Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSolid Waste Management Plan DGEIS appendices A thru E 1990 l TOWN F SOUTHOLD E Solid Waste Management Plan/ D aft 4' Gen ri `�noir nm ntal Impact -- - -,,e c o egement September- -990 i . Fj appendices A thru E DVIRKA and BARTILUM Consulting Engineers Syosset, New York SEP 2 019W Tom . 1_i iiJ i TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Annendices Title Appendix A Solid Waste Generation and Characterization' Appendix B Scale House Data and Solid Waste Quantification Appendix C Alternative Waste Reduction and Processing Techniques Appendix D Generic Health and Safety Assessment of Alternatives for a Solid Waste Management Plan Appendix E Small Scale Yard Waste Composting Operation Engineering Report THESE APPENDICES HAVE BEEN PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 2101M i TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX A SOLID WASTE GENERATION AND CHARACTERIZATION e 2101M TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX A LIST OF TABLES Table Title 1 A Total Waste Stream Compositional Analysis Based on a Daneco Inc./H2M Group Field Program and the Town of Southold 1989 Landfill Scale Data - 2 A Total Waste Stream Compositional Analysis Based on a Town of Riverhead Dvirka and Bartilucci Field Program and the Town of Southold Landfill Scale Data 3 A Total Waste Stream Compositional Analysis Based on a Town of Shelter Island Dvirka and Bartilucci Field Program and the Town of Southold Landfill Scale Data 4 Total Waste Stream Compositional Comparisons Based on Various Field Programs and the Town of Southold Landfill Scale Data 5 A Residential Waste Stream Compositional Analysis Based on a Daneco Inc./H2M Group Field Program and the Town of Southold 1989 Landfill Scale Data r 6 A Residential Waste Stream Compositional Analysis Based on a Town of Riverhead Dvirka and Bartilucci Field Program and the Town of Southold Landfill Scale Data 7 A Residential Waste Stream Compositional Analysis Based on a Town of Shelter Island Dvirka and Bartilucci Field Program and the Town of Southold Landfill Scale Data 8 Residential Waste Stream Compositional Comparisons Based on Various Field Programs and the Town of Southold Landfill Scale Data 9 A Total Waste. Stream Compositional Analysis Based on a Daneco Inc./H2M Group Field Program, the Town of Southold 1989 Scale Data, and Estimated Waste Generation on Fishers Island. 10 A Residential Waste Stream Compositional Analysis Based on a Daneco Inc./H2M Group Field Program, the Town of Southold 1989 Scale Data, and Estimated Waste Generation on Fishers Island. 11 Comparison of Various Generation Rates 2101M 05/01/90 AppendIX A Table 1 Town of Southold solid waste Management Plan A total waste stream compositional analysis based on a Daneco Inc /H2M Group field program and The Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data COI 1 COI 2 COI 3 COI 4 COI 5 Landfill -Garbage- scale data -Household- category adjustment Totals waste Average Average Average Average Material Components % by wt. TPD TPD TPD % by wt ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Newspaper 8 96% 3 62 3 62 2 94% Corr /Brown Bag 8.82% 3 57 3.57 2.90% Other 23.03% 9.32 1 23 10 55 8.56% Subtotals 40.81% 16651 1 23 ;;-7; 14 40% Plastics 9 16% 3.71 3 71 3.01% i Food 15.34% 6 21 1 54 7 75 6 29% Ferrous metals 4 94% 2 00 2 00 1 62% Food Cans na na 1 56 1 56 1.27% white Or Enameled na na 3.23 3 23 2 62% Other na na 4 62 4 62 3.75% Subtotals 4 94X 2.00 9.41 11 41 9 26% Non-ferrous Metals 1 81% 0.73 0 73 0 59% Batteries na na 0 05 0 05 0 04% Class 7 60% 3 07 3.07 2 50% wood Other wood na na 7 98 7 98 6 48% StUmp/Tree sect. 2.41% 0 98 7 29 8 26 6 71% ------ Subtotals 2.41% 0.98 15 27 16 24 13 19% Rubble Asphalt na na 1.82 1 82 1.48% Conc./Rock/Brick na na 11.07 11.07 8.99% Subtotals ana ..... i6 na6 12689 78 10 46% Rubber na na 1.44 1.44 1 17% other & Fines Fines 5.24% 2.12 0 12 2.24 1.82% Dirt na na 20.83 20.83 16.92% ..... .... ..... ..... .._... Subtotals 5.24% 2.12 20.95 23 07 18 74% Yard waste Yard Waste 5.56% 2 25 3.64 5.89 4.78% Leaves na na 2.30 2.30 1.86% Grass clippings na na 1.89 1.89 1.53% Brush/Branches na na 7.97 7.97 6.47% Subtotals 5.56% 2.25 15.79 18.04 14.65% I ' 05/01/90 Appendix A Table 1, continued Town of Southold solid waste Management Plan A total waste stream compositional analysis based on a Daneco Inc /H2M Group field program and The Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data COI 1 COI 2 COI 3 COI 4 COI 5 Landfill -Garbage- scale data •Household- category adjustment Totals waste Average Average Average Average Material Components % by wt TPD TPD TPD % by wt --------------------------------------------••---------------------------- Sludge na . na 0 90 0 90 0.73% Bulky waste na na 3 23 3 23 2 62% MISC. 7.12% 2.88 2 88 2 34% Totals 100 00% 40 45 82 65 123 14 100 00% Notes na . Information not available Col . 1 Based on the results obtained from a one week field solid waste compositional analysis of the -household- portion of the residential waste stream performed by Daneco. Inc. for the 1-12M Group for the Town of Southold In May 1989 COI 2 Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data, average dally tons of 'Garbage- applied to the results obtained In Col. 1, to obtain an average tons per day by material component breakdown for the Town's residential waste stream, excluding C & D and Iandclearing debris COI. 3 . Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data, average dally tons of the material component categories as follows Agricultural Debris - 1 54 TPD: 100% to Food waste Lead Batteries - 0.05 TPD- 100% to Batteries Brush - 7 56 TPD- 100% to Brush Construction Debris -18 49 TPD. 507E to Conc /Rock/brick 25% to other wood 25% to Ferrous Metals - Other Cleanup Debris - 0 82 TPD. 50% to Leaves - 50% to Brush Concrete/Asphalt/Brick- 3 64 TPD. 50% to conc /Rock/brick 50% to Asphalt Leaves/Grass/Mulch - 3 77 TPD 50% to Leaves 501.9 to Grass Landclearing debris -14 57 TPD- 5079 to stUMP/Tree sect 2579 to Dirt 25% to Yard waste Metal - 1.56 TPD: 100% to Ferrous Metals - Food Cans Tires - 0.36 TPD- 100% to Rubber Paper - 1.23 TPD: 100% to Paper - Other Rubbish -10.76 TPD: 3079 to wood - Other 3016 to Ferrous Metal - white or Enameled 1016 to Rubber 3076 to Bulky waste shellfish Debris - 0.12 TPD: 100% to Other & Fines - Fines Sand/Sod -17.19 TPD: 1006 to Dirt sludge - 0.90 TPD: 100% to sludge woodchips - 0.13 TPD: 100% to wood - other wood Col. 4 Col 2 + Col. 3 Col 5 Percent of Totals In Col . 4 04/09/90 Appendix A Table 2 Town of Southold Solid waste Management Plan A total waste stream compositional analysis based on a Town Of Riverhead D a B field program and The Town of Southold landfill scale data I COI 1 COI.2 Col 3 COI 4 COI 5 Landfill 'Garbage' scale data "Household" category adjustments waste Average Average Average Average Material Components % by wt TPD TPD TPD % by wt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Newspaper 9 08% 3.67 3 67 2 98% Magazines 3 28% 1.33 1 33 1 08% Corr./Brown Bag 5 22% 2 11 2 11 1 72%, Other Paperboard 4 73% 1 91 1 91 1 56% Books 0.40% 0.16 0 16 0 13% Office Paper 1.16% 0 47 0.47 0 38% Other 5.51% 2.23 1.23 3 46 2 81% Subtotals 29x39% 1 189 1 23 13II12 10 65% i Plastics Plastics 0 37% 0.15 0 15 0.12% PET > 1 liter 0 97% 0.39 0 39 0 32% PET < 1 liter 0 18% 0 07 0.07 0 06% HDPE 0 71% 0 29 0 29 0.23% Other Rigid 2 13% 0.86 0 86 0 70% 0 Other Flexible 4.10% 1 66 1.66 1 35%- Subtotals 8.46% 3 42 3 42 2 78% Food 14 04% 5.68 1 54 7.22 5 87% Textiles -\2 21% 0 89 0 89 0 73% Ferrous metals Food Cans 2 95% 1 19 1 56 2.75 2 24% Auto Parts 0.48% 0 19 0.19 0 16% White or Enameled 0.12% 0 05 3.23 3 28 2.66% FE < 1/4 in 0.00% 0 00 0 00 0 00% Other 1 80% 0 73 4 62 5 35 4 35% Subtotals 5 36% 2.17 9.41 11.58 9 40X Non-ferrous Metals Alumnium 0 01% 0.00 0 00 0 00% cans 0 75% 0.30 0 30 0.24% Foil 0 54% 0.22 0 22 0.18% Furniture 0.14% 0.06 0.06 0 05% Structural 0 02% 0 01 0.01 0 01% Housewares 0 01% 0 00 0 00 0.00% Batteries 0.15% 0 06 0 05 0 11 0 09% Other Non-Ferrous Metals 1.85% 0.75 0 75 0 61% Subtotals 3 46% 1 40 0 OS 1 45 1 18% class Green 1 82% - 0 74 0 74 0.60% Amber 0.43% 0.17 0.17 0.14% Flint 4.53% 1.83 1.83 1 49% Other 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Flat 0.31% 0 13 0.13 0.10% Other 0.01% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Subtotals 7.10% 2 87 2.87 2.33% Wood Pallets 0.91% 0.37 0 37 0.30% Lumber 2.05% 0 83 0.83 0 67% Other Wood 3.89% 1.57 7.98 9.55 7.76% StUmp/Tree sect. 0.00% 0.00 7 29 7.29 5 92% Subtotals 6.84% 2.77 15x27 18503 14.65% Rubble Asphalt 0 18% 0.07 1.82 1.89 1 54% Conc./Rock/Brick 1.22% 0 49 11.07 11.56 9 39% Other 0.04% 0.02 0.02 0.01% Subtotals 1.44; 0 58 7;; 13547 7;,;;; 04/09/90 Appendix A Table 2, continued Town of Southold Solid waste Management Plan A total waste stream compositional analysis based on a Town O1 Riverhead D & B field program and The (Town of Southold landfill scale data COI 1 COI .2 COI 3 Col 4 Col 5 Landfill 'Garbage' scale data "Household" category adjustments waste Average Average Average Average Material Components % by wt. TPD TPD TPD % by wt ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rubber 0 64% 0 26 1.44 1 69 1 38% Other & Fines Diapers 2 55% 1 03 1.03 0 84% Fines 0 30% 0.12 0 12 0.24 0 20% Dirt 0.70% 0.28 20 83 21 12 17 15% Subtotals 3555% 1$44 20 95 22939 18 19% Yard waste Yard waste 7.70% 3.11 3 64 6 76 5 49% Leaves 1 19% 0 48 2 30 2 78 2 25% Grass Clippings 0 53% 0 22 1 89 2 10 1 71% Brush/Branches 2 57% 1.04 7 97 9.01 7 32% Subtotals 11 99% 4x85 15979 20 64 16 77X Hazardous Mat'I 0 23% 0 09 0.09 0 08% Sludge 3 62% 1.47 0 90 2 37 1 92% Bulky waste 1 36% 0 55 3 23 3.78 3 07% Misc. Totals 99=55555=..9....•"9100500% 955 40945.5.55582565..... 1239145.9100500% rotes Col 1 Based on the results obtained from a D & B 'mini' field sampling & sorting survey of private vehicles performed for the Town Of Riverhead in September 1989 Col 2 Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data, average daily tons of "Garbage- applied to the results obtained in Col 1, to obtain an average tons per day by material component breakdown for the Town s residential waste stream. excluding C & D and landclearing debris COI 3 Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data, average daily tons of the material component categories as follows : Agricultural Debris . 1 54 TPD: 100% to Food waste Lead Batteries . 0.05 TPD: 100% t0 Batteries Brush . 7 56 TPD: 100% to Brush Construction Debris •18.49 TPD: 5091 to Conc./Rock/brick 25% to Other wood 25% to Ferrous Metals - Other cleanup Debris . 0.82 TPD: 5096 t0 Leaves 5016 to Brush Concrete/Asphalt/Bricks. 3 64 TPD: 5011 to Conc./Rock/brick 50% to Asphalt Leaves/Crass/Mulch . 3 77 TPD: 50% t0 Leaves 50% to Grass Landclearing debris .14 57 TPD: 5016 t0 StUmp/Tree sect. 25% t0 Dirt 2516 t0 Yard waste Metal . 1 56 TPD: 100% to Ferrous Metals - Food Cans Tires 0 36 TPD: 100% t0 Rubber Paper 1.23 TPD: 100% to Paper - Other Rubbish .10.76 TPD: 3016 to wood - Other 3016 to Ferrous Metal - white Or Enamele 10% to Rubber 30% to Bulky waste Shellfish Debris . 0.12 TPD: 100% to Other & Fines - Fines Sand/Sod .17 19 TPD: 100% t0 Dirt Sludge . 0 90 TPD- 100% t0 Sludge woodchips . 0.13 TPD: 100% to wood - Other wood Col. 4 Col 2 + COI . 3 COI 5 Percent Of Totals in COI. 4 04/09/90 Appendix A Table 3 Town of-Southold Solid waste Management Plan A total waste stream compositional analysis based on a Town of Shelter Island D 3 B field program and The Town of Southold landfill scale data COI 1 COI 2 C01.3 COI 4 COI 5 Landfill Garbage- scale data "Household" category adjustment Totals waste Average Average Average Average Material Components % by wt TPD TPD TPD % by wt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ' Paper Newspaper 4 87% 1 97 1.97 1 60% Magazines 5 75% 2.32 2 32 1 89% Corr /Brown Bag 13 53% 5 47 5.47 4 44% Other Paperboard 7 64% 3 09 3.09 2 51% Books 0 00% 0 00 0 00 0 00% Office Paper 6 62% 2.68 2 68 2 17% Other 7 64% 3 09 1.23 4 32 3 51% Subtotals 46 04% 18`62 1e23 19 85 16 12% Plastics Plastics PET > 1 liter 0 15% 0.06 0 06 0 05% PET < 1 liter 0 00% 0.00 0 00 0 00% HDPE 0.22% 0.09 0 09 0 07% Other Rigid 2 40% 0 97 0.97 0 79% Other Flexible 5.24% 2 12 2 12 1 72% Subtotals 8.00% 3c24 3 24 2263% Food 16 07% 6 50 1.54 8 04 6 53% Textiles 3.64% 1 47 1 47 1 19% Ferrous metals Food Cans 3.49% 1.41 1 56 2 97 2 41% Auto Parts 0 22% 0 09 0 09 0 07% white or Enameled 0 00% 0 00 3.23 3 23 2.62% FE. < 1/4 in. 0 00% 0 00 0 00 0 00% Other 0 07% 0 03 4 62 4 65 3 78% Subtotals 3878% 1a53 9841 10 94 8$88% Non-ferrous Metals Alumnium Cans 0.36% 0 15 0.15 0 12% 1`011 1.16% 0.J7 0 47 0 38% Furniture 0.00% 0 00 0 00 .0 00% structural 0.00% 0 00 0.00 0.00% Housewares o 00% 0 00 0 00 0 00% Batteries '0.07% 0.03 0 05 0 08 0 06% Other Non-Ferrous Met 0 15% 0 06 0 06 0 05% Subtotals 77; 071 Oa05 Oa76 O7% class Green 4.07% 1 65 1 65 1.34% Amber 0.87% 0 35 0.35 0 29% Flint 4 07% 1 65 1 65 1.34% Other 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Flat 0.00% 0.00 0 00 0.00% Other 0.29% 0.12 0 12 0.10% Subtotals 9631% 3877 3877 3806% Wood Pallets 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0 00% Lumber 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0 00% Other wood 0.00% 0.00 7.98 7.98 6.48% Stump/Tree sect. 0.00% 0.00 7.29 7.29 5 92% Subtotals 0800% 0800 15.27 15827 12 40% Rubble Asphalt 0.00% 0.00 1.82 1.82 1.48% Conc./Rock/Brick 0.00%` 0.00 11.07 11.07 8 99% Other 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Subtotals 0 00% 0800 12@89 12889 10.46% 04/09/90 Appendix A Table 3, continued Town of Southold solid waste Management Plan A total waste stream compositional analysis, based on a Town of Shelter Island D & B field program and The Town of Southold landfill scale data Col 1 Col 2 Col 3 COI 4 COI 5 Landfill "Garbage" scale data "Household" category adjustment Totals waste Average Average Average Average Material Components % by wt TPD TPD TPD % by wt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rubber 0 29% 0 12 1 44 1 55 1.26% Other & Fines Diapers 2 84% 1 15 1 15 0.93% Fines 0.00% 0 00 0.12 0 12 0 10% Dirt 1 45% 0 59 20 83 21.42 17 40% Subtotals 4 29% 1 74 20 95 22 69 18 42X Yard waste Yard waste 0 00% 0.00 3 64 3 64 2 96% Leaves 0 98% 0.40 2 30 2 69 2 19% Crass Clippings 0 00% 0 00 1 89 1 89 1 53% Brush/Branches 4 25% 1 72 7 97 9 69 7.87% Subtotals ;,o2;; 2 12 15a79 17 91 14 54X HaZardous Mat'I 1 60% 0 65 0 65 0 53% sludge 0.00% 0 00 0.90 0 90 0.73% Bulky waste 0 00% 0.00 3 23 3 23 2 62% misc. 0.00% 0.00 0 00 0 00% .........................'0"0 .............................................. Totals 100 00% 40 45 8-2- 2 65 123.14 100 00% Motes . Col 1 . Based on the results obtained from a D & B 'mini- field sampling & sorting survey of private vehicles performed for the Town of Shelter Island In january 1990. Col 2 Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data, average dally tons of "Garbage* applied to the results obtained In Col. 1, to obtain an average tons per day by material component breakdown for the Town's residential waste stream, excluding C & D and landclearing debris Col 3 Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data, average daily tons of the material component categories as follows Agricultural Debris • 1.54 TPD: 100% to Food Waste Lead Batteries . 0.05 TPD. 100% t0 Batteries Brush . 7.56 TPD: 100% to Brush Construction Debris 18.49 TPD: 50% to Conc./Rock/brick 25% to Other wood 25% to Ferrous Metals - Other Cleanup Debris . 0.82 TPD: 50% to Leaves 50% to Brush Concrete/Asphalt/Brl. 3 64 TPD- 50% LO Conc /Rock/brick 50% 1,0 Asphalt Leaves/Grass/Mulch . 3.77 TPD 50% 10 Leaves 5o% to Grass Landclearing debris •14 57 TPD: 50% to Stump/Tree'sect 25% 10 Dirt t Metal . 1 56 TPD. 100% toYaFerrous emetals - Food Cans Tires . 0.36 TPD 100% to Rubber Paper . 1.23 TPD: 100% to Paper - Other Rubbish •10.76 TPD: 30% t0 Wood - Other 30% to Ferrous metal - white or Enameled 10% to Rubber 30% to Bulky Waste Shellfish Debris . 0.12 TPD: 100% to Other & Fines - Fines Sand/sod .17.19 TPD: 100% to Dirt sludge . 0 90 TPD: 10o% t0 sludge woodchips . 0 13 TPD: 100% to wood - Other wood Col. 4 . COI 2 + Col. 3 COI. 5 Percent Of Totals In COI 4 i 05/01/90 Appendix A Table 4 Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Total Waste Stream Compositional Comparlsions based on Various Field Programs and The Town of Southold landfill scale data (average percent by weight) Material components Col 1 COI 2 Col 3 ------------------------------------------------------- Paper Newspaper 2 94% 2 98% 1 60% Magazines 1 08% 1.89% Corr./Brown Bag 2 90% 1 72% 4 44% Other Paperboard 1 56% 2 51% Books 0 13% 0 00% Office Paper 0 38% 2.17% Other 8 56% 2 81% 3 51% Subtotals 14940% 10 65% 16 12% Plastics Plastics 3.01% 0.12% PET > 1 liter 0 32% 0 05% PET < 1 liter 0.06% 0.00% F-DPE 0 23% 0.07% Other Rigid 0.70% 0 79% Other Flexible 1 35% 1 72% Subtotals 3 01% 2';8% 2.63o% Food 6 29% 5 87% 6 53% Textiles 0 73% 1 19% Ferrous metals 1 62% Food Cans 1 27% 2.24% 2 41% Auto Parts 0.16% 0.07% White or Enameled 2 62% 2.66% 2 62% FE. < 1/4 in. 0 00% 0 00% Other 3.75% 4.35% 3 78% Subtotals 9'27% ;,;;%, ;,;;%, Non-ferrous Metals 0.59% Alumnlum 0.00% cans 0 24% 0 12% Foil 0.18% 0 38% Furniture 0 05% 0 00% Structural 0.01% 0.00% Housewares 0.00% 0.00% Batteries 0.09% 0 06% Other Non-Ferrous Metals 0 61% 0 05% Subtotals 0 59% 1$18% 07% Class 2.50% Green 0.60% 1.34% Amber 0.14% 0.29% Flint 1.49% 1.34% other 0.00% 0.00% Flat 0.10% 0 00% Other 0.00% 0.10% Subtotals 2950% 2,33% 3,06% 05/01/90 APPendlx A Table 4, continued Town of Southold Solid waste Management Plan Total Waste Stream Compositional Comparisions based on various Field Programs and The Town of Southold landfill scale data — (average percent by weight) Material Components Col. 1 Col 2 Col 3 ----------------------------------••-------------------- Wood Pallets 0.30% 0 00% Lumber 0 67% 0.00% Other Wood 6.48% 7 76% 6 48% Stump/Tree sect 6.71% 5.92% 5.92% Subtotals 13 19% 14.65% 12.40% Rubble Asphalt 1.48% 1 54% 1 48% Conc /Rock/Brick 8 99% 9.39% 8 99% other 0 01% 0.00% Subtotals ;;,;;%, 7;,;;%, 70=,;;.,4 Rubber 1 17% 1 38% 1.26% Other & Fines Diapers 0 84% 0,93% Fines 1 82% 0 20% 0 10% Dirt 16.92% 17.15% 17 40% Subtotals 18,74% 1819% 18 42% Yard Waste Yard waste 4 78% 5 49% 2.96% Leaves 1 86% 2 25% 2 19% Crass Clippings 1 53% 1 71% 1 53% Brush/Branches 6 47% 7 32% 7 87% Subtotals 14.65% 16,77% 14 54X Hazardous Mat'I 0 08% 0 53% Sludge 0.73% 1 92% 0 73% Bulky Waste 2 62% 3 07% 2 62% MISC. 2.34% na 0 00% .... .................. ............................... Totals 100.00% 100.00% 100 00% rotes Col. 1 Based on the results obtained from a one week field solid waste compositional analysis performed on the 'household' portion of the waste stream by, Daneco,inc. for the Ii2M Croup for the Town of Southold in May 1989. COI. 2 : Based on the results obtained from a D & B 'mini' field sampling & sorting survey of private vehicles performed for the Town of Riverhead In September 1989. Col . 3 : Based on the results obtained from a D & B 'mini' field sampling & sorting survey of private vehicles performed for the Town of Shelter In January 1990. 05/04/90 Appendix A Table 5 Town of Southold Solid waste Management Plan A residential waste stream compositional analysis based on a Da,neco inc /H2M Croup field program and The Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale da Col 1 COI 2 C01 .3 COI 4 Col.5 Landfill 'Garbage" scale data -Household- category adjustment Totals waste Average Average Average Average Material Components % by wt TPD TPD TPD % by wt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Newspaper 8.96% 3 62 3 62 5 45% Corr /Brown Bag 8 82% 3 57 3 57 5 36% Other 23 03% 9 32 1 23 10 55 15 84% Subtotals 40 81% 16 51 1.23 17 74 26.65% Plastics 9 16% 3 71 3 71 5 57% Food 15 34% 6 21 6 21 9 32% Ferrous metals 4.94% 2 00 2 00 3 00% Food Cans na na 1 56 1 56 2 34% white or Enameled na na 3 23 3 23 4 85% Subtptals 4 94% 2 00 4 79 6 79 10 20% Non-ferrous Metals 1 81% 0 73 0 73 1 10% Batteries na na 0 05 0 05 0 08% Class 7 60% 3 07 3 07 4 62%' wood Other wood na na 3 23 3 23 4 85% Stump/Tree sect. 2.41% 0.98 0 98 1 47% Subtotals ;,:;%, 0.98 ;=2=; 4 20 6 32% Rubber na na 1.44 1.44 2.16% Other S Fines 5 24% 2.12 2.12 3 18% Yard waste Yard waste 5 56% 2.25 2 25 3 38% Leaves na na 2 30 2 30 3 45% Crass Clippings na na 1 89 1 89 2 83% Brush/Branches na na 7.97 7 97 11.97% Subtotals ;';6% 2.25 1;';; 14.40 ;;';;% 05/04/90 Appendix A Table 5, Continued Town of Southold Solid waste Management Plan A residential waste stream compositional analysis based on a Daneco Inc /H2M GrOup field program and The Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data Col .1 CO1 .2 Col 3 COI 4 COI 5 Landfill Garbage- scale data -Household- category adjustment Totals waste Average Average Average Average Material components % by wt. TPD TPD TPD % by wt ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Bulky waste na na 3 23 3 23 4 85% Mlsc 7 12% 2 88 2 88 4 33% Totals 100 00% 40 45 26 11 66 56 100 00% Notes na information not available Col 1 Based on the results obtained from a one week field solid waste compositional analysis of the -household- portion of the residential waste stream performed by Daneco, Inc. for the H2M Group for the Town Of Southold In May 1989. COI 2 . Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data, average dally tons of -Garbage' applied to the results obtained in Col 1, to obtain an average tons per day by material component breakdown for the Town's residential waste stream only, excluding C & D and landclearing debris Col 3 Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data, average daily tons of the material component categories as follows Lead Batteries • 0 05 TPD• 100% t0 Batteries Brush - 7.56 TPD. 100% to Brush cleanup Debris - 0 82 TPD 50% to Leaves 50% to Brush Leaves/Crass/Mulch - 3 77 TPD: 50% t0 Leaves 50% to Grass Metal - 1.56 TPD• 100% to Ferrous Metals - Food Cans Tires - 0.36 TPD: 100% to Rubber Paper - 1 23 TPD. 100% t0 Paper - Other Rubbish -10.76 TPD• 30% to Wood - Other 30% to Ferrous Metal - white or Enameled 10% 'to Rubber 30% to Bulky waste COI . 4 COI 2 + col. 3 COI. 5 Percent Of Totals In COI 4 04/09/90 Appendix A Table 6 Town of Southold solid waste Management Plan A residential waste stream compositional analysis based on a Town of Riverhead D & B field program and The Town of Southold landfill scale data COI 1 COI 2 COI 3 COI 4 COI 5 Landfill "Garbage- scale data "Household" category adjustments waste Average Average Average Average Material Components % by wt TPD, TPD TPD % by wt. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Newspaper 9 08% 3.67 3 67 5 52% Magazines 3 28% 1.33 1 33 1 99% Corr /Brown Bag 5 22% 2.11 2.11 3 17% Other Paperboard 4.73% 1.91 1.91 2 87% Books 040% 0.16 0 16 0.24% Office Paper 1.16% 0.47 0 47 0 70% Other 5 51% 2.23 1 23 3 46 5.19% Subtotals 29 39% 11.89 1=23 13 12 19 69% Plastics Plastics 0.37% 0.15 0 15 0 23% PET > 1 liter 0.97% 0.39 0 39 0.59% PET < 1 liter 0 18% 0 07 0 07 0 11% HOPE 0 71% 0 29 0 29 0 43% Other Rigid 2 13% 0 86 0 86 1.29% Other Flexible 4 10% 1.66 1 66 2.49% Subtotals ;==4;; 3 42 3 42 5 14X Food 14 04% 5 68 5 68 8 53% Textiles 2 21% 0 89 0 89 1 34% Ferrous metals Food Cans 2.95% 1.19 1 56 2.75 4 13% Auto Parts 0.48% 0.19 0 19 0 29% White Or Enameled 0.12% 0.05 3 23 3 28 4 92% FE < 1A4 In. 0 00% 0 00 0 00 0 00% Other 1.80% 0 73 0 73 1 09% Subtotals 5 36X 2=17 4=79 =6 95 10=44% Non-ferrous Metals Alumnium 0 01% 0 00 0 00 0.00% Cans 0 75% 0 30 0 30 0 45% Foil 0.54% 0.22 0 22 0 33% Furniture 0 14% 0 06 0.06 0.09% Structural 0 02% 0.01 0 01 0 01% Housewares 0.01% 0 00 0 00 0 01% ' Batteries 0 15% 0 06 0 05 0 11 0 17% Other Non-Ferrous Metals 1.85% 0.75 0 75 1 12% Subtotals 3 46% 1L40 0 OS 1 45 2 18% Class Green 1.82% 0.74 0.74 1 10% Amber 0.43% 0.17 0.17 0 26% Flint 4.53% 1.83 1 83 2 75% Other 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Flat 0.31% 0.13 0.13 0.19% Other 0.01% 0.00 0 00 0.00% Subtotals ;7; 2.87 2.87 ;7; wood Pallets 0 91% 0.37 0 37 0 55% Lumber 2.05% 0.83 0.83 1.25% Other wood 3.89% 1 57 3.23 4 80 7.21% Stump/Tree sect 0.00% 0.00 0 00 0 00% Subtotals 6 84% 277 323 6.00 900% Rubble Asphalt 0.18% 0.07 0.07 0.11% Conc./Rock/Brick 1 22% 0.49 0.49 0.74% Other 0.04% 0.02 0 02 0.02% subtotals 1.44x o.sa o.5e o a7x Rubber 0.64% 0.26 1 44 1.69 2.54% 04/09/90 Appendix A Table 6, continued Town'of Southold Solid waste Management Plan A residential waste stream compositional analysis based on a Town of Riverhead D & B field program and The Town of Southold landfill scale data Col 1 COI.2 COI 3 COI 4 COI 5 Landfill -Garbage- scale data Household- category adjustments waste Average Average Average Average Material components % by wt TPD TPD TPD % by wt -------------------------------------------------------------------------- other & Fines Diapers 2.55% 1 03 1 03 1 55% Fines 0 30% 0.12 0 12 0 18% Dirt 0 70% 0.28 0 28 0.42% Subtotals 3 55% 1 14 1.44 2,16% Yard waste Yard Waste 7 70% 3.11 3 11 4 68% Leaves 1 19% Q.48 2 30 2 78 4 17% Crass clippings 0 53% 0 22 1 89 2 10 3 16% Brush/Branches 2.57% 1 04 7 97 9 01 13 53% subtotals 11 99% 4,85 12 15 17 00 25 53% Hazardous Mat'I 0 23% 0 09 0 09 0.14% Sludge 3 62% 1 47 1 47 2 20% Bulky Waste 1 36% 0.55 3 23 3 78 5 67%i Totals 100 00% 40 45 26 11 66 60 100 00% Notes . COI 1 Based on the results obtained from a D & B 'mini- field sampling & sorting survey of private vehicles performed for the Town of Riverhead in September 1989. Col . 2 - Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data, average daily tons of -Garbage' applied to the results obtained In Col 1, to obtain an average tons per day by material component breakdown for the Town's residential waste stream, excluding C & D and landclearing debris. Col. 3 - Based on the Town of Southold 1989 I-andfill scale data, average dally tons of the material component categories as follows . Lead Batteries - 0.05 TPD. 100% to Batteries Brush - 7 56 TPD- 100% to Brush Cleanup Debris - 0 82 TPD- 50% to Leaves 50% to Brush Leaves/Crass/Mulch - 3 77 TPD 50% to Leaves 50% to crass Metal - 1 56 TPD' 100% to Ferrous Metals - Food cans Tires . 0.36 TPD: 100% to Rubber Paper - 1.23 TPD: 100% t0 Paper - Other Rubbish .10 76 TPD, 30% t0 wood -' Other 30% to Ferrous Metal - White Or Enameled 10% to Rubber Col. 4 30% to Bulky waste Col 2 + Col. 3 Col. 5 Percent of Totals in col 4 04/09/90 Appendix A Table 7 Town of Southold solid waste Management Plan A residential waste stream compositional analysis base6 on a Town of shelter Island D & B field program and The Town of Southold landfill ,scale data I Col 1 Col 2 COI 3 COI 4 COI 5 Landfill 'Garbage' scale data •'HOusehOld" category adjustment TOtals waste Average Average Average Average Material Components % by wt. TPDTPD TPD % by wt ----------------------------------------------- I Paper Newspaper 4.87% 1.97 1 97 2 96% Magazines 5.75% 2 32 2 32 3 49% /Corr./Brown Bag 13 53% 5 47 5 47 8.22% Other Paperboard 7 64% 3 09 3 09 4 64% Books 0.00% 0 00 0 00 0 00% Office Paper 6 62% 2 68 2 68 4 02% Other 7.64% 3.09 1 23 4 32 6 48% Subtotals 46 04% 18=62 1 23 '19z';; 29 81% Plastics Plastics PET > 1 liter 0 15% 0 06 0 06 0 09% PET < 1 liter 0 00% 0.00 0.00 0 00% HDPE 0 22% 0 09 0 09 0.13% Other Rigid 2.40% 0.97 0 97 1 46% Other Flexible 5 24% 2.12 2 12 3 18% Subtotals 8=00% 3.24 3.24 4 86% Food 16 07% 6 50 6 50 9.76% Textiles 3 64% 1 47 1 47 2 211%, Ferrous metals Food Cans 3 49% 1.41 1 56 2 97 4 46% Auto Parts 0 22% 0.09 0 09 0 13% White or Enameled 0 00% 0.00 3 23 3 23 4 85% FE < 1/4 In 0 00% 0 00 0 00 0 00% Other 0 07% 0 03 0 03 0 04% Subtotals 3.78 1 53 4.7 6 32 949% Non-ferrous Metals= Alumnium Cans 0 36% 0 15 0 15 0 22% FOII 1.16% 047 0 47 0 71% Furniture 0.00% 0.00 0 00 0 00% Structural 0 00% 0.00 0 00 0 00% Housewares0 00% 0 00 0 00 0 00% Batteries 0.07% 0 03 0 05 0 08 0.12% Other Non-Ferrous Met 0 15% 0 06 0 06 0 09% Subtotals 7,;;; 07 0 OS 0 76 1 14% class Green 4.07% 1.65 1.65 2 47% Amber 0 87% 0.35 _ 0.35 0 53% Flint 4.07% 1 65 1.65 2.47% Other 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0100% Flat 0.00% 0 00 0 00 0 00% Other 0.29% 0.12 0.12 0 18% Subtotals 9 31% 3.77 =3o;; wood Pallets 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Lumber 0.00% 0.00 l 0.00 0.00% Other wood 0.00% 0.00 3 23 3 23 4.85% Stump/Tree sect. 0.00% 0.00 0 00 0.00% Subtotals 0.00% 0.00 3 23 3 23 4 85% Rubble Asphalt 0.00% 0.00 0.00 0.00% Conc./Rock/Brick 0.00%. 