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 appendices F thru J 1990
-raow yol Z - oI O�W��)N OAF S - ,TIT JLD Solid CSW- a�steJ Mnarge:e�nlapn / . aft Genene;-EAt Sita ment f September- -"9.90 appendices F thru J DVIRKA and RARTILUCCI Consulting Engineers Syosset, New York TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE, MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS' Appendices Title 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 Siting Analysis I THESE APPENDICES HAVE BEEN 'PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 2101M 1 Appendix F r� TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COMPREHENSIVE RECYCLING ANALYSIS SEPTEMBER, 1990 PREPARED BY: DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title, Page 1.0 PREFACE AND BACKGROUND 2.0 SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLE QUANTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION = 2-1 2.1 Waste Quantification/Projection 2-1 2.1.1 Fishers Island Waste Generation , 2-2 2.1.2 ' Current Solid Waste 2-2 2.1.3' Population Projections and Future Generation Rates 2-16 2.2 Seasonality 2-22 .2.2.1 " Seasonal Quantities 2-22 2.2.2 Seasonal Characteristics 2-24 2.3 Waste Characterization 2-24 2.3.1 Residential Waste Stream 2-27 2.4 Recyclables in the Waste Stream 2=29 2.5 Identification of Waste Sources 2-31 2.6 . 'Overview of Strategies for a Reduction in the Amount of Solid Waste 2-32 3A EXISTING RECYCLING AND COMPOSTING PROGRAMS' 3=1 3.1 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal- Practices 3-1 3.2 Municipal Recycling .3-2- 3.3 Commercial and Industrial. Recycling 3-11 3.4 Impacts of Proposed Program 3-12 4.0 ASSESSMENT OF MARKETS FOR RECYCLABLE AND . COMPOSTABLE MATERIALS 4-1 4.1 Market Survey 4-2 4.2 Identification, of Necessary Processing 4-27 4.3 Recyclable and Compostable Material Marketing Conclusions 4-30- 4.4. Current and Future Restrictions to Market= Development 4-32 5.0 ALTERNATIVE SOURCE SEPARATION AND MATERIAL RECOVERY PROGRAMS 5-1 5.1 Waste Reduction and Reuse 5-1 5.2 . Household Hazardous Waste Recovery and Toxics, Removal 5-3 5.3 Recyclable Material Collection Alternatives 5-10 0089R/2 —1- TABLE OF CONTEWTS (continued) Section Tit, g Pape 5.4 Recyclable Material Processing Strategies 5-19 5.5 Compostable Material Collection Options 5-27 5..6 Compostable Material Processing 5-31 5.7' Construction and Demolition Waste Processing 5-34 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF RECYCLABLE AND COMPOSTABLE MATERIAL RECOVERY PROGRAMS 6-1 6.1 Material Recovery Projections ;, 6-1 6.2 Recycling Policy and Implementation Considerations 6-21 6.3 Materials Marketing 6-44 6.4 Recyclable Material Collection 6-47 6.5 Facilities Development 6-57 6.6 Implementation Schedule 6-61 6.7 Market Development 6-61. 6.8 Public Relations and Education Programs 6-72 7.0 LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS 7-1 7.1 Local Laws and Ordinances 7-1 7.2 Legislative Impediments to Recycling 7-2 9.0 FUTURE ACTIONS 8-1 8.1 Scope of Existing and New Programs 8-1 8.2 Other Means of Program Enhancement 8-2 8.3 Procurement Practices 8-3 9A• GLOSSARY 9-1 Appendix A - Compost Market Survey Results 0089R/2 -ii Number LIST OF 'TABLES' Title 2.1-1 Fishers Island Monthly Population 2.1-2 Potential Fishers Island.Waste Generation 2.1-3 Scale House Waste Categories 'and Quantities 2.1-4 Approximate Amount of.Waste Collected at Institutions 2.1-5 Estimated Current Waste Generation 2.1-6 Comparison of Various Generation Rates ' 2.1-7 Population Projections 2.1-8a Future Waste Generation Projections Total -Waste Stream 2.1-8b Future Waste Generation Projections Residential . Waste Stream 2.1-8c Future Waste Generation Projections Residential Household Waste 3.2-1 Total Tonnage Recycled 3.2-2 Recyclable Material . Collection and Marketing Arrangements 3.2-3 Container Arrangement and Collection Frequency 4.1-1 Markets and Private Processing Facilities 4.1-2 Common Household Battery Types 4.1-3 Construction and Demolition Material Specifications and Uses 4.1-4 Construction and Demolition Markets and Private Processing Facilities 5.3-1 Public Attitude Surveys Toward Recycling 6.1-1 Interim Recyclable Material Recovery Rates_- 1990' 6.1-2 Long-term Recyclable Material Recovery Rates - 1995 6.1-3 Long-term Recyclable Recovery Rates Without Advanced Composting - 1995 4 0089R/2 -111- Pa ee 2-3 2-4 . 2-5 2-9 2-12 2-13 2-17 2-19 2-20 2-21 3-3 3-6 3-8 4=3 4-16 4-25, 4-26 ' 5-11 6-3 6-4 6-6 LIST, OF TABLES (continued) Number Titer_ 6.1-4 Per Capita Recovery Rates 6.1-5 Interim Residential Waste Stream Recovery Rates -•1990 6.1-6 Long-term Residential Waste Stream'Recovery Rates - 1995 6.1.7 Long-term Residential Waste Stream Recovery Rates Without Advanced Composting 1995 6.1-8 Residential Waste Stream Per Capita Recovery. Rates 6.2-1 Policy Issue Recommendations 6.4-1 Recycling Program Equipment Needs, �I 0089R/1 Pa 6-8 6-11 6-12 6-14 6-16- 6-22 _6-53 LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page 2.1-1 Scale House.Data Breakdown 2.1-2 Seasonal Waste Generation 2.1-3 Population Projections 2.1-4 Future Waste Projections 2.3-1 Composition of the Waste Stream 2.3-2 Composition of the Residential Waste Stream 3.2-1 Existing Collection Center Floor Plan 5.4-1 Transportation Cost of Commingled Materials 5.4-2 Transportation Cost of Segregated Materials 6.1-1 Summary of Estimated Material Recovery Rates for the Proposed Recycling Strategy 6.6-1 Implementation Schedule 0089R/2 -v- 2-6 2-8 2-18 2-23 2-26 2-28 3-5 5-22 5-23 6-9 6-62 Section 1 1.0 PREFACE AND BACKGROUND .An analysis of reduction and recycling practices has been performed for the Town of Southold and has been used to formulate an overall strategy to maximize 'reduction, . recycling, and reuse in the Town. The purpose of this document is to provide a plan of action through which the Town of -Southold can effectively reduce the volume of solid waste requiring disposal. Under the Long Island - Landfill Closure Law, Southold may be obligated to terminate disposal operations at its existing landfill by December 1990 or at a future time. To minimize the impact of. more expensive processing options, and out-of-townand possibly long=haul disposal, comprehensive material recovery and waste reduction programs 'have been designed and incorporated into alternative waste management scenarios identified in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) that incorporates the Solid Waste Management Plan for the Town. Addressed in this Comprehensive Recycling Analysis (CRA) are estimates , of the materials recovery levels necessary in order to maximize recycling, material markets analyses, materials collection options, storage and processing alternatives, system recommendations, implementation schedules, public information and education programs, and recommended legal and institutional policies that will establish the infrastructure for the program to be developed. The CRA provides short and long-range recycling strategies and takes into consideration geographic and demographic characteristics; existing solid waste and recycling practices, and financial obligations for implementation. 0091R/1 1-1 Section 2 2,0 SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLABLES QUANTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION This Section is a presentation of the: research' and analysis performed on the Town's waste stream for the. development of the Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan/Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SWMP/DGEIS). The complete analysis on the Town's waste stream is presented in the DGEIS for the, SWMP. All appendices and tables referenced herein, that do not appear in this Section, can be found, as referenced, in the SWMP/DGEIS. This Comprehensive Recycling Analysis constitutes Appendix F of the SWMP/DGEIS, and is a stand ' alone report. As such, all. references to tables, figures : and appendices of - similar material are .considered to be included in the presentation of this CRA. The presentation and analyses have been adopted to focus on the reduction, reuse, and recycling aspect, of -the Town's waste stream. This Section is to be used as- an initial reference to defining the waste stream for which the recycling analysis 'presented in the following six sections has been developed. The SWMP/DGEIS should be reviewed for a more detailed presentation'of the waste stream in the Town. This Section 'discusses the current and projected 'future waste generation, composition, and characteristics of the total waste stream; in addition to the potential recyclable materials present in the waste stream. As discussed in. Section. 3, Fishers Island does not dispose of solid waste at the Town's landfill complex on CR 48. 2.1 Waste Quantification/Projection.; The quantities of waste' generated in the Town have been developed on two levels. Fishers Island estimates, which due to its unique geographic location does not .use the solid waste management facilities in the Town off of County Road 48, were developed .first. Once this estimate/projection was developed it was incorporated into the estimates and projections for the remaining Town based. on - scale ' house data and other analyses as presented in this Section. Fishers Island waste is not : weighed at a scale house so estimates were performed , as discussed in Section '2.:1.1. -This approach allowed for the unique conditions and features of the entire Town to be accounted for when developing the overall reduction, reuse, and recycling strategies presented -in later Sections. 0092R/3 2-4 2.1.1 Fishers Island Waste Generation G Fishers Island is located off the eastern tip of the North Fork of Long Island. As a seasonal island community, Fishers Island 'has: approximately 300 year—round permanent residents, and a relatively large summer- increase that reaches its peak of approximately 3,500 in July and August. Monthly population; estimates for the island are presented in Table 2.1-1. Precise quantification of the waste generated on Fishers Island is not possible primarily because the waste is delivered to five different areas (on Fishers Island) and there are no provisions or facilities currently available to weigh or record the waste. Based on recently conducted field studies at the Riverhead, Southold, and Shelter Island landfills, -the average residential waste .gene:ration rate for these 'towns has been estimated to be 4.25 lbs/capita/day. This rate ,can be considered representative of a rural community With a large influx of summer residents. Based on a weighted average population on .Fishers Island of 1,417 (Table 2.1-1) and using the estimated generation rate of 4.25 lbs/capita/day developed based on Southold, Riverhead, and Shelter Island, the residential portion of waste stream on Fishers Island is estimated to be 1,099 tons per year; or 3.01 tons per day. As a result of the relatively .small proportion of commercial activities on., Fishers Island,, it is assumed that the residential portion of the waste stream comprises 75% of the total waste generated on the Island. The total waste stream on Fishers Island, including C&D, land clearing, bulky materials, and commercial waste, is therefore estimated to be 1,465 tons per year, or 4.01 tons per day. Table 2.1-2 presents the methodology used to estimate waste generation for Fishers Island. These estimates are considered to be relatively accurate for Fishers Island. 2.1.2 Current Solid Waste Generation and Generation Rates It is estimated that approximately 123 tons per day of municipal solid waste was delivered to the Southold landfill complex on a daily basis, in 1989. This estimate is based on January 1, 1989 through December 14, 1989, scale house, tonnage data. Summaries of landfill scale - data for 1989 are presented, on Table 2.1-3, and shown graphically on Figure 2.1-1. As shown on Table 2.1-3, the municipal solid waste delivered to the landfill is visually classified by dominant component, by the scale house operator., into 17 waste 0092R/3 2-2 Table 2.1-1 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. Analysis of Solid Waste Management Options for Fishers Island. New York. 0092R/3 2-3 Table 2.4-2 Potential Fishers Island Waste Generationl 0092R/3 2-4 Estimated 1989 Residential Location Waste Generation Rates Shelter Island, .. 2.93 lbs/cap./day Riverhead 4.17 lbs/cap./day Southold 5.64 lbs/cap./d2 Average 4.22 lbs/cap./day Potential Fishers Island Waste Generation Tans/Day Tons/Year Residential Waste 3.01 1,099 Other Waste3 1.00 366 Total Fishers Island Waste Stream4 4.01 1,465 1. Based on population data contained in July 1988 Analysis of Solid Waste Management Options for Fishers Island. New York, which assumed a "weighted" population average of 1,417. 2. Per capita waste generation rate for this Town of Southold excluding Fishers Island. 3. Other waste consists of C&D, bulky materials, land clearing, and commercial waste, and is assumed to be 25% of total Fishers Island waste stream. 4. Assumes 75% of total waste stream on Fishers Island is residential waste and 25% is other waste. 0092R/3 2-4 0092R/1 2-5 Table 2.1-3 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 Loads1( bs•) Tons Tons/Load Tons/D 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 (butgoi.ng)- 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 1.00 Sludge 72' 622,640 311.3 4.3 :0.9, 0.73 Cleanup Debris 254 570,120 '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 = materials recycled * January 1, 1989 -to December 14, 1989 347 days Source: Town of Southold Landfill Scale House Data 0092R/1 2-5 Town of Southold Solid Waste Management P*Ian Total Waste Stream (Average Percent By Weight) •• Paper Sand/Sod 13.9% -• Metals 1.3% Agricultural Debris 1.3% Landclearing Debris 11.8' --L. - fie 32.8% Construction Debris 15.u% Other 1.9% Brush 6.2% Leaves/Grass/Mulch 3.1% )bish 8.7% uonc./Aspnalt/Brick 3.0% LEGEND Other Sludge 0.73% Cleanup Debris 0.67% •• Tires 0.30% Woodchips 0.10% Shellfish Debris 0.10% •• Lead Batteries 0.04% • Based on Jan.1 - Dec.14, 1989 landfill scale data •• Materials Recycled FIGURE 2.1-1 categories. Some of these waste categories are identified for outgoing materials. These outgoing categories are. materials which are brought .to the landfill complex as source separated materials and are recycled. Therefore, the total net waste brought to the landfill complex which was actually landfilled in 1989 is estimated to be 120 tons per day; or 97% of- the total waste stream. Historical landfill scale data is presented in Appendix -B of the" DGEIS, Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 illustrates the scale house waste categories and quantities for 'the. period, August 1, 1987. through,July27, 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 • that. were 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: 2.1-2 illustrates average monthly waste generation estimates for • 1989 based, on available .landfill scale house data. As shown on ;'the figure, the greatest volumes • of waste were received during May through August. .Table 2.1-4 lists the .average weekly generation rates for the institutions in the .Town. 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.- it odeling. It is estimated that .123:1 tons per day of municipal solid waste was delivered to the landfill site ori a daily basis in 1989. 'This estimate was based on the 1989 -landfill scale house annual summary (see Appendix B of the DGEIS). 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. 0092R/3 -2-7 200% 100% o% 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 2.1-2 Table. 2.1-4 Approximate Amount of Waste Collected atInstitutions Source: 1990, Town of Southold 0092R/3 2-9 Approximate Amount of Container Waste Picked Size Up. Each Week Hauler Institution cu. ds (cu. yds) 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 Nutrition Center 1.5 9 Oyster Ponds Manor Retirement Home 2 .2 Eastern Long Island Hospital 10 60 . Source: 1990, Town of Southold 0092R/3 2-9 Consistent with these estimates is an analysis of available .daily and weekly scale house data from July 1, 1989 to January 4, 19'90, along with monthly summaries compiled by the Town for January to June, 1990 (see Appendix B of the DGEIS). 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 Januarji 4, .1990, while the subsequent monthly summary for January covers the period of January 1, 1990 to January 31, 1990. The analysis utilized the monthly summary of January, 1990 to estimate a daily average of 81.4 tons per day of municipal sol'.id waste that entered the landfill complex during January, 1990. This figure wasapplied to the period of January 1, 1990 to January 4, 1990 and subtracted from the weekly summaries of December (December 1, 1989 to 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-1989to mid-1990 scale house data, i.t 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 discussed previously, 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 would consider this waste. It was estimated earlier that approximately four tons per day of waste (1,465 tons, per year) is generated on Fishers Island. This estimate was added to the 123.1 tons per day of waste delivered to the Southold landfill in 1989 to ,obtain a total estimate for the Town of 127.1 itons per day. Since the State encourages yearly estimates for waste generation studies, the 1,989 calendar year estimate of 127.1 tons per day is used in this document. The Town's 1989 population estimate was. 21,798 (LILCO 1989). Based on landfill records (and estimated Fishers Island waste generation), this corresponds to a generation rate of approximately 11.72 pounds per person per day. When a seasonally adjusted 0092R/3 2-10 "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. This "weighted" population estimate assumes a yearly . population of 21,798 and a 4 month seasonal increase of 10,000 (LIRPB 1989). Table 2.1-5 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 by the 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 1980 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 niodel 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 generation rate.- Using an ' assumed 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 'clearirig debris. Table 2.1-6 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 presented in Appendix A of the'DGEIS. 0092R/3 2-11 Table 2.1-5 Estimated Current Waste 'Generation. Generation Rates Per Capita Per Capita Generation Rates Generation Rates (lbs/cap/day) (Ibs/cap/day) Yearly" "Weighted"** Daily* Population Population Generation Estimate Estimate Waste Typc f!Pd) (21.798) (25.031) Residential "Household!' Waste (1) 40.5 3.73 3.23 Residential Waste (2) 69.6 6.42 5.56 Total Waste (3) 127.1 11.72 10..16 Table Notes: Based on landfill scale data for the period of Jan. 1, 1989 through December -14, 1989 (347 days), and waste generation estimates for Fishers Island. Population estimates based on LILCO Is 19439 estimates and May -1987 Long Island Regional 'Planning Board population projections, which include Fishers Island. The 1989 year-round population is 21,799 and. weighted population 25,031. (1) Residential "Garbage" Only' (2) Residential Waste includes: Garbage.' ].,Zubbish.. 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. 0092R/3 2-1 E Table 2.1-6 Comparison.of Various Generation Rates Location Date #/Cap./Day Remarks Ia. Town of Southold .. 1990 11.72 Unweighted Pop., total waste stream : lb.. Town of Southold 1990 10.16. Weighted Pop., total waste stream lc. Town of Southold 1990 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 , - Id. Town of Southold - 1990 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 le. Town of Southold 1990 3:73 Unweighted Pop., residential waste, includes only "Garbage" If. Town of Southold 1990 3.23 Weighted Pop., residential waste, includes only "Garbage" Ig. Fishers Island 1990 4.25 Weighted Pop., household residential waste. 2a. Town of Shelter Island' 1990 6.29 "Off. -Season" `Pop., total waste. stream (incl. C&D -and land clearing debris) 2b. Town of Shelter'Island 1990 5.36 "Off -Season" Pop., residential waste stream (excl. C&D and land clearing debris) 2c. Town of Shelter Island 1990 -4.31 Weighted Pop., total waste stream (incl. C&D , and land clearing debris) 0092R/1 0092R/1 Table 2.1-6 (continued) Comparison of Various Generation Rates Location Date #/Cap./Day Remarks 2d. Town of Shelter Island 1990 3.68 Weighted Pop., residential -waste stream (exc. C&D and land clearing debris) 2e. Town of Shelter Island 1990 2.93 Survey of private vehicles, residential waste stream (excl. C&D and land clearing debris) 3a. Town of Riverhead 1989 11.72 Unweighted Pop., includes land clearing and C&D debris, 3b. Town of Riverhead 1989 10.24 Weighted Pop., includes land clearing and C&D debris 3c. Town of Riverhead 1989 9.61 Unweighted Pop., excludes land clearing and C&D debris scsm avTV&a va alkiVciaaa:ou - -'a Ju/ _-- -- - v.ai Wn;CFh+'MA Pnn avi-liiiiiuc lynrl _-,Lanvino nnA_ f kn- `b•• "Y'f "b debris 3e. Town of Riverhead 1989 4.17 Survey of passenger vehicles, excludes land clearing and C&D debris 4. Town of Riverhead 1988 9.86 Unweighted Pop., includes C&D debris 5. Town of Brookhaven 1987 7.80 Unweighted Pop., includes C&D debris 6. , Town'of Brookhaven 1987 6.80 Unweighted Pop., excludes C&D debris 7. Town of Smithtown 1989 5.69 Unweighted Pop., excludes bulk/metal wastes 0092R/1 Table 2.1-6 (continued) Comparison of Various Generation Rates Location Date #/Cap./Day 8. Town of Huntington 1984 5.75 9. Town of East Hampton 1988 7.16 10. Town -of Southampton 1988 5.20 11. Town of Southampton 1988 4.90 12. National Level 1990 3.67 13. New York State 1989 5.30 Remarks Unweighted Pop., excludes C&D debris Weighted Pop., includes C&D debris, commercial, bulky Weighted Pop., "assumed" gen. rate, includes C&D debris Weighted Pop., "calculated" gen. rate, includes C&D debris Unweighted Pop., based on "Gross Discards" Unweighted Pop., excludes C&D debris Note: A copy of this Table with Footnotes is presented in Appendix A. 0092R/1 2.1.3 Population Projections: Future Wa;cte Generation and Generation Rates Estimates of future waste generation and generation rates are based on population projections. This Section discusses population'pi•ojections and provides estimated future waste quantities for the Town of Southold, including Fishers Island. The Town, as well as other eastern Long Island Towns, consists of year-round residents and seasonal ("summer season") 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 2.1-7 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 in order to represent a more accurate year-round population estimate and' is, therefore, used in the development of waste generation figures. Figure 2.1-3 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 2.1-8a pre:tvents future waste generation projections which include construction and demolition debris. Table 2.1-8b illustrates future waste generation projections which exclude land clearing and construction ana aemontion debris. Table 2.1-8c illustrates future waste ;veneration projections which include 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 assumption that New York State's anticipated waste reduction goal (8% to 10% by 1997) 0092R/3 2-16' *Based on LILCO's 1989 estimates and May. 1987 ,Long Island Regional Planning Board population projections. Includes Fishers. Island. **Extrapolated using average projected populationgrowth from 2000 to 2010. 0092R/3 2-17 Table 2.1-7 POPULATION PROJECTIONS* 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 26,106 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 populationgrowth from 2000 to 2010. 0092R/3 2-17 Population Estimate 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 Town of Southold Solid Waste Managment Plan Population Projections 1989' 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year Legend 0 Yearly Pop. ® Summer Increase ® Summer Pop. =-Weighted Pop." Based on L-ILCO'S 1990 est. & May 1987 LIRPB pop. pros. FIGURE 2.1-3 - Table 2.1-8a Future Waste Generation Projections (1989-2015) Total Waste Stream (Includes Land Clearing and t&D Debris) 1989 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010- 2015 ," 2020. "Weighted"Population 25,031 -- 25,783 26,783. 27,433. 28:,433. 292433-- 30433 �N/A ,- Estimate' _ Constant Per Capita ! Generation Rate 1 10.16 10..16 • 10.16 10:16 , 10.16 10.16 10.16 10.16 Increasin& Per Capita " Generation Rate . 10A6 10:23 10.59 10.96 1.1.35 . -11.76- 12.17 12.61 - Minimum Tons per year 2 46390 47;783 -'. 49;637 50,841- 52,695. 54,548 56,401 N/A Minimum_ Tons per. day 127:1 130.9 136.0 1-39.3 144.4 149.4 154:5 Maximum' Tons per year 3. -46,390-:. 48,118 51,758 54,896 58,917- -63,153 67,617 N/A Maximum Tons per day - -127.1' 131.8. 141•..8 150.4 161.4 173.0 185.3 Notes: -N/A: Information not available 1. Based on 19891andfill scale data for the .total waste-stream.(includes land clearing and C&D debris),, ; estimated waste generation.for. Fishers Island, and weighted population 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 0092R/2 Minimum Tons per year 2 Table 2.1-8b 26,162 27,177 27,836 28,851 29,866 Future Waste Generation. Projections N/A Minimum Tons per day 69.6 71.7 74.5 (1989-2015) 79.0 81.8 84.6 N/A Maximum Tons per year 3 Residential Waste Stream 26,345 28,338 30,056 32,258 34,577 (Excludes Land Clearing and C&D Debris) N/A Maximum Tons per day 69.6 72.2 1989 1990 1995 2000 - -2005 82.3 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 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 0092R/2 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 0092R/2 Table 2.1--8c 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 0092R/2 is met and there is a continued increase in per capita generation rates (1.5% to 2% annually). Figure 2.1-4 combines Tables 2.14a, 2.1-8b, and 2.1-8c to present these scenarios in graphic form. . 2.2 Seasonality There is a distinctive seasonal component. to the Town's waste stream. Both the quantities and characteristics of the waste stream can have dramatic seasonal differences. 2.2.1 Seasonal Quantities i Figure 2.1-2 presented the reported monthly fluctuations of the Town's waste stream based on scale house data. As can be seen in this figure the "off season" or late fall/early winter months of November, December, January, and February show that the least amount of waste is generated during this time. The greatest- amounts of waste generated are' associated with the seasonal influx of summer visitors between May, June, July and August. However, I certain activities associated with yard maintenance and agricultural activities also influence the peak gelneration periods. The Town enjoys a substantial agricultural community/industry that can affect the quantities of waste generated in the Town. One reason for an apparent increase in. October, and even November values, may be attributable to harvesting activities in the Town. Additionally, this time period coincides with the scallop harvesting season in the Town. While the scallop industry has been devastated in recent years as a result of the, Brown Tide algal blooms, when the fishery. is reestablished it may be expected to influence the quantities of shellfish debris the .Town would handle as a result of. the Fall scallops season. Another factor, believed to affect the quantities of waste generated seasonally in the Town -is the Fall leaf season occurring primarily in late October, November, and early December. The seasonal yard waste increases inflate the tonnages of waste that would be expected to be received as part of the residential waste stream. The peak seasonal yard - waste generation rates could have resulted in 'inflated tonnages recorded by as much as 50% to 10% of the residential waste stream. the 5% to 10% estimate is based upon comparisons of peak deliveries of yard waste weighed, compared to the weighed total 0092R/3 2-22 80000 400.00 20000 Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan a Future Waste Generation Projections (1989 - 2010) nnual Tonnage 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 i 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) Min. 30,880 (8,4.6 tpd)'. Max. 21,52 (59..0 tpd) Min. 17,956 (49.2 ipd) 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 Year FIGURE -2.1-4 waste stream. Portions of the March, April, ' i3nd May waste generation tonnages are probably similarly inflated as a result of yard/brush. cleanup activities in the Town and in part from the cleanup/preparation 'of seasonal housing in anticipation of , the summer season. i. 2.2.2 Seasonal Characteristics The same factors that affect quantities, in all likelihood, also- affect the compositional characteristics of the waste stream. During the summer, season, restaurants in the Town, many of these ope;rn only during the summer, dramatically increase their business. Therefore, an increase, in food residues, - paper/styrofoam/plastic eating paraphernalia, larger quantity sized, can's/containers, corrugated cardboard packaging, and possibly beverage containers of n:)nferrous cans, as well as .plastic or glass bottles could' be expected from this sector of the! Town. The life—style of a portion of the seasonal population is oriented towards convenience which might be , reflected in an increase in disposable convenience products. This is possible based upon observed social habits in the Town and other similar seasonal communities. The Spring and Fall yard/brush/agricultur,al/scallop waste components .discussed. in Section 2.2.1 would. also cause a seasonal change in the characteristics of the waste stream,. These waste components can be generated in. large enough volumes so that certain seasonal shifts. in the overall composition of the waste stream could occur. The numbers used to characterize the Town's waste stream in Section 2.3 have averaged out the seasonal influences over the entire year. .iffhen sizing of facilities and operations is needed for permitting, the seasonal quantities and characteristics of the Town's waste stream will be further defined so that.peak periods can be handled adequately. 2.3 Waste Characterization The solid waste data presented in Section 2 represents the best available data on quantity and characteristics of the Town's solid waste stream. This data has not been developed in -detail at this point of this report with respect to material components (i.e., paper, plastics, glass, etc.) and the characteristics of many potentially recyclable materials present in the waste stream. b 0092R/3 2-24 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 2.1. Local, 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 2.3-1 summarizes the calculated percent by weight : of the major material component categories as presented on- Table 9 in Appendix A of the SWMP/DGEIS for the Town. 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 103 ' 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.100.00% due to rounding., Table �9 in Appendix A ofthe the SWMP/DGEIS presents the Town's calculated total waste stream composition including Fishers Island and a more detailed material component, breakdown:. Section 6 of this CRA presents the analysis of the table used for - projecting recovery , rates for the Town. ,Table 10 in Appendix A of the : SWMP/DGEIS presents the residential., waste stream composition, and was similarly used in Section 6 for projecting - the recovery., rates of recyclables from the residential portion of the waste. stream. Various analyses were performed as, comparisons, in developing the composition of the Town's waste stream. - These analyses are presented in The •DGEIS in Appendix, A with' 0092R/3 2-25 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% lard Waste 14.5% rt & Fine.s 18.5% Other 3.2% (Misc.: 2.4% ; Sludge : 0.7% ; Batteries : 0.1%) FIGURE 2.3-1 footnotes .that explain the various methodologies and analytical procedures used. These analyses are based on other field programs (i.e., 'Towns of ' Riverhead and Shelter Island) { performed by Dvirka &. Bartilucci in September, 1989 and January, 1990, -respectively., These results that are presented in .Appendix . A to the DGEIS illustrate the results . (percent by -weight), for comparison only, of the analyses performed., 2.3.1 Residential Waste Stream Composition and Characteristics Earlier Sections discussed the Town's . current solid waste generation quantities and- characteristics.- 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 2.1. Available local and national data were considered in determining the .,Town's, calculated., residential , waste streammaterial component breakdown (excluding land: clearing and C&D debris). :. Table 10 in'', Appendix A of. the SWMP/DGEIS 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 Fishers Island .waste -generation, and a field solid waste compositional analysis performed • at the Southold- Town landfill, in May 1989: The following listing and Figure 2.3-2 summarize . the calculated' percent by weight of the.- major . material . component categories for 'the: residential 'waste stream as presented on Table 10 in Appendix A of the SWMP/DGEIS. 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 1.1 Batteries 0.1 Glass 4.8 . Wood .6.2 Rubber 2.1 0092R/3 2-27 r 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.buk Wood 6.2% (Average Percent By Weight) Paper 27.2% 'Residential' Waste Excludes Land Clearing and C&D Debris, Con./Asphalt/Brick, Agrlcultural Debris, Sand/Sod, Sludge, and Woodchips. Includes Fishers .Island Waste. Rubber 2.1% Bulky Waste 4.6% rd Waste 20.9% Other & Fines 3.30/o FIGURE 2:3-2 Residential. waste stream % by weight excluding land clearing Material Component and C&D debris - Other & Fines 3.3 Yard Waste 20.9 .. Bulky Waste 4.6 .Mise. 4:5 TOTAL 100%* *Totals may not add -to exactly 100.00%, due to rounding: 2.4 Recyclables in the Waste Stream The State has set a 40% materials recovery goal to be .achieved. by 1997. The Town. currently collects and recycles the following materials: o Metal containers o Newspaper; o, Plastic containers o Ferrous. and Nonferrous Metal o Glass containers,- o Waste oil o Automobile batteries o Clothing ' o- Tires o Leaves o Household hazardous waste o Household. batteries: ; These materials and their corresponding current quantities were presented earlier in - Section 2. 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,. material particulates can be, too small, contaminated with, foreign' materials that can not be" separated easily, residues remaining ' after processing or too low in quality to"allow '%for'recovery. or marketing. Also, while. the potential exists 'to recycle a material, that does not ' m'ean that a market exists, can be . created, or that it is a practical or cost=effective alternative. .No 'processing 'or Handling system(s) developed to date for' recycling composting have been ;able to eliminate -system losses which further 'impacts' the recovery rate of recyclable _materials. 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: 0092R/3 2-29 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 recovery rates for the Town are presented in Section 6 in order to discuss proposed recycling --programs. The recovery calculations and recovery equation are discussed in: more detail in Section 6. These recovery rates have been applied - to the Town's waste stream to develop the projected recycling goals for the Town. Major components of the Town's wasti� stream that have the potential to be recycled include most categories. of paper, plastic containers and films, food, textiles, ferrous and' -nonferrous metals, glass containers, wood, concrete, asphalt, -rubber, yard waste, agricultural wastes, shellfish debris, dirt:, and other materials currently delivered to .the Town solid waste facilities. From the total list of, potential recyclable materials, primarily newspaper, yard waste, and glass, plastic and metal containers will be. recovered from the residential waste stream. To maximize material -recovery rates all of the identified materials must be targeted for recovery. This includes efforts undertaken by commercial, institutional, and large bulky waste generators. The commercial and institutional sectors generate recoverable materials including container items that are generated by residential sources as well as other materials not generated in significant quantities residentially.' 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 0092R/3 2-30,. �I recover corrugated' materials. Landscapers can provideon-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. s'tream..Private, sector recycling is important -to any successful recycling effort. Commercial,- and institutional solid waste -is similar in composition 'to residential waste, but is typically generated ' in• much, larger quantities. The -private" sector. also generates large quantities of materials: from construction/demolitiori operations. The activities primarily generate land clearing debris such as, tree stumps', limbs -and-dirt, and concrete; asphalt,_ plaster board, brick; rock and other similar items. 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.. 2.5 ` . _ Identification of , Waste Sources . There are .fourbasic sources ,of waste found ,in- any typical waste stream. These . three types can be classified as residential, commercial, and industrial. ,1. Residential The . waste generated at ,single and multiple family homes, 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,, retail establishments, , etc. This is generally the waste collected'. from "dumpster" type, or compactor type, containers, seen in parking lots and behind shopping plazas. Included in the definition of commercial waste, 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. 2-31. 0092R/3 . - i 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. i 4. Institutional - This waste is generated by governmental agencies, - offices, and, facilities including schools, nonregulated wastes from hospitals, and Town offices. Within -the institutional waste stream are ,usually higher percentages of office paper, computer paper and colored ledger. Food wastes and packaging residues associated with meals and material procurement is another lesser component of this category. The residential waste stream was discussed in Section 2.3.1. .Other than the agricultural :'and fishing communities there is little, 'if any, waste from industry that enters the waste stream of the Town. Institutional waste was identified on Table 2.1-4. Paper recycling programs can be developed .to reduce the waste sent for disposal from the institutions. The Town offices and facilities are also included in this category. Commercial waste can be significant in the Town. Construction and demolition debris along with land clearing debris has been identified to account for 40% to ' 50% (or more) of the Town's. waste stream. Additionally, many businesses in the Town are seasonal in nature which can cause peak and seasonal fluctuations in the composition and characteristics of the waste stream. 'In order to maximize the reduction, - reuse, and recycling levels in the Town, these waste sources and conditions have been analyzed and taken into account. in the development of the -Town's recycling program. 2.6 Overview of .Strategies for a Reduction -in the Amount of Solid Waste To - maximize materials recovery and waste reduction, an integrated collection, processing and marketing- system . for recyclable materials, from the residential, commercial and institutional waste streams must be developed. Achieving and exceeding state waste reduction goals (50%) begins with the development of an effective recycling infrastructure that goes beyond a narrow focus on individual programs or facilities, but 0092R/3 2-32; recognizes •that successful large-scale recycling - must be developed :.as part - of an integrated waste`.management system... The development •of an integrated system includes planning, facility sizing, cost analyses, regional opportunities, environmental and health impacts, policy making; procurement, financing and public acceptance. - Not only do complete solid ,waste management systems: need .to be integrated., but materials 'recovery- programs, one component ..of the total system,,' must also tale an integrated approach. This involves -'the .collection of paper (newspaper, magazines, junk Mail glass (green, amber, clear containers), plastics (containers), metals (nonferrous and' ferrous' food and beverage containers, aluminum foil, structural metals), ,tires, household hazardous .waste.'and yard wastes (leaves,', grass, brush), from residential sources. In addition, paper (corrugatedfood;, news,= office paper), glass; ;.wood ;(pallets, lumber), construction and demolition waste (rubble,. wood, asphalt) and land clearing debris . (stumps, tree limbs) must'•be recovered' from the commercial and institutional waste streams. These' collection programs must be designed, to attain high source separation participation rates by all "residential, commercial and . institutional waste generators, . provide for efficient ,processing of materials and have access to; markets on ,'a regular basis. Residential recycling collection programs must take into consideration the •types of materials to be collected, level of sorting 'required by generators, : material storage options, material' preparation and, set out conditions; public and private convenience, publicity and education efforts, and enforcement mechanisms. - The alternatives for maximizing public participation are further discussed in Section 5.3. There are four possible methods, for collecting' residential and commercial source separated recyclable materials which include curbside collection, drop-off centers, buy back centers and deposit legislation. 'Separate collections systems will be necessary for commercially generated materials especially for corrugated paperboard and food wastes. Section 5.3 discusses the -alternative collection mechanisms for maximizing materials recovery. 'Table 6J-2 demonstrates the types of. materials: to be recovered, the participation rates to be achieved and the projected recovery rates. The second component of an integrated materials recovery program, after collection, is material processing. Intermediate„ processing involves upgrading materials for markets. Materials recovered from residentially collected curbside programs could require sorting, contamination removal- and/or volume reduction or densification. As Table 6.1-2,11n the materials recovery section demonstrates, the recovery and processing of not only residentially and commercially generated materials must .be performed, but large bulky items, construction and demolition (C&D).debris and land clearing wastes must also be processed.. Recyclable material processing options. are discussed in' Section 5.4. Processing capabilities developed publicly or privately must.be designed to separate mixed C&D. and produce marketable aggregate and wood based products. Also stumps and tree limbs must be _ processed into chips or mulch for resale or compost. Processing alternatives for C&D are discussed in detail in Section 5:7. Over the, long—term planning period, over 25% of the total waste stream (Table 6.1-2); including food waste, sludge, low grade paper, wood processing waste and yard wastes could be composted. Composting alternatives are discussed in Section 5.6. These processing options primarily involve low, medium and high technologies., i 0092R/3 i' 2-34F Section 3 3.0 EXISTING .RECYCLING. AND -COMPOSTING PRACTICES This Section addresses the ' existing recycling and composting, collection, handling and marketing practices in' the Town. The preferred approach to .maximize materials recovery would be to. implement a recycling program which expands upon the existing solid waste and -recycling collection and disposal practices. This approach .is preferred because ' residents ' and haulers. are accustomed and educated in using the Town's existing recycling -"collection center".. Source 'separation and collection efforts, have been initiated surrounding the availability of the drop--pff and receiving center provided at the landfill. " Therefore, it is important to understand how existingrecycling services are -provided. The existing recycling practices are, however, based upon . current. solid - waste dandling procedures. Therefore, a general description.. of solid waste collection and disposal methods are also presented. 3.1 Solid Waste Collection and Disposal Practices. The Town has .relied on the. landfilling of wastes at'the Middle Road .site'since 1938. The landfill is on a. 60.9 acre parcel of. Town owned land adjacent to the northside. of Middle Road. The site is located between Cox and. Depot Avenues to the north and south, and Middle and Oregon Roads to .the east and west, respectively. 'Landfilling has occurred for the disposal• of wastes and. to fill in areas remaining from sand mining operations. The elevation of the site is not. much greater than the ' surrounding area; but the disposal zone extends down approximately 30 to 40 feet in depth.: - Approximately 42,732 tons of waste . was received at. the landfill in -1989. Commercial collection of waste from residential, commercial, and. institutional sectors occurs under individual contracts .with commercial haulers. Alternatively, approximately 30% of the Town's population delivers household trash -directly to the collection center at the ,landfill. ,In addition; a public drop=off for source separated recyclable materials has been, established at the collection center, and a bi—level receiving area has been ;built by, ; the Town to accommodate larger bulk deliveries of collected source separated recyclable materials delivered by-collector/haulers servicing the Town: The two largest carters that' use -the landfill are North. Fork Sanitation servicing, approximately 3,500 households and'Mattituck Sanitation .with 1,500 residential accounts. ;These two haulers both utilize four to five -21 cubic yard compactors to provide .curbside 00938 3-1 -i is collection of waste with- a fleet of 30 to 60 moll -offs to be. used as needed. There are approximately five other small carters that serve a small percentage of the remaining Town's population. ?' 3.2 Municipal Recycling The Town has been operating a recycling "collection center" for recyclable material deliveries at its existing landfill off County Road 48 (Middle Road), since 1987. Residents and businesses have an opportunity to voluntarily recycle multiple materials at the Town's collection center. Use of the recycling drop -off` -station is free. Materials currently being accepted for recycling include: source separated glass (by color); aluminum and tin cans; newspaper; old corrugated containers; bulky metals; PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and HDPE (high density polyethylene) 'plastic coiitainers; used motor oil; lead acid and household batteries; yard wastes; household hazardous waste; tires; and old clothing. Glass must be sorted by color, aluminum and tin cans can be commingled, PET and HDPE plastic can be mixed, and yard waste must be segregated into leaves for composting and brush for chipping. Recycling is currently occurring on a volunteer basis in the Town.' From August 1, 1987 to June 30, 1990, Southold has recycled a total of 3,781 tons, including all of the materials mentioned above, plus 145 barrels of household hazardous wastes. The total tonnage recycled of each material is summarized in Table 3.2-1. Recyclable material deliveries are accepted from residents, private haulers and commercial' establishments. Based on visual observation of residents who deliver trash to the collection center (approximately 30% of the Town's population), a majority participate in the material = i recovery and recycling program., Curbside recycling, collection services have recently been initiated by two of the major solid waste haulers operating in � the Toiwn. Both, Mattituck - Sanitation, and North Fork Sanitation (serving approximately 90% of all customers utilizing collection services) offer recycling opportunities to their customers, at no additional cost. Once per week . trash collection costs an average of $20 per household per month. ' It 'appears that the additional cost of prolidding curbside recycling services into the existing trash collection service. costs, at this time, would require extensive administrative and accounting modifications for the collector, since customers purchase 0093R 3-2 Table 3.2-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TOTAL Tons of Recyclable Materials Recovered, (August 1-2 1987 To June 30. 1990) "Household Car Clear Green Brown 'Mixed Waste Time Period Metal Paper Tires Batteries- Batteries Glass Glass Glass Glass Plastic Cans Oil's HHW 8/1/87-7/27/88. 855,.1 338.7 72.5 7/27/88_12'/12/88 302.8 .226.6 83.3 8:1 — — — — —, - — — 48 Barrels 1/1/89-12/29/89 •548 -425 126.2 `2 - 18 = — — — - = — 44 Barrels 12/30/89-6/30/90 311 -235 ., 115 11.E 11 27 13 2 10 -12 '15. 22.2 53 Barrels TOTAL 2017. :_1225 397 :12 29 27 13. 2 10 12 15, 22.2 •145 Barrel s" Note:'.,`*Based upon -6,435 gallons at a specific oravity of"0.92 for -the oil which corresponds -to 6.9 lbs. -per gallon. Source:. Southold Town Department of Public Works. - 0093R coupons at the beginning of each year. However, residents could expect increases in service costs, at the beginning of the fiscal year. To participate in the curbside program, residents must source separate clear, amber and green glass containers, plastic containers, newspaper and metal containers into six separate categories. Mattituck Sanitation has purchased a new compartmentalized, self -dumping recycling vehicle for this purpose. Recycling collection is provided on the same day as :trash collection. North Fork Sanitation has compartmentalized a flat bed vehicle -by placing individual plastic barrels on -the truck bed. These barrels are manually unloaded by two (2) laborers. North Fork Sanitation has reported that nearly 40% of its route (approximately 1,000 households) participc-ited in the recycling program on the first day. However, the number of materials set out: by participants is unknown. Not all .of .North Fork Sanitation customers receive recycling collection on the same day as trash collection. Each hauler was responsible for providing information and educational materials to each customer announcing the participation requirements. This included the mailing of notices to each household. The, Town sponsored paid advertisements which appeared in local newspapers. In addition,. the East End Recycling Association provided general recycling literature and public service announcements to the Town's. overall promotional efforts. • i At the collection center, the drop-off area for self -haul recyclable deliveries is separate from the bi-level areas for large quantity deliveries by private solid waste haulers. Residents deposit source separated materials into designated dumpster type containers ranging in size from 2 to 8 cubic yards. These materials are then transferred and emptied into 30 cubic yard roll -off boxes which receive private hauler deliveries. Figure 3.2-1 'outlines the existing collection center floor plan. The Town negotiates the collection of the i,,-ecyclable materials with numerous. waste haulers and materials processors. Table 3.2-2 ,presents collection service and marketing arrangements that currently exist in the Town of Southold for each recyclable material. Collection and storage containers are provided by various firms, depending on the material.. The removal schedules for the containers differ for each material, depending upon container size and material volume. Table 3.2-3 outlines container size, collection frequency and the firm providing the equipment.: 45' OPEN TOP TRAILERS DOWN RAMP 1 r — — — — 7— DOWN RAMP I :' CLWCRETE RA GRADED AREA 2; RA/N :� i CUREd'NG 2v 48' -- --F- NEWSPAPER LIJ l—y DROP OFF OFF I'THICK CONC. 3'WIDE,6'HIGH CURBING C co N I I' CONC. WALL WALL —/N!T/AL COLLECT/ON ARF �-{EOR I �/GNTS 'Fl-1 r I, r r 7 I HOUSEHOLD. ' HAZARDOUS WASTE -1 • L f/5 LOC. S/-�- r LIJ _ L ILL Lp -1 T L L f"w Ir CAST /RoNGRAT/NG OI�R 'DRAIN RUNNING'—FUEL LENGTH OF r STRUCTURE - � — — =�� • — — — � � � ENTRANCE /ROLE G2�NT/NUOVS VENT RUNN/hG -. CLOTH/NG FULL LENGTH OF ROOF STRUCTURE . i� f- r. 1-1 1r rl-I rr. SIJ LIJ Z1- Ll J L1J y�: -� i HOUSEWLO " OFF/CE : R_R:: m BATTERY- SHOP DROP OFF AREAlid 14 5 - 14' RES/LENT/AL 8 x8 I- REAMS GARAGE DROP-OFF t DOOR—=•• AREA -FOR RECYCLABLES � 20' 20' 20' 323� 60' 3-1/2' APPROXIMATESCALE:1=20. DHirka ��Bertmied and EXISTING COLLECTION CENTER -FLOOR PLAN FIGURE 3.2-1 Table 3..2-2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ' SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Recycled Materials Collection and Marketing Arrangements . 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, Nib $0.03/lb-Revenue Tires New York Tire Recycling Company, $900/45' Kings Park, NY Trailer -Cost Newspaper** Pinnacle Industries, Bohemia, NY $30/Ton-Cost 0093R 3-6 Table 3:2-2 (Cont'd.) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID- WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Recycled Materials Collection and Marketing Arrangements Material Processor/Location Cost/Revenue Metal Fra'nza'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 Town Composting Operation at a... N/A SiteAdjacent to the Landfill Household Hazardous Chemical Pollution Control Approximately $8,000. Waste per pickup NOTE: * Less $5.00 per ton trucking cost ** Pinnacle accepts newspaper- at, no .cost, however, transportation services provided by A.W. Glover Trucking, Cutchogue, NY, cost $30/ton . Source: Town of Southold 0093R 3-7 Table 3.2-3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Container Arrangements and Collection Frequency * Prior to curbside recycling collection 0093R 3-8 Average Container Size Material (Cubic Yards) Frequency* Glass 30 Corrugated 30 Newspaper 40' Trailer Mixed Plastics 30 Mixed Metal 40 Containers Household Hazardous 55 gallon drums Waste * Prior to curbside recycling collection 0093R 3-8 Average Firm Collection Providing Frequency* Containers 1 x/Month EWG Glass Recovery 1-2 x/Week George's Sanitation 2 x/Month Pinnacle Industries 1 x/Week George's Sanitation 2 x/Month Mattituck Sanitation 4 x/3 Months Chemical Pollution Control One part-time and one full-time employee are assigned to the daily -operations of the recycling collection center. Staff are always available to assist residents in delivering recyclable materials. Besides assisting residents with unloading materials and directing the drop-off into the appropriatedumpsters, staff are responsible for sorting and removing contaminants from the bins; transferring and emptying dumpsters, sorting; and storing household hazardous waste in the permanent facility, stacking newspapers in the trailer and general maintenance of the center. Approximately two (2) labor hours per, day are spent_ emptying;,full dumpsters into the large roll -off storage boxes. Bulky metal items such as 'white goods and other ferrous metals are accumulated in a designated location at the ' landfill. ' Residents . are charged $5 per item, while large quantity deliveries are charged a tipping fee of $.02, per pound or $40 per. ton'. In addition, the Town provides a Spring and Fall clean-up program where- these types of materials are picked up. Leaves and brush are also :collected during Spring and Fall clean-up days. - , On a weekly basis, the bulky scrap metal is loaded, by .landfill . personnel, into a 40 cubic yard . roll -off provided by Franza's Universal Scrap.- Franza's Universal Scrap processes the scrap for metal recovery. Tires are recovered and have been recycled at- New York Tire Recycling. A disposal fee `of $.02 per pound or $40 per ton was charged for all ' tire deliveries. New, York, Tire Recycling has removed the 45' 'trailer at a cost of -$900.