HomeMy WebLinkAboutRecycling Analysis 1989TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECYCLING ANALYSIS
DECEMBER 1989
U24AGROUP
HOLZMACHER, McLEND®N & MURRELL, P.C.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS
MELVILLE. N.Y. RIVERHEAD. N.Y. FAIRFIELD. N.J.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECYCLING ANALYSIS
DECEMBER 1989
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECYCLING ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1-1
2.0
EXISTING
CONDITIONS
2-1
2.1
Service Area of Town Waste Disposal
Facilities and Site Description
2-1
2.2
Population Statistics
2-1
2.3
Waste Disposal Practices
2-3
2.4
Waste Quantities and Composition
2-3
2.5
Recycling Efforts
2-8
3.0
PROJECTED
CONDITIONS
3-1
3.1
Service Area of Proposed Solid Waste
Program
3-1
3.2
Population & Impact on Waste Stream
and Schedule
3-1
3.3
Discussion of Disposal Strategies
3-2
3.4
Implementation of a Solid Waste
Management,Program
3-5
3.5
Impact of Recycling on Composting
Project
3-21
4..0
SUMMARY
4-1
I -i
H2MGROUP
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECYCLING ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Paste
1
Primary Constituents of Categories of
Mixed Municipal Refuse
2-4
2
Southold Solid Waste Quantities
2-6
3.
Southold Waste Composition Data
2-9
4
Summary of Existing Recycling Efforts at
Southold Landfill
2-13
5
Suggested Schedule of Events for Expansion
of Recycling Practices in Southold
3-6
6
Removal'of Recyclable Materials from the
Household Waste Stream Entering the
-Compost Facility
3-20
7
Waste Stream Destinations
3-22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Cutchogue Landfill Site Map 2-2
� F12MGROUP
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECYCLING ANALYSIS
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D.)
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
A Town of Southold Letter (4/26/89) to NYSDEC
B H2M Group Letter (8/1/89) to NYSDEC
C Market Identification Plan
D Recycling Analysis Market Identification
E Town of Southold Code: Chapter 48 - Garbage,
Rubbish and Refuse
F Sample Recycling Ordinance
G NYSDEC Letter (10/20/89) to Town of Southold
and Response to Comments
1.0 - INTRODUCTION.
Solid waste disposal issues have attained a crisis status in
New York State. For this reason, the State government has intro-
duced regulations governing disposal practices. The State
Department of Environmental Conservation-(NYSDEC) has prepared a
document entitled, "The Solid Waste Management Plan", intended to
guide local governments and their, constituents through the
disposal dilemma. In particular, the NYSDEC provides a hierarchy
which outlines the order of preference'of solid waste management
methods within the state. This hierarchy is detailed as follows:
■ waste reduction i.e. minimiz�e� packaging, produce
only what is necessary
• recycling and reuse.- obtaining raw material's from
used products or reuse materials for their original
intent
■ waste to energy - use resource recovery technology to
'. obtain the heating value (for energy production) from
those wastes that cannot be recycled or reused
■ landfill - as the last'option, bury those wastes that
cannot be recycled, reused or incinerated for their
energy'value
The intention of this hierarchy is to ,maximize economic
benefits derived from Ithe solid wastes while minimizing the
impact of the disposal practices on human health and the environ-
ment.
1-1
UWAGROUP
In'this direction,lthe. Town of Southold has taken an inter-
est in developing a comprehensive solid waste management program.
To achieve.or.surpass the NYSDEC's waste reduction/recycling goal
of 50 percent by 1997, a recycling program is being planned which
i
complements a proposed composting facility and potential landfill
expansion.
In addition to thel Solid Waste Management Plan, the NYSDEC
.l
promulgated regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 360, which govern the
construction and operation of solid waste management facilities.
Subdivision 1.9 (f) calls for the preparation of a Comprehensive
Recycling Analysis (CRA)l to accompany the application for permis-
sion to construct a facility such as the proposed composting
facility. The documentlis to include an analysis of the region's
. j
present and expected solid waste stream, a description of exist-
ing and proposed efforts to recycle wastes, a review of relevant
laws and ordinances and a description of those which must be
passed to allow implementation of the recycling program; an anal-
ysis of alternative management methods,, and an' analysis of
existing and potential markets,for the recyclables.
The Town 'of Southold submitted an application for a Permit
I
to 'Construct a Composting Facility to -the NYSDEC on December.31,
1988. This permit was reviewed by NYSDEC, and one of the review
comments -by NYSDEC that�was forwarded to the Town on January, 30,
1989, required the Town to submit a Comprehensive Recycling
i
Analysis for review and approval. Subsequent to those review
1-2
IH2MGl OUP
comments, a meeting was held at NYSDEC regional headquarters on
April 12, 1989, to discuss the composting project. At the meet-
ing, H2M Group representatives outlined the reasons for request-
ing a variance for the submittal .of the Comprehensive Recycling
1
Analysis. Mr. Paul M. Roth, P.E.,'of NYSDEC recommended that a
letter be written requesting the variance, and that NYSDEC would
{
review the request.
i
The letter requesting the variance was forwarded to Mr.
Robert Green, NYSDEC Permit Administrator, by the Town of
Southold on April 26, 1089. A copy of the letter is included as
Appendix A. The letter outlined the reasons why.. the Town of
i
Southold should be granted a variance from submitting a Compre-
hensive Recycling Analysis at this time.,
Based.on a subsequent meeting with the Town and.NYSDEC offi-
cials on June 12, 1989,+ it was discussed that the Town'may be
required to submit a "draft" recycling analysis rather. than a
Comprehensive Recycling i Analysis. On behalf of the Town, H2M
again submitted a letter on August 1, 1989, to Mr. Robert Green
1
,requesting the variance and providing an update oh,.the status of
the original request. on September 1, 1989, a letter from NYSDEC
was forwarded to the Town of'Southold denying its request for the
i
variance of the submittal of the CRA.
Prior to reviewing the September 1st NYSDEC letter, a
{
Recycling Analysis was, submitted to NYSDEC on behalf of the Town
of Southold. Since there were no NYSDEC guidelines on the
1-3
U2AAGROUP
required content of a Recycling Analysis, the contents of the
September document were based on interpretation of similar guide-
lines, use of engineering judgment and verbal discussions with
NYSDEC officials. The document included the majority of the
items required in the 'submittal for a Comprehensive Recycling
I
Analysis: a summary of the existing recycling, operations in the
Town, an estimate of the weights to be recycled, an implementa-
tion schedule of the proposed recycling program and a discussion
of the impact on the solid waste stream of the integrated recy-
cling/composting/landfilling operation in the Town of Southold.
I
In September and October, 1989, meetings were held with
NYSDEC to review their comments on the submission of the Septem-
ber 1989 Recycling Analysis. An October 20, 1989, letter
i
(Appendix G) from NYSDEC!summarized their comments on the initial
submittal. This document is considered to be a revised Recycling
Analysis and has been modified to include the NYSDEC comments
from the meetings and in the October, 20, 1989, letter. This
document includes a discussion of relevant legal requirements and
a discussion of educational efforts that may -be undertaken by the
Town and expands on the topics discussed in the'September 1989
Recycling Analysis.
1
In summary, the purpose of this document is to outline a
strategy to recover as much -as is feasible from the incoming
waste stream at the Town of Southold's Cutchogue Landfill. The
primary components of the strategy include the proposed municipal
1-4
F12MGROUP
solid waste composting project which will recover and process
organic wastes and a recycling program which, when fully imple-,
mented, will separate all non-organic recoverable materials.
OCR
HWAC4I OUP
2.0 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
2.1 - Service Area of Town Waste Disposal Facilities and Site
Description
The Town, of Southold is located on the North .Fork of Long
Island in Suffolk County, New York. The Town covers approxi-
mately 34,059 acres and is comprised of eight hamlets and an
incorporated village. The Town's landfill, located in the hamlet
of Cutchogue, is the site of the proposed composting facility and
recycling activities. A dropoff center where the present recy-
cling activities take place is located in the southeastern area
of the landfill. The active..face of the landfill is north of the
dropoff center, and a scale house, installed in July 1987 to
provide data for a waste stream analysis, is to the west of the
dropoff center. The site is shown in.Figure 1.
2.2 - Population Statistics
The population, as of January 1, 1988, for Southold Township
is, 21,395 according' to LILCO estimates. This population figure
represents year-round residents and does not account for seasonal
tourist variations. U.S. Census data for 1970 and 1,980 allow the
calculation of rates of population increase. There was an
average increase of 237 persons per year during the 1970's and
278 persons per year during the'19801s..
2-1
N
N
H
r�
UZktGROUP
The Town experiences seasonal fluctuations in population due
to the influx of people, during the summer months. Neither the
Town nor any organization within the Town maintains records of
seasonal population..
Based -on the quantity of
solid
waste
gener-
ated during the summer and discussions with
local
and
county
planning officials, it may be inferred that the four-month,
seasonal -only population (May 15 to September 15) is, approxi-
mately equal to the permanent. year_ -,round -population.
2.3 - Waste.Disposal Practices
The 'majority of residential waste is transported by the
homeowner and deposited at the landfill's dropoff center where
two 'compactor trailers contain those wastes that are not
recycled. The minority of residential- waste is picked up at
curbside by ,private waste collectors. Private carters also
transport waste from businesses and other commercial operations
to the landfill. All of -these .incoming wastes are simultaneously
weighed and classified by the scalehouse operator.
2.4 - Waste Ouantities and Composition
Wastes -entering the landfill are categorized into 16 incom-
ing`and four outgoing/recycled types which are described in Table
1. The primary generators ' of wastes deposited, at the .Cutchogue.
Landfill are Town residents, commercial operations and the Town
itself. Town residents dispose of approximately one-third of the
wastes, and commercial operations generate most of'the remainder.
The commercial waste includes items such as construction debris,
2-3
H2MGROUP
TABLE 1
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PRIMARY CONSTITUENTS OF CATEGORIES
OF MIXED MUNICIPAL REFUSE
Agricultural
Potatoes, vines, berries, grapes
Brush
Brush, shrub trimmings, branches
Cleanup debris
Mixed refuse from periodic Town cleanup
Construction debris
Construction, demolition material
Garbage
Household waste, food, textiles. -
Landscaping
Dirt, bushes, tree trunks
Leaves/grass
Grass clippings, leaves, twigs
Metal
Cans, wire, scrap iron, steel, aluminum
Paper
Newsprint, paper bags, cardboard, scrap
paper
Rubbish
Mattresses, furniture, carpeting, other
mixed refuse
Sand/fill
Sand, dirt, clay, stones, dust
Shellfishing debris
Shells, clams
Sludge
Sludge from wastewater and scavenger
waste treatment plants
Tires
Tires, rubber
Wood
Scrap lumber, rotten wood
Wood chips
Branches and wood passed through chipper
2-4
ti?MGROUF
concrete/asphalt, landclearing, agricultural and shellfish
debris. The Town generates some of the landclearing debris in
addition to sludge and sand/sod Town residents generally
dispose of leaves and grass, household waste and rubbish.
Quantities of waste weighed at the scale house and disposed
of at the landfill or removed"by recyclers for the period August
1987 through July 1989 are shown in Table 2. Southold, as
compared to towns' in western Long Island, generates greater
percentages of agricultural and shellfish debris because of its
predominant agricultural industries and less paper waste because
it does not contain many offices. Additionally, the area is
_k undergoing development;. therefore, construction and land clearing
o
wastes compose an unusually large percentage of the waste stream.
A review of the data in Table 2 for the first two years of
operation of the scale house shows some discrepancies. Several
factors may contribute to the fact that incoming weights for
metals and tires are not 'equal to outgoing weights. Not all
incoming wastes are accounted for; vehicles containing waste
weighing less than 20 pounds do not register at the weigh-in"
station scale because the level of accuracy of the scale operates
only in increments of 20 pounds. Any incoming waste may be
registered as belonging to an incorrect category if,the waste in'"
the vehicle is non-homogenous. Actions are being taken to
minimize any discrepancies in the data collection operations.
2-5
Table 2
Southold SCaIehOL'Se
Solid Waste Measurccents
Average daily
,eight by e.anth
ITPD)
Incoting haste
Aug.'67
Sept.'B7
Gct.'87
Nov.'87
Dec.'57
Jdn.'BB
Feb.'86
I'ar.'99
Apr.'89
May '66
Jun.'6E
Jc1.'88
DATES INCL
8/1-9/28
0/29-9/29
9/30-101'.8 10/29-111'15
11/26-12/30
12/31-1127 1128-2124
2/25-3/23
3/24-4/20
4/21-J/25 5i26-6122
6723-7/27
Agriculture
2.69
3.66
3.50
3.32
2.71
3.95
2.64
2.J6
2.63
0.36
E.06
0.41
Brush
13.90
12.52
14.41
11.03
4.27
1.26
3.10
13.39
:2.97
13.4E
14.67
14.09
Construction
36.38
17.60
:'2.:;9
7.87
20.64
12.50
17.53
23.97
- ='2.61
17.67
26.5E
21.47
Concrete/Bricks
62.45
105.06
11.13
7.30
9.12
1.72
1.82
9.13
4.t7
11.74
14.59
12.79
Household Bartaoe
B3.95
53.00
47.25
44.58
39.40
37.62
33.53
39.57
43.69
45.68
52.05
5E.31
Leases/Crass
5.10
4.18
6.85
21.45
1!.95
0.26
0.69
7.77
iB.23
!0.(14
9.9B
5.66
Landclearing
71.73
3!.56
25.51
49.02
2'J.68
7.74
12.17
4').18
60.36
30.51
32.71
53.19
Metal 12;
;-..'8
2.B4
3,16
11.60
2.3D
1.06
1.97
1.32
4.64
1.77
2.00.
2.11D
Paper (2)
0.25
0.05
0•ul
0.00
0.01
1.23
2.23
3.06
1.09
0100
1.13
0.61
Rubbish
8.50
9.76
7.92
11.25
8.22
7.21
9.42
19.12
22.03
27.14
17.93
17.PJ
Sand/Fill
76.23
27.03
11.09
.1.16
33.65
45.57
1.95
23.90
80.70
'26.25
26.20
38.73
Shellfish Debris
11.65
7.42
4.35
0.50
0.10
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.44
0.57
Sludge
0.00
0.00
1.03
1.44
6.45
0.19 5
0.31
0.42
3.31
2.28
1.45
2.35
Tires (2)
0.38
0.30
0.24
0.31
0.31
/1.12
(1.00
0.01
0.43
0.00
0.44
0.02
N Wood
3.20
3.09
2.30
1.47
0.39
0.42
1.07
3.04
5.23
3.48
2.E4
2.44
C
Total incoming
391.67
278.17
161.23
171.30
167,24
120.77
98.42
167.44
2E2.49
190.45
211.07
231.64
Conpostable (1)
114.29
83.17
81.00
99.07
75.05
51.62
51.91
85.89
103.95
98.98
105.27
100.3B
3 ZVO
J-176-,16
5810.0
dry,) y. 7o
Tjo3,JS-
6;332,,,10
-7182.g9'
Outgoing Waste
Recyc. Metal
3.28
2.84
3.16
2.60
2.30
1.08
1.97
1.32
4.64
1.77
2.00
2.10
Recyc. Paper
0.25
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.01
1.23
2.23
3.06
1.69
0.00
1.13
0.01
Recyc. Tires
0.3B
0.30
0.24
0.31
0.31
0.12
0.00
0.01
0.43
0.00
0.44
0.02
Total recycled
3.91
3.19
3.41
2.91
2.62
2.43
4.20
4.39
6.16
1.77
3.57
2.93
Fercent of total
1.D2
1.15
2.11
1.70
1.57
2.01
4.75
2.34
2.18
0.93
1.69
1.26
(1) Includes Agricultural, Brush,
Household
Garbage, Leaves/Grass, Rubbish, Sludge
and Paper
(2) Metal (until 12/60), Paper and
Tires (until
12189) only
measured
as outgoing
material; amount incoming
Bust at least be amount
outgoing
6157-7189
Avg, R ci Total
3.04 1.47
10.62 5._'5
20.77 10.06
20.95 10.17
45.22 23.41
9.J. 4.1.;
36.7'. 17.62
2.42 1,!8
0.62 3.40
14.37 6.99
32.97 1J.96
2.-')9 1.01
1.77 0.86
0.21 0.10
2.42 1.18
206.00 100,00
87.55 42.50
2,!2
032
0.21
\ 4 gy
0
butobino Iunaae aq )sea( Ie Isna 6ulmowl lunare 11PP0129 butabino se painseaa Aluo 188/ZI ltlun) sa/tl pup jadvd 6198/ZI illun) leiap (Z)
W l
sdiq)poofl
pue jade,[
'afipnlS 'gstggn8 'Sseu9/3aAeal 'a6egleg
plagasnoN 'gsnig
LS '£
IZ'Z
16'£
i£'f
16'Z
6119
ff'0
69'1
811'0
111'0
Zt'0
(?jai )o iva3ua.4
65'0
1811
Zf'f
69'1
Z6'0
WE
61.7
tL'S
SO'Z
OVI
till
Z6'0
9010
69'0
9010
00'0
1.110
Wit
o£'LL
601t
ZO't(
WN
iB'99
o0'O01
9.11981
00'001
9VILi
41'8£1
0!'611
WO
99'0
50'0
Belo
£1'O
9010
ZI'i
Lri'Z
0111
50'1
Zi'Z
L6'O
SI'O
BZ'O
OZ'0
1£'o
00'o
11.1'0
39'd
93'.
15'0
B8'o
OS'(
toll
6S'O
60'1
90'0
11'O
ZZ'O
IO'0
SZ'Si
9.1'8.1
6f'ti
ZL'1Z
f61Zi
01'B
IZ'7
iS'lt
ZV.;
il'6
Z6'S
8.117
f5'o
86.0
9L'O
0£1
66'i
Z6'0
90.1
L6'1
WO
19'1
Ll'1
WI
WO
S£'Z£
08'91
59'8.1
06'01
66'£1
C9'£
6L'9
LO'£
LZ'S
6f•Z
SCO
661:.1
t£11r
oS'9ZZS'S6
bulvo3u! legal
19'09
ZO'1t
C1'a
^1191
09'9
19'6
OL'£
991
61'.11
69'.1.1
91'91
8 17Z
191£.1
191H
1£10
Ltr'0
£61Z
tilt
00'0
00'0
9.1'S
SL'6
HIS
69'6
it'll
Zl'Ol
fO'0
70'0
1010
90'0
00'')
4Z'0
WI,
1917
aZ'1
61'Z
01'0
Z010
6611
00'0
Zf'I
86'1
£/8-1!L
of14-V9
;vlal )a I;
'DAV
legal )a %
6Atl
681'inf
69.'uni
6811 -La.?
63/1-a8/8
10'0
SI'0
0
butobino Iunaae aq )sea( Ie Isna 6ulmowl lunare 11PP0129 butabino se painseaa Aluo 188/ZI ltlun) sa/tl pup jadvd 6198/ZI illun) leiap (Z)
p.luo3 Z algvl
r
ry
sdiq)poofl
pue jade,[
'afipnlS 'gstggn8 'Sseu9/3aAeal 'a6egleg
plagasnoN 'gsnig
1leunllrotj6tl sapnl3ul (11
IZ'Z
trZ'i
r6 t
fC'f
6119
L8'i
69'1
O£'Z
1611
116'1
(?jai )o iva3ua.4
SL'tr
1811
Z01
Bf'f
90'9
WE
L6'f
tL'S
9Z11
£t't
pa1343au [viol
Z6'0
0010
69'0
9011
49'0
0010
5011
i5'O
9110
S£'0
saill 3A3ay
00'1
(o'I
08'0
6511
f6'1
98'0
1111
Z611
Z111
L5't
Jaded •3A388
WE
SS'0
19'1
till)
01't
8£'Z
0911
SI'f
61'Z
it'Z
Niall '3A398
00'0
611)
0010
00'0
00'0
00'0
00'0
9110
00'0
0110
s3!19iie8 •3A33a
alseg 6u1061ng
21'AJ,f.S
Qh'llb�
lj:'Z'�c�te
®i.'�t�°1 �t.'b9b9
8619
7,B'LL
WE
69'OS
08'19
Z1'ZS
9Z'Z6
L9'I6
21'06
11'96
(ll algelsod3aj
SZ'91Z
85'S61
0£'891
19'06
L819i1
Z4'ZLI
Bf'OiZ
li'6K
6L'61Z
f8'bZ7.
bulvo3u! legal
00'0
ol'0
Zl'0
-
-
-
-
_
sdtg3pooR
Zf'I
Z1'1
tS'I
1£10
Ltr'0
06'9
61'Z
6911
ZS'Z
Lt'I
Will
1.110
81'n
il'o
SI'O
8010
ZB'O
9011
iS'0
9£'0
S£'O
(ZI Sa/tl
66'0
SO)
68'0
SI'0
Wo
6611
00'0
Zf'I
86'1
l0'Z
a6pniS
SO'0
OO'O
00'0
00'0
00'0
110'0
Z£'0
96'0
10'0
SI'0
s!Jga0 4s!)llags
t0'S1
60'9
£Slit
tt'9
0£'iZ
tZ'91
99'9
9£'9Z
LS'ff
Wirt
illi/purl
10'4
99'1
O6't
LZ't
11£'9
SS'ol
1971
99'91
6L'fl
L£'Si
gslggnI
00'1
LO'I
0810
6S1T
[111]
98'0
111
Z61
ZVI
(Z'I
(.1l jade.,
B£'O
L6'o
S6'O
19'0
OL'o
6611
08'1
Si'f
611 Z
Itr'Z
(ZI ivlay
LZ'iZ
£i'4Z
081Z
Bt'O1
0110
t0'O4
01'66
fS'Oi
11'11
89'15
6utJe313puel
tali)
9911
ot'Z
ff'1
OS'£
0£'S
6[16.1
04'L
ZI'tr
69'11
SSe J9/5a Aeal
ft'9t
L7'tS
L9'B£
Zo't£
WK
6S'9Z
98'011
SZ•911
LZ'iS
68'89
a6equeg plogasno;{
L.'S
L6'£
9f'C
117.16
S01
691S
SZ'01
9C'S6
Li'S
9£'ST
s'13!/8[818 nua3
OS'0Z
61'61
611'81
0'9I
11'91
OS'CZ
S£'Zf
Z6'Bf
ta'S
ZZ'9Z
uo1llnJlsu3J
£1'9Z
SI'6
00'0
0010
00'0
00'0
6C'tI
OP %)
00'0
00'0
st;gaq do-ueal3
S1'L
9116
We
11'9
Z8'9
Z619
66'9
tB'41
10'111
70'Zi
gsn.3
00'3
61'0
00'0
0010
00'0
00'0
00'0
91'0
OO'0
01'0
sal.allea
Ot'O
6t'Z
St'Z
ZS'£
119'5
ot'l
9111
LO Z
Z01
SS'Z
ajnlln'!j6tl
I£IS I/S
0:'!t -I/1
1£1£-11£
8Z/Z-1/Z
I£/1 -11T
I£/ZI-11.11
O£/IT-f/ll Z!11-9101 9/01-T/6
f£/9-9Z/t
13NI S31N0
b8. AvN
68.'jdtl
69,1few
68,'gad
68.11)ei
88.'3-19
Ba.'AoN
86.118
B8.'Idas
88.-fiq
alse;i MIMI
(0d1) givao Aq Ig6tan Al!ep a6e.jantl
sluavamseap
aisep! ptlog
a3ro'4ale3S ploglnoS
p.luo3 Z algvl
r
ry
IHZktG�OLP 0,
Vub
Table 2 also shows a moderate/ decrease in average tons of
solid waste per day from 1987-88 to19.88-89. This may be
explained in part by the initiation on January 1, 1989 of charg-
ing per weight of waste deposited at the landfill. It is antici-
pated.that once neighboring municipalities charge for disposal at
rates similar to Southold, the weight of solid waste entering the
landfill will increase to its former levels.
