Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Solid Waste Management Plan DGEIS 09/1990
So Gens FFOIK 0 s i r�r DVIRKA and BARTILUCCI Consulting Engineers Syosset, New York aft nent 0 Lead Agency: SEQRA' Notice of Completion Of . Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Project #1027 SEP 2f 1990 Date: This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review Act) of the Environmental Conservation Law. A Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (I)GEIS) has been completed and accepted by the Town of Southold for the proposed Solid Waste Management Plan.. Comments on the DGEIS will be accepted by the contact person until NOV.11 Title of Action: Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Description of Action: The proposed action (draft Plan) involves the development of a Townwide comprehensive solid waste management plan that will provide' for -the reduction, recycling, reuse, processing, and disposal of all the municipal solid waste generated within the Town. Elements of this Plan will include a 70 to 75% resource recovery system involving: waste reduction; materials recycling to. be achieved through mandatory source separation; household hazardous waste removal (S.T.O.P. program); yard, waste composting of leaves and brush; a pilot demonstration yard waste composting project for organic components of the waste stream; construction and demolition debris recycling -and processing by the private sector; land clearing debris recycling and processing by the private sector; major household appliances recycling; tire recycling; and a less than two acre clean fill for residential inert debris. For the remaining 25 to 30% residual portion 0098N/2 PR VTM ON RECYCLED PAPER N of the waste, the proposed Plan contains long and. short-term recommended action's, ,through a phased program, that, includes yard, waste exchange, landfilling, and seasonal energy recovery processing, with the option to consider private sector processing. facilities if they become available. Potential Environmental Impacts and Mitigation:. Potential long and short-term generic environmental impacts and associated mitigation measures which have been`evaluated include geology, soils, topography, surface water, groundwater, air resources, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, traffic, land use, zoning, community services, demography, cultural and historical resources, visual aspects, noise;- a a economics. The proposed Plan also contains provisions for the interim period, following Plan completion, and for regular Plan updates within each subsequent phase, Direct comments or request for summaries. to the contact person below. Contapt: Judith T. Terry, Town Clerk Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-1800 Copies of the Draft GEIS may be viewed at: . 5 Town Hall Southold Free Library Mattituck Free Library 53095 Main Road Main Road Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Southold, NY 11791 Mattituck, NY' 11952 Copies of this Notice Sent To: Commissioner - Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, . NY 12233-0001 Environmental Notice Bulletin - DEC, 50 Wolf Road, .Room 509, Albany, NY 12233-0001 Region I,' Building 40, SUNY Campus, Stony Brook, NY 11794 Involved Agencies, Interested Agencies and Parties 0098N/2 PRH1r/W ON RECYCII'D PAPER' P TOWN OF SOUTHOLD _ DRAFT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN/DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Project Location: Town -of Southold, Suffolk County, New York Lead Agency: Town of Southold Supervisor: Scott L. Harris Town Board: Raymond W. -Edwards George L. Penny IV Ruth D. Oliva. Ellen M. Latson Thomas H. Wickham Town Attorney: Harvey A. Arnoff Town Clerk: Judith T. Terry Contact: Town Clerk: Judith T. Terry Town Hall, P.O. Box 1179 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 Prepared for the Town by: Dvirka and Bartilucci. Consulting Engineers Syosset, New York SEP 2,x"1990 Date of Acceptance: Deadline for Comments: NOV 13 IM 2935M/1 PRIMED OK RECYCIFO PAPER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page S.0 SUM34ARY S-1 S.1 Town Setting S-1 S.2 Current Solid Waste Management S-2 S.3 Alternatives S-4 S.4 Description of Proposed Plan S-6 S.4.1 Proposed Resource Recovery System S-6 S.4.2 Proposed Residual Waste Management S-15 S.5 Landfill Siting S-20 'S.6 Regional/Neighboring Jurisdictional Involvement S-20 S.7 Public Education, Information, and Involvement S-21 1.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 1-1 1.1 Town Setting 1-1 1.2 Geology, Topography, and Soils 1-2 1.3 Water Resources 1-13 1.4 Air Resources 1-26 '1.5 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology 1-35 1.6 Transportation 1-43 1.7 Land Use and Zoning 1-44 1.8 Community Facilities 1=50 1.9 Demography 1-53 1.10 Cultural, Archeological, and Historical Resources 1-56 1.11 Noise 1-57 2.0 EXISTING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL PRACTICES 2-1 2.1 Solid Waste Management Facilities Current Practices 2-1 2.1.1 Existing Facilities 2-1 2.1.2 Proposed Facilities 2-10 2.1.3 Inactive Facilities 2-10 2.1.4 Current Collection and Management Practices 2-11 .2.1.5 Solid Waste Managed Outside'the Town 2-13 2.1.6. Local Solid Waste Ordinances, Regulations, 2-16 and Laws . 2.2 Solid Waste Quantities and" Composition 2-17 . 2.2.1 Fishers Island Waste Generation 2-17 2.2.2 Current Solid Waste Generation and 2-18 Generation Rates 2294M/2 i - PRDYTFA ON RECYCLED PAPER 2294M/3 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section -Title Page 2.2.3 Population Projections, Future Waste .2-27 Generation, and Generation Rates 2.2.4.. Total Waste Stream Composition and 2-32 Characteristics 2.2.5 Residential Waste Stream Composition and 2-42 Characteristics 2.2.6 Potential Recyclables in the Waste Stream 2-43 2.3 Market Identification and Opportunities for Recycling 2-46 2.3.1 Existing Recycling Efforts 2-47 2.3.2 Market Survey for Recyclable Materials 2-47 2.3.3 Market Assessment for Compost Products 2-48 2.4 New York State Policies Governing Solid Waste Facilities 2-59 2.4.1 Part 360: Solid Waste Regulations 2-59 2.4.2 New York State Solid Waste Management 2-64 Act of 1988 2.4.3 New York State Solid Waste Management Plan 2-64 2.4.4 Solid Waste Planning Process and Public 2-65 Participation 3.0 EVALUATION OF` ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGIES .3-1 3.1 Alternative Methodologies 3-1 3.1.1 Waste,.Reduction 3-1- 3.1.2 Household Hazardous Waste Removal 3-3 3.1.3 Materials Recycling 3-7 11A Collection Options 3-13 3.1.5 Yard Waste and Source Separated Material 3-11 Composting 3.1.6 Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D) 3-25 3.1.7 Land Clearing Debris 3-28 3.1.8 Energy Recovery 3-29 3.1.9 Municipal Solid Waste Composting 3-31 3.1.10 Landfill Disposal - 3-34 3.1.11 Alternative Methods of Processing/Disposal 3-36 of Other Wastes 3.2 Landfill Siting Alternatives 3-42 3.2.1 Coastal Areas 3-44 3.2.2 Inland Water Bodies 3-44 3.2.3 100 Year Floodplain 3-44 3.2.4 Wetlands 3-45 3.2.5 Special. Groundwater Protection Areas 3-45 3.2.6 Town Designated Core Watershed Protection Areas 3-45 3.2.7 Public Wellhead Areas 3-46 3.2.8 Airport Runway Buffers 3-46 3.2.9- Residentially Occupied Areas 3-47 3.2.10 Parks, Recreational Resources, and Cemeteries 3-47 3.2.11 Preliminary Unscreened Areas I 3-48 3.2.12 Preliminary. Unscreened Areas II: 20 ft. 3-48 Minimum Depth to Groundwater , 3.2.13 Preliminary Uncreened Areas III: Site. 3-48 Specific Residences, Wetlands, and Appropriate Site Configurations 2294M/3 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 2294M/3 iii PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 3.2.14 Remaining Preliminary Unscreened Areas 3-49 3.2.15 Conclusions of the Siting Evaluation 3-50 .4.0 IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES 4-1 4.1 "No Action" Alternative 4-1 4.2 Total Out=of-Town, Off Island Processing and Disposal 4-2 4.3 Waste Reduction 4-3 4.4 Household Hazardous Waste Removal 4-6 4.5 Recycling Alternatives 4-7 4.5.1 Recyclable Material Collection Alternatives 4-8 4.5.2 Recyclable Material Processing Strategies. 4-17 4.6 Yard Waste Composting Alternatives 4-25 4.6.1 Expansion of Existing Operation 4-25 4.6.2 Private Sector Yard Waste Compost Facility 4-28 4.6.3 Backyard or On -Lot Composting of Yard Waste - 4-28 4.6.4 Regional Yard Waste Composting Outside of Town 4-29 4.6.5 Yard Waste Composting on Fishers Island ' 4-29 4.7 Land Clearing, Construction, and Demolition. Debris 4-30 4.8 Solid Waste Composting/Energy Recovery Processing 4-33 4.8.1 Use of Existing Solid Waste Processing 4-33 Facilities 4.8.2 Facilities Planned or Under Construction_ 4-38 4.8.3 Energy Recovery. Processing at a Town or 4-43 Multi -Town Facility 4.8.4 Other Local Planning Efforts 4-45 4.8.5 Private Sector.MSW Composting Proposals 4-46 4.8.6 Processing/Disposal of Fishers Island 4-48 Remaining Waste 4.8.7 Sludge Disposal Alternatives 4-48 4.9 Tires 4-50 4.10 Residentially Generated Clean Material 4-53 4.11 Landfilling/Residual Disposal 4-55 4.11.1 Closure -and -Capping of Existing Landfill 4-56 4.11.2 Development of a New, Double Lined Town 4-56 Landfill for the Product of a Resource Recovery System 4.11.3 Intermunicipal Agreement with Another Town(s) 4-57 to Use an Existing Landfill or Develop a New Landfill ' 4.11.4 Long Haul of Solid Waste for Landfill Disposal 4-57 Off of Long Island 4.11.5 Bypass and Residual Disposal 4-58 4.12 Technical Conclusions 4-58 4.13 Financing Alternatives 4-64 4.13.1 Ownership 4-64 4.13.2 Procurement and Contracting 4-67 4.14 Financing Options 4-70 4.14.1 Alternative Service Contract Fees 4-72 4.14.2 Alternative Fee Payment Structures 4-73 4.15 Legislative/Regulatory/Legal Alternatives 4-74 4.15.1 Section 208 Plan for Long Island 4-74 2294M/3 iii PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Section 5.0 �6.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Title 4.15.2 NYSDEC's 208 Update in 1983 and 1986 : 4.15.3 Inconsistencies Among Various Plans, Regulations, Laws, and Programs Governing Solid Waste 4.15.4 Unrealistic Time Frames of Landfill Law 4.15.5 Impact to Southold 4.15.6 NYSDEC Proposed Solid Waste Management - Strategy for Long Island PROPOSED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT. PLAN 5.1 Proposed Resource Recovery System 5.1.1 Waste Reduction 5.1.2 Household and Commercial/Institutional Recycling Program 5.1.3 Recycling: Major Household Appliances 5.1:4 Recycling: Tires 5.1.5; Recycling: Household Hazardous Waste 5.1.6 Recycling: Construction'and Demolition Debris 5:1.7 • Recycling: Land Clearing Debris 5.1.8 Recycling: -Yard Waste Composting 5.2 Proposed Residual Waste Management 5.3 Consistency with State Policies 5.3:1 State Solid Waste Management Plan 5.3.2 State Solid Waste Management Act 5.3.3 Long Island Landfill Law 5.3.4 State Recycling Goals 5.4 Proposed Implementation and Associated Actions 5.5 Private Sector Involvement 5.6 Regional/Neighboring Jurisdictional Involvement 5.7 Public Education, Information, and Involvement GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN 6.1 Town Setting (sites) 6:1.1 Impacts 6.1.2 Unavoidable Impacts 6.1.3 Potential Mitigation Measures 6.1.4. Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 6.1.5 Growth Inducing Aspects 6A.6 Coastal Impacts 6.2 Geology, Topography, and Soils . 6.2.1 Impacts 6.2.2 Unavoidable Impacts 6.2.3 Potential Mitigation Measures 6:2.4 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 2294M/3 iv Page 4-77 4-80 4-82 4-83 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-4 5-6 5-6 5-7 5-8 5-9 5=9 5-11 5-15 5-15 5-17 5-17 5-18 5-18 5-18 5-21 5-22 6-1 6-2 6-2 6-4 6-5 6-8 6-11 6-11 6-12 6-12 6-14 6-14 6-15 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Section 7.0 2294M/3 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) v PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Title Page 6.3 Water Resources 6-15 6.3.1 Impacts 6-16 6.3.2 . Unavoidable Impacts 6-18 6.3.3 Potential Mitigation Measures 6-18 6.3.4 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of 6-21 Resources 6.3.5 Coastal Impacts 6-21 6.4 Air Resources 6-21 6.4.1 Impacts 6-22 6.4.2 Unavoidable Impacts 6-25 6.4.3 Mitigation Measures 6-25 6.5 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology 6-29 6.5.1 Impacts and Mitigation 6-29 6.6 Transportation 6-31 6.6.1 Impacts 6-31 6.6.2 Unavoidable Impacts 6-33 6.6.3 Mitigation Measures 6-33 6.6.4 Growth Inducing Aspects 6-34 6.6.5 Use and Conservation of Energy- 6-34 6.7 Land Use and Zoning 6-35 6.7.1 Impacts 6-35 6.7.2 Mitigation Measures 6-35 6.7.3 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of 6-36 Resources 6.7.4 Growth Inducing Aspects 6-36 6.7.5 Coastal Impacts 6-36 6.8 Community Services .6-36 6.8.1 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 6-36 6.9 Demography 6-37 6.10 Cultural, Archaeological, and Historical Resources 6-38 6.11 Noise 6-38 6. 11.1 Impacts 6-38 6.11.2 Mitigation Measures 6-39 6.11.3 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 6-41 6.12 Visual Aspects 6-42 6.12.1 Impacts and Mitigation Measures 6-42 6.12.2 Unavoidable Impacts 6-42 6.13 Economics 6-43 6.13.1 Impacts 6-43 6.13.2 Potential Mitigation Measures 6-43 6.13.3 Irretrievable/Irreversible Commitments of 6-43 Resources GLOSSARY, BIBLIOGRAPHY, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS 7-1 7.1 Glossary of Technical Terms 7-1 7.2' Bibliography 7-21 7.3 . Abbreviations and Acronyms 7-42 v PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendices Title Appendix A Solid Waste Generation and Characterization Appendix B Scale House Data and Solid Waste Quantification Appendix C Alternative Waste Reduction and Processing Techniques Appendix D Generic Health and Safety Assessment of Alternatives for a Solid Waste Management Plan Appendix E Small Scale Yard Waste Composting Operation Engineering Report Appendix F Comprehensive Recycling Analysis Appendix G Endangered, Threatened, and Special Concern Species of New York State Appendix H List of Interested Agencies and Parties List of Involved Agencies Appendix I Alternative Cost Analysis Appendix J Preliminary Landfill Siting Analysis 2294M/2 A PRW ED ON RECyCLM PAPER LIST OF TABLES Number Title -- Page S-1 Summary Table S-23 1.2-1 Stratigraphy and Hydrogeologic Units 1-7 1.3-1 Daily Pumpage (MGD) by Land Use Category 1-22 1.3-2 _Average Hydrogeologic Zones 1-23 1.3-3 New York State Classifications for Marine and Fresh 1-27 Surface Waters 1.3-3 Major Surface Water Bodies .128 1.4-1 Average Monthly Temperatures 1-30 1.4-2 Monthly Precipitation 1-31 1.4-3 Summary of Federal and State Ambient Air Standards 1-33 and PSD Increments 1.7-1 Summary of 1981 Land Use 1-47 1.7-2 Land Use Classification 1-48 1.7-3 Land Use Projections 1-49 1.8-1 Parks and Recreation Resources 1-51 1.9-1 Population by Community 1-54 1.9-2 Projected Populations 1-55 1.11-1 Perception of Noise Changes 1-58 2.1.1-1 Southold Town Landfill Equipment Inventory 2.1.4-1 Current Long Island Tipping Fees 2.1.4-2 Tons of Recyclable Materials Collected at Landfill 2.1.5-1 Recycled Materials and Processors 2.2.1-1 Fishers Island Monthly Population 2.2.1-2 Potential Fishers Island Waste Generation 2.2.2-1 Scale House Waste Categories and Quantities -1989 2.2.2-2 Approximate Amount of Waste Collected at Institutions 2.2.2-3 Estimated Current Waste Generation and Generation Rates 2.2.2-4 Comparison of Various Generation Rates 2.2.3-1 Population Projections 2.2.3-2a Future Waste Generation Projections - Total Waste Stream 2.2.3-2b Future Waste Generation Projections - Residential Waste Stream 2.2.3-2c Future Waste Generation Projections - Residential "Household" Waste Only 2.3.2-1 Markets and Private Processing Facilities for Recyclables 4.5.1-1 Summary of Public Attitudes Towards Source Separation 4.12-1 Alternative Long -Term Options for Processing 25% to 30% Residuals 4.15.6-1 NYSDEC September 5, 1990 Suggested Strategy 5.2-1 Summary Table 5.4.1-1 Proposed Implementation Timetable 2294M/3 vii 2-2 2-12 2-14 2-15 •2-19 2-20 2-21 2-25 2-28 2-29 2-34 2-35 2-36 2-37 2-49 4-9 4-60 4-84 5-16 5-19 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER LIST OF FIGURES Number Title 1.1-1 Regional Map 1.1-2 Location of Fishers Island 1.1-3 Town Map 1.1-4 Location of Communities 1.2-1 General Soil Map 1.2-2 Landfill Soil Map 1.3-1 Groundwater Section 1.3-2 Hydrogeologic Units Underlying Fishers Island. 1.3-3 Landfill Vicinity Water Table Contour Map - 1989 1.3-4 Monitoring Wells Located in Vicinity of Landfill 1.3-5 Special Groundwater Protection Areas in the Town of Southold 1.3-6 Hydrogeologic Zones 1.5-1 Freshwater Wetland Map 1.5-2 Marine Wetland Map 1.6-1 Major Transportation Routes 1.7-1 Zoning Map 1.11-1 Common Noise Levels 2.1.1-1 Town Solid Waste Facilities 2.1.1-2 Existing Collection Center Floor Plan 2.1.1-3 Existing Traffic Flow Patterns 2.1.1-4 Landfill Operations 2.2.2-1 Total Waste Stream (Pie Chart) 2.2.2-2 1989 Average Monthly Waste Generations (Bar Chart) 2.2.3-1 Population Projections (Bar Chart) 2.2.3-2 Future Waste Generation Projections 2.2.4-1 Calculated Total Waste Stream (Pie Chart) 2.2.5-1 Calculated "Residential' Waste Stream (Pie Chart) 4.5.2-1 Commingled Material Transportation Costs 4.5.2-2 Segregated Material Transportation Costs 2294M/3 viii Page 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 1-9 1-12 1-15 1-16 1-17 1-18 1-19 1-24 1-37 1-40 1-45 1-52 1-59 2-3 2-6 2-7 2-8 2-23 2-24 2-33 2-38 2-41 2-44 4-19 4-20 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Summary S.0 SUMMARY This is a Summary of the proposed Solid Waste Management Plan for the Town of Southold. The proposed :Plan has been developed as part of a comprehensive planning effort for solid, waste that has been necessitated by . factors including strict landfilling limitations imposed by. the Long Island Landfill Law, the State's 1988 Solid Waste Management Act,. the New York State Department. of Environmental Conservation's 1987 Solid Waste Management Plan (as updated), and the new Part 360 -solid waste' regulations which became effective on December 31, 1988. The proposed .Plan 'has also been prompted by increases in solid waste generation and landfill operating costs, as well as the reduction in available disposal capacity at facilities elsewhere. S.1 . Town Setting. - The Town of Southold is arural town of approximately 54 square miles located in . eastern Suffolk County on Long Island. It is bordered by the Peconic Bays and Gardiners Bay to the south, and the Long Island Sound to the north. The Town, along with the Town of Riverhead to the west, comprises the North Fork- of the "East End" of Long Island. It also includes the Hamlet of Fishers Island, a 'small island community covering approximately four square miles. Fishers Island is located only approximately two miles from Connecticut, and approximately .12 miles east of the North Fork of Long Island. The Town supports a large agricultural community, as well. as a seasonal tourist population and a number -of weekend/part-time residents. Of the various communities in the Town, the larger residential areas are primarily located in� Southold, Cutchogue, Greenport, and Mattituck. The Town possesses diverse ecological resources including. beaches,. bays, estuaries, lakes, freshwater and tidal wetlands, and the upland environment. These resources .are , the result of natural physiology and existing development patterns, and are important. for their preservational, social, aesthetic, and recreational value. The Town comprises 5.3% of Suffolk County's land . area, but only 1.5% of the County's population. The largest single land use in the Town is vacant land (40%), w`hile . the second largest land use is agriculturalland (25%). Other land use such as residential, commercial, and industrial account for much of the remaining land. 2944M/9 S-1 PRQ1r m ON RECYCLED PAPER The latest, available population projections indicate that the Town's population is expected to increase to 26,100 by the year 2010. The average household size in the Town has decreased from 2.54 to 2.49 persons per household from 1980 to 1988, while there has been an increase in the number of year=round households in the Town from 7,461, to 8,673 over the. same period: The following presents a comparison of the Town's size, population, population density, and median income to the rest of Long Island. and the East End. Total Estimated 'Population Med. Family Area Population Density Income Acres(1989). (Persons/Acre) 1987 Est. Nassau—Suffolk 745,836, 29718,193 3.64 $41,987 Nassau County 179,516 1,328,948 7.40 $45,512 Suffolk County 566,320 1,389,245 2:45 $38,712 5 East End Towns 212,772 114,569' 0.54 $31,760 Town of. Southold 34,600 211698 0.63 -$35,260 S.2 Current Solid Waste Management The. Town owns and operates a solid waste complex on C.R. 48 in Cutchogue that, receives most of the municipal solid waste generated and disposed of in the Town. This' . - includes. waste from residential, commercial, institutional, agricultural, and some very small industrial sources. The solid waste complex consists of a landfill, a multimaterial j recycling area, a permanent household hazardous waste storage facility, a yard waste composting operation, and a holding area for: household appliances and tires awaiting transfer to processing facilities. i The -Town's voluntary recycling program has .been in effect at the solid waste complex for several years and has been steadily increasing in scope. The materials included in the recycling effort are: o Newspaper o Plastics o Major household appliances o Clear glass. o Metals o Household hazardous o Green glass o Waste oil waste o Brown glass o Old clothes o Leaves o Tires o Batteries o Brush • 2944M/9 S-2 s ARMED ON RECYCLED PAPER Collection by Town permitted carters is provided for residential, commercial, institutional, and .industrial customers on an individual contract basis. Commercial, institutional, and , industrial waste generators can also deliver their own wastes to the landfill provided they are permitted by the Town. Residents may also drop off their wastes at the landfill with a permit. ' In addition to the Town solid waste complex in Cutchogue, there are 5 solid .waste processing/disposal •operations on Fishers Island for the waste generated by the estimated 309 permanent year-round residents, and approximately 4,000 seasonal "residents/visitors who populate the island during the peak- summer period. The processing/disposal operations, all located on the extreme western portion of Fishers. Island, are the brush area, metals area, cars/tires area, household waste landfill, and the recycling drop-off area. It. is estimated that approximately 127 tons per day of municipal solid waste -was generated in 'the Town in 1.989. ' This volume is based on an average of 123 tons per day determined from 1989 scale house data from the solid waste complex, and an estimated average 4 tons per day generation rate for Fishers Island. Future waste stream projections (including Fishers Island) were formulated based on the 1989 data and weighted population estimates through the year 2015; and are as follows: Year Tons per day Tons per year 1990 .131.8 48,118 1995 141.8 51,758 2000 150.4 54,896 2005 161.4 58,917 2010 173.0 63,153 2015 185.3. 67,617 An assessment of the -major categories of the waste stream received at the solid waste complex has. been conducted as part of the. planning effort, and is presented below by percent of weight for the major component- categories of the waste stream. 2944M/9 S-3 PRffYf£D ON RECYCLED PAPER Waste Category % By Weight Household garbage 33 . Construction and demolition debris 15 Sand/sod 14 Land clearing debris and 15 concrete/asphalt/bricks Rubbish 9 Brush/cleanup debris 7. Leaves/grass/mulch 3 Agricultural debris i Recycled paper .and metal 3 Other (includes sludge, tires, <1 shellfish debris, and batteries) TOTAL 100% In addition, a detailed compositional analysis of the material components was performed based on the total waste stream. This breakdown is as follows: Waste Composition % by Weight Paper 14.9 Plastics 3.1 Food 6.5 Ferrous Metals 9,2 Nonferrous Metals 0.6 Batteries 0.1 Glass 2.6 Wood 13.0 Rubble 10.3 Rubber 1.1 'Dirt and Fines • 18.5 Yard Waste 14.5 Sludge 0.7 Bulky Waste 2.6 Misc. 2.4 TOTAL 100%* *Totals may not add to exactly 100% due to rbunding. - S.3 Alternatives In formulating the Town's proposed . Plan, a number of alternative processing methods and implementation alternatives- have been evaluated. The alternatives have 2944M/9 S-4 N PROVTED ON RECYCLED PAPER been evaluated for their environmental soundness, applicability,. effectiveness, and cost. They include: o Waste Reduction o Household Hazardous Waste Removal o Materials Recycling o Agricultural and Yard Waste Composting o Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D) Recycling o Land Clearing Debris Recycling o Waste -to -Energy Reduction/Recovery o Municipal Solid Waste Composting o Landfill Disposal o Clean Fill Disposal o Methods of Processing/Disposal of Other Wastes r Although the State has set a goal of 50% reduction, reuse, -and recycling as a benchmark for resource recovery systems, it has been concluded, given the characteristics of its waste stream, that the Town could target a reduction/reuse/recycling (including . composting) goal as high as 70% to 75%. The ,alternatives evaluated for long-term processing or_ disposal (1996 to 2015) of the 25% to 30% .residual portion of the waste stream are: o Existing landfill arrangements o Use of a new, double -lined .15 -acre Town landfill adjacent to existing landfill (to be implemented in three 5 -acre stages) o Processing at the. Brookhaven composting -energy recovery facility (if implemented) o Processing at Huntington energy recovery facility (if 4th Unit is implemented) o Processing at Babylon energy recovery facility (if 3rd Unit is implemented) o Processing at an in -Town mixed solid waste (MSW) composting facility o Yard waste exchange arrangement with a town having an energy recovery facility o Private. sector processing/disposal (including possible use - of Hempstead's existing energy recovery facility and recently proposed private sector facilities) o Off island long haul to another facility In order to allow adequate time for achieving the goals of the proposed resource recovery system, the - ' planning . effort also included an evaluation of legislative/regulatory/legal issues that should be addressed to ensure that; with regard to 2944M/9 S-5 PRA7FD ON RECYC[FD PAPER landfilling, the Long Island Landfill Law reflects: - 1) the 208 Plan recommendations for landfilling in rural areas; 2) the ,NYSDEC 1986 Long Island Groundwater Management Program allowances for landfilling . in rural areas; 3) the SCDHS' position regarding landfilling in Suffolk County; and 4) the definitions of "resource recovery" correctly be interpreted or defined. to allow landfilling without energy recovery -or mixed solid waste composting. facilities for the waste remaining, providing the resource recovery system exceeds the State's 50% goal' and includes intensive reduction/recycling/reuse programs. Additionally, the regulatory analysis also indicated that the Long Island Landfill Law's strict December 1990 deadline could be made more realistic through a 3—year extension. The evaluation conducted as part of the planning effort has concluded -that the lined landfilling of a limited portion of the waste stream in rural Long Island areas is provided for in a number. of previous technical studies, including those conducted by and certified to. the USEPA by NYSDEC.as recently as 1986. S.4 Description of Proposed Plan Based upon the analysis of alternatives, the proposed Plan for the Town is expected to result in the effective management of the Town's solid waste in an environmentally sound, cost --:effective manner that reflects the social and 'economic characteristics of the Town, particularly with regards to its .rural nature as a farming community with a relatively small population. The proposed Plan involves a "resource recovery system" that could effectively dispose 70% to 75% of the total waste • stream through elements ' of reduction, reuse, recycling, household hazardous waste removal, and yard waste composting.. The proposed Plan also includes specific recommendations for the disposal of 'the 25% to 30% residual waste after implementation of the proposed resource recovery system. Table S-1 at the end of this Summary presents the elements of the proposed Plan. S.4.1 Proposed Resource Recovery S3Lstem The proposed Plan contains a number of elements comprising a resource recovery system that could,reduce/recycle/reuse up to 70% to 75% of the total waste stream over the life of the Plan (through the year 2015). The proposed resource -recovery system includes waste reduction, intensive household and commercial/institutional recycling, major household appliances recycling, tire recycling, household hazardous waste, recovery, land clearing and construction and demolition debris recycling, and composting -of yard waste, sludge, and low—grade paper. The specific materials addressed in the Plan's resource recovery system include: 2944M/9 S-6 PRLN7W ON RECYCLED PAPER o Newspaper o Magazines o Corrugated/Brown Bags o Other Paperboard o Office Paper o Low—Grade (Other) Paper o PET, HDPE and Other Plastics o Yard Wastes o Sludge o, Sand/S6d o Ferrous Metals . o Nonferrous Metals o Three Colors of Glass o Wood and Lumber o Asphalt o Concrete/Brick • Tires o Dirt o - Textiles o Household Hazardous Wastes o Batteries (Vehicle and Household) .. The following sections describe the components of' the Town's resource recovery system. Waste Reduction Waste reduction refers to the reduction of solid waste prior to disposal. This is an important consideration since it, may affect the sizing. or magnitude of individual operations and facilities described in the Plan. Reduction of the volume of waste could be achieved through Town support of legislation. and other initiatives that aim to encourage residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional establishments to reduce waste generation at the source or point of packaging. This would effectively reduce the volume of waste that the Town would need to make provisions for with regard to collection, processing, disposal, administration, and financing. Regarding the legislative aspects of waste reduction, the Town would support laws proposed by the County, State, and Federal governments that strive to: o Reduce the volume and type of packaging materials, especially those constituted of plastics, which are essentially nonbiodegradable, nonreusable, and nonrecyclable o Expand the current beverage container deposit -law to include a wider array: of containers 2944M/9 S-7 PRNVLFD ON RECYCLED PAPER I o Encourage greater use of recycled materials, or products packaged in recycled or recyclable materials. o Promote the -development of household hazardous waste removal programs o ' Assist and encourage industrial, commercial, and institutional generators to undertake reduction and recycling programs o Assist and encourage homeowners to undertakebackyard composting The Town would also support legislative efforts to establish deposits on batteries . as - a means of reducing the concentration of metals in various products and residues of solid . waste processing. Batteries -.constitute an easily removable source of potential contamination from the waste stream. In addition to legislative actions, all sectors of the Town (public, commercial, industrial, and institutional establishments) would be encouraged. by the Town to reduce the generation of waste which would ultimately become the ,responsibility of. the Town to handle and dispose. This can be accomplished through. local and regional public education programs coordinated by the State. For' example, homeowners and landscapers should be encouraged to reuse .grass' clippings, leaves, and chipped brush as compost and mulch on—site rather than bagging and disposing these materials at a' solid waste management facility. ' The NYSDEC estimates that implementation of statewide and local waste reduction efforts, along with continued and expanded voluntary programs and other legislative actions, -could reduce solid waste generation by approximately 8% to 10%. This estimate is contained in .the State's 1987 Solid Waste Management Plan (and updates) as a statewide goal and is incorporated as one of the goals of the Town's proposed -Plan. It is estimated that over the long—term approximately 10% of the Town's waste stream would be reduced by this element of the proposed Plan. Household and Commercial/Institutional Recycling Program A major component of. the proposed Plan is a comprehensive recycling program which would provide for the recovery and utilization of reusable "waste" resources. The Plan proposes a mandatory source separation program for recyclable materials generated in the residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors of the Town. 2944M/9 S-8 PRNr%W ON RECYC/ W PAPER Recyclable materials should be source separated and collected, or privately dropped off, in a segregated manner. In the short—term, the segregation of the various recyclables is an interim step that is part of the current voluntary curbside recycling program that has been initiated in the Town. Over the long—term, recyclables should be source separated from the rest of the waste stream, but not necessarily segregated. Collection and transfer of recyclables has proven to be more cost—effective when commingled. The Brookhaven Materials' Recycling Facility (MRF) is the recommended facility that would process the Town's. collected recyclables: This facility is expected to have the ability to process either segregated or commingled deliveries of materials. It has been demonstrated that mandatory recycling programs are more effective than voluntary programs. .The comprehensive recycling analysis for the Town presents 'a detailed analysis and discussion of the proposed recycling activities and is presented in Appendix F. The materials initially targeted for source separation, curbside collection, and marketing include paper (newspaper and corrugated cardboard), color segregated glass, plastics (PET and HDPE), and ferrous and nonferrous metal 'containers. 'Leaves, grass clippings, and brush should also be source separated for the purpose of composting. 'In addition, separation should be required for land clearing debris, construction and demolition debris, white goods (major. household appliances), tires, and ' household hazardous waste. As previously discussed, commercial/industrial toxic or hazardous waste is currently regulated for proper handling and disposal by Federal and State law. These materials should not be handled by the Town and would -be recycled or processed at private sector facilities. The Plan proposes to send collected recyclables to the Brookhaven MRF, which is, nearing completion. The Town of Brookhaven has indicated that its MRF will have the capacity to accommodate recyclable materials from Southold. The Brookhaven facility is expected to be operational in 1991. If an East End regional MRF (public or private)is developed in the long—term, Southold would compare the costs and contracted terms of using the Brookhaven MRF to those of the regional facility. -If an East End facility is not built, recyclable materials would continue to be sent to.the Brookhaven MRF. The Town proposes to have its mandatory source separation and recycling program in place by late 1990 to coincide with the arrangements to use the Brookhaven'MRF. It is recommended that the ultimate recycling program be implemented in two stages. During 2944M/9 S-9 PRMW ON RECYCLM PAPE'? the first stage, or interim phase (late 1990 through late 1991), Southold would enact a Townwide mandatory recycling ordinance to become effective in early 1991, and negotiate draft agreement terms with . Brookhaven for use of the Brookhaven MRF. In . addition, Southold would. continue to operate a recycling transfer area within the Town to process its collected recyclables and utilize available markets while the Brookhaven MRF is permitted and constructed. The existing recycling area on Fishers Island would be expanded to accept more categories of materials. Recyclables would be transported off Fishers Island to be processed with the rest of the Town's recyclables at the Brookhaven MRF. In the second stage, or long—term phase (beginning in early 1992), the Town would construct a recycling transfer system (if necessary) to transport. recyclables that are acceptable to the - Brookhaven MRF. This can be accomplished_ through three possible alternatives: 1) private sector total transfer services (including equipment and needed structures), 2) Town sponsored permitting system and required structures with private sector operation, or 3) total -Town sponsored permitting system and operation. Future long—term recycling projections for the Town, including, Fishers Island, indicate that approximately 23%, or 33 tons per day, of the total waste stream could be recovered .through this Plan element by 1995 (not including C&D, land clearing debris,. white goods, tires,, and household hazardous waste). The 1990 preliminary cost estimates of this Plan element indicate that recycling costs could range from $25 to'$50 per -ton ($5 million to $13 million over the 20 year planning period), depending on transportation costs and the fee negotiated with the Town of Brookhaven. Recycling: Major Household Appliances Another aspect of the Plan's resource recovery system recommends, that discarded major household -appliances (also referred to as "white goods") continue to be temporarily stockpiled and transferred on a regular basis to private recycling facilities. White goods, comprising approximately 1% of the waste stream, include discarded refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, stoves, etc. The 1990 preliminary cost estimates indicate that this Plan element could cost.up to $10 per ton. Depending on markets, revenues could be generated from this material. 2944M/9 S-10 PIZUVTFD ON RECYCLED PAPER Recycling: Tires The proposed Plan also includes. discarded tire recycling. It is recommended that a designated portion of the existing landfill site be used to temporarily stockpile tires for shipment to appropriate reprocessing or recycling facilities.. A similar area should be maintained on Fishers Island. The -temporary stockpile operations should be sized to stockpile up to 1,000 tires at any given time. Using an- assumed, generally accepted generation rate of one tire per person ,per year for the Town's population .of 21,798, approximately 22,000 tires per year' could require disposal. Alternatively, using an estimated factor for tires in the residential waste stream of 0.64 tons per day (based on 1990 scale house data),. with an assumed weight of 25 pounds per tire, an average of approximately 19,000 tires per year would require proper disposal. Based on these , . z estimates, it : may be necessary to size a tire stockpile . and transfer operation to handle between 19,000 and 22,000 tires per year. This would correspond to an average annual transfer arrangement of approximately 20 shipments per year (1,000 tires per shipment), or approximately one shipment every 2 and 1/2 weeks, with allowances for more frequent shipments during certain peak periods. As discussed in Section 3,. there are private processing markets currently available that would accept the tires for recycling. The approximate cost of this Plan element is estimated to range, from. $40 to $65 per ton, depending on the contractual arrangements with the -selected tire processor. Approximately 1% of the total waste stream is covered by this Plan element. Recycling: Household Hazardous Waste - Successful and effective household hazardous waste removal programs, known by the acronym S.T.O.P. (Stop Throwing Out Pollutants), have been shown to be environmentally sound. elements of solid waste management systems. A S.T.O.P: program allows for convenient and safe disposal of hazardous chemical wastes found in homes. Although household hazardous wastes typically comprise less than 1% of a municipality's total waste stream, the removal of these materials from the waste stream is important and recommended as -part of the Town's solid waste Plan. It is recommended that these wastes be removed, to prevent them from entering, and potentially impacting, the environment. Removal of these wastes also reduces 'the risks and hazards associated with processing or disposing these wastes at solid waste management facilities. 2944M/9 S-11 PRWTEO ON RECYCIEO PAPER Continued operation of -the Town's permanent S.T.O.P., program will provide residents with a continuous, environmentally safe disposal alternative for unwanted chemical products originating in the home. The daily operation provided by this .permanent, full-timefacility make participation in the S.T.O.P. program more.convenient than periodically scheduled S.T.O.P. days: The permanent facility, centrally located in the Town, provides residents with a convenient drop-off site for these materials. - For. an area the size of Fishers Island, the development of a full-time S.T.O.P. -program and permanent facility would be both impractical and unnecessary., Consequently, it is recommended ' that a minimum of two collection "events" per year be .held on Fishers Island to remove this material from the waste stream. The S.T.O. P. program will allow for the collection of such household hazardous wastes as: o . Adhesives o Alcohol o Antifreeze o Brake Fluid o Charcoal Lighter Fluid o Cleaning Solvents o Degreasers o Fertilizers o Gasoline o Herbicides . o Kerosene o Paints o Paint Removers . o Paint Thinners o Pesticides o Petroleum Based Solvents o Photographic Chemicals and Supplies o -Plant and Insect Spray. o Pool Chemicals o Solvents o' Spot Removers o Stain and Varnishes o Wood Preservatives o Unknown/Unlabeled Containers The resource recovery, system proposed in the Town's Plan recommends that the Town work with the East End Recycling Association toward implementing an extensive public awareness, participation, and education program. designed to provide information on the importance of properly disposing hazardous materials and the procedures to be followed. The Town's S.T.O.P. program is consistent with the New York 'State Solid Waste Management Plan guidelines since it can effectively help reduce the quantity of hazardous wastes entering, the waste ,stream. Additionally, the S.T.O.P. program .is expected to increase environmental consciousness and encourage residents to segregate and recycle wastes rather than discard them. It is estimated that approximately 1%, of the waste 2944M/9 S-12 PRMED ON RECYCLED PAPER stream will be covered by this Plan element. The Town currently pays $200 to $540 per 55 -gallon drum for disposal of this waste, depending on whether or not the drum contains pesticides -or aerosol products. Recycling: Construction and Demolition Debris The development, planning, permitting, and capital cost of a construction and demolition debris processing facility is expected. to be more cost-effective if itis handled by the private sector rather than the 'Town. Consequently, it is recommended .in the proposed Plan that this waste no longer be accepted at Town disposal facilities. The recycling/processing of this waste should. become the responsibility of the private sector, as is the case in most Towns on Long Island. This, would help to maximize .the efficiency of recycling this material. Concrete, rocks, bricks, asphalt, lumber, and pallets are among the components.of C&D debris that can be processed and recycled. Current 1990 cost. estimates. of private sector processing/recycling of this component of the waste. stream are in the range of $55 to.$115 per ton. It is estimated that approximately 15% of the waste stream is comprised of commercially generated construction and ' demolition debris that could be recovered by this Plan element. It -is recommended that residentially (homeowner) generated clean material remain the responsibility. of 'the Town for a three to five year period. To this end, a two acre (or less) clean fill is recommended as an interim measure to "reclaim" a borrow area (depression) at the existing: landfill where sand -mining has taken place. Small volumes of clean materials from residential sources could be disposed of in a portion of. the borrow area. Over the long-term, private recycling and disposal options would be utilized by the generators of this waste. Transfer services. to private sector facilities, could be provided by the Town for residentially generated materials after the borrow area has been reclaimed by the clean fill. There are several concrete .pits on the western portion of Fishers Island that could be used ' for disposal of the small quantity of C&D debris generated on the island. This land could be reclaimed for future use through the burial of clean fill in accordance with Part 360-8'.6(c). Once these areas are brought to grade, the processing of this material would be handled by the private sector. In addition, contractors on Fishers Island would be encouraged to dispose of. this material on-site in accordance with Part 360-8.6(b). 2944M/9 S-13 l PRDYIED ONRECYCLED PAPER Recycling: Land Clearing Debris , .Similar to construction and demolition debris, it is recommended as part of the proposed Plan that the Town no longer accept land clearing debris at Town facilities. This material would become the responsibility of the private sector with generators responsible for identifying and utilizing appropriate. recycling/processing/ disposal facilities. It, is estimated that 15% of the Town's waste stream is comprised of commercially generated land. clearing debris that could be recovered under this portion of the proposed Plana The 1990 estimated cost. for private sector processing/recycling of this component of the. waste stream is in the range of $55 to $115 per ton. It is recommended. that Fishers Island dispose of this material ,in a less than two acre clean fill. In addition, ' new developments on Fishers Island should be encouraged to use land clearing debris generated . on-site for grade adjustment in accordance with Part 360-8.6(b). a . Recycling: Yard Waste Composting According to the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan guidelines and the New York State Solid Waste Management . Act, composting is one of a variety of methods to reduce the waste stream and promote recycling of resources: Accordingly, the Town recommends -that the existing yard waste composting operation become � part .of the long-term Plan, and that it be expanded to accommodate all of the Town's leaves and brush. Additionally, it is recommended that an evaluation be made of a possible expansion to create a regional. or subregional operation.' It is also recommended that there be a limited demonstration sludge and low-grade paper cocomposting pilot effort to determine the'- long-term feasibility of composting these materials. The sewage sludge and low-grade paper cocomposting. operation would evaluate the effectiveness of sludge as. a nitrogen source to facilitate the decomposition of grass clippings and chipped brush, and would also test the marketability of this type of. compost product. If this demonstration . project results in a marketable end product, this process should be incorporated into the long-term Plan for the Town. The successful cocomposting and marketing of yard waste with sewage sludge and low-grade paper could provide a cost—effective method of . converting solid waste into a reusable end product, and possibly reduce the use of produced or synthetic .fertilizers in the Town. Backyard and on—site composting of yard waste by homeowners and landscapers is also recommended under this element as a method of minimizing the required size ,of the Town's yard -waste composting operation. 2944M/9 S-14 PRW ED ON RECYCL M PAPER Portions of the existing landfill site should be evaluated for use as additional yard waste composting, capacity. An expansion of the yard waste composting operations could enable the Town to make its composting operations available to western Towns, or be part of a subregional yard waste composting effort with one or more East End Towns. It is recommended that the Town participate in an intermunicipal agreement for sending its recyclables and/or mixed waste to another. Town for processing, while accepting a similar or .agreed upon tonnage of yard waste for composting in return. It is -recommended that on Fishers Island there be a small scale (less than 3,000 cubic yards) composting operation for yard waste. This is the preferred alternative when compared to sending this material to *the existing operation at the Town's solid waste complex in Cutchogue. Consistent with the goals of the proposed Plan, landscapers should be encouraged by the Town to maintain their own compost piles, or perform this service on-site for their customers. Larger landscaping or land clearing operations should. chip brush for ground cover and other uses. It is further recommended that the Town implement a public education. program to increase the local demand for end products from both backyard and Town compost operations. Preliminary 1990 cost projections of this Plan element depend on whether the facility is sized to accommodate out -of -Town yard waste. Current estimates range between $20 and $30 per ton. Approximately 10% of the Town's total waste stream could be recovered as part of this Plan element. S.4.2 Proposed Residual Waste Management The recommended. resource recovery system portion of the Plan discussed above is expected to effectively reduce/recycle/reuse (including. composting) approximately 70% to 75% of the Town's total waste stream, provided that relatively high participation rates are achieved and- markets are available. What follows is a discussion of the recommended actions for the processing and/or disposal of the 25% to 30% residual waste remaining after implementation -of the proposed resource recovery system. Based upon the- analysis conducted as part of the solid waste planning effort, a staged plan for the 25% to 30% residual waste is recommended. The residual waste portion of the Plan will consist of a long-term phase and a short-term phase. As a result of the size of the Town and uncertainties regarding the Landfill Law and solid waste projects in other. Long Island towns, the long-term phase is divided into three stages 2944M/9 S-15 PMN7W ON RECYCLM PAPPII r (1996-2002,. 2003-2009, and 2010-2015). The short'—term phase (1992-1995) ,consists of actions that will. provide for continued planning to allow for changes, in solid waste projects in other towns, and will . reflect a cautious approach to the Town's decision making. In addition, the residual waste portion of the Plan contains ,recommended actions for the interim period (1990-1992) that will allow for initial Plan start—up. The. three stages . of the long—term phase will each be approximately six 'to seven years in duration. This will provide for a periodic evaluation of alternative processing/disposal options for the 25% to 30%. residual waste, and allow the Town to pursue a more cost—effective option, should one become available during any " one of the three stages. At the end of each stage, a Plan update would be prepared, at least with respect to the residual waste portion of the Town's Plan. This would reflect any new and emerging technologies and changes in the currently proposed processing/disposal options in other towns, particularly the larger western towns. Based upon the current (1990) DGEIS analysis, the preferred option for handling the residual waste would be most efficiently achieved at an energy recovery facility (ERF) in one of the Towns to the west, with reciprocal yard waste composting at a regional yard waste composting. operation in Southold. As part of a ' contract ' with the town having the energy recovery facility, it is recommended that Southold negotiate terms whereby it would accept an equal quantity. of yard waste for. composting. Since Southold would be expected to pay a .tip fee at the energy recovery facility, fees collected at the composting operation would be used to offset processing costs at the energy recovery facility. This option is attractive since it would not require a major capital investment by the Town for a solid waste facility other ` than a significant expansion of the existing yard waste composting operation. This waste exchange option may be difficult to implement as a result of the.complex intermunicipal negotiations and agreements that must be set in place. Consequently, a strong NYSDEC role as a facilitator would be essential for the success of this option in any, or all, of the three stages of the long—term phase. If the Town is unable to implement a yard waste exchange arrangement with a town to the west having or proposing an energy recovery facility with sufficient capacity, then 2944M/9 S-16 PRBV7W ON RECYCLED PAPER a 15 acre landfill .(needed for the 20 year period 1996-2015); to be implemented in three five acre cells would become the preferred option. The new, state-of-the-art landfill would be double lined and would. feature -dual leachate collection and treatment systems and methane recovery.. The first five acre cell would be sufficient to dispose of the 25% to 30% residual waste for the first stage of the long-term phase (1996-2002). During this period, the evaluation of possible yard .waste exchange. arrangements with towns in the area having energy recovery processing facilities would continue for possible utilization during the second stage of the long-term phase (2003-2009). If a suitable facility to process the remaining waste is not found to exist before the end of 'the first 6 to- 7 year stage, a second five acre landfill cell would be constructed for use during the second stage of the 'long-term phase (2003-2009). This would be followed by a third five acre landfill if the ongoing evaluation indicates that it would be necessary for the final long-term stage of the Plan (through 2015). . If both the yard waste exchange and landfill options prove unfeasible, then seasonal energy recovery processing at a town to the west that has an energy recovery facility is the recommended option.. Under this alternative, the Town would utilize available capacity at the .energy recovery facility during off-peak periods (presumably six It months) in conjunction with landfilling of the residual waste at a new Town landfill during peak periods (presumably six "summer" months) when capacity would not be available. As with the previous preferred options, the Town would continue to evaluate alternatives that might become available for possible implementation in- a subsequent stage of the long-term phase. It should also be stressed that this .regional cooperative approach (consistent with DEC's promotion of intermunicipal cooperation) would be contingent upon either: 1) the implementation of a fourth unit expansion at the Huntington/Smithtown facility; 2) a third unit expansion at the Babylon facility; or 3) the construction of the previously proposed Brookhaven Composting/Energy Recovery Facility (CERF). Recent reports, however, indicate that Brookhaven is considering processing its solid waste at the Hempstead energy recovery facility instead .of going forward with the CERF project. In addition, the . fourth unit analyses for Huntington/Smithtown- have not been completed, and a Babylon third unit has not been officially proposed. As a result of these uncertainties, Southold should simultaneously proceed with evaluations of any permitted private sector solid waste ventures in the area to determine their feasibility in satisfying the Town's needs with regard to the 25%, to 30% residual waste. . 2944M/9 S-17 PRQYPED ON RECYCLED PAPER The implementation of -this multistaged approach would allow for disposal of the 25% to 30% residual waste, remaining after the implementation of the Town's resource recovery system without committing to lined landfilling for the full life of the proposed Plan. As part of this staged approach, the proposed Plan would be updated with respect to residuals disposal prior to each stage. The development of five acre incremental landfill cells, sufficient for 6 to 7 year intervals, would allow for a continuous evaluation of energy recovery alternatives and private sector ventures (possibly including solid waste composting) that may become viable in the future. In the short-term. phase of the Plan (1992-1995), it is recommended that the Town construct a new, five acre lined landfill for residual waste_ disposal. The new lined five acre landfill would be located on Town owned land at -the existing landfill complex and would feature a double composite liner system, dual leachate collection and treatment systems, and methane recovery. This new landfill would provide for the disposal of the 25% to 30% residual waste until the Town can take the necessary steps to implement the preferred long-term option, and is expected to have a useful life of approximately four to five years, depending on levels of recycling. For the short and long-term phases of the Plan to be implemented, a two year extension (through legislative, regulatory, or legal action) of the landfill closure date mandated by. the Long Island Landfill Law would be necessary for continued, but reduced, -landfilling at the current site in the interim period (1990-1992) until the new five- acre lined landfill (short-term .phase) is permitted and completed. , ' . Continued use of Southold's existing landfill would also allow for it'to achieve the desired configuration and contour elevations for proper closure • and capping. This two year extension would also provide for interim disposal and .avoid long haul. This would avoid travel through the western towns and New York City, and would not result in out-of-state Ior upstate exportation. This arrangement would conform to the Landfill Law's provision allowing continued landfilling during implementation of a resource recovery system if there is no energy recovery processing available to the Town. If a landfill extension is not granted, then long haul of .the Town's waste off Long Island would be necessary until the first five acre cell is completed. 2944M/9 S-18. PRArrW ON RECYCLED PAPEN As part of the 25% to 30% residual portion of the Plan, it is recommended that Fishers Island continue current., landfill procedures for approximately one to two years until the existing landfill *(which is relatively flat) reaches capacity and can be capped and closed. After that time, the mixed waste., and separated recyclables could be transported directly• off Fishers Island using collection vehicles rather than a transfer operation and handled with the rest of the Town's waste stream. This arrangement for Fishers Island would correspond to approximately 70. to 100 trips per year, on average, assuming approximately one trip per week during six months of the year, approximately two trips- per week during three months of the year, .and approximately three trips per week for the remaining three months of the year. 'The transportation cost would be offset by the elimination of the current landfilling and • leasing costs on Fishers Island. The future landfill/disposal with the rest of the Town's waste could be covered through the Town's • tax base since it would be combined with the total waste stream of the. Town. The collection and transportation. could be handled by the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District, or it could be open to any Town permitted carters who choose to offer services to residents on Fishers Island. Initial cost estimates were prepared as part of a preliminary cost analysis of various long—term processing/disposal options available to the Town. Processing at a western Long Island town's energy recovery facility with reciprocal yard waste composting, identified as 'the preferred option,' has 20 year costs (1990 dollars) ranging from $18 million to $34 million ($60 'to $94. per ton) , if the host town is responsible for residuals disposal. Costs for developing a new landfill in three five acre stages, identified as the second ranked long—term option, would range from $26 million to $29 million ($82 to $89 per ton) over the 20 year period. Seasonal processing at the proposed Brookhaven CERF (if implemented), in conjunction with landfilling in a new lined Town landfill during peak periods of the year when capacity is. not available, is the -third ranked option, with 1990 costs ranging from $26 million to $34 million ($88 to $94 per ton) over the 20 year period of the long—term portion of the . Plan. If seasonal processing is carried out with `the Towns of Huntington or Babylon, it would result in 1990 costs ranging from $27 million -to $59 million ($90 to $141 per ton). 2944M/9 S-19 These preliminary estimates are presented in 1990 dollars and are preliminary -for the purpose of conducting a comparative analysis between , alternatives, and will 'be updated as necessary in the final Plan/FGEIS. Final estimated costs will be determined as - a result of detailed engineering design, supplemental EIS analysis, responses to formal procurement procedures, and terms of intermunicipal/contractual agreements. Table S-1 presents a summary of both the proposed resource recovery system and the residual waste portion of the proposed Plan'. S.5 Landfill Siting As part 'of the development of the solid waste Plan, a preliminary landfill siting evaluation was performed. This evaluation was conducted to determine if sites .were available within the Town that could be considered in the future for use as a landfill site should the need arise.. The results indicate that there . are currently- 27 areas ' within the Town, other than the existing site, which ' could be considered for landfilling in thefuture. future. However, in this case the siting analysis would require updating and further evaluation. With regard to the proposed Plan's short-term 5 acre landfill, sufficient space is available at the existing Town solid waste complex to accommodate the new cell. Consequently, the available land at the -site would be used for landfilling through the year 1995. Should the Town implement one or more of the additional 5 acre stages -beyond - 1995, then the siting analysis, which has indicated other potential sites (including land adjacent to the current site), would be updated and used in the final siting determination. S.6 Regional/Neighboring Jurisdictional Involvement Regional alternatives with neighboring Towns were considered and . are reflected in the proposed Plan. Islandwide regional possibilities are also possible with the development of a 10 -Town (Suffolk County), or 13 -Town (Nassau and Suffolk Counties), cooperative to collectively market recyclable materials. This regional effort could- provide for substantial assistance in dealing with . secondary materials markets. In particular this includes: East End To the West - o Shelter Island o Brookhaven o Riverhead o Huntington o East Hampton o Smithtown o Southampton o Babylon 2944M/9. S-20 PRfffIED ON RECYCLED PAPER ti. S.7 - Public Education, Information, and Involvement One of the key components of the proposed Plan will be an effective' public education, information, and involvement program. There are numerous ways to in the public about the Town's current and future recycling and disposal programs. While it may be necessary to perform surveys within the Town to establish the basis fora specific education and involvement program, some areas that are recommended as part of the public. 'participation aspect of the proposed Plan include:. o Media' coverage of the .efforts made by the Town to support and encourage recycling o Public notices, direct mailings, and media promotions of current and new programs, o Town assistance to elementary, middle, and .high schools in implementing recycling programs for the schools o Town/school sponsored educational events such as essay, picture, and/or logo contests o Town cooperation with schools, and the State, to. develop curriculum, special events, and tours concerning recycling and'recycling operations o Town advertisements and promotion of the use of compost from the yard waste composting operation o Encouragement by the Town for landscapers and. others to promote backyard composting o An outreach and educational effort to public and private users of the landfill to generate cooperation and involvement in new .recycling programs o Town discussions with. waste haulers to address collection and recycling. concerns and to obtain an effective transition as new programs are implemented 2944M/9 S-21 PR017ED ON RECYCLED PAPER o Assistance from the East End Recycling Association in developing regional educational and involvement programs o Town outreach efforts targeted to seasonal residents, tourists; and seasonal businesses for active participation in recycling 'and other programs 2944M/9 S-22 remrrW ON RECYCLED PAPER TABLE S-1. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DRAFT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (1990 thru 2015) �� / �/� i %/////,'/,/i%i//i•i/////ice%/.//iii/i////,%i//i/i iii/i i/.. /i'//i i%///i/i/i//i///ii:>;i%////,'/./i.%//i//////,/iiiii%//i%/i/i%/�%//, j i��/ /�/ BASE PLAN: RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM FOR 70% TO 75% OF THE WASTE STREAM , 25% TO 30% RESIDUAL WASTE r/�•%%'//// WASTE REDUCTION I REUSE/RECYCLING/COMPOSTING PROGRAM I PROCESSING/DISPOSAL OPTIONS" 10% 60% to 65% 2590 to 3090 ENCOURAGE EFFORTS TO: • REDUCE PACKAGING MATERIALS • EXPAND THE CURRENT BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT LAW • INCREASE USE OF RECYCLED MATERIALS • INCREASE USE OF REUSABLE PRODUCTS & PACKAGING (I.e.. RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES) • EXPAND LEGISLATION TO INCLUDE DEPOSITS FOR BATTERIES & TIRES - • INCREASE PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION • PROMOTE TECHNOLOGY MODIFICATION • CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECYCLING (15%) 21 tpd in 1995 to 28 tpd in 2015 Recycling & Processing at a Private Facility On-site Land Disposal and < 2 Acre Clean Fill on Fishers Island • LAND CLEARING DEBRIS RECYCLING (15%) 21 tpd in 1995 to 28 tpd in 2015 Recycling & Processing at a Private Facility On-site Lard Disposal and < 2 Acre Clean FB for New Development on Fishcrs Island YARD WASTE COMPOSTING (10%) 14 tpd in 1995 to 19 tpd in 2015 Townwide Lcaf Composting Facility - Option for'Expansion to Accommodate Out -of -Town Yard Wastes Pilot Program for Cocomposting of Sludge and Low Grade Paper With Yard Waste Homeowner/Landscaper Backyard Composting of Lcaves, Grass, & Brush Discourage Pick-up of Grass Clippings Small Scale Yard Waste Composting Operation & On -lot Composting by Landscapers on Individual Properties on Fishers Island. • HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES RECYCLING (1 %) I tpd in 1995 to 2 tpd in 2015 Stockpile and Transfer to a Private Recycling Center. Stoves, Refrigerators, Heaters, etc. - Stockpiled and then Shipped off Fishers Island • HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE RECYCLING (<05%) OS tpd in 1995 to I tpd in 2015 Full Tme Household Hazardous Waste Drop-off ("S.T.O.P."): Paints, Cleaners, Thirmcrs, etc. Minimum of Two Collection "Events" Per Year on Fishers Island • TIRE RECYCLING (<05 %) OS tpd in 1995 to 1 tpd in 2015 Stockpile and Transfer to Out -of -Town Tire Recycling/ Processing Facility ' Stockpiled and then Shipped off Fishers Island • AGRICULTURAL/COMMERCIAL /INSTITUTIONAL RECYCLING (15 %) 21 tpd in 1995 to 28 tpd in 2015 Town and Private Sector Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Programs (Offices, Stores, Retail Outlets, etc.) - Sand/Sod Reuse Town and Private Sector Removal and Recycling of CorrugwA • RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING (3% TO 8%) 4 tpd to I I tpd in 1995, 6 tpd to 15 tpd in 2015 Use Brookhaven Recycling Facility for Initial 3 to 5 Year Period If an East End Center is not Developed, Continue to Use Brookhaven Recycling Facility or Similar Facility for 3 to 5 Year Increments Recycling Rolloff Bins on Fishers Island Expanded to Include Plastics and Corrugated then Shipped off Fishers Island • Begin Agressive Implementation of Base Plan to Achieve 70% to 75% Reducioo/Recycling/Reuse Goal by 1995. • Begin 2 Year Phase Out of Existing Landfill (and Fishers Island Landfill) to Allow for Proper Grading to Ensure Acceptable' Slopes for Capping. Requires 2 year extension to Landfill Law deadline. • Implement Hydrogeologic Investigation in 1990 and 1991 to Support Capping and Closure Plans for Existing Landfill. • Submit in 1991, for NYSDEC Approval, Closure and Capping Plan for Existing Landfill. - SHORT TERM (1992 TE L99511 - 34 TPD to 41 TPD in 1992 to 35 TPD to 43 TPD in 1995 • . Develop New, 5 Acre Lined Landfill at Existing Solid Waste Disposal Complex • Evaluate Feasibility of Long Term Options Below. Continuously Compare to Any Permitted Private Sector Ventures that Become Available LONG TERM (1996 THRU 2015) 36 TPD to 43 TPD in 1995 to 46 TPD to 56 TPD in 2015 Implement in three 6 to 7 Year Stages one of the options below (in order of preference). If a more cost-effective private sector venture in the area is permitted, hold in abeyance implementation of the following stage(s). Update plan for residual waste prior to end of each stage. • TOP RANKED: YARD WASTE EXCHANGE Use western L.I. Town ERF/CERF (possibly Brookhaven, Huntington/ Smithtown; or Babylon, if capacity is made available). ERF/CERF Responsible for Bypass/Residuals Disposal Fees Collated at Southold's Yard Waste Composting Facility Used to Offset Costs Associated with Out -of -Town ERF/CERF Processing Requires DEC Assistance in Facilitating and Promoting Exchange Arrangement with Western Town(s) 2— RANKED: NEW. LINED TOWN LANDFILL- - Develop New Landfill in 5 Acre Stages each for 6 to 7 Year Periods, or Longer if Recycling Efforts are Higher than Expected 3°m RANKED: SEASONAL OUT-OF-TOWN ENERGY RECOVERY PROCESSING WITH NEW, LINED TOWN LANDFILL- - Develop New, Landfill in 5 Acre Stages (each with 10 Year Life) to be Used in Conjuction with Seasonal ERF/CERF Processing Utilize Seasonally Available Capacity at ERF/CERF • Acquire through Appropriate Procedures, Available State EQBA Assistance Funds and County Saks Tax Assistance Funds for Closure and Capping of Existing Landfill. • Continue Use of Remaining Capacity at Fishers Island Landfill (2 to 3 Years) for Non-meyclable/Non-reusable Waste. • Prepare EIS and Part 360 Permit Application for New, 5 Acre Lined Landfill to be Used for Short -Term ` Note: Requires legal, regulatory; or legislative determination that 25% to 30% residual disposal is consistent with landfilling allowances in Landfill Law. **Includes any of Fishers Island waste delivered to Town facilities. Section I 1.0. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The description of the Town's environmental setting contained in this Section is of sufficient detail for a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement prepared under 617.15 of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). This Section identifies the general. environment of the Town including certain ' man-made features, . land patterns,- and atterns;and overall land use activities. Where appropriate, the environmental setting of. the Town landfill located on Middle Road (C.R. 48) has been included in this baseline. Additional data would be evaluated as appropriate .for any subsequent site-specific environmental assessments and/or permitting of facilities associated with the individual component projects of the Town's Solid Waste Management Plan. The planning area description presented below consists of a general overview of the Town and its resources. This information provides a broad background of the Town, against which, any changes or impacts resulting from implementation of the Plan can be considered. 1.1 Town Setting The Town of Southold is located in eastern Suffolk County on Long Island as shown in Figure 1.-1-1. The Town covers approximately 54 square miles, or 34,600 acres, including Fishers, Plum, and ' Robins Islands. Fishers Island, located two miles from Connecticut and' 12 miles from the nearest point on the North Fork of Long Island, covers approximately four square miles, or 2,570 acres. The location of Fishers Island with . •respect to the Connecticut shoreline and the extreme eastern portion of Long Island -is illustrated on Figure 1.1-2: The Town is bordered by the Peconic Bays and Gardiners Bay to the south, and the Long Island Sound to the north. The Town, along with the Town of Riverhead to the west, comprises the "North Fork" of the "East End" of .Long. Island (see Figure 1.1-3). The Town supports a large' agricultural community as well as a seasonal tourist population and a number of weekend/part-time residents. Of the various communities in the Town, the larger ' residential .areas are primarily located in Southold,' Cutchogue, Greenport, . and Mattituck. Figure 1.1-4 depicts the location of the individual communities found in the Town. 2023M/9 1-1 1 PRWTW ON RECYCL Fn PAPER 1.2 Geology, Topography, and Soils Geoloev This Section summarizes the stratigraphy and hydrogeologic units found in the Town. The general geology of 'the Town 'has been described in detail in several reports and is briefly presented below.. Surficial geologic units consist of Holocene shore, beach, and salt marsh deposits as well as Pleistocene outwash and moraine deposits. - The Holocene deposits are made up of beach and dune sand, gravel; and bay bottom deposits of clay and silt. Pleistocene formations consist of the Harbor Hill Terminal Moraine and. the outwash deposits. The Moraine deposits consist of unsorted and unstratified clay, silt, sand, gravel, and boulders, while the outwash deposits consist of stratified, fine .to coarse, sand and gravel. . The aforementioned units form the upper glacial aquifer. Subsurface geologic units in the mainland part of the Town consist of the Matawan Group, Raritan Clay Member, Raritan Sand Member of the Upper Cretaceous Series, and .the Crystalline rocks of the Pre -Cambrian .Series. The Matawan Group - Magothy Formation is an Upper Cretaceous deposit that consists of fine to coarse sand with interstitial clay, silt, and lignite. The most shallow portion "of the irregular, upper boundary of the Magothy Formation is 200 feet below sea level in the southern portions of the Town. It then 'drops to ' a relatively constant depth of 350 feet below sea level.. The Matawan group forms -the hydrogeologic unit known as the Magothy aquifer. An erosional unconformity-separates the Magothy -Formation from the Raritan Formation. The upper Raritan Clay member consists primarily of clay, silty clay, and silty fine sand, with beds and lenses .of lignite, pyrite, and gravel. The lower Lloyd sand member is composed of fine to coarse sand and gravel, with beds and lenses of clay, silty sand, lignite, and pyrite. Both units are generally thicker in western Southold, becoming progressively thinner to the east. They comprise the hydrogeologic units known as Raritan Clay and the Lloyd aquifer, respectively. . The crystalline bedrock, believed to be Pre -Cambrian,- is composed of gneiss and schist. It is found -at a depth of approximately 1,000 feet below sea level in western Southold and rises. slowly to approximately 500 feet below, sea level in the northeast corner of Town. Table 1.2-1presents a breakdown of the geologic and hydrogeologic units found in the Town. 2023M/9 1-2 PR0V7FD ON RECYCLM PAPER CONNECTICUT 'NEW -YORK all, .......... SOUMOLD NEW JERSEY CoutArl suf NASSAU QUEENS COUNTY OOV.0 aft Ai- b.:' b.:' STATEN ISLAND SOURCE:- LAMBF-1985 5', 0 5 .10 15 20 SCALE IN tvilLEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DvIrka REGIONAL MAP and Bartfluccl FIGURE 1.1 5. 2.5 O 3 SCALE IN MILES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN D LOCATION -OF FISHERS ISLAND 1&6) earmuc l FIGURE 1.1-2 CONSIATWO ENGEAS . - .. .y . ' - � � \quo LlrrLE GULL ISLAND GREAT GULL \ /BEANO • - .. E% MpR10N GREENPORT GARD/NERS BAY • GREENPI�RT, SpONO tHp�U (UN/NCl . f C/ �S�ANp NpRt� i �pNG sit • MPtt �tUG $ � .... - / �E LA .'4 G �tG L /TILE .0 PECON/C o BAY P�RE� ,o �/ o GREAT ;ROS/NS PECON/C `/BLAND BAY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN l M LOCATION OF COMMUNITIES ,.rsFIGURE 1.1-4 Source: USGS 1974 2 2023M/9 Table 1.2-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN STRATIGRAPHY AND HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS S s1 tem Series Geolo is Unit Geologic H-drogeologic Unit Approximate _Thickness (ft.) Quaternary Holocene Shore, beach, salt, marsh Upper glacial aquifer0 -60 deposits and artificial fill Pleistocene Till; Harbor Hill Terminal 0-150 Moraine- Outwash deposits 0-350 Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous Matawan Group - Magothy Magdthy Aquifer 0-1-,000 Formation undifferentiated Raritan Formation; Raritan Clay 0 - 250 Clay Member Raritan Formation, Lloyd Aquifer 0-550 Lloyd Sand Member Pre-Cambrian Pre-Cambrian Crystalline rocks Bedrock Not Known Source: USGS 1974 2 2023M/9 The surficial geology of Fishers Island also consists mainly of the Harbor Hill Terminal Moraine, and undifferentiated shore, beach, and salt marsh deposits. The inferred limit of the Raritan Clay Member is believed to cut across the eastern region of Fishers Island at approximately 200 feet'below msl. The Magothy Aquifer, Lloyd Aquifer, Monmouth Greensand, and Gardiners Clay units are not -believed to extend to Fishers Island. Bedrock can be found at approximately 200 feet below msl is most portions of Fishers Island, with slightly higher depths in southwestern areas of Fishers Island where the Raritan Clay Member exists. Topography The Town's topography is largely the result of pleistocene glacial activity. The extreme southern parts of the Town are characterized by gentle slopes, though there are some bluffs in the vicinity of Nassau Point and Indian Neck. The north shore is classified as the Harbor Hill Terminal Moraine and consists of steep slopes, bluffs, and rolling landscape. The central portion of the Town, including the area of the Cutchogue landfill, is located on gently sloping outwash plains resulting from glacial melting. Elevation in the Town ranges from sea level to 160 feet above msl, although most of the Town is at an elevation of less than 50 feet msl. The highest elevations and steepest slopes are found along the north shore in the western part of town. A peak elevation of 160 feet above msl is found at Mattituck Hills. The topography of Robins Island and Fishers Island is also characteristic of the morainic deposits in the area. Both islands have very irregular topography, with many hills and steep bluffs. Some areas of Fishers Island also rise to 160 feet above msl. In terms of development, the topography of some areas of Southold, particularly Fishers Island, presents limitations. The irregular topography of the moraines requires extensive cutting and filling for development, while the compactness of glacial till makes excavation difficult. The topography of the outwash plains, however, presents few limitations .on development, except near the shoreline. Soils A general soil map of the Town of Southold is presented in Figure 1.2-1. It should be noted that the soil information included here -is generalized, and field investigations 2023M/9 1-8 PRVnW ON RECYCLED PAPER 0REENPORT GARDINERS / BAY 00 HOLD IS�ANp LEGEND' CARVER PLYMOUTH -RIVERHEAD ASSOCIATION HAVEN RIVERHEAD ASSOCIATION LITTLE X// PECON/C DUNE. LAND -TIDAL MARSH -BEACHES ASSOCIATION Z ' i M ITUCK/ [ i BAY o GREAT' ;•R09/NS ' /BLAND PECON/C BAY SOURCE: USSCS.1975 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. DMrka. GENERAL SOIL MAP. 0) and Bar,,rtl� wd FIGURE 1.2-1 LITTLE GULL ='/// /// F6 /BLAND SC - / Oftl IV GREAT GULL /BLAND �.///// /////. - /// _ .••////// 1C/ 0REENPORT GARDINERS / BAY 00 HOLD IS�ANp LEGEND' CARVER PLYMOUTH -RIVERHEAD ASSOCIATION HAVEN RIVERHEAD ASSOCIATION LITTLE X// PECON/C DUNE. LAND -TIDAL MARSH -BEACHES ASSOCIATION Z ' i M ITUCK/ [ i BAY o GREAT' ;•R09/NS ' /BLAND PECON/C BAY SOURCE: USSCS.1975 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. DMrka. GENERAL SOIL MAP. 0) and Bar,,rtl� wd FIGURE 1.2-1 I 0 are necessary for an accurate analysis at any given site.. The general soil associations found in the Town are described below: o Carver -Plymouth -Riverhead Association: Deep, rolling,. excessively well drained, coarse to moderately coarse textured soils on moraines. Slopes are a limitation for building sites. It is poor farming soil and is generally found in the Northern Section of the Town, on the Harbor Hill Terminal Moraine, and on Plum and Fishers Islands. o Haven -Riverhead Association: Deep, nearly level to gently sloping,' well drained, medium texture soils in outwash plains. This area is good for farming and development. High water table areas .are a limitation for nonfarm use. This soil underlies most of the Town. o Dune Land - Tidal Marsh - Beaches Association: Sand dunes, tidal marshes and beaches. The topography of this association is typical of sand dunes and beaches. It has uneven dunes slightly inland from the beaches. This area is mainly open with cottages and, recreational facilities scattered along the shoreline near Orient Point. The general soil association found at .the site, of the Town landfill is the Haven -Riverhead Association. A localized soil map of the existing landfill and surrounding vicinity, is shown in Figure 1.2-2. The map shows that there are seven specific types of soils that exist on the site, namely, HaA-Haven Loam (0% to 2% slopes), HaB-Haven Loam (2% to 6% slopes), Man -Made Land, PIA -Plymouth Loamy Sand (0% to 3% slopes), PIB-Plymouth Loamy Sand (3% 86/6slopes); PIC -Plymouth Loamy, Sand (8% to 15% slopes), and RdC-Riverhead Sandy Loam (8% to 15% slopes).. Descriptions of each of the seven soil associations found at the landfill site are as follows: 1. HaA-Haven Loam (0% to 2% slopes). These soils are deep, well drained and medium textured, and are mostly nearly level generally found ' on outwash .plains. They were formed in a loamy or silty mantle over stratified coarse sand and gravel.. The available moisture capacity .in this soil is high to moderate. Natural fertility is low. Internal drainage . is good, while permeability is 2023M/9 . 1-10 P1RMED ON RECYCLED PAPS? moderate in the surface layer and- subsoil and rapid or very rapid in the substratum. The potential for erosion is slight. 2. HaB-Haven Loam (2% to 6% slopes). These soils are deep, well drained and medium textured and are found on outwash plains and moraines, commonly along shallow, intermittent drainage channels. Slopes are short. They were formed in a loamy or silty mantle .over stratified coarse sand .and gravel. The potential for erosion is moderate to slight. 3. Man -Made Land. Man-made land includes areas that are mostly covered with pieces of concrete, bricks, trash, wire, metal, and other nonsoil material. Some areas are on the surface of the original soil, others are in large holes dug for disposal purposes, and still others are in old gravel • pits converted to this use. Included with this unit in mapping are sanitary landfills that' have been excavated and subsequently filled with trash and garbage. After these areas are filled, they are covered with several feet of soil material. 4. PIA -Plymouth Loamy Sand (0 to 3% slopes). These soils are deep, excessively drained, and coarse textured. They were formed in a mantle of loamy sand over thick layers of stratified coarse sand and gravel. These nearly level soils are found on broad, gently sloping to level outwash plains. The available moisture content is low to very low. Internal drainage is good. Permeability is rapid. The potential for 'erosion is slight. 5. PIB-Plymouth Loamy Sand _(3 to 8% slopes). These soils are deep, excessively drained, and coarse textured. They are found on moraines' and outwash plains. Slopes are undulating, or they are single along the sides of intermittent drainage ways. The potential for erosion is slight. (See. PIA soils for other soil properties.) 6. PIC -Plymouth Loamy Sand (8 to 15% slopes). These soils are deep, excessively drained, and coarse textured. They are moderately sloping and found on moraines and outwash. plains. The potential for erosion is moderate to severe because of slope and the sandy texture of this soil. (See PIA soils for other soil - properties.) 2023M/9 1-11 ,PRVVTED ON RECYCLED PAPER OREGON ROAD Rd®, Ns• Rdc FI C MOA HcA RdA 7. RdC-Riverhead Loamy Sand (8 to 15% slopes). These . soils are deep, well drained, and, moderately coarse textured. They were= formed in a mantle of sandy loam or fine sandy loam over thick layers of coarse sand and gravel. These soils occur in narrow bands on outwash plains along the side slopes of deep intermittent drainage ways. Slopes are short. These soils have moderate to high available moisture capacity, internal drainage is good, and permeability is moderately rapid. The potential for erosion is moderately severe. 1.3 Water Resources The surface and groundwater resources of the Town are described in this Section. Groundwater The entire aquifer system found under Long Island has been designated a sole source of drinking water by :the United States Environmental Protection Agency. under the .Safe_ Drinking Water Act of 1974. The hydrogeologic units and their characteristics underlying the Town are shown in Figure 1.3-1. All of the groundwater utilized in the mainland portion of the Town is obtained from the upper glacial and Magothy aquifers. The glacial Pleistocene deposits are the main source of water in the Town of Southold. The Magothy is the major source of public water supply in the Towns of Suffolk County west of Southold, but the Magothy 'is only available for supply in the. Town west of Mattituck Creek. To the east of Mattituck Inlet this, aquifer approaches the freshwater -saltwater interface and is not usable for potable water purposes due to saline conditions. Fishers Island differs substantially from the "mainland" portions of Southold 'in that large portions of Fishers Island are relatively impermeable. Most of the precipitation that falls on the island 'flows to - one of a number of freshwater "ponds, or directly to the shoreline. Consequently, Fishers Island is the only area on Long Island that utilizes a surface water .supply. The hydrogeologic units underlying Fishers Island are shown in Figure 1.3-2. Two of 'the ponds that receive this surface water, Barlow Pond and Middle Farms Pond, are used as the primary source of the Fishers Island water supply. After the drought of 1985-1986, two small, shallow wells were dug into the glacial aquifer northwest of Middle Farms Pond. One of these was subsequently closed due to high iron content. However, two ' new wells were put into service early in 1990, bringing the total to, three wells that are currently- used to provide backup to the surface .water supply. 2023M/9 1-13 PRMED ON RECYCLED PAPER The water table, on the average, is located. approximately 4 to 6 feet above mean sea level throughout most of the Town. Groundwater elevation data obtained from the SCDHS for, on-site well S-69761, indicated .a water table elevation of 6.00 feet above mean sea level during June of 1.988. Groundwater flow and 1989 water table contours, in the vicinity of the landfill, are shown, in Figure 1.3-3. Groundwater elevations 'are highest near the center of the North Fork and lowest near the shoreline. The, horizontal component to groundwater flow is shown to be generally perpendicular to, the water table elevation contour lines. As indicated on Figure 1.3-3, groundwater flow within the upper glacial aquifer, in' the vicinity of the landfill, is generally in a north -northwesterly' direction. This flow continues in this direction until it reaches the Long Island Sound. The direction of groundwater flow may be. influenced by local well withdrawals and proximity to the North Fork groundwater divide. The locations of the monitoring wells. in . the vicinity of the landfill are shown in Figure 1.3-4. The average hydraulic conductivity of the glacial aquifer is approximately 1,950 gallons per day per square foot (gpd/sf),and transmissivity is approximately 300,000 gpd/ft.. Figure 1.3-5 shows the landfill and immediate vicinity to be located outside of the Special Groundwater Protection Area defined for the Town by -the Long Island Regional Planning Board. In recent years, it has been documented that the North Fork's groundwater supply has been impacted primarily by fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides. The major source of this contamination has been agriculture which has been a major industry on the North Fork for over 200 years. 4 -Between 1980 and 1984, five monitoring wells((S-76687, 71045; 69761, 68916, and 68831) were installed on the landfill site and sampled by SCDHS. Surveillance of these wells continued in 1985 and the most recent sampling was conducted in 1989. The results of this on-site sampling, and other groundwater and' water supply quality monitoring conducted by the SCDHS in the area of the Town's landfill, have shown that groundwater in the vicinity, of the landfill has been impacted primarily by fertilizers and pesticides originating from agricultural activities surrounding the site. These groundwater and water supply quality studies indicate that many wells in the vicinity . of the existing and planned landfill, including private water supply, irrigation/agricultural and 2023M/9 1-14 PRWTEO ON RECYCLED PAPER SOURCE: - r, U °r' U o GAROINERS CLAY •, , b u, u - u o` u c, - • o , „ , ,. 0 0 0 0 o;;u` o` o`' ` u u" c,�.,•..0 u' �, o o�, q; UPPER GLACIAL AQUIFER ' = ') u u o MONMOUTH GREENS, ,o oouti0o0 0 UU0U00'0 ,00 u0u0n Ouo" oou0000ac MAGOTHY AQUIFER '•`j; ,..,• � \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ` RARITAN CLAY 4 : ':0j. . LLOYD AQUIFER BEDROCK NOTE: VERTICAL EXAGGERATION ABOUT X 20. a D: \\\\\\\\ POSITION OP INTERFACE ESTIMATED. • •: o.. \\\\\\ OLK COUNTY. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVIC land Bertkaod TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN GROUNDWATER SECTION +200 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 -1200 -1400 -1600 -1800 -2000 -FIGURE 1`.3-1 "200-, 2 .. SEA 0 LEVEL '200 D -400 O -600 N O Z O -800 " F— m W J U d W =1 -1000 W U O -1200 -1400 -1600 O 2 -1800 . -2000 - r, U °r' U o GAROINERS CLAY •, , b u, u - u o` u c, - • o , „ , ,. 0 0 0 0 o;;u` o` o`' ` u u" c,�.,•..0 u' �, o o�, q; UPPER GLACIAL AQUIFER ' = ') u u o MONMOUTH GREENS, ,o oouti0o0 0 UU0U00'0 ,00 u0u0n Ouo" oou0000ac MAGOTHY AQUIFER '•`j; ,..,• � \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ` RARITAN CLAY 4 : ':0j. . LLOYD AQUIFER BEDROCK NOTE: VERTICAL EXAGGERATION ABOUT X 20. a D: \\\\\\\\ POSITION OP INTERFACE ESTIMATED. • •: o.. \\\\\\ OLK COUNTY. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVIC land Bertkaod TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN GROUNDWATER SECTION +200 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 -1200 -1400 -1600 -1800 -2000 -FIGURE 1`.3-1 2 .. W Q 0 m D p U O U O O Y W Q m W J U d - r, U °r' U o GAROINERS CLAY •, , b u, u - u o` u c, - • o , „ , ,. 0 0 0 0 o;;u` o` o`' ` u u" c,�.,•..0 u' �, o o�, q; UPPER GLACIAL AQUIFER ' = ') u u o MONMOUTH GREENS, ,o oouti0o0 0 UU0U00'0 ,00 u0u0n Ouo" oou0000ac MAGOTHY AQUIFER '•`j; ,..,• � \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ` RARITAN CLAY 4 : ':0j. . LLOYD AQUIFER BEDROCK NOTE: VERTICAL EXAGGERATION ABOUT X 20. a D: \\\\\\\\ POSITION OP INTERFACE ESTIMATED. • •: o.. \\\\\\ OLK COUNTY. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVIC land Bertkaod TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN GROUNDWATER SECTION +200 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 -1200 -1400 -1600 -1800 -2000 -FIGURE 1`.3-1 2 .. Q Q W m = U U O Y W Q W C9 O M U O Q O 2 2 Q � W - r, U °r' U o GAROINERS CLAY •, , b u, u - u o` u c, - • o , „ , ,. 0 0 0 0 o;;u` o` o`' ` u u" c,�.,•..0 u' �, o o�, q; UPPER GLACIAL AQUIFER ' = ') u u o MONMOUTH GREENS, ,o oouti0o0 0 UU0U00'0 ,00 u0u0n Ouo" oou0000ac MAGOTHY AQUIFER '•`j; ,..,• � \\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ` RARITAN CLAY 4 : ':0j. . LLOYD AQUIFER BEDROCK NOTE: VERTICAL EXAGGERATION ABOUT X 20. a D: \\\\\\\\ POSITION OP INTERFACE ESTIMATED. • •: o.. \\\\\\ OLK COUNTY. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVIC land Bertkaod TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN GROUNDWATER SECTION +200 0 -200 -400 -600 -800 -1000 -1200 -1400 -1600 -1800 -2000 -FIGURE 1`.3-1 - - q O Ln. v a . o Fishers Island < OC Ln O N Y '� C C 7 H'Q o E «° Harbor Hill v .J c 200' E-. 0 BLOCK ISLAND Terminal Moraine O 200' SEA Upper glacial aquifer SOUND –a SEA LEVEL 400' M 1200' Magothy aquifer �— Monmouth greensand a4U tier Bedrock LEVEL 400' M 1200' SOURCE: USGS,1974. ATLAS HA -501. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Dvrrke HPDR®GE®L®GIC UNITS UNDERLYING FISHERS ISLAND C) Ba�uca _) �u.�EtC.WENs FIGURE 1.3-2 151 -AND LONG 06,015 50U O 53338 n 047233 / 016780 - 4.0 '0000.' C \ 053326 3 06\\5606 / 4 �I / APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF A� ,oSOUTHOLD LANDFILL SITE 5" 7145 / 053329 053322 "o 3324 U 6560 O 05333g,� odo 053327 .0 333 0 39269 .� 053335 0 6524 -6 '4�1 LITTLE PECONIC BAY -`�- PECONIC. BAY - GREAT. LEGEND APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF GROUND WATER DIVIDE O 71045 OBSERVATION WELL AND WELL NUMBER WATER TABLE CONTOUR LINE INTERVAL (DATUM IS MEAN SEA -LEVEL) APPROXIMATE DIRECTION OF GROUND- WATER FLOW 0 0.5 1 SOURCE: 'SCDHS,MARCH -1989 SCALE'. MILE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN °i ii, . LANDFILL VICINITY WATER TABLE O` and, CONTOUR MAP — 1989 FIGURE 1.3-3 CCNSMTM ENGMIRS ' lob lid/ �•.. 5-63328 •'o \�N, Q Duck POIs c �c�"�'• •; ' •'; \ `�, o �. ` �-- is . p '/ °+.� ` ,, of • I o► • . 8-65606 \'r ' 5-71288 \ �;� s SOUTHOLD �''�fp / LANDFILL S-71287 000, �\ OJ ` S-71285 1284 �p• S-710 ,'S-71283 N • S-88831 � ^••� t+: � ;�. .5-75113 \s-8881`6 , °'.,. S-69781 j{`��� r �•_ _ 71 8-046 0* �` 3-7888? �+ S-71282' `. INFERRED DIRECTION OF \. ���++ °.. �• N. GROUND WATER FLO W <a� 1 1 �,1� •: �. pig° y�4, .000 8-71170./// � 0 •° tis ' �` S-71 171 \ �o� Gc 'eug �CU tiCbOgu2 S a B M g, ,' .�., t' ! Cpm ` \" "'� \, • 5-,63324++ ^' S-712'81 / j'�`-\ i. ai p - �. _ \C ;\/' -85806 71280 5- 8-8542'! 5 ) � S-32390 3-10390 -vc�`:,� �� •�. �'.,'`�. s-7,279.06 S-71278 aG+� / \/ + 'y \ '`' `•� : , �` ' g-71289; o �` \ 7� ` ���� �5-7127( io.S-71277 ( +++ .1� \ v :• lt. `.. utch/oove Z Vii• p - S-53327 \ Iry \ T ~ Amo / y ' i ^ \\` ,�\ �'� .... Ole North Foo S-\71274 `� �1 eM / \ G, �J + _ \' Ip' �j p`•'Covntry Cly /��' ! �� 0 + �` _ - �'�\ 8-71275 a SOURCE: USGS, MATTITUCK HILLS d SOUTHOLD QUADRANGLES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOUTH_ OLD LANDFILL Ar MONITORING WELLS LOCATED -IN eerdlued VICINITY OF LANDFILL CCNSLpL..4G�F SCALE IN FEET 0 1000 2000 FIGURE 1.3-41 SPECIAL GROUND WATER PROTECTION AREA 0 8000 18000 SOURCE: LIRPS,1990 SCALE IN FEET TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT'PLAN SPECIAL GROUNDWATER PROTECTION sek„d AREAS IN THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FIGURE 1.3-5 monitoring wells, have been found to .be contaminated with the insecticide aldicarb. Other wells have been found to'be contaminated by the agricultural chemical fertilizers, _ nitrate and (potassium) chloride, and the insecticide dichloropropane. All of these contaminants are pervasive within the upper glacial aquifer upgradient, below -and downgradient of the Town's landfill., site, and are found in concentrations that, exceed groundwater and drinking water standards. This ,data indicates that the landfill is not the source of this contamination. The only area/well , that appears to be impacted by the landfill, as . defined by leachate indicators such as chloride and manganese, is a shallow well (S-68916) located on the landfill property immediately downgradient of the existing landfill at a depth of 103 feet below ground surface. However, the inorganic chemical results indicate a fairly weak (and limited) leachate plume, and only trace amounts .(<10 ug/1) of nonpesticide organic compounds are occasionally found in concentrations exceeding standards. Based on' this existing information, it appears that .the Town's landfill is not a significant source. of contamination. Another well (S-68831) located adjacent to this shallow well at a depth of 205 feet, and below a clay - layer (apparently the Gardiner's clay), appears to be representative of background water quality conditions that exist at wells located off-site, 1,200 to 2,000 feet downgradient of the landfill, at a depth of 140 feet. Based on this existing information, the Town's landfill does not appear to be a significant source of contamination and does not significantly impact water supply. The average daily pumpage in the Town, by land. use category, is presented in Table 1.3-1. The total groundwater pumpage rate (water demand) is projected to increase by approximately 7.9 percent from 6.3 MGD to -6.8 MGD by the year 2020 (SCDHS; 1987). As part of the North Fork Water Supply Plan, prepared for the Suffolk County Department of Health Services in 1983, a water budget .area -approach was utilized to assess the adequacy of groundwater supply when compared to projected consumptive use rates. The entire Town was found to have. adequate resources for future demand.. The July 1978, Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment "208" Management Plan (208 Plan) defined eight hydrogeologic zones. on Long Island. .These zones are based on hydrogeologic conditions and are used as a basis for land use and waste disposal recommendations. The hydrogeol'ogic zones are defined in Table 1.3-2, and the boundaries of the zones found in the Town, as presented in the 208 Plan; are shown' in Figure 1.3-6. 