-'As. of August 1, 1990, tires can no longer be delivered- to New York Tire Recycling.. Tire recovery will "continue, however, _alternative disposal methods will need to be procured. Waste oil brought to the site by residents is deposited into a 275 gallon tank located approximately 200 feet to the north of the collection center, which, when full;: is picked up by a licensed NYSDEC waste oil collector located in° Westhampton Beach. Back. up. drums are provided should the contractor fail to empty the full tank on a timely basis. The Town. collects and recycles. both, automotive and household batteries. Household batteries are deposited' into covered 55 gallon drums. These, batteries are shipped to Mercury; Refining Company in' Latham, New .York. • Lead acid or automotive batteries are stored on pallets and wrapped in plastic to provide safe transport to a local scrap and salvage yard. 00938 3-9 Residential deliveries of old clothing ari! encouraged. An enclosed metal shed is provided for collection and storage by St. Vincent DePaul, a local charity organization. The .clothes are distributed to those in need. Composting In July,, 1990, the Town initiated,a small scale composting operation. The initial size of this project -is designed to compost up to 3,000 cubic yards of leaves annually, and has room available at the composting area for Expansion. A drop-off area currently exists at the landfill complex for yard wastes.. This operation will help the Town gain hands-on experience with composting, material delivery,, handling and other operational factors so that a -larger operation could be developed, if necessary, with fewer problems resulting from the expansion of, the current operation., Additionally, the development of this operation will avoid the landfilling of approximately 3,000 cubic yards of leaves. A separate area is used for the processing of brush. Brush is shredded by a tub grinder and is composted, or provided to residents. In 1989, 900 tons of leaves, light brush; and limbs approximately 4' in length with a diameter no greater than 4", were collected. Household Hazardous Wastes The Town initiated a permanent, full-time Stop Throwing Out Pollutants (S.T.O.P.) program in, the spring of 1989 to remove household hazardous wastes from being landfilled. This was the first such facility on 'Long *Island and received a grant of $13,500 from NYSDEC. This program is not a recycling program as much as it is a waste reduction program intended to reduce the overall toxicity of the waste stream. The S.T.O.P. program has collected 145 55 -gallon.' drums of material over the past three years. This, ,has resulted in lesser amounts of potentially toxic materials from being landfilled. Fishers Island Municipal solid waste, generated' from the Island's 300 year round residents and 4,000 seasonal: residents and tourists, is managed by the Fishers Island Garbage and Refuse District (FIGRD). Four separate collection and disposal facilities have been established to manage brush, bulky items, cars and tires, recyclable materials and household trash. 00938 3-10 The FIGRD -provides municipal solid waste collection 'services, through contractual arrangements, for- all residents,, including seasonal ... transients, commercial and institutional establishments. Household trash collection occurs. weekly during the winter months- and -twice weekly in- the summer: Waste. is: generally set, out in, backyards as opposed . to curbside., -Commercial establishments receive weekly collection during; the off-season and daily, collection service during the peak season, summer months. Participation in the recycling -program is ,voluntary. Source separated materials are encouraged to be- delivered to the recycling- center located near. the ferry station. The recycling center includes two roll -off boxes that are used for: commingled newspaper, cardboard and magazines; and commingled' glass, aluminum and steel food and beverage containers.: The paper roll -off is transported off island every 7 -14 -days. The commingled container roll -off fills less frequently thus requiring removal on'a monthly basis. These materials are currently -. processed and marketed in, Connecticut.. The brush disposal area is open two days per week` -to receive brush,' .pallets, and other wood based items. No. -processing --.or- recovery of .these materials, is currently occurring. Recovered bulky items, cars;; and tires are .accumulated at a designated site on the western ends of the Island. Cars are. transported off .island periodically, for .scrap metal recovery. Since participation in these' . programs is voluntary; . and trash is picked up at the household, it is difficult to determine public participation rates in the source separation program at this time. However, data regarding the tonnage recycled is currently being obtained and -compiled. 3.3 Commercial and Industrial Recycling The Town of Southold : is -predominately an undeveloped, rural, agricultural community of which only 2.9% of -total land area is used commercially and a smaller percentage of .04W is zoned industrially. Since a ,majority,of the commercial. activity in the Town is service oriented; including small retail outlets, restaurants and offices, a significant amount of old corrugated: containers (OCC), high .grade 'paper, glass, and food waste is generated. Currently; there is no established collection program to recover materials from the- commercial or industrial sector.' However, several. retail outlets 0093R 3-11 R deliver recyclable OCC, glass and metal cans to the center. For example, Pindar Vineyards' delivers used and off- specification wine bottles and OCC. Additionally, . A & P and King Kullen supermarkets bale. OCC for. recycling through company arrangements. Many food stores, including Finast and Wegman supermarkets have initiated plastic and paper bag recovery programs through collection boxes located in the store lobby. These efforts could be duplicated by the existing supermarkets in Southold (Le., A&P, King Kullen). 3.4 Impacts of Proposed Program The achievement 'of the Program's goals are dependent upon an effective -response .by waste. collectors to provide recyclable material collections. -Therefore,, the Town will require private firms which currently provide, waste collection services to develop the capability to provide additional collection services for recyclable materials. Although some of the Town's private waste haulers have initiated recyclable collections, a licensing requirement will ensure , that collection is occurring according to the, performance standards established by the Town for maximizing participation and materials marketing. In order to establish a uniform set of requirements and avoid any competitive disadvantage to any firm, mandatory- separation and hauler licensing ordinances and associated regulations will be adopted., However, in order to make the ordinance most effective, 'a cooperative working relationship is. izeeded between the service providers and the Town. This would create the maximum opportunity for input by all parties in upcoming decisions as listed below. o Drafting of ordinances and regulations; o Selection of. equipment such as mai:erials storage, and set out containers, collection, and transport vehicles and: processing machinery; o Design of publicity and education programs; o Establishment of program budgets and funding priorities; and o Specification of collection service standards-. 0093R 3-12 i The primary responsibilities of collection service providers will require them to expend large amounts of money, add employees and recover these investments with increased rates to residential and commercial customers. These responsibilities which are listed below have been or are currently being implemented by the solid waste haulers operating in Southold. o Obtain a license and comply with licensing regulations; o Obtain equipment for collection of recyclables; o Hire employees for collection of recyclables; o Train new employees in operation of specialized collection vehicles and collections of materials in compliance with regulations; o Deliver recyclables to a processing facility or market; and o . Raise rates to reflect the cost of service. Service, providers have options availableto them with respect to the method of compliance with the new- responsibilities such as: o Providing service via special purpose companies or consortiums; and o Instituting per container billing systems. in order to 'provide customers with the opportunity to control costs. In general, recyclable materials collection and processing represents an opportunity for the existing solid waste .collectors in the Town. Minimal responsibility, other than collection, is required of the haulers. The Town has assumed the marketing responsibility of the materials, which, is often. considered _the least desirable or most risky aspect of recycling. Implementation of the short. and long—term program actions is not anticipated to cause detriment to existing operators or their operations. 00938 3-13 Section 4 4.0 ',ASSESSMENT OF MARKETS FOR RECYCLABLE AND COMPOSTABLE MATERIALS This section _pre'sents a --general discussion. and assessment of, local- and regional markets for recyclable materials. The; discussion and assessment is similar to those performed for the Towns of Riverhead and'; Shelter. Island: As a result of the. relatively small size of the Town and the- more limited access to the collection areas for the various recovered materials by potential markets, the marketing of the recyclables collected in the Town represents certain unique challenges. However; the unique, conditions have been accounted for in developing the marketing -strategy for the Town presented in Section 6.3. It has often been. stated that - one of the most important aspects of a successful recycling program: is material., . marketing.. - A common. concern expressed, about the viability' of recycling when it is considered a component of --a solid waste management program is whether adequate markets exist to support it on along-term basis. The design. and -operation of any recycling system requires the following information: o Material Quality Specifications: These -specifications are used to ensure the purity of the materials in order that they are acceptable to the market. These specifications typically describe the desired material grade (which may be proprietary or conform to certain industry standards), the' extent to which similar material grades can be mixed and the percentage of nongrade materials or contaminants that will be tolerated. o Delivery Specifications: These _specifications :define how. materials should be physically prepared for 'shipment. This includes the degree of material densification, the type of delivery container(s) that can be handled, and the desired transportation model (e.g. truck, rail or barge). o Geographic Location of Market Demand This information is used to determine the cost of preparing and delivering materials to market: . o, Current Material Values: , This helps to determine if the value to the market of a specific recyclable material 'is, excluding delivery costs, positive or negative. The information indicates if there could be any revenues for offsetting" some or all of the cost to :prepare and deliver materials to the market. A negative market value would indicate that marketing is an additional cost which must be paid through other revenue sources. This information, as a whole, must guide the development of a materials. recovery system -with respect to how materials are to be collected and processed or prepared for market acceptance.., First, market conditions will preclude or encourage the recovery of 0094R 4-1 specific categories of waste materials generated. 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. It should be -noted that a market, or the marketing, of recyclable materials does not always involve the generation of revenue. In some cases, a market is paid to- recycle a recovered. material. Ideally a market would buy the recovered material from the Town. The second preference in the marketing of recyclables is that the Town would avoid a higher cost for disposal of a material by paying a market to recycle it. The lowest preference would be that the payment to a market is higher than the disposal option with little or no avoided costs to offset the market costs. This last preference may be necessary in some instances, in order to comply with existing or future Federal or State actions. In all instances, the Town would be expected to market the recyclables to generate revenues and/or recapture avoided disposal ..costs. In addition, the use of recycled materials in the manufacturing process tends to be' more environmentally responsible than the processing of virgin materials. 4.1 Market Survey. A summary of Long Island markets is presented below for recyclable and compostable materials. A market guide to the region is available in Table 4.1-1. Metals The ferrous and nonferrous metals recovered by the Town are marketed through two separate outlets. Major household appliances are stockpiled in a dedicated area of the landfill and removed for processing to secondary markets by Franza's Universal Scrap and Metal. The Town pays $5.01 per ton for metal. removed. At the recycling center, aluminum and - tin are recovered in 'a 40. cubic yard rolloff and transported and processed- by rocessedby PK Scrap, in Coram, New York at no cost to the Town. Many scrap metal dealers on Long Island currently accept most ferrous and nonferrous metals. This is a result of a strong market at the present time. Generally, the 0094R 4-2 A.S.K. Metals.Company 180 Miller Place Precious metals*. Hicksville, NY 11801 (516) 933-8680 Boro Recyc-Ling 54-35 48th Street _ Various.paper grades''. -Flushing, NY 11377 (718) 482-7180 -Brookhaven Recycling and Waste Corporation 36 Potter Avenue. Aluminum; cleanand dry newsprint Patchogue, NY 11772 or high grade paper; no magazines (516).475-4788 Brooklyn Union Gas Company 195 Montague Street Plastics* Brooklyn, NY 11201-3631 0094R . Table 4.1-1 TOWN OF•SOUTHOLD Markets and Private Processing Facilities for Recyclables Company Location/Telephone Recyclables Processed A & R Lobosco, Inc. 3133 Farrington Street Newsprint only clean, dry no Flushing,, NY 11354" contamination (718) 358-2098 " •ABM Oils 310 Grand Boulevard, Motor..oi.l Deer Park, NY 11729 . (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), 3614757 PCB's Alcoa Recycling Company 815 Fairview Avenue Aluminum cans' only Fairview, NJ''????? " (201•) 225 -95501 - All County Recycling Corporation 438. Livingston Avenue Paper and/or.cardboard* Babylon, NY 11702 (516) 321 -1496 - All Island Demolition Recycling 82 Horseblock,Road Demolition materials, wood, plastic, „ Yaphank, NY 11735 concrete and metals* (516)•924-2426 Amco Metals :1031 Conklin. Street Metals except computer circuit " Fa•rmingdale, NY 11735 boards (516) 249-5344 Amoco Foam Products Compnay P.O. Box 3178 Polystyrene plastic " Winchester,•VA 22601 7nii 667 9740 A.S.K. Metals.Company 180 Miller Place Precious metals*. Hicksville, NY 11801 (516) 933-8680 Boro Recyc-Ling 54-35 48th Street _ Various.paper grades''. -Flushing, NY 11377 (718) 482-7180 -Brookhaven Recycling and Waste Corporation 36 Potter Avenue. Aluminum; cleanand dry newsprint Patchogue, NY 11772 or high grade paper; no magazines (516).475-4788 Brooklyn Union Gas Company 195 Montague Street Plastics* Brooklyn, NY 11201-3631 0094R . Comaany Buzz Scrap Metals Centerbury 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 DeMatteo Salvage Company, Inc. Den Enterprises, Inc. Table 4.1-1 (continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Markets and Private Processing Facilities for Recyclables Location/Telephone Recvclables Processed 13 Three Mile Harbor Road Metals* .East:Hampton,. NY 11937 (516) 324-1600 Glen Cove, NY 11542 Paper and/or cardboard* 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 Deer Park, NY 11728 turnings—copper, aluminum, non— (516) 586-1010 ferrous metals. Do not handle mixed ferrous 612 Muncy 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 DiNapoli Recycling Company P.O. Box 183 Metals* Oyster Bay, NY 11771- (516) ,922-4766 0094R Table 4.1-1 (continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Markets and Private Processing Facilities for Recyclables Comaanv Location/Telephone Recyclables Processed Duffy Thompson, Inc. 266 Route 109 Concrete crushed for aggregate* Farmingdale, NY 11735 Construction and demolition debris . (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, Jamaica, NY 11433 clear, brown, green (718) 739-7270 . George's Sanitation Services Old Country Road Mulch and wood chips*- 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) Grimes.Contracting Harmon Associates Hubbard Sand & Gravel 0094R New Hyde Park, NY 11040 (718) 343-7600 P.O. Drawer D Concrete crushed for aggregate* Montauk, NY 11954 (516) 668-5332 Westbury, NY 11590- Paper and/or cardboard* (516) 997-3400 1612 Fifth Avenue Mulch and wood chips* Bay Shore, NY 11706. Construction and demolition waste (516) 665-1005 0094R Table 4.1-1 (continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Markets and Private Processing Facilities for Recyclables Company Location/Telephone Recvclables Processed Iberia Plastics Recycling Corporation 1815B Broad Hollow Road Sorted PET and HDPE, plastic East Farmingdale, NY 11735 containers._ Color mixed HDPE (516) 694-0165 accepted Industrial Plastics 8 Maple Avenue Plastics* Freeport, NY 11520 (516) 233-2075 IPF Recycling Corporation 151 Fulton Avenue Paper and cardboard* Garden City, NY 11530 (516) 746-7575 Jamaica Recycling Corporation 112 Phyllis'Court Paper and cardboard* Elmont, NY 11003 (516) 285-6022 and 94-23 165th Street Jamaica, NY 11401 (718) 526-1465 Jet Paper Stock Corporation 228 Bl'ydenburgh 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 Tires* Suite 12C New York, NY 10021 (212) 744-1685 0094R Table 4.1-1 (continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Markets and Private Processing Facilities for Recyclables Company Location/Telephorie Recvclables Processed Metski Enterprises, Inc. 181 Frowein Road Mulch and wood chips* East Moriches, NY 11940, Land clearing debris (516).878-0652 - (516) 878-1020 Mid—Island Salvage Corporation 1007 Long Island Avenue Metals* Deer Park, W11729 (516) 667-5040 National Waste Technologies, Inc a 934..Easton Street- Mixed, plastics Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 (516) 588-4545 . Newark Boxboard Company 57 Freeman Street-, Corrugatedonly; no newsprint; no Newark, Ni 07105. contamination . New York Paper Stock Corporation 24 Columbus Avenue Paper'and/or cardboard* Patchogue, NY 11772 (516) 758-1742 New York Tire Recycling 29 Old Northport Road Tires* Kings Park, NY 11754 ( 516) 544-4100- North 44-4.100North Shore Salvage Corporation 181 Denton AVenue Metals* New Hyde Park, NY 11040 (516) 746-8454 NYCONN Industries;. Inc. 4-1.1 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 P & P Paper Recycling Systems, Inc. 3il Windling Road Paper and/or cardboard* Old Bethpage, NY 11804 - (516) 249-8577 0094R IA Table 4.1-1 (continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Markets and Private Processing Facilities for Recyclables Comaanv Location/Telephone Recvclables Processed Pace Glass, Inc. 73-75 Cornelison Avenue Bottles must be color -sorted, Jersey City, NJ 07304 clear, brown, green; caps, rings (201) 433-4751. and 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 (Prima) Asphalt, Inc. 615 Furrows Road Concrete crushed for aggregate* Holtsville, NY 11742 Concrete and asphalt (516) 289-3406 Pinnacle Industries 160 Wilbur Place Dry newsprint Bohemia, NY 11716 (516) 589-5426 PK Scrap Metals Company 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 wood chips* Ronkonkoma, NY 11779 (516) 467-2299 110 Sand and Gravel, Inc. 203 Spagnol'i Road Construction and demolition waste. Holtsville, NY 11742 (516) 249-4108 Romano Brothers Scrap Metal Company 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 0094R Table 4.1-1 (continued) TOWN,OF SOUTHOLD Markets and Private 'Processing Facilities for Recyclables Comuanv Location/Telephone Recvclables Processed " --Sabre- Recycling -Corporation '206 Babylon T.urnpi'ke Metals, plastics* . Roosevelt, NY 11575 :. -(516) 379-5124 Schneider Coal and .Trucking Company, Inc. Route #1 Bottles only = separated into three - Box 16,F. colors: green, amber and clear. Miller Place Road Al,l rings':removed Middle Island, NY 11953' ("516). 924-4414',, Security Paper Recycling Company 17307 Liberty Avenue Paper'and'%or cardboard* Jamaica, NY_.11433' • "(516) "328-0220 _ -Suffolk Tab Salvage, Inc. W' 24 Co lumbus,Avenue Metals*. P.O. Box 1304 East Patchogue', NY 11772 (.516) 654-8606 - Suffolk Ce"ent-Products West -Middle Road Mulch and wood chips* Cal'verton, NY 11933 ' (516.) 727=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. 110.01d Northport Road Paper.and/or cardboard, - Kings Park, NY 11754 glass, metals* (516) 368-5533 Vrabel'.Engineering and Sales Company 9 Camden Place Tires* " New Hyde Park, NY 11040 (516) 746-5139 Westbury Paper Stock Corporation 633 Dickens Street Newspaper`, -corrugated paper -and P.O. Box 833 high—grades Westbury, NY 11590 (516) 333-2211 Source: D &.B survey and, Recycling Unit of Suffolk County --Department of General Services. * As -identified by the.Recycling Unit of Suffolk County. 0094R' nonferrous market provides higher revenues for each ton of material. than the ferrous market. The prices for nonferrous and ferrous both fluctuate. It is difficult to secure stable prices on recovered materials due to frequent market fluctuations. , 'In addition, dealers and- end users base their prices on the amount of contaminants in the' material. Some dealers will not quote a price without inspection. However, prices for materials meeting standard specifications can be obtained from trade publications. The average scrap value for unprocessed aluminum containers is approximately $.40 per pound. Unprocessed tin cans have an approximate value of $50 per ton. Bulky ferrous metals from appliances and automobiles have an_ approximate salvage value ranging from $6 to $22 per gross ton (2240 pounds) dependingwhether the material is picked up or delivered. On the whole, scrap yards that are accepting bulky metals or "white goods" require the capacitors to be removed prior to delivery. This_ is a result of possible high PCB concentrations in a small percentage of obsolete appliance capacitors potentially resulting in the hazardous contamination of the facility. Paper Most of the paper processors and brokers surveyed have gone from purchasing large quantities of waste paper to charging a fee to transport and/or accept the paper. Over the past two years, the demand as reflected -in the pricing for many grades of post -consumer waste paper,, .has steadily declined. Currently, most municipalities are charged a fee of up to $35 per ton to deliver -loads of unbaled newsprint. Some waste paper processors, however, continue to provide collection containers for the recovery of newsprint. The Town of Southold pays Glover Trucking, Inc. $30.00 per ton to have ,the newspaper transported from the recycling center to Pinnacle Industries which accepts the paper at no charge. Most recently, the Town of Smithtown entered into a, long-term contract with a waste paper . broker in New Jersey. This arrangement allows Smithtown to recycle its newsprint without any disposal fee. Prins Recycling Corporation of Fort Lee, New Jersey has provided a high density baler to the Town to upgrade and densify post consumer newspaper. The Town will own the baler once it processes 100,000 tons of paper. At that point, the Town may receive revenues from the sale of paper according to market prices. It appears that Smithtown has additional capacity to bale newspapers from other communities, at a processing fee of $20 per ton. This represents another marketing opportunity for 'Southold. 0094R 4-10 While several waste paper brokers no longer accept' loose newsprint from residential recovery._ programs, most -brokers will accept corrugated -paperboard.. Unbaled old corrugated containers delivered to'a processing facility can be dumped free -'of ,charge:- In addition, Jet Paper Stock will ;provide and service rolloff containers for compressed corrugated containers 'as 'long as 4-5 tons, of paperboard can be recovered on a weekly basis. Although the- opportunity to recycle magazines, book stock and telephone books is limited in the metropolitan` area; Brookhaven Recycling and Waste Corp. will accepf free deliveries of these paper types, assuming specific delivery. and packaging conditions are met. Book stock; telephone books -and_,magazines 'must. be strapped .or plastic wrapped onto skids or pallets. Although the market, for low-grade :fiber- is - weak, there still remains a strong demand for high-grade fibers such as. computer printout, white ledger, and mixed-. colored ledger paper. The ' values for . computer printout and ' white ledger paper have remained relatively constant over the past two 'years, unlike mixed ledger paper: Clean unbaled , computer printout' sells for, approximately $40 . per ton, while unbaled , white ledger generates approximately $30 per ton. The. value of mixed colored ledger fluctuates more frequently than clean sorted white ledger paper. Currently,- mixed color ledger` sells for. approximately $10 per It is extremely difficult to predict specific short-term market conditions. ,However, it can be assumed that the supply. of'recyclable .materials will increase as more programs become operational. 'This would worsen the existing market conditions, according to the paper . industry: Further, the .industry, believes that an expansion in demand sufficient to absorb the existing and projected waste paper supply will not occur. in the next several years. Over the long --term, demand for used newsprint is anticipated 'to increase as a result of paper mill conversions and 'expansions. This. effort by the paper industry to - consume . the supply of used -newsprint � generated- from municipal recycling programs is already being demonstrated. Many paper- manufacturers, have announced plans for the expansion of existing .de -inking- mills `or stated an interest in siting new mills which include, Stone Container Corporation, Jefferson Smurfit, Bowater, Inc., and Garden State Paper (Media General). One example is the modification of two Canadian Pacific. Forest Products newsprint mills to operate utilizing 100% recycled newsprint fiber. These mills, located in Canada, will process bales of newspaper mixed with 25-35% recovered magazine -stock. Canadian Pacific, through an exclusive supply_ contract with Laidlaw 0094R 4-1.1 Resources, is seeking 10 — 20, year supply commitments from . waste paper brokers, processors and/or local governmental agencies. Laidlaw Resources will guarantee pricing ($25 per ton) and tonnage capacity, depending on the supplier. Newspaper must be baled. Although this would appear to be a great opportunity given the current marketing conditions, many municipalities are hesitant to make long—term commitments of 10 years or more with a local paper dealer and subsequently with Laidlaw. Experts in the industry see .this as a trend and are reluctant to commit material that may in fact become more valuable over the long—term than the current offered contract price. New York State, in cooperation with other agencies and private concerns. including the publishing industry, formed a Task Force that reached agreement on increasing the percentage of recycled paper content used in newspapers using an increasing percentage with a timetable for .implementation. Additionally, the Task Force is attempting to attract additional mills to the region in order to provide the assured increasing demand for recycled newsprint and to provide a market for locally recovered newsprint. Suffolk County has taken . a different approach to increasing existing material demand by establishing a'40% secondary material content goal by 1991, in all newspapers with . a circulation in the County of 20,000 or more. This effort accelerates the Task Force implementation schedule. Compliance in the law is required for daily and weekly publications; however by 1991 only 15% -of newspaper publishers must participate. By _ 1996, 100% of publishers with a circulation greater than 20,000 must be in compliance. - It is unclear at this time as to whether or not both or .either of these actions will increase the markets for recovered newsprint.. The Towns of Islip, Huntington, Babylon, ' and Oyster Bay have formed a marketing cooperative for recyclable materials. With this increased marketing power it is reported that paper mills in the United States and in foreign countries have expressed interest in the large and reliable sources of newsprint. It is estimated that the -cooperative, which is reportedly available to all Long Island Towns, would market approximately 100,000 tons of newsprint . annually. 0094R 4-12 Although it may continue to, -,be necessary to pay a .-tipping' fee for newsprint and other marginal paper grades, in the short-term, it is important to compare these costs to those of collecting and disposing ,these materials• as waste. The avoided cost of disposal can offset the fees charged -for recycling newsprint. Glass There are several local markets that accept post -consumer glass .bottles and jars in addition to beverage containers returned under 'the New York returnable bottle bill law. The glass markets traditionally experience fewer market fluctuations than the paper industry.' The average 'value of color sorted glass -in the area, is approximately $25 per ton delivered. However, flint or clear' glass containers often generates a higher price of up to $40 per ton.' Very few markets will accept color mixed glass; however', those that do, such as EWG Glass Recovery, in Jamaica New York, have charged a tipping fee. Mixed colored glass, ceramics, and low-grade glass can be marketed,, but a fee may be charged - to recover these materials.. At the Town's recycling collection center, EWG Glass Recovery and. Recycling provides a 30 cubic yard roll -off and 3 smaller 2 - 6 cubic yard dumpsters for the separate collection of clear, green, and brown glass. Glass received at the recycling collection center. is transported and processed by EWG Glass Recovery and Recycling. The Town receives revenues of $15 per ton. for clear glass, $20 per ton for brown.glass, and $8 per ton -for green glass. Plastics The most common household recyclable plastics, are PET (polyethylene terephthalate) and HDPE (high density -polyethylene) with . PVC (polyvinyl chloride), PP (polypropylene) and PS (polystyrene) less frequently recycled., An example of PET plastic containersare the 1 and ' 2 liter soft - drink - bottles and examples of HDPE are milk and water jugs., PVC includes crystal clear ,food packaging, such as baby oil bottles and some liquid soap or dish detergent bottles. Examples of PP packaging includes plastic yogurt cups, margarine tubs and medicine bottles. Finally, examples. of PS are breath mint containers, tape dispensers, egg cartons, styrofoam cups and -some fast food packaging. 00948 4-13 Several .companies in the New York metropolitan area., purchase post -consumer plastic containers. It is the preference of most plastic processors and brokers that the plastic containers be sorted by resin type (i.e., PET separated from HDPE). However, it is not always necessary for containers to be sorted by color. Many processors accept color mixed HDPE including. the milk and water jugs with laundry and shampoo containers. For handling convenience and efficiency, for the Town and the consuming industry, the volume of the material can be reduced. The industry prefers baled material over granulated plastic because quality control can more easily be maintained. Trimax of Long Island Inc.,. National Waste Technologies (NWT) in Ronkonkoma, and Plastic Recyclers, Inc. in Wyandanch accept mixed plastic for processing into plastic "lumber". Trimax and Iberia Plastics Recycling Corporation of Farmingdale will, however, provide a trailer for the. collection of whole plastic bottles. The current value of delivered PET. in unground form is approximately $.02 per pound where as HDPE sells for nearly $.08 per pound. These approximate. values also apply for baled containers. Mixed plastic containers are recovered at, the recycling center. The plastic is collected and stored in a 30 cubic yard rolloff container. George's Sanitation, who provides the.siorage container, upgrades .the plastic by sorting and removing undesirable plastics and other contaminating materials prior to delivery to Trimax of Long Island. Trimax processes these containers under contract with the Town at no charge. Tires In the region, there are several markets that recover scrap tires. Primarily, these markets produce tire chips, through shredding or chipping, which are then used as a fuel supplement. Tires are recovered at the collection center, however, a disposal fee of $.02 per pound is charged. Most scrap tire markets (Table 4.1-1) will accept delivered tires, provide _a trailer and transportation for collection and storage or bring a mobile tire shredding unit to the site for on-site reduction. These markets will also provide training of Town personnel -in methods to efficiently store tires. On the average, tipping fee for delivered tires is approximately $1.00 per automobile tire, truck tires have higher tipping rates. 0094R 4-14 Batteries Batteries can be divided into two categories: automotive and household. Both types of batteries can be recycled. However, the collection and recovery of . automotive batteries is less complicated and, therefore, currently achieves higher recovery rates than household batteries. Automotive batteries are composed' of sulfuric acid encased in lead plating and can be processed for lead recovery. Many local scrap and salvage yards buy used auto batteries (see Table 4.1-1). Currently, the scrap value of lead -acid batteries offered by these salvage yards is approximately $.03 per pound or $1.08 per auto battery. The Governor recently signed legislation requiring a $5 deposit on the purchase of a new vehicle battery. If an old battery is brought in within 30 days, the $5 is to be refunded. Household batteries are comprised of six types.. Typically, flashlight, radio and toy batteries are carbon zinc and alkaline types. Button cell batteries are composed of mercury and silver oxide and lithium types are commonly known as hearing aid, watch and camera batteries. Nickel -cadmium batteries are those which are rechargeable and. used in smoke .alarms, appliances and tools. Of these six types, mercury and silver oxide batteries are commonly recycled for their mercury and silver components. Mercury Refining Company, located in Latham, New York, accepts all six household battery types for processing or disposal. Lithium and nickel cadmium contain very little mercury and . are, therefore, not processed for metal recovery. Mercury Refining Company accepts deliveries of household batteries through the mail and reimburses the sender the scrap value, after batteries are sorted and weighted. Mercury batteries are valued at approximately $.25 per pound and silver oxide sell for $10.00 per pound. A disposal fee of $.24 per pound is charged for alkaline and carbon zinc batteries and approximately $6.00 per pound for lithium type batteries (see Table 4.1-2). Used Motor Oil In New York, automobile service establishments which sell at least 500 gallons of lubricating oil annually, must accept used engine lubricating oil from any individual. Used motor oil must be accepted at no additional charge and in quantities up to five (5) gallons per individual per day. Table 4.1-1 provides a list of companies providing waste oil collection services. 0094R 4-15 0094R Di sposal Fee ($/Lb.) $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $6.00 Table 4.1-2 Common Household Battery Types Hazardous -Purchase Material Price Type Component Use(S/Lb.) Carbon Zinc Mercury -AA, C&D.batteries. Radios, - flashlights and toys. Alkaline Mercury and' Long life C&D cells. Radios., — manganese flashlights and toys. dioxide Mercury Mercury Hearing aids, medical devices, $ 0.25 pagers, watchers and cameras. Silver Silver Button cells for calculators, $10.00 watches and cameras. Lithium Lithium Cameras and computers. — Nickel —Cadmium Cadmium Rechargeable. Smoke alarms, — appliances and tools. Zinc/Air Zinc oxide Items requiring continuous use such as hearing aids and watches. 0094R Di sposal Fee ($/Lb.) $ 0.24 $ 0.24 $6.00 Composting Compost can be . derived from .yard waste, sewage sludge food waste,, paper and . wood processing -waste.,. Either .separately or in conjunction, these wastes, can be. exposed to bacterial activity `and -mechanical-,& chemical mariipulationr to produce a compost product which exhibits . humus ' like characteristics including :texture, porosity,, moisture retention and fertility., 'Depending on..initial feed ingredients.. mentioned above,, the resulting compost can ;be used ' as a `soil or growing mix substitute or amendent,'. oras a surface applied mulch or top; --dress.,.. Compostable . organic materials can be source separated from the waste,"stream, so`"that: potential " contamination from municipal solid waste is significantly reduced 'or avoided in many cases. Materials that are easily source separated include all forms of yard waste; sludge, wood, and -,to lesser degrees food and low-grade paper. . Cornell Cooperative Extension of Suffolk- County, published a report detailing the Horticultural and Agricultural Industry 'Characteristics of the County. ' ' This information and statistics regarding crop commodities are made use of in this analysis. The analysis reveals that Suffolk , County shows potential in 4several areas .of its Horticultural and Agricultural Industry for the production .and' use -of compost produced ' from yard wastes, sewage sludge, food, waste, paper- and/or wood processing Wastes -as an alternative 'to their traditional disposal methods.' Container. grown arid field grown nursery crops (tree, -shrub & bush species) comprise , approximately 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 eight 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 cropsare produced in a' growing mix" consisting, of varying" proportions of coarse builders .sand,: peat moss; .:and/or ground. ibark.• 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 here 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 again reduce growing mix costs, supply nutrients, and provide the crop with -potential disease resistance capabilities. 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 & 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 providing slow release nutrients to. young turf grass. Compost may be potentially useful to the horse industry, as well. Horses total some 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 would help maintain the vigor and quality of the pasture grass for grazing and physical wear. - An important. point to consider is that with these bulk materials discussed, 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., that would be produced from locally generated source separated waste materials, would not incur the associated importation cost. , Compost can, therefore, be competitive to other bulk items shipped in for use. This, in addition to the reduction of traditional, disposal needs for such locally generated waste materials, could further increase compost attractiveness. 0094R 4-18 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. Landscaping contracting entails a .large amount of construction work, such as drainage systems, grading, lawn- construction, tree, hedge, and shrub .planting, and construction and maintenance 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. 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. In addition to the horticultural and floricultural industries and sod production and horse farms having the' potential to utilize source separated compost (i.e., yard waste, sludge, food waste or wood processing wastes or any combination), the agricultural industry also represents a significant opportunity for, the 'utilization of ,source separated compost based products, In addition, the following discussion will present .potential uses for compost produced from mixed municipal- solid wastes (MSW). Mixed MSW precludes the source separation of organic materials from the waste stream, other than separation of recyclables. , Composting of mixed. municipal solid waste could increase the possibility of contaminants becoming incorporated into the., -compost- end product. Therefore, quality testing of this., material is, necessary to ensure market acceptability. Also, NYSDEC regulations identify classes , for compost end products that identify where these materials can and cannot be used. 0094R 4-19 The agricultural industry in Suffolk County represents a strong potential compost user. The following is a list of commodities produced .in Suffolk County and their acreage under production: 1988 Acreage Estimated Acreage Under Cultivation On Long Island* Commodity Potatoes Grain Nursery Sod Cauliflower Cabbage Sweet Corn Pasture Grapes Green Beans Peaches Apples Cucumbers Peppers Onions Spinach Tomatoes Strawberries Lettuce Squash Pumpkins Melons Other TOTAL: *' Total Farm Acreage Acres 8,500 6,000 6,500 4,500 1,200 1,700 -1,400 1,500 1,300 600 400 330 300 300 -200 300 250 300 200 200 500 200 1.000 36,280 With approximately 40,000 acres of farmland in Suffolk, it is the leading County in New York State in the wholesale value of agricultural products. Approximately 75% of this acreage is located in the Towns of Southhampton, Riverhead, and Southold. While Class I MSW compost cannot be applied to direct human consumption- crops, it can be applied to those crops which undergo processing before consumption. Class H MSW compost, although prohibited from application on human consumption crops, can be applied to nonfood crops for utilization. Regardless of the compost classification (i.e., MSW compost, yard waste compost, organic waste compost), there is substantial potential for use of compost in the horticultural and/or agricultural industries in the Town. 0094R 4-20 i A: Municipal Solid Waste- Compost Market Survey of -horticultural operations was. performed ,in four. -Counties in New York State including, Rockland, Orange, Putnam -and Ulster Counties (see ,Appendix A to this CRA). Another similar survey was performed -for Sullivan County. 'The'results from -'the Sullivan County survey, while consistent with the results presented here, have not •been included due to differences in the survey questionaire. These `Counties geographically.. and. demographically _range from rural agricultural to suburban professional communities: Those surveyed were involved in the 'horticulture production. andhorticulture service industries. The responses, are grouped as follows: % Response Production Service/Maintenance/Sales , 21.5%' .Nursery36.9% Landscape Contractor - 13.8% Greenhouse 15.4%- Resident/Commercial Grounds 1.5% Vegetable 1.3% . Florist 0.8%- Christmas Tree . 0.8% 'Garden. Center 0.8 Soils Manufacture . 0.8% Recreational 0.8%, Cemetery Grounds Other 4:6%0 It can be concluded from' these "surveys that landscape contractor, nursery, , residential/commercial grounds "and greenhouse activities constitute 87.6% of all responses. Therefore, . a:.lar$e percentage of the. industry' can .take :advantage• of compost ,produced from source separated yard wastes, sewage sludge, food wastes,. low—grade paper - and/or wood processing wastes -or from mixed municipal solid waste (Class II). 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 MSW -compost. topotential regional users were cost, availability and ease of handling, with 74% of the respondents indicating that they would be willing .to; try MSW, compost in place of a bulk .material they were currently using. Additionally, 70% of the respondents indicated that should a high quality, compost 'be available, they would'be" willing to make use of it- on a regular basis., `0094R , 4-21 According to survey results, 80%. of the respondents would' seriously consider the use of MSW compost if- it had a price, advantage of 50% over other bulk materials currently used. The materials MSW compost would supplement .or replace were listed as topsoil, mulch, soilless mix and peat moss. Finally, 73% of . the respondents prefer additional information regarding MSW 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. in 1988/1989 agrees with this analysis. With' regards to horticulture, nurseries, landscapers - and - greenhouse operations, the survey determined an interest in the use of the compost and willingness to sell MSW compost of consistent and good/high quality. With regards to agriculture, the potential was- apparent for MSW compost use on processed food crops and nonfood crops. 'It can be concluded that regionally, the horticultural industry is interested and willing to use MSW compost provided cost, availability and handling needs are met. These results can' also be applied to source separated types of compost. There appears to be interest and potential users of Class I or Class II MSW compost and source separated type compost products in New York State. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) has expressed concerns regarding the potential for leachates from MSW compost, that might 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 MSW compost in the deep recharge zone if it is produced using mixed refuse as a feed stock. Even if all NYSDEC quality control requirements are, met for the MSW compost product, SCDHS policy might still preclude.its use in the County. Additionally, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services has stated that potential users may be fearful, from a product liability standpoint, of utilizing (mixed) 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. In conclusion, it 'is recommended that source separated based compost of yard wastes, sludge, low-grade paper and wood processing wastes be . composted for potential use in the agricultural and nonagricultural industries. 0094R 4-22 Construction and Demolition Waste Construction and demolition debris (C&D) is typically, bulky .in nature and is composed of rock, brick, masonry, concrete, asphalt, dirt, tree stumps, limbs, brush, logs and new and used 'lumber-. In addition, to the above" items, corrugated paperboard, plastics, ferrous and nonferrous metals" and shingles are also contained• in wastes from construction, demolition and.reimdeling projects. Further, mixed C&D wastes potentially contain nonrecoverable materials such as adhesives, and creosoted and wolmanized wood (wood impregnated with preservatives) and packing materials which must.be separated and removed prior to processing. C&D materials can be most successfully transferred and processed for markets and reuse if they are source separated by generators into the following fractions prior to delivery to transfer stations or, processors: o. Wood based materials including land- clearing debris consisting of stumps, tree sections -and limbs;. o " Pavement and concrete structure demolition debris. including concrete and asphalt based materials, excavated materials, rubble, etc.; .and o Demolition and, new. construction waste, including, wood, metals aggregates, paper, corrugated paper and plastics: Depending on the. type : of C&D waste generator, materials - are collected and, delivered. for disposal. in, both source separated and• mixed waste forms. - The six typical types of C&D generators and their processing or, disposal patterns are described below: o Demolition and' remodeling constructors produce both mixed and separated wastes. In larger projects, the contractor often source separates. materials into rubble and wood based components; for economic reasons, and also reclaims _metals and other recyclable items for direct delivery to markets. On smaller sized projects, mixed wastes ' are usually combined, into, a single .truck or container load. o New construction projects will produce larger amounts of scrap lumber, pallets, gypsum board and smaller amounts of metals, plastics packing materials and aggregate'. based materials.: Depending- .on .the •. magnitude. of, -the project, decisions in regard to mixed or separated materials delivery is determined. o Land clearing,. projects, : generally homogenous loads, will .produce wood based wastes 'consisting of brush, .tree parts and stumps These could be effectively separated and chipped`on site for direct -delivery to a processing facility. ' 0094R 4-23 . o Bulky household waste collection- activities will 'generate mixed- materials consisting of brush, tree parts, scrap lumber, treated wood, white goods, appliances, textiles and metals. This type of activity accumulates materials in mixed form. o Commercial, industrial, and institutional sectors generate, pallets, packing materials, and wood and aggregate based process waste. These materials are often not, but could be source separated and delivered in, either, roll -off containers or compactor trucks. Mixed C&D waste can be separated into its various components to be further processed for reuse. The following materials comprising C&D waste and their potential uses are described below. Table 4.1-3 provides a. partial listing of specifications, markets and uses for processed C&D materials. Table 4.1-4 outlines the local C&D processors delivery requirements, pricing structures, types of services provided, equipment availability and processing mechanisms. o Concrete pavement and structure demolition can be upgraded and processed for market through crushing with use of a a jaw cone,, or hammermill crusher, removing ferrous metals and screening out contaminants. The final product can be used for. sub -base and/or drainage and erosion control materials. o Reclaimed asphalt - paving debris may be blended with the above materials or. separated for use as an additive to asphalt paving raw materials for. secondary road pavement or reheated for use as pot hole fill material; o Brick, masonry and rock may be processed for decorative landscaping materials and fill;. o Land clearing ' debris may be shredded and screened to produce high grade humus, mulch,, wood chips and a boiler fuel; o Metals • may- be mechanically separated during processing and sold to a scrap metal market; o Corrugated, materials and paper is either manually or mechanically separated and can be used as a bulking agent for yard wastes, sludge composting, livestock bedding material; and o Fine reject materials from processing, including flat glass, plastics, sheetrock, etc., is useful when blended with fill and cover materials. The C&D processors on Long Island have the capability to produce marketable aggregate and wood based products from mixed or pre-sorted C&D wastes. Throughput of area transfer stations and ' recovery facilities range from . 50 to 250 tons per hour. Estimated tipping fees range. from $8 to $12 per ton. Products produced are marketed at a range of $6 to $9 per ton. 0094R 4-24 TABLE. 4.1-3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD COMPREHENSIVE RECYCLING ANALYSIS POTENTIAL CONSTRUCTION. AND DEMOLITION, -MATERIAL USES MATERIAL. MARKET USES CONCRETE 6 INCH PLUS: - Excavators, contractors ........ Construction rip rap for erosion. control and Gabion fill material 11/2 INCH & .3/4 MINUS: -Paving Contractors ........... Roadbed / -parking lot Construction Contractors .. Fill / 'road and shoulder plus foundation ALL ABOVE: Municipalities ............... Landfill cover• / roadbed fill / erosion control, ASPHALT 3/8 INCH: Paving companies ........ New Asphalt, 1.1/4 INCH:'. Contractors, ............... Roadbed MIXED ASPHALT & Construction companies ....:. Fill / roadbed . CONCRETE: Municipalities .............. Fill / landfill cover / roadbed / Pot- othole holefill BRICK::'- Building materials ............ Used brick only BRICK / ROCKS: Landscapers :........:.:... Decorative cover / erosion control Municipalities ............. Roadbed / landfill cover / parks and ,recreation areas TREE STUMPS, TRUNKS,, Landscape companies :..:: '... Topsoil / mulch / soil enhancement BRUSHES, BRANCHES, Municipalities ...... Topsoil / mulch CONSTRUCTION WOOD, & Construction companies •. Topsoil /, mulch SOIL: • Nurseries .......... I. .... Topsoil / mulch / potting, soil Orchards .................. Mulch /.soil enhancement Multi -fuel. boiler -plants Woodchips forfuel SOURCE:.Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers TABLE 4.14 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS MARKETS AND PRIVATE PROCESSING FACILITIES North Fork Southold Sanitation Mattituck Southold Sanitation Proposed C & D Facility to the Town Proposed C & D Facility to the Town SOURCE:Telephone survey conducted by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers NEW YORK MATERIALS ESTIMATED COMPANY LOCATION. ACCEPTED: TIPPING FEE PROCESS MARKETS All Island Demo- Yaphank Mixed and separ- - . $12.00/cy Tip floor, Loader and Building transfer station for lition Recycling ated C & D $13.00/cy Screen additional manual sorting of materials Duffy Thompson, Farmingdale Mixed and Separ- $11.00/cy Hammermill Crusher 3 inch minus: landfill cover Inc. ated C & D and Screen 3 inch plus: Clean wood - boiler fuel George's Sanitation Quogue Mixed.and $15.00/cy mixed Manual sort, loader Clean chips: Hubbard Power Separated C & D $10.00/cy sorted crush or tub grind and Light, Brentwood screen Aggregate and landfill cover Mixed: to' 110 Sand in Melville Has 20 and 40 cy containers Hubbard Sand and Bay Shore Mixed and separ- $15.00/cy Crusher for aggregate Uses material in on site Gravel ated C & D and Landfill landfill Sells aggregate for road sub base Metski Enterprise East Moriches Land clearing $7S0/cy Shred and compost Composts materials and duck debris, and clean manure wood, and duck Sells firewood, landscape manure. mulch, and humus No container service Prima Asphalt Holtsville Clean separated $3.00/cy Impact crusher and Crushed 1 1/4 and 3/4 inch concrete -and screen minus for road base asphalt. No container service 110 Sand and Melville Aggregate based $15.00/cy mixed Crush and screen No container service Gravel, Inc. separated and $11.00/cy sorted Screened 1 1/4 inch minus mixed C & D marketed as landfill cover Residuals disposed in permitted on site landfill Ray Slider Kings Point Concrete, brick and $11.00/cy Jaw crusher and 3/4 and 11/2 inch sub base block screen material , North Fork Southold Sanitation Mattituck Southold Sanitation Proposed C & D Facility to the Town Proposed C & D Facility to the Town SOURCE:Telephone survey conducted by Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers 4.2 Identification: of Necessary Processing Processing of the components of the waste stream that may be recycled is -discussed.. in this Section. Processing of collected recyclables may be necessary,., to. inspect deliveries, remove contaminants, and provide :a higher quality product ..that ' is more valuable (or less costly) to market,. In order to assist in the marketing of a recovered material, it is- often necessary to prepare or process • the material to desirable specifications of the purchaser .or market. This may involve some form of material separation, as in the --sorting of ;glass by color or plastic by resin type, . or material,- densification -such as. the baling of corrugated cardboard, or plastic containers. However, the' Materials Recycling Facilities (MRF) . in operation or . soon-to-be- in operation, on Long- Island can. take- commingled streams of materials and. perform this type bf processing. The quality and suitability of, the recovered material can affect the demand by the secondary market. The more successful recycling, programs tend to produce their materials in large quantities and at a high quality that meets market specifications. Paper The paper market is highly competitive since the raw material input varies as much As the products being produced. To compete in this .market place and meet this demand, it is necessary to meet the consuming -industries most .stringent material . quality- specific uality specifications. Therefore, it " is necessary for paper sellers to produce'a high . quality, uncontaminated product. This 'is especially important. when the supply , of materials matches the demand for the -material.. Therefore, the higher the quality of the paper the better the marketing � opportunities.. For example, clean newspaper, with plastic, brown paper bags and magazines removed -is regarded as a more valuable material than newspaper with'bags. The second. step necessary to gain an advantage in this highly, competitive market is to bale the waste. paper. This is particularly. important for the lower paper grades such as, newsprint. and corrugated paperboard. , This effort eliminates the processing step by brokers which generally costs about $20 per ton. In addition, this may allow the Town to, broaden its marketing opportunities to outside of, the region, state and country. 