In May 1989, Daneco, Inc., conducted a compositional analy-
sis of the household solid waste that is deposited in the
Cutchogue Landfill. The analysis was conducted to provide the
composting vendor with baseline information on the composition of
the household solid waste. Daneco: took samples of household
waste from both the private waste .collectors and the compactor.
trailers located in the dropoff center which are filled by
residents who dispose of their own waste. Table 3 shows the
types and quantities -of household wastes separated during, the
six-day period. The average values of this data can be used to
estimate the weights of the recyclable and compostable components
of the household garbage portion of the waste stream.
2.5 - RECYCLING EFFORTS
Voluntary recycling programs currently exist at the dropoff
center for seven materials. Recycled wastes may include those
deposited by the Town, Town residents or commercial groups. The
programs .are operated based on contracts negotiated between- the
Town- and private haulers. Records are kept of quantities of
2-8
t ;2AGROUP
_m y T m P o Y11 O O m N ul r O
P r a ? J
� O
>f
q w O
Y7 M1 H P M1 ) O P M r M1 N O H �
y -0
L D
M
P-0 M1 y P O d rt rt lit u) m N r
Y
rt m m m w M1^� O
q M1 N O
O
K
K
N w N H rt M1 N N rt CI .� Y7 N T m^ P N
Y7
S
1 O O O H m O N
q _o
= rt m =
N h T
L a+
S D
m N
N_ ^ M O O--0 N -------- O
r N -0 m
y
Z
N q m^ M N N H Y H O d M1
M1 O
O N d 11'1 d N y w m N w^ h-0-0 O
L O
S M
m
N T ^ N H w w N
Z
2.9
pa rt^ P O O T N M1 m
^ m rt O
m m � Yl Y7 ^ N P rt M1 N M1 rmf ^
N � a
r M
tl O
to ~
• N ^ N T r
r O
S N
P
1
w rt�Qf O N S ti V7 ^ O
N -0 11'1 N m m O T M1 1/-1
T O
O N m ry P 1/'9 .^O N-0 rt N M1 Y7 P n O
9- 0
S M
m^ P !� Ifl P M1 M1 M1 H 1!'1 H
-O a O m✓ T N ^ N N S rr'f N �
Z
r R N m m-0 Z N d Z A t, N O
rm m M1 .► P rt N N H u7 h
a ra
P w N O Y'9 M1 Y7 T 11'1 N P O Y' M1 N M1
11'1 d N P P m • N m � d O 11"1 d
^
rN = w y d M r N N M N
Y! � M1
O
^ (V Y7 rt w
S O
M
m
o- N M r N
Z
t- W4GROUP
waste removed for billing purposes, but only batteries, metal,
paper and tires are weighed before they are removed from the
landfill. The lower portion of Table 2 shows the weights of some
of the materials which are removed from the landfill and thereby
recovered from the waste stream. Presently only the town
residents who use the dropoff facility participate in the
recycling program. Waste that is collected by private waste
haulers is currently not recycled.
Because some of the materials that are currently recycled
are easily identified and separated from other wastes (i.e., car
batteries, wa'Oe oil, household hazardous wastes), the recycling
participation rates for these materials should be quite high. U�
The following describes each existing recycling process in. more
detail.
Newspapers are voluntarily left in a cart inside the
dropoff center. The cart's contents are emptied by
Town employees into. one of two trailers, located
outside of the dropoff center..
These trailers
are
periodically
removed by B.P. Wreckers. The.
Town
negotiates a
yearly contract on a bid basis
for
recycling of
these wastes.'
- Waste oil is
voluntarily emptied
by participants
into
a steel container enclosed in a
shed outside of
the
dropoff center.
The steel.container
is supported
by
a concrete pad.
Strebel's
Laundry of
Westhampton
is
2-10
FWAGROUP
paid by the Town to remove this recyclable waste -on a
periodic basis.
- Household batteries are voluntarily placed.in one of
two drums located in the dropoff center. Buckets are
also located in local grocery stores, hardware stores
and pharmacies for more convenient disposal. These
buckets are periodically collected from.the stores by
Town employees. The Town pays an Albany firm to
remove the drums of.batteries for recycling.
Tin, aluminum and iron - Small items are voluntarily
left in a cannister (a cut-out fuel tank) just out-
side the dropoff center or in rolloff containers near
the entrance to the landfill. Larger items are
brought to an inactive area in the landfill. B.P.
Wreckers is paid by the Town to recycle tin, but alu=
minum and iron are recycled at no cost.
- Household hazardous wastes were previously recycled
through a STOP (Stop Throwing Out Pollutants) program
which was discontinued approximately one year ago.
Now wastes are voluntarily left on a shelf or table
inside the dropoff center and transferred to a
hazardous waste containment shed just outside the
center. The wastes are periodically recycled by
Chemical Pollution Control of Bay Shore, New York, at
a significant cost to the Town.
2-11
� H2MC��01P
- Rubber tires are voluntarily left in a dumpster near
the entrance to the landfill. This dumpster is peri-
odically emptied into a large trailer and recycled by
Connecticut Tire Recycling of Connecticut at a cost
i_ to the Town.
Car batteries are voluntarily left' on a wooden skid
just outside the dropoff, center. P&K Metals, Inc.,
of Medford, New York, is paid by the Town to recycle
the batteries ,�,
t KO
Some of,the above mentioned programs for recycling materials
have been conducted over a 10 to 15 -year period. Table 4 summa-
rizes the number of years that the programs have been in effect
and the estimated quantities of waste recycled as a result of the
programs.
A phone survey of the 12 industries listed in the Long
Island, NY Directory of Manufacturers was conducted to get an
indication of private recycling efforts in Southold. For the
most part, these businesses dealt with the import or
manufacturing of items for the marine industry and generated
relatively insignificant amounts of waste = all of these firms
employed fewer than 50 people.
The 'waste was typicallypackaging materials including
cardboard and,,astic, and office paper. Generally, the wastes
were transported to the Cutchogue Landfill by either private
carting service or employees of the company. Reuse of certain.
packaging materials was common but recycling of paper and
2-12
Q�
C
TABLE 4
SUMMARY OF EXISTING RECYCLING EFFORTS AT SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
Method of Pavment for Recvclinq
B.P. Wreckers pays Town on an
annual contract
Town pays Strebels Laundry
Town pays Albany firm
Town pays B.P. Wreckers
Taken away at no cost by
B.P. Wreckers
Town pays Chemical Pollution
Control of Bay Shore
Town pays Connecticut
Tire Recycling
P & K Metals, Inc of Medford
pays Town
* Preliminary data - approximate figures based on discussion with landfill operators and review of
Town records.
Number of Years
Quantity of
Material
Program in Effect
Waste Recycled*
Newsprint I
10-15±
•
1 45 tons/month
I
I
Waste oil 1
_ 10±
I
1 275 gal/week
I
Household 1
1±
16 fifty-five gal
batteries F
I drums/year
Scrap metal I1
Tin 1
15±
1.60 cu. yd/week
Alum + Iron 1
I
15±
I
I
i
Household I
1±
1 15 fifty-five gallon
hazardous waste)
I drums/quarter
Rubber tires I
1.5±
11000 tires/2.5 months
Car batteries I
1±
1 360 batteries/quarter
Method of Pavment for Recvclinq
B.P. Wreckers pays Town on an
annual contract
Town pays Strebels Laundry
Town pays Albany firm
Town pays B.P. Wreckers
Taken away at no cost by
B.P. Wreckers
Town pays Chemical Pollution
Control of Bay Shore
Town pays Connecticut
Tire Recycling
P & K Metals, Inc of Medford
pays Town
* Preliminary data - approximate figures based on discussion with landfill operators and review of
Town records.
1
U2/*tGROUP
Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.G. • Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, Inc. • H2M Labs, Inc.
Engineers, Architects, Planners, Scientists
575 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, N.Y. 11747-5076
(516) 756-8000 0 (201) 575-5400
January 3, 1990
Supervisor Scott L. Harris
and Members of the Town Board
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Town of Southold
Solid Waste/Sludge Composting Facility
Recycling. Analysis
SOHT 8903
Dear Board Members:
I have enclosed six (6) copies of the revised Recycling
Analysis prepared by our office. The revised Recycling �.
Analysis was submitted to NYSDEC on December 29, 1989. The
analysis details the categories of materials that the Town i
currently recycles, provides an estimate of volumes recycled
along with the mode of transportation and disposal. The
analysis also provides a schedule for the implementation of
an expanded voluntary/mandatory recycling program throughout
the Town.
This proposed schedule was presented to the Town -at a June
29, 1989 meeting in which the recycling program was
discussed. The schedule calls for the Town to expand its
current voluntary recycling program at the drop-off center
and to initiate mandatory recycling in a phased approach
starting in 1990. Mandatory recycling would be completely
phased in at the drop-off center during 1991. Mandatory
recycling for private collection would be initiated during
1991.
The Recycling Analysis was initially submitted to NYSDEC on
September 11, 1989. Since the initial submittal, we have s
received comments from NYSDEC on three (3) separate.
occasions. Two (2) of these occasions were meetings with
NYSDEC on 9/22/89 and 10/13/89 and the third occasion was a
10/20/89 letter from NYSDEC to the Town. All the comments
from the three.(3) occasions have been incorporated into the
revised Recycling Analysis.
Melville, N.Y. 0 Riverhead, N.Y. 0 Fairfield, NJ. j�'
H2AtGROUP
cardboard waste was not practiced at present. In either case, if
the material is transported to the Town landfill, the Town may
require recyclable materials to be separated.
2-14
3.0 - PROJECTED CONDITIONS
3.1 - Service Area of Proposed Solid Waste Program
The service area of the proposed composting and recycling
programs is the Town of Southold and, in particular, those who
use the facilities at the Cutchogue Landfill. These may include
residents, commercial and industrial groups and the Town. Other
specifics of the region are detailed in Section 2.1.
3.2 - Population and Impact on Waste Stream
According to U.S. Census statistics, population in the Town
of Southold has been increasing, on the average, by 257 persons
per year over the past two decades. According to population
projections contained in the NYSDEC Division of Water's Water
Quality Management Plan, these increases are expected to continue
at a lower rate of approximately 200 persons per year for the
next two decades, resulting in an estimated population of 26,000
people by the year 2010. This is approximately a one percent
increase per year and a 15 percent increase over the next two
decades.
Long Island residents generate on the average more than
eight pounds of waste per day according to NYSDEC's Solid Waster
Management Plan. This figure is generally lower for residents on
the East End. Regardless of the actual waste generation rates,
population increases during the long term may have a significant
impact on the Town's solid waste stream. Additionally, if
historical trends continue as predicted in the Solid Waste
3-1
N2A+GRouP
Management Plan, the figure for average waste production per
{
person, should increase. According to the Franklin Associates
report,,"Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S.",
the compositional breakdown of household wastes may also change -
more paper and plastic wastes and fewer food, glass and metal
wastes are expected. Future recycling, composting and land-
filling efforts may be impacted greatly :over the long term as a
result of the above changes.
3.3 Discussion of Disposal Strategies
The NYSDEC, in their Solid Waste Management Plan, proposes a
hierarchy of management strategies with waste reduction being the
preferred alternative. The reduction'of packaging wastes which,
according to the Solid Waste Management Plan, comprise one-third
of the wastes produced in New York State,, is a primary target of
NYSDEC. By appealing to the buying habits of 'consumers, the
NYSDEC hopes to reduce -the -volume of packaging wastes by approxi-
mately eight percent by 1997.
Reuse can also reduce the generation of solid waste at the
source. For example, consumers can reuse shopping bags at a
supermarket, refill milk containers at a dairy store or restore
furniture. New York State DEC',has proposed to take a leading
role in creating incentives to reuse materials and reduce waste
.quantities.
Eventually, materials must 'be disposed of. In order to
further reduce the waste stream destined for the landfill and
3-2
.
UD4GROUP
extract the remaining resource value from these materials, the
Town of Southold will institute a recycling program. Materials
that are commonly recycled are waste paper, newsprint, cardboard,
ferrous metals,, aluminum, glass, rubber tires and plastic
containers made of polyethylene (PET) or high-density polyethy-
lene (HDPE). In addition, household waste, agricultural waste,
yard wastes, sewage sludge and wood can be recycled into an
organic soil amendment by a.composting process. 'Paper may be
either. source -separated ,and recycled or recycled through the
composting process. NYSDEC has recognized the process of
composting as a type of recycling.
a) Alternative Actions
Solid waste management alternatives must be explored for I a
variety of reasons. Primarily, an analysis will assist in deter-
mining the option or combination of a options most suitable for
the Town of Southold. Additionally, it may be necessary to
provisionally implement an alternative during the start-up of the
chosen program, therefore it is useful to be aware of the exis-
tence of these alternatives. Finally, these alternatives may in
the future become integrated into the program chosen for
Southold..
b) - Use of Brookhaven or Islip Facility
Two nearby towns, Islip and Brookhaven, which are planning
construction of Material.Recovery Facilities have been contacted.
3-3
WICKHAM'S FRUIT FARM
Route 25, Cutchogue, Long Island, New York �11935
����
Tel. (516) 734-5637 l `,�
r �� 0
� 6 i
N2JHGROUP
Both expressed interest in accepting Southold's recyclables based
on available excess capacity.
r
At the moment, Brookhaven is planning a facility which will
process 6,00 tons per day (TPD) of commingled recyclables;
construction is expected to take six to nine months pending
approval of a permit application. This facility will accept
newspaper and, in a commingled state, glass, cans, plastic, metal
and tin. The' Islip facility, located in Sayville, currently
processes about 90 TPD and normally runs at full capacity. An
expansion to 215 TPD is to take place over the next 18 months.
The facility currently accepts mixed paper, ferrous, glass,
aluminum and -cardboard. Use of either of these facilities may be
necessary, as an interim measure during implementation of
.Southold's Solid Waste Management Plan..or on a permanent basis to
i! receive the commingled recyclables, collected at curbside by
private carters.
c) Regional Materials Recovery Facility -Five East End Towns
Other cooperative efforts are being considered for the near
future. Towns in Suffolk County are planning to unify recycling
efforts by strategically locating, and sizing other Material
Recovery Facilities.In, addition to the Brookhaven and Islip
facilities, a facility has been suggested for the five East End
Towns. These five towns, in total, produce about as much waste
as individual western Suffolk towns, making a combined effort
well-advised. The benefits of cooperative recycling include more
3-4
IHZ*AC7RO LP
`r. stable production .of and markets for recyclables, lower adminis-
tration costs and improved communication between towns who
4 formerly competed in the recyclables market. 'Although Southold
may maintain an independent solid waste management, program, it
may become a small part 'of the larger East End recycling effort
centered around the above-mentioned Materials Recovery Facility
3.4 - Implementation of a Solid Waste Management Program
This document -was prepared to support a permit application
for a municipal solid waste composting facility. The facility
will process all organic wastes presently disposed of at the
landfill. Along.with a comprehensive recycling program and .land-
filling of residuals, these will comprise the Southold solid
waste management program for the reasons outlined below.
Common options exist such as constructing and operating an
incinerator, multitown. MRF or a composting facility complemented
by a low -technology recycling program. The latter waste manage-
ment program would minimize costs, provide the smoothest
transition from the existing program and would not conflict with
the Town's participation in the proposed East End MRF.
a) Organization of Recycling Program
It would be most advantageous to the 'Town to expand existing
1I� recycling practices at the collection center. This would provide
a smooth transition from an existing practice as compared to a
' change.to a different type of waste recycling technology. Table
5 provides a suggested schedule of events to achieve this transi-
3-5
� 0,
TABLE 5
SUGGESTED SCHEDULE OF EVENTS.
FOR THE EXPANSION OF
RECYCLING PRACTICES IN SOUTHOLD*.
(Intended to spread out costs.to Town and incrementally introduce
participants to a complete recycling program)
Winter 1990 Continue waste stream analysis, accumulate
data on drop-off center participation rates,
update landfill scale house waste volume
w records, plan expansion of recycling program
at drop-off center, make community aware of
impending recycling efforts
Survey the recycling efforts of neighboring
�{\¢�A communities in Western Suffolk/Nassau
Counties, inquire into possibility of cooper-
ative recycling on a contingency basis
Encourage development of 5 East End towns
P
recycling effort, investigate possibility of
utilizing neighboring town's operating mate-
rial.recovery facilities (i.e. Brookhaven and
Islip) on an interim basis
Summer 1990 Introduce voluntary glass recycling at drop-
off center - purchase roll -off containers
sized according, to, results of ,waste stream
analysis and requirements of recyclables
buyer, separate glass into grades/colors if
advantageous.
14, , Start planning voluntary curbside pickup of
commingled recyclables -and purchase roll -off
containers' for convenient sites - shopping
centers, schools; identify potential pilot
study areas for in-depth look at curbside
pickup program
Winter 1991 Introduce voluntary recycling of plastic
containers and ledger, paper/cardboard to.
drop-off center - purchase roll -off contain
ers and separate grades as necessary
Select one carter to initiate 'a voluntary
curbside pickup program, determine partibipa-
tion rates and operation costs; initiate
pilot study program for curbside collection
3=6
i
Spring 1992 Town to pass, legislation for instituting
mandatory recycling and any solid -waste flow
control ordinances required.
Summer 1992 Introduce voluntary' wood recycling to drop-
off center, initiate separation of aluminum
and ferrous metals - purchase roll -off
container and separate grades, as necessary -
update on participation rates at drop-off
center
Enforce mandatory newspaper recycling at
drop-off center
Fall 1992 Enforce mandatory glass recycling at drop-off
center
Expand voluntary commingled curbside pickup
--` to remaining Town carters, evaluate results
of pilot study program for curbside collec-
tion
Winter 1993 Enforce mandatory plastic and ledger
paper/cardboard recycling at drop-off center
Determine effectiveness of commingled" curb-
side pickup and update data on participation
rates at drop-off center
Spring 1993 Enforce mandatory wood, aluminum and ferrous
metal recycling at drop-off center; initiate
mandatory source separation by curbside
pickup,participants.
* Assuming completion of composting facility. Mulching of yard
waste should be undertaken until .completion of composting
facility. This facility will recycle leaves, grass, brush,
food waste, sludge and agricultural waste, accounting .for a
large portion of the remaining wastes.
r
3-7
1
tion. This expansion would require that the Town purchase
several additional intermediate -sized rolloff containers for use
in the collection center. These allow for collection of glass,
metal, ledger paper, plastic and cardboard, items which are
presently not collected. Recycling ata dropoff center would not
only be a less costly alternative than constructing an MRF or
providing curb service to all residents but would lend itself to
enforcement by Town personnel at the center.
Curbside collection of recyclables will still be necessary
for those town residents who are now serviced by private carters.
This will also involve a phased -in approach starting with a
voluntary program collecting commingled recyclables and culminat-
ing in a mandatory program collecting source -separated
recyclables (Table 5). The Town may choose to supply separate
conspicuous recycling containers to these residents. This has
been done in western Suffolk towns such as Islip and Smithtown
and has achieved high participation rates. Materials. will
temporarily stored at the collection center.
For source -separated materials, intermediate processing may
not be necessary but depends on the buyer. These materials may
be `sold directly to a recycling firm or collected with the
recyclable materials of nearby towns for sale to a large-scale
end-user. Commingled recyclables collected at curbside will be
processed in an MRF, whether it be in an'existing facility or the
proposed East -End facility, for eventual sale to an end-user.
3-8
i
Materials presently disposed of at the Cutchogue Landfill by
businesses, industries and other commercial operations must also,
be considered as they compose a large percentage of the waste
stream. This includes agricultural, construction and shell fish
debris, concrete and bricks, landclearing, sand/fill and wood.
Agricultural debris and any- other organic materials will be,
processed in the composting facility, but_ attempts must be made .
to recycle the wastes, such as concrete, bricks and components of
construction debris, which are capable of being recycled. These
materials could be deposited and stored at inactive areas of the
.landfill to eventually be transported to one of the firms listed
in Appendix D that recycles these materials.