0.00 0.00 0.00% other 0.00% 0.00 0 00 0.00% subtotals o.00x o.00 o.00 o.00x Rubber 0.29% 0.12 1.44 1.55 2.33% 04/09/90 Appendix A Table 7, continued Town of Southold Solid waste Management Plan A residential waste stream compositional analysis based on a Town of shelter Island D & EI field program and The Town of Southold landfill scale data COI 1 COI 2 COI 3 COI 4 Col 5 Landfill -Carbage= scale data "Household" category adjustment Totals waste Average Average Average Average Material Components % by wt TPD TPD TPD % by wt ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Other & Fines Diapers 2 84% 1.15 1 15 1 72% Fines 0.00% 0 00 0 00 0 00% Dirt 1 45% 0.59 0 59 0 88% Subtotals 4 29% 1?74 1 74 2 61% Yard waste Yard waste 0 00% 0.00 0 00 0 00% Leaves 0 98% 0 40 2.30 2 69 4 04% Grass Clippings 0 00% 0 00 1 89 1 89 2 83% Brush/Branches 4 25% 1.72 7.97 9 69 14 55% Subtotals 5 24% 2 12 12 15 14 27 21.42% Hazardous Mat'I 1 60% 0 65 0 65 0 97% Sludge 0 00% 0 00 0 00 0 00% Bulky waste 0 00% 0 00 3 23 3 23 4 85% Totalsa== 100 00%====40 4526911==-=66-60' 100$00%== Notes COI . 1 . Based on the results obtained from a D & B -mini' field sampling & sorting survey of private vehicles performed for the Town of Shelter Island in January 1990 Col . 2 Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data, average daily tons of -Garbage- applied to the results obtained in Col 1, to obtain an average tons per day by material component breakdown for the Town s residential waste stream, excluding C & D and landclearing debris COI. 3 Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data, average daily tons of the material component categories as follows Lead Batteries - 0.05 TPD• 100% t0 Batteries Brush - 7 56 TPD: 100% to Brush cleanup Debris - 0 82 TPD. 50% to Leaves Sox to Brush Leaves/Grass/Mulch - 3 77 TPD• 50% t0 Leaves 50% to Crass Metal - 1.56 TPD 100% t0 Ferrous Metals - Food Cans Tires - 0.36 TPD: 100% t0 Rubber Paper - 1.23 TPD: 100% t0 Paper - Other Rubbish -10.76 TPD: 30% to wood - Other 30% to Ferrous Metal - white or Enameled 10% to Rubber 30% to Bulky waste Col . 4 COI 2 + COI. 3 'COI 5 Percent Of Totals in Col. 4 05/01/90 Appendix A Table 8 Town of Southold solid waste Management Plan Residential waste Stream Compositional Comparisions based on various Field Programs and \ The Town of Southold landfill stale data (average percent by weight) Material Components Col 1 Col 2 COI 3 ------------------------------------------------------- Paper Newspaper 5 45% 5 52% 2 96% Magazines na 1 99% 3 49% Corr /Brown Bag 5 36% 3 17% 8 22% Other Paperboard na 2 87% 4 64% Books na 0 24% 0.00% Office Paper na 0 70% 4 02% Other 15 84% 5 19% 6 48% subtotals 26=65% 19 69% 29 81% Plastics Plastics 5 57% 0 23% na PET > 1 liter na 0 59% 0 09% PET < 1 liter na 0 11% 0 00% HDPE na 0 43% 0 13% Other Rigid na 1 29% 1.46% Other Flexible na 2 49% 3 18% Subtotals 5,57% ;,;;%, :,=8;%, Food 9.32% 8 53% 9 76% Textiles na 1 34% 2 21% Ferrous metals 3 00% na na Food Cans 2 34% 4 13% 4 46% Auto Parts na 0 29% 0 13% White or Enameled 4 85% 4 92% 4 85% FE. < 1/4 In na 0 00% 0 00% Other na 1 09% 0 04% Subtotals 10 20% 10 44% 9 49% Non-ferrous Metals 1 10% na na Alumnium na 0 00% na Cans na 0 45% 0 22% Foil na 0 33% 0 71% Furniture na 0 09% 0.00% Structural na 0 01% 0 00% Housewares na 0 01% 0 00% Batteries 0.08% 0.17% 0 12% Other Non-Ferrous Metals na 1 12% 0 09% Subtotals ....8%. .....%. ;";;%, class 4.62% na na Green na 1 10% 2 47% Amber na 0.26% 0 53% Flint na 2.75% 2.47% other na 0.00% 0 00% Flat na 0.19% 0 00% Other na 0.00% 0.18% ..... ..... ..... Subtotals 4 62% 4 31% 5.65% Appendix A Table e, continued Town of Southold Solid waste Management Plan Residential waste Stream Compositional Comparisions based on Various Field Programs and The Town of Southold landfill scale data (average percent by weight) - Material components Col. 1 • Col. 2 Col . 3 ------------------------------------------------------- wOOd Pallets na 0 55% 0 00% Lumber na 1 25% .0 00% Other wood 4.85% 7.21% 4 85% Stump/Tree sect 1.47% 0 00% 0 00% Subtotals 6.32% =9 00% 4 85% Rubble Asphalt na 0.11% 0.00% Conc /Rock/Brick na 0 74% 0 00% Other na 0 02% 0,00% subtotals =nas= 0 87% 0 00% Rubber 2 16% 2 54% 2 33% Other & Fines 3 18% na na Diapers na 1 55% 1' 72% Fines na 0 18% 0 00% Dirt na 0 42% 0 88% Subtotals ;,;;% 2 16X 2.61% Yard waste Yard waste 3.38% 4 68% 0.00% Leaves 3.45% 4 17% 4.04% Crass Clippings 2 83% 3.16% 2.83% Brush/Branches 11.97% 13.53% 14 55% Subtotdls 21=63% 25 53% 21 42% Hazardous Mat'I na 0 14% O 97% Sludge na 2.20% 0 00% Bulky waste 4.85% 5.67% 4 85% Misc. 4.33% na na ..........................=............................ Totals 100 00%• 100 00% 100.00% motes na : information not available/applicable Col. i L Based on the results obtained from a one week field solid waste compositional analysis performed on the 'household' portion of the waste stream by Daneco,inc. for the H2M Group for the Town of Southold in May 1989. Col. 2 Based on the results obtained from a D & B -mini" field sampling & sorting survey or private vehicles performed for the Town of Riverhead in September 1989. Col. 3 Based on the results obtained from a D & B 'mini' field sampling & sorting survey of private vehicles performed for the Town of shelter in fanuary 1990. . M1 09/12/90 Appendix A, Table 9 Town of Southold solid waste Management Plan A total taste stream compositional analysis based on a Daneco Inc./H2M Group field program, The Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data and estimated waste generation on Fishers Island c01•.1 C01.2 COI 3 C01.4 Col.S C01.6 Col.7 Landfill Fishers I Fishers I -Garbage- scale data Resid. Other -Household- category adjustments waste -waste Totals Waste Average Average Average - Average Average Average Material components % by wt. TPD TPD TPD TPD I TPD % by wt. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _ Paper Newspaper 8.96% 3 62 0.27 3.89 3.06% Corr./Brown Bag 8 82% 3.57 0.27 _ 3 83 3.02% Other 23.03% 9.32 1.23 0.69 0.01 11.25 8.85% ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... b Subtotals 40 81% 16 51 1.23 1 23 0 01 18.98 14.93% Plastics 9 16% 3.71 0 28 3.98 3.13% Food 15.34% 6.21 1 54 0.46 0.02 8.23 6.47% Ferrous metals 4 94% 2 00 0 15 2.15 1.69% Food cans na na 1.56 na 0 02 1.58 1.24% Wh'Ite Or Enameled na na 3.23 na 0.04 3.27 2.57% Other na na 4 62 na 0 06 4.68 3.66% Subtotals ll '4'94% 2'00 9.41 0.15 0.11 11`67 `9.18% Non-ferrous Metals i 1 81% 0 73 0.05 0 79 0.62% Batteries na na '0 05 na 0.00 0.05 0.04% Class 1 7 60% 3.07 0.23 3 30 2.60x wood J Other wood na na 7.98 na 010 8.08 6 35% Stump/Tree sect. 2.41% 0 98 7.29 0.07 0 09 8.42 6.63% Subtotals ' ..2.41% 0.98 15.27 •0.07 '0'18 16150 12 98X Rubble Asphalt na na 1.82 na 0.02 11.84 1.45% conc /Rock/Brick na na 11.07 na' 0.13 11.20 .8 .81 % 1111.. �.... 1111. 1111 Subtotals' na na 12 89 na 0.16 13.04 10.26% Rubber na na 1 44 na 0 02 1.45 1 14% Other & Fines Fines 5.24% 2.12 0.12 0.16 0.00 2.40 - 1.89% Dirt na na 1,20.83 na 0.25 21.08 16.59% ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ...... Subtotals' 5.24% 2.12 20.95 0.16 01,25 23.48 18.47% Yard waste Yard waste 5.56% 2.25 3.64 0.17 0.04 6.10 -_4.80% Leaves na na 2.30 na 0.03 2.32 1.83% Grass Clippings na na 11.89 na 0.02 1.91 1.50% Brush/Branches na na 7.97 na 0.10 8.07 6.35% ...... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... 1111.. Subtotals 5.56% 2.25 15.79 0.17 0.19 18.40 14.48% sludge na na 0.90 na 0.01 0.91 0.72% Bulky waste na na 3.23 na 0.04 3.27 2.57% Misc. 7.12% 2.88 0.21 3.09 2.43% Totals•................... •===• .82........ .......:x.3.01.. .....1.0012711100 ..... . .. ... . 100 00% 4000% r 09/12/90 Appendix A Table 9 -Town of Southold Solid waste Management Plan A total waste stream compositional analysis based on a Daneco Inc./H2M Group field program, The Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data and estimated waste generation on Fishers Island rotes _ na : information not available Col . 1 Based on the results obtained from a one week field solid waste compositional analysis of the "household" portion of the residential waste stream performed by Daneco. Inc for the H2M Croup for the Town Of Southold in May 1989. Col. 2 e Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data, average daily tons of 'Garbage' applied to the results obtained in Col . 1, to obtain an average tons per,day by material component breakdown for the Town's residential waste stream, excluding C s D and landclearing debris. COI. 3 Based on the Town of Southold 1989 I-andfill scale data, average daily 1 tons of the material component categories as follows : Agricultural Debris - 1 54 TPD, 100% to Food waste Lead Batteries - 0.05 TPD: 100% to Batteries Brush = 7 56 TPD: 100% to Brush Construction Debris =18.49 TPD* 50% to Conc./Rock/brick 25% to Other wood - 25% to Ferrous Metals - Other Cleanup Debris = 0.82 TPD: 50% to Leaves 50% to Brush Concrete/Asphalt/Brick= 3.64 TPD. 50% to Conc /Rock/brick 50% to Asphalt Leaves/Grass/Mulch - 3 77 TPD: 50% to Leaves r 50% to Grass Landclearing debris, -14.57 TPD: 50% to SLUMP/Tree sect. 25% to Dirt 25% to Yard waste Metal - 1.56 TPD: 100% to Ferrous Metals - Food cans Tires = 0.36 TPD: 100% to Rubber Paper - 1.23 TPD: 100% to Paper - Other . Rubbish 10.76 TPD: 30% to wood - Other 30% to Ferrous metal - white or Enameled 10%' to Rubber 30% to Bulky waste Shellfish Debris - 0.12 TPD: 100% to Other b fines - Fines sand/sod .17.19 TPD: 100% to Dirt Sludge - 0.90 TPD: 100% to Sludge woodchips - 0.13 TPD: t00% to wood - Other wood COI. 4 Based On the Fishers Island 1989 estimated waste generation, average dally tons of -Garbage- applied to the results obtained in Col. 1, to obtain an average tons per day by material component breakdown for Fishers island's residentlal waste stream, excluding C 6'D and landclearing debris. Col. S Based on the Fishers Island 1989 estimated waste generation, average daily tons of "Other waste' applied to the percent composition in COI. 2, to obtain an average tons per day by matei'lal component breakdown for Fishers Island's waste stream. Col. 6 Col 2 + COI. 3 + Col. 4 + Col. 5 Col. 7 Percent of Totals in Col . 4 J 09/12/90 Appendix A Table 10 Town of Southold solid waste Management Plan A residential waste stream compositional analysis based on a Daneco Inc /H2M Croup field program, The Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data and estimated residential waste on Fishers Island •CO1 .1 Col 2 COI 3 CO1 4 CO1 .5 COI 6 Landfill Fishers I 'Garbage" scale data Resld. -Household- category adjustments waste Totals waste Average Average Average Average Average Material Components % by wt. TPD TPD TPD TPD % by wt. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Paper Newspaper 8 96% 3 62 0.27 3.89 5 60% torr /Brown Bag 8 82% 3.57 0 27 3.83 5.51% Other 23 03% 9 32 1 23 0.69 11 24 16.16% Subtotals 40 81% 16 51 1.23 1.23 18 97 27926% Plastics 9 16% 3 71 0.28 3.98 5.72% Food 15 34% 6 21 0.46 6 67 9.58% , Ferrous metals 4 94% 2 00 0.15 2.15 3.09% Food Cans na na 1.56 na 1 56 2 24% white Or Enameled na na 3 23 na 3 23 4 64% subtotals 4 94% 2.00 4.79 O.15 6.93 9.97% Non-ferrous Metals 1.81% 0.73 0.05 0 79 1.13% Batteries na na 0 05 na 0.05 0 07% Class 7 60% 3.07 0 23 3 30 4.75% wood Other wood na na 3.23 na 3.23 4.64% Stump/Tree sect. 2.41% 0 98 0.07 1 05 1.51% a ' x ...... Subtotals 2.41% 0 98 3 23 0.07 4.28 615% Rubber na na 1 44 0 00 1 44 2 06% Other 6 Fines 5.24% 2.12 0.16 2.28 3.27% Yard waste Yard waste 5.56% 2.25 0.17 2.42 3.47% Leaves na na 2 30 na 2.30 3.30% Crass Clippings na na 1 89 na 1 89 2.71% Brush/Branches na na 7.97 na 7.97 11.46% Subtotals 5 56% 2 25 12 15 0.17 14 57 20 94% Bulky waste na na 3.23 na 3.23 4.64% MISC. 7.12% 2.88 0.21 3.09 4.45% ......................................................................................... Totals 100.00% 40.45 26.11 3.01 69.57 100.00% r 09/12/90 Appendix A Table 10 Town of Southold Solid waste Management Plan A residential waste stream compositional analysis based on a Daneco Inc./H2M Group field program. The Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data and estimated residential waste on Fishers Island Notes na . information not available r Col. 1 Based on the results obtained from a one week field solid waste compositional analysis of the -household" portion of the residential waste stream performed by Daneco, Inc for the H21A Group for the ' Town Of Southold in May 1989 Col 2 Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill scale data, average daily tons of •Garbage• applied to the results obtained in Col. 1, to obtain an average tons per day by material component breakdown for the Town's residential waste stream only, excluding C & D and-landclearing debris. COI 3 Based on the Town of Southold 1989 landfill=scale data, average daily tons of the material component categories as follows : Lead Batteries - 0 05 TPD 100% to Batteries Brush - 7 56 TPD 100% to Brush Cleanup Debris = 0.82 TPD: 50% t0 Leaves ' 50% to Brush Leaves/Crass/Mulch - 3 77 TPD: 50% to Leaves sox to Crass Metal - 1.56 TPD: 100% t0 Ferrous Metals - Food Cans Tires - 0.36 TPD• 100% to Rubber Paper - 1.23 TPD: l00% to Paper - other Rubbish -10.76 TPD: 30% to wood - Other 30% to Ferrous Metal - white or Enameled 10% to Rubber 30% to Bulky waste COI 4 Based on the Fishers Island 1989 estmated waste generation, average daily tons of •Garbage' applied to the results obtained in Col. 1, to obtain an average tons per day by material component breakdown for the Fishers Island's residential waste-stream only,; excluding C & D and landclearing debris. COI . 5 Col 2 r COI. 3 ♦ Col. 4 Col. 6 Percent of Totals in Col. 4 Appendix A Table 11 Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Comparison of Various Generation Rates Location Date #/Cap./Day Remarks la. Town of Southold 1990 11.72 Unweighted Pop., total waste stream lb. Town of Southold 1990 10.16 Weighted Pop., total waste stream lc. Town of Southold 1990 6.42 Unweighted Pop., residential waste stream only, excludes C&D debris, con./asphalt/bricks, land clearing debris agricultural debris, sand/sod, sludge, woodchips, shellfish debris Id. Town of Southold 1990 5.56 Weighted Pop., residential waste stream only, excludes C&D debris, concr../asphalt/bricks, land clearing debris agricultural debris, sand/sod, sludge, woodchips, shellfish debris le. Town of Southold 1990 3.73 Unweighted Pop., residential waste, includes only "Garbage" 1f. Town of Southold 1990 3.23 Weighted Pop., residential waste, includes only "Garbage" lg. Fishers Island 1990 4.25 Weighted Pop., household residential waste. 2a. Town of Shelter Island1990 6.29 "Off—Season" Pop., total waste stream (incl . C&D and land clearing debris) 2b. Town of Shelter Island 1990 5.36 "Off—Season" Pop., residential waste stream (excl . C&D and land clearing debris) 2c. Town of Shelter Island 1990 4.31 Weighted Pop., total waste stream (incl . C&D and land clearing debris) 2d. Town of Shelter Island 1990 3.68 Weighted Pop., residential waste stream (exc. C&D and land clearing debris) 2e. Town of Shelter Island 1990 2.93 Survey of private vehicles, residential waste stream (excl . C&D and land clearing debris) 3a. Town of Riverhead 1989 11.72 Unweighted Pop., includes land clearing and C&D debris, 3b. Town of Riverhead 1989 10.24 Weighted Pop., includes land clearing and C&D debris 2933M Appendix A Table 11 (Continued) Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan Comparison of Various Generation Rates Location Date #/Cao./Day Remarks 3c. Town of Riverhead 1989 9.61 Unweighted Pop., excludes land clearing and C&D- r debris 3d. Town of Riverhead 1989 8.39 Weighted Pop., excludes land clearing and C&D_ debris 3e. Town of Riverhead 1989 4.17 Survey of passenger vehicles, excludes land. clearing and C&D debris 4. Town of Riverhead 1988 9.86 Unweighted Pop., includes C&D debris 5. Town of Brookhaven' 1987 7.80 Unweighted Pop., includes C&D debris 6. Town of Brookhaven 1987 6.80 Unweighted Pop., excludes C&D debris 7. Town of Smithtown 1989 5.69 Unweighted Pop.,, excludes bulk/metal wastes 8. Town of Huntington 1984 5.75 Unweighted Pop., excludes C&D debris 9. Town of East Hampton 1988 7.16 Weighted Pop., includes C&D debris, commercial, bulky 10. Town of Southampton 1988 5.20 Weighted Pop., "assumed" gen. rate, includes C&D debris 11. Town of Southampton 1988 4.90 Weighted Pop., "calculated". gen. rate, includes C&D debris 12. National Level 1990 3.67 'Unweighted Pop., based on "Gross Discards" 13. New York State 1989 -5.30 Unweighted Pop., excludes C&D debris 2933M FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 11 Ia. Based on LILCO's 1989 current population estimate, May 1987 LIRBP population projections and 1989 landfill scale data for the total waste stream. Includes waste generated on Fishers Island. lb. Based on a calculated weighted seasonal population estimate from LILCO's 1989 current population estimate, May 1987 ,LIRBP population projections and 1989 landfill scale data for the total waste stream. Includes waste generated on Fishers Island. lc. Based on LILCO's 1989 current population estimate, May 1987 LIRBP population - projections and 1989 landfill scale data for the residential waste stream which I A excludes C&D debris, concr../asphalt/bricks, land clearing debris, agricultural ' -- debris, sand/sod, .sludge, woodchips, shellfish debris. Includes waste generated on Fishers Island. Id. Based on a calculated weighted seasonal population estimate from LILCO's 1989 current population estimate, May 1987 LIRBP population projections and 1989 landfill scale data for the residential waste stream which excludes C&D debris, concr../asphalt/bricks, land clearing debris, agricultural debris, sand/sod, sludge, woodchips, shellfish_debris. Includes waste generated on FishersIsland. le. Based on LILCO's 1989 current population estimate, May 1987 LIRBP population projections and 1989 landfill scale data for the residential waste stream which includes only "Garbage". Includes waste generated on Fishers Island. If. Based on a calculated weighted seasonal population estimate from LILCO's 1989 current population estimate, May 1987 LIRBP population projections and 1989 landfill scale data for the residential waste stream which includes on "Garbage". Includes waste generated on Fishers Island. Ig. Based on an average generation rate for household waste from Riverhead, Shelter Island, and Southold (excluding Fishers,Island). 2a. Based on LILCO's 1989 current population estimate, May 1987 LIRBP population projections and the calculated total waste stream includes C&D and land clearing debris. 2b. Based on LILCO's 1989 current population estimate, May 1987 LIRBP population projections and the residential waste stream, excludes C&D and land clearing debris 2c. Based on calculated weighted seasonal population estimate from LILCO's 1989 , current population estimate & May 1987 LIRBP population projections and the calculated total waste stream, includes C&D and land clearing debris. 2d. Based on calculated weighted seasonal population estimate from LILCO's 1989 current population estimate & May 1987 LIRBP population projections and the residential waste stream, excludes C&D and land clearing debris. 2e. Based on a "mini"public drop-off survey of private vehicles conducted in Jan. '90. Assumes 22.93 lbs. per vehicle, a weighted average of 3.2 days of msw and a weighed average of 2.54 persons per household. 2933M FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 11 (continued) 3a. Based on LILCO's 1989 current population -estimate, May 1987 LIRBP population projections and the calculated total waste-stream including C&D debris. 3b. Based on calculated weighted seasonal population estimate from LILCO's 1989 current population estimate & May 1987 LIRBP population projections and the calculated total waste stream including C&D debris. 3c. Based on LILCO's 1989 current population estimate, May 1987 LIRBP population projections and the calculated total waste stream excluding C&D debris. 3d. Based on calculated weighted seasonal population estimate from LILCO's 1989 current population estimate '& May 19'87 LIRBP population projections and the calculated total waste stream excluding C&D debris. 3e. Based on a "mini" public drop-off survey of passenger vehicles conducted in Sept. 189. Assumes 85 lbs. per passenger vehicle, a weighted average of 6 days of msw, and a weighted averaged of 3.4 persons per household. 4. Report to the Suffolk County Legislature by Patrick G. Halpin, County Executive "Annual Environmental Report, 1989". 5. Dvirka & Bartilucci Report, "Town of Brookhaven Solid Waste Management Plan Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, March 1989". 6. Dvirka & Bartilucci Report, "Town of Brookhaven Solid Waste Management Plan Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, March 1989". 7. CSA Resource Systems Report "Evaluation of Alternative Waste-Disposal Systems, July 1989" (average annual processible/recyclable waste generation rate). 8. Dvirka & Bartilucci Report "Town of Huntington Resource Recovery Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, May 1986" 9. Prepared by the Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, Queens College (CUNY), in the course of performing work contracted for and sponsored by the New York Energy Research and Development Authority, Agreement No. 982-ERER-ER-87, "Development & Pilot Test of an Intensive Municipal Solid Waste•Recycling System for the Town of East Hampton", Final Draft. Based on Pilot Test (residential waste stream); East Hampton Landfill surveys (yard waste, C&D, and land clearing); Portland, Oregon study by SCS Engineers (commercial waste stream); City of Buffalo and Franklin, Assoc`., Reports (bulky waste) and a linear regression of population estimate projection from Census data and seasonal variation population estimate. 10. Malcolm Pirnie Report "Town ' of Southampton Draft Solid Waste Action Management Plan (Sept. 1989)". 1990 assumed generation rate. Based on comparisons made with the 1988 calculated per capita generation rate (see footnote #10) and other local solid waste management studies. 11. Malcolm Pirnie Report "Town of Southampton Draft Solid Waste Action, Management Plan (Sept. 1989)". 1988 calculated 'generation rate. Based on 1987 & 1988 records of an average total tonnage of 188 tpd and' a weighted population estimate of 76,350. 2933M FOOTNOTES FOR TABLE 11 (continued) 12. Franklin Assoc. Report "Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States 1960-2000, Update 1989". Based on 1990 "Gross Discards". 13. New York State Solid Waste Management Plan, NYSDEC, 1989. 6 2933M TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX B SCALE HOUSE DATA AND SOLID WASTE QUANTIFICATION 2101M R TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT APPENDIX B LIST OF TABLES Table Title 1 Scale House Waste Categories and Quantities (August 1, 1987 through July 27, 1988) 2 Scale House Waste Categories and Quantities (July 27, 1988 through December 12, 1988) 3 Scale House Waste Categories and Quantities (January 1, 1989 through December 14, 1989) 4 Summary of Landfill Scale House Data (January 1, 1990 through June 30, 1990) 2101M 04/17/90 APpendix B Table 1 Town of Southold Solid Waste Management Plan _ I Scalehouse waste Categories & Quantities (August 1,1987 through July 27,1988) Estimated• Total Total Percent of s of weight Total Waste waste Category Loads (lbs ) Tons Tons/Load Tons/Day Received Carb.age 7630 34,481,845 17,240 9 2 3 47.8 22.6% Landclearing Debris 3018 27,155,090 13,577.5 4 5 37.6 17 8% Sand/sod 1459 22,599.580 11,299 8 7 7 31 3 14.8% Construction Debris 8204 16,442,156 8,221.1 1 0 22.8 10.8% Concrete/Asphalt/Bricks 1106 16,039,345 8,019 7 7 3 22.2 10 5% Rubbish 13667 10,482,777 5,241 4 0 4 14.5 6 9% Brush 8313 7,949,250 3,974.6 0 5 11.0 5 2% Leaves/Crass/Mulch 8932 6,050,023 3,025.0 0.3 8.4 4 O% Clay 77 2,269,960 1,135 0 14 7 3 1 1 5% Agricultural Debris 659 2,095,346 1,047.7 1 6 2 9 1.4% Metal (outgoing) na 1,710,105 855.1 na 2.4 1 1% wood 1705 1,688,215 844 1 0.5 2 3 1.1% sludge 95 1,397,070 698.5 7.4 1 9 0 9% Shellfish Debris 166 1.340,600 670.3 4 0 1.9 0.9% Paper (outgoing) na 577,307 288.7 na 0 8 0 4% Tires (outgoing) na 144,920 72.5 na 0 2 0.1% woodchips na na na na na 0 0% Lead Batteries (outgoing) na na na na na 0.0%'` cleanup Debris na na na na na 0.0% Total Waste Received at Landfill 55,031 152,423,589 76,211.8 1.4 211.1 100.0% Total waste Recycled (outgoing) na 2,432,332 1,216.2 na 3.4 1 6% ................................................................................................. Net Waste Landfilled na 149,991,257 74,995.6 na 207.7 98.4% na . Information not available (outgoing) . materials recycled • August 1,1987 through July 27,1988 . 361 days 04/17/90 Appendix B Table 2 Town of Southold solid waste Management Plan Scalehouse waste Categories & Quantities (July 27,1988 through December 12,1988) e , Estimated Total Total Percent of t of weight Total waste Waste Category Loads (lbs ) Tons Tons/Load Tons/Day Received Garbagea a s 2,598 13,089,680 6,544 8 2 5 47 4 21 6% Landclearing Debris 1,462 12,762,860 6,381 4 4 4 46.2 21 1% Construction Debris 4,219 9,998,699 4,999 3 1 2 36 2 16.5% Sand/sod 608 6,539,030 3,269 5 5 4 23.7 10.8% Concrete/Asphalt/Bricks 481 4,550,020 2,275 0 4.7 16 5 7.5% Rubbish 6,768 3,910,018 1,955.0 0 3 14 2 6.5% Brush 4,387 3.390,650 1,695 3 0.4 12.3 5 6% Leaves/Crass/Mulch 6,059 3,020,010 1,510.0 0 2 10 9 5 0% Cleanup Debris 472 831,000 415 5 0 9 3 0 1 4% Agricultural Debris 196 662,010 331.0 1 7 2 4 1 1% wood 574 630,170 315 1 0 5 2 3 1 0% Paper (outgoing) 10 453,200 226 6 22 7 1 6 0 7% Sludge 38 351,720 175.9 4 6 1.3 0.6% Tires (outgoing) 7 166,500 83 3 11.9 0 6 0 3% Metal (outgoing) 35 60,550 30.3 0.9 0 2 0.1% Shellfish Debris 54 54,460 27.2 0 5 0 2 0.1% Metal (incoming) 34 22620 11 3 0 3 0.1 0.0% Lead Batteries (outgoing) 2 16,200 8.1 4.1 0.1 0.0% Tires (incoming) 8 12,720 6.4 0.8 0.0 0.0% woodchips na na na na na 0.0% Clay na na na na na 0 0% Total waste Received at Landfill 28,012 60,522,117 30,261.1 67.9 219.3 100.0% Total Waste Recycled (outgoing) 54 696,450 348.2 39.5 2.5 1.2% Netgwaste Landfilled y =a==_Y'=a 27,958 59,825,667 29,912.8 28.5 216.8• 98.8% notes na . Information not available (outgoing) - materials recycled • July 27,1988 through December 12,1988 138 days 07/31/90 Appendix B Table 3 Town of Southold solid waste Management Plan scalehouse waste Categories & Quantities (January 1,1989 through'December 14,1989) Estimated• Total Total Percent of * of weight Total waste waste Category Loads (lbs.) Tons Tons/Load Tons/Day Received Garbage 4,520 28.073,900 14,037 0 3.1 40.5 32 85% Construction Debris 7,578 12,833,760 6.416.9 0.8 18.5 15.02% sand/sod 598 11,929,520 5.964 8 10 0 17.2 13 96% Landclearing Debris 1.181 10,112,630 5,056 3 4.3 14.6 11 83% Rubbish 6,727 7,470,020 3.735 0 0.6 10.8 8.74% Brush 5,706 5,247,430 2,623.7 0.5 7.6 6.14% Leaves/Crass/Mulch "5,222 2,613,540 1,306.8 0.3 3 8 3.06% Concrete/Asphalt/Bricks 442 2.527,600 1,263.8 2 9 3.6 2 96% Metal (outgoing) 17 1,081,280 540.6 31 8 1 6 1.27% Agricultural Debris 201 1,071,700 535.9 2.7 1.5 1 25% Paper (outgoing) 16 850,520 425.3 26 6 1.2 1 00% Sludge 72 622,640 311.3 4.3 0 9 0 73% Cleanup Debris 254 570,720 285.4 1 1 0 8 0.67% Tires (Outgoing) 5 252,360 126.2 25 2 0 4 0 30% woodchips 41 87,920 44.0 1 1 0 1 10 10% Shellfish Debris 87 83,900 42.0 0 5 0.1 0 10% Lead Batteries (outgoing) 4 35,820 17.9 4 5 0 1 0 04% Total waste Received at landfill 32,671 85,465,260 42.732.6 1.3 123 1 100.0% Total waste Recycled (outgoing) 42 2,219,980 1,110 0 26 4 3.2 2 6% Net waste Landfilled 32,629 83,245,280 41,622.6 1.3 119.9 97.4% Notes na = Information not available outgoing loads = materials recycled January 1,1989 to December,14,1989 = 347 days Appendix B Table 4 Town of Southold Solid Wate Management Plan Summary of Landfill Scalehouse Data (January 1 Through June 30, 1990) ** Percent of Total Total Average Total Waste Waste Category Weigh,t �( Ibs . ) Weight (Tons) Tons/Day Received Garbage 15,082,140 7,541 . 1 41 .7 34.5% Construction Debris 5,974,580 2,987.3 16.5 13.7% Sand/Sod 5,026,460 2,513.2 13.9 11 .5% Landclearing Debris 4,581 ,740 2,290.9 12.7 10.5% Rubbish 3,313,400 1 ,656.7 9.2 7.6% Brush 3,878,140` 1 ,939. 