2023M/9 1-20 PRU1R'ED ON RECYCLED PAPER The entire Town of Southold, with the exception of Fishers Island, lies within Zone IV. It is important to note, that Fishers Island was ,specifically not assigned a 208 hydrogeologic zone. Consequently, the applicability of the Landfill Law is uncertain. the Town has recently indicated to NYSDEC that, Fishers Island should be exempt from provisions of the Long Island Landfill Law, particularly in light of the •following: 1. Fishers Island is not hydrogeologically part of the Long Island aquifer.system. It is. located two miles from Connecticut and twelve miles from the nearest point on the North Fork of Long Island, .which .itself .is remotely connected to . Long Island's aquifer system. In addition, Fishers Island is separated by a. massive water system between the Long Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean that exceeds 200 to 300 feet in depth. 2. 100% of Fishers Island's current -water supply system is from surface water supplies (see NYSDEC Long Island Region Water Resources Management Strategy, March 1988). . 3. The L.I. 208 Plan, which has been assumed by some to be the basis for the 1990 Long Island Landfill Law, specifically did not 'assign Fishers Island a hydrogeologic zone. designation (see 1978 208 Plan Table 3=3, page 46). The Town requested' in May 1990, and. again in July 1990, that- NYSDEC administratively or otherwise, exclude Fishers Island from the strict constraints of the 1990 Landfill Law regarding .landfilling of the waste remaining after reduction/reuse/recycling. The 1990 Long Island Landfill Law prohibits the construction of new sanitary landfills for municipal solid waste disposal inside deep flow recharge areas (Zones I, 11, and III) after December 18, 1983. Landfilling of municipal solid waste at existing facilities is - restricted to the ' lateral limits of the facility and is prohibited from continuing after December 18, 1990. An existing• landfill may be granted an expansion for the disposal of municipal solid waste provided that: (1) the owner of the landfill is a municipality that is implementing a resource recovery system, (2) the resource recovery system will be 2023M/9 1-21 PRWTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Source: Suffolk County Department of Health Services, et al., 1987 Table 1.3-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ,PLAN AVERAGE DAILY PUMPAGE (MGD) BY LAND USE CATEGORY Land Use Year 1980 2000 2020 Residential 2.2 2.7. 3.2 Commercial/Industrial 0.2 0.5 0.8 Agricultural 3.7 3.1 2.6 Institutional 0.1 0.1 .. 0.1 Cemetery/Golf Course 0.1 0.1 0.1 Total Town of Southold 6.3 6.5 6.8 Total Suffolk County 207.6 229.7 244.0 Source: Suffolk County Department of Health Services, et al., 1987 Table 1.3-2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN HYDROGEOLOGIC ZONES Zone Number Type or Location of System Characteristics of System I Central and northern Deep aquifer recharge area: This zone is Nassau and portions of a primary source of public water supply western Suffolk II East central Nassau Deep aquifer recharge area. An area of existing water quality problems. III East central Suffolk Deep aquifer recharge area Exceptionally high water quality with high potential yields. *IV North fork and _Local water quality problems, but eastern south fork potential for groundwater development, particularly on south, fork; significant agricultural input. V Western south fork Local water quality problems, but potential for groundwater development; little agricultural input. VI South central Suffolk Generally shallow groundwater levels, w_ ith horizontal flow, which has impact on surface water. VII Southern Nassau and Generally shallow horizontal groundwater southwestern Suffolk. flows. VIII Most of the area bordering Generally shallow horizontal groundwater Long Island Sound, from flows. Hempstead Harbor to Wading River. * Zones located within the Town of Southold Note: Fishers Island not assigned a zone. Source: Table 5-1, Long Island Waste Treatment (`208') Management Plan, 1978 TOSITYDZO Huntington VUI is °a' - REPRODUCED FROM: L.LRPB, 'Comprehensive Long bk uW Waste M LO and Dvkm Ekwguccl SHELTER ISLAND — ShlntwMak way oco°P M.. I. n .. iagement Plan',197& TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN HYDROGEOLOGIC ZONES 11 FIS ERS ISLAP Block Island Sound FIGURE 1.3-6 J operational on or before December 18, 1990, and (3) no other means of solid waste management is available, taking into account technological, economic, and other essential factors. An existing landfill, landfill 'expansion, or new landfill located outside the deep flow recharge area can accept waste --after December 18, 1990 only if the waste is the product of a resource recovery system, incineration, composting, or 'downtime and untreatable waste. Landfills may accept municipal solid waste other than the type . discussed above after December 18, 1990, only with the approval of NYSDEC. This approval -would be based upon the following provisions:- (1) no resource recovery facility is available to accept such waste, .(2) the landfill owner is making all reasonable efforts to implement a resource recovery system acceptable to NYSDEC, and (3) the landfilling of that material will not have a significant adverse environmental effect. The Long Island Landfill Law conditions its implementation on definitions contained in the 1978 Long. Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Plan) prepared by the Long IslandRegional Planning Board. It should be noted that the 208 Plan did not assign a hydrogeologic zone to Fishers Island. Future landfilling at the existing Town landfill could be carried out in accordance with the 208 Plan: The 208 Plan allows for the expansion and upgrading of existing -landfills, provided that safeguards are assured that will effectively control the production of leachate and impairmentof the groundwater. The 208 Plan also provides for the upgrading of existing landfills to minimize further groundwater, contamination: Surface Waters Although Long Island is surrounded by large. water bodies, there are relatively few surface streams, lakes, and ponds. This is the result of the highly permeable character of the soil and. substratum. - Most water. present in streams and lakes • is the result of groundwater seepage. New York State classifies all navigational water within its boundaries according to the "best use" of the water body. The highest level of classification (Class AA or SA) . refers to the most pristine, while the lowest classification corresponds to the least pristine (Class.D or SD). These classifications- are described -in Table 1.3-3: Table 1.3-4 lists the major surface water bodies found in the Town and their best use classifications under this system. Eastern Long Island , Sound and Gardiners Bay have been classified as 2023M/9 1-25 PRBV7W ON RECYCLED PAPER SA water bodies, while the Peconic Bay is classified as a, lower quality SC water body. The Long, Island Sound, located approximately 5,000 feet to the north, is the closest major surface water body to the Town landfill. The "Brown Tide" organism appeared in high concentrations in the estuary and marine waters of Flanders Bay, Little and Great Peconic Bays, Shelter Island Sound, and Gardiners Bay in 1985. The brown color of the water was caused by high densities of the organism Aureococcus anophagerens, which gave this algal bloom the popularized -name . "Brown Tide". The algal bloom in 1985, and the subsequent years of- 1986 and 1987; devastated the scallop fishery and severely affected the eelgrass habitats of the Peconic .system. The Brown Tide - Comprehensive Assessment and Management Program was initiated to: characterize the water quality of the system; determine, if possible, the causative factors associated with the algal blooms; identify contamination and their* J sources to the waters of the Peconic system; and present a management program to . address the sources of the contaminants. This study is ongoing,but it is clear that the Town's landfill . and solid waste complex is outside of both the groundwater and storm water runoff contributing areas. Therefore,. the landfill and solid waste complex does not contribute to the potential degradation of the Peconic system or the proliferation of the Brown Tide organism. 1.4 Air Resources Meteorological Information The climate of the Town may be characterized as temperate. Air- masses and weather systems generally originate in the humid continental climate of North America and are tempered by -the maritime influences of the Long Island Sound, Peconic Bays, and Atlantic Ocean. _ The result of the proximity of these water bodies is a reduced range in daily and annual temperatures. - Winter temperatures are milder than those of. mainland areas at similar latitudes, while summer temperatures.are cooler. Seasonal temperature extremes occur in January and August. At the Greenport station the average January, temperature for 1989 was 34.5*F, while the average temperature for August 1989 'was 71.9°F. Mean annual temperature, . measured in the Cutchogue region -of the Town, averaged 51 °F over a 54 year period, with the mean annual precipitation measured at the same station calculated to be 45 inches over a 51 year period (Crandell, 1963). 2023M/9 - 1-26 PRRVTW ON RECYaED PAPER Table 1.3-3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN NEW YORK STATE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR MARINE AND FRESH SURFACE WATERS Fresh Surface Waters Marine Waters Classification Best Usage Conditions of Best Usage . Classification Best Usage Class AA. Water supply for drinking Waters will meet Health Department Class SA Shellfishing for market purpose and or food processing standards primary and secondary contact recreation Class A Water supply for drinking Waters will meet Health Department Class SB Primary and secondary contact recreation ,or food processing standards for drinking water with and any other use except for the taking approved treatment of shellfish for market purposes Class B Contact recreation and other --------- Class SC Fishing and other uses except primary uses except water supply - contact recreation or the taking and food processing shellfish for market purposes Class C Fishing and other uses except Class SD All waters not primarily for recreational pur water supply, food processing -------- poses, shellfish culture, or the development' and contact recreation of fishlife and because of natural' or man-made conditions cannot meet the requirements of these uses Class D Secondary contact recreation. Waters must be suitable Class I Secondary contact recreation and any other Waters are not suitable for for fish survival usage except primary contact recreation and propagation of fish shellfishing for market purposes Class N Enjoyment of water in its No waste discharge whatsoever . Class lI All waters not primarily for recreational purposes, ` natural condition for what- permitted without approved filtration shellfish culture or the development of fish life. . ever compatible purposes through 200' of unconsolidated earth TOSLTI Table 1.3-4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN * Water bodies located on Fishers Island Sources: NYSDEC 1988 NYSDEC 1987 2023M/9. 1-28 MAJOR SURFACE WATER BODIES Name Classification Barlow Pond*. A Corey. Creek _ SA Dam Pond SA East Creek SA Gardiners Bay SA Great Pond A Island Pond* D Laurel Lake A Marion Lake SA, SC Mattituck Creek SA . Middle. Farms Pond* A L Richmond Creek SA * Water bodies located on Fishers Island Sources: NYSDEC 1988 NYSDEC 1987 2023M/9. 1-28 Temperature data from the period of 1.951 to 1980, 1988, and 1989 are listed in Table 1.4-1. Table 1.4-2 provides monthly precipitation data for . the same years. Precipitation includes rain, snow, sleet, and freezing rain. -1988 and 1989 data were collected at the Greenport Power ' House. Since. no historical data were available from this station, 1951 to 1980 data were obtained from the Long Island Vegetable Research Farm located in Riverhead. Historical wind data from Montauk, Brookhaven, and Westhampton, have been reviewed to' characterize the principal direction and strength of the ,wind that ,can be expected- throughout the Town. It should be noted that the surrounding waters of the bays and ocean can'affect the direction, strength, and duration of the wind locally as a result of temperature differences between the land and the water. This typically. results in : strong unpredictable winds throughout the region. In general, the winds can be expected to have a strong westerly component. During the fall, winter, and early spring, the wind tends to be more out of the northwest. During the summer, the westerly predominance is modified by weather masses that generate southerly winds so. that overall winds tend to be out of the southwest. Air Qualit The Town, as part of Suffolk County, is in the Metropolitan Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) as designated by the NYSDEC and the United States Environmental .Protection Agency (USEPA). Other areas •included in this Region are New York City, Nassau, Westchester, and Rockland -.Counties. An AQCR is divided into, three categories: attainment, unclassified, or nonattainment. Classification status depends on available air quality data and ambient concentrations of criteria pollutants. An attainment area contains ambient concentrations of .a specified pollutant. that are below the standard for that pollutant. Nonattainment areas. are those regions which have reported, or modeled, ambient concentrations exceeding the standard. An unclassified .area (designated for areas where there is insufficient data to make a determination) is considered equivalent to an attainment area for administrative purposes. It should be noted that the same area can be classified in attainment for one or more criteria pollutants, and nonattainment for others. 2023M/9 1-29 PROYLE•D ON RECYCLED PAPER - Table 1.4-1 'TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURES Month Temperature (*F)* 1951-90 1988** 1989** January 30.9 26.8 34.5 February 31.8 33.3 30.8 March 39.1 38.6 37.2 April 48.9 46.6 46.3 May 59.2 56.9 57.6 .'June 68.1 66.3 67.6 July 73.3 73.8 71.7 August 72.5. 74.4 71.9 September 66A 63.9 66.1 October . 55.9 51.1 55.1 November 45:7 46.6 45.3 December 35.4 34.6 24.2 Average 52.2 51.1 50.7 *Measurements taken at L.I. Vegetable Research Farm (Riverhead) **Measurements taken at Greenport Power House Sources:. NOAH, 1989 NOAA, 1982 Table 1.4-2 TOWN OF SOUT14OLD . SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION Month . Precipitation (inches 1951 - 80* 1988** 1989** January 4.07 3.66 1.73 February 3.63 5.49 3.53 March 4.28 4.95 .4.62 April- 3.74 2.19 5.48 May, 3.53 3.36 6.17 June 2.90 2.67 8.57. July 3.20 3.43 7.41 August - 4.17 2:21 8.08 September 3.60 2.84 4.56 October 3.56 3.77 4.77 November 4.18 7.79 6.11 December 4.46 2.06 1.12 Total 45.32 44.42 62.15 *Measurements taken at L.I. Vegetable Research Farm (Riverhead) **Measurements taken at Greenport Power House Sources: NOAA, 1989. NOAA, 1982' 2023M/9 1-31 PRnvTEo ON RECYCLED PAPER The USEPA has designated seven air pollutants as criteria pollutants for nationwide concern. They are: sulfur . dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone . (03), hydrocarbons, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM -10), and lead (Pb).. These are pollutants for. which a primary and/or secondary National Ambient Air .Quality Standard (NAAQS) has been promulgated as required by the United States Congress in the Clean Air Act of 1970. Using these standards, it is. possible to assess whether the predicted -concentration of these .pollutants will adversely affect public health and welfare. Primary NAAQS .are intended specifically to protect public (i.e., human) health. Secondary NAAQS are set to protect the public welfare, including . a variety of concerns not directly related to human health. These standards, which are listed in Table 1.4-3. are designed to include an adequate margin of safety. NYSDEC has promulgated a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to ensure that these standards are attained and that violations cease. Ambient air quality is monitored by NYSDEC at several stations located throughout Long Island. The stations \ that provide the primary basis for evaluating pollutant concentrations are located in Babylon, Oyster Bay, and Eisenhower Park. In addition, the Long Island Lighting Company maintains six sulphur dioxide monitoring stations. The NYSDEC previously monitored total suspended particulate levels at sites located in Port Jefferson, South Medford, and- Stony Brook, but activity at -these stations has been .discontinued. There are several monitoring sites in Brookhaven. that have measured sulfur dioxide. Measurements at Setauket, Mount Sinai, and Port Jefferson have showed short-term and long-term concentrations well below the ambient air quality standards. The nearest ozone monitoring station is in Babylon. Eisenhower Park is the closest carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead monitoring location. In general, air, quality in the Town is good.. Data from the, monitoring stations located in Babylon and Eisenhower Park indicate that eastern Suffolk County is in compliance with. both Federal and State air quality standards for all pollutants except ozone, which is a regional nonattainment problem. Carbon monoxide levels for Long Island have been in attainment except for an area in the western portion of central Nassau County. Brookhaven sites report sulfur dioxide concentrations to be well below the ambient air quality standards. The USEPA has promulgated a permit program in order to Prevent 2023M/9 1-32 c PRA7E0 ON RECYCLED PAPER r Table 1.4-3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR STANDARDS AND PSD INCREMENTS TOSLTI Corresponding Federal Standards New York Standards PSD Increments Primary Secondary (ug/m3) Averaging Contaminant• Period Conc. Units Statisti& Conc. Units` Stat. Conc. Units Stat. Class I Class II Sulfur - 12 Consecutive Mo. 0.03 ppm A.M. (MEAN) 80 ug/m3 A.M. 2 20 Dioxide (SO) 24 -hr. 0.141 ppm MAX' 365 ugW , MAX° 5 91 3 - hr 0.50` ppm MAX 1300 ug/m3 MAX 25 512 Carbon 8 - hr 9 ppm MAX. 10 mg/m3 MAX 10 mg/m3 MAX Monoxide (CO) 1 - hr 35 ppm MAX 40 mg/m3 MAX. 40 mg/m3 MAX Ozone (Photochemical 1 - hr 0.12f ppm MAX 235 ug/m3 MAX 235 ug/m3 MAX Oxidants) Hydrocarbons 3 - hr 0.24 ppm MAX 160. ug/m3 MAX 160 ug/m3 MAX (Nonmethane) (6 -9 A -M.) Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) 12 Consecutive Mo. 0.05 ppm A.M. 100 ug/m3 MAX 100 ug/m3 AM 2.5 2.5 Total 12 Consecutive Mo. 45-75i . ug/m3 G.M.s 5 19 Suspended 24 - hr. 250' ug/m3 MAX 10 37 Particulates (TSPP Hydrogenh 1- hr 0.01 mg/m3 Sulfide (HS) (14) Beryllium (BE) Month 0.01 ug/m3 MAX TOSLTI Table 1.4-3 (Continued) a. NYS also has standards for Settleable Particulates (Dustfall). b. All maximum values are values not to be exceeded more than once a year (Ozone std. not to be exceeded during more than 1 day per year). c. Gaseous concentrations are corrected to a reference temperature of 25° C and to a reference pressure of 760 millimeters of mercury. d. Also during any 12 consecutive months, 99% of the values shall not exceed .010 ppm (not necessary to address this standard when predicting future concentrations). e. Also during any 12 consecutive months, 99% of the values shall not exceed 0.25 ppm (see above). f. Existing NYS standard for Photochemical Oxidants (Ozone) of 0.08 ppm not yet officially revised via regulatory process to coincide with new Federal standard of 0.12 ppm which is currently being applied to determine compliance status. g. Geometric Mean of 24-hour average concentrations. h. No Federal A.A.Q.S. exists for these pollutants. , i. New Federal Standard'for lead not -yet officially adopted -by NYS but is currently being applied to determine compliance status. j. NYS Standards depend on the level classifications of the local region; level classifications are designated based on the extent of development and type of land use. Source: NYSDEC, 1987 TOSLTI - Corresponding Federal Standards a New York Standards PSD Increments Primary Secondary (ug/m3) Averaging Contaminant` Period -Conc. Units StatistiO Conc. Units° Stat. Conc.. Units Stat. Class I Class II FluorideO. 12 - hr 3.7 ug/m3 MAX 24 - hr 2.85 tig/m3 MAX 1 Week 1.65 ug/m3 MAX , 1 Month .0.8 ug/m3 MAX Lead (MY 3 Consecutive Mo: 1.5 ug/m3 MAX " Particulate 12 Consecutive Mo. 50 ug/m3 A.M. 50 ug/m3 A.M. Matter <10 (PM -10) 24 hour 150 ug/m3 MAX 150 ug/m3 MAX a. NYS also has standards for Settleable Particulates (Dustfall). b. All maximum values are values not to be exceeded more than once a year (Ozone std. not to be exceeded during more than 1 day per year). c. Gaseous concentrations are corrected to a reference temperature of 25° C and to a reference pressure of 760 millimeters of mercury. d. Also during any 12 consecutive months, 99% of the values shall not exceed .010 ppm (not necessary to address this standard when predicting future concentrations). e. Also during any 12 consecutive months, 99% of the values shall not exceed 0.25 ppm (see above). f. Existing NYS standard for Photochemical Oxidants (Ozone) of 0.08 ppm not yet officially revised via regulatory process to coincide with new Federal standard of 0.12 ppm which is currently being applied to determine compliance status. g. Geometric Mean of 24-hour average concentrations. h. No Federal A.A.Q.S. exists for these pollutants. , i. New Federal Standard'for lead not -yet officially adopted -by NYS but is currently being applied to determine compliance status. j. NYS Standards depend on the level classifications of the local region; level classifications are designated based on the extent of development and type of land use. Source: NYSDEC, 1987 TOSLTI Significant Deterioration (PSD) of existing air quality through the useof incremental criterions. These increments define the maximum increase in, pollutant concentration allowable above a baseline level. The program is intended to regulate the specific amount of additional growth in an area to prevent the deterioration of air quality. Sulfur dioxide, total suspended particulates (TSP), and nitrogen dioxide -are the only pollutants specifically regulated by increments. If one of these` pollutants exceeds -an increment,, it may cause the USEPA or NYSDEC to .impose a restriction on growth within the affected area. This does not necessarily indicate an adverse health impact. Refer to Table 1.4-3 for the increments for SO2 and TSP. 1.5 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology The Town possesses diverse ecological resources .including freshwater and tidal wetlands, beaches; bays, estuaries, lakes, and the upland environment. These resources are the result of natural physiology and existing human development patterns that are important for their preservational, social, aesthetic, and recreational value. There are two basic types of wetlands in the Town: freshwater wetlands and tidal wetlands. These, wetlands, which are found in scattered locations throughout the Town of Southold, are important natural features which perform a variety of ecological roles. Freshwater wetlands are defined by NYSDEC as lands which support aquatic or semiaquatic vegetation of the following types: o Wetland trees o Wetland shrubs o Emergent vegetation o Rooted, floating leaved vegetation oFree-floating vegetation o Wet meadow vegetation o Bog mat vegetation o " . Submergent vegetation These areas- are- commonly called marshes, swamps; . sloughs, bogs, and flats. Freshwater wetlands are important resources for a variety of reasons. They provide flood protection, wildlife habitat, protection ' and recharge of groundwater supplies-, recreation; 2023M/9 .1-35 PRMED ON RECYC/ cn PAPER pollution control, erosion control, open space, and are considered aesthetically pleasing. Freshwater wetlands of 12.4 acres or larger, as well as smaller wetlands of special importance, are protected by the State pursuant to Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law. Freshwater wetlands are found scattered, throughout the Town. Wetlands. found in Plum and Fishers Islands are located in the following areas: o Two areas in the western portion of Plum Island near the harbor. oOn Fishers Island, three interconnected areas south of Peninsula Avenue, and west of Isabella Beach; areas within and in proximity to Barlow Pond, Middle . J Farms Pond, and Treasure Pond; as well as an area in the eastern end of the island near southern portions of the golf course. f Freshwater wetlands found in the. vicinity of the landfill are indicated on Figure . 1.5-1. The nearest freshwater wetland is located in Cutchogue, and is approximately 4,000 , feet to the southeast of the landfill. This wetland is currently classified . by NYSDEC as number SO -56. It should be noted that these wetlands were sourced from a preliminary NYSDEC freshwater wetland map that is subject to revision, but. represents the most up-to-date (5/29/90) classifications available. Tidal .wetlands are defined by NYSDEC as- areas comprised of the following classifications 'of land: o Coastal fresh marsh o Intertidal marsh o Coastal shoals, bars, and flats o Littoral zone . o High marsh or salt meadow o Formally connected tidal wetlands Tidal wetlands located on Fishers Island can be found in the followinglocations: o On Fishers Island, wetlands are primarily located in marsh areas located near Hay Harbor and West Harbor, particularly in the peninsula areas where both intertidal and high marsh or salt meadow areas are found. 2023Mi9 1-36 t PRQV rED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1I 9(Lq • EUGENE tis ' C/JTCH0kJE S TA. RD, F 0 • P �O • FAOT • SO- 57 25 EAST CREEK ��O • C7JTCHOWE i o�:• CUTCHOGUE y�4 Ln •�• � � CREEK ' i 25 •• So - MH -5. 0 1000 2000 SOURCE: NYSDEC PRELIMINARY FRESHWATER WETLAND MAPS, 5/29/90 SCALE IN FEET TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN arid FRESHWATER WETLAND MAP O Bw FIGURE 1.5-1 Tidal wetlands found in the vicinity of the landfill are shown on Figure 1.5-2. The nearest tidal wetland is located approximately 7,000 feet to the southeast of the landfill, and is near the northern tip of East Creek. There are no floodplains on or within 1,000 feet of the Town's landfill. There are several small farm ponds in the general vicinity, but there are no major, surface water bodies in close proximity to the site. The nearest major surface water body is the Long Island Sound which is approximately 5,000 feet to the northwest of the landfill.. The major vegetative communities found in the Town consist of the following: o Beach and Sand Dune o Low Salt Marsh o High Salt Marsh o Traditional Shrub o Upland Forest o Urban and Suburban The Town contains beaches and dunes on both the Long Island Sound and Peconic Bay. Vegetation in the beach environment is limited, with only a few, tufts of beach grass found along the higher elevations. The dune areas support more vegetation, but plant growth is still limited by shifting sand and occasional tidal floods. The dominant plant in the dune system is beach grass, which has an, extensive root system that makes it important to the growth and stabilization of dunes. Other plants common to the dune, system include beach pea, beach plum, sea rocket, and goldenrod. Fauna found here include sea gulls, terns,, various song birds, rabbits, and mice. The bluffs overlooking the Long Island Sound have been recommended for protection by both local and State agencies. The low marsh areas of the tidal wetlands are subject to daily tidal flooding, and the dominant plant is spartina alterniflora. The high marsh, which receives less frequent tidal flooding, is dominated by spartina patens and juncus gerardi. The transitional shrub community that lies between marsh areas and the upland environment contains a variety of plant species. In the lower reaches of this zone, which may be subject to an occasional storm tide, common plants include marsh elder and a variety of grasses. In the higher reaches of this zone, common plants include groundsel bush, bayberry, and other shrubs. 2023M/9 1-38 PRQV7W ON RECYC[FD PAPER The Flanders -Bay - Peconic Bay estuary is another important ecosystem found in..the Town. The Peconic River and groundwater seepage provide the major freshwater input. The Peconic System has historically supported a major bay scallop fishery and is usually considered the most important spawning and nursery area. on Long • Island for "summer" fish species. Eutrophication ' and the appearance of the "brown tide". organism, a previously unidentified specie of algae, have affected catches of scallops in the past. Recently, the concentration of the Brown Tide organism has decreased. The upland forests, also known as the Long Island .Hardwood Forest, are found on steep. slopes -near the north shore. This ecosystem is characterized by a variety of deciduous trees and numerous woodland plant and animal species. Soils tend to be moist and fertile. There are no extensive forests in Southold, but the 'many scattered forest areas throughout the Town are important to groundwater recharge and are useful' as windbreaks to. reduce soil erosion. The urban and suburban community, consists of -the developed areas of the Town. These areas range from highly developed urban areas with little natural habitat or wildlife, to rural development areas where native vegetative species and wildlife . may abound. Intermediate suburban areas can be characterized by numerous ornamental or horticultural species with some native flora. Large amounts of fertilizer and pesticide use is also typical. Fauna in highly developed areas may be limited to pets and human tolerant species. The different vegetation types occurring in the.. Town support a variety of mammals. Among the most common are the eastern cottontail and the raccoon, both of which are found in a. variety of habitats, including woods, wetlands, and dunes. Gray squirrels are also common, though they are found primarily in areas with deciduous trees. The red fox is fairly abundant, living primarily in woods, shrubs, and dune areas. White-tailed , deer are - common in those areas of the Town - where there is sufficient vegetation for cover. Other mammals in the Town include moles, opposum, shrews, mice, and bats. There are a number of mammals which were common in Southold in the early part of the century, but which have become rare in recent decades. These include the woodchuck, muskrat, mink, and striped -skunk. The Town supports a rich variety of bird life, including both nesting and migratory species (the Town is located within the Atlantic Flyway, a major , eastern 2023M/9 1-39 PIMMO ON RECYC EO PAPER of SOU7HOLD VA AME -11 I CUrCHOGUE 5 7A. CU 7-CHOWE '61 23 0 1000 2000 'N SOURCE:NASSAU SUFFOLK REGIONAL P SCALE IN FEET 0 PLANNING BOARD, 1972 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN MARINE WIFTLAND LOCATIONS LMFKB' and BarMucd c c"sU MG ENDPRElm HAYWA7FR 02EE -CUTCHOGUE HARBOR FIGURE 1.5-21 migration route).' Species" of -birds known to exist in the Town include shorebirds, wading birds, raptors, waterfowl, and perching birds. Birds which often breed in the Town, and especially in the Orient area (see NYSDEC list of significant habitats later in this, Section for other nesting areas). during the- late spring and -summer include herons (yellow crowned and black crowned night herons), great and snowy egrets, osprey, glossy ibises, --rails (clapper), gulls, terns (roseate, least and common) -and piping plovers. Nonbreeding birds which may be sighted during the summer include double, -crested ' cormorants, oldsquaws, and white winged scoters. A large number and variety of birds are present in the7 Town during the winter, especially in Orient Beach State Park, Cedar Beach, Nassau Point, Robins Island, and . Fishers Island. Species present include loons, grebes,. cormorants, swans, mallards, black ducks, scoters, and mergansers, along with some hawks (sharp -shinned, red-tailed, and rough -legged), kestrels, and merlins. Other birds common at this time of year. include gulls (great black backed, ring -billed, herring, and Bonaparte's) and owls (barn, screech, great horned, and short eared). The NYSDEC lists species of wildlife that are endangered, threatened, and of special concern in New York State (many of these species are found in the areas of significant habitats discussed below). Of those native. species considered "endangered" (i.e., in danger of extirpation or extinction in New York), the tiger salamander, least tern, and roseate tern can be found in Southold. Of those native species considered "threatened'.' (i.e., likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future in New York), osprey, northern harrier, piping plover, and common tern may be ' found . in portions of the Town. The NYSDEC lists a third category of "special concernspecies which .are not yet considered endangered or threatened, but for which documented concern exists. The species found in Southold placed in this category include: spotted salamander, spotted turtle,. diamondback terrapin, eastern hognose snake, least bittern, upland sandpiper, common -barn owl,, short eared owl, common night hawk, eastern bluebird, grasshopper sparrow, and vesper sparrow. The NYSDEC has indicated that. -there- are several areas of the Town on their preliminary list of Significant Wildlife Habitats. These include Robins Island, a section of Southold near the mouths of Town Creek and Jockey Creek, Conkling Point, Hallocks Bay 2023M/9 1-41 PR V D ON RECYCLED PAPER and Orient Point Marshes, sections of Fishers Island and small nearby islands,. Plum Island, and Great Gull and Little Gull Islands. The following wildlife; primarily bird life, are included in. NYSDEC lists for each habitat: o Robins Island: -black crowned night heron colony -snowy egret breeding area -yellow crowned night herons breeding area =common and roseate -terns breeding colony, -osprey breeding colony o Southold (Town and Jockey Creeks): -common tern nesting colony -roseate tern nesting colony -black skimmer'nesting colony o Conkling Point: -least tern nesting colony o Halloeks Bay and Orient Point Marshes: -osprey breeding colony -sharp-tailed and seaside sparrows nesting area -clapper rails nesting area --diamond backed terrapin -brant o Fishers Island: common terns nesting "colony -herring gulls nesting colony -least tern nesting colony -herring gulls nesting colony -great black backed gull nesting colony . 2023M/9 1-42 PRBVTW ON RECYCL W PAPER o Plum Island - nesting colonies for: -snowy egret -herring gull -black. crowned night heron -great black backed gull -great egret -osprey -little blue heron -green heron -louisiana heron -least bittern -glossy ibis -mallard -spotted turtle -wood duck -box turtle. -green-winged teal -musk turtle -canada goose -snapping turtle -red-tailed hawk -painted turtle -rough-legged hawk -red backed salamander -broad winged hawk -spotted salamander -marsh hawk (harrier) -black duck -muskrat -gadewall o Great Gull and Little Gull Islands: -roseate tern nesting colony -common tern nesting colony 1.6 Transportation The Town contains a number of State, -County, and Town roadways (see Figure 1.6-1). The Long Island Railroad's main line traverses the center of the• Town and reaches, its eastern terminus at Greenport. There are three important roadways in the Town that .run predominantly in an east -west direction: Sound Avenue, a Town roadway, located near the north shore; Main Road (N.YS25), which runs through the southern. portion of Town from its western border to Orient Point; and Middle •Road (CR27), located in the approximate center of Town. 2023M/9 1-43 PRM7W ON RECYCLED PAPER A number of County and Town roadways. run in a predominantly north -south direction. These roadways include: o Main Street o Peconic Lane o ' Depot Lane oMill Lane o Aldrich Lane The Town landfill pis located north of Middle Road along the western side of Cox Lane. It is south of Oregon 'Road and east of -Depot Lane. As such, the landfill is located roughly to the west of the center of the Town. Mattituck Airport, a privately operated facility for small propeller aircraft, is located approximately 2-1/2 miles from thelown landfill. This exceeds .the 5,000 foot NYSDEC buffer zone required for airports of this type. It also exceeds the 10,000 foot buffer required for airports that accommodate jet aircraft. The Long Island Railroad operates a line that transverses the Town until its eastern terminus at Greenport. Stations are located at Matti tuck, Cutchogue, Peconic, Southold, and Greenport. Ferry service exists from Greenport to the Town .of Shelter Island, as well as from Orient to New London. Although Fishers Island is located in the Town, ' access to the island is solely through the ferry service from New London, Connecticut. The' Fishers island Ferry District schedules ferry service - to connect with. advertised arrivals and departures of certain Amtrack trains. Typically,' separate seasonal. and holiday schedules are maintained. On the. average, five round -trips are scheduled daily on Saturdays and Monday through Thursday, seven round -trips on Fridays, and six round -trips .on Sundays. Increased scheduling applies for most holidays. The trip from Orient Point to New London is approximately one and a half hours, while the trip from New London to Fishers, -Wand is approximately 45 minutes. 1.7 Land Use and Zoning. The Town comprises 5.3% of Suffolk County's land area and 1.5% of the County's .1989 estimated population (LILCO, 1989). The. population of the Town increased 29.7%, from 16,804 to 21,798, between 1970 and 1989. 2023M/9 1-44 PRPnW ON RECYCLED PAPFR FERRY FERRY TO NEW , TO NEW LONDON, LONDON, NN T/C T \qr�, CONNECT/CUi L/TYLE GULL RS - / ISLAND T / GREAT GULL 25 \ /BLAND FERRY .TO NEW 000 LONDON, CONNECT/CUT • AND PLUM /BLAND �/ .. 6AR0/NERS ••• : BAY OONO P .'* • `w3 ••••• FERRY TO PNp �(ii•• 2 SHELTER ISLAND S� �No 1so •. . moo. •�• �� �O• c 9q�Oc� . •'.y,ew ` GOO �•}' ••• f7 81 It • zV •• LK_ • AV. m i i o GREA7' PECON/C BAY DVMW o)- `� 1410 4112 1b) IL /c ra PECON/C BAY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ROUTES FIGURE 1.6-1 Existing land use in 1981 in the Town, compared with Suffolk County, is presented in Table 1.7-1. Table � 1.7-2 provides definitions of land use classifications. The. largest single land use category in the Town is vacant land (410.1%). The second largest land use is agricultural (25.1%). Residential (14.0%), commercial (2.9%), and industrial (0.4%) land uses. account for a total of 17.3%. Agricultural land use in the Town has historically been one of the dominant components of the Town's economy. Approximately 10,000 acres in the Town are used for agriculture. Although the decrease in the amount of land used for agriculture has been relatively small, the nature of ' agriculture in ' the Town •(and in the County as a whole) has been changing at a greater rate. Recent years have shown a decrease in the acreage dedicated to potato, crops, with increases in vegetable crops (particularly,. crucifers), nurseries, horse farms; and vineyards. These' changes have occurred largelyin response to changing. markets, rising production costs, and declining prices of certain crops. Approximately one half of the Town's farmland ' is used to grow potatoes.- Other significant crops include vegetables .such as: cauliflower, cabbage, sweet corn, peppers, cucumbers, spinach, tomatoes, squash, pumpkins, onions, lettuce, and melons. In addition; substantial acreage is also used to grow sod, nursery stock, and fruit. Land use projections for the years 2000 and 2020 are presented in Table 1.7-3. The percent change in land use categories from •1981 to the projection year has, been provided. A large increase in residential and industrial land is expected. Substantial increases in commercial and .recreational land uses are also indicated. •Large .decreases are expected in the vacant land category. ; Zoning in the Town is used to encourage the most appropriate use of land. The Town has been divided into the following use districts: . o Agricultural - Conservation District o Residential. Law - Density District (two acre minimum) . o Residential Law - Density District (one acre minimum) o Residential Law - Density District (three acre minimum) o Residential Law - Density District (five acre minimum), o Residential Law - Density District (ten acre minimum) o Hamlet Density Residential District 2023M/9- 1-46 MWED ON RECMED PAPER Source: Long Island Regional. Planning Board, 1982. 2023M/9 1-47 PRB17ED ON RECYCLM PAPER Table 1.7-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY OF 1981 LAND USE, Southold Suffolk County - Acres % Low Density Residential 1,092 .- 4.0 30,601 5.4 Medium Density Residential. 2;754 10.0 87,034 15.4 Intermediate Density Residential 0 0 17,394 3.1 High Density Residential 0 0 4.843 ... 0.9 Total Residential 3,846 14.0 139,872 24.7 Commercial 548 2.0 12,752 2.3 Marine Commercial 246 0.9 872 0.2 Total Commercial 794 2.9 13,624 2.4 Industrial 100 0.4 10,647 1.9 Transportation/Utility/ Communication 1,167 4.2 45,024 7.9 Institutional 1,238 `4.5 31.,357 5.5 Recreational 2,419 8.8 83,499 14.7 - Agricultural 6,896 25.1 59,903 10.6 Vacant 11.013 40.1 182.544 32.2 Total 22,833 83.1 , 402,327 72.8 Total Acreage' 27,474 100.0 566,466 100.0 Source: Long Island Regional. Planning Board, 1982. 2023M/9 1-47 PRB17ED ON RECYCLM PAPER I Table 1.7-2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 'SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT _ PLAN LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Table,of Definitions Term Definition Residential Low Density 4 Dwelling Unit (DU) or less per acre Medium Density 2 to 4 DU/acre Intermediate Density 5 to 10 DU/acre High Density 11 or more DU/acre Commercial Retail stores, personal service shops,. banks, offices, hotels/motels, service stations, and recreational 'uses such as movie theatres and bowling alleys. Marine Commercial Boat yards and marinas, sales and services, fishery services and boat storage. Industrial Manufacturing, warehousing, wholesale distribution, salvage and junkyards, coal and oil bulk station, municipal incinerators, LILCO. generating- stations and mining. Transportation, Utility, Water, district installations, LILCO transmission : and Communications . _ stations and right—of—ways,.' publicly owned sewage treatment facilities, railroads, airports, bus depots, truck and taxi- terminals, expressways, major highways and parking areas. Institutional Schools, colleges; universities, municipal buildings, courts, hospitals, post 'offices, Indian reservations, fire. stations, churches, nursing and rest homes, and fraternal organizations. Recreation Beaches, pools, golf courses, conservation and wildlife areas, arboretums, cemeteries, public marinas and boat ramps, parks, playgrounds, scout camps, beach clubs, golf clubs, gun clubs, parkways and all nonprofit recreation. Vacant Land not in. use including unused land around large residences and tidal land. Ref: LIRPB Land Use 1981 - Quantification and Analysis of .Land Use for Nassau and Suffolk Counties,_ December 1982. . 2023M/9 1-48 PRfff= 0/v RECMED PAP&T i Table 1.7-3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN LAND USE PROJECTIONS Notes: T/U/C = Transportation, Utility,. Communication Sources: Long Island. Regional Planning Board Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services et. al., 1987 2023M/9 1-49 PRDV7ED ON RECYCL M PAPER Year 2000 2020 Approximate., % Change Approximate _ % Change Land Use Acres from 1981 Acres from 1981 Residential 5,000 +30.0 11 6,500 i +69.0 Commercial 900 +13.4 1,050 +32.2 Industrial 125 +25.0 .: 150 +50.0 T/U/C 1,200 + 2.8 1,200 + 2.8 Institutional 1,300 + 5.0 1,300 + 2.8 Recreational 2,900 +19.8 3,000 +24.0 Agricultural 9,000 + 30.5 7,500 + 8.7 Vacant 7,075 ' —55.7 .61'800 — 62.0 Notes: T/U/C = Transportation, Utility,. Communication Sources: Long Island. Regional Planning Board Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services et. al., 1987 2023M/9 1-49 PRDV7ED ON RECYCL M PAPER o Affordable Housing District o Resort Residential District o Residential Office District o Hamlet Business District o Limited Business District o General Business District o Marine I District o Marine II District o Light. Industrial Park/Planned Office Park District o Light Industrial District The landfill is located in an agricultural -industrial zoned area, with '.the existing zoning designated as LI (Light and Industrial). Directly adjacent to the northern, eastern, and southern boundaries of the landfill is LI zoned land, while LIO (Light Industrial/Office Park) zoned land is located adjacent to the western boundary. Further to the north, south, east and west of the landfill is A -C (Agricultural Conservation) zoned land. Figure 1.7-1 illustrates the current zoning at the landfill and surrounding areas. 1.8 Community Facilities are: The community services and facilities within the Town are presented in this Section. There are seven public school districts currently serving the Town. These districts o Fishers Island o Greenport o Laurel o Mattituck-Cutchogue o New Suffolk o Oyster Ponds o Southold The Town contains a wide variety of recreational resources. State, County, and Town Parks are found in the Town. Table 1.8-1 provides a list of parks and recreation resources.. 2023M/9 - 1-50 PRff17W ON RECYC/ FD PAPER Table 1.8-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN PARKS AND RECREATION RESOURCES Name Trumans Beach Orient Beach Goldsmith Inlet County Park Peconic Dunes County Park Cedar Beach County Parkland Klipp Marine Park Sound Road Beach Stirling Basin Launch Ramp Inlet Point Pond Park Goose Creek Beach Hashomomack Beach Horton Lane Beach Kenny's Road Beach Nassau Point Community Beach Fleet Neck Beach New Suffolk Town Beach Pequash Avenue Park Breakwater Park Aldrich Lane Park Bay Avenue Park Marratooka Lake Park Mattituck Park District Beach Veterans Memorial Park Wolf 'Pit Lake Sources: Office of the County Executive, 1988 1982 Hagstrom Map Company, Inc. 2023M/9 1-51 Location Orient Orient Peconic Peconic Cedar Beach Greenport Greenport Greenport Greenport Southold Southold Southold Southold Cutchogue Cutchogue New Suffolk New Suffolk Mattituck Mattituck Mattituck Mattituck Mattituck Mattituck Mattituck PRffv7W ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 A -C.. A -CI LEC3END - -- A-C AGRICULTURAL CONSERVATION R-40 RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY AA R -t!0 RESIDENTIAL 10W. DENSITY A R R RESORT/RESIDENTIAL LB LIMITED BUSINESS L 10 1 LIGHT' INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE PARK SCALE IN FEET LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL S00 0 S00 1600 SOURCE:TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ZONING MAP,1889 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN � ZONING MAP QMrtM+.°d. FIGURE 1.7-1 With the exception of Greenport Village, the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) provides electric and natural gas service to the Town. Electricity to Greenport Village is supplied by the Greenport Village municipal water and utilities system. Propane gas for cooking purposes is used by some of the homes within the Town and is , supplied by private companies. Oil provided by private companies is used for heating by some homes and businesses. Local telephone service is provided by the. New York Telephone Company, whereas long distance telephone services are selected on an individual basis from private telephone service companies. Public water supply .is provided to the Town through the Greenport Water. District in, addition to some private water supply companies. Water is supplied to Fishers Island by the Fishers Island water works. Water is supplied- to Greenport Village by 'the Greenport Village municipal water and utilities system. The major health care facility in the Town is Eastern Long Island Hospital in Greenport. Volunteer fire departments that provide fire protection in the Town include: o Cutchogue Fire Department o East Marion Fire Department o Fishers Island Fire Department o Greenport Fire Department o Mattituck Fire Department o Orient Fire Department o Southold Fire Department The Town maintains its own police force. This service supplants, in most instances,. the police services of Suffolk County. 1.9 • Demography Demographic data are. useful in the planning and implementation of solid waste management plans. Tables 1.9-1 and 1.9-2 present data obtained from the Long Island Regional Planning Board and the Long Island Lighting Company. Table 1.9-1 includes population calculations for the individual communities in the Town, as well as Suffolk and Nassau Counties. Table 1.9-2 includes projections for the Town, as well as Nassau and Suffolk Counties. The 1980 Census reported a population of 19,172 -in - the Town. LILCO estimates the present population (1/1/90) in the Town to be 21,858. The population in the Town has been growing steadily, increasing 167% from 8,301 at the turn of the century, to the' -present population of 21,858 (1990 estimate). It has been estimated by the Town that approximately 39% of the Town's current population are 2023M/9 1-53 PRQYTW ON RECYCLED PAPER Table 1.9-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN POPULATION BY COMMUNITY - Census Designated. Census Census % Change Estimate Estimate Places 4/1/70 4/1/80 1970-1980 1/1/89 1/1/90 Cutchogue- New Suffolk .2,718 2,788 +2.6 3,036 3,082 East Marion -Orient 11240 1,511 +2.2 1,671 1,695 Fishers Island 462 318 -3.1 309 300 Greenport, Uninc. 1,682 1,571 --6.6 1,871 1,900 Greenport, Inc. 2,481 2,273 -8.4 2,504 2,462 Laurel 598 962 +60.9 1,121 1,128 = Mattituck 3,039 3,923 +29.1 4,438 4,442 Peconic 835 1,056 +26.5 1,291 . 1,309 Southold 3.749 4.770 +27.2 .5.457 5.540 Total Town of Southold l 16,804 19,172 +14.1 21,698 21,858 Total Suffolk County 1,127,030 1,284,231 +13.9 1,389,145 1.,395,944 Total Nassau- assauCounty County 1,428,838. 1,321,582 -7.5 1,328,948 1,329,673 Bi -County Total 2,555,868 2,605,813. +2.0 2,718,093 2,725,617 - 2023M/9 1-54 PANNED ON RECYCLED PAPER Source: LIRPB, May 1987. 2023M/9 1-55 Bi -County 2,736,500 : 2,807,050 2,863,750 .2,899,250 2,923,500 PRQYTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Table 1.9-2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN PROJECTED POPULATIONS Year Southold. Suffolk County Nassau County 1990 22,450 1,403,000 1,333,500 1995 23,450 1,468,000 1,339,050 2000 24,100 1,527,450 1,336,300 2005. 25,100 1,574,250. 1,325;000 2010 26,100 1,614,650 1,308,850 Source: LIRPB, May 1987. 2023M/9 1-55 Bi -County 2,736,500 : 2,807,050 2,863,750 .2,899,250 2,923,500 PRQYTED ON RECYCLED PAPER senior citizens. Population projections anticipate that the Town's population will continue to grow through the year 2010. Despite this trend, average household size in the Town has actually decreased slightly between 1980 and) 1990 from 2.54 persons per household to 2.49, respectively. An increase in the number of year—round households in the Town from 7,461 to 8,673, over the same period, reflects this population growth and decrease in . average household size. 1 A 0 Cultural, Archaeological, and Historical Resources The Town of Southold, officially established in 1640, is considered the first _English settlement in the State of New York. Although originally part of the New Haven Colony, Southold ceased its affiliation with Connecticut in 1676. The Town is rich in historic and archaeological resources. Historic resources include buildings, monuments, cemeteries, and other, landmarks. Archaeological resources include Indian encampments, burial grounds, and evidence of colonial settlement activity. Historic homes, - structures, and districts. of significance are catalogued by .the Federal government and listed in the National Register of Historic Places published by the U.S. Department of the Interior National -Park Service. The following historic resources located in the Town are on the National Register: o. Old House (Cutchogue) o Richard Cox House (Mattituck)' o. Fort Cutchogue Site (Cutchogue) o Greenport Village Historical District o Greenport Railroad Station o Gildersleeve Octagonal Building o Orient Historic District (Mattituck) o Terry—Mulford House (Orient) -o David. Tuthill Farmstead (Cutchogue) o James Austin. Homestead (Flanders) All of these locations have been identified to be outside of a one mile radius of 'the Town's landfill. State and local governments list historic resources on the Building Structure Inventory published by the New York- State Office. of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation. - All historic resources on the National Register are included on the Building Structure Inventory. In addition, some Indian encampments/archaeological sites are found close to the Bay and Sound. 2023M/9 1-56 PiRMMO ON RECYCLED PAPER 1.11 Noise Noise levels are 'site specific; however, some general statements can be made concerning noise generation and noise impacts based on such factors -as land use, Population concentrations, and development. In general, .noise impacts are related to the difference between ambient noise levels and the noise .levels generated by the subject project. For example, 6 NYCRR Part 360 establishes- specific noise level limits, but states that if background ,noise levels. exceed the regulated limits the facility may operate at an equivalent ambient Leq noise level. Ambient noise levels increase as populations become more concentrated. Urban', areas tend to have higher noise levels than suburban and rural areas. .The higher levels can. be attributed to increased activity and area traffic. The amount of development within an. area also effects noise levels. Buildings will reflect noise whereas trees will absorb it. There are both developed and undeveloped areas in the Town that. are exhibiting a trend from agricultural uses to residential. . Perception of changes in noise levels, .as well as the response to perceived changes in noise levels, varies with the individual., To provide some perspective, Figure 1.1.1-1 gives typical A -weighted sound pressure levels of various common sounds along with their appropriate responses. Generally, changes in noise levels of less than 3 dB(A) will be barely perceptible, while noise appears to double, or be cut in half, if the variation is about 10 dB(A). Ina study prepared for the Federal Highway Administration, changes in noise levels were quantified by human perception of. these changes. Table 1.11-1 presents these findings. While noise levels vary throughout the Town, some key sources of noise in the Town, that can be used as reference points, include: o Jet flyover at 1,000 ft. - 105 db o Garbage truck - 100 db o Diesel truck at 50 ft. - 90 db o Freight train at 50 ft. -.75 db y The noise levelsare presented above to characterize a portion of the dominate existing noise generators in ' the Town. Because noise levels are site specific, measurement of ambient noise levels, projections of project noise levels, and evaluation of noise impacts would be performed as part of any site and/or technology specific EIS or environmental assessment'. 2023M/9 1-57 PR/MW ONRECYCLM PAPER Table 1.11-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN PERCEPTION OF NOISE CHANGES c Average Ability to Perceive Changes in Noise Levels Change dB (A) Human Perception of Change 2-3 Barely perceptible 5 Readily noticeable 10 A doubling or halving of the loudness of sound 20 A "dramatic change" 40 Difference between a faintly audible sound and a very loud sound Ref: Bolt Beranek and Neuman, Inc., Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Report No. PB -222-703. Prepared for Federal Highway Administration, June 1973. Tospr i �1 COMMON OUTDOOR LEVE -'S INDOOR LEVELS NOISE LEVEL (db) RESPONSE W Carrier Deck, Jet o Operations 1440-- Co 40 CONVERSATION RELATIONSHIPS Commercial Area Normal Speech, 3 Ft. 65 Air Conditioner, 20 Ft 60 m rn Intrusive 135 PcInfull\ Loud Normal Conversation 0 Large Business Office' 55 12 Ft ,Quiet Urflon.Dayl!me Dishwasher, Next Room 50 Quiet ' 130 Limit Amplified 45 Speech Quiet Urban Nighttime Small Theatre 40 125 Jet Takeoff, 200 Ft. Discotheque 1.20 Maximum Vocal Effort a c Library Auto Horn, 3 Ft. 35 Bedroom at Night m Very Quiet Quiet Rural Nighttime 115 25 20-- Rock Band Soft Whisper 15 Ft. 110 10 E Riveting Machine 5 Jet Flyover, 1000 Ft105 Threshold of Hearing Source USEPA, Noise Pollution: .Now Hear This, 1974 reprint Shouting In Ear Town of Southold Solid Jet Takeoff, 20DO Ft. Management Plan Very Annoying NOISE z a e Garbage Truck 9 100 Hearing Damage a o Gas Lawn Mower, 3 Ft. N.Y.C. Subway Bartilucd[db FIGURE 1.11-1 aoHsu*rc P Grp% 95 Shouting, 2 Ft o Pneumatic Drill, 50 Ft Food Blender, 3 Ft 90 8 Hours - Annoying Diesel Truck, 50 Ft Very Loud v 85 Conversation, 2 Ft- tNoisy NoisyUrban Daytime Garbage Disposal, 3 Ft 80 Loud Conversation 2 Ft Freight Train, 50 Ft. Shouting, 3 Ft. 75 Vacuum 10 Ft %I Gas Lawn Mower, 100 Ft Cleaner, 70 Telephone Use Difficult Loud 'Convereation Freeway -Traffic, 50 Ft. 4 Ft Commercial Area Normal Speech, 3 Ft. 65 Air Conditioner, 20 Ft 60 Intrusive Normal Conversation Large Business Office' 55 12 Ft ,Quiet Urflon.Dayl!me Dishwasher, Next Room 50 Quiet ' Light Auto Traffic, 100 Ft. 45 Quiet Urban Nighttime Small Theatre 40 (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime Library 35 Bedroom at Night 30 Very Quiet Quiet Rural Nighttime Concert Hall (background) 25 20-- 15 Soft Whisper 15 Ft. 10 Just Audible 5 Threshold of Hearing Source USEPA, Noise Pollution: .Now Hear This, 1974 reprint Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan COMMON NOISE LEVELS Dvirka and Bartilucd[db FIGURE 1.11-1 aoHsu*rc P Grp% Section 2 2.0 EXISTING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL PRACTICES This Section describes the existing solid waste management practices and the status of solid waste facilities in the Town. All solid waste management. facilities are required to obtain permits in accordance with NYSDEC regulations found in 6NYCRR Part 360, which became effective December •31, • 1988. These regulations are discussed briefly in 'Section 2.4 to present an overview of the .requirements for possible future solid waste facilities. 2.1 Solid Waste Management Facilities Current Practices 2.1.1 Existing Facilities The Town currently owns and operates a municipal solid waste landfill- on Middle Road (CR 48), that receives virtually all of the, municipal solid waste generated and disposed of - in the Town. This includes -municipal solid waste from residential, commercial, institutional, agricultural, and 'industrial sources. In addition,. Fishers Island currently manages its waste through five operations on the Island. Table 2.1.1-1- presents an inventory of the equipment currently maintained at the landfill complex in Cutchogue. The locations of solid waste facilities/operations' in the Town are shown on Figure 2.1.1-1. The Town's existing landfill is comprised of a number of areas that accommodate the various operations of the landfill complex. These areas include: o Weighing station o Collection center o Voluntary recycling center o Bi -level drop-off station for bulk deliveries of recyclables o Permanent household hazardous waste containment facility o Waste oil storage o Small scale yard waste composting area - 2022M/10 2-1 o White goods (household appliances) stockpile area o Tire stockpile. area o Land clearing debris areas o C&D debris areas o MSW areas o Landfilling area o Borrow/mining area 'o Perimeter fencing/natural buffer zone MWV7W ON RECYCLED PAPER I 2.0 . EXISTING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL PRACTICES This.Section describes. the existing solid waste management practices and the status of solid waste facilities. -in the Town. All solid waste. management facilities, are required 'to obtain permits in accordance with NYSDEC regulations found in 6NYCRR Part 360, which became effective ...December. 31, • 1988. These regulations are discussed briefly in Section 2.4 to present an; overview of: the requirements for possible future solid waste facilities. 2.1 Solid Waste Management, Facilities Current Practices 2. 1.1 Existing Facilities The .Town currently owns and operates . a municipal. solid waste landfill on Middle. Road - (CR 4.8) that receives virtually all of the municipal solid waste generated and disposed of in- the Town. This includes municipal solid waste from residential, commercial, institutional, agricultural, and industrial .sources. In addition, Fishers Island currently manages its waste through five operations on the Island. Table 2.1.1-1 presents an inventory of the equipment currently maintained. at'the landfill complex in Cutchogue. The locations of solid waste facilities/operations in the Town are shown on Figure 2.1.1-1. The Town's existing landfill is comprised of . •a' number .,of areas that accommodate the various operations of the landfill complex. These areas include: . o , , Weighing station o Collection center o Voluntary recycling, center o Bi=level drop-off station for bulk deliveries of recyclables o Permanent household hazardous Waste containment facility o Wasteoil storage..".- 0 torageo Small scale yard waste composting area 2022M/10 o. White goods (household appliances) stockpile area o Tire stockpile area o Land clearing, debris areas o C&D debris areas o .MSW areas o Landfilling area o -Borrow/mining'urea o Perimeter fencing/natural buffer zone 2-1 PRQ1 W ON RECYCLED PAPER lTG LILL//YV, 1H/1/l 11fiJ/L , , COMPOSTING, AND ONO LANDFILL COMPLEX SSU / CUTCHO6UE7 NO ISA ONG cllDvirkaand BewOucci GREAr PECON/C BAY L r77 PECONAC BAY RECYCLING AREA BRUSH AREA f709/NS cARsa /SL.7N0 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN TOWN SOLID WASTE FACILITIES FIGURE 2.1.1-1 Llr77- ik PECONk Z� SAY SN ERS c RECYCLING AREA 1 m BRUSH AREA ?� LANDFILL 'o GREAT RO6/NS CARS B T/RES AREA METAL AREA PECON/C ISLAND -BAY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN l � ' TOWN SOLID WASTE FACILITIES FIGURE 2.1.1-1 � (,(76UINifNIN I'K At the main landfill complex on CR 48, Town residents are directed by signs and Town personnel to the . appropriate receiving area or the collection center. The commercial haulers are directed to the scale house for weighing, where they are then directed to the working area of the landfill or to the bi-level drop-off facility for bulk deliveries of recyclables. The landfill site is relatively . flat with some mild slopes containing depressions or voids. Fill material maybe present at the bottom of some depressions. Consequently, the landfill area is not of configuration, nor are the contour evaluations acceptable for closure and capping should landfilling cease at this time. On-site roadways lead directly to the collection center upon entrance from Middle Road (CR 48). The collection center is utilized to temporarily store recyclables and j residential wastes, and is located to the south of the household hazardous waste containment facility and to the east of the bi-level drop-off facility for recyclables. At present, there are bins at the residential drop-off area for metal cans,' plastics, and green, brown, and clear glass. Additionally, inside the collection center -there are drop-off areas designated for batteries, newspapers, and clothing. The floor plan and traffic flow diagrams for the existing .collection center are shown on Figures 2.1.1-2 and. 2.1.1-3, respectively. The Town has recently, constructed a bi-level drop-off . station for bulk deliveries of recyclables. It is located approximately 60 feet to the west of the collection center, and consists of four 30 cubic yard containers and one 40 cubic yard container, situated below grade. They are currently used to store metal cans (40 cy), plastics (30 cy), and green (30 ' cy), brown (30 cy), and clear (30 cy) glass. Additionally,- a 100 cubic yard container is utilized to store newspapers to the north of the collection center behind the waste oil 1 storage area. Residential waste, exclusive of wood and metal, is also brought inside the collection center where it is unloaded by the residents into one of two 45 foot open trailers situated in a lower level, drive through loading tunnel. This "direct=dump" transfer operation, allows for an efficient operation that can be utilized with minimum rehandling of wastes. The Town's S.T.O.P, program (Stop' Throwing Out Pollutants) utilizes an initial collection point for drop-off of hazardous materials inside the collection center. These materials are then transferred daily to. the permanent containment. facility situated adjacent to the 2022M/10 2-4 PROVIED ON RECYCLED PAPER At the main landfill complex on CR 48, Town residents are •directed by signs and Town personnel to the appropriate receiving area or the collection center-.-- The commercial- haulers are directed -to the scale house for weighing, where -they are, then directed to the working area _ of the landfill or to the bi-level drop-off facility for .bulk deliveries of recyclables. The landfill ' site is relatively flat with some mild slopes containing depressions or voids. Fill material may be present at the bottom of some" depressions. Consequently, the landfill area is not, of configuration, norare the contour evaluations acceptable for closure and capping should landfilling -cease at this time. On-site roadways lead directly :to the collection center upon entrance from Middle Road (CR 48). The collection center - is utilized to temporarily store` recyclables and residential wastes, and is located to the south of the household hazardous waste containment .facility and to the east of the bi-level drop-off facility for recyclables. At present, there are bins at.the residential -drop-off area for metal cans, plastics, and green, brown, and clear glass." Additionally; inside the collection center there are drop-off areas designated- for batteries, newspapers, and clothing. The floor plan and traffic now diagram's for the existing collection center are shown on- Figures 2.1.1-2 and 2.1.1-3, respectively. The Town has. recently constructed a bi-level -drop-off station .for bulk deliveries of recy,.clables.. It is located approximately 601eet to the, west of the collection center, and consists of four 30 cubic yard containers and one 40 cubic _yard container, situated below grade. They are currently used to store metal cans (40, cy), plastics (30 cy), and green (30 cy), brown (30 cy), and clear (30 cy) glass. Additionally, a 100 cubic yard container is utilized to store newspapers to the north of . the collection center behind, the waste oil storage area. Residential waste, exclusive of ;wood and metal, is also' brought inside the collection center where it is unloaded by the residents into one of two 45 foot open trailers situated in a lower level; drive, through loading tunnel. This-, "direct -dump" transfer operation allows for an efficient operation that *can be utilized with minimum rehandling of wastes. -` The .Town's S.T.O.P. program (Stop Throwing. Out Pollutants) utilizes an initial collection point for drop-off of hazardous materials inside the collection center. These materials are then transferred_ daily to the permanent containment facility situated adjacent to the 2022MI10 2-4 i PiRDVTED ON RECYa-M PRPM? 100, 50' I 45' OPEN TOP TRA /L ERS DOWN RAMP TE I 1— — — — — -j �— DOWN RAMP RA• CGWCREGRADED AREA I:n kl?A/N I � CUR&NG N I o _ 48� a L It NEWSPAPER L LIJ— o� `y I DROP OFF I'THICK CONC. t3'WDE,6'HIGH CURBING `C WALL WALL /N?/AL : CALLECr10N ,AREA EOR HOUSEHOLD. HAZARDOUS a J,rli rl, I WASTE II II SKYL/GHTS J--L I —" CAST /l4l'IN GRATING OVER LI J L IJ L p I �I j I ORA/N hUNN/NG FULL LENGTH OF i STRUCTURE .- .. L"2C7-V, '7 E'er X/T — — =� _ ENTRANCE ��- Ll�NT/NUOUS R/OGE VENT RUNNIA'S CLOTH/NG FULL LENGTH OF ROOF STRUCTURE BIN I I� Ing rr� rl, rl I rl-I rr I: LIJ LIJ T14 L' I� - 'HOUSEM�LD OFF/CE : R.•R:: m BATTERY SHOP • �Tj� DROP OFF AREA - 145' I' 14' �� % 8 x8 I - BEAMS GARA I GE I4L�S/LL�NT/AL � •+ � DOOR DROP OFF — - AREA FOR RECYCLABLES 20' L 20' 20323' low, L 60' 3-1/2' 100, APPROXIMATE SCALE:I"= 20' SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN and m Dv11'ke - EXISTING COLLECTION CENTER-FLOOR PLAN FIGURE 2.1.1-2 dAWL&TRAG ENGw4ERS 100, 50' I I 45 ' OPEN 7t7P TRAIL ERS DOWN RAMP �CGWCRETE T — DOWN RAMP RA GRADED AREA _n;ORAIN CURBING iv 48' N r4 NEWSPA4PER I �IF tI'C0NC. ALL DROP OFF I�THICK CONC. 3�WIDE,6�HIGH,CURBING `C WALL WALL /N?/AL COLLECTION AREA �� HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS " — ;GHTS r I rI, r 7 WASTE + �- (/5 LOC. SI , �- -� -1— + i1- 1� 1— I — f"� CAST IKON GRARNG OAR LI 1 L 1_1 L � .. 141 L �I DRAIN RUNNING FULL LENGTH OF STRUCTURE E'er XIT — — — — — — — o► —ENTRANCE — - Gt�NT/NUOUS RIOGE VENT RUNNIA46 CLOTH/NG FULL LENGTH OF ROOF STRUCTURE BIN 1 rr rl-1 rl7 rl 1rl-1 LI j Lij -[i��I " I HOUSE/VLD OFF/CE BATTERY SHOP DROP OFF AREA I - 145' -14' L 8 xB 1- BEAMS h GARAGE RESIZENT/AL DROP OFF AREA FOR 20� 20' 203� 23� MEC ES _ 60' 3-1/2 100 APPROXIMATE SCALE'111=201 SOVTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN &DWrka alrtld . ODand EXISTING COLLECTION- CENTER-FLOOR PLAN FIGURE 2.1.1-2 CpSIAiJG EKilEER$ EX/ST/NG L /LCO TOWER • SCALE: I"=100' � =100' O B1e�ioa Dvkica �..0 HCIUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTAINMENT FACILITY b V ENTRANCE/EX/T FOR 41 OPEN -TOP TRAILER all BI -LEVEL AWP- 0-F \ STA7710V FOR RECYCLABLES ( 5 CCWTA/NERS) . �II +� PROPERTY LINE FENCE L/NE WASTE OIL STORAGE 0 \ TRAFF/C FLOW FOR DROPOFF/ STORAGE OF RES/DENT/AL HOUSEHOLD GARBAGE TRAFFIC FLOW FOR 1 \, D OPOFF/STORAGE \ \\ OF RECYCL ABL ES - \1 CUTCh = / LAND \ � rl \ INCOMING \ \ f RES/DENT/AL TRAFFIC ; CoaEcr/ON �\ CENTER . \ EX/T Ic O � � ENTRANCE/EX/T FOR 45'� �-/' INC I Cl L.. OPEN -TOP TRA/LER '. \ J ' ' CpMME - •� /GH/NG t E STAT/ON • � p� Ap'f l � � / -TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOW PATTERNS FIGURE 2.1.1-3 j/ +� F OPERrY LINENCE* LINE -7- W 3rE-'01L' STORAGE A 000l HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS wAsrk coNwivmmr FAclury FNrAAACE1EX1r FOR 45' OPEN -TOP TRA/LER B/ -LEVEL DRCP-Or*F A SrA r10V FOR RECYCLASL ES (5 COMINERS) EX 157"ING LACO TOWER EN.rRANc--1rx1r FAR OPEN -TOP MAIL SCALE: I"=100' [Mrke amd CCV48MTOM GVdgff4BM TRAFFIC FLOW FOR DROPOFF/ STORAGE OF RES/DENT/AL HOUSEHOLD GARBAGE TRAFFIC FLOW FOR j / \ DROP OFFIS MRAGE OF RECrCLABLES CUMHOGUE LAN"F1 L MAh ?VrT - INCOMING \f\ RES/DENT/AL. TRAFFIC COLLECT/ON V INC PC V Ic I 1,AL- co IL �E/GH/NG SWIM 0106 r —TOWN OF SOUTHOLD,SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN EXISTING TRAFFIC FLOW PATTERNS FIGURE 2.1.1-3' m CONSTRUCTION DEBRI6 AND MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FORMER LAND CLF"AAING DEBRIB\ FO\� FORMER IN0 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, \\ AREA fOiill BURN AREA FORMER SCAVENGER WASTE LAGOONS EXEMPT SMALL SCALE LEAF COMPOSTING iI j9 DOD ASH) ` I , ��CTIVE �• , ` MUNICIPP AL L/I►IQ1E(LLHiO J � duo ATE _ l Sw) �\�\ LAND CLEARING T\\ AUJbMND OBILES ;[� Q �\• oil, \ 1 t �t STORAGE tl V\ GARAGE .O tl Q U � 1� 11 NDRTN , t\ BI -LEVEL DROP-OFF / STATION FOR RECYCABLES f 5 CONTAINERS) OVERHEAD r'- ELECTRIC \--- LINES — \ WASTE OIL STORAGE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS W46STE CONTAINMENT FACILITY CC Li / C[NTlICI TION WEIGHING STATION C7 (3'. coo . e 0 scaLI it ►RT o loo Boo foo ® - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN CFDvkand LANDFILL OPERATIONS FIGURE 2.1.1-4 ) nffeieEL o iNi'h'Y'.tA�lE;i:::': ff m CONSTRUCTION DEBRI6 AND MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FORMER LAND CLF"AAING DEBRIB\ FO\� FORMER IN0 CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, \\ AREA fOiill BURN AREA FORMER SCAVENGER WASTE LAGOONS EXEMPT SMALL SCALE LEAF COMPOSTING iI j9 DOD ASH) ` I , ��CTIVE �• , ` MUNICIPP AL L/I►IQ1E(LLHiO J � duo ATE _ l Sw) �\�\ LAND CLEARING T\\ AUJbMND OBILES ;[� Q �\• oil, \ 1 t �t STORAGE tl V\ GARAGE .O tl Q U � 1� 11 NDRTN , t\ BI -LEVEL DROP-OFF / STATION FOR RECYCABLES f 5 CONTAINERS) OVERHEAD r'- ELECTRIC \--- LINES — \ WASTE OIL STORAGE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS W46STE CONTAINMENT FACILITY CC Li / C[NTlICI TION WEIGHING STATION C7 (3'. coo . e 0 scaLI it ►RT o loo Boo foo ® - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN CFDvkand LANDFILL OPERATIONS FIGURE 2.1.1-4 ) nffeieEL J C] ' D DD ^. I oRFp }} o CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FORMER LAND CL�AAING DEBRIS \� COMPOSTING CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, \ \ AREA FORMER SCAVENGER WASTE LAGOONS EXEMPT SMALL SCALE LEAF COMPOSTING AREA fQ.R.ly. BURN AREA Y DOD ASH) I , I J \ P I�CTIVE_ �• I ` MUNICIPAL LA IiQLLH7G / dLID ATE j l / SW) LAND CLEARING \" DEBRIS AND AUTOMOBILES O }111 (3 -;= C3 " Q I °o 0 BI -LEVEL DROP-OFF STATION FOR RECYCABLES ( 5 CONTAINERS) OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINEA -- WASTE OIL STORAGE Q HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS �� WASTE CONTAINMENT 7 FACILITY C/ 0 Tf CENIC1TION W E IG"Ne STATION I fC&Lf M fff7 0 *a foo foo TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN CVand LANDFILL OPERATIONS FIGURE 2.1.1-4 ) R CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS AND MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE FORMER LAND CL�AAING DEBRIS \� COMPOSTING CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS, \ \ AREA FORMER SCAVENGER WASTE LAGOONS EXEMPT SMALL SCALE LEAF COMPOSTING AREA fQ.R.ly. BURN AREA Y DOD ASH) I , I J \ P I�CTIVE_ �• I ` MUNICIPAL LA IiQLLH7G / dLID ATE j l / SW) LAND CLEARING \" DEBRIS AND AUTOMOBILES O }111 (3 -;= C3 " Q I °o 0 BI -LEVEL DROP-OFF STATION FOR RECYCABLES ( 5 CONTAINERS) OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINEA -- WASTE OIL STORAGE Q HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS �� WASTE CONTAINMENT 7 FACILITY C/ 0 Tf CENIC1TION W E IG"Ne STATION I fC&Lf M fff7 0 *a foo foo TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN CVand LANDFILL OPERATIONS FIGURE 2.1.1-4 ) R it is primarily saline in this area. Consequently, there is little oi• no potential drinking water under this part of the Island. The five processing/disposal operations on Fishers Island are: 1) brush area; 2) metals area; 3) cars/tires area; 4) household waste, landfill; and 5) recycling drop-off center. A brief . discussion of each is presented below, and their approximate locations are shown on Figure 2.1.1-1. Brush Area: This is ari area at the extreme western part of the Island on District owned land. The site is approximately six acres, of which approximately two acres are used to -receive brush, wood pallets, leaves, and cardboard. The brush area is open to receive materials two days per week. The- materials received to date have been stockpiled and burned. The burning takes place approximately four to six times per year with State approval and is performed during certain prescribed conditions (i.e., during periods of rain and northeast winds): In addition, the burning takes place in abandoned concrete gun pits that are approximately 50 to 60 feet in diameter and 8 to 10 feet deep. Materials Area:. This area is located on a'1/2 to 1 acre portion of an approximately 1.00 acre parcel of Town owned land. This area receives discarded appliances, metal materials such as doors and window frames, and some mixed metal/plastic furniture and scrap. The area is next to the Town highway department facility and is open three days per week (Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) for approximately three hours per day. Most of the materials delivered to this area are from small contractors who work on the Island. In order to minimize the area for metals disposal, the materials are routinely compacted. Cars and Tires Stockpile: This area is also on Town, owned land, and is used to store cars and tires for ultimate removal. As part of this area, there is a concrete pad, as well as two gravel pits that are approximately 50 to 60 feet in diameter and 10 to 15 feet in depth. Fishers Island Landfill: This is an area of approximately 6 to 8 acres used only for the landfilling of household solid waste. It is part of a site of approximately 15 acres that is leased by the Town/District. This site is also on the western portion of the Island, on the south side of Oriental Avenue and south of West Harbor. The landfilling operations bring the waste to grade with alternating • layers of cover and waste. Currently, there remain two areas that have been excavated for cover material without subsequently being 2022M/10 2-9 PRIMFD ON RECYCLED PAPER it is primarily saline in this area. Consequently, there is little or. no potential drinking water under -this part of the Island. The five processing/disposal operations on, Fishers Island .are: 1) brush area; 2) metals area; 3) cars/tires area; 4) household waste landfill; and 5) recycling drop-off center. A brief discussion of each is presented below, and their approximate locations are shown on- Figure'2.1.1-1. Brush Area: This is an area at , the extreme western part of the .Island on District owned -land. The site is approximately six acres, of .which approximately two acres are used to receive brush, wood pallets, leaves, and cardboard. The brush area -is open to receive materials two days per week. The materials received to date' have been stockpiled and burned. The burning takes place approximately four to' six times per year with State approval and is. performed during certain prescribed conditions (i.e., during periods of rain and northeast winds). In addition, the burning takes place in abandoned concrete gun pits that are approximately 50 to 60 feet jn diameter and 8 to 10 feet deep. Materials Area: This area is located .on a 1/2 to 1 acre portion of an approximately '1U0 acre parcel of Town owned land. This area receives discarded appliances, metal _ materials such as doors and window frames,, and some mixed metal/plastic furniture and - scrap.. The area is next to the Town highway 'department facility and is open three days per week (Monday, Wednesday, and .Friday) for. approximately three hours per day. - Most of the -'materials delivered to this area are from small contractors who work on the Island. In order to minimize the area for metals disposal, .the materials are routinely compacted. Cars and Tires Stockpile: ,This -area is also on Town owned land, and is used to store cars and tires for ultimate -removal. As part of this area, there is a concrete pad, as well as two gravel pits that are approximately 50 to 60 feet in diameter and 10 to 15 feet in depth. Fishers Island Landfill: This is an area of approximately .6 to 8- acres used only for the landfilling of household solid waste. It is part of a site of approximately -15 acres .that is leased by the Town/District. This, site is also on the western portion of the Island, ' on the south side of Oriental Avenue and south of West Harbor. The landfilling operations bring the waste to grade with alternating -layers of cover and waste: Currently, there - remain two areas ' that have been excavated for cover material without .subsequently being 2022M/10 2-9 PRW7W ONRECYaED PAPER 2.1.4 Current Collection and Management Practices Collection by Town permitted carters is available for residential, commercial, institutional, and, industrial customers on an individual contract basis. Commercial, institutional, and industrial waste generators can deliver their own wastes to the landfill provided they are licensed by the Town. These generators are subject to the same tipping fee as carters. Residents may drop off their wastes at the landfilY with a permit ($2.00). Current Long Island tipping fees are shown on Table 2.1.4-1. The two largest carters that use the landfill complex are the North Fork Sanitation Service (approximately 3,500 -households), and - the. Mattituck Sanitation Company (approximately 1,500 households).. These two carters both utilize four to five 21 yard packers with 30 to 60 yard roll -offs. There are approximately 4 to 5 other small carters that use the landfill on a regular basis (Monday through Saturday). On the average, residential pick ups are performed twice a week, with fees ranging from $10 to $20 a month. Carters pay by the axle (wheel) on an annual basis. Six wheel trucks have a $100 a year fee, while ten wheel trucks pay $250 a year. Pick ups have a flat annual fee of $15 a year. Carters charge for pick ups on a frequency basis'. Residential use of the recycling drop-off area at the collection center is free. Materials currently being accepted for recycling include: o Metal containers o Plastic containers o Glass containers- • Automobile batteries o Tires o Household hazardous waste o Newspaper o Bulk metal o Waste oil o. Clothing o Leaves and light brush o Household batteries The Town has recently (as of June 14, 1990) implemented voluntary curbside recyclable collection practices. The North Fork Sanitation Service utilizes a modified one ton flatbed pickup truck with plastic containers for the segregated collection of recyclables. The Mattituck Sanitation Service has a collection truck that is designed 2022M/10 2-11 PRDV7FD ON RECYCLED PAPER 2.1.4 Current Collection and Management Practices Collection by Town permitted carters is' -available' for residential; commercial, institutional, and industrial customers on an - individual contract basis. Commercial, institutional, and industrial waste generators can deliver their own wastes to the',landfill provided .they are licensed by the Town. -These generators are subject to the same tipping fee as carters. Residents may drop off -their wastes at the landfill with a permit ($2.00). Current Long Island tipping fees are shown on Table 2.1.4-1. The two largest carters that use the landfill complex are the North Fork Sanitation Service (approximately 3,500 � households); and the Mattituck' Sanitation Company (approximately ,1;500 households). These two carters both utilize four to five 21 yard - packers with 30 to 60 yard roll -offs. There are approximately 4 to 5 other small carters that use the 'landfill on a regular basis (Monday through Saturday). On the average, residential pick ups are performed twice- a week, with fees ranging from $10 to $20 a month. Carters. pay by the axle (wheel) on an annual basis. Six wheel trucks have a $100 a year fee, while ten wheel trucks.pay $250 a year. Pick ups have a flat annual fee of $15 a year. "Carters charge for pick ups' on a frequency basis. Residential use of the recycling drop-off' area at the collectioncenter is, free. 'Materials currently being accepted for recycling include: o Metal containers o. Plastic containers. o Glass containers o Automobile batteries o Tires o Household hazardous waste o Newspaper o Bulk metal o Waste 'oil o Clothing o Leaves and light brush_, o Household batteries The Town has recently (as of June 14, 1990) implemented voluntary curbside recyclable collection practices. The North Fork Sanitation Service utilizes a modified one ton flatbed - pickup truck with plastic containers for the segregated collection of recyclables. .The Mattituck Sanitation Service has a collection -truck that is designed 2022M/10 2-11 PiWVMD ON RECYCLM ~Ej? specifically for segregated recyclable collection practices that utilize separate bins for storage. Collections -of recyclables from each customer are currently performed once every other week. Deliveries of recyclables *from carters are accommodated at the bi-level drop-off station near the collection center, and do not interfere with current public drop-off practices .at the landfill. Types and amounts ,of recyclables received at the landfill site from August 1987 to March 1990, are shown on Table 2.1.4-2. Processing of these recyclables occurs outside of the Town. Section 2.1.5 presents identification of processors and removal costs. . Land clearing and C&D debris are charged for at a rate of two cents per pound, or $40 a ton. Brush and branches are processed into woodchips by the Town Highway Department for both commercial carters and residential drop-offs. Inspection of wastes delivered to the landfill is achieved in two ways. Private vehicles are initially screened at the- gate house before proceeding to the active landfill area or the recycling center. At the residential `area of the landfill, employees inspect deposited loads as they work. Similar inspection is provided at the recycling center. Town licensed . carters are screened when they arrive at the scale house; and equipment operators and laborers inspect loads as they are deposited for signs of out-of-town or hazardous materials. 2.1.5 Solid Waste Managed Outside -the Town All recyclables received at the collection center at the Town's landfill complex are reused, recycled, or processed outside of the Town. Processors and removal costs are identified on Table 2.1.5-1.. Current recycling, reprocessing, and landfilling operations that dispose of land clearing and construction and demolition debris outside of the Town are as follows: o George's Sanitation, Quogue, NY - construction and demolition and land clearing recyclers 2022M/10 .2-13 PRMED ON RECYCLED PAPER specifically for segregated recyclable collection practices that utilize separate bins for storage. Collections of recyclables from each customer are currently performed once every other week. Deliveries of recyclables from carters are accommodated at the bi-level drop-off station near the collection center, and do not interfere with current public drop-off practices at the landfill. Types and amounts of recyclables received . at the landfill site from August 1987 to March 1990, are shown on Table 2.1.4-2. Processing of these recyclables occurs outside of the Town. Section 2. 1.5 presents identification of processors and removal costs. Land clearing and C&D debris are charged for at a rate of two cents per pound, or $40 a ton. Brush and branches are processed into woodchips by the Town Highway Department for both commercial carters and residential drop-offs. Inspection of wastes delivered to the landfill is achieved in two ways. Private vehicles are initially screened at the gate house before proceeding to the active landfill area or the recycling center. At the residential area of the landfill, employees inspect deposited loads as they work. Similar inspection is provided at the recycling center. Town licensed carters are screened when they arrive at the scale house, and equipment operators and laborers inspect loads as they are deposited for signs of out-of-town or hazardous materials. 2.1.5 Solid Waste Managed Outside the Town All recyclables received at the collection center at the Town's landfill complex are reused, recycled, or processed outside of the Town. Processors and removal costs are identified on Table 2.1.5-1. Current recycling, reprocessing, and landfilling operations that dispose of land clearing and construction and demolition debris outside of the Town are as follows: o George's Sanitation, Quogue, NY - construction and demolition and land clearing recyclers 2022M/10 2-13 PRBV7EO ON RECyCLEO R4PER Table 2.1.5-1 TOWN' OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN RECYCLED MATERIALS AND PROCESSORS Material Processor/Location Cost/Revenue Metal Containers PK Scrap, Coram, NY No Cost Plastic Containers Trimax Plastic Lumber, No Cost Ronkonkoma, NY Glass Containers EWG Glass Recovery and $20/Ton-Revenue* Recycling, Jamaica, NY for Clear Glass $25/Ton-Revenue* for Brown Glass $13/Ton-Revenue* for Green Glass $36/Ton-Cost for Mixed Glass Lead Acid Batteries - Household Mercury Refining, Albany, NY N/A - Car and Boat PK Scrap, Coram, NY, $0.03/lb-Revenue Tires New York Tire Recycling Company,. $900/45' Trailer -Cost Kings Park, NY (through August 1, 1990) Newspaper** Pinnacle Industries, Bohemia, NY $30/Ton-Cost Metal Franza's Universal Scrap $5.01/Ton-Cost & Metals, Farmingdale, NY Waste Oil Strebel's Inc., Westhampton No Cost Beach, NY Clothing St. Vincent DePaul, NY No Cost Leaves Composting Operation at Revenues to be Landfill Site, Determined NOTE: *less $5.00 per ton trucking cost **transportation services provided by A.W. Glover Trucking, Cutchogue, NY 2022M/10 2-15 PRPaW ON RECYCLW PAPER 0 2022M/10 2-15 Pearn -w oN iwcyaFD PAPER Table 2.1.5-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN RECYCLED MATERIALS AND PROCESSORS- Material Processor/Location Cost FR Metal Containers PK Scrap, Coram, NY - No Cost Plastic Containers Trimax Plastic -Lumber, " Ronkonkoma, NY No Cost Glass Containers EWG. Glass. Recovery and $20/Ton-Revenue* Recycling, Jamaica, NY , for Clear Glass $25/Ton-Revenue* for Brown Glass $13/Ton-Revenue*. for Green Glass $3.6/Ton-.Cost for Mixed Glass_ Lead Acid Batteries - Household - Car and Boat Mercury Refining, Albany' NY' PK Scrap, Coram, NY, N/A $0.03/lb-Revenue Tires New York Tire Recycling Company, 'Kings Park, NY (through $900/45' Trailer -Cost August 1, 1990) Newspaper** Pinnacle Industries Bohemia -14Y ,. $30/Tori=Cost - Metal Franza's Universal Scrap $5 -Cost & Metals, Farmingdale, NY = Waste Oil Strebel's Inc., Westhampton No Cost Beach, NY Clothing St. Vincent DePaul, NY No Cost Leaves Composting .Operation at .. Revenues to be Landfill Site Determined NOTE: *less $5.00 per ton trucking cost **transportation services provided by A.W. Glover -Trucking, Cutchogue, NY 2022M/10 2-15 Pearn -w oN iwcyaFD PAPER o $100 for each single axle vehicle transporting solid waste (garbage). o $100 for .each commercial, contractor's vehicle of more than one ton capacity. o $250 for each double axle and/or compactor type vehicle trans waste (garbage). porting solid o $250. for each commercial contractor's double axle ' and/or tractor trailer combination of more than one ton capacity. - 9 Additional fees are: $0.02 per pound for land clearing, and construction and demolition debris, and $5 per item for white goods. Penalties for Offenses: Violations are. punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 and/or by a 15 day imprisonment. Any person committing ari offense is subject to a civil penalty enforceable and collectible by the Town in the amount of $100 for each offense. Littering is prohibited everywhere in the. Town. 2.2 Solid Waste Quantities and Composition This Section discusses , the current and projected future waste . generation, . composition, and characteristics of the total waste stream, and the potential recyclable materials present in the waste stream..: As discussed in Section 2. 1, Fishers Island does not dispose of solid waste at the Town's landfill complex on CR '48. To accurately estimate the total Town waste stream, an estimate of Fishers Island waste has been included. Section 2.2.1 presents an estimate of waste generated on Fishers Island, and Section 2.2.2 combines this estimate with Town' landfill scale house data to obtain a more accurate total waste stream for the whole Town. Additionally, Section 2.2.3 discusses future population and solid waste generation projections for the Town through the year 2015. 2.2.1 Fishers Island Waste Generation Fishers Island is located off the eastern tip of the North Fork of Long Island. As a seasonal island community, Fishers Island has approximately 300 year—round permanent residents and a relatively large summer increase that reaches its peak of approximately 2022M/10 2-17 PRP7W ON IWCYCLED PAPSR o $100 for each single axle vehicle -transporting solid waste (garbage). o $100 for each commercial contractor's vehicle of more than one ton capacity. o $250 for each double axle and/or compactor type vehicle transporting solid .waste (garbage). o $250 for each commercial contractor's double axle and/or tractor trailer combination of more than one ton capacity. Additional fees are: $0.02 per pound for land clearing, and construction and demolition debris, and $5 per item for white goods. Penalties for Offenses: Violations are punishable by a fine not exceeding $1,000 and/or by a 15 day imprisonment. Any person committing an offense is subject to a civil penalty enforceable and collectible by .the Town in the amount of $100 for each offense. Littering is prohibited everywhere in the Town. 2.2 Solid Waste Quantities and Composition This Section discusses the current and- Projected' future . waste generation composition, and characteristics of the total waste stream .and the Potential recyclable materials present in the waste stream. As discussed in Section 2. 1, Fishers Island does not dispose of solid waste at the -To wn's landfill complex on CR 48. To accurately estimate the total Town waste stream, an estimate of. Fishers Island waste has been included. .Section 2.2.1 presents an estimate of waste generated on -Fishers Island, and Section 2.2.2 combines this estimate with Town landfill scale house data to obtain a more accurate total waste stream for the- whole Town. Additionally, Section 2.2.3 discusses .future Population and solid waste generation projections for the Town through the year 2015. 2.2.1 Fishers Island Waste Generation Fishers Island is located off the eastern 'tip of the North 'Fork of Long Island. As a seasonal island community, Fishers Island has approximately 300" year—round permanent residents and a relatively large summer increase that reaches its peak of approximately 2022M/10 2-17 PRWM0 ON RECYCL M PAPER Table 2.2.1-1 TOWN OF, SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISHERS ISLAND MONTHLY POPIILATION* January 300 February 300 March 300 April . 700 May 1,200 June 2,500 July 3,500 . August 31500 September 2,500 October 1,200 November 700 . December 300 Average 1,417 *Fishers Island Conservancy -and .Project Management Associates, Inc., 1988. Analysis of Solid Waste Management Options for Fishers Island New York. 2022M/10 2-19 PRDYMD ON RECYaED PAPER 2022M/10 Table 2.2.1-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN FISHERS ISLAND MONTHLY POPULATION* January 300 February 300 March 300 April 700 May 1,200 June 2,500 July . 3,500 August 3,500 September 2,500 October 1,200 November 700 December 300 Average 1,417 *Fishers Island Conservancy and Project Management Associates, Inc., 1988. Analvsis of Solid Waste Management Options for Fishers Island. New York. 2-19 PR017M ON RECYCL W PAPER Notes: na = information not available outgoing loads = material's recycled * January 1, 1989 to December 14, 1989 = 347 days Source: Town of'Southold Landfill Scale House Data 2022M/9 2-21 Table 2.2.2-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Scale House Waste Categories and Quantities (January 1, 1989 through December 14, 1989) Total Total Percent of # of Weight Estimated Estimated Total Waste Waste Cateaory Loadsif bs.) Tons Tons/Load Tons/Day Received Garbage 4,520 28,073,900 14,037.0 3.1 40.5 32.85 Construction Debris 7,578 12,833,760 6,416.9 0.8 18.5 15.02 Sand/Sod 598 11,929,520 5,964.8 10.0 17.2 13.96 Land Clearing Debris 1,181 10,112,630 5,056.3 4.3 14.6 11.83 Rubbish' 6,727 7,470,020 3,735.0 0.6 10.8 8.74 Brush 5,706 5,247,430 2,623.7 0.5 .7.6 6.14 Leaves/Grass/Mulch 5,222 2,613,540 1,306.8 0.3 3.8 3.06 Concrete/Asphalt/Bricks 442' 2,527,600 1,263.8 2.9 3.6 2.96 Metal (outgoing) 17 1,081,280 540.6 31.8 1.6 1.27 Agricultural Debris 201 1,071;700 535.9 2.7 1.5 1.25 Paper (outgoing) 16 850,520 425.3 26.6 1.2 1.06 Sludge 72 622,640 311.3 4.3 0..9 0.73 Cleanup Debris 254 570,720 285.4 1.1 0.8 0.67 Tires (outgoing), 5 252,360 126.2 .25.2 0.4 0.30 Woodchips 41, 87,920 44.0 1.1 0.1 0.10 Shellfish Debris 87 83,900 42.0 0.5 0.1 0.10 Lead Batteries (outgoing) 4 35,820 17.9 4.5 0.1 0.04 Total Waste Received at Landfill 32,671 85,465,260 42,732.6 1.3 123.1 100.0 Total Waste Recycled (outgoing) 42 2,219,980 1,100.0 26.4 3.2 2.6 Net Waste Landfilled 36,629 83,245,280 41,622.6 1.3 119.9 97.4 Notes: na = information not available outgoing loads = material's recycled * January 1, 1989 to December 14, 1989 = 347 days Source: Town of'Southold Landfill Scale House Data 2022M/9 2-21 Historical landfill scale data is presented in Appendix B, Tables 1 and 2. " Table 1 illustrates the scale house waste categories and quantities for the period August 1, -1987 through July 27, 1988. Table 2 illustrates scale house waste categories and quantities for the period July 27, 1988 through December 12, 1988. Additionally, both tables illustrate the source separated materials brought to the landfill and -categorized as outgoing loads. For the period August 1, 1987 through July 27, 1988, approximately 98% "of the, waste delivered to the landfill was landfilled, and for the period July 27, 1988 through December 12, 1988, approximately 99% of the waste delivered to the landfill was landfilled. Figure 2.2.2-2 illustrates average " monthly waste generation estimates for 1989 based on available landfill scale house data. As shown on the figure, May through August experiences the greatest volumes of waste... Table 2.2.2-2 lists the average weekly generation rates for the institutions in the Town. It is estimated that 123.1 tons per day of municipal solid waste was del'ivered'to the landfill site on a daily basis in 1989. This estimate was based on the 1989 landfill scale house annual summary (see Appendix B). The summary reflects data from .January "1, 1989 to December 14, 1989 (42,732.6 tons), and has been adjusted to reflect an average daily tonnage of 123.1 tons per day for the 1989 calendar year. Of this average, "approximately 2.6% was recycled in 1989, leaving an average of approximately .119.9 tons per day of landfilled municipal solid waste. Consistent with these estimates is an analysis of available daily and "weekly" scale house data from July 1, 1989 to January 4, 1990, along with monthly summaries compiled_. by the Town for January to June 1990 (see Appendix B). This mid -1989 to, mid-1990 analysis indicates an average daily tonnage of 122.5 tons per day. .It should be noted that an adjustment of the weekly summaries used for December 1989, was necessary due to the fact that the summary of the last week in December was tallied from December 29, 1989, to ' January 4, 1990, while the subsequent monthly summary for January covers the period of January l,'1990 to January 31, 1"990. The analysis utilized the monthly summary of January 1990 to estimate a .daily average„ of 81.4 tons per day of, municipal solid waste that entered the landfill complex. This figure was applied to the period of January 1, 1990 to January 4,. 