HomeMy WebLinkAboutSolid Waste Management Plan 1995 Comments/Responses STATE OF NEW YORK
A `r DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
ALBANY, NEW YORK 12233-IOIC
MICHAEL D. ZAGA7A
COMMISSIONER
NOV P 199r,
Dear New Yorker:
The Nbw York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has
completed the Draft New York State Solid Waste Management Plan, 1995/1996
Update. It is available for review at DEC Headquarters in Albany, New York
and at the nine DEC Regional Offices, and has been sent to the New York State
Depository Libraries and other major libraries across the State.
The DEC will hold a public hearing on the Draft Update in Albany,
New York, on January 18, 1996 at 2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. , at the Best Western-
Albany Airport Inn, 200 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12205. The primary
purposes for the public hearing will be for DEC staff to present an overview
of the Draft 1995/1996 Update and hear your prepared statements on it.
Following the closing of the hearing, there will be an informal question-and-
answer session on the Draft Update. Comments on the Draft Update' will be
addressed in a Responsiveness Summary. The public comment period on the Draft
Update will close on January 19, 1996.
The Draft 1995/1996 Update contains information on a number of solid
waste management subjects, such as baseline solid waste management data for
New York State, progress toward meeting New York State's 50. percent waste
reduction/reuse/recycling goal , local solid waste management
planning, and special issues (e.g. , Supreme Court decisions) affecting solid
waste management in New York State. The Draft Update also includes
recommendations for future action in these and other subject areas.
Requests for further information and written comments on the Draft
Update should be sent to:
Draft New York State Solid Waste Management Plan 1995/1996 Update
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials
Bureau of Program Management
50 Wolf Road, Room 488
Albany, New York 12233-7250
TELEPHONE: 518-457-3273
FAX: 518-457-7148
Sincerely,
Mich . Zagata
Commissioner
®PRINTED ON REC"CLED PAPER
Town Hall,53095 Main Road
THOMAS H.WICKHAM y Z P.0.Bog 1179
SUPERVISORSouthold,New York 11971
a Fax (516)765-1823
Telephone(516)765-1889
NOTES TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FILE
Telephone discussions with Michael McTague regarding our Solid Waste
Management Plan are as follows:
-They were unable to find where we added their comments #2, 7 and 20.
-There seems to be a page ordering problem regarding their comment #3.
-Regarding their comment #9, they will fax me a draft table to take the
place of our pages 2-11. That table should include data regarding
sludge.
-Regarding their comment no. #15 (pp. 4-17), I will draft a paragraph
explaining why we selected the long-haul option.
-Regarding their comment #23, we should add the DEC's comments (both
McTague's and CRAs comments) in Appendices 8- 4.
Everything else regarding the SWMP is fine. We may expect to hear from
David Vitale shortly with feedback on the CRA.
TW - 4/4/95
cc: A. Hussie
R. Oliva
J. Bunchuck
. �abI!Y3 5
Tab---
Cl-
N 1969 1990 1991 1992 1993 1996 1995 1946 1997 1948 19999 a M
OiQYteaelreYQ.aiQaaQ�QQeQ�QtOQtQtOattR�a�agt sasssaasQaosaa Q�Qia� ssec®sasccaaca -y
I 4
0 RESIOENTtAL prior to recyclina I G6aSOO 653,364 668,264 663,201 668,175 675 1 676,235 683,322 688,447 60,610 696,812
Z 0019tEACIAL taro recycled I 56,163 93,024 109,714 209,051 234,506 263,479 296,381 329,131 ,610 363,350 367,243 368,780 � � 1,01 INA
percent recycled I 9% 141 17X 37X 35% 39% KX An SIY M Six 512 3 ,,
00 tons remminiN $92,337 )60,340 S<B,SSO 454,1)0 1.33,669 4.9,707 381,834 354,11!1 327,8)7 330,280 331,560 335,273 ,
L(7
WASTE WATER prior to recyclin0 St.800 31,199 31,997 32,095 32,191 32,iD 32,384 32,429485 32,'333 32,582 ,670
AND WATER TREATMEIIT tons recycled 0 0 0 0 2,251 4,844 4,658 4,864 4,673 4,880 4,887 4,805
SLUDGES parceM recycled I 0 0 OX 01 774 ISS. 15% IS% 152 1 5 151 155
tont roteiny 31,800 31,699 31,997 32,095 29,939 27,447 27,526 27,566 27,612 27,653 27,695 27,756 v IV
I E
I
CONSTRWCTIOR a price to raeyetirp I 235,700 237,468 239,249 241,043 242,651 2«1672 246,507 246,356 250,219 232,005 253,986 SS 891 ►
ODEUOLtTtoo taro recycled 1 13,804 17,833 18,246 27,667 26,153 9 29,151 38,535 4,810 48,189 48,544 49,908 �•
OEEeIS percent recycled 6X 81 a2 115 12X 122 ..122 16% 19% 196 192 202 v,
L_ tans rmainin9 221,046 219,635 221,003 213,380 2:4,696 216,023 217,3% 209,821 202,409 203,926 205,K2 205,983 $ �
Q '
IMMISTR1AL prior to myclint I 385,700 388,593 391,507 394.443 397,402 0;> 403,365 406,411 C409,4 412,530 445,624 4181711 8
SOLID WASTE torr recycled I 131,700 132,122 133,112 134,111 135,1t7 136,130 137,151 136,180 139,216 140,260 141,312
percent racwtod I 345 341 3411 34X 34X 34% 341 3<X 34% US 341 34%
Sane reining I 254,000 256,471 258,395 260.333 252,265 264,252 266,234 260,231 270,243 272,270 274.312 276,369
AORIMTWIL prior to racyctims 1 27.000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,ODO 27,OOD 27,000 27.000
WASTE two racyc►ed 1 27,000 27,000 27.000 27.000 27,000 27,000 27.000 27,900 27,000 27,000 27,000 V.am
M S percent recycled 1 will t00% t00i 1002 1002 1002 1001 1001 100% Ion ion 100%
00tae!romLnire 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
04 0 0 0 0
O�IIV
`,blLl i[91CA1 prior to reeyelin0 1 2.300 2,117 2,335 2,352 2,370 2,368 44
2,505 2,424 2, 2 2,460 2,478 2,497
MAS1E Dons ncyaled I TWO Na We Na Na Na No Na n/a Na Na No
.� percent evc ted I We Ne Na No Na Na Na N4 Na No, Na Ne
I u I taro rearinlim 1 2,300 2,317 2.33S 2,332 2.370 2.388 2,405 2,424 2,442 2,460 2.478 2,497
00 �/ 1
1-4 1
Ur# IITRER WASTES prior 10 recycling 1 1.900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1.900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
J asbestos Tau recycted 1 Ne Na NeNo %nto Na No Ns Ne Na Na Na
W percent recycled J No No Ne Na Na No Na Ns Na No 4/4 We
♦- tar i intre I 1,900 1,900 1,900 t,906 1,900 1,900 1.900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900
aaQcwvss�ssseer�etaee��s�aa•eaasif etcc:.aetaQQa�assa ss�ava Rsa Asa'tmaa.tar�QsrssaaQQrtar�cQQaoa®asQQSQs
W TOTAL WASTE STREAK 1,332,900 1,342,541 1.352,252 1,362,035 1,371,891 1,381,819 1,391,817 1,401,841 ,411,931 1,422,128 1,432,387 ,442,712
!ORS RECyCLIED 226,667 269.979 288.072 397,825 427,029 460,102 494.541 537,710 579,509 583,639 588,946 592,954
(n TOTAL WASTE SFREAR AFTER RECTCLI00 1,104,233 1,072.562 1,064,179 964,210 944,861 921.718 897,277 864,131 812,K2 838,489 043,396 849,758
CE TOTAL MCEYT RECYCLED 172 US 21% 295 31% 331 3" 385 41Y 415 41% 411
A y
O
cnLd
VIA
/+ 9
J �+�►�
v> F� `�►'` 6-49
r
y` Town Hall,53095 Main Road
THOMAS H.WICKHAM y P. 0.Box 1179
SUPERVISOR Southold,New York 11971
• 'F Fax (516)765-1823
Telephone(516)765-1889
NOTES TO THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FILE
Telephone discussions with Michael McTague regarding our Solid Waste
Management Plan are as follows:
-They were unable to find where we added their comments #2, 7 and 20.
-There seems to be a page ordering problem regarding their comment #3.
-Regarding their comment #9, they will fax me a draft table to take the
place of our pages 2-11. That table should include data regarding
sludge.
-Regarding their comment no. #15 (pp. 4-17), I will draft a paragraph
explaining why we selected the long-haul option.
-Regarding their comment #23, we should add the DEC's comments (both
McTague's and CRAs comments) in Appendices 8- 4.
Everything else regarding the SWMP is fine. We may expect to hear from
David Vitale shortly with feedback on the CRA.
TW - 4/4/95
cc: A. •Hussie
R. Oliva
J. Bunchuck
el
C) x, y�v M :_:� FiojtW every' 20
0- J 5 C /
ON - /o 19W 1990 199E 1992 1943 1996 19" IM ,907 1990 19"
t7J/U Q{ u��wawvwsswaasv�a�amrrrsv��sra�av� ,et�g uomvavwrm rawer®v��yvw J
i0
O OESIOENTIAL prior to recyalln4 I i0 100 653,]61 6QO,ZK 601,201 660,175 67! 7 6701,73E 603,J7t 000,447 493,610 690,012
Z pOMItEaC1Al taro recycled I 56,163 9I,024 100,714 209,551 231,506 265,479y# 296,301 329,131 610 I63,330 367,243 140,700 321 M
INSIlTUt1ON4L percent recycled I 91 111 172 372 IS% Wfo, 441 481 six St1 six 512
00 mer rmfn,ti I 992,337 560,340 548,550 954.1SO 433,469 4]9,707 301,654 334,1111 327,637 330,200 331,569 339,27! Z.
. i HASTE wTEB prior to reeyelirg 1 32,000 - 31,499 71,907 32,005 12,143 32, , 2,344 32,420 405 ]2,633 32.502 o Z
AND LATER TKATPUT tans recycled 0 0 0 0 2,264 4,0446 r,4,654 4,064 4,073 {,000 4,007 4,005 E
SLLN/GEf parcom recycled ( 0 0 OX OR 71 ISL E' 151 Iss 1sT 151 132 151 g
tom ramial g I 31,000 "A" 31,097 32,095 29,939 27,487 27,52 27,566 27,612 27,65] 27,695 27,736 F [ v N
lf1
Q1 C
C
�
MRSTNUCTION 8
O 1O
prior to ratyelirq I 28,700 7!7,460 279,219 241,544 242,851 444672 ( 7� 244,]56 250,219 252,095 297,006 5S 89 A
0[ LITION tam recycled 1 13,8" 17,033 10,246 27,663 20,153 0 29.151 30,535 4, 10 48,169 48.SK 49,900 +�
O ell percent recycled 1 61 at 8% 111 121 121 i6�'-.122 161 199 191 102 202 1
L tans reealalm 1 221,096 210,633 221,003 213,300 2:4,694 216,023.141217.316 209,021 202,400 203,926 200,442 206,903 1S 6 .y
CL
1 v
INDUSTRIAL to recycling I 303,700 300.503 301,507 ]44.243 197,402 400 401,305 406,411 411,530 NS,624 410,741 g
SOLID w9TE two reeyoled I 1]1,700 132,122 133,112 134,111 115,117 136,130 C' 111,161 134,100 139,216 140,20 141,312
percent recycle I 342 341 342 342 341 341 Us 341 341 - 341 UN 342
CIG 1111 F1 j reaa el I 254.000 296.471 254,396 MOMS 262,205 264,2$2 266.M 2¢41231 270,243 272,270 274,312 276,360
a g �I
A,GRIOATURAL ° prior to r�yel e0 1 27,000 27,010 27,000 27.000 27.000 27,000 I-t7,0oo 27.000 27,oeo 27,000 27,000 27,000
WASTE or
tr recycled 1 27.000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 G,27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 21.000 27,000
M percent recycled 1 t00R 1001 1001 100% Ion 1000t��!G 1002 1001 1001 1002 1002 10015
00 ' tart re olnirg 1 0 0 0 0 0 D O I 0 0 0 0 0 6
C DOW
11L� MEDICAL prior to recycling I 1,300 2.317 2,335 2,332 2,370 2,360 U 2,405 2,424 2,442 2,460 2,470 2,447
6
UWE tom recycled I Na N! Na Na Ne Na 0 Na We Na We Na Na
percent recycle I We Na Ne Ne Na Na 0 Ne We We We Na Ne
µl{11 taro reaainiry i 2,300 2,317 2,335 2,312 2.370 2,300 0 2,405 2,424 2,442 2,460 2,470 2,497
010
OTHER tRLSTES prior to recyellrp 1 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,000 3 1,900 1,900 1,900 1,900 1.900 1.900
J aabaetoa ten roepted 1 Ne Na Na' Na �Na n/ 3-),./a Ne Na No Na Na
percent recycled I We Na Na M Ne Ma y 7 Ma Ne We Ns 0116 Na
LLJ
taro rominine I 1,900 1,900 1.900 1,900 1,900 1,900 j 1,900 1,9W 1,000 1.900 1,900 1.000
s.ev.�a�eesssev.v�aevamvasmesv�et�e-aanrays�zens+as�aramvvamvamvrsrswvavvea�rm®vvmvmmsv
LTJ TOTAL UASTE URIM 1,332,400 1.342,541 1,352,252 1.362,035 1,371,091 (BI,391.817 1,401,04104121
,422.120 1,432303IONS 1SiM" 720,667 29.979 200,072 397.025 427,029 G94,SL1 $37,710543,439 $00,946(n TOTAL WSTE STREAK ATTER RECYCLING 1,144,233 1,072,562 1,064,179 964,210 944,061 407,277 064,131030,"9 043.396Q TOTAL MCENT RECYCLED 1770 2011 211• 292 312 361 301 Cis 411 411
s �
'rpm
_ ;mss �� 1�� 7 q 3
U �;�rlc,�-• S 6%
��"' if t,M 6-49
TABLE 6.1-4
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
PROJECTED PER CAPITA MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES
BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
YEARS 1990 - 2015
POPULATION TONS/DAT LB/CAP/DAY TONS/DAY LB/CAP/DAY
YEAR (1) GENERATED GENERATED RECOVERED RECOVERED
1990 25,783 72 5.60 9.84 .76
1995 26,783 78 5.79 35.55 2.68
2000 27,433 82 6.00 47.79 3.48
2005 28,433 88 6.22 51.29 3.61
2010 29,433 95 6.43 55.37 3.76
2015 30,433 101 6.66 58.86 3.87
(1) Weighted population which incorporates seasonal population fluctua-
tions and includes Fishers Island.
NOTE: The recovery rates for 1990 are actual rates based upon reported
tonnage recycled. The projected 1995 recovery rates are based
upon mid-term program actions. The long-term recovery rate pro-
jections for 2000 through 2015 are based upon the implementation
of actions required for achieving high levels of materials recovery
over the long-term phase of program development. These rates are
based upon long-term projections beginning in 1997.
Table 2.2.3-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
Waste Generation Projections
(1995-2015)
Total Waste Stream
(Includes Land Clearing and C&D Debris)
�0:��
1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
"Weighted" Population 26,783 27,433 28,433 29,433 30,433
Estimate -
Constant Per Capita
Generation Rate 6.72 6.72 6.72 6.72 6.72
Increasing Per Capita
Generation Rate 6.72 7.19 7.69 8.23 8.81
Maximum Tons per year ' 32,989 35,989 39,895 44,202 48,947
Maximum Tons per day 90.4 98.6 109.3 121.1 134.1
Notes:
1. Based on increasing per capita generation rate (0.70% annually) and
increase in population
6501R/1
1027
SWMP 2-21
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356
Telephone: (516) 444-0375
Fax: (516) 4440373
Langdon Marsh
October 31, 1994 NOV 41994 Commissioner
The Honorable Thomas Wickham -
Supervisor, Town of Southold
Town Hall
Post Office Box 1179
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Town of Southold Draft Solid Waste Management Plan August 1994.
Dear Supervisor Wickham:
The Bureau of Facility Management and the Region have reviewed the Town of
Southold Draft Solid Waste Management Plan, August 1994 submission.
The comments attached are the Bureau's major concerns, comments and questions.
However, the comments from the Bureau of Waste Reduction and Recycling (BWRR) will be
forthcoming as soon as they are completed.
Please contact Michael McTague at (518) 485-5856, if you have any questions or
concerns.
Sincerel
ne Howell
Solid Waste Management Specialists
JH:ls
cc: Frank Isler, (Town Attorney)
Mary Carpentiere (Legal Affairs)
Michael McTague (Albany)
�� printed on recycled paper
Division of Solid Waste
Bureau of Facility Management
Comments on the Town of Southold
Draft Solid Waste Management Plan
Prepared by: Michael J. McTague Date: October 14, 1994
1. The final solid waste management planning document should be printed on
both sides to conserve paper and to make the document less cumbersome.
2. On the bottom of Page 5-3 of the solid waste management plan (SWMP) , the
plan text figures indicate that there was a 13 percent decrease in r
municipal solid waste (MSW) generation between 1989 and 1992 (i .e. , 123
tons/day to 107.7 tons/day) . However, these figures then indicate
considerable increases in MSW generation for 1995 and proceeding years.
The plan text must be revised to explain these fluctuations in the waste
stream.
3. On Pages 5-10, 1-46 and 2-6, the SWMP briefly discusses solid waste
management on Fishers Island. Representatives of Fishers Island have
notified the Department that the Island will develop its own SWMP.
Subsequently, Fishers Island will not be considered to have an
approvable plan in effect when the Town of Southold receives formal
Department approval of its SWMP. Please advise if Fishers Island has
decided not to develop its own SWMP and will participate in the Southold
SWMP.
Alternately, if Fishers Island is not participating in the Town of
Southold's proposed SWMP, please reflect same and discuss the reasons
for Fishers Island's non-participation.
4. Figure 2. 1.1-1, on Page 2-3 of the SWMP, shows the locations of Town-
owned and-operated solid waste facilities. Any other existing Rrivate
solid waste facilities located within the Town must also be described in
the SWMP and shown on a map.
5. Page 2-6 of the SWMP discusses disposal of sludge from the Southold
Scavenger Waste and Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plants at the
Town landfill . The text should be revised to indicate how this waste
stream is currently being managed.
6. On the top of Page 2-7 of the SWMP, the text briefly discusses a
proposed permanent transfer station for residual wastes and recyclables.
This section must be expanded to more adequately describe this proposed
facility. Factors that should be included in this description are: the
proposed term of operation (i .e. , when is it proposed to begin accepting
MSW and recyclables); the ownership type; and the types and quantities
of waste/recyclables it will accept.
PAGE 1 OF 5
7. The plan text must include a description of all known inactive solid
waste management facilities located within the Town and whether or not
they have ever been permitted by the Town. Where known, the closure
methods and the environmental impacts of these facilities must be
described.
8. Page 2-7 of the SWMP discusses current solid waste collection and
management practices. This description must be expanded to identify all
public or private methods and contractual relationships for solid waste
collection in the Town: For example, do villages within the Town have
individual contracts for trash and recyclables collection with
contracted haulers or is each individual person required to bring their
own trash/ recyclables to the transfer station or make their own
arrangement for MSW disposal and recyclables collection with private
haulers? With whom does the Town currently contract with for transport
of MSW from the transfer station to its ultimate disposal?
9. Section 2.2.2 of the- SWMP, Current Solid Waste Generation and Generation
Rates, should contain a brief description of the quantity of solid waste
generated within the Town broken down into the following categories:
residential solid waste (RSW) ; non-hazardous industrial waste (NHIW) ;
construction and demolition (C&D) debris; commercial and institutional
waste (if included in RSW, please note) ; and sludge. Tonnage figures on
regulated medical waste, waste oil , asbestos and other special wastes
should also be provided here, if available. The plan should provide
proposed generation amounts (in tons per year..) for these same waste
categories for the years 1997, 2000 and 2010. It must also include
current and proposed waste reduction and recycling rates for the
aforementioned, yearly intervals.
10. Page 2-34 of the SWMP discusses the New York State Solid Waste
Management Plan and its annual updates. The plan text should be revised
to indicate that these State SWMP updates are now done on a bi-annual
basis.
11. On Page 3-68 of the SWMP, the text discusses the development and opening
of Long Island's first permanent, year-round HHW collection facility at
the Town's solid waste complex. The Department considers development of
a STOP facility in a Town the size of Southold exemplary, particularly
in view of the potential of such hazardous materials polluting Long
Island's primary aquifer.
12. On Page 4-8 of the SWMP, under Regional or Cooperative Yard Waste
Composting Effort Out-of-Town, the plan discusses the fact that since
the Town already has an existing yard waste composting facility, it does
not need to handle its compost cooperatively outside of the Town with
another Town.
In this section, the Town should also discuss whether and why it will or
will not handle compost from other Towns at the Town of Southold yard
waste compost facility.
PAGE 2 Of 5
13. On Page 4-11 of the SWMP, the text discusses the transfer and processing
of Southold's residual waste at the Huntington/Smithtown Resource
Recovery Facility and the possibility of composting Huntington and
Smithtown's yard waste in Southold. The text goes on to indicate that
"at this time, this alternative was not implementable." The text should
describe the factors that led to this decision.
14. On Pages 4-14 of the SWMP, the text indicates that the Town currently
stockpiles tires at its solid waste complex and then has them removed as
part of its recycl ing..program. The plan text should be revised to
specify who currently handles the Town's tires and provide the current
contract specifics. Note, the information must be incorporated on Page
4-14 and into Section 5.1.4, Recycling: Tires.
15. Page 4-15 of the SWMP refers to an evaluation of (solid waste) r
alternatives contained in Section 4 of the initial SWMP and a previously -
performed cost analysis.
Since it is the very basis by which the Town makes a decision concerning
its solid waste methodology for the residual waste stream, it is
imperative that this evaluation and cost analysis alternatives be
integrated in its entirety into the formal Town of Southold SWMP.
16. Pages 4-18 through 4-22 of the SWMP appear to be missing. Additionally,
Page 4-23 suddenly stops in mid-sentence, and there is no Page 4-24.
Please insert and revise these pages as necessary.
17. On Pages 5-2 through 5-5 of the SWMP, in its discussion on Waste
Reduction (Section 5.1.1) , the plan text addresses the Town's proposed
waste reduction efforts in indecisive terms such as: "would," "can be"
and "should be." Since this Chapter is the Town's strategy as to how it
proposes to manage its solid waste, the language should be more
definitive. For example, the text should be revised to indicate that
' . .homeowners and landscapers will be encouraged to reuse grass
clippings. . . ," and then state exactly how the Town proposes to get
homeowners to reuse grass clippings.
Additionally, the plan text should be revised to replace the words
"would" and "should be" with more decisive words such as "will " and
will be."
18. Section 5.1.8, Recvclina• Yard Waste Composting, of the SWMP should
also include the current capacity of the existing yard waste composting
facility, the capacity of the proposed yard waste facility, the 1993
cost per ton for yard waste management and the cost per ton for the
proposed facility.
This same section discusses the Town's consideration to banning grass
deliveries from all Town solid waste processing and disposal facilities.
This is a good proposal . The SWMP should state a proposed effective
date on the implementation timetable for the banning of yard waste at
Town solid waste facilities.
PAGE 3 of 5
19. In Section 5.2 of the SWMP, Proposed Residual Waste Management, the plan
recommends waste exportation through private sector hauling and
processing and/or disposal of the 30 percent residual waste remaining
after implementation of the proposed resource recovery system in five
year steps with each stage preceded by a SWMP reanalysis and update to
determine whether more cost-effective options are available.
. New York State believes achieving self-sufficiency is good public policy
due to uncertainties related to long-term waste exportation.
As such, since the Town is proposing out-of-planning-unit waste
exportation, they must incorporate the following into Section 5.2 of the
SWMP:
A. A copy of a binding agreement with one or more permitted or
otherwise authorized facilities capable of treating or disposing
of the planning unit's solid waste for at least five years.
Alternately, the planning unit should identify at least three
appropriately authorized solid waste facilities capable of
treating and disposing of the planning unit's solid waste for at
least five years. In either case, the identified facilities
should provide written documentation that they are an authorized
facility (in the case of out-of-State facilities) and have the
capacity to accept and will accept the planning unit's waste for a
minimum of five years. If exportation is proposed for less than
five years, the planning unit must certify disposal or treatment
capacity for the length of time exportation is proposed.
B. If there is no binding agreement with disposal facilities with
adequate uncommitted capacity to accept all of the planning unit's
solid waste which will be exported for a five-year period, a
statement or resolution from the planning unit that they will
enter into a binding agreement with one or more of the facilities
identified in Item "A" to accept the planning unit's waste for a
minimum of five years.
C. A discussion of backup options or alternatives should the selected
facilities under Item "A" fail to accept the planning unit's waste
for a minimum of five years. This discussion should include a
brief evaluation of potential reasons for the selected facilities
not being able to provide disposal service (e.g. , ban on imports,
unforeseen closure of receiving facilities, etc.) and specific
alternatives to be implemented if that service is interrupted or
terminated. If the planning unit does not have a binding
agreement (as described above) , the discussion should also include
potential reasons for the planning unit not being able to execute
a binding agreement and specific alternatives to be implemented to
obtain disposal service.
D. A resolution that the planning unit will provide the Department
with a plan update within two years after the final plan is
approved by the Department and every two years thereafter, as long
as exportation continues. The update should include, at a
Me 4 Of 5
minimum: an extension of the five-year contracts for solid waste
disposal at approved facilities; a reevaluation of the backup
options and- alternatives discussed under Item 'C"; and, the
planning unit's progress in developing disposal capacity within
the planning unit or New York State.
Note, that the implementation schedule indicates that the Town will have
a five-year, 'long-term" hauling contract for disposal of residual
wastes by the summer of 1994. The text in Section 5.2 should be revised
to indicate who the Town now has this contract with. This discussion
should include terms; quantities and duration. If the Town does not
have a current five-year contract as the implementation schedule had
indicated, the plan must describe the current arrangements now in place
for waste export and the particulars of this current agreement.
F
20. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include an analysis of the costs of
implementing the proposed solid waste system including capital
investments, operation, maintenance, administration, and financing.
This description should include the funding source(s) for all aspects of
solid waste management in the Town. Information- previously requested in
DEC Comment No. 14 may be incorporated here.
This final cost for the solid waste system should then be divided by the
quantity of solid waste being managed in the Town to determine an
approximate cost/ton for solid waste management in the Town of Southold.
21. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include a discussion of the Administrative
Structure responsible for all aspects of waste management in the Town of
Southold. The Department recommends a schematic detailing each employee
or group of employees associated with solid waste management in the Town
followed by a brief explanation of his/her responsibilities for Town
solid waste management.
22. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include a description of Town activities used
to secure participation of neighboring jurisdictions, whether the plan's
implementation would impose any limitations on their neighbors solid
waste programs, and the effects of including neighboring jurisdictions
in the Town plan.
23. The plan must include a responsiveness summary which is an accounting of
the comments and views expressed by'concerned governmental ,
environmental, commercial and industrial interests, the public and
neighboring jurisdictions. This is usually attached to the SWMP as an
appendix and identified in the plan's Table of Contents.
Note, since the Town did make a Negative Declaration regarding
development of the Town's SWMP, this may or may not have been subject to
public comment. Please advise.
24. The following SWMP page numbers have typographical errors: 2-4, 3-2,
3-28, 3-30 and 5-2. Please contact my office if more specifics are
required.
PAGE 5 Of 5
, pAr
a New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233
MENTAL t
May 4, 1995 J
Michael D. Zagata
Mr. Thomas Wickham , commissioner
Supervisor
Town of Southold
Town Hall
53095 Main Road �v
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971 ►
Dear Mr. Wickham:
Re: Town of Southold, March 1995, Update of the March
1994 Draft Solid Waste Management Plan Submission
This letter is a follow-up to our April 3, 1995 telephone conversation
regarding the Town of Southold's March 15, 1995 submission of the Town of
Southold Solid Waste Management Plan (plan) .. It was good to have the
opportunity to discuss with you concerns that the Department still has with
the Town of Southold draft plan.
As we discussed, the following comments that were sent to you in a
October 31, 1994 letter (enclosed) by Ms. Joanne Howell , Region 1, Solid Waste
Management Specialist, will still need to be addressed and incorporated into
the Town of Southold plan:
• Comment No. 2, regarding fluctuations in municipal solid waste (MSW)
generation: this information could not be located in the revised plan.
• Comment No. 3, regarding Fisher Island solid waste management: the
response was acceptable but page numbers 1-46 through 1-49, and 2-1
through 2-6 are not in order in the revised plan.
• Comment No. 7, regarding inactive solid waste facilities: this
information could not be located in the revised plan.
• Comment No. 9, regarding solid waste generation and generation rates:
this information was not addressed in the revised plan. However,
information on how this should be addressed was faxed to you on April 4,
1995.
• Comment No. 15, regarding cost-analysis alternatives: this information
could not be located in the revised plan.
Mr. Thomas Wickham 2.
• Comment No. 20, regarding costs for implementing the proposed solid
waste system: this information could not be located in the revised plan
but may be incorporated into Comment No. 15 when the Town responds.
• Comment No. 23, regarding a Responsiveness Summary: this information
was not in the revised plan and must be included in the Town's response.
As you know, these comments and Bureau of Waste Reduction and Recycling
(BWRR) comments will need to be adequately addressed prior to solid waste
management plan approval .
I look forward to the Town of Southold obtaining final approval of their
solid waste management plan. Please call me (518-458-5856) if you have any
questions or if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
Michael McT gue
Environmental Program Specialist
Special Projects Section
Bureau of Facility Management
Division 'of Solid Waste
cc: D. Vitale, BWRR
A. Cava/J. Howell , Region 1
1 �OFF04
0
James Bunchuck h� Gy P.O. Box 962
Solid Waste Cofrdinator Cutchogue, New York 11935
E = Tel.: (516) 734-7685
Oy �� Fax: (516) 734-7976
dol * Sao
SOUTHOLD TOWN
SOLID WASTE DISTRICT
May 31, 1995
MEMORANDUM
T0: Lauren Grant
FROM: Jim Bunchuck
MWs Responses to Dave Vitale Phone Comments on SMS
The following paragraph should be inserted in Section 6.0 of the CRA (page #
CRA 6-1) as indicated on the attached.
(This paragraph answers Mr. Vitale's request to address private sector
recycling efforts in the b7VMP).
INSSRT A,
-The extent of existing recycling efforts by the private sector are
undocumented, but are believed to be significant. The Town has yet to
implement a program to track such efforts, but plans to do so in the interim
Phase.
i
i
Finally, during the midterm phase, the Town will provide technical assistance to
commercial, institutional and industrial establishments. Technical assistance
will include providing recycling seminars in cooperation with the local chambers
of commerce, assisting in performing waste audits, identifying markets for
recyclable materials, renegotiating waste hauler contracts to incorporate
recycling and employee training.
Lona-term Phase Goals
The Town of Southold has also adopted a long-term strategy that complies with the
State's waste reduction goals (see Table 6.1-1) . Therefore, by 1997, the Town
is expected to have developed the ability to recover large quantities of a wide
range of materials that are currently disposed as waste. In addition to the
materials recovered during the interim and midterm phases, the following
additional materials are expected to be recovered over the long-term planning
period from residential, commercial and institutional sources:
o Aluminum foil;
o Aluminum furniture;
o Structural aluminum;
o Other paperboard;
o Other (low-grade) paper; VN
o Other rigid plastic; :
o Other flexible plastic; a v`
o Food waste.
These materials will be incorporated into the recycling program as "economic
markets" become available. High recovery rates are based upon the assumption
that markets and/or processing technologies will be developed to accommodate
these currently difficult to recycle materials.
1394s/1
1027
CRA 6-10
TABLE 6. 6-1 P1
-- -SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
f TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
PROJECT SCHEDULE
RIM PHASE 1989-1994
on ACTION DATES ECONCMC DWACTS COk*zNT8
---i----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bousebold Hazardous Waste 1909 Additional equipment needed The Town's composting
Fadillty opens to operate the facility. facility is expected to
process all the leaves
and brush generated in
the Town.
e Adopt Iftadatory Separation
OrdiSdaMe
- mated; containers 1991 Businesses and institutions Ordinance applies to
(glass, metal, plastid); pay haulers for services. residential, commer-
newapaper cial, institutional,
and industrial estab-
lishments.
o Hauler licensing implemented 1991 Fee to obtain license. Haulers must comply
with Town standards and
requirements in order
to operate in Town.
o Curbside collection programs Apr 91 Costs paid by private sector -
initiated by all licensed and passed on to customers.
haulers Haulers required to obtain
specialized collection equip-
ment.
Public education programs 1992 Public education included in - I
Town's solid waste manage-
ment budget. F
o Waste reduction campaigns Jan 94 Town staff. Built into all public
initiated information and auditing
efforts.
o Initiate educational efforts Apr 94 Town staff. -
tarfating seasonal residents
o Expand yard waste composting
facility to process all
leaves and brush generated
in Torn (9,000 tons)
- 8vbwA t permit applications a - NYSDEC Part 360 solid
Iris=to
waste facility permit is
required.
o Expanded facility begins Dec Additional equipment needed The Town's composting
operations to operate the facility. facility is wtpected to
process all the leaves
and brush generated in
the Town.
i
MID—TERM PHASE (1995 — 1997)
ACTION ✓ ECONOMIC UVACTS Cass
----------------------------------- ----- — ------------------- --- ----------------------------------------
o Towb requires commercial Jan
9 ► Privater alfaQ activities -
establishments and haulers to documented and tonnage
docubftt and report all pri- ✓ reported to the Town.
vate tecycling efforts t
o Protide technical assistance Jan 9i - Town staff. Built into all public
to bommorcial, institutional information and auditing,
and industrial establishments efforts.
- Coadact waste audits Ongoing Town staff. -
i
3;
1
TABLE 6. 6-1 p:3
_-- - - - --SOLID-WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
PROJECT SCHEDULE
LONG-TERM PHASE (Cont'd)
ACTION ACTION DATES ECONCMIC nWACTs cm2m Ts
---------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------
• Consider implementation of Jul 98 Cost to collect organic Dependent upon availabil-
collection programs for organic waste. ity of composting facility.
waste (i.e., food, low-grade
paper, grass clippings, sludge)
o Evaluate technical and economic Continuing 1 additional col- Technologies will be eval-
feasibility of additional organic .nd processing hated as they become avail-
waste oaoposting � able.
1.�
t�`L {'�J
.V•L ?
-r C ALV -•f „�`� �'.r-� S L1
f ,
6.0 II(PUNRInATION OF RECYCLABLE AND COMPOSTA33LE MATERIALS RECOVERY PROGRAMS
This Section integrates the results of the previous sections,
particularly existing collection practices, preferred technical collection
options, and available marketing opportunities, into a proposed action plan for
the realization of high material recovery and recycling levels for the Town of
Southold. This objective will be accomplished through a discussion of:
o Material recovery objectives;
o Policy development;
i
o Materials marketing;
i
o Collection and facilities development strategies;
o Required management, legislation, and public information actions; and
o implementation scheduling.
The proposed actions are designed to maximize the reduction, recycling, and reuse
of materials recovered from the Town's total waste stream. The programs will
focus on residential, commercial, institutional and industrial recovery
Pu activities as well as programs to recover compostable materials, construction and
demolition debris and other bulky wastes, and household toxic materials. !
6.1 Material Recovery
The Town of Southold els and exceeding
these goals where f 1 (fl�Q� 3 tate directives.
Currently, the Town ! 1 incoming waste
stream, or nearly 146 � �p„1 p�"►� current recovery
rates are based on 19 3_ ted 1992 maximum
residential waste gene // /! / G" ;imateiy the same
as the 1991 recycling
Southold expects to act -cling, and reuse
through the implements ases: interim,
midterm and long-term. lsting recycling
program which establish pis of recycling.
The period up until 1911
1394s/1
1027
CRA 6-1
MAY lE
RESPOZ CMOMW ON S*1P
Cc cl Gey�,Q�
f /A—>�'` Page a �°� Aesnonse
CRA 6- � �t General municipal law Section 120-aa
requires municipalities to implement
mandatory recycling of items for which
<-= u "economic" markets exist. In the list
above, Southold Town's mandatory r
'fit f recyclables are indicated with an
asterisk (*) . The Town nontheless has
lrs��
Pao/ long-established recycling programs for
the remaining, non-mandatory items, the
C majority of which are, in fact, currently
recycled. These items are continually
,� � ,G� ,-`ti4, reviewed for their economic marketability
ct and will be added to the mandatory list as
economic markets develop.
TABLE 6.1-3(Page 1 of 4)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
INTERIM PHASE-1994
PERCENT OF AQ RR KH
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONSMY PR SE PE TONS13AY LWCAPIDAY
PAPER
Newspaper 7.64% 5.48 92% 90% 95% 4.31 0.32
Mixed Paper(magazines, 10.00% 7.17 80% 80% 95% 4.36 0.32
junk mad,office paper,etc.)
CorrlBrown Bag 1.50% 1.08 50% 90% 95% 0.46 0.03
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.66% 0.47 70% 80% 95% 0.25 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.09 70% 80% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.48% 0.34 70% 80% 95% 0.18 0.01
f
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans_ 2.37% 1.70 80% 65% 95% 0.84 0.06
WhiteorEnameled 2.82% 2.02 80% 95% 95% 1.46 0.11
NON-FERROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.23% 0.16 50% 75% 95% 0.06 0.00
Batteries(Household) 0.09% 0.06 40% 70% 95% 0.02 0.00
BATTERIES(Lead Add) 0.07% 0.05 40% 85% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.22% 0.87 90% 85% 95% 0.64 0.05
Amber 0.29% 0.21 90% 85% 95% 0.15 0.01
Flint 3.03% 2.17 90% 85% 95% 1.58 0.12
RUBBER 2.06% 1.48 70% 100% 100% 1.03 0.08
YARD WASTE
Leaves 10.00% 7.17 80% 100% 95% 5.45 0.40
Brush/Branches 11.62% 8.33 80% 100% 95% 6.33 0.47
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.42% 0.30 70% 75% 95% 0.15 0.01
Textiles 4.03% 2.89 50% 75% 95% 1.03 0.08
TOTAL 58.65% 42.05 28.41 2.10
on ay Percent
Gross Waste Generation 71.69 100.00%
Waste Recovered 28.41 39.64%
Waste Remaining 43.28 60.36%
(1) Based on the total estimated residential waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
The residential waste stream is defined as excluding construction and demolition debris and Ianclearing wastes,
(I.e.,asphalt,concrete,rock,brick,dirt,tree stumps,wood).
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
'Rubber consists of tires a recycling program.
sent out for reWding. SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.1-3(Page 2 of 4)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
MID-TERM PHASE-1995-1997
PERCENT UP RR-
'i WASTE STREAM TONMAY PR SE PE TONSMY LBICAPIOAY
-per 7.64% 5.48 92% 90% 95% 4.31 0.32
'aper(magazines, 10.00% 7.17 80% 80% 95% 4.36 0.32
A,office paper,etc.)
Uwn Bag 1.50% 1.08 90% 90% 95% 0.83 0.06
Liter 0.66% 0.47 80% 80% 95% 0.29 0.02
Liter 0.12% 0.09 80% 80% 95% 0.05 0.00
0.48% 0.34 80% 80% 95% 0.21 0.02
IA METALS i
Ins _ 2.37% 1.70 80% 65% 95% 0.84 0.06
-Enameled 2.82% 2.02 80% 95% 95% 1.46 0.11
-AOUS METALS
m Cans 0.23% 0.16 80% 75% 95% 0.09 0.01
(Household) 0.09% 0.06 80% 70% 95% 0.03 0.00
IES llesd Add) 0.07% 0.05 95% 85% 95% 0.07 0.01
1.22% 0.87 90% 85% 95% 0.64 0.05
^5% 95% 0.15 0.01
3.u3* 1.i 1 yu'io 35% 95% 1.58 0.12
0.12% 0.09 90% 90% 95% 0.07 0.00
0.28% 0.20 90% 90% 60% 0.10 0.01
'ood 3.26% 2.34 100% 100% 100% 2.34 0.17
2.06% 1.48 100% 100% 100% 1.48 0.11
FINES
3.09% 2.22 90% 90% 95% 1.70 0.13
A37E
10.00% 7.17 80% 100% 95% 5.45 0.40
.andies 11.62% 8.33 80% 100% 95% 6.33 0.47
SOUS
0.42% 0.30 90% 75% 95% 0.19 0.01
4.03% 2.89 70% 75% 95% 1.44 0.11
65.40% 46.89 34.01 2.51
on ay Percent
=ste Generation 71.69 100.00%
=oovered 34.01 47.44%
maining 37.68 52.56%
J on the total estimated residential waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
s Island.
endal waste stream is defined as excluding construction and demolition debris and landearing wastes,
alt,concrete,rock,brick,dirt,tree stumps,wood).
x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
consists of&M a recycling program.
=far recycling. SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining afterprocessing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6."(Page 4 of 4)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD.NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
INTERIM PHASE-1994
PERCENT OF AG RR RK
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONSDAY PR SE PE TONSDAY LBPCAPIOAY
PAPER
Newspaper 7.64% 5.48 95% 90% 95% 4.45 0.33
Mixed Paper(magazines. 10.00% 7.17 95% 80% 95% 5.18 0.38
junk mail,office paper,etc.)
CorrlBrown gag 1.50% 1.08 95% 90% 95% 0.87 0.06
Other Paperboard 3.98% 2.85 95% 90% 95% 2.32 0.17
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.6695 0.47 90% 80% 95% 0.32 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.09 90% 80% 95% 0.06 0.00
HDPE 0.48% 0.34 90% 80% 95% 0.24 0.02
Other Rigid 1.440/. 1.03 90% 80% 95% 0.71 0.05
Other Flexible 2.77% 1.99 90% 80% 95% 1.36 0.10
FOOD - 9.58% 6.97 90% 80% 95% 4.70 0.35
SOUS METALS
Food Ceps 2.37% 1.70 90% 65% 95% 0.94 OAT
White or Enameled 2.82% 2.02 95% 95% 95% 1.73 0.13
NON-FERROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.23% 0.16 95% 75% 95% 0.11 0.01
Batteries(Household) 0.09% 0.06 90% 70% 95% 0.04 0.00
Foil 0.17% 0.12 90% 70% 95% 0.07 0.01
FumiUue 0.05% 0.04 900% 70% 95% 0.02 0.00
BATTERIES CAW Add) 0.07% 0.05 95% 85% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.22% 0.87 95% 85% 95% 0.67 0.05
Amber 0.29% 0.21 95% 85% 95% 0.16 0.01
Flint 3.03% 2.17 95% 85% 95% 1.67 0.12
WOOD
Pallets 0.12% 0.09 95% 85% 95% 0.07 0.00
Lumber 0.28% 0.20 95% 85% 95% 0.15 0.01
Other Wood 3.26% 2.34 100% 85% 95% 1.89 0.14
RUBBER' 3.09% 2.22 100% 100% 100% 2.22 0.16
OTHER AND FINES
Dirt 2.06% 1.48 90% 100% 100% 1.33 0.10
YARD WASTE
Lewes 10.00% 7.17 95% 100% 95% 6.47 0.48
Brush/Brandies 11.62% 8.33 95% 100% 95% 7.52 0.56
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.42% 0.30 95% 75% 95% 0.20 0.02
Textiles 4.03% 2.89 95% 75% 95% 1.96 0.14
TOTAL 83.39% 59.78 47.49 3.51
Tons/Day Percent
Gross Waste Generation T1.69 100.00%
Waste Recovered 47.49 66.24%
Waste Remaining 24.20 33.76%
(1) Based an the total estimated residential waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
The residential waste stream is defined as excluding construction and demolition debris and landearing wastes.
(i.e..asphalt,concrete,rock,brick,dirt,tree stumps,wood).
