HomeMy WebLinkAboutPart 360 Compliance Report 06/1981M1 I
JUNE 1981
''M
HOLZMACHER,McLENDON and MURRELLY.C.
Consulting Engineers. Environmental Scientists and Planners
MelvIlle, N.Y. Farmingdale. N.Y.
Rverhead. N.Y.
RIVERHEAD
co
LAJ
(O -j
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SUFFOLK COUNTY
. . . . . . . . . .
NEW YORK
PART 360
COMPLIANCE
Jilin, 0
0
REPORT
JUNE 1981
''M
HOLZMACHER,McLENDON and MURRELLY.C.
Consulting Engineers. Environmental Scientists and Planners
MelvIlle, N.Y. Farmingdale. N.Y.
Rverhead. N.Y.
RIVERHEAD
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS
125 BAYLIS ROAD, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747 ® 516-752-9060
Town Board
Town of Southold
Town Hall
Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
Re:
June 23, 1981
Town of Southold
Part 360 Compliance Report
Attention: Supervisor William Pell, III
Gentlemen:
In accordance with our proposal of September 15, 1980,
the Town Board Resolution of September 23, 1980, and subse-
quent modification to our proposal dated October 27, 1980,
we have completed the Part 360 Compliance Report for the
Town of Southold. This report, prepared in accordance with
the NYSDECrequirements for upgrading the town landfill is
in direct response to the conditions delineated in the
NYSDEC letter of August 11, 1980. Specifically, the 'report
contains:
1. A leachate monitoring program to include moni-
toring of existing groundwater wells installed
by SCDHS.
2. Preliminary plans for lining of new areas of the
landfill and capping the completed landfill, in-
cluding leachate collection, treatment and storm
drainage system.
3. Methane migration monitoring and control.
Please note that the Preliminary plans for lining and
capping, item 2 above, were already submitted for NYSDEC's
review, as indicated in our letter of March 31, 1981.
I
We have prepared this report and plans in accordance with
the prevailing state and county requirements. Any future modi-
r- ficatiotis of these requirements, due to revisions of the current
federal., state or county policies, will have a significant bene-
ficial impact on the recomme►-idat:ions and costs contained in this
report.
I
l
Melville, New York • Farmingdale, New York • Riverhead, New York
Town Board
Town of Southold -2- June 23, 1981
Due to the high costs associated with closing, lining and
capping the entire landfill, we recommend that the town seek a
variance from the permit requirements and apply for a SPDES per-
mit to discharge leachate to the groundwater. 'No leachate con-
tamination has been found at off-site private wells._ The in-
vestment in lining and capping may yield no tangible benefits
to the town and may not be the most cost-effective method to
protect adjacent private wells.
We wish to acknowledge the cooperation of many Town and
County officials who assisted in the preparation of this report.
After you have had an opportunity to review this report and
recommendations, we would be pleased to meet with you to discuss
any aspect of it. The final report is to be submitted to NYSDEC
as soon as possible.
Very truly yours,
"MACHERNDON & MURRELL, P.C.
H. A. Dombeck, P.E.
Vice President
HAD:vm
G
z
0
ii
0
RIVERHEAD
COMPLIANCE
REPORT,
JUNE 1881
HOLZMACHER;McLENDON andMURRELLAC.
Consulting Engineers.', Environmental Scientists and Planners
molvO a, N.Y. Farrningdrale. N.Y. Fliverhoad. N.Y.
UZ44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PART 360 COMPLIANCE REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORT SUMMARY
S-1
1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.1
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
1.4
1.2
STUDY AREA
1.6
1.3
PREVIOUS STUDIES
1.6
2.0
PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
2.1
2.1
METHANE MIGRATION
2.1
2.2
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
2.1
3.0
ADDITIONAL SAMPLING PROGRAM
3.1
3.1
METHANE MONITORING
3.1
3.2
GROUNDWATER MONITORING
3.4
3.3
COMPARISON OF PREVIOUS AND NEW DATA
3.5
3.3.1 METHANE MIGRATION
3.5
3.3.2 GROUNDWATER QUALITY
3.14
4.0
UPGRADING OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
4.1
4.1
GENERAL
4.1
4.2
LINING OF NEWLY EXCAVATED AREAS
4.2
4.2.1 GENERAL
4.2
4.2.2 POTENTIAL, LEACHATE QUANTITIES
4.3
4.2.3 SELECTION OF LINER MATERIALS
4.3
i
IH2-A HOLZMACHER,. McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D.)
4.2.4 CONSTRUCTION OF BOTTOM LINER SYSTEM
4.3 CAPPING OF COMPLETED AREAS AND STORMWATER
COLLECTION
4.3.1 GENERAL
4.3.2 SELECTION OF CAPPING MATERIALS
4.3.3 CONSTRUCTION OF CAPPING AND DRAINAGE SYSTEMS
4.4 METIiANE MONITORING AND CONTROL
4.4.1 METHANE MONITORING
4.4.1.1 GENERAL
4.4.1.2 PROPOSED METHANE MONITORING PROGRAM
4.4.2 METHANE CONTROL
y 4.4.2.1 GENERAL
4.4.2.2 PROPOSED METHANE CONTROL SYSTEM
4.5 GROUNDWATER MONITORING
4.5.1 GENERAL
4.5.2 PROPOSED GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM
4.6 LEACHATE DISPOSAL
4.6.1 GENERAL
4.6.2 PROPOSED LEACHATE DISPOSAL PROGRAM
5.0 COST OPINION OF LANDFILL UPGRADING
5.1 CONSTRUCTION COST OPINION
5.2 CONSTRUCTION COST ON A PER—ACRE BASIS FOR
BOTTOM LINER AND CAPPING
6.0 BRUSH DISPOSAL AT SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
ii
4.10
4.10
4.10
4.12
4.15
4.15
4.15
4.16
4.21
4.21
4.23
4.24
4.24
4.25
4.28
4.28
4.31
5.1
5.1
5.3
6.1
FZ4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT -D.
6.1
BRUSH DISPOSAL COSTS
6.2
6.2
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF UTILIZING A WOOD
CHIPPER AT THE TOWN OF
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
6.3
7.0
STATUS REPORT ON SOLID
WASTE MANAGEMENT
ON LONG ISLAND
7.1
7.1
INTRODUCTION
7.1
7.2
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
IN SUFFOLK COUNTY
7.2
7.3
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
IN NASSAU COUNTY
7.17
8.0
REPORT CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1
8.1
CONCLUSIONS
8.1
8.2
RECOMMENDATIONS
8.4
9.0
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
9.1
iii
F2J*A HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
NO. TITLE NO.
2-1 LANDFILL LEACHATE MONITORING
SCDHS PERMANENT WELL SAMPLING RESULTS 2.5
2-2 SCDHS PROFILE WELL SAMPLING RESULTS 2.6
2-3 RESULTS OF PRIVATE WELL SAMPLING BY SCDHS 2.9
3-1 LANDFILL METHANE MONITORING
H2M' S SAMPLING RESULTS 3.3
3-2 LANDFILL LEACHATE MONITORING SAMPLING RESULTS 3.7
4-1 GROUNDWATER MONITORING CONSTITUENTS TO BE
TESTED FOR ON AN ANNUAL BASIS 4.26
4-2 GROUNDWATER MONITORING CONSTITUENTS TO BE
TESTED FOR ON A QUARTERLY BASIS 4.27
4-3 CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPICAL LEACHATES FROM
SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS 4.29
4-4 LEACHATE DISPOSAL METHOD5 ON LONG ISLAND 4.31
iv
IHZ44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
PAGE
NO.
TITLE
NO.
1-1
LOCATION MAP
1.7
2-1
SCDHS PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY PROFILE
WELL LOCATION
2.4
2-2
PRIVATE WELL LOCATION SAMPLED BY SCDHS
2.8
3-1
METHANE SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS AT
SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
3.2
3-2
GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
AT SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
3.6
4-1
LOCATION OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED METHANE
MONITORING PROBES AT THE SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
4.17
4-2
TYPICAL METHANE MONITORING PROBE FOR EARLY
MIGRATION DETECTION - ALTERNATIVE I
4.19
4-3
TYPICAL METHANE MONITORING PROBE FOR EARLY
MIGRATION DETECTION - ALTERNATIVE II
4.20
9-1�
RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR
PROPOSED LANDFILL UPGRADING
9.3
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX I — PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR UPGRADING OF TOWN LANDFILL
APPENDIX IIA — NYSDEC INSPECTION REPORT
APPENDIX IIB — NYSDEC INSPECTION REPORT
APPENDIX III — LILCO CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX IV — SOIL TESTING DATA
APPENDIX V — PRIVATE WELL SURVEY ADDRESSES
v
U24i HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
REPORT SUMMARY
This report has been prepared for the Town of Southold for
the purpose of complying with the NYC RR Part 360 requirements
of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
The report addresses various conditions outlined by NYSDEC in
the Department's August 11, 1980 letter pertaining to upgrading
the existing landfill. Compliance with these conditions is con-
sidered a prerequisite to the issuance of a landfill operating
permit to the Town of Southold. Specifically, the required up-
grading of the landfill consists of: 1) lining of new areas of
the landfill, including installation of a leachate collection
system, 2) final capping and closure of the completed areas of
the landfill with a surface drainage system, 3) methane moni-
toring and migration control system, and 4) groundwater moni-
toring to determine subsurface conditions with respect to leach-
ate contamination. NYSDEC also requested a schedule of imple-
mentation for the aforesaid landfill upgrading. A synopsis of
H2M's study follows:
1. The report summarized previous water studies conducted
by H2M and SCDHS. In 1980, a private well analysis was per-
formed by SCDHS encompassing private homes in the vicinity of
the landfill. Concurrently, a groundwater monitoring well net-
work was established by SCDHS which consisted of three permanent
on-site groundwater monitoring wells, one upgradient and two
downgradient, and several temporary off-site groundwater moni-
toring wells downgradient of the landfill.
S-1
IH�W HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
2. An examination of methane readings, recorded by NYSDEC
and SCDHS prior to the current project, indicated elevated con-
centrations (10 to 30 percent of methane in air) at certain
locations of the landfill. These readings were obtained during
summer months.
3. Subsequent monitoring of methane migration by H2M dur-
ing winter months.(12/22/80 and 1/22./81) indicated none or low
(below the lower explosive limit of 5 percent) concentrations
at the existing methane monitoring probes. However, the H2M
readings obtained during spring time (4/13/81) indicated high
levels of methane present (5 to 30 percent) at the periphery of
the landfill.
4. Utilizing the existing SCDHS groundwater monitoring
wells, H2M conducted laboratory analysis of groundwater samples
for the 59 constituents as required by NYSDEC.
5. A comparison of the results obtained by H2M with those
of SCDHS indicated a close similarity. Leachate contamination
was found in the shallower downgradient well. The upgradient
well and the deep downgradient wells did not indicate any leachate
contamination. All three wells, however, indicated violation
of certain New York State Groundwater and Primary Drinking Water
Standards. An evaluation of the H2M results and the SCDHS results
on private wells and groundwater monitoring wells indicate that
the leachate plume has remained confined to the landfill bounda-
ries. The direction of groundwater movement at the Southold
landfill was determined to be northwesterly.
S-2
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
6. NYSDEC and SCDHS have determined that the town landfill
lies in the. hydrogeological" zone IV and therefore; in accordance
with NYSDEC requirements; requires a.double liner system with
two leachate collection'systems in addition to the.f inal capping
of the completed areas. Based on these requirements, preliminary
landfill upgrading plans have'been prepared and incorporated'in
the Appendix of this report. Due to the.high costs.associated
with capping `and lining, --we recommend, that the town seek a vari-
ance from these requirements and apply for a-SPDES permit for dis
charge of leachate to the groundwater. Further, the town would
,continuously monitor the,groundwater and.private wells in the
area for leachate contamination. If the private wells are
threatened by contamination, alternative sources of'water supply
should be considered.
7. The proposed double liner system, required by permit but
not recommended, consists of two layers of PVC�(20 mil) liners'
separated by'2 feet of sandy material, to be placed 5 feet above
the water.table. Through an underdrain'system, the leachate gene-
rated by
eneratedby the solid waste in the new 8-acre area,,,estimated at an
average of 9,400 gallons per day,.wi1.1 be collected from the top
liner.utili2dng an on-site storage manhole. 'The bottom.liner,
intended to be a leachate detection system for the top liner,
will also be provided.with an independent manhole. Pumping-fa-
cilities
umpingfa-cilities will be provided to pump out the collected leachate for
subsequent treatment,,-
S.
VDAHOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
8. The completed area of Southold landfill consists of
approximately 14 acres. The proposed capping, required by per-
mit but not recommended, for this entire area includes the plac-
ing of a 12 -inch thick clay top with 6 inches of top soil. The
capped area proposed will be provided with a drainage system
consisting of swales, gutters, pipes and a recharge basin. The
capping, intended to prevent seepage of rainwater through the
underlying solid waste material in order to minimize leachate
production, may also prohibit the landfill gases from migrating
upwards into the atmosphere, thus creating a forced lateral move-
ment of methane in the surrounding areas. To prevent this migra-
tion, a series of horizontal and vertical vent pipes will be pro-
vided underneath the cap, in the zone of interface of the cap
and the solid waste. The capped area will conform to the exist-
ing grades surrounding the landfill to minimize visual impacts..
A substantial amount of clay, required for capping purposes,
appears to be available on-site upon excavation of the new areas
of the landfill. Laboratory tests of a representative sample
have shown this clay material as having a permeability of 0.21
x 10-5 cm/sec, well above (more impermeable) the minimum re-
quirements of NYSDEC (1 x 10-5 cm/sec). It is estimated that
approximately 17,000 cubic yards of clay is available on-site.
The total requirements of clay for the proposed area is 23,000
cubic yards. The remaining quantity would be trucked in from
off-site sources.
S-4
IHHOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
9. It is proposed that the town obtain additional methane
readings to monitor methane concentrations and migration patterns
for longer periods of time. The town should install additional
methane monitoring probes to supplement the existing probes.
Until such monitoring is completed and adequate data collected,
no extensive methane relief program"at the town landfill is
anticipated.
10. It is recommended that the town continue utilization
of the existing SCDHS groundwater monitoring wells and perform
annual and quarterly groundwater monitoring, as required by
NYSDEC. This work should be closely coordinated with SCDHS.
Installation of additional downgradient groundwater monitoring
wells are being considered by SCDHS. These wells should also
be periodically tested. The direction of the groundwater flow
should also be periodically monitored. An examination of the
SCDHS private well sampling results indicates no leachate con-
tamination in these wells and therefore does not warrant con-
sideration of an alternate source of water supply. However,
additional private well analysis on a periodic basis is recom-
mended as a precaution.
11. The town landfill receives some 1,000 tons of brush
annually, which occupies a substantial amount of the landfill's
volumetric capacity under the present methods of disposal. An
evaluation of several alternative methods of brush disposal in-
dicate that the most economical and expeditious method is through
S-5
r
da
IH2tkA HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
j�
I
the acquisition of.a mobile wood chipper for volume reduction
purposes. The economical value of .land .volume savings, due to
the utilization of a wood chipper, far exceeds the owning and
operating costs of the equipment. Initial capital cost or a
chipper is approximately $20,000.
12. Construction cost opinion for lining the new 8 -acre
area of the landfill is $586,000. The estimated costs for cap-
ping the completed 14 -acre area is $484,000. Methane control
system is estimated at $26,000. to.include monitoring probes
and venting of capped areas. These costs, totaling $1,086,000.,
are based on the town's assuming the construction responsibility.
If the construction work was contracted out, the costs are esti-
mated at $715,000., $680,000. and $33,000., respectively, for a
total of $1,348,000. Due to these high costs, we have not recom-
mended capping the entire completed area and lining.
13. An implementation schedule for the proposed landfill
upgrading is provided in the report.
�l
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Deterioration of groundwater and surface water by leachate
originating from solid waste landfill sites has become .a problem
of general concern on Long Island. Once an unlined landtill
reaches its saturation point (field capacity),.any subsequent
volume of precipitation, less evapotranspiration and runoff,
will -result -in an equal .volume of'G leachate being displaced into
underlying groundwater systems-or'nearby surface waters.
This leachate-enriched.water,' upon entering a groundwater
system,'may adversely affect the quality of available drinking'
water in both public and private water.supply wells, thus caus-
ing a possible health hazard to those people dependent on this
1 groundwater system for potable water. The degree to which the
quality of the groundwater is affected will vary in proportion
to the amount and chemical characteristics of the -leachate gene-
rated and displaced from the landfill in the direction of ground-
water movement. The leachate production and chemical makeup is
dependent upon'several.parameters such as size, -age, depth -and
the type of solid waste deposited in the landfill. These pa-
rameters, coupled with the -landfill's natural setting, annual
rainfall, geologic region, age and physical characteristics,
will influence and determine the leachate's quantity and chemi-
cal properties.
In addition -to leachate, another, problem encountered with
landfills is methane gas. generation and migration;, Methane gas
is one of the biological end products,of anaerobic decomposition
�I I HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
of the organic fraction of solid waste. Depending on various
criteria, such as age, depth of fill, amount of moisture and
temperature, methane gas generation can take six (6) months to
five (5) years to begin. Gas production will last as long as
organic matter exists in the landfill and this could be in ex-
cess of twenty (20) years.