1 10.7 8. 9% Leaves/Grass/Mulch 2,872,220 1 ,436. 1 7.9 6.6% Concrete - 927,780 463.9 2.6 2. 1% Metal * 621 ,260 310.6 1 .7 1 .4% Agricultural Debris 143,920 72.0 0.4 0.3% Sludge 318,680 159.3 Q.9 0.7% Tires* 230,700 115.4 0.6 0.5% Wood Chips 59, 160 29.6 0.2 0. 1% Shellfish Debris 29,660 14.8 0. 1 0. 1% Recyclables* 651 ,340 325.7 1 .8 1 .5% Total Waste Received 43,711 ,180 21 ,855.6 120.7 100.0% at Landfill Total Waste Recycled 1 ,503,300 751 .7 4.2 3.4% Net Waste Landfilled 42,207,880 21 ,103.9 116.6 96.6% * Materials Recycled ** Based on 181 days (January 1 through June 30, 1990) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN I DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT C APPENDIX C I ALTERNATIVE WASTE REDUCTION AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES i I JUNE 1990 i Prepared and Updated By: Dvirka & Bartilucci Consulting Engineers Syosset, NY 11791 I 2964M - PREFACE This Appendix presents an update of Dvirka & Bartilucci's continual assessment of municipal solid waste processing technologies at the time of issuance of this document and represents the firm's analysis and professional opinion on the technologies presented and discussed herein. The intent of this Appendix is to assess the technologies on the basis of generic evaluation criteria as well as project specific considerations unique to the Town of Southold. Dvirka'& Bartilucci continually updates its evaluation of established as well as emeging technolgoies; however, certain opinions and conclusions will not change at each update. In fact, in order to clearly present the firm's conclusions and maintain consistency in places where no changes are necessary in the firm's opinion, every attempt is made to leave corresponding statements and conclusions unaltered. Therefore, the similarity in language and content between this assessment and others (including broader based-studies, reports or impact statements) prepared by the firm is intentional. I i 2964M i TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Page 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 New York State Solid Waste Management Policies 1-1 1.2 Evaluation of Facilities Design Alternatives 1-12 2.0 REDUCTION OF WASTE GENERATION RATE 2-1 3.0 RECYCLING 3-1 3.1 Source Separation 3-2 3.1.1 Curbside Collection 3-2 3.1.2 Drop-off Centers 3-3 3.1.3 Buy-back Centers 3-3 3.1.4 Deposit Laws 3-3 3.2 Intermediate Processing of Source 3-4 Separated Materials 3.3 Material Recycling Program Elements 3-4 3.3.1 Markets 3-5 3.3.2 Publicity and Education 3-6 3.3.3 Program Management 3-7 3.3.4 Recycling Ordinances 3-7 3.3.5 Impact on Waste Quantity 3-9 3.3.6 Economic Considerations 3-10 4.0 MECHANICAL PROCESSING 4-1 4.1 Material Separation 4-1 4.2 Material Handling Equipment 4-4, 4.2.1 Hand Sorting 4-4 4.2.2 Grinding/Shredding/Milling 4-6 4.2.3 Trommels 4-8 2964M ii J ` r TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 4.2.4 Hydrapulper 4-8 4.2.5 Disc Screens 4-9 4.2.6 Flat Deck Vibrating Screens 4-9 4.2.7 Air Classifiers 4-9 4.2.8 Magnetic Separators 4-10 4.2.9 Glass and Aluminum Separators 4-11 4.2.10 Heavy Media Separation 4-11 4.2.11 Aluminum Magnets 4-12 4.2.12 Froth Flotation Units 4-12 4.2.13 Optical Sorting 4-13 4.2.14 Jigs 4-13 4.3 Size Reduction Systems 4-14 4.3.1 Compaction 4-14 4.3.2 Shredding 4-17 4.3.3 C&D Waste Processing 4-17 4.3.4 Compactor/Balers 4-18 5.0 THERMAL PROCESSING 5-1 5.1 Mass Burn Incineration 5-1 5.1.1 Size Range 5-6 5.1.2 Previous Operating Experience 5-7 5.1.3 Thermal Production Capability 5-9. 5.1.4 Waste Reduction Capability 5-13 5.1.5 Vendors of Mass-Burn Facility 5-14 5.2 Modular Incineration 5-14 ' 5.2.1 Size Range 5-18 5.2.2 Previous Operating Experience 5-18 5.2.3 • Thermal Production Capability 5-21 5.2.4 Waste1 Reduction_Capability 5-24 5.2.5 Vendors of Modular Facilities 5-24 2964M 111 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 5.3 Prepared Waste (RDF) Incineration 5-24 5.3.1 Size Range 5-32 5.3.2 Previous Operating Experience 5-32 5.3.3 Thermal Production Capability 5=42 5.3.4 Waste Reduction Capability 5-42 5.3.5 Vendors of RDF Facilities 5-42 5.4 Pyrolysig 5-44 5.4.1 Vendors of Pyrolysis Systems 5-45 t 5.5 Environmental Impact and Safety of Thermal Processing 5-57 5.5.1 Mass Burn/Modular Facilities 5-57 5.5.2 Prepared Waste (RDF) Facilities 5-62, 5;5.3 Pyrolysis Facilities 5-64 6.0 COMPOSTING 6-1 6.1 Fundamentals of the Biological Process 6-1 6.2 Systems Description 6-4 6.3 Systems Vendors 6-8 6.4 Environmental Considerations 6-20 6.5 Economic Considerations - 6-23 6.6 Yard Waste Composting 6-25 7.0 OTHER WASTE REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES 7,-1 7.1 Hydrolysis (Refuse-to-Ethanol) 7-1 7.2 Anaerobic Digestion (Biogasification) 7-2 7.3 ORFA Corporation of America. 7-14 7.4 Processing Waste Tires 7-18 2964M iv-, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT Table of Contents (Continued) Section Title Page 8.0 TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION AND SCREENING 8-1 8.1 Technology Evaluation 8-1 8.1.1 Reduction of Waste Generation Rate 8-1 8.1.2 Recycling 8-3 8.1.3 Mechanical Processing Systems 8-6 8.1.4 Thermal Processing 8-9 8.1.5 MSW Composting s 8-18 8.1.6 Other Waste Reduction Technologies 8-21 8.2 Technology Screening 8-23 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 9-1 2964M v TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT LIST OF TABLES Table Number Title Pa e 1-1 Evaluation Categories: Alternative Waste 1-14 - Reduction and Processing Technologies 4-1 Compaction Equipment Used for Volume Reduction 4-15 5-1 Mass-Burn Facilities in Operation 5-10 5-2 Vendors of Mass-Burn Facilities 5-15 5-3 Modular Incineration Facilities in Operation as of 15-22 April 1988 5-4 Vendors of Modular Incineration Facilities 5-25 i . 5-5 First Generation Refuse Derived Fuel Facilities 5-35 5-6 RDF Incineration Facilities in Operation as of 5-38 April 1988 5-7 Vendors of Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) Facilities 5-43 8-1 Evaluation Criteria: Alternative Waste 8-2 Reduction and Processing Technologies 8-2 Technology Evaluation and Screening 8-25 2964M vi TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT LIST OF FIGURES Figure Number Title Page 4-1 Refuse to RDF Processing Facility 4-5 5-1 Typical Refractory Furnace - Convection Boiler System a 5-3 5-2 Typical Waterwall Furnace - Convection Boiler Systems Arrangement 5-4 5-3 Typical Stoker Configurations 5-5 5-4 Water-cooled Rotary Combustor 5-8 5-5 Packaged Modular Controlled - Air Incinerator With Heat Recovery 5-17 5-6 Typical Bubbling Bed Fluidized Bed Combustion System 5-28 5-7 Typical Circulating Fluidized Bed Combustion System 5-29 5-8 Combined Refuse and RDF Processing Plant 5-34 5-9 "PUROX" Gasification Process 5-47 5-10 Cryogenic Oxygen Generating System 5-48 5-11 "Torrax" Refuse Gasification System 5-51 5-12 Monsanto "Landguard" Pyrolysis Process 5-52 5-13 Waste Distillation Schematic of Process 5-55 7-1 Waste to Alcohol Plant - Feedstock Storage and Preparation 7-3 7-2 Enzyme Production 7-4 7-3 Simultaneous Saccharification - Fermentation 7-5 7-4 Solids Separation 7-6 7-5 Distillation 7-7 7-6 Dehydration 7-8 7-7 Evaporation 7-9 7-8 RefCOM Refuse Conversion to Methane 7-10 7-9 Valorga Process Flow Schematic 7-13• 2964M vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Town of Southold has historically disposed its municipal solid waste in the landfill on Middle Road (C.R. 48). Recyclable collection and a small pilot yard waste composting operation also occur at this site. Landfills on Long Island face the deadlines imposed by the Long Island Landfill Law. The Town owned landfill is expected to cease operations of burying received solid waste in response to this and other State initiatives. Alternative technologies need to be assessed in order to provide feasible and/or practical choices from which decisions can be made. Technologies are assessed in this document and presented so that a reliable, safe, economic, and environmentally acceptable alternative is developed to address the solid waste management needs of the Town. A consensus exists in the United States among elected officials, regulatory agencies, engineers and environmentalists that continued reliance on landfilling for disposal of our refuse is insufficient for modern waste disposal needs. While many of.the environmental concerns related to landfilling can be mitigated or avoided by appropriate design, operation, siting, and controls on adjacent land use, there is little support for the continuance of this practice as the primary,means of refuse disposal. Although landfilling will most likely always be needed in some degree, there is a 'definite trend towards minimizing its use. 1.1 New York State Solid Waste Management Policies The New York State solid waste management policies are being driven by the State's desire to implement effective integrated solid waste management programs. These policies have been recently influenced by the Solid Waste Management Act of 1988, new Part 360 regulations, New York State Solid Waste Management Plan, and in addition to the above, for energy recovery facilities, the new Part 219 regulations. New York State Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 In April, 1988 the New York State Legislature adopted the Solid Waste Management Act (SWMA). The SWMA amended the State's environmental conservation law, public authorities law, economic development law, state finance law, and local jurisdictional laws. Its purpose was to encourage waste reduction, accelerate the recovery and reuse of 2964M 1-1 secondary materials, encourage the conservation of resources, foster public/private initiatives, and encourage a new ethic to conserve and reuse, rather than discard useful material. These objectives are to be accomplished through the establishment of a state solid waste management policy, creation of a state waste reduction and recycling bureau, the allocation of planning monies, and the development of governmental procurement and recycling policies on the state and local level. Mandatory Source Separation The most prominent feature of this legislation is Section 23 which amends Section 120—a of Chapter 552, 1980 by stating that by September 1, 1992 municipalities shall adopt a law requiring source separation of all materials collected and delivered to solid waste management facilities. This law previously stated that such ordinances were optional and only applicable to municipally (or municipal contract) collected waste. A market analysis and identification of the potential markets is also required as part of the permitting and approval of recycling facilities. Local Solid Waste Management Plans According to the SWMA, all "planning units" defined as a county, two or more counties acting jointly, a local government agency or authority established for the purposes of managing solid wastes, a Town (Long Island only) or two or more municipalities which the Department of Environmental Conservation determines capable of implementing a regional solid waste management program must have a solid waste management plan in order to obtain a facility permit after January 1, 1990. Under the SWMA, planning units may be eligible for up to 90% funding for solid waste management plans. In order for these plans to be approved by the DEC they must accomplish the,following: o Characterize the solid waste to be managed o Assess existing and alternate management facilities 2964M 1-2 o Address the comments and views of concerned parties o Identify the parties responsible for implementation of the plan o Set forth a timetable for implementing the plan o Describe public participation In addition, plans must provide for the management of all solid waste within the planning unit, and embody sound principles of solid waste management, natural resource conservation, energy production, and employment creation opportunities. Plans must also take into account the objectives of the state solid waste management priorities. Development and Promotion of Waste Reduction and Recycline In addition, The Bureau of Waste Reduction and Recycling was established in the Department of Environmental Conservation as a result of this legislation. The purpose of the Bureau is the development and promotion of local waste reduction, source separation and recycling through the collection, intermediate processing and marketing• of source separated materials that are now being disposed. In order to accomplish these objectives the Bureau will: o Encourage the development and improvement of programs by municipalities o Serve as as information clearinghouse o Identify implementation problems and recommend solutions Procurement The SWMA also encourages and promotes the purchase of recycled paper products by state, county and local governments. Under this provision, these governmental bodies will be allowed to purchase paper containing recovered materials if the price is reasonably competitive '(within 10% of products, containing primary materials) and the quality adequate. 2964M 1-3 This practice differs from other procurement policies where purchasing is based on the lowest available price. Since the cost of recycled products is sometimes greater than products made from virgin materials, this provision will help assure that markets are available for recycled materials and set an example for business and industry. Governmental Recycling No later than July 1, 1989, each state agency shall devise and institute a program to source separate waste paper generated in New York State office facilities. One year later, these state agencies will be required to have devised a plan to recycle all other feasible materials. In ,addition, each public authority will be required to develop a plan for recycling waste paper within public buildings by September 1, 1989. This program must be phased in and fully implemented and plans for recycling other in—house recyclables must be developed by July 1, 1990. Finally, by July 1, 1991 recycling programs for all feasible materials must be implemented. New York State Solid Waste Management Plan In New York State the role of recycling with respect to solid waste projects, is articulated in Chapter 552 of the Laws of 1980 and in the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan and December 1987 update. This plan update includes information on the status of solid waste management in New York State, defines problems associated with solid waste, discusses management methods, identifies the legislative, regulatory and program framework for environmentally sound solid waste management and establishes goals to move towards integrated solid waste management over the next decade. The plan update advances the concept of the solid waste management method hierarchy which are listed in order of preference as follows, along with a brief discussion of the State's goal. o Waste Reduction— A reduction in the amount of waste generated by changes in manufacturing processes or materials used. It is expected that legislative action will facilitate reaching an 8% to 10% reduction goal by 1997. 2964M 1-4 o Recycling and Reuse - Reuse or recycle 50% (10% waste reduction, 40% recycling) of the solid waste generated in New York State by 1997 (including the percentage realized by waste reduction). o Waste-to-Energy - Recovery of energy from solid waste that cannot be reused or recycled in an environmentally acceptable manner. o Landfilling - The State's goal is to use landfills only for disposal of wastes which cannot be reduced, recycled or combusted in a waste-to-energy facility. Guidance on requirements for recycling analyses issued by the NYSDEC Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste identifies the following items to be considered (in brief): o Identify the quantity or estimated quantity of material, by type, that could potentially be recycled o Evaluate existing recycling efforts o Identify available and potential markets for recovered materials_ o Identify alternative source separation/recycling systems considered and reasons for selection of the proposed system o Discuss possible future actions to achieve a project waste reduction/recycling goal of 50% by 1997 o Expand scope of existing or new programs. These guidelines are a prerequisite to obtaining a permit for any solid, waste processing or disposal facility in New York State. New York State Regulations Governing Solid Waste Facilities i The NYSDEC has recently completed comprehensive new regulations concerning solid waste facilities under 6NYCRR Parts 219 and 360. •The revised Part 219 regulations govern air emission limitations for new municipal and private solid waste incineration facilities and provide draft operating guidelines. The Part 360 regulations govern the 2964M 1-5 remaining aspects of all solid waste facilities including facility siting, construction/operational requirements and permitting. The regulations incorporate recent legal, technical and policy developments which will guide the efforts of municipalities as well as private businesses in the development of a solid waste management system. The new standards limit the amount of pollutants that may be emitted from incinerator stacks, specify design and construction criteria for sophisticated, state-of-the-art landfills and outline methods for monitoring potential air or groundwater contamination. Summaries of the revisions to 6NYCRR Part 21.9 and 360 are provided below: t Part 219: Air Quality Regulations A summary of revision of Part 219 standards as required by Section 19-0306 of the state ECL for public and privately operated solid waste incinerators: o Sets limits for opacity and emissions of particulates, hydrogen chloride, carbon monoxide. o Mandates control of organics by establishing; an emission limit on dioxins. o Requires Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for limiting emissions of nitrogen oxides. If the facility is located in a nonattainment area for nitrogen dioxide, or causes a significant impact in an area which is in nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide, lowest achievable emission rates (LAER) technology must be applied. o Sets standards for operating temperatures and flue gas residence time. o Requires periodic stack testing, training of operators and reports on tests and operating factors. 2964M 1-6 I o Mandates continuous monitoring for oxygen, carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, opacity, temperature, and combustion index. The Part 219 air quality regulations set a target for minimizing dioxin emissions from municipal and private solid waste incinerators. -The rules require applicants for a permit to operate an incinerator to show that."best management practices" will be used and that all reasonable efforts will be applied toward reaching a goal of emitting 0.2 nanograms (0.2 X 10-9 grams) of dioxin per dry cubic meter, of exhaust emissions. Affected facilities must at the minimum meet an emissions concentration limit of 2 nanograms dioxin equivalent per dry standard cubic meter. Upon completion of emissions testing required by the regulation, the DEC Commissioner will establish a specific dioxin,equivalent emission limit for each facility. Stack tests would be required within two to six months after start-up of a facility and a total of five times within the first five years of operation. The limit would be based on at J _ least 12 tests. Part 360: Solid Waste Regulations The following is an overview of the new Part 360 regulations authorized under Section 27-0703 of the State Environmental Conservation Law: o Updates standards for the design, construction, operation,,maintenance, closure, and environmental monitoring of solid waste facilities. o Requires double composite liners and dual, leachate collection and detection systems for landfills. o Mandates a comprehensive recycling analysis as a part of a solid waste management system before any permit will be issued for construction of a landfill or incinerator. o Clarifies definitions for many aspects of solid waste management that previously have been incorporated in various policy and regulatory decisions. 2964M 1-7 o Reorganizes and greatly expands aspects of existing Part 360 regulations and incorporates recent policy developments such as the Long Island Landfill Law, crematory operation, and medical waste incineration. o Sets standards for construction and demolition debris disposal, disposal of ash from incinerators, operation of recycling centers, land spreading of sewage treatment solids, and composting of yard wastes and other solid wastes. o Requires extensive reporting and documentation of construction and operation of facilities and mandates post closure monitoring and reporting for up to 30 years. The new Part 360 regulations also provide for exemption of landspreading of waste from food processing activities if the waste is utilized as fertilizer, soil conditioner, or animal feed supplement. The new regulations also establish limits on the heavy metal accumulation in soil. Landfills All future solid waste landfills for municipal solid waste will require a double composite liner system and leachate collection and removal system that only two years ago became the state-of-the-art standard for toxic waste landfilling systems. The specifications call for a 24 inch layer of low permeability soil topped by a 60 mil thick plastic liner. Atop the flexible plastic membrane would be a 12 inch sand layer with a leachate collection pipe network. A primary composite liner would be installed above the leachate collection system and would include 18 inches of low permeability clay, another 60 mil plastic sheet, and 24 inches of granular sand in which another leachate piping system would be installed. The Part 360 regulations concerning landfills also present requirements for leachate collection, gas venting and daily covering, final capping of the landfill after closure and long term monitoring. The treatment of leachate will be conducted based upon review of surface or ground water quality standards. 2964M 1-8 Energy Recovery Facilities A key issue dealt with in the operation of solid waste incinerators in the new Part 360 regulations is the disposal of ash residues from municipal solid waste incinerators. The regulations differentiate between fly ash, which is removed from the stack gases and often contains high levels of metals and toxins, the sand-like bottom ash and a mixture of the two. Segregated fly ash must be disposed of in a double composite liner landfill with leachate collection and leak detection dedicated only to the burial of fly ash (a monofill). As an alternative, fly ash that is chemically treated to reduce leaching under acidic or non-acidic conditions can be disposed of in either a single liner (ash-only) landfill or buried with other refuse in a double composite liner landfill. Bottom ash or combined ash maybe put in either a monofill with a single liner or disposed with municipal waste-in a double liner facility. The Part 360 regulations also update standards for the design, construction, operation, maintenance, closure, and environmental monitoring of all solid waste facilities especially ERFs. Facilities will be required to utilize three separate combustion, energy recovery'and air pollution control trains unless a specific waiver for fewer units is granted by the NYSDEC. Landfill Closure Criteria for closing a landfill after its useful life, as outlined in Part 360-2.15 regulations, call for monitoring the site and annual reporting to DEC for at least 30 years. A hydrogeological investigation must be performed, including the installation of a long-term monitoring well network in the upper aquifer plus other wells as the DEC indicates are necessary to monitor deeper aquifers. An explosive gas investigation must be performed and a landfill gas control system designed to prevent the migration of concentrated amounts of gases off site. If the landfill gas is to be captured for commercial use, the operator of such a system must receive a permit to do so and produce an engineering plan for the operation. A post-closure monitoring and maintenance operations manual must be developed which details proper testing and maintenance to be carried out for at least 30 years. The 30 year period may be extended in five year intervals if the DEC determines it is necessary. 2964M 1-9 Construction and Demolition Disposal C&D landfills of greater than five acres would be subject to essentially the'same restrictions as any solid waste landfill, except that the complex liner system would not be required. Base soils must be at least 2 feet in thickness and have a permiability of 1 x 10-5 cm/s or less. These facilities (5 acres or greater) must also have a leachate removal system in place. Access to the property would be restricted and hours of operation would be limited ,with an operator on duty to oversee disposal. C&D landfills of more than one-half to five acres would be subject to less rigorous standards but still would require a permit, an operations plan, and installation of test wells to monitor groundwater. Small landfills of one-half acre or less could operate for up to one year without permit, provided no debris was accepted from outside the county and no fees were collected for dumping there. Also, areas of up to two acres could be operated without a permit, providing the material comes strictly from land clearing of contiguous property. In, addition, for C&D facilities of any size, the DEC and the local government would have to be notified 30 days in advance of the _intention to operate any size C&D landfill. Upon closure, there would be continuing monitoring of the larger (greater than 5 acres) sites for at least 30 years. ' Smaller sites would have to periodically monitor groundwater samples. Materials/Waste Processing } Part 360-3.2 of the regulations provide that applications to build or operate a solid waste incinerator or processing facility handling more than a ton of refuse per hour must include an economic and market analysis under, new Part 360-3.2 regulations. A comprehensive recycling analysis is also required to ensure that to the greatest extent practicible only solid waste that cannot be recycled will be accepted at the facility. A processing facility is defined as a facility where the volume or the chemical or r physical characteristics of solid waste are reduced or altered through such processes as separating, baling or shredding before being delivered to a landfill, composting facility or incinerator. Provisions will be required for handling so-called untreatable waste, which includes batteries, such as dry cell batteries, mercury batteries, and vehicle batteries, as 2964M 1-10 1 • well as large bulky items such as refrigerators, water heaters, and large auto parts. Provisions will have to be made for the separation and storage of such waste at the facility. Communities that contribute waste to a facility will be notified that separate collection and disposal of batteries and other untreatable wastes will be required. These provisions are part of a mandated waste control plan that will require a questionnaire to be mailed to all industries, commercial establishment and institutions asking the nature of the refuse they will send to the facility and training of staff in handling any unusual or untreatable items. The state would regulate the operation of larger recycling facilities, those handling more than five tons of material a day, under the Part 360-12 regulations. In order. to obtain a;recycler's permit, an applicant would have to submit a market and economic analysis to ensure that a proposed recycling project were viable. Also, an assessment would have to be made of the impact of the operation on other recycling and incinerating operations. An application would also include a site analysis, engineering plans, a maintenance, operations and safety manual, and a guarantee from a landfill to dispose of any unrecyclable materials generated by the business. Examples of the types of operations that would come under DEC regulations include facilities processing construction and demolition debris that chip"wood into mulch, crush stone for fill and separate metals for scrap and transfer stations that extract corrugated containers, paper, plastic and glass from mixed solid waste. Exempt from the regulations would be smaller recyclers and auto dismantlers and junkyards, metal salvage yards and recycling facilities handling five to 30 tons per day of source separated, non-putrescible solid waste that generate less than a ton a day of residue. Composting New regulations on composting differentiate between composting yard wastes, sewage sludge and other solid waste and facilitate leaf composting by many small communities and nurseries. Exempted from regulation would be facilities handling less than 3,000 cubic yards of yard waste per year. Lifting the restrictions should ensure that composting projects are small in scope ,and therefore have a small potential for environmental harm. Acceptable methods of composting and the use of compost are also outlined in the regulations. 