HomeMy WebLinkAboutSolid Waste/Sludge Composting Facility FEIS 01/1989 1
1
1
1
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOLID WASTE/SLUDGE
1
COMPOSTING FACILITY
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
i
1
1
Prepared for:
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
1
1
1 JANUARY 1989 / ; ;'i''
.... r Irl .. d
tr
' / JAN 2 61989 7111/
G ROUP a y: Au
IH2
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
In Association with
1 E & A Environmental Consultantsq Inc.
OROD
Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. • Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, Inc. • H2M Labs, Inc.
Engineers, Architects, Planners, Scientists
I 575 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, N.Y. 11747-5076
(516) 756-8000 • (201) 575-5400
FAX: 516-694-4122 January 20 , 1989
Supervisor Francis J. Murphy
I and Members of the Town Board
Town of Southold
53095 Main Street
I
Southold, New York 11971
Re: Southold Municipal Solid Waste/
Sludge Composting Facility -
I Final Environmental Impact
Statement
SOHT 88-03
1 Dear Board Members :
We are pleased to submit this Final Environmental Impact
I
Statement (FEIS ) on the proposed Southold Municipal Solid Waste/
Sludge Composting Facility. This document includes the response
to comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ( DEIS )
111
for the project. The DEIS was dated August 1988.
This FEIS has been prepared pursuant to the State Environ-
I mental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) , Title 6 , of the New York Code
of Rules and Regulations , Part 617 ( 6 NYCRR 617 ) and subsequent
regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of En-
vironmental Conservation (NYSDEC ) . This document contains all
I comments received, both written and those presented at the public
hearing for the DEIS held on October 18 , 1988 , as of this date
and the applicant ' s response. In addition , the DEIS has been
Iincluded as Appendix B.
Please do not hesitate to contact this office at your con-
: I venience should any comments or questions arise concerning this
document.
Very truly yours ,
IHO MACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
" ili0
George W. Desmarais, P.E.
i
GWD:vm
I
I
Melville, N.Y. •Riverhead,N.Y. •Fairfield, N.J.
� FINAL
� ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' SOLID WASTE/SLUDGE
COMPOSTING FACILITY
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
1
1
1
Prepared for:
Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
JANUARY 1989
� .IHI44GROUP
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
In Association with
E & A Environmental Consultants. Inc.
I
11-2/4 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
11
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOLID WASTE/SLUDGE COMPOSTING FACILITY
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
1 . 0 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS 1
1 . 1 - INTRODUCTION 1
' 1. 2 - NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION 2
1. 3 - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 9
1 . 4 - PUBLIC HEARING 17
I
I
I
I
I
I i
1-2/44 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
NO. TITLE NO.
1 EFFECTING SLUDGE ON HEAVY METAL IN MSW
COMPOST, COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL
CO-COMPOSTS IN THE UNITED STATES 4
2 HEAVY METALS IN SOLID WASTE AND COMPOSTS
CROW WING COUNTY, MINNESOTA 5
3 PESTICIDES, DIOXIN, PCB AND OTHER ORGANICS
IN SOLID WASTE AND SOLID WASTE COMPOST
' CROW WING COUNTY, MINNESOTA 6
4 ACRONYMS 12
11 LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
NO. TITLE NO.
1 BACTERIA CONCENTRATIONS VS. COMPOSTING
TIME FOR A WINDROW SYSTEM 8
2 PROPOSED ZONING MAP - MASTER PLAN UPDATE 14
I
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - LISTING OF COMMENTS
APPENDIX B - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
APPENDIX C - CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL SITE PLAN
I
I
14/4 4 HOLZMACHER,McLENOON&MURRELL.P.C.
1.0 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
11
1.1 - INTRODUCTION
This document was prepared in accordance with the State En-
vironmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and subsequent regulations
promulgated by the New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation (6 NYCRR617) . This report details all substantive
components and concerns expressed with respect to the Draft En-
vironmental Impact Statement on the proposed composting facility
' to be located at the Cutchogue Landfill , Middle Road, Town of
Southhold, New York.
The comments included herein were either presented in writ-
ing to the Lead Agency, the Town Board of the Town of Southold
during the public comment period, or were made at the October 18,
' 1988 public hearing.
The Final Environmental Impact Statement document includes
' the response to comments and the Draft Environmental Impact State-
ment . The response to comments section includes the full text of
' the following comment letters received from the agencies , Town
Planning Board and citizens , as well as the transcript of the
' October 18 , 1988 public hearing:
1. New York State Department of Environmental Con-
servation
' 2. Town of Southold
3 . Public Hearings
' 1 .
1-12/44 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
These are provided in Appendix A in order of appearance
above. The DEIS, dated August 1988, is included as Appendix B of
this document.
1 1 . 2 - NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
' transmitted a letter to the Southold Town Clerk, dated November
4 , 1988 , which read as follows:
Comment 1
" In section 2 . 0 - Description of the Proposed Action pg .
2. 3 ; it is stated that the composting process consists of shred-
ding MSW; mixing the MSW with a moisture source, etc. The docu-
ment should include the quantity of process water required for
composting , its source and an evaluation of impacts, if any, on
' the source. "
Response
1 Approximately 100 gallons are needed per ton of MSW. This
is based on the assumption that MSW has an initial moisture con-
tent of approximately 30 percent and needs to be brought up to 55
percent . Several water sources are available to Southold .
Sludge which will be incorporated could have a water content in
excess of 30 percent. Water collected from paved areas and build-
ing roofs is normally used as recycled water . Typically, MSW
111 facilities have runoff collection ponds which recirculate the
water into the system. If necessary, water can be supplemented
from wells or Town resources . In this manner, there is no impact
on the source.
1 9.
1-11/44 HOLZMACHER,McLENOON&MURRELL,P.C.
Comment 2
' "Section 2 . 0 (D) should provide data on what effects adding
sludge to household waste will have on the quality of the compost
' product . This information should be presented in tables similar
to that provided for "metal distribution in household waste "
(Table 1 ) . An analysis of pathogen content should also be in-
cluded. "
Response
' The effect of addition of sewage sludge on the quality of
' the compost will depend on the composition of the sludge. Sewage
sludge usually contains higher levels of nitrogen and phosphorus
which are important and beneficial to plant growth. Other chemi-
cal elements , such as zinc, calcium and magnesium, present in the
1 sludge, could be highly beneficial to plants.
Table 1 shows the chemical composition of several composts
derived from MSW and sewage sludge. Sludge is the major contribu-
111
tor to the chemical composition. Tables 2 and 3 show recent data
from Minnesota on the composition of solid waste and its derived
tcompost. Table 2 shows the inorganic chemical analysis , whereas
' Table 3 provides the organic compounds. The data in Table 2 show
that heavy metals are low in solid waste and compost derived from
it . The heavy metal contents in the sludge from the Village of
Greenport sewer plant and the Town of Southold scavenger plant
' are low and with the small volumes generated are not expected to
contribute significantly to the composition of the solid waste .
There are very little data on organics in solid wastes or com-
posts . Table 3 shows recent data from Minnesota . The level of
I
11-12/44 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
i
TABLE 1
iEFFECTING SLUDGE ON HEAVY METAL IN MSW COMPOST
COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL CO-COMPOSTS IN THE UNITED STATES
IICHARACTERISTICS DELAWARE1 TEXAS2 COMPOSITE 19853
I %
Carbon 34 . 9 12 . 3 23. 0
I Nitrogen 1. 55 0. 84 1. 62
Carbon/Nitrogen 21. 8 15. 4 14 . 2
Phosphorus 0 . 54 0. 71 0. 45
I Potassium 0. 22 0 . 20 0. 56
Sulfur 0 . 71 0. 26 0. 61
i Calcium 1. 73 1. 20 3. 82
Magnesium 0. 24 0 . 11 0. 50
Sodium 0. 27 0. 12 0. 52
Iron 0 . 47 1. 09 0. 71
IIAluminum 0. 98 0. 73 1. 83
mg/kg
IZinc 802 502 989
Copper 208 104 267
II Lead 573 185 660
Manganese 369 218 623
Chromium 185 69 74
II Nickel 197 15 28
Boron 40 12 66
Cadmium 5 6 8
IIpH 7 . 4 7. 1 7. 4
EC (dS/m) 6. 7 1. 9 4. 6
INOTES:
Ii Municipal solid waste with refuse derived fuel and sewage
sludge from Wilmington.
2 Municipal solid waste and sewage sludge from Gladewater.
II
3 Municipal solid waste and sewage sludge.
I
i
4 .
II
1
1-11)44 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON Si MURRELL,P.C.
II
TABLE 2
' HEAVY METALS IN SOLID WASTE AND COMPOSTS
CROW WING COUNTY, MINNESOTA
IICONCENTRATION (Dry Weight Basis ) - mg/kg (ppm)
ISOLID( 1 ) MSW NYCRR(1)
PARAMETER WASTE COMPOST PART 360
11 Arsenic 7 . 4 4.1 -
Beryllium <5 <5 -
I Calcium 17900 29600 -
Cadmium 8 . 8 6. 4 10
I Chromium 35 93 1000
Copper 54 54 1000
Iron 7105 6050 -
1 Magnesium 3070 6900 --
Manganese
Manganese 202 272 -
' Mercury 1.02 0. 66 10
Nickel 21. 9 65 200
1 Lead 135 148 250
Selenium <1 <0 . 1 —
Zinc 456 320 2500
II
I
(1) Class I compost, as per Revised 6 NYCRR Part 360 Decem-
ber , 1988 Data by E & A Environmental Consultants ,
Inc. , in a report to Crow Wing County, MN.
II
1
1
11
1 5 .
11
11
1-2/44 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
I
TABLE 3
' PESTICIDES, DIOXIN, PCB AND OTHER ORGANICS
IN SOLID WASTE AND SOLID WASTE COMPOST
CROW WING COUNTY, MINNESOTA
II
CONCENTRATION - ug/kg (ppb)
II
SOLID MSW
I
PARAMETER WASTE COMPOST
Aldrin <0. 80-23 <0 . 13
Ia-BHC 7. 8-51 <1. 1
b-BHC <4. 8 <0. 8
Lindane <6. 0 <1. 0
IChlordane <1500 <240
p,p-DDD 87-130 <7. 0
Ip,p-DDE <14 4. 3
p,p-DDT <49 <8. 2
I
Dieldrin 57-110 <2. 7
Endosulfan I <9. 4-21 >1. 6
II Endosulfan II 34-40 <2. 1
Endosulfan Sulfate <42 <7. 0
Endrin 160-1400 <2. 2
IIEndrin Aldehyde 91-100 <5. 9
Heptachlor 8. 4-26 <0. 23
Heptachlor Epoxide <3. 8 <0. 63
Toxaphene <1000 <170
IMethoxychlor 150-260 12 . 3
CONCENTRATION - ug/g (ppm)
1 Total PCB <1.1 <0. 33
bis-( 2-Ethylhexyl)
Phthalate 20-40 17
ICONCENTRATION - pg/g (ppt)
II
2 , 3 , 7, 8-TCDD (Dioxin) <1 <0 . 73
I
Data by E & A Environmental Consultants, Inc . in a report to
Crow Wing County, November 1988 .
II 6 .
11
1111/44 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
I
organics was very low and there was evidence that several pesti-
Icides may have been biodegraded (e.g. , methoxychlor , endrin, pp ,
DDD, and dieldrin ) . There is reported evidence in the literature
Ithat these compounds biodegrade in soils and therefore could be
Iexpected to decompose during composting.
There is an abundance of literature on pathogen destruction
Iduring composting. Research has shown that Salmonella was elimi-
nated in 14 days by windrow composting . Other data on static
Ipile composting also show that fecal coliforms, total coliforms
Iand Salmonella were not detected after 10 days . Other data show
that parasite ova were destroyed in windrow composting during the
11 first 10 days. Figure 1 shows some data on windrow composting .
Most solid waste composting is achieved using windrow methods and
Irequires conformance with USEPA regulations.
IIComment 3
Section 5 . 11 - Potential Impacts to Public Safety - This
Isection should be expanded to give consideration to explosion
hazard potential associated with methane generation from the mu-
Inicipal sanitary landfill and entrapment beneath the foundation/
Islab for the proposed composting facility structure.
Response
IWhen the municipal sanitary landfill is closed, a methane
gas collection system will be installed at the perimeter of the
Iactive landfill area. The system will collect and recover any
methane gas produced by the biodegradation of the decomposing
Igarbage . An additional methane gas monitoring system will be
Iinstalled between the active landfill and any structures on-site
7 .
1 FIGURE 1
I
I (LOS ANGELES)
(SMITH AND SELINA, 1977)
1 8.0
III TOTAL COLIFORM
0 — — 0 — -- SALMONELLA
z
m
1 Z.
Q 4.0 __
1 t=
WZ O
I ZWcc
`.
OU Z 2.0 _ ‘ _-,
BE `
W
U •
a0 _ ♦ • i • • _,
O
I
`•
•
I -2.o I I 1 1
0 ,10 20 30 40 •50.
1
TIME, DAYS
I Note:
• 1.Operation Mode = 1 Turn/Day
2.Date'&4-12-76 to 5-24.76
I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
III BACTERIA CONCENTRATIONS VS
COMPOSTING TIME FOR A WINRDOW SYSTEM
II2MGROUP ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS
MELVILLE. N.Y. RIVERHEAD. N.Y. FAIRFIELD. N.J.'
8.
I
11-11/44 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
to detect any methane migration outside of the gas collection
system. In addition, portable methane monitoring equipment will
be installed in the composting facility structures to detect any
methane migration past the two primary collection networks .
1 The compost facility structures will not be constructed on
the active landfill area or on an area that has been previously
used for landfilling. By utilizing the above mentioned construc-
tion procedures , the potential for an explosive condition due to
' methane migration to the compost structures is minimized.
1 . 3 - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
' Town Planner , Valerie Scopaz , transmitted a memorandum to
Supervisor Francis J. Murphy and Members of the Town Board, dated
1 August 26, 1988, which included the following comments :
' Comment 1
A site plan should be included showing the location of the
existing buildings and uses on-site, as well as the general lo-
cation of the proposed structure. "
Response
' A site plan of the Cutchogue landfill has been included in
Appendix C of this document.
Comment 2
"Approximate distances to the nearest residential and in-
dustrial buildings should be noted so that the degree of the en-
vironmental impacts on these properties can be measured. "
1
9 .
I
11-11/4
HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
Response
The site plan provided in Appendix C is a scaled drawing
with the locations shown from proposed structures to nearby resi-
dential and industrial buildings.
' Comment 3
" In Section 2 , most of the discussion on the toxicity of
1 compost could be condensed into tabular form. The table could
indicate known toxicity levels for humans, plants , animals; range
of levels typically found in municipal compost and sources of
' these toxics . In order to judge whether Southold Town 's garbage
will yield toxic levels in the "typical" range, we need to know
' just how typical or atypical its garbage content is . This
section attempts to do this, but does not do so clearly. "
Response
' Tables 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 had been included in the DEIS to
assist in the presentation of the material in Section 2.
Comment 4
"There should be a glossary where certain scientific and
Itechnical terms are defined in layman ' s terms . For instance ,
111 most people are not familiar with translocation, cation exchange
capacity, etc. "
Response
The technical and scientific terms included in the DEIS were
rdefined in layman ' s terms wherever possible . An explanation of
the technical term was provided where possible.
I
10.
I
111-2/441 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
' Comment 5
"Spell out all acronyms or provide a key. Again, the aver-
age lay person does not know what the letters RCRA stand for. "
Response
Table 4 details the listing of acronyms used in the DEIS.
Comment 6
"Section 3. 2. 1 on page 3. 17 should clarify the status of the
existing leachate plume. "
' Response
' Based on the Part 360 Compliance Report (HM&M, P.C. , June
1981 ) , it was found that no private wells in the vicinity of the
landfill have been affected by migration of a leachate plume from
the Cutchogue landfill . Based on studies conducted by SCDHS,
' both for private well and groundwater monitoring wells, it ap-
pears that the leachate contamination has remained relatively
' confined to the landfill boundaries.
' It should be noted that the adjacent residential areas to
the landfill are located to the southwest of the landfill. The
' groundwater flow is to the northeast and therefore the adjacent
residential areas are located "upstream" of the landfill and
' should not be affected by any leachate plume from the landfill .
Residential areas located "downstream" of the landfill, approxi-
mately 2 , 000 feet from the active area of the landfill , show no
' leachate plume existing.
' 11.
I
1
12/441 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
I
TABLE 4
IACRONYMS
ACRONYM ASSOCIATED NAME
IDEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement
SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act
I
NYCRR New York Code of Rules and Regulations
NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation
RDF Refuse Derived Fuel
MSW Municipal Solid Waste
RFP Request for Proposal
I FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement
STOP Stop Throwing Out Pollutants
CEC Cation Exchange Capacity
I
FDA
USEPA Food and Drug Administration
United States Environmental Protection
Agency
I
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
EAF Environmental Assessment Form
I
EIS
SPDES Environmental Impact Statement
State Pollution Discharge Elimination System
MSL Mean Sea Level
IUSGS United States Geological Survey
AQCR Air Quality Control Region
NAMS National Air Monitoring System
I
SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring System
NYSAAQS New York State Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
ILILCO Long Island Lighting Company
SCDPW Suffolk County Department of Public Works
I
AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic
NYSDOT New York State Department of Transportation
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
ICDP Census Designated Place
BSI Building Structure Inventory
II NYSOPRHP New York State Office of Parks , Recreation
and Historic Preservation
SCDHS Suffolk County Department of Health Services
ACGIH American Conference of Governmental
IIndustrial Hygienists
PFRP Process to Further Reduce Pathogens
I
LIRR Long Island Rail Road
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
II
12.
I
HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
Comment 7
"Designation of area as Level I should be explained, because
the designation of Level II , as written on page 3 . 18 , also ap-
pears to apply. "
Response
Based on a review of the New York State Ambient Air Quality
Standards Classification System, the Cutchogue landfill area has
been designated as a Level I. Level I has the most stringent air
' quality standards .
Comment 8
Section 4 . 2 and its accompanying maps must be updated to
reflect recent rezonings by the Town Board. Page 4 . 4 in this
section needs to be corrected as noted on the page. Also, docu-
ment speaks of proposed zoning as though it will be or is adopted.
Yet, there is no reference to the existing code. "
Response
The zoning information regarding the landfill property and
surrounding parcels was obtained from the official building zone
' map for the Town of Southold, dated July 2, 1985 and Chapter 100 ,
' Zoning, from the existing Southold Town code . Information in
Chapter 100 was supplemented by proposed changes by the Town of
' Southold to the Town ' s Master Plan. Since the 1985 building zone
map of the Town of Southold, changes have been made which are not
on the 1985 printed building zone map. Recent rezonings are re-
flected in Figure 2.
' 13.
1
IFIGURE 2
I 1111112Wall t*
LONG ISLAND SOUND
�
i ' lig '2 ,.,..
1v�
8
0
� M
C TC .:0‘
O'k UE / D IL ' 111\lk
R.eol
11,‘
I
I
li •VA'it.3
.fid+ .':».!: •
111111,4
( \
1111
ali cf. 70,7 G..olc,...4 1
S 0 111111 Iii 1---- , —
to
I
Iii INTE DED PR • JEC'
IIIII �11 . - . AREA �,,,
mai
I OM NI , 1 ' glitim
MD
r
A—C \ \ _
NI .\. \----\
1 LEGEND
PROPOSED ZONING
I SCALE: 1"= 1600' ® Agricultural Conservation xi! Resat/Residential
C;-EResidential Low Density AA no Residential/Office
• Residential Low Density A NM Limited Business
I0113 Residential Low Density 8 fin Hamlet Business
cm Residential Low Density C 0 General Business
n-.00 Residential Low Density D M I Marine I
I I Mo I Hamlet Density Residential [ NM 1 Marine II
1 uo 1 Light Industrial/Office Park
f ', 1 Light Industrial
I PROPOSED ZONING MAP. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD.
MASTER PLAN UPDATE
ISOURCE: LATEST REVISION AUGUST 9,1988
I 2MG?OUP ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS
MELVILLE, N.Y. RIVERHEAD, N.Y. FAIRFIELD. N.J.
I14.
111-2/4
HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
Changes have been made to page 4. 4 as requested and appear
in the final version of the DEIS.
Comment 9
' "Two changes must be made to page 4 .10 as noted. "
' Response
The reference to the Southold School District should be
' changed to read "Mattituck-Cutchogue School District, which con-
tained approximately 1 , 234 students in the 1985-1986 school
year . . . " The second change was corrected prior to issuing the
' final version of the DEIS.
Comment 10
' "Section 5 . 3 . 1 on "dust" is poorly organized and poorly
written (pages 5. 7 - 5.11 ) . The reader is not left with a clear
idea of what causes dust, what controls it and what mitigates its
effects . "
Response
The section details that the two main sources of dust are
vehicular traffic and process components . The dust is the result
of the solid waste pulverizing, screening and mixing processes
' breaking down into fine particles . These particles are then
transported through the air by wind shear resulting in airborne
dust particles. It also mentions in the section on dust sources ,
mitigating methods to control dust and any expected exposure to
' the worker.
Comment 11
"Ditto for Section 5 . 3 . 2 on Odor Sources and for Section
1 5 . 3. 3 - Airborne Pathogens . "
1 15.
1-11/44
HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
Response
Sections 5 . 3 . 2 and 5 . 3 . 3 have been written to include the
sources and potential control of Odor and Airborne Pathogens .
Comment 12
' "The noise and explosion potential of the proposed facility
should be examined more closely. What will be the impact on the
' existing residences adjacent to the facility? What measures will
be used to contain water and other fire suppressant chemicals
within the building?"
Response
A similar comment on the explosion potential has been raised
by NYSDEC. See Section 1. 2 , Comment 3 of this document for re-
sponse details . Noise potential of the project for surrounding
residential areas will be mitigated by having the majority of the
' composting operations in buildings . Noise from outdoor oper-
ations of the composting process will be less than existing con-
ditions from landfill operations.
NYSDEC will require, as a condition for the permit to oper-
ilate by the vendor , a detailed description of the safety and
hazard equipment to be installed at the compost plant. Part of
the required equipment will include fire suppressant chemicals
1 and extinguishers .
Comment 13
" In general, mitigation measures to reduce projected impacts
to existing residences to the south are not specific enough .
Berming and landscaping are definitely needed along the south
border as well as the east and west property lines . The berms
' 16.
H HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
should be between 5 ' and 7 ' in height, and at least 4 ' to 5 ' in
width. They should be heavily planted with evergreen species of
trees .
Further , the entrance to the landfill proper should also be
' landscaped. Protection from noise and explosion potential should
be addressed. At the least, there should be on-going yearly moni-
11 toring of the wells of the adjoining residences. "
Response
' The selected composting vendor will be required to submit
11 architectural plans and engineering drawings for review by the
Town prior to commencing construction. The Town will include in
its review process the mitigation measures included by the vendor
to minimize the impact to those adjacent areas to the south of
' the landfill. These mitigating measures may include landscaping
' and berming . In addition , the majority of the composting oper-
ations are expected to be conducted within a building . The SCDHS
1 currently conducts a monitoring program for private wells and
groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of the landfill .
I
1 . 4 - PUBLIC HEARING
Minutes of the public hearing at Southold Town Hall are in-
cluded as part of Appendix A of this document.
Comment 1 - Phil Barth
"You said that most of the facility would be indoors . What
would be outdoors?"
r 17 .
I
1
■ ItJn HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
Response
The only possibility of anything being outdoors would be a
storage/curing facility. After the solid waste itself is com-
posted and after the process of digestion, the vendor may elect
to store the compost out in piles before it is then marketed and
sold.
1 Comment 2 - Phil Barth
"Will that have any smell?"
' Response
At the storage/curing stage , the solid waste has been di-
gested and there would be minimal odor.
Comment 3 - David Israel
"Has this system been used in any other municipalities in
' this area?"
' Response
Not in New York State for the combination of solid waste and
1 sludge. There are a few facilities in Minnesota, Texas and Dela-
ware for solid waste and sludge. Most of the composting facili-
ties have been solely for sewage sludge. Currently, there are
composting operations for leaves and grass in the Towns of Islip
11 and Huntington and the Village of Lawrence. The composting tech-
1 nology for solid waste has a proven track record in Europe.
Comment 4 - Richard Greenfield
"My name is Richard Greenfield. I am a citizen of Southold
and resident of the Village of Peconic . I am President of the
Suffolk Waste Distillation . I just want to make a comment for
1
18.
111/44 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
the record on two words in one section. Section 8 of the alterna-
tives to the proposed action and their associated facts . Section
8 . 3 - Waste Distillation. The word following waste distillation,
which is the word in quotation marks , "pyrolysis" . The proper
1 word for the proper chemical identification of waste distillation
is destructive distillation. That is the proper chemical termi-
nology for the process . On the following page, 8. 4 in the top
sentence, it is volatile ( i . e . , explosive gas ) . The gas is not
' an explosive gas . It is clean burning volatile gas. Volatile
' does not mean explosive. The gas is not explosive . It contains
no oxygen in it , which would make it explosive. It is merely a
clean burning gas. So the word explosive, I take exception to .
Thank you. "
Response
Section 8 . 3 of he DEIS should be modified to replace the
word "pyrolysis" with "destructive distillation" . In addition ,
' the reference in Section 8 . 3 to the by-product of the process
being an explosive gas should be eliminated. The gas is con-
sidered a clean burning volatile gas.
I
I
19.
1
APPENDIX A
' Nov 04 '88 15:57 M S 4FW.CONS. - - P.2
..-M..,
11
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
1 Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794
(516) 751-7900 REQ
NOV 41988
SOThomas C.Commissioner Jorling
„+Oid Toren Clerk
November 4, 1988
I Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
' Southold. N. Y. 11971
Re: Draft EIS-Town of Southold
Composting of Municipal Solid
II
Waste & Sludge Facility
Dear Ms . Terry:
IIThe NYSDEC has completed review of the subject Draft EIS and offers the
following comments:
IIIn section 2.0 - Description of the Proposed Action pg. 2.3; it is stated
that the composting process consists of shredding MSW; mixing the MSW with a
moisture source; etc. The document should include the quantity of process
I
water required for composting, its' source and an evaluation of impacts, if any
on the source.
Section 2.0 (Dl should provide data on what effects adding sludge to
household waste will have on the quality of the compost product. This information
should be presented in tables similar to that provided for "metal distribution in
I
household waste" (Table 1) . An analysis of pathogen content should also be
included.
Section 5. 11 - Potential Impacts to Public Safety - This section should
II
be expanded to give consideration to explosion hazard potential associated with
methane generation from the municipal sanitary landfill and entrapment beneath
the foundation/slab for the proposed composting facility structure.
I 'Thank you for your cooperation regarding the environmental review of this
important project.
I
Sincerely.
',.
David DeRidder
Deputy Regional Permit Administrator
IDDR:rcr
cc: H. D. Berger
P. Roth/A. Patel
I P. Barbato/W. Spitz
1
sof/r-87'03.6 4
/.2t ,5-i( J -2------S-
RECEIVED
SEP 16 988 _
$c„f6,1d T.....,, mark
I MEMORANDUM .
•
II TO: Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor
Members of the Town Board
I
FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner
RE: Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
II proposed Municipal Solid Waste Composting Facility for
Southold Town.
DATE: August 26, 1988
II
The above-referenced document has been reviewed. It appears
II to be substantially complete, but certain items should be placed
in the completed DEIS; to wit:
II 1. A site plan showing the location of the existing
buildings and uses on site, as well as the general
location of the proposed structure.
I
2. Approximate distances to the nearest residential and
industrial buildings should be noted so that the degree
of the environmental impacts on these properties can be
measured.
3 . In Section-2 much of the discussion on the toxicity of
I compost could be condensed into tabular form. The
table could indicate .known toxicity levels for humans,
plants, animals; range of levels typically found in
municipal compost and sources of these toxics. In
I order to judge whether Southold Town's garbage will
yield toxic levels in the "typical" range, we need to
. know just how typical or atypical its
II garbage content is. This section attempts to do this
but does not do so clearly.
4 . There should be a glossary where certain scientific and
technical terms are defined in layman' s terms. For
instance, most people are not familiar with
IItranslocation, cation exchange capacity, etc.
5 . Spell out all acronyms or provide a key. Again, the
I
average lay person doesn' t know what the letters RCRA
stand for.
II 6 . Section 3 . 21 on page 3 . 17 should clarify status of the
existing leachate plume. See notes on draft.
7 . Designation of area as Level I should be explained,
IIbecause the designation of Level II , as written on
page 3 .18, also appears to apply.
•
' 8. Section 4.2 and its accompanying maps must be updated
to reflect recent rezonings by Town Board. Page 4.4 in
this section needs to be corrected as noted on the page.
Also, document speaks of proposed zoning as though it
will be or is adopted. Yet there is no reference to
the existing code.
I9. Two changes must be made to page 4.10 as noted.
1110. Section 5.3 .1 on "dust" is poorly organized and poorly
written (pages 5.7 - 5.11) . The reader is not left
with a clear idea of what causes dust, what controls
it and what mitigates its effects.
11. Ditto for Section 5.3 . 2 on Odor Sources and for Section
5. 3.3 - Airborne Pathogens.
' 12. The noise and explosion potential of the proposed
facility should be examined more closely. What will be
the impact on the existing residences adjacent to the
' facility? What measures will be used to contain water
and other fire suppresant chemicals within the building?
13 . In general, mitigation measures to reduce projected
impacts to existing residences to the south are not
specific enough. Berming and landscaping are definitely
needed along the south border as well as the east and
' west property lines. The berms should be between 5 ' to
7 ' in height; and at least 4 ' to 5 ' in width. They
should be heavily planted with evergreen species of
' trees.
Further, the entrance to the landfill proper should
also be landscaped.
' Protection from noise and explosion potential should be
•
addressed.
At the least, there should be ongoing yearly monitoring
-of the wells of the adjoining residences. ,/
•
jd '11(14 lJ
I
1
i
pieek.s -c SUAzT
', PUBLIC HEARING
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
October 18, 1988
3:30 P.M.
IN THE MATTER OF THE "DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WITH
RESPECT TO THE TOWN COMPOSTING OF MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE AND
' SLUDGE FACILITY."
Present: Supervisor Francis J. Murphy
Justice Raymond W. Edwards
Councilwoman Jean W. Cochran
Councilman George L. Penny IV
Councilwoman Ruth D. Oliva
Councilwoman Ellen M. Larsen
Town Clerk Judith T. Terry
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: The first Public Hearing will be held at 3:30 P. M.,
and 7:30 P.M., on October 18th, 1988, on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement with Respect to the Town Composting of Municipal Solid Waste and
Sludge Facility. The official notice to be read by Councilman Penny.
COUNCILMAN PENNY: "Notice is hereby given that the Town Board of the
Town of Southold will hold a public hearing at 3:30 P.M. and 7:30 P.M. on
' Tuesday, October 18, 1988, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold,
New York, on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement with respect to the
Southold Town Composting of Municipal Solid Waste and Sludge Facility.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board hereby extends the
public comment period with respect to said Draft Environmental Impact Statement
to October 28, 1988.
SEQR lead agency is the Southold Town Board. Copies of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement are on file at the Office of the Southold Town
Clerk, Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York; and may be reviewed
iduring regular business hours. A copy has also been placed in the Floyd
Memorial Library, Greenport, the Southold Free Library, Southold, the
' Cutchogue Free Library, Cutchogue, The Mattituck Free Library, Mattituck,
and the Fishers Island Free Library, Fishers Island. Dated: September 20,
1 1988, Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk."
I have an affidavit of publication by the Traveler-Watchman, and a like affidavit
1
1 Page 2- DEIS composting
I
from the Suffolk Times. I have an affidavit from the Town Clerk, that this
has been posted on the Town Bulleting Board. There are no further communica-
tions.
1
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, George. Okay, at this time I'd like to
I
ask consultant George Desmarais, first to make a brief statement concerning
this. George?
GEORGE DESMARAIS, P.E., representing Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C.,
.1
consultants to the Town on the Composting/Solid Waste/Sludge Facility: Just
I
a couple of quick things. What I'd like to do is just summarize the purpose
of the public hearing today. Really, it's just to record any comments or state--
, ments from the town's people on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the construction and operation of the composting plant, up at the Cutchogue
I
Landfill in Southold. The plant would do 120 tons per day located at the existing
site of the Landfill. Right now the Town is in the process of evaluating proposals
from vendors and the plan is to start construction in the springtime, if the
Ineccessary permits from the New York State DEC, plus construction and
enviromental permits are all followed. That's basically the whole project. What
I
they plan on doing is at the existing site locating the composting facility southeast
portion of the Landfill, south of the overhead power lines, near the material's
' recovery building itself now. The majority of the operation will be all enclosed,
and the whole operation has to conform to all the Part 360 requirements in
I
the New York State Department of Enviromental Conservation, which we're going
through the process now, submitting in the permits to them. So at this point
I'd like to open -it up to anyone who has any questions. We'll record the comments,
,, or the statements.. Any of the comments or statements, they'll be included in
the Final Environmental Impact Statement ,which will be prepared in the next
I
couple of weeks, submitted into the DEC for final approval, after approval
of the Town as lead agency. That's about it.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, George. Is there anyone, who would like
to make a comment, or ask questions, over on the left? Anyone in the middle?
IYes, sir.
' PHIL BARTH : You said that most of the facility would be indoors. What would
be outdoors?
I
I.
:�1 Page 3- DEIS composting
I GEORGE DESMARAIS: The only possiblity of anything being outdoors wOuld
be a curing facility. After the compost itself is doctored, the process of digestion,
I they would store the compost out in windrow piles beforeit is then marketed after
digestion of the whole solid waste material itself.
IPHIL BARTH: Will that have any smell?
I GEORGE DESMARAIS: At that point the whole garbage has digested itself,
and there would be no smell at that point.
ISUPERVISOR MURPHY: It should be what they call cooled off, and not hot
anymore. The heat is removed from it. Anyone in the middle? Anyone on
the right? George, you're not getting paid much today. Yes? We need your
name, just for the record.
IDAVID ISRAEL: David Israel. Has this system be used in any other municipals,
muncipali in this area?
GEORGE DESMARAIS: Not in New York State itself. There's a few facilities
I up in Minnesota area, there's facilities down in Delaware. Most of the composting
facilities have been for sewage sludge itself. The idea of composting in municipal
I solid waste now, is probably in the United States, and the states in the northeast
just coming on line now. It has a proven track record in Europe and in other
areas of the United States, also.
I SUPERVISORMURPHY: I might add that each of the five firms that have submitted
g
a proposal that we're looking at, all have operating facilities mostly in Europe,
of doing garbage and sludge together.
IDAVID ISRAEL: Do we know the cost factors of doing this in the United States?
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Yes, they're in the proposal. Yes. George?
GEORGE DESMARAIS: Another thing that I have is just a quick notice as far
1 as the history of composting process and project, and MI leave that on the
table, Frank, for anyone that's interested.
I,
: I Page 4 - DEIS composting
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, we'll recess until 7:30 tonight, when we'll take
I
additional comments.
Public hearing reconvened at 7:30 P.M.