All recycling efforts must be planned so as to be adaptable
to fluctuations in quantities of materials handled by the
program. These fluctuations may be a result of population
changes, changes in participation rates or changes in recycling
technologies. A minimal technology employing source -separation
by residents using the collection center into rolloffs and
subsequent -hand -sorting is most easily,adaptable to changes. The
composting facility has been designed considering these potential
changes.
F
d
3-9
H2M _ROUP
b) Personnel and Responsibilities
y There are three general areas into which the responsibili-
ties in the recycling program fall: program coordination, promo-
tion/education and operations.
The Town Board will appropriately assume the program coordi-
nation role. Program coordination responsibilities include:
providing the impetus for program implementation, coordinating
all aspects of the program, and providing information and assis-
tance when requested. While it is expected that the East End
Regional Recycling Program Manager will help in these efforts,
the Town may need to hire a recycling coordinator for'Southold or
arrange for recycling coordination activities' to be distributed
among various departments to meet these responsibilities.
Promoting active public participation is essential in any
recycling program that collects recyclables primarily through'
source separation. Residents and businesses need to separate out
their recyclables and properly prepare them for collection in
accordance with program instructions. The Town is responsible
for raising public awareness. of the program and educating -the
lam'
public on how to recycle.�_�
The operations role.will be filled by the private haulers,,
the Town's Department
of Public Works
and
possibly by
other
private organizations.
The Department
of
Public Works
will
continue to operate, maintain and monitor the collection center
_t
and direct transfer of the recyclables to market. The Department
may also take on additional activities including organic wastes
3-10
IHVAGI OUP
composting on an interim basis until the composting facility
becomes .operational and, if necessary, some can ana glass
container sorting. With the implementation of the mandatory
recycling plan,' the role of the Department of Public Works is
' likely to expand due to increased activity in the collection
center, greater quantities .of, recyclables generated and new
sorting responsibilities. This new level of effort will be
determined as the proposed activities are implemented.
c) Public Education Efforts and Incentives
An effective promotion and education program -is crucial for
developing source -separation habits in the Town. Promotional
activities increase public awareness of the recycling program.
Educational activities inform residents and businesses of how
i they can participate and of -the importance of their participa-
tion. Promotional/educational campaigns will generate higher
participation rates by capitalizing on the existing potential for
source separation. -
It is important to develop a planned, organized public
promotional/educational program°that will provide consistent and
effective information timed for release with milestones in the
implementation of the recycling program. Promotion and education
must be an ongoing component of the recycling program. Experi-
ences of other communities indicatethat the Town should consider
retaining professional public' relations services for its promo -
3 -11
HZktGROUP
tional/educational, program. in order to develop a plan, and
identify and maximize use, of -all promotional opportunities
available.
A public promotion/ education program plan may include the
following elements:
■ Research and Development of -Program
Review existing methods for publicity within
Southold.
Review the Town's community -oriented programs
involving environmental issues (including
household hazardous waste collection,, etc.),
conservation measures, educational programs
(including field trips), seasonal events,
holiday activities (parades, etc.).
- Determine media sources, corresponding
publicity events, and available, resources
(non-profit or religious groups).
Identify overall theme, copy/graphic orienta-
tions, publicity formats and distribution
methods.
■ Graphic Arts/Electronic Media Promotion
Develop copy and mechanical artwork for
posters, mailers, flyers, letterhead, and
print -oriented publicity to include
billboards, displays, vehicle decals, etc. -
3 -12
- Develop electronic media publicity materials
to include 'the production of radioand
television public service announcements
(PSAs) and advertisements (including local
_ community cable access) and educational film-
strips.
■ Press Relations
Based on initial research of the local media., produce a
complete media' list and cultivate press contacts
appropriately.
Additionally,
Develop fact sheets or press kits.
Hold press conferences.prior to project mile
stones. Establish an agenda (program start-
up plans, who is affected, scheduling, and
long-term goals), arrange for a. location and
invite all local media contacts .(print and
radio and. TV). Develop appropriate visual
materials (maps, charts, etc.) for use as
appropriate.
Develop and place feature articles and press
,releases to inform the community of key
project milestones-.
Develop an informed communications contact
within the Town to respond to press inquiries
and requests for information.
3-13
■ Elementary Secondary and College -Level Education
Programs '
— - Create in -school educational program to
include workbook materials (teacher manuals,
etc.) and home participation exercises.
Coordinate special events including field
trips to facilities, guest presentations,
etc.
Solicit assistance of interested teachers,
professors and students for developing
special recycling projects for the schools.
The involvement should be solicited of as many prominent
persons in the community as possible including those from govern-
ment, the media and various public organizations (Chamber of
Commerce, Board of Education, etc.). Involving these people in
the promotion of recycling will give them a stake in the
recycling .program and will lead to strong public support. The
public is more responsive to supportive statements by community
leaders. With continuous support and reinforcement and community
leaders adopting a recycling ethic, the general public will
follow.
Another effective technique for improving public participa-
tion is to institute economic incentives that make it less costly
for the waste generator to recycle materials than to dispose of
them. Generally, residents and haulers can be permitted to tip
3-14
HZAGROUP
recyclables for.free or at a reduced charge and garbage disposal
fees are structured so that the waste generator pays according to
the quantity of garbage it disposes of. In other words, the less
waste disposed of (thereby recycled through source separation),
the less the generator pays.
d) Regulatory Requirements and Local Recycling Ordinances
The actions proposed in this recycling analysis must comply
with, applicable environmental laws and regulations of all
federal, state, county and local agencies having jurisdiction
over the proposed action. The agencies that may be involved in
the project review include the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA)., New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation (NYSDEC), New York State Department of
Transportation (NYSDOT), Suffolk County Department of Health
Services (SCDHS), and Southold Planning Board and Building
Inspector. The following is a generic list of the relevant
permits, certifications, and reviews that may be required for,the
implementation of any additional solid waste facilities. Each of
the permits is discussed below.
State Environmental Quality Review Act -_In accordance with
the requirements of'the New York State Environmental Quality
Review (SEQR) Act, and specifically Environmental Conservation
Law Article 8 and Title 6,14YCRR Part 617.15, all actions that may
have a significant effort on the environment must be preceded by
preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) to review.
3-15
U2-AGROUP .
potential effects associated with its implementation. An EIS
provides a means for agencies to give early consideration to
environmental factors, as well as social and economic issues, by
reviewing the conceptual framework of the proposed action. Addi-
tionally, it represents a means for project sponsors to systemat-
ically consider these aspects in project planning and design, and
for project sponsors ,to identify the criteria that will be
utilized in selecting a site and a technology.
Solid Waste Management Permit - In accordance with the
Environmental Conservation Law Article 27 and pursuant to 6 NYCRR
Part 360, proposed solid waste facilities to be constructed and
operated in New York State require a Part 360 permit to construct
and a certificate to operate. Recycling facilities processing
more than 5 tons per day also "require a Part 360 permit.
However, recycling facilities processing between 5 and 50 tons
per day may also be exempt from submitting a permit if certain
conditions are met. The submissions that accompany the construc-
tion permit application include maps and plans; a description of
the proposed plan of operation; an analysis of marketability of
recovered materials; and construction plans and schedules.
In addition to the above requirements, the NYSDEC has the
jurisdiction to regulate operations that have impacts on water,
air, noise, odors, and aesthetics to maintain public health and
safety. Any proposed facilities will comply with these specifi-
cations.
3-16
UZktGROUP
The Part 360 permit review process also considers such
factors as traffic and adjacent land use and requires demonstra-
tion that the facility is consistent with the State -approved
solid waste management plans for the region. This demonstration
includes jurisdiction of the need for the facility description
and control 'of inter- or intra -district waste flow agreements,
and discussion of overall facility implementation and management.
State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit
Environmental Conservation Law Article 17 and implementing
regulations 6 NYCRR part 750 provide the NYSDEC with.authority to
review and approve proposed new point source discharges of
wastewater, including storm water, process, and thermal
discharges. Potential wastewater sources may include leachate
r from composting or processing facilities and collected storm
water runoff. If these wastewaters are treated and discharged to
surf ace' or groundwaters, a SPDES permit would be required. The
effluent must be in compliance with federal and state effluent
standards. In addition, a brief description of the principal
types of processing done at the facility would be required, along
with the specific chemical constituents of the discharge.
Highway Access
Permit -
This permit is
required by the
NYSDOT for facilities
that are
developed along a
State highway.
Long Island Well`,Permit - Installation of water supply wells
with capacities in .excess of 45 gallon per minute in Suffolk
3-17
county require -a Long Island Well Permit. If a facility utilizes
on-site wells for water supply during operations, this capacity
may be exceeded and a permit.would be required.
County Permits - A septic system permit would be required by
the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for construction
of a septic system.
Expansion of the existing recycling program at the land-
fill's collection center would not be constrained by any of these
permit requirements as would an MRF or incinerator. This is an
additional advantage to a low technology strategy such as the one
proposedin this.document.
Local Ordinances - The Town has jurisdiction over solid
waste management operations within its boundaries. Existing Town
codes for garbage, rubbish and refuse disposal (Chapter 48,_
Sections 1-7) are contained in Appendix E. These guidelines.
!. include the following:
Wastes permitted in the Town landfill
Fees for disposal of waste
Penalties for offenses
Issuance and revocation of permits to dispose of
waste
Appendix F shows a Sample Recycling Ordinance used by the
neighboring Town of Southampton.
3-18
F WAGROUP
d) Ouantities of Recycled Materials
The Town may enforce recycling only by those who use the
disposal facilities at the Cutchogue Landfill.' Manufacturers in
Southold, of which there are only 12 are listed in the 1988 ong
Island Directory of Manufacturers, along with any other private
businesses may choose not to use the landfill facilities and
thereby not participate in the recycling program. Therefore, the
i analysis to provide an estimate of recyclables focuses on the
materials generated by households.
Table 6 shows the effect of different recycling participa-
tion.rates on the household waste stream entering the compost
facility given the compositional data summarized in Table 3. In
this case, "participation" includes both the percentage of
residents participating in the recycling program and the percent-
age of recyclable materials actually recovered from the waste
stream for recycling by participating residents or landfill
personnel. Plastic, glass, ferrous and ,other metals which are
r not source -separated will be separated during the composting
process by screens and electromagnetic processes. These
relatively uniform recyclable materials will be collected in
several separate bins,.and attempts will be made to market them.
Relatively small amounts of stones, sand and brush will be
included in the compost, because technology that could separate
these components from the finished compost is not cost-effective
at this time.
3-19
FZ4GROUP
Type
Corrug.Cardboard
Newsprint
Other paper
Plastics
Ferrous
Other metals
Glass
Food waste
Leaves,grass.brush
Large wood&brush
Stones,sand
Other non -comp.
Table 6
Removal of recyclable materials from the household
waste stream entering the compost facility
Recycling Participation Rates
25% Partic. 50% Partic. 75% Partic. 100% Partic.
% of Hhld waste (1) Recyc. Comp. Recyc. Comp. Recyc. Comp. Recyc. Comp.
8.82 2.21 6.62 4.41 4.41 6.62 2.21 8.82 -
8.96 2.24 6.72 4.48 4.48 6.72 2.24 8.96 -
23.03 5.76 17.27 11.52 11.52 17.27 5.76 23.03 -
9.16 2.29 6.87 4.58 4.58 6.87 2.29 9.16 -
4.94 1.24 3.71 2.47 2.47 3.71 1.24 4.94 -
1.81 0.45 1.36 0.91 0.91 1.36 0.45 1.81 -
7.60 1.90 5.70 3.80 3.80 5.70 1.90 7.60 -
15.34- 15.34 - 15.34 - 15.34 - 15.34
5.56`11 - 5.56 - 5.56 - 5.56 - 5.56
2.41 - 2.41 - 2.41 - 2.41 - 2.41
5.24 - 5.24 - 5.24 - 5.24 - 5.24
7.12 - 7.12 - 7.12 - 7.12 - 7.12
.Total % 13.88 83.91 32.16 67.83 48.24 51.75 64.32 35.67
(2) x 44.34 x 44.34 x 44.34 x 44.34 x 44.34 x 44.34 x 44.34 x 44.34
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
(3) TPD 6.15 37.21 14.26 30.08 21.39 22.95 28.52 15.82
(1) From summary of Table 3
(2) Average weight of incoming Household waste -(TPD) fr,'om Table 2
4
r�
3-20
L11
An integrated solid waste management program such as that
planned for Southold may include composting, recycling, waste -to-
energy incineration and landfilling. Weights of waste stream
components diverted from landfilling to recycling and composting
are detailed under relatively optimistic assumptions in Table 7.
It is assumed that the percentage of recyclable materials
separated at the front-end of the composting process would be 50
percent (from Table 6) and that wastes presently being recycled
will continue to be recycled. It is also assumed that all wastes
will enter the composting facility. This is feasible because
vehicles usually carry a single type of -waste, either compostable
or non-compostable. Therefore, the wastes can be easily classi-
fied and the vehicle directed to the appropriate dropoff
location.
f) Marketing of Recycled Materials
Appendix C is a copy • of the Market Identification Plan for
the compost material and residuals provided by the composting
vendors in their proposals to the Town. Appendix D identifies
firms involved in recycling of various materials. Firms
presently under contract with the Town of Southold to recycle
certain items are denoted with an asterisk.
3.5 - Impact of Recycling on Composting Project
Recycling and composting are compatible processes.
Recycling will remove compost contaminants such as plastics,
glass, metals, batteries, waste oil and hazardous household
L
3-21
IH24GRCUP
i
Table 7
Waste Stream Destinations
Other (7)
(TPD)
(1) From Table 2: average TPD calculated for 8/87-7/89
(2) Equivalent to rubbish, see comment (5)
(3) Potential exists for recycling by generators (private industries)
of these wastes
(4) Assumes 50% participation rate in recycling of household wastes
through mandatory recycling program
(5) Materials classified in this category are mixed; if separated,
approximately one-quarter will be recyclable and one-quarter compostable
(6) May be considered recycling because material is used as landfill cover
(7) Other may include landfilling, trucking, incineration or private
marketing of recyclables
3-22
2.09
22.59
15.13
32.35
5.76
1.09
79.00
42.64
Incoming (1)
Composted
Recycled
Type
(TPD)
(TPD)
(TPD)
Agriculture
2.61
2.61
-
Batteries
0.06
-
0.06
Brush
9.75
9.75
-
Clean-up Debris (2)
4.17
1.04
1.04
Construction (3)
22.59
-
-
Concrete/Bricks (3)
15.13
-
-
Hhld. Garbage (4)
44.34
30.08
14.26
Leaves/Grass
6.79
6.79
-
Landclearing
32.35
-
-
Metal
1.97
-
1.97
Paper
0.98
0.98
-
Rubbish (5)
11.51
2.88
2.88
Sand/Fill (6)
28.26
-
28.26
Shellfish Debris
1.09
-
-
Sludge
1.26
1.26
-
Tires
0.28
-
0.28
Wood
2.07
-
2.07
Woodchips
0.06
0.06
-
Total
.185.27
55.45
50.82
% of Total
29.93
27.43
Other (7)
(TPD)
(1) From Table 2: average TPD calculated for 8/87-7/89
(2) Equivalent to rubbish, see comment (5)
(3) Potential exists for recycling by generators (private industries)
of these wastes
(4) Assumes 50% participation rate in recycling of household wastes
through mandatory recycling program
(5) Materials classified in this category are mixed; if separated,
approximately one-quarter will be recyclable and one-quarter compostable
(6) May be considered recycling because material is used as landfill cover
(7) Other may include landfilling, trucking, incineration or private
marketing of recyclables
3-22
2.09
22.59
15.13
32.35
5.76
1.09
79.00
42.64
wastes. Each of these wastes contains components which are
either non -biodegradable or hazardous to human health. Because
compost is often used for agricultural applications, the presence
of any hazardous materials in compost could make the product
unmarketable. The presence of non -biodegradable materials also
reduces marketability of the compost.
Additionally, it is preferable to remove any recyclable
materials from the waste stream before introducing them into the
composting facility. This will reduce the amount of recyclables
entering the shredder of the composting process. Altered
recyclable materials may be more difficult to market than
recyclable materials removed as source separated items. Conse-
quently, it is essential to recycle as much as possible before
composting to obtain high quality, marketable products from the
compost process and recycling program.
3-23
71,
1 A44Gf SOUP
4.0 - SUMMARY
Given Southold's present waste stream, many opportunities
for recycling and composting exist. This document outlines
actions that may be taken to capitalize on these opportunities.
The Town has been actively involved in the recycling
business on a voluntary basis for as long as 15 years. The Town
will be expanding the recycling program to include additional
categories of recyclable materials on a voluntary basis and,
within the near future, will be including a mandatory recycling
program for all residents within the Town.
4-1
APPENDIX A
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LETTER (4/26/89) TO NYSDEC
FRANCIS J. MURPHY
SUPERVISOR
TELEPHONE
(5161 765-1800
FAX NO.
(516)765-1823
OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR
-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 26, 1989
Mr. Robert Green, Permit Administrator
Department of Regulatory Affairs
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
SUNY Campus, Building 40
Stony Brook, New York 11794
Re: Town of Southold
Municipal Solid Waste Composting Facility
Application to Construct and Operate
TOWN HALL. 53095 MAIN ROAD
P.O. BOX 1179
SOUTHOLD. NEW YORK 11971
Dear Mr. Green:
The Town of Southold has received your checklist review comments dated
January 30, 1989, concerning the Permit to Construct for the Solid Waste]
Sludge Composting Facility.. A meeting was held at NYS DEC -Stony Brook on
April 12, 1989, to discuss the composting project and the checklist review
comments. Present at the meeting were members of the Southold Town Board and
its consulting engineers (H2M Group), Paul M. Roth, P.E. (Regional Solid
Waste Engineer) and NYS DEC solid waste division staff. In addition, Ms.
Sally J. Rowland (NYS DEC -Albany) and Ms. Joanne Howell (NYS DEC -Stony Brook)
were present to discuss composting and recycling, respectively.
One of the checklist review items discussed was the requirement of the
submittal of a comprehensive recycling analysis by the Town prior to issuance
of a Permit to Construct by NYS DEC. At the meeting, H2M Group outlined the
reasons for requesting a variance for the submittal of the comprehensive
recycling analysis. Mr. Paul M. Roth, P.E., recommended that a letter be
written requesting the variance and that NYS DEC would review the request.
Therefore, the purpose of
variance of the requirement of
to NYS DEC prior to issuance
reasons:
this correspondence is to formally request a
submitting a comprehensive recycling analysis
of a Permit to Construct based on the following
(1) The Town expects to comply with the "Long Island Landfill Law" by
initiating, operation of Solid Waste/Sludge Composting Facility by
December, 1990. In order to meet the mandated December, 1990, deadline,
the vendor would have to commence construction on the compost facility
A.1
7A �y
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 26, 1989
Page 2
in the summer of 1989. Therefore, a Permit to Construct would have
to be issued by NYS • DEC by late spring of 1989.
(2) One of the reasons the Town selected the composting alternative of Solid
Waste Management was because it has been identified as a form of recycl-
ing/reuse by NYS DEC. Recycling/Reduction/Reuse has been identified'in
the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan issued by NYS DEC as top
rated in order of preference in the solid waste management method
hierarchy .
(3) The purpose of the comprehensive recycling analysis submittal is for NYS
DEC to determine if the Town has or will be implementing a program to
recycle its waste stream based on the NYS DEC goals. The Town's posi-
tion is that by constructing and operating a composting facility, the
NYS DEC 1997 goal of 50% reduction/ recycling will be met by the Town by
December, 1990.
(4) The Town of Southold along "with the Towns of 'Riverhead, Southampton,
East Hampton and Shelter Island have agreed to participate in a region-
al approach to recycling. The five east end towns have recently been
awarded by NYS DEC a $255,000 grant to implement a recycling program
under the Local Resource Reuse and Recovery Program (LRRRP). Southold
anticipates that in addition to composting a recycling program for
plastics, glass and metal will be expanded under the LRRRP grant.
(5) A comprehensive recycling analysis is ' expected to be submitted in con-
junction with the other four east end towns once a Permit to Construct a
regional Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) is developed. Therefore, to
develop a comprehensive recycling analysis under the composting Permit
to Construct at this point would be a duplication of effort and an
additional financial burden on the Town of Southold. Based on the
information required in the comprehensive recycling analysis, our con-
sulting engineers have determined that the analysis would require two
months to prepare at an approximate cost of $30,000. Based on a one
month review by NYS DEC, this would result in a minimum three-month
delay in issuing the Permit to Construct due to having to submit an
approved comprehensive recycling analysis.
(6) the Town is not requesting a complete variance from the provision of
the submittal of the comprehensive recycling analysis. We request only
that the submittal requirement be waived for the Permit to Construct
the composting facility and be delayed until the five east end towns
coalition submits the analysis on the regional approach for a MRF.
(7) The Town of Southold is committed to implementing the composting pro-
ject. Southold has been at the forefront in developing alternative
solid waste disposal practices based on NYS DEC guidelines. There is
tremendous interest being developed -by the other east end towns with
regards to the composting technologies. The other east end towns have
A.2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 26, 1989
Page 3
been carefully monitoring the progress of the Southold composting
project and the EIS and permitting 'processes to determine the' applica-
bility of the process for their communities. Up to this point, .the
towns have seen the cooperative nature being developed for the imple-
mentation for a composting 'project.
I trust the above provides sufficient documentation for the NYS DEC to
grant the Town of Southold a temporary variance for the submittal of a
comprehensive recycling analysis prior to issuing a Permit to Construct for
the composting facility. Based on the April, 12, 1989, NYS .DEC meeting, our
engineering consultants are currently preparing responses to your other
checklist. review comments and the revised Permit to Construct will be
submitted shortly.
I look forward to your prompt response to our variancerequest and, if
any questions arise concerning the above, please contact H2M Group ( George W.
Desmarais, P.E.) at 516-756-8000, Ext. 610 or my office at 765-1800.
FJM: rbw
cc: ' Town Board
James A. Schondebare, Esq.
Robert H. Berntsson, Esq.
