residential consumption, since residential comsumption accounts for the greatest percentage of total water consumption. The State Plumbing Fixture Law was a significant step towards conserving by the replacement of plumbing fixtures, but programs are needed on proper ir- rigation practices, retrofitting of inefficient fixtures, conscientious use of water, and education. Domestic Irrigation Water demand for domestic irrigation purposes is somewhat influenced by price - more so than "essential" residential use. Therefore, a water rate structure that encourages water conservation may greatly affect the amount of water used for irrigation purposes. Residents should irrigate during the morning and evening to reduce the amount of evapora- tion and evapotranspiration. Use of water during these off-peak times is also encouraged because it reduces the stress placed on the aquifer and the water treatment plant during the summer months. Garden hoses should al- ways be equipped with nozzles to restrict flow. Because irrigation timers operate regardless of the need for water, they should be discouraged, and soil sensors, which measure moisture content of the soil should be encouraged. 166 Retro~i.ttin9 Plumbin9 Fixtures in the Home The greatest amount of water can be conserved in the home by the replacement of inefficient plumbing fixtures or the insertion of simple water-saving devices. Retrofitting toilets, showerheads, and faucets is easy and cost-effec- tive. Concentrating on these fixtures is important be- cause 75% of the water used in homes is consumed in the bathroom, followed by 20% used for dishes and laundry, and 5% used for cooking and drinking.4 Toilet devices include plastic water displacement bottles and bags, dams, toilet float adjusters, adjustable flush valves, and flush valve controls. Dye tablets are effective in detecting toilet leaks. A toilet which leaks, can, in six months, waste 45,000 gallons of water.5 A pilot program undertaken by the California Department of Water Resources tested the effectiveness and acceptability of water-saving devices. According to the program, the easiest device to install and the most commonly used is the plastic bottle, which can save .7 gallons per flush. Two bottles filled with water can displace water needed to fill the tank. Bricks are discouraged for this use, because they may deteriorate in the tank. Another device, the float adjuster, can save two gallons per flush by lowering the float ball in the toilet tank, thereby lowering the level at which the tank becomes "full". The most effective device due to public acceptability, easy installation, low cost, and water saving abilities, is the toilet dam. Two "dams" are placed around the flush valve and between the two walls of the tank to hold back up to 1.7 gallons of water. Low flow showerheads have a low flow rate of 2-2½ gallons per minute. Maximum pressure can be obtained from low pressure lines~ saving up to 75% of the water and fuel normally used.v Aerators and water restrictors can be used on showerheads and faucets to reduce the flow and still maintain pressure. Aerators mix water with air to reduce water flow. Aerators save 66-75% of water used and pays for itself in one hour.7 Flow restrictors are the least expensive of these devices; some cost less than ten cents per restrictor and save 58.8% of the water normally used.8 Fixing faucet leaks can save 300 gallons of water over a one month period.9 Another water saving device which can be used in the kitchen sink is a spray tap. Washing and rinsing with a sprayer uses less water than a steady stream of water. Daily Conscientious Use of Water Large quantities of water can easily be saved by being aware of how much water one unnecessarily consumes each I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 167 day, and by slightly changing one's habits. Conservin~ in the Kitchen Water for drinking purposes can be placed in a jar in the refrigerator instead of running water until it gets very cold. Dishwashers should be fully loaded before use. Scrape food from dishes before rinsing. Fill the sink with warm water and a low sudsing cleanser so that dishes can soak before cleaning. A second basin or pot can be filled and used for rinse water when washing dishes. Fill the sink or a bowl wi~h water to clean vege- tables. Conservin~ in the Bathroom Don't run the water continuouly when brushing teeth. Water is only needed for rinsing. Women should not keep the shower or tap on while shaving. Take showers not baths. If taking a bath, fill the tub half full. Take five minute showers. Turn off the water while shampooing. Do not use the toilet as a garbage disposal. Conserving Outside The Home Water the lawn during morning or evening hours. Use a nozzle when using the garden hose. If automatic irrigation is preferred, use soil sensors rather than irrigation timers. Check outside water taps to see that they are turned off and sprinklers are correctly attached to hoses. Fix hose leaks. Use a pail of soapy water to clean the car and rinse with a hose with a nozzle attached. Use a broom to clean walkways instead of a hose. Plant native vegetation when gardening. 168 Reduce the area of fertilized lawn. Read direc- tions when applying fertilizers, pesticides, or fungicides. Keep the grass two inches high to shade the root system during the summer. Adjust sprinklers to produce a strong stream; misting wastes water. Water only when needed. Miscellanepas Fix all plumbing leaks. Check all leaks by turning off all faucets and checking your water meter. Use clothes washers only when fully loaded. Insulate the water heater and hot water pipes. While waiting for the water to get hot, utilize the cooler water for some other chore, such as filling a bucket to water plants. i I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I ! I I 169 Education A prerequisite for any conservation program is public awareness. Residents must learn where their water comes from, the fragile nature of an aquifer system, the con- tamination problems that exist on Long Island, and what the public and its governmental representatives can do to protect their water resources. The Commission has proposed an education program which would incorporate groundwater studies into the kindergarten through senior high school education curriculum. The 1983 state budget appropriated money for the implementation of this neces- sary objective. Efforts to educate the general public about Long Island's groundwater supplies, and to promote a conservation program could be publicized through several mediums including television, radio, press, pamphlets, water bill inserts, and seminars. Pamphlets could be sent to individual homes or displayed in libraries and other public places. Public service broadcasting should be employed. A survey undertaken by the Commission indicated that very few water suppliers send any educational material on groundwater to customers with their water bills. Very few suppliers have any information available even upon customer request. The Commission has introduced legis- lation which would require each water supplier to report to its customers annually about its operations, contamin- ation problems, and information on how to conserve water in the home. Pilot Program Comprehensive conservation efforts implemented across the country have illustrated how successful conservation can be in saving water, energy and money. Conservation object- ives may vary from state to state, and even from town to town. Programs in California were initiated primarily as a response to drought. In Maryland, conservation is em- ployed primarily to reduce wastewater flow because of limited treatment plant capacity. Madision, Wisconsin, and Elmhurst, Illinois introduced conservation programs to re- duce the need for new source developments,l0 Woodbury, Connecticut and Provincetown, Massachusetts implemented conservation programs because of contamination and salt- water intrusion and to extend its groundwater supplies. A program for water conservation, "should demon- strate that higher per capital consumption of water, along with increased peak demand and the tendency for urban sprawl have demanded constant exploration of less accessible supply sources. 170 This leads to an increase in investment require- ments due to increased costs, all of which are ultimately transferred to the consumer.12 The following section discusses a device distribution pilot program undertaken by the California Department of Water Resources in six different communities. By researching and learning from the conservation programs elsewhere, Long Island can successfully implement a pilot project, and eventually an island-wide conservation program. California In 1977, the California Department of Water Resources con- ducted pilot projects in six California communities with varied population and water supply conditions. The pilot study was funded largely by an appropriation of the State Legislature with assisting budget allocations from the Department of Water Resources, and the California Energy Commission. The program goals were to determine how much water and energy could be salved and to determine the most marketable devices and distribution methods (Table X). One hundred thirty-one devices were tested for fifteen criteria including durability, cost effectiveness, ease of installation, and amounts of water saved. More than 500,000 devices were distributed with instructions in the form.of a kit to the six communities by different methods: mass distribution where kits were hung on door knobs with- out personal contact; depot distribution where kits could be picked up at designated stations; and door-to-door dis- tribution, where workers explained the program and the devices. Kits were either given free of charge with or without free installation, while others had to purchase kits. Program promotion also differed among communities. As a result of this comprehensive pilot program, the Department of Water Resources was able to determine the best marketing tools for a device distribution program. As with any conservation program, the primary step must be a comprehensive public awareness and project promo- tion program. Cooperation and involvement is needed from local government agencies. Before actual distribution, a successful program must have trained staff and adequate supplies. Allow adequate time for device testing, selec- tion, purchase, and delivery. September to October may be a good time for programs, since school is in session, it is warm, and people are home from vacation. Instruc- tion about proper installation of devices is important for satisfaction. Instruction must be clear and simple. The following is a list of marketing methods that were I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I I 171 I I I I I I I I I I I I TABLE X1 DESCRIPTION OF PILOT PROGRAMS Pilot Area Type of Community San Diego Urban Metropolitan Area San~ Cruz County Urban and rural City of Sanger Small agri- cultural community El Dorado Irrigation Small ur- District ban and rural City of El Segundo Urban Community of Oak Park Small suburban Number of Water Supply Households Condition 370,000 No rationing 60,400 45 pement of County had rationing or- dinances to achieve up to 30 percent reduction 3,000 No rationing Method of Kit Distribution Free/ Purchase Type of Promotion Campaign Mass; door-to- door with per- sonal contact; depot Depot and home delivery with free installation upon request Free Information post cards, paid ads, public relations activities Free Public relations activities,home canvassing Home delivery upon request Free Information post cards 13,300 Pricing strue- Depot Pur- ture and chase rationing ordi- nance de- signed to achieve 50 per- cent overall reduction 6,000 Water rationed. Mobile sales Put- Ordinance de- depot chase signed to achieve 10 per- cent reduction 753 No rationing Free installa- Free tion service Leaflets, paid ads in news- papers, public relations activi- ties Paid ads in newspapers, mass mailing, newsletters Public relations activities I I I I Source: "A Pilot Water Conservation Program", California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 191, October 1978, p. 2. 172 used in pilot programs: 1. Mailing of tips. 2. Mailing with washers. 3. Door-to-door with personal contact. 4. Door-to-door with kits placed on door knobs. 5. Depot distribution-free devices. 6. Depot distribution-devices sold. 7. Free devices and free installation. The most successful distribution method was mass distribu- tion number four with free installation. Mass distribu- tion was the most cost effective method, depot distribution was as cost effective assuming free labor in both cases, but less people participated. Short intensive distribu- tion is best. Telephone hotlines are essential to dis- patch free information. Government buildings are the best depot stations. Saturday is the most convenient day. Dams were the most popular devices to install, and were deemed most cost effective. Free devices and free instal- lation resulted in the highest installation rate. Toilet devices were m o r e often installed than shower devices. Clearly, the success of such a program can be illustrated by the estimated amount of water and energy saved. De- vices .installed in the six pilot areas are saving about 4,200 acre feet of water each year---enough to serve about 25,000 persons per year.13 Fig. XIV, illustrates the annual water savings estimated in each pilot area. The total energy saved is equivalent to 76,000 barrels of oil per year, primarily from reduced water heating (Fig. XV). These savings are enough to meet the energy needs of about 3,200 homes per year.14 The estimated overall benefit-to- cost ratio for the entire pilot program was 5-1.15 Similarly, conservation programs elsewhere have experienced considerable savings. By not having to drill new wells, Madison Wisconsin saved $750,000 and Elmhurst, Illinois saved $400,000.16 The Boston Water and Sewer Commission reduced average water use by 16 million gallons per day.17 Arlington, Massachusets reduced water costs by $36,000 per year.18 Pilot Project on Long Island In light of all the successfull ongoing conservation pro- grams throughout the United States, Long Island should begin its own conservation pilot projects. A good com- I I I I I ! I I ! i ! I I I ! ! I I I ANNUAL WATER SAVINGS ! ! ! o ! - IN PILOT AREAS FIGURE XIV1 TOliET [--~ SHOWER TOTAL 1,000,000 800,000 600,000 I 400,00C TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS TOILET ~.3 hm3 (/,900/~£/ SHOWER TOTAL I 200,00C SAN DIEGO SANTA CRUZ SANGER EL DORADO EL SEGUNDO OAK PARK PILOT AREAS 173 300 640 -480 320 16,000 12,000 8000i 400( 5%~oo SAN DIEGO ANNUAL ENERGY SAVINGS IN PILOT AREAS FIGURE XV2 TOTAL ANNUAL SAVINGS 76,400 BARRELS OF OIL 970/0 OF SAVINGS ARE FROM REDUCTION IN SHOWER WATER HEATING 15,693 SANTA CRUZ 1,946 500 t I 175 j 825 SANGER EL DORADO EL SEGUNDO OAK PARK PILOT AREAS 174 m m m m ! m m m m m m m ! m m m m m m I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 175 munity to implement a pilot program in Nassau County would be Great Neck because it is an area of critical concern which is experiencing salt water intrusion. A community in Suffolk County which would be an ideal area for a pilot study is the Village of North Haven. Hydrogeologically, North Haven is an island unto itself. The citizens are concerned about their limited groundwater supply due to the thin lens of fresh water that lies be- neath North Haven. Such pilot programs should, if possible, coincide with the implementation of a school education pro- gram. The distribution program should be monitored and followed by continuing education programs. 1.& 2. Source: "A Pilot Water Conservation Program", California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 191, October 1978. 176 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WATER CON,SERVATION The Commission recommends that communities which have a limited supply of potable water amend their town or village ordinances to include water conservation codes, such as irrigation restrictions, and limits on the per- missible square footage in fertilized turf. The Commission recommends that all water purveyors in- stitute a rate structure which discourages over use and excessive use of water. The Commission recommends the implementation of a compre- hensive pilot water conservation program, whiCh includes retrofitting device distribution. Such areas for the pilot programs could be: the Great Neck peninsula of Nassau County, and the Village of NOrth Haven in Suffolk County. The Commission recommends plumbing fixture retrofitting of all public facilities. The Commission urges Nassau County to implement an aggres- sive county-wide conservation program. The Commission recommends that all agricultural wells be metered. The Commission recommends and supports the passage of state legislation introduced in the 1983 session which would provide tax credits to those who install water conservation systems. The Commission recommends the passage of its legislation which requires all water purveyors to inform its customers about how to conserve water in the home. i I I i I ! i I I i I I I I ! I I I 177 WATER CONSERVATION: ENDNOTES e "Easy Ways to Save Water, Money and Energy at Home" (Maryland: Potomac River and Trails Council, 1980), Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrel, P.C., Master Water Plan Nassau County, State of New York. (New York: H2M Corp., 1980), p. 287. List of Certified Water Saving Plumbing Fixtures (Albany: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1981), p. 3. 4. "Easy Ways to Save Water, Money and Energy at Home" p.1. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13-15 Ibid. p. 4. "The Alternative is Conservation" (Washington D.C.: Environmental Protection ~gency, 1980), p.21. "Water and Energy Conservation Products" (Hicksville: Conservation Awareness Inc., 1978), p. 4. Ibid. p. 2. ".Easy Ways to Save Water, Money and Energy at Home" p. 4. Before the Well Runs Dry: A Handbook for Designing a Local Water Conservation Plan, (Washington, D.C.: New England River Basins Commission, 1981, p. 6. Ibid. p. 6. Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, p. 311. "A Pilot Water Conservation Program: (California: California Department of Water Resources, 1978), p. 18. 16-18 Before the Well Runs Dry, p. 6. 178 WATER CONSERVATION: REFERENCES "A Pilot Water Conservation Program" California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin 191, October 1978. Before the Well Runs Dry: A Hand Book for Designing a Local Water Conservation Plan. New England, River Basins Commission, October 1980. "Easy Ways to Save Water Money and Energy at Home." Potamac River and Trials Council, Maryland 1980. "It's Up to You!: A Customer Handbook on Water- Saving and Wastewater Reduction." Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission, May 1976. Master Water Plan Nassau County State of New York. Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. Vol. I, September 1980. "The Alternative is Conservation" Environmental Protection Agency, August 1980. i I I I i ! I I I I I I i I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION VII COMMISSION LEGISLATION 179 I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 181 VII. COMMISSION LEGISLATION INTRODUCTION In this section the Legislative Commission presents legislation it has drafted or supports. Each legisla- tive proposal is accompanied by a brief summary of key points and issues the proposals address. VIII. IX. I. Landfill Legislation II. Sole Source Aquifer Legislation III. Water Quality Treatment Districts IV. Water utility Public Reporting V. SPDES Testing by State Certified Laboratories VI. Notification of Water utilities of a SPDES Per- mit Application VII. Notification of Water utilities of SPDES Permit Violations Report of the Storage of Hazardous Materials Prohibition of Job Development Agency Loans to Violators of State Permits X. Creation of Primary Groundwater Recharge Areas XI. Decrease in the Lead Content in Solder in Water Pipes 182 I. LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM Title of Bill: Bill to protect Long Island's groundwater by phasing out solid waste landfills within the "deep flow recharge areas" and by placing restrictions on the operation of landfills outside these areas. Purpose or General Idea of Bill: Landfill contaminants can do the greatest harm to the water resource if discharged within the deep flow recharge zones. The purpose of this bill is to re~re that over time all landfills inside the deep flow recharge zone are phased out and that all future landfills are outside these zones where their associated contaminants w~uld have less impact on the water resource. Summ~ary of Specific Provisions: All landfills operating within the "deep flow recharge area" as defined by the Long Island Cc~prehen- sive Waste Treatment Manag~nent Plan of 1978 must be phased out when they reach the limit of their field plans. No new landfills can be located in the deep flow recharge zone. All new landfills outside the deep flow recharge area must: be approved by the E~C; acquire pollution liability or other financial surety; be underlain by a double liner with leachate collection and detection sys- tsm; minimize gas migration; and be adequately supervised and operated. Ail landfills on Long Island are prohibited frc~a accepting waste which is not the product of resource recovery, incineration, or cc~posting with the exception of down-time and untreatable waste, after January 1, 1990. The Cc~T~ssioner can grant two year extensions to the deadlines in various sections of the bill. Clean fill can be landfilled subject to a peImit from DEC. Justification: Long Island's groundwater supply is the sole source of drinking water for must of Long Island--it is essential that this vital reservoir be protected frc~ further contamination. The Long Island Comprehensive Waste £reatment Management Plan, 1978 has iden- tified the "deep flow recharge areas" as beinc3 especially sensitive to the effects of pollution and long-term contamination. This bill would ban any further landfills in these highly critical areas and in- sure that landfills in other areas of Long Island are properly designed and operated so as to have no adverse impact on the drinking water sup- ply for Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Fiscal Implications for State and Local Governments: This legislation may be implemented within existing administrative framework. Effective Date: Act takes effect 180 days after enactment. i I I i I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 183 STATE OF NEW YORK 6800--A R. R. 281 1983-1984 Regular Sessions IN ASSEMBLY March 28, 1983 Introduced by M. of A. NEWBURGER, FINK, HINCHEY, YEVOLI, HALPIN -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BIANCHI, BRANCA, ENGEL, FELDMAN, FLANA, GAN, GRANNIS, HARENBERG, HEVESI, HOCHBRUECKNER, JACOBS, KOPPELL, MUR- TAUGH, ORAZIO, PATTON, PILLI/~rERE, RETTALIATA, SAWICKI, SEMINERI0, SIEGEL -- (at request of the Governor) -- read once and referred to the Committee on Environmental Conservation -- amended on the special order of third reading, ordered reprinted as amended, retaining its place on the special order of third reading AN ACT to amend the environmental conservation law, in -relation to burial and disposal of solid waste in the counties ef Nassau and Suf- folk The People of the State of New York~_~epresented in Senate and Assem- bly~ do enact as follows: 1 Section 1. Legislative findings. The legislature hereby finds that the land burial and disposal of domestic, municipal and industrial solid waste poses a significant threat to the quality of groundwater and 4 therefore the quality of drinking water in the counties of Nassau and 5 Suffolk. This threat is particularly dangerous since the potable water 6 supply for the counties is derived from a sole source aquifer. Scien- 7 tific evidence and analysis have identified the incapacity of land 8 burial and disposal to isolate leaching chemicals and gases from the 9 surrounding environment over the long term. Resource recovery of these 10 wastes poses minimal threats to groundwater quality. 11 § 2. The environmental conservation law is amended by adding a new 12 section 27-0704 to read as follows: 13 § 27-0704. Land burial and disposal in ~he counties of Nassau and Suf- 14 folk; special provisions. 15 1. Definitions. As used in this section the following terms shall have i6 the following meanings: EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBD10160-02-3 5 6 7 8 9 lO 1! 12 13 16, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2~ 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 6,0 4~. 6,2 6,3 6,/,, 46 47 6,8 &9 50 51 52 53 56, 53 184 A. 6800--A 2 a. "Clean fill" shall mean material consisting of concrete, steel, wood, sand, dirt, soil, glass~ or other inert material designated by commissioner. b. A "deep flow recharge area" shall mean a sensitive recharge area within the counties of Nassau and Suffolk within the boundaries of droieololic zones I, II and III as defined in the Long Island Comprehen- sive Waste Treatment Management Plan of nineteen hundred seventy-eight. c. "DoWntime waste" shallmean any treatable or bur-~ble waste lated durin~ a scheduled or unscheduled maintenance period of e treat ment facility. d. "Hazardous waste" shall be defined as promulgated by the provision~ of section 27-0903 of this article. e. "Landfill" shall mean a disposal facility at which solid waster or its ~esidue after treatment, is intentionally placed and at which, wast, shall remain after closure. f. "Lon~ Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Mana&ement Plan of nineteen hundred seventy-eight" shall mean the study prepared by th, Long Island Re&ional Plannin~ Board pursuant to section two hundred el&hr of the federal water pollution control act. &. "Treatment facility" shall mean resource .recovery~ incineration, composting~ or other process as approved by the commissioner through which solid waste is put in order to re~uce volume an~ toxicity. h. '~Untreatable waste" shall mean that material that because of its size or composition cannot be processed by s treatment facility. 2. The' Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plun of nineteen hundred seventy-ei~ht shall be kept on file in the office of the commissioner. The hydro,colonic zones and their attendant boundari~ as specified in the aforementioned plan are hereby adopted. Any changes made in the boundaries and accepted by the commissioner shall be consid ered as automatically adopted for the puxposes of this section. 3. On or after the effective date of this sectiou and except a~ provided herein, no person shall commence operation~ includin~ site pre paration, of a new landfill or of un expansion to an existin~ landfi]] which is located in a deep flow recharge area. However~ the commls sioner~ after conducting a public hearinE, may apvrove a limited expan sion of any existing landfill in a deep flow rechsrge area for the so]~ purpose of providing for solid waste disposal capacity prior to the im- plementation of a resource recovery system. The commissioner shall not approve any s~ch expansion unless he finds that the owner of such land fill is a municipality that is implementin~ a resource recovery system which is acceptable to .the commissioner and which will be operational no later than seven years after the effective date of this section and that no other feasible means of solid waste m-n-~ement i~ available~ takln~ into account technological, economic and other essential factors. 4. On or after the effective date of this section~ no person shall commence operetion~ includinE site preparation, of a new landfill or of an expansion to an ex%stinE landfill~ which is located in the county of Nasdau or Suffolk outside of deep flow recharge areas unless: a. The commissioner has made an affirmative determination that such landfill will not pose · threat to groundwater quality; and b. The owner or operator of the landfill has posted a financial &uarantee such as~ but not limited toy pollution liability insurance~ sureties, performance bonds and/or trust funds acceptable to the commis- sioner securing the cost of corrective treatment} or the development of alternative water sources, should such landfill become a source of I l I i I ! I l l i I I i I l l m I I I I I I 185 A, 6800--A 3 1 8roundwater~ surface water~ or air pollution. The size of the finannial 2 guarantee, the financial stability of the surety~, and the terms of post- 3 ing shall be determined by the commissioner. Financial surety shall also 4 be arranged to ensure the proper operation and maintenance of laachate 5 and other collection and treatment systems for a period of time, as 6 determined by the commissioner, after a landfill is closed; and 7 c. The landfill is underlain by two or more natural and/or synthetic 8 liners each with provisions for leanhate collaotion~ and has a treatment 9 and disposal system~ ~11 of which ara approved by the commissioner. Any I I I I I 10 natural' clay liners shall have a minimum compacted thickness of two feet I1 and all liners shall have a maximum hydraulic conductivity not to exceed 12 one times ten to.the minus seven centimeters per second. If the landfill 13 uses two synthetic liners, the departmeht shall require that the liners 14 are of different chemical compositions; and 15 d. The landfill is designed and operated to minimize the mi&ration of 16 methane gas or other gases beyond, the facility boundaries so as to avert 17 ~he creation of a nuisance or a danger to property or public health; and 18 e. The landfill is prohibited.from acceptin& industrial, commercial or 19 institutional solid or liquid waste that is hazardous; and 20 f. The landfill is not located in a freshwater wetland; tidal wetland 21 or floodplain as identified by the department. 22 ~. ExeDt as provided herein, tke landfill accepts only material which 23 is the product of resource recovery~ incineration or composting. Down- 24 time waste and wastes that are untreatable by a resource recovery system 25 may be .disposed ofwhen handled as provided in this para~raph. Downtime 26 waste and untreatable waste that is landfilled may only be deposited in 27 a special disposal area that is located and constructed so as to se~re- 28 &ate these wastes and minimize their effect on residents of the sur- 29 roundin~ area. Not more than ten percent of the annual rated capacity of I I I I I I I I 30 a resource recovery facility may be disposed of as downtime waste per 31 year. However~ up to ten percent of the %nnual rated Capacity of more 32 than one resource recovery .facility may be so disposed of at a single 33 landfill. 34 Any such landfill may also accept wastes other than those authorized 35 in this subdivision whenever such disposal is approved by the commis- 36 sioner based upon a findin~ made after the opportunity for a public 37 hearin8 that (i) no resource recovery facility is available to accept 38 such waste; (ii) the owner of the landfill is making all reasonable ef- 39 forts to implement a resource recovery system acceptable to the commie- 40 sioner; and (iii) that the landfilling of such wastes will not have 41 nificant adverse environmental impacts. In ~rantin~ any such approval~ 42 the com~issioner shall impose conditions necessary to mitigate any ad- 43 verse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable and shall impose a schedule under which the muni¢ipali~y shall implement an 45 ceptable resource recovery system. 46 5. Within seven years of the effective date of this section, no person 47 shall operate a landfill existin~ on the effective date of this section 48 in the counties of Nassau and Suffolk unless: 49 a. The owner or operator of the landfill has posted a financial 50 guarantee such as~ but not limited to, pollution liability insurance~ 51 sureties, performance bonds and/or trust funds acceptable to the commie- $2 sioner securing the cost of corrective treatment~ or the development of 53 alternative water sourcas~ should such landfill become a source of 54 groundwater~ surface water or air pollution. The size of the financial 55 ~uarantee~ the financial stability of the surety; and the terms of post- 186 A. 6800--A 4 lng shall be determined by the commissioner. Financial suret~ shall also be arranged to ensure the proper operation and maintenance of leachate and other collecti6n and treatment systems for a period of Cime~ as determined by the commissioner, after a landfill is closedl and b. The landfill is underlain by two or more natural and/or synthetic. liners each with provisions for leachate collection, and has a treatment i I I i and disposal system~ all of which are approved by the commissioner. Any natural clay liners shall have a minimum compacted thickness of two feet 7 8 9 and all liners shall have a maximum hydraulic conductivity not to exceed 10 one times ten to the minus seven centimeters per second. If the landfill 11 uses two synthetic liners~ the department shall require that the liners 12 ar~ of different chemical composition; and 13 c. The landfill is designed and operated to minimize the migration of 14 methane ~as or other ~ases beyond the facility boundaries so as to avert 15 the creation of a nuisance or a dan~er to property or public health; and 16 d. The landfill does not accept industrial~ commercial or institu- 17 tional solid or liquid waste that is hazardous; and 18 e. The landfi.ll is not located in a freshwater wetland~ tidal wetland 19 or floodplain as identified by the department. 20 f. Except as provided herein} the landfill accepts qnly material which 21 is the product of resource recovery} incineration or composting. Down- 22 time waste and wastes that are untreatable by a resource recovery system 23 may be disposed of when handled as provided in this paragraph.' Downtime 24 waste and untreatable waste that is landfilled may only be deposited in 25 a special disposal area that is located and constructed so as to segre- 26 mate these wastes and minimize their effect on residents of the sur- ! m m m m 27 rounding area. Not more than ten percent of the annu~kl rated capacity of a resource recovery facility may be disposed of as downtime waste per year. However~ up to ten percent of the annual rated capacity of more 30 than one resource recovery facility may be so disposed of at a single 31 landfill. 32 If the landfill is located outside'of the deep flow recharge area~ 33 such landfill may also accept wastes other than those authorized in this 34 subdivision whenever such disposal is approved by the commissioner based upon a finding ~ade after the opportunity for a public hearin~ that (i) no resource recovery facility is available to accept'such waste~ (ii) 37 the owner of the landfill is makin~ all reasonable efforts to implement 38 a resource recovery system acceptable to the commissioner; and <iii) 39 that the landfilling of such wastes will not have significant adverse 40 environmental impacts. In granting any such approval~ the commissioner 41 shall impose conditions necessary to mitigate any adverse environmental impacts to the maximum extent practicable and shall impose a schedule 43 under which the municipality' shall implement an acceptable resource 44 recovery system. 45 6. Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, the commis- 46 sioner may allow~ by permit~ the disposal of clean fill material in the 47 counties of Nassau and Suffolk. Such material shall not be contaminated ! ! ! m ! m 48 with hazardous wastes. 