2964M 1-11 Long Island Landfill Law. ECL 27-0704 The Long Island Landfill Law, enacted in 1983, imposes strict requirements on landfills in Nassau and Suffolk counties, particularly in the deep flow groundwater recharge areas on which the Island's water supply depends. The law effectively prohibits landfilling of unprocessed raw MSW after the year 1990 in the deep flow recharge areas. Expansion or development of new landfills outside the deep flow recharge areas is strictly regulated as well, and may be conducted only if the landfill is to accept material which is the product of resource recovery, incineration or composting. Existing landfills outside the deep flow recharge area may accept other wastes beyond 1990 if such disposal is approved by the Commissioner based upon a finding made after the opportunity for a public hearing that (1) no resource recovery facility is available to accept such waste; (2) the municipality is making all reasonable efforts to implement a resource recovery system acceptable to the commissioner; and (3) the landfilling of such wastes will not have significant adverse environmental impacts. 1.2 Evaluation of Facilities Design Alternatives This appendix describes alternative waste reduction technologies. Established technologies as well as new and emerging technologies have been considered. These technologies are evaluated and screened in order to determine which are most applicable to the needs of the Town of Southold. Table 1-1 provides a list of the evaluation categories considered here. It is intended that the evaluation format utilized herein will provide a clearly understandable identification of the strengths and weaknesses of each alternative and the,basis for deciding upon a preferred system. Though the format used in this report examines individual waste reduction systems, a combination of alternatives is the optimal approach. This is referred to as an integrated solid waste management approach. Such an integrated approach is advisable for three reasons. No single recovery strategy can satisfactorily process all of the various components of municipal solid waste. Secondly, a diversified management system has a very strong potential for reducing total solid waste costs. This is accomplished by matching the lowest-cost solid waste management method with each separable component of the municipal solid waste stream. Finally, .from an environmental point of view, it is safer to avoid dependence on a single approach to waste management. Section 8.0 evaluates the various technologies with this approach. 2964M 1-12 TABLE 1-1 EVALUATION CATEGORIES: ALTERNATIVE WASTE REDUCTION AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES 1. System Design 2. Reliability 3. Environmental Impacts 4. Safety 5. System Costs 6. Capacity/Applicability 2964M 1-13 . i 2.0 REDUCTION OF WASTE GENERATION RATE The predominant focus of solid waste management is to provide for the disposition of waste materials resulting from social or economic activities. , The solid waste management plan adopted by New York State in 1987 expands the responsibilities of regional,solid waste management through its declaration of waste reduction as the most preferred management strategy. This introduces a fundamentally new dimension to solid waste management by making the prevention of waste material generation a necessary objective to be achieved over time. Waste reduction, can be simply defined as the avoidance-)of actions that generate waste materials which must be either recycled or disposed. There are two generally accepted strategies for achieving waste reduction: o Increasing the efficiency of materials utilization so that less, materials are needed for any given purpose o Implementing actions or designs which significantly increase a product's functional life Increasing materials utilization efficiency can be understood as providing goods or services at comparable or superior levels of performance with less materials. This can be done, for example, by redesigning a manufacturing process so that it generates less process residues. Alternatively, it can also mean that the product or service itself is provided through the use of less materials. One very simple example is the use of two sided copying. Increasing a product's functional life will delay its introduction into the waste l stream. There are several ways this can be accomplished. Reusable containers are a very common example of this waste reduction approach. Another is the design of products which are simple and inexpensive to repair when they malfunction. Finally, it is possible to prolong a product's functional use through remanufacturing techniques which are designed to, restore a worn product. One common remanufacturing technique is the retreading of passenger and commercial vehicle tires. 2965M 2-1 Each of these strategies, it should be noted, can result from either lifestyle or structural decisions. Lifestyle decisions are actions taken by individuals or groups for reducing their material consumption which may be grounded in moral, social or economic reasons: For example, many environmental organizations try to persuade consumers not to purchase products that are over-packaged or to buy those made from recycled materials. Structural decisions are made by organizations seeking to provide goods or services at lower materials utilization rates. For example, a manufacturing industry may determine how they can provide popular consumer products that use fewer parts or are less materials intensive. It should be noted that structural decisions make it possible to achieve a certain amount of waste reduction that is not contingent on the enactment of lifestyle changes. Waste reduction efforts can encompass remanufacturing processes. In this context remanufacturing does not mean-repair, but rather involves disassembly and salvage of reusable components. These components are then refurbished, cleaned and re-assembled. The basic criteria for identification of likely candidates for remanufacturing includes: o Inexpensive source of quality material o Limited number of product models o Stable product technology o High prices'of new products o Inherently polluting materials (such as cadmium and lead) to remove from waste stream o Market acceptance of "remanufactured" designation of product Examples of these remanufacturing efforts include: replacement auto parts, such as water pumps, carburetors and transmissions; and telephones and refrigeration systems. In general, remanufacturing seldom requires large capital investment because the work has already been done in the original manufacturing process. 2965M 2-2 In addition to reducing the wastestream through efforts by the manufacturing industry, individuals can also have an impact on reducing the wastestream. Two examples of this are the purchase of products which are designed to last longer than other products and the purchase of products which minimize,or use less packing material. I As an example of ongoing waste reduction efforts, Suffolk County, New York has 1 enacted a bill which bans plastic packaging material. The intent is to require replacement by biodegradable forms of plastic or paper to reduce the volume of waste in landfills. However, this effort is not anticipated to significantly reduce tonnages of waste requiring disposal. It is clear that legislation will be passed at the Federal, State or local levels to deal with increased waste reduction efforts in the future. Depending upon the extent of these efforts, it is reasonable to assume that a 10% waste reduction effort is possible over the project period (by the year 2010). The New York State Solid Waste Management'Plan proposes the following goals to reduce the volume of packing wastes by: o Imposing a waste initiator's fee on packing sold in New York State, with higher fees assessed for non—recyclable packaging o Requiring mandatory deposits on tires sold o Requiring an increase in the price preference given to recycled paper products in state purchase contracts o Expansion of the scope of the state Returnable Container Act o Establishment of standards for packing sold in New York State The State's goal is to achieve a 8 to 10% reduction in the waste stream by 1997. 2965M 2-3 3.0 RECYCLING Recycling is defined as the separation of solid waste into marketable fractions and the eventual reuse or reincorporation of these materials into usable products. The recovery of recyclable materials may be achieved through separation at the point of discard (source separation) or by centralized processing• of mixed waste. Source separation of municipal solid waste (MSW) as a resource recovery technique'seeks to provide a product of high purity by setting aside the various marketable components of MSW before contamination with other constituents can occur. While these components may be subject to processing prior to use, the amount of processing required is substantially reduced when materials are source separated. r Waste generators can be categorized into three major sectors: residential, commercial/institutional, and industrial. In order to be effective, the design of a recycling program must take into account the variety of- waste generators, the composition and methods of handling their wastes. Residential sources generate the most diverse materials of the three waste streams and include the most commonly recyclable materials such as newspaper, bottles and cans. Other characteristics of residential sources are high concentrations of organic food waste and seasonally generated organic yard wastes., The amount of each type of material R generated is influenced by demographic characteristics, particularly family income and education. Different styles of dwelling units (for instance, single family homes, high rise L condominiums, seasonal homes) will produce varying types of residential waste. Commercial solid waste is similar to residential solid waste. However, it usually, contains high proportions of particular materials such as corrugated cardboard, high grade f paper and food wastes. The mix of materials generated from any particular commercial source usually remains consistent from collection to collection, although some sources r may experience seasonal changes in quantity or composition, especially during the holiday shopping periods and from the influx of vacationers. Typical examples of commercial waste sources are retail shops, restaurants, printers, and supermarkets. 2966M 3-1 Institutional waste sources share many of the same characteristics described for commercial waste sources. In certain cases, there may be special problems associated with institutional waste sources such as infectious wastes from hospitals. Institutional operations are a significant waste source. Some examples are schools, government offices, hospitals, libraries, etc. Industrial non-hazardous wastes include such materials as food processing wastes, construction and demolition (C&D) debris, non--hazardous production rejects and packaging. In some cases, when homogeneous materials are generated in large quantities and there is a market outlet, the materials never enter the waste stream. Therefore, recycling of industrial wastes often takes place as part of regular business practices. However, there are many industries which do not practice recycling. 3.1 Source Separation Source separation is defined as the segregation of various wastes at the point of generation. Source separation can occur in households, commercial businesses, etc., and is used to make recycling of materials simpler and less costly. Important considerations are the type of materials to be separated, how they will be stored and set-out for collection, collection equipment, and-collection scheduling. Source separation practices include curbside collection, drop-off centers, buy-back centers, and deposit laws. 3.1.1 Curbside Collection Curbside collection can maximize the quantity-and quality of materials being source separated. This program requires the household, commercial, and industrial enterprises to separate materials according to the program's specification. For example, paper and corrugated cardboard would be tied in bundles or put in bags. Glass and cans may need to be rinsed and packaged in a plastic or paper bag or a specially marked container. A curbside program may require adjustments and/or additions to the collection schedule. In order to keep recyclables separate from•the municipal solid waste, garbage trucks may have to be equipped with either racks or tow-behind trailers. Trucks may have to make an additional run to pick up the recyclables. Specialized collection vehicles have been developed for this purpose and may be preferable to the utilization of packer trucks. 2966M 3-2 J 3.1.2- Drop-off Centers Drop-off centers can be established at convenient locations where residents can voluntarily deposit recyclable goods. 'Recycling dealers or end users will provide containers for storing materials and then pick them up when they are full. In many instances, community volunteer organizations operate these programs in order to raise funds for their activities. The center should be staffed while it is open in order to maintain cleanliness and order. Drop-off centers require less in capital investment, operation and maintenance expenses. However, they do not collect enough recycled material to significantly reduce the waste stream. The Town of Huntington,,Long Island, New York is an example of this i . point. From 1979 through 1985, the Town collected an average of 2/7 of a ton per day of recycled material. This is less than 1% of the total quantity of municipal solid waste collected. 3.1.3 Buy-back Centers Buy-back centers are similar to drop-off centers except that payment is offered for the materials received and some processing may occur. They are generally successful in industrial and urban locations. The economic incentive of being paid for recycled materials motivates residents and commercial establishments to recycle. 'These centers may have bailing and processing equipment for product preparation before sale to particular mills. 3.1.4 Deposit Laws Beverage deposit legislation, which has been adopted by nine states, usually requires - the placement of a mandatory deposit on all types of carbonated beverage containers. The consumer can redeem the container at any retail operation which sells the container's brand. The redeemed containers'are returned, directly or through third party services, to - the company which charged the retailer the deposit such as a brewery or bottler. These containers in most cases, are then recycled for their scrap value. Deposit laws could also be applied to other parts of the waste stream such as batteries, newspapers and automobiles. The existing deposit law could be expanded to include additional types of containers such as wine bottles, tin cans, etc. 2966M 3-3 3.2 Intermediate Processing of Source Separated Materials The capacity of a publicly sponsored recycling program to reduce waste flow to a final disposal facility is contingent on the quality of the materials that are recovered. The traditional approach for insuring the recovery of high quality materials is to require a resident or business to keep specific products segregated from mixed wastes for separate collection. This approach can be implemented without difficulty for recycling programs recovering only a single material such as newspaper. However, program experience has shown that participation rates will decline in relation to the number of separations that are required. In addition, responses to public attitude surveys indicate that there is a sharp decline in estimated participation after two separations of material. This is due to the perceived or experienced inconvenience of performing and maintaining multiple material separations. The recovery of commingled recyclable materials separated by residents or businesses helps to overcome the perception that participation in a recycling program will be greatly inconvenient and makes collection of multiple materials easier. A comprehensive, multi—material program, in this scenario, would need the separation of recyclable materials into only two streams; one for paper products and the other for glass, metal and plastic containers. However, if everything is mixed, the burden for upgrading the material to a marketable state rests with the program. This program management responsibility would be assumed by an intermediate processing facility often referred to as a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF). The MRF would receive mixed, source separated recyclable materials and upgrade them into marketable commodities using various manual and mechanical processes. MRF types range from labor intensive simple sorting systems to commercially available capital intensive systems. A technical description of MRF's is presented in Section 4.1. 3.3- Material Recycling Program Elements J Establishing a recycling program in a community requires,a commitment of energy. Yl and resources. The program needs to be tailored to the specific conditions, goals, and priorities of the community. 2966M 3-4 9 From past histories, it has been noted that the most successful programs are mandatory source separation programs with curbside collection. The more convenient the program, the greater the likelihood of citizen participation. A' program of community education needs to be conducted to publicize details of the program and to assure its continued success. The following is a discussion of the major elements necessary in conducting a successful source separation and recycling program. 3.3.1 Markets F An essential and continuous concern to all recycling efforts is the availability of markets. Due to economic and social factors, virgin material for manufacturing of consumer products is still preferred over the secondary (recyclable) material. Recyclable - ' materials must often meet virgin material market specifications. For example, used paper must compete with wood pulp, used metal cans with iron and bauxite ores, used glass with sand and silica, used plastic with petroleum by—products, and leaves, grass clippings and brush with topsoil, etc.. Price and demand for recyclable materials also fluctuate considerably. A market survey is essential in determining pertinent data and information from - potential firms interested in purchasing recovered secondary materials. The pertinent information solicited in the materials market survey would include: - o Market Specifications o Minimum/Maximum Quantities Accepted o Preferred Shipping Arrangements o Pricing Structure o Firm's willingness to enter into multiple—year contracts. i 2966M 3-5 3.3.2 Publicity and Education One main concern with recycling, and specifically source separation, is public participation. Research in the Netherlands and practical experience in many other locations has shown that the willingness of citizens to cooperate in the recycling program depends strongly upon the amount of additional effort and expense required for recycling, the available space in the household and the value placed on the environment and recovery of raw materials. At the beginning of a program, citizens are usually very -willing to cooperate. However, as the newness wares off, householders must be persuaded to continue their recycling activities. They need to be continuously reminded of the benefit to their community of recycling and of the specifications of the recycling program to ensure that the separation methodology is followed. Initially, residents need to be informed in detail of the background, methods and aims of the program. For an experimental recycling program in Groningen, Netherlands, an intense information campaign was conducted ' with full page advertisements in newspapers, folders with plastic bags delivered to each household, and radio and television spots. After a number of months, approximately 10% of the population were still unaware of the test program. In Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, the recycling program has been very successful due to the "blue boxes" used to collect materials. A blue "We Recycle" box was distributed to each single—family dwelling in the city. This box was to be used to collect the recyc— lables. The blue box was put at curbside on the same day as garbage collection. The peer pressure created by the sight of blue boxes at curbside-on collection days was partially . responsible for the Kitchener's recycling success. The use of special containers has become a common feature of state of the art recycling programs. Positive feedback ,of the participants regarding results and profits also motivated citizens to continue their recycling efforts. People developed a positive attitude toward the program when they were made aware of the merits of their actions in terms of con— serving energy and money. 2966M 3-6 3.3.3 Program Management For a- successful program, recycling needs to be organized as a reliable and convenient public service. The scheduling, routing and methodology for collection should become an established routine much like municipal waste collection. This includes management at composting sites, drop-off centers and office recycling programs as well as curbside collection. ( i A municipality must make a strong commitment in the areas of staffing and budgetary requirements. The proper equipment must be obtained for the collection of bottles, cans, leaves,' and grass clippings. One or more sites must be designated for material and equipment storage, material processing, and composting. Staffing and budgets must be adequate to supervise and carry out the collection, processing composting, marketing, and' publicity functions. At the present time, market commitments are short-term. To ,maintain continuous contracts for sale of the recycled material, a staff needs to be dedicated full-time to market liaison, publicity, education and collection supervision. At the onset of a program, a publicity campaign must be conducted to educate the citizens on the merit and necessity of recycling as well as on the specific collection procedures to be initiated by the municipality. Announcements and status reports meed to be distributed on all available media-local newspapers, radio, cable television, community meetings, etc. Notices must be distributed to households explaining the program and the schedule of recycling collection. Once the program is established, continuous feedback as to its success will serve to encourage long-term participation. 3.3.4 Recycling Ordinances It is generally accepted that the achievement of municipal recycling goals is diffi cult without an effective collection'system and a widespread publicity and education campaign. However,.this consensus often does not extend to other important issues such as the legal environment in which the municipal recycling program operates. A large number of communities, especially in the-Northeast, have adopted source separation/ recycling ordinances as part of their program implementation. The states of Connecticut, 2966M 3-7 Maryland, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island 'have recently enacted legislation mandating the adoption of source separation programs by their municipalities within a specified time period. Yet, it is not uncommon for questions to be raised over the need for source separation/recycling ordinances. The reason is that there are examples of good voluntary recycling collection programs such as the programs in Kitchener and Missussauga, , Ontario, Canada. These programs have achieved participation and waste stream reduction rates of approximately 60% and 10% respectively. However, the more pertinent question is whether voluntary recycling programs generally achieve higher recovery rates ,than mandatory programs. The available data show that they do not. For example, a recent study conducted for the Southeastern Connecticut Regional Resources Recovery Authority shows that the municipalities with the highest residential recycling rates have mandatory source separation ordinances. 'An even stronger case can be made where it is possible to observe the recovery rates for curbside collection programs as they evolved from voluntary to mandatory status. In North Hempstead, N.Y., an increase of 518% was reported for newspaper collections when the program was made mandatory. Burlington County, New Jersey reviewed the effectiveness of mandatory source separation ordinances as part of the development of its Recycling Plan. They state that "traditionally, passage of a mandatory recycling ordinances has the immediate effect of increasing the percentage of residents who recycle." The following table is taken from their plan. Recovery Rates pre-ordinance post ordinance Moorestown 20.2% Jan. - Apr. '85 30.1% May - Aug. '85 Willingboro 25.9% Nov. - '85 - Jan. 186 46.4% Feb. - Apr. '86 North Brunswick, New Jersey is another example of a municipality achieving significant increases in recovery rates by their curbside collection programs after the enactment of their mandatory source separation ordinance. In 1982, the Town was recovering 69 tons of newspapers annually through their voluntary recycling program. 2966M 3-8 r - This recovery rate jumped to 464 tons in the first year after newspaper source separation was made mandatory. In addition, a local dropoff program received 22% more paper in the year after enactment of the ordinances, compared to the year before. In summary, the available,recycling program data support the conclusion that the adoption of mandatory source separation ordinances can enhance the effectiveness of- a well managed municipal recycling system. 'Existence of mandatory ordinances "on the books" may also help generate a long term commitment to good management and participation by residents and small business. 3.3.5 Impact on Waste Quantity The potential for source separation and recycling activities must be accurately assessed in order to develop a management system that is successful in resolving the Town's'waste disposal crisis. There are two primary factors which control the degree of 'waste stream reduction achievable. They are as follows: o The percentage of recyclable materials in the waste stream for which viable markets or end uses may be identified. These materials are newspaper, corrugated cardboard, office paper, glass bottles, metal' cans, plastic containers, composted leaves, grass clippings and chipped brush. o The percentage of the total residential, institutional and business population which can 'be expected to participate in the program. Successful mandatory programs with curbside collections have achieved 60-80% participation rates. There is no existing program in which everyone participates. Many people, such as the elderly or institutionalized, are unable to participate. Some apartment dwellers have no room for material storage and others are simply uncooperative. Experience has shown that -voluntary curbside collection programs cannot be expected to achieve better than a 20% participation rate. Voluntary programs without 2966M 3-9 • curbside collection will achieve substantially less participation than this (not over 15%). It is assumed that those people who do participate will separate 90% of their recyclables for collection. 