ISUPERVISOR MURPHY: I'd like to reopen the first public hearing. The official
notice was read at 3:30 P.M. Review it, George, and it's one on an Environmental
IImpact Statement with respect to the Town Composting of Muncipal Solid Waste
and Sludge. George will read the official Notice.
ICOUNCILMAN PENNY: "Notice is hereby given the Town Board of the Town
of Southold will hold a public hearing at 3:30 P.M. and 7:30 P.M. on Tuesday,
IOctober 18, 1988, at the Southold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York,
on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement with respect to the Southold Town
I Composting of Municipal Solid Waste and Sludge Facility. Notice is futher given
that the Town Board hereby extends the public comment period with respect
to said Draft Environmental Impact Statement to October 28, 1988. SEQR lead
agency is the Southold Town Board." Copies of the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement are on file at the Office of the Southold Town Clerk, Town Hall,
Main Road, Southold, New York, and may be reviewed during regular business
hours, and copies are available in all the local libraries. We have all of the
Iposting affidavits.
I SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you. At this time, before we open it up to
the public, we have a consultant that the Town has hired. He has done this.
He has worked with the Town over many years. I'd like to ask George Desmarais
Ifrom the H2M firm to make a short presentation.
I GEORGE DESMARIAIS: What I want to do is just go through quickly on the
purpose of the public hearing itself, which is to receive any comments or state-
ments from all the people in the Town on the operation and construction of
'
the composting plant, which is scheduled to be at the Cutchogue Landfill. What
we're planning on doing is putting the compost plant itself, southeastern portion
of the Landfill, using the existing materials for recovery facilities, so when
people come in they can just dump their garbage there, and eventually the
Ioperations at the Landfill, as far as dumping the solid waste into the ground,
will no longer exist and will be going to the composting plant itself. When
I we receive comments, they'll be incorporated in the Final Environmental Impact
Statement, which will be prepared, and we review that to make a determination
• Page 5 - DEIS composting
9 p 9
whether there will be a significant environmental impact due to composting.
That's the extent of the project, and at this point, I guess, Frank will ask
if anyone has any questions. Thank You.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, George. Is there anyone in the audience
who would like to make a comment for the record? At this time, for or against?
' Any questions at all on it? Sir?
RICHARD GREENFIELD: My name is Richard Greenfield. I am a citizen of
I
Southold, and resident of the village of Peconic. I'm President of the Suffolk
Waste Distillation. I just want to make a comment for the record on two words
' in one section. Section 8 of the alternatives to the proposed action and their
associated facts. Section 8.3. Waste distillation. The word following waste
distillation, which is the word in quotation marks, paralysis. The proper word
for the proper chemical indentification of waste distillation is destructive distillation.
That is the proper chemical terminology for the process. On the following
page, 8.4 in the top sentence it's volatile (ie, explosive gas) . The gas is
not an explosive gas. It is clean burning volatile gas. Volatile does not mean
explosive. The gas is not explosive. It contains no oxygen in it, which would
make it explosive. It is merely a clean burning gas. So the word explosive,
I take exception to. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR MURPHY: We'll address it. Thank you, Dick. Anyone else? (No
' response.) Any Town Board members? (No response.) Hearing, none we'll close
this public hearing.
Judith T. Terry
Southold Town Clerk
t
•
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, P.C. • Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, Inc. • H2M Labs, Inc.
Engineers, Architects, Planners, Scientists
575 Broad Hollow Road, Melville, N.Y. 11747-5076
(516) 756-8000 • (201) 575-5400
FAX: 516-694-4122
August 24, 1988
' Supervisor Francis J. Murphy
and Members of the Town Board
Town of Southold
53095 Main Street
Southold, New York 11971
' Re: Southold Municipal Solid Waste/
Sludge Composting Facility -
Draft Environmental Impact
' Statement
SOHT 88-03
' Dear Board Members :
We are pleased to submit this Draft Environmental Impact
' Statement (DEIS) on the proposed Southold Municipal Solid Waste/
Sludge Composting Facility. This document is prepared pursuant
to the request of the Town Board and addresses the issues of con-
cern raised at scoping meetings dated April 22 and May 19 , 1988.
This DEIS has been prepared pursuant to the State Environ-
mental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) , Title 6 , of the New York Code
' of Rules and Regulations , Part 617 ( 6 NYCRR 617 ) and subsequent
regulations promulgated by the New York State Department of En-
vironmental Conservation (NYSDEC) . The document is comprehensive
in nature and is prepared in order to analyze the existing en-
vironment in the vicinity of the project area and to analyze
reasonably anticipated impacts of the proposed action. Miti-
gation measures proposed by the project sponsor , as well as
reasonable alternatives to the proposed action are also included.
The overall intent of this DEIS is not to be an advocate for
or against the proposed action or any of the reviewed alterna-
tives . Its purpose is to identify the impacts to the surrounding
environment which may reasonably be anticipated to occur at the
onset of the project.
' At your convenience, we would be pleased to meet with you to
discuss any aspect of this document.
Very truly yours ,
HOLZMACHER,� McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
aC�' '• 4ef.P7/24 ‘,/
George W. Desmarais , P.E.
' GWD/JF/vm
Melville, N.Y. • Riverhead,N.Y.•Fairfield, N.J.
' DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
SOLID WASTE/SLUDGE
� COMPOSTING FACILITY
� SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
1
1
' Prepared for:
Town of Southold
i
53095 Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
AUGUST 1988
� IHII44GROUP
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
' In Association with
E & A Environmental Consultants. Inc.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' SOLID WASTE/SLUDGE COMPOSTING FACILITY - TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
' COVER SHEET
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
IPREAMBLE P. 1
' 1 . 0 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. 1
2 . 0 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTION 2. 1
' A. PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED 2. 1
B. LOCATION 2 . 2
C. DESIGN AND LAYOUT 2 . 3
' D. COMPOST PRODUCT 2. 6
E. APPROVALS 2. 24
3 .0 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 3. 1
3 . 1 GEOLOGY 3. 1
' 3. 1. 1 - SUBSURFACE 3. 1
3. 1. 2 - SURFACE 3. 2
3. 1. 3 - TOPOGRAPHY 3. 14
3 . 2 - WATER RESOURCES 3. 16
' 3. 2. 1 - GROUNDWATER 3. 16
3. 2 . 2 - SURFACE WATER 3. 17
3 . 3 - AIR QUALITY 3. 18
3 . 4 - TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY 3. 25
3. 4. 1 - VEGETATION 3. 27
3. 4. 2 - WILDLIFE 3. 29
1
1
T '
ABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT D. )
PAGE NO.
' 4 . 0 - EXISTING HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 4.1
4 .1 - MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC 4. 1
4. 2 - LAND USE AND ZONING 4. 3
4. 3 - COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES 4.12
' 4. 4 - DEMOGRAPHY 4. 13
' 4. 5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES 4. 18
5 . 0 - ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE
PROPOSED ACTION 5 . 1
5 . 1 GEOLOGY 5 . 2
5 . 1. 1 - SUBSURFACE AND SURFACE 5 . 2
5 . 1. 2 - TOPOGRAPHY 5 . 3
5 . 2 - WATER RESOURCES 5 . 3
5. 2 .1 - GROUNDWATER 5. 3
5. 2 . 2 SURFACE WATER 5.5
' 5. 3 - AIR QUALITY 5. 7
5 . 3. 1 - DUST 5 .7
I5. 3. 2 - ODOR SOURCES 5 .11
5. 3. 3 - AIRBORNE PATHOGENS 5 .12
' 5 . 4 - TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY 5 .17
' 5 . 4 . 1 - VEGETATION 5.17
5. 4 . 2 - WILDLIFE 5 .18
5 . 5 - ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC 5.18
5 . 6 - LAND USE AND ZONING 5.19
5 . 7 - COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES 5 . 20
ii
I
' TABLE OFNT NT (CONT'
D. )
E S (CONT D. )
11 PAGE NO.
' 5 . 8 - DEMOGRAPHY 5 . 23
5 . 9 - CULTURAL RESOURCES 5. 24
5 . 10- IMPACTS TO NOISE LEVELS 5.24
5 . 10 . 1 - ON-SITE NOISE 5 . 24
' 5 . 10. 2 - OFF-SITE NOISE 5. 26
' 5 . 11- POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY 5. 27
6 . 0 - MITIGATION MEASURES 6. 1
11 6 . 1 - ODOR REDUCTION AND CONTROL 6. 1
6 . 2 - GROUNDWATER PROTECTION 6. 3
6 . 3 - VISUAL ENHANCEMENT 6. 3
' 6. 4 - DUST MITIGATION AND CONTROL 6. 3
6. 5 - PATHOGEN CONTROL 6. 5
' 6 . 6 - POTENTIAL IMPACT DETECTION (MONITORING) 6. 5
6. 6. 1 - PROCESS MONITORING 6. 5
6. 6. 2 - OCCUPATIONAL MONITORING 6. 6
' 6. 6. 3 - PRODUCT MONITORING 6. 6
6. 6. 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 6. 7
' 6 . 7 - CONTINGENCY PLAN 6. 7
7 . 0 - ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT
BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 7 .1
8 . 0 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION AND
THEIR ASSOCIATED IMPACTS 8.1
8 . 1 - NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 8 . 2
8 . 2 - MASS-BURN INCINERATION (RESOURCE RECOVERY
FACILITY) 8. 3
11 iii
TABLE OF CONTENTSNT'
(CO D. )
PAGE NO.
' 8. 3 - WASTE DISTILLATION ( "PYROLYSIS" ) 8. 3
8. 4 - REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL (RDF) TECHNOLOGY 8. 5
t8 . 5 - OUT-OF-TOWN DISPOSAL 8. 5
8. 6 - LANDFILL EXPANSION 8. 6
8. 7 - RECYCLING/SOURCE SEPARATION 8 . 8
' 9 . 0 - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF
RESOURCES 9. 1
I _10 .0 GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS 10 . 1
11 .0 USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY 11. 1
REFERENCES R. 1
1
I
iv
II
LIST OF TABLES
II TABLE PAGE
NO. TITLE NO.
II1 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF METAL CONTENT
IN DIFFERENT HOUSEHOLD WASTE FRACTIONS 2. 8
I2 HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATION OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE -
DERIVED COMPOSTS AS A FUNCTION OF PROCESSING
METHOD (mg/kg dry weight) 2. 9
II3 ADMISSIBLE LEVELS OF HEAVY METALS IN COMPOST
RECOMMENDED BY FOUR SOURCES (mg/kg) 2.15
I4 OBSERVED RANGES OF SOIL-DERIVED ESSENTIAL
PLANT NUTRIENT ELEMENTS IN SOIL AND COMPOST 2. 18
' 5 MICRO-FLORAL POPULATION DURING AEROBIC
COMPOSTING, NUMBERS PER GRAM OF WET COMPOST 2. 20
I
6 CATEGORIES OF COMPOST USERS 2 . 23
7 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN 3. 5
1 8 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 3. 20
9 NON-CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS 3. 22
I
10 PAST, PRESENT & PROJECTED POPULATION LEVELS:
CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD &
1 SUFFOLK COUNTY 4.17
11 AVERAGE AIRBORNE DUST AND ENDOTOXIN
ICONCENTRATIONS 5. 9
12 CONCENTRATIONS OF THERMOPHILIC ACTINOMYCETES
IN DIFFERENT MATERIALS (NOS. PER GRAM, DRY
I
WEIGHT) 5.14
13 RANGE OF NOISE LEVELS AT VARIOUS UNIT WASTE
IIPROCESSING AREAS 5 . 25
11
II
Iv
I
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
NO. TITLE NO.
1 LOCATION MAP 1. 2
' 2 GENERALIZED ISOMETRIC GEOLOGICAL CROSS
SECTION OF THE SOUTHOLD PENINSULA 3. 3
3 HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION 3. 4
4 SOILS MAP 3. 8
1 5 CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL - TOPOGRAPHY 3. 15
6 EXISTING LAND USE 4. 4
' 7 EXISTING ZONING 4.7
8 CENSUS DESIGNATED PLACES 4.14
' LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - SPECIES LIST
11 APPENDIX B ZONING CODE EXCERPTS
1
vi
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
' COMPOSTING FACILITY
SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK
LOCATION: Middle ( North ) Road , Town of Southold ;
1 occupying approximately eleven acres of
available area in the southern portion of
the 59. 8-acre Cutchogue landfill, located
west of Cox Lane, east of Depot Lane, and
south of Oregon Road . The composting
facility involves the construction of an
approximately 40 , 000 square foot build-
ing , and a storage/staging area located
with a roofed enclosure on an impervious
surface.
' APPLICANT: Town of Southold
53095 Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
CONTACT: James A. Schondebare, Esq. , Town Attorney
LEAD AGENCY: Southold Town Board
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
' CONTACT: Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor
11 INVOLVED AGENCY: New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Region 1
' SUNY, Building 40
Stony Brook, N.Y. 11794
CONTACT: Paul Roth, P.E.
Regional Solid Waste Engineer
INTERESTED AGENCY: New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
Bureau of Municipal Waste
Division of Solid Waste
' 50 Wolf Road
Albany, N.Y. 12233-4013
CONTACT: Sally J. Rowland
ISanitary Engineer
I
i
' PREPARER: Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C.
' 575 Broad Hollow Road
Melville, N.Y. 11747-5076
DATE OF PREPARATION: August 1988
' AVAILABILITY OF This document is available for public
DOCUMENT: review and comment at the office of the
Lead Agency. Comments on the DEIS are
due by , thirty ( 30 ) days after the
acceptance date of this Report by the
Lead Agency.
1
I
1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement was prepared by
' Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell , P .C. in association with E & A
' Environmental Consultants , Inc . H2M would like to acknowledge
the following individuals for their efforts in this endeavor:
H2M
' Gary E. Loesch, P.E. - Project Director
George W. Desmarais , P.E. - Project Manager
Joseph A. Barra - Project Engineer
Joan Florio - Project Planner
Andrew P. Freleng Project Planner
E & A Environmental Consultants, Inc.
' Eliot Epstein, Ph.D.
Joel E. Alpert, Ph.D.
11 We would also like to acknowledge representatives of the
Town of Southold and the NYSDEC for their assistance and input
1 into the preparation of this document:
Town of Southold NYSDEC
' Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor Paul Roth, P.E.
Jean W. Cochrane Sally J. Rowland
Raymond W. Edwards Stanley Farkas , P.E.
Ellen M. Larsen
Ruth D. Oliva
George L. Penny IV
11Robert
A. Schondebare, Esq. , Town Attorney
Robert H. Berntsson, Asst. Town Attorney
Valarie Scopaz, Planning Chairman
Melissa Spiro, Planning Department
I
PREAMBLE
I
This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS ) has been
' prepared pursuant to the New York State Environmental Quality
' Review Act ( SEQRA) of Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations, Part 617 (6 NYCRR 617) , to assess potential environ-
mental
nviron-
mental impacts associated with construction and operation of a
composting facility located in the southern portion of the Cut-
chogue landfill complex property. The proposed composting fa-
cility is to be situated on approximately eleven available acres
of the 59 . 8-acre landfill complex, located on Middle (North)
' Road, between Depot and Cox Lanes , Cutchogue , Town of Southold,
New York.
' This document has been prepared at the request of the Lead
Agency, the Southold Town Board, by Holzmacher , McLendon & Mur-
rell , P . C. , in conjunction with E & A Environmental Consultants,
' Inc . , under the direction of the Southold Town Board , the
Southold Planning Board, the Southold Planning Department and the
' New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) .
This DEIS is not intended to advocate the proposed action or
' any of the investigated alternatives. Its purpose is to identify
' the impacts to the existing natural and human environments which
may reasonably be anticipated to occur with the commencement and
completion of this proposed action.
While impact analysis is not an exact science due to the
variability of natural systems and the complexity of the human
way of life, the foundation for anticipated impacts is drawn from
P.1
II
II
our base of knowledge from similar devlopment actions.
The as
-
' sumptions of this document are based on known scientific fact ,
sound ecological practice and take into account the experienced
Ibeneficial and detrimental effects of suburbanization of the natu-
I
ral and human environments .
It is the intended function of this DEIS to allow the weigh-
, ing of the beneficial and adverse effects of this proposed action
before the fact rather than after. Environmental impacts of the
Iproposed action are quantified where possible , in order to
measure the magnitude of the impacts . Each section of the docu-
II
ment contains a detailed assessment for each significant issue of
I
concern.
This document has been prepared based on a generic compost-
Iing facility. The Town of Southold is currently requesting pro-
posals from qualified vendors for the design and construction of
II
a composting facility. It is anticipated that the Final Environ-
' mental Impact Statement will contain vendor-specific information
on the selected proposal .
I
I
II
II
I
II
P.2
11
1.0 - EXECUTIVE CU SUMMARY
The applicant , the Town of Southold, has proposed the con-
struction and operation of a composting facility to be located in
' the southern portion of Cutchogue landfill , situated on Middle
(North ) Road, between Depot and Cox Lanes and south of Oregon
' Road , Town of Southold ( refer to Figure 1 ) . It is intended that
a building to house the composting process operations be con-
structed near the existing materials recovery drop-off building.
A roofed storage/staging area would be constructed on an impervi-
ous surface located in the southwestern corner of the landfill
' property, where construction/demolition debris and junk cars are
buried . The end product of the intended composting facility
process, compost, will be used for Public Works projects and sold
for use as a non-agricultural soil conditioner , or dedicated
usage such as a golf course , industrial park or other non-agri-
cultural purpose . The Cutchogue landfill is located within two
zoning districts, "A" Residential- Agricultural and C-1 , General
' Industry . The proposed action is located entirely in the former
zoning district. No change of zone is required for the proposed
' action .
' It is intended that the applicant will landscape the area
around the proposed composting facility, which will aid in maxi-
mizing the buffer value in terms of visual screening.
The present land use of the landfill property is industrial , •
' with the on-going activities of landfilling and sand mining .
1.1
IFIGURE 1
1 / 7! /'•`rte' a, ., r .e
'Z2---. ' -
jZ • Duck Pond:':, 'l 'iii
I
r7/ : ' " ` `sO �`
• ' F �.�` � ' 4.a,` s6. 6y : ',' Q , 7".
r� . \.G •4.. \\
,..,<" ,:,/ So rle i- ° �' � PROPOSED PROJECTI ~ ;b� . N..• •
moo ? _•
AREA
a • 1 o C /'
l ------.. "6_,,,,,,L\-44*,k,. 4:;`" ... ,,„/,', .0 ,.;• _ .. . - - _ \
+. ,' e.4 ;N h.
a +a Oma;' N. 1 \ .. e
tea+ +++ o :�; c �h _J /'�.
++ • ' 'x \-- •� • CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL 'o
:, o t , `V •.:-- 'NJ '- �. '✓'
'a
.i' •' .. •�''•••• ../` . . ., CutehogueSta /,....'
0� :.� .
/.. • \ 010
• •o \ •
,�``� % 'Sacred-Heart•
1-:
+**,,s7
'�' Fq0 • 'v1 y,
I r ,
Ja.•1,....,.s
/ < `� `• • P� o. i Cutchogu .
I
H �E?
``
i\ u ••
I . LOCATION MAP
CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL
I
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
REFERENCE: SOUTHOLD & MATTITUCK HILLS QUADRANGLE
INEW YORK—SUFFOLK CO. .
7.5 MINUTE SERIES
U
1 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET
111 DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
REFERENCE DATUM: N 41 ° 01 ' 40"
W 72° 30' 00"
' ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
I-11MGROW MELVILLE. N.Y. RIVERHEAD, N.Y. FAIRFIELD. N.J.
i 1.2
Portions (particularly in the north)th) of the landfill property are
' wooded, with other areas containing herbaceous "weedy" vegetation.
A small puddle ( approximately 40 ' x60 ' ; 0 . 1 acre ) of collected
stormwater is located in the southwestern portion of the property.
' The remainder of the landfill property is occupied by municipal
solid waste (MSW) areas and the sand mining operation . A large
( approximately six acres ) , steep-sloped depression in the north-
7
eastern portion of the landfill property is the result of sand
mining activity. The proposed action is to occur in the southern
' area of the site south of the electric power transmission lines .
Eleven acres are available for the proposed action. As proposed,
the storage/staging area associated with the composting facility
will result in a loss of approximately three or more of the
' eleven available acres . An area of herbaceous " weedy " vege-
tation , as well as the puddle , may be lost , both of which may
' currently serve as a source of food and shelter for small mammal
and bird species .
The anticipated impacts of the proposed action are focused
' on the potential impacts to groundwater quality, visual impacts
and the generation of odors resulting from the composting
' process. Mitigation measures entail landscaping, an impervious
' surface and a roof for the storage/staging area , the use of an
aerobic composting process, positive odor control and a leachate
collection system.
Alternatives to the proposed action entail varied methodolo-
gies of solid waste management and resource recovery. These vari-
ations are mass-burn incineration ( resource recovery facility) ,
1.3
waste distillation, refuse derived fuel (RDF) technology, out-of-
' town disposal , landfill expansion and recycling/source sepa-
ration.
' The Southold Town Board wishes the following issues of con-
, cern to be addressed in the DEIS . These issues were identified
at an April 22, 1988 scoping meeting.
• Hydrogeological
- wastewater collection and treatment
- stormwater runoff collection and treatment
• Atmospheric
- emissions of compost product
- odor
- dust
' • Land Use
- aesthetics
- loss of municipal landfill cell area
- change in motor vehicle trips
• Mitigation Measures
- wastewater/stormwater runoff collection and
' treatment
-
atmospheric
- contingency plan
• Significant Long-Term Effects of the Proposed
Action
- volume reduction of municipal solid waste (MSW)
' - recycling
1.4
1
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
' (NYSDEC) has identified four areas of particular concern which
need to be addressed in the DEIS . These issues were identified
at a May 19, 1988 meeting:
1 - The NYSDEC Regulatory Affairs Unit will be coordi-
nated with concerning the SEQR process and formal
' Lead Agency will be established and documented.
- Pathogens and heavy metals are significant concerns
' and will be investigated as to their source and
mitigations .
' - Odor emitting from the composting facility is a
' concern and alternative means of mitigation will be
investigated.
' - Contingency Planning is a significant issue and
will be addressed in these specific areas:
a. raw material back log
b. "bad batch" disposal
1. sludge
' 2. municipal solid waste
3. pre-cured composted product
' c. post-cured composting product contingency
1 disposal
d. facility performance , contingency in terms
1 of volume reduction
1
1 1.5
1
1
1
2.0 - DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
This discussion on the description of the proposed action
will be prefaced with the statement that specific detail regard-
ing the exact nature and type of composting facility cannot be
provided, until such time as a response to the request for pro-
' posal (RFP ) concerning the composting operation is received from
vendors and a vendor is selected. A general description of the
composting process is provided in this section of the document,
' as well as the intended location of the operation.
Specific details will be provided in the Final Environmental
' Impact Statement ( FEIS ) with respect to the selected method of
composting once the Town of Southold is committed to a vendor.
' A. Project Purpose and Need
' The proposed action is the construction and operation of a
composting facility to be situated on approximately eleven ( 11 )
tavailable acres of the 59 . 8 acres comprising the Cutchogue land-
fill property located on Middle (North) Road (CR 48 ; formerly CR
1 27 ) , Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York (Figure 1 ) .
' In an effort to reduce the waste stream volume currently
entering the landfill for disposal, and thereby further extending
the life of landfilling operations at the Cutchogue landfill , the
Town has chosen to undertake a composting operation. It is in-
tended that the composting facility will operate continuously
during the ten hour work day, five days per week. ( Shorter
' processing hours may occur during the winter months when the
2.1
1
quantity of waste is smaller) . The composting facility will re-
ceive waste during the current hours of operation at the landfill
(7: 00 a.m. to 5 :00 p.m. , 7 days per week, excluding 4 holidays ) .
The facility will require between five and fifteen people to
' operate depending on the system chosen. It is anticipated that
a supervisor who will manage the operation on a day-to-day basis
will be required . The other personnel will be front-end loader/
composter operators for the tipping floor and compost areas , me-
chanic/electrician for processing equipment maintenance, laborers
to provide general assistance, and a bookkeeper for record-keep-
ing purposes .
B. Location
The project site is situated geographically on the north
side of Middle (North ) Road (CR 48 ; formerly CR 27 ) , between
Depot and Cox Lanes , Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York.
The proposed action, that of a composting facility, is intended
' to be located on the grounds of the Cutchogue landfill complex.
The landfill property has street frontage on Middle Road (+315
1 feet ) and Cox Lane ( +80 feet ) as per information obtained from
' the 1987 tax maps (published by the Real Property Tax Service
Agency) . The tax map description of the landfill property is
' District 1000 , Section 96, Block 1, Lot 17 . 2 . The landfill con-
sists of approximately 59 . 8 acres ; the composting operation is
' intended to occupy approximately three of the 59 . 8 acres . The
operation is intended to be located in the southern portion of
1 the landfill property, south of the electric power transmission
1
1 2.2
11
lines . The landfill property is adjacent to residential, agri-
111
cultural and limited commercial/industrial land uses.
Approximately three ( 3 ) or more acres of land area will be
' utilized for the construction of a composting process, and the
associated composting, curing and storage area . The composting ,
curing and storage area will include a roofed structure and be
' sited on an impervious surface, with a leachate collection system
to collect leachate produced as a result of moisture and runoff.
' C. Design and Layout
' The basic composting process is a biological one, whereby
microorganisms break down the available biodegradable organic
' materials into more stable compounds ( i . e . , humus ) and carbon
dioxide. The humus then has the potential for application to the
land as a soil conditioner or as a low-grade fertilizer primarily
I
for non-agricultural uses . Thus, composting is a method of solid
waste treatment and reduction whereby organics in the solid waste
' stream are biologically decomposed under controlled aerobic con-
ditions to an end product state ( i .e. , compost) . The compost can
' then have further application ( i . e . , agricultural , non-agri -
cultural , land reclamation) . Cured compost is a stable product,
easily stored and handled.
The composting facility proposed for the Town of Southold is
likely to be one of the three general categories of composting
systems : static pile, in-vessel or windrow.
' Simplistically, the composting process consists of shredding
its MSW; mixing the MSW with a moisture source; aeration, which
1
2.3
11
I
requires about one month to complete , and curing for approxi-
mately one month . The actual composting takes place after the
mixing step . Aeration can be by either mechanically turning the
' mixture, or the use of a blower to force or draw air through the
mixture, or both.
In the overall composting process description, municipal
' solid waste (MSW) brought to the facility will be deposited on a
concrete tipping floor by commercial vehicles, or in a separate
' bay on the concrete floor or in dumpsters to be moved into the
' tipping floor by non-commercial vehicles . Prior to discharging
waste from the commercial vehicles, each load will be weighed.
' After discharge on the tipping floor , a front-end loader
will push the MSW into a hopper . Large objects , such as mat-
tresses and carpets, as well as undesirable materials ( i .e. , inor-
ganic materials) , will be removed and set aside. The MSW will be
conveyed from the hopper into a particle size reduction device ,
' such as a shear shredder or drum. Following particle size re-
duction , the shredded waste will be conveyed past a magnet to
' remove ferrous metals . The ferrous metals will be discharged
' into a bin for recycling . The remaining MSW will be conveyed
into a trommel screen containing openings of at least one inch by
one and one-half inch. Large objects including plastic , pieces
of cardboard and similar materials will be removed and disposed
of at the landfill, whereas the fine fraction will be composted .
The fine fraction will be conveyed to a mixer for the addition of
' sludge and/or water to increase the moisture content of the solid
waste in order to achieve the proper environment for composting.
2.4
Sludge from the Village of Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant
g P
and/or the Town of Southold Scavenger Waste Pretreatment facility
may be discharged into a bottom hopper and conveyed to the mixer.
Additional water contained in a holding tank will be pumped to
the mixer , if and when needed. The compostable fraction will be
conveyed to the compost hall.
Following waste preparation, any one or a combination of
composting methods may be utilized, as generally described below.
' In static pile composting, the aeration system consists of a
I
series of perforated pipes running underneath each pile and con-
nected to a pump that draws or blows air through the piles . The
pipes are covered with a bulking agent which serves as a conduit
to provide for uniform aeration of the piles . The compost/bulk-
ing agent mixture is placed on top of this layer to form a pile.
The piles are covered with finished compost to serve as insu-
n-' lation in maintaining a uniform internal temperature in the en-
1111
tire pile during the composting process. This provides for more
uniform aeration as well . The static pile would be located on an
impervious surface area with a roof, in order to prevent the for-
mation and migration of leachate to the groundwater.
' The in-vessel system ( e . g . , mechanical or enclosed system )
is basically a different way of undertaking the static pile
method of composting. In-vessel systems are more space-efficient
' than static pile systems . Following curing is the drying of the
mixture and recovery of the bulking agent ( both of which are
optional steps in the process) , storage/disposal and marketing of
the final product, as applicable.
2.5
i
11
In windrow systems, the compost/sludge/bulking agent mixture
11 is aerated by mechanically turning over the piles using a machine
such as a front-end loader. Initially, due to the system having
a high oxygen demand, the piles are turned frequently ( e . g . ,
daily) . As the process continues , the piles are turned about
three times per week thereafter. The internal temperature of the
' windrow piles is on the order of 55 °C . Water is added, as
needed, to maintain a moisture content of 40 to 50 percent. The
composting mix will be at approximately 45 percent solids. The
l
composted material is usually stockpiled for curing prior to dis-
tribution.
D. Compost Product
The compost to be produced may be characterized according to
its:
I .'
chemical characteristics
• physical characteristics
' • biological characteristics
• maturity ( stability)
• general agricultural usefulness
D.l . Compost Chemical Characteristics
Heavy metals and toxic organic compounds, plant macro-nutri-
ents and micro-nutrients are the primary chemical characteristics
of interest when evaluating compost. The chemical composition of
' the compost will be dependent on the chemical composition of the
materials input to the composting unit process . Materials input
to composting are influenced by the refuse collection method,
' 2.6
a-' recycling , as well as preprocessing steps employed at the fa-
ll
cility. The exclusion from the composting process and hence the
product of material containing undesirable chemical contaminants
' will greatly reduce the levels of these contaminants in the
' finished compost product. Also, the more "green wastes" , such as
grass clippings, that are included in the input, the more nitro-
' gen is likely to be in the product . Southold is currently the
only municipality in New York State that has an on-site hazardous
' waste collection and storage facility. Consequently, the Town ' s
' STOP (Stop Throwing Out Pollutants ) program will significantly
reduce the amount of potentially toxic and hazardous materials
' from entering the composting process .
D.l .A. Heavy Metals
' Table 1 shows the percentage distribution of metals among
various solid waste components . The metals are mainly concen-
111
trated in metal , plastics , paper , rubber and leather fractions.
Of these constituents , metal , plastics , rubber and leather
fractions are excluded from the compost product at either the
preprocess or postprocess steps . Thus , a degree of control is
exercised over the input of metals to the compost product. The
' recycling and removal of metals , paper and plastics to this fa-
cility could reduce the heavy metal content of the product if
this proves to be feasible in Southold.
A recent study conducted in the Netherlands (Oosthoek and
Smit , 1987 ) reported the metal content of the composted household
' waste . Table No. 2 shows the concentrations of six metals of
' concern as a function of processing method. The data shows that
' 2.7
TABLE 1
' PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF METAL CONTENT IN
DIFFERENT HOUSEHOLD WASTE FRACTIONS
I
PERCENTAGES % OF TOTAL
FRACTION Cd Cu Cr Cu Hg Mn Ni Pb Zn METALS
Plastics 26 1 5 2 10 1 1 5 1 6
' Paper 4 5 7 11 13 18 3 3 11 8
Animal Matter 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1
' Vegetable Matter 2 1 2 3 6 4 3 2 4 3
Textiles 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 2
Rubber & Leather 4 1 42 1 3 1 1 2 9 7
' Metals 60 88 43 22 60 74 87 85 68 63
Miscellaneous 3 4 3 63 3 4 6 4 6 10
1 . Environmental Protection Board of Swedish Energy Admin. , 1986 .
Metal Content Cd - Cadmium
Cu - Copper
Cr Chromium
Hg - Mercury
' Mn - Manganese
Ni - Nickel
Pb - Lead
Zn - Zinc
I
2.8
II
II
TABLE 2
IIHEAVY METAL CONCENTRATION OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE -
DERIVED COMPOSTS AS A FUNCTION OF PROCESSING
IMETHOD (mg/kg dry weight)
IMETAL PROCESSING METHOD
A B C D
II
Zn _
1700 800 520 230
II
Pb 800 700 420 160
Cu 600 270 100 50
Cr 180 70 40 30
Ni 110 35 25 10
ICd 7 2. 5 1. 8 1. 0
IFOOTNOTES:
A. In this process, the mixed household waste is composted with-
out any preparation. The process takes approximately 12
months . After composting , the product is sieved out and
inerts are removed.
IIB. The collected household waste is separated into two fractions.
The fine material contains most of the easily degradable or-
' ganic material. Between 2. 5 and 5 months are needed for this
composting process .
C. The collected waste is shredded. Processing methods are then
IIcarried out which result in a fraction to be composted . This
fraction is already free of inerts as glass or plastics .
ID. Separation at the source . The organic components are col-
lected separately at the households. All necessary steps are
taken to ensure that those components containing heavy metals
II
do not enter the organic components.
I
I
2.9
1
ther t r
g ea e the effort to remove waste components containing
heavy metals before processing, the lower are the concentrations
of these elements in the final compost.
At the proposed facility, it is expected that every effort
' will be made to produce a compost product meeting the State of
New York Maximum Sludge Constituent Concentrations for Public
' Distribution with regard to heavy metals content. Periodic analy-
ses of the compost product for heavy metals , as per DEC permit
' requirements will provide for quality control.
' In terms of use, there is concern that heavy metals in com-
post applied to land could contribute to unacceptable levels of
' heavy metals in soils, plants, or water. State regulations limit
the maximum allowable lifetime loading of metals in soils. The
movement of toxic metals into plants and water can be influenced
by a number of factors, some of which, like soil pH, are amenable
to management.
' The availability of toxic metals to plants, their uptake and
accumulation, depend on a number of soil, plant and other factors .
' The soil factors of concern include soil pH, organic matter, phos-
phorus, and cation exchange capacity. Moisture , temperature and
aeration also affect application rates of compost . The plant
factors are species and varieties, organs of the plant and plant
age . Other factors to be considered include reversion of metals
between soluble and insoluble forms and the relative toxicity of
the metal of interest.
2.10
1
In general , soil pH, organic matter and cation exchange ge ca-
' pacity (CEC) will work in concert to influence the solubility and
movement of toxic metals in the soil/water system. As pH in-
o-' creases, the solubility of Cd, Ni , Pb, Zn and Cu decreases . Mo-
ll
lybdenum solubility increases with pH. Boron is soluble over a
wide range of pH. Insoluble elements are not available for plant
uptake and leaching . Generally, the higher the soil CEC , the
greater its ability to hold soluble elements against leaching .
High soil CEC is associated with high organic matter content as
is contributed by compost.
Plant species and varieties differ widely in tolerance to
toxic metals. Vegetable crops that are very sensitive to toxic
metals include members of the beet family ( chard, spinach, red
Ibeet and sugarbeet) , turnip, kale, mustard, lettuce and tomatoes .