1990, and 2022M/10 2-22 PR97W ON RECYCLED PAPER — Paper Sand/Sod 13.9% •• Metals 1.3% Agricultural Debris 1.3% Landclearing Debris 11.81 -Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Total Waste Stream (Average Percent By Weight) - -fie 32.87o construction ueoris i5.u% Other 1.9% Brush 6.2% Leaves/Grass/Mulch 3.1% ibish 8.7% Conc./Asphalt/Brick 3.0% LEGEND Other : Sludge 0.73% • Based on Jan.1 - Dec.14, 1989 landfill scale data •• Materials Recycled Cleanup Debris 0.67% •• Tires 0.30% Woodchips 0.10% Shellfish Debris 0.10% •• Lead Batteries 0.04% FIGURE 2.2.2-1 200% 100% 0% TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 1989 AVERAGE MONTHLY WASTE GENERATIONS Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MONTH SOURCE: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD LANDFILL SCALE HOUSE DATA FIGURE 2.2.2-2 Table 2.2.2-2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 4 APPROXNATE AMOUNT OF WASTE COLLECTED AT INSTITUTIONS Approximate Amount of Container Waste Picked Hauler Institution Size cu. Up Each Week Mattituck Sanitation. Mattituck'HS 8 40 Cutchogue School East 3 9 Cutchogue School West 1.5 3 North Fork Sanitation Southold School 6 30 Peconic School 3 6 Greenport School 6 36 Oyster Ponds School 4 4 New Suffolk School 1 1 Head Start (Greenport) 1.5 9 Sam Simeon Nursing Home 10 60 Southold Senior Citizen 1.5 9 Nutrition Center Oyster Ponds Manor 2. 2 Retirement Home Eastern Long Island 10 60 Hospital Source: 1990, Town of Southold 2022M/10 2-25 OROV7W ON RECYC/ W PAPER subtracted from the weekly summaries of December (December 1,• 1989. t'o January 4, 1990) in order to yield a December 1989 estimate of 74.0 tons per day. . It should be noted, however, that studies • of the daily and weekly summaries of only 1989 scale house data' indicates an average daily estimate of 132.2 tons per day. However, since the 1989 annual summary closely corresponds to the twelve month analysis of mid -1989 ' to mid-1990 scale house data, .it appears that the actual daily tonnage received at the landfill site is most likely in the range of 122.5 tons per day to 123.1 tons per day. As a result, 123 tons'per day is assumed to be the quantity of waste •that was -.delivered to the solid waste disposal complex. on a daily basis in 1989 for the purposes' of this document. As discussed previously in this Section, Fishers Island -does not dispose of any of its waste at the Southold Town landfill complex, and an accurate estimate of .the Town's total waste stream should consider this waste. It was estimated in Section 2.2.1 that an average of approximately four tons per day, of waste (1,465 tons Fishers Island. This estimate was added to the 123.1 tons per day year) is, generated on P y of waste delivered to the Southold landfill .in 1989 to obtain a total estimate for the Town of .127.1 tons per day. Since the State encourages yearly estimates_ for waste generation studies, the 1989 calendar year estimate of 127.1 tons per day is used in .this document. As additional: information becomes available, the aforementioned estimates will be adjusted as necessary.. Generation of solid waste within any study area is generally described,in units of Pounds per, capita per day. The rate of generation- is a function of multiple factors which include socioeconomic, population density,, land ' use, and construction activity: Generation. rates have been .estimated based on landfill. record data, field program data, and mathematical modeling. The Town's current 1989- population estimate is 21,798 (LILCO 1989). Based on landfill records (and estimated Fishers Island waste generation), generation rate of this corresponds to a approximately 11.72 pounds per person per day. When a seasonally adjusted "weighted" population estimate of 25,031 is used in" order to reflect an increase resulting from seasonal population influences, -the per capita generation rate estimate becomes. 10.16 pounds per person -per day. ,Thiswei hted �� g "population estimate assumes a Yearly population of 21,798, and a 4 month seasonal increase of 10,000 (LIRPB 1989). 2022M/10' 2-26 PRWrEo ON RECYClF.D.PAPF.R Table 2.2.2-3 illustrates current generation rate estimates based on landfill record data for residential waste, and total waste, by the use of various population estimates. A unit generation rate was developed for the Town bythe use of a mathematical model as a comparison and check to the generation rates determined from the landfill record data -and survey. The model was developed in 1,980 to relate population density for a region to a generation rate for municipal solid waste.. The model was originally developed by SCS Consulting Engineers in a project study area located in the northeast region of the United States that combined a small metropolitan area with sparsely populated, suburban (rural) areas. SCS calculated theoretical waste generation rates related to populations within municipal jurisdictions. Further research was performed by Dvirka & Bartilucci (D&B) to relate the SCS -model to a number of extensive weighing programs undertaken by D&B within the same region. Further refinements to the model were necessary to relate per capita generation rates to population density, rather than to population per political jurisdiction. The mathematical model was applied to the 1980 population estimate (U.S. Census) for the Town, and a corresponding generation rate was calculated. This generation rate was adjusted to reflect a 1990, or current, generation rate. Assuming an. annual increase of 0.70%, the 1990 adjusted generation rate would be 4.21 pounds per person per - day, providing the Town's land area is 100% developable, and 4.36 pounds per person per day assuming the Town's land area is 70% developable. These generation rate estimates do not include C&D and land clearing debris. Table 2.2.2-4 presents comparisons of various generation rates discussed above with those assumed for the neighboring Towns of Shelter Island, Riverhead, Brookhaven, Southampton, East. Hampton, and at the New York State and National level. This Table-, with footnotes, is also included in Appendix A. 2.2.3 Population Projections Future Waste Generation and Generation Rates Estimates of future waste generation and. generation rates are based on population projections. This Section discusses population projections and provides estimated future waste quantities for the total waste stream of Town of Southold, including Fishers Island. 2022M/10 2-27 PRWED ON RECYCLED PAPER Table 2.2.2-3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 'SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN ESTIMATED CURRENT WASTE GENERATION GENERATION RATES . Per Capita Per Capita Generation Rates Generation Rates (lbs/cap/day) (lbs/cap/day). Dail .Yearly** -Weighted** y* Population Population Waste Tvoe Estimate Generation EEstimate Residential, "Household" Waste, (1) 40.5 3.73 3.23 Residential Waste (2) 69.6 6.4'2'- 5.56 Total Waste (3) 127.1 11.72 10.16 Table Notes: * Based on landfill scale, data for the period of January 1, 1989 through December 14, 1989,(341'days), and waste generation est ates for Fishers ** Population estimates based on LILCO's 1989 estimates and May 1987 Long Island Regional Planning Board population projections, which include Fishers Island. The. ,1989 year—round population is 21,798 and weighted Population 25,031. (1) Residential "Garbage" Only. (2) Residential Waste includes: Garbage, Rubbish, Brush, Leaves/Grass/ Mulch, Cleanup Debris, Tires (outgoing), Metal (outgoing), Paper (outgoing), & Lead Batteries. (3) Total Waste includes: Residential Waste, Construction Debris, Sand/Sod; . Land Clearing Debris, . Concrete/Asphalt/Bricks, Agricultural Debris,. Sludge, Woodchips, & Shellfish Debris. 2022MI10 2-2$ PRQ17W ONRECYCI M PAPM Location 1 a. Town of Southold 1 b. Town of Southold lc. Town of Southold Id. Town of Southold 1 e. Town of Southold If. Town of Southold lg. Fishers Island 2a. Town of Shelter Island Date 1990. '1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 1990 2b. Town of Shelter Island 1990 2c. Town of Shelter Island 1990 2022M/9 . Table 2.2.2-4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Comparison of Various Generation Rates #/Cap./Day Remarks 11.72 Unweighted Pop:, total- waste stream 10.16 Weighted Pop., total waste stream 6.42 Unweighted Pop., residential waste stream. only, excludes C&D debris, con./asphalt/bricks,, land clearing debris agricultural debris, sand/sod, sludge, woodchips, shellfish debris 5.56 Weighted Pop., residential waste stream only, excludes C&D debris,, concr./asphalt/bricks, land clearing debris agricultural debris, sand/sod, sludge, woodchips, shellfish debris 3.73 Unweighted Pop., residential waste, includes only, "Garbage" 3.23, Weighted Pop., residential waste, includes only "Garbage" 4.25 Weighted Pop., household residential waste 6.29 "Off—Season" Pop., total waste stream (incl. C&D and land clearing debris) 5.36 "Off—Season" Pop., residential waste stream (excl. C&D and land clearing debris) 4.31 Weighted Pop., total waste stream (incl. C&D and land clearing debris) Location Date 2d. Town of Shelter Island 1990 2e. Town of Shelter Island 1990 3a. Town of Riverhead 3b. Town of Riverhead 3c. Town of Riverhead 3d. Town of Riverhead 3e. Town of Riverhead 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 Table 2.2.2-4 (Continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Comparison of Various Generation Rates #/Cap./Day 3.68 2.93 11.72 10.24 9.61 8.39 4.17 4. Town of Riverhead 1988 9.86 5. Town of Brookhaven 1987 7.80 6. Town of Brookhaven 1987 6.80 7. Town of Smithtown 1989 5.69 2022M/9 Remarks Weighted Pop., residential waste stream (exc. C&D and land clearing debris) Survey of private vehicles, residential waste stream -(excl. C&D and land clearing debris) Unweighted Pop., includes land clearing and C&D debris, Weighted Pop., includes land clearing and C&D debris Unweighted Pop:, excludes land clearing and C&D debris Weighted Pop., excludes land clearing and C&D debris. Survey of passenger vehicles, , excludes land clearing and C&D debris Unweighted Pop., includes C&D debris Unweighted Pop., includes C&D debris Unweighted Pop., excludes C&D debris Unweighted Pop., excludes bulk/metal wastes Table 2.2.2-4 (Continued) . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN 2022M/9 Comparison of Various Generation Rates . Location Date. #/Cap./Day Remarks, 8. Town of Huntington 1984 5.75 Unweighted Pop., excludes C&D debris 9.. Town of East Hampton 1988 7.16 Weighted Pop., includes C&D debris, commercial, - bulky 10. Town of Southampton 1988 5.20 Weighted Pop., "assumed", gen. rate, includes C&D debris . 11. Town of Southampton 1988 4.90 Weighted Pop., "calculated" gen.. rate, includes C&D debris 12. National Level 1990 3.67 Unweighted Pop., based on "Gross Discards" 13. New York State 1989 5.30 Unweighted -Pop., excludes C&D debris Note: A copy of this Table with Footnotes is presented in Appendix A. 2022M/9 The Town, as well as. other eastern Long Island Towns, consists of year-round residents and seasonal ("summer seasonif ) .residents and tourists which. cause the yearly population to fluctuate. -The "summer season" residents and tourists can cause a dramatic . change in population 'in ' the Town. Accordingly,estimated seasonal population data,has been analyzed along with -year-round population data. Table 2.2.3-1 illustrates population projections through . the year 2010 obtained'- from LILCO estimates and the Long Island Regional Planning Board. The table includes population projections, based on year-round residents, summer ' season increase,. summer season population, and .a "weighted" population estimate. The "weighted" population estimate factors in the summer seasonal increase in population. Therefore it represents a more accurate ear -round ' p Y population estimate. Figure 2.2.3-1 illustrates this dramatic population variation illustrating year-round population estimates, summer seasonal increases,summer season . population estimates, and a "weighted" population estimate. Future waste generation projections have been calculated both - with and without the inclusion of land clearing and construction and demolition debris, and also. for',just residential household waste. Table 2.2.3-2a presents future waste generation projections which. includes construction and demolition debris. Table 2.2.3-2b illustrates future waste generation projections which excludes .land clearing and construction and demolition debris. Table 2.2.3-2c illustrates future waste generation projections which includes only residential household waste. Each table provides two scenarios. One scenario projects future waste generation based on population increase only. The second scenario projects -future waste generation based on population increase and a 0.70% annual increase 'in the per capita waste generation rates. A 0.70% annual increase in the per capita waste generation rate is based on the J assumption that New York State's anticipated waste reduction goal (8% to 10%' by 1997) is met and there, is a continued increase in per capita generation rates (1.5% to 2% annually). Figure 2.2.3-2 combines Tables 2.2.3-2a, 2.2.3-2b, and ' 2.2.3-2c to present these scenarios in graphic form. 2.2.4 Total Waste Stream Composition and Characteristics The solid waste data presented in Section 2.2.2 represents the best available data on quantity and characteristics of the Town's solid waste stream. This data has not been 2022M/10 2-32 I . J PRBVTW ON RECYMW PAMV Town of Southold Solid Waste Managment Plan Population Projections Population Estimate ° 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 1989. 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year Legend Yearly Pop. ® Summer Increase ® Summer Pop. = -Weighted Pop. - Based on LILCO'S 1990 est. & May 1987 LIRPB pop. prof. FIGURE 2.2.3-1 Table 2.2.3-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN POPULATION PROJECTIONS* *Based on LILCO's 1989 estimates and May 1987 Long Island Regional Planning Board population projections. Includes Fishers Island. **Extrapolated using average projected population growth from 2000 to 2010. 2022M/10 2-34 PRQIRED ON RECYC/ EO PAPER Estimated Summer Yearly Summer Season "Weighted - Population Season Population Population Year Estimate Increase Estimate Estimate 1989 21,798 10,000 31,798 25,031 1990 22,450 10,000 32,450 25,783 1995 23,450 10,000 33,450 26,783 2000 24,100 10,000 34,100 27,433 2005 25,100 10,000 35,100 28,433 2010 26,100 10,000 36,100 29,433 2015** 27,100 10,000 37,100 30,433 *Based on LILCO's 1989 estimates and May 1987 Long Island Regional Planning Board population projections. Includes Fishers Island. **Extrapolated using average projected population growth from 2000 to 2010. 2022M/10 2-34 PRQIRED ON RECYC/ EO PAPER Notes: N/A Information not available 1. Based on 1989 landfill scale data for the total waste stream (includes land clearing and C&D debris), estimated waste generation for Fishers Island, and weighted population estimates that include Fishers Island 2. Based on constant per capita generation rate and increase in population 3. Based on increasing, per capita generation rate (0.70% annually) and 'increase in population 2022M/9 Table 2.2.3-2a TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Future Waste Generation Projections (1989-2015) Total Waste Stream = (Includes Land Clearing and C&D Debris) 1989 1990 1995 2000, 2005 2010 2015 2020 "Weighted" Population Estimate 25,031 25,783 26,783 27,433 .28,433 29,433 .30433 N/A Constant Per Capita Generation Rate 1 10.16 10.16 10.16 10.16 10.16 10.16 10.16 10.16 Increasing Per Capita Generation Rate 10:16 10.23 10.59 10.96 11.35 1 L76 12.17 12.61 Minimum Tons per year 2 Minimum Tons per day 46,390 127.1 47,783 49,637 50,841 52,695 54,548 56,401 N/A 130.9 136.0 139.3' 144.4 149.4 154.5 Maximum Tons per year 3 Maximum Tons day 46,390 127.1 48,118 51,758 54,896 58,917 63,153 67,617, N/A -per 131.8. 141.8 150.4 161.4 173.0 185.3 Notes: N/A Information not available 1. Based on 1989 landfill scale data for the total waste stream (includes land clearing and C&D debris), estimated waste generation for Fishers Island, and weighted population estimates that include Fishers Island 2. Based on constant per capita generation rate and increase in population 3. Based on increasing, per capita generation rate (0.70% annually) and 'increase in population 2022M/9 Table 2.2.3-2b TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Future Waste Generation Projections (1989-2015) Residential Waste Stream (Excludes Land Clearing and C&D Debris) 1989 1990 1995 2000 .2005 2010 2015 2020 "Weighted" Population 25,031 25,783 26,783 27,4.33 28,433 29,433 30433 N/A Estimate Constant Per Capita Generation Rate 1 5.56 5.56. 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 Increasing Per Capita. Generation Rate 5.56 5.60 5.80 6.00 6.22 6.44 6.67 6.90 Minimum Tons per year 2 25,399 26,162 27,177 27,836 28,851 29,866 30,880 N/A . Minimum Tons per day 69.6 71.7 .74.5 76.3 79.0 - 81.8 84.6 N/A Maximum Tons per year 3 25,399 26,345 28,338 30,056 32,258 34,577 37,021 N/A Maximum Tons per day 69.6 72.2 77.6 82.3 88.4 94.7 101.4 ' N/A Notes: N/A Information not available 1. Based on 1989 landfill scale data for the residential waste stream only (excludes land clearing and C&D debris), estimated waste generation for Fishers Island, and weighted population estimates that include Fishers Island 2. Based on constant per capita generation rate and increase in population 3. Based on increasing per capita generation rate (0.70% annually) and increase in population 2022M/9 Notes: N/A Information not available 1. Based on 1989 landfill scale data for the "Garbage" portion of the residential waste stream, estimated waste generation for Fishers Island, and weighted population estimates that include Fishers Island 2. Based on constant per capita generation rate and increase in population 3. Based on increasing per capita generation rate (0:70% annually) and increase in population 2022M/9 Table 2.2.3-2c TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Future Waste Generation Projections (1989-2015) `- Residential "Household" Waste Only. . _ 1989 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 "Weighted" Population 25,031 25,783 26,783 27,433 28,433 29,433 30433 N/A Estimate . Constant Per Capita Generation Rate 1 3.23. 3.23' 3.23 3.23 3:23 3.23 3.23 " 3.23 Increasing Per Capita, Generation Rate 3.23 3.26 3.37 3.49 3.61 3.74 3.88 4.01. Minimum Tons per year 2 14,769 15,213- 15,803 16,186 16,776 17,366 17:956 N/A Minimum Tons per day 40.5 41.7 43.3 "44.3 46.0 47.6 49.2 Maximum Tons per year 3 14,769 15,319 16,478 17,477 18,757 20,106 - 21,527 N/A Maximum. Tons, per day 40.5 42.0 45.1 47.9". 51.4 - 55.1 -. ' 59.0 N/A Notes: N/A Information not available 1. Based on 1989 landfill scale data for the "Garbage" portion of the residential waste stream, estimated waste generation for Fishers Island, and weighted population estimates that include Fishers Island 2. Based on constant per capita generation rate and increase in population 3. Based on increasing per capita generation rate (0:70% annually) and increase in population 2022M/9 Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Future Waste Generation Projections (1989 - 2010) Annual Tonnage 80000 40000 20000 Base A Total Waste (incl. landclearing and C&D debris) Base B Res. Waste (excl. landclearing and C&D debris) Base C Res.'Garbage'. (excl. landclearing and C&D debris) Max. 67,617 (185.3 tpd Base A : 46,390 (127.1 tpd) , Base B : 25,399 (69.6 tpd) Base C : 14,769 (40.5 tpd) 0 1980 1985 1990 1995 Based on 1989 landfill scale data Minimum projections based on pop. increase only Maximum projections based on pop. increase & a 0.70% annual increase in per cap. gen. rate Min. 56,401 (154.5 tpd� Max. 37,021 (101.4 tpd)l Min. 30,880 (84.6 tpd) Max. 21,52 (59.0 tpd) X Min. 17,956 (49.2 tpd) 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year FIGURE 2.2.3-2 11 developed in detail with respect to material components (i.e., paper, plastics, glass, etc.) and the characteristics of many potentially recyclable materials present in the waste stream. There are three basic types of waste found in any typical waste stream. These three types can be classified as residential, commercial, and industrial. I. Residential - The waste generated at homes, apartments, etc. Within the residential category there are subcategories of yard waste (leaves; grass, clippings, brush, etc.) and bulky (special) waste such as' furniture, lumber, carpet, etc. 2. Commercial - This is waste generated by small businesses including offices, restaurants, stores, etc. This is . generally the waste collected from "dumpster" type, or compactor type, containers seen in parking lots and behind shopping plazas. Within commercial there is also a large subcategory known as construction and demolition (C&D) debris, usually a result of construction activities or 'renovation. C&D debris consists of waste building materials, bricks, concrete, wood, metal, etc. 3. Industrial - This waste is usually generated by manufacturing industries from their, operations and processes. Typically, this is ' ,scrap material from production, rejects, out-of-date -products, and corrugated and packaging waste. Loads .usually contain large quantities of similar materials. Composition and characterization information was initially obtained from a May 1989 field solid waste compositional analysis. This data was used in conjunction with the scale house data presented in -Section 2.2.2.. 'Locally and nationally available data were also considered in determining the Town's calculated total waste stream material component breakdown (includes land clearing and C&D debris). The . following listing and Figure 2.2.4-1 summarizes the calculated percent by weight of the major material component categories. This listing and Figure summarizes Table 9 presented in Appendix A. 2022M/10 2-39 PROY7W ON RECYCLED PAPER Total waste stream by weight including land clearing & Material Component C&D debris Paper. 14.9 Plastics 3.1 Food 6.5 Ferrous Metals 9.2 Nonferrous Metals 0.6 Batteries 0.1 - Glass 2.6 Wood 13:0 Rubble 10.3 Rubber 1.1 Dirt and Fines 18:5 Yard Waste 14.5 Sludge Bulky Waste 2 6 Misc. 2.4 TOTAL 100%* *Totals may not add to exactly 100.00% due to rounding. Table. 9 in Appendix A presents the Town's calculated total waste stream composition (including Fishers Island) - and - a- more detailed material component breakdown. The Table is based on actual landfill scale data (average .tons per day), estimated waste generation on Fishers Island, and a field solid waste compositional - analysis .performed in May 1989. As .shown on this Table, Column 'l presents the results -obtained from .. the field compositional analysis - of. "household". waste (/6 'by weight). . Column 2 applies the results in Column 1 to the average tons per day of "garbage" received at the landfill based on scale house data. Column 3 presents. the various scale house data waste quantities and categories used for adjustments to Column. 2. Columns 4 and 5 present the residential and "other" (nonresidential)- waste estimates for Fishers Island, respectively. Column 6 presents the average tons per day, and Column ' 7 illustrates the corresponding percent by weight for the total waste stream.. Various analyses were performed as comparisons. These analyses are presented in Appendix A, Tables 2. and 3, as well as in footnotes that explain' the various column headings. These analyses are based on other field programs (.e., Towns of Riverhead and Shelter Island) performed by Dvirka & Bartilucci in September 1989 and- January 1990; respectively. Table 4 of Appendix A illustrates the results (percent. by weight), for comparison only, of the analyses performed in Tables 1, 2, and 3: It should be noted that 2022M/10 2-40 PRHVYW ON RECYCL Fn PAPER Pape Plastics 3.1°% Food 6.5% Metals 9.8% Glass Includes Fishers Island Waste Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Calculated Total Waste Stream (Average Percent By Weight) Rubber 1.1% Rubble 10.3% Wood 13.0% Waste 2.6% tard Waste 14.5% [rt & Fines 18,5% Other 3.2% (Misc.: 2.4% ; Sludge : 0.7% Batteries : 0.1%) a FIGURE 2.2.4-1 the various studies/analyses performed may or may not have used comparable or consistent techniques for estimating waste composition. 2.2.5 Residential Waste Stream Composition and Characteristics Sections 2.2.,1, 2.2.2, and 2.2.4 discussed the Town's current solid waste generation quantities and characteristics, respectively. This Section focuses on the composition and characteristics of the residential. portion of the Town's solid waste stream. Composition and characterization information was initially obtained from a May 1989 field solid waste compositional analysis. This data was used in conjunction with scale house data presented in Section 2.2.2. Local and national available information was considered in determining the Town's calculated residential waste stream material component breakdown (excluding land clearing and C&D debris). Table 10 in Appendix A presents the. Town's calculated residential composition of waste (including Fishers Island) and a detailed material component breakdown. The table is based on actual landfill scale data (average tons per day), estimated waste generation on Fishers Island, and a field solid waste compositional analysis performed in May "1989. As shown, Column 1 presents the results obtained from the field compositional analysis of "household" waste (% by weight). Column 2 applies the results in Column 1 to the average tons per day of "garbage" received at the landfill based on scale house data. In Column 3 are the various applicable residential scale house data waste quantities and characteristics used for adjustments for Column 2. , Column 4 presents the estimated average tons per day of residential waste generated on Fishers Island. Column 5 presents. the average tons per day, and Column 6 illustrates the corresponding percent by weight for the residential waste stream.' The following listing and Figure 2.2.5-1 summarizes the calculated percent by weight of the major material component categories for the residential waste stream. This listing and Figure 2.2.5-1 summarize Table 10 presented in Appendix A. 2022M/10 2-42 PRffaW ON RECYCLW PAPER Residential waste stream % by weight excluding land clearing Material Component and C&D debris Paper 27.3 Plastics. 5.7 Food 9.6 Ferrous Metals .10.0 Nonferrous Metals Batteries 0.1 Glass 4.8 Wood 6.2 Rubber 2.1 Other & Fines. 3.3 Yard Waste 20.9 Bulky Waste 4.6 Misc. 4.5 TOTAL 100%* *Totals may not add to exactly. 100.00% due to rounding. Several analyses, using various field programs were performed for the residential waste stream as, a .comparison. These analyses are presented in Appendix A, Tables 5, 6 and 7; as well as in footnotes. that explain the various column headings. These analyses are' based on field programs (i:e., Towns of Riverhead and Shelter Island), performed by D&B in September 1989. and January 1990, respectively. Table 8 of Appendix A illustrates the results (percent by -weight), ,for comparison only, -of the analyses performed in Tables S; 6, and 7. It should be noted that the, various studies/analyses may or may not have used comparable or consistent techniques for � estimating waste composition. 2.2.6 Potential Recyclables in the Waste Stream The State has set a 40% recycling goal to be achieved by 1997. The Town currently. recycles. the following materials: o Metal containers, o Plastic containers o.' Glass containers o. Automobile batteries o Tires o Household hazardous waste 2022Mn a o Newspaper o Metal o Waste .oil o Clothing o' Leaves o Household batteries 2-43 PRW7'FD ON RECYC/ W PAPER Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Calculated "Residential" Waste Stream* Plastics 5.7% Other 4,6% (Batteries; 0.1% ; Misc.: 4.5%) Ferrous Metals 10,0' Non -Ferrous Metal Glass 4,b"/0 Wood 6,20/ (Average Percent By Weight) Paper 27.2% Residential' Waste Excludes Land Clearing and C&D Debris, Con./Asphalt/Brick, Agricultural Debris, Sand/Sod, Sludge, and Woodchips. Includes Fishers Island Waste. Rubber 2,1% Bulky Waste 4,6% rd Waste 20,9% Other & Fines 3.3% FIGURE 2.2.5-1 These materials and their corresponding current quantities were presented in Section 2.1. The implementation of a comprehensive recycling plan is expected to maximize the number and quantity of materials recovered from the waste stream and facilitate easy. participation in the recycling effort. Participation rates are not expected to reach 100%; no community recycling program is known to have ever reached 100% participation over the long—term, full—scale basis. Similarly, it is not possible to recover 100% of the amount of a particular recyclable material since materials can be too small, contaminated with foreign materials that cannot be separated easily, or too low in quality to allow for recovery. The key parameters influencing projected recovery rates through recycling are contained in the following equation for estimating the amount of material -which can be recovered by a recycling program: RR=AQxPRxSExPE Where: RR = 'Recovery Rate: The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream. AQ = Available Quantity. The amount of material present in the waste stream. PR = Participation Rate. The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in a recycling program. SE _ Separation Efficiency. The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by program participants. PE = Processing . Efficiency. The percentage of material remaining after processing. Projected recycling goals for the Town are presented in Section 5 in order to discuss proposed recycling programs. The recovery calculations and recovery equation are discussed in more detail in Appendix E. These recovery rates have been applied to the Town's waste stream to develop the projected recycling goals for the Town. As previously stated, 100% recovery of a particular recyclable component is not possible since materials can be too small, contaminated, or too low in quality to be. recovered. Also, while the potential exists to recycle a material, that does not mean that a market exists, can be created, or that it is a practical or cost effective alternative. 2022M/10 2-45 PRBVTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Additional categories. -of potentially recyclable materials include. some private sector quantities of the residential waste categories (including newspaper, glass, and metal containers, etc.), land clearing debris, and construction and demolition debris. Food wastes can -be composted, and lumber, bushes, and tree 'stumps -can be processed into wood chips or used as bulking agents for composting operations. Fines and dirt can be recovered, and cement; asphalt, and rocks can be recycled into new aggregate material. Some metals, glass, and paper can, also be recovered for recycling from construction and demolition debris. The private sector, generates- recoverable' materials that can be recycled to further .reduce the total waste stream. Bars and restaurants -can establish metal,.glass; corrugated, and food waste recovery programs. Offices offer a great potential for recovery of various high grade paper products, and supermarkets can effectively recover corrugated materials.. Landscapers can provide on-site composting of yard- wastes for their customers, or _collect this material for delivery to . large scale composting operations. Other private. establishments have similar potential for recovering materials from the waste stream. Private sector recycling is important to any successful recycling effort. Recycling'of components of -the waste stream can be accomplished in the public or, private sector. The use of existing services, both private and Town operated, need to -be maximized for a recycling program to reach its full potential. Public education and involvement programs . can greatly increase public participation, but the use of private recycling services is usually based on a cost-effective decision. Land clearing and construction and demolition. debris- are not currently recycled by the Town. If private sector recycling of these wastes can be ,encouraged, however; additional recyclables can be recovered to further reduce the waste -stream. '2.3 Market Identification and Opportunities for Recycling This Section identifies the marketing opportunities available within the region for recyclables. A market survey for recyclable materials has been prepared,' along With, -.a separate. market assessment for products of composting operations.. A discussion of the, public participation aspect of recycling is also contained' in , this .Section. Thee technological . and management alternatives of recycling are evaluated in -Section 3. The alternative recycling plans are evaluated in Section 4, and a comprehensive recycling analysis is presented in Appendix E. 2022M/10 2-46 PRMUED ON RECYCLED PAPER I 2.3.1 Existing Recycling Efforts The Town provides its residents and businesses with an opportunity to, recycle multiple materials at the Town's solid waste complex. A residential recycling drop-off station has been established'' in the collection center at the landfill complex to accommodate deliveries of source separated glass, aluminum and tin cans, newspaper, plastics,' batteries, -and clothing. In addition, a bi-level drop-off station for bulk deliveries of recyclables is currently maintained to the west of the collection center, and is used to accommodate deliveries from the voluntary curbside collection program currently in .effect. There are separate drop-off areas for white goods, tires, and used motor oil as - well. 'Although recycling is not currently mandated, 1990 scale house data indicates that the Town recovers approximately 3.5% of the total waste stream (refer . to Appendix B for preliminary '1990 scale house data). Materials are source separated and deposited into the designated containers at the collection',center. Vehicle deliveries from waste haulers can also be accommodated at the landfill. At present, very few large volume deliveries of recyclable materials are being received at the collection center. An engineering report for a small scale yard waste• composting facility was recently' approved by NYSDEC. This initial operation is designed to accommodate less than 3,000 cubic yards of leaves per year- This facility could be expanded in the future to a large scale operation capable of composting all of the Town's yard ' waste. The engineering J report for the small scale yard waste .composting effort can; be found in Appendix F. 2.3.2 Market Survey for Recyclable Materials Based upon experience, it has been recognized that an: important aspect of a successful recycling program is material marketing. A common concern expressed when recycling has been considered .as a component of a solid waste management program is whether adequate markets exist to support a recycling program on a long-term basis. The design and operation of any.recycling system requires the following information: o - Material Quality Specifications' o Delivery Specifications o Geographic Location of Market, Demand o Current Material Values 2022M/10 2-47 PRWTED ON RECYCLED PAPER This information, as a whole, must guide the development of a material recovery system with respect to how materials are to be collected and prepared for market acceptance. First. -market conditions will preclude or encourage the recovery of specific categories of ' waste materials generated in the Town. Second, they will partially define the feasibility of different strategies for encouraging participation and minimizing .operating costs. In many cases, program strategies will be a result of seeking the best tradeoffs between meeting market demands and maximizing recovery rates. As part of developing -a solid waste plan for the Town, a material market survey was performed for recyclable material processors and brokers in the metropolitan area to identify the types of materials in demand, the value of those materials; and the quality and, delivery requirements. A recyclable materials marketing survey containing recyclers, location, and accepted materials is provided in Table 2.3.2-1. 2.3.3 Market Assessment for Compost Products Container grown and field grown nursery crops (tree, shrub, and bush species) comprise 6,500 acres of production in Suffolk County, constituting 50% of the New York State nursery crop production total. Container grown nursery 'crops have increased tremendously in recent years and will continue to do so, having 8 times the productivity of field grown nursery crops on a per acre basis. Presently, the nursery crop segment generates .$61 million in gross annual sales in the . County. Typically, container grown nursery crops are produced in a growing mix consisting of varying proportions of coarse builders sand, peat moss, and/or ground bark. Compost can be utilized as a replacement for all or part of each of these growing mix components depending on the nursery crop(s) produced. Such compost applications could reduce -.growing mix costs, supply nutrients, and'provide the crop with the potential ability.to resist certain diseases. Floriculture industry, involving cut flowers, potted flowering and foliage plants, bedding plants and perennials, encompasses 15 million square feet (300 acres) of greenhouse facilities, 50 acres of field grown crops, and 3 million perennials in Suffolk County, totaling $200 ' million in gross annual sales. Container crops typically .utilize a growing mix consisting of varying proportions of peat moss and vermiculite. Compost can be utilized to partly or completely replace the present growing 'mix, depending on the particular crop.. Such compost applications could reduce growing mix costs, supply nutrients, and provide the crop with potential disease resistance capabilities. 2022M/10 2-48 PR01R'ED ON RECYCLED PAPE! 2022M/9 _ Table 2.3.2-1 l TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN' MARKETS AND PRIVATE PROCESSING FACILITIES FOR RECYCLABLES Comaanv Location/Telephone Recvclables Processed A & R Lobosco, Inc. 3133 Farrington Street Newsprint only - clean, dry no Flushing, NY 11354 contamination r (718) 358-2098 ABM Oils 310 Grand Boulevard Motor oil Deer Park, NY 11.729 (516) 595=1355 AB Oil Service Ltd. 29 Florence Avenue -Motor oil only; can tolerate a Smithtown, NY .11787 small amount of antifreeze; no (516) 361-9757 PCB's Alcoa Recycling Company 815 Fairview Avenue Aluminum cans only Fairview, NJ (201) 225-9550 All County Recycling Corporation 438 Livingston Avenue Paper and/or cardboard* Babylon, NY (516) 321-1496 _ A11•Island Demolition Recycling 82 Horseblock Road Demolition materials, wood, plastic, Y.aphank, NY 11735 concrete and metals* (516) 924-2426 Amco Metals 1031 Conklin Street )Metals except computer circuit Farmingdale, NY 11735 boards l (516) 249-5344 _ Amoco Foam Products Company P.O. Box 3178 Polystyrene plastic Winchester, VA 22601 (703) 667-9740 A.S.K. Metals Company 180 Miller Place Precious metals* Hicksville, NY. 11801 .(516) 933-8680 . Boro. Recycling 54-35 48th Street Various paper grades Maspeth,, NY 11378. (718) 482-7180 Brookhaven Recycling and Waste Corp. 36 Potter Avenue Aluminum; clean and dry' newsprint Patchogue, NY 11772 or high grade paper; no'magazines (516) 475-4788 _ 2022M/9 _ Company Brooklyn Union Gas Co. Bufz Scrap Metals Canterbury Company Chauncey Metal Processors, Inc. Cousins Metals Industries, Inc. Crestwood Metals D and A Scrap Iron and Metal David Markowitz Metal Company DeMasco Scrap Metals UeMatteo'Salvage Company, Inc. Den Enterprises, Inc. Table 2.3.2-1 (Continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN MWETS.AND PRIVATE PROCESSING FACILITIES FOR RECYCLABLES Location/Telephone Recvclables Processed 195 Montague Street (Main Office) Plastics* Brooklyn, NY 11201-3631 13 Three Mile Harbor -Road Metals* East Hampton, NY 11937 (516) 324-1600 40 Glen Street Paper and/or cardboard* Glen Cove, NY 11542 (516) 671-7100 -1111 Lincoln Avenue Metals* Holbrook, NY 11741 (516) 567-4400 460 Brown Court Metals* Oceanside, NY • 11572 (516) 536-7755 1100 Lincoln Avenue Metals* Holbrook, NY 11741 (516) 567-2727 / 635 Muncy Avenue Metals* Lindenhurst, NY 11757 (516) 888-9086 45 Brook Avenue Prime metal factory turnings Deer Park, NY 11728 copper, aluminum, nonferrous, (516) 586-1010 metals. Do not handle mixed ferrous 612 Munch Avenue Metals* Lindenhurst, NY 11757 (516) 699-8118 90 Gleam Street Dry newsprint; high grade paper; West Babylon, NY 11704 computer printouts; corrugated. (516) 643-7940- Metals — mixed metals accepted, (516) 694-4747 however, if sorted, steel, aluminum, tin 857 Lincoln Avenue Plastics* Bohemia, NY 11716 .(516) 567-3303 2022M/9 Table 2.3.2-1 (Continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN MARKETS AND PRIVATE PROCESSING FACILITIES FOR RECYCLABLES Coewanv Location/Telebhone Recvclables Processed DiNapoli Recycling Company P.O. Box 183 Metals* Oyster Bay, NY 11771 ' (.516) 922-4766 Duffy Thompson, Inc. 266 Route 109 Concrete crushed for aggregate* Farmingdale, NY 11735 (516) 293-6552 Ecosphere Recycling 449 West John Street Metals* Hicksville, NY 11801 (516) 935-5800 Ed's Salvage, -Inc. 69 Foreign Trade Zone Court Paper and/or cardboard* Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 (516) 981-5522 (516).981-5518 Environmental,Resource Recycling, Inc. P.O. Box 117 Deposit cans and bottles only; no Yaphank, NY 11980 " glass jars EWG Recycling Company 172-33 Douglas.Avenue Bottles must be color sorted, Brooklyn, NY clear, brown, green (718) 739-7270 George's Sanitation Services Old Country Road Mulch and woodchips* Quogue, NY 11959 (516) 653-6666 -Gershow Recycling 71 Peconic Avenue Ferrous and nonferrous metals, P.O. Box 526 white goods. No tin,cans Medford, NY 11763. (516) 289-6188 Goldmark Plastic Compounds, Inc. Nassau Terminal Road PET, HDPE (Broker) New Hyde Park,.NY 11040 (718) 343-7600. Grimes Contracting P.O. Drawer D Concrete crushed for aggregate* Montauk, -NY 11954 (516) 668-5332 Harmon Associates 86 Garden Street Paper and/or cardboard* Westbury,. NY 11590 (516) 997-3400 2022M/9 Comaanv Hubbard Sand & Gravel Iberia Plastics Recycling Corp. Industrial Plastics IPF Recycling Corporation Jamaica Recycling Corporation Table 2.3.2-1 (Continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN MARKETS AND PRIVATE PROCESSING FACILITIES FOR RECYCLABLES Location/Teleahone Recvclables Processed 1612 Fifth Avenue Mulch and woodchips* Bay Shore, NY 11706 (516) 665-1005 1815B Broad Hollow Road Sorted PET and HDPE, plastic East Farmingdale, NY 11735 containers.- Color. mixed HDPE (516) 694-0165 accepted 8 Maple Avenue - Plastics* Freeport, NY 11520 (516) 233-2075 151 Fulton Avenue Paper and cardboard* Garden City,.NY (516) 746-7575 112 Phyllis Court* Paper and cardboard*, Elmont, NY 11003 '(516) 285-6022 and 94-23 165th Street Jamaica, NY (718) 526-1465 . Jet Paper Stock Corp. 228 Blydenburgh Road Baled newspaper.and.corrugated Central Islip, NY 11722 (516) 234-7100 JK Waste Oil Service 280 Grand Boulevard Motor oil. Deer Park, NY 11729 (516) 586-6223 Long Island Bi—Modal .99 East Shore Drive Tires* Babylon, NY 11702 (516) 422-2929 M and M Scrap Corporation Peconic Avenue Metals* Medford, NY ,11763 (516) 475-1550 Metropolitan Rubber Products, Inc: 343 East 47th Street (Main Office) .Tires* New York, NY 10021 (212) 744-1685 2022M/9 Table 2.3.2-1 (Continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN MARKETS AND PRIVATE PROCESSING FACILITIES FOR RECYCLABLES Company Location/Telephon-e Recyclables Processed Metski Enterprises, Inc. 181 Frowein Road Mulch and woodchips* East Moriches, NY. 11940 (516) 878-0652 (516) 878-1.020 Mid -Island Salvage Corporation 1007 Long Island Avenue Metals* Deer Park,. NY 11729 (516) 667-5040 National Waste Technologies, Inc. 934 Easton Street Mixed Plastics Ronkonkama, NY 11779 .(516) 588-4545 Newark Boxboard Company 57 Freeman.Street Corrugated only; no newsprint; no Newark, NJ 07105 contamination New York Paper Stock Corporation 24 Columbus Avenue Paper and/or cardboard* Patchogue, NY 11772 ,(516) 758-1742 North Shore.Salvage Corporation 181 Denton AVenue -Metals* New Hyde Park, NY 11040 (516),746-8454 NYCONN Industries, Inc. { 4-11 47th Avenue Plastics* Long Island City,. NY 11101 (516) 392-1177 Omni Recycling 50 Charles Lindbergh Blvd. Plastics, metals, glass* Uniondale, NY 11553 (516) 222-0709 > Oxford Tire Recycling, Inc-. 40 East Dudley Town Road Tires* Bloomfield; CT, 06002 (203) 242-6251 110 Sand and Gravel,•Inc. 203 Spagnoli Road Construction and demolition Holtsvil.le,. NY 11742 waste (516) 249-4108 P & P Paper Recycling Systems, Inc.. 31.1 Windling Road Paper 'and/or cardboard* Old Bethpage, NY 11804 (516) 2494577 2022M/9 I 2022M/9 Table 2.3.2-1 (Continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN MARKETS AND PRIVATE PROCESSING FACILITIES FOR RECYCLABLES 'Company Location/Telephone Recvclables Processed Pace Glass, Inc. 73-75 Cornelison Avenue Bottles must be color sorted, clear, Jersey City, NJ 07304 brown, green;' caps, rings and .(201) 433-4751 labels do not have to be removed from bottles. Will accept plate glass Parents and Sons 24 Denton Avenue Metals* New Hyde Park, NY .11040 (516) 746-1081 Pav-Co.Asphalt, Inc. Furrows Road Concrete crushed for aggregate* Holtsville, NY 11742 (516) 289-3406 Pinnacle Industries 160 Wilbur Place Dry newsprint Bohemia, NY 11716 (516) 589 -5426 - PK Scrap Metals Co. 3524 Route 112 Metals* Coram, NY 11727 (516) 732-6403 Plastic Recyclers, Inc. 77 Wyandanch Avenue Mixed plastics Wyandanch, NY 11789 (516) 491-1490 Polystyrene Recycling, Inc. 220 DuPont Street All plastic types. Sorted or •Brooklyn, NY 11222 mixed (718) 349-3601 Productive Recycling 1870 Pond Road Mulch and woodchips* Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 (516) 467-2299 Romano Brothers Scrap Metil.Co. Muncy Avenue - Metals* Lindenhurst, NY 11757 (516) 669-7915 - (516) 661-3893 Rutigliano 84:Kinkel Street High grade paper' Westbury, NY 11590 (516) 334-3132 2022M/9 Central Islip, NY 11722 (516) 582-8855 USA Recycling, Inc. 110 Old Northport Road Paper and/or cardboard, Kings Park, NY 11754 -glass, metals* (516) 368-5533 •Vrabel Engineering and.Sales Co. 9 Camden Place Tires* New Hyde Park, NY 11040 (516) 746-5139 Westbury Paper Stock Corp. 633 Dickens Street. Newspaper, corrugated paper, and P.O. Box 833 high grades Westbury, NY 11590 (516) 333-221"1 Source: D&B survey and Recycling Unit of Suffolk County Department of General Services * As identified by the Recycling Unit of Suffolk County 2022M/9 Table 2.3.2-1 (Continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN MARKETS AND PRIVATE PROCESSING FACILITIES FOR RECYCLABLES Company Location/Telephone Recvclables Processed Sabre Recycling Corporation 206 Babylon Turnpike Metals, plastics* Roosevelt, NY 11575- 1575(516) (516)379-5124 Schneider Coal and Trucking Company, Inc. Route #1 Bottles only - separated into three Box 16F colors: green, amber, and clear. Miller Place Road All rings removed. Middle Island, NY 11953. (516) 924-4414 Security Paper Recycling Co. 17307 Liberty Avenue- Paper and/or cardboard* Jamaica, NY. 11433 (516) 328-0220 Suffolk Tab Salvage, Inc. 24 Columbus Avenue Metals.* P'.0. Box 1304 East Patchogue, NY 11772 (516) 654-8606 Suffolk Cement Products West Middle Road Mulch and woodchips* _ Calv.erton, NY 11933 . (516) 721-2317 Trimax of Long Island C/O On -Line Management Plastics*. 515'Route 111 Hauppauge, NY 11788 (516) 979=0800_ Universal Recycling 5 Boulevard Avenue Paper and/or cardboard, metals* Central Islip, NY 11722 (516) 582-8855 USA Recycling, Inc. 110 Old Northport Road Paper and/or cardboard, Kings Park, NY 11754 -glass, metals* (516) 368-5533 •Vrabel Engineering and.Sales Co. 9 Camden Place Tires* New Hyde Park, NY 11040 (516) 746-5139 Westbury Paper Stock Corp. 633 Dickens Street. Newspaper, corrugated paper, and P.O. Box 833 high grades Westbury, NY 11590 (516) 333-221"1 Source: D&B survey and Recycling Unit of Suffolk County Department of General Services * As identified by the Recycling Unit of Suffolk County 2022M/9 Over 4,500 acres of Suffolk's farmlands are devoted to sod .production, generating $10 million in gross annual sales. Although no bulk materials are presently being applied apart from seed, lime, and fertilizer, a lime treated compost with an above neutral pH could have potential use as a water retaining organic mulch for seeding, with the ability to alter the root zone. ph of the seed bed. Additionally, there is the potential of applied compost to aid in reducing disease occurrence to seedlings, as well -as to provide slow release nutrients to young turf grass. Compost may be useful. to the horse industry as well. Horses total approximately 30.,000 ' between_ Suffolk and Nassau' Counties., In Suffolk County alone; there.. are 41 thoroughbred farms, ranking Suffolk County as second in New York State. Collectively, there are 150 riding academies, pleasure horse farms, tack shops, and feed stores in Suffolk County. Associated with, these activities. are many acres of pasture which require sound agronomic management to maintain pasture land for grazing and riding. .Annual application of above neutral ph compost as a top dressing could help maintain the vigor and quality of the pasture grass for grazing and physical wear. Suffolk County, with approximately. 40,000 acres of farmland, is the leading County in New York State in the wholesale value of agricultural products. Seventy—five percent of this acreage is located .in the Towns of Southhampton, Riverhead, and Southold. While Class I compost cannot be applied to- direct human consumption crops, it can be applied to those crops which undergo processing before consumption.' Class II compost, although prohibited from application on human consumption crops, can be applied to nonfood crops. An important point to consider is that peat moss, peat based soilless mixes, and similar items must be trucked onto Long Island for use by the horticultural industry. This increases their. cost due to the expense of transportation. Compost, however, would be produced from locally generated waste materials and would not incur the -transportation cost. Compost can, therefore, be competitive to other bulk items imported in for use. This, in addition to the reduction of traditional disposal needs for locally generated waste, would further increase compost attractiveness. With regard to the horticultural services and consumer retail horticultural industry, there are significant advantages to the , use of compost. This can be subdivided into landscaping, lawn care, and grounds keeping categories. 2022M/10 2-56 PRWTED ON RECYCLED PAM Landscaping contracting, entails a large amount of construction work, such as drainage systems, grading, lawn construction, . tree, hedge, and shrub planting, and construction of gardens-, retaining walls, walkways, patios, and various accessory structures. (fencing, gazebos, etc.) Lawn care involves maintenance. of lawns 'with regards to' mowing, trimming, fertilizing, liming, seeding, pest control, aerating, irrigating, cleanup, and leaf collection. Grounds keepers maintain lawns, trees, shrubs, . hedges, gardens, driveways, and walkways as well as some minor'landscaping structures. Compost can be used in place of, or in conjunction with, peat moss, mulch, or topsoil as a bulk item supplying organic matter and volume to growing media for horticultural purposes involving, lawn, garden, construction, tree, shrub, and hedge planting. r Over the, past decade, consumer horticulture has increased tremendously with more people devoting more time and resources to gardening and grounds care, either as home owner. performed activities, or as a - service performed .by a contractor. This is ` particularly true of areas with significant residential development. Two slightly different solid waste 'compost market surveys , of horticultural operations were performed in five Counties in New York State, not including Suffolk County. These Counties, geographically and demographically, range from rural agricultural to suburban professional communities. More detailed discussions of. the survey can be found - in Appendix F. Those surveyed were. involved in the horticulture production and horticulture service industries.- The responses are grouped as follows: Production 21.5% Nursery, - 13.8%. Greenhouse 1.5% 'Vegetable 0.8% Christmas Tree 0.8 Soils Manufacture 2022M/10 % Response, Other 4.6% 2-57' Service/Maintenance/Sales 36.9% Landscape Contractor 15.4% Resident/Commercial Grounds 2.3% Florist 0.8% Garden Center 0.8% Recreational 0.8% Cemetery Grounds PMY7EU ON RECYCL 0. PAPER' It can be concluded from these surveys that landscape contractor, nursery, residential/commercial grounds, and greenhouse activities constitute 87.6% of all responses. These are the main concentrations within the industry. Therefore, a large percentage of the industry can take advantage of Class II compost use.. Bulk material, such as topsoil, mulch/woodchips, compost, soilless mix, peat moss, and manure, -can be amended with or substituted by a properly formulated compost depending on the situation and need. The respondents indicated that 63% had storage space for stockpiling bulk materials and, could transport bulk materials. The most important characteristics of the compost to potential. regional users were cost, availability, and ease of handling, with 74% of ,the respondents indicating that they would be willing to try a compost in place of a bulk material they were currently using. Additionally, 70% indicated that should a high quality compost be available,, they would be willing to make use of it on a regular basis. Further, with a price advantage of 50% over bulk material currently being used, 80% of the respondents would seriously consider the use of compost. The , materials compost would supplement or replace were listed as topsoil, mulch, soilless. mix, and peat moss. Finally, :73% of the respondents prefer additional information regarding compost quality. Many preferred to test a sample of the compost product before committing to its use. An earlier study, performed by HDR Engineering, Inc. for Daneco, Inc., agrees with this analysis. Horticulture, nurseries, landscapers, and greenhouse operations all showed an interest and- willingness to. use and sell compost of consistent and good quality. With regards .to agriculture, the potential was apparent for compost use. on processed food crops and. nonfood crops. Compost was also indicated to have an advantage. over peat moss, topsoil, and other similar. materials trucked onto Long Island ' and could, therefore, be competitive for use in horticulture and agriculture. Regionally,' the horticultural industry is interested and willing to use compost, provided cost, availability, and handling needs are met. ' Although there appears to be interest and potential users of Class I or Class II compost in the State of New York,_ The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has expressed concerns regarding the potential for leachates from compost that contain heavy metals and organic contaminants to . seep into groundwater after the compost is applied to the land. It appears that SCDHS could restrict the application of 2022M/10 2-58 PRWTED ON RECYCLED PAPER .compost on land, in the deep recharge zones of Suffolk County if it is produced using mixed refuse as a feed stock. Additionally, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services stated that potential users may be fearful, from a.product liability standpoint, of utilizing municipal solid waste compost,- and that there may be hesitance to". use materials grown in municipal solid waste compost around their homes: Further, they have stated that extensive monitoring of the leachate quality from pilot scale facilities in Suffolk is the preferable way to proceed. 2.4 New York -State Policies Governing Solid Waste Facilities The NYSDEC has -promulgated comprehensive new' regulations concerning solid waste facilities under 6NYCRR Parts 219 and 360. The Part .360 regulations .govern aspects of solid. waste facilities, . including, facility siting, construction/operation requirements, and permitting. The revised Part 219 regulations govern air emission limitations for new municipal and private solid waste incineration facilities and provide operating guidelines. The regulations incorporate recent legal, technical, and policy developments which guide the efforts of municipalities and private businesses in the development of solid waste management systems. The new emissions standards limit the amount of dioxins and other pollutants that may be emitted from, incinerator 'stacks, specify the design and construction of sophisticated, state—of—the—art landfills, and outline .methods for monitoring possible air or groundwater, contamination. 2.4.1 Part 360: Solid Waste Regulations Summaries of the .revisions to 6NYCRR Part 360 effective December 31, 1988, are provided in this Section. An overview of the Part 360 regulations authorized under Section 27-0703 of 'the State Environmental Conservation Law areas follows: o Updates standards for the permitting, design, construction, . `operation, maintenance, closure, and environmental monitoring of solid waste facilities 2022M/10 2-59 , PRQYrEO ON RECYCLED PAPER o Requires double composite liners and dual leachate. collection and detection systems for all landfills except C&D landfills o Requires groundwater monitoring for landfills o Requires gas venting and monitoring for landfills o Mandates a recycling analysis as a part of a solid waste management system before any permit will be issued for construction of a solid waste management facility o Clarifies definitions for many aspects of solid waste management that previously have been incorporated in various policy and regulatory decisions o Reorganizes and greatly expands earlier Part 360 regulations and incorporates policy developments such as the Long Island Landfill Law, crematory operation, and medical waste incineration o Sets standards for construction and demolition debris disposal, disposal of ash from incinerators, operation of recycling centers, land spreading of sewage treatment solids, and composting of yard wastes o Requires extensive reporting and documentation of construction and operation of facilities and mandates post closure monitoring and reporting for up to 30 years The Part 360 regulations, effective December 31, 1988, also provide for exemption of land spreading of .waste from food processing activities if the waste is utilized as. fertilizer, soil conditioner, or animal feed supplement. The new regulations also establish limits on the heavy metal accumulation in soil. Landfills Permitting of landfills for construction and operation is . found in the Part 360 regulations as 360-2. Under these regulations, all future solid waste landfills will require 2022M/10 2-60 PRBVTEO ON RECYC/ EO PAPE) a double composite liner system, a leachate'. collection and removal system, and a groundwater monitoring system that only a short time ago became the state-of-the-art standard for toxic waste landfilling systems. The Part 360 .regulations concerning landfills also present requirements for groundwater monitoring and gas venting and collection, as well as daily cover requirements and final capping of the landfill after closure. Long Island Landfill Law: This section -of the Part 360 regulations is in addition to the regulations found as 360-2. The purpose of this legislation (ECL 027-0704) is to phase out landfilling of municipal solid waste in deep flow groundwater recharge areas (208 Plan Zones I, II, III) in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, and to promote resource' recovery as an alternative method of solid waste disposal. This was incorporated into the Part 360 regulations as 360-8. Differentiation of the types of landfills that can be permitted for construction and operation are defined.' In deep flow recharge areas, only clean fills may be permitted to be constructed -.and operated for construction and demolition and land clearing debris. These materials must meet the definition of clean fill found in 360-1.2(b)(22). Landfills are allowed. outside of the deep recharge areas in the interim while resource recovery systems are being constructed, and ultimately only for bypass waste, untreatable waste, and the products of resource and materials recovery. Landfill Closure Criteria for closing a landfill after -its useful life, as outlined in Part 360-2.15 regulations, call for monitoring of the site and annual reporting to NYSDEC for at least 30 years. A hydrogeological investigation must be performed, including the installation of a long-term monitoring well network in the upper aquifer.. In addition, any other wells that the NYSDEC may decide are necessary to monitor deeper aquifers must be installed. An explosive gas investigation must be .performed, and a landfill gas control system designed to prevent the migration of concentrated amounts of gases is, to be installed. If the landfill gas is to be captured for commercial use, the operator of such a system must receive a permit and produce an engineering plan for the operation. A post closure monitoring and maintenance/operations manual must be developed which details the proper testing and maintenance to becarried outfor at least 30 years. The 30 year period may be. extended in five-year intervals if the NYSDEC determines it is necessary. 2022M/10 2-61 PR�IRFD ON RECYCLED PAPER Energy Recovery The Part 360 regulations update standards for the design, construction, operation-, maintenance, closure, and environmental monitoring of all solid waste facilities, especially 'energy recovery facilities. These criteria include limits for air, emission products under Part 219 regulations. These regulations also specify that best available control technologies be utilized to control, nitrogen emissions. Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D) Disposal Under the Part 360 regulations (Part 360-8.6), a different level of regulation was established for C&D wastes based on the acreage involved in the landfilling. C&D landfills of greater than two acres are subject to essentially the same restrictions as any solid waste landfill, except that only a' single composite liner would be required for clean fills outside of the deep flow recharge area. These facilities (two acres or. ,greater) must also have a leachate removal system in place. C&D landfills of two acres or .less would be subject to less rigorous standards but would still require a permit., Clean fills of less than two acres in size for land reclamation purposes, not including woodchips, grass clippings, of1umber, would not require a liner. A clean fill, regardless of size or. location, could also be operated without a permit providing only recognizable concrete and masonry materials generated on-site is placed for land reclamation in accordance -with Part 360-8.6(b). These requirements are discussed further in Section i 3.1.6. Materials/Waste Processing Part 360-3.2 of the regulations state that applications to build or operate a solid waste incinerator or processing facility handling more than a ton of refuse per hour must include an economic and market analysis. A comprehensive recycling analysis is also required to ensure that ' only solid waste that cannot be recycled will be.accepted at the facility. A processing facility is defined as a facility where the volume, chemical, or physical characteristics of solid waste are changed through processes including separation, baling, or shredding before being delivered to a landfill, composting facility, or incinerator. 2022M/10 2-62 A • PRw ED oN RECYCLED PAPEF Provisions will be required for handling untreatable waste which includes batteries (dry cell batteries, mercury batteries; and vehicle batteries), as well as large bulky items such as refrigerators,` water heaters, and large auto parts. Provisions would need to be made for the separation and storage of this waste at. a facility. Communities that contribute waste to a facility would be notified that separate collection and disposal of batteries -and other untreatable wastes will be required. These provisions are part of a mandated waste control plan that will require a questionnaire to be mailed to all industries, commercial establishments, and institutions inquiring. about the nature of the refuse they will send to the facility. Training of staff in handling any unusual or untreatable items will be included. The State would regulate the operation of larger recycling facilities (those handling more than five tons of material a day) under the Part 360-12 regulations.. In order to obtain a recycler's permit, an applicant would have to submit a market and economic analysis to ensure that a proposed recycling. project was viable. Also, an assessment would have to be made of the impact of the operation on other recycling and' incinerating operations. An application would include a site analysis, engineering plans, a maintenance, operations, and safety manual, and a guarantee from a landfill to dispose of any unrecyclable materials generated by the business. Z Operations that would require approval by 'the NYSDEC include facilities processing construction and demolition debris. Woodchipping for mulch, crushing of stone for fill, separating metals for scrap, and transfer stations that extract corrugated containers, paper, plastic, and glass from mixed solid waste are. also covered by these regulations. Exempt from the regulations are smaller recyclers, auto dismantlers and junkyards, metal salvage yards, and recycling facilities handling five to 30 tons per day of source separated and nonputrescible solid waste that generate less than one ton per day of 'residue. Composting The regulations on composting differentiate between composting yard wastes, municipal solid waste, and sewage sludge. 'Exempt from regulation would be the composting of yard wastes on a site of less than one acre and handling less than 3,000 cubic yards of material per year. Acceptable methods of composting and the use of compost are outlined in the regulations. 2022M/10 2-63 PRIMED ON RECYCLED PAPER J 2.4.2 New York State Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 r In April, 1988; the New York State Legislature adopted the Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA) of 1988. The Act amended the State's environmental conservation law, . public authorities law, economic development law, State finance law, local jurisdictional laws, and solid ' waste regulations. Its purpose was to encourage waste reduction, accelerate the recovery and reuse of secondary' materials, encourage the conservation of resources, foster public/private initiatives, and encourage a new ethic to conserve and reuse rather then discard these materials. ' The objectives are to be accomplished through the establishment of a State solid waste management policy, creation. of a State waste reduction and recycling bureau, allocation of planning monies, and development of governmental procurement and recycling policies on the state and local level.. Further, the Act provided a legal basis to the solid waste hierarchy first presented in the. New York State Solid Waste Management Plan. 2-.4.3 New York State Solid Waste Management Plan In New York State, the role of recycling with respect to solid waste projects is presented in Chapter 552 of - the Laws of 1980, and in the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan and the updates of December 1987, and February 1989. The SWMP is updated regularly and includes information on the status of solid waste management in New York State. The Plan defines problems associated. with solid waste, discusses management methods, identifies the legislative, regulatory; and program framework for environmentally sound solid waste management, and establishes goals to move towards integrated solid waste management over the next .decade. Additionally, reduction/recycling goals for the State were first developed and presented in the SWMP. The SWMP first presented the concept of the State's solid waste management method hierarchy which is listed below in order of preference: o Waste Reduction: Reduce the amount 'of solid waste at the source, or point of generation, through Federal; State, County, and local initiatives. A goal of 8% to 10% by 1997 is desired 1. 2022M/10 2-64 PRBVTED ON RECYC/FD PAPER o.v Recycling and Reuse: Reuse or recycle 40% of the solid waste generated in New York State by 1997. o Resource Recovery: Waste -to -energy .technologies can be included in an integrated solid waste management system o Landfilling: The State's goal is to use landfills only`for disposal of wastes which cannot be reduced, recycled, recovered, or processed 7 2.4.4 Solid Waste Planning Process and Public Participation The SEQR process, with its. provisions for public participation, was established on the basis that "... it was the Legislature's . intention that all agencies conduct their. affairs with an awareness that they are stewards of the air, water, land, and .living resources, and that they have an obligation to protect the environment for the use. and enjoyment of this and all future generations." To this end, a statewide regulatory framework was provided for the implementation of SEQR.by all state and local agencies. SEQR and 6NYCRR Part 360 are to be .followed in developing a solid .waste management plan. Towards that goal, this document attempts to satisfy both SEQR and the Part 360 requirements in presenting the Solid Waste Management Plan for the Town. SEQR - Purrose and Environmental Impact Statements The State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQR), established by the New York Environmental Conservation - Law and Part 617 and other NYSDEC* implementing regulations, has as its basic purpose the incorporation of environmental factors into the planning, review, and decision making processes of State, regional, and local governmental agencies. To accomplish those goals, SEQR requires that it be determined whether or not a proposed action may have a significant effect upon the environment. If so, SEQR requires that an environmental impact statement be prepared to determine how adverse. environmental impacts resulting from the plan can be minimized, avoided, or mitigated to'. the maximum extent practical. The Plan for the Town may have a significant effect on the environment. The format and content of the environmental impact statements are set forth in the SEQR Handbook 'and NYSDEC Regulations which also establish the procedure for the 2022M/10 245 PRW7W ON RECYCL Fn PAPER selection of a leadagency to coordinate the SEQR process and supervise the preparation, circulation, and review of the environmental impact statements. Where, as in the case for this Plan, a program may have wide application or, may narrow the range of future actions, those regulations also. allow for the initial use of generic environmental impact statements which are calculated to provide a general discussion of the logic and rationale for a proposed program and a closer examination of the program's .specific impacts insofar as . they can then .be identified. The generic. approach recognizes that some of the site specific impacts should be deferred for further SEQR review in supplemental environmental impact statements or assessments that are prepared at a later time as the planning process moves forward. Lead Agency Designation On January 29, 1990, the Town of Southold,.in accordance with SEQR requirements, .issued a Notice of Intent to be Lead Agency for the proposed Plan. The Town indicated that. the proposed action was considered a Type I Action and that a Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) would be required. - The Notice, which also contained an Environmental Assessment Form, was sent to 16 potentially involved agencies. Following the 30 -day period for comment or dispute regarding Lead Agency Status, the Town issued a, Positive Declaration on March 1, 1990. 'No other agency objected or came forward to be Lead Agency'. Involved Agencies. Interested Agencies. and Parties There are a number of agencies that may have the jurisdiction by law to fund, approve, or directly undertake the proposed action, and that may have an interest in the proposed action; these are designated involved agencies by SEQR. Other agencies or parties without this privilege, but with an interest in a proposed action, are considered interested agencies or parties. This interest may be related to the interaction of a proposed action with an interested agency's ongoing activities or actions, or the interested agency or .party may be impacted directly or indirectly, by the proposed action of which they received notices: The Town is expected to distribute and file the appropriate SEQR notices and the Draft GEIS/Final GEIS with each . of the involved agencies and with the interested agencies and parties as necessary. In addition, copies are expected to be available, for inspection or purchase at Town Hall. A listing of the I interested agencies, and parties is included in Appendix H. 2022M/10 2-66- PRMEO ON RECYCLED PAA _SARA Scoping Scoping is the SEQR process that identifies *the important environmental issues of a project to be addressed in a Draft GEIS.. The purpose of scoping is to ensure that the Draft. GEIS is a concise, accurate, and complete document that is adequate for public review. Two public scoping meetings were held on March 19, 1990 in the Town. Each attendee received a scoping package. . The Draft GEIS SEQR requires that members of . the public and interested or involved agencies have' direct input and participation in the environmental impact statement- review process.. In, accordance with that requirement, the Town is expected to establish a comment period corimmencing from the date of issuance of this .document. Hearings upon the Draft. GEIS are also expected to be held during the comment period. Persons and agencies. may submit written comments concerning the Draft GEIS at any time during the comment period and may appear at any hearing to present- oral comments of reasonable length. The Final GEIS Upon closure of the comment period, the Town will consider the comments it has received, formulate responses to all substantive comments, and prepare, circulate, and file a Final Generic -Environmental Impact Statement (Final GEIS). The Final GEIS will include revisions made to the Draft GEIS. Upon completion and consideration of the Final GEIS, the Town will make written Findings and Decisions concerning the SEQRA process and will take action on some of the proposals reviewed in this. Draft GEIS. In addition,. the Findings and Decisions will determine that any actions are calculated to minimize, mitigate, or avoid adverse impacts to the maximum extent practicable. J Subsequent SEQR Action The GEIS may be followed, by one or. more supplementary site/technology specific environmental impact statements or environmental assessments. These would evaluate, in a specific nature, the environmental impacts of the proposed Plan and mitigation measures, specific to the site/technology, for impacts not adequately addressed in the 2022M/10 2-67 PRHVMO ON RECYCLW PAPER J GEIS. This further SEQR environmental review would include procedures for public notice and comment in the same manner as was; provided for the Draft GEIS/Final GEIS phase. Public Participation/Public Involvement The public participation activities for the Town's Solid Waste Management Plan were planned to provide opportunities for .involved agencies, interested, agencies, interested parties, public interest groups, private citizens, elected officials and members of the community to become involved in and informed of the . planning, preparation, and decision making stages of the Plan. The objective of the program is to communicate basic information about the Plan and SEQR to a large number of citizens of'the Town through all periods of project development. The public education techniques utilized in the program included .radio and press releases, press briefings, large and small presentations, paid advertisements, or other appropriate forums. A public involvement program provided opportunities to involved and interested agencies, the public, and all other interests to be involved in the planning process.. In addition, a nine member Solid Waste Task Force was formed as an official arm of the Town Board. The Task Force was developed to serve as an advisory panel in the preparation of a solid waste management plan for the Town. e 2022M/10 2-68 PRMED ON RECYCLED PAPf� Section 3 3.0 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGIES SEQRA requires that alternatives to a proposed action be evaluated. The evaluation of alternatives in this DGEIS has been divided into two parts. This Section discusses. .alternative methodologies available for various portions of the Town's solid waste stream, - and Section 4.0 will describe alternative. implementation strategies that .incorporate these methodologies. 3.1 Alternative Methodologies 3.1..1. Waste Reduction The Solid Waste Management Plan prepared by New York State in 1987 'identifies waste reduction as an essential solid waste management strategy. The State indicated that waste reduction is a ke Y strategy whose promotion would assist local governments to reduce the amounts of waste requiring disposal, 'thereby indirectly aiding the, development of more effective waste disposal programs. Towards this end, the State, set a goal for all of New York of 8% to 10% waste reduction by 1997. . Waste reduction can be defined as the avoidance of actions that generate waste materials which must be either recycled or disposed. -'There are two generally accepted strategies for achieving waste reduction: o Increasing the efficiency of use so that less materials are ' needed for any given purpose o Implementing actions or . designs which' significantly increase a product's functional life Increasing materials -use efficiency can be described as providing goods or services at comparable or superior levels _of performance with less material. This can include redesigning a manufacturing process so that it generates less process residues. Alternatively, it can mean that the*product or service itself is provided through -the use of less material. Some examples include the following: o Use of reusable containers instead of plastic wrap o Use of washable cloths instead of paper towels .1977M/7 3-1 PR01rrW ONRECYcW PgpM o Use of paper disposable _cups and plates rather than plastic o Avoiding the use of double wrapped packaged products o Not taking a bag when buying single items-, or use of a reusable cloth shopping bag o Purchase products in paper cartons, rather than plastic or styrofoam containers Increasing a product's functional life can delay its introduction .into the waste stream. There are several ways. this can be accomplished, the simplest being through reuse. _ Reusable containers, such as plastic ,containers for sandwiches as - opposed' to disposable lunch bags, are 'the most common example of this waste reduction approach. 'Another approach is the design of products which are simple and inexpensive to repair when they malfunction. Finally, it is possible to prolong a product's functional use • through remanufacturing techniques. One common remanufacturing technique is the retreading of passenger vehicle and commercial tires. Waste reduction strategies can result from either life-style- or structural changes. Life-style decisions are actions taken by individuals .or groups that are basedon moral, social, or economic reasons. For example, many organizations try to persuade consumers not to purchase products that are overpackaged, choosing instead those made from or packaged in recycled materials. Structural changes are made by organizations seeking to provide goods or services at lower materials utilization rates. A manufacturing industry may determine how they can provide popular consumer products that use fewer parts and are therefore less materials intensive. Structural decisions make it possible- to achieve a certain amount of waste reduction independent of life-style decisions.. Waste reduction strategies" that include remanufacturing processes involve the disassembly and salvage of reusable components. These components are then refurbished, cleaned, and reassembled. Basic criteria for the identification of likely candidates for remanufacturing includes: o Inexpensive source of quality material o Limited number of product models o Stable product technology o High prices of new products o Market acceptance of "remanufactured" models of product 1977M/7 3-2 PRINTED ON RECYC/ D PAPER Examples of remanufacturing efforts include replacement auto parts (water pumps, carburetors, engines, and transmissions), . telephones, and refrigeration systems. In general, remanufacturing seldom requires large capital investment because the majority of -the work performed in the original manufacturing process does not have to be repeated (i.e., casting, forging, 'etc.). T . Another. aspect of waste reduction. could deal with_ the potential toxicity of the materials in the waste stream. Substitution of nontoxic or less 'toxic materials for potentially dangerous materials -is a waste reduction strategy. Reduction of the toxicity of the waste stream can be handled on a large scale by efforts to use recyclable packaging, substitution of less toxic chemicals for more toxic chemicals in a product (such as the current effort to replace ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons), or by the removal of harmful chemicals from a manufacturing process. .While' the weight or volume of the waste stream may not decrease, a reduction of the toxicity of the, waste stream can have significant positive environmental effects: As part of an attempt. at waste reduction, Suffolk County, New York, recently enacted, a bill which bans certain types ,of plastic packaging material. The intent of this legislation was to, replace certain types of plastic with biodegradable materials to reduce' -the volume and alter the composition of the waste stream. The Supreme Court of New York overturned this legislation. In response to similar bans elsewhere, plastic recycling operations have been established in Massachusetts. and New York. Private sector efforts t to., recycle polystyrene -materials from fast food establishments may have been prompted by the Suffolk County law. This effort, however, may or may not significantly reduce -tonnages of waste requiring disposal. It is possible to pass legislation at the Federal, State, -and local levels to mandate. increased waste reduction efforts in the future... Depending upon the' extent of these efforts, it has been assumed by NYSDEC that an 8% to 10% waste reduction goal is possible by 1997. 3.1.2 Household Hazardous Waste Removal Hazardous or toxic materials that are generated by industry, institutions, and businesses are regulated by tracking and disposal requirements. Regulations limit large 1977M/7 3-3 `. PRff17EO ON RECYaED PAFO? sources of highly potent toxic materials from being inadequately handled, processed, landfilled, or. otherwise improperly disposed. 'Contamination and emissions to the environment from toxic materials is less likely to occur as a result of these initiatives: The average home, however, uses a variety of. materials that could be classified as hazardous or toxic. As a result of small volumes and usage, they are not subject to the same disposal requirements that the larger volume producers must follow. _ Household hazardous 'waste are generally considered to be hazardous materials found in a home. Typical household toxic materials include, but are not limited to: o Paints o Polishes o Thinners o Pesticides 1 o Wood preservatives o Herbicides o Solvents o Insecticides o. Cleaning agents o Aerosol cans .0 Oils (other than cooking) o - Fertilizers o Drain cleaners o Antifreeze o Degreasers o Bottles or cans o Batteries with unknown contents Efforts to quantify these materials indicate that these items typically comprise less than 1% of a total municipal solid waste stream. However, the potential potency of the contribution , of the contaminants to leachate and emissions can be considered well in r excess of this percentage. Consequently, removal of household hazardous waste from the waste stream is desirable and should be considered essential in a sound solid waste planning effort. A household is regularly confronted with the need to dispose of household hazardous waste. Unfortunately, typical methods of disposal are: o Pouring material into storm drains or sewers o Dumping in wooded areas or recharge basins o Pouring material "down the drain" into septic or sewer systems R, o Burying material in the backyard o Throwing material into the trash o Storing materials indefinitely 1977M/7 . - 3-4 PRflV ED ON RECYCLED PAPER Some household hazardous, wastes are disposed of during spring cleanups (i.e., aged materials). Some of these household hazardous wastes are disposed of because they may no longer be needed (i.e.; used solvents and thinners), and others may have been contaminated (paintbrush cleaners).. Some may have been banned from use (pesticides, aerosol spray cans), or disposed of after use (solvents 'or oils). The cumulative effect of improperly managed household hazardous waste is a potential environmental and health problem that ' can be reduced or eliminated' through proper, disposal strategies involving strong public education and participation programs. Disposing of household -toxic materials by pouring them down a drain, dumping them in the backyard, or placing them ..in the trash does not eliminate the. contamination problem these materials pose to the environment. In June, 1982, Broome County, New' York, became the State's first County to provide a household hazardous waste collection day. Since then, . many other similar programs have been initiated across New York State and on Long Island. The acronym S.T.O.P., , which stands for Stop Throwing. Out Pollutants, is .recognized on Long •Island as the title of the household toxic materials collection program run by many towns. By the end of 1987, a total of 44 collection days -were held throughout Nassau and Suffolk Counties. Twelve of the thirteen towns sponsored S'.T.O.P. days which resulted in the collection of over 1,000 fifty gallon drums of household toxic materials. Approximately 2,500 households - participated,' and each S.T.O.P. day collected, on average, 25 fifty gallon drums. This, data is found in the Nassau -Suffolk Regional "STOP" Program Progress Report. The Town of Southold alone . -has disposed of over •145 55 gallon drums of laboratory -packed household hazardous .wastes between July 1988 and June 1990. There are two alternatives considered to be effective' for implementing. a S.T.O.P. program for the Town. The first alternative, currently in operation in. the Town, is to �. provide a permanent .storage facility at a central location that can receive. daily deliveries of household toxic materials. In ' the - spring of 1988, the Town opened Long Island's first permanent, year-round household hazardous waste collection facility at the Town's solid waste complex. This is considered an advantage in the Town given the number -of private vehicles that currently drop . off wastes at the site. The ability to deliver these wastes during normal hours of landfill operations may make this program more convenient, and is believed to increase public participation. Five times per year, at a minimum, a licensed hauler removes accumulated materials. The,'major drawback with this type of program is - that 'the ' removal/processing costs can become very high , as a result of the 1977M/7 3-5 P1RMED ON RECYCLED PAPER t volume and types of wastes collected. A full time program may not be practical in a small community such as Fishers Island. A program consisting of scheduled collection "events" may be preferable for the small quantity of household hazardous waste generated in communities with a small population. A licensed collector/hauler would. collect these materials over the course of the S.T.O.P. event(s), and remove them shortly thereafter for disposal. This alternative would minimize the time the collected toxic material• remains in the Town. Further, most of the liability is shifted to the licensed collector/hauler. This ,alternative, however, is considered less -convenient for residents as compared to a permanent S.T.O.P. programa A strong and vigorous public education and involvement program would help to maximize the participation in a S.T.O.P. program. If an effective public education and involvement program was implemented, the difference between a continuous collection program and a regularly scheduled collection program may be minimal. However, it is anticipated that the P permanent S.T.O.P. facility, currently, in operation at the landfill . complex will achieve the greatest level of success in removing toxic materials from the waste stream as a result of the convenience for participation. Chemical Pollution Control, Inc. of Bay Shore, which has been retained as the waste hauler for the Town, and for most of the S.T.O.P. collection days in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, has a fee structure for its services. The initial set up- fee is -approximately .$2,000. i Disposal of_ a 55 -gallon drum of collected, nonpesticide chemicals costs ..approximately $200, with a 55 -gallon drum of collected pesticides and aerosol containers costing approximately $540. ` Batteries are one household hazardous waste that 'can be recovered for." recycling. Popular batteries such as AAA, -C, D, and 9 volt batteries can contain materials such as acids., lead, silver, mercury, nickel, and cadmium. When shredded, crushed, or oxidized over time, these 'pollutants are released in the environment. There is at least one company, MERECO of Albany, that will pay for and recycle certain battery types. All other batteries are accepted for disposal at, a hazardous waste facility. Automobile and ` marine batteries can often be returned to auto part. stores or junk yards .and reclaimed for i future use. Considering the toxicity potential associated with'batteries, the relative ease } and safety of storage, and the opportunities available for recycling,a' continuous program l P �' to recover batteries could be an effective part of, any household hazardous waste removal program. It should be noted that the New York -State legislature has recently passed 1977M/7 3-6. PRf v7M ON RECYCLED PAPER legislation requiring a $5 deposit on car, batteries. Under this law, consumers who return a used battery when they purchase a new one would be exempt: 3.1.3 Materials, Recycling It is estimated that approximately 70% to 80% of the residential waste stream is comprised of potentially recyclable material. However, -,as discussed in Section 2 and Appendix F, the recovery rates for this component demonstrate that it is. not possible to capture all the recyclable materials present in the waste stream. In order to effectively r reduce the waste ' requiring 'disposal, it is necessary. to develop a system for collecting, processing, and marketing a substantial percentage of these recyclable materials. Potential Recyclables Paper: One of the largest components of the waste stream is paper, constituting approximately 15.% of the wastes collected in the- Town. This component includes newspaper, magazines, corrugated boxes, brown paper bags, paperboard, low grade paper, books, and office paper.. Most paper waste is relatively easy to collect and process. Approximately 425 tons of paper (approximately, l% of the waste stream) were recycled in the Town during 1989. Markets are available for many . -of these grades, including , newspapers, corrugated, and high quality office paper such as white ledgers and computer printouts. Although markets for lower grades of paper are not well established, the Town still has the opportunity to recycle` paper within the region. Glass: Markets are locally available for flint containers and mixed green and amber glass. It is more difficult, to locate local markets for plate glass since most are outside the region.. Clear, green, and amber glass are currently -being collected for recycling in the Town. Alternative uses for recycled glass include incorporation into asphalt and as a fill material. This. component accounts for approximately 3% of the total waste stream. Ferrous. Metals: This category includes_ magnetized materials ' such , as tin and bimetal containers, iron, and steel products. Ferrous containers are marketable, but are difficult to collect from residential sources: A ' substantial' amount of .bulky ferrous products. are already recovered at the landfill through the drop-off and stockpiling of major household appliances (white goods). Tin cans are also currently being collected and 1977M/7 3-7 i PRQI7W ONRECYC/W PAPER -recycled at the Town landfill. This recycling substantially reduces the amount of metals in the waste stream. However, current USEPA regulations regarding PCB contamination of scrap yards have somewhat retarded the scrap metal market. "Ferrous metals comprise approximately 9% of the total waste stream in the Town. Nonferrous Metals: This category consists of aluminum food and beverage containers, foil, furniture, structural debris, and housewares. A large portion of nonferrous metal is,already being recycled through mandatory public participation in the Beverage Container Act., Aluminum cans are currently collected and recycled at the Town landfill. ''Demand for aluminum containers and other types of scrap is strong: Nonferrous metals account for approximately 1% of the total waste stream in the Town. Plastics: The generation of plastics is expected to steadily increase, and is a larger component by volume than by weight of the total waste stream. Plastics are currently recovered and marketed in the Town. .As markets continue to develop, and through new processing strategies that are evolving as a result of the increased demand for plastics, it could be expected that more plastic types will be recovered in the future. Plastics comprise approximately 3%: by weight of the total waste stream in the Town. Plastic containers are currently being recycled.in the Town. Yard Waste: This category is highly seasonal, consisting of leaves, grass clippings, brush, and other vegetative materials. Yard waste is easy to separate from the waste stream' and compost. The Town has recently implemented a yard waste . composting operation for leaves at the Town landfill. Small backyard composting efforts provide a. recycling option that benefits the- generator of the i end product. Local markets for compost. products could be developed and would make composting a more feasible solid waste management option. This material accounts for approximately 14% of the ' total waste stream in the Town. Rubber: .This category includes tires and other miscellaneous rubber items. Tires are relatively easy, to collect, but difficult to.process and market. This material accounts for approximately 1% of the total waste stream, in the Town. Textiles: The items included in this category are clothing, and other household fabric.