Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Solid Waste/Sludge Composting Facility FEIS 06/1989
FINAL � ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOLID WASTE/SLUDGE � COMPOSTING FACILITY I SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK Prepared for: ' Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 JUNE 1989 I IIIMGROUP HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. In Association with E & A Environmental Consultants. Inc. OOO,�D ' 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 June 28, 1989 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 - ' Final Environmental Impact Statement SOHT 88-03 ' Dear Board Members : We are pleased to submit this Final Environmental Impact ' 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 ) ( August 1988 ) and Preliminary FEIS (January 1989 ) for the pro- ject. This FEIS 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 ) . This document contains all 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 ' included as Appendix B. This edition of the FEIS includes vendor specific inform- ation (Appendix D) along with general layout drawings and techni- cal specifications of the mechanical equipment of the preferred vendor ' s composting technology. ' Please do not hesitate to contact this office at your con- venience should any comments or questions arise concerning this document. Very truly yours , HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. AV' ef2d• lee/Pal/14e* • George W. Desmarais , P. E. ' GWD:vm Melville, N.Y. • Riverhead, NY. •Fairfield, NJ. � FINAL ' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT SOLID WASTE/SLUDGE COMPOSTING FACILITY � SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 1 ' Prepared for: Town of Southold 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 JUNE 1989 IHIMGROUP � HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. In Association with E & A Environmental Consultants, Inc. 11-2/4 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT tSOLID 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 1-2/441 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 LIST OF FIGURES ' FIGURE PAGE NO. NO. 1 BACTERIA CONCENTRATIONS VS. COMPOSTING TIME FOR A WINDROW SYSTEM 8 2 PROPOSED ZONING MAP - MASTER PLAN UPDATE 14 LIST OF APPENDICES ' APPENDIX A - LISTING OF COMMENTS ' APPENDIX B - DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS) APPENDIX C - CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL SITE PLAN APPENDIX D - SPECIFICATIONS OF THE FACILITY 1 ii 1-2/44 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. 1. 0 - RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ' 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 These are provided in Appendix A in order of appearance above. The DEIS, dated August 1988, is included as Appendix B of this document . The specifications for the facility have been 1 1. 11-12/4111 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. added as Appendix D. These specifications include site-related Idrawings and mechanical equipment detils from the preferred vendor. 1 1. 2 - NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION IThe New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Itransmitted a letter to the Southold Town Clerk, dated November 4, 1988 , which read as follows: IComment 1 " In section 2 . 0 - Description of the Proposed Action pg . I2. 3; it is stated that the composting process consists of shred- Iding MSW; mixing the MSW with a moisture source, etc. The docu- ment should include the quantity of process water required for Icomposting , its source and an evaluation of impacts, if any, on the source. " IResponse IApproximately 100 gallons are needed per ton of MSW. This is based on the assumption that MSW has an initial moisture con- Itent of approximately 30 percent and needs to be brought up to 55 percent . Several water sources are available to Southold . ISludge which will be incorporated could have a water content in Iexcess of 30 percent. Water collected from paved areas and build- ing roofs is normally used as recycled water . Typically, MSW Ifacilities have runoff collection ponds which recirculate the water into the system. If necessary, water can be supplemented Ifrom wells or Town resources . In this manner, there is no impact I on the source. 1 2. II 11-2/4 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. IComment 2 I "Section 2 . 0 (D) should provide data on what effects adding sludge to household waste will have on the quality of the compost Iproduct . 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 111 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 Iwhich are important and beneficial to plant growth. Other chemi- cal elements , such as zinc, calcium and magnesium, present in the Isludge, could be highly beneficial to plants. Table 1 shows the chemical composition of several composts Iderived from MSW and sewage sludge. Sludge is the major contribu- ' for to the chemical composition. Tables 2 and 3 show recent data from Minnesota on the composition of solid waste and its derived Icompost. Table 2 shows the inorganic chemical analysis , whereas Table 3 provides the organic compounds. The data in Table 2 show Ithat heavy metals are low in solid waste and compost derived from Iit . 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 . IThere are very little data on organics in solid wastes or com- ' posts . Table 3 shows recent data from Minnesota . The level of I 3. 111At HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. ITABLE 1 I EFFECTING SLUDGE ON HEAVY METAL IN MSW COMPOST COMPOSITION OF MUNICIPAL CO-COMPOSTS IN THE UNITED STATES ICHARACTERISTICS DELAWARE1 TEXAS2 COMPOSITE 19853 ICarbon 34 . 9 12 . 3 23. 0 Nitrogen 1. 55 0. 84 1. 62 I 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 Calcium 1. 73 1. 20 3. 82 I Magnesium 0. 24 0. 11 0. 50 Sodium 0. 27 0. 12 0. 52 Iron 0 . 47 1.09 0. 71 I Aluminum 0. 98 0. 73 1. 83 mg/kg IZinc 802 502 989 Copper 208 104 267 Lead 573 185 660 IManganese 369 218 623 Chromium 185 69 74 I Nickel 197 15 28 Boron 40 12 66 Cadmium 5 6 8 I pH 7 . 4 7.1 7. 4 EC (dS/m) 6. 7 1. 9 4. 6 NOTES: I 1 Municipal solid waste with refuse derived fuel and sewage sludge from Wilmington. 2 Municipal solid waste and sewage sludge from Gladewater. 3 Municipal solid waste and sewage sludge. I I 4. 112/44 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. II TABLE 2 I HEAVY METALS IN SOLID WASTE AND COMPOSTS CROW WING COUNTY, MINNESOTA ICONCENTRATION (Dry Weight Basis) - mg/kg (ppm) I SOLID(1) MSW NYCRR(1) PARAMETER WASTE COMPOST PART 360 I Arsenic 7 . 4 4.1 Beryllium <5 <5 — Calcium 17900 29600 I Cadmium 8. 8 6. 4 10 Chromium 35 93 1000 I Copper 54 54 1000 Iron 7105 6050 - IMagnesium 3070 6900 -- Manganese 202 272 Mercury 1.02 0. 66 10 INickel 21. 9 65 200 Lead 135 148 250 ISelenium <1 <0. 1 — Zinc 456 320 2500 II (1 ) Class I compost, as per Revised 6 NYCRR Part 360 Decem- I ber , 1988 Data by E & A Environmental Consultants , Inc. , in a report to Crow Wing County, MN. I I 1 I I 5. II 11-12/44 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. ITABLE 3 I PESTICIDES, DIOXIN, PCB AND OTHER ORGANICS IN SOLID WASTE AND SOLID WASTE COMPOST CROW WING COUNTY, MINNESOTA I CONCENTRATION - ug/kg (ppb) g (PP ) IISOLID MSW PARAMETER WASTE COMPOST IAldrin <0. 80-23 <0. 13 a-BHC 7 . 8-51 <1. 1 IIb-BHC <4. 8 <0. 8 Lindane <6. 0 <1. 0 I Chlordane <1500 <240 p,p-DDD 87-130 <7. 0 p,p-DDE <14 4. 3 p,p-DDT <49 <8. 2 I Dieldrin 57-110 <2. 7 Endosulfan I <9. 4-21 >1. 6 Endosulfan II 34-40 <2. 1 I Endosulfan Sulfate <42 <7. 0 . Endrin 160-1400 <2. 2 I Endrin Aldehyde 91-100 <5. 9 Heptachlor 8. 4-26 <0. 23 Heptachlor Epoxide <3. 8 <0. 63 I Toxaphene <1000 <170 Methoxychlor 150-260 12. 3 ICONCENTRATION - ug/g (ppm) I Total PCB <1.1 <0. 33 bis- ( 2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate 20-40 17 ICONCENTRATION - pg/g (ppt) 2, 3,7 , 8-TCDD (Dioxin) <1 <0. 73 I I Data by E & A Environmental Consultants, Inc . in a report to Crow Wing County, November 1988. 6. 112/4 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. organics was very low and there was evidence that several pesti- cides may have been biodegraded (e.g. , methoxychlor , endrin, pp, DDD, and dieldrin) . There is reported evidence in the literature ' that these compounds biodegrade in soils and therefore could be expected to decompose during composting. There is an abundance of literature on pathogen destruction ' during composting. Research has shown that Salmonella was elimi- nated in 14 days by windrow composting . Other data on static ' pile composting also show that fecal coliforms, total coliforms and Salmonella were not detected after 10 days . Other data show that parasite ova were destroyed in windrow composting during the first 10 days. Figure 1 shows some data on windrow composting . ' Most solid waste composting is achieved using windrow methods and ' requires conformance with USEPA regulations. Comment 3 ' Section 5 . 11 - Potential Impacts to Public Safety - This ' section should be expanded to give consideration to explosion hazard potential associated with methane generation from the mu- nicipal sanitary landfill and entrapment beneath the foundation/ slab for the proposed composting facility structure. Response ' When the municipal sanitary landfill is closed, a methane gas collection system will be installed at the perimeter of the 1 active landfill area. The system will collect and recover any methane gas produced by the biodegradation of the decomposing ' garbage . An additional methane gas monitoring system will be installed between the active landfill and any structures on-site 1 7. IFIGURE 1 I I (LOS ANGELES) (SMITH AND SELINA, 1977) I . 8.0 I • I1 1 I TOTAL COLIFORM a 8.0 - - 0 - - SALMONELLA I M ' 0 Q 4.0 _ ICCZ u.10 UE I ZF- 0 Z 2.0 �. ‘ _, Q v ` I EEw • Q • O ca \ • • _ Q \ • J I —10 1 1 I t 0 •10 20 30 40 .50. TIME, DAYS Note: I 1.Operation Mode = 1 Turn/Day 2.Dates&4-12-76 to 5-24-76 I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BACTERIA CONCENTRATIONS VS I COMPOSTING TIME FOR A WINRDOW SYSTEM IENGINEERS •• ARCHITECTS •• PLANNERS •• SCIENTISTS •• SURVEYORS II2MGRV VI MELVILLE, N.Y. RIVERHEAD, N.Y. FAIRFIELD, N.J. I 8. 1-1244 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 . 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 ' 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. " 9. I H HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. IResponse tThe site plan provided in Appendix C is a scaled drawing with the locations shown from proposed structures to nearby resi- I dential and industrial buildings . IComment 3 " In Section 2 , most of the discussion on the toxicity of Icompost 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 Iwill yield toxic levels in the "typical" range, we need to know Ijust how typical or atypical its garbage content is . This section attempts to do this, but does not do so clearly. " IResponse Tables 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 and 6 had been included in the DEIS to Iassist in the presentation of the material in Section 2. IComment 4 "There should be a glossary where certain scientific and Itechnical terms are defined in layman ' s terms . For instance , most people are not familiar with translocation, cation exchange Icapacity, etc. " IResponse The technical and scientific terms included in the DEIS were I defined in layman ' s terms wherever possible . An explanation of the technical term was provided where possible. I 1 10. I 1-2/44 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 1 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. 1-1241 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. ITABLE 4 IACRONYMS ACRONYM ASSOCIATED NAME IDEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement SEQRA State Environmental Quality Review Act NYCRR New York Code of Rules and Regulations II NYSDEC New York State Department of Environmental Conservation RDF Refuse Derived Fuel I MSW Municipal Solid Waste RFP Request for Proposal I FEIS STOP Final Environmental Impact Statement Stop Throwing Out Pollutants CEC Cation Exchange Capacity FDA Food and Drug Administration I USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency I PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act EAF Environmental Assessment Form EIS Environmental Impact Statement IISPDES State Pollution Discharge Elimination System MSL Mean Sea Level I USGS United States Geological Survey AQCR Air Quality Control Region NAMS National Air Monitoring System II SLAMS State and Local Air Monitoring System NYSAAQS New York State .Ambient Air Quality Standards NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards I LILCO Long Island Lighting Company SCDPW Suffolk County Department of Public Works AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic I NYSDOT FIRM New York State Department of Transportation Flood Insurance Rate Map FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency ICDP Census Designated Place BSI Building Structure Inventory NYSOPRHP New York State Office of Parks , Recreation I and Historic Preservation SCDHS Suffolk County Department of Health Services ACGIH American Conference of Governmental I Industrial Hygienists PFRP Process to Further Reduce Pathogens I LIRR OSHA Long Island Rail Road Occupational Safety and Health Administration 12. 11-11/4 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. I FIGURE 2 . n. .. *op - it* c � LONG ISLAND SOUND 1 • lilt ems. i C TC O'& UE D IL '14111klklik R. 8.11 \ , ,.r. \ IR \ 1 • Itill: -- Altiki 1 .iii; 4 ‘1.1.4"i‘l. INTE DEDPR • JECI -- row \ • i ‘ . imila mil iii AREA 1 II I11 -I ��' A al �' ;\\ \ \ I PROPOSED ZONING LEGEND SCALE: 1"= 1600' ® Agricultural Conservation I me I Resort/Residential I �-.a Residential Low Density AA io Residential/Office I s-so Residential Low Density A I Le I Limited Business In-12o Residential Low Density B "s Hamlet Business 1 (4-200 I Residential Low Density C s General Business I R—Iao I Residential Low Density D M I Marine I "o Hamlet Density Residential I MII I Marine II I I uo I Light Industrial/Office Park I LI I Light Industrial 1 PROPOSED ZONING MAP. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD. MASTER PLAN UPDATE SOURCE: LATEST REVISION AUGUST 9,1988 IENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS • SURVEYORS II2MGROUP MELVILLE, N.Y. RIVERHEAD, N.Y. FAIRFIELD, N.J. I 14. 1 /-12M HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. Changes have been made to page 4. 4 as PP requested and appear 4 I in the final version of the DEIS. Comment 9 I "Two changes must be made to page 4 .10 as noted. " Response I The reference to the Southold School District should be Ichanged to read "Mattituck-Cutchogue School District, which con- tained approximately 1 , 234 students in the 1985-1986 school Iyear . . . " The second change was corrected prior to issuing the final version of the DEIS. IComment 10 I "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 Iidea of what causes dust, what controls it and what mitigates its effects . " IResponse IThe 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 Itransported through the air by wind shear resulting in airborne Idust particles. It also mentions in the section on dust sources , mitigating methods to control dust and any expected exposure to Ithe worker. Comment 11 I "Ditto for Section 5 . 3 . 2 on Odor Sources and for Section I 5 . 3. 3 - Airborne Pathogens . " I 15. 11-12/4 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. IResponse ISections 5 . 3 . 2 and 5 . 3 . 3 have been written to include the sources and potential control of Odor and Airborne Pathogens . IComment 12 I "The noise and explosion potential of the proposed facility should be examined more closely. What will be the impact on the Iexisting residences adjacent to the facility? What measures will be used to contain water and other fire suppressant chemicals Iwithin the building?" Response II 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 Iresidential areas will be mitigated by having the majority of the composting operations in buildings . Noise from outdoor oper- IIations 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- IIate by the vendor , a detailed description of the safety and hazard equipment to be installed at the compost plant. Part of IIthe required equipment will include fire suppressant chemicals IIand extinguishers . Comment 13 I "In general, mitigation measures to reduce projected impacts to existing residences to the south are not specific enough . IBerming and landscaping are definitely needed along the south I border as well as the east and west property lines . The berms 16. II u ■ I HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. Ishould be between 5 ' and 7 ' in height, and at least 4 ' to 5 ' in 1 width. They should be heavily planted with evergreen species of trees . IFurther , the entrance to the landfill proper should also be IIlandscaped. Protection from noise and explosion potential should be addressed. At the least, there should be on-going yearly moni- I toring of the wells of the adjoining residences. " Response IThe selected composting vendor will be required to submit architectural plans and engineering drawings for review by the ' Town prior to commencing construction. The Town will include in Iits review process the mitigation measures included by the vendor to minimize the impact to those adjacent areas to the south of Ithe landfill . These mitigating measures may include landscaping and berming . In addition , the majority of the composting oper- aations are expected to be conducted within a building. The SCDHS Icurrently conducts a monitoring program for private wells and groundwater monitoring wells in the vicinity of the landfill . I 1 . 4 - PUBLIC HEARING n-'1 Minutes of the public hearing at Southold Town Hall are in- II cluded as part of Appendix A of this document. Comment 1 - Phil Barth 1 "You said that most of the facility would be indoors. What would be outdoors?" I 1 17. 1 111-2/44 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. ' 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 ' 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 and Huntington and the Village of Lawrence. The composting tech- nology for solid waste has a proven track record in Europe. Comment 4 - Richard Greenfield 1 "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 ' 18. I-2/4 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 ' 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 the 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. 1 111 1 19. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX A 1 1 1 1 1 1 ` NOV 04 SES 15:57 NYS(NV.CONS. P.2 ( New York State Department of Environmental Conservation dB Building 40—SUNY, Stony Brook, New York 11794 ISlb 7 1- ( ) S 7900 RECEIVED I NOV 4 .... Milirr Thomas C. Jorling Town Clerk Commissioner ' November 4, 1988 I Judith T. Terry, Southold Tom Clerk Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, N. Y. 11971 IIRe: Draft EIS-Town of Southold Composting of Municipal Solid IIWaste & Sludge Facility Dear Ms. Terry: 1 The NYSDEC has completed review of the subject Draft EIS and offers the following comments: In section 2.00 - 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 II water required for composting, its' source and an evaluation of impacts, if any on the source. II 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 IIincluded. Section 5.11 - Potential Impacts to Public Safety - This section should I 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. II 'Thank you for your cooperation regarding the environmental review of this important project. Sincerely. ' Y• David DeRidder Deputy Regional Permit Administrator IDDR:rw cc: H. D. Berger P. Roth/A. Patel I P. Barbato/W. Spitz aceir-1/1-03 -671 1 r RECEIVED 1 SEP 1 6 1988 Beath,w T,.,,,., (^pori II MEMORANDUM II TO: Francis J. Murphy, Supervisor • Members of the Town Board FROM: Valerie Scopaz, Town Planner I RE: Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement for proposed Municipal Solid Waste Composting Facility for Southold Town. DATE: August 26, 1988 II The above-referenced document has been reviewed. It appears I to be substantially complete, but certain items should be placed in the completed DEIS; to wit: 1. A site plan showing the location of the existing I 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 II measured. 3 . In Section-2 much of the discussion on the toxicity of compost could be condensed into tabular form. The II 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 garbage content is. This section attempts to do this I but does not do so clearly. II 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 Itranslocation, cation exchange capacity, etc. 5 . Spell out all acronyms or provide a key. Again, the average lay person doesn' t know what the letters RCRA IIstand for. 6 . Section 3 . 21 on page 3 .17 should clarify status of the IIexisting leachate plume. See notes on draft. 7. Designation of area as Level I should be explained, because the designation of Level II, as written on { II page 3 .18, also appears to apply. . P ' 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. ' 9. Two changes must be made to page 4.10 as noted. 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. 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. ,cam-�/ 7 d , '�1'`'�l l/ 1 - - - Sc-)114T 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 I 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 during 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, 1988, Judith T. Terry, Southold Town Clerk." ' I have an affidavit of publication by the Traveler-Watchman, and a like affidavit Page 2- DEIS composting ■ 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. SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Thank you, George. Okay, at this time I'd like to ask consultant George Desmarais, first to make a brief statement concerning this. George? GEORGE DESMARAIS, P.E. , representing Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C. , consultants to the Town on the Composting/Solid Waste/Sludge Facility: Just 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 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 neccessary permits from the New York State DEC, plus construction and enviromental permits are all followed. That's basically the whole project. What 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 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 ' 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? Yes, sir. ' PHIL BARTH : You said that most of the facility would be indoors. What would be outdoors? 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, they would store the compost out in windrow piles beforeit is then marketed after Idigestion of the whole solid waste material itself. PHIL 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 I the right? George, you're not getting paid much today. Yes? We need your name, just for the record. I DAVID ISRAEL: David Israel. Has this system be used in any other municipals, muncipali in this area? IGEORGE 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 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. ISUPERVISOR MURPHY: I might add that each of the five firms that have submitted • a proposal that we're looking at, all have operating facilities mostly in Europe, Iof 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? 1 . GEORGE DESMARAIS: Another thing that I have is just a quick notice as far Ias the history of composting process and project, and I"II leave that on the table, Frank, for anyone that's interested. Page 4 - DEIS composting SUPERVISOR MURPHY: Okay, we'll recess until 7:30 tonight, when we'll take additional comments. Public hearing reconvened at 7:30 P.M. SUPERVISOR 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 ' Impact Statement with respect to the Town Composting of Muncipal Solid Waste and Sludge. George will read the official Notice. COUNCILMAN 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, ' 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 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 posting affidavits. 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 from the H2M firm to make a short presentation. 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 ' operations 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 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 (. l • Page 5 - DEIS composting ' 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 Iif anyone has any questions. Thank You. I 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? IRICHARD GREENFIELD: My name is Richard Greenfield. I am a citizen of Southold, and resident of the village of Peconic. I'm President of the Suffolk 1 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 1 associated facts. Section 8.3. Waste distillation. The word following waste distillation, which is the word in quotation marks, paralysis. The proper word Ifor the proper chemical indentification of waste distillation is destructive distillation. That is the proper chemical terminology for the process. On the following I 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 Imake it explosive. It is merely a clean burning gas. So the word explosive, I take exception to. Thank you. ISUPERVISOR MURPHY: We'll address it. Thank you, Dick. Anyone else? (No response.) Any Town Board members? (No response.) Hearing, none we'll close Ithis public hearing. 1 _ fr dith T. Terry Southold Town Clerk I 1 I I 1 I IAPPENDIX B I I I I I I I I I II1 1 1 CRO3 IHolzmacher, 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. zdtfyG' 6/7- George W. Desmarais , P.E. GWD/JF/vm 11 1R1ville, N.Y. •Riverhead, N.Y. •Fairfield, N.J. DRAFT � ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT � SOLID WASTE/SLUDGE � COMPOSTING FACILITY SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK Prepared for: ' Town of Southold ' 53095 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 AUGUST 1988 1 � I IIMGROUP 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 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO. COVER SHEET ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ' PREAMBLE P. 1 1 . 0 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. 1 11 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 II IITABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D. ) 1 PAGE NO. 1 4 . 0 - EXISTING HUMAN ENVIRONMENT 4.1 4 . 1 - MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC 4. 1 1 4 . 2 - LAND USE AND ZONING 4. 3 4. 3 - COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES 4.12 II4 . 4 - DEMOGRAPHY 4.13 4 . 5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.18 II5 . 0 ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 5. 1 1 5 . 1 - GEOLOGY 5 . 2 1 5. 1. 1 - SUBSURFACE AND SURFACE 5 . 2 5. 1. 2 - TOPOGRAPHY 5. 3 I5 . 2 - WATER RESOURCES 5. 3 5. 2. 1 - GROUNDWATER 5. 3 1 5 . 2. 2 - SURFACE WATER 5.5 1 5 . 3 - AIR QUALITY 5.7 5 . 3. 1 - DUST 5.7 II5. 3. 2 - ODOR SOURCES 5 .11 5. 3. 3 - AIRBORNE PATHOGENS 5.12 1 5 . 4 - TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY 5.17 1 5 . 4 . 1 - VEGETATION 5.17 5. 4 . 2 - WILDLIFE 5.18 II 5 . 5 - ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC 5.18 5 . 6 - LAND USE AND ZONING 5 .19 1 5 . 7 - COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES 5. 20 1 ii 1 II II TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D. ) IPAGE NO. 5. 8 - DEMOGRAPHY 5 . 23 II 5 . 9 CULTURAL RESOURCES 5. 24 II5 . 10- IMPACTS TO NOISE LEVELS 5 . 24 5. 10. 1 - ON-SITE NOISE 5 . 24 II5. 10. 2 - OFF-SITE NOISE 5 . 26 5 . 11- POTENTIAL IMPACTS TO PUBLIC SAFETY 5 . 27 II 6 . 0 MITIGATION MEASURES 6. 1 II 6 . 1 - ODOR REDUCTION AND CONTROL 6. 1 6 . 2 - GROUNDWATER PROTECTION 6. 3 II6. 3 - VISUAL ENHANCEMENT 6. 3 6. 4 - DUST MITIGATION AND CONTROL 6. 3 II6. 5 PATHOGEN CONTROL 6. 5 II6. 6 - POTENTIAL IMPACT DETECTION (MONITORING) 6. 5 6. 6. 1 - PROCESS MONITORING 6.5 II6. 6. 2 - OCCUPATIONAL MONITORING 6 . 6 6. 6. 3 - PRODUCT MONITORING 6 . 6 11 6. 6. 4 - ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 6. 7 I 6. 7 - CONTINGENCY PLAN 6. 7 7 . 0 - ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT IIBE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED 7 .1 8 . 0 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THEIR ASSOCIATED IMPACTS 8.1 II8 . 1 - NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 8. 2 I 8 . 2 - MASS-BURN INCINERATION (RESOURCE RECOVERY FACILITY) 8. 3 II iii I TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D. ) ' PAGE NO. 8. 3 - WASTE DISTILLATION ( "PYROLYSIS" ) 8. 3 ' 8. 4 - REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL (RDF) TECHNOLOGY 8. 5 11 8 . 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 10 . 0 - GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS 10.1 11 . 0 - USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY 11. 1 11REFERENCES R. 1 11 iv I ILIST OF TABLES ITABLE PAGE NO. TITLE NO. II 1 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF METAL CONTENT IN DIFFERENT HOUSEHOLD WASTE FRACTIONS 2 . 8 II 2 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 I 4 OBSERVED RANGES OF SOIL-DERIVED ESSENTIAL PLANT NUTRIENT ELEMENTS IN SOIL AND COMPOST 2. 18 II 5 MICRO-FLORAL POPULATION DURING AEROBIC COMPOSTING, NUMBERS PER GRAM OF WET COMPOST 2. 20 6 CATEGORIES OF COMPOST USERS 2. 23 I 7 STRATIGRAPHIC COLUMN 3. 5 I 8 AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS 3. 20 9 NON-CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS 3. 22 II10 PAST, PRESENT & PROJECTED POPULATION LEVELS: CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD & SUFFOLK COUNTY 4.17 II 11 AVERAGE AIRBORNE DUST AND ENDOTOXIN CONCENTRATIONS 5. 