The problem with methane lies not -in its generation but in
its migration. Methane migration off the boundaries of the land-
fill and into any nearby residential or industrial areas could
present a hazard. Since methane is lighter than air, it tends
to rise up and out of the fill. If it drifts up into the atmos-
phere in small amounts it is deemed harmless, but if it migrates
into any surrounding building and collects in confined areas,
for example in between walls, it can reach explosive concentra-
tions. Explosive concentrations are defined as the range of
five (5) to fifteen (15) percent (methane in air). It is these
pockets of concentrated methane that are potentially dangerous
and warrant investigation and prevention. This for the most
part must be done at the source, the landfill.
In a controlled sanitary landfill, a system of highly.im
permeable natural or synthetic liners are installed prior to
placement of solid waste material. These liners function as
a barrier between the solid waste (and its contaminants, in-
cluding leachate) and the underlying groundwater. Any leachate
generated is collected above.the liners and removed for disposal.
1.2
U2% HOLZMACHER, MOLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
An additional procedure for leachate control calls for place-
ment of a relatively impermeable capon the completed landfill
areas, in order to minimize percolation of rainwater into the
inplaced solid waste material. This cap, supplemented with proper
vegetative cover and stormwater drainage control systems, would
divert most of the precipitation away from the landfill. It
should be kept in mind, however, that this cap would also prevent
the landfill gases from migrating upwards into the atmosphere and
would therefore increase the potential for lateral underground
migration in the nearby areas. Thus, the design of final capping
should take into consideration evaluation of trapped landfill gas.
Generally speaking, all sanitary landfills are required to
operate in compliance with state regulations. Unfortunately,
most of the landfills began operating prior to promulgation of
the new governmental regulations which call for more stringent
requirements pertaining to environmental control. This is par-
ticularly true for landfills on Long Island. The New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations (NYCRR), Part 360 regulations of the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC),
were promulgated in 1977, and required under the 1976 Federal Re-
source Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In addition to the
Part 360 requirements, NYSDEC requires towns on Long Island to
comply with the "Leachate Liner Policy" which was issued on
June 1, 1979, as a result of recommendations in the July 1, 1978
208 Study by the Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board, (now
known as the Long Island Regional Planning Board). This study's
1.3
■ I2 -A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
i
recommendations led to the declaration of Long Island as a sole-
source aquifer by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA). Consequently, the leachate liner policy calls
for varying degrees, of stringent groundwater protection measures
to be instituted at the existing landfills, depending upon the
hydrogeologic zoning classification of the landfill areas. The
Southold landfill has been.classified as being in zone IV, which
requires installation of a double liner and leachate collection
system in the unused portion of the landfill. In addition, the
policy also requires capping of completed areas of the landfill..
At this writing, NYSDEC is in the process of conducting
the open.dump inventory on Long Island. Under the open dump
inventory, required by RCRA and enforced by NYSDEC, the existing
landfills are evaluated for compliance with eight (8) criteria
{
known as the Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Facili-
ties and Practices. A landfill is',declared an open dump if it
does not comply with the criteria.., Thus, once a.landfill has
been declared an open dump, the operator is required to.upgrade
the landfill in accordance with the conditions set forth by
I
NYSDEC in order to continue landfill operations. The open dump
inventory has not yet been conducted for the Southold landfill.
'I
1.1 Purpose and Scope
The Town of Southold authorized the firm of Holzmacher,
McLendon & Murrell,'P.C...(H2M), to provide engineering -services
,in connection with the upgrading of its existing landfill. The
1.4
I I2"HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)
has required the town to upgrade its landfill in order to issue
them a conditional operating permit. This conditional permit
lists a number of criteria that the town is to comply with within
a specified time frame. The conditions include groundwater moni-
toring with respect to leachate contamination, methane monitoring,
final capping of completed areas of the landfill, installation of
a natural or synthetic leachate liner and a leachate collection
system in all newly excavated areas. As of this writing, the
town is awaiting issuance of the conditional permit from the
NYSDEC.
The purpose of this report is to provide the NYSDEC with the.
required information on behalf of the Town of Southold, in order
to meet the conditions set forth in the awaiting permit. Speci-
fically, the scope of H2M's services include:
1. Methane Control System - Evaluation of existing con-
ditions, methane monitoring and if required, installation of a
methane control system at the landfill.
2. Groundwater monitoring to determine existing ground-
water conditions in the vicinity of the landfill. Analysis of
groundwater samples, taken from existing wells installed by the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS), in ac-
cordance with Part 360 Regulations.
3. Preliminary plans for capping all completed areas and
lining new areas of the landfill, including a leachate collection
system.
1.5
1
U284 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, R.C.
i
4. Provide'miscellaneou's services,-including,a status re-
port of various landfills,in Nassau and Suffolk County, alterna-
tive methods -of brush-disposal,l�investigate sources of funding
and any other services that may'rbe required by.the town.
1.2 Study Area
The Southold landfill is located in the community of Cut-
, i
chogue on North Road between Cox and Depot'Lanes... It is the
only landfill in Southold and is,.owned and operated by the Town.
of Southold,under the town's Highway Department. The existing
i
site .comprises . a total of 41 acres of which, as of .1979, approxi-
mately 12 acres have been completed to grade.and approximately
13 acres have been'lost to slope and buffer requirements. The
landfill for the most part is surrounded by farm land, with
several houses. within the. vicinity of the site. The landfill is.
provided with &,good buffer which helps reduce the visual impact.
A location map of -the study area'iis provided in Figure: 1-1.
1.3' Previous „Studies
In June of 1979, the firm of H2M completed a Solid Waste
Management Plan for the Southold 11andfill. This -study provided
the first in-depth data base for-' the -landfill, as well as .the
first. step toward issuance of:a conditional.Part'360 Permit.
Subsequently, the-NYSDEC developed the -"State Liner and
Capping Policy", and,the "Regional Solid Waste.,Management Policy.
These policies required upgrading',' of the landfill:
1.6'
0 Vo
'G • �A
LV VMI !VI\I IVIM�
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FIGURE 1-1
fi�£Nt
Vol;
i
op
i
_L SITE
PART 360 COMPLIANCE REPORT
a
t
HOLZM?ACHER, McLEN®ON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARM04GOA E N V
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVEIHEAO N r
NEWTON N J
1. 7
IH2M HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
2.0 PREVIOUS INVESTIGATIONS
Within the past few.yearsi several studies have been con-
ducted at -the Southold landfill, both in terms of methane and
groundwater monitoring. This section briefly describes the
findings of those studies.
2.1 Methane Migration .
On.several occasions, both.the NYSDEC and the Suffolk'County
Department of Health Services (SCDHS)>, inspected the' Southold
landfill site and detected the -presence of methane both on and
off -s ite: Referring to a correspondence.of November 13,,_1979
from the state,.the NYSDEC indicated a reading of.20 percent gas.
along the western property line on September 26, 1979. Further
correspondance indicated additional methane readings�(July101 1980)
on, the south side property line and also off-site on the western,
side of 10 and 30 percent, respectively., Verbal communication
with members of,the•SCDHS' Air Quality Control Division indicate
similar readings in the same western and southern locations.
Copies of the aforementioned correspondence.ar,e included
in Appendix IIa - IIb.
2.2 Groundwater Monitoring
Two studies pertaining to groundwater quality in the vicinity
of the,Southold landfill were conducted in 1979 and in 1980. In
one study, H2M provided the Town of Southold with a solid waste
management report containing information regarding surrounding,
2.1
HOLZMACHtR, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
An evaluation of the preliminary information provided by
SCDHS indicates that the areal extent of the leachate plume
and degradation of the surrounding groundwater,does not appear
to be extensive and has remained confined underneath the landfill.
Figure ::-2-1 is a location map indicating, the 'position of
both profile and permanent wells,.while Table 2-1 summarizes.
the results obtained by`S_CDHS from the three ,(3) permanent
'wells. Table.2-2 lists the specific conductivity obtained at
various depths from the prof Ile, wells . In examining the results..
tabulated in Tables 2'-1 :and.2-2, it appears that the profile
wells at those locations and depths do not intercept the plume.
This preliminary 'observation can be deduced.'from the specific
j conductivity values obtained from'those wells._ Although con-
ductivity values are high compared to :the generally :acceptable °
limit of..300'-umhbs/cm, initially leadingto indications .'of
leachate presence onemust .take into account the predominate,
land use. of the region which is farming and agriculture. The
elevated specific conductivity readings are largely and most
probably die'to extensive usage of ,fertilizers, in'the farming'.
and agricultural process. In our conversations with SCDHS
personnel, 'we were informed . that for .`that area,, values of
500-600 umhos/cm are considered background: Preliminary infor-
mation regarding the three (3)' permanent wells indicate presence
of leachate contamination ih-only the shallow-downgradient Well
No. S-68916, screened :at approximately 102. feet below grade.
2.3
UZ44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.0
TABLE 2-1
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
LANDFILL LEACHATE MONITORING
SCDHS PERMANENT WELL SAMPLING RESULTS
(ALL. RESULTS .ARE IN mc7/l UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE)
WELL
WELL
WELL
CONSTITUENT
S-68916
S-68831
S-69761
DEPTH
102 Feet
200 Feet
100 Feet
Chloride
248
12
37
Sulfate
.:218
7
N
Alkalinity
7,.9,70
94
---
Nitrate
.03
.02
9.7
Nitrite
--
-=
.006
Ammonia
46
.19
.09
Phosphate.
.05
.31
--
Dissolved Oxygen
.45
7.3
--
pH
7..2
8.5
--
Specific
. Conductance
1,950 umhos/cm
240 umhos/cm
--
IHOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 2-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD'-
LANDFILL LEACHATE MONITORING
SCDHS PROFILE WELL SAMPLING RESULTS
SITE'l. SITE 2 -SITE 3 SITE 4 SITE 5
DEPTH
COND.
DEPTH
COND.
DEPTH
COND.
DEPTH
COND.
DEPTH
COND.
2
(umbos/cm)
(FT_)
(umbos/cm)
(FT.)
(umhos/cm)
(FT.).
(umhos/cm)
(FT.)
(umhos cm
139-141
200
140-1.42
240
139-141
475
139-1.41
600
140.-142
325
130-132
200
130-132
375
129-131
425
130-132
575
130-132
400
120-122
275
120-122
375
119-121
425
120.-122
500
120-122
450
_ 110-112
205
110-112
325
110-112
400
110-112
525
110-112
425
100-102
240
100-102
450
100-102
375
100-102
575
100-102
400
90=92
350
90-92
500
90-92
325
90-92
6.00
90-92
450
80-82
450
80-82
425
80-82
350
80-82
550
80-82
450
70-72.
380.
70-72
500
70-72
325
70-72
575
70-72
42.5
Site
No.
1
- Oregon.Road
and
400 Ft. west of Cox,Lane. (53 Feet Depth to Water Table)
Site
-No.
2
- Oregon
Road.and
approximately 1,200 Ft. west of Cox Lane. (55
Feet Depth
to Water Table).
Site
No.
3
- Oregon
Road
and
approximately 1,600 Ft. west of Cox Lane. (53
Feet Depth
to Water Table)
- Site
No.
4
- Approximately 900 Ft. south of Oregon Road and Site No. 3 (47
Feet Depth
to Water Table)
Site
No.
5
- Oregon
Road
and
Depot Lane. (52'Feet Depth to Water Table)
2.6
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Exceedingly high ammonia and specific conductivity levels were
found in this well.
With regard to the SCDHS' private well sampling program,
Figure 2-2 indicates well locations and Table 2-3 summarizes the
sampling results. Since SCDHS did not test for the organic pri-
wary drinking water constituents, Table 2-3 lists only inorganic
parameters. As indicated on Table 2-3, all parameters, with the
exception of elevated selenium concentrations in all wells except
J and L, are within the prescribed New York State Drinking Water
I. Standards.
i
Since the aforementioned test results on private profile
and permanent wells are only preliminary, and more drilling and
testing is scheduled in the vicinity of the Southold landfill,
the SCDHS has not to date published any report or recommendations
regarding their tests and findings.
2.7
FIGURE 2.2
U
w.Nwo
�r •�' Ric P.•.Ev R�S•�
dor
• ?1
IF.oo ` PRIVATE WELL LOCATIONS SAMPLED
BY S.C.D.H.S.
or
•� .01
TOWS! OF SOUTHOLD
ov
-PART 360 COMPLIANCE REPORT
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. MELVILLE.N.Y.
FARMINGDALE. N.Y
CONSULTING ENGINEERS; PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTSRIVERHEAD. N.Y
'NEWT ON, N J.
2.8
T
1HHOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 2-3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RESULTS OF PRIVATE WELL SAMPLING BY SCDHS
ALL RESULTS ARE IN mQ/1 UNLESS SPECIFIES' OTHERWISE
CONSTITUENT
NYS,
PRIMARY DRINKING
WATER STANDARDS
A(1) B
P R I
C D E
V A T
F
E W
G
E L L S
H J
K
L. M
COMMENTS
Arsenic
0.05
.02
.02
Barium
1.0
.0002
.0002
Cadmium
0.01
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
.002
Chromium
0.05
.01
.01
.01
.01
.01.
MEETS N.Y.S.
Fluoride
1.5
--
PRIMARYDRINKING
--
Lead
0.05
.01
.01
.01
:01"
. 01•
.01
.O1 .01
WATER
STANDARDS
jr- Mercury
G. 002
.0002
.0002
Nitrate
10.0
Silver
0.05,-
.01
.01
.02. -
.02
.02
Selenium
0.01'
*.023,
*.018 *.012
*,014
*.015-*.014'*.0083
*.015
*.01 *.012
Exceeded in
all- wells
Except
J and L
NOTES:
All values are less than (C). unless denoted by
Letters correspond to locations in Figure .2-3 and private home addresses in Appendix V.
2.9
UW44HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
3.0 ADDITIONAL SAMPLING PROGRAM
On December 22, 1980, a sampling program was conducted by
H2M at the Southold landfill with respect to both methane migra-
tion and groundwater quality. Furthermore, additional methane
sampling was conducted on January 22, 1981 and on April 13, 1981.
A description.of H2M's efforts and findings is presented in this
section.
3.1 Methane 'Monitoring
Initial methane monitoring was conducted in order to ade-
quately assess the extent and severity of methane migration.
The sampling procedure first attempted was to circumscribe the
perimeter of the landfill within the town's property line and
obtain samples below grade utilizing an impact rod. Because of
the below freezing temperatures and frozen ground conditions,
the impact rod method could not be utilized on both December 22,
1980 and January 22, 1981. However, it was possible to use the
impact rod on the April 13, 1981 sampling date. Figure 3-1 in-
dicates the sampling points and Table 3-1 tabulates the moni-
toring results obtained during various occasions.
As a result of the aforementioned conditions, the first two
methane monitoring methodologies consisted of sampling the on-
site vehicle spotting booth, the interior of the maintenance
building and twelve (12) existing on-site methane probes. On
the third visit to the site, however, in addition to sampling
the existing probes, maintenance building and vehicle spotting
3.1
FIGURE 3-1
17 solo
SOS
US
\1 =7e7 }
aaa + 16 {I
[. N g V
EXISTING METHANE
\ MONITORING PROBES 18 - •P / //�� \\\ / IIstp s`t ''
` 210 / / / lta 0 \ \ 52.0 \ ,\
t
\15
.
II•rs txp
`.` _�� ` wo seas =.s =
/91.5
j7aS is IIsns
/ ,r.o
460 040
II9.9 1 'be! {
a / 1 i
/dam I
1110
sa►o .ts ( ` /r♦ t ars • ss.
r.
\ II
•7 !
13 SCALE 1"=200'
y II.rp — �/ =■s // 5' CONTOUR INTERVAL
4 \ \ \ j" — 1 / ao
\ 5
KO -----------\1.4 EHICL
SPOTTING I I �i/ 2x
G BOOTH I I 2&0BUILDING AND 10 k
EMPLOYEE SHELTER f I \ I 28-9 ® `
rr/ / /
/
/`7' \�\� _� METHANE SAMPLING POINT LOCATIONS
4
_"' —' 21 AT SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
\\ j 1,7 O—EXISTING PROBES
\\ r II!!p A—TEMPORARY BOREHOLES
IIlr.O
7r.s do
�@� qq Ap = t
PYI l�i � N
ENTRANCE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TO SITE 20
/lio
;.78 PART 360 COMPLIANCE REPORT
MELVIL
1. OLZMACHER. McLEt DON & MURRELL, P.G. / H2M CORP. FARN*q W.Q.YN.
ARtiABVGDALEY
CONSULTING ENG-AJEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FIVER-CAD N r
NEWTON N J
.i . 2
w
w
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 3-1
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
LANDFILL METHANE MONITORING
H2M'S SAMPLING RESULTS
(Percent of Methane in Air)
LOCATION (a) DATE
EXISTING PROBES 12-22-80 1-22-81 4-13-81(c)
NOTE: Readings at locations 1'5 through 21 could not be obtained on 12-22-80 and 1-22-81 due to
frozen ground conditions.