3.3.6 Economic Considerations The economics of source separation can best be understood by pursuing three analytical approaches to the subject, described below. o Analysis of source separation and recycling economics on a stand alone basis o Economic analysis of, source separation' and recycling in comparison with existing refuse collection and landfilling or,to waste-to-energy conversion o Analysis of the risks and rewards of an attempt to maximize waste stream reductions through source separation and recycling Stand Alone Economics A break-even or profitability analysis of any enterprise compares the cost of doing business with the revenues received. In recycling, a favorable relationship between costs and revenues exists when certain recyclables most notably paper, glass and aluminum, are recovered from certain commercial or industrial waste streams which are rich in those materials. A well established industry exists based upon the recognition of this profit opportunity. Recovery ,of ,materials from small volumes of commercial or residential wastes may also be profitable if the recycling firm can obtain the materials without incurring major expenses. Newspaper drives are an example of small volume recycling. Residents deliver newspapers to a drop-off point at no cost to the volunteer organization conducting the drive. A used newsprint dealer can afford to leave a container for newspaper and pay the volunteer organization for filling it. This drop-off center approach has also been used to collect glass, cans, cardboard, motor oil, leaves and brush (leaves and brush and compost made from them are not usually sold). However, this approach can achieve only small percentage reductions in the total waste stream (generally less than 5%), because most 2966M 3-10 people will not take the time to delivery the recyclables. They prefer the convenience of putting things in their garbage can for collection. � I In order to increase the amount of recyclable materials recovered, curbside collection services may be provided. This increase in convenience can significantly increase the proportion of residents who participate in source separation activities. - Program costs are significantly increased by the equipment (trucks, trailers, storage and ' handling) and labor needed. Given the typical prices paid for recyclable materials, and the fluctuations in those prices, the best that a well-run source separation program with curbside collection can do in the long run is break-even. ! Comparison to Existing Collection, Landfilling and Waste-to-Energy Systems When the cost of source separation and recycling activities are compared to costs of refuse collection, landfilling or waste-to-energy facilities, there is a significant potential' cost advantage available in connection with the diversion of materials from the waste stream. In practice, the realization of potential cost savings has proven to be difficult, especially in instances where the costs of refuse collection, transport and disposal have not been reduced. despite the implementation of a source separation/curbside collection program. This failure to achieve cost reductions can be attributed to a number of factors, as described below. - o Collection of only one recyclable material in many programs may not % significantly reduce the waste stream. Few municipalities have developed materials recovery facilities or similar operations which allow them to collect two or more recyclable materials, thereby increasing tonnages recovered. ! o Inability or failure to weigh incoming loads at the landfill makes quantification of actual waste stream reductions difficult. Some municipalities solve this by requiring carters under contract to the town to rebate funds to the town based upon the tonnage of material recycled. 2966M 3-11 o Poor management of the source separation program which results in a low tonnage of recyclable materials collected. o Failure by municipal officials to take steps necessary to reduce refuse collection ,operations in order to take advantage of wastestream reductions. This failure may be due to a concern that such actions will be regarded as either a diminution in service by residents or union resistance to work changes. Such difficulties may be overcome, but the realization of the cost avoidance benefits associated with recycling may occur over a number of years rather then immediately. . a 2966M 3-12 4.0 MECHANICAL PROCESSING ' Mechanical processing of solid waste refers to a broad category of process equipment whose general function is either to separate the waste by size or density, or to reduce the volume of the waste. The mechanical processing system can be as simple as ` compaction of raw waste prior to landfilling or as complex as a MSW front-end processing system used at a refuse-derived fuel (RDF) facility. i 4.1 Material Separation The purpose of material separation of MSW in a centralized material separation system may be to: (1) recover materials which can be sold to a market and recycled or (2) T to separate combustible waste from noncombustible waste,' to produce a refuse derived fuel or (3) to separate organic materials from inorganic materials to produce a - biodegradable feedstock for composting. A variety of solid waste processing equipment is - common to processes designed to accomplish each of these purposes. i ! Material separation using a mechanical-process may take place at a materials recovery facility (MRF), composting facility or at a refuse-derived fuel (RDF) processing facility. Typically, all of these facilities utilize equipment to separate waste which can j be marketed as recyclable. However, RDF and compost facilities process unprepared (raw) waste, while a MRF usually handles waste that is either source separated or comingled. General descriptions of materials recovery and refuse derived fuel processing facilities follow. A, detailed description of composting technology is presented later in this Appendix. j Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) The principal technical objective of all Materials Recovery Facility technologies is i I to achieve high volume sorting and bulk shipping efficiency. The primary-characteristic of simple 'sorting systems is hand sorting of materials. The usual equipment utilized in such a system is a conveyer that moves materials from one work station to another. Each station along the conveyer is designated to remove a single material from the conveyer belt. 2967M 4-1 Advanced sorting and processing systems combine labor and technology in a similar manner to simple sorting systems.. The major difference is that advanced systems utilize mechanical sorters and processors to a greater extent. Machinery is employed for three reasons: 1. To make the material more valuable in the market place 2. To increase worker productivity 3. To decrease labor requirements In general the approaches used to achieve high sorting efficiency at capital intensive materials recovery facilities may be represented by tree diagrams. Materials which are physically similar (e.g. containers or paper products) arrive in a single stream. The material flow, as it progresses through the processing system, is split into branches consisting of specific single_ material grades that are acceptable to industrial consumers. Certain processing steps or functions, because they have no effective alternatives, appear common to all systems. Some examples are: o Ferrous materials are removed magnetically. o Glass containers are color sorted manually. o Paper products are baled. r o Conveyers are used to move materials between processing points in the system. o Large unrecyclable materials are removed manually, usually at picking stations located at the beginning of the processing lines. o Removal of other recyclable materials such as tires or batteries prior to processing The design`of a MRF should be based on sound•business principals that minimize operating costs and maximize profits. Some guiding criteria include: o Minimize materials handling. 2967M 4-2 - i i a t o Integration of separate elements such as receiving, processing, storage and handling o Reliability of equipment and processing systems o Ability of facility to meet processing capacity requirements o Ability to meet market specifications o Sufficient space to move, process and store materials and o Minimum processing and transportation costs . Further discussion of a material recovery facility as an element of a recycling a program- ppeaTs in Section 3.2. , Refuse Derived Fuel Processing Facility ' The refuse derived fuel processing facility serves two goals. These goals are to remove from the waste stream recyclable materials such as metals and glass, and to prepare a combustible fuel mixture (RDF), which can be used to fire a boiler. These " systems were developed in the 1970's as a means of recycling and as an alternative to mass burn incineration. _ Most systems have experienced serious problems with solid waste shredding operations, various steps of materials separation, storage, and marketing of the RDF. Some of the major problems such as destructive explosions, the high rate of wear of shredder components, and long-term RDF storage have for the most part not been resolved to date and therefore, represent a major setback to the successful demonstration of a, full-scale municipal RDF operation. There are, however, several facilities which have overcome these problems and are operating successfully. They include the facilities in Ames, Iowa, Niagara-Falls, New York, and Dade County, Florida. 4 _ High maintenance costs associated with shredder installations have now been i accepted as 'expected operational expenses and the difficulties with long-term RDF 2967M 4-3 storage are being overcome by careful scheduling of the processing operations so that these facilities are used as interim "surge" silos or bins, rather than for long-term storage. Figure 4-1 shows one of many variations of "refuse to RDF" conversion systems. The high cost of RDF preparation can only be partially offset by the sale of recovered ferrous and non-ferrous metals which yield a higher market value than ferrous metals recovered from the residue of unprepared mass refuse fired systems. Although historically fluctuating, the ferrous and non-ferrous scrap markets seem to be more stable than the rest of the recycled commodity market, such as paper or glass. Fluctuations experienced in recycled paper and glass prices have not been solely attributed to unstable markets. Inconsistent or overall poor quality of the product, including cross-contamination (containing undesirable materials), which fails to meet market specifications, has also contributed to price variations. In addition, long-term market commitments for such materials have been difficult, if not impossible to obtain. Consequently, paper and glass recovery has been difficult to economically justify. 4.2 Material Handling Equipment At solid waste processing facilities each major piece of equipment or unit operation performs a separation or size reduction function. Raw or processed waste can be separated by size, density or specific weight, ability to be magnitized, color, etc. A general description of common material separation and size reduction equipment and processes follows. 4.2.1 Hand Sorting A number of recovery systems, primarily those that sort material which has been source separated into recyclable and nonrecyclable materials, depend upon sorting to collect resources such as paper, glass, and aluminum from mixed refuse. While one would expect a higher level of purity in the recovered materials, in fact, human error may destroy the acceptance or marketability of salvaged materials. A second factor which tends to limit the application of hand sorting is the limited ability of hand sorters to separate materials of various sizes. A third and perhaps preponderant reason that hand separation is not an attractive means of separation is that the rather low unit prices paid today for salvaged materials virtually preclude the use of a large work force of laborers, 2967M 4-4 �?EFUSc COLLECTION T�?UCK —3ELT SCALE SURGE ,51N HA MM 69MI LL r CONVEYOR c� Z FEEDER 0 cn CONVEYORS FEEL25 A/R DENSITY 5EPARATOR MAGNETIC 5EPARATOR AIR AIR NUGGET�ZER .M, AGNETIC SEPARAT6#9 NEA VY TRACT/ CONVEYOR 00 FAVMAGrNE nGAIMAGNET/C RESIME METALS TRUCK Fro N G YCLONE SEP�4 RA TbR L/GH T 9RAC7"10N STORAGE CONVEYOR CONVEYOR a 0 00 0o DELT SCALE STFl T10NARY A4CkER 5E4r- UNLOAaa& 77eUCx REFUSE TO RDF PROCESSING FACILITY Ovirka and O � W. d MGEFIGURE 4-1 even if, they are being paid only minimum wage. Finally, because of potential health and safety hazards, handpicking is not a job that workers find attractive. 4.2.2 Grinding/Shredding/Milling Shredding has traditionally been the first step in processing MSW for energy (RDF) and resource recovery. Harnmermills have been used most frequently, with ring grinders and flail mills used occasionally. Shear' shredders have been used to shred MSW for landfilling and to a lesser extent for primary shredding in MSW processing facilities. Reasons for shredding waste include: o Large pieces of refuse (e.g. cardboard boxes) are hard to handle because they can block conveyors or the inlet ports of other processing equipment. J o Smaller particles of waste burn more quickly and efficiently if used for fuel and decompose more rapidly in compost processing. o More uniform composition is obtained by the mixing which occurs during shredding. o Shredding liberates individual particles for later sorting (e.g., items trapped inside paper or plastic bags, and jars with lids). The terms shredding, grinding, and milling are used interchangeably to describe mechanical size reduction operations. The processing involves reducing solid waste by cutting, tearing, ripping, and impact shattering into particles that pass through a specified sieve size. The machines employ the three basic forces of compression, tension, and shear in order to achieve size reduction. This wide range of equipment that can be utilized to complete only one single unit operation in a complex system is a good example of the myriad combinations of equipment that are incorporated in the design of a "high 2967M 4-6 technology" processing facility. Three basic types of shredders are commonly used to process raw municipal solid waste. These are the hammer shredder or hammermill, the shear shredder, the vertical, or roller grinder, and the flail mill. The hammermill can be a vertical or horizontal shaft type of a vertical ring hammer.. In these machines, a series of hardened steel hammers are rotated in a high-speed housing. Solid waste is fed into the path of the hammers and is broken apart by impaction of the hammers and- by being thrown against internal bars or breakers plates. In horizontal hammermills, material is also reduced in size by grinding against discharge grates in the bottom of the mill. Provision is usually made for nondestructible material to be ejected. Hammer shredders are capable of handling from 15 to over 100 tons per hour and have large energy input requirements. Frequent rebuilding and replacement of the hammers and breaker plates is routine in high-speed hammers due to , the-tough and abrasive nature of the materials found in solid waste. As hammers become worn performance is affected. Shredders also pose serious safety problems. There are numerous well-documented cases of serious fire and explosion occurrences associated with these devices. For design purposes, an assumption of 75 to 85% availability has been recommended. Shear shredders use horizontal rotary shaft mounted cutting edges to tear, crush and slice material into, small pieces. The shafts operate at low speeds in opposite direction. Although shear shredders cannot handle as a wide a range of materials as hammer shredders, they do offer advantages such as quieter operation, reduced safety hazard, and some energy savings. Flail mills are similar to hammermills in that they reduce material size by impact, cutting and tearing with a high-speed rotor. Unlike hammermills, however, they do not have grates for grinding material and they can have either one or two roters. Flail mills use various types of impactors such as hammers, blades, chains and bars to reduce the material size. The attraction of the flail mill is its similar performance to a hammermill at a lower energy usage. The vertical, or roller grinder, is also used to size reduce a pre-shredded material. The vertical ring grinder has several gear-like rollers mounted on a vertical rotor around a central shaft. The top of the ring grinder is sometimes replaced by shearing hammers to 2967M 4-7 size reduce pieces of cloth and plastic. Material is ground between the rollers and the inner surface of the housing, which is reinforced and ribbed. The housing is tapered such that as material moves down through the machine, it is ground more finely. { 4.2.3 Trommels A rotary trommel screen is a perforated cylindrical chamber, usually mounted at a slight downward slope, which-slowly rotates as the solid waste passes through it. They are used extensively in particle sizing; smaller particles fall through the perforations ' dependent on the hole size. In some cases, they can be used at the front end of the process to screen incoming raw refuse, a process which results in shredder -load reduction and increasing shredder life by removing abrasive materials such as grit and glass. This is becoming more prevalent as experience increases at RDF production facilities. Tests have been done at the Recovery Facility in New Orleans to demonstrate performance on raw '(unshredded) MSW., The Rueter Facility, in Eden Prairie, MN also uses trommeling prior to shredding. i , 4.2.4 Hydrapulper i An alternative method of separating solid waste components involves the use of a 4 hydrapulper such as a Black Clawson system. In this unit, wastes and recycled water (such as that from a municipal sewage treatment plant) convert pulpable materials into a slurry -, through the action of high speed cutting blades mounted on a rotor in the bottom of the unit. Metal, tin cans, and other nonpulpable and nonfriable materials are rejected from the side of'the unit. The system is used for paper fiber recovery. The potential supply from typical municipal solid waste in the United States is approximately five times existing national demand, therefore, widespread recovery of bulk paper ' stock has limited potential. I Incineration of the organic fraction not absorbed by the fiber recovery process or burning 4 of the entire light fraction of organic materials and paper fiber require the additional - process step of dewatering prior to incineration. 5 f I 2967M 4-8 The necessity for extensive waste water treatment is perhaps the most serious consideration in the applicability of the Black Clawson method. The effluent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of approximately 6,400 mg/1 is, high in comparision to domestic sewage. The provision of a treatment facility for this effluent represents a necessary and costly adjunct to the waste processing system. 4.2.5 Disc Screens Disc screens have been used for grit removal in processing MSW. The disc screen consists of a, series of horizontal shafts or cylinders, which are perpendicular to the direction of material flow. The cylinders have a staggered arrangement of discs. Gaps exist between the discs on adjacent cylinders, and between the discs on one shaft and the adjacent cylinder. The cylinders all rotate in the same direction, agitating material and - moving it along the screen. The discs may be lobed or star-shaped rather than circular. The star points help bounce the oversize material along. The movement of the cylinders and discs tends to provide a self-clearing action. A disc screen installed in Ames, Iowa helped to reduce the amount of fines entering the secondary shredder and air classifier. It also increased the higher heating value (HHV) of the resultant RDF from about 4500 Btu/Ib to just below 6000 Btu/lb. 4.2.6 Flat Deck Vibrating Screens - A vibrating screen uses a side-to-side, lengthwise, or vertical vibration to move material down the screen and help dislodge undersized particles trapped on top of the bec4 of waste. Some screens are sloped to aid material flow. In general, they have been used after the air classifier on the light fraction of material. 4.2.7 Air Classifiers Air classification typically takes place after shredding. At this point, the incoming refuse is divided into a light and heavy fraction. The light fraction is primarily organics which can be processed into fuel or composted. The heavy fraction of the incoming waste contains primarily glass and metals. Removal of the organics during the air classification, aids in the recovery of the materials in the heavy fraction. 2967M -- 4-9 S j Air classifiers may be one of a number' of designs which commonly include vertical shaft, rotary drum, "zigzag" air classifiers, ,open inlet vibrator type, air knives, or horizontal air separator. - All work on the principle of sedimentation. The mixed solid !� waste is introduced into an air stream, and the heavy fraction drops to the bottom while the light fraction is fluidized and moves upward or horizontally with the air stream to ` separate container bins. In addition to the air classifier, a cyclone separator is used to --r separate the light fraction from the conveying air. Before being discharged to the r atmosphere, the conveying air is passed through dust collection facilities or else recycled to the classifier with or without dust removal. Air for the operation of the air classifier can be supplied by low-pressure blowers or fans. 4.2.8 Magnetic Separators Magnetic separation is perhaps the simplest of the processes for recovering the materials from municipal solid waste that are referred to as the "ferrous fraction". It is common to add magnetic separators following the shredding process so as to recover a I ' sellable product. Magnetic separators may be installed at several points along the processing line. However, it should be stressed that\ the solid waste stream must be homogenized (by i shredding or preferably by shredding and air classification) so that the ferrous fraction is -1 liberated from other materials. Three magnetic separation systems are available in the United States: drum separator's, magnetic head pullies, and overhead belt magnets. The magnet may be either permanent or an electromagnet. In both types, the waste stream is passed through a magnetic field that is covered by a moving shield (the drum, or conveyor belt). The ferrous fraction adheres to the shield, while the remaining portion of the waste continues onward. As the shield moves out of the magnetic field, the ferrous fraction drops off into a separate container. Magnetic separation is a technologically proven method of recovering the ferrous fraction from a mixed waste stream. Full-scale resource recovery facilities use magnetic separation as a standard part of the separation process, and it is a desirable process where 2967M 4-10 handling and processing (e.g. shredding) equipment are already installed. On the other hand, there is a tendency for non—magnetic materials, such as paper and plastic, to be entrapped with the ferrous metals, thereby reducing, the purity of the recovered metal product. Furthermore, the sharp edges of the shattered metal tend to significantly shorten the life of conveyor belts. The advantages of ferrous separation are dependent upon economic rather than technological considerations. Capital costs for shredding and magnetic separation equipment make applicability to small , waste streams marginal or unattractive. Market—ability of the recovered source is an important consideration. Further processing is required to meet market specifications for most steelmaking operations. The product must be transported to the market, as well. 4.2.9 Glass and Aluminum Separators Recovery of glass and aluminum from mixed municipal solid waste would occur after the waste has been processed in order to remove the bulk of the organic or combustible waste and ferrous metals. Thus, equipment to recover glass or aluminum would normally be preceded by one or more stage of shredding, air classification, magnetic separation, and/or screening. Since separation of one of the desired components (e.g. aluminum) leaves a component with a heavy concentration of the other (e.g., glass), glass and aluminum recovery are often viewed as joint recovery operations. However, recovery of only one or the other is clearly possible. Aluminum is difficult to extract because it does not have unique physical characteristics and because it is a minor constituent of municipal solid waste. Glass represents a larger percentage of the solid waste stream. -.The major problem in recovering glass is removal of stone and•ceramic contamination so that the glass can meet rigid market standards. Some of the unit processes to recover these two materials are - discussed below. 4.2.10 Heavy Media Separation Although the removal of aluminum can be accomplished -in a number of different ways, heavy medium separation is perhaps the process for which the greatest experience exists, principally in the auto recovery industry. In this process, a water suspension of 2967M 4-11 finely divided particles of heavy materials (e.g., magnetite or ferrosilicon) is used to create a fluid having a specific density which will cause the material being fed to it to split into "sink"' and "float" fractions, depending upon the specific gravities of the particles in the feed. The major disadvantage of the process is that the optimum size -r plant requires about 2,000 to 3,000 tons per day of feedstock. 4.2.11 Aluminum Magnets An aluminum magnet is a generic term for a recovery unit designed to separate non-ferrous metals from nonconductive materials - a process known as linear induction separation or, more commonly, eddy current separation. In this process, a drum is equipped with a series of magnets installed around its interior circumference which in turn cause a magnetic field to develop outside the drum; and, by rotating the drum, a constantly changing flux is produced. When a non-magnetic conductive material (a non-ferrous metal) is placed in this changing field, eddy currents develop in the material; and a repulsive force is generated. If this force is sufficiently strong, it will deflect the material and effect a separation. ` A number of resource recovery systems are attempting to use the eddy current process in the United States. The operating experience of aluminum magnets is still too limited to consider them to be a proven technology. The basic difficulty with the process is that the magnitude of the repulsive force generated depends largely upon the geometry of the materials to be separated. The size, shape, and surface irregularities play a key role. At the time of this writing the only successful U.S. eddy current operation known is the aluminum recovery system at the Gallatin, Tennessee facility. This system recovers mostly aluminum cans. 4.2.12 Froth Flotation Units Froth flotation is a standard mineral processing technique which has been adopted for glass recovery. Separation takes place when an air bubble becomes attached to a particle, giving it a hydrophobic surface characteristic. The hydrophobic characteristic is achieved by treating the input material with* a reagent prior to entering the flotation system. Following air bubble attachment, the floatable glass particles are buoyed.to the surface to form a froth which then can be removed by skimmers. 2967M 4-12 Recovery rates for the glass entering the flotation unit are estimated to be 90 percent. The purity of the recovered glass has been estimated to be as high as 99 percent. Even at this level of purity, the glass will not meet local container (bottle) industry specification. The size of the glass particles following the process is such that sorting is impossible at this time. The froth flotation process, incorporated as part of the RECOVERY I facility in New Orleans, Louisiana, was abandoned as a result of the inability to market the recovered glass to industry specifications. 