9 II12 CONCENTRATIONS OF THERMOPHILIC ACTINOMYCETES IN DIFFERENT MATERIALS (NOS. PER GRAM, DRY IIWEIGHT) 5.14 13 RANGE OF NOISE LEVELS AT VARIOUS UNIT WASTE II PROCESSING AREAS 5. 25 11 II II v 11 1 11 LIST OF FIGURES 1 FIGURE PAGE NO. TITLE NO. 1 1 LOCATION MAP 1. 2 2 GENERALIZED ISOMETRIC GEOLOGICAL CROSS 1 SECTION OF THE SOUTHOLD PENINSULA 3. 3 3 HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION 3. 4 ' 4 SOILS MAP 3 . 8 5 CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL - TOPOGRAPHY 3. 15 6 EXISTING LAND USE 4. 4 ' 7 EXISTING ZONING 4 . 7 8 CENSUS DESIGNATED PLACES 4 .14 1 1 LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX A - SPECIES LIST ' APPENDIX B - ZONING CODE EXCERPTS 1 1 1 i 1 i vi i I 111 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ' COMPOSTING FACILITY SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK LOCATION: Middle ( North ) Road , Town of Southold; 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 ' 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 Sanitary Engineer 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. I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Thisr f D a t 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. We would also like to acknowledge representatives of the Town of Southold and the NYSDEC for their assistance and input ' 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 James A. Schondebare, Esq. , Town Attorney 11 Robert H. Berntsson, Asst. Town Attorney Valarie Scopaz, Planning Chairman Melissa Spiro, Planning Department 1 I I PREAMBLE 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 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 I 1 our base of knowledge from similar devlopment actions. The as- Isumptions of this document are based on known scientific fact , sound ecological practice and take into account the experienced I beneficial and detrimental effects of suburbanization of the natu- ral and human environments . 1 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 I proposed action are quantified where possible , in order to measure the magnitude of the impacts. Each section of the docu- Iment contains a detailed assessment for each significant issue of Iconcern . This document has been prepared based on a generic compost- ' ing facility. The Town of Southold is currently requesting pro- posals from qualified vendors for the design and construction of Ia composting facility. It is anticipated that the Final Environ- ' mental Impact Statement will contain vendor-specific information on the selected proposal . I I I 1 I I P.2 I I 1. 0 - EXECUTIVE 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 I (North ) Road, between Depot and Cox Lanes and south of Oregon I Road, Town of Southold ( refer to Figure 1 ) . It is intended that a building to house the composting process operations be con- I structed near the existing materials recovery drop-off building. A roofed storage/staging area would be constructed on an impervi- Ious surface located in the southwestern corner of the landfill I property, where construction/demolition debris and junk cars are buried . The end product of the intended composting facility I process, compost, may be used for Public Works projects and sold for use as a non-agricultural soil conditioner , or dedicated Iusage such as a golf course , industrial park or other Inon-agricultural purpose . The Cutchogue landfill is located within two zoning districts , "A" Residential- Agricultural and I C-1 , General Industry. The proposed action is located entirely in the former zoning district. No change of zone is required for I the proposed action. It is intended that the applicant will landscape the area Iaround the proposed composting facility, which will aid in maxi - I mizing the buffer value in terms of visual screening. The present land use of the landfill property is industrial , Iwith the on-going activities of landfilling and sand mining . I AIM 1. 1 I FIGURE 1 ya/ moi` '.• ,-.,. ' _—%- - �/ r 10 'esuZ.? 0 - �___., j, ` Duck Pod '•;a, 'w+++ ;:: 2, / �:''1 ---s a •tw= rw �. . .o ° •. n i • �jJ � s � `oi� `o .9, 40 O °,> i • \ o ' % � ii ,e • � wi / r i / i / ¢• �°* \ PROPOSED PROJECT 111 46 �� �� \ °o `oa.:..._.. . fit . AREA \. 4- - "4-1, ,,,,.. .,.? -. . ,.. 46,k -Ss+ !.• N •pF • ,�IS. �/ 1. 1 - �- if • a a+ X. \ r ,. .. t i * �a *'°+ °• ' "� h CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL >o` °a +*/,4'57 \ %9 .:•,,,s �.. :�` ''\ r— .�-s �.c 1' a++ ACL \ 07:::::_j.-_\ �/ - '\\-- / /� � •el+. -.4 •''�y. ,, Cu hogueSt3 �' BMJ �. .O r ;:.`f o , �-Z •s' \ * 010 ` a �^ _ • ' . %• , Sacred Heart \ • VV ✓�� ` ss.• / ✓ \ `:. ' •v 11 o..y�^ Y '! \ - :Cutuhogue •• _ -•s,, I - T H Q\ / LO% '� D\/tis \' . • :�;;°• �: Y Sc i•• . LOCATION MAP CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL TOWN OF SOUTHOLD I • REFERENCE: SOUTHOLD & MATTITUCK HILLS QUADRANGLE INEW YORK—SUFFOLK CO. • 7.5 MINUTE SERIES Itoco 1000 2000 3000 4000 woo 6000 7003 FEET CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL I REFERENCE DATUM: N 41 ° 01 ' 40" W 72° 30' 00" IENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS IFI2AGROUP MELVILLE, N.Y. RIVERHEAD, N.Y. FAIRFIELD, N.J. I 1.2 Portions (particularly in the north) 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- 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, I 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 I 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: - 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 1 b. "bad batch" disposal 1. sludge ' 2 . municipal solid waste 3. pre-cured composted product c. post-cured composting product contingency ' disposal d. facility performance , contingency in terms of volume reduction ' 1.5 I I2.0 - DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION II This discussion on the description of the proposed action 11 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- Iposal (RFP ) concerning the composting operation is received from vendors and a vendor is selected. A general description of the 1 composting process is provided in this section of the document, as well as the intended location of the operation. IISpecific details will be provided in the Final Environmental II 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 IIcomposting facility to be situated on approximately eleven ( 11 ) Iavailable 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 ilentering the landfill for disposal, and thereby further extending Ithe life of landfilling operations at the Cutchogue landfill , the n-ITown has chosen to undertake a composting operation. It is in- II tended that the composting facility will operate continuously during the ten hour work day, five days per week. ( Shorter Iprocessing hours may occur during the winter months when the II 2.1 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 ) . 1 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/ e-' composter operators for the tipping floor and compost areas, me- i" 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 2.2 lines . The landfill property is adjacent to residential, agri- cultural and limited commercial/industrial land uses. Approximately three ( 3 ) or more acres of land area will be 11 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 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, 11 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 1 systems : static pile, in-vessel or windrow. Simplistically, the composting process consists of shredding 1 its MSW; mixing the MSW with a moisture source; aeration, which ' 2.3 1 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 1 mixture, or the use of a blower to force or draw air through the mixture, or both. In the overall composting process description, municipal 1 solid waste (MSW) brought to the facility will be deposited on a concrete tipping floor by commercial vehicles, or in a separate 1 bay on the concrete floor or in dumpsters to be moved into the tipping floor by non-commercial vehicles. Prior to discharging 1 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 11 Sludge from the Village of Greenport Wastewater Treatment Plant ' 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 . 11 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 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- 11 lation in maintaining a uniform internal temperature in the en- 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 I than static pile systems . Following curing is the drying of the mixture and recovery of the bulking agent ( both of which are 1 optional steps in the process) , storage/disposal and marketing of the final product, as applicable. 2.5 11 11 In windrow systems, the compost/sludge/bulking agent mixture 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 11 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 composted material is usually stockpiled for curing prior to dis- tribution . ' D. Compost Product The compost to be produced may be characterized according to 11 its : • chemical characteristics I - physical characteristics biological characteristics • maturity (stability) 11 • general agricultural usefulness D.1 . Compost Chemical Characteristics Heavy metals and toxic organic compounds, plant macro-nutri- ents and micro-nutrients are the primary chemical characteristics 11 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 I recycling , as well as preprocessing steps employed at the fa- Icility. The exclusion from the composting process and hence the product of material containing undesirable chemical contaminants Iwill greatly reduce the levels of these contaminants in the finished compost product. Also, the more "green wastes" , such as IIgrass 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 Iwaste collection and storage facility. Consequently, the Town 's STOP ( Stop Throwing Out Pollutants ) program may significantly reduce the amount of potentially toxic and hazardous materials Ifrom entering the composting process. D.1 .A. Heavy Metals 11 Table 1 shows the percentage distribution of metals among various solid waste components . The metals are mainly concen- 1 trated in metal , plastics , paper , rubber and leather fractions. I Of these constituents , metal , plastics , rubber and leather fractions are excluded from the compost product at either the Ipreprocess or postprocess steps . Thus , a degree of control is exercised over the input of metals to the compost product. The 11 recycling and removal of metals to this facility could reduce Ithe heavy metal content of the product if this proves to be feasible in Southold. 1 A recent study conducted in the Netherlands (Oosthoek and Smit, 1987 ) reported the metal content of the composted household Iwaste . Table No. 2 shows the concentrations of six metals of I concern as a function of processing method . The data shows that 1 2. 7 II IITABLE 1 I PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF METAL CONTENT IN DIFFERENT HOUSEHOLD WASTE FRACTIONS IIPERCENTAGES % OFTOTAL FRACTION Cd Cu Cr Cu Hg Mn Ni Pb Zn METALS IIPlastics 26 1 5 2 10 1 1 5 1 6 I Paper 4 5 7 11 13 18 3 3 11 8 Animal Matter 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 11 Vegetable Matter 2 1 2 3 6 4 3 2 4 3 Textiles 1 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 2 11 Rubber & Leather 4 1 42 1 3 1 1 2 9 7 IIMetals 60 88 43 22 60 74 87 85 68 63 Miscellaneous 3 4 3 63 3 4 6 4 6 10 11 1 . Environmental Protection Board of Swedish Energy Admin. , 1986 . Metal Content Cd - Cadmium II Cu - Copper Cr - Chromium Hg - Mercury II Mn - Manganese Ni - Nickel Pb - Lead Zn - Zinc I II II II II II 2.8 r II TABLE 2 IIHEAVY METAL CONCENTRATION OF HOUSEHOLD WASTE - DERIVED COMPOSTS AS A FUNCTION OF PROCESSING I METHOD (mg/kg dry weight) IIMETAL PROCESSING METHOD AB C D IIZn 1700 800 520 230 Pb 800 700 420 160 IICu 600 270 100 50 IICr 180 70 40 30 Ni 110 35 25 10 11 Cd 7 2.5 1. 8 1. 0 ' FOOTNOTES: 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. II B. 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 Icomposting process. C. The collected waste is shredded. Processing methods are then I carried out which result in a fraction to be composted. This fraction is already free of inerts as glass or plastics. ' D. 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 do not enter the organic components. 11 II II 2.9 the greater 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 . The compost that is considered acceptable for marketing will be required to comply 1 with State regulations for maximum concentrations of heavy metals . These heavy metal concentrations include zinc, lead, mercury, nickel , chromium, cadmium and copper . 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 In general , soil pH, organic matter and cation exchange ca- pacity (CEC) will work in concert to influence the solubility and movement of toxic metals in the soil/water system. As pH in- creases, the solubility of Cd, Ni, Pb, Zn and Cu decreases . Mo- 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 ' beet 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. 1 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 111tissues can enter the food chain, subsequently reaching human 2.11 11 I ' beings directly by ingestion or indirectly 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 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. 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 i (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- post does not pose a human or animal health problem due to its ' 2.13 low toxicity. The FDA recognizes 15 ppm copper 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 II TABLE 3 I ADMISSIBLE LEVELS OF HEAVY METALS IN COMPOST RECOMMENDED BY FOUR SOURCES (mg/kg) II ELEMENT AB C D E I Cd 3 5 3 25 10 Cr 300 200 NM 1000 1000 ICu 400 500 200 1000 1000 Ni 60 100 NM 200 200 IIPb 300-500 1000 250 1000 250 I Zn 1300 1500 800 NM 2500 Hg 3 5 NM NM 10 IIB NM NM 10 NM NM Mo NM NM NM NM NM A. 1987, Smit IIB. 1987 , Zucconi & deBertoldi IC. 1983, Kempa D. 1984 , Hornick, USDA I E. NYS Max. Sludge Constituent Levels for Public Distribution of Compost (NYSDEC Proposed Part 360 Regulations ) I NM Not Mentioned 11 11 II I 2.15 1 organic chemicals. Most municipal solid wastes contain 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 ' 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. Computer models exist to estimate the amount and concentra- tion of metals or toxic organics that could leach to groundwater . A method to evaluate this would be to utilize the USEPA toxicity ' ( leach) test. This test was developed to simulate leaching condi- tions 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 indicate ' that the metals are insoluble (possibly tied up in organic com- plexes ) and would not be expected to leach even under acidic conditions . This is provided to the reader for informational 2. 16 I Ipurposes , since it is proposed that the majority of the active I composting process be entirely sheltered so as to minimize leachate generation. ID.1.C. Plant Nutrients Essential plant nutrients , including nitrogen, phosphorus, I 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 concentrations in MSW composts. Table 4 presents observed ranges Ifor 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 exceptions of potassium and iron. In this sense, compost can be Ithought 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. tD. 2. Compost Physical Characteristics The physical characteristics of interest when evaluating Icomposts 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 Iinfluence 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 I bulk weight more than any other single factor. It is anticipated I 2. 17 I I II TABLE 4 IOBSERVED RANGES OF SOIL-DERIVED ESSENTIAL PLANT NUTRIENT ELEMENTS IN SOIL AND COMPOST I OBSERVED RANGE IN OBSERVED RANGE IN IELEMENT SOILS ( % )1 COMPOST (%) 2, 3 N 0. 02-0. 50 0. 1-1. 8 P 0. 01-0. 20 0 . 1-1. 7 I K 0 . 17-3. 30 0. 1-2. 3 Ca 0 .07-3. 60 0 . 6-10 Mg 0 . 12-1. 50 0. 25-2 . 5 II S 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 Cl 0 .001-0. 1 NR IMo 0 .00002-0 .0005 0. 001 ISOURCES: 1. Mitchell, R.L. , 1955 IN: Brady, N.C. , 1974 2 . Brunt, L.P. , R.B. Dean & Tabasaran, 1980 I 3 . USEPA, 1971 Notes : INR - Not Reported 1 I I I I 2.18 that the finished compost will be in the range of 55 to 65 per- , cent 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 1 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 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- 111 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 I II I TABLE 5 IMICRO-FLORAL POPULATION DURING AEROBIC COMPOSTING NUMBERS PER GRAM OF WET COMPOST I NOS. OF I MESOPHILIC MICRO- 70°C 70°C ORGANISMS INIT. TEMP. THERMOPHILIC INITIAL IDENTIFIED TO 40°C 40° TO 70°C TEMP. (SPECIES ) Bacteria Mesophilic 10 10 10 6 IIThermophilic 10 10 10 1 Actinomycetes 1 Thermophilic 10 10 10 14 Fungi Mesophilic 10 10 10 18 I Thermophilic 10 10 10 16 IISOURCE: Obeng & Wright, 1987 1 - Number less than or equal to number stated I I I I II II I 2.20 I 1 is prepared, mesophilic microbial activity within the mass gener- 1 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. IAside 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 1 on the survival of pathogenic bacteria, viruses, protozoa, hel- minths, actinomycetes, fungi and other secondary pathogens can be 1 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 1 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 1 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 11 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 1 Dependent on NYSDEC testing standards, compost may be used in agriculture, horticulture , home gardening, landscaping or in commercial farming and forestry operations. Some uses, such as a fertilizer or potting soil ingredient, 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 usually 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 I 11 TABLE 6 IICATEGORIES OF COMPOST USERS GROWERS1 SERVICES3 II Golf Course Landscape Planning Greenhouse Landscape Design i Home Gardeners Landscape Contractors WHOLESALE/RETAIL4 Lawn Maintenance II Nursery Garden Center Plants Greenhouse Equip. & Supplies Seeds & Bulbs Lawn & Garden Equip. & Supplies Sod & Sod Services Nursery Equip. & Supplies IPROCESSORS2 BULK USERS5 I Fertilizer Contractors Land Reclamation Fertilizer Mfgs/Supply Landfill Cover Topsoil Parks II Sand & Gravel Roadsides 1 Growers prefer a refined compost product to meet specific II chemical and physical criteria. Potential for use as a field or potting soil amendment. II 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. II3 Service businesses are in a position to specify the use of compost on building and landscaping construction and mainte- nance projects. II4 Wholesale/retail markets generally prefer a bagged product for resale. II5 Bulk users represent businesses or operations that consume compost at disposal rates on large acreages or volumes . II II 1 II 2.23 1 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 1 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 1 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 1 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 . - A Part 360 application for all solid waste management fa- cilities is required pursuant to Title 6 of the New York Code of 1 Rules and Regulations , Part 360 ( 6 NYCRR 360 ) . Said facilities include composting . The Part 360 application packet consists of 2.24 I IIa lengthy application checklist, delineating all forms, reports, Iengineering plans , etc . which must accompany the application . Information including , but not limited to, an operation plan of Ithe facility is also required. - The Part 360 application checklist delineates that the 1 State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA, 6 NYCRR 617 ) re- I quirements be met by completing Part I of a Full Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) . Said EAF accompanies the application . IThe 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, Ihas deemed this EIS necessary in order to address environmental concerns . 1 - Pursuant to 6 NYCRR 360 . 8 (b) ( i) (xviii) , a State Pollutant IDischarge Elimination System (SPDES) discharge permit is required for facilities that generate , collect and discharge leachate , Iexcept for those facilities which recycle any leachate or direct it to an area that has been specifically designed with a liner Iand a collection system. - If the facility utilizes an on-site disposal system and discharges domestic wastewater to groundwater or surface water , a ISPDES permit will be required. Discharge of domestic wastewater to a local treatment facility would require sewer connection ap- tproval on the local level. 1 2.25 I 11 II - An air emissions permit would be required only if there IIwould be an emission into the air from a stationary point, or if a methane collection system or a flare system are being proposed. INew 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- 111 oxide, fluorides , beryllium and hydrogen sulfide . - A Long Island well permit ( 6 NYCRR 602 ) will be required I if a well is proposed which would draw more than 45 gallons per minutes (gpm) . 11 - During construction of any part of the facility, a tempo- Irary discharge permit is required if dewatering will result in a surface water discharge or groundwater diversion. I - 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- IIsightly conditions to ensure public health, safety and welfare. on-ICompliance with these NYSDEC Part 360 regulations will be con- 111 sidered with regard to economic and technologic feasibility. Monitoring Requirements IIDuring start-up of the facility, the Contractor will be Irequired to conduct tests to verify compliance with existing regulatory requirements (NYCRR Part 360 ) and other potential 11 permit conditions . Local Permits IA variety of local permits may also be applicable, including those required by building codes and zoning regulations that may Iapply to the construction and operation of the facility. 11 2. 26 II 11 Suffolk County Department of Health Services IThe facility design plans will be reviewed by the local county agency to ensure that the project conforms to local health Irequirements . 1 I I II I I II 1 II I 1 II I I 2.27 II 11 I3.0 - ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING I This section of the DEIS examines the existing state of the I project site and adjacent environs in terms of natural conditions . The proposed composting operation is to be located on a portion Iof the Cutchogue landfill . Landfilling and sand mining are the Iactivities currently undertaken on the landfill property. Sev- eral adverse impacts are associated with these activities includ- eing , but not limited to , loss of native vegetation, habitat loss (and consequently a reduction in animal species inhabiting the Iproperty ) , erosion , loss of agricultural soils and leachate pro- 111 ro-' duction. Section 3. 0, Environmental Setting, discusses geology, water Iand air resources and terrestrial ecology of the project site . Section 4 . 0 , Existing Human Environment, discusses motor vehicle 1 traffic, land use and zoning, community services and facilities , IIdemographics and cultural resources. I3 .1 - GEOLOGY The Geology section investigates the subsurface, surface and 1 topographic characteristics of the project site and adjacent en- Ivirons . 3. 1 .1 - Subsurface I Long Island was formed by glacial deposits of the Pleisto- cene Glacial Age, which occurred approximately half a million to 11 two million years ago . Pleistocene deposits overlie unconsoli- ' dated materials, which had been deposited during prior geologic 3.1 II II periods . Irregular plains and rolling hills, formed from sandy Iand gravelly ground moraine and outwash deposits of sand and gravel , lie in the area between the ridges of the plains and IIhills . A cross section of the hydrogeologic units underlying the subject parcel consists of consolidated bedrock. The depth to Ithe surface of bedrock is approximately 800 feet below surface level in the vicinity of the subject parcel. IThe 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 I composed of hydrogeologic units, including lenses and layers of clay, silt, clayey and silty sand, sand and gravel . A hydrogeo- IIlogic unit includes aquifers and confining layers which separate the aquifers . The aquifers (which are principal water source IIlayers ) are , from the land surface downward, the Upper Glacial I aquifer, the Magothy aquifer and the Lloyd aquifer . The major confining layer is the Raritan clay. Refer to both Figures 2 and I3 and Table 7 which illustrate the generalized isometric geologi- cal cross section of the Southold peninsula , the hydrogeologic IIcross 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- Igated further in Section 3. 2. 3 . 1 . 2 - Surface IThe soil associations, as well as the soil types , underlying the project site have been identified from the U. S. Department of II 3.2 II FIGURE 2 1 I AigitllIllIllIllIllibp, .40 N0RTN 0 ORp\N R0.•:•;�.^.l.•, EA LEVEL M ORES SILVER LAKE -� fir;•' `•' I *5 . 7,,„ _ GREENP •'Y' • A• pprox. SEA LEVEL !�. •,•.. LI,R.R.~, • -+ • �,� �� •• � : •:; • /Salt Water— • . •,� :•: •• 'i{ . !.. ••; / ... �::: P° •• 7loo Fresh Water -it •: :• •ciA. .. ,• Interface I .1005. •1oc ?•-• '.. : • :'.P-Els ` :j/,•:•., ;PER , " :,;, C -200 • ▪ • .• ::, //,: /.;!f n or • • �Pr ••••••••.. /;jj�i% '• • � • •• �• 1� ,.. �� :::4,/.;-.{-..1./:• 7: -300 , '''• \\\ \\ :\\ G • " .% •:j. GOA•: /% si i •700-•••••:::',:•\�\.g. .;� • / • . �. • • • ,�. ;•T,T�, t-.: :•. .. %.•/:' /- /-- / U O •{ •$'....i...:1".",▪?..; • � ,'...,,`. e,. / //• ''' -/ / , . t�- ./▪ • • • • •: • 1/1 • " 7"1 •500 `Q= .. •• :!i ,-• •-`,� %% • ' - '.' ii. • _mow .••- ..':••.' // Er-if/ •/ il0 t; - , 7 . • ".• :� • •.i.•/ ///•, .. ./ ic:::r'-A�P ...:::,.:Sty • \ - - • :; ll: i+ r. ..: ars -600 ., E .'G*,;Ili\ W4.44'0.11'14• ::;i... � � � `� '',/,'' /,/ 'G' 4g,. ''•`JIq.� .11' 5i.-' //sJ -:II.4 -600->vsi; i.};..�- �- - - / • ' •••11'`•!` -,••••••••: •..\�y/.i 4':,,..vc�q•,•4Air!evy.'i 4,** 1 .:::i::.:::••:i::'••::;:: :: �• � �- /, �;:?i:;::;r:+:.�� :•��.'q\i�:1.3�paft(I',hAw't.i 111:4;::.,1>=:,:::::::.. •'SP • .0t,-;:i� i'i`;,.. J r�ll.,+., };Irg• t::: :¢ :,..•..• "0 ri{aii�:;{:iy . •. � ''�.a):f�.\\T;\\ ,_qg�',Vh` J,O •��1/i�y�� •� ::.....�:iii?:::ii}?.:,iiE'.c :ii;'iii ,,,,,,,,,,,,-,..,440,„..„...-......„. � .♦ 0::...::::„..............„.......,...................„..,,,,,,, :i� , .• ,i: ', :,. • tl ' I ../ ,A-.1,...,.......114:-.4,,,,,..,-,-,y,1. 1,-; _q,1 !:::? •.� p .art - �,• R ..1'- 4 tl 1- .+If 1 ' : ':;�` t111 . ?' �. ` • �C��r4,yF ;> • •:.1.1.::tr:.t i `ira:Ib1z � , I;2 •:',"- .4,i OJL3 ^s,��i��la/• • ..1 ...: �•`' w�u�i��;RlM �/,t;2;• u• O• �' `Via �£M� �� ,.. �\_ovAwr1n-v+' � .�T , � .Mip 64, /1I1�\▪ ,- IGeneralized Isometric Geological Cross Section of the Southold Peninsula ISOURCE: Section 201 Wastewater Facility Plan of the Mainland Portion of the Town of Southold. H2M. August, 1978. I • • • II2MGf?OUP ENGINEERS MELVILLE, N.Y. ARCHITECTS RIVERHEAD, N.Y.PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS FAIRFIELD' N.J. ' 3.3 I FIGURE 3 I Q Iz � co W 0 cV o•" ' QO o . 8 ( , mQ CY_0 zQ d O- J CO400' E a m a i.E E' — a f- b E H =400' 3 N I SEA a W `')' Shore Acres LEVEL _ _ SEA LEVEL �Gardiners Clay �� Upper glacial aquifer — 400 — Monmouth greensand \�� ----_—_-400' II — Magothy aquifer y� 800•— Raritan IaY ���i 800' I _ aquifer 1200'— LioYd r�� 7J —1200 1600'— TJ/7������ Bedrock — I '�/77777� —1600' I Im CI c Q � • _o O I o V a o— F: E c�� o $� = �o E d y ti F do = E I 200' N ~ _ F' 200' SEA _< rn Greenport _ SEA LEVEL Upper glacial aquifer _ LEVEL 7------==-\---=-=— Gardiners Clay a00 — ______"— i Magothy aquifer _ ��� fr— 400' — Monmouth greensand �— �7/// — soo — �T I —= c1aY �� — Raritan �� — 800' 1200' —1.__------ LioY���Iler����� Bedrock —1200' I 1600' r-7-77-777-7:77/7777777� —1600' 1 HYDROGEOLOGIC CROSS SECTION (VERTICAL EXAGGERATION ABOUT X20) IPROJECT SITE IS LOCATED EQUIDISTANT FROM CROSS SECTIONS EE'" & FF'- SOURCE: JENSEN AND SOREN, 1974 II ,4tGREUP MNG`NEERS • ARCHITECELVILE. N.Y. TS E • PLANNERS • SCAD, N.Y. IENTISTS N.J. 1 3.4 I 1111/4 HOLZMACHER,McLENDON&MURRELL,P.C. I TABLE 7 Stratigraphic Column (with general water-bearing properties related to the hydrogeologic units) II STRATIGRAPHY HYDROGEOLOGIC UNIT THICKNESS DESCRIPTION I Geologic Age Geologic Unit System Series y ..itli Shore, Beach, 0-50' Some lenses of fresh I/ 4f', and Salt-Marsh (Suffolk Co.) water near the sur- ! face. Clay and silt c in bay bottoms con- °' " fine water in under- Upper lying strata. I x° a z Till and Moraine m 0-100' Unsorted and low z o Deposits a. (Suffolk Co.) hydraulic conductiv- p ity, chiefly above a Glacial N water table. II . d Lacustrine and 0-200' Clays, silts, low v Marine Deposits (Suffolk Co.) hydraulic conductiv- m c ity. .4 Y+ I/ . c Outwash Deposits Aquifer 0-350' Stratified sand and a (Suffolk Co.) gravel. High hy- draulic conductivity; 200 ft/day average yields 150 gpm with II spec. cap. over 50 gpm/ft of drawdown. Water table situated here. San- Gardiners Clay Gardiners Clay 0-50' Marine deposits of I gaman - clay and silt low hydraulic conductivity. :man F 8 Manetto Gravel See Outwash De- 0-100' See Outwash Deposits. II 0 posits (Suffolk Co.) w 7K Monmouth Group Monmouth Green- 0-150' See Gardiners Clay. sand (Suffolk Co.) - I Matawan Group Magothy Aquifer 550 Feet Sands, silts, clays, Magothy Forma- gravel. Hydraulic tion (Undiffer- conductivity; 70 ft/ m entiated) day: Yields as much a ,_ as 1500 gpm. Water is a a c confined. O 5 -I v ' Clay Member Raritan Clay 150 Feet Clays, silt, some F k g gravel, confining. I a" Lloyd Sand Lloyd Aquifer 350 Feet Sand, gravel, - Member moderate hydraulic r conductivity; 20-70 N ft/day. Not signifi- 0 cantly developed..