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
'RINYf aornNHtdtrw a r
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- he p centage of the total population of waste generators participating in
sett autfor ran Ic". SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage
pe rhtege of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.1-1 (Page 1 of 4)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM
INTERIM PHASE-1994
PERCENT OF AA RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONS/DAY PR SE PE TONSCAY LB/CAP/DAY
PAPER
Newspaper 4.18% 3.78 92% 85% 95% 2.81 0.22
Moved Paper(magazines, 4.00% 3.62 60% 80% 95% 1.65 0.13
junk mail,office paper,etc.)
ConiBrown Bag 2.40% 2.17 80% 90% 95% 1.48 0.12
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.46% 0.42 70% 70% 95% 0.19 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.06% 0.05 70% 70% 95% 0.03 0.00
HDPE 0.50% 0.45 70% 70% 95% 0.21 0.02
FERROUS METALS
r
Food Cans _ 1.88% 1.70 50% 60% 95% 0.48 0.04
White or Enameled 2.60% 2.35 90% 90% 95% 1.81 0.14
NON-FERROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.06% 0.05 50% 60% 95% 0.02 0.00
Batteries(Household) 0.05% 0.05 40% 70% 95% 0.01 0.00
BATTERIES(Lend Add) 0.04% 0.04 40% 70% 95% 0.07 0.01
CLASS
Green 1.00% 0.90 90% 85% 95% 0.66 0.05
Amber 0.25% 0.23 90% 85% 95% 0.16 0.01
Flint 2.75% 2.49 90% 85% 95% 1.81 0.14
RUBBER* 1.14% 1.03 70% 100% 100% 0.72 0.06
YARD WASTE
Leaves 9.50% 8.59 80% 100% 95% 6.53 0.51
Brush/Branches 14.50% 13.11 80% 100% 95% 9.96 0.78
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.23% 0.21 40% 70% 95% 0.06 0.00
Textiles 2.20% 1.99 20% 60% 95% 0.23 0.02
TOTAL 47.80% 43.20 28.88 2.27
Tons/Dav Percent
Gross Waste Generation 90.38 100.00%
Waste Recovered 28.88 31.95%
Waste Remaining 61.50 68.05%
(1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
'Rubber consists of tires a recycling program.
sent out for noWding. SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining afterprocessing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.1-1 (Page 2 of 4)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM
MID-TERM PHASE-1995-1997
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONS/DAY PR SE PE TONS/DAY LBICAPIDAY
PAPER
Newspaper 4.18% 3.78 92% 85% 95% 2.81 0.22
Mixed Paper(magazines, 4.00% 3.62 70% 80% 95% 1.92 0.15
junk mail,office paper,etc.)
CorrJBrown Bag 2.40% 2.17 80% 90% 95% 1.48 0.12
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.46% 0.42 75% 70% 95% 0.21 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.06% 0.05 75% 70% 95% 0.03 0.00
HDPE 0.50% 0.45 75% 70% 95% 0.23 0.02
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans- 2.18% 1.97 80% 65% 95% 0.97 0.07
White or Enameled 2.60% 2.35 80% 95% 95% 1.70 0.13
NON-FERROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.06% 0.05 50% 60% 95% 0.02 0.00
Batteries(Household) 0.05% 0.05 40% 70% 95% 0.01 0.00
BATTERIES(Lend Add) 0.04% 0.04 40% 70% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.00% 0.90 90% 85% 95% 0.66 0.05
Amber 0.25% 0.23 90% 85% 95% 0.16 0.01
Flint 2.75% 2.49 90% 85% 95% 1.81 0.14
wool)
Pallets 0.26% 0.23 90% 90% 95% 0.18 0.01
Lumber 0.60% 0.54 90% 90% 60% 0.26 0.02
Other Wood 6.87% 6.21 90% 100% 100% 5.59 0.41
RUBBLE
Asphalt 1.44% 1.30 100% 100% 100% 1.30 0.10
ConcJRoduBddc 8.81% 7.96 100% 100% 100% 7.96 0.59
RUBBER' 1.14% 1.03 70% 100% 100% 0.72 0.06
OTHER S FINES
Dirt 17.42% 15.74 90% 90% 95% 12.11 0.89
YARD WASTE
Leaves 9.50% 8.59 80% 100% 95% 6.53 0.51
Brush/Branches 14.50% 13.11 80% 100% 95% 9.96 0.78
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.23% 0.21 40% 70% 95% 0.06 0.00
Textiles 2.20% 1.99 20% 60% 95% 0.23 0.02
TOTAL 83.50% 75.45 56.96 4.21
Tons/Day Percent
Gross Waste Generation 90.38 100.00%
Waste Recovered 56.96 63.02%
Waste Remaining 33.42 36.98%
(1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
'Rubber consists of tires a recycling program.
sent out for recycling. SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.1-1(Page 3 of 4)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD.NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM
LONG-TERM PHASE-1998-2007
PERCENT OF All RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONSMY PR SE PE TONSADAY LBfCAPIDAY
PAPER
Newspaper 4.18% 3.78 80% 85% 95% 2.44 0.18
Moved Paper(magazines. 4.00% 3.62 75% 800% 95% 2.06 0.15
junk nail,office paper,etc.)
CorrJBrown Bag 2.40% 2.17 80% 90% 95% 1.48 0.11
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.46% 0.42 70% 70% 95% 0.19 0.01
PET<1 Liter 0.06% 0.05 70% 70% 95% 0.03 0.00
HDPE 0.50% 0.45 70% 70% 95% 0.21 0.02
Other Rigid 0.79% 0.71 80% 80% 95% 0.43 0.03
Other Flexible 1.52% 1.37 65% 85% 95% 0.72 0.05
T
FOOD 6.47% 5.85 65% 55% 95% 1.99 0.15
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 2.18% 1.97 80% 65% 95% 0.97 0.07
White or Enameled 2.60% 2.35 80% 95% 95% 1.70 0.13
NONFERROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.06% 0.05 50% 60% 95% 0.02 0.00
Batteries(Household) 0.05% 0.05 40% 70% 95% 0.01 0.00
Fal 0.09% 0.08 80% 85% 95% 0.05 0.00
Furniture 0.02% 0.02 80% 75% 95% 0.01 0.00
BATTERIES(Load Add) 0.04% 0.04 40% 70% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.00% 0.90 90% 85% 95% 0.66 0.05
Amber 0.25% 0.23 90% 85% 95% 0.16 0.01
Flint 2.75% 2.49 90% 85% 95% 1.81 0.13
WOOD
Pallets 0.26% 0.23 90% 90% 95% 0.18 0.01
Lumber 0.60% 0.54 90% 90% 60% 0.26 0.02
Other Wood 6.87% 6.21 100% 100% 100% 6.21 0.46
RUBBLE
Asphalt 1.44% 1.30 100% 100% 100% 1.30 0.10
ConcJRocWBrick 8.81% 7.96 100% 100% 100% 7.96 0.59
RUBBER 1.14% 1.03 70% 100% 100% 0.72 0.05
OTHER 3 FINES
Dirt 17.42% 15.74 80% 90% 95% 10.77 0.80
YARD WASTE
Leaves 9.50% 8.59 80% 100% 95% 6.53 0.48
Brush/Branches 14.50% 13.11 80% 100% 95% 9.96 0.74
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.23% 0.21 40% 70% 95% 0.06 0.00
Textiles 2.20% 1.99 20% 60% 95% 0.23 0.02
TOTAL 92.39% 83.49 59.18 4.37
ToniF Percent
Gross Waste Genera o
Waste Recovered 59.18 65.48%
Waste Remaining 31.20 34.52%
(1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
'Rafter oorrsisfs Cr tiros a recycling program.
sett ort tior rooldlrg- SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.1-1(Page 4ot 4)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM
LONG-TERM PHASE-2008-2015
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAWASTE STREAM TONSDAY PR SE PE TONSGAY LBA AP/Q/1Y
PAPER
Newspaper 4.18% 3.78 95% 85% 95% 2.90 0.21
Mbted Paper(magazines, 4.00% 3.62 75% 80% 95% 2.06 0.15
junk mail,office paper,etc.)
CorrJBfown Bag 2.40% 2.17 80% 90% 95% 1.48 0.11
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.46% 0.42 80% 70% 95% 0.22 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.06% 0.05 80% 70% 95% 0.03 0.00
HDPE 0.50% 0.45 80% TO% 95% 0.24 0.02
Other Rigid 0.79% 0.71 80% 80% 95% 0.43 0.03
Other Flexible 1.52% 1.37 65% 85% 95% 0.72 0.05
1
FOOD 6.47% 5.85 65% 55% 95% 1.99 0.15
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 2.18% 1.97 80% 65% 95% 0.97 0.07
While or Enameled 2.60% 2.35 95% 95% 95% 2.01 0.15
NON+XRROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.06% 0.05 85% 600/0 950/0 0.03 0.00
Batteries(Household) 0.05% 0.05 80% 70% 95% 0.02 0.00
Foil 0.09% 0.08 80% 85% 95% 0.05 0.00
Furniture 0.02% 0.02 80% 75% 95% 0.01 0.00
BATTERIES(Lad Add) 0.0495 0.04 95% 7095 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.00% 0.90 90% 85% 95% 0.66 0.05
Amber 0.25% 0.23 900/0 85% 95% 0.16 0.01
Flint 2.75% 2.49 90% 85% 95% 1.81 0.13
WOOS
Pellets 0.26% 0.23 90% 90% 95% 0.18 0.01
Lumber 0.60% 0.54 90% 90% 6095 0.26 0.02
Other Wood 6.87% 6.21 100% 10095 100% 6.21 0.46
RUBBLE
Asphalt 1.44950 1.30 100% 100% 100% 1.30 0.10
ConcJRocWBrick 8.81% 7.96 100% 100% 100% 7.96 0.59
RUBBER 1.14% 1.03 100% 100% 100% 1.03 0.08
OTHER s FINES
Dirt 17.42% 15.74 90% 90% 95% 12.11 0.89
YARQ WASTE
Leaves 9.50% 8.59 95% 100% 95% T.T5 0.57
BrustManches 14.50% 13.11 95% 100% 95% 11.83 0.87
MISCEIlAIEOUS
HHW 0.23% 0.21 90% 70% 95% 0.12 0.01
Textiles 2.20% 1.99 75% 60% 95% 0.85 0.06
TOTAL 92.39% 83.48 65.48 4.84
Tons/Day Percent
Gross Waste Generation 90.38 100.00%
Waste Recovered 65.48 72.45%
Waste Remaining 24.90 27.55%
(1) Based on the total estimated waste stream`s quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
'Rubber aonr bb of Wes a recycling program.
Sent out far reglay. SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVFRY RATF- Tha amnrrnt of mAtarial whirh rAn ha rlivartart from tha waste stream.
TABLE 6.1-3(Page 1 of 3)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
...... INTERIM PHASE-1994
PERCENT OF AQ
RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONSIDAY PR SE PE TONSIDAY LBICAPIDAY
PAPER
Newspaper 7.64% 5.48 92% 90% 95% 4.31 0.32
Magazines 2.76% 1.98 80% 80% 95% 1.20 0.09
CorrJBrown Bag 1.50% 1.08 50% 90% 95% 0.46 0.03
Office Paper 0.97% 0.70 20% 85% 95% 0.11 0.01
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.66% 0.47 70% 80% 95% 025 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.09 70% 80% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.48% 0.34 70% 80% 95% 0.18 0.01
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 2.37% 1.70 80% 65% 95% 0.84 0.06
White or Enameled 2.82% 2.02 80% 95% 95% 1.46 0.11
NON-FERROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.23% 0.16 50% 75% 95% 0.06 0.00
Batteries(Household) 0.09% 0.06 40% 70% 95% 0.02 0.00
BATTERIES(Lead AdcQ 0.07% 0.05 40% 85% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.22% 0.87 90% 85% 95% 0.64 0.05
Amber 0.29% 0.21 90% 85% 95% 0.15 0.01
Flint 3.03% 2.17 90% 85% 95% 1.58 0.12
RUBBER 2.06% 1.48 70% 100% 100% 1.03 0.08
YARD WASTE
Leaves 10.00% 7.17 80% 100% 95% 5.45 0.40
Brush/Branches 11.62% 8.33 80% 100% 95% 6.33 0.47
MIS(XLLANEOUS
HHW 0.42% 0.30 70% 75% 95% 0.15 0.01
Textiles 4.03% 2.89 50% 75% 95% 1.03 0.08
TOTAL 52.38% 37.55 25.37 1.87
on ay Percent
Gross Waste Generation 71.69 100.00%
Waste Recovered 25.37 35.39%
Waste Remaining 46.32 84.61%
(1) Based on the total estimated residential waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
The residential waste stream is defined as excluding construction and demolition debris and ianclearing wastes,
(i.e.,asphalt,concrete,rock,brick,dirt,tree stumps,wood).
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
a recycling program.
SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which Is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.13(Page 2 of 3)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
MID-TERM PHASE-1995-1997
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONSIDAY PR SE PE TONS/DAY LBfW/DAY
PAPER
Newspaper 7.64% 5.48 92% 90% 95% 4.31 0.32
Magazines-_____ 2.76% 1.98 80% 80% 95% 1.20 0.09
CorrJBrown Bag gy �(d i ( 1.50% 1.08 90% 90% 95% 0.83 0.06
Bffies-Raper G 0.97% 0.70 75% 85% 95% 0.42 0.03
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.66% 0.47 80% 80% 95% 0.29 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.09 80% 80% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.48% 0.34 80% 80% 95% 021 0.02
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 2.37% 1.70 80% 65% 95% 0.84 0.06
White or Enameled 2.82% 2.02 80% 95% 95% 1.48 0.11
NON-FERROUS METHS
Aluminum Cans 023% 0.16 80% 75% 95% 0.09 0.01
Batteries(Household) 0.09% 0.06 80% 70% 95% 0.03 0.00
BATTERIES(Lead Add) 0.07% 0.05 95% 85% 95% 0.07 0.01
GABS
Green 1.22% 0.87 90% 85% 95% 0.64 0.05
Amber 0.29% 021 90% 85% 95% 0.15 0.01
Flint 3.03% 2.17 90% 85% 95% 1.58 0.12
WOOD
Pallets 0.12% 0.09 90% 90% 95% 0.07 0.00
Lumber 0.28% 0.20 90% - 90% 60% 0.10 0.01
Other Wood 3.26% 2.34 100% 100% 100% 2.34 0.17
RUBBER 2.06% 1.48 100% 100% 100% 1.48 0.11
OTHER 3 FINES
Dirt 3.09% 222 90% 90% 95% 1.70 0.13
YARD WASTE
Leaves 10.00% 7.17 80% 100% 95% 5.45 0.40
Brush/Brandies 11.82% 8.33 80% 100% 95% 6.33 0.47
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.42% 0.30 90% 75% 95% 0.19 0.01
Textiles 4.03% 2.89 70% 75% 95% 1.44 0.11
TOTAL 59.13% 42.39 3127 2.31
Tons/Day Percent
Gross Waste Generation 71.69 100.00%
Waste Recovered 3127 43.62%
Waste Remaining 40.42 56.38%
(1) Based on the total estimated residential waste stream's quantity and characteristics forthe year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
The residential waste stream is defined as excluding construction and demolition debris and lanclearing wastes,
(i.e.,asphalt,concrete,rock,brick,dirt,tree stumps,wood)..
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
a recycling program.
SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
Cl
TABLE 6.1.3(Papa 3 d3) �y
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIA.RECOVERY RATES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
_.LONG-TERM PHASE- .. t4q�-aa 070�7��pt�
PERCENrOF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE IITREAM TONSMY PR BE PE TONOMY LSCAFWAY
PAPER
Newspaper 7.64% 5.48 96% 96% 95% 4.70 0.35
MegazYrs 2.78% 1.98 90%J-,�7 85% 95% 128 0.09
CorJBWM Beg 1-50% 1.08 90%4t5 96% 95% 0.87 0.08
Other Paperboard 3.98% 2.85 80%'011
80% 95%
o W Paper ;x�d 0.97% 0.70 85%�5/ 90% 95% os, 0.04
7.19% 5.15 80lG e!55..11 Bo% 95% 3.13 0.23
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.88% 0.47 6 Co 8o% 95% 029 0.02
PET-c,Liter 0.12% 0.09 Ao 8o% 95% 0.05 0.00
MOPE 0.48% 0.34k 90 8o% 96% 0.21 0.02
other Rigid 1.44% 1.03 $81L '10 80% 95% 0.63 0.06
Ober Flu ble 2.77% 1.99 4!0 85% 95% 1.04 0.06
FOOD ash% 8.87 gLd�SS 0.66 0.96 2.33 0.17
FERROUS METALS
Food Can 2.37% 1.70 ,9oX Pole 70% 95% 0.90 0.07
While or EnwF*W 2.82% 2.02 96%�/ 95% 95% 1.73 0.13
NONFERROUS METALS
AkMmtrmhm Carr 023% 0.16 S 80% 95% 0.11 0.01
Batteries(Hmmehoki) 0.09% 0.06 70% 95% 0.03 0.00
Fol 0.17% 0.1285% 96% 0.08 0.01
Fun*ure 0.05% 0.04 J0% 75% 95% 0.02 0.00
BATTERFS omW Add) 0.07% 0.05 95% 85% 95% 0.07 0.01
Q LAW
Green 1.22% 0.87 44 80% 95% 0.60 0.04
Amiber 029% 021 p0%1A4� 90% 95% 0.14 0.01
F6nl 3.03% 2.17 90%I S 80% 95% 1.49 0.11
WOOD
Pallets 0.12% 0.09 j" 90% 95% 0.07 0.00
Lumber 028% 0.20 -8%y 90% 60% 0.10 0.01
olrr wood 3.26% 2.34 100% 100% 100% 2.34 0.17
RUMR 2.08% 1.48 100% 100% 100% 1.48 0.11
OTHER a FSES
Dkt 3.09% 222 90% 90% 95% 1.70 0.13
YARDWASTE
Leaves 10.00% 7.17 95% 100% 96% 6.47 0.48
Bnmh4Avlchs4 11.62% 8.33 JSAtj,s 100% 96% 7.12 Os3
MtSCF11J11EOU8
i'I'W 0.42% 0.30 90%9l 75% 95% 0.19 0.01
Tis 4.03% 2.891 75� 75% 95% 1.03 0.08
TOTAL 84.31% 50.44 40.71 3.01
ercort
Gross Wash Gemmation 71.69 100.00%
Wed*Reaorwrd 40.71 66.79%
waste Re mkft 30.98 4321%
(1) Based on the total eslnmted resider"waste str wft quantity and cheractsfislics for lr year 1994.exdLK*g
Fishers bland.
The resider"waste stream is"Vood n mckx g comMxdon and dere lon debris arta landae"wastes.
(i.e-.asphWL conccreto.rock.brick.dirt.tree stumps,wood).
=AO x PR x SE x PE. where AO=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The a rrow t of malarial present in Or waste Woom
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentape of the total pWAsOon d waste gerherslors particpatkg In
a recydrg program.
SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The pwm tape d mMerial which b solually kept sepsome from raluse by
proWwriticiparits
PE-PROCESSING EFFICIENCY The perc rtep of nuts"rwroW g alter prooeaaig
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of mabrial which can be diverted from do waste stream.
TABLE 6.1-1(Page 2 of 3)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM
MID-TERM PHASE-1995-1997
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TOPOWAY PR SE PE TONSIDAY UNCAPfDAY
PAPER
Newspaper � �� 4.18% 3.78 92% 85% 95% 2.81 0.22
Magazines a�11%K �i� h 1.51% 1.36 40% 80% 95% 0.41 0.03
CorrJBrcwn Beg1
1 Y 14 N . t 2.40% 2.17 80% 90% 95% 1.48 0.12
Office Paper y" k ; 0.53% 0.48 20% 60% 95% 0.05 0.00
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter. j��� 0.46% 0.42 75% 70% 95% 021 0.02
HDPE
Liter G/� 0.12% 0.11 75% 70% 95% 0.05 0.00
0.50% 0.45 75% 70% 95% 023 0.02
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 2.18% 1.97 80% 65% 95% 0.97 0.07
White or Enameled 2.60% 2.35 95% 95% 1.70 0.13
qoF�
NON-FERROUS METAS
Aluminum Cans 0.06% 0.05 50% 60% 95% 0.02 0.00
Batteries(Household) 0.05% 0.05 40% 70% 95% 0.01 0.00
BATTERIES(Ldled Add) 0.04% 0.04 40% 70% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
(beam 1.00% 0.90 90% 85% 90% 0.00 0.05
Amber 025% 023 90% 85% 95% 0.16 0.01
Flint 2.75% 2.49 90% 85% 95% 1.81 0.14
WOOD
Pallets 026% 0.23 90% , 90% 95% 0.18 0.01
Lumber 0.60% 0.54 90% 90% 60% 0.26 0.02
Other Wood 6.87% 6.21 90% 100% 100% 5.59 0.41
RUBBLE
Asphalt 1.44% 1.30 100% 100% 100% 1.30 0.10
ConcJRodc/Brick 8.81% 7.96 100% 100% 100% 7.96 0.59
RUBBER 1.14% 1.03 70% 100% 100% 0.72 0.06
OTHER i FINES
Dirt 17.42% 15.74 90% 90% 95% 12.11 0.89
YARD WASTE
Leaves 9.50% 8.59 80%,r 100% 95% 8.53 0.51
BrushfBranches 14.50% 13.11 80%i 100% 95% 9.98 0.78
i
SOUS
HHW 0.23% 021 70% 95% 0.08 0.00
Textiles 220% 1.99 60% 95% 023 0.02
TOTAL 81.60% 73.74 55.53 4.10
Ton Percent
Gross Waste Generation 90.38 100.00%
J
Waste Recovered 55.53 61.45% %L7
Waste Remaining 34.85 38.55% �
(1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quantity and characteristim forthe year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
a recycling program.
SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining atter processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE e.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLU.if:..n e
/c�. E; _
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BAae )_ maty,.-F,!4/Q rE STREAM
LOw-TERMPHASE-1998
PERC8frOF A]7 RR lit
MATERIA. WASTE STREAM TONWIXY PR P BE PE TONBIOAY U3CAtPMy
_ r
PAPER
Newspaper 4.18% 3.78 ,92%/,?+ 85% 96% 2.81 021
MIMMIUr 151% 1.38 401. 80% 86% 0.41 0.03
CorrJBrown Bap 2.40% 2.17 ^ 0 90% 95% 1.48 0.11
omewPaper 0 0.53% 0.48 20% 80% 96% 0.05 0.00
oom ,M;I,4A r1 f r �(? 3.94% 3,66 q_4j fi : 80% 95% 2.17 0.16
PLASTICS
PET>1 LNer 0.4.,6% 0.42 70% 70% 96% 0.19 0.01
PET<1 LN" PA,Q�p 0.11 10% O 70% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.50% 0.45 70% d 70% 95% 021 0.02
Other Rigid 0.79% 0.71 80% 0 80% 95% 0.43 0.03
Other Flexible 1.52% 1.37 85% 85% 95% 0.72 0.05
FOOD 6.47% 5.85 0.65 OSS 0.96 1.99 0.15
FEFROU S METAS
Food Cans 2.19% 1.97 pj�el V 85% 95% 0.97 0.07
rw
WhkoorEmated 2.60% 2.35 Jv<gsoh 96% 96% 1.70 0.13
NON*EFROM METALS
Atuniran Cars 0.06% 0.05 polc$d 60% 95% 0.02 0.00
Batteries(HOusehold) 0.05% 0.05 D 70% 95% 0.01 0.00
Foil0.09% 0.08 85% 95% 0.05 0.00
FrarWtna 0.02% 0.02 80% 75% 95% 0.01 0.00
SATTERES fAWAdCQ 0.04% 0.04 •^" 0.07 0.01
GLASS �.-
ML�
Green 1.00% R 0 - J V' 9.68 0.0.5
Amber 0.25% qo 0. '-�,tll. // 0.16 0.01
F*d 2.75% Ab 2: . 1.81 0.13
) 1
WOOD `�,�
fr 1
Pallets 026% �6 02 0.18 0.01
Lumber 0.60% V OS ( 0.26 0.02
other Wom 6.87% f/`d 82' 621 0.46
RUBBLE
Asp W 1.14% 1.30 100% 100% 100% 1.30 0.10
ConrJROddBddc 8.81% 7.96 100% 100% 100% 7.96 OS9
RLISR 1.14% 1.03 7 "-/� 100% 100% 0.72 0.05
�70
OTHERiFe+ES
Dir 17.42% 15.74 900% / 90% 95% 12.11 0.89
LWASTE
eaves 930% 8.159 01%q, 100% 95% 7.34 0.54
Brusho0anches 1450% 13.11 X%O 100% 96% 11.20 0.83
M18CEJIAIEOUB
HKN 029% 02190 70% 96% 0.06 0.00
Taxwes 2.20% 1.99 Asa 80% 95% 023 6.02
TOTAL 94.43% 85.33 63.55 4.70
T Perasnt
ante
weste Recovered 8355 70.32%
waste Remaining 26.83 29.68%
(1) Based an the I01W es*r*ed vNA9 streams gUWW end cheradaFWW for the year 1994,exdu*lg
Fishers MGM.
tR=AO x PR x SE x PE.where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The ama"d md*M prwerA in the waste stroan
PR-PARTICIPATION RATE- The peroar "d Nw IM popYWbn d waste gonerakn park"Urg in
e rwidrg program.
SE-SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The pxowltago d r Mo"wtNdr Is aduaey kept seperaW from ream by
piograrnparkowft
PE-PROCESSNIG EFFICIENCY-The pwowtgp at maiw W rwnenM alter prooewkg
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The arrmt d material which can be diverted bom the waste strewn
TABLE 6.1-1(Page 1 of 3)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM
INTERIM PHASE-1994
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TON8A2AY PR SE PE TONS/DAY LBPCAPA3AY
PAPER
r11 Newspaper 4.18% 3.78 92% 85% 95% 2.81 0.22
-Magaxiaee-- 1.51% 1.36 40% 80% 95% 0.41 0.03
0) CorrJBrown Bag x 2.40% 2.17 80% 90% 95% 1.48 0.12
0.53% 0.48 20% 60% 95% 0.05 0.00
'7
PLASTICS
rn PET>1 Liter 0.46% 0.42 70% 70% 95% 0.19 0.02
1 PE1 Liter 0.12% 0.11 70% 70% 95% 0.05 0.00
HOPE 0.50% 0.45 70% 70% 95% 021 0.02
FERROUS METALS
M Food Cans 1.88% 1.70Fie
60% 95% 0.48 0.04
tr *0 White or Enameled A- t r 2.60% 2.35 � 90% 95% 0.80 0.06
NON-FERROUS METALS
M Aluminum Cans 0.08% 0.05 50% 60% 95% 0.02 0.00
Batteries(Household) M-L fi 0.05% 0.05 40%' 70% 95% 0.01 0.00
BATTERIES OA@d Add) 0.04% 0.04 40% 70% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.00% 0.90 90% 85% 95% 0.66 0.05
Amber 025% 0.23 90% 85% 95% 0.16 0.01
Flint 2.75% 2.49 90% S5% 95% 1.81 0.14
*RUMER M -L f 1.14% 1.03 70% 100% 100% 0.72 0.08
YARD WASTE
Leaves M" c r 9.50% 8.59 80% 100% 95% 6.53 0.51
BmshlB anches P4,)-r 14.50% 13.11 80% 100% 95% 9.96 0.78
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW M-L r+ 023% 021 40% 70% 95% 0.06 0.00
Textiles N! x P 2.20% 1.99 20% 60% 95% 023 0.02
TOTAL 45.90% 41.48 28.72 2.10
Tongan Percent
Gross Waste Generation 90.38 100.00%
Waste Recovered 26.72 29.56%
Waste Remaining 63.66 70.44%
(1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quantity and characters for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
RR=AQ x PR x 8E x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
a recycling program.
SE-SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of materiel which is actually kept separate from refuse by
Program participant
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
UvL
L--
n
TABLE 6.1-3(Page 3 of 4)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
LONG-TERM PHASE-1997-2007
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONSIDAY PR BE PE TONBIOAY L.BIC APIOAY
PAPER
Newspaper 7.64% 5.48 95% 95% 95% 4.70 0.35
Mbkad Paper(magazines, 10.00% 7.17 80% 90% 95% 4.90 0.36
junk mad,office paper.etc.)
CofrJBrown Bag 1.50% 1.08 90% 95% 95% 0.87 0.06
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.66% 0.47 80% 80% 95% 0.29 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.09 90% 80% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.48% 0.34 80% 80% 95% 0.21 0.02
Other Rigid 1.44% 1.03 80% 80% 95% 0.63 0.05
Other Flexible 2.77% 1.99 65% 85% 95% 1.04 0.08
FOOD 9.58% 6.87 0.65 0.55 0.95 2.33 0.17
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 2.37% 1.70 90% 70% 95% 1.02 0.08
White or Enameled 2.82% 2.02 95% 95% 95% 1.73 0.13
NON-FERROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.2399 0.18 90% 80% 95% 0.11 0.01
Batteries(Household) 0.09% 0.06 90% 70% 95% 0.04 0.00
Fail 0.17% 0.12 80% 85% 95% 0.08 0.01
Furniture 0.05% 0.04 80% 75% 95% 0.02 0.00
BATTERIES OAA Add) 0.07% 0.05 95% 85% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.22% 0.87 90% 80% 95% 0.60 0.04
Amber 0.29% 0.21 90% 80% 95% 0.14 0.01
Flint 3.03% 2.17 90% 80% 95% 1.49 0.11
WOOD
panels 0.12% 0.09 90% 90% 95% 0.07 0.00
Lumber 0.28% 0.20 90% 90% 60% 0.10 0.01
Other Wood 3.26% 2.34 100% 100% 100% 2.34 0.17
RUBBER 2.06% 1.48 100% 100% 100% 1.48 0.11
OTHER i FINES
Dirt 3.09% 2.22 90% 90% 95% 1.70 0.13
YARD WASTE
Leaves 10.00% 7.17 95% 100% 95% 6.47 0.48
Brush/Branches 11.62% 8.33 95% 100% 95% 7.52 0.56
MISCELLANEOUS
HIM 0.42% 0.30 90% 85% 95% 0.22 0.02
Textiles 4.03% 2.89 90% 85% 95% 2.10 0.16
TOTAL 79.41% 56.93 42.32 3.13
Ton ay Percent
Gross Waste Generation 71.69 100.00%
Waste Recovered 42.32 59.03%
Waste Remaining 29.37 40.97%
(1) Based on the total estimated residential waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers island.
The residential waste stream is defined as excluding construction and demolition debris and lanclowing wastes,
(i.e.,asphak.concrete.rock,brick,dirt,tree stumps,wood).
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
lilrbbor COtMMit crew a recycling program.
Batt out tr 1Kvcp. SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program Participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.13(Page 1 of 4)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
INTERIM PHASE-1994
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONSIDAY PR SE PE TONSIDAY LBICAPMAY
PAPER
Newspaper 7.64% 5.48 92% 90% 95% 4.31 0.32
Magazines 2.76% 1.98 80% 80% 95% 1.20 0.09
Con-JBrown Bag 1.50% 1.08 50% 90% 95% 0.46 0.03
Office Paper 0.97% 0.70 20% 85% 95% 0.11 0.01
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.66% 0.47 70% 80% 95% 025 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.09 70% 80% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.48% 0.34 70% 80% 95% 0.18 0.01
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 2.37% 1.70 80% 65% 95% 0.84 0.06
White or Enameled 2.82% 2.02 80% 95% 95% 1.46 0.11
NON-FERROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.23% 0.16 50% 75% 95% 0.06 0.00
Batteries(Household) 0.09% 0.06 40% 70% 95% 0.02 0.00
BATTERIES(Laid Add) 0.07% 0.05 40% 85% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.22% 0.87 90% 85% 95% 0.64 0.05
Amber 0.29% 0.21 90% 85% 95% 0.15 0.01
Flint 3.03% 2.17 90% 85% 95% 1.58 0.12
RUBBER 2.06% 1.48 70% 100% 100% 1.03 0.08
YARD WASTE
Leaves 10.00% 7.17 80% 100% 95% 5.45 0.40
Brush/Branches 11.62% 8.33 80% 100% 95% 6.33 0.47
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.42% 0.30 70% 75% 95% 0.15 0.01
Textiles 4.03% 2.89 50% 75% 95% 1.03 0.08
TOTAL 52.38% 37.55 25.37 1.87
on ay Percent
Gross Waste Generation 71.69 100.00%
Waste Recovered 25.37 35.39%
Waste Remaining 46.32 64.61%
(1) Based on the total estimated residential waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
The residential waste stream is defined as excluding construction and demolition debris and lanclearing wastes,
(.e.,asphalt,concrete,rock,brick,dirt,tree stumps,wood).
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
'Rubber conahts of tyros a recycling program.
sent out for recycling. SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.1-3(Page 2 of 4)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
MID-TERM PHASE-1995-1997
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONSIOAY PR SE PE TONSIDAY LBICAPIDAY
PAPER
Newspaper 7.64% 5.48 92% 90% 95% 4.31 0.32
Magazines 2.76% 1.98 80% 80% 95% 1.20 0.09
CorrJBrown Bag 1.50% 1.08 90% 90% 95% 0.83 0.06
Office Paper 0.97% 0.70 75% 85% 95% 0.42 0.03
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.66% 0.47 80% 80% 95% 0.29 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.09 80% 80% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.48% 0.34 80% 80% 95% 0.21 0.02
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 2.37% 1.70 80% 65% 95% 0.84 0.06
WhiteorEnameled 2.82% 2.02 80% 95% 95% 1.46 0.11
NON-FERROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.23% 0.16 80% 75% 95% 0.09 0.01
Batteries(Household) 0.09% 0.06 80% 70% 95% 0.03 0.00
BATTERIES(Lead Acid) 0.07% 0.05 95% 85% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.22% 0.87 90% 85% 95% 0.64 0.05
Amber 0.29% 0.21 90% 85% 95% 0.15 0.01
Flint 3.03% 2.17 90% 85% 95% 1.58 0.12
WOOD
Pallets 0.12% 0.09 90% 90% 95% 0.07 0.00
Lumber 0.28% 0.20 90% 90% 60% 0.10 0.01
Other Wood 3.26% 2.34 100% 100% 100% 2.34 0.17
RUBBER 2.06% 1.48 100% 100% 100% 1.48 0.11
OTHER&FINES
Dkt 3.09% 2.22 90% 90% 95% 1.70 0.13
YARD WASTE
Leaves 10.00% 7.17 80% 100% 95% 5.45 0.40
Brush/Branches 11.62% 8.33 80% 100% 95% 6.33 0.47
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.42% 0.30 90% 75% 95% 0.19 0.01
Textiles 4.03% 2.89 70% 75% 95% 1.44 0.11
TOTAL 59.13% 42.39 31.27 2.31
on ay Percent
Gross Waste Generation 71.69 100.00%
Waste Recovered 31.27 43.62%
Waste Remaining 40.42 56.38%
(1) Based on the total estimated residential waste stream's quantity and characteristics forthe year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
The residential waste stream is defined as excluding constriction and demolition debris and lanclearing wastes,
(.e.,asphalt,concrete,rock,brick,dirt,tree stumps,wood).
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
'Rubber ameieta of Was a recycling program.
sant out for reoydlnp. SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.13(Page 4 of 4)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
INTERIM PHASE-1994
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONSIDAY PR SE PE TONSIOAY LBICAP/OAY
PAPER
Newspaper 7.64% 5.48 92% 90% 95% 4.31 0.32
Magazines 2.76% 1.98 80% 80% 95% 1.20 0.09
Corr.Brown Bag 1.50% 1.08 50% 90% 95% 0.46 0.03
Office Paper 0.97% 0.70 20% 85% 95% 0.11 0.01
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.66% 0.47 70% 80% 95% 0.25 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.09 70% 80% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.48% 0.34 70% 80% 95% 0.18 0.01
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 2.37% 1.70 80% 65% 95% 0.84 0.06
White or Enameled 2.82% 2.02 80% 95% 95% 1.46 0.11
NON-FERROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.23% 0.16 50% 75% 95% 0.06 0.00
Batteries(Household) 0.09% 0.06 40% 70% 95% 0.02 0.00
BATTERIES(Lead Add) 0.07% 0.05 40% 85% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.22% 0.87 90% 85% 95% 0.64 0.05
Amber 0.29% 0.21 90% 85% 95% 0.15 0.01
Ffint 3.03% 2.17 90% 85% 95% 1.58 0.12
RUBBER* 2.06% 1.48 70% 100% 100% 1.03 0.08
YARD WASTE
Leaves 10.00% 7.17 80% 100% 95% 5.45 0.40
Brush/Branches 11.62% 8.33 80% 100% 95% 6.33 0.47
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.42% 0.30 70% 75% 95% 0.15 0.01
Textiles 4.03% 2.89 50% 75% 95% 1.03 0.08
TOTAL 52.38% 37.55 25.37 1.87
TonslDay Percent
Gross Waste Generation 71.89 100.00%
Waste Recovered 25.37 35.39%
Waste Remaining 46.32 64.61%
(1) Based on the total estimated residential waste stream's quantity and characteristics forthe year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
The residential waste stream is defined as excluding construction and demolition debris and landearing wastes,
(i.e.,asphalt,concrete,rock,brick,dirt,tree stumps,wood).
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
'Rubber oonshts d dm a recycling program.
sent out for regMIng. SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Building 40 SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356
Telephone: (516) 444-0375IV
Fax: f516) 444-0373
Langdon Marsh
Commissioner
November 3, 1994
5-W M
The Honorable Thomas Wickham
Supervisor, Town of Southold
Town Hall
Post Office Box 1179
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Town of Southold Draft Solid Waste Management Plan, August, 1994.
Dear Supervisor Wickham:
The reference to the draft being received on August 30, 1994 is correct for the central
office staff, because only one document was submitted to the Regional Director in March
1994. The correct procedure is for two copies to be submitted to the Regional Office and
three additional copies to be submitted to the central office staff. It was then left up to the
Regional office to send out the document to have additional copies made, after contacting the
Town's consultants Dvirka and Bartilucci.
The comments attached are the additional comments regarding the Comprehensive
Recycling Analysis portion of the Town's Solid Waste Management Plan which was received
in the Bureau of Waste Reduction and Recycling office on September 1, 1994.
Please contact David Vitale at (518) 457-3966, if you have any questions or concerns.
Sincerely, J
ne Howell
Solid Waste Management Specialist
cc: Frank Isler, (Town Attorney)
Mary Carpentiere, (Legal)
David Vitale, (Albany)
Michael McTague, (Albany)
�,printed on recycled paper
c ,
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE
Bureau of Waste Reduction and Recycling
Comments on the Town of Southold's Draft Solid Waste Management Plan
Prepared by: 4avid Vi -ale Date: October 28, 1994
Signed by:
These are review comments on the Town of Southold's November 1993 Draft
Solid Waste Management Plan which was received by the Department on August 30,
1994 and our office on September 1, 1994, in relation to waste reduction and
recycling. These comments are made under the premise that the Fishers Island
Garbage. and Refuse District is considered a separate planning unit and will be
providing their own Local Solid Waste Management Plan.
1 . The discussion relating to the evaluations of the potentially recyclable
and compostable materials in the waste stream need to be enhanced. The
following are specific sections of the plan where revision is
appropriate: [360-1.9(f) (1 ) (ii)]
a. On Pages S-6 and 5-21, the list of materials to be addressed in the
Plan should include; drink boxes/milk cartons (polycoated paper),
junk mail , telephone books, food waste and sludge.
b. On Pages 2-19 and 2-21, the listing of the waste composition
information for paper and plastics should be segmented into
subcomponents of each of those general materials. Those
subcomponents should then be evaluated or included in the recovery
analysis and projections throughout the Plan. In addition, textiles
does not appear to be segmented in these listings and should be. It
is recognized that Table 2.2.5-1 has a minor segmentation of some
paper subcomponents; however, this also needs to be enhanced.
C. On Pages 3-4, a listing of materials included in the household
hazardous waste collection program is provided. A discussion should
be included in the Plan which evaluates-the potential
recyclability/reusability of these materials (e.g. , aerosols,
paint) .
d. The discussion on Page 4-18 of Appendix A regarding telephone books
appears out-of-date and should be updated in the final Plan.
e. An evaluation of the potential recyclability of drink boxes/milk
cartons (polycoated paper) should be included in the Plan and
incorporated into the program if appropriate.
2. Alternative source separation/recyclables recovery programs which were
considered, the majority of the proposed program, and the reasons for
selecting most components of the proposed program were identified.
However, the following are specific questions/comments on the proposed
program: [360-1.9(f) (4)]
a. The Plan and Appendix A (Comprehensive Recycling Analysis) contains
many qualifying phrases such as "can be, " "would," "could, " "should"
and "it- is recommended" when describing the Town's proposed program.
These phrases are only appropriate in those sections which are
1
' z
discussing the various alternatives available to the Town and should
be replaced with more affirmative statements (e.g. , "will " and "will
be") when describing the Town's proposed program.
b. On Page S-9, it is stated that " . . .separation should be required for
construction and demolition debris, white goods (major household
appliances) , tires and household hazardous waste. The specific
plan, with projected action dates, relative to each of these
materials should be outlined in the text and implementation
schedule.
C. On Page 2-7, corrugated cardboard is missing from the list of
materials currently accepted, if it is to be consistent with the
majority of the Plan text. This apparent omission should be
rectified or clarified if intended. In addition, it should either
be explained, via appropriate economic evaluation, in the Plan why
all materials which are currently accepted are not mandatory
recyclables in the Town nor are specific dates projected for
converting these materials to mandatory recyclables or the Town's
law/ordinance and/or implementation schedule should be modified to
provide such conversion.
d. On Page 2-7 of Appendix A, the list of recyclables in Section 2.1.3
also appears to have omitted corrugated cardboard and the list of
materials on Page 2-26 of Appendix A in Section 2.4 omits land
clearing debris which was included in the Section 2.1.3 list. These
discrepancies should be rectified or clarified if intended.
e. On Page S-11, it is stated that "It is recommended that
residentially (homeowner) generated clean material remain the
responsibility of the Town for a three to five year period. Over
the long term private recycling and disposal options are to be used
by the generators of this waste." It is assumed that this
discussion relates to residentially generated C&D debris; however,
that should be specifically clarified in the final Plan. The plan
for this material should be stated in a more affirmative manner and
the specific actions the Town will take in an attempt to follow the
State's hierarchy of solid waste management relative to this
material during this three to five year period shall be presented.
The phrase "over the long term" should be clarified and the Town's
proposed Plan for ensuring this material will be handled in
accordance with the hierarchy of solid waste management after the
generators of this waste become responsible for its recycling and/or
disposal should be outlined in the text and implementation schedule.
f. On Page 5-7, it is stated that "The development, planning,
permitting, and capital cost of a construction and demolition debris
processing facility is expected to be more cost-effective if it is
handled by the private sector rather than the Town." This Planning
document is the appropriate mechanism to make such determinations.
An evaluation relative to the cost effectiveness of this proposal
should be included in the Plan and be used to guide the Town to its
ultimate Plans.