4.2.13 Optical Sorting Electronic sorting machines are used to optically separate 1/4-inch to 3/4-inch diameter glass by color in a process-developed by the; Sortex Company. Glass cullet is fed from a hopper onto a vibrating feeder. The cullet particles are then passed single file past two photo cells which measure the particles reflectivity. Those particles with a certain range of reflectivity cause a voltage change in the photo cells which, in turn, triggers a short blast of compressed air which deflects the particle from the main stream. This equipment can be used to separate transparent particles (glass) from opaque particles (stone and ceramics) or to separate clear glass from colored. Capacities range from 0.50 to 50 tons per hour. 4.2.14 Jigs A jig is a device which operates to separate materials on the basis of specific gravity. In this process, water enters the waste compartment through a screen at the bottom and acts to propel the low-density materials to the top of the waste particle body. Denser materials flow down through the surging waste stream and pass through openings in the screen and are collected at a lower port. - The process above has had limited application in the recovery of materials from solid waste. The separation which is achieved is not a high-purity classification and application of this process does not always result in recovered materials that meet market specifications. 2967M 4-13 4.3 Size Reduction Systems Size reduction systems may also be used to reduce the volume of waste landfilled through compaction or shredding. In this section, size reduction equipment refers only to equipment which performs its function directly prior to landfilling, rather than in front-end preparation processes. An overview of various types of shredders and their operation was previously discussed in Section 4.2.1 4.3.1. Compaction Compaction is a process which reduces the volume of waste by mechanical densification. Compactors can be broken down into two groups: stationary and movable. Table 4-1 provides a breakdown of the different types of compactors. A stationary compactor is' one which has waste brought to it and is loaded either manually `or mechanically. An example-of a stationary compactor would be the units often found in high-rise apartments. A movable compactor is one which is used to compress waste in place. An example of movable compactors are the steel wheeled, tractors used on landfills. Self-propelled landfill compactors provide solid waste managers with a post-disposal method of extending landfill life by compacting refuse already in place at the landfill. r Self-propelled compactors resemble bulldozers in both size and appearance, but are specifically equipped-to operate in adverse working environments. Most noticeable among the differences are the large steel cleaied wheels. Hi-strength metal cleats are welded to steel rims to provide an increased traction over rubber tire wheels. In addition to increased traction, the wheels provide the means to transmit the weight of the machine to compact 'unconsolidated refuse. Several manufacturers claim improved traction and compaction performance by varying cleat arrangement and design. 2967M 4-14 Table 4-1 COMPACTION EQUIPMENT USED FOR VOLUME REDUCTION Location or Type of operation compactor Remark Solid waste Stationary/ Vertical compaction ram; may be mechanically or generation residential hydraulically operated; usually hand-fed; wastes points vertical compacted into corrugated box containers or paper or plastic bags; used in medium and high-rise apartments Rotary Ram mechanism used to compact wastes into paper or plastic bags on rotating platform, platform rotates as containers are filled; used in medium and high-rise apartments. Bag or Compactor can be chute-fed; either vertical or extruder horizontal rams; single or continuous multibags; single bags- must be replaced and continuous bags must be tied off and replaced; used in medium and high-rise apartments. Undercounter Small compactors used in individual residences and apartment units; wastes compacted into special paper bags; after wastes are dropped through a panel door into bag and door is closed, they are sprayed for odor control; button is pushed to activate compaction mechanism. Stationary/ Compactor with vertical or horizontal ram; commercial waste compressed into steel container; compressed wastes are manually tied and removed; used in low, medium, and high•-rise apartments and commercial and industrial facilities. Collection Stationary/ Collection vehicles equipped with compaction Transfer and/ packer mechanisms or processing station Stationary/ Transport trailer, usually enclosed, equipped transfer with self-contained compaction mechanism. trailer Stationary Low pressure Wastes are compacted into large containers. High pressured Wastes are compacted into dense bales or other forms. 2967M 4-15 - 1 Table 4-1 (Continued) COMPACTION EQUIPMENT USED FOR VOLUME REDUCTION Location or Type of operation compactor Remark Disposal, Movable Specially designed equipment to achieve site -wheeled maximum compaction of wastes. ' or tractored equipment Stationary/ High-pressure movable stationary compactors tract-mounted used for volume reduction at disposal sites. Source: Tehobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., and Eliassen, R., "Solid Wastes",- McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977. 2967M 4-16 4.3.2 Shredding Shredder technology offers a pre-disposal method of waste consolidation by reducing the bulk volume of MSW into a consistent particle size mass. , Shredders accept virtually all components of MSW, including tires, wood, refrigerators and automobile hulks. Units are available for virtually any throughput volume and with the end product ranging from one to ten inches in size. The selection of a particular shredder model depends on a classification.of the material to be processed. For example, the introduction of a commercial waste into the MSW -stream may significantly affect hopper size, hammer spacing and other variables in the shredder operation. A more detailed description of shredders is found in Section 4.2.2. 4.3.3 C&D Waste Processing Typically, construction and demolition (C&D) waste is size reduced using vertical or horizontal hammermills prior to landfilling. C&D is typically bulky in nature and composed of rubble (rock, brick, concrete, dirt), wood and metal. It can be a significant part of the overall waste stream, ranging up to 25% by weight. The C&D material is less compactible and thus consumes a proportionatly greater amount of landfill capacity than other waste stream components. The amount of this material requiring landfilling may be reduced through processes which separate mixed wastes of this type. Processing of C&D materials involves a number of separate (modular) pieces of heavy processing equipment. The processing equipment employed will be determined by the waste type, waste volume and desired end product. Detailed generation data by waste type is necessary for a proper assessment.of alternatives. The following is a description of the materials comprising C&D along with potential uses. o Concrete—may be reprocessed and used as aggregate for new concrete. This is especially attractive in the Northeast where there may be a shortage of natural aggregates because of the depletion of aggregates from existing quarries and the fact -that high real estate prices and socio-political constraints in the Northeast have inhibited any further construction of new quarries. Recycled • e 2967M 4-17 concrete may also be used as fill; certain landfill cover materials, and as base materials for road construction. In addition, it may be used as "rip rap" or gabion materials in erosion control. o Asphalt—may be reprocessed and recycled if clean. o Mixed asphalt and concrete—may be processed into a roadbase or fill material. f A hammermill or roll crusher will provide proper size reduction properties. 1 o Brick and rock—may be processed into a lightweight aggregate and/or fill material. o . Land clearing waste, soil and wood—may be shredded and separated into clean - top soil and wood mulch. Some processors also use it as bulking agent for composting. Shredded wood can also be used as a- fuel in multi–fuel or dedicated boiler systems. o Metals—may be sorted and sold to the scrap market. o Flat glass and dirt—these components of the C&D wastes are size reduced for use either as roadbase or landfill cover material. - 4.3.4 Compactor/Balers Compactor/baler technology uses a pre–disposal method of extending landfill life by consolidating a variety of materials into a finite volume of fixed dimensions. Typical units are approximately 50 feet long by 20 feet wide and 8 feet tall. These devices compact prescreened, homogenous waste with a hydraulic ram much like a household compactor. The compactor refuse is then bound with twine or wire into easy to handle, ultra dense bundles for transport. Most compactor/balers process specific materials extracted from the municipal solid waste stream. For example, some manufacturers design compactor/balers specifically for aluminum cans, others for high grade paper waste yet others solely for, 2967M 4-18 plastics. However, balers specifically designed to bale raw municipal solid waste are available. This waste stream would exclude such items as sinks, refrigerators, stoves, etc. As a secondary function, balers are capable of processing recyclable goods. Balers vary with respect to three critical factors; throughput capacity, bale size and degree of compaction. The most critical factor is the unit's operating capacity. t ' 2967M 4-19 5.0 THERMAL PROCESSING Thermal processing refers to a variety of processes where waste is either combusted (incineration) or decomposed in the presence of heat (pyrolysis). The purpose of thermal processing is to achieve a volume reduction-of the waste after processing and to extract energy from the waste. Systems which incorporate thermal processing are more r commonly known as resource recovery systems. The variety of available resource recovery processes makes a clear-cut or strict classification rather difficult since many systems are either a combination of processes used as main systems, or as auxiliary systems. Consequently, for inventory and analysis f purposes within this Study, the systems classification developed includes the description of as.many processes as possible, although their in-depth evaluation may not be justified based on gross examination of various process characteristics, full-scale operational status, estimated process energy intensity, etc. Four basic categories or thermal processing systems emerge from an overview of presently available technologies: 1. 'Mass Burn Incineration 2. Modular Incineration 1 3. Prepared Waste (RDF) Incineration 4. Pyrolysis , Each system is discussed in detail below. 5.1 Mass Burn Incineration In a typical mass burn resource recovery facility trucks carrying refuse enter the general facility grounds through an entry gate and proceed to the ,weigh scales to •be weighed for, record/billing purposes. Trucks then proceed to the tipping hall and back up to the tipping bays to discharge their loads into the refuse bunker. The trucks then leave the tipping area and proceed directly to the facility exit. a The refuse bunker is totally enclosed and contains overhead traveling cranes. The cranes are able to satisfy 100% of the fuel requirements for the mass burn furnaces. The 2968M 5-1 overhead cranes mix the solid waste in the refuse bunker to make it more uniform for firing and then transfer it to the feed hopper, The feed hopper is set into the concrete structure which forms the rear wall of the refuse bunker. The feed hopper is designed to prevent the refuse from bridging. Below each feed hopper is the waste delivery chute and feeder associated with each furnace/boiler. The feeder, located at the bottom of its waste chute, transfers waste to the grate at a controlled rate. The feeder can be varied and controlled to match the refuse characteristics and steam-demand requirements. In a mass burn'furnace, the grate is designed to agitate the waste to promote thorough combustion of the refuse. Air required for combustion is supplied from under the grate or furnace floor at several zones, and from overfire air supplied by means of fans or blowers through openings in the furnace walls. Ash residue is removed from the furnace bottom through a water-sprayed or water-quenched conveyor to either transport vehicles or an intermediate storage area. Latest. developments in incinerator technology include, but are not limited to, efficient stokers designed,specifically for refuse incineration; combustion control systems yielding uniform temperatures throughout the combustion process to overcome variable characteristics of the fuel; improved combustion efficiency of the furnaces using optimum distribution of combustion air; and air , pollution control systems to meet stringent regulatory requirements. Two basic boiler technologies used in the design of energy recovery mass burn incinerator systems are refractory furnaces followed by convection waste heat boilers, (Figure 5-1) and waterwall furnaces with convection boiler sections (Figure 5-2). Note that Figure 5-1 could also depict an acid gas scrubber with a baghouse in place of the electrostatic precipitator portrayed. Each concept has its advantages and disadvantages and the selection of either system depends on site specific conditions and economics as well as other factors. Regarding the combustion process, each manufacturer/contractor's proprietary system is somewhat different. The difference is in large part due to, the manner the waste is moved on the stoker grate. Figure 5-3 shows typical stoker configurations. J 2968M 5-2 TROLLEY lip CRANE SUCKET ' ELECTROSTATIC CHARGING PRECIPITATOR HOPPER - a REFUSE ®MILE STORAGE PIT FURNACE STOKER INDUCED GRAFT FAN STACK wiles TYPICAL REFRACTORY FURNACE-CONVECTION BOILER SYSTEM _ O Bardiu� comsV Tfi6 FNc."ERS FIGURE 5-1 7 i i o r, ri b yl c- TYPICAL WATERWALL FURNACE — CONVECTION BOILER Dvirka SYSTEMS ARRANGEMENT and BartNucci FIGURE 5-2 o _ O • • a � o TRAVELLING GRATE RECIPROCATING GRATE 4 � 1 It It ROCKING GRATE KASCAOE GRATE • , o G o O � o0 REVERSE RECIPROCATING GRATE DRUM GRATE NOTE: • STATIONARY GRATES ETYPICAL STOKER CONFIGURATIONS kWd FIGURE 5-3 A special case of a refractory type furnace is the rotary kiln system. The feed stoker feeds fuel (waste), predried and ignited in the primary "drying" chamber, into a refractory lined rotary kiln where the fuel (waste) is tumbled and mixed while burning. Combining the rotary kiln and water-cooled wall concepts resulted in the development of the proprietary "O'Connor Combustor" system. This rotary combuster unit was developed as an alternative to stoker-fired mass burn technologies. The system was originally developed to incinerate industrial sludges in Japan. The first'adaptation to municipal solid waste was the facility in Gallatin, Tennessee. The O'Connor Water-Cooled Rotary Combustor was an attempt to adapt a membrane type waterwall system to'the rotary kiln combustion approach, utilizing forced preheated combustion air. The O'Connor Water Cooled Rotary Combustor is presently being marketed in the U.S. by the Waste Technology Service Division of the Westinghouse Corporation. Figure ' 5-4 presents a typical Westinghouse/O'Connor Rotary Combustion System. Construction of an O'Connor water-cooled Rotary System was completed in Islip, NY in 1989. The rotary combustor is a hollow, water-cooled, steel cylinder made of alternating I ater tubes and fins welded between the tubes. The cylindrical combustor rotates on a slightly tilted axis at approximately 1/6 RPM. This turns and tumbles the burning materials downward. All air for combustion is preheated and fed through holes in the fins �- to penetrate the burning material. Solid waste is fed into the inlet at the upper end by ,! hydraulically-actuated feed system. 5.1.1 Size Ranee Mass burn facilities in operation today range in size from 100 tons per day to over 3,000 tons per day: In order to assure an adequate level of annual plant capacity, most facilities utilize two or more individual incinerator/boilers. Individual mass-burn incinerator/boiler trains have ranged in size from 100 tons per day to 1,050 tons per day. Certain of the larger mass-burn facilities propose to use four 750 ton per day units in order to realize a total plant capacity of 3,000 tons per day. 4 2968M 5-6 -Smaller sized mass-burn incinerators usually consist of prefabricated modular components easily assembled in the field with minimum field fabrication and fitting. The few systems installed at this time are radiant boiler (waterwall) type. These systems have been developed to offer a more reliable technology than modular systems (see Section 5.2) while remaining more competitive price-wise than completely field-assembled and field-erected mass-burn systems. 5.1.2 Previous Operating_Experience Energy recovery from mass burning incinerator systems has been practiced as far back as the nineteen thirties and forties starting with hot water heating coils used in secondary chambers of refractory lined incinerators. Flue gas slipsteam boilers were introduced in the early fifties to generate low pressure steam for heating and for partial electrical power generation. Total heat recovery for low pressure (250 prig) steam power generation was implemented in 1952-54 at the Merrick (Town of Hempstead, NY) incinerator plant using batch fed refractory furnaces with tandem waste heat convection boilers. The breakthrough in continuous gravity feed incinerator furnace design at the New York City Betts Avenue incinerator plant in the mid fifties eventually led to the use of waterwall continuous feed furnaces developed primarily on the European continent in the nineteen sixties while incinerator energy recovery in the United States was, for all practical purposes, abandoned. The disparity of fossil fuel, gas and labor costs in Europe and in the U.S. made the use of maintenance intensive--waste heat boiler systems noncompetitive in the U.S. while the development of energy recovery systems in Europe continued at a rapid pace. 2968M 5-7 _ - i III t i i i.� , �. • , � ``� �, 1 1 14 M All gala PRIMA Y AIR GRATE WATERCOOLED ROTARY COMBUSTOR and Bartmucci -4 FIGURE 5 . b I I ' 1 LJ regulations for landfills became stricter and siting of new landfills became more difficult in the 1970's mass burn resource recovery systems began to be implemented in the U.S. Over one hundred mass burn energy recovery facilities, are operating or are under construction currently in this country. Many of the manufacturers offering mass burn energy recovery systems have extensive proven experience with such technology in - Europe and Japan. Incineration of unprocessed solid waste, combined with heat recovery, is currently the most developed and widely practiced resource recovery technique in the world. J As of September 1989, there were approximately 38 mass-burn field erected units operating or in advanced start-up in the U.S. with heat recovery. These include r' mass-burn refractory, waterwall and rotary combustors. Information regarding each of these facilities is summarized in Table 5-1. In addition to the facilities listed in the table, there are approximately 75.facilities which are in the advanced planning or construction phase. If these projects proceed on schedule, each of these facilities should begin operation before 1993. 5.1.3 Thermal Production Capability The thermal production capability of each waste-to-energy facility will vary depending upon the heating value of the solid waste, the moisture content of the solid waste, the size and efficiency of the furnace/boiler, steam temperature and pressure conditions, type of turbine-generator, and size of turbine-generator. Steam production guarantees from mass-burn system vendors can generally be expected to fall in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 pounds of steam per pound of waste processed, with significant differences ' depending upon contract requirements for steam temperatures and'pressures. The rate of steam production will also be impacted if the _ facility is designed in a cogeneration mode. L._ -I Another consideration is whether the mass-burn facility utilizes a stoker fired convection boiler or a mass burn waterwall boiler. Mass-burn utilizing waterwall boilers i ' 2968M 5-9 Table 5-1 Mass—Burn Facilities in Operationl Unit No. of Size Year of Site State Units (!PD1 Startup Air Pollution Control Commerce (Los Angeles Co.) CA 1 300 1987 Thermal deNox/Spray Dryer/ Fabric Filter Long Beach CA NA '1380* 1988 Thermal deNox/Spray Dryer/ Fabric Filter Stanislaus CA 2 400 1988 Thermal deNox/Spray Dryer/ Fabric Filter Bridgeport CT 3 750 1988 Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter Stamford II CT 1 3,60 1974 Electrostatic Precipitator Bristol CT 2 325 1988 Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter Pinellas Co. FL 3 1000 1983 Electrostatic Precipitator Hillsborough County FL 3 400 1987 Electrostatic Precipitator Key West (Monroe Co.) FL 2 75 1986 Electrostatic Precipitator Tampa FL 4 250 1985 Electrostatic Precipitator Pamama City (Bay County) FL 2 255 1987 Electrostatic Precipitator Savannah GA NA , 500 1987 Electrostatic Precipitator Chicago NW IL 4 400 1970 Electrostatic Precipitator Indianapolis IN 3 187 1988 Spray/Dryer/Fabric Filter Saugus MA 2 750 1975 Electrostatic Precipitator North Andover MA 2 750 1985 Electrostatic Precipitator Millbury MA 2 750 1988 Spray Dryer/Electrostatic Precipitator Haverhill MA NA 1650'0 1989 NA Baltimore (Resco) MD 3 750 1985 Electrostatic Precipitator Portland ME 2 250 1988 Spray Dryer/Electrostatic Precipitator Jackson MI 2 100 1987 Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter Rochester (Olmstead Co.) MN 2 100 1987 Electrostatic Precipitator Wilmington (New NC 2 ' 100' 1984 Electrostatic Precipitator Hanover Co.) Claremont NH 2 100 1987 Duct Sorbent Injection/ Fabric Filter Warren County NJ 2 200 1988 Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter Babylon NY 2 375 1989 Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter Westchester Co. NY 3 750 1984 Electrostatic Precipitator Glen Cove NY 2 125 1983 Electrostatic Precipitator New York (Betts Avenue) NY 4 250 1980 Electrostatic Precipitator Long Beach NY 1 200 1988 Electrostatic Precipitator Dutchess County NY 2 253 1988 Fabric Filter Tulsa OK 2 375 1986 Electrostatic Precipitator Marion County OR 2 275 1986 Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter` Harrisburg PA 2 360 1973 Electrostatic Precipitator Nashville TN 3 360— 1974 Electrostatic Precipitator 400 *Total plant capacity Source_ : USEPA, "Municipal Waste Combustion Industry Profile — Facilities Subject to Section 111(d) Guidelines, September 1988. 1. Does not include facilities in start—up as of date indicated in text. 2968M 5-10 r Table 5-1 (cont'd) Mass-Burn'Facilities in Operation) Unit No. of Size Year of Site State Units TPD Startu Air Pollution Control Gallatin TN 2 100 1981 Electrostatic Precipitator - Davis County UT 1 400 . 1987 NA Alexandria/Arlington VA 3 325 1987 Electrostatic Precipitator Norfolk VA 2 180 1967 Electrostatic Precipitator Harrisonburg r VA 2 50 1982 Electrostatic Precipitator Hampton VA 2 100 1980 Electrostatic Precipitator Galax VA 1 56 NA Fabric Filter Waukesha WI 2 88 1971 Electrostatic Precipitator *Total plant capacity Source: USEPA, "Municipal Waste Combustion Industry Profile - Facilities Subject to Section 111(d) Guidelines, September 1988. 1. Does not include facilities in start-up as of date indicated in text. 2968M 5-11 offer higher thermal efficiency. Advantages of this technology are: o Advanced technology, successfully demonstrated in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Japan. o Higher thermodyamic efficiency due to placement of boiler tubes in the walls of the furnace which increases the,overall heat transfer coefficient. o Availability of proprietary and nonproprietary systems designs, and the ability to procure a nonproprietary design, thereby resulting in a potentially larger number of bidders participating in the procurement process. o Inherent design flexibility which accommodates a wide spectrum of individual unit sizes. v o Inherent design characteristics which identify with a multiple unit approach toward facility design. o Ability to prefabricate and shop assemble , major, equipment components, thereby reducing field labor expense (small units only). o Recovery of steam and/or highly marketable electricity (utilities are required to purchase power from qualifying facilities under the Public Utilities Regulation Policies Act). Although, as mentioned above, the heat recovery efficiency of a convection type boiler is lower than the efficiency of a radiant: heat transfer (waterwall) boiler, the mechanical availability and overall reliability is generally higher. A convection boiler system offers the considerable operation advantage of capping "wasted" tubes without significantly compromising overall system performance, thus enhancing "on—line" reliability. Generally up to 10% of the tubes that- fail can be,cut out and capped in a relatively short period of time and the operation can continue until a major boiler overhaul is needed. Useful boiler steam generating life in excess of 11 years between major tube overhaul has been demonstrated in the United States. j 2968M 5-12 The convection boiler must be designed for refuse combustion service. The two main design considerations are: low gas velocity to minimize potential tube erosion by entrained fly ash; and appropriate steam and tube surface temperatures to prevent both low temperature (dewpoint) and high temperature: corrosion, generally caused by chlorides. Advantages of this technology are: o Inherent design flexibility which accommodates a wide spectrum of individual unit sizes. o Inherent design characteristics which identify with a modular unit approach toward facility design. o Ability to prefabricate and shop assemble major equipment - components, thereby reducing field labor expense. o 'Ability to procure a nonproprietary design, thereby resulting in a potentially larger number of bidders participating in the procurement process. Io High degree of systems on-line reliability (90% on-line reliability has been reported by some U.S. plants). o Recovery of steam and/or highly marketable electricity. o Adaptable to co-disposal (incineration of municipal solid waste with sewage sludge). o Adaptable to incineration of low calorific value wastes in general. 5.1.4 Waste Reduction Capability As part of a solid waste management program, the most critical aspect of a mass-burn resource recovery facility is the ability to reduce the quantity of solid waste requiring final disposal. Based on the experience of other mass-burn facilities, a typical waste reduction of approximately 90% by volume and 70 to 75% by weight could be anticipated. The composition and quantity of the residue ash will largely be dependent upon the composition of the incoming municipal solid waste. Depending on the availability of markets, the amount of ash requiring landfilling ,could be further reduced through ferrous recovery and other measures. 