'The Town 0094R 4-27 of Smithtown has. worked out an arrangement to bale paper products (and plastics) to improve and guarantee its market for these products. In addition, the most updated consensus from area paper markets is that collection services for waste paper including the servicing of drop off boxes have, in many cases, been temporarily discontinued.' The collection preference is for materials to be delivered to the processing facility. Glass The primary glass markets servicing Long Island do not have processing capabilities to mechanically sort color mixed glass containers. Therefore, to effectively market glass containers recovered from the Town, the containers must be presorted by . color. This could take place in one of three ways: source separated. by the resident at curbside, manually sorted by crews enroute, or. sorted at the collection center. In some cases, however, amber and green glass can be mixed. Besides the color sorting requirements for successfully marketing residentially recovered glass containers, residents are required to rinse all containers clean of residue. Most locally accessible markets have their own facilities for removing the caps and rings from bottles and jars and is therefore not a strict marketing condition. No further processing or handling should be necessary to maximize the suitability of the glass for the markets currently available. - Plastic Plastic. resin buyers are- becoming more commonplace in the scrap recycling industry. For example, Trimax of Long Island and, Iberia Plastics Recycling Corp. now purchase post -consumer plastic containers from residential. recycling programs, in addition to industrial scrap plastics. Trimax uses post consumer plastic containers to make plastic "lumber." Iberia Plastics is also in the process of developing: a system to manufacture ' new products made out of scrap plastic resins. In addition, many existing buyers of waste paper, metals and. glass are also considering brokering and processing used household plastic containers. Separation of plastics by resin type is often important to a plastics recovery program. Marketing is ' enhanced by rinsing out containers, removing labels, caps, and 0094R 4-28 rings. Baling, of plastics can reduce the volume and improve handling characteristics of the material going to market., Shredding or .granulating can- also, bedone to reduce volume and improve handling:- The-. relatively small quantities currently generated in Southold do not appear to need this added processing step. Long Island ;benefits from the many plastic processors, with facilities that produce "plastic lumber" type products. These users accept and purchase mixed- loads, of loose plastic 'containers,, including PET, HDPE, PP (polypropylene), PS (polystyrene) and, PVC '(polyvinyl 'chloride).. National 'Waste Technologies (NWT) also accepts . film plastics. Therefore, the Town- of Southold should consider-. volume', reduction for. storage, maximization and transportation:cost-effectiveness. , This baler, could. also. be used for corrugated containers and newsprint, further increasing its economic advantages. Econorhicaily, volume reduction, .on a regional basis. as opposed to'. individual' municipal efforts is preferable 'because:of the..relatively. low quantities and high volume of materials that are 'expected to be, recovered' by each hauler or ' municipality and the . relatively high cost of the processing equipment. Market specifications frequently change because a broker sells the resins to numerous end users. Therefore, the most common form of reducing plastic container volume for marketing., is through baling'. By baling the -plastics, it may be. possible to mix PET and HDPE because they can be easily separated. If shredding or granulating "were chosen as the .preferred volume reduction method 'then PET- and HDPE and other types of,plastics would have to be sorted. Metals . Metals,'are; recycled .in the Town, including: aluminum cans, tin cans and large bulky metals items. In addition to aluminum cans being returnedthrough the State .bottle bill- legislation" illlegislation, most 'scrap dealers. will, purchase, the, material. On Long Island, 'there :.are . many -"local scrap- and : salvage yards that reclaim ' steel from large bulky. items such as .carsand,. appliances. Gershow Recycling, of Medford, is a. predominant. "scrap metal consumer of .metals from eastern Long Island Towns. For , appliances to be' accepted at- most, scrap metal . facilities,. ,the capacitors must be, removed. These same: salvage., yards would ; also, be the primary marketfor. metal food- 0094R ' 4-29 containers. `Large. volumes of major• household appliances and other metals could be crushed, but the relatively small volume of metals -collected by the Town does not appear, to warrant such an operation. Several markets have magnetic separators to mechanically sort aluminum from ferrous metal food containers.... Southold currently markets mixed aluminum and ferrous cans. Construction and Demolition Waste The available C&D processors on eastern Long Island reclaim aggregate and wood from mixed construction and demolition debris or segregated deliveries. As a result, it is not necessary to sort through the waste and remove contaminants or segregate it into its individual components prior to delivery to an existing processor. For land clearing debris to be processed, it must be separated from other wood based products. 4.3. Recyclable and Compostable Material Marketing Conclusions The results of this market assessment can be summarized as follows: Material Quality Newspapers should be recovered with, negligible levels of contaminants, such as plastics; glossy paper (e.g. � magazines), and junk mail. The general rule is that whatever is sold with the paper is acceptable. The feasibility of collecting bagged paper is highly dependent on the accepting market. Pinnacle Industries currently accepts newspaper from Southold with paper bags. Since the Town is experiencing little difficulty in marketing the paper at the industries requirements, .this practice, should be continued. Corrugated paperboard, similar . to newspapers, should be kept free of contaminants including plastics, newspapers and other noncorrugated paper grades. White or colored ledgers, computer printouts and other high-grade papers, can be marketed in mixes or sorted. They should also be free. of contaminants, :such as plastics, metals and lower ' grade papers. Glass containers should be color.sorted into flint (clear), amber and -green prior to marketing. Two of the three principal glass container markets in New, York State can accept color sorted glass containers with caps, rings or foil in addition to paper or plastic labels: In all cases, glass containers should be free of ceramics, pebbles, rocks and other 0094R 4-30 -stony materials: These requirements govern the quality requirements of companies which . function as intermediate glass markets: > Aluminum cans should -be segregated from .other metal • containers such as-,W7metal or tin cans' in - order, -to maximize revenues. However, to increase the marketability of ferrous containers, aluminum and ferrous can be commingled. -In addition, cans should have negligible levels of moisture, paper, plastics, dirt or glass. ; Steel cans .(bi-metal or tin) can be marketed through local scrap yards -with labels' removed and minimal organic residues. Bulky metals can be marketed to the same companies as- well, although the capacitors in obsolete appliances should be removed. Plastic containers (PET. and HDPE) can be commingled .regardless of color and resin type. In general, there 'is no need to remove caps or labels. Plastics can be marketed whole, loose, baled or granulated: Delivery and Processing Requirements Loose newspaper can be shipped in, 40 cubic yard roll -off containers, enclosed trailers; or larger transfer trailers to a -facility with an automatic, high, density baler, or end market. '.,Baling large quantities of newspaper • in vertical balers is not recommended. Corrugated paper should be baled to reduce its, storage. volume and transportation costs. Corrugated can be delivered compacted or baled to the market. -High grades can 'be delivered or collected unbaled in gaylord- (4' x 4' x 4' corrugated) boxes. lGlass can be delivered •in roll -off containers or, bulk material dumping trailers in uncrushed or -semi-crushed form. Some glass markets will also handle cullet shipped in gaylord containers: Metal containers could remain whole, be flattened or densified prior to shipment ' in roll -off -containers or trailers.. Plastic containers can be 'delivered • or picked up in loose; baled or granulated forms in trailers. Composting On the east _ end of Long. Island,. the agricultural and nonagricultural: industry, individually, has the" potential ' to consume at a minimum, all of the source separated type. compost 'k e'nerated' from (or in combination of). yard wastes, sludge, low-grade,paper, food or wood processing wastes or Class I or Class H MSW compost that could- be generated by 0094R • 4-31 the Town of Southold. According to compost market surveys of other New York State Counties, which were designed to identify the intent of potential users if a MSW compost product were available and the quality and delivery requirements necessary for accommodating distribution needs, a majority of the horticultural service industry prefer the MSW compost in. bulk form as opposed to packaged material. In addition,, most respondents. indicated the ability to pick. up the compost or receive truck load deliveries. The survey results can also be . applied to source separated compost since this product is generally considered contaminant. free and does not have the regulatory stigmatism associated with its distribution. 4.4 Current and Future Restrictions to Market Development This Section discusses existing obstacles and constraints that should .be recognized, in order to successfully develop markets for recovered materials. Recycling There are certain obstacles that recyclable materials must overcome to successfully compete against virgin materials for market acceptance. First, the use of secondary materials by industry is primarily limited -by the availability of virgin' materials. Virgin materials, in some cases, are more desirable for manufacturing due to lower price, greater uniformity and purity, and higher. availability. This competition is influenced by the fact that'the use of virgin materials such as timber and iron ore is encouraged by preferential treatment under Federal tax law which is provided in, the form of depletion allowances.' To compete with these incentives, some actions have been taken to provide incentives for the utilization of recyclable materials through the ,provision, in some states, of preferential tax treatment for the purchase of equipment for the handling and processing of recyclable materials. There are several other factors which influence the demand for recyclable materials, including: national and international cycles of economic activity; trends within the packaging industry (i.e., shift. from glass to plastic); and. periodic or nonrecurring events (i.e., labor strikes). The idevelopment of local markets and applications for the recyclable materials will help to minimize these potential restrictions for disposing of -the recovered materials. 0094R 4-32 Composting The markets that exist for source separated based',compost products" are industries and agencies -that are currently purchasing materials for which compost can be . substituted. In order, to attract' these, markets, it is necessary to prove that compost can be produced in .sufficient quantity,. of better or, equal quality at ,an equal • or lower price. 'This would require the determination of the - specific needs of individual markets, the establishment, of. a compost system that can meet . these needs, and a public. relations program to convince potential users to utilize compost. -One, of the' most obvious limiting factors in the development of compost markets is the inclusion of municipal solid waste and/or sludge, in the composting ' process. These materials immediately., constrain - the compost product to: more limited uses as dictated by state regulations. Suffolk County has 10,500 'acres in, combined sod, horticultural and floricultural production which, might utilize this type of restricted compost product.. Primarily, the most limiting factor to marketing a compost product generated from Southold municipal solid waste, food and agricultural waste, -sludge and/or yard wastes is. a Suffolk County, Department of Health Services policy which could restrict the -use of any such municipal compost on lands which are located in the deep recharge zone.', Another factor would be ,the need for -a" dependable quality of final product. -The quality, of finished compost will depend to some degree on the types of materials accepted for composting. Different incoming materials will yield final- products of. different', quality.. .Mixed. waste streams will be unpredictable. Limiting facility inputs to source separated organic wastes or the utilization of effective systems for removing the organics from inorganic wastes and contaminants by front end processing followed by,composting of the separated organic waste materials will give the most reliable results. Composting of only yard wastes provides a composting_ feedstock that is relatively homogenous, and the end product is not restricted for use. At some point a mixed MSW composting facility on Long Island, if established, would need to maintain extensive quality, control. and end product testing in order to address ` these types of concerns.. Pilot of . demonstration facilities that compost municipal solid waste might be, established and" in conjunction with SCDHS and NYSDEC', monitor operations, output and ,marketing of the facility. This sort of. operation, which is best" - 0094R .,4-33: suited to one of the various proposed private processing .facilities discussed for the eastern end of Long Island, could help to overcome the restrictions to market development' that the SCDHS position appears to create.- The reate.The sudden flooding of the market with source separated or mixed organic waste compost products as the result of rapid increases in composting facilities may make marketing difficult. However,, in the Town of Islip the use of yard waste .compost as top dressing at a public golf course reduced the Town's expenditures for, peat moss and captured the avoided cost of disposing the yard, wastes. This could encourage the development of local -markets where short transportation distances and convenience would be a marketing strategy. 00948 4-34 ci s lJ 5.0 ALTERNATIVE SOURCE SEPARATION AND MATERIAL RECOVERY PROGRAMS To achieve the State's goal of 50% waste reduction .and materials .recovery; the Town must effectively, reduce, the'- quantity of waste being generated while recovering residentially, commercially -and' institutionally generated recyclable materials from the existing waste streams.' This section focuses°on the alternatives, for meeting the- State's, 10% :waste reduction goal and, the ` system- design alternatives for collecting, processing and marketing recyclable materials to meet the State's_`40%:recycling objectives. 5.1 Waste Reduction and Reuse The Solid Waste Management Plan adopted by New York -State in. 1987 declares "waste reduction as the most preferred management strategy. Source -reduction (waste reduction) as defined in -the New York Solid Waste Management Plan means "reducing the amount of materials entering the.,waste, stream by voluntary or mandatory programs to eliminate the generation of.the waste." In addition, the New York State Waste Reduction Guidance Manual .(March, 198% defines waste reduction .to not only: include the reduction . of volume but also the reduction in the toxicity of waste.. An' alternative definition is' the avoidance of actions that " generate. waste materials which must- be; either recycled or disposed. Waste reduction can result from either manufacturers'. efforts ' in changing packaging designs or, changes in consumer spending patterns.. There are three generally accepted strategies for, achieving- waste reduction at the manufacturing .level: - o Increasing .the efficiency. of materials utilization so' that less materials are needed for - any given purpose, such as redesigning" a manufacturing process so that it generates .less process residue;, o, - " Implementing actions—or or designs' j which- significantly increase a product's functional life; such as the manufacturing of' products which'are designed to'be used more than once; and o Increasing the recyclability of-.products.by, utilizing. -materials in manufacturing' processes which can be.readily recycled once the ,products useful life- has been depleted. As, a result of increased 'public concern over waste generation. and disposal, actions by industry to . reduce " waste are on the rise. Federal and -'state: governments are also 0095R' S-1 ' i developing action plans to encourage industries to provide for waste minimization as well as incentives for the acceleration of this process. For example, the USEPA has developed an agenda for action which calls for the evaluation of toxic constituents_ in the waste stream, economic incentives for corporate waste reduction and a review of current procurement, policies and practices: Other actions taken by USEPA• regarding source reduction include the- development of a model for conducting lifestyle evaluations, of products and materials and conducting an analysis of the environmental impact of six different packaging materials and' the effects of public policy options ;aimed ' at altering the mix of packaging materials. New York State is .joined in its efforts for achieving source reduction by eight other northeastern. states. Through the formation of the Coalition of Northeastern Governors (CONEG), these' States intend ' .to coordinate efforts 'on . a regional basis. CONEG's objectives are to standardize preferred packaging alternatives to be used by industry, establish quantifiable goals. for packaging reduction, identify recycled content percentages for packaging, prohibit the use of toxic andmetal constituents in packaging materials and develop regional educational, programs targeted towards consumers and decision makers. All nine member states are adopting similar legislation to allow for consistent planning. New York State proposed in -its Solid Waste Management Plan to reduce the volume of packaging waste. by. establishing deposits on�. difficult to -recover. items, such as batteries and tires, creating packaging standards, and increasing procurement opportunities for products made. from recycled materials. In addition, some local governments, are considering legislatively. banning ,products which are not readily recyclable and which* contribute significantly to -litter. .litter. problems in the community. Legislative bans are also being considered as a tool for improving the recyclability of the waste stream and to stimulate market development. However,. packaging bans are not recommended•as an effective method for reducing tonnages of waste requiring disposal. In addition • to the steps taken at the manufacturing level, consumers can affect waste reduction and at the same time send a message to the manufacturing industries regarding packaging preferences. The following actions, employed ona daily basis, would result in large scale lifestyle changes. o Decreasing material utilization rates through the . avoided use of goods or :services which generate high rates of waste residuals (e.g.,, avoiding- fast ,food restaurants); 0095R 5-2 o Increasing the utilization of materials,-, such as utilizing services that are provided. through the use of�less materials .or, purchasing products which can be, used more than once (e.g., using washable cloths instead of paper towels); .0 Implementing. actions which significantly increase a product's functional life, such as through the -purchase of reusable goods or products packaged in . materials which can be reused for other purposes; o Shopping for environmentally sound packaging such as products with recycled materials content, or those which. can be easily recycled through local collection programs and avoiding excess packaging; and o Decreasing the organic fraction of .the household waste. stream through on—site or back yard composting of yard waste and food scraps. The Town of Southold is encouraged to promote the State's waste reduction efforts and encourage lifestyle changes through the above actions. Jo,,effectively change, public and corporate consumption habits, extensive public educationprograms will, be necessary. 5.2 Household Hazardous, Wastes Recovery and Toxics .Removal Household hazardous waste, (HHN-) ' can -be defined as any' discarded household material that .may pose a substantial threat or potential hazard to human health or the environment when handled improperly.' These' wastes can be solids, liquids, • or containerized gases. Household hazardous wastes can be categorized. into five principal groups; cleaning products, automobile products, home maintenance products, personal care . products, and yard. and garden maintenance products.. The- most common. household hazardous wastes include paint and paint thinners, batteries, wood preservatives, solvents, degreasers,. cleaning• agents; oils .and- antifreeze, drain cleaners; ;polishes (wood, shoe, fingernail), pesticides, herbicides, insecticides and fertilizers,, and aerosol cans:, Although household hazardous wastes represent only'a small percentage of the total waste. -stream, it is . possible that the extent to which . they contribute to the contamination' of landfill . leachate, incinerator. emissions,' compost . products, and recyclable.materials may. substantially exceed their volumetric proportion of, the waste stream. In addition to the 0095R 5-3 potential environmental hazards caused by improper disposal, household hazardous wastes can jeopardize the safety of waste collectors, processing and disposal facility operators and can cause damage to collection and processing equipment. . On an individual .level, the most effective way to reduce the amount of household hazardous wastes is to purchase less toxic products. Additionally, consumers. should buy only what is needed and recycle whenever possible. 'However, collection and disposal alternatives must be available for those unusable, banned or unrecyclable materials. The available methods for recovering household hazardous wastes are: o Regularly scheduled collection events; o Permanent collection/storage facilities; and o On-call collections. The establishment of a permanent collection and storage facility 'can provide a convenient means for residents to -participate in the recovery of household hazardous waste materials on a long-term basis. It has been demonstrated that the establishment of permanent drop-off facilities has a substantial impact upon toxics removal. In 1989, Southold recovered a total of 44 barrels ' of HHW. In 1990 with the full operation of. a permanent drop-off facility, 53 barrels of HHW have been recovered between January and June so far. In addition to providing the convenience necessary to enhance participation, it is essential to the success of the HHW collection program that public education programs be implemented. While publicity and education is important in any recycling program, it is particularly critical in HHW collection programs because of the large number of materials that are both acceptable and nonacceptable . Another collection method is curbside pickup. Although, curbside collection of paper, glass and metals has proven successful, At is not encouraged for household hazardous wastes aside from household batteries because of potential safety hazards caused by the handling and storage of mixed hazardous materials. However, collection could be- a viable alternative if a separate collection service was °provided strictly . for the recovery of household hazardous wastes. Preferably, collections would be organized on an 0095R 5-4 as needed basis. and materials hand received from the resident at the door.. Service would •:be provided to residents calling in- for pickup. This approach would` allow for the proper handling and packaging- of -HHW by trainedp'ersonnel'and on less time -restricted collection schedules. Although on-call -collection of .HHW . appears to be the most effective •method for, recovering the maximum quantity of HHW :available, there .are several implementation issues, that must: first be overcome.- HHW, .in many cases, are . exempt from Hazardous Waste Regulations. However, in order _to 'collect hazardous materials from. individual* households and transport them to a permanent 'facility;' the collector must obtain a hazardous waste. transporter license ,under New York State Part 364 Permit ,Regulations. In addition, the NYSDEC has unofficially -taken the position of not supporting household collection of HHW and .might -not approve facility or' transporter license permit applications. The concern of NYSDEC relates to the. health and safety hazards from the lack of control over material segregations - such as incompatible . materials being commingled, HHW set out at the curb,, accidents during transportation and the handling of unknown materials.. However,, these issues should also be- concerns of permanent- facilities and scheduled collection events. Inherent in the recovery of ' HHW is the, issue of liability. Besides the • previously . mentioned ,obstacles. to household collection service, sponsors of any recovery program are faced with Joint, and Severability .Liability •under .the Resource Conservation and, Recovery Act ' (RCRA) which holds the 'generator, responsible.. for the cleanup of any site contaminated: by the. disposal • of waste from that generator. These ,issues must be addressed prior to the implementation of any program. Finally, HHW must be -carefully packaged to prevent leakage or migration of hazardous materials into the. environment.. Annually, nearly 150 tons of packing materials - could be required to safely' transport_ the,. HHW: anticipated to. be recovered in the Town of Southold.. HHW generally represents one-third. of the barrel weight while the remaining -two-thirds .are estimated to .be packaging materials. " Packing materials are- generally, those which have a high absorbency irate such as vermiculite (a hydrous silicate often used in the, `horticultural industry ~,to .increase soil, absorption: rates), sawdust and fibrous materials: This. 150 ton per -.year demand would present an opportunity to ;create new markets for. other. -materials that are targeted: for. recovery in the .Town. For example, d wood chips and sawdust from a wood -waste processing facility could be utilized in HHW packaging and potentially shredded newsprint orother lower grade papers. 0095R 5-5 BATTERIES While many types exist, batteries_ can be categorized into two general groups: automotive . and household. The environmental threat, particularly of metals contamination (see Table 4.1-2), posed by the disposal of all types of batteries' has become a growing public concern. To avoid' potential environmental threats, such as incinerator emissions, contaminated compost, or leachate from landfills, many communities, are initiating the collection and recovery of batteries. A. AUTOMOTIVE .BATTERIES Automotive= batteries typically contain .a sulfuric acid compound encased in lead plating, and must be carefully handled in a manner different from other types of batteries. Lead acid batteries are most commonly used in cars, trucks. and golf carts. From January 1, 1989 to June 1990, the .Town recovered approximately 29 tons of automotive batteries. This represents approximately 1600 batteries assuming each battery weighs 36 pounds (Table 3.2-1). Although lead acid batteries are not regulated as hazardous waste, they are subject to solid waste regulations. The Federal Environmental, Protection Agency (EPA) has proposed New Source Performance Standards which would require all batteries (both automotive and household) to be removed from the solid waste, stream prior to waste incineration. With this and other legislation pending at the federal and state levels, it is desirable to establish battery collection and recycling programs in anticipation of source separation mandates. There are three primary objectives. which must be, met for the collection and storage of lead acid batteries, including the control of leakage, the avoidance of' exposure to weather and the prevention of permanent electrical discharge. Careful precautions must be taken -in the collection, transportation and storage of lead acid batteries to prevent the breakage, leakage or explosion of batteries. There are several ways to recover batteries and prevent long—term. storage and. improper disposal. The primary mechanism for removing auto batteries from ,,the waste stream in New York is proposed through legislation making it possible for consumers to return spent batteries to the retailer where a new battery, will be purchased. The legislation which was recently passed by the New' York State Legislature requires retailers selling auto batteries to accept at no charge up to three (3) batteries per person per day. The legislation also calls for an additional .$5.00 charge if the old. battery is not turned in 0095R 5-6 at the time of the new purchase. Provisions for a ' refund of the penalty, fee is ' proposed if a battery 'is returned within 30 days. Additionally, the U.S.' Environmental; Protection Agency has proposed through its New Source Performance Standards,, a ban of automotive batteries at all .solid waste incinerators. Although legislation .was adopted in, New. York to encourage' removing, lead acid batteries from the municipal solid waste stream, source separation programs :for batteries must be established. Two. primary alternatives include .both drop-off and ,curbside - approaches. The more common approach is to require waste'. generators to deliver spent -batteries to a recycling drop=off center along with other. recyclable - materials or, to the household hazardous waste collection depot. 'This is the current collection ' method occurring in the Town. of Southold. Batteries can be 'delivered to the.- collection- center where' they are stored for market. Although drop-off recovery of .spent batteries is more common, curbside collection is offered in some, communities. This practice is not recommended because of potential safety hazards that may `result- from handling and transporting loose ,used ,batteries. However, . with proper equipment- andpersonnel trained in proper handling -procedures, lead acid batteries can be- effectively recovered -through an on-call curbside collection program. B. HOUSEHOLD BATTERIES Household batteries are primarily available in seven different types which can be categorized into tw' distinct.. groups:- primary and secondary:- A primary battery is one that is not designed to . be ' recharged, ' but rather disposed once its power is depleted. Secondary batteries are, those 'which are."rechargeable.. Out of the seven most common household batteries,, only.. nickel=cadmium batteries are rechargeable. Table 4.1-2' in Section 4.1 provides a summary ' of -the most common types of household batteries, their use; and their scrap value.' The most common batteries -sold and recovered are carbon zinc batteries. It is, estimated that every person in the, United. States purchases, eight carbon- zinc and . alkaline batteries per year to keep electronic devices operating.' According -to studies performed'. -at ' .the University of Arizona; household batteries represent approximately 1.5% of the total household. hazardous waste stream. From July 1988 to June 1990, approximately 12 tons of household batteries have _been recovered (Table 3.2-1). 0095R 5—% Although mercury use in household -batteries has declined substantially (nearly 80%) between 1983 and 1989; as the industry has been phasing in substitutes for the mercury coating on, zinc electrodes,, there is still. a need to recover these items from the solid waste stream. According to the Federal Office of Technology Assessment, household batteries continue to be one of the most common 'contributors of mercury in solid waste, despite the mercury reduction. Mercuric oxide and silver oxide button cell batteries can be processed for mercury recovery. The silver oxide cells can be further processed for separation and recovery of silver. Both the recovered mercury and silver can be purified and returned to normal channels of commerce. The carbon zinc and alkaline cells contain smaller amounts of mercury. These batteries can also be processed for mercury recovery. However, the process is expensive and difficult. Similar to carbon zinc and alkaline batteries, lithium cells are not; typically processed for metal recovery. Several battery manufacturers, including Everready, Inc. and VARTA (of Germany), are producing batteries with a mercury content of less than .05%. The mercury in the battery which causes' the electrical discharge is being replaced with other elements less toxic that will create the .same reaction. 'However, it has been represented, by battery producers .that reduced mercury levels reduces the life span of the battery. One new low mercury battery currently being. introduced into the United States market is a "zinc/air" battery which becomes active upon the exposure to oxygen. Once activated,' the battery runs continuously until the battery's energy is depleted. However, recovery of these new batteries and their potential for reuse is currently unknown: Each type of battery, because of its specific chemical composition, must be handled differently. However, collection programs can be organized to collect mixed household batteries that can later be, sorted at processing facilities. The recovery of household batteries can be effectively accomplished through either of two methods: drop-off or curbside. Currently, the most common -collection alternative is retail battery drop-off centers. Drop-off can occur at retail establishments or incorporated as part of existing recyclable drop-off centers. 0095R 5-8 Although curbside collection of.batteries is -not .commonly, practiced, results from a pilot program, conducted in Hennipen County, Minnesota demonstrate that a sixfold increase in recovery rates can be achieved through such a program. In Hennipen County; bags of mixed household batteries are- set out with other recyclable materials at the curb., The bags are then hand' picked enroute from the set out• container and stored in a designated compartment on the collection vehicle. Although .the..bags are being manually emptied in Hennipen County, it is 'possible for. them to be mechanically removed through.' magnetic separation- with ferrous containers in material processing facilities. This could result, since the majority of recovered batteries 'are ,cased in ferrous metal. Following this initial separation step, the bags 'could be hand picked_ from 'the ferrous cans, opened and emptied into final .storage containers. Alternatively,, a reusable, rigid container could be provided -,to each household for commingled battery collection. Containers, under one gallon in size; could be emptied, just like those used for commingled glass and metal, into A., designated compartment on the" collection vehicle. :,The cost effectiveness and processing •efficiency of these options must be carefully evaluated. Another mechanism proposed to remove batteries from the waste stream is through financial incentives. Legislation -is pending in New -York State that would, place a'$015 deposit on all alkaline batteries, i.e., flashlight, radio and toy and a $0.10 deposit on mercury and -silver button cell. batteries, . i.e., , hearing , aid, camera -and , watch. These deposits would be returned uponproper,disposal at..one of the established drop-off sites. In order to be effective, .waste reduction efforts are -intended to address large geographic -areas or communities • where; it is more cost effective- for --the supplier or industry to comply with,, the ' legislation.' While local efforts. can. address smaller private enterprises, larger regional or national businesses may::not respond to local, concerns; therefore; waste, reduction efforts can be` more effective when addressed by State.(s) or Federal; legislation opposed to local concerns. It is clear. that legislation will be passed at the federal, State or local levels to- deal with increased waste reduction efforts in the future: Depending upon the extent of these efforts, .it is,reasonable to assume thata 10% waste reduction effort is possible. 0095R 5-9 5.3 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 mplementationbased 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 reduce the Town's overall waste stream by at least 40% which is, the goal set by New York State to be achieved by 1997. To achieve 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 paper, plastic, food waste, textiles, metals, glass,. wood, rubble, batteries, rubber, household hazardous waste, and yard waste from the overall waste stream. The most effective way to reduce the volume of the waste stream is to recover the greatest number of materials practicable, 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 Dvir-ka and Bartilucci (Table 5.3-1) 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; and o Mixed solid waste. 0095R 5-10 Another factor in designing efficient. recycling collection programs is to parallel regular refuse collections. Many programs that are achieving participation rates in excess 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 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/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 of 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. 0095R' 5-12 s . f 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 residential drop-off. Equipment Choices The choice of; equipment ishighly 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, ehicles-utilized, delivery requirements and the number, of materials targeted for` recycling. For example- if multicompartmerit.'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 a final user. The, collectionsystem, 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" most feasible system options. . The primary difference between these ' options are the level of -separation ` required by the, resident, collection 0095R 5-13. 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 will include 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 area has been designed to receive materials that have been collected curbside and is therefore valued as an integral part of the curbside collection program. In, addition, the collection alternatives must take into consideration the material quality and delivery specifications of the drop-off center. and the bi-level area. Option A: Complete Separation by. Participants With Materials' Collected by Multi -Compartment Vehicle Under this collection scenario, residents would be asked to store the - following materials in separate containers; mixed paper,. glass by color, 'tin. and aluminum cans and plastic containers. This approach currently exists in the, Town 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 ofsix or more categories.of recyclables in addition to nonrecyclable mixed wastes.. Typically, curbside collection programs of this type range from $1 to $3 per household per month, depending on the number ofmaterials collected. Advantages -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 bi-level and drop-off areas at the landfill currently 'are designed to receive .source separated recyclables., .'The materials are not processed or upgraded prior to marketing. 0095R 5-714' Disadvantages . he major disadvantage of .-this scenario is that increased -separation requirements. decrease participation rates which reduce recovery rates: The •public attitude surveys illustrated in Table 5.3-1 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 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 this approach might require the, purchase. -of additional' collection. equipment. This approach is difficult to duplicate in multi -family 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 Multi -Compartment Vehicle Under this scenario, 'residents, separate container materials (glass, ferrous cans, aluminum cans, or plastics) from''paper. 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_ set . out 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. 'Advantages 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. Disadvantages - 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 0095R 5-15 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 necessary to. sort materials. at one or more regional facilities. In addition, the more materials targeted forcollection, 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 multi -family 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 curbside program. Option C: Separation of Recyclables Into Two Streams by Participants With Further Sorting at Receiving Points Using a Multi -Compartment 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 or 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 (i.e., 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. Advantages 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 0095R 5-16 -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).4 Therefore, by loading the newspaper separately ' from the mixed containers the fill rates can be equalized, thus minimizing off -route time. Disadvantages 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 investrrient-iii.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 and 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.colleciion in multiple family dwelling units. , It is also true with commercial; institutional and industrial collections that recycling ` and solid waste collection' should , run as parallel as possible. Therefore, the collection system should utilize similar equipment and strategies as 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 that this material is"doften 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 for delivery 'to the collection center; '5-17 0095R 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 and provide recycling documentation to the Town; 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 smaller 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; and 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 AA:. 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 collection center located at the landfill. 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. 0095R 5-18 Advantages The primary advantage to this approach is the- accessibility to disposal alternatives for businesses, helping them reduce collection costs: Disadvantages. Under this system, businesses would be required to deliver (or- arrange). the delivery of their materials to the collection center. 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. Advantages The primary advantage to this approach is that it would encourage maximum participation rates. Disadvantages 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 high grades, and glass are relatively' stable and -would help,offset collection costs (Section 4:1). 5,4 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. 0095R 5-19 ; o Segregated; and 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. Given the current market conditions as described in Section 4.1 and the material marketing preparation and delivery requirements (Section 4.3), 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; and o Participate in regional cooperative marketing arrangements. The advantages and disadvantages of each alternative are discussed below. Segregated Materials 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 in that materials are asked to be set out in a source separated form or haulers which must sort materials enroute. This added burden to the resident often reduces public participation and subsequently recovery rates. 0095R 5-20 e 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 for segregated materials, locally, as material recovery rates increase, these markets might not continue to provide free transportation or container rentals. 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 5.4-1 and 5.4-2 ' reflect only the costs of transporting materials 25 miles one way from the drop-off center; they do not include collection (curbside) costs. The basis-fof determining per ton costs is the volume each material consumes in relation to the load, in a 40 cubic yard container. The resulting densities of various material loadsaffect the. total cost of transporting materials because containers fill faster with low density items; thus, increasing the frequency of transports. It As interesting to note in' Figure 5.4-2 -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 5.4-1 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 these 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, increases the costs for glass. Figures 5.4-1 and 5.4-2 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 0095R 5-21 FIGURE 5.4.1 TOWN OF SOUTH.OLD, NEW YORK COMMINGLED MATERIAL TRANSPORTATION COSTS $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 COST PER TON 0 50 100 150 200 MILES * Tin/Aluminum PET/HDPE —* Commingled w/No Plastic Commingled w/Plastic 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. NOTE: The transportation costs have been dete'rm'ined- 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.,; . 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 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. Another example, 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 metal containers recovered from Smithtown and Huntington. Newsprint is also upgraded at the facility. The ability to market the recyclable materials in commingled form will 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. Also the economies of scale created by regionalization reduce overall capital and operating costs for all participating communities. Several MRFs have been constructed or are 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 1990. The facility is being designed by Omni Recycling, Inc. 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 from Southold is immediately available upon facility opening. This facility is designed with a - larger operating capacity than OMNI's existing facility in Westbury, in order to accommodate other Long Island -communities. 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, 0095R 5-24 expects to be' operational by the end of 1990. 'Brookhaven officials have indicated that excess operating capacity is available "and 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 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. The Smithtown facility As operating; but', their capacity "is filled by, Huntington's materials. In' addition, these three proposed facilities' are located' even further distances from Southold than Islip or Brookhaven: Southold Facilities ; = For • Southold to achieve high.° levels ''of material recovery from residential; . commercial and 'institutional -waste sources; processing capability to :upgrade materials will be necessary. This .option is ' not' considered an interim solution, but _ should 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. In addition; local citizens ~•could be employed at' the facility. Second; the schedule for developing (permitting) and implementing (construction). could be minimized for a small scale facility. Finally,- Southold would benefit from reduced' transportation costs for commingled material;. if a MRFwas" located within its borders. Another possibility_ for "the Town is the development of a recycling transfer station. This type of , . facility would allow collection a'nd . drop=off' of commingled recyclable materials that are, then segregated according to the requirements of the out-of-tq%yn 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 0095R ' 5-25 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 region by entering 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 as a guide or a partner. Regionalized efforts are preferable, over a Town specific project. Through regionalization, economies of scale are created which. increases the operating 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 due to the,, total, increase in 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: Also;= proposed is a cooperative marketing service for all Long Island communities. Suffolk County and NYSDEC `are assisting the 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 initially resulted in the four, Long Island Town marketing cooperative. 0095R 5-26 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 will be expanded during the long-term phase to include materials which will 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'recyclable materials found in the . municipal waste stream. These marketing solutions will dictate the processing needs... 5.5 'Compostable Material. Collection Options ; Of the Town's total waste stream, nearly .15% is identified as, yard wastes. Although. yard wastes are most commonly composted, other., organics and low grade_ paper (excluding newspapers, magazines) can -also be composted. These materials represent. over 12% of the total waste stream: , Therefore, approximately 27% of the Town's total'waste..stream can be composted (excluding sludge). To effectively - recover leaves, grass,- ,clippings and, - brush for 'composting, a- system for collecting, processing and marketing must be developed. Currently, leaves are composted at an -operation sized for less than 3,000• cubic yards at a site near the collection center. However., this reflects only a small percentage of the total compostablewaste stream. -In, addition, brush is chipped and . either marketed as mulch '.or composted. The composting collection, processing' and marketing needs can be.- assessed based • upon ' the marketing opportunities, in the' region (Section 4. 1), and the preferred -collection and recovery system.. Therefore, this Section will discuss the -technically feasible options for collecting yard wastes, 'as well as food and ' Agricultural wastes and low grade papers. Leaf Collection Although a significant portion of leaf waste generated in'Southold, is not disposed at the Town landfill, it is still necessary to, develop collection - systems.. Many ,residents, utilize leaves and --yard , waste :on-site. Leaf collection places, the, heaviest demand in terms of volume upon collection methods. The -following discussion -compares the alternatives- and equipment selection options in terms of their effectiveness for collecting leaf waste: 0095R 5-27 When utilizing a mechanical claw/loader and receiving truck, or a leaf vacuum, . leaves are. normally swept by residents onto the streets. The loader scoops or grabs the leaves and deposits them into a receiving truck while the vacuum inhales the leaves into the truck. Both of these methods require the least amount of resident participation and do not require the use of bags or containers. The leaves should be collected dry. These forms of collection are moderately efficient, however, both require a moderate degree of labor input and a high_ capital cost for equipment, although the Town may currently have loaders for other purposes. Leaves must remain in the street until pickup. This results in the potential for .clogged runoff drains and possible hazardous road and street conditions from wet and slick leaves. Winds may also disperse leaves on roadsides, causing a general nuisance. With a six person crew collecting, an average of 15 tons of leaves can be collected per day. A packer truck can also be used to collect leaves. In this approach, bags of leaves are placed curbside by residents and a. two person crew loads the bags into a waste compactor truck which, in turn,' compacts the load as it progresses on. its collection route: This : method of collection requires a moderate amount of residential input involving the bagging of leaves. This is a very efficient means of collection requiring a minimal amount of labor input.. An average .of 20. tons of leaves could be collected per day by _a two person crew. Capital costs are moderate and may even be low since the equipment required is the same as .that used for collection of municipal residential waste. Curbside bagged pickup by packer truck is not dependent on the weather, since the leaves are bagged -and can be loaded easily into the trucks, reducing nuisance and hazard problems normally associated with loose leaves. If plastic bags are utilized, the leaves must either be debagged during collection or at the compost site. However, bags are. required for collection purposes and their accumulation, must be managed. Curbside collection of leaves should take place at least'twice per month during the Fall to avoid burdensome accumulation of leaves at roadside. Plastic bags can create a residue problem since they do not decompose. An alternative to durable plastic bags is the utilization of degradable plastic bags. They are inexpensive and are available at the retail level. Should a municipality decide to - distribute 'bags for yard waste to residents, the cost involved would not be excessive. However, biodegradable plastic bags are not 100% decomposable. Some residue will result at the compost site. When shredding the leaves at the compost site, the shredder must run at slower speeds to accommodate the biodegradable bags to prevent jamming. 0095R 5-28 Compostable kraft ,paper bags can also.be used in such a program. These'bags will hold more material than the plastic bag and stand upright when being filled. Compostable bags are easier to handle at.curbside�.and do not:have the tendency to break open as some plastic bags may. Additionally;.-compostable kraft paper bags will-. shred,'easily with the leaves as they are, _ composed; , of --wood ,' pulp , fibers. Thus. the,, .result is..-complete decomposition leaving no residue... -Kraft paper bags are more expensive ($:05. versus $.30 per bag for plastic and paper! respectively, .when purchased in bulk quantities), and not as I idely distributed. In many cases,- distribution of bags for, leaf recovery is sponsored .by_ a, municipality: The: Town could either sell the bags out of Town Hall or through designated retail outlets. For example, the- Town of. Brookhaven .has .occasionally distributed bags" to residents who" come to: pick them .up. - Also,. the Town. of Huntington guarantees the collection-of leaf waste if itis set out in town provided bags. Finally, 'residents should continue to be encouraged to deliver yard, waste .to the collection - center. - Residential and .,commercial ' deliveries can be accommodated. Drop -off alone, however, is not expected to achieve high recovery. results: ' Grass . Clippings ' Collection : . Residents may bag their': grass .clippings and place .them curbside for pickup. A collection crew consisting of� - a packer- truck driver and two. collectors progress up the street, emptying the bag contents into,the truck while keeping thea bags separate from the grass. -Since grass clippings, contain high percentages, of moisture, they will decompose " rapidly and therefore should -be ,collected as soon - as possible: The majority ' of residents. mow, their lawns on 'the weekends, therefore,- ,collection of grass, clippings should occur " during the first part of -the week.. It is time consuming for the collection crew to open and empty bags.- Residents ags:Residents can also place grass clippings into a durable bin or container of variable gallon size,to set-curbside for=collection. This method- eliminates the :`use" of disposable bags and makes use ofa long-term container more, convenient for; the collection crew. Consideration should be . given- to' the,'capital: costs involved; in "procurement, of durable containers for distribution to,residents: 0095R 5-29 Brush Collection Residents can place brush curbside in a loose row fashion with pieces consisting of certain maximum lengths. Collection .crews with mechanical claws, packer trucks or dump trucks can load brush into trucks for removal. This method requires -the least effort of residents since they place brush loose at the curb. 'A moderate amount of labor is required for pickup as well as the need• for specialized equipment. Residents can also place brush curbside in bound bundles .of certain maximum lengths. Collection crews can load materials, into trucks for removal. This requires a low degree of labor since the' crew . consists of two person and one packer truck.. Pickup is relatively easy with the handling of bound bundles. Low 'Grade Paper Paper -is another . compostable fraction of the waste stream. The decision to compost or recycle paper should be driven by market availability. Given the volatility of markets for low grade paper, it is advisable to investigate composting as a strategy for managing the material. However, consideration of composting must be conditioned upon a clarification of the SCDOH policy which would allow use .of compost on land within the deep recharge area. The options for collecting source separated paper from residential sources are through curbside or drop-off. Curbside programs are often oriented towards the set -out. of mixed paper products. - These materials can be collected by compartmentalized recycling vehicles or other single compartment trucks and delivered to material recovery facilities, which are designed to separate recyclables into marketable fractions. Low grade paper collected through this approach could be separated from higher grades and be: delivered to a composting facility for further processing. The advantage of this approach' is that special collection of low grade paper would not need to be arranged. Food and Agricultural Waste Another compostable fraction of the waste, stream is- food and agricultural processing waste. These materials constitutea substantial portion of the, waste stream and are highly putrescible. The major difficulty in collecting food waste from residences. 