— ' X la Crystalline Bedrock Not Known Gneiss and schist of o Rocks low hydraulic conduc- t, tivity. Surface is m weathered to a greenish clay. Bottom of ground- PRE-CAMBRIAN water reservoir. 11 m w w w 9 P (*Compilation of local data and Jensen & Soren, 1974) IIX : Indicates buried surface of erosion SOURCE: Section 201 Wastewater Facility Plan of the Peconic River I Drainage Basin. H2M. August, 1976. 3.5 11 IIAgriculture , Soil Conservation Service report entitled, Soil Sur- Ivey of Suffolk County, New York, dated April 1975 . There is only one soil association underlying the project Isite , the Haven-Riverhead association. A soil association is a portion of land area having a distinctive proportional pattern of Isoils . An association is classified according to the major soil Itypes it contains, and is generally composed of one or more major soil types and at least one minor soil type . The soils in an Iassociation differ from one another according to various parame- ters , such as type , texture , composition, slope and depth . The IHaven-Riverhead association is generally characterized by deep , Inearly level to gently sloping, well drained, medium and moder- ately-coarse textured soils on glacial outwash plains . 1 The specific soil mapping units ( i . e . , soil types ) with their respective map symbols , approximate relative percentage and Icapability unit underlying the entire landfill site are listed Ias follows : Map Relative % Capability Symbol Mapping Unit of Site Unit ICpE Carver & Plymouth Sands , 15 to 35% Slopes 2 VII s-1 IHaA Haven Loam, 0 to 2% Slopes 15 I -1 I HaB Haven Loam, 2 to 6% Slopes 5 II e-1 Ma* Made Land 30 Unclassified II P1A* Plymouth Loamy Sand, 0 to 3% Slopes 35 III s-1 I P1B* Plymouth Loamy Sand, 3 to 8% Slopes 8 III s-1 11 3.6 I IMap Relative % Capability Symbol Mapping Unit of Site Unit IRdC Riverhead Sandy Loam, 8 to 15% Slopes 5 III e-1 IThese soils are illustrated in Figure 4 . The soils above marked with an asterisk (*) underlie the intended project area . IThese soils (Ma, PlA and P1B) are not considered by the Soil Sur- , vey to be prime agricultural soils . Prime Agricultural Soils IThe soils best suited for agricultural purposes are Class I and Class II soils, as indicated by the capability grouping units IIabove . Class I soils have few limitations to restrict their use. IClass II soils have moderate limitations which reduce the choice of plants or that require moderate conservation practices. The Isoil type HaA is a Class I soil ; soil type HaB is a Class II soil . IA capability grouping shows the general suitability of soils I for most kinds of field crops . The groupings are made based on the limitations of soils when utilized for agricultural purposes I 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 Icertain crops, such as cranberries , horticultural crops , or any other crop needing special management. I The capability system groups soils at three levels : 1 • Capability class , designated by Roman numerals I through VIII ; • Subclass , designated by small letters e, w, s or c; I and 3.7 I FIGUR:....;4 F::::R.„. I ''.v' YE :::--'71:. .. 11- ,,.••'' De Pm63 I $ ••.•'�� RdB =' .' IB -(� LONG ISLAND SOUND 1/ l'411°V...1141 itc1.2;;`, ..----- r •.•`.• ,; ',...*:4A- 4\ • HaA I luck Pond - , c ,�� Pork .p�s.•:..-.:PIA' HaA :..:•••., =arcs-. �,�• �.+ • 4Il 4 ' A.1:,,,,., y!..4v '•' IN4 -Y' 4; It- /11. ' tHaAM, :1111111‘4 , RdB HaA ,� '°:,' PIC E erlK c 11111111r111.2:11111IN �°�,�,;, t ' HaA i, CPE e- st, r' �.ti �� . '. Ha .t��'�`' .?' „ ,,,^ HaA I ‘2dA .' y"1` .� ast'f• t. T i RdB +`� CU co t IE•` LANDFI `` ' x4. , RdB �• PIA �' (-4- 1 HaB �`' 71111ffil*NcEN,,,. f 1 Pm63 44 ` ...(: r �► (•;•*/ Ha; 1 \. �' 1 �° '\�, e^ HaA / 1 IVB E e w,1>•--A,RdI3 CPE k. I ^cRdA4. � � r 1I. C HaB G f c C• H • , j. HaA .'�: h .----•, ...,,. >...3 — Nor— ‘114,41/ e aB Ha6 d • a ►t HaA R aB IRdA Qpm HaA QF • RdB RdC --"4'aeeili 041. „..\ e. : HaA , RdB A RdB APT: !;;HaA HaBiejo -5.1, 7_ HaA 'PIC I AIL 31 '-'024' Cuc d( • 9 IZO , Ha6 :;�:. ti.19- RdG � -.. = j ,,iii''sk ..,* , IA. .; HaA �'.414411 '�' �� JHa6 f nT -IA t ` t,!4'. HaA ,�• ..... .fli..s.f9aA H!. a 40 -2% 17/ ���...›.” •Ii -,‘. „,,,,,,,/ �I 1..1 4.4%1"; • •RdA .*:444\ Ha6 -viz, ....,,,c..,v--„, �. +� RdB • RdB Cutcho9ue% ._., , C•E I Han « •n _''s' ,� CO SOURCE: SOILS MAP Il SOIL SURVEY OF SUFFOLK SCALE: 10= 20,000'. co COUNTY DATED: APRIL 1975 ~ 12MG(�OVI ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS x O IC MELVILLE. N.Y. RIVERHEAD, N.Y. FAIRFIELD, N.J. I co 3.8 I • Capability unit, designated by Arabic numerals 1, 2 I or 3. The engineering properties, suitability limitations and capa- Ibility grouping of the soils listed previously are described here- in. IIt should be noted that the Soil Survey provides generic, Inot site-specific depth to the water table information. Site-spe- cific measurements reveal that depth to the water table underly- ' 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 Iproject site, depth to the water table is on the order of 38 to I53 feet. Carver Soils IEstimated engineering properties of the Carver soil series (CpE ) indicate the depth to the seasonal high water table is Igenerally greater than four feet, with a typical depth from the Isurface ranging from 0 to 22 inches for fine to coarse sand, and from 22 to 60 inches for coarse to gravelly sand. Permeability Iof 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 Ivalue ranges from 4 .5 to 5 . 5 . I The CpE soils generally are poorly suited as a source of topsoil, but good as sources of granular and fill material . The Ifeatures of these soils affect roadway/highway location in that there is poor trafficability and extensive cuts and fills may Iresult . For embankment foundations, the strength of these soils is generally adequate . For building foundations , these soils I have low compressibility. I 3.9 I The CpE soils are generally not suitable to land uses such Ias the siting of sanitary landfills , due to rapid permeability and the hazard of water pollution. IThe capability grouping unit for CpE soil is VII s-1 . This unit indicates rapid permeability and thus available moisture Icapacity is generally very low. The pH reaction is acidic. Natu- Iral fertility and organic matter content are low. The hazard of erosion is severe on steep slopes if vegetative cover is removed. IThese soils are too droughty, too steep or too stony for crops or pasture . They are not suitable for nursery stock or Iother crops due to their sandy texture and steep slopes. IHaven Soils Estimated engineering properties for the Haven soil series I (HaA and HaB) indicate the depth to seasonal high water table is greater than four feet , with the following categories of typical Idepth from surface: I • 0 - 19 inches for loam, silt loam and very fine sandy loam; I • 19 - 28 inches for silt loam, very fine sandy loam and gravelly loam; and I • 28 - 55 inches for gravelly sand, loamy sand, sandy loam, or stratified sand and gravel . I Permeability for Haven soils ranges widely. For the first Icategory listed above, permeability is 0 . 63 to 2 . 0 inches per hour . For the second and third categories , permeability is Igreater than both 2 .0 and 6 . 3 inches per hour, respectively. The I pH for all the categories is 4 . 5 to 5. 5. 3.10 The soils of HaA and HaB are 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 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 tsuited 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 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 . 1 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 ' 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 I 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-1. 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 . 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 I 3. 1 . 3 - Topography IThe following is based on information from an existing con- tour map of the Cutchogue landfill, prepared by H2M in April 1988 . IThe 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 Iportions 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. IThe elevations of the property vary greatly from north to south . Overall elevations on the landfill property range from I 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 Isea level (MSL) ; northern sand pit contains base elevations rang- ling from approximately 8 to 15 feet above MSL . The central and southern portions contain elevations ranging from approximately I 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 I elevations of approximately 26 feet above MSL. 1 I3.14 , , , , .. . . , . . • . . __ , FIGURE 5 _ - Ip- 1 , Ni. et, •115P e. 4 • 341) / .411, 1,` 4% i ,s'- \\ N . III / • I • I I l. / GP. ' 1 \ -' .„c......j r..,.... \......._ + , •? •1 '' , 1 .>, o 1 , ..e.4- 70,ailairnoessawass .. .prinallr -P-•'40 — --' is0 el I 0.1111 • \'''. \Co' )•---.---4-..- +• 00pm 4.-0.111111117•O• 11111111 + 5.. 04P 1, ••••• + 4- •• ?••• ..,1. 11116111111 1 + ( \Cs• •• ' .------1.1111.° • . -;-.11 ...'-", . It • ,‘,3, ,\ ir(WITI)7+,p.. illik / .9> , ... ..... ..„ e.. .„. + dik,...;., . r.::, / • • r \ + I rAr tt' c • •%•64:P a l• e. t.,:z• ....... ----_%,.4 via .... _______,... + (....- ---. j 0.? 4bo 4- N.:. 4 , \\ • + +,0- iceir „....: .6• ........• ---- \ .s. \ o. + . . :1', 110•:Tfp:„.„5° 4.`'...1 4. ,),.* . \ i I ‘;'') 11111,1:14/.1-'' ''.1-‘'-''''''':\\\\\\...\ .k ....+..:'' ''‘F‘'.1 4.: 1 /4 0 0.__ ..., i-- . 4.:". -----N: 1-:39,..Ill\il\+\ \\ .I_,,.,.* ------A 1111:11:17-14 4'‘'11:411i'1/4‘ 1611).'''It I 1 1.111 +I.' I".' ill 4'414 111111'\1111' 111----111111 lig I II II P I FE 2611 I 11111111111111":-1111111111111:-1 s'Aillikil II I r'_.......nu i lit:ii:1:111:14:11rilli•. -7-141:1111\+114 . , 11•1 1 N Allieddibb _. / 41*-_-_-____ -- ,,I0,--• of 4,* \ 4/P 0.• + tcv% ..:-\..........AO , • 4/.6 1 -,- + c__ - — - _- _:-_-_____,, ÷E -NI c • 13 * G`R 0 U N 0: 4-''s —-----.:1 WI....." ..---414:78—+ 411 :,.., W BR' , 7.-S+ - ,srt IBMINFOI _—_:__ ___ • F._ . •sce 439':1 + + I. I 0,...0 ÷ ,.§,• 4, + + ..ir ,fr.L... ......„, , + 7 I i4 IRMY ' +' 4' 1 41 •P 4..-- 1111110I \\ , v41 fit + + , __ \\\\ g / / 1 V So lei lib° 4. 4 '---: -----=----..-411111 + + A. \ I ' ; I/ / W jeilk Ocp° Z \11, RAU 411 I: Z + C---z----,-, ,;_ 1 .., \\ \ ale fir\ \ \ I, 1.1 • 71,F' 1 I 40 t ...1- n 1 I ‘414111111111111—7 ..9° c r I ÷. tialitiA„ ,..e. P , +_,„..• LDIIII lifil 'ilill +'''' , . • . \\ A ,,,,.2 + .., ir ,§)- / \ • i / .,_:_f-..L., 1 o + • •••• ..... . V + • .. ; ----// I I . ,s,.‘ p2 . I .•-• il ' v"8 + .., \ •' ( 9N .:_,..._ ..s...._- + \‘',\ , , , , , ,,... .... s ' \ • \5 • 1 • -1(.." I 1 0 n ,1 ri I .... 0 .0 k Re i , LEGEND . + - . ,•\ ,, ._ __ ..,- ., .-A111—,-,• +- <„ r 1 --.., .._, ., ,___.; --Li 7----i72 p• : --—— PROPERTY LINE 4.\\104k44.- . N)1 . 117.r_CNIIII"k • .104...4%.° r•"-1)v " ......................"4111111".-41-rAW"..a.ft'.-.6•••• •-- ._.._r•.••in...........,-4"...--.1.."'" -----4- - -- ---- - ------ + • 11 0 •—(3--... ..,. x x x x X iENCE LINE „q.:.` -.. ':.0 110 a •If iS' N. t •••".... • c110 i ..0 ,.‘• I + + 'C'. ::•-•:\ : 0"a 4 + 0 9 CONTOUR INTERVAL = 2' + • I 0 .. • 4- I SCALE: + • J5 \ -, Z• .. Ea 1 .• ' %A .. „., , 5025'd 50' 100 -I . , t! i! ! CUTCHOGUE LANDFILL N. TOPOGRAPHY DIGITAL PHOTOGRAMMETRY BY CHAS. H. SELLS INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS & SURVEYORS, CENTRAL ISLIP, N.Y. AERIAL D.ATE:. FEB. 7, 1988 1 , I-12MGROUP ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS mELvILLE. N.Y. RIVERHEAD. N.Y. FAIRFIELD. N.J. • 3.15 I 3 . 2 - WATER RESOURCES 3. 2.1 - Groundwater The source of potable water at and around the project area 1 originates from the precipitation of rain and snow which falls on the land and percolates to the underground reservoir (aquifer) . IStudies 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 ) . IAn additional amount is returned to surface water bodies via over- Iland runoff. Recharge to the groundwater reservoir is the dif- ference between the amount of precipitation and the sum of Ievapotranspiration and direct runoff . It is estimated that ap- proximately 50 percent of the total annual precipitation is Iactual recharge to the Southold aquifer, approximately 22 inches per year. Most of the fresh groundwater available for potable use oc- Icurs 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 Ithis divide , groundwater moves toward the surrounding salt water bodies along flow lines whose direction is normal to the water ' table contours . I 3.16 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. Existing test well information is based on 1981 data from ' SCDHS. In the area of the project site, a summary of test well data ' indicates the presence of leachate contamination underneath the Cutchogue landfill. ' As part of its landfill closure/expansion plan, the Town ' will install groundwater monitoring wells . The data derived from these wells will provide 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 II I3. 3 - AIR QUALITY IIThe 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 Ipotentials which exist in the state . The land uses associated Iwith the classification levels assigned to geographic areas of the state are broadly outlined as follows, as per 6 NYCRR 256 : I Level I: Predominantly used for timber , agricultural crops, dairy farming or recreation. Habitation and industry are sparse. 1 Level II : Primarily single and two-family residences , small farms and limited commercial services and I industrial development. Level III: Densely populated, primarily commercial office buildings , department stores and light indus- I 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 II large metropolitan complexes; or areas of heavy industry. IExisting sources of air pollutants in the vicinity of the subject parcel include vehicular traffic ( one of the major air Ipollutant emission sources ) , aircraft emissions (particularly from Mattituck Airport, located approximately six miles southwest Iof the project site) , as well as dust and any airborne pesticides 1 produced from area agricultural activities . No electric power generating facilities exist in the area of the landfill property. ISensitive receptors to air pollutants include residents in the dwellings located in the vicinity of the subject parcel. The 1 3.18 II II nearest receptors are several single-family residences located Idirectly south of and adjacent to the project site. The subject parcel is also located within the New York/New I Jersey/Connecticut Interstate Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) . Located throughout the AQCR are air quality monitoring stations Iwhich continuously measure the concentrations of six major pollu- Itants termed "criteria pollutants" . These criteria pollutants are: I - total suspended particulates (TSP) ; - lead (Pb) ; I - sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) ; I - nitrogen dioxide (NO2) ; - carbon monoxide (CO) ; and I - ozone (03 ) , grouped with photochemical oxidants. The air quality monitoring stations are a part of the INational Air Monitoring System (NAMS) or the State and Local Air Monitoring System (SLAMS ) . The measured concentration of each Icriteria pollutant is then compared to both state and national Istandards (New York State Ambient Air Quality Standards , NYSAAQS, and National Air Quality Standards , NAAQS, respectively) . This Icomparison will determine compliance, or non-compliance, of a particular air quality parameter . Ambient air quality standards Iare provided in Table 8 . 1 Of the criteria pollutants , several are considered primary pollutants, or those pollutants which are emitted directly from 1 sources . Examples of these are: 1 I 3.19 IIlAfAll HOLZMACHER,McLENDON A MURRELL.P.C. ITABLE 8 (1) AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS I - CORRESPONDING New York State Stondords Federal Standards _ I O Averaging PRIMARY SECONDARY ContamtnantPeriod Level Conc Units Statistic ® Conc. Units® Stat. Conc. Units Stat 1 _ I 12 Consecutwe A M(Anm Meanof ..SULFUR Months ALL 0 03 PPM 24Pw ovp concen) 80 pg/m3 A.M. DIOXIDE, SO2 24- HR ALL 0 140 .. MAX.® 365 yp/m 3 MAX® I 3- MR ALL 0.50® •' — MAX. 1300' yp/m3 MAX r-- CARBON 8- HR ALL 9 . . MAX 10 mp/m 3 MAX 10 mg/m3 MAX I MONOXIDE, - • ' i CO I- MR ALL 35 MAX - 40 mp/m3 MAX 40 mg/m3 MAX (PMO CHEMICAL 1-HR ALLOZONE 0.08 ,. MAX 160 yp/m3 MAX 160 pg/m3 MAX I OXIDANTS) _ _ _ _ HYDROCARBONS (NON METHANE) (6 9 A M ) ALL 0 24 1 ' MAX 160 yp/m3 MAX. 160 yp/m3 MAX INITROGEN 12 Consecutive DIOXIDE, NO2 Months ALL 005 ' ' A.M 100 yp/m3 A.M. 100 Wm3 A.M I PARTICUL ATEST'2 Consecutive Mos T ]Y 75 yp/m3 T G M 75 yp/m3 G.M 600 Wm, G M TSP (SUSPENDED) III 65 (Geometric mean of 24 n,overope II 55 " concentrations) I I 45 .. 24 MR ALL 250 MAXIMUM 260 yg/m MAX. 150 yg/m MAX. - 30 DAYS® IY 135 ,, A M II In 115 .. O II 100 I 80 " 1 60 DAYS® IY 115 .. A M. III 95 .. II 85 " I I 70 ..90 GAYS a105 " A M III 90 •• •• I II 80 '' 91 I 65 " " I LEAD, Pb 3Consecucvemos ® 1.5 vg/m3 MAX. (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. ceeded during more than ante a year , II (ozone std not to be exceeded during (7) As a guide to be used in assessing im- more than one day per year). standardtion plans to achieve 24-hour (4) Also during any 12 consecutive months, 99% of the values shall not exceed 0.1 (8) Federal Pb standard not yet adopted in I ppm (not necessary to address this stan- dard when predicting future concentra- NYS but now applied to determine com- pliance. 1 tions) . (9) For enforcement only, monitoring to he (5) Also during only 12 consecutive done only when required by NYS (not l months, 99% of the values shall not necessary to address this standard when exceed 0.25 ppm (see above) . predicting future concentrations) . 3.20 I - carbon monoxide; - nitric oxide; - nitrogen dioxide; t - 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 ' 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 ' Island Lighting Company (LILCO ) . Based on information obtained from the NYS Air Quality Report , Ambient Air Monitoring System 3.21 II II II TABLE 9 NON-CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS II Trace Metals: IIAntimony Cadmium Copper Selenium Arsenic Chromium Mercury Zinc Beryllium Cobalt Nickel Scandium Inorganics and Minerals: IFluorides Sulfuric Acid Hydrogen Chloride Asbestos II Trace Organics: IPAH Coronene Total Aldehydes Benzo(a)anthracene Perylene (as formaldehyde) Benzo(b)fluoranthene Pyrene Carboxylic Acids I Benzo(ghi )perylene PCB (as Acetic Acid) Benzo(a)pyrene/ Vinyl Chloride Benzo(e)pyrene Fluoranthene IIIndeno(1, 2, 3cd)pyrene IChlorinated Dibenzodioxins: 2, 3, 7, 8-TCDD P5CDD H7CDD TCDD HCDD OCDD 1 Chlorinated Dibenzofurans: ITCDF HCDF OCDF P5CDF H7CDF II 11 II I 3.22 II II II TABLE 9 (CONT'D. ) ABBREVIATIONS FOR NON-CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS HCDD Hexachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins I HCDF Hexachlorodibenzofurans H7CDD Heptachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins H7CDF Heptachlorodibenzofurans IOCDD Octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins OCDF Octachlorodibenzofurans I PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons IIPCB Polychlorinated biphenyls P5CDD Pentachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins IP5CDF Pentachlorodibenzofurans PCDD Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins ITCDF Tetrachlorodibenzofurans II II I I I I II I 3.23 I I ( 1986 ) , the nearest continuous air monitoring station to the Iproject site is in Shoreham, located west of Wading River approxi- mately 22 miles from the Cutchogue landfill . The parameters Imeasured 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 I of Route 25A, west of Mount Sinai-Coram Road approximately 30 miles from the Cutchogue landfill . The parameter measured at Ithis station is sulfur dioxide, in parts per million (ppm) . The annual mean of sulfur dioxide of the Mt . Sinai station I ( site number 5151-09 ) is 0 . 010 ppm for 1986 . A comparison be- Itween the NYS ambient air quality and the ambient air quality readings at the Mt . Sinai station indicate that for the running I3-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 I (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 I in this category were 0 . 174 , 0 . 128 and 0 . 105 ppm. None of the readings exceeded the indicated standard. IThe 24-hour average has a maximum NYS and Federal Ambient IAir Quality Standard of 0 . 14 ppm, which can not be exceeded more than once per calendar year . The highest readings at the Mt . I Sinai station for 1986 in the category were 0 . 068 , 0 . 036 and 0. 035 ppm. None of these readings is higher than the indicated Istandard for sulfur dioxide. I 3.24 I 3 . 4 - TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY IThis section of the DEIS delineates the ecological system of the project site and immediate environs , in terms of floral and Ifaunal characteristics. Species composition in a community varies throughout time. IThe directional change in a respective species composition and Ithe associated environmental properties of ecosystems is termed succession . Succession can be primary or secondary. Primary Isuccession occurs on newly formed land ( i.e. , volcanic ash) that is devoid of previous biotic influences . Secondary succession Ioccurs when already established ecosystems are disturbed or de- III stroyed, as by fire, with the previous biotic composition influ- encing the ecological path of the newly initiated process . Suc- Icession in the area of the project site is secondary. Most of the natural secondary growth ( i .e. , oak-pine woods) has been re- Imoved due to clearing activities for agricultural (as well as landfilling/sand mining ) purposes . If left to a natural cause, I the general succession pattern may be described in stages as Ifollows : * • 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, Iand sorrel (Rumex) in the second. I • After the second year , perennial herbs form a meadow in which goldenrods (Solidago) are prominent I *Whittaker, 1970 I 3.25 I I Iat first , while broomsedge (Andropogon) and other I grasses are dominant later (until 15 to 20 years ) . • The meadow stage may be followed by a shrub stage, I from 15-20 until 30-35 years , dominated first by low shrubs ( blueberries , Vaccinium, and buckle- , berries , Gaylussacia) , then by a taller shrub ( bear I oak , Quercus ilicifolia ) . In the succession on farmed land, the shrub stage may be skipped, and I pines may seed into and grow in the meadow; in the succession following fire, the meadow stage may be Iskipped. I • By 30 to 35 years, trees become dominant, first the pitch pine (Pinus rigida) , that forms a young pine I woodland with shrubs , then scarlet and white oak (Quercus coccinea and Q. alba ) . By fifty years Iafter the succession began, these form a young oak- I pine forest with a well-developed shrub under- growth. I • Given time and freedom from fire or other distur- bance, this young forest matures into an oak forest Iwith few or no pines and a lower coverage of shrubs (understory) . Such a forest might be essentially I mature by 200 years after the fire or farm abandon- !' bandon' ment. The wooded portion of the landfill property is in the final Istages of succession; the weedy portions of the property are in the former successional stages . I 3.26 I 3 .4 .1 - Vegetation IThe landfill site is located in the general vegetative biome referred to as a moist oak-dominated forest where oaks (Quercus , Isp . ) are the predominant tree species . Other indicator tree species include American beech ( Fagus grandifolia ) , red oak (Q . Irubra ) , black oak (Q. velutina ) and scarlet oak (Q. coccinea) . IThe understory ( i . e . , undergrowth ) consists primarily of seed- lings and saplings of the dominant tree species . A layer of Ithick, rich humus is generally present. Much of the area surrounding the landfill site contains Iactive agricultural activities . Thus, little native vegetation Iremains. Former areas of the landfill property which once were forested now contain sand mining activities. IWooded areas of the landfill property, consisting of approxi- mately 6 . 1 acres , may be found along the northwestern , west- Icentral , and northeastern boundaries of the property . This remaining vegetation is indicative of oak-dominated habitat. I In the west-central portion of the property, approximately I0 . 7 acres of weedy vegetation are present . Said vegetation covers what was once the scavenger lagoons and is considered, for Ipurposes 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 Ifor a varied wildlife population. The site is not located within a Pine Barrens Management IZone , based on maps published by the Suffolk County Pine Barrens Commission. I 3.27 I The transition area between two different natural communi- 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: • 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 I Iplants are the flowering dogwood (Cornus florida ) , mountain Ilaurel (Kalmia latifolia) , climbing bittersweet (Celastrus scan- dens ) , rhododendron (Rhododendron, sp. ) , Turk' s-cap lily (Lilium Isuperbum) , pipsissewa (Chimaphila umbellata) , spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata ) , trillium ( Trillium, sp. ) , wild pink (Si- ll __ lene caroliniana) , orchids (Orchidaceae family) , and club mosses I (Lycopodium, sp. ) . 3. 4. 2 - Wildlife IDuring the course of field investigations , a variety of wild- life species were observed and recorded on the landfill property . IObservation was not limited to strictly visual contact with the Isubject. Tracks, calls and fecal droppings were also utilized to identify species. IRepresented in Appendix A of this document are those ob- served and reasonably expected species in those types of habitats I ( i . e . , wooded, weedy and landfill areas) . Field investigations Iwere supplemented by information compiled from the best records which can be obtained from available sources. It should be noted Ithat no population density studies were carried out on any animal species and that the listing of a particular animal species does I not exclude the possibility of observation during an occasional Ivisit by the animal . The occurrence of wooded areas on the land- fill property may increase the diversity of species frequenting Ithe parcel. It is not expected that the animal species which would most Icommonly occur at the project site are listed as endangered or IIthreatened species by the United States Fish and Wildlife Ser- vice. III3.29 II • New York State has its own listing of endangered and Ithreatened species . Thirty-four species of endangered animals and 18 species of threatened animals are listed by the state . IEndangered species in New York State are any native species in imminent danger of extirpation or extinction within New York . IThreatened species are any native animals likely to become endan- I gered within the foreseeable future through all or a significant portion of their range. In addition, any species listed as endan- Igered or threatened by the United States Department of Interior, as enumerated in the Code of Federal Regulations 50 CFR 17 . 11 , Iare included on the New York State listings. iThe New York State Environmental Conservation Law, Section 11-0535 (Endangered and Threatened Species ) , provides legal pro- Itection for listed endangered and threatened animals . The tak- ing , importation , possession or sale of any endangered or Ithreatened species of fish, shellfish, crustacea, wildlife or Ihides thereof , or the sale or possession with intent to sell any article made in whole or in part from the skin, hide or other 1 parts of any endangered or threatened species of fish, shellfish, crustacea or wildlife is prohibited, except under license or per- Imit from the Department of Environmental Conservation. IIn addition to endangered and threatened listings , New York State has a listing entitled, "Species of Special Concern" . This Icategory includes those native species which are not yet recog- nized as endangered or threatened, but for which documented con- Icern exists for their continued welfare in New York State . It is possible that these species could become threatened or endangered II 3.30 II in the future . Thus , these species are more closely monitored Ithan non-classified animals . Unlike endangered and threatened categories , species of special concern receive no legal pro- Itection 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 Igroup of species which bear additional attention. The species of animals , which have been observed or which Imay 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, Iin addition to non-endangered and non-threatened species , are provided in Appendix A. IIt should be noted that no nesting birds were observed on site for any of the below listed avian species . Occurrence of Ithese species is expected to be an observation during flyovers or Ifeeding periods . Endangered: IMammals : None Observed Birds : None Observed IReptiles : None Observed Threatened: Mammals : None Observed I Birds : Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk Reptiles : None Observed IAmphibians : None Observed II 3.31 II 11 Special Concern: I Mammals: Sylvilagus transitionalis New England cottontail I Birds : Accipiter cooperii Cooper 's hawk Tyto alba common barn owl IChordeiles minor common nighthawk Reptiles : Heterodon platyrhinos Eastern hognose I snake Carphophis amoenus worm snake IAmphibians : Ambystoma maculatum spotted salamander Ambystoma laterate blue-spotted I salamander 11 II I II I II 1 II I II 3.32 II t II4. 