Beans , cabbage, collards and other vegetables are less sensitive.
Field crops such as corn , small grains and soybeans are moder-
ately tolerant. Most grasses (fescue, love grass, Bermuda grass,
orchard grass and perennial rye grass ) are tolerant to high
amounts of metals . Unusually metal-tolerant ecotypes of the
grasses are found on outcrops containing extremely high amounts
of metals ( Antonovic , et al . , 1971 ) . Crops differ in their sus-
' ceptibility to injury by different metals. Plant age and differ-
ent organs in the plant accumulate heavy metals differently .
Grain and fruits generally exclude metals to a greater extent
than the foliage. Foliage may contain as much as 70 percent more
' metal than grain or fruit. Toxic metals that accumulate in plant
tissues can enter the food chain , subsequently reaching human
2.11
t
beings directly by ingestion or indirectly ly through animals (Page,
' 1974, Chaney and Giordano, 1977 ) . Metal elements of concern in
New York Regulations include cadmium (Cd) , chromium (Cr) , copper
' (Cu) , lead (Pb) , nickel (Ni) , mercury (Hg) and zinc (Zn) .
' Cadmium is the element of greatest concern to human health
when wastewater sludges , MSW and sludge composts are applied to
' land. When added to soils, cadmium can be absorbed by plants and
can accumulate in edible parts of the plant and thereby enter the
' food chain. Most human exposure to cadmium comes from food, prin-
cipally grain products, vegetables and fruit.
Dugan and Corneliussen ( 1972 ) showed that 27 percent, 26
percent and 10 percent of the calculated daily intake of cadmium
came from grain and cereals, vegetables and fruits, respectively .
' Increased levels of cadmium in foods can be toxic to human beings
( Sandstead, et al . , 1974 , Elinder, et al . , 1976 ) . The World
11
Health Organization has established 70 ug/person/day as the maxi-
mum permissible level of dietary intake of cadmium. Studies in
the United States and Canada have shown the dietary intake of
' cadmium is between 50 and 100 ug/day. Consequently, a further
increase in our dietary intake of this element would not be ac-
ceptable. However, these past studies on dietary intake and the
' risk associated with cadmium are being reviewed.
The toxicity of nickel to humans is low. Application of
wastes containing high concentrations of nickel probably will be
toxic to plants before reaching levels dangerous to man.
' 2.12
Mercury is very hazardous to human health , but levels in
compost are generally very low. There are no reports in the
literature of increasing levels of mercury in plants from compost
' addition to soil.
Lead is a heavy metal of concern to health authorities
(Braude, et al. , 1975) and hence its application to soils is regu-
' lated by the USEPA. High levels of lead (73,000 ppm) have been
found in urban soils , which is the result of automobile , in-
dustrial and house paint sources . Soluble lead added to soils
' becomes insoluble due to reactions with clays, phosphates, carbon-
ates , hydroxides , sesquioxides and organic matter. This reduces
its potential for uptake by plants. Sabey and Hart ( 1975 ) showed
that when sewage is applied to land, the lead content of leaves
' and fruit or seeds was not significantly altered.
t Chromium is mobile in soil only in minute amounts due to its
very low solubility (Hewitt and Smith, 1975 ) .
' High amounts of available zinc in soils may lead to high
concentrations in plants , commonly in the leaves rather than
' seeds and fruits . Some plants can accumulate up to ten times the
normal amount of zinc ( 400 ppm ) without any visible damage
' (Leeper, 1972 ) . How harmful such accumulation of zinc may be to
' animals that eat the plants is uncertain. According to Underwood
( 1971 ) , 1,000 ppm zinc in the total diet may be harmful .
' The copper content of plants, even with high applications of
copper , will rarely exceed 30 ppm (Leeper, 1972 ) . Copper in com-
IIpost does not pose a human or animal health problem due to its
' 2.13
I
low copper recognizes toxicity. 9 ppm The FDA es 15 co er as a safe limit
in livestock feed.
A number of researchers and government agencies have pro-
posed toxic metals guidelines for the safe use of composted re-
siduals . Table 3 shows admissible levels of heavy metals based
on recommendations from four different sources.
' It is proposed that produced compost not be marketed for
agricultural use until monitoring indicates otherwise . This
information is provided to give an understanding of the compost-
ing process product.
D.1.B. Toxic Organics
' The problem with toxic organics has historically been associ-
ated with chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides and PCBs . The pas-
sage of regulations , such as RCRA and increased environmental
' awareness of the carcinogenic nature of many organic compounds ,
has led to growing concern about the fate of these compounds .
' Pahren , et al . , ( 1977 ) and Jelinek and Braude ( 1977 ) have ex-
amined the impact of organic compounds on land application prac-
tices . The concerns with organic compounds fall into several
categories : uptake , soil adsorption , translocation, direct in-
gestion by grazing and foraging animals , and the formation of
' breakdown products of these compounds and how they impact the
environment.
Very little information is available on land or water con-
tamination by sludges or residues containing potentially toxic
' 2.14
II
ITABLE 3
IIADMISSIBLE LEVELS OF HEAVY METALS IN
COMPOST RECOMMENDED BY FOUR SOURCES (mg/kg)
II
ELEMENT AB C D E
IICd 3 5 3 25 10
Cr 300 200 NM 1000 1000
ICu 400 500 200 1000 1000
IINi 60 100 NM 200 200
Pb 300-500 1000 250 1000 250
IZn 1300 1500 800 NM 2500
Hg 3 5 NM NM 10
IB NM NM 10 NM NM
II
Mo NM NM NM NM NM
A. 1987 , Smit
IB. 1987 , Zucconi & deBertoldi
II
C. 1983, Kempa
D. 1984, Hornick, USDA
IE. NYS Max . Sludge Constituent Levels for Public Distribution of
Compost (NYSDEC Proposed Part 360 Regulations )
IINM Not Mentioned
I
II
II
I 2.15
organic chemicals . Most municipal solid wastes contain
g p rela-
tively small amounts of these organics , while the amount and
types of organics could be widely variable.
' The limit of PCB suggested by the U. S. Food and Drug Adminis-
tration ( FDA) is 20 ppm ( Jelinek, 1976 ) . The New York standard
for public distribution programs is 1 ppm. There is some indi-
cation that several pesticides may be biodegraded during compost-
ing (Wilkinson, et al . , 1978 ) . Preliminary studies in Virginia
showed that 79 percent of diazinon was lost in ten days of com-
posting and 68 percent of chlordane was lost in 16 days . In
1968 , Rose and Mercer showed that in 50 days, 64 percent of DDT
was biodegraded.
Pentachlorophenol , a commonly used wood preservative and
1 insecticide, has been shown to be biodegraded in wastewaters and
soils (Kirsch , 1973 ; Kim and Maier , 1987 ) . The potential for
' biodegradation of this , and a host of other organic compounds ,
' during composting is possible.
Various methods exist to estimate the amount and concen-
tration of metals or toxic organics that could leach to ground-
water . One way to evaluate this would be to utilize the USEPA
toxicity ( leach) test. This test was developed to simulate leach-
ing conditions in a landfill . This test was performed on a solid
waste compost for the Agripost Corporation and the results at a
pH of five showed all metals except zinc at 0 . 75 mg/1 and copper
at 0. 11 mg/1 were below detection limits . These results indi-
cate that the metals are insoluble (possibly tied up in organic
111
complexes) and would not be expected to leach even under acidic
' 2.16
II
I conditions . This isrovided
p to the reader for informational
Ipurposes , since it is proposed that the composting process be
entirely sheltered so as to minimize leachate generation.
ID.1.C. Plant Nutrients
IEssential plant nutrients , including nitrogen, phosphorus ,
potassium, calcium and magnesium, are present in significant
Iamounts in compost derived from MSW. Most, if not all, essential
plant micro-nutrients, i .e. , iron, zinc, copper, boron , molybde-
Inum, sulfur , manganese and chlorine, are also present in varying
Iconcentrations in MSW composts . Table 4 presents observed ranges
for these elements as found in MSW composts from a number of
Isources and as found in a number of natural soils.
Table 4 also shows that MSW compost can be expected to en-
Irich the soil in all plant nutrient elements with the probable
II exceptions of potassium and iron. In this sense, compost can be
thought of as a fertilizer material . However, unless fortified
Iwith essential plant nutrient ( s ) , (commonly nitrogen ) , the com-
post will be represented as a soil amending product.
ID.2 . Compost Physical Characteristics
The physical characteristics of interest when evaluating
I The
include bulk weight , solids/moisture content, particle
Isize distribution and maximum degree of inclusion of foreign ma-
terials . In qualitative terms , these physical properties will
IIinfluence the handling and shipping characteristics of the
product, as well as the end use markets.
IThe solids/moisture content of the compost will impact the
Ibulk weight more than any other single factor. It is anticipated
II
2.17
II
II
I
TABLE 4
IOBSERVED RANGES OF SOIL-DERIVED ESSENTIAL PLANT
II
NUTRIENT ELEMENTS IN SOIL AND COMPOST
OBSERVED RANGE IN OBSERVED RANGE IN
I
ELEMENT SOILS (%)1 COMPOST ( %)2,3
N 0 .02-0. 50 0.1-1. 8
I
P 0 . 01-0. 20 0. 1-1. 7
K 0 .17-3. 30 0. 1-2. 3
Ca 0 .07-3 . 60 0 . 6-10
I Mg
S
0 . 12-1. 50 0. 25-2 . 5
0 .01-0 . 20 0 . 5-3. 0
Fe 0. 5-5. 0 0 .8-1. 5
Mn 0. 02-1. 0 0 . 03-0 .13
I
Zn 0.001-0 . 025 0. 08-0. 12
B 0 .0005-0 . 015 0 .006-0 .036
Cu 0.0005-0 .015 0009-0 .026
II Cl 0 .001-0. 1 NR
Mo 0.00002-0 . 0005 0.001
II SOURCES :
1 . Mitchell, R.L. , 1955 IN: Brady, N.C. , 1974
I
2 . Brunt, L. P. , R.B. Dean & Tabasaran, 1980
3 . USEPA, 1971
11 Notes :
NR - Not Reported
1
I
II
II
I
2.18
11
that the finished compost will be in
p 1 the range of 55 to 65 per-
icent solids ( 35 to 45 percent moisture) . Above 30 percent mois-
ture , dust generation is not expected to be problematic. Bulk
' weight is expected to be in the range of 700 to 900 pounds per
' cubic yard.
It is expected that screening of the compost will be con-
ducted before final distribution or use, although some users may
prefer an unscreened product. Particles greater than 0 . 25 to 0 . 4
' inch will be removed from the compost by screening . Oversized
' materials will be disposed of by landfilling.
Screening functions to remove foreign materials , such as
' bits of plastic , rubber , leather , etc . that may have been in-
cluded in the composting mass . Compost that is substantially
1 free of foreign materials is required for most horticultural and
' agricultural uses .
D. 3. Compost Biological Characteristics
' The process of composting is a biological one and as such a
very high population of microbes will be present in the compost
' product. The material being composted decomposes as a result of
the activity of bacteria , fungi , actinomycetes and protozoa that
' are present in the waste material. The relative densities of the
' populations of these various microbes are a function of the na-
ture of the waste. Table 5 shows typical numbers of some types
of organisms observed at various stages of the composting process.
Microbial succession occurs with the temperature changes that are
brought about by microbial activity. When a composting mixture
2.19
II
II
II
TABLE 5
IMICRO-FLORAL POPULATION DURING AEROBIC COMPOSTING
IINUMBERS PER GRAM OF WET COMPOST
NOS. OF
II MESOPHILIC MICRO-
MESOPHILIC 70°C ORGANISMS
INIT. TEMP. THERMOPHILIC INITIAL IDENTIFIED
I
TO 40°C 40° TO 70°C TEMP. (SPECIES )
Bacteria
Mesophilic 10 10 10 6
IThermophilic 10 10 10 1
Actinomycetes
II
Thermophilic 10 10 10 14
Fungi
I Mesophilic 10 10 10 18
Thermophilic 10 10 10 16
I
SOURCE: Obeng & Wright, 1987
1 - Number less than or equal to number stated
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2.20
■
' is prepared, mesophilic microbial activity within the mass gener-
ates
' ates heat which raises the temperature of the mixture. When the
temperature reaches a certain level ( 40 ° to 70 °C ) , mesophilic
activity declines and thermophilic activity increases . Thermo-
philic activity predominates until available substrate, or high
temperature, begins to limit activity of the thermophiles . The
' temperature then drops, at which point the mesophiles again begin
to predominate.
Aside from the microbes responsible for the biodegradation
' of the material, MSW contains human pathogenic microbes in sig-
nificant numbers . Some of the sources of fecal matter and en-
teric pathogen counts include pet feces , disposable diapers and
disposable handkerchiefs (Gaby , 1975 ) . Mixed municipal refuse
' can contain fecal/enteric microbes in concentrations equivalent
' to those found in sewage sludge (Gaby, 1975; Golueke, 1977 ) .
A compilation of the literature on the effects of composting
' on the survival of pathogenic bacteria, viruses, protozoa, hel-
minths, actinomycetes, fungi and other secondary pathogens can be
' found in Obeng and Wright ( 1987 ) . The achievement of tempera-
tures in excess of 55°C over a period of at least three days ef-
fectively destroys pathogens (Wiley and Westerberg, 1969 ) . This
requirement has been included in the RFP .
Research indicates that compost can have a beneficial effect
on plant growth by antagonizing soil-borne plant pathogens (Luns-
den, 1987 ) . The diversity and numbers of the microbes present in
' the compost result in strong microbial competition for available
2.21
I
soil substrates and resources. Most pathogens are weak competi-
tors in the absence of a host and tend to die off in soil with
time, exposure to ultraviolet light, and desiccation.
' D. 4. Compost Maturity
' During composting , metabolic toxins are produced which ac-
cumulate in the composting mass. If the process is arrested be-
fore the levels of toxins can subside during further composting
and curing, the product will contain high levels of phytotoxic
' compounds such as ammonia , salts and other breakdown products.
' Another consequence of incomplete decomposition, that is when
conditions again become favorable for further biodegradation
(e.g. , in a soil environment) , microbial metabolism will increase.
This can result in the accumulation of phytotoxic compounds in
soil, the immobilization of plant nutrients, especially nitrogen ,
' and sometimes the generation of foul odors .
D. 5 . Distribution
Compost may be used in agriculture , horticulture , home
gardening, landscaping or in commercial farming and forestry oper-
ations . Some uses, such as a fertilizer or potting soil ingredi-
ent, require that the product be refined or fortified with plant
nutrients . In bulk form, compost is useful as daily landfill
cover or in land reclamation and municipal projects . It is usu-
ally applied as a soil conditioner , but also has utility as a
mulch and fertilizer . Bagging of compost is feasible for some
retail markets . Table 6 shows common compost user categories,
most of which are applicable to the proposed Southold composting
' facility.
2.22
' TABLE 6
CATEGORIES OF COMPOST USERS
' GROWERS1 SERVICES3
Golf Course Landscape Planning
' Greenhouse Landscape Design
Home Gardeners
Landscape Contractors WHOLESALE/RETAIL4
Lawn Maintenance
' Nursery
Plants Garden Center
Greenhouse Equip. & Supplies
Seeds & Bulbs Lawn & Garden Equip. & Supplies
Sod & Sod Services Nursery Equip. & Supplies
PROCESSORS2 BULK USERS5
Fertilizer Contractors Land Reclamation
Fertilizer Mfgs/Supply Landfill Cover
Topsoil Parks
Sand & Gravel Roadsides
' 1 Growers prefer a refined compost product to meet specific
chemical and physical criteria. Potential for use as a field
or potting soil amendment.
2 Processors will refine the compost product to their chemical
and physical specifications . Some will necessitate strict
quality control on the part of the compost producer.
' 3 Service businesses are in a position to specify the use of
compost on building and landscaping construction and mainte-
nance projects.
4 Wholesale/retail markets generally prefer a bagged product
for resale.
5 Bulk users represent businesses or operations that consume
compost at disposal rates on large acreages or volumes .
' 2.23
11
Record-keeping will be per NYSDEC requirements. It is an-
ticipated that records will include temperatures and chemical
characteristics of the compost as well as the final disposition
of the material.
E. Approvals
Required permits and approvals pertaining to the proposed
composting operation are discussed herein.
The composting facility shall be designed, constructed and
' operated in accordance with the latest editions , including all
' addenda of the applicable environmental laws , codes , regulations
and standards of all federal , state , county and local agencies
having proper jurisdiction. Where portions of any such require-
ments overlap or are in conflict , the most stringent shall
' govern.
Conformance with all applicable environmental and other regu-
latory permit or approval processes will be necessary for de-
velopment of the composting facility. As an overview, it can
reasonably be expected that the following agencies will be given
' plans of the proposed facility and operation for review and
comment:
- New York State Department of Environmental Conservation.
' - Suffolk County Department of Health Services .
- Town of Southold agency approvals .
i - A Part 360 application for all solid waste management fa-
cilities is required pursuant to Title 6 of the New York Code of
' Rules and Regulations, Part 360 ( 6 NYCRR 360 ) . Said facilities
include composting . The Part 360 application packet consists of
2.24
a lengthy application checklist, delineating all forms, reports,
engineering plans , etc . which must accompany the application .
Information including , but not limited to, an operation plan of
the facility is also required.
1 - The Part 360 application checklist delineates that the
eIState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA, 6 NYCRR 617 ) re-
111
quirements be met by completing Part I of a Full Environmental
Assessment Form (EAF) . Said EAF accompanies the application .
The NYSDEC ' s policy is that all Part 360 applications are Type I
actions, thereby necessitating a more in-depth environmental re-
view. The Part 360 does not specifically require an Environ-
mental Impact Statement (EIS ) as part of the permit application
process . However , the Town of Southold, acting as Lead Agency,
' has deemed this EIS necessary in order to address environmental
' concerns .
- Pursuant to 6 NYCRR 360 . 8(b) ( i) (xviii ) , a State Pollutant
1 Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) discharge permit is required
for facilities that generate , collect and discharge leachate ,
except for those facilities which recycle any leachate or direct
it to an area that has been specifically designed with a liner
and a collection system.
' - If the facility utilizes an on-site disposal system and
discharges domestic wastewater to groundwater or surface water , a
SPDES permit will be required. Discharge of domestic wastewater
to a local treatment facility would require sewer connection ap-
proval on the local level.
' 2.25
i
- An air emissions
permit would be required uired only if there
would be an emission into the air from a stationary point, or if
a methane collection system or a flare system are being proposed.
' New York State air quality standards are delineated in 6 NYCRR
' 257 . These standards are for sulfur dioxide, particulates, car-
bon monoxide, photochemical oxidants, hydrocarbons , nitrogen di-
ll
oxide, fluorides , beryllium and hydrogen sulfide.
- A Long Island well permit ( 6 NYCRR 602 ) will be required
if a well is proposed which would draw more than 45 gallons per
minutes (gpm) .
During construction of any part of the facility, a tempo-
rary discharge permit is required if dewatering will result in a
surface water discharge or groundwater diversion.
' - In addition to the above requirements, and others that the
DEC may deem applicable , the DEC has the jurisdiction to prevent
or cause to reduce water, air and noise pollution, odors and un-
sightly conditions to ensure public health, safety and welfare.
Compliance with these specifications will be considered with re-
gard to economic and technologic feasibility.
Monitoring Requirements
During start-up of the facility, the Contractor will be re-
quired to conduct tests to verify compliance with existing regu-
latory requirements and permit conditions.
Local Permits
A variety of local permits may also be applicable, including
those required by building codes and zoning regulations that may
apply to the construction and operation of the facility.
2.26
Suffolk County Department artment of Health Services
The facility design plans will be reviewed by the local
county agency to ensure that the project conforms to local health
' requirements .
11
1
11
I
I
1
I
11 2.27
1
11
3.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL VIRONMENTAL SETTING
This section of the DEIS examines the existing state of the
' project site and adjacent environs in terms of natural conditions.
1 The proposed composting operation is to be located on a portion
of the Cutchogue landfill. Landfilling and sand mining are the
activities currently undertaken on the landfill property. Sev-
eral adverse impacts are associated with these activities includ-
ing , but not limited to , loss of native vegetation, habitat loss
' (and consequently a reduction in animal species inhabiting the
property) , erosion , loss of agricultural soils and leachate pro-
duction.
Section 3. 0, Environmental Setting, discusses geology, water
' and air resources and terrestrial ecology of the project site .
Section 4 . 0 , Existing Human Environment, discusses motor vehicle
1111
traffic, land use and zoning, community services and facilities ,
1 demographics and cultural resources.
3 .1 - GEOLOGY
The Geology section investigates the subsurface, surface and
topographic characteristics of the project site and adjacent en-
virons .
3.1.1 - Subsurface
Long Island was formed by glacial deposits of the Pleisto-
cene Glacial Age, which occurred approximately half a million to
two million years ago . Pleistocene deposits overlie unconsoli-
dated materials, which had been deposited during prior geologic
3.1
1
periods . Irregular plains and rolling hills, formed from sandy
' and gravelly ground moraine and outwash deposits of sand and
gravel , lie in the area between the ridges of the plains and
1 hills .
' A cross section of the hydrogeologic units underlying the
subject parcel consists of consolidated bedrock. The depth to
' the surface of bedrock is approximately 800 feet below surface
level in the vicinity of the subject parcel.
' The bedrock is overlain by a wedge-shaped mass of unconsoli-
dated rock materials . The materials on top of the bedrock consti-
tute Long Island' s groundwater reservoir system. This system is
' composed of hydrogeologic units , including lenses and layers of
clay, silt, clayey and silty sand, sand and gravel . A hydrogeo-
logic unit includes aquifers and confining layers which separate
the aquifers . The aquifers (which are principal water source
' layers ) are , from the land surface downward, the Upper Glacial
1 aquifer, the Magothy aquifer and the Lloyd aquifer . The major
confining layer is the Raritan clay. Refer to both Figures 2 and
1 3 and Table 7 which illustrate the generalized isometric geologi-
cal cross section of the Southold peninsula , the hydrogeologic
1 cross section, and stratiographic column in the area of the sub-
ject parcel , respectively. Of particular importance to Long
Island geology are the groundwater aquifers . These are investi-
1 gated further in Section 3. 2.
3.1.2 - Surface
1 The soil associations , as well as the soil types, underlying
' the project site have been identified from the U.S. Department of
1 3.2
I
FIGURE 2
I
41411141 .
I
_.......1111/'/ •40
NORTH
I.AKE
0000...
a ORA‘"
Sl�ygR RD •:...,--.•
EA LEVEL
SEA LEVEL Ga6� *-, 1::::::;•::....%:.•:::::.:...*.. Approx.
:::a• ,,.: -••: :: :.•%**:5 •.: = /Salt Water-
•• .' '.•• si Fresh Water
•y-e• ...•••..•.., Epp• •%X100
_t,:,;v . '1;ik:o. Interface
;t j�f;
• 0P ".•::/::.•;•>":•' .zoo
..• •'•• • . ,f• / �F 'moi:j/.. :::
Oh
�o?• • •• : •gyp .-.:::;1 • �t • <:::•. .
.<:• .
y . 300-
•
• \ � /• :: i Y;: �•' • :/ /• i-300 •••' • VLs : •..::?, io �% J:::i % iiiy • \` r_.,_< , : 'e: • :' r . /
II
•
•
•
•
!�.:: 'T'• ::;,` -. •%•: '/S�.%'. /, -// /.. . .
'[fir � %. / ///
•`Vim\ •• :•.:L: :• /� /r,j//' i; - /
I ti,,, •-soo �.•'``�: .. ....
.:
I FIGURE 3
I
W c Oy
Oa -0 4
I
Y2 =g
V o c
Y C rt
col
aoo Ee 3 v' ccm v a =E V E'
1 — e o' W ~ C E _400'
SEA Shore Acres O LEVEL
SEA
LEVEL ___-.—__—__—_
1 400'- Monmouth ----\.....______Gardiners Clay �— Upper glacial aquifer —
greensand �` —400'
Magothy aquifer
-
800'= -'
7
�
c1aY /i-800•
Raritan
1200'- Lloyd ���7/7 -1200'
I -
t600'- LTJ/����� Bedrock -1600'
77-7777777
I
I c1
V Ea c Q —� `"
CJ p 3ad 2 et
71 _ 14.1
E: E e � v Q $c .,
i ¢a`r ru
4 I.-
= C]
1
200' ' z F_
SEA H ~ J y Greenport O2 _ SEA
LEVEL _ ' Upper glacial aquifer ' — LEVEL
_ -- _
�— ' Gardiners Clay �>
I 400 - Magothy aquifer _---y1 �f�- 400'
- Monmouth greensand '----- %'777/ -
800' - ct .r -800'
1 -L------ l�aritan`_- � —
ier
lJ yd a4u 77/77.
77. Bedrock
1200' ----\.------ -1200•
I 1600 ,7
77-7/7-777777777 -
1600'
I HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION
(VERTICAL EXAGGERATION ABOUT X20)
IPROJECT SITE IS LOCATED EQUIDISTANT FROM CROSS SECTIONS EE' & FF'
SOURCE: JENSEN AND SOREN, 1974
I
IIII44GROUPENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
IMELi1LLE. N.Y. RIvERHEAD, N.Y. FAIRFIELD. N.J.
3.4
I
111A HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C.
ITABLE 7
Stratigraphic Column
(with general water-bearing properties related to the hydrogeologic units)
II
STRATIGRAPHY HYDROGEOLOGIC UNIT THICKNESS DESCRIPTION
IIGeologic Age Geologic Unit
System Series m
' .so Shore, Beach, 0-50' Some lenses of fresh
and Salt-Marsh (Suffolk Co.) water near the sur-
ra Deposits face. Clay and silt
e m in bay bottoms con-
e °'
C 9 Upper fine water in under-
'
= r
lying strata.
a Till and Moraine m 0-100' Unsorted and low
y c Deposits a (Suffolk Co.) hydraulic conductiv-
x « o ity, chiefly above
I/
• a 'a Glacial N water table.
a Lacustrine and 0-200' Clays, silts, low
LI Marine Deposits (Suffolk Co.) hydraulic conductiv-
m c ity.
1 .a ,.
°+ a Outwash Depositso
Aquifer 0-350' Stratified sand and
p (Suffolk Co.) gravel. High hy-
,.e draulic conductivity;
3 200 ft/day average
II yields 150 gpm with
spec. cap. over 50
gpm/ft of drawdown.
Water table situated
here.
II
San- Gardiners Clay Gardiners Clay
gaman 0-50' Marine deposits of
clay and silt low
hydraulic conductivity.
i. w
C
• Manetto Gravel See Outwash De-
posits 0-100'
(Suffolk Co.) See Outwash Deposits.
I/
a
X Monmouth Group Monmouth Green- 0-150' See Gardiners Clay.
II
sand (Suffolk Co.)
Matawan Group Magothy Aquifer 550 Feet Sands, silts, clays,
Magothy Forma- gravel. Hydraulic
tion (Undiffer- conductivity; 70 ft/
-entiated) day: Yields as much
as 1500 gpm. Water is
w m e confined.
o s -
CCA
.) m Clay Member Raritan Clay 150 Feet Clays, silt, some
F ' 5 gravel, confining.
I
w o -
tai N w' Lloyd Sand Lloyd Aquifer 350 Feet Sand, gravel,
c Member moderate hydraulic
• r conductivity; 20-70
ti ft/day. Not signifi-
1 cantly deverope-1c
X a
Crystalline Bedrock Not Known Gneiss and schist of
'oRocks low hydraulic conduc-
e tivity. Surface is
e
weathered to a greenish
I
clay. Bottom of ground-
PRE-CAMBRIAN y water reservoir.
s.
a
w
w
c
P
(*Compilation of local data and Jensen & Soren, 1974)
' X : Indicates buried surface of erosion
SOURCE: Section 201-Wastewater Facility Plan of the Peconic River
111
Drainage Basin. H2M. August, 1976.
3.5
11
11
Agriculture , Soil Conservation Service report entitled, Soil Sur-
vey
vey of Suffolk County, New York, dated April 1975 .
There is only one soil association underlying the project
' site , the Haven-Riverhead association. A soil association is a
Iportion of land area having a distinctive proportional pattern of
soils . An association is classified according to the major soil
11 types it contains, and is generally composed of one or more major
soil types and at least one minor soil type . The soils in an
association differ from one another according to various parame-
ters , such as type , texture, composition, slope and depth. The
Haven-Riverhead association is generally characterized by deep,
nearly level to gently sloping, well drained, medium and moder-
ately-coarse textured soils on glacial outwash plains.
' The specific soil mapping units ( i . e . , soil types ) with
their respective map symbols, approximate relative percentage and
11 capability unit underlying the entire landfill site are listed
' as follows :
Map Relative % Capability
Symbol Mapping Unit of Site Unit
CpE Carver & Plymouth Sands, 15 to
35% Slopes 2 VII s-1
HaA Haven Loam, 0 to 2% Slopes 15 I -1
HaB Haven Loam, 2 to 6% Slopes 5 II e-1
Ma* Made Land 30 Unclassified
11 P1A* Plymouth Loamy Sand, 0 to 3%
Slopes 35 III s-1
P1B* Plymouth Loamy Sand, 3 to 8%
Slopes 8 III s-1
3.6
1
Map Relative % Capability
y
Symbol Mapping Unit of Site Unit
RdC Riverhead Sandy Loam, 8 to 15%
Slopes 5 III e-1
' These soils are illustrated in Figure 4 . The soils above
marked with an asterisk (*) underlie the intended project area .
These soils (Ma, P1A and P1B) are not considered by the Soil Sur-
vey to be prime agricultural soils .
Prime Agricultural Soils
' The soils best suited for agricultural purposes are Class I
' and Class II soils, as indicated by the capability grouping units
above . Class I soils have few limitations to restrict their use.
Class II soils have moderate limitations which reduce the choice
of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. The
' soil type HaA is a Class I soil ; soil type HaB is a Class II
' soil .
A capability grouping shows the general suitability of soils
' for most kinds of field crops . The groupings are made based on
the limitations of soils when utilized for agricultural purposes
in terms of the risk of damage when they are in use, and the way
the soil responds to treatment. The grouping does not apply to
certain crops, such as cranberries , horticultural crops , or any
other crop needing special management.
The capability system groups soils at three levels :
' • Capability class , designated by Roman numerals I
through VIII ;
' • Subclass , designated by small letters e, w, s or c;
' and
3.7
IFIGURE 4
"' PIE
yt ��..,►.► ..
•• .�M•• N••►'''........
` `•".De PmB3 a Wi
tl
' .•>�"' :•1Rae'• '.--40^ `'.1%B Eia, d,'�
`�' ..
LONG ISLAND SOUND S=
.
0.4401116
..I.e. Ail,
1:4:YZ.s et:::". -'.....' ....."-
l •.•• a a
•• �<
Ilk
HaA ti
.... .. ..
yuck Pond rj• i411,0k ..:...• ,.. 4. .,•
P011it :PIA` HaA HaA
He
r � :::etrei.j.1\'
i i 4..44 . ,
W,su(. � 0 . �LI.f
Rd6 HaA HaA � .w, t;; PIC .4:4%.: = F
--; c
HeIIIIIIILE"I"% ' ,r
HaA ''''''''t:.,,-4.;Z:. liwr .. ti t�M J
HaAddiii
,,iNili �..I •k. !1,�-„ti RdB B
CU O ttlE` LANDFI ; � �,
i-. e A.
• PIA�a' eft' PmB3 HaB {7{� `
1010.1:41111N' • 6•4te. ts.
�- • ell1 4� E . - ccR
• HaA a Rd8
;., RdA _,�y �`I' C ;• Ha8 C+P
rt_ ry: / H:•. HaA fir'
�•` 8� ) �J e aB - ...,_...,4...,.,4,.
'P Ha8 :.
HaA RdB�{ag 1RdA -• 4<, HaA F RdB RdC <�e
s4 '4�\ Rd8 A RdBI
=ys,'- HaA ;` 'KM RdC •
P.3
.
dA „�Y 41)r. 4•s x
Ha6 ' ;
•� ® liIC
`•� HaA
HaA I Cu c ,117 HaB
=:ti tie, clot efftilir
•S.111
` _:
i ..-'-' Or ilk
,/,<.,:: AA ..,:' , 'SA CERT•ater %„.,,
IA. SiiHaA a • t. t /.
f' � IA „ft w ,r
R`
41116.ipk
iz • *HeAqb
HaA �/
''., 1-1.- -3r.7, ta:1;481-b?.. . .- '''.... -
I
;• v • • A ® Ha6 ` � �' T
/ Rd8 •lCUtcho9Ue1 \:- .., CcE}.�
.-,' � � � RdB • 'A • I • _! r,•.r '�:
CO •
i ,••• .*.Z;''''c.:4- '' '
SOILS MAP
o SOURCE:
I I SOIL SURVEY OF SUFFOLK SCALE: 1"= 20,000i
COUNTY DATED: APRIL 1975
1.' I-12MGROUPENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
=
0 MELVILLE, N.Y. RIVERHEAD, N.Y. FAIRFIELD. N.J.
I CO
3.8
11
. Capability unit, designated by Arabic numerals 1, 2
' or 3 .
The engineering properties, suitability limitations and capa-
bility grouping of the soils listed previously are described here-
in.
It should be noted that the Soil Survey provides generic,
' not site-specific depth to the water table information. Site-spe-
cific measurements reveal that depth to the water table underly-
1 ing the landfill property ranges from approximately 4 feet in the
' area of the sand mine to 53 feet near CR 48 . In the area of the
project site, depth to the water table is on the order of 38 to
53 feet.
Carver Soils
' Estimated engineering properties of the Carver soil series
(CpE ) indicate the depth to the seasonal high water table is
generally greater than four feet, with a typical depth from the
' surface ranging from 0 to 22 inches for fine to coarse sand, and
from 22 to 60 inches for coarse to gravelly sand. Permeability
' of Carver and Plymouth sands is greater than 6. 3 inches per hour ,
available moisture capacity ranges from 0 . 02 to 0 . 04, and the pH
' value ranges from 4 .5 to 5. 5.
' The CpE soils generally are poorly suited as a source of
topsoil, but good as sources of granular and fill material . The
' features of these soils affect roadway/highway location in that
there is poor trafficability and extensive cuts and fills may
result . For embankment foundations, the strength of these soils
' is generally adequate . For building foundations , these soils
have low compressibility.
11
3.9
11
The CpE soils are generally p g e ally not suitable to land uses such
as the siting of sanitary landfills , due to rapid permeability
and the hazard of water pollution.
' The capability grouping unit for CpE soil is VII s-1 . This
' unit indicates rapid permeability and thus available moisture
capacity is generally very low. The pH reaction is acidic. Natu-
ral fertility and organic matter content are low. The hazard of
erosion is severe on steep slopes if vegetative cover is removed.
' These soils are too droughty, too steep or too stony for
' crops or pasture . They are not suitable for nursery stock or
other crops due to their sandy texture and steep slopes.