0095R 5-30 in a source` separated' fashion is, the odor that results from ,its storage , in the household.., Some programs in Europe arid' Canada provide containers. designed to prevent ,thisproblem , which are collected on -a regularly scheduled 'basis.; 'The other option for recovering residentially. generated food waste is by= collecting .it with mixed, solid .waste:. However, under this scenario, the material must be delivered, along with a heterogeneous mix of.-.. materials, to more elaborate composting facilities which are more costly ,to operate. In addition to ' generating large, quantities, of paper, certain nonresidential sources, such as; restaurants, supermarkets, convenience " stores', hospitals,, nursing homes, cafeterias'- and retail "establisll'ments dispose of large quantities of - food wastes: 'These, materials are often mixed with low grade paper products. The solid waste collected .from . these'generators would make an appropriate feedstock for a composting facility designed to handle semi -source separated organic wastes. In some situations, collection --of these materials would not require the establishment, of special collection routes:, However, it may be necessary to reroute vehicles -to collect materials from establishments that generate highly organic loads. J -he -system would.need to be designed to direct materials from the appropriate establishments to the composting facility. Southold `is predominantly an agricultural community with significant quantities of homogeneous loads of agricultural wastes. Deliveries -of, agricultural, by-products can- simply be redirected- from disposal to the composting operation. Minimal alterations in collection procedures, would be necessary. 5.6 ' Compostable Material Processing As previously discussed in Section 3.2, the Town operates a 3000 cubic. yard yard waste composting facility at a . designated site at the landfill. This facility is expected to' be expanded to accommodate all of the yard waste generated in; the, Town. This facility_. currently accepts deliveries from. residential arid. coin m&cii l sources. The materials to be targeted for processing from residential, commercial anti institutional 'sources are yard wastes including leaves; grass and brush: A -portion of the leaves that are generated in Southold are currently. being managed at the Town yard. wast. 0095R 5-31 compost facility at the landfill. The remainder, currently remaining on—site or disposed with household trash, � could either be handled through the development of increased leaf processing capacity, encouraging agricultural or horticultural operations to develop processing capability. or by directing the materials to an organics processing facility. Grass generated by residential sources is difficult to incorporate into leaf processing systems. • The natural respiration process depletes the available oxygen before aerobic decomposition cai begin. Therefore, grass may begin to produce odors due to anaerobic conditions before they are delivered to the compost site. However, grass clippings are also high in nitrogen and moisture, which speeds up the rate of decomposition. Mixing them uniformly with, organic material, low in nitrogen and high in carbon (such as paper) will slow the rate of decomposition and speed the process of other materials. Prunings from trees and shrubs are generated throughout the year. However, generation 'peaks in the Spring. These materials can either be. managed through composting, or through wood recovery facilities. The existing chipping operation should be expanded - to accommodate increased quantities. Residentially, commercially and institutionally generated newsprint and other low grade papers could also be managed through composting. Source separated paper could be directly delivered to a composting facility or be separated from higher grades at a materials recovery facility. Paper products would require shredding or some other form of size reduction prior to their incorporation into a composting system. . Listed below are specialized systems and equipment which would be necessary to compost organics, sludge, and papers. Many developed originally in conjunction with sludge composting which have since been modified for management of other wastes. o Windrow/static piles; o Drums; o Silos; o Digester .bins; o Tunnels; o Multiple hearths; and o Troughs. 0095R 5-32 All composting 'operations.. generally incorporate either windrows, .aerated static piles or in -vessel technology. Windrows are the oldest method of composting, well understood and- are often used for . managing leaves., Aerated static piles, long used for sewage .sludge and .similar to the windrow method., (except- .for air being blown or drawn through the material) is also a well known. technology. The third type of in -vessel' composting started . in Europe and Japan and has been developed, for advanced organic composting of food wastes, sludges and mixed household, refuse. To maximize recovery rates, materials delivered to the composting facility would . include source separated grass,. small brush, food waste, low grade paper and sludge (if metals„ and contamination levels are. suitable) over the Icing., range goals of the Plan. However, it is expected that composting efforts will gradually be expanded from source separated yard waste composting to' demonstration. low grade paper and sludge .composting projects and potentially expanding operations to. accommodate food wastes. It .is assumed that these source separated -materials would be relatively, free of noncompostable contaminants. Such materials would initially pass through a simple screening process where toxics and large uncompostables, which are unlikely due to -source separation, would be removed. From there, they would . be shredded' to increase surface area, -for more uniform and rapid decomposition.. This .can .be accomplished with .hammer- mills,, shear shredders', grinders, and . rotating drums. The . addition of water may also ' be necessary, since 60% moisture is recommended to insure an adequate composting rate. It is assumed that a facility to handle. all of the source separated organic materials, sited,, above, would be semi -enclosed with odor .control. The likelihood of. ,implementing advanced, organic, composting operations is questionable, depending upon Suffolk, County, Department of Health Services policy regarding, the application of the -compost product..Advanced- or composting of source separated materials, including food wastes, would only, be, considered in future long range planning. Additional .evaluation of advance composting and private, sector, municipal solid waste composting facilities.. is :recommended to be performed throughout the long-term phase of the. Town's program. Another -material which can. be incorporated into. the composting . programs . can be dirt. According to, .the 'Solid. waste quantification and .characterization analysis performed for the Town,- (Appendix A, Table 1 of the DGEIS), nearly 17%. of the total waste stream is categorized as dirt. This includes sand and sod and portions -of landclearing debris. Since this material is delivered in relatively homogeneous, loads, it can be redirected and reused as daily, landfill cover or be processed to produce a high quality compost product or topsoil. 00§58 . 5-33 Backyard Composting In Southold, a significant percentage of the leaf crop never arrives at the landfill for disposal. A .majority of the leaves are unmanaged, turned into the ground or composted for agricultural uses on site. Therefore, a viable- management approach is through backyard or on-site composting. The, Town should encourage this strategy and -make available the various low, medium and high technical approaches as follows. The least technical approach to backyard composting is soil incorporation. This includes incorporating the organic -matter, i.e., leaves and/or food scraps directly into fields or gardens. This approach is preferable when space is limited and organic wastes' is minimal: Another way of utilizing organic materials is through mulching. Leaves, grass clippings and brush can be spread beneath shrubs or on the garden around plants to contain weeds. Finally, for handling larger amounts of yard and food wastes, the development of turning and holding bins' is preferred. Composting bins can be made of scrap lumber, wire and mesh or steel drums. The bins could range in diameter from 2 to 8 feet and must have adequate drainage. 5.7 Construction and Demolition Waste Processing Alternatives As previously identified in the market analysis of Section 4. 1, C&D waste processors exist for segregated or mixed construction and demolition materials. Therefore, the collection of this material is anticipated to be delivered by the contractor, hauler or individual to, the designated processing facility. This Section will focus. on the available technologies for recovering marketable materials from mixed debris as well as processing systems for clean, sorted construction and demolition materials. Several factors should be considered prior to requiring separation, processing and marketing of any "one of the three fractions '(wood based materials, pavement and concrete and mixed waste) of the C&D waste stream. These elements include the evaluation of: o Existing and proposed private sector processing operations; 00958 5-34 o Available and potential markets for processed'materials; o Proven technologies available to separate and process C&D materials; and o- Options for ownership and operation of the processing facilities. These alternatives are necessary to consider because the capital investment in processing equipment and land could be quite significant. Processing C&D involves numerous pieces -of heavily constructed equipment. Three different processing concepts can be utilized for: o 'Land clearing, clean and used wood debris; o Aggregate based debris from roadway, and building demolition and construction projects; and o New construction waste, demolition debris and mixed waste from municipal bulky waste collection; small construction and demolition- projects and the commercial and industrial sectors. The following processing systems generally apply to each waste stream fraction. Land Clearing, Clean and Used Wood Debris Processing In this process materials are delivered to the processing site in dumping vehicles. Land clearing debris, stumps and . tree sections are piled separately prior to processing: Materials are fed by a hydraulic grapple or grapple bucket loader to either a high speer (800 - 1,200 rpm) or low speed (40 _ 200 rpm) shredder *hich shreds and crushes materials: into 18 inch minus material. Separation of humus is often accomplished prior to shredding: by a vibrating grizzly screen. Secondary shredding by hammer mills and sizing by. trommel or vibrating type screens is also used to classify end products by size for various- markets. Rubble Processing In this process materials are delivered to the processing site in dumping vehicles. Asphalt paving debris is often dumped separately from concrete based debris. Oversized materials are broken up by a tractor -mounted impact breaker. 0095R 5-35 Materials are loaded into • a feed hopper where fine materials are separated by a vibrating grizzly screen prior to crushing. The primary crushing stage is accomplished with either a jaw or hammer mill crusher to reduce materials to less. than three inch size. A belt style ferrous material magnet then removes material from the flow. Material is then conveyed to a- multi -deck vibrating screen for.. sizing. • -Optionally, oversized materials remaining on the top screen are funneled to a secondary crushing and screening process for additional size reduction. Finally, sized materials are conveyed by radial stacking conveyors to stockpiles. Mixed C&D Waste Several mixed C&D waste transfer stations and recovery facilities operate in eastern Long Island to separate materials and process them into products, including construction aggregates; mulch humus and wood chips and boiler fuel. Both North Fork Sanitation and Mattituck Sanitation have proposed mixed C&D recovery operations for the Town. In this process, material is consolidated into two stockpiles for separate processing due to new construction waste's higher corrugated material content. Separated materials are dumped into an- elevating feeder hopper. Materials are then conveyed over either a disc or bucket screen. Course materials greater than 12 inches are fed to a manual sorting belt where corrugated materials, oversized ferrous, nonferrous metals, and- plastics ndplastics are removed. Negative sort. materials (materials not removed) are then size reduced by a. hammer mill crusher. Crushed materials is then returned and blended with " the previous fines passing the primary screening process. Materials are then conveyed under a belt style magnet •which extracts ferrous material from the flow. A rotating ,. trommel screen operates ,to size materials. Materials less, than 1-1/2 inches passing the' screen_ are stockpiled for fill material or marketed as compost. Course materials retained are either conveyed to a classification cyclone or wash tank for separation into heavy ands light material fractions. Heavy materials are marketed as fill or compost bulking agents. Light materials, consisting of wood and plastics are; used as mulch and humus. The most important'processing procedure is reducing the volume of the material and screening the product for the reduction of contamination and meeting market ` specifications. The following discussion.of processing equipment will provide an overview: of the requirements for any C&D system., 0095R 5-36 Size "Reduction Shredders Size reduction allows for better. handling of processed bulky:materials, and a greater processing efficiency in subsequent processing steps.- 'Primary and "secondary size, ' reduction of wood waste is accomplished by the, use of,,shredders. Shredding reduces the particle size of the waste,, and makes it more homogeneous. The waste is therefore easier to separate into its constituents. for recycling and for use as= a ;fuel in a combustion :.•process. - . ..' " . The basic shredder types ..usually, found in a C''&D. processing •facility are the horizontal or vertical hammermill, the tub grinder or the jaw and cone style aggregate crushers'. Horizontal Hammer Mill The horizontal hainmermill uses swing hammers attached.to'a single horizontal 'shaft to reduce, waste by several different."actions. Material is fed into the .unit from the top.. Initially, the hammers. -strike the material, causing size reduction by, impaction: Material is then carried with the -hammer arm and sheared by rubbing against the -.hammerrhill casing. Shearing also occurs both -at the -adjustable breaker bar and the - grate openings. Finally, extrusion of the waste through' adjustable grate openings, provides the desired -Vertical Hammer Mille ; The rotating shaft .is vertically 'oriented in. this .type of shredder. Material 'drops vertically through the unit and is made smaller in a way similar to the method used ,in a horizontal hammer mill. The cone shape housing: provides "decreasing clearance between' .the material and the impactors, resulting in decreasing size ranges, as, multiple impacts occur during the downward travel of the refuse and enabling a, staged' reduction and separation of -material by size, "Af-, desired. • .Shearing,; action , occurs" in a .vertical hammermill in the neck section, rather than on grate bars:- Tub Grinders Size reduction of, wood waste is .accomplished by a horizontal hammer',mill located, at the base of a rotating circular feed hopper:. Bulky waste fed by "a. hydraulic grapple or other loading equipment is. directed, by action, of the rotating tub to' the hammer mill. '0095R 5=37 Size reduction is governed by screens located at the base. of the hammer mill housing. Materials -are conveyed by belts or ' auger style conveyors to stockpile or to screens for sizing into marketable materials. Magnetic Separators Removal of ferrous materials from demolition wastes for resale is .performed in the recovery process by magnetic separators. Segregation also reduces wear on downstream processing equipment. Belt type. and "hockey stick" belt separators. are the main equipment types used. They are highlighted below. Belt Type Magnetic Separator This separator is usually positioned above the mixed .material discharge belt. Magnetic attraction lifts and holds ferrous components onto a moving belt. The metal is conveyed beyond the magnetic field and released into a storage container. Nonmagnetic refuse falls from the discharge belt into' a separate container or onto another conveyor belt for further processing. Hockey Stick Belt Magnetic, Separator This type of separator is a derivative of the belt type and was developed to eliminate entrapment of pieces of plastic and paper, along with ferrous metal; a frequent occurrence with the belt type. The name of the design refers to the angle in the belt; similar to the angle of a hockey stick. It may be used for all construction and demolition wastes and any wastes with ferrous materials. Shaker. Grizzly and Trommel Screens Forfurther refinement and sizing of concrete, 'asphalt, land clearing and buildings demolition wastes, a shaker or vibrating grizzly or trommel style, screen may be placed iii. .the processing scheme to facilitate desired particle size separation. The shaker or grizzly may be described as a vibrating screen or grate which may be placed at an angle between :. two infeed and outfeed conveyors. Materials are conveyed over the grid face where the smaller sized materials pass through the selected screen size. A trommel screen consists " of a rotating screen drum which tumbles materials with internal lifting bars to increase rotation of bulky and cohesive materials. 0095R 5-38 Aeereeate Crushers Size reduction of aggregate materials from construction and demolition activity is performed by jaw or cone style rock crushers. These heavily constructed units efficiently size reduce materials into ,marketable road sub base aggregates and decorative landscape materials. They are discussed below. Jaw Style Crushers The jaw crusher is usually positioned after a feeder and grizzly screen which feeds. into the crusher opening. An, oscillating, plate forces material against "an ,opposing stationary force to size reduce the aggregate. Cone Style Crushers' These crushers are used to further crush materials produced by jaw. crushers. Materials are top fed onto an oscillating cone shaped structure. As materials flow downward, they are crushed against the stationary outer housing.' Further crushing action occurs as materials flow through a progressively smaller cavity toward the base of the cone. Water Sen_arators Mixed 'construction .and _demolition debris can be separated into - processible, components by' a flotation process. Mixed materials are conveyed into a water filled tank to separate heavy aggregates from lighter—weight wood, paper . and plastic 'materials. Aggregates. -are conveyed from the bottom of the tank by a conveyor and floating materials; are a skimmed off for. additional processing. Section 6 6.0 IMPLEMENTATION OF RECYCLABLE AND COMPOSTABLE MATERIALS RECOVERY PROGRAMS This Section integrates the results of the previous sections, particularly existing collection practices, preferred technical collection options, and available marketing opportunities, into a proposed action plan for � the realization of high material recovery and recycling levels for the Town of Southold including, Fishers Island. This objective will be accomplished through a discussion of: o Material recovery objectives; o Policy development; o Materials marketing; o Collection and facilities development strategies; o Required management, legislation, and public information actions; and o Implementation scheduling. The proposed actions are designed to maximize the reduction, recycling, and reuse of materials recovered from the Town's total waste stream including Fishers Island. The programs will focus on residential, commercial, and institutional recovery activities as well as programs to recover compostable materials, construction and demolition debris and other bulky wastes, and household toxic materials. ' 6.1 Material Recovery Projections The Town of Southold is committed to achieving, at a minimum, a 40% recycling rate (and exceeding these goals where feasible) in compliance with New York State directives. Currently, the Town is recovering approximately 3.5% of total incoming .waste stream, or 6% of the residential waste stream. These current recovery rates are projected for the year 1990 based on tonnage .recovered from the first. six months of the year and 1990 maximum residential waste generation. projections. This is up from the 2.6% recycling. rate, estimated using 1989 scale house data. . However, it. has been estimated that the Town can recover- nearly 7.6% of the total solid waste stream by. initially. expanding upon the existing collection and recovery practices. This increase over the present recycling rates will result from comprehensive mandatory curbside collections from residential sources as well as limited commercial collections and increased public educations efforts.. Southold expects to achieve high 0096R/1 6-1 levels of waste reduction, recycling,, and reuse through the implementation of recovery programs in two phases: interim and long-term. The, Interim strategy. will set the infrastructure in place to, achieve high levels of recycling and will be completed by 1991. Recovery levels are anticipated to, increase to reach the long-term levels of recovery consistent with the Town's adopted policy of pursuing ' an evolutionary implementation strategy. Long-term rates will be gradually achieved by .1995. The. achievement of high -recovery rates in the long-term will depend upon the recovery of large amounts of recyclable materials from residential, commercial; and institutional establishments along with the composting of organic materials, recovery of construction and demolition debris, household hazardous waste recovery programs, and battery recycling. Table 6.1-1 demonstrates how the Town can ' increase its current recovery rates in the interim by gaining higher participation in the existing program. However, to 'meet the State's objectives over the long-term at least 80% of the Town's population must participate in a comprehensive materials recovery program. Table 6.1-2 identifies maximum recovery rates that can be achieved by Southold by the . year 1995. It .is estimated that approximately "67% of" thetotal waste stream could be recovered, which includes advanced source separated organic waste composting of the entire compostable fraction of the waste stream. It should"be noted that the recovery rates reflect the fact that 100% of the C&D and land clearing debris generated in the Town could be recovered through diverting this material to private sector facilities. Table 6.1-3 demonstrates potential long-term recovery rates without the recovery of food waste; low-grade papers and . sludge.. Without advanced organic composting, - approximately 60% of the waste stream can -be recovered. However, if demonstration projects that include composting of ,sludge and low-grade paper with yard waste are fully implemented, approximately 64% of the waste stream could be recovered. Figure 6.1-1 illustrates the potential impact of recycling on the total waste stream. The gradual increase of recovery rates from the Interim to the long-term phase will be accomplished � through 'the phased addition of materials to . residential collections, starting recovery programs in nonresidential Y (commercial, industrial and institutional) sectors, the development of aggressive organic recovery programs and the 'development of construction and demolition debris recovery, and processing capabilities. However,. should the Town not pursue aggressive composting programs for any number 'of reasons, including SCDHS policy potentially prohibiting compost application in Suffolk County, "the State's materials recovery goal of 40% could still' be achieved. Material recovery rates from the total waste stream are summarized on a per capita basis on Table 6:1-4. 0096R%1. 6-2 TABLE 6.1-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM INTERIM PHASE - 1990 AQ PERCENT OF TONS/DAY RR RR MATERIAL WASTE STREAM (1) PR SE PE TONS/DAY LB/CAP/DAY PAPER Newspaper 4.18% 5.51 40% 85% 95% 1.78 .14 Corr./Brown Bag 2.40% 3.17 50% 80% 95% 1.20 .09 Office Paper .53% .70 20% 60% 95% .08 .01 PLASTICS .00% PET > 1 liter .36% .47 40% 70% 95% .13 .01 PET < 1 liter .07% .09 40% 70% 95% .02 .00 HDPE .26% .35 40% 70% 95% .09 .01 FERROUS METALS Food Cans 2.18% 2.88 40% 50% 95% .55 .04 White or Enameled 2.60% 3.42 40% 90% 95% 1.17 .09 NON-FERROUS METALS Cans .13% .17 40% 70% 95% .05 .00 Batteries .05% .06 40% 70% 95% .02 .00 BATTERIES (Lead Acid) .04% .05 40% 70% 95% .01 .00 GLASS Green .67% .88 40% 70% 95% .23 .02 Amber .16% .21 40% 70% 95% .06 .00 Flint 1.66% 2.19 40% 70% 95% .58 .05 RUBBER 1.14% 1.51 40% 100% 100% .60 .05. YARD WASTE Leaves 1.95% 2.56 40% 80% 95% .78 .06 Brush/Branches 6.32% 8.32 40% 80% 95% 2.53 .20 MISCELLANEOUS Hazardous Material .23% .30 40% 70% 95% .08 .01 TOTAL 24.92% 32.85 9.96 .77 TONS/DAY PERCENT Gross Waste Generation 131.80 100.00% waste Recovered 9.96 7.56% waste Remaining 121.84 92.44% (1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1990, including Fishers Island. RR = AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ = -AVAILABLE QUANTITY - The amount of material present in the waste stream PR = PARTICIPATION RATE - The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in a recycling program SE = SEPARATION EFFICIENCY - The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by program participants PE = PROCESSING EFFICIENCY - The percentage of material remaining after processing RR = RECOVERY RATE - The amount o1 material which can be diverted from the waste stream TABLE 6.1-2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM LONG TERM PHASE - 1995 i AQ PERCENT OF TONS/DAY RR RR MATERIAL WASTE STREAM (1) PR SE PE TONS/DAY LB/CAP/DAY PAPER Newspaper 4.18% 5.93 80% 90% 95% 4.06 .30 _Magazines 1.51% 2.14 80% 80% 95% 1.30 .10 torr./Brown Bag 2.40% 3.41 90% 90% 95% 2.62 .20 Other Paperboard 2.18% 3.09 80% 80% 95% 1.88 .14 Office Paper .53% .76 75% 85% 95% .46 .03 Other 3.94% 5.58 80% 80% 95% 3.39 .25 PLASTICS PET > 1 liter .36% .51 80% 80% 95% .31 .02 PET < 1 liter .07% .10 80% 80% 95% .06 .00 HOPE .26% .37 80% 80% 95% .23 .02 Other Rigid .79% 1.12 80% 80% 95% .68 .05 Other Flexible 1.52% 2.15 50% 80% 95% .82 .06 FOOD 6.47% 9.17 50% 50% 95% 2.18 .16 FERROUS METALS .00% Food Cans 2.18% 3.09 80% 65% 95% 1.53 .11 White or Enameled 2.60% 3.68 80%. 95% 95% 2.66 .20 FE. < 1/4 in. .00% .00 60% 75% 95% .00 .00 NON-FERROUS METALS Cans .13% .18 80% 75% 95% .10 .01 Foil .09% .13 80% 80% 95% .08 .01 Furniture .02% .04 80% 75% 95% .02 .00 Structural .00% .00 80% 75% 95% .00 .00 Batteries .05% .07 80% 70% 95% .04 .00 BATTERIES (Lead Acid) .04% .06 80% 85% 95% .04 .00 CLASS Green .67% .94 80% 75% 95% .54 .04 Amber .16% .22 80% 75% 95% .13 .01 Flint 1.66% 2.35 80% 75% 95% 1.34 .10 WOOD Pallets .26% .37 90% 90% 95% .29 .02 Lumber .60% .85 90% 90% 60% .41 .03 Other Wood 6.87% 9.75 100% 100% 100% 9.75 .73 Stump/Tree sect. 5.24% 7.43 100% 100% 100% 7.43 .56 RUBBLE Asphalt 1.44% 2.04 100% 100% 100% 2.04 .15 Conc./Rock/Brick 8.81% 12.49 100% 100% 100% 12.49 .93 RUBBER (2) 1.14% 1.62 100% 100% 100% 1.62 .12 OTHER & FINES Dirt 17.42% 24.70 90% 90% 95% 19.01 1.42 YARD WASTE Yard Waste (3) 4.74% 6.72 90% 90% 95% 5.17 .39 Leaves 1.95% 2.76 90% 90% 95% 2.12 .16 Grass Clippings 1.47% 2.09 90% 90% 95% 1.61 .12 Brush/Branches 6.32% 8.96 90% 90% 95% 6.89 .51, SLUDGE .71% 1.01 100% 100% 100% 1.01 .08 MISCELLANEOUS Hazardous Material .23% .33 90% 75% 95% .21 .02 Textiles 2.20% 3.13 50% 70% 95% 1.04 .08 TOTAL 91.21% 129.34 95.54 7.13 i TABLE 6.1-2 (Cont.) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM LONG TERM PHASE - 1995 TONS/DAY PERCENT Gross waste Generation 141.80 100.00% waste Recovered 95.54 67.38% waste Remaining 46.26 32.62% (1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quaritity and characteristics for the year 1995, including Fishers Island. (2) Assumes rubber will be banned from disposal (3) Yard waste = Uncategorized yard waste RR = AQ X PR X SE X PE, where AQ = AVAILABLE QUANTITY - The amount of material present in the waste stream PR = PARTICIPATION RATE - The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in a recycling program SE = SEPARATION EFFICIENCY - The'percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by program participants PE PROCESSING EFFICIENCY - The percentage of material remaining after processing RR = RECOVERY RATE - The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream Note: The diversion of C&D and landclearing debris from Town facilities to private sector facilities results in an increase in the achievable recycling levels to 95.9 tons per day, or 68% of the Town's total waste stream. TABLE 6.1-3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM LONG TERM PHASE WITHOUT ADVANCED COMPOSTING - 1995 AQ PERCENT OF TONS/DAY RR RR MATERIAL WASTE STREAM (1) PR SE PE TONS/DAY LB/CAP/DAY PAPER Newspaper 4.18% 5.93 80% 90% 95% 4.06 .30 Corr./Brown Bag 2.40% 3.41 90% 90% 95% 2.62 .20 Office Paper .53% .76 75% 85% 95% .46 .03 PLASTICS PET > 1 liter .36% .51 80% 80% 95% .31 .02 PET < 1 liter .07% .10 80% 80% 95% .06 .00 HDPE .26% .37 80% 80% 95% .23 .02 Other Rigid .79% 1.12 80% 80% 95% .68 .05 Other Flexible 1.52% 2.15 50% 80% 95% .82 .06 FERROUS METALS .00% Food Cans 2.18% 3.09 80% 65% 95% 1.53 .11 White or Enameled 2.60% 3.68 80% 95% 95% 2.66 .20 FE. < 1/4 In. .00% .00 60% 75% 95% .00 .00 NON-FERROUS METALS Cans .13% .18 80% 75% 95% .10 .01 Foil .09% .13 80% 80% 95% .08 .01 Furniture .02% .04 80% 75% 95% .02 .00 Structural .00% .00 80% 75% 95% .00 .00 Batteries .05% .07 80% 70% 95% .04 .00 BATTERIES'(Lead Acid) .04% .06 80% 85% 95% .04 .00 GLASS Green .67% .94 80% 75% 95% .54 .04 Amber .16% .22 80% 75% 95% .13 .01 Flint 1.66% 2.35 80% 75% 95% 1.34 .10 WOOD Pallets .26% .37 90% 90% 95% .29 .02 Lumber .60% .85 90% 90% 60% .41 .03 Other Wood 6.37% 9.75 100% 100% 100% 9.75 .73 Stump/Tree sect. 5.24% 7.43 100% 100% 100% 7.43 .56 RUBBLE Asphalt 1.44% 2.04 100% 100% 100% 2.04 .15 Conc./ROCK/Brick 8.81% 12.49 100% 100% 100% 12.49 .93 RUBBER (2) 1.14% 1.62 100% 100% 100% 1.62 .12 OTHER & FINES Dirt 17.42% 24.70 90% 90% 95% 19.01 1.42 YARD WASTE Yard Waste (3) 4.74% 6.72 90% 90% 95% 5.17 .39 Leaves 1.95% 2.76 90% 90% 95% 2.12 .16 Crass Clippings 1.47% 2.09 90% 90% 95% 1.61 .12 Brush/Branches 6.32% 8.96 90% 90% 95% 6.89 .51 MISCELLANEOUS Hazardous Material .23% .33 90% 75% 95% .21 .02 Textiles 2.20% 3.13 50% 70% 95% 1.04 .08 TOTAL 76.40% 108.34 85.78 6.41 TABLE 6.1-3 (Cont.) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON TOTAL WASTE STREAM LONG TERM PHASE WITHOUT ADVANCED COMPOSTING - 1995 TONS/DAY PERCENT Cross Waste Generation 141.80 100.00% Waste Recovered 85.78 60.49% Waste Remaining 56.02 39.51% (1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1995, including Fishers Island (2) Assumes rubber will be banned from disposal (3) Yard waste = uncategorized yard waste RR = AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ = AVAILABLE QUANTITY - The amount of material present in the waste stream PR = PARTICIPATION RATE - The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in a recycling program SE = SEPARATION EFFICIENCY - The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by program participants PE = PROCESSING EFFICIENCY - The percentage of material remaining after processing RR = RECOVERY RATE - The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream Note: With the composting of sludge and low grade papers in less technically advanced compost systems an additional 4.3 tons per day of material could be recovered. This would represent a waste stream reduction of approximately 54%. However, the diversion of C&D and landclearing debries from Town to private sector facilities results in an additional increase in the recycling levels to 90.7 tons per day, or 64% Of the Town's total waste stream. TABLE 6.1-4 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK PROJECTED PER CAPITA MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES YEARS 1989 - 2010 (1) TONS/DAY LB/CAP/DAY TONS/DAY LB/CAP/DAY YEAR POPULATION GENERATED GENERATED RECOVERED RECOVERED 1990 25,783 132 10.22 9.96 .77 1995 26,783 142 10.59 95.54 7.13 2000 27,433 150 10.96 101.34 7.39 2005 28,433 161 11.35 108.75 7.65 2010 29,433 173 11.76 116.56 7.92 2015 30,433 185 12.18 124.85 8.20 (1) weighted population Which incorporates seasonal population fluctua- tions and includes Fishers Island. NOTE: The recovery rates for 1989 and 1990 have been based upon partici- pation rates estimated for the interim phase of implementation. Additionally, the recovery rates for the subsequent years of 1995 through 2010 have been based upon participation rates for the long term phase of implementation. FIGURE 6.1-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES FOR THE PROPOSED RECYCLING STRATEGY Waste Remaining 93% INTERIM PHASE YEAR 1990 Waste Recovered 7% LONG TERM PHASE YEAR 1995 Waste ReCnvprari E Based on total waste stream quantification and characterization estimates Includes 100% recovery of C&D and landclearing debris generated in the Town, and composting of sludge and low grade paper, to Remaining 36% When materials are directed to private recycling facilities, such as C&D and land clearing debris, the full amount of materials diverted to the private facilities can be used to determine the recovery rate of the recycling operation. This is based upon the view expressed by NYSDEC in Technical Assistance and Guidance Memorandums (TAGMs). Construction and demolition debris, as well as land clearing debris, can be directed to private facilities by not allowing deliveries of these materials to Town facilities. Based on the residential waste stream, the Town could potentially recover 12% of the residential waste stream during the Interim Phase of program development. The residential waste stream excludes C&D, land clearing, rubber, dirt, sludge, and other bulky wastes. Table 6.1-5 identifies the types of materials to be recovered and the participation and separation efficiency rates that must be achieved in order to achieve the interim recycling rate of 12%. Table 6.1-6 identifies the long-term recovery rates based on materials recovery from residential sectors. In the long-term, it is estimated that nearly 57% of the residential waste stream can be recovered, which includes advanced organic composting; whereas, without advanced organic composting the recovery rate is nearly 46% of the residential waste stream. Table 6.1-7 presents the long-term material recovery rates through the year 2015 based on ' the residential waste stream without advanced organic composting. The projected per capita material recovery rates based on the residential waste stream with advanced organic composting are provided in Table 6.1-8. The key parameters influencing these 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 = AQ x PR x SE x PE, 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. 0096R/1 6-10 TABLE 6.1-5 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM INTERIM PHASE - 1990 AQ PERCENT OF TONS/DAY RR RR MATERIAL WASTE STREAM (1) PR SE PE TONS/DAY LB/CAP/DAY PAPER Newspaper 7.64% 5.51 40% 85% 95% 1.78 .14 Corr./Brown Bag 4.39% 3.17 50% 80% 95% 1.20 .09 Office Paper .97% .70 20% 60% 95% .08 .01 PLASTICS PET > 1 liter .66% .48 40% 70% 95% .13 .01 PET < 1 liter .12% .09 40% 70% 95% .02 .00 HDPE .48% .35 40% 70% 95% .09 .01 FERROUS METALS Food Cans 2.37% 1.71 40% 50% 95% .33 .03 white or Enameled 2.82% 2.04 40% 90% 95% .70 .05 NON-FERROUS METALS Cans .23% .17 40% 70% 95% .05 .00 Batteries .09% .06 40% 70% 95% .02 .00 BATTERIES (Lead Acid) .07% .05 40% 70% 95% .01 .00 CLASS Green 1.22% .88 40% 70% 95% .23 .02 Amber .29% .21 40% 70% 95% .06 .00 Flint 3.03% 2.19 40% 70% 95% .58 .05 RUBBER 2.06% 1.49 40% 100% 100% .60 .05 YARD WASTE Leaves 2.81% 2.03 40% 80% 95% .62 .05 Brush/Branches 9.14% 6.60 40% 80% 95% 2.01 .16 MISCELLANEOUS Hazardous Material .42% .30 40% 70% 95% .08 .01 TOTAL 38.82% 28.03 8.58 .67 TONS/DAY PERCENT Cross waste Generation 72.20 100.00% Waste Recovered 8.58 11.88% waste Remaining 63.62 88.12% (1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1990, including Fishers Island. RR = AQ X PR X SE X PE, where AQ = AVAILABLE QUANTITY - The amount of material present In the waste stream PR = PARTICIPATION RATE - The percentage Of the total population Of waste generators participating In. a recycling program SE .= SEPARATION EFFICIENCY - The percentage or material which is actually kept separate from refuse by program participants PE PROCESSING EFFICIENCY - The percentage of material remaining after processing RR = RECOVERY RATE - The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream Note: In the interim phase, recyling attributable to the residential waste stream is 6% of the Town's total waste stream. TABLE 6.1-6 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM LONG TERM PHASE - 1995 AQ PERCENT OF TONS/DAY RR RR MATERIAL WASTE STREAM (1) PR SE PE TONS/DAY LB/CAP/DAY PAPER Newspaper 7.64% 5.93 80% 90% 95% 4.05 .30 Magazines 2,76% 2.14 80% 80% 95% 1.30 .10 Corr./Brown Bag 4.39% 3.41 90% 90% 95% 2.62 .20 Other Paperboard 3.98% 3.09 80% 80% 95% 1.88 .14 office Paper .97% .76 75% 85% 95% .46 .03 other 7.19% 5.58 80% 80% 95% 3.39 .25 PLASTICS PET > 1 li_tef .66% .51 80% 80% 95% .31 .02 PET < 1 liter .12% .10 80% 80% 95% .06 .00 HDPE .48% .37 80% 80% 95% .23 .02 other Rigid 1.44% 1.12 80% 80% 95% .68 .05 Other Flexible 2.77% 2.15 50% 80% 95% .82 .06 FOOD 9.58% 7.44 50% 50% 95% 1.,77 .13 FERROUS METALS .00% Food Cans 2.37% 1.84 80% 65% 95% .91 .07 White 0r Enameled 2.82% 2.19 80% 95% 95% 1.58 .12 FE. < 1/4 in. .00% .00 60% 75% 95% .00 .00 NON-FERROUS METALS Cans .23% .18 80% 75% 95% .10 .01 FOII .17% .13 80% 80% 95% .08 .01 Furniture .05% .04 80% 75% 95% .02 .00 Structural .01% .00 80% 75% 95% .00 .00 Batteries .09% .07 80% 70% 95% .04 .00 BATTERIES (Lead Acid) .07% .06 80% 85% 95% .04 .00 CLASS Green 1.22% .94 80% 75% 95% .54 .04 Amber .29% .22 80% 75% 95% .13 .01 Flint 3.03% 2.35 80% 75% 95% 1.34 .10 WOOD Pallets .12% .10 90% 90% 95% .07 .01 Lumber .28% .22 90% 90% 60% .11 .01 Other wood 3.26% 2.53 100% 100% 100% 2.53 .19 Stump/Tree sect. 2.48% 1.93 100% 100% 100% 1.93 .14 RUBBLE Asphalt .00% .00 100% 100% 100% .00 .00 conc./Rock/Brick .00% .00 100% .100% 100% .00 .00 RUBBER (2) 2.06% 1.60 100% 100% 100% 1.60 .12 OTHER & FINES Dirt 3.09% 2.40 90% 90% 95% 1.84 .14 YARD WASTE Yard waste (3) 6.85% 5.32 90% 90% 95% 4.09 .31 Leaves 2.81% 2.18 90% 90% 95% 1.68 .13 crass Clippings 2.13% 1.65 90% 90% 95% 1.27 •.10 Brush/Branches' 9.14% 7.09 90% 90% 95% 5.46 .41 SLUDGE .00% .00 100% 100% 100% .00 .00 MISCELLANEOUS Hazardous Material .42% .33 90% 75% 95% .21 .02 Textiles 4.03% 3.12 50% 70% 95% 1.04 .08 TOTAL 89.01% 69.07 44.17 3.30 TABLE 6.1-6 (cont.) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM LONG-TERM PHASE - 1995 TONS/DAY PERCENT cross waste Generation 77.60 100.00% waste Recovered 44.17 56.91% waste Remaining 33.43 43.09% (1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1995, including Fishers Island. (2) Assumes rubber will be banned from disposal (3) Yard waste = Uncategorized yard waste RR = AQ x PR x SE x PE, where AQ = AVAILABLE QUANTITY - The amount of material present in the waste stream PR = PARTICIPATION RATE - The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in a recycling program SE - SEPARATION EFFICIENCY - The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by program participants PE = PROCESSING EFFICIENCY - The percentage of material remaining after processing RR = RECOVERY RATE - The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream Note: without advanced compost systems, but taking into account incorporation of a successful (assumed) demonstration composting project including sludge• and low grade paper, 23% of the total waste stream is recovered. • sludge is not a component of the residential waste stream. MATERIAL TABLE 6.1-7 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM LONG TERM PHASE WITHOUT ADVANCED COMPOSTING - 1995 AQ PERCENT OF TONS/DAY RR RR WASTE STREAM (1) PR SE PE TONS/DAY LB/CAP/DAY PAPER Newspaper 7.64% 5.93 80% 90% 95% 4.05 .30 Corr./Brown Bag 4.39% 3.41 90% 90% 95% 2.62 .20 Office Paper .97% .76 75% 85% 95% .46 .03 PLASTICS PET > 1 liter .66% .51 80% 80% 95% .31 .02 PET < 1 liter .12% .10 80% 80% 95% .06 .00 HDPE .48% .37 80% 80% - 95% .23 .02 Other Rigid 1.44% 1.12 80% 80% 95% .68 .05 Other Flexible 2.77% 2.15 50% 80% 95% .82 .06 FERROUS METALS .00% Food Cans 2.37% 1.84 80% 65% 95% .91 .07 White Or Enameled 2.82% 2.19 80% 95% 95% 1.58 .12 FE. < 1/4 in. .00% .00 60% 75% 95% .00 .00 NON-FERROUS METALS Cans .23% .18 80% 75% 95% .10 .01 Foil .17% .13 80%, 80% 95% .08 .01 Furniture .05% .04 80% 75% 95% .02 .00 Structural .01% .00 80% 75% 95% .00 .00 Batteries .09% .07 80% 70% 95% .04 .00 BATTERIES (Lead Acid) .07% .06 80% 85% 95% .04 .00 CLASS Green 1.22% .94 80% 75% 95% .54 .04 Amber .29% .22 80% 75% 95% .13 .01 Flint 3.03% 2.35 80% 75% 95% 1.34 .10 WOOD Pallets .12% .10 90% 90% 95% .07 .01 Lumber .28% .22 90% 90% 60% .11 .01 Other Wood 3.26% 2.53 100% 100% 100% 2.53 .19 Stump/Tree-sect. 2.48% 1.93 100% 100% 100% 1.93 .14 RUBBLE Asphalt .00% .00 100% 100% 100% .00 .00 conc./Rock/Brick .00% .00 100% 100% 100% .00 .00 RUBBER (2) 2.06% 1.60 100% 100% 100% 1.60 .12 OTHER & FINES Dirt 3.09% 2.40 90% 90% 95% 1.84 .14 YARD WASTE . Yard Waste (3) 6.85% 5.32 90% 90% 95% 4.09 .31 Leaves 2.81% 2.18 90% 90% 95% 1.68 .13 Grass Clippings 2.13% 1.65 90% 90% 95% 1.27 .10 Brush/Branches 9.14% 7.09 90% 90% 95% 5.46 .41 MISCELLANEOUS Hazardous Material .42% .33 90% 75% 95% .21 .02 Textiles 4.03% 3.12 50% 70% 95% 1.04 .08 TOTAL 65.50% 50.83 35.83 ,2.68 TABLE 6.1-7 (Cont.) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK ESTIMATED MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM LONG TERM PHASE WITHOUT ADVANCED COMPOSTING - 1995 TONS/DAY PERCENT Gross waste Generation 77.60 100.00% waste Recovered 35.83 46.17% Waste Remaining 41.77 53.83% (1) Based on the total estimated waste stream's quantity and characteristics for the year 1995, including Fishers Island. (2) Assumes rubber will be banned from disposal (3) Yard waste = uncategorized yard waste RR = AQ X PR X SE X PE, where AQ = AVAILABLE QUANTITY - The'amount of material present In the waste stream PR = PARTICIPATION RATE - The percentage of the total population of waste generators participating in a recycling program SE = SEPARATION EFFICIENCY - The percentage of material which is actually kept separate from refuse by program participants PE = PROCESSING EFFICIENCY - The percentage of material remaining after processing RR = RECOVERY RATE - The amount of material which can be diverted from the waste stream Note: If the demonstration composting project for sludge• and low grade paper is successful, then an additional 4.6 tons per -day is estimated to be recovered. • Sludge is not a component of the residential waste stream. TABLE 6.1-8 - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK PROJECTED PER CAPITA MATERIAL RECOVERY RATES BASED ON RESIDENTIAL WASTE STREAM - YEARS 1989 - 2010 POPULATION TONS/DAY LB/CAP/DAY TONS/DAY LB/CAP/DAY YEAR (1) GENERATED GENERATED RECOVERED RECOVERED 1990 25,783 72 5.60 8.58 .67 1995 26,783 78 5.79 44.17 3.30 2000 27,433 82 6.00 46.84 3.41 2005 28,433 88 6.22 50.31 3.54 2010 29,433 95 6.43 53.90 3.66 2015 30,433 101 6.66 57.71 3.79 (1) Weighted population which incorporates seasonal population fluctua- tions and includes Fishers Island. NOTE: The recovery rates for 1990 have been based upon participation rates estimated for the interim phase of implementation. Addition- ally, the recovery rates for the subsequent years of 1995 through 2010 have been based upon participation rates for the long term phase of implementation and the highest possible recycling levels resulting from the inclusion of advanced composting systems. 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. Recycling by the private sector will be encouraged through the use of Town drop-off facilities or private marketing sources for their recyclables. Recycling of wood waste (excluding brush and branches), including land clearing, construction and demolition debris and dirt is expected to result in a reduction of approximately 38 tons per day or 27% of the total waste stream. Similarly, over the long-term approximately 16 tons per day of yard waste (including brush/branches) is. anticipated to be recovered and composted thereby reducing the total projected incoming waste stream by 11%. The Town will encourage and assist the private sector in increasing recycling efforts for office paper, newspaper, corrugated, and plastic, metal and glass containers. A ban on the delivery to Town facilities for large volume and commercial generators of yard wastes, land clearing and construction and demolition debris is expected to result in high compliance and recovery rates for these materials. . As shown in the Table 6.1-1, during the Interim phase (1990-1991), the Town can anticipate the recovery of approximately 10 tons per day from the total waste stream through residential drop-off and curbside collection. However, by 1995, it is anticipated that the Town could achieve a disposal reduction rate of nearly 67% of the total waste stream through implementation of comprehensive program components which include aggressive curbside residential collection for both permanent and seasonal housing units; recovery of high-grade paper, corrugated, and glass and metal containers from the private _ sector; recycling of construction, demolition, dirt, and land clearing debris through the use of private sector services; household hazardous waste recovery; battery recycling; and yard waste and other composting operations (see note on Table 6.1-3). To achieve these high material recovery objectives, the recycling program forthe the Town involves a multifaceted approach that addresses all aspects of the waste stream. Key elements of the program are: o Residential recycling; o Seasonal resident recycling; 0096R/1 6-17 o Private sector recycling; o Office paper recycling; o Construction and demolition debris recycling and processing; o Land clearing debris recycling; o Composting; o Bulky materials collection; o Household hazardous waste recovery; o Used clothing recycling; o- Tire recovery; o Battery recycling; and . o Waste oil recycling. These actions represent a comprehensive program that will be developed through interim and long-term efforts. The following approximate time periods are assigned to each implementation phase: INTERIM: Present - December 1991 LONG-TERM: September 1995 - December 2015 Section 6.6 provides a detailed description of the schedule for- the implementation of the proposed actions. The following description of the interim and long-term strategies to meet projected recovery • rates detailed in Tables 6.1-1 through 6.1-3 outlines the activities the Town must undertake to meet these rates. l J Interim Phase Goals A "set of immediate goals were developed based upon the existing solid waste and recycling collection system and the existence of markets for targeted materials that require minimal processing. The primary focus. of these Interim actions is to establish the infrastructure through which the program could be expanded to reach the long-term goals of nearly 64% material recovery by 1995. 0096R/1 -6-18 During the Interim phase, the Town will aggressively publicize the program and develop a promotion and education program to inform year-round residents, tourists and seasonal residents of the new recycling .opportunities. Solid waste haulers operating in Southold have voluntarily provided curbside recycling services to their customers. The Town recognizes that this effort may require equipment modification, labor and routing adjustments on the _part of the haulers since source separated materials only can be delivered to the recycling collection center. However, as collection systems are debugged, efficiencies determined and participation and recovery rates are estimated, the Town intends to maximize the recovery program by providing convenient marketing opportunities. It is anticipated that during the Interim phase, Southold will recover approximately 7.6% of the total waste stream (10 TPD) or 12% of the residential waste stream (9 TPD). The materials to be recovered include: o Newspaper o Corrugated/brown bags o 'Aluminum cans o . Food.cans (ferrous/bimetal) o White or enameled ferrous (major household appliances) o Tires o Textiles Long-term Phase Goals o Three .colors of glass o Plastic containers (PET & HDPE) o Brush o, Leaves o Batteries (auto and household) o Household hazardous wastes o Waste oil The Town of Southold has also adopted a long-term strategy that complies with the . State's. waste reduction goals (see Tables 6.1-2 and 6.1-6). Therefore, by 1995, the Town is expected - to have developed the ability to recover large quantities of a wide - range of materials that are currently disposed as waste. The Town is expected to collect the following materials from residential, commercial, and institutional sources: o Newspaper o Magazines 0096R/1 . 6-19 o White or enameled ferrous (major household appliances) o Corrugated/brown bags o Aluminum o Other paperboard . o , Three colors of glass o Office paper o Wood (pallets, lumber) o Other (low-grade) paper o Land clearing debris o Plastic containers o Waste oil , o Food cans (ferrous/bimetal) o . " Tires o Household hazardous waste o Construction. and: demolition o Batteries (auto and household) debris o Dirt o Yard wastes o Textiles o Sludge In-. addition to, the above materials targeted for recovery from residential, . commercial, and institutional sources, the Town plans to compost the materials listed below during the long-term phase. Certain materials are listed as "possible" because their inclusion in composting . may be prohibited by SCDHS. If the. current SCDHS opposition to the use of compost in the deep recharge area is' withdrawn, these materials can be included. Table 6.1-3 demonstrates the maximum recovery rates estimated to be achieved by excluding the following materials (except newspaper) as possible compost, components:: o Leaves o Food (possible) o' Grass o Newspaper o Brush o Low-grade paper (possible) o . Woodchips o Sludge (possible) A recovery and processing system for construction and demolition debris, including demolition wood, stumps, and dirt is; expected to be implemented. This will be . accomplished at existing or proposed private facilities. Dirt including sod and sand, could be recovered as part of C&D recovery. operations or included with compost operations in order to produce topsoil or other , high quality compost products. Also, dirt can be recovered and used as daily landfill cover. 6-20 While it is true that some of these materials targeted for recovery are difficult to collect, process; and market, it is important for these recovery goals to address a wide . number of different types of waste materials originating -from the institutional, residential, industrial, and commercial sources if the Town is to meet, the State's recycling goals. 6.2 Recycling Policy and Implementation Considerations The successful development of a recycling program for the Town will require a system capable of providing for the collection, transportation, processing, and marketing of large amounts of materials. However, _ a comprehensive policy framework must be developed along with the technical specifications for the system in order to ensure that all essential aspects of the program as designed will be carried out. Recycling program policies must take into account local conditions and preferences i in order to be acceptable. Therefore, the development of the policy framework for the Town as developed during the interim phase of program development is dynamic and will continually be molded as the long-term actions are implemented. The policy review should be conducted utilizing an outline which lists the issues and relevant background considerations for each. The presentation that follows presents issues to be discussed and background from which the issues were identified for discussion. The issues proceed from general to specific in order to provide Town officials and participants with an understanding of the interrelationship among them and between the policy issues and the technical design. Table 6.2-1 presents a summary of the recycling policy recommendations and issues to be considered by the Town in order to sustain the proposed technical collection, processing and marketing systems. 0096R/1 6-21 TABLE 6.2-1 SUMMARY .OF RECYCLING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ISSUE: RECOMMENDED POLICY(IES) 1. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES Meet state recycling -goals. Exceed"state goals where possible. Adopt an accelerated implementation schedule. Create comprehensive. regional recycling programs.- — Utilize private sector services when possible. — Maximize program cost effectiveness. 2. REGIONAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL — The East End Recycling Association (E2RA) has hired a, recycling coordinator. — The Town and E2RA should. manage and coordinate public information. — The Town .should establish standards for program design and performance. — The Town, County and E2RA should undertake market development. The region should consider developing services or facilities to process recyclable materials from the East End. _ 0096R/1 _ TABLE 6.2-1) (continued) SUMMARY OF RECYCLING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ISSUE: 6. PERMANENT ECONOMIC AND LEGISLATIVE INCENTIVES (Cont) 7. ENCOURAGING COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL RECYCLING 8. DESIGNATED REGIONAL AGENCY 0096R/1 RECOMMENDED POLICY(IES) — Implement . disposal bans (Tires, land clearing, construction and demolition debris, yard waste and household hazardous wastes). — Implement hauler licensing requirements. — Institute volume based pricing for solid waste collections. Providing technial assistance. Mandatory . recycling ordinances • for residential, institutional, and commercial sectors. Implement disposal bans. — Modify solid waste contractual terms. Consider Intermunicipal consortiums or cooperatives. Consider regional solid waste management agency/authority. TABLE 6.2-1 (continued) SUMMARY OF RECYCLING,POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ISSUE:'. RECOMMENDED POLICY(IES) -3. PROCUREMENT OF EQUIPMENT AND'FACILITIES Use of a regional.,facility is preferred over a Town.only facility. - Expansion and upgrading of the Collection Center into a recycling transfer station. 4. _` SOURCES. OF FINANCING - Grants.. _ Dedicated funding sources.. Disposal surcharges. 5. PAYING FOR OPERATING COSTS Waste generators: - - The system should be set up to capture the avoided ,costs of recycling. - The Town may develop a system that financially rewards effective recycling programs (tonnage grants).' 6. PERMANENT ECONOMIC AND LEGISLATIVE INCENTIVES - Mandatory recycling ordinances. 