2
c ,
g. On Page 2-6 of Appendix A, it is stated that "sludge from the
Southold Scavenger Waste and Incorporated Village of Greenport
Sewage Treatment Plants has been disposed of at the landfill ." It
is not indicated in the Plan what is currently being done with this
material since closure of the landfill nor is a specific plan for
this material detailed in the implementation schedule.
h. On Page 2-26 of Appendix A, it is indicated that only HDPE and PET
are the plastics collected in the Town yet the Town's law/ordinance
does not limit the plastics definition to only HDPE and PET. This
potential inconsistency should be clarified in the final Plan.
i . On Page 4-3 of Appendix A, in the paper marketing discussion it is
stated that "paper grades accepted by these markets included baled
corrugated materials, newspaper, books, magazines, telephone books,
high grade office and computer paper and mixed low-grade paper." If
this is the current situation, it should be explained why these
materials are not all included as mandatory recyclables in the
Town's program or the program should be modified accordingly.
j. On Page 4-18 of Appendix A, it is stated that "On baled OCC
delivered to a processing facility, in many cases can be tipped free
of charge or receive up to $10 per ton in revenue." If this is the
case, it should be explained why the Town has instead chosen to pay
$200 per pick-up plus $30 per ton to have their OCC sent to Jet
Paper.
k. Also on Page 4-18 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Creative market
development efforts are required to successfully market low or mixed
grades of waste paper, including mixed office paper, junk mail ,
magazines and books." However, in the same paragraph, five brokers
who handle this material are listed. This seems to be an
inconsistency and should be clarified in the final Plan.
1 . On Page 4-20 of Appendix A, it is indicated that plate glass and
ceramics are not acceptable materials to the glass markets yet in
Table 4. 1-1, Pace Glass is listed as accepting plate glass. This
inconsistency should be rectified in the final Plan.
M. On Page 4-55 of Appendix A, a reference to a glassphalt paving
project "currently being considered jointly by Nassau and Suffolk
Counties." It is stated that "the project is expected to commence
in 1992. . . ." The status of this project should be provided and the
reference to "currently being considered" should be modified or
eliminated in the final Plan.
n. Table 5.3-1 in Appendix A and all associated information related to
the public attitude survey toward source separation should include
the dates of the surveys. Information such as this can become out-
of-date and not representative of current situation very quickly.
When the dates are provided, the value and applicability of this
information can appropriately be determined.
3
o. On Page 5-15 of Appendix A, it should also be acknowledged that
equipment choices for collection of recyclables and/or waste
includes multi-compartment compacting vehicles.
p. On Page 5-16 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Since the program has
been recently implemented, detailed data is not yet available
regarding participation rates and materials sorting efficiency
rates." The mandatory program has been in place since February of
1991 which is not considered "recently." This characterization
should be modified and a more recent analysis/discussion be provided
in the final Plan.
q. On Page 5-22 of Appendix A, the discussion relative to the Solar
facility in Babylon, New York should be reviewed to ensure it is
still accurate in view of the current status of the facility. '
3. An overall schedule of the recyclables recovery program is provided in
Table 6.6-1 of Appendix A. That Table, in conjunction with Tables 6.1-1
through 6.1-3 of Appendix A, should provide a schedule with specific
dates for implementation of the recyclables recovery program (including
dates to attain specified, progressively increasing percentages of the
waste stream that will be recovered as recyclables) . The following are
specific comments and concerns relating to those Tables and the
implementation of the recyclables recovery program in general . [360-
1.9(f) (5) (ii)]
a. The following comments relate to the information presented in
Table 6.6-1 of Appendix A:
i . The interim phase is listed as "present to 1994". As there are
only approximately two months remaining in 1994, the interim
phase should be listed as "1994".
ii . White goods are listed in the first entry as a mandatory
recyclable. However, white goods are not identified as a
mandatory recyclable in the Town Law/ordinance provided in
Appendix A of Appendix A nor is it consistent with sections of
the text of the Plan. The status of white goods should be
clarified and consistently presented throughout the Plan.
iii . This schedule should include projected dates for inclusion of
all materials which will be added to the recyclables recovery
program and/or converted to mandatory recyclables from their
current status (for those which_ are currently collected/
accepted, but are not mandatory under the Town's current
Law/ordinance) .
iv. The proposed public education program and schedule should be
detailed in the implementation schedule or reference to a
detailed plan, which includes proposed action dates, located
elsewhere in the text should be included.
V. The implementation/action dates in the schedule should be
listed in chronological order. - The current format does not
list events in chronological order which makes the schedule
4
L
frustrating to read and follow. This will become more
important as the additional information which will be added in
response to these comments is added.
vi . The school programs are included in the mid-term phase of the
schedule. While these programs are briefly noted, they should
be implemented as soon as possible, to be in compliance with
the Town's recycling law/ordinance and Section 120-aa of the
General Municipal Law (GML) .
vii . The entry for the "survey of residential and commercial
participation to determine participation rates" in May 1996
appears to be late. It is more appropriate to conduct this
survey as soon as possible and then again before the beginning
of the long term phase. This should be reevaluated and
incorporated into the schedule of the final Plan as
appropriate.
viii . It is noted in the schedule that the Town will "encourage"
private vendors to process C&D. The program associated with
this entry should be outlined in the Plan. The minor reference
on Page 6-19 of Appendix A is not sufficient.
xi . An entry in the long term phase is a "collection, processing
and marketing system reevaluation" in May 1997. This
reevaluation is appropriate at regularly schedule intervals
throughout the program and not just in May 1997. In addition
the anticipated duration of this reevaluation should be noted.
The date provided does not detail whether that action date is
the beginning or end date of the reevaluation or both.
xii . The schedule lists January 1998 as the date for requiring the
recycling of C&D debris, land clearing debris and yard waste
and HHW. This date is inconsistent with the description of the
Town's program. C&D can and should be required to be a
mandatory recyclable as soon as a contract is signed with a
private vendor as the Town is not planning to process the
material itself. The text of the Plan indicates the Town's
yard waste composting facility was to be operational in
September 1994 therefore, yard waste and land clearing debris
should become a mandatory recyclable immediately.
xiii .The schedule identifies December 1997 as a date for an
evaluation of technical and economic feasibility of additional
organic composting. This evaluation should be done now as well
and if determined feasible and appropriate, a contract or RFP
for a contract, similar to the Town's proposed C&D contract
with a private vendor, should be issued or implemented.
xiv. The July 1998 consideration of implementation of an organic
collection program can appropriately be moved up in the
schedule as a result of any modifications made in response to
comment 3.a.xiii .
5
S
xv. The implementation schedule should include the biennial update
of the SWMP required due to the long term exportation plan.
Further information on this requirement can be obtained from
the Bureau of Facility Management.
b. The following comments relate to the information presented in
Tables 6.1-1 through 6.1-3 in Appendix A:
i . The interim phase on Table 6.1-1 should appropriately be listed
as "1994" and not "1991".
ii . The participation rates (PR) for 1994 appear to be low,
especially for the currently mandatory materials. These
presented rates do not appear to correspond to the existing
program. These projections should be reevaluated and current
information/projections be utilized.
iii . It is indicated in Table 6.1-1 that the projected recovery rate
of the interim phase (1994) is 8.5 percent and will jump to 61
percent in one year (1995) . The implementation schedule and
plan presented does not support such a jump in recovery rate.
These projections should be reevaluated and supporting
discussion of the projected recovery rates [including
participation rates (PR) and separation efficiencies (SE)] used
in the final Plan should be provided.
iv. The projected recovery rates and materials included in the
program should be consistent with the revised implementation
schedule which will be presented in the final Plan in response
to these comments [e.g. , the current projection indicates a
commitment to the recovery of C&D and yard waste yet the
implementation schedule did not make the same commitment] .
V. These same detailed projections of recovery rates, including
projected PR's and SE's, should be-provided for several years
throughout the planning period at strategic intervals (e.g. ,
1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015) along with the
supporting discussion as referenced in comment 3.b. iii .
Vi . Comments 3.b.i - v also apply to the presentation of
projections in Table 6.1-3.
vii . These projections of recovery rates indicate that maximized
recovery rates will be achieved in 1997 and remain at that
level for the next 18 years. This appears to be an
inappropriate presentation of the Town's currently projected
program and should be revised to reflect a program of maximized
waste reduction and recycling with increasing percentages of
the waste streaw that will be recovered as recyclables
throughout the planning period due to continued incorporation
of- additional materials to be recovered and increasing
participation levels and separation and system processing
efficiencies.
6
C. On Page 6-2 of Appendix A, it is stated that "During the interim
period it was estimated the Town could achieve a material recovery
rate of nine percent. Based on 1991 and 1992 actual recycling
tonnage, the Town has not only achieved this goal , but exceeded it.
During both these years the Town reduced its waste stream by 11 to
12 percent due primarily to waste recycling and waste reduction
programs." If the goal for the interim period (1994) has already
been in 1991 and 1992, the goal for 1994 is totally inappropriate.
These inconsistencies need to be eliminated in the final Plan,
implementation schedule and waste reduction and recycling
projections.
d. On Page S-8, it is indicated that between 1989 and 1992, the Town's
waste stream decreased .by 13 percent. Future waste stream
projections do not appear to reflect this fact and should be
recalculated and revised as appropriate in the final Plan. In
addition a discussion of the probable and/or suspected reasons for
the reduction of the waste stream should be provided in the final
Plan along with waste reduction projections for various years
throughout the planning period as a result of the Town',s proposed
waste reduction measures and program.
e. On Page S-8, it is stated that "Residents will be encouraged to
leave grass clippings on the lawn and consideration will be given to
excluding grass from the Town solid waste complex." This
"consideration" process should be described in the final Plan and
outlined in the implementation schedule along with projected action
dates.
f. It was indicated in the Plan in several places that the composting
facility was expected to be operational by September 1994. The
current status of this facility should be provided in the final Plan
as the Plan was submitted to the Department after that date.
g. It is assumed that the reference on Page 6-8 of Appendix A which
states, "Over the long term, the Town will evaluate the opportunity
for developing a source separation based composting facility which
will enable the Town to recover the entire compostable fraction of
the waste stream" corresponds to the implementation schedule entry
discussed in comment 3.a.xiii . If so, the reference to this
specific facility should be included in the implementation schedule.
h. On Page 6-16 of Appendix A, it is stated that "The Town will
encourage and assist the private sector in increasing recycling
efforts for office paper, newspaper, corrugated and plastic, metal
and glass containers." This program should be outlined in the Plan
and incorporated into the implementation schedule.
i . On Page 6-19, of Appendix A, it is stated that "If necessary, the
Town will market C&D through a new transfer station contract. " As
noted in comment 3.a.ix. this should be enacted as soon as possible
for consistency with the State's hierarchy of solid waste management
and to maximize recycling.
7
j. On Page 6-49 of Appendix A, it is stated that "The Town could
conduct a commercial and institutional waste utilization and
practices survey to assist the Town in identifying existing
recycling activities by the private sector". This program should
not be presented as an activity that "could" be performed, but
instead should be listed as a program that "will" occur as soon as
possible. This information should have been obtained and presented
as part of this Plan in order to assist the Town in formulating its
recyclables recovery program.
k. On Page 6-20 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Commercial ,
institutional and industrial establishments. will be required to
demonstrate compliance with the Town's ordinance by documenting the
quantities of materials recovered and reporting the tonnage to the
Town." The program details should be provided in the final Plan and
incorporated into the implementation schedule.
1 . On Page 6-50 of Appendix A, it is stated that "In addition, solid
waste haulers will be encouraged to provide collection of white
goods under pre-arranged conditions for recycling at the Town
collection center. The program details of this encouragement
program should be provided in the final Plan and incorporated into
the implementation schedule.
M. On Page 6-50 of Appendix A, in reference to the long term phase, it
is stated that "At this phase of program development, regularly
scheduled curbside collections of recyclable materials would be
available to all residents, businesses, institutions and industries.
This should be the case now and not just by the long term phase. If
this is not occurring in the Town now, the Town should modify its
program. If it is the current Town program, the Plan 'should be
corrected.
n. On Page 6-53 of Appendix A, it is stated that "over the long-term,
solid waste haulers, as part of their operating license, will be
mandated to pickup recyclable materials from each household;
therefore seasonal subscribers will be provided with this service."
This should be the case now. If not, the Town's program should be
modified accordingly. If so, the Plan should be corrected.
o. The marketing plans for the various implementation schedule phases
on pages 6-22 and 6-45 - 6-47 of Appendix A should be incorporated
into the implementation schedule.
p. On Page 6-68 of Appendix A, it is stated that "The Town is
encouraged to consider similar market development approaches as
currently being adopted and implemented by the State and County. "
This statement should be clarified. It should be stated who is
encouraging the Town. All market development initiatives should be
incorporated into the implementation schedule.
q. The procurement actions discussed on Page 7-1 of Appendix A should
be incorporated into the implementation schedule.
8
r. On Page 7-1 of Appendix A, it is stated that the "Town's mandatory
source separation and recycling ordinance was adopted on
February 11, 1991 as part of the interim phase" . This should be
corrected as that date is three years prior to the Plan's "interim
phase" (i .e. , 1994) . It is also further stated that "The ordinance
will not be adopted prior to securing processing and mark ting
arrangements." As this ordinance has been adopted for over three
years, this should also be corrected.
4. These comments relate to Chapter 48 of the Town of Southold Code -
Garbage, Rubbish and Refuse which is partially presented in Appendix A of
Appendix A: [360-1.9(f) (6) (ii)]
a. The copy of Chapter 48 provided is not complete. A complete copy of
the Town's current recycling law/ordinance/code with all current
appropriate amendments resolutions, regulations and rules must be
provided.
b. Currently, it appears that the law/ordinance/code only requires
source separation of cans, glass containers, newspapers and plastic
bottles of all generators and adds corrugated cardboard for self-
haulers, as the definition of "recyclables" does not currently
include corrugated cardboard. It is however, difficult to
definitively assess the law/ordinance/code with the partial
submittal provided. This is not consistent with the Town's existing
program nor with the requirements of Section 120-aa of the GML. It
is expected that many more materials will need to be added to the
Town's law/ordinance/code.
C. A portion of Section 48-3 of the Town Code is provided with a
handwritten note stating "self-haulers." It is unclear whether or
not this section applies to all "self-haulers" or only a portion
(e.g. , residential ) . When a complete Chapter is submitted, this
issue can be more completed addressed.
d. With the limited information presented it appears that revision to
the Town Code will be necessary for consistency with the Town's
program and Section 120-aa of the .GML.
5. The current situation relating to the planning unit status of the Fishers
Island Garbage and Refuse District should be clarified in the Plan. As
noted at the beginning of these comments, these have been made under the
premise that the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District is a separate
and distinct planning unit from the Town of Southold.
6. All information in this Plan which simply references information or
documentation that has been submitted to the Department outside of this
November 1993 version of the Plan must be submitted as part of this
actual document if it is to be considered as part of the Plan.
7. The following comments are intended to assist the planning unit in
identifying typographical errors or statements which need to be revised
for clarification purposes.
9
0 0
a. On Page 3-8, it is stated that "A large portion of non-ferrous metal
is already being recycled through mandatory participation in the
Beverage Container Act." Participation is not mandatory and the
text should be modified accordingly.
b. On Page 3-10 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Tires are recovered
and recycled at Oxford Tire in Plainfield, Connecticut. " It is then
further stated that "Tires processed at Oxford Tire's facility in
Connecticut are utilized as a supplemental fuel source during
incineration. The text should be revised to clarify that this
processing and incineration is not considered recycling.
C. There appears to be pages missing in Section 4 of the Plan. This
section should be reviewed to determine if all the pages were
transmitted to the Department.
d. Typographical errors were identified in the following locations.
i . Page 1-40, 2nd line, 1st word.
ii . Page 2-4, 1st paragraph, 2nd to last sentence is a partial
repeat of the last sentence in that paragraph.
iii . Table 2.2.6-1 and Appendix A Table 2.4-1, the last category
listing.
iv. Page 3-14, 6th line, missing a word between the 9th and 10th
words.
V. Page 2-4 of Appendix A, 1st paragraph, 2nd to last sentence is
a partial repeat of the last sentence in that paragraph.
vi . Page 4-8 of Appendix A, 1st sentence in paragraph 3 is a repeat
of the 7th sentence in paragraph 2.
vii . Page 5-9 of Appendix A, line 21, 5th word.
viii .Page 6-48 of Appendix A, line 18, 8th word.
10
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11790-2356
Telephone: (516) 444-0375
NEW
Fax: (516) 444-0373
Langdon Marsh
Commissioner
October 31, 1994
(I
The Honorable Thomas Wickham y
Supervisor, Town of Southold
Town Hall
Post Office Box 1179
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Town of Southold Draft Solid Waste Management Plan August 1994.
Dear Supervisor Wickham:
The Bureau of Facility Management and the Region have reviewed the Town of
Southold Draft Solid Waste Management Plan, August 1994 submission.
The comments attached are the Bureau's major concerns, comments and questions.
However, the comments from the Bureau of Waste Reduction and Recycling (BWRR) will be
forthcoming as soon as they are completed.
Please contact Michael McTague at (518) 485-5856, if you have any questions or
concerns.
Sincerely
ne Howell
Solid Waste Management Specialists
JH:ls
cc: Frank Isler, (Town Attorney)
Mary Carpentiere (Legal Affairs)
Michael McTague (Albany)
;,printed on recycled paper
Division of Solid Waste
Bureau of Facility Management
Comments on the Town of Southold
Draft Solid Waste Management Plan
Prepared by: Michael J. McTague Date: October 14, 1994
1. The final solid waste..management planning document should be printed on
both sides to conserve paper and to make the document less cumbersome.
2. On the bottom of Page 5-3 of the solid waste management plan (SWMP), the
plan text figures indicate that there was a 13 percent decrease in
municipal solid waste (MSW) generation between 1989 and 1992 (i .e., 123
tons/day to 107.7 tons/day) . However, these figures then indicate
considerable increases in MSW generation for 1995 and proceeding years.
The plan text must be revised to explain these fluctuations in the waste
- stream.
3. On Pages 5-10, 1-46 and 2-6, the SWMP briefly discusses solid waste
management on Fishers Island. Representatives of Fishers Island have
notified the Department that the Island will develop its own SWMP.
Subsequently, Fishers Island will not be considered to have an
approvable plan in effect when the Town of Southold receives formai
Department approval of its SWMP. Please advise if Fishers Island has
decided not to develop its own SWMP and will participate in the Southold
SWMP.
Alternately, if Fishers Island is not participating in the Town of
Southold's proposed SWMP, please reflect same and discuss the reasons
for Fishers Island's non-participation.
4. Figure 2.1.1-1, on Page 2-3 of the SWMP, shows the locations of Town-
owned and-operated solid waste facilities. Any other existingrp 'vate
solid waste facilities located within the Town must also be described in
the SWMP and shown on a map.
5. Page 2-6 of the SWMP discusses disposal of sludge from the Southold
Scavenger Waste and Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plants at the
Town landfill . The text should be revised to indicate how this waste
stream is currently being managed.
6. On the top of Page 2-7 of the SWMP, the text briefly discusses a
proposed permanent transfer station for residual wastes and recyclables.
This section must be expanded to more adequately describe this proposed
facility. Factors that should be included in this description are: the
proposed term of operation (i .e. , when is it proposed to begin accepting
MSW and recyclables) ; the ownership type; and the types and quantities
of waste/recyclables it will accept.
PAGE 1 OF 5
7. The plan text must include a description of all known inactive solid
waste management facilities located within the Town and whether or not
they have ever been permitted by the Town. Where known, the closure
methods and the environmental impacts of these facilities must be
described.
8. Page 2-7 of the SWMP discusses current solid waste collection and
management practices. This description must be expanded to identify all
public or private methods and contractual relationships for solid waste
collection in the Town: For example, do villages within the Town have
individual contracts for trash and recyclables collection with
contracted haulers or is each individual person required to bring their
own trash/ recyclables to the transfer station or make their own
arrangement for MSW disposal and recyclables collection with private
haulers? With whom does the Town currently contract with for transport
of MSW from the transfer station to its ultimate disposal?
9. Section 2.2.2 of the SWMP, Current Solid Waste Generation and Generation
Rates, should contain a brief description of the quantity of solid waste
generated within the Town broken down into the following categories:
residential solid waste (RSW) ; non-hazardous industrial waste (NHIW);
construction and demolition (C&D) debris; commercial and institutional
waste (if included in RSW, please note) ; and sludge. Tonnage figures on
regulated medical waste, waste oil , asbestos and other special wastes
should also be provided here, if available. The plan should provide
proposed generation amounts (in tons per year) for these same waste
categories for the years 1997, 2000 and 2010. It must also include
current and proposed waste reduction and recycling rates for the
aforementioned, yearly intervals.
10. Page 2-34 of the SWMP discusses the New York State Solid Waste
Management Plan and its annual updates. The plan text should be revised
to indicate that these State SWMP updates are now done on a bi-annual
basis.
11. On Page. 3-68 of the SWMP, the text discusses the development and opening
of Long Island's first permanent, year-round HHW collection facility at
the Town's solid waste complex. .The Department considers development of
a STOP facility in a Town the size of Southold exemplary, particularly
in view of the potential of such hazardous materials polluting Long
Island's primary aquifer.
12. On Page 4-8 of the SWMP, under Regional or Cooperative Yard Waste
Composting Effort Out-of-Town, the plan discusses the fact that since
the Town already has an existing yard waste composting facility, it does
not need to handle its compost cooperatively outside of the Town with
another Town.
In this section, the Town should also discuss whether and why it will or
will not handle compost from other Towns at the Town of Southold yard
waste compost facility.
PAGE 2 OF 5
13. On Page 4-11 of the SWMP, the text discusses the transfer and processing
of Southold's residual waste at the Huntington/Smithtown Resource
Recovery Facility and the possibility of composting Huntington and
Smithtown's yard waste in Southold. The text goes on to indicate that
"at this time, this alternative was not implementable." The text should
describe the factors that led to this decision.
14. On Pages 4-14 of the SWMP, the text indicates that the Town currently
stockpiles. tires at its solid waste complex and then has them removed as
part of its recycl i ng..program. The plan text should be revised to
specify who currently handles the Town's tires and provide the current
contract specifics. Note, the information must be incorporated on Page
4-14 and into Section 5.1.4, Recycling: Tires.
15. Page 4-15 of the SWMP refers to an evaluation of (solid waste)
alternatives contained in Section 4 of the initial SWMP and a previously ,
performed cost analysis.
Since it is the very basis by which the Town makes a decision concerning
its solid waste methodology for the residual waste stream, it is
imperative that this evaluation and cost analysis alternatives be
integrated in its entirety into the formal Town of Southold SWMP.
16. Pages 4-18 through 4-22 of the SWMP appear to be missing. Additionally,
Page 4-23 suddenly stops in mid-sentence, and there is no Page 4-24.
Please insert and revise these pages as necessary.
17. On Pages 5-2 through 5-5 of the SWMP, in its discussion on Waste
Reduction (Section 5.1.1) , the plan text addresses the Town's proposed
waste reduction efforts in indecisive terms such as: "would," "can be"
and "should be." Since this Chapter is the Town's strategy as to how it
proposes to manage its solid waste, the language should be more
definitive. For example, the text should be revised to indicate that
. .homeowners and landscapers will be encouraged to reuse grass
clippings. . . ," and then state exactly how the Town proposes to get
homeowners to reuse grass clippings.
Additionally, the plan text should be revised to replace the words
"would" and "should be" with more decisive words such as "will" and
"will be."
18. Section 5. 1.8, Recycling: Yard Waste Composting, of the SWMP should
also include the current capacity of the existing yard waste composting
facility, the capacity of the proposed yard waste facility, the 1993
cost per ton for yard waste management and the cost per ton for the
proposed facility.
This same section discusses the Town's consideration to banning grass
deliveries from all Town solid waste processing and disposal facilities.
This is a good proposal . The SWMP should state a proposed effective
date on the implementation timetable for the banning of yard waste at
Town solid waste facilities.
PAGE 3 OF 5
19. In Section 5.2 of the SWMP, Proposed Residual Waste Management, the plan
recommends waste exportation through private sector hauling and
processing and/or disposal of the 30 percent residual waste remaining
after implementation of the proposed resource recovery system in five
year steps with each stage preceded by a SWMP reanalysis and update to
determine whether more cost-effective options are available.
New York State believes achieving self-sufficiency is good public policy
due to uncertainties related to long-term waste exportation.
As such, since the Town is proposing out-of-planning-unit waste
exportation, they must incorporate the following into Section 5.2 of the
SWMP:
A. A copy of a binding agreement with one or more permitted or
otherwise authorized facilities capable of treating or disposing
of the planning unit's solid waste for at least five years.
Alternately, the planning unit should identify at least three
appropriately authorized solid waste facilities capable of
treating and disposing of the planning unit's solid waste for at
least five years. In either case, the identified facilities
should provide written documentation that they are an authorized
facility (in the case of out-of-State facilities) and have the
capacity to accept and will accept the planning unit's waste for a
minimum of five years. If exportation is proposed for less than
five years, the planning unit must certify disposal or treatment
capacity for the length of time exportation is proposed.
B. If there is no binding agreement with disposal facilities with
adequate uncommitted capacity to accept all of the planning unit's
solid waste which will be exported for a five-year period, a
statement or resolution from the planning unit that they will
enter into a binding agreement with one or more of the facilities
identified in Item "A" to accept the planning unit's waste for a
minimum of five years.
C. A discussion of backup options or alternatives should the selected
facilities under Item "A" fail to accept the planning unit's waste
for a minimum of five years. This discussion should include a
brief evaluation of potential reasons for the selected facilities
not being able to provide disposal service (e.g. , ban on imports,
unforeseen closure of receiving facilities, etc.) and specific
alternatives to be implemented if that service is interrupted or
terminated. If the planning unit does not have a binding
agreement (as described above), the discussion should also include
potential reasons for the planning unit not being able to execute
a binding agreement and specific alternatives to be implemented to
obtain disposal service.
D. A resolution that the planning unit will provide the Department
with a plan update within _two Years after the final plan is
approved by the ,Department and every two years thereafter, as long
as exportation continues. The update should include, at a
PAGE 4 OF 5
a
minimum: an extension of the five-year contracts for solid waste
disposal at approved facilities; a reevaluation of the backup
options and- alternatives discussed under Item "C"; and, the
planning unit's progress in developing disposal capacity within
the planning unit or New York State.
Note, that the implementation schedule indicates that-the Town will have
a five-year, "long-term" hauling contract for disposal of residual
wastes by the summer of 1994. The text in Section 5.2 should be revised
to indicate who the Town now has this contract with. This discussion
should include terms, quantities and duration. If the Town does not
have a current five-year contract as the implementation schedule had
indicated, the plan must describe the current arrangements now in place
for waste export and the particulars of this current agreement.
20. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include an analysis of the costs of
implementing the proposed solid waste system including capital
investments, operation, maintenance, administration, and financing.
This description should include the funding source(s) for all aspects of
solid waste management in the Town. Information previously requested in
DEC Comment No. 14 may be incorporated here.
This final cost for the solid waste system should then be divided by the
quantity of solid waste being managed in the Town to determine an
approximate cost/ton for solid waste management in the Town of Southold.
21. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include a discussion of the Administrative
Structure responsible for all aspects of waste management in the Town of
Southold. The Department recommends a schematic detailing each employee
or group of employees associated with solid waste management in the Town
followed by a brief explanation of his/her responsibilities for Town
solid waste management.
22. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include a description of Town activities used
to secure participation of neighboring jurisdictions, whether the plan's
implementation would impose any limitations on their neighbors solid
waste programs, and the effects of including neighboring jurisdictions
in the Town plan.
23. The plan must include a responsiveness summary which is an accounting of
the comments and views expressed by concerned governmental ,
environmental, commercial and industrial interests, the public and
neighboring jurisdictions. This is usually attached to the SWMP as an
appendix and identified in the plan's Table of Contents.
Note, since the Town did make a Negative Declaration regarding
development of the Town's SWMP, this may or may not have been subject to
public comment. Please advise.
24. The following SWMP page numbers have typographical errors: 2-4, 3-2,
3-28, 3-30 and 5-2. Please contact my office if more specifics are
required.
PAGE 5 OF 5
Y`gin FFO(, �,
'�� yid Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
THOMAS H. WICKHAM ti = P. O. Box 1179
SUPERVISOR Southold, New York 11971
® `y Telephone (516) 765 - 1800
Fax(516) 765 - 1823
OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Board
FROM: Tom Wickham
DATE: 5/11/94
RE: Transfer Station
The Board is familiar with the D&B plan for our proposed
Transfer Station. We received comments on it from Fagan
Engineers and an alternative design from them. We then asked D&B
to react to the Fagan plan, and they came back to us with
proposed design criteria which I have asked you and the Task
Force to evaluate with your own rating.
In a meeting with Alice, Jim Bunchuck and the technical
resources committee of the Task Force, a consensus emerged that
basically follows the D&B plan, but to place the station to the
west of the scales rather than to attempt to link it to the
existing building. Considerations of topography and safety led
to this choice.
The Board should review these possibilities.
At the risk of raising nth hour questions I think that the Board
should also consider other options that might not lead to our
building a transfer station at all. There are two reasons why
this might be a wise choice:
1) A single transfer station servicing the East End Towns
might be more cost effective.
2) We might lose control over much of our garbage in the
coming years, leaving us with a transfer station with
no garbage.
I 'm not promoting any one of these options at this time; I just
think it would be responsible for the Board to consider all the
options .
We have scheduled thirty minutes for this discussion on May 16th.
r
((( PvV
Local Government Regulatory
Relief Initiative
Guidance on Landfill Closure
Regulatory Relief
Date: February 26, 1993
Division of Solid Waste
Now York State Department of Environmental Conservation
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction Page Z
General Requirements Page 3
Specific Variances Page 4
A. Topsoil layer Page 4
B. Barrier layer Page 5
C. Barrier Protection Layer Page 6
D. Gas Venting layer I Page 7
E. Gas Venting layer II Page 7
F. Post-Closure Monitoring I Page 9
G. Post-Closure Monitoring II Page 10
Applying for Variances
Introduction Page 10
General Conditions Page 10
Variance Application Contents Page 11
Page I of 14
Introduction:
On December 31, 1988, the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) promulgated regulations for the environmentally sound
closure of landfills. The intent of these closure regulations includes 1)
prevention of contamination of groundwater and surface water, 2) prevention of
safety hazards from explosive gases produced within landfills, and 3)
prevention of other environmental impacts from the solid waste contained in
the landfill . Compliance with these regulations is expensive and local
governments argued that some of the regulatory requirements are not necessary
at certain smaller, older landfills. For this reason, Governor Cuomo in his
1992 State of the State Address, directed DEC and the New York State Office of
Business Permits and Regulatory Assistance (OBPRA) to evaluate the landfill
closure regulations and to determine where mandates could be eased without
impacting environmental protection or human health and safety.
OBPRA convened a Task Force comprised of local governments, State
agencies, including DEC, and private industry to review landfill closure
requirements. In November of 1992, the Task Force completed a report which
contained recommendations for making landfill closure less of a financial
burden for some communities.
The cornerstone of the report's recommendations is that DEC utilize the
existing variance procedure in 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.7(c) to modify the cap
design which could lessen financial impacts on municipalities which are
closing their landfills. This section requires that DEC may, upon written
application and compliance with specific criteria, grant a variance from one
or more of Part 360's requirements. Applications for such variances must meet
three criteria:
1. the application must 'identify the specific provisions of Part 360 from
which a variance is sought;
2. the application must demonstrate that compliance with the identified
provisions would, on the basis of conditions unique to the person's
particular situation, tend to impose an unreasonable economic,
technological, or safety burden on the person or the public; and,
3. the application must demonstrate that the proposed activity will have no
significant adverse impact on the public health, safety or welfare, the
environment or natural resources and will be consistent with the
provisions of the Environmental Conservation law and the performance
expected from application of Part 360.
DEC has developed this "Guidance on landfill Closure Regulatory Relief"
to assist local governments which may want to apply for the variances
suggested in the Task Force's report. It should be noted that this document
Page 2 of 14
does not establish new requirements for the issuance of variances beyond what
is already contained in 6 NYCRR Part 360. The purpose of this guidance is
simply to help municipalities get started with their variance requests and
suggest what might be contained in such requests. Such requests will be
evaluated by the Department on a case-by-case basis for compliance with the
requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.7(c).
In developing this guidance, our objectives were threefold:
1. to ensure that any regulatory relief still provides a high degree of
protection for the public health and the environment;
2. to allow as much relief as possible for appropriate landfills, and to
lessen the high cost of landfill closure; and
3. to suggest what might be contained in these variance applications in a
way which is clear, simple, and objective.
General Requirements for Landfill Closure Mandate Relief
MUNICIPALITIES WHICH REQUEST VARIANCES FROM THE EXISTING CLOSURE
REGULATIONS SHOULD MEET THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMENTS
° The municipality should ensure that the public has been appropriately
notified of the municipality's intent to apply for a proposed variance
and that the public has been provided with the opportunity to comment
thereon.
STOP RECEIVING WASTE
° The landfill should stop receiving waste on or before October 8, 1993
(NOTE: this requirement is necessary because of certain federal minimum
landfill requirements found in 40 CFR Part 258. Furthermore, DEC will
incorporate mandate relief which is compatible with Part 258 in the
revised 6 NYCRR Part 360).
NOTICE IN LANDFILL PROPERTY DEED
° The applicant should agree to include a provision in the property deed
indicating the period of time during which the property was used as a
landfill , briefly describing the types and amounts of wastes contained
within it and noting that records of the facility have been filed with
DEC. The deed should be filed with the County Clerk. The deed should
also reference a map which shall be filed with the County Clerk and
which clearly indicates the limits of the landfilled waste and
Page 3 of 14
containment system. The property deed should also indicate that
transfer of, construction on or any change in use of the property
requires prior Department approval.
This landfill closure mandate relief guidance is intended to apply only
to small , rural landfills. landfills that serve an entire planning unit and
consolidation landfills, may not qualify for mandate relief due to their
increased potential for adverse environmental impacts.
All small, rural landfills may not qualify for any or all of the mandate
relief requested. Some landfills may receive partial or no mandate relief.
depending upon specific site conditions and the landfill's potential impact on
the environment, public safety and public health It should also be noted
that for any facility which is granted a variance under this guidance,
remedial action may be required later if environmental, health or safety
problems occur.
The following guidance includes a separate section for each specific
landfill closure regulatory relief suggestion made by the Task Force. Each
section consists of an explanation of the relief available followed by a
description of the specific suggested conditions (in addition to the three
general requirements listed above) which, if met, should qualify the landfiTl
for the specific variance.
A. Specific Variance: Topsoil laver
The minimum six inch "topsoil" layer required by 6 NYCRR Part
360-2.I3(s) may be replaced by a minimum six inch layer of material that is
capable of sustaining plant growth, controlling erosion, and promoting
evapotranspiration.
Guidance
Another material may be substituted for topsoil as long as it can be
shown to be able to continually support plant growth.
In addition to most naturally occurring soils, allowable CSD debris
Which has passed through a one-inch screen may be issued a variance for use in
this layer. Allowable CO debris includes only unprocessed, recognizable,
uncontaminated concrete, asphalt pavement, brick, soil, stone, trees, and
stumps.
A written affirmation that the material proposed to replace the
'topsoil" will adequately and continually sustain the proposed vegetative
cover should be provided by a soil -scientist, agronomist or local Soil and
Water Conservation District.
Page 4 of 14
B. Specific Variance: Barrier Laver
The permeability requirements for a barrier layer contained in 6 NYCRR
Part 360-2.13(q) may be reduced from 18 inches of soil with a maximum
hydraulic conductivity (k) of 10 '' cm/sec to 18 inches of soil with a maximum
hydraulic conductivity (k) of 10 "s cm/sec.
Guidance
A more permeable soil could be used in the construction of the barrier
layer if all of the following conditions are met:
1. The landfill is not located over a sole source or primary aquifer.
2. The landfill began operating before 1985.
3. The landfill does not have a liner (A liner is a constructed soil or
geomembrane barrier below the waste mass which has a lower permeability
than the cap barrier layer).
4. For sites which have been identified by the closure investigation report
or the closure plan as requiring remedial activities, the barrier layer
variance request should be compatible with remedial activities.
Remedial activities are those closure activities that are in addition to
the landfill cap and storm water runoff systems and which are necessary
to control site specific environmental and/or public health or safety
problems.
For example, if remediation is needed only to prevent off-site explosive-
gas migration, then the maximum hydraulic conductivity of the barrier
layer could be raised to 10 '8 cm./sec. However, if remediation is
needed because of high levels of groundwater contamination then the
maximum hydraulic conductivity of the barrier layer should not be
increased.
5. There is no contamination of private or public water supplies and no
documented contamination of adjacent aquifers in violation of
groundwater standards. Monitoring of potential receptors, both those
which exist at the time the application for variance is made and those
which are added later, may be required by the Department during the
post-closure monitoring period.
6. Additionally, at least one of the following should also be met:
a. The entire waste mass is at least 10 years old and no more than 20
feet deep;
Page 5 of 14
b. For unlined landfills, it can be demonstrated through water
balance calculations that the leachate is collected and
appropriately treated in peripheral collection systems. leachate
collection and treatment must continue for as long as leachate is
produced;
C. Slopes to receive the more permeable barrier layer are 25% or
greater; or,
d. There are not more than 20 residents within one mile downgradient
or one quarter mile upgradient of the waste mass.
C. Specific Variance: Barrier Protection laver
The minimum 24-inch barrier protection layer requirements contained in
6 NYCRR Part 360-2.13(r)(iii) for geomembrane barrier layer caps may be
reduced to 12 inches.
Guidance
The minimum 24-inch barrier protection layer may be reduced to 12-
inches if all of the following conditions are met:
1. A written affirmation by a soil scientist, agronomist or local Soil and
Water Conservation District should be submitted to affirm that the
topsoil and barrier protection layer will, acting together, continually
support growth of the proposed vegetative cover and not result in root
damage to the barrier layer;
2. There should be a geomembrane barrier layer and the soil under the
geomembrane should be sufficiently well drained to prevent frost heave
impacts on the geomembrane.
Use as substitutes for soil in the barrier protection layer of
appropriately sized allowable CSD debris and materials that have been deemed
suitable through the beneficial use determination (BUD) process (such as
crushed glass) is encouraged. Allowable C&D debris includes only unprocessed,
recognizable, uncontaminated concrete, asphalt pavement, brick, soil, stone,
trees and stumps. BUDS are described in 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.2(a)(4)(vii).
Appropriately sized means that the size and shape characteristics will never
damage the barrier layer.
D. Specific Variance: Gas Venting Laver I
The gas venting layer material required by 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.13(p)(1)
includes a maximum of five percent by weight passing the no. 200 sieve after
Page 6 of 14
i
placement.
This may be varianced to a maximum ten percent by weight passing
the number 200 sieve after placement.
Guidance
Although existing regulations require that the gas venting layer has a
maximum of five percent by weight passingthe
o. 200 sieveng tafterhe placement. A
gas venting layer with up to ten percentas effectively. The proposed
er 200
sieve after placement should perform just
-� 6 NYCRR Part 360 revisions include the maximum ten percent criteria.
This variance means that more easily obtained soil could be used in the
gas venting layer if a permeability test shows the material to meet the 10 "'
cm./sec. minimum permeability.
E. Specific Varian • Gas Vp 1b Laver
The gas venting system requirements
found
iinn6 NYCRR requirPart
360-2.13(p)
inlayer
may be varianced so that the gas venting
Guidan
The 12-inch-thick soil layer meant
tcollect
togas
applydfors
dthiby the
. In
variance,
landfill may not have to be contructed
all of the following conditions should be met:
l ,
1. A minimum of four gas vents per acre should be constructed in the
landfill . Gar-vent design should meet the requirements of Part
360 except for depth of penetration. Gas vents should penetrate
cceptable to the Department, but not less than five
to a depth a
i feet into the waste. Greater depths may be necessary depending
u on site-specific conditions, such as the use of low pandeability
1
daily cover, which might limit vertical gas migration;,
' 2. Post-closure explosive gas monitoring and maintenance should be
per at least quarterly to ensure-that: (a) explosive gas
levels do not exceed 25 percent ohetsiteower(exceptlgasvcontmit
rol or
he
within any structures on or off
recovery system components); and (b) the level of subsurface
explosive gas does not exceed the lower explosive limit anywhere
along the property .bQundary. If monitoring;..khows these levels are
exceeded DEC should be cot ified and�,rkmedial'action, such as the
construction of gas cut..of trenches;' should be:imrnediately taken.
In addition, this quarterly explosive gas monitoring and
maintenance should assure•thatthetgashe f vents
ntsnal covernot blocked and
_ that landfill gas has notdamaged
Page 7 of 14
f �.
sak4�
G�
i
. z
Post-closure explosive gas monitoring should include: subsurface
monitoring along a perimeter outside the waste mass but within the
property boundary; monitoring within all on-site and nearby
structures; and inspection of the final cover and surrounding
area. Perimeter subsurface monitoring should be performed at
maximum intervals of 100 feet if a portable explosive gas detector
is used. Monitoring with a portable detector should be performed
when the ground surface has been wet or frozen for several days.
Monitoring should be done below the wet or frozen zone. If
permanent gas monitoring wells are constructed for perimeter
subsurface monitoring, they should be located at maximum intervals
of 400 feet. Wells should be constructed to a depth of 75% of the
maximum depth of the waste mass below the surrounding ground
surface or to the seasonal low groundwater level, whichever is
higher. The bottom 2/3 of the wells should be screened.
In addition, post-closure monitoring and maintenance should
include regular inspection of the landfill final cover and
surrounding area for cracks or stressed vegetation which might
indicate the escape of landfill gas. Areas where there are cracks
or where vegetation appears stressed should be tested with a
portable explosive gas detector. Any areas of the final cover
which may have been damaged should be repaired and steps should be
taken, such as the installation of additional gas vents, to
prevent future damage. Areas around the waste mass where gas is
found to be escaping should be tested with a portable explosive
gas detector to determine whether they indicate pathways by which
explosive gas is migrating off-site. If so, additional measures
should be taken to prevent off-site migration. The percentage of
explosive gas emanating from gas vents should be measured to
indicate the effectiveness of the gas vents.
All gas monitoring should be performed when the atmospheric
pressure is low (below 29.92 inches of mercury). Atmospheric
pressure should be recorded along with the other monitoring
results.
If the landfill is on a property that is sufficiently large as to
preclude off-site migration of landfill gas, then the perimeter
explosive gas monitoring requirements are inapplicable. In order
to qualify for omission of the perimeter monitoring requirements,
the distance from the waste mass to the property boundary must be
a minimum of 1000 feet or adequate on-site barriers to gas
migration must exist. A barrier to gas migration is either: a
ravine or excavation with its base extending as deep as the base
of the waste mass, or to very low permeability soils or seasonal
Page 8 of 14
low groundwater, or a surface water that has flow all year, and
which is indi Aive of groundwater elevation.
Instructions for carrying out all post-closure monitoring and
maintenance activities should be included in the facility's post-closure
monitoring and maintenance nanual.
F. - Specific Variance: Post-Closure Monitoring I
The frequency of post-closure groundwater, surface water and leachate
monitoring required by 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.15(i)(4) may be reduced from
annually for baseline parameters and quarterly for routine parameters to
annually for routine parameters and once every five years for baseline
parameters (see 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.11(c)(6)).
Guidance
This means that the frequency and cost of post-closure testing for
contamination would be significantly reduced. In order to qualify for
this variance, all of the following conditions should be met:
I. Contamination, except for leachate indicators, in down-gradient
groundwater monitoring wells does not exceed the groundwater
standard or background level, whichever is higher, for any
contaminant.
2. The landfill is closed and maintained such that no surface
leachate is allowed to discharge from the facility; and,
3. There is no contamination of surface waters once cap construction
is complete.
4. The landfill should not be located over a sole source or primary
aquifer.
Based on the post-closure monitoring results, DEC may require more
frequent monitoring at a later time.
G. Specific Variance: Post-Closure Monitoring II
The frequency of post-closure groundwater, surface water and leachate
monitoring required by 6 NYCRR Part 36042.15(i)(4) may be reduced from
annually for baseline parameters and quarterly for routine parameters to twice
per year for routine parameters and once every three years for baseline
parameters (see 6 NYCRR Part 360-2.I1(c)(6)).