- These . materials are most often recycled through second—hand stores and charitable: organizations. However, further waste reduction; could be accomplished 1977M/7 3-8 PRF*,rI'ED ON RECYCLED PAPER through additional collection, processing, and 'market development. A clothing bin is currently maintained at the Town's landfill complex. Food Wastes: While this component constitutes approximately 7% of the total waste stream in the Town; it is difficult to separate and' collect ' or recycle residential food wastes .through a centralized system. Some' reduction in residential food waste is possible through backyard composting. Centralized composting systems might also ' be utilized for sorted residential. food wastes, or from highly concentrated pure commercial/industrial sources .such as restaurants or-food'processing operations: In addition, food wastes can be effectively processed through solid waste composting programs. Batteries and Household Hazardous- Waste: These wastes require special .treatment. T While they typically comprise ' less than 1 % of the waste stream, . they may have a relatively greater potential environmental effect than other portions of the waste stream. Substitution for less toxic products, purchase of smaller and more readily depleted containers, and the use of rechargeable batteries can help accomplish waste reduction. The Town currently maintains a S.T.O.P. program and battery drop-off area at the, landfill complex. Technical and Management Options _ The technical issues associated with'the development of a recycling program involve collection, processing, and marketing of materials. Management decisions (requirements, _ equipment choices, legislative and administrative constraints) , are tied to these considerations. There are several equipment and management options for the technical aspects, involving the collection and processing of recyclables. The collection options include: o Stationary, staffed drop-off -facilities o Stationary, unstaffed drop-off facilities o Curbside collection of separated materials o Curbside collection of commingled materials 1977rv7 3-9 PRIMED ON RECYCIFD PAPER The processing options include: ` o No processing of materials o Simple compacting systems o Simple compacting and sorting systems o Capital intensive processing systems To comparatively analyze the technical 'issues and ,options listed above, it is necessary to identify and evaluate the available marketing opportunities for recyclable materials. - The end user of the materials will demand certain specific material quality and delivery conditions which are expected to effect the processing system configurations. These options are discussed below in their relation to potential marketing procedures,and discussed in greater detail in Appendix F. Collection Method: The- Town could develop a ,collection system that combines several strategies. Every household in the Town could receive curbside collection, but could also have the opportunity to utilize a recyclable drop-off center. Material separations and collections would . be enforced through the adoption - of a mandatory recycling ordinance, which is required by the State by -1992. Recycling legislation would identify the materials that should be recovered from -the waste stream (tires, batteries, glass,, newspaper, yard/green waste, -corrugated cardboard, major household appliances, metals, household -hazardous wastes, and construction and demolition debris). The State's 1,997 recycling- goal is 40%: Consequently, the Town would aim to meet, or exceed, the State's recycling objectives in the long-term by recycling each of'themandated materials. Curbside collection' of.. commingled' recyclable materials has obvious positive features and drawbacks. It has been proven that commingling materials- increases participation and recovery rates. However, this approach requires . a system, usually, a combination of mechanical and manual sorting - mechanisms, which is more capital intensive than a program where recyclable materials are presorted by the resident. Marketing Strategies: The successful development of a recycling program for the Town would require a system capable of providing for the collection, transportation, processing, and marketing of large amounts of materials. The collection, transportation, 1977M/7 3-10 PRNVIED ON RECYCLED PAPER and processing system,'.however, :is highly contingent upon the ability to move the recovered materials back into the economic mainstream in the form of raw materials. To this end, the Town could deliver materials to market in two ways: o Segregated, . < .0 Commingled r Commingled materials describes a, mixture which might include glass, aluminum, steel, bimetal, and/or plastic. containers. Paper grades are kept separate. Segregated materials refers to the separation of 'each recyclable item on an individual basis. Given the current market conditions ,described in Appendix F and pp potential T opportunities for regional processing and marketing approaches, the, following options are available for consideration: o Direct marketing of segregated materials o Export materials to a privately owned and operated materials recycling facility (MRF) , o Develop a MRF to be owned and. operated by the Town o Participate in an East End Recycling Association marketing program 0. Participate, in an existing or soon to be opened MRF with another town r o Participate in regional cooperative marketing arrangements Facility development and operations are most economical after achieving a certain economy. of scale. One option would be the development of a materials sorting .facility with the other four east end Towns of Riverhead, Shelter Island, Southampton, and East Hampton., The economy of scale created by the east end communities could minimize the' cost for each town as compared to the cost of implementing an individual program.' The initial structure exists through'E2RA for regional effort to proceed. It may'also be possible for the Town to obtain capacity, if, available, at the Brookhaven or Islip materials recovery facilities. Alternatively, the Town has. the. option .of developing its own processing. system to meet its needs, or to procure contract services from a private r_ contractor through appropriate- procurement procedures. . Processing Method: The principal 'technical objective of . all material recycling facilities is to achieve high volume' sorting and bulk shipping efficiency.. The primary -- characteristic of simple sorting- systems is that most sorting of materials is done by hand.. 1977M/7 3-11 PRH17FD ON RECYGF.D PAPER The most common equipment utilized in such a system is a conveyor that moves materials from one work station to another. Each station along the conveyor is designed to remove a single material from the conveyor belt. Use .of low cost, or sometimes no cost, labor sources is. common. to many simple sorting facilities throughout the country.. Employing the handicapped, prison work release individuals, job training clients, and disadvantaged youth provides a recycling facility with inexpensive labor and can benefit the specific group as well. Advanced sorting and processing systems combine. labor.and technology in a manner, . similar to simple sorting systems. The major difference is that advanced systems utilize. mechanical sorters and processors, to a greater, extent. The use of machinery is employed for four reasons: o To achieve high volume sorting and bulk shipping efficiencies .o To make the material more valuable in the market place. ,o To increase worker productivity o To decrease labor requirements The general technological approaches used to achieve this objective are comparable in principle to other sorting operations. The variety of commercially available_ capital or labor intensive recycling technologies depend on the vendor or' designer of the operation. The process -employed can be loosely visualized as a tree diagram. Materials which are physically similar (e.g., containers or paper products) arrive or are separated into single streams. The material flow, as -it progresses through the processing system, is split into branches consisting of specific single material grades that are acceptable to. markets. Certain processing steps or functions appear common to all systems since they have no effective alternatives. Some examples are: ` o Ferrous materials are removed magnetically o Glass containers are color sorted manually o Paper products are baled ' o Conveyors are used to move materials between processing points in the system o Large unrecyclable materials are removed manually, usually at picking stations located at the beginning of the processing lines o Air classifiers separate light items from heavier materials 1977M/7 3-12 PRA ED ON RECYCLED PAPER t The Town has the potential of being part .of a regional east end effort, or to pursue the development of a system to handle only materials generated in the Town. 'The Town can also use an existing or proposed facility elsewhere. Materials . could be exported out of the Town for processing by another town's facility, or could be .processed locally by an a in -Town facility. The East End Recycling Association (E2RA) previously investigated the - feasibility of a processing center at Westhampton Airport in Southampton. However, this is no longer. being pursued. The .Town of Brookhaven, is expected to have its recycling . facility operational in 199 1, while the Town of Islip currently has an operating materials recovery facility. 3.1.4 Collection Options - The purpose of a collection system is to accumulate designated materials from a number of -sources for delivery to either a storage and .processing center or a final user. - r In order to be effective, the collection system would .need to incorporate into its design functions services which would ensure maximum participation by waste generators and. conform to the quality and delivery requirements of processing centers or markets. Therefore, the principal strategy for developing collection services ' in the Town could follow a two pronged approach. , j o Establishment of a. collection system .which could expand beyond the voluntary participation program; rely heavily on the participant to prepare materials and then deliver them to a center, and require: the solid waste haulers operating in the Town to provide curbside collection of recyclable materials. This would provide residents and businesses with. an immediate opportunity to recycle. o. Developing facilities for receiving materials collected by public or private haulers so that curbside collection services could be made -available to all residents and businesses. 'The evolution of collection services from an interim voluntary phase to a long-term mandatory phase would be based on changes that would not significantly. alter initial requirements, with the exception of adding new materials when feasible., Collection. of materials designated by the "marketing plan could be accomplished through the use of the existing recycling drop-off .area at the Town's collection center for residents, and the new bi-level .drop-off center for delivery of large quantities of a 1977M/7 _ 3-1.3 PRMED ON RECYCLM PAPER recyclables, as well as curbside collection ,occurrin g throw ghout the Town. These centers, currently- located at the Town'solid. waste complex, could be- expanded to adcommodate larger quantities of deliveries of sorted materials brought by residents, businesses, and haulers. The use of the existing bi-level drop-off center during an interim phase would provide ' a location for receiving materials which local haulers would be allowed, or required by changes in licensing conditions, to collect from residents and businesses. The interim phase may be needed while intermunicipal agreements for the use or construction of a recycling facility are finalized and implemented. Although the marketing. approach during this .interim phase could be to recover and market segregated recyclable materials, .the (emphasis' of the .program should be on educating the public and encouraging the use of a two stream set out, ,which has already been implemented on a voluntary basis in the Town. The participant would need to source separate recyclables into p y paper and commingled container products. The collector would then deposit these - separated materials, directly at the Town sponsored drop-off . site. It is expected that public or private collections of .recyclable materials could be accomplished during the early segments of program development by separate trailers or vehicles with fixed ' or modifiable compartments that would contain materials sorted by the collection crew. ' Another method to achieve collection of recyclables could be to schedule* separate collection days for bundled newspapers', and a recycling container containing plastics, metals, and . glass. Newspapers would be set out the first week, and the recycling container set out the following week. This would .limit the amount of on route sorting and compartment requirements needed for collection. The Town could assist the development of these collection systems by supplying or providing at, cost: o Set -out containers o Public information materials o Town recycling_ drop-off centers for receiving, and marketing recyclable materials o Technical assistance on equipment selection There are a number of set -out containers which are 'now commercially available for recyclable collections. Some preliminary research that has been ' conducted into the 1977M/7'3-14 PRBVMD ON RECYCLED PAPM r effectiveness and user satisfaction of these different containers appears to favor triple stacking containers and single open bins. The former simplifies the collector's task, but is more expensive. The single open bin is less expensive and has worked effectively in a . number of Long Island towns, especially where. some on route sorting is needed. The experiences of many, recyclables collection systems indicate that the scheduling of collection services, with respect .to when and how often it occurs, has a great impact on•participation. It is possible to schedule collections: - 0 On the same day. as solid waste collections o At least two to three times per month The Town could work with the carters- in developing '.and testing innovative approaches to integrating the collection of solid. wastes and recyclables. Cooperation -and involvement with the private, sector can assist, in the ease of implementation during the early stages of ,•the program. One approach that can be utilized is a trailer that is attached to a compactor collection _.vehicle by an overhead gooseneck hitch. This approach is being used successfully in the Village of Potsdam, New .York. The .Town could also conduct a commercial and institutional 'waste utilization and practices survey which would allow the Town to identify existing recycling . activities in the private sector. This research would help the Town formulate an action plan for increasing the recovery of materials from the commercial and institutional sectors in the long—term. In addition, the Town •could.work directly with companies which have been identified through a review of commercial and industrial listings as possible generators of large quantities of recyclable or compostable waste materials. One effective form of assistance, is an on—site solid waste audit with the plant or facility manager. The objective of ' this. audit would. be to identify and characterize all waste sources within the facility, estimate the percentage that is potentially recyclable or compostable, and determine the, potential approaches for recovering this material.'- The audit would aid establishments in complying with the mandatory separation ordinances by identifying the recyclable materials present in- their .waste stream. The Town could also provide assistance in designing a source separationprogram for each establishment. This could be done in cooperation with the hauler. 1977M/7 3-15 PRfff ED ON RECYCLED PARER High-grade office 'paper and corrugated cardboard could be. recovered from commercial and institutional sources in the Town. The recycling drop-off areas could be expanded to receive these materials. The Town .could also, work with private haulers in developing collection services for these sources in addition to developing their own recovery program for Town offices. Commercial and institutional organizations face a number of potential issues concerning materials recovery which include: o Inadequate 'storage space to accumulate large quantities of source separated ' materials o Poor access. to markets willing to handle small quantities o Limited capital for making structural modifications or equipment purchases -which facilitate, storage and hauling o Lack of information about the availability of markets, services, or methods for economically recovering recyclable materials.. y It may be necessary to modify existing collection services or to create new ones to help overcome these issues. Collection systems should be designed to recover small quantities of materials from a dispersed number of sources. This could be accomplished through collections. dedicated to one material, such as high-grade paper, or designed to recover multiple materials using a compartmentalized vehicle or receptacles in shopping areas. Information on the ' efficiency of these collection approaches would be made available to the public and the private haulers. r Finally, the Town could work with haulers in developing effective collection -systems for compostable yard/green wastes.. The following strategies could be pursued: o .Information could be distributed, through the assistance of appropriate local agencies and the Cornell Cooperative Extension, on suitable backyard composting methods. The objective of this action would be to reduce the quantity of compostable materials requiring collection from residential sources and increase the recycling efforts on a more local basis with tangible benefits for the generator. In addition; landscapers and industrial grounds maintenance businesses could be contacted to discuss their interests in providing backyard or on-site composting services to their customers. 1977M/7 3-16 PRORW ON RECYCLED PAPER s. o Developing public education and involvement programa directed toward not collecting grass clippings. By leaving grass clippings on the lawn, nutrients are returned, moisture retention is improved, and -the waste stream i' reduced. o, An assessment could be made of collection practices, such as the use of plastic bags, that introduce -materials which interfere with the composting process or degrade the quality of the final product. The use of. paper bags could be encouraged where bulk collection of yard/green wastes is not practical. o An assessment could be made on. the value and cost of :the collection ' of yard/green wastes by the Town Highway Department. o New opportunities for developing separate collections of yard/green. wastes for, composting would be identified and developed. An assessment of collection systems within the Town to be used over the long-term would be expected to be guided by the following technical and economic data: o Aggregate and per capita recovery rates o Changes in solid waste and recyclables collection productivities o Pricing trends for collection services o Feedback from haulers, residents, and businesses The analysis of this data would be used for determining what changes, if any, would be warranted in collection procedures, recycling facility designs and operations, or out -of -Town options. These changes could be accomplished through improved collection technoloies or g' procedures, regulatory mechanisms, more effective economic incentives, or a combination of these approaches. 3.1.5 Yard Waste and Source Separated Material Compostine Composting is ' a biological .-process in which microorganisms decompose organic _ materials into a humus -like+ product. Composting operations can increase the rate at which these microorganisms metabolize by optimizing environmental conditions.' The upper limit of the rate is a function of the microbial _population. Once optimal 1977M/7 3=17 { PMN ED -ON RECYCLED PAPM I environmental conditions are -established, key parameters must be monitored tomaintain the maximum levels of decomposition. The parameters discussed below are critical to the biological process regardless of the organic matter to be composted. Oxygen: The oxygen level in normal air is 21 %: Aerobic microbes require oxygen to metabolize and are responsible for efficient decomposition. Anaerobic microbes; which function in the absence of oxygen, begin to metabolize when the oxygen level approaches 5%. The end product of anaerobic activity is high in organic acids which lower the pH of the material and generate objectionable odors. If the pH drops low enough, it can cause preservation of the organic material, much like cucumbers that are pickled in vinegar for long-term storage. Monitoring oxygen levels in an active compost process provides necessary information to manage the system in a way that should. not allow oxygen levels to drop low enough to drastically slow down the rate of decomposition or create odor problems. Temperature: Decomposition is continual in a temperature range -of 70-140°F. Temperatures above this range cause the desired microbes to be killed off. Subsequently, the rate of decomposition drops off rapidly. Each microorganism generates a small quantity of heat. The closer the system is to the ideal environmental condition, the faster heat will build up. Maximum decomposition occurs at or just below 1.40°F. Once temperatures exceed 140*V, heat' must be removed. This is often accomplished through forced aeration or mechanical' agitation such as turning of the 'organic material. Since a large quantity of air. is required to control temperatures, a system which 'aerates sufficiently for cooling purposes will consequently keep oxygen levels high. Moisture: Moisture is required for decomposition. The drying of organic material, ` such as food or flowers, is an historic method of preservation. A 50% .moisture level is ,considered ideal for decomposition; whereas, a. saturated system is undesirable since anaerobic. -activity will begin to take place when water has filled all the interstitial air spaces. Combustible Gas: Combustible gases, methane in . particular, are produced during the anaerobic decomposition of organic .matter. The presence of even minute quantities 1977M/7 3-18 PRN7ED ON RECYCL E0 PAPIER indicate a depletion of available oxygen and the activation of anaerobic microbes. The careful monitoring of ,temperature .and oxygen levels can prevent thesystem from degenerating to the point of producing combustible gases, .but immediate remedial action is.required if any such gases are detected. Below is a discussion of various materials that can be composted as part of an agricultural/yard waste only composting system, or a program expanded to include other materials that have been source' separated to reduce or eliminate 'contamination of the feed stock. Leaves Leaves are the easiest component 'of the waste .stream to incorporate into a ' composting process. Small quantities of leaves :are generated throughout the year, with the bulk being produced in the fall. Leaves are typically estimated to be somewhere between 5% and 20% of the residential waste stream of most communities, with suburban areas producing the largest amount per capita. Some yard waste composting operators prefer that plastic bags not be accepted at a compost facility since opening the bags is a labor intensive process, and activity inside airtight bags rapidly becomes anaerobic; creating odor problems. Biodegradable paper bags are a growing acceptable "alternative. This alternative has been used in other Long Island towns. - The Town of Brookhaven, for example, has supplied biodegradable paper bags to residents whose yard. waste is collected for - composting. In addition; residents delivering relatively small quantities of. leaves could empty p y plastic bags themselves when they deliver leaves to a compost facility. The level of technology necessary for the composting of leaves can be quite low. Windrows (piles six feet high and as long as necessary) can be turned according to a schedule with just a front end `loader. This type of system may result in some odor problems if not monitored properly, and can take as long as eighteen months to three years to produce a final compost product. As land becomes less available, the need to speed the process increases.. Careful monitoring of oxygen, temperature, combustible gas, and moisture can speed up the process. If a front end loader is used for turning, this process will take one year to eighteen months. 1977M/7 3-19 . PRLN7W ON RECYCLFM PApM Adding a shredder to the process would improve the uniformity of the final product,. as well as remove some of the contaminants and help reach final product within a year. A frond end loader, monitoring, and a shredder/screen would be necessary to obtain a. marketable compost in less than a year's time. If the intended use of the material. is for landfill cover only, the shredding may not be necessary. If a greenhouse or other similar, industry is the targeted market, this additional processing may be required. The effectiveness of the .turning is dependent on both the type of equipment used and the care and 'interest shown by the operator. -A front end loader does not break up all the clumps that can form in a pile, so a leaf turning machine is often recommended to ensure uniformity of the final product for larger operations. This machine is especially useful where the final product must be available in less than a year and be acceptable to the horticulture industry. Leaves are currently being delivered to the Town's solid waste complex by the Highway Department, private carters, landscapers, and residents. The generation of leaves, is such that they can easily be kept separate from other segments of the waste stream, making collection ata compost facility relatively easy to accomplish. The Town has recently received approval from NYSDEC for a small scale 'yard waste composting operation. for less than 3,000 cubic yards of leaves annually. Operations have been initiated at the area of the site designated for the yard waste composting facility. Grass Clippings In some communities, the volume of grass clippings is almost equal to the volume of leaves. Adding grass clippings to a compost operation increases the need for monitoring and. a higher technology approach to the system. ri Grass .clippings in a pile, or worse in plastic bags, deplete the, oxygen supply rapidly. One reason for this is that. grass .clippings, unlike leaves,. are alive. The natural respiration process of the grass uses up .the available 'oxygen before aerobic decomposition can get started. Respiration increases as temperatures rise, so on 'a hot day ' oxygen depletion requires little time, sometimes only a few hours. Severe odor problems can be generated before the material gets to the compost.site. Once at the compost facility, the 1977M/7." 3-20 PRBV7FD ON RECYCLED PAPER clippings must be blended -with another material to bulk up the clippings in order to facilitate oxygen penetration and slow down the process. Grass. clippings are also high in nitrogen and moisture which speeds up the rate of decomposition.. Mixing .them uniformly with an organic. material that is low in nitrogen and high in carbon, such as chipped' brush or: leaves, will slow down the rate of decomposition and -provide necessary nitrogen for the decomposition process of the woodier materials. The most common bulking materials are leaves. and wood chips; however, paper has a similar potential. Since odors. can be a serious problem when grass clippings are brought into a facility, it is suggested that _ other optionsbe considered. One option might be to 'ban grass clippings from the waste stream. This approach could help to achievea reduction in the generation of clippings. This could .be accomplished by the modification ,of cultural techniques in lawn care. Clippings can be left on the lawn if they are small enough to filter down to, the soil level. This can be accomplished by more frequent mowing; or by the use of a mower that chops the clippings into tiny pieces: TORO has released . a new machine, called the "Recycler," designed to accomplish this. Altering lawn fertilizer programs can slow' down the growth rate of lawns. Heavy fall applications, of fertilizer that generate healthy root systems are preferred over spring applications which produce more top growth. Mixing grass clippings with leaves at the point of generation is the best way to avoid the production. of odors. This can be done at golf courses, large institutions, -corporations, and other locations containing extensive grounds or even in residential backyards. A. public education. program designed to inform the public about the benefits of reducing the generation of grass clippings and promoting on—site or "backyard" composting would help reduce the quantity of material to be handled by the Town.. Brush Prunings from trees and shrubs are generated all year long, but in greater quantity " in the spring.' Some of this material can be cut into firewood for sale or distribution to the public. By far, the bulk of. it must be chipped. 1977M/7 . 3-21 PRUV7W ON RECYCLW PAPER Clean wood chips can be used "as: is" for landscaping mulch. The rest can be mixed with a material suchas grass clippings, sludge, or other waste that supplies nitrogen to speed the decomposition of the high carbon woody material. Partiallydecomposed wood chips, which have a softer look than raw chips, make an attractive mulch 'that could be highly marketable to the landscaping industry. Larger limbs and small tree trunks can be sectioned for use as firewood: A part of the collection center could be designated as a distribution point for sectioned wood to be taken away for use as firewood. Agricultural Waste While only 1.25% of the Town's waste in 1989 was identified as agricultural in nature, this corresponds to over 500 tons per year of potentially source separated compostable materials relatively free of mixed municipal solid wastes. The varying types of vegetable wastes in these loads presents a source separated feed stock with varying properties:" Chaff and the woodier type materials could represent a higher carbon/lower nitrogen material, -somewhat analogous to leaves, while greener more- consumable portions of this waste could- be expected to be higher in moisture and nitrogen. Uncontaminated deliveries of these agricultural products. could be shredded and r incorporated into a yard waste composting operation, or into a higher technology composting operation: Monitoring of the compostingprocess, would need to be increased, in order to establish the oxygen depletion; temperature, and moisture effects on the composting 'operation from the varying types of agricultural products incorporated into the process. Sand/sod from commercial sod operations is a large component of the Town's waste stream (approximately -14%). Sod and some dirt could be added to ' compost operations, and sand could be recovered and used as fill and landfill cover material. Newsprint J Newsprint is an organic waste that can be composted. Ideally, this material could I be recycled. Considering -the recent instability in recycling markets, having the capacity to compost newsprint would add flexibility and stability to managing this component of" the waste stream. Incorporating pure streams of newsprint into a yard waste and/or agricultural waste compost system may , produce a product which could fall under stricter application regulations. Extensive monitoring and testing of a compost end product would help to 1977M/7 3-22 . PRMD ON RECYCLED PAPER identify the compost product composition. The incorporation of municipal solid waste or sludge into a compost system may affect whether theend product is classified as Class I or Class II compost, based primarily, on heavy metal content. Both classes have ' more restricted applications than compost produced strictly from yard, food processing, or agricultural waste. Markets for this product would depend on how the material is classified. Newspapers are high in carbon • and low in both nitrogen and moisture.. Blending shredded newsprint with a high nitrogen material would speed the decomposition position process. �. Increasing moisture levels to 50% is necessary for composting to take place. A mixture of newsprint and grass clippings could be a possible successful combination since grass clippings are high in both nitrogen and moisture. The previously discussed collection issues involving grass would still have to be addressed, but composting grass in combination with newsprint would be -a way to manage two components of the waste stream. Another possibility is. the composting of leaves and paper together without grass or agricultural wastes. 'Leaves have a' dower potential for odor formation than grass clippings. The addition of newsprint to a leaf composting operation would not be *expected to increase odor formation. The composting of newsprint or low grade .paper .with leaves would be another method of recycling this material. Should the markets for newsprint decrease in cost or begin to generate revenues, newsprint could be diverted from composting operations for sale to secondary markets. Such an operation could provide flexibility in the management of these recyclable resources. The composting of newsprint would require additional equipment to shred the material. The fineness -of the shred will affect the speed of decomposition and, subsequently, the level of supervision necessary to manage the system. Other Paper Mixed, low-grade paper is .compostable, and currently, there is not too great a market demand for this grade of paper as is. A high percentage -of this paper is glossy coated and more difficult to compost. Research conducted by International Process System (IPS) indicates that very -fine shredding of this type of paper is necessary to make composting worthwhile. The fine shredding provides increased uncoated surface area for the microorganisms to utilize. This light, fluffy material requires a mixer to keep it adequately and uniformly moist. The research project by IPS incorporated sludge to 1977M/7 3-23 - ' . I . , . . PR017W ON RECYCLED PAPER provide both moisture and nitrogen. Composting of low.: --grade' 'paper would recycle a component of the waste stream that. is not readily marketed through most recycling operations. High-grade office paper can be composted, but is not recommended due to the availability of markets for this material as is. SlSludig Liquid or semiliquid sludge is another source of nitrogen and moisture that may be blended with leaves, newsprint, or woodchips, and. then composted. The introduction of sludge into the system would involve regulations governing the uses .of the compost material. The heavy metal content, could possibly affect whether the product is Class I or Class II compost. Sludge generated at the Greenport wastewater treatment facility would need to be tested prior to, during, and following the composting process. Mixing of the material could also affect the uniformity of decomposition and the quality of the final product. The purchase of shredding and mixing equipment would have to be considered if long-term sludge composting is to be accomplished. In -vessel compost systems may also be desirable in this case depending on volume of -material, land availability, and available markets. The New. York. City Department of Environmental Protection recently 'proposed. to conduct a pilot study to provide information on composting as a management option for sludge, leaves, brush, and waste wood. The pilot study is expected to be completed after approximately 400 cubic yards of compost has been produced for analysis. The project is proposed to be located adjacent to the exiting wastewater treatment facility at Wards Island, New York. Food Waste One way in which food waste might be composted would be if it could be collected in.a source separated manner that prevents, contamination of this component before being incorporated -into a composting operation. Source separation of food wastes has been performed in Europe, but may not be easily accomplished in the Town. The incorporation of food waste into a composting- program would require the upgrading of the processing and collection program beyond ' the low technology -windrow methods that have been discussed. The highly putrescible nature of this material results in rapid odor formation. 1977M/7 3-24 PREV7W ONRECYC/W P.A 0? Residential collection of food waste as a separate component would be very costly and produce only small quantities of material, largely. due to the increased use of prepared foods. The percent of the waste stream estimated to be food waste is approximately 6% by weight. The collection of separated food waste from institutional and commercial sources could be more feasible. This would include restaurants, schools, hospitals, and nursing homes. The composting of this material may require a high technology, housed, in -vessel system to control odors and prevent rodent and insect population increases. Such systems include a trough system such as IPS, a drum system such as Dano or Eweson, or a bin system such as Fairfield Hardy. All but the trough system require additional compost time in a windrow or static pile prior to reaching final product. Advanced composting technologies are evaluated further in Appendix C and in Section 3.1.9 of this document. 3.1.6 Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D) There are three disposal/processing alternative methodologies to consider concerning construction and demolition debris (C&D). These technology alternatives are: o Recycling o Landfilling o Incineration Recycling of construction and demolition debris can entail some processing of materials or shipment to secondary materials markets. The processing of this material could produce an end product with several uses, including daily landfill cover material. - Wood can be chipped and used for landscaping or as a bulking agent in composting operations. Cement, cement block, or concrete can be pulverized to form an aggregate that can be used for roadbed preparation, concrete mixes, and other applications. Metals recovered from C&D debris may be of sufficient quantify and cleanliness to be transported to secondary materials markets. Some metals may need processing, such as the removal of encrusting cement, before they can be recovered. Due to its varied nature, construction and demolition debris lends itself to the recovery of materials as part of a recycling program. There are facilities, both existing and in the planning stages (such as North Fork Sanitation, and Mattituck Sanitation proposing to develop independent private recycling facilities), within the region that can recycle this waste. 1977M/7 3-25 PRArMO ON RECYCLED PAPER t Requirements for construction and demolition debris landfills in New York State are not as strict as for municipal solid waste. Clean fill, as construction and demolition debris is sometimes referred to, can be disposed of in a landfill constructed with one composite liner and leachate collection system depending on the hydrogeologic characteristics of the area. This differs from landfills for -municipal solid waste where two liner .systems and two leachate collection -systems are required. Groundwater monitoring, gas venting, and . closure requirements are similar for the two types of landfills.. It is possible to incinerate some components of the construction and demolition debris waste stream. Energy recovery facilities are discussed more fully in Section 3.1.8 and Appendix C. Reduction of the weight and volume of construction and demolition debris through incineration, with or without energy recovery, can reduce the amount of waste to be landfilled. However, not all of the construction and demolition debris waste stream.is'combustible, and other methods discussed in this Section would need to be used in conjunction with this alternative. Clean Fill Landfills used for the disposal of clean fill are not subject to the same limitations as the previously discussed sanitary landfills used for municipal .solid waste disposal. Clean fill is defined in Part 360-1.2 as material consisting of concrete, steel, wood, sand, dirt, soil, glass, construction and demolition debris, and other inert material that may be designated by NYSDEC. The disposal of clean fill. in an expansion of an existing landfill or , in a new landfill after December 18, 1990, can be allowed, by permit, with approval from NYSDEC. Regulation of clean fills depends upon size, location, and purpose of the landfill. A site is exempt from regulations in Part 360-8.6 if it complies with each, of the following provisions: (1) only recognizable clean fill is placed for the purpose of land reclamation, such as grade adjustment before construction of a building, parking area, or roadway; (2) the clean fill is generatedand placed as fill on the same property; (3) no less than 30 days before starting site construction, the property owner sends a ,letter to the NYSDEC and the Town Clerk stating: a) the types of clean fill to be used; b) the time period over which the activity will occur.; c) the contractor responsible for the work; and d) the extent of the proposed fill and the intended future use of the completed site; and (4) if the clean fill is 1977M/7 3-26 PRBVTW ON RECYCLED PAPER J construction and demolition debris, and no fee or consideration is to be required for the privilege of using this site for disposal. A landfill two acres or less in size, regardless of location, in which 'clean fill generated on or off-site is to be' placed for disposal or land reclamation purposes is subject to permitting by NYSDEC. Clean. fills of this size do not require a liner, but the following engineering requirements must be. met: (1) side slopes must not exceed 33%; (2) fill material must not. be .placed in. surface water, groundwater, or in contact with bedrock; (3) cover material must be placed, as necessary, to control odor, fire hazards, vectors, blowing litter, and scavenging; (4) fill material- must be placed in layers not exceeding five feet• in uncompacted thickness; (5) the boundary of the toe of the fill must be at least 50 feet from all property boundaries; and (6) final cover must be placed within 30 days 'of closure of the site, or whenever additional fill is not to be added for a period of one year. The cover is to consist of a 24 inch soil layer, with a six inch topsoil layer above. A vegetative cover must be placed and maintained no later than four months after closure. Clean fills greater than two acres require single liners and provisions for leachate collection, the type of which depends upon the location of the landfill. Clean fills of greater than two acres located within deep flow recharge , areas require double composite liners. These must .be .equipped with.' a primary and secondary leachate collection and removal system. .Clean fills ' located outside of deep flow recharge areascan have one composite liner with a primary leachate collection and removal system: Final cover for all clean fills must consist of a low permeability barrier layer or membrane, a barrier protection layer, and a topsoil layer:. The 110 Sand Company. in Farmingdale has proposed to construct a clean fill disposal site for the .purpose of land reclamation of its ongoing sand mining operations. The proposed project is approximately 16 acres in size; and is to be filled with clean fill over a double liner with installation of a leachate collection and detection system. The company has applied for a permit to construct and operate this solid waste management facility, and a Draft Environmental Impact Statement has been completed and accepted by NYSDEC. Public hearings on the proposed projects have also been scheduled. One source- of clean fill, and demolition debris is residentially' generated clean material. This material- primarily consists of ' nonrecyclable, noncombustible, and . 1977M/7 3-27 V PIRPnW ON RECYCLED PAPER -ti noncompostable waste generated in the home. This -waste, including wood and metal furniture and materials from small homeowner renovations, repairs, and landscaping, is generated in small enough quantities that make -private disposal for this material - impractical and uneconomical in most. instances. The intense amount of segregation that could be required for recycling or . combustion, makes residentially generated clean material best suited for disposal in a clean fill. It should be noted that the segregation of residentially generated clean material from commercially generated land clearing or -construction and demolition debris or large volume generators of clean materials may not be difficult. However, inspection and monitoring may be more difficult to developto prevent deliveries from private sector generators. 3.1.7 Land Clearing Debris When open land is developed, it is cleared of vegetation and some soils and rocks. Holes are often dug on a site for foundations or other needs. This process generates wastes in the form of dirt, .gravel, rocks, trees, stumps, and vegetation. There are three Alternatives available for. the components of land clearing debris. These alternatives are: o Recycling/composting o Incineration/energy recovery o Landfilling Trees, stumps, and other wood wastes can be recycled by being processed into wood chips, and vegetation and brush can be composted. Screening of vegetation, soils, dirt, rock, and gravel can separate these materials in order to reclaim topsoil and gravel for other uses. It is possible to recycle/compost significant portions of the debris generated by land clearing operations. Land clearing debris, .similar to construction and demolition debris, can be placed -in a clean fill category.' These two components of the waste stream are. often grouped together and treated in a similar manner. There are several types of systems for the processing and disposal of land clearing, construction,. and demolition debris currently in operation today. A typical system could be capable of processing various types of light waste materials such as wood, sheet metals, and paper.- Some systems are designed to 1977M/7 - 3-28 PRQ17M ON RECYC M PAPFR process as much as 15 tons per hour of clean scrap wood' into three streams: oversize, fines, and desired chip dimensions. Chip size is controlled by the size of the grates installed in, the system. Some systems can process over 100 tons per day of scrap wood. Scrap wood up to 22 inches in diameter and 15 feet in length -could be accepted. Systems are available to process hard aggregates (e.g., asphalt, concrete, .rock mixed with dirt) along with land clearing debris" and scrap lumber. These systems are designed to be resistant to the abrasive actions of fine particulate materials, as well as solid heavy materials such as rocks and metal scrap. Facilities can be designed to incorporate several systems in order to accommodate scrap wood and mixed recyclable recovery. At a facility of this type, large amounts of scrap lumber or wood (e.g., branches, tree limbs, etc.) are directed to. a wood processing line. Large quantities of mixed recyclables (e.g., corrugated, glass, metals, etc.) are directed to a recovery line. Materials that appear to be largely unrecoverable are directed to a conveyor leading to a transfer station. - Some of the wastes found in land clearing debris are combustible, and can be processed at an energy recovery facility. Additionally, large volumes of chipped or shredded wood resulting from land clearing operations could be used in an industrial boiler as fuel.. While energy recovery processing may, be. feasible, the recycling potential of this element of the waste stream ;and -the State's recycling goals suggest that this may not be the best disposal option available. There are "residues from any solid waste operation that -will need to be landfilled. These materials can ,be placed in a construction and demolition debris landfill as clean fill., Wherever possible, ' reduction of the volume and weight of materials destined for a . landfill needs to be maximized. The volume and weight of land clearing debris that must be landfilled can be ,reduced through recycling and/or incineration. 3.1.8 Energy Recovery . Energy recovery is a technology that could reduce the weight and volume of solid waste by up to 75% and 90%, respectively. This is accomplished through a variety of feed, combustion, and processing technologies that 'are more thoroughly discussed in Appendix C. In general, allenergy recovery � facilities (also referred to as waste -to -energy) receive waste, ' feed the waste to the combustion process, recover 1977M/7 , 3-29 PROYTED ON RECYCLEO PAPER energy in the form of steam for heating and/or electricity, and use emission control equipment to minimize the impact of exiting gases on the environment. Energy recovery of heat from the incineration of solid_ waste is the most developed . and widely practiced technique for resource recovery in the world. On Long Island, there are existing facilities in the Towns of Islip, Hempstead, and Babylon. The Town of_ Huntington has .an energy recovery facility under construction, while the Towns of .Oyster .Bay, and tentatively North Hempstead and Brookhaven, have proposed facilities and are in different stages of planning, including evaluating no burn and intensive recycling options. Energy recovery, as a means of municipal solid waste processing, may be pursued by the Town through any one of the following procedures: o By independent procurement of a Town facility o By entering into an agreement with a neighboring. Town(s) to procure a bi-town or multitown facility o By entering into an agreement with a town in the region which has a facility on-line or proposed which would be .willing to commit, on a long-term basis_, the required amount of capacity to process a portion of Southold's waste t ,Under/6NYCRR paragraph 360-3.2 (a) (11), "...a. solid waste incinerator facility must .have at least three separate solid waste process trains capable of being. operated independently of each other," unless, "...it can be demonstrated to the department's satisfaction that there would be a significant increase in capital and operating costs that would outweigh the benefits associated with the installation of three process trains...". Accordingly,, it is assumed here that three trains, each sized to process approximately 10 to 20 tons per .day, would be, the configuration required if the Town independently developed a facility to meet its own capacity requirements.. In this size range (10 to 20 tons .per day), it is projected that capital costs. per installed ton. of processing capacity for a field erected mass -burn stoker -fired water wall, or a refractory furnace processing train, -would greatly exceed the corresponding cost for a modular r mass -burn stoker -fired • unit. As indicated in Appendix C, however, modular units have historically been subject to .more frequent operating . difficulties than field erected units and ' incur higher maintenance costs. The lack of � complete burnout of combustible material inherent in this technology poses potential environmental problems with respect to residue disposal and, until such systems have demonstrated an ability to meet applicable regulations, a. strong recommendation for this technology cannot be made. One, point worthy of consideration concerning modular technology is that there is very limited experience in carrying out successful projects utilizing these systems to generate high enthalpy steam and electric power. Therefore, less assurance exists than in the case of a field erected unit that certain elements of system*. design required to recover marketable energy are adequately developed. In order to determine whether or not a suitable market for low pressure steam exists in the Town, further research would be required. L If the Town were to enter into a long-term agreement with a neighboring town(s) to develop a energy recovery project, the added capacity ' requirements would make the economics of a field -erected mass -burn facility more viable. As discussed in Appendix C, this technology has a demonstrated history of reliability in Europe and the U:S., and has the proven ability to produce a marketable product. Furthermore, existing facilities utilizing this technology in the U.S. and abroad have shown a consistent ability to operate within the, requirements established by governmental agencies concerning air and water emissions; odor and noise control, and ash characteristics., Field erected, mass -burn waterwall energy recovery projects are capital and cost -intensive. For example, capital cost for the recently financed Town of Huntington 750 ton per day facility was $155,000,000 (April 1989 dollars). Operating at full capacity, it is projected that in 1992 the tip fee at the Huntington facility could be in the range of $100/ton (this projection includes the cost of ash disposal and transportation costs). 3.1.9 .Municipal Solid Waste' Composting The .intent of, composting operations, whether applied to yard waste, agricultural . waste, or the mixed. municipal solid waste stream, is to biologically transform the waste 1977M/7 3-31 PRMV7W ON RECYCIM PAPER into an innocuous, useful product in an environmentally acceptable manner. Regardless of the waste, the biological process remains fundamentally the same. However, the composting of mixed municipal solid wastes (MSW) presents three unique obstacles to the process: (1) MSW is a heterogeneous mixture of organic and inorganic materials; (2) the composition of MSW varies from municipality to municipality and over time; and (3) MSW may contain household hazardous materials. The heterogeneity of MSW contrasts sharply with the characteristics of typical yard waste or other source separated feed stocks. Ordinarily, leaves and. grass wastes are generated separately and are easily collected and .composted individually. Mixed MSW contains numerous organic materials (e.g., yard waste, food waste, textiles, paper products) which are biodegradable to varying degrees, and numerous nondegradable inorganic materials as well. The inorganics (e.g., glass, metals, certain plastics) are not compostable , and must be removed along with unacceptable- 'contaminants, such as batteries, prior to (preprocessing) or following (postprocessing) the actual biological decomposition of the organic material in order to provide a useful product. Consequently, as discussed in Appendix C, municipal solid waste composting systems are significantly more complex than homogenous, -or source separated waste composting systems, and usually include three major steps: (1) preprocessing; (2) microbial decomposition (composting); and (3) postprocessing. Preprocessing is performed to remove bulky, hazardous, and nondegradable materials in the waste. stream. It can recover recyclable constituents, achieve desired particle size reduction and distribution, and effect thorough mixing of the wastes. Separations may be accomplished by hand picking, magnetic removal of ferrous metals, Air classification, and screening. Particle size reduction can be accomplished by tumbling the wastes in rotating drums or by shredding the waste using hammer mills -or shear shredders. The composting process itself may be 'conducted in a- specially designed chamber (in—vessel), or by the .windrow or aerated 'static pile methods. These composting technologies are discussed in detail in Appendix C. Post processing in MSW composting systems typically includes the use of screens, grinders, separators, or any combination of this equipment that would remove inert materials from the organic composted fraction. Postprocessing may also include a final curing step in which microbial activity continues at a slower, rate than during actual composting to produce a more stable product.. W 1977M/7 3-32 PRQ1?£D ON RECYCLED PAPER There are currently less than ten full-scale MSW composting facilities operating in the U.S. MSW composting is -an, emerging technology in this country and there is not a great deal of data available' on operating 'experience, environmental impacts, and economic viability of these systems. Although European operating experience ,is more extensive, differences in waste stream composition make it difficult to draw direct comparisons. In any case,' there are currently a number of vendors and equipment suppliers actively marketing MSW composting . systems in the U.S. Vendor -by -vendor descriptions detailing'the systems offered by several companies are presented in Appendix C. If the Town were to decide to develop a plan utilizing this technology, a demonstration project may provide a cost -acceptable means of determining the . viability of this application to the Town's mixed municipal solid waste. In January of'1989, the Town completed a final environmental impact statement for a 120 ton per day MSW composting facility. The, proposed operation was to produce compost for public works projects and nonagricultural land application. While the public bond referendum proposed to finance this project was defeated, the Town recently contacted NYSDEC to obtain their technical opinion concerning> the proposed process. Particularly, NYSDEC has been asked to provide -their 'opinion on. whether_ 'or not the operation would produce a Class I or, II compost, as defined in Part 360 regulations. Without such a determination, there would be some risk involved if the Town were to undertake a project of this type. Several attempts to obtain this opinion have been I unsuccessful to'date. Southampton and Brookhaven 'have tentatively proposed solid waste composting projects. ' Southampton has proposed the development of an MSW composting system in its Solid Waste Action Management Plan/FGEIS' to process the organic portion of its waste stream. Brookhaven issued, in early 1990, a draft request for proposals (DRFP) for the design,, construction, testing, and long-term operation of a project that would include MSW composting (approximately 150 tons per day) as well as energy recovery. Currently, this proposed effort is on hold pending discussions between Hempstead and Brookhaven, regarding a joint solid waste management -effort. Other private sector proposals, which would establish an MSW composting facility that could accept the Town's waste, have been mentioned and reported in the, ress. These facilitieshowever, are not p yet fully defined and. cannot be evaluated at this time. 1977M/7 3-33 PRfiVMD ONREC c W pgpM One potential limitation on the development or use of an MSW composting system is the recent concerns expressed by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services to the siting of MSW composting facilities . and the use of the end product -on Long Island. SCDHS has expressed. concern regarding that application of the end product, to land in deep flow recharge areas would be subject to Article 7 of the County's health ordinances. Pending the resolution of these concerns, it is uncertain at this time whether development of potential .local -markets for the end product of an MSW composting operation is possible. 3.1.10 Landfill Disposal Modern landfills are designed and operated differently than -in the past. Current, state-of-the-art design and control features include:. o Double composite liners o Dual. leachate collection systems o Leachate detection systems o Cell construction and expansion planning o Methane collection systems o Methane recovery systems o Groundwater monitoring systems o Operational and contingency planning o Closure planning o Cover systems This provides for layered protection systems that work independently to support and compliment one. another. In New York. State, new regulations for landfills meet the requirements that until recently have been referred to by State representatives as being sufficient for hazardous waste disposal. facilities. Liners are designed to be impermeable and are constructed -of two materials in a composite design. The composite material and construction design provides the first level of protection for the environment. Using two composite liners in the design 'of a landfill provides additional protection and backup -in case of a failure. New dual leachate collection systems are designed to collect leachate at. the low point of each liner system. The leachate collected is sent for treatment. at an appropriate facility either 'on or 0 1971M/7 3-34 PRRI7W ON RECYCLED PAPER I off-site. A leachate .collection system -backs up -each liner in: the layered protection system of state-of-the-art landfills. Liquids that percolate through the fill are collected and removed to minimize leachate that can potentially permeate a failed liner system. This is complemented by a leachate detection system that can indicate when a. leachate problem has developed. The monitoring system for groundwater is designed - to detect the presence of leachate, before it can travel off-site. If leachate'' contamination is found, remedial actions can be implemented before. there is any off-site impact. Methane collection systems vent and recover gases from the landfill, and when combined with a _recovery system, burn the methane to generate electricity. Regardless of . the solid waste management practices that are used, there remains a portion of the. waste stream: that is either nontreatable, nonrecoverable, nonprocessible, or remains as residue. Even_ -in fully integrated solid waste management systems that employ reduction, recycling, composting, and/or energy recovery processes, residues and nonprocessible wastes remain. The only solid waste manageme` t 'system currently available for disposal, of this waste is landfilling. Landfill disposal alternatives for the Town can be divided in two basic categories: o Exporting all or part of the Town's waste stream to facilities outside of the Town; or o Landfilling all or. part of the Town's. waste stream at a Town landfill(s). Consideration was given to out -of -Town disposal. , Studies prepared for the Towns of, Oyster Bay (Nassau) and Babylon (Suffolk) confirmed that landfills in Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and other areas of New York had been interested in accepting 'ash residue and - bypass waste. This option has diminished -recently as a result of growing local opposition to -the importation of wastes. Recent actions by the State of Pennsylvania have resulted in the cessation of landfilling in Pennsylvania ' by two upstate New York Counties: Additionally, using an out -of -Town landfill would represent considerable expense. In the past, private carters have charged neighboring Long Island communities in excess of $100 per ton to haul municipal solid waste to landfills off Long Island. 'I 977M/7 3-35 PRW rED.ON RECMED PAPER Recent actions in many states, including New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and New Jersey, inhibit the establishment of new or the expansion of existing landfills. Landfills' that accept out -of -district wastes are meeting with greater local and regulatory opposition, even when there are local economic benefits involved. There are two possible options for disposal at a Town landfill. The first option is to continue existing landfilling operations at the existing Town landfill, or at an expansion of the existing landfill. The second option is to implement a new, state-of-the-art landfill at another site. A new in -Town landfill or 'expansion'would be consistent with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services position on continued landfilling in Suffolk County, the State certified and USEPA approved 208 Plan (1978), and the NYSDEC 208 Plan update (1986) which provide for landfilling on Long Island, particularly in the more. rural areas. Continued landfilling at the existing landfill would facilitate closure and capping by allowing desirable grades and contours to be reached. 3.1.11 Alternative Methods of Processing/Disposal of Other Wastes Certain components of the waste stream for the Town require special attention due to the unique characteristics of the type of waste, regulations pertaining to a particular waste, or the unique characteristics of the Town itself. These wastes may not fit conveniently into previously evaluated methodologies .and technologies assessed earlier in this Section. Major Household Appliances Major household appliances, often referred to as "white goods", are , currently stockpiled . at the Town's solid waste complex and removed by a private hauler. Alternatives for the processing or handling of these items are: o Stockpiling and removal by an outside private recycling or disposal firm, (Le., - continuing existing practices) o Recycling in conjunction with operations. ,of a materials recycling facility, either in -Town, out -of -Town, or at a local or regional facility, for sale to a secondary market 1977M/7 13-36 PRWTED ON RECYCLED PAPER o Scavenging, stockpiling, crushing, and selling for scrap metals and parts. o Designating an 'open market" or exchange system for residents to either ;purchase, exchange, or remove appliances that are usable Any of these alternatives can 'be implemented. Recycling at a local in—Town • or regional recycling facility for a secondary market would be dependent on such a facility being constructed. None of the alternatives presented here have high capital, operation, or maintenance costs solely attributable to major household appliances: A materials recycling facility could entail comparatively high capital costs, . but would not -be exclusively used to process major household appliances. Impacts associated, with these alternatives are few. Should a recyclable or reusable method for dealing with these wastes be implemented, beneficial. impacts associated with reuse or recycling would be expected. Any form of disposal, landfilling, or energy recovery would be expected to present the same impacts as the disposal option. It should be noted that old major, household appliances could contain a capacitor with a small amount of polychlorinated byphenyl. (PCB). Safe removal of this capacitor can be performed by the recycling firm that processes the appliances. Tires , Tires present, an interesting challenge to waste management.. Either recycling of the rubber or the tire (retreading) can occur. Preprocessing facilities that shred tires in preparation for shipment to a secondary materials market generate considerable amounts of noise and require significant buffers for the noise levels to be in compliance with acceptable limits. Tires are currently stockpiled at the Town solid waste complex and removed by- a private hauler. Alternatives to process/handle this waste are: o. Continue to stockpile and' ship tires to corresponding facilities for: rubber - reclamation, retreading, sludge composting, pyrolysis, -cryogenics, and fuel additive facilities for tire derived fuel (TDF) i . o Construct and operate one of the aforementioned facilities o . Preprocess/shred tires for a secondary materials market 1971mn 3-37 PHMED ON RECYCLED R9PER o Use waste tires for in -Town roadway/erosion barriers, or artificial reefs o Landfill either in or out -of -Town The landfilling alternative is not considered an acceptable alternative since it contravenes the intended NYS hierarchy for solid waste management. Further, landfilled tires present compaction problems which can create voids in the landfill that cause settling and reshifting, affecting the density of the fill. Stockpiling and shipping to a facility should not entail high capital or operation and maintenance costs. The drawbacks to this alternative are that stockpiled tires could Provide habitats for mosquitos, and that storing of more than 1,000 tires requires a permit to operate a solid waste, facility under 6NYCRR Part 360-13. None of these drawbacks, however,. are considered insurmountable or a constraint to implementing this alternative. One advantage of this alternative is that the tires may be sold to different markets for a variety of different processing options., 'Shellfish and Fish Waste ' Fish waste generated in the Town by restaurants, small processors, bay men,and small retailers 'is currently disposed of with mixed municipal solid waste at the' Town landfill. There are several alternatives available for processing or disposal of this material. These alternatives include: o Landfilling o Low technology composting o' Resource recovery through municipal solid waste composting or processing at. an energy recovery facility Due in part to its high nitrogen concent, fish waste can be composted alone. However, the potential for the generation of odors would be greater than the composting of other materials due -to the high concentration of amines present in ' fish waste. therefore an in -vessel system may be desirable. A recent. demonstration composting 1977M/7 - . 3-38 I PRUVTED ON RECYCLEO PAPER 9 operation for fish waste undertaken by the New York State Sea Grant Institute has indicated that the odor problems can'be overcome. The project utilizes a static pile which circulates .air underneath the decomposing material, and maximizes drainage through the installation of a drainage pipe in the underlying bed. This project has composted. approximately 15 tons'of fish waste without generating significant odors. Historically, fish wastes * have been incorporated into some backyard 'composting operations. The end product of fish waste composting is potentially more valuable than that of yard waste composting operations by itself. In addition to good water and nutrient . retention qualities, fish waste compost is rich in nutrients which make it an excellent soil additive - similar to organic fertilizers. The feasibility of fish waste composting will depend -to a. great extent on available quantities, ease of segregation, and future NYSDEC regulations regarding use of the end product. Resource recovery through "municipal solid waste composting or processing at an energy' recovery facility is another alternative. This option would involve composting or processing of fish waste with the. Town's mixed municipal solid waste, and therefore would depend on the technical alternative chosen by the Town. Shellfish waste, primarily shells, can, be crushed for a calcium source in gardens. Alternatively, _ shells, can be placed in potholes on dirt and gravel roads for road maintenance. Small, undeveloped parking areas near seafood, establishments have been known to fill potholes in this manner. This could provide a means of .recycling this material_ and reducing ' the Town's waste stream.. The. Town received approximately 85 tons of shellfish debris at its landfill in 1989. Sludge j The Town is served by the Southold scavenger waste treatment and Village of Greenport sewage treatment plants. As part of the treatment processes, one of the end products is sludge. Approximately; 300 to 400 tons of sludge from the treatment plants was landfilled in 1989. Sludge from wastewater treatment plants can be either a benign , residue of biological. wastes or a ' contaminated waste.' The sludge .from the Southold treatment plants is considered to have relatively acceptable levels of heavy metals and other contaminants. Municipal sewage sludge is normally not a hazardous waste; it is a 1977M/7 3-39 PRAY W ON RECYC"PAPER solid waste for -which there are several alternative technologies available for handling, processing, or disposal. These alternatives include: o Incineration or cocombustion o- Landfilling or codisposal o Landspreading/application o Composting Building an incinerator exclusively for. this waste is an option, but would be expensive. This may be a long-term solution for the scavenger wastewater plants, but the decision should be made as part of facilities planning efforts performed by the plants. An incinerator for sludge would be less expensive, however, than a mass -burn or .modular incinerator would be for municipal solid waste.. If an energy recovery facility were to be built by the Town, then the cocombustion of sludge with MSW should be considered.' Use of the cocombustion facility in Glen Cove, for Southold's sludge, would not be possible since this facility. is already processing at or near its capacity. A new landfill for sludge would need to meet the same requirements as those presented in Section 3.1..10. Landspreading - and land application of sludge is a possible option. Regulations governing this practice are found in 6NYCRR Part 360-4. However, the Town would need to acquire a substantial piece, or pieces, of property in order to provide .for the 300 to 400 tons per year of sludge. Composting of sludge is another possibility. Composting of sewage sludge has been implemented with success' in this country. One of the best known cases is the . City of Milwaukee's composting operation for sludge which produces a viable, marketable end product that is sold nationally. Composting of sludge can be done in the following ways: o Sludge with a bulking agent in windrows o . Sludge with yard waste, woodchips, and/or shredded paper as the bulking agent in windrows o Sludge and MSW in an in -vessel composting system o Sludge with yard waste with or without an in -vessel composting system 1977M/7 3-40 I PRWTED ON RECYCLED PAPER The Town currently has a windrow composting operation for yard waste. Should this operation be expanded to handle all of the leaves and brush of the Town, and possibly some low—grade paper, and newspaper, ,the sludge could be used as the source of moisture and nitrogen to enhance the composting process. The ' cost of low technology windrow composting of sludge with .yard 'waste should not be much higher 'than those discussed earlier in Section 3. Marketing of the end product would require more extensive testing to classify the product, as regulated in 6NYCRR Part 360-5. The New York City Department of Environmental 'Protection is proposing to conduct a pilot study to provide information on composting as a management option, for sludge, leaves, 'brush, and waste wood. The pilot study is expected to . be complete after `approximately 400 cubic yards of compost has been produced for analysis. The project is proposed to be located adjacent to the existing wastewater treatment facility.at ;Wards Island, New York. The Town of Southampton, in their FGEIS for their SWAMP, identified sludge as an attractive waste to be incorporated into their proposed composting facility. If this composting facility is established,'a long—term solution could be to send Southold's sludge to the Southampton facility. The Town of Brookhaven has 'Also proposed an MSW composting operation. Recently reported private sector proposals that may implement other MSW composting facilities may or may not allow the composting of sludge with the MSW. It is uncertain at this time if the sludge could be received at any of these facilities in the future. Medical Wastes Handling and processing of regulated medical wastes are typically regulated at the Federal, State, and County levels of government. In the Town; regulated medical wastes are handled by licensed private, sector services. With regard to disposal and treatment, there are two basic options for processing medical wastes: o Sterilization, such -as -that performed in an autoclave, or chemically with residual disposal in a landfill; o Incineration with residual disposal in a landfill 1977M/7 3-41 PRNVLFD ON RECYCLED PAM? Sterilization is the process of destroying or eliminating bacterial and viral, entities. Normally this is accomplished in an autoclave where steam is introduced and the pressure increased to multiples of atmospheric airpressure. The pressure increase "assists the. permeating of the material by the steam. Steam, which.is water vapor in excess of 212°F at normal atmospheric pressure, will, most. notably. under pressure, act as the sterilizing agent. This process can be performed on most medical wastes, but is less effective on certain wastes such as whole body parts. One problem with this technique is that the treated material is often recognizable and landfilling could be misinterpreted as an incomplete treatment process. , .However, this is a proven technology for this waste component. Chemical 'sterilization. is also an effective means for treating . medical wastes: Sodium hypochlorite, liquid chlorine, or other disinfectants applied at adequate -doses can permeate the waste and destroy pathogens. This process is, better suited for a -regional facility, where economies of scale would assist in controlling the cost of such a facility. Special incineration is usually associated with larger amounts of medical wastes. Currently, some Long Island hospitals use their own private incineration facilities. Private collection and, disposal of regulated medical waste is currently used in Southold .and elsewhere on Long Island. These wastes, which are not part of the normal municipal waste stream handled by the Town, should not enter the waste stream going -to Town facilities. 3.2 Landfill Siting Alternatives The preliminary landfill site assessment procedure was developed in accordance with ,the requirements of 6NYCRR Part 360 (December 1988), and the guidelines presented in "Solid Waste Management Facility Siting" published by NYSDEC in April of 1990. The siting analysis that follows is preliminary, and has been held in abeyance pending the determination of the need -fora new landfill site in the Town. This analysis is limited to the ability of the Town to provide suitable site(s) for a new landfill (within the Town), in accordance with the Long Island Landfill. Law (as currently written) and 6NYCRR. Part 360-1.14 -and 2.12, "Landfill Siting Requirements." It should be . noted . that the siting analysis contained in this Section is preliminary, for the purpose of conducting a comparative analysis -between potential landfill sites, as is appropriate for a draft 1977M/7 3-42 PRMW ON RECYCLED PAPS? .J l generic planning effort. "Individual environmental' assessments prepared for any potential, new landfill site in the Town would require further studies of any remaining preliminary unscreened area indicated in this preliminary landfill site assessment. The objective of -the preliminary landfill site screening process has been to exclude . inappropriate areas of the Town's total 27,474 acres, by avoiding the "prohibited" siting areas identified in the Part 360 regulations (360-1.14 and 360-2.12 [c])., and to eliminate areas that have the potential for 'causing adverse impacts on the character\ or quality of neighborhoods, communities, ,and surrounding environs. The following deferral criteria were used during the landfill site screening process: -0 Coastal Areas (1,000 ft. Buffer) o Inland" Water Bodies (Buffers: 100 ft. - Freshwater; 1,000 ft. - Tidal)' 0 100 Year Floodplain o Wetlands (100,"ft. Buffer) o Special Groundwater Protection Areas o Town Designated Core Watershed Protection Areas o Public Wellhead Areas (1,500 ft. Buffer) .o Airport Runway Buffers (5,000 ft. Radius Screened; 10,000 ft. and 5 mi: Radius Indicated) o Residentially Occupied Areas (200 ft. Buffer) o Parks, Recreational Resources, and Cemeteries . Screening criterion were each individually applied to the Town. In addition to these Townwide screen, site specific screen were sequentially applied to the areas that remained unscreened-by the aforementioned criterion. These screens include: , 0 20 ft. Minimum Depth to Groundwater o NYSDEC and Town Designated Freshwater Wetlands (100 ft. buffer) o Isolated Residences (200 ft. buffer) o Appropriate Site Configuration: (Minimum 20 Acre Parcels and Minimum 750 ft. Width) Islands that lie -within the Town boundaries (such as, Fishers, Robin, Plum, Little Gull, and Big Gull) were not evaluated in the screening process as a result of the inherent 1977M/7 3-43 PRW77D ON RECYCLED PAPER potential impacts, including transportation costs, associated with, locating a landfill iri an area' that is environmentally sensitive and not easily accessible. Maps presenting the areas screened by the analysis are presented. in Appendix J. The following text, describes the screening criteria in more detail 3.2.1. Coastal Areas A 1,000 foot coastal buffer was applied ,to the shorelines of the Town to minimize the possible visual and: nonpoint/point source 'impacts to the coastal systems of the Town from a municipal solid waste facility. The basis for the 1,000 foot buffer was the Long Island Comprehensive. Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Plan),. which recommended that new landfills be sited no less than 1,000 feet landward of the coastal -shoreline. The coastline was identified using USGS Topographic Quadrangles. This screen- eliminated approximately, 6,500 acres and is presented as Figure 1 in Appendix J. 3:2.2 Inland Water Bodies Inland. water bodies were excluded for their recreational, preservational, and ecological value. Developing a solid waste management facility on or near their shores could expose them to adverse environmental impacts. The Part 360, regulations state that no solid waste can be' deposited closer than 100 feet from the mean high water elevation .of any surface, waters (360-2.13 [a]. [2]). Additionally, the 208 Plan recommended that new landfills be sited no. less than 1,000 feet .landward of the shoreline of any stream flowing into marine waters.. Therefore, buffers of 100 feet for freshwater, and 1,000 feet for tidal waters were utilized. These areas were identified using USGS Topographic Quadrangles and recent aerial .photographs (March, • 1988): This screen eliminated approximately 11,000 acres, and is presented as Figure .2 in Appendix J. 3.2.3 100 -Year Floodplain Part 360 regulation state that a new landfill must not be constructed"or operated on a floodplain -(360-2.12[c][2]). These areas .were determined and excluded from further consideration using Flood Insurance Rate maps issued by the Federal Government under 1971M/7 3-44 P1RBV7W ON RECYCLM PAPER the Federal Emergency Management Act. This screen eliminated approximately 11,000 acres located along the coastlines of the Town. The 100 year floodplain are presented on . .Figure 3 -in Appendix J. 3.2.4 .Wetlands' Part 360 regulations state that new ,solid waste ' management facilities must not be constructed or operated within . the boundary of a regulated wetland (360 — 1.14. [c] [41). Freshwater wetland parcels of 12.4 acres or larger, along with smaller wetlands of special importance, are protected by New York State pursuant to Article 24 -of the ECL. The protected area extends 100 feet from the boundary of the wetland. Wetland areas within the town, including 100 ft. -buffers, were eliminated by this screen using USGS Topographic Quadrangles. This screen eliminated approximately 2,200acres. These areas are presented on Figure- 4° in Appendix J. Additionally, Town and ' NYSDEC preliminary .freshwater wetland maps were used to eliminate smaller wetland areas (that are not referenced by USGS) in, a site- specific screen to follow'. 3.2.5 Special Groundwater Protection Areas Special Groundwater • Protection Areas (SGPAs) were identified in the 208 Nonpoint Source Management Handbook (LIRPB, 1984), andthe ' Long Island Groundwater Management Program. (NYSDEC, 1986). SGPAs are defined. as significant, largely or sparsely developed areas that provide recharge .to portions of the deep flow aquifer system. Activities on the land surface in the deep flow recharge areas could pose 'a threat of contamination of the aquifer system., Management of these areas is . important to maintain the future, high quality, uncontaminated recharge of groundwater to the aquifer - in the Town-. Accordingly, the part of the Town located in the Central Suffolk SGPA was eliminated by this screen. The tentative LIRPB: Central Suffolk SGPA sheets were used to identify the -boundary. Approximately 4,000 acres were excluded in the central section of the Town. This area .is presented in Figure 5 of Appendix J. 3.2.6 Town Designated .Core Watershed Protection Areas In 1987, the Town designated certain •areas, of the Town as • Core Watershed Protection 'Areas. These areas are considered by . the Town to be environmentally sensitive zones., These areas are eliminated from further evaluation on Figure 6 of 1977M/7 . • 3-45 PR017W ON RECYCLED PAPER Appendix J, and account for approximately 1,500 acres; most of .which is also designated as Special Groundwater Protection Areas. 3.2.7 Public Wellhead Areas Public water supply wellhead areas are defined in the Part 360 regulations -as the surface and subsurface areas between a public water supply well or wellfield and .the 99% theoretical maximum extent of the stabilized cone of depression of that well .or wellfield, considering all flow system boundaries and seasonal fluctuations'(360-1.2 [b].[11.4]): Part 360 regulations state that no` new landfill - may be constructed within public water supply wellhead areas, and that the required horizontal separation between deposited solid waste and public water supply wellhead areas be sufficient (based on the rate and direction of groundwater flow, landfill design, and corrective action in the event of failure of the facility containment system) to preclude contravention of groundwater standards in the aquifer (360-2.12 [c] [i and iii]). , These regulations, as stated; .do not apply. to .Nassau and Suffolk Counties; however, public water supply wellhead areas and pumping stations within the Town of Southold can be considered water sensitive areas and are excluded as a conservative measure. The Suffolk County Sanitary Code (Article 7, Water Pollution Control, 1987) defines water sensitive areas as areas in "close proximity" to public supply wells.. Close proximity -has been defined for the purpose of . this siting analysis as within 1,500 feet upgradient or 500 feet downgradient of the well. For the purposes of this siting analysis, a conservative distance of 1,500 feet, regardless of gradient, was used to delineate wellhead areas. Public wellhead area's were located with the Groundwater Management Zones and Water Supply Sensitive Areas Map from Article 7 of the Suffolk County Sanitary Code. Pumping stations were. screened using. a Village of Greenport Water Department . distribution system map. This screen eliminated approximately 1,400 acres and is shown in Figure 7. of Appendix J. 3.2.8 Airport Runway Buffers Part 360 regulations state that a landfill which is to accept, putrescible solid waste must be located no closer than 5,000 ft. from any airport runway used by piston -type 1977M/7 3-46 PRW7FD ON RECYCLED PAPER aircraft, and no closer than 10,000 ft. from any airport runway'used by turbojet. aircraft (360-2.12[c] [3i]). While it is not prohibitive in the siting of a landfill, a five mile. buffer has been referenced by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and reflects concerns as to landings and takeoffs from a runway that could.be interferred with by birds using a landfill as a feeding area. USGS Topographic Quadrangles were used to locate the airports in the 'vicinity of the Town., The Mattituck Airport, which accommodates piston -type aircraft, was accordingly given a 5,000 foot buffer which eliminated approximately 2,000 acres. The boundaries of the 10,000 foot, and five mile, distances are also indicated but have not been screened. This screen'is presented in Figure 8 of Appendix J. 3.2.9 Residentially Occupied Areas This screen excluded residentially occupied areas in the Town. One objective of the siting analysis was to choose a site that would. minimize the effects of a facility on the character of neighborhoods and communities by disrupting existing residences as little as possible. Part 360 regulations state that .population density and anticipated growth, both around a potential landfill site and around major transportation routes to the site, must be considered (36072.12 [e] [1]). To assure public acceptance of any potential new landfill site in the Town, residentially occupied areas were excluded by this screen. These areas were defined as the localized grouping of any number of homes. Individual residences were not included in` this screen, but are addressed in another site specific screen to follow. A 200 foot buffer was used around residential clusters. This screen is presented in Figure 9 of Appendix J, and eliminated approximately 10,000 acres. 3.2.10 Parks. Recreational Resources and Cemeteries This screen. excluded land within the Town that has been designated recreational parkland• by the Town, Suffolk County, New York State, and the federal government. Cemeteries, community centers, and privately owned recreational facilities were also eliminated. This screen eliminated approximately 1,200 acres. Parks, recreation 1977H/7 3-47 PR017FD ON RECYCLED PAPIER resources, and cemeteries are found throughout the Town but tend to be located near major water bodies. These areas are shown in Figure 10 of Appendix -J. 3.2.11 Preliminary Unscreened Areas I The screens above, through Section 3.2.10, eliminated approximately 70% of the area of the Town from further consideration for a new landfill site. A composite of the previous 10 screening criteria is presented on Figure 11 of Appendix J in order to identify the remaining preliminary unscreened areas. Roadways 'are indicated within these_ regions, and are treated as boundaries between individual preliminary unscreened areas. For the remainder of the analysis, site specific features and characteristics. were evaluated. The remaining site specific screens were applied sequentially to further identify the remaining preliminary unscreened areas. 3.2.12 Preliminary Unscreened Areas II: 20 ft Minimum Depth to Groundwater A depth to groundwater of 20 feet was determined to be the minimum required distance from surface elevation necessary to accommodate a landfill's liner system, while also maintaining a minimum 5 foot separation from the liner system to the water table, a 5 foot landfill base, and a 10 foot (below grade) distance to the bottom of the landfill cell. This additional screen was applied to the remaining preliminary unscreened areas, and is presented on Figure 12 of Appendix J. 3.2.13 Preliminary Unscreened Areas III• Site Specific Residences Wetlands and Appropriate Site Configurations Residences that are isolated, and which were not screened on Figure 9 of Appendix J, are identified from USGS Topographic Quadrangles and individual site visits and eliminated from further consideration using 200 ft. buffers. Field investigations of the remaining preliminary unscreened areas were also conducted to account for recent commercial and residential development. The results of these field evaluations are presented in Table -I of Appendix J. 1977M/i 3-48 PRR?ED ON RECYC/ W PAPER Wetlands previously screened in this siting analysis on Figure 4 were sourced from USGS Topographic Quadrangles. NYSDEC is currently identifying additional freshwater wetland areas; however, these, findings are preliminary. In- order to present the most up-to-date available information, as applied to this siting analysis, preliminary NYSDEC freshwater wetland areas, including, 100 foot buffers, were removed from further consideration. It should be noted, however, that. these areas are identified on preliminary maps, and are subject to change in, -the future. In addition, Town designated wetlands (1989) are eliminated from further evaluation using 100 foot buffers. " For the purposes, of this siting analysis, it has been determined that 20 acres is 'the minimum required area for a new Town landfill site including the associated buffers and setbacks.. Preliminary unscreened areas comprising less than twenty acres were eliminated from further evaluation. Additionally, a minimum dimension of 750 ft. was determined to be the smallest acceptable width that must be maintained throughout the 20 acre - area to accommodate a new landfill cell ,and associated buffers and setbacks. Irregular shaped unscreened areas that do not maintain this dimension over a minimum 20 acre parcel have been eliminated from further evaluation. In addition, portions of unscreened areas that fail to reach this width have also been eliminated, the boundaries of which are shown with dashed lines. Figure -13 of Appendix J applies these site specific screens to the remaining preliminary unscreened areas. 3.2.14 Remaining Preliminary Unscreened Areas The screens above eliminated approximately 85% of the Town from consideration - for a new landfill. It should, be noted that several of the. remaining preliminary unscreened areas indicated on Figure 13 were.further subdivided on Figure 14 due to their inappropriate configurations. Figure 14 of Appendix J shows the remaining 29 preliminary unscreened areas in the Town that have some potential for future consideration as landfill sites. Evaluations of land use and recent residential and commercial -development on the remaining 29 sites, and surrounding areas, was, established in part through the ' use of aerial photographs (1988) and field investigations, and are noted on Table 1 of Appendix J. 19.77M/7 3-49 PMNTEO ON RECYClFD PAPER It should be noted that ' the relationship of agricultural land -and the siting of solid waste facilities was not considered in the evaluation of the unscreened areas. 6NYCRR 360-1.14 (c) (1) prohibits the acquisition of land through the exercise of eminent domain " for the purpose of construction or operation -of a solid waste, facility on land that consists predominantly (at least 50%) of group 1 or.2 agricultural soils and is within an agricultural district. However, unscreened areas that consist predominantly of group 1 or 2 agricultural soils and are located in an agricultural district can be evaluated, for further consideration if the owner of such a parcel of land is interested in selling to the Town. These areas, however, are identified in Table 1 of Appendix J to illustrate the portions of the remaining -preliminary unscreened areas that cannot be acquired, through the exercise of eminent domain. Group 1. and 2' soils in Suffolk County were identified by the Land Classification System prepared' by the New York State - Department of Agriculture and Markets, and incorporated .into the siting analyses using Agricultural District Maps and the Soil Survey of Suffolk County (USDA, 1975). 3:2.15 . Conclusions of the Siting Evaluation Table 1 of Appendix J presents a summary of the remaining 29 preliminary unscreened areas. Approximate site size, location, and current land uses are indicated to illustrate the applicability of each unscreened area as a potential landfill site. Based upon the results of field evaluations, if the need arises for a new landfill in the Town, 27 of the 29 sites listed on the summary table require further evaluation to determine whether they may or may not be suitable for use as a new landfill site. .Site S -5g was eliminated from Further consideration through the "residentially occupied area" screen as a result of a field investigation that determined a recently developed condominium complex has been located on a majority of the site. Site G-1 was, eliminated on the summary. table through the "parks, cemeteries, and recreational resources" screen due to a field evaluation that indicated that the Island's End Golf and Country Club grounds extended onto most of the area. Additional. evaluations of the remaining 27 preliminary unscreened areas- should be held in abeyance, pending- a future decision on the need for a new landfill site in the Town 1 other than the existing landfill site in Cutchogue. Further studies would be necessary regarding the 'acquisition and public acceptance of any new potential landfill site. Additionally, . any area identified as a potential landfill site in this future analysis (including comparative ranking) would require additional evaluations of current and planned property subdivisions and development. 1977M/7 3-50 . PRVVTED ov REcrc,FW PAPM Section 4 4.0 IMPLEMENTATION ALTERNATIVES A variety of implementation alternatives for various processing methods described in Section 3 have been evaluated to formulate a solid waste management plan for the Town. These implementation alternatives and an analysis of their application to the Town's needs -are presented in this Section along with positive features and drawbacks of each. It should be . noted that -all cost estimates contained in this Section are preliminary for the purpose of conducting a comparative analysis between alternatives, as is appropriate for a draft generic planning effort. Adjusted cost estimates will be provided as -necessary in the final plan/FGEIS, while final cost estimates will be determined as a result of detailed engineering design, supplemental EIS ' analysis, responses to formal procurement procedures,.and the terms of final intermunicipal/contractual agreements. 4.1 "No Action" Alternative The "no action" evaluation is required by SEQRA. Under this alternative, the Town would undertake "no action" regarding solid waste management facilities or operations. Receipt and processing of waste by the Town would cease. As part of this alternative, the landfilling of mixed solid waste at the Town landfill and on Fishers Island would cease in accordance with the Long Island Landfill Law on December •18, 1990, or at a later time if there were an extension. Existing collection practices would remain unchanged since they. are currently handled by the private sector, and the current voluntary Town sponsored recycling program at the landfill would be discontinued: Solid waste -management activities would, by default, be taken over by private , enterprise, . . except for those elements currently administered by the Town for its own generated solid waste. Positive features of the SEQRA "no action" alternative include: o Avoidance of costs to the Town incurred in development and implementation of a solid waste management plan o Avoidance of public controversy -concerning. certain elements of a solid waste management plan with regard to the' type and location of solid waste management facilities 2038M/14 4-1 PRHnFD ON RECYCIEO PAPER o Municipal funds or tax revenues 'would not be, used to finance. solid waste management facilities and programs Drawbacks of the SEQRA "no .action", alternative include: = o _ Cost to the public of private sector solid waste programs could exceed the costs ,associated with Town administered facilities and programs o This alternative 'would not be in compliance with the State Solid Waste Management Plan which identifies Counties upstate and Towns on Long Island as the appropriate .level of government responsible for solid waste management o Private sector management would preclude the possibility of State aid or .grants . that are or might become available for implementing, elements of solid waste management facilities and programs .0 Reliability of this option and the willingness of . the- private sector to be responsible for'all of the Town's waste is uncertain 4.2 Total Out -of --Town, Off Island Processing and Disposal Under this alternative, after reduction, recycling, .and reuse, the remaining portion of the Town's waste, stream would be exported and processed or disposed of outside of the Town. A program of mandatory source separation of recyclables (which is required by State Law by 19.92) would_ be required., The collected source separated recyclables could be transported to out -of -Town facilities to be processed together or, separate from other elements of the waste stream. The household hazardous waste removal program would continue to remove -household hazardous wastes from the waste • stream and ' export them to suitable disposal facilities. Construction and demolition debris and land clearing debris could either be received .,,at Town facilities. and then exported out -of -Town, or. be disposed of in or outside of the Town by -the private sector. if the Town chose not to handle it.' It would be necessary .under this alternative to operate a transfer station or facilities within the Town and on Fishers Island to receive the various waste stream components, in preparation for transfer elsewhere. 2038M/14 4-2 PRWPED ON RECYCLED PAPER Positive features of this alternative would include the following: o Town would avoid planning, 'design, permitting, construction,' operation, and closure expense for solid waste facilities not related to transfer o Potential environmental impacts within the Town from the facilities would be minimized or totally avoided - Drawbacks of this alternative would include: o The high cost of transferring solid waste to facilities outside of the Town o Possible uncertainty and unreliability of long—term disposal of solid waste at facilities outside of the Town o Loss of control by the Town with respect to solid waste disposal The long haul export of wastes from the Town, for processing or disposal off Long Island, could cost in, the range of $100 to $200 per ton, depending on bids received. This would be,higher than the $100 to $150 per ton paid by some towns to the west of the Town. The higher cost would be in part due to the greater distance of travel from the East End and the small volume of waste relative to other'Long Island towns located. to the west. These costs could be much higher for Fishers Island, which would be forced to transport its waste by ferry to the "mainland" portion of the Town or to Connecticut. 