49 § 3. This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day next 50 succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law. ! m m I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 187 II. LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM Title of Bill: AN ~ to amend the Envirorm~_ntal Conservation Law, in relation to groundwater watershed protection plans and making ap- propriations therefOre. Purpose or General Idea of Bill: This bill provides a process and funding for the preparation and impl~aentation of groundwater watershed protection plans to maintain existing water quality in critical groundwater recharge areas within Federally designated sole source aquifer areas. Summary; of Specific Provisions: Bill allows for the designation of special protection areas within sole source aquifers. Designation is certified by the ~overnor with the concurrence of the US-EPA. A management plan is developed for these special protection areas by a planning entity which is designated by the Governor. The manag~nent plan is developed with the involv~nent and input frcm local gove~l%,~nts and citizens. Upon approval of the plan, its re- cu,,L~dations are impl~nented. Funding is provided for the develop- ment of the plan and impl~nentation. This bill operates in conjunc- tion with pendir~ Federal legislation. Justification: Within any area subject to sole source aquifer de- signation, scme recharge watershed areas are particularly critical for the maintenance of large ~ol~nes of high quality groundwater. In the face of mounting cases of groundwater ccntamination by toxic or~ ganic ccmpounds, nutrients, salts, and other pollutants, the state needs a program for designating and protecting critical groundwater recharge areas. Prevention of the contamination of high quality ground- water and the protection of critical recharge watersheds costs sub- stantially less than measures to mitigate harm following contamination. Fiscal Implications for State and Local Governments: Appropriates $350,000 for planning, $15 million or as much thereof as necessary for impl~nentation frcm capitol funds, and shall be matched on a 75-25% basis with the participating counties. Effective Date: First Day of September next succeeding the date it shall beocme law. 188 STATE OF NEW YORK S. 4700 A. 6253 1983-1984 ReEular Sessions SENATE ASSEMBLY Harch 24, 1983 IN SENATE -- Introduced by Sens. TRUNZO, BElgIAN, JOHNSON, LACK, LAVALLE, LEVY -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be eom- mitred to the Committee on Conservation and Recreation IN ASSEMBLY -- Introduced by M. of A. NEWBURGER, HINCHEY, GRANNIS, YEVOLI, HARENBERG, PATTON, FINK -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BIANCHI, DUAN~, HALPIN, HOCHBRUECKN~R, HOYT, ORAZIO, RUGGIER0 -- read once and referred to the Committee on Environmental Conservation AN ACT to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to groundwater watershed protection plans and making appropriations therefor The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assem- bly, do enact as follows: 1 Section 1. The environmental conservation law is amended by adding a 2 new article fifty-five to read as follows: 3 ARTICLE 55 4 SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER PROTECTION 5 Section 88-O101. Declaration of policy. 6 55-O103. Legislative findings. 7 55-0105. Purpose. 8 55-0107. Definitions. 9 55-0109. Special protection areas; petition. 10 55-0111. Special pro:action areas; designation. 11 55-0113. Comprehensive management plan; contents. 12 $5-0!13. Comprehensive management plan; approval. 13 55-0117. Land acquisition. 14 § 55-0101. Declaration of policy. 15 It is declared to be the public policy of this state to provide funds 16 for the preparation and implementation of ~roundwater watershed protec- 17 lion plans to maintain existin~ water quality in critical ~roundwater EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBD01096-03-3 i i I i I ! i I ! i I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 189 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 28 29 30 32 33 35 36 39 40 42 S. 4700 A. 6253 recharge watershed areas w/thin federally designated sole source aquifer areas. § 55-0103. Legislative findings. The legislature finds that: 1. the scientific evidence of groundwater contamination is mounting} 2. such contamination, once it occurs~ is often irreversiblei 3. within any area suspect to sole source aquifer designationt some recharge watershed areas are particularly critical for the maintenance of large volumes of high quality groundwater for ionS periods of time~ because of their particular rates of recharge and hydrogeological condi- tionsi 4. in the face of mounting cases of groundwater contamination by toxic organic compounds~ nutrients~ salts and other pollutants, the state needs a program for designating and protecting critical groundwater recharge watershed areas} 5. it is desirable to maintain natural vegetative and hydro,colonic conditions for their role in criticll groundwater recharge watershed areasi 6. prevention of the contamination of high quality groundwater and the protection of critical recharge ~atershed areas costs substantially less than measures to mitigate harm following contamination; and 7. there is a demonstrated need to protect~ preserve and enhance the land and water resources of special protection areas through a new pro- gram ~hich combines the capabilities and resources of the local, state and federal governments and the private sector. § 55-0105. Purpose. It is the purpose of this art/cie to: 1. establish procedures for the designation of special protection areas within designated sole source areas~ 2. acknowledge the variations in hydrogeology~ water quality, and land uses w/thin designated areas, and the existence of certain areas which are of critical importance in maintaining water quality in the desig- nated sole source areai 3. assure that such critical areas within designated sole source areas are protected and managed in such a way as to maintain or improve ex/st- ing water qualityi 4. establish procedures for the development and implementation of a site-specific comprehensive management plan for each designated soecial protection area; and 5. establish guidelines for federal-state coooeration in the plamning, funding'And implementation of groundwater watershed protection olans. § 55-0107. Definitions. Unless the contex~ ozherwise reouires, the definitions in this section shall govern :he cons:rue:ion of ~he following terms as used in this 45 article: 46 1. "Plan" shall mean the comorehensive management plan. 47 2. "Land credit exchange inszitu%ion" shall mean any institution esta- 48 blished %o facilitate the exchange; transfer, acquisition? and donation 49 of development rights~ conservation easements~ or other partial in- 50 %eres~s in land. 51 3. "Recharge" shall mean the do~mward movement of water to the water 52 53 table through the soil overlying an aauifer. 4. "Watershed" shall mean an area where water drains into a specific 54 basin or reservoir~ or, for groundwater~ a region where water is chun- 55 dantly recharged to the subsurface groundwater reservoir. 190 1 2 S. 4700 A b253 5. "Special protection area" shall mean recLarge watershed area within a designated sole source area which is 5ar:icular]v critical for th. 3 maintenance of large v~]umes of high quaiJty groundwater for long peri- 4 ods of time. 5 § 55-0109. Special protection areas; petition. 6 1. Any muEicipalit¥ or person may petition the governor to designate a 7 special protection area within a federally designated sole source 8 aquifer. 9 2. Such petition shall set forth the proposed boundaries for such spe- 10 cial protection areas and include the following information: 11 !a) whether the special protection area is a recharge zone for signif- 12 icant volumes of groundwater with water supply potential; 13 (b) whether the special protection area is largely undeveloped with 14 large contiguous tracts of natural vegetatlon~ or natural geological 15 conditions; 16 (c) whether the groundwater which is recharged through the special 17 protection area is of high quality; 1S (d) whether the hydrogeologic conditions are such that development 19 could lead to degradation of water quality; 20 (e) whether portions of the groundwater within the sole source area 21 are already contaminated with toxic organics~ nutrients~ salts or other 22 pollutants so as to warrant special protection for areas which recharge 23 high quality groundwater; 24 (f} whether maintenance of existing high qua'ltty in the'groundwater 25 recharged through the special protection area would have significant 26 economic~ social and ecological~ recreational or aesthetic benefits for 27 the sole source area; and 28 (g) whether degradation of such groundwater would have significant 29 economic; social~ eco]ogical~ recreational and aesthetic costs for the 30 area. 31 § 55-0111. Special protection areas; designation. 32 1. The governor must within one hundred eighty days of receipt of ~ 33 petition for designation of ~ special protection area; act upon such 34 petition. 35 2. If the petition is approved~ the governor shall: 36 (a) establish the boundaries of the special protection area; 37 (b) designate or establish a planning entity to develop a comprehen- 38 sire management plan for the area with adequate representation by local ~9 units of government to assure their participation in the planning pro- 40 tess; 41 (C) establish one or more advisory cormmittees~ including represents- 42 tlon' from state and local units of government~ and citizens' groups and 43 take other appropriate steps to assure and encourage public participa- 44 tion) and 45 (d) establish procedures for review~ approval and adoption of the 46 management plan and offer assistance to local units of government and 47 other pertinent goverrumental agencies for implementation of said plan. 48 3. If the petition is disapproved~ the governor~ must notify the peti- 49 tioner in writing within thirty days~ the reasons for the disapproval 50 and allow .the petitioner to resubmit the petition. Any petition resub- 51 mission shall reinitiate the review process. 52 4. /'he governor shall submit in a timely manner to the administrator 53 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency the designation of 54 such special protection area and the planning entity. i I ! i I I I I ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 191 A. 6253 S. 4700 (a) If the administrator disapproves such designation, the governor 2 shall resnond to such re.iection and resubmit the desi~nation withi,, 3 ninety days thereof. 4 (b) If the administrato~ approves such designation, the governor is 5 authorized to receive such federal monies as are made available to d~ 6 fray the costs of preparing the petition and developing the plan. The 10 I1 12 13 i4 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O -41 42 43 44 45 49 50 51 52 53 designated plamming entity shall be eligible for such planning funds a period not to exceed two years· 5. Upon designation of a special protection area by the governor and the administrator~ the municipality affected thereby may declare a mora- torium on any activities affecting the aquifer~ including but not lim ired tot construction or subdivision of the land for the purpose Ol protecting the water supply potential in the special protection area. § 55-0113. Comprehensive management plan; contents. The designated planning entity shall prepare th= plan for the special protection area. The plan shall be desired to ensure the degradation of the high quality of groundwater recharged within the spa cial protection area. Such plan shall include but not be limited to: 1. a determination of the quality of the existing groundwater recharged through said snecial protection area~ the natural rechar~ capabilities of the special protection area watershed and the dependence of any natural ecosystems in the special protection area on the wate~ quality and natural recharge capabilities of said areal 2. an identification of all existin~ and potential puint and non-poin~ sources of ~roundwater degradation~ 3. development~ for any special protection area so desi~nated~ of qualitative and quantitative groundwater quality standards designed maintain indefinitely~ existing groundwater quality conditions whe~_ those conditions reflect water of a quality better than environmental protection agency drinking water standards or applicable state reg~la tlons~ and to restore such quality where it presently does not me~t regulations; 4. a map showin~ the detailed boundary of the special protection area; 5. a resource assessment which determines the amount and t~rpe of h development and activity which the ecosystem can sustain while still maintaining existing ground and surface water quality and protecting unique ecological featuresi 6. the identification and proposal of limits on federal~ state and local government, financially assisted activities and pro,iects whicba directly or indirectly~ may contribute, in any way whatsoever, :o az~x degradation of such ~roundwater or any loss of natural surface and sub surface infiltration or purification capability of the special protect tlon area watershed; 7. development of a comprehensive statement of land use management as it pertains to ~he maintenance and enhancement of groundwater qualiL~ and quantity~ 8. proposal and establishment of limits on land uses in the special protection area which might have an adverse impact on water qualit~ and/or recharge capabilities~ 9. consideration and proposal of specific techniques~ including, hut donation of conservation easements or development rights~ and other in,~. novative measures sufficient to achieve the objectives of,this section~ 192 $. 4700 A. 6253 110. consideration of the establishment of a state institution to 2 facilitate and assist in the fundin~ of a transfer of development credit 3 system; 4 11. designation of specific areas within special protection areas 5 suitable and appropriate for public acquisition; and 6 12, a program for state and local governmental impl'ementation of the 7 comprehensive management plan described in this subdivision in a manner 8 that will insure the continued~ uniform~ consistent protection of this 9 area in accord with the purposes of this section. ]0 § 55-0115. Comprehensive management plan: approval. 11 !. The planning entity shall: 12 (a) consult with appropriate officals of any municipality or state or 13 federal agency which has jurisdiction over lands and waters within the 14 area; 15 (b) transmit any draft and final plan to all affected municipalities 16 for review and comment; 17 (c) consult with the officials of any municipality which has 3urisdic- lg tdon over lands and waters within areas designated special protection 19 areas; 20 (d) consult with interested professiona]~ scientific and citizens' or- 21 ganizations; 22 (e) consult with citizen's advisory committees; and 23 (f) conduct public hearings at places within the area~ and at such 24 other places as may be appropriatet for the purpose of providing in- 25 terested persons with an opportunity to express their views with respect 26 to matters covered by the plan. 27 2. he plan shall be submitted to the governor for review. /"ne gover- 28 nor shall approve or disapprove the plan within ninety days of its 29 receipt. 2~ne ~overnor shall consider whether: 30 (a) the plan will achieve its stated water qqality objectives and pro- 31 tect the ecological values of the special protection area which are sit- 32 nificant for maintenance of water quality; 33 (b) the plan requires the exercise of land use and zoning responsibil2 34 dries to the greatest extent practicable to regulate the use of land and 35 water resources in a manner consistent with the purposes of this arti- 36 cle~ 37 (c) the planning entity has afforded adequate opportunitv~ including 38 public hearings~ for public and goverranenta] involvement in the prepare- 39 tion and review of the plan~ and whether such review and comment thereon 40 were considered in the plan; 41 (d) adequate assurances have been received from appropriate state and 42 local officials that the recommended implementation program identified 43 in the plan will be initiated within a reasonable time after the date of 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 approval of the plan and such program will insure effective imvlementa- tion of the state and local aspects of the plan; (e) he should designate or establish a management entity with the power and authority %o assure implementation of the plan; and (f) the legal authorities at the state ]evel~ including statutorw provision for a land credit exchange insti%ution~ are provided. 3. The governor shall submit the plan to the administrator for review and approval. If approval is not given~ the governor shall have ninety days Zo resubmit a modified plan. 4. Upon approval of the plan~ the state acting through the governor~ shall enter into a cooperative agreement to share on a fifty percent matching basis the cost of implementation of the plan including but not i I I I I I ! I ! I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 193 S. A. 6253 1 limited to land acquisition~ capitalization of a land credit exchange 2 institution, and acquisition of land development rights. 3 § 55-0117. Land acquisition. 