0 - EXISTING HUMAN ENVIRONMENT II4 .1 - MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC I Traffic volume data for selected roadways are available from the Suffolk County Department of Public Works ( SCDPW) , as per I information provided in its 1987 Traffic Volume Map. In the vi- cinity of the landfill property, SCDPW has data only for Middle II (North ) Road (CR 48; formerly CR 27 ) with an average annual daily I traffic (AADT) count of 7, 000 vehicles . This segment of Middle Road is from Depot Road east to approximately Ackerly Pond Lane. I The AADT is defined as the total traffic volume passing a point 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 ( i . e . , raw data ) vehicle counts during the survey adjusted for I the particular month ( i .e. , seasonal variations) . II Both the SCDPW and the New York State Department of Transpor- tation (NYSDOT ) have seasonable factors by which actual vehicle Icounts are multiplied in order to obtain the AADT for the particu- lar roadway . Seasonal factors for western and eastern Suffolk ' County from both SCDPW and NYSDOT for all of Suffolk County are ' listed below: SCDPW ' Western Eastern Suffolk Suffolk NYSDOT January 1. 05 1. 38 0. 71 II February 1. 06 1. 30 0. 81 March 1.02 1. 25 0. 72 April 0. 97 1. 12 0. 83 ' May 0 . 96 0 . 97 0. 92 0. 98 June 0. 89 1. 06 July 0. 98 0 . 71 1. 48 II August 0 . 98 0 . 77 1. 58 September 0 . 97 0 . 92 1 . 06 11 4. 1 I I SCDPW Western Eastern ISuffolk Suffolk NYSDOT October 1. 01 1. 02 0. 96 I 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 Iin order to arrive at the AADT number. The NYSDOT multiplies the Ifactors by the AADT number to provide average monthly ( i . e . , seasonal ) vehicle counts . IThe Town of Southold does not maintain traffic counting de- vices at the landfill for those vehicles directly entering the I Materials Recovery Building . However , vehicular counts may be Iinterpreted from the scale house computer and solid waste quantity data . The scale house computer tabulates the weight of Isolid waste deposited at the Materials Recovery Building . A weight per vehicle was estimated to determine the total number of Ivehicles entering the Materials Recovery Building. 1 All vehicles enter the facility through a main gate on County Route 48 . Vehicles entering the landfill site include Icars, carters and government vehicles ( state and local highway trucks ) . IAfter entering the main gate , cars are directed to either Ithe landfill workface or to the Materials Recovery Building. All carters and government vehicles are directed to the landfill work- Iface. All vehicles directed to the landfill workface are weighed at the scale house prior to unloading their waste. IBased on the data reviewed from the scale house computer I (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 I Icars , 22 percent are carters and 3 percent are government Ivehicles . The scale house computer data were reviewed from 9/1/87 to I6/21/88 . These data show a daily average of 160 vehicles per day being weighed at the scale house . The range of traffic flow Ithrough the scale house was 138 vehicles per day (Thursday ) to I184 vehicles per day (Sunday) . Of the vehicles being weighed at the scale house, 50 percent are cars, 44 percent are carters and I 6 percent are government vehicles . Therefore, an average of 80 cars, 70 carters and 10 government vehicles are directed to the 1 landfill workface each day. The quantity of waste received at the Materials Recovery IBuilding was used to estimate the amount of cars entering the Ifacility on a daily basis . Based on these data ( 9/87 to 6/88 ) , it is estimated that approximately 160 cars per day utilize the IMaterials Recovery Building to drop off their household solid I waste. Combining the above data yields an average of 240 (160 and I80 ) cars, 70 carters and 10 government vehicles through the land- fill main gate each day. I 4 . 2 - LAND USE AND ZONING I Land Use IExisting land use of the landfill property (Figure 6 ) consists of active landfill operations , industrial activity I ( i . e . , sand mining ) and wooded/open space land uses . The landfill operations constitute the majority (approximately 75 Ipercent ) of the parcel . The remaining 25 percent consists of I 4.3 .„.. , ..;.,., FIGURE 6 il .... • „,. •4„, , . . . . . ...... .4, Q:* 04. I .., . ,,,., ,1*:*:*••••• •:•:•:•:•: 1' f„ . *.•••••••••;:-?.• -.• . , "... 4- '4). "h.. ,,,t. 44'• .., ..e %. .„.. • kr -Pilli- 81.i i ... .-..,..-...? . 4 4t+p * 41e.ck .:;....:......:...-..-.. y . . . . . . . ,, • • • • 1 ....!;§,,,:...... .-,:.,..„...„.... ... 4).4 4. • • • ` :1 ' flO., ..Y.:•-•••**••••.V..... .....,..... . .. .... •4 " " " """ "" • /4 !,` 0.0 .:............ •••••••:', ..1•• ••••.:. •.,••••;.' ... i%.°• f„ •2°% .44, • •• •• '""""• ". 4/4 •••••10 ,• •••• • .•• • 0. 4 •••• eb\ 1 ® •4.-4. ,...."••••••••••••••:•••••••••••••./.2...-fi••••••••••••••;•...*...C20,1.' ..: :,;!•„.*;• ..•:::• -.`4••.•:• s 4 • .4•.4' .„.f„ \*Cl° .., I ..-.§..:.:...§1.k* •'•-....:';'......;;:b.1:-.....::::....:.-.... s i 0- 4 • •N• .... :, PC:.• ,........%Vg4r..0.,,............••• •••••••.:..•.:;:•.....•.••••:;.•.:..•..:............•..•..........,.... „. L`... o.• 444.:4:". .. .••••:.g".%.."4.4.:4:‘'.." 4.- ••••••••••••••••••.•*•.1.1...:::.....•....... , •• % N ... ••.4;(• 4% •• •4.4.4.,.y44.•4.1 ":4.y.j.••.44-444:4g•;'4:-.... ... .....•••,....-. •,•".....v.4.••:•••••.*••••••••••••••••.. t.so, •......................... .....,,,.....,:,....:y.,„.. .....„:...,:„:„.,.....„:„..,:„,.. „...........„,.........;....4.. ............................................... •••:...... ... : ....... „......... .....,„:„.......,.....„....„:„.... s. • ••• ,. .„..:.,. „. 3j•J ••••••••••••••••••:.......••••• ••••"•-•":"."M.V.'"..0b:".- ...".@".":..Y1',WV/....-‘•.%:•••••••••:.:::•........V.:.. .....y..........::.,'....,..:... •: : ....rt..:.7....:...§...: .....„.......:„................„.1.........„, ,i. ... •• •• •• •• .•• • .. .. .., . :•N Ai• 4 4., .* •• ••' •• •• ,, •• •• •••. -- ••• •• •• ••• •• . . • - . • • .• • . . . ..J:lpr•.... .., i• .. •• ••••'I....." ...... .• " •• ••• -• "'" "' '"'""" ""'"'""" ' """ "' . - ••' ••• ' '"."""".""'"""'""*""-""'"'"""'"".. a,4 41 1 j.:.: ::::::' :..:''.....*:'...........V.:......".•••• •••••••:.:.:•;:'........V.:•.....:•:•."'' ......."...Y.'"'..g".. .......:''''..; .;r:j'V.,.".":":".::::..'..".":".V".,''''"1.' ••••••;:•••••i'....."''.....•••••••":*:::"'..••••'!t,.. .."..... :..*:::::4:.:•••":., .. .::.:0;'••• •••.' "..*...'.., I„ ii://, .1.7.1. , '11/1.'lli.....,:.:..,:'.1.....:.:•-:...,.:'..:-:::••1*:-':.... ... ",..,".,.',..-.V,"...,:.A .12i$5,"-.,:"."..,X. - .....q.:-..'.'...',',.. ........, . --',',.,. ......y ......igy' , '.. .. ... .. ... .. .. ... ... .. . . , .. ./- .. . . . ( • • ...4.... .0. ,,. ;,'.•..•'..• •" ..V‘:•...•..••••.. + ;•::::::::::::,Z,;:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.. ,::-:::::::.:::••••••••••.•;;••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••'.'•••••••••••••••••••••••'...• "",""•'.-..'-''-'.. "..',.... "1,""'.,'"...."''••''••••••••••••••."... '--11%,''''': ''''''" .. 424-4•' . 0 •••: -:::::::::::::::::::::4:::::::.::::::::::::::::'::::::::"". .,:,...::::.•.••..........,,-.........-........................................„.............. ............„.,,,,,4„,...,, „,„, '%. .. , .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. . . . .. . . .. . . . . ,0 I 11 A44, ':".•::::::::::::::•:••..••••:Ae. ......'........'........*........:'......1•••:.•••••••••••••••;.•••••,1*••••,*.......".•••••••••••••••.*....•"•-•-••••••:••••••••'•••••• *1•••••• „ / . . .. .. . .. .. . .. •. .. •. .. .. .. .. .. . . . . . . .. .. . .. .. . . •. . .. . •. . 4 4,., 44, '"''"" "' -"• - "• •• • •• •• " • " ' ' ILI • •• • •• •• ••• .• ••• .• .• ..• .• .. .• • ..i MAIO) tattp°04., ] . ..... .. ,.• ... .. ... ... .. .. .. ..• .. .. ... .. CUT.. .. ... .. ... ... .. .i ... . . 0%........ ......i..... .r ..., %,.. . :::• .• ,• • • . •••• • •••••••4•3•••. li41.17. "414•••••••••••• ... / I ...........................................',......',.....'.......••••••••:.•••••.:1•.•;.',...*.••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••. 2.- 4 .............;•..............................................................................?.......................................*;.........1............'...............'...........1.......1,.."............1..•.......".••••••••••'...........'..1......1.•• .. tes .::...:•!.•:.......•i. : ••• •••• •••••••• ••••.., ..• ...•.... ... .... ... ..„ .... .„. ... ... .... .. I , %. • <'.4 . 4 • .,.., . .. i ". •• ‘•• %. 11.331‘) J. • % • ••.f •.•. 1.i .1.2/11 ® •1••:8Mggg:.::::::::••••• i."••••'•••••:'6E'••••....•••••••••;••••••„•••••••••••••••••••.....1••„••••••••••••••••••••;.:•••••••••„*.:....;•.„•;.......'.••.•..iy...'..„. •„'..„..........„.... ,,,„lee„,„ ,..,............,.......-..,.::::.-..•::::•:::•::::........•;:-......,...„,.............,..................,„„..0.;,,....................................... ..1,4 „.... .:•1••• ••• :' •••!.7.•:••• •• •Y• •••":„..11:\'...........7.........::,:...::....1.. : . ,..... :::.........::...::.........\1........."... .:.:::.1...:,..,..:,....,...7.4,... .•••••••••..,..... • . . . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... ... ... .... ... .. . . . ...... '1* • 1. 00* , ••••••!.i••••• ....,.. 1 •••2 % '•• ..,;••... •• 4 ••••••.•• ••••••...".',...'.1......'........*.:1•.1.••••••;............*;;•;;;../. ...;.••••••••••••••••.',• 4"......*;;;•;..............".........*.:•••• •••.•.. .; ..,:. 4.. ••••••.....1••1•....*.:•••••••••••••••••••••......*.•.••••.V.,...:•.••••;,:••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••, .'••••••••••••••••••••••4-•••2•'...V.,•* Je 4' /, •Je 34 ,•$$$$ / •.34,./7 0,4, - ., •••••••:;."••••••••••••••••.:*.V....'...............'.'.......•••••••••••;:•.....•; ,.. ••;.....• •• ei • • LEGEND $ - ,:,..,. „........,.....:•4-......•,..•,...••• •,.,..,,:.,ke • ..i.y.. INTEN t ED PROJECT AREA •.........,,.--.....................................;,...-................j..... ,:....„......m:-..1.1. ..:;:-. ii ••••••••••••••• .. ...........,........4,,si,....,....:-...,,a,,,: .....,,.4..1. Ott° ••••••••••••••: RESIDENTIAL A''.N• -.......• .............. .... ..•- : •••."'::- '......i....•,:*•,..• .,.w 1 '1,.....::*•:". '" /.,. •• , 1 ;6".....' •,,.. I ® v--.....-.-.... ..-:::::-.... i 4•.'.; %ttttttttlit ':':••••••••••••:*:'-'•:: INDUSTRIAL 4 ; A .00 '''s ' \ ,,.,•• 44, , 000 . •• 44, •• ..... ''.., •••• ACTIVE AGRICULTURAL ? '•4. 44 ® 0 il ....:.....:...:..:::......:: ... ..' w 0 OD E D C) ' 0, tilitlif 14 J4 4i ,d s EXISTING LAND USE N.. ...ip, SSA's) •••• 2. ".. ,.. 11111111111 TRANSPORTATION * ** •111.10.•; • •Th.:•• • ' .,. 131A1C1 ..; SCALE: 1'- 400' 0) ••• ........ I ...... ..... 0 ' • •11'*•:. ...... . •1.2* ....... 12 (4,c,V Ji.44, i .7,:•••;,i,"•••••.:••:•'',,I, ...... . ,••••........••••rt ;\, ' ••••• . CO •.Z;:•:1?•.:•i',..•••:t1`;';:•• INSTITUTIONAL .••••••15. ......'•••4.1. :;. 13 1.- SOURCE: SUFFOLK COUNTY REAL ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS 2 PROPERTY TAX SERVICE AGENCY IFI2MGROUP . MELVILLE, N.Y. RIVERHEAD, N.Y. FAIRFIELD, N.J. CO , 4.4 ! ! !!! - , I Isand mining activity and wooded areas, comprising approximately I 20 and 5 percent, respectively. With the exception of the portion of the property fronting I on Middle (North) Road and Cox Lane, the landfill property is set back from area roadways . On the average , these set backs are Iapproximately as follows: I • 475 feet from Cox Lane • 250 feet from Middle (North) Road • 1200 feet from Depot Lane I . 800 feet from Oregon Road IThe property is generally well screened, as viewed from I 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- lltween the landfill property and the roadway intersection . This I farming operation does not provide any screening. The property from Depot Road and Middle Road is visible Ialthough landfill operations are generally well screened due to minimal landfilling occurring to the south and west of the Iproperty. I Land uses within a quarter-mile radius of the landfill property are, to the west active farmland and vacant ( abandoned ) I farm fields ; to the north , land uses include the preceding, as well as residential uses and to the east commercial , industrial I ( sand and gravel ) , camp-cottage , residential , agricultural and I vacant uses. A farm is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Cox Lane and Middle Road. To the south of the I , landfill property are residential , religious ( Baptist Church ) , II 4. 5 I vacant and agricultural uses . A Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) electric 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 "cl" Residmto%Agricu/tura/ r— I 0 111111 11‘ "M"boom'/Ve Rcsidcncc %%//% o `M-1"Genera/Mu/hP/e Res. \ "B" Light Business �� "B-l"Gc,ie,a/Busincss la "C"Light/ndus tria/ (::::' o T' Sillhill "C-rGcncro/ industrial 0 11 CUTCHOGUE LANDFLL PROPERTY BOUNDARY INTENDED PROJECT AREA (ACTUAL COMPOSTING 111 FACILITY WILL ONLY OCCUPY A PORTION OF THIS AREA) lit ROAD 1111.111 111 "C —/-/ b.- Ill * f p Iia CHOGUE �� `� #iDFILL 0 a Ili 111 y let j....,Aw,..r.a, 11\‘ m 11 ROAD 4°1 01.4il 110 ' Illbei It, 1\11 0 rill IN ' DED \ 1 A ' EAECT PLAND ■ 1111111i' Is Ili \ LONG \ \ \ III 1 „ -.. \ \:'P•�; EXISTING ZONING o \ `-7 OS • SCALE: 11m 800' II I :: “A' e \ \ \ \ \ co F- BSOURCE: BUILDING ZONE MAP OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, ENGINEERS • ARCHITECTS • PLANNERS • SCIENTISTS DATED JULY 2, 1985 SECTION • • OF SIX SECTIONS. 1iI441REtJP MELVILLE, N.Y. RIVERHEAD, N.Y. fA1RFlELD, N.J. N , 4.7 property is recommended to be zoned under a new 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- ilations 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 thundred fifty ( 150 ) feet of any lot line: t (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 and retail sales of agricultural and nursery products grown primarily on the premises shall not exceed one thousand ( 1 , 000 ) square feet in floor 1 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 (b) The keeping , breeding and raising of fowl, except ducks and large domestic animals on lots of ten ( 10 ) acres or more. (c) The keeping of not more than two (2 ) ' horses and/or ponies owned and used ' by the owner of the premises for his personal use , provided that the land ' area devoted to such use shall not be less than forty thousand ( 40 , 000 ) Usquare feet. ' (d) Barns , storage buildings and other related structures , provided that ' such buildings shall conform to the yard requirements for principal build- , ings . ' ( 3) Buildings , structures and uses owned and oper- ated by the Town of Southold. 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 in Appendix B. Permitted uses in Section 100- 90 , Article IX, the C-1 ' General Industrial District, are that buildings and premises may be used for any lawful purpose except that no building and/or ' premises shall be used for dwelling, boarding and tourist homes , hotel , motel or tourist camp purposes . The Code stipulates 47 4.10 items which are permitted only by special exception of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and which are subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board. These uses are provided in Appendix B. ' Permitted uses in the newly proposed LI , Light Industrial District, are as follows : 1 • agricultural operations • 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 professional use • telephone exchanges • buildings and activities of Southold Town and school, park and fire districts ' Special exception uses in this proposed district are: • research laboratories • laundry and dry cleaning plants ' • drinking establishments • light industrial uses, including manufacturing ' • conference facilities • public utilities • printing or publishing plants ' • truck or bus terminals • food processing plants 1 • wholesale and retail sales and repair of boats and marine items 4.11 i 111 • boat building, servicing and storage g • restaurants • sauerkraut manufacturing plants ' • bed-and-breakfast facilities 4 . 3 - COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES 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 ' members . This information was provided by Mr. Austin of the De- partment. 1 4.12 Electric services in Southold (exclusive of the Inc. Village ' of Greenport) are provided by the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) . rThe 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: 1 ' 4.13 Mill Ell Mill Sill MIMI MEI Mil nil IIIII 111111 MI MN Mil IIIII IMO 111111 an Mil IIIIII SOHT 88-03 CD 0 ...10 cc 0 33 0 little 411 Is. {0 LONG ISLAND SOUND 1 m brat 61N IQ ...13 \14. 4ir . 40 0 Com 1 ` : Meat NI c r' C� r (---x- ,.,., �` ra � 70�-i \ %�� fast MXNI , 2 �' Cardtnsrs Bay , W Z �J A(� ,— �\\ `.1 ,.,,, \ () s a �uZj 60EENIo r. m Z o `; 6renpn N, '. I •1 LONG ISLAND SOUND1. •G'® : •' pi •, IT N p CUTCHOGUE Z p LANDFILL Southall , & , ,,,Pr*, N V. A• d Shrlter Is. Nils. Is sok_ .il ) Z Cl) • ' \ �`.��. ;/ ••• !�' 0 > ° I \�. \ j • S t 4 A I C i wows •New sinew �t i -1 171 .'� \ a Q t 7 1 m p = , —� :ti MIltN1e1 �. A Q �4 v,• = �_ .& t .l Litt conic Bay .i• I 1 � n n j lapel 1,.1. �•-•♦ r • D m z (Ii/) Z ; ,• 21 0 . Great Pseonic Bay /'• '� 0 • ,„„...... .1( ofReas h. .•0 1 z -I d Cho ' C XIM Block Island Sound 00 I 1 CDP/INC. VILLAGE 1987 ESTIMATED POPULATION ' Southold 5,196 Mattituck 4, 270 1 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 1 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 1 Quality Management Plan, the available past population levels for I 4.15 I n-' both the Town of Southold and for CDPs , and the population in- 111 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 ifivefold, 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 iavailable 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 1 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 IIlation 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) . i ' 4.16 1-12HOO.,2 TABLE 10 PAST, PRESENT & PROJECTED POPULATION LEVELS: CUTCHOGUE-NEW SUFFOLK, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD & SUFFOLK COUNTY ANNUAL POPULATION G t r; (1) (1) (1) (1) (2) (3) (4) (4) (4) (4) (4) Location 1950 1960 1970 1980 1986 1987 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Cutchogue-New Suffolk NA NA 2,718 2,788 2, 914 2, 964 -- -- -- -- -- 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 'f (includes Cutchogue- New Suffolk population) a 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 4.17 4 I 1 II il 4 . 5 - CULTURAL RESOURCES iCultural resources include both historic and archaeological resources . Historic resources can include buildings , monuments , Isites , cemeteries and other landmarks. These resources can con- sist of a wide range of building/architectural types and styles IIand 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 IHistoric resources are listed at the local , state and I national levels . At the national level , historic resources are listed on what is termed the National Register of Historic Places I (NR) , published by the U.S. Department of the Interior , National Park Service . Historic resources at the state and local levels IIare listed on the Building Structure Inventory ( BSI ) , published I by the New York State Office of Parks , Recreation and Historic Preservation. All historic resources listed on the NR are also II of state and local importance and are, therefore, also listed on the BSI . However, not all historic resources listed on the BSI Iare on the NR listing. Prior to nominating a prospectivehistoric resource to the II NR, the following criteria are considered: I • antiquity; • prestige of the architect; i • uniqueness of the architecture to the area; I 4.18 II II • famous personality having resided there; I • use for a unique purpose; or • the only remaining structure of a given type. ICriteria for nomination of a prospective historic resource to the BSI and local listings entail consideration of similar, IIbut less stringent, criteria as per those of the NR. I For reference purposes , the following is a listing of the National Register listings found in the Town of Southold ( ex- 1 cludes Inc . Village of Greenport ) , based upon information from the New York State Office of Parks , Recreation and Historic IPreservation (NYSOPRHP ) : I • The Old House, SR 25 , Cutchogue • Fort Corchaug Site, Cutchogue vicinity I • Andrew Gildersleeve , Octagonal Building, Main Road and Love Lane, Mattituck II • Orient Historic District, SR 25, Orient II • Terry-Mulford House, SR 25 , Orient • David Tuthill Farmstead, New Suffolk Ave . , Cut- ' chogue • Southold Library, Main Rd. , Southold II • Richard Cox House, Mill Rd. , Mattituck I Archaeological Resources Information on archaeological resources in the Town of I Southold was obtained from the map entitled "New York State Archaeological Site Locations Overlay" . This overlay, originally 1 mapped in 1981 and since updated, is available from the Bureau of II Field Services , New York State Office of Parks , Recreation and 4.19 II I 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- 11 lous individuals from obtaining a copy of the map and damaging the archaeological resources . Therefore , only the general lo- Ication of actual or potential sites is provided in this discus- I sion. e-' As per the overlay map, there are no archaeological re- III sources located on the landfill property, nor within one mile of the site. I I I 1 I I i 1 I I II 4.20 II II II II5 .0 - ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION I This section will discuss the environmental impacts which can reasonably be expected during construction and after com- IIpletion of the MSW composting facility. IIWhen considering the environmental aspects of MSW compost- ing , it is convenient to differentiate between the internal en- Illvironment of the composting facility and the external environment. The internal environment is that with which the employees at the IIfacility are in immediate contact. The external environment con- II tacts a broader population, namely the public at large. The in- ternal, or occupational, environment is generally more amenable 11 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. 1 This section will identify those specific internal and exter- nal environmental aspects associated with the operation of a MSW II composting facility which require special management and at- tention . Particular attention is given to air quality, water IIquality and noise level changes that could potentially occur when I a MSW composting facility is put in place. Mitigation features are described for the proposed facility regarding the potential I environmental changes. II I 5.1 II I I 111 5.1 - GEOLOGY 5 . 1. 1 - Subsurface and Surface IIt is not expected that the proposed composting facility will pose a significant impact to the subsurface materials on the Ilandfill site . No deep excavation or other substantial dis- I turbance to the Upper Glacial material is intended to occur . Short-term surface soil disturbances can be expected and include Iexcavation for the building and pavement areas . Soil distur- bances associated with these activities would be minimal and Iwould entail a slight erosion hazard. ILong-term impacts to surface soils are the loss of approxi- mately one acre of Haven Loam (HaA) soil , a prime agricultural Isoil (Class I , as defined in the 1975 Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York; refer to Section 3. 1. 2 herein) , as a result of 1 covering with an impervious surface ( i . e . , proposed composting building ) . Approximately two acres of Made Land (Ma ) will be I impacted as well , also as a result of beingcovered with an P 1 impervious surface ( i .e. , paved area) . It should be noted that the proposed locations for the Icomposting building are in undisturbed areas . The storage/ Istaging area is to be situated in areas which have been previously disturbed due to sand mining/landfill activities . IThus , the initial long- term impacts to surface soils have already occurred due to said prior landfill activities. I 11 II 5.2 II 1 5. 1. 2 - Topography IIThe 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 IIstorage/staging area will be graded so as to make the topography IIas level as possible. 1 5 . 2 - WATER RESOURCES Anticipated impacts to water resources associated with the 11 proposed action are generalized into three categories: Ii. Employee generated wastewater; c. Process related wastewater; I 3. Site related stormwater runoff. In addition, there are those anticipated impacts associated Iwith surface waters and groundwater . Below is a description of anticipated impacts . I5 . 2.1 - Groundwater I Employee Generated Wastewater Employee generated wastewater is a function of the number of , employees at the facility and type of sanitation system utilized. Based on an estimated 5 to 15 employees working at the composting 11 facility, no more than several hundred gallons of this type of I waste will be generated each day. All employee generated waste- water will be treated in a Suffolk County Department of Health 1 Services (SCDHS) permitted septic system. The shower and toilet II 5.3 11 ' facilities are anticipated to be equipped with the latest ap- 111 proved water-saving devices to minimize water usage . The septic system will be designed and installed pursuant to SCDHS require- , ments . Process Related Wastewater IProcess related wastewater would include any leachate or Irunoff which is formed during the active compost project. It is anticipated that the process would be carried out under a roofed Istructure and formation of contaminated water would be minimal . It is further anticipated that all composting processes will be 1 carried out on an impervious surface . The impervious surface I would contain any moisture or leachate/runoff generated during the process. The impervious "pad" would be sloped to allow for Iretention of the runoff water in a holding tank or retention basin. Retention basins will be sized to allow for recycling of Ithe liquid in the composting process. IIt is expected that process wastewater and runoff will have low BOD, nutrient loadings and chemical characteristics similar 1 to that of the input waste stream. The volume and character- istics of the liquid wastes would generally be variable dependent Iupon absorptive capacity of the material on site , and age of the compost product. The preferred method of treatment for any gener- 111 ated wastewater would be collection and use of this liquid in the Icompost process . If the amount of process wastewater exceeds that which can be utilized in the process , the additional amount Iwill require removal by a licensed hauler for treatment in a per- tmitted waste treatment plant. 5.4 II IIn addition to the method of collection proposed, under IINYSDEC Part 360 requirements, the possibility of groundwater con- tamination at the landfill is proposed to be monitored annually Ifor contaminants characteristic of leachate . Such contaminants are: IBoron Calcium ITotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen (TKN) Alkalinity Ammonia Color I Nitrate Hardness BOD-5 Chlorides ICarbonaceous Oxygen Demand (COD) Iron IITotal Organic Carbon (TOC) Manganese Total Dissolved Solids (TDS ) Specific Conductivity ISulfate Total Volatile Solids Aluminum pH IChromium (Hexavalent and Total ) Turbidity IISodium Arsenic Detergents Lead II5. 2. 2 - Surface Water (a) Site-Related Water ISite-related water refers to that water which does not come II in contact with either the raw MSW or the actively composting material . Site water would be run off from roofs, parking lots, I roads , compost curing , or storage areas . The volume of water will depend on the volume of precipitation and the area affected I II 5.5 11 I by the storm which is free of compost product since compost ab- sorbs 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 the compost product would be collected in a holding pond to be ' recycled in the composting process . (b) Non-Contact Stormwater It is anticipated that the proposed action will result in the elimination of the area of collected stormwater , located in the southwestern portion of the landfill property, comprising ' approximately 0. 1 acre in size . The storage/staging area could potentially be situated in this location. As this "puddle" has been determined (via field investigations ) not to display signifi- ' cant enough vegetation character to be classified as a typical fresh water wetland, it is not expected that the elimination of ' said "puddle" will result in adverse impacts to vegetation or any wildlife species which may frequent the "puddle" . The proposed action (both the proposed building and the stor- ' I age/staging area) is not expected to result in additional adverse impacts to the persistent stormwater ponding located on-site ' among the compost, wood chips and yard waste . It is intended that there will be a leachate collection sys- tem at the storage/staging area to prevent groundwater contami- 11 nation and surface water ponding. The leachate collection system will be described in detail in the Mitigation Measures section of this document (Section 6 . 0 ) . 5.6 I II 1 5. 3 - AIR QUALITY INo emission into the air from a stationary point source ( i . e . , smokestack) , methane collection system or flare system I ( e .g . , methane is burned, rather than collected) is proposed as part of this project. IIt is anticipated that the composting facility operations IIwill result in odors being generated as a part of the composting process . By maintaining aerobic conditons, odors will be mini- Imized. On-site conditions, with respect to air quality and the impact on personnel in the facility, will depend on specifics in Ifacility design and air scrubbing or handling mechanisms . In Igeneral , the facility design would include a composting facility with an enclosed processing building , and roofed compost hall Iwith partial or total enclosures. The finished product would be stored on an impervious pad in accordance with NYSDEC regulations . 