4.3 Waste Reduction The reduction in the volume of the waste stream results in less waste that needs to be managed, therefore, less planning, money, effort, and infrastructure construction would be necessary. In order for waste reduction efforts to be effective, actions for reduction must be directed to industries, businesses, or other enterprises that are national, international, "or regional in nature. For this reason, the most recent update of the State's SWMP recommends that initiatives for waste reduction be implemented under Federal and State actions. However, there. are some alternatives the Town could consider implementing that would support waste reduction efforts. 2038M/14 4-3 PRBVTW ON RECYCLED PAPER Actively supporting State and Federal initiatives aimed at waste reduction is an alternative. While the Town could support all or some of these initiatives, the following have the potential to affect the generation of waste: o Supporting an expansion of the deposit law to include more categories of bottles o Supporting legislation for deposits on batteries and tires o Supporting State and the publishing industry's effort to attract paper mills to produce more recycled newspaper o Supporting legislation to decrease the amount and composition of packaging Other Federal and State initiatives are discussed in Section 3 and Appendix F. One local attempt at waste reduction was by Suffolk County. The ban on certain plastic packaging and containers was intended to reduce the volume of the waste stream and. to encourage * recycling. Alternatives thaf the Town .could consider including as part of their solid waste management plan can- take similar -approaches. The Town could consider banning the handling, processing, or disposal of- certain components of the waste stream. If bans were enacted, alternative processing or disposal options would need to be in place. Possible waste ,stream components that might be banned from .the municipal waste stream (and the possible alternative processing or disposal option) include: o 'Construction and demolition debris - Private recyclers o Land clearing debris - Private recyclers o Major household appliances - Appliance retailers/scrap metal dealers - o. Tires- Tire -,retailers o Grass clippings - Homeowners or landscapers o . Batteries - Retail outlets or auto pants retailers o Waste oil - . Gas stations or service centers 2038M/14 4-4 . MWED ON RECYCLED PAPM? With respect to C&D, . tires, land clearing debris, waste oil, grass clippings,. and automobile batteries, processing or disposal options through the private sector exist. However, to protect itself from improper disposal of waste- oil, the Town could continue its voluntary drop-off arrangements to recycle oil. The public - could be encouraged to leave grass clippings on the lawn or put into' small backyard or on -lot compost piles. Landscapers could be encouraged or required to develop compost piles on large individual properties. Since a deposit law for vehicle batteries has been enacted, vehicle batteries could be banned from the Town's waste stream. Tires are recyclable and easily separated so consideration could be given to a ban or to instituting a private recycling program for tires. While no appliance retailer could take back all appliances, they could be required to implement an operation similar to the bottle return/deposit law requiring retailers to accept returned bottles. However, the Town could continue to handle major -household appliances as it currently does. Land clearing and construction and demolition debris can also be directed to private existing recycled operations in nearby areas. Another initiative towards waste reduction could be the' development of a fee structure that has higher fees for nonrecyclable or noncompostable wastes and lower fees for uncontaminated acceptable deliveries of recyclables or compostables: This two tier fee system could encourage those who bring wastes to the Town for processing or disposal to increase separation efforts to recover recyclable materials: -This would reduce . the amount of wastes that would be processed or landfilled by other elements in the Town's Solid Waste Management Plan. Additionally, the commercial, industrial, and institutional •sectors would have an incentive to ..participate in the Town's recycling effort. -To be effective, however, this two tier system would need to be applied to both residential drop-off and private haulers. Other economic incentives for the commercial and industrial sectors can be developed that encourage waste reduction. One example might be a Town sponsored incentive program, whereby a business or industry that effectively demonstrates to the Town a reduction in the generation of waste by a certain percentage, would be eligible for financial incentives. Programs for the Town that recover newspaper, office paper, cans, bottles, and corrugated for its own departments and offices would reduce the amount of waste for processing or disposal, while increasing -the recycling practices of the Town. Commercial, 2038M/14 4-5 PROV7F.D ON RECYCLED PAPER enterprises that deliver merchandise to Fishers Island could be required '.to remove corrugated materials off the Island: -Additionally, waste . reduction can be achieved by extending the useful life of office equipment and vehicles used by the Town; , and also commercial, institutional, and industrial sectors: When new equipment or- vehicles are purchased, the old, - useful equipment could be . passed - on to charitable organizations, a private schools,, day care facilities; , community service programs, of similar organizations who may not be able to purchase new. equipment. This practice- could,be incorporated into the Town or - the private sector .procurement practices. -Extending the useful life of a product in this manner is one form of waste, reduction... The state Chas identified, a goal of 8% to 10% reduction by 1997: 'In order to maximize reduction efforts, the Town should adopt the 10% level, as its- goal: 4.4 Household Hazardous, Waste Removal The environmental and waste . reducing benefits of removing household hazardous waste from the waste stream, in addition to the economics of this reduction/recycling option, were identified - in Section 3. Two implementation alternatives for the management of this component .are discussed below. Scheduled Periodic Collection of Household � Hazardous Waste . Since 1984, Long Island towns have been providing household hazardous waste collection days under the acronym S.T.O.P. (Stop. Throwing Out Pollutants). The Town is among those that have held collection "events'.' in the past in order to remove household hazardous waste from the waste stream. Scheduling the periodic collection of household . hazardous wastes would help to achieve the goal of this management option. Once or twice' each month, on a weekend,, the Town could schedule a S.T.O.P. event r to receive household hazardous wastes: -Public education and involvement programs would be necessary to initiate and maintain public participation in this type of'. program.' This alternative would not be practical for the Town since a permanent, full time facility has already -been established at the landfill complex. However, a program consisting of a minimum of two collection ,events per year would be practical for a community such as Fishers Island, where the development of a full time program would be both impractical and unnecessary. The main drawback to this alternative is that while the S.T.O. P': events 2038M/14 4-6 PRM ED ON RECYCLED PAPER. would be regularly scheduled, there is no way to assure that the " program would be convenient and accessible to all. Although the scheduling could be designed to maximize participation, the convenience" could be affected over the long—term. A long—term household hazardous. waste program should . take convenience ' to the participant into account. Full Time Program In the spring of 1988, the Town opened New York State's (and possibly the east coast's) first permanent, household hazardous waste containment facility at the Town solid waste complex. The implementation of this facility enabled the Town to expand its S.T.O.P. program to. a full time basis. A full time program can maximize participation by providing collection during normal hours of landfill operation. This approach, however, is not recommended for a small community such as Fishers Island, where the. small population. and limited quantities of this waste make this alternative less practical than scheduled periodic collection events. Public education "and involvement efforts are necessary to inform residents of this program and to maintain participation. High rates of participation, however, should exist in a full time program since residents are offered a greater opportunity to drop off their. materials. 4.5 Recycling Alternatives _ The technological and management " aspects of waste reduction, recycling, and collection were discussed in Section 3. The potential markets, and an assessment of marketing strategies that the Town" could implement; were presented in Section 2. "A . comprehensive recycling analysis- prepared forothe Town is presented in Appendix F. In order to evaluate the processing alternatives, the applicability or viability of the - collection of either .segregated or commingled- materials ha's .been identified. Each processing• option evaluated is capable of "being designed to have sufficient capacity to accommodate the Town's recyclable materials. Therefore, the evaluation of the processing options was not performed solely on the basis ,of capacity. The evaluation also considered cost, existing and planned facilities, and- the .applicability and viability of the option. 2038M/14 4-7 PRBYTW ON RECYCLED PAPER 4.5.1 Recyclable Material 'Collection Alternatives In. developing a recycling plan it is necessary to evaluate the technical alternatives for. collecting, processing,. and. marketing recyclable materials to' be recovered by the Town. The preferred technical approaches can then be considered for - implementation based upon a set of policy decisions that establish the framework to support the program. The system design alternatives discussed in this Section have been identified based on. their ability to recycle a minimum of 40% of the Town's overall waste stream', which is the goal set by New York State to be achieved by 1997. To achieve, or =better; the State's goal of. 40% recycling by 1997, the Town must recover, recyclable materials from the residential, commercial, and institutional sectors of the community. The collection, processing, and marketing system options will be designed to accommodate the recycling of as many components of the waste stream that are technologically. and economically feasible. The, most effective way to, reduce the volume of the waste stream is 'to recover the greatest: number -of materials practicable, particularly items' which consume large volumes of space when disposed, and obtain participation from all public and' private sectors of the community. The most effective way of achieving high recovery levels is to maximize participation in the program. This can be accomplished by implementing a • convenient program which does not require extensive material sorting and 'preparation, • Public attitude surveys . conducted by Dvirka ' and Bartilucci (Table, 4.5.1=1) indicate that programs most convenient for residents are those in which recyclable materials may be set out in a mixed or, commingled fashion. In, addition .to convenience;, storage requirements are reduced and material preparation instructions are minimized through - material commingling. In such . a program, participants are required to separate their waste into .three categories: o Mixed glass, plastics, and metals in one container o Mixed papers separately bundled to avoid contamination of the paper products .0 Mixed solid waste Another factor in designing efficient recycling collection programs is to parallel regular refuse collections. Many programs that are achieving participation rates in'excess 2038M/14 ' 4=8. PRDVTW ON REGYCr EO PAPER Table 4.5.1-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Summary of Public Attitudes Towards Source Separation Percent "Willing To Separate" One Two Three Study Location Separation (%) Separations (%) Separations (%) Brookhaven, New York 9S 87 64 Monroe County, New York 87 79 62 Western Finger Lakes, New York 90 88. 78 Oneida -Herkimer, New York 85 72 53 Onondaga County, New York 89 79 54 Source: Dvirka and Bartilucci, 1990 2038M/14 4-9 PRWTED ON RECYCLED PAPER of 50% are 'those which recover materials at the curb or roadside on the same. day as regular refuse. Mandatory recycling ordinances also contribute to high participation and material recovery rates. Collection, processing, and marketing of materials is a highly systematic process. The following factors must. be considered in designing a' successful collection system: the- materials hematerials identified for recovery; the sources of materials; delivery specifications of material recovery facilities and markets; choice of collection agent; equipment , choices; and collection frequency. Materials Identified for Recovery Recyclable materials, such as bottles, cans, and paper products from residential sources, may require the development of specialized collection routes. Materials that are generated in a more homogeneous form, such as construction and demolition debris, commercial compostables, and yard waste, may only require redirection of' collection vehicles to specialized recovery facilities. Sources of Materials, Commercial and industrial sources of waste usually contain high quantities of paper waste and other materials- such as metals, plastics,. and food wastes. Waste generated by these sources are more readily recovered -than the more heterogeneous materials from the residential sector. Delivery ,Specifications The design of a collection program is highly -dependent -on the provisions made for the delivery of materials. For example, if a. market is able to accept commingled container materials, then materials may be collected in mixed form: On the other hand, if materials must be delivered separately, then they must either be collected separately or sorted enroute. 2038M/14 4-10 P1RfffIFO ON RECYC) E0 PAPER Choice of Collection Agent There are several options for the collection of recyclables which include: collection by the Town (municipal collection), municipally contracted collection,' franchise or district collection, private subscription service, and/or the inclusion of centralized drop-off in addition to a curbside collection. program. Equipment Choices The choice. of equipment is highly dependent upon delivery requirements: The primary options available are: single compartment compacting vehicles, single compartment compacting vehicles with - multicompartment trailers, and multicompartment noncompacting trucks. At drop-off areas, roll -offs, trailers, and specialized collection bins can be used. Collection Frequency The frequency of collection will be highly dependent upon the types of vehicles utilized, delivery requirements, and the number of materials targeted for recycling.* For example, if multicompartment units are chosen for collection of separated materials, collection could occur weekly utilizing a single collection route. If noncompartmentalized vehicles are used, to collect separated materials, only one material could be collected per route.. For multiple materials, trucks would need to run multiple routes or collect a different material each collection period. Therefore,, for the recovery of multiple materials, a more frequent schedule would be required. The purpose of a collection system is the accumulation of designated materials from a number of sources for delivery to Southold's already established storage and collection center, or to a final user. The collection system, in order to be effective, must incorporate into its design, functions services which will ensure maximum participation by waste generators and conformance to -the quality and delivery requirements of the collection center or final markets. Residential Recyclable Material Collection In order to identify the preferred curbside collection strategy for the Town, it is necessary to discuss some of the more feasible system options. The primary difference 2038M/14 4=11 . PRIMED ON RECYCLED PAPER between these options is the level of separation required by the resident, collection agent, or receiving facilities. Although curbside collections are necessary for maximizing household participation and material recovery rates, and .a voluntary curbside program has been initiated by two carters, recycling drop-off centers could significantly increase and maintain the effectiveness of- the materials recovery programs, especially in Southold, where approximately 30% of the population delivers trash to a drop-off area. The following discussion includes an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each option for curbside collection. Drop-off facility options will not be focused upon, since the Town- already operates a drop-off collection center 'which is centrally located and easily accessible by most residents.. The bi-level drop-off area has ' been designed to receive.. bulk deliveries., of materials that . have been collected curbside, and is therefore valued as an integral part of the curbside collection program. The collection alternatives, however, must take into consideration' -the material quality and also the delivery specificationsof the drop-off facilities. Option A: Complete Separation by Participants With. Materials Collected by Multicompartment Vehicle Under. this collection scenario, residents would be asked to store the following materials in separate containers: mixed paper; glass by color; tin andaluminum cans; and plastic containers. This approach currently exists in the _Town on a voluntary basis with . residents providing the set -out containers. These containers for storage could either be provided by ' the resident, hauler, or public entity (Town). This strategy would entail sorting in the household of six or more categories of recyclables in addition to nonrecyclable mixed wastes. Typically, curbside collection programs of this type rang_ e from $1 to $3 per household per month, depending on the number of materials collected. The major- advantage of this collection. scenario is that residents assume the responsibility for all necessary material separations. This reduces the burden on receiving facilities. Further; if materials are delivered to collection points in a fully separated state, they could be shipped directly to market with minimal processing. The existing bi-level and collection center drop-off areas for recyclables at the landfill currently are designed to receive source separated recyclables. The materials are not processed or upgraded prior to marketing. 2038M/14 4-12 spy) PRIMED ON RECYCIFO PAPER ' ` The major disadvantage of . this scenario is that increased separation requirements decrease participation rates which, in turn, reduces recovery rates. The public attitude surveys illustrated in Table 4.5.1-1 support this contention. According to. these surveys, willingness to participate decreases significantly beyond two separations of recyclables from mixed household waste. Since the program has only been recently implemented, detailed data is not yet available regarding participation rates and material sorting efficiency rates. It also is assumed that this approach would result in low collection efficiency. Under this scenario, the recyclable collection crew would be required to pick up and unload as many as six materials for every participating household stop. This approach could be very time consuming. Another disadvantage is that the expansion . of this existing approach might necessitate the purchase of additional collection equipment. This approach is difficult to duplicate in multifamily units and requires the use of several compartments on a vehicle. Option B: Commingled Set Out by Participants and Enroute Sorting by Collection Agents with a Multicompartment Vehicle Under this scenario, residents separate container materials (glass, ferrous cans, aluminum cans, or plastics) from paper and mixed waste.- The mixed bottles and cans are placed roadside (or curbside) in a container, and newspapers are bundled and placed next to or on top of the setout container. The collection agent loads the newspaper, into one compartment of a vehicle. The mixed containers are then sorted by the collection crew and the materials are loaded into separate compartments. The cost of these collection systems is correlated to the effort that must be made by collectors. The primary advantage. to this collection approach is that it will decrease the separation burden on the resident, producing increased participation rates. In addition, this approach reduces the need for processing. The primary disadvantage'of this approach is the limitation it places on the number of materials that can be recovered. The second disadvantage is ,the possible decreased efficiency of the collection crew. It is estimated that this collection strategy requires approximately 15 to 20 seconds per stop depending on materials, which must be compared with the time required to collect materials under other - scenarios and the investment 203$M/14 4-13 PRMED ON RECYa D PAPER necessary .to sort materials at one or .more regional facilities. In addition' the more materials targeted for collection, the more compartments that will be needed per truck. This increases the possibility that one compartment will fill faster than others, increasing the amount of .time collection. agents must spend unloading .off -route. This approach is also difficult to incorporate into multifamily collections. The final disadvantage to this approach is that it requires . the -use of specialized collection vehicles; however, two specialized vehicles have been developed by two of the haulers for ,use in the existing voluntary curbside program in the Town. . Option C: Separation of - Recyclables Into Two Streams by Participants With Further Sorting at Receiving Points Usinga Multicompartment Vehicle Under this scenario, residents would be asked to sort materials into the same two, streams as in Option B' (mixed containers and mixed paper). The collection crew .would load the two streams into a two compartment vehicle which would be delivered to a sorting facility. In this case, residents could use set -out containers or bags to store and - set out the recyclables. The containers could be boxes, buckets, or cans ranging in size from 10 to 90 gallons. In ,some programs, covers are utilized to protect the recyclables from degradation by rain, sunlight, or vandalism. In addition to reusable, rigid containers, paper or plastic bags may be utilized. Recently, companies such as Exxon and First Brands have begun to manufacture plastic bags specifically for recycling (Le.,- handles for easy storage). First. Brand is also designing. a debagging machine .that would enable •efficient emptying of the bags at a central processing facility. From a participation and collection perspective, this approach has many - advantages. It is more likely that participation rates- -and collection efficiency . will be maximized. under this system since residents would be -asked to sort recyclables into only two categories. In addition, collection crews would not be required to sort on -route which would reduce the collection time per stop to approximately 6 seconds. The utilization of a two 'compartment vehicle would also make incorporation of the maximum . range of - materials more feasible. Most. collection programs have demonstrated that the paper bin on a vehicle fills much more rapidly than- the separated . container bins (with_ the clear glass or plastic bins filling more rapidly than the other. containers). Therefore, by loading the newspaper separately from the mixed 'containers, the fill rates can be equalized; thus minimizing off=route time. 2038M/14 4-14 MWrE'D ON RECYC/F.D PAPER The primary disadvantage of this collection system is that a facility or facilities for the separation of materials will need to be . developed. During the early phases of a program, the volumes collected through curbside collection may not justify extensive capital investment in facilities. Further, the design, development and siting of such facilities is a time consuming process and could delay the expedient implementation of a recycling program. Commercial. Industrial. and Institutional Collection The incorporation of collection into institutional and commercial establishments, as well as the manufacturing sector, requires a separate strategy' from low density. residential areas. The customers are often served by an entirely different collection system utilizing large detachable roll -offs or bins that are collected by specialized vehicles. These methods are more closely related to collection in multiple family dwelling units. Recycling and solid waste collection for commercial, institutional, ,and industrial establishments should run as parallel as possible.' Therefore, the collection system should utilize strategies and equipment similar to the existing waste management system. Some generic issues that should 'be addressed in commercial, industrial, and institutional collection programs are: o Substantial amounts of corrugated material are generated by institutional, commercial, and industrial sources; and 'this material is often recovered by the industry or waste hauler. To capture the remaining volume from small quantity generators, dedicated corrugated collection routes can be established, or they could be encouraged to separate, flatten, and bundle corrugated prior to collection for delivery to the collection center o Mixed papers could be sorted and/or densified through compaction or baling by large generators and delivered directly to processors for further processing and marketing. Generators could be required to provide recycling documentation to the Town 2038M/14 4-15 v PRHV FD ON RECYCIFD PAPM o Office -paper collection programs could be established ..to recover computer printout, white and color ledgers, and mixed file stock from all -commercial, institutional, and industrial establishments . o Sorted plastics,. glass, and metal containers could be source separated by large and. small generators and collected on a separate route for delivery to the collection center o Leases must incorporate future costs of recycling, especially if . mandatory ordinances are pending o Separation. requirements should be incorporated in leases o .Tenants should be educated.on how to participate o All waste receptacles should be labeled with recycling reminders o All recycling containers should be clearly labeled The following technical options discuss the collection design options, for achieving the separation and recovery, objectives of the Town. Option A: Delivery of Separated Materials to Drop -Off Stations This strategy would require the recyclable materials which are frequently generated by commercial and institutional sources such as , corrugated containers, . high-grade paper and glass, and other recyclables, to be delivered to the Town's recyclable drop-off areas located : at the solid waste - complex.. Additional � centers, could be developed to maximize delivery convenience by locating these centers in commercial and industrial strips. They would consist of compacting or noncompacting roll=off or small dumpster units, depending on the available space and the type.of material collected. The primary advantage to this approach is the accessibility to disposal alternatives for businesses, helping them reduce collection costs. However, under this system, businesses would be required to deliver (or arrange for the delivery of) their materials to 2038M/14. 4-16 PRBVTED ON RECYCIFD PAPER the appropriate, areas of the solid waste complex. Lacking other incentives, such as mandatory ordinances, this delivery requirement might lower participation rates. Option B: Collection of Materials The Town could encourage the private sector to provide separate collection of source separated materials for items such as. corrugated, high-grade papers, or glass containers generated from their commercial accounts, or execute a contract for this service. The establishment of a separate collection route would. be preferable for the recovery of commercially generated corrugated paperboard. The primary advantage to this approach is that it . would encourage maximum participation rates. Cost is the primary disadvantage. This option may be less feasible for low value or low density materials. However, revenues for certain commodities such as glass are relatively stable and would help offset collection costs. 4.5.2 Recyclable Material Processing Strategies The successful development of a recycling program for the Town of Southold will require a system capable of providing for the collection, transportation, processing, and marketing of, recovered materials. However, the collection, transportation, and processing system is highly contingent upon the ability to move the recovered materials back into the economic mainstream in the form of raw materials. To this end, the Town has two options for preparing materials for market: o Segregated o Commingled Commingled materials refer to the mixture of containers which might include glass, aluminum, steel, bimetal, and/or plastic containers. Paper grades 'are kept separate. Segregated materials refers -to each recyclable item on an individual basis. 2038M/14. 4-17 PRRVTW ON RECYCLED PAPER Given the,. current marketconditions and the material marketing preparation and delivery requirements , discussed ,in Appendix F; the following options :are- available for consideration: o . Direct marketing of segregated materials o Export commingled, materials to a private materials recycling .facility (MRF) o- Develop a MRF for the Town. o Participate in an East End Recycling Association marketing program o Participate in an existing" or soon to be opened MRF with another 'town, , o, Participate in regional -cooperative marketing arrangements The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative are discussed below. . Segregated Materials 4 The Town is, currently marketing materials in a segregated form to various local . waste haulers and scrap processors or brokers. Besides the -presence of markets ' to. purchase recyclable - items, another advantage of recovering segregated ' material is- � the avoidance'of processing costs. This, however, demands high quality control on the part of 'the .agency responsible for marketing (i.e., hauler, municipality). The responsibility is passed on to: the residents if the- materials are asked to be set out iri, a source separated' form. If not, haulers must sort materials enroute. This added burden to the resident, often reduces public participation and recovery rates. Since .the Town is located at the eastern end' of the north fork of Long Island, � both sorted and commingled materials must be transported in a westerly direction. However, the transportation costs of delivering materials to central' or western Long Island vary . tremendously for each of the materials targeted for recovery.. Although markets are currently available locally for..segregated materials, these markets might not= continue to provide .free transportation, or container -rentals as material .recovery rates increase., Therefore, it is important to consider the costs of transporting segregated materials. Collecting and transporting light weight, high volume materials, such as whole plastic containers or aluminum cans, is very ' costly on a per ton basis. The costs in Figures 4.5.2-1 and 4.5.2-2: reflect only the . costs of transporting, materials 25 miles one way from the drop-off center; they y do . not include collection 2038M/14 4-18 PRMED ON RECYCLED PAPER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK COMMINGLED MATERIAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 COST PER TON 0 50 100 MILES 150 --1— Tin/Aluminum PET/HDPE —8 Commingled w/No Plastic Commingled w/Plastic U-Iffe NOTE: The transportation costs have been determined based upon a 40 cy load. _ The costs shown above are estimated assuming a transportation cost of $75 per hour and a travel speed of 45 mph. FIGURE 4.5.2-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK SEGREGATED MATERIAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 COST PER TON 0 50 100 150 200 - MILES —E- News/Glass — Corrugated/Tin HDPE PET - Aluminum NOTE: The transportation costs have been determined based upon a 40 cy load. The costs shown above are estimated assuming a transportation cost of $75 per hour and a travel speed of 45 mph. -2 FIGURE 4.5.2 (curbside) costs. The basis for determining per ton costs is the volume each material comprises in relation to its load in a 40 cubic yard container. The resulting densities of various material loads affect the total cost of transporting materials because containers fill faster with low density items, thus, increasing the frequency of transports. It is interesting to note in Figure 4.5.2-2 that the transportation costs per ton of hauling segregated materials is relatively low for newspaper and glass, approximately $20 per ton, compared to approximately $48 per ton to haul HDPE (based upon a total round-trip distance of 50 miles).. Figure 4.5.2-1 clearly illustrates the additional transportation costs of including plastics in the- recovery program. Commingled container materials, including plastic containers, -more than doubles the transportation costs per ton. As a result of this analysis, it can be considered expensive to transport loose, whole plastic and metal containers. Therefore, some consideration should be given to strategies that increase the density of the materials depending on conditions set by the market(s). The benefit of commingling all container materials reduces the transportation costs for plastics and metals. However; commingling increases the costs for glass. Figures 4.5.2-1 and 4.5.2-2 demonstrate the economic advantage of commingling materials. Exportation of Commingled Materials At the present time, the consuming industries in the metropolitan ' area, for the most . part, do not have a large capacity to process commingled materials and, therefore, prefer presorted recyclables. However, the capacity to process mixed container materials on Long Island is increasing with the operation (by OMNI Inc.) of a merchant MRF in Westbury, and the development of state-of-the-art MRFs in Brookhaven and Islip. Additional MRFs are being considered in Huntington, Babylon, and by the East End Recycling Association. One example is the 80 ton per day merchant MRF designed and operated by OMNI Inc. as a joint venture with Westbury Paper Stock Corp. This facility is currently processing commingled containers from the Town of Hempstead, and potentially. from New York .City. Paper is handled under a separate contract with Westbury Paper Stock Corp. The Town of Smithtown operates a low technology materials recovery facility (MRF) in which a combination of mechanical. and manual separation techniques are employed to sort recyclable materials. This facility is sorting and upgrading mixed glass and 2038M/14 4-21 PROVMD ON RECYCLED PAPER metal containers recovered from Smithtown .and Huntington. Newsprint is also upgraded at the facility. The ability to market the recyclable materials in commingled form would allow Southold to increase the quantity of, materials recovered, as well as the number of items recycled. Regionalization" of resources would be, .the preferred approach 'for -handling recyclable materials recovered, from the east end of Long. Island. the economic advantages are increased: by processing and marketing materials at an existing facility. The economies . of scale also created by regionalization . reduce overall capital and operating costs for, all -participating communities. Several MRFs have been constructed or have been proposed on Long Island, including Westbury, Islip, Brookhaven, Smithtown, Babylon, Huntington, and East End. The Islip MRF is currently under construction- and is expected to be operational in late 1990. The facility has been designed to process 1,500 .tons per week per shift of commingled glass,metals, and plastic containers. This facility has been sized in anticipation of receiving commingled recyclable materials from all ten communities in Suffolk County, including Southold. Although, Islip is located 'approximately 50 miles from Southold, the option to deliver materials to this facility is 'immediately available upon, facility opening. ,This facility is designed with a larger operating capacity than the existing.. merchant facility in Westbury in order to accommodate other Long . Island . communities.- The ommunities. The second potential marketing opportunity is to utilize the MRF under construction in Brookhaven. This 300 ton per day per shift facility, utilizing CRINC technology, is expected to.be operational by the end of 1990. Brookhaven officials have indicated that excess operating capacity is available, and they will consider -processing and marketing materials recovered from, Southold. The other possibilities of exporting commingled materials to "Huntington or Babylon are less likely to.- be solutions for the "short—term. Huntington is currently exploring . J alternative options for the processing of its commingled recyclables which include a regional marketing consortium with the Towns of Islip, Babylon, and Oyster Bay, and developing a MRF at the site of the energy recovery facility under their contract with Ogden Martin Systems, Inc. A Babylon processing facility is still in the discussion stage. 2038M/14 4-22 PRf VTFD ON RECYCLED PAPER The Smithtown facility is operating, but their capacity is filled by Huntington's materials. In addition, .these three proposed facilities are located further from Southold than Islip or Brookhaven. Southold Facilities For Southold to achieve high levels of material recovery from residential, commercial, and institutional waste sources, in -Town processing capability to upgrade materials handling may be desired. This option is. not considered an interim solution, but could be considered for the long-term. Although, it is more economically efficient to regionalize the processing and marketing efforts for recyclable materials in a town the size of Southold, there are several potential advantages to a local MRF. First; the MRF could take advantage of low technology processing methods for separating relatively small quantities of material. This would reduce the overall capital and operating maintenance costs of the system. The system would utilize simple sorting and compacting techniques, . and local workers could be employed at the facility. Second, the schedule for developing (permitting) and implementing (construction) could be minimized for a small scale facility. - Finally, the Town would benefit from reduced transportation costs for commingled material .if -a MRF was located within its borders. Another possibility for the Town is the development of a recycling transfer station. This type of facility would allow collection and drop-off of commingled recyclable -materials that are then segregated according to the requirements of the out -of -Town MRF that would be accepting the Town's recyclables. This system would be adaptable to . changing markets, market conditions, be lower in capital cost, and allow for an inspection program to upgrade the materials shipped -to an out -of -Town MRF. Further, this facility would provide for the minimization 'of contaminants and act as a check point on deliveries before being shipped. Some form of intermediate processing or sorting may be necessary, over both the short and long-term, to meet the requirements of processors and markets. This might include material densification. such as baling or compaction of newsprint, corrugated paperboard, and/or plastic containers. It is possible that one baler could be utilized to densify those three materials. East End Marketing Program The opportunity exists for the East End Recycling Association to provide the processing and -marketing services needed for the east end region by entering 2038M/14 4-23 PROV7W ON RECYCLED PAPER into, marketing contracts on behalf - of all five member municipalities. These market contracts . might include facility .procurement or attracting marketing and collection services from firms in or out of the Town 'of Southold. The East End Recycling Association might consider the four Long Island Town marketing cooperative, formed by the Towns of Oyster Bay, Babylon, Huntington, and Islip, as a guide or a partner. Regionalized efforts are preferable over a Town specific project. Through regionalization, economies of scale are created which increases theoperating-efficiencies of material processing facilities; distributes the costs over a greater population base, and minimizes capital investments overall in the region. Regionalized Cooperative Marketing Suffolk County has been studying 'the feasibility of coordinating cooperative marketing programs for, its municipalities. Under these marketing ,.arrangements, an individual .municipality gains market strength that it would not normally have alone. This is a result of the increase in total material volume .through collective marketing. The most successful demonstration of cooperative marketing for recycling is the New Hampshire Resource Recovery Association program which operates on a statewide basis. A cooperative marketing -service for all Long Island communities is also proposed. Suffolk County and NYSDEC are assistingthe ten Suffolk County towns to expand "and coordinate marketing opportunities: One idea being, investigated is a . marketing cooperative for Nassau and Suffolk Towns, which, has recently resulted in -a four Long Island town marketing cooperative formed by the Towns of Oyster .Bay, Babylon, Huntington-, and Islip. Processing Recommendations 'The guiding premise of this is that processing and, marketing actions ' in the short—term will be oriented to materials requiring little or no processing, such as sorting. or densification, prior. to shipment .to users. The processing and marketing scope would be expanded during the long—term phase ,to include materials which could require some form of processing at a facility for obtaining higher pricing terms or lower transportation costs. The long—term objective of the Town's marketing plan will be the identification and. development of sustainable marketing solutions for all recyclablematerials found in the municipal waste stream. These marketing solutions will dictate the processing needs. 2038M/14 4-24 PRfffr D ON RECM D PAPP? 4.6 Yard Waste Composting Alternatives - Recycling through yard waste composting and wood chipping Iwas discussed in Section 3. The composting of yard waste would be relatively simple and less expensive than other methods since the Town has - already developed a yard waste composting operation and land is available for future expansion of the operation. The' recycling of yard waste by composting is also consistent with the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan,. and could be an integral part of the Town's efforts to achieve, or better, the State's 1997 goal of 50% reduction/recycling/reuse of the waste stream as proposed by the NYSDEC. The recycling of yard waste through the Town's windrow composting operation could also provide an opportunity to evaluate an alternative means of recycling low-grade paper, and possibly newspaper. Implementation alternatives for the recycling of yard waste for the Town include: o Expansion of the Town's existing small scale yard waste compost operations to include all the leaves and brush in the Town o Private sector. development of a yard waste compost facility o The encouragement of backyard and on-site composting o Regional or cooperative yard waste composting effort outside of the Town with . another town o Develop a small scale yard waste composting operation on Fishers Island, and institute a Town sponsored program to encourage on -lot composting on large individual properties by landscapers. 4.6.1 Expansion of Existing Operation The Town's current composting' operation is on a 2.5 acre parcel of land at the Town solid waste complex. The Town began the segregation of leaves and brush from the waste stream after receiving approval from NYSDEC. In April 1990, the Town submitted an engineering .report, presented in Appendix E, to the NYSDEC for site development and 2038M/14 4-25 PREYTW ON RECYCLW PAPER small scale compost operations for less, than 3,000 cubic yards of leaves annually. _ji Approval was received in early May 1990. In the future, should, the existing landfill ' be capped and closed, portions of it could be available for further expansion of yard waste composting operations. Assuming a density of 200 tons, of leaves and other yard wastes per acre, expanding the yard waste composting site by approximately 18 acres; with approximately 9 acres for i maximum buffers and set backs, the site could, accommodate approximately 4,000 tons per year. In 1989, the Town received approximately 4;000 tons of leaves, brush, grass, and mulch. Of this total, approximately 1,300 tons was comprised of leaves/grass/mulch. The breakdown of the percent of yard waste in the form'' of grass and leaves has not been performed. However, it can be assumed from various field characterization and - quantification surveys that over the course of a year the quantities of grass and leaves would be approximately equal. When this approximate breakdown is- applied to the Town's estimated 1,300 tons per year of leaves/grass/mulch, it is estimated that there could be . 650 tons per year of grass and 650 tons ,per year of leaves generated in the Town, in addition to approximately 2,500 to 3,000 tons per year of brush. Possible .options that would be available to the Town.as a result.of expanding the yard waste compost operations beyond its current size are discussed below and include: o Expansion of composting to include some low—grade paper and newspaper o Expansion of yard waste composting operations as part .of regional recycling efforts o - Expansion of yard waste compost operations'to accept. yard waste from other towns as part of a reciprocal arrangement in which one town processes mixed municipal solid .waste and/or. recyclables from the Town of Southold, while sending a similar tonnage of yard waste to the Town for composting Addition of Paper to, -Compost Operations The market -for .recycling newsprint has changed considerably over the past three years. What was., once a . source of revenue for ' other towns has cost the Town $30 per ton 2038M/14 4-26 PRWrW ON RECYCL W PAPER in early 1990 to recycle. The over supply to secondary markets is expected to continue as recycling increases across the country. One alternative for the recycling of newsprint and low-grade paper, as discussed in Section 3, is the shredding and composting of these materials. The Town recovered approximately 425 .tons of paper through its voluntary recycling program from January to December 1989. The addition of up to 1,000 tons of paper to the yard waste composting operations (approximately 1 part paper to 3 parts yard waste) would require an additional four to five acres (using a higher density factor of 800 tons per acre). The desirability of this option would depend primarily on the type of materials recycling facility the Town would use to process its recyclables. The economic advantages of composting paper depend primarily on .the market situation. Low-grade paper, for which there are few markets, could be well suited to composting in an expanded operation. Regional Cooperation. If a regional effort is developed, on either a large scale by MA, or a limited scale by the Town of Southold with another town(s), the Town could enter into an agreement for - the expansion of its yard waste compost operations. The arrangement. could be developed according to other limited regional agreements. Accepting Yard Waste From Other Towns As Part of a Reciprocal Arrangement It may be desirable and/or necessary for the Town to provide yard waste composting to another town in return for processing a portion of its municipal solid waste and/or recyclables. Some western Suffolk County and Nassau County towns have not yet developed yard waste composting operations due to space limitations, costs of land, or the difficulty in siting such a facility in congested areas. Consequently, it is possible for the Town to send a portion of its solid waste out-of-town for processing at an existing or planned ERF/CERF and receive a ' portion (possibly of equal volume) ofA eaves at an expanded Southold yard waste composting operation in return. Since the Town would pay for the use of the out-of-town energy recovery facility, it could offset by charging for the composting services, it provides for the other town. Considering the agricultural nature of the Town, and of the 'east. end area, the production of an acceptable 'end product could make yard waste compost. a useful, product. This option would also enable the Town to avoid the large. capital cost associated 2038M/14 ' 4-27 PRQVMD ON RECYCLED PAPER with the development of a. processing facility, requiring instead only- the funding for expansion of the existing composting .operations (equipment, 'labor, end product - monitoring, and •processing). Both the Town.•and the other participating town(s) would benefit from the additional recycling of yard waste. The development of an in -vessel. yard waste composting facility by -the Town to accommodate all yard wastes, including grass clippings, from a town to'. the west, has been considered. There is, however, some uncertainty involved with, this alternative' since there is a limited number of operating in -vessel yard waste composting operations that - include grass in the process. A composting operation that utilizes grass has the -potential, for generating odors due to . the rapid onset of anaerobic, conditions in the bagging, handling, and transport of grass. In addition to potential odors generated within the vessel, the collection of grass clippings could produce odors at the receiving .area of the compost facility... It can be assumed that .bags, or batches, of grass may require one to three days before delivery and/or introduction into the •, composting, vessel due .to collection, transportation, and . storage time..: Potential odors could, occur during unloading, debagging, or feeding operations that could present. their own odor problem or compound the potential problem already inherent in ,the system. Therefore, in -vessel composting of - yard waste on a large scale .,that includes. grass clippings does not appear viable at this. time, but could be evaluated further in the future should the need for receiving grass arise. 4.6.2 Private Sector Yard Waste Compost Facility It is also possible to procure private" sector services for the development of a yard waste compost facility. In this case, however, the Town would be paying for a service that it has already developed for its use. • • Consequently, this is not recommended at this time. 4.6.3 Backyard or On -Lot Composting of Yard Waste An important solid waste management technique is to reduce the amount of waste that requires- disposal.. Backyard and on -lot composting systems can be an effective method to reduce the estimated 4,000 tons per year of yard waste, requiring, disposal by 2038M/14 4-28 • - IJ PRMW ON RECYC(FD PAPER - the Town. Through effective public education and promotional. programs, the Town could encourage residents, landscapers, and grounds keepers to: o Leave grass clippings on lawns o Start and maintain small backyard or on -lot compost piles j o Use limbs and large brush in fire places o Chip brush for ground cover and other landscaping activities o Increase individual use of end products from backyard and Town . compost operations The return of natural products to the environment in agricultural areas such as the Town, is viable and should be. developed in such a manner • that would maximize participation and efficiency.. 4.6.4 Regional Yard Waste Composting Outside of the Town Regional recycling efforts as part of -E2RA could include regional composting of yard waste. If the E2RA effort determined that a regional operation would benefit the towns involved, the Town could consider encouraging and participating in such a cooperative effort. Closure of the Town's current -yard. waste composting operations should not pose a problem, and could coincide with the opening of the regional facility. However, if necessary, .the Town facility may be adapted to satisfy the needs'of a regional facility. Regardless of the exact combination of alternatives the Town may or may not decide to develop, yard waste composting is a positive solid waste management practice with many. potential benefits to the Town. At a minimum, the Town,should expand its yard waste composting facility to a full-scale operation for its leaves and brush. 4.6.5 Yard Waste Composting on Fishers Island The Town could develop a small scale windrow yard waste composting operation on Fishers. Island to provide a relatively simple and 'inexpensive means of recycling a portion of the waste stream. This would further diminish the amount of waste that would require other methods of processing/disposal, possibly' at facilities off of Fishers Island. 2038Mi14 4=29 PRQYIW ON RECYCLED PAPM? In addition to this operation, the Town could institute ' a program designed to .encourage landscapers to begin composting yard waste on large individual %properties. The final product of these operations could be used on Fishers Island as a soil amendment, and possibly as' final cover when the land disposal of solid waste is discontinued. This is considered the preferred method of recycling Fishers Island's yard waste when compared to continued ' land burial of this material, or transfer off -Island to the Town's existing composting operation at the solid waste:complex in Cutchogue. Consequently, 'based on the above discussion, a full-scale windrow composting operation for leaves and brush is considered the preferred alternative. If the Town negotiates a reciprocal agreement'with another town(s) for energy recovery processing, and. chooses to become involved in a regional effort -in the future, the operation could be sized accordingly. Such a regional or cooperative effort is realistic in terms of the . benefits to the participating towns. In addition, a small scale yard waste composting operation combined with a program to encourage on -lot composting by ' landscapers is considered the preferred alternative for recycling this waste on Fishers Island. 4.7 - : Land Clearing, Construction, and Demolition Debris Recycling of land- clearing and .construction and demolition debris (C&D) is also a viable implementation alternative available to the Town. The potential alternatives for the disposal and/or recycling of'this .-material are discussed below. Town Sponsored Clean Fill Site ' . It is possible to develop a clean fill for all C&D and land clearing debris in the Town in accordance with the 1990 Long Island Landfill Law (Sections „3:1.6, 3.1.8). _ This alternative would not recover any recyclable materials, and is not considered to -'be a . preferred alternative compared to other options that include recycling. The cost of this facility is estimated to be approximately, $400,000 to $800,000 per acre. Project development time could be two to three years, including SEQRA procedures and the. time necessary to obtain permits and construction. Assuming theTown could obtain the permits, the facility would 'not be expected to be operational for two to three years, therefore requiring interim disposal measures. Clean fill generated on a particular site could be disposed of on the same site, without ' a permit, utilizing the clean fill procedures contained in Part 360-8.6(b). A clean fill two acres or less in size could be developed with an approval from NYSDEC. However, a clean fill of this size, in which. clean fill generated on or off—site is . placed for disposal or land reclamation purposes; regardless of location, would not require a liner or a leachate collection and removal system as long as the engineering requirements contained in 6NYCRR Part 360-8.6(c)(2) are met. These standards are discussed further in Section 3.1.6. If allowed to accept C&D and land clearing debris from commercial sources, a facility of this size would reach capacity in a short period of time. Therefore, this option is recommended only for residentially generated clean materials (see Section 4.10). On Fishers Island, however, abandoned concrete -pits are present that could accept the limited quantity of C&D debris generated by small contractors and homeowner renovations. This alternative would reclaim the site for future use, and may be the preferred option for the relatively small quantity of C&D and land clearing debris generated on Fishers Island. Large property owners/developers on Fishers Island can also be encouraged to acquire approval from NYSDEC to dispose of land clearing. debris on—site in a clean fill (less than two acres) for land reclamation in accordance with Part 360-8.6(b). Town Development of a Recycling Operation and a Clean Fill The development of processing capabilities to recover recyclable materials from land clearing and C&D debris is consistent with both the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan (1987) and the New York State Solid Waste Management Act (1988). This is. considered an integral. part of -the Town's effort to achieve a maximum level of reduction, recycling, and reuse of the waste stream. Equipment costs for the processing of land clearing and C&D debris could be capital intensive. Many of: the units described in Section 3 could be required. Concrete crushers, 2038M/14 4-31 PRMW ON RECYa D PAPER tub grinders, ' and/or a processing system could cost between $250,000 and $600,000. The development of,a,clean fill required by this alternative would cost an additional $400,000 to $800,000 per acre, as described above. This would be an expensive option for the Town. While equipment for processing could .be procured and operational in six to ten months, there would.not be -a clean fill available in -the- Town for residual disposal in less than two to , three. years. , Out—of—town interim disposal of residual and unprocessible waste could cost $30 to $50 per.ton. This estimate is based.on disposal at a facility within 50, miles, a $.30 per mile per ton transportation cost, and a tip fee of $20 to $30 per ton. Processing and disposal at existing private facilities would be less expensive to the Town. These facilities currently charge. approximately '$20 to .$30 per cubic yard, which corresponds to approximately $80 to $120 per ton (based upon .a conversion factor of 0.25 tons per cubic yard)., The intensive capital cost of processing equipment combined with the high cost of interim. residual disposal resulting from the development time required by a. clean fill cause this alternative 'to be more expensive than private disposal options: Therefore, this alternative is not considered viable. Processing By Private Facilities With- Residual Disposal in a To Clean Fill Existing private recycling/processing facilities currently manage the 'disposal of -residuals as part of the fee. Providing a clean fill in the Town for these residuals may not affect the cost paid to private ' recycling/processing operations. Accordingly, the same would hold true if Fishers Island chose to pursue this option: Existing and Planned Private Processing and Disposal Options Current recycling, processing, and disposal - options - for construction and demolition debris were discussed in Sections 2 and 1 land clearing and As indicated, there are existing and planned facilities that should be able to accommodate this waste if, the Town chooses not to handle it. The cost of these options are approximately $20 to $30 per cubic yard.. It: may be more costly to process these materials at existing private recycling operations: However, this is the recommended interim, action while the Town implements the Plan' elements ,for components of the waste stream for which private sector options 2038M/14 4-32 PRBV EO ON RECYCLED PAPER do not exist. This may be the preferred long-term alternative as well, unless the Town decides to develop its own or complementary recycling systems to augment the private sector services. The Town could assist the private sector by buying and using some of the end products of the recycling process. The Town may be able to assist in the marketing of products in the region as well. This approach is expected to help achieve higher levels of recycling for the Town. 4.8 Solid Waste Composting/Energy Recovery Processing Cooperative/regional solid waste management efforts with other towns have been evaluated as part of the Town's SEQRA/GEIS planning effort. The processing of a portion of the municipal solid waste and the recycling of materials are considered suitable for practical regional cooperative management. A number of Long Island towns were explored as to their•potential willingness in entering into a cooperative'. effort by providing processing or disposal capacity for the Town. In addition, several private sector MSW composting proposals were considered. The towns considered for a potential cooperative MSW processing/disposal effort were Babylon, Hempstead, Islip, Huntington, Brookhaven, and Southampton: The potential opportunities for cooperative recycling efforts included the Towns of Islip, Brookhaven, and Southampton. 4.8.1 Use of Existing Solid Waste Processing Facilities After reduction, recycling, and reuse the Town would, need to provide for the processing and/or disposal of a portion of municipal solid waste. This Section presents information obtained from the various towns that responded -to the initial inquiry. for providing available processing or disposal capacity, as well as available information.. The Towns and Cities on Long Island which contain, existing processing facilities include the Towns of Babylon, Hempstead, and Islip; and the Cities of Glen Cove and Long Beach. These facilities were evaluated in terms of facility location, type and size, available capacity, contractual arrangements, and projected costs to the Town. Positive features and drawbacks of each alternative were --also considered. Town of Babylon The Town of Babylon has an existing 750 tons per day waste -to -energy facility located off of Gleam Street in Wyandanch. The facility is operated by Ogden Martin 2038M/14 4-33 PRQV7W ONRECYCLW PAPER Systems of Babylon, Inc., under a contractual arrangement with, the Town. Under the. terms of the agreement with the operator, Babylon pays a set fee for the processing of up to 225,000 tons per year. If less than this amount is delivered to the plant, Babylon is contractually obligated to pay the same, predetermined fee as if I it delivered the .entire amount. If more than 225,000 tons per year is delivered, . an adjustment to Babylon's costs would be made and the operator would -benefit from the sale of .additional .electricity to LILCO. Residual ash is disposed of in a permitted landfill adjacent to the facility. In 1989, -the tonnage that was delivered to the facility, did not satisfy the 225,000 tons per year requirement. Based upon discussions with representatives of the Town of Babylon, -In May of 1990, the facility has limited available capacity only during off—peak months of the year: 'If the Town pursued this option, it would. require an alternate disposal arrangement during peak periods during the year. Under the terms of Babylon's agreement with the operator, it would_ , be able to negotiate an intermunicipal agreementwith the Town.--. A direct intermunicipal agreement would not require,the utilization of the public procurement process, and thus would allow greater .flexibility between the two Towns. The current tip fee at the facility is $78 per ton. The distance .from the Town solid waste complex to the Babylon facility is approximately 55 to 60 miles. The limited capacity available at this facility is not present on a year—round basis, - but only during off—peak periods, of the year. Furthermore, the available capacity is questionable since there is suspicion of 'a. leakage of a portion of the Town's waste to other less expensive processing/disposal facilities. Once this leakage . is stopped (possibly through closure of other facilities), • this capacity may not be available.. The Town of Babylon has also indicated that proposals ,have been received from various waste generators to use this capacity. 'Therefore, this alternative -does not appear feasible or preferable at this time due to these uncertainties. Positive features of this alternative. include: . o An operational processing facility that could receive waste from the Town after J a relatively short time frame for negotiations o No capital costs or long—term,.financing for a new processing facility would be needed 2038M/14 4-34 PRF7W ON RECYCLED PAPM? o The Town's borrowing capacity.and credit rating would not be affected o Conforms with NYSDEC promotion of regional cooperation on Long Island for solid waste management o Intermunicipal agreements are often more. quickly 'negotiated than a private sector service contract that- must be publicly procured o Use of the facility in Babylon could benefit both Towns o Ash disposal could possibly be disposed of by the Town- of Babylon at a permitted in—town, landfill adjacent to the Babylon facility The.drawbacks of this alternative include: o The Town would be relying on other municipalities to assist in disposal of its solid waste o Regional alternatives result in the inherent lessening of the Town's ability to ,directly mitigate -any future impacts that may result from the out—of=Town management of solid waste o Existence of limited available. capacity is questionable, possibly unreliable over. the long—term, and would only be available during off—peak seasons o Uncertainty of limited available capacity -beginning in -1991 if waste flow controls are enforced and existing landfills on Long Island are closed Town of:Hempstead The Town of Hempstead. processes its municipal solid waste at an energy recovery facility located in East Garden City. The facility has a capacity of 750,000 tons per year and is owned and operated by American REF—FUEL. The Town of Hempstead is required to pay for the processing of a minimum of 540,000 tons. per year. The facility currently processes approximately, 600,000 tons per year, thus leaving approximately 150,000 tons per year capacity that could be available to process a. portion of. Southold's solid waste. 2038Mi14 •4-35 PMWED ON RECYCLED PAPM However, it_ appears, that this capacity may only be available during off-peak periods of the year. Ash.,is transported for_.the town to an off Long Island facility. The existing tip fee is $60 per ton.The Town of Hempstead -pays $70 per ton, as per the arrangements in its contracts with American REF -FUEL. However, the - actual" price of using, this facility would. depend on negotiations between they' Town' and American REF -FUEL. The Hempstead facility is located approximately, 70• to 75 ,miles from the Town landfill site. It is possible that ., another municipality in Nassau County would need the available processing. capacity, at the Hempstead facility:: If'. a Nassau County municipality, such as . North Hempstead, requested the use of the available processing capacity, the Town of, Southold might be forced to, find alternative processing or disposal capacity on relatively . short notice since Nassau County municipalities have first priorityto" any available capacity at the facility. If no Nassau County municipalities require. -this- excess capacity, the Town would in, all, likelihood have to compete for this available capacity with another. Suffolk County 'town, such as Brookhaven, .and possibly the private sector. Contractual 'arrangements foi• this alternative would involve' private sector procurement procedures. The operator of this facility is free to offer available capacity through the open market, however, recent reports,indicate that the Town of Brookhaven may utilize. the, remaining available - capacity. Since American REF -FUEL is a ' private company, the Town would be -,required to follow the public procurement process which requires public -bidding to procure the services of this facility.. Positive features of this alternative include: o An operational facility would be provided that could process waste from the Town in a relatively short time frame _ o No capital costs or long-term financing would be required' o ' The Town's borrowing -capacity or credit rating should not be impacted 2038M714 4-36 PRW rW ON RECYCIFD PAPER o Conforms with NYSDEC promotion of ' regional cooperation for solid waste management on Long Island o Both Towns' involved could benefit from processing the Town's waste at this facility The drawbacks to: the alternative include: o Priority system for allocating available 'capacity. to Nassau County waste could force the Town to find alternative disposal or processing capacity on relatively short notice o Necessary private sector contractual, agreements are expected to be more, complex and could require more time when, compared to an intermunicipal agreement o Solid waste would travel longer distances than if going to facilities in Babylon, Huntington, or Brookhaven o It appears that North Hempstead or Brookhaven may utilize portions, or all, of the available capacity Town .of Islip The Town of Islip processes its mixed municipal solid waste at a,518 tons per day energy recovery facility located southwest of the Long Island McArthur Airport. The capacity of the plant is approximately 189;000 tons per year. Islip currently generates approximately .175,000 to 200,000 tons per year of processible waste after .recycling, which exceeds the current capacity of the plant. Therefore, capacity is not currently available to process any portion of the Town's mixed municipal solid waste. Since it is not feasible under existing conditions, this alternative was not, evaluated further. Should Islip increase its plant capacity sufficiently, which is currently under consideration, this, option could be considered in the future. 2038M/14 4-37 PRRVMD ON RECYCIFD RAPER City of Glen. Cove The City of Glen Cove operates a cocombustion waste -to -energy facility with a capacity' of 250; -tons . per day for- processing garbage and- sludge.. Currently' the City of Glen Cove is operating the facility --at full'capacity. Therefore, capacity is, not available to process a portion of. Southold's solid waste. This alternative was not 'evaluated further since it -is not -feasible under existing conditions.. Furthermore, -the distance and• difficulty in accessing -. the City of Glen Cove from the Town could limit the potential of this alternative should additional •capacity become available in the, future. City of Long Beach The .City of, Long Beach owns and, operates an incinerator with a .processing capacity of 200' tons per day. Currently,, the City -operates the facility4 at full capacity and would be unable to process a portion of Southold's solid waste. Therefore, this alternative was not evaluated further at this time. 4.8.2 Facilities Planned or, Under Construction Towns- .',,on., -,',Long- . Island that-, either .,have. energy recovery processing facilities currently under construction, or are actively progressing on SEQRA planning . of these facilities include the Towns of Huntington with, Smithtown, Brookhaven, and Oyster Bay. With the, exception of Oyster Bay, which currently long hauls solid waste off Long Island; they are also preparing interim disposal plans until construction of the .processing facilities is. completed. These alternatives have -been evaluated in- -terms of -current planning stages.- capacity of the ' planned jacility, contractual or procurement .arrangements, and estimated costs. Huntington/Smithtown The Towns of Huntington '- and Smithtown -have joined in,..a cooperative effort to manage their waste on a bi-town level. The towns are currently Jointly planning'. and constructing solid .waste processing and disposal facilities. Smithtown has expanded. its existing landfill- to allow for the disposal of the waste from- both towns during the i 2038M/14 4.-38 PIWV ED ON RECYCLED PAPFR completion of the planned processing facility. The energy recovery facility, currently planned for three 250 tons per day units, is scheduled to open in 1992. The three 250 tons per day units are not expected to be able to process all of the Huntington and Smithtown solid waste, so a fourth 250 tons per day unit is being evaluated in order to accommodate the additional waste. Both towns have undertaken recycling programs that will reduce the amount of waste to be processed at the planned facility. If a fourth unit is added, additional capacity might be available to process waste from another town. It is estimated that approximately 15,000 to 25,000 tons per year of the combined waste stream from both towns would be bypassed as a result of a shortfall of capacity if the fourth unit is not built. With the development of a fourth 250 ton per day unit, it is possible that there would be sufficient available capacity to process. mixed municipal solid waste from the Town of Southold. Currently,. a ,disposal. site for the residue and bypass waste has been contracted for with Grand 'Sanitary Landfill in Pennsylvania. Huntington can no longer use its landfill, but is using the Smithtown, landfill for interim disposal instead. Upon completion of the . energy recovery . facility, Huntington will receive Smithtown's municipal solid waste, and the bypass waste and residue . would be disposed of at the Smithtown landfill. However, the status of this arrangement is uncertain, particularly with regards to the December 18, 1990 deadline imposed by the Long Island Landfill, Law. This alternative would involve agreements with both Huntington and Smithtown to allow the Town's participation. The interim use of Smithtown's landfill would need to be included in any agreement. If Southold were required to dispose of -a portion of bypass ' and ash residue, they would have to either contract for long haul, either alone or with Huntington/Smithtown, or develop its own landfill for residue. Although complex, 'it is possible that an intermunicipal agreement could be negotiated to include the Town. This can be accomplished in two. ways. Preferably, the. Town could negotiate to be included as a party to the cooperative effort. Sufficient capacity, at the energy recovery facility would be dedicated to the Town, and ' interim use of -the Smithtown landfill would be expected. If the Town is unable to become an involved party, the Town can attempt to negotiate a contractual agreement for the available capacity at the energy recovery facility similar to that of a private carter-. 2038M/14 4-39 PRffV7W ON RECMED PAPM Positive features of this, alternative include: o - Town .avoids -the .capital costs associated with the development ofan energy recovery facility o-- - Costs shared between .three Towns could reduce the economic impact. of solid waste: facilities to those Towns o If the- Town is- included as a third party. in the effort, then year-round capacity ;would be. guaranteed The drawbacks of this alternative include: o . The fourth unit is not under construction, and scheduled ,availability is uncertain. A final decision has not been made, to develop a fourth unit at this. -time, .although the SEQRA process, has been initiated o It is uncertain as to whether or not the use of Smithtown's landfill would be available to the, Town .in the :interim if it is expanded. o Negotiations could be more complex between three Towns when compared to direct negotiations between two Towns Town of Brookhaven In 1989, the Town of Brookhaven prepared a comprehensive, integrated solid waste management plan.. As part of this Plan, • Brookhaven is proceeding with construction of a' Materials : Recycling Facility- to support their, mandatory townwide recycling program. A draft request for proposals, was issued in January 1990, for a proposed Composting/Energy :Recovery Facility (CERF) consisting,of a 1,050 ton per day energy recovery facility, and a 150 ton per day MSW composting "facility... The :CERF is expected to 'be operational in . 1995. :The Town' of Brookhaven also has •an,operating landfill and is awaiting a `decision by NYSDEC. as -.to. whether. or- not ` Brookhaven's . management plan and. implementation schedule meet the requirements for continued landfilling after, December 18, -1990. Recently, however, the Town of Brookhaven has temporarily put the CERF project on hold to consider plans that would involve the use of an existing facility with available capacity. Brookhaven has indicated to the Town of Southold that it is currently preparing an intensive. recycling nonincineration plan, as well as holding discussions with, the operator of the Hempstead energy recovery facility. It is uncertain at this time whether the planned Brookhaven CERF -facilities will be developed and whether or not it would have sufficient capacity to accommodate Southold's waste without increasing its planned combined capacity of 1,200 tons per day. If Southold could negotiate an intermunicipal agreement with Brookhaven, capacity at the CERF, if developed, could be dedicated for Southold's use. Such an agreement, however, could also involve increasing the size of the CERF. It is also possible that seasonally available capacity at the CERF could be used by Southold without the CERF size being increased. This would require the use of a landfill within Southold during the peak receiving times of the CERF when capacity would not be available. The negotiation of an intermunicipal agreement between, the two Towns is not expected to be as complex as a contract- following the required procurement of a private company. If such an agreement were to be made, the Town of Brookhaven would evaluate the need for expansion of the CERF., facility.. If Southold were required to receive a portion of the ash residue, bypass, or final compost product, it can attempt to reach an agreement with the Town of Brookhaven on the use of their landfill, contract for long haul, or develop its own landfill in Southold for downtime, bypass, and residue ash. As part of any. agreement, Southold could offer yard waste composting of an equal quantity of Brookhaven's yard waste at an expanded Southold composting operation. In previous discussions in late 1989/early 1990, Brookhaven had indicated an interest in using the proposed CERF 'as a regional facility.. . Positive features of this alternative include: o The avoidance of capital costs associated with the development of energy recovery or municipal solid waste compost facilities o Long-term processing and possible interim disposal would be provided o Lowest transportation costs of all the potential regional alternatives due to the close proximity of Brookhaven to Southold 4 , 2038M/14 4-41 PRINTED ON RECYaED PAPER o Conforms with regional efforts encouraged by the NYSDEC o Affords the Town the utilization of both energy recovery and MSW composting The drawbacks of this alternative include: o. The CERF is now on hold, and if further pursued by. Brookhaven, may not begin operations. until as late.as 1995/1996 o It is uncertain whether • the presently planned facilities will be developed and if they would have sufficient capacity to `accommodate the Town's waste without upscaling unless they receive the waste only -during periods of available capacity o Uncertainty regarding the extent to which ash residue or final compost will be the responsibility of Southold The desirability of this alternative. depends greatly on whether. the Southold landfill would be allowed to operate past the December 1990 deadline imposed by the Long Island Landfill Law. Further, the proposed CERF raises questions regarding capacity, possible upscaling, and the length . of time before the facility becomes operational. The Town, however, should continue to evaluate this option. 1989 Southold Proposed MSW Composting Facility In January of 1989, Southold completed a final environmental impact statement for a 120 ton per . day MSW composting facility to be -built by DANECO on behalf of the Town. The proposed operation was to produce compost for public works projects and nonagricultural land application. While a $9 million public bond referendum designed to finance this project was -subsequently defeated, the Town recently contacted NYSDEC to obtain their technical opinion concerning the proposed process. Particularly, NYSDEC has been asked to provide their opinion on whether or not the operation would produce a Class I or II• compost, as defined in Part 360 regulations. Without such a determination, there . would be some risk involved if the Town were to, undertake a project of this type. Several attempts to obtain this opinion have been unsuccessful to date. 2038Mi14 4-42 PRO17ED ON RECYCLED PAPER I An evaluation of the size of that facility indicates that it was, oversized. Assuming 25% to 30% of the waste stream will require processing after reduction/recycling/reuse and yard waste composting, only one third of the originally planned capacity would be required. If , only ..50% of the remaining waste is compostable, only one sixth of . the originally planned capacity would be required in 1991, and only one quarter of the planned capacity- in the year 2010. Consequently, this facility (as -previously proposed) is not considered viable in terms of the proposed funding mechanism, its size, and the inability of NYSDEC to provide a technical opinion as to.whether or not the process would -result in a Class.I or II compost. However, DANECO has recently proposed a similar MSW composting project that attempts to address these issues. The newly proposed project would-be completely funded by DANECO,. -and would be either- sized -to accept waste from other towns, .or be scaled down to process -waste only from :the Town. However,- NYSDEC's inability to provide technical, assistance in determining -whether a Class I or H compost will be produced by the proposed operation remains a concern. A recent consideration is the Suffolk County Department -of Health Services (SCDHS) determination .that Articles 7 and - 12 must be taken into account 'in terms of, the quality of leachate that would 'be generated by such a project. The SCDHS has encouraged NYSDEC to tailor their requirements for compost permits to operations that- incorporate only selected organic portions of, the waste stream, and expressed concern about composting organic, wastes that have been commingled with the entire waste stream. In light of this, it does not appear that pursuing a full-scale MSW composting operation for . the portion of mixed solid waste remaining after reduction/reuse/recycling and yard waste composting is viable at this time. This would not be a sound undertaking while, regulatory agencies are unable to embrace this emerging technology. These uncertainties pose severe financial risks to a rural community with a small population such as Southold. This,, however, is not, to preclude the utilization of this technology in the future following NYSDEC or SCDHS' assessment of pilot efforts, or following the successful implementation of the Brookhaven CERF. 4.8.3 Energy' Recovery Processing at a Town or Multi Town Facility The Town could , choose to .develop . its own energy recovery facility for the processing of its mixed solid waste, or enter into an agreement with one or more east end towns to develop -a regional or subregional energy recovery facility. 2038M/14 4-43 PRMED ON RECYCLED PAPFJ? It is estimated, based on available data; that -initially the Town- could -require approximately 30 to 60- tons per day energy recovery. facility capacity, depending on .the - waste stream volumes and the level of recycling. Under. 6NYCRR Part 360-3.2 (a) "...a solid waste incinerator facility must have at least three separate solid, Waste process trains capable of' being operated independently-- of each other," -unless, . '^�..it can be - demonstrated to the department's satisfaction that there' would be a .significant' :increase. in capital' and operating 'costs. that would outweigh the benefits associated• with . the installation of three. process trains...". Accordingly, -it is. assumed here that three ' trains would be required if the Town independently developed -a facility -to meet its'own'capacity requirements. In this •,size ,range (10to 20, tons per day), it is'projected' that' capital costs per installed ton of processing capacity for a field, erected mass -burn stoker -fired- water wall, or a refractory furnace processing train, would greatly exceed' the corresponding'• -cost for a modular" mass -burn stoker -fired, unit. As indicated in 'Appendix C,',however; - modular units have historically been -subject to more. frequent : operating 'difficulties than field erected .units and incur higher- .maintenance costs. - .The lack •of complete ,burnout of combustible material .inherent in..this technology, poses potential • environmental problems with respect to residue disposal and, until such- systems -have demonstrated an ability to , meet -applicable regulations;, a. strong recommendation- for this . technology cannot be' . made. In addition, a point worthy 'of consideration -concerning modular technology is that there is very limited experience. in carrying out successful projects utilizing these systems to generate high enthalpy steam and electric power. Therefore., less assurance exists than in the case of a . field erected unit that certain elements `of system 'design required to ' recover .marketable energy are adequately developed. To determine 'if a suitable =market for -low pressure steam exists in the Town, further research would be required. If the Town were to enter into a long-term agreement with,'a neighboring -towns) to develop a waste -to -energy project; the added capacity requirements would make- the economics• of a field -erected mass -burn facility more viable.. As discussed in Appendix C,, this technology has a demonstrated history of reliability .in Europe:, and ;the U.S.; and has the proven ability to produce a marketable product. Furthermore, existing facilities., utilizing this technology in the U.S. and abroad have shown a consistent ability to"operate within the requirements established by governmental agencies concerning air -and water, _ emissions, odor and noise control, and ash char acteri'stics. .. I 2038Mi14 . 4-44 PRMW ON RECYCLED PAPM? Field -erected, mass -burn water wall energy recovery projects are capital , cost intensive. Various unsuccessful attempts were made in the past to study energy recovery processing on the.East End. _Problems identified with this approach included: o Selection of an environmentally, politically, and publicly acceptable site o Institutional and political differences involving intermunicipal agreements and sharing of costs o Difficulty in identifying an appropriate and acceptable ash disposal site Based on the above,. this is not considered feasible. 4.8.4 Other Local Planning Efforts Other towns on Long Island that have entered into the initial planning stage (generic EIS), or have their planning efforts under development within the SEQRA process, include the Towns of Shelter Island, Riverhead, and Southampton. These towns, however, do not have an existing processing facility or the ability to provide an interim municipal solid waste processing alternative to the Town of Southold. Town of Riverhead The Town of Riverhead currently owns and operates a 40 acre.landfill in Riverhead. At this time, there is some question as to whether the landfill is located in or out of the deep flow recharge area. Therefore, it is not known if it will be permitted to accept raw waste after. the December 1990, deadline imposed by the Long Island Landfill Law. The Town of Riverhead has .recently completed a Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement for its Solid Waste Management. Plan. The Plan identifies landfilling in a new double lined facility as the top ranked. option followed by energy recovery processing at the Brookhaven CE RF. Consequently, the Town of, Riverhead does not appear to offer an opportunity for solid waste processing/disposal to Southold at. this time. 2038M/14 4-45 PRBV O ON RECYC/ Fn PAPER Town of Southampton The Town of Southampton presently owns and operates a --landfill 'in - North Sea. In - September 1989, Southampton presented a DGEIS for their Solid Waste Action Management Plan (SWAMP). The public comment period has concluded, and the FGEIS wasissued in March 1990. The SWAMP. recommended various solid. waste alternatives, and identified recycling, municipal solid waste composting, and expansion. of the landfill as the most viable options for the town. The landfill expansion would provide interim disposal until the recycling efforts and the solid waste composting facility, are in place. The solid waste composting component of the SWAMP is a proposed 230 tons" per day municipal solid waste compost facility. It is . unclear whether a facility this size could accommodate a portion of Southold's solid waste without increasing its capacity. The SWAMP, however, identified sludge as. desirable to 'the composting process, and the proposed facility was sized to accept this waste. Town of Shelter Island Shelter Island has initiated the, SEQRA process for its solid waste plan-. ' It has submitted to the State applications for both a yard waste composting facility and a permanent S.T.O.P. facility. Both facilities have received approval to construct from NYSDEC. It does. not appear likely, however, that Shelter Island will develop a solid waste facility that could process a portion of Southold's waste stream. 4.8.5 Private Sector MSW Composting Proposals Several private sector conceptual . proposals, (of varying degrees, of specificity) 'involving possible MSW composting facilities have recently been presented to the east end towns. These -proposed facilities, unsolicited with regard to formal -requests for proposals under State law, could be designed with sufficient capacity to process compostable waste (and recyclables for some) from all or some of the east end towns. Omni Technical Services has proposed a 500 ton per day composting facility to be located in the Calverton area. Initial' indications are that the proposed facility would require 48 acres- and may also include a regional recycling center. According to reports, Omni has. Indicated that this facility could be. completed by 1991. To date; estimated costs for its use by east. end towns have not been identified. 2038M/14 4-46 PRPP ED ON RECYaED PAPER Another conceptual private sector proposal involves a 300 ton per day MSW sludge composting facility to be designed by Bedminster Bioconversion Corporation. The proposed facility would be completely enclosed and located on a 40 acre site on Edwards Avenue in Calverton. Reports indicate that the project would cost $22 million and would combine MSW and liquid sewage sludge to produce compost. According to these reports, approximately 10 acres north of the site (zoned agricultural) would be used as. a research area to test the compost material on various crops. Bio Comp, Incorporated has proposed a 600 ton per day facility on a site yet to be determined. The company has asked the east. end towns to supply them with a 2.0 acre site for what has been reported to be a $25 million facility. The. proposed facility could also be designed to include a regional recycling center as well.. Indications are that Bio Comp estimates the tip fee to be approximately $55 per ton, and proposes to split. any profits from the sale of the final compost product with the participating towns.. The Italian -based compost company Daneco, the selected bidder for the proposed Town MSW composting. facility for which bonding was defeated in a recent public referendum, has indicated that it would be willing to develop a Daneco-financed facility for the Town at the solid waste complex. Initial indications are that. the proposed facility would be designed to process a portion of the Town's waste with the. potential for it to become a regional facility. Daneco has offered to assume responsibility for disposing of the final compost product.. Based upon information provided to the Town, the firm has indicated an estimated total project cost. of approximately $8 million. Estimated tip fees provided by the firm are approximately $65 per ton in 1991, and $165 per ton in 2010. In addition to these local private sector proposed facilities, other privately financed and operated MSW compost facilities that would involve a facility in the area or possibly long haul of waste out of State are possible. Although some of the above proposals may have merit, they have not yet been fully defined at this time. For the Town to consider the utilization of full private sector processing, it would be required to follow applicable. State procurement procedures (under GML 120-w or GML 103, as appropriate) which would specify the needed solid waste services of the Town, the content of proposals, and the 'selection criteria and procedures to be applied by the Town in making its decisions. While the exact cost of processing at these . proposed facilities are uncertain; an assumed range of costs in terms of theoretical incremental tip fees has been included for comparison in the cost analysis in Section. 4.12 and Appendix I. 2038M/14 4-47 PRMED ON RECYCLED PAPER 1 4.8.6 Processing/Disposal of Fishers Island Remaining Mixed Waste } After -reduction, recycling, and reuse of a large percentage of the waste stream, Fishers Island would still have a remaining portion of mixed solid waste that would require processing/disposal. j The alternative available to Fishers Island for the processing/disposal of this remaining waste include transferring the waste to the "mainland" portion of the. Town for processing/disposal 'with the rest of the Town's waste, processing/disposal . at a private sector facility, or processing/disposal at a facility on Fishers Island..: The Town or District I could prepare and issue a Request for. Proposals for disposal services, as well . as begin intermunicipal' negotiations to allow for comparison of available. alternate . 1 processing/disposal options to be used for three to five year increments. This would allow flexibility in the management of this portion of the waste stream ' should. other alternatives. become more feasible in the future. 'In the interim period, while alternatives are being evaluated and negotiations undertaken, the Town or District. could 'seek allowance of continued landfilling on Fishers Island for two. to three years at its existing. . landfill until this facility reaches proper grades and can be capped and closed. 4.8.7 Sludge Disposal Alternatives Sludge from the Southold Scavenger Waste Treatment and Village of .Greenport Sewage Treatment Plants are currently disposed of at the Town landfill. In preparation of a solid waste management plan for the Town, several sludge disposal planning alternatives z_ can be considered for the Town. These alternatives include: . o Sludge incineration at an -in or out of Town facility f t o Sludge disposal at a landfill o Cocomposting of sludge with yard waste at an expanded Town composting facility o Cocomposting of sludge with ' municipal : solid- waste at ' the Brookhaven CERF or the proposed Southampton solid waste -composting facility 2038M/14 4-48 Mff"W ON RECYCL M PAPEF Incineration/Cocombustion at an In or Out of Town Facility Sludge can be burned at an incinerator specifically designed to handle only sludge; or at a facility capable, of burning sludge mixed with municipal solid waste (cocombustion). The development of .this type of facility is capital intensive and is not considered practical for a Town such as, Southold as a result of the cost and relatively small volumes of sludge. Sludge disposal, at the Glen Cove - cocombustion facility is not considered feasible since the facility is currently operating at full capacity, and its distance from the Town makes this alternative. undesirable should capacity become available in the future. Landfill -Disposal of Sludge This method of disposal consists of placing sludge,- or sludge mixed with municipal solid waste, in a landfill. Landfilling of sludge is not a resource recovery technique and is therefore less desirable than other methods of disposal. Additionally, the Town landfill may not be available for sludge disposal after December 18, 1990, under the Long Island. Landfill Law. Cocomposting_of Sludge with Yard Waste In Section 3, the potential use of sludge as a source of nitrogen to facilitate the decomposition of leaves, chipped brush, paper, and wood in composting operations was discussed: Should the Town expand its current yard waste composting operation, to full-scale, the development of a portion of the site as a demonstration cocomposting operation utilizing chipped brush/wood, paper, and sludge could be feasible. An operation such as this would test the cost effectiveness, environmental suitability, and operational aspects of using sludge as a nitrogen source, as well as the marketability of this type of compost product. -The successful cocomposting of sludge and yard waste could provide a cost effective in- Town solution to the management of this waste, as well as contribute further to the Town's recycling goals. The New York City Department. of Environmental Protection is proposing to conduct a pilot study to provide information on composting as a management option for sludge, leaves, brush, and waste wood.. The pilot study is -expected to be completed after approximately 400 cubic yards of. compost has been produced for analysis. The project is proposed to be located adjacent to the existing Wastewater Treatment Facility of Wards Island, New York. 2038M/14 4-49 gtali W ON RECYCLED PAPER Cocomposting of Sludge with Municipal Solid Waste- at a Brookhaven or Southampton Facility Sludge ' can also provide a source of nitrogen in the composting of municipal solid waste. Both the Towns of Southampton and Brookhaven have proposed municipal solid Waste composting facilities as part of their solid waste management plans. Southampton has already expressed. interest in .accepting sludge upon completion of their facility in the GEIS that presents their SWAMP. The Brookhaven site is located approximately 40 to 45 miles from the Town, and the potential Southampton site is approximately 35 to 40. miles away. Consequently, a transportation cost would be associated with this alternative. This alternative .is considered a possible long-term solution for sludge disposal, ' and should be considered further upon the implementation of the Plans for the Towns of Southampton and Brookhaven. Interim disposal would, have to be developed in, conjunction, with this alternative. - At this time, the cocomposting of sludge with yard waste on a demonstration basis at an expanded Town composting facility utilizing windrows is the preferred option. This . could provide a long-term, cost effective, in Town solution that could be implemented in a relatively short period of time. The long-term responsibility for decisions to manage this, waste,' however; should be made during facility planning by the wastewater treatment plant whose findings would provide a better guide to their needs concerning sludge disposal. 