Page 9 of 14
guidance
This means that the frequency and cost of post-closure testing for
contamination would be reduced. In order to qualify for this variance, all of
the following should be met:
1. There is no documented contamination of aquifers adjacent to the
aquifer closest to the waste mass;
2. There is no contamination of surface waters once cap construction
is complete;
3. There is no contamination of receptors within a one-mile down
gradient radius and 1/4-mile upgradient radius of the waste mass;
and,
4. The landfill is closed and maintained such that no surface
leachate is allowed to discharge from the facility.
S. The landfill should not be located over a sole source or primary
aquifer.
Based on the post-closure monitoring results, DEC may require more •
frequent monitoring at a later time.
APPLYING FOR VARIANCES
Introduction•
The objective of this portion of the guidance is to explain what steps a
local government must take to obtain approval for specific variances for a
landfill closure project under the Local Government Regulatory Relief
Initiative.
Before making any variance application, representatives of the local
government should meet with the appropriate Department of Environmental
Conservation (DEC) Regional Solid Waste Engineer (RSWE) to discuss the
proposed variance applications which might apply for the specific landfill.
This will provide the local government with insight into the likelihood of
each variance being approved. This will save local governments the time and
expense of applying for variances which do not meet the Local Government
Regulatory Relief Initiative requirements and, therefore, cannot be approved.
General Conditions
For any variance to be granted under the Local Government Regulatory
Relief Initiative, all of the following conditions should be met:
Page 10 of 14
1 . The municipality should ensure that the public has been appropriately
notified of the municipality's intent to apply for a proposed variance
and that the public has been provided with the opportunity to comment
thereon.
2. The landfill should stop receiving waste on or before October 8, 1993.
(NOTE: this requirement is necessary because of certain federal minimum
landfill requirements found in 40 CFR Part 258. Furthermore, DEC will
incorporate mandate relief which is compatible with Part 258 in the
revised 6 NYCRR Part 360).
Furthermore, all variance applications must meet the requirements of
6 NYCRR Part 360-1.7(c)(2). These requirements are that every application for
a variance must: •
(i) identify the specific provision of this Part from which a
variance is sought;
(ii) demonstrate that compliance with the identified provisions
would, on the basis of conditions unique to the person's particular situation,
tend to impose an unreasonable economic, technological, or safety burden on .
the person or the public; and,
(iii) demonstrate that the proposed activity will have no
significant adverse impact on the public health, safety, or welfare, the
environment or natural resources and will be consistent with the provisions of
the ECL and the performance expected from application of this Part.
Variance Application Contents:
One original and one copy of the variance application should be
submitted to the appropriate Regional Solid Waste Engineer. This variance
application should include:
I. All submissions suggested under General Conditions above.
2. A completed "APPLICATION FOR VARIANCE FROM 6 NYCRR 360" form (attached).
Instructions for completing this form are printed on its back.
Additional forms may be obtained from the Regional DEC office.
By ccmpleting Item 17 of the form, you will meet the requirement of
6 NYCRR Part 360-1.7(c)(2)(i) that the applicant 'identify the specific
provisions of this Part from which a variance is sought.' For example,
the specific provision would be 'paragraph 360-2.13(p)(1)" for a
variance from the requirement that the gas venting layer have a maximum
of five percent by weight passing the No. 200 sieve. Each potential
Page 11 of 14
variance identified in this guidance has a separate Part 360 citation.
This citation is what belongs in Item 17.
In completing Item 19b, you must meet the requirement of 6 NYCRR Part
360-1.7(c)(2)(ii) by demonstrating "that compliance with the identified
provisions would, on the basis of conditions unique to the person's
particular situation, tend to impose an unreasonable economic,
technological, or safety burden on the person or the public.' Such a
demonstration might give the full cost of the landfill capping project
if the variance is not approved and compare it to the municipality's
annual budget. It might also include the municipality's population, per
capita income of its citizens, the full cost of the landfill capping
project if the variance is approved, and any other figures and arguments
which demonstrate that compliance with the provision would impose an
unreasonable economic, technological or safety burden.
3. The following submissions, depending on which specific variances the
application is for.
By complying with the following conditions, you should meet the
requirement of 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.7(c)(2)(iii).
A. Specific Variance• Topsoil Laver -
The written affirmation from a soil scientist, agronomist or local Soil
and Water Conservation District that the material proposed to replace the
"topsoil" can adequately and continually sustain the proposed vegetative cover
should be included in the variance application.
B. Specific Variance• Barrier Laver
If there are any private or public water supply wells within one mile
downgradient or one quarter mile upgradient of the waste mass, all existing
water quality analysis results for these wells should be submitted as part of
the variance application. The minimum these results should include is one
analysis for routine parameters (see NYCRR PART 360-2.11(C)(6)) from each of
the three nearest downgradient wells within one mile and from the one nearest
upgradient well within one quarter mile. If less than this test data is
available, additional testing should be performed. Also, the results of any
testing performed on aquifers adjacent to the aquifer nearest the waste mass
should also be submitted as part of the variance application.
Additionally, at least one of the following should be included in the
variance application:
° Documentation that the landfill will not have received waste for at
least ten years prior to the beginning of cap construction; and
Page 12 of 14
engineering drawings showing that the waste mass is no more than 20 feet
deep.
° Water balance calculations showing that all leachate is collected and
appropriately treated in peripheral collection systems.
° Engineering drawings showing that all areas to receive the more
permeable clay barrier layer have slopes of 25% or greater.
° A map showing any residences within one mile downgradient and one
quarter mile upgradient of the waste mass and giving the number of
occupants of each residence.
C. Specific Variance- Barrier Protection Laver
The following should be submitted as part of the variance application:
° The written affirmation by a soil scientist, agronomist or local Soil
and Water Conservation District that (1) the topsoil and barrier
protection layer will, acting together, continually support growth of
the proposed vegetative cover, (2) root penetration of the georembran@
should not occur and (3) soil underneath the geomembrane is sufficiently
well drained to preclude frost heave damage of the geomembrane. ,
° If allowable C&D debris or material which has received a beneficial use
determination (BUD) is to be used in the barrier protection layer, a
brief description of the material and its source should be included.
D. Specific Variance- Gas Venting Laver I
The results of a permeability test performed on the gas venting layer
material should be included in the variance application.
E. Specific Variance- Gas Venting Laver II
The following should be submitted as part of the variance application:
° A plan view of the final cover showing the distribution of the minimum
four gas vents per afre.
o
An engineering drawing of the gas vent design showing depth of
penetration of the gas vents into the waste.
° The instructions, which will be included in the facility's post-closure
monitoring and maintenance manual, for carrying out explosive gas
monitoring and related maintenance.
Page 13 of 14
° If omission of perimeter explosive gas monitoring requirements is
requested, then a site plan showing the minimum distances in all
directions around the waste mass to the property line, or migration
barriers (with adequate technical information) should be included in the
variance application.
F. Specific Variance: Post-Closure Monitoring I
The results of analyses from all groundwater monitoring wells,
consisting of at least two rounds of testing for baseline parameters (see
6 NYCRR Part 360-2.11(c)(6)), should be included in the variance application.
G. Specific Variance: Post-Closure Monitoring II
The following should be submitted as part of the variance application:
° The results of. any testing that has been performed on aquifers adjacent
to the aquifer nearest the waste mass.
° If there are any private or public water supply wells within one mile
downgradient or one quarter mile upgradient of the waste mass, then all
appropriate water quality analysis results for these wells should be
submitted as part of the variance application. The minimum these
results should include is one analysis for routine parameters (see
6 NYCRR Part 360-2.11(c)(6)) from each of the three nearest downgradient
wells within one mile and from the one nearest upgradient well within
one quarter mile. If less than this test data is available, additional
testing should be performed.
Page 14 of 14
• ��gtfFO(,�c • l V
Town Hall,53095 Main Road
THOMAS H.WICRHAM o P.O.Bog 1179
ti = Southold,New York 11971
SUPERVISOR Fax (516)765-1823
Telephone(516)765-1889
sw� n
To: Town Board, Town Atty, Solid Waste Coordinator
From: T. Wickham V�
Date: Nov 20 1994 r
Re.: DEC comments on our SWMP
Enclosed are two sets of comments from two different NYSDEC offices re our SWMP.
We now have less than four months to respond to these comments and/or submit revised
passages.
I am scheduling 30 mins of discussion of this matter at the Nov 29 Town Board meeting,
but it is clear that we will barely get in to it at that work session.
I will look for a referral to our Solid Waste Task Force from that discussion, and broad
policy direction from the Board to the Task Force, rather than attempting to respond to
each item on Nov 29.
encl
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
RESPONSES TO DEC COMMENTS BY DAVID VITALE
PREPARED BY: JIM BUNCHUCK FEBRUARY 27 , 1995
Comment # Response
1 b. The tables referred to are based on data collected
from a 1989 field report which did not break down
the "paper" component into subcomponents beyond
those listed. Tables 6 . 1-1 and 6. 1-3 contain
additional detail on the "paper" category of
recyclables.
1 c. The nature of materials collected through the
S.T.O.P. Facility poses special problems with
regard to their recyclability. Only empty aerosol
cans and car and boat batteries are currently
recycled. Household batteries were at one time
handled by a recycling firm which was able to
recover only abouta% of the batteries for re-use,
with the remainder being disposed. The cost of
handling batteries in this way was found to be
much higher than having them removed through a
local HHW contractor.
The Town is currently looking at paint
reuse/recycle programs in other areas in an effort
to evaluate the suitability of such a program for
Southold. Concerns about safety, monitoring, and
the physical layout of the S.T.O.P. Facility make
it unfeasible for the Town to consider recycling
other HHW items at this time.
1 d. ALICE: • See page 4-3 revisions, attached.
I am not aware of why discussion of
telephone books on page 4-18 is out of
date. Suggest deleting paragraph - see
attachment.
1 e. None of the Town's existing paper vendors are
willing to accept drink boxes and/or milk cartons
(polycoated paper ) , unless for disposal . The Town
has been unable to identify any economically
viable recycling markets for these products.
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
JIM BUNCHUCK RESPONSES TO DEC COMMENTS BY DAVID VITALE
FEBRUARY 27, 1995
PAGE 2
Comment # Response
2 1 . Corrugated cardboard and newspaper are mandatory
residential recyclables, along with 5 other items,
all of which are individually source-separated by
residents from the waste stream. The Town
determined that adding additional source-
separation requirements for low grade paper ( i .e. ,
magazines , junk mail , telephone books) would pose
unreasonable hardships to private carters, which
provide all curbside pickup services in the Town
and who must adhere to the same sorting
requirements as self-haulers. For these items,
the Town has opted instead for voluntary recycling
promoted by public information efforts. This has
resulted in the establishment of a vigorous "mixed
paper" program over the past 5 years , that has
achieved strong results (nearly 1 ,000 tons
recycled in 1994) .
2 ( j ) ALICE: This info added in revision to
page 4-18. See attachment.
2 (k) ALICE: See page 4-18 revisions
attached.
2 ( 1 ) ALICE: See page 4-20 revisions
attached.
2 (m) ALICE: Suggest checking with D&B.
3 (b) , i , ii ALICE: See revised tables 6.1-1 and
iii , iv, 6.1-3, attached.
vi ,vii .
;adjacent areas of New York, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. The markets identified by
this survey are listed in a Market Guide which is provided in Table 4.1-1 and Includes
addresses and telephone numbers. Typical market quality, delivery specifications and
market pricing structures are discussed below. Material quality, delivery specifications
and material values frequently fluctuate as a result of market conditions. For this reason,
this information has not .been included in the Market Guide, but instead discussed below.
Paper
AP
The Town of So tfwId pas r,.* Paner $200 ver nick un Plitt tMe
corrugated paperboa aced-fre�rr .let Paper, in Centel
CWAA
Islip. .The Town deliv64 newspaper on its own to Pinnacle Industries which
e. Mined paper .is -marketed to Marcal. Paper,in.9hinwt�of
d Park New
r
Jersey at transportation which is provided by,Trans-�ki 'g.
dr
The survey identified nearly twenty (20) paper buyers, processors and brokers within
a sixty mile.radius of the Town of Southold that have the capacity to service the needs of
the.Town. In addition, there are two mills within a 75 mile radius of the Town accepting
paperstock, including .Marcal ._Paper Mills Inc. and Garden State ;.Paper Recyclingi
Corporation. Paper grades accepted by these markets include baledcorrugated materiels,
Newspapers, books, mage$ines�.telephone books, high-grade office_an&coinpttter paper and
F
mixed low-grade papeac, Many of "the brokers in the area accept:loose, baled and/or
commingled or sorted Pepergrades.
range From-6-$40-mg- Fez Muldelpal news to over $
The market demand varies greatly by paper grade. For example, high-grade fibers
such as computer paper, ledgers and bond grades retain much higher values than newsprint
and corrugated paperboard. Most waste paper processors accept office paper without
strict delivery requirements, Therefore, Southold should not experience any difficulty in
marketing high-grade piper. For example, New York Paper Stock and IPF Recycling
Corporation will purchase various mixed office paper as well as provide a pickup service
for the material.
14045/1/7027-XH 4-3
Although ail,paper grades have experienced marketing difficulty in the past, the
m
deand. for`.old corrugated- containers (OCC) has rebounded chore quickly than x the
newsprint market. Most brokers will accept corrugated paperboard... Onbaled OCC
delivered to a processing facility, in many cases, can be tipped free of charge or receive
to $10 per ton in revenue. Jet Paper Stock will provide and service roll-off containers
for compacted OCC as long s 4-5 tons of paperboard can be recovered on a weekly basis.
rket dexelopment efforts low or
tri grades of waste pa�`P t, including mixed office paper, junk 1i dil, magazines 'and
book aste a e e ,
,w
Hct�tve�r-es- 1e_
ly-�e€ ase�-papere�dr�iemerpapi
This is demonstrated by the fact that mixed office paper
andunk� mal parib aed� hrough several brokers in the region. For e'
T,
Cioratib Paler Recycling located in Newark, New Jersey, will accept Rfor a fee, mixed
.. �.-ttp;Y�•tr.;
low-grade paper. Giordano sorts this material into various marketable grades.
Brookhaven Recycling and Waste Corporation will also accept free delivers of magazines,
book stock and telephone books assuming specific delivery and packaging conditions are
met. It grades must.,be strappedY or plastic wrapped onto skids or pallets. Jet Paper l
Stock is also accepting junk mail and magazines. Finally, Marcal Paper Corporation will
accept magazines, junk mail and book stock at its Elmwood Park, New Jersey paper mill.
Brf okhaven Recycling and Waste.,Corporation will accept deliveries- of magazines,
book stock,and telephone books as long as specific delivery and packaging conditions are
„45 i T Pf s” ,
met 1+iaterials must be ,strapped, or_,plastic ,wrapped onto skids or., pallets. Although
. }a,, ", �, ; =ter Y .
severalcompanies tare accie�Qting (telephone stock, the supply is much greater than "the
rxz A g?j� I
curren demand. In geneNrral, there is very little demand for telephone books primarlly due
'
to the., ellow dye used ;#o create the,"yellow pages", low
h� E. # t f r. p g quality fibers resulting from
extremely th3n.pages and insoluble glues used to bind the books. However, telephone book
M
anufacturers such as r"N 'NEX" are currently evaluating methods to increase the
ic
recyclability.. of,telephone books by eliriiinating or reducing the yellow dye as well as
designing collection systemsfortheir recovery.
0 U lAn�
J
1404$/1/1027-XH 4-18
; i ""glass h$rket ha$ remained relatively stable until recentlfri
yces for olor
`-� se►pa ": htaif e>x 914 has declined in the past six months. :'I>t`�ar�ti m#_ a etsthat
en glass haverecently imposed dellewliich
hlimit the quantity of incoming materials. Plate and ceramic"OV.. adceptaiile'by
these atisrkets. , addition, market development efforts are being Made to market mixed
.cw�Illl� linil'10�f�i� ' tie ` lgs`s. The potential market opportunities' include glasphalt
prddti do IM,d, aggr "atey i fill uses.
u7'1 7, w3 .www.-....^...'."'__....
0/1's
' lastct Vis' r s*= ate' °`Pilf/t c 1�-1e�►►,
�`s 1•�!`•c 1
a
`The most coriinon household recyclable plastics are PET (polyethylene
terep�hthalatel Y ani HDP) '(high density polyethylene terephthalate with PVC (poly`vinyl
chloride),
►propylen `and $S (polystyrene) less frequently'Mcylecl.R'An example of
'ETplastic containers Are'the 1 and 2 liter soft drink bottles and examples of are
milk and water jugs. PVC includes crystal clear packaging, such as baby oil bottles and
sd 6 HOU
"sl� etergent'bottles. Examples of P aka ~n
r , P P pa gi g' includes`Olastic
yog r' n >!'ga ne` i and mail;��••� *---tles. Finally, examples'oi PS are hreath"'t t
r,
►foam cups and some°#ajt food packag#ng.
J t ietropolitan area, purchase Post— consumer
plasti ��� � '��� r�' cers
^ �, prefer to receive presorted plastic by
resiii
� �- �� � ��� , ; .
,� , �� C� / ;ling has been towa>ds developing the ability
to incl ts. Entrepreneurial efforfs*have resulted in
}
which employ #nixed plastic processing
t Leclltlo
of these new facilities is based upon the
tec & r a ,
er for Plastics Recycling Research (CPRR)
locatei, New Jersey. TheL1�RR installed and
»� 3:
testa a ET-1 system, which produces a product
h
froth ,..a... and flexible plastics that can be utiiized
as a sdb utute for lumber. National Waste Technologies (NWT) in Ronkonkoma operates a
system utilizing ET-1 technology for the purpose of manufacturing "plastic lumber" type
products. These products are used for park benches, car stops, road signs and
6.
1404S/1/1027—XH 4-20
TABLE 6.1-1(Page 2 of 3)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM
MID-TERM PHASE-1995-1997
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONSIDAY PR SE PE TONSIOAY f9ICAPA)AY
PAPER
Newspaper 4.18% 3.78 92% 85% 95% 2.81 0.22
Magazines 1.51% 1.36 40% 80% 95% 0.41 0.03
CorrJBrcwn Bag 2.40% 2.17 80% 90% 95% 1.48 0.12
Office Paper 0b3% 0.48 20% 60% 95% 0.05 0.00
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.46% 0.42 75% 70% 95% 0.21 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.11 75% 70% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.50% 0.45 75% 70% 95% 023 0.02
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 2.18% 1.97 80% 65% 95% 0.97 0.07
White or Enameled 2.60% 2.35 80% 95% 95% 1.70 0.13
NON-FERROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.06% 0.05 50% 60% 95% 0.02 0.00
Batteries(Household) 0.05% 0.05 40% 70% 95% 0.01 0.00
BATTERIES(Lead Add) 0.04% 0.04 40% 70% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Omen 1.00% 0.90 90% 85% 95% 0.89 0.03
Amber 0.25% 0.23 90% 85% 95% 0.16 0.01
Flint 2.75% 2.49 90% 85% 95% 1.81 0.14
WOOD
Pallets 0.26% 0.23 90% 90% 95% 0.18 0.01
Lumber 0.60% 0.54 90% 90% 60% 0.26 0.02
Other Wood 6.87% 6.21 90% 100% 100% 5.59 0.41
RUBBLE
Asphalt 1.44% 1.30 100% 100% 100% 1.30 0.10
ConcJRockBridc 8.81% 7.96 100% 100% 100% 7.96 0.59
RUBBER 1.14% 1.03 70% 100% 100% 0.72 0.06
OTHER S FINES
Dirt 17.42% 15.74 90% 90% 95% 12.11 0.89
YARD WASTE
Leaves 9.50% 8.59 80% 100% 95% 6.53 0.51
Brush/Branches 14.50% 13.11 80% 100% 95% 9.96 0.78
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.23% 0.21 40% 70% 95% 0.06 0.00
Textiles 2.20% 1.99 20% 60% 95% 0.23 0.02
TOTAL 81.60% 73.74 55.53 4.10
Tons/Day Percent
Gross Waste Generation 90.36 100.00%
Waste Recovered 55.53 61.45%
Waste Remaining 34.85 38.55%
(1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quantity and characteristics forthe year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE. where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
a recycling program.
SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.1-1(Page 3 of 3)
TOWN OF SOUTHOL.D,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM
LONG-TERM PHASE-1997
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONSIMY PR BE PE TONSIMY L.BIGIPIOAY
PAPER
Newspaper 4.18% 3.78 92% 85% 95% 2.81 021
Magazines 1.51% 1.36 40% 80%. 95% 0.41 0.03
CorrJBrown Beg 2.40% 2.17 80% 90% 95% 1.48 0.11
Office Paper 0.53% 0.48 20% 60% 95% 0.05 0.00
Other 3.94% 3.56 80% 80% 95% 2.17 0.16
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.46% 0.42 70% 70% 95% 0.19 0.01
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.11 70% 70% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.50% 0.45 70% 70% 95% 021 0.02
Other Rigid 0.79% 0.71 80% 80% 95% 0.43 0.03
Other Flexible 1.52% 1.37 65% 85% 95% 0.72 0.05
FOOD 6.47% 5.85 0.65 0.55 0.95 1.99 0.15
FERROUS METALS
Food Carrs 2.18% 1.97 80% 65% 95% 0.97 0.07
White or Enameled 2.60% 2.35 80% 95% 95% 1.70 0.13
NON4%RROt1S METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.06% 0.05 50% 60% 95% 0.02 0.00
Batteries(Household) 0.05% 0.05 40% 70% 95% 0.01 0.00
Foil 0.09% 0.08 80% 85% 95% 0.05 0.00
Furniture 0.02% 0.02 80% 75% 95% 0.01 0.00
BATTERES(Load Add) 0.04% 0.04 409'. 70% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.00% 0.90 90% 85% 95% 0.66 0.05
Amber 0.25% 0.23 90% 85% 95% 0.16 0.01
Flint 2.75% 2.49 90% 85% 95% 1.81 0.13
WOOD
Pellets 026% 0.23 90% 90% 95% 0.18 0.01
Lumber 0.60% 0.54 90% 90% 60% 0.26 0.02
Other Wood 6.87% 6.21 100% 1000/0 100% 621 0.46
RUBBLE
Asphalt 1.44% 1.30 100% 100% 100% 1.30 0.10
ConcJRodrlBfick 8.81% 7.96 100% 100% 100% 7.96 0.59
RUBBER 1.14% 1.03 70% 100% 100% 0.72 0.05
OT}ER S FINES
Dirt 17.42% 15.74 90% 90% 95% 12.11 0.89
YARD WASTE
Leaves 9.50% 8.59 90% 100% 95% 7.34 0.54
Brush/Brenches 14.50% 13.11 90% 100% 95% 11.20 0.83
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.23% 0.21 40% 70% 95% 0.06 0.00
Textiles 2.20% 1.99 20% 60% 95% 0.23 0.02
TOTAL 94.43% 85.33 63.55 4.70
TonVPercent
waste Generation WL-
Gross38 100.00%
Waste Recovered 63.55 70.32%
Waste Remaining 26.83 29.68%
(1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers island.
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
a recycling program.
SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
pram participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of materiel remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.13(Page 1 of 3)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
INTERIM PHASE-1994
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL. WASTE STREAM TONSIDAY PR SE PE TONS1011Y LBICAP/DAY
PAPER
Newspaper 7.64% 5.48 92% 90% 95% 4.31 0.32
Magazines 2.76% 1.98 80% 80% 95% 1.20 0.09
Con-JBrown Bag 1.50% 1.08 50% 90% 95% 0.46 0.03
Office Paper 0.97% 0.70 20% 85% 95% 0.11 0.01
PLASTHM
PET>1 Liter 0.66% 0.47 70% 80% 95% 0.25 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.09 70% 80% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.48% 0.34 70% 80% 95% 0.18 0.01
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 2.37% 1.70 80% 65% 95% 0.84 0.06
White or Enameled 2.82% 2.02 80% 95% 95% 1.46 0.11
NON-FERROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 023% 0.16 50% 75% 95% 0.06 0.00
Batteries(Household) 0.09% 0.06 40% 70% 95% 0.02 0.00
BATTERIES(Lard Add) 0.07% 0.05 40% 85% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.22% 0.87 90% 85% 95% 0.64 0.05
Amber 0.29% 0.21 90% 85% 95% 0.15 0.01
Flint 3.03% 2.17 90% 85% 95% 1.58 0.12
RUBBER 2.06% 1.48 70% 100% 100% 1.03 0.08
YARD WASTE
Leaves 10.00% 7.17 80% 100% 95% 5.45 0.40
Brush/Branches 11.62% 8.33 80% 100% 95% 6.33 0.47
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.42% 0.30 70% 75% 95% 0.15 0.01
Textiles 4.03% 2.89 50% 75% 95% 1.03 0.08
TOTAL 52.38% 37.55 25.37 1.87
on ay Percent
Gross Waste Generation 71.69 100.00%
Waste Recovered 25.37 35.39%
Waste Remaining 46.32 64.61%
(1) Based on the total estimated residential waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
The residential waste stream is defined as excluding construction and demolition debris and lancearing wastes,
(.e.,asphalt,concrete,rock,brick,dirt,tree stumps,wood).
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
a recycling program.
SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining afterprocessing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.1.3(Page 2 of 3)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
MID-TERM PHASE-1995-1997
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TON94DAY PR SE PE TONSMY LBArAP03AY
PAPER
Newspaper 7.64% 5.48 92% 90% 95% 4.31 0.32
Mages 2.76% 1.98 80% 80% 95% 1.20 0.09
Con-JBrown Bag 1.50% 1.08 90% 90% 95% 0.83 0.06
Office Paper 0.97% 0.70 75% 85% 95% 0.42 0.03
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.66% 0.47 80% 80% 95% 0.29 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.09 80% 80% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.48% 0.34 80% 80% 95% 0.21 0.02
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 2.37% 1.70 80% 65% 95% 0.84 0.06
White or Enameled 2.82% 2.02 80% 95% 95% 1.46 0.11
NON-FERROUS METALS
Aluminum trans 0.23% 0.16 80% 75% 95% 0.09 0.01
Batteries(Household) 0.09% 0.06 80% 70% 95% 0.03 0.00
BATTERIES 0Aed Add) 0.07% 0.05 95% 85% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.22% 0.87 90% 85% 95% 0.64 0.05
Amber 0.29% 0.21 90% 85% 95% 0.15 0.01
Flint 3.03% 2.17 90% 85% 95% 1.58 0.12
WOOD
Pallets 0.12% 0.09 90% 90% 95% 0.07 0.00
Lumber 0.28% 0.20 90% 90% 60% 0.10 0.01
Other Wood 3.26% 2.34 100% 100% 100% 2.34 0.17
RUBBER 2.06% 1.48 100% 100% 100% 1.48 0.11
OTHER S FSS
Dirt 3.09% 222 90% 90% 95% 1.70 0.13
YARD WASTE
Leaves 10.00% 7.17 80% 100% 95% 5.45 0.40
BrushBranches 11.62% 8.33 80% 100% 95% 6.33 0.47
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.42% 0.30 90% 75% 95% 0.19 0.01
Textiles 4.03% 2.89 70% 75% 95% 1.44 0.11
TOTAL 59.13% 42.39 31.27 2.31
on ay Percent
Gross Waste Generation 71.69 100.00%
Waste Recovered 31.27 43.62%
Waste Remaining 40A2 56.38%
(1) Based on the total estimated residential waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
The residential waste stream is defined as excluding construction and demolition debris and landearing wastes,
(.e.,asphalt,concrete,rock,brick,dirt,tree stumps,wood).
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
a recycling program.
SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.13(Page 3 of 3)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD.NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM
LONGTERM PHASE-1997
PERCENR OF AQ RR RR
MATERIAL WASTE STREAM TONBIOAY PR SE PE TONSIDAY LBfCApwAY
PAPER
Newspaper 7.64% 5.48 95% 95% 95% 4.70 0S5
Magazines 2.76% 1.98 80% 85% 95% 1.28 0.09
CorrJBrown Bag 1 SO% 1.08 90% 95% 95% 0.87 0.06
Other Paperboard 3.98% 2.85 80% 80% 95%
Office Paper 0.97% 0.70 85% 900/0 95% 0.51 0.04
Other 7.19% 5.15 80% 80% 95% 3.13 0.23
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.66% 0.47 80% 80% 95% 0.29 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.09 80% 80% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.48% 0.34 80% 80% 95% 0.21 0.02
Other Rigid 1.44% 1.03 80% 80% 95% 0.63 0.05
Other Fleidble 2.77% 1.99 65% 85% 95% 1.04 0.08
FOOD 9.58% 6.87 0.65 OS5 0.95 2.33 0.17
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 2.37% 1.70 80% 70% 95% 0.90 0.07
White or Enameled 2.82% 2.02 95% 95% 95% 1.73 0.13
NON-FERROUS METALS
AHxr*wm Cans 023% 0.16 85% 80% 95% 0.11 0.01
Batteries(Household) 0.09% 0.06 80% 70% 95% 0.03 0.00
Foil 0.17% 0.12 80% 85% 95% 0.08 0.01
Furniture 0.05% 0.04 80% 75% 95% 0.02 0.00
BATTERIES(Lead Add) 0.07% 0.05 95% 85% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.22% 0.87 90% 80% 95% 0.60 0.04
Amber 0.29% 0.21 90% 80% 95% 0.14 0.01
Flint 3.03% 2.17 90% 80% 95% 1.49 0.11
WOOD
Pallets 0.12% 0.09 90% 90% 95% 0.07 0.00
Lumber 0.28% 0.20 90% 90% 60% 0.10 0.01
Other Wood 3.26% 2.34 1000/0 1000/0 100% 2.34 0.17
RUBBER 2.06% 1.48 100% 100% 100% 1.48 0.11
OTHER&FINES
Dirt 3.09% 2.22 90% 90% 95% 1.70 0.13
YARD WASTE
Leaves 10.00% 7.17 95% 100% 95% 6.47 0.48
Brush/Branches 11.62% 8.33 90% 100% 95% 7.12 0.53
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.42% 0.30 90% 75% 95% 0.19 0.01
Textiles 4.03% 2.89 50% 75% 95% 1.03 0.08
TOTAL 84.31% 60.44 40.71 3.01
TonsMay Percent
Gross Waste Generation 71.69 100.00%
Waste Rea veered 40.71 56.79%
Waste Remaining 30.98 43.21%
(1) Based on the rioted estimated residential waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
The residential waste stream is defined as excluding construction and demolition debris and landearing wastes,
(i.e..asphalt,concrete,rock,brick,dirt,tree stumps,wood).
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
a recycling program.
SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material wht A is actually kept separate from refuse by
Program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 6.1-1 (Page 1 of 3)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,NEW YORK
ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM
INTERIM PHASE-1994
PERCENT OF AQ RR RR
MATERUIL WASTE STREAM TONS/QAY PR SE PE TONSMY LBICAFMMY
PAPER
Newspaper 4.18% 3.78 92% 85% 95% 2.81 0.22
Magazines 1.51% 1.36 40% 80% 95% 0.41 0.03
CorrJBrown Bag 2.40% 2.17 80% 90% 95% 1.48 0.12
Office Paper 0.53% 0.48 20% 60% 95% 0.05 0.00
PLASTICS
PET>1 Liter 0.46% 0.42 TO% 70% 95% 0.19 0.02
PET<1 Liter 0.12% 0.11 70% 70% 95% 0.05 0.00
HDPE 0.50% 0.45 70% 70% 95% 0.21 0.02
FERROUS METALS
Food Cans 1.88% 1.70 50% 60% 95% 0.48 0.04
White or Enameled 2.60% 2.35 40% 90% 95% 0.80 0.06
NON-FERROUS METALS
Aluminum Cans 0.06% 0.05 50% 60% 95% 0.02 0.00
Batteries(Household) 0.05% 0.05 40% 70% 95% 0.01 0.00
BATTERIES(Lmd lAdd) 0.04% 0.04 40% 70% 95% 0.07 0.01
GLASS
Green 1.00% 0.90 90% 85% 95% 0.66 0.05
Amber 0.25% 0.23 90% 85% 95% 0.16 0.01
Flint 2.75% 2.49 90% 85% 95% 1.81 0.14
RUBBER 1.14% 1.03 70% 100% 100% 0.72 0.06
YARD WASTE
Leaves 9.50% 8.59 80% 100% 95% 6.53 0.51
Brush/Branches 14.50% 13.11 80% 100% 95% 9.96 0.78
MISCELLANEOUS
HHW 0.23% 0.21 40% TO% 95% 0.06 0.00
Textiles 2.20% 1.99 20% 60% 95% 0.23 0.02
TOTAL 45.90% 41.48 26.72 2.10
TonslDav Percent
Gross Waste Generation 90.38 100.00%
Waste Recovered 26.72 29.56%
Waste Remaining 63.66 70.44%
(1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1994,excluding
Fishers Island.
RR=AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ=AVAILABLE QUANTITY- The amount of material present in the waste stream
PR=PARTICIPATION RATE- The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in
a recycling program.
SE=SEPARATION EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by
program participants
PE=PROCESSING EFFICIENCY-The percentage of material remaining after processing
RR=RECOVERY RATE- The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream.
TABLE 2.2.1-A
Town of Southold
Recycling Arrangements
Recycled Recylcing Vendor Shipping Ultimate
Product Destination
Firm Name Cost or
Income Shipper Cost Product Re-
use
to Town
Newspaper Pinnacle INCOME: Town of S5/ton Northeast
Industries Southold US/Econocel
Bohemia, NY 520/ton cellulose
insulation
and fiber
mulch
Glass EWG Glass INCOME: EWG All New Glass
Recycling Clear: Colors Bottles
Jamaica, NY S15/ton S5/ton
Brown:
S10/ton
COST:
Green:
S17/ton
Tires Innovative COST: Unkown -
Methods, $1095 Innovative charges Incinera-
Floral per 110 Methods included tion (fuel )
Park, NY Cu. yd in
trailer vendor
price
Mixed Mid Island INCOME: Unknown new metal
Metals Salvage Mid Island - produts
(including Corp Deer S36/ton charges
appliances) Park, NY included
in
vendor
price
Tin and Gershow Mattituck Unknown
Aluminum Recycling None Sanitation -
Cans Medford, NY and North charges New Metal
Fork Sani- included Products
tation in
(alternate vendor
months) price
Plastic (#1 JET Approx
and #2 Sanitation COST: North Fork $40 Plastic
mixed) S35/ton Sanitation/ per ton Lumber
Town of
Southold
Town of Southold Recycling Arrangements
Pfte Z
Recycling Vendor Shipping Ultimate
Destination
Recycled (Cost) /Product
Product Firm Name or Shipper Cost Re-use
Income
to Town
Cardboard Jet Paper INCOME: Town of approx Fiber pulp
or Gershow 810/TON Southold 815- for
Recycling, 520/ton recycled
Medford, NY paper
products
Mixed Paper Marcal INCOME: Trans-King S24/ton
(junk mail, Paper 570/ton Tissue
etc, ) Mills Inc. , Products
Hlmwood
Park, NJ
Used Motor Strebels None Strebels Unknown Futiftor
Oil Laundry, - Strebels
Westhampton charges used-oil
included furnace
In
vendor
price
Vehicle P&K Scrap INCOME: Oregon Unknown Recycled
Batteries Coram, NY 2-1/2 c Road - for metals
per lb. Recycling charges
included
in
vendor
price
Household Chemical COST: Chemical Unknown Approx. 3%
Batteries Pollution Pollution - recycled
Control , 5190/55- Control charges for metals,
INC Bay gallon included 97% dis-
Shore, NY drum in posed in
vendor haz. waste
price landfills
Leaves & Southold COST: None none Chipped for
Brush Town $20-530/ composting)
Landfill ton stockpiled
(est) for use by
residents
Recycled Southold None None None Stockpiled
Wood Town for use by
Landfill residents
Used St. Vincent None St. Unknown Re-used
Clothing de` Paul Vincent de -
Paul charges
included
in
ventor
price
Figure 21.2-1
Town of Southold Total Waste Stream 1994
Rubbish 1,805 Garbage in � }
cl. r 9,W8
Yard Waste 6,582
. y
Other 470
I
Res YCRec ables 3,723
723
802
3
Sand ,
Scram Metal 428 C & D 6,371
TOTAL = 32,989 Tons
SOURCE: Southold Tawn Solid Waste District
Figure 211-2
Town Of Southold Monthly Waste Generation 1994
TONS
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
SOURCE: Southold Town Solid Waste District
„ri ,,
Figure 2.2.4-1
Town of Southold Calculated Total Waste Stream 1994*
Food 2,144 Yard Waste 4,783
Bulky Waste 858
Dirt/FinesxF
6,069 •��fi^ ���:�• >+. ��k�rye?:. '�::
Rubble 3,398
............
.:.%•�x%. I I I I I I I I
.hrxxk�� II III II
Rubber 363
Other 1,056 ..........
nYS+%
:
n.:.
.`..v........t
Paper 4,915
:L:�Y:Y:Y:is Y::t'£::L:i Y.:•:.'Y:•+ ..SY.Y:
Wood 4,289 >;uv"< .
::tY::t%x%Y:Y:Y
::.:........................................
Glass 858 Metal 3,2Plastic 1,023
TOTAL = 32,989 Tons
*NOTE: These figures based on 1989 Waste Stream Composition Analysis.
Numbers may not correspond to break down of actual 1994 Waste Stream
Figure 2.2.4-1
Town of Southold Calculated Total Waste Stream 1994*
Food 2,144 Yard Waste 4,783
Bulk y Waste 858
i?��.::Y:.?..
Dirt/Fines 6,069 h
A:. Rubble 3,398
...............:.:...
Rubber 363
... .XY.
Other 1,056 Y:% > i•XXXX%XX%.
%X
I
paper 4,915
WOOd 4,289
Glass 858Metal 3 2Plastic 1,023
TOTAL = 32,989 Tons
*NOTE: These figures based on 1989 Waste Stream Composition Analysis.
Numbers may not correspond to break down of actual 1994 Waste Stream
t
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE
Bureau of Waste Reduction and Recycling
Comments on the Town of Southold's Draft Solid Waste Management Plan
Prepared by: 4avid Vitale Date: October 28, 1994
Signed by:
These are review comments on the Town of Southold's November 1993 Draft
Solid Waste Management Plan which was received by the Department on_ Auqust 30, _
1994 and our office on September 1 , 1994, in relation to waste reduction and
recycling. These comments are made under the premise that the Fishers Island
Garbage and Refuse District a separate planning unit and will be
"providing their own Local Solid Waste Management Plan.
1 . The discussion relating to the evaluations of the potentially recyclable
and compostable materials in the waste stream need to be enhanced. The
following are specific sections of the plan where revision is
appropriate: [360-1.9(f) (1 ) (ii)]
a. On Pages S-6 and 5-21, the list of materials to be addressed in the
Plan should include; drink boxes/milk cartons (polycoated paper) ,
junk mail , telephone books, food waste and sludge.
On Pages 2-19 and 2-21, the listing of the waste composition
l.s information for paper and plastics should be segmented into
subcomponents of each of those general materials. Those
subcomponents should then be evaluated or included in the recovery
;y analysis and projections throughout the Plan. In addition, textiles
iI does not appear to be segmented in these listings and should be. It
� yJP is recognized that Table 2.2.5-1 has a minor segmentation of some
LP paper subcomponents; however, this also needs to be enhanced. /
C. On Pages 3-4, a listing of materials included in the household
hazardous waste collection program is provided. A discussion should
be included in the Plan which evaluates- the potential
recyclability/reusability of these materials (e.g. , aerosols,
paint) .
d. The discussion on Page 4-18 of Appendix A regarding telephone books
7
appears out-of-date and should be updated in the final Plan.
e. An evaluation of the potential recyclability of drink boxes/milk
i
• � �� cartons (polycoated paper) should be included in the Plan and
C tl incorporated into the program if appropriate.
2. Alternative source separation/recyclables recovery programs which were
considered, the majority of the proposed program, and the reasons for
selecting most components of the proposed program were identified.
However, the following are specific questions/comments on the proposed
,pr-o.gram: [360-1 .9(f) (4) ]
a. s The Plan and Appendix A (Comprehensive Recycling Analysis) contains
many qualifying phrases such as "can be, " "would, " "could, " "should"
and "it is recommended" when describing the Town' s proposed program.
These phrases are only appropriate in those sections which are
1
minimum: an extension of the five-year contracts for solid waste
disposal at approved facilities; a reevaluation of the backup
options and- alternatives discussed under Item "C"; and, the
planning unit's progress in developing disposal capacity within
the planning unit or New York State.
Note, that the implementation schedule indicates that the Town will have
a five-year, "long-term" hauling contract for disposal of residual
wastes by the summer of 1994. The text in Section 5.2 should be revised
to indicate who the Town now has this contract with. This discussion
should include terms, 'quantities and duration. If the Town does not
have a current five-year contract as the implementation schedule had
indicated, the plan must describe the current arrangements .now in place G'
for waste export and the particulars of this current agreement.
20. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include an analysis of the costs of
implementing the proposed solid waste system including capital
investments, operation, maintenance, administration, and financing.
This .description should include the funding source(s) for•all aspects of
solid waste management in the Town. Information previously requested in'
DEC Comment No. 14 may be incorporated here.
This final cost for the solid waste system should then be divided by the
quantity of solid waste being managed in the Town to determine an
approximate cost/ton for solid waste management in the Town of Southold.
21. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include a discussion of the Administrative
Structure responsible for all aspects of waste management in the Town of
Southold. The Department recommends a schematic detailing each employee
or group of employees associated with solid waste management in the Town
followed by a brief explanation of his/her responsibilities for Town
solid waste management.
22. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include a description of Town activities used
to secure participation of neighboring jurisdictions, whether the plan's
implementation would impose any limitations on their neighbors solid
waste programs, and the effects of including neighboring jurisdictions
in the Town plan.
23. The plan must include a responsiveness summary which is an accounting of
the comments and views expressed by concerned governmental ,
environmental , commercial and industrial interests, the public and
neighboring jurisdictions. This is usually attached to the SWMP as an
appendix and identified in the plan's Table of Contents.
Note, since the Town did make a Negative Declaration regarding
development of the Town's SWMP, this may or may not have been subject to
public comment. Please advise.
24. The following SWMP page numbers have typographical errors: 2-4, 3-2,
3-28, 3-30 and 5-2. Please contact my office if more specifics are
required.
PAGE 5 Of 5
r
v
discussing the various alternatives available to the Town and should
be replaced with more affirmative statements (e.g. , "will " and "will
be") when describing the Town's proposed program.
b. On Page S-9, it is stated that " . . .separation should be required for
construction and demolition debris, white goods (major household
appliances) , tires and household hazardous waste. " The specific
plan, with projected action dates, relative to each of these
materials should be outlined in the text and implementation
schedule. _,f
C. On Page 2-7, cor_rued cardboard is missing from the list of
materials currently accepted, if it is to be consistent with the
majority of the Plan text. This apparent omission should be
rectified or clarified if intended. In addition, it should either
be explained, via appropriate economic evaluation, in the Plan why
all materials which are currently accepted are not mandatory o -
recyclables in the Town nor are specific dates projected for
converting these materials to mandatory recyclables or the Town's
law/ordinance and/or implementation schedule should be modified to
provide such conversion.
d. On Page 2-7 of Appendix A, the list of recyclables in Section 2. 1 .3
also appears to have omitted corrugated cardboard and the list of
materials on Page 2-26 of Appendix A in Section 2.4 omits land
clearing debris which was included in the Section 2. 1.3 list. These
discrepancies should be rectified or clarified if intended.
e. On Page S-11, it is stated that "It is recommended that
residentially (homeowner) generated clean material remain the
responsibility of the Town for a three to five year period. Over
the long term private recycling and disposal options are to be used
by the generators of this waste." It is assumed that this
discussion relates to residentially generated C&D debris; however,
that should be specifically clarified in the final Plan. The plan
for this material should be stated in a more affirmative manner and
the specific actions the Town will take in an attempt to follow the
State's hierarchy of solid waste management relative to this
material during this three to five year period shall be presented.