Haven Soils
Estimated engineering properties for the Haven soil series
(HaA and HaB) indicate the depth to seasonal high water table is
greater than four feet, with the following categories of typical
11
depth from surface:
• 0 - 19 inches for loam, silt loam and very fine
sandy loam;
' • 19 - 28 inches for silt loam, very fine sandy loam
' and gravelly loam; and
• 28 55 inches for gravelly sand, loamy sand, sandy
loam, or stratified sand and gravel.
Permeability for Haven soils ranges widely. For the first
category listed above , permeability is 0 . 63 to 2 . 0 inches per
hour . For the second and third categories , permeability is
greater than both 2 . 0 and 6 . 3 inches per hour, respectively. The
pH for all the categories is 4. 5 to 5 . 5 .
3.10
tThe soils of HaA andB are a e generally suitable as a source
of topsoil, granular and fill material . The features of these
soils affect roadway/highway location as very shallow cuts have a
1 non-uniform subgrade in places. For embankment foundations , the
' soil ' s strength is generally adequate. For building foundations,
the soil has low compressibility.
' The capability grouping unit for HaA soil is I-1 . This unit
indicates that permeability is moderate in the root zone of all
' soils in this unit. Reaction is strongly acidic. The content of
' organic matter and the natural supply of plant nutrients are low.
Hazards of runoff and erosion are slight.
The soils in this unit are well suited for agricultural pur-
poses .
' The capability grouping unit for HaB soil is IIe-1. This
unit indicates that permeability is moderate in the root zone of
all soils in this unit . Available moisture capacity is high and
' reaction is acidic. Organic matter content and the natural sup-
ply of plant nutrients are generally low. Hazards of erosion are
' slight to moderate.
Under good management , the soils in this unit are well
suited for agricultural purposes .
' Plymouth Soils
Estimated engineering properties for the Plymouth soil
series (P1A, P1B) indicate the depth to the seasonal high water
table is greater than four feet . Two categories for a typical
depth from the surface are 0 to 27 inches ( loamy sand, loamy fine
' sand , gravelly loamy sand and sand) and 27 to 58 inches (sand and
3.11
I
gravel , coarse sand and gravelly coarse sand) . Permeability is
greater than 6. 3 inches per hour . The pH value ranges from 4 . 5
to 5 . 5.
' The soils of P1A and P1B are generally suitable as a source
' of both granular and fill material , but are not suitable as a
source of topsoil . The soil features of these types can affect
' roadway/highway locations as extensive cuts and fills are likely.
For embankment foundations, the soil ' s strength is generally ade-
quate. Compressibility is low for building foundations .
' The capability grouping unit for P1A and P1B soil is IIIs-1 .
This unit indicates that permeability is rapid in the surface
' layer and subsoil of the Plymouth soils , and moderate in under-
lying silty layers . Available moisture capacity is low in
Plymouth soils. Reaction is strongly acidic. The organic matter
content and the natural supply of plant nutrients are low. The
hazard of erosion is slight .
' The soils in this unit are well suited for agricultural pur-
poses .
' Riverhead Soils
Estimated engineering properties of the Riverhead soil
' series (RdC) indicate that the depth to the seasonal high water
table is greater than four feet . There are two categories of
depth from the surface. The first category ranges from 0 to 32
1 inches ( sandy loam and fine sandy loam) , and the second category
ranges from 32 to 65 inches (sand, loamy sand, gravelly sand and
gravelly loamy sand) . Permeability for the first category ranges
' 3.12
from 2 . 0 to 6 . 3 inches per hour; for the second category, permea-
bility is greater than 6. 3 . The pH value for both categories is
4. 5 to 5 . 5 .
' The RdC soil is generally not suitable as a source of top-
soil, granular and fill material . The features of these soils
may result in cuts and fills with regard to affecting highway
location. Soil strength is generally adequate for high embank-
ments and the soil has moderate compressibility for building foun-
' dations .
The capability grouping unit for RdC soil is IIIe-l. This
' unit indicates that permeability is moderately rapid in the sur-
face layer and subsoil . Available moisture capacity is moderate
to high, and reaction is strongly acidic. The content of organic
' matter and the natural supply of plant nutrients are low. The
hazard of erosion is moderately severe.
' Made Land
' Made Lands , Ma, underlie that area of the landfill which,
now or formerly, was active . Pursuant to the Soil Survey, Made
' Land is composed of areas that are mostly covered with pieces of
concrete, bricks, trash, wire, metal and other non-soil materials .
1 Some areas are on the surface of the original soil, others are in
' excavated areas utilized for solid waste disposal purposes , and
still others are in old gravel pits converted to this use. In-
cluded with this mapping unit are sanitary landfills .
No engineering properties, soils suitability limitations or
capability grouping for the Made Land soil type have been as-
signed as its characteristics are too variable to estimate.
3.13
3.1. 3 - Topography
The following is based on information from an existing con-
tour map of the Cutchogue landfill, prepared by H2M in April 1988.
The topography map was prepared based on a February 2 , 1988
' aerial of the landfill site. Refer to Figure 5.
The topography of the landfill property is uneven , with
' portions of the southern , central and perimeter sections of the
property containing slopes under 10 percent. The northern, south-
' eastern and central-western sections of the property contain
' areas having slopes in excess of 15 percent and 10 percent, re-
spectively.
The elevations of the property vary greatly from north to
south. Overall elevations on the landfill property range from
approximately 8. 5 (sand mine area) to 68 . 5 feet above MSL. Perim-
eter northern elevations are on the order of 65 feet above mean
' sea level (MSL) ; northern sand pit contains base elevations rang-
' ing from approximately 8 to 15 feet above MSL . The central and
southern portions contain elevations ranging from approximately
' 45 to 60 feet above MSL . A depression located in the south-
eastern portion of the property has a base elevation of approxi-
mately 10 feet above MSL . Another slightly larger depression
' located along the western border of the property contains base
elevations of approximately 26 feet above MSL.
3.14
FIGURE 5
Iv
• r I q
Or
+ ,.--"1 0.44•4'' •0' ( +0..3 +41. . V'. .„.".._j 7...>
....:---...." tati....._.I...' n-.011"111111" :"
40 --- \\• 2 \y \6 a a. 7111411j1Fgliii + .\ 1 F�
lik.
} \1 1 a.'whit'lli
• 1 \2. i 1 � �� �I •
Lop,4-(,= / +1.1C i /
4k, I
_•.‘ + .. , .:%, qp," ,.,2 Ci ‘11_21 /0/ • . + %.,.‘' ••\k.)1 ,,,, . s
+.4). 4. .._ 0,..;.&.4*-1
405
e: •••••-_______ + rve, ,, ,. , ,
, ,,,,,
+ ..
-.)
fi.
‘..,.t v
F lib 1-
`'\z � — + `... _ _ . ,..„,„....,Aik „., +,„.. . ..,, „,„
�;Y +%/ire i + ill \
zm e
Iff - V f i , \\:, + , 1 4%
\:iiiir r di 1 I
1\-14r 40
Arillib, gib/ i,..;\\.\\4\.\ + ... ij ,i iie, , +,...,,/
` . \430\• ) „. \ + .7:40 +,,,. .., ,
mmos
liable
clePir
1„,----00—misp41
� + + \\\\ �j /---- \\ + \\ \\ cit;/f ``ima��, g\: �`\`' Ali
J./ 1 ,Aill.-' ''
4.
% 1 l I III I I I I I I 1."-- --;*:- -- ' t') + :5' 4. + -- - . 4 i° '6-
4110r
A110
)116 \ +
+ or _.".__ _______:____J,'-r--______--1, +E '..1‘,k4. C _ e , Gcl 0 U N OP +-cp_--------: lib,:--. w/rt,, —Alt
i • ,.... __
,.. W BIle , - -S+,- :2' . ...c2.( ilannir A 4 1.w L.._......... ..._,„.. '''•
; -
` ` �
xe lir N14. eqb
+ ,, + \ ... r .4." -o e � O alic
;
\ iiiior. - � _-=
4. ,\ \ I ,g � / / ' v
+ p / I I\ '0g
+
—?.52 0 °,„z,no,.. ,/1.1 / / , LI:711'...
%\\\\Iii,
a\ }\ i1 '�r �1 ir�y 1 , .9!ii,i ,1 AI 1 / ,/P O -
A
�� C .„ (01 l� I 1 i' „o • \ } l l ��
t? + , M a,�,� �� I by I Ild', i \\ I l a : �.
+ + j
+ I��I�I tl' 'Iii!i' + / \ \ / ✓ I %//
„,..
+ 0
- -1111111111L /
LEGEND .o ��_ _____ 0 6ie.
+ , 0 -`�t i _ .0 PP00
•P -- /
6\e.
•
.'1\..
PROPERTY UNE r 714 y ..... , \\ _ ----_-- ,...
` 1i °A
'klik„
+ ... 2:-.-...:. : 00 O PP
,ThCONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' - -- _ ---.�1�. + i 1 o P c
SCALE: +� � i- WA ' • "
50'25'd 50' 100' i- o b 54C h
CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL - TOPOGRAPHY + i .
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY BY CHAS. H. SELLS INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. AERIAL DATE: FEB. 7, 1988
r
l 14&GRDUP ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
MELVILLE, N.Y. RIVERHEAD, N.Y. FAIRFIELD, N.J.
3.15
• 1
I
3 . 2 - WATER RESOURCES
' 3. 2.1 - Groundwater
The source of potable water at and around the project area
' originates from the precipitation of rain and snow which falls on
' the land and percolates to the underground reservoir (aquifer) .
Studies conducted in the North Fork area by the United States
' Geological Survey ( USGS ) estimate the average annual precipi-
tation to be approximately 42-45 inches per year . Much of the
' precipitation is returned to the atmosphere by evaporation and
' transpiration of plants (collectively termed evapotranspiration ) .
An additional amount is returned to surface water bodies via over-
land runoff. Recharge to the groundwater reservoir is the dif-
ference between the amount of precipitation and the sum of
' evapotranspiration and direct runoff . It is estimated that ap-
proximately 50 percent of the total annual precipitation is
actual recharge to the Southold aquifer, approximately 22 inches
' per year.
Most of the fresh groundwater available for potable use oc-
curs in a series, or chain of irregularly shaped lenses that are
bound both laterally and at depth by glacial deposits saturated
' with salty groundwater. The movement of groundwater in each of
the areas of the Southold aquifer is radially outward from the
crest of groundwater mounds on the water table. The "groundwater
divide" passes through these crests and, in general, follows the
northeast trend of the Southold peninsula . From the vicinity of
1 this divide , groundwater moves toward the surrounding salt water
1 bodies along flow lines whose direction is normal to the water
table contours .
11
3.16
I
The proposed composting facility is to be located above
an
' area of groundwater aquifer which has been identified in the Long
Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Management Plan (208 Study)
as Hydrogeologic Zone IV. Zone IV is characterized as a locally
marginal water quality system, mainly in areas underlying farms.
In the area of the project site, a summary of test well data
1 indicates the presence of leachate contamination underneath the
Cutchogue landfill.
' Existing test well information is based on 1981 data. As
' part of its landfill expansion plan, the Town will install ground-
water monitoring wells . The data derived from these wells will
tprovide a more current indication of the presence of leachate
contamination underlying the landfill .
' 3. 2.2 - Surface Water
Surface water on the landfill property consists of one rela-
tively persistent area of collected stormwater, located in the
' southwestern portion of the site. This "puddle" is approximately
0 . 1 acre in size and is located at an elevation of approximately
45 feet above MSL . Other areas of persistent stormwater ponding
are those found in the central-western portion of the site, among
' the compost , wood chips and yard waste. The elevations of these
' areas range from approximately 50 to 60 feet above MSL . None of
these areas of collected stormwater display significant enough
vegetation character to be classified as a typical fresh water
wetland.
3.17
11
3. 3 - AIRQ UALITY
1 The project site is within the area classified under the New
York State Ambient Air Quality Standards - Classification System
' ( 6 NYCRR, Parts 256 and 307 ) as Level I . This is one of four
general levels of social and economic development and pollution
potentials which exist in the state . The land uses associated
with the classification levels assigned to geographic areas of
the state are broadly outlined as follows, as per 6 NYCRR 256 :
' Level I: Predominantly used for timber , agricultural
crops, dairy farming or recreation. Habitation
' and industry are sparse.
Level II: Primarily single and two-family residences ,
small farms and limited commercial services and
' industrial development.
Level III : Densely populated, primarily commercial office
1 buildings , department stores and light indus-
tries in small to medium metropolitan com-
plexes; or suburban areas of limited commercial
and industrial development near large metropoli-
tan complexes .
Level IV: Densely populated, primarily commercial office
' buildings, department stores and industries in
large metropolitan complexes ; or areas of heavy
industry.
Existing sources of air pollutants in the vicinity of the
subject parcel include vehicular traffic ( one of the major air
' pollutant emission sources ) , aircraft emissions (particularly
from Mattituck Airport, located approximately six miles southwest
of the project site) , as well as dust and any airborne pesticides
produced from area agricultural activities . No electric power
generating facilities exist in the area of the landfill property.
Sensitive receptors to air pollutants include residents in
the dwellings located in the vicinity of the subject parcel. The
3.18
nearest receptors are several single-family residences located
' directly south of and adjacent to the project site.
The subject parcel is also located within the New York/New
' Jersey/Connecticut Interstate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) .
' Located throughout the AQCR are air quality monitoring stations
which continuously measure the concentrations of six major pollu-
' tants termed "criteria pollutants" . These criteria pollutants
are:
' - total suspended particulates (TSP) ;
' - lead (Pb) ;
sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) ;
- nitrogen dioxide (NO2) ;
- carbon monoxide (CO) ; and
- ozone (03 ) , grouped with photochemical oxidants.
The air quality monitoring stations are a part of the
' National Air Monitoring System (NAMS) or the State and Local Air
Monitoring System ( SLAMS ) . The measured concentration of each
criteria pollutant is then compared to both state and national
' standards (New York State Ambient Air Quality Standards , NYSAAQS ,
and National Air Quality Standards , NAAQS, respectively) . This
comparison will determine compliance , or non-compliance , of a
' particular air quality parameter. Ambient air quality standards
are provided in Table 8 .
' Of the criteria pollutants , several are considered primary
pollutants, or those pollutants which are emitted directly from
' sources . Examples of these are:
3.19
11 <1,(f11 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON i MURRELL.P.C.
II TABLE 8
AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (1)
-
I
CORRESPONDING
New York State Standards Federal Standards
1 0 Averaging PRIMARY SECONDARY
Contaminant Period Level Conc Units Statistic ® Cone. Units® Stat. Conc j Units 1 Stat
I
12 Co
nsecuthve A M(Anal Mean
d
SULFUR Months ALL 0 03 PPM 241w ovp Conten) 80 Yp/m3 A.M
DIOXIDE,
SO2 24- HR ALL 0 14® '' MAX ® 365 yp/m 3MAX®
I
3- HR ALL 0.500 . 9 —MAX. 1300 yp/m3 MAX
- J
CARBON 8- HR ALL 9 MAX 10 mg/m3 MAX 10 mg/m3 MAX
I MONOXIDE, . , — -
CO I- HR ALL 35 MAX 40 mp/m3 MAX 40 mg/rn3 MAX
I
(PHOTOCOEMtCAL 1-HR ALO 0.08 MAX ZNE
160 mg/m3 MAX 160 yp/m3 MAX
T - -
OXIDANTS)
HYDROCARBONS 3-HR
I
(NON-METHANE)
ALL 0 24 . ' MAX 160 pp/m3 MAX 160 Yp/m3 MAX
(6-9 A Al )
NITROGEN 12 Consecutive
DIOXIDE, NO2 Months ALL 0 05 ' ' A.M t00 up/m3 A.M 100 yp/m3 A.M
IPARTICULATES t2 Ccesecuave Mos IV• 75 vg/m3 G M 75 j...1/m3 G M 60CD yg/m3 G M
(SUSPENDED) III 65 .. (Geometric meon
TSP of 241.overage .
II 55 '. concentrohons)
I I 45
24 HR ALL 250 MAXIMUM 260 up/m MAX. 150 yp/m MAX
—
30 DAYS® 12 135 M
.. A
IIQ t 15 .. ..
II t00 " •'
' Z 80 00 '0
60 DAYS® 17115 .. A M.
III 95 " '
II 85 "
I 70 " Ot
90 DAYS() ZY 105 r. A M
. I III 90 it
ZI 80 ..
I 65 ,.
LEAD, Pb 3ConsetunveMos ® I.S pg/m) MAX.
i t t
(1) SOURCE: 6NYCRR, Part 247 (6) Gaseous concentrations are corrected
II (2) Ambient Concentrations. to a reference temperature of 25°C and
to a reference pressure of 760 mill-
(3) All maximum values are not to be ex- meters of Mercury.
seeded during more than Dnce a year
II (ozone std not to be exceeded during (7) As a guide to be used in assessing im-
plementation plans to achieve 24-hour
standard.
(4) Also during any 12 consecutive months,
II 99% of the values shall not exceed 0.1 (8) Federal Pb standard not yet adopted in
Nppm (not necessary to address this stan- YS but now applied to determine com-
pliance.
dard when predicting future concentra-
tions) . (9) For enforcement only, monitoring to be
II (5) Also during only 12 consecutive done only when required by NYS (not
months, 99% of the values shall not necessary to address this standard when
exceed 0.25 ppm (see above) . predicting future concentrations) .
3.20
- carbon monoxide;
' - nitric oxide;
- nitrogen dioxide;
' - sulfur dioxide;
' - particulates; and
- various hydrocarbons .
' Secondary pollutants , such as sulfates and photochemical
oxidants , are those pollutants which are formed by chemical
' processes in air.
' Non-criteria pollutants are those for which no standards
(NAAQS) have been established . They are monitored in very few
11 locations within the AQCR. These pollutants are examined as part
of the environmental review process in New York State concerning
' resource recovery projects.
Table 9 lists 41 chemicals considered non-criteria air pol-
lutants. Of these 41, 16 are inorganic elements or compounds and
the remaining 25 are organic compounds.
There are two types of continuous air monitors , primary and
' secondary. Primary monitors , situated in large cities, measure
15 parameters, including air pollution and meteorological parame-
ters . The secondary monitors , situated in major cities on Long
Island and upstate New York, measure up to 6 air pollution parame-
ters and, in some instances , wind parameters .
There are no NYSDEC continuous air monitoring stations on
Long Island . However , there are stations operated by the Long
iIsland Lighting Company (LILCO) . Based on information obtained
from the NYS Air Quality Report , Ambient Air Monitoring System
3.21
11
I
11 TABLE 9
IINON-CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
I
Trace Metals :
Antimony Cadmium Copper Selenium
Arsenic Chromium Mercury Zinc
I
Beryllium Cobalt Nickel Scandium
IInorganics and Minerals:
Fluorides Sulfuric Acid
IIHydrogen Chloride Asbestos
Trace Organics:
IIPAH Coronene Total Aldehydes
Benzo(a)anthracene Perylene (as formaldehyde)
I
Benzo(b)fluoranthene Pyrene Carboxylic Acids
Benzo(ghi)perylene PCB (as Acetic Acid)
Benzo(a)pyrene/ Vinyl Chloride
Benzo(e)pyrene Fluoranthene
IIIndeno(1, 2, 3cd)pyrene
I
Chlorinated Dibenzodioxins:
2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD P5CDD H7CDD
I
TCDD HCDD OCDD
Chlorinated Dibenzofurans:
ITCDF HCDF OCDF
P5CDF H7CDF
1
II
II
II
3.22
II
TABLE 9 (CONT D. )
' ABBREVIATIONS FOR NON-CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
' HCDD Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
HCDF Hexachlorodibenzofurans
' H7CDD Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
H7CDF Heptachlorodibenzofurans
' OCDD Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
' OCDF Octachlorodibenzofurans
PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
' PCB Polychlorinated biphenyls
P5CDD Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
' PSCDF Pentachlorodibenzofurans
' PCDD Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins
TCDF Tetrachlorodibenzofurans
' 3.23
I
I
198monitoring 6 ) , the nearest continuous air moni _ station to the
project site is in Shoreham, located west of Wading River approxi-
mately 22 miles from the Cutchogue landfill . The parameters
measured at this station are resultant wind direction ( in de-
grees ) , wind speed (miles per hour ) and temperature ( °F) . The
next nearest station is in Mount Sinai, located on the north side
of Route 25A, west of Mount Sinai-Coram Road approximately 30
miles from the Cutchogue landfill . The parameter measured at
' this station is sulfur dioxide, in parts per million (ppm) .
' The annual mean of sulfur dioxide of the Mt . Sinai station
e-' ( site number 5151-09 ) is 0 . 010 ppm for 1986 . A comparison be-
ll
tween the NYS ambient air quality and the ambient air quality
readings at the Mt . Sinai station indicate that for the running
' 3-hour average and the 24-hour average, the Mt. Sinai station
readings have not exceeded NYS standards . For the 3-hour aver-
age , the maximum NYS and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standard
(AAQS ) of 0 . 50 ppm can not be exceeded more than once per calen-
dar year. The highest readings at the Mt. Sinai station for 1986
in this category were 0 . 174 , 0 . 128 and 0 . 105 ppm . None of the
' readings exceeded the indicated standard.
The 24-hour average has a maximum NYS and Federal Ambient
' Air Quality Standard of 0 . 14 ppm, which can not be exceeded more
than once per calendar year . The highest readings at the Mt .
AMIN
Sinai station for 1986 in the category were 0 . 068 , 0 . 036 and
Ad 0. 035 ppm. None of these readings is higher than the indicated
standard for sulfur dioxide.
3.24
I
3 . 4 - TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
' This section of the DEIS delineates the ecological system of
the project site and immediate environs , in terms of floral and
' faunal characteristics.
' Species composition in a community varies throughout time.
The directional change in a respective species composition and
the associated environmental properties of ecosystems is termed
succession . Succession can be primary or secondary. Primary
' succession occurs on newly formed land ( i .e. , volcanic ash) that
' is devoid of previous biotic influences . Secondary succession
occurs when already established ecosystems are disturbed or de-
stroyed, as by fire, with the previous biotic composition influ-
encing the ecological path of the newly initiated process. Suc-
cession in the area of the project site is secondary. Most of
' the natural secondary growth ( i .e. , oak-pine woods) has been re-
moved due to clearing activities for agricultural (as well as
' landfilling/sand mining ) purposes . If left to a natural cause,
the general succession pattern may be described in stages as
follows: *
• In the first and second years , annual weeds domi-
nate the newly formed communities; crab grass (Digi-
taria ) is the principal species in the first year,
and sorrel (Rumex) in the second.
' • After the second year , perennial herbs form a
meadow in which goldenrods (Solidago) are prominent
*Whittaker, 1970
3.25
I
1
at first , while broomsedge (Andro 0 on) and other
P g
' grasses are dominant later (until 15 to 20 years ) .
• The meadow stage may be followed by a shrub stage,
from 15-20 until 30-35 years , dominated first by
' low shrubs ( blueberries , Vaccinium, and huckle-
berries, Gaylussacia) , then by a taller shrub ( bear
oak, Quercus ilicifolia ) . In the succession on
farmed land, the shrub stage may be skipped, and
' pines may seed into and grow in the meadow; in the
succession following fire, the meadow stage may be
111
skipped.
• By 30 to 35 years, trees become dominant, first the
pitch pine (Pinus rigida) , that forms a young pine
woodland with shrubs , then scarlet and white oak
(Quercus coccinea and Q. alba ) . By fifty years
' after the succession began, these form a young oak-
pine
forest with a well-developed shrub under-
growth.
• Given time and freedom from fire or other distur-
bance, this young forest matures into an oak forest
with few or no pines and a lower coverage of shrubs
' (understory) . Such a forest might be essentially
mature by 200 years after the fire or farm abandon-
ment.
The wooded portion of the landfill property is in the final
stages of succession; the weedy portions of the property are in
the former successional stages .
3.26
3. 4.1 - Vegetation
The landfill site is located in the general vegetative biome
referred to as a moist oak-dominated forest where oaks (Quercus ,
' sp . ) are the predominant tree species . Other indicator tree
' species include American beech ( Fagus qrandifolia ) , red oak (Q .
rubra ) , black oak (Q. velutina ) and scarlet oak (Q. coccinea) .
The understory ( i . e . , undergrowth ) consists primarily of seed-
lings and saplings of the dominant tree species . A layer of
' thick, rich humus is generally present.
' Much of the area surrounding the landfill site contains
active agricultural activities . Thus, little native vegetation
' remains. Former areas of the landfill property which once were
forested now contain sand mining activities.
Wooded areas of the landfill property, consisting of approxi-
mately 6 . 1 acres , may be found along the northwestern, west-
' central , and northeastern boundaries of the property . This
' remaining vegetation is indicative of oak-dominated habitat.
In the west-central portion of the property, approximately
' 0 . 7 acres of weedy vegetation are present . Said vegetation
covers what was once the scavenger lagoons and is considered, for
' purposes of this document, to be part of the landfill . Ecologi-
cally, this area of weedy vegetation has the potential to be very
productive . Weedy vegetation typically provides resource values
for a varied wildlife population.
The site is not located within a Pine Barrens Management
Zone , based on maps published by the Suffolk County Pine Barrens
Commission.
3.27
The transition area between communi-
ties
two different natural commune
ties is termed an ecotone. The ecotone boundary can be short or
abrupt ( i . e . , narrow ecotone ) , reflecting some abrupt change in
' the physical factor , such as soil moisture, causing an abrupt
' change in floral and faunal composition. A poorly defined bound-
ary ( i .e. , broad ecotone) may indicate a gradual change in some
' physical factor, such as elevation.
Ecotones on the landfill property are sharply defined and
' are man-induced . The only natural communities remaining on the
' site are the wooded areas . In the true sense, ecotones do not
exist on the site as there is only one , not two, natural com-
munity.
As provided in the Species List (Appendix A) of this docu-
ment, the two habitat types will be distinguished by zones:
I .'
Zone 1 - Oak Woods
• Zone 2 Landfill ( includes weedy area
' and sand pit)
Plant species which were observed during field investi-
gations of the site, or which may reasonably be expected to occur
are listed in Appendix A. Appendix A includes the faunal species
' commonly referred to as "backyard" species .
Those floral species which are listed by the NYSDEC as pro-
tected native plants are so indicated by (P ) after their name in
Appendix A. Protected plants are offered legal protection by the
state , whereas "no one may knowingly pick, pluck, sever, remove
' or carry away, without the consent of the owner thereof . " (En-
vironmental Conservation Law §9-1503 ) . Expected protected native
' 3.28
11
11
plants are the flowering dogwood (Cornus florida ) , mountain
' laurel (Kalmia latifolia) , climbing bittersweet (Celastrus scan-
dens ) , rhododendron (Rhododendron, sp. ) , Turk ' s-cap lily (Lilium
superbum) , pipsissewa (Chimaphila umbellata) , spotted wintergreen
(Chimaphila maculata ) , trillium (Trillium, sp. ) , wild pink (Si-
lene caroliniana) , orchids (Orchidaceae family) , and club mosses
(Lycopodium, sp. ) .
3. 4. 2 - Wildlife
' During the course of field investigations , a variety of wild-
life species were observed and recorded on the landfill property.
Observation was not limited to strictly visual contact with the
subject. Tracks, calls and fecal droppings were also utilized to
identify species.
Represented in Appendix A of this document are those ob-
served and reasonably expected species in those types of habitats
( i . e . , wooded, weedy and landfill areas) . Field investigations
1 were supplemented by information compiled from the best records
which can be obtained from available sources. It should be noted
1 that no population density studies were carried out on any animal
' species and that the listing of a particular animal species does
not exclude the possibility of observation during an occasional
' visit by the animal . The occurrence of wooded areas on the land-
fill property may increase the diversity of species frequenting
the parcel.
It is not expected that the animal species which would most
commonly occur at the project site are listed as endangered or
' threatened species by the United States Fish and Wildlife Ser-
vice.
3.29
1
New York State has its own listing of endangered and
' threatened species . Thirty-four species of endangered animals
and 18 species of threatened animals are listed by the state .
Endangered species in New York State are any native species in
' imminent danger of extirpation or extinction within New York .
Threatened species are any native animals likely to become endan-
gered within the foreseeable future through all or a significant
portion of their range. In addition, any species listed as endan-
gered or threatened by the United States Department of Interior,
' as enumerated in the Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17 . 11 ,
are included on the New York State listings.
The New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Section
11-0535 (Endangered and Threatened Species ) , provides legal pro-
tection for listed endangered and threatened animals . The tak-
ing , importation , possession or sale of any endangered or
threatened species of fish , shellfish, crustacea, wildlife or
' hides thereof , or the sale or possession with intent to sell any
article made in whole or in part from the skin , hide or other
parts of any endangered or threatened species of fish, shellfish,
crustacea or wildlife is prohibited, except under license or per-
mit from the Department of Environmental Conservation.
' In addition to endangered and threatened listings , New York
State has a listing entitled, "Species of Special Concern" . This
category includes those native species which are not yet recog-
nized as endangered or threatened, but for which documented con-
cern exists for their continued welfare in New York State . It is
' possible that these species could become threatened or endangered
' 3.30
' in the future . Thus , these species are more closely monitored
ed
than non-classified animals . Unlike endangered and threatened
categories , species of special concern receive no legal pro-
tection under the Environmental Conservation Law, Section 11-0535
' (Endangered and Threatened Species ) . The special concern cate-
gory is presented primarily to enhance public awareness of this
group of species which bear additional attention.
The species of animals , which have been observed or which
may be expected to occur at the landfill site, are listed by New
York State as being either endangered, threatened or species of
' special concern and are detailed in Appendix A. These species,
' in addition to non-endangered and non-threatened species , are
provided in Appendix A.
It should be noted that no nesting birds were observed on
site for any of the below listed avian species . Occurrence of
these species is expected to be an observation during flyovers or
feeding periods .
Endangered:
' Mammals : None Observed
Birds : None Observed
' Reptiles : None Observed
' Threatened:
Mammals : None Observed
1 Birds : Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk
Reptiles : None Observed
Amphibians : None Observed
3.31
Special Concern:
I
Mammals : Sylvilaqus transitionalis New England
cottontail
' Birds : Accipiter cooperii Cooper ' s hawk
Tyto alba common barn owl
' Chordeiles minor common nighthawk
Reptiles: Heterodon platyrhinos Eastern hognose
' snake
Carphophis amoenus worm snake
Amphibians : Ambystoma maculatum spotted salamander
Ambystoma laterate blue-spotted
salamander
I
I
I
I
3.32
II
II
4. 0 - EXISTING HUMAN ENVIRONMENT
II
4 .1 - MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC
ITraffic volume data for selected roadways are available from
I
the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (SCDPW) , as per
i-' information provided in its 1987 Traffic Volume Map. In the vi-
11
cinity of the landfill property, SCDPW has data only for Middle
(North ) Road (CR 48; formerly CR 27 ) with an average annual daily
Itraffic (AADT) count of 7, 000 vehicles . This segment of Middle
I
Road is from Depot Road east to approximately Ackerly Pond Lane.
The AADT is defined as the total traffic volume passing a point
II
or segment of a highway, in both directions for one year, divided
by the number of days in the year . The AADT is based on actual
II ( i . e . , raw data) vehicle counts during the survey adjusted for
I
the particular month ( i.e. , seasonal variations) .
Both the SCDPW and the New York State Department of Transpor-
' tation (NYSDOT ) have seasonable factors by which actual vehicle
counts are multiplied in order to obtain the AADT for the particu-
Ilar roadway. Seasonal factors for western and eastern Suffolk
County from both SCDPW and NYSDOT for all of Suffolk County are
11
listed below:
II
SCDPW
Western Eastern
Suffolk Suffolk NYSDOT
IIJanuary 1. 05 1. 38 0 . 71
February 1. 06 1. 30 0 . 81
March 1. 02 1 . 25 0.72
II
April 0 . 97 1. 12 0 .83
May 0. 96 0 . 92 0 . 98
I
June 0. 97 0. 89 1. 06
4.1
I
SCDPW
D W
Western Eastern
Suffolk Suffolk NYSDOT
July 0 . 98 0. 71 1. 48
' August 0. 98 0. 77 1.58
September 0 . 97 0. 92 1.06
' October 1. 01 1. 02 0. 96
November 1. 00 1. 05 0.78
December 1. 02 1. 21 0 . 69
' The SCDPW factors are multiplied by a 7-day weekly average
in order to arrive at the AADT number. The NYSDOT multiplies the
factors by the AADT number to provide average monthly ( i . e . ,
' seasonal ) vehicle counts .
The Town of Southold does not maintain traffic counting de-
vices at the landfill. However , vehicular counts may be inter-
preted from the scale house computer and solid waste quantity
' data.
' All vehicles enter the facility through a main gate on
County Route 48 . Vehicles entering the landfill site include
' cars , carters and government vehicles ( state and local highway
trucks ) .
After entering the main gate , cars are directed to either
the landfill workface or to the Materials Recovery Building . All
carters and government vehicles are directed to the landfill work-
face. All vehicles directed to the landfill workface are weighed
at the scale house prior to unloading their waste.
Based on the data reviewed from the scale house computer
(March , April and May 1988 ) , it is estimated that of the total
amount of vehicles entering the main gate that 75 percent are
1 4.2
11
cars , 22 percent are carters and 3re are government ve-
hicles .
The scale house computer data were reviewed from 9/1/87 to
' 6/21/88 . These data show a daily average of 160 vehicles per day
' being weighed at the scale house. The range of traffic flow
through the scale house was 138 vehicles per day (Thursday ) to
184 vehicles per day ( Sunday) . Of the vehicles being weighed at
the scale house, 50 percent are cars, 44 percent are carters and
6 percent are government vehicles . Therefore, an average of 80
cars, 70 carters and 10 government vehicles are directed to the
' landfill workface each day.
' The quantity of waste received at the Materials Recovery
Building was used to estimate the amount of cars entering the
' facility on a daily basis . Based on these data ( 9/87 to 6/88 ) ,
it is estimated that approximately 160 cars per day utilize the
Materials Recovery Building to drop off their household solid
waste.
Combining the above data yields an average of 240 (160 and
80 ) cars, 70 carters and 10 government vehicles through the land-
fill main gate each day.
' 4. 2 - LAND USE AND ZONING
Land Use
' Existing land use of the landfill property (Figure 6 ) con-
sists of active landfill operations , industrial activity ( i . e . ,
' sand mining ) and wooded/open space land uses . The landfill oper-
ations constitute the majority (approximately 75 percent ) of the
4.3
•
FIGURE 6
CO4. I ••••• �C�� 0.O ,� I'`
°e• C4 i •': f• •rets:+ l
r
a y,
:1• -..:1• .::::::1:::......
.f �..‘ /J••• /i.• •�,
. 4 -• ..- .. .•• .•• .• .• .•
4
PO•
.44*.
•
1
# Nr
J
ii
ti
s Of
♦t : • Pv • O
fJJ
r /t,
•y. ..:
..._::.....
••r
..........
..........
..........
j
•••••••••:.•5 ••••••• (kb
ct
if J
f
Y..
f
1
• ra
• 4110141p
4tito. ' • •• - • ••• •• • •• • • •. •• • • •• .• •
•
•
' " ' ..".•: UT • #a • ' E?' ;'. • •ri: : ..::-
fT♦
k/
•r
414 'COs
N. id
M.f•l
s
1
,111
Jta .i ,r r ti
i�I
•
Co
e
al.