4 Land acquired under this article may reside in state o~ership and is 5 subject to assessment as watershed land. The stateI at the discretion of the governor~ may transfer title to said land to the appropriate count~ under the condition that it be dedicated as parkland or forest preser%~ whose uses are consistent and compatible with the watershed purposes of 9 the land. 10 § 2. The sum of three hundred fifty thousand dollars ($350,000), or so 11 much thereof aa may be necessary, is hereby appropriated out of any 12 moneys in the state treasury in the general fund to the credit of the 13 local assistance account, not otherwise appropriated, and made imedi- 14 ately ~vailable to the governor to implement the provisions of this act. 15 § 3. The sum of fifteen million dollars ($15,000,000), or so much 16 thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated out of any moneys in 17 the state treasury in the capital projects fund, not otherwise appropri- 18 ated, and made immediately available to the governor to pay seventy-five 19 percent of the costs of implementing the capital projects provisions of 20 this a~t, provided a matching pa~ent for twenty-five percent of such 21 costs is made by the participating county in order to carry out the 22 provisions of this act; and, provided further that land within a special 23 protection area acquired on or before January first, nineteen hundred 24 eighty by a participating county for the purpose of parkland, watershed, 25 open space or other compatible uses consistent with this act may be 26 donated at fair market value in lieu of an equivalent capital contrihu- 27 tion by that county. 28 § &. This act shall take effect on the first day of September next 29 succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law. 194 III. LEGISLATIVE ~LEMORANDUM Title of Bill: AN ALT to amend the county law, in relation to creation of water quality treatment districts. ~urpose or General Idea of Bill: This legislation authorizes the counties of the Stat~ of New York to create Water Quality Trea~nent Districts in those areas not within the jurisdiction of a private or public water supplier, where water supplies are derived fau~L private wells. The purpose of these Districts is to aid in the develol~nent of treatn~=_nt methods for contan~_nants found in pri- vate well water; to provide monitoring of various contaminants that rmay be present in the water supply; to advise and assist the owners of the private wells, and district residents, in efforts to reduce the contam~tion of groundwater supply caused by everyday activ- ities; and to inform the public of the quality of water used in their daily lives. Su~: Bill establishes duties of the water quality treatment districts to include: testing of raw and finished waters; evaluate appropriate treatment technology; provide assistance in installa- tion of hcme treatment syst~s; assist in eliminating sources of contamination; dispose of waste products frcm treatment; and edu- cate public. As a special district, t_hey have the powers to levy taxes for the operation of tk,e district. Should a public or pri- vate w~ter purveyor extend water service into the district, then that section of the district shall no longer fall under the juris- diction of the water quality treatment district. Justification: The quality of water s~pplied by private wells is beccming more suspect as many cu~l,~unities experience major con- t~tion incidences and as testing of private well water becomes ~re frequent, sophisticated, and ccmprehensive. When serious contanination of a water supply is detected, private well owners are often unable to solve their problems by th~nselves because small, often rural ~L,~,unities do not possessthe resources and expertise to respond quickly and efficiently. Factors such as available quality, quantity, geography, geology, c~,~nity pop- ulation, and cost often cc~ine to make extension or es~hlish- merit of a public water systmm impossible. Both the short and long- term solutions to groundwater contamination may be the utilization of residential water treatment systems. Fiscal Implications for State and Local Governments: Would allow for the creation of a new special district, to provide services not available through any other means. Effective Date: Immediately. I ! I ! I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I 195 STATE OF NEW YORK I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 4695 6254 ~985-%984 ReEul&r Sessions SENATE--ASSEMBLY March 24, ~983 IN SE~TE -- Introduced by Sens. TRUNZO, BEP~N, JOHNSDN, LACK, LAVALLE, LEVY -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be commit- ted %o the Committee on Local Government IN ASSEMBLY -- Introduced by M. of A. NEWBURGER, FINK, YEVOLI, PATTON, HARENBERG, HALPIN -- Mul%l-Sponsore4 by -- M, of A. BENNETT, BIANCHI, BRODSKY, DUANE, HINCHEY, HOCHBRUECFd~ER, ORAZIO, RUGGIEBO, VITALIANO -- Yead once and referred %0 the Com~it%ee on Environmental Conservation AN ACT to amend the county law, in relation to creation of water quality treatment districts The Peomle of th9 State of New York. represented in Senate and ~ssem- blY. do enact as follows: I Section 1. Le~isl&tiue findinss. The quality of water supplied by prl- va%e wells is becomin~ more suspect as many con, unities experience major 3 contamination incidences and as testin§ of private well water becomes 4 more f~equen%, sophisticated and comprehensive. ~%en se¥ious contamina- 5 tion of a water supply is detected, private well owners are often unable 6 to solve their problems by themselves because small, often rural con~u- ? nities do not possess the resources and expertise to respond quickly and 8 efficiently. Fac%oYs such a~ available quality, quantity, ~eo~raphy, l0 or establishment of a public water system impossible. Both the sho~% and lon~-term solutions to ~roundw&%e~ contamination may be the utilization of residential water treatment systems. The legislature fin~s that the 13 creation of a special district known ~s a water quality treatment dis- 14 trlct will e~se the burdens associated with replacin~ a cont~llinated 15 ~roundwater Supply. 16 § Z. Purpose. It is the purpose of this act to authorize the counties 17 of the state to create water quality treatment dis%riots in those ar~as ~XPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBDO$$4B-OZ-5 196 S. 4695 A. 6Z54 of the water quality treatment districts to aid in the development of treatment method~ for contaminants found in private well water; to provide monl%orin[ of various contaminants %ha% may he Dresen% in the 4 wate~ supply; to advise and assist %he owners of private wells, and dis- 5 trict residen~s, in efforts to reduce the contamination of [~ound~ater supply caused by everyday activities; and to inform the public of the ? quality of water used in thei~ daily lives. 8 § S. The openin~ paTa[raph of section two hundred fifty of the county 9 law, a~ ~mended by chapter three hundred elEhty-el~ht of the laws of nineteen hundred eighty, is amended %o read as follows: 11 The board of superviso~s of each county may establish or extend county 12 water, sewer, was tewater disposal, drainage [or]~ refuse or w&teT 14 the "district") in the manner hereinafte~ provided: 15 § 4. Section two hundred fifty of such law is amended by addln~ & new subdivision five-a to read as follows: 17 5-a. Fo~ the purpose of (~) Drovidin[ periodic testinK Of Taw and fin- 18 lshed water from eech p~ivate well in the district, and establish[nj and 19 updating a list Of constituents %o be tested fo~. ¢2% lnuesti[etin[ and evaluatin~ aDmToD~iate treatment technology fo~ smecific contaminants and specific users. ($) OffeYtn~ professional advice on the installation and modification of residential and commercial ~lumbin~ wi%bin those structures with ~Tlvate wells. (4) ~ecommendin~ and imDlementln~ addt- tionel measures to ~rotect m~esent and future water ~e$ources In the district. {57 assistipK local, state and federa% a[encies and officials in efforts to establish causes and implement Temedial measures to reduce i I ! I I I I ! I I I I I I I I I I m I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 197 S of the collec%lon and disposition of ~a~ba~e, a~hes, ~u~bish and 198 4695 6254 provide for the construction, opera%ion and maintenance of all necessary appliances appurtenant thereto, including such vehicles a~ may be recruited for %he collection and disposition of garbage, ashes, rubbish and other waste matter. No facilities shall be laid under any county parkway, county road, town highway o~ city or village street without consent of the officer or bo~Y havin~ jurisdiction over, and control %hereof, and, in the case of the state thruway, state parkways, state water sold to, or a scale of char§es for monitorin~, testinK and ment ~ela%ln~ %o private well water quality o~ for the collection, con- veyance, treatment and disposal of sewage, was%ewa~er or refuse f~om, $$ public corporations, improvement districts, cormme~cial and industrial $4 users and individuals %o be determined on any equitable basis including but not limited to & system of classification which, ~or purposes of %ablishin~ differential rates, charges or rentals, may allocate amon~ 57 a~eas within the district designated by the administYative head or body, $8 the costs of establishment of the dist~ict, %he fu~nishin§ of improve- any combination %hereof; o~ (b) may impose sewe¥ ~ents a~ provided by 41 the general municipal law. Before any such schedules are finall~ est&- 42 blished, the adminis%~ative head or body shall hold at leas% one hearing thereon, appeals may be t~ken f~om any rate fixing de%ermina- 44 tio~ of the administrative head or bodo' to the bc&~d of supervisors. The board of s~pervisors shall p~esc~ibe %he manner of h¢ldimE such 46 hearings and of taking appeals. The a~mlnistrative head or body shall 47 also adopt rules and regulations, subject to approval of %he board cf 48 supervisors, prescribing the terms and conditions under which service 49 will be given to consumers, includinE the manner of paying bills for 50 service, penalties for non~payment, discounts, depo$1%s and other 5l related m&t~ers. No wa%er shall be sold to persons si%uated within a city, village, water district, water supply district or fire district in 55 which %here is & water distribution system operated by the municipality 54 or district without the consen~ Of such muDiclpality cT district. No 55 sewage, wastewater or refuse collection service shall be furnished I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 199 $. 4695 A. 6~54 individual propeTt~es situated within a city, village or district which operates a sewer, was tewater disposal, or refuse system furnlshin~ a similar service as the county district without the consent of such city, village or district. If the county water, sewe~, wa~tew&ter disposal, drainage, wate~ aual~tw treatment cT refuse district has & supply of water or facilities and Capacity in excess Of its own needs, the admin- ~strative head o¥ body may sell S~¢h excess water to, or contract fo~ the use of Such facilities by, municipalities, district or persons out- side the county district. Notwithstandin~ the provisions of sections two hundred seventy, two hundred seventy-one and two hundred seventy- was%ewater, wa%er qua%~t¥ %Teatme~t and refuse collection char~es shall $. The county treasurer, or comparable office~ o~ body, shall pre- pate, and transmit to the board of supervisors, on or before the first rents for a period of thirty days or more after the l~t day fixed payment of such chaY~es and rents without penalty. The list Shall con- rain a brief description of the properties for which the services were provided, the na~es of the persons or corporations liable to pay fo~ the sa~e and the ~oun% chaY~eable %o each. lncludin~ penalties and computed %o Decembe~ thi~ty-fi~s%. The board of soperviso~s shall levy such s~s a~ainst the p~ope~ties liable and shall state the amount "county wateY quality treatment cha~es." o~ "county ~efuse cha~$es". Such ~oun%s, when collected by the seveYal municipal colleo- o~ compaYable office~ o~ body. All of the p~ovisloos of the %ax laws %he state of New York coveYin~ the enforcement and collection of unpaid body, shall be c~edi%ed to the applioab!e county district fund and shall ~e used only lot such county distYic% ~ 10. Such law is amended by addin~ a new section two hundred 200 IV. LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM Title of Bill: AN ACT to ~nend the Environmental Conservation Law, in relation to water supply on Long Island. Pur~ os.e or General Idea of Bill: The purpose of this legis- lation SS %o provide a system to better inform the general public regarding the source of the Long Island water supply, its general and specific quality, treatment, and distribution. This will be acc~tolished by an ar~,,~] report by each water supplier to its custcmer s. Summary of Specific Provisions: Bill amends Enviror~ental Conservation Law, Section 15. Bill defines water purveyor to include all water suppliers who sell water to more than 200 cus- tomers on an annual basis. Each water purveyor shall make an annual water and operation report. The bill specifies information to be included such as: brief financial report, population served, total pumpage, contamination, actions to secure new supplies, treatment, instance of non-cuL~liance with any regulations. Report can be mailed to custcmers or published in a local newspaper. Conservation information is also required. Justification: Long Island residents are slowly discovering that all water supplies are produced fr~n the aquifer beneath the Island. Many residents, however, are unaware of either the general or the specific details related to the water they are supplied or the general conditions of the water resource. As a public utility, the water purveyors of Long Island share in the responsibility to inform the public regarding Long Island's fragile water supply. Fiscal Implications for State and Local Governments: None. Effective Date: Inmediately. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 201 STATE OF NEW YORK I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I S. 4697 A. 6258 2985-2984 Regular Sessions SENATE--ASSEMBLY March 24, 2983 IN SENATE -- Introduced by Seas. TRUNZO, BEPJLAN, JOHNSON, LACK, LAVALLE, LEVY -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be conu~lt- ted %o the Con~ittee on Oonseruation ahd Recreation IN ASSEMBLY -- Introduced by M. of A. NEWBURGER -- Multi-Sponsored by -- ~1. of A. BIANCHI, HALPIN, HOCHBRUECF~!ER, ORAZIO, PATTON, YEUOLI -- read once and referred to the Com,mlttee on Environmental Conservation AN ~CT to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to water supply on Long Island Th9 Peop%e of the State of New York. re=resented in Senate and ~ssem- 1 Section 1. Legislative findings. The legislature hereby finds that the 2 quality of the groundwater supply for Long Island is experiencing a con- 3 tinuin~ deterioration and decline. Omce a groundwater aquifer segment is 4 contaminated, for all practical purposes its usefulness as a drinking EY3LANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law %o be omitted. 202 $. 4697 A. 6258 ~1 ~u{litY standard or ~uideline. and the date~ of the deteTmination, I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 203 V. LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM Title of Bill: AN ACT to ~end the Environmental Conservation Law in relation to testing under the state pollutant discharge eli- mination syst~. Purpose or General Idea of Bill: Within the past f~ years, hazardous substances have aPpeared in the drinking water of the state. This bill provides additional assurance that credible quality control of SPI1ES discbz~ges will occur by requiring that tests shall be con- ducted by state certified labs. Summary of S~ecific Provisions: Bill requires that all SPDES discharge testing shall be conducted by a state certified lab and report the results directly to the depar~m~nnt. Justification: Monitoring requir~nents for SPE~S pemittee allow for "self-monitoring" procedures using plantpersonnel to collect grab samples for testing. Such a process permits abundant opportu- nities for manipulation of s~nple quality through sar~pling procedures and in-house analysis. Ccmposite samples handled by independent per- sonnel frcm a State certified laboratory would provide greater quality control over sampling and testing results. Fiscal Implications for State and Local Governments: None. Effective Date: becoming law. Act shall take effect the thirtieth day after 2O4 STATE OF NEW YORK I I S, 470~ A. 6259 1983-1984 Regui&~ Sessions SENATE ASSEMBLY March 2,4, 198,3 IN SENATE -. Introduced by Sans. TRUNZO, BEP~N, JOHNSON, LACK, LAVALLE -- ~ead twice and o~deTed printed, and when p~ln%ed to be co~itted to the Committee on Conse~uation and Rec~ea%£on IN RSS~{BLY -- Introduced by M. of A. N~WBURGER, FLANAGaN, YE¥OLI, -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BIANCHI, CRIFFITH, HALPIN, HARENBERC, HINCHEY, HOCEBRUECF~ER, HOYT, OP~4ZIO, P~T~ON -- ~ead once and ~efeTred ins under the state pollutant discha~se elimination system The People of the State of New Yo~, represented in Senate and Assem- bly. do enact as follows~ [-~PL~4TION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBD06737-02-S I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 205 VI. LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM Title of Bill: AN ACT to amend the Enviromne~tal Conservation Law, in relat/on to discharges affecting a sole source aquifer area. Purpose or General Idea of Bill: Drinking water within a sole source aquifer is threatened by hazardous substances which may at times emanate in discharges by SPEES pennittees. The general purpose of tkis bill is to include the water utility that might be affected by such hazardous discharges in the application process, through notification that a permit application has been made by a facility in a nearby service area. This will permit the water utility to provide additional attention to such facilities. Summary of Specific Provisions: Bill requires that for sole source aquifer areas SPE~S pe~t application or renewal shall include tb~ n~ne and address of the water utility within which the facility is located. The utility will be notified by the Department when a permit application or renewal is granted. Justification: Water utilities are often not aware of new SPDES applications or renewals. Bill requires that the n~ne and address of the water utility within which the facility is located shall be included in application. The utility will be notified by the depart- ment when a permit application or renewal is granted. FisCal Implications for State and Local Governments: The provisions of this bill can be handled within the present administrative structure of the Department. Effective Date: Act shall take effect the thirtieth day after the bill becc~es law. 206 STATE OF NEW YORK S. 4699--B Cal. No. 1300 A. fi257--B Cat. No. 567 1983-1984 Regular Sessions SENATE--ASSEMBLY March 2&, 1983 IN SENATE -- Introduced by Bens. TRUNZO, DUNNE, BERMAN, JOHNSON, LACK, LAVALLE, LEVY -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Conservation and Recreation -- com- mittee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee -- reported favorably from said commit- tee with amendments and ordered reprinted as amended and when re- printed to be committed to the order of first report IN ASSEMBLY -- Introduced by M. of A. N~WBURGER, FLANAGAN, YEVOLI, PAT- TON, HARENBERG -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BECKER, BEHAN, BIkN- CHI, CONNOR, GRIFFITH, HALPIN, HINCHEY, HOCHBRUECKNER, HOYT, ORAZIO, PAROLA, PERONE, RUGGIERO, STRANIERE -- read once and referred to the Committee on Environmental Conservation -- reported from said commit- tee with amendments, ordered reprinted as amended and placed on the order of second reading -- advanced to a third reading, amended and ordered reprinted, retaining its place on the order of third reading AN ACT to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to dis- charges affecting groundwaters The People of the State of New York~ represented in Senate and Assem- bly~ do enact as follows: I Section 1. The environmental conservation law is amended by adding a 2 new section 17-O82S to read as follows: 3 § 17-0828. Discharges affectin~ groundwaters. 