Norman H. Nosenchuck
Harold D. Berger
Paul M. Roth, P.E.
Sally J. Rowland
Joanne Howell
George W: Desmarais, P.E.
A.3
d Town
APPENDIX B
H2M GROUP LETTER (8/1/89) TO NYSDEC
GROUP
Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell. P.C.. 9 Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell. Inc. 0 H25t Labs, Inc.
Engitieers, I'LliI1C s. 1c:Acis[~
575 Broin Hc)llow RoaLl. McivillC. \.}',
(516) -56-5000 41 �.=')l
FAX 516-694-4122
August 1, 1989 -
Mr. Robert Green, Permit Administrator
Department of Regulatory Affairs
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Building 40, SUNY
Stony Brook, New York 11794
Re: Town of Southold
Municipal Solid Waste Composting Facility
Application to Construct
soHT 8803
Dear M=-. Green:
As, you, are aware, the Town of Southold submitted a Permit to
Construct for a Solid Waste/Sludge Composting facility to
the NYSDEC on December 31, 1988. Checklist review comments
from your office dated 1/30/89 were forwarded to the Town of
Southold. Based on those checklist review comments a
meeting was held at NYSDEC-Stony Brook on 4/12/89 to discuss
the composting project.
One of the. checklist review items discussed was the
requirement of the submittal of a comprehensive recycling
analysis by the Town prior to issuance of a Permit to
Construct by NYSDEC. At the meeting, H2M Group outlined the
reasons for requesting a variance for the submittal of the
comprehensive recycling analysis. Mr. Paul M. Roth, P.E.,
recommended that a letter be written requesting the variance
and that NYSDEC would review the request.
This letter requesting the variance was forwarded to your
office by the Town of Southold on 4/26/89 (copy enclosed)..
A written response from NYSDEC has, not been' received
concerning the Townes variance request.
Based on a subsequent meeting with the Town and NYSDEC
officials on 6/12/89 it was discussed that the Town may be
required to submit a "draft" recycling analysis rather than
a comprehensive recycling analysis. Our office is currently
preparing the "draft" recycling. analysis for the Town of
Southold for review and approval 'by NYSDEC. It was also
B.1
Melville. NX. 0 Ri%-crhC-Jd. NY. • ��r;ici :. N.I.
GROUP
Mr. Robert Greer.
August 1, 1989
Page Two
discussed that the Town submit another letter requesting the
variance from submitting the comprehensive recycling
analysis.
Therefore, on behalf of the Town of Southold, we request
that the NYSDEC grant a temporary variance for the submittal
of a comprehensive recycling analysis prior to issuing a
Permit to Construct for the composting facility. The
reasons for the temporary variance are outlined. in the
4/26/89 Town of Southold letter to your office.
I look forward to your prompt response to the Town's
variance request and, if any questions arise concerning the
above, please contact me at 516-756-8000, Ext. 610.
Very truly yours,
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
A2� 0". X0iMaIj&,- -
George W. Desmarais, P.E.
GWD/cdr
cc: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy
Town Board
James A. Schondebare, Esq.
Robert H. Berntsson, -Esq.
Norman H. Nosenchuck
Harold D. Berger
Paul M. Roth, P.E.
Sally J. Rowland
B.2
APPENDIX C
MARKET IDENTIFICATION PLAN
UZ4GROUP
APPENDIX C
MARKET IDENTIFICATION PLAN
DANECO, INC.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK
4.0 MARKET IDENTIFICATION
4.1 MARKET OVERVIEW
HDR Engineering, Inc. was engaged by Daneco to complete a survey of potential markets
for materials recovered from the co -composting of municipal solid waste (MSW) and
partially dewatered sewage sludge.
Compost, mixed ferrous scrap and the inert materials associatedwith the co -composting
process were all analyzed with respect to their potential uses and value in existing
markets. Suffolk County, New York, located on eastern Long Island, was targeted as the
primary area of potential market interest for the recycled materials. The Town of
Southold is, by virtue of its location near the eastern tip of Long Island, limited in its
viable marketing areas to Suffolk and portions of Nassau County. Transportation costs 'are
the primary limiting factor.
4.1.1 Survev Methodology
The market analysis is based upon a combination of primary contacts with potential users
and background information provided by state and local governments. The primary
considerations of the study included:
- Identification of both potential users and products which may compete with compost
products in the marketplace;
- Projection of the size of the potential market established by these potential users and
substitution opportunities; and
- Collection of price data concerning competing products.
M.4.1.2 Finished Products
Table 4.1.1 illustrates the expected compost products in conformance with New York
State DEC specifications concerning Case I and Case II compost. The market analysis
undertaken in this section is predicted on the project specifications identified in Table
4.1.1. In addition to those specifications, the ferrous product, has been provisionally
described as mixed ferrous scrap containing a certain amount of tin contamination (tin
Plated cans) and galvanized metals (zinc, chrome). The inert materials product contains
crushed and ground glass, stone, ceramics, brick and sand.
C.1
, TABLE 4.1.1
Properties of Daneco Compost Product
Specification
Pb
Ca
Ni
Zn
Hg
Cr
Cu
Moisture (Wet Basis)
C/N Ratio
Nitrogen
Phosphorus as P205
Potassium as K20
Size (Maximum)
Inerts Content
pH
Compost
Product
250/500ppm
l Oppm
l Oppm
600ppm
3ppm
150ppm
220ppm
45.0%
25.1
0.6%
0.5%
0.4%
0.39/0.98 inch
2.0%
7.0
4.1.3 Sources of Competition
NYS DOC
Case I
250ppm
l Oppm
200ppm
2,500ppm
l Oppm
1,000ppm
1,000ppm
None specified
None specified
None specified
None specified
None specified
0.39 inch
None specified
None specified
NYS DOC
Case II
1,000ppm.
25ppm
200ppm
2,500ppm
loppm
1,000ppm
1,000ppm
None specified
None specified
None specified
None specified
None specified
0.98 inch
None specified
None specified
The major existing sources of competition for compost material in the Long Island regional
marketplace, include other composting operations and peat moss products imported from
out—of—state. At this time leaf and/or yard waste composting programs are under way or
in the development stages in the town of Brookhaven, the Village of East Hampton, the
Town of Oyster Bay,' theTown of Islip, and the Town of Huntington. These operations will
• absorb a majority of the emerging compost markets on the local level including municipal
public works and landfill cover supply. The other main source, of competition on the Island
comes from peat moss and other retail soil type products imported from Canada and the
northeast United States. These products' enter the nursery/landscape market on a large
scale and have a well defined market niche. Any successful compost marketing program
on Long Island must have the capability of gaining market share in the nursery/landscape
market.
4.1.4 Legislative/Political Environment
In the spring of this year, New York State published a draft set of solid waste management
regulations for review and comment. These regulations that are expected to be finalized
prior to the permitting of the Southold project, will,directly effect any composting or
co—composting programs in the state. Table 4.1.1 outlines the primary contentguidelines
for Case I and Case II compost producted in the state. Co—compost finished products
which meet the above mentioned content regulations will in all likelihood also be required
to carry ingredient/initial source labels and be restricted from a number of end uses that
might bring them close to human interaction.
C.2
There is an emerging momentous both on he state regulatory level and in public opinion
toward pro -recycling activities and programs. Under current New York State
procurement laws, recycled paper products are given a 10 percent price advantage/subsidy
over purely virgin based paper products in competitive bidding situations. This program is
an effort to develop markets for material recvcled in New york. Legislative incentive
may carry over into other procurement areas including such products as peat moss, topsoil,
embankment fill (inerts, market), select granual fill (inerts market) and construction
supplies (recycled ferrous market). At present, State Senator Bruno is working in Albany
on a legislative plan aimed at providing tax incentives and reduction to entities which use
recycled materials in theiroperations An-urir-egulated program directed toward
g
increasinthe use of recycled asphalt products is ongoing in the state at this time. y
Programs such as these are indications of a growing momentum toward the development of
a comprehensive recycling materials market incentives program in New York. The result
of such a program would be extremely positive with respect to compost markets.
4.2 PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETS FOR COMPOST
Public entities on the state, county and local level all have particular needs for top
soil/soil conditioner type products. Individual procurement methods and/or geographical
location may provide some resistance to the entrance of compost into these markets. On
the federal government level; the National Park Service, which oversees Fire Island
National Seashore and a number of other parks, upon questioning indicated that it had
little or no need for compost at this time, but that a future use of the material for dune
maintenance may yet evolve. Compost is being experimented with as a dune maintenance
tool in parts of New England where erosion is a problem. Long Island possesses over 1,180
milesof coastline, the majority of which is faced with erosion.
4.2.1 The New York State Deoartment of Transportation
The New York State Department of Transportation (NYS DOT) has indicated in a series of
telephone interviews with HDR that it's Long Island operation (Region 10) uses large
quantities of topsoil embankment materials and select granual fills. The use of inerts
recovered from the co -composting process as both embankment material and select
granual fill will be discussed in Section 4.4.1. The potential use of compost as a substitute
for topsoil in some instances and as a topsoil mixing component in others is -a promising
market opportunity. During the first six months of 1988 and the last six months of 1987,
the NYS DOT's Region 10 utilized over 95,000 cubic'yards (yd3) of topsoil under nine
separate contracts. The average low bid price obtained for the material was $26.94 per
yd3. State specifications require topsoil to possess a pH level between 5.5 and 7.6 while
also containing between 2 percent and 20 percent organics. The Daneco finished compost
product possesses a pH level in the correct range and has an organics content much higher
than required. The compost product can be potentially used as a direct substitute for
topsoil in some instances and as an organic soil enhancer in others. This would result in
obtaining the stated $26.94 yd3 price for, the percentage of the sales of compost used as a
direct substitute and for a price in the range of $10 to $13 yd3 for compost used as a soil
enhancer mixing product. A conservative projection based on NYS DOT specifications
indicates that 20 percent of the projected yearly topsoil needs
C.3
of the State DOT could be me: using compost. This would amount to approximately 20,000
yd3 year of compost or 70 percent of the total Southold compost produced in a year.
Flexible pricing could be used both as a tool for entering this market and for dealing with
the transportation cost penalties involved with the location of the composting facility far
from the center of the DOT Region. The state maintains an approved list of topsoil
suppliers which is based on the candidate suppliers ability to provide consistent quantities
and a quality product.
4.2.2 New York State Parks
There exist over 75,000 acres of parks and dedicated spaces in Suffolk County (1). More
than 30,045 acres of'this space is New York State park land and an additional 557 acres is
jointly owned state/county/local park land(1). Based on HDR conversations with the State
Office of General Services in Albany, the state parks located on Long Island utilized 42
cubic yards of peat moss in 1987, purchased from the Maximillian Lerner Corporation of
New York City. Procurement regulations for purchases of peat moss in volumes greater
than 50 bales (6 foot scubed per bale) must be made through the State"(competitive bid)
selected vendor who possesses the peat moss contract for the entire state for the calendar
year. The volume of peat moss and other soil products purchased by the state parks at less
than a 50 bale level is unavailable at this time. Conversations with grounds personnel at
individual parks indicate that purchases of small volumes of peat moss are not generally
required. A number of the parks obtain soil products as. needed from the state run
greenhouses on Long Island. The emerging trend toward recycling materials market
incentives at the state level exemplified by the 10 percent recycled paper price advantage
program may enable composting sources on Long Island to enter into the current statewide
peat moss procurement market.
4.2.3 Countv and Municipal Markets
County and local holdings account for over 34,000 acres of park land on Long Island (1).
These parks taken in their entirety do not show a large need for soil products in that they
do not possess a large percentage of groomed and planted areas. Topsoil and peat moss
requirements for individual towns have been identified by HDR through telephone
interviews. These tonnages will not be discussed as potential market opportunities for
out-of-town compost supplies due to the present trend toward the establishment of
leaf/yard waste composting programs in individual towns on Long Island. The emerging
solid waste disposal crisis on Long Island has given each town incentive for starting such
program. One of the longest running and most successful leaf composting programs in the
region is located in Brookhaven at the "ecology site." This facility possesses 24 acres of
available space supporting 109 miles of composting rows which produce between 125,000
and 150,000 yd3 of compost per year from approximately 200,000 to 250,000 yd3 of raw
leaves. The leaf compost is provided free of charge to the town public works department
and to Brookhaven residents, but not to nurserymen or landscapers. The Facility Manager
notes that "they have a difficult time keeping a supply of compost on site, because public
demand for the product is so vigorous." This is good news for the overall marketing
picture for compost on Long Island. It is a negative point if one is looking to market
compost to individual municipalities. The trend toward leaf composting programs will
eventually consume the majority of
(1) Long Island Regional Planning Board.
C.4
the municipal public works market for out-of-town compost. This does not mean that the
entire demand for compost will be negatively affected. This is exemplified by the
continuing strong demand in Brookhaven. The advent of a large number of small leaf
composting programs may adversely affect nursery prices for compost and peat moss in
some areas.
4.3 PRIVATE SECTOR MARKETS FOR COMPOST MATERIALS
The primary private sector markets for compost material on Long Island include
nurseries/landscapers and agricultural applications. Suffolk County, New York possessed
over 35,400 acres of dedicated farmland in 1986, while Nassau County possessed 1,000
acres (1). Suffolk County alone possessed over 6.7 million square feet (153 acres) of
greenhouse sheltered space. The strength of the Long Island agricultural industry is
illustrated by the 1982 revenue figures for nurseries and for the agriculture sector
overall. Nurseries engaged in $42,000,000 worth of business in 1982 (1982$), while the
total agriculture sector produced $93,000,000 in revenues.
4.3.1 Nurseries/Landscaping
The combination of the large volume of greenhouse space available (4.9 ft3 per person in
Suffolk County) and the large flow of revenue from the industry indicates the existence of
a vibrant market for nursery goods and services on Long Island. The strength of this
market was corroborated through HDR telephone interviews with a significant number of
the nursery managers and landscape contractors operating in Suffolk County. HDR has
made conservative projection of these needs for peat moss and soil product per year.
Based on individual nursery usage and total market parameters, this need is projected to
be 32,000 yd3 for nurseries at a price in the range of $15, to $29 yd3 and 5,000 yd3 for
landscapers at the same price. The landscape materials need amounts to 18 percent of the
total finished compost produced per year at the compost facility while the nursery
requirements amount to 114 percent of total amount available. Nurserymen generally
split their usage of soil products between in house usage for plantings and resale of bagged
products to their customers. Nurserymen and landscapers indicated that they would be
. willing to sell compost to their customers and use it themselves in a number of
applications. An advantage compost has over chemically enhanced soils is its slow release
of nutrients from its organic reservoirs. The nurserymen and landscapers noted that
compost could be blended as a substitute for sand with top soil. A number of nurserymen
also commented on the poor quality of compost presently available from yard waste/leaf
composting operations. This poor quality was due to inconsistencies in the marketed
product resulting from the use of the low technology straight windrowing process on the
collected leaves and yard waste (no digestion, etc.).
Luxury horticulture (non-agricultural application) is one of the primary markets for
compost produced in successful programs in the United States today. This observation
adds to the importance of the nursery/landscape market opportunity on Long Island.
According to nurserymen on Long Island the nutrient value and growth enhancement are
the most important qualities in a soil product intended for nursery use. The nurserymen
emphasized the need for bagged compost material intended for the consumer market in
small convenient amounts (6 ft 3 or less). Without adequate packaging, resistance to the
sale of compost will develop.
C.5
4.3.2 AQ?-icultural Applications
The agricultural industry in Nassau and Suffolk Counties includes from growing sod,
potatoes, cabbage, cauliflower, corn, grapes and other assorted vegetables and fruits.
Table 4.3.1 outlines the breakdown of individual crop acreages in the region.
TABLE 4.3.1ource - Long Island Regional Planning Board
(Acreages Only)
Crop Distribution by Acreage in Long Island
(Nassau and Suffolk Counties)
The present draft NYS DEC solid waste management regulations stipulate that Case I
compost can -only be applied to acreage that will be planted with crops not destined for
direct raw human consumption. It can be used on food chain crops which are defined as
crops destined for human consumption after processing and for crops grown for feed. This
regulation restricts the application of Case I compost to acreage to be planted with the
above noted crops it the crops are intended for direct human consumption. Compost
markets would, therefore, be restricted to use on land planted with a crop intended for the
food process industry, other food processors who understand the restrictions on the crop,
or as feed for farm livestock.
Individual farmers, through telephone interviews with HDR, related their resistance to the
application of compost from an unproven source on their land as a soil enhancer or source
of nutrients. This resistance is based on a lack of familiarity both with a co -composted
product and with state regulations governing its use. A further problem discussed by one
farmer was the memories of public discontent over the use of chemical fertilizers which
led to application of manure which
C.6
1982
1986
Potential Application
Crop
(Acres)
(Acres)
of Class 1 Compost
Total
N/A
36,400
Partially
Potato
11955
8,000
Yes (Satisfactory for crops
that will be processed,
cooked or fed to livestock,
but not for raw consumption.
Cabbage
1,132
1,000
Yes. Same as above.
Cauliflower
1,340
2,000
Yes. Same as above.
Corn
N/A
1,200
Yes. Same as above.
Grapes
N/A
1,000
Yes. Same as above.
• Sod and Other
N/A
23,200
Partially. Same as above
The present draft NYS DEC solid waste management regulations stipulate that Case I
compost can -only be applied to acreage that will be planted with crops not destined for
direct raw human consumption. It can be used on food chain crops which are defined as
crops destined for human consumption after processing and for crops grown for feed. This
regulation restricts the application of Case I compost to acreage to be planted with the
above noted crops it the crops are intended for direct human consumption. Compost
markets would, therefore, be restricted to use on land planted with a crop intended for the
food process industry, other food processors who understand the restrictions on the crop,
or as feed for farm livestock.
Individual farmers, through telephone interviews with HDR, related their resistance to the
application of compost from an unproven source on their land as a soil enhancer or source
of nutrients. This resistance is based on a lack of familiarity both with a co -composted
product and with state regulations governing its use. A further problem discussed by one
farmer was the memories of public discontent over the use of chemical fertilizers which
led to application of manure which
C.6
led to complaints about odors and so on. A general consensus was that one or two pilot
tests of the compost on a number of crops would be required to displace their resistance to
the product: The positive aspects of a slow release of nutrients from the compost medium
were also noted. The majority of the sod farmers contacted. indicated that they had no
real need for a compost product, they rotate their turf crops, which have a two year
harvesting circuit, with both filler crops which are tilled back into the ground to replace
nutrients and soil, and with fallow fields which are left to rest for a season. Sod farmers
claim that only one quarter of an inch of soil leaves the farm attached to each sod roll and
that proper rotation of their corps maintains the health of their fields. A number of sod
farms were noted as small scale sources of soil products by nurserymen contacted in the
HDR survey.
Based on information gathered from interviews with individual farmers, HDR projects that
approximately one-third of the potato, cabbage, cauliflower, corn, and grape acreages
listed in Table 4.3.1 could be pragmatically earmarked as non -direct human consumption
acres. This 33 percent woul&equal 4,400 acres. If a conservative yearly compost
application rate of between 10 yd3 per acre and 30 yd3/acre is used approximately 44,000
yd3 to 132,000 yd3 of compost would be required for agricultural uses. This amount
represents a substantial market when compared with the 28,300 yd3 production of finished
compost expected from the Southold facility. Initial difficulties with direct human
consumption restrictions and unfamiliarity with the product should not. affect the long
term viability of this market. Rough estimates of the prices for compost intended for
agricultural application can range from $0/yd3 to approximately $3/yd3. These prices,may
rise if the operating results from a pilot program are found to be acceptable.
4.3.3 Golf Courses
HDR was not able to make contact with a substantial number of golf course operators.
The operators who were contacted indicated that the soil products that they had a need
for are limited in volume and very high in quality. They require small amounts of "top
dressing" which must be composed of fine particular soil high in nutrients. The small size
of the top dressing market and the extra processing of the compost product which would
be required to meet golf course specifications prevents this market opportunity from being
a viable one for compost sales. Each golf club consumes approximately 50 to 70 yd3 per
year of top dressing on the average. Golf Course operators pay $50.00/yd3 for the
material.
4.4 THE PUBLIC MARKET FOR INERTS
The New York State DOT Region 10 uses a substantial amount of inorganic "embankment
in place" material (product 203.03 for state procurement contracts) and "select granular
fill" material (product 203.07 for DOT procurement contracts). The inert product (ground;
glass, sand, ceramics, brick, and stones, recoveredf during the cco—composting of MSW and
sewage sludge will meet the specifications for the above—mentioned DOT materials with
little or no additional processing. The DOTG's Region 10 (Long Island) utilized over
1,000,00 yd3 of "embankment in place" during the year ending in June of 1988 and over
86,000 yd3 of "select granular fill" during the same time period. The average low bid price
paid for these materials was
C.7
; $10.45/yd3 and $11.99/yd3, respectively. The proposed compost facility is projected to
produce 3,300 tons per year or inerts which equal only a small fraction of the total market
available. The sheer quantity of material required by the DOT, combined with the
dispersed nature of DOT operations should create a viable market for the inert fraction at
a good price with minimal transportation cost problems.
4.5 PRIVATE MARKETS FOR FERROUS SCRAP AND INERTS.
The primary private markets for the mixed ferrous scrap and the inerts recovered from
the composting process are the metal scrap industry and the asphalt production industry,
respectively. These two industries can be considered viable markets due to their maturity
and large size.
4.5.1 Inerts
Asphalt producers located om Long Island estimate market opportunities for inerts in the
asphalt production industry estimate that between 750,000 and 1,000,000 tons of asphalt
per year. Asphalt contains 35 percent to 40 percent aggregate, up to 50 percent -sand, and
1 percent to 2 percent mineral filler. The inerts produced in the composting process are
not suitable as sand or aggregate substitutes due to the poor tar absorption qualities of
brick and ceramics (glazed, therefore, non—absor bant). However, the inerts are
substitutable for the mineral filler component of asphalt. -The pH of the inerts may have
to be adjusted to the correct level for production of high quality asphalt. One to two
percent mineral fill content constitutes a 10,000 to 20,000 ton per year need for a mineral
fill material. This material usually costs between $0.00 to $2:00/ton. One of the present
materials used as mineral fill in asphalt is fly ash from power plants. This market can be
viewed as a solid back—up to the large DOT market for inerts.
