No preview available
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.