1. In addition to any ogher requirements imposed by this title~ any 5 person seeking a permit or a renewal thereof~ within an area desiKnated 6 by any federal or state regulation as a sole source aquifer~ shall in- 7 c]ude as a part of the required information1 the name and address of ~he 8 public water sysZem within the service area in which the facility is 9 located and any other public water system service area within a three 10 mile radius of the applicant's facility. Such public water systems shall 11 be notified by the department within fourteen days after the application 12 has been determined to be complete. EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBD06738-06-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I 207 S. 4699--B A. 6257-'B 1 2. For the purpose of this section: 2 a. "Public water system" shall mean a system for the provision to the 3 public of piped water for human consumption? if such system has at least 4 fifteen service connections or regularly serves at least twenty-five 5 individuals. Such term shall include (i) any collection, treatment~ 6 storage end distribution facilities under control of the operator of 7 such system and used primarily in connection with such system~ and (ii) 8 any collection or pretreatment storage facilities not under such control which are used primarily in connection with such system. 10 b. "Facility" shall mean any person. 11 ~ 2. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall 12 have become a law. 208 VII. LEGISLATIVE MRMORANDUM Title of Bill: AN ACT to amend the Enviromaental Conservation Law, in relation to notification of violations affecting a sole source a~uifer area. Purpose or General Idea of Bill: Hazardous substances have been reported in various public water supplies in sole sctu~e aqui- fers in the past few years. In scme cases the water utilities have discovered that SPE~S permittees are adjacent to a water supply source and the permittee has been exceeding discharge standards for years. This hill provides for the notification of these water utilities who have within their service areas permittees who are violating SPDES requirenents. Summary.of Specific Provisions: This bill provides immedi- ate notification of a water utility when a permittee with- in their service area violates any provisions of this $ct, Justification: Upon notification that SPE~S violation has oc- curred within their district, a water utility will be able to give added attention to protect ar~ nDnitor their water supply near such violators. Such attention provides assistance in observing violat- ing facilities that the Department alone can not provide. Fiscal implications for State and Local Governments: Requirsments can be handled with the present administrative frame- work of the Department. Effective Date: it beccmes law. Act shall take effect the thirtieth day after I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 209 STATE OF NEW YORK S. 4698--B A. 6256--B Cal. No. 1299 Cal. No. 566 1983-198& Regular Sessions SENATE--ASSEMBLY March 24, 19~3 IN SENATE -- Introduced by Sens. TRUNZO, DUNNE, BEkMAN, JOHNSON, LACK, LAVALLE, LEVY -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Conservation and Recreation -- com- mittee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee -- reported favorably from said commit- tee with amendments and ordered reprinted as amended and when printed to be committed to the order of first report IN ASSEMBLY -- Introduced by M. of A. NEWBURGER, FLANAGAN, YEVOLI, HINCHEY, HARENBERG, PAq'FON -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BECKER, BEHAN, BIANCHI, BRODSKY, CONNOR, DUA~, GRIFFIT~, HALPIN, HOCHBRUEC- KNER, HOYT, ORAZIO, PAROLA, PERONE, STRANIERE -- read once and referred to the Committee on Environmental Conservation -- reported from said committee with amendments, ordered reprinted as amended and placed on The order of second reading -- advanced to a third reading, amended and ordered reprinted, retaining its place on the order of third reading AN ACT to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to notification of discharges affecting groundwaters The People of the State of New York~ represented in Senate and Assem- bl¥~ do enact as follows: Section 1. The environmental conservation law is amended by adding a 2 new sectiom 17-0526 tc read as fcllows: 3 § I7-0526. Notification cf discharges affectin~ groundwaters. 4 1. Whenever any provision of this title is violated by a facility 5 located wi:bin an area designated by any federal or state regulation as 6 a sole source acauifer~ the public water system which supplies water 7 the service area wherein the facility is located and any other public 8 wa=er system whose service area fails within a three mile radius of the 9 viotatin8 facility~ shall be notified by the deoartment of such viola- t0 tion within fourteen days of the official notice of the SPDES permit 11 noncompliance by the department to such facility. EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBD06739-06-3 210 s. 4698--B A. 6256--B I 2. For the purpose of this section: 2 a. "Public water system" shall mean a system for the provision to the 3 public of piped water for human consumDtion~ if such system has at ]east 4 fifteen service connections or regularly serves at least twenty-fiv~ 5 individuals. Such term includes (i) any collection, treatment~ storage, 6 and distribution facilities under control of the operator or such system 7 and used primarily in connection with such system~ and (ii) any collec- 8 tion or pre-treatment storage facilities not under such control which 9 are used'primarily in connection with such system. 10 b. "Facility" shall mean any person. 11 § 2. This act shall take effect on the ninetieth day after it shall 12 have become a law. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 211 VIII. LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM Title of Bill: AN AC~ to amend Section 209-U of the General Municipal Law, in relation to the presence of hazardous materials. Purpose or General Idea of Bill: The purpose of this amend- ment is to provide coordination by the State Department of Environ- mental Conservation for the reporting of stored hazardous material. The amendment will also allow local n~nicipal enforcement agencies to enforce the requirements of this act which, at present, lies only with the local fire districts. Summary of Specific Provisions: The definition of hazardous waste is amended to include the ccmpr~hensive listing of such materials recently revised in Article 27 of the Enviro~ental Con- servation Law. The ~t requires the Department of Environ- mental Conservation to receive copies of listings of hazardous mater- ials stored in industrial or cc~mercial facilities. These listings are presently reported only to the local fire district. The regional E~vironmenta]. Conservation Office ~uld then hold complete listings of all hazardous materials in their locality. This information would be categorized by rmlnicipal jurisdd.ction and made available to the local township, county Fire Marshals and cities. In the event of a major industrial fire, within a particular fire district, the town or county fire coordinator would be in a posi- tion to know what type of materials are involved and what apparatus would be required to ccmbat the fire. The proposed a~endment also changes the enforcement provisions frc~ a civil penalty to a violation, allowing local enforcement officials, such as fire marshals, building inspectors, code enforcement officers, etc., to issue notices of violation, rather then relying on the Fire District to initiate civil court proceedings. Effects of Present Law which This Bill would Alter:This law would amend Section 209-U of the General Municipal Law, to in- clude the definition of hazardous materials found in Article 27 of the Environmental Conservation Law; require notification of stored hazardf~s materials to the regional Enviror~ental Conservation Office in addition to the local fire districts and allow local enforc~ent personnel to assist the fire districts in enforcing this act. 212 Justification: The type and quantities of stored hazardous mter- ials are increasing every day, creating a potential threat to the local Cu,~,~L,.]nity where these materials ere stored. This act was ori- ginally passed in order to provide local fire districts with vital in- formation t~ assist th~ in cumbating any energency at a facility housing such hazardous materials. Unfortunately, most c~L,,~rcial and industrial facilities have not oa,~lied with this law and the local fire districts have not been ~m a position to ccmpel their cc~pliance. There have also been incidents requiring the coordination of fire-fighting apparatus among several fire districts and the County Fire Coordinators Office did not have the proper information with re- spect to hazardous materials on site to facilitate that coordination. These minor changes would provide such fire coordinators with that vital information and also enable t3~e enforcement provisions to be carried out on a regular basis through existing inspections presently performed by the local government. Prior Legislative History: None. Fiscal Implications for State and Local Governments:None. Effective Date: Immediately. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 213 STATE OF NEW YORK S. 4696 A. 6Z55 %985-1984 Re[ular sessions SENATE--ASSEMBLY March 24, 1983 IN S[NtTE -- Introduced by Sens. TRUNZO, B£~.~N, JOHNSON, LACK, LaVALLE -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be con~i%ted to IN ASSEMBLY -- Introduced by M. of a. NEWBURCER, YEVOLI, BRODSKY -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BIANCHI, HALPIN, HaRENBERG, HOCHBRUEC- KN~R, ORAZIO, PATTON, PILLITTERE -- read once and referred %o the Com- mittee on [nvironmental Conservation AN ACT %0 amend %he ~eneral municipal law, in relation %0 presence of The pgoole of the State of New York. reoresen%ed tn SeRate and Issem- blw. do enact as follows: Sec%ion [. Sec%ion two hundred nine-u of the general municipal law, as added by chapter eight hundred seventy, of %he laws of niheteen hun- dred eighty, Is amended %0 read ~ follows: § 209-u. Notification of presence of hazardous materials. 1. The knowledge of the presence of hazardous materials is vital %o mee%in~ %he con%in~encies of & fire or other emer§ency. It is %he p~¥pose of this sec%ion %0 secure %he heal%h, safe%~ and welfare of %he public, protect those called ~pon %o respond %o the emergency, encou~a[e pTeparedmeis %o meet any dan~er, and promote pl&nnin~ for future demand~ for emer[enc¥ EXPLaNaTION--Mat%er in i%elics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old. law to be omitted. LBDOaTSS-01-3 214 A. 6Z55 administrator or any material listed in article 27 of the envi~onmeD%~] 3. Every policyholder enga§ed in commerce in this state, excep%ln[ 4 those opera%in[ as a farm, as defined by subdivision one of section six 6 the business in the use of hazardous materials durin~ the previous year, 8 business shall report the presence of such hazardous materials to the 10 pany having responsibility for fire protection of each location at which any such hazardous material may be found with a cody of such a report sent to the re~ionel state environmental conservation office. 4. A separate ~epor% shall be filed fo~ each street address at which 14 any such hazardous materials may be found. Such ~eport shall be filed 15 annually with such fire chief end the rational depaTtmen% of the 16 vironmental conservation office, on a date to be de%ermined by the state fire administrator in the manner prescribed by %he state fire 18 administrator. Such report shall be printed by and supplied to insurers 19 upon their request by the office of fire p~even%ion and control. 20 Failure to file as required in this section shall not be the basis for 21 denial by ~n insurer of an insured's claim under any policy in force for said property. Ihe fllin[ by the policyholder of a sin§la report to any one fire department, fl~e corpora%ion, 0r fire company and the stat %he requirements of %his section where hazardous materials may be found at more than one location at each street address fo~ which he must report. 5. an exemption from %he provisions of subdivision three of this sec- 29 tion may be Eranted by the chief of the fire department, fire corpora- tion, or fire company where, in coope~ation with or at %he invitation Of the policyholder he chooses %o make or causes his representative to make an inspection of the policyholder's place of business, at %he time of such inspection the policyholder is re~ui~ed to inform the chief o~ his 34 representative of any hazardous materials which are subject to the 35 provisions of this section. Failure to inform shall constitute a viola- %ion as set forth in subdivision el[hr of this section. 57 6. Exemptions from the provisions of subdivision three of this section 39 if the firefi~htin~ capability of the insured is sufficient to defend 40 against an emergency lnvolvin~ such hazardous material; and such 41 ~ater~al pose~ no threat to the air. land. or water resources of 42 co~,mu~ty; (b) an exemption, based upon the need for confidentiality, from the reportin~ of specific hazardous materials. In this instance the 44 chemical family to which a specific material belongs must be 45 lndentified. Requests for exemptions shall be in writing and shall be filed annually wi~h said chief. Such exemptions shall be filed with said 47 chief on a date to be determined by the state fire administrator in the 48 manner prescribed by the state fire administrator. Exemptions shall be 49 in writin[ and shall expire one year from the date ~ranted. An exemp- 50 tion may be revoked if t~e conditions provided in paragraph (a) or (b) 51 Of this subdivision no Ion[er exist. 7. The state fire administrator, in consultation with the state department of environmental conservation commissioDer~ shall provide 54 that the report form required in subdivision four of this section shall 55 indicate the manner in which the exemption procedures ~ranted herein I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I 215 $. 4696 shall be followed and also that the form shall make provisiom for the ~[~nature of the lite chief for the purpose of certifYinE that an exemp- $ tion to subdivision three has been ~ranted. 4 8. [Any insured who fails to report the presence of hazardous materi- 5 als a~ required in this section shall be subject %o a fine of not more than two hundred fifty ' dollars for the firs% Offense, and upon bein~ T found [uilty of a second cT subsequent offense, by a fine of not less 8 than two hundred fifty dollars or more than one thousand dollars. 9 cept as otherwise provided by law, such a violation shall not be a crime and the penalty or punishment imposed therefor shall not be deemed for ll any purpose a crlminal penalty or punishment and shall not impose any disability upon or affect or impair the credibility as a witness, Or otherwise, of a person found ~uilty thereof.] The ye~ional office of the 15 various fire district TeDoYts thew receive by municipal jurisdictions ~nd have this info~matiom available to authorized state 8nd municipal l? 8zencies to assist them ~n their overa!~ responsibilities of protecting the public health and safety. Additionally, the department shall annu- l9 ~11¥ submit a coow of each report to any Mouernment unit actiD~ as its 21 § 2. This act shall take effect inuuediately. 