•
c
f.sA
1 1
is • • 0
•e
/Y
•Q'
dzw
.s•
t O
�
j
:i
v
/
J
V. 1
O
J{I f
I
:•� J
1
s $
ti
J
•
r
•
LEGEND . ,.` .�"'': ':' >x :;': INTEN r ED PROJECT AREA ,1�1�
#L:. ru
. •••••••••••:...';,:.:-/ibe,...v......--.,:...:-.....-4-,
iltilt
RESIDENTIAL ,J.•"}' • '� �i
I .:::•• • .. .. i
INDUSTRIAL / I •
0
: a :
f. �. ,,,
• f.sAltl '' !4 ,'11',
ACTIVE AGRICULTURAL % ® �/I�' !•+.,
WOODED 16 O3
of
1'10 J441 v.00'� EXISTING LAND USE
IIIIIIIIIII TRANSPORTATION '••"' $0.
Is.l•c.► "'` SCALE: 1'� 400'
1111
' Na•CO :;".."7,3-: INSTITUTIONAL 13
CO .
i SOURCE: SUFFOLK COUNTY REAL ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
PROPERTY TAX SERVICE AGENCY MGROUP
MEIVIILE. N.Y. RIVERHEAD• N.Y. FAIRFIELD. N.J.
O
CO
4.4
• .
I
parcel . The remaining 25 percent consists of sand mining ac-
tivity and wooded areas, comprising approximately 20 and 5 per-
cent, respectively.
With the exception of the portion of the property fronting
on Middle (North) Road and Cox Lane, the landfill property is set
back from area roadways . On the average, these set backs are
approximately as follows:
• 475 feet from Cox Lane
• 250 feet from Middle (North) Road
' • 1200 feet from Depot Lane
• 800 feet from Oregon Road
' The property is generally well screened, as viewed from
these area roadways , with the exception of the view from the
intersection of Middle (North ) Road and Cox Lane looking north-
west . From this vantage point, landfill operations are clearly
visible. This is due to an agricultural farming operation be-
tween the landfill property and the roadway intersection. This
farming operation does not provide any screening.
' Land uses within a quarter-mile radius of the landfill prop-
erty are , to the west active farmland and vacant (abandoned) farm
fields; to the north, land uses include the preceding , as well as
residential uses and to the east commercial, industrial ( sand and
gravel) , camp-cottage, residential, agricultural and vacant uses .
A farm is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of
' Cox Lane and Middle Road. To the south of the landfill property
are residential , religious (Baptist Church ) , vacant and agri-
cultural uses . A Long Island Lighting Company ( LILCO ) electric
' 4.5
11
Power transmission right-of-way transverses the southern portion
of the property in an east-west direction.
Flood Zones
' Pursuant to information provided on the Town of Southold' s
' Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM, Community-Panel No. 360813-0093D,
April 17 , 1985 ) , published by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) , the project site is located within Zone C, areas
of minimal flooding . The project site is not located within an
' area of the 100-year flood ( i .e. , A and V zones ) .
' Zoning
Zoning is the legal methodology utilized in controlling the
' type of land use and density within a particular zoning district .
Zoning is the planning tool whereby land use policy is imple-
mented and population density and land use intensity are con-
trolled.
' The zoning information regarding the landfill property and
' surrounding parcels was obtained from the official Building Zon-
ing Map for the Town of Southold, dated July 2 , 1985 , and Chapter
100 , Zoning, from the Southold Town Code (Figure 7 ) . Information
in Chapter 100 was supplemented by proposed changes by the Town
of Southold to the Town ' s Master Plan.
' Pursuant to the Code , the landfill site is located within
two zoning districts , C-1 (General Industrial ) and "A" Resi-
dential-Agricultural , comprising approximately 12 . 5 and 48 . 4
acres , respectively . The proposed composting facility is in-
tended to be located in the "A" Residential-Agricultural district.
' According to information on the new master plan, the landfill
4.6
FIGURE 7
U\---' ,LEGEND,
'A" Res, ntc%Ayricu/tura/ 7
"M"Li9h/'/Yla/fip/e Residence %�/%///�
\ . 0
c "M-I"Genera/Mu/hple Res. \\\O\\\
"B" Light Business
"B'l"Gene,t�/Business '
p "C"L�yhf/ndustria/ I:
D 11 III , u ++
o C-1 aienera/ /ndustria/
CUTCHOGUE LANDFLL
PROPERTY BOUNDARY �MI Me
INTENDED PROJECT AREA
(ACTUAL CMPOSTIN
G
FACILITY WOILL ONLY OCCUPY
A PORTION OF THIS AREA)
li
11,0\9
f
1 1.1
CHOGUE �/�`
I,
iii
ok cA i
`"o
W' DFILL
li 1 ' I
,..., „,,,,, 1PIP
NO -TH
la A r....
0111.
c++ ROA D
t\SIIII . I ' DED
1. JECT o
' EOA '` � ` \„. No
III
L0N� lill 1 I I I\ \
■ r
\w; EXISTING ZONING
co � ��
� G � � � SCALE: 1'z 800'
o
7 . 1 \ \ \ \ \ I
co
co
SOURCE: BUILDING ZONE MAP OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS
= DATED JULY 2, 1985 SECTION 'B' OF SIX SECTIONS. t-11, 4GRcUP MELVILLE• N.Y. RIVERHEAD. N.Y. FAIRFIELD. N.J.
N
4.7
property is recommended to be zoned under a new Y,
category, LI ,
Light Industry.
The minimum lot size in the "A" Residential-Agricultural
' district is 40 , 000 square feet ( sf ) and 80 , 000 sf for single-
family and two-family dwellings, respectively. The maximum per-
mitted lot coverage for each is 20 percent of the total land area.
' The minimum lot size for the C-1 District is 200 ,000 sf ( i.e. ,
approximately 5 acres) . The maximum permitted lot coverage can
not be determined from information provided in Chapter 100 .
' Pursuant to Section 100-30 (Article III ) - "A" Residential-
Agricultural District of the Southold Code, the permitted uses in
this district are as follows:
(1) One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed
one (1) dwelling on each lot.
' ( 2 ) The following commercial-agricultural oper-
ations and accessory uses thereto, including
irrigation , provided that there shall be no
storage of manure or other odor or dust pro-
ducing substance or use , except spraying and
dusting to protect vegetation , within one
hundred fifty ( 150 ) feet of any lot line:
' (a) The raising of field and garden
crops , vineyard and orchard farming ,
the maintenance of nurseries and the
seasonal sale of products thereof in
' buildings , subject to the following
special requirements:
' 4.8
( i) All one-story buildings for display
111
and retail sales of agricultural and
nursery products grown primarily on
the premises shall not exceed one
' thousand ( 1 , 000 ) square feet in floor
area . Display of produce shall not
be less than ten ( 10 ) feet from all
street and lot lines . Any stand in
excess of one hundred (100 ) square
feet in floor area shall be set back
twenty ( 20 ) feet from the street line.
' Any stand in existence at the effec-
tive date of this chapter must, with-
in one ( 1 ) year , comply with all of
the provisions hereof.
( ii ) All signs shall conform to the pro-
' visions of §100-30C ( 6 ) ( b ) , which
states that not more than three ( 3 )
signs with a combined total area of
not more than seventy-two (72 ) square
' feet, none of which shall be larger
' than four by six ( 4x6 ) feet in size,
advertising only the sale of farm ,
garden or nursery products produced
or grown on the premises or of ani-
mals raised on the premises.
' 4.9
I
I (b) The keeping , breeding and raising of
Ifowl, except ducks and large domestic
animals on lots of ten ( 10 ) acres or
I more.
I (c) The keeping of not more than two (2 )
horses and/or ponies owned and used
I
by the owner of the premises for his
personal use , provided that the land
Iarea devoted to such use shall not be
less than forty thousand ( 40 , 000 )
I
square feet.
I (d) Barns , storage buildings and other
related structures , provided that
such buildings shall conform to the
yard requirements for principal build-
ings .
I ( 3) Buildings, structures and uses owned and oper-
ated by the Town of Southold.
1 Numerous special exception uses are applicable to this dis-
trict by permit of the Zoning Board of Appeals and subject to
' site plan review by the Planning Board . Said uses are provided
Iin Appendix B.
Permitted uses in Section 100- 90 , Article IX, the C-1
IGeneral Industrial District, are that buildings and premises may
be used for any lawful purpose except that no building and/or
I
premises shall be used for dwelling, boarding and tourist homes ,
1 hotel , motel or tourist camp purposes . The Code stipulates 47
I 4.10
II
Iitems which are permitted only by special exception of the Zoning
II
Board of Appeals, and which are subject to site plan approval by
the Planning Board. These uses are provided in Appendix B.
IPermitted uses in the newly proposed LI , Light Industrial
District, are as follows:
I
•
agricultural operations
I • wholesaling and warehousing operations (excluding
the storage of coal, coke, fuel oil or junk)
• building, electrical or plumbing contractor' s yards
• cold storage plants
office buildings for business , governmental and
Iprofessional use
• telephone exchanges
I • buildings and activities of Southold Town and
school, park and fire districts
ISpecial exception uses in this proposed district are:
• research laboratories
• laundry and dry cleaning plants
I • drinking establishments
• light industrial uses, including manufacturing
II • conference facilities
• public utilities
• printing or publishing plants
I
• truck or bus terminals
• food processing plants
II • wholesale and retail sales and repair of boats and
1 marine items
I
4.11
• boat building, servicing and storage
age
' • restaurants
• sauerkraut manufacturing plants
' • bed-and-breakfast facilities
4. 3 - COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
I ITIES
' The landfill property is located within the Southold School
District , which contained approximately 714 students in the 1985-
' 1986 school year, based on information provided in the 1987 Long
Island Almanac.
Public water supply systems which exist in the Town are the
' Incorporated Village of Greenport water supply system, the Cap-
tain Kidd Water Company in Mattituck (to be purchased and taken
over by SCWA) , and Cliff & Ed' s Mobile Home Park in Cutchogue.
' Public transportation service in the vicinity of the land-
fill property includes the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) Main Line
' (to Greenport) and the Suffolk County Bus Service. The Cutchogue
train station is located on Depot Road approximately 0 . 6 mile
' south of the site.
' The project site is serviced by the Southold Police Depart-
ment which maintains an active complement of 36 officers plus two
bay constables , as per information provided by Officer Lynch of
the Department. The police department ' s main office is located
' on Route 25 and Peconic Lane.
The project site is serviced by the Cutchogue Fire Depart-
ment, located on New Suffolk Lane, with a complement of 88 active
I
members . This information was provided by Mr . Austin of the De-
partment.
4.12
Electric services in Southold (exclusive of the Inc. Village
of Greenport) are provided by the Long Island Lighting Company
(LILCO) .
' The Cutchogue landfill services the Town of Southold, han-
dling an estimated 210 tons (average) of solid waste per day.
The nearest airport to the project site , Mattituck Airport ,
is located approximately 4 . 5 miles southwest of the site on New
Suffolk Avenue.
' 4 . 4 - DEMOGRAPHY
The nearest towns to the project site are Cutchogue and East
Cutchogue, at a distance of approximately 1. 7 and 2. 0 miles away,
respectively . The project site is located within the Census
' Designated Place (CDP) of Cutchogue-New Suffolk, in the Town of
' Southold ( refer to Figure 8 ) . The 1987 population of Cutchogue-
New Suffolk is 2 , 964 persons , based on a Long Island Lighting
Company (LILCO ) estimate . This estimate is based on an annual
count of active electric meters , each representing a household
' unit , and the most current U. S . Census household size figures.
' The Cutchogue-New Suffolk population represents approximately 14
percent of the total Town population of 21,003 persons, and ap-
proximately 0 . 2 percent of the 1987 Suffolk County population
( 1 , 355 , 034 persons ) . The population distribution of the Town can
be determined by inspection of the following population figures
for the Town ' s eight CDPs and one incorporated village:
4.13
EN MN N E OM N UN M N IIIIIII all M I 11 I EN NU EN I ( N
SOHT 88-03
00
-1 O
cc
To tittle Cd h.
n LONG ISLAND SOUND
Out Cdj..3 \11,.
C 0
CO V c l e.
1 1 f
C Meal
h.
6-) �D 1 �"
70 - ,r Exl Mx. /
70 Z \ Gardinsrs Boy , ..,) \0C.
N.
Crte` ' 1a„,e/rn �,�zJ alrrM/ur
GnawMal / •
•
P c P1
LONG ISLAND SOUND G� .'9,%. S.
Z CO p CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL xi Snthu i'�,, OBI
m cc y •
z EM v C ° 'C .,�L I •
��i
.....0 el\
i.
A rn Z.Z. , •/' \>. 1 a`:'E�i;•`irk
y O ‘...,...--
.4
`\ ►easie m 1. 0ro, I Behr h. Aps.j
N.
, 4, • `,..., spdk.._ !1 . •
111 > 0 . -‘ .- - • '(''' G?
I C 1 ' hlcbpe ••No Mei ); 1
_� m a a ,.,,„, .1. 7
23 0
41
A
UI O 1 ^+r~ A Vie``.. 4 �� r Little Pseonis Ba ♦`�.0, ,
•
..
I. lure)
z 11
n
D CD
/ i
Z � `
z i
PI Ai
21
Great Peconls Bay
UI ! i i
1
ill f
0 I .0...... ......• •.7,
rr1 `�
m -S73 Z
fish('h. ".o
P
XI
i-- U) a 0 ..
m
Block Island Sound
CO
CDP/INC. VILLAGE 1987 ESTIMATED POPULATION
' Southold 5,196
Mattituck 4, 270
' Cutchogue-New Suffolk 2, 964
' Greenport (Inc . Vill. ) 2, 475
Greenport (Unincorp. ) 1,792
East Marion-Orient 1, 573
Peconic 1, 249
' Laurel 1,079
' Fisher ' s Island 405
In general for the Town of Southold, populations are concen-
trated near the shoreline in the following areas : Mattituck,
Cutchogue, East Cutchogue, Southold, Greenport and Orient/Orient
Point.
Information obtained from the 1987 Long Island Almanac re-
garding population density indicates that there are an estimated
( 1986 ) 144 persons per square mile in the Town . The Town has
142 . 42 square miles of area . The 1986 estimated number of per-
' sons per household in the Town is 2 . 51 . As per the 1980 U. S .
Census, the Town had 2. 54 persons per household, and specifically
' for the CDP of Cutchogue-New Suffolk had 2. 57 persons per house-
' hold.
Information on projected population is available for the
' Town only, not each individual CDP . Population projections
through the year 2010 , published by the New York State Water
Quality Management Plan, the available past population levels for
4.15
both the Town of Southold and for CDPs , and the population in-
crease (with percent change) for the Town population are provided
in Table 10 . The Town population has nearly doubled during the
' period between 1950 and 1987, from 11, 632 to 21 , 003 persons , re-
spectively . Suffolk County ' s population has increased nearly
fivefold, from 276, 129 to 1, 355,034 persons during the same time
' frame.
The population of Cutchogue-New Suffolk has increased
slightly during the period from 1970 ( 2 , 718 persons ) to 1987
( 2 , 964 persons ) . The 1950 and 1960 population information is not
' available for Cutchogue-New Suffolk.
Projected populations at five-year intervals through the
year 2010 have been prepared for the Town and the County by the
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ( NYSDEC )
as part of the State Water Quality Management Plan. These pro-
jections are also listed in Table 10 . The Town population is
estimated to increase by 5 , 097 persons from its 1987 population
of 21 , 003 to 26 , 100 by the year 2010 . During the same time
period , the County population is estimated to increase by 259, 597
from 1, 355 ,034 to 1, 614, 631 , respectively.
Based on the data in Table 10 , Southold experienced its
' greatest growth during the period from 1950 to 1980 , when the
population increased from 11, 632 to 19, 172. Based on future popu-
lation projections , growth is expected to increase by 17 .1 per-
cent during the interval 1980-1990 . Growth is projected to be at
' a slower rate between 1990 and 2000 ( 7 . 3 percent increase) and
2000 to 2010 (8. 3 percent increase) .
4.16
11-11—AGROU3
oI
TABLE 10
PAST, PRESENT & PROJECTED POPULATION LEVELS: CUTCHOGUE—NEW SUFFOLK, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD & SUFFOLK COUNTY
ANNUAL POPULATION
Location 1950 (1) 1960 (1) 1970 (1) 1980 (1) 1986 (2) 1987 (3) 1990 (4) 1995 (4) 2000 (4) 2005 (4) 2010 (4)
a
Cutchogue-New Suffolk NA NA 2,718 2,788 2, 914 2,964 -- -- -- -- --
h'
1
i
Town of Southold 11, 632 13, 295 16, 804 19 , 172 20, 545 21, 003 22,450 23,450 24, 100 25, 100 26, 100 1
(includes Cutchogue-
New Suffolk population) g
{
Population Increase 1, 663 3 , 509 2, 368 1,373 458 1, 447 1, 000 650 1, 000 1, 000
(Percent Increase) 14 .3% 26 .4% 14 .1% 7 .2% 2 .2% 6 .9% 4 .5% 2 . 8% 4.1% 4 .0%
Suffolk County 276, 129 666,784 1, 127 , 030 1, 284, 231 1, 321,518 1, 355, 034 1, 395, 458 1,468, 017 1, 527 , 466 1, 574, 247 1, 614, 631
(1) U.S. Census data
(2) Long Island Lighting Company, January 1, 1986 estimate
(3) Long Island Lighting Company, January 1, 1987 estimate
(4) Population Projections - 1985, published by the NYSDEC as part of the NYS Water Quality Management Plan
1
1
4.17
4. 5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES
' Cultural resources include both historic and archaeological
resources. Historic resources can include buildings , monuments ,
' sites , cemeteries and other landmarks. These resources can con-
sist of a wide range of building/architectural types and styles
and periods of construction. Archaeological resources include
prehistoric Indian encampments, burial grounds , refuse mounds or
historic cultural resources ( i.e. , evidences of colonial settle-
ment activity) .
' Historic Resources
Historic resources are listed at the local , state and
national levels. At the national level, historic resources are
listed on what is termed the National Register of Historic Places
' (NR) , published by the U. S. Department of the Interior , National
Park Service . Historic resources at the state and local levels
' are listed on the Building Structure Inventory ( BSI ) , published
by the New York State Office of Parks , Recreation and Historic
Preservation. All historic resources listed on the NR are also
of state and local importance and are, therefore, also listed on
the BSI. However, not all historic resources listed on the BSI
' are on the NR listing.
Prior to nominating a prospective historic resource to the
NR, the following criteria are considered:
' • antiquity;
• prestige of the architect;
• uniqueness of the architecture to the area;
4.18
1
• famous personality having resided there;
' • use for a unique purpose; or
• the only remaining structure of a given type.
Criteria for nomination of a prospective historic resource
to the BSI and local listings entail consideration of similar,
but less stringent, criteria as per those of the NR.
For reference purposes , the following is a listing of the
National Register listings found in the Town of Southold (ex-
' cludes Inc. Village of Greenport ) , based upon information from
' the New York State Office of Parks , Recreation and Historic
Preservation (NYSOPRHP) :
• The Old House, SR 25 , Cutchogue
• Fort Corchaug Site, Cutchogue vicinity
' • Andrew Gildersleeve , Octagonal Building, Main Road
' and Love Lane, Mattituck
• Orient Historic District, SR 25 , Orient
' • Terry-Mulford House, SR 25, Orient
• David Tuthill Farmstead, New Suffolk Ave . , Cut-
chogue
• Southold Library, Main Rd. , Southold
• Richard Cox House, Mill Rd. , Mattituck
Archaeological Resources
Information on archaeological resources in the Town of
' Southold was obtained from the map entitled "New York State
Archaeological Site Locations Overlay" . This overlay, originally
' mapped in 1981 and since updated, is available from the Bureau of
Field Services , New York State Office of Parks , Recreation and
4.19
Historic Preservation . This archaeological resource information
' is of a sensitive nature and no duplications of the overlay map
can be made for any documents . This is to help prevent unscrupu-
lous individuals from obtaining a copy of the map and damaging
the archaeological resources . Therefore , only the general lo-
cation of actual or potential sites is provided in this discus-
- 1 Sion.
As per the overlay map, there are no archaeological re-
sources located on the landfill property, nor within one mile of
the site.
1
4.20
1
5 .0 - ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
This section will discuss the environmental impacts which
can reasonably be expected during construction and after com-
pletion of the MSW composting facility.
' When considering the environmental aspects of MSW compost-
ing , it is convenient to differentiate between the internal en-
vironment of the composting facility and the external environment.
The internal environment is that with which the employees at the
facility are in immediate contact. The external environment con-
tacts a broader population, namely the public at large. The in-
ternal, or occupational, environment is generally more amenable
to management than is the external environment . The internal
' environment is designed, constructed and operated so as to mini-
mize the impacts to the external environment.
This section will identify those specific internal and exter-
nal environmental aspects associated with the operation of a MSW
composting facility which require special management and at-
tention . Particular attention is given to air quality, water
' quality and noise level changes that could potentially occur when
a MSW composting facility is put in place. Mitigation features
are described for the proposed facility regarding the potential
' environmental changes .
5.1
5 .1 - GEOLOGY
5.1.1 - Subsurface and Surface
' It is not expected that the proposed composting facility
will pose a significant impact to the subsurface materials on the
' landfill site . No deep excavation or other substantial dis-
turbance to the Upper Glacial material is intended to occur .
' Short-term surface soil disturbances can be expected and include
' excavation for the building and pavement areas . Soil distur-
bances associated with these activities would be minimal and
would entail a slight erosion hazard.
Long-term impacts to surface soils are the loss of approxi-
' mately one acre of Haven Loam (HaA) soil , a prime agricultural
soil (Class I , as defined in the 1975 Soil Survey of Suffolk
1 County, New York; refer to Section 3. 1. 2 herein) , as a result of
11 covering with an impervious surface ( i . e . , proposed composting
building ) . Approximately two acres of Made Land (Ma ) will be
impacted as well, also as a result of being covered with an im-
pervious surface ( i .e. , paved area) .
It should be noted that the proposed locations for the com-
Lposting building and the storage/staging area, respectively, are
to be situated in areas which have been previously disturbed due
to landfill activities . Thus , the initial long-term impacts to
surface soils have already occurred due to said prior landfill
activities .
I
5.2
5.1. 2 - Topography
The proposed action is expected to have a minimal impact on
the property' s topography, being that areas anticipated for con-
struction are relatively level . It is expected that areas im-
mediately surrounding the proposed composting building and the
storage/staging area will be graded so as to make the topography
' as level as possible.
' 5 . 2 - WATER RESOURCES
' Anticipated impacts to water resources associated with the
proposed action are generalized into three categories:
' 1. Employee generated wastewater;
c. Process related wastewater;
' 3. Site related stormwater runoff.
' In addition, there are those anticipated impacts associated
with surface waters and groundwater . Below is a description of
anticipated impacts .
5. 2 .1 - Groundwater
Employee Generated Wastewater
Employee generated wastewater is a function of the number of
Iemployees at the facility and type of sanitation system utilized.
Based on an estimated 5 to 15 employees working at the composting
facility, no more than several hundred gallons of this type of
waste will be generated each day. All employee generated waste-
water will be treated in a Suffolk County Department of Health
' Services (SCDHS) permitted septic system. The shower and toilet
5.3
1
facilities are anticipated to be equipped
pwith the latest ap-
proved water-saving devices to minimize water usage . The septic
system will be designed and installed pursuant to SCDHS require-
ments .
' Process Related Wastewater
Process related wastewater would include any leachate or
runoff which is formed during the active compost project. It is
anticipated that the process would be carried out under a roofed
' structure and formation of contaminated water would be minimal .
' It is further anticipated that all composting processes will be
carried out on an impervious surface. The impervious surface
' would contain any moisture or leachate/runoff generated during
the process. The impervious "pad" would be sloped to allow for
' retention of the runoff water in a holding tank or retention
basin. Retention basins will be sized to allow for recycling of
' the liquid in the composting process.
' It is expected that process wastewater and runoff will have
low BOD, nutrient loadings and chemical characteristics similar
to that of the input waste stream. The volume and character-
istics of the liquid wastes would generally be variable dependent
' upon absorptive capacity of the material on site, and age of the
compost product. The preferred method of treatment for any gener-
ated wastewater would be collection and use of this liquid in the
' compost process . If the amount of process wastewater exceeds
that which can be utilized in the process , the additional amount
' will require removal by a licensed hauler for treatment in a per-
' mitted waste treatment plant.
5.4
11
In addition to the method of collectionro osed, under
P P
NYSDEC Part 360 requirements, the possibility of groundwater con-
tamination at the landfill is proposed to be monitored annually
for contaminants characteristic of leachate . Such contaminants
' are:
Boron Calcium
Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Alkalinity
Ammonia Color
' Nitrate Hardness
' BOD-5 Chlorides
Carbonaceous Oxygen Demand (COD) Iron
' Total Organic Carbon (TOC ) Manganese
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS ) Specific Conductivity
Sulfate Total Volatile Solids
Aluminum pH
1 Chromium (Hexavalent and Total ) Turbidity
Sodium Arsenic
Detergents Lead
5. 2. 2 - Surface Water
(a) Site-Related Water
Site-related water refers to that water which does not come
I
in contact with either the raw MSW or the actively composting
material . Site water would be run off from roofs, parking lots,
roads , compost curing , or storage areas . The volume of water
will depend on the volume of precipitation and the area affected
1 5.5
11
11
by the storm which is free of compost product since compost ab-
IIsorbs moisture . This water which is free from the compost
product is proposed to be directed to a recharge basin to re-
' plenish the groundwater . The water that comes in contact with
IIthe compost product would be collected in a holding pond to be
recycled in the composting process .
1 (b) Non-Contact Stormwater
It is anticipated that the proposed action will result in
Ithe elimination of the area of collected stormwater , located in
Ithe southwestern portion of the landfill property, comprising
approximately 0. 1 acre in size. The storage/staging area could
IIpotentially be situated in this location. As this "puddle" has
been determined (via field investigations ) not to display signifi-
Icant enough vegetation character to be classified as a typical
Ifresh water wetland, it is not expected that the elimination of
said "puddle" will result in adverse impacts to vegetation or any
I
wildlife species which may frequent the "puddle" .
The proposed action (both the proposed building and the stor-
IIage/staging area) is not expected to result in additional adverse
I impacts
to the persistent stormwater ponding located on-site
among the compost, wood chips and yard waste.
IIIt is intended that there will be a leachate collection sys-
tem at the storage/staging area to prevent groundwater contami-
I
nation and surface water ponding. The leachate collection system
will be described in detail in the Mitigation Measures section of
Ithis document (Section 6. 0 ) .
II
5.6
I
5 . 3 - AIR4 UALITY
No emission into the air from a stationary point source
( i . e . , smokestack) , methane collection system or flare system
' ( e .g. , methane is burned, rather than collected) is proposed as
' part of this project.
It is anticipated that the composting facility operations
' will result in odors being generated as a part of the composting
process . By maintaining aerobic conditons, odors will be mini-
mized. On-site conditions, with respect to air quality and the
' impact on personnel in the facility, will depend on specifics in
facility design and air scrubbing or handling mechanisms . In
' general , the facility design would include a composting facility
with an enclosed processing building, and roofed compost hall
with partial or total enclosures . The finished product would
I
generally be stored on a covered, impervious pad . Specific de-
sign will depend on the type of system selected.
This section describes dust, odors and airborne pathogens ,
their sources and potential control.
1 5. 3.1 - Dust
' Dust Sources
During the operational phase , there are two principal
sources of dust: vehicular traffic and process components.
1. Vehicular Traffic
The principal vehicular traffic will be as a result of solid
waste being delivered to the facility. Tonnage received at the
composting facility will be equivalent to that which is now re-
ceived at the landfill. No significant change in number or size
5.7
of vehicles usingthe landfillexpected -
is as a result of oper-
ating the composting facility. Dust generated as a result of
vehicular traffic is expected to remain constant and relatively
insignificant.
2. Unit Processes
There are little data on dust concentrations at solid waste
' composting facilities . Table 11 shows data from four Swedish
composting plants (Clark, et al . , 1983 ) . Dust levels ranged from
1 0. 14 to 10. 6 mg/m3. In Landskrona, the waste processing building
' had a level of 5 . 10 mg/m3 of dust, whereas at Borlange, in the
same area, the dust level was 0. 19 mg/m3 . In 1983 and 1984 , E &
A Environmental Consultants, Inc. ' s personnel visited these sites.
The difference in dust levels was primarily due to housekeeping .
' The screening area was an area where considerable dust was gener-
ated. These plants did not have dust hoods or other dust venti-
lation or collection mechanisms . In Nashville , Tennessee, the
' dust levels were reduced at the screens by applying a fine mist
of water . Rylander, et al . , (1983 ) reported data from composting
' plants in Sweden. Airborne dust levels ranged from 0 . 1 to 12 . 0
mg/m3 . The highest levels were found in the screening area, and
' the lowest near the compost piles . Data from a sludge composting
plant in Windsor , Ontario (Clayton Environmental Consultants ,
1983) showed that airborne total particulate concentrations in
' the vicinities of the screen, mix area and compost piles were at
approximately 1 mg/m3. It is not anticipated that unit process
dust will exceed typical safety standards for exposure. Refer-
' ence to the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
5.8
II
II
II
TABLE 11
1 AVERAGE AIRBORNE DUST AND
II
ENDOTOXIN CONCENTRATIONS
TOTAL DUST ENDOTOXIN
ISAMPLE LOCATION # OF SAMPLES (mg/m3) (ug/m3)
Stromstad
I
Refuse Hopper
Active 4 0. 92 0 .0140
Inactive 2 0. 16 0 .0100
I Separator Drum 2 0. 24 0 .0100
Control Drum 3 0 . 26 0 .0010
Other Locations 2 0 . 14 0. 0100
II Landskrona
Tipping Floor 2 0. 42 0 .0010
Waste Processing Room 2 5 . 10 0 .0380
IIControl Room 1 0. 56 0 .0020
Borlange
Tipping Floor 2 0 . 42 0 .0010
II
Waste Processing Room 2 0. 19 0 .0026
Control Room 1 0. 28 0 .0010
Screening Area 2 10 . 60 0 .0420
IGothenburg
Mechanics Area 3 0 . 23 0 .0420
II
Compost Piles 3 0 . 18 0. 0020
SOURCE: Clark, et al. , 1983
II
11
II
I
I 5.9
II
I
Hygienists (ACGIH ) demonstrates the maximum total dust measure-
!!
-
e
' ment should not exceed 10 mg/m3 (ACGIH, 1986 ) . On only one oc-
casion did measurements taken by E & A exceed ACGIH standards.
' It is expected that the proposed composting facility will
' meet all Part 360 , OSHA and ACGIH requirements for dust and nui-
sance particulates . Several alternatives for dust mitigation and
control can be found in the section on mitigations within this
document.
a. Receiving/Tipping Floor
' It is proposed that vehicles enter the facility and dis-
charge the waste on a tipping floor. A front-end loader, or simi-
lar equipment , will pick up the waste and deposit it into a
hopper . The principal source of dust will occur when the ma-
llis discharged into the hopper. This operation will be in
an enclosed building with dust collection capabilities.
' b. Grinding and Shredding
' The principal systems used for grinding or shredding for
composting are enclosed vertical or horizontal hammermills , low
speed horizontal shredders and drum shredders. All of this equip-
ment is totally enclosed and workers are not anticipated to be
exposed to dust from these sources. In the event that equipment
is down and workers need to clean the units, it is suggested that
they wear dust masks . Some of this equipment also has the means
' of adding water, e.g. , drums, which reduce dust conditions.
c. Composting
Currently , two principal methods of composting , namely,
static pile and windrow, are typically being offered by vendors .
1 5.10
The static pile method does not create dust during the active
process. Removing material from the piles for further treatment
could result in minimal dust conditions. Windrow systems provide
moisture during the turning process in order to maintain the
' proper moisture content of 40 to 50 percent. At that moisture
percentage, dust problems do not occur. At the end of the wind-
row process, the compost is removed for further processing.
d. Screening
' The major potential source of dust during the entire process
is when the compost is screened . Two types of screens are usu-
ally used , trammel and shaker. Trammel screens appear to produce
less dust, especially if the compost is in the proper moisture
range of 40 to 50 percent during discharge of the compost by the
front-end loader into the screen hopper.
e. Curing/Storage Area
Dust sources in the curing/storage area are primarily as a
' result of front-end loader traffic . Minimal dust occurs during
pick-up of the products as a result of the high moisture content
of the material . It is suggested that there should be a water
' source near the pick-up area in order to wet down the compost if
it gets excessively dry during the curing phase.
111
5. 3 . 2 - Odor Sources
It is anticipated that there will be two principal sources
' of odors . During receiving and while garbage remains on the tip-
ping floor , odors are anticipated to be generated. A second
source of odors is potentially from the compost process itself ,
principally when windrows or piles are torn down and removed for
5.11
I
further processing . Other minor sources are anticipated to be
' within the other buildings .
1. Receiving and Handling
Typical garbage odors are expected to occur in the receiving
' area and tipping floor.
2. Composting
During windrowing, or when static piles are torn down, there
is a potential for odor generation. The principal odors are am-
monia , sulfur compounds and compost (humus type) . The latter are
' earthy, decayed vegetative odors with no specific chemical charac-
terization . Odors may also occur during screening. Windrowing
' and static pile systems are anticipated to utilize negative aer-
ation systems which greatly reduce odors . It is also expected
' that windrow turning will be a minimum of five turnings in 15
' days to meet USEPA' s Process to Further Reduce Pathogens (PFRP)
criteria, as defined in 40 CFR 257. The pile turning is antici-
pated to be conducted over a two to three hour period each day.
5. 3 3 - Airborne Pathogens
' During composting , spores from vegetative matter can be re-
leased into the atmosphere. In composting , a diverse population
of microorganisms decomposes the organic fraction of the waste
' stream. The primary group of concern from aerospora are fungi ,
which can be classified as secondary pathogens . Fungi are the
1 predominant concern, since they grow at the high temperatures
' obtained in composting, whereas bacteria and viruses are killed
off at these temperatures . Secondary pathogens do not infect
' 5.12
I
normal healthy individuals and are not generally considered to be
a primary health hazard.
Secondary pathogens affect people whose defense systems have
Ibeen weakened by certain diseases or therapies . They may be
Ipresent in vegetative matter and some are able to grow in compost.