4.5.2 Ferrous Scrap Markets
Many of the scrap dealers located on Long Island regularly process the yearly production
(990 tons) of mixed ferrous from the proposed compost facility in one or two weeks of
. normal operations. This large marketing capacity establishes a viable market for the sale
of mixed ferrous, but at an unknown price. The type, quality, and preparation of a load of
ferrous scrap are the deciding factors when price is being calculated. A number of dealers
do not accept pieces longer than 4 or 5 feet, because they lack mechanical shears for
cutting large thicknesses of metal. Lower prices are paid for scrap contaminated with tin
(from tin coated steel containers, galvanized steel, or chrome—plated steel). Scrap dealers
are presently not accepting white goods due to the uncertainly surrounding the current
Environmental Protection Agency regulation of them. Dealers also do not accept electric
motors, capacitors, and transformers due to their potential hazardous waste content. Any
loads possessing unacceptable items will be rejected by the dealers. The available scrap
prices range from a low of $0.80 per 100 pounds for scrap heavy in tin content to $3.00 per
100 pounds for high grade scrap. A mixed load will obtain a price somewhere in the range
between the two, most likely low in the range due to a lack of separation of scrap grades
in the mixed load.
4.6 TRANSPORTATION COSTS
The following Table outlines trucking transportation costs based on $1.00/mile for the cost
of the truck and maintenance (20,000 miles a year using a $69,000 truck); $12.00/hour
wages for the driver (including benefits; an average truck speed of 45 mph and a 30 minute
total load and .unload time.
C.8
TABLE 4.3
Transportation Costs
Southold to
Round Trip
of if
Distance
Duration of
Driver
Mileage
Trip
and Back
In Miles
Trip Hours*
Cost $
Cost $
Cost $
$/yd3
Jamesport
20
0.94
11.33
20
31.33.
1.04
Wildwood
40
1.38
16.67
40
56.67
1.89
Shirley
60
1.83
22.00
60
82.00
2.70
Sayville
80
2.27
27.33
80
107.30
3.57
Central Islip
100
2.72
32.67
100
132.67
4.42
Lindenhurst
120
3.16
38.00
120
158.00
5.26
Jericho
140
3.61
43.34
140
183.33
6.11
Atlantic Beach
160
4.05
48.67
160
208.67
6.95
Manhattan
180
4.50
54.00
180
234.00
7.80
Jersey City
200
4.94
59.39
200
259.33
8.64
*Average safe 45 mph, 30 minute load and unload.
The distance a particular material (compost, ferrous, inerts) can be economically
transported depends on the price available for the particular material on the market.
Some of the more dense materials (inerts) may not be transported 30 yds at a time due to
restrictions on axle weights. Tonnage restrictions will substantially add to their transport
costs because each truck will be limited to hauling 15 or 20 cubic yards. The average
speed of 45 mph is a conservative value for expressway driving.
4.7 MARKET SUMMARY
The long term market outlook for the sale of compost material on Long Island is a positive
one. The Southold project can utilize its position as the first large scale composter on the
. Long Island to develop a solid clientele of compost users. This clientele can be developed
through the marketing of a product tailored to meet specific user needs. The packaging of
compost in convenient 6 ft 3 plastic containers would be a high value first step toward
developing a faithful clientele among Long Island's nurserymen. The establishment of a
pilot compost application farm to carry out growth rate and nutrient level tests on a
number of different crops would to a, long way toward developing a clientele among Long
Island farmers.
The Southold facility could reap the benefits of being in the right place at the right time if
New York state recycling incentive legislation is broadened to encompass all recycled
materials in addition to provisions for paper. The establishment of tax breaks and
deductions for the use of recycled goods in personal businesses could significantly raise the
demand for compost, ferrous scrap, and inerts.
The primary competition facing the products recovered from the composting process
possess serious weaknesses. The majority of soil and peat moss products sold on Long
Island are imported from out-of-state. This leaves the market share of peat moss and
other soil materials vulnerable to potential increases in transport
C.9
costs and changes in, state recycling incentive laws. The compost presently being produced
on Long Island in leaf/yard waste programs is not of a high enough quality to maintain a
significant share of the nursery/landscape market or the agriculture application market.
The near term market outlook for the sale of compost material on Long Island is a
promising one.. The total volume of identified markets for compost material is over
100,000 yd3. This market is nearly four times the projected compost production of the
proposed Southold facility. The analysis of compost markets was undertaken using a
conservative methodolgy to prevent double counting of the same market opportunities
(i.e., landscapers purchasing soil products from nurseries to complete projects for a state
park). Attractive prices are available for compost materials in the non—agricultural sector
while prices in the agricultural sector may rise when a greater consumer familiarity with
the product develops. Transportation costs on Long Island are significant,, but not
prohibitive for the compost materials addressed in this study.
The analysis of ferrous scrap markets and inert materials markets indicates that a large
viable market exists for both of the non—compost recycled materials and that attractive
prices are available for them. Transportation prices for the inert materials will tend to be
higher than the costs for compost transportation due to their higher densities and
individual truck loading limits.
C.10
H?-NGROUP
APPENDIX C
MARKET IDENTIFICATION PLAN
RIEDEL WASTE TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
PORTLAND, OREGON
•
4.7.6 Market Development Activities
4.7.6.1 Product Marketing
Riedel will take full responsibility for the marketing of all compost and recycled products and
guarantees that the compost product will be marketed or otherwise disposed of at a site other than
the landfill.
Successful marketing of any product depends upon these basic factors.
Useful Product. Composted municipal solid waste is a marvelous soil conditioner
and mulch, a fact which is not disputed by anyone.
Large Number of Users. Long Island has a large number of users needing a
product'of this kind.
- Competitive Price. Compost produced by the proposed DANO plant can be sold
at prices far below those charged for competing materials, which have fewer
beneficial characteristics. .
Professional Marketing. Contrary to the proverb, customers will not beat a path-
way to your door, even if you have a better mousetrap. Any product needs a
well -organized, aggressive sales program to obtain success in the marketplace.
` Riedel intends to mount such a' program for the compost produced at the Southold
plant.
The most likely users of composted MSW on Long Island are:
Nurseries (flowers, shrubs, trees)
Greenhouses
Landscaping companies
Sod farms
Garden supply stores
There are several well-established and reputable firms selling top soil, soil amendments, mulches
and fertilizer to those users, such as:
H. Bittle & Son
Fafard
Bistrain
Sunshine Chemical
Metski
Different firms specialize in sales to different segments of the market. Since each has extensive
knowledge of its customers' needs and preferences, it is planned to appoint .two, possibly three, as
distributors of DANO compost. Those of these firms which Riedel contacted expressed a great
interest in having the opportunity to distribute this new product.
While composted solid waste is an excellent product when used undiluted as a soil conditioner or
mulch, it is likely that some distributors will expand its appeal by offering special products made
by mixing it with various proportions o5 fertilizers, sand, vermiculite, peat moss, etc.-- mixes
which their experience has shown to be popular with different types of customers (1). This will
be particularly true of distributors selling lbagged mixes to the home garden market.
•
Riedel will support the distributors' efforts in various ways, such as:
Providing data obtained! through Riedel -Sponsored compost research at Cornell
Rutgers University regarding:
Physical and chemical properties
Improvements in plant productivity
Supplying literature and other printed ,material
Training distributor sales persona
Developing a close working relationship with country extension agents.
Preparing newsletters for mailing to users
Holding, educational meetings for users.
Sending out new releases to trade journals and general circulation publications.
Placing advertisements in selected publications
Direct mail campaigns aimed at different market segments.
( - - Appearances at trade association meetings and conferences.
An xample of what a professional marketing program can accomplish is Milorganite, a soil
ame dment made from sewage sludge in Milwaukee,' Wisconsin. It is sold through distributors
acro s the country: On the West Coast it ;has a wholesale price of $7 for a 40 -pound bag, or $350
per on. Riedel has no intention of developing national sales of compost made in Southold be-
caus Long Island will absorb far more 'than can be produced. But similar marketing practices
will be used.
The proposed tipping fees will allow profitable plant operations if the product is supplied. at no
char a to users. However, there is no reason to give it away. The price of competing products
($12 to $35 per cubic yard) is. so high that a price of around $5 per cubic yard will be. extremely
attra tive to users. I
Once users discover how good the produl t is, it will be necessary to raise the price in order to
maintain, a reasonable balance between supply and demand.
Ried1 proposes to share revenues from the sale of compost with Southold in this ratio: 50% of
the t wn; 50% to Riedel. Such revenues can be estimated as follows:
17,700 tons per year production (35,400 cu. yds/yr.) (2)
i
Average beginning selling price - $5/cu. yd.
Esti ated beginning annual sales:
1
35,400 cu. yds./yr. x $5/cu. yd. _ $177,000
50% of sales = $88,500 per year to ',Southold
r�
U
Income to the Town from compost sales will increase substantially as:
Demand for compost raises the price to at least $15/cu. yd. and possibly as high as
$35/cu. yd. (3)
The amount of waste increases.
Riedel also proposes to share income from the sale of recyclable items on the same. 50-50 ratio.
There is a well-established market on and near Long Island for the sale of materials removed on
our picking line. Please see 4.7.6.3 for list of such, firms and the prices which they are currently
paying.
4.7.6.2. - Market Identification
Composted MSW is valuable to growers because , it improves the fertility of their soil and is
usually sold at relatively low prices. Consequently, most of the over 100 DANO plants,around
the world have backlogs of orders from users wanting to buy compost (4). However, before
Riedel could consider investing millions of dollars in a DANO composting plant at Southold it
had to determine beyond any doubt that this would be true on Long Island.
So a study was conducted to determine how much compost could be sold there.
Sources of information:
Publications of Cornell Cooperative Extension Service
Interviews with knowledgeable people, including:
Distributors of topsoil,_ fertilizers, soil amendments, etc. (See list in Section 4.6.7.1
- Product Marketing, most of whom were contracted.)
Potential buyers of compost. (See list in 4.6.7.4 of twenty-one firms which were
contracted.)
Several specialists at the county extension service in Riverhead.
Recycling centers.
This market study led to the conclusion that far more compost can be sold on Long Island than
Can be produced at Southold's plant, by a wide margin.
To give the reader a better understanding of the reasoning behind this conclusion, the following
facts and figures are presented:
The success of a product in the marketplace depends upon the benefits it offers to buyers. Com
posted municipal solid waste, as produced by a DANO plant, is a loamy, apsteurized, odorless
humus with beneficial characteristics as a soil conditioner (when mixed with soil) and as a mulch
(when placed over solid).
As a soil conditioner, it improves fertility of solid in these ways:
ii
Moisture retention is significantly' greater. (It holds twice its own weight of
water.)
CJ
Root aeration is improved.
- Cation Exchange Capacity (which affects the ability of roots to absorb nutrients)
is three to five times that of ordinary soil.
Fertilizer retention is increased.
Trace elements are added to the soil (Just as humans need small amounts of
minerals and vitamins,:, in their diet; plants need small amount of minerals to foster
their growth). This is particularly important with intensively cultivated crops
where commercial fertilizers are used year after year --causing the soil to become
depleted of the needed trace elements.)
Buffering ability, soil's ability to hold nutrients, is enhanced.
As a mulch, it has these additional beneficial characteristics:
It is an excellent thermal insulator; which helps maintain even soil temperatures.
In hot weather, for example, this ;characteristic greatly retards moisture evapora-
tion.
It has an unusual ability to resist erosion caused by heavy rain.
While other soil .amendments and mulches are as good in certain respects, none have as- wide a
i 'range of beneficial characteristics (5).
Good mulches and soiI conditioners are needed wherever grass, plants and trees are grown. Some
examples:
Farms Gardens
Parks' Golf Courses
Nurseries Cemeteries
Playing fields Greenhouses
Land restoration
Residential, commercial, and governmental landscaping,
Highway roadsides, median strips,;on/off ramps and interchanges.
Riedel's market research showed that the largest users of Southold compost will be:
Nurseries
Landscapers
Greenhouses
Garden Supply Shops
Sod Farms
Much'of the soil on Long Island consists of sand and is not very good for growing things. Con-
sequently, users must add soil conditioners to improve fertility. Composted MSW is the best
material available for this. Most important is its ability to hold water. Water drains rapidly
'through the native sand and becomes inaccessible to plant roots. As the water seeps downward it
carries fertilizer with it. For this reason, growers on Long island use more fertilizer per acre than.
,those in other areas growing the same crops (6). The water and fertilizer'retention characteris-
tics of the compost will not only reduce the amount of fertilizer needed, they will also even out
:the absorption rate of nitrogen by plant roots, which otherwise tends to fluctuate from rapid, just
v
after fertilizer application, to very slow, after rain has fallen.
The other advantages of compost mentioned earlier, such as better Cation Exchange Capacity,
more trace elements and buffering ability, would also improve the fertility of the sandy soil.
The most popular materials added to the soil by growers on Long Island are:
Peat moss
Pine bark
Composted sewage sludge
Composted yard debris
Topsoil
None of these have all of the beneficial characteristics of MSW -derived compost, and most are
expensive. Peat moss, which is imported from Canada, sells for up to $35 per cubic yard (7).
Pine bark, which comes from North Carolina, is priced in the range of $12-$15 per cubic yard.
And top soil is not dirt cheap on Long Island since it sells for up to $20 per cubic yard.
In the past there were about 100 duck farms on Long Island, and manure from those farms was
an excellent and low-cost soil additive. Today only four such farms remaining and can only
supply a tiny fraction of the volume needed.
So the compost produced at the proposed DANO plant will be a better soil conditioner than
materials now being used on Long Island and can be sold for a lower price. (See pricing strategy
described in Section 4.7.6.1 - Product Marketing.)
When considering the sale of compost' it must be understood that the Southold plant will produce
a "relatively small amount of finished compost. When processing 120 tons/day of refuse, the com-
post output will be approximately 17,700 tons/year (8). If that amount is spread on land to a
depth of two to four inches before being plowed in; it would cover only 81 acre's. To put that in
perspective, nurseries on Long Island cover 6,500 acres and sod farm acreage is 4,500.
Another way of looking at it, there is one nursery which, by itself, purchases soil amendments
each year with a total volume equal to one-sixth of the annual production of the proposed com-
post plant.
Of the many potential customers who were contracted, almost all were.very interested in having
MSW compost available from a nearby source and at a low price.
Since a 20 -year contract is being proposed, Riedel also Istudied how the market for compost might
change in future years. It was determined that it will change substantially. The real estate now
used on Long Island for growing things is becoming increasingly valuable. Developers are buying
it up. Inevitably, most of it will be sold for residential and commercial uses. Thus, compost sales
to growers can be expected . to steadily decline. Fortunately, this will be compensated for by
increased sales to landscapers and garden supply shops. In fact, dollar sales of compost will rise
because the number of ' cubic feet wood annually will continue to be limited by the plant's
capacity while the price per cubic yard will climb, as discussed in an earlier section.
Sales at first are likely to be mostly to bulk -users, such as nurseries and landscapers but sales of
bagged products (compost and compost mixes) to garden supply stores will account for a growing
portion of sales. Since the price per pound of bagged products is much higher than the per -
pound price of bulk sales, the average unit price will increase substantially during the coming
years.
•
(1) Distributors will package their products according to users' preferences. In most cases they
will also deliver the products to their customers, including transportation costs in their delivered
prices.
(2) Based on 120 tons per day of waste processed.,
(3) In 1988 dollars.
(4) Examples: In Austria, an association of vineyard owners raised enough capital to build
DANO plants in two cities to assure that they would have first call on the compost from those
plants. In Ecuador people travel 180 miles from Cuenca to buy compost from the plant at Quito.
E. Glynn Hughes, an internationally respected waste management consultant, has said,
"Throughout the world the experience is the same.. There is no market for compost until someone
builds a plant and then there is a waiting list."
(5) Please see pamphlet in Appendix entitles "The "Nature of Compost."
(6) This down -washing of fertilizers is a major reason for the high nitrate content of the drinking
water which comes from the aquifer beneath their;land.
(7) Peat moss comes closest to MSW compost as a soil conditioner, but has the disadvantage of
being very acidic (pH of about 4.0) and, therefore, requires the addition of lime. The pH of
composted MSW is usually slightly basic, most often falling in a pH range of about 6.8 to 7.7.
(8) 40 to 50% of the organic waste will be oxidized and discharged into the atmosphere as water
I apor and carbon dioxide.
4.7.6.3 POTENTIAL BUYERS OF COMPOST WHO WERE CONTACTED
Holly Hollow Nurseries
Peconic, N.Y.
Warner Nursery
Calverton, NY
Environmental Main Rd.
Cutchogue, NY
The Whitman Nurseries,
Inc.
Huntington Station, NY
Bob Van Bourgondien
Peconic, NY
Hren Landscaping &
Nurseries
Bayberry
Amagansett, NY
Homeside Florist.
Riverhead, NY
Ver der Ber Nursery
Aquebogue, NY
•
SOD FARMS
De Lea & Sons
East Northport, NY
Briarcliff Sod, Inc.
Peconic, NY
NURSERIES
Haff Hollow
Jamesport, Ny
,
Friar's Head Farm
Riverhead, NY
The Plantage, Inc.
Mattituck, NY
GREENHOUSES
Jens Mattituck Greenhouses
Mattituck, NY
Bittersweet Greenhouse & FIorist
Riverhead, NY
LANDSCAPERS'
Whitmore & Worsely Inc.
Amagansett, Ny
if
L'aurelwood Landscape Construction
Southold, NY
Carpet Green lawns
Jamesport, NY
GARDEN SHOPS
Landscape Adventure
Riverhead, NY
Mattituck Garden Shop
Mattituck, NY
'i
i
ii
Holly Hollow Nurseries
Peconic, N.Y.
Warner Nursery
Calverton, NY
Environmental Main Rd.
Cutchogue, NY
The Whitman Nurseries,
Inc.
Huntington Station, NY
Bob Van Bourgondien
Peconic, NY
Hren Landscaping &
Nurseries
Bayberry
Amagansett, NY
Homeside Florist.
Riverhead, NY
Ver der Ber Nursery
Aquebogue, NY
•
4:7.6.4 PURCHASERS OF RECYCLABLE MATERIALS
Corrugated Paper.
Jet Paper Stock Corp.
228 Blydenburgh Rd.
Central Islip, NY 11722
Paoer
A & R Robosco Co.
Flushing, NY
Jamaica Ash
New York, NY
Island Recycling Corp.
Long Island, NY
Brookhaven Recycling & Waste Corp.
Patchogue, NY
P; & P Paper Reeyclables
Old Bethpage, NY
Westbury Paper Co.
Westbury, .NY
Glass:
Pace Glass
Jersey City, NJ
Echospere
Hicksville, NY
'a
Empire Returns
Utica, NY
Steel Scrap:
Geishow
Medford, NY
Cousins &" Spinelli
Oceanside, NY
Fanza Universal
Long Island, NY'
ii
Current Price:
$25/ton
Current Prices:
No. 1 Grade $30/ton
'No. 2 Grade $18/ton
Current Prices:
Flint glass $24/ton .
Green glass $15/ton
Amber glass $10/ton
Current Prices:
$5 to $10/ton
•
Tin Cans:
AMG Resources
Pittsburgh, PA (accepts delivery in NJ)
Aluminum:
Crestwood Metal
Holbrook, NY (also buys copper & brass
Prices shown are for material delivered to the recycling locations.
Current prices:
$50 to $120/ton
Current Prices:
Cans - .50/lb.
Scrap-.40/lb.
•
APPENDIX C
MARKET IDENTIFICATION PLAN
OMNI'COMPOSTING CORP.
UNIONDALE, NEW YORK
2.5.1 .3 Composting Product Marketing
Omni Composting Corp. will assume full responsibility for the
processing of the previously identified wastestreams by aerobic
composting and will also assume full responsibilities for end
product marketing. The Town of Southold as well as the surrounding
Towns of Riverhead, East Hampton, and Southampton still have many
acres of land under active agricultural activities. These include
farms as well as nurseries, greenhouses, sod growers, and vineyards
and all potential users of the two compost products to be produced
at the Town's facility Located in the Appendix is a letter of
intent from a major compost marketor for purchase of all compost
product generated at the Southold Project. Omni will be willing
to discuss revenue sharing with the Town during the negotiation of
" — the service agreement. At this point in the project it is premature
to estimate the market value of the product.
2.5.1.4 Residuals Disposal
Stated further in this proposal, in the technical section,
will be the materials balance of the composting process. Omni
estimates that approximately 25% of the total wastestream received
for composting will be in the form of process residuals and
rejects. This figure is based on existing operating data and a
thorough understanding of the composting process dynamics by the
Omni Project Team. While we believe that this figure can be
reduced by an increase in recycling efforts on the part of the
2-16
s
COMPOST MANAGEMENT, INC.
354 NORTH MAIN STREET * DOYLESTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA 18901
(210 348-9788
September 19, 1988
Mr. Mark Wagner
Omni Composting Company
50 Charles Lindbergh Blvd.
Uniondale, New York 11553
$E: MSW/SLUDGE COMPOST-SO=OLD- NEW YORK
Dear Mr. Wagner:
r, Compost Management, Inc. is interested in marketing all of the MSW/Sludge Compost
that is produced at the proposed Southold Co -Composting project. We are prepared to
sign a contract guaranteeing our services.
Compost Management is unique and offers both "hands-on" compost marketing and
specialized compost consulting as defined below:
1. Guaranteed EPA approved compost marketing with long term contracts.
2. Development of local public relations programs for compost acceptance.
3. Awareness and motivation training for compost site employees.
4. Nationwide compost marketing network.
5. Design and- implementation of computerized record keeping systems for
regulatory compliance.
6. Phytotoxicity testing to assure the optimum operation of compost facilities
and subsequent guaranteed production of salable compost.