216 IX. LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM Title of Bill: AN ACT to amend the Public Authorities Law, in relation to forbiddiD~ the Job DevelOFment Authority frcm loaning funds for facilities which do not properly dispose of hazardous wastes. Purpos~ or General Idea of Bill: To avoid state funds being loaned to a facility which is ~-esently polluting the environment according bo federal, state, and local rules and regulations. Only facilities with approved plans for the treatment of hazardous wastes, or plans for the elimination of present violations can receive loans for expansion through the Job Develotm~nt Authority. Summary of Specific Provisions: No funds of the Authority shall be loaned or used in respect of any project unless the appli- cantd~nonstrates to the Anthority that the project has approved plans for treatment of hazardous wastes according to f .e~_.eral, state and local law. If a plan is presently in violation of these ~aws, a project must include the elimination of such violations in order for J.D.A. funds to be allocated. Justification: It would se~n sc~ewhat ironic if an existing Ln- dustry were presently generating hazardo~m waste to be given State funds to continue this activity. Therefore, this amendment requires a stipulation be placed in the State law which would grant funding only to those facilities that have approved plans for the treatment of hazardous wastes consistent with the federal, state, and local laws. For any existing industries that are presently in violation of this law, no loans will be granted for expansion unless that expansion includes the elimination of those violations. Fiscal Implications for State and Local Governments: None. Effective Date: The first day of January next succeeding the date in which the bill beccmes a law. I I I I I I i I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 217 STATE OF NEW YORK 3339 414% 1985-1984 Regular Sessions SENATE--AsSEMBLY February 28, 1955 IN SEI~TE -- Introduced by Sen. LAVALLE .- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Corpora- IN ASS£11BLY .. Introduced by M, of A. HOCHFRUECK~R -- ~lulti-Sponsored GOTTFRIED, GR~NNIS, HARENBERG, HINCHEY, HO~, LAFAYETTE, L~$HER, LIPS- CHUTZ, ~RTAUGH, t~DLER, NEWBURCER, PAIION, YEVOL! -- read once and AN ACT to amend the public authorities law, in relation %0 forbifldin§ the ~ob deuelopment authority from losnin~ funds for facilities which do not properly dispose of haia~dous wastes The PeoDle of the State of New york. represented in Senate and As~e~: bix. do enact as follows: Section 1. Section eighteen hundred twenty-three of the public authorities law is amended by addin~ a new subdivision six to ~ead as follows: 6. NO funds of %he authority shall be loaded or used in respect of any project unless the aDpl%cant demonstrates to the authority %he% suc~ ~XpLAt~TION--Ma%te~ in kSalics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ~ is old law to be omitted. LBD06438*01-3 218 ~(. LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM Title of Bill: AN ACT to amend the Envirc~ental Conservatic~ Law in relation to protecting "sole source aquifers," as desig- nated pursuant to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. Purpose or General Idea of Bill: Nassau and Suffolk Counties, as all sole source aquifers, depend entirely on groundwater as the only source of drinking water. In recent years, tests taken from public and monitoring wells in many locations with/n both counties show the presence of hazardous substances, often exceeding health standards. This bill att~L~ts to eliminate the possibility of such substances leaching or being discharged into the groundwater supply frc~ primary recharge areas by givir~ the Department of Environmental Conservation the ability to restrict or prohibit the discharge or storage of hazardous substances within these designated areas. Summary of Specific Provisions: This bill establishes a procedure for the designation of primary groundwater recharge areas--sections of the land surface beneath which water of great vol~e and high quality is recharged and stored. Furthen~ore, the Department of Enviror~en~l O0nservation is given the abi- lity to restrict or prohibit any person, firm or corporation from operating an industrial use facility which utilizes a hazardous substance in a manner that may contam/nate the aquifer. Justification: There is a recognized positive correlation be- tween the type of land use activity on the surface and the quality of the groundwater beneath. Industries use many chemicals which are hazardous to the e~viror~ent during manufacturing, packaging, processing, and storage. S~me of these chenicals have created contamination pl%~nes resulting in the closure of many public and private supply wells. Once a sect/on of the aquifer has been con- tami~ated, it is often technologically and econcmically infeasible to recover the contamir~%nts; consequently they r~main in the aquifer for hundreds of years. By prohibiting the discharge or storage of hazardous substances in sensitive areas of the aquifer, vast ~ants of high quality water can be protected frcm severe contamination. Fiscal Implications for State and Local Governments: None. Effective Date: This act shall take effect on the 180th day succeeding the date on which it shall beccme law. I I I I I I I I I I I i I i I I I i I I I 219 STATE OF NEW YORK I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I S. 347--A A. 416--A 1983-1984 Regular Sessions SENATE--ASSEMBLY (Prefiled) January 5, 1983 IN SENAq~ -- Introduced by Sens. LACK, TRUNZO, LAVALLE -- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be committed to the Committee on Conservation and Recreation -- committee discharged, bill amended, or- dered reprinted as amended and recommitted to said committee IN ASSEMBLY -- Introduced by M. of A. YEVOLI, BIANCHI, NEWBURGER -- Multi-Sponsored by -- M. of A. BECKER, BEHAN, D'AMATO, FLANAGAN, HAL- PIN, HANNON, HARENBERG, H~VESI, MINCHEY,-HOCHBRUECKN~R, MADISON, ORA- ZIO, PATTON -- read once and referred to the Committee on Environmen- tal Conservation -- reported and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means -- committee discharged, bill amended, ordered reprinted as amended and recom~itted to said committee AN ACT to amend the environmental conservation ]aw, in relation to protecting sole source aquifers, as designated pursuant 5o the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 The People of the State of New York. represented in Senate and Assem- hlv, do enact as follows: 1 Section 1. Legislative findings and intent Residents living in areas 2 designated as sole source aquifers depend entirely on groundwater as 3 their only source of drinking water. A direct relationship exists 4 between land use activities and the quality of the groundwater reservoir 5 beneath. In recent years, tests conducted in the counties of Nassau and 6 Suffolk have revealed the presence of hazardous and potentially bazar- 7 dous substances in the public water supply and in private wells. ~nis 8 act attempts to eliminate the possibility of such substances leaching or 9 being discharged into the groundwater supply from primary groundwater EXPLANATION--Matter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LSD0284i-03-3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 1S 16 17 18 19 2O 21 22 23 24 25 ~6 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 5O 51 52 53 54 55 220 S. 347--A A. 416--A recharge areas and contaminating vast amounts of water resources within sole source aquifers. The provisions of this act would allow the depart- ment of environmental conservation to designate, for the purpose of this act, certain areas as primary groundwater recharge areas with the abil- ity to restrict or prohibit the manufacturing, packaging, processing or storage of hazardous or toxic substances within such areas. § 2. The environmental conservation law is amended by ~dding a new section 15-0514 to read as follows: § 15-0514. Prohibition of certain incompatible uses over federally designated sole source aquifers. ]. Definitions: The following terms; whenever used or referred to in chis section, shall have the following meanings: a. "Primary groundwater recharge areas" shall mean those areas of the land surface through which water of great volume and high uuality gen- erally move downward to the deeper portions of the underlying ground- water reservoir. In the counties of Nassau and Suffolk~ primary ground- water recharge areas shall mean Rydrogeologic Zones I~ II~ III and IV as defined in the Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan of 197B~ or any amendments to such boundaries which are accepted by the commissioner. b. "Incompatible uses" shall mean any hazardous waste as determined by the department~ that may ultimately be discharged to groundwater~ or the storage of such a substance that may contaminate the groundwater. c. "Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan of 1978" shall mean the study prepared by the Long Island Regional Planning Board pursuant to section twox hundred eight of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended in 1972. d. "Sole source aquifer" shall mean ~n area designated w/thin a state, pursuant to the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974~ which has an aquifer that is the only or primary drinking water source for the area, and which~ if contaminated; would create a significant hazard to public health. e. "Hazardous wastes" shall include~ but are not necessarily limited to~ all materials or chemicals listed as hazardous wastes pursuant to article twenty-seven of this chapter, or ail toxic pollutants as defined in subdivision nineteen of section I7-0105 of this chanter. 2. ~ne Nassau - Suffolk Hydrogeo]o~ic Zones I~ II, III and IV, and their attendant boundaries as specified in the Long island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan of 1978~ or any amendments to such boun- daries which are acceD~ed by the commissioner are hereby adopted as pri~ mary groundwater recharge areas for the counties of Nassau and Suffolk fer the DurDoses of this section. 3. The department shall propose~ for the ourposes of this section~ primary groundwater recharge areas within other designated sole source a~uifer svstems~ not including the counties of Nassau and Suffolk, based upon hydrogeological conditions and recommendations within the department's groundwater management plan within twelve months subsequent to the date at which the sole source aouifer designation becomes effec- tive pursuant to 5he following ~rocedure: a. ~ne department shall hold public hearings in regard to the proposed locations and boundaries of the primary groundwater recharge areas. b. Notice of each nublic hearing shall be by publication in a newspaper most likely to g~ve notice to the people residin~ within the sole source aouifer. Notice of such hearing shall be ~rin%ed st ]east I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i 1 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l& 15 16 18 221 $. 347--A A. al6--A once in each of three successive weaks~ but the hearing shall not be conducted less than thirty days followin~ 'the date of first publication of notice of such hearing. c. The department shall subsequently finalize and adopt specific locations and boundaries of such primary groundwater recharge area~ within three months followin~ the completion of such hearing. d. Additional primary ~roundwater recharge areas or new bu~ndaries of existing primary recharge areas may be delineated by the departmenL based upon new hydrogeological information subject to the proceduz= outlined in paragraphs a, b and c of this subdivision. &. Copies of the adopted boundaries of the delineated areas shall be kept on file in the offices of the commissioner and the resional direc tot of the department. 5. The department may promulgate rules and regulations which will restrict or prohibit incompatible uses over primary ~roundwater recharge areas. § 3. This act shall take effect on the one hundred eightieth day next succeeding the date on which it_shall have become a law. 222 XI. LEGISLATIVE MEMORANDUM Title of Bill: AN ACT to amend the executive law, in relation to the New York State uniform fire prevention and building code limiting the lead content of solder and other joint compounds used in plumbing used for drinking water. Purpose or General Idea of Bill: This bill would limit the amount of lead content in solder and other joint c~uounds. Summary of Specific Provisions: The amount of lead content in solder and other joint cc~pounds would be limited to a maximum of one-fifth of one percent (.20%), whenever used in drinking water service. Justification: Chronic lead toxicity is severe and occurs even with a daily intaJ{e of lead because of its accumulation in bone and tissue. Due to testing for first flush values of lead in hcmes, it appears to be a widespread problem, especially on Long-Island. In order to minimize lead occurances it is best to limit the lead con- tent in solder used for water syst~ns to . 20% or less. Fiscal Implications for State and Local Governments: None. Effective Date: In~ediately upon enactment. I i I I I I I I i I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 223 STATE OF NEW YORK 4614 6181 1985-1984 Regular Sessions SENATE--ASSEMBLY IN SENATE -- Introduced by Sens. LACK, TRUNZO ~- read twice and ordered printed, and when printed to be con~itte~ to the Committee on Finance IN ~SSEHBLY -- ~ntroduced by r.1. of ~. WERTZ -- read once and referred %o the Oo~)tittee on Governmental Operations AN RCT to amend the executive law, in relation to the New York state uniform fl~e prevention and building code limiting the lead content of solder and othe~ ~oint compounds used in plumbin~ used for drinking The People of the State of New York. represented in Senate and A~sem- b~y, do enact ~s follows: Section 1. Subdi~ision two of section three hundred seventy-seuen of the exec~tiue law, as added by chap%er seuen hundYed se~en of the laws of nineteen hundred eighty-one, is amended by adding a new paragraph f %o ~ead as follows: $. limit the le~d conte~t in solder, or othe~ ~oint COmOOUDds, to a maximu,l! of one-fifth of one percent (.~0~) wbeneuer used in dvinking · ted with drinkinK water service. § ~. This act shall take effect immediately. EXPLRNATION--Ma%ter in italics (underscored) is new; matter in brackets [ ] is old law to be omitted. LBDO7756-O~k3 I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I APPENDICES 225 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 227 DESIGNATION OF "CRITICAL AREAS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN" Chapter 30, (Environmental Quality Review) Section 30-3 SECTION 30-3 ACTIONS AFFECTING AND NOT AFFECTING ENVIRON- MENT B. Consistent with Part 617.4(J) of Title G of New York Codes, Rules and Regulations and the criteria therein, the following geographic areas are designated as critical areas of environmental concern: (1) Ail CR-80 residence districts. C. Consistent with Part 617.12 (b) (11) of the New York Codes Rules and Regulations and the criteria therein, any action which takes place wholly or partially within, or substantially contiguous to any critical areas of environmental concern shall be a Type 1 action pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act. D. Consistent with part 617 of Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations and the criteria therein, the following actions, in addition to those listed in Section 617.12 of Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations as Type II actions, are deemed not to have a significant effect on the environment: minor sub- divisions and site plans, except as provided in Subsec- tion A above and those located in one (1) of the critical areas defined in Section 617.12 of Title 6 of the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations as Type I (a) (22) actions. 