1
0
0 (b)
0
(0)
2
4
Inaccessible
(30)
3
0
Inaccessible (b)10
0
(0)
4
0
0
0
(0)
5
0
0
0
(0)
6
1
1
0
(1)
7
0
0
0
(0)
8
0
0
0
(0)
9
0
0
0
(0)
10
0
0
0
(0)
11
0
0
0
(0)
12
0
0
0
(0)
OTHER
LOCATIONS
13 Maintenance Bldg.
0
0
0
14 Vehicle Spotting Booth
0 _
0
0
15
--
--
(.4)
16
--
--
(5)
17
(d)
--
--
(.8)
18
--
--
(0)
19
--
--
( 0 )
20
--
--
(0)
21
--
--
( 0 )
(a)
Location numbers correspond to
locations
on -Figure 3-1.
(b)
Probes buried under snow.
(c)
Methane concentrations values
in ( ) are
readings encountered in
three foot
deep
temporary boreholes installed
either adjacent
to existing probes
and/or along the
perimeter of the landfill.
(d)
Temporary boreholes installed
along the
perimeter of the landfill
not adjacent to
any existing probes.
NOTE: Readings at locations 1'5 through 21 could not be obtained on 12-22-80 and 1-22-81 due to
frozen ground conditions.
1i 2AA HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
booth, several subsurface readings were also obtained utilizing
an impact bar along the entire perimeter of the site. Of the
twenty-one (21) locations sampled, only two, Bore Hole Location
No. 16 and Probe No. 2, exhibited elevated methane concentration
at or above the lower explosive level (LEL) of 5 percent methane
in air.
Probe No. 2, located on the western perimeter of the land-
fill, registered a 10 percent concentration within the probe
itself and a 30 percent concentration in an adjacent three-foot
deep bore hole. Bore hole location 16, also three -feet deep
and located along the northern fence line, registered a 5 per-
cent methane concentration. It should be noted that the exist-
ing probes are approximately 20 feet deep and that all temporary
bore holes were three -feet deep. The remaining sampling points,
both existing probes and temporary bore holes, all registered 1
percent or less methane concentration.
3.2 . Groundwater Monitoring
Groundwater samples were obtained from three (3) existing
on-site monitoring wells installed by SCDHS. Through the co-
operation of SCDHS, we were permitted to utilize the existing
wells for additional groundwater monitoring. These wells are
constructed of 4 -inch I.D. PVC pipe, each equipped with a 5 -
foot section of screen. Wells S-68916 and S-69761 are screened
at 102 feet and 100 feet, respectively, and Well S-68831 at 200
feet below grade. Sample withdrawal was accomplished using a
3.4
0
® ZAA HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4 -inch submersible pump. The pump was lowered into the well and
allowed to operate for a 5 -minute period prior to obtaining a
sample. This was done to clear the well casing of all stagnant
water to obtain a representative and clean sample. The required
list of fifty-nine (59) constituents to be tested for was pro-
vided by NYSDEC. The NYSDEC list includes several volatile halo-
genated, pesticides and other constituents. Figure 3-2 shows the
locations of the sampled wells and Table 3-2 presents the results
obtained by H2M, along with those previously obtained by SCDHS
from the same wells. For comparison and evaluation purposes, we
have included in Table 3-2 the available New York State Ground-
water and Primary Drinking Water Standards.
In addition to obtaining samples from the existing ground-
water monitoring wells, H2M personnel also obtained existing
elevations of the groundwater table by recording water table
depths at various well locations. Our findings indicate the
groundwater gradient.
3.3 Comparison of Previous and New Data
3.3.1 Methane Migration
In evaluating and comparing the methane readings obtained
by H2M with those reported by both NYSDEC and SCDHS, there seems
to exist a variance in the existing methane generation and migra-
tion pattern. This variance may largely be attributed to the
methodology adopted in recording methane readings, time of the
year these readings were taken, and the prevailing climatic con-
ditions.
3.5
FIGURE 3-2
So
4 D
/f
so$ 470
gas
id
-�
_'_° +t/
•M 3 `,,
_
411111,11
x9A so
/ r0
460 .48.5 040
N.
-lilts mass "Y'A
N.
B3 /
SCALE I"= 200
5 CONTOUR -INTERVALS
zeao
x 4L9
ilea 31N,
4&A 4LO
,us =.r.o
�� /// asa3 — —/
S-6976 . / GROUNDWATER MONITORING WELL LOCATIONS
,3r.0 AT SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
.
30
a
3rf
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
/° PART 360 COMPLIANCE REPORT
Iss_
HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. F`a .o�E N r
-CONSULT/VG ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS ��AD N r
.NEWTON. N J
3.6
U HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 3-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
LANDFILL LEACHATE MONITORING
SAMPLING RESULTS
(ALL RESULTS ARE IN mg/l UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE)
IGhPPt 1 of Al
3.7
H2M RESULTS
SUFFOLK COUNTY D.H.S. RESULTS
WELL NUMBER
H2M
H2M
-69761
S-68831
S-68916
S-69761
S-68831
S-68916
C
00
a
coH r;
o
- H
SEPT.
SEPT.
SEPT.
DATE AND
N
N
N
1980
1980
10
NEW YORK STATE RESULTS
NEW YORK STATE RESULTS
DEPTH OF SAMPLE
v 0
N o
N 0
1980
GROUNDWATER EXCEEDS
PRIMARY:DRINKING EXCEEDS
-I-C4
100 FT.
200 FT.
102 FT.
STANDARDS YES/NO
WATER STANDARDS (b) YES/NO
Chloride
35.5
16.0
40.0
37.0
12.0
248
250 NO
Hex. Chromium
< 0.02
<0.02
<0.02
0,05 NO
0.05
NO
Cyanide. (ug/1)
<5.00
<5.00
<5.00
200
NO
Fluoride
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
1,50 NO
1.50 NO
Deterg. (MEAS)
<0,04
<0.04
0,08
0.50 NO
Nitrate-(NO3-N)
11.0
0.20
< 0,10
9_7
f .02
.03
10.0 YES
10.0 YES
Phenols (ug/1)
<1.00
4.00
2.00
1.0 YES 2,
Sulfate
38.4
1.28"
210
7.0
218
250 NO
pH
6.3
7.50
7.00
8.5
7.2
6.5 - 8.5 YES
Spec, Cond.
(umhos/cm)
340
220
2,300
240
1950
Ammonia (NH3-N)
<0.02
0.02
40.0
.09
.19
46
Total Diss.
Solids (TDS)
218
.136
1,429
Total Organic
Carbon (TOC)
2.9
1.0
8,6
Arsenic ug/l
< 2.00
2.00
<2.00
20.08
25.0 NO
50.0
NO
3.7
JH.flA HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 3-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
LANDFILL LEACHATE MONITORING
SAMPLING RESULTS
(ALL
RESULTS ARE IN mg/l UNLESS SPECIFIED
OTHERWISE)
H2M RESULTS
(Sheet 2 Of 6)
SUFFOLK COUNTY D.H.S. RESULTS
WELL NUMBER
S-69761
S-68831
S-68916 S-69761 S-68831 S-68916
DATE AND
DEPTH OF SAMPLE
0
ao
N Lr.
o
ti
00
N w
o
N o
.� N
m E
N G�
4�.,
N o
AUG. AUG.
20 20
1980 1980
NEW YORK STATE
GROUNDWATER
STANDARDS
H2M
RESULTS
EXCEEDS
YES/NO
NEW YORK. STATE
PRIMARY DRINKING
WATER STANDARDS
H2M
RESULTS
EXCEEDS
YES/NO
Barium
<0.20
<0.20
<0.20
<.2
1.0
NO
1.0
NO
Cadmium (ug/ 1).
<1.00
<1.00
<1.00
<2.0
.10.0
NO
10.0
NO
Copper
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
.13
1.0
NO
Iron
<0.02
0.02
0.06
<.05 .32
0.3
NO
Lead (ug/1)
<2.00
3.50
4.00
<10.0
.25.0
NO
25.0
NO
Manganese
<0.02
0.07
25.2
.07 215.3
0.3
YES4
Mercury (ug/1)
<0.50
<0.50
<0,50
NOT AVAILABLE
2.0
NO
2.0
NO
Selenium (ug/1)
<2-00
<2.00
14.0
.40.0
20.0
NO
10.0
MESS
Zinc
0.21
0.03
0.05
,5
5.0
NO
Silver-
Chromium
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0.02
<0,02
<.Ol
<.O1
0.05
0.05
NO
NO
0.05
NO
U2/§A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
0
3.9
TABLE 3-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
LANDFILL LEACHATE MONITORING
SAMPLING RESULTS
(ALL RESULTS
ARE _IN mR/l UNLESS SPECIFIED
OTHERWISE)
(Sheet 3 Of 6)
H2M RESULTS
SUFFOLK COUNTY D.H.S. RESULTS
WELL NUMBER
S-69761
S-68831
S-68916
S-69761 S-68831 S-68916
0
CO
0
00
0
co
E-'
E-'
E-+
H2M
H2M
DATE AND�
o
4 o �
N
NEW YORK STATE
RESULTS
NEW YORK STATE
RESULTS
DEPTH OF SAMPLE.
N 0
-a ,�
ev o
.-. c.,
c14 o
•-•
GROUNDWATER
EXCEEDS
PRIMARY DRINKING
EXCEEDS
STANDARDS
YES/NO
WATER STANDARDS
YES/NO
Pesticide (ug/1)
ALL VALUES ARE LESS
THAN
Lindane
.03
.03
.03
ND
4.0
NO
Heptachlor
.03
.03
.03
_
ND
Aldrin
.03
.03
.03
ND
Hepthachlor-
Epoxide
.03
.03
.03
Dieldrin
.05
.05
.05
\VA
ND
Endrin
.10
.10
.10
ND
..2:
NO
O,1 P' DDT
.15
.15
.15
N 0 T A B L E
P,. P' DDT
.20
.20
.20
Methoxychlor
1.0
1.0
1.0
35.0
NO
100.0
NO
Toxaphene
2.5
2.5
2.5
ND
5.0
NO
Chlordane
.50
.50
.
.50 1
6
YES
0
3.9
V2/4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 3-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
LANDFILL LEACHATE MONITORING
SAMPLING RESULTS
(ALL RESULTS ARE IN mg/1 UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE)
3.10
H2M
NEW YORK STATE RESULTS
PRIMARY DRINKING EXCEEDS
WATER STANDARDS YES/NO
YES
kaneeL 4 VI 6)
H2M RESULTS
SUFFOLK -COUNTY D.H.S. RESULTS
WELL NUMBER
S-69761
5-68831
5-68916
S-69761
5-68831
S-68916
0
c
0
co
0
m
N w
AUG.
H2M
DATE AND
N
`O
N
\ o
N
20
NEW YORK STATE RESULTS
DEPTH OF SAMPLE
� �
C'4N
N
� CD
1980
GROUNDWATER EXCEEDS
STANDARDS YES/NO
Halogenated (ug/1)
ALL VALUES
ARE LESS THAN
2
2.
1
1
5
_
44
3. °
(1)
I
5
4.�
1
1
5
5. cn
z
1
1
5
w cu
6• cn
N v
1
1
5
N0T AVAILABLE
<5.0
100
NO
cn
7. * o
1
1
(160)
<4.0
U O
8. z
H w
9. zo z
1.
1
1
-<2.0
ND
P4
10.
a W 1
1
---
<1.0
5.0 NO
2
<3.0
3.10
H2M
NEW YORK STATE RESULTS
PRIMARY DRINKING EXCEEDS
WATER STANDARDS YES/NO
YES
HHOLZMACHER; McLENDON S MURRELL, P.C.
3.11
TABLE 3-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
LANDFILL LEACHATE MONITORING
SAMPLING RESULTS
(ALL RESULTS ARE IN mg/l UNLESS SPECIFIED
OTHERWISE)
(Sheet 5 Of 6)
H2M RESULTS
SUFFOLK COUNTY D.H.S. RESULTS
WELL NUMBER
S-69761
S-68831
S-68916
S-69761 S-68831 S-68916
0
0
0
AUG.
00
04
ao
C14
co
20
1980
H2M
H2M
DATE AND
C144
NEW YORK STATE
RESULTS NEW YORK STATE
RESULTS
DEPTH OF SAMPLE
ev o
.-,.,
a o
V-4 04
" o
,,
102 FT.
GROUNDWATER
EXCEEDS PRIMARY DRINKING
EXCEEDS
STANDARDS
YES/NO WATER STANDARDS
YES/NO
_Halogenated (ug/1)
(cont'd)
12.
1
1
2
13. a'
1
1
2
z
14. o
1
1
2
Q
w
15. W
1
1
2
NO
16: F w
1
1
2
z o.
-
� w
17.1
2_
c 20
I8. E- W'
NOT AVAILABLE
z x
1
1
2
O �n
U
19. c7 w
1
1
2
<5.0
20:z v
l
1
2
o m
A4
21* '.w
1
1
2
<2.0
22,� o
1
1
2
U
23.
1
1
2
5..0
NO .
24.
1
1
2
3.11
IR M HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
VOLATILE HALOGENATED
1. methylene chloride
2. 1,1-dichloroethylene
3. 1,1-dichloroethane
4. trans-1,2-dichloroethylene
5. cis-1,2-dichloro-ethylene
6. chloroform
7. 1,1,2-trichlorotrifluoroethane
8. 1,2-dichloroethane
9. 1,1,1 -trichloroethane
10. carbon tetrachloride
11. bromodichloromethane
12. 1,2-dichloropropane
13. 2,3-dichloropropene
14. trans-1,3-dichloropropene
15. trichloroethylene
16. 1,1,2 -trichloroethane
17. chlorodihromomethane
18. cis-1,3-dichloropropene
19. bromoform
20. 1,1,1,2 -tetrachloroethane
21. tetrachloroethylene
22. 1,1,2,2 -tetrachloroethane
23. vinyl chloride
24. chlorobenzene
TABLE 3-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
LANDFILL LEACHATE MONITORING
SAMPLING RESULTS
(SHEET 6 OF 6).
**NOTES**
NOTES:
1. Both N.Y.S. groundwater and primary drinking water standards
exceeded in Well No. S-69761.
2. N.Y.S.gm undwater standards exceeded in Wells S-68831 and
S-68916.
3. N.Y.S. groundwater standards violated in Well No. S-69761.
4. N.Y.S. groundwater and secondary drinking water standards exceeded
in Well No. S-68916.
5. N.Y.S. primary drinking water standards exceeded in Well No.
S-68916.
6. Groundwater standards possibly exceeded in.all.wells tested.
Uncertain because standard was below H2M's limit of detec-tion.
7. Well No, S-68916 exceeds N.Y.S. primary drinking water standards
as a total category (Volatile Halogenated). The sum of the
individual constituent concentration cannot exceed 100 ug/ -1.
8. Sample taken on 8/20/80. Results from prior analysis.
ND Not Detectable as per section 703.4 of N.Y.S. Groundwater
Classification Part 703.
* Report value represents total.
() Values depicted in parenthesis are actual values. Not less than
( ) quantities.
GROUNDWATER TABLE ELEVATIONS RECORDED BY
H2M ON 12-22-80
(FT ) Approx. Ground
Well No. Depth to Groundwater Elevation (Ft.)
S-69761
S-68831
S-68916
39
49-
49
3.12
42.5
52
52
Approx.
Groundwater
Table Elevatiai
3.5
4.0
4.0
U2A
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
NYSDEC and SCDHS conducted their sampling programs during
the summer and autumn months and obtained subsurface samples
along the entire landfill perimeter. However, no readings were
taken or recorded at any of the existing on-site probes. On
the other hand, H2M's first two sampling programs were con-
ducted during the winter months. Because of the frozen ground
conditions, the only subsurface sampling done was at the twelve
(12) existing on-site methane probes.
In order to facilitate data comparison, H2M conducted a
third sampling program on April 13, 1981. This sampling day
more closely resembled the climatic conditions under which the
NYSDEC and SCDHS obtained their results. A three-foot impact,
bar was utilized which enabled H2M to sample the same below -
grade horizon sampled previously by SCDHS and NYSDEC.
In comparing the results of H2M's third sampling program
with the results reported by NYSDEC and SCDHS, it can beIseen
that there are indeed varying concentrations of methane along
the south, west and north property lines. The most severe case
encountered by H2M was along the western property line at.Probe
No. 2. A 10 percent methane reading was recorded in the probe
itself, and 30 percent in a temporary bore hole installed ad-
jacent to the probe. These readings are in agreement with
those methane concentrations recorded and reported by NYSDEC
and SCDHS. In addition, H2M recorded methane concentrations
ranging from 0 to 5 percent along the northern property line
and 0 to 1 percent along -the southern fence line. No methane
3.13
IH2Ai HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
was encountered along the eastern property line either in any
existing probes or installed bore holes.' It appears -certain
that the methane concentrations along' the western edge of the
landfill are above the lower explosive limit of 5 percent. In
some cases it is as high as 30 percent, much higher than the
higher explosive limit of 15 percent. Methane migration along
the northern and southern property lines appears .to be minor.