4.9 Tires Over 240 million tires are discarded throughout the nation each year; an estimated 12 million per year in New York State, and 3.1 million annually on Long Island alone. Tires are generated nationally at the rate of approximately 1 tire per person per year. At. this rate, the Town could generate approximately ' 20,000 to 25,000 tires each - year. The 1 Town currently stockpiles tires at the Town solid waste complex, and contracted New York Tire Recycling Company for removal. 'New York ' Tire recycling,' however, is currently under court order to discontinue site operations -and the acceptance of new deliveries at its current site. Fishers Island also stockpilestiresfor ultimate removal at the tire/car area Iodated on the Island. Alternatives to process/handle tires are: _ 2038M/14 -.4-50 PRQYlF.D'ON RECYCLED PAPE o Landfill either in or out -of -Town o Continue to stockpile and ship tires in accordance with Part 360 regulations to •a facility so that they may be recycled for rubber or, into retreads o Preprocess/shred tires for a secondary materials market 'o Processing/shred tires into an RDF fuel additive or use the tire at a pyrolysis plant The landfilling alternative would not be allowed under the Long Island Landfill Law. Further, landfilled tires have a tendency to "float" to the surface after a period:of time. Tires also create compaction problems by creating voids that affect the density of the'fill. Stockpiling and . shipping to a facility generally, does not entail high capital or operation and maintenance costs; however, storage or stockpiling of - more than 1,000 tires I requires a permit to operate a solid waste facility under 6NYCRR Part 360-13. One advantage of this alternative is that the tires may be sold to different markets for rubber recycling, fuel processing, or retreading. The Recycling Unit of the Suffolk County Department of General Services. has previously identified three vendors who accept large numbers of waste tires and that currently accept tires from town(s) in Suffolk County. However, available capacity for tire recycling is currently dwindling on Long Island and elsewhere. The three vendors identified are: o Metropolitan Rubber Products Inc. o - New York Tire Recycling o Oxford Tire Recycling Inc. Metropolitan Rubber Products has a tire shredding/granulating plant with a capacity of 4,000. tires per month that was undergoing expansion to approximately 100,000 tires per month.. The, end product of this operation is sold to molded rubber product and tiling manufacturers, users of rubber chips in modified .asphalt, and to industrial customers for fuel for furnaces. The cost of arrangements with Metropolitan depends on how tires• are delivered to the facility. If tires are dropped off by the client, costs would be approximately $65 per ton. If Metropolitan is required to pick up and process the tires, 2038M/14 4-51 PR9V7W ON RECYCFD PAPER costs would be approximately $500 per 40 . yard, -container. The . Towns.. of Babylon, Oyster Bay, and North Hempstead, and the City of New York.have used this Company. Previously, New York Tire Recycling evaluated tires for reuse and retreading, with the rejects .undergoing shredding. Most retreads were exported overseas. Fabric recovered from the shredding operation was sold for use 'in the -manufacturing of fiberglass. Costs associated with this firm depend on "the delivery of tires to the facility, but are approximately $9. to $12 .per cubic yard. Nassau.County and the Town of Southold have used this company in the past. The Town has been paying this firm a $900 removal cost per 45 foot trailer. However, the future of this arrangement is questionable since this firm has been ordered to cease accepting tires as of August 'l, 1990.' Oxford Tire Recycling incinerates tires in a waste -to -energy" plant in California. A similar facility has been approved in Connecticut, and, is expected to begin processing of tires within a year. Costs depend on the delivery of the tires to"the plant., A municipality delivering tires to the facility is charged approximately $42 per ton, or approximately $500 per trailer load. The cost for Oxford to. provide the. trailer, transportation,, ` and disposal can range from $250 to $800 per trailer, Pius. per tire or per hour costs which are not included in the base charge. The Town has had contracts: with .this Company, along with East Hampton, Southampton, and Westchester County. Tire shredding involves, a commitment of capital -resources (a large scale shredding unit can cost $50,000 to $500,000). Further, the end product can only be used for rubber recycling or as a fuel. Private alternatives are developing in other parts of . the country. In Wisconsin and New England, portable units have been used by the private sector to shred tires and sell to various markets or to reduce the volume to be -landfilled. These costs range from $50 to $80 per ton (Waste Age July ' 1989 and September 1989). This field is developing on Long Island and in the New York area. Vrabel Engineering and Sales Company can supply a., mobile shredding service .to Long Island towns that can shred tires at the rate of 500 to 700 car tires per hour, or 75 to 100 truck tires per hour. The shredder and an operator can be rented monthly or weekly for approximately $1,000 to $1,500 per .day. The .shredded rubber must then be handled by the Town for further processing. 2038M/14 4-52 PRRYIFD ON RECYCLED PAPE! It is possible to process tires and other wastes into refuse derived fuel (RDF) that can be burned at . an RDF waste -to -energy facility. It is very expensive to process tires with other wastes into RDF, and there are currently no RDF waste -to -energy facilities on Long Island. While it ,is possible to burn RDF in any . of the existing or planned/ waste -to -energy facilities on Long Island, or have it used as an "industrial" fuel, these may not be considered the most effective. options for -the Town or the most consistent alternatives to satisfy the State's hierarchy. Further, the cost of a Town owned facility is considered a strong drawback of this alternative. Currently operating or planned pyrolysis plants can, use tires in. their operations. A pyrolysis plant in. Wind Gap, PA, has been identified by the Recycling Unit as interested in . accepting tires- from Long Island. Long Island Bi -Model, in cooperation with MTT Industries, is beginning to collect and ship tires from Suffolk to the plant in Wind Gap. Terms and fees for this service have not been available. Carbon Products and Services of Amagansett has expressed interest in constructing a pyrolysis plant in the Town. Neither of these pyrolysis options appear ready to accommodate the Town's need at this time, but could be available in the future. Recycling, however, is a preferred method over waste -to -energy systems in the State's solid waste management hierarchy. The primary consideration would be the ability to handle the expected volume of, tires over the long-term. Other considerations would include cost and a preference for materials before energy recovery. Based on the preceding discussion, the most feasible alternative for the Town and Fishers Island is to continue to stockpile 'tires, in accordance with Part. 360 regulations, and transport to private sector recycling/shredding'facilities. 4.10 Residentially Generated Clean Material A category of clean fill similar in nature to construction and demolition debris is residentially generated clean materials. This inert component partially consists of nonrecyclable, noncombustible, and noncompostable waste generated in the .home. This material, such as wood and metal furniture and waste from small homeowner renovations, repairs, and landscaping, is generated in small enough quantities to make private disposal impracticable in most instances. The intensive preprocessing required for. recycling or combustion of this material makes residentially generated debris best suited for disposal in a clean fill. The, options that exist for the disposal of, this material include: 2038M/14 4-53 PRIMFA ON RECYCLW PAM . a o Disposal in a clean fill located in the Town o ` Disposal'at a private •construction and demolition debris landfill Disoos'al in a Clean Fill Located in the Town A clean fill facility two acres - or ' less, regardless of location, in , which , clean- fill generated on or off-site is placed for disposal or land reclamation purposes- is subject to -i approval by NYSDEC, but would not require a liner or a leachate collection 'and removal system as long as the requirements contained in 6NYCRR Part 3604.6(c)(2) are met. These standards are discussed in Section 3.1.6 of this document, The . use of a portion of . the area available adjacent to the landfill as 'a clean -fill for. residentially generated clean material could be considered land reclamation in the,, form of grade adjustment for the possible future expansion of solid waste facilities, such as the composting operation, This may also apply to the existing concrete lined pits on Fishers Island. -In order to maximize the life expectancy of such a facility, only residentially generated clean -material would be accepted at this facility. The operation of a clean fill less than two acres in size would- free the Town from the large costs associated with facilities that would require liners and , leachate collection and removal systems. This facility could be operated -at a relatively low cost to the Town since it would require expenditures only for labor and equipment, which may already be available at the landfill. Assuming a cost of $20 to $40 per cubic yard, private disposal of the 2,000 tons- per year- of residentially. generated clean material'' would - cost approximately $160,000 to $320,000 (assuming 4 cubic yards per. ton). This estimate does not include collection or transportation costs to a private facility. It would not be practical to, dispose of this material .. in a clean fill with large amounts of construction and demolition debris since such a facility would have to be greater than two acres in size and would require a liner(s). In addition,'. there may not be, enough C&D debris generated in small communities such as Fishers Island to justify the development of such a -facility: Assuming that the life expectancy of a two acre facility. accepting only. residentially generated clean material would be eight years,. the Town could save $1 million to $3 million in private disposal costs. This alternative could also reclaim a portion'of excavated Town owned land for future use''. = 2038M/14 4-54 PRIMED ON nlpi A -- Therefore, for residentially generated clean material only, the Town, at minimal cost, could provide an interim, two acre or less clean fill as described in Section 3.1.6. While the bulk of C&D and land clearing debris would be directed to private sector II facilities, residents would be able to dispose of small amounts of clean materials. This l alternative would be an effective method for the Town and Fishers Island to dispose of a small, somewhat unprocessible component of its residential waste stream. Disposal at a Private Construction and Demolition Debris Landfill Residentially generated clean materials are best suited for disposal in a clean fill. The Town could expect to pay between $20 to $40 per cubic yard for disposal of this material at a privately owned and operated. clean fill, depending on the facility used. 4.11 Landfilling/Residual Disposal The Town could choose to landfill approximately 25% to 30% of the waste stream remaining after reduction/recycling/reuse. If this is the case, several residual waste options could exist for the Town. These options are: o Continue current landfilling procedures at . existing Town landfill to provide interim disposal* and facilitate a ' Closure and Capping Plan for the existing landfill o Develop a news: double lined landfill in accordance with 6NYCRR Part 360 regulations, The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Plan), The Long Island Groundwater Management Program (1986'208 -Plan Update), the Long Island Landfill Law, and the SCHDS position on landfilling in Suffolk County o Intermunicipal agreement with another town(s) to use an existing landfill or to develop a new landfill , o Long haul of solid waste for landfill disposal off Long Island Concerning Fishers Island, landfilling should be allowed regardless of whether or not the landfill law is modified. Fishers Island was never assigned a hydrogeologic zone in the 1978 Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Plan). The Long 2038M/14 4-55 PRMW ON RECYCLW PAPER Island Landfill Law conditions its implementation on these zones, . preventing the landfilling. of- mixed solid waste in Zones I, H, and III after December 18,.1990.. The Town, on behalf of Fishers Island, has contended to NYSDEC that they should be exempt from these provisions, at least until, the existing landfill reaches capacity (1 to 2 years): Each of these options has been evaluated below for disposal of approximately 25% to 30% of the waste stream over the 20 year planning period. However, if the Town chooses instead to process this portion of the waste stream at an energy recovery -facility, each option may be scaled down to provide disposal of bypass waste and residual ash. This alternative is discussed in Section 4.11.4., 4.11.1 Closure and Capping of Existing Landfill Under this alternative, the Town may attempt to continue landfilling at the existing Town solid waste complex in Cutchogue using current landfilling procedures until conditions are reached that .will facilitate closure and capping. .The existing landfill site is relatively flat with a few areas of mild slope'containing depressions and voids that may have fill material at the base. Consequently, the landfill area, is not of proper configuration, nor -are the contour elevations acceptable for closure and capping should landfilling cease in - 1990. -Continued landfilling on a 'thort-term basis would bring ' unsuitable areas to grade and provide contour adjustment that. would' facilitate closure and capping, , as well as provide interim disposal until alternative processing options become available. This alternative would depend on a determination that such a practice would have no adverse environmental impact. According to the Suffolk County' Department of Health Services, no evidence of ' adverse impacts from the existing landfill practices have . been identified to date. 4.11.2 Development of a New. Double Lined Town Landfill for the Product of a Resource Recovery System Under this alternative, the existing Town landfill would be upgraded and gradually phased out over three years as a new landfill located on an. adjacent site is completed. The new landfill would be used, for the disposal of the product of the Town's 70% to 75% resource recovery system and would be constructed in accordance with the most stringent 6NYCRR Part ' 360 requirements featuring double. composite liners, methane collection, and dual leachate collection and treatment systems. This alternative would be consistent 2038M/14 _ 4-56 PR NTT ON RECYC[FD PAPEF with 208 Plan and 208 Plan Update recommendations for the upgrade of existing landfills and allowances for landfilling in rural Long •Island areas, as well as the Long Island Landfill Law - allowances for the land disposal of the product of a resource recovery system. A new landfill to accommodate 25% to 30% of the waste stream remaining after the implementation of a resource recovery system for a period of 20 years would require approximately 15 acres -of land (depending on the findings of a supplemental EIS and the specific design features). This option is substantially less expensive than the cost to the Town to have its remaining waste processed at an out -of -Town energy recovery system over the life of the Plan. In addition, if this alternative is implemented in three 5 acre stages, it will allow the Town to continuously -evaluate other processing/disposal alternatives. Based on the evaluations •of these future processing/disposal .alternatives, future cells might be scaled down, or eliminated if appropriate. 4.11.3 Intermunicipal Agreement with Another Town(s) to Use an Existing Landfill or Develop a New Landfill Under this option, the Town would enter into an agreement with another town(s) to use an existing landfill for disposal of approximately 25% to 30% of the waste stream. The Town could expect to pay for" a share of the expansion costs should it be. required. In addition to possible expansion costs, the Town may be required , to pay a tip fee at the landfill as •well. If the Town decides to process this portion of the waste stream at an energy recovery facility, then this landfill could be used for interim disposal, if necessary, until such a facility is operable. The Town may also enter into an'agreement with another town(s) to develop .a new landfill. The sizing and cost of this facility would depend upon the needs of the other town(s)., Costs to the Town could be expected to be at least that of developing a new landfill of its own. 4.11.4 Lona Haul of Solid Waste for Landfill Disposal Off of Long Island Another option under the landfill alternative is the long haul of approximately 25% to 30% of .the waste stream for landfill disposal off of Long Island. As previously discussed, this option is expensive. While exact costs would not be established until responses are received to a request for proposals, costs would be expected to range from 2038M/14 4-57 PRffv7W ON RECYCLM PAPER approximately $100 to $200 per ton based on costs paid by other towns located to the west. .An important factor to consider as part of this option is that future -'status of landfills outside of Long Island are uncertain,. and the Town may be,. forced to find alternative means of disposal on relatively short notice if a landfill accepting its waste were to close. Further, many states are implementing efforts to limit 'or eliminate out=of—state waste from entering its -landfills. As a result of- the high cost and unreliability over the 20 year planning period, this option is ' not considered a viable, long—term solution for the Town's solid waste disposal needs. 4.11.5 Bypass and Residual Disposal If the Town chooses to process 25% to 30% of the waste at an energy recovery„or solid waste composting facility, then there would be a need to. accommodate bypass waste and residuals from the energy recovery or composting process. .This material could be disposed of in a landfill. A landfill designed for .this purpose could also provide interim disposal, if necessary, while an energy recovery or composting facility becomes operable. This landfill would be double lined and would incorporate .-state—of—the—art methane collection and leachate collection and treatment systems, as required by stringent state regulations. Development of . a landfill for disposal of bypass waste and the products of a resource recovery . system is consistent with. The Long Island Landfill Law, Part 360 regulations, and the New York. State Solid Waste Management Plan. .4.12 Technical Conclusions As part of the evaluation of processing/disposal alternatives for the waste remaining after reduction, recycling, reuse, and yard waste composting, basic criteria were used to identify the preferred option to ,be included as part of a solid waste management plan for the Town.' A, major component . of this evaluation was. an alternative cost. analysis performed for the long—term options for processing/disposal of 25% to 30% of the waste stream. . The evaluation of alternatives contained in Section, 4 resulted in nine viable options. These options were included in the cost analysis and are: o Existing landfill arrangements o New, double lined 15 acre Town Landfill developed in 5 acre cells for the product of the Town's resource recovery system 2038M/14 4-58 PRORID ON RECYCLED PAM o Processing at Brookhaven CERF o Processing at Huntington Energy Recovery Facility o Processing at Babylon Energy Recovery Facility o Town sponsored MSW composting facility o Yard waste .for MSW exchange with a town having an ERF or CERF o Total private sector sponsored processing/disposal o Off Island long haul The analysis ' and basic assumptions used in formulating the costs for each alternative are presented in Appendix I, and a summary of the results are presented on Table 4.12-1. ' For each option, an analysis was performed for, several scenarios that involved certain variables affecting the final cost. .These variables included 25% or 30% of the waste stream as a base, long haul fees, and tip fees. In addition, the analysis considered operation and transportation costs, as well as yearly escalations in waste generation and operation costs. The options involving landfills considered leachate removal and disposal costs, as well as land acquisition costs. The preliminary costs of each option were calculated in both the total 20—year cost and an estimated cost per ton. All costs represent 1990 net present value. It should be noted here that some alternatives involving capital_ investment tend to cost less per ton of solid waste in the scenarios including the larger portion of the waste stream as a result of economies of scale. It is important to stress that cost estimates are preliminary for the purpose of conducting a comparative analysis between alternatives, as is appropriate for a draft/generic planning effort. Adjusted cost estimates will be determined as a result of detailed engineering design, supplemental EIS analysis, responses to formal procurement' procedures, and the terms of .final intermunicipal/contractual agreements. It should- also be noted that the order of presentation of Option I through IX does not reflect any order of preference. The continuation of existing landfill arrangements (Option I) is the least expensive alternative, costing approximately $3 to $4 million over the 20—year planning period ($11 per ton). However, various changes to existing regulations would be necessary for this option to be implemented. While continued landfilling ' under existing practices may be allowed only in the interim period until portions of the landfill are brought to grade, this option was included in this analysis as a benchmark for comparison with other available alternatives. In addition to modification to the Long Island Landfill Law to allow 2038M/14 4-59 PRQV7W ON RECYCLM PAPER Note: Initial tipping fees, and long haul costs start in 1996 and are escalated at 5% per year through 2015. Estimated 20 year costs are in Net Present Value to represent present value (1990) cost over the 20 year life cycle. Estimated cost' per ton'represents present value ('1990) cost per ton over the 20 years. All cost estimates are preliminary for the purpose of conducting a comparative analysis among'altematives, as appropriate for a draft/generic planting effort. Cost estimates are exclusive of closure and capping of existing landfill. ' Adjusted cost estimates will be provided as necessary in the final generic plan, while final costs will be determined as a result of detailed engineering design, supplemental EIS analysis, responses to formal procurement procedures, and the terms of intermunicipal/contractual agreements. Landfill sizes are preliminary estimates of footprint acreages and do not i 1= oa µaced t..c�- - , �� TABLE 4.12-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN" ALTERNATIVE LONG-TERM OPTIONS FOR PROCESSING/DISPOSAL OF 25% TO 30% RESIDUALS (not listed in order of preference) OPTIONS FOR' Est: 20 Yr.Cost Est. Cost/ron OPTIONS FOR Est. 20 Yr.Cost . Est. Cost/Ton REMAINING WASTE REMAINING WASTE 25% 30% 25% 30% 25% . 30% 25% 30% EXISTING LANDFILL ARRANGEMENTS, 3M 4M 11 11 C. Seasonal ERF Processing; New 10 Acre Lined Town Landfill NEW LINED 15 ACRE LANDFILL FOR "PRODUCT" 26M 29M 89 82 1. 1996: $ I00Aon Tip Fee 2. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee 27M " 30IGt 31M 34M 90 99 87 96 OF 70% TO 75% RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM L BROOKHAVEN CERF (IF IMPLEMENTED) VL TOWN SPONSORED MSW COMPOSTING FACILITY A. CERF Processing; Long Haul Bypass/Residuals A. MSW Processing; With New 8 Acre Lined Town Landfill B. MSW Processing; Long Haul of Bypass/Residuals 34M' 36M 113 102 1. 1996: $100/ton Tip Fee; $150/ton Long Haul 33M 39M 109 109 1. 1996: $100/ton Long Haul 22M 26M 75 74 2. 1996: 100/ton Tip Fee; 200/ton Long Haul 36M 43M 122 122 2. 1996: 150/ton Long Haul 26M 30M 86 85 3. 1996:, 125/ton Tip Fee; 150/ton Long Haul 38M 45M 126 126 3. 1996: 200/ton Long Haul 29M 34M 97 96 4. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee; 200/ton Long Haul 41M 49M 138 138 B. CERF Processing; New 6 Acre Lined Town Landfill VII. TOWN SPONSORED YARD WASTE COMPOSTING 1. 1996: $100/tou Tip Fee 36M 42M 121 118 FACILITY 2. 1996: 125Aon Tip Fee 41M 48M 138 135 A. Yazd Waste Exchange With ERF/CERF and New C. Seasonal CERF Processing; New 10 Acre Lined Town 6 Acre Town Landfill for Bypass/Residuals Landfill 1. 1996: $100/ton Tip Fee 26M 30M 88 85 1. 1996- Net Cost $ 50/ton 2. 1996 -Net Cost 75/ton 33M 38M 37M, 43M 111 128 103 119 2. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee 29M 34M 97 94. 3. 1996 - Net Cost 100/ton 43M 49M 145 136 HUNTINGTON ERF (4TH UNIT, IF IMPLEMENTED) B. Yard Waste Exchange With ERF/CERF and Long Haul of Bypass/Residuals A. ERF Processing; Long Haul Bypass/Residuals 1. 1996 - Net Cost $ 50/ton: $150/Ton Long Haul 29M 34M 96 96 1. 1996: $100/ton Tip Fee; $150/ton Long Haul 33M 40M 112 112 2. 1996 - Net Cost 75/ton: 150/Ton Long Haul 34M 40M 113 113 2. 1996: 100/ton Tip Fee; 200hon Long Haul 37M 44M 124 124 3. 1996 - Net Cost 100/ton: 150/fon Long Haul 39M 46M 130 130 3. 1996: 125/ton-Tip Fee; 150/ton Long Haul 38M 46M 129 129 C. Yazd Waste Exchange With ERF/CERF and ERF/CERF 4. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee: 200/ton Long Haul 42M 50M 14,1 141 Responsible for Bypass/Residuals B. ERF Processing with New 6 Acre Lined Town Landfill 1. 1996 - Net Cost $ 50/ton 18M 21M 60 60 1. 1996: $100/ton.Tip Fee 2. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee 37M 42M 43M 49M 124 121 2. 1996 -Net Cost 75/ton 23M 27M 77 77 C. Seasonal ERF Processing; New 10 Acro Lined Town Landfill 141 138 3. 1996 - Net Cost 100/ton 28M 34M 94 93 1. 1996: $100/ton Tip Fee 27M 31M 90 87 VIILPRIVATE SECTOR SPONSORED' PROCESSING/ 2. 1996: I25/ton Tip Fee 30M 34M 99 96 DISPOSAL (Including Bypass/Residuals) BABYLON ERF (3RD UNIT, IF IMPLEMENTED) A.Hempstead ERF' (contractual arrangement) 1. 1996: $80hon tip fee; $100/ton long haul 27M 32M 91 91 A. ERF Processing; Long Haul Bypass/Residuals B.Potential East End Private Sector Facility - 1. 1996: $100/ton Tip Fee; $150/ton Long Haul 33M 40M 112 112 1. 1996: $75hon Tip Fee 17M 20M 56 56 2. 1996: 100/ton Tip Fee: 200/ton Long Haul 37M 44M 124 124 2. 1996: 100/ton Tip Fee 22M 27M' 75 75 3. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee: 150/ton'Long Haul 38M 46M 129 129 3. 1996: 125/ton Trp Fee 28M 33M _ 93 93 4. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee; 200/ton Long Haul 42M 59M. 141 141 B. ERF Processing; New 6 Acre Lined Town Landfill UL OFF ISLAND LONG HAUL 1. 1996: $100/ton Tip Fee 37M 43M 124 121 A.1996: $100/ton Long Haul' 22M • 27M 75 75 2. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee' 42M 49M - 141 138. B. 1996: 150/ton`Long Haul 33M 40M 112 112 C. 1996: 200/ton Long Haul 44M 53M 149 149 Note: Initial tipping fees, and long haul costs start in 1996 and are escalated at 5% per year through 2015. Estimated 20 year costs are in Net Present Value to represent present value (1990) cost over the 20 year life cycle. Estimated cost' per ton'represents present value ('1990) cost per ton over the 20 years. All cost estimates are preliminary for the purpose of conducting a comparative analysis among'altematives, as appropriate for a draft/generic planting effort. Cost estimates are exclusive of closure and capping of existing landfill. ' Adjusted cost estimates will be provided as necessary in the final generic plan, while final costs will be determined as a result of detailed engineering design, supplemental EIS analysis, responses to formal procurement procedures, and the terms of intermunicipal/contractual agreements. Landfill sizes are preliminary estimates of footprint acreages and do not i 1= oa µaced t..c�- - , �� landfilling in rural areas, adjustments. to the .Part 360 landfill requirements would be required .to allow for unlined landfilling. This would require, at a minimum, a determination that no adverse effects to groundwater or the environment would result from the continuation of existing landfilling procedures. The cost of disposal in -a new 15., acre Town landfill, possibly to be -implemented in three five acre stages, for the product of a 70% to 75% resource recovery system (Option II) was evaluated. The analysis assumed a state-of-the-art landfill with double composite liners, dual leachate collection- and treatment systems, and methane recovery. Cost of. this facility was in the range of approximately $26 to $29 million over the 20 -year planning period, or $82 to $89 per ton. There are certain regulatory conditions, however, that may have to be addressed before this alternative could be implemented. These are discussed in detail in Section 4.15. Several scenarios were used to evaluate the cost of processing at the proposed Brookhaven CERF (Option III). Costs were developed based upon $100 and ,$125, per ton tip fees at the facility, and $150 and $200 per ton long haul fees for bypass and residue. CERF processing of 25% to 30% of the waste stream with long haul of bypass and residue would cost in the range of $33 to $49 million over the 20 year planning period, or approximately $109 to $138 per ton. Disposal of bypass and residue in a new, double lined 6 acre Town landfill would change the cost over the 20 -year planning period to $36 to $48 million ($121 to $135 per ton). Under this option, seasonal processing at the CERF during off-peak periods of the year. was also evaluated. A' new; 10 acre landfill would provide disposal (considered bypass) for -periods that capacity is -not available at the CERF. Costs for. this scenario range from $26 to $34 million over the 20 year planning period, or $88 to $94 per ton. The proposed CERF is located closer to the Town than either the Huntington or Babylon energy recovery facilities (Options IV and V), and offers an opportunity, with little or no risk to the Town, to utilize and assess mixed solid waste composting as a solid waste processing technique. Both the Huntington and Babylon facilities (Options IV and V) were evaluated under similar scenarios as applied to the Brookhaven CERF option. Cost, for processing at these' facilities ranged from approximately $33 to $59 million over the 20 -year planning period, or $112 to $141 per ton. A scenario involving a new 6 acre Town landfill for bypass and residue would cost in the range of $37 to $49. million over the 20 year planning period ($121 to $138 per ton) for processing at either facility. 2038M/14 4-6.1 PiRfffTW ON RECYCLED PAPER Processing capacity 'at these -two facilities, however,, is not currently, available. These alternatives are contingent on the construction- of .,a .fourth, unit at the . Huntington/Smithtown facility (for which the - SEQRA process is beginning), and a third unit at theBabylon facility (as proposed by NYSDEC in -Quogue `in January ..1990). The Babylon facility could. not be considered for the planning period without the third unit because the town was unable to indicate that there would be projected year-round' m available capacity beginning in 1991 (after the- effective date of the .Long Island Landfill Law), or confirmed sufficient seasonal capacity, .and for the 20 -year planning . period thereafter.- Cost hereafter: Cost estimates were included for an assumed in -Town MSW composting facility, Yard. waste composting in exchange -for ERF or CERF processing, and total' -private sector processing/disposal options 'as well (Options VI, VII, and VIII). Costs for. processing at a Town MSW composting facility could range from approximately $22 to '$34 million ($75 to $96 per ton), including long, haul costs for disposal, of bypass and residuals. MSW .composting with bypass and residual disposal in new, 8 acre Town landfill could cost $34 to $36 -million over the 20 year planning period, or $102 to $113 per ton. This is still an. emerging technology with limited -operating experience .in the United States and, - therefore, ' cannot be fully recommended at this time, especially, without an indication from NYSDEC as to whether or not an end product -can be produced that would meet their requirements. for a Class I or, H compost. A- yard waste only composting facility where an equal volume of, mixed solid waste would be exchanged for leaves .with a town having an ERF or CERF was also evaluated under this alternative (Option VII). It is assumed that the fee collected for each ton of yard waste would be used, to offset, the tip fee at the - energy recovery. facility. Consequently, costs were based on a net cost of .processing of $50, $75, and $100 per ton. Costs. for this scenario ranged from $33 to $49' million over the 20 -year planning. period ($111 to $136 per ton) with a new 6 acre Town landfill for, bypass -and residue. Costs associated with this scenario assuming $100, $150, and $200 per ton long haul fees for bypass and residue -were, $28 to $50 :million over the life --of the plan, or $96 to $142 per ton. If the town having the ERF ort -ERF were to assume: responsibility for disposal of bypass and residue, the estimated range of costs for this scenario would :be $18 to $34 million over the 20 -year planning period, or, $60 to $93 per_ton. J 2038M/14 4-62 mmw ON RECYCIFD PAPE J The total private sector - processing/disposal option (which could . involve a private sector financial and permitted facility, in the region) was evaluated for comparative purposes. Costs were based on tip fees of $50, $75, 100, and- $125 per ton (option VIII). Based on these tip fees, costs of this scenario could be approximately $11 to $33 million for the 20 -year planning period, or $37 to $93 per ton. Contractual- arrangements for processing at the Hempstead energy recovery facility were also considered under private sector processing facilities. This alternative assumed an $80 tip fee and $100 per ton long haul costs. Based on these assumptions, cost's were estimated to be .approximately $27 to $32 million for the 20 -year planning period, ,or $91 per ton. While private sector options exist for processing/disposal of land, clearing, construction, and demolition debris, there does -not yet exist a permitted- local private sector alternative for mixed municipal solid waste other than a contractual arrangement with the operator of the Hempstead ERF. Off -Island long haul disposal of solid waste (Option IX), considered as part of. the no action alternative, has costs ranging from $22 to $53 million over the life of the plan, or $75 to $149 per ton. The, high cost over the life of the plan combined with the uncertain reliability of out -of -Town disposal facilities make this option least preferable. As previously discussed, the long haul of solid waste is not a recommended alternative. In addition, MSW composting remains an emerging technology that has yet to be embraced by regulatory agencies, such as NYSDEC and SCDHS, and, therefore, cannot be recommended to the Town at this time. Landfilling of .the 25% to 30%. of the waste stream remaining after the implementation of A. resource recovery system in a new, double lined 15 acre landfill is an attractive alternative, but several regulatory issues must be addressed (see Section 4.15): Therefore, processing at an existing or planned ERF or CERF appears to be the preferable option. Based on this analysis, an agreement where the Town exchanges 25% to 30% of its mixed .solid waste with a town having an ERF or CERF for an equal quantity of yard waste for processing at, its expanded compost operation appears to be the best, most cost efficient option, contingent upon the. ERF or CERF being responsible for bypass and residue disposal. Since the Town would pay. for the use of the out -of -Town processing .facility, it can .offset costs by charging for the composting services it provides for the other town. It should be noted that regardless of the option the Town chooses to pursue, a small landfill may be required for interim disposal until that alternative becomes available. The size of this facility, in all likelihood, would be. approximately .five acres, and would be required for an estimated 2038M/14 4=63 PRHYIFD ON RECYC/ cn PAPER -three to four years. An exception. to this could be processing at the Hempstead ERF, which is the only available permitted facility that _•may have available capacity at this time. It -appears that the .most feasible alternative for the Fishers Island waste stream is to continue existing landfill procedures for. approximately I jo�2 years until .the facility reaches capacity and can be capped and. closed. After this time, the waste'and-household . recyclables would be collected and transported off, Fishers Island to- be handled with the rest of the Town's. waste. This would correspond to approximately 70 to',100- trips per year, on average, assuming approximately one trip per week during six months -of the year, Approximately two . trips per week during three. months of ' the year, and approximately three trips per week for the remaining three .months .of the. year. Assuming, a transportation cost of $500 per trip, the total yearly transportation cost would . be approximately $35,000 to $50,000 per year,- or. $117 to $167 per household, based on _+ approximately 300 households on Fishers Island. This corresponds to approximately, $2.25 to' $3.21 per household per week. The cost for processing/disposal of this. small quantity of waste would be provided for through the Town's tax base since it would be combined with the entire waste stream of the Town. The current cost for disposal ($80,000), excluding collection, corresponds to approximately $266 per household per year, or $5.11 per week. Therefore, transportation,of.this waste off Fishers Island, to .be-. handled with the Town's waste stream, could cost 32% to 43% less than. current total disposal costs. The collection.and transfer could be handled through the private sector, .or, it could -be -open to any permitted carters in the :Town who choose to offer- their services to Fishers Island residents. 4.13 Financing Alternatives This Section describes implementation options as they relate - to ownership.- procurement, wnership;procurement, financing, and servicing-, of the various Plan. component facilities and operations. 4.13.1 Ownership In the context of solid waste management planning, ownership relates to an understanding of the Plan's risks � .and an ultimate assignment of responsibility and accountability for plan implementation and control. The assignment and acceptance of risk and responsibility are to be effected in a manner best suited to -serve and protect the 2038M/14 • 4-64 _ PRIMED ONRECYCLED ED PAM public interest. The major decisions regarding ownership relate to whether ownership should be public or private.- Important subjects to be considered for this- determination are private sector incentives, technological expertise and experience, operating levels and markets, economics, control, and siting. Private Sector Incentives Private sector incentives should be balanced with public sector goals and objectives. Solid waste management plan alternatives such as resource recovery and composting rely on a consistent waste stream flow and. use an established procedure to process solid waste. As such, these component systems can be procured under traditional' private vendor operations, where the vendor charges an operation and maintenance fee, debt service fee, -and an incentive fee. A recycling facility may be procured in a similar fashion if the amount and type of materials to be processed and marketed is known, and is expected to be relatively consistent over the long-term. Technical Expertise and Experience Technological expertise and experience in solid waste processing equipment and methodologies is another .major factor in ownership decisions. Technical proficiency is generally .the province of private companies. It is the private company which will stand behind its product and provide guarantees for their performance. Municipalities and their technical consultants may not be able to provide this level of confidence in a particular technology or ,operation. It is -often advantageous for municipal. governments to rely on the private sector to help them sponsor large solid waste processing facilities. Operating Levels and Markets Due to seasonal variations in solid waste generation, major changes in operating levels may be experienced over the long-term. Variations in the amount and quality of waste . may fluctuate due to changes in material usage, citizen participation, and recyclables separation efficiency. These variations may subsequently affect market demand which may effect the economic efficiency of the facility. The ever changing face of occupational health and safety issues may also, add a certain level of uncertainty to economic efficiency. These uncertainties may make a strong case for public ownership. Governments may be able to impose greater control over the economics of solid waste 2038M/14 HE& PRfYIFD ON RECYCLED. PAPER management. A municipal government can direct the management of the private facility R .J to implement public choices as technology and markets develop, provided that the public ownership is structured with a cost -plus -incentive- fee .contract. Economics. Control, and Siting Major considerations in deciding ownership of solid waste management facilities are cost, control, and siting. Other important considerations are liability, risk, and residual value. All of these items are dependent on facility or operation financing .options which are discussed in Section 4.14. Ifprivate ownership is for taxpurposes, the municipality must yield control of the facility's residual value remaining after the service contract expires. This term is, limited to 800/6 of .the useful life of the facility. After the term expires, the municipality must pay a service or facility purchase price of fair market value. The private, owner confers 10% .to 20% equity of � the facility's capital costs. This reduces the amount of funds that i must be borrowed and consequently, reduces the debt service charge for the facility's waste disposal or processing service. However, the interest rates private borrowers must pay is often higher than the interest rates on tax supported municipal general obligation bonds. Savings from' private equity contributions to privately financed . facilities -often cannot compensate for these higher interest rates. Therefore, lower overall costs may result from public ownership. Public ownership also creates certain advantages with respect, to siting: Through certain powers of condemnation, zoning,, and permitting, municipal governments may be . more able to provide a site. = Public ownership and financing gives a municipality greater control of facility operations. Vendors will generally guarantee performance, of a facility whether it is publicly or privately owned. Municipal control of public waste management facilities has many advantages including:. o Retention of residual value of the facility beyond the initial operating period o The right to use and operate the facility o The absence of the necessity to lease the site to a private .company 2038MP 4 4-66 PRQ17'ED ON RECYCLED PAM Municipal control can be even greater where revenues from tax or user charges are used unconditionally to secure the financing for the facility. Municipalities may also negotiate contract terminations at periodic intervals as long as the vendor's guarantees are not affected. Municipalities are not at liberty to change the size and operations of a facility if the facility is privately owned. Regardless of whether a solid waste management facility is publicly owned, private operation is often chosen. Technical expertise and experience in operating technology specific facilities is often superior id the private sector. Private operations are not affected by civil service constraints. 4.13.2 Procurement and Contracting Procurement and contracting options for solid waste management facilities often depend on the choice of ownership of the facility and the facility operations. The municipality designates the responsibility for design, construction, implementation, operation, and financing of the solid waste management plan components through the procurement process. There are two principal sections of the General Municipal Law which govern the procurement process: Section 103 This section of the General Municipal Law requires the municipality to contract private services through competitive bidding, thereby limiting the general authority ' of municipalities. Section 103 requires the municipality to award the contract to the lowest bidder who supplies the required security after advertising for sealed bids. This method ensures that public works projects are procured for the lowest possible price. This method works particularly well for those projects that have well established and standardized construction and development aspects and can be administered under standard contract terms and. specifications. Section 120—w Section 103's prohibitions against negotiations with private vendors can hinder legitimate municipal concerns in solid waste management planning. Recognizing that 2038M/14 4-67 PRHVMD ON RECYCLED PAPER municipalities may benefit from awarding a contract' on the basis of other factors beside cost, the New York State, Legislature adopted Section 120-w of the General Municipal Law.. The law created a method of awarding contracts for solid waste. management systems based on an evaluation and review ' of submitted proposals. This Request for Proposals (RFP) process set forth in Section 120-w includes the following features: o Requires public and private sector review of the RFP o Requires extensive information on qualifications o Allows municipality to -evaluate the proposal on the basis of technical and - practical factors o . , Allows, negotiations with proposers and selection on the basis of responsiveness to its RFP o Requires the selected • contractor `to award its construction contracts through competitive bidding, o Limits the time frame and the grounds upon which legal challenges can be made The above features of Section 120-w are suited to the solid waste management planning efforts of the Town. The following is a discussion of the major procurement options available to the Town. Fu11=Service Procurement Full=service procurement includes a contract for the design,. -construction and start-up of a facility, and a separate contract for the operation of the facility: The term of the contract is usually specified' to coincide with the term of the bonds, issued to finance the. facility. As 'part of the RFP, the municipality describes the: background, purpose, and need for the facility and stipulates the technical, engineering, environmental, and financial data that the proposer should include in their response to the RFP. After a careful review process, the municipality selects a . vendor(s). The major advantage of - full-service procurement is that it focuses responsibility for the design, construction, and operation of the facility on the vendor(s), thereby .removing some of the risks of waste management from -the municipal government. 2038M/14 4-68 PR/MED ON RECYCLED PAPA Architect/Engineer (A/E) .In the Architect/Engineer (A/E) approach to procurement, the municipality retains an A/E firm to design a facility or system and prepare plans, specifications, and contracts. The municipality then requests bids for construction of the facility. Equipment specifications. would be prepared before the general construction contract. . This enables the facility design to be compatible with the particular equipment supplier's specific -requirements. The contracting municipality funds the preliminary expenses under A/E procurement. These expenses 'can include fees for preparing documents, surveys, subsurface exploration, and site acquisition. Following construction, the municipality takes over the operation of the facility, thereby,:assuming full control, responsibility, and risks of the facility. The A/E procurement method is often compatible with public ownership. Turnkev In turnkey procurement, the municipality does not provide specific design details, only operational parameters. Turnkey arrangements include design, construction, and start-up of the facilities.. Also included is acceptance testing. After selecting equipment, performing the work, and completing the acceptance -testing, the vendor turns the operation over to the municipality. The vendor's only subsequent responsibilities are any performance guarantees in the original contract. The municipality has the option of procuring an operations contract as well, but this is not related to the turnkey contract. . i The Town's Plan should be implemented with careful consideration to procurement options. The preferred procurement approach must address the economic, political, regulatory, and management environment as well as the performance record and reputation of the competing vendors. Also to be considered is the permitting requirements which follow successful procurement of the construction and service contracts. The primary regulatory framework Ifor permits to construct and operate solid waste management facilities is contained in 6NYCRR Part 360 regulations. Before the N.YSDEC can review applications for permits to -construct and operate waste management 2038M/14 4-69 MWED ON RECYCLED PAPER facilities, the Town would submit a comprehensive environmental review of the project pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process. 4.14 Financing Options The major approaches to financing solid waste management ;facilities and operations are private equity and debt options, and public debt financing. The preferred financing opfions depend largely on how "issues of ownership and operation have been resolved. Except for resource recovery facilities,. private financing of waste management facilities are not common because of the high cost of ' noncredit enhanced;. taxable debt. Municipalities generally absorb this as part of the. disposal service cost. Moreover, private firms are hesitant to pay for waste management facilities with direct debt because investment returns are comparatively low and there are negative impacts of such debt on their balance sheets. In addition, recent amendments to the Internal Revenue Code make investment tax credits and depreciation allowances for privatecompanies less attractive. Project Revenue Bond Financina Tax-exempt, project revenue bonds `issued by public agencies may be used to pay for. solid. waste management facilities. Service fees paid by -the communities and revenues from the facilities provide the security for such bonds. This type of debt may represent the lowest financing cost in publicly owned facilities. Privately owned facilities are often financed with a combination of equity` and tax-exempt revenue bond debt. Tax-exempt bond proceeds cannot fund costs -that are' not tax qualified.- Financing options for funding solid waste management facilities include system revenue bond financing, general obligation bond financing, and New York State Environmental Quality Bond Act (EQBA) grants. System' Revenue Bond Financiii Implementing the Town's Plan is expected to involve an integrated system of several waste management facilities. Financing, therefore, can also be on'a system. wide, basis, as opposed to individual financing of each facility. In system revenue bond financing, tipping 2038M/14 4-70 J Mffa l) ON RECYC W PAP19L fees paid by private or public haulers provides the security for the bonds. The municipality promises investors that it will exercise -waste, flow control power to guarantee waste delivery to the system's component facilities, to supply waste disposal service, and to charge sufficient fees to pay all costs of the system. In system revenue bond financing, a consistent fee can be charged on all delivered waste. Lower fees may be charged for recyclables if system costs are covered by system revenues.. Operational decisions considering the whole system may be more advantageous than considering operations of individual Plan elements. For instance, reciprocal yard waste composting revenues could conceivably subsidize transfer or processing costs. Alternatively, if it becomes uneconomical to recycle a material, a decision could be made to process or dispose of the material with less concern for the economic effects of the recycling component. The Town may also consider that documentation of the system financing may be less complicated than a project revenue bond issue. General Obligation Bond Financing In cases where solid waste management facilities are not yet in place and system revenue bonds and private financing are not available, general obligation bonds may be the most practical choice for financing certain waste 'management facilities. General obligation bonds are relatively simple, involve minimal transaction expenses, and generally, have the lowest tax-exempt interest rates. Municipalities issuing tax supported debt have the right to issue construction and operational change orders and can terminate private contracts. A drawback to this option is if the private party with the performance responsibility breaches the disposal contract and cannot pay damages, the municipality is still responsible for the bonds' debt service. This may be a substantial risk to recycling and composting vendors whose capital status is limited. New York State Environmental Quality Bond Act (EQBA) Grants EQBA grants have been awarded to several municipalities for funding of solid waste management projects. This is true for comprehensive plans as well as facility specific projects. Initially, grants were' awarded for energy recovery projects but recently have been targeted for financing source separation, recycling, and composting projects. 2038M/14 4-71 PROWMED ON RECYCLED PARER Regardless of the preferred choices for financing the. Plan, several financing agencies are available to effect the financing strategy, including the Town, the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC), the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA), or an agency or authority specifically created for .solid waste management in the Town. It should be noted that all of these financing entities have certain limits as to the types of projects they may finance. NYSERDA may only issue bonds for waste management. facilities that recover electricity. The EFC, on the other hand, may issue bonds for privately or publicly owned and operated facilities. With the exception of the Town, or a newly created solid waste management authority, any of the above financing entities would pledge project. or systemrevenues to be the security for the bonds and would not have general taxing power. If the Town elects to finance the programwith revenue bonds, State- law. requires that a. public benefit - corporation be utilized.. Municipalities are prohibited from issuing project revenue debt. A new agency or authority, specially created for solid waste management, may be given operating powers for transfer, disposal, and processing of solid waste, in addition to their power to issue debt. 4.14.1 Alternative Service Contract Fees Decisions- regarding procurement, ownership, and financing will invariably effect decisions on the contract structure of the solid, waste; management facility. and system. As described in the :previous- section, there are alternative financing structures which require careful and comprehensive consideration. For a full-service procurement, a private vendor constructs, and operates the facility. The vendor contracts with the financing entity or the municipality to provide" disposal service. If the contract is with the sponsoring municipality, the municipality agrees to a "put -or -pay" ' contract. This format of contract requires the municipality to deliver.a certain amount of waste to the facility and pay for the service: In the case where the vendor's contract is with, a financing entity, the agreement is between the financing entity and the municipality: In the absence of a "put -or -pay" contract with the municipality, the financing entity will, obtain permission from the municipality to exercise legal flow control. This guarantees that municipalities, private haulers; and ..waste' generators will deliver waste and pay for disposal. The following section describes alternative fee payment structures. 2038M/14 4-72 PRW7ED ON RECYCLED PAPER, 4.14.2 Alternative Fee Payment Structures Currently, most solid waste collection, transportation, and disp Town are paid by the waste generator to the collector/hauler. The hauler fee to pay disposal fees at the landfill. Local taxes may be the means operation of a facility, provided ,it is owned by -the municipality. Tra become more significant with increasing distance between the waste € disposal site. ` The current system . of fee payments is feasible .for a solid waste r but there are alternatives for fee payment structures. Options includ bag/tag, and user fees. Rate Averaging In rate averaging; a surcharge would be used to reduce the costs. of rate .averaging is that waste generators delivering wastes and recy the component facilities would pay more. This approach, however, establishing a regional system that may be more -economically attract: waste generators as a whole. Bag/Tae Collection System costs in the !s part of this paying for the ortation costs for and the nagement plan, rate averaging, The disadvantage clables directly to lends itself to to the Town's In this approach, Town residents purchase special- bags or tags to 'dispose of their waste. It can be within a one or two tier revenue source. .In the one tier bag/tag system, the total costs of waste collection and disposal is included in the price residents pay for the bag/tags. In such a system, the cash flow of the municipality, or contracted hauler, is increased, since these costs are paid in advance. The twotier bag/tag system involves a flat fee to pay for fixed costs and a bag/tag cost to cover variable expenses. User Fee System A user fee system features .a monthly or quarterly,, charge to residents and businesses for collection and disposal services. A flat fee may be charged based upon a . class code (i.e., one—family or multifamily dwelling). - Commercial establishments are often- charged a user fee rate determined by the number and size of cans or containers, collection frequency, and/or the time it takes the hauler to collect and dispose of the refuse or 2038M/14 4-73 PRMW ON RECYCLED PAMW recyclables. No. matter how the Townresolvesissues of ownership, procurement, and financing. of 'the integrated solid waste management plan, there is a necessity for preemptive flow control. authority: Since New York. State identifies counties and towns on Long Island as being best suited to. have jurisdiction over solid waste management, preemptive flow control -must be effected. - Waste supply contracts.. between the Town and a vendor can .be based on contracts between the Town and local municipalities, where the Town does. not- have flow control authority. In this case, .however, local municipalities could be less cooperative in' a plan with county enforcement ..of,� waste flow control. Moreover, ,administrative . entanglements resulting from "backup" -contracts between the - Town and municipalities may strengthen the case for preemptive Town control. Clearly, waste' flow control measures are not very effective -without adequate enforcement powers. 'The threat of revoking permits, licenses, and/or franchises for failure to deliver waste to -a- designated facility can be effective waste flow control measures. Civil and criminal penalties for noncompliance can augment these enforcement strategies. 4.15 Legislative/Regulatory/Legal Alternatives The following Section presents a_ discussion of the frame -work that governs solid waste management on Long Island, particularly as it pertains to the Town of Southold. The discussion presents issues that should be considered as part of the DGEIS/SEQRA process before decisions are made that will finalize the. proposed Plan/FGEIS. 4.15.1- Section 208 Plan for Lone Island The 208 Plan defined. numerous control strategies for controlling point and nonpoint pollution sources to the surface waters and ground waters of Long Island. It also made specific recommendations for reducing reliance on landfills, regulating the construction of new landfills, and controlling the expansion and upgrading of existing landfills. The Plan also recommended that wastes from rural .areas that -are too far away to be shipped to a resource recovery. facility, or 'are generated in too small quantities .to justify the development of' a new facility, be disposed in landfills. . 2038M/14 .4-74 PMNTE) ON RECYCLED PAPE, _ As' part of the 208 Plan, eight hydrogeologic zones (Zones I to VIII) were defined to assist in future planning and pollution control management decisions. Of the eight zones, Zone IV was determined to be in the Town of Southold. Fishers Island, however, was not assigned -a zone. In March 1983, the State Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, the 1990 Landfill Law which severely restricts landfilling on Long Island after December 18, 1990, by effectively banning municipal solid waste landfilling in hydrogeologic Zones I, II, and III as defined in the 208 Plan. In September 1983, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) prepared a draft Long Island Groundwater Management Program which was finalized in June 1986. This Groundwater Program was "prepared under the auspices of, and with partial funding from, the USEPA. This Program identified a number of program strategies for point and nonpoint pollution, identified critical recharge) - areas of Long Island, and presented maps indicating areas with agricultural lands and areas experiencing nitrate, organics, and pesticide contamination: The characteristics. of Hydrogeologic Zone IV found in the Town of Southold (exclusive of Fishers Island) are defined in the 208 Plan as follows: Zone , 208 Plan Location 208 Plan Characteristics IV North Fork and significant agricultural linput eastern South Fork - local water quality problems - potential for groundwater development, particularly on the South Fork - 4..15.2 NYSDEC's 208 Update in 1983 and .1986 I In June 1986, under a'75% grant from the USEPA, NYSDEC completed and certified on behalf of the Governor the Long Island Groundwater Management Program as part of the State's ongoing updating .of the State's. 208 Plan. This Plan incorporated the 208 Plan for Long Island that was completed. in 1978, and also recognized the appropriateness of landfilling in rural areas. Chapter IV, B.3 of the 1986 update to the 208 Plan stated the 2038M/14 4-75 PRQVTED ON RECYCLED PAPER o "Make resource recovery -a more viable management. program to serve as the major long-term solution for municipal solid waste from urbanized areas and deep flow recharge areas." [Note that "urbanized" areas are apparently distinguished from rural and possibly suburban.] o "It should be recognized, however, that there are areas on Long Island where landfilling of waste is more accepted than in other areas..." o "Refuse from the more rural areas on the Island, because of- its lower. rate of refuse generation and reduced likelihood of containing commercial/industrial wastes, is probably more appropriate for controlled land burial than -from the more densely developed areas." Based upon the above excerpts, the 1986 NYSDEC update to the 208 Plan provides - for special consideration for landfilling in rural areas of Long Island. The following data presents a comparison of Southold and the Five East End Towns to Long Island population densities: The data presented above clearly demonstrates the rural nature of Southold and the five East End Towns when compared to Long Island's population ,density. The population density of Nassau and Suffolk Counties combined is over six times greater than that of the. East End Towns. When considered separately, Nassau County has a density over'thirteen times greater than the East End, and over ten times greater than Southold. The density of Suffolk County as a whole is over four times that of the East End, and over . three times that of Southold. Landfilling in the East End would be consistent with the NYSDEC's 1986 update to the 208 Plan (three years after the Landfill 'Law) which concluded that for rural areas of Long Island landfilling was a "more appropriate" option than. resource recovery. 2038M/14 4-76 PRIMED ON RECYCLED PAM Total Estimated Population Median Family Area Population Density Income Acres (1989) (Persons/Acre) 1987 est. "Long Island" Total 869,946 6,957,593 7.99 (Including Brooklyn and Queens). Nassau -Suffolk 745,836 2,718,193 3.64 $41,987 Nassau Co.. -179,516 1,328,948 7.40 $45,512 Suffolk Co. 566,320 1,389,245 2.45 $38,712 5 East End Towns 212,772 114,569. 0.54 $31,760 Town of Southold 30,191 21,798 0.63 .$35,260 The data presented above clearly demonstrates the rural nature of Southold and the five East End Towns when compared to Long Island's population ,density. The population density of Nassau and Suffolk Counties combined is over six times greater than that of the. East End Towns. When considered separately, Nassau County has a density over'thirteen times greater than the East End, and over ten times greater than Southold. The density of Suffolk County as a whole is over four times that of the East End, and over . three times that of Southold. Landfilling in the East End would be consistent with the NYSDEC's 1986 update to the 208 Plan (three years after the Landfill 'Law) which concluded that for rural areas of Long Island landfilling was a "more appropriate" option than. resource recovery. 2038M/14 4-76 PRIMED ON RECYCLED PAM I ' The above information also indicates that the East End Towns have a median income 25% less than that of the total Nassau—Suffolk --average, . and ..the Town of Southold's median income is '20% less. Consequently, economic impacts of solid waste costs are substantially greater for the Town than for the remainder of the Island. The 1986 208 Plan, Update (Long. Island Groundwater Management- Program) recommended that, for the purpose of. groundwater protection and management on Long Island, the analysis should also consider Brooklyn and Queens. If these areas were included, then the total land area of Long Island would be 869,946 acres .resulting in a Long Island population density -'of 7.99 ,persons per, acre. , This figureAs over fourteen times greater than the population density of the East End Towns., 4.15.3. Governing Solid Waste There are ' numerous requirements and recommendations in certain plans, regulations, laws, and programs which affect solid waste planning, particularly .on Long Island. In many instances, it is not possible to comply with one without violating certain aspects of others. In effect, they contain provisions that are mutually exclusive. There are over a half a dozen of these plans, regulations, laws, and programs which Long Island communities must lay as cornerstones upon which they can formulate a comprehensive, integrated solid waste management plana Unfortunately, this often leads to a complicated "situation which opens communities .to challenges that prevent progress on a particular plan component that a particular group or individual is opposed to. Those solid waste management cornerstones of particular interest 'are presented below with a brief statement of their noteworthy aspects related to solid waste management decisions. 1976—SEQR: Requires evaluations of all reasonable alterna selection of a cost—effective, economically sound, environmentally considering social and community interests. Solid waste plans and pi to the SEQRA process. leading to the eptable solution :s are all subject 2038M/14 4-77 _ PRQYIEo oN RECYcLED PAPER 1978-208... Plan:. Recommended` reduced reliance on ;landfilling, but did not recommendthat it be - prohibited. " Rather, At stated that existing landfills could be upgraded:" and expanded and that only in sensitive areas. should new landfills be prohibited unless land in less' sensitive areas was not available., While : recognizing _ the need . to de-emphasize ' landfilling as the, ' primary method of disposal, the . Plan recommends landfilling waste from "rural or resort areas" that are either located too far from resource recovery plants to justify shipment, or are generatedin quantities that , are' too small to warrant the' establishment of a resource recovery facility. There is a clear 'difference and,, inconsistency .between the 208 Plan and the 1990 Landfill Law - passed in .1983. The ' 208 Plan was completed in 1978, certified by the `Governor in 1980; and approved by the USEPA In 1980. It has been used as the plan to guide programs for• the control of pollution of Long Island's ground -and surface waters. 1983-1990 Landfill Law: This Law. has been- assumed to be a, legislative enactment of the landfill .recommendations of the 208 Plan. This is definitely not the, case. _There i are numerous inconsistencies between the, two; particularly regarding landfill prohibitions ,and the 208 Plan recommendations regarding future landfilling versus the Landfill Law's � . requirements of, seven years. for eliminating landfills other than those required in conjunction with resource recovery systems. I 1983 -Draft Update to the .208"Plan for L.I. Groundwater:. Prepared, by ,NYSDEC as a draft update to the 208 Plan, this draft stated, "Refuse from .the more rural. areas on the Island, because of its lower rate of refuse generation and reduced likelihood, of containing commercial/industrial wastes; is. probably more appropriate for controlled land burial than 'for the more densely, developed areas." This Plan also recommended that NYSDEC prepare_ a solid waste plan for Long Island.. 1985 -State Solid Waste (Part 360) Regulations: These.regulations were issued by: the State NYSDEC and became effective July 1985. The regulations provided 34 pages of requirements for the. management of solid waste. " Facility requirements (12 pages) covered landfills; incinerators, landspreading of sludges :and 'septage;- composting, surface impoundments for"•liquids/semiliquids;.:and waste oil. They formed the .basis for solid waste facility planning and permitting until January 1989. - i 2038M/14 4-78 PRmw ON RECYCLED PAM � June 1986 -Final 208 Plan Update for L.I. Groundwater: This was the final document of the 1983 draft. It was completed by NYSDEC and was certified on July 7, 1986. This certification stated, "This element provides a' technically sound and economically feasible basis on which to develop, implementation programs for solutions to water quality problems." Therefore,..as a matter of policy, this became NYSDEC's operational plan for protecting Long Island's groundwater. As with the 1983'draft 208 Plan update, the 1986 final Plan update also stated, "Refuse from the more rural areas on the Island, because of its lower rate of refuse generation and reduced likelihood of containing commercial/industrial wastes, is probably more appropriate for controlled land burial than from the more densely dei eloped areas." This update stressed (as did the 1983 draft) the need for NYSDEC's preparation of a solid waste plan for Long Island. 1987-NYSDEC's State Solid Waste Management Plan: This Plan identified the • State NYSDEC's four key elements (in order) for solid waste: 1) reduction, 2) re ycling/reuse, 3) waste -to -energy, and 4) landfilling. This plan also stated that, "Rural areas may also need landfills for waste disposal." 1988 -State Legislature's Solid Waste Management Act: This Act specified the same four key elements for solid waste as the State's Plan. However, it made landfilling and waste -to -energy equal rather. than one preferred over the. other. A Guide to the Act prepared by Legislative Commission on Solid Waste stated that energy reci very might not be feasible or necessary in a location, but that it should be examined in relation to other options. This Act also required mandatory recycling by September 1992, and local solid waste plans by December 1989. December 1988 -New Part 360 Solid. Waste Regulations: These regulations (effective 12/31/88) provided 230 pages of. detailed requirements covering 14, categories of waste management areas from landfills to recycling facilities to waste oil. The regulations have become the basis for NYSDEC's review of all solid waste management. February 1989-NYSDEC's Guidelines for Solid. Waste Plans/GEIS: This NYSDEC document provided for the first time NYSDEC's guidelines on preparing solid waste plans. This also contained requirements for having a comprehensive recycling analysis prior to approval of a solidwaste permit for any solid waste facility. 2038M/14 4-79 PR01 W ON RECYC W PAPM June 1990-SCDHS' Impacts' of Landfills on Water Supply in Suffolk County: The SCDHS determined that proper planning requires a-. review of the basic- assumption underlying the Long Island Landfill Law. This assumption was that landfills pose a threat to "the quality of groundwater and therefore the quality of drinking water. Recognizing that the magnitude of this threat was not described by the law, or an environmental assessment made, than would have further defined the problem, the .SCDHS conducted a study with four specific goals: 1. -Review the impact of landfill leachate on groundwater quality 2. Review the impact of leachate on the quantity of groundwater 3. What impacts could leachate have on public water supply 4. Develop a position regarding landfill leachate. contamination ,of groundwater consistent with countywide groundwater resources. As a result of this study, the SCDHS was able to conclude that, "the continued use. of - landfills in Suffolk County .poses no significant groundwater threat to the health and safety of the public, nor will it -in any way compromise. the ability: of public water purveyors - to provide a clean' plentiful supply of potable water." Implicit in this statement is the ' SCDHS policy that .areas down gradient of landfills be : provided -with _J -public water (SCDHS, 1990). 4.15.4 Unrealistic Time Frames of Landfill Law In 1983, , the Landfill Law set an ambitious seven year time frame for the achievement of its goal of eliminating landfills (other than for 10% bypass and .residues) and replacement of landfills with resource recovery systems, which the NYSDEC has defined to be waste -to -energy facilities. Given the number of regulations, programs, and plans (including some that are inconsistent) since 1983, this was an unrealistic time frame for bringing on-line a waste -to -energy facility which complies with the numerous, regulations, - laws (including 120-w of General Municipal Law), permitting, design, construction, and start-up. A review of drawn out experiences with A number, of such projects on Long Island indicates that approximately 10 to 12 years is a more realistic time frame for implementation of a successful resource recovery, facility. 2038M/14' 4-80 PRIMED ON RECYCLED PAM Therefore, it would be difficult, if not impossible,' to. have a resource recovery facility in, time for the December 1990 deadline unless the planning for such a facility for that Town. was begun prior to 1983. This was the case for some Towns (which had limited landfill space) such as Babylon and Islip which were able to build upon the iearlier resource recovery facility planning work done in conjunction with the Multi Town effort before 1983. The Multi Town planning for resource recovery to serve the towns of Huntington, Smithtown,. Islip, and Babylon was begun in the mid 1960s, over 25 years before the December 18, 1990 deadline. Others, such as Glen Cove and Hempstead,) which were not part of Multi Town planning efforts, were already proceeding with plans for resource . recovery facilities prior to 1983. Some other Towns also had the additional benefit of being able to use the site of existing incinerator facilities (also built due to landfill space limitations) for their proposed new facilities. Even this benefit has not been sufficient to i enable Oyster Bay and Huntington to conform with the seven year time frame. Another contributor to the delays .caused by "false starts" was the lack of a State Solid Waste Management Plan for Long Island. This was recommended in the draft 208 Plan Update six months after the passage of the Landfill. Law. Delays were also encountered as • a result of the State's failed 11986 attempt to successfully site .a regional ash fill. The time frame became more unrealistic due to: 1) the lack of a State solid waste plan for Long Island, 2) not having sufficiently detailed solid waste regulations until January 1989, 3) not having a statewide solid waste plan until 1987, 4) requiring health risk assessments beginning in 1986, and, 5) requiring a comprehensive recycling analysis in January 1989. Even in those towns where, due to landfill space limitations, decisions- were made to have resource recovery facilities more than a decade before the Landfill Law .was passed, project planning, development,. environmental reviews, permitting, construction, and start-up has not been possible in a seven year period. This being the case for western towns on Long Island, the East End Towns clearly could not meet the December 1990 deadline due to their probable dependency on joining with a larger facility to the west. Therefore, lack of progress toward resource recovery in the western towns automatically excluded . any reasonable progress for the East . End Towns before thle Landfill Law deadline.: However, despite of all this, the East End Towns have made significant progress toward recycling, household hazardous waste separation and recovery, and yard waste composting under their sponsorship. They are also beginning to divert construction, demolition, and land clearing debris to private sector recycling facilities. 2038M/14 4-81 i PMIRED ON RECYCLED PAPER It should be noted that the regulatory climate from 1988 to present is very different from the conditions between 1983 and 1988: ,For the first five years there was no overall State Plan for Long Island (or the rest of the State). 'As one became available for the State, the regulatory requirements became more difficult as a result of additional restrictions. Thus, a time frame that could not be met from the start effectively became more difficult to meet by 1990. 4.15.5 Impact to Southold The State's NYSDEC 1986 update to the 208. Plan would allow Southold to have a 15 acre landfill for 20 years (double lined) to accommodate approximately 25% to, 30% of the remaining waste after implementation of a resource recovery system. that includes elements of reduction/recycling/reuse, household hazardous waste removal, and composting. If a double lined landfill is built for bypass and residue in conjunction with a solid waste composting or resource recovery facility, then a smaller • landfill would be required. The Landfill Law allows for the landfilling of, the, product of a resource. recovery system in Zone IV. Its definition . of a "resource recovery system" is one that "provides environmentally sound, management of collected solid waste through facilities . planned, designed, assembled, and constructed to maximize the potential -for resource recovery." Based on this definition, landfilling of the remaining waste after the implementation of an intensive 70% to 75% resource recovery. system that. -includes, reduction, recycling, reuse, -and composting of components of the waste stream should be permitted. Based on the above issues, various changes to the Long Island Landfill -Law have been discussed. As a result, bills were introduced in March 1990 (but did not pass) in the State Assembly and Senate to modify the law as follows: 7 o Consistent with the 1978 208 Plan, the State's 1986 Long Island Groundwater Management ' Program (certified as a 208 Plan update to the USEPA), and the SCDHS position on landfilling in Suffolk County, the five rural East End Towns - .(Riverhead, Southold, Shelter Island, Southampton, East Hampton) have the -� option of landfilling, in accordance with State Part 360 requirements for landfills, waste remaining after -reduction, recycling, and reuse. - i _J 2038M/14 4-82 mfffr .D ON RECYCLED PAPE o Consistent with the State certified and USEPA approved 1978 State's 1986 'Long Island Groundwater Management Program, c( Plan update to -the USEPA, the - State Department of Conservation is 'to complete by June 30, 1991 a Long Isla Management Plan consistent with the Long Island Compi Management Plan (as updated) for guiding future solid was planning on Long Island. 18 Plan and the tified as a 208 Environmental I Solid Waste zensive Waste management o In order to allow adequate time for compliance with this Law and recent State solid waste requirements, programs, and plans, the seven year deadline of ' this law is extended by three years to December 18,.1993. Because of the uncertainty regarding changes to the Long Island Landfill Law, possible actions for the Town have been. presented in Section 5, for they portion .of the Town's waste stream .remaining after'an intensive 70% to 75% resource. recovery system . has been implemented. • These actions .are consistent with. State policies governing, solid waste management and could be permitted regardless of the outcome of the unresolved legislative/regulatory/legal issues discussed in this section ' as long as the 25% to 30% residual waste is -considered the "by—product" of a resource recovery syst for. by.the Long Island Landfill Law and the State's Part 360 regulations. 4.15.6 , as provided On September 5, 1990, NYSDEC released a Solid Waste Management Strategy for Long Island which identified various scenarios for each of the Towns, including Southold: 'The proposed. strategy included the following suggestions for Southold:. l) .waste processed at Babylon ERF until 1997; 2) waste processed at Brookhaven CERF project after 1997; 3) recyclables processed at Brookhaven MRF ,until 1995; . 4) regional .MRF in� Southold after 1995; 5) yard waste compostables processed at Riverhead's yard waste composting operation; 6) private sector clean fill; and 7) untreatable waste landfilled in Brookhaven, with ash either transported off Long Island or disposed of in a Brookhaven ash fill. The NYSDEC suggestions and an evaluation of their appropriateness to the Town of Southold are presented on 'Table 4.15.6-1. 1 Table 4.15.6-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN NYSDEC September 5, 1990 Suggested Strategy NYSDEC Suggestion Waste processed at Babylon ERF until 1997 Waste processed at Brook- haven CERF project after 1997 Recyclables processed at Brookhaven MRF until 1995 Regional MRF in Southold after 1995 Yard waste compostables processed at Riverhead's yard waste composting operation Private sector clean fill Untreatable waste landfilled in Brookhaven, with ash either transported off Long Island or disposed of in a . Brookhaven ash fill 2038M/14 Appropriateness/Applicability to Southold Discussions and correspondence (dated May. 30, 1990 and forwarded to NYSDEC) with the Town of Babylon indicated that capacity is not available on a year round basis. Brookhaven has recently indicated that it may pursue a "no burn" option, or .utilize the Hempstead ERF. Agreed, and reflected in Southold's proposed Plan. Option for East End MRF, if feasible, is provided for in proposed Plan. Appropriate site for MRF should be subject to SEQRA siting analysis. Does not reflect NYSDEC's recent approval of Southold's own yard waste composting operation. Analysis indicates that potential for regional yard waste composting exists in Southold. Agreed, and reflected in Southold's proposed Plan. Availability of sufficient capacity has not been documented, nor have specific plans for a Brookhaven ash fill been identified. 4-84 PR/NTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Section 5 5.0 PROPOSED SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN In recognition of the need to develop and implement a program that provides long-term, cost-effective, and environmentally responsible strategies for ,the collection, processing, and disposal of solid waste, the Town of Southold has developed this Solid - Waste Management Plan/Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SWMP/DGEIS). The existing solid waste collection and disposal practices in the Town were discussed in Section 2 of the Plan/DGEIS. Section 3 provided an assessment of solid waste methodologies and management alternatives. Section 4 presented an evaluation of various implementation alternatives. In addition, Appendices C, D, F, and I contain more detailed evaluations of technical, environmental, health, and economic aspects of the various methodologies and implementation alternatives investigated for the preparation of the Plan. Based upon these analyses, the proposed Plan outlined below presents elements that are considered best suited to the needs and characteristics of the Town. With regard to costs, it should be noted that. all cost estimates contained in this Section and Appendix I are preliminary for the purpose of conducting a comparative analysis between alternatives, as is appropriate for a draft/generic planning effort. Adjusted cost estimates for comparative purposes will be provided as necessary in the final generic plan, while actual costs associated with Plan implementation will be determined as a result of detailed engineering design, supplemental environmental analyses, responses to formal procurement procedures, and the terms of final intermunicipal/contractual agreements. This Section presents the proposed Plan for the Town. The key features of the Plan include recommended elements, proposed implementation strategies, involvement of private sector, involvement of regional/neighboring jurisdictions, and provisions for public education, information, and involvement. Table 5.2-1, at the end of Section 5.2, contains a summary of the proposed Plan. 5.1 Proposed Resource Recovery System The proposed Plan contains a number of elements comprising a resource recovery system that could reduce/recycle/reuse up to 70% to 75% of the total waste stream over the life of the Plan (through the year 2015). The proposed resource recovery system includes waste reduction, intensive household. and commercial/institutional recycling., major household appliances recycling, tire recycling, household hazardous waste recovery, 0020R/13 5-1 PRWIFD ON RECYCLED PAPER land clearing and construction and demolition debris recycling, and composting of yard waste, sludge, and. low—grade paper. The specific materials addressed in the Plan's resource recovery- system include: o Newspaper o Ferrous Metals o, Magazines o Nonferrous Metals _ o Corrugated/Brown Bags o Three Colors of Glass o Other Paperboard o Wood and Lumber o Office Paper o Asphalt o Low—Grade (Other) Paper, o- Concrete/Brick o 'PET, HDPE; o Tires and Other Plastics., o Dirt o Yard Wastes o Textiles o Sludge o Household Hazardous Wastes o • Sand/Sod o Batteries (Vehicle and Household) The following sections (5.1.:.1 through 5.1.8) describe the components of the Town's i resource recovery system. 5.1.1 Waste Reduction Waste reduction refers to the reduction of solid waste prior to. disposal. This is an �? important consideration since it may. affect the sizing or magnitude .of individual operations and facilities described in the Plan. Reduction of the volume of waste could be achieved through Town• support of legislation and other initiatives that aim to, encourage residential, commercial, industrial, and 'institutional establishments: to reduce waste generation at the source or point of packaging. This would effectively reduce the volume - of .waste that the Town would need to, make provisions for with regard to. collection, 1 processing, disposal, administration, and financing. Regarding the legislative aspects of waste reduction, the Town would .support laws proposed by the County, State, and Federal governments that strive to: o Reduce the volume and type of packaging. materials, especially those constituted of plastics,, which are essentially nonbiodegradable, nonreusable, +' and nonrecyclable 0020R/13 PRNVJF.D ON RECYC/ EO PAPER i o Expand the current beverage container., deposit law to include a wider array of containers o Encourage greater use of recycled materials, or products packaged in recycled or recyclable. materials o Promote the development of household hazardous waste removal programs o Assist and encourage industrial, commercial, and institutional generators to undertake reduction and recycling programs o Assist and encourage homeowners .to undertake backyard composting The Town would also support legislative efforts to establish deposits on batteries as a means of reducing the concentration of metals in various products and residues of solid waste processing. Batteries constitute an easily removable- source , of potential contamination from the waste stream. In addition to legislative actions, all sectors of the Town (public, commercial, industrial, and institutional establishments) would be encouraged by the Town to reduce the generation of waste which would -ultimately become . the responsibility of the Town to handle and dispose. This -can be accomplished through local and regional public education programs coordinated by the State. For example, homeowners and landscapers should be encouraged to reuse grass clippings, leaves, and chipped brush' as compost and mulch on-site rather than bagging and disposing, these materials at a solid waste management facility. The NYSDEC estimates, that implementation of statewide and local waste reduction efforts, along with continued and expanded voluntary programs and, other" legislative actions, could reduce solid waste generation by approximately 8% to 10%. This estimate is contained in the State's 1987 Solid Waste Management Plan (and updates) as a statewide goal and is. incorporated as one of the goals of the Town's proposed Plan. It is estimated that over the long-term approximately 10% of the Town's waste stream would be reduced by this element of the proposed Plan. 0020R/13' 5-3 PR9fMD ON RECYCLM PAPER 5.1_.2 , Household and Commercial/Institutional Recvclin Program', A major, component _of the proposed Plan 'is a ' comprehensive. recycling program which .,would ,provide for the recovery and utilization of reusable "waste" resources. The Plan proposes a . mandatory source .separation program for recyclable materials generated in the residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors of the Town. Recyclable, materials should be source separated and collected, or privately dropped off, in a segregated manner. , In. the short-term, . the segregation of the; .various recyclables is an interim step that is part of -the current •voluntary curbside recycling program that has been initiated in -the' Town.' Over the long—term, recyclables should be- source separated from the rest of the waste stream, but not necessarily - segregated. Collection and, transfer of recyclables has proven to .be more .cost—effective when.commingled. The Brookhaven Materials ,Recycling Facility (MRF) is the recommended facility that would . process the Town's collected recyclables. This facility is expected to ,have the ability to process either, segregated or commingled - deliveries of materials:' It has° been demonstrated that mandatory recycling programs are more effective than voluntary {i programs. The comprehensive recycling analysis for the Town presents a detailed analysis and discussion of the proposed recycling, activities and is presented in Appendix` F. The , materials initially targeted for. source separation, curbside collection, and. . marketing include paper. (newspaper. and. corrugated cardboard); color segregated 'glass, plastics; (PET, and HDPE), and ferrous and nonferrous metal containers. Leaves, -grass, clippings, and brush should also be sourceseparated for' the purpose of composting. In addition, separation should be required for .land clearing, debris, construction and demolition debris; white goods (major household appliances), tires,, and . household hazardous waste. As previously discussed; commercial/industrial ,t'oxic or hazardous waste is currently,regulated for proper handling and. disposal by Federal. and, State _law. These materials, should. not, be handled by the Town and would° be recycled or processed at private sector .facilities. The .Plan proposes to send collected recyclables to the Brookhaven MRF,. "which is . nearing completion. . The Town of Brookhaven has indicated that its MRF will have the capacity to accommodate recyclable materials from Southold. The Brookhaven facility is regional expected to be operational in 1991. If an East End re MRF _ g� (public or private) is ; � 0020R/13 5-4 PRHV ED ON RECYaED PAPER developed in the long-term, Southold, would compare the costs and contracted terms of using the Brookhaven -MRF to those of the regional facility. If an East End facility is not built, recyclable materials would 'continue to be sent to the Brookhaven MRF. The Town proposes to have its mandatory source separation and recycling programa in place by late 1990 to coincide with the, arrangements to use the Brookhaven MRF. It is recommended that the ultimate recycling program be, implemented in two stages. During the first stage, or interim phase (late 1990 ,through late 1991), Southold would. enact a Townwide� mandatory recycling ordinance to - become effective in early 1991, and negotiate draft agreement terms with Brookhaven for use of the Brookhaven MRF. In addition, Southold would continue to operate a recycling transfer area within the Town to process its collected recyclables and utilize available markets while the Brookhaven MRF is permitted and constructed. The existing recycling area on Fishers Island would be - expanded to accept more categories of materials. Recyclables would be transported off Fishers Island to be processed with the rest of the Town's recyclables at the Brookhaven MRF. In the second stage, or long-term phase (beginning in early 1992), the Town would construct a .recycling transfer system (if necessary) to transport recyclables that are acceptable to -the Brookhaven MRF. This can be accomplished through three possible alternatives: 1) private sector total transfer services (including equipment and needed structures), 2) Town sponsored permitting system and required structures with private sector operation, or 3) total.Town sponsored permitting system and operation. Future long-term recycling projections for the Town, including Fishers Island, indicate that approximately 23%, or 33 tons per day, of the total waste stream could be recovered through this Plan element by 1995 (not including' C&D, land clearing debris, white goods, tires, and household. hazardous waste). The 1990 preliminary cost estimates of this Plan element indicate that. recycling costs could range from $25 to $50 per ton ($5 million to.$13• million over the 20 year planning period); depending on -transportation- costs and the .fee negotiated with the. Town of Brookhaven. 0020R/13 5-5 PRMW ON RECYCLED PAPER 5A.3 Recycling: Major Household Appliances Another aspect ,of the Plan's resource recovery system, recommend's that discarded major household appliances (also referred to. as "white goods") continue to be temporarily stockpiled and transferred on a regular basis to private recycling facilities. White goods, comprising approximately, 1 % of, the waste stream, include discarded refrigerators, washing machines, dryers, stoves, etc. The 1990 preliminary cost estimates indicate that - this Plan element could cost up to $10 per ton. Depending on - markets, revenues, could be generated from this material. 