228 NAS,.SAU COUNTY COMMUNITY WATER SYSTEMS 25 I 1. Albertson Water District 2. Bayville Village 3. Bethpage Water District 4. Bowling Green Water District 5. Carle Place Water District 6. Citizens Water Supply (ka~pany 7. East Meadow Water District 8. East Williston Village 9. Farmingdale Village 10. Franklin Square Water District 11. Freeport Village 12. Garden City village 13. Garden City Park Water District 14. C~rden City South Water District 15. Glenwood Water District 16. H~,~stead Village 17. Hicksville Water District 18. J~maica Water Supply Ccmpany 19. Jericho Water District 20. Levittown Water District 21. Lido-Point Lookout Water District 22. Locust Valley Water District 23. Long Beach City 24. Long Island Water Corporation I I I I I ! I i I I I 25. Manhasset-Lakeville Water District 26. Massapequa Water District 27. Mineola Village 28. Glen Cove City 29. New York Water Service 30. Old Westbury Village 31. Oyster Bay Water District 32. Plainview Water District 33. Plandc~e Village 34. Port Washington Water District 35. Bockville Centre Village 36. Boosevelt Field Water District 37. Boslyn Water District 38. Sands Point Village 39. Sea Cliff Water Division 40. South Farmingdale Water District 41. Uniondale Water District 42. Westbury Water District 43. West Hempstead-Hempstead Gardens W.D. 44. Williston Park Village 45. Sel-Bra Acres Water Supply (cove Neck) 46. Mill Neck Estates Water Supply 47. Deforest ~oad Association 48. Split Rock Water Supply I I I I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I 229 SOUTHAMPTON OPEN SPACE LAW SECTION 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS. The Town Board of the Town of Southampton hereby re- cognizes that the Town Master Plan adopted in 1970 in- dicated that a cornerstone of the Town's economic basis is tourism and the second home industry. The Town's abundant open space, unique aesthetic qualities and recreational opportunities are largely responsible for the economic prosperity which has been enjoyed by the Town, particularly in contrast to the recent period of national economic recession. The mix of small town charm, the accessibility to scenic open lands in the center of the urbanized northeast, and the variety and abundant recreational facilities have made the Town not only a regional but international attraction. The Town Board recognizes that an economic base dependent largely on the scenic and recreational qualities of its open space is secure only so long as these elements con- tinue to be present. The 1970 Town Master Plan indicates the importance of open space to the welfare of the Town. The purposes of the open space element in the plan are the creation of a significant recreational system and the protection of the essentials of the natural environment and its eco- systems that both support life in the community and pro- vide it with a unique natural heritage. The Town Master Plan outlines a program of neighborhood parks and play- grounds, community parks and beaches, regional parks and a greenbelt system to promote open space preservation and recreation. The Town Master Plan recommends the use of both acquisi- tion and zoning policies to implement the open space and recreational component. In fact, the Town has utilized the tool of acquisition to promote its open space goals. The Southampton Town Farmland Preservation Program has received national recognition for its approach to pre- serving farmland through the purchase of development rights. The program has served to preserve scenic open space and to promote another cornerstone of the Town's economy, agriculture. Further, the Town has instituted the acquisition of pas- sive parks and greenbelts. The Town has also benefited by a large gift of open space to the State. Yet, the financial resources of government are finite and open space goals can not be fulfilled by acquisition alone. The role of government funding has declined in 230 general and particularly in promoting open space. This is most clearly evidenced by the demise of Suffolk County's capital program for open space preservation. The zoning powers of the Town must_also be used to its fullest legal extent. The Town took its first step by enactment of Chapter 52 of the Town Code (Preservation of Open Space) which takes full advantage of the provision of Section 281 of the Town Law of the State of New York. Indeed, the Town Master Plan states that neighborhood parks could and should be acquired through the land sub- division process. The Town Master Plan also calls on public officials to encourage the accumulation of both private and semi-public open space. Certain of these areas which have unique value as open space as illustrated above have also been identified by the Town Master Plan of 1970 as also possessing unique and valuable characteristics as regions of water catchment and water recharge. The importance of these regions is demonstrated by the fact that the sole source of potable drinking water for residents of the Town is underground aquifers. As the sole source of drinking water, these aquifers must be protected from contamination to insure a continued supply of pure drinking water for future generations. The protection of these sole sources aquifers can only be accomplished if necessary steps are taken with regard to land use above this resource located in the water catchment and recharge areas. Land use above these geographic regions where water recharge occurs must be compatible with the function of water recharge. Areas of primary water recharge are characterized by high elevations, sandy or loamy soils, pine and oak forest vegetation and a water table above mean sea level. These areas are also generally undeveloped so that water recharge can occur undisturbed. The goal of maintaining a sufficient supply of pure, high quality wate~ health, safety and welfare. Pursuant to its zoning power under Section 263 of the Town Law of the State of New York, towns are mandated to utilize their zoning power to facilitate the adequate provision of water. l m ! l l l l l i m l l i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 231 This Town Board recognizes that there have been increas- ing incidences of goundwater contamination and also salt water intrusion into the aquifer. These problems have been prevalent in western Long Island, but water quality problems have also been experienced on eastern Long Island. This is a signal that must be heeded that our groundwater is not an infinite resource. Rather, it must be protected through definitive action. The state and federal government have already taken action to protect sole source aquifers. Legislation is currently under consideration in the U.S. Congress to create a national Sole Source Aquifer Protection Program including funding for watershed management programs. Similar legislation is also pending in the State Legis- lature to participate in such a program. In addition, the State Legislature has created a Legis- lative Commission on Water Resources Needs of Long Island to monitor and study the region's water quality problems. The Town recognizes its responsibility to participate by utilizing its authority in this intergovernmental effort to protect drinking water quality to insure future adequate supplies. By using its zoning power under state law, the Town may regulate both the types of land use and density of population. Both have proven to be variables which do affect the quality of ground- water. It is incumbent upon the Town to implement zoning regulations which maintain groundwater in its current pristine state. The Town Board also recognizes that the areas designated by the 1970 Town Master Plan as water recharge areas also have other important characteristics making the region worthy of protection. The areas of water recharge are also the home of the Long Island Pine Barrens. The area displays a unique blend of ecological features. These elements have also been the focus of current ef- forts to revise the Master Plan which reveal the need for the revision of zoning regulations in the interest of the public welfare. Therefore, by this local law, the Town Board hereby in- stitutes two new zoning districts to further the public welfare by providing necessary land use protection for lands which possess public value from an open space, groundwater recharge and supply and an ecological stand- point. The oriqinal Town Master Plan of 1970 made recom- 232 mendations for population densities in these areas which were not fully implemented at that time. During the past decade, the Town has experienced un- precedented growth and development. This experience and the ongoing planning process indicate the present need not only for full implementation of the 1970 Master Plan zoning recommendations for these areas but further zoning modifications to reduce population densities. Such regulation will maximize open space protection by use of the zoning power will also limit the potential harm to water catchment and existing ecosystems located within the new zoning districts. It is also recognized that at full development at existing zoning densities, the Town of Southampton would contain more people than existing water supplies can support. At the present time preliminary estimates indicate that population may exceed available water supplies by twenty percent or more. The Town, in its update of the Master Plan.seeks to lower its ultimate population at full development in order not to have to resort to unconven- tional unproven expensive methods to provide drinking water for its inhabitants. The Town at this time desires to reduce its potential population to a level consistent with the safe yield of groundwater reserves. A primary method by which this may be achieved is to re- vise the zoning regulations with respect to population density. This serves the several stated objectives of adequate water supply, a potable groun~at~r resource, and, coupled with the existing provisions of planned residential and industrial development and transfer of development rights, open space conservation and the preservation of unique ecological resources. The two new zoning districts represent a part of the continuing effort of the Town's Master Plan revision and updating to reduce ultimate population to safe levels and preserve the Town's open and esthetic qualities while still allowing for an adequate expansion of housing sup- ply and industrial opportunity. i I I I I I I i i i I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 233 CITY OF SCHENECTADY WATERSHED RULES AND REGULATIONS Pursuant to the authority vested in me as State Com- missioner of Health by section 1100 of the Public Health Law, I hereby add to Title 10 (Health) of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York, this day of , 19 , to be effective on filing in the Office of the Department of State a new section to read as follows: Section City of Schenectady. SECTION 1. APPLICATION The rules and regulations herein set forth, duly made and enacted in accordance with the provisions of sections 1100-1107 of the Pub- lic Health Law shall apply to the wells which comprise the source of the public water supply of the City of Schenectady. Said wells are located on land owned by the City of Schenec- tady and are situated on Rice Road approximate- ly two miles west of Schenectady in the Town of Rotterdam. SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS 2.01 Accidental spill shall mean any inten- tional or unintentional action or omission resulting in an unpermitted releasing, spil- ling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying or dumping petroleum products, toxic chemicals, or any other material stored in bulk into the waters within any of the surveil- lance zones or onto lands from which it might flow or drain into said waters, or into waters outside the surveillance zones when damage may result to the waters within the surveillance zone. 2.02 Aquifer shall be the water-saturated sub- surface geologic formations which are now, or may subsequently be developed for use as pub- lic water supply sources by the City of Schenectady. Developed by Shari ~reenberg Chrimes; Miller, Mannix, Lenery & Kafin, P.C., Attorneys and Counselors at Law, 11 Chester Street, P.O. Box 765, Glens Falls, Ne~ York 12801 234 2.03 Aquifer recharge area shall, be the land area where precipitation, snow and rain, per- colates directly through the ground to an aquifer and shall be delineated by the water supply agency and accepted by the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH). The aqui- fer recharge area shall also be known as zone II-G, as shown on Map No. 2. 2.04 Chloride salt shall mean the solid com- pounds or the solutions of potassium chloride (commonly used as fertilizer), calcium chloride (commonly used for winter road maintenance) or sodi~n chloride (commonly used for winter road maintenance and water softener regeneration). 2.05 Composting toilet or dry toilet shall be any receptacle for human excreta and/or kitchen waste which is a self-contained unit requiring periodic removal of composted material. 2.06 Environmental impact assessment shall be as defi--h~-~ ~-~ ~ N~RR 615.1(c): a written evalu- ation prepared by a permit applicant which pro- vides a description of a proposed project or development and a detailed analysis of its en- vironmental effects. 2.07 Fertilizers (artificial) shall be any com- mercially produced mixture generally containing phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium which is ap- plied to the ground to increase nutrients to plants. 2.08 Groundwater shall be any water beneath the land surface in the saturated zone that is under atmospheric or artesian pressure and that enters wells and springs. 2.09 Herbicide shall mean any substance used to destroy or inhibit plant growth. 2.10 Human excreta shall mean human feces and urine. 2.11 Industrial hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facility shall be defined as in Sec-' tion 27-1101(5) of the Environmental Conservation Law. i I ! I I I ! I i I I I i I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 235 2.12 Land application of wastewater shall be the distribution of municipal or industrial wastewater by spray irrigation or direct flow, over the land surface with or without an under- drain system and point discharges. 2.13 Linear distance shall mean the shortest horizontal distance from the nearest point of a structure or object to the boundary of any surveillance zone or to the edge, margin or steep bank forming the ordinary high water line of a watercourse, as the case may be. 2.14 Maps shall mean those maps delineating the surveillance zones and on file with the Schenec- tady City Clerk and the Schenectady County Clerk. 2.15 Pesticide shall mean any substance used to destroy or inhibit pests such as rodents and in- sects. 2.16 Point source pollution shall mean pollutants resulting from facilities, systems and activities which are covered and operate under a permit is- sued pursuant to Title 8, Section 17-0803 of the Environmental Conservation Law. 2.17 Pollutant shall mean dredge, spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, garbage, septage, sewage, sludge, herbicides, pesticides, chemical waste, toxic chemicals, biological materials, radioactive material, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal and agricultural waste. 2.18 Radioactive material shall mean any material in any form that emits radiation spontaneously. Radiation shall mean ionizing radiation; that is, any alpha particle, beta particla, gamma ray, x-ray, neutron, high speed proton, and any other atomic particle producing ionization, but shall not mean any sound or radio wave, or visible, infrared, or ultraviolet light. 2.19 Septage shall be that residue removed from onsite or individual wastewater disposal systems. 236 2.20 Sewage shall mean any liquid or solid waste matter from a domestic, commercial, private or industrial establishment which is normally carried off in sewers or waste pipes. 2.21 Sewage system cleaner or additive shall be defined as in Section 39-0103 of the Environment- al Conservation Law. 2.22 Sludge shall be the solid residue result- ing from a municipal or industrial process or wastewater or water treatment which also pro- duces a liquid stream of effluent. 2.23 Solid waste means all putrescible and non- putre~e'materials or substances discarded or rejected as being spent, useless, worthless or in excess to the owners at the time of such discard or rejection, including but not limited to garbage, refuse, industrial and commercial waste, sludges from air or water treatment faci- lities, rubbish, ashes, contained.gaseous materi- al, incinerator residue, demolition and construc- tion debris, discarded automobiles and offal but not including sewage and other highly diluted water carried materials or substances and those in gaseous form. 2.24 Solid waste management facility means any facility employed b~ond the initial solid waste collection process including, but not limited to, transfer stations, baling facilities, rail haul or barge haul facilities, processing systems, including resource recovery facilities or other facilities for reducing solid waste volume, sani- tary landfills, plants and facilities for compact- ing, composting or pyrolization of solid wastes, incinerators and other solid waste disposal, re- duction or conversion facilities. 2.25 Subsurface disposal system shall mean a dis- posal system which discharges sewage beneath the surface of the ground. 2.26 Surveillance zone shall be a groundwater management zone as delineated herein; they shall be designated Zone I-G, Zone II-G, Zone III-G and Zone II,G2 as shown on Map 2. I I ! I I i I I I i I I i I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 237 2.27 Toxic chemical shall mean any organic or inorganic substance which would be considered' to be hazardous waste within the meaning Df the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 and/or Title 9 of Article 27 of the Environmental Conservation Law, and the regulations promulgated under both such statutes. 2.28 Treatment works shall mean any treatment plant, sewer, disposal field, lagoon, pumping sta- tion, septic system, constructed drainage ditch or surface water intercepting ditch, incinerator, area devoted to sanitary landfill, or other works not specifically mentioned in this paragraph, in- stalled for the purpose of treating, neutralizing, stabilizing or disposing of sewage. 2.29 Underground in~ection shall mean the subsur- face emplacement of fluids by well injections. 2.30 Watershed tributary to a~uifer recharge area ~s that land area delineated by the water supply agency, and accepted by NYSDOH, which is the tri- butary surface from which the aquifer is replenished by runoff to the aquifer recharge area. This area shall also be known as Zone III-G. 2.31 Water supply shall mean the public water supply of the City of Schenectady. 2.32 Water supply agency shall mean the Water Department of the City of Schenectady or any City of Schenectady Water Regulatory Board created by statute. 2.33 Watercourse shall mean every spring, marsh, pond, lake, impoundment, or channel of water of any kind. 2.34 Watershed is surface water to a delineated portion charge area. that land area which contributes specific stream or lake or a thereof or to the aquifer re- 2.35 Well shall be any present or future arti- ficial excavation, shaft, or hole which derives water from the ground and is used as a source of drinking water. 2.36 Well head protection area shall be known as Zone I-G, as shown on Map 2. 238 2.37 Zone I-G shall be the well head protection area, as shown on Map No. 2. 