Examples of secondary pathogens are some thermophilic fungi and
Iactinomycetes . These can infect people who have had respiratory
infections or prolonged antibiotic or steroid treatment (Hart ,
IRussell and Remington , 1969 ) . The main thermophilic fungus of
U
concern is aspergillus fumigatus, which causes a respiratory dis-
ease known as Aspergillosis. The thermophilic antinomycetes ( for
ll
example, Thermopolyspora, Polyspora and Micromonospora Vulgaris )
can cause allergic reactions, such as Farmer ' s Lung (Lacy, 1974;
IMarsh , Millner and Kla, 1979 ) . Millner ( 1982 ) lists several
' other actinomycetes reported to grow at the thermophilic tempera-
tures attainable during the composting process ( 50°C ) . These
secondary pathogens are found everywhere, including hospitals,
homes and other commonly contacted environments and are very
Icommon in agricultural environments. Aspergillus fumigatus, for
example, is found in soils, hay, wood, cereals, foliage and vari-
I
ous moldy farm wastes . From the data on maximal concentrations
Iof thermosphilic actinomycetes in different materials ( see Table
12 ) , it appears that the concentrations in compost are generally
Ilower than those in the other materials (more mature, riper, com-
post usually has higher concentrations - up to 108 per gram of
' dry weight) . Compost is able to support the growth of fumigatus
Iand the actinomycetes because of the temperature achieved during
5.13
TABLE 12
CONCENTRATIONS OF THERMOPHILIC ACTINOMYCETES
IN DIFFERENT MATERIALS (NOS. PER GRAM, DRY WEIGHT)
' GROWTH MATERIAL CONCENTRATIONS
Moist Hay 1. 7x107
' 21-Day Sewage Sludge Compost 5. 7x105
1 4-Month Sewage Sludge Compost 1. 8x108
Baggasse 9. 6x106
Mushroom Compost 6 . 6x106
Moist Grain 105
1
1 5.14
the process . Aspergillus fumigatus grows at temperatures of less
than 20°C to about 60°C (Cooney and Emerson , 1964 ; Kane and
Mullens , 1973 a , b) and has been readily isolated from wood chips
' at 50°C (Tansey, 1971 ) . The actinomycetes have a similar tempera-
ture range (Lacey, 1974) . High concentrations have been isolated
betwen 50°C and 60°C (Millner , 1982 ) . Factors inhibiting the
_ , growth of these secondary pathogens are low pH, anaerobic con-
ditions , excessive moisture and high temperatures ( 65°C) .
Toward the end of a composting process , when the compost is
' cooling down and becoming drier, the secondary pathogens may pre-
dominate. Their spores are readily dispersed from dry and dusty
compost piles , especially during and after mechanical agitation
(Millner, Bassett and Marsh, 1980 ) .
' Several studies (Passman, 1983 ; Hampton Roads , 1982 ; Mill-
ner , et al . , 1977 ) have shown that Aspergillus levels in the air
' at compost sites fall back to background levels very soon after
' site activity ceases . These studies further show that the bulk
of the Aspergillus spores are disseminated only during periods of
extreme activity . The Hampton Roads Sanitary District, Virginia
( 1982) reported monitoring four locations , at several sites per
' location , in their service area prior to starting a compost oper-
ation, as well as after the plant operation started . They found
very little , if any, impact of the compost operation on the ambi-
ent Aspergillus levels .
Millner , et al . , ( 1980 ) showed that within 15 minutes after
' cessation of activity, aerospora concentrations were comparable
' to those at non-composting sites. The degree of spore dispersal
5.15
depends on the meteorological
p factors, such as wind and rain
1 (Millner , et al . , 1977 ) . Experiments carried out to measure
concentrations of these secondary pathogens at locations downwind
' of compost piles at treatment plants have shown that conditions
' differ for each compost plant, but that concentrations tend to be
lower than those required to cause secondary infections from
moldy hay (Burge and Millner, 1980 ; Millner, 1982 ) .
Most gram-negative bacteria produce endotoxins which are
toxic to man . Endotoxins are toxic substances produced within
1 bacteria, many of which are non-pathogenic . The endotoxin com-
plex is part of the cell wall . The mode of action of endotoxins
is not understood. The bacteria containing endotoxins are very
common and inhabit the intestinal tract of man and animals. In a
study by Mattsby (1978) , the author recovered gram-negative bac-
teria from composting plants both on and off site. A total of 17
different gram-negative organisms were identified. The concen-
trations never exceeded levels needed to produce clinical endo-
toxin exposure symptoms . The authors therefore concluded that
the "syndrome of endotoxin sensitivity is not believed to be a
significant hazard in relation to the composting operation moni-
tored. "
Clark, et al . , ( 1983 ) showed endotoxin levels in Swedish
solid waste composting plants to range from 0 .001 to 0 . 042 ug/m3 .
' The amount of endotoxin in airborne dust ranged from 0 . 007 to
0 . 87 ug/m3 (Clark) did not indicate that these levels were a
health problem.
5.16
5 . 4 - TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY
The proposed composting facility, intended to occur within
the total of approximately eleven acres in the southern portion
' of the landfill property, is not expected to impact local floral
' and faunal species occurring on the project site. The composting
facility is to be situated in areas that have previously been
' disturbed by prior landfilling operations . It is expected that
associated impacts of floral and faunal species are most likely
to occur in the western "weedy" portion of the eleven acres avail-
able , as this area will undergo the more extensive land use and
habitat changes. The storage/staging area is to be situated west-
erly in an area of "weedy" vegetation and the building is to be
located easterly on an area generally devoid of vegetation.
' 5. 4.1 - Vegetation
It is not anticipated that any of the floral species which
' are listed as New York State Protected Native Plants ( refer to
' Section 3. 4.1) will be adversely impacted by the proposed compost-
ing operation.
Land area required for the composting facility contains her-
baceous ( "weedy" ) vegetation which will be impacted (and conse-
quently removed ) from the site . The removal of these "weedy"
1 species may be considered a long-term adverse impact with regard
to reducing available food/habitat resources for wildlife species.
A short-term impact associated with the removal of the herbaceous
vegetation is likely to be an increase in stormwater runoff on
' the property. These impacts should be eliminated once the soil
is stabilized.
5.17
5 . 4 . 2 - Wildlife
1 The proposed composting facility is not expected to ad-
versely impact any of the New York State listed threatened and
' special concern species ( refer to Section 3. 4. 2) which may ran-
11
domly occur on the landfill site. The proposed action will re-
sult in the removal of an area of herbaceous vegetation, which
Imay presently serve as a cover/food/nesting resource for various
wildlife species . This may be viewed as a long-term impact on
said wildlife species .
5 . 5 - ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC
It is not expected that there will be an impact to motor
vehicle traffic flows upon completion and commencement of the
' proposed action.
Itt is estimated that approximately 210 tons per day of mu-
nicipal solid waste is presently entering the Cutchogue landfill .
' Based upon the data presented in Section 4. 1, and a future solid
waste collection program consistent with that of the present , the
1 Town anticipates a moderate increase in traffic flow into the new
' facility. The increase in average daily vehicular traffic will
parallel that of the expected population growth. The Town ' s popu-
lation is expected to increase ( see Section 4 . 4 ) approximately
24 percent from 1987 to the year 2020 .
Should solid waste collection practices change over time
( such as the implementation of refuse districts ) , traffic flow
into the facility will change.
5.18
5 .6 - LAND USE AND ZONING
Land Use
It is not expected that the proposed composting facility
will result in a change to the overall land use of the 59 . 8 acres
of the Cutchogue landfill . Land use changes will occur on the
approximately eleven ( 11 ) acres of land area available for the
' proposed action . These respective land areas will be changed
from their present land use of being non or formerly active areas
' directly involved in the daily landfilling operations, to being
' directly active in the proposed composting operations . Further ,
this area , required for the proposed composting facility, is cur-
rently open, ( i.e. , contain no structures or other visual items ) .
The proposed action will result in a visual change in these areas
from open to one containing composting-related buildings/activi-
ties . Thus , the proposed action does not represent a significant
change over and above the area ' s current land use . It is not
' expected that the proposed composting facility will result in
adverse impacts to surrounding land uses.
The proposed land use for the approximately eleven acres of
' the landfill property available for development is expected to
result in several impacts . In order to mitigate said issues ,
mitigation measures are to be incorporated into the design of the
proposed composting facility. These mitigation measures are dis-
cussed in Section 6 . 0 .
Zoning
From a review of Chapter 100 , Zoning, of the Town Code and
' supplemental information regarding the Town ' s new master plan ,
5.19
1 thero osed composting facility p po g is a permitted use under both
existing ( "A" Residential-Agricultural; note that portions of the
landfill property are zoned C-1 General Industry) and proposed
(LI, Light Industry) zoning . The proposed action is thus con-
sistent with the existing and proposed zoning of the landfill
property.
Further , although landfilling and the proposed composting
activities may generally not be considered consistent with most
' of the adjacent land uses to the landfill property ( i .e. , resi-
dential , agricultural ; limited commercial and industrial ) , it
should be noted that landfilling operations have been on-going
11 since 1954 . Prior to this time, the residents utilized this as a
dump site since 1940 .
I/
5 . 7 - COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES
This section of the document will discuss the impact of the
' proposed action on various community services and facilities .
School District
The proposed action is not expected to adversely impact the
Southold School District. The majority of new positions required
' can be filled with the existing labor force in Southold . The
' District will therefore not incur additional expenditures or re-
quire new facilities.
1 Police and Fire Protection Services
The intended composting facility is not expected to have an
adverse impact on either the Southold Police Department or the
I
5.20
1
1
Cutchogue Fire Department. It is not likely that either depart-
1 ment will need to hire additional personnel in response to the
proposed action in order to maintain their current respective
level of service to the local community.
Transportation
The composting facility is not likely to adversely impact
1 transportation facilities servicing the local community, particu-
larly the Long Island Rail Road ' s (LIRR) Main Line or Mattituck
Airport. The proposed action does not affect said transportation
' facilities , nor require the use of same to undertake its compost-
ing operation.
' Water Supply
At this time, a projected water use by the proposed compost-
ing facility cannot be quantified, as the facility has not yet
' been designed . It can be stated that water use, most likely re-
quiring a new well to be sunk on site, will be in a similar range
' as a typical small-sized office building.
Waste Disposal
Solid Waste
' The proposed composting facility is intended to impact the
Town ' s solid waste stream by decreasing the volume of waste actu-
ally being deposited in the Cutchogue landfill, thereby extending
the life of the landfill . This may be viewed as a beneficial
' impact of the proposed action on waste disposal in the Town. Of
' the 210 tons/day presently entering the landfill , approximately
42 percent of the material in the waste stream is considered
1 readily compostable. This material directly consists of organic
11
5.21
11
materials . Thus , approximately 42 percent of the existing waste
stream currently entering the Cutchogue landfill could be removed
from this waste stream as a result of the proposed composting
' facility.
' In addition to producing compost, the following non-compost-
able products will be handled at the facility:
1 • bulky wastes
• ferrous metals
• process residuals
' Bulky Wastes
Bulky wastes are those items which are removed at the front
' end of the facility. These items include such things as furni-
ture , rugs , white goods (refrigerators, stoves, etc. ) , and tires.
It is estimated that one to two tons of bulky wastes will be pro-
duced daily in the summer months.
Several of the compost system vendors utilize shear shred-
ders which can be used to shred rubber tires . In a shredded
state, tires can make an excellent fuel product or they can be
much more easily landfilled. Every effort will be made to find
beneficial reuse for the shredded tires.
IThe remaining bulky wastes will be landfilled at a NYSDEC
permitted landfill . These wastes will contain non-putrescible
materials, therefore should cause less threat to the groundwater
from landfill leachate than does the current system of landfill-
ing all waste products.
5.22
II
' Ferrous Metals
IMost compost system vendors build facilities which utilize
magnets to remove the ferrous material prior to composting .
IEvery effort will be made to find a market for this recycled
Iproduct . It is estimated that several tons of ferrous metals
will be separated per day.
IProcess Residuals
Other process residuals which are separated by some systems
Iinclude such items as plastics, glass, rags , non-ferrous metals ,
Iand some wood which cannot be broken down during the compost
process. These materials can be separated at the front end of
Ithe process by hand picking or recovered from a screen after the
compost process has been completed . These materials can be
Ihandled in several ways. They can be recycled if a market can be
identified or they can be landfilled if there are no ready reuse
I
markets available . These materials are relatively inert and
Ishould cause minimal leachate problems for a well run landfill .
I5 . 8 - DEMOGRAPHY
I
The proposed composting facility is not expected to impact
on the current population of the Town of Southold. Population
Ilevels are anticipated to continue at their present rate of in-
crease ( refer to Section 4 . 4) .
I
I
1 5.23
5 . 9 - CULTURAL RESOURCES
The action of constructing and operating a composting fa-
cility on the existing Cutchogue landfill property is not ex-
pected to have an impact on existing historic and archaeological
resources in the Town of Southold. The project area does not
encompass any historic districts , nor any historic resources
1 (either at the national, state or local levels ) . As reported by
the State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation,
no archaeological sites are located on , or adjacent to , the
111project site.
' 5 .10 - IMPACTS TO NOISE LEVELS
5 .10. 1 - On-Site Noise
In establishing its standard for noise , the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ties noise levels with
continuity and frequency of exposure . The top limit for momen-
tary impact noise was set in 1976 at 140 dB . As of 1979 , the
allowable industrial noise level in the United States was 90 dB
' for eight ( 8 ) continuous hours. Some regard these levels as pro-
viding insufficient noise protection (Stansbury, 1979 ) .
Reports on noise levels encountered at MSW processing and
composting facilities are rare . A 1976 study (Diaz , Riley,
Savage & Trezek, 1976 ) at a pilot plant at the University of Cali-
fornia at Richmond provides some data. Table 13 shows the aver-
age noise levels observed at various unit process areas at this
plant . In this study, peak levels reached were 94-96 dB-slow in
the vicinity of the grinder . These levels were recorded about
5.24
' TABLE 13
RANGE OF NOISE LEVELS AT VARIOUS
UNIT WASTE PROCESSING AREAS
' UNIT PROCESS AREA RANGE OBSERVED (dB-SLOW)
Hopper and Conveyor 94 to 96
Grinder/Shredder 94 to 96
Magnetic Belt 93 to 94
Screen 90 to 96
Air Classifier 91 to 93
11 From Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, 1981
' 5.25
four or five timeser hour and are well below P to the maximum of 140
dB for momentary impact noise allowed by OSHA.
Workers in the vicinity of some of the process areas would
' need to wear ear protection to meet OSHA standards . In some
' cases, engineering improvements can bring noise down to a per-
missible level where ear protection will not be required. How-
ever, until many questions regarding what noise levels , duration
and continuity are acceptable, workers should be provided with,
and wear, ear protection in pre-processing areas . Most compost
' system vendors utilize shear shredders which have lower noise
levels than hammermills which were studied by Diaz, et al . , 1976 .
Other vendors do not use any grinder , but rely on action in a
drum for particle size reduction. This method of grinding pro-
duces even lower levels of noise than do shear shredders .
All moving equipment on the site, such as trucks and front-
end loaders , will be equipped with functioning mufflers and meet
' all applicable USEPA noise regulations.
5. 10. 2 - Off-Site Noise
' During facility operation , noise will be generated by such
equipment as the shredders and sorters, screens and moving equip-
ment . Most of the noise will be retained in buildings at the
' receiving and pre-processing areas , as well as within other en-
closed areas . Additionally, the site will be buffered and land-
scaped to reduce any impact on the outside environment.
The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts visited several
refuse derived fuel (RDF ) plants and reported noise levels out-
side them (County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles , 1981 ) .
' 5.26
RDF plants have many process components and features common to
MSW composting facilities . Noise was not audible at 40 feet from
the pre-processing area of a 1 , 000 ton per day RDF plant at On-
tario, Canada. At the Akron , Ohio 1 , 000 ton per day RDF plant ,
ambient noise levels of 55 to 60 dBA were recorded at a distance
of 50 to 60 feet from the pre-processing area. Noise from within
the building was not distinguishable at this distance from ambi-
ent noise.
There is little question that the proposed facility can be
' designed to meet acceptable standards of noise emissions . Con-
formity with OSHA regulations is a mitigation measure for the
' proposed project, therefore , it is not anticipated that there
would be a signficant adverse effect on the environment.
5 . 11 - POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY
Fire and Explosion Hazard/Worst Case
' The fire station to serve the proposed facility is approxi-
mately 2. 5 miles from the site.
' Measures will be proposed to minimize the potential for ex-
plosions in the pre-processing areas and to protect plant person-
nel . The following discussion is from the United States Office
of Technology Assessment ( 1979 ) :
MSW occasionally contains dynamite , gunpowder , flammable
liquids and gases , aerosol cans , propane, butane, gasoline fuel
containers and other explosive substances. When such substances
are shredded in a hammermill , an explosion can occur . A 1976
5.27
1
study of explosion hazards in refuse shredders reported 95 ex-
plosions in the 45 MSW-shredding plants included in the survey.
Thirty-four ( 34 ) of the shredding operations had experienced at
least one explosion. Injuries were reported in only three inci-
dents and no fatalities occurred. Only five of the explosions
produced more than $25,000 . property damage or put the shredder
out of operation for more than one week. Because shredders are
designed to withstand mild explosions , shredder explosions usu-
ally damage peripheral equipment, such as ducts and conveyors.
As stated previously, most compost system vendors utilize shear
shredders rather than hammermills which were the basis of this
' report. Explosion potential is dramatically reduced with a low
speed shear shredder . Explosion potential is minimal with drum
' systems which are also widely used by other system vendors.
1 Protection from shredder explosions can be achieved by
manual or automated surveillance of input materials, explosion
' venting , explosion suppression/extinguishing systems , water
spray, or equipment isolation. Manual screening to remove explo-
sive material is expected to be practiced, but cannot be expected
to remove all potentially explosive substances. The feasibility
of automatic detection of such materials is questionable.
Shredders are sometimes designed with hinged walls and tops
to allow rapid venting of exploding gases. This method can mini-
mize shredder damage, but requires careful attention to the
' protection of personnel and adjacent equipment. Explosion extin-
guishing systems detect the pressure increase at the beginning of
5.28
an explosion and trigger the release of chemical ex -
P gg explosion-sup-
pressing agents into the shredder . When operating properly ,
these devices can control shredder explosions and extinguish
flames. Continuous water spray in the shredding operation can
' reduce explosion and fire hazard, but water in the shredded
refuse can reduce its compostability, can reduce the efficiency
of ferrous separation, and can cause shredder corrosion. Fi-
nally, personal injury from shredder explosions can be controlled
by isolating the shredder and keeping employees away from it
while in operation.
1
t
1 5.29
6.0 - MITIGATION MEASURES
The most significant potential adverse impacts of the pro-
o-' posed composting facility are the generation of odors, the po-
ll
tential impact to groundwater resources and the visual impact of
the facility to the surrounding community . The following
measures are intended by the project sponsor to attempt to miti-
gate any environmental impacts reasonably anticipated as a result
of the proposed action. These mitigation measures are discussed
herein.
' 6 .1 - ODOR REDUCTION AND CONTROL
In order to reduce odors produced as a result of the pro-
posed composting operations, several measures are intended .
First , an aerobic composting process , rather than anaerobic, is
intended since less offensive odors are produced in the process-
ing period by aerobic microorganisms than by anaerobic ones.
Second, in the aerobic composting process, odors can be mini-
mized by maintaining the correct oxygen supply and temperatures
during composting and by keeping the composting site clean and
' orderly . The siting of waste handling operations inside a build-
' ing is also expected to help reduce odors at the site boundaries .
It is not anticipated that those odors produced as a result of
the composting operations will be any more offensive to receptors
( i . e . , people ) in surrounding areas to the site than are those
odors produced from current landfilling activities.
' 6.1
In addition , the followingmitigation igation measures are antici-
pated to be incorporated into the proposed composting facility
design:
1. Receiving and Handling
' The odors generated in the receiving building are recom-
mended to be removed by ventilation and scrubbed in a bio-filter
or by a wet dual-stage scrubber . Good housekeeping practices,
e.g. , cleaning the tipping floor (generally dry sweeping is used )
' and avoiding storage of garbage, will also reduce odor generation.
' In some systems , this process air is utilized as an air source
for the compost process .
' 2 . Composting
The windrow system could generally contain troughs to
' provide air to the windrow. Negative aeration would remove odors
and the air scrubbed in a bio-filter or two-stage chemical
1 scrubber system. Similarly, the static piles would be on either
' negative or positive aeration . During the rapid composting
period, the system would be on negative aeration and the odors
scrubbed through a bio-filter or two-stage chemical scrubbing
system.
' 3 . Other
' Other sources of odor in the buildings would be con-
tained by good housekeeping and ventilation.
' 4 . Location
The facility is proposed to be located at the landfill
site within an acceptable distance from sensitive receptors , as
6.2
er draft Part 360 revisions which o ar.. currently awaiting final
' editing and approval by the NYSDEC.
' 6 . 2 - GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
1 The proposed action is designed to significantly minimize
impacts to the groundwater through the use of an impervious sur-
face underlying the storage/staging area, a leachate collection
system and actual design of the static pile area.
Collection devices will be installed underneath the piles
' and connected to a system consisting of condensate traps and
leachate pumps. A licensed hauler will periodically carry away
leachate produced from the compost material at the storage/stag-
ing area. The leachate will then be taken to the Southold Scav-
enger Waste Pretreatment Plant for treatment.
6 . 3 - VISUAL ENHANCEMENT
The project sponsor intends to incorporate landscaping
measures into the proposed action . Landscaping ( i .e . , in the
rform of trees and/or shrubs ) will be provided along the eastern
and western property lines in the area of the intended composting
' facility to visually screen the facility from adjacent properties
and Middle (North ) Road. In this way, the intended composting
facility will be buffered from surrounding land uses.
6 . 4 - DUST MITIGATION AND CONTROL
The mitigation and control of on-site dust will best be ac-
complished by the following methods :
6.3
1. Water vehicles
1 2. Housekeeping
3. Scrubbers and filters
4. Moving equipment filters
1. Water Vehicles
Road dust and dust on the site where considerable traffic
' will occur, will best be curtailed by the use of a water truck
which will spray the roadways , as required . If necessary, the
' vendor will make arrangements to have a street sweeper available
' to remove sand and dust accumulations.
2. Housekeeping
' It is expected that good housekeeping will be maintained
throughout all the buildings and on the grounds . At the end of
the working day, the receiving building will be swept and the
tipping floor cleaned. All other buildings will be cleaned .
' Conveyors will be covered where severe dust problems could occur
' and leaks will be fixed to minimize dust formation.
3. Scrubbers and Filters
' The receiving building will be ventilated and the air passed
through a dust filter or into the bio-filter . Other filters and
' ventilators will be located in the process building. The screen-
ing building or hopper will be ventilated. It is recommended
that the workers in the receiving process and screening buildings
' use dust masks .
4. Moving Equipment Filters
Moving equipment, such as front-end loaders, are expected to
be equipped with dust filters or air conditioned cabs .
6.4
5 - PATHOGEN CONTROL
HOG CO TROL
' As detailed in Section 5 . 3 . 3 , it is not anticipated that
pathogens will be a significant hazard throughout the composting
' process . However , it is anticipated that negative pressure/bio-
filtration will be incorporated into the design of the proposed
facility and the hazard of airborne pathogen impacts be further
' mitigated.
1 6 . 6 - POTENTIAL IMPACT DETECTION (MONITORING)
' It is expected that the following monitoring methods will be
executed as State-of-the-Art mitigation techniques and incorpo-
rated into the proposed design . Monitoring can be broken down
into the following aspects:
• Process
• Occupational
Product
' • Environmental
6. 6.1 - Process Monitoring
The United States Environmental Protection Agency' s regu-
lations "Criteria for Solid Waste" , as ennunciated in Code and
' Federal Regulations 40 CFR 257 , govern process monitoring. The
' compost process would be monitored for time and temperature re-
quirements to ensure that it meets the 40 CFR 257 PFRP require-
' ments of 55°C for 15 days with five turnings . Each compost pile
will be monitored for temperature daily with permanent records
kept. The piles will also be monitored for moisture content to
ensure that adequate moisture exists for composting to occur.
' 6.5
I
6 .6.2 - Occupational Monitoring
All employees who work at the facility will undergo annual
physicals and be required to maintain up-to-date immunization
' records . There will be records kept to ensure that workers '
' health is not compromised during their period of employment .
Concurrent with the monitoring program, a safety training and
inspection program will be implemented to reduce the potential
for work accidents .
' 6 .6 .3 - Product Monitoring
' At this point , it is not possible to characterize the heavy
metal or toxic organic content of the compost which will be pro-
' duced at Southold. In general, MSW compost is quite low in heavy
metals and toxic organic compounds, especially when metal-contain-
' ing and hazardous constituents are excluded from the waste stream
' before the composting process step . Heavy metals and toxic or-
ganics will be monitored periodically according to NYSDEC requi-
sites. It is anticipated that initially, monitoring will be more
frequent than during steady-state operations . After records in-
dicate a consistent level of contaminants in the final product ,
' the frequency of monitoring would be reduced. If elevated levels
do occur in a batch of compost, that batch could be admixed with
' less contaminated compost or could be disposed of by landfilling.
Efforts would be made to determine the source of any contami-
nation and to eliminate it from the waste stream.
Routine product monitoring is anticipated to include pH ,
1 percent solids , total N, NH4-N, NO3-N and P , as well as other
6.6
I
I
plant nutrient elements that impact the agricultural value of the
compost.
6. 6. 4 - Environmental Monitorin.
' Environmental monitoring will consist of monitoring of
' groundwater wells around the landfill site. All monitoring will
be as required by permit and permanent records of all monitoring
' results will be kept on-site and submitted to NYSDEC as required.
In addition to the routine monitoring of groundwater, the
11 staff will keep records of any odor complaints , as well as the
corrective action taken .
1 6 . 7 - CONTINGENCY PLAN
This section discusses a worst case analysis/contingency
plan should no market be available for the compost , the end-
product of the composting facility process . The production of
compost from organic materials in the municipal solid waste (MSW)
1 stream represents more efficient utilization of material re-
sources , rather than deposition into a landfill . External
11 markets which recognize the value of the compost produced, are a
1 very important part of the entire composting process . With no
available market , the proposed composting facility would, in a
sense, be producing the compost for no purpose.
There are, however, various solutions to the potential prob-
lem of no available markets for the compost which will be pro-
posed as part of the contingency plan . These are discussed
'
below.
1 6.7
11
1
1
1
The simplest contingency plan for the compost product is to
e-1' store and stockpile the material until such time as a market be-
ll
comes available . The basic goal of the proposed action is real-
ized via this contingency plan alternative, that of reducing the
amount of MSW volume entering the landfill. However, a problem
associated with this option is that a location and storage area
would be needed to store the compost produced.
' The post-cured product ( i .e. , compost ) could be utilized as
landfill cell cover material, either for Southold' s own landfill,
' or for sale to other municipalities faced with required landfill
closure and capping . The high fiber content of compost may serve
as a blotter to retain water ( for plant use ) , and to reduce run-
11
off erosion on steep slopes. Thus, compost may prove quite use-
ful as a source of cover material.
1 A dilemma associated with both of the previous two con-
tingency plan alternatives is that the compost material may con-
tain contaminants of concern . Any compost material which will
' contain unacceptable levels of contaminants would be required to
be disposed of at an acceptable resource recovery facility and/or
1 permitted landfill.
A third contingency plan alternative would be to dispose of
' the compost into the existing Cutchogue Landfill, as space in the
existing landfill is limited and thus at a premium. It must be
determined by the Town what the priorities are with regard to
1
6.8
11
both "as-is " MSW and the compost being disposed osed of in the land-
fill. The disposal of the MSW may take priority over disposal of
compost.
1 Generally , the category of contingency planning can be
brokeninto two routes of action . For those issues associated
with "bad batch" , that is either small amounts of sewage sludge,
municipal solid waste, pre- or post-cured compost batches, or
temporary facility shutdown , disposal may be done in accordance
' with the Long Island Landfill Law. Such material may be disposed
of in a permitted landfill cell as "bypass" , providing this by-
a-' pass does not exceed 10 percent of the total input of the fa-
ll
cility.
Long-term contingency, in terms of raw material backlog, is
111 also addressed. The facility is expected to operate 5 days per
week, 10 hours per day. Should there be a backlog of raw ma-
llterial, it is expected that facility operating hours will be in-
creased accordingly.
It is not anticipated that long-term contingency will coin-
cide with 24 hour/day shifts . The municipal composting facility
is to be designed for a total of 120 tons per day (tpd) capacity.
Currently, projections for compostable municipal solid waste
equal 90 tpd . Not until the year 2010 is compostable solid waste
expected to reach the 120 tpd design capacity. Long-term con-
tingency is proposed for the year 2010 by the incorporation of
modular units to increase design capacity, or transfer of bypass
' to other acceptable and permitted disposal areas.
' 6.9
11
It is ro osed that acceptable responses to the RFP for the
P A P
' composting facility will include pre-acceptance monitoring of all
sludge and MSW to avoid or limit bad batch remedial action.
11
I
11
1 6.10
1
II
II
7.0 - ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
IIIF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
I Soils
It is expected that during the construction of the proposed
Icomposting facility (as with all construction projects ) , there
will be a minimal amount of soil erosion, as a result of the re-
IImoval of herbaceous "weedy" vegetative cover. The soil will thus
Ibe exposed for a period of time . Utilizing generally accepted
engineering and regrading practices, with seeding of small areas ,
Ithese short-term soil erosion effects can be minimized. Further,
by covering some of the soils on the project site with impervious
Isurfaces , the result is an overall long-term loss of water absorp-
I
tive capacity of these soils on the project site.
Traffic
IDuring the construction phase in particular , the proposed
action will result in the following unavoidable short-term im-
I
pacts with respect to motor vehicle traffic:
• the presence of construction and other associated
vehicles at the site and on area roadways;
II . localized change in air quality due to the afore-
mentioned vehicle emissions , as well as increased
Idust levels ;
II
• localized change in noise levels as a result of the
aforementioned vehicles .
I
II 7.1
Visual Character
' The proposed action will result in the long-term unavoidable
impact of changing the visual character of that portion of the
Cutchogue Landfill on which the composting facility is intended
' to be located. Currently, the approximately three acres of land
area at the landfill required for the composting facility is, for
all intents and purposes, vacant, having been formerly utilized
for landfilling activities . These areas contain no structures .
A definite change in the visual character will be the result of
' the proposed action and new structures will be occupying these
areas .
7.2
I
8.0 - ALTERNATIVES TO THER P
P O OSED ACTION
AND THEIR ASSOCIATED IMPACTS
' This section of the document will discuss alternatives to
the proposed composting facility. Typically, impact statement
' procedure requires that those alternatives considered be reason-
ably consistent with the intended action , "considering the ob-
jectives and capabilities of the project sponsor" ( 6 NYCRR
' 617 . 14 ( f ) ( 5 ) ) . An alternative should investigate a course of
action which would meet some or all of the goals of the project
sponsor, as well as possibly avoiding some or all of the antici-
pated adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed
action. The project sponsor 's purpose in constructing a compost-
ing facility is to select a solid waste management option which
would reduce the volume of waste entering the Cutchogue landfill ,
thereby extending the life of the landfill and generating a
marketable compost end product.
' The most significant adverse effects of the composting fa-
cility are the potential impact to groundwater resources and
odors produced . The project sponsor has proposed to mitigate
' these effects, as previously discussed in Section 6 .0 , Mitigation
Measures .
' The alternatives examined herein are other forms of resource
' recovery technology which are applicable to the projected average
annual quantities of solid waste generated by the Town. These
alternatives have been examined in the report entitled "Solid
Waste Management Report" , prepared for the Town of Southold by
H2M Group in October 1986 . The alternatives investigated are:
11 8.1
I
II
• mass-burn incineration (resource recovery facility)
)
I • waste distillation
• refuse-derived fuel (RDF) technology
I • out-of-town disposal
I • landfill expansion
• recycling/source separation
IA brief review of each alternative will be provided below,
as well as a no-action alternative.
I
I8.1 - NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE
The no-action alternative is included so as to ascertain the
I
viability of leaving the landfill property in its present state
and not constructing a composting facility. This alternative
Iwould eliminate all environmental impacts associated with the
change in three acres of land area for purposes of the proposed
I
composting facility. Under the no action alternative, the site
I
would remain in its present state.
While the no-action alternative eliminates environmental
1 impacts associated with the proposed action, this alternative
I does not fulfill the objective of the project sponsor , that of
reducing the waste stream volume entering the Cutchogue landfill .
I
No added revenue (on the order of $141, 000 . annually ( 1 ) would be
realized to the Town if this alternative were selected.
11
( 1 ) Source: Solid Waste Management Report for the Town of
I Southold, Suffolk County, New York. October 1986 .
H2M Group, Melville, New York.
I
8.2
11
1
8 . 2 - MASS-BURN ASS BURN INCINERATION (RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY)
Mass-burn incineration entails the use of as-received refuse
as a source of fuel to charge the furnace. Heat generated from
' burning municipal solid waste (MSW) is recovered by convection,
' radiation or a combination of both methodologies (depending on
the particular facility design) , and is itself utilized as a fuel
' source.
With proper design and operation of a mass-burn facility,
the the original volume of MSW can be reduced by approximately 85
' to 90 percent by volume and approximately 70 percent by weight.
This significant volume reduction is instrumental in extending
' the life of a landfill . A satellite landfill located proximate
to a mass-burn incinerator is utilized for all unburnable ma-
terial and incinerated residue.
' The advantages of this type of technology are the generation
of steam for use as a power source; proven technology; high ther-
modynamic efficiency; readily adaptable to co-disposal of sludge,
and low to moderate cost for operation and maintenance.
The disadvantages are a high initial capital cost ; proprie-
tary design , full service contracts are generally required with
proprietary design and concern about ash and air emissions.
1
8 . 3 - WASTE DISTILLATION ( "PYROLYSIS" )
The waste distillation process is a continuous, self-sustain-
ing process utilizing an indirectly heated oxygen-free vessel to
' decompose the waste, resulting in two primary products : carbon
' 8.3
1
char ( containing approximately 50 percent carbon ) and a clean-
burning volatile ( i.e. , explosive) gas . The gas is utilized as a
fuel in a standard steam boiler. The char, which has a tendency
to absorb/encapsulate heavy metals , would require disposal in a
sanitary landfill or potentially could be used as activated car-
bon.
' In the distillation process , the MSW is first shredded and
then passes through a magnetic separator which is utilized to
separate out ferrous metals . The shredded waste is fed into a
' drier and after drying the waste is transferred to the distil-
lator . Waste is decomposed (not burned) in a rotating, insulated
' vessel. Temperatures range from 1000 °F to 1200 °F. Currently,
only one four ton per day waste distillation facility is in oper-
ation in the United States (California) . An experimental, full-
scale 50 ton per day facility was operated for two years in New
Jersey.
The advantages of the waste distillation process are: low
initial capital cost; modular system, provided in 50 tons per day
1 units ; greater than 90 percent waste volume reduction; well
suited to power system; no non-criteria air pollutants ( refer to
Section 3 . 3 ) , particularly dibenzofurans or dibenzodioxins, have
' been detected in air emissions.
The disadvantages of this type of resource recovery tech-
nology cannot be described as no fully operational facilities
11exist in the United States .
11 8.4
8 . 4 - REFUSE-DERIVED
FUEL (RDF) TECHNOLOGY
' Refuse-derived fuel (RDF) technology entails the use of all
burnable components of the waste stream as a fuel source. This
' burnable waste is either used "as is" or is made into pellet form.