0096R11' ISSUE ONE: WHICH PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES ARE TO BE GIVEN r PRIORITY? WHAT SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM DEVELOPMENT PRIORITIES SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED? The focus of these policy questions is identifying those objectives that are necessary for guiding the development of material recovery practices within the Town of Southold. Furthermore, the intent and emphasis of these objectives are expected to evolve over time. This is due to the time that is required for mobilizing resources, establishing programs and achieving desired results. Certain actions require less time to implement, and therefore are more feasible as part of a short-term program development strategy. Other actions, especially '.those requiring- market development, will take more time to come to fruition and are more properly part of longer term schedules. For these reasons, it ,is necessary for Southold's recycling policies to specify what the desired results of a material recovery action plan should be, what the appropriate routes would be for achieving these results and the priorities to be observed within a definite time period for implementing recommended actions or practices. BACKGROUND: The program development policy objectives which can be considered for adoption by the Town of Southold are described below: 1. Material Recovery Rates: New York State has adopted through its current statewide solid waste management plan a 50% reduction/recycling objective, in the amount of waste generated by weight that would be sent .to solid waste incinerators or landfills for treatment or disposal by 1997, of which 40-42% of which is to be achieved through materials recycling. This is the primary material recovery rate objective which must be addressed by the proposed actions of Southold's recycling plan. Southold also has the option of considering for adoption material recovery rate objectives which exceed those established by New York State. These material recovery rates are to be applied to nonhazardous wastes generated from all. residential, commercial and institutional and industrial sources. 0096R/1 6-25 These materials also include, household hazardous waste, municipal sludge, dirt, agricultural wastes and construction/demolition debris. It should be understood that these policy options are not mutually exclusive. 2. Program Development Scope: The feasibility of achieving high - material recycling rates will depend to a large. extent on the geographic and political scope to be assumed for program planning and infrastructure development. The Town of Southold needs to determine what the largest geographic :and political structure would be appropriate for taking the responsibility of promulgating regulatory guidelines or sponsoring direct actions that will lead to high recycling levels. The options that can be considered for this policy would be: o Regional, single county ,program structure; o Subregional, multi -Town program structure; o Single Town program structure. 3. Program Economics: The economic basis upon which material recovery programs are expected to operate needs to be articulated. These policies will determine the level of investments into program development and the criteria for' measuring the economic results ' of program operations. . The . two most important issues to be addressed by these policies are: o To what extent must recycling infrastructure development be governed by least cost criteria? In other words, are the requirements for developing effective recycling programs to be subordinate to the desire to keep capital and operating costs as low as possible? j o How should the cost effectiveness of recycling programs be .determined? Are the economic results of recycling program operations to be evaluated -. independently of all other solid waste management system costs? 1� 009601 6-26 9 4. Service Delivery Preferences: The principal orientation of these policies is to stipulate.preferences for recycling service providers; especially with respect to collection, processing and marketing needs. The main issues to be resolved concern which services, if any, would be appropriate to provide through the public sector as well as what mechanisms should be. employed for obtaining services from the private sector. _ . The principal concerns that must be addressed for making effective use of private sector service providers are: o Maintaining a competitive. environment so that services will be efficiently delivered by private sector organizations. o Preventing competitive forces from discouraging material recovery practices due to fears among haulers, real or, perceived, that it reduces competitive effectiveness. This will require measures for insuring that a level and equitable "playing field" exists for all private sector service providers. o Being certain that the objectives being pursued by private sector service providers are compatible with those goals adopted by the Town of Southold.- This outhold:This .requires being prepared to respond to compliance problems. 5. Implementation Scheduling: The New York State Solid Waste Management Plan assumes a 10 year schedule ending -An 1997 for meeting its waste reduction goals. It is also necessary for Southold to -develop and 'have a operating material recovery program according to that schedule. Therefore, it is necessary for Southold to adopt an implementation schedule in its solid waste management plan that is, at a minimum, consistent with State implementation schedules. 6. Environmental Protection Considerations: It is well recognized that material recycling has numerous environmental benefits including resource and energy conservation, pollution reduction and_ disposal avoidance. ' It is therefore reasonable to consider to what extent recycling program development strategies should be determined by these issues. 0096R/1 6-27 ISSUE TWO: WHAT TYPE(S) OF CENTRAL MANAGEMENT AND CONTROL OVER SOURCE SEPARATION/RECYCLING PRACTICES IN THE TOWN SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED? The intent of this policy issue is to examine which aspects of recycling program development and operations should be under the direct control or responsibility of a Town or some regional management agency. The resolution of this issue concomitantly defines which operational or management responsibilities should be kept at the municipal level. Policies adopted with respect to this issue therefore are concerned with determining clearly how important recycling management and service responsibilities are to be allocated. BACKGROUND: The principal management and operating functions that should be considered by the Town are: o Records Management: This includes collecting and evaluating data on program I operations such as tons collected and marketed, cost per household and types,of services being provided. o Grants Administration: This involves preparing grant applications, funds distribution and complying with specific grant conditions such as progress reports. This is currently being administered regionally for the five east end Towns through -the East End Recycling Association. o Evaluating Program Cost—Effectiveness: This would entail compiling and evaluating economic performance data on recycling programs to determine if they are achieving solid waste cost savings and to identify reasons underlying economic results. o Public Education and Information Programs: This would include all actions directed at designing, producing or distributing informational and educational materials using printed or electronic media as well as school programs and special promotional activities. This is managed regionally through the East End Recycling Association. 0096R/1 6-25 o Establishing Program Design and Performance Standards: These would specify the type of services that must be provided in order to achieve high recycling levels and the standards by which the effectiveness of these programs would be evaluated. The purpose. of these standards would be to prevent the implementation of poorly designed or operated recycling programs. o Procurement and Contracting for Construction, Marketing or Operating Services: The intent of these actions would be to develop facilities to process recyclable materials and provide services where appropriate or necessary such as for the marketing of materials collected by haulers. o Enforcement Actions: This would include the adoption of legislative or administrative measures that would require corrective actions where there is poor compliance with adopted policies. o Direct Operation of Programs and Facilities: This would involve public operation of collection, processing or'marketing systems by a designated Town. o Hiring a Recycling Coordinator: This would be for a staff position with technical, educational, marketing or program management responsibilities. The East End Recycling Association has hired a designated recycling coordinator to provide assistance to the Town. 0096R/1 6-29 ISSUE THREE: WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR -OBTAINING EQUIPMENT OR r CONSTRUCTING , FACILITIES REQUIRED FOR COLLECTING, STORING, PROCESSING AND MARKETING RECYCLABLE " MATERIALS? The 'concern of this issue is identifying the appropriate organization(s) for assuming the responsibilities of developing the Town or , regional recycling infrastructure that will be required for meeting New. York State's recycling goals. BACKGROUND: The options that should be considered for this issue include: o Solid waste haulers; o Existing recycling operations; o New business enterprises; i o Towns; o County; and o Regional organizations. 0096R/1 6-30 ISSUE FOUR: WHAT SOURCES OF FINANCING SHOULD BE USED FOR PURCHASING STORAGE, COLLECTION, TRANSPORTATION, AND PROCESSING EQUIPMENT AND STRUCTURES? BACKGROUND: The development of a system to recover and sell recyclable materials which are currently treated as wastes will require new equipment , to collect, store, transport and process these materials. One or more sources of funds to purchase this equipment is necessary. Potential financing mechanisms should be discussed: 1. Grants The primary source of grant funding for recycling program equipment in New York' State is the Environmental . Quality Bond Act (EQBA) program. The availability of funds is contingent upon an allocation in - the State's budget for this purpose. This provides fifty percent funding for certain types of equipment to collect, transport, store and process recyclable materials. There are specific types of equipment necessary for the program which are not eligible for funding such as truck chassis and certain parts of the structures which would house processing equipment. Southold must initially pay the entire amount for the purchase of equipment eligible under this program. The NYSDEC will reimburse one half the price following the purchase. The money to purchase the equipment may come from private sources, who could utilize it under an agreement with the Town. However, the equipment must remain the property of the Town for a specified period of time, after which it could be owned by private firms. Another source of funds for program development is the Local Resource Reuse and Recovery, Program administered by the NYSDEC. This is oriented toward education and includes funding for educational materials related to recycling. Fl. 0096R/1 6-31 2. Fees and Surcharges . A permanent source of' funding for recycling program equipment (and operations) may be created through the use of fees or surcharges related to . disposal or recycling services. User fees are often utilized for collecting funds for water supply, sewerage treatment and solid waste disposal services. The fee is linked to the extent to which such services are needed by users. Therefore,. fees for single family dwellings, multifamily dwellings and commercial establishments will differ. The creation of a - user fee system requires an extensive effort to develop a listing of all properties by .user class within the service area and to establish the billing, payment and collection system for funds. Funds may also be obtained by levying a surcharge on disposal fees at the landfill. States such as Pennsylvania and New • Jersey . have followed this approach for funding recycling programs. The fees charged to utilize recycling collection services or facilities may also be set at a level necessary for. the continuing equipment replacement needs of the program. Either public or private sector program operators may use this approach. The use -of this approach must await the operation of the recycling program. 3. Private Financing Private firms who may be involved in the collection, transportation or processing of recyclables may use their own cash or .obtain loans in order to obtain equipment as � they would for any other business function. 4. Tax Exempt Bonds The sale of tax exempt bonds by a legally empowered agency is a common means of financing public or public—private partnership activities. A number of entities may issue varying types of tax exempt bonds. Each potential issuing _ I agency is subject to a number of legal restrictions on how such bonds may be issued and the proceeds utilized. A primary advantage of these bonds is that they have lower interest rates and correspondingly lower debt repayment costs 0096R/1 6-32 than taxable financing approaches. The primary options for entities which may issue tax—exempt bonds are the Town, an authority established to address solid waste management, and State agencies such as .the New York Environmental Facilities Corporation (NYSEFC) and the New York State Energy Research And Development Authority (NYSERDA). The two primary options in this respect are General Obligation Bonds and Revenue Bonds. Revenue Bonds. New York municipalities may not sell revenue bonds, bonds secured by a specific stream of revenues. These bonds must be issued through a public benefit corporation 'or authority. Existing public benefit corporations, such' as NYSEFC or NYSERDA have been mentioned above. The establishment of a regional (East End) Solid Waste Management Authority would require legislation by the New York State Legislature. If the project were publicly owned and operated and disposal costs were funded from sources other than ad valorem taxes, it could be financed with revenue bonds. Revenue bonds would, in most instances, be more expensive than GOs because the bonds would not have the full faith and credit pledge. Revenue. bonds could be structured in equal annual debt service payments, lowering the fees in the early years of operation when compared with GO bonds. The security for any solid waste revenue bond financing (including industrial development bonds, discussed below) could be either special solid waste tax assessments or revenues derived from tipping fees and, perhaps, user fees billed directly to residents and commercial establishments. However,, whenever tax receipts are pledged to pay debt service, the bonds would be considered tax supported debt. Within this framework, special assessments are considered taxes and would cause the debt to be considered tax supported debt on the books of the Town. A primary reason for issuing revenue bonds, where the facilities are to be publicly owned and operated, rather than general obligation bonds, is to structure a financing in which the bonds would not be considered part of the issuer's net direct debt. If tipping fees and/or user fees are pledged to the bondholders, the financing could be structured so that the bonds are not considered tax supported debt. 0096R/1 6-33 In addition to pledging a revenue stream to repay bond holders, a revenue based financing structure, as opposed to a tax supported structure, would require the passage of flow control legislation. Flow control" legislation would give the Towns, authority to direct haulers to a specific processing site. The issuer of the bonds will have to guarantee that a minimum number of tons of materials will be delivered - to the facilities and generate revenues sufficient to pay operating and debt service expenses. To provide bondholders with this guarantee, the entity operating the disposal facilities must contract with the entity(s) that have authority to direct haulers. If no flow control legislation is passed, the financing would have to be secured by tax receipts, either ad valorem taxes or special assessment .taxes, in which case the debt would be considered tax supported with the attendant implications for the Town's credit standing. . Finally, New York municipalities .are prohibited from pledging general fund revenues (taxes) for the benefit of a private entity. Asa result, if the project were privately owned or operated, funding for debt service would have to be provided by nontax sources or a repayment mechanism between the municipalities and the entity operating the disposal system would be required. 0096R/1 6-34 ISSUE FIVE: WHO -SHOULD PAY THE OPERATING COSTS FOR COLLECTION, PROCESSING AND MARKETING SERVICES? BACKGROUND: While the operation of a comprehensive recycling program serving the Town of Southold is expected to be more economical than other solid waste management options, there will be substantial costs associated with the operation of the program. Three primary sources of funds to pay, annual operating costs have been identified. They are the waste generators, the municipality or a regional agency. Since most waste generators are also taxpayers, they are the ultimate source of funds. However, it is worthwhile to distinguish among the three in order to understand the options for raising the required amounts. It should be kept in mind that these mechanisms are not mutually exclusive. They may be used in combination to obtain the required funds. In addition, the issue of raising funds to pay annual operating costs could become critical in obtaining capital funding to build facilities if bonds -were to be issued by the NYSEFC, NYSERDA or an authority. These bonds would be sold on the basis of guaranteed project revenues. In this case, the payment mechanism would be established contractually. 1. Waste Generators The typical approach for paying the costs of collection, transportation and disposal by residents, businesses and institutions is through the service fee paid to the collection service provider. Collection services may be private or public collectors. Private firms charge a fee to their customers which covers costs for collection through disposal. Public waste collection, transportation and disposal are typically paid through local taxes. In each instance the additional costs associated with the provision of recycling services could be paid in the same way.. This approach would have the advantage of maintaining the current system of payment for services. However, it was recognized that requiring generators to bear the full cost of recycling may inhibit participation. Recycling opinion surveys conducted in New York revealed that residentsstate a low willingness to pay additional costs 0096R/I 6-35 0 for recycling. It is possible to provide waste generators with the opportunity to reduce the amount they . pay for waste collection services as a result of participating in a recycling program, thereby mitigating negative impacts- of recycling service fees. 2. Municipalities The Town could bear all or part of the costs of the recycling program by contracting with a firm to provide recycling collection services or providing services with municipal crews. This would represent a significant departure from current practice for the system. 3. Regional Agency The agency may pay all or part of the net costs of operating the recycling system through direct budget appropriations from taxes or through revenues obtained from tipping fees at recyclable materials handling facilities or obtained from disposal fee surcharges at transfer stations or landfills. 0096R/1 6-36 ISSUE SIX: WHAT TYPES OF PERMANENT ECONOMIC AND LEGISLATIVE MEASURES SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED TO ENSURE THE PROGRAM'S SUCCESS? BACKGROUND: Issues one through five of this policy review dealt with the establishment of program goals, defining roles and assigning responsibilities to various parties. In order to ensure that the goals are attained and that various parties (residents, businesses, the Town, solid waste haulers) fulfill their designated roles and *responsibilities, a series of economic and legal measures must be established. These measures, which are discussed below, will provide incentives and specific directives necessary to ' guide the development and operation of Southold's recycling program. 1. Mandatory Separation Ordinances These ordinances would require that waste generators keep certain materials separate from their wastes. These would be recyclables, and possibly other materials that may be beneficial to divert, from disposal (e.g., batteries). Regulations prepared in conjunction with the ordinances would have as their key provisions specifications for the materials to be separated, the form in which they are to be set out for collection or delivered to a drop off point, and the date on which the separation requirements become effective. The New York State 'Solid Waste. Management Act requires that each municipality enact such an ordinance by September 1, 1992. However, it is desirable for the Town to do so at an earlier date. This would substantially assist Southold's program -in, achieving high participation -rates sooner, thus enhancing the progress toward the State's forty percent goal. Mandatory separation. ordinances have ,been shown to be highly effective in causing significant increases- in participation over voluntary recycling programs. The most successful recycling programs in the country utilize these ordinances. , 0096R/1 6-37 2. - Collector/Hauler Licensing . In order to ensure that waste collection and hauling firms provide for the .collection and transport of recyclables, a licensing, requirement could be established by the Town. All firms engaged in waste collection and hauling would be required to obtain a license. All licensed haulers would be required to provide recycling collection services in compliance- with performance standards established by the Town. Any licensee failing to provide the service could have the license revoked.. 3. - Flow Control Flow control refers to legislation or other measures which direct certain materials,. such as recyclables or waste to designated handling, processing or disposal facilities. It serves to guarantee that the facilities developed by program sponsors, such as the Town or its designated agency, will receive the quantity and types of materials they were designed to accommodate. This aids in ensuring the efficient operation of a waste management system and a steady source of revenues to the operators of the facilities. Flow control is typically used in conjunction with revenue based facility financing to guarantee a flow of funds for the payment of interest and principal on bonds. 1 Flow control legislation, passed by the legislature and signed, by the Governor, could give the Town, or an Authority, power to direct waste and recyclables to designated facilities. However, in practice, flow control authority, has not been explicitly granted for recyclable materials in New York State. Flow control over recyclables may -also be established by entering into contracts. with collector/haulers which commit them to deliver materials to specific facilities. However, flow control over recyclable materials may be established indirectly by creating conditions where it is impractical not to deliver recyclables to the facilities created 'to handle them. .This may be accomplished by establishing flow control over solid waste and directing it to transfer, stations or disposal facilities. Facilities for receiving recyclable materials could be provided at those locations, providing a strong practical incentive for their delivery 0096R/1 6-38 1 along with wastes. . The Town could utilize flow control powers to obtain revenues to pay for the recycling program operating costs by surcharging disposal fees at the facilities as discussed in connection with issue five. The fact that all those firms and agencies delivering wastes to transfer or disposal facilities would be paying a surcharge to support recycling and would be able to deliver recyclables to facilities at no cost, will ,provide economic incentives enhancing other flow control measures. 4. Disposal Bans A motivating factor to participate in recycling could be provided by banning certain recyclable materials from disposal facilities. Wastes containing the recyclables would not be accepted at the facilities. A disposal ban for newspapers has been enacted by the City of Albany at its Refuse Derived Fuel facility. Orange County has enacted a disposal ban for a wide variety of recyclable materials. The State of New Jersey has banned leaves from landfills. In order to enact a disposal ban, the Town would have to obtain a greater degree of control over the operation of the landfills. A potential negative impact of disposal bans would be the encouragement of illegal dumping. S. Differential Tipping Fees Charging a higher fee for the disposal of wastes which have not had recyclables removed through source separation would provide a potential economic motivation to participate in the recycling programs. The creation of the differential fees could also be utilized as a mechanism to obtain funds for operating recycling programs as discussed in connection with issue five. A differential tipping fee has been, enacted by the C.I.D. Landfill in Chaffee, New York. Wastes which have not been reduced by fifteen percent through recycling are charged twenty dollars per ton extra. 0096R/1 6-39 6. Shared Savings The Town could provide an incentive for waste -haulers, to- offer recycling . services by: offering to share the savings which could be obtained through reduced disposal costs. The sharing could be based upon the tonnage of materials recycled and the tipping fees at the landfill serving the Town. However, in order to create a shared savings system, substantial changes in the payment system for waste disposal would be required. This is due to the fact that the Town does not pay for disposal. Waste disposal fees are currently paid by waste generators. 7. Cost -Per -Container Pricing This system .would require waste generators to buy bags or stickers from collection service providers and use them in order to -have their wastes collected. A variable can rate can also be established, wherein generators are charged on the basis of how many trash cans are put out for collection. This is a common approach for commercial collection service. Its use for residents could provide an economic incentive to reduce waste. The price of the bag would include fees for collection, transportation and/or disposal of the amount of waste in the bag. These fees could be collected wholly or in part through the price of the bag. ? A cost -per -container system. would provide an economic incentive for waste generators to participate in recycling. -In so doing, they would lower the • number of -,bags, tags, drop-offs, or pick-ups they need. to purchase, thereby reducing their waste disposal expenses. These programs have been established in a variety of locations where every typeof solid waste collection service is provided (i.e., municipal, municipal contract and private). Cost -per -bag systems have recently been instituted in several municipalities in Oneida and Herkimer Counties, including the City of Utica. 0096Ri1 6-40 -� ' r 8. Assistance In Equipment Procurement The Town can provide incentives for waste collection, transportation or processing service providers to become involved in providing recyclable materials collection services by helping them in obtaining collection equipment. This may be done in one or more of the following ways: -- - Equipment Leasing Equipment purchased using the EQBA fifty percent matching funds may be leased .to service providers at a nominal rate. Long—Term'Service Agreements — The municipality may offer to enter into long—term service agreements with service providers for collection, - transportation or processing of recyclables. This would provide the service providers with commitments that would justify their investments in the equipment and facilities and hiring of labor necessary to provide the services. These agreements. would have to be based upon the results of competitive procurement processes. Financing Assistance — The Town could provide assistance for certain .recycling activities through an Industrial Development Agency. This assistance could be made available for private firms which need equipment in order to prepare recyclable materials generated in . their facilities for collection. The firms may also obtain assistance in order to enable them to utilize recyclable materials as .feedstocks to their manufacturing processes. The New York State Department of Economic Development is also developing programs for financial assistance to recycling programs. 0096R/1 6-41 ISSUE SEVEN: HOW SHOULD COMMERCIAL, INSTITUTIONAL AND INDUSTRIAL WASTE GENERATORS BE ENCOURAGED TO RECYCLE? BACKGROUND: The type of mechanisms that could be employed for discouraging the disposal of recyclable materials and encouraging their recovery are similar to those discussed for issue six. This would include extending the scope 'of mandatory separation ordinances to cover commercial, institutional and industrial operations; stipulating in hauler licensing agreements that recycling collection services must be made available to nonresidential accounts, disposal bans for materials which are prevalent in nonresidential waste streams such as corrugated and fine paper, and flow control actions at solid waste facilities. In addition to these regulatory measures, specific programs could be established by providing: o Marketing assistance by- matching sources of nonresidential recyclable wastes with markets which are interested in recovering these materials.. This would include encouraging participation in waste exchanges sponsored by -the Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange located in Syracuse, New York. . o Technical assistance such as conducting on-site audits . which would seek to identify waste reduction opportunities as well as distributing information on how successful business and industry recycling programs can be implemented. o Assistance in reviewing provisions of solid waste service agreements to determine where modifications would be feasible and appropriate for achieving economic savings through waste reduction or recycling. o Collection assistance to encourage the development of collection systems oriented to recovering specific types of recyclable materials such as corrugated paper. o Equipment financing assistance to businesses or industries which have sufficient quantities of recyclable materials to justify the acquisition of recovery . equipment such as paper balers. J 0096R/1 6-42 ISSUE EIGHT: WHO SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TOWN PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION, OPERATION OR POLICY ENFORCEMENT? This issue seeks to identify the appropriate lead agency for implementing and maintaining policies adopted with respect to issues one through seven. _ BACKGROUND: The following lead agency alternatives should be considered: o Creation of a regional authority; o Town of Southold; and o Intermunicipal consortiums or cooperatives (East End Recycling Association). 0096R/1 6-43 6.3 Materials Marketing These actions are concerned with securing outlets for source separated recyclable materials which are based on meeting the delivery and quality needs of scrap processors, brokers or end users. The guiding premise of this section is that marketing actions in the Interim phase will be oriented to materials requiring no processing such as densification, prior to shipment to users. The marketing scope will then be expanded into the- long-term phase to include materials which might 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 recyclable materials found in the . waste stream. In addition, short and long-term strategies are designed to be consistent with the Town's recycling policies. Interim Phase Marketing The responsibility for securing marketing arrangements is expected to be continued by the Town during the Interim phase of development.' These responsibilities would include: o Conducting periodic assessments of market, demand; o Establishing and maintaining marketing relationships; -� o, Verifying the weights of all loads of recyclables; o Procuring of bulk material hauling services for delivery to the market; - o Marketing and service contract oversight; -I o Maintaining quality control procedures; o Responding to complaints from markets; and o Compiling and analyzing tonnage, revenue, and expense data. It is recommended that the Town continue its marketing arrangements and maintain commitments from the brokers and haulers for the disposition of recyclable materials. This guarantees an outlet for the materials as well .as minimizes staff time trying to identify markets and prices. The initial materials to be marketed during this, phase will be newspapers, corrugated paperboard, all -colors of .glass containers, ferrous and nonferrous cans, and 0096Rii 6-44 plastic containers.. The quality requirements for these materials are -discussed in Section 4. Given the development of commingled processing capacity on Long Island, the Town should continue to market the recovered materials in a separated state until other arrangements can be made and a processing facility becomes available. Composted leaves and chipped brush will be marketed to residents fo'r gardening and landscaping purposes.' In addition, the Town will utilize compost .and wood chips on Town properties. During the interim, only a limited amount of the product is expected to be a- available since the facility will only compost 3,000 cubic yards, that local, private and Town demand is anticipated to, consume the available material. Long -Term Phase Marketing The marketing, objective for this phase will be to continue marketing materials which were being recovered during the Interim phase of this plan. In addition, magazines and low-grade papers, as well as high-grade papers, pallets, lumber, stumps, rubble, and potentially food waste originating from, institutional and commercial sources will be added. High-grade paper includes white and colored ledgers, computer printout paper, tab cards and other similar grades. One strategy that could be developed during this phase is to comarket high-grade * papers with newspapers. This would involve developing agreements where the marketing of high -:-grades is linked with acceptance of newspapers or magazines from the same source. This marketing concept is based on using the current greater demand for high-grade papers to assist in the marketing of paper grades which are experiencing a much softer market demand. At this point in program development, the infrastructure is expected -to have been established to collect, process and market commingled materials, thus eliminating the need for resident sorted setouts or enroute sorting of materials by haulers, as necessary, during the Interim phase (discussion in Section 5.3). The preferred marketing strategy would be to direct commingled materials to , a regional MRF, either one under development (i.e., Islip or Brookhaven) or an East End facility. Use of the source separated based compost end product (i.e., yard waste at a minimum during the interim phase) will be incorporated into Town projects and offered to Town residents and local commercial landscaping and , horticultural service 0096Rn 6-45 establishments. The principal long—term market, however, to be investigated for use of compost products will be nonagricultural and horticultural operations. -More than 40,000 acres of land are currently being cultivated in Suffolk County which represents a significant potential market for this material (Section 4.1).. The: Town will. work closely- with loselywith Agricultural Extension Agents and local farmers in identifying and developing suitable agricultural and horticultural applications for both source ' separated and if developed, ..advanced organic compost products.. Additionally; backyard or on—lot composting will be encouraged through- a public education program. Finally,' composting of other organics, such. as grass clippings, food wastes -and low—grade paper shall be considered as a.long—term marketing opportunity. The- long—term marketing objectives for C&D wastes primarily include the encouragement of sorting debris from new construction and demolition projects into wood and aggregate components at the job site. In addition to clean,, sorted materials; mixed C&D will be marketed locally through processors and end users. According to the market surveys (Section 4.1), there is a demand for this material on eastern Long Island. Further, the Town of Southold could potentially use the processed aggregate as daily landfill cover. Another, objective of this phase of the marketing plan is the development of marketing solutions for the following materials: o Magazines; -' o ' Other mixed paper grades; o Rubber (primarily tires); -o Land clearing debris; - o Food wastes; and _J o Grass, clippings. It is clear, based upon existing marketing opportunities; that market development initiatives must be developed for the - recoverable items above. Market development actions are underway at State, County, and regional levels, however, the Town should also seek processing and marketing alternatives for these difficult to recycle items. The Town can encourage market opportunities .for these recycled products by increasing the procurement and use of these materials. Regional market development is one approach that is actively being pursued by East End communities. Section 6.7 further discusses market. development strategies. 0096R/1 6-4.6 6.4 Recyclable Material Collection The purpose of a collection system is the accumulation of designated materials from a number of sources for delivery to either a storage and processing center or 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 processing centers,or markets. Interim Phase Collection of materials designated by the .marketing plan for this phase will be accomplished through the- use of the drop-off center, in addition to residential curbside collection occurring .through the private sector. -This center currently located at the Town landfill was recently expanded' to accommodate the large quantity deliveries of sorted materials brought by the haulers. The marketing approach during the interim phase is to recover and market segregated recyclable materials, therefore,. curbside collections have been initiated for recyclable materials set out in a segregated form. The existing level of participation in this sorting program is unknown. Also, it is undetermined of those who are participating, the number of materials and sorts actually being set out for collection. It is recommended that a survey be conducted by following recycling vehicles to identify the participation levels. Based on the results of this analysis, the collection program emphasis could be modified to obtain higher participation and material recovery rates. According to public attitude surveys (Section 5.3), residents are more likely to participate in the recycling collection program that requires two or fewer material separations. Given that convenience is the primary factor cited for participating in recycling programs, commingling of materials for setout is recommended. However, should the survey analysis result in high compliance, the existing practices could be continued. Although this may result, based on professional experience, it is anticipated that the survey of participation will reveal lower than acceptable setout rates. Therefore, it is recommended that the emphasis of the curbside program will be on encouraging the use of a two stream setout. The participant will only need to source separate recyclables into paper and commingled container products. This would be consistent with the requirements of existing or soon to be in operation MRFs on Long Island. 0096R/1 6-47 Newspapers would either be set out bundled or bagged. The glass, plastic, and metal products would be set out mixed in a single container.. Haulers already collect newspapers, clear, brown, and green glass, plastic containers, and steel and aluminum cans. These commingled materials could be sorted enroute by collection crews into separate compartments on the vehicle. The aluminum and tin containers can be commingled in one compartment, the same for mixed PET. and HDPE plastic containers. The collector will then deposit these separated materials directly, into roll -off containers at the Town provided collection site. Collections of recyclable_ materials are currently being performed using ' separate trailers .or vehicles with fixed or modifiable compartments/containers on the truck for receiving materials sorted by the collection crew. Vehicles with fixed compartments are not recommended for the long-term since the flexibility of responding to changes in recovery rates or procedures is then lost., Manual top loading vehicles are generally the simplest and least costly to operate. These vehicles can .be converted into a two compartment configuration during the Long -Term phase when development of the regional material recovery facilities has been completed. The commingled containers set out, by residents during the Long -Term phase can then be collected without enroute sorting in the first compartment and mixed paper products in the second compartment. This - change in collection procedures will be invisible to the participating resident since the setout requirements will remain the same. The Town should assist the development of these collection systems by providing: .0 Setout containers to each household; o Additional public information; o Technical, assistance on equipment selection for private waste commercial, institutional and industrial establishments; and o Commercial participation. haulers and There are a number of setout containers which are now commercially available for recyclable collections. Some preliminary. . research that has been' conducted. into the effectiveness of these different containers and user satisfaction with them, 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 has worked effectively in other. Long Island Towns, especially where some enroute sorting may be needed and is less expensive. This type of container is, therefore, recommended for use in the Town.' 0096RP 6-48 - The experiences' of many recyclables collection systems indicates that the scheduling of collection services with respect to when it occurs and frequency has a great impact on participation. It is therefore recommended that collections occur: o On the same- day as solid waste collections; and o At least two times per month. It has . been estimated that as high as 40% of Southold's year-round population are senior citizens. As a result of such a high elderly population, the materials collection program design must take into consideration factors which might affect .the ability for senior citizens to conveniently participate. Such limiting factors might include inconvenient setout locations, complicated material preparation and handling procedures, confusing, collection schedules and complicated instructions. Therefore, the above recommendations including providing commingled recyclable collection on the same day as trash collection and utilizing designated household recycling containers will not only enhance program participation for all residents, but provide the level of convenience necessary for participation for approximately, 40% of the population. In addition, the Town shall be prepared on an as needed basis to assist homebound and other elderly residents who require special assistance. The Town will provide technical assistance to haulers developing and 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. In addition, the Town shall incorporate as part of its solid waste licensing requirements, the stipulation mandating curbside recycling services be provided to all residential, commercial and institutional accounts. The operating data from the collection center at the landfill, established during the interim phase of this program, should be examined to determine if this location is the most convenient for participants and should be continued or relocated. Also, this data would help determine if a second drop-off center for those haulers and residents who find it difficult to access the center at the landfill would be necessary. 0096Ri1 6-49 The Town should 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 will 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 can begin working directly with commercial concerns which have been identified through a review of commercial and industrial listings as possibly generating significant quantities of recyclable or compostable waste materials. One effective form of assistance is conducting an on—site solid waste audit with the store or facilities manager. The objectives of this audit would be to identify and characterize all waste sources within the establishment, estimate what percentage is potentially recyclable or compostable, and determine potential approaches for recovering this material. The result will aid them 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 separation program for each firm. This may be done in cooperation with their hauler. During this phase, high—grade office paper, and corrugated cardboard would be recovered from commercial and institutional sources in the Town. The Town will work with private haulers in developing collection services for these sources and developing . their own recovery program for Town offices. All municipal buildings will recover high—grade papers for recycling, which would be used as a model program for other institutional and commercial buildings. In addition, paper recovery programs in the schools will be implemented as pilot programs. The primary purpose being education and promotion of the Town's programs. Commercial and institutional organizations face a number of barriers to materials recovery including: o Inadequate storage space to accumulate large quantities of source separated materials; o Poor access to markets willing to handle. small quantities; 'o Obtaining solid waste hauler support; o Limited capital for making structural modifications or equipment purchases which will facilitate storage and hauling; and 0096R/1 6-50 o Lack of information about the availability of markets, services or methods for economically recovering recyclable materials. It could be necessary to modify existing collection services or create new ones to help overcome these barriers in order to recover recyclable materials from these sources. Collection systems should be geared to recovering 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 the same vehicle. Information on the efficiency . of these collection approaches would be made available for use and adaption by the public and the private haulers. The Town would work with residents, landscapers, and haulers in developing effective collection systems for compostable yard wastes. The following strategies will be pursued: o Information will be distributed through the assistance of appropriate local agencies and the Cornell Cooperative Extension on suitable backyard composting methods. The objective of this action is to reduce the quantity of compostable materials requiring , collection from residential sources. In addition, landscapers and industrial grounds maintenance businesses and large agricultural operators will be contacted to discuss their interests in providing backyard or on-site composting services. o Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of providing yard waste collection during Spring and Fall clean up. The collection frequency might need to be increased as well as upgrading the equipment used in collecting the material. o Assess setout and collection practices, including the use of Town supplied plastic and paper bags for material storage and collection. An assessment will be made to determine if the use of Town supplied paper or plastic bags will improve collection efficiency and/or inhibit the composting process and the quality of the final product. During the interim, the collection of bulky items, including white goods should continue to be recovered through municipally operated Spring and Fall clean up days. In addition, solid waste haulers should be encouraged to provide collection of white goods 0096R/1 6-51 under prearranged conditions, for. recycling at the Town collection center. Through these two collection mechanisms, the Town could effectively achieve interim and long-term recovery goals. Bulky waste recovered. during Spring and Fall clean up events . would require sorting by landfill personnel to extract for recycling scrap metals, tires and other recyclable ferrous and nonferrous metals and other items. Finally, household hazardous wastes (HHW) would primarily be collected at the collection center through direct residential deliveries. All deliveries including HHW, , recyclables and residential and commercial trash are accepted- seven. days per week except holidays, during the hours of 6:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. The permanent drop-off - center provides convenience for residents in that the drop-off hours are not limited. However,' it, does limit those households who find access to the center difficult. During the interim, to maximize public participation. in the S.T.O.P. program, extensive promotional literature and educational information shall be prepared and disseminated. An assessment of the equipment needs to implement 'the Interim and Long -Term program phases is provided on Table 6.4-1. Although this table identifies what is needed (not including existing equipment), it does not necessarily mean the Town must obtain it. For example; curbside recyclable collections _will occur by private haulers. Therefore, the necessary equipment will be procured by the private sector. Long -Term Phase . It' is,, expected by the beginning of. this phase that regularly, scheduled curbside collections of recyclable and compostable materials would be available to all residents, businesses and institutions. Therefore, , a principal objective of this phase will be the inclusion of 'additional materials in setouts by residents, including magazines, mixed paper, corrugated paperboard, batteries, and other rigid plastic containers and plastic films. High-grade office paper. and corrugated cardboard would be formally recovered from commercial, institutional and industrial sources during this phase. Another objective of this phase is to provide commingled processing and marketing opportunities, thus; eliminating the need of setout. or enroute material sorting. Finally, an evaluation would be'made of collection practices for determining if further efficiency improvements would be needed. This evaluation will be, guided by the following technical and economic data:', 0096R/1 6-52 Table 6.4-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Recycling Collection Program Equipment Needs Equipment Needs Interim Long -Term Recycling Collection Vehicles (1) $240,000 Windrow Turner $ 60,000 Screening Equipment $100,000 Yard Waste Collection -Vehicles (2) $200,000 Household Recycling Containers (3), $ 40,000 Total $240,000 $400,000 Existing Equipment (4) 5 30 cy Roll -off Containers 2 40 cy, Roll -off Containers 6 4-8 cy Dumpster Containers 2 Enclosed Storage Trailers 1 Front End Loader 1 Permanent HHW Facility *NOTE: All costs reflect only capital investments. (1) It is assumed that the recycling collection vehicles used for source separation collections during the Interim can be utilized in the Long -Term for commingled collections. Also, it is assumed that .each truck can collect from 600 - 800 househoulds .per day. (2) Compacting collection vehicles are assumed to be used: for yard waste collections. (3) Approximately 8,000 containers would be purchased at $5.00 each. (4) The Town currently has use of . this equipment either through ownership or individual arrangement with markets or haulers. Therefore, the cost of this equipment is excluded from total program capital costs. 0096R/1 6-53 o Aggregate and per capita recovery rates; o Solid waste and recyclables collection productivities; h. o Comparison of curbside and drop-off recovery rates; o- Costs for collection services; and . 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 or collection center designs. , These changes could be accomplished through improved collection technologies or procedures-, regulatory mechanisms, site changes, more effective economic 'incentives, or any combination of these approaches. Compostable yard wastes such as leaves,'. grass clippings, and brush are expected to be collected curbside during this phase. Large quantity deliveries from landscaping firms and commercial establishments shall be received at the. compost site. All materials will be composted in the long-term. Special consideration will be given to identifying acceptable methods for collecting and composting grass clippings for ,the' long-term. On -lot and backyard composting will be strongly encouraged by public education and involvement programs to be developed by the Town. "Let it lie" is one slogan associated - with leaving grass clippings on lawns, and not collecting them for processing ' or disposal that is an approach that is recommended for the Town to promote. The collection of C&D and land clearing waste will primarily be -provided by the contractors involved in the construction or demolition project, hired, solid waste haulers or, individual do-it=yourselfers and shall be' delivered to the designated processing and recovery facility(s). Finally,, during the.long-term program development stage, the technical and feasible practicalities of operating an on call household hazardous' waste collection program shall be determined.: Provided that a safe program can be operated for residents and collection personnel, and is approved by all State and local agencies, this collection_ method shall be. considered as a means of removing toxic materials from the waste stream. Seasonal Efforts A significant percentage of the total waste stream during the , months of' May. through August is generated by a population of transient residents, including second home 0096Ri1 6-54 _, owners, seasonal renters and tourists. The population during these four months increases by nearly 50%. Therefore, it is necessary to develop and implement a strategy which aims to reduce this seasonal waste stream. The primary focus is to identify the current means by which household trash is disposed. The second home owners. have the option, like year-round residents, to deliver trash 'to the landfill or retain the services of a private waste hauler: Those who choose to -' deliver trash shall become informed and educated on the requirements and procedures necessary for participating in the recycling program at Town Hall when residential trash and parking permits are bought or at the collection center (landfill). The remainder who subscribe with a collector for service shall become , informed and educated by the collector. Over the long-term, solid waste haulers, as part of their operating license, will be mandated to pickup recyclable materials from each household; therefore, seasonal subscribers will be provided with the service. Another measure which enhances participation convenience is the use of household recycling containers. This approach is recommend for all Southold residents. In many cases, the migration of seasonal residents is from other western Long Island communities where recyclable material source separation and recycling collection programs have been ongoing. Therefore, it is, likely that most second home owners will be familiar with source separation habits and will seek the opportunity to participate. A greater effort is required to. obtain program support from seasonal renters and weekend tourists. In addition to the above methods, there are several ways to obtain compliance. Landlords shall be required to leave trash disposal and recycling instructions for all renters in the unit. In addition, rental agencies would be required to provide instructions to renters. Finally, neighborhood organizations could be utilized to inform newcomers of the collection practices. Household recycling containers will visually stimulate an interest in the program and provide peer pressure for those households not participating. Finally, increased- promotional efforts during the summer will assist in maximizing participation. Efforts should emphasis printed media, radio announcements and direct mailings. Recycling activities should become a part, of all summer community events and festivals. 