Another factor that should be taken into account is the depth
at which various readings were taken. SCDI3S and NYSDEC recorded
all their readings at 3 feet below surface (using an impact
rod). 'H2M recorded the readings at the existing probes which
are approximately 20 feet below surface as. well as 3 -feet below
ground. The.high reading of 30 percent was obtained 3 feet
below ground by all parties.. Since -methane is lighter than air
and tends to rise upwards, one could infer presence -of relatively.
higher concentrations of methane'at the top of the landfill.
-It is recommended that the town further monitor the methane
migration along the periphery of the landfill, particularly
along the western property line. A'detailed methane monitoring
program for the town landfill is proposed elsewhere in the report.
3.3.2 Groundwater Quality
''In order to facilitate comparison and have base line data
from which to map the migration of the plume and any changes.
in its chemical composition, we have established an arbitrary
set of.parameters defining leachate. The primary parameters
for leachate detection are specific conductivity and ammonia
3.14
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
and some of the additional parameters are chloride, pH, iron and
manganese. Generally acceptable limits for specific conduc-
tivity and ammonia concentration are 300 umhos/cm and 1 mg/l,
respectively. However, considering the predominant land use of
farming in the Town of Southold, and the utilization of fertili-
zers, causing eventual seepage of the fertilizer enriched water
into the groundwater, the background specific conductivity values
should be taken higher than 300 umhos/cm. With this fact in mind
and our communication with the SCDHS officials, we have estab-
lished acceptable limits for specific conductivity for the
Southold landfill as *600 umhos/cm.
The wells tested have been classified and grouped into
two categories; those wells showing contamination and those
showing no contamination. Based on the definition of leachate
and well categories, we have presented the following comparisons:
Wells Showing Contamination
Well No. S-68916 shows elevated quantities of both specific
conductivity and ammonia concentrations greatly in excess of the
prescribed limits. In comparing H2M's results with those of
SCDHS, it can be seen that this well has not significantly
changed within the time span of the two testing periods with
respect to both parameters. Specific conductivity increased
from 1,950 umhos/cm, (SCDHS) to 2,300 umhos/cm (H2M), while the
ammonia level dropped from 46 mg/1 to 40 mg/1. Regardless of
this slight variation in results, this well greatly exceeds the
3.15
W
0
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C:
limits established by the definition of leachate and as such
is classified as a contaminated well.
In evaluating the remainder of H2M's test results pertain-
ing to Well S-68916, several other constituents have been found
to exceed current state limitations. Phenols, manganese and
possibly chlordane have been found to exceed groundwater
standards. The term "possibly" is used in conjunction with
chlordane because its groundwater standard of :0001 mg/1 is
below H2M's present limit'of detection of .0005. .The chlordane
concentrations.'were; reported as less than (4).0005 mg/1, meaning
that the chlordane concentration might well be less than .0001.
mg/1. It should be noted that H2M's .testing apparatus is pre-
sently calibrated to limits set'by.New York State Drink ing Water
Standards which, for some constituents, are not as.stringent-as
groundwater standards. We recommend that in the future quarter=
ly sampling petiQd, further analysis be made with regard to
chlordane, bearing in mind the necessary egqipment._�reca�ibra-
tion. With regard to New York State Prima ry'Drinking Water
Standards, selenium and volatile halogenated (as a total tate
gory) are in excess of prescribed standards.
In consideration of the proximity of. the Southold landfill
to Long Island Sound, one may attribute high conductivity in
Well S-68916 .to the salt water intrusion. An evaluation of the
subsurface.groundwater characteristics, however, indicate that
the salt water intrusion at the landfill location does not occur
3.16
UZ44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
until a depth of 250 below grade. Another explanation for the
absence of the salt water intrusion is that Well No. S-69761,
located immediately next to Well No. S-68916, is screened at a
200 -foot depth and does not indicate similar results. Thus,
salt water intrusion underneath Southold landfill was ruled
out.
Wells Showinq No Contamination
Wells S-69761 and S-68831 appear to be unaffected by leach-
ate based on the comparison of specific conductivity and ammonia
concentrations. However, several other constituents have been
found to exceed either New York State Groundwater Standards,
Primary Drinking Water Standards or both. Well No. S-69761
showed a slightly elevated concentration of nitrate (NO3-N), in
excess of both Groundwater and Primary Drinking Water Standards.
In addition, the pH value obtained from this well is below the
lower limit set by groundwater standards, implying a slightly
more acidic condition. With respect to Well S-68831, phenols
were found in excess of groundwater standards. Chlordane con-
centrations in both these wells were found to possibly exceed
New York State Ground Water Standards, but as stated previously,
the chlordane concentrations were reported as less than figures,
due to H2M's limit of detection.
In summary, our findings indicate presence of leachate con-
tamination underneath Southold landfill. Based on our evaluation
and studies conducted by SCDHS, both for private wells and ground-
water monitoring wells, it appears that the leachate contamination
3.17
F HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
has remained relatively confined to the landfill boundaries.
No private wells have been found affected.
3.18
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4.0 UPGRADING OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
4.1 General
It is the intent of the existing RCRA and Part 360 Regu-
lations, in conjunction with a conditional permit, to improve
landfill operations or "upgrade" the facility. These improve-
ments include lining unused areas prior to landfilling and
providing for leachate collection, capping existing completed
areas and providing for methane control. Upgrading also calls
for installation of groundwater monitoring wells and periodic
methane and groundwater monitoring. To accomplish these up-
grading steps, several factors must be considered in the pre-
liminary design:
1. The landfill portion to be lined must be clearly de-
lineated in order to determine the required liner system, slopes,,
potential leachate generation rates and size of the leachate
collection system. These requirements are also essential to
estimate construction costs of a leachate liner system.
2. Final capping of a landfill necessitates setting up
final site contours, drainage plans and capping material se-
lection.
3. Methane control requires a careful review of existing
information and identification of Future probable migration
patterns due to capping and lining of the site.
4. Groundwater monitoring requires installation of ground-
water monitoring wells and periodic sampling of groundwater, in
4.1
t12" HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
order to monitor the existence and movement of a leachate plume
and assess potential impacts of leachate contamination.
The upgrading procedures should be in general accordance
with the USEPA's open -dump upgrading criteria, as noted in the
"Draft Environmental Impact. Statement on the Proposed,Guidelines
for the Landfill Disposal of. Solid Waste", the NYSDEC's "Content
Guidelines for Plans and Specifications", as well as in confor-
mance with the "Leachate Liner and Attenuation Policy.
4.2 Lining ,of.Newly Excavated Areas
4.2.1 General
With respect to lining future landfill areas*, current reg-
ulations specifically require:
1. A minimum separation of 5 feet between the solid waste
I and the seasonally high groundwater table.
2. A minimum liner permeability of 10_5 cm/sec.
3. If clay materials are used for lining, a minimum of
1 -foot thickness shall be provided.
4.. If leachate is to be discharged to surface or ground-
water, a SPDES permit is required.
All the above requirements must be satisfied when preparing
design plans.
The approximately 8 acres,proposed for lining is outlined.
on Drawing l of 4 in the Appendix of this report. Sufficient
landfilling volume has been set aside to provide adequate lead
time necessary.for'•the construction of the bottom.liner system.
4.2
U2A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
The liner material chosen and the proposed bottom elevation pro-
vide adequate liner permeability and the necessary 5 -foot sepa-
ration from groundwater, thereby satisfying conditiont�l and 2.-
4.2.2. Potential Leachate Quantities
Once the area to be lined is defined, a leachate collection
system can be designed. In designing "such a system, it is first
necessary to develop leachate generation rates from the solid
waste which will be placed atop the liner: For this purpose;
the water balance method was used (REF:'EPA/530/SW-16B). The
I., water.balance is based -on relationships between precipitation,
evapotransporation, surface runoff and soil moisture storage.
Applying this water balance method to the 8 -acre area proposed
for lining, average,leachate generation was calculated to be
approximately'.9,400 gallons per'day or 6.6 gallons per minute:
4.2.3 Selection of Liner Materials
The purpose of a liner system in a landfill is to inhibit
the downward percolation of any generated leachate: In so doing,
the lined landfill acts as a temporary holding basin for this
leachate until, through the use of a collection system, the
leachate is withdrawn and properly disposed of.
As stated previously, this liner must have a permeability
of at least 10-5 cm/sec. To meet this specification, the gene-
rally accepted liner materials are, a synthetic membrane (PVC,
Hypalon, etc,.) with a minimum 20 mil thickness, natural clay
(minimum 12 inches) or an admixture of native soil and sodium
bentonite providing a minimum 10-5 cm/sec permeability•
4.3
U HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
In the selection of a liner material, several considerations
must be taken into account, including cost of material, ease of
application, landfill volume lost to liner application and the
proven reliability of the liner system. Today's cost of 20 mil
PVC is approximately $0.30/sf, an installation cost of $0.10/sf
for a total cost of $0.40/sf. Material costs for natural clay
and the native soil/bentonite mixture.are $0.46/sf and $0.68/sf,
respectively, with an average installation cost of $0.20/sf and
,$0.10/sf, respectively. Thus, the total cost for natural clay
is $0.66/sf and for bentonite mixture $0.78/sf.
I
In evaluating these costs, a double liner constructed of 20
mil PVC is calculated to be the most cost effective, in terms of
both material and installation. In addition., the use of a 20 mil
PVC liner, as opposed to a 1 -foot thick layer of either natural
clay or the bentonite admixture, saves valuable landfill volume.
Assuming a 2 -foot buffer between the two liners and between solid
waste and the top liner, the total thickness of the PVC liner sys-
tem would be 4 feet, and that of the natural clay and bentonite
system would be 6 feet. The 2 -foot difference over 8 acres, tak-
ing into account side slopes, amounts to approximately 15,000
cubic yards of landfill volume saved using the PVC system.
One advantage a clay liner system would have over a PVC
liner system is its self-sealing capabilities in case of a punc-
ture caused by protruding objects in solid waste. However, the
2 -foot buffer provided in the design of a liner system would
4.4
912HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
greatly reduce this occurrence. Moreover, the PVC liner sys-
tem has a longer proven track record than other liner materials.
The existing state Part 360 regulations do not specify
whether the 5 -foot separation between solid waste and seasonal
high groundwater table is a mandatory requirement for landfills
with a liner and leachate collection system. The double liner
system itself provides a 4 -foot separation between solid waste
and the underlying (under liner system) strata. In addition,
the regulations also do not specify requirements pertaining to
the buffer between the two liners and between the solid waste
and the top liner. For the Town of Southold, we have assumed
the following:
1. A 5 -foot separation is required even with a double
liner system.
2. A minimum of 2 feet of buffer is provided between the
two liners and between solid waste and the top liner.
The above assumptions provide for a more conservative de-
sign of the leachate collection system. However, if the 5 -
foot separation requirement were to be waived (and say 2 to
3 -feet separation were permitted), and the buffer requirements
between liners and solid waste were reduced to 1 foot, a sub-
stantial gain in the volumetric capacity of the landfill would
be realized. It is therefore recommended that this matter be
discussed with NYSDEC prior to the implementation of the liner
system.
4.5
F2M HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4.2.4 Construction of Bottom Liner System
It has been determined by the NYSDEC that the Southold
landfill is situated in hydrogeological zone IV, and conse-
quently all landfill extensions in this zone require a double
liner with two leachate collection systems. Drawing 3 of 4
in the Appendix shows the proposed 8 -acre extension to be
lined, along with liner and leachate collection details.
The proposed extension will be double lined up to an ele-
vation of 33 feet above sea'level. The two liners will be
constructed of 20 mil PVC material, separated by a minimum of
24 inches of clean sand. The new area will be provided with
two leachate collection systems, an upper and a lower, as in-
dicated-on
n-dicated on Drawing 3 of 4 in the Appendix. The side slopes of
the lined area will be single lined, using 20 mil PVC from the
33 -foot elevation point up to the final elevation. All side
slopes in the extension have been kept at a minimum of 3 on 1
to maintain slope and liner integrity and liner cover soil.
Situated in the proposed lined area is a Long Island
Lighting Company (LILCO) high tension tower. In our conver-
sation with LILCO officials, we have been informed that the
costs associated with temporary relocation of the tower would
be exceedingly high. In light of this and LILCO's reluctance
to remove the tower, it is recommended to leave the tower in
place and following LILCO's specifications, excavate around it.
Correspondence from LILCO is in Appendix III. LILCO has indicated
4.6
UI HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
that a minimum area with a 20 -foot -radius around the tower must
be left undisturbed. In addition, the excavated site slopes
must be kept to a minimum of 2 on 1. This slope requires re-
inforced CPE liner to withstand seagull damage, since liner
cover soil cannot be maintained on such a steep slope. In leav-
ing the LILCO tower in place, a slight amount of landfill volume
is lost. This estimated loss is calculated to be approximately
21,700 cubic yards, which corresponds to an 86 -day site life at
a rate of 100 tpd. This slight loss of landfill life does not
justify the anticipated high expenditures incurred in the tower
relocation.
The scene with the LILCO tower left in place will in effect
resemble a flat topped mesa with a tower sitting atop of it.
The mesa itself will be situated approximately in the middle of
the proposed extension. In order to prevent any seepage of
leachate, via the intersection of the toe of the mesa and the
floor of the lined area, the side slopes of the mesa would also
be lined. Since the lined area will serve as a storage basin
for any accumulated leachate, until such time when it is pumped
out, the side slopes of both the mesa and the new area will be
double lined up to elevation 33 feet. The remainder of the side
slopes from elevation 33 feet to grade will be single lined.
The leachate generated within the proposed extension will
be collected by sloping the liners in such a manner as to drain
all leachate toward a collection manhole to be situated on the
eastern side of the extension. The collection of the leachate
4.7
u2AA HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
above the liner will also be facilitated by the installation of
a slotted PVC piping system. The pipes will be designed and pro-
tected so as to withstand the pressure of the overlying refuse
as the landfilling in the liner area progresses. There will be
two manholes provided, one for each liner system. The manhole
for the top liner system will be equipped with a manually -actua-
ted leachate pumping system. The bottom liner manhole will be
utilized for detection purposes should the top liner fail and
cause leakage of leachate. It should be noted that the collec-
tion manhole is placed off the landfill area, in virgin ground.
In this way, the manhole will not interfere with normal landfill
equipment or operation, and any accidental damages or covering
f of the collection manhole will be avoided. Another advantage
in locating the collection manhole off-site, is that the manhole
can be constructed and completed to grade during the initial
phases of construction. This procedure provides that no addi-
tional manhole extensions are needed as the landfill is con-
structed, thereby assuring uniform initial construction. All
manhole sections will be designed to withstand earth pressures
up to 50 feet and will be watertight. Watertight and explosion -
proof lights will be provided at various levels of the manholes.
It is important to note that the manholes are quite deep
and may be subject to methane migration from the nearby land-
fill. All necessary safety precautions must be observed should
someone require entrance into the manhole.
4.8
IH2A HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON A MURRELL, P.C.
A submersible solids handling pump will be installed in
the bottom of the collection manhole for periodic pumping and
sampling of leachate. -The pump will be easily removable for
maintenance and a standby unit would be made available for use
whenever repairs are required on the primary unit.
The pump and electrical controls will be explosion proof.
As a source of power for the pump and lighting, either a port-.
able generator or a permanent electrical 'connection would be
provided. -
As noted previously, a double-linedsystem necessitates
two leachate collection networks, one above the other separated
by a sand layer and a liner. The lower system can be utilized
1 in two ways, first it can be used as,a detection system,.indi-
eating. the competency of the upper liner and second, if the
upper liner fails to hold the overlying leachate, the lower
liner will become the primary collection system.
The construction of a bottom ,PVC liner system for the pro-
posed 8 acre extension will cost the town an estimated $586,000:1
This cost is based on town.personnel performing the construction
services with rented equipment. If the town elects to have an
outside contractor perform the work, the cost will be approxi-
mately $129,000. more. On a per acre basis, these costs amount
to $73,250. and $89,370., respectively.
IH24A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4.3 Capping of Completed Areas and Stormwater Collection
4.3.1 General
The primary reason for capping a landfill is to prevent or
minimize infiltration of rainwater to impede the production of
leachate which would eventually seep into the underlying ground-
water system. After a landfill has reached its field capacity
(saturation), a major portion of infiltrated rainwater will ap-
pear as leachate at the bottom of the landfill. Thus, any re-
duction in the infiltration would result in reduction of the
leachate generation.
Current regulations require that all completed portions of
a landfill must be provided with an impervious cover (cap). The
impervious material must have a permeability of not more than
10-5 cm/sec and if natural materials are used, e.g., clay, the
cap must be at least 18 inches thick. In addition, the capped
areas must be designed, graded and maintained so as to prevent
ponding and erosion.
4.3.2 Selection of Capping Materials
As in -the selection of lining materials, capping materials
must also be selected according to certain requirements. It
should meet the permeability of 10-5 cm/sec, should be economi-
cal and the material should be able to withstand post landfill-
ing settlements. If a rip or a crack develops in the cap, the
material should be able to self -seal. of all the materials in-
vestigated for lining purposes, only two, natural clay and ben-
tonite mix, are suitable in terms of physical properties and
track record for their application in landfill capping.