1 Specific design will depend on the type of system selected. JIThis section describes dust, odors and airborne pathogens , their sources and potential control . 1 5. 3 .1 - Dust Dust Sources IDuring the operational phase , there are two principal IIsources of dust: vehicular traffic and process components. 1 . Vehicular Traffic 1 The principal vehicular traffic will be as a result of solid waste being delivered to the facility. Tonnage received at the Icomposting facility will not be any greater than that which is now received at the landfill . No significant change in number or II 5. ? size of vehicles using the landfill is expected as a result of operating 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 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 I I I TABLE 11 IAVERAGE AIRBORNE DUST AND ENDOTOXIN CONCENTRATIONS I TOTAL DUST ENDOTOXIN tSAMPLE LOCATION # OF SAMPLES (mg/m3 ) (ug/m3 ) Stromstad Refuse Hopper I Active 4 0. 92 0 .0140 Inactive 2 0. 16 0 .0100 Separator Drum 2 0. 24 0. 0100 II Control Drum 3 0. 26 0 .0010 Other Locations 2 0 .14 0. 0100 I Landskrona Tipping Floor 2 0. 42 0 .0010 Waste Processing Room 2 5. 10 0 .0380 Control Room 1 0. 56 0 .0020 I Borlange Tipping Floor 2 0. 42 0.0010 I 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 Compost Piles 3 0. 18 0. 0020 I SOURCE: Clark, et al. , 1983 I I I I I 5.9 Hygienists (ACGIH ) demonstrates the maximum total dust measure- 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- terial is 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 . 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. ' 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 , ' 5. 11 principally when windrows or piles are torn down and removed for ' further processing. 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 tobe 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 ' 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 normal healthy individuals and are not generally considered to be ' a primary health hazard. Secondary pathogens affect people whose defense systems have been weakened by certain diseases or therapies . They may be present in vegetative matter and some are able to grow in compost. Examples of secondary pathogens are some thermophilic fungi and actinomycetes . These can infect people who have had respiratory infections or prolonged antibiotic or steroid treatment (Hart , ' Russell and Remington , 1969 ) . The main thermophilic fungus of concern is aspergillus fumigatus, which causes a respiratory dis- ease known as Aspergillosis. The thermophilic antinomycetes ( for ' example, Thermopolyspora, Polyspora and Micromonospora Vulgaris ) can cause allergic reactions, such as Farmer ' s Lung (Lacy, 1974; ' Marsh , 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 ' common in agricultural environments. Aspergillus fumigatus, for example, is found in soils, hay, wood, cereals, foliage and vari- 1 ous moldy farm wastes . From the data on maximal concentrations ' of thermosphilic actinomycetes in different materials ( see Table 12 ) , it appears that the concentrations in compost are generally ' lower 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 and the actinomycetes because of the temperature achieved during 5.13 I II I TABLE 12 IICONCENTRATIONS OF THERMOPHILIC ACTINOMYCETES IIIN DIFFERENT MATERIALS (NOS . PER GRAM, DRY WEIGHT) IGROWTH MATERIAL CONCENTRATIONS Moist Hay 1 . 7x107 II 21-Day Sewage Sludge Compost 5. 7x105 4-Month Sewage Sludge Compost 1. 8x108 IBaggasse 9. 6x106 IIMushroom Compost 6. 6x106 Moist Grain 105 I II I II II II II I II 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 factors , such as wind and rain (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 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 . 1 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. 1 5.16 I II5. 4 - TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY IThe proposed composting facility, intended to occur within the total of approximately eleven acres in the southern portion Iof the landfill property, is not expected to impact local floral and faunal species occurring on the project site. The composting Icuring and storage facility is to be situated in areas that have Ipreviously been disturbed by prior sand mining/landfilling opera- tions . It is expected that associated impacts of floral and Ifaunal species are most likely to occur in the western "weedy" portion of the eleven acres available, as this area will undergo Ithe more extensive land use and habitat changes . The storage/ Istaging area is to be situated westerly in an area of "weedy" vegetation and the building is to be located easterly on an area Igenerally devoid of vegetation. 5. 4. 1 - Vegetation IIt is not anticipated that any of the floral species which Iare listed as New York State Protected Native Plants ( refer to Section 3. 4.1 ) will be adversely impacted by the proposed compost- Iing operation. Land area required for the composting facility contains her- Ibaceous ( "weedy" ) vegetation which will be impacted ( and conse- Iquently removed ) from the site . The removal of these "weedy" species may be considered a long-term adverse impact with regard Ito reducing available food/habitat resources for wildlife species. A short-term impact associated with the removal of the herbaceous Ivegetation is likely to be an increase in stormwater runoff on the property. These impacts should be eliminated once the soil I is stabilized. II 5. 17 11 I5 . 4 . 2 - Wildlife IThe proposed composting facility is not expected to ad- versely impact any of the New York State listed threatened and Ispecial concern species ( refer to Section 3. 4. 2 ) which may ran- domly occur on the landfill site. The proposed action will re- Isult in the removal of an area of herbaceous vegetation, which u may presently serve as a cover/food/nesting resource for various wildlife species . This may be viewed as a long-term impact on Isaid wildlife species . I5 . 5 - ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO MOTOR VEHICLE TRAFFIC IIt is not expected that there will be an impact to motor vehicle traffic flows upon completion and commencement of the I proposed action. It is estimated that approximately 210 tons per day of mu- 1 nicipal solid waste is presently entering the Cutchogue landfill . IBased upon the data presented in Section 4.1, and a future solid waste collection program consistent with that of the present, the ITown anticipates a moderate increase in traffic flow into the new facility. The increase in average daily vehicular traffic will Iparallel 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. I Should solid waste collection practices change over time ( such as the implementation of refuse districts ) , traffic flow 1 into the facility will change. I 5.18 I II5 .6 - LAND USE AND ZONING ILand Use It is not expected that the proposed composting facility Iwill 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 I approximately eleven ( 11 ) acres of land area available for the Iproposed action . These respective land areas will be changed from their present land use of being non or formerly active areas Idirectly involved in the daily landfilling operations, to being directly active in the proposed composting operations . Further , Ithis area , required for the proposed composting facility, is cur- 1 rently open, ( i .e. , contain no structures or other visual items ) . The proposed action will result in a visual change in these areas Ifrom open to one containing composting-related buildings/activi- ties . Thus , the proposed action does not represent a significant Ichange over and above the area ' s current land use . It is not Iexpected that the proposed composting facility will result in adverse impacts to surrounding land uses. IThe proposed land use for the approximately eleven acres of the landfill property available for development is expected to Iresult in several impacts . In order to mitigate said issues , Imitigation measures are to be incorporated into the design of the proposed composting facility. These mitigation measures are dis- ' cussed in Section 6 .0 . Zoning IFrom a review of Chapter 100 , Zoning, of the Town Code and 11 supplemental information regarding the Town ' s new master plan , 5.19 I Ithe proposed composting facility 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 I (LI, Light Industry) zoning . The proposed action is thus con- sistent with the existing and proposed zoning of the landfill Iproperty. I Further , although landfilling and the proposed composting activities may generally not be considered consistent with most I of the adjacent land uses to the landfill property ( i .e. , resi- dential , agricultural ; limited commercial and industrial ) , it Ishould be noted that landfilling operations have been on-going ' since 1954 . Prior to this time, the residents utilized this as a dump site since 1940 . I 5 .7 - COMMUNITY SERVICES AND FACILITIES IThis section of the document will discuss the impact of the Iproposed action on various community services and facilities . School District I 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 I District will therefore not incur additional expenditures or re- quire new facilities. ' Police and Fire Protection Services The intended composting facility is not expected to have an Iadverse impact on either the Southold Police Department or the I 5.20 II Cutchogue Fire Department. It is not likely that either depart- , 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 ' 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 11 5.21 readily compostable. This material consists of organic materials. ' Thus , a significant portion 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: • 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. ' The bulky wastes may 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 landfilling all ' waste products . I 5.22 II IFerrous 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 product . It is estimated that several tons of ferrous metals Iwill 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 , and some wood which cannot be broken down during the compost Iprocess . 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 Imarkets available . These materials are relatively inert and should cause minimal leachate problems for a well run landfill . I 5 . 8 - DEMOGRAPHY The proposed composting facility is not expected to impact Ion the current population of the Town of Southold . Population levels are anticipated to continue at their present rate of in- I crease ( refer to Section 4 . 4) . I I I 5.23 1 II I5 .9 - CULTURAL RESOURCES IThe action of constructing and operating a composting fa- cility on the existing Cutchogue landfill property is not ex- Ipected to have an impact on existing historic and archaeological resources in the Town of Southold. The project area does not Iencompass any historic districts , nor any historic resources I (either at the national, state or local levels ) . As reported by the State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation, I no archaeological sites are located on , or adjacent to , the project site. I I5 .10 - IMPACTS TO NOISE LEVELS 5.10 . 1 - On-Site Noise IIn establishing its standard for noise, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) ties noise levels with Icontinuity and frequency of exposure . The top limit for momen- Itary impact noise was set in 1976 at 140 dB. As of 1979 , the allowable industrial noise level in the United States was 90 dB I for eight ( 8) continuous hours. Some regard these levels as pro- viding insufficient noise protection (Stansbury, 1979 ) . IReports on noise levels encountered at MSW processing and composting facilities are rare . A 1976 study (Diaz , Riley, ISavage & Trezek, 1976) at a pilot plant at the University of Cali Ifornia at Richmond provides some data. Table 13 shows the aver- age noise levels observed at various unit process areas at this Iplant . In this study, peak levels reached were 94-96 dB-slow in I 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 From Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, 1981 I 5.25 I four or five times per hour and are well below the maximum of 140 IdB for momentary impact noise allowed by OSHA. Workers in the vicinity of some of the process areas would Ineed 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- Iever, 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 Ilevels than hammermills which were studied by Diaz, et al . , 1976 . IOther vendors do not use any grinder , but rely on action in a drum for particle size reduction. This method of grinding pro- Iduces even lower levels of noise than do shear shredders . All moving equipment on the site, such as trucks and front- Iend loaders , will be equipped with functioning mufflers and meet Iall applicable USEPA noise regulations . 5.10. 2 - Off-Site Noise I 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- Iscaped to reduce any impact on the outside environment. The Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts visited several Irefuse 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 I study of explosion hazards in refuse shredders reported 95 ex- Iplosions in the 45 MSW-shredding plants included in the survey. Thirty-four ( 34 ) of the shredding operations had experienced at Ileast 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 Iout of operation for more than one week. Because shredders are designed to withstand mild explosions , shredder explosions usu- I ally damage peripheral equipment, such as ducts and conveyors. As stated previously, most compost system vendors utilize shear Ishredders rather than hammermills which were the basis of this Ireport. Explosion potential is dramatically reduced with a low speed shear shredder . Explosion potential is minimal with drum Isystems which are also widely used by other system vendors. Protection from shredder explosions can be achieved by Imanual or automated surveillance of input materials, explosion Iventing , explosion suppression/extinguishing systems , water spray, or equipment isolation. Manual screening to remove explo- I sive material is expected to be practiced, but cannot be expected to remove all potentially explosive substances. The feasibility I of automatic detection of such materials is questionable. IShredders are sometimes designed with hinged walls and tops to allow rapid venting of exploding gases. This method can mini- Imize shredder damage, but requires careful attention to the protection of personnel and adjacent equipment. Explosion extin- Iguishing systems detect the pressure increase at the beginning of I 5.28 an explosion and trigger the release of chemical explosion-sup- 1 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 5.29 I I 6.0 - MITIGATION MEASURES IThe most significant potential adverse impacts of the pro- I posed composting facility are the generation of odors , the po- tential impact to groundwater resources and the visual impact of I the facility to the surrounding community . The following measures are intended by the project sponsor to attempt to mitt- ' gate gate any environmental impacts reasonably anticipated as a result of the proposed action. These mitigation measures are discussed II herein. I6.1 - ODOR REDUCTION AND CONTROL IIn order to reduce odors produced as a result of the pro- posed composting operations, several measures are intended . I 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. I Second, in the aerobic composting process, odors can be mini- mized by maintaining the correct oxygen supply and temperatures IIduring 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 . I It is not anticipated that those odors produced as a result of the composting operations will be any more offensive to receptors I ( i . e . , people ) in surrounding areas to the site than are those odors produced from current landfilling activities. IIn addition, the following mitigation measures are antici- pated to be incorporated into the proposed composting facility Idesign: I 6. 1 I I1. Receiving and Handling IThe odors generated in the receiving building are recom- mended to be removed by ventilation and scrubbed in a bio-filter Ior by a wet dual-stage scrubber . Good housekeeping practices, e.g. , cleaning the tipping floor (generally dry sweeping is used ) 1 and avoiding storage of garbage, will also reduce odor generation. IIn some systems , this process air is utilized as an air source for the compost process. II 2 . Composting The windrow system could generally contain troughs to Iprovide air to the windrow. Negative aeration would remove odors IIand the air scrubbed in a bio-filter or two-stage chemical scrubber system. Similarly, the static piles would be on either 1 negative or positive aeration. During the rapid composting period, the system would be on negative aeration and the odors 1 scrubbed through a bio-filter or two-stage chemical scrubbing I system. 3. Other ISources of odor in the buildings would be minimized by a combination of good housekeeping and ventilation. Details of the Icompost odor control systems will be subject to NYSDEC review and Iapproval . 4. Location I The facility is proposed to be located at the landfill site within an acceptable distance from sensitive receptors , as Iper draft Part 360 revisions which are currently awaiting final Iediting and approval by the NYSDEC. 1 6.2 I I I 6 .2 - GROUNDWATER PROTECTION The proposed action is designed to significantly minimize Iimpacts to the groundwater through the use of an impervious surface underlying the storage/staging area , a leachate Icollection system and actual design of the static pile area. i Collection devices will be installed underneath the piles and connected to a system consisting of condensate traps and Ileachate pumps. A licensed hauler will periodically carry away leachate produced from the compost material at the storage/ IIstaging area. The leachate will then be taken to the Southold IIScavenger Waste Pretreatment Plant for treatment. 1 6. 3 - VISUAL ENHANCEMENT The project sponsor intends to incorporate landscaping 1 measures into the proposed action . Landscaping ( i . e. , in the Iform of trees and/or shrubs ) will be provided along the eastern, southern and western property lines in the area of the intended Icomposting facility to visually screen the facility from adjacent properties and Middle (North ) Road. In this way, the intended Icomposting facility will be buffered from surrounding land uses. I6 . 4 - DUST MITIGATION AND CONTROL IThe mitigation and control of on-site dust will best be ac- complished by the following methods: I II 1 6.3 I I1. Water vehicles 1 2 . Housekeeping 3. Scrubbers and filters I4. Moving equipment filters Water Vehicles Ii. Road dust and dust on the site where considerable traffic Iwill occur, will best be curtailed by the use of a water truck which will spray the roadways , as required . If necessary, the Ivendor will make arrangements to have a street sweeper available to remove sand and dust accumulations . II2. Housekeeping IIt is expected that good housekeeping will be maintained throughout all the buildings and on the grounds . At the end of 11 the working day, the receiving building will be swept and the tipping floor cleaned. All other buildings will be cleaned . IIConveyors will be covered where severe dust problems could occur Iand leaks will be fixed to minimize dust formation. 3. Scrubbers and Filters IThe receiving building will be ventilated and the air passed through a dust filter or into the bio-filter . Other filters and Iventilators 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 Iuse dust masks . 4. Moving Equipment Filters IIMoving equipment, such as front-end loaders, are expected to be equipped with dust filters or air conditioned cabs. I 6.4 II II 6 . 5 - PATHOGEN CONTROL ' As detailed in Section 5 . 3 . 3 , it is not anticipated that pathogens will be a significant hazard throughout the composting I 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 II mitigated. ' 6 . 6 - POTENTIAL IMPACT DETECTION (MONITORING) It is expected that the following monitoring methods will be Iexecuted as State-of-the-Art mitigation techniques and incorpo- ' rated into the proposed design . Monitoring can be broken down into the following aspects: II • Process • Occupational I • Product • Environmental I6. 6.1 - Process Monitoring 11 The United States Environmental Protection Agency' s regu- lations "Criteria for Solid Waste" , as ennunciated in Code and IFederal Regulations 40 CFR 257 , govern process monitoring. The compost process would be monitored for time and temperature re- II quirements to ensure that it meets the 40 CFR 257 PFRP require- "' equire' ments of 55°C for 15 days with five turnings . Each compost pile will be monitored for temperature daily with permanent records Ikept. The piles will also be monitored for moisture content to ensure that adequate moisture exists for composting to occur . II 6.5 I il6 . 6 . 2 - Occupational Monitoring IAll employees who work at the facility will undergo annual physicals and be required to maintain up-to-date immunization Irecords . There will be records kept to ensure that workers ' health is not compromised during their period of employment . IConcurrent with the monitoring program, a safety training and Iinspection program will be implemented to reduce the potential for work accidents . II6. 6. 3 - Product Monitoring At this point, it is not possible to characterize the heavy ilmetal 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- 11 ing and hazardous constituents are excluded from the waste stream before the composting process step. Heavy metals and toxic or- IIganics in the sludge input and compost product will be monitored Iperiodically according to NYSDEC requisites . It is anticipated that initially, monitoring will be more frequent than during Isteady-state operations . After records indicate a consistent level of contaminants in the final product, the frequency of moni- 1 toring would be reduced. If elevated levels do occur in a batch IIof compost, that batch could be admixed with less contaminated compost or could be disposed of by landfilling. Efforts would be IImade to determine the source of any contamination and to elimi- nate it from the waste stream. IRoutine product monitoring is anticipated to include pH, I percent solids , total N, NH4-N, NO3-N and P, as well as other II 6.6 11 plant nutrient elements that impact the agricultural value of the ' compost. 6. 6 . 4 - Environmental Monitoring 1 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 staff will keep records of any odor complaints , as well as the corrective action taken. 1 6. 7 - CONTINGENCY PLAN This section discusses contingency plans, should no market 11 be available for the compost and/or the disposal of contaminated compost . External markets which recognize the value of the cora- ' post produced, are a very important part of the entire composting process . With no available market , the proposed composting fa- cility would, in a sense, be producing the compost for no purpose. 1 The production of compost from organic materials in the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream represents more efficient utilization of tmaterial resources, rather than deposition into a landfill . I 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. I 6. 7 1 I ' The simplest contingency plan for the compost product is to store and stockpile the material until such time as a market be- 1 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. ' As another contingency plan, the post-cured product ( i .e. , compost ) could be utilized as landfill cell cover material , 1 either for Southold ' s own landfill, or for sale to other munici- palities faced with required landfill closure and capping. The high fiber content of compost may serve as a blotter to retain 1 water ( for plant use ) , and to reduce runoff erosion on steep slopes . Thus , compost may prove quite useful as a source of 1 cover material. 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 1 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 . 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 1 6 .8 both "as-is " MSW and the compost being disposed of in the land- fill. The disposal of the MSW may take priority over disposal of compost. Generally , the category of contingency planning can be broken into two routes of action . For those issues associated with "bad batch" , that is either small amounts of sewage sludge, I 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- 111 cility. Long-term contingency, in terms of raw material backlog, is ' also addressed. The facility is expected to operate 5 days per week, 10 hours per day. Should there be a backlog of raw ma- n-'llterial, it is expected that facility operating hours will be in- 11 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 It is proposed that acceptable responses to the RFP for the ' composting facility will include pre-acceptance monitoring of all sludge and MSW to avoid or limit bad batch remedial action. 11 11 I 11 I I 6.10 11 7. 0 - ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED ' Soils It is expected that during the construction of the proposed composting facility (as with all construction projects ) , there will be a minimal amount of soil erosion, as a result of the re- moval of herbaceous "weedy" vegetative cover. The soil will thus be exposed for a period of time. Utilizing generally accepted engineering and regrading practices, with seeding of small areas , ' these short-term soil erosion effects can be minimized. Further, by covering some of the soils on the project site with impervious surfaces , the result is an overall long-term loss of water absorp- tive capacity of these soils on the project site. ' Traffic During the construction phase in particular , the proposed action will result in the following unavoidable short-term im- pacts with respect to motor vehicle traffic: • the presence of construction and other associated vehicles at the site and on area roadways; ' • localized change in air quality due to the afore- mentioned vehicle emissions , as well as increased dust levels; • localized change in noise levels as a result of the aforementioned vehicles . I 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 . 11 11 11 11 I ' 7.2 8. 0 - ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION AND THEIR ASSOCIATED IMPACTS I 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- 1 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: I 8.1 I • mass-burn incineration (resource recovery facility) ' • waste distillation • refuse-derived fuel (RDF) technology ' • out-of-town disposal • landfill expansion • recycling/source separation iA brief review of each alternative will be provided below, as well as a no-action alternative. 8 .1 - NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE IThe no-action alternative is included so as to ascertain the viability of leaving the landfill property in its present state and not constructing a composting facility. This alternative ' would eliminate all environmental impacts associated with the change in three acres of land area for purposes of the proposed ' composting facility. Under the no-action alternative, the site ' would remain in its present state . While the no-action alternative eliminates environmental impacts associated with the proposed action, this alternative does not fulfill the objective of the project sponsor , that of reducing the waste stream volume entering the Cutchogue landfill . 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 ' Southold, Suffolk County, New York . October 1986 . H2M Group, Melville, New York. ' 8.2 I 8 . 2 - MASS-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 a-' to a mass-burn incinerator is utilized for all unburnable ma- ll 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. 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 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 ' 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- 1 nology cannot be described as no fully operational facilities exist in the United States . ' 8.4 1 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. 1 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 1 the 1983 Landfill Law, an approved landfill on Long Island for disposal of all the Town ' s MSW would not exist. Thus, the Town ' 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 II IIof MSW and 90 tons of compostable material entering the Cutchogue I landfill daily, long-hauling would result in a cost to the Town of $11 , 700 . daily ( +$4 , 270 , 500 . annually) for its compostable Imaterial only. Should the entire 210 tons of MSW be long-hauled as well , the cost to the Town would be $ 27 , 300 . daily I (+$9, 964, 500 . annually) . I 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. This project is still in the planning stages and per ton tipping fees have not been IIestablished. I 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 Ialternative are that there would be additional handling and trans- ' portation costs and a decreased level of control over disposal of the Town ' s MSW. 8. 6 - LANDFILL EXPANSION I This alternative involves the expansion of the existing ca- pacity of the Cutchogue landfill . The Southold landfill , which Iis located outside the deep flow recharge zone, could be expanded only when the NYSDEC commissioner has made an affirmative deter- 11 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 Iwhich will cover costs to correct groundwater , I 8.6 surface water or air pollution problems that ' may occur; 2 ) The landfill is underlain by a double liner with provisions for leachate collection and disposal; ' 3 ) The landfill is designed and operated to mini- 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 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 , ' 8.7 and little or no reduction in the volume of MSW ( assuming no recycling ) . ' 8 . 