2968M 5-13 , 5.1.5 Vendors of Mass-Burn Facilities The current market for mass-burn energy recovery facilities is very competitive, with a number of qualified vendors who are capable of providing suitable facilities. Most major project managing companies have obtained licenses to market a proprietary combustion technology,. This is especially the case for mass-burn waterwall facilities, since the historical development and advancement of such systems has taken place in Europe and Japan. ' Table 5-2 lists companies currently actively marketing mass-burn facilities in the U.S. 5.2 Modular Incineration Though technically using a mass-burn incineration process, modular incinerators. are factory pre-assembled, pre-engineered combustion systems which employ a different combustion technology. "Modular", prefabricated solid waste disposal systems have been developed to offer ,a reduced capital cost alternative to the traditional field erected incinerator. There are two basic groups of prefabricated, "modular" systems available; "starved" or "controlled" air refractory incinerators and modular waterwall units. A discussion• of the major elements of a typical modular incinerator facility follows. Consistent with the low capital cost trend of the modular systems, the storage of waste is done mostly on a flat floor at ground level. Because of storage depth limitations, the floor storage area must be substantially larger than the area of a deep storage pit-of an equivalent storage capacity. Additional free area must be provided to allow front end loaders or bulldozers to maneuver while charging the furnaces. The storage pit concept may or may not require additional covered tipping area depending on the overall on-site traffic considerations, dust and odor control, and aesthetics. The comparative economics of the two alternates are generally very site specific and must be analyzed on a case by case basis. r 2968M 5-14 TABLE 5-2 PARTIAL LISTING OF VENDORS OF MASS-BURN FACILITIES VENDOR TECHNOLOGY OPERATING EXPERIENCE IN U.S. .a American Energy Corp. Waterwall Yes American Ref-Fuel Waterwall Yes Blount Waterwall Yes Brunn- Sorensen Convection Yes Combustion Engineering Waterwall No �j Foster Wheeler Waterwall Yes Harbert/Triga Convection No Katy-Seghers Convection Yes Laurent Bouillet-Howard Rotary Kiln No Montenay Convection Yes Morse Boulger- Convection Yes Ogden Martin Waterwall Yes Riley Energy Systems Waterwall Yes Westinghouse Rotary Waterwall Yes -' Wheelabrator Environmental Waterwall Yes . I 2968M 5-15 Unlike larger scale, or even small custom designed units, the modular systems usually use floor level feed hoppers and feed rams resulting in a cyclic charging rather than a continuous charging characteristic of tall gravity feed chutes. The floor level hoppers are charged by front end loaders or small bulldozers retrieving the fuel (waste) from the stockpile. The frequency of the charging cycles is entirely dependent on the ability of"the bulldozer operator to retrieve and charge the required quantity of waste, as well as on his judgment in mixing of wastes of variable quality. Inherently, the combustion system operation is also dependent to a great extent on the bulldozer operator's attention and judgment. As mentioned earlier, the combustion design concept of the modular units is based on partial pyrolysis of the feed stock in a primary chamber or reactor and on the combustion of the products of partial pyrolysis in a secondary combustion chamber, with the assistance of-auxiliary burners to maintain adequate combustion temperatures. An example of a typical modular system with internal rams is shown in Figure 5-5. . The "starved air" concept tends to reduce the peak combustion rates to some extent but, because of the cumulative effect of the burnout periods, results in incompletely burned residue inherent, in any event, to a pyrolytic process. Typically, the residue from semi-continuous "starved air" system can have a carbon content as high, or in excess of i 30% by weight of the dry residue. The "controlled air", or fully oxidizing units tend to show more pronounced maximum combustion rate peaks but yield better combustion efficiency with respect to residue quality. Nevertheless, a,combustion efficiency comparable to stoker fired units cannot be achieved because of generally low combustion efficiency of interior rams, vibrating type of hearth or similar devices which are intended as low cost substitutes for an efficient stoker design. f 2968M 5-16 I STACK BY -PASS (DUMP) STACK SECONDARY FRONT - END LOADER . CHAMBER O TIPPING AFTERBURNER BOILER FLOOR PRIMARY CHAMBER O IGNITION BURNER ASH DISCHARGE AND REMOVAL k Y [Mrka - PACKAGED MODULAR CONTROLED-AIR INCINERATOR and WITH HEAT RECOVERY 0) CpNSVLTKiEIF FIGURE IGURE 5-5 The hot gases leaving the secondary combustion chamber are passed through a waste heat boiler before entering APC equipment and the stack. Frequently, the afterburner is i the only means of air pollution control, although some of the new and larger installations i4 are using wet scrubbers, baghouses, and electrostatic scrubbers due to stricter federal regulations and _specific state particulate emission requirements. The possibility of stricter emission regulations will increase costs for this particular technology as more advanced APC is required. Ash from modular furnaces is either automatically or manually removed from the primary chamber for ultimate disposal. 5.2.1 Size Ran-ge Modular incineration facilities in operation today range in size from 50 TPD to 400 1 ; TPD. Individual incinerator/boiler systems range in size from approximately 25 TPD to 120 TPD. Due to the limited size range, they are generally not competitive with f mass-burn incinerators above 400 TPD. The limited size of the units also restricts the maximum size of waste which can be directly charged to the furnace. A large number of units can create a high degree of redundancy and facility availability, however, with some manufacturers using a, "spare module" to lower facility downtime and meet energy and r throughput guarantees as a mitigation of the lower reliability of these units as compared to other combustion systems. 5.2.2 Previous Operating Experience Modular' incinerators were originally developed during the 1960's as a means of volume reduction of waste in industrial, institutional and commercial applications. This technology was extended to the combustion and heat recovery of municipal solid waste in I the 1970's. A report by the Army Corps of Engineers - 'Construction Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL) (Special Report E-85/06, March 1985) identifies a number of specific problems associated with refractory-waste heat boiler and waterwall or radiant boiler modular incinerators. These problems have been found to be associated more closely with starved and controlled air incinerators rather than the modular waterwall units.` 2968M 5-18 The following is an analysis of the. modular incinerator problems identified in the report by CERL. o Castable refractories are not suitable for fluctuations of temperatures and frequent changes from oxidizing to reducing atmospheres encountered in these type of units. o .Underfire air distribution is, in most cases, inadequate. While it may be sufficient at times to support a semi-pyrolytic process, it becomes excessive during a "burn-down" cycle. This then causes high localized temperatures and slag formation. Underfire air control is, for the most part, nonexistent. o An inadequate sizing of tipping floor area appears to be (1) the result of attempting to save capital cost or (2) simply due to a lack of design experience. o The warping of various components and malfunction of feed rams is primarily due to poor component design. ` o Use of fire tube boilers in "dirty gas" systems is, without reservation, an improper application and clogging must be expected. The reason fire, tube boilers are used is for their low capital cost. Unfortunately the user eventually pays higher costs in extensive downtime for cleaning and maintenance. o Air pollution control systems may not be required by local codes on facilities burning ",clean", low ash wastes. However, none of the plants constructed thus far have met stipulated criteria when burning high ash content wastes; especially wastes with a high content of sodium and potassium salts. The claims made by different manufacturers that they have met the codes refer to small units exempt from EPA and many State emissions limitations for new stationary sources. 2968M 5-19 7 r o Ash conveyors'chosen for these small installations are generally of a light duty type, inadequate for the intended service. o On-line reliability is a direct result of individual problems causing frequent, unscheduled plant shutdowns for repairs. o Controls used on these small installations are generally, of a light industrial duty type. Usually located on or next to the furnaces or in operating areas not separated from tipping floors, they can hardly withstand the rigors of a dusty and dirty,environment. o Water tube boilers are a proper choice provided that gas velocities and gas temperatures are carefully controlled. Finned water tube boilers, however, are virtually prohibited because of their known tendency for low fusion temperature "ash buildup. Their use by small unit manufacturers is a result of inexperience J and/or an attempt to reduce the capital cost. o The internal rams used are an inadequate substitute for more expensive, properly designed and proven stoker grates. There is no rational, way to eliminate internal ram problems as long as they are used in their present form. The only remedy is a change to a well engineered stoker system. It must be noted that some of the so called stokers are poorly designed and should not be considered to be a reliable stoker. Ram's operational reliability has not been proven. o The induced draft fans are generally single speed with damper controls. However, these have been found to be inadequate in,maintaining a constant furnace pressure (draft) with any appreciable accuracy. It -was established in the late-sixties and early-seventies that steady conditions can be maintained only with high sensitivity variable speed controls which have since been installed on a number of large incinerator facilities. 2968M $-20 The critical nature of adequate draft control is due to the variable characteristics of the feed stock that can change rapidly depending on' the waste and its moisture content. The rate of variation is more pronounced on small capacity systems as compared with larger furnaces wherein variability is reduced due to the effect of the large combustion chambers. The effects of using a common flue gas stack for multiple unit installations causes varied drafts in the units. Due to the different: draft pressures per unit, combustion efficiency is sacrificed. Traditional volume control dampers are inadequate both in terms of their ability to respond to small draft change,demand and the slowness in which they respond. In addition, frequent maintenance of the constantly moving dampers is a problem. o Feed hopper problems are due primarily to their conceptual design and are sometimes aggravated by the charging method. As of April 1988, there_were approximately 70 modular incinerators-operating in the U.S. These facilities include both starved air and excess air modular units. The facilities are summarized in Table 5-3. There are also approximately 15 facilities which have either commenced operation since April, 1988 or are in the advanced planning or construction phase. 5.2.3 Thermal Production Capability Most modular technologies have a lower thermal production capability than other combustion technologies because of their lower combustion efficiencies. Specifically, this is due to the use of a waste Beat boiler on most systems rather than a more expensive, but more efficient, waterwall boiler and the higher level of unburned carbon in the residue which results in lost energy capability. Typical steam production capability for modular units ranges from approximately 2.0 to 2.5 pounds'of steam per pound of waste processed. 2968M 5-21 Table 5-3 Modular Incineration Facilities in Operation as of April 1988 Unit No. of Size Year of Site State Units TPD Startup Air Pollution Control r Sitka AK 2 13 1985 Electrostatic Precipitator Tuscaloosa AL 4 75 1984 Electrostatic Precipitator Batesville AR 2 50 1981 None Blytheville AR 2 36 1983 None Hot Springs %AR 8 13 NA None North Little Rock AR 4 25 1977 None Osceola AR 2 25 1980 None Stuggart AR 3 23 1971 None Windham CT 3 36 1981 Fabric Filter Wilmington (Pigeon Point) DE 5 120 1987 Electrostatic Precipitator Mayport Naval Station FL 1 48 1978 Cyclone Burley (Cassia County) ID 2 25 1982 None Franklin (Simpson Co.) _ KY 2 - 38 NA None Pittsfield MA 3 120 1981 Electrostatic Gravel Bed Edgewood (Hartford Co.) MD 4 90 1987 Electrostatic Precipitator Aroostook County ME 50 1982 None (Frenchville) Auburn ME 4 50 1981 Fabric Filter Harpswell ME 1 6 1975 None Windham ME 2 25 1973 None Alexandria MN 1 100 1986 Electrostatic Precipitator (Pope/Douglas Co.) City of Fergus Falls MN 2 47 1987 Venturi Wet Scrubber City of Red Wing MN 1 90 1982 Electrostatic Precipitator Fosston (Polk Co.) MN 2 40 1988 Electrostatic Precipitator Perham (Quadrant) MN 2 57 1987 Electrostatic Precipitator Fort Leonard Wood MO 3 26 None Pascagoula MS 2 75 1985 Electrostatic Precipitator Livingston MT 2 38 1982 None Wrightsville Beach NC 2 25 1981 None Auburn NH' 1 5 1979 None Candia NH 1 15 NA None Canterbury NH 1 10 NA None Durham NH 3 36 1980 Cyclone Groveston NH 1 24 1980 None Lincoln NH 1 24 1980 None Litchfield NH 1 22 NA None Nottingham NH 1 8 1972 None Pelham NH NA 10 1980 NA Pittsfield NH 1 48 NA None 2968M 5-22 Table 5-3 (cont'd) Modular Incineration Facilities in Operation as of April 1988 Unit No. of Size Year of Site State Units TPD Startup Air Pollution Control Plymouth NH 1 16 1976 None Portsmouth NH 4 50 1982 Fabric Filter Wilton NH 1 30 1979 None Wolfeboro NH 2 8 1975 None Ft. Dix NJ 4 20 1986 Wet Scrubber/Fabric Filter Cuba (Cattaraugus Co.) NY 3 38 1983 None Oneida Co. (Rome). NY 4 50 1985 Electrostatic Precipitator Oswego County (Volney) NY 4 50 1986, Electrostatic Precipitator Skaneateless NY 1 35 1975- None Miami OK 3 13 1982 None Brookings OR 2 25 1979 None Coos County (I) OR _2 25 1978 None Coos County (II) OR 1 24 1980 Electrostatic Precipitator Greensburg PA 2 25 1987 Electrostatic Precipitator (Westmoreland Co.) Hampton SC 3 90 1985 Electrostatic Precipitator Johnsonville SC _ 1 50 NA Electrostatic Precipitator Dyersburg TN 1 50 1980 None Anderson County (DOC) TX 1 25 1980 None Brazoria County (DOC) TX 1 25 1983 None Carthage City TX 1 36 1985 None Center TX 1 36 1985 None i Cleburne TX 3 38 1986 Electrostatic Precipitator Gatesville (DOC) TX 1 25 1984 None Grimes County (DOC) TX 1 - 25 1984 None Huntsville TX 1 25 1984 None (Walker County) (DOC) Wasahachie TX 2 25 1982 None Newport News (Ft. Eustic) VA 1 35 1980 None Portsmouth VA 2 80 1971 Electrostatic Precipitator Salem VA 4 25 1970 None Rutland VT 2 110 1987 'Electrostatic Precipitator Bellingham " WA' 2 50 1986 None Barron County WI 2 40 1986 Electrostatic_Precipitator Source: USEPA, "Municipal Waste Combustion Industry Profile - Facilities Subject to Section 111(d) Guidelines, September 1988. 2968M 5-23 I ' 5.2.4 Waste Reduction Capability The level of waste reduction will depend upon whether the modular system utilizes - interior rams or vibrating hearths to convey waste through the furnace. The lower thermal efficiency of modular systems, translates directly to increased quantities of residue. The waste reduction capability of modular units is usually between 55 and 70% by weight. 5.2.5 Vendors of Modular Facilities There are a number of companies offering modular incineration technology in this f country. Table 5-4 presents a list of companies who currently actively market modular incineration systems. Most of the companies in this table are domestic, which is - indicative of the development of modular combustion technology in this county. f 5.3 Prepared Waste (RDF) Incineration 1 . . i _ Refuse Derived Fuel (RDF), as the name implies, is a solid or liquid fuel derived ti from municipal solid waste. The fuel can be subsequently used to fire a boiler, either alone or co-fired with coal or sewage sludge. f - There are two separate types of RDF facilities; RDF processing facilities and RDF ! incineration facilities. An RDF processing system consists of a system employing size reduction and classification of waste to produce both a combustible fraction and a noncombustibles "heavies" fraction which may be processed for materials recovery. This may be either a "wet" or a "dry" process. These systems are sometimes called "supplemental fuel" systems, since the combustible fraction could be marketed as a fuel j to outside users (e.g. utilities and industries) for the purpose of co-firing with coal, sewage sludge or wood waste in retrofitted boilers. The RDF incineration facility is the - end user of the combustible products generated at the RDF processing facility. In many cases, the two facilities are integrated as a single facility. RDF is either co-fired with another fuel or it is fired alone in a dedicated boiler. 4 2968M 5-24 TABLE 5-4 PARTIAL LISTING OF VENDORS OF MODULAR INCINERATION FACILITIES VENDOR OPERATING EXPERIENCE IN U.S. Basic Environmental Yes Cadoux Yes Cleaver Brooks Yes Consumat Systems Yes Ecolaire Combustion Products Yes Enerco Yes John Zink Yes R.W. Taylor Steel Co. Yes Sigoure/Freres Yes Synergy/Clear Air Yes Tecnitalia No Thermal Reduction Yes Therm—Tech Yes Vicon Recovery Systems Yes 2968M 5-25 - A typical RDF processing facility is shown in Figure 4-1. Many of the equipment components of an RDF processing facility were described in Section 4.1. This section, however, will focus on the combustion of the RDF product. There are several types of RDF combustion systems, differing, according to furnace or boiler design. The most common are stoker-fired refractory furnace' convection or waterwall boiler systems, fluidized bed furnaces, spreader stoker-fired furnaces and suspension fired furnaces. A discussion of each follows. Stoker-Fired Boiler Systems Stoker-fired mass-burn systems and their inherent furnace design characteristics are capable of firing an "unsophisticated" fuel'such as unprepared municipal solid waste (MSW). Such systems require minimum quality RDF. The combustion process is essentially the same as in the case of unprepared refuse burning and- most of the basic design parameters apply with the exception of fuel bed depth in the stoker-fired furnace and the rate of firing (pounds per stoker unit area per unit of time). Fluidized Bed Incineration r Fluidized bed incineration involves the combustion of RDF within a mixture of inert noncombustible high-melting-point material. This material, usually sand, is a substitute for a grate and is used to assist combustion in the furnace; By mixing the RDF with the hot sand, the combustion reaction is improved and the material can be circulated until _ burnout is achieved. The inert material (sand) can be reused, and energy can be recovered from the heated exhaust gases. There are two basic types of fluidized bed combustion systems available for processing RDF: bubbling bed and circulating bed. The bubbling bed system or first generation system utilizes a single combustion chamber with a limited fuel residency time. A cyclone collector is used to collect the solid from the exhaust gas. Figure 5-6 shows a typical bubbling bed configuration. The circulating fluidized bed system (CFB) uses a cyclone to remove solids from the gas stream, which is then reinjected into the fluidizing chamber. The advantage of this system is that it allows for more thorough combustion due to the greater fuel residency time. Figure 5-7 shows the configuration of a typical circulating fluidized bed 2968M 5-26 incinerator. CFB's usually have extremely efficient mass and heat 'transfer. This allows the CFB's to operate at lower excess air and temperature than mass-burn systems. Some advantages of fluidized bed incineration are as follows: o - Improved combustion reaction yielding a high heat release rate o Decrease in unit size due to high heat release rate o Lower operating temperatures than other types of incinerators o Decreased formation of nitrogen oxides o Lower excess air requirements o SO2 removal Some disadvantages of fluidized bed incinerators are as follows: o Limited operating experience in the U.S. o Limited emission test data o Furnace startup difficulties o Slagging difficulties o Higher particulate carryover from the furnace than mass-burn incinerators o Higher CO concentrations than other incineration technologies. While fluidized bed incineration may become viable for waste disposal in the future, fluidized bed incineration as a major waste-to-energy system is not a fully proven technology. 5-27 2968M i 1 . f CONVECTION I PASS CYCLONE i - 1 PRODUCTS OF COMBUSTION .---- FLUE �— COMBUSTION GASES CHAMBER I I I SOLIDS COMBUSTION ZONE SOLIDS REINJECTION COAL ((`�rl,�r;� It�-r� •�� / `ff✓1/i;� 1.�x,• ���Cf � � -i •�)ll rl.Jlr,�ht�si��?����iUl.��•';.LMr'��r��t.��� _ LIMESTONE , 1 AIR DISTRIBUTION PLATE Alp AIR PLENUM i LJ SOURCE: ENERGY TECHNOLOGY (JULY 87) TYPICAL BUBBLING BED FLUIDIZED BED & n and COMBUSTION SYSTEM aired oj FIGURE 5-6 I FLUE GAS I CONVECTION PASS i J I _ - \I SECONDARY -� W I CHAMBER (CYCLONE) COMBUSTOR FLUE OAS I I � I , SOLIDS COAL LIMESTONE + ' SOLIDS / RECYCLE AIR SOURCE: ENERGY TECHNOLOGY' (JULY 87) i TYPICAL CIRCULATING FLUIDIZED BED and COMBUSTION SYSTEM O) e�,. ' FIGURE 5-7 Spreader Stoker-Firing The "spreader stoker" RDF firing concept has been derived from granulated coal firing systems. Granular fuel (RDF) is introduced,into the furnace by pneumatic air assisted mechanical spreaders. The RDF ignites and burns partially in suspension. Unburned RDF particles drop on a traveling type stoker where firing is completed before the ash is discharged. The spreader stoker system requires more extensive shredding of the solid waste than a simple stoker equipped with a •gravity feed system for introducing the fuel to the furnace. Advantage of RDF-fired or co-fired spreader stoker units: o Faster boiler response than mass-burn units Disadvantages of RDF-fired or co-fired spreader stoker units: o The need to build and operate a fuel preparation system o Higher energy demands due to processing waste o Operational and equipment problems Suspension Firing Suspension firing systems differ from spreader stoker-fired systems in that they generally have ash grates and do not have burn-out grates. The fuel enters the combustion chamber pneumatically where the burners are aligned to burn as much of the fuel as possible in suspension. The suspension firing systems are either tangentially fired boilers or cyclone fired boilers. In a tangentially fired boiler, each corner of the furnace has a vertical arrangement of burners. In a cyclone boiler, crushed coal is fired at one end of a horizontal cylinder while primary and secondary impart a whirling ;notion to the gases. Suspension firing systems require a higher quality fuel and use a different method of firing. The fuel must be highly combustible with a low moisture content. Since only a very light fraction of the RDF can be fired in suspension as an additive to fossil 2968M S-30 t fuels, applications of this type are inherently limited to relatively few select locations, specifically where existing power plant suspension fired boilers can be retrofitted and converted to combined RDF and pulverized coal firing. Some of the reported advantages of RDF suspension firing systems include: o Faster boiler response rate o Smaller grate o Capability of modifying existing units for co-firing, thus reducing costs o Potential for lower boiler tube metal corrosion because of the homogenous nature of the fuel Some disadvantages of RDF suspension firing ,systems include: o Higher fuel preparation equipment costs o Higher auxiliary power requirements o RDF plugging and abrasion problems in feed system o Lower boiler efficiency than a coal-only boiler o Potential slagging and ash handling difficulties o Potential variability of RDF quality Liquid Refuse Derived Fuel Combustion By limiting the reaction temperatures of a pyrolysis process, significant portions of the pyrolysis products can be extracted (see Section 5.4 for a complete description of pyrolysis). These include high viscosity, hydrogenated hydrocarbons gas, and char residue. The liquid fuel that is derived from this process can be used to fire a boiler. 2968M 5-31 J 5.3.1 Size Ranee Typically, RDF facilities are found in the range of 600 to over 2,000 tons per day, although some of the earlier plants such as Ames, Iowa and Madison, Wisconsin were smaller. Both of these plants were built for production of RDF as a saleable fuel to local utility, and their economics are not representative of a stand-alone RDF waste-to-energy facility. The Greater Detroit Resource Recovery Facility, scheduled for testing in late 1988, has a design capacity of 4,000 TPD. Typically, stand-alone RDF plants cannot be justified economically in comparison to mass-burn facilities below about 600 tons per day jbecause of the cost of front-end processing equipment, operation, and maintenance. However, these costs tend to,vary less with increasing throughput capacity. 5.3.2 Previous Operating Experience li Commercial RDF incineration projects began during the mid 1970s when there was an emphasis on conserving energy and recovering recyclable materials. They were seen as an economic and environmental improvement over the then existing mass-burn incineration technology in the U.S. 1. However, a number of RDF incineration systems-introduced in the 1970s and 1980s F have resulted in total or partial failure for both technological and economic reasons. This 1 list includes facilities located in Akron, Ohio; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Monroe County, New York; Hempstead, New York; Dade County, Florida; Duluth, Minnesota; Chicago Illinois; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Columbus, Ohio; Hamilton, Ontario; Niagara Falls, New York; Albany, New York; and Ames, Iowa. These•facilities include RDF producers and { RDF incinerators. Most of the problems with RDF incineration have been caused by boiler design deficiencies or production of a fuel product which does not meet-market specifications. These problems have resulted in boiler corrosion and slagging; high levels of combustibles '- in the bottom ash and excessive emissions of particulates and other pollutants. Figure 5-8 shows a flow diagram of a combined refuse and RDF processing plant using a utility boiler. This process train is typical of the early RDF plants. As can be seen in the figure, there is no provision for removal of potentially explosive materials 2968M 5-32 before the refuse encounters the hammermill, this led to the explosion problems encountered in many of ,,these plants. Table 5-5 lists a summary of these "first generation" RDF plants, along with a brief history and their current status. Recently, there has been renewed interest in RDF processing systems. There are new "second generation" systems available, and some of the facilities which were originally shut down have been modified and reopened. These include facilities located in Niagara. Falls, New York; Dade County, Florida; Akron and ,Columbus, Ohio; and New. Castle County, Delaware. Table 5-6 lists RDF incineration facilities operating as of April -1988. This list separately includes those facilities which combust a small percentage of RDF in a pulverized coal fired boiler. Additionally, there are approximately 15 RDF facilities which have subsequently begun operation or are in the advanced planning or construction phase. A more detailed discussion of the previous operating experience of various RDF combustion technologies follows. Fluidized Bed Combustors Based on available information, the only known operating RDF FBC facilities in the U.S. are the Western Lake Superior Sanitary District Facility in Duluth, MN and the Northern State Power French Island Facility.in LaCrosse, WI. There are no known RDF circulating fluidized bed incinerators in this country. However, there are at least two CFBs located in Europe (Sundsvall, Sweden and Sande, Norway). The Western Lakes Superior Sanitary District facility in Duluth, Minnesota started up in 1982. The facility was shutdown after three months following a shreddar explosion. The facility then burned a combination of wood chips and sewage sludge for the next three years. During these three years they tried to solve the operational problems caused when burning RDF. These problems included difficulty in initial heating of fluidized bed and ash slagging. ,After adding a disk screen to the RDF system the facility greatly reduced its ash problem. In June of 1985 the facility once again began to burn RDF and sewage sludge. Each combustion unit is designed to coburn 120 tpd of fluffed RDF with 345 tpd of sewage sludge (18% solids). Only one of the two incinerators operate at any given time. 1 2968M 5-33 Coftc on Tn" TonsMt 6tetlon f W TnuiM ftrw rwm ConhYw In parA�eq poe�lbn C� conl*ws pet faker ul .�..