0096R/1 6-55 Fishers Island Fishers Island is subject to the same ordinances and regulations as mainland Southold. The recycling collection program will be implemented in two phases; Interim and Long -Term. During the Interim phase, Fishers Island will be gearing up for a sustainable long-term materials recovery program. In addition, the existing program will be expanded to maximize voluntary participation. It is recommended the Fishers Island recycling drop-off arrangements near the Ferry continue and market the materials under existing arrangements. However, increased publicity and educational programs should be implemented to inform residents of this opportunity. Also, during the Interim an assessment of the available markets on and off Fishers Island for commingled vs. source separated materials should be evaluated. To maximize waste reduction and materials recovery on a long-term basis, a program should be implemented which is convenient for all year-round and seasonal residents, commercial and institutional establishments. First, it is recommended that this incorporate household recyclable material collections into the existing solid waste collection contract. Multiple materials should be source separated including color glass, food and beverage containers, ferrous food and beverage containers, aluminum cans, plastic containers and newsprint. Materials should be set out in commingled form and if the market demands, be sorted enroute. Recyclable material collections should occur on. the same day as trash collection, where feasible. It is possible during the Summer months when twice per week waste collection occurs, that one collection day be dedicated for recyclable material pickup and the other for trash. This practice can be continued throughout the year, however, an additional collection day would be required. This will incur additional costs -as a result of providing recyclable material collections. To minimize this cost, changing the setout location from backyard to front yard or curbside should be considered. This change would result in maximizing crew collection productivity and efficiency, thus reducing the amount of time required to complete a route. 0096R/1 6-56 It is necessary that the collection agent have access to storage and transfer containers. This facility must be able to accommodate vehicles' with dumping capabilities: It is recommended that this site be adjusted .similarly to the residential recycling drop-off center in the -Town or be located at the landfill.. Commercial and institutional establishments would also receive recyclable material, collections under service contracts. Recyclable glass, metal and paper should be collected at feast weekly from these facilities. In addition, corrugated paperboard (OCC) might require more frequent collections during the Summer months. On Fishers Island there should be consideration for contracting for separate OCC collection routes. Bulky items and scrap cans should continue to be recovered and removed from Fishers Island for recycling. Since these materials are currently banned from disposal at the landfill and recovered separately, a high percentage of recovery is already being achieved. Finally, yard waste such as leaves, grass clippings and. brush should be composted at the existing brush area. The finished compost product can be utilized .on Fishers Island as daily landfill cover and/or offered to residents, landscapers and municipal departments for daily gardening and grounds keeping operations. Over the long-term, incorporating food wastes into composting operations should be considered. 6.5 Facilities Development The objective of facilities development is = to provide the - necessary physical infrastructure that will link local collection systems with markets for recyclable and compostable -materials. This linkage is achieved, through the provision of a number of important services, especially for storage,; transportation, processing and material quality control.' There is .usually a positive relationship between the size .and complexity of a facility's design and the time required for. its development. The principal strategic focus of this part of the plan willbe the existing collection facility and the ability for expansion, adaptability, -and design enhancements over the long-term, if necessary. 0096R/1 .6-57 Interim Phase Development The existing collection center at the Town landfill has been expanded to accommodate large quantity deliveries from haulers, businesses and residents. In addition to this center, the feasibility of a second recyclable material drop-off location will be evaluated. The primary function of the recycling center is to receive materials which have been sorted by residents or on the route by collectors. Materials which are delivered in a separated condition are then transferred to open top shipping containers or .vehicles directly. No form of volume reduction or sorting is performed. The function of the recycling, centers is primarily the storage and transfer point for the recyclable materials generated in the Town. The existing collection facility/bi-level area has been designed to be simple to establish, maintain and operate. These requirements have been met by the use of roll -off containers or standard dumpsters. A minimum of six containers is provided for the recycling transfer station. One 30 cubic yard container is used for mixed plastics, green, amber and clear glass containers, respectively. A 40. cubic -yard roll -off is used for commingled aluminum and ferrous cans, and another for corrugated container (OCC) collection. Given the volume of OCC and plastics delivered, compacting roll -off boxes will be installed for OCC and plastics. - To accommodate commercial deliveries of OCC, the designated roll -off should be relocated to the transfer area where vehicle ramp access is available. A small. eight (8) cubic yard dumpster will be utilized in -the residential drop off area for separate self -haul deliveries. This material can then be transferred to the roll -off in a similar fashion as for other materials. The Town has developed and operates a small scale (i.e., .3,000 cubic yards or less) composting facility for yard waste, such as leaves and brush. This facility does not require permits under the Part 360 regulations, but needs to be operated in a manner that will not lead to problems such as odors, illegal dumping or, uncomposted materials. This. program will be expanded for the full volume of leaves and brush the Town generates. Y Composting of grass, low-grade paper, sludge, and/or food and agricultural wastes will be considered in the future as a further expansion of this or as a separate operation. Another strategy will be to contact nurseries, landscapers and other horticultural industries to 0096R/1 6-58 determine their interest in developing small composting facilities on -lot that will supply. ' some of their soil product needs. This would reduce the volume of. material that the Town would handle. Finally, the Town has; established a' permanent, HHW containment facility at. the collection center. This facility, manufactured by .Safety Storage, can securely hold approximately 16 to 28 drums of hazardous material. Based on previous HHW removal schedules, the ,Town anticipates approximately 10 to 12 pick ups per year. HHW deposited at the collection center is, removed for permanent storage by the operating staff throughout the, day. This facility is secured during nonoperating hours. Long -Term . Phase The primary .,objective of this phase is to provide processing and marketing opportunities of commingled materials. The preferred strategy is to direct materials through a contractual or procurement arrangement . to a materials recovery facility for disposition. The Town expects to utilize the processing and marketing abilities `bf one of the proposed MRFs and/or -cooperative marketing arrangements on Long Island. In the event that Brookhaven; Islip or the East. End , Recycling Association Cooperative Marketing opportunities are not available to Southold, the Town would be' prepared to upgrade the existing central recycling drop-off center and recycling transfer station into a -low-technology, (simple sorting and compacting) intermediate processing . facility. It should be realized that development of a ., low _technology intermediate processing, facility is ..a fall back position to be .implemented only in the event that regional or'cooperative arrangements are unavailable to the Town. Construction and, demolition debris and land clearing and other wood wastes are expected -to be ,processed through existing or proposed private facilities. The Town will procure these services through competitive bidding procedures and will .evaluate the options, of designating the location of the processing site or establishing. a satellite operation at'.the Town's landfill.. This as will ,be. determined based on material quantity estimates and competitive pricing advantages. Currently,` the Town has received unsolicited proposals from Matttuck Sanitation and North Fork Sanitation to accept and process all the C&D waste generated in the Town. Both companies ' propose to establish 0096R/1 6-59.. processing operations 'on lands they own or intend to -purchase. A fee would be charged to, tip the C&D waste. This would be predicated on the passage of an ordinance by the Town which. would ban C&D debris from disposal. In addition, the town would utilize the aggregate as daily landfill cover. It is recommended that the Town procure the services of a company through competitive bidding and designate the site or sites available for disposal. Another objective of the long-term program phase is to identify collection and processing alternatives for food and agricultural wastes, grass clippings and sludge. A demonstration project will be implemented by the Town and be monitored by SCDHS, NYSDEC and Town officials for the composting of sludge and low-grade papers. This system will utilize low technology composting mechanisms and be evaluated in terms of its effectiveness for product marketability. Depending on the results, this operation can be expanded to process all the sludge and low-grade paper generated in the Town,, expanded to include other materials in the process such as grass clippings and/or food wastes or alternative processing, marketing, and/or disposal options for these materials. For example, low-grade paper that might be difficult to market could be used as a bulking agent for a grass composting operation. This process will be designed to contain any odor problems which may result from advanced composting operations. Cocomposting processing systems utilizing grass clippings, food wastes, sludge and low-grade papers could be considered, however, the processing operations and facilities are more sophisticated than simple leaf composting windrow operations (Section 5.6) because of potential odor and vermin problems. To control the composting environment,. if such an alternative is pursued it is possible that a technically advanced system would be utilized. Should a 150 ton per day municipal solid waste (MSV) composting facility become operational in Brookhaven, the Town would consider its use for long-term recycling of compostables. However, should this or other similar facilities not- become available for Southold's use, the Town will be prepared to develop their own system for effectively composting some source separated organic' wastes to maximize waste reduction and materials recovery. The, Town's -ability to pursue this approach could be affected by Suffolk County Department of Health Services -policy which might restrict the use of certain compost end products on lands located in the deep recharge zone. 0096Rii 6-60 �� 6.6 Implementation Schedule The .proposed short and long-term collection processing and marketing alternatives for maximizing .waste reduction and materials recovery within the Town of Southold, are currently being implemented in two phases. The Interim' phase begins with the present and ends 1991, at' which time the Long -Term phase of program development begins. However, between 1991 and ,1995, the infrastructure to achieve the Long -Term ' recovery rates will be developed. Long -Term recovery rates are not expected to be achieved until. 1995. A detailed schedule, by action, is illustrated in Figure 6.6-1. 6.7 Market Development Identification of the factors that contribute to developing and expanding markets is necessary for planning future activities. This section discusses the potential, markets for future aspects of a recycling program. Recyclable Materials Markets provide for the disposition of recyclable materials for productive use rather than disposal. Therefore, market development is defined as a strategy that fosters a productive use of.: the materials occurring independent of .governmental intervention. It is essential to the success ofthe recycling program that uses for the recovered materials be increased. There are three ways in which the demand for recyclable: materials can be increased, including: o Expanding, of existing recycling, industries to use more materials and/or purchase materials locally; o Encouraging existing operations. to. substitute recycled materials for virgin materials; and o Developing new applications for the recovered' materials. ' Increasing Capacity of Current Operations An opportunity to increase the capacity of the recycling infrastructure, on. a local and regional basis, is to identify those existing users and .buyers of recyclable materials - to 0096R/1' 6=61 FIGURE 6.6-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECYCLING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION- SCHEDULE. 1989 1990 1991 1992. 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Appoint Recycling Administrator Procure Marketing Contracts Identify -Commercial Recyclable Sources Annual Program Budgets Developed and Adopted Enact Mandatory Recycling Ordinances Phase In Hauler Licensing Provisions Ordinance Enforcement Local Government Procurement Actions Public Information Program FIGURE 6.6-1 (continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECYCLING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Voluntary Drop-off of Source Separated Recylables Voluntary. Source Separated Curbside Collection Regional Materials Recycling Facility Distribution of Setout Containers Commingled Curbside Collections Collection System Assessments Development of Private Sector' Collection Systems Encourage Commercial Recycling and Collection Analysis of Recycling Program Data fj FIGURE 6.6-1 (continued) TOWN OF SOU_THOLD RECYCLING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 1989 1990- 1991 1992- 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997�7 Newspaper Marketing . Glass Marketing Mixed Plastic Container Marketing Metal Container Marketing Bulk Metal Marketing . High Grade Paper Marketing Corrugated Paper Marketing Other Materials Marketing - Support New Product Development . Attract New Markets to Region FIGURE 6.6-1 (continued) TOWN -OF SOUTHOLD RECYCLING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 1989 1.990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995'1996 1997 Encourage Backyard Composting Compost Products Marketing, Small Scale Yard Waste Compost Facility Assess Yard- Waste -Collection Practices Fishers Island Small Scale, Yard Waste Composting Facility Large Scale Yard' Waste Compost Facility Permitting Large Scale Yard Waste Compost Facility Demo Sludge/Low Grade Paper Composting Source Separated Organic Composting determine if a greater percentage. of recyclable materials can be used by expanding existing operations. The. recycling market cooperative formed by the Towns of Islip, Oyster Bay, Huntington, and Babylon is one example of expanding operations in an effort to develop stronger markets. Additionally, most scrap processors and end users receive materials .from a variety of and sometimes distant 'sources. This can often be a costly proposition to consuming industries, in that transportation costs often cut into profit margins. Where these materials can be obtained locally, the industry benefits from reduced transportation costs at the same time supporting local recycling efforts. Substitution of Recycled Materials For Virgin Materials This market development approach encourages industries to switch from using virgin feedstocks to secondary scrap materials in their processes. In Suffolk County, legislation has been passed requiring the increased - use of recycled newsprint in newspapers. Newspaper publishers recently agreed to increase the percentage of used newsprint to 40% by 1997. It is uncertain at this time as to whether or not this approach could be used in other areas to increase the use of recycled material in lieu of virgin materials. There are many companies that . could use recyclable materials in their existing processing operations, instead of using virgin material supplies. Although most paper mills already use a small percentage of waste paper, for example, they could be encouraged to increase that percentage thus reducing virgin pulp usage. This approach is an integral concept of the actions discussed above for increasing population capacities. New Applications The third opportunity for creating a demand for recyclable materials addresses the need to create new markets that consume these materials. The use of compost as top dressing at a public golf course is one example of this. With - a consistent supply of materials, consuming industries can justify an investment into research and development of new product applications made from recyclable materials. The development of plastic "lumber" as produced by several plastic recycling companies in eastern Long Island are examples of research and development efforts for increasing recyclable materials markets. Also, there appears to -be -a tremendous opportunity in Southold to market pelletized and potentially shredded plastics as an aeration product to replace vermiculite, 0096R/1 6-66 in horticultural applications. In particular, this application is directly appropriate for containerized nursery crops. Research and development of new. product applications is a growing field in the packaging and chemical industries. Finally, Suffolk County produced a guide that identifies 'potential uses for, recovered ,recyclable materials as part of landfill closure operations:. These actions will require' the assistance of local material processors (Le.-, producing plastic piping for methane venting) to produce the applicable product. Market Development Tools of This section focuses on . the various mechanisms for stimulating market development. Actions are being initiated at three levels, federal, , state and local, to create more opportunities to utilize the recyclable materials that are being generated from local recycling programs. The primary focus, of market development efforts is: o Technical; o Financial; and o , Legislative. Technical The technical and financial assistance programs offered. by the .State of New York are directed toward the generators, processors or the end users -of recyclable materials. Specifically, three agencies have been designated with _ . market development responsibilities, The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), the Department of Economic Development (DED) and the Environmental Facilities Corporation (EFC). Much of the assistance provided by DEC focuses on the collection and processing of recyclable materials.. However, the DEC has compiled a directory of material markets by region and will provide information and assistance on an -individual basis. The DEC is also responsible for assisting the DED in their market development responsibilities. The DED, however, was designated as New York State's lead agency for recycling market development through the Secondary Materials Processing Promotion Act, enacted 0096R/1 6-67 by the Legislature in 1987 as an amendment to the State's economic development law. The Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 expands those responsibilities, one of which is to establish a statewide system for collecting, updating and distributing information about suppliers and consumers of secondary materials recovered from New York's waste stream. This information would be available to public and private recycling leaders to facilitate supply and demand linkages. The DED will also research and monitor trends in the secondary materials sector in order to anticipate changes in market conditions that may affect local recovery programs. In addition, the agency will be able to target specific regions or industries for focused market development efforts. The emphasis of the DED effort is on secondary materials processing industries and therefore is undertaking a marketing. effort designed to promote the full range of business development incentives and services that can be accessed by this- target group. Finally, the DED will initiate targeted outreach efforts to the recycling industry to stimulate expansion of existing enterprises and to develop new operations in the State. In addition, program staff will be available to facilitate market arrangements between suppliers and consumers of recovered materials. Another technical assistance program offered is the Industrial Material's Recycling Program. The objective of the Industrial Materials Recycling Program, administered by the New York Environmental Facilities Corporation, is to provide technical assistance to industry thus encouraging and enhancing waste reduction, reuse, recycling and. exchange. The program provides assistance not only to waste, generators, but to industrial and hazardous waste users and municipalities needing recycling assistance. Through publications and workshops, technical information such as potential methods, 'economics and technologies for recovering and recycling materials from the waste stream is provided. Another market development tool is the Northeast Industrial Waste Exchange (NIWE) which provides information to both waste generators and end users. The exchange, sponsored by the New York State Environmental Facilities Corporation, the states of Maryland, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Connecticut and Ohio, the Central New York Regional Planning and Development Board and the Manufacturers Association of Central 0096R/1 6-68 New York, serves as an information clearinghouse for recycling -industrial wastes and other nonhazardous materials: Its primary. objective is to assure 'that materials •remain part of the manufacturing process by putting waste producers -in touch with waste users. The Recycling Unit of the Suffolk County Department of General Services has, adopted similar strategies to provide technical assistance to help encourage local market development. In addition, the County has developed a _ strategy. to expand and attract recycling industries by identifying existing economic development •services and incentives and those recycling industries currently handling recyclable materials. As a result, the County has produced a compendium of basic information relating to the expansion and attraction of recycling industries. This compendium contains a list of' agencies and organizations that provide economic development services and assistance, a list 'of buyers and processors of recycled materials, financial incentives for using recyclable materials, potential uses of various recyclable materials and, manufacturers using recyclables, to produce new products. Financial To stimulate private sector investment in recycling capacity, the State -Department of Economic Development offers grants and- loans to qualifying companies. Grants are available to firms for 'evaluating the ' feasibility of recycling. projects they, wish to undertake. The grants can be used. for assessing the technical and/or economic feasibility of employing specific recycling technologies, processes or systems. The assessments can include .performance research or testing, market and- waste stream analyses., and cost analyses. Grants, however., may not exceed $50,000 or 80% of the total study cost, whichever is less. Additionally,: ,Secondary . Materials Technology Adoption Loans are available - to finance the acquisition, construction, alteration,, repair or improvement .of. buildings and equipment used for -recycling. The -maximum loan available . is $250,000 per-, applicant or - 90% of -project cost whichever.;_ is -less. Both the grant and loan assistance programs require that there, be documentable -energy savings resulting from the funded projects and that the projects. make an important contribution to increasing the level of recycling in the State. The Town is encouraged to consider similar market development. approaches as currently being adopted and implemented by the State and County. In addition, there are 0096Rii 6-69 a variety of other incentives that the Suffolk County Department of Economic Development, Southold Town - Industrial Development Agency and Southold Chamber of Commerce and other regional agencies can offer to industries utilizing recyclable materials, as outlined in the Suffolk County .Compendium Regarding Expanding. and Attracting Recycling Industries, May 1989. These incentives are geared towards stimulating business growth within in the region. However, many of these programs and incentives can be applied to industries expanding existing recycling business or relocating to the region. Such economic incentives include: o Real Property Tax Exemptions; o Revolving Loan Funds; o Revenue Bond Financing;, o Industrial Development Bonds; o Tax Credit Programs; o Job Training Assistance; and o Other Loans and Credit Services. Lekislative The final effort to stimulate markets for.recyclable materials is through legislative actions. For example, the Town of Southold might establish a policy where products made from paper, plastic and asphalt procured by the Town contain a certain percentage of -recyclable material content. A price preference could be established for those materials which meet specific recyclable percentages. The previously mentioned Suffolk County law relating to the use of increasing. percentages of recycled newsprint in publications distributed in Suffolk County is another example. On the ,State level, the. -DED has targeted specific waste materials for aggressive market development actions. Old newspapers are the first material that -the DED will focus its market development initiatives. The State of New York is cooperation with the Northeast Recycling Council (a subsidiary of the Council of State Governments) is investigating opportunities for companies that produce a recyclable product to utilize that same product again in its production process. The first group, targeted are newspaper publishers. Initial discussions focused on perceived abilities to facilitate market development. Publishing companies in the State agreed to jointly establish a Task Force with State officials that examined the opportunities for using more recycled newsprint in 0096R/1 6-70 newspaper production and to devise a strategy to attract a paper mill(s) to the region to supply additional recycling capacity. ..These types of .efforts •could' be duplicated or publicly encouraged by the Town. Compostables - The development - of . markets , depends on. a variety of factors which include the determination of the type of compostable material .to be processed ' and the .quantity of that material. In addition, it is necessary to determine the needs of available markets in terms of material quality, handling,. and packaging specifications. If existing markets are such that they exceed .the potential compost production, a processing strategy can be chosen that will allow for the most cost—effective processing. Where more limited markets are available, processing must be tailored to produce a ' product that meets market specifications. Where markets are tight,, building flexibility into the compost processing system becomes critical.to a.:successful operation. This diversity will allow the production of a' range of products that -can be marketed to a variety of users. This will eliminate dependency on any one.type of market. Immediate Opportunities for the Use of Recycled Materials The Long - Island Landfill Law, discussed in the DGEIS for --the Solid Waste. Management, •Plan, will force the - closure, of-, some .of the landfills on Long Island. Those landfills that are in the process of developing closure plans or, that will need to develop a closure plan in the near future; present a unique , opportunity to use recycled material and develop markets for the products of recycling. Suffolk County has a program for financial assistance to the towns in Suffolk County for closure of their solid waste landfills. This program promotes. ,the use of recycled materials and products as part of the. landfill closure efforts. The program .has identified the following examples: o Use of screenings from construction and demolition debris- as fill. material; o Use of capping materials manufactured from recycled plastics; 0096R/1 6-71. o Use of plastic piping for gas venting or gas collection and recovery systems manufactured from recycled plastics; o Use of recycled aggregate, reclaimed from crushed concrete or glass for concrete structures or base course of roads; o Use of plastic lumber manufactured from recycled plastics . for use in place of wood, where appropriate; o' Use of leaf compost as a soil conditioner in the final, cover top soil layer; and o Use of hydromulch, manufactured from used newspapers, for seeding the final cover top soil layer. The Recycling Unit of the Suffolk County Department of General Services conducted a study of these materials and products. Further, the Recycling Unit identified a partial listing of local Long Island, nearby regional and, national markets from which these materials may be obtained. When the Town closes its solid waste landfill, an opportunity to use products made from recyclable materials in closure operations becomes available. The Town's landfill could also use an acceptable 40 mil thick geomembrane. Much of the 24 inch soil barrier protection layer, and the six inch final cover topsoil layer, can use recycled materials. Geomembranes manufactured from recycled materials are available. Larger landfills facing closure would require even more material, and are considered to be a potential market for local processing operations. 6.8 Public Relations and Education Programs Source separationpractices must be encouraged and reinforced through an effective and comprehensive public information and, education program. The commitment ,to the implementation and management of these activities needs to be sustained to. ensure long—term success. 0096R/1 6-72 i 'The responsibility for public information and education would most 'efficiently and',' effectively be performed on a regional basis.-. The East End Recycling Association has. performed public education for the region to date, and should, continue ',with Town support. This, however, may . not be the case if a regional processing and marketing program is not implemented. .Therefore, in the interim, the Town is expected to proceed with the following actions:: o Assist the East End Recycling Association in developing the content and design of promotional and -educational materials; o Select the information channels to be used; o Manage or coordinate information and education activities with E2RA; and o Evaluate the results of specific information and educational approaches. In addition, the Town. shall produce program ,specific literature, mailings and paid advertisements that directly relate to the immediate program operating in Southold. The East End Recycling Association activities will support and supplement the efforts undertaken by the Town. The objectives of the recycling public information and education program will be to: o Increase public awareness of solid waste issues and the need for waste reduction, source separation and recycling; o Provide the public with the information on how, when and where opportunities to reuse, reduce, and recycle are available, through public or private sources; o Encourage public input to obtain two way communication between the Town and its residents; o Encourage and sustain source separation practices by residents, businesses and institutions; and o Advertise' the availability of finished compost products for home use. 0096Rii 6-73 The Town applied for and received funding from the New York State Department of Conservation as part of an East End Recycling Association application. These funds are expected to be utilized to assist the Town in promoting recycling and educating "its residents. As part of this regional grant, Southold received bumper stickers (regional theme), printed literature and signage incorporating directions and instructions for recyclable material deliveries arriving at the collection center. 0096R/1 6-74 ��ion 7.0 LEGALANSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS This Section describes the local laws and ordinances which must be developed to support the recycling collection, processing and marketing system proposed for the Town of Southold. In addition, existing or proposed legislation that might impede the success of the recovery and marketing program will be identified. 7.1 Local Laws and Ordinances The legal basis for the Southold Recycling Program would be established through the passage of ordinances by the Town which is anticipated to occur during the interim phase. Three key aspects of the recycling ordinances would be mandatory separation of newspaper, glass, plastic and metal containers; prohibiting the disposal of land clearing, construction and demolition, debris, yard wastes and household hazardous waste from residential and commercial generators at the Town's landfill; and modifying the licensing requirements of private waste collection service providers. The mandatory separation ordinance will require all residents, businesses and institutions to separate designated recyclable materials from solid waste. It will establish a procedure which specifies the: o Designation of recyclable materials; o Identification of responsibility for compliance ,(hauler, generator); o Set out container distribution responsibility; o Material preparation and set out requirements; o Establishment of anti -scavenging provisions; o Establishment of tipping fees or surcharges at disposal and recycling facilities; o Designation of responsibility for collection; o Collection frequency; o Designation of material ownership; and o ' Establishment of requirements for hauler participation. The Town mandatory source separation and recycling ordinance is expected to be adopted by the end of 1990, as part of the Interim phase. Not allowing land clearing, construction and demolition debris, household hazardous wastes, and yard waste from being delivered to solid waste disposal facilities is (discussed in the DGEIS for the Town's Solid Waste Management Plan) expected to occur in the long-term. These material bans are expected to result in high levels of recovery. The ordinance will not be adopted prior to securing processing and marketing arrangements. 0101R 7-1 Licensing procedures would continue to require all waste collection service providers to obtain a license from the Town in order to operate. However, an essential condition to be established by the Town for the issuance of a license, will be the provision of collection services for recyclable materials in a manner that meets the design and performance standards established by the Town. In addition, license holders -will be required to submit a collection plan to the Town providing details regarding collection services for recyclables, plans for disposition of the recyclables, and plans for the processing and marketing of materials. License holders can declare their intention to use the Town processing facilities as a means of complying with the licensing requirements. The enforcement and penalties for noncompliance will be specified in the ordinances. The Town will enforce compliance with the provisions of its ordinance through existing code enforcement procedures which have already been established. Finally, Southold has committed, by resolution, to consider solid waste and recycling management opportunities which are regional in nature. The five East End communities of Long Island have formed an association to evaluate the potential opportunities. As a result so far, publicity and educational efforts for recycling have developed for the region. In addition, cooperative marketing arrangements are being analyzed. . 7.2 Legislative Impediments to Recycling The effectiveness of the Town's material recovery program could potentially be constrained by a policy adopted by the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). 'The SCDHS policy prohibits the use of compost, regardless of NYSDEC classification, on lands which are located in the deep recharge zone. The effects of this policy over the long—term solid .waste management planning period could seriously hinder the ability of the Town to efficiently and cost effectively manage its waste stream. It has been demonstrated (Section 4.1) that yard waste and other source separated waste compost can be marketed within the horticultural and agricultural industries within the Town. The compost market survey also identifies the potential for marketing MSW advanced organic Class I and advanced Class II compost 0101R 7-2 within the horticultural and agricultural industries within the Town. With local policies. prohibiting mixed organic compost use, the marketable material would subsequently require final disposal which economically would be undesirable. In addition, it is ironic that County policy has not been adopted which prohibits the use 'of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and fungicides on lands which are located in the deep recharge zone. It is suggested that prior to the enforcement of this policy, a study be undertaken to evaluate the potential impacts on groundwater in the deep recharge area from land applications of Class I and Class II compost versus. chemical fertilizers and pesticides. 01018 7-3 Section 8 8.0 FUTURE ACTIONS The proposed. recycling program for the Town is readily implementable and designed to meet the State's, recovery goals before 1997. It is estimated, in Section 6. 1, the Town. could achieve a 67%,. reduction in current disposal rates by 1997. This rate could be reduced by 8% depending on the success of demonstration projects or from failing to - implement acceptable advanced organic composting .systems. Section 6.0 also discusses the specific actions planned for bringing these goals to fruition. The Town ' is' aware that there are a number of factors which, could render this goal obsolete or infeasible, including:. o New economic and technical trends in solid waste management techniques and practices; o Changes in .waste generation and composition patterns; and o The decline of existing, markets -for recoverable materials and the emergence of new ones. . oSCDHS . policy prohibiting compost application on lands located in "the deep recharge,. area. This Section will briefly discuss some of the actions that,the Town is considering for identifying, understanding and managing the impact of these factors on its proposed waste reduction program. 8.1 Scope of Existing and New Programs The key management action by the Town will be the systematic compilation and assessment of recovery data from private recycling systems. One of the principal objectives of this assessment will be to determine trends in the recovery rates of different materials.. Iri many cases, significant declines in recovery rates indicates a problem in program operation or management such as insufficient public -information or education efforts.. However, where these causes can be reasonably ruled out, other explanations have to be considered .such as a permanent change in waste stream patterns. This can be due to new developments in consumer products or packaging such as the 6102R 8-1 replacement of ferrous cans by composite films for aseptic packaging. In these cases, the Town may consider conducting new waste stream quantity and composition studies to determine if changes in the designation of materials for recovery are warranted. The Town intends to monitor closely data from solid waste collection and disposal operations in order to: o Determine if changes in material recovery rates resultin corresponding changes in collection and disposal patterns, and o Evaluate 'the impact of material recovery practices on the physical and economic aspects of waste management systems. This includes assessing changes in collection and hauling productivities and usable capacity in the Town's solid waste facilities. The Town will also carefully monitor new developments in the demand for recovered materials. The responsibility for collecting new market data will be allocated among several parties. It is expected that contractual provisions will be made for requiring companies providing facility operating or marketing services to the Town to make "best faith efforts" to identify and take advantage of new marketing opportunities. In addition, the Town will work closely with regional (E2RA) and State economic development agencies in assessing new market potential. Sources of information in emerging markets that will be regularly consulted include: o Trade organizations and journals; o Recycling industry operators; o State agencies such as DEC and DED; and o University research programs. 8.2 Other Means of Program Enhancement j The Town recognizes- that the principal' challenge in the future will not be in developing new collection systems or facilities but in making the current practices work more efficiently and effectively. Some of the actions that the Town is considering in this respect are: 0102R 8-2 o Working with, universities. (SUNY at. Stony Brook) and private industry in identifying factors which affectproductivity in solid waste management and recovery systems and determining how productivity -improvements can be made; o - Sponsoring the, development -of new collection or processing technologies; o Assessing in greater detail the relationship between different pricing systems and waste generation or recovery patterns; o Participating, in -the development and testing of new products made from recoverable waste materials; and o Supporting research into new strategies for achieving higher levels of waste minimization in commercial, institutional and industrial operations. 8.3 Procurement Practices . As part of market development activities, the Town shall include actions within this plan for establishing and .maintaining procurement policies which are consistent with its waste reduction objectives. State and Federal governments -have' established procurement .opportunities for which the Town's procurement system could take advantage. They are as follows: o The. U.S. ,Environmental ,Protection Agency. has, released, as part of its'' responsibilities under- RCRA, recycled product procurement guidelines for: Paper and paper -products — Lubricating oils; Retreaded tires; and — Building insulation products.. r These guidelines apply to.all.nonfederal agencies which can be determined to be procuring =agencies as defined . by RCRA. According, to this definition, a,., procuring agency is one that purchases a minimum of $10,000, annually of any of the products covered by the EPA guidelines with a portion of these funds originating from federal, appropriations. 0102R 8-3 o The NYS Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 authorizes the purchase by Counties of paper products for their own use with a "significant recycled content" through competitive bidding at a price premium not to exceed 10 percent of comparable virgin content products. The Townproposes to pursue the following actions in the development of an effective procurement program: o All Town departments and agencies will be directed through executive action to begin the development of procedures that will permit them to develop effective buying programs for recycled products. This will include reviewing all specifications to determine if barriers exist due to: Explicit preferences for virgin materials in product content; Exclusion of recyclable materials in product content; and Performance standards which are unnecessarily restrictive. The initial emphasis will be on paper products but the scope of this action will be gradually expanded to include other materials such as mixed color glass, plastic products and compost products. This effort would also include determining which purchasers could be classified as a "procuring agency" under the EPA's guidelines. o Opportunities for buying recycled paper through State contracts will be determined by obtaining purchase specifications and vendor .certifications from the Coordinator for Nonstate Agencies within the Office of General Services; o Definitions and terms for recycled content of products which are consistent with those developed by Northeast Recycling Council established by the Eastern Regional Conference of the Council of State' Governments in 1988 will be adopted as feasible. o Establish a management system within the Town government for coordinating and preventing duplicative work by agencies_ for- developing effective procurement plans. 0102R 8-4 o Assess the feasibility of tracking Town and local purchases with respect to quantity as well as dollar value. o Compile available sources of information on products with recycled material content for - use by public and private purchasing agents. This will include requesting information on the availability of recycled products from current suppliers. o Develop educational programs oriented to purchasing agents and the general public on the quality and suitability of recycled products. o Identify opportunities for achieving cost reductions through regionalized purchasing of recycled products. o Establish a program for recognizing public and private organizations which have done an outstanding job in developing effective recycled product procurement programs. 0102R 8-5 Section 9 9.0 GLOSSARY Commingled Materials'- Recyclable materials that are .mixed together in one container for convenient collection. Usually glass and metal containers are mixed together and kept separate for mixed papers. Compostable Materials - Leaves, brush, grass clippings, food wastes, sewage sludge, paper and other organic components of waste that decompose through a biological process into a "humus" matter. Baler- A mechanical piece of equipment that compacts and densifies materials, such as paper, metal or plastic. Drop Off Centers = Location where residents, businesses and solid waste haulers can deliver recyclable- materials for recycling. Green Waste - Leaves, brush and grass .clippings. ` Interim Actions - All activities necessary to implement Southold's Recycling:' Program beginning immediately through December 31, 1991. Long Term Actions - All activities necessary to 'implement the Town of Southold's Recycling Program beginning January 1, 1992 achieved by December 31, 1995. Market - Any broker, processor or end user that will accept recyclable materials for productive uses other than final disposal (i.e., landfilling). 0162R 9-1 Materials Recovery Facility — A facility where commingled recyclables (usually mixed glass, metal and/or plastic containers) are -sorted, upgraded and prepared for market through a combination of mechanical and manual processes. On—Route Sorting — Separation of mixed color glass and cans by collection crews in clear, green and brown glass, ferrous and aluminum cans and placement in separate bins on collection vehicles. Recyclable Materials — Components of the waste stream which may be kept separate and directed to a productive end. use. These materials may include, but are not limited to newspaper, cardboard, glass, metal cans, plastic containers, office paper and mixed colored paper. Set Out Containers — Special plastic containers provided 'to waste generators for storage of recyclable materials such as glass and plastic bottles and metal cans or newspapers. Containers may range in size from 7 to 90 gallons. appendix A USE OF SOLID WASTE COMPOST MARKET SURVEY OF POTENTIAL NON-FARM CONSUMERS 1. Company Information: COMPANY: ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: YOUR NAME: 2. What type of activity best describes your operation? (Cheek one or more): NURSERY .'GROUNDS KEEPER PARK MAINTENANCE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR LAWN CARE GOLF COURSE MAINTENANCE STREETS/HIGHWAY, POTTING MEDIA (Other) - 3. Please indicate the amounts) of products you purchase/use and their unit cost: PRODUCT ANNUAL USAGE . UNIT COST TOPSOIL, PEAT COMPOST MULCHES MANURE (Other) 4. When are the majority of your- products obtained? If possible, indicate the percentage of purchases for each season: SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER Printed m Recycled Paper 5. Do you have storage space for stockpiling the above materials? YES' NO If yes, what quantity? 6. Do you currently transport or have the capability of transporting materials such as those listed above? YES NO 7. What would be your major interest(s) and concerns with the use of solid waste compost? Please rate each of the following on a 1 to 5 basis, where 1 is most important and 5 is least important: FERTILIZER VALUE 1 2 3 4 5 _ PARTICLE SIZE 1 2 3 4 5 " ORGANIC MATTER CONTENT 1 2 3 4 5 PH 1 2 3 4 5 COLOR 1 2 3 4 5 ODOR 1 2 3 4 5 COST 1 2 3 4 5 AVAILABILITY 1 2 3 4 5 EASE OF HANDLING 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 (Other) 8. Based on your experience and knowledge, would you be willing to try a solid waste compost in place of a product you're currently using?. YES NO If no, please give your reason(s): Printed on Regckd Paper . 1WM :-1 9. If available source of high quality compost were available, do you believe that you would be a regular user? YES NO If no, please give your reason(s): If yes, could you estimate the amount annually? 10. How much of a price advantage would there have to be for compost in order to make it attractive for you for to use as a substitute for: ? percent less 11. Are you interested in more information about solid waste compost? YES NO 12. Additional Comments: Printed an Rwycled Paper - 3 - COMPOST MARKET SURVEY REGIONAL SURVEY RESULTS The Horticulture survey, compiled on a regional basis, comprised the results of four (4) southeastern New York State Counties: _Orange, Putnam, Rockland and Ulster. Those who responded to the horticultural survey indicated that the two most common activities were landscape contracting and nursery operation at 38% and 22%, respectively. Following. this, the next most common activities were greenhouse, lawn care, potting media and groundskeeping activities at 10%, 10%, 6% and 6%, respectively. Cemetery maintenance and vegetable/herb farm activities each account for 2% of the responses. The least common activities were research farms, 'golf courses, garden centers, horse farms and schools, each accounting for 1% of indications. Bulk materials utilized in this region for horticultural activities involved wood chips at 50,000 cubic yards, topsoil at 46,069 cubic yards, compost at 14,848 cubic yards, peatmoss at 8,246 cubic yards, soiless mix at 3,146 cubic yards, and manure at 2,111 cubic yards. On a percentage basis of total cubic yards of all bulk materials utilized, wood chips constitutes 30%, topsoil 28%, mulch 24%, compost 9%, peatmoss 5%, soilless mix 2%, manure I% and sand less than I% of total. On an average cost per cubic yard basis, soilless mix was the most costly at $72 per cubic yard followed by peat moss at $34 per cubic yard. Mulch cost $20 per cubic yard followed by topsoil at $18 per cubic yard. Both manure and sand cost $12 per cubic yard. Compost cost $4 per cubic yard with wood chips being the least costly at $2 per cubic yard. Based on the responses in the survey, 36% of bulk material purchases were done so in the Spring with 29% each in Summer and Fall. Winter acquisitions amounted to 7% of total acquisitions. Fifty—six percent (56%) of the surveyed horticultural businesses indicated that they had storage space for stockpiling bulk materials and 55% have the capability to transport such bulk materials. I Horticultural businesses in the region ranked various characteristics .of compost on the basis of importance as perceived by them. Cost, availability,. ease of handling, odor . and organic; matter content were indicated in declining- order of importance as the most important group of characteristics. Particle size, ph, fertilizer and color were listed in. declining order of importance: as the less important group of characteristics. When `asked if they .would consider trying a municipal solid waste compost in place, of a bulk material that they presently use, 74% indicated. that they would be. willing to try the compost. If a high quality compost were -available, 69% indicated that they might become regular users of municipal solid waste compost. When asked what price advantage compost would require to be competitive for use against another bulk item, the respondents indicated that 8% would use compost with a 0-10% discount, 12% would use compost with 11-20% discount, 24% would use 'compost, , with a 21-30% discount, 4% would use compost with a 31-40% discount, 33% would use compost .with a 41-50% discount, 2% would use compost with a 51-60% discount, - 4% would use compost with a 61=70% discount, 6% would use compost with a 71-80% discount, and 6% would use-.com' post with a. 91-100% discount. Of the total regional respondents, _ 73% indicated they would like to,, receive more information about compost. . ,k REGIONAL COMPOST MARKET SURVEY RESULTS (ORANGE, PUTNAM, ROCKLAND AND ULSTER COUNTIES) TOTAL AMOUNTS OF BULK MATERIALS USED BASED UPON SURVEYED RESPONDENTS' INDICATIONS FOR THE YEAR 1989 tLess than I% AVERAGE PERCENT COST PER BULK MATERIAL CUBIC YARDS OF TOTAL CUBIC YARD (S) Wood Chips 50,050 30 2 Topsoil 46,069 28 18 Mulch 39,784 24, 20 Compost 14,848 9 '4 Peatmoss -8,246 5 34 Soilless Mix 3,146 2 '72 Manure 2,111 1 12 Sand 300 Ot 12 tLess than I% REGIONAL COMPOST MARKET SURVEY RESULTS (ORANGE, PUTNAM, ROCKLAND AND ULSTER COUNTIES) RANKING OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMPOST CHARACTERISTICS BASED ON DEGREE OF IMPORTANCE TO SURVEY RESPONDENTS RANKED IN DECLINING ORDER OF IMPORTANCE . .1) Cost 2) Availability 3) Ease Of Handling 4) Odor 5) Organic Matter Content 6)- Particle Size 7) pH 8) Fertilizer Value 9) Color REGIONAL COMPOST MARKET SURVEY RESULTS (ORANGE, PUTNAM, ROCKLAND AND ULSTER COUNTIES) RESPONDENTS WILLING TO TRY MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMPOST IN PLACE OF A PRODUCT CURRENTLY BEING USED RESPONSE COUNT PERCENT Yes 66 80 No 17 20 RESPONDENTS BELIEVING THEY MIGHT BECOME REGULAR USERS OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMPOST RESPONSE Yes No els COUNT PERCENT 62 78 17 22 Ll REGIONAL COMPOST MARKET SURVEY RESULTS (ORANGE,, PUTNAM, ROCKLAND AND ULSTER COUNTIES) PRICE ADVANTAGE OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE COMPOST OVER OTHER BULK MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR RESPONDENTS TO FIND ATTRACTIVE FOR USE PRICE ADVANTAGE lto11 11 to 21 21 to 31 31 to 41 . 41 to 51 51 to 61 61 to 71 71 to 81 81.to 91 91 to 100 POSITIVE RESPONSES M 8 12 24 4 33 2 4 6 0 6 REGIONAL COMPOST MARKET SURVEY RESULTS (ORANGE, PUTNAM, ROCKLAND AND ULSTER COUNTIES) WHEN MAJORITY OF BULK MATERIALS ARE PURCHASED SEASON PERCENT Spring 36 Summer 29 Fall 7 Winter 7 REGIONAL COMPOST MARKET SURVEY RESULTS (ORANGE, PUTNAM, ROCKLAND AND ULSTER COUNTIES) COMMON HORTICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ACTMTY Landscape Contracting Nursery Greenhouse Lawn Care Potting Media Res./Comm. Grounds Cemetery Vegetable/Herb Farm Garden Center Golf Course Research Farm Horse Farm Schools PERCENT 38 22 10 10 6 6 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 REGIONAL COMPOST MARKET SURVEY RESULTS (ORANGE, PUTNAM, ROCKLAND AND ULSTER COUNTIES) .4 THOSE HAVING STORAGE SPACE FOR STOCKPILING BULK MATERIALS RESPONSE COUNT PERCENT Yes 56 67 No 28 33 THOSE HAVING THE CAPABILITY TO TRANSPORT BULK MATERIALS RESPONSE COUNT PERCENT Yes 55 66 No 28 34 Appendix G TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX G ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN SPECIES OF NEW YORK STATE 0095N CONTENTS A. Animal Species B. Plant Species 0095N A ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN ANIMAL SPECIES OF NEW YORK STATE 0095N I. ENDANGERED . ** Chittenango Ovate Amber Snail Succinea chittenangoensis, Karner,Blue Butterfly' Lycaeides melissa * Shortnose Sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum * Longjaw Cisco Coregonus •alpenae - Round Whitefish Prosopium cylindraccum Pugnose Shiner Notropis anogenus Eastern Sand Darter Ammocrypta pellucida Bluebreast Darter. Etheostoma camurum Gilt Carter Percina evides. 