The phrase "over the long term" should be clarified and the Town's
proposed Plan for ensuring this material will be handled in
accordance with the hierarchy of solid waste management after the
generators of this waste become responsible for its recycling and/or
disposal should be outlined in the text and implementation schedule.
f. On Page 5-7, it is stated that "The development, planning,
permitting, and capital cost of a construction and demolition debris 1
processing facility is expected to be more cost-effective if it is
handled by the private sector rather than the Town. " This Planning
document is the appropriate mechanism to make such determinations.
An evaluation relative to the cost effectiveness of this proposal
should be included in the Plan and be used to guide the Town to its
ultimate Plans.
2
' y e
g. On Page 2-6 of Appendix A, . it is stated that "sludge from the
Southold Scavenger Waste and Incorporated Village of Greenport
Sewage Treatment Plants has been disposed of at the landfill . " It
�j is not indicated in the Plan what is currently being done with this
material since closure of the landfill nor is a specific plan for
this material detailed in the implementation schedule.
h. On Page 2-26 of Appendix A, it is indicated that only HDPE and PET
are the plastics collected in the Town yet the Town's law/ordinance
does not limit the plastics definition to only HDPE and PET. This
potential inconsistency should be clarified in the final Plan.
On Page 4-3 of Appendix A, in the paper marketing discussion it is
l/ stated that "paper grades accepted by these markets included baled
corrugated materials, newspaper, books, magazines, telephone books,
✓/ high grade office and computer paper and mixed low-grade paper." If
this is the current situation, it should be explained why these
materials are not all included as mandatory recyclables in the
Town's program or the program should be modified accordingly.
On Page 4-18 of Appendix A, it is stated that "On baled OCC
delivered to a processing facility, in many cases can be tipped free
of charge or receive up to $10 per ton in revenue. " If this is the
case, it should be explained why the Town has instead chosen to pay
$200 per pick-up plus $30 per ton to have their OCC sent to Jet
Paper.
Also on Page 4-18 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Creative market
development efforts are required to successfully market low or mixed
gr.'ades of waste paper, including mixed office paper, junk mail ,
magazines and books." However, in the same paragraph, five brokers
who handle this material are listed. This seems to be an
inconsistency and should be clarified in the final Plan.
On Page 4-20 of Appendix A, it is indicated that plate glass and
ceramics are. not acceptable materials to the glass markets yet in
Table 4. 1-1, Pace Glass is listed as accepting plate glass. This
inconsistency should be rectified in the final Plan.
M. On Page 4-55 of Appendix A, a reference to a glassphalt paving
project "currently being considered jointly by Nassau and Suffolk
n Counties. " It is stated that "the project is expected to commence
in 1992. . . . " The status of this project should be provided and the
reference to "currently being considered" should be modified or
eliminated in the final Plan.
n. Table 5.3-1 in Appendix A and all associated information related to
the public attitude survey toward source separation should include
the dates of the surveys. Information such as this can become out-
of-date and not representative of current situation very quickly.
When the dates are provided, the value and applicability of this
information can appropriately be determined.
3
t r
M -
o. On Page 5-15 of Appendix A, it should also be acknowledged that
equipment choices for collection of-recyclables and/or waste
includes multi-compartment compacting vehicles.
On Page 5-16 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Since the program has
been recently implemented, detailed data is not yet available
regarding participation rates and materials sorting efficiency
rates. " The mandatory program has been in place since February of
P 1991 which is not considered "recently." This characterization
should be modified and a more recent analysis/discussion be provided
in the final Plan.
q. On Page 5-22 of Appendix A, the discussion relative to the Solar
facility in Babylon, New York should be reviewed to ensure it is
still accurate in view of the current status of the facility. -
3 . An overall schedule of the recyclables recovery program is provided in
Table 6.6-1 of Appendix A. That Table, in conjunction with Tables 6. 1-1
through 6. 1-3 of Appendix A, should provide a schedule with specific
dates for implementation of the recyclables recovery program (including
dates to attain specified, progressively increasing percentages of the
waste stream that will be recovered as recyclables) . The following are
specific comments and concerns relating to those Tables and the
implementation of the recyclables recovery program in general . [360-
1 .9(f) (5) (ii )]
a. The following comments relate to the information presented in
Table 6.6-1 of Appendix A:
i . The interim phase is listed as "present to 1994". As there are
only approximately two months remaining in 1994, the interim
phase should be listed as "1994" .
ii . White goods are listed in the first entry as a mandatory
recyclable. However, white goods are not identified as a
mandatory recyclable in the Town Law/ordinance provided in �7
Appendix A of Appendix A nor is it consistent with sections of
the text of the Plan. The status of white goods should be
clarified and consistently presented throughout the Plan.
iii . This schedule should include projected dates for inclusion of
all materials which will be added to the recyclables recovery
program and/or converted to mandatory recyclables from their
current status (for those which are currently collected/
accepted, but are not mandatory under the Town' s current
Law/ordinance) .
iv. The proposed public education program and schedule should be
detailed in the implementation schedule or reference to a
detailed plan, which includes proposed action dates, located
elsewhere in the text should be included.
V. The implementation/action dates in the schedule should be 2
listed .in chronological order. The current format does not _
list events in chronological order which makes the schedule
4
frustrating to read and follow. This will become more
important as the additional information which will be added in
response to these comments is added.
vi . The school programs are included in the mid-term phase of the
schedule. While these programs are briefly noted, they should
be implemented as soon as possible, to be in compliance with
the Town's recycling law/ordinance and Section 120-aa of the
General Municipal Law (GML) .
vii . The entry for the "survey of residential and commercial
participation to determine participation rates" in May 1996
appears to be late. It is more appropriate to conduct this
-' survey as soon as possible and then again before the beginning
of the long term phase. This should be reevaluatedand
incorporated into the schedule of the final Plan as
appropriate.
'" viii . It is noted in the schedule that the Town will "encourage"
i� I private vendors to process C&D. The program associated with
this entry should be outlined in the Plan. The minor reference
on Page 6-19 of Appendix A is not sufficient.
xi . An entry in the long term phase is a "collection, processing
and marketing system reevaluation" in May 1997. This
reevaluation is appropriate at regularly schedule intervals
throughout the program and not just in May 1997. In addition
the anticipated duration of this reevaluation should be noted.
✓ The date provided does not detail whether that action date is
the beginning or end date of the reevaluation or both.
xii . The schedule lists January 1998 as the date for requiring the
recycling of C&D debris, land clearing debris and yard waste
and HHW. This date is inconsistent with the description of the
Town's program. C&D can and should be required to be a
mandatory recyclable as soon as a contract is signed with a
private vendor as the Town is not planning to process the
material itself. The text of the Plan indicates the Town's
yard waste composting facility was to be operational in
September 1994 therefore, yard waste and land clearing debris
should become a mandatory recyclable immediately.
xiii .The schedule identifies December 1997 as a date for an
evaluation of technical and economic feasibility of additional
organic composting. This evaluation should be done now as well
and if determined feasible and appropriate, a contract or RFP
for a contract, similar to the Town' s proposed C&D contract
with a private vendor, should be issued or implemented.
xiv. The July 1998 consideration of implementation of an organic
collection program can appropriately be moved up in the
schedule as a result of any modifications made in response to
comment 3.a.xiii .
5
xv. The implementation schedule should include the biennial update
of the SWMP required due to the long term exportation plan.
Further information on this requirement can be obtained from ,
the Bureau of Facility Management.
b. The following comments relate to the information presented in
Tables 6. 1-1 through 6. 1-3 in Appendix A:
i . The interim phase on Table 6. 1-1 should appropriately be listed
as "1994" and not "1991" .
ii . The participation rates (PR) for 1994 appear to be low,
especially for the currently mandatory materials. These
presented rates do not appear to correspond to .the existing
program. .These projections should be reevaluated and current
information/projections be utilized.
iii . It is indicated in Table 6.1-1 that the projected recovery rate
of the interim phase (1994) is 8.5 percent and will jump to 61 i
percent in one year (1995) . The implementation schedule and
plan presented does not support such a jump in recovery rate.
These projections should be reevaluated and supporting
discussion of the projected recovery rates [including
participation rates (PR) and separation efficiencies (SE)] used S
in the final Plan should be provided.
iv. The projected recovery rates and materials included in the
program should be consistent with the revised implementation _7
schedule which will be presented in the final Plan in response
to these comments [e.g. , the current projection indicates a
commitment to the recovery.of C&D and yard waste yet the
implementation schedule did not make the same commitment] .
V. These same detailed projections of recovery rates, including
projected PR's and SE's, should be- provided for several years
throughout the planning period at strategic intervals (e.g. ,
1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015) along with the
supporting discussion as referenced in comment 3.b. iii .
vi . Comments 3.b. i - v also apply to the presentation of �]
projections in Table 6. 1-3. �f
vii . These projections of recovery rates indicate that maximized
recovery rates will be achieved in 1997 and remain at that
level for the next 18 years. This appears to be an •�
inappropriate presentation of the Town's currently projected
program and should be revised to reflect a program of maximized
waste reduction and recycling with increasing percentages of
the waste strea;;! that will be recovered as recyclables
throughout the planning period due to continued incorporation
of additional materials to be recovered and increasing
participation levels and separation and system processing
efficiencies.
6
c. On Page 6-2 of Appendix A, it is stated that "During the interim
period it was estimated the Town could achieve a material recovery
rate of nine percent. Based on 1991 and 1992 actual recycling
tonnage, the Town has not only achieved this goal , but exceeded it.
During both these years the Town reduced its waste stream by 11 to
12 percent due primarily to waste recycling and waste reduction
programs. " If the goal for the interim period (1994) has already
been in 1991 and 1992, the goal for 1994 is totally inappropriate.
These inconsistencies need to be eliminated in the final Plan,
implementation schedule and waste reduction and recycling
projections.
d. On Page S-8, it is indicated that between 1989 and 1992, the Town' s
waste stream decreased .by 13 percent. Future waste stream
projections do not appear to reflect this fact and should be
recalculated and revised as appropriate in the final Plan. In
addition a discussion of the probable and/or suspected reasons for
the reduction of the waste stream should be provided in. the final
Plan along with waste reduction projections for various years _.
throughout the planning period as a result of the Town's proposed
waste reduction measures and program.
e. On Page S-8, it is stated that "Residents will be encouraged to
leave grass clippings on the lawn and consideration will be given to
excluding grass from the Town solid waste complex." This
"consideration" process should be described in the final Plan and
outlined in the implementation schedule along with projected action
dates.
f. It was indicated in the Plan in several places that the composting
facility was expected to be operational by September 1994. The
current status of this facility should be provided in the final Plan
as the Plan was submitted to the Department after that date.
g. It is assumed that the reference on Page 6-8 of Appendix A which
states, "Over the long term, the Town will evaluate the opportunity
for developing a source separation based composting facility which
will enable the Town to recover the entire compostable fraction of
the waste stream corresponds to the implementation schedule entry
discussed in comment 3.a.xiii . If so, the reference to this
specific facility should be included in the implementation schedule.
h. On Page 6-16 of Appendix A, it is stated that "The Town will
encourage and assist the private sector in increasing recycling
efforts for office paper, newspaper, corrugated and plastic, metal
and glass containers. " This program should be outlined in the Plan
and incorporated into the implementation schedule.
i . On Page 6-19, of Appendix A, it is stated that " If necessary, the
Town will market C&D through a new transfer station contract. As
noted in comment 3.a. ix. this should be enacted as soon as possible
for consistency with the State's hierarchy of solid waste management
and "to maximize recycling.
j . On Page 6-49 of Appendix A, it is stated that "The Town could
conduct a commercial and institutional waste utilization and
practices survey to assist the Town in identifying existing vC✓
recycling activities by the private sector". This program should
not be presented as an activity that "could" be performed, but
instead should be listed as a program that "will " occur as soon as
possible. This information should have been obtained and presented
as part of this Plan in order to assist the Town in formulating its
recyclables recovery program..
k. On Page 6-20 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Commercial ,
institutional and industrial establishments will be required to
demonstrate compliance with the Town's ordinance by documenting the
quantities of materials recovered and reporting the tonnage to the .
Town." The program details should be provided in the final Plan and
incorporated into the implementation schedule.
1 . On Page 6-50 of Appendix A, it is stated that "In addition, solid
waste haulers will be encouraged to provide collection of white
goods under pre-arranged conditions for recycling at the Town
collection center. " The program details of this encouragement Cl `
program should be provided in the final Plan and incorporated into
the implementation schedule.
M. On Page 6-50 of Appendix A, in reference to the long term phase, it
is' stated that "At this phase of program development, regularly
scheduled curbside collections of recyclable materials would be
available to all residents, businesses, institutions and industries.
This should be the case now and not just by the long term phase. If
this is not occurring in the Town now, the Town should modify its
program. If it is the current Town program, the Plan should be
corrected.
n. On Page 6-53 of Appendix A, it is stated that "over the long-term,
solid waste haulers, as part of their operating license, will be
mandated to pickup recyclable materials from each household;
therefore seasonal subscribers will be provided with this service."
This should be the case now. If not, the Town's program should be
modified accordingly. If so, the Plan should be corrected.
o. The marketing plans for the various implementation schedule phases
on pages 6-22 and 6-45 - 6-47 of Appendix A should be incorporated
into the implementation schedule.
p. On Page 6-68 of Appendix A, it is stated that "The Town is
encouraged to consider similar market development approaches as
currently being adopted and implemented by the State and County. "
This statement should be clarified. It should be stated who is
encouraging the Town. All market development initiatives should be
incorporated into the implementation schedule.
q. The procurement actions discussed on Page 7-1 of Appendix A should
be incorporated into the implementation schedule.
8
r. On Page 7-1 of Appendix A, it is stated that the "Town's mandatory
source separation and recycling ordinance was adopted on
February 11, 1991 as part of the interim phase". This should be
corrected as that date is three years prior to the Plan's "interim
phase" (i .e.,, 1994) . It is also further stated that "The ordinance
will not be adopted prior to securing processing and mark.--ting
arrangements." As this ordinance has been adopted for over three
years, this should also be corrected.
4. These comments relate to Chapter 48 of the Town of Southold Code -
Garbage, Rubbish and Refuse which is partially presented in Appendix A of
Appendix A: [360-1 .9(f) (6) (ii)]
a. The copy of Chapter 48 provided is not complete. A complete copy of
the Town's current recycling law/ordinance/code with all current
appropriate amendments resolutions, regulations and rules must be
provided.
b. Currently, it appears that the law/ordinance/code only requires
source separation of cans, glass containers, newspapers and plastic
bottles of all generators and adds corrugated cardboard for self-
haulers, as the definition of "recyclables" does not currently
include corrugated cardboard. It is however, difficult to
definitively assess the law/ordinance/code with the partial
submittal provided. This is not consistent with the Town's existing
program nor with the requirements of Section 120-aa of the GML. It
is expected that many more materials will need to be added to the
Town's law/ordinance/code.
C. A portion of Section 48-3 of the Town Code is provided with a
handwritten note stating "self-haulers. " It is unclear whether or
not this section applies to all "self-haulers" or only a portion
(e.g. , residential ) . When a complete Chapter is submitted, this
issue can be more completed addressed.
d. With the limited information presented it appears that revision to
the Town Code will be necessary for consistency with the Town's
program and Section 120-aa of the GML.
5. The current situation relating to the planning unit status of the Fishers
Island Garbage and Refuse District should be clarified in the Plan. As
noted at the beginning of these comments, these have been made under the
premise that the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District is a separate
and distinct planning unit from the Town of Southold.
6. All information in this Plan which simply references information or
documentation that has 'been submitted to the Department outside of this
November 1993 version of the Plan must be submitted as part of this
actual document if It is to be considered as part of the Plan.
7. The following comments are intended to assist the planning unit in
identifying typographical errors or statements which need to be revised
for clarification purposes.
9
a. On Page 3-8, it is stated that "A large portion of non-ferrous metal
is already being recycled through mandatory participation in the
Beverage Container Act." Participation is not mandatory and the
text should be modified accordingly.
b. On Page 3-10 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Tires are recovered
and recycled at Oxford Tire in Plainfield, Connecticut. " It is then
further stated that "Tires processed at Oxford Tire's facility in
Connecticut are utilized as a supplemental fuel source during
incineration. The text should be revised to clarify that this
processing and incineration is not considered recycling.
C. There appears to be pages missing in Section 4 of the Plan. This
section should be reviewed to determine if all the -pages were
transmitted to the Department.
d. Typographical errors were identified in the following locations .
i . Page 1-40, 2nd line, 1st word.
i;I/ Page 2-4, lst paragraph, 2nd to last sentence is a partial
repeat of the last sentence in that paragraph.
iii . Table 2.2.6-1 and Appendix A Table 2.4-1, the last category
listing cox _.
iv. Page 3-14, 6th line, missing a word between the 9th and 10th
words.
V. Page 2-4 of Appendix A, 1st paragraph, 2nd to last sentence is
a partial repeat of the last sentence in that paragraph.
i . Page 4-8 of Appendix A, 1st sentence in paragraph 3 is a repeat
of the 7th sentence in paragraph 2.
vii . Page 5-9 of Appendix A, line 21, 5th word.
vii: .Page 6-48 of Appendix A, line 18, 8th word.
10
1094 oARJLAT7VE RMYCLM VWk&4 RY
I 1 YM %ONANM
I Tom %ChWP IS Ch-P Fm81 ( TOTAL P AU YTD
JAN FEB MAR APR WAY JUTE JULY AUG sm OCT NOV I Tty From NOV DEC 1993 I TOW LAST YEAR
I I
FOUNE CLDIMCM1900 1 I
am I I
Cyt 34.26 30.14 30.20 31.00 31.25 47.89 44.07 33.42 44.17 30.38 3282 I 72.70 29% 4.05 1 444.90 las%
0r. 0.. an 132 &01 &78 &97 &90 105 &75 522 4.09 4.30 I 4.99 to% 6.9% ( 48.63 0.7%
Gam 1., 17.03 91.13 16.77 14.89 16.09 10.06 1138 3572 19A3 17.79 10.40 1 19.62 44.0% 24.3% I 208.61 6.9%
I I
PAM 1&93 14.01 16.19 10.13 17.39 9.62 27.49 1&so 14.00 14.00 14.00 I 14.50 &9% 43% 1 101.02 31.0%
CYs 14.99 14.08 1&15 Iles 18.86 13.96 10.45 6.73 1197 1210 lass I Ism 19.7% -1.9% 1 14.67 4.4%
07.00 51.32 108.44 9327 10174 70420 107.79 75.72 7214 70.79 MAO 1 60.02 -36-0% -47.8% 1 103x40 -1.0%
t� 5361 56.97 SM34 01.03 71.07 10108 86.02 120.90 86.54 76.09 4.96 1 107.09 47.1% 51.0% ( 999.10 IBM
Cta480N9s 0.90 4.50 1.54 1.70 &9s &90 1.25 4.00 190 1.40 I.50 I 1.90 4.0% 4.o% 1 14.06 24.046
HIossom ago aso 0.5 0.90 4.75 0.75 a75 1.90 4.76 4.75 0.75 I 0.76 4.e% 4.05 1 0.75 40.0%
o9m6P40t 30.83 I4As $193 47.27 91.10 74.4 0710 04.74 49.4 46.4 42.10 I 44.74 to% 17% 1 097.98 47.0%
pi8" 107 170 1.82 217 &20 4.56 438 6.10 4.17 zoo zoo I 1.86 -7.9% -31.7% I 38.07 191.7%
Vs4Y9ORMMS) 4.12 2.37 4.37 4.4 4.14 6.87 4.47 7.74 431 0.44 7.45 I an 21.5% I Tae+ 4.9%
CIM W000 aoo 0.00 0.00 6.81 9.11 9.44 1.15 0.17 1.77 1.72 0.97 I 1.40 2152% ERR 1 31.14 -49.5%
1 t
N01y1B010 TOW 236.40 199.99 330.90 205.02 32797 375.14 362.10 304.09 MAT 304.12 291.47 I 314.22 4.4% -4.416 I 3723.24 34.4%
I i
Am IS drpimmoRM
uyssarw�e�y
Avow 29OS 22.0% 31.3'% 34.9% M.3% 213% 7825 MIS 22.0% 2!3% 21LM s146i 1 29:0%
1 I
C01109EY IAL IECYCLMIG I I
I I
saw WAY 2229 2025 24.22 45.29 31.02 41.87 59.09 31.23 31.34 47.46 MAID I 34.09 -1.5% to% 1 424.63 -30.3%
TM 29.89 20.00 19.71 lzoo 20 10.91 2D.00 1201 24.15 36.23 24.05 f 24.00 -&4% 9.1% I 209.75 15.0%
I I
com"dM TOW 5210 40.25 4&93 5729 51.02 57.78 76.40 4&24 5749 s4.7o 09.85 ( 50.40 -z3% 6.4% I 006.30 -17.9%
I I
YMWWAM 0ECVUA46 I f
1 t
a9y414D 19.95 17.50 121.86 014.40 335.34 92oe 79.91 4&4 4&T0 W.09 41.05 I 39720 48.1% -3&7% 1 2496.70 -1&4%
_ O 7.06 &09 36.75 144.81 28.40 14.14 an 0136 12M 39251 114.00 I 1.75 46.4% 4.9.7% 1 974.79
I t
-a0N41W W.99 30.33 77.51 $1157 754.80 235.05 217.31 37X71 28&12 31&01 also j 27&40 -40.9% -30.3% I 381116 -14.416
_1Y46w0 1&4 too 103 45.40 8326 60.59 94.30 28.83 7.81 31.46 19.05 I 35.52 122.4% -20.0% 1 307.26
I 1
Yt6My1p TOW K2 04.52 238.12 1322.79 1110.09 34325 34.18 478.91 447.4 792.91 1445.3 1 axes -6&9% -119% I 7204.06 -110%
t i
MAO RECYCUNG I I
TOTAL: 354.79 300.68 412.0.7 165.09 149&M 774.17 M04 91&0.1 00990 118192 1794.42 I 141.25 -410% a8.0% 1 11s46.27 -1.4%
I 1
AI110��q I i
arsert94r I I
wvftsm. tans 299% x03 a." 411411 29.05 3a!% aaI% x40 Iaty1 SoLm t sant 1 x44;
I I
womeON(OMM) 1130 050 1745 1815 1139 2430 1255 2120 1730 1715 2040 t 1986 -2&9% 21.9% I ism 0.4%
1 I
ToWn(9 d 06 I I
00 om") 1s 0 17 14 0 0 I9 0 0 27 0 I 17 -37.0% ERR 1 110 -0.1%
I 1
sOL910E: 80UTH LO TOMN OOLLECTION CENTER
10"CLMM.ATME YAWN 71aa01 RY
T" schmp
JAN F® t4AA APR MAY .RAE JLR.Y AUG KEPT OCT Nov i Tom 491 MOV%amIm � Tom LA1TYM
No
chopme I )
X09►TOW a" ofAs ?AM of x ARM J" M ff la" Isaw 1RM Y f.7 ( 4M" 4US 1.la M0.! 439
-mom 0410 11437* IMM 1ft" lam 29&71 29149 749! 3" 70.72 1!49 11" I Man 4AS 441% � 249949 M<A
-o"0ywe" 7RM 2a49 asm 22412 SWAM 4M1M 4M0 90.91 omm MRN 30349 ( San ,Lia am I 40949 M91M
sw4wAo4(r beg" IMM 119!9 21M 41.49 1ti 31946 I" 30:141 149x3/ IMM IMM I 10.0 4S!0. -am I >MILO 341.1M
MAO 3a99 31LU 7323 492.91 7114910 1".54 10.31 27&73 231.64 27482 "&91 r I 24&44 4L4% -41.4% I 310.33 -ao%
C&D 14917 14942 341.0 am 4830 40.30 30.48 417.32 s31.N 091.20 44930 ) S x13 74.0% 1210% ) 4917.04 -11.4%
C49MMt an an 3949 1aM 174 7330 57172 910 4504 3991 191 ) 1.49 434% 12&0% I 1482.0o I&L M
La1108trenp Moo 0.00 4.49 27.04 4&44 "M 49.93 Stag 51.0 3930 $149 I 3316 -KOS sal% I 491.43 4140%
FOnDOM1(I101tq 1400 21.52 121.02 21&49 Ifts 212.74 11500 20.0 177.49 14940 13111 I 10.0 740% 19,7% I 1M&4i -11.5%
Agft* 2.l 4a39 4149 3&93 a0 QM 1.44 1.49 5&41 stat an 2.15 I an 40&4% 400L0% I 200.50 ♦40%
awspinm 22.29 2400 2422 4a20 31.02 M.0 Wag 31.23 31.34 47.04 31L00 I 3449 4.9% ao% I 47&30 -294%
TM 2&40 20.00 1171 12.00 21t04 1&9I 49.00 12.01 Ms 3123 24.0 I 2400 -14% &1% ) 240.75 21.0%
Ogle an an 1.39 35M 9932 3140 7853 3&43 2194 law 120 I 149 491% 504.3% I 70W3 -"a%
TOTAL 0430 Mn 139340 173179 21MG4 293&91 237136 241444 214af6 190." 2OK01 ) 1707.0 -17.0% &0% ZM02.12 412%
NO1►41nIr9t0IM I I
Lt4tttl6fal 1&46 17.90 121.49 01&40 336.34• stag 7&01 41" 4170 KOS 641.061r j 347.20 4OL116 -U?% j 249&70 -119%
3114&00 147 147 &74 251.36 SM43 590.72 14&32 149a93 141.73 11&44 law I 205.14 1930.0% -20.0% I 3901." 51.6%
31MMM 0.30 0.40 2&79 lam 7.90 991 435 1.30 1.43 14&40 00.19 I 3&91 40.3% at.7% I 300.21 -910%
YM04C04t 0.00 937 &20 to/0 5.84 4.79 4.92 10.44 1t.M 11.74 14.24 I 13.34 46% 06.7% I 104.91 -349%
honit119M I I
Fltsys101tt 24940 loan 330.69 29402 37107 37&14 382.19 30&49 30507 30&12 291.47 I 310.22 0.4% 41% 1 372124 34.0%
YYbMOImm) 412 437 &37 &44 4.10 &0 447 7.74 931 944 7.45 I 5.0 -219% 21.5% I 70.42 0.9%
TOTAL 20.24 221L00 500.0 114441 1347.74 1032.48 49to6 2154.34 own Wall 1025.63 j 007.40 -5.7% -20.0% j 10497.34 40.3%
1 1
GPA1DTOTAL 123&" 1220.23 188147 2919.19 3617.'.1♦ 301.99 2975.40 4570.78 2049.07 254101 3049." i 2075.30 -112% -&A% i 3249&40 43%
WON OR I I
t9�sl 1130 050 1746 1915 1134 2430 1256 2120 173D 1715 2040 I 1565 -218% 21.5% I 10324 0.4%
TWU(9 or ag I 1
go mum) 10 0 17 14 0 0 19 0 0 27 0 I 17 FAR ERR I 110 -9.1%
I I
10 533 Tont of 649 Msy&uoh a n Nm 949 TO MI M0M7 SF"CMW1- .
0138 TOM Offt My Laws 49109 In 490 me TDM KION"SP"C1 WHW
W 514 TOM 01949 NWsMW Wush 9419 n v10949 The TOMI NIWM FM CNII>•up.
14156 Tont 0►11M NOIM101 L49wt am*n Wt 949 T-1100 1r FsI C*M-W.
90MYCt i0UTHOLD TOYOM COLLECT10H CDOM
a•.
I
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE
Bureau of Waste Reduction and Recycling
Comments on the Town of Southold's Draft Solid Waste Management Plan
Prepared by: 4avid Vitale Date: October 28, 1994
Signed by:
These are review comments on the Town of Southold's November 1993 Draft
Solid Waste Management Plan which was received by the Department on August 30,
1994 and our office on September 1, 1994, in relation to was r�duction -and__,
recycling. These comments are made under the premise that tk Island .
Garbage and Refuse District is considered a separate planning unit anT—wiTT be
providing their own Local Solid Waste Management Plan.
1 . The discussion relating to the evaluations of the potentially recyclable
and compostable materials in the waste stream need to be enhanced. The
following are specific sections of the plan where revision is
appropriate: [360-1.9(f) (1 ) (ii)]
a. On Pages S-6 and 5-21, the list of materials to be addressed in the
Plan should include; drink boxes/milk cartons (polycoated paper) ,
junk mail , telephone books, food waste and sludge.
b. On Pages 2-19 and 2-21, the listing of the waste composition
information for paper and plastics should be segmented into
subcomponents of each of those general materials. Those
subcomponents should then be evaluated or included in the recovery
analysis and projections throughout the Plan. In addition, textiles
does not appear to be segmented in these listings and should be. It
is 'recognized that Table 2.2.5-1 has a minor segmentation of some
paper subcomponents; however, this also needs to be enhanced.
C. On Pages 3-4, a listing of materials included in the household
hazardous waste collection program is provided. A discussion should
be included in the Plan which evaluates-the potential
recyclability/reusability of these materials (e.g. , aerosols,
paint) .
d. The discussion on Page 4-18 of Appendix A regarding telephone books
appears out-of-date and should be updated in the final Plan.
e. An evaluation of the potential recyclability of drink boxes/milk
cartons (polycoated paper) should be included in the Plan and
incorporated into the program if appropriate.
2. Alternative source separation/recyclables recovery programs which were
considered, the majority of the proposed program, and the reasons for
selecting most components of the proposed program were identified.
However, the following are specific questions/comments on the proposed
program: [360-1 .9(f) (4) ]
a. The Plan and Appendix A (Comprehensive Recycling Analysis) contains
many qualifying phrases such as "can be, " "would, " "could, " "should"
and "it is recommended" when describing the Town's proposed program.
These phrases are only appropriate in those sections which are
1
0
discussing the various alternatives available to the Town and should
be replaced with more affirmative statements (e.g. , "will " and "will
be") when describing the Town's proposed program.
b. On Page S-9, it is stated that ". . .separation should be required for
construction and demolition debris, white goods (major household
appliances) , tires and household hazardous waste. " The specific
plan, with projected action dates, relative to each of these
materials should be outlined in the text and implementation
schedule.
C. On Page 2-7, corrugated cardboard is missing from the list of
materials currently accepted, if it is to be consistent with the
majority of the Plan text. This apparent omission should be
rectified or clarified if intended. In addition, it should either
be explained, via appropriate economic evaluation, in the Plan why
all materials which are currently accepted are not mandatory
recyclables in the Town nor are specific dates projected for
converting these materials to mandatory recyclables or the Town's
law/ordinance and/or implementation schedule should be modified to
provide such conversion.
d. On Page 2-7 of Appendix A, the list of recyclables in Section 2. 1 .3
also appears to have omitted corrugated cardboard and the list of
materials on Page 2-26 of Appendix A in Section 2.4 omits land
clearing debris which was included in the Section 2.1.3 list. These
discrepancies should be rectified or clarified if intended.
e. On Page S-11, it is stated that "It is recommended that
residentially (homeowner) generated clean material remain the
responsibility of the Town for a three to five year period. Over
the long term private recycling and disposal options are to be used
by the generators of this waste." It is assumed that this
discussion relates to residentially generated C&D debris; however,
that should be specifically clarified in the final Plan. The plan
for this material should be stated in a more affirmative manner and
the specific actions the Town will take in an attempt to follow the
State's hierarchy of solid waste management relative to this
material during this three to five year period shall be presented.
The phrase "over the long term" should be clarified and the Town's
proposed Plan for ensuring this material will be handled in
accordance with the hierarchy of solid waste management after the
generators of this waste become responsible for its recycling and/or
disposal should be outlined in the text and implementation schedule.
f. On Page 5-7, it is stated that "The development, planning,
permitting, and capital cost of a construction and demo-lition debris
processing facility is expected to be more cost-effective if it is
handled by the private sector rather than the Town." This Planning
document is the appropriate mechanism to make such determinations.
An evaluation relative to the cost effectiveness of this proposal
should be included in the Plan and be used to guide the Town to its
ultimate Plans.
2
g. On Page 2-6 of Appendix A, it is stated that "sludge from the
Southold Scavenger Waste and Incorporated Village of Greenport
Sewage Treatment Plants has been disposed of at the landfill . " It
is not indicated in the Plan what is currently being done with this
material since closure of the landfill nor is a specific plan for
this material detailed in the implementation schedule.
h. On Page 2-26 of Appendix A, it is indicated that only HDPE and PET
are the plastics collected in the Town yet the Town's law/ordinance
does not limit the plastics definition to only HDPE and PET. This
potential inconsistency should be clarified in the final Plan.
i . On Page 4-3 of Appendix A, in the paper marketing discussion it is
stated that "paper grades accepted by these markets included baled
corrugated materials, newspaper, books, magazines, telephone books,
high grade office and computer paper and mixed low-grade paper." If
this is the current situation, it should be explained why these
materials are not all included as mandatory recyclables in the
Town's program or the program should be modified accordingly.
j. On Page 4-18 of Appendix A, it is stated that "On baled OCC
delivered to a processing facility, in many cases can be tipped free
of charge or receive up to $10 per ton in revenue. " If this is the
case, it should be explained why the Town has instead chosen to pay
$200 per pick-up plus $30 per ton to have their OCC sent to Jet
Paper.
k. Also on Page 4-18 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Creative market
development efforts are required to successfully market low or mixed
gr.`ades of waste paper, including mixed office paper, junk mail ,
magazines and books." However, in the same paragraph, five brokers
who handle this material are listed. This seems to be an
inconsistency and should be clarified in the final Plan.
1 . On Page 4-20 of Appendix A, it is indicated that plate glass and
ceramics are. not acceptable materials to the glass markets yet in
Table 4.1-1, Pace Glass is listed as accepting plate glass. This
inconsistency should be rectified in the final Plan.
M. On Page 4-55 of Appendix A, a reference to a glassphalt paving
project "currently being considered jointly by Nassau and Suffolk
Counties." It is stated that "the project is expected to commence
in 1992. . . . " The status of this project should be provided and the
reference to "currently being considered" should be modified or
eliminated in the final Plan.
n. Table 5.3-1 in Appendix A and all associated information related to
the public attitude survey toward source separation should include
the dates of the surveys. Information such as this can become out-
of-date and not representative of current situation very quickly.
When the dates are provided, the value and applicability of this
information can appropriately be determined.
3
o. On Page 5-15 of Appendix A, it should also be acknowledged that
equipment choices for collection of recyclables and/or waste
includes multi-compartment compacting vehicles.
p. On Page 5-16 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Since the program has
been recently implemented, detailed data is not yet available
regarding participation rates and materials sorting efficiency
rates." The mandatory program has been in place since February of
1991 which is not considered "recently." This characterization
should be modified and a more recent analysis/discussion be provided
in the final Plan.
q. On Page 5-22 of Appendix A, the discussion relative to the Solar
facility in Babylon, New York should be reviewed to ensure it is
still accurate in view of the current status of the facility. -
3. An overall schedule of the recyclables recovery program is provided in
Table 6.6-1 of Appendix A. That Table, in conjunction with Tables 6. 1-1
through 6.1-3 of Appendix A, should provide a schedule with specific
dates for implementation of the recyclables recovery program (including
dates to attain specified, progressively increasing percentages of the
waste stream that will be recovered as recyclables) . The following are
specific comments and concerns relating to those Tables and the
implementation of the recyclables recovery program in general . [360-
1.9(f) (5) (ii)]
a. The following comments relate to the information presented in
Table 6.6-1 of Appendix A:
i . The interim phase is listed as "present to 1994" . As there are
only approximately two months remaining in 1994, the interim
phase should be listed as "1994" .
ii . White goods are listed in the first entry as a mandatory
recyclable. However, white goods are not identified as a
mandatory recyclable in the Town Law/ordinance provided in
Appendix A of Appendix A nor is it consistent with sections of
the text of the Plan. The status of white goods should be
clarified and consistently presented throughout the Plan.
iii . This schedule should include projected dates for inclusion of
all materials which will be added to the recyclables recovery
program and/or converted to mandatory recyclables from their
current status (for those which are currently collected/
accepted, but are not mandatory under the Town's current
Law/ordinance) .
iv. The proposed public education program and schedule should be
detailed in the implementation schedule or reference to a
detailed plan, which includes proposed action dates, located
elsewhere in the text should be included.
V. The implementation/action dates_ in the schedule should be
listed .in chronological order. The current format does not
list events in chronological order which makes the schedule
4
frustrating to read and follow. This will become more
important as the additional information which will be added in
response to these comments is added.
vi . The school programs are included in the mid-term phase of the
schedule. While these programs are briefly noted, they should
be implemented as soon as possible, to be in compliance with
the Town's recycling law/ordinance and Section 120-aa of the
General Municipal Law (GML) .
vii . The entry for the "survey of residential and commercial
participation to determine participation rates" in May 1996
appears to be late. It is more appropriate to conduct this
survey as soon as possible and then again before the beginning
of the long term phase. This should be reevaluated and
incorporated into the schedule of the final Plan as
appropriate.
viii . It is noted in the schedule that the Town will "encourage"
private vendors to process C&D. The program associated with
this entry should be outlined in the Plan. The minor reference
on Page 6-19 of Appendix A is not sufficient.
xi . An entry in the long term phase is a "collection, processing
and marketing system reevaluation" in May 1997. This
reevaluation is appropriate at regularly schedule intervals
throughout the program and not just in May 1997. In addition
the anticipated duration of this reevaluation should be noted.
The date provided does not detail whether that action date is
the beginning or end date of the reevaluation or both.
xii . The schedule lists January 1998 as the date for requiring the
recycling of C&D debris, land clearing debris and yard waste
and HHW. This date is inconsistent with the description of the
Town's program. C&D can and should be required to be a
mandatory recyclable as soon as a contract is signed with a
private vendor as the Town is not planning to process the
material itself. The text of the Plan indicates the Town's
yard waste composting facility was to be operational in
September 1994 therefore, yard waste and land clearing debris
should become a mandatory recyclable immediately.
xiii .The schedule identifies December 1997 as a date for an
evaluation of technical and economic feasibility of additional
organic composting. This evaluation should be done now as well
and if determined feasible and appropriate, a contract or RFP
for a contract, similar to the Town' s proposed C&D contract
with a private vendor, should be issued or implemented.
xiv. The July 1998 consideration of implementation of an organic
collection program can appropriately be moved up in the
schedule as a result of any modifications made in response to
comment 3.a.xiii .
5
xv. The implementation schedule should include the biennial update
of the SWMP required due to the long term exportation plan.
Further information on this requirement can be obtained from
the Bureau of Facility Management.
b. The following comments relate to the information presented in
Tables 6. 1-1 through 6.1-3 in Appendix A:
i . The interim phase on Table 6.1-1 should appropriately be listed
as "1994" and not "1991".
ii . The participation rates (PR) for 1994 appear to be low,
especially for the currently mandatory materials. These
presented rates do not appear to correspond to the existing
program. These projections should be reevaluated and current
information/projections be utilized.
iii . It is indicated in Table 6. 1-1 that the projected recovery rate
of the interim phase (1994) is 8.5 percent and will jump to 61
percent in one year (1995) . The implementation schedule and
plan presented does not support such a jump in recovery rate.
These projections should be reevaluated and supporting
discussion of the projected recovery rates [including
participation rates (PR) and separation efficiencies (SE) ] used
in the final Plan should be provided.
iv. The projected recovery rates and materials included in the
program should be consistent with the revised implementation
schedule which will be presented in the final Plan in response
to these comments [e.g. , the current projection indicates a
commitment to the recovery.of C&D and yard waste yet the
implementation schedule did not make the same commitment] .
V. These same detailed projections of recovery rates, including
projected PR's and SE's, should be.provided for several years
throughout the planning period at strategic intervals (e.g. ,
1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015) along with the
supporting discussion as referenced in comment 3.b. iii .
vi . Comments 3.b. i - v also apply to the presentation of
projections in Table 6.1-3.
vii . These projections of recovery rates indicate that maximized
recovery rates will be achieved in 1997 and remain at that
level for the next 18 years. This appears to be an
inappropriate presentation of the Town's currently projected
program and should be revised to reflect a program of maximized
waste reduction and recycling with increasing percentages of
the waste strea;;; that will be recovered as recyclables
throughout the planning period due to continued incorporation
of additional materials to be recovered and increasing
participation levels and separation and system processing
efficiencies.
6
c. On Page 6-2 of Appendix A, it is stated that "During the interim
period it was estimated the Town could achieve a material recovery
rate of nine percent. Based on 1991 and 1992 actual recycling
tonnage, the Town has not only achieved this goal , but exceeded it.
During both these years the Town reduced its waste stream by 11 to
12 percent due primarily to waste recycling and waste reduction
programs. " If the goal for the interim period (1994) has already
been in 1991 and 1992, the goal for 1994 is totally inappropriate.
These inconsistencies need to be eliminated in the final Plan,
implementation schedule and waste reduction and recycling
projections.
d. On Page S-8, it is indicated that between 1989 and 1992, the Town's
waste stream decreased .by 13 percent. Future waste stream
projections do not appear to reflect this fact and should be
recalculated and revised as appropriate in the final Plan. In
addition a discussion of the probable and/or suspected reasons for
the reduction of the waste stream should be provided in the final
Plan along with waste reduction projections for various years
throughout the planning period as a result of the Town"s proposed
waste reduction measures and program.
e. On Page S-8, it is stated that "Residents will be encouraged to
leave grass clippings on the lawn and consideration will be given to
excluding grass from the Town solid waste complex. " This
"consideration" process should be described in the final Plan and
outlined in the implementation schedule along with projected action
dates.
f. It was indicated in the Plan in several places that the composting
facility was expected to be operational by September 1994. The
current status of this facility should be provided in the final Plan
as the Plan was submitted to the Department after that date.
g. It is assumed that the reference on Page 6-8 of Appendix A which
states, "Over the long term, the Town will evaluate the opportunity
for developing a source separation based composting facility which
will enable the Town to recover the entire compostable fraction of
the waste stream" corresponds to the implementation schedule entry
discussed in comment 3.a.xiii . If so, the reference to this
specific facility should be included in the implementation schedule.
h. On Page 6-16 of Appendix A, it is stated that "The Town will
encourage and assist the private sector in increasing recycling
efforts for office paper, newspaper, corrugated and plastic, metal
and glass containers. " This program should be outlined in the Plan
and incorporated into the implementation schedule.
i . On Page 6-19, of Appendix A, it is stated that "If necessary, the
Town will market C&D through a new transfer station contract. " As
noted in comment 3.a. ix. this should be enacted as soon as possible
for consistency with the State's hierarchy of solid waste management
and to maximize recycling.
7
j . On Page 6-49 of Appendix A, it is stated that "The Town could
conduct a commercial and institutional waste utilization and
practices survey to assist the Town in identifying existing
recycling activities by the private sector" . This program should
not be presented as an activity that "could" be performed, but
instead should be listed as a program that "will " occur as soon as
possible. This information should have been obtained and presented
as part of this Plan in order to assist the Town in formulating its
recyclables recovery program.
k. On Page 6-20 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Commercial ,
institutional and industrial establishments will be required to
demonstrate compliance with the Town's ordinance by documenting the
quantities of materials recovered and reporting the tonnage to the
Town. " The program details should be provided in the final Plan and
incorporated into the implementation schedule.
1 . On Page 6-50 of Appendix A, it is stated that "In addition, solid
waste haulers will be encouraged to provide collection of white
goods under pre-arranged conditions for recycling at the Town
collection center." The program details of this encouragement
program should be provided in the final Plan and incorporated into
the implementation schedule.
M. On Page 6-50 of Appendix A, in reference to the long term phase, it
is stated that "At this phase of program development, regularly
scheduled curbside collections of recyclable materials would be
available to all residents, businesses, institutions and industries.
This should be the case now and not just by the long term phase. If
this is not occurring in the Town now, the Town should modify its
program. If it is the current Town program, the Plan 'should be
corrected.
n. On Page 6-53 of Appendix A, it is stated that "over the long-term,
solid waste haulers, as part of their operating license, will be
mandated to pickup recyclable materials from each household;
therefore seasonal subscribers will be provided with this service."