2.38 Zone II-G shall be the aquifer recharge area, as shown on Map No. 2, and shall be divided into Zone II-G and Zone II-G2. 2.39 Zone III-G shall be the watershed tributary to the aquifer recharge area, as shown on Map No. 2, and shall be divided into Zone III-G and Zone III-G. Zone III-G2 shall continue as shown on Map No. 2 until the Schenectady County limits. SECTION 3 - SPECIFIC REGULATIONS: Zone III-G2 3.01 Accidental Spills. The water supply agency as well as any ap- propriate State agencies, shall be advised of any accidental spills immediately. 3.03 Notice to Water Supply Agency. The water supply agency shall be given notice of all SPDES applications and environmental impact assessments filed with the Department of Environ- mental Conservation and the water supply agency shall be given appropriate time to comment thereon. SECTION 4 - SPECIFIC REGULATIONS: Zone III-G 4.01 Ail regulations applicable to Zone III-G2 shall also apply to Zone III-G. 4.02 Subsurface Disposal Systems (a) Ail subsurface disposal systems serv- ing single-family residences of 10 persons or less or with flows of less than 1,000 gallons per day shall be designed, installed and maintained in ac- cordance with the state sanitary code and the stan- dards promulgated in 10 NYCRR 75. Local county sani- tary codes and town, city and village ordinances shall also apply if they contain more stringent standards. (b) A permit is required prior to the in- stallation or expansion of any subsurface disposal systems. This permit must be obtained from the County Health Department or in the absence of such i I ! I ! i I ! i I i I I I I I ! i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 239 department from the District Health Office having local jurisdiction. Conditions for a permit shall include an approved engineering plan, verification of the percolation rate by a disinterested party and inspection of the installation prior to back- filling. (c) The applicable standards and permit re- quirements of the Department of Environmental Con- servation shall apply to systems with flows in ex- cess of 1,000 gallons per day or those which con- tain industrial sewage. (d) The use of sewage system cleaners or ad- ditives or the addition of waste oil, paint, paint thinners, or household chemicals into subsurface disposal systems is prohibited. (e) No portion of the seepage unit shall be constructed, placed or rebuilt within 50 feet linear distance of Zone II-G or any watercourses. (f) Ail persons owning property containing a subsurface disposal system shall notify the water supply agency of the existence and location of such system. 4.03 Point Discharges The discharge of point source pollution to watercourses is prohibited unless such discharges meet the standards of the Department of Environmental Conservation for surface and/or groundwater. 4.04 Storm Sewer Outlets Storm sewer outlets shall not discharge direct- ly to watercourses. Provision shall be made to dis- charge to the surface of the ground at least 100 feet linear distance from a watercourse and/or Zone II-G. 4.05 Snow Disposal The dumping of snow removed from street, roads and parking areas directly into watercourses is pro- hibited. 240 4.Q6 Solid Waste Management Facilities (a) No solid waste shall be dePosited on or be- neath the surface of the ground within a 250 linear distance of any watercourse or Zon~ II-G. (b) Solid waste disposal facilities shall conform to Environmental Conservation Law and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and be under permit. (c) NO solid waste management ~acilities shall be located within a 250 feet linear distance of any water course or Zone II-G. 4.07 Animal Wastes (a) No concentration of,animal wastes from an agricultural operation including but not limited to manure piles, feedlots, barnyards, and yarding areas, shall be located within a 100 feet linear distance from any watercourse or Zone II-G. (b) Barnyards, feedlots, yarding areas and manure piles shall be separated from watercourses by ditches or surface grading to prevent their runoff from entering watercourses. (c) Drainage from barnyards, feedlots, yarding areas or manure piles shall not be discharged direct- ly into watercourses. Such drainage shall be dis- persed over the surface of the ground at a minimum distance of 250 feet linear distance from any water- course. (d) Provision shall be made for satisfactory disposal of milk house waste either by surface or subsurface irrigation that prevents any discharge to any watercourse or Zone II-G. Such facilities shall be located at least 100 feet linear distance from any watercourse or Zone II-G. (e) Manure shall not be spread on frozen ground if there is any likelihood that surface runoff will be carried into watercourses. 4.08 Septage and Sludge Disposal (a) Ail disposal of septage, sludge or human excreta shall be done only under permit issued by the Department of Environmental Conservation or the De- partment of Health as appropriate. i I I ! I I I I ! I I I i I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 241 (b) No septage, sludge or human excreta shall be disposed of unless deposited in trenches or pits at a linear distance of not less than 250 feet from any watercourse or Zone II-G and covered with not less than 1 foot of soil in such manner effectively to prevent it from being carried into any watercourse or into Zone II-G by surface runoff. 4.09 IndUstrial Sludges and Toxic Chemicals (a) No industrial sludges or toxic chemicals shall be stored except under permit by the U.S. Environment- al Protection Agency and/or the Department of Environ- mental Conservation, as appropriate. (b) The establishment of new toxic chemical stor- age facilities is prohibited. (c) Toxic chemical and industrial sludges shall not be buried in the soil, spread upon the surface of the ground, discharged to watercourses, allowed to en- ter groundwaters, or otherwise disposed of. (d) Transportation of toxic chemicals is prohibi- ted except under permit of Department of Transportation pursuant to article 2, sections A through F of the Transportation Law. 4.10 Radioactive Material Disposal of radioactive material is prohibited. 4.11 Fertilizer Use (a) Open storage of artificial fertilizers for commercial use is prohibited. (b) Agricultural use of fertilizers shall be in conformance with best management practices as developed by the State Soil and Water Conservation Committee and implemented by the preparation and use of farm plans as required by the Soil and Water Conservation District Law, section 9, subdivision 7a. 4.12 Pesticide and Herbicide Use (a) Ail pesticide and herbicide storaqe, use and application shall be under permit as provided in 242 Environmental Conservation Law, Article 33. The Department of Environmental Conservation shall no- tify the water supply agency of any application for such permit and allow the water supply agency appro- priate time to comment thereon. (lb) Disposal of containers of unused pesticides and herbicides is prohibited except in accordance with the permit issued as indicated under Section 4.12 (a). (c) Use of watercourses for dilution or mixing of pesticides or herbicides or for washing equipment used for pesticide or herbicide storage, use or application is prohibited. 4.13 Underground Storage Tanks and Pipelines (a) Underground storage of petroleum products or any other toxic chemicals, pollutants or radioactive materials is prohibited unless measures have been tak- en to insure that leakage will not occur. Ail under- ground storage of petroleum products shall be under permit by the Department of Environmental Conservation. (b) The owner of any underground storage tank or pipeline is responsible for prompt reporting of any spills or leaks to the water supply agency and any other appropriate State agency and for the cost of cleanup. 4.14 Stockpiles (a) Storage of chloride salts is prohibited within a 500 foot linear distance of a Watercourse or Zone II-G except in weatherproof buildings or water-tight vessels. (b) Storage of coal is prohibited except in water-tight buildings or on water-tight surfaces which prevent seepage and runoff. 4.15 Deicing Salt Application (a) Deicing salt use is restricted to the minimum amount needed for public safety in accordance with best management practices as developed by the Department of Transportation. I I I I I I ! I I I I ! ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 243 (b) Calcium chloride shall be used instead of sodium chloride Where necessary to limit sodium in- put to watercourses and groundwater. 4.16 Cemeteries No internment of a human body shall be made within a 250 feet linear distance of a watercourse or Zone II-G. 4.17 Sediment Generation (a) Farm tillage practices shall be in con- formance with best management practices as devel- oped by the State Soil and Water Conservation Com- mittee and implemented by the preparation and use of farm plans as required by Soil and Water Conserva- tion District Law, section 9, subdivision 7a. (b) Ail land disturbing activity including general construction, highway construction, access road construction and maintenance is prohibited except where remedial measures have been put in place to minimize erosion and sediment production. SECTION 5 SPECIFIC REGULATIONS: Zones II-G and II-G2 5.01 Except to the extent that more stringent stan- dards or regulations are set forth in this Section 5, all regulations applicable to Zone III-G shall also apply to Zones II-G and II-G2. 5.02 Subsurface Disposal Systems (a) In addition to the permit described in Section 4.02(b), if required, a permit for the in- stallation or expansion of any subsurface disposal system or composting toilet shall also be obtained from the water supply agency. (b) Where there is evidence that nitrates have increased to the level of 6 mg/1 (milligrams per liter), the density of subsurface disposal systems may be prohibited or limited by requiring minimum lot sizes, sewers for future developments, or by banning certain fertilizers. 244 5.03 Snow Disposal The stockpiling of snow removed from urban areas on the ground surface within these zones is prohibi- ted. 5.04 Solid Waste Management Facilities The establishment of solid waste management facilities is prohibited. 5.05 Animal Wastes Farm animal wastes shall not be concentrated except where provision has been made to prevent seepage to the groundwater. Suitable storage faci- lities are required when it is not possible to spread or dispense waste on a daily basis. 5.06 Septage and Sludge Disposal The disposal of septage, sludge or human excreta into any watercourse or by burial in the ground is prohibited. 5.07 Pesticide and Herbicide Use No pesticide or herbicide shall be used except those approved by the water supply agency. A list of approved pesticides will be compiled annually and filed in the Schenectady City Clerk's Office and the Schenectady County Clerk's Office and published once per year in the Schenectady Gazette. 5.08 Underground Storage Tanks and P~pelines (a) The construction, placement or replacement of underground storage tanks or containers for petro- leum products or any other toxic chemicals, pollut- ants or radioactive material is prohibited. (b) Ail persons owning property containing such underground storage tanks or containers shall notify the water supply agency of their existence and loca- tion. 5.09 Stockpiles Storage of chloride salts is prohibited except in waterproof buildings or in water tight vessels. I I I I I I I I i I I i i ! I I I I 245 5.10 Cemeteries The establishment of new cemeteries is pro- hibited. 5.11 Land Application of Sewage Land application of sewage is prohibited. 5.12 under~round injection Underground injection is prohibited. 5.13 Stormwater Runoff Recharge Basins Use of recharge basins is prohibited. 5.14 Land Application of Septage & Sludge Land application of septage and sludge is prohibited. 5.15 Leaking Sewers (a) Remedial measures shall be taken by the owner if evidence indicates excessive infiltra- tion or exfiltration is occurring. (b) New sewers shall meet the tightness specifications for water mains as a minimum. 5.16 Wastewater Lagoons and Pits Use of wastewater lagoons and pits for tempo- rary storage of sewage is prohibited. 5.17 Radioactive Material Transportation of radioactive material is pro- hibited except under permit of the Department of Transportation pursuant of Article 2, Sections A through F of the Transportation Law. 5.18 Land Use Management Environmental assessments must be prepared for the following and submitted to the water supply agency for review and comment: 246 1. excavations or cut-ins which expose ground- water permanently or during maximum elevation of the water table, or which significantly reduce the thick- ness of the soil cover and thereby eases the entrace of contaminants into the groundwater; 2. the establishment of sand and gravel mining operations; 3. the construction of overhead transmission lines, liquified natural gas lines or other pipelines for materials which can impair water quality; and 4. major surface transportation corridors. 5.19 Improperly Constructed or Abandoned Wells (a) The construction of oil and gas wells is prohibited. (b) Ail water supply wells shall be constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Health. (c) Ail abandoned wells shall be sealed in ac- cordance with requirements for oil and gas wells or the requirements for water supply wells, as appropri- ate. 5.20 Industrial Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities The establishment of industrial hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities is pro- hibited. SECTION 6. SPECIFIC REGULATIONS: ZONE I-G 6.01 Uses Ail systems, facilities, and activities are prohibited except for physical pumping and treatment facilities and controls. The area shall not be used for any purpose other than public water supply, ex- cept for existing single family residences, to which the relevant restrictions contained in Sections 5 and 7 shall apply. I I I ! I I I I I I I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 247 6.02 Well Heads Ail well heads and containment buildings must be in conformance with federal, state and local flood plain management or similar regulations or ordinances to prevent their contamination by flood waters. SECTION 7. PRIOR NON-CONFORMING USES 7.01 Definitions Non-conforming use means a building structure or use of land existing at the time of the enact- ment of these rules and which is not in conformance thereto. 7.02 Continuation A non-conforming use may be continued and main- tained in reasonable repair, but may not be altered, enlarged or extended. 7.03 Discontinuance If a non-conforming use is discontinued for a period of twelve (12) months, further use of the land on which such non-conforming use previously existed shall conform to these rules. 7.04 Change If a non-conforming use is replaced by another use, such use shall conform to these rules. SECTION 8 - INSPECTIONS The water supply agency or any other person or persons charged with the maintenance or supervision of the public water supply system shall, by its of- ficers or their duly appointed representatives, make regular and thorough inspections of all surveillance zones to ascertain whether these rules and regulations are being complied with. It shall be the duty of the water supply agency to cause copies of any rules and regulations violated to be served upon the persons violating the same together with notices of such vio- lations. If such persons do not immediately comply 248 with the rules and regulations, it shall be the further duty of the water supply agency to prompt- ly notify the State Commissioner of Health of such violations. The water supply agency shall report to the State Commissioner of Health in writing an- nually, prior to the 30th day of January, the re- sults of the regular inspections made during the preceding year. The report shall state the number of inspections which were made, the number of vio- lations found, the number of notices served, the number of violations abated and the general condi- tion of all surveillance zones at the time of the last inspection. SECTION 9 - PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS Penalties for violations of these rules and regulations shall be those specified in section 1103 of the Public Health Law. Commissioner of Health of the State of New York 19 Albany, New York I I I I I I I I I ! i I i i I I I I 251 ON WATER RESOURCE NEED3 i OF lONG ISLAND I CLOSIN~G STATEMENT OF THE CHAIRPERSONS I It has been our privilege for the past three years to serve as I Co-Chairpersons of the New York State Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island. In this capacity we believe that we have served the entire population of 2 1~2 million people residing in Nassau and Suffolk County who depend on our sole source I of water - the groundwater reservoir. As the issue of groundwater protection has emerged and the ramifi- I cations of degrading it have become more dramatically clear, we believe there'can be little doubt that continuing degradation of the Island's water resources is the most serious problem threatening I the health and well-being of the counties of Nassau and Suffolk. In this regard, we are pleased to note the many legislative initia- tives the Commission has proposed for the 1983 Legislative Session. I While this last year represents a major step forward in the Com- mission's development, many water resource issues remain unresolved and unaddressed. I This year we must again extend our aratitude to the staff of the Commission who continue their diligent and dedicated efforts in I formulating proposals to safeguard this most precious resource. Ii ~ ~Sincerely' ~ ~man May W. New,urger Senator Ca, sar TruCe / I ~6-Chairwoman % Co-Chairman~ I I I