'Blue Pike Stizostedion vitreum glaucum, Spoonhead Sculpin Cottus ricci Deepwater Sculpin - Myoxocephalus thomosoni Tiger Salamander Ambystoma tigrinum Bog Turtle , Clemmys muhlenbergi * Leatherback Sea Turtle " . Dermochelys coriacea * Hawksbill SeaTurtle Eretmochelys imbricata * Atlantic Ridley Sea Turtle 'Lepidochelys kemopii " Massasauga Rattlesnake Sistrurus catenatus * Golden Eagle Aquila chrysaetos . * Bald Eagle : Haliaeetus leucoceohalus ' * Peregrine Falcon" Falco peregrinus , * ; Eskimo Curlew Numenius borealis Least Tern Sterna albifrons Roseate Tern, , = Sterna dougallii :- Loggerhead Shrike .Lanius ludovicianus .. * Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis . * Sperm Whale, Physeter catadon _ * . Sei Whale Balaenoptera borealis • * Indicates that the species is currently listed as "endangered" by the U.S.. Department of the Interior ** Indicates "that the species is currently listed as "threatened" by.the U.S. Department of'the Interior 0095N J. ENDANGERED (continued) * Blue Whale Balaenoptera musculus * Finback Whale Balaenoptera physalus * Humpback Whale Megaptera novaeanglias * Right Whale Balaena glacialis * Gray Wolf Canis lupus * Cougar Felis concolor II. THREATENED Lake Sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens Mooneye Hiodon tergisus Lake Chubsucker Erimyzon sucetta Mud Sunfish Acantharchus pomotis ' Longear Sunfish Lepomis megalotis Cricket Frog Acris crepitans Mud-Turtle Kinosternon subrubum ** Blanding's Turtle Emydodea blandinzi — Emydoidea ** Loggerhead Sea Turtle. Caretta caretta Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Timer Rattlesnake' Crotalus horridus Osprey Pandiori haliaetus Red—shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus Spruce Grouse Dendragapus canadensis Piping Plover Charadrius melodus Common Tern' Sterna hirundo : Eastern Woodrat Neotoma floridana * Indicates that the species is currently listed as "endangered" by the U.S. Department of the- Interior ** Indicates that the species is currently listed as "threatened" by the U.S. Department of the Interior . 0095N III. SPECIAL CONCERN "Silver Chub,Hybopsis storeriana Gravel Chub Hybopsis x-punctata -Blackchin Shiner Notropis, heierodon Black Redhouse Moxostema duquesnei . Longhead Darter . Percina macrocephala Southern -Leopard Frog' i Raria. sphenocephala , Hellbender.: ,. ,.. Cryptobranchus alleganiensis"- Jefferson Salamander Ambystoma jeffersonianum " Blue.-spotted:Salamander, : :. -..Ambystoma laterale. .• , ', Spotted Salamander .. Ambystoma muculatum ` Spotted Turtle C-lemmys. guttata -Wood Turtle Clemmys -insculpta Diamondback Terrapin' Malaclemys terrapin Worm Snake Carphophis amoenus, Eastern "Hognose: Snake' Heterodon platyrhinos . Common Loon Gavia immer Least Bittern Ixobrychus.-exilis Cooper's Hawk . :,. Accipiter .cooperii ; :. Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis . Upland Sandpiper _Bartramia.longicauda, Black Tern Chlidonias niger Common Barn=Owl: Tyto alba: Short -eared Owl . Asio flammasus - Common Nighthawk ' _ Chordaeiles minor Common Raven Corvus corax Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis ,Henslow's Sparrow Ammodramus benslowii Grasshopper Sparrow Arnmodramus savannarum Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus ' Small --:footed Bat Myoils leibii New England Cottontail'. Sylvilagus transitionalis ; Harbor Porpoise' Phocoena phocoena 0095N DEFINITIONS Endangered Species are any.species which meet one of the following criteria: (1) Any native species in imminent danger of extirpation or extinction in New York. (2) Any species- listed as endangered by the United States Department of the Interior, as enumerated in the Code of Federal Regulations. Threatened Species are'any species which meet one of the'following.criteria: (1) Any native species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future in New York. (2). Any species listed as threatened by the United- States . Department of the Interior, as enumerated in the Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17.11. Special Concern Species are 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. These species could become endangered or threatened in the future and should be more closely monitored. Unlike the first two categories, species of special concern receive no additional legal protection under Environmental Conservation Law Section 11-0535 (Endangered and Threatened Species). , This category is presented - primarily to, enhance public awareness of this group of species which bear additional attention. 0095N w ENDANGERED, THREATENED, AND SPECIAL CONCERN PLANT SPECIES OF NEW YORK STATE 0095N RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage Program Scientific Name Aconitum Noveboracense Adoxa Moschatellina Agalinis Acuta Agalinis Virgata Agastache Nepetoides Agrimonia Parviflora Agrimonia Rostellata Agrostis Mertensh Allium Cernuum Allium Schoenoprasum Amaranthus Pumilus Amelanchier X Nantucketensis Amerorchis Rotundofolia Amionthium Muscaetoxicum Anemone Multifida Apelctrum Lucida Aplectrum Hyemale Arabis Divaricarpa Arabis Missouriensis Arabis Shortii Arethusa Bulbosa Aristolochia Serpentaria Armoracia Aquatica Arnica Lanceolata Asclepias Purpurascens Asclepias Rubra Asclepias Variegata Asclepias Virdiflora Asimina Triloba Asplenium Bradleyi Asplenium Montanum 0095N State Legal Federal Common Name Status Status Northern Monk's Hood T LT Moschatel T Sandplain Gerardia E LE Pine—Barren Gerardia R Yellow Giant Hyssop Agrimony R Woodland Agrimony R Northern Bentgrass T Wild Onion R Wild Chives Seabeach Amaranth C2 Nantucket Juneberry E Round—Leaved Orchis V Fly—Poison Cut Leaf Anemone Angelica E Puttyroot V Purple Rock Cress R Green Rock Cress R -Toothed Rock Cress Swamp Pink R Virginia Snakeroot Lake Cress R Arnica E Purple Milkweed T Red Milkweed White Milkweed T Green Milkweed R Pawpaw R Bradley's Spleenwort V Moutain Spleenwort T 0095N RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage Program State Legal Federal Scientific Name Common Name Status, Status Asplenium Viride Green Spleenwort E Aster Borealis Rush Aster Aster Ciliolatus Aster Aster Concolor Silvery Aster E Aster Crenifolius Late Blue Aster Aster Firmus Cornel Leaved Aster Aster Nemoralis Bog Aster R Aster Ontarionis Ontario'Aster Aster Oolentangiensis Sky Blue Aster Aster Pilosus Var Pringlei Heath Aster Aster Radula Swamp Aster Aster Schreberi Large Leaf Aster Aster Solidagineus Flax Leaf Whitetop Aster Vimineus Small White Aster Astragalus Neglectus Cooper Milkvetch Baptisia lactea Prairie False Indigo Baptisia Tinctoria.Var Projecta Yellow Wild Indigo Berula Erecta Wild Parsnip Betula Glandulosa Tundra.Dwarf Birch E Betula Minor Dwarf White Birch E. Betula Pumila Swamp Birch R Bidens Bidentoides Estuary Beggar -Ticks T Bidens Hyperborea . Estuary Beggar -Ticks T Bidens Laevis Smooth Bur -Marigold R Blephilia Ciliata Downy Wood -Mint T Botrychium Lunaria Moonwort E Botrychium Minganense Mingan Moonwort E Botrychium Rugulosum Rugulose Grape Fern E Bouteloua Curtipendula Side -Oats Grama E 0095N RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage' Program State Legal Federal Scientific Name Common Name Status. Status . Buchnera Americana - Blue—Heart's Cacalia Suaveolens Sweet—Scented Indian Plantain R Calamagrostis Lacustris Pond Reedgrass Calamagrostis Pickeringii Pickering's Reedgrass R Calamagrostis Porteri SSP Wood Reedgrass E Perplexa Calamagrostis Porteri SSP Porter's Reedgrass R Porteri Calamagrostis Stricta SSP Northern Reedgrass E . . Stricta Calamagrostis Stricta var Northern Reedgrass Inexpansa Calamintha Arkansana Calamint Callitriche Anceps Artic Water- Starwort . Callitriche Hermaphroditica • Autumnal Water Starwort Callitriche Terrestris Starwort- Calypso Bulbosa Calypso V Cardarimine Longii - Long's Bittercress C2 Cardamine Rotundifolia Mountain Watercress T Carex Abscondita Thicket Sedge Carex Aenea Bronze. -Sedge Carex Aggregata Glomerate Sedge Carex Amphibola Var Amphibola Narrow Leaved Sedge Carex Amphibola Var Rigida: Sedge, Carex ArctaNorthern Clustered Sedge Carex Argyrantha Hay Sedge, Carex Atherodes Awned Sedge Carex Atratiformis Black Sedge E Carex Backii Rocky Mountain Sedge T Carex Barrattii Barratt's Sedge E . C2 Carex Bicknellii Bicknell Sedge R 0095N Scientific Name Carex Bigelowii Carex Bullata Carex Bushii Carex Buxbaumii Carex Capillaris Carex Caroliniana Carex Chordorrhiza Carex Collinsii Carex Complanata Carex Conjuncta Carex Crawei Carex Cryptolepis Carex Cumulata Carex Davisii Carex Decomposita Carex Emmonsii Carex Emoryi Carex Flaccosperma Var Glaucodea Carex Formosa Carex Frankii Carex Garberi Carex Gravida Carex Gynocrates Carex Hayendii Carex Hitchcockiana Carex Hormathodes Carex Houghtoniana Carex Hyalinlepis Carex Jamesii. 0095N RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage Program State Legal - Federal Common Name Status Status Bigelow Sedge R Button Sedge T Sedge R Brown Bog Sedge R Hair Like Sedge Hirsute Sedge Creeping Sedge R Collins Sedge R Hirsute Sedge R Soft Fox Sedge Crawe Sedge T Northeastern Sedge Clustered Sedge R .Davis Sedge R Cypress -Knee Sedge C2 Emmons Sedge R Emory Sedge Sedge R Handsome Sedge R Frank Sedge Elk Sedge R Heavy Sedge R Northern Bog Sedge R Cloud Sedge Hitchcock Sedge .Sedge R Sedge R. Shore Line Sedge E Nebraska Sedge • .RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage Program . State Legal Federal Scientific Name Common-Name Status Status Carex Laxiflora Var Serrulata- Loose Flowered Sedge Carex Livida Var Radicaulis Livid Sedge Carex'Lupuliformis False Hop Sedge R Carex Meadii Mead Sedge Carex Merritt Fernaldii : A Sedge R -Carex Mesochorea Midland ,Sedge Carex Mitchelliana Mitchell Sedge E ; Carex Molesta' Troublesome Sedge R Carex Nigra Black Sedge . Carex Nigromarginata Black Edge Sedge R . Carex "Polymorpha Variable, Sedge C2- Carex Retroflexa Reflexed Sedge Carex Richardsonit Richardson Sedge Carex Sartwellii Sartwell Sedge T Carex Schweihitzii - Schweinitz Sedge R Carex Scirpoidea Canadian Single Spike Sedge .., T Carex Seorsa; Weak Stellate Sedge". R Carex Straminea Straw Sedge R Carex Striatula ` , Lined Sedge Carex Styloflexa -Bent Sedge. Carex Sychnocephala - Many—Head Sedge Carex Tenuiflora Sparse .Flowered Sedge Carex Tincta Tinged Sedge Carex Typhina Cat Tail Sedge R Carex Vaginata Sheathed Sedge" " R ". Carex Venusta Var Minor . .fi. , t ; A Sedge . '" R Carex Wiegandii° Weigand Sedge E.. Carex" Wilidenowii, Willdenow Sedge R. Carya Laciniosa Big Shellbark Hickory Cassiope Hypnoides Moss Heather 0095N RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage Program Scientific Name Common Name Castilleja Coccinea Scarlet Indian Paintbrush Ceanothus Herbaceus Prairie Redroot Chaerophyllum Procumbrens Spreading Chervil . Chamaecyparis Thyoides Atlantic White Cedar Chamaelirium Luteum Blazing Star Chasmanthium Laxum Splender Spikegrass Cheilanthes Lanosa Wooly Lip Fern Chelone Glabra Var Dilatata - Turtle Heads Chelone Glabra Var Elatior Turtle Heads Chenopodium Rubrum Red Pigweed Chenopodium Standleyanum Goosefoot Cirsium Altissimum Tall Thistle Clematis Ochroleuca Curly Heads Clitoria Mariana "Butterfly Pea Collinsia Verna Blue Eyed Mary Commelina Erecta Slender Dayflower Corallorhiza Striata Striped Coralroot Corema Conradii Broom Crowberry Coreopsis Rosea Rose Coreopsis Cornus Drummondii Rough Leaf Dogwood Corydalis Aurea . Golden Corydalis Corydalis Flavula Yellow Harlequin Crotalaria Sagittalis Rattlebox Cunila Origanoides Dittany Cuscuta Campestris, Field Dodder Cuscuta Cephalanthii Button Bush Dodder Cuscuta Pentagona Field Dodder Cuscuta'Polygonorum Smartweed Dodder Cynoglossum Virginianum Var Northern Wild Comfrey Boreale 0095N State Legal Status T T Federal Status E E R T T R R 0 R R T. RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage Program, Scientific Name Cynoglossum Virgihianum Var Virginianum Cyperus Engelmanii Cyperus Erythrornizos Cyperus Flavescens Var Poaeformis Cyperus Houghtonii Cyperus Odoratus Cyperus Ovularis Cyperus Plukenetii Cyperus Polystachyos Var . Macrostachyus Cyperus Polystachyos Var Texensis Cyperus Retrorsus Cyperus Schweinitzii Cypripedium Arietinum Cypripedium Candidum Cystoperis Protusa Deschampsia- Atropurpurea Descurainia Pinnata SSP Brachycarpa Desmodium Ciliare Desmodium Glabellum Desmodium Humifusum Desmodium Laevigatum Desmodium Nuttallii Desmodium Obtusum Desmodium Pauciflorum Diapensia Lapponica Dicentra Eximina 0095N Common Name Wild Compfrey State Legal Status Engelmann Umbrella Sedge Red Rooted Flat Sedge. R Cyperus Houghton Umbrella Sedge Rusty Flatsedge Globose Flatsedge Galingale Many Spike Flatsedge Cyperus Retrorse.'Flatsedge Schweinitz Flatsedge Ram's Head Ladyslipper Small White -Ladyslipper Lowland Fragile Fern Mountain Hairgrass Northern ' Tansey. Mustard Tick Treefoil Tall Tick Clover Spreading, Tick. Clover Smooth Tick Clover Nuttall's Tick Clover Beggar Lice Small Flowered Tick Clover Diapensia Bleeding Heart Federal Status R T E 3C E T T T E RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage Program 0095N Federal Status State Legal Scientific Name Common Name Status Digitaria Filiformis Slender Crabgrass R Diospyros Virginiana Persimmon R Dodecatheon Meadia Shooting Star Draba Arabisans Rock Cress R Draba Glabella Rock Cress E Draba Reptans Carolina Whitlow Grass R Draccocephalum Parviflorum American Dragonhead R Dryopteris Celsa Log Fern V Dryopteris Fragrans Fragrant Cliff Fern T Echinodorus Tenellus Var Burhead Parvulus Eleocharis Elliptica Var Slender Spikerush Pseudoptera Eleocharis Engelmannii Englemann Spikerush E Eleocharis Equisetoides Knotted Spikerush T Eleocharis Fallax Creeping Spikerush R Eleocharis Halophila Salt Marsh Spikerush R . Eleocharis Obtusa Var Ovata Blunt Spikerush R Eleocharis Quadrangulata Angled Spikerush T Eleocharis Tortilis Twisted Spikerush Eleocharis Tricostata Three Ribbed Spikerush T Eleocharis Tuberculosa Long Tubercled Spikerush T Eleocharis Wolfii Wolf Spikerush Ellisia Nyctelea Ellisia Empetrum Nigrum SSP Black Crowberry . R Hermaphroditum Epilobium Ciliatum SSP Willow Herb. Glandulosum Epilobium Hornemannii Alpine Willow Herb E Equisetum Palustre Marsh Horsetail R 0095N Federal Status -RARE PLANT STATUS LIST` New York Natural Heritage Program State Legal Federal' Scientific Name Common Name Status Status Equisetum Pratense Meadow Horsetail R Erechtites Hieraclifolia Var Fireweed Megalocarpa Erianthus Giganteus Giant Beardgrass Erigenia Bulbosa Harbinger of Spring Erigeron Hyssopifolius Daisy Fleabane Eriocaulon'Parkeri' Estuary Hatpins C2, " Eriophorum Angustifolium SSP Cottongrass . Scabriusculum Eryngium Aquaticum Marsh Eryngo . Euonymus-- Americanus -,American Strawberry Bush - T , Eupatorium Leucolepis White Boneset 'E Eupatorium kesinosum Pine Barrens. Boneset . C2 Eupatorium Rotundifolium Var . Round Leaf Boneset Ovatum Eupatorium Rotundifolium Var " Round Leaf'Boneset Rotundifolium Euthamia Gymnosphermoides Flat_,Top Goldenrod ., Festuca Brachyphylla Alpine Fescue Festuca Saximontana Sheep Fescue Fimbristylis Caroliniana " Carolina Fimbry. Fimbristylis' Castanea . -'Marsh Fimbry Fimbristylis Puberula Vahl Hairy Fimbry Frasera Caroliniensis Green.Gentian Galactia Regularis Eastern Milk Pea Galatica Volubilis. : Downy Milk Pea Galium Brevipes . Matted .Bedstraw Galium Concinnum 'Shining:Bedstraw Galium Kam'tschaticum Northern Wild Licorice`; Gentiana Puberulenta -.Prairie Gentian V :0095N . RARE PLANT STATUS LIST .. New York Natural Heritage Program Scientific Name ICommon Name Gentiana Saponaria Soapwort Gentian Gentianopsis Procera Fringed Gentian Geocaulon Lividum Purple Comandra Geranium Carolinianum Var Carolina Cranebill Sphaerosperum Geum Triflorum Prarie Smoke Geum Vernum Spring Avens Geum Virginianum Rough Avens Glaux Maritima SSP Obtusifolia Sea Milkwort Glyceria Canadensis Var Laxa Rattlesnake Grass Glycyrrhiza Lepidota Wild Licorice Chaphalium Helleri Var Catfoot Micradenium Gymnoclados Purpurenum ;Purple Everlasting Gymnocladus .Dioicus Kentucky Coffee Tree Hackelia Deflexa Var Americana Northern Stickseed Halenia Defleka Spurred Gentian Hedeoma Hispidum Mock Pennyroyal Hedyotis Purpurea Var Colycusa Purple Bluets Hedyotis Purpurea Var Purpurea Purple ,Bluets Hedyotis Uniflora Clustered Bluets Helianthemum Dumosum Bushy Rockrose Helianthus Angustifolius Swamp Sunflower Helonias Bullata Swamp Pink Hemicarpha Micrantha Dwarf Bullrush Heteranthera Reniformis Kidneyleaf Mud Plaintain Hierochloe Alpina :Alpine Sweetgrass Hippuris Vulgaris Mare's, Tail Hottonia Inflata Featherfoil Hydrangea Arborescens Wild Hydrangea 0095N State Legal Status R E T R E-. R R T R Federal Status T T 3C LT R. R T T R RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage Program Scientific Name Hydrastis Canadensis Hydrocotyle Verticillata Hypericum Adpressum Hypericum Densiflorum Hypericum Denticulatum Hypericum Dissimulatum Hypericum Gymnanthum Hypericum Hypericoides SSP Multicaule Hypericum Kalmianum Hypericum Prolificum Ipomeoa Pandurata Iris Prismatica Iris Virginica Var Shrevei Isoetes Macrospora Isopyrum Biternatum Isotria Medeoloides Jeffersonia Diphylla Juncus Brachycarpus Juncus Debilis Juncus Platyphyllus Juncus Stygius SSP Americanus Juncus Subcaudatus Juncus Trifidus Juniperus Horizontalis Kosteletzyka Virginica Var Aquilonia Kyllingia Pumila Lachnanthes Caroliana Lactuca Floridana 0095N Common Name Golden Seal Water Pennywort Creeping St. John's Wort Bushy St. John's Wort Coppery St. John's Wort St. John's Wort St. John's Wort St. Andrew's Cross Kalm's St. John's Wort Shrubby St. John's Wort Wild Potato Vine Slender Blue Flag Southern Blueflag Large Spored Quillwort False Rue Anemone Small Whorled Pogonia Twin Leaf Short Fruit Rush -Weak Rush Flatleaf Rush Moor Rush Woods Rush Arctic Rush Prostrate Juniper Seaside Mallow Twinleaf Flatsedge Carolina Redroot False Lettuce State Legal Status T E E E E E T Federal Status 3C R V LE R. T R T E T RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage Program Scientific Name Lactuca Hirsuta Lathyrus .0chroleucus Lechea Pulchella Var Moniliformis Lechea Racemulosa Lechea Tenuifolia Lemna Perpusilla Lemna Valdiviana :Lespedeza Stuevei Lespedeza Violacea Leucophysalis Grandiflora Leucospora Multifida Liatris Cylindrecea Liatris Scariosa Var Novae Angliae Ligusticum Scoticum Lilium Michiganense r Limnobium Spongia Lindernia Dubia Var Inundata Linum Intercursum. Linum Medium Var Texanum Linum Sulcatum Liparis Liliifolia Listeria Auriculata Listera Convallarioides Lithospermum Canescens Lithospermum C'aroliniense SSP Croceum Littorella Americana 0095N Common Name Downy Lettuce Wild Pea Pinweed Pinweed Slender Pinweed Minute Duckweed Pale Duckweed Lespedeza Lespedeza Large 'White Flowered Ground Cherry Leucospora Slender Blazing Star New England Blazing Star Scotch Lovage Michigan Lily American Frog's Bit False -;-Pimpernel Sandplain Wild Flax Southern Yellow Flax Yellow Wild Fax Large Twayblade Aoricled Twayblade Broad—Lipped Twayblade Hoary Puccoon Golden Puccoon American Shore Grass State Legal Federal Status Status R T R R R R� E E T T R R E V C2 RARE PLANT STATUS LIST -New ,York- Natural Heritage Program State Legal Federal " Scientific Name Common Name `Status Status Lobelia Nuttalli Nuttall's Lobelia R• Loiseleuria Procumbens Alpine Azalea E . Ludwigia Sphaerocarpa Ludwigia R, Luzula Campestris Var Bulbosa Hairy Woodrush Luzula Spicata" -Spiked Woodrush Lycopodium Carolinianum Carolina Clubmoss E Lycopodium Complanatum Northern Running Pine V .. Lycopodium Sabinifolium Cypress Clubmoss T " Lycopodium Sitchense -Sitka Clubmoss E` Lycopus Rubellus Gypsy Worn Lygoaium Palmatum Climbing Fern E Lysimachia Hybrida Lance Leaved Loosestrife .3C Lysimachia Quadriflora Four Flowered Looses,trife Lythrum Hyssopifolia Looserife R Lythrum Lineare Saltmarsh. Loosestrife E Magnolia Virginiana :Sweet Bay Malus, Glaucescens American Crab : R , Melanthium Hybridum" Slender Bunchflower Melanthium Virginicum Virginia Bunchflowef Micranthemum Micranthemoides Micranthemum Cl* Mimulus Alatus .. Winged-Monkeyflower R- Minuartia Caroliniana Pine Barren Sandwort R ' Minuartia Glabra 'Appalachian Sandwort J Monarda Fistulosa. Var Basil Balm R Clinopodia Muhlenbergia "Capillaris Long -Awn Hairgrass Muhlenbergia Torreyana Torrey's Muhly- C1 Myriophyllum Alterniflorum -.-Water Milfoil R Myriophyllum Farewelii Farwell's Water Milfoil Myriophyllum Pinnatum -Green Parrot's Feather 0095N RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage Program Scientific Name Common Name Najas Guadalupensis Var Naiad Olivacea Panic Grass Najas Marina Holly Leaved Naiad Nelumbo Lutea Yellow Lotus Oenothera Laciniata Cut Leaved Evening Primrose Oenothera Oakesiana Evening Primrose Onosmodium Virginianum Virginia False Cromwell Oryzopsis Canadensis Canada Ricegrass Oxypolis Rigidor Stiff Cowbane Panicum Acuminatum Var Panic Grass Wrightianum Panicum Anceps Panic Grass Panicum Flexible Panic Grass Panicum Leibergii Panic Grass Panicum Oligosanthes Var Panic Grass- Oligosanthes Panicum Scabriusculum Panic Grass Panicum Scoparium Velvet Panic Grass Panicum Stipitatum Tall Flat Panic Grass Paspalum Laeve Var Circulare Field Beadgrass Paspalum Setaceum Var Setaceum Slender Beadgrass Pedicularis Lanceolata Swamp Lousewort Pellaea Glabella - Smooth Cliff Brake Phacelia Dubia Scorpion Weed Phlox Maculata Wild Sweet William Phlox Pilosa Downy Phlox Phyllitis Scolopendrium Hart's .Tongue Fern Physalis Pubescens. Var . Ground Cherry Integrifolia Physalis Virginiana Virginia Ground Cherry 0095N State Legal Federal Status Status R R R R E RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage Program State Legal Federal . . Scientific Name ;Common Name Status.`.. ', Status . Physocarpus Op'ulifolius Var Niriebark R Intermedius Pilea Fontana Clearweed Pinguicula Vulgaris Butterwort . R Pinus Banksiana Jack Pine R . Pinus Echinata , . Shortlead Pine Pinus Virginiana Virginia Pine E Plantago Cordata Heart Leaf Plantain T C2 Plantago Pusilla Dwarf Plantain Platanthera Ciliaris Orange Fringed Orchis 'T Platanthera Cristata ; `Crested Fringed. Orchis T Platanthera Leucophaea Prarie Fringed Orchid V C2 Poa Cuspidata Bluegrass.,. Poa Fernaldiana Fernald's Bluegrass Poa Glauca - White Bluegrass Poa Interior. Inland Bluegrass Poa Paludigena Slender--Marsh Bluegrass E C2 Poa Sylvestris Woodland Bluegrass Podostemum'Ceratophyllum-' Riverweed R. Polemonium Vanbruntiae Jacob's Ladder. T C2 Polygaa Incarnata Pink Milkwort, Polygaa Lutea Yellow Milkwort E Polygaa Mariana Pink Milkwort Polygonum- Buxiforme Knotw.eed. R. Polygonum Careyi ' _ Smartweed. Polygonum Douglasii - Knotweek' ., R . Y Polygonum Glaucum Seabeach Knotweed Polygonum Opelousanum Opelousa Smartweed Polygonum Setaceum Var Swamp: smartweed Interjectum 0095N RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage- Program Scientific Name Polygonum Tenue Polymnia Uvedalia Polystichum Lonchitis Populus Heterophylla Porteranthus Stipulatus Potamogeton Alpinus Potamogeton Confervoided Potamogeiton Filiformis Var Alpinus Potamogeitbn Filiformis Var Occidentalis Potamogeton Hillii Potamogeton Ogednii Potamogeton Pulcher Potamogeton Strictifolius Potentilla Anserina SSP Pacifica Potentilla Paradoxa Prenanthes Bootii Prenanthes Crepipinea Prenanthes Nana Prenanthes Racemosa Primula Mistassinica Proserpinaca Pectinata Prunus Pumila Var Depressa Prunus Pumila Var Pumila Psilcarya Nitens Psilocarya Scirpoides Ptelea Trifoliata Pterospora Andromedea 0095N Common Name Slender Knotweed Bear's Foot Northern Holly Fern Swamp Cottomwood American Ipecac Northern Pondweed Pondweed Slender Pondweed Sheathed Pondweed Hill's Pondweed Ogden's Pondweed Spotted Pondweed Straight -Leaf Pondweed Silverweed ,Bushy. Cinquefoil Boott's Rattlesnake -Root Nodding Rattlesnake -Root Dwarf Rattlesnake -Root Glaucous Rattlesnake -Root Bird's Eye Primrose Comb Leaved Mermaid Weed Sand Cherry Sand Cherry Short -Beaked. Bald -Rush Long -Beaked Bald -Rush Wafer -Ash Giant Pine Drops State Legal Federal Status Status R T V T R R .R T 3C E R E E 3C T. T. 3C R -R R R R' . R E t RARE, PLANT STATUS LISTf ' New :York Natural ,Heritage'Program State . Legal Federal Scientific Name Common Name, Status .', -Status Pycnanthemum Clinopodioides Basil Mountain Mint ; Pycnanthemum- Torrie Torry's Mountain Mint E Pycnanthemum- Verticillatum - WhorledMountain Mint 'T' Var. Verticillatum. Pyrola AsarifoliaVar. Pink.Wintergreen. z Asarifolia Pyrola Minora .' Mountin Pyrola. Pyxidanthera Barbulata . Pixies .:. - E , Quercus Marilandica Blackjack .Oak •R` Quercus Phellos' Willow Oak E Ranunculus Cymbalaria Seaside Crowfoot E Ranunculus Hispidus Var Swamp Buttercup Nitidus ` Ranunculus Micranthus ..Small Flowered Crowfoot Ranunculus'Pusillus Spearwort Rhexia Mariana Meadow Beauty 'Rhododendron Atborescens Smooth Azalea v-. Rhododendron Calendulaceum Flame Azalea V .Rhododendron Canadense Rhodora R Rhododendron Lapponicum. Lapland Rosebay. T Rhynchospora Cephalantha. Capitate Beakrush "Rhynchospora Chalarocephala Loose. Headed Beakrush Rhynchospora Globularis Globe. Beakrush Rhynchospora Gracilenta Slender Beakrush Rhynchospora Inundata Drowned Horned Rush E. -. Rhynchospora Pallida ;Pale: Beakrush Rhynchospora Torreyana Torrey's Beakrush Ribes Hirtellum Var Saxosum Northern' Gooseberry Rosa Acicularis SSP Sayi. Prickly Rose R Rotala Ramosior Tooth Cup R .0095N RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage Program Scientific Name Rubus Chamemorus Rudbeckia Hirta Var Hirta Rumex Hastatulus Rumex Maritimus Var Fueginus Rumex Maritimus Var Persicariodes Sabatia Angularis Sabatia Campanulata Sabatia Dodecandra Sagina Decumbens Sagittaria Calycina Var Spongiosa Sagittaria Teres Salix Cordata Salix Herbacea Salix Pellita Salix Pyrifolia Salix Uva—Ursi Salvia Lyrata Saxifraga Aizoides Saxifraga Paniculata Schizaea Pusilla Schwalbea Americana Scirpus Ancistrochaetus Scirpus Cespitosus Scirpus Clintonii Scirpus Cylindricus Scirpus Georgianus Scirpus Heterochaetus Scirpus Longii 0095N Common Name Cloudberry Black—Eyed Susan Heart Sorrel Golden Dock Golden Dock Rose Pink Slender Marsh Pink Sea Pink Pearlwort Spongy Arrowhead Quill Leaf Arrowhead Sand Dune Willow Dwarf Willow Satiny Willow Balsam Willow Bearberry Willow Cancer Weed Yellow Mountain Saxifrage Saxifrage Curlygrass Chaffseed Northeastern Bulrush Tufted Bulrush Clinton's Clubrush Saltmarsh Bulrush Georgia Bulrush Slender Bulrush Long's Bulrush State Legal Status E E V 0 E T E Federal Status T T E C2 C2 C2 T E E R C2 RAREPLANT STATUS LIST . New York, Natural Heritage Program State Legal Federal.. Scientific Name'. Common Name Status : _ . Status Scirpus Maritimus Seaside Bulrush Scleria Minor Slender Nutrush , E Scleria Pauciflora Var FewflowerNutrush T, Carolinana Scleria 'Reticularis.Var' Reticulated Nutrush .R Pubescens Scleria Triglomerata Whip Nutrush R Scleria Verticillata - Low Nutrush E Scutellaria Elliptica ; , Hairy Skullcap Scutellaria Incana Hoary :Skullcap Scutellaria Integrifolia Hyssop Skullcap Scutellaria Nervosa .Veined, Skullcap Scutellaria Parvula Var Small Skullcap. R' Leonardii Scutellaria Parvula Var Small 'Skullcap ' " Parvula Scutellaria Serrata Showy Skullcap Sedum Integrifolium SSP-_ Rose Sedum E Leedyi Sedum Rosea -R6s6root . "E Sedum Telephioides' `Live Forever Sesuvium Maritimum F Sea Purslane E Sisyrinchium Mucrontum Michaux Blue Eyed Grass Smilax Pseudochina .' False China Root E:, . Simlax Pulverulenta Jacob's Ladder E Solidago Cutleri Alpine Goldenrod Solidago Elliottii- :. Coastal Goldenrod Solidago Erecta - Slender Goldenrod Solidago Houghtonii -,Houghton's Goldenrod ; . E PT Solidago Ohioerisis Ohio Goldenrod, -,R 0095N . 0095N Federal. Status RARE 'PLANT STATUS LIST New York Natural Heritage Program State Legal Scientific Name Common Name 'Status Solidago Rigida Stiff Leaf Goldenrod T Solidago Rugosa SSP Aspera Rough_ Goldenrod Solidago Rugosa Var Tall Hairy Goldenrod, Sphagnophila Solidago Spathulata Var Mountain Goldenrod Raceomsa Solidago- Spathulata Var Mountain Goldenrod Randii ` . Sparganium Minimum Small Bur Reed Spergularia Canadensis Northern Sand Spurry Sphenopholis Obtusata Var Prairie Wedgegrass Obtusata Sphenopholis Pensylvanica Swamp Oats' Spiranthes Vernalis Grassleaf Ladies' Tresses R Sporobolus Clandestinus . Rough Rush Grass Sporobolus Heterolepis Northern Dropseed T Stellaria Longipes Var Starwort R Longipes" Strophostyles Umbellata Pink Wild Bean Stylosanthes Biflora Pencil Flower Subularia Aquatica SSP Water Awlwort R Americana". 4 Thalictrum Venulosum Veiny Meadow Rue E Thaspium Trifoliatum Var Purple Meadow Parsnip Flavum Tillaea Aquatica Pigmyweed, E Tipularia Discolor Cranefly, Orchid - T Tofieldia Glutinosa Sticky Flase Asphodes E-. Tradescantia Ohiensis Ohio Spiderwort R Trichostema .Setaceum Tiny Blue Curls 0095N Federal. Status RARE PLANT STATUS LIST, NewYork. Natural" Heritage Program State Legal Federal Scientific Name Common Name Status,, , Status' Triglochin Palustre , . Marsh Arrow. Grass R . Trillium Flexipes :. Nodding Trillium , ' V . Trillium Sessile Toad Shade : E , Triosteum Angustifolium Feverwort Triphora Trianthphora Nodding Pogonia V Trisetum Melicoides. Melic Oats : E Trollius Laxus SSP Laxus . Spreading. Globeflower, T 3C Utricularia Biflora Two Flowered Bladderwort , . R. Utricularia Fibrosa Fibrous',Bladderwort. R - Utricularia Geminiscapa Hiddenfruit Bladderwort R Utricularia Juncea Rush Bladderwort - R Utricularia Radiata Small Floating Bladderwort R Uvularia .Puberula ° ;Mouritain Bell wort. , E. • . ; Vaccinum Boreale High Mountain Blueberry, R Vaccinum Cespitosum Dwarf. Blueberry E. - Vaccinum Uliginosum SSP Bog Bilberry R : Pubescens ' Valerina Sitchensis SSP Marsh Valerian T Uliginosa . - Valerianella Chenopodiifolia - Goosefobt Corn Salad Valerianella Radiata Beaked Corn Salad Valerianella Umbilicata Corn Salad Verbesina Alternifolia - Wingstem . Vernonia Gigantea Tall Ironweed Veronica Peregrina SSP Neckweed Xalapensis . Viburnum Dentatum Var Venosum Southern- Arrowwood Viburnum Edule Squashberry R Viburnum Nudum Possum Haw T 0095N RARE PLANT STATUS LIST New. York Natural Heritage Program Scientific. Name Common Name Viola Brittoniana Var Coastal Violet Brittoniana Viola Brittoniana Var Coastal Violet Pectinata Viola Hirsutula' Southern Wood Violet Viola Labradorica Labrador Violet Viola Nephrophylla Northern Bog Violet Viola Novae—Angliea New England Violet . Viola Primulifolia Var Acuta Primrose Violet Viola Stoneanna Stone's Violet Vittana SP 1 Appalachian Vittaria Wolffia 'Braziliensis Watermeal Woodsia Alpina Apline Woodsia Woodsia �Cathcartiana Oregon Woodsia Woodsia Glabella Smooth Woodsia Zigadenus Elegans SSP Glaucus . Shite Camas Zigadenus Leimanthoides False Camus Zigadenus Leimanthoides False Camus 0095N State Legal Federal Status Status E R E C2 E E E. _ E E. E T Appendix H TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX H LIST OF INTERESTED AGENCIES AND PARTIES LIST OF INVOLVED AGENCIES 2740M TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN INTERESTED AGENCIES AND PARTIES Suffolk County Executive Town of Brookhaven, Supervisor Town of Smithtown, Supervisor Town of Islip, Supervisor Town'of Southampton, Supervisor Town of East Hampton, Supervisor Town of Shelter Island, Supervisor Town of Riverhead, Supervisor Suffolk County Legislator Caracciol'o Suffolk County Legislature, Presiding Officer U.S. Senator D'Amato . U.S. Senator Moynihan U.S. Congressman Hochbrueckner State Senator LaValle' State Assemblyman Sawicki Greenport -Southold Chamber of Commerce . Cutchogue Chamber of Commerce. Mattituck Chamber of Commerce - Interstate Sanitation Commission Long Island Regional Planning Board New York State Legislative Commission on Water Resource Needs.of Long.Island East End Regional Recycling Association Long Island Rail Road Southold Town Solid Waste Management Task Force Riverhead=Southold League of Women Voters Long Island Lighting Company New York Telephone Company Long Island Association of Commerce and Industry Long Island Builders Institute Nature Conservancy - Long Island Chapter 2740M —1— INTERESTED AGENCIES AND PARTIES (continued) Sierra Club — Atlantic Chapter `' Action for the Conservation & Preservation of the North Shore of Long Island Conservationists United for Long Island New York Public Interest Research Group Environmental Defense Fund S.U.N.Y. at Stony Brook Suffolk County Cooperative Extension Long Island Association Association For A Better Long Island National Audubon Society Suffolk County Water Authority Long Island Farm Bureau North Fork Environmental Council Orient Association State Assemblyman Behan Suffolk League of Women Voters Department of Army, Corps of Engineers Southold Town Board Southold Town Superintendent of Public Works Southold Town Board of Appeals Southold Town Building Department Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Trustees 2740M -2- TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN - INVOLVED AGENCIES 1. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation 50 Wolf Road - Albany, NY 12233 Attention: Thomas C. Jorling, Commissioner Norman Nosenchuck, P.E., Division of Solid Waste Louis M. Concra, Division of Regulatory Affairs 2. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Region I; Building 40, SUNY Campus Stony Brook, NY 11794 0 Attention: Harold D. Berger, Regional Director David DeRidder, Regulatory Affairs Gerald Brezner, Solid Waste United States Environmental Protection Agency Region II - 26 Federal Plaza New York, NY 10278 Constantine Sidamon-Eristoff, Regional Administrator Attention: 4. New York State Department of Transportation State Campus Building 5 1220 Washington Avenue Albany, NY 12232 ' Attention: Franklin E. -White, Commissioner . 5. New York State Department of Transportation Region 10 New York State Office Building Veterans' Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Attention: Michael Cuddy, Regional Manager 6. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority Two Rockefeller Plaza Albany, NY 12223 . Attention: William D. Cotter, Chairman 7. U.S. Department of Transportation - Federal Aviation Administration Eastern Regional Office Air Traffic Division AEA -530 JFK International Airport, Federal Bldg. Jamaica, NY 11430 ' 2740M Attention: Daniel J.Peterson3 Regional Director 8. New York State Department of Health Nelson Rockefeller Plaza Tower Building Room 1408 Albany, NY 12237 Attention: David Axelrod, M.D., Commissioner. 9. Suffolk County Department of Health Services 225 Rabro Drive East Hauppauge, NY 11788 Attention: Dr. David Harris, Commissioner Dr. Aldo Andreoli, P.E., Director of Environmental Quality , 10. New York State Environmental Facilities Corp. 50 Wolf Road Albany, NY 12205 Attention: Diana M. Hinchcliff, Acting Executive Director 11. New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Agency Building No. 1 Empire State Plaza Albany, NY .12238 Attention: Orin Lehman, Commissioner 12. New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets Capitol Plaza 1 Winner Circle Albany, NY 12235 Attention: Richard T. McGuire, Commissioner . 13. Suffolk County Department of Public Works Yaphank Avenue Yaphank, NY 11980 Attention: Joseph Hurley, P.E., Commissioner 14. Office of the Suffolk County Executive H. Lee Dennison Building - 9th Floor Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 117881 Attention: Mr. Patrick Halpin, County Executive 2740M -4- 15. Suffolk County Planning Commission H. Lee Dennison Building — 12 Floor Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11788 Attention: Arthur Kunz, Executive Director 16. Long Island State Parks and Recreation Belmont Lake State Park P.O. Box 247 Babylon, NY 11701 Attention: John Sheridan, Regional Director 2740M -5- Appendix TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX I ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS July, 1990 Prepared by: Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers Syosset, NY PREFACE As part of the evaluation of alternatives required by the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the following cost analysis was performed for the various long-term processing and dispogal options available to the Town of Southold. The alternative scenarios evaluated in this analysis present processing and disposal costs for the portion of the waste stream remaining after the- implementation of an aggressive Base Plan. that includes elements of waste'reduction, recycling, reuse, and yard waste composting. Section 4 -of the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement and Solid Waste Management Plan, contains basic criteria .used to establish the suitability of each option for inclusion in the Solid Waste .Management Plan.' Available capacity, accessibility of the facility to the Town, contractual requirements, time required for implementation, and total cost over the life of the Plan were considered in determining the positive and negative features of each alternative: Certain. alternatives, however, were not -viable or appeared unsuitable for the management'of the Town's solid waste and were not further evaluated. Asa result, the cost analysis was performed only for, those alternatives that warranted . full consideration and evaluation. All ranges of cost estimates are preliminary for the purposes 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 generic plan, while final costs will be determined, as a result of detailed.engineering design, supplemental EIS analyses, responses to formal procurement procedures, and contract/intermunicipal agreement negotiations.' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION CONTENTS SUMMARY Summary Cost Tables ASSUMPTIONS Assumptions and Background Information .BASE SCENARIO Plan Components in Base Scenario SCENARIO I Existing Landfill Arrangements SCENARIO II New, Lined 15 Acre Landfill SCENARIO III Brookhaven CERF SCENARIO IV Huntington/Smithtown 4th Unit Utilization SCENARIO V Babylon ERF SCENARIO VI Town Sponsored MSW Composting Facility SCENARIO VII Town Sponsored Yard Waste Composting Facility SCENARIO VIII Total Private Sector Sponsored Processing/Disposal SCENARIO IX Off Island Long Haul Summary TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SUMMARY LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS Summary of Proposed Plan Elements 2 Long Term Options for Processing/Disposal of 25% to 30% of Mixed Solid Waste TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DRAFT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN (1990 thru 2015) r'"'` /%/5;;%%!%/,'i//.Y„ %%//i %i'.:%%i!//,////////,. ;%/,%/i//i/.i//,/ii!%!is-: ;: //, ii/,; :':%%//,:%%////!:;/: ;z:;;:;:•;'i: ;% :. ; . ; .:," I I ! 1: Will BASE PLAN: RESOURCE RECOVERY SYSTEM FOR 70% TO 75% OF THE WASTE ';, STREAM - j , i; j; '•/'////;;;rig/,tea 25% TO 30% RESIDUAL WASTE r.:/:;i./r.••,//i,:/��= iii.-:; r•%i'!'r /� / y i�/r„/ r -.U,/. /////.//, //,,. //„ � ��. I I I I III it WASTE REDUCTIONI REUSE/RECYCLING/COMPOSTING PROGRAM I PROCESSING/DISPOSAL OPTIONS” 10% 60% to 65% 25% to 30% ENCOURAGE EFFORTS TO: • REDUCE PACKAGING MATERIALS • EXPAND THE CURRENT BEVERAGE CONTAINER DEPOSIT LAW • INCREASE USE OF RECYCLED MATERIALS • INCREASE USE OF REUSABLE PRODUCTS & PACKAGING 0.e, RECHARGEABLE BATTERIES) • EITAND 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 oa 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 110%) 14 tpd in 1995 to 19 rpd in 2015 Townwide Leaf Composting Facility Option for Expansion to Accommodate Out -of -Town Yard Wastes Pilot Program for Co composting of Sludge and Low Grade Paper With Yard Waste Homeowner/Landscaper 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%) 1 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 (<OS%) 03 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 1 tpd in 2015 Stockpile and Transfer to Out -of -Town Tire Recycling/ Processing Facility Stockpiled and then Shipped off Fishers Island • AGRICULTURAL/COMMERCLUANSTITUTIONAL RECYCLING (15 %) 21 tp 1 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% T08%) 4 tpd to 1 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 Roll -off 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 Acceptible Surface Slopes and 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 THRU 19195)- - 34 TPD to 41 TPD in 1992 to 35 TPD to 43 TPD in 1995 • Develop New, 5 Acre Lined Landfill at Existing Solid Wane 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 arca 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 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) • Y- 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'a RANKED: SEASONAL OUT-OF-TOWN ENERGY RECOVERY PROCESSING WITH NEW, LINED TOWN LANDFILL* - Develop New Landfill in 5 Acre Stages (tach 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-musable Waste. • Prepare EIS and Part 360 Permit Application for New, 5 Acre Lined Landfill to be Used for Short -Term • Note: Acquires 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. 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/Ton REMAINING WASTE 25% 30% 25%n' 30% EXISTING LANDFILL ARRANGEMENTS NEW LINED 15 ACRE LANDFILL FOR "PRODUCT" OF 70% TO 75% RESOURCE RECOVERY.SYSTEM ' III. BROOKHAVEN CERF (IF IMPLEMENTED) A. CERF Processing; Long Haul Bypass/Residuals 1. - 1996: $100/ton Tip Fee; $150/ton Long Haul 2. 1996: 100/ton Tip Fee; 200/ion Long Haul 3. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee; 150/ton Long Haul 4.. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee; 200/ton Long Haul B. CERF Processing; New 6 Acre Lined Town Landfill 1. 1996: $100/ton Tip Fee 2. 1996: 125/too Tip Fee C. Seasonal CERF Processing; New 10 Acre Lined Town Landfill 1. 1996: $100/ton Tip Fee 2. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee IV. HUNTINGTON ERF (4TH UNIT, IF IMPLEMENTED) A. ERF Processing; Long Haul Bypass/Residuals 1. 1996: $100/ton Tip Fee; $150/ton Long Haul 2. 1996: 100/ton Tip Fee; 200/ton Long Haul 3. 1996; 125/ton Tip Fee; 150/ton Long Haul '4. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee; 200/ton Long Haul B. ERF Processing with New 6 Acte Lined Town Landfill -1. 1996: $100/tonTipFee 2. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee C. Seasonal ERF Processing; New 10 Acre Lined Town Landfill .1. 1996: $100/ton Tip Fee 2. 1996: 125/ton Tip'Fee BABYLON ERF (3RD UNIT, IF IMPLEMENTED) A. ERF Processing; Long Haul Bypass/Residuals 1. 1996: $100/ton Tip Fee; $150/ton Long Haul - 2. 1996: 100/ton Tip Fee: 200/ton Long Haul 3. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee: 150/ton-Long Haul 4.,1996: 125/ton Tip Fee; 200/ton Long Haul B. ERF.Processing; New 6 Acre Lined Town Landfill 1. 1996: $100hon Tip Fee 2. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee 3M I 4M I 11 I 11 6M 29M 89 82 33M 39M 109 109 30% 36M 43M 122 122 46M 38M 45M 126 126 ' 141 41M 49M 138 138 121 36M 42M 121 118 41M 48M 138 135 36M 26M 30M 88 85 29M 34M 97 94 " 26M 33M 40M 112 112 30M 37M 44M 124 124 34M 38M 46M ' 129 129 42M 50M 141' 141 37M 43M 124 121 42M 49M 141 138 27M 31M 90 87 37M 30M 34M 99 96 43M OPTIONS FOR REMAINING WASTE 40M 112 112 30% 44M 124 124 46M 129 129 1. 1996: $100/tonTipFee 59M 141 141 87 43M 124 121 99 49M 141 138 OPTIONS FOR REMAINING WASTE Est. 20 Yr.Cost Est. Cost/Ton 25% 30% 25% 30%• C. Seasonal ERF Processing; New 10 Acre Lined Town Landfill 1. 1996: $100/tonTipFee 27M 31M 90 87 2. 1996: 125/ion Tip Fee 30M 34M 99 96 VL TOWN SPONSORED MSW COMPOSTING FACILITY A. MSW Processing; With New 8 Acre Lined Town Landfill 34M 36M 113 102 B. MSW Processing; Long Haul of Bypass/Residuals' 1. 1996: $100/touLongHaul 22M 26M 75 74 2. 1996: . 150/ton Long Haul 26M 30M 86 85 1 1996: 200/ton Long Haul 29M 34M 97 96 VIL TOWN SPONSORED YARD WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITY 'A. Yard Waste Exchange With ERF/CERF and New 6 Acre Town Landfill for Bypass/Residuals 1. 1996 - Net Cost $ 50/ton 33M 37M Ill. 103 2. 1996 - Net Cost 75/ton 38M 43M 128 •119 3. 1996 - Net Cost 100/ton 43M 49M 145 136 B. Yard Waste Exchange With ERF/CERF and Long Haul of.Bypass/Residuals 1. 1996 - Net Cost $ 50/ton: $150/fon Long Haul 29M 34M 96 96 2. 1996 -'Net Cost 75/ton: 150/Ton Long Haul 34M 40M 113 113 3. 1996 - Net Cost 100/ton: 150fron Long Haul 39M 46M 130 130 -C. Yard Waste Exchange With ERF/CERF and ERF/CERF Responsible for Bypass/Residuals 1. 1996 - Net Cost $ SOhon 18M 21M 60 60 2. 1996 - Net Cost 75/ton 23M 27M 77 77 3. 1996 - Net Cost 100/tou. 29M 34M 94 93 VIILPRIVATE SECTOR SPONSORED PROCESSING/ . . DISPOSAL (Including Bypass/Residuals) A.Hempstead ERF (contractual arrangement) 1. 1996: $80/ton tip fee; $100/ton long haul 27M 32M 91 91 B.Potential East End Private Sector Facility _ 1. 1996: $75/ton Trp Fee 17M- 20M, 56 56 2. 1996: 100/ton Tip Fee 22M 27M 75 75 3. 1996: 125/ton Tip Fee 28M 33M 93 93 DL OFF ISLAND LONG. HAUL A.1996:'$100/ton Long Haul 22M `27M 75 75 B.1996: 150/ion 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 alternatives, as appropriate for a draft/generic planning 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 include size of associated buffers. Assumptions, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS 1 Waste Stream Generation Projections, 1991 through 2015 2A Waste Processing Scenarios, Intensive 70% Recycling Level, 1991 through 2015 213 Waste Processing Scenarios, Intensive 75% Recycling Level, 1991 through 2015 3 Transportation Cost Analysis 4 Leachate Generation and Disposal Assumptions 5 Town Only Yard Waste Compost Operation Assumptions 6 Facility Sizing Calculations for Town Only Yard Waste Compost Operation 7A Facility Sizing Calculations for Regional or Larger Yard Waste Compost Operation (Intensive 75%_ Recycling Level) 7B Facility- Sizing Calcualtions for Regional or Larger Yard Waste Compost Operation (Intensive 70% Recycling Level) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS ASSUMPTIONS AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION .. The assumptions used in this cost analysis determine a range of costs for each scenario. Although some of the costs associated with individual scenarios may seem somewhat high or low, they provide a broader base of comparison between the various technologies and waste disposal alternatives. It is possible that some of the low end costs may be approached through competitive bidding. Due to the varying operational reliability of solid waste technologies, changing regulations, unstable markets for end products, and the simplified nature of these cost scenarios, actual costs may differ slightly from the costs presented _in this Appendix. A more detailed assessment of costs associated with the plan scenarios can be determined after the preferred alternative is identified by the Town and the procurement process has been initiated. At that time, detailed costs for construction, operation, maintenance, transportation, and financing can be established through negotiation between the Town and any associated contractors, vendors, and financing agencies. Table 1 provides estimated waste generation projections through the year 2015. These projections are based on weighted population estimates and increasing per capita generation rate. Intensive recycling rates of 70% and 75% are used to determine sizes and costs for the alternative plan scenarios. Tables 2A and 2B utilize the estimated tonnages presented in Table 1 to determine the quantity of waste that will be handled through each plan scenario. Table 2A assumes a recycling level of 70%, and Table 2B assumes a recycling level of 75%. Assumptions that .relate to inflation, interest rate; transportation costs, and leachate disposal costs are used throughout this Appendix. These assumptions have been established to maintain a consistent basis for determining the cost of each plan scenario. Inflation is assumed to be 5% for all scenarios over the 20 year plan. All fixed annual costs .(i.e. transportation,, O&M; leachate disposal costs, and tipping fees) are escalated by this factor over the 20 year plan. Variations in the actual inflation factor will affect all of the fixed annual costs in a similar fashion. For the purposes of this analysis, a constant inflation factor was established. The interest rate for capital investments is fixed at 8% over the 20 year plan. All capital and equipment costs are amortized at 8% over the indicated life span. Fluctuations in interest rates were not considered because any change -in the interest rate will affect the financing of capital and equipment costs for each scenario in a similar fashion. Table 3 presents a transportation cost analysis. The bottom line transportationcost is escalated at 5% to reflect the anticipated 1990 value of $0.20 per ton per mile. This , figure is utilized for the base transportation cost in all scenarios. Each, scenario that incorporates transportation costs to out of Town facilities on Long Island determines daily, transportation costs by multiplying the base'cost per ton per mile times the daily tons times the one-way mileage to the facility. Assumed transport mileage to existing or proposed facilities is as follows: Assumed Existing or Transport Proposed Facility Mileage Babylon ERF 50 Brookhaven CERF 35 Brookhaven MRF 35 East "End MRF 20 Hempstead 75 Huntington/Smithtown , 56. Southold (All Facilities) 0 Transportation costs for waste hauled off Long Island are difficult to determine. The scenarios that incorporate long haul of waste for processing/ disposal are III -A, IV - A, and V-A (bypass waste and ash residue from energy recovery); VI -B and VI -D (bypass waste and end product from MSW composting); and VIII (mixed MSW). At this time, the facility, transport distance, and tipping fees have not been determined. Instead, a series of assumed long haul costs ranging from $100 per ton to $200 per ton have been established to'provided a range of costs for each scenario. As facilities are contacted to determine if they have capacity and are willing to accept Southold's waste, tipping fees and, transport distances can be established and used to calculate long' haul costs per ton. These costs can be compared to other alternative scenarios to determine viability for long term waste disposal. Annual costs are expressed in thousands of dollars as well as average cost per ton. Total costs over the 20 year plan are expressed in Net Present Value (1990) to simplify the comparison between the different scenarios. Net Present Value (1990) cost per ton is also presented to provide a comparison average disposal cost per ton for. each scenario over the 20 year plan. Table 4 presents an analysis of leachate disposal costs. In scenarios that include construction of a new landfill, leachate collection and disposal costs were considered. A transportation cost of $6.50 per ton mile was used for an assumed distance of 50 miles (distance from existing Town landfill complex to Bergen Point Wastewater Treatment Plant). The weight of the leachate was assumed ' to be 8.35 lbs./gallon, which is the - conversion factor for H2O. A cost of $17.50 per 1000 gallons for disposal of leachate was used (current quoted disposal cost for landfill leachate at Bergen Point). Leachate generation was based on the assumption that 20% of the incident rainfall on an efficiently operated landfill becomes leachate, and 40% on an inefficiently operated landfill becomes leachate. Estimated average annual rainfall was assumed to be 45 inches, and the operating cell of the landfill was fixed at 5 acres. Based on these assumptions, cost estimates were provided for each landfilling scenario using 1990 leachate disposal costs of $150,000 per year (efficient landfill) and $300,000 per year (inefficient landfill). Table 5 provides basic assumptions for capital and O & M costs associated with a Town only yard waste compost operation, as compared to a: regional or larger compost operation. These assumptions are used in the analysis of a yard waste composting facility as part of the Base Plan for the Town. Table 6 calculates the assumed size of a Town only. yard waste compost operation.. Tables 7A and 7B calculate the assumed size of a regional or larger yard -waste compost operation for :the intensive 75% and- 70% recyclirig levels respectively.. Two;,alternatives have been considered for the processing of recyclable materials. . The first involves transport of the materials to the Brookhaven MRF, which is expected to come on .line . in 1991. Since tipping fees have not yet been established between Southold and the Brookhaven facility,. a series of assumed tipping fees have been developed to provide a basis for comparison with other recycling alternatives. The second alternative proposes the combined efforts of the 5 East End Towns (Southold, Southold, Shelter Island, Southampton,. and East Hampton) in the development, construction, and operation. of an East'End-MRF..At this time, the size of the, facility and the degree of involvement amongst the 5 Towns have not been clearly defined.., It is assumed that the facility .could cost between $6 and '$10 million.. Based on waste generation and year round, weighted population, the Town of Southold could be expected to pay approximately one fifth (or 20%) of the total capital costs for the facility. It is assumed that, the facility would be sited to provide a centralized location, for access .by all 5 Towns.. A site located, in- the Town. of Southampton could provide the most convenient. = access .by the other .4 Towns. Transport distance between Southold and the proposed East End MRF; was therefore assumed to be 20. miles. It should be noted that any or all of these assumptions are subject to change as the concept of an- East End MRF is further. refined, agreements, amongst the 5 .Towns are established, and when proper siting considerations have been evaluated. TABLE 1 Townof Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Waste Stream Generation Projections 1991 through 2015 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1 Year Round Population "22,650 22,850 23,050 23,250 23,450 23,580 23,710 23,840 23,970 24,100 24,300 24,500 24,700 24,900 25,100 25,300 25.500 25,700 25,900 26,100 26,300 26,500 26,700 26,900 27,100 seasonal Increase 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10,000 2 Weighted Population 25,983 26,183 26,383 26,583 26,783 26,913 27,043 27,173 27,303 27,433 27,633 27,833 28,033 28,233 28,433 28,633 28,833 29,033 29,233 29,433 29.633 29,833 30,033 30.233 30,433 3 Per Capita Generation Rate 10.30 10.37 10.44 10.52 10.59 10.66 10.74 10.81 10.89 10.96 11.04 11.12 11.20 11.28 11.35 11.43 11.51 11.59 11.68 11.76 11.84 11.92 12.01 12.09 12.17 Tons Per Year 48,831 49,551 50,279 51,015 51,759 52,374 52,995 53,623 54,257 54,897 55,684 56,480 57.284 58,096 58,917 59,747 60,585 61.433 62,289 63,154 64,028 64,912 65,804 66,706 67,617 Tons Per Day 133.8 135.8 137.8 139.8 141.8 143.5 145.2 146.9 148.6 150.4 152.6 154.7 156.9 159.2 161.4 163.7 166.0 168.3 170.7 173.0 175.4 177.8 180.3 182.8 185.3 1. Based on LILCO'S 1990 Current estimates and May 1987 Long Island Regional Planning Board population projections. Includes Fishers Island Population. uses straight line projection to estimate between base years. 2. Assumes a 4 month seasonal Increase In population of 10.000. 3. Based on 1989 calculated wastestream•(127.1 TPD) Including C 8: D and Increasing per capita generation (0.70% annually). ® 30% Remaining Waste Tons Per Year 14.649 14,865 15,084 15,305 15,528 15,712 15,899 16,087 16,277 16,469 16,705 16,944 17,185 17,429 17,675 17,924 18.176 18,430 18,687 18,946 19,208 19,473 19,741 20,012 20,285 Tons Per Day 40.1 40.7 41.3 41.9 42.5 43.0 43.6 44.1 44,6 45.1 45.8 46.4 47.1 47.6 48.4 49.1 49.8 50.5 51.2 51.9 52.6 53.4 54.1 54.8 55.6 e 25% Remaining Waste Tons Per Year 9,766 9,910 10,056 10,203 10,352 10,475 10,599 10,725 10,851 10,979 11,137 11,296 11,457 11,619 11,783 11,949 12,117 12,287 12,458 12,631 12,806 12,982 13,161 13,341 13,523 Tons Per Day 33.4 33.9 34.4 34.9 35.5 35.9 36.3 36.7 37.2 37.6 38.1 38.7 39.2 39.8 40.4 40.9 41.5 42.1 42.7 43.3 43.9 44.5 45.1 45.7 46.3. TABLE 2A Town of Southold solid waste management Plan Waste Processing Scenarios Intensive 7D% Recycling Levels 1991 through 2015 TOTAL TONS 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1991 to 2015 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____________ Calculated Total Waste Stream 133.8 135.8 137.8 139.8 141.8 143.5 145.2 146.9 148.6 150.4 152.6 154.7 156.9 159.2 161.4 163.7 166.0 168.3 170.7 173.0 175.4 177.8 180.3 182.6 185.3 1,442,318 BASE PLAN COMPONENTS '---aca_aaa-'-'---'-----------'---"----_xxv--------v_c_vvzc-_---"----ava-_"--"-----'-'---'-'--'-------'------''-'------"------------------ -'----- - ---- ' - ----' ' - -----------------'------'-----'------------- 1. RecYClables Processed at a materials Recylcing Facility Recycling Rate (Percent) 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% 17.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% 18.0% RecyClables (TPD) 13.4 16.3 19.3 22.4 24.1 25.8 26.1 26.4 26.8 27.1 27.5 27.9 28.2 28.7 29.1 29.5 29.9 30.3 30.7 31.1 31.6 32.0 32.5 32.9 33.3 249,189 2. Private Sector Recycling & Processing of C&D & Land Clearing Debris 30% of Total Waste (TPD) 40.1 40.7 41.3 41.9. 42.5 43.0 43.6 44.1 44.6 45.1 45.8 46.4 47.1 47.8 48.4 49.1 49.8 50.5 51.2 51.9 52.6 53.4 54.1 54.8 55.6 432,695 3. Tire Recycling 0.5% of Total Waste (TPD) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 O.S. 