This should be the case now. If not, the Town's program should be
modified accordingly. If so, the Plan should be corrected.
o. The marketing plans for the various implementation schedule phases
on pages 6-22 and 6-45 - 6-47 of Appendix A should be incorporated
into the implementation schedule.
p. On Page 6-68 of Appendix A, it is stated that "The Town is
encouraged to consider similar market development approaches as
currently being adopted and implemented by the State and County. "
This statement should be clarified. It should be stated who is
encouraging the Town. All market development initiatives should be
incorporated into the implementation schedule.
q. The procurement actions discussed on Page 7-1 of Appendix A should
be incorporated into the implementation schedule.
8
r. On Page 7-1 of Appendix A, it is stated that the "Town's mandatory
source separation and recycling ordinance was adopted on
February 11, 1991 as part of the interim phase". This should be
corrected as that date is three years prior to the Plan' s "interim
phase" (i .e. , 1994) . It is also further stated that "The ordinance
will not be adopted prior to securing processing and mark•:ting
arrangements." As this ordinance has been adopted for over three
years, this should also be corrected.
4. These comments relate to Chapter 48 of the Town of Southold Code -
Garbage, Rubbish and Refuse which is partially presented in Appendix A of
Appendix A: [360-1 .9(f) (6) (ii)]
a. The copy of Chapter 48 provided is not complete. A complete copy of
the Town's current recycling law/ordinance/code with all current
appropriate amendments resolutions, regulations and rules must be
provided.
b. Currently, it appears that the law/ordinance/code only requires
source separation of cans, glass containers, newspapers and plastic
bottles of all generators and adds corrugated cardboard for self-
haulers, as the definition of "recyclables" does not currently
include corrugated cardboard. It is however, difficult to
definitively assess the law/ordinance/code with the partial
submittal provided. This is not consistent with the Town's existing
program nor with the requirements of Section 120-aa of the GML. It
is expected that many more materials will need to be added to the
Town's law/ordinance/code.
C. A portion of Section 48-3 of the Town Code is provided with a
handwritten note stating "self-haulers." It is unclear whether or
not this section applies to all "self-haulers" or only a portion
(e.g. , residential ) . When a complete Chapter is submitted, this
issue can be more completed addressed.
d. With the limited information presented it appears that revision to
the Town Code will be necessary for consistency with the Town's
program and Section 120-aa of the GML.
5. The current situation relating to the planning unit status of the Fishers
Island Garbage and Refuse District should be clarified in the Plan. As
noted at the beginning of these comments, these have been made under the
premise that the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District is a separate
and distinct planning unit from the Town of Southold.
6. All information in this Plan which simply references information or
documentation that has 'been submitted to the Department outside of this
November 1993 version of the Plan must be submitted as part of this
actual document if it is to be considered as part of the Plan.
7. The following comments are intended to assist the planning unit in
identifying typographical errors or statements which need to be revised
for clarification purposes.
9
a. On Page 3-8, it is stated that "A large portion of non-ferrous metal
is already being recycled through mandatory participation in the
Beverage Container Act." Participation is not mandatory and the
text should be modified accordingly.
b. On Page 3-10 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Tires are recovered
and recycled at Oxford Tire in Plainfield, Connecticut." It is then
further stated that "Tires processed at Oxford Tire's facility in
Connecticut are utilized as a supplemental fuel source during
incineration. The text should be revised to clarify that this
processing and incineration is not considered recycling.
C. There appears to be pages missing in Section 4 of the Plan. This
section should be reviewed to determine if all the pages were
transmitted to the Department. _
d. Typographical errors were identified in the following locations.
i . Page 1-40, 2nd line, 1st word.
ii . Page 2-4, lst paragraph, 2nd to last sentence is a partial
repeat of the last sentence in that paragraph.
iii . Table 2.2.6-1 and Appendix A Table 2.4-1, the last category
listing.
iv. Page 3-14, 6th line, missing a word between the 9th and 10th
words.
V. Page 2-4 of Appendix A, 1st paragraph, 2nd to last sentence is
a partial repeat of the last sentence in that paragraph.
vi . Page 4-8 of Appendix A, 1st sentence in paragraph 3 is a repeat
of the 7th sentence in paragraph 2.
vii . Page 5-9 of Appendix A, line 21, 5th word..
vii .Page 6-48 of Appendix A, line 18, 8th word.
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Section Title Paae
2.2.5 Residential Waste Stream Composition and 2-19
Characteristics
2.2.6 Potential Recyclables in the Waste Stream 2-25
2.3 Market Identification and Opportunities for Recycling 2-28
2.3 .1 Existing Recycling Efforts 2-28
2.3 .2 Market Survey for Recyclable Materials 2-29
2.3.3 Market Assessment for Compost Products 2-29
2.4 New York State Policies Governing Solid Waste Facilities 2-33
2.4.1 New York State Solid Waste Management Plan 2-34
3.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGIES 3-1
3 .1 Alternative Methodologies 3-1
3.1.1 Waste Reduction 3-1
3 .1.2 Household Hazardous Waste Removal 3-4
3 .1.3 Materials Recycling 3-7
3 .1.4 Collection Options 3-14
3 .1.5 Yard Waste and Source Separated Material 3-18
Composting
3.1.6 Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D) 3-26
3 .1.7 Land Clearing Debris 3-27
3 .1.8 Energy Recovery 3-28
3 .1.9 Municipal Solid Waste Composting 3-30
3 .1.10 Landfill Disposal 3-32
3 .1.11 Alternative Methods of Processing/Disposal 3-32
of Other Wastes
4.0 IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES 4-1
4.1 Total Out-of-Town, Off Island Processing and Disposal 4-1
4.2 Waste Reduction 4-2
4.3 Household Hazardous Waste Removal 4-4
4.4 Recycling Alternatives 4-6
4.5 Yard Waste Composting Alternatives 4-6
4.5.1 Expansion of Existing Operation 4-6
4.5.2 Private Sector Yard Waste Compost Facility 4-7
4.5.3 Backyard or On-Lot Composting of Yard Waste 4-7
4.5.4 Regional Yard Waste Composting Outside of Town 4-8
4.6 Land Clearing, Construction, and Demolition Debris 4-8
4.7 Solid Waste Composting/Energy Recovery Processing 4-10
4.7.1 Use of Existing Solid Waste Processing 4-10
Facilities
4.7.2 Proposed MSW Composting by the Town 4-13
4.7.3 Energy Recovery Processing in the Town 4-13
4.7.4 Other Local Planning Efforts 4-14
4.7.5 Private Sector MSW Composting Proposals 4-14
6673R/3
1027 ii
At the solid waste complex on CR 48, Town residents are directed by signs and
Town personnel to the appropriate receiving area or the collection center. The
commercial haulers are directed to the scale house for weighing, where they are
then directed to the east bay of the collection center or to the drop-off
facility for bulk deliveries of recyclables. Carters deposit garbage and rubbish
in this bay and the materials are moved into the nearby transfer trailer.
Residents deposit garbage and rubbish in the transfer trailer in the west trailer
bay in the collection center.
On-site roadways lead directly to the collection center upon entrance from
Middle Road (CR 48) . The collection center is utilized to temporarily serve as
the unloading/drop-off area for garbage/rubbish and is located to the west of the
household hazardous waste containment facility and to the south of the recycling
drop-off facility for recyclables. At present, there are bins at the residential
recycling drop-off area for metal cans, plastics, green, brown, and clear glass,
and cardboard. Additionally, inside the collection center there are drop-off
areas designated for batteries, newspapers, and mixed paper. The floor plan for
the existing collection center is shown on Figures 2.1.1-2.
Temporary transfer operations were implemented on October 9, 1993 for
garbage, rubbish, C&D debris and concrete. The garbage/rubbish transfer trailer
is located approximately 100 to 200 feet west of the collection center. The
transfer operations for the C&D debris and concrete are located north of the
scale house along existing on-site road. Temporary transfer operations were
implemented so that landfill operations could cease on October 8, 1993 .
The Town also operates a drop-off station for bulk deliveries of recyclables.
It is located approximately 60 feet to the north of the collection center, and
consists of four 30 cubic yard containers and one 40 cubic yard container, .
situated below grade.
Residential waste, exclusive of wood and metal, is also brought inside the
collection center where it is unloaded by the residents into the transfer
trailer. This "direct-dump" transfer operation allows for an efficient operation
that can be utilized with minimum rehandling of wastes. The Town's S.T.O.P.
program (Stop Throwing Out Pollutants) utilizes an initial collection point
6501R/1
1027 -�—�-
for drop-off of hazardous materials inside the collection center. These
materials are then transferred daily to the permanent containment facility
situated adjacent to the northern side of the collection center. This facility
was the first permanent, NYSDEC permitted S.T.O.P. Program in operation in the
State.
Waste oil brought to the site by residents is deposited in a 275 gallon tank
located approximately 200 feet to the north of the collection center which, when
full, is picked up by a licensed NYSDEC waste oil collector located in
Westhampton Beach. Backup drums are maintained at the site should the tank reach
capacity prior to the next scheduled pick up.
All sewage from the Village of Greenport and scavenger waste from cesspools
in the Town of Southold is processed at the sewage plant in Greenport and shipped
oulA o Bergen Point.
Application was made to NYSDEC, on April 10,1990, for approval of a small
scale yard waste composting operation of less than 3,000 cubic yards of leaves.
State approval was received on May 2, 1990, and subsequent operations have been
implemented at the site. A Part 360 Engineering Report and Permit Application
has been developed that expands on the small scale facility to include all
leaves, brush, mulch and land clearing debris generated in the Town.
Brush has been processed at a designated location at the complex. A tub
grinder is used to process the brush to reduce the volume, as well as to produce
a marketable commodity in wood chips. Major household appliances (white goods)
and tires are stockpiled for removal at separate sections of the complex.
Fishers Island Solid Waste Processing/Disposal Operations
Municipal solid waste on Fishers Island is primarily generated by an
estimated 330 year-round permanent residents, and the approximately 4,000
seasonal residents/visitors who populate the Island during the peak summer
period. Currently the waste generated on the Island is transferred to
Connecticut for disposal at solid waste processing facilities (i.e. , energy
recovery and recycling) . This mode of disposal and operation is expected to
6501R/1
1027 2-7
continue.
Private Disposal
The only known private landfill in Southold Town is the Pickett landfill on
Fishers Island, which has been described in the documentation submitted to NYSDEC
by the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District.
As a small rural town, Southold has certainly been the site of informal
dumping of debris in a number of locations. Farmers, for example, formerly
dumped rotten potatoes and old paper packaging in remote fields. It is believed
that these practices have been ended.
A serious threat of informal dumping in private lots still exists,
Many farmers possess old agricultural chemicals that have been ruled illegal for
application by NYSDEC. As. such the Town believes NYSDEC must assist in finding
a permitted means to dispose of these materials. The Town strongly endorses
Cornell Cooperative Extension's vigorous efforts to resolve this issue, and calls
on NYSDEC to remove whatever impediments remain to the commencement of a pilot
program to return unusable agricultural materials.
6501R/1
1027 2-8
2.1.2 Proposed Facilities
The Town has prepared an engineering report and permit application for a new
permanent transfer station for residual wastes and recyclables to be located
adjacent to the existing collection center to replace the bi-level drop-off area
for recyclables by carters and for the receipt of residential waste for transfer
out-of-Town. In addition, the Town has developed an engineering report and
permit application for an expanded yard waste composting operation for all
leaves, mulch, brush and land clearing debris generated in the Town.
2.1.3 Current Collection and Manaaement Practices
Residential and commercial garbage is brought to the transfer station in two
ways: 1) self-hauled by the resident or business, and 2) through privately
contracted hauling services. There is no refuse collection service provided by
or funded by the Town. Self-haulers account for approximately 45% of the weight
of garbage delivered to the station, private carters 55%. Bulky items and
construction and demolition debris are handled similarly.
Garbage is currently being hauled by Tully Construction to a lined landfill
in Pennsylvania. C&D is being hauled by STAR Recycling to its facility in
Brooklyn. Copies of the Town's contracts with these companies are enclosed.
Most yard waste is also delivered privately although some municipal
collection is provided for brush and leaves. The Village of Greenport provides
a weekly yard waste pickup service to its 2,000 residents. This accounts for
about 300 tons per year of yard waste handled at the station. The Town of
Southold also provides a brush and leaf collection service in the spring and fall
which amounted to approximately 1,700 tons combined in 1994.
Materials currently being accepted for recycling include:
o Metal containers o Waste oil
o Plastic containers o Clothing
o Glass containers o Leaves and light brush
o Automobile batteries o Household batteries
o Tires o Junk mail
o Household hazardous waste o Land clearing debris
6501R/1
1027 2-9
o Newspaper o Mixed paper and magazines
o Bulk metal o Corrugated Cardboard
Recyclable materials are either dropped off by residents using the collection
center or are source separated by residents and collected by carters. Recycling
is mandatory in the Town. On October 9, 1993, the Town initiated a special bag
program for residential garbage. Residential garbage, whether collected by a
carter or dropped off by residents at the collection center, must be placed in
special bags. Commercial waste does not have to be placed in the bags but may
be charged by weight. No recyclables are allowed in the special bags and given
the cost per bag, only those materials that are not handled free of charge by the
Town's resource recovery system are expected to be placed in the special bags.
Recyclables are delivered to the collection center in the same way as
garbage, either self-hauled or at the curb through one's private carter. All
recyclables must be delivered fully sorted (source-separated) into the following
categories: newspaper, corrugated, mixed paper (junk mail, magazines, etc. ) ,
clear, green, and brown glass, tin/aluminum cans, plastic containers (#1 and #2
only) . See the attached matrix for a list of current recycling arrangements.
6501R/1
1027 2-10
Inspection of wastes delivered to the complex is achieved in two ways.
Commercial vehicles are initially screened at the scale house before proceeding
to the garbage/rubbish or C&D/concrete transfer area or the recycling center.
At the commercial bay of the center, employees inspect loads being deposited as
they work. Similar inspection is provided at the recycling center.
Additionally, the licensed carters are screened by equipment operators and
laborers. Residents depositing garbage/rubbish are inspected by Town personnel
in the center.
2.2 Solid Waste Quantities and Composition
This Section discusses the current and projected future waste generation,
composition, and characteristics of the total waste stream, and the potential
recyclable materials present in the waste stream.
2.2.1 Fishers Island Waste Generation
Fishers Island is located off the eastern tip of the North Fork of Long
Island. As a seasonal island community, Fishers Island has approximately 300
year-round permanent residents and a relatively large summer increase that
reaches its peak of approximately 3,500 in July and August. Monthly population
estimates for the Island are presented on Table 2.2.1-1. The total waste stream
on Fishers Island, including C&D, land clearing, bulky materials, and commercial
waste was estimated in the GEIS to be 1,465 tons per year, or 4.01 tons per day.
Table 2.2.1-2 presents the methodology used to estimate waste generation for
Fishers Island. Since the issuance of the GEIS, a transfer station has been
constructed on Fishers Island for transfer of waste to processing facilities
(i.e. , energy recovery and recycling) in Connecticut.
2.2.2 Current Solid waste Generation and Generation Rates
The breakdown of Southold Town's waste stream is shown below (estimated 1994
figures) :
Waste Type Tons Generated Tons Recycled
lr
6501R/1 n
1027 2-11 �� I
-- Residential Solid Waste
(includes commercial
and industrial) : 18,064 tons 5,964
-- C & D: 4,358 tons 1,010
-- Yard Waste: 5,909 tons 5,909
-- Waste Oil 70 tons 70
*PROPOSED REDUCTION AND RECYCLING RATES FOR 1997, 2000, AND 2010: See Table
2.2.3-2.
6501R/1
1027 2-12
Table 2.2.3-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE
Future Waste Generation Projections
(1992-2015)
Total Waste Stream
(Includes Land Clearing and C&D Debris)
1992 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
"Weighted" Population 23,273 26,783 27,433 28,433 29,433 30,433
Estimate
Constant Per Capita
Generation Rate 1 9.26 6.72 6.72 6.72 6.72 6.72
Increasing Per Capita
Generation Rate 9.26 6.72 7.19 7.69 8.23 8.81
Maximum Tons per year 2 39,313 32,989 35,989 39,895 44,202 48,947
Maximum Tons per day 107.7 90.4 98.6 109.3 121.1 134.1
Notes:
1. Based on 1992 Town's scale data for the total waste stream (includes land
clearing and C&D debris) , and weighted population estimates.
2. Based on increasing per capita generation rate (0.70% annually) and
increase in population
6501R/1
1027 2-24
waste facilities, including facility siting, construction/operation requirements,
and permitting.
The regulations incorporate legal, technical, and policy developments which
guide the efforts of municipalities and private businesses in the development of
solid waste management systems. The regulations are effective as of October 9,
1993.
2.4.1 New York State Solid Waste Manaaement Plan
In New York State, the role of recycling with respect to solid waste projects
is presented in Chapter 552 of the Laws of 1980, and in the bi-annual New York
State Solid Waste Management Plan updates.
The SWMP is updated regularly and includes information on the status of solid
waste management in New York State. The Plan defines problems associated with
solid waste, discusses management methods, identifies the legislative,
regulatory, and program framework for environmentally sound solid waste
management, and establishes goals to' move towards integrated solid waste
management over the next decade. Additionally, reduction/recycling goals for the
State were first developed and presented in the SWMP.
The SWMP first presented the concept of the State's solid waste management
method hierarchy which is listed below in order of preference:
o Waste Reduction: Reduce the amount of solid waste at the source, or
point of generation, through Federal, State, County, and local
initiatives. A goal of 8% to 10% by 1997 is desired.
o Recycling and Reuse: Reuse or recycle 40% of the solid waste generated
in New York State by 1997.
o Resource Recovery: Waste-to-energy technologies can be included in an
integrated solid waste management system.
o Landfilling: The State's goal is to use landfills only for disposal of
wastes which cannot be reduced, recycled, recovered, or processed.
6501R/1
1027 2-48
o Use of reusable containers instead of plastic wrap
o Use of washable cloths instead of paper towels
o Use of paper disposable cups and plates rather than plastic.
o Avoiding the use of double wrapped packaged products.
o Not taking a bag when buying single items, or use of a reusable cloth
shopping bag.
o Purchase products in paper cartons rather than plastic or styrofoam
containers.
The Town's newly created economic incentive program of charging residents by
the bag for disposal of household garbage is a strategy that has helped to reduce
the amount of residual waste that must be disposed.
Increasing a product's functional life can delay its introduction into the
waste stream. There are several ways this can be accomplished, the simplest
being through reuse. Reusable containers, such as plastic containers for
sandwiches as opposed to disposable lunch bags, are the most common example of
this waste reduction approach. Another approach is the design of products which
are simple and inexpensive to repair when they malfunction. Finally, it is
possible to prolong a product's functional use through remanufacturing
techniques. One common remanufacturing technique is the retreading of passenger
vehicle and commercial tires.
Waste reduction strategies can result from either life-style or structural .
changes. Life-style decisions are actions taken by individuals or groups that
are based on moral, social, or economic reasons. For example, many organizations
try to persuade consumers not to purchase products that are overpackaged,
choosing instead those made from or packaged in recycled materials. Structural
changes are made by organizations seeking to provide goods or services at lower
materials utilization rates. A manufacturing industry may determine how they can
provide popular consumer products that use fewer parts and are therefore less
materials intensive. Structural decisions make it possible to achieve a certain
amount of waste reduction independent of life-style decisions.
Waste reduction strategies that include remanufacturing processes involve the
disassembly and salvage of reusable components. These components are then
6504R/1
1027 3-4
directed to a wood processing line. Large quantities of mixed recyclables (e.g. ,
corrugated, glass, metals, etc. ) are directed to a recovery line. Materials that
appear to be largely unrecoverable are directed to a conveyor leading to a
transfer station.
Some of the wastes found in land clearing debris are combustible, and can be
processed at an energy recovery facility. Additionally, large volumes of chipped
or shredded wood resulting from land clearing operations could be used in an
industrial boiler as fuel. While energy recovery processing may be feasible, the
recycling potential of this element of the waste stream and the State's recycling
goals suggest that this may not be the best disposal option available.
There are residues from any solid waste operation that will need to be
landfilled. These materials can be placed in a construction and demolition
debris landfill as clean fill. Wherever possible, reduction of the volume and
weight of materials destined for a landfill needs to be maximized. The volume
and weight of land clearing debris that must be transferred and will be reduced
through recycling in the expanded yard waste composting operations.
3.1.8 Energy Recovery
Energy recovery is a technology that could reduce the weight and volume of
solid waste by up to 75% and 90%, respectively. This is accomplished through a
variety of feed, combustion, and processing technologies that are more thoroughly
discussed in the 1990 GEIS. In general, all energy recovery facilities (also
referred to as waste-to-energy) receive waste, feed the waste to the combustion
process, recover energy in the form of steam for heating and/or electricity, and
use emission control equipment to minimize the impact of exiting gases on the
environment.
Energy recovery of heat from the incineration of solid waste is the most
developed and widely practiced technique for resource recovery in the world. On
Long Island, there are existing facilities in the Towns of Islip, Hempstead, and
Babylon. The Towns of Huntington/Smithtown have an energy recovery facility
currently in operation. The Towns of Oyster Bay, North Hempstead and Brookhaven .
had previously proposed facilities, but they are no longer being pursued by these
Towns.
6504R/1
1027 3-53
If the Town were to enter into a long-term agreement with a neighboring
town(s) to develop an energy recovery project, the added capacity requirements
would make the economics of a field-erected mass-burn facility more viable. As
discussed in the initial SWMP, this technology has a demonstrated history of
reliability in Europe and the U.S. , and has the proven ability to produce a
marketable product. Furthermore, existing facilities utilizing this technology
in the U.S. and abroad have shown a consistent ability to operate within the
requirements established by governmental agencies concerning air and water
emissions, odor and noise control, and ash characteristics.
3.1.9 Municipal Solid Waste Composting
The intent of composting operations, whether applied to yard waste,
agricultural waste, or the mixed municipal solid waste stream, is to biologically
transform the waste into an innocuous, useful product in an environmentally
acceptable manner. Regardless of the waste, the biological process remains
fundamentally the same. However, the composting of mixed municipal solid wastes
(MSW) presents three unique obstacles to the. process: (1) MSW is a heterogeneous
mixture of organic and inorganic materials; (2) the composition of MSW varies
from municipality to municipality and over time; and (3) MSW may contain
household hazardous materials.
The heterogeneity of MSW contrasts sharply with the characteristics of
typical yard waste or other source separated feed stocks. ordinarily, leaves and
grass wastes are generated separately and are easily collected and composted
individually. Mixed MSW contains numerous organic materials (e.g. , yard waste,
food waste, textiles, paper products) which are biodegradable to varying degrees,
and numerous nondegradable inorganic materials as well. The inorganics (e.g. ,
glass, metals, certain plastics) are not compostable and must be removed along
with unacceptable contaminants, such as batteries, prior to - (preprocessing) or
following (postprocessing) the actual biological decomposition of the organic
material in order to provide a useful product.
Consequently, as discussed in the initial 1990 SWMP, municipal solid waste
composting systems are significantly more complex than homogenous, or source
separated waste composting systems, and usually include three major steps: (1)
preprocessing; (2) microbial decomposition (composting) ; and (3) postprocessing.
6504R/1
1027 3-57
The return of natural products to the environment in agricultural areas such
as the Town, is viable and should be developed in such a manner that would
maximize participation and efficiency.
4.5.4 Regional or Cooperative Yard Waste Composting Effort Out-of-Town
The Town has requested a NYSDEC permit for a yard waste composting facility
with capacity up to 9000 tons per year. The Town has purchased a new tub grinder
and associated equipment to process this yard waste. Experience to date
indicates that brush and leaves brought to this facility total less than 9000
tons per year, much of it in the spring and fall months as part of the Town
Highway free pickups. Grass cuttings are explicitly prohibited.
The product of this operation is essentially shredded wood chips and shredded
leaves. Town residents are allowed to take the material at no cost, and they
have done so at rates that keep the backlog of product to a minimum. The Town
is examining the possibility of selling the product to commercial yard-waste
facilities on LI which would turn it into finished compost.
The Town of Southold is considering putting out an RFP for a joint venture
with one or more private firms that would assist the Town in operating a compost
plant on the premises of the Cutchogue Landfill, using as raw material the Town's
yard waste. A decision on this option hinges on the likely costs and returns to
the project and a response from NYSDEC regarding a revised yard-waste facility
operating permit. The Town will also consider agreements with other towns that
would bring additional yard waste to the facility from those towns, subject to
strict quality control on the raw material. Decisions on these possibilities
will be based on likely costs and returns to the Town.
4.6 Construction, and Demolition Debris
Recycling of construction and demolition debris (C&D) is also a viable
implementation alternative available to the Town. The potential alternatives for
the disposal and/or recycling of this material are discussed below.
Town Sponsored Clean Fill Site
6486R/3
1027 4-13
4.7.4 Other Local Planning Efforts
Other towns on Long Island that have completed generic EISs for solid waste
management plans include the Towns of Shelter Island, Riverhead, and Southampton.
These towns, however, do not have their own existing municipal solid waste
processing facility or the ability to provide an interim municipal solid waste
processing alternative to the Town of Southold.
4.7.5 Private Sector MSW Compostina Proposals
In the past, several private sector conceptual proposals (of varying degrees
of specificity) involving possible MSW composting facilities were presented to
the east end towns. These proposed facilities, unsolicited with regard to formal
requests for proposals under State law, could have been designed with sufficient
capacity to process compostable waste (and recyclables for some) from all or some
of the east end towns.
In 1993 East End Recycling and Composting Co. , L.P. ("East End") , an
affiliate of Omni Technical Services, received renewal of the permit to construct
a 500 tpd MSW composting facility in Riverhead. Construction of this facility
has not been initiated to date. Recently, the Town of Riverhead and East End
entered into an agreement for the processing of Riverhead's waste at the proposed
Facility.
Previous proposals included a 300 ton per day MSW sludge composting facility
to be designed by Bedminster Bioconversion Corporation, a 600 ton per day
facility proposed by Bio Comp, Incorporated and the MSW composting facility
proposed by the Italian-based compost company Daneco for Southold. However, none
of these have been implemented.
4.8 Tires
Over 240 million tires are discarded throughout the nation each year; an
estimated 12 million per year in New York State, and 3.1 million annually on Long
Island alone. Tires are generated nationally at the rate of approximately 1 tire
per person per year. At this rate, the Town could generate approximately 20,000
to 25,000 tires each year. Scrap tires are currently stockpiled for removal by
6486R/3
1027 4-24
Innovative Methods, Inc. of Floral Park, NY. Tires are removed in 110 cubic yard
open-top trailers at a cost of $1,095 per load. The Town recycled approximately
275 tons of scrap tires in 1994.
4.9 Residentially Generated Clean Material
A category of clean fill similar in nature to construction and demolition
debris is residentially generated clean materials. This inert component
partially consists of nonrecyclable, noncombustible, and noncompostable waste
generated in the home. This material, such as wood and metal furniture and waste
from small homeowner renovations, repairs, and landscaping, is generated in small
enough quantities to make private disposal impracticable in most instances. The
most feasible options that exist for the disposal of this material would be
delivery at the Town's transfer station for haul to a private construction and
demolition debris landfill or C&D recycling facility, similar to the existing
temporary arrangement.
4.10 Long Haul of Solid Waste
Another alternative is the long haul of approximately 30% of the waste stream
for processing or landfill disposal. As previously discussed, this option is
expensive. However, given the regulatory constraints on the Town, it appears
that transferring the residual portion of the waste stream out of the Town is the
available alternative that does not involve construction of more expensive
processing facilities. While exact costs would not be established until
responses are received to a request for proposals, costs would be expected to
range from approximately $70 to $125 per ton. In some cases, the costs have been
as low as the $60-$70 per ton range.
4.11 Technical Conclusions
As part of the evaluation of processing/disposal alternatives for the waste
remaining after reduction, recycling, reuse, and yard waste composting, basic
criteria were used to identify the preferred option to be included as part of a
solid waste management plan for the Town. A major component of this evaluation
was an alternative cost analysis performed for the long-term options for
processing/disposal of approximately 30% of the waste stream.
6486R/3
1027 4-25
o Newspaper o Three Colors of Glass
o Magazines o Wood and Lumber
o Corrugated/Brown Bags o Asphalt
o Other Paperboard o Concrete/Brick
o Office Paper o Tires
o PET, HDPE, o Dirt
and Other Plastics
o Textiles
o Yard Waste
o Household Hazardous Wastes
o Sand/Sod
o Batteries (Vehicle and Household)
o Ferrous Metals
o Used Motor Oil
o Nonferrous Metals
The following sections (5.1.1 through 5.1.8) describe the components of the
Town's resource recovery system.
5.1.1 Waste Reduction
Waste reduction refers to the reduction of solid waste prior to disposal.
This is an important consideration since it may affect the sizing or magnitude
of individual operations and facilities described in the Plan. Reduction of the
volume of waste will be achieved through Town support of legislation and other
initiatives that aim to encourage residential, commercial, industrial, and
institutional establishments to reduce waste generation at the source or point
of packaging. This will effectively reduce the volume of waste that the Town
will need to make provisions for with regard to collection, processing, disposal,
administration, and financing.
Regarding the legislative aspects of waste reduction, the Town will support
existing and proposed laws by the County, State, and Federal governments that
strive to:
o Reduce the volume and type of packaging materials, especially those
constituted of plastics, which are essentially nonbiodegradable,
nonreusable, and nonrecyclable.
o Expand the current beverage container deposit law to include a wider
6518R/5
1027 5-4
o Encourage greater use of recycled materials, or products packaged in
recycled or recyclable materials.
o Promote the development of household hazardous waste removal programs.
o Assist and encourage industrial, commercial, and institutional
generators to undertake reduction and recycling programs.
o Assist and encourage homeowners to undertake backyard composting.
The Town will also support legislative efforts to establish deposits on
batteries as a means of reducing the concentration of metals in various products
and residues of solid waste processing. Batteries constitute an easily removable
source of potential contamination from the waste stream.
In addition to legislative actions, all sectors of the Town (public,
commercial, industrial, and institutional establishments) will be encouraged by
the Town to reduce the generation of waste which will ultimately become the
responsibility of the Town to handle and dispose. This can be accomplished
through local and regional public education programs coordinated by the.State.
For example, homeowners and landscapers now must pay to dispose of grass
clippings to offset the cost of disposal by the Town. This is an incentive to
either leave grass clippings on the lawns or to compost them on site.
On October 9, 1993, townwide use of special bags was initiated for disposal
of the residual waste in the Town. The special bags are expected to reduce the
amount of waste for transfer out-of-Town, and increase the recovery of recyclable
materials from the waste stream.
The NYSDEC estimates that implementation of statewide and local waste
reduction efforts, along with continued and expanded voluntary programs and other
legislative actions, could reduce solid waste generation by approximately 8% to
10%. This estimate is contained in the State's 1987 Solid Waste Management Plan
(and updates) as a statewide goal and is incorporated as one of the goals of the
Town's proposed Plan. It is estimated that over the long-term approximately 10%
of the Town's waste stream will be reduced by this element of the proposed Plan.
6518R/5
1027 5-6
5.1.2 Household and Commercial/Institutional Recycling Program
A major component of the updated Plan is still a comprehensive recycling
program which provides for the recovery and utilization of reusable "waste"
resources. The updated Plan proposes continuing the mandatory source separation
program for recyclable materials generated in the residential, commercial,
industrial, and institutional sectors of the Town.
Currently, recyclable materials must be source separated and collected, or
privately dropped off, in a segregated manner in the Town. Collection and
transfer of recyclables has proven to be more cost-effective when commingled. It
has been demonstrated that mandatory recycling programs are more effective than
voluntary programs. The comprehensive recycling analysis and discussion of
recycling activities for the Town that was presented in the 1990 GEIS has been
revised and is presented as Appendix A to this document.
The materials targeted for source separation, curbside collection, and
marketing include paper (newspaper and corrugated cardboard) , color segregated
glass, plastics (PET and HDPE) , and ferrous and nonferrous metal containers.
Leaves, brush, and land clearing debris are to be separated for the purpose of
composting. In addition, separation is required for construction and demolition
debris, white goods (major household appliances) , tires, and household hazardous
waste. As previously discussed, commercial/industrial toxic or hazardous waste
is currently regulated for proper handling and disposal by Federal and State law.
These materials will not be handled by the Town and will be recycled or processed
at private sector facilities.
5.1.3 Recycling: Major Household Appliances
Another aspect of the updated Plan's resource recovery system recommends that
discarded major household appliances (also referred to as "white goods") continue
to be temporarily stockpiled and transferred on a regular basis to private
recycling facilities. white goods, comprising approximately 1% of the waste
stream, include discarded refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, stoves, etc.
The 1990 preliminary cost estimates indicate that this Plan element could cost
up to $10 per ton. Depending on markets, revenues could be generated from this
material.
6518R/5
1027 5-7
Most of the remainder would be processed through the yard waste composting
operations and any residual would be recovered, if possible.
5.1.8 Recycling: Yard Waste Compostina
According to the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan guidelines and
the New York State Solid Waste Management Act, composting is one of a variety of
methods to reduce the waste stream and promote recycling of resources. The Town
currently has space to handle its entire brush, leaf, and landclearing waste
stream, which is estimated to be 40,000 cubic yards in 1994. The capacity of the
proposed yard waste composting facility is 46,600 cubic yards per year. The
estimated cost of the proposed facility is $30 per ton. The Town's 1994 costs
for composting leaves only and volume reduction of brush and landclearing was
approximately $20 per ton overall.
Grass has not been banned from the transfer station. However, in May 1994,
the Town levied a tip fee on grass of $70 per ton. Up to that point grass had
been accepted free of charge. The result was a 70% reduction of grass delivered
to the facility, to an estimated 275 tons in 1994. All incoming grass is now
shipped out with garbage.
Consistent with the goals of the proposed Plan, landscapers are to be
encouraged by the Town to maintain their own compost piles, or perform this
service on-site for their customers. Larger landscaping or land clearing
operations should chip brush for ground cover and other uses. It is further
recommended that the Town implement a public education program to increase the
local demand for end products from both backyard and Town compost operations.
The 1990 cost estimates ranged between $20 and $30 per ton. Brush, leaves, mulch
and wood chips account for approximately 20% of the Town's waste stream.
overall, approximately 25% of the Town's total waste stream could be recovered
as part of this Plan element with the inclusion of land clearing debris.
5.2 Proposed Residual Waste Management
The recommended resource recovery system portion of the updated Plan is
expected to effectively reduce/recycle/reuse (including composting) approximately
70% of the
6518R/5
1027 5-15
Town's total waste stream, provided that relatively high participation rates are
achieved and markets are available. The updated SWMP recommends private sector
hauling and processing and/or disposal of the 30% residual waste remaining after
implementation of the proposed resource recovery system in 5 year steps with each
stage preceded by a SWMP reanalysis and update to determine whether more
cost-effective options are available.
5.2.1 Joint activities with other towns
The Town of Southold believes that substantial economies can be achieved by
joining together with one or more other towns in managing its solid waste stream.
Specifically, the Town has explicitly provided scope for including Shelter
Island's MSW in its current long-haul contracts. The Town is exploring on a
continual basis options for jointly managing other waste fractions such as
several categories of recyclables.
The Town has also examined, carefully, participation in the MSW composting
plant in Calverton, proposed in association with the Town of Riverhead, and has
conveyed to the principals and to Riverhead Town a maximum tipping fee that would
make that participation possible.
The Town has coordinated its solid waste policies closely with the towns of
East Hampton and Southampton with a view to responsible disposal of MSW at least
cost. Experience over the past two years reflects considerably greater common
ground among these towns than previously. Southold will actively develop such
plans as soon as it becomes likely that they will result in a more favorable
cost/return picture.
The Town of Southold believes that successful regional models will follow
from individual initiatives between Southold and one or more other towns, and not
from a global regional plan imposed on the Town.
5.3 Consistency with State Policies
5.3 .1 State Solid Waste Management Plan
The updated Plan addresses the issues that are covered in the State's Solid
6518R/5
1027 5-16
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN
RESPONSES TO DEC COMMENTS BY MICHAEL J. McTAGUE
PREPARED BY: JIM BUNCHUCK January 5, 1995
Comment Response
2 . The decrease in MSW generation between 1989 and
1992 was concentrated in items particularly
susceptible to local economic conditions, namely
landlclearing and excavated fill material . These
items, which are generated as the result of home
building, fell from 5,056 tons and 5,965 tons to
1 ,609 tons and 1 ,279 tons respectively -- a
combined decrease of 8, 132 tons or over 22 tons
per day. Other portions of the waste stream not
tied so closely to the economy actually went up
slightly, including household garbage and yard
waste.
5. All sewage from the Village of Greenport and
scavenger waste from cesspools in the Town of
Southold is processed at the sewage plant in
Greenport and shipped out to Bergen Point.
8. Residential and commercial garbage is brought to
the transfer station in two ways: 1 ) self-hauled
by the resident or business, and 2) through
privately contracted hauling services. There is
no refuse collection service provided by or funded
by the Town. Self-haulers account for
approximately 45% of the weight of garbage
delivered to the station, private carters 55% .
Bulky items and construction and demolition debris
are handled similarly.
Garbage is currently being hauled by Tully
Construction to a lined landfill in Pennslyvania.
C&D is being hauled by STAR Recycling to its
facility in Brooklyn. Copies of the Town's
contracts with these companies are enclosed.
Most yard waste is also delivered privately
although some municipal collection is provided for
brush and leaves. The Village of Greenport
provides a weekly yard waste pickup service to its
2 ,000 residents. This accounts for about 300 tons
per year of yard waste handled at the station.
The Town of Southold also provides a brush and
leaf collection service in the spring and fall
which amounted to approximately 1 , 700 tons
combined in 1994.
JIM BUNCHUCK
RESPONSES TO DEC COMMENTS
PAGE 2
Comment # Response
B. (cont'd) Recyclables are delivered to the collection center
in the same way as garbage, either self-hauled or
at the curb through one's private carter. All
recyclables must be delivered fully sorted
(source-separated) into the following categories
newspaper, corrugated, mixed paper ( junk mail ,
magazines, etc. ) , clear, green, and brown glass,
tin/aluminum cans, plastic containers (#1 and #2
only) . See the attached matrix for a list of
current recycling arrangements.
9. The breakdown of Southold Town's waste stream is shown
below (estimated 1994 figures) :
Portion
Waste Type Tons Generated Recycled
-- Residential Solid
Waste ( includes
commercial and
industrial : 18,064 tons 5,964
-- C&D: 4,358 tons 0
-- Yard Waste: 5 ,909 tons 5 ,909
-- Waste Oil 70 tons 70
PROPOSED REDUCTION AND RECYCLING RATES MUST BE
DETERMINED FOR 1997, 2000, AND 2010.
14. Scrap tires are currently stockpiled for removal by
Innovative Methods, Inc. of Floral Park, NY. Tires are
removed in 110 cubic yard open-top trailers at a cost
of $1 ,095 per load. The Town recycled approximately
275 tons of scrap tires in 1994.
18. The Town currently has space to handle its entire
brush, leaf, and landclearing waste stream, which is
estimated to be 40,000 cubic yards in 1994. The
capacity of the proposed yard waste composting facility
Is 46,600 cubic yards per year . The estimated cost of
the proposed facility is S30/ton. The Town's 1994
costs for composting leaves only and volume reduction
of brush and landclearing was approximately $20 per ton
overall .
JIM BUNCHUCK
RESPONSES TO DEC COMMENTS
PAGE 3
Coment # Response
18. (cont'd) Grass has not been banned from the transfer
station however, in May 1994, the Town levied a
tip fee on grass of $70 per ton. Up to that point
grass had been accepted free of charge. The
result was a 70% reduction of grass delivered to
the facility, to an estimated 275 tons in 1994.
All incoming grass is now shipped out with
garbage.
Lju�,
1994 CUMULATIVE WASTE SUMMARY
Tata) %Change %ChwW From I TOTAL FROM YTD
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV I Tons From NOV DEC 1993 I TONS LAST YEAR
Item
Charge"
Gwbap Toth 660.69 07.01 7260.1 917.74 7114.64 441.33 480.67 12610 1f42p 73164 7177 ( full -10.0% 1.s% ( ff57.3f -m3X
-anter Daps 21470 1!165 1!0.14 16204 200.71 230.42 280.69 321.69 227.72 1869 1x26 ( 14169 44% -117% I 2061" 3116%
-anter by WOW 25136 270.40 30138 201.12 357.51 490.66 4818 s0.p 608.74 361.11 34!54 I 33111.76 -23% 34.7% I 40 .66 9411%
cow-houk0(s9 bps) 100.41 214.20 23241 411.0• 14234 310.46 1f a 3117.19 lsty 160.34 11116.111111 I 137.0 -Wf% -28.6% J 216[0. 201.1%
Brush 30.69 39.33 7123 492.51 71140% 177.54 197.36 276.73 231.55 274.62 640.01 14 I 240.44 42.4% 41.6% I 3367.33 -5.0%
C&D 186.42 166.42 341.87 403.22 45230 467.30 397.49 417.32 531.66 541.20 448.39 ( 560.13 24.9% 1250% I 4917.93 -11.4%
comets 0.00 0.00 35.51 10.81 274 733.87 $73.72 9.19 43.08 38.91 291 I 1.66 -36.4% 129.6% I 145260 134.4%
Landless hg 0.00 0.00 4.26 27.08 43.46 57.51 49.93 93.96 51.57 38.39 5249 I 33.18 -36.616 80.7% I 461.03 -55.9%
Rubbish(mbaa0) 14.09 21.52 121.92 216.48 198.82 212.74 103.09 265.66 127.0 145.90 133.11 I 167.67 20.0% 19.7% I 1005.41 -11.5%
Agricultural 40.36 40.45 34.93 9.67 0.86 1.44 1.40 59.61 53.84 5.99 215 I 0.00 -100.0% -100.0% I 250.50 -64.9%
Scrap Maul 2229 24.00 24.22 45.20 31.02 41.87 59.86 31.23 31.34 47.96 35.00 I 34.40 -1.5% 8.0% I 420.39 -29.6%
Tiros 29.99 20.00 19.71 12.00 20.00 15.91 20.00 1201 26.15 39.23 24.95 I 24.00 44% 9.1% I 200.75 21.0%
Gross 0.00 0.00 1.36 35.82 68.32 32.50 26.53 36.43 25.54 15.82 2.20 I 3.49 58.8% 584.3% I 288.33 -64.8%
TOTAL: 974.30 991.23 198280 1733.76 2169.64 7859.51 2373.35 2414.44 2140.95 1867.84 2056.61 i 1707.87 -17.0% 9.0% i 2249212 43.2%
Non4wgeabie I I
I I
Leavaildulah 19.95 17.50 121.68 616.40 335.34 b 92.06 79.91 43.84 43.70 58.99 841.95 W I 397.20 -MA% -357% I 2496.70 -13.9%
SntNS0d 247 2.47 6.70 251.39 670.63 550.72 148.32 1696.03 141.73 115.46 10.52 I 205.14 1650.0% -29.6% I 3801.88 51.8%
Sh~ 0.30 0.40 26.70 10.96 7.80 0.91 4.35 1.69 1.93 149.40 69.16 I 35.91 -40.3% -34.7% I 300.21 -33.8%
Wood Chips 0.00 837 6.20 15.10 5.64 4.78 4.82 10.46 11.98 11.76 14.26 I 1534 -6.5% 65.7% i 104.91 -35.6%
HouaNgW
Raeyalsblas 23440 199.69 330.88 295.02 323.97 375.14 392.18 698.06 303.07 306.12 291.47 I 310.22 8.4% -6.4% ( 372524 34.6%
Waste 09(tons) 4.12 2.37 8.37 6.64 4.16 8.87 4.47 7.74 8.31 9.41 7.45 I 5.69 -23.8% 21.5% I 70.62 0.9%
TOTAL: 265.24 229.00 500.87 1185.41 1347.74 1032.46 802.05 2158.34 508.72 676.17 1025.93 I 967.46 -5.7% -25.0% I 10497.34 -48.3%
I I
GRAND TOTAL: 1239.54 1220.23 1883.47 2919.19 3517.56 9691.99 2975.40 4570.78 21140.87 259551 3082.11 i 21173.98 -13.2% -8.4% i 92969.46 -8.3%
Wsate 01
(gsloru) 1130 650 1745 1915 1139 2430 1255 2120 1730 1715 2040 I 150 -23.8% 21.5% I 19324 0.4%
Tooke(9 of 55 f I
gsldrms) 1s 0 17 14 0 0 19 0 0 27 0 I 17 ERR ERR I 110 -9.1%
I I
U 593 Tans of On May Brush ache n Na 469 218941 Fltgtsny Sprtg CNsrt-up.