7 - RECYCLING/SOURCE SEPARATION 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- tposal 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 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/ source separate a portion of the waste stream. ' 8.8 9. 0 - IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES The proposed action converts 59. 8-acreland- ' o co v_rts a portion of the 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 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 1 a-'' and electric resources . The construction of the proposed fa- ll cility would require the commitment of money, time and manpower. 1 I ' 9.2 10 .0 - GROWTH-INDUCING ASPECTS The proposed municipal solid waste composting facility is ' not expected to significantly induce population growth within the 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 . ' 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 et al . , 1980 ) . Small towns similar to Southold Town ( 10 , 000- 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 I I 1 I ' 10.2 11 .0 - USE AND CONSERVATION OF ENERGY It is anticipated c pated that the proposed composting facility will ' require 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 1 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 . ' 11.1 I II REFERENCES IAmerican 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. IAntonovics , J . , A. D. Bradshaw and R. G. Turner . 1971 . Heavy Metal Tolerance in Plants . Adv. Ecol . Res . 7: 1-85 . IAudubon Society. 1980 . Field Guide to North American Trees - Eastern Region. New York: Alfred A. Knoph, Inc. , Publisher. 11 . 1980 . Field Guide to North American Mammals . New York: Alfred A. Knoph, Inc . , Publisher . I . 1979 . Field Guide to North American Reptiles and Am- phibians. New York: Alfred A. Knoph, Inc . , Publisher. I 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 I 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- !' ment and Disposal . Information Transfer, Inc. , Rockville, MD. Burge, W. D. and P . D. Millner. 1980 . Health Aspects of Compost- I in : 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 . IChaney, 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 . IIEnv. 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. I R.1 I REFERENCES (CONT'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. 1 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, Melville, New York. I . 1986 . Solid Waste Management Report for the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. Melville, New York. ' Institute of Transportation Engineers ( ITE ) . 1987 . Trip Gener- ation Manual, Fourth Edition. Washington, D.C. R.2 I 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 . I 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 1 Counties , New York. Hauppauge, New York. . 1978 . The Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment Plan (208 Study) . 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. Kia. 1979 . A Guide to Recent Literature on Aspergillosis as Caused by Aspergillus Fumigatus . U .S . Department of Agriculture Publication ARM-NE-58EA. Washing- 1 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 . 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 . 11 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. . State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) . June 11 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 . 1 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 11 REFERENCES (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. ' Stansbury, 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 II IREFERENCES (CONT')). ITansey, M. R. 1971 . Isolation of Therophilic Fungi From Self Heated Industrial Woodchip Piles. Mycologia 63: 537-547 . I Underwood, E . J . 1971 . Trace Elements in Human and Animal Nu- trition . Academic Press, N.Y. , 3rd Ed. I 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 . IU. S . Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. April 1975 . Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York. I 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. IIU. S . Environmental Protection Agency. 1971 . Composting of Mu- nicipal Solid Waste in the United States . Publ . SW-47 , Supt . of 11 Documents, Washington, D.C. 20402 . . 1985 . Seminar Publication: Composting of Municipal Wastewater Sludges . Cincinnati, Ohio: USEPA, Center for Environ- IImental Research Information, Office of Research and Development. U . S . Office of Technology Assessment . 1979 . Materials and I 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 . ilEPA-6001 2-78-183 . 225 pp. Wittaker , Robert H . 1970 . Communities and Ecosystems . New IYork: MacMillan Publishing Co. , Inc. Zoning Code and Official Zoning Map. Town of Southold, Southold, IINew York. II II IIR.6 I I APPENDIX A SPECIES LIST I • 1 II II APPENDIX A 11 SPECIES LIST This Appendix is a listing of all observed and expected faunal and floral species on the subject parcel . Faunal species I are mammals , birds , reptiles and amphibians. Floral species are trees, shrubs and vines, and herbaceous (weedy) plants. II 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- IIyard" animal species, as described in Section 3 . 4. The zone ( s ) indicated for a particular species is not meant 11 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. I 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 II (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) IIMammals I Didelphis virginiana Virginia opposum 1, 2* Sorex cinereus masked shrew 1 Sorex fumelus smoky shrew 1 II Ondatra zibethicus muskrat 1 Blarina brevicauda short-tailed shrew 1 Scalopus aquaticus Eastern mole 1* II 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* 1 i 11 IISCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S) II Sciurus carolinensis gray squirrel 1* Glaucomys volans Southern flying squirrel 1 Tamiasciurus hudsonicus red squirrel 1 I Peromyscus leucopus white-footed mouse 1, 2* Peromyscus maniculatus deer mouse 1 I Microtus pennsylvanicus meadow vole 1 Sylvilagus transitionalis New England (SC) cottontail 1* II Microtus pinetorum woodland vole 1 Mus musculus house mouse 1, 2* Rattus norvegicus Norway rat 1, 2* II Zapus hudsonius meadow jumping mouse 1 Vulpes vulpes red fox 1, 2 Procyon lotor raccoon 1, 2* I Mustela frenata long-tailed weasel 1 Mephitis mephitis striped skunk 1 Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer 1, 2 IICanis familiaris domestic dog 2* The species of birds listed below were observed or may be I expected to be utilizing the indicated zone ( s ) mainly for roost- ing , nesting and feeding . The listing includes indigenous and migratory upland raptors , game and songbirds . The listing in- ' cludes, but is not limited to, the following: Birds II Buteo lineatus (T) red-shouldered hawk 1 Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk 1 Accipiter cooperii (SC) Cooper' s hawk 1 I Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk 1 Buteo platypterus broad-winged hawk 1 II Buteo lagopus rough-legged hawk 1 Falco sparverius sparrow hawk or American kestrel 1 Bonasa umbellus ruffed grouse 1 II Colinus virginianus bobwhite 1 Phasianus colchicus ring-necked pheasant 1* I Chordeiles minor (SC) common nighthawk 1 Caprimulgus vociferus whip-poor-will 1 Caprimulgus carolinensis Chuck-will ' s-widow 1 I Otus asio screech owl 1 Accipiter gentilis goshawk 1 II I IISCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S) I Tyto 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* Picoides pubescens downy woodpecker 1* I Dryocopus pileatus pileated woodpecker 1 Centurus carolinus red-bellied woodpecker 1 Picoides villosus hairy woodpecker 1 I Sphyrapicus varius yellow-bellied sapsucker 1 I Corvus brachyrhynchos common crow 1, 2* Archilochus colubris ruby-throated hummingbird 1 Myiarchus crinitus great crested II flycatcher 1 Sayornis phoebe Eastern phoebe 1 Empidonax minimus least flycatcher 1 IConoptus sordidulus Eastern wood pewee 1 Progne subis purple martin 1 I Cyanocitta cristata blue jay 1* Sitta carolinensis white-breasted nuthatch 1 Parus atricapillus black-capped chickadee 1* IParus 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 I Mimuo polyglottos mockingbird 1* Dumetella carolinensis catbird 1* Toxostoma rufum brown thrasher 1 I Turdus migratorius American robin 1* Hylocichla mustelina wood thrush 1* I Regulus satrapa Catharus guttatus golden-crowned kinglet 1 hermit thrush 1 Regulus calendula ruby-crowned kinglet 1 Polioptila caerulea blue-gray gnatcatcher 1 11 Bombycilla cedrorum cedar waxwing 1 Vireo griseus white-eyed vireo 1 'I Sturnus vulgaris starling 1, 2* Vireo solitarius solitary vireo 1 Vireo olivaceus red-eyed vireo 1 II Helmitheros vermivorus worm-eating warbler 1 I II ISCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S) I Mniotilta varia black-and-white warbler 1 Vermivora pinus blue-winged warbler 1 Wilsonia citrina hooded warbler 1 Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville warbler 1 I Dendroica magnolia magnolia warbler 1 Vireo qilvus warbling vireo 1 II 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 green warbler 1 IIDendroica pensylvanica chestnut-sided warbler 1 Dendroica fusca blackburman warbler 1 I Geothlypis trichas common yellowthroat 1 Dendroica discolor prairie warbler 1 Oporornis philadelphia mourning warbler 1 I Icterus spurius orchard oriole 1 Icterus qalbula Baltimore oriole 1* Quiscalus quiscula common grackle 1* I Icteria virens yellow-breasted chat 1 Piranga olivacea scarlet tanager 1 II Piranga rubra summer tanager 1 Hesperiphona vespertina evening grosbeak 1 Cardinalis cardinalis cardinal 1* Pheucticus ludovicianus rose-breasted grosbeak 1 I Guiraca caerulea blue grosbeak 1 Passerina cyanea indigo bunting 1 II Carpodacus purpureus purple finch 1 Pheucticus melanocephalus black-headed grosbeak 1 Pinicola enucleator pine grosbeak 1 I Carpodacus mexicanus house finch 1* Carduelis pinus pine siskin 1 Loxia curvirostra red crossbill 1 I Loxia leucoptera white-winged crossbill 1 Pipilo erythrophthalmus rufous-sided towhee 1 Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow 1* !, ' Zonotrichia albicollis white-throated sparrow 1* Passerella iliaca fox sparrow 1 Cathartes aura turkey vulture 1 IZenaida macroura mourning dove 1, 2* Spizella passerina chipping sparrow 1 I II IISCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S) I Melospiza melodia song sparrow 1 Columbia livia rock dove 2 Chaetura pelagica chimney swift 1 Junco hyemalis dark-eyed junco 1 I Molothrus ater brown-headed cowbird 1 Setophaga ruticilla American redstart 1 I Philohela minor American woodcock 1 Vireo flavifrons yellow-throated vireo 1 Catharus fuscescens veery 1 I Seiurus aurocapillus ovenbird 1 Larus glaucoides Iceland gull 2 Larus hyperboreus glaucous gull 2 ILarus marinus great black-backed gull 2 Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird 1 Larus argentatus herring gull 2 IIPhilohela minor American woodcock 1 I Reptile species observed or expected to occur include, but are not limited to: Reptiles IITerrapene carolina Eastern box turtle 1* Storeria dekayi brown (Dekay's) snake 1 I Storeria occipitomaculata red-bellied snake 1 Thamnophis sirtalis common garter snake 1* Heterodon platyrhinos (SC) Eastern hognose snake 1 I Diadophis punctatus ringneck snake 1 Carphophis amoenus (SC) worm snake 1 Coluber constrictor black racer 1 I Lampropeltis triangulum milk snake 1 Elaphe obsoleta rat snake 1 I Eumeces fasciatus five-lined skink 1 Amphibian species observed or which can be expected to occur include, but are not limited to: I Amphibians 11 Scaphiopus holbrooki Eastern spadefoot toad 1 Bufo woodhousei fowleri Fowler ' s toad 1* Hyla crucifer spring peeper 1* I Hyla versicolor gray treefrog 1 Rana sylvatica wood frog 1 w SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S) I Ambystoma maculatum (SC) Ambystoma opacum spotted salamander 1 marbled salamander 1 Bufo americanus American toad 1 Plethodon cinereus red-backed salamander 1 t Ambystoma laterale (SC) blue-spotted salamander 1 Dominant floral types observed or expected to occur include, I but are not limited to, the species listed below. Floral species which are listed by the NYSDEC as protected native plants are indicated by (P) after their name. I Trees Acer rubrum red maple 1 II Faqus grandifolia American beech 1 Quercus rubra Northern red oak 1 Sassafras albidum sassafras 1 IIPrunus serotina black cherry 1 Pinus strobus Eastern white pine 1 I Juniperus communis common juniper 1 Pinus virginiana Virginia pine 1 Tsuga canadensis Eastern hemlock 1 Betula lenta sweet birch 1 IBetula papyrifera paper birch 1 Betula populifolia gray birch 1 I Ostrya virginiana Eastern haphornbeam ( "ironwood" ) 1 Quercus prinus chestnut oak 1 I Ulmus americana American elm 1 Morus rubra red mulberry 1 Juniperus virginiana Eastern red cedar 1 II Populus qrandidentata bigtooth aspen (poplar) 1 Populus tremuloides quaking aspen 1 Carya cordiformis bitternut hickory 1 IICarya glabra pignut hickory 1 Carya ovata shagbark hickory 1 Carya tomentosa white hickory 1 IJuglans cinerea butternut 1 Juglans nigera black walnut 1 l Betula populifolia white birch 1 Castanea dentata American chestnut 1 Quercus coccinea scarlet oak 1 II Quercus velutina black oak 1 Liriodendron tulipifera tuliptree (yellow poplar ) 1 I ISCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S) I Platanus occidentalis sycamore 1 Cornus florida (P) flowering dogwood 1 Rhus glabra smooth sumac 1 I Rhus copallina Rhus typhina shining (winged) sumac 1 staghorn sumac 1 Toxicodendron vernix poison sumac 1 IShrubs and Vines I Kalmia latifolia (P ) mountain laurel 1 Smilax glauca catbrier 1 Morus sp. mulberry 1 ILonicera -japonica Japanese honeysuckle 1 Rosa multiflora wild rose 1 Rhus radicans poison ivy 1 I Prunus virginiana common chokecherry 1 Salix discolor pussy willow 1 Celastrus scandens (P) climbing bittersweet 1 IRhododendron sp. (P) rhododendron 1 Azalea sp. azalea 1 Rubus hispidus swamp dewberry 1 IVaccinium corymbosum highbush blueberry 1 Gaylussacia sp. huckleberry 1 Mitchella repens partridgeberry 1 IComptonia peregrina sweet fern 1 Viburnum sp. viburnum 1 I Parthenocissus quinquefolia Virginia creeper 1 Wisteria (or Kraunhia) frutescens American wisteria 1 Vitis sp. grapes 1 IMenispermum canadense Canada moonseed 1 Cuscuta gronovii dodder 1 IFragaria sp. wild strawberry 1 Herbaceous (Weedy) Plants ISolidago sp. goldenrod 2 Andropogon virginicus broom grass or broomsedge 2 I Oenothera biennis evening primrose 2 Aster sp. aster 2 Agropyron sp. wheat grass or I quackgrass 2 I SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S) I Andropogon scoparius beard grass 2 Panicum sp, panic grass 2 Setaria sp. bristle grass 2 Allium vineale wild onion 2 IUrtica sp. stinging nettles 2 Rumex acetosella sheep sorrel 2 I Rumex sp. dock 2 Polygonum sp. smartweed 2 Chenopodium sp. goosefoot 2 IAmaranthus sp. pigweed 2 Phytolacca americana pokeweed 2 Mollugo verticillata carpetweed 2 I Portulaca sp. purslane 2 Stellaria sp. chickweed 2 Agrostemma Githago cockle 2 IRannunculus sp. buttercup 2 Capsella bursa-pastoris shepherd's purse 2 I Polygonum aviculare common knotweed 2 Lepidium sp. peppergrass or pepperweed 2 Raphanus sp. wild radish 2 IBarbarea sp. winter cress 2 Brassica sp. wild mustard 2 I Potentilla sp. cinquefoil 2 Trifolium sp. hop-clover ( includes rabbit foot clover, I Melilotus sp. T. arvense) 2 sweet clover 2 Medicago sp. bur clover and I black medick 2 Oxalis sp. wood sorrel or oxalis 2 Malva sp. mallow 2 I Oenothera biennis field primrose 2 Daucus carota Queen Anne' s lace 2 Asclepias syriaca milkweed 2 I Verbena hastata vervain 2 Prunella vulgaris heal-all 2 Verbascum sp. mullein 2 IVeronica 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 Erigeron sp. fleabane 2 I I SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S) I Ambrosia sp. ragweed 2 Rudbeckia hirta black-eyed Susan 2 Helianthus sp. sunflower 2 Bidens sp. pitchfork 2 I Galinsoga sp. galinsoga 2 Achilles sp. yarrow 2 I Chrysanthemum leucanthemum field daisy 2 Arctium sp. burdock 2 Cirsium sp. thistle 2 ITaraxacum sp. dandelion 2 Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass 2 Eleusine indica goosegrass 2 I Paspalum sp. paspalum; knotgrass 2 Digitaria sp. crabgrass 2 Echinochloa sp. barnyard grass 2 ISorghum halepense Johnson grass 2 Cyperus esculentus nutgrass 2 I Desmodium sp, beggarweed 2 Erodium sp. filarees 2 Geranium sp. wild geranium 2 I Tribulus terrestris puncture vine or tackweed 2 Croton sp. doveweed 2 I Acalypha sp. copperleaf P gur 2 Euphorbia sp. s e 2 Sida sp. sida or false mallow 2 IAnagallis arvensis scarlet pimpernel 2 Apocynum cannabinum common dogbane 2 Lactuca sp. wild lettuce 2 I Sonchus sp. sow thistle 2 Hieracium sp. hawkweed 2 I Tragopogon sp. salsify 2 Cichorium intybus chicory 2 Senecio sp. groundsel 2 Anthemis sp. mayweed 2 IXanthium sp. cocklebur 2 Gnaphalium sp. cudweed 2 I Erigeron sp. horseweed 2 Eupatorium perfoliatum boneset 2 Vernonia sp. ironweed 2 II Diodia teres common buttonweed 2 I SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ZONE(S) I Lamium sp. henbit 2 Lithospermum arvense common gromwell 2 Phragmites communus ditch reed 2 ILilium superbum (P ) Turk' s-cap lily 1 Gaultheria sp. wintergreen 1 Chimaphila umbellata (P) pipsisewa 1 I 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 Menta sp. mint 1 II Glecoma hederacea ground ivy 1 Datura stramonium Jimson-weed 2 Linaria vulgaris butter & eggs 2 IAntennaria 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 Cypripendium sp. lady' s slipper 1 IILespedeza sp. bush clovers 2 Meibomia sp. trefoils 1 I Baptisia sp. indigo 1 Anaphalis margaritacea pearly everlast 1 Coronilla varia axseed or axwort 2 IThlaspi arvense field penny-cress 2 Centaurea cyanus corn flower or bachelor button 2 I Phleum pratense timothy 2 Sisyrinchium sp. blue-eyed grass 2 Medicago sativa alfalfa or purple I medic 2 Festuca sp. fescue grass 2 IEchinochloa sp. barnyard-grasses 2 Setaria (or Chaetochloa) sp. foxtail grasses 2 Lycopodium sp. (P) clubmosses 1 Sphagnum sp. sphagnum or peat I mosses 1 Cladonia sp. lichens 1 t I I I I I t 1 APPENDIX B ZONING CODE EXCERPTS 1 1 I 1111 IN MI 1111 INS 111111 MI UM NS 11111 11111 111111 NM MIN §. 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.' of 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 by L.L. No. 2-1983] building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for (c) Barns, storage buildings, greenhouses (including plastic-covered) and other related structures, any uses except the following: 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 C'h.41,Ducks. 10018 10019 „ — all S NM - - MI a - - all NIB M NM r M § 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.2-198321 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. (4) Libraries, philanthropic, eleemosynary or religious B. [Amended 7-1-86 by L.L. No. 5-1986] Uses 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 (1) 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 (2) Places of worship, including parish houses (but ex- buildings shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) chiding 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 landscaped and properly maintained. (b) The total area covered by all principal and ac • - 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. 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- [1) All buildings shall be of fire resistive con- struction. cessory buildings shall not exceed twenty percent (20%) of the area of the lot. [21 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 Vote: This local law also repealed former Subsection AWWilc), as nursing home or sanitarium (communicable amended 5.30.75 by L.L.34475,which listed the keeping of not more than two(Morse* or ponies for personal use as a permitted use In an A District and redesignated former Subsection A1211 d) as this Subsection A;2)t c I. 10021 10020 9._.•.-,+c NMI r s r �r an gm a a — r — NM r § 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-ws y 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 the health, safety, appearance and general welfare of thousand (10,000) square feet for each cottage, the community and the character of the neighborhood tent or other principal building, and not less than in which the proposed structure is to be constructed, three thousand (3,000) square feet of land area 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 their guests,or other recreational facilities open to the (c) All outdoor lighting shall be arranged and/or public, and accessory playgrounds, beaches, swim• shielded to eliminate the glare of lights toward tennis courts and recreational buildings, nearby residential lots, streets or other public ming pools, 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 (20%) (a) All farm labor camps on farms shall be con- of the area of the lot. structed in conformance with applicable laws and (c) Such use shall not be conducted for profit as a shall not be located nearer to any other residence business enterprise. than the residence of the employer, except by 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 (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, Floats, Docks and Wharves. 10022 10023 ,,.,","Nh r I I all EN MS N MN — I — MB NM N r NMSIB NM — § 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 ridin academies. ments of a dwelling unit as defined in § 100-13 g 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. 2-1983] (j) All exterior alterations to the existing building, ex- (15) [Added 1-21-86 by L.L. No. 1-1986] One(1) accessory - cept for access to the apartment, shall be made on 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 an own- (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- area. id certificate of occupancy issued prior to January (e) The accessory apartment shall not exceed forty per- cent1, 1984. (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 B(14), which permitted sales of personal Southold. property, was repealed 3.29.93. (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-' apartment. 10024.1 IN NM NM NM IN i MI MI - - - - N MI r r - (r E § 100-30 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-30 § I00-30 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 § 100-30B(16) hereof, shall be permitted in or on offered to groups in excess of five(5) pupils at one (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- 30B(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. ---- Editor.. Sots: Original Sub.eetinn Ct 1 ttel and(0 were deleted.a:the)duplicated Subwe. • lion(ititlit and(el . 10024.2 •+.-:,•M7 10021.3 5.21-l+; NIB MI r r OM /I NMI MI — MI all — — — MIS MI UM r rr § 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 Ps remi es. (4) [Amended 2.1.83 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 Ur r NM IBS NB /I MN 111111 NIB r r NIBrr r NIB EN r r NIB § 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. strutted within fifty (50) feet of any line. [Amended 5• (7) [Added 5-29.73) Yard sales, attic sales, garage sales, 29-73; 5-30-75 by L.L. No. 3-19751 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: (a) One (1) indirectly illuminated nameplate or (a) Not more than one (1) such sale shall be con 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 (1) 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 be 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 - t 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. 9.1983) (d) One (1) sign, either single- or double-faced, not No building or premises shall he 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 10.25-83 10026 4.25•83 r — V OM /I M — I M r M N all MO — 1 N — O I § 100.31 SOUTIIOLD 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 Hulk 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 (1) 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. 10-19831 (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. I Added 13) All lots shown on minor subdivision maps that have 10.4-83 by L.L. No. 11-1983) 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 (4) All lots set off or created by approval of the Planning subsequent to November 23, 1971, and prior to No. 7-1983, which increased the minimum area, width, Boarday 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 I 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 - Board on or after May 20, 1983. • (3) The Town Board has now ascertained that there exist many owners of land who had expended time and (21 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 roval on or after May 20, 1983. May 20, 1983, but, due to circumstances beyond their control, were unable to have such subdivision maps (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- in�5 set forth in Column A-160 of the Bulk and Parking 141 The Town Board finds that, in such instances, it would be inequitable to require such land owners to conform F..dltnr'• \ntr: The Bulk and Parking Schedule Is Included at the end of this I Editor's bole: See the Bulk and Parking Schedule, located at the end of this chapter. chapter. 'Editor's Note: See § 100.31. 10028 1o.25•83 • 10028.1 10.23.83 • r . r — Mr all N MN r M r — MO E — MI M MI N N § 100-31.1 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-31,; § 100-31.1 ZONING § 100-36 to the requirements established by Local Law No. 1 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 sectio! F. Fees. Every petition for relief provided for in this section shall apply-to the following subdivision maps: shall be filed with the Town Clerk and shall be ac- companied by a fee of one hundred dollars ($100.). (1) Minor subdivision maps for which an application foi 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 fol • 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 sit - 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 map involved, that the petitioner thereafter diligently and in good faith prosecuted such application 100-33. Established front yard setback. [Amended 5-29.73] and that final approval of said subdivision map was not § granted by the Planning Board prior to May 20. 1983, due Where property in the vicinity is improved with permanent tocircumstancesfront area of less than that required bythe beyond the control of the petitioner. dwellings with a yardq chapter, the front yard setback this shall be the E. Procedures. provisions of ) 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 ona e aforesaid planning agencies, the Town Board shall p g 10029) , Editor's Note: Former§ 100.34.Corner lots,was renumbered as§ 100.119 2.1.83 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 3.29.73,as§ 100.34.which section w•as 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 io•23•&1 10028.3 to.23.83 111111 MB NM an all NM MB NE NB MIN MI UM MID NM MB NI NIB asp l ! § 100-80 ZONING § 100-90 § 100-80 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-80 (14) Retail sales of boats and marine items. A. Permitted uses. (15) Boat building; boat servicing; boat storage facilities. (1) [Amended 10-26-76 byL.L.No.5-1976 Anypermitted ] set forth in, and as regulated by, the following (16) Yards for sale and storage of fuel and building uses N provisions of this chapter: materials. (a) Subsection A(2)and(3)of§ 100-30. (17) Special exception use. [Repealed 10-26-76 by L.L. No. C 5-1976] B. [Amended 7-1-86 by L.L. No. 5-1986] Uses permitted by 18 Special exception uses set forth in, and as regulated by, special exception by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter ( ) p p g provided,and except for the uses set forth in Subsection B(18) § 100 30B(16) of this chapter. [Added 7-1-86 by L.L. hereof, are subject to site plan approval by the Planning No. 5-1986] Board in accordance with Article XIII hereof: C. Accessory uses. (1) Industrial uses, including manufacturing, assembling, (1) Accessory uses on the same lot with and customarily converting, altering, finishing, cleaning or other incidental to any permitted use and not involving a f processing, handling or storage of products or separate business. materials, involving the use of only oil, gas or elec- tricity for fuel. (2) Signs as set forth in § 100-60C(2) of this chapter. [Added 2.1-83 by L.L. No. 2-1983] (2) Research, design and development laboratories; office buildings. (3) Wholesale storage and warehousing. § 100-81. Bulk, area and parking requirements. (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: See also Ch. 32, Boats, Docks and Wharves. • 100-12.13 9.25 86 10111'2.1'_' y._,.XI. 11111 S E r V MB NM N UM MO 11111 NB MN UN all MB N En 111111 I § 100-90 SOUTHOLD CODE § 100-90 § 100-90 ZONING § 100-90 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 (23) Ore reduction. A(48) hereof, are subject to site plan approval by the Plan- 1 ning Board in accordance with Article XIII hereof: (24) Paint, oil, shellac, turpentine or varnish manufacture. (1) Abattoirs. (25) Paper and pulp manufacture. (2) Acetylene gas manufacture or gas manufacture from (26) Petroleum refining, storage tanks. coke, petroleum or from any other product, or the 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. w; ;•< (6) Asphalt manufacture and asphalt mixing plants. (31j Sauerkraut manufacture. (7) Blast furnace. (32) Shoeblacking or stove polish manufacture. *' if (33) Smelting. (8) Cement, lime, gypsum or plaster of paris manufac- k, ture; ready-mix or bulk concrete plants and block (34) Soap manufacture. Y manufacturing. (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. :/- (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. (16) Fireworks manufacture. (43) Tanning,curing or storage of rawhides or skins. (17) Garbage, offal or dead animals reduction or dumping. L (44) Tobacco(chewing) manufacture or treatment. 