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 7,212 4. Yard Waste Composting Yard Waste (Percent) 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Yard Waste (TPD) 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 14.3 14.5 14.7 14.9 15.0 15.3 15.5 15.7 15.9 16.1 16.4 16.6 16.8 17.1 17.3 17.5 17.8 18.0 18.3 18.5 124,117 30% REMAINING WASTE TO ERF, LANDFILL, OR MSW COMPOSTING 1. Mixed Waste to be Landfilled 30% of Total Waste (TPD) 40.1 46.7 41.3 41.9 42.5 43.0 43.6 44.1 44.6 45.1 45.8 46.4 47.1 47.8 48.4 49.1 49.8 50.5 51.2 51.9 52.6 53.4 54.1 54.8 55.6 432,695 2. Mixed Waste Processed at an Energy Recovery Facility 30% of Total Waste (TPD) 40.1 40.7 41.3 41.9 42.5 43.0 43.6 44.1 44.6 45.1 45.8 46.4 47.1 47.8 48.4 49.1 49.8 50.5 51.2 51.9 52.6 53.4 54.1 54.8 55.6 432,695 90% Sent to ERF (TPD) '36.1 36.7 37.2 37.7 38.3 38.7 39.2 39.7 40.1 40.6 41.2 41.8 42.4 43.0 43.6 44.2 44.8 45.4 46.1 46.7 47.4 48.0 48.7 49.3 50.0 389,426 25% of 90% Ash Residue (TPD) 9.0 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.6 9.7 9.8 9.9 10.0 10.2 10.3 10.4 10.6 10.7 10.9 11.0 11.2 11.4 11.5 11.7 11.8 12.0 12.2 12.3 12.5 97,356 10% Bypass Waste (TPD) 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.8 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 5.2 5,3 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 43,270 3. Seasonal Processing at an Energy Recovery Facility 3D% of Total Waste (TPD) 40.1 40.7 41.3 41.9 42.5 43.0 43.6 44,1 44.6 45.1 45.8 46.4 47.1 47.8 48.4 49.1 49.8 50.5 51.2 51.9 52.6 53.4 54.1 54.8 55.6 432,695 50% Sent to ERF (TPD) 20.1 20.4 20.7 21.0 21.3 21.5 21.8 22.0 22.3 22.6 22.9 23.2 23.5 23.9 24.2 24.6 24.9 25.2 25.6 26.0 26.3 26.7 27.0 27.4 27.8 216,348 4. Mixed Waste Processed at an MSW Composting Facility 30% of Total Waste (TPD) 40.1 40.7 41.3 41.9 42.5 43.0 43.6 44.1 44.6 45.1 45.8 46.4 47.1 47.8 48.4 49.1 49.8 50.5 51.2 51.9 52.6 53.4 54.1 54.8 55.6 432,695 30% Residuals/End Pr6duct(TPD) 12.0 12.2 12.4 12.6 12.8 12.9 13.1 13.2 13.4 13.5 13.7 13.9 14.1 14.3 14.5 14.7 14.9 15.1 15.4 15.6 15.8 16.0 16.2 16.4 16.7 129,809 TABLE 2B Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Waste Processing Scenarios Intensive 75% Recycling Levels 1991 through 2015 TOTAL TONS 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1991 to 2015 ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____________ Calculated Total waste Stream 133.8 135.8 137.8 139.8 141.8 143.5 145.2 146.9 148.6 150.4 152.6 154.7 156.9 159.2 161.4 163.7 166.0 168.3 170.7 173.0 175.4 177.8 180.3 182.8 185.3 1,442,318 BASE PLAN COMPONENTS - vvxxvx__v___xvv________x_____v_______v__x______vxxx_:_x_vv=vxv_vv_v__vv_x_________a_x_=_x___x__________________ 1. Recyclables Processed at a Materials Recylcing Facility Recycling Rate (Percent) 10.0% 13.0% 16.0% 19.0% 21.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% 23.0% Recyclables (TPD) 13.4 17.6 22.0 26.6 29.8 33.0 33.4 33.8 34.2 34.6 35.1 35.6 36.1 36.6 37.1 37.6 38.2 38.7 39.3 39.8 40.3 40.9 41.5 42.0 42.6 313,835 2. Private Sector Recycling & Processing of C&D & Land Clearing Debris 30% Of Total Waste (TPD) 40.1 40.7 41.3 41.9 42.5 43.0 43.6 44.1 44.6 45.1 45.8 46.4 47.1 47.8 48.4 49.1 49.8 50.5 51.2 51.9 52.6 53.4 54.1 54.8 55.6 432,695 vvvvxxxvvxvxxxxvvvvxxxxvxvxxxvxxxxxvvvvvvxvxvxxxxxvxvxxxxxxxxvxvvvvvxva=xvvxvxxxxxxxxxvxxxxxxxxxxxxxvvxxvvv_____=____xx==xvx=v_________________xxxxxxvxxxxxxvvxxxvx=x vvvvvxxxvxxxxxxxxxxxxxxvxvx==cvxxvxxvvxvxvvvvxvxxxxvvvv 3. Tire Recycling 0.5% Of Total Waste (TPD) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 7,212 4. Yard Waste Composting Yard Waste (Percent) 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0% 2.0%"10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% 10.0% Yard Waste (TPD) 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.8 14.3 14.5 14.7 14.9 15.0 15.3 15.5 15.7 15.9 16.1 16.4 16.6 16.8 17.1 17.3 17.5 17.8 18.0 18.3 18.5 124,117 25% REMAINING WASTE TO ERF, LANDFILL, OR MSW COMPOSTING 1. Mixed Waste to be Landfilled 25% Of Total Waste (TPD) 33.4 33.9 34.4 34.9 35.5 35.9 36.3 36.7 37.2 37.6 38.1 38.7 39.2 39.8 40.4 40.9 41.5 42.1 42.7 43.3 43.9 44.5 45.1 45.7 46.3 360,579 2. Mixed Waste Processed at an Energy Recovery Facility 25% Of Total Waste (TPD) 33.4 33.9 34.4 34.9 35.5 35.9 36.3 36.7 37.2 37.6 38.1 38.7 39.2 39.8 40.4 40.9 41.5 42.1 42.7 43.3 43.9 44.5 45.1 45.7 46.3 360,579 90% Sent t0 ERF (TPD) 30.1 30.5 31.0 31.4 31.9 32.3 32.7 33.1 33.4 33.8 34.3 34.8 35.3 35.8 36.3 36.8 37.3 37.9 38.4 38.9 39.5 40.0 40.6 41.1 41.7 324,521 25% of 90% Ash Residue (TPD) 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.9 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 8.8 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.9 10.0 10.1 10.3 10.4 81,130 10% Bypass Waste (TPD) 3.3 3.4 3.4 3.5 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.0 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.6 36,058 3. Seasonal Processing at an Energy Recovery Facility 25% Of Total Waste (TPD) 33.4 33.9 34.4 34.9 35.5 35.9 36.3 36.7 37.2 37.6 38.1 38.7 39.2 39.8 40.4 40.9 41.5 42.1 42.7 43.3 43.9 44.5 45.1 45.7 46.3 . 360,579 50% sent t0 ERF (TPD) 16.7 17.0 17.2 17.5 17.7 17.9 18.1 18.4 18.6 18.8 19.1 19.3 19.6 19.9 20.2 20.5 20.7 21.0 21.3 21.6 21.9 22.2 22.5 22.8 23.2 180,290 4. Mixed Waste Processed at an MSW Composting Facility 25% Of Total Waste (TPD) 33.4 33.9 34.4 34.9 35.5 35.9 36.3 36.7• 37.2 37.6 38.1 38.7 39.2 39.8 40.4 40.9 41.5 42.1 42.7 43.3 43.9 44.5 45.1 45.7 46.3 360,579 30% Residuals/End Product(TPD) 10.0 10.2 10.3 10.5 10.6 10.8 10.9 11.0 11.1 11.3 11.4 11.6 11.8 11.9 12.1 12.3 12.4 12.6 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.3 13.5 13.7 13.9 108.174 FUEL Miles per Truck per Year 1/2 hour staging per'day 1/2 hour loading per day 1/2 hour unloading per day 1/2 hour vehicle storage 2 hours non travel time 3 hours one-way travel time $1.,50 per gallon 0.2 gallons per mile TABLE 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TRANSPORTATION COST ANALYSIS 6 hours 40 mph 240 miles / day Soo operating days per year 72,000 miles per year $0.30 per mile or $0.0150 per ton -mile LABOR $60 Per hour including benefits 8 hours per day 300 days per year $144,000 per year / 72,000 miles per year =_> $2.00 per mile or $0.1000 per ton -mile INSURANCE $5 000 per year / 72,000 miles per year =_> $0.0694 per mile or $0.0035 per ton -mile MAINTENANCE $6,000 per year / 72,000 miles per year CAPITAL $125,000 (10 year life, 8%, zero salvage value) $18,629 per year / 72,000 miles per year LICENSING, PERMITS, & INSPECTION CASTS -------------------------------------- 4 $1,500 per year / 72,000 miles per year TAXES $5,000 per year / 72,000 miles per year STORAGE $5,000 per year / 72,000 miles per year __> $0.0833 per mile or'$0.0042 per ton -mile __> $0.2587 per mile or $0.0129 per ton -mile __> $0.0208 per mile or $0.0010 per ton -mile __> $0.0694 per mile or $0.0035 per ton -mile $0.0694 per mile or $0.0035 per ton -mile ---------------------------------- SUBTOTAL $0.1436 per ton -mile 30.0% profit (1990) $0.187 per ton -mile Additional Assumptions (1996) $0.250 per ton -mile ----------------- 1. Twenty ton load 2. No allowance for toll costs, repairs due .to accidents or traffic violation related fines. Estimated Average Annual Rainfall Area of 5 Acre Cell Estimated Annual Volume of Rainfall on 5 Acre Cell Percent of Incident Rainfall that becomes Leachate Total Estimated Leachate Treatment Cost Estimated Annual Treatment Cost Weight of Leachate Transportation Cost One -Way Transport Distance I Estimated Annual Transport Cost Estimated Annual Treatment Cost I Total Estimated Annual Cost for 5 Acre Cell Table 4 Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Leachate Disposal Cost Analysis 45 Inches 3.75 Feet 217,800 Square Feet 816,750 Cubic Feet 6,109,290 Gallons 7.48 Gallons/Cubic Foot Efficiently Run Landfill 20% 1,221,858 Gallons $17.50 per 1000 Gallons $21,383 8.35 Lbs./Gallon H2O 5,101.3 Tons per Year $0.50 per Ton -Mile 50 Miles $127,531 $21,383 $148,914 Inefficiently Run Landfill 40% 2,443,716 Gallons $17.50 per 1000 Gallons $42,765 8.35 Lbs./Gallon H2O 10,202.5 Tons per Year $0.50 per Ton -Mile 50 Miles $255,063 $42,765 $297,828 TABLE 5 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN YARD WASTE COMPOSTING ASUMPTIONS TOWN ONLY COMPOST OPERATION Capital Equipment Costs (Assumes 7 Year Life Span) Wood Chipper $15,000 Compost Turner $50,000 Screen $80,000 Equipment Costs $145,000 Annual O&M Costs O&M on Equipment $15,000 Labor $40,000 Total Annual 0&M $55,000 REGIONAL OR LARGER COMPOST OPERATION Capital Equipment Costs r(Assumes 7 Year Life Span) Wood Chipper $15,000 Tub Grinder $300,000 and/or Shredder Compost Turner $150,000 Screen $80,000 Equipment Costs $545,0 Annual O&M Costs 0&M on Equipment $60,000 Labor �.1 $110,000 Total Annual 0&M $170,000 Source: BIOCYCLE, September, 1989 Table 6 Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Town Only Yard Waste Composting Operation Facility Sizing Calculations Weight: 18 tons/day Volume: 43,800 cubic yards/year 1,182,600 cubic feet/year TRAPEZOID WINDROW Windrow Length: Yields: SIZE 4 ' foot top 16 foot base 6 foot height ---------------------- ---------------------- 60 sq. ft. section 19,710 feet long . 200 feet 99 windrows CONICAL PILES (fixed base truncated at 6 feet) SIZE 8 foot top 18 foot base 6 foot height 836 cubic feet/cone Yields: 1415 cones CONFIGURATION 4 groups of 25 windrows 15 foot separation --------------------- --------------------- 775 f ee.t by 860 feet --------------------- --------------------- 15.3 acres CONFIGURATION 38 rows of 38 cones 15 foot separation 1254 feet by 1254 feet --------------------- --------------------- 36.1 acres Table 7a Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Regional or Larger Yard Waste Composting Operation Facility Sizing Calculations Intensive 75% Recycling Level Weight: 46 tons/day Volume: 111,933 cubic yards/year 3,022,200 cubic feet/year TRAPEZOID WINDROW Windrow Length: Yields: SIZE 4 foot top 16 foot base 6 foot height ---------------------- ---------------------- 60 sq. ft. section 50,370 feet long 200 feet 252 windrows CONICAL PILES (fixed base truncated at 6 feet) SIZE 8 foot top 18 foot base 6 foot height 836 cubic feet/cone Yields: 3617 cones CONFIGURATION 5 groups of 51 windrows 15 foot separation --------------------- --------------------- 1,581 feet by 1,075 feet --------------------- --------------------- 39.0 acres CONFIGURATION 54 rows of 67 cones 15 foot separation 1782 feet by 2211 feet --------------------- --------------------- 90.5 acres Table 7b Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Regional or Larger Yard Waste Composting Operation Facility Sizing Calculations Intensive 70% Recycling Level Weight: 56 tons/day Volume: 136,267 cubic yards/year 3,679,200 cubic feet/year TRAPEZOID WINDROW Windrow Length Yields 411PAO 4 foot top 16 foot base 6 foot height ---------------------- ---------------------- 60 sq. ft. section 61,320 feet long 200 feet 307 windrows CONICAL PILES (fixed base truncated at 6 feet) SIZE 8 foot top 18 foot base 6 foot height ---------------------- ---------------------- 836 cubic feet/cone Yields: 4403 cones CONFIGURATION 7 groups. of 44 windrows 15 foot separation --------------------- --------------------- 1,364 feet by 1,505 feet --------------------- --------------------- 47.1 acres CONFIGURATION 54 rows of 82 cones 15 foot separation --------------------- --------------------- 1782 feet by 2706 feet --------------------- --------------------- 110.7 acres Base Scenario TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS BASE SCENARIO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION CONTENTS BASE -A Recycling at Brookhaven MRF BASE -B Recycling at East End MRF BASE -C Composting at Town Yard Waste Facility F1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS BASE SCENARIO A RECOVERY OF 18% TO 23% OF THE WASTE STREAM AS RECYCLABLES PROCESSED AT. BROOKHAVEN MATERIALS RECYCLING FACILITY LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS BASE -A-1-18% Recycling 18% of the waste stream with ,tipping fees at MRF starting at, $25 per ton in 1996 BASE -A-1-23% Recycling 23% of the waste stream with tipping fees at MRF starting at $25 per ton in 1996 BASE -A-2-18% Recycling 18% of the waste stream with tipping fees at MRF starting at $35 per ton in 1996 BASE -A-2-23% Recycling 23% of the waste stream with tipping fees at MRF starting at $35 per ton in 1996 BASE -A-3-18% Recycling 18% of the waste stream with tipping fees at MRF starting at $45 per ton in 1996 BASE -A-3-23% Recycling 23% of the waste stream with tipping fees at MRF starting at $45 .per ton in 1996 BASE -A-4-18% Recycling 18% of the waste stream with tipping fees at MRF starting at $55 per ton in 1996 BASE -A-4-23% Recycling 23% of the waste stream with tipping fees at MRF starting at $55 per ton in 1996 . TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS . BASE SCENARIO B RECOVERY OF 18% TO 23% OF THE WASTE STREAM AS RECYCLABLES - PROCESSED AT AN EAST END MATERIALS RECYCLING, FACILITY LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS BASE -B-1-18% Recycling 18% of the waste stream with tipping fees at MRF starting at $25 per ton in 1996 BASE -B4-23% Recycling 23% of the waste stream with tipping fees at MRF starting at $25 per ton in 1996 BASE -B-2-18% Recycling 18% of the waste stream with tipping fees at MRF starting at $35 per 'ton in 1996 BASE -B-2-23% Recycling 23% 'of the waste stream with tipping fees at MRF starting at $35 per ton in. 1996 BASE -B-3-18% Recycling 18% of the waste-stream.with tipping fees at MRF - starting at $45"per ton in 1996 ; BASE -B-3-23% Recycling 23% of the waste stream with tipping fees at 'MRF starting at $45 per ton in 1996 BASE -B-4=18% Recycling 18% of the waste stream with tipping fees at' MRF starting at $55 per ton in 1996 BASE=B-4-23% Recycling 23% of the waste stream with tipping fees at MRF starting at $55 per ton in 1996 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS BASE SCENARIO C RECOVERY OF 10 OF THE WASTE STREAM AS YARD WASTE PROCESSED AT. A 7,000 TPY YARD WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITY LIST OF TABLES 0 TABLE CONTENTS BASE -C-1 Yard Waste Composting with an Assumed $200,000 Capital Equipment Cost BASE -C-2 Yard Waste Composting with an Assumed $250,000 Capital Equipment Cost Scenario I Existing Landfill TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO I ECONOMIC AND COST SCENARIOS ASSOCIATED WITH DISPOSAL OF '25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM UTILIZING EXISTING LANDFILL ARRANGEMENTS LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS I -A-25% Landfilling 25% of the Waste Stream with 1996 Cost Starting at $15 per Ton; Excludes Closure, Capping, and Land Costs I -A-30% Landfilling 30% of the Waste Stream with 1996 Cost Starting at $15 per Ton; Excludes Closure, Capping, and Land Costs Scenario II New Landfill TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO II LANDFILL COST SCENARIOS LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS H -A-25% Landfilling 25% of the Waste Stream, Utilizing a 12 Acre Landfill II -A-30% Landfilling 30% of the Waste Stream, Utilizing a 15 Acre Landfill II -B-25% Landfilling of Bypass and Ash Residues, Utilizing a 5 Acre Landfill II -B-30% Landfilling of Bypass and Ash Residues, Utilizing a 6 Acre Landfill II -C-25% Landfilling of Residuals and End Product from an MSW Composting Facility, Utilizing a 7 Acre Landfill II -C-30% Landfilling of Residuals and End Product from an MSW Composting Facility, Utilizing an 8 Acre Landfill H -D-25% Landfilling , of Seasonal Bypass and Seasonal Ash Residues,. Utilizing an 8 Acre Landfill II -D-30% Landfilling of Seasonal Bypass and Seasonal Ash Residues, Utilizing a 10 Acre Landfill Scenario III Brookhaven CERF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO III ENERGY RECOVERY OF 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM PROCESSED AT BROOKHAVEN CERF TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION CONTENTS III -A Energy Recovery with 'Ash/Bypass Long Haul III -B Energy Recovery with Landfilling of Ash/Bypass III -C Seasonal Energy Recovery with Landfilling of Ash/Bypass TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO III -A ENERGY RECOVERY OF 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM PROCESSED AT BROOKHAVEN CER_F WITH BYPASS/ASH LONG . HAUL LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS III -A-1-25% Energy. Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton . III -A-1-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per ,Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton III -A-2-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $200 per Ton III -A-2-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $200 per Ton III -A-3-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton, and ' Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton III -A-3-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton III -A-4=25% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $200 per Ton. III -A-4-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton, and Long. Haul Starting at $200 per Ton h TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO III -B ENERGY RECOVERY OF 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM PROCESSED AT BROOKHAVEN CERF WITH LANDFILLING OF BYPASS/'ASH LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS III -B-1-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton III -B-1-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton III -B-2-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton III -B-2-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO III -C ENERGY RECOVERY OF 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM PROCESSED SEASONALLY AT BROOKHAVEN CERF WITH LANDFILLING OF BYPASS/ASH LIST OF TABLES TABLE . ' CONTENTS III -C-1-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton III -C-1-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton III -C-2-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton III -C-2-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton Scenario IV Huntington ERF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO IV ENERGY RECOVERY OF 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM PROCESSED AT HUNTINGTON/SMITHTOWN 4TH UNIT UTILIZATION TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION CONTENTS IV -A Energy Recovery with Ash/Bypass Long Haul IV -B Energy Recovery with Landfilling of Ash/Bypass IV -C Seasonal Energy Recovery with Landfilling of Ash/Bypass TOWN OF .SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO IV -A ENERGY RECOVERY OF 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM PROCESSED AT HUNTINGTON/SMITHTOWN 4TH UNIT UTILIZATION WITH BYPASS/ASH LONG HAUL LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS IV -A-1-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton IV -A-1-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton IV -A-2-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $200 per Ton IV -A-2-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $200 per Ton IV -A-3-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton IV -A-3-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton IV -A-4-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $200 per Ton IV -A-4-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton, and Long "Haul Starting at $200 per Ton TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO IV -B ENERGY RECOVERY OF 25% TO 300/c OF THE WASTE STREAM PROCESSED AT HUNTINGTON/SMITHTOWN 4TH UNIT UTILIZATION WITH'LANDFILLING OF BYPASS/ASH LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS IV -B-1-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton IV -B-1-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton IV -B-2-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton IV -B-2-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO IV -C ENERGY RECOVERY OF 25% TO 30101bOF THE WASTE STREAM PROCESSED SEASONALLY AT HUNTINGTON/SMITHTOWN 4TH UNIT UTILIZATION WITH LANDFILLING OF BYPASS/ASH LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS IV -C-1-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton IV -C-1-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton IV -C-2-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton IV -C=2-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton Scenario V Babylon ERF TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO V ENERGY RECOVERY OF 25% TO 3017c OF THE WASTE STREAM PROCESSED AT BABYLON ERF TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION CONTENTS V-A Energy Recovery with Ash/Bypass Long Haul V -B Energy Recovery with Landfilling of Ash/Bypass V -C Seasonal Energy Recovery with Landfilling of Ash/Bypass TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO V-A ENERGY RECOVERY OF 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM PROCESSED AT BABYLON ERF WITH BYPASS/ASH LONG HAUL LIST. OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS V -A-1-25% Energy Recovery Starting at. $100 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton V -A-1-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton V -A-2-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $200 per Ton V -A-2-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $200 per Ton V -A-3-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at. $150 per Ton -V-A-3-30% Energy. Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton, and Long Haul - Starting at $150 per Ton. V -A-4-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $200 per Ton V -A-4-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton, and Long Haul Starting at $200 per Ton TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST'ANALYSIS SCENARIO V -B ENERGY RECOVERY OF 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM PROCESSED AT BABYLON ERF WITH LANDFILLING OF BYPASS/ASH LIST OF TABLES , TABLE CONTENTS V -B-1-25 o Ener Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton % Energy rY g V -B-1-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton V -B-2-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton V -B-2-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton - I I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO V -C ENERGY RECOVERY OF 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM PROCESSED SEASONALLY AT BABYLON ERF WITH LANDFILLING OF BYPASS/ASH LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS V -C -1-25%o Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton V -C-1-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $100 per Ton V -C-2-25% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton V -C-2-30% Energy Recovery Starting at $125 per Ton Scenario VI MSW Composting TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO VI TOWN SPONSORED MSW COMPOSTING FACILITY FOR 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM . TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION CONTENTS VI=A MSW Composting with Landfilling of Residuals/End Product VI -B MSW Composting with Long Haul of Residuals/End Product ou TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO VI -A TOWN SPONSORED MSW COMPOSTING FACILITY FOR 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM WITH .LANDFILLING OF RESIDUALS/END PRODUCT LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS VI -A-25% Capital Cost of 50 TPD Facility Assumed to: be. $7 Million (1990); New 7 Acre Lined Town Landfill VI -A-30% Capital, Cost of 60 TPD Facility Assumed to be $8 Million (1990); New 8 Acre Lined Town Landfill 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS A SCENARIO VI -B TOWN SPONSORED MSW COMPOSTING FACILITY FOR 25% TO 300/c. OF THE WASTE STREAM WITH LONG HAUL OF RESIDUALS AND END PRODUCT LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS VI -B-1-25%, Capital Cost of 50 TPD MSW Composting Facility Assumed -to 'be $7 Million (1990), Long Haul 'Starting at $100 per Ton in 1996 VI -B-1-30% Capital Cost of 60 TPD MSW Composting Facility Assumed to be $8 Million (1990), Long Haul Starting at $100 per Ton in 1996 VI -B-2-25% Capital Cost of 50. TPD MSW Composting Facility Assumed to be $7. I Million (1990), Long Haul Starting at.$150 per Ton in 1996 VI -B -2-309p' Capital Cost of 60 TPD MSW Composting Facility Assumed to be $8 Million (1990), Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton in 1996. VI -B-3-25'% Capital Cost of 50 TPD MSW Composting Facility Assumed to be $7. Million (1990), Long Haul Starting at $200 per Ton in 1996 VI -B-3-30% Capital Cost of 60 TPD MSW Composting Facility Assumed to be $8 Million (1990), Long Haul Starting at $200 per Ton in 1996 Scenario VII Yard Waste Exchange TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO VII TOWN SPONSORED YARD WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITY EXCHANGING 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM FOR EQUAL QUANTITY OF YARD WASTE WITH OUT. OF TOWN ERF/CERF TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION CONTENTS VII -A Yard Waste Composting Operation Exchanging Equal Quantity of MSW with Out of Town ERF/CERF; Landfilling of Bypass/Resduals VII -B Yard Waste Composting Operation Exchanging Equal Quantity of MSW with Out of Town ERF/CERF; Long Haul of Bypass/Resduals VII -C Yard Waste Composting Operation Exchanging Equal Quantity of MSW with Out of Town ERF/CERF; ERF/CERF Responsible for Bypass/Resduals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO VII -A TOWN SPONSORED YARD WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITY EXCHANGING 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM FOR EQUAL QUANTITY OF YARD WASTE WITH OUT OF ,TOWN ERF/CERF LANDFILLING OF BYPASS/RESIDUALS LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS VII -A-1-25% Net Cost Starting at $50 per Ton in 1996, New 5 Acre Lined Landfill VII -A-1-30% Net Cost Starting at $50 per Ton in 1996, New 6 Acre Lined Landfill VII -A-2-25% Net Cost Starting at $75 per Ton in 1996, New 5 Acre Lined Landfill VII -A-2-30% Net Cost Starting, at -$75 .per_ Ton in 1996, New 6 Acre Lined Landfill VII -A-3-25% Net Cost Starting at $100 per Ton in 1996, New 5 Acre Lined Landfill VII -A-3-30% Net Cost Starting at $100 per Ton in 1996,' New 6 Acre Lined Landfill TOWN -OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO VII -B TOWN SPONSORED YARD WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITY EXCHANGING 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE ' STREAM FOR EQUAL QUANTITY OF YARD WASTE WITH OUT OF TOWN ERF/CERF LONG- HAUL OF BYPASS/RESIDUALS 0 LIST OF- TABLES TABLE CONTENTS' VII -B -1-256/o Net Cost Starting at $50 .per Ton in 1996, .Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton, in 1996 VII -B-1-30% Net Cost Starting at $50 per Ton in 1996, Long Haul Starting of $150 per Ton in 1996 VII -B-2-25% Net Cost Starting at $75 per -Ton in 1996, Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton in 1996 VII -B-2-30% Net Cost Starting at $75 per Ton in 1996, Long Haul .Starting at $150 per Ton in 1996 VII -B-3-25%' Net Cost Starting at $100 per Ton in 1996; Long Haul Starting at $150 per Ton in 1996 VII -B-3 30% Net Cost Starting at $100 per Ton in 1996,"Long Haul.Starting at $150 per, Ton in 1996 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO VII -C TOWN SPONSORED YARD WASTE COMPOSTING FACILITY EXCHANGING 25% TO 30%' OF THE WASTE STREAM FOR EQUAL QUANTITY OF YARD WASTE WITH OUT OF TOWN ERF/CERF ERF/CERF RESPONSIBLE FOR BYPASS/RESIDUALS LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS VII -C-1-25% Net Cost Starting at $50 per Ton in 1996 VII -C-1-30% Net .Cost Starting at $50 per Ton in 1996 . VII -C-2-25% Net Cost Starting at $75 per Ton in 1996 VII -C-2-30% Net Cost Starting at $75 per Ton in 1996 VII -C-3-25% Net Cost Starting at $100 per Ton in 1996 VII -C-3-30% Net Cost Starting at $100 per Ton in 1996 Scenario VIII Private Sector TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO VIII TOTAL PRIVATE SECTOR SPONSORED PROCESSING/DISPOSAL TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION CONTENTS VIII -A Hempstead ERF VIII -B Total Private Sector Sponsored MSW Facility TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO VIII -A HEMPSTEAD ENERGY RECOVERY FACILITY (CONTRACTUAL ARRANGEMENT) 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM WITH LONG HAUL OF BYPASS/ASH LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS VIII -A-1-25% $80/Ton Tip Fee;* $100/Ton Long Haul of Residuals VIII -A-1-30% $80/Ton Tip Fee; $100/Ton Long Haul of Residuals TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO VIII-B TOTAL PRIVATE SECTOR SPONSORED MSW FACILITY THAT WOULD, ACCEPT 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM LIST OF TABLES. TABLE CONTENTS' VIII-B-1-25-9o' MSW Facility Starting at $50 per Ton VIII-B-1-30% MSW, Facility Starting at $50 per Ton VIII-B-2-25% 'MSW Facility Starting at $75 per Ton VIII-B-2-30% MSW Facility Starting at $75 per Ton,. 8 VIII-B-3-25% . MSW Facility Starting at $100 per Ton VIII-B-3-30% MSW Facility Starting at $100 per Ton VIII-B-4-25% MSW Facility Starting at $125 , per Ton _ a VIII-B-4-30% ' MSW Facility Starting at $125 per Ton j TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO VIII -B. GENERAL DESCRIPTION Several private sector proposals involving processing/disposal facilities have recently been presented to the five East End. Towns. These proposed facilities, unsolicited with regard to formal requests, could be designed with sufficient capacity to process waste from one or more of the five Towns. While the exact costs of processing at these proposed facilities has not yet been determined; an estimated range of costs, in terms if initial tipping fees, has been included to provide a relative basis for comparison with other . processing alternatives. The scenarios assume that the proposed facility will accept all of the 25% to 30% of Southold's remaining waste and be responsible for proper disposal of all process residuals and end products. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ALTERNATIVE COST ANALYSIS SCENARIO IX ECONOMIC AND COST SCENARIOS ASSOCIATED WITH OFF -ISLAND LONG HAUL OF 25% TO 30% OF THE WASTE STREAM LIST OF TABLES TABLE CONTENTS IX -A-25% Off -Island Long Haul, Starting at $100 per Ton IX -A-30% Off :Island Long Haul, Starting at $100 per Ton IX -B-25% Off -Island Long Haul, Starting at $150 per Ton IX -B-30% Off -Island Long Haul, Starting at $150 per Ton IX -C-25% Off -Island Long Haul, Starting at $200 per Ton IX -C-30% Off -Island Long Haul, Starting at, $200 per, Ton Appendix J TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX J PRELIMINARY LANDFILL SITING ANALYSIS 2101M TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Preface Description of Unscreened Areas Site Screening Figures 0233R Page 6 15 C PREFACE 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 for a 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 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: o Coastal Areas (1,000 ft. Buffer) o Inland Water Bodies (Buffers: 100 ft. - Freshwater; 1,000 ft. - Tidal) 0 100 Year Floodplains 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) .0 Parks, Recreational Resources, and Cemeteries Screening criterion were each individually applied to the. Town. In addition to these Townwide screens, site specific screens were sequentially. applied to the areas that remained unscreened by the aforementioned criterion. These screens include: 2942M/1 -1- 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 Configurations: (Minimum 20 Acre Parcels and Minimum 750 ft. Width) Islands that lie within the Town boundaries (such -as Fishers, Robins, Plum, Little Gull and Big Gull) were not evaluated in the screening process as a result of the inherent potential impacts, including transportation costs, associated' with locating a landfill in an area that is environmentally sensitive and not easily accessible. Maps -presenting the areas screened by the analysis are presented at the end of this Appendix. 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. 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. 2942M/ 1 -2- 3.2.3 100—Year Floodplains Part 360 regulations 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 the Federal Emergency Management Act. This screen eliminated: approximately 11,000 acres located along the coastlines of the Town. The 100 year floodplains are presented on Figure 3. 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] [4]). 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 2,200 acres. These areas are presented ,on Figure 4.. 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), and the -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 .qua'lity, 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 sheetswere 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. 2942M/1 -3- 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 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 percent 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] [114]). 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. areas were located with the Groundwater Management Zones & 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. 2942M/1 -4- 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 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 ihierferred 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: .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.,anticipatedgrowth, both around a potential landfill -site, and. around major transportation routes to the site, must be considered (360-2:12 [el [11)• To assure -publicacceptance of any, potential new =landfill site in .'the . Town, residentially occupied areas- where .excluded. by -this screen: These areas were 'defined. as the localized grouping of, any number of homes., -Individuat 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',- and .eliminated approximately 10,000 acres. 2942M/1 -5- 3.2.10 Parks, Recreational Resources. and Cemeteries This screen excluded land within the Town that has been designatedrecreational parkland by the .flown, 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 resources, and cemeteries are found .throughout the Town but , tend to be . located 'near major water bodies. These areas are shown in Figure :10. 3.2.11 Preliminary Unscreened Areas I The screens above, through Section 3.2.10, eliminated_ approximately 70 percent of the area of the Town. from further consideration for. a new landfill site. A composite of the previous ten screening criterion are. presented on Figure 11 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. 3.2.13 Preliminary Unscreened Areas III• Site Specific Residences.- Wetlands. and Annropriate Site Configurations Residences that are isolated, and which were not screened on Figure 9, are identified from USGS Topographic Quadrangles and individual site visits and eliminated 2942M/1' -6- 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 1. 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' ft. 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 twenty 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 unscteened areas that do not maintain this dimension over a minimum twenty 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 ate shown with- ' dashed lines. 'Figure 13 applies these site specific screens to the remaining preliminary unscreened areas.. 3.2.14 Remaining Preliminary Unscreened Areas The screens above eeliminated 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 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. 2942M/1 —7— It should be noted that the relationship of agricultural land and the siting of solid i 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 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, 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, 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. 1 2942M/1 -8- DESCRIPTION OF UNSCREENED AREAS 2942M/1 _9_ Table 1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Description of Unscreened Areas Approx. Size _ ID Acres Location Remarks M -2a 325 North of Bergen Ave. The majority of the site appears to be active farmland with several South of. L.I.S. residences. Northern regions of the site appear to be heavily wooded East of Town Boundary areas on irregular topography. Access is solely from Bergen Ave..' West of Luthers Rd. which does not appear to have sufficient lane width for trucking routes. M -2b .150 North of Sound Ave. The majority of the site appears to be active farmland. The western South of Bergen Ave. and southern regions of the site are vacant and heavily wooded in East of Bergen Ave. areas. Approximately 30% of the site is located in an agricultural West of Cox Neck Rd. district that consists predominately of soil groups 1 and 2. Several residences exist along the borders of the site. Heavily populated areas exist to the east of Cox Neck Road. Access is from Bergen . Ave., Sound Ave., and Cox Neck Road. M -2c 90 North of Middle Rd. The majority of the site appears to be heavily wooded. Residences South of Westphalia Ave. surround the northern and eastern borders, and appear on—site along East of Cox Neck Rd. the western border. Power lines traverse through the center of the West of Westphalia Ave. site in a north/south direction, leaving approximately 30 acres on either side. The site appears to be a contributing area to Mattituck Creek and associated wetlands to the north. Access is from Cox Neck Rd., and Middle Rd. M -2d 35 North of Peconic Bay Blvd. The majority of the site appears to be active farmland. Heavily South of L.I.R.R. populated areas exist to the east and south. The site has no direct East of Laurel La. access and would require extensive roadway modifications to West of Bray Ave. accommodate trucking routes. MH -8 40 North of Oregon Rd. The majority of the area appears to be active agricultural land with South of L.I.S. residences on the western border of the site. The site would appear East of Reeve Ave. to require roadway modifications to accommodate trucking routes. West of Duck Pond Rd. Access is from Wavecrest Lane. MH -9a 450 North of Oregon Rd. The majority of -the site is active agricultural land.. Farmhouses and South of L.I.S. residences exist throughout the area. Approximately 50% of the site East of Reeve Ave: is located in an agricultural district that consists predominately of West of Duck Pond Rd. soil groups 1 and 2. The site is bordered by Oregon Rd. to the south but direct access to the site does not currently exist from this route. Access is from Duck Pond Rd., which does not appear to have sufficient lane width for trucking routes. 2942M/1 -- I 1 Table 1 (continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Description of Unscreened Areas Approx. Size ID Acres Location Remarks MH -9b .125 North of Oregon Rd. The majority of the site is active agricultural land. Approximately South of-L:I.S. 30%.of the site, is located in an agricultural district that consists East of Duck Pond Rd. predominately of soil.groups 1 and 2., Residential development, and West=of Oregon Rd. two unmapped dead—end. roads, exist on the western portion of the site off of Duck Pond Rd. -Access is from Oregon Rd., at the eastern portion of the site, and Duck Pond•Rd..at'-the western boundary•of.the site. ----- Duck Pond Rd. does not -appear to-have•sufficient land width..to accommodate trucking routes. MH -9c .180 North of Middle.Rd. A large portion of the' -site is utilized for mining activities. A South of Oregon Rd. clean fill mining.operation exists on the northeastern portion of the East of Depot La. site., and the Town landfill is located on the southeastern region of - West of Cox La. the site. The northwestern portion of the site is located in -an agricultural districtthat consists predominately of soil groups 1 and 2. This area comprises approximately 50% of the entire site. The southeastern border of the site is bordered by commercial businesses along North Rd. Power'lines cut across the southern portion of the site leaving approximately 5 acres to the south, and .175 acres to the north. Access is from.the.existing entrance to the landfill, and along Cox Lane. MH -9d 225 North of Rte. 25 A portion of the site is active agricultural land, while the remaining South of L.I.R.R. areas appear to be vacant and:heavily-wooded in areas. Approximately East of Elijahs La. 90% of -the site is located in an agricultural district that consists West -of Alvahs La.. predominately•of soil. groups l and 2: The northeastern corner of the site•is the only area not located in the agricultural district. This .. region, approximately 15 acres, is:bordered by residences along Alvahs Lane. The.majority of the site has limited access with small frontages along Alvahs Lane and Route 25. S-4 200 North of Middle Rd. The majority of this site appears to be active farmland, with portions South of L.I.S. of the eastern section vacant with.sparsely wooded areas. Power lines -East of Bridge La., traverse through the southern portion of site in an east/west 'West of Mill La.- direction. Approximately 50% of -site is located in an agricultural district that consists predominately of soil groups 1 and 2. There is no direct access to the site. -S-5a 35 North of- Rte. 25 The majority,of the site appears to be vacant, with some vineyards on South of Middle Rd. the northern section along the border. Access is along a small piece East of Peconic Ave. of the southern portion of the site from Route 25. West of Ackerly Pond La. 2942M/1 Table 1 (continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. Description of Unscreened Areas Remarks The majority of the site appears to be vacant land, with some sparsely wooded areas: Access is from Route 25 along the southern border of site. The majority of the site appears to be wooded (northwest region), with some active agricultural areas along the eastern border. Power lines cut across the southern portion of the site leaving 30 acres to the south, and -100 acres to the north. Access is from Horton Lane, which does not appear to have sufficient lane width to accommodate trucking routes. The majority of the site is vacant', with areas sparsely and densely wooded. Slightly irregular topography exists on-site, and various areas appear to have recent residential.development. Access is from Old"North Road, Lighthouse Road, and Mt. Beulah Avenue. The majority of the site appears to be vacant.- Residential/commercial areas exist along the southern border off of Middle Road. Power lines traverse the site and leave approximately 15 acres to the south, and 35 acres to the north. Direct access is limited with the eastern corner of the site approaching the point where the power lines cut across Middle Road. Portions of the site, and surrounding areas, are residentially developed. Residences.exist near the southeastern corner of the site off of Bartley Lane. Access to the site is from Tucker Lane. The majority of the site (approximately -90%) is located on an existing 'condominium development. This site should be eliminated from further consideration under the "Residentially Occupied Areas" screen (Screen #9) . The majority of the site is vacant. Residences exist along the eastern, southern, and western borders. Direct access to the site does not exist. 2942M/1 L -J Approx. Size ID Acres Location S -5b 80 North of Rte. 25 South of Middle Rd. East of Peconic Ave. West of Ackerly Pond La. S -5c, 130 North of Middle Rd. - South of Sound View Rd. East of Kenneys Rd. West of Horton La. S -5d 45 North of Old North Rd. South of Sound View Rd. East of Mt. Beulah Ave. West of Old North Rd. S -5e 50 North of Middle Rd. South of Old North Rd. East of Youngs Ave. West of Middle Rd. S -5f 20 North of L.I.R.R. South of Middle Rd. East of Tuckers La. West of Horton La. S -5g 30 North of L.I.R.R. South of Middle Rd. East or Horton La. West of Youngs Ave. S -5h 30 North of L.I.R.R. South of Middle Rd. East of Youngs Ave. West of Boisseau Ave. Table 1 (continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN. Description of Unscreened Areas Remarks The majority of the site appears to be vacant land, with some sparsely wooded areas: Access is from Route 25 along the southern border of site. The majority of the site appears to be wooded (northwest region), with some active agricultural areas along the eastern border. Power lines cut across the southern portion of the site leaving 30 acres to the south, and -100 acres to the north. Access is from Horton Lane, which does not appear to have sufficient lane width to accommodate trucking routes. The majority of the site is vacant', with areas sparsely and densely wooded. Slightly irregular topography exists on-site, and various areas appear to have recent residential.development. Access is from Old"North Road, Lighthouse Road, and Mt. Beulah Avenue. The majority of the site appears to be vacant.- Residential/commercial areas exist along the southern border off of Middle Road. Power lines traverse the site and leave approximately 15 acres to the south, and 35 acres to the north. Direct access is limited with the eastern corner of the site approaching the point where the power lines cut across Middle Road. Portions of the site, and surrounding areas, are residentially developed. Residences.exist near the southeastern corner of the site off of Bartley Lane. Access to the site is from Tucker Lane. The majority of the site (approximately -90%) is located on an existing 'condominium development. This site should be eliminated from further consideration under the "Residentially Occupied Areas" screen (Screen #9) . The majority of the site is vacant. Residences exist along the eastern, southern, and western borders. Direct access to the site does not exist. 2942M/1 L -J Approx. Size ID Acres S -5i 60 S -7a 125 S -7b- 80 S -7c ' 25 S -7d 25 S -7e 50 S -7f 2942M/1 35 Location North of L.I.R.R. South of Middle Rd. East of Boisseau Ave. West of Laurel Ave. North of Middle Rd. South of Oregon Rd. East of Cox La. West of Bridge La. North of Rte. 25 South of L:I.R.R. East of Alvahs La. West of Depot La. North of .Rte. 25 South of,L.I.R.R. East of Alvahs La. West of Depot La. North of Rte..25 South of L:I.W.R. East of Depot La. West of Cox La.. North of Rte. 25 South of L.I.R.R. East of Cox La. West of Bridge La.- North a.-North of Rte. 25 South of L.I.R. R. East of Bridge La. West of-Peconic Ave. Table 1 (continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Description of Unscreened Areas Remarks The majority of this site appears to be -subdivisions under develop— ment. Residential streets are present on thenorthern half of the, site,'with evidence of some land clearing activity. A residential area,is adjacent to the site on the northern boundary.' Access is from Boisseau Ave. and Yennecott Rd., which do not appear to have sufficient lane width for trucking routes. The majority -of this site appears to be vacant. The southwestern corner of the.site appears to be heavily wooded. Access is solely from Cox Lane. The western portion of .this site appears to be heavily wooded. The eastern half is comprised of vineyards. Businesses and residences are located,along Depot La. (eastern -border). Access to the site is solely from Depot La., which does.not appear to have sufficient lane width for trucking routes. This site is vacant, with a residential area on the southwest border. Accessis from Depot La., which does not appear to have sufficient lane width for trucking routes: -This site is vacant, with some isolated wooded areas. The site has no direct access, and is located behind a church and residences along Depot La. Depot La. does not -.appear to have -sufficient lane width for trucking routes. The majority of this site appears to be vacant, with sparsely wooded areas. An orchard is located on the northeast portion of the site, and there are residences'located along Cox La. (western border).. There is limited access .to the -.site from Cox La. . The entire site is active farmland. Residences are located along the -western border (Bridge La.). Site access is solely from Bridge La., which does not appear to have sufficient lane width for trucking routes. Approx. Size ID Acres S -7g 110 S -7h 35 G-1 50 0-8 100 Location North of Rte. 25 South of L.I.R.R. East of Bridge La. West of Peconic Ave. North of Rte. 25 South of L.I.R.R. East of Bridge La. West of Peconic Ave. North of Rte. 25 South of L.I.S. East of Sound Rd. West of The Long Way North of Rte. 25 South of L.I.S. East of Youngs St. West of Browns Hill Rd. Sources: 1988 Aerial Index Map USGS Topographic Quadrangles 1990 Hagstrom Maps Field Evaluations 2942M/1 Table 1 (continued) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Description of Unscreened Areas Remarks The majority of this site appears to be vineyards that extend north— west into the site from Main Rd. Site access is solely from Main Rd. The majority of this site appears to be vineyards, with some small, sparsely wooded areas on the northern boundary. Site access is solely from Main Rd. The majority of this site appears to be an extension of the Island's End Golf and Country Club. This site should be eliminated through t nom -I,- — —A D--,4--1 0-- -11 -o /C... -o 391n% The entire site is active farmland. Numerous residences border the site to the south and north. There is no direct access to the site. SITE SCREENING FIGURES 2942M/1 -15- SOUTHOLD •SITE SCREENING FIGURES:,. Figure Title 1 Coastal Areas (1,000 ft. Buffer) 2. Inland Water Bodies ,(Buffers: 100 ft. = Freshwater; 1,000 ft. - Tidal) 3 100 Year Flood Plains 4 Wetlands (100 ft. Buffer) 5 Special Groundwater Protection Areas 6 Town Designated Core Watershed Protection Areas 7 Public Wellhead Areas (1,500 ft: Buffer) - 8 Airport Runway Buffers (5,000 ft. Radius Screened; 10,000 ft. and ' 5 -mi. Radius Indicated) ' 9 Residentially Occupied Areas (200 ft. Buffer) " 10 Parks, Recreational Resources, and Cemeteries 11 Preliminary Unscreened Areas I 12.' Preliminary Unscreened Areas II: 20. ft. Minimum .Depth to Groundwater 13 Preliminary Unscreened Areas III: Site a Specific ,Residences, Wetlands, and Appropriate Site Configurations " 14' Remaining Preliminary Unscreened Areas 2942M/1' -16- . GARO/NERS BAY SEPTEMBER, 1990 r W.i. all/ I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID "WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT i COASTAL AREAS (1,000 ft BUFFER) 12 0 mY SCALE N MLES o Ime m mo rvr SCYL H FEET FIGURE NO.1 DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS SYOSSET, NEW YORK MATCNLINE B -B, F'r cc"T- wimllll'� GA 8AY .A SEPTEMBER, 1990 TOWN OF. SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT QRf r awr i' io I— ' SCALE W W WG N FEET INLAND WATER BODIES (BUFFERS: 100 ft - FRESHWATER; 1,000 ft - TIDAL) FIGURE NO.2 DVIRKA AND 0 BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS SYOSSET, NEW YORK 01 2 wimllll'� GA 8AY .A SEPTEMBER, 1990 TOWN OF. SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT QRf r awr i' io I— ' SCALE W W WG N FEET INLAND WATER BODIES (BUFFERS: 100 ft - FRESHWATER; 1,000 ft - TIDAL) FIGURE NO.2 DVIRKA AND 0 BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS SYOSSET, NEW YORK SEE TMS -c' x /n/ A A //"1 0 \ GARDINEFS BAY SEPTEMBER, 1990 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID' WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SCALE N HIES Amo eom w rm lJld N FEET FIGURE NO. 3 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAINS DVIRKA AND Q BARTILUCCI i CONSULTING ENGINEERS SYOSSET, NEW YORK MATCHLINE B -BI FOR CDHT. -5E _DW` f / /L TTLGyrcwa? BAY HARBOR / nA//` SEPTEMBER, 1990 GARD/NERS BAY TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID- WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WETLANDS (100 ft BUFFER) i i ,2 0 n• SCALE IN 1.0.E9 SCALE N REf FIGURE NO.4 bDVIRKA AND CONSULTING BARTILUCCI ENGINEERS SYOSSET, NEW YORK LONG MArT/rVCK ^, /N ISLAND SOUND O 2 -FOR CONT SEE ' Hac MATCEE THIS H of SDWG. Q e PO/Nr \ V/L 7iL E PECONIC d - - cvrcn BAY NdwBOB cure oa/E UTILE PECON/C M/Nr —00, BAY GREAT PECON/C BAY ATFpR CONT. spy Ng554U MSEE THIS DWG. rwwNr PwNr LONG 'rwr Pr ISLAND SOUND / TOWN OF SOUTHOLD © rFwwr o, SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC 3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT • � C�ENr ..<FP^P .. YI 0 O V - O cc Ea E$ qi — - GARD/ih+£RS BAY =r•'sgwr iZ o Ina [SONG BEACH Bdr SC' E M WES EAC[�GC(�.n m2 oa moo Amo .ow sw Amo +aw $ -yT 'LLE NPr RET ` -•' BEACH . I -r sews I � Pr I \� GARD/HERS BAY FIGURE NO.5 \ i SPECIAL GROUNDWATER \ PROTECTION AREAS dhDVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS SEPTEMBER, 1990 SYOSSET, NEW YORK �II LONG ISLAND SOUND SPO/N� • � GOIO.SM/rN E� 0. NGMpN pj o < o v NC4' NfiS( 6aY . NaNNarceaa V �J PO/Nl curcNocue LITTLE P£CONIC �PbM NAA60N BAY GREAT PECONIG BAY MATB' 9 FOR :oNT. GIUNE SEE THIS DWG. I —w I/� r. .r //•� I n n /I•Y nnI Iw I/•� SEPTEMBER, 1990 GARDINERS BAY V fi T R /BLAND CONALINc f. &ar 1 • MATCHUIE 9,-9, FOR CONT.BAY NaNBON ;v"w mtr TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT a 0 1m X0 E MILES . RV 0 f000 � OJlO 10D1 IRT =LE N FEET FIGURE NO. 6 TOWN DESIGNATED CORE WATERSHED PROTECTION AREAS DVIRKA dbAND BARTILUCCI . CONSULTING ENGINEERS SYOSSET, NEW YORK Lz�-' TIM 1111MIIIIIIII RAY LONG ISLAND or r£NNr Pr A� Pr .Lr GARRINFR5 SAY clwmif N4.Aaq SEE TMS DWG SOUND SHELI ISLAND a, MATO-SNE B-8,FOR CCFff SEE THIS G* E THIS MPolw - SEE - A L/M BAY ""Soo m'rxAvr TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID- WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT hq' NEG BAY LITTLE POCONIC BAY SHELI ISLAND a, MATO-SNE B-8,FOR CCFff SEE THIS G* E THIS MPolw - SEE - A L/M BAY ""Soo m'rxAvr TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID- WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SEPTEMBER, 1990 CLOLovinn AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS SYOSSET, NEW YORK 0 I Ila LONG BEACH Bd mu I - DEW sr'" N Fw Lom af�N Pr— GARDIIVERS BAY FIGURE NO. 7 N. PUBLIC WELLHEAD AREAS (1,500 ft BUFFER) SEPTEMBER, 1990 CLOLovinn AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS SYOSSET, NEW YORK w CONT - .1. G. N7C/O14T / L/TTL E Y PECON C I N"mp W SEPTEMBER, 1990 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLIDS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT GARD/NERS 84Y AIRPORT RUNWAY BUFFERS (5,000 ft RADIUS SCREENED; 10,000 ft AND 5 mi RADIUS INDICATED) R 0 SOLE M MLES lCIILE M FFET FIGURE NO. 8 bCONSDVIRKA AND ULTING BARTILUCCI ENGINEERS SYOSSET, NEW YORK �I �IA N7C/O14T / L/TTL E Y PECON C I N"mp W SEPTEMBER, 1990 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLIDS WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT GARD/NERS 84Y AIRPORT RUNWAY BUFFERS (5,000 ft RADIUS SCREENED; 10,000 ft AND 5 mi RADIUS INDICATED) R 0 SOLE M MLES lCIILE M FFET FIGURE NO. 8 bCONSDVIRKA AND ULTING BARTILUCCI ENGINEERS SYOSSET, NEW YORK LONG ,varrnNCK raga /N3_ET I GREAT P CON/C BAY ISLAND SOUND SEE THIS OWr.• FA SEPTEMBER, 1990 GARO/NERS 6AY a •'wL--"av &'" -11A rolNr ' MINT TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT In O .., SLGLE M I.RES lGOD A00 SOW Rd QT MALE N RET FIGURE NO. 9 RESIDENTIALLY OCCUPIED AREAS (200 ft BUFFER) DVIRKA AND Q BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS SYOSSET. NEW YORK d LONG ISLAND MNvggrpp/d mw JS�f� mWr GREATP -CON/ AYAY / /'fA //` �t Pr i� i n � •n SOUND Cur[MOGUF MATCt1UNE s DW SEE THIS DW V�.•'IrE 6-B,� CONT Near MATCF1l. SEE THIS DWG. 6dY ' PO/Nr \vim LLrrLE PECON/C NICIOYi'/f BAY NIRCOR ••••• L/ra PECON/C SAY SEPTEMBER, 1990 `\� 64R0/NERS BAY OW .hevr TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 12 0 SCALE N MLES o00 o Rm eaooomn� rvr SCALE N FET FIGURE NO. 10 PARKS,RECREATIONAL RESOURCES, AND CEMETARIES DVIRKA AND 0 BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS SYOSSET, NEW YORK GIMMOMMut L711 (-))- BAF Qa5wolslU1:Mpt PRELIMINARY UNSGREENED AREAS II n DVIF =T. MINIMUM DEPTH TO `.GROUNDWATER —II I_ ANe 0 • PRELIMINARY UNSGREENED AREA DRELIMINARY NYSDEC FRESHWATER TOWN DESIGNATED FRESHWATER V ISOLATED RESIDENTIAL AREJ MINIMUM '20 ACRE AREAS MINIMUM 750 FT_ winTH 618111:1.101 LANDS kNDS FIGURE NC DVIRKA AND .4410 BARTILIJ LONG M -2d GREAT l--cflN/C BAY LONG ISLAND SOUND mH-8 MH -9b MH -9a S -7a MH -9c ZXWTM SOLO WAM CSR S -7d S -7b ' MH -9d S -7c `T ISLAND' `GOGOSM/TN SEE THIS DW SOUND S -5a 3-7h 7, 7/y/`�/ rEgpr Pr (I 0 W Q N Z O V - O /r aT Pr - GAROMERS L94Y -'EAGLE LOVE - - WtEENNRr` \ARBTA / PT FANNIN / \ Q Pr // _ A LONG BEACH BAY PETERS AVW P NEcl ,. 11 BE / Er GARD/HERS BAY SEPTEMBER, 1990 ISHELTER /SLAND t M /NG Pr � - SPINO i g cB, FOR CONT' MATCHLT' I 6WG. v/ / lTT BAYS I CUTCMXI/E t, HARBOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID' WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT ' GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT '�Nr I 12 0 1 mY . SCALE IN MLES - .000 0 1000 00N 1000 T00 ®00 IOOO IQT . SCALE N FEET REMAINING PRELIMINARY UNSCREENED AREAS FIGURE ° NO. 14 DVIRKA AND BARTILUCCI CONSULTING ENGINEERS SYOSSET, NEW YORK