10136 Toru of go May Laswes one at vis the Town HWw y SprkV Cissh.-p.
to 518 Tau or the Novwntwr Bruch awns,in vie the The Town Hlptsay FO assr►up.
td 156 Tau of the November Leaves come in vis the Town Higtwy Fal Clean-up.
SOURCE: SOUTHOLD TOWN COLLECTION CENTER
c�
c4 ,0 a
, oti �ci'gtt„,;,
DIVISION OF SOLID WASTE
Bureau of Waste Reduction and Recycling
Comments on the Town of Southold's Draft Solid Waste Management Plan
Prepared by: avid Vitale Date: October 28, 1994
Signed by: �( .Z_
n
These are review comments on the Town of Southold' s November 1993 Draft
Solid Waste Management Plan which was received by the Department on August 30,
1994 and our office on September 1 , 1994, in relation to waste reduction and
recycling. These comments are made under the premise that the Fishers Island
Garbage and Refuse District 1-s- cansidered a separate planning unit and will be
providing their own Local Solid Waste Management Plan.
1 . The discussion relating to the evaluations of the potentially recyclable
and compostable materials in the waste stream need to be enhanced. The
following are specific sections of the plan where revision is
appropriate: [360-1.9(f) (1 ) (ii)]
a. On Pages S-6 and 5-21, the list of materials to be addressed in the
Plan should include; drink boxes/milk cartons (polycoated paper) ,
junk mail , telephone books, food waste and sludge.
b. On Pages 2-19 and 2-21, the listing of the waste composition
information for paper and plastics should be segmented into
subcomponents of each of those general materials. Those
subcomponents should then be evaluated or included in the recovery
analysis and projections throughout the Plan. In addition, textiles
does not appear to be segmented in these listings and should be. It
is recognized that Table 2.2.5-1 has a minor segmentation of some
paper subcomponents; however, this also needs to be enhanced.
C. On Pages 3-4, a listing of materials included in the household
hazardous waste collection program is provided. A discussion should
be included in the Plan which evaluates- the potential
recyclability/reusability of these materials (e.g. , aerosols,
paint) .
d. The discussion on Page 4-18 of Appendix A regarding telephone books
appears out-of-date and should be updated in the final Plan.
e. An evaluation of the potential recyclability of drink boxes/milk
cartons (polycoated paper) should be included in the Plan and
incorporated into the program if appropriate.
2. Alternative source separation/recyclables recovery programs which were
considered, the majority of the proposed program, and the reasons for
selecting most components of the proposed program were identified.
However, the following are specific questions/comments on the proposed
program:
[360-1 .9(f) (4) ]
a. The Plan and Appendix A (Comprehensive Recycling Analysis) contains
many qualifying phrases such as "can be, " "would, " "could, " "should"
and "it is recommended" when describing the Town' s proposed program.
These phrases are only appropriate in those sections which are
1
minimum: an extension of the five-year contracts for solid waste
disposal at approved facilities; a reevaluation of the backup
options and- alternatives discussed under Item "C"; and, the
planning unit's progress in developing disposal capacity within
the planning unit or New York State.
Note, that the implementation schedule indicates that the Town will have
a five-year, "long-term" hauling contract for disposal of residual
wastes by the summer of 1994. The text in Section 5.2 should be revised
to indicate who the Town now has this contract with. This discussion
should include terms, quantities and duration. If the Town does not
have a current five-year contract as the implementation schedule had
indicated, the plan must describe the current arrangements now in place
for waste export and the particulars of this current agreement.
20. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include an analysis of the costs of
implementing the proposed solid waste system including capital
investments, operation, maintenance, administration, and financing.
This description should include the funding source(s) for all aspects of
solid waste management in the Town. Information previously requested in'
DEC Comment No. 14 may be incorporated here.
This final cost for the solid waste system should then be divided by the
quantity of solid waste being managed in the Town to determine an
approximate cost/ton for solid waste management in the Town of Southold.
21. Chapter 5 of the -SWMP must include a discussion of the Administrative s ,
Structure responsible for all aspects of waste management in the Town of e
Southold. The Department recommends a schematic detailing each employee
or group of employees associated with solid waste management in the Town
followed by a brief explanation of his/her responsibilities for Town
solid waste management.
22. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include a description of Town activities used
to secure participation of neighboring jurisdictions, whether the plan's
implementation would impose any limitations on their neighbors solid
waste programs, and the effects of including neighboring jurisdictions
in the Town plan.
23. The plan must include a responsiveness summary which is an accounting of
the comments and views expressed by concerned governmental ,
environmental , commercial and industrial interests, the public and
neighboring jurisdictions. This is usually attached to the SWMP as an
appendix and identified in the plan's Table of Contents.
Note, since the Town did make a Negative Declaration regarding
development of the Town's SWMP, this may or may not have been subject to
public comment. Please advise.
24. The following SWMP page numbers have typographical errors: 2-4, 3-2,
3-28, 3-30 and 5-2. Please contact my office if more specifics are
required.
PAGE 5 Of 5
discussing the various alternatives available to the Town and should
be replaced with more affirmative statements (e.g. , "will " and "will
be") when describing the Town's proposed program.
b. On Page S-9, it is stated that ". . .separation should be required for
construction and demolition debris, white goods (major household
appliances) , tires and household hazardous waste. " The specific
plan, with projected action dates, relative to each of these
materials should be outlined in the text and implementation
schedule.
C. On Page 2-7, corrugated, cardboard is missing from the list of
materials currently accepted, if it is to be consistent with the
majority of the Plan text. This apparent omission should be
rectified or clarified if intended. In addition, it should either
be explained, via appropriate economic evaluation, in the Plan why
all materials which are currently accepted are not mandatory
recyclables in the Town nor are specific dates projected for
converting these materials to mandatory recyclables or the Town's
law/ordinance and/or implementation schedule should be modified to
provide such conversion.
d. On Page 2-7 of Appendix A, the list of recyclables in Section 2. 1 .3
also appears to have omitted corrugated cardboard and the list of
materials on Page 2-26 of Appendix A in Section 2.4 omits land
clearing debris which was included in the Section 2. 1.3 list. These
discrepancies should be rectified or clarified if intended.
e. On Page S-11, it is stated that "It is recommended that
residentially (homeowner) generated clean material remain the
responsibility of the Town for a three to five year period. Over
the long term private recycling and disposal options are to be used
by the generators of this waste." It is assumed that this
discussion relates to residentially generated C&D debris; however,
that should be specifically clarified in the final Plan. The plan
for this material should be stated in a more affirmative manner and
the specific actions the Town will take in an attempt to follow the
State's hierarchy of solid waste management relative to this
material during this three to five year period shall be presented.
The phrase "over the long term" should be clarified. and the Town's
proposed Plan for ensuring this material will be handled in
accordance with the hierarchy of solid waste management after the
generators of this waste become responsible for its recycling and/or
disposal should be outlined in the text and implementation schedule.
f. On Page 5-7, it is stated that "The development, planning,
permitting, and capital cost of a construction and demolition debris
processing facility is expected to be more cost-effective if it is
handled by the private sector rather than the Town. " This Planning
document is the appropriate mechanism to make such determinations.
An evaluation relative to the cost effectiveness of this proposal
should be included in the Plan and be used to guide the Town to its
ultimate Plans .
2
g. On Page 2-6 of Appendix A, it is stated that "sludge from the
Southold Scavenger Waste and Incorporated Village of Greenport
Sewage Treatment Plants has been disposed of at the landfill . " It
is not indicated in the Plan what is currently being done with this
material since closure of the landfill nor is a specific plan for
this material detailed in the implementation schedule.
h. On Page 2-26 of Appendix A, it is indicated that only HDPE and PET
are the plastics collected in the Town yet the Town's law/ordinance
does not limit the plastics definition to only HDPE and PET. This
potential inconsistency should be clarified in the final Pian.
i . On Page 4-3 of Appendix A, in the paper marketing discussion it is
stated that "paper grades accepted by these markets included baled
corrugated materials, newspaper, books, magazines, telephone books,
high grade office and computer paper and mixed low-grade paper." If
this is the current situation, it should be explained why these
materials are not all included as mandatory recyclables in the
Town's program or the program should be modified accordingly.
j . On Page 4-18 of Appendix A, it is stated that "On baled OCC
delivered to a processing facility, in many cases can be tipped free
of charge or receive up to $10 per ton in revenue." If this is the
case, it should be explained why the Town has instead chosen to pay
$200 per pick-up plus $30 per ton to have their OCC sent to Jet
Paper.
k. Also on Page 4-18 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Creative market
development efforts are required to successfully market low or mixed
gr.`ades of waste paper, including mixed office paper, junk mail ,
magazines and books." However, in the same paragraph, five brokers
who handle this material are listed. This seems to be an
inconsistency and should be clarified in the final Plan.
1 . On Page 4-20 of Appendix A, it is indicated that plate glass and
ceramics are. not acceptable materials to the glass markets yet in
Table 4.1-1, Pace Glass is listed as accepting plate glass. This
inconsistency should be rectified in the final Plan.
M. On Page 4-55 of Appendix A, a reference to a glassphalt paving
project "currently being considered jointly by Nassau and Suffolk
Counties. " It is stated that "the project is expected to commence
in 1992. . . . " The status of this project should be provided and the
reference to "currently being considered" should be modified or
eliminated in the final Plan.
n. Table 5.3-1 in Appendix A and all associated information related to
the public attitude survey toward source separation should include
the dates of the surveys. Information such as this can become out-
of-date and not representative of current situation very quickly.
When the dates are provided, the value and applicability of this
information can appropriately be determined.
3
t
i
o. On Page 5-15 of Appendix A, it should also be acknowledged that
equipment choices for collection of-recyclables and/or waste
includes multi-compartment compacting vehicles.
p. On Page 5-16 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Since the program has
been recently implemented, detailed data is not yet available
regarding participation rates and materials sorting efficiency
rates. " The mandatory program has been in place since February of
1991 which is not considered "recently." This characterization
should be modified and a more recent analysis/discussion be provided
in the final Plan.
q. On Page 5-22 of Appendix A, the discussion relative to the Solar
facility in Babylon, New York should be reviewed to ensure it is
still accurate in view of the current status of the facility. -
3. An overall schedule of the recyclables recovery program is provided in
Table 6.6-1 of Appendix A. That Table, in conjunction with Tables 6. 1-1
through 6. 1-3 of Appendix A, should provide a schedule with specific
dates for implementation of the recyclables recovery program (including
dates to attain specified, progressively increasing percentages of the
waste stream that will be recovered as recyclables) . The following are
specific comments and concerns relating to those Tables and the
implementation of the recyclables recovery program in general . [360-
1 .9(f) (5) (ii )]
a. The following comments relate to the information presented in
Table 6.6-1 of Appendix A:
i . The interim phase is listed as "present to 1994". As there are
only approximately two months remaining in 1994, the interim
phase should be listed as "1994".
ii . White goods are listed in the first entry as a mandatory
recyclable. However, white goods are not identified as a
mandatory recyclable in the Town Law/ordinance provided in
Appendix A of Appendix A nor is it consistent with sections of
the text of the Plan. The status of white goods should be
clarified and consistently presented throughout the Plan.
iii . This schedule should include projected dates for inclusion of
all materials which will be added to the recyclables recovery
program and/or converted to mandatory recyclables from their
current status (for those which_ are currently collected/
accepted, but are not mandatory under the Town' s current
Law/ordinance) .
iv. The proposed public education program and schedule should be
detailed in the implementation schedule or reference to a
detailed plan, which includes proposed action dates, located
elsewhere in the text should be included.
V. The implementation/action dates_ in the schedule should be
listed .in chronological order. The current format does not
list events in chronological order which makes the schedule
4
frustrating to read and follow. This will become more
important as the additional information which will be added in
response to these comments is added.
vi . The school programs are included in the mid-term phase of the
schedule. While these programs are briefly noted, they should
be implemented as soon as possible, to be in compliance with
the Town's recycling law/ordinance and Section 120-aa of the
General Municipal Law (GML) .
vii . The entry for the "survey of residential and commercial
participation to determine participation rates" in May 1996
appears to be late. It is more appropriate to conduct this
survey as soon as possible and then again before the beginning
of the long term phase. This should be reevaluated and
incorporated into the schedule of the final Plan as
appropriate.
viii . It is noted in the schedule that the Town will "encourage"
private vendors to process C&D. The program associated with
this entry should be outlined in the Plan. The minor reference
on Page 6-19 of Appendix A is not sufficient.
xi . An entry in the long term phase is a "collection, processing
and marketing system reevaluation" in May 1997. This
reevaluation is appropriate at regularly schedule intervals
throughout the program and not just in May 1997. In addition
the anticipated duration of this reevaluation should be noted.
The date provided does not detail whether that action date is
the beginning or end date of the reevaluation or both.
xii . The schedule lists January 1998 as the date for requiring the
recycling of C&D debris, land clearing debris and yard waste
and HHW. This date is inconsistent with the description of the
Town's program. C&D can and should be required to be a
mandatory recyclable as soon as a contract is signed with a
private vendor as the Town is not planning to process the
material itself. The text of the Plan indicates the Town's
yard waste composting facility was to be operational in
September 1994 therefore, yard waste and land clearing debris
should become a mandatory recyclable immediately.
xiii .The schedule identifies December 1997 as a date for an
evaluation of technical and economic feasibility of additional
organic composting. This evaluation should be done now as well
and if determined feasible and appropriate, a contract or RFP
for a contract, similar to the Town' s proposed C&D contract
with a private vendor, should be issued or implemented.
xiv. The July 1998 consideration of implementation of an organic
collection program can appropriately be moved up in the
schedule as a result of any modifications made in response to
comment 3.a.xiii .
5
a
xv. The implementation schedule should include the biennial update
of the SWMP required due to the long term exportation plan.
Further information on this requirement can be obtained from
the Bureau of Facility Management.
b. The following comments relate to the information presented in
Tables 6. 1-1 through 6. 1-3 in Appendix A:
i . The interim phase on Table 6. 1-1 should appropriately be listed
as "1994" and not "1991" .
ii . The participation rates (PR) for 1994 appear to be low,
especially for the currently mandatory materials. These
presented rates do not appear to correspond to .the existing
program. These projections should be reevaluated and current
information/projections be utilized.
iii . It is indicated in Table 6. 1-1 that the projected recovery rate
of the interim phase (1994) is 8.5 percent and will jump to 61
percent in one year (1995) . The implementation schedule and
plan presented does not support such a jump in recovery rate.
These projections should be reevaluated and supporting
discussion of the projected recovery rates [including
participation rates (PR) and separation efficiencies (SE) ] used
in the final Plan should be provided.
iv. . The projected recovery rates and materials included in the
program should be consistent with the revised implementation
schedule which will be presented in the final Plan in response
to these comments [e.g. , the current projection indicates a
commitment to the recovery of C&D and yard waste yet the
implementation schedule did not make the same commitment] .
V. These same detailed projections of recovery rates, including
projected PR's and SE's, should be. provided for several years
throughout the planning period at strategic intervals (e.g. ,
1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015) along with the
supporting discussion as referenced in comment 3.b.iii .
vi . Comments 3.b. i - v also apply to the presentation of
projections in Table 6. 1-3.
vii . These projections of recovery rates indicate that maximized
recovery rates will be achieved in 1997 and remain at that
level for the next 18 years. This appears to be an
inappropriate presentation of the Town' s currently projected
program and should be revised to reflect a program of maximized
waste reduction and recycling with increasing percentages of
the waste strea,;: that will be recovered as recyclables
throughout the planning period due to continued incorporation
of additional materials to be recovered and increasing
participation levels and separation and system processing
efficiencies.
6
c. On Page 6-2 of Appendix A, it is stated that "During the interim
period it was estimated the Town could achieve a material recovery
rate of nine percent. Based on 1991 and 1992 actual recycling
tonnage, the Town has not only achieved this goal , but exceeded it.
During both these years the Town reduced its waste stream by 11 to
12 percent due primarily to waste recycling and waste reduction
programs. " If the goal for the interim period (1994) has already
been in 1991 and 1992, the goal for 1994 is totally inappropriate.
These inconsistencies need to be eliminated in the final Plan,
implementation schedule and waste reduction and recycling
projections.
d. On Page S-8, it is indicated that between 1989 and 1992, the Town' s
waste stream decreased .by 13 percent. Future waste stream
projections do not appear to reflect this fact and should be
recalculated and revised as appropriate in the final Plan. In
addition a discussion of the probable and/or suspected reasons for
the reduction of the waste stream should be provided in the final
Plan along with waste reduction projections for various years _.
throughout the planning period as a result of the Town's proposed
waste reduction measures and program.
e. On Page S-83 it is stated that "Residents will be encouraged to
leave grass clippings on the lawn and consideration will be given to
excluding grass from the Town solid waste complex." This
"consideration" process should be described in the final Plan and
outlined in the implementation schedule along with projected action
dates.
f. It was indicated in the Plan in several places that the composting
facility was expected to be operational by September 1994. The
current status of this facility should be provided in the final Plan
as the Plan was submitted to the Department after that date.
g. It is assumed that the reference on Page 6-8 of Appendix A which
states, Over the long term, the Town will evaluate the opportunity
for developing a source separation based composting facility which
will enable the Town to recover the entire compostable fraction of
the waste stream" corresponds to the implementation schedule entry
discussed in comment 3.a.xiii . If so, the reference to this
specific facility should be included in the implementation schedule.
h: On Page 6-16 of Appendix A, it is stated that "The Town will
encourage and assist the private sector in increasing recycling
efforts for office paper, newspaper, corrugated and plastic, metal
and glass containers. " This program should be outlined in the Plan
and incorporated into the implementation schedule.
i . On Page 6-19, of Appendix A, it is stated that " If necessary, the
Town will market C&D through a new transfer station contract. " As
noted in comment 3.a. ix_ this should be enacted as soon as possible
for consistency with the State's hierarchy of solid waste management
and to maximize recycling.
7
j . On Page 6-49 of Appendix A', it is stated that "The Town could
conduct a commercial and institutional waste utilization and
practices survey to assist the Town in identifying existing
recycling activities by the private sector" . This program should
not be presented as an activity that "could" be performed, but
instead should be listed as a program that "will " occur as soon as
possible. This information should have been obtained and presented
as part of this Plan in order to assist the Town in formulating its
recyclables recovery program..
k. On Page 6-20 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Commercial ,
institutional and industrial establishments will be required to
demonstrate compliance with the Town' s ordinance by documenting the
quantities of materials recovered and reporting the tonnage to the .
Town." The program details should be provided in the final Plan and
incorporated into the implementation schedule.
1 . On Page 6-50 of Appendix A, it is stated that "In addition, solid
waste haulers will be encouraged to provide collection of white _.
goods under pre-arranged conditions for recycling at the Town
collection center. The program details of this encouragement
program should be provided in the final Plan and incorporated into
the implementation schedule.
M. On Page 6-50 of Appendix A, in reference to the long term phase, it
is stated that "At this phase of program development, regularly
scheduled curbside collections of recyclable materials would be
available to all residents, businesses, institutions and industries.
This should be the case now and not just by the long term phase. If
this is not occurring in the Town now, the Town should modify its
program. If it is the current Town program, the Plan should be
corrected.
n. On Page 6-53 of Appendix A, it is stated that "over the long-term,
solid waste haulers, as part of their operating license, will be
mandated to pickup recyclable materials from each household;
therefore seasonal subscribers will be provided with this service."
This should be the case now. If not, the Town's program should be
modified accordingly. If so, the Plan should be corrected.
o. The marketing plans for the various implementation schedule phases
on pages 6-22 and 6-45 - 6-47 of Appendix A should be incorporated
into the implementation schedule.
p. On Page 6-68 of Appendix A, it is stated that "The Town is
encouraged to consider similar market development approaches as
currently being adopted and implemented by the State and County. "
This statement should be clarified. It should be stated who is
encouraging the Town. All market development initiatives should be
incorporated into the implementation schedule.
q. The procurement actions discussed on Page 7-1 of Appendix A should
be incorporated into the implementation schedule.
8
r. On Page 7-1 of Appendix A, it is stated that the "Town's mandatory
source separation and recycling ordinance was adopted on
February 11, 1991 as part of the interim phase". This should be
corrected as that date is three years prior to the Plan's "interim
phase" (i .e. , 1994) . It is also further stated that "The ordinance
will not be adopted prior to securing processing and mark.--ting
arrangements. " As this ordinance has been adopted for over three
years, this should also be corrected.
4. These comments relate to Chapter 48 of the Town of Southold Code -
Garbage, Rubbish and Refuse which is partially presented in Appendix A of
Appendix A: [360-1 .9(f) (6) (ii)]
a. The copy of Chapter 48 provided is not complete. A complete copy of
the Town's current recycling law/ordinance/code with all current
appropriate amendments resolutions, regulations and rules must be
provided.
b. Currently, it appears that the law/ordinance/code only requires
source separation of cans, glass containers, newspapers and plastic
bottles of all generators and adds corrugated cardboard for self-
haulers, as the definition of "recyclables" does not currently
include corrugated cardboard. It is however, difficult to
definitively assess the law/ordinance/code with the partial
submittal provided. This is not consistent with the Town's existing
program nor with the requirements of Section 120-aa of the GML. It
is expected that many more materials will need to be added to the
Town's law/ordinance/code.
C. A portion of Section 48-3 of the Town Code is provided with a
handwritten note stating "self-haulers. " It is unclear whether or
not this section applies to all "self-haulers" or only a portion
(e.g. , residential ) . When a complete Chapter is submitted, this
issue can be more completed addressed.
d. With the limited information presented it appears that revision to
the Town Code will be necessary for consistency with the Town's
program and Section 120-aa of the GML.
5. The current situation relating to the planning unit status of the Fishers
Island Garbage and Refuse District should be clarified in the Plan. As
noted at the beginning of these comments, these have been made under the
premise that the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District is a separate
and distinct planning unit from the Town of Southold.
6. All information in this Plan which simply references information or
documentation that has 'been submitted to the Department outside of this
November 1993 version of the Plan must be submitted as part of this
actual document if it is to be considered as part of the Plan.
7. The following comments are intended to assist the planning unit in
identifying typographical errors or statements which need to be revised
for clarification purposes.
9
a. On Page 3-8, it is stated that "A large portion of non-ferrous metal
is already being recycled through mandatory participation in the
Beverage Container Act. " Participation is not mandatory and the
text should be modified accordingly.
b. On Page 3-10 of Appendix A, it is stated that "Tires are recovered
and recycled at Oxford Tire in Plainfield, Connecticut." It is then
further stated that "Tires processed at Oxford Tire's facility in
Connecticut are utilized as a supplemental fuel source during
incineration. The text should be revised to clarify that this
processing and incineration is not considered recycling.
C. There appears to be pages missing in Section 4 of the Plan. This
section should be reviewed to determine if all the pages were
transmitted to the Department.
d. Typographical errors were identified in the following locations.
1i Page 1-40, 2nd line, 1st word.
iii Page 2-4, lst paragraph, 2nd to last sentence is a partial
repeat of the last sentence in that paragraph.
iii . Table 2.2.6-1 and Appendix A Table 2.4-1, the last category
listing. r`%
iv. Page 3-14, 6th line, missing a word between the 9th and 10th �"� `
words.
V. Page 2-4 of Appendix A, 1st paragraph, 2nd to last sentence is
a partial repeat of the last sentence in that paragraph.
i . Page 4-8 of Appendix A, 1st sentence in paragraph 3 is a repeat
of the 7th sentence in paragraph 2.
V
ii . Page 5-9 of Appendix A, line 21, 5th word.
vii: .Page 6-48 of Appendix A, line 18, 8th word.
10
t
Division of Solid Waste
Bureau of facility Management
Comments on the Town of Southold
Draft Solid Waste Management Plan
Prepared by: Michael J. McTague Date: October 14, 1994
1. The final solid waste. management planning document should be printed on 3
both sides to conserve paper and to make the document less cumbersome.
2. On the bottom of Page 5-3 of the solid waste management plan (SWMP) , the
plan text figures indicate that there was a 13 percent decrease in
municipal solid waste (MSW) generation between 1989 and 1992 (i .e. , 123
tons/day to 107.7 tons/day) . However, these figures then indicate
considerable increases in MSW generation for 1995 and proceeding years.
The plan text must be revised to explain these fluctuations in the waste
stream.
3. On Pages 5-10, 1-46 and 2-6, the SWMP briefly discusses solid waste
management on Fishers Island. Representatives of Fishers Island have
notified the Department that the Island will develop its own SWMP.
Subsequently, Fishers Island will not be considered to have an
approvable plan in effect when the Town of Southold receives formal
Department approval of its SWMP. Please advise if Fishers Island has
decided not to develop its own SWMP and will participate in the Southold
SWMP.
Alternately, if Fishers Island is not participating in the Town of
Southold's proposed SWMP, please reflect same and discuss the reasons
for Fishers Island's non-participation.
4. Figure 2.1 .1-1, on Page 2-3 of the SWMP, shows the locations of Town-
wned and-operated solid waste facilities. Any other existingrip 'vate
olid waste facilities located within the Town must also be described in
he SWMP and shown on a map.
` Page 2-6 of the SWMP discusses disposal of sludge from the Southold
Scavenger Waste and Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plants at the
0U Town .landfill . The text should be revised to indicate how this waste
stream is currently being managed.
6. On the top of Page 2-7 of the SWMP, the text briefly discusses a
proposed permanent transfer station for residual wastes and recyclables.
This section must be expanded to more adequately describe this proposed
`` facility. Factors that should be included in this description are: the
proposed term of operation (i .e. , when is it proposed to begin accepting
C p IMSW and recyclables) ; the ownership type; and the types and quantities
ti
of waste/recyclables it will accept.
PAGE 1 OF 5
r.r
7. The plan text must include a description of all known inactive solid
/ waste management facilities located within the Town and whether or not
they have ever been permitted by the Town. Where known, the closure
methods and the environmental impacts of these facilities must be
described.
8. Page 2-7 of the SWMP discusses current solid waste collection and
management practices. This description must be expanded to identify all
public or private methods and contractual relationships for solid waste
collection in the Town. For example, do villages within the Town have
individual contracts for trash and recyclables collection with
contracted haulers or is each individual person required to bring their
own trash/ recyclables to the transfer station or make their own
arrangement for MSW disposal and recyclables collection with private
haulers? With whom does the Town currently contract with for transport
of MSW from the transfer station to its ultimate disposal?
9. Section 2.2.2 of the SWMP, Current Solid Waste Generation and Generation
Rates, should contain a brief description of the quantity of solid waste
generated within the Town broken down into the following categories:
residential solid waste (RSW) ; non-hazardous industrial waste (NHIW) ; 1
construction and demolition (C&D) debris; commercial and institutional I
waste (if included in RSW, please note) ; and sludge. Tonnage figures on
regulated medical waste, waste oil , asbestos and other special wastes
should also be provided here, if available. The plan should provide
proposed generation amounts (in tons per year) for these same waste
categorie�srf ars 1997, 2000 and 2010. It must also include
,ctfrent ao o;;� Ste reduction and recycling rates for the
aforement , yearly intervals.
10. Page 2-34 of the SWMP discusses the New York State Solid Waste
Management Plan and its annual updates. The plan text should be revised 3
to indicate that these State SWMP updates are now done on a bi-annual
basis.
11. On Page 3-68 of the SWMP, the scusses the development and opening
of Long Island's firs manent, year-round HHW collection facility at
the Town's sol ' ste complex. The Department considers development of
a STOP f ,ty in a Town the size of Southold exemplary, particularly
in of the potential of such hazardous materials polluting Long
sland's primary aquifer.
12. On Page 4-8 of the SWMP, under Regional or Cooperative Yard Waste
Composting Effort Out-of-Town, the plan discusses the fact that since
the Town already has an existing yard waste composting facility, it does
not need to handle its compost cooperatively outside of the Town with
another Town.
C- In this section, the Town should also discuss whether and why it will or
will not handle compost from other Towns at the Town of Southold yard
waste compost facility.
PAGE 2 OF 5
T_P
' 13. On Page 4-11 of the SWMP, the text discusses the transfer and processing
of Southold's residual waste at the Huntington/Smithtown Resource Iv
Recovery Facility and the possibility of composting Huntington and
ld
Smithtown's yard waste in Southold. The text goes on to indicate that
"at this time, this alternative was not implementable." The text should
describe the factors that led to this decision.
14. On Pages 4-14 of the SWMP, the text indicates that the Town currently
stockpiles tires at its solid waste complex and then has them removed as---
part
s—part of its recycl i ng..program. The plan text should be revised to
specify who currently handles the Town's tires and provide the current
contract specifics. Note, the information must be incorporated on Page
4-14 and into Section 5.1.4, Recycling: Tires.
15. Page 4-15 of the SWMP refers to an evaluation of (solid waste)
alternatives contained in Section 4 of the initial SWMP and a previously
performed cost analysis.
�1N5
k ince it is the very basis by which the Town makes a decision concerning
� its solid waste methodology for the residual waste stream, it is ,
6 imperative that this evaluation and cost analysis alternatives be 5� +
integrated in its entirety into the formal Town of Southold SWMP.
16. Pages 4-18 through 4-22 of the SWMP appear to be missing. Additionally, rJ
Page 4-23 suddenly stops in mid-sentence, and there is no Page 4-24.
Please insert and revise these pages as necessary.
17. On Pages 5-2 through 5-5 of the SWMP, in its discussion on Waste
Reduction (Section 5.1.1) , the plan text addresses the Town's proposed
waste reduction efforts in indecisive terms such as: "would," "can be"
and "should be." Since this Chapter is the Town's strategy as to how it
proposes to manage its solid waste, the language should be more
definitive. For example, the text should be revised to indicate that
. .homeowners and landscapers will be encouraged to reuse grass
clippings. . . ," and then state exactly how the Town proposes to get
homeowners to reuse grass clippings.
Additionally, the plan text should be revised to replace the words
"would" and "should be" with more decisive words such as "will " and
"will be."
18. Section 5.1.8, Recycling: Yard Waste Composting, of the SWMP should
also include the current capacity of the existing yard waste composting
facility, the capacity of the proposed yard waste facility, the 1993
cost per ton for yard waste management and the cost per ton for the
proposed facility.
This same section discusses the Town's consideration to banning grass
deliveries from all Town solid waste processing and disposal facilities.
This is a good proposal . The SWMP should state a proposed effective
date on the implementation timetable for the banning of yard waste at
Town solid waste facilities.
PAGE 3 OF 5
19. In Section 5.2 of the SWMP, Proposed Residual Waste Management, the plan
recommends waste exportation through private sector hauling and
processing and/or disposal of the 30 percent residual waste remaining
after implementation of the proposed resource recovery system in five
year steps with each stage preceded by a SWMP reanalysis and update to
determine whether more cost-effective options are available.
New York State believes achieving self-sufficiency is good public policy
due to uncertainties related to long-term waste exportation.
As such, since the Town is proposing out-of-planning-unit waste
exportation, they must incorporate the following into Section 5.2 of the
SWMP:
A. A copy of a binding agreement with one or more permitted or
otherwise authorized facilities capable of treating or disposing
of the planning unit's solid waste for at least five years.
Alternately, the planning unit should identify at least three
appropriately authorized solid waste facilities capable of
treating and disposing of the planning unit's solid waste for at
least five years. In either case, the identified facilities
should provide written documentation that they are an authorized
facility (in the case of out-of-State facilities) and have the
capacity to accept and will accept the planning unit's waste for a
minimum of five years. If exportation is proposed for less than
five years., the planning unit must certify disposal or treatment
capacity for the length of time exportation is proposed.
B. If there is no binding agreement with disposal facilities with
adequate uncommitted capacity to accept all of the planning unit's
solid waste which will be exported for a five-year period, a
/ statement or resolution from the planning unit that they will
enter into a binding agreement with one or more of the facilities
identified in Item "A" to accept the planning unit's waste for a
vminimum of five years.
C. A discussion of backup options or alternatives should the selected
facilities under Item "A" fail to accept the planning unit's waste
for a minimum of five years. This discussion should include a
brief evaluation of potential reasons for the selected facilities
not being able to provide disposal service (e.g. , ban on imports,
unforeseen closure of receiving facilities, etc.) and specific
alternatives to be implemented if that service is interrupted or
terminated. If the planning unit does not have a binding
agreement (as described above) , the discussion should also include .
potential reasons for the planning unit not being able to execute
a binding agreement and specific alternatives to be implemented to
obtain disposal service.
D. A resolution that the planning unit will provide the Department
with a plan update within two years after the final plan is
approved by the .Department and every two years thereafter, as long
as exportation continues. The update should include, at a
PAGE 4 OF 5
w
minimum: an extension of the five-year contracts for solid waste
disposal at approved facilities; a reevaluation of the backup
options and- alternatives discussed under Item "C"; and, the
planning unit's progress in developing disposal capacity within
the planning unit or New York State.
Note, that the implementation schedule indicates that the Town will have
a five-year, "long-term" hauling contract for disposal of residual
wastes by the summer of 1994. The text in Section 5.2 should be revised
to indicate who the Town now has this contract with. This discussion
should include terms, 'quantities and duration. If the Town does not
have a current five-year contract as the implementation schedule had
indicated, the plan must describe the current arrangements now in place
for waste export and the particulars of this current agreement. �k ,
20. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include an analysis of the costs of
implementing the proposed solid waste system including capital �7
investments, operation, maintenance, administration, and financing.
This description should include the funding source(s' for all aspects of
solid waste management in the Town. Information previously requested in
DEC Comment No. 14 may be incorporated here. a
n� AThis final cost for the solid waste system should then be divided by the
quantity of solid waste being managed in the Town to determine an
approximate cost/ton for solid waste management in the Town of Southold.
. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include a discussion of the Administrative
Structure responsible for all aspects of waste management in the Town of
Southold. The Department recommends a schematic detailing each employee
or group of employees associated with solid waste management in the Town
followed by a brief explanation of his/her responsibilities for Town
solid waste management.
22. Chapter 5 of the SWMP must include a description of Town activities used
to secure participation of neighboring jurisdictions, whether the plan's 3
implementation would impose any limitations on their neighbors solid
waste programs, and the effects of including neighboring jurisdictions
in the Town plan.
23. The plan must include a responsiveness summary which is an accounting of
the comments and views expressed by concerned governmental ,
environmental , commercial and industrial interests, the public and
neighboring jurisdictions. This is usually attached to the SWMP as an
appendix and identified in the plan's Table of Contents.
Note, since the Town did make a Negative Declaration regarding
development of the Town's SWMP, this may or may not have been subject to
public comment. Please advise.
24. The following SWMP page numbers have typographical errors: 2-4, 3-2,
3-28, 3-30 and 5-2. Please contact my office if more specifics are —
required.
PAGE 5 OF 5
1994 CUMULATIVE RECYCLING SUMMARY
I I YTD %CHANGE
I TOW %Charga %Chenpo From I TOTAL FROM YTD
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JURE JULY AUG SEPT OCT NOV (Tons From NOV DEC 1993 I TONS LAST YEAR
I I
HDUBEHOLD RECYCLaeG I I
Glass I I
Clear 34.28 30.14 30.29 34.00 34.25 47.86 44.97 58.62 44.17 35.36 32.82 I 33.78 2.9% 4.8% I 480.50 13.8%
MOM 0.' 108 3.32 3.91 3.78 197 3.90 3.65 3.75 5.22 4.59 4.30 I 4.56 6.0% 8.8% I 48.63 0.7%
Green 1., 17.05 11.13 18.77 16.88 15.88 10.86 12.38 36.32 19.43 17.79 18.60 I 15.62 -16.0% 24.3% I 208.51 5.9%
I I
PAMIC 13.83 16.01 16.19 10.13 17.39 9.62 27.45 13.90 14.00 14.00 44.00 I 14.50 16% -8.3% I 181.02 31.6%
Cans 14.99 14.08 18.15 12.69 18.68 13.96 10.65 8.33 11.01 12.10 19.56 I 10.23 19.7% -1.8% I 164.83 5.8%
Newspaper 67.08 51.32 108.44 93.87 102.74 104.20 107.79 75.72 72.24 70.79 107.19 I 60.02 -35.6% -47.8% I 1030.40 -1.8%
Cardboard 53.81 55.97 80.34 81.93 71.97 102.60 85.62 128.90 85.54 79.80 54.05 I 107.60 97.1% 51.9% I 960.10 15&3%
Car Batteries 0.50 0.50 1.54 1.70 4.08 3.50 1.25 0.00 1.50 1.50 1.50 I 1.50 0.0% 0.0% I 19.05 24.5%
HH Batteries 0.50 0.50 0.5 0.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 1.50 0.75 0.75 0.75 ( 0.75 0.0% 0.0% I 8.75 40.0%
Mood Paper 30.83 14.16 M93 47.27 51.10 74.64 6129 64.74 45.04 86.54 42.10 i 44.74 6.3% 5.7% I 597.56 47.5%
Clott" 2.07 2.76 1.82 2.27 120 3.55 4.38 5.10 4.17 2.90 2.00 I 1.85 -7.5% -31.7% I 36.07 151.7%
Wave ON(torn) 4.12 2.37 6.37 8.64 4.16 8.87 4.47 7.74 &31 8.41 7.45 ( 5.68 21.5% I 70.81 0.8%
Clean Wood 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.81 9.11 5.44 1.15 0.17 1.77 1.32 0.57 I 1.80 215.8% ERR I 31.14 -49.5%
I I
Household Totat 238.40 199.89 330.88 285.02 323.97 375.14 362.18 398.88 303.07 306.12 291.47 I 310.22 6.4% -&4% I 372124 34.6%
i I
HlarwMi9lQRad�aOip I I
a%afH0uwmw I I
GarbaOr 293% 710% Jf_J% Jag% 8LJ% 20.8% 292% 24L1% 223% 2RJx 292% =4% I 20.01%
I I
COMMERC iAl.RECYCLING
Soap Metal 22.29 20.25 24.22 45.29 31.02 41.67 59.88 31.23 31.34 47.98 35.00 I 34.46 .1.5% 8.0% I 424.63 -30.3%
Tires 29.89 20.00 19.71 12.60 20 15.91 20.00 12.01 2&15 36.23 24.85 I 24.00 -3.4% 9.1% I 280.75 15.6%
I 1
Commercial Total: 52.10 40.25 4193 57.29 51.02 57.78 79.68 4124 57.49 84.19 59.85 I 58.48 -2.3% 8.4% I 886.38 -17.9%
I I
YAFW WABTE RECYCLMG I
Lald9t
-o0eeotad 19.95 17.50 121.88 618.40 335.34 92.60 79.91 43.84 4170 86.99 641.95 I 397.20 -36.1% -317% i 2498.70 -13.9%
-removed 7.66 3.89 38.75 18&81 26.60 18.14 6.96 62.38 120.62 39231 110.85 I 1.75 -98.4% -55.7% I 974.79
I I
Wood Cnloa I I
-ooeeded 38.59 39.33 77.51 $19.57 756.86 235.05 217.31 372.71 263.12 913.01 602.50 I 273.60 -60.5% -36.3% I 3819.16 -16.4%
-removed 13.64 9.89 2.03 45.66 83.26 66.59 50.38 28.83 7.81 91.66 15.96 I 35.52 122.8% -29.0% I 397.25
I I
Yard Waste Total: 66.2 60.52 238.12 1322.76 1118.60 343.25 304.18 478.91 447.44 792.51 1445.3 I 67755 -53.5% -34.9% I 7290.60 -12.0%
I I
GRAND RECYCLING I I
TOTAL: 356.78 300.68 812.93 1885.09 1493.88 776.17 746.04 919.03 808.00 1182.82 1798.62 I 1041.25 -42.0% -26.6% I 11609.27 -1.6%
I I
AlReaya/ig I I
WToW
> 21111.9% 24tx 82.3% 67.O1r 4MOS 21.0% 21L7x 29.1x Jag% 491% nix f Jagit, j 1QJli
I I
Waste 00(galorn) 1130 850 1745 1815 1139 2430 1255 2120 1730 1715 2040 I 1555 -23.8% 21.5% I 19324 0.4%
_ I i
gal drip) 16 0 17 14 0 0 19 0 0 27 0 I 17 -37.0% ERR I 110 -9.1%
I � (
SOURCE: SOUTHOLD TOWN COLLECTION CENTER
1-20-95
Southold Town
Solid Waste Management Organization
Town Board Solid Waste
Solid Task Force
Waste
Policy Town
Supervisor
Solid Waste Data Entry
Coordinator Clerk (pit)
Transfer
Station
Admin. & Transfer Station
Staff Foremen (2)
Construction echanic Floor Attendants
Equipment Operaotors {3) (3pit)Operators (6)
1-20-95
Southold Town
Solid Waste Management Organization
Town Board Solid Waste
Solid Task Force
Waste
Policy Town
LSuP ervisor
Solid Waste Data Entry
Coordinator Clerk (ph)
Transfer
Station
Admin. & Transfer Stat�o
Staff Fonan'�en (Z)
Construction
Equ�ment Operators (3) Floor Attendants
Operators
(6) (3 Pn)
1-20-95
Southold Town
Solid Waste Management Organization
Town Board Solid waste
Solid Task Force
Waste
Polity Town
Supervisor
Solid Waste Data Envy
Coordinator Clerk (pit)
Transfer
Station
Admin. & TransferStatin
Staff Form= (2)
cona ucum han SWO
Floor Attendants
(3 pft
Equipment oP"� C3)
opwaton(6) )
1-20-95
Southold Town
Solid Waste Management Organization
Town Board Solid Waste
Solid Task Force
Waste
Policy Town
Supervisor
Solid-Waste Data Entry
Coordinator Clerk (pit)
Transfer
Station
Admin. & Transfer t(2j
Staff
Construc*m Sale
Equipment Operators (3) Floor Attend
(6) (3 Ph)
1-20.95
Southold Town
Solid Waste Management Organization
Town Board Solid Waste
Solid Task Force
Waste
Policy Town
Supervisor
Solid Waste Data Entry
Coordinator Clerk (P/t)
Transfer
Station
Admin. & Transfer Statio
Staff [I R nnen (2)
Constmc*m Sale
Equoment Operators (3) Floor'Attendants
1-20.95
Southold Town
Solid Waste Management Organization
Town Board Solid Waste
Solid Task Force
Waste
Policy Town
Supervisor
Solid Waste data Entry
Coordinator Clerk (Ph)
Transfer
Station
Admin. & Transfer f(2)
Staff Fan'�en
Construction EE
Floor Attendants
Equipment Operators (3) P )
"On(6)
1-20-95
Southold Town
Solid Waste Management Organization
Town Board Solid Waste
Solid Task Force
Waste
Policy Town
Supervisor
Solid Waste Data Entry
Coordinator Clerk (ph)
Transfer
Station
Admin. & Transfer:(2)j
Staff FowZwrwn
3
Construction Sale
Equomwt Opwamra (3) Floor Attendants
(6) P )
Ticket No. 5746 SOUTHOLD C.C. Tine 11:12
Scale No. I Date 01/02/95
Operator MAX
e
VEHICLE ID HYS310 Time In 11:00 Date In 01/02/95
ACCOUNT ID D35 DROSKOSKI, MARK S.