7. Computer programs for control of microorganism activity to assure the
production of agronomically safe compost.
-
S. Greenhouse testing and product development.
We have a seven year record -of -success. Please feel free to call any of the -following
people to verify our credentials:
Mr. Frank Senske P.E., Black do Veatch, Philadelphia
(215) 627-1443
Mr. Gene Gruber Chief, Sludge Management Unit,
City Of Philadelphia
(215) 492-4028
Mr. Al Poladori Director, Scranton, PA Sewer
Authority (717) 348-5330
Dr. Frank Gouin University Of Maryland
(301) 454-3143
William Mitchell University Of Delaware
— (302) 737-2945
Mr. Arthur Nicholson Sr. V.P., Metcalf do Eddy, Boston
(617) 248-5200
Compost Management has developed successful compost marketing programs for:
1. City of Philadelphia,! PA
2. City of Scranton, PA
3. Sussex County, NJ
4. Township of Buena, NJ.
5. Middletown Township, NJ
6. - Lederle Laboratories, NY
7.. Washington and the District of Columbia
8. Town of Springettsbury, PA
9. City of Baltimore, MA
We have the following other credentials:
1. We were recently highlighted;; on the nationally syndicated NOVA
' — science television series regarding our compost marketing efforts.
2. We have an exclusive staff of top agronomic and horticultural
specialists with 40 years �. experience in compost utilization. 3. We developed the standard test method that is used to verify the
- agronomic value of compost.
4. We developed university approved 'compost blend products for a variety
of end-uses.
5. We were retained by Blue Plains, Washington, D.C. to review and
consult on their marketing program.
6. We were engaged by `the Massachusettes Water Resource Authority to
conduct a major greenhouse . and phytotoxieity test on Boston compost.
Please call as soon as you have had a chance to review this information.
ely yours
R E. TUTTLE
ir President
RET/ab
;i
i
ti
;APPENDIX C
MARKET IDENTIFICATION,PLAN
BEDMINSTER BIOCONVERSION CORP.
CHERRY HILL, NEW JERSEY
1i
MARKET IDENTIFICATION: COMPOST BY-PRODUCT:
METHODS USED TO RESEARCH MARKET:
Hugh Ettinger, Vice President, Sales, conducted the survey.
He started by contacting the Cornell Cooperative Extension groups
in Suffolk' and Nassau Counties. The personnel at Cornell give him
an overview of conditions in Long Island agriculture and pointed
him in the direction of particular individuals to interview in the
horticultural field.. Mr. Ettinger decided not to include in his
study possible use of, compost on food -chain crops. The reason for
this, was that at that time (August,'1988), it appeared that the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
would likely prohibit the use of the Southold compost on food
chain crops. Since then, the final "Part 360" regulations have
been? announced. Under these final regulations, "Class 1" compost
can be used in agriculture, except where the crops are for direct
r '
human consumption.
:�Mr. Ettinger conducted his survey among nurserymen, landsca—,
pers, sod farmers, distributors of organic zoiI amendments, makers
Page 133`
of compost, wholesalers and retailers of soil amendments,_.scien-
tists identified with composting and testing; and officials,of
trade;organizations. The table which follows lists the ndivi-
duals;, companies and organizations contacted by Mr. Ettinger. In
each case, either -by a visit o,r by telzczone, Mr.' Ettinger perso-
nally interviewed the party or parties -involved.
TABLE 1
BEDMINSTER BIOCONVERSION CORPORATION
COMPOST MARKET IDENTIFICATION STUDY'
Atlantic Nurseries, Retail Division (,Freeport), Joseph Mercurio
Atlantic Nurseries.(Dix Hills), Dwight`Andreas
Bissett Nurseries (Holtsville), Jimmy Bissett
Bittle, H & Son (Medford), D. Testa, R'. Plechner, F. Mayer
Briarcliff -Sod Farms'(Cutchogue)
�j
Brookside Nurseries (Darien, Ct),. David Bulpitt
Cornell University Cooperative Extension,
Suffolk County (Riverhead), Scott Clark, Caroline Kiang, Dave
Newton, Wm. Sanok
i
Nassau County (Plainview), Richard weir, Maria Cinque
Corn,411 University (Ithaca) Dr..Thomas Richard
DeLallo Sod Farms (Dix Hills) Roy Ray
i
-46
j Page 134
De'lea'Sod ,Farms, (Northport)
Eberhard-Voellm (Franklin Square)
Environmentals (Cutchogue) Jim Cross
Flower Time Retail Stores
Forge�River Nursery and Garden'_Cen.ter (Center Moriches)
Joseph Ge'rgela., Exec. Secretary, L.I. Farm Bureau
Brad Gettinger, President, L..I. Nurserymens Association
ureen-PROS (Hempstead)., Richard Hawks
Half -Hollow Nursery (Laurel); Charles Scheer
Andy Hanlon'(Bellmore), Landscaper
Dr. Hans Helmprecht, Chemical Consulting of Babylon
.Island Gannon (E. Norwich), Thomas Humphries
J.P.'s Nursery (E. Moriches)
McGovern Sod Farms,(Melville)
Metsky•Enterprises, (East Moriches), Lorraine Metsky
Pinewood Perennials (Cutchogue), Sandy'Friemann.
i
Premier Brands,,Inc. (New Rochelle, N.Y.), Mr. Lewis
Quality Plants (Manorville), Ed Liebermann
Queens College, Center for BNS,'James Quigley
University of Maryland, Dr. Frank Gouin.
Kurt Weiss Nursery(Center Moriches),
Woodburn Horticultural (Melville), Jack Seeley
Page 135
Size of Market: The market for organic soil additives on Long
Island is,-to a degree; limited by supply. The only such additive
available in unlimited supply appears to be Canadian Moss Sphagnum
Peat. Canadian peat is used by virtually all the nurseries and
all the landscapers on Long.,-Island, as': well as by many homeowners.
We could not obtain figures for the-amount of Canadian peat sold
on Long Island, but it is-very substantial. The properties of
Canadian peat which are attractive to users are that it is relati-
vely predictable and uniform in particle size, moisture content
and appearance. The buyers know what they are getting and each
shipment is like every other shipment. This is particularly nec-
essary for nurseries, where they must know exactly what they are
putting into each pot. Canad=ian peat is an excellent soil condi-
tioner in the sense that it-holds water and provides pore-space.
It also has a good cation exchange capacity and ks,-virtually ster-
ile'.,� It has no heavy metals. In other words, it is predictable,
and safe and can be used with confidence. It lacks microbial life
and 'trace elements, and it also has little in the way of nutrient
value. However, users add trace element packages and fertilizers
to the Canadian'peat base to form controlled mixes.. Also landsca-
j
pers:;like it because it is packaged and can be transported and
measured with relative,ease.
Sewage sludge compost from Philadelphia is used on Long
Island.,' H. Bittle and Son (Medford) is the exclusive Long Island
Page 136
distributor for this product: We estimate that Bittle sells
20,000 tons a year of this product, all in bulk form. It is a
controversial product, because it contains heavy metals. Certain
nurserymen use it and swear by it. Others are afraid to use it
because certain plants cannot tolerate the heavy metals. Even the
nurserymen who .use it agree that it must be used with care, and
cannot be used on certain plants. The advantages which users per-
ceive in using the Philadelphia compost include the fact that it
contains trace elements, and that it improves the cation exchange
capacity of the mix. As a consequence, its use in a potting mix
reduces the amount of chemical fertilizer required. Landscapers
are less likely to use the. Philadelphia compost. They do not like
a bulk product and are afraid of workers handling it because of.
real, or imagined contaminants. Sod'farmers won't use the Phila-
delphia product. One reason is that it is made from sewage
sludge. On.'leased land, there are,of ten covenants.in the lease
prohibiting use of such soil additives. Leased land is important
to sod farmers on Long. Island.
H. Bittle & Son also sells a compost made by Lederle Labora-
tories at their facility in Pearl River, New York. Lederle mixes•
the waste from Penicillin manufacture with leaves and other bio-
degradable materials and composts the mixture. Bittle, in turn,
adds, wood chips and -allows the material to cure and mellow in
piles. Certain nurseries are shifting to the Lederle product,
Page 137
away from the Philadelphia product, because there are no heavy
metals in the-Lederle product. We have no numbers on the tonnages
of the Lederle product.sold on Long Island.
Leaf compost or "123` mold" as it is often called,_ is in
strong demand wherever it is produced on Long Island. The lands-
capelrs want it and so do the nurserymen. Unfortunately, there is
not a lot of leaf composting being done on Long Island and, where
Town's do it on a large scale, such as.; in Islip and Brookhaven,
homeowners have a preference in obtaining it. As a result, there
is riot enough leaf mold to go around. We encountered a case where
a landscaper on the East End imported a truckload of "custom leaf
compost" from Connecticut. We contacted the Connecticut producer
of the compost and were told it was;'distributed on Long Island in
4 '
limited amounts, but also was distributed in New Jersey, Connecti-
cut liand
onnecti-cutland Massachusetts.
There is a producer of about 15,000 yards a year
(approximately 7,500 tons) of compost located in Each Moriches.
This compost is made from yard waste, duck manure and other animal
manure. The yard waste ' includes large pieces, including tree
stumps which. are shredded. The compost made by this producer has
been sold primarily to landscapers. It sells at a lower price
than leaf compost or sludge compost.
f
A large part of the potential market for organic soil additi-
Page 138
� i
ves on Long Island is represented by the homeowner. While the
homeowner uses•primarily chemical fertilizers on his' -lawn, we. were
told by retail distributors that homeowners are becoming more
conscious of .the need for organics.' The Cornell Co -Op Extension
agents who work with home gardeners told, us that they are con-
-s tan tly urging seminar participants. to start compost biles to
cr.eat,e organic soil material to improve the sandy soil which
exists 'in the central part of the Island and on the south shore.
However, said the Cornell agents, homeowners are often loathe to
build a backyard compost pile. People are afraid that "it will be
an eyesore", or that "it will, attract :,,rodents or that "it will
smell", or just plain "it's too much work". People ask where they
can buy such materials. Organic soil amendments are available at
retail, but they can be expensive. Canadian peat is the mainstay.
Also; there are a variety of bagged organic materials such as top-
soil; potting soil, dehydrated cow manure, "Ringer's Lawn
Restorer", "Vita -Build" and others. We heard reports that the
Philadelphia sludge compost, called "Earth Life", will shortly be
introduced to the retail market in bags. We.were unable to, con-
firm- this.
'Long Island appears to represent a potentially large market
for organic soil additives. This view is reinforced by the
results of a study commissioned by the Town of East Hampton this
year. East Hampton asked the Center for the Biology of the Natu-
Page 139
ral Systems at Queens College to do a .study to assess the
potential market f,,)r c:oincost, on Lona. Poland.. The results have not
been.made available as of this writing. However, we spoke to
James Quigley, of Queens College, who is 'in charge of the study.
He said that his study reached the conclusion that there is a
potentially, large market f,or organic soil additives on Long
Island.
Existing and Potential Competition: The preceding section
outlined the.comnetition. In the order of importance, it is:
!'l) Canadian Peat
2 ) Leaf Mold
13) Philadelphia and other Out -of -Area sewage sludge compost
"4) Bagged -potting soil mixes
-5) Organic fertilizers such as
Ringer's Lawn Restorer
Vita Build
Urea -Based Fertilizers
i6). Composted and dehydrated cow manure
To gain some perspective on the competition, below we show
theap proximate prices.of these products on Long Island:
r
Page 140
For Professional Users Approximate Wholesale Price
Canadian Peat $54 per ton delivered
Leaf Mold Free in limited supply
Leaf Mold
$25,per
.ton delivered
Philadelphia compost
$40
per'ton
delivered
LederI e compost
$40
per
ton delivered
Locally -produced compost
(Ea'st Moriches)
$15
per
ton FOB.
For, the Homeowner
Canadian, Peat (4 Ft Bale)
Canadian Peat "Pro -Mix" (1)
Leaf Mold
Composted Cow Manure
Dehydrated Cow Manure (2-1-2)`
Ringer's Lawn Restorer (9-4-4)
Vita Build (1-1-1) (2)
18-8=;6 100% Organic (Urea-
,
based) Chemical Fertilizer
Potting Soil
Approximate Retail Price
$110 to $130 per ton
About"$300 per ton in 3 -foot bales
Free from Town where available
$150 per ton in 40 lb bags
$140 to $300 per ton (40 lb bags)
$25 for 25 lb bag ($2000/ton)
$17.95, for 25 lb bag ($1436/ton)
$13.50 for 25 lb bag ($1,080/ton)
$300 per'ton and up, depending on,
bag size and contents
(1) Peat moss, perlite, vermiculite "and other ingredients".
(2) "100% natural humus and mineral base plus enzymes, bacteria,
organic acids, N,P,K, sulphur, calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc,
Page 141
:D.D �'�
copper, manganese and.boron."
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION - POTENTIAL USE, OF SOUTHOLD COMPOST:
It appears probable that any organic soil additive will find
a place in the Long Island market',,because of the sandy soils
which cover much of the island'. As an` indication of this, a major
.distr'ibuto'r` of soil organics'on LongIsland told us that he would
consider purchasing our entire output!.of Southoldcompost should
we be the successful bidder. Anothe'r indication of the strength
of the market is the fact- that more than.20,,000 tons a year of
compost is imported' to Long ,Island from Philadelphia, upstate New
York
jand New England. •Most of such imported compost is used in
the ,hotticultural industry on the east end of the Island. Thus,
for reasons of geography, the, compost produced. at Southold will
have: a freight advantage over composted material fx,om off the
Island. If the compost produced at Southold were no better than
the -Philadelphia sewage sludge compost, for example, it would have
a competitive edge over it because of'the 150 mile freight advan-
tagel which 'it would enjoy. As 'can be.seen in Table 1, the
Philadelphia sewage sludge compost sells for a -delivered price of.
$40 a ton on the east end of.Long,Island, We estimate that at
least $15 a ton of this price is' freight. The Southold compost.
willi thus be in a position where pricing flexibility can be cul-
tivated.
Al
Page 142
The Southold compost should enjoy more than just a freight
advantage 'against out-of-state compost. It is the contention of
the Bedminster management that compost correctly made from the
combination of garbage and sewage (such as.in the Eweson digester)
is superior to compost made from sewag,e,sludge and wood chips. It
is superior on several counts. First, the carbon in sewage sludge
has been through the digestive process and is diminished and infe-
rior as a carbon source for composting. On the other hand, the
carbon in the paper and cardboard of garbage is..fresh and easily
assimilated by the microbial population, in the composting mass.
Unlike sawdust or woodchips, the carbon from municipal solid waste
is in, available form. Second, garbage dilutes the heavy metals in
compost. The solids in garbage are roughly ten times the the
solids in sewage in the Eweson process. The result is that heavy
metals, which exist primarily in sewage solids, are greatly dilu-
ted in co -composting. Third, Eweson compost is granular and
uniform. One shipment will be like the next one. In this respect
it is somewhat like Canadian Peat in consistency. Several Long
Island growers complained about the inconsistency in sludge com-
posts,: Finally, pathogen are destroyed in the enclosed vessel,
controlled environment of the Eweson system. The net result of
these factors, in the opinion of the Bedminster management, is
that the Eweson compost produced at Southold will not only compete
effectively against out-of-state compost, but will be accepted by
growers who do not now use -the imported compost. we believe that
Page 143
the market for compost among growers'; will expand, particularly
.among nurseries, who demand a uniform and predictable product.
We see a demand for the Southold'compost which, within two or
three ,years, will exceed -(supply. First, it is likely that we
could sell the entire output -of the Southold.plant each year to
1
existing,established distributors of soil additives on Long
Island. Second, we think that inroads can be made 'into the vary
large market on Long Island' now represented by -users of Canadian
moss,sphagnum peat. In Texas, our affiliate sells part of its
output to professionals under the name "Composted PEAT Replacer".
Compost can replace peat, and, it can also complement peat. Com-
post is rich in microbial life and trace elements and holds water.
Peat'�holds water but is deficient in microbial life and nutrients.
Eweson compost is safe to handle'.; and uniform in consistency.
These are all qualities which; professional` horticulturists look
for in potting and landscaping materials. The Southold compost
willhave-.a considerable freight advantage over Canadian Peat. We
intend 'to seek to sell it as a price -competitive peat substitute.
i
Third, the DEC has recently allowed use,of "Class 1" compost on
food chain crops, except those crops which are for direct human
i,
consumption. This may mean that a market for compost can be
opened in the food and vineyard sectors of agriculture on Eastern
;i
Long ;Island. University-sponsoredresearch will be sought by Bed-
minster as a way to develop confidence among farmers that the
ALL
Page 144
I ,
it I -
Southold compost can be so employed. This will take some time,
and ',we do not anticipate that large tonnages of compost can be
moved into the food agriculture segments of the market for several
years. However, within several years a meaningful penetration of
that market should be possible. Fourth, the high prices charged
for bagged organics in the Long Island retail market offer the
Southold compost a tempting target. Recently revised rules by the
DEC allow sales of "Class l" compost to homeowners. It can be
seen in Table 1 that bagged organics of all types sell at retail
at prices well above $100 a ton. The .efforts we make to establish
compost in wholesale professional markets will help us in estab-
lishing a presence in the retail market. We will also set up an
advertising budget to support retail marketing. Our- entry into
the retail market will be on -a small scale in the first several
years, to establish the reputation of; the product and to test
market size. 'The very high,prices for such products as "Ringer's
'Lawn,Restorer" appear very attractive,.but indications are that
the present market for such products at such prices is not a large
one..:, A much larger retail market is represented by"sales of Cana-
dian,; Peat and composted and dehydrated cow manure. We would seek
to build the retail 'market for the Southold compost on a found-
ation of sponsored University testing and advertising and a
gradual, year -by -year expansion of bagged production. Once esta-
blished, the market should be a profitable one for us and for
Southold.
�• �k 1�aial
Page 145
We will target our compost sales effort to the combination of
the above markets. Table 2, which follows, shows our five year
projection of sales by market segment' The Southold plant will
produce approximately 18,000 'tons a, year of compost based on an
average solid waste volume of 90 tonsa-day. As the numbers, in
Table 2 suggest, it is likely that growth in market segments will
be limited by supply within two or three years.
In addition to the sales strategy covered in Table 2, Bedmin-
ster may institute a marketing program along the lines of the one
which has been successfully ''pursued by Vital Earth Resources,
Inc.;, the company's Texas affiliate As the attached sales bro-
chure suggests, Vital Earth Resources not only sells compost
"as -is", but also blends compost to produce a broad range of pro -
dust's used in the horticultural markets in Texas. In this
connection, we see an opportunity to'use the wood waste delivered
to the Southold landfill. This material could be ground into a
mulch which, in turn, could be used.in blended products.
co yv!,jNj--j1AL
�� Page 146
2 that we are planning to use wholesale
outlets to dispose of' the compost in the first operating year. In
years 2 through 5, marketing, will diversify to include direct
sales to the nursery and landscaping industries, direct sales to
food,farmers and vineyards, and sales to the public. Sales to
nurseries and food farmers will probably be in bulk form. Sales
to landscapers will probably be in 40,pourid bags. Sales to the
public will probably be in 25 pound,and smaller bags. Distribu-
tion and delivery will be determined at a later date. It will
probably be through middlemen, although the company is not exclud-
ing the possibility of operating its own trucks. Bagging
equipment will be installed only after the bulk market for the
compost has been established.
Compost Royalty: Bedminster proposes to pay Southold one-
half of net compost income above $10 per ton of compost. Net com-
post income is defined as compost revenue after deducting direct
marketing 'and haul expenses. Marketing expenses include the cost
of bagging, blending (if any),, sales commissions, advertising -
expenses and storage, if storage at locations away from the plant
is required. Net compost income corresponds to the bottom line in
Table; 2 on the next page. The Table 2 compost. tonnage is based on
the assumption of a. somewhat lower annual solid waste tonnage than
is used for Form "H".
Page 147
Page 148
F
TABLE 2
SOUTHOLD
TOWNSHIP
ESTIMATED COMPOST
REVENUES
NET OF 'DIRECT
MARKETING
COSTS
(Dollars in
Thousands)
YEAR
;YEAR
YEAR
YEAR
YEAR
1
2
3
4
5
.TO WHOLESALE DEALERS
Tons'in Thousands
.25
15
8
5'
-0-
Price Per Ton$
25
$ 25
$ 25
25
-
Total Revenues
625
,' 375
.200
125
-
'DIRECT TO NURSERY AND.
LANDSCAPING INDUSTRIES
Tons in Thousands
-0-
5
10
10
15
Price Per Ton
"-
$ 35
$ 40
$ 45
$ 50
Total Revenues
-
175
400
450
750
TO FOOD AGRICULTURE
Tons in Thousands
-0-,
3
4
5
5
Price Per Ton
-
$ 35
$ 40
$ 45
$
50
Total Revenues
-
105
200
180`
250
TO THE RETAIL MARKET
Tons in Thousands
-0-
2
3
5
5
Price Per Ton *
$120
$.130
$ 140
$
150
Total Revenues
-
240
390
700
750
TOTAL COMPOST
Tons in -Thousands
25
25
25
25
25
Total Revenues
i
$625
$895
$1190
$1455
$
1750
LESS:
Haul Costs-______
$ ,90
$ 90
$. 90
$ 100'
$
120
Advertising
-0-
75'
100
125
150
Net Revenues
$535
$730
$1000
$1230
$
1480
Average Revenue Per .Ton
$ 21
$: 29
$ 40
$ 49
$
59
*Net of bagging costs.
Page 148
F
APPENDIX C
MARKET IDENTIFICATION PLAN
REUTER, INC.
HOPKINS, MINNESOTA
5.5.2 Financing Sources - A letter of intent from a financial
instutition can be provided once the specifics of the financing
plan are negotiated and the lead underwriter or institution is
selected. Each project is -'slightly different and
we prefer to
` seek financing commitments when terms are committed to by the
client to Reuter and theproject is going ahead. The fact that
the land is to be owned by the town and a shared use of the
certain physical facilities will complicate the financing.