4.10
IH24i HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
A large quantity of natural clay is present at the Southold
landfill. In light of the possible acceptability of this clay,
a representative sample was obtained and sent to a soils labora-
tory for analysis. The results of this analysis, provided in
Appendix IV, indicate that the on-site clay has a permeability
of 2.1 x 10-6 cm/sec, exceeding the NYSDEC requirements of
10-5 cm/sec by approximately 5 times.
Utilization of the on-site clay should greatly minimize
the capping costs incurred by the town. It is estimated that
approximately 17,400 cubic yards of such clay would be available
on-site once the new area to be lined is excavated. At the cur-
r
rent rate of $12.80 per cubic yard of clay (delivered), the
existence of the on-site clay representsa savings of approxi-
mately $222,000. to the town.
In comparing the cost of clay capping to that of bentonite
mix, it is estimated that bentonite would cost approximately
35 percent higher than clay assuming no availability of on-site
clay. This difference is greatly magnified when the availability
of acceptable quantities of on-site clay is taken into account.
For this reason, we have eliminated the bentonite mixture from
further consideration.
The total quantity of clay material required for capping
the 14 acres of completed area is estimated at 23,000 cubic
yards. Therefore, the town would be required to buy an addi-
tional 5,600 cubic yards of clay.
4.11
I i24i HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4.3.3 Construction of Capping and Drainage Systems
Since the availability of on-site clay is contingent upon
the excavation of the new areas of the landfill, and depending
on the capping and lining scheduling requirements by NYSDEC,
there are four.options'open to the town with respect to the
construction of the capping and drainage systems. They are:
.1. The town can strip available clay and perform the
necessary work in-house. (All at once or sequentially.)
2. The town can hire an outside contractor to strip the
clay and perform all necessary ,.work. (All at once or sequen-
tially.)
3., The town can purchase clay from an outside source and
perform the work themselves. (In case the stripping of clay
is not considered and capping is required prior to excavation
of the new area )
4. The town can hire an outside contractor who will supply
his own clay and perform the necessary work. (Same as 3.)
The cost of capping'of the completed acres at the Southold
landfill for the four options are estimated as $395,000.,
$500,000., $548,000. and $651,000., respectively.
The lowest cost of $395,.000 -.represents utilization of the
estimated 17,000 cubic yards of on-site clay material and con-
struction of .the capping work by town personnel with rented
equipment. We recommend this option for the town.
The area to be capped is indicated on Drawing 1 of 4 in
-Appendix III. It comprises approximately 14 acres on --the western
4.12
is
u HOLZMA'CHER, McLENDON & MUIRRELL, P.C.
side of . the landfill., As indicated on Sheet 4 of 4, "Capping
Detail",- the completed area will be first covered.with a minimum
of 8 inches of a clean sand and gravel mix, graded according to
the drainage plan. Located within this layer will be the methane
gas.collection and pressure relief piping system. This system
will circumscribe the entire capped area and will be designed
and placed.in such a way as to protect the pipes from the land-
fill traff
and-fill;traff ic.' Situated atop the sand and gravel layer.will.be.
the clay cap applied over the pre -graded area., The capping -
material., as, stated earlier;. will be natural clay. The 'on-site
1 .11 t 1 80t f th.
c ay wi cover approxima e y percen o e comp e e area.
The additional 20 percent,, 'or 5,600 cubic yards of, clay, will
have to be purchased. Snce.the on-site,clay exceeds state re
quirements by approximately 5 times (0.21 x 10-5 cm/sec versus
5
1 x 10 cm/sec), -a 12 -inch cap has been provided instead of the
required 18 inches. In comparison, 12.inches of clay with a
permeability of 0.21 x 10-5 cm/sec is roughly equivalent,."to 57
inches of clay with a permeability of 1 x 10-5. cm/sec:
The uppermost layer, in this capping scenario is .composed fof .
6 inches of.a sand, topsoil and mulch mix. As with the clay
layer, this horizon will conform to the pre -shaped drainage`sys-
tem contours • The completed areas, when capped and graded to
final contours will be.re-vegetated in order to minimize erosion
and to aid. in moisture retention. The total capping horizon will
be, 26 -inches thick.
4: 13
U2Ai HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Drainage of the capped 14 acres will be handled by regrad-
ing the completed area with a minimum 1 percent slope, as indi-
cated on Drawing 1 of 4. The regrading of this area will be
initiated prior to the application of the clay cap in order to
facilitate spreading of the clay and to avoid or minimize the
clay mixing with sand. The mixing of clay and sand in this ap-
plication is undesirable because in so doing, the permeability
of the cap may be increased, reducing •the ability of the clay
to inhibit water infiltration.
The completed area will be contoured in such a manner that
the majority of rainwater will be diverted to drain into the
proposed on-site recharge basin. This recharge basin will be
excavated and completed prior to capping the site to prevent
any potential flooding. The recharge basin is situated in the
southwest corner of the landfill site near the existing main-
tenance building and is sized to accommodate stormwater runoff
from the 14 capped acres corresponding to an 8 inch rainfall.
Potential future sites for additional recharge basins to accom-
modate stormwater runoff from the new areas have also been
tentatively defined to be located near the entrance road and
delineated on the drawing. No additional land acquisition is
anticipated for construction of.the recharge basins.
Implementation of •the capping schemes will substantially
reduce any future leachate generation and subsequent deteriora-
tion of the underlying aquifer. The implementation of the pro-
posed drainage scheme will contain and recharge the majority
of stormwater runoff on-site, for the landfill site.
4.14
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4.4 Methane Monitoring and Control
4.4.1 Methane Monitoring
4.4.1.1 General
Based on previous findings by both NYSDEC and SCDHS and
recent results obtained by H2M, it is apparent that methane is
present at the landfill site. Preliminary evaluations of the
existing data tends to indicate that the rate of methane gene-
ration and its associated migration patterns are time variable
with respect to climatic conditions and seasonal changes.
The methane concentrations recorded by 112M at the 12 exist-
ing perimeter probes ranged from 0 to 10 percent. The recorded
concentrations at the temporary bore holes, obtained during the
latest sampling program, ranged from 0 to 30 percent. (Only
one reading indicated.30 percent and the remaining at or below
the LEL of 5 percent.) The values recorded at the maintenance
building and vehicle spotting booth during all three sampling
programs were 0 percent. Visual examination along the perime-
ter of the landfill indicates no vegetation ]till on any large
scale. This would imply that any methane produced within the,
landfill is either: a) remaining relatively stagnant, b) verti-
cally migrating into the atmosphere, or c) migrating laterally
below the present root zone.
NYSDEC and SCDHS have reported methane concentrations
showing similar results to those recorded by H2M during the
third sampling program on April 13, 1981. NYSDEC and SCDHS
4.15
IH2A1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
have reported methane concentrations ranging from 10 to 30 per-
cent along the north, south and west property lines. H2M has
recorded similar readings along these areas.
In light of these observations and elevated methane concen-
trations, especially in Probe No. 2 along the west property line
and in temporary bore hole location 16 along the north property
line, we propose that a periodic monitoring program be initiated
to obtain additional data with respect to methane generation
rates and migration patterns. This will be the first step to
implement the necessary control program. Additional data would
1
provide information on any other specific problem areas and
would help formulate the basis for selection of the type of re-
quired methane control system. A careful monitoring of the
western property is recommended.
4.4.1.2 Proposed Methane Monitoring Program
Methane monitoring consists of installing a series of small
diameter, slotted, PVC or steel probes placed at shallow depths
along the perimeter of a landfill. These probes will serve as
stationary sampling locations, whereby periodic methane concen-
trations can be recorded to indicate any fluctuations in methane
concentrations and/or migration.
Since the Southold landfill has only 12 existing probes on-
site, we propose an additional 11 probes be installed at loca-
tions indicated on Figure 4-1. These probes will be installed
along the inside.perimeter of the landfill, approximately 10
4.16
I- IVURt 4 -I
/ - - so -
,4 C
-303
■4 raS2 3
wt
,
\ • ,915 'a
L 1{ ,.t
ao .jp '00,
4a a
290
{T \/100, \
419
xsxs
Ile 3a 0,
sto
z ILS
/dao «p 1 \ .
IL
\�; - , `.\\moi/' i ;_ • `. j:: /=•.s - •=ws
wo �.— \ \ ` �\ cID aD 1
'IN 499
\ \ • - XG?s 472
93.
wo
,ala ,\ \ • ,«a� % / Sas /
es
5 �� /i•� it , I/ /�.. LEGEND
,«D \ � / i \ las Zs0
'«° . `*=EXISTING PROBES
* '~° ;- PROPOSED METHANE PROBES
n o +� // SCALE: -I" = 200'
,
=.+.o,Ks 5 CONTOUR INTERVAL
10
4 Lo
413
LOCATION OF
7 EXISTING AND PROPOSED
,na 'METHANE MONITORING PROBES`
SIB
AT SOUTHOLD LANDFILL.
/° TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
-PART .360 COMPLIANCE REPORT
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P:C. / H2M CORP. MELVILLE.N.V.-
. F�►'GD^LE.N V.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS "aiVERHEAD, N y
- -
NEWTON N J
4.1'7
U2/4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
feet from the property line and away from any active landfill
areas, thus preventing accidental covering or removal. In
general, these probes will be spaced approximately 200 to 250
feet on center encompassing the entire circumference of the
landfill.
Once a monitoring program has been initiated and adequate
data collected and evaluated, a more definite methane control
program can be implemented if necessary. Another benefit of
long-term monitoring is that it can provide the town with in
formation regarding the effects of the proposed lining of new
areas and capping of the completed areas on methane migration
and concentrations.
Figures 4-2 and 4-3 show two schemes for the installation
of methane probes. The first scheme, Alternative I (Figure 4-2),
consists of a 2 -inch diameter slotted PVC schedule 40 pipe, in-
side a 4 to 6 -inch diameter bore hole, installed 5 to 10 feet
below grade. The pipe is capped at the top and a 6 -inch clay
seal is applied at the contact of the pipe with the ground.
The pipe is approximately 4 feet above the ground surface,
painted in a highly visible color and numbered for identifi-
cation. The bore hole could be hand or machine augered depend-
ing on the depth and type of soil encountered.
In Alternative II (Figure 4-3), a slotted 2 -inch diameter
steel pipe is utilized instead of PVC pipe, as in Alternative
I. The steel pipe could be driven down into the ground by use
4.18
FIGURE 4. 2
CAP
w
SLOTTED 2110 PVC
,d. PROSE NUMBER SCHEDULE 40 PIPE
rA
RON WHIT
TED BLACK
N BACKGROUND
21J1 • � °�• 0o'� o o
dIIII .• I(III n ' •
CL
AY SEAL G
ROUN
D ELEVATION
X6MIN2 0 SAND OR GRAVEL
BACKFILL
4
LL 9
w ONATIVE
SOIL
0
SLOT DETAIL
11 SECTION 1=1
4TO6IN.
BORE HOLE
TYPICAL
METHANE MONITORING PROBE FOR
EARLY MIGRATION DETECTION
ALTERNATE I
(SLOTTED PVC SCHEDULE 40 PIPE)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PART 360 COMPLIANCE REPORT
4.19
HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / 42M CORP.
FARMIN DALE'..
FARMINGDALE, N.Y.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
N• N.Y.
NEEWTOWTO ADN, N.J.
4.19
FIGURE 4-3
w
U. SLOTTED 2110
PROBE _ NUMBER STEEL CASING
O PAINTED BLACK
. � ON WHITE
N BACKGROUND
GROUND. E EVAT
611
MIN
l
w 2SI I NATIVE'
LL I I SOIL
o I.I
I:I
SLOT DETAIL
I.I
I 1 I I SECTION I -I
I:I
. Iil
YPICAL
METHANE _MONITORING PROBE FOR
EARLY MIGRATION DETECTION
ALTERNATE R
(SLOTTED STEEL CASING)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PART 360 COMPLIANCE REPORT
MELVILLE. N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE,N.Y.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD. N.Y.
NEWTON. N.J.
4.20
,
UZ44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON a MURRELL, P.C.
of a heavy sliding style hammer. No bore hole would be neces-
sary in this alternative. The proposed methane monitoring
probes could either be..installed by town personnel or be con—
tracted out for installation.
4.4.2 Methane Control
4.4.2.1 General
Since methane is a lighter than air gas, it tends to rise
up and out throughout the entire surface area of the landfill.
This sequence of events is radically changed when completed
areas of a landfill are capped. When a landfill is capped with
an impervious material, e.g., clay,•it is intended to inhibit
the downward percolation of water, but at the same time the
cap serves to impede the natural upward movement of the land-
fill gases. When this occurs, the gases, upon reaching the
clay contact, will accumulate and build up pressure. This
pressure will initiate lateral movement of the gases along the
clay/refuse interface, cropping up along -the fringes of the
capped area. In order to relieve this built-up pressure and
to control the migration of these gases, a path of least, re
sistance must be provided.
This path of least resistance, termed a methane control
system, can be one of two types, passive or active.
in passive venting systems, the underlying mixture of
landfill gases, methane included, is offered a path of least
resistance to the atmosphere. This can be accomplished in
4.21.
U24A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
several ways. One method is to install slotted PVC or steel
pipe, 4 to 12 inches in diameter, extending vertically from
the surface to just below the lowest refuse horizons. These
venting wells are usually spaced 50 to 100 feet on center, de-
pending on the severity of the methane concentration and migra-
tion problem. These venting wells can, if desired, be equipped
with individual wind turbines at the surface end. The turbines
provide the vent pipe with a slight negative pressure at the
surface, thereby further increasing the competency of the
venting well.
Another passive approach to methane control at landfills
would be to horizontally install slotted PVC or steel pipes
along the edges of completed and capped areas. These pipes
would be placed just below the clay cap along the fringes of
the landfill, thereby intercepting the laterally migrating
gases moving along the clay/refuse interface. The gases col-
lected in these pipes would be vented up and out through several
vertical connecting vents.
In an active ventilation system, slotted PVC or steel pipe
4 to 8 inches in diameter is installed, usually extending to
just below the lowest refuse horizon. As.in the passive system,
these vent wells are spaced 50 to 100 feet on center, depending
on the existing conditions. The major difference in an active
system is that usually the individual vent wells are manifolded
to a common header pipe and an external negative pressure (vacuum)
4.22
16 I� HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
is applied by means of a blower or pump. The evacuated gases
at the terminal end of the system are then either vented into
the atmosphere or admitted through a controlled combustion se-
quence.
The control system, active or passive, adopted for any
particular landfill site would depend largely upon the severity
of the methane migration dictated by the results of the moni-
toring program and the associated costs. In general, the de-
sign and installation of a control system would be required if:
1. Methane concentrations reach significantly high levels
at monitoring probes.
2. Surrounding vegetation shows indications of impact from
methane migration.
3. Surrounding land is developed as per zoning codes (low
density housing).
4. Final capping of the landfill areas is in place. Hin-
drance in the upward migration to the atmosphere due to final
capping is expected to change the migration patterns.
When any of the preceding criteria or any combination
thereof is met for the Town of Southold landfill, a determina-
tion regarding the design and installation of a venting system
should be made.
4.4.2.2 Proposed Methane Control System
As a part of the final capping program at Southold land-
fill, the methane control system proposed for the completed
4.23
0 I2"HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
areas will be of the passive type. Six-inch slotted PVC pipe
will be horizontally installed along the north, south and western
fringes of the completed and capped areas. The pipe will be
placed directly under the clay cap, as illustrated on Drawing
4 of 4 in the Appendix, for the purpose of intercepting, col-
lecting and venting any laterally migrating landfill gases along
the-clay/refuse interface. The collection system will be equipped
with several vertical "tee" jointed vents that will rise through
the clay cap, allowing the lighter than air gases to dissipate
1 into the atmosphere. These vertical vents will be designed to
allow gases to escape, but will not permit any water infiltration.
In addition, the control system will be designed with expansion
capabilities, in order to accommodate future areas when capped
and completed. The methane control system will eventually en-
compass the entire perimeter of the landfill.
4.5 Groundwater Monitoring
4.5.1 General
Part 360 regulations require a minimum of three groundwater
wells, of which at least two must be located downgradient of the
solid waste fill area. In addition, NYSDEC requires annual and
quarterly monitoring of these wells, in terms of chemical analy-
sis of specific constituents. With respect to the Southold land-
fill, SCDHS has already installed three monitoring wells, two of
which are downgradient and one upgradient. These existing wells
would therefore satisfy Part 360 requirements. SCDHS has indi-
cated that the town may utilize these wells for future monitoring.
4.24
9-12" HOLZMACHER,.McLENDON a MURRELL, P.C.
4.5.2 Proposed Groundwater Monitoring Program
In view of the existing downgradient and upgradient mon-
itoring wells and the availability of these wells through the
cooperation of the SCDHS, we propose the 'town continue the
utilization of these wells.
These wells, both downgradient and upgradient,- should be
tested as per NYSDEC requirements on.an annual basis for the.
e
.constituents listed in Table 471 and on a quarterly basis for
the constituents lasted in Table 4-.2. The implementation and
adherence to this monitoring scheme would•satisfy Part 360
requirements.
In'addition to the yearly and quarterly.monitoring for the
required constituents, we propose that the town obtain ground-
water table elevations on a quarterly basis. This would pro-
vide the town with information pertaining to any variations in
the profile of the groundwater table and changes in the direc-
tion of groundwater flow. Such data gathering would serve as
an early warning to potential leachate contamination in unaf-
fected areas.