5.1.4 Recycling: Tires The proppsed-:Plan, also includes discarded tire recycling., 'It is recommended that a designated portion- of the existing landfill site be used to temporarily stockpile tires for shipmentppropriate , -to a reprocessing or recycling facilities. A similar -area should be-�' maintained on Fishers Island. The .'ternporary stockpile operations should be sized to stockpile up,to 1,000 tires at any given timei -,Using an assumed, generally Accepted generation -rate of one tire per person per er year for the Town's population, of 21,798 approximately 22,000 tires, per, year 'could require disposal. Alternatively, using an estimated factor for tires in the residential waste stream of,0.64 tons per day (based on 1990 scale .house data), with an assumed .weiglit -of 25, pounds per -tire an average of approximately 19,000 tires per year could require proper disposal. Based on these estimates, it -may be,.necessary to size a. tire stockpile-, And transfer operation to handle between 19,000 and 22,000 tires per year. This would correspond to an average -annual transfer ai ane6ment'of'anni-oximatelv 20 shipments per year (1 000 tires per shipment) or approximately, one shipment ,every 2 and 1/1 weeks, with allowance's for more frequent shipments during certain peak periods.. As discussed in Section 3, there are, private processing markets currently 'Available that would accept the tires for -recycling. The approximate cost of 'this Plan ele"m ent is — estimated to range from $40 to $65 per ton,,' depending on. the 'contractual arrangements with the selected tire processor. - Approximately 1% •of the total. waste stream is covered, by this Plan element. 5.1.5 Recycling: Household Hazardous Waste Successful and effective household hazardous waste removal programs, known by the acronym S.T.O.P. (Stop Throwing Out Pollutants), have been shown to be environmentally sound elements of solid waste management systems. A S.T.O.P. program .allows for convenient and safe disposal of hazardous chemical wastes found in homes. Although household hazardous wastes typically comprise less than 1 % of a municipality's total waste stream, the removal of these materials from the waste stream is important and recommended as part of the Town's solid waste Plan. It is recommended that these wastes be removed to prevent.. them from entering, and potentially impacting, the , environment. Removal of these wastes also reduces the risks and hazards associated with processing or disposing these wastes at solid waste management facilities. Continued operation of the .Town's permanent S.T.O.P. program will provide residents with a continuous, environmentally safe disposal alternative for unwanted chemical .products originating in the home. The daily operation provided by this permanent, full-time facility make participation in the S.T.O.P. program more convenient than periodically scheduled S.T.O.P. days. The permanent facility, centrally located in the Town, provides residents with a convenient drop-off site for these materials. For an area the size of Fishers Island, the development of a full-time S.T.O.P. program and permanent facility would be both impractical and unnecessary. Consequently, it is recommended that a minimum of two collection "events" per year be held on Fishers Island to remove this material from the waste stream. The S'.T.O.P. program will allow for the collection of such household hazardous wastes as: o Adhesives o Paint Removers o Alcohol o. Paint Thinners o Antifreeze o Pesticides o Brake Fluid o Petroleum Based Solvents o Charcoal Lighter Fluid . , o Photographic Chemicals and Supplies o Cleaning Solvents o, Plant and Insect Spray o Degreasers o Pool Chemicals, 0020R/13 5-7 PRN7ED ON RECYa-ED PAPER o Fertilizers o Solvents o Gasoline o Spot Removers o Herbicides -o Stain and Varnishes o Kerosene o'. Wood Preservatives o Paints o Unknown/Uniabeled Containers The resource recovery system proposed in the Town's Plan recommends that the Town work with the East End Recycling Association toward. implementing' an extensive public awareness, participation, and education program. designed to provide 'information on the importance of properly disposing hazardous materials and the procedures to .be followed. The Town's S.T.O.P. program is consistent with the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan:guidelines since it can effectively help reduce the quantity of hazardous wastes entering the waste stream. Additionally, the S.T.O.P. program is expected to increase environmental consciousness and 'encourage residents' to segregate and recycle wastes rather than discard them. It is estimated that approximately 1% of the waste stream will be covered by. this Plan element. The Town currently pays '$200 to $540 per 55—gallon drum for disposal'of this waste, depending on. whether or not the drum contains pesticides or aerosol.'roducts.. 5.1.6 - Recycling: Construction and Demolition Debris The development, planning, permitting, and capital cost 'of ' a construction and demolition debris processing facility is expected to be more cost—effective if it is handled by the private sector rather than the. Town. Consequently, it is recommended in the proposed Plan that this waste no longer be accepted at Town disposal facilities. The recycling/processing of this waste -should become the responsibility of the private sector, as is the case in most Towns on Long Island. This would help to maximize the efficiency of recycling this .material. Concrete, rocks, bricks, asphalt, .lumber, and pallets are among the components of C&D debris that can be processed and recycled. Current 1990 cost estimates of private sector processing/recycling of this component of the waste stream are in the range of $55 to $115 per ton. It is estimated that approximately 15% of the waste stream is comprised of commercially generated construction and demolition debris, that could be recovered by this Plan element.' 002012/13 5-8 PJ?BV FD ON RECYCLED PAPER It is recommended that residentially. (homeowner) generated clean material remain the responsibility of the Town for :a three to five year period. To this end, a two acre (or less) clean fill is recommended as .an interim measure to "reclaim" a borrow area (depression) at. the existing landfill where sand mining has taken place. Small volumes of clean materials from residential sources could be disposed of in a portion of the borrow area. Over the long-term, private recycling. and disposal options would be utilized by the generators of this waste. Transfer services to private sector facilities' could be provided by the Town for residentially generated materials after the borrow area has been reclaimed by the clean fill. There are. several concrete pits on the western portion of Fishers Island that could be used for disposal of the small quantity of C&D debris generated on the island. This land could be reclaimed. for future use through .the burial of clean fill in accordance with Part 360-8.6(c). Once these areas .are brought to grade,..the processing of this material would be handled by the private. sector. In addition, contractors on Fishers Island would be encouraged to dispose of this material on-site in accordance with Part 360-8.6(b). 5.1.7 Recycling: Land Clearing Debris Similar to construction and demolition debris, it is recommended as part of the Proposed Plan that the Town no longer.accept land clearing debris at. Town facilities. This material would become the responsibility of the private sector with generators responsible -for identifying and utilizing appropriate recycling/processing/ disposal facilities. It is estimated that 15% of the Town's waste stream is comprised .of commercially generated land clearing debris that could be recovered, under this -portion of the proposed Plan. The 1990 estimated cost . for private sector processing/recycling of this component of the waste stream is in the range of $55 to $115 per ton. It is recommended that Fishers Island dispose of this material in a less than two acre clean fill. In addition, new developments on Fishers Island should be encouraged to use land clearing debris generated on-site for grade adjustment in accordance with Part 360-8.6(b). 5.1.8 Recycling: Yard Waste Composting According to the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan guidelines and the New York State Solid Waste Management Act, composting is one of a variety of methods 0020R/13 5-9 PRDV= ON RECYCLEO PAPER to reduce- -the waste stream and promote recycling of resources. Accordingly; the Town recommends that the existing yard waste . composting operation become part of the . long-term Plan, and that it be expanded . to accommodate all of the Town's leaves and. brush. 'Additionally, it is recommended that an evaluation be made of. a possible expansion to create a, regional or subregional operation. It is also recommended that there be a limited demonstration sludge and low-grade paper cocomposting pilot effort to determine the long-term feasibility of composting these materials:. The cocomposting operation would evaluate the, effectiveness .of sludge as a 'nitrogen source . to facilitate 'the, decomposition' and would also test the marketability of this type "of compost -product. If this demonstration. project results in a marketable end product, this process should be incorporated into the long-term Plan,for the Town. The successful cocomposting and marketing of yard waste with sewage sludge and low-grade paper could provide a cost-effective method of converting solid waste into a reusable end product, and possibly_ - reducing the use of produced or synthetic fertilizers in the Town: Backyard and on-site i composting of yard waste by homeowners and landscapers is also recommended under. this element as a method of °minimizing -the required size 'of the Town's yard waste' composting operation. Portions of the existing landfill site should be evaluated for use as additional yard waste composting capacity. An expansion of the yard waste composting operations could - enable the Town to make its composting operations available to. western Towns, or be part of a subregional yard waste composting effort with one or more East End Towns.. It . is :'recommended that the Town participate in an intermunicipal agreement for. sending its recyclables and/or mixed waste 'to another Town for processing, while accepting a similar or agreed upon tonnage of yard waste for composting in return. It is -recommended that on Fishers Island there be a small scale,(less. than 3,000 cubic yards) composting operation for yard waste. This is the preferred alternative when compared to sending this material to the existing operation at the Town's solid waste complex in Cutchogue. Consistent with the goals of the proposed Plan, landscapers should be 'encouraged by the Town to maintain their own compost piles, or perform this service on-site for their customers. Larger landscaping or land clearing operations should chip brush for ground cover and other uses. It is further recommended that the Town implement a public _1 education program. to increase the local demand for end products from both backyard and " Town compost operations. Preliminary 1990 cost. projections of this Plan element depend 0020R/13 - 5-10 PRfiV EO ON RECYCLED PAPER --1 on whether the facility is sized to accommodate out -of -Town yard waste. Current . estimates range between $20 and $30 per ton. Approximately 10% ,of the Town's total ,. waste stream could be recovered as part of this Plan element. 5.2 Proposed Residual Waste Management The recommended resource recovery system portion of the Plan discussed above is expected to effectively reduce/recycle/reuse (including composting) approximately 70% to 756/6 of the Town's total . waste. stream, provided that relatively high participation rates are achieved and markets are available. What follows is a discussion of the -recommended actions for the processing and/or , disposal of the 25% to 30% residual waste remaining after implementation of the proposed resource recovery. system. Based upon the analysis conducted as part of the solid waste planning effort, a staged plan for the 25%, to 30% residual waste is recommended. The residual waste portion of the Plan will consist of a long-term. phase and a short-term phase. As a result of the size of the Town and uncertainties regarding the Landfill Law and solid waste projects in .other Long Island towns, the long-term phase is divided into three stages (1996-2002, 2003-2009, and 2010-2015). The, short-term phase. (1992=1995) consists of actions that will provide for � continued planning to allow for changes in solid waste projects in other towns, and will reflect a cautious and flexible approach to the Town's decision making. In addition, the residual .waste portion of the Plan contains a recommended actions for the interim period (1990-1992), that will allow for initial Plan start-up. The three stages of the long-term phase. will each .be approximately six to .seven years in duration. . This will provide for a periodic evaluation of alternative processing/disposal options for the 25% to 30% residual waste; and allow the Town to pursue a more cost-effective option, should one become available during any one of the three stages. At the end of each stage, a Plan update would be prepared, at least with _ respect to the residual waste" portion of the Town's Plan. This would reflect any new and emerging technologies and changes in the currently proposed processing/disposal options in other towns, particularly the larger western towns. Based upon the current (1990) DGEIS analysis, the preferred option for handling the residual waste would be most efficiently achieved at an energy recovery facility (ERF) in 0020R/13 5-11 PRBV ED ON RECYCLED PAPER -one of the Towns to the west, , with . reciprocal yard waste composting ata regional yard waste composting operation in Southold. - As part of a contract , with the town having the energy recovery facility, it is recommended that Southold negotiate terms whereby it would accept an equal quantity of yard waste for composting. Since Southold would be expected to pay a tip: fee at the energy recovery facility, fees collected at the composting operation would be used. to offset processing costs at the energy recovery facility. This option .is attractive since it 'would ,not , require a major capital investment by the' Town for 9, solid waste facility other than a significant expansion of the,existing yard. waste composting operation. This waste exchange option may be difficult to. implement as -'a result of the complex -intermunicipal negotiations and agreements that must be 'set in place. Consequently, a strong -NYSDEC role as a facilitator would be essential for the success of this option in any, or all, of the three stages of the long-term phase., If . the Town -is . unable to implement a yardwaste exchange arrangement` with. a town - to the west having or proposing -an energy recovery .facility with : sufficient capacity, then, a 15 acre landfill (needed for.the 20 year period 1996-2015), to be implemented in three five acre cells, would become the preferred option. The new, state-of-the-art landfill would be double lined and would feature • dual leachate collection and treatment systems and methane recovery. - The first five acre cell would be.sufficient to dispose of the 25% -to 30% residual waste for the 'first stage of, the long-term phase- (1996-2002). During this period, the evaluationof possible' yard waste exchange arrangementswith towns .in the area having energy recovery. processing facilities would continue for possible utilization during the second stage. of the long- term phase (2003-2009). If a' suitable -facility to- - process the remaining waste is not found to exist before -the end .of the first 6 to 7 year stage, a second five "acre landfill cell would be constructed. for use, during the second stage of the long-term phase (2003-2009). This would be followed by a third five acre landfill if the. ongoing evaluation indicates that it would be necessary to continue landfilling for the final long-term stage of -the-Plan (through 2015). If both the yard wasteexchange and landfill options prove unfeasible, then seasonal, energy recovery, processing at a town to the west.. that has an energy recovery facility is the recommended option. Under this alternative, the Town would utilize available 5-12. capacity at the energy recovery facility during off-peak periods (presumably 6 "winter" months) in conjunction with landfilling of the residual waste at a new Town landfill during peak periods (presumably 6 "summer" months) when capacity would not be available. As with the previous preferred options, the Town would .continue to evaluate alternatives that might become available for possible implementation in a subsequent. stage of the long-term phase. It should also be stressed that this -regional cooperative approach (consistent with DEC's promotion of intermunicipal cooperation) would be contingent upon either: 1) the implementation of a fourth unit expansion at the Huntington/Smithtown facility; 2) a third unit expansion at the Babylon. facility; or 3) the construction of the previously proposed Brookhaven Composting/Energy. Recovery Facility (CERF). Recent reports, however, indicate that Brookhaven is considering processing 'its solid waste at the Hempstead energy recovery facility instead of going forward with the CERF project. In addition, the fourth unit analyses for Huntington/Smithtown have not been completed, and a Babylon third unit has not been officially proposed. As a result of these uncertainties, Southold should simultaneously proceed with evaluations of any permitted private sector solid waste ventures in the area to determine their feasibility in satisfying the Town's needs with .regard to the 25% to 30% residual waste. The implementation of this multistaged approach would allow: for disposal of the 25% to 30% residual waste remaining after the implementation of the. Town's resource recovery system without committing to lined landfilling for the full life of the proposed Plan. As part of this staged approach, the proposed Plan would be updated with respect to residuals disposal prior to each stage. The development of five acre incremental landfill cells, sufficient for 6 to 7 "year intervals, would allow for .a continuous evaluation of energy recovery alternatives and .private sector ventures (possibly including solid waste composting) that may become viable in the future. In the short-term phase of the Plan (1992-1995),, it is recommended that the Town construct a new, five acre lined landfill for residual waste disposal.. The new lined five acre landfill would be located on Town owned land at the existing .landfill complex and . would feature a double. composite liner system, dual leachate collection and treatment systems, and methane recovery. This new landfill would provide for the disposal of the 25% to 30% residual waste until the I Town can take the necessary steps to°implement the preferred long-term option, and is expected to have a useful life of approximately four to five years, depending on levels of recycling. 0020R/13 5-13 MffaW ON RECYCLED PAPER For the shorn and long-term phases of the Plan to be implemented, a .two year extension (through legislative, regulatory; or legal action) of - the - landfill- closure date- mandated ate,mandated by ,the Long Island Landfill Law would be necessary for , continued, but reduced, landfilling at the current site In. the interim period (19.904992) until the new five acre lined landfill (short-term phase) is permitted and completed. . Continued use of Southold's existing landfill would also allow,. for it to achieve the desired configuration and -.contour elevations for proper closure. and capping. This two year extension would also provide -for interim disposal and avoid long haul. This would avoid travel through the.- western ' towns and New York City, and would riot result in, out-of-state -or upstate exportation. This. arrangement would conform to the Landfill . Law's provision allowing continued landfilling during implementation ;of a ,resource recovery system . if there is no energy recovery processing available to the, Town. •If a landfill' extension is not granted, then long-haul of � the Town's waste off of Long Island would be necessary until. the first five acre, cell is completed. " As part of- the . 25% to 30% residual portion of the Plan,, it is recommended that Fishers . Island continue current landfill procedures for approximately 1 to 2 years until the existing landfill . (which is relatively flat) reaches capacity and can- be capped and closed. After that time, the mixed waste and separated recyclables could be transported directly off of Fishers Island using collection vehicles rather than a transfer operation -"and handled: with the rest of the Town's waste stream. This, arrangement for Fishers Island" -would -correspond to approximately, 70 to 100 trips per year, on average, assuming approximately one trip per week' during six months of the year; approximately two .trips per week during three -months of .the year, and approximately three trips per week for the remaining three months of the year.. The transportation cost would be offset by the. elimination of the current landfilling and leasing costs on Fishers Island. The future landfill/disposal with ' the rest of the Town's waste. could be covered through the Town's tax base since it would be combined with the total waste 'stream pf the Town. .The collection .and transportation could be handled by the, Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District, or it could be open to. any Town permitted carters who choose to offer services to residents on Fishers Island. 0020R113. 5-14 PRMED ON RECYCLED PAPER - Initial cost estimates were prepared as part of a preliminary cost analysis of various long—term processing/disposal options available to the Town. Processing at a western Long Island town's energy recovery facility with reciprocal yard waste composting, identified as the preferred option, has 20 year costs (1990 dollars) ranging from $18 million to $34 million ($60 to $94 per ton) if the host town is responsible for residuals disposal. Costs for developing a new landfill in three five acre stages, identified as the second ranked long—term option, would range from $26 million to $29 million ($82 to $89 per ton) over the 20 year period. 0 Seasonal processing at the proposed Brookhaven CERF (if implemented), in conjunction with landfilling in a new lined Town landfill during peak periods of the year. when capacity is not available, . is the third ranked option, with' 1990 costs ranging from $26 million to $34 million ($88 to $94 per ton) over the 20 year period of the long—term portion of the Plan. If seasonal processing is carried out with the Towns of Huntington or Babylon, it would result in 1990 costs ranging from $27 million to $59 million ($90 to $141 per ton). These preliminary estimates are presented in 1990 ' dollars and are preliminary for the purpose of conducting a- comparative analysis between alternatives, and will be updated as necessary in the final Plan/FGEIS. Final estimated costs will be determined as a result of detailed engineering design, supplemental EIS analysis, responses to formal procurement procedures, and terms of intermunicipal/contractual agreements. Table 5.2-1 presents a summary of both the proposed resource recovery system and the residual waste portion of the proposed Plan. 5.3 Consistency with State Policies 5.3.1 State Solid Waste Management Plan The proposed Plan addresses the issues that are covered in the State's Solid Waste Management Plan prepared by NYSDEC. The proposed Plan for the Town of Southold is consistent with the State's Plan regarding the need to reduce the generation of waste, recycle and compost as much of the waste stream as possible, and maximize the reuse of waste materials. In identifying recycling and reuse in . its hierarchy of solid 'waste management strategies, the State's Plan presents a waste reduction/recycling goal of 50% to be achieved by 1997. The Town's proposed Plan identifies a maximum potential reduction/ 0020R/13 5-15 PRPiTED ON RECYC/ F'n PAPER Table 5.2-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DRAFT SOLID WASTE'MANAGEMENT PLAN (1990.thru 2015) BASE PLAN: RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM FOR 70% TO 75% OF THE WASTE STREAM WASTE REDUCnON . ' 10% ENCOURAGE EFFORTS TO: • REDUCE PACKAGING MATERIALS • EXPAND THE CURRENT BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT LAW • INCREASE USE OF RECYCLED MATERIALS • INCREASE USE OF REUSABLE PRODUCTS & PACKAGING Me., RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES) • EXPAND LEGISLATION TO INCLUDE DEPOSITS FOR BATTERIES & TIRES • INCREASE PRODUCT SUBSTITUTION •• PROMOTE TECHNOLOGY MODIFICATION REUSE/RECYCLING/COMPOSTING PROGRAM 60% to 65%, • CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECYCLING (15%) 21 tpd in 1995 to 28 tpd in 2015 Recycling & Processing at a Private Facility On-site Land Disposal and < 2 Acte Clean Fill on Fishers Island • LAND CLEARING DEBRIS RECYCLING (15 %) 21 tpd in 1995 to 28 tpd in 2015 Recycling & Processing at a Private Facility On-site Land Disposal and < 2 Acre Clean Fill for New Development on Fishers Island YARD WASTE COMPOSTING (10%) 14 tpd in 1995 to 19 tpd in 2015 Townwide Leaf Composting Facility Option for Expansion to Accommodate Out -of -Town Yard Wastes Pilot Program for Co-canposting of Sludge and Low. Grade Paper With Yard Waste Homcowner/Landseaper Backyard Composting of Leaves, Grass, & Brush Discourage Pick-up of Grass Clippings Small Scale Yard Waste Composting Operation & On -lot Composting by Landscapers on Individual Properties on Fishers Island. • HOUSEHOLD APPLIANCES RECYCLING (1 %) I tpd in 1995 to 2 tpd in 2015 Stockpile and Transfer to a Private Recycling Center. Stoves, Refrigerators, Hearers, etc. Stockpiled and then Shipped off Fishers Island • HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE RECYCLING (<05%) OS tpd in 1995 to 1 tpd in 2015 Full Time Household Hazardous_ Waste Drop-off ("S.T.O.P."): Paints, Cleaners, Thinners, etc. Minimum of Two Collection "Events" Per Year on Fishers Island • TIRE RECYCLING (<05%) OS tpd in 1995 to I tpd in 2015 Stockpile and Transfer to Out -of -Town Tire Recycling/ Processing Facility Stockpiled and then Shipped off Fishers Island • AGRICULTURAL/COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONAL RECYCLING (15%) 21 tpd in 1995 to 28 tpd in 2015 Town and Private Sector Reduction, Reuse and Recycling Programs (Offices, Stores, Retail Outlets, etc.) Sand/Sod Reuse - Town and Private Sector Removal and Recycling of Corrugated • RESIDENTIAL RECYCLING (3% TO 9%) 4 tpd to 11 tpd in 1995, 6 tpd to 15 tpd in 2015 Use Brookhaven Recycling Facility for Initial 3 to 5 Year Period If an East End Center is not Developed, Continue to Use Brookhaven Recycling Facility or Similar Facility for 3 to 5 Year Increments Recycling Rolloff Bins on Fishers Island Expanded to Include Plastics and Corrugated then Shipped off Fishers Island • Begin Agressive Implementation of Base Plan to Achieve 70% to 75% Reducion/Recycling/Reuse Goal by 1995. • Begin 2 Year Phase Out of Existing Landfill (and Fishers Island Landfill) to Allow for Proper Grading to Ensure Acceptable Slopes for Capping. Requhes 2 year extension to Landfill Law deadline. • Implement Hydrogeologic Investigation in 1990 and 1991 to Support Capping and Closure Plans for Existing Landfill. • Submit in 1991, for NYSDEC Approval, Closurc and Capping Plan for Existing Landfill. 25% TO 30% RESIDUAL WASTE PROCESSING/DISPOSAL OPTIONS" 25% to 30% SHORT TERM (1992 THRU M5)- - 34 TPD to 41 TPD in 1992 to 35 TPD to 43 TPD in 1995 6 Develop New, 5 Acre Lined Landfill at Existing Solid Waste Disposal Complex • Evaluate Feasibility of Long Term Options Below. Continuously Compare to Any Permitted Private Sector Ventures that Become Available LONG TERM W996 THRU 2015) ' - 36 TPD to 43 TPD in1995 to 46 TPD to 56 TPD in 2015 Implement in three 6 to 7 Year Stages one of the options below (in order of preference). If a mote cost-effective private sector venture in the area is permitted, hold in abeyance implementation of the following stage(s). Update plan for residual waste prior to end of each stage. • TOP RANKED: YARD WASTE EXCHANGE Use western 1-1. Town ERF/CEP F (possibly Brookhaven, Huntington/ Smithtown, or Babylon, if capacity is made available). ERF/CERF Responsible for Bypass/Residuals Disposal Fees Collected at Southold's Yard Waste Composting Facility Used to Offset Costs Associated with Out -of -Town ERF/CERF Processing Requires DEC Assistance in Facilitating and Promoting Exchange Arrangement with Western Town(s) • 2— RANKED: NEW. LINED TOWN LANDFILL* - Develop New Landfill in 5 Acre Stages each for 6 to 7 Year Periods, or Longer if Recycling Efforts we Higher than Expected • 3- RANKED: SEASONAL OUT-OF-TOWN ENERGY RECOVERY PROCESSING WITH NEW, LINED TOWN LANDFILL- - Develop New Landfill in 5 Acre Stages (each with 10 Year Life) to be Used in Conjuction with Seasonal ERF/CERF Processing - Utilize Seasonally Available Capacity at ERF/CERF • Acquire through Appropriate Procedures, Available State EQBA Assistance Funds -and County Saks Tax Assistance Funds for Closure and Capping of Existing Landfill. • Continue Use of Remaining Capacity at Fishers Island Landfill (2 to 3 Years) for Non-recyclable/Non-reusable Waste. • Prepare EIS and Part 360 Permit Application for New, 5 Acre Lined Landfill to be Used for Short -Tenn Note: Requires legal, regulatory, or legislative determination that 25% to 30% residual disposal is consistent with landfilling allowances in Landfill Law. "Includes any of Fishers Island waste delivered to Town facilities. recycling/reuse goal of 70% to 75% to be targeted for achievement by 1995. The proposed goal is 50% higher and two years earlier than- the proposed State goal. Achievement of these goals, however, is clearly linked to a number of -State actions, particularly on 10% waste reduction and timely approvals of permits. These goals are also linked to high levels of public participation and strict enforcement of mandatory programs as well as consistent. markets. State achievement of its goals would make the attainment of the proposed Plan's high levels of waste reduction/recycling more likely. 5.3.2, State Solid Waste Management Act In "1980, the Legislature directed NYSDEC to prepare a solid waste management plan for the State, and to update this plan annually. The first plan was completed in 1987, and identified a. hierarchy of 'Solid' waste 'management alternatives that placed waste reduction first, followed by recycling, energy recovery, and landfilling. However, the Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 did not indicate that energy recovery had to , be selected over landfilling. As a result, the State has accepted, particularly in rural areas of the State, landfilling without energy recovery. Thus, the Act has been interpreted to give consideration to both landfilling and energy recovery; based on environmental, economic, and social factors. The proposed Solid Waste Management Plan for the Town of Southold complies with the State's Solid Waste Management Act by including all key features and provisions of the Act. 5.3.3. Long Island Landfill Law The Long Island Landfill Law based its limitations on landfilling primarily on the hydrogeologic zone designations of the Long Island' Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Plan) completed in 1978. These zones do not have rigid boundaries; they are defined by existing water quality conditions in an area, and must be updated as more recent data is obtained. Recent maps prepared by NYSDEC and SCDHS place the existing Town landfill in ' Hydrogeologic Zone IV. The Landfill Law allows landfilling of the product of a resource recovery system in Zone IV, and defines a resource recovery system. as' "a system that provides environmentally :sound management of collected solid waste through facilities planned, designed, assembled, and constructed- to maximize the potential for resource recovery." Thus, the Town's proposed approaches, including 0020R/13 5-17 PR017FD ON RECYCLED PAPER double -lined landfilling would. be allowed for .process residuals . or bypass - waste . in conjunction with a resource recovery system. In addition, the Landfill Law allows for continued landfilling if a municipality is making progress toward implementing a resource recovery system and no energy recovery processing is available. Therefore, the proposed short-term and interim actions presented as part of the proposed Plan would be allowable. 5.3.4. State Recycling Goals, The State has identified a waste . reduction goal - of 8% to 10% of the waste stream. A goal of 40% to 42% was established for recycling. Both goals are intended to be achieved by 1997. - This" was first presented in the. State's .Solid Waste Management .Plan. In 1989, the NYSDEC released a Technical and Administrative Guidance Memorandum (TAGM) which clarified that the reduction and recycling levels of .8% to 10%, ,and 40% to 42%, respectively, are goals, as opposed to mandates. The proposed Plan is consistent . with the goal of _ 10% for waste , reduction through. Federal and State initiatives. More important, the 40%o to 42% goal for recycling is expected to be met before the 1997: target.. Therefore, the proposed Plan complies with the goals set by ,the State. 5.4 Proposed Implementation and Associated Actions As part of the proposed Plan, ' a timetable has been developed and is presented on Table 5.4.1-1. It is..expected that reduction/recycling/reuse through implementation of the proposed resource recovery system will accommodate 70% to- 75% ofthe waste stream by the end of 1995. This table reflects the recommendations identified in ' Section 5.2 for the disposal/processing of the 250% to '30% of the waste stream remaining after implementation of the resource recovery system. 5.5 Private Sector Involvement There are opportunities for the private; sector to. assist the Town in managing solid wastes, `or to manage the waste on behalf of the Town. Areas of Possible. private. sector involvement and participation include: o Collection of source separated recyclables for delivery to the transfer .station a� 0070R/13 5-18 mffimo ON RECYC/ EO PAPER _J Table 5.4.1-1 Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Proposed Implementation Timetable Activities Interim Period o Town implements elements of proposed resource recovery system to achieve 70% to 75% goal by end of 1995 o Existing landfill phased out over two years to facilitate closure and capping, and to provide interim disposal until new 5 acre landfill is completed. 1 to 2 year continuation of existing landfilling procedures on Fishers Island. o Conduct_ hydrogeologic investigation to support closure and capping plan for existing landfill' and preparation . of new 5 acre landfill o Prepare and submit, for NYSDEC approval, closure and capping plan for implementation beginning in 1994 Short-term Phase o Complete new Interim 5 acre landfill sufficient for disposal of 25% to 30% of the waste stream for approximately 3 to 4 years o Conduct continuous evaluation of alternative energy recovery options including: -Top ranked: Year-round ERF/CERF processing with reciprocal yard waste composting arrangement -2nd ranked: Seasonal ERF/CERF processing with landfilling of 25% to 30% residual waste during periods when capacity is unavailable o Continuously monitor private sector ventures in the area. If a cost-effective private sector facility . is permitted, hold following stage(s) in abeyance, accordingly. If no feasible alternative processing/ disposal options are identified, begin development of a second 5 acre landfill to be sufficient for subsequent 6 to 7.year stage 0020R/13 5-19 Estimated Time Late 1990 Late 1990-1992 Late 1990-1991 1991 1993-1995 1992-1995 ongoing PRQVTED ON RECYaED RAPER Table 5.4.1-1 (continued) Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Proposed Implementation Timetable Activities Estimated Time Long-term Phase r o Use second 5- acre landfill cell for, disposal. of 25% to 1996-2002 30% of the waste stream for 6 to 7 years. Continue evaluation of alternative energy recovery options and private sector ventures. If no feasible alternative processing/disposal options are identified, develop a third 5 acre landfill to be sufficient for an additional 6 to 7 year stage o Use third 5 acre landfill cell for disposal of 25% to 2003-2009 30% of waste stream for approximately 6 to' 7 years. Continue evaluation of alternative energy recovery options and private sector ventures. If no feasible alternative processing/disposal options are identified, develop a fourth 5 acre landfill to be sufficient for final stage through the end of the planning period o Use fourth 5 acre landfill cell for disposal of 25% to 2010-2015 30% residuals through end of planning period 0020R/13 5-20 . PMN FD ON RECYCIFD PAPER o Collection of yard wastes separately from. source separated solid waste o Development and expansion of private recycling in-house efforts in commercial, industrial, and retail establishments in the Town o Development and expansion of recycling and processing options for construction and demolition debris and land clearing debris o Possible development of an MSW composting operation as part of an effort with another Town for long-term stage of the proposed Plan o Provide materials and/or services for the operations and facilities in the proposed Plan o Provide financing and/or full-service vendor arrangements for any or all of the .. facilities proposed in the Plan 5.6 Regional/Neighboring Jurisdictional Involvement Regional alternatives with neighboring Towns were considered and are reflected in the proposed Plan. Islandwide regional possibilities are also possible with the development of a 10 -Town (Suffolk County), or 13 -Town (Nassau and Suffolk Counties), cooperative to collectively market recyclable materials. This regional effort could provide for substantial assistance in dealing with secondary materials markets. In particular this includes: East End o Shelter Island o Riverhead o East Hampton o Southampton To the West o Brookhaven o Huntington o Smithtown o Babylon 0020R/13 5-21 PRfiVMD ON RECYCLED PAPER 5.7 Public Education, Information, and.Involvement ' r One, of. the key components of the proposed Plan will be an effective public education, information, and involvement program. -There are numerous ways to inform the public about the Town's current and future recycling and disposal programs. While it may be necessary to perform_ surveys within the Town to establish the basis ' for a specific education and involvement program, some areas that .are recommended as part of the public participation aspect of the proposed Plan include: o Media coverage of the efforts made by the Town to support and encourage recycling o Public notices, direct mailings, and media promotions' of. current and new programs o Town assistance to elementary, middle, and high schools in implementing . recycling programs for the schools o Town school sponsored educational events such as essay, picture, and/or logo contests I. J o Town cooperation with schools, and the State, to develop curriculum,.' special events, and tours concerning recycling and recycling operations , o Town advertisements and promotion of the use of compost from the yard waste -; composting operation ; o Encouragement by the Town for landscapers and others to promote backyard composting o An outreach and educational effort to public and private users of the landfill to ..-generate cooperation and involvement in new recycling programs o Town discussions with waste haulers to 'address collection and recycling concerns and to obtain an effective transition as new programs are implemented 0020R/13 5-22 AlMnED ON RECYCLED PAPER A o Assistance from the East End Recycling Association in developing :regional educational and involvement programs o Town outreach efforts targeted to seasonal residents, tourists, and seasonal businesses for active participation in recycling and other programs 0020R/13' 5-23 PRpvTEo oN RECYCIFD PAPFR Section 6 6.0 GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND POTENTIAL MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE PROPOSED PLAN This Section presents a discussion of potential, short and long—term generic impacts, unavoidable impacts, and mitigation measures for the proposed Plan. Where appropriate, irreversible/irretrievable commitments of resources, growth inducing aspects, use and conservation of energy, . and coastal impacts are discussed. This Section is organized to follow the same general organization as found in Section 1 of the DGEIS. The evaluation of environmental impacts by, technology and/or processing method is discussed in Appendix C. The generic effect of various categories of 'solid waste management practices on human health and safety are discussed in Appendix D. These appendices are additional evaluations of the impacts associated with this Section of the DGEIS. It should be noted that a draft generic environmental impact statement allows for a broad, general discussion of generic impacts and possible mitigation measures. Under SEQRA, generic environmental impact statements are to be, "broader and ' more general than site or project specific EISs." Further, the DGEIS allows "for supplements to reflect impacts, such as site specific impacts, which are not addressed or analyzed in the GEIS." Because of the broad scope inherent in the solid waste management plan for the Town, the impacts and mitigation measures can only be presented in a general or generic manner at this time. Decisions would be made by the Town which would affect processing and facility selection, design, sizing, siting, and construction before site and technology specific impacts and mitigation methods can be identified and evaluated. Once project specific planning, design, and implementation of the proposed Plan elements begins, further SEQRA .review and permitting procedures may be necessary in order to address site, technology, and facility specific issues. If necessary, site and/or technology specific impacts and mitigation measures will be addressed in site specific environmental impact statements or environmental assessments when the elements of the Plan become more narrowly defined. A site and technology specific environmental impact statement are or will be prepared for the the various ERF or. CERF projects, which could be utilized to accept some of the Town's waste, and any potential impacts that require mitigation from these projects would be more appropriately addressed in those EISs. An environmental impact 2761 M/4 6-1 PRFnW ON RECYCLED PAPER statement could be expected for the potential fourth unit ' of the Huntington energy J recovery facility (ERF) if it is determined to be needed. The impacts of existing facilities such as, the Hempstead or Babylon FRFs, have been evaluated and discussed in documents prepared as part of the SEQRA and permitting procedures for those existing facilities. Detailed analysis of the" - impacts associated with possible - private sector processing opportunities are expected to be performed by the private sector as part of the* SEQRA and permitting. procedures for those operations: Any impact of the. Town's relatively small amount of remaining waste, after its 'base Plan of reduction -reuse -recycling is S implemented, on the ERF or CERF projects or other large* out-of-town ' (or in -town -� private sector) processing facilities is not expected to have a significant impact on the -� ability of the. large facility to process. the Town's waste in a manner consistent with accepted operating procedures, environmental protection, and permit conditions. 6.1 Town Setting (Sites) Impacts'_associated with the Plan may affect local settings or sites associated with a solid waste facility, or activity. These sites may be in or out of the Town depending upon the portion of'the waste stream. to be handled by a particular facility. 6.1.1 Impacts Short-term from Construction Site preparation for facilities such as landfills, yard waste ,and/or mixed waste composting facilities, transfer stations, and materials` recovery facilities may require earthwork that could increase vehicle and equipment exhaust and fugitive dust in the area of these .activities, as well as possible erosion conditions associated with 'earth'work. Fueling truck and construction equipment could result ' in fuel spills. Erosion of soils resulting from ; the removal of vegetative cover may occur because of the actions of wind and precipitation. This may result in impacts on water resources and aquatic life in the area of construction activities. In addition, construction activities -may increase .noise levels and "traffic at ,the site(s). Construction on an undeveloped site would remove the land from use by indigenous animals and,possibly alter the'existing habitat. From an economic point of view, construction impacts may result in both direct and indirect" benefits involving increased employment and business opportunities for local contractors, 2761M/4 C-2 PR nW ON RECYCLED PAPER .r J support services, and equipment suppliers. Use of the land for development, recreational, recharge, or agricultural uses could be lost. The impacts from construction would be short-term, most likely intermittent in nature, and largely contained on-site. Mitigative measures for these short-term impacts related to construction are discussed in -Section 6.1.3 of this document. Long-term from Operations No significant, adverse, long-term environmental impacts, beyond the original commitment of land resources, are expected to result from the operation of the proposed facilities. However, the commitment of land is possible. With regards 'to delivery, processing, and disposal of municipal solid waste, there exists the possibility that windblown debris could collect on the grounds.' Litter may result from spillage from trucks delivering • wastes to the. site, residents . using a drop-off facility, poor site maintenance procedures, or from illegal dumping. Trucks may -have debris or litter fall from them along the route .of travel if the wastes are not properly placed, stored,, or covered. Some dust- or- mud from the facilities with unpaved on-site roads may be transported off-site by the departing vehicles. Possible mitigation measures for the impacts are discussed in Section 6.1.3. -- In addition, the possible opportunity could exist for the breeding- and manifestation of nuisance animals or vectors at the site. These potential impacts'could be minimized through the expeditious covering and/or processing of solid waste, proper housekeeping, and careful site maintenance. It may be necessary to employ licensed exterminators or control specialists that may use insecticides or rodentcides approved -by Federal and State authorities. There could be some impacts resulting from runoff, percolation, or wind transport of materials. Most of these impacts could be contained on-site, and are not expected to be significant since these products',are designed for use in the environment and approved by Federal and State authorities. Good housekeeping and site maintenance can limit the need for the services of a licensed control specialist. Nuisance animals such as seagulls, indigenous to eastern Long Island and frequent scavengers at solid waste facilities, are a possibility. Other than being a nuisance, seagulls and other such animals would not be expected to have a significant impact. 2761M/4 - .6-3 PRffVTW ON RECYCLW PAPER 6.1.2 Unavoidable Impacts The construction activities in relation to the Plan elements would consist of some excavation for foundations, footings, subgrade structures, and trenching. These activities could involve the use of earth moving equipment such, as bulldozers, cranes, trucks- and graders. Short-term from Construction It is possible that there could be short-term impacts from construction of any of the facilities. These unavoidable impacts could include erosion, storm water runoff, fugitive dust, and off=site litter. Once a final design for. any of the' Plan elements has been determined, the extent- of the construction and the resulting impacts can be more fully evaluated. Additionally,, once. it is determined whether a new or expanded landfill is to be allowed in the Town, the extent of excavation and resulting impacts would be more fully evaluated in a 'supplemental . EIS: However, the .impacts associated with construction are expected to be minimal and of a short-term nature. The impacts would mostly be due to the truck. traffic and construction equipment which could generate fugitive dust and exhaust emissions. Another, short-term unavoidable potential impact would be the visual impact resulting from construction, possible steel or masonry structures, construction materials, scaffolding,. holes and/or mounds of material from earth, moving present on-site. Short-term unavoidable impacts could result from traffic in the area such as concrete transport vehicles, material delivery trucks, dump trucks hauling material off-site; and trucks carting in gravel, sand, and construction supplies. Transferring wastes or recyclables to out-of-town facilities would shift the impacts to these sites which have already been evaluated or are to undergo review as part of their permit process. Long -Term from Operations The long-term impacts associated with sites are related to the twenty year or more commitment of a site to solid waste. management. The exception to this is the two acre or less clean fill for land reclamation. It is -not expected to have a long-term impact on land use if the expected procedures for material acceptance and operation are properly established and maintained. 2761M/4 6-4 : PRIMFD ON RECYCLED PAPER The use of a site for a solid waste facility precludes. the use. of that `site for other possibilities such as recreation, agriculture, or natural open space. This is an unavoidable impact resulting from siting solid waste management facilities. Under the -alternative that incorporates landfilling and the other solid waste facilities at 'or adjacent to the. existing landfill, the impact -of the new facilities in the vicinity of the existing landfill would be much less when compared to developing a new all—inclusive site or . individual . sites for individual facilities. Further, it is possible to manage the impacts and mitigation measures associated with all of the aspects concerning the implementation of the Plan at one area of the Town. Additionally, initiation of - new solid waste operations at or adjacent to the existing solid waste management site would facilitate Plan implementation; and be consistent with current land use patterns at and near the Town's current solid waste complex. 6.1.3 Potential Mitigation Measures This Section describes various mitigation measures to lessen or eliminate impacts arising from the facility sites. Detailed site specific mitigation measures would be presented in any SEQRA supplemental site specific environmental impact statements or environmental assessments for individual facilities comprising the elements of the Plan. Short—term from Construction There are a.. variety of impacts on sites or land that are unique to construction activities and short—term in nature. Construction activities that result in short—term impacts may be mitigated or eliminated by various measures. The period of time in which construction activities occur could be minimized by proper scheduling and , management. A well formulated program for scheduling and coordinating the activities of contractors, personnel, vendors,. and tradespeople should be implemented. The contractors are expected to be encouraged to make maximum utilization of the work force in order to expedite the 4construction phase. If a portion of the, work is delayed or . found to be falling behind schedule due to unforeseen circumstances or the fault of .others, crews may be reinforced to ,bring the task back on schedule. The construction of a facility can be a complex undertaking, subject to factors that may lead to delay. For .this reason, the Town would be expected to receive guarantees from the contractors that the construction schedule would be met. 2761M/4 6-5 PR9VTW ON RECM D PAPER During the excavation phases of construction, existing topography at the site(s) are expected. -to be. disturbed. Construction activities could cut, fill, modify, and remove existing land., Existing plantings, fencing, and barriers could be removed: in the process. .Disturbance of limited areas would be encouraged through proper construction planning. Measures would be taken to diminish topographic disturbance, erosion, and sedimentation occurring from the construction activities. 'Paved and vegetated areas could be designed based on currently recommended soil erosion and sedimentation control practices. A storm water collection/retention system --could be installed to prevent runoff from damaging new: installed surface and subsurface materials. Measures could -be taken to forestall and minimize the impact of any erosion or storm water runoff including the construction of berms-,. barriers, silt fences, and temporary retaining walls and terraces cut into. the sides of slopes. Topsoil could be stockpiled' for future use, and seeded for temporary stabilization. Storm water collection and retention/recharge could also, mitigate impacts at a potentially developed site. Dust and mud can be prevented or mitigated from off—site transport through truck. washing and exit/entrance aprons designed to current standards for- construction sites. Measures are available to avoid possible effects on the character of, adjacent land, such as the use of compatible architectural designs. Barriers may be :installed to prevent visual disturbances. . These would include high fences, berms, plantings, - and wooden or metal . barricades which would act as screening to the activities and structures, on a site.. Construction machinery and vehicles could be fueled or. maintained• oh -site which creates the potential for spills during refueling or lubrication. maintenance. A common.,. method used in spill prevention is to designate a specific area ,on—site, separate from actual construction activities, for refueling or maintenance of all equipment and machinery. This area could be paved, curbed, and maintained as a containment point in the event of a spill. In addition, all fuels and lubricants would, be transported in appropriately regulated tanker trucks or containers. Refueling should.. -also be limited to actual hours of operations to ensure that a full complement of "clean up" personnel is available. Alternatively, fueling and. maintenance could occur off-site -at an appropriate maintenance or fuel supplier. Should a spill occur on—site, it would be contained in . the - refueling area by the curbing. Cleanup, removal, and disposal would then. be carried out under NYSDEC regulation or supervision. At the conclusion of construction_ activities at each site, final grading, planting,, and erosion/storm water control measures could be installed_to control sedimentation or, spills 2761 M/4 6-6 PIZUVMD ON RECYCLED PAPFR to streams and wetlands. Restoration and cleanup activities could also be undertaken for inadvertent off-site impacts. Long-term from Operations. Impacts on site(s) , or land are expected to' be reduced upon completion of construction activities. During the operational period, control of erosion and sediment would be implemented and maintained. This might include the care of plantings. and the cleaning and repair of storm water collection -basins. The sites themselves would have litter periodically removed and may utilize fencing in order to prevent litter from blowing off the site. Licensing provisions for carters and other delivery vehicles could include provisions designed to avoid the littering of streets by, possibly requiring all delivery - vehicles either to have .a covering over the wastes or to take other appropriate measures. Open vehicles that deliver waste could be required to have tarpaulin covers. There could be -regular cleanup of litter and spillage at and around the facilities by maintenance, crews. Carters could be required to carry equipment to'clean up litter or debris that falls off the truck enroute to a site. It may be necessary to ensure that impacts of nighttime lighting are' mitigated. This might require limiting lighting to essential areas, directing lighting to specific locations, and screening :lighting from other, areas in order to avoid intrusion onto other properties. Other visual impacts could be reduced through the use' of proper cover, screening, vegetation, grading and buffers, and by confining operations to the minimum number of acres. The, expeditious covering and/or processing, of the, solid waste, proper housekeeping, and site maintenance would deter vector 'manifestation and breeding and the propagation of transient nuisance animals. To inhibit animal pests and insect vectors, several measures could be designed and instituted at a facility site. These measures would be expected to produce an environment that would inhibit the proliferation of vectors in the area. All facilities would be expected to have proper housekeeping programs in effect for internal and. external areas. This could include clearing the area of all stagnant water or potential areas of insect infestation. This would be particularly important at a tire handling site, where uncovered or exposed tires could provide numerous, small breeding locations for insects. Any spilled material would be expected to be promptly removed to 2761M/4 6-7 PRBYIFD ON RECYCLED PAPER preclude any source of breeding. Benign vector control methods, such as introducing dragon flies,; encouraging purple martin nesting,, and other, biological, control' methods including bacteria rings could be used. , If necessary,' professional, licensed extermination and control services could be -provided to supplement other mitigation measures for vector control. The application and use of pesticides and insecticides, if necessary, would be expected to follow all applicable Federal, . State," County, and Town. , regulations.. Additionally,, it is expected that nuisance animals should ' be less , of a factor for enclosed -I facilities or at a landfill where daily cover is properly applied. Where uncovered wastes are. present,, consideration should be given to using ',tops on containers, daily cover, frequent cleaning of the site and surrounding local, area, and covers or netting in certain instances. The buildings "or .land used by the Town could be capable of being converted to other uses if and when the proposed', facilities are no longer needed. In addition, the land used for: disposal of residues from a resource recovery system would be' more usable than from an unprocessed waste landfill" due to the reduction of the volume; toxicity, and degradability of wastes. The transfer . of wastes, whether it be recyclables, compostables, and/or mixed municipal solid waste, for disposal/processing in another town is not considered a mitigation; measure. Impacts resulting from any or all of these, operations are shifted to the out-of-town ,facility in which' the materials are handled. The, Town's contribution to these impacts would depend on the tonnage of material .sent by the Town and the overall tonnage handled by the facility. However, for the facility size ranges discussed in other sections of this GEIS, ' the Town's materials could be considered to consist of approximately 5% to 10% of, the operations at a given facility. This estimation is based 1 on the approximate tons per day that might be shipped from the Town, and° the size of the facility 'as determined by its" throughput capacity in tons .per day.' All applicable Federal, State,. and County regulations, will be met for all facilities. Specific sites and technologies would:be evaluated in greater detail in future SEQRA review. procedures. 6.1..4 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources o This Section deals with the irreversible/irretrievable commitments involved in z implementing solid waste facilities at a selected site(s). These resources may, consist of land, soils, water, energy, materials, and economics. 2761M/4 .6-8 I PR9V E0 ON REGYCLEO PAPER !� Land Use Land is one of the resources that ' would be committed by the development of the Plan elements. The long-term commitment �of land ,is :not totally irreversible, in that, after use the facilities could be dismantled or the building reused, and the acreage made available for another function. Additional land may also be purchased for buffering.. In the case of a landfill, the landfill would be closed, capped, and sealed and possibly used for other purposes such as open space.. The land acquired for buffering would be expected to remain unused and retain its original character, or . be upgraded by plantings and landscaping. The land acquired for buffering could be expected to be readily reclaimed for use once the solid waste activity has ceased operation. Soils Soils are also resources which could be committed by implementation of the Plan. A long-term commitment of land would be required for structures, roads, and parking areas. Additional acreage may , be required for a buffer zone for certain facilities or operations. Soils would also be disturbed by the excavation of trenches, pits, and excavations for the landfill facilities. These soils might be removed from the site, stored for future use, or be used as landfill cover materials. Water During the proposed construction period, water- usage would be limited to human consumption, concrete preparations, pipe. pressure tests, equipment maintenance, and sanitary purposes. The irreversible and irretrievable commitment of water during the construction period is expected to be minimal. While the proposed Plan elements are in operation, ;groundwater quality is not expected to be irreversibly impacted. However,, there could be the potential for groundwater impacts resulting from composting and landfilling. Mitigation of these impacts are discussed in other areas of this Section. The consumptive use of water for composting is expected to be . required for maintenance of the moisture content of the composting material. Much of "this moisture may be lost through evaporation or gained through precipitation onto the windrows. Quantification of the consumptive water use 2761M/4 . 6-9 PRBV FD ON RECYCLED PAPER • would-, depend on the amount and frequency of precipitation. Any other in -Town facilities are not expected . to require process water for operations beyond water for cleaning, mitigation of fugitive dust, and , equipment maintenance. The consumptive use of water may be necessary at the out-of-town facilities. The quantification of - that volume of water would have been determined for the facilities as part of their SEQRA review or j permitting process. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of water resources should not be significant at in -town facilities, but may be at out-of-town facilities. Monitoring of the groundwater is expected to continue. for 30 years after closure of a landfill. Energy During the period of construction, fuels would be required to operate machinery. These may involve fuel oil, diesel oil, gasoline, kerosene, and alcohol utilized for the earth moving machines, hoists, heaters, pumps, and trucks: ' The use of these fuels would be irretrievable. The construction period may also require electricity for the temporary, lighting of structures- and the power to run hand tools and equipment. Long-term operation of the various Plan elements : recommended could possibly involve ' the consumption of a combination of fossil fuels -and electricity. Materials Construction of some of the proposed- Plan facilities could involve the irreversible and irretrievable commitment of various construction materials. Some materials that may be used include steel, wood, copper, tar, plastic, glass; natural and synthetic fibers, -� paint, and plaster. The commitment of these resources are considered typical for the ` development of landfills, materials recovery. facilities, transfer stations; and other construction projects related to solid waste management. Economics Financial commitment ..to the proposed Plan may include the sale of bonds. These bonds may or ,-may not be used for the purchase of land for any of the facilities. In addition, small. business assistance programs (i.e., development loans) in the Town may be utilized to assist .solid waste collectors/haulers in acquiring equipment -necessary to 1 collect; transfer, and haul solid . waste and recyclable materials to any of the facilities, in i 2761A/4 6-10 _ PRLN7W ON RECYCLED PAPM? or out of the Town. Therefore, bonds and loan funds used for this program would represent a commitment of financial resources. The extent and definition of the economic sources required to implement the Plan are subject to decisions by the Town, NYSDEC, costs associated with the use of. existing facilities, costs associated with facilities under development or proposed, and design and site specific features. These - impacts would be. determined in future SEQRA review procedures needed to implement portions of the Plan. 6.1.5 Growth Inducing Aspects The Town =s proposed Plan is not expected to .include significant growth inducing aspects in the Town. During the construction of solid waste management facilities there may be an increase in local employment opportunities, depending on the ' phase of construction. Personnel would also be required at any in—Town facility that is developed. Most of the skills required for this work should be available in the Town's work force. This would produce a positive effect on the area's economy for a period of time. The potential exists for an increase in employment opportunities in the solid waste management field on. a regional basis. Privately operated processing/disposal operations for construction, demolition, and land, clearing debris have a strong growth potential largely due to. the recent trend on Long Island towards- diverting these materials from municipal facilities. Additionally, inclusion of curbside collection of recyclable materials -might lead to increased employment related to collection or handling of portions of the waste stream. Larger, regional solid waste facilities may also provide growth in this field. 6.1.6 Coastal Impacts Adverse impacts are not expected ,on any coastal area in the Town. One possible beneficial impact of the yard waste composting program, -and possibly other composting projects, would be the production of the humus—like end product that could be an inexpensive soil enhancer for possible use in coastal areas to promote the growth of vegetation. This vegetation would assist in the natural process of dune stabilization and erosion control. On a regional basis, the stabilization of dunes by natural vegetation with the use of a natural compost product could be a benefit of the Plan. . 2761 M/4 6711 PRDVMD ON RECYCLFD PAPER It is possible that impacts associated with the Plan could affect localized site geology; topography, or soils as a result ' of construction or implementation of elements of the . Plan. These impacts are expected to be minor and can, to a great extent, be mitigated-, to further reduce the effects upon local resources. - 6.2.1 ' `Impacts Impacts. related to the geology of the Town are presented in this Section. Impacts related to private sector :or out=of-Town facilities would be evaluated in the SEQRA. and permitting review procedures for those facilities; and is beyond the scope of this •DGEIS. Short-term from Construction It is anticipated thatthe proposed elements of the Plan would not have significant impacts on the subsurface conditions. Construction is not expected to affect the current soils other than. to cause localized disturbances or ' moving of . the soils to accommodate construction activities. During construction, impacts may include some localized soil erosion and changes in topography.. The construction area may be regraded and the slope reduced in areas. Other areas .may be recontoured for planting and pavement. Potential measures to reduce any soil erosion are ;similar to those discussed .in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.2.3. Soils may be removed or displaced due to construction activities. There may be some minor on-site erosion of surface materials caused by storm water runoff. The strata . underlying proposed sites may be affected somewhat by excavation. Additionally, soils, subsurface materials, and topography may be affected by the installation of systems for the control and capture of leachate ' and methane, as well as groundwater monitoring in connection with landfill areas and the mining of soils for use as landfill cover. Localized areas on a site for the proposed construction of a 'facility would be cleared of .vegetation and upper soils. After construction, newly vegetated areas would be expected to be developed to reduce soil erosion 'on the reshaped and recontoured areas. 6-12 PRQI7FD ON RECYCLED PAPER Lona -term from Operations. Once facilities are constructed and z all potential mitigation measures are established, no significant long-term alterations to the soils or geology are expected. Reclaiming some or all of the borrow area can alter the local topography by filling in a depression and bringing it up to. grade. • Should filling in of the borrow area for expansion of the composting 'program be undertaken, then the topography would be brought up to grade. The use of the borrow area for landfilling of a reduced portion of the waste stream would be expected to eventually occur to bring the borrow area up to grade. This impact is expected to be minor. When compared to the value of the reclaimed land to be used for solid waste management, the impact on the local topography could be considered positive. Capping the current landfill may have some affect on the .local soils, topography, and geology. However, this impact could.also be considered beneficial due to stabilization of on-site soils, final grading, and reduction of possible hydrogeologic impacts. Soils could be transported - off-site by the actions of wind, precipitation, or truck traffic. The loss of this soil through fugitive dust generation or. erosion has the potential to cause some off-site impacts if normally accepted erosion control practices are not " developed and maintained. Dust and soil could cause sedimentation in- nearby water bodies or impair wetlands. Silt loadings in water bodies could cause oxygen depletion or inhibit respiration in aquatic life. One aspect of the facility siting analyses was that all surface waters and wetlands were provided a buffer that would mitigate this potential impact if a facility were situated , in the vicinity of a water body or wetland. No significant surface water bodies or wetlands are in close proximity to any areas considered for landfill facility operations. . Importation of cover material, or clay for a liner, if needed at a site may increase the amount of soils on-site. This would not, however, be an adverse impact. The traffic associated with possible delivery of cover material may have an impact, but cannot be quantified or characterized at this time. ' Future SEQRA review procedures would evaluate. the impact of the importation of soils or clay further if necessary. 2761 M/4 6-13 PRP7ED ON RECYC/ W PAPER Topography is not expected to • be radically altered. Landfilling, construction, or other solid waste operations may cause some minor local topographic changes that are not expected to, ;be significant. No significant geologic alterations or impacts are expected .as a result of Plan implementation. 6.2.2 Unavoidable Impacts No significant unavoidable adverse affects on geology, topography, and soils are . anticipated based upon the preceding discussion. 6.2.3 'Potential Mitigation Measures Erosion' control procedures during construction and during operations of the facilities .could include: o Disturbing the smallest area needed for construction o Using site specific characteristics to minimize erosion and direct storm water runoff -to other mitigation measures o Using entrance/exit aprons at construction sites and facility sites o Using silt fences and hay bales o - Covering of mounded, exposed soils i o Using swales, retention/recharge basins, and culverts as needed for storm water 1 runoff control o Implementing maintenance procedures for erosion control measures o Minimizing landfill side slopes o Grading of the construction site and the finished site to minimize erosion o Using temporary vegetation as a cover on exposed soils and lands caping/revegetation of the completed site 2761M/4 6-14 PRNVlED ON RECYCLED ~M? o Developing artificial wetlands for storm water runoff control, erosion control, water recharge, and even grey water treatment Areas for proposed construction that would be cleared of vegetation and upper soils are the specific local areas at a site for an individual facility upon which construction would occur. Site specific features should be considered for developing an erosion control plan.. This would be addressed in a site specific EIS or environmental assessment for a planned facility. Suppression of o0 -site _fugitive dust generation can be - reduced by wetting exposed soils, dirt, and pavement, or by using benign dust "suppressing chemicals. Reduction of the need for soils as cover material at the landfill might be achieved by using dirt, crushed concrete; and rubble from a C&D recycling operation, or by the use of the end product from a composting operation. 6.2.4 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources This Section addresses the irreversible/irretrievable commitments involved with implementing any of the proposed Plan elements at a location. These resources consist primarily of soils. Soils used for cover in a landfill operation would be lost whether they are imported or on-site soils. While there appears to be ' some tentative attempts at "recycling' landfills to recover some land, recyclables, and soils, they have not eliminated the loss of materials inherent in a landfill operation. _Closure of a landfill under current Part 360 regulations requires capping of the landfill and includes an inherent loss of soils that comprise the cover material, and possible clay lining material used in operations. 6.3 Water Resources Water resources on Long Island are extensive and valuable. Some potential impacts associated with the Plan on these water resources could result from Plan implementation by the Town. Capping the existing landfill and implementing the other, Plan elements should result in lower potential impacts to water resources in the Town. Installation of a state-of-the-art landfill with double composite liners, dual leachate collection and detection systems, methane collection systems, and groundwater monitoring program should ensure adequate protection of the groundwater since the current NYSDEC regulations are considered one of the most stringent in the nation and have received international recognition. 2761M/4 ' 6-1$ PRMED ON RECYCLED PAPER 6.3.1 Impacts Short-term from Construction Uses of .water during construction include sanitary water' uses (showers, toilets, sinks) for. administrative, construction, and management personnel, dust control; preparation, of concrete, equipment maintenance, wash down water, and drinking water for workers.: Portable lavatories could be; provided for the -construction crews and later removed from the site. No significant adverse impacts are• anticipated on groundwater quality during the construction of a facility. Sanitary wastewater could be discharged through an on-site septic system -or through a public system. An on-site septic system may involve some processing of, the wastewater before discharge into the system. Holding ' tanks could be provided with off-site disposal. This would preclude groundwater impacts from the use of cesspools or other on-site wastewater disposal systems. Construction is ' not expected to produce discharge which could adversely affect water quality since sanitary wastes would be collected in portable toilets and removed from the site, or go to the 'on-site septic system or public waste water collection system. This would be done if site specific or construction conditions precluded the use of portable lavatories. During construction of some facilities it might be necessary to pump, groundwater. _ This dewatering process may lower localized water tables temporarily. This impact would l be short term in.nature, lasting -only during necessary construction activity, and would not be expected to affect off-site locations.. Due to the groundwater at the existing landfill; dewatering would not be considered likely at this site for any. of the facilities that are finally located there. Upon completion of the pumping, the water table would be expected to restore itself unless otherwise constrained. Potential impacts to surface waters would include the siltation of streams by runoff due to temporary stripping of vegetation and topsoil during construction. This runoff could be controlled through berms, silt fencing, hay bales, retention/recharge basins; land grading, and other erosion control procedures (see Sections 6.1 and 6.2). 2761M/4 6-16 mfffma ofv REcyaFD PAA©r Long-term from Operations The source of water to be .used 'at the site(s), and impacts on the system providing the water, would be reviewed in -the site specific environmental .impact statement, environmental assessment, or the permitting procedures for the project. The opportunity may exist to' utilize ' public water supplies for facility operation at the site(s). Further, ,groundwater supplies and water systems in the Town are expected to be able to supply the needed flow rate without significant impact. Sand and. salt could be stored on site for the maintenance of passable roads on site during the wintertime. These stores could be kept covered to prevent runoff from contaminating ground . and surface waters. Use of • these materials should be kept - to a minimum to limit the affect on groundwater or runoff to off-site locations. Another potential adverse impact to both ground and surface water could be from any application of pesticides and insecticides required to control vectors at a facility should that -be necessary.. _Should 'pesticides or insecticides be used, the potential does' exist for misapplication or spills. Only licensed professional applicators should be used for the application of those pesticides and insecticides that are allowed by Federal, State and County law. The need for application should be minimal if certain potential mitigation measures, such as the following, are instituted where practical: o Good housekeeping procedures are developed at a facility o.. Litter and. debris, on and off-site, are cleaned up daily o Facilities and some, portions of sites are regularly washed down o Solid waste is covered and/or contained properly o Benign vector control measures are developed and maintained Other actions may also be developed to minimize or eliminate the •need for pesticides or insecticides. Site and technology specific impacts associated with individual facilities and/or Plan elements would be expected to be addressed in future environmental impact statements, assessments, or permit applications 2761 M/4 6-17 PRMTED ON RECYCLED PAPER h 6.3.2 Unavoidable Impacts The an unavoidable water. use is expected `to -be primarily for compost operations, sanitary' facilities- washing down of construction vehicles, construction purposes , (mixing concrete, mortar); wash down `of masonry;' site and equipment -mai ntenance,- and temporary fire stations. Water may also be used to suppress fugitive Aust generation. 'Excavation might extend down ' to the water table. In this event; pumping., of the -excavations for dewatering would be necessary. This could temporarily lower the local water table to some extent. However,, if it were determined. .that impacts on local streams, 'wetlands, or wells were possible, mitigating measures such as appropriate ' . treatment, recirculation, and/or water conservation could be , undertaken to avoid significant impacts. During construction, certain. fuels and' oils may be _kept on—site. Correct and safe 1 use of these, materials by trained - personnel • would prevent or minimize groundwater ' contamination. Domestic water, process water; and boiler feedwater may be supplied from the.local groundwater supply or -municipal water -'supply. Sanitary wastewater at the - sites could be discharged into an on-site treatment` system or a. sanitary hookup to the municipal system if available. The use of portable lavatories may also limit discharges. There ;is expected to. be some leachate from the composting -operations, possibly the, clean fill, and a landfill associated with the alternatives. , `-The leachate could 'contain chemicals or materials that could potentially affect surface water and groundwater. With proper design based upon the strict NYSDEC 'Part 360 regulations;-' inclusion of double. composite impermeable liner systems, and a dual leachate detection/collection/treatment system, potential degradation to the area's waters can be greatly reduced. In addition, ' wells :for monitoring the groundwater for contamination are expected to be installed. These wells would .provide data as to the continued quality of groundwater flowing under the site(s), 'and -allow for identification of any contamination before there is significant off=site impact... 6.3.3 Potential Mitigation Measures - Mitigation- measures would be carried out to reduce andavoid impacts on water 1 -2761M/4 6-18 PRaV7ED ON RECYCLED PAPER quality, aquatic ecology, and water supply on both a short and long-term basis for surface and groundwater. Short-term from Construction Soil erosion control techniques would be implemented during construction, thereby reducing potential impacts from the silt carried by storm water runoff. For example, the placement of hay bales and/or silt fences along drainage channels adjacent to areas of construction would serve to reduce sediment transport. Temporary retaining walls, terraces cut ,into the slopes, and proper grading and mulching of exposed slopes would minimize runoff and erosion, ..reducing . the amount of solids contained in storm water runoff. A discussion of sediment and . storm water runoff and erosion control was presented in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.2.3. Construction personnel could •be expected to utilize portable toilets which would. be removed from the sites for discharge and treatment of sewage in approved facilities. Holding tanks for grey water used in. showers and hand washing could be' used. The infiltration of groundwater into excavations would be minimized, as applicable, by the use of steel curtain walls surrounding an excavation, cement slurry wall construction, and if necessary, dewatering operations. Long-term from Operations Water is expected to be available for operations from public water supplies or, depending on location or intended use; an on-site well. Water is required in composting to maintain a moisture content between 50% and 60%. Groundwater in the vicinity of a full-scale yard waste composting operation would be monitored as per Part ' 360 regulations. Other water uses include domestic water, miscellaneous• process water, washup and spill control, and as a dust suppressant. To reduce the amount of water consumed, process water could be recycled and reused depending on nature of use wherever possible. Water -lost during a process might need to be replenished through withdrawal from the on-site well or public supplies, dependent on availability. This withdrawal could be less than what would be required if the process water were discharged to the wastewater disposal system after each use. Process water from miscellaneous .process losses and from in-house use for washup and spills may be directed to a reserve storage tank and fed to areas to be used as needed. 276 T M/4 6-19 PRfiV ED ON RECYCLED PAPER A demonstration composting -project incorporating sludge and/or. other sources -of moisture and nitrogen would have the potential toreduce water consumption' during composting. Should such a project prove to be successful, long-term consumptive use of water could be significantly .less " than the potential consumptive use 'without these additional sources of moisture. To reduce impacts from runoff �at facilities, a storm water collection system and retention or recharge basins could be constructed. Land grading, benches and berms, diversions, vegetation, and sediment. basins could be .used at the sites to; control erosion and sediment runoff. Roadway cleaning programs could be implemented and reliance on -fertilizers .and pesticides for landscaping and maintenancecould be kept' to a minimum. . Use of compost end products could enhance landscaping efforts at 'the- facilities and reduce purchases of other soil enhancers. Also, inert abrasives,' such as sand or cinders, could be substituted for chemical salts wherever possible during snow or icy conditions to reduce the amount of chemicals in the runoff. Materials 'that are -'to be placed on—site (sand and/or ,.salt) could be placed in salt- domes or covered areas to reduce runoff transport. Practices that would -'interfere with the natural revegetation of open land and recharge basins would be avoided when possible: Any use of pesticides and insecticides is expected to be minimized. Containers and covers. for solid wastes, good housekeeping and site maintenance practices, daily elimination of standing water, and benign biological .control -measures could be incorporated into daily operations and facility design. Additionally, the expeditious f handling and processing of wastes, along with limiting storage .time of raw wastes before ; processing,handling, or shipping, can also reduce the need for pesticides .and -insecticides. Other mitigation measures would include the capping. of the existing landfill and ! constructing a, new landfill meeting the following Part 360 regulations:, o Double composite liners = T o . Dual leachate collection/detection systems o Methane venting and/or recovery o Groundwater monitoring Additionally, the recycling and processing elements of the Plan would reduce the volume of wastes ultimately destined for either the landfill and/or out=of—town or private sector processing-. . This would be a potential; -beneficial impact' on groundwater resulting 2761M/4 6-20 PRPfrED ON RECYC W PAPER from implementation of the Plan. In addition to minimizing water. demand at the facilities, potential impacts on local groundwater supplies and levels could be avoided by the use of public water supplies where available. Disposal and/or treatment of wastewater would be expected to meet all requirements and regulations applicable from Federal, State, and County authorities. 6.3.4 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources During the construction period- for the Plan facilities, water usage would be for potable use, sanitary facilities, equipment maintenance, construction requirements (such as concrete mixing), and as a dust suppressant. While the -proposed Plan elements are in operation,. groundwater quality is not expected to be irreversibly impacted. However, there is a potential for groundwater impacts resulting from composting and landfilling. 'Mitigation of these impacts were discussed earlier. Water for composting is expected to be used for maintenance of moisture content of the composting material. Most of this moisture may be lost through evaporation or gained through precipitation onto the windrows. The remaining facilities are not expected to require process water for' operations beyond water for cleaning, the mitigation of fugitive dust generation, and equipment maintenance. Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of water resources should not be significant. Monitoring of the groundwater is expected to continue for 30 years after closure of the landfill(s). 6.3.5 Coastal Impacts Finished yard waste compost could be used in the coastal areas to' enhance the propagation of indigenous vegetation. This could allow for erosion control and possibly enhance dune stabilization.. This may lessen the adverse impacts on coastal waters from storm water runoff and. nonpoint source pollution. 6.4 Air Resources The Plan's various proposed elements may impact air quality on a short-term basis during construction and over the long-term 'during operation. This Section will describe the general nature of the various impacts. 2761 M/4 6-21 PRB17W ON RECYCL W PAPER 6.4.1 Impacts This Section discusses ' short and long-term generic air quality impacts resulting from the Plan elements: - Short-term from Construction Site preparation and construction of some of the ' Plan elements is expected to result in the generation, of certain pollutants or- materials which may. affect.local air quality for short periods. Site preparation and construction related emissions from vehicles and other construction equipment are expected to, occur at the site(s) during construction of the facilities. The effects of the preparation and construction on air quality can be evaluated independently, of operational impacts. Impacts; during . the .construction phases are expected to be from particulates (fugitive ,dust) suspended in the air -by the movement of vehicles over paved- and unpaved areas. A certain amount of dust can be generated in this manner. Much of the dust usually consists . of fine particles. "Fugitive dust would pose ' a concern if there was significant exposure over a long period of time. Off-site impacts are usually nonexistent or minor, as long as mitigation measures are implemented. Off-site air impacts from collection vehicles should not be any greater than when compared to existing conditions. The operation of construction equipment could result in some .disturbances of surface materials. Throughout construction, some excavation material may either be stockpiled for later use or removed for use elsewhere. , Grading activities required for site preparation can..also .be a source of,fugitive dust. These activities can be generators of airborne particulates since earthwork operations remove pavement and/or vegetation that normally anchor the topsoil and provide protection from the wind. Such exposed ground creates a potential for wind erosion and particulate, emissions.. This material' could consist . of topsoil, rock, gravel, and other, material. Storage of the material in uncovered piles can cause the surface materials to be dispersed by wind -action. J 'Construction activities may also generate exhaust emissions from various vehicles and, construction equipment such as generators. The' combined emissions from vehicle exhaust and other on-site equipment during construction would be expected to be j relatively minor. The emissions from each vehicle are governed by _ State and Federal 2761M/4 6-22 PRN7FD ON RECYCLED PAPER vehicle requirements. During construction, employees would be discouraged from idling the vehicles. The total impact of construction on air quality is expected to be negligible and temporary. Mitigative measures. described in this Section are designed to minimize the anticipated impacts from construction activities. - Long-term from Site Operations There would-be emissions from the exhaust of facility vehicles and those delivering, transporting, or removing solid ..wastes, fill, supplies, or recyclable materials. There ' is expected to be some localized dust generated at all facilities. The possibility exists for some odor . and methane from composting and landfilling operations. Odors from composting can be reduced through proper operational control and proper maintenance of the windrows. Odors at a landfill can be reduced to some degree by daily application of cover material. Landfill gases are expected to be generated. A properly designed and operated gas , venting and monitoring system would minimize impacts from odors and methane. The air impacts associated with the transfer station are expected to be primarily associated with the arrival and departure of vehicles. The primary air impacts associated with a landfill(s) are expected to result from the arrival and departure of. refuse vehicles, fugitive dust, and the decomposition of the wastes. Secondary impacts could be associated with the operation of landfilling equipment, employees, and servicemen/tradesmen.- The establishment of source separation programs, composting operations, the household hazardous waste removal program, as well as reduction, and recycling programs, are expected to reduce the air quality impacts associated with landfilling. Restricting the waste deposited into a clean fill to essentially nondegradable or inert materials could avoid the generation of methane or hydrogen sulfide. Long-term air impacts would be investigated in connection with emissions from the ERF or CERF projects or other possible processing alternatives for the remaining waste independently from the DGEIS for the Town's solid waste management plan. These impacts are site and technology -specific, and should be addressed in the site/technology specific environmental impact statement in connection with further SEQRA review or permitting procedures for the proposed processing project(s), or have been previously evaluated as part of the SEQRA and/or permitting process for a particular existing facility. 2761M/4 . 6-23 PRff17EO ON RECYCLED PAPER The nature and amount of emissions from an energy recovery facility depend upon the, type of waste processed .and the selected, technology. Emissions may contain trace metals (arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium; lead, mercury, and nickel), acid gases (hydrogen chloride and hydrogen fluoride), trace organics (dioxins, furans, polychlorinated biphenyls and PAH), sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen oxides. This is evaluated in Appendices C and D of the DGEIS. While a number of energy recovery and other processing facilities in New York State are in the planning; procurement, or permitting stages, they must meet the -recent New York State standard for dioxins in . order to be permitted. While their emissions and impacts may .vary, they are governed by' Federal and State regulations that are designed to protect air quality and public health. Regulations limit both the quantity of pollutants which may be emitted and the degree- to which they may affect existing 'levels of air quality. EISs . for the ERF or CERF projects would be, expected to show that the energy recovery facility can meet the strict emissions requirements and comply with air quality levels. The 'NYSDEC has the authority to enforce certain Federal air regulations (Prevention. of Significant Deterioration) and State air regulations. - A key element of the process which governs the air quality impact review and issuance of air emissions permits fora waste -too -energy facility is the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit application. The PSD application must demonstrate an energy recovery facility's ability to meet the NYSDEC operating requirements related to air emissions and other facility operating requirements.,: The , NYSDEC requirements are periodically modified. 'Therefore, applications would be required to demonstrate compliance with the current regulations at the time they are prepared. Emission tests conducted by the "NYSDEC would be required during start-up and at specified intervals during the operation of an energy recovery facility. If implemented, the solid waste composting. portion of the Brookhaven CERF project would also_be expected to be evaluated in the site and technology specific EIS. The same procedures and review process .would .apply' .to private sector ventures . that have been proposed on Long Island's East Enda. Air and other impacts from the composting of solid wastes are discussed in a generic manner in Appendices C and D: 2761 M/4 644 PRBYIEO ON RECYCLED PAPER 6.4.2 Unavoidable Impacts . The unavoidable impacts related to air are the emissions from the operation of the Plan elements along with dust and vehicle impacts associated with construction or waste hauling activities. Both the compost facility and the landfill" have the potential for air emissions and., odors.. Through proper design and operation, these impacts can be minimized. Further discussions of mitigation measures are found in Section 6.4.3. Significant impacts related to air. emissions from operations of the other proposed facilities are not expected. 