5.5.3 Financing History - The Reuter facility now completed in Eden
Prairie, Minnesota was financed with interim financing provided by
the company's bank, Unbanc Trust of Chicago. The company has
converted the financing to a long-term arrangement. angement. Financing of
the Chaska plant, and the Florida plant are still in negotiation
With the lenders. Dain Bosworth is handling the Florida facility
while the Chaska facility, equipment has been purchased with
internal funds and, is still seeking one final permit approval to
secure take-out financing;.
5.5.4 Industrial Debt Bonds (IDB) - Not applicable unless the town would
desire to offer Revenue Bonds as a financing tool. We would only
enter into negotiations on the details of cost savings and
sharings if we were selected for negotiation.
51.6 Market Analysis - Included in the Appendix is a letter of intent and a
detailed marketing plan from Compost Management, Inc. (formerly Delchem
Sales, Inc.). CMI will be working with Reuter.as a broker/distributor
and has interest in purchasing all of the compost to be produced by this
facility and all other Reuter c stir
O1�° S Plants.
Y'
5-7
The marketing plan provides the background and experience that CMI has
had marketing compost products. We believe that they are extremely well
qualified to carry out a complete marketing program we see for this
geographical area. In addition to understanding the nature and quality
of a good compost product, CMI has the proven ability to establish a
marketing network to reach all potential customers. Target markets
include growers, nurseries, landscapers, horticultural users, and even
the residential market.
The markets for materials recovered, such as white goods, ferrous metals',
aluminum and other non-ferrous metals, cardboard, and plastics are
well-established to Reuter and local secondary materials processors in
and around the New York area would be used for the marketing of these
products.
5. 7 Assumption of Risk by Vendor
5.7.1 Sludge exemption of risk - While Reuter is willing to build and
operate a sludge/MSW facility and while Buhler-Miag has a great
deal of experience with co -compost (MSW/Sludge) plants, Reuter
cannot accept the compost monitoring requirements as called out in
the Request for Proposal (Section 4.3.4) and agree to meet those
standards at this time. The standards listed in some areas are
more restrictive than Federal EPA standards. Further, since no
data has been provided as to the contaminant concentrations
already present in the sludge from the waste treatment plant, we
have no ability to determine the approximate. finished compost
v
'1
5-8
0
APPENDIX ITEM A
Compost Management Inc.
Letter of Interest for Compost
I&E
DELCHEM SALES, INC.
354 NORTH MAIN STREET • DOYLESTOWN. PENNSYLVANIA 18901
(215) 348.9288
Reuter Resource Recovery, Inc.
11000 West 7th Street
Suite 250
Eaden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Delchem is interested in marketing the solid and/or
sludge based compost produced by Buhler Miag, Inc.*compost
systems. our company is unique and offers the following:
1. Experienced consulting to develop compost
marketing programs.
2. Guaranteed DEP and DER approved compost.marketing.
3. The ability to offer long term marketing contracts
4. Exclusive staff of top agronomic and horticultural
specialists.
5. Daily 'hands on' marketing experience.
We have a seven year record of success. Please feel
free to call any of the following to verify our credentials:
Mr. Frank Senske - Manager - Sludge Management Unit,
City of Philadelphia 215-592-6250
Mr. Al Poladori - Director, Scranton Sewer Authority
717-348-5330
Dr. Andrew Higgins - Rutgers and Richard Alaimo
Associates- 609-267-8310
Dr. Frank Gouin - University of Maryland
301-454-3143
1 Dr. William Mitchell - University of Delaware
302-737-2945
Delchem has developed or is in the process of developing
marketing programs for:
1. City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
2. City of Scranton, Pennsylvania.
3. Sussex County, New Jersey
4. Gloucester County, New Jersey
5. Blue Plains, Washington, D.C.
_ 6. Lederle Laboratories, New York
7. Middletown Township, New Jersey
8. Plattsburg, New York
Page -2-
The steps to our marketing program are as follows:
A. Overview of Our Management Approach
Establish the expectations of the city or
authority and other interested parties. -
Review the current sludge or solid waste
treatment systems.
Review the current composting system.
Analyze the compost for use by each type of
customer..
Analyze the types and sizes of markets.
Gain local support from:
Residents -
End Users
Schools
Universities
Associations
News Media -
Visit 10 customers from each end use.
Determine type of distributor network to be -
developed in the area..
Introduce product through sampling, seminars, L
trade shows, direct calls. -
Develop a long term marketing and distributor
program.
Develop end use literature. _
Develop an overall program for the city or
authority as it relates to the other
competitive compost sites.
B. Level of Effort in Terms of Persons - Both
Professional and Office Staff
Professional
Name_
Mr. Roger Tuttle
Dr. William Mitchell
Dr. Frank Gouin --
Mr. Alfred Rattie
Mr. William Filmyer
- 3 -
(1) Dr. William Mitchell is an Emeritus Pro-
fessor at the University of'Delaware'and.
has a long term exclusive contract with
Delchem for 758 of his time.
(2) Dr. Frank Gouin is an active Professor at
the University of Maryland. Delchem has a
10 year contract for 100% of his consulting
time..
office Staff
Ms. Loretta Czaplicki
.
Mrs. Elizabeth Hasler
Mrs. Tish Cunningham
(C) . Establish , Local' ' ni stributor Network
A full interlaced metw or'k=wil1
be established to
cover all end uses.
(D) Delchem Organization Staffing
General Project Manager
- Roger E. Tuttle
Market M`gr. Greenhouse Nursery
- Al Rattie
-Container Nursery
Field Nursery
Market Mgr. Country Clubs.
- William Filmyer'
Technical Supervisor for e
- Dr. Wm. Mitchell
Turf, Farm and Landscape
Technical Supervisor for
- Dr. Frank Gouin
Greenhouse
Container Nursery
Field Nursery
(E) The Foundation
The marketing programs that are developed
involve each of the following:
1.�` Product Development:
.2. Product Research
I. University Research
4. Market Research
5. Test Marketing
4 -
6. Product Registration
7. Regulatory Compliance
(F) End Uses
Each of the end uses listed on the attached
Schedule "A" will be reviewed as potential
customers for each site.
Each of the elements discussed in this letter are fully
covered in our enclosed Marketing Book.
We are most anxious to share with you our marketing
approach to assure you guaranteed sales.
Please feel free to contact me should you have any
questions.
Very / y yours,
k6ff'e:'Tuttle
Pr s dent
RET/1 sc
encls.
Purolator
' l
1
History of Compost Management, Inc. and Delchem
Background
Delchem was originally formed in 1978 as a division of
another company. It was purchased by the current owners
in 1982, under the parent company name of Wardl, Inc.
while continuing to operate under the name Delchem.
The type of work that the company was doing was not
reflected by the Delchem name.., Accordingly, the company
name was changed to Compost Management, Inc.
The coporate charter of Compost Management, Inc.
directs the company's efforts to "compost management"
emphasizing the establishment of direct "hands on"
compost marketing programs, product development and
greenhouse research.
Of particular importance in all of Compost Management,
Inc.'s programs are the following management elements:
1. compost quality'
2. compost specifications
3., university research
4. market research
5. product development
6. test marketing
7. product registration
8. regulatory compliance
9. use of local distributors
10. direct "hands on." marketing ,
Compost Management, Inc.'s Past Experience and
Current.Approach
Compost Management, Inc.'s past experience is extensive.
Not only have we been•able to identify potential markets
and develop "hands-on'! marketing programs for compost,
we also have the capability to assure.any of our clients
guaranteed sales.
A. Current Clients - The following is a list of
Compost Management, Inc.- s current clients where
contracts have been signed and Compost Management,
Inc. has developed the marketing plan, implemented
the actual marketing elements and purchased all of
the compost from the city or authority.
I. Compost Management, Inc. is well known for our
work with the City of Philadelphia. We have
developed a multi -faceted marketing program
which has assured the City a long term outlet for
their compost.
2. The marketing plans for Sussex County Regional
Authority, New Jersey and the City of Scranton,
Pennsylvania have been developed and --
implementation of sales programs are underway.
3. The marketing plan for the Delaware Solid Waste
Authority's co—composting facility operated by
Fairfield Service Company, is now being developed
and implemented by Compost Management, Inc. It
includes product development, end use identifi—
cation and penetration of potential customers.
4. The following are those sites that Compost
Management, Inc. is currently negotiating
contracts with while at the same time initiating
sales programs:
a. Lederle Laboratories, New York
b. Middletown Township, New Jersey
c. Buena, New Jersey
d. Manville, New Jersey
B. Consulting Services — Compost Management, Inc.
(Delchem) was hired by the Washington, D.C. Council -
of Governments (Mr. Trevis Markle, Principal Resource
Planner, Department of Environmental Programs,
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments) to
conduct a marketing review for Blue Plains and (MES) A
Maryland Environmental Services.
C. Standardized Greenhouse Test Program -
As each new compost site is constructed, it is
important to determine the acceptability of the new
compost that is being produced. Following ten years
of initiating greenhouse tests, Compost Management,
Inc.'s staff has developed a "standardized
greenhouse test program" which yields data that
allows for proper and consistent product development.
Compost Management, Inc. -s staff has conducted over
200 greenhouse and field growing test programs. Each
of the tests were designed to determine the
acceptability of different composts for use by a wide
variety of customers. Our technical staff is
unsurpassed, accumulating over 42 years of
experience. The resumes of each staff member are
shown in Schedule A.
It is impossible to predict customer acceptance and
response to the agronomic and horticultural elements
of the new compost unless a full greenhouse test
program is conducted and compared to known standards.
Therefore, it is very important to compare the growth
patterns of the new compost against the existing
performance of a known compost.
Although Compost Management, Inc. usually uses local
land grant university manpower to implement the
studies, overall management control always remains
with Compost Management, Inc.
D. Product Development
Successful marketing of sludge and solid waste
compost products occur only when the compost is in a
form that is acceptable for use by the customer.
Although the general agronomic benefits of compost
have been identified, specific end use
recommendations are necessary for each customer type.
Since specific university research covering each type
Of customer was non—existent, we found it necessary
to implement our own private product development
research. Accordingly, a two year study was
implemented to determine the type of compost and
derivitive products that are required to satisfy each
customer type.
As each product was developed, it was necessary to
run extensive "growth tests" to actually prove the
viability of each of the formulated products. This
work is now complete and "standard
compostost
specifications" have been developed
_ which guarantee
customer acceptance of each new compost and
derivative product.
Compost Management, Inc. has directly or indirectly
sponsored backup research with the following
professors during the last five years:
University Research
University of Maryland
University of Delaware
University of Delaware
Rutgers University
Rutgers University
Rutgers University
Rutgers University
Rutgers University
Penn State University
Penn State University
Penn State University
Penn State University
Penn State University
Cornell University
Cornell University
USDA Beltsville MD
Research
- Francis Gouin, Ph.D.
- William Mitchell, Ph.D.
- Wallace Pill, Ph.D.
- Art Verecenek, Ph.D.
- George Wulster, Ph.D.
- Jim Paterson, Ph.D.
- Henry Indyk, Ph.D.
- Dominick Durkin, Ph.D.
- Jay Holcomb, Ph.D.
- Bob Nuss, Ph.D.
- Dave Beattie, Ph.D.
- Don Waddington, Ph.D.
- Jack Harper, Ph.D.
- James Boodley, Ph.D.
- Ralph Freeman, Ext. Spec.
Jack Murray, Ext. Spec.
I E. Development Of Compost Handling Equipment
The general physical properties of compost are
known. However, some of these properties create
problems for customer use. Accordingly, Compost
Management, Inc. has worked together with producers
— to design new processing and packaging,
transportation and'spreadingiequipment which allow
the customer to use compost in the most efficient
and effective manner.
_ F. Market Penetration and Use Of. Local Distributor
Network
Compost Management, Inc. has identified over 20
major end use categories. CurrentlY, we are
_ selling to over 2,500 specific end use customers
through various distributor networks. (See attached
Schedule B for a list of end uses and Schedule E for
a partial list of satisfied end use customers).
Penetration of local end use customers is best
accomplished through local Master Distributors.
Compost Management, inc. has developed :a
"marketing and. training system" which is used to
establish a network of local Key Distributors who
market the compost.
As each new compost site is developed, one or more
i
new local Master Distributors are set up. Each new
Master Distributor spends 6 weeks at Compost
Management, Inc. -s head office learning the
T" -- marketing techniques that guarantee successful
compost sales.
The volume of compost that is currently being
marketed by Compost'Management, Inc. through our
Master Distributors, exceeds .250,000 cubic yards per
year.
j G. Regulatory Compliance and Product Registration
Regulatory Compliance -.Each state requires that the
_1Nmarketing, distribution or application company
register with the State Environmental Protection
Agency and follow specific application guidelines.
Unfortunately, each state interprets the. Federal and
- Regional EPA guidelines in different ways, thus
T creating various time consuming requirements.
Compost Management, Inc. maintains active
communication with each agency in the areas in which
we are selling.
In an effort to develop unified regulations that
allow for appropriate environmental control along.
with realistic marketing needs, Compost Management,
Inc. spent five (5) years developing a new marketing
plan with the New Jersey DEP - Ms. Helen Chase. We
are now the first and only marketing company with
pre -established broad marketing approval. (.See
Schedule C). It allows Compost Management, Inc.,
its Master distributor,;or any of their many local
stocking dealers,.to sell in the State of New Jersey
without site by site approval.
Product Registration - Additionally, each state
requires that plant growth substances such as
fertilizer and soil amendment products be registered
by the state Department'. of Agriculture for each
source of compost. It is required that the
marketing company maintain usage data by customer by
county within each state. An example is shown in
Schedule D.
Although specific product registrations or approvals
are not required by the{following groups, it is
necessary to seek their.involvement and actively
solicit their endorsement:
,1. County Agricultural -Agents
2. District Soil Conservation Agents
3. State DOT's,
4. Federal, State and County Park Officials
Compost Management, Inc..maintains an active
relationship with these ;important support agencies.
H. Literature
There are four major types of compost literature
that are required as each new compost project is
initiated. They are as follows:
1. General information for mass media
distribution describing the general merits of
compost.
2. Trade magazine articles, used to gain general
creditability.
3. Inter University -communication literature
which is required to keep all research
• professorsup-to-date on compost data.
4. Special End Use "hands on" information is
necessary to teach each customer type.the step'
by step uses of compost.
Compost Management, Inc. is the only company that
has developed literature to cover each of the
compost end uses. This literature is used by our
distributor networks as they develop each end use
customer. See examples of our literature in
Schedule F.
I. Review
Compost Management, Inc. is the only marketing
company in the United States that offers guaranteed
hands 'on product development,''greenhouse research
and locally developed marketing programs.
r
APPENDIX D
RECYCLING ANALYSIS MARKET IDENTIFICATION
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Recycling Analysis Market Identification.
October, 1989
Material
Company & Location
Details
Batteries
*P&K Materials, Inc.
Accepts
car batteries; will
Coram, New York
pick up
*Mercury Recycling
Accepts
household batteries
Albany, New York
Cardboards
Environmental Resource
Accepts
cardboard beverage
Recycling
containers; Town must deliver.
Yaphank, New York
Brookhaven.Recycling &;
Accepts
cardboard if baled;
Waste Corp.
will pick up
Patchogue, New York
Jet Paper Stock Corp.
Accepts
corrugated cardboard
Central Islip, NY
IPF Management
Accepts
corrugated cardboard
Great Neck, New York
Construction &
Twin County Recycling
Accepts
concrete and asphalt
Demolition Debris
Hicksville, NY`
Georges Sanitation
Accepts
concrete, asphalt,
East Quogue, NY
soil and brush
Glass
Environmental Resource
Accepts
color sorted glass;
Recycling
Town must deliver
Yaphank, New York
Omni Technical Zervices
Accepts
commingled glass and
'
Uniondale, New York
metal
EWG Glass Recovery
Accepts
color sorted glass
Jamaica, New York
Household
HazardousWastes
*Chemical Pollution
Accepts
pesticides, non -latex
Control
paints;
will pick up
Bay Shore, NY
Metals
Brookhaven Recycling &
Accepts
high grade metals such
Waste Corp.
as copper, brass, and aluminum
Patchogue, New York
- 2 -
*B.P. Wreckers
Greenport, New York
Franza's Universal
Scrap Metal, Inc.
Farmingdale; NY
P&K Metals, Inc.
Medford, New York
North Shore Salvage
Corp.
New Hyde Park, NY
DeMatteo Salvage Co.
West Babylon, NY
oil *Strebels Laundry
Westhampton, NY
Paper DeMatteo Salvage Co.
West Babylon, NY
*B.P. Wreckers
Greenport, NY
Pinnacle Industries
Bohemia, New York
Brookhaven Recycling
and Waste Corp.
Patchogue, NY
IPF Management
Great Neck, NY
Anchor Waste Paper Corp.
Westbury, New York
Plastic Amco Plastic Materials
Farmingdale, NY
Accepts tin, aluminum, iron;
will pick up if in sufficient
quantities
Accepts steel
Accepts copper, brass, alumi-
num, steel and other high
grade metals; will pick up
Accepts aluminum, copper and
brass
Accepts aluminum and ferrous
metals
Accepts waste oil
Accepts high grade paper
Accepts newspapers
Accepts newspapers
Accepts sorted high grade
paper; will pick up
Accepts all types of sorted
paper
Accepts newspapers
Accepts polypropylene, poly-
styrene; cannot be contami-
nated & must be separated and
bailed
U2 GROUP
- 3 -
Plastic Trimax of Long Island
Ronkonkoma, NY
Tires
Accepts all plastics excluding
hard PVC, biodegradable and
polystyrene
*Connecticut Tire Recycl- Accepts car tires
ing, Connecticut
New York Tire
Port Jefferson, NY
Accepts car tires
* The Town of Southold presently has a contract with this company.
Because price data changes frequently, these figures were not included.
10/10/89
I
APPENDIX E
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD CODE:
CHAPTER 48 - GARBAGE, RUBBISH AND REFUSE
§ 48.1 GARBAGE, RUBBISH AND REFUSE § 48-1
Chapter 48
GARBAGE, RUBBISH AND REFUSE
48-1. Definitions.
48.2. Damping prohibited generally.
48.3. Town refuse disposal area.
. § 48.4. Fees; issuance and dauatlon of pewits and Licenses.
§ 48.5. Conveyance and transportation of refuse.
§ 48-6. Penalties for offenses.
W. Revocation of permit and/or license.
(HISTORY. Adopted" by the Town Board of the Town of
Southold 3.23-48; amended in its entirety 5.25 5. SecLous 45.2
and 48-5 amended and § 48.3B added during codification; see Ch.
1, General Provisions, Arbele 11. Other amendments noted where
applicable.]
GENERAL REFERENCES 3
Ihu scar burning — See Ch. 36.
Junkyards — Sw Ch. 54.
Littering — Ser Ch. 57.
ScavenAvr wades — tits Ch. i5.
48-1. Definitions.
Words and terms used in this chapter shall have the following
meanings:'
ATTENDANT = Any employee of the Town of Southhold
placed in charge of a town refuse disposal area under tha
direction of the Town Board.
4801 s - r-.. ,w
J 48.1 SOUTHOLD CODE § 48-2
PERSON -- An individual, an association; a partnership
or a corporation.
REFUSE -- Any human, steal sur vegetable refuse, offal,
swill, cesspool and/or septic waste, sewage, garbage,
paper, ashes, junk; trash, mbbish, waste, of whatever
material composed,; discarded msciinery or parts therof,
discarded vehicles or parts thereof and.an unlicensed motor
vehicle parked, stored or standing outside an enclosed
building in an inoperative condition for more thaw thirty
(30) days. [Amended 10.9-84 by; L.L. No. 9.19841
REFUSE DISPOSAL AREA —,!The sanitary landfill site
owned and operated by the Town 'of Southold located north
of County Route 48 ac Cutchogue, New York, and any
premises designated by the Town Board as a "refuse
disposal area" of the town for tht disposal of refuse by the
residents of the town. iAmended 10.9.84 by L.L. No. 9-
19841
§ 48-2. Dumping prohibited generally. (Amend®d 7.31-"3]
A. No person shall collect, store, 'accumulate, throw, cast,
deposit or dispose af, or cause or wrmit to be, collected,
stored, accumulated, thrown., cast, deposited or disposed
of, any refuse upon any premises or upon any street, nigh•
way, sidewalk or public place within the Town of Southold,
except when authorized by the, Town Board.'
B. Nothing contained herein shall be construed so as to
prevent:
(1) The temporary accumulation of refuse by a resident of
the town upon Premises occupied by him, to the extent
that such accurnalation is ordinary and necessary for
his personal household requirements.
(2) The disposal of refuse at any refuse disposal area
maintained or authorized by the Town of Southold.
Editor's Note: am pilo Ch. 57. XjtUrtes.
4802 9- - Y*
§ 48-2 GARBAGE. RUBBISH AND REFUSE § 38-3
(3) The proper use of receptacles placed upon the streets
or other public places in the Town of Southold for the
depositing of refuse; ;;provided, however, that such
public receptacles shall not be used for the deposit of
acculated household gubage.
(4) The engaging in secondhand junk and, auto parts
activities and businesses when a license therefor has
been obtained pursuant to the provisions of the
Southold town ordinance licensing and regulating
secondhand junk -and auto parts activities and
businesses.'
§ 48.3. Town refuse disposal area.
A. No person shall deposit or' cause to be deposited in or on
any refuse disposal area' maintained by the Town of
Southold any substance of any kind except in the areas
designated by and under the direction of the attendant in
charge, whether such direction is given personally or by
another person by his authority, or by a sign or sips
erected in the refuse d;sposal area by the authority of the
Town Board or such attendant.
B. No garbage, refuse, rubbish or other material that does not
have its origin withun the Town of Southold shall be
deposited or disposed of in the town refuse disposal area.