MATERIAL ID C CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
Gross Wt. 15040 lb
Price / Ton S 70.00 Tare Wt. 11320 lb
Load Charge $ 130.20 Net Wt. 3720 lb
t - - Net Tons 1.86 t n
Transaction Type - Credit Signat+Ckre
Ticket No. 5851 SOUTHOLD C.C. Tiee 15:14
Scale No. 1 Date 01/02/95
Operator MAX
VEHICLE ID HY5310 TiM In 15:08 Date In 01/02/95
ACCOUNT ID D35 DROSKOSKI, MARE( S.
MATERIAL ID C CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
[cross Wt. 14660 lb
Price / Ton $ 70.00 Tare Wt. 11300 lb
Load Charge $ 1117.60 Net Wt. 3360 lb
Net Tons 1.68 to
Transaction Type - Credit Signature
Ticket No. 6038 SOUTHOLD C.C. Tim 13:56
Scale No. 1 Date 01/03/95
Operator MAC
VEHICLE ID HY5310 Time In 13:51 Date In 01/03/95
ACCOUNT ID D35 DROSKOSKI, MARK S.
MATERIAL ID C CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS,
Gross Wt. 14820 lb `
Price / Ton $ 70.00 Tare Wt. 11540 lb
Load Charge $ 114.80 Net Wt. 3280 lb
Net Tons 1.64 to
t
Transaction Type - Credit Signature
Ticket No. 6460 SOUTHOLD C.C. Tim 1307
Scale No. 1 Date 01/06/95
Operator MAX
VEHICLE ID HY5310 Time In 12:51 Date Ffir 01/06/95
ACCOUNT ID D35 DROSKOSKI, MARK S. €,"
MATERIAL ID C CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
Brass Nt. 14460 lb
Price / Ton $ 70.00 Tare bit. 11300 16
Load Charge $ 110.60 Net Ht. 3160 lb
Net Tons 1.W to
t
Transaction Type - Credit Signature
Ticket No. 5917 SOUTHOLD C.C. Tine 09:31
Scale No. 1 Date 01/03/95
Operator MAC
VEHICLE ID HY5310 Time In 09:25 Date In 01/03/95
ACCOUNT ID D35 DROSKOSKI, MARK S.
MATERIAL ID C CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
Gross Wt. 14100 lb
Price / Ton t $ 70.00 Tare Wt. 11620 lb
Load Charge $ 86.80 Net Wt. 2480 lb M
Net Tons 1.24 to
Transaction Type - Credit Signature _
Storm Debris From Mark S. Droskoski
Delivered to Landfill
Date Weight (tons) Charge
1-2-95 1 .86 $130. 20
1-2-95 1 .68 117 .60
1-3-95 1 .64 114.80
1-6-95 1 . 58 110.60
6 . 76 $473. 20
1-20-95
Southold Town
Solid Waste Management Organization
. . • . • . .sem. • • . . • • • • • •
Town Board Solid Waste
Solid Task Force
Waste
Enw
ervisor
Solid Waste Data Entry
Coordinator fit)
Transfer �
Station
Admin. & TransfierL(2)
tic
Staff Fonar w
Constnwdon scwe
Equipment C)perx�M (3) Boor Attend�ts
opwawn
�6� Ph)
Town of Southold
Recycling Arrangements
(as of 1-1-95)
Recycled Recylcing Vendor Shipping Ultimate
Product Destination
Firm Name Cost or
Income Shipper Cost Product Re-
to Town use
Newspaper Pinnacle INCOME: Town of S5/ton Northeast
Industries Southold US/Econocel
Bohemia, NY S5/ton cellulose
insulation
and fiber
mulch
Glass EWG Glass INCOME: EWG All New Glass
Recycling Clear : Colors Bottles
Jamaica, NY S15/ton S5/ton
Brown:
910/ton
COST:
Green-
$17/ton
Tires Innovative COST: Unkown -
Methods , $1095 Innovative charges Incinera-
Floral Park, per 110 Methods included tion (fuel )
NY Cu. yd in vendor
trailer price
Mixed Mid Island INCOME: Unknown - new metal
Metals Salvage Corp Mid Island charges produts
(including Deer Park, 936/ton included
appliances) NY in vendor
price
Tin and Gershow Mattituck Unknown -
Aluminum Recycling None Sanitation charges
Cans Medford, NY and North included New Metal
Fork Sani- in vendor Products
tation price
(alternate
months )
Plastic ( #1 JET Approx
and #2 Sanitation COST: North Fork S40 Plastic
mixed) 935/ton Sanitation/
per ton Lumber
Town of
Southold
Town of Southold Recycling Arrangements as of 1-1-
Page 2
Recycling Vendor Shipping Ultimate
Destination
Recycled (Cost) /Product
Product Firm Name or ShipperRe-use
Cost
Income
to Town
Cardboard Jet Paper or INCOME: Town of approx Fiber pulp
Gershow 810/TON Southold S15- for .
Recycling, S20/ton recycled
Medford, NY paper
products
Mixed Paper Marcal Paper INCOME: Trans-King S24/ton
( junk mail , Mills Inc. , 870/ton Tissue
etc. ) Elmwood Products
Park, NJ
Used Motor Strebels None Strebels Unknown - Fuel for
Oil Laundry, charges Strebels
Westhampton included used-oil
in vendor furnace
price
Vehicle P&K Scrap INCOME: Oregon Road Unknown - Recycled
Batteries Coram, NY 2-1/2 c Recycling charges for metals
per lb. included
In vendor
price
Household Chemical COST: Chemical Unknown - Approx. 3%
Batteries Pollution Pollution charges recycled
Control , INC 5190/55- Control included for metals ,
Bay Shore, gallon in vendor 97% dis-
NY drum price posed in
haz . waste
landfills
Leaves & Southold COST: None none Chipped for
Brush Town 820-530/ composting;
Landfill ton stockpiled
(est) for use by
residents
Recycled Southold None None None Stockpiled
Wood Town for use by
Landfill residents
Used St . Vincent None St. Vincent Unknown - Re-used
Clothing de Paul de Paul charges
included
in ventor
price
IM CUMULATIVE RECYClING SUMMARY
I I
I NOVEMBER 14 I
I I Yro %CHANGE
I Tobi %amp %Chnp Fran I TOTAL FROM YTD
JIVE JULY AUG SEPT OCT ( Tara From OCT NQV 1903 I TONS LAST YEAR
IlanChwoodis
I I
G&tW(SW Oct 91x3}: I
-c sm bar 280.2 230.E 821A0 227.1 10HA0 ( 40E.211 -iJ5% .12.26
-=IN by wow 400A0 401R ARAB 000]8 311.11 ( Sam -L1% 10A% I 488016'1 780.0%
-srW4wmWd(dbmp) 310A& 162156 3ST.10 lam 108.7`4 I "m 0A% 41A% I 210M 3' '`" 291.0%
17T54 187.98 273.73 23116 27422 I 640At 48.4% M.8% I 3126.E' YY 4U%
C&0 467.90 397.48 41792 531.88 56120 I 44&30 ,Mt% 132% I 4367.110c ?: 0 47.8%
Conma 13321 SM72 9.19 43.06 38A1 I 221 412A% -as% I 1450.72 f-' k 134.4%
Landdrr, a 5751 40.93 am 51.57 38,90 ( 52.49 3L?% 219% I 418.67 Y Lc -M4%
i &6m(ate 21ZT4 183.00 285.66 127.69 146.80 I 139.11 47% 167% I 163774 -1313%
gasp mew 41.87 59.88 31M 31.34 47.96 I 35.00 .4v o% -32% I 303.90419", -31.7%
Tku 15.91 20.00 12.01 26.15 38M ( 24.85 -MAS 38.1% I 296.75 22.3%
i I
TOTAL 2858.07 2371.95 2354M 2087.11 1881.65 I 2054.46 0.2% 23.3% I 20533.75 525%
Nmi'dm
AWWW" 1.44 1.40 50.61 59.84 5m zis
GarbW WA WA PYA WA WA � WA HERR ERR I AWA 100.0%
G� 3250 2653 38.43 2524 mm I 2.20 -W.1% -60.4% I 262A4 Y&' 435.2%
LooveWMulch " 92.06 79.91 43.84 43.70 86.99 I 641.95 080*% -42% I 200050- Y L:,' -8.7%
swdsw 550.72 146.32 1608.03 141.73 115.46 I 1052 -WA% -as% I _ 62.5%
Shift`► 0.91 4.35 1.39 1.93 149.40 I 80.18 - 0.7% 2-3% I 264.30 01r -W.4%
SkXIP 0.00 0.00 0.00 1Maod CJtrt►� 478 4.82 10.46 10.00 10.00 I 0.00 ERR ERR I 0.00 -100.0%
��� i 1426 219% 145.9% i 91.57 Y GL'` -01.1%
375.14 382.18 396.88 309.07 306.12 ( 291.47 -0A% 45% ! 3413.02 40.1%
WNW OR(lora) am 4.47 7.74 6.31 8.41
I 7.46 tb.T% 16.0% ( �� .� 1�c1 -0.8%
TOTAL- 1066.42 629A 225298 588.40 607.08 I 1030.18 47A% ,369% I 10043.19 -62.5%
GRAND TOTAL 3724.40 3001.93 480721 2675.51 2579.63 i 3084.64 "A% -6.0% i �306TBA4 -11.8%
waaa a
(9�a) 2130 1255 2120 1730 1715 ( 2040 10A% 14.2% I 17769 -1.1%
Taft(i d 56
I
9r drum) 0 19 0 0 27 I 0 -100A% -100.0% ( 03 -23.1%
I I
SOURCE: SOUTFOLO TowN COIJ-ECT10N CENTER
1994 CUMULATIVE RECYCLING SUMMARY
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE
item
Cherpeeble
Garbepe(after Oct 9'93).
-oarW baps 214.70 190.85 190.14 19204 209.71 230.02
-carter by weight 256.35 270.40 304.38 264.12 367.34 409.96
-U f4ea4ed fall bags) 169.61 210.26 232.41 61.68 14290 310.46
Brush 36.59 39.33 73.23 492.51 713.40 ' 177.54
C&D 168.42 168.42 341.87 403.22 452.30 487.30
Corx m 0.00 0.00 35.51 10.81 274 733.87
Landdewng 0.00 0.00 4.28 27.08 43.48 57.51
Rubbish(moced) 14.09 21.52 121.92 215.48 196.82 212.74
Scrap Motel 22.29 24.00 24.22 45.29 31.02 41.87
Tires 29.89 20.00 19.71 12.00 20.00 15.91
TOTAL 933.94 950.78 1347.67 1724.11 2169.18 2658.07
Non-cnargeable
Agnaullurai 40.36 40.45 34.93 9.67 0.88 1.44
Garbape N/A N/A WA WA NIA N/A
Gress 0.00 0.00 1.38 35.82 88.32 3250
Leevee/Mulch 19.95 17.50 121.88 816.40 335.34 " 9206
Sand/Sod 2.47 2.47 8.78 251.39 870.63 550.72
Shellfish 0.30 0.40 26.78 10.88 7.80 0.91
SkKipe 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Wood Clips 0.00 8.37 8.20 15.10 5.84 4.78
Houeshoid
RecYdables 238.40 199.89 330.88 285.02 323.97 375.14
Waste Oil(tons) 4.12 2.37 8.37 8.64 4.18 8.87
TOTAL 305.80 269.45 537.18 1230.90 1434.72 1066.42
GRAND TOTAL 1239.54 1220.23 1884.85 2955.01 3603.90 3724.49
Waste Oil
(gdlons) 1130 850 1745 1815 1139 2430
Toxics(#of 55
go drums) 18 0 17 14 0 0
SOURCE: SOUTHOLD TOWN COLLECTION CENTER
11
SOUTHOLD TOWN LANDFILL
1992 YARD WASTE
ITEM AMOUNT RECEIVED AMOUNT COMPOSTED COSTS COST IF
100%
tons cu. yds' tons cu.yds COMPOSTED
(end (535/TON)
product)2
Leaves 2,713 30,144 1 ,109 3,697 ?? $ 94,955
Grass 922 5,269 0 0 0 $ 32,270
Brush 4,296 24,549 228 1,013 ?? $150,360 r
Land- 0
clear- 1,609 5,363 0 0 $ 56,315
Ing
TOTAL: 9,540 65,325 1,337 4,710 $36,400 8333,9004
(527/ton)
' Cubic yards based on the following:
Leaves = 180 lbs/yd
Grass 350 lbs/yd
Brush 350 lbs/yd
Landclearing = 600 lbs/yd
2 Cubic yards of finished product based on the following:
Leaves 600 lbs/yd
Brush a 450 lbs/yd
3 Cost breakdown by item is unavailable. Total of $36,400 is based
on personnel cost estimate in Town of Southold Small Scale Yard
Waste Composting Engineering report, and DPW estimate of equipment
expenses.
4 Cost of 535/ton based on industry estimate, includes interest and
depreciation on capital expenses.
Table 1.2-1
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
YARD WASTE COMPOSTING PLAN '
�F
WASTE QUANTITIES AND CATEGORIES M
January 1 through December 14, 1989 !;
1 Weight s f 1
Scale House Cateeory _ e ghtlton_� % o Tota
Garbage 14,037.0 32.85 -t-
Construction Debris 6,416.9 ` 15.02 + 9c
Sand/Sod 5,964.8 �� (`/�'Y' 13.96 _ 7�y
Landclearing Debris 5,056.3 & q CI jy 7) 11.83
Rubbish 3,735.0 w') 8.74
Brush 2,623.7 `f�%6 6.14 + E, 3.. -
Leaves/Grass/Mulch 1,306.8 3 3.06
Concrete/Asphalt/Bricks 1,263.8 2.96
Metal* 540.6 1.27 t--
Agricultural Debris 535.9 35' 1.25 ' ' e
Paper* 425.3 1.00
Sludge 311.3 1-3,/ 3 0.73
Cleanup Debris 285.40.67
Tires* 126.2 0.30
Woodchips 44.0 o/ 0.10 y
Shellfish Debris 42.0 7 ,7 0.10
Lead Batteries* 17.9 0.04
TOTAL 42,732.6 100.00 '
*Recyclable Materials (Outgoing Loads) i
1
2072M/2 1-3 s'
1994 CUMULATIVE RECYCLING SUMMARY
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE
HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING
Glass
Clear 34.26 30.14 30.29 34.00 34.25 47.86
Brown 3.68 3.32 3.91 3.78 3.97 3.90
Green 17.05 11.13 16.77 16.88 15.68 10.86
Plastic 13.83 16.01 16.19 10.13 17.39 9.62
Cans 14.99 14.08 18.15 12.89 18.86 13.98
Newspaper 67.08 51.32 108.44 93.87 102.74 104.20
Cardboard 53.61 55.97 80.34 61.93 71.97 102.08
Car Batteries 0.50 0.50 1.54 1.70 4.06 3.50
HH Batteries 0.50 0.50 0.5 0.50 0.75 0.75
Wed Paper 30.83 14.16 52.93 47.27 51.10 74.84
CioU" 2.07 2.76 1.82 2.27 3.20 3.55
HOUSEHOLD TOTAL: 238.40 199.89 330.88 285.02 323.97 375.14
HWnhW Raoyal ft
as%of Houveh lQ
G~ 28.5% 22.0% $12% 35.69x; 21.9% 28.x%
OTHER RECYCLING
Leaf Mulch 7.66 17.50 38.75 186.81 26.69 16.14
Scrap Metal 22.29 20.25 24.22 45.29 31.02 41.87
Tires 29.89 20.00 19.71 12.00 20 15.91
Clean Wood 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.81 9.11 5.44
Brush Compost 13.64 39.33 2.03 45.68 83.26 66.59
Waste Oi(bons) 4.12 2.37 6.37 6.64 4.16 8.87
OTHER TOTAL: 77.60 99.45 91.08 306.23 174.24 154.82
GRAND RECYCLING
TOTAL: 316.00 299.34 421.96 591.25 498.21 529.96
All RmyabAQ
of fold
t+Yaulr SiIN11t: 26.6% 24.6% 22.4% 28.0% 13.8% 14.2%
Waste Oil(gallons) 1130 650 1745 1815 1139 2430
Tcoks(#of 55
gal drums) 16 0 17 14 0 0
SOURCE SOUTHOLD TOWN COLLECTION CENTER
I I
I NOVEMBER W I
I I YTD %CHANGE
I Trial %Change %Change From I TOTAL FROM YTD
JULY AUG SEPT OCT I Tons From OCT NOV 1983 ( TONS LAST YEAR
i I
I I
. I i
44.97 58.62 44.17 35.36 � 32.82 -7.2% -17.7% � 426.74 14.4%
Xf 0 3.65 3.75 5.22 4.59 I 4.30 -0.3% -28.3% I 44.07 0.1%
1 12.38 36.32 19.43 17.79 I 18.60 4.6% 11.7% I 192.89 4.7%
Plastic 27.45 13.90 14.00 14.00 I 14.00 0.0% 27.7% 166.52 36.4%
Cans 10.65 8.33 11.01 12.10 I 13.56 12.1% -0.4% I 148.40 6.7%
Neumpeper 107.79 75.72 7224 70.79 I 107.19 51.4% 6.7% I 961.38 4.8%
Cardboard 85.62 128.90 85.54 T9.80 ( 54.65 -31.5% -31.8% ( 860.41 217.7%
Car Batteries 1.25 0.00 1.50 1.50 I 1.50 0.0% -16.7% I 17.55 272%
HH Batteries 0.75 1.50 0.75 0.75 I 0.75 0.0% 50.0% I 8.00 45.5%
Mixed Paper 63.29 64.74 45.04 66.54 I 42.10 36.7% -8.6% I 552.84 52.3%
Clothing 4.38 5.10 4.17 2.90 I 2.00 31.0% -16.0% I 34.22 194.5%
HOUSEHOLD TOTAL: 362.18 396.88 303.07 306.12 I 291.47 4.8% -0.5% I 3413.02 40.1%
Fbaaah R OJOIii I i
ae�dFbwNraM
Oaba0aC
202% k!% 215% 2OLSS J 219% -1 A% 4.4% � 27.78 -04.7%
OTHER RECYCLING
Leaf Mulch 6.96 62.36 120.62 392.51 I 110.85 -71.8% 261.4% 986.85 21.6%
Soap Metal 59.68 31.23 31.34 47.96 I 35.00 -27.0% 3.2% I 390.15 32.4%
Tires 20.00 12.01 28.15 3623 I 24.85 31.4% 38.1% I 236.75 16.3%
Clean Wood 1.15 0.17 1.77 1.32 I 0.57 56.8% 200.0% I 29.34 32.5%
Brush Compost 56.38 28.83 7.81 31.66 I 15.96 -49.6% -04.3% I 391.17 53.3%
Waste ON(tons) 4.47 7.74 6.31 6.44 I 7.45 15.7% 16.0% I 64.94 -0.6%
OTHER TOTAL: 148.64 142.34 194.00 516.12I I
I 194.68 �2.s% -47.4% I 209920 -17.9%
GRAND RECYCLING
TOTAL: 510.82 53922 497.07 82224 486.15 -40.9% -29.4% 5512.22 10.4%
I I �
N % VV
Wade fill Rr 17.016 11.7% I&GS 31.8% i f&#% -50.6% -24.8% i 1%0% 39.0%
Waste Oil(gallons) 1255 2120 1730 1715 I 2040 19.0% 142% I 17769 -1.1%
I
Tactics(2 of 55 I I
gal drums) 19 0 0 27 I 0 -100.0% -100.0% I 93 -23.1%
I I
SOURCE: SOUTHOLD TOWN COLLECTION CENTER
SOUTHOLD TOWN COLLECTION CENTER
1993 YEAR-END MATERIAL SUMMARY
I 1993 ( 1992 % CHANGE
I TOTAL I TOTAL
I TONS I TONS
I I
Item ( I
Chargeable I I
I I
Garbage (after Oct. 9'93): I I
-carter bags I 583.38 ( - N/A
-carter by weight I 746.83 I - N/A
-self-hauled (all bags) I 759.04 I - N/A
Brush I 3545.45 I 4295.71 -17.5%
C &D I. 5550.45 ( 6687.51 -17.0%
Concrete I 619.75 ( 445.61 39.1%
Landclearing I 1023.88 I 1608.99 -36.4%
Rubbish (mbced) ( 2040.58 ( 2614.79 -22.0%
Scrap Metal I 608.91 I 589.79 3.2%
Tires I 215.51 I 230.18 -6.4%
( I
TOTAL: ( 15693.78 I 16472.58 -4.7%
Non-chargeable I
I I
Agricultural I 713.67 I 634.09 12.6%
Garbage (before Oct. 9) I 11430.90 I 14536.49 -21.4%
Grass I 756.29 I 922.45 -18.0%
Leaves/Mulch I 2898.44 I 2713.32 6.8%
Sand/Sod I 2504.57 1279.10 95.8%
Shellfish I 452.00 I 76.71 489.2%
Sludge I 731.79 I 312.56 134.1%
Wood Chips ( 163.50 I 204.10 -19.9%
Household ( I
Recyclables I 2767.14 I 2100.16 27.6%
Waste Oil (tons) I 70.02 I 61.48 13.9%
I I
TOTAL: I 22488.32 I 22840.46 -1.8%
� I
GRAND TOTAL: I 38182.10 I 39313.04 -3.0%
I I
Waste Oil I I
(gallons) I 19246.00 I 16844 14.3%
I I
Toxics(#of 55 I I
gal drums) I 121 I 138 -18.2%
I I
T
12-30-83 SOUT14OLD TOWN COLLECTION CENTER
1993 YEAR-END RECYCLING SUMMARY
i
1993 I 1992 % CHANGE
I TOTAL I TOTAL
I TONS I TONS
HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING I I
I I
Glass I I
Clear I 405.44 I 352.35 15.1%
Brown I 48.28 I 49.85 -3.1%
Green I 196.82 ( 163.67 20.3%
I I
Plastic I 137.56 I 113.06 21.7%
Cans ( 155.66 I 160.55 -3.0%
Newspaper I 1049.74 I 775.78 35.3%
Cardboard I 341.75 I 159.16 114.7%
Car Batteries I 15.30 I 11.29 35.5%
HH Batteries I 6.25 I 4.50 38.9%
Mixed Paper I 405.23 ( 309.95 30.7%
Clothing I 14.33 I --
I I
HOUSEHOLD TOTAL: I 2767.14 I 2100.16 27.6%
I I
Household Recycling I I
es % of Household
Garbage: I 17.0% I 12.6%
I I
OTHER RECYCLING I I
I I
Leaf Mulch I 815.36 I 1108.88 -26.5%
Scrap Metal I 608.91 I 589.79 3.2%
Tires I 225.51 I 230.18 -2.0%
Clean Wood I 61.71 I 119.50 -48.4%
Brush Compost I 1249.25 I 227.58 448.9%
Waste Oil (tons) I 70.02 I 61.48 13.9%
I I
OTHER TOTAL: I 3030.76 I 2337.41 29.7%
I I
GRAND RECYCLING I I
TOTAL: I 5797.90 ( 4437.57 28.7%
i
All Recycling I
es % of Total
Waste Strohm: I 15.5% I 11.3%
I I
Waste Oil (gallons) I 19246 I 16844 14.3%
I I
Toxics (#of 55 ( I
gal drums) I 121 I 138 -18.2%
SOUTHOLD TOWN
1991 YEAR END LANDFILL SCALEHOUSE REPORT
---- -
i 1991 I 1990
i TOTAL I TOTAL %
I TONS I TONS CHANGE
------------ i
Item I I
Chargeable I I
Brush I 3121. 42 1 3847 . 03 -18.9%
C & D I 4354 . 44 1 6855. 52 -36 . 5%
Concrete ( 320 . 72 1 1049 .00 -69 . 4%
Landclearing I 883.61 1 2983.82 -70 .4%
Rubbish (mixed) I 2468 . 44 1 2924 . 57 -15.6`k
Scrap Metal I 621.98 1 690.91 -10. 0%
Tires I 281. 62 1 210. 86 33. 6%
I I
TOTAL: I 12052.23 1 18561. 71 -35.1%
Non-chargeabli I
Agricultural I 324 .39 1 436.11 -25. 6%
Garbage i 14401.33 1 17009 . 77 -15.3%
Grass I 678 . 29 1 * -
' eaves/Grass I I
/Mulch i 2566 .96 1 3244 . 27 -20 .9%
Sand/Sod ( 5054 .13 1 6322.15 -20 .1%
Shellfish I 46 . 70 1 62. 81 -25.6%
Sludge I 876 . 34 1 521.26 - 68.1%
Wood Chips I 309 . 41 1 105. 22 194.1%
Household I I
Recyclables I 1690 . 07 1 978 . 66 72. 7%
I I
TOTAL: I 25947 . 62 1 28680 . 25 -9 . 5%
I I
GRAND TOTAL: ( 37999 . 85 1 47241.96 -19 .6%
I I
Waste Oil I I
(gallons ) I 16066 1 14261 12.7%
I
Toxics ( # of 55 I I
gal drums ) I 181 1 100 81. 0%
-------------
* Grass not counted separately until May 1991.
1/6/92 (revised 1/24/ SOUTHOLD TOWN COLLECTICN CENTER Paoe 2
1991 CUMULATIVE RECYCLING REPORT
Cumulative 1991 r^.ecyclina figures through DECEMBER 31
-------------------------------------
DECE"BER
1 ------------------------------------- YTD X CHANGE
Total X Change X Chanqe From ; TOTAL FROM YTD
OCT NOV Tons From Nov. December 1990 1 TONS LAST YEAR
--------- ----------- ------------- ' --------- ---------
HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING
Glass
Clear 28.44 22.87 23.30 1.9% 416.2'd 326.12 133.5%
Brown 4.00 4.00 1 4.00 0.0% 3.1% 39.02 86.5%
Green 10.37 11.56 1 10.01 -13.4% 5.41 1 139.86 97.2%
Plastic 12.00 6.26 9.05 44.6% 64.5% ; 95.31 110.7%
Cans 10.58 8.34 7.87 -11.01 14.41 123.45 134.5%
Newsoaper 61.59 74.44 ; 65.50 -12.01 4.6% 822.93 42.9%
Cardboard 11.40 10.80 ; 7.49 -30.6% 49.8% 123.32 170.8%
Car Batteries 1.34 1.34 ; 1.00 -25.4% -66.7% 15.20 -37.2%
HH Batteries 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.0% -37.5% 4.26 20.0%
HOUSEHOLD TOTAL: 139.97 140.36 128.47 -8.51 10.0% 1 1690.07 72.7%
Household Recycling ;
as X of Household ;
�rbage: 11.1% 11.4% 11.2% 13.4% 1 10.51
OTHER RECYCLING - 1
Office Paper 0.50 2.00 1 8.00 300.0% 1211.5% 1 14.57 647.2%
Leaf Mulch 93.92 97.74 1 47.83 -51.1% 19032.0% 1 911.42 3320.0%
Scrap Metal 48.82 35.55 1 45.81 28.9% -7.7% 1 6241.38 -10.1%
Tires 39.82 16.00 1 30.00 87.5% 20.0% 1 281.62 33.6%
Clean Wood 56.90 79.79 1 11.19 =86.0% f 208.11 f
Brush Compost 70.73 90.00 1 75.00 -16.7% * 1 2021.19 f
Outgoing Concrete - 118.41 1 - -100.0% 118.41
OTHER TOTAL: 310.69 439.49 1 217.83 -50.4% 188.6%. 4176.70 348.9%
GRAND RECYCLING ;
TOTAL: 450.66 579.85 1 346.30 -40.3% 80.1% 1 5866.77 207.3%
All Recycling ;
as X of Total ; 1
Waste Stream: 15.6% 14.6% 1 12.91 149.81 ; 15.4%
1
Waste Oil (gallons) 1170 1475 ; 1070 -27.5% -16.3% ; 16066 12.7%
Toxics (3 of 55 1 1
qal drums) 0 12 1 0 -100.0% -100.0% 1 181 81.0%
' ------------------------------------- '
NOTE: Recyclables are weighed only when they are removed from the collection center by a vendor.
Since not all recyclables are removed each month, some of the above figures are estimates.
f These items were not recycled in 1990.
1/6/92 (revised 1124192) SOUTHOLD TOWN COLLECTION CENTER. Page 1
1991 CUMULATIVE RECYCLING REPORT
Cumulative 1991 Recycling figures (in TONS) Through DECEMBER 31
JAN FEB MAP. APP, MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEPT
HOUSEHOLD RECYCLING
Glass
Clear 17.65 16.61 23.17 30.00 25.53 30.88 37.10 34.86 36.31
Brown 2.00 2.13 3.58 3.00 3.10 3.04 3.00 3.00 4.17
Green 9.52 8.00 9.75 9.95 11.64 15.04 17.53 13.73 12.76
Plastic 5.62 4.69 6.56 8.00 7.13 7.50 8.40 10.00 10.1
Cans 9.96 7.32 11.18 13.84 11.70 7.81 10.03 11.72 12.6
Newspaper 55.66 45.00 57.44 70.00 62.90 84.04 94.03 77.65' 74.68
Cardboard 8.34 7.74 11.63 9.72 11.50 12.79 10.29 10.22 11.4
Car Batteries 3.30 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.70 0.50 1.34 1.34 1.34
HH Batteries 0.25 0.53 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.35 0.50 0.50 0.31
HOUSEHOLD TOTAL: 112.30 97.99 124.61 145.81 134.70 161.95 182.22 163.02 163.67
Household Recycling_
as X of Household
Garbage: 10.2% 10.3% 11.0% 11.2% 10.9% 10.8% 10.3% 8.7% 10.0%
OTHER RECYCLING
Office Paper 0.57 0.70 0.70 0.20 0.20 0.20 0.50 0.50 0.50
Leaf Mulch 19.39 13.87 12.94 32.23 83.06 147.99 141.65 94.89 125.91
Scrap Metal 82.52 27.66 36.48 53.81 40.00 49.08 69.82 56.70 75.13
Tires 32.25 26.77 17.00 20.00 19.98 22.00 20.00 15.00 22.80
Clean Wood 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.39 10.00 5.67 8.06 14.76 17.35
Brush Compost 158.33 111.23 323.31 554.23 181.70 122.96 184.34 88.07 61.33
Outgoing Concrete - - - - - - - - -
OTHER TOTAL: 293.06 180.23 390.43 664.86 334.94 347.90 424.37 269.92 303.02
GRAND RECYCLING
TOTAL: 405.36 273.22 515.04 810.61 .469.64 509.95 606.59 432.94 466.69
All Recycling
as % of Total
Waste Stream: 19.0% 10.7% 15.9% 21.0% 11.B% 15.4% 18.1% 14.0% 16.1%
Waste Oil (gallons) 854 530 2317 1825 1585 1305 . 1580 940 1415
Toxics (# of 55
gal drums) 30 27 14 10 32 19 17 0 20
NOTE: Recyclables are weighed only when they are removed from the collection center by a vendor.
Since not all recyclables are removed each month, some of the above figures are estimates.
t These items were not. recycled in 1990. e
Southold Town Landfill
TOTAL WASTE LANDFILLED (in tons)
60
50 -
46,053
40
.. 34,355
v
c
N 30
0
r
20
10
0
✓ 1990 1991 (Projected)
At the current rate, 11 ,698 fewer tons will be landfilled in 1991 than in 1990.
This represents a 25.4% decrease in tons landfilled.
:-6-93 Page 2 SOUTHOLD TOWN COLLECTION CENTER
1992 CUMULATIVE MATERIAL SUMMARY
1992 Monthly Matlerial Summary (in TONS) Throuqh DEC 31
---------------------------------- ;
DECEMBER
---------------------------------- ; YTD X CHANGE
; Total X Change X Change from ; TOTAL FROM YTD
OCT p j/ ; Tons From Nov December 1991 ; TONS LAST YEAR
-------- -------- -------------- ;
--------- ---------
:tem
Chargeable ;
?rush 247.56 601.17 ; 614.47 2.2% 302.6% ; 4295.11 37.6%
C & D 717.43 522.32 ; 636.44 21.8% 61.0% ; 6687.51 53.6%
Concrete 41.39 12.95 ; 37.93 192.9%. 63.8% ; 445.61 38.9%
Landclearing 155.63 168.28 ; 183.60 9.11 115.0% ; 1608.99 82.1%
?jbbish (mixed) 231.95 202.28 ; 243.58 20.4% 65.4% ; 2614.79 5.9%
Scrap Metal 100.00 51.44 ; 25.73 -50.0% -43.8% ; 589.79 -5.2%
Tires 15.04 20.00 ; 23.56 17.81 -21.5% ; 230.18 -1B.31
70TAT: 1509.00 1578.44 ; 1765.31 11.8% 100.7% ; 16472.58 36.7%
Non-chargeabl ;
Aqricultural 107.37 267.47 ; 112.57 -57.9% 342.5% 634.09 95.5%
Garbage 1337.19 1464.98 ; 1139.02 -22.3% 11.8% ; 14536.49 0.91
Grass 96.18 14.5 ; 0.76 -94.8% -81.0% ; 922.45 36.0%
Leaves/Mulch 87.69 988.43 ; 685.49 -30.6% 17.5% ; 2713.32 5.7%
;and/Sod 127.59 24.30 ; 199.86 722.5% 699.4% ; 1279.10 -74.7%
Shellfish 18.60 21.24 ; 3.78 -82.2% 56.8% ; 76.71 64.3%
Sludge 60.70 35.26 ; 14.58 -58.7% -18.2% ; 312.56 -64.3%
Wood Chips 17.35 18.83 ; 21.2 12.67. 164.0% 204.10 -34.0%
Household
Recyclables 195.40 162.44 ; 176.63 8.7% 37.5% ; 2100.16 24.3;:
Waste Oil (tons) 5.89 6.52 3.95 -39.4% 1.1% 61.48 4.8%
TOTAL: 2053.96 3003.97 ; 2357.84 -21.51 30.0% ; 22840.46 -12.0%
GRAND TOTAL: 3562.96 4582.41 ; 4123.15 -10.0% 53.1% ; 39313.04 3.5%
Waste Oil ;
(gallons) 1615 1785 1081' -39.4% 1.1% ; 16844 4.8%
Toxics (# of 55 ;
gal drums) 18 19 ; 15 -21.1% ERR ; 138 -23.8%
---------------------------------- ;
1-6-93 SOUTHOLD TOWN COLLECTION CENTER
1992 CUMULATIVE MAIERIAL SUMMARY
Cumulative 1992 Monthly Material Summary (in TONS) Through DEC 31
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP
Item
Chargeable
3rush 214.55 98.84 202.49 953.95 371.35 327.42 249.96 202.33 211.62
b D 773.66 333.64 532.01 692.56 561.92 604.13 493.73 391.00 428.67
,oncrete 61.55 15.43 11.95 40.40 61.80 37.26 43.45 69.16 12.34
Landclearinq 118.95 64.03 124.11 148.87 123.59 140.50 157.24 84.08 140.11
Rubbish (mixed) 151.52 144.22 253.75 232.89 198.53 329.59 225.13 190.77 210.58
Scrap Metal 48.94 20.00 30.00 40.13 67.64 70.76 30.03 63.66 41.46
Tires 11.43 15.00 15.00 26.63 15.00 19.00 21.98 23.86 23.68
70TAL- 1380.60 691.16 1169.31 2135.43 1399.83 1528.66 1221.52 1024.86 1068.46
Non-chargeable
Agricultural 20.83 12.68 19.00 14.35 0.14 2.89 2.68 11.41 62.7
r3arbage 926.45 687.60 1139.46 960.59 1197.11 1250.64 1534.92 1518.64 1379.89
grass 0.00 0.13 2.03 31.66 182.69 191.81 120.54 158.34 123.81
Leaves/Mulch 87.25 29.05 107.03 335.86 154.16 98.03 66.67 47.96 25.70
Sand/Sod 138.93 5.06 46.85 94.82 142.69 75.30 84.00 188.30 151.40
Shellfish 0.20 0.12 0.03 0.00 2.85 14.13 11.85 1.72 2.19
Sludge 2.02 0.00 13.19 14.12 3.23 16.81 37.84 49.79 65.02
Wood Chips 1.71 9.47 7.60 10.49 26.39 7.64 34.14 23.16 25.52
Household
Recyclables 119.40 136.66 152.16 154.BB 185.94 225.43 189.51 205.66 196.05
3aste Oil (tons) 3.56 3.87 3.72 4.51 6.72 4.51 6.28 6.24 5.71
TOTAL: 1300.35 884.64 1491.07 1621.28 1901.92 1881.19 2088.43 2211.82 2037.99
hRAND TOTAL: 2680.95 1575.80 2660.38 3756.71 3301.75 3415.85 3309.95 3236.68 3106.45
Waste Oil
(gallons) 975 1060 1020 1235 1842 1235 1720 1710 1565
Toxics (t of 55
gal drums) 20 14 0 13 11 0 14 14 0
NOTE: 'Household Recyclables' are glass, plastic containers, tin and aluminum cans,
newspaper, corrugated, batteries, and office paper. Among chargeable items, scrap
metal and tires are also recycled.
.-6-93 Page 2 SOUTHOLD TORN COLLECTION CENTER
1992 CUMULATIVE MATERIAL SUMMARY
1992 Monthly Mattrial Summary (in TONS) Through DEC 31
' ---------------------------------- '
DECEMBER ;
---------------------------------- YTD X CHANGE
Total X Change X Change From TOTAL FROM YTD
OCT N O V 1 Tons From Nov December 1991 TONS LAST YEAR
' -------- -------- -------------- ' --------- ---------
'tem ;
Chargeable ;
Brush 247.56 601.17 614.47 2.2% 302.6% 4295.71 37.6%
C & D 717.43 522.32 636.44 21.8% 61.0% 6687.151 53.6%
:oncrete 41.39 12.95 37.93 192.9% 63.8% 445.61 38.9%
andclearinq 155.63 168.28 183.60 9.1% 115.0% 1 1608.99 82.1%
<ubbish (mixed) 231.95 202.28 243.58 20.4% 65.41 1 2614.79 5.9%
Scrap Metal 100.00 51.44 25.73 -50.0% -43.8% 589.79 -5.2%
'fires 15.04 20.00 f 23.56 17.8% -21.5% 230.18 -18.31
TOTAL: 1509.00 1578.44 1765.31 11.8% 100.7% 1 16472.58 36.7%
Non-chargeabl ;
agricultural 107.37 267.47 112.57 -57.91 342.5% 634.09 95.51
,arbage 1337.19 1464.98 1139.02 -22.3% 11.8% 14536.49 0.91
3rass 96.18 14.5 1 0.76 -94.8% -81.0% 922.45 36.0%
'-eaves/Mulch 87.69 988.43 ; 685.49 -30.6% 17.51 2713.32 5.7%
3and/Sod 127.59 24.30 1 199.86 722.5% 699.4% 1 1279.10 -74.7%
Siellfish 18.60 21.24 1 3.78 -82.2% 56.8% 76.71 64.3%
Sludge 60.70 35.26 14.58 -58.7% -18.2% 312.56 -64.3%
Wood Chips 17.35 18.83 21.2 12.6% 164.0% 204.10 -34.0%
aousehold ;
Recyclables 195.40 162.44 1 176.63 8.7% 37.5% 1 2100.16 24.3"
Taste Oil (tons) 5.89 6.52 f 3.95 -39.4% 1.1% f 61.48 4.8%
'OTAL: 2053.96 3003.97 1 2357.84 -21.5% 30.0% 1 22840.46 -12.0%
GRAND TOTAL: 3562.96 4582.41 1 4123.15 -10.0% 53.1% 1 39313.04 3.5%
Waste Oil
(gallons) 1615 1785 1 1082 -39.4% 1.1% 1 16844 4.87
Toxics (# of 55 ;
gal drums) 18 19 1 15 -21.1% ERR 1 138 -23.8%
1 ---------------------------------- ;
1/7/91
SOUTHOLD TOWN COLLECTION CENTER
• DECEMBER 1990
SCALEHOUSE MONTHLY REPORT
Cumulative 1990 Monthly Material Summary (in TONS) Through DECEMBER 31
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOY DEC TOTAL
Item
Chargeable
Brush 134.65 167.31 298.47 691.94 266.75 379.95 526.31 355.04 206.81 266.BB 336.92 216.00 3847.03
C & D 477.43 371.34 606.41 491.65 565.99 474.47 896.40 468.11 597.13 656.17 589.77 660.65 6855.52
Concrete 36.22 73.00 104.25 120.66 42.44 87.32 280.41 101.54 67.85 65.50 18.67 51.14 1049.00
Landclearing 150.58 626.17 1037.32 140.53 161.36 174.91 212.74 110.39 107.88 116.38 104.44 41.12 2983.82
Rubbish (mixed) 204.00 166.44 433.78 337.61 257.52 257.35 454.13 331.95 264.04 317.59 276.11 314.96 3615.48
Scrap Metal 57.31 51.77 57.31 52.16 42.19 49.89 53.14 70.68 56.29 109.18 41.37 49.62 690.91
Tires 16.54 14.95 16.54 24.05 23.27 20.00 14.27 15.56 10.00 8.68 22.00 25.00 210.86
TOTAL: 1076.73 1470.98 2554.08 1858.60 1359.52 1443.89 2437.40 1453.27 1310.00 1540.38 1389.28 1358.49 19252.62
Non-chargeable
Agricultural 38.37 11.13 5.66 10.72 5.56 0.52 2.36 65.73 85.79 72.93 77.32 60.02 436.11
Garbage 1234.37 962.64 1145.13 1264.33 1330.61 1603.99 2734.58 1776.54 1529.01 1297.51 1065.64 1065.42 17009.77
Leaves/Grass
/Mulch 48.00 43.32 182.78 397.47 407.14 357.40 394.04 254.99 187.77 239.74 312.64 41B.9B 3244.27
Sand/Sod 56.29 791.26 349.38 163.84 583.30 569.16 511.09 920.60 229.00 1039.59 361.02 747.62 6322.15
Shellfish - - 0.62 - 3.32 10.89 15.24 5.00 5.35 11.25 10.60 0.54 62.81
Sludge 20.66 17.17 18.04 37.03 8.44 58.00 142.01 66.65 41.23 33.04 69.34 9.65 521.26
Wood Chips - 4.27 10.36 4.85 - 10.10 10.98 20.25 10.47 19.28 7.72 6.94 105.22
Household
Recyclables 37.34 34.71 53.50 60.79 68.77 70.56 106.99 119.59 118.54 108.37 92.33 116.81 988.30
TOTAL: 1435.03 1864.50 1765.47 1939.03 2407.14 2680.62 3917.29 3229.35 2207.16 2821.71 1996.61 2425.98 28689.89
GRAND TOTAL: 2511.76 3335.48 4315.55 3797.63 3766.66 4124.51 6354.69 4682.62 3517.16 4362.09 3385.89 3784.47 47942.51
Waste Oil
(gallons) 1380 850 1125 1135 1390 555 1655 1145 1150 1265 1333 1278 14261
Toxics
(# of 55
gal drums) 17 - - 16 11 9 - 12 - - - - 65
NOTE: Non-chargeable °recyclables' are glass, plastic containers, tin and aluminum cans,
newspaper, corrugated, batteries, and office paper. Among chargeable items, scrap
• metal and tires are also recycled.
-1-
SOUTHOLD TOWN RECYCLABLES FOR 1990 AND 1991
AMOUNT
---------------------------
ITEM 1990 1991
--------- --------- ---------
Clear Glass 140 327
Green Glass 71 140
Brown Glass 21 39
Plastic 45 95
Tin & Aluminum Cans 53 123
Newspaper 576 823
Cardboard 46 123
Car Batteries 24 15
Household Batteries 4 . 3 3 . 6
Scrap Metal 691 621
Tires 211 282
Waste Oil (gallons ) 14, 261 16, 066
Household Hazardous
Waste ( # of 55-gallon
drums ) 100 181
Amounts in tons unless otherwise specified .