6.4.3 Mitigation Measures This Section of the Draft GEIS has -identified air impacts associated with various activities that may affect the local ambient air quality. This Section evaluates mitigation measures for these air quality impacts. Short—term from Construction The short—term emissions associated with the construction of the Plan facilities could include mobile and fugitive dust sources; however, mobile source -or vehicle impacts are not expected to be significant, and impacts could be mitigated with common construction practices. Construction vehicles can be maintained' to minimize air pollutant emissions. Engine idling can be restricted when vehicles are not directly in use during construction. Alternating staging areas and minimizing the use of vehicles within the construction area can help in lowering vehicle emissions. Entrance and egress routes can be limited, and delivery schedules Jor. materials can be arranged to reduce queue lengths/backups for vehicles serving the facilities. Fugitive dusts. can also be reduced, in part, ' by good housekeeping and controlled material handling practices. On—site sources of fugitive dust may include the following: vehicular traffic on unpaved and paved areas; material conveyance; transfer and dumping operations; exposed land; and storage areas. Water and benign chemical suppressants. can help control dust generation. During construction, some impacts can be expected from vehicle traffic on unpaved roads. These can be mitigated by minimizing traffic in unpaved areas, limiting vehicle speeds, and applying dust suppressants. Water, can be used for an' effective control of. 2761M/4 6-25 PREYTEA ON RECYa D P4PM? fugitive dust generation, if applied ,regularly. Acceptable chemical dust suppressants can. also provide more consistent control for longer periods, but could be expensive and are useful only for designated roadways of limited surface area. Impacts from dust due to material handling could be mitigated ' by enclosing ' or covering truck beds and handling operations,, such as transfer stations, where practical. Depending on the permanence of on-site material handling _equipment, spray systems or dust suppression may also be viable control options. Controlling handling operations to reduce material disruption (e.g., reducing drop height from a front-end loader bucket) is also another available mitigative measure. Impacts from dust generated by wind erosion can be, limited by minimizing exposed areas, seeding or using. hydromulch on exposed piles, covering storage piles when not accessed, .and limiting the disturbance of open areas and piles. With or without control, wind erosion is expected to represent a small fraction of the fugitive dust generated on-site. If left intact, a natural, tree line and surrounding open fields may reduce the dispersion of fugitive dust and the likelihood of exposure at a site. Lone -term from Site Operations The Town should ensure the proper design, construction, and operation of their various facilities.. Requirements could specify obligations to achieve -proper operations and have provisionsfor for contractors failure. An additional measure of ensuring proper controls is the NYSDEC overseeing solid waste management facilities with the right of unscheduled visits and testing. This would enhance the expectation that efforts .would be made to.ensure the facilities are operating within all standards. Effective restrictions and 'inspection programs " on the acceptance of hazardous or toxic materials by the Town .should be enacted to reduce and minimize contamination of the various elements of the waste stream. Training and policy requirements to monitor, incoming waste and segregate hazardous materials when found could- be implemented. Any such instances of unacceptable deliveries would be reported to NYSDEC in accordance with applicable regulations. PJ?HVTE) ON RECYCLED PAPER J The Town could ensure that the design and operational features necessary to control and mitigate the potential. impacts of air pollutant emissions are incorporated into any project by means of the procurement, contracting,' and oversight steps it intends to implement. Any formal Request for Proposals issued under New York State. procedures to procure a contractor for a project or vendor services would be expected to contain requirements for proposers to provide' detailed descriptions of design features and a management approach for construction or operation. These proposals would be'reviewed in order to determine if they are capable of meeting the Town's design and performance requirements. In addition; proposers would be required to demonstrate that they have the financial resources necessary to successfully undertake the construction and/or operation. This is one way to mitigate the impacts of services of facilities that are procured by the Town.. This would not be applicable to facilities owned, operated, or' constructed -solely by the Town. Nonpoint source impacts from the operation of the Plan elements could arise from dust generation and vehicle exhausts. .The design of the facilities would be expected to incorporate features to prevent dust escaping from the receiving and storage areas and to control dust from loading and transport activities. One example. of this is the maintenance of a slight negative air pressure within an enclosed facility. It is anticipated that design measures could result in reduced nonpoint source or fugitive air impacts from enclosed facilities. The site would be expected to have paved areas and that dirt roads be .wet down to minimize dust associated with on-site operations. Possible location of most or all of the facilities on one site could simplify -and localize the task of dust suppression. In order to control dust associated with dumping, leveling, and daily covering at the landfill, one option could be developing a spray system to quench fugitive dust. Vehicle exhaust, most notably from public vehicles and private collection vehicles going to and from the, facilities, cannot be directly regulated by the Town. However, .by providing assistance for efficient collection routes and encouraging compliance with State motor vehicle laws, some of the impacts from these sources might be mitigated. Odors associated with municipal solid waste can result from the partialdecay of organic material. The packer and the compactor trucks are by design totally enclosed, while "open" trucks (i.e., dump, roll -off container, transfer trailers, and pickups) can have 2761M/4 6-27 PRLN W ON RECYCLED P4PLIL their cargoes covered. Lawn cuttings, if left in a vehicle or a bag for' two or three. days, could be expected to release :an objectionable odor. The licensing procedures that could be established as part of the program could require the covering of all open top trucks and prompt delivery of collected materials. Vehicles violating cover requirements would be turned away. These procedures would help, to reduce odors from trucks or containers. All spillages from vehicles would be excepted to be cleaned up expeditiously; by the owner or operator, and owners would be encouraged to periodically wash out their vehicles to dislodge any decaying refuse. . If necessary, other measures may be developed to reduce the potential odor problems associated with vehicles. Truck routes could be 'established to restrict these vehicles from solely using residentially populated streets. Also, during peak hours when refuse vehicles arrive at the facilities, dual scales at the landfill could reduce truck standing time,and thus lessen impacts to the air from solid waste and idling engines. To, mitigate odors from collected yard waste, the Town would encourage either use of backyard or on -lot compost pile or same. day/next day delivery to the Town's specified facility. Frequent turnings of the , pile or windrow would be needed to aerate piles, especially if grass is included in the process in the future-, Where necessary, woodchips, low-grade paper, or newspaper could be used as a bulking agent that would help to maintain aerobic conditions and lower the potential for odor formation from potential anaerobic conditions. Proper monitoring and operation of the compost operations is a key factor in mitigating the formation of odors. The transfer station is expected to, be designed to minimize odors. Odor could be contained within the confines of a totally enclosed receiving area, and storage/receiving bins (pits). Maintenance of a negative air pressure and odor control systems could also be used to control interior odors. Alternately, transfer trailers in an open air system can be covered. daily and removed as filled. In accordance with 6 NYCRR Part 360-11.4 (m), removal of all putrescible solid waste- would be, performed whenever transfer containers are- full,, or. weekly, whichever comes first. During future SEQR review and/or ' permitting procedures, these issues would be expected to be addressed in further detail. 2761M/4 6-2$ PR0frED ON RECYCLED PAPER Application of daily cover material can control potential odors from the landfill. Additionally, a methane collection and gas venting system would be' expected- to further reduce the potential odor and gas impacts. If a landfill is implemented as part of this Plan. (depending on legislative/regulatory/legal decisions), then more detailed presentation of impacts and mitigation measures based upon site and technology specific aspects of the project would be expected to be evaluated in a supplemental EIS. 6.5 Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology Impacts on terrestrial and aquatic ecology would be related, to a great extent', to the specific site(s) and technology(ies) implemented as part of the Plan. A detailed site specific analysis (as contrasted to this generic analysis) would be conducted as part of any supplemental site/technology specific environmental impact statement or assessment for a facility. 6.5.1 . Impacts and Mitigation Impacts related to terrestrial and aquatic , ecology are discussed in this Section. It should be noted that the potential impacts to the terrestrial and aquatic systems of the Town are not expected to be significant. Short=term from Construction Short-term environmental impacts from construction depend on the site and technologies to be selected. Construction on an undeveloped site would, remove those lands from use by animals and plant species. While eliminating those areas from the natural environment, the local ecology, habitats, and niches for a given site could be subject to some impact. The removal of -vegetative 'cover during construction may increase erosion of soils and impact nearby habitats. Mitigative measures to reduce erosion. and surface water runoff were discussed in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.2.3. Lone -term from Operations Since no surface discharge .of process water effluents is expected and runoff/erosion impacts can be mitigated, impacts to nearby aquatic or wetland ecosystems are not expected. The potential for ecological impacts is expected to 'be the effect from air discharge sources. The primary air emissions that could impact plants include: methane, 2761M/4 6-29 PRffnW ON RECyCjFW PApM I fugitive dust, sulfur dioxide, fluorides, photochemical oxidants (ozone), nitrogen oxides, hydrogen chloride, heavy metals, and. particulates. Of these pollutants, only -the first five, are commonly implicated'in plant damage. . u . Direct impact to. plants occurs only at severely elevated pollutant levels near smelters, industrial sources with limited control for: emissions, or during peculiar meteorological events that prevent dispersal of emissions in a local area. Methane escaping from a landfill -could impact nearby plants; however, a methane collection/venting system would be expected to reduce . and limit this impact to acceptable levels. The trace amounts of nitrogen oxides and. sulfur dioxide. could `contribute to the nutrient pool of the neighboring ecosystems. Deposition of nitrogen and sulfur in the soil would not have - adverse effects. Nitrogen and sulfur compounds attributable to the Town's solid waste management facilities and practices would not likely be distributed in quantities that will promote excess growth of vegetation or algae. The extent of the effects of these pollutants and fugitive dust impacts could be further addressed in future SEQRA review and permitting activities. The preferred location (at the existing Town's solid waste complex) for. the ,facilities is well outside of the groundwater and storm water runoff contributing areas of the Peconic system and, as such, there would be no potential to be a contributing factor to the Brown Tide algal blooms. As it pertains to the Plan; no emissions that may have a significant impact are expected to I result from vehicular traffic, or are expected to have an adverse affect on the local ecology. Vectors and nuisance animals can have an- impact. Daily application of cover ata landfill and good housekeeping practices at other facilities work to control these impacts. Vector control. with rodentcides and insecticides .can also .'reduce.' the influence of these impacts. Covering or enclosing exposed wastes, could reduce the sea, gull ,population ata site. The actions of insecticides and rodentcides on local transient species may have an impact. Local nuisance animals near a solid waste facility can be transient in nature. Pesticides,, rodenticides, and insecticides, if used, may be transported off—site within or adhering -'to the- bodies of these animals. This is not expected to have a significant impact on the local terrestrial = and aquatic .ecology due to the usually dilute or small amounts or concentrations transported off-site by these animals. However,, -in isappli'ed -or over 276 1 W4 .6-30 J PRMED ON RECYCLED PAPER applied vector control materials could have a relatively greater impact if transported with storm 'water runoff, heavy winds, or excessive fugitive dust generation. Use of benign control measures as those discussed in Section 6.1.3 could mitigate this impact. In conclusion, no significant adverse ecological impacts either to natural vegetation, cropland, or indigenous animal life within the area are anticipated from construction or operation of the proposed . Plan elements. This 'would be expected to be more fully evaluated in the. site . specific, supplemental environmental impact statements, environmental assessments, or permitting activities as appropriate. 6.6 Transportation This Section discusses impacts, unavoidable adverse impacts, mitigation measures, growth inducing aspects, and use.and conservation of energy in relation to transportation. 6.6.1 Impacts The changes in waste disposal, collection, and delivery patterns as a resultof the siting of facilities could create traffic impacts. The extent of these impacts and the need for mitigation measures would be determined by consideration of access road capacities, existing and future load projections, intersection designs, 'and noise. Short-term from Construction During construction, additional traffic activity would arise as a result of trips "made to and from the construction sites by the construction workers and vehicles delivering materials. Typically, the construction workday could be arranged so that traffic associated with workers would arrive and depart at off peak times. 'It is expected that construction activities could. draw construction workers, depending on, the phase of construction, from a wide geographical region producing an increase in morning and evening traffic on roads .servicing the site(s). The delivery of construction materials and equipment would occur throughout the day, during hours of operation. It is difficult to predict the number of delivery vehicles, although they :are expected to be fairly evenly distributed throughout the day. 2761M/4 6-31 PRDI7W ON REC aEo PgpER Throughout the construction phase, short-term unavoidable impacts could_ result from the traffic generated. These impacts are not expected to be significant and may be lessened or controlled by the implementation of mitigation measures. Long-term from Operations Traffic impacts could occur . at the facilities ,or on 'the 'access routes serving the facilities. The sources of traffic could be: o Delivery of waste and mixed recyclable materials o Removal of recyclable materials o Employee and maintenance, vehicles o Visitor vehicles Traffic ;impacts -could result from the operation of. the transfer .station. Traffic volumes to the transfer station or other facilities may or may not be altered as the recycling', program is increased. If a permanent drop-off center for recyclables was established, then there would be an expected decrease in the overall number ofvehicles } using the principal site. As a result of operation of a transfer station, one to two ; (possibly higher in summer) trailer loads could be sent daily to .an ERF or CERF or other out -of -Town waste processing facility. One or less trailers per day .may be needed to transfer. recyclables during off-peak times. The number of trailers needed would depend on the requirements for delivered 'materials at, either. of the receiving facilities, or other in or out -of -Town processing : facility,,. the size of 'the . trailers that any of the receiving facilities could handle, the degree of compaction of the materials in the containers, and the actual arrangements between the Town and the. waste or recyclables processing operators. However, the impact on the ' traffic in the Town or on. the region is not expected to be j significant in terms of individual or cumulative impacts. When compared to long hauling , All of .the Town's waste out -of -Town and off Long Island, the traffic .impacts associated with implementing the proposed Plan could be positive in reducing regional traffic impacts ' and, contributing to metropolitan New York City traffic. If waste. were _j transported from Fishers Island. to be handled with the rest of the Town's waste, the use of the ferry(s); would not have any significant impact either on the ferry service • or- the traffic volume within the Town. As , much as possible, the ferry(s) should be used during off -hours and weekdays. 2761M/4 6-32 PMN EO ON REC CLED PAPER 6.6.2 Unavoidable Impacts Some traffic impacts as a -result of Plan implementation may result in unavoidable impacts. However, as discussed in Section 6.6.3, these impacts could be ' minimized with proper mitigation measures and planning. Using a relatively central location for solid waste drop-off and transfer could limit'impacts to one site and make mitigation measures more manageable than if sites are located throughout the Town. On the other hand, multiple sites could reduce the magnitude of individual traffic impacts below the level of significance at a particular site(s): Existing traffic patterns could be- changed by the implementation of the Plan elements, but it is expected that the new traffic patterns that may be established would not cause any adverse impacts. 6.6.3 Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures for possible .short-term or long-term traffic impacts are discussed in this Section. Short-term from Construction The normal volume of traffic generated by construction workers arriving at and departing from project sites is not expected to be of a magnitude to require extensive mitigation measures. The delivery of materials and equipment to the sites, however, may require some mitigation. These may include providing warnings regarding slow moving or oversized vehicles, and/or incorporating such measures as accompanying vehicles with flashing lights and warning signs, , and assistance from local police to stop or delay traffic on certain roads for- short periods of time. Maintenance of entrances and exits from construction sites can mitigate the effects of litter .and mud/dirt being transported off-site. Traffic impacts could be mitigated by restricting access by private vehicles, improving. access roads and signs, regulating refuse vehicle routes, or reducing traffic. Road improvements, if necessary, could consist of widening roads near a site, modifying intersections to allow adequate turning radii for large trucks, adding signs or signals at 2761M/4 _ 16-33 PI MMED ON RECYCLED PAPER key nearby intersections, or adding turning lanes - at vicinity- intersections. Specific impacts and .mitigation measures, such as improved signs, control -signals, and increased clearance or underpass width, would be evaluated and addressed in , site specific environmental impact statements or assessments. Lone -term from Operations Improving road conditions, signs, intersections, and routing may be needed during operations of the transfer station. The ' Town has recently completed construction of a separate bi-level drop-off area for • bulk deliveries of recyclables. The 'implementation of this drop-off area is expected to facilitate a smoother traffic flow and process flows of wastes and recyclables associated with the transfer station operations. The need for _J future road improvements, signs, intersection modifications, and other alternations would depend on. the size and number of transfer trailers leaving the station. ' 6.6.4 Growth Inducing Aspects Improvements to the transportation system that may be necessary to mitigate potential traffic impacts could result in making some ,locations in the Town more accessible and, "therefore, more desirable for residential or commercial development. This could have a slight or negligible affect on growth, but is not considered likely at this. time. u 6.6.5 Use and Conservation of Enerev - i Implementation of the Town's Plan might. result in diversion of waste ,deliveries from- numerous private vehicles carrying small amounts of household wastes to a' smaller 1 number 'of larger , capacity - commercial vehicles. In this case, significant savings of J energy, in terms of vehicle, fuel consumption, could result.. Improvements to the transportation- system that result in smoother traffic flow could also result in ' energy i conservation, due to decreased vehicle: fuel -consumption. The decision,- to use commercial carters is the .decision of each homeowner or business at this time. The Plan recognizes that on -route ;collection would be expected to increase recovery rates,'but discontinuation of existing, public drop-off arrangements is not recommended at this time. } •2761M/4 6-34 PRQV7ED ON RECYCLED PAPIER J 6.7 Land Use and Zoning This Section discusses impacts, mitigation. measures, irreversible/irretrievable commitments of resources,, growth inducing aspects, and coastal impacts related to land use and zoning. 6.7.1 Impacts The proposed Plan is not expected to have a significant impact on the overall zoning and land use in the Town. The overall impact of this Plan should not' be significant because of the relatively small area required as compared to the total area of the Town. The establishment of a landfill for residentially generated clean materials' requires the use of two acres of land. In addition land would be needed for the compost facilities, the landfill, and transfer system. The capping and closing of the landfill allow for expansion of composting operations without acquiring additional land. 6.7.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation of negative impacts on land use and zoning may be accomplished through the selection of suitable sites for the Plan elements which would attempt to minimize possible negative effects' on property values, existing agricultural activities, adjacent land uses, and local historical features. The design of the facilities would be oriented towards making them attractive and aesthetically compatible with their surroundings. The minimization of landfilling would reduce the negative effects of this activity on surrounding land ' uses and property values. The design and operational requirements expected to be established by the Town during the procurement or design process for each facility could assure that the appearance of operational characteristics of the .projects do not create negative impacts in this regard. The Town's continuing public information activities may help to avoid or correct any misinformation concerning landfilling, transfer - or composting operations, or other activities, thereby minimizing any misconceptions that could negatively. affect property values. 2761M/4 ' 6-35 PRWMD ONRECYaFD PAPER 6.7.3 Irreversible/Irretrievable Commitments of Resources Land is one of the most basic resources to be committed by the development of the ,Plan. elements., This long-term commitment of land is not totally irreversible, in that,- After hat;after use the' facilities can.be removed or reclaimed and the acreage made available 'for another 'function. Additional land which might ' also be purchased for buffering, ' would then be available for, use upon closure of a facility. Composting operations may be able to utilize land made available from capping and closing portions of the landfill.'- 6.7.4 andfill.- 6.7.4 Growth Inducing Aspects . The Plan -is, not .,expected, 'to result in relocation of residences or. businesses. However, there is the possibility of companies which use or process recycled goods to relocate and settle within the, Town: As part of its recycling efforts, the Town could consider it desirable to encourage companies involved in recycling 'activities to operate within the Town. 6.7.5 Coastal Impacts Land use and zoning, should not be adversely impacted along the coastal regions as a result of implementing the Plan. No coastal areas are expected to be used as a result of the action's proposed in this Plan: 6:8 , Community Services This: Section deals with potential impacts' upon community services and possible mitigation measures. . 6.8.1 Impacts and Mitigation Measures The proposed Plan is. not expected to result in any adverse impacts on either community services, or facilities. It is expected that it would positively affect solid waste disposal. services and improve refuse handling along ,with reducing the environmental impacts of solid waste disposal. .To the extent that some limited community, services may be needed, it is anticipated that agreements could be negotiated to provide assistance. 2761 M/4 6-36 i PRIMW ON RECYCI" PAPM Police Protection Police protection in the Town is not expected to be significantly affected by the proposed Plan elements. Facilities would be expected to utilize security measures such as chain link fencing, nighttime lighting, and on—site security guards if necessary. 'Most access would be limited to authorized personnel and visitors. It may be necessary for police to enforce any additional orexpanded ordinances that are implemented in support of the Plan, but this additional effort would not.be expected to be, significant. Fire Protection The provision of fire protection to the proposed facilities should not cause an undue burden on existing volunteer fire companies. Facility fire prevention and protection systems could be installed. These fire protection systems, along with fire training programs for the facility employees, would guard against potential facility fires. Capping the landfill, incorporating a methane venting, and/or recovery system,' separate tire recycling practices, and other features of the Plan may reduce the possibility of a fire. Facilities would be equipped with automatic fire detection systems where necessary. A sprinkler system in certain facilities, and fire extinguishers, would be available. Safety and First Aid Worker- safety training and compliance with OSHA regulations would minimize the need for emergency medical services. Safety equipment (hard hats, goggles, gloves, protective clothing,. hearing protection devices, etc.) would minimize the' need for emergency outside health care. Training of personnel in safe work procedures, accident avoidance, and safety procedures may mitigate some-. of the need for emergency health-. care. With the exception of unusual medical emergencies, the proposed Plan is not expected to adversely impact the availability of local health care services. 6.9 Demography The proposed Plan would not result_. in any :significant impacts on the localized or regional demographics or. employment. The majority . of skills required for the construction and operation of the proposed component facilities could be ' available from 2761 M/4 6-37 PRQVTW ON RECYCLED PAPER 'the Town's work force. Workers may be needed to fully staff, operate, and administer the various management-facilities. It is: not anticipated that -the proposed Plan would cause significant population growth .or -shifts. Operations might require a slightly greater total number of persons than are currently employed at .present operations. Additional, personnel in the private sector .could be required for .the'-collection of recyclable materials'at the: source. ,Consequently,, there could be some increase in, employment; however, it'should.not create a significant- impact on the work force in the area: 6.10 Cultural, Archaeological, and Historical Resources The Town has. many valuable cultural and. historicalresources such as ' sites of archaeological significance and historical structures dating back to. the period of colonial ; settlement:,. No. current or proposed Plan facilities are expected to have an impact on the - Town's cultural, archaeological, and'historical resources. 6.11 - Noise. Noise impacts and associated mitigation measures are:discussed in this Section. 6.11.1 'Impacts Noise generated by the, construction and operation .of the facilities would be expected, from various combinations of sources that operate-"both 'continuously and I intermittently, Although it. is difficult toredict noise P patterns when the .final site conditions and equipment layouts are unavailable, it is possible to estimate the generated i noise in generic -terms. Noise . would be "generated by vehicular traffic delivering and moving refuse and residue to and from the facilities. Short-term from Construction It is expected that noise' will be generated during construction. of the facilities. Traffic, construction equipment, and manual labor noise is expected to have an impact" during normal working hours. These impacts are 'not anticipated to be serious. 2761M/4 : -6-38 i PRIN7ED ON RECYCLED PAPER Long-term from Operations Equipment, vehicles, and traffic from operations at the facilities are expected to have some impact relating to noise. However, this is a site specific impact as far as the quantification of an expected increase in a location. Any quantification of the noise impact for a facility would be dealt with in a. site/technology specific EIS or environmental assessment as appropriate. Handling and processing equipment, such as shredders. and moving equipment, will generate noise during operations. Through proper design and noise reducing efforts, much of this impact can be minimized. Hours of operation, buffer zones, vegetation, and the use of berms can further minimize the travel of noise off-site. 6.11.2 Mitigation Measures Mitigation of noise impacts identified in this DGEIS is discussed in this Section. Short-term from Construction Construction noise could be generated intermittently during the construction period. However, to reduce the noise emanating from a construction site,' the following sound abatement procedures could be implemented: o Major construction activity could be limited to normal working hours on weekdays. Major construction would include such operations as site preparation, pouring foundations, jack hammering, etc. Light construction such as equipment setting, painting, etc., and operations would take place within the structures and thus would not cause outside noise impacts o Should pneumatic hammers be used, they would be required to operate with muffler attenuation devices 2761M/4 6-39 PRQV MD ON RECYCLED PAPIER o Other construction equipment would be required to comply with applicable noise standards issued by the USEPA. Air compressors would be required to limit emission to 76 dB(A) measured_ at 25 feet in compliance with EPA standards o Combustion -engine powered construction equipment would be equipped with properly maintained exhaust mufflers o Off-site construction vehicles, such as gravel trucks and .concrete mixers, would be -required to comply with NYS motor vehicle noise limits o Steam venting and the testing of safety valves would be performed through permanently installed silencers and only during normal working hours Loni-term from Operations The facilities and site layouts can be designed to minimize noise emissions and comply with OSHA standards to protect on-site 'personnel. Property line noise levels would be expected to be equal to or less than those presented in the NYSDEC guidelines for noise generated from waste management facilities. Operational noise could be controlled by acoustical attenuation, noise suppressors, equipment placement, and isolation. , Facility and Equipment Related Noise Operational noise from the facilities, exclusive of vehicular traffic, would be only during days of operation. The following abatement techniques could be implemented: o Limit waste delivery to normal daytime operating hours for the various facilities o Install mufflers and silencers on steam vents and low pressure relief valves to reduce venting noise by at least 25 dB(A) 2761 Mi4 6-40 ,j I J 'f PRBVMD ONRECyC"PRPSR o Use acoustical construction materials on structures which contain uncontrollable noise emitting equipment . o Use of low noise generating equipment o Provide screens or silencers on fans o Plant trees and shrubbery as screening o Maximize distances of the component elements from existing structures through the use of a buffer zone o - Conform with ,the NYSDEC recommended: buffer zone Traffic Related Noise . On-site traffic noise control measures include: o Properly maintain :engine exhaust systems and mufflers o Require truck operators to comply with NYS vehicle noise emission limit o Keep on-site speeds to 20 mph or less o Design and operate the _facilities such that truck stopping and queuing are minimized and vehicle access roads on-site are kept away from existing structures and prohibit idling o Prohibit or minimize unnecessary idling .of vehicles at the facilities 6.11.3 . Unavoidable Adverse Impacts Unavoidable noise will be generated during construction and operation of the various facilities, though mitigation measures described in 6.11.2 could lessen this impact. Section 1 discusses the existing noise concerns in the Town. 2761 M/4 11 6-41 PHMED ON RECYCLED MWR \ 6.12 Visual Aspects Visually, some aspects of the proposed Plan may have an impact.. ;Impacts and mitigation measures are discussed for .the various Plan •elements where appropriate. 6.12.1 Impacts and Mitigation Measures , Visual impacts may be expected during both ' the construction and operation of the facility. Mitigation for these impacts are also discussed here. Short—term from Construction . Visual 'impacts during the construction phase would' include such, items as construction materials, exposed earth and stockpiles of excavated soil, removal of vegetation and screening,, partially completed "structures; unsightly construction equipment, and other similar construction related impacts. These impacts would be of short—term duration.. Most of them, could be mitigated. ' by some form of -screening. Further, construction site maintenance and effectively maintained erosion ' control procedures would assist in lessening the visual disturbances during construction. Long—term from Construction- Visual onstructionVisual impacts after the construction phase is completed' could . result• from the - physical aspects of the facilities or the actual operations. Unsightly, garbage trucks, landfilling, or other equipment may have an impact. Structures such as an administration building, maintenance building, transfer station, etc., may also have a visual impact. These visual impacts may be mitigated by such measures as aesthetically pleasing structure design, compatibility with the local neighborhood, vegetative or other screening, . thoughtful layout of facilities, etc. Visual impacts are expected to be analyzed further in site specific SEQRA reviews. 6.12.2 Unavoidable Impacts The construction of a building, facility, or fence on open space can be considered an unavoidable .impact despite the best efforts to make the construction aesthetically pleasing. 2761 M/4 6=42 P1RW7£D ON RECYCLED PAPER 6.13 Economics 6.13.1 Impacts Economic impacts - from implementing the proposed Plan are expected. Capital.. costs for processing, facilities will • be considered in future design and permitting activities. The two acre or less .clean fill, compost facility, transfer station, and the landfill are examples of alternatives that keep these costs to a minimum. Wherever economically feasible, the Town is expected to encourage, participate in, and assist in the planning of joint Town or regional efforts of waste management. However, until these regional alternatives are available, the Town needs ' to be in a position to implement certain Plan elements. - The same reasoning applies to proposed private sector processing facilities. The private sector opportunities_ are to be monitored, and Cost comparisons between permitted, existing, planned, and private sector facilities can be made in order to reidentify the most attractive and environmentally responsible alternatives that the Town could pursue. 6.13.2 Potential Mitigation Measures Economic impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Plan are expected to be reduced through the' implementation of the most cost—effective measures available to the Town. These mitigation measures .address the economic attributes of the proposed Plan. Greater detail needed for fiscal and economic management of the Plan can be developed once the Plan elements are finalized. 6.13.3 Irretrievable/Irreversible Commitments of Resources The economic resources committed to the implementation of the Plan would depend to a great extent on the regulatory/legislative issues raised in Section 4. Development of disposal solutions in the Town would be expected to result in a much larger portion of . solid waste management funds remaining in the Town. These economic resources would not be .considered irretrievably lost since Town . owned land and facilities could be reclaimed for future use. Long—term solutions considered to be best suited for implementation by the Town have been presented in Section 5. Solid waste management facilities located outside of 2761 M/4 6-43 PRBVTW ON RECYCLED PAPER the Town could result -in the irretrievable commitment of resources, but could minimize expenditures required -by the Town. This would depend largely on the type of arrangement negotiated between the Town of Southold and the other involved agency. ' Final. decisions by the Town relating to the operation of the proposed facilities are to be made after, the issuance of the FGEIS. The decisions are expected to provide the Town with flexibility in its continuing planning efforts . and: to minimize the" economic impact of procuring services for each of the Plan elements in the ' most cost-effective manner. 2761M/4 Section 7 7.0 GLOSSARY, BIBLIOGRAPHY, ABBREVIATIONS, AND ACRONYMS 7.1 Glossary of Technical Terms Active Fill Area The part of a landfill where waste is currently being deposited. Admixture Something added by mixing; the product of mixing. Adsorption The adhesion or attraction of an extremely thin layer of molecules to the surfaces of solid bodies, or liquids with which they are -in contact. Aggregate A collection of soil grains or particles gathered into a mass; natural sands, gravels, and crushed stone used for mixing with cementing material in making mortars and concretes. (See also Base Course Aggregate) Altitude The vertical elevation of an object above sea level, height. Ambient Surrounding; of or pertaining to the basic condition of the environment independent, of any specific pollution source. Ambient Air Quality The state or condition of the surrounding atmosphere to which the -general public has access, expressed in -terms of pollutant concentration. 2631M/1 7-1 PRMED ON RECYCLED PAPER Ambient :Concentration The concentration of a substance in the i surrounding environment: Annual Throughput Total annual capacity, of a plant less scheduled and unscheduled downtime. Aquifer A saturated permeable geologic formation - capable of yielding significant quantities of groundwater to wells and springs. _ Ashfill A landfill which may accept ash or other residue from resource recovery, incineration or.other approved treatment processes. -Ash Residue All solid materials remaining after incineration of municipal solid waste, consisting of bottom and fly ash and including but not limited to metal, glass, ceramics, and unburned organic substances. Attainment Area Under the Clean Air Act, an Air Quality I . Control Region (or portion thereof) that 'is 1 _ meeting the standard set for a -given criteria pollutant. Background Concentration The existing pollutant level in an area. Base Course: Aggregate The layer of a paved road lying directly beneath the wearing surface course and above the subbase course. Usually stabilized with a material such as Portland cement,, -' lime, or asphalt. Baseline,Data Information on the conditions existing before an action, project, or experiment begins. 2631M/1 PRffaw ON RECYCLED RAPER _ _� Basic Having a pH greater than 7. (See also Alkaline) Below Grade Below the general ground level at a site. Biogasification Organic fraction output of a front-end processing system is mixed with .water from liquid sewage sludge and placed in an aerobic digester where fermentation will produce methane gas. Bulk Wastes, Included in this category are large chairs,, sofas, tree stumps, some appliances, some debris, and tires. Bypass Waste Any processible waste delivered to the facility but not processed due to scheduled or unscheduled maintenance period (downtime) or to capacity limitations. Chlorides Compounds containing chlorine. Clean Air Act The national legislation under which ambient air quality is,regulated. Compaction The compression of solid waste and cover material into a smaller space, generally by driving specially designed heavy equipment over it. Composting A controlled process of organic breakdown of matter. 263W1 7-3 PRQV7W ON RECYCIF-D PAPER Conductivity _ The ability of a material` to accommodate the - flow of electricity (electrical conductivity) or heat (thermal conductivity). Consent Order -A binding agreement, between .the parties to a lawsuit, made, with the approval;, of- a' court. It is -nota judicial decree in the proper sense. ' Criteria Pollutants Those pollutants, regulated under the. Clean - Air Act for. which the specific "criteria" or. basis for the ambient standards has been delineated in the Code of -Federal Regulations, .Part 40. Critical Habitat An area essential for the survival of an. - endangered or threatened species -of plant or ' animal. Decibel . A unit of relative sound.or power measurement. - Deep Flow` Recharge Area An area from which surface water.and . precipitation penetrate beyond the shallow aquifer to the deeper aquifers. Defined geographically, by hydrogeologic zones }. developed in the Long Island Comprehensive Waste, Treatment Plan of 1978. ; - Demographic - Relating to the dynamic balance of a J population, especially with regard to density And capacity for expansion.or decline. -' 2631M/1 PRVVTED ON RECYCLED PAPER' N Demolition Wastes Dioxin Double -lined Downgradient Downtime Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) Ecosystem Emissions 2631M/1 Waste material generated from building, highway, and redevelopment sites. This includes lumber, pipes, masonry, concrete, and other related_ construction by products. Also known as construction and demolition' debris (C&D). Shortened term for the organic compounds, dibenzo-p-dioxins, a group of toxic organic compounds. Equipped at all, points with two liners, one under or beyond the other. Down slope; further along the line of movement; at a point of lower hydraulic pressure. Period of suspended operation of a plant due to maintenance or repairs. A type of GEIS that is a preliminary statement that is used for public review and comment. It is conceptual in nature. The complex of a community and its environment functioning as an ecologic unit in nature. Material produced at and leaving a specific place. Generally used .with reference to pollutants released into the air or water. 7-5 PR/MED ON RECYCLED PAPER Endangered Species Any species which meet one of following criteria: 1) any native species in imminent danger of extirpation or extinction and 2) any Species listed as endangered by the United. ` States Department of the Interior, as -enumerated in the Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR. ; Energy Recovery Facility An incinerator or similar system that recovers energy from the heat generated to make electricity. Environmental Assessment Form A form used by an agency to assist it (EAF) in, determining the environmental significance or -nonsignificance of an Faction: 'A completed EAF should contain information, to describe the proposed action, the !` environmental setting, and "the potential impacts of the action on the environment. Environmental Impact Statement : A document required of federal, and. state . (EIS) agencies by the National Environmental : Policy Act and .parallel state laws for major : projects orlegislative proposals. Used in making decisions about the positive and negative effects of a proposed project and its alternatives. A report containing" the - description of .a proposed action, its environmental setting, potential -a environmental impacts, ways to minimize the impacts, and reasonable alternatives. It serves as a public -disclosure of -the record used by.an agency in its environmental decision making. _- 2631M/1' .7-6 PRa1r W ON RECYCLED PAPER ERF/CERF Projects Extraction Procedure (EP Toxicity) Test Federal 4 Federal Aviation Administration Ferrous Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) Flood Plain 2631M/1 Refers to possible expansions to the Huntington/Smithtown and/or Babylon energy recovery facilities, and the proposed Brookhaven composting/energy recovery, facility. A laboratory test procedure in'which acetic acid is passed through the sample material and the material that dissolves into the acid and leaves the sample with it is tested for toxicity. The purpose is to determine the tendency of the sample material to generate toxic leachate under . mildly acidic conditions. Government of the United States of America. U.S. regulatory agency'with review authority over all structures affecting air traffic activities, e.g., stacks and structures. Containing a high percentage of iron. A type of Generic Environmental Impact Statement which is the completed document . consisting of the Draft GEIS plus any. revisions, public comments, and lead agency responses to the substantive comments. Lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal waters that are subject to flooding during storm periods. 7-7 PRBVMD ON RECYCLED PAPER Frequency q Y i The number of sound waves per second produced by. a sounding body; the number of complete oscillations per second of a sound -' wave. - Fugitive Dust Dust that is uncontained and can be blown about by the • wind. Emissions other than ' those released through'a stack, vent, or equivalent opening. f Furans A group of organic com g pounds similar in - structure to the dioxins. Garbage: Solid waste usually generated in a kitchen. i This includes waste that results from the : preparation and serving of food (e.g:, wrappers and containers) as well as waste food. Generic EIS, This is a type of EIS that deals in abroad or conceptual way with a number of related actions or a single group of'physical actions with many phases or stages. j Gradient The rate of regular or graded. ascent or descent. . Groundwater Inflow . Flow of groundwater into a surface water body such as a lake or stream, or into, an excavation. Hazardous Waste - Waste materials whic. h'by their natureare f inherently dangerous to handle or dispose of, such as explosives, radioactive material, f toxic chemicals, and some biological wastes, - usually produced in industrial operations and .:. classified by County, State or Federal regulation. 2631M/1,7-8 PRMW ON RECYCLED PAPM r Health Risk Assessment _ Analyzes the potential risks to public health from the inhalation, dermal absorption or ingestion through soil or food of emissions from a facility., Heavy Metals Any of a class of metals of high atomic weight and density, such as mercury, lead, zinc and cadmium, that are known to be toxic to living organisms. Hydraulic Conductivity The ability of gravel, sand, silt, clay, or other material to transmit water through the spaces between particles. Hydrocarbons Any one of a very large class of chemical compounds composed primarily of carbon and hydrogen. Hydrogen Sulfide A gas composed of hydrogen and sulfur ions which is associated with decaying materials and has a characteristic rotten egg odor., Hydrogeologic Pertaining to the behavior of surface water and groundwater with respect to soil and rock formations. Impermeable . Lacking passages through which other materials can pass. Incinerator Waste End products resulting from the combustion Processes of an incinerator. These include residue, siftings, and fly ash. Inert Unreactive, and therefore unable to burn degrade, compost or oxidize. 2631M/1 7-9 PRRV FD ON RECYrJ Fn PAPIER Infiltration The movement of water•'(precipitation) down through the soil. Land Clearing Debris Wastes in the -form of dirt, gravel, rocks, soil, trees, stumps, and vegetation generated when open land is developed. -y Landfill An area where+ - municipal solid waste or other wastes are disposed by burial methods. Leachate Water that has been contaminated through contact with solid waste, usually by moving through a landfill (percolation). Lead Agency Lead agency is the term used to identify the one agency from among all involved agencies, that has the responsibility under NYSDEC to coordinate the environmental review of a proposed action. Methane Recovery The techniques that allow a landfill the productive use of methane, a gas produced by anaerobic decomposition of organic matter. Mitigation (Mitigating Measures) A measure to cause something to be less adverse or severe. Steps taken to eliminate' -� or lessen the severity of anImpact. - Moraine A row of hills formed when. a glacier melts, releasing the soil and rock previously trapped within the moving wall of ice.. I J 2631M/1 I 7-10 PRIMED ON RECYCLED PAFFR Municipal Solid Waste Residential, nonchemical, industrial, commercial, and institutional solid waste generated within a municipality. National Ambient Air Quality Standards National Environmental Policy.Act National Historic Preservation Act Maximum concentrations of criteria pollutants allowed in the ambient air under the Clean Air Act. Primary standards are established to ensure, public health; secondary standards protect the public welfare. National Environmental Policy Act of 1970, PL 91-190 mandates an environmental impact statement for any major federal project or legislative proposal for the purpose of determining the negative and positive aspects of the project and to examine alternatives and mitigating measures. An act that expands considerably the federal government's role in historic preservation by directing ,the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a list of buildings, sites and districts, structures and objects of local, state, or national significance in American history, architecture, archaeology and culture. National Institute of This institute conducts research aimed Occupational Safety and Health at reducing health and safety hazards in the workplace. Nitrates Compounds formed by replacing the hydrogen ion in nitric acid. Nitrates contain nitrogen and oxygen and are used in fertilizer. 2631M/1 7-11 PRP"M ON RECYCIFD PAPER Nonattainment Area A designated area where each stated pollutant is not in compliance with National • Ambient Air. Quality Standards, (NAAQS). Noncriteria Pollutants Air pollutants for which no NAAQS has been established. Nonferrous Metals Metals that contain no iron, e.g., aluminum, -bronze, zinc, etc. Nonprocessible Waste' Large noncombustible or decomposable (Untreatable) items, such as refrigerators, washing machines, engine blocks, etc: Organic Matter g) I Chemical compounds of carbon combined with other chemical elements and generally li manufactured in the life processes of plants and animals. Most organic compounds - ("organics") are a source of food Ifor bacteria and are usually compostable or combustible. Parameters Any of a set of physical properties whose values determine the characteristics of behavior. Particulates Fine, solid particles which remain individually dispersed in a gas or the atmosphere. Percolation Gravity flow of groundwater through the pore spaces in rock or soil. Permeable Having pores or openings that permit liquids or gases to pass through. 7 2631 M/ 1 7-12 PROnED ON RECYCLED PAPM? pH A term used to express relative hydrogen ion activity, and thus relative acidity and alkalinity. In practice, this number ranges from 1 (extremely acidic) to 14 (extremely alkaline). A pH of 7 is neutral. Plan The Solid Waste Management Plan for the Town of Southold. Plume . An area or volume occupied by material entering the environment from a specific source, so called because it tends to have the general shape of a large feather. Geometric dimensions .of a gas, liquid or .solid emitted from a point source that moves downgradient. Point—Source Contamination Pollution from one specific, identifiable source. Pollutant Any gaseous, chemical, or organic waste that contaminates air, soil or water. Pollution The contamination of soil, water, or atmosphere by the discharge of noxious substances. Postclosure The period after a solid waste disposal facility stops receiving waste and is capped (covered with impermeable material) and/or closed. Potable Suitable for drinking. Precipitation A deposit on the earth of hail, mist, rain, sleet, or snow; the quantity of water deposited. 2631H/1 7-13 PREaW ON RECYCLED PMER Processible Waste That portion of the waste stream, excluding• hazardous waste, which can be incinerated i composted or otherwise treated at or by a -4 solid waste facility. Those items too bulky to be handled by a resource recovery system . (demolition debris, refrigerators, etc.) are termed nonprocessible or untreatable. Promulgate To make known by open declaration. " Public Scoping Public" identification of the important environmental issues, alternatives, .and mitigation measures that should be addressed in an Environmental Impact Statement. Putrescible Subject to decomposition, decay, or odorousness. — Qualitative Relating to or involving quality (degree" of excellence) or kind. Recyclable Waste That fraction of waste which has been removed from a Town, County or region's municipal solid waste stream through source separation and delivered to a materials recovery facility or other recycling facilities by or on behalf of the Counties, municipalities or local businesses. The composted fractions of a waste stream are considered recyclable 'materials. Refuse That portion of the solid waste that consists ' J of ordinary nonsegregated domestic, commercial, and industrial garbage"and rubbish. 1 2631 M/1 7-14 PRN7FD ON RECYaFD PAPER 2631M/1 Remote Disposal Residue Resource Recovery Resource Recovery Facility Waste disposal technique in which waste is transferred out of one area to be ultimately discarded in another. The byproducts of an energy recovery facility, materials recovery facility, compost facility or other processes which must be removed for disposal or further utilization. The separation, extraction, and recovery of usable materials and/or energy from solid waste. Any place, equipment, device, or plant designed and/or operated to separate or process solid or liquid waste into usable secondary materials, including.fuel and energy. Sanitary Landfill An engineering method of disposing of waste on land by spreading the waste in layers, compacting it, and covering it with soil. Saturated Zone The part of a geologic formation in which all of the spaces between soil particles and the fissures in any rock in the formation are completely filled with water. Sediment Control Structures Storm water collection channels, sedimentation basins, retention/recharge basins, and other erosion control measures. Sedimentation Basin . A pool or pondlike structure in which storm water is collected so that the solid material caught up in the water can settle out before the water enters a lake or stream, or other water body. 7-15 PREYTED ON RECYCLED MPER 2631 M/1 Segregation Further division of recyclables into categories of materials for processing after initial separation. Silt Soil particles smaller than fine sand, but larger than clay particles, often carried and deposited by water runoff. Siltation The deposition of fine particles by water, called sediment after settling or deposit. Slope A comparison of horizontal (sideways) movement to vertical (upward or downward) movement. On a 3:1 (or 1 on 3) slope, water travels 3 feet horizontally for every 1 foot it drops vertically. On a 2:1 slope, which is steeper, water travels only 2 feet horizontally for each 1 -foot drop. Sludge Semiliquid waste resulting from water or wastewater treatment. Sole -Source Aquifer An aquifer that is the sole source of drinking water for an area. Solid Waste Discarded solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material which is considered the "end product" of an extraction, production or consumption process and for which there is no perceived further use. Note, however, that in the present DGEIS "solid waste" often refers only to municipal solid waste, defined elsewhere in this glossary. 7-16 PRNVTED ON RECyCLE0 PAPER Source Separation Separating recyclable materials from the waste stream before the solid waste is collected. Special Concern Species Those native species which are not yet recognized as endangered or threatened, but for which documented concern exists for their continued welfare in New York. State Pollution Discharge The New York State permit program that Elimination System (SPDES) regulates point source discharges of wastewater and storm water. State -of -the -Art Incorporating the. latest advancements in the field. Superfund Site (Federal) A site placed on the USEPA's National Priorities List because USEPA believes it contains hazardous material that poses a threat to human health or to the environment. Supplemental Environmental Impact A specific EIS dealing with an Statement (SEIS) individual project that has been addressed, at . least conceptually, in a previous Generic EIS. The scope of such an EIS is usually. limited to those issues not adequately addressed in the Generic EIS. Surfactant A chemical agent that lowers the surface tension of water to improve the contact of solids with water droplets and thus improve dust suppression. Suspended Particulates Particles of solid material in a body of water that are so small that they tend to remain dispersed in the water rather than settling to the bottom. 2631M/1 7-17 PRUaW ON RECYCZ cn PAPER Swale A wide, shallow depression in the ground, either planted with grass or paved, that is ! capable of, carrying water in a specific direction. :Used in erosion control. Terminal Moraine The moraine created by the furthest advance of a glacier (see moraine). Threatened Species Any species that meets one of the following criteria: 1)'any native species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future in New York, and 2) any species listed as threatened by the United States Department of Interior, as enumerated in the Code of Federal ' Regulations, 50 CFR. Threshold Limit Value Critical value of pollutant concentration above which health effects are first observed. J Till :An unsorted mixture of glacially deposited' boulders, gravel, sand-, silt and clay. _ Tipping Fee(s) Weight basis charge .for municipal solid waste processing or disposal services: Total Dissolved Solids A wastewater characteristic defining the amount of -solid material in'solution, which Would remain as residue after evaporation. Trace Metals Metals in very small amounts. J 2631M/1 7-18 PRINTF ONRECYCLEDPAPM 2631M/1 Trash Unacceptable Waste Nongarbage waste generated from commercial and industrial sources which includes paper, paint cans, cartons, insulation, steel drums, building signs, etc. The fraction of municipal solid waste which is not acceptable at a facility because of its nature, such as hazardous wastes. Vector An organism (such as an insect or rodent) that can transmit a pathogen. Also used in conjunction with nuisance animals. Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) Organic materials that vaporize readily. Gasoline and paint thinner are primarily composed of volatile organics.. Waste Minimization The reduction to the extent feasible, ,of waste that is subsequently treated, stored or disposed of. Includes source reduction and recycling that results in the reduction of the volume or toxicity. Waste Reduction Reduction or decrease in the volume and toxicity of waste. Treating, emitting, discharging or disposing of wastes after they have been generated is not waste reduction. The process of eliminating part of the waste before it is generated. Includes using fewer materials in manufacturing and packaging, switching to reusable items and prolonging product life. 7-19 PREV7W ON RECYC/ Fn PAPER 2631M/1 Waste Stream A general term for the total waste output of a geographic area. Waste Stream Control The ability to direct the now of solid waste to specific facilities within a jurisdiction. (Waste Flow Control). White Goods Discarded major household appliances that can be recycled. Working Face The area on the sloping side of a landfill or ashfill where waste is currently being deposited. 7-20 PRW7FE) ON RECYCLED ~,U? 7.2 Bibliography Aerographics Corp., 1988. Town of Southold Aerial Index Map. Agricultural District Legislation in New York: As Amended Through November 1985, Compiled by Kenneth V. Gardner, Dept of Agricultural Economics, NYS College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH),' Inc., 1981. Documentation of Threshold Limit Values, 5th Ed., Cincinnati, OH. "A Permanent Household Toxics Solution;" Waste Age, March 1989, pp. 89-94. Arner, R.L., The Final Report of an Intensive Municipal Solid Waste Recycling System for the Town of East Hampton. Arthur D.' Little, Inc. 1989. Marketing Development Strategies for Recyclable Materials. Barton & Loguidice, P.C., December 1988. Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement/Solid Waste Management Plan for Columbia County. New York. Biocvcle. Journal of Waste Recycling, August 1988. 29:7. . Biocvcle. Journal of Waste Recycling, September 1988. 29:8. Biocvcle. Journal of Waste Recycling, October 1988. 29:9. Biocvcle. Journal of Waste Recycling, November'- December 1988. 29:10. Biocvcle. Journal of Waste Recycling, July 1989. 30:7. Biocvcle. Journal of Waste Recycling, August 1989. 30:8. Bolt, Beranek & Neuman, Inc., June 1973. Fundamentals and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise, Report No. PP13-222-70B, Federal Highway Administration. Boyle and Ham, 1974. "Biological Treatability of Landfill Leachate," JWPCF, 46:5. 2631M/1 7-21 PRWMD ON RECYC/ M PAPER Brown and Vence and Associates, 1982. Utilization of Residue from Resource Recovery Facilities. Prepared for the State of California Solid Waste Management Board.. Bungener, J.H., .June 1985. Sound Level Survey Wise's Landing Kentucky', Bolt Beranek and Newman,, _Inc., Report 2880, Downers Grove, IL. . Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of. Commerce, 1983. County and City Data Book—'. 'Camp .Dresser & McKee, 1985. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a Resource Recovery Facility at Babylon: Camp Dresser & McKee, September 1985. Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Long Island Regional Ashfill Volume 1. ,r Center, Larry W., Environmental Impact Assessment, McGraw Hill Book -Co. Center for -Risk Management Resources _for the Future; No 1989. Managing Ash From Municipal Waste Incinerators. Chemical Pollution'Control Inc., .1988. Town•of Southold Household Waste Collection Center Operations Manual. Chian and deWale, 1986. Sanitary Landfill Leachate and Their Treatment. City Current, ;1983. 7:4 U.S. Conference of Mayors National Resource Recovery Association. Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 1857- et. seq.), Part A,' Sections 1.08 and 109, and Part C.' Clearwaters, 1989. 19:2 New York Water Pollution Control Association. Climatological Data New York. Annual periodical. " - i Cohalan, Peter, 1984-1985. Annual Environmental Report — Report to the Suffolk County Legislature. Suffolk County Department of General Services. Cohalan, Peter, 1982. Five Year Recovery Action Plan County of Suffolk ' NY. 2631M/1 7-22 PR01rIWONRECYa DPAPIER Concord Scientific Corporation, 1985. National Incinerator Testing & Evaluation Program (NITEP. P.E.I. Testing Program Volume II (Prepared for Environment. Canada). Consulting Engineer Feasibility Report, Town of Islip Resource Recovery Facility. Cornell Cooperative Extension, 1988. "Facts About Suffolk's Agricultural Industry." Cramer, Voorhis & Associates, 1989. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Village Square Shopping Center. Calverton New York. CSI Resource Systems, Inc., and R.E. Pustorino, P.E., 1989. Evaluation of Alternative Waste Disposal Systems for the Town of Smithtown. Cundari, Kenneth L., and Lauria, Jeffrey'M. "Ashfills and Leachate," Waste A-ge, pp. 82-88, November 1986. Cundari, Kenneth L., et al..1986. "The Laboratory Evaluation of Expected Leachate Quality from a Resource Recovery Ashfill: Presentation at Triangle Conference for Environmental Technology, Chapel Hill, NC." Czuczwa, J.M. and R.A. Hites, 1986. "Airborne Dioxins and Dibenzofurans: Sources and Fates", Environmental Science Technology 20:195-200. Daugherty, R.L., J.B. Franzini,.and E.J.- Finnemore, 1985. Fluid Mechanics With Engineering Applications. McGraw-Hill Book Company.- Dealing ompany: Dealing with Solid Waste Special Report, The Public Policy Institute, August 1988. Dong, H. Lock, P.C. and Ferrand E., 1986. "High Pressure Liquid Chromatographic Method for the Routine Analysis of Major Parent Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. in Suspended Particulate Matter," Analytical Chemistry, 48:368. Ducey, R.A., Griggs, K.L. Joncich, DM.M, and Sias, S.R., 1985. Heat Recovery Incineration: A Summary of Operational Experience, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Construction Engineering Research Laboratory. Special Report E-85/06. 2631 W 1 7-23 PRN ED ONRECyaED Pqpa? Duxbury, Dana, "A Look at HHW Management Trends," iWaste qee, October 1989, p' 80-86. p. Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers,1986. Town of Huntinizton. New York Resource Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers, 1987. Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan Volumes I and II. Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers, 1989. Supplemental Information to Ae A lication to Construct and O erate a Permanent Household Hazardous Waste Containment_ Facility. Town of Riverhead Suffolk County New York. Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers, 1989. Town of Brookhaven Solid Waste Management Plan Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Dvirka &Bartilucci Consulting. Engineers, 1989. Town of Brookhaven Solid Waste Management -Plan Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement. Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers, 1990. Town of Brookhaven Draft Request for Proposals for a Composting and Energy Recovery Facility with Preprocessing. . Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers, 1990. Part 360 and Phase II Hydrogeolo is Investigation Work Plan. Southold Landfill Town of Southold Suffolk County. New York. k Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers, 1990. Town of Riverhead Solid Waste -Management Plan Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement. r E&A Environmental Consultants., Inc., 1989. Report on the Potential for Composting and Recycling on Fishers Island New York. ! 2631 M/1. 7-24 I i PROY7W ON RECYCl W PAPFJI n ERM -Northeast and Camp Dresser & McKee, March 1983. _North Fork Water Simply Plan. Suffolk County New York. . ERM -Northeast and Environmental Laboratories, 1988. Solid Waste Composition Analysis for the Town of Riverhead. "Energy From Waste," Summary of a Study by the National Energy Administration and the National Swedish Environment Protection Board. Energy Source Assessment Document,. EPA 600/7-77-091. Cincinnati, OH. Energy Systems Research Group, Alternative Resource, Inc., and Wehran Engineering, Inc., 1988. Managing Municipal Solid Waste• A Comparative Risk Analysis of Landfill and Resource Recovery Facilities. i Engineering News Record, 1984. "Typical Noise Emission Level for Construction Equipment." Environmental Planning Lobby, 1985. The Financial and Environmental Impact of Garbage Incineration. Evaluation of Compost and Cocompost Materials for Highway Construction Phase I.- Final Report. State of California Department of Transportation, June 1987. Facing America's Trash• What Next for Municipal Solid Waste?, Interim Summary, Office of Technology Assessment, 1015-t Congress of the United States, June 1989. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rate Maps. Town of Southold, New York, Suffolk County. Federal Register: 114, June 1972: "Type Noise Reduction by Structures." "Field Installation, Operation, and Maintenance Manual for Hazardous Materials Storage Building." Safety Storage, Inc., Cupertino, California. Franklin Associates, LTD, July 1986. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States. 1960 to 2000 Final Report. Prepared for USEPA. 2631M/1 7-25 PR<NLFD ON RECYCLED ~fig Goldstein,allova, Au " gy,�, August 1986. Solid Waste Composting Gains New'Ener Bioc cv le - Journal of Waste Recycling. 112M, October .1986. Town of Southold- Suffolk County New York, Solid Waste, Management Report. 112M, -March 1987. Resource Recovery, Facility Siting Study' for the Towns of Southampton and Riverhead. H2M, July ,1988. Southold Landfill Expansion Hydrogeologic Field Investigation Work Plan. H2M, August -1988. Town of Southold Suffolk County. -New York Final Request for Proposals for a Solid Waste/Sludge Composting FacilityL 112M, 1989.. Final Environmental Impact Statement for"Solid Waste/Sludge Composting Facilftv. Southold New York. Hagstroms, 1990. Suffolk County, New York. Hahn, J.L., D.B. Sussman, P.Z. Kubin, Ogden Martin Systems, Inc.; 1987. Recent Air . Emission Test Data from Several Waste toEnergy Facilities Utilizing -Martin GmbH Stoker Combustion Systems and Advanced Air Pollution Control Equipment. Hanna, S.R., Briggs, G.A. and Hosker, R.P.,, 1982. 'Department of Energy Handbook on Atmospheric Diffusion. Publication Number DOE/TIC 11223. Hauptman, John, Correspondence on Pine Barrens Review Commission Requirements for Review Procedures, Pine Barrens Review Commission, March 18, 1985. Hershkowitz, Allen .and Salerni., Eugene, 1987. _Garbage Management in Japan Leaclin the Way.. Inform, Inc. ' Hilerrian, B., 1981. "Particulate Matter: The Inhalable Variety." 'Environmental Science and Technology, 15(9):983-986. 2631M/1. 7-26 PRWIFD ON RECYCLED ~ER Hinchey, Maurice D., 1985. Resource Recove y and Solid Waste Management in Norway. Sweden Denmark and German: Lessons for New York, New York State Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Management, Albany, N.Y. Hinchey, M.D., and Bruno, J.L., 1986. Where Will' the Garbage Go? New York's Looming Crisis in Disposal apacity: NY State Legis. Comm. on Solid Waste Management. Holstein, Edwin, C., M.D., 1986. Public Health Risk Assessment for the Huntington Recovery Resource Facility (sic), Draft Environmental Impact Statement Town of Huntington New York. Holzworth, G.C.,.1974: Mixing. Heights, Wind Speeds 'and Potential of Urban Air Pollution Throughout the Contiguous United States. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Publication No. AP -101. I.T.T. Corporation, 1988. Draft Environmental Impact Statement on Solid Waste Management. Dutchess County Resource Recovery Agency. "Innovative Recycling Method for Fish," 1990. Long Island Business News, January 15, 1990. International Standards Organization, 1969. Noise Assessment with Respect to Com munity.Responses, 150/TC 43; New York: United Nations. Interstate Sanitation Commission, 1985. Report on the Water Pollution Control Activities and the Interstate Air Pollution Pro am. Irwin and Graf, 1979. Industrial Noise and Vibration Control, Prentice -Hall, Inc. 2631M/1 7-27 Pmwr D oN Rwyc/ED ~,w "Is Recycling�,the Answer? American City and County, Vol. 104; No. 5, Dan Treadway, Associate Editor, May 1989. Jensen, H.M. and Julian Soren, 1974. Hydrogeology of Suffolk County Long Island New. York, USGS Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA -501. Joyner, John A., "A Big Future for' Small Plants," Waste Age, November 1988, pp. 105-108. i • Koppleman, Lee, 1985. "Report to Peter F. Cohalan on Solid Waste Management in Suffolk County." LIRPB, 1982. Historical Population of Long Island Communities: ' Decennial Data. LIRPB, December 1982. Land Use - 1981: Quantification and Analysis of Land Use for Nassau and Suffolk Counties. LIRPB, July 1978. The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management- Plan. . LIRPB, 1984.. Non -Point Source Management Handbook.' LIRPB, 1982. The Long Island Segment of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Programa LIRPB, 1990. The Potential for Beneficial Use of Waste -To -Energy Facility Ash. Lambe, Robert, 1985. Brookhaven Open Space Study Technical Report. Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Management, January, 1990. Wheels of- Fortune. Long Island Business News, 1989. Long Island Almanac., _j Long Island Lighting Company, June 1988. "Population Survey 1988." Long Island Lighting Company, June 1989. Population Survey 1989." Long Island Lighting Company, June 1990. "Population Survey 1990." P Y. 2631M/1 7-28 g PRWTED ON RECYCLM PAPER Long, Janice, 1987. "Hazardous Waste Found in Household Garbage," Chemical and Engineering News. 12:14-15. Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982. "Population -'1980, Age and Marital Status." Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1982. "Population - 1980, Housing Characteristics." Long Island Regional Planning Board, 1986. Special Groundwater Protection Area Project for theOuster Bav Pilot Area and Brookhaven Pilot Area. Malcolm Pirnie, et al., September 1989. Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement Draft Solid Waste Action Management Plan Town of Southampton New York. Malcolm Pirnie, et al., March 1990. Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Draft Solid Waste Management Plan Town of Southampton New York. Meade, Kathleen, "Rural Recycling Gets Some Attention," Waste Age, November 1988, pp. 141-143. Meade, Kathleen, "Shredding Tire Mountains," Waste Age, September 1989, pp. 117-120. Mitchell, R.S., 1986. A Checklist of New York State Plants. NYS Museum Bulletin.#458. Albany, NY. Mitchell, R.S. & Sheviak, C.J., 1981., Rare Plants of New York State. NYS Museum Bulletin #445. Albany NY. "Municipal Control of the Flow of Solid Waste, a Briefing Paper to the NYS Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Management, August 1985," (Reprinted by Cooperative Extension Association of Suffolk County). NOAA, Environmental Data -and Information Service, 1982. "Climatography of the United States No. 81: Monthly Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days 1951-80, New York." 2631M/1 7-29 PRMED ON RECYCLED PAPM NOAH, Environmental Data and Information Service, September, 1982. "Monthly Normals of Temperature, Precipitation, and Heating and Cooling Degree Days 1951-1980 New York." "NOAH National Climatological Summaries." National Climate Center, Asheville, NC. NOAA, National Environmental Satellite, Data and in Service, 1989. "Climatological Data Annual Summary New York. 1988,11100:13.' . NYSDEC; 1988. An Integrated Solid Waste Management Program. NYSDEC, 1988. Article 34 of the Environmental Conservation Law, Coastal Erosion Hazard Areas, Chapter 841, Laws of 1981, Effective Date July 27, 1981 (including 1985 amendments)._ NYSDEC, April 1974. Construction Noise Survey, Report No. NC -P2, Albany, NY. NYSDEC, July 1987. Ash Residue Characterization Project Summary Report. NYSDEC, Cooperative Extension of Suffolk County, STOP .Program• How to Manual for Sponsors of Household Hazardous Chemical Collections., NYSDEC, Division of Air Resources, 1983-84. "NYS Air Guide 1: Guidelines for the Control of Hazardous Ambient Air Contaminants." NYSDEC, Division of Air Resources, 1979. The New York State Implementation Plan, Albany, New York. -NYSDEC, Division of Hazardous Substances Regulation, Bureau of Hazardous Waste Program Development, 1988. "Household Hazardous Waste Fact Sheets." NYSDEC, Division of Hazardous Substances Regulation, Bureau of Hazardous Waste Program Development, 1989., Household Hazardous Waste 1988 Annual Report. NYSDEC, Division of Hazardous Waste Remediation, April 1989. Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York State: Site List by Counties• Volume 1 Nassau and Suffolk. 2631M/1 7-30 PRDVTEO ON RECyCt Fn pg ppq 1 J NYSDEC, Division of Lands and Forests 1985. NYS Wild, Scenic and Recreational River System Act. NYSDEC, Division of Lands and Forests, March 1986. 'Part 666 Regulation for Administration and Management of the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System in New York State -Excepting the Adirondack Park: Statutory Authority: Environmental Conservation Law Article 15, Title 27. NYSDEC, Division of Lands and Forests 1986. Regulation for Administration and Management of. the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System in New York State Excepting the Adirondack Park. NYSDEC, Division of Solid Waste, April 1990. Solid Waste Management Facility Sitio. NYSDEC, Division of Solid and Hazardous Wastes, Guideline for Evaluation of Municipal Recycling Analyses, June'12, 1987. NYSDEC, Division of Water, Bureau of Monitoring and Assessment, April. 1988. New York Water Quality 1988: Submitted Pursuant to Section 305(b) of the Federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977 (PL95-217) NYSDEC, Division of Water, June 1983. Draft Long Island Ground Water Management Program. NYSDEC, Division of Water, June 1986: Final Long Island Groundwater Management Program. NYSDEC, 1986. Emission Source Test Report — Preliminary Report on Occidental Chemical Corporation EFW, Division of Air Resources, Bureau of Toxic Air Sampling. NYSDEC, 1986. Emission Source Test Report —Preliminary Report on Westchester RESCO, Division of Air Resources, Bureau of Toxic Air Sampling. 2631M/1 7-31 PRQVTW ON RECYCL E0 P.9PER NYSDEC, 1987. Final Generic Impact Statement Including Final RegulatobLImpact Statement and Final Regulat'= Flexibility Anal sis for .Revisions to 6 NYC RR Part 617. NYSDEC, 1985. Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in'New York State. . NYSDEC, 1986. Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York State. NYSDEC ,1987. Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York State. NYSDEC, 1988. Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York State. NYSDEC, 1989. Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York State. NYSDEC, 1990. Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York State. NYSDEC, 1982. New York State Air Quality Report Continuous and Manual Air Monitoring Systems, DAR 83-1. , NYSDEC, 1986. New York State Air Quality Report Continuous and Manual Air Monitoring System, DAR -87-1. NYSDEC, 1987. New York State Air Quality Report Continuous and Manual Air Monitoring Systems, DAR 88-1. NYSDEC, March, 1987. New York State Solid. Waste Management Plan. NYSDEC, December 1987. New York State Solid Waste Management Plan. NYSDEC, February 1989. , New York --State Solid Waste Mana ement Plan 1988/89 Update. NYSDEC, November 1989. New York State Solid Waste Management Plan Draft 1989/1990 Update. NYSDEC, March 1990. New York State'Solid Waste Management Plan 1989/90 Update, and Responsiveness Summary.. - 2631M/1 7-32 , PRUV= ON RECYCI FD PAPIER r i NYSDEC,. March 1989. New York State Waste Reduction Guidance Manual. NYSDEC, September 30, 1985. Population Proiections New York State Water Quality Management Plan. NYSDEC, May 1986. 1986 Priority Water Problems List. NYSDEC, August 1990. Proposed Solid Waste Manaeement Strategy for Long Island. NYSDEC, January 1990. Quarterly Status Report of Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites. - NYSDEC 1987. SEOR Handbook. NYSDEC, December 31, .1988. Solid Waste Management Facilities 6NYCRR Part 360. NYSDEC, 1984. "Technical Memorandum: Procedures Used to Identify, Evaluate, and Recommend Areas for Designation as Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitats." NYSDEC, June 1990. Preliminary Freshwater Wetland Maps. NYSDOH, August 1989. A Statewide Plan For Treatment and Disposal of Regulated Medical Waste. NYSDOH, 1981. Report on Groundwater Dependence in New York State. NYSDOT, 1987. "New York State's 1987 Highway Sufficiency Ratings." NYSDOT, Quadrangle Maps. Nassau, Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1972. The Marine Wetlands of Nassau and Suffolk Counties New York. National Solid Waste Management Association. The 1987 Tip Fee Survey NSWMA Technical Bulletin 88-1, Washington, D.C. Natural Resources Defense Council, et al., 1988. A Solid Waste Blueprint for New York State. 2631A/1 7-33 PREVMD ON RECYCLFD PgPM New. England Waste Resources, April 1990. "Connecticut Chooses Corhp6sting.-11 New York At A Glance, Digest of the 1985-86 New York State Statistical Yeirbook Energy Association of New York State. New York State Certified Agricultural District Maps, CLEARS. February 26, 1988. Suffolk- County Agricultural District, No. 1. New York Public Interest Research Group, 1989. No Time to Waste. New I w York Public Interest Research Group, 1986. The Burning Question:. Garbage Incineration Versus Total Recycling In New York City New York State Department of Commerce, State Data Center. April 1198' .5. Official Population' Projections for New York State Countie 2010. New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation; 1989. Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds (Bond Offering . Huntineton Resource- Recovery, 1989). New York State Legislative Commission on Solid- Waste ,Management, ' 1988: Household Hazardous Waste: An Overview. ,New York State Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Management. Where Will the Garbage Go? New York's Looming Crisis in Disposal Capacity. New York State Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long, Island, March 1985. Progress Report. New Tork State Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs of Long Island,, 1988/1989. Progress Report. New York 'State Senate- November 1987. Solid Waste: A State- Responsibility. Office of the County, Executive, 1988. Annual Environmental Report Office of the County Executive, February 1982. Five Year Recovery Action Plan. 2631M/1. 7-34 PRBVTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Office of the Suffolk County Executive, 1985. Annual Environmental Report. Office of the Suffolk County Executive, 1981. Phase II Farmland Preservation Plan. O'Keefe, P.D. Hilker, C. Meyer, K. Aldous, L. Shane, R.. Donnelly, and R. Smith, 1984. ' Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-Dioxins and Tetrachlorodibenzofurans in Atlantic Coast Striped Bass and in Selected Hudson River Fish, Water Fowl and Sediments." Chemosphere 13:849-860. OVERVIEW: Solid Waste Disposal Alternatives, An Integrated Approach for American Communities, Keep America Beautiful Inc., 1989. Part 661 Tidal Wetlands - Land Use Regulations (Statutory authority: ECL. 1-0101, 3-301 and 25-0302). Patterson, W.N., November 1974. Regulation of Construction Activity Noise, Bolt Beranek and Newman, Inc., Report 2887, for the EPA, Washington, D.C. Penner, S.S., D.F., Wiesenhahn and C.P. Li. 1987. "Incinerator Production, Fate and Health Effects of Polychlorinated Dioxins and Furans." Energy 12:33-43. Project Management Associates, Inc., 1988. Analysis of Solid Waste Management Options for Fishers Island New York. Project Management Associates, Inc., 1990. Comparison of Estimated Costs - Various Waste Management Options Fishers Island New York. RPP & W, Inc., 1984. Master Plan Update Background Studies Town of Southold New York. Rappe, C. et. aL, 1984. "Chemistry and Analysis of Polychlorinated Dioxins and Dibenzofurans in Biological Samples." Bamburg Report 18:17-25. Cold Spring Harbor, N.Y. "Recycling Survey Revelations," Waste Age, November 1988, pp. 32-34. 2631M/1 7-35 PRffiTW ON RECyaEo PAPEF SAI Ltd., 1987. Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the Proposed Local Law of 1987 Amending the Town of Southold Zonink Ordinance. Saffold; G.R,:1988., Planning for Solid Waste Management Financing, Solid Waste . Management Projects, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Resource Recovery Association, Hartford, Connecticut, October 3-5, 1988`. : Shroeder, P.'R'.; Morgan, J.M. Walski, T.M., and Gibson, A.C., June' 1984. Hydrologic .Evaluation of.Landfill Performance (HELP) Model U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and. Emergency Response, Washington; DC, EPA/530-SW-84-009. Smith, A.H., 1987. "Infant Exposure Assessment for Breast Milk Dioxins and Furans from Waste Incineration Emissions." Risk Analysis 7:347-353. Solid Waste Exportation: New York's Road to Nowhere. New York State Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Managment. Solving;_the Garbage Disposal Crisis in New Jersey.. A Cooperative Study by the New . Jersey Alliance for Action.and New Jersey Institute of Technology. Southold Town Freshwater Wetland Inventory, 1989. Southold Town Map of Core Watershed Protection Areas, Groundwater Divide Map, 1987. Standard State Zoning Enabling Act., State Breeding Bird Atlas Project, 1980-1985, Federation of New York State Bird Clubs. STOP*ACTION: A periodic progress report of the Nassau - Suffolk Regional STOP Program, December 1988. STOP* ACTION• A periodic progress report of the Nassau Suffolk Regional STOP Program, April 1988. STOP* ACTION• A periodic progress report of the Nassau Suffolk Regional STOP Program, 1987. Suffolk County Department of General Services, May 1989. From Road to. Recycler• Waste Tire Dispgsal in Suffolk County. Suffolk County Department of General Services, September 1989. Recycling Commercial/Industrial Wastes: An Opportunit r for Suffolk's Business Com munit . Suffolk County Department of Health Services, March, 1989. Suffolk County Water Table Contour Map. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Drinking Water Section. January 14, 1989. Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Article 7, Water Pollution Control; and Map of Groundwater Management Zones and Water Supply Sensitive Areas. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Quality, June 1990. Impacts of Landfills on Water Supply in Suffolk County. Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division of Environmental Health, et al. January 1987. Suffolk County Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan: Suffolk County Planning Department, April 1989. Pine Barrens Review Commission Annual Report — 1988. Suffolk County Planning Department, March 1987. Pine Barrens Review Commission Annual Report — 1986. Suffolk County Planning Department, December. 1984. "Suffolk County: A Place to Enjoy." 2631M/1 7-37 PRffv7W ON RECyCIE'D PAPER Task Force on Solid Waste, 1985. Solid Waste Management in'Suffolk County. Taylor, Alison C., and Kashmanian, Richard M., December 1988. Study and Assessment of Eight Yard Waste Composting Programs Across the United States, USEPA. "The Midwest Tries to Slow the Flow of Eastern Trash," New York Times, October 1, 1989. Thompson, John H., 1966. Geography of.New York State, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse NY. Thorton, J.R. and Blanc, F.C., 1973. "Leachate Treatment by Coagulation and Precipitation," J. Environ. Div. ASCE 99:33:4-53. Town of Babylon Industrial Development Agency. Resource Recovery Bonds Ogden Marten Systems of Babylon Inc. Town of Hempstead Industrial Development Agency, 1986. Official Re -Offering Bond Statement for a Resource Recovery Facilit . Fixed Rate/Convertible Resource Recovery Revenue Bonds. Townsend, Paul (ed.), Long Island Almanac, An Annual Comprehensive Factbook Recording The Status of The Nassau Suffolk Region, Long Island Business Newsweekly, -1985. } f Understanding Dioxin, 1987. A Report by. -the Joint Legislative Commission of Toxic Substances and Hazardous Wastes. USDA, Soil Conservation Service, 1975. Soil Survey of Suffolk County. New York. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1983. County and City Data Book- 1983. U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; Public Health Service, 1968. Solid Waste Management/Composting - European Activity and American Potential (Publication SW -2C), r 2631M/1 7-38 PRUYTED ON RECyC/ ED ~,V? i U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory. Maps, April 1980. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service, National Register of Historic Places Listed Properties, March 21, 1990. U.S. Department of Transportation, 1987. Emergency Response Handbook, Washington, D.C. USEPA, 1988. "Air Emissions From Municipal Solid Waste Landfill -Background Information for Proposed Standards and Guidelines." USEPA, Environmental Criteria Assessment. Office, Office of Research and Development, 1980. Air Quality Criteria for Particulate Matter and Sulfur Dioxides Vol 111 Health Effects, Review Draft, Washington, DC. USEPA, 1979. Assessment of the Impact of Resource Recovery on the Environment. EPA -6008-79-011. Cincinnati, OH. USEPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 1960-2000 (update 1988). USEPA, 1976. Community Noise Levels. USEPA, 1975. Composting at Johnson City Final Report on Joint USEPA TVA Composting Project with Operational Data 1967-1971. Volumes 1 and 2 (Publication PB -261047). USEPA, 1977. Environmental Assessment of Waste -to -Ener . USEPA, 1986. Explaining Environmental Risk, by Peter M. Sandman. USEPA, Field Guide to Evaluate Primary Production of Wetlands, EPA -600/8-80-037. USEPA, December 1979. Industrial Source Complex (ISC) Dispersion Model Users Guide, EPA -450/4-79-030. 2631M/1 7-39 PR&7W ON RECMED PAPER USEPA, 1987. Municipal Waste Combustion Study Report to Congress. EPA/530-SW-87-021a,. June 1987. USEPA, 1987. National Dioxin Studv. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response.- EPA 1530-SW=87-025. USEPA, September 1980. Region II Guide to Public Participation in Wastewater Facilities Planning Design and Construction. USEPA, 1988. The Solid Waste Dilemma: An Agenda for Action. USEPA. Working for Clean Water: An Information Program for AdvisM Groups, Public Participation Citizen Handbook. USGS, in cooperation with New York State Department of Health.. Atlas of Eleven Selected' Aquifers in New York. Open File Report 82-553. USGS, Department of the Interior, Topographic Quadrangle- Maps. (Greenport, Southold, Southampton,, Mattituck Hills, Mattituck, Orient, Mystic, Plum Island, and New London" USGS, 1974..Hydrogeologic Investigations Atlas HA501 Hydro eology of Suffolk Count Long Island. New York, by H.M. Jensen. and Julius Soren. USGS, 1983, and 1985. National high Altitude Photography Aerial Photographs, National Cartographic Information Center. USGS, Water .Resources Activities in New' York 1985-86. USGS Open -File Report 86-146 United States General Accounting Office, 1988. Degradable Plastics=Standards Research. and Development. Vankat, J.L•., 1979. The Natural Vegetation of North America. John Wiley &.Sons Inc. New York, NY. .Village of Greenport, Water Department,: August 1987. Pumping Station Location Map. 2631M/1 7-40 PREYTED ON RECYCLE!) PApn? Visalli, J. R., 1985. "Environmental Impact Consideration in Recycling Solid Wastes." Resource Management and Technology 14:241-245. Waste Age. March through December, 1989. Waste—to-Energv and Recycling Program Project Report Feasibility Study of Solid Waste Recycling/Composting Alternatives for Lafayette County Darlington Wisconsin, Wisconsin Energy Bureau, March 1989. William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C., 1989. • Comprehensive Recycling Analyses for Monroe County New York. William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C., 1989. Draft (and Final) Generic Environmental Impact Statement Oneida and Herkimer Counties Solid Waste Management Plan. William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C., 1989. Draft and Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement Putnam County Solid Waste Management Plan. William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C., 1987. Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, Western Finger Lakes Solid Waste Management Plan. Wood, E.W. and Thompson, A.R., May 1974. Sound Level Survey. Concrete Batch Plant: Limerick Generating Station, Bold Beranek and Newman, Inc., Report 2825, Cambridge MA. Woodward — Clyde Consultants, 1977. Assessment of Geohydrologic Conditions North Fork and Shelter Island Long Island New York. 2631M/1 7-41 PMN7W ON RECYCLED PAPER 7.3 Abbreviations and Acronyms AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic AAL Acceptable Ambient Level ACFM Air Cubic Feet Per Minute ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ACRS Accelerated Cost Recovery System ACT 1988 New. York State Solid Waste Management Act AMT'_ Alternative Minimum Tax ANSI American National Standards Institute APC Air Pollution Control AQCR Air Quality Control Region AQS Air Quality Standards BACT Best Available Control. Technology BAT Best Available Technology Btu British Thermal Unit C . Celsius C&D Construction and Demolition Debris CERF Proposed Brookhaven Composting/Energy Recovery Facility CFR Code of Federal Regulations CO Carbon Monoxide co 2, • Carbon Dioxide COD Chemical Oxygen Demand CR Country Road CY Cubic Yards dB Decibel dB(A) Decibel with A—weighted Characteristics D&B Dvirka and Bartilucci DEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation DED New York State Department of Economic Development DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement DGEIS Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement . DO Dissolved Oxygen DOT Department of Transportation DU Dwelling Unit E2RA East End Recycling .Association EAF Environmental Assessment Form ECL Environmental Conservation Law (New York State) EIS Environmental Impact Statement EMT Emergency Medical Technician EQBA Environmental Quality Bond Act (New York State) ERF Energy Recovery Facility ESP Electrostatic Precipitator F , Fahrenheit FAA Federal Aviation Administration FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement FEMA Federal Energy Management Act FGEIS Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement, FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map GEIS Generic Environmental Impact Statement GML General Municipal Law (New York State) gm/sec Grams per Second ' GO General Obligation (Bond). GPD Gallons per Day GPM Gallons per Minute GRC Gross Rated Capacity gr/dscf Grains per Dry Standard Cubic Foot HCl Hydrogen Chloride HDPE High Density -Polyethylene HF Hydrogen Fluoride HHV Higher Heating Value hrs Hours IDB Industrial Development Bond(s) (PAB) ISC Industrial Source Complex ISO International Standards Organization km Kilometer kwh Kilowatt—hour 2631A/1 7-43 PRW7W ON REcya D ~M? LAER lb L.I. LIE LILCO LIRPB In m-3 mg mg/l MGD' mph MRF MSL MSW MW NA NAAQS NEC NEPA. NFPA ng/m3 NHPA NIWE NOAA NO NOx NYCRR• NYNHP NYSDEC NYSDOC NYSDOH NYSDOT NYSEFC NYSGML 2631M/1 Lowest Achievable Emission Rate Pound Long Island Long Island Expressway Long Island Lighting Company Long Island Regional Planning Board . Meter Cubic meter Milligram Milligrams per Liter Million Gallons per Day Miles per Hour Materials Recycling'Facility Mean, Sea Level Municipal Solid Waste Megawatt Not Available or Not Applicable National AmbientAirQuality Standards National Electric Code National Environment Policy Act National Fire Protection Association I Nanograms Per Cubic Meter National Historic Preservation Act Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange National Oceanic and Atmospheric, Administration Nitrogen Dioxide Nitrogen Oxides New York State Code of Rules and Regulations New York Natural Heritage Program New York State Department of Environmental Conservation New York State Department of Commerce New York State Department of Health New York State Department of Transportation New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation -1 New York State General Municipal Law -_i NYSM New York State Museum NYSSWMP New York State Solid Waste Management Plan NYSUPA New York State Uniform Procedures Act 03 Ozone O&M Operations and Maintenance OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PAB Private Activity Bonds (IDB) PAH Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons Pb Lead, PCBPolychlorinated Biphenyls PCDF Polychlorinated-Dibenzo Furans PDA ' Public Drop-off Area ' PDCC Polychlorinated Dibenzo•Dioxins PET Polyethylene Terephthalate Plan Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan PM -10 Particulate Matter less than 10 microns #/cap/day Pounds per Capita .per Day Ppb Parts per Billion ppm Parts per Million PSD Prevention of Significant Deterioration PSI Pounds Per Square Inch PSI Pollution Standards Index •PURPA Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RDF Refuse Derived Facility RDF Refuse Derived Fuel RFP Request for Proposals ROW Right -of -Way RRF Resource Recovery Facility RRS Resource Recovery Systems SCS Soil Conservation Service SCDHS Suffolk County, Department of Health Services SCSC Suffolk County Sanitary Code SEQRA State Environmental- Quality Review Act SIP State Implementation Plan SO2 Sulfur Dioxide SPDES State Pollution Discharge Elimination System 2631 M/ 1 7-45 PRBVTW ON R£CyaED ~0? S.T.O. P. Stop Throwing Out Pollutants Program SUNY State University of New York SWMA New York State Solid Waste Management Act SWMP New York State Solid Waste Management Plan . TCDD Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins TDS Total Dissolved Solids TLV Threshold Limit Value TPD Tons per Day TPY Tons per Year TPS Tin -Plated Steel TS Transfer Station TSP Total Suspended Particulates ug/m3 Micrograms Per Cubic Meter U.S. United States USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USGS United States Geological Survey 2631 M%1 7-46 PR/MED ON RECYCLED PAPD?