1 1 (18) Glue, size or gelatin manufacture. . (45) Vinegar manufacture. (19) Gunpowder manufacture or storage. { (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 10042.15 9-25-S6 L , MO MO E ES — N 1 MB — — E M UM MI 11111 11111 all MIN SR IC . § 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 ( Board of Appeals, such use is not permitted in a C-1 District except § 100-102. Exemptions. as a special exception by the Board of Appeals, and where a use in any use district is subject to site plan approval of the Planning This Article shall not be deemed to appy to the temporary or sea- 4 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. i. § 100-92. Signs. Signs as specified in and regulated by § 100-GOC of this chapter ARTICLE XI r. are permitted in a C-1 District. General Regulations § 100-93. Bulk,area and parking requirements. § 100-110. Signs. :- No building or premises shall be used and no building or part C The provisions of this section shall apply in all districts. 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'donpage P g 10043) ARTICLE X Tourist Camps, Camp Cottages and Trailers' t § 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's Note: See also Ch.88.Tourist and Trailer('amp.. Editor's Note: This ordinance appears a,l'h.88.Tourist and Trailer Camps,of this Code. 10042.16 9.25-86 10042.17 9.25•>w ►c_ i MN MN M NM M OM NM OM M MN MN MB M all all = N I 0 3 D A 2 m 3 ZONING . 1- m BULK AND PARKING SCHEDULE Z O A Residence District' Z Two- Multiple-Residence 9• Family Districts Business Districts Industrial Districts 3 Minimum Single-Family Dwellings Dwellings M M-1 B B-1 C C-1 C Requirements A A-40 A-80 A-180 Light General Light General Light General y m Total lot area(sq.f1.) — 40,000 80,000 180,000 40,000 80,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 200,000 r- 1 Lot width(ft.1 — 150 175 270 135 200 60 150 200 300 1 Lot depth(ft.) — 175 250, 400 Front yard(ft.) 35 50 60 60 50 50 35 35 501 150 n One side yard(ft.) 10 15 20 30 15 20 25 30 50 Both side yards(ft.) 25 35 45 50 35 45 50 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 Art1- 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 25 25 See Arti- See Artl- See Arti- See Arti- cle VI cle VII cle VIII cle IX Building height: Number of stories 21/2 2',4 2',4 21/2 21/2 21/2 2 2 2 2 Feet 35 35 35 35 35 35 30 35 30 35 '(Amended 5.29.73;5.18.83 by L.L.No.7-1983;8-9-83 by L.L.No.9.1983] '(Amended 5.30.75 by L.L. No. 3.1975] 8-23.83 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 APPENDIX D 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I SPECIFICATIONS OF THE FACILITY I ITABLE OF CONTENTS I1 .0 PROCESS I 2.0 PROCESS EQUIPMENT I3.0 SITE LAY-OUT I4.0 SITE WORKS 5.0 BUILDINGS I 6.0 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS I 7.0 GENERAL CODES AND STANDARDS ENCLOSED DRAWINGS The following Daneco drawings are enclosed to and are part of this Appendix: A) Drawing No. 88063.0.A.03-A ' Flow Diagram ' B) Drawing No. 88063.0.A.03-B Site Lay-out 111 C) Drawing No. 88063.0.A.03-C Equipment Lay-out ' D) Drawing No. 88063.0.A.03-D ' Equipment Lay-out/Sections E) Drawing No. 88063.0.A.03-E ' Compost Screening F) Drawing No. 88063.0.A.03-F ' Office Building All the above referenced drawings are on scale, but because of the reduction rate used for plotting the drawings enclosed to this Appendix, the scale is not indicated and therefore the reference scale is given by the dimensions indicated on each drawing. = MN = 1111111 M = MIII IIIIII = NM MIIII M I = M M M MO MN I HSM I SOURCE RECYa�ASLLE ;LII MASTE SCREEN 11 1� ASTEI: rRESIIXS =7 l FLOOR O'TO'4u- O ( LIQUID SCIAGE PRIMARY I FERROUS I_- amTOR OIn LIOD SLUDGE i FMDIND SYSTEM I_ II SECONDARY az, --=c_- SCREEN I GRIMED MOH I r.,02 �-�GRIMEDO S SEPARATOR 0 Elamo- Y opmat c-�I FERROUS f 4M29 I 10 GRIMING YSTEM r;;AL FEEDING SYSTEM .,.... . ®� 04 AGGREGATE / 8 / i 14 — i7.4. _ 4.4)taxa MATER 1OT SPRAYING 3 � •tom• 16 A A 1 IIIN II •':M='-':�F: ► R MATO GE N ACTIVE COMPOSTING I oMMi.WIC ii'i:'='=''1 r ,,A,F »Re»AM»rRq,_ .�:,:m.��m■ ACTIVE 1!^ ,f�f`a f.--t�.'.t. �' ``\ ___ RESIDUES I I COMPOST FEEDING 14 SYSTEM COMPOST COARSE t ETMRELDEIM 16 1 COMPOST FILTER 1 COMPOST 12 VENTILATION 4A,,,.-1;-- , _ SYSTEM uSCREEN MELL IT .0-, Fl / 0 MNY/• MUM ar. OCOCRIPTId a NPppEpp9.1•.s..•.... --...1....'?' MAIM.nt.L I I �ii . I/''� ram -TOUAM AM•eourMIP - , CLASS 1 CLASS 2 .OLIO MASTE/OLIOCS CO POSTDo FACILITY Q T CAlPOST COMPOST I RESIDUES I -FLOM OIKAAI- 01.81•OLI M. 88063.0.A.03-A 0°rbe06.3.A.Gi n.ri....•-.•• •Im .a.r.m.• Mca srmJO M I OM I N = 1 111111 I IIIIIII I N = MI M IIIIII MI = IIIIIII 1 - — iti_ COIPosTINo BunDING 1 VVIIP EXISTING �'� - BunDING TOWER ELECTRIC. IPIT -1-s-? '1 mn TIPPING PROCESSING `,..:. BUILDING => > ..--w. ' EXISTING MAIN ENTRANCE P -r• I, / LEGEND caPOST SCRm4II J� BUILDING A EXISTING FENCE LITE 1111111111111 COVERED RUILDSNGB DQSTING LILCO POWER WIRES EXISTING%CIMINO SCALE CARS TRAFFIC Io MI MEIpwNG SCALE STOWE _ � TRUCNS TRAFFIC li PROPERTY LINE o WAYS IMAM ay. am CESCIPIPTION 1171.1F.-r. CPAYINC 11IlC. qt TOTS.OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE/SUM CCI}OSTI143 FKILPTT -SITE LAY-Oft- �� 0101/1 Ma YC. nanNa.N.. 88063.0.A.03-8 `063-A 0: :••••47'..' • wY u.r+.n+n}m.w..t w /M.w rt ww} sY a.4�.�.M.s10 -21::=--.7.- MO IIIIII = Iliii MI OM N = 111111 = M MI = N M — MINI In 11111 1 I uo•-o•----.---_____i I 1""'"""mm............0 i1 ii Z40•-O• RESIDUES FERROUS 0 1 Iwo- ,7-'"' "04'. R r titill .� E � ,o y, E ccw. r •c1 01 i�piaiii go'ftpii c i.c gic" MM.RO ,.,,JII N. nrf� 0 © �� 0 •�I j 16 Duey coma ranDN O rO'01 �� ; 17 uvesL scrim - • 4 ORrNQC 16 TROM[L MINIM AGGREGATE 4''`�f_ �_ =" ii 16 power aMI mo ` ':'07: aecu:__:,_aMecaMe_c=„ 14 COPOST F®i1G surd Ipp._0• ;i�rj �j 13 MATER SPRAYING rune }f3 w 12 wworT MDrt1uTloe risme 6 i O n S;i,7ij n D Y p 11 NamN F �._ e -Lr. 10 MINDED DRUM MEMO Wird —�. _ --.,.-- --w '�� 9 LIOUID ruGaE FFD)INo srsrd ` C O ii riTr 8 oEWTETm stool MEMO srsTDe © `��In —r 7 fEDDGART Emma INOCrIc 49ARATDr C !PIM IC Br - .,.!.`_ 6 MET SPTAWITOR a r--T Worm >�• ill E%ISTINO6ELVIQAM1RoeE1BOARNI I p0O1 + OFFICE4 RRINARr DLCTRO NIAON[TIC re,mATOR iI0 Q ` — WAS USE 3 PRIMA Y TROWEL SCFm1A , I HOW*SHINDGER 2 WASTE fEID11G BYETdeTRTd I HP ITDI OE804PTIb1v iviAl I rpp•-p• 0 :,� E%ISTINTI IZD•-o• WASTE TIPPING FLOOR III BUILDING ...NAY'S INKED hero rnr OEeTAIPTIOM T 9!,T PUSH MALL — — },�T ppg1ypppq r^p�.Ipp�s • a DANEco.,.........,. Hi30._p. OI.HMO T77tt. Mat w I i,� ' -tolrN of rpl'°I°.IM. - M0.7D MASTUitAOE COOPOBTI)G FACILITY Mt • EOUI►NEM LAYOUT- B� _..J A • uM.aw Mo. - ... Noo•-o• I n I loo•-o -{ 88063.0.A.03-CJO���8063•A.0 En NM — r M I E En 1 M 1 N — 1 NB EN N N — 0 . RESIDUES IIIIIIIIIIIIII :1:,,...::.q.,_ ,... Mill li lit ic_od I ? iii.. AN C, m 0 p I 120•-0• -I 100•-0• I 10 I SECTION F-F I 0 SECTION A-A 4 0 le IB all FERROUS ..rle_'ii" - l m 11.r�sli — 1.1.1 '�:,.MB _._ C6 © 0 'MOO•-O• I 120•-0• { I VIEN G I VIEW H SECTION B-B °7MYOq .CI.C].C7.4.Ce.C{.C7.$Cf.C10.CII Cl2.C17.CI4.CIe.CI .CI7.CIS.CIT 5 CI 1e Duet comma.SYSTEM 17 016 LMH°.SCREEN © t �� �^ IE IS =PROST SHREDDER CS ±�1 / 14 compost FEELING"mem S 13 WATER SPRAY1M MIDI • f .. .. .. .. 12 mom VENTILATION SISTd ` 2.�'.f i-.I.r�g� - .............7nS�..", --- 11 mo. Lid .....1.'2....".—..,-.....• -- _ --1-.r 10 RR11oFD BRUSH FEEDING MIDI - ' 0 cs 9 L0IEWA WAGE FEUDGE EDING MTV I 100'-0• j I. 110•-0• I 7 SECONDARY ELECTS°MAGNETIC SEPARATOR 6 MET SEPARATOR SECTION C-C 6 scaCAln TR4se.SEREE1 4 PRIMARY ELECTS)MAGNETIC SEPARATOI 3 PRIMARY 784441.SCREEN 2 W.I$ DRESOER 1 0 I WASTE FEEDING 8YSTDM ® INN DESCRIPTION O © © 0 RAIII m �--- 1.1111 y4.-;-...L. �-1G° �.71�� rf:4': �-4.0 �� o MAWS ISSUED apse ++ � R.� R ' © � �p a.. re DESCRIPTION 'R' '4^— ►p7�AiI�.•4it lit_=t .1.4,'- - U..." Am --___..---- _ l�1ip1�1�a+�i 6 © 0 © © C4 {lP� �O.Ine.Mn........ I 100•-0• I 1 100•-0• I w.R110 TIME. e.[ .e. Mb -TORN Of SORN0.°.NY. - SECTION D-D I SECTION E-E I SOLID WA.TF/SLWOE CAPWTING FACILITYs a 1 -EQUIPMENT LAYOOI--SECT3�- r. +.. ` 1Ar110 le. � • 88063.0.A-03-D ,0mr-M8063.A.0�1 IIIE N N En E OM NM IMI1 11111 11M1 1 OM IIMII 11111 1 I EN 111111 11111 Y S.. Rm a e a, m 1. 1. TorrEIMIMIIIIIII, � 111111111111111•111► e . RESIDUES C . gr.1 COARSEQ. viArP, �'wM'ps ►__ i .1r/ 4.6_ COMPORT `0rir �\ ig F 110,-o- I I SO'-0• ( VIEW A ) ( VIEW B ) I a a 16 ' 1 1 S OOYYEYORS .CI,Q,p,G.UA.G.CT,C/Cf.C10.C11 ' l CI].CII.CII,C IS,CIE,C I7.CIO.CI I9prom 7►a►4 7-4 /RESIOIES __ �����►OPITS 11_ 16 OUST mMR4 evsid 17 LIIELL SCREEN 1111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ;.I 16 TPOSEL SOREDI l0 1APaT oamRElr 60'-0- I• 14 t11sOS FI7EDIro S 3104 13 ANTER mRAY710 RrcrEM U I 12 mean mammal eYSrpl IN 'll ■I 111111 COMPOST to SRIICED.LC FEEDINO srsTd 9 LIO ID SLUMS FE1DDID SYSTEM II1 II /1:k II I �/ 6 MAW/ED SLUDGE F®ilo mal //_ _ , 7 SC0010ASY ELCCTDO e11ETIC SEPARATOR ►.-n n " 6 SET SEPARATOR • II _I " o '...\ 4 PRIMARY ELECTIO)NOETIC SEPARATOR -- soocot ;i --'1 3 PRI%1M TRIM....s4 AE M' z1li i ITEM DESCRIPTION° g �`in u 1 O M AVIS ISSUED w.. - DESCRIPTIO Z'4T.T ( PLAN ) I 1 a kilt��mco.IRe.:e....... It imam 1311[. \ `/ TOM OF SOURQD /14S11\ /14S111NSTEISL000E CCSPOSTI)a FACILITY �� RESIDUES CLASS I COMPOST CLASS 2 COMPOST -COPOHT SUEET17M10- s 1 . 88063.0.A.03-E J0' 8SoOb3-A-OY ... I 1 . ......ar0,1111431 MOO. .�. _ _ . . .., ... .. -a... ..,_ ._ mu on mu mv mg iim um In iim imi um me me am me um an um me ' 1 I I I 11111 a11IlLE1f i, ilii, iiiiiiin,. /////fii/...7 ////////,7//////,.4/iiiii./y/./ /7/ ///////,>i/////////////7///////////7//////// ///////// ( VIEW A ) ( VIEW 8 1 r.....= 11 ,141..40 , _,...____,._...___, ,,__.R II 0 • • 1. • • il • 01 O RECEPTION 111■ ■1111 ■ OFFICE , hiCONFERENCE ROOK ■ iii my OnIMME man MIMI LABORATORY ■ ROOMESSING ill. ■ , �� ■• SHOWERS 11111 1 tkmJI1 ■ ■■■■■I TIO�y��1��, CANTEEN o NAY/! ISSUDD .Ona' rR DESCRIPTION T T'74 I611\'1E491�J.Ine.no.a...... v 0Tw tine. w TOWN DO SCAHNOLD SOLID0 MA51FJS1lO0E DAPoOPOST STIIq FACILITY -OFFICE DUILDINO- A nw u. w . .w a...,.. 88063.0.A.03—F 0" 6063A-o3 w..r.. at....n............,.,`` Nu `k..s... ......T..y..�...... -in,.dr t: ... ..... j1.0 PROCESS ' The following process description refers to the enclosed Drawing A. The waste delivered by the collection trucks and compactor trailers is unloaded on the floor of the receiving area where non-processible waste can be ' separated. A front loader is used for conveying the waste into the feeding system (1) which feeds the shredder. A small crane with a hydraulic grapple is used to assist the separation of non-processible waste entering the infeed ' conveyor. The shredder (2), of hammer mill type, reduces the size of the materials ' contained in the waste stream. A belt conveyor conveys the waste from the shredder to the primary trommel screen (3). In the screen, the waste is divided into two flows: - an oversize fraction (residue) that is dropped in a load-out area; and - an undersize fraction that is taken to the secondary trommel screen (5) by two belt conveyors. An electro-magnetic separator (4) is located between these two conveyors for ' recovering the ferrous materials. Recovered ferrous is dropped into a load-out area. The secondary trommel screen separates the two following streams of materials: - an oversize fraction; and ' - an undersize fraction which is conveyed to the wet separator (6) for the separation of the high density materials, such as glass and stones. ' The Aggregate removed from the undersize fraction by the wet separator is discharged into the storage area after the separation of ferrous metals by means of a secondary electro-magnetic separator (7). After removal of glass and high density materials (i.e. , the Aggregate) from the undersize fraction, the undersize organic matter is mixed with the intermediate fraction for the purpose of achieving the proper moisture content ' for the compostable material entering the accelerated composting process. A mixer (11) is used for mixing these materials and grinded brush and sewage sludge which can be fed into the process by the following systems: - Dewatered sludge feeding system (8); I-1 1 1 Liquid sludge feeding system (9); and ' - Grinded brush feeding system (10). The two feeding system 8 and 10 can be possibly used for feeding other streams of materials such as, but not limited to: ' - Agricultural waste; ' - Compost having a maximum particle size larger than 10 millimeters (0.39 inch); and - Screen oversize residues to be recirculated. The mixed compostable material is transferred into the building reserved for the accelerated composting using a belt conveyor. The formed pile is about seven feet in height. Two aeration units (12), each one including centrifugal blower and dampers, provide an air flow through the pile via the perforated air distribution channels in the concrete floor. Air is alternatively supplied under negative and positive pressure according the preprogrammed cycle. During the negative pressure phases, the air from the compost pile is discharged through a compost bio-filter in order to control ' odors. After a two-week duration, a front loader is used to turn the pile; after a subsequent two-week period, the compost from the accelerated composting area is ready to be transferred to the curing area. Depending on ' the operational requirements, the material can be turned several times. The entire area for accelerated composting is roofed and provided with a water spraying system (13) installed under the roof of the building. The purpose of this system is to control the moisture content of the compost. Before being cured, the compost can possibly be shredded and screened by ' using the following equipment of the compost screening section: - Compost feeding system (14); - Compost shredder (15); and • - Tertiary trommel screen (16) . ' The final screening of the compost is done before the delivery of the compost product to the users. I-2 I I I IThe curing/storage area is designed for a total retention time of 90 days and therefore the process time schedule is typically as follows: I - First day: Piling of compostable material in the accelerated composting building. ' - 29th day: Coarse compost is transported to the curing area where it can be processed before being stored. I - 112th day: Coarse compost is screened and the end products are produced. The final screening of the compost is carried out by a Liwell screen (17). The I compost feeding system (14) feeds a belt conveyor which unloads the material on a reversible belt conveyor. Depending on the operational and marketing requirements, the compost can be shredded by a compost shredder (15) which I possibly can be by-passed. A third belt conveyor conveys the material into the tertiary trammel screen (16) which separates residues having a large particle size. The screen undersize stream is processed by a Liwell screen (17) which I separates three flows of materials: - Screen oversize residue; I - Compost having a maximum particle size of 10 millimeters (0.39 inch); and - Compost having a maximum particle size of 25 millimeters (0.98 inch). IDepending on the operational and marketing requirements, at the Company's exclusive option, the group of screening panels of the Liwell screen which have I25 millimeters openings can be replaced by panels with 10 millimeters openings in order to produce only compost having a maximum size of 10 millimeters. I I I I I I-3 I 1 I 1 2.0 PROCESS EQUIPMENT I This section includes the specifications of the process equipment which will be installed in the Facility. 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I II-1 I I 1 WASTE FEEDING SYSTEM (ITEM 1) IThe waste feeding system consists of the following equipment: I - two apron conveyors - one crane with grapple The apron conveyors consist of the following parts: I - frame - apron 1 - driving unit - sidewalls I The frame is open type fabricated from mild steel structural shapes and plates with stiffeners. I The toothed wheels that drive the plates are mounted on a steel shaft supported by dust and water-proof rolling bearings.Bearings are lubricated when mounted.The turnbuckles for adJustement of the belt tension are bilateral screw type. IThe aprons are fabricated from mild steel plate,circular-arc shaped at both ends so that the end of the precedent plate is overlapped by the beginning of the following plate with a minimum gap. Ithe plates are reinforced with steel sections and fixed onto two driving chains by means of bolts and self-locking nuts. The chains have pins and bushings made of hardened steel and steel rollers. IThe driving unit consists of an electric motor located at head section coupled to a speed variator with final belt drive to yield the required belt speed. ISidewalis are made from mild steel plate and are electrically welded to conveyor frame and to concrete hopper in order to protect the driving chain. IThe apron conveyors are also equipped with the following safety devices: 1 - zero speed switch located at tall shaft.rotary motion type - safety stop switch located along conveyor one side only,cable operator type. - guards located at tall pulley and motor side. I I 1 11 - 2 I I I APRON CONVEYOR I I c4+, I -40 0 1 1fr 0 -40,4* Wite 401 I 1 1 1 1 FRAME 2 HEAD SECTION 3 TAIL SECTION 1 1 I it - 3 I ' The crane with grapple consists of the following parts: - crane with arms - grapple - oleodynamic system - control system The crane has swivelling arms fabricated from mild steel tubular shapes and is fixed at ' the base by means a ball bearing. The grapple consists of segments made from mild steel plate shaped and reinforced ' with stiffeners. The segments are connected to main block by means pins and bushings and are operated by hydraulic cylinders. ' The oleodynamic system consists of one hydraulic unit complete with pipes,hoses,couplings,fittings and control Instruments. The control system consists of one working station located between the two apron conveyors complete with control levers,seat and guards. I 1 11 - 4 1 1 1 CRANE WITH OLEODYNAMIC GRAPPLE 1 1 1 A 4 .r,. * \ 0 1 u 1 1 i 1 1 SWIVELLING ARMS 1 2 OLEODYNAMIC GRAPPLE 3 BALL BEARING 1 i 1 II - 5 1 I I 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS 1 INo. 1 APRON CONVEYOR: . center distance 20 ft. Iwidth 60 in. . Installed electric power 4 HP INo. 1 APRON CONVEYOR: . center distance 52.5 ft. width 60 in. . Installed electric power 15 HP I No. 1 HYDRAULIC CRANE WITH GRAPPLE: I . capacity 1000 lbs. . grapple capacity 0.5 cu.yr 1 . Installed electric power 3 HP I I I I I 1 1 it - 6 I HAMMER SHREDDER (ITEM 2) The hammer shredder,two rotor type with horizontal axis.has a steel casing stiffened with adequate ribs. The rotating shafts are located inside it:they are fixed to the casing by means of rolling bearings. Some steel disks are splined to the shaft .On such disks the hammers are fixed by ' means of pins.Therefore,the hammers are free to carry out limited oscillations. The Inside part of the casing is lined with special wear—proof steel plates which are replaceble. ' The hammers holding shafts are connected to two electric motors by means of a transmission consisting of two hydraulic couplings. The upper section of the casing Is divided into two parts hinged to the frame which can be lifted by means hydraulic cylinders allowing access for rotor maintenance. iThe shredder is located over a sturdy frame fabricated from mild steel structural shapes and plates with stiffeners. ' The shredder is supported by concrete piers with vibration mounts. ' The feeding hopper is fabricated from mild steel plate and is provided with inspection door. ' The shredder is equipped with an oleodynamic station that operates the case lifting cylinders and is complete with pipes,hoses,couplings,fittings and control instruments. . Bearings temperature control instrument and absorbed power control instrument for each electric motor are also installed on the main control panel located in the control room. The shredder is served by a hoist for the maintenance operations. 1 1 11 - 7 t t HAMMER SHREDDER i 11. t t e i s mar_ 7s.anin tLITE 1111111111111111111111111-•A t i t 1 1 FRAME 2 CASING 3 BEARINGS 4 ROTOR t 1 t ' II - 8 t TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS No. 1 HAMMER SHREDDER (ITEM 2): . rotor no. 2 ' . rotor speed 1,400 rpm • Installed electric power - hammer shredder motors 2 x 215 HP 111 - oleodynamic unit 2 HP 1i 1 I 1 I - 9 TROMMEL SCREENS (ITEM 3, 5 and 16) The trommel screens consist of the following parts: - rotating trommel - frame - driving units - enclosure ' - hoppers Te rotating trommel is built-up in three sections.The first and the third and are equipped with supporting runways.The second is the screening section consisting in five units of screening panels each one made of eight modular panels.The panels are fabricated from mild steel structural shapes on which Is welded the punched plate.All panels are bolted to the trommel structure. The frame consists of a structure fabricated from mild steel structural shapes electrically welded and reinforced with stiffeners. ' The two driving units are mounted on the frame and are located at trommel ends.They consist of wheels supported by rolling bearings and covered by rubber.The wheels 1 are driven by electric motors with shaft mounted gear reducer and V-belts. The trommel screens are totally enclosed by a structure made of mild steel tubular ' section shapes on which are rivetted metal panels.inspection doors are located in correspondance of driving units and screening panels in order to facilitate cleaning and maintenance. The collection hoppers are located beneath discharging points.They are fabricated from mild steel plate reinforced with stiffeners and bolted to screen frame. 1 1 1 I1 - 10 1 1 1 1 TROMMEL SCREEN trimplps. • Frimmarest4m.,..„ M Qe , , Law/ ..„ II Ili OM Mr:til 1 0 I 1 1 1 FRAME 1 2 ROTATING TROMMEL 3 ENCLOSURE 4 HOPPERS 1 II - 11 I TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I ' No. 1 TROMMEL SCREEN (ITEM 3): . trommel section octagonal ' . trommel diameter 8 ft. . trommel length 20 ft. . holes diameter 5-6 in. (1) . Inclination 5 dgr. ' . revolving speed 12 rpm ▪ installed electric power 2 x 7.5 HP No. 1 TROMMEL SCREEN (ITEM 5): . trommel section octagonal . trommel diameter 8 ft. ' . trommel length 30 ft. • holes diameter 1-2 in. (1) . inclination 5 dgr. . revolving speed 12 rpm ▪ Installed electric power 2 x 12 HP No. 1 TROMMEL SCREEN (ITEM 16): ' . trommel section octagonal • trommel diameter 5 ft. . trommel length 20 ft. ' . holes diameter 2-3 in. (1) ▪ inclination 5 dgr. . revolving speed 12 rpm . Installed electric power 2 x 5.5 HP ' (1) To be determined at the start—up. I — 12 PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ELECTRO MAGNETIC SEPARATORS (ITEM 4 and 7) ' The electro magnetic separators,self cleaning over-band suspended type.consist of the following parts: - electromagnet - frame - belt conveyor - driving unit The magnet is mild steel construction with oil pressure relief valve having coil insulated aluminum wire immersed in transformer grade oil. The magnet Is supported by a frame fabricated from mild steel channel shape. Head,tail pulley and take-ups of the belt conveyor are also mounted on the frame. The conveyor is high resistance rubber belt type equipped with entrainment units ' which guarantee a more efficient removal of recovered ferrous materials. The head pulley is driven by an electric motor with gear reducer coupled directely to head shaft. The magnet is also equipped with rectifier installed into the relative electric switchboard located in the electric room. I 11 - 13 I PRIMARY AND SECONDARY ELECTRO-MAGNETIC SEPARATORS I 1 0 0 0 tit 0 1/1 I n 0 0 ..' 1 1 MAGNET ' 2 FRAME 3 BELT CONVEYOR 4 DRIVING UNIT 1 ' II - 14 I I I TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I INo. 1 ELECTRO MAGNETIC SEPARATOR (ITEM 4): . type overband I . installation• width longitudinal 42 in. . center distance 7 ft. I . installed electric power I . magnet 9000 Watt .. belt conveyor 3 HP . rectifier I .. Input 3ph/60Hz.1AC ▪ output 230V/DC I No. 1 ELECTRO MAGNETIC SEPARATOR (ITEM 7): I . type overband . Installation transversal I . width 20 in. ▪ center distance 4.5 ft. . installed electric power I .. magnet 1600 Watt ▪ belt conveyor 1.5 HP . rectifier .. input 3ph/60Hz./AC I . output 230V/DC I I I I 1 11 - 15 WET SEPARATOR (ITEM 6) The wet separator consists of the following parts: ' - casing - spiral conveyors • - I - mixing system - screening system - dewatering system - driving unit - water piping The casing is fabricated from mild steel plate reinforced with stiffeners and adequately shaped in the lower part in order to house the spiral conveyors and,on sidewalls,the mixing system.The screening system is flanged at the rear end while at the front end is Installed the driving unit of the spiral conveyors. ' The spiral conveyors,open spiral type,are made of wear-proof steel and are supported by waterproof rolling end bearings flanged on the casing. ' The spiral conveyors are powered by hydraulic motors. The mixing system consists of two blade mixers having different dimensions;they are ' made of steel plate with stiffeners and are supported by rolling bearings mounted on a rotating shaft. The mixing system is powered by an hydraulic motor. ' The screening system consists of one horizontal rotary screen mounted on a rotating shaft.The screen is supported by waterproof rolling bearings and powered by an ' hydraulic motor. The screened material is processed by the dewatering system located beneath the ' screen.The system consists of one screw conveyor,open spiral type U-shape trough design,fabricated from stainless steel plate.The spiral is supported by one end rolling bearings and driven by an electric motor with gear reducer. ' The driving system consists of one oleodynamic station that drives all the hydraulic motors of the wet separator and is complete with pipes,hoses,couplings,fittings and control instruments. The water piping consists of a process water re-circulation system complete with pumps,pipes,hoses,valves,couplings,fittings and control instruments. t 11 - 16 ' WET SEPARATOR 1 0000 1 MT' , t14 J J . 1 �, :�l1�1llu _demi V 0 111 VA117: JJ111 1 FEEDING HOPPER 2 CASING 3 MIXING SYSTEM 4 SCREENING SYSTEM 5 SPIRAL CONVEYORS 1 . i 1 11 - 17 1 1 1 ' TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS No. 1 WET SEPARATOR (ITEM 6): ' . spirals no. 2 . spirals diameter 12 In. ' . spirals length 20 ft. • mixers no. 2 . screen width 70 In. . screen diameter 35 in. ▪ dewatering screw diameter 16 in. . dewatering screw length 10 ft. . Installed electric power: oleodynamic unit 60 HP .. water pumps 15 HP dewatering screw 7.5 HP ' 1I - 18 ' DEWATERED SLUDGE AND GRINDED BRUSH FEEDING SYSTEMS (ITEM 8 AND 10) Each system consists of the following parts: 1 - receiving hopper - extraction and dosing conveyor ' The receiving hopper is concrete made. The receiving hopper is complete with a cover made of mild steel plates and ' structural shapes.The cover is moved by an automatic lifting system. The grinded brush feeding system Includes a bar conveyor. ' The toothed wheels that drive the bars are mounted on a steel shaft supported by water and dustproof ball bearings.The bearings are lubricated when mounted. The tumbuckles for the adjustement of the conveyor tension are bilateral screw type. The conveyor has bars fabricated from mild steel shapes and fixed onto two solid driving chains by means bolts and self-locking nuts.The chains have pins and bushings made of hardened steel and steel rollers. The conveyor is driven by an electric motor and the chain speed can be adjusted by means a mechanical speed variator coupled to the motor. The discharge hopper is fabricated from mild steel plate reinforced with stiffeners and is bolted to conveyor frame. The conveyor is also equipped with the following safety devices: ' - zero speed switch located at tail shaft rotary motion type. - safety stop switch located along conveyor one side only,cable operated type ' - guards located at tail pulley and motor side. The dewatered sludge feeding system includes a screws conveyor for the extraction and dosing of the sludge. ' 11 - 19 I I IDEWATERED SLUDGE AND GRINDED BRUSH FEEDING SYSTEMS I I i e e / / ' ' /////7� / ♦ L /I / / / 4 f///////// / /////x///77///// //// /J I 0 0 I I I1 RECEIVING HOPPER 2 EXTRACTING AND DOSING BAR CONVEYOR I 3 EXTRACTING AND DOSING SCREW CONVEYOR I I I 11 - 20 I 1 ITECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I No. 2 FEEDING SYSTEMS (ITEM 8 AND 10): hopper capacity 15 cu.yr. . conveyor width 30 In. I . conveyor length 13 ft. . conveyor type .. grinded brush system bar conveyor .. dewatered sludge system screws conveyor installed electric power .. grinded brush system 5.5 HP I .. dewatered sludge system 6 HP I I I I I 1 I I I I 1I - 21 I I ILIQUID SLUDGE FEEDING SYSTEM (ITEM 9) I IThe liquid sludge feeding system consists of the following parts; — concrete storage tank I — mixer — pumping system — aeration system The storage tank is fabricated using cast—in—place concrete with water tight design. I The blade mixer,submersible type,is desidned for suspending solids and Is driven by electric motor with gear reducer. The mixer is also equipped with lifting system. IThe pumping system consists of two submersible pumps connected to the wet separator (Item 6) and to the mixer (Item 11) by means a piping complete with Ipipes,flanges,couplings,flttings,vaives and control instruments. The aeration system consists of an air compressor driven by electric motor I connected to an air distribution system located on the bottom of the storage tank and complete with pipes,hoses,couplings,flttings,valves and control instruments. I I I I I I 1 11 - 22 1 i LIQUID SLUDGE FEEDING SYSTEM i 1 ' / / /1 / / / / /// / A /;.