Prior to being used as a fuel source , all readily non-burnable
materials ( i.e . , glass , inerts , metals ) are separated out from
the waste . In the RDF technology process , bulk refuse is
shredded, non-burnable components separated out, and the prepared
' RDF is ready for direct use as a fuel (whether on-site in another
facility or off-site) or temporary storage until needed.
The advantages of RDF are a high quality of recovered ma-
terials ; uniform feed stock; and a low weight and reduced volume
of the residue. The disadvantages are more numerous : the
' process is energy- intensive ; high operation and maintenance
' costs; explosion potential in RDF manufacture (especially in the
shredding process ) from waste ; low on-line reliability; RDF re-
"' quires a dedicated boiler, and there is a limited market for the
RDF.
I
8. 5 - OUT-OF-TOWN DISPOSAL
This alternative entails the transporting of the Town ' s MSW
' to a regional facility ( i.e. , a resource recovery site) , or to an
approved sanitary landfill . Assuming that no changes are made to
' the 1983 Landfill Law, an approved landfill on Long Island for
disposal of all the Town ' s MSW would not exist. Thus, the Town
11 would be faced with hauling MSW off Long Island at an estimated
minimum cost of $130 . per ton . Based on an average of 210 tons
8.5
of MSW and 90 tons of compostable material entering the Cutchogue
landfill daily, long-hauling would result in a cost to the Town
of $11 , 700 . daily ( +$4 , 270 , 500 . annually) for its compostable
material only. Should the entire 210 tons of MSW be long-hauled
as well , the cost to the Town would be $ 27 , 300 . daily
(+$9, 964 ,500 . annually) .
One town on Long Island which is considering constructing
a major resource recovery facility to which Southold could trans-
port and dispose of its MSW is Brookhaven.
The advantages of out-of-town disposal of MSW are that this
alternative eliminates the need to site a resource recovery fa-
cility within the Town; and provides for economy of scale, thus
decreasing the disposal cost per ton. The disadvantages to this
alternative are that there would be additional handling and trans-
portation costs and a decreased level of control over disposal of
the Town' s MSW.
I
8 .6 - LANDFILL EXPANSION
' This alternative involves the expansion of the existing ca-
pacity of the Cutchogue landfill . The Southold landfill , which
is located outside the deep flow recharge zone, could be expanded
' only when the NYSDEC commissioner has made an affirmative deter-
mination that such a landfill will not pose a threat to ground-
water quality and the following conditions are met:
1 ) The landfill owner posts a financial guarantee
' which will cover costs to correct groundwater ,
surface water or air pollution problems that
may occur;
' 8.6
r
2 ) The landfill is underlain by a double liner
11 with provisions for leachate collection and
disposal;
1 3 ) The landfill is designed and operated to mini-
11 mize migration of methane and other gases;
4 ) The landfill is not located in a wetland or
flood plain;
5 ) Hazardous wastes are not accepted at the land-
fill,
and-
fill, and
6 ) The landfill accepts only material which is the
product of resource recovery, incineration or
composting after 1990 .
After 1990 , all landfills in the Counties of Nassau and
Suffolk must conform to the conditions listed above. As the land-
fill is not located over a sensitive groundwater management zone,
it could be expanded under the 1983 Landfill Law, provided that
all of the various criteria are met . Said expansion would most
likely not require the construction of new structures . Air
emissions may result from this alternative if methane is allowed
to vent directly into the atmosphere.
Advantages to this alternative are that the Town has direct
' control over its MSW and no long-haul costs are involved.
Disadvantages include the potential adverse environmental
impact to groundwater resources (as a result of an improperly
installed liner, or a ripped liner) ; odors ; vermin and seagulls ,
and little or no reduction in the volume of MSW (assuming no re-
cycling) .
11
8.7
I
8 .7 - RECYCLING/SOURCE SEPARATION
11 The term "recycling" as used in the context herein, refers
to source separation of "typical recyclables " , ( i .e . , glass ,
aluminum, metal, paper) as well as the program of either collect-
!' ing these items from the curbside , or separating them at the land-
fill, depending on the particular municipality. Recycling here
is not a waste disposal option, but rather an alternative to dis-
posal and centralized recovery systems . Source separation pro-
grams are based on the separation of materials according to
categories established to expedite their re-use . In tandem to
11
recycling/source separation, an intensive marketing campaign must
be established such that the recyclables can readily be sold to
the market.
Advantages of recycling/source separation are an extended
landfill life ; reduced waste disposal costs ; direct benefits
( i . e . , in contrast to paying the traditional "tipping fee" to
dispose of waste, source separation programs are generally paid
for by the materials they process) .
Disadvantages to this alternative are a lack of available
markets for recycled materials, and initial organizational/public
awareness and cooperation difficulties.
It is anticipated that a significant attempt will be made by
the Town , in conjunction with the composting project, to recycle/
1 source separate a portion of the waste stream.
I
8.8
11
9.0 - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE R VABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
The proposed action converts a portion of the 59. 8-acre land-
fill parcel, presently consisting of active landfilling and sand
' mining , to a composting facility and storage/staging area. The
proposed building footprint for the compost facility is proposed
' for an area of the landfill which has not yet been subjected to
excavation or landfilling . Placing the composting facility in
this location would constitute a commitment of the landfill area
I
which might have been used in the future as an additional cell
for filling .
The area which is intended to be committed for storage/stag-
ing of composting material is in an area which has previously
been excavated and filled with construction and demolition de-
bris, junked cars and general refuse. Use of this area would not
constitute a commitment of a resource which would be irreversi-
ble.
Additional resources which will be committed as part of the
proposed project include, but are not limited to, the following:
• sand • steel
• topsoil • concrete
• paint • asphalt
• timber
Fossil fuel resources will also need to be committed in the
operation of construction equipment. Mechanical equipment re-
sources will be committed to assist construction workers . The
' completed composting facility will need the commitment of water
9.1
I
I and electric resources . The constructionof -
0 the proposed fa
-
I
cility would require the commitment of money, time and manpower.
I
II
I
I
II
II
I
II
I
I
I
il
1
II
1 9.2
11
10 .0 - GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS
The proposed municipal solid waste composting facility is
rnot expected to significantly induce population growth within the
1 Town of Southold. Normal growth, as discussed in Section 4. 4, is
expected to occur with the composting facility being a measure to
' accommodate the waste generated by the residents of the Town of
Southold.
The development of the composting facility is not antici-
' pated to directly require the extension of existing roadways nor
will it necessitate the extension of public water.
' It is expected, however, that the proposed composting system
will create short-term construction related opportunities. This
will involve construction jobs and potentially increased patron-
age for material suppliers.
11
It is anticipated that new jobs will be created after con-
struction. Operational personnel are expected to be required to
man the facility . Depending on the total year round jobs
created , the proposed action is also anticipated to create a
small number of secondary "service jobs" . The estimation of
these induced or secondary long-term employment benefits is not
' always easy to predict and to do so generally requires the use of
employment multipliers . One type of multiplier referred to as
the "basic/non-basic ratio" is defined to be the number of pri-
mary jobs divided by the number of secondary jobs created (Rau,
10.1
I
1
et al . , 1980 ) . Small towns similar to Southold Town ( 10 , 000-
1 30,000 in population) are expected to have a basic/non-basic em-
ployment multiplier of 0 . 67 . This number , multiplied by the
' number of full-time operators , would yield the spin-off to the
Town economy.
I
1
i
1
1
1
1
i
1
i
1
1 10.2
11
11.0 - USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY
I
It is anticipated that the proposed composting facility will
Irequire the extension of existing on-site electrical facilities
to serve leachate pumps and the composting vessel. As compared
to the existing landfilling operation, it is expected that the
composting facility will have an increase in energy use . The
proposed action is anticipated to be easily accommodated by
' LILCO ' s generating capacity, although, at this time, no inquiry
has been made to LILCO until anticipated energy demand has been
calculated by the respondents to the RFP for the facility.
' The project' s use of fossel fuels is expected to be minimal .
Construction vehicles and equipment will use a typical amount of
fuel associated with the development of the composting facility.
It is not anticipated that the proposed composting facility
' will pose a significant impact to the use of energy within the
' Town of Southold. Conservation efforts are not considered to be
significant and it is expected that the proposed action will have
neither beneficial nor adverse effects on conservation of energy
efforts .
I
111
1
r
' 11.1
1
1
' REFERENCES
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists .
Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances in the Work En-
vironment Adopted by ACGIH with Intended Changes for 1986-87.
Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices
for 1986-1987 .
' Antonovics , J . , A. D. Bradshaw and R. G. Turner . 1971 . Heavy
Metal Tolerance in Plants . Adv. Ecol. Res . 7:1-85 .
Audubon Society. 1980 . Field Guide to North American Trees -
Eastern Region. New York: Alfred A. Knoph, Inc. , Publisher.
' 1980 . Field Guide to North American Mammals . New
York: Alfred A. Knoph, Inc . , Publisher.
1979 . Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Am-
phibians . New York: Alfred A. Knoph, Inc . , Publisher .
' . 1977 . Field Guide to North American Birds - Eastern
Region. New York: Alfred A. Knoph, Inc. , Publisher.
' Braude, G.L . , C. F. Jelinek and PP . Corneliussen. 1975. FDA' s
Overview of the Potential Health Hazards Associated with the Land
Application of Municipal Wastewater Sludges . pp . 214-218 . In
Proc. of the 1975 National Conference on Municipal Sludge Manage-
11 ment and Disposal . Information Transfer, Inc. , Rockville, MD.
Burge , W. D. and P . D. Millner. 1980 . Health Aspects of Compost-
ing: Primary and Secondary Pathogens . In G . Bilton, B .L . Dam-
ron , G . T. Edds and J.M. Davidson ( eds . ) , Sludge-Health Risks of
Land Application , pp. 245-264 . Ann Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor
Science Publishers .
Chaney, R. P . and P.M. Giordano. 1977 . Micro Elements as Related
to Plant Deficiencies and Toxicities in Soil Management and Utili-
zation of Organic Wastes and Wastewaters. Soil Science Society
of America, Madison, WI p. 234 .
' Clark, et al . , 1983 . Levels of Gram Negative Bacteria. Appl .
Env. Microbiol . 45 :15010-5.
' Clayton Environmental Consultants, Inc. 1983 . Unpublished Inter-
nal Report to the City of Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Cooney, D .G . and R . Emerson . 1964 . Thermophilic Fungi . An Ac-
count of Their Biology, Activities and Classification . San Fran-
cisco: W.H. Freemen & Co.
' R.1
11
' REFERENCESNT'
(CO D. )
Diaz , L . F. , L. Riley, G. Savage and Trezek. 1976. Health Aspect
Considerations Associated with Resource Recovery. Compost
' Science.
Dugan , R. E. , and P . E. Corneliussen . 1972 . Dietary Intake of
' Pesticide Chemicals in the United States ( III ) . June 1968-April
1970 . Pesticide Monitoring Journal 5: 331 .
Elinder , C .G. , T. Kjellstrom, L. Friberg , B. Lind, L. Linnman.
1976. Cadmium in Kidney Cortex, Liver and Pancreas From Swedish
Autopsies. Achives of Environmental Health 31: 292-302.
' Gaby, W.L . 1975 . Evaluation of Health Hazards Associated with
Solid Waste/Sewage Sludge Mixtures . EPA 670/2-75023 . USEPA,
Cincinnati , OH NTIS PB 241 810 .
' Golueke , C . G. 1977 . Biological Reclamation of Solid Wastes .
Rodale Press, Emmaus , PA 249 pp. ISBN 0-8757-158-2.
' Greenberg, Froda, AICP and Jim Hecimovich. 1984 . Traffic Impact
Analysis . Washington , D. C . : American Planning Association .
Planning Advisory Service Report No. 387 .
Hampton Road Sanitation District . 1982 . Unpublished Internal
Report on Aspergillus .
' Hart , P . D . , E . Russell , Jr . and J. C. Remington . 1969 . The
Compromised Host and Infection , II . Deep Fungal Infections . J .
Infect. Diseases 120 :169-191 .
Hewitt, E . G. and T. A. Smith . 1975 . Plant Mineral Nutrition .
English Universities Press , London.
' Holzmacher , McLendon & Murrell . 1970 . Comprehensive Public
Water Supply Study for Suffolk County, CPWS-24 . Melville, New
York.
. 1978 . Section 201 - Wastewater Facility Plan of the
Mainland Portion of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New
' York (3 Volumes ) , Melville, New York.
. 1981 . Town of Southold, Part 360 Compliance Report,
11 Melville, New York.
. 1986 . Solid Waste Management Report for the Town of
Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Melville, New York.
11 Institute of Transportation Engineers ( ITE) . 1987 . Trip Gener-
ation Manual, Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C.
11
R.2
11
11
REFERENCES (CONT D. )
Jelinek, C . F. , G.L . Braude . 1977 . Management of Sludge Use on
Land, FDA Consideration. In Proc. Third National Conf . on Sludge
Management . Disposal and Utilization Infor. Trans. Inc. , Rock-
ville, MD, p. 35 .
Jensen, H .M. and Julian Soren . 1974 . Hydrogeology of Suffolk
County, Long Island, New York. Hydrologic Investigation Atlas :
U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C. Atlas HA-501.
' Kane, B.F. and J.T. Mullins. 1973 . Thermophilic Fungi in Munici-
pal Waste Compost System. Mycologia 65 :1087-1100 .
Kempa , E. S . 1983 . Components of a General Classification of
Composts In: Composting of Solid Wastes and Slurries. E. Stenti-
ford, Ed. , University of Leeds, England, 315-327 .
Kim, C .J . and W.J. Maier. 1987 . Biodegradation of Penteachloro-
phenol in Soil Environments. Dept. Civil-Environmental Engineer-
ing, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
' Kirsch , E .J. and J. E. Etzel . 1973 . Microbial Decomposition of
Pentachlorophenol. J. Water Pollution Control Fed. 45 :359-364 .
Lacey , J . 1974 . Thermophilic Actinomycetes Associated With
Farmer 's Lung. In R. de Haller and F. Suter (eds. ) , Aspergillo-
sis and Farmer ' s Lung in Man and Animal , pp . 155-163 . Bern ,
Switzerland: Hans Huber .
Leeper , G .W. 1972 . Reactions of Heavy Metals with Soils. De-
' partment of the Army Corps of Engineers .
Long Island Regional Planning Board (LIRPB) . 1987 . Population
Survey - Current Population Estimates for Nassau and Suffolk
Counties, New York. Hauppauge, New York.
• 1978 . The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment
Plan (208Study) . Hauppauge, New York.
Lunsden, R . D. , J . A. Lewis and P . D. Millner . 1982 . Composted
' Sludge as a Soil Amendment for Control of Soilborne Plant Dis-
eases . USDA Misc . Publ . #1422 , Agr . Res . Srv . , Beltsville, MD
275-277 .
Marsh , P . B. , P .E. Millner and J.M. Kla. 1979 . A Guide to Recent
Literature on Aspergillosis as Caused by Aspergillus Fumigatus .
U. S . Department of Agriculture Publication ARM-NE-58EA. Washing-
' ton, D.C.
' R.3
REFERENCES (CONT'D. )
Martin , Alexander C. , Herbert S. Zim and Arnold L. Nelson. 1951.
American Wildlife and Plants: A Guide to Wildlife Food Habitats .
I
New York: Dover Publications.
Mattsby, I . and R. Rylander. Clinical and Immunological Findings
in Workers Exposed to Sewage Dust. Jour. Occup. Med. 20 :690 .
Millner , P . D . 1982 . Thermophilic and Thermotolerant Actinomy-
cetes in Sewage Sludge Compost . Devel . Ind . Microbiology
23 : 61-78 .
Millner , P . D. , D .A. Bassett and P.B. Marsh. 1980 . Dispersal of
' Aspergillus Fumigatus from Self-Heating Compost Piles Subjected
to Mechanical Agitation in Open Air . Appl . & Env. Microbiol .
39: 1000-1009 .
' Millner , P . D. , P . B. Marsh , R. B. Snowden and J. P . Parrj . 1977 .
Occurrence of Aspergillus Fumigatus During Composting of Sewage
Sludge. Appl. & Env. Microbiol. 34 (6) : 765-772 .
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) .
Division of Water. Population Projections - September 30 , 1985 .
' New York State Water Quality Management Plan , Bureau of Water
Quality Management.
. Endangered and Threatened Species . Title 5, Article
' 11 (Fish and Wildlife ) of the Environmental Conservation Law .
Albany, New York.
I . State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) . June
1, 1987. Title 6 , NYCRR, Part 617 . Pursuant to §8-0113 of the
Environmental Conservation Law.
' New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preserva-
tion. 1986. New York State Archaeological Site Locations Over-
lay Map. Albany, New York.
New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT) . Hauppauge,
New York.
Obeng , L. A. and F.W. Wright . 1987 . Co-Composting of Domestic
Solid and Human Wastes . The World Bank , Tech . Paper # 57 .
' Washington, D.C.
Oostoek, J . and J . P . N. Smit . 1987 . Future of Composting in the
Netherlands . BioCycle 28 ( 6 ) : 37-39 .
' Page , A. L . 1974 . Fate and Effects of Trace Elements in Sewage
Sludge When Applied to Agricultural Lands . A Literature Review
Study . U. S . Environ . Prot . Agency, Rep. No. EPA 670/2-274-005 .
108 p.
R.4
I
REF (CONT'
D. )
(CONT D. )
Pahren , H. R. , J. B. Lucas , J .A. Ryan and G.K. Dotson. 1977. An
Appraisal of the Relative Risks Associated with Land Application
of Municipal Sludge . Presented at the 50th Annual Conference of
the Water Pollution Control Fed. , Philadelphia, PA.
Passman, F.J. 1983 . Aspergillus Fumigatus Aerospora Associated
With Municipal Sewage Sludge Composting Operations in the State
of Maine. Report, 45 pp.
Rau, John G . and David C . Wooten . 1980 . Environmental Impact
Analysis Handbook. New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc .
Real Estate Data , Inc . 1987. Real Property Tax Service Agency,
County of Suffolk. County Center, Riverhead, New York.
Robinson, William D. 1986 . The Solid Waste Handbook. A Practi-
cal Guide. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Rose, W.W. and W. A. Mercer. 1968. Fate of Insecticides in Com-
posted Agricultural Wastes.
Rylander , et al . , 1983 . Endotoxins and the Lung. Prog. Allgy.
33 : 324-332 .
Sabey, B.R. and W. E. Hart . 1975 . Land Application of Sewage
' Sludge: Effect on Growth and Chemical Composition of Plants . J .
Environ. Qual . 4: 252-256.
Sandstead, H.H. 1974. Cadmium, Zinc and Lead. Geochem. and the
Environment, 1: 43-56 . National Academy of Science.
Sewell , Granville M. 1975 . Environmental Quality Management.
' New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Smith, Robert Leo. 1980 . Ecology and Field Biology, 3rd Edition.
New York: Harper & Row, Publisher.
UStansbury, J. 1979. Noise in the Workplace. EPA J. 5 ( 9 ) ,18 .
' Suffolk County Department of Public Works (SCDPW) . 1987. Traf-
fic Volume Map. Yaphank, New York.
' Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality. Draft report
entitled: General Habitat Types Found in Suffolk County. Haup-
pauge, New York.
' Suffolk County Pine Barrens Commission . 1984 . Interim Prin-
ciples for Review of Applications for Development Within the
Suffolk County Pine Barrens Zone.
R.5
REFERENCES (CONT D.
Tansey, M. R. 1971 . Isolation of Therophilic Fungi From Self
Heated Industrial Woodchip Piles. Mycologia 63: 537-547 .
' Underwood, E .J . 1971 . Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nu-
trition. Academic Press, N.Y. , 3rd Ed.
U. S . Department of Commerce . 1982 . 1980 Census , Persons Per
Household and Group Quarters . Washington D.C. : U. S . Department
of Commerce, Bureau of the Census .
' U. S . Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. April
1975 . Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York.
U . S . Department of the Interior Geological Survey. 1963 . Ge-
ology and Groundwater, Town of Southold, New York. Geologic Sur-
vey Water Supply Paper 1619-GG.
U. S . Environmental Protection Agency. 1971 . Composting of Mu-
nicipal Solid Waste in the United States . Publ . SW-47 , Supt. of
Documents, Washington, D.C. 20402.
. 1985 . Seminar Publication: Composting of Municipal
Wastewater Sludges. Cincinnati , Ohio: USEPA, Center for Environ-
mental Research Information, Office of Research and Development.
U . S . Office of Technology Assessment . 1979 . Materials and
Energy From Municipal Solid Waste. United States Congress .
Wiley, B. B. and S.C. Westerberg. 1969. Survival of Human Patho-
gens in Composted Sewage. Appl. Microbiol . 18 (6) : 944-1001.
Wilkinson , R. R. , G . C . Kelso and F.C . Hopkins . 1978. State of
' the Art Report : Pesticide Disposal Research . USEPA Document .
EPA-6001 2-78-183. 225 pp.
Wittaker , Robert H . 1970 . Communities and Ecosystems . New
York: MacMillan Publishing Co. , Inc.
Zoning Code and Official Zoning Map. Town of Southold, Southold,
New York.
1
' R.6
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
SPECIES APPENDIX.=z
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX A
I SPECIES LIST
This Appendix is a listing of all observed and expected
faunal and floral species on the subject parcel . Faunal species
are mammals , birds , reptiles and amphibians. Floral species are
trees , shrubs and vines, and herbaceous (weedy) plants.
For purposes of this discussion , the various habitat types
will be distinguished by zones:
I
• Zone 1 - Oak Woods
• Zone 2 - Landfill ( includes weedy area and sand pit)
Species indicated with an asterisk ( * ) are typical "back-
yard" animal species, as described in Section 3. 4.
The zone ( s ) indicated for a particular species is not meant
to imply that this is the only habitat type in which the species
may occur . Rather, the aim of this Appendix is to indicate which
of the two habitats a species would most likely be found.
1 Faunal species which are listed by the New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC ) as being endangered,
threatened or of special concern are indicated by (E ) , (T ) or
' (SC) , respectively, after their name. Refer to Section 3. 4.
Mammalian species which were observed or which may be ex-
' pected to occur at the aforementioned zones include, but are not
limited to, the following species:
' SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S)
Mammals
' Didelphis virginiana Virginia opposum 1,2*
Sorex cinereus masked shrew 1
Sorex fumelus smoky shrew 1
' Ondatra zibethicus muskrat 1
Blarina brevicauda short-tailed shrew 1
' Scalopus aquaticus Eastern mole 1*
Myotis lucifugus little brown bat 1
Lasionycteris noctivagans silver-haired bat 1
Pipistrellus subflavus Eastern pipistrelle 1
' Eptesicus fuscus big brown bat 1
Lasiurus borealis red bat 1
I Lasiurus cinereus hoary bat 1
Sylvilagus floridanus Eastern cottontail 1*
Marmota monax woodchuck or groundhog 1
' Tamias striatus Eastern chipmunk 1*
I
I
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S)
tTyto alba (SC) common barn owl 1
Bubo virginianus great horned owl 1
Asio otus long-eared owl 1
I
Aegolius acadicus saw-whet owl 1
Colaptes auratus common flicker 1*
I Picoides pubescens downy woodpecker 1*
Dryocopus pileatus pileated woodpecker 1
Centurus carolinus red-bellied woodpecker 1
I
Picoides villosus hairy woodpecker 1
Sphyrapicus varius yellow-bellied
sapsucker 1
I Corvus brachyrhynchos common crow 1, 2*
Archilochus colubris ruby-throated
hummingbird 1
I Myiarchus crinitus great crested
flycatcher 1
Sayornis phoebe Eastern phoebe 1
IEmpidonax minimus least flycatcher 1
Conoptus sordidulus Eastern wood pewee 1
Progne subis purple martin 1
I Cyanocitta cristata blue jay 1*
Sitta carolinensis white-breasted
nuthatch 1
IParus atricapillus black-capped chickadee 1*
Parus bicolor tufted titmouse 1
Certhia familiaris brown creeper 1
I
Troglodytes aedon house wren 1
Thryothorus ludovicianus Carolina wren 1
Troglodytes troglodytes winter wren 1
IIMimuo polyglottos mockingbird 1*
Dumetella carolinensis catbird 1*
I Toxostoma rufum brown thrasher 1
Turdus migratorius American robin 1*
Hylocichla mustelina wood thrush 1*
I
Regulus satrapa golden-crowned kinglet 1
Catharus quttatus hermit thrush 1
Regulus calendula ruby-crowned kinglet 1
I Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher 1
Bombycilla cedrorum cedar waxwing 1
I
Vireo griseus white-eyed vireo 1
Sturnus vulgaris starling 1, 2*
Vireo solitarius solitary vireo 1
Vireo olivaceus red-eyed vireo 1
I
Helmitheros vermivorus worm-eating warbler 1
II
I SCIENTIFIC NAMEMM
CO ON NAME ZONE(S)
II Mniotilta varia black-and-white warbler 1
Vermivora pinus blue-winged warbler 1
Wilsonia citrina hooded warbler 1
I Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville warbler 1
Dendroica magnolia magnolia warbler 1
II Vireo qilvus warbling vireo 1
Dendroica petechia yellow warbler 1
Dendroica caerulescens black-throated
blue warbler 1
I
Dendroica coronata myrtle or yellow-
rumped warbler 1
Dendroica virens black-throated
I
green warbler 1
Dendroica pensylvanica chestnut-sided warbler 1
I Dendroica fusca blackburman warbler 1
Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat 1
Dendroica discolor prairie warbler 1
Oporornis philadelphia mourning warbler 1
IIIcterus spurius orchard oriole 1
Icterus qalbula Baltimore oriole 1*
I
Quiscalus quiscula
Icteria virens common grackle 1*
yellow-breasted chat 1
Piranga olivacea scarlet tanager 1
I
Piranga rubra summer tanager 1
Hesperiphona vespertina evening grosbeak 1
Cardinalis cardinalis cardinal 1*
I Pheucticus ludovicianus rose-breasted grosbeak 1
Guiraca caerulea blue grosbeak 1
I Passerina cyanea indigo bunting 1
Carpodacus purpureus purple finch 1
Pheucticus melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak 1
Pinicola enucleator pine grosbeak 1
ICarpodacus mexicanus house finch 1*
Carduelis pinus pine siskin 1
I Loxia curvirostra red crossbill 1
Loxia leucoptera white-winged crossbill 1
Pipilo erythrophthalmus rufous-sided towhee 1
l
Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow 1*
Zonotrichia albicollis white-throated sparrow 1*
Passerella iliaca fox sparrow 1
II Cathartes aura turkey vulture 1
Zenaida macroura mourning dove 1, 2*
Spizella passerina chipping sparrow 1
II
II
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S)
IIMelospiza melodia song sparrow 1
Columbia livia rock dove 2
Chaetura pelagica chimney swift 1
I
Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco 1
Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird 1
I
Setophaga ruticilla American redstart 1
Philohela minor American woodcock 1
Vireo flavifrons yellow-throated vireo 1
Catharus fuscescens veery 1
IISeiurus aurocapillus ovenbird 1
Larus glaucoides Iceland gull 2
I
Larus hyperboreus glaucous gull 2
Larus marinus great black-backed gull 2
Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird 1
IILarus argentatus herring gull 2
Philohela minor American woodcock 1
IIReptile species observed or expected to occur include, but
are not limited to:
I
Reptiles,
Terrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 1*
I
Storeria dekayi brown (Dekay' s) snake 1
Storeria occipitomaculata red-bellied snake 1
Thamnophis sirtalis common garter snake 1*
Heterodon platyrhinos (SC) Eastern hognose snake 1
IDiadophis punctatus ringneck snake 1
Carphophis amoenus (SC) worm snake 1
I
Coluber constrictor black racer 1
Lampropeltis triangulum milk snake 1
Elaphe obsoleta rat snake 1
IEumeces fasciatus five-lined skink 1
Amphibian species observed or which can be expected to occur
Iinclude, but are not limited to:
Amphibians
IScaphiopus hoibrooki Eastern spadefoot toad 1
Bufo woodhousei fowleri Fowler ' s toad 1*
Hyla crucifer spring peeper 1*
II
Hyla versicolor gray treefrog 1
Rana sylvatica wood frog 1
11
II
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S)
I
Ambystoma maculatum (SC) spotted salamander 1
Ambystoma opacum marbled salamander 1
Bufo americanus American toad 1
I Plethodon cinereus red-backed salamander 1
Ambystoma laterale (SC) blue-spotted salamander 1
I
Dominant floral types observed or expected to occur include,
but are not limited to, the species listed below. Floral species
which are listed by the NYSDEC as protected native plants are
II indicated by (P) after their name.
Trees.
I
Acer rubrum red maple 1
Faqus qrandifolia American beech 1
Quercus rubra Northern red oak 1
I
Sassafras albidum sassafras 1
Prunus serotina black cherry 1
Pinus strobus Eastern white pine 1
I
Juniperus communis common juniper 1
Pinus virginiana Virginia pine 1
Tsuqa canadensis Eastern hemlock 1
I
Betula lenta sweet birch 1
Betula papyrifera paper birch 1
I
Betula populifolia gray birch 1
Ostrya virginiana Eastern haphornbeam
( "ironwood" ) 1
Quercus prinus chestnut oak 1
IUlmus americana American elm 1
Morus rubra red mulberry 1
II Juniperus virginiana Eastern red cedar 1
Populus grandidentata bigtooth aspen (poplar) 1
Populus tremuloides quaking aspen 1
IICarya cordiformis bitternut hickory 1
Carya glabra pignut hickory 1
Carya ovata shagbark hickory 1
II Carya tomentosa white hickory 1
Juglans cinerea butternut 1
Juglans nigera black walnut 1
IIBetula populifolia white birch 1
Castanea dentata American chestnut 1
Quercus coccinea scarlet oak 1
I
Quercus velutina black oak 1
Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree (yellow
poplar ) 1
II
II
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S)
IIPlatanus occidentalis sycamore 1
Cornus florida (P) flowering dogwood 1
Rhus glabra smooth sumac 1
I Rhus copallina shining (winged) sumac 1
Rhus typhina staghorn sumac 1
IIToxicodendron vernix poison sumac 1
Shrubs and Vines
IIKalmia latifolia (P) mountain laurel 1
Smilax glauca catbrier 1
Morus sp. mulberry 1
I Lon cera japonica Japanese honeysuckle 1
Rosa multiflora wild rose 1
I
Rhus radicans poison ivy 1
Prunus virginiana common chokecherry 1
Salix discolor pussy willow 1
ICelastrus scandens (P) climbing bittersweet 1
Rhododendron sp. (P ) rhododendron 1
Azalea sp. azalea 1
II Rubus hispidus swamp dewberry 1
Vaccinium corymbosum highbush blueberry 1
Gaylussacia sp. huckleberry 1
1 Mitchella repens partridgeberry 1
Comptonia peregrina sweet fern 1
Viburnum sp. viburnum 1
I
Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper 1
Wisteria (or Kraunhia)
frutescens American wisteria 1
IIVitis sp. grapes 1
Menispermum canadense Canada moonseed 1
I Cuscuta gronovii dodder 1
Fragaria sp, wild strawberry 1
Herbaceous (Weedy) Plants
II
Solidago sp. goldenrod 2
Andropogon virginicus broom grass or
I
broomsedge 2
Oenothera biennis evening primrose 2
Aster sp. aster 2
11 Agropyron sp. wheat grass or
quackgrass 2
1
II
' SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME ZONE(S)
II Andropogon scoparius beard grass 2
Panicum sp. panic grass 2
Setaria sp. bristle grass 2
I
Allium vineale
Urtica sp, wild onion 2
stinging nettles 2
I Rumex acetosella
Rumex sp. sheep sorrel 2
dock 2
Polygonum sp. smartweed 2
Chenopodium sp. goosefoot 2
I
Amaranthus sp. pigweed 2
Phytolacca americana pokeweed 2
I
Mollugo verticillata carpetweed 2
Portulaca sp. purslane 2
Stellaria sp. chickweed 2
IAgrostemma Githago cockle 2
Rannunculus sp. buttercup 2
Capsella bursa-pastoris shepherd' s purse 2
I Polygonum aviculare common knotweed 2
Lepidium sp. peppergrass or
pepperweed 2
IIRaphanus sp. wild radish 2
Barbarea sp. winter cress 2
IIBrassica sp. wild mustard 2
Potentilla sp. cinquefoil 2
Trifolium sp. hop-clover ( includes
rabbit foot clover,
IT. arvense) 2
Melilotus sp. sweet clover 2
II Medicago sp. bur clover and
black medick 2
Oxalis sp. wood sorrel or oxalis 2
Malva sp. mallow 2
II
Oenothera biennis field primrose 2
Daucus carota Queen Anne' s lace 2
I
Asclepias syriaca milkweed 2
Verbena hastata vervain 2
Prunella vulgaris heal-all 2
11 Verbascum sp. mullein 2
Veronica sp. speedwell 2
Plantago sp. plantain 2
I
Specularia sp. Venus ' looking-glass 2
Lobelia inflata Indiana tobacco 2
Eupatorium sp. Joe-Pye weed 2
IIErigeron sp. fleabane 2
II
II
SCIENTIFIC I C NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S)
II Ambrosia sp. ragweed 2
Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed Susan 2
Helianthus sp. sunflower 2
I
Bidens sp. pitchfork 2
Galinsoga sp. galinsoga 2
I
Achillea sp. yarrow 2
Chrysanthemum leucanthemum field daisy 2
Arctium sp. burdock 2
Cirsium sp. thistle 2
II
Taraxacum sp. dandelion 2
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass 2
1 Eleusine indica goosegrass 2
Paspalum sp, paspalum; knotgrass 2
Digitaria sp. crabgrass 2
IIEchinochloa sp. barnyard grass 2
Sorghum halepense Johnson grass 2
Cyperus esculentus nutgrass 2
II Desmodium sp. beggarweed 2
Erodium sp. filarees 2
Geranium sp. wild geranium 2
ITribulus terrestris puncture vine or
tackweed 2
II Croton sp. doveweed 2
Acalypha sp. copperleaf 2
Euphorbia sp. spurge 2
Sida sp. sida or false mallow 2
IIAnagallis arvensis scarlet pimpernel 2
Apocynum cannabinum common dogbane 2
I Lactuca sp. wild lettuce 2
Sonchus sp. sow thistle 2
Hieracium sp. hawkweed 2
I Tragopogon sp. salsify 2
Cichorium intybus chicory 2
Senecio sp. groundsel 2
I
Anthemis sp. mayweed 2
Xanthium sp. cocklebur 2
I Gnaphalium sp. cudweed 2
Erigeron sp. horseweed 2
Eupatorium perfoliatum boneset 2
Vernonia sp. ironweed 2
I
Diodia teres common buttonweed 2
II
' SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAMEN
ZO E(S)
I Lamium sp. henbit 2
Lithospermum arvense common gromwell 2
Phragmites communus ditch reed 2
I
Lilium superbum (P) Turk's-cap lily 1
Gaultheria sp. wintergreen 1
I
Chimaphila umbellata (P) pipsisewa 1
Chimaphila maculata (P ) spotted wintergreen 1
Epigaea repens trailing arbutus or
ground laurel 1
I
Trillium sp. (P) trillium 1
Monotropa uniflora Indian pipe 1
II Menta sp. mint 1
Glecoma hederacea ground ivy 1
Datura stramonium Jimson-weed 2
Linaria vulgaris butter & eggs 2
IIAntennaria neglecta field cat' s foot 2
Silene caroliniana (P) wild pink 2
II Orchidaceae fam. (P)
( includes 28 genera) orchids 1
Maianthemum canadense Canada mayflower 1
I
Cypripendium sp. lady's slipper 1
Lespedeza sp. bush clovers 2
Meibomia sp. trefoils 1
II Baptisia sp. indigo 1
Anaphalis margaritacea pearly everlast 1
Coronilla varia axseed or axwort 2
I
Thlaspi arvense field penny-cress 2
Centaurea cyanus corn flower or
I
bachelor button 2
Phleum pratense timothy 2
Sisyrinchium sp. blue-eyed grass 2
Medicago sativa alfalfa or purple
I
medic 2
Festuca sp. fescue grass 2
I
Echinochloa sp. barnyard-grasses 2
Setaria (or Chaetochloa) sp. foxtail grasses 2
Lycopodium sp. (P) clubmosses 1
l
Sphagnum sp. sphagnum or peat
mosses 1
Cladonia sp. lichens 1
II
II
11
1
1
1
' APPENDIX B
' ZONING CODE EXCERPTS
1
I
1
1
111111 MIN Ell MIS Ell IMO ME MI
1.1 Mil MIN IIIII MI MI 1
§ 100-23 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-30 •
§ 100-30 ZONING § 100-30
D. Nothing contained in this chapter shall require any change
in the plans, construction or designated use of a building
complying with the Zoning Ordinance in force prior to this•
(1) One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one (1)
chapter. If the following is found to exist: dwelling on each lot.