The utilization of the existing groundwater monitoring
wells would serve a twofold purpose. First, it would save the
town the expense of drilling and installing both downgradient
and upgradient wells and secondly, it would enable the town
to plot the migration of plume and changes in its chemical
characteristics through time against previously recorded base
line data from these wells.
4.25
FZ#*i HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PART 360 COMPLIANCE REPORT
GROUNDWATER MONITORING CONSTITUENTS
TO BE TESTED FOR ON AN ANNUAL BASIS
1.
Arsenic
18.
Sulfate
2.
Barium
.19.
Zinc
3.
Cadmium
20.
pH
4.
Chlorides
21.
Endrin
5.
Chromium - Hexavalent
22.
Heptachlor
6".
Copper
23.
Lindane
7.
Cyanide
24.
Toxaphene
8.
Fluoride
25.
Vinyl Chloride (chl.oroethene)
9.
Foaming Agents
26.,
Carbon Tetrachloride (tetra-
chloromethane)
10.
Iron
27.
Total Trihalomethanes [(the sum
11.
Lead
of the concentrations of: bro-
modi chloromethaine, dibromo-
12.
Manganese
chloromethane, tribromomethane
(bromoform) and trichloromethane
13.
Mercury
(chloroform)]
14.
Nitrates
28.
Specific Conductivity
15.
Phenols
29.
Ammonia
16.
Selenium
30.
TDS
17.
Silver
30.
TOC
4.26
U2M HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PART 360 COMPLIANCE REPORT
GROUNDWATER MONITORING CONSTITUENTS
TO BE TESTED FOR ON A QUARTERLY BASIS
1. Specific Conductivity
2.
Chlorides
3.
Ammonia
4.
Nitrates
5.
Foaming Agents
6.
Iron.
7.
TDS
8. TOC
9. pH
10. Lead
4.27
2-4
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
In our communication with SCDHS, they have indicated that
additional permanent groundwater monitoring wells may be in-
stalled further downgradient of the landfill. Although locations
of these wells are unknown at this writing, the probable loca-
tions would be where SCDHS had previously installed the profile
wells, as mentioned in the foregoing sections of this report.
In order to monitor the travel of the plume beyond the landfill
boundaries, it would be necessary to periodically perform ground-
water sample analysis of these wells. Additionally, periodic
sampling of private wells would also be necessary to determine
if the leachate plume, if traveled that far, poses any poten-
tial threat to the private well water supply system. Further
monitoring of the private wells may also be conducted by SCDHS
at no expense to the Town of Southold.
4.6 Leachate Disposal
4.6.1 General
Once an area is lined and filled with solid waste, leachate
would be generated and stored atop the liner system. This
leachate must be periodically removed and disposed of. In order
to accurately determine the method of disposal, the quality of
the leachate must first be known. Table 4-3 shows the chemical
make-up of typical leachate from municipal solid waste land-
fills. These constituents and their associated concentrations
do not necessarily reflect the chemical make-up of leachate
that is to be found at any one particular landfill. This is
4.28
UZ44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 4-3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
CHARACTERISTICS OF TYPICAL LEACHATES
FROM SOLID WASTE LANDFILLS*
Ranger
Constituent (mg/L)'
Range Range
(mg/L) (mg/L)
Range
(mg/L)
Leachate
Fresh Old
BOD -5 9-54,610...
7,500-10,000
266
14,950
�81
COD 0-89,520
100-51,000 16,00-22,000
500-1,000
22,650
Total dissolved solids 0-42,276
10,000-14,000
...
12,620 1,144
Total suspended solids
6-2,685
...
100-700
...
327
266
Total nitrogen
0-1,416
20-500
...
...
989
7.51
PH
3.7-8.5
4.0-8.5.
5.2-6.4
6.3-7.0
5.2
7.3
Electrical conductance
(pmhos/cm)
...
6,000.-9,000
1,200-3,700
9,200
1,400
Total alkalinity as-CaC:03
0-20,850
800-4,000
630-1,730
...
...
Total hardness as CaCO3
0-20,800
200-5,250
3,500-5,000
390-800
...
,.
Chemicals and Metals:
C ad mum ( Cd ) .
...
0.4 -
Calcium (Ca)
5-41080
900-1,700
111-245
2,136.
254
Chloride (Cl),.34-2,800
100-2,400
600-800
100-400
742
197
Copper (Cu)
0-9.9
.'
0.5
40.04-0.11
0.5
0.1
Iron (Fe)
0.2-5,50.0
200-1,7"00
210-325'
20-60
500
1.5
Lead (Pb)
0-5.0
...
1.6
Magnesium (Mg)_.
16.5-15,600
...
16.0-250
22-62
277
.81
Manganese (Mn)
0.6-1,400
.:_.
75-125
1.02-1.25
49
Phosphate (P)
0-154
5-130
...
21-46
7.35
4.96
Potassium (K)
2.8-3,770
.295-310
107-242
Sodium (Na)
0-7,700
100-3,800
450-500
106-357
SO
Sulfate (}
4
1-1,826
25-500
400-650
13-84
zinc.(Z.n).
0-1,000
1-135
10-30
40.04-047
.45
0.16
* Source: Lining of Waste Impoundments and Disposal Facilities,, EPA -SW 870, September 1980.
4.29
U HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
because leachate varies between landfills due to different
existing conditions such as, solid waste quantities, seasonal
change in composition, operating conditions and practices.
Until such time when a native leachate sample is collected and
analyzed, it would be premature to address and recommend an ef-
fective leachate treatment for the Town of Southold landfill.
This has been the case for every lined landfill on Long Island.
While specific treatment systems cannot yet be determined,
various alternatives based on prior experiences can be identified.
The alternatives are:
1. On-site treatment and discharge to groundwater.
2. On-site treatment and discharge to surface water.
3. On-site pretreatment and transport to a conventional
sewage treatment plant.
4. Transport to a conventional wastewater treatment
facility without pretreatment.
5. Continued recirculation through the landfill and
eventual treatment by one of the above alternatives.
6. Discharge to scavenger waste lagoons.
7. Discharge to recharge basin.
It should be kept in mind that the selection of any of the
above delineated alternatives is highly sensitive to the quan-
tity and the quality of the generated leachate and requires
acceptance by the governing regulatory agencies and a demonstra-
tion of its environmental applicability.
Table 4-4 indicates disposal methods utilized as some of the
other lined landfills on Long Island.
4.30
IH2" HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MUM LL, P.C.
many cM A
LEACHATE DISPOSAL METHODS ON LONG ISLAND
LANDFILL DISPOSAL METHOD
Town of Smithtown Alternative 4, with Recirculation
Town of Brookhaven Alternative 1, with Recirculation
Town of North Hempstead Alternative 3, with Recirculation
Town of Oyster Bay Alternative 3, Proposed
Town of
Babylon
Alternatives Pending
Evaluation
In
designing
a leachate control system for a
landfill,
sufficient storage capacity is generally provided to allow the
accumulated leachate to be collected by scavenger waste haulers
utilizing portable or stationary pumping equipment. The avail-
able pumping equipment can also be utilized in the recirculation
option. Leachate treatment at an existing wastewater treatment
facility may require, depending on the location of the landfill
with respect to the treatment plant, a foirced or gravity leach-
ate conveyance system. On-site leachate treatment involves high
capital expenditures and may take excessive amounts of time to
obtain necessary permits, finance, design and construct a fa-
cility.
4.6.2 Pro op sed Leachate Disposal Program
With respect to the Town of Southold landfill, it is anti-
cipated that the generated leachate, after analysis, may ini-
tially be acceptable to be pumped to the existing scavenger
4.31
IHZ44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
waste lagoons or proposed recharge basin. Alternatively, this
leachate may be returned to the top of the active landfill,
where it.would be allowed to leach through one or more times
until the quality is acceptable for subsequent treatment at the
lagoons or recharge basin. The exact determination of the method
of disposal will be dictated by quality and quantity of leachate
actually collected as.the landfill progresses. On-site treat-
ment of leachate is not contemplated at this time due to the
high cost of such treatment. If the leachate required treatment
at a wastewater treatment facility, it is proposed that evalua-
tion be made to transport it to a nearby municipal facility,
such as the existing Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. Arrange-
ments for disposal and treatment of leachate at the Greenport
plant should be undertaken as soon as practicable once the im-
plementation of the recommendations contained in this report are
commenced.
4.32
■ 2" HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
5.0 COST OPINION OF LANDFILL UPGRADING
In this section, we have presented the cost opinion for the
construction work involved in connection with the upgrading of
the Town of Southold landfill. These costs are in 1981 dollars
and reflect the upgrading as proposed in the drawings accompany-
ing this report. Basically, the costs are computed for liner in-
stallation and leachate collection system for the new 8 -acre
area and capping of -the completed 14 -acre area of the landfill.
Also included in the costs are plans for methane control, drain -
1
iage system and construction of a recharge basin and associated
earth work. Installation of the groundwater monitoring wells
has been excluded from the costs with the intention of utilizing
the existing SCDHS wells for this purpose. Costs are divided
into two categories, namely construction by town personnel and
construction by an outside contractor. Lining and capping costs
are also presented on a cost per acre basis. As mentioned in
other sections, use of available on-site clay is assumed for
capping purposes. Any excess clay material required is assumed
to be trucked in from outside sources.
5.1 Construction Cost Opinion
I. CONSTRUCTION BY TOWN PERSONNEL
A. Bottom Liner System for Landfill FXtension
1. Earthwork for subgrade preparation $ 118,000.
2. Liner construction (material and
installation) 280,000.
5.1
�t-M-_ HOLZMACHER, M&ENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
3.
Leachate collection system, liner
monitoring well and pumping -equipment
90,000.
4.
Engineering construction stakeout,
observation of construction and
contingencies
98,000.
SUBTOTAL
$
586,000.
B. Cam
iing of Completed Areas
1.
Earthwork for cap subgrade preparation
including clay
$
238,000.
2.
Off-site clay material
72,000.
3.
Drainage system and recharge basin
construction
45,000.
4.
Top soil and seeding
40,000.
5.
Engineering and contingencies
_79,000.
SUBTOTAL
$
474,000.
I
C. Methane Monitoring and Control
1.
Methane monitoring probes
$
2,000.
2.
Methane venting for capped areas
20,000.
3.
Engineering and contingencies
_ 4,000.
SUBTOTAL
$
26,000.
D. Groundwater MonitoringSystem
Note:
The groundwater monitoring system at
Southold landfill is already in existence,
installed by SCDHS
TOTAL
COST: CONSTRUCTION BY TOWN PERSONNEL
$1,086,000.
II. CONSTRUCTION BY OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR
Incremental costs, if construction is to be per-
formed by an outside Contractor.
a. Bottom liner system for landfill extension $ 129,000.
b. Capping of complete areas 126,000.
C. Methane monitoring and control 7,000.
TOTAL INCREMENTAL COST $ 262,000.
TOTAL COST: CONSTRUCTION BY OUTSIDE CONTRACTOR $1,348,000.
5.2
IH,� HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
5.2 Construction Cost on a Per -Acre Basis for Bottom
Liner and Capping
Bottom liner system for landfill
Extension (8 acres)
Construction by Town Personnel
Construction by Outside Contractor
Capping of completed areas (14 acres)
Construction by Town Personnel
Construction by Outside Contractor
TOTAL COST
Construction by Town Personnel
Construction by Outside Contractor
5.3
$ 73,250.
89,370.
$
33,860.
42,860.
$107,110.
132, 230.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
6.0 BRUSH DISPOSAL AT SOUTHOLD LANDFILL
Data obtained through a solid waste survey, conducted during
the preparation of the Town of Southold's Solid Waste Management
Plan and Report by H2M in June 1979, indicates that in 1978 the
Southold landfill received approximately 1,000 tons of brush.
The present method of disposal consists of landfilling this
brush, as received, in conjunction with other bulky material,
such as demolition waste. Although this method of brush disposal
has been generally effective, the.landfilling of "as received"
brush tends to utilize available landfill volume more rapidly
due to its voluminous and low density characteristics. A more
effective method of brush disposal would preserve the much needed
landfill capacity. Occasionally, NYSDEC has also requested the
town to improve its brush management practices. The following
is a report outlining various alternatives which are available.
to the town for brush disposal. A detailed evaluation of these
alternatives as to their technical, environmental and economical
feasibility are beyond the scope of this report, although some
associated costs are provided following the discussion of the
alternatives.
1. No Action alternative. In this alternative, the town
will continue existing practices of landfilling of received
brush and wood in conjunction with other bulky waste material.
2A. Purchase or rent a wood chipper to process the in-
coming brush into a more compact form (chips) and then landfill.
6.1
0
1-12" HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
2B. Same as 2A., but instead of landfilling the wood chips,
stockpile for use as a mulch in the final cover and planting
scheme. Any excess material can be used by the Highway Depart-
ment in any roadside landscaping, or can be sold to local land-
scaping firms.
3. Controlled incineration of brush and wood in a modular
type combustion unit. It should be noted that a chipper may
have to be purchased or rented in order.to shred the brush and
wood prior to incineration.
4. Permit controlled salvaging of wood by town residents,
with the remainder of brush and wood either landfilled (Alter-
native 1), chipped (Alternatives 2A and 2B) or incinerated
(Alternative 3).
6.1 Brush Disposal Costs
Our preliminary conversations with several equipment sup-
pliers, in connection with the rental or purchase of a properly
sized brush and wood chipper, indicates that any chipper, rented
or purchased, for use at a landfill should have the capability
to process both green and dry brush, scrap lumber and other
assorted wood debris. A unit so designed would cost approxi-
mately $20,000. If the town opted to rent such a unit, the
rental fee would be $5,100. per month plus an initial $1,500.
deposit. The rental fee and initial deposit would be totally
credited to the purchase price. Thus, in effect, the town
would own the chipper in three to four months.
6.2
VZ4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
There are two renting alternatives. The first would be to
rent a wood chipper from a renting house. The associated costs
would be approximately $300. per day. Chippers available from
the rental houses, however, are usually not designed to handle
large quantities of brush or large diameter brush and/or wood.
Another drawback to renting a chipper from a rental house is
that the daily fee is usually not applicable to the purchase
price of the unit. Therefore, the town does not build up any
equity in that unit.
1
The other renting alternative would be for the town to
contract out the chipping operations. The incurred costs would
be approximately $1,000. per day. The advantage here is that
the town will not be burdened with both the maintenance and
operation of the chipping unit.
Due to high initial costs and high operating costs of con-
trolled incineration of the given quantity of brush, we have
eliminated this alternative from further consideration: An
incineration facility would also require the time-consuming
process of facility design, construction and environmental per-
mits.
The following is an economic analysis to exemplify the
utilization of a wood chipper at the Town of Southold landfill:
6.2 Economic Analysis of Utilizing a Wood Chipper at the
Town of Southold Landfill
Basis: 1,000 typ of Wood Chips
Unchipped Inplace Density: 350 lbs/cy
6.3
IHA(� HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Chipped Inplace Density: 1,000 lbs/cy
Average Landfill Costs Applicable
to Brush Disposal: $4.00/cy*
Landfill Volume Savings
- Yearly land volume consumption without chipper and
20 percent cover material by volume:
1,000 tons x cy x 2,000 lbs x 1.2 = 6,860 cy
year 350 lbs ton
- Yearly .land volume consumption with chipper and
20 percent cover material by volume.
tons cy 2,000 lbs
1,000 year x 1,000 lbs x ton x 1.2 = 2,400 cy
Net yearly land volume savings due to chipper = 4,460 cy
- Economic value of landfill volume savings @ $4.00/cy =
$17,800./Year
Cost of Wood Chippers
Alternative 1 - Town Buys Wood Chipper
Capital Cost: $20,000.
Equipment Life: 7 Years
Amortization at 10 percent: $4,100./Year
Annual Operating Cost (Incremental): $2,000./Year
TOTAL COST: $6,100./Year
Alternative 2 - Town Rents Wood Chipper
Rental Period: 2 Months
Operating Days: 48 Days
Rental Fee: $300./day
TOTAL ANNUAL COST: $14,400./Year
* Based on existing operation with moderate landfill upgrading.
1;1V
U2—AA HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Alternative 3 -- Town Contracts Out Wood Chipping Operation
Contract Basis: Twice a Year
Contract Period: 4 Weeks 20 Days per year
Contract Fee: $1,000/Day
TOTAL ANNUAL COST: $20,000./Year
Conclusions
There are substantial land volume savings for the town to
justify consideration of a wood chipper. Purchase of a wood
chipped offers the most cost-effective alternative. This al-
ternative provides the flexibility of utilizing the equipment
somewhere else when not in use at the landfill. The town also
retains ownership of the equipment.
C -Ml
F24t,HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C..