//. 1 / / VBG• 1 1 O 1 1 1 CONCRETE STORAGE TANK 2 MIXER 1 3 PUMPING SYSTEM 4 AERATION SYSTEM 1 1 ' 11 - 23 1 I I ITECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I No. 1 LIQUID SLUDGE FEEDING SYSTEM (ITEM 9): I • tank capacity 30 cu.yr. . pumps no. 2 I . Installed electric power: .. pumps 2 X 2 HP .. mixer 1 HP I .. aeration system 3 HP I I I I I I 11 I I I I 1I - 24 MIXER (ITEM 11) The mixer, lou hshare t e,consists of the followingparts: P 9 yP - mixing chamber ' - mixing tools - rotating shaft - driving unit The mixing chamber has cylindrical shape and is fabricated from mild steel plate electrically welded. ' On the front Is provided with two charging doors,one for solid materials end one for liquids. The discharging door is located at the rear and is equipped with damming plate with ' adjustable segment. The mixing chamber is also provided with Inspection doors along the body in order to facilitate maintenance and cleaning of inside parts. ' The chamber is supported by end flanges. The mixing tools,plowshare type,are located inside the mixing chamber;they are ' made of cold stamped steel plate adequately shaped in order to increase the mixing action. ' The tools are mounted on a rotating shaft supported at the ends by roll bearings. The driving unit is located on the charging side and consists of an electric motor with ' gear reducer connected by flexible coupling. The mixer is also equipped with the following safety devices: ' - limit switches on the inspection doors with interlok system. - metal guards on all rotating parts. 11 - 25 I I I MIXER I I I o o © e © I I co I mom NI Luz rjg Pm Imy I -I. L., 1 e © 0 I I Ii MIXING CHAMBER 2 MIXING TOOLS 3 ROTATING SHAFT I 4 5 BEARINGS DRIVING UNIT 6 INSPECTION DOOR I 7 SOLID MATERIALS CHARGING DOOR 8 LIQUID MATERIALS CHARGING DOOR 9 DISCHARGING DOOR I I I 1I - 26 I I I TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I INo. 1 MIXER (ITEM 11): . type ploughshare . materials mixed solid/liquid/sludge I Installed electric power 30 HP I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 - 27 I 1 COMPOST AERATION SISTEM (ITEM No. 12) The compost aeration system consists of two ventilation units each one including: —No, 1 Centrifugal blower complete with electric motor,V-belts and suction silencer connected to the positive pressure collector. ' -No. 1 Centrifugal blower complete with electric motor,V-belts and compost filter collector connected to the negative pressure collector. -No. 1 Set of secondary collectors with cut-off valves connected to the positive pressure collector. -No. 1 Set of secondary collectors with cut-off valves connected to the negative ' pressure collector. All collectors,flanges,couplings and cut-off valves are made of PVC and are equipped with condensate collection system.The condensate is collected and pumped to a holding tank. I 1 II - 28 I I I ITECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I I No, 2 COMPOST AERATION UNITS (ITEM 12) Positive pressure blower: Iflow rate 10,500 cfm . pressure 15 in.W.G. . Installed electric power 50 HP I Negative pressure blower: I . flow rate 10,500 cfm • pressure 24 In.W.G. . Installed electric power 75 HP I I I I I 1 I I I I 1I - 29 JUNE Z7 '89 11:40 P. ITEM 12 - COMPOST AERATION AND ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATION The compost aeration system is of aerated pile type with positive and negative pressure. The flow diagram of the odor control system is illustrated in Drawing No. 88063.0.A.04-J. The compost aeration and odor control system includes the following: ' . No. 60 aeration trenches included in the concrete floor of the composting building provided with perforated covers. The covers are made of treated timber or plastic. ' . No. 20 leachate/condensate separators, made of plastic or stainless steel. The separators are complete with condensate pump, water gauge and air thermometer. The separators can be easily opened for routine cleaning. . No. 20 piping systems, made of plastic, for the connection of the aeration trenches with the leachate/condensate separators. ' . No. 20 blowers with plastic wheel and stainless steel case. The blowers are complete with electric motors, belt transmission and welded steel sections ' base, No. 20 piping systems, made of plastic, for the connection of the blowers with the condensate separators and the odor bio-filter. The piping systems includes flexible pipes with fast end couplings for reversing the pressure in the aeration system. . No. 1 odor blo-filter including: reinforced concrete floor and wails, weather shelter, No. 20 flexible pipe loops for the distribution of the waste air, wood chips for the bottom layer and compost filtering material. 1 I JLT4_ `_;, '89 11:-u ITEM 12 - COMPOST AERATION AND ODOR CONTROL SYSTEM DATA SHEET Maker Daneco Aeration Trenches Quantity 60 . Pitch 4 ft. Length 90 ft. Cross section 6 x 6 in. ' Leachate/Condensate Separators . Quantity 20 ' Diameter 35 in. ' . Height 53 in. . Pump flow rate (each) 2 gpm 1 Aeration Blowers • Quantity - 20 . Air flow rate (each) 880 cfm ' Pressure 24 in. WG ' . Motor power 5 HP P . Motor protection IP 55 I I IOdor Blo-filter I . Air flow rate 17,600 cfm . Length 240 ft. I . Width 15 ft. . Area 3,600 sq. ft. . Vertical air velocity 4.89 fpm I . Wood chips layer height 10 in. . Compost material height 5 ft. IFilter retention time 1 .02 min. I I I I I I I w WATER SPRAYING SYSTEM (ITEM 13) ' The water spraying system consists of the following parts: ' - main distributor collector — secondary collectors — spraying nozzles All collectors are made of steel pipes and are complete with coupiings,vaives,brackets and control instruments. The main collector Is fixed to the columns of the composting building;secondary collectors are supported by the roof structures. ' The water spraying system is complete of a control equipment with: — manual/automatic switch; ' - timer for spraying time; — timer for pause time; — humidity sensors; — water volume counters. 1 . ' 11 - 30 I I 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I INO. 1 COMPOST SPRAYING SYSTEM (ITEM 13): . area served 110 X 240 ft. I . nozzle spray shape conical I I I I I I I I I I 1 I II - 31 I ' COMPOST FEEDING SYSTEM (ITEM 14) The compost feeding system consists of the following parts: ' — receiving hopper — bar conveyor ' The receiving hopper is fabricated from mild steel plate reinforced with stiffeners and Is supported by steel structure. The extraction conveyor,metal bars type, Is flanged to the bottom of the storage hopper. The toothed wheels that drive the bars are mounted on a steel shaft supported by ' dustproof ball bearings.The bearings are lubricated when mounted. The turnbuckles for the adjustement of the conveyor tension are bilateral screw type.The conveyor has metal bars fabricated from mild steel structural shsped that are fixed onto two driving chains by means bolts and self—locking nuts.The chains have pins and bushings made of hardened steel and steel rollers. The conveyor is driven by an electric motor with gear reducer. ' The conveyor is also equipped with the following safety devices: — zero speed switch located at tall shaft,rotary motion type. ' — safety stop switch located along conveyor one side only,cable operated type. — metal guards located at head and tail pulley. 1i 1 11 - 32 ' COMPOST FEEDING SYSTEM 0 R\-r I 41110 I 1 1 HOPPER 1 2 BAR CONVEYOR i . 1I - 33 I I ITECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I INo. 1 COMPOST FEEDING SYSTEMS (ITEM 14): . hopper capacity 15 cu.yr. I . conveyor width 30 in. . conveyor length 13 ft. . Installed electric power (each) 5.5 HP I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 11 - 34 1 COMPOST SHREDDER (ITEM 15) ' The shredder,single rotor type,has a steel casing stiffened with ribs.The rotating shaft is located inside it and Is fixed to the casing by means of rolling bearings.Some steel disks are splined to the shaft.On such disks the hammer are fixed by means of ' pins;therefore the hammers are free to carry out limited oscillations.The inside part of the casing is lined with special antiwearing steel plates which can be replaced.The hammers holding shaft Is driven by electric motor with pulleys and V—belts.The ' shredder is located over a sturdy frame fabricated from mild steel structural shapes electrically welded and reinforced with stiffeners in order to create a rigid basement.The shredder is supported by steel structure. ' All rotating parts are protected by guards. The feeding hopper is fabricated from mild steel plate with stiffeners and is bolted to the feeding opening. 1 1 11 - 35 1 1 ' COMPOST SHREDDER 1 i 4111) 4 111111 I 1 . © 1 1 1 1 1 INFEED HOPPER 2 CASING ' 3 4 ROTOR DRIVING UNIT i 1 ' 11 - 36 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I ' No. 1 COMPOST SHREDDER (ITEM 15): . rotor no. 1 ' . rotor speed 1400 rpm Installed electric power 20 HP 1 i ' II - 37 I LIWELL SCREEN (ITEM 17) The Liwell screen consists of the following parts: — screening deck ' — driving unit — frame The screening deck consists of two cases,one incased in the other,having the lower part made of transversal elements that support the screening panels.The cases and ' the transversal elements are fabricated from mild steel structural shapes reinforced with stiffeners. The screening panels are made of highly wear resistant rubber or plastic. ' The panels are alternately flexed and stretched by a driving unit consisting of an electric motor with gear reducer and crankshaft. The screen Is supported by a frame fabricated from mild steel structural shapes electrically welded and reinforced with stiffeners. Vibration insulation of the machine against the supporting structure is achived via ' rubber—hollow—springs. The screen Is complete of a vibrating feeder which distributes the material to be ' processed on the entire width of the deck. I ' 11 - 38 ' REFINING LIWELL SCREEN 1 ,ost_) 1 SCREENING DECK 2 DRIVING UNIT 3 FRAME ' II - 39 I I I ITECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I I No. 1 LIWELL SCREEN (ITEM 17): . deck width 60 in. . deck length 16 ft. . opening size: .. 1st stage 10 mm (0.39 in.) I .. 2nd stage 25 mm (0.98 in.) . installed electric power .. Dwell screen 20 HP I :. vibrating feeder 1 HP I I I I I I I I I I 1I - 40 DUST CONTROL SYSTEM (ITEM 18) The dust control system consists of the following parts: — baghouse with centrifugal blower — ducting with the following take off branches: — No. 1 for the shredder bunker ' — No. 1 for the primary trommel screen — No. 1 for the primary electro magnetic separator,and — No. 1 for the secondary trommel screen. The baghouse is fabricated from mild steel plate reinforced with stiffeners. Transversals stiffeners are also located inside the body.The baghouse is supported by steel structure. Two collectors also fabricated from mild steel plate are located on the top of the baghouse.The filtering bags,syntetic fabric type,are suspended to the collectors and connected to the dust collection bags. The collectors ere connected to the blower by means a system of ducts. ' The blower has steel casing;Its Impeller is driven by an electric motor with pulleys and V—belts.lt is supported by a steel frame made from mild steel structural shapes electrically welded and reinforced with stiffeners. The blower is also equipped with damper and antivibration sleeves. The suction ducting is fabricated from galvanized steel plate and is complete with ' suction hoods,dampers,brackets and expansion joints. 1 _ ' 1I - 41 ' DUST CONTROL SYSTEM O © IIIIIIIIIII!IIIIIIIIIIIIII'IlilllilillllllIIl0IIIIIIIL1IIIIIIIIIIIIIi1 #MIN/ )1 -Nig 1 BAGHOUSE 2 COLLECTOR 3 FILTERING BAGS 4 DUCTING 5 BLOWER 6 ROOF ' 1I - 42 I I ITECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I No. 1 DUST CONTROL SYSTEM (ITEM 18): I . air flow rate 12,000 cfm . filter type baghouse I . blower pressure 14 in.W.G. Installed electric power 50 HP I I I I I I I I I I I I 11 - 43 I ' BELT CONVEYORS (ITEM Cl,C2,C3,C4,C5,C7,C8,C 10, C11,C12,C13,C14,C15,C16,C17,C18 and C19) 1 The belt conveyors consist of the following parts: - frame - head and tail pulley - driving unit - carrying and return idlers - belt ' - covering - discharge chute The frame is fabricated from mild steel cool stamp plate with stiffeners as required.Head and tail pulleys are located at the ends of the frame.Transversal elements connect the frame and support the carrying and return idlers. The head pulley,convex type,is made from steel pipe with hub and herringbone groover rubber lagging.The tall pulley,convex type,is also made from steel pipe and hub.The pulleys are supported by anti-friction-self aligning roller bearings with adjustable bearing blocks.The head pulley Is driven by an electric motor with shaft mounted gear reducer and V-belts to yield the required belt speed.The drive is complete with an adjustable motor mount and torque arm. Carrying idlers can be coupled or In groups or three according to the unit requirements;they are equipped with regreasable rolling bearings. ' The belt Is three ply oil resistant close type with vulcanized joint.The belt is cleaned by a doctor blade type cleaner with tensioner located at head pulley.The belt take-up is screw type located at tail section.Skirtboards are located along conveyor and are made from mild steel plate with adjustable rubber seal strips and supported by conveyor frame. Covering is fabricated from mild steel plate and designed in order to be easily removed. The discharge chute is fabricated from mild steel plate complete with inspection ' door,fianges and provisions for belt cleaner mounting. 1 II - 44 1 1 1 The conveyor is also equipped with the following safety devices: 1 - zero speed switch located at tail shaft rotary motion type — safety stop switch located along conveyor one side only,cable operated type 1 — guards located at tail pulley and motor side. i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i . 1 11 - 45 1 I ' BELT CONVEYORS 1 I 111 7 6 0 0 t ti 0 0 0 .61 -- -- -- 1 0 I 1 FRAME 2 CARRYING IDLER 3 RETURN IDLER 4 HEAD PULLEY 5 TAIL PULLEY 6 SKIRTING 7 COVERING I 1 1I - 46 I I ITECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I I No. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C1): . center distance 78 ft. . width 56 In. I . installed electric power 10 HP INo. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C2): I . center distance• width 9.5 ft. 48 in. . Installed electric power 2 HP I 1 No. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C3): . center distance 41.5 ft. . width 40 In. I . Installed electric power 5.5 HP INo. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C4): I . center distance• width 40.5 ft. 40 In. . installed electric power 4 HP I I I I 1 II - 47 I 1 1 No. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C5): . center distance 28.6 ft. . width 40 in. installed electric power 3 HP 1 No. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C7): . center distance 25 ft. . width 26 in. 1 . Installed electric power 1.5 HP ' No. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C8): . center distance 29 ft. . width 32 in. . Installed electric power 3 HP 1 No. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C10): . center distance 78.5 ft. . width 32 in. . Installed electric power 7.5 HP ' No. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C11): . center distance 39 ft. . width 26 in. . installed electric power 4 HP 1 1 1 1 11 - 48 1 I I INo. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C12): . center distance 8.2 ft. . width 26 in. . Installed electric power 1.5 HP I No. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C13): I . center distance 50 ft. . width 26 in. I . Installed electric power 4 HP INo. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C14): . center distance 11.4 ft. I . width 32 in. . Installed electric power 2 HP I No. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C15): I . center distance 38.5 ft. . width 26 in. I . Installed electric power 4 HP I . 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C16): . center distance 11.4 ft. I . width 26 In. Installed electric power 2 HP I • I I 1 i1 - 49 I 1 1 No. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C17): 1 . center distance 50 ft. • width 26 in. . Installed electric power 4 HP I No. 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C18): . center distance 50 ft. . width 26 In. . Installed electric power 4 HP . 1 BELT CONVEYOR (ITEM C19): . center distance 50 ft. . width 26 in. . Installed electric power 4 HP 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 ' II - 50 1 1 FLIGHT CONVEYORS (ITEM C6 AND C9) I The flight conveyors consist of a double casing frame made from mild steel plate bent and electrically welded. The handling of the material is carried out by the chain formed by a set of cross flights 1 fitted together with bolts by means of longitudinal links.The chain runs into the frame. The chain is driven by an electric motor with gear reducer with sprockets and roll chain located at head section. Feeding and discharging chutes are fabricated from mild steel plates with adequate stiffeners. The flight conveyor Is also equipped with the following safety devices: 1 — zero speed switch located at tail shaft rotary motion type —safety breaking bolt wheel located at tail shaft that protects the chain and the driving unit from excessive strains. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II - 51 1 I FLIGHT CONVEYORS I I 0 ' 1 ' O 1 = 3 1 FRAME 2 HEAD SECTION 3 TAIL SECTION 1 4 DRIVING UNIT ! . I 1 II - 52 I 1 1 TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS I I No. 1 FLIGHT CONVEYOR (ITEM C6): . length 47.5 ft. I . width 24 in. • Installed electric power 5.5 HP I No. 1 FLIGHT CONVEYOR (ITEM C9): I . length 52 ft. • width 30 In. . Installed electric power 10 HP I I I I 1 I I I I 1 II - 53 I I I 1 3.0 SITE LAY-OUT DrawingB illustrates the site lay-outofthe facility. y fa lity. ITwo new buildings are installed north and east of the existing drop-off building: - The Tipping and Processing building where the solid waste is delivered and processed;and - The Composting building where the material to be composted is stabilized. I The drawing shows also the new scale which will be installed at the Town's cost close to the existing vehicles scale. IWest of the scale station,the Compost screening building Is installed. The Westsouthem part of the facility site includes the paved area used for curing and 1 storing the compost. The site lay-out drawing illustrates also the location of the new office building which IIncludes also the facilities required for the operation of the composting facility. Finaliy,drawing B provides informations relative to the traffic of private cars and haulers trucks inside the facility. I 1 I I I I I III - 1 1 4.0 SITE WORKS The site works to be provided by the Company includes the following: - Grading of the areas where the new buildings and curing/storage pad are located; - Excavation works necessary for the foundations of the buildings and the equipment; - Surface preparation and asphalting of the compost curing/storage area (total surface 44,550 sq.ft.) which will include a separate leachate and run-off water ' collection and pumping system for each of the six (6) sections of the compost curing/storage area: - Surface preparation and asphalting of the new roads necessary for the operation of the facility (total surface 75,000 sq.ft.): ' - Construction of the holding tank for holding the leachate and contaminated run-off water collected from the compost curing/storage area (total volume 30,000 gal.); - Two asphalted parking lots for a total of 12 cars; - Drainage of the non-contaminated run-off water from the roof of the buildings and the paved area to existing leaching ponds; - Landscaping of the area according to a landscaping design to be approved by the Town for a total cost allowance of $ 50.000. The following items are not included in the scope of works to be performed by the Company: - New weighing scale; - Any completion or modifications of the existing fencing and entrance gate; -Electric connections between the power distribution board installed by the Company and the LILCO transformer room. - Electric connections between the electric transformer and the LILCO power lines; 1 I V - 1 I - Any possible additional costs due to the following: . soil bearing capacity lower than 4.000 lbs./sq.ft.; . soil not alllowing for easy excavation work; . water table depth less than 20 ft.; . presence of wastes in the soil; . methane venting requirement; . ground water monitoring wells. The Company will dispose free of charge at the Town's landfill any excavation materials from the construction works.ln case filling materials will be required.they will be provided at the Town's cost. I 1 I 1 i . 1 IV - 2 1 5.0 BUILDINGS The attached drawings included in this Appendix illustrate the four new buildings to be constructed by the Company. All buildings are pre-engineered metal buildings having the following specifications: 5.1 Office Building - 30 ft. width - 55 ft. length - 12 ft. eave height - insulated roof and walls 1 5.2 Tipping and Processing Building ' - 100 ft. width - 220 ft. length - 26 ft. eave height - paved floor - four 16 x 16 ft. overhead doors - three 14 x 14 ft. overhead doors - Insulated roof and walls 5.3 Composting Building - 110 ft. width - 240 ft. length - 20 ft. eave height - paved floor with aeration trenches and slabs - three 14 x 14 ft. overhead doors - insulated roof and walls I 5.4 Screening Building - 50 ft. width - 80 ft. length - 24 ft. eave height ' - paved floor - one 14 x 14 ft. overhead door - Insulated roof and walls V - 1 1 6.0 AUXILIARY SYSTEMS The auxiliary systems Included In the facility are described in this section. 1 6.1 Electric System The electric system consists of the following items: Main Lines ' Connecting cables between the transformer room and the main delivery switchboard and other remote equipment will be supplied. Electric Switchboards These switchboards are standard type enciosures,IP 54 protected,containing ' complete electric equipment for control,protection and automation of plant users.The plant system Includes the following boards: — one board for waste processing equipment — one board for the compost aeration equipment — one board for the compost screening equipment ' Control Console ' The control console is a display desk,with an aluminum synoptic panel board which displays the waste treatment and compost screening process equipment. The main pushbuttons and control switches of the machinery are provided on console I desk. The control console is located in the control room. ' Wiring Cables Cables are laid out in PVC buried pipes.conduit pipes or cable trays;the latter are equipped with cover,wall brackets and frames fastenes to machinery.For Inlets to the ' panel and machinery boards,auxiliary equipment is used,such as wire holders and sheaths according to necessity. 1 I ' V I - 1 I Lighting The lighting consists of: ' — Indoor lighting mercury vapor reflectors (tipping.processing and screening buildings) . sodium reflectors (composting building) fluorescent automatic emergency lamps 400 W — outdoor lighting (included one light for each building corner) sodium reflectors Grounding Equipment The grounding equipment system consists of buried galvanized steel rods and copper cord,Forthermore,there are connections with the grounding circuit for all the metal parts in the plant. ' TV System The TV system consists of five TV cameras with fixed focus Iens.The system also includes five 12" control monitors.The TV cameras are equipped with a protection hood.The monitors are located in the plant control room and are included in the control board.The areas monitored by the TV cameras are: — waste tipping floor — waste apron conveyor — wet separator — outdoor area in front of the sludge receiving system — outdoor area in front of the compost screening building The system includes also all the connections and the control board. Intercom System The system consists of: — one central unit designed to serve up to 12 users complete with transformer — five users Instruments for "loud voice' conversation, 1 . VI - 2 I I ISocket Boards For service and maintenance purposes ten socket boards are provided.installed and Iwired at convenient locations. 6.2 Water System IThe water system includes: I - one pumping unit for the existing well - water distribution network I Any costs for the possible treatment of the water deliwered by the existing well will be payed by the Town. 6.3 Fire Fighting System The fire fighting system is equipped with a tank buried in the ground which is complete I with two submerged electric pumps,one being in stand-by for the other;besides that,there is an autoclave tank for the system pressurization.The circuit serves all the boxes;therefore,it is a ring circuit,with polyethylene pipe and galvanized steel pipe for I the Inside connections of the autoclave and the final connections of the boxes above ground.ln addition,there Is a hydrant above ground with a column and a motor pump coupling and a series of high power wheeled and portable Halon extinguishers. 1 Main components characteristics; Tank (1) - capacity: 777 cu.ft. IPumps (2) - fiowrate: 0.65 cu.yr./min - pressure: 150 ft. Autoclave unit (1); I Galvanized vertical tank of 250 gallons capacity; Fire fighting boxes (10) made of painted metal plate with a glass door for outdoor Installations; I Hydrant (1) colum hydrant to set up in a position to be defined together with the local fire department authority; Motor pump coupling (1); I Vertical column with check valve.damper and safety valve (1); Halon extinguishers (10); Portable extinguishers operating with halon 1211: I - 4 extinguishers of 200 lbs. with CO2 - 6 extinguishers of 100 lbs. with CO2 Dust extinguishers (6); I Dust extinguishers of 24 lbs. They are set up where electric boards are Installed. I VI - 3 I I I6.4 Odor Control System Compost bio—filters are used for controlling the possible odor of the waste air from the Istatic pile compost aeration system. 6.4 Septic System IA septic system is Included for disposing the waste water produced by the restrooms/ showers located in the office building. I6.5 Leachate Recycling System I The polluted run—off water and leachate are collected from the paved areas and pumped to a holding tank.This tank is used also for holding the condensate separated in the compost ventilation system during the negative pressure phases.The waste I water is recycled to the mixer and to the wet separator. An aeration system is installed for controlling occasional odors from the holding tank. I The six paved portions included in the compost curing/storage area are served by six separated leachate and run—off water collection and pumping systems. Each pumping unit includes a set of electric valves which are used as follows: 1 — When the paved section Is empty,the run—off water is sent to the leaching pond. — When compost Is stored on the paved section,the leachate and run—off water are sent to the recycling holding tank. ' 6.7 Maintenance Workshop Equipment A workshop is included in the processing building to house the equipment necessary for the maintenance of the equipment used. 1 6.8 Laboratory Equipment The equipment necessary for the routine laboratory analysis includes: I - 1 set of glasses for chemical analysis; — 1 set of reagents; I — 2 drying ovens; — 1 digital scale; — 1 bio—activity measurement equipment with chart recorder; I - 2 digital thermometers with sensor and cable; — 1 digital pH meter. The laboratory is installed in the new office building as per drawing F. I ' VI - 4 I I I I I7.0 GENERAL CODES AND STANDARDS Unless otherwise specified in this Agreement, the latest editions of the following I general codes and standards shall apply (where certifications are unavailable because the materials are imported, explanation should be provided along with equivalent certification); I - All buildings and related structures shall be in compliance with the Basic Building Code (BBC) and the Uniform Building Code (UBC); I - All welding and related work shall conform with American Welding Society (AWS) requirements; I - Structural steel and related work shall conform with American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) requirements; I - Concrete and related work shall conform with American Concrete Institute (ACI) requirements; - Work shall conform to the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of I1970 (OSHA) including all amendments and supplements; - Domestic piping, plumbing and related work shall conform with the National IPlumbing Code (NPC) and the State of New York and local plumbing codes; - Work within the scope of codes or standards comprising the American I National Standards Institute (ANSI) shall conform to the minimum applicable requirements of such codes or standards; - Instrumentation, controls and related work shall conform to the Instrument ISociety of America (ISA) standards; - Electrical work shall conform to Institute of Electrical and Electronic I Engineers (IEEE) standards, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), Underwriters Laboratory (UL), National Electrical Code (NEC) and local codes; I - Fire protection shall meet the recommendations of National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and any local fire codes; I - Masonry related work shall conform with the National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) and American Concrete Institute (ACI) codes and standards; I I VII-1 ' - The codes of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM), National Association of Architectural Manufacturers (NAAM) and the Steel Structures Painting Council (SSPC) shall apply. I 1 I 1 VII-2