(1) A building permit shall have been duly issued and (2) The following commercial agricultural operations and
construction shall have been started before the ef- accessory uses thereto, including irrigation, provided
that there shall be no storage of manure or other odor-
fective date of this chapter. or dust-producing substance or use, except spraying
(2) The ground story framework(including the second tier and dusting to protect vegetation, within one hundred
of beams) shall have been completed within six (6) fifty (150) feet of any lot line:
months of the date of the building permit.
(a) The raising of field and garden crops, vineyard
(3) The entire building shall have been completed in . and orchard farming, the maintenance of nurs-
accordance with such plans as have been filed with the eries and the seasonal sale of products thereof in
Building Inspector within one (1) year from the ef- - buildings, subject to the following special re-
fective date of this chapter. • quirements:
E. Any use not permitted by this chapter shall be deemed to [1] All one-story buildings for display and retail
be prohibited. sales of agricultural and nursery products
F. Notwithstanding the limitations imposed by any other grown primarily on the premises shall not
provisions of this chapter, no building, dredging or filling exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet in
operation shall be permitted below the datum of mean high floor area. Display of produce shall be not
water of tidal waters unless such building, dredging or less than ten (10) feet from all street and lot
filling operations have been duly authorized and are lines. Any stand in excess of one hundred
conducted in conformity with all laws, ordinances, rules (100) square feet in floor area shall be set
and regulations of all governmental agencies having back twenty (20) feet from the street line.
jurisdiction thereof.' Any stand in existence at the effective date
of this chapter must, within one (1) year,
comply with all of the provisions hereof.
ARTICLE III [2] All signs shall conform to the provisions of
§ 100-30C(6)(b).
A Residential and Agricultural District
(b) The keeping, breeding, raising and training of
§ 100-30. Use regulations. horses,domestic animals and fowl(except ducks)'
•
In an A District, no building or premises shall be used, and no on lots of ten (10) acres or more. [Amended 2-1-83
building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is by L.L. No. 2-1983]
arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for (c) Barns, storage buildings, greenhouses (including
any uses except the following: plastic-covered) and other related structures,
provided that such buildings shall conform to the
A. Permitted uses.
S Editor's Note: See also Ch.32.Boats,Docks and Wharves,and Ch.97. Wetlands. ,Editor's Note: For provisions regarding the raising of ducks,see('h.41,Ducks.
10018
10019 'I _ .141,
— MI r M r — — M NMI 1 — M = MO MI all M M MN
§ 100-30 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-30 § 100-30 ZONING § 100-30
yard requirements for principal buildings.[Amend- (d) Any such school shall occupy a lot with an area of
ed 2-1-83 by L.L. No.2-19832] not less than five (5) acres plus one (1) acre for
each twenty-five (25) pupils for which the
(3) Buildings, structures and uses owned or operated by the building is designed.
Town of Southold.
B. (Amended 7-1-86 by L L. No. 5-1986 Uses (4) Libraries, philanthropic, eleemosynary or religious
J permitted by institutions, hospitals, nursing and rest homes or
special exception by the Board of Appeals. The following uses sanitaria for general medical care, but excluding
are permitted as a special exception by the Board of Appeals. facilities for the treatment of all types of drug ad-
as hereinafter provided, and, except for the uses set forth in diction, subject to the following requirements:
Subsection B(16) hereof, are subject to site plan approval by
the Planning Board in accordance with Article XIII hereof: (a) No building or part thereof or any parking or
loading area shall be located within one hundred
11► Two-family dwellings,conversion of existing buildings
(100) feet of any street line nor within fifty (50)
and new construction, not to exceed one (1) such
feet of any lot line.
dwelling on each lot.
(b) The total area covered by principal and accessory 1
(2) Places of worship, including parish houses (but ex- buildings shall not exceed twenty percent (20%)
. cluding a rectory or parsonage, which shall conform to of the area of the lot.
the requirements for a one-family dwelling), subject to
the following requirements: (c) The maximum height shall be thirty-five (35) feet
or two and one-half (21/2) stories.
(a) No building or part thereof shall be erected nearer
than fifty (50) feet to any street line and nearer (d) The entire lot, except areas occupied by buildings
than twenty (20) feet to any lot line. or parking or loading areas, shall be suitably
(b) The total area covered by all principal and ac- landscaped and properly maintained.
cessory buildings shall not exceed twenty percent (e) Sufficient exterior illumination of the site shall be
(20%) of the area of the lot. required to provide convenience and safety. All
such illumination shall be shielded from the view
(3) Private schools, colleges and other educational in-
of all surrounding streets and lots.
1 stitutions, subject to the following requirements:
(a) No building shall be less than fifty (50) feet from (f) Any nursing home, hospital or sanitarium shall
meet the following standards:
any street or lot line.
(b) The total area occupied by all principal and ac- 11 All buildings shall be of fire resistive con-
struction.
cessory buildings shall not exceed twenty percent
(20%) of the area of the lot. 121 All such uses shall be served by adequate
water and sewer systems approved by the
(c) Any such school shall be a nonprofit organization Suffolk County Department of Health.
within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Act
and shall be registered effectively thereunder as [31 Patients suffering from communicable
such. diseases shall not be permitted in any
'Editor's Note: This local law also repealed former Subsection A(21(cI, as nursing home or sanitarium (communicable
amended 5-30-75 by L.I.S-1976,which listed the keeping of not more than two 12)horses
or ponies for personal use as a permitted use in an A District and redesignated former
Subsection AI2,id) as this Subsection Mille).
10021
10020 s.25 H1;
IIIIII
OM Mil r MI MI r MI OM - MI - M r it � � �
§ 100-30 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-30 § 100-30 ZONING
§ 100-30
diseases are defined by the Sanitary Code of
the' Public Health Council of the State of from any lot line, and any such building, tent, activity
New York. area or recreation facility shall be effectively screened
[4] Eight thousand(8,000)square feet of lot area therefrom as required by the Planning Board.
Buildings intended for use as sleeping quarters shall
shall be provided for each patient bed.
be not less than thirty(30)feet from each other, except
(5) Public utility rights-of-way as well as structures and tents, which shall be not less than ten (10) feet apart.
• other installations necessary to serve areas within the [Amended 7-31-73]
town, subject to such conditions as the Board of (b) The minimum lot area shall be not less than ten
Appeals may impose in order to protect and promote thousand (10,000) square feet for each cottage,
the health, safety, appearance and general welfare of tent or other principal building, and not less than
the community and the character of the neighborhood three thousand (3,000) square feet of land area
in which the proposed structure is to be constructed. shall be provided for each person accommodated
(6) Fraternity houses, golf courses and annual mem- in the buildings or tents on the premises.
bership clubs catering exclusively to members and (c) All outdoor lighting shall be arranged and/or
their guests,or other recreational facilities open to the
public, and accessory playgrounds, beaches, swim- shielded to eliminate the glare of lights toward
ming pools, tennis courts and recreational buildings, nearby residential lots, streets or other public
facilities.
subject to the following requirements:
(d) The sound level of all outdoor public address
(a) No building or part thereof or any parking or systems shall not exceed the intensity tolerable in
loading area shall be located within one hundred a residential neighborhood.
(100) feet of any street line nor within fifty (50)
feet of any lot line. (8) Labor camps, farm and nonfarm, subject to the
(b) The total area covered by principal and accessory following requirements:
buildings shall not exceed twenty percent 120%) (a) All farm labor camps on farms shall be con-
of the area of the lot. structed in conformance with applicable laws and
beconducted for rofit as a shall not be located nearer to any other residence
Such use shall not
(c) Su h p
than the residence of the employer, except by
business enterprise. specific review and approval of the Board of
(d) No such use shall occupy a lot with an area of less Appeals.
than three (3) acres. (9) Boat docking facilities for the docking, mooring or
1 (e) The direct source of all exterior lighting shall be accommodation of noncommercial boats, subject to
shielded from the view of surrounding residential the following requirements:'
lots. (a) There shall be docking or mooring facilities for no
(7) Children's recreation camps organized primarily for more than two (2) boats other than those owned
seasonal use, subject to the following requirements: and used by the owner of the premises for his
(a) No building, tent, activity area or recreation personal use. [Amended 7.31.73]
facility shall be less than two hundred (200) feet .Editor's Note: see also Ch. 32. Boats, Docks and Wharves.
10022
10023 1.27..Hti
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 all 11111
11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111
§ 100-30 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-30
§ 100-30 ZONING § 100-30
(10) Veterinarian offices and animal hospitals, subject to
the following requirements: (f) A minimum of three (3) off-street parking spaces
(a) The housing of all animals shall be in a fully shall be provided.
enclosed structure if nearer than one hundred (g) Not more than one(1)accessory apartment shall be
(100) feet to any lot line. permitted on a lot.
(11) Cemeteries. (h) The accessory apartment shall meet the require-
(12) Stables and riding academies. ments of a dwelling unit as defined in § 100-13
hereof.
(13) Funeral homes and undertaking establishments. (i) The exterior entry to the accessory apartment shall.
(14) 'Wineries for the production and retail sale of wine to the maximum extent possible, retain the existing
produced from grapes primarily grown on the exterior appearance of a one-family dwelling.
vineyard on which such winery is located. [Added 2.1-
83 by L.L. No. 2-19831 (j) All exterior alterations to the existing building, ex-
. cept for access to the apartment, shall be made on
(15) [Added 1-21-86 by L.L. No. 1-1986] One(1) accessory the existing foundation.
apartment in an existing one-family dwelling, subject to
• the following requirements: (k) The certificate of occupancy shall terminate upon
the transfer of title by the owner,or upon the owner
(a) The accessory apartment shall be located in the ceasing to occupy one(1)of the dwelling units as the
principal building. owner's principal residence. In the event of anown-
(b)
-
n
(b) The owner of the existing dwelling shall occupy one er's demise, the occupant of an accessory apartment
(1) of the dwelling units as the owner's principal may continue in occupancy until a new owner shall
residence. The other dwelling unit shall be leased occupy the balance of the dwelling or one (1) year
for year-round occupancy. evidenced by a written from• date of said demise, whichever shall first
lease for a term of one(1)or more years. occur.
(c) The existing one-family dwelling shall contain not (1) All conversions shall be subject to inspection of the
less than one thousand six hundred (1,600) square Building Inspector and renewal of certificate of oc-
feet of liveable floor area. cupancy annually.
(d) The accessory apartment shall contain not less than (m) The building which is converted to permit an acces-
four hundred fifty(450) square feet of livable floor sory apartment shall be in existence and have a val-
id certificate of occupancy issued prior to January
area.
1, 1984.
(e) The accessory apartment shall not exceed forty per-
cent (40%) of liveable floor area of the existing (n) The existing building, together with the accessory
dwelling unit.
apartment,shall comply with all other requirements
of Chapter 100 of the Town Code of the Town of
'Editor's Note: Former Subsection 8(14), which permitted sales of personal Southold.
property, was repealed 54941. (o) Notwithstanding the provisions of§ 100-30B hereof,
no site plan approval by the Planning Board shall
be required for the establishment of an accessory
•
10024 4.25•xi; apartment.
10024.1
i NM NM MN I NM MN I NM N r M I M — N — I all
§ 100-30 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-30 § 100-30 ZONING § 100-30
(p) Approval by the Suffolk County Department of (d) There shall be no exterior effect at the property
Health Services of the water supply and sewage line,such as noise, traffic, odor, dust, smoke, gas,
disposal systems. [Added 5-20-86 by L.L. No. 4- fumes or radiation.
1986]
(e) Studios where dancing or music instruction is
(q) No bed and breakfast facilities, as authorized by offered to groups in excess of five(5) pupils at one
§ 100-3013(16) hereof, shall be permitted in or on (1) time, or where concerts or recitals are held, are
premises for which an accessory apartment is prohibited.'
authorized or exists. [Added 3-24-87 by L.L. No. 1-
1987] (Cont'd on page 10025)
(16) [Added 5-20-86 by L.L. No.4-1986]The renting of not
more than three (3) rooms in an owner-occupied dwell-
ing for lodging and serving of breakfast to not more than
six (6) casual and transient roomers, provided that the
renting of such rooms for such purpose is clearly inci-
dental and subordinate to the principal use of the dwell-
• ing,subject to the following requirements:
(a) That adequate off-street parking spaces shall be
provided for such rented rooms in addition to park-
ing spaces for the use of the family of the owner.
(b) No accessory apartment, as authorized by § 100-
308(15) hereof, shall be permitted in or on premises
for which a bed and breakfast facility is authorized
or exists. [Added 3-24-87 by L.L. No. 2-1987]
C. [Amended 7-31-73] Accessory uses, limited to the follow-
ing:
(1) Home occupations, provided that:
(a) No display of goods is visible from the street.
(b) Such occupation is incidental to the residential
use of the premises and is carried on in the main
building by the resident therein with not more
than one (1) nonresident assistant.
(c) Such occupation is carried on in an area not
exceeding thirty percent (30%) of the area of one
(1) floor of the main building.
F.diu,r'. NOW (Iriainal Subsection('l l He)and 1(1 were deleted.as the>duplicated Sub.ec-
• lion((Iultand ieI.
10024.2 5•25•$7
10021.3
MI NM MI MO NMI
MI MI SIM Mil MI NIB 11111 RINI
11111111 NIS MI MINI NIB
§ 100-30 ZONING § 100.30
(2) [Amended 2-1-83 by L.L. No. 2.1983] Garden house,
toolhouse,storage building,playhouse,wading pool or
swimming pool incidental to the residential use of the
premises and not operated for gain, subject to the
following requirements:
(a) Any swimming pool shall be completely enclosed
• with a permanent chainlink or similar-type fence
of not more than two-inch mesh, not less than
four (4) feet in height, erected, maintained and
provided with a self-closing, self-latching gate to
prevent unauthorized use of the pool and to
prevent accidents. However, if said pool is located
more than four (4) feet above the ground, then a
•
fence is not required, provided that all points of
access to said pool are adequately protected by a
self-closing, self-latching gate. Any swimming
pool in existence at the effective date of the
provisions of this subsection shall, within one (1)
year from such date, comply with all of the
provisions hereof. [Amended 2.1.83 by L.L. No.2-
1983]
(3) Private garages; provided, however, that not more
than two (2) passenger automobile spaces in such
garages may be leased to persons not resident on the
premises.
2.1. 3L.L.
(4) [Amended 8 by L.L No. 2-
1983] The storage of
either a boat or travel trailer, owned and used by the
owner or occupant of the premises on which such boat
or travel trailer is stored, for his personal use, subject
to the following requirements:
(a) Such boat or trailer shall not exceed thirty (30)
feet in length.
(b) Such boat or trailer shall be stored only in the
required rear yard,and the area occupied therefor,
together with the area of all buildings in the rear
yard, shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the
area of the required rear yard.
•
10025 4•23•83
IIIIII NIB ION IIIIII INN
INN IMO a - OM r M UM S �- - - - r
§ 100-30 ZONING § 100-31
§ 100-30 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-30 30B(2), (3), (4), (6), (7) and (10) hereof, not more
than thirty-two (32) square feet in area, located
(c) Such boat or trailer shall not be located within not less than five (5) feet from any street or lot
fifteen(15) feet of any street or lot line.
line.
(5) Horses and domestic animals other than household
pets, provided that such shall not be housed within (f) Such other signs as may be authorized as a
forty (40) feet of any lot line. Housing for flocks of special exception by the Board of Appeals as
more than twenty-five (25) fowl shall not be con- hereinafter provided.
structed within fifty (50) feet of any line. [Amended 5• (7) [Added 5-29-731 Yard sales, attic sales, garage sales,
29-73; 5-30-75 by L.L. No. 3-1975] auction sales or similar-type sales of personal property
owned by the occupant of the premises and located
(6) The following signs, subject to the supplementary thereon, subject to the following requirements:
sign regulations hereinafter set forth:
One (1) indirectly illuminated nameplate or (a) Not more than one (l) such sale shall lee con-
(a)
professional sign not more than two (2) square
ducted on any lot in any one(I) calendar year.
feet in area. (b) Adequate supervised parking facilities shall he
(b) Not more than three (3) signs with a combined provided.
total area of not more than seventy-two (72) (c) No signs, except one (II on-premises sign not
square feet, no one (1) of which shall be larger larger than three by four (3 x .1) feet in size,
than four by six (4 x 6) feet in size, advertising displayed for a period of not longer than one (1)
only the sale of farm, garden or nursery products week immediately prior to the day of such sale,
produced or grown on the premises or of animals shall he permitted.
raised on the premises.
(d) A permit is obtained therefor from the Building
(c) One (1) real estate sign, either single- or double- Inspector upon the payment of a fee of fifteen
faced, not larger than three by four (3 x 4) feet in dollars ($15.).
size on any one (1) or more lots, advertising the •
sale or lease of only the premises on which it is
maintained, and set back not less than ten (10) § 100-31. Bulk and parking requirements. )Amended 8.9-83 by
feet from any lot line. L.L. No. 9.19831
(d) One (1) sign, either single- or double-faced, not No building or premises shall be used and no building or part
exceeding twenty-four(24) square feet in size, set thereof shall be erected or altered in the A Residential and
back at least thirty-five (35) feet from the street Agricultural District, unless the same conforms to the following
line and ten (10) feet from either side line, ad-
bulk and parking requirements:
vertising the sale or lease of acreage or the sale of
lots in a subdivision having a continuous frontage A. In the case of a lot held in single and separate ownership
of five hundred (500) feet or more. prior to November 23, 1971, and thereafter, with an area of
less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet, a single-
(e) One (1) bulletin board or other announcement or family dwelling may be constructed thereon, provided that
identification sign for uses permitted in § 100-
10027 20.25•83
10026 4.23.83
MI EN SI
NM MI EN NM - a MN NM I a MN O - - r -
§ 100-31 SOUTI'OLD CODE § 100-31 § 100-31 ZONING § 100-31.1
the requirements of Column A of the Bulk and Parking Schedule incorporated into this chapter shall apply to the
Schedule incorporated into this chapter are complied with.' following lots:
B. The bulk and parking requirements for single-family dwell- (1) All lots shown on minor subdivision maps which have
ings. as set forth in Column A-40 of+the Bulk and Parking been granted sketch plan approval by the Planning
Schedule incorporated into this chapter, shall apply to the Board on or after May 20, 1983.
following lots:
(2) All lots shown on major subdivision maps upon which
11) All lots shown on major and minor subdivision maps the Planning Board has held a hearing for preliminary
which were granted final approval by the Planning approval on or after May 20, 1983. -
Board prior to May 20, 1983. [Amended 10-4-83 by
L.L. No. 10-1983) (3) All lots set off or created by approval of the Planning
Board on or after May 20, 1983.
12) All lots shown on major subdivision maps upon which
the Planning Board has held a hearing for preliminary
map approval prior to May 20, 1983. § 100-31.1. Relief from bulk and parking requirements. )Added
(3) All lots shown on minor subdivision maps that have 10-4-83 by L.L. No. 11-19831
been granted sketch plan approval by the Planning
A. Findings.
Board prior to May 20, 1983.
(1) On May 16, 1983, the Town Board enacted Local Law
141 All lots set off or created by approval of the Planning
Board subsequent to November 23, 1971, and prior to No. 7-1983, which increased the minimum area, width,
1ay 20, 1983. depth and yard requirements of lots located in the A
Residential and Agricultural Districts, as of its ef-
C. The bulk and parking requirements for single-family dwell- . fective date of May 20, 1983.'
ings set forth in Column A-80 of the Bulk and Parking (2) On August 9, 1983, the Town Board enacted Local
Schedule incorporated into this chapter shall apply to the Law No. 9-1983,2 which excepted certain subdivision
following lots: maps from the lot area, width, depth and yard re-
(1) All lots shown on minor subdivision maps which have quirements specified in said Local Law No. 7-1983.
been granted sketch plan approval by the Planning (S) The Town Board has now ascertained that there exist
- Board on or after May 20, 1983. • many owners of land who had expended time and •
12) All lots shown on major subdivision maps upon which money in the preparation of subdivision maps con-
the Planning Board has held a hearing for preliminary forming to the zoning requirements in effect prior to
map approval on or after May 20, 1983. May 20, 1983, but, due to circumstances beyond their
control, were unable to have such subdivision (naps
(3) All lots set off or created by approval of the Planning approved by the Planning Board prior to May 20,
' Board on or after May 20, 1983. 1983.
D. The bulk and parking requirements for two-family dwell-
ings set forth in Column A-160 of the Bulk and Parking► (4) The Town Board finds that, in such instances, it would
be inequitable to require such land owners to conform
F.dltnr'. 'nI.: The Bulk and Parking Schedule Is Included at the end of this 'Editor.' Note: `See the Bulk and Parking Schedule, located at the end of this
chewer. chapter.
'MdItor's Note: See § 100.31.
10028 10.25.83 10028.1 10.23-a3
I
111111 — r M all N r r — all NM S — - - — N all all
§ 100-31.1 SOUTHOLD CODE
§ 100.31,;
§ 100-31.1 ZONING § 100-36
to the requirements established by Local Law No. 7
1983, and that such owners should be given an op than ten (10) days' written notice published in the
portunity to petition the Town Board to request the official town newspapers.
•
the provisions of the Bulk and Parking Schedule it (3) After such hearing, the Town Board shall take such
effect prior to May 20, 1983, shall apply to the sub action on such petition as it deems appropriate.
division described in said petition.
B. Subdivision maps affected. The provisions of this section F. Fees. Every petition for relief provided for in this section
apply- to the following subdivision maps: shall be filed with the Town Clerk and shall be ac-
shallcompanied by a fee of one hundred dollars($100.).
(1) Minor subdivision maps for which an application fa
sketch plan approval was filed with the Planning
Board prior to March 20, 1983. § 100-32. Accessory buildings.
(2) Major subdivision maps for which an application fa • In the A Residential and Agricultural District, accessory
sketch plan approval was filed with the Planning buildings and structures or other accessory uses may be located in
Board prior to January 1, 1983. the required rear yard,subject to the following requirements:
C. Time of filing petitions. Petitions for the relief provided fa A. Such buildings shall not exceed eighteen(18) feet in height.
in this section shall be filed with the Town Clerk within si B. Such buildings shall be set back not less than three (3) feet
(6) months of the effective date of this section. from any lot line.
D. Contents of petition. The petition shall be verified by the C. All such buildings in the aggregate shall occupy not more
owner of the property and shall set forth such facts as the than forty percent (40%) of the area of the required rear
petitioner deems appropriate to indicate that the petitioner yard.
had filed an application for sketch plan approval of the
subdivision mapinvolved, that t
hetitioner thereafter
r
diligently and in good faith prosecuted such application
and that final approval of said subdivision map was not § 100.33. Established front yard setback. [Amended 5-29.73]
granted by the Planning Board prior to May 20. 1983, due Where property in the vicinity is improved with permanent
of less than that
to circumstances with a front area required bythe
m Hees the control 1 dwellings
beyondn o of the petitioner. dwe gyardq
E. Procedures. provisions of this chapter, the front yard setback shall be the
average setback of the existing dwellings within three hundred
(1) Upon the receipt of a petition, the Town Board shall (300) feet of the proposed dwelling on the same side of the street,
• refer the same to the Planning Board and the Suffolk within the same block and the same use district.
County Planning Commission (if required by Article
XIII of the Suffolk County Charter) for their written
recommendations. §§ 100.34 through 100-36. (Reserved))
(2) Upon receipt of the written recommendations of the (Cont'd on page 10029)
aforesaid planning agencies, the Town Board shall
Editor's Note: Former§ 100.34,Corner lots.was renumbered as§ 100.119 2.143 by
hold a public hearing on said petition upon not less L.L.No.2.1983,which local law also redesignated former§ 100.38.Substandard lots.as
added 5.29.73,as§ 10044.which section was subsequently repealed 8.9.83 by L.L.No.9-
1983.Former§ 100.35.Fences,walls and hedges,was renumbered as§ 100-119.1 2.1.83
by L.L. No. 2.1983.
10028.2 10.45.81
10028.3 10-25-U
- - E N — a — — all M S MI MO 1 M OM r NM Nu
I
§ 100-80 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-80 § 100-80 ZONING § 100-90
(14) Retail sales of boats and marine items.
A. Permitted uses.
(1) [Amended 10-26-76 byL.L.No.5-1976 Anypermitted (15) Boat building; boat servicing; boat storage facilities.
1
(16) Yards for sale and storage of fuel and building
uses set forth in, and as regulated by, the following
g materials.
provisions of this chapter:
(a) Subsection A(2)and(3)of§ 100-30. (17) Special exception use. [Repealed 10.26-76 by L.L. No.
1
5-1976]
B. [Amended 7-1-86 by L.L. No. 5-1986] Uses permitted by
special exception by (18) Special exception uses set forth in, and as regulated by, Pt
the Board of
ro P Appeals, as hereinafter. § 100-30B(16) of this chapter. [Added 7-1-86 by L.L.
provided.and except for the uses set forth in Subsection B(18) No. 5-1986] :4
hereof, are subject to site plan approval by the Planning
Board in accordance with Article XIII hereof: C. Accessory uses. ,I
s
(1) Industrial uses, including manufacturing, assembling, (1) Accessory uses on the same lot with and customarily 1
converting, altering, finishing, cleaning or other • incidental to any permitted use and not involving a •
processing, handling or storage of products or separate business.
materials, involving the use of only oil, gas or elec-
tricitySigns as set forth in 100-60C 2
(2) § ( 1 of this chapter.
tricit for fuel. � P
Y
[Added 2-1-83 by L.L. No. 2-1983]
(2) Research, design and development laboratories; office
buildings.
100-81. Bulk, area and parkingrequirements. zt
(3) Wholesale storage and warehousing. §
4
(4) Building contractors' yards. No building or premises shall be used and no building or part
thereof shall be erected or altered in the C Light Industrial
(5) Public utility structures and uses. District unless the same conforms with the "Bulk and Parking
(6) Newspaper and printing establishments. Schedule" incorporated into this chapter by reference, with the
same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in
(7) Bus and truck terminals (garages, parking facilities, full.
loading docks, etc.).
(8) Food processing and packaging plants. ARTICLE IX
(9) Marinas for the docking and mooring of all types of C-1 General Industrial District
boats."
(10) Launching facilities. L § 100-90. Use regulations.
(11) Ferry terminals. • A. [Amended 7-31-73; 10-26-76 by L.L. No. 5-1976;7-1-86 by
L.L. No. 5-1986] In the C-1 District, buildings and premises
(12) Yacht clubs; charter fishing docks. ! may be used for any lawful purpose, except that no building
(13) Eating and drinking establishments. and/or premises shall be used for hotel. motel or tourist camp
purposes.and the uses hereinafter set forth are permitted only
"Editor's Note: Bee also Ch. 32. Boats, Docks and Wharves.
•
10042.13 9.25.86
1(1(112.1_' p._:,.Xi.
1111 11111 MI MI S N UN all E NS all 1111 In I E all NM 11111 NM
I
§ 100-90 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-90 § 100-90 ZONING § 100-90 1
by special exception by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter (22) Oil, rubber or leather manufacture.
provided, and, except for the uses set forth in Subsection
A(48) hereof, are subject to site plan approval by the Plan (23) Ore reduction.
ning Board in accordance with Article XIII hereof: (24) Paint, oil, shellac, turpentine or varnish manufacture.
(1) Abattoirs. (25) Paper and pulp manufacture.
(2) Acetylenegas manufacture orgas manufacture from
Y r (26) Petroleum refining, storage tanks.
coke, petroleum or from any other product, or the rl.
storage thereof. (27) Potash works.
(3) Acid manufacture. (28) Rolling mill.
(4) Ammonia,bleaching powder or chlorine manufacture. (29) Rubber or gutta-percha manufacture.
(5) Arsenal. (30) Saltworks.
~-
(31) Sauerkraut manufacture.
(6) Asphalt manufacture and asphalt mixing plants.
(7) Blast furnace. (32) Shoeblacking or stove polish manufacture.
(8) Cement, lime, gypsum or plaster of pans manufac- (33) Smelting. '*,
ture; ready-mix or bulk concrete plants and block (34) Soap manufacture.
li manufacturing. C. (35) Stockyards or slaughterhouses.
(9) Coke ovens.
(36) Stone mill or quarry.
(10) Crematories. (37) Structural steel or pipe works.
(11) Distillation of bones.
(38) Sulfuric, nitric or hydrochloric acid manufacture.
le
(12) Dwellings, all types.
(39) Sugar refining.
(13) Explosives manufacture or storage.
(40) Tar distillation or manufacture.
(14) Fat rendering.
(41) Tar roofing or waterproofing manufacture.
(15) Fertilizer manufacture. (42) Tallow,grease or lard manufacture. I
(16) Fireworks manufacture.
(43) Tanning,curing or storage of rawhides or skins.
(17) Garbage, offal or dead animals reduction or dumping.
44 Tobacco(chewing) manufacture or treatment.
r ( )
IL �'
(18) Glue, size or gelatin manufacture. • (45) Vinegar ar manufacture.
(19) Gunpowder manufacture or storage. I
(46) Yeast plant.
(20) Automobile wrecking yards and all other junkyards. (47) Airports and airfields.
(21) Oilcloth or linoleum manufacture.
•
10042.14 9-25-86 1004 2.15 9.25-N6
L
1 NE 1 NE I In NE E I N 1 MB 11111 NE 1 N 11111 MO
§ 100-90 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-100 § 100-110
§ 100-101 ZONING
(48) Special exception uses set forth in, and as regulated by, § 100-101. Automobile trailers or house cars.
§ 100-30B(16) of this chapter. [Added 7-1-86 by L.L.
No. 5-1986] Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, a single au-
tomobile trailer or house car may be located outside a tourist camp
§ 100-91. Special exception uses;site plan approval. only when authorized by the Town Board and subject to such condi-
tions as may be prescribed by the Town Board.
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of this Article; where a use
is permitted in any use district only as a special exception by the r
Board of Appeals, such use is not permitted in a C-1 District except Il § 100-102. Exemptions,
as a special exception by the Board of Appeals, and where a use in
This Article shall not be deemed to apply to the temporary or sea-
any use district r is subject to sitelana royal of the Planning
PP
Board, such use in a C-1 District shall require site plan approval of sonal camp of any unit of the Boy Scouts of America or the Girl
the Planning Board. Scouts of America or other such organizations under the leadership
- provided by said organizations, respectively.
§ 100-92. Signs.
a
Signs as specified in and regulated by § 100-GOC of this chapter ARTICLE tI
are permitted in a C-1 District. General Regulations I
§ 100-93. Bulk,area and parking requirements. § 100-110. Signs.
gil
No building or premises shall be used and no building or part The provisions of this section shall apply in all districts.
C 1
thereof shall be erected or altered in the C-1 General Industrial Dis- A. No sign, billboard,advertising display or structure, poster or .
trict unless the same conforms with the "Bulk and Parking Sched- device shall be erected, moved, enlarged or reconstructed ex-
ule" incorporated into this chapter by reference, with the same force cept as expressly permitted in this chapter.
and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full. (Cont'd on page 10043)
ARTICLE X K.
Tourist Camps, Camp Cottages and Trailers' '
1
§ 100-100. Permits required.
No tourist camp shall be established, maintained or operated in
any district, nor shall any tent, tent house, camp cottage, house car or .�
trailer to be used or occupied as a place for living, sleeping or eating,
whether charge is or is not made, be erected or placed therein, unless
authorized by the Town Board pursuant to the provisions of the
Trailer Camp Ordinance,dated June 30, 1953.2
' Editor'. Note: See also('h.MM,Tourist and Trailer Camps.
,Editora Note: Thia ordinance appear,a.Ch.MM,Tourist and Trailer Camp..of this Code.
10042.16 9.25.146 2
10042.17 9.25.146
i
all MN MI E 1 En 1 E 111111 illn MB MI MI all 11111 11111 In En NM
z I
O
1–
N
3
1s
n
X
M
E
es
ZONING
M
BULK AND PARKING SCHEDULE Z
O
A Residence District' Z
Two- Multiple Residence Re
Family Districts • Business Districts Industrial Districts C
Minimum Single-FamUy Dwellings Dwellings M M-1 B B-1 C C•1 C
33
Requirements A A-40 A•80 A•160 Light General Light General Light General 33
r
Total lot area(sq.ft.) — 40,000 80,000 180,000 40,000 80,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 200.000 r
Lot width(ft.) — 150 176 270 135 200 80 150 200 300
Lot depth(ft.) — 175 250. 400 n
Front yard(ft.) 35 50 80 60 60 50 35 35 50+ 150
One side yard(ft.) 10 15 20 30 15 20 25 30 60
Both side yards(ft.) 25 35 45 60 35 45 60 60 100
Rear yard(ft.) 35 50 75 75 50 50 25 35 50 100
Livable floor area(sq. 850 850 850 850 See Arti- See Artl• — — — —
ft.)per dwelling unit cle IV cle V
Off-street parking spaces 2 2 2 3 See Arti- See Arti- See Arti- See Arti- See Arti- See Arti-
per dwelling unit cle IV cle V cle VI cle VII cle VIII cle IX
Maximum
Permitted
Lot coverage(percent) 20 20 20 20 26 25 See Arti- See Arti- See Arti- See Arti-
cle VI cle VII cle VIII cle IX
Building height:
Number of stories 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2 2 2 2
Feet 35 35 35 35 35 35 30 35 35 35
'(Amended 549.73;5.13.83 by L.L.No.7.1983;8.9.83 by L.L.No.9.1983)
(Amended 5.30.75 by L.L. No. 3-19751 8,25.83
1
1
1
1
1
1
t
1
1
i
1
l
1
1
7
7
l