7.0 STATUS REPORT ON SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ON LONG ISLAND
7.1 Introduction.
Presented below is a brief report regarding existing solid
waste management on Long Island. Our report centers around how
the various towns are coping with the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) requirements under Part
360 regulations, as well as the federal requirements under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
Generally speaking, all towns are required to operate their
landfills in compliance with the Part 360 regulations. However,
since the regulations are relatively new and most of the existing
landfills have been in operation for years, the extent to which
an existing landfill could comply with the state regulations is
a matter of discussion at this point in time. Another important
consideration is the unanticipated financial.commitment required
on the part of the towns in order to upgrade the existing land-
fills. Another major issue the towns are confronted with is the
long-range planning for their solid waste management, in light
of the designation of Long Island as a sole -source aquifer for
drinking water supply and resulting reluctance of the state and
county officials to allow continuation of landfill practices on
Long Island. The recently promulgated landfill leachate liner
policy by NYSDEC calls for stringent environmental protection
measures. The policy, formulated on the basis of the recommen-
dations of the 208 Study by the Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning
7.1
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8, MURRELL, P.C.
Board (now known as the Long Island Regional Planning Board),
requires placement of single or double impermeable liners in
the new extensions of the existing landfills, as well as a
single or a double leachate collection system. Certain zones
are recommended for a complete discontinuation of landfill
operation.
Required under the authority of Sections 4004 and 1001 of
RCRA, the state is currently in the process of performing the
so called "Open Dump Inventory" on Long Island. All the existing
I landfills on Long Island are to be evaluated on the basis of
federal criteria. The eight (8) criteria, known as the "Criteria
for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Prac-
tices", were promulgated in order to provide minimum national
standards for the protection of health and the environment from
adverse effects resulting from solid waste disposal. Non-compli-
ance with any of the eight (8) criteria will bring the landfill
under the classification of an open dump. The repercussion re-
sulting from the non-compliance is the potential public law suit
against the owner and the operator of the landfill.
7.2 Solid Waste Management in Suffolk County
TOWN OF BABYLON
The Town of Babylon operates one (1) 67 -acre landfill lo-
cated on Gleam Street in Wyandanch. All of Babylon's approxi-
mately 700 tons per day (tpd) of solid waste is currently dis-
posed of at this site. The life expectancy of this landfill
7.2
i Z4 HOLZMACHER, McL.ENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
is estimated as.six (6) years. Three (3) incinerator plants,
also located at the.landfill site, are currently inoperative
-due to mechanical and environmental problems.
In 1974, a comprehensive study was performed by -the United
States Geological Survey (USGS) regarding the groundwater quality
in. the landfill area. The, study concluded the existence of a
leachate plume and def ined its extent.
The town has performed two comprehensive studies in 1979
and 1980 addressing various Part -360 requirements imposed by
NYSDEC. Following these studies, the town has installed a pas
sive type of methane venting system along Jersey Street and
Edison Avenue,at the landfill site. The town is presently under
a consent order -by NYSDEC which requires additional.,upgrading
of the landfill. In response.td,'the consent order, the town
has already installed a clay liner and leachate collection sys
tem in the former'JerseyStreet lake area, which had been pre-
viously landfilled utilizing, non-=putrescible materials. The
town intends to install additional liners in the remaining areas
of the landfill.* Groundwater monitoring is also being considered
by the town. NYSDEC has.recently completed the open dump inven-
tory of the Babylon landfill and despite the extensive upgrading_,
the landfill has'been declared as an open dump'. The consent
order, mentioned previously, was issued as a result of the open
dump inventory.
The Town of Babylon is participating in the proposed Multi -
Town Resource Recovery Facility for its long term solid waste
management. The Multi -Town facility is scheduled.to go into
operation in 1984:
7:3
U2/%A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN
The Town of Brookhaven generates some 1,200 tpd of solid
waste which is deposited at the only landfill located at Horse -
block Road in Yaphank. The 70 acre landfill has approximately
40 acres that are single lined with a PVC liner. Leachate
collected at this liner is presently being recirculated through
the landfilled waste. An engineering study is underway to eval-
uate alternatives for construction of a joint leachate/scavenger
waste treatment facility.
In 1979, the town completed a solid waste resource recovery
study which recommended construction of a 2,000 tpd mass -fired
waterwall type of municipal solid waste to energy generating
facility to be located in the vicinity of Brookhaven National
Laboratory (BNL). The concept called for low pressure steam
extraction for sale to BNL, in conjunction with production of
electricity for sale to Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO).
The town is currently in the process of further considering the
recommended scheme.
Prior to opening the Horseblock Road landfill in 1973, the
town operated a landfill in Holtsville. This landfill is now
closed. An extensive methane collection and flaring system is
in place at this site to prevent migration of landfill gases
off-site. A composting facility is also located nearby where
leaves are periodically composted.
7.4
UZ44 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
The town is required to double line the remainder of the
Ho.rseblock Road landfill and cap the entire landfill upon com-
pletion and is awaiting a Part 360 permit from NYSDEC. The
town had installed some 16 groundwater monitoring wells when
this landfill was first opened and has conducted quarterly
monitoring since that time.
7.5
U2"HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON
The Town of East Hampton currently owns and operates two
(2) active solid waste disposal sites. The Acabonack Road land-
fill site is situated on 60 acres of land, located northeast of
the Village of East Hampton, between Acabonack Road and Springs -
Fireplace Road. The Montauk landfill site is situated on 25
acres, 1-1/2 miles east of the eastern boundary of Hither Hills
State Park, and just north of Montauk Highway. The town generates
approximately 72 tpd of refuse, based on 1980 quantities on a
7 day per week schedule, of which 70 percent is landfilled at
the Acabonack site, with the remaining 30 percent going to the
Montauk site. The life expectancy of the two sites, Acabonack
and Montauk, is estimated at 25 and 40 years, respectively.
In .1980, East Hampton took part in the East End Solid Waste
Management Study conducted by H2M. The purpose of this study
was to investigate resource and energy recovery from solid
waste generated in the five east end communities of Southampton,
Riverhead, Southold, East Hampton and Shelter Island. The final
recommended alternatives were:
1. Initiate a joint five town resource recovery facility,
to be centrally located in the Southampton area or;
2. All five east end towns to participate individually
or collectively in the proposed Brookhaven Resource Recovery
Facility.
These recommendations would provide for long term solid
waste management.
7.6
IH2MHOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
With respect to current conditions, both of East Hampton's
landfills have been issued conditional operating permits by the
NYSDEC. The permit requires the town to double line all unused
portions of the landfill site intended for future landfilling,
and capping of all completed areas. In acmition, the permit
calls for leachate and methane monitoring details to be submitted
by the town.
To date, leachate monitoring has been conducted on private
wells and a geologic well has been installed at the Montauk land-
fill. With respect to methane monitoring, neither site is equipped
with either methane test probes or vent wells. No methane has been
detected on or off --site at either location.
7.7
UA'W HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TOWN OF HUNTINGTON
The Town of Huntington is the only town in Suffolk County
which has operating incinerators. The three (3) plants,,each
rated at 150 tpd handle an average of 400 tpd. The remaining'
400 tpd of the total 800 tpd of waste generation in the town
is disposed of at a landfill located on Deposit Road, East
Northport, in the proximity of the existing incinerators. The
residue from the incinerators, amounting to some 70 tpd is
also landfilled at this site, which comprises approximately 58
acres. In a recent (1980) study,conducted for the town, it is
estimated that under the existing operating conditions and a
final elevation of 235 feet, the life of the landfill is ap-
proximately 1-1/2 years. The study also evaluated the land-
fill life under various operating conditions, including in-
creased utilization of the incinerators and transportation of
solid waste out-of-town. The maximum site life at 235 feet
elevation with 150 tpd going out-of-town is estimated at three
(3) years.
The town is currently under a consent order by the NYSDEC
to upgrade the East Northport landfill. A study conducted in
1979 concluded the presence of leachate contamination underneath
East Northport landfill, requiring institution of a ground-
water monitoring program. The town has also installed a com-
prehensive methane migration control system at the landfill,
which includes both active and passive type of methane evacu-
ation wells.
Ut2u
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Necessitated by the rapid depletion of the East Northport
site, the Town of Huntington is currently investigating solid
waste management alternatives to provide for interim solid waste
disposal until a ,two -town facility becomes operational. Along
with the Town of Babylon, Huntington is considering forming a
two -town solid waste resource recovery program.
7.9
U244 HOLZMACHER, MOLENDON a MURRELL, P.C.
TOWN OF ISLIP
The Town of Islip currently disposes all of its solid waste
(approximately 900 tpd) at the 43 acre landfill located on
Blydenburgh Road in Hauppauge. Until recently, the town also
operated an incinerator and landfill in Sayville. At present,
the incinerator is inoperative due to environmental problems
with respect to air emissions and wastewater disposal and is
being utilized for a source separation program. A stationary
compactor is utilized to compact a small quantity of solid
waste received at Sayville site and transported to Hauppauge
for disposal.,
The 1974 USGS Study, conducted for both Babylon and Islip,
also concluded existence of a leachate plume at the Sayville
site. Ever since, the waste disposal activities have gradually
diminished at this site. Sayville site is also located near
McArthur Airport, imposing landfill height limitations.
Attributed to the proximity of Hauppauge landfill to the
residential areas', there have been constant complaints regarding
odor and methane migration. During a study of methane migration
in early 1980, the presence of vinyl chloride was discovered
at this site which -led to a public call demanding closure of
the Hauppauge landfill. Subsequently, the NYSDEC has issued a
consent order requiring the town to: close and cap the finished
areas of the landfill, double line the remaining new areas (ap-
proximately 17 acres), implement a landfill gas evacuation sys-
tem to mitigate the methane and vinyl chloride problems, install
7.10
H� HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
a groundwater monitoring program, and institute a source sepa-
ration program. The consent order was tailored toward reducing
and eventually eliminating solid waste disposal at the Hauppauge
site. The town has responded to comply with the consent order
and has initiated a comprehensive landfill gas evacuation system
and a source separation program. The town has also installed
four (4) deep groundwater monitoring wells and is in the planning
stage to install a liner system in the newly excavated areas.
The NYSDEC has recently categorized the Hauppauge landfill as an
open dump. The Town of Islip has also ended its commitment to
the Multi -Town Resource Recovery Authority.
7.11
■ Z4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TOWN OF RIVERHEAD
The Town of Riverhead operates one (1) solid waste disposal
site, located in the central section of the town, bounded by
Youngs Avenue to the south and Osborn Avenue to the east. The
site occupies approximately 40 acres and all of Riverhead's
approximately 100 tpd of refuse, based on 1980 quantities, 7
days.per week schedule, is disposed of at this site. The'life
expectancy of this landfill is estimated at 5 years.
In 1979, a Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan and
Report was prepared. This report was prepared in accordance
with NYSDEC Part 360 guidelines. In addition, the town is pre-
sently conducting Phase II of this study which relates specifi-
cally to lining, capping, drainage, groundwater and methane
monitoring, in order to upgrade the landfill in compliance with
the Part 360 requirements. These requirements are delineated
in the conditional operating permit recently issued to the town
by NYSDEC. The conditions also include submission of a schedule
of implementation pertaining to the landfill upgrading.
As of this writing, the town has submitted plans for lining
and capping. A report outlining groundwater and methane moni-
toring is being prepared.
There are no existing groundwater monitoring wells at -the
Riverhead site. The town is waiting for SCDHS to install these
wells. A private well analysis program has just been completed
for the town. The town has thus far fully complied with the
conditions of the operating permit.
7.12
UZ44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TOWN OF SMITHTOWN
The Town of Smithtown is the first in Suffolk County to re-
ceive a Part 360 operating permit. The town operates a high den-
sity baling facility to reduce the volume of a large portion of
its approximately 300 tpd of solid waste. The bales are deposited
in a;.doublelined (PVC and_Hypalon liners).landfill located next.
to the baling plant in Kings Park. The landfill is provided with
a complete leachate control system, as required by the state Part
360 regulations; and is approximately 80 acres, -of which,some 8
acres are presently, being excavated and prepared for landfilling
in two -acre parcels. The,baling plant is also equipped with a
magnetic separator for removal of ferrous metals from the solid
waste stream. The town has recently initiated another landfill
f
for the disposal of its non-protrusible waste (demolition, brush,`
etc.) in order to utilize the lined balefill in a cost-effective
manner. This new landfill is located next to the old Smithtown
landfill in Kings Park, which_ the town utilized as the only land-
fill for several years until the start-up of the balefill.' The
-leachate generated and ,collected at the balefill is periodically
pumped out and transported for treatment .at the existing Kings
Park Hospital Sewage Treatment Facility.
The town is given a 360 permit for a duration of three (3)
years and is required to implement,a resource recovery program
thereafter.
7.14
UZ44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON
The Town of Southampton operates one (1) active solid waste
disposal site located in the community of North Sea on Majors
.Path just south of Great Hill Road. The site is situated on .
115 acres and all of Southampton's approximately 210 tpd of
solid waste is disposed of at this site. Presently, only 70
acres have been designated for landfill use of which approxi-
mately 30 acres are unused and, as per Part 360 requirements,
would require a double liner, leachate collection systems and
final capping. The existing completed areas would also require
a cap. The estimated life expectancy of the site is approxi-
mately 20 years.
In 1980, the town participated in the East End Solid Waste
Management Study and in a supplementary Part 360 compliance
report. The East End Solid Waste Management Study, prepared
by H2M, was conducted to investigate various long-term alterna-
tives dealing with resource and energy recovery from solid
waste. The study recommended continued utilization of the North
Sea landfill for residue disposal' from a five town resource
recovery facility. These recommendations stem from the view-
point of,North Sea's central location with respect to the five
town study area, availability of adequate volumetric capacity
and proximity to the proposed Resource Recovery Plant.
The town also submitted a Part 360 report addressing various
Part 360 requirements imposed by NYSDEC in order to upgrade the
North Sea landfill. In particular, it dealt with capping, lining,
7.15
Uj(&U HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
leachate collecting, groundwater monitoring and methane monitor-
ing at the site. The town is currently awaiting review of the
final report from NYSDEC.
With respect to current conditions at the North Sea site
regarding leachate and methane monitoring, several tests were
conducted for the above mentioned 360 Report. The results of
these tests indicated a relatively small quantity of methane
gas with no apparent migration out of the landfill boundaries.
In addition, groundwater testing results indicated the presence
of a leachate plume eminating from the landfill. These results
are in agreement with those published in a 1979 report by SCDHS.
As a result of the 1979 SCDHS report and the concurrent town com-
missioned report; the Town of Southampton installed a public
water supply system to the affected homeowners which enabled
them to discontinue use,of the contaminated wells.
7.16
a
M
M
��LJV® HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURHELL, P.C.
7.3 Solid Waste Management in Nassau County
At present, the majority of the 3,400 tpd of solid waste
generated by N"assau County residents is disposed of within the
county. A relatively small amount, approximately 100 tpd, is
shipped out of the county by the City of Glen Cove.
There are some 13 disposal sites located in the Nassau
County area. Of these, 10 are relatively small and accept only
demolition and debris type waste and are operated by various
state, county and village agencies. Therefore, the majority
of solid waste is disposed of at the following locations:
l..
Town of
Oyster Bay
550
tons/day
2.
Town of
North Hempstead
750
tons/day
3.
Town of
Hempstead
1,800
tons/day
TOWN OF OYSTER BA
The Town of Oyster Bay operates two incinerators, one land-
fill and one high density baling facility, all located at the
intersection of Sweet Hollow Road and Winding Road in Old Beth-
page. Of the 850 tpd received, approximately 60 percent is
incinerated, 10 percent baled and landfilled and 30 percent
is landfilled in a conventional manner.
The landfill site occupies approximately 60 acres, of
which 7 acres are lined, with another 20 acres proposed for
future double lining. In addition, the existing incinerators,
operating at 75 percent capacity, are to be upgraded or shut
down by January 1985, as per a state issued consent order.
7.17
lH241 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Current environmental problems with the landfill include
wind blown debris, off-site methane gas migration and daily
cover shortages. The town is currently reviewing resource re-
covery as a long-term option, in view of the January 1985 dead-
line for potential closure of its incinerators.
TOWN OF NORTH HEMPSTEAD
The Town of North Hempstead operates one landfill located
in Port Washington. As a result of the town's shutting down
its. incinerator, all of its .750 tpd of refuse is presently land-
filled. The .landfill is lined and equipped with a leachate
collection system.: The leachate is subsequently treated and
disposed of into Port Washington Sewer District's sewer systema
The town is currently constructing a shredding/baling facility
which is 2 years behind schedule due to contractual problems:
At present, the town is actively involved with -the New York State
Power Authority to construct a mass -fired waterwall incinerator
and as a result, It is not known if the shredding/baling facility
will be completed.
Current environmental problems at the landfill include
off-site methane migration and odor- during warm weather.
TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD
The Town of Hempstead currently operates two landfills, each
with an incinerator. One is located in Oceanside and the other
in Merrick. Due to the deteriorating condition of Merrick's.
i■ 2t*f HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
incinerator, only one furnace is operational. As a'result, only
50 percent of incoming refuse is incinerated at this -location.
The majority of the remaining waste is landfilled at Oceanside.
The major environmental. problem associated with these two
facilities is their close proximity to bordering wetlands and
leachate discharge to nearby surface waters.
The Hempstead Resource Recovery Corporation's Resource
Recycling Plant in Hempstead is currently voluntarily shut down,
and among other reasons is awaiting a decision from USEPA and
NYSDEC on dioxin standards. The plant was constructed to pro-
vide for long term solid waste management with resource recovery
for the Town of Hempstead.