[Added 7-311-731
C. No garbage. rubbish, refuse or other material that does not
have its origin within the Town of Southold shall be conveyed
or transported over any street within the town for delivery to
the town refuse disposal area. [Added 5.3.88 by LL No. 1I-
1988''=]
D. No vehicle shall be per.,nits-J 'to transport refuse into any
refuse disWsal area maintained by the Town of Souttiolci
unless such venis;!e, displays a valid permit and/or license
iciiGir� Votw'tiiti l'A. 54. Junkyani,.
' F.c 10em Vote: This kcal law z6o renumbered fanner Sutmesiew c and D n, 0 and y.
+'nD►Ztireiy.
4803 4 .;M . ,w
§ 48.3 SOUTHOLD CODE § 484
issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. [Added 7.24-
79 by LL No. 1.1979; amended 10-9-84 by LL 9-
19841
E. The attendant at the tmvr, r eff use :.rea is authorized to prohibit
the disposal of discarded molar vehicles anchor discarded fuel
tanks ha�lrg a capacity in excess of five hundred Gfty (530)
gallons at the res , disposal area. [Added 7-15.86 by L.L
No. 7-1985: amended 9.23.86 by L% No. 12•I9861
§ 48-4. Fees; issuance and duration of permits and litems.
(Added 10-9.84 by ILL. No. 9.1984=1
A. The fees for the issuance of ps::nits and/or Licenses for
vehicles transporting refuse into any refuse disposal area
maintained by the Town of Southold shall as as follows;
(1) Parking pe: snit: for noncommercial vehicles of less
than one -tor. czpacity owned by a resident and/or
taxpayer of the Town of Southold and tiansportmg
only household refuse, provided that such vehicle
dispays a valid parking perrmt issued pursuant to tl e
provisions of §6b-3 of the Code of the Town. of
Southold.
(2) Per -load fee of fifty cents ($4.30) for each non-
commercial v( ihicle of less than one -ton capaci,y which
Possesses no permit.
(3) Per -load fee of fifteen doLars ($i5.) for each si'zgle-axle
truck which does not possess a permit.
(4) Annual fee of twenty-five dollars ($25.) for each
commercial vehicle tis-nsporzing liquid septic waste,
together with an additional fee of one cent ($0,01) for
each gallon of liquid waste discharged.
(5) Anrual fee of twenty-five dollars ($23.7 for each
comsner,:L-contractor'3 vehicle of less than orae -ton
maxiMum gross vehicle weigh,.
' Kdi(ar•v -Nate: Thi. 1-1 law Am) rn•numheNai (ariner H 4x-4 cnd 0-3
*. natHy'11�Y•IY.
4804 9 - Hs
§ 48-4 GARBAGE, RUBBISH AND REFUSE § 48-4
(6) Annum fee of twenty-five dollars (S25.) for each farm
vehicle of one -con or :pore capacity transporting
agricultural waste.
(7) Per -load fee of twenty-five dollars (`^5.) for each
double-a.,cle truck which does not possess a pernut.
(8) AruZusl fee of one hundred dollars 0100.) for eacit
single -axle vehicle transporting solid waste (garbage).
(9) Annual fee of one hundred dollars ($100.) for each.
commercial contractor's veh,ic:e of more than one -ton
capacity.
(10) Annual fee of two hundred fifty dollars (5250.) for each
double -ax -le and/or comcactor-type vehicle, trans-
porting solid waste (garbage).
(M annual fee of two hundred fifty dollars (>250.) for each
con: nercial cortractor'3 double -axle and/or tract= -
trailer combination of more than ore -ton ; :puity.
B. (Added 11-29.88 by LL No. 29.19881; amended 6.20-89
by L.L. No. 11-19891 Effective -July 1. 1989, in addition to the
fees established in § 48.4A of this chapter, there shall be a fee
of one cent ($0.01) per pound on loads containing the fciloYAnb
(1) Leavy brush, Iandscapirg and yard wastes, including but
not limited to stumps, branches, shrubs, plant;, tri,
bushes anal the like, but not including leaves ana gr ss
clippings.
(2) Construction ;febris, including but not limited to ;crap
and waste material discarded as refuse resuitiro from
construction. -
(2) Wood, including but not limited to timber, /cgs, boards
and the like.
(4) Demolition debris, including but not limited to %v,;ste a'd
rubble resulting from remode!ing, dem.olitior, and
extensive repair of s"1cra: e3, waste �:nent, concr eta,
n^-onry work, bricks, tile, sheetrock, PIP -star, warn;,
shingles and the like.
Editor's No:e: Thla lacal law Ai o redan.;tnated former Subuctians 3, C and Das
$vhraetwra D. E and F. ropect Ay_
4805 7-21s,89
§ 48-4 SOUTHOLD CODE § 4&5
(5) Rubbish, including but not limited to furniture, fixtures,
television.�antenn2s, carnets, w.vnings, boats mid other like
objects that are not considered normal everyday house-
hold waste.
(o) Any mixed .load caztairing.one (1) or more of the .above,
lined wastes.
C. Effective January 1, 1989, in!addition to the fees established in
§ 48-14A and B, there shall be`a fee of five dollars ($5.) per item
on appiiances. including bat not limited to white goods,
refrigerators, weshers, dryers, stoves, dishwashers, ovens and
the like. [Added 1I-28 88 by LL. No. 29.1988]
D. Issuance a^,d duration of permit and/or licenses. ,:Ali permits.
and/or licenses provided for in this chapter shall be issued by
the Town Clerk. All annual remits (including those previous-
ly issued) $hail expire one (1) year from the date of the
.issuance thereof.
E. Refund of fees; In the event that the Town Clerkhas heretofore
issued permits. for vehicles transporti^.g reuse into the toKrn
landfill site at"Cutt hogue, acid the fees paid therefor exceed
the fees provided for herein, the Town Clerk ' is hereby
authorized to refund such ekees; fee: to the holders of suctz
permits and/or Iicer:
F. Amendment of fees, Notwithstanding any of the provisions
hereof, ine Town Board may' by resolution, charge. mot; or
repeal any of the fees set forth in § 484 hereof.
§ 48.5. Conveyance aad transportation of refuse.
No person shat convey or transport refuse through the streets
or public places of the Town of Southold in :any can, ivagon or
veciele or by any other mesas u .less adequate =` a is takers to
`revers the spilling of refuse in such public places and streets.2
I Editors Note: see MUo Ch. 37, Uttering.
4806 7.2s -R9
§ 48-6 GARBAGE, RUBBISH AND REFUSE § 48-,
§ 48'8. Penalties for offe►ases-. (Amended 7-31-73 by L.T, No. 1-
19731
A. Any person, committing an offense agairst any provision of
tris Qhapter shall, upon conviction thereof, be guilty of --
-violation
.violation punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand
dollars ('31.10,00.) or by imprisonment for a term rot e.\ceedins
fifteilr (15) days. or by both such fine and imprisonment. 'The
continuation of a.^, offense against the provisions of thi: chapter
shall constit=e, for each day the offense is continued, a
s?par:zw and diStIttct of:en"s-, hereunder. (Amended 1-7-8y fly
L.L. So. 2-1989]
B. Any person com-hitting an offense against this chaoter
shall be subject to a civil peneuty enforceable and code-c-
tible by the towr. in the amount of or.2 hunr .ed dollars
(5100.) for each offense. Such penalty shall be cotlectiaie by
and in the name of the town, for each day dnat such offe 4e
shall continue.
C. In addition to the above -provided penclzies, the Town
Board may also maintain an action or proceedin '_n ::ie
name of t46 town in a court of cornpeta nt j�r_sdictior. to
compel compliance with or to restrain, by :njuncticn -zhe
violation of this chapter.
§ 48-7. Revocation of permit and/or lice.^.se. added ;-3-08 by
L.L. No. 12-1.988]
A. Permi,4 a:;d!or licenses issued under the provisio:,s of this
Chanter may be revoke-_' by the Town Board of the Town of
Southpld after notice and hearing for vio?ai'oi2 of the pfOVlslilr"s
of this chapter.
B. �ilita UI :1.(3 1:2ai'It'' tJr r 8l.;c If "
•0vt r Iierm)tt
• �:» and/or lice=.:ae
shall be F•iven intxritinc;, aet:i;:g ?Orth =peri: ca'.ly file grow ds
0.' the cr„mp!_-'dnt and t.^.? Li71C' and place `tt' ilea!
• _ :ng.
^.Gale ash„1.l "'t- 0i
gid. postal ve prepaid, to the ; ertitittst? and
lir 1?t'_ ajE'B .tt s last "nowi::ICi1re1S 3L tiYC5) C:”
t �ys pt•:er
to r1:e Iliac^ Vic- for ::1.l hearing. Said nearing S7.all '„e CU!t;:1aCtGi1
ill :i .:1:.^(:'I whar_ir. the Ccused ^errnittee and/or lice;l ee is
afiordted fu!j due process r,f the ::1..v.
4807 5 - 21s - liv
§ 48-7 SOUTHOLD CODE § 48.-7
C. At the conclusion of said hearing and as a result of the
evidence adduced therein, the Town Board may, in its
discretion, revoke the said permit and/or license or, in lieu
thereof, suspend the subject permit and/or license for a
specified period of time, censure the permittee and/or licensee
or imncse a fine. not to exceed two thousrnd dollars ($9,M0.).
4808 s•as-ss
APPENDIX F
SAMPLING RECYCLING ORDINANCE
SAMPLE RECYCLING ORDINANCE
(RESOLVED, that the Town Clerk hereby is authorized to
publish.a Notice of Adoption as follows:
NOTICE OF ADOPTION
TAKE NOTICE that a public hearing was held by the Town Board
of the Town of Southold on DATE at, the Town Hall, 53095 Main
Road, Southold, New York to hear any and all persons either for
or against "A LOCAL LAW amending Chapter 48 (Garbage, Rubbish and
Refuse) of the' Town Code -of the Town of Southold by adding new
sections regarding mandatory recycling."
LOCAL LAW NO.;,- of 1990
;A LOCAL LAW amending Chapter - (Garbage and Waste
Facilities.) of the Town Code of the��Town of Southold by adding
new sections regarding mandatory recycling.
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold as
follows:
i.
Addition of a Legislative Findings Section
;SECTION 1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS
Whereas the conservation of recyclable materials is now a
necessity in order to conserve natural resources, and the cost of
solid waste disposal is ever increasing and available landfill
facilities are rapidly decreasing, it is the intent of the Town
Board of the Town of Southold to establish a resource recovery
system for the mandatory separation:; of recyclables from garbage
and rubbish within the Town. Such a,'program will reduce both the
amount of solid waste to be disposed of and the cost of landfill
disposal and extend the life of the:landfill. In addition, the
separation, collection and sale of recyclable materials will
reduce the financial burden of solid''waste disposal.
Chapter 48 is hereby amended by adding a Definitional
Section to read as follows:
Definitions:
;NEWSPAPER shall include newsprint and all newspaper
I '
advertisements, supplements, comics and enclosures.
!,RUBBISH shall mean nonputrescible solid waste consisting of
both; combustible and noncombustible- wastes, including, but not
limited to, nonrecyclable paper, wrappings, cigarettes, wood,
wire's, glass, bedding, furniture and,similar materials which are
not designated recyclable materials..
;i SOLID WASTE shall mean all putrescible and non-putrescible
materials or substances discarded or rejected as having served
their original intended use or as being spent, useless, worthless
or in excess to the owner at the time of such discard or
rejebtion, including garbage, refuse, litter; rubbish, but not
including designated recyclable materials or materials to be
separated.
,VEGETATIVE YARD WASTE shall mean organic yard and garden
waste, leaves, grass clippings and brush.
WHITE GOODS shall mean discarded household appliances such
as stoves, refrigerators, washing machines and other old metal
items.
SECTION III.
Chapter 48, Section _ is hereby amended by adding the
following sections to read as follows:
x. No newspaper as defined herein shall be deposited at any
Town: of Southold,disposal area or Town transfer station unless
such,newspaper is separated from anyand all solid waste, trash,
rubbish or vegetative yard, waste. Such newspaper is to be
deposited only at designate&'areas within such Town disposal area
or transfer station.
When such newspaper is prepared'for'disposal.by anyone other
than' the ultimate disposer, such as a carter, it should be
securely bundled and tied .in packages not exceeding fifty (50)
J
pounds with a rope or cord sufficient in strength to facilitate
handling.
Y- No vegetative yard waste as defined herein shall be
deposited at any Town of Southold disposal area or Town transfer
station unless such vegetative yard waste is separated from,any
and all solid waste, trash or -rubbish. Such vegetative yard
waste is to be deposited only at designated areas within such
Town disposal area or at the proposed composting facility.
Z. No white goods as defined herein shall be deposited at
the :,Town of Southold disposal area or Town transfer station
unless such white goods are separated from any and all solid
waste, trash, rubbish or vegetative yard waste. Such white goods
are to be deposited only at designated areas within such Town
disposal area or transfer station.
SECTION IV. VALIDITY
If any section or.subsection, paragraph, clause, phrase or
provisions of this law shall be, adjudged invalid or held
unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, any
judgement made thereby shall not affect the validity of this law
as a% whole or any part thereof other than the part or provisions
so adjudged to be invalid or unconstitutional.
;SECTION V. EFFECTIVE DATE
This local law shall take effect on DATE upon filing with
the Secretary of State pursuant to the Municipal Home Rule.
BY ORDER OF THE TOWN BOARD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
JUDITH T. TERRY, TOWN CLERK
7
APPENDIX G
NYSDEC LETTER (10/20/89) TO TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
;i
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794
(516) 751-2617
October 20, 1989
The Honorable Francis J. Murphy
supervisor
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 119'71
Thomas C. Joriing
Commissioner
Re: Solid Waste/Sludge Composting Facility
Recycling Analysis
Dear Mr. Murphy:
The Department has completed 'its review of the above
referenced submittal, and'the following are our comments:
The Recyclables Recovery Program must seek to maximize the
amount of material to be recycled to the extent economically
and technically practical. The recovery/reuse of solid waste
must include each of the following.; general components of the
waste stream: waste generated from residential, commercial,
and institutional sources (for example, paper and paper
products, glass, metals, plastics,. garden and yard waste,
tires, vehicle and dry cell batteries, etc.); non -hazardous
industrial waste (including industrial sludges); construction
and demolition debris; and sludge from municipal sewage
treatment plants and water treatment plants. This list may
need to be expanded. In view of the above and the requirements
of 6NYCRR 360-1.9(f), we find the following deficiencies:
Identification of actual or estimated quantity of
recyclables, by type that could be recovered. (Examples:
plastics, bottles, cans and white goods, etc..)
a) analysis of composition of solid waste presently
generated. This may be based on applicable
published information.
b) A year -by -year evaluation of solid waste stream
generation for life of project.
The Honorable Francis J. Murphy 2.
- Description of strategies to achieve reduction of solid
waste destined for disposal.
1)-. Residential source separation and collection.
2) Intermediate processing.
3) Industrial and commercial recyclables recovery
efforts.
4) Public Education efforts describing benefits of
re -use and recovery efforts (RR); (example:
ordinances/laws)
- Evaluation of existing efforts to recover recyclables.
1) Identification of existing commercial, '
industrial and private efforts: By quantity and
type of recyclables and description of RR
programs.
- Identification of available and potential markets for RR.
- Identification of alternative source separation/RR
programs:
1) What were the reasons for selection of proposed
program?
2) How will the program affect facilities which
handle waste?
3) Private haulers; how will this affect them?
- Program Implementation
1) Plan and scope of operation.
2) Equipment to be used (i.e., what are the
residents going to use when program is mandatory
for curbside pick-up?)
3) Processing and storage procedures.
4) Market agreement.
5) Funding sources - what funds will the Town
contribute besides the LRRP or other State
grants?
6) Entity responsible for program operation &
Maintenance.
The Honorable Francis'J. Murphy 3-
7) Availability of staff for program
implementation.
8)- A schedule of specific dates for implementation
of all materials through 1997.
9) Description of proposed service area to be
included in program'.
10) Action taken to maximize development and
enhancement of economic markets for RR.
11) Identification of public relation and education
program.
Legal/Institutional Analysis:
a) Identification of laws, rules, regulations, or
ordinances which could constrain the selected RR
program.
b) Inclusion of schedule and description of
appropriate local Paws, or ordinances, which
might be adopted for implementation of RR
program and to enhance economic markets for RR.
Discussion of possible future action to further meet
objectives of State's Solid Waste Management Policy.
Sincer 1
Gerald P. Brezner, P.E.
_Regional Solid & Hazardous
Waste Engineer
GB:mz
cc: P. Roth
_ N. Harrington
G. Desmarais
D. DeRidder .
APPENDIX G
This Appendix outlines responses to the comments on the
Draft Recycling Analysis (Sept. 1989) sent to the Town of
Southold by NYSDEC on October 20, 1989. This document has been
modified to include topics not covered in the original draft doc-
ument and expanded in the topics already covered.
1.0 Wastes brought into and removed from the Cutchogue
Landfill are categorized and weighed at a truck scale. The six-
teen incoming categories are described in Table 1 and the weight
data accumulated at the scalehouse during the past two years is
summarized in Table 2.
The category which comprises the largest percentage by
weight of the waste stream, household waste, is further analyzed
in a compositional study performed by,Daneco, Inc. (Table 3) In
this study, more than two tons,of household waste were divided by
weight into 12 categories to provide the Town with an estimate of
the compositional breakdown of the incoming household waste. The
two studies above constitute an accurate analysis of composition
of solid waste presently generated in Southold.
1.2 Changes in the quantity and composition of the solid
waste stream that may occur in the near future are described in
Section 3.2.
2.1 A general discussion of waste reduction strategies was
contained in the original document. It is now contained in Sec-
tion 3.3. Specifically, residential source -separation, the tech-
nique chosen, is detailed in Section 3.4. This includes a brief
description of the recycling procedure for residents using the
collection enter, for residents serviced by private carters and
for business and commercial generators.
2.2 Intermediate processing is not necessary for the low -
technology technique to be used in Southold. The Town may be re-
quired to separate some materials by grade depending on contrac-
tual obligations but this would require a minimal amount of la-
bor. Commingled recyclables will be sent to an existing
Materials Recovery facility. Refer to Section 3.4 a) on the or-
ganization of the recycling program.
2.3 As detailed in Section 3.4, the Town may control
disposal practices of commercial operations only if they use the
Town's disposal facilities. These operations may choose not to
use these facilities if they are then obligated to separate their
waste into recyclable components.
2.4 The original draft Recycling Analysis has been amended
to include a section on educational efforts that the Town of
Southold may undertake.
3.1 Of all the manufacturers in Southold, only 12 are
listed in the 1988 Long Island Directory of Manufacturers.
Results of a phone survey describing existing recycling practices
at these companies are included in Section 2.5. Also included in
this section are a description of all recycling taking place at
the landfill which includes materials deposited by residents, in-
dustry and government.
4.0 The original draft Recycling Analysis has been expanded
to now include a list of recycling markets in addition to compost
marketing plans prepared by firms which submitted bids to con-
struct the Southold composting facility. (Appendix C). The con-
tents of Appendix D provide the Town with alternative marketing
plans and processors for most of the materials which are
presently disposed of at the landfill and not recycled. The
Town's existing -recycling contracts are denoted in Appendix D and
Table 4.
5.1 Sections 3.3 and 3.4 describe the reasoning for select-
ing an integrated system of composting, recycling and residual
landfilling for the Town of Southold. These reasons include low
cost, adaptability of program to changing waste quantities,
expected high rates of participation, ease of transition from
existing program, and success experienced previously by other
communities adopting a similar program.
5.2 The only Town facility that presently handles waste is
the landfill where burial and some recycling of waste occur. The
impact of the proposed municipal solid waste composting plant and
a fully implemented recycling program on quantities of waste
originally landfilled is described in Section 3.5. Also refer to
Table 7 which describes how wastes now deposited at the landfill
may be distributed if the solid waste management program is
implemented.
5.3 The proposed solid waste management program will have
an effect on private carters as it will increase their responsi-
bilities to enforce collection of separated wastes. A summary of
information on private carting services used in Southold was not
available at the time this document was prepared; also, this
information is not explicitly required by NYCRR 360-1.9(f).
6.1 The plan and scope of the resource recovery operation
for Southold are detailed throughout Section 3.0.
6.2 Because this is a low -technology recycling program,
additional equipment to be used includes only conspicuous curb
containers and roll -offs for the collection center. Pertinent
information is contained in Section 3.4. This does not include
equipment to be used in the composting facility which is detailed
in the Permit to Construct and Operate a Composting Facility in
the Town of Southold.
6.3 Refer to response to comment 2.2. Sufficient storage
space for collected materials will be made available at the land-
fill.
6.4 Refer to response to comment 4.0.
6.5 This information was not available at the time this
document was prepared.
6.6 Organization of personnel involved in the recycling
program -are detailed in Section 3.4.6.
6.7 Refer to response to comment 6.5. If necessary, addi-
tional Town staff may be added,to implement the program.
6.8 Refer to Table 5 of the documents
6.9 As mentioned in the original submittal, this solid
waste management plan applies only to individuals and groups
located in the Town of Southold. See Section 1.1, 2.1 and 2.2
for details of the service area.
6.10 Recycled materials markets may be enhanced by promotion
and education of the general public making them aware of the im-
portance of purchasing recycled materials. Educational efforts
are described in Section 3.3.c.
6.11 Refer to response to comment 2.4. Public Relations ef-
forts are described in Section 3.3.
7.1 A list of state, county and local requirements that
must be met in constructing and operating solid waste facilities
has been included in Section 3.3.d. Most will not apply to the
solid waste management plan chosen for Southold as all activity
is to take place at the existing Town landfill.
7.2 A sample ordinance for a recycling program has been in-
cluded as Appendix F. This is modified from a Southampton Ordi-
nance. An additional legal measure that may help to enhance the
demand for recycled materials is to require materials purchased
by the Town or used in Town contracts to be recycled.
8.0 Efforts may include the following:
• further research into existing efforts by other Town's
to increase the demand for recycled materials over
virgin materials purchased in the Town.
• taking a lead role in implementing multi -town solid
waste management efforts.