7.19
UZ44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
8.0 REPORT CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Conclusions
Based on the findings of this report, the following conclu-
sions are made:
1. Methane is present at the landfill in varying concent.ra-
tions.
2. Readings taken at the existing probes at three different
occasions and at temporary bore holes during the latest sampling
period (April 13, 1981), indicate varying methane concentrations.
Readings of up to 10 percent in the probes and up to 30 percent
in the shallow three (3),foot deep bore holes have been recorded.
The latest H2M results show readings similar to those methane con-
centrations earlier reported by NYSDEC and SCDHS.-- Only one lo-
cation along the western.side of.the,landfill property boundary
indicated high readings of 10 and 30 percent. However, the ad-
jacent areas along this side appear unaffected, indicating very
minor, if any,,methane migration.
3. The direction of groundwater flow is northwesterly.
4. Leachate contaminated groundwater•is present immediately
below the landfill and at a depth of at least 100 feet below grade
along the northern border. Of the three existing groundwater moni-
toring wells, the.leachate contamination was detected.in the shallow
downgradient Well No. S-68916.
5. Based on the test results obtained by H2M and informa-
tion provided by SCDHS pertaining to permanent wells and the
8.1
U12"HOLZMACHER, McLENDON S MURRELL. P.C.
temporary profile wells, it appears that the leachate plume
emanating from the landfill has -not migrated an extensive dis-
tance from the landfill Limits.
6. All on-site monitoring wells have shown elevated levels
of certain constituents exceeding at least one or�more of the
New York State Groundwater or New York State Primary Drinking
Water Standards. Upgradient Well No. 8-69761 exceeded both New
York .StateGroundwater, and Primary Drinking Water Standards with
respect to nitrate; and pii with respect to grouhdwater.standards.
In Well S-68831, phenols exceeded the groundwater standards.
Well S-68916, the apparent,contaminated well, also exceeded
groundwater standards with respect to phenols and manganese and,
primary drinking water standards with respect to selenium and
volatile halogenated constituents. All wells showed possible
chlordane concentrations in excess of groundwater standards.
-7. None of the areas of the completed portion of the land-
fill are capped at present. The existing landfill is not equipped
with a leachate liner or collection system. The completed areas
amounting to some 14 acres, have been finished to surrounding
grades which generally represents a gentle slop ing,topography.
If these areas are capped, completed to final contours and re-
seeded, the new topography should result in no more than a slight.
increase in the normal runoff quantities.
8. Due to the existing natural southward slope of the com-
pleted area, this section can be regraded with a minimum of
8.2
1H2MHOLZMACHEK McLENDON & MURRELL., P.C.
disturbance, directing the runoff to the proposed.recharge basin
if required.
9. There is sufficient space available in the southwest
corner of the landfill site to construct the proposed recharge
basin on-site if required, to accommodate all runoff from the
capped area. This siting of the recharge basin would eliminate
the necessity to purchase any additional adjacent property.
10. It is estimated that the excavation of the new area of
landfill would yield some 17,000 cubic yards of acceptable clay
material. Representive sample analysis has indicated the clay.
material having a permeability of,2.1 x 10-6 cm/sec. The NYSDEC's
acceptable limit is 10-5 cm/sec. This on-site clay material
should be sufficient to cap approximately three-fourths of the
completed areas.
11. The new area to be excavated and lined in the future,
if required, encompasses a LILCO high voltage transmission line
tower. It appears more economical to leave the tower in place
and excavate; line and'landfill around it, rather than to relocate
it somewhere else.
12. Sufficient capacity is available in the already excavated
areas to fulfill immediate landfill needs until such time when
'the new area is excavated, lined and prepared for solid waste
disposal, if required by NYSDEC.
13. The overall landfill life, excluding.0 tilization of any
additional areas beyond the existing property line, is estimated
between 4.5 to 5 years. Thus, the existing landfill depletion
is anticipated sometime in 1985.
M
it Z44 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON B MURRELL, P.C,
8.2 Recommendations
Based on our findings, the foregoing conclusions and the
requirements of the NYSDEC, in order to comply with the con-
ditions set forth in the operating permit, we recommend the
following course of action: -
1. The town should immediately install additional methane
monitoring probes to supplement those already in existence
along the periphery of the landfill. Cost of installation of
such monitoring probes is estimated at $3,000.
2. Acquire a methane detection meter to periodically mon-
itor the methane concentrations throughout the landfill. The
frequency of methane monitoring is suggested as at least once
a month. The town should keep records of methane monitoring
to.determine migration patterns and install deep methane evacu
ation wells in the future, if necessary. Based'on the data ob-
tained to date, deep wells are not warrented at this time. Al-
though the western side of the landfill site had indicated high
Methane concentrations, no immediate safety precautions are
deemed necessary at this time or at least until additional moni-
toring is conducted in this area.
3. Utilizing the existing SCDHS groundwater monitoring
wells,, continue groundwater monitoring on an annual and quarter-
ly basis. Although the leachate contaminated groundwater is at
present confined to the landfill property, the plume may travel
further in the northwesterly direction. Additional permanent
IH� HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
wells should be installed in order to detect such plume travel.
SCDHS is currently planning to install such wells for the town.
4. Closely coordinate the groundwater monitoring work with
SCDHS, since SCDHS is undertaking the private well analysis in
the landif ll vicinity. Based on the preliminary evaluation of
the information supplied by SCDHS regarding the recently con-
ducted private well sampling program, none of the private wells
has indicated any leachate contamination and, therefore, consider-
ation of alternative water supply sources -is not warranted at
this time. The final report containing SCDHS findings and con-
clusions has not been released as of this writing.
5. Due to the high costs associated with lining and capping
the entire landfill, we do not recommend proceeding at this time.
Further, as no off-site private wells show any evidence of con-
tamination, we do not see the benefit to be gained from this in-
vestment. Rather we recommend that:
a. The Town of Southold seek a variance from capping
the entire landfill and lining.
b. The town continuously monitor the -groundwater and
private wells. Should leachate contamination en-
danger private wells, alternative sources of water
supply be considered.
C. The town apply for a SPDES permit for the dis-
charge of leachate to groundwater.
d. The town cap and provide drainage and methane con-
trol for those areas for which on-site clay exists.
RIM
U2" HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
The area and associated costs are 10 acres and
$300,000., respectively.
6. An evaluation of various alternatives indicate that the
most cost-effective alternative to the town's existing method of
brush disposal is the acquisition of a wood chipper at an initial
cost of $20,000. Further reduction of volume of some 1,000 tons
of brush every year would save enough space in the landfill to
adequately justify the purchase of a wood chipper.
M
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL,. P.C.
9.0 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
As a part of the compliance requirements in the conditional
operating permit to be issued to the Town of Southold, NYSDEC
has specifically required submission of an implementation schedule
for the upgrading. of.the town landfill. We have provided such a
schedule, -based on the recommended upgrading of the landfill,
outlined in this report. There are four major requirements:
1. Groundwater Monitoring - Includes installation of a
groundwater monitoring system consisting of grouridwater.moni-
toring-wells and monitoring these wells on a quarterly and
yearly basis. ,Monitoring of private wells in the vicinity of
the landfill is -also required by NYSDEC.
2. Methane Monitoring - Includes installation of methane
migration monitoring probes, periodic methane monitoring there-
after, and control of methane migration if necessary.
3. Bottom Liner System - Installation of a double liner
with a leach ate collection and detection system in the newly
excavated 8 -acre area of the landfill. This lined area will be
utilized for solid waste disposal once the existing working
areas are finally completed. This is not recommended.
4. Final Capping and Drainage System - Installation of an
impermeable clay cap atop the completed portions of the landfill,
including provisions for stormwater drainage and relief of trapped
landfill gases as a result of the capping. The capping is to be
performed in a sequential fashion, in accordance with the land-
fill operating requirements and town's limitations of financial
9.1
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON S MURRELL, P.C.
commitments to such a program. This is not recommended for the
entire landfill, only for ten (10) acres for which on-site clay
is available.
The recommended implementation schedule is presented in
Figure 9-1.
After review of the report by NYSDEC, the town should apply
for the SPDES permit for the discharge of leachate to the ground-
water. The town should also seek a variance from Part 360 lining
and capping requirements. The town should proceed with the in-
stallation of methane migration probes for continued methane moni-
toring. This is the least cost item and does not require exten-
sive construction work.
Periodic methane and groundwater monitoring would be required
during the landfill operations, as well as after the landfill has,
been completely closed. The frequency for methane monitoring is
suggested as once every month and that of groundwater monitoring
every three (3) months and annually, as required by NYSDEC. Moni-
toring results should be prudently evaluated with respect to both
methane migration and leachate contamination and corrective measures
should be taken if necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
HOLZMACHER cLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4
eA. DomA P.E.
Project Director
9.2
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
FIGURE 9-1
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RECOMMENDED IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR
PROPOSED LANDFILL UPGRADING
ACTIVITY
1. Review and Approval of
Proposed Upgrading
Plans by NYSDEC
2. Additional Methane
Monitoring Probes
Installation
3. Leachate Liner and
Collection System
Installation
4. Final Capping and
Drainage Control
System Installation
5. Groundwater Moni-
toring (Quarterly
and Annual)
6. Methane Monitoring
7. Capping 10 Acres with
On -Site Clay, Pro-
viding Drainage and
Methane Control
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
•
Not Recommended
9.3
Not Recommended for Entire Landfill
U2U HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
APPENDICES
U2" HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
APPENDIX I
PRELIMINARY PLANS FOR UPGRADING OF
TOWN LANDFILL
Now York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Building 40, SUNY, Stony Brook, N. Y. 11794
(516) 751-7900
JL '/
Mr. Brij S#hrivast4a,
HOLZMACHER, McCLENDON
Consulting Engineers
560 Broadhollow Road
APPENDIX IIa
November 13, 1979
P. E.
& MURRELL, P.C.
Melville, New York 11747
Re: Town of Southold Application
52-S-17
eJ
Dear Mr. S.Ohrivaste4a:
Robert F. Flacke,
Commissioner
As per our review of the June 1979 report, the following information must
be submitted:
Page 3.9: Areas 2 and 3 should have groundwater depth determined by
boring to demonstrate 5' separation for future landfill areas.
The ". . . large amounts of soil underneath the Southold land-
fill . . ." as per 4.9.2, is not the case from borings supplied.
Page'3.15: While the Southold -Shelter Island 201 Study is proceeding and
will eventually recommend the disposition of scavenger waste,
the current lagooning must be carried out as per 6.1.b(3)(a),
and (c) or (d), of the guidelines. In addition,more
acceptable docking arrangements for dumping of waste should
be constructed; i.e., concrete or macadam ramp. Schedules for
lagoon operation— cleaning, filling, etc.—should be submitted.
Page 4.30: Methane monitoring to include placement of PVC wells for
monitoring points. A recent inspection on 9/26/79 indicated
methane readings of 20% gas along west property line. Submit
location for PVC pipe location (i.e., structures, crop lands,
roads): Also, venting structures should be placed as landfill
is developed;-i.e., PVC pipe, cast -concrete leaching or cess-
pool rings. Illustrate location and type of materials to be
used.
Mr. Brij Schrivastowa, P. E.
November 13, 1979
Page 2
Page 9.2E: Recommendations to control blowing paper are acceptable. These
should be implemented since inspection reports indicate this is
a continuous problem. Planting of wind screen is also
acceptable.
Details for capping, lining, leachate treatment disposal, and storm drainage,
as per 9/10/79 correspondence, should be submitted as part of the application.
Table 6-2 footnote (a) mentions ". . .environmental protection measures."
Does this include liners and leachate treatment?
With regard to groundwater monitoring, I look forward to our 11/20/79
meeting at 10:00 a.m, to discuss particulars, as well as the recommendations
in the report.
Sincerely yours,
Paul Lappano
PL : va Assistant Sanitary Engineer
cc: Raymond C. Dean,
Superintendent of Highways
Philip Barbato
U
New York State Department of Eovironmental . Conservation
BLDG.#40, SUNY
STONY BROOK, NEW YORK 11794
(516) 751-7900
Robert F. Flacke
Commissioner
APPENDIX IIb
Mr. Raymond . C . Dean
Supt . ' of Highways
Town of Southold
Peconic Lane
Peconic, New York 11958
July 15, 1980
RE: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL INSPECTION'7/10/80
Dear Mr. Dean:
on the above date I inspected your landfill.
An extremely high lift of approximately 30 feet
of uncovered brush remains in the active mining, area. This
is unmanageable, unsafe and may prove to be a fire hazard.
This should be covered and decreased to a lift of 10 feet
as soon as possible.
Methane gas was also detected off the landfill
site on.the south side in amounts of 10% gas and offsite on
the west side. in amounts of 30/ gas. . 2
I have also noticed that your not making any attempt
to stockpile -the clay seam that you have encountered in the
active mining area. $It would be wise to take samples of�this
clay, and have it tested for permeability and grain -size
characteristics since it may be useful as,,either a lining
material, or • a capping material.
In closing, I would like to state that the brush
conditions should be�corrected immediately and plans for the
mitigation of methane migration should begin. I expect to see
some improvements in a month, when I again re -inspect the site.
Failure to correct these violations may Iresult in legal action.
- 1 -
ACY ?-2 7.
H2, fl.
Mr. Raymond C. Dean
Town of Southold
PAGE II
July 15, 1980
If you have any question, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Paul Lappano,.
Asst. Sanitary Engr.
PL/ef
cc: Brij. M. Shrivastava - H2M
Steve Kramer - SCDHS
Dave Mafrici - Albany
Wm. Pell - Supv. -Town Board
APPENDIX III
d
LONG
ISLAND
LI( HYI NG COMPANY
lO,Y6Lfl, tO!/6�S'//.!6
175 EAST
OLD COUNTRY
ROAD • HICKSVILLE, NEW YORK 11801
Direct Dial Number
March 31, 1981
Holzmacher, McLendon, and.Murrell, P.C.
575 Broad Hollow Road
Melville, NY 11747
Attention: Mr. Paul Lappano
LILCO Tower at Southold Landfill
Mattituck - Greenport 23 kV Transmission
Gentlemen:
As discussed during the meeting at our office, it would be diffi-
cult to remove our Tower No. 154 in the middle of the proposed
excavation. The least cost estimated for removal is $30,000.
This would involve poles at the east and west sides of the pit and
leaving the wires in their present location to span the work site.
Any scheme to route the wires around would be considerably more
expensive and would probably require new easements.
During our meeting you stated that you had not been able to find
easement records for our installation. Our papers for this specific
tower were filed in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office, Liber 1304
of Deeds, Page 155 on the 4th Day of January, 1928.
The least expensive plan obviously is to leave our tower in place.
This will require undisturbed earth for 20 feet from each tower leg
at grade, as discussed previously, and then no less than a 1 on 2
slope.
Please keep us advised of your plans and schedules to enable us to
make any necessary preparations.
Very truly yours,
W. C. Erre lmann
Electrical Engineering Department
WCE/pb
Attachment
SJh.gdb-" 120
APPENDIX IV
&Wniripaf
C` rsting
T----.!bvraforv,
Pnr.
160 LALTMAN LANE • HICKSVILLE,
NEW YORK
17801
REPORT NO.: 8787 DATE: FEB. 23,, 1981
CLIENT: H2M CORPORA,TI dId
ADDRESS. 500 BROADHOLLOU ROAD, MELVILLE, NEW YORK 11746
COPIES: 2 -client 1 -file
PROJECT: NA
SAMPLED BY: CLIENT DELrvERED BY: CLIENT
S.01PLE n -PE: SILT/CLAY MIXTURE
TITE TEST: PERMEABILITY TEST (CONSTANT HEAD)
COEFFICIENT OF PERMEABILITY (K) = .0000021
AS COMPACTED BY K = QL -6
th A K = 10
DEGREE OF PERMEABILITY - VERY LOH, POOR DRAINAGE, PRACTICALLY
IMPERVIOUS
B Y .
In•�.:vtior. Trs!inc 9sjd.r.'t Cor+rrea Ultrnaonk Soils a'•hn� R wry c�,.l
1 24t HOLZMACHER, McLENDON S MURRELL, P.C.
APPENDIX V
PRIVATE WELL SURVEY ADDRESSES
WELL
OWNER
A
Sam Brown
P. 0. Box 403
Middle Road
Cutchogue
B
J. Krupski
Depot' Lane
Cutchogue
C
J. Mason
P. 0. Box 155
Middle Road
Cutchogue
D
Sheila Parrish
Middle Road
Cutchogue
E
M. Wilson
P. O. Box 112
Middle Road
`'Cutchogue
F
A. Zuhoski
Oregon Road
Cutchogue
G
Southold Landfill
H
James Goodwin
Depot Lane
Cutchogue
J
Walter Merritte
Middle Road
P. 0. Box 184
Cutchogue
H2AHOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
WELL
K
L
MU
APPENDIX V
CONT'D
OWNER
J. Samuels
Middle Road
P. O. Box 56
Cutchogue
Eli Grant
Middle Road
Cutchogue
(P. O. Box 170, Peconic)
D. Brown
Middle Road
Cutchogue
(P. O. Box 32, Peconic)