�� To Taro no cepKdry =psaw i 6/oYK - 16ita QFb*mt�ntmr Magnebc Sepuabt Pon\ CUM"\ —him" Cai�reyot Coal �'Nugge4ter -4— (� Nt / `1 magnoUc MNeb wp�� '" v feodw fan \MagnoUc ry.1 LZ-1 Sepmatot —Ash b atowge pond--� - . ` G end NoA Magne4c 1Ae1a4 . COMD REFUSE AND RDF PROCESSING PLANT and >> B"'suc+d -,n-,v K FIGURE 5-8 .v►aaA N:f i Table 5-5 FIRST GENERATION - REFUSE DERIVED FUEL FACILITIES Plant Summary Current Status Hempstead, New York Hydrasposal TM (wet pulping) Abandoned RDF system process with magnetic separ- in favor of mass burn ation. RDF burning in air (mass burn facility swept spout spreader stoker under construction). boilers. 2000 tpd design capacity. Experienced odor and operational problems as well as emission concerns. i Dade County, Florida Hydrasposal TM (wet pulping) Operational with dry design with magnetic and disposal at approxi- mechanical separation. mately 2000 tpd. - Produced electricity 3000 tpd design capacity. Ex- tracted aluminum, ferrous and nonferrous metals. Be- gan operating 1/82. Shut- down wet disposal 10/86. i Chicago, Illinois ' Shredding, air classifica- Plant currently shut- tion with magnetic separa- down. Options being tion to produce RDF with considered. --- ferrous metal recovery 1000 tpd design capacity. RDF for sale to utility. Exper- ienced operational and financial problems. Monroe County, Shredding, air classifica- Currently preparing New York_ tion, froth floatation, mag- RFP for alternative netic and other separation use. to produce RDF. RDF for use by utility as supplemental boiler fuel. Ferrous metal and glass recovery. 2000 tpd design capacity. Facility closed 7/27/84. 2968M 5-35 Table 5-5 (Continued). Plant Summary Current'Status Akron, Ohio Shredding, magnetic separa-- Operating successfully- tion, to produce RDF. Burn at 900 tpd. RDF in semi-suspension stoker grate boiler system. Steam production urban and indus- trial heating and cooling. Ferrous metal recovery. 1000 tpd design capacity. Plant experienced explosions in December 1984. Shutdown for 10 months. Modified and re- opened September 1985. Milwaukee, Wisconsin Shredded, air-classified RDF Currently considering production for sale to util- alternative waste ity. Ferrous metal recovery,. disposal options. 1600 tpd design capacity. Utility was dissatisfied with RDF product. Plant shutdown. Columbus, Ohio Shredded, magnetically sep-- Currently operating erated RDF produced and successfully at burned in a semi-suspension approximately 1500 stoker grate boiler. Pro- tpd. duce steam to generate electricity. 3000 tpd design capacity. Startup . in 1983. Experienced major operational problems re- quired modifications in 1984. Hamilton, Ontario Shear shredded, magnetically Currently operating separated RDF produced and successfully at 500 burned in semi-suspension tpd. spreader stoker boiler fer- rous metal recovery. Elec- tricity and steam production. 600 tpd design capacity. Startup 1972. $12,000,000 modernization program in 1986. 2968M V 5-36 Table 5-5 (Continued) i Plant Summary Current Status Niagara Falls, Shredded, magnetically sepa- Operating successfully New York rated RDF. Steam for use at 1800 tpd. by local chemical plant. Electricity to power corp- oration. Ferrous metal recovery. 2000 tpd design capacity experienced initial _ operational problems requiring modifications to the waste receiving system, shredders, air classifiers, storage facilities and the boiler feed system. Albany, New York Shredded, magnitically sepa- Operating success- rated RDF with ferrous and fully at design _ rionferrous metal recovery. capacity. ( ; 750 ton per shift design capacity. Ames, Iowa, Waste paper bailing, shred- Currently operating ding, magnetically sepa- successfully at 100 rated, air classified, tpd screened and separated RDF for use by utility. Ferrous metal and bailed paper recov- ery. 200 tpd design capacity. Experienced operational prob- lem at startup in 1975. New Castle County, Shredded, screened, magneti- Currently operating Delaware cally separated, air classi- successfully at or fied and mechanically sepa- near design capacity rated RDF. Froth flotation and aerobic digestion with sewage sludge. Produced RDF and humus. Metal and glass recovery. 1000 tpd capacity (MSW) 350 tpd (sludge). Experienced typical initial operational problems. 2968M 5-37 Table 5-6 RDF Incineration Facilities Operating as of April 1988 Unit No. of Size Year of Site State Units TPD Startup Air Pollution Control RDF Fired Combustors Akron OH 2 , 300 1979 Electrostatic Precipitator Albany NY 2 300• 1981 Electrostatic Precipitator . Biddeford/Saco ME 2 350 1987 Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter Columbus OH '6 400 1983 Electrostatic Precipitator Dade Co. FL 4 600 1988 Electrostatic Precipitator Duluth MN 2 400 1986 Cyclone/Venturi Hartford CT 3 667 1988 Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter Haverhill/Lawrence MA 3 1000 1984 Electrostatic Precipitator La Crosse County WI 2 400 1987 Electrified Gravel Bed Mankato MN 2 360 1987 Electrostatic Precipitator Niagara Falls NY 2 1000 1981 Electrostatic Precipitator Penobscot ME 2 360 1988 Spray Dryer/Fabric Filter Portsmouth (Norfolk Navy ` -' Yard) VA 4 500 1988 Electrostatic Precipitator Red Wing (NSP Co.) MN 2 360 1988 Electrostatic Precipitator Tacoma WA NA 500 1988 NA Wilmington DE NA 600 1987 NA Pulverized Coal RDF Boilers Ames IA 2 200 1975 Electrostatic Precipitator Keokuk IA NA NA NA NA Lakeland FL 3 300 1981 Electrostatic Precipitator Madison (Gas and Electric WI 2 400 1979 Cyclone/Electrostatic Co.) Precipitator Sioux Center (Community College) IA NA NA NA NA Sioux Center (Dord College) IA NA NA NA NA Cyclone Fired Coal RDF Boilers Baltimore MD 1 125— 1980 - 200 Source: USEPA, "Municipal Waste Combustion Industry Profile—Facilities Subject to Section 111(d) Guidelines", September 1988. 2968M 5-38 The LaCrosse, WI facility began co-firing RDF and wood chips in-November 1987. Each of the FBC units (which previously were fired with coal) are able to fire approximately 12 tph of RDF and 11 tph of wood chips. Based on the current 'operating scheduled each unit can handle approximately 185 tpd RDF and 175 tpd wood waste. The facility is reportedly receiving only one half the waste volume it needs. There are currently two other FBC projects in the U.S. which are in the advanced planning or construction phase. These facilities are the Tacoma Public Utilities Steam Plant No. 3, Tacoma, WA and the Northern Tier Solid"Waste Authority, PA. -There are at- least six other projects in the U.S. which are in the feasibility study or early planning phase. Of,these, at least two are proposed circulating fluidized bed incinerator projects. Spreader Stoker-Firing The first plant of this type was placed into operation in the City of Hamilton, Ontario. Operational -experience , revealed serious problems with materials handling systems, including conveying of unprepared refuse, as well as shredding and long-term storage of the RDF. Alleged savings in the physical size of the furnaces, supposedly , inherent to the semi-suspension, burning concept, were never realized. This condition resulted from the fact that rated furnace capacity could only be maintained for short periods of time due to materials handling problems and other operational difficulties. When rated furnace capacity was approached, a high percentage of carbonaceous material in the residue was reported, indicating questionable combustion efficiency of the system. The Oscar Mayer Steam Generating Plant in Madison, Wisconsin co-burned RDF and coal in a retrofitted spreader stoker boiler from 1979 until 1986. The RDF, which made up 30% of, the mass input to the furnace, was generated, by the City of Madison. The facility ceased co-burning RDF because of high overhead and maintenance costs and the variability of the RDF quality. High- quality RDF is also being produced at the Albany, New York ANSWERS facility. The RDF being produced at this facility is hauled by truck to the dedicated spreader stoker firing boilers at Albany Mall (State Capital Building Complex), which have been operating since 1981. 1 2968M 5-39 The Occidental/Hooker plant in Niagara Falls, NY is successfully burning RDF in a spreader stoker fired system after a multitude of operational and equipment malfunctions. Suspension Fired Combustors The first RDF suspension firing system was developed in a joint effort by the City of St. Louis, Missouri, Union Electric Co. and Combustion, Engineering Co. In addition to various material- handling problems, it'was found that extensive_preparation of RDF was needed to obtain complete combustion of the RDF within the very short retention' time inherent to suspension fired-boilers. Furthermore, the Union Electric experience showed that a suspension burning plant can use only about 60% (50% by National Center for Resource Recovery (NCRR) estimates) of the unprepared municipal refuse when processed through a double shredding and air classification system and fired in conjunction with pulverized coal. The St. Louis experiment indicated a -confidence level of about 15% refuse and 85% pulverized coal as a threshold RDF/coal limit. Firing quantities of RDF in excess of this level resulted in steam load fluctuations which could not be tolerated by a power plant, and an excess of combustibles in the bottom ash, which would be environmentally unacceptable. No corrosion of boiler tubes was observed, most likely due to the low ratio of RDF to pulverized coal. Boiler efficiency was decreased due to the higher moisture and' ash, content of RDF compared to coal. . Increased unburned combustibles were observed in the bottom ash. The Ames City Power Plant, Ames, Iowa experienced similar problems as the St. Louis facility. The facility, which began co-firing coal and RDF in 1976, has encountered considerable RDF feed and ash handling problems. The variable nature of the RDF has also'made it difficult to maintain a constant feed. Though the facility still, co-fires RDF, there is not a fuel cost savings because of the high maintenance costs. The Blount Street Power Plant in Madison, Wisconsin has not experienced any major operating problems since it was modified to co-fire RDF in 1975. However, it has found that RDF co-firing is not an economical solution without special price concessions and subsides from the city due to high operating costs. 2968M 5-40 .Later examples of unsuccessful attempts to burn "high quality" RDF in suspension fired utility boilers are the Chicago, Illinois plant, the Americology system in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, and the Raytheon system in Rochester, New York. The Chicago Municipal RDF plant, completed in 1979 never reliably produced sufficient quantities of high quality RDF. The fuel produced was rejected by Chicago i-- Edison as a reliable energy source because of plugging and abrasion of the RDF feed lines, I` ash problems and increased slag accumulation. This multi-million dollar facility has been closed since 1980 as the City of Chicago has been unsuccessful in soliciting interest for a private sector takeover of the project. The Americology Plant in Milwaukee, also intended to supply RDF to a public utility plant, was plagued by similar problems. Wisconsin Electric publicly served notice that they were dissatisfied with the RDF product, which they regarded as not meeting their � i specifications for purchase, and ceased accepting RDF from Americology's facility. The Americology Co., a subsidiary of American Can Co., has since announced that it does not intend to seek new markets in the solid waste disposal field in the future. Under the category of unsuccessful attempts to burn "high quality" RDF in existing suspension fired utility boilers, is the Monroe County, New York Plant. Following a prolonged shakedown and systems retrofitting of this facility, dissatisfaction with the RDF by Rochester Gas and Electric Company, difficulty in marketing recovered metals and glass, together with a significantly higher operations costs than expected, Monroe County closed this facility in 1984. One of the most recent attempts to co-fire RDF in a suspension fired boiler was feasibility demonstration test conducted in 1987 at the B.L. England Station at Beesley's Point, New Jersey, operated by Atlantic Electric. RDF supplied by the Cockeysville, MD RDF processing facility was fed into the secondary air ducts of the cyclone boiler. During the test, serious fouling and slagging problems were encountered along with ash accumulation problems. These problems also contributed to a significant increase in particulate emissions and ESP power usage. For -these reasons, the test was considered unsuccessful. 2968M 5-41 5.3.3 Thermal Production Capability The chief advantage of upgrading raw MSW to an RDF product is the higher boiler or thermal efficiency achieved upon combustion. Higher thermal efficiency is a function of the higher heating valve (HHV) and the homogeneous nature of the fuel. Most boilers fire RDF in a densified pelletized form. Data from the Mid-Connecticut Project shows boiler efficiency is approximately, 75% at 100% RDF combustion. Therefore, steam production can be expected to be proportionally higher (per ton of fuel fed to the boiler) than mass-burn or modular incinerations. However, in-plant energy usage will be higher due to the front-end RDF production energy requirements. 5.3.4 Waste Reduction Capability Current RDF technology results in waste volume reduction similar to large mass-burn technologies. However, the amount of waste actually burned is different. For' RDF technology, about 5 percent by weight of the waste stream is removed through magnetic ferrous separation, and an additional 16 percent by weight is removed by fine screens in the form of glass and grit, the latter (called "residue")- going directly to a landfill. The remaining 79 percent is burned. As a higher-quality fuel, volume reduction of this material may be as high as 95 percent. On a weight basis, combined ash product, including quench water and scrubber lime (if spray drying is employed), constitutes approximately 26 percent of incoming RDF fuel. Overall volume reduction can be expected to fall in the range of 90 to 92 percent. Volume reduction will depend upon two major factors: the composition of the raw municipal refuse and the level of materials recovery that,takes place at the front end of the process. 5.3.5 Vendors of RDF Facilities Table 5-7 is a list -of vendors currently marketing RDF processing and/or incineration facilities in the U.S. Many of the vendors listed in the Table offer nonproprietary equipment. Of the currently active proposed RDF projects, most are using either a Babcock and Wilcox or Combustion Engineering boiler. In addition, some of the Babcock and Wilcox boilers are supplied with Detroit Stokers. Because of the myriad of processing and combustion technologies for processing RDF, each vendor's system will be somewhat different than the others. 2968M 5-42 t TABLE 5-7 PARTIAL LIST OF VENDORS OF REFUSE-DERIVED FUEL (RDF) FACILITIES VENDOR OPERATING EXPERIENCE IN U.S. r-, American Recovery Corp. No L_ Babcock & Wilcox/Bechtel Yes i Buhler - Miag/Wheelabrator Technologies Yes CAG Partnership Yes C.T. Main, Inc. Yes �- Combustion Engineering Yes General Electric Yes J National Ecology (Processing Plant only) Yes Raytheon Service Co. Yes i Rueter Yes Thermo Electron No Energy Products of Idaho (EPI) Yes II I � i ' 2968M 5-43 5.4 ftiolysis Pyrolysis (which means chemical decomposition by'heat) is a broad term given to a variety of processes where either processed or unprocessed waste is decomposed by the application of heat in an oxygen deficient or absent atmosphere. This results in production of combustible gases or liquids depending on operating conditions. These products may be either burned immediately to produce steam or, those whose quality is high enough, may be transported or stored for use elsewhere. In general, the 4 products of a gas producing pyrolysis system consist mainly of combustible hydrocarbons (hydrogen, methane, and CO). Solids, produced by some pyrolysis systems, consist of carbon-rich residue plus any inerts (glass, metal and rock). The quality and quantity of products obtained depend upon many factors. Some of the most important factors are the type of carbonaceous solids contained in the feed stock, the ultimate temperature attained, the heating rate, and the type of equipment used. Within certain limits, manipulation of these variables offers a mechanism for controlling the quality and yield of products. Pyrolysis has been used commercially for many years in production of methanol, acetic acids, turpentine from wood, gasification of coal, and recovery of residual charcoal. However, the process of refuse pyrolysis is a more recent concept. Various refuse pyrolytic processes have been developed since approximately 1968. In general, a typical process employs a storage bin for as-received refuse, feeder system, front-end RDF system, pyrolytic reactor, combustion product cleaning and/or treating system, collection storage and/or upgrading system (for the solid, liquid and gaseous by-products), and a residue removal system. Individual process schemes differ in many details, such as the degree of shredding (1 or 2 stage), the method of feeding the RDF and the technique of product recovery. Also, the amount and types of products recovered can vary between two extremes, in which either all products are recovered and separated into several components, or no products are recovered. The latter process, where no condensed phase products are recovered, is usually known as a gasifier instead of a pyrolyzer. The pyrolysis reactor is a unit in which the refuse is heated to, and maintained at, the desired pyrolysis temperature. The refuse begins to'pyrolyze as it is being heated and 296sM 5-44 the amount of pryolysis occurring at temperatures below the ultimate temperature attained depends upon the heating rate. Auxiliary fuel is used in all instances for starting the process and most systems rely on an external heat source to keep the process in ' operation. i � - Low temperature (below 1000°F) and slow heating rates favor increased solid formation and yield primarily char and oxygenated gases. High temperature (above 1500°F) and rapid heating rates favor increased gas formation, yielding primarily flammable gases. ' i . The yield as well as the calorific value of the gaseous products of refuse pyrolysis is i variable. In general, the pyrolysis of a pound of combustible fraction of refuse yields 2 to 3 cubic feet of gas with a calorific value of around 340 BTU/cu. ft. or about one-third of -- the calorific value of natural gas. _ In general, no two pyrolysis processes are the same. Each company markets its own licensed system, which consequently makes it 'difficult to discuss pyrolysis in broad _ terms. Some of the differences in the pyrolysis systems include the level of front-end waste processing, pyrolyzation temperatures and combustion techniques, pyrolysis products, and end uses of pyrolysis products. For these reasons; pyrolysis system which have been marketed will be discussed on an individual basis. Some of the systems described in the following section were formally available but have been abandoned. However, these systems are presented in order to present a more comprehensive study of the technology and its history. 5.4.1 Vendors of Pyrolysis Systems Union Carbide "Purox" System A 200 TPD demonstration "PUROX" system was in intermittent operation in Charleston, W. Virginia in the mid-1970s. The original concept required a number of modifications. One of the major modifications was the installation of an unprepared refuse processing (shredding) train. It was found that the operation with unprepared refuse, asti originally intended, created uncontrollable process difficulties. 2968M 5-45 ✓ Prepared refuse (RDF) is fed into the top of a vertical shaft furnace via an air seal, ram-type feeder and pure oxygen is supplied at the base of the furnace where it oxidizes the pyrolyzed char. The final combustion temperatures, which are in the range of 3000°F, are sufficient to melt inert, noncombustible materials introduced into the reactor with the RDF. Molten slag is continuously tapped off and quenched in a water-filled trough, forming inert granular residue. Hot gases, produced by the combustion of the char., rise up through the descending column of RDF, providing the energy required for the endothermic pyrolytic reaction. At the upper end of the RDF column, cooler gases leave the furnace to be further cleaned and treated. The contaminants which must be removed are generally water vapor, oil droplets or vapor, acids and entrained solid particles. The oxygen required for the process is generated on-site by a cryogenic air separation system. The system must be considered as an integral part of the overall process. Pyrolytic fuel` gas produced by the Union Carbide "PUROX" process is a clean-burning fuel comparable to natural gas in combustion characteristics. It is essentially free of sulfur compounds and nitrogen orn xides and bus at approximately the same temperature as natural gas. This gas cannot: be brought up to pipeline pressure without undergoing partial condensation, which results in a loss of about 12 percent of the heating value. As a result, markets for this gas should be no more than 1 or 2 miles,from the producing facility and only short-term storage should be contemplated. Figure 5-9 shows the schematic process diagram of the "PUROX" system and Figure 5-10 shows the cryogenic oxygen generating process. Due to an extremely high capital cost of the process, which includes an RDF processing plant, the pyrolytic converter, the heat recovery system, the oxygen manufacturing system and a treatment plant to treat the contaminated effluent from the gas conditioning and cleaning process, Union Carbide Corp. has been unable to successfully market the system. 2968M 5-46 F nitoa a.slar .aaoa� vote Ga[w - Q Illa Col.rl YoR fMGYl11[ llril (wo./[ CRAK U V �- `— swuoo/w 0 - '© armor f.�ur ll�clr lr sar�t�loR w.[nl lft a+w it co.nlwlcl O TO Taanl/aw w11.+sa j� •AKawa , llwr wElla��a \ t �� /uwor /((O �tOM(R 1 O / !Mw[OOl■ al.w[op/Y 0.6va OR to/uaa R(/U!l /(lull p1fC o�tla (ONVa 10t laY[llR .O C o,.. p O 1 1 1 T•cco wc�u�c 1 f1[FIl1[ �ftcocu (q ' IVA i TO waraMwraw � acwuaaaw t11aAT1laa11 C no ruaL SAO O cagAer IN Ort i coalalla .. '- urnwwloR "wrtlf . M1 mwonoaw 9"%ft auctwwrAt rc �~� �RlCIrA/Rrgw NO Ow.IM 91_Ao CEMVIEvow - ` /QUIM" TANK(c) r' ovkke "PUROX" GASIFICATION PROCESS O eermd, uk �Tm FIGURE 5-9 I UPPER COLUMN TURBINE I -oRlos- � oEN ` STORAGE A y IN SUPER• CON• NEATER OENSER I VAPORMW WASTE N2 PRODUCT Ovum SLMCF TANK AFTER I sUCTm I FILTER LOWER 1 HOU" ' COLUMN GEL S FEE TRAP AMI R&MING NEAT EXCHANGER AIR' ��. �s COLD GCX AIR MA9fVUP �:;aCOMPIlEssm Bobo WATER COCUNG WATER REF: UNION CARBIDE CORP. Dvirks CRYOGENIC OXYGEN GENERATING SYSTEM 9a Nllucd 0-) E CONSULT* FIGURE 5- 10 JG NGlEERS r Carborundum Co. "TORRAX" System Although somewhat similar in appearance to the "PUROX" process, the "TORRAX" system shown in Figure 5-11, is substantially different. Unprepared refuse, as received, is fed into a high temperature reactor gasifier i furnace which is partially water-cooled. Air, preheated to about 1600°F, is introduced at the bottom of the furnace together with auxiliary fuel required to start-up and maintain t the operation. Oxygen in the preheated air reacts with the refuse char in,the lower portion of the furnace and the ascending hot products of combustion act as\a heat source for the refuse pyrolysis endothermic process. Noncombustible residue is melted at about 3000°F at the bottom of the furnace. The slag is tapped and quenched in a water trough yielding inert granular residue. The pyrolysis gas from the reactor has a higher heating value of about 150 BTU/ft3 and consists primarily of carbon monoxide (CO), Nitrogen (N2), and hydrocarbons. It has been found that the off-gas contains a high percentage of carbonaceous solids and hydrocarbon vapor/tars which constitute an appreciable fraction of the "fuel value" of the 7 gas. In order to be able to utilize the maximum heat value of the gas, the tar vapors must it be maintained in gaseous phase by maintaining the sensible heat of the gas as it leaves the reactor at approximately 550°F. Furthermore, the carbonaceous solids (char) are +_ ` pulverized and also used as part of the process fuel. While a heat recovery system using the "PUROX" process fuel does not require a supplementary flue gas cleaning system, a boiler using the "TORRAX" process fuel must be fitted with an air pollution control apparatus such as an electrostatic precipitator. Marketed originally by the Carborundum Co., Niagara Falls, New York, the process was sold to a German conglomerate without ever being commercially implemented in the i i U.S. Known as "ANSCO-TORRAX", it has been marketed unsuccessfully in Germany for special applications to dispose of uniform quality industrial wastes and industrial by-products. The only large scale.municipal waste system, built in Luxembourg in 1976, ? has been shut down. No detailed data concerning technical and economic parameters have been made available to date. In addition, there were plants in Paris, France and Frankfurt, Germany which were shutdown. 2968M 5-49 Monsanto "LANDGUARD" System The Monsanto "LANDGUARD" pyrolysis process, shown in Figure 5-12, was developed as a result of research experience gained with a 35 TPD pilot plant in St. Louis, Missouri. Coarse, shredded refuse is continuously fed into a rotary kiln furnace ignited and pyrolyzed at approximately 1800 - 2000°F in a reducing atmosphere. Originally, auxiliary fuel was used to sustain the pyrolytic reaction. The off-gas, which has a higher heating value of about 120 BTU/ft3, is burned upstream of a waste heat recovery boiler and the products of combustion are used to generate steam. Due to relatively low process temperatures, the residue contains a high percentage , of carbon char heavily contaminated with glass and other inert materials. No commercial use or market has ever been found for the char. ,Therefore, the residue carbon must be considered as net process loss. Scaling-up of the original 35 TPD pilot plant unit to a 1000 TPD plant constructed in the City of Baltimore, Maryland under joint financing by USEPA, the State of Maryland, the City of Baltimore,,_and Monsanto Enviro-Chem revealed numerous serious problems which either never appeared or were difficult to assess in a pilot scale plant. During start-up and commissioning of the 1000 TPD Baltimore facility, major difficulties were encountered in refuse processing (shredding), storage and conveying of RDF, as well as in the operation of the gasifier. At that point in time it appeared that even if the materials handling problems were solved, other problems would seriously delay or totally prevent full capacity operation of the plant. Performance testing of the plant was started in 1974. However, full scale operation i was never achieved by Monsanto Enviro-Chem. Unable to achieve full capacity operation or even reduced capacity operation at a sustained rate, Monsanto Enviro-Chem abandoned the plant in 1976. The City of Baltimore, in an effort to salvage as much of the facility and process equipment as possible, engaged a consultant team to examine and evaluate the process characteristics and recommend a course of action. 2968M 5-50 I� 'aY-A4ec,. r P11!:1 c.s TO inou3TZIAL 7:0C:SS0 OR lMLJTY BOILER r III I I cy=k-WNC 11 CC14 4& LS�,W G4018R. PULYLiZfZ�'ii SOMA AIR HEAT-;: G,s,51FiErZ • `�� r,s,{; Liv:T� TO POLLUTION �! CCLIPrENt IN{CAr 3L►G DQOCL3i Ai8 REF: ANDCO TORRAX �& DWrka "TORRAX" REFUSE GASIFICATION SYSTEM 0 and ertl erc cl cv FIGURE 5-11 I:j-EAN AIR T() ArM(►s1�1i1 1i E GAS SI:IIl1lllll:fl STACK S1 EAM _-- Af 1 f iJBI1NNE H __-- L - WASTE HF AT 11()11 LH ' y FAN jWATER CLARIFl- SIiHE11l11NG GASUS 1 KILN — ---- SIMIAGE r.. NESIUIIF RECEIVING - f MACiNE T SOLIDS WATER w HAMFL-Llif" UIIf Nl 111N1'� fEAR(Ill!; METAL [Mrka MONSANTO "LANDWARD" PYROLYSIS PROCESS O B BertRuaci � u,.�E��E FIGURE 5- 12 A detailed analysis of the system resulted in redesign of major system components and modifications to operational concepts. Full-scale operation of the modified plant commenced in July 1979 and continued,on a sustained basis for two years. Part of the rehabilitations included operation at a reduced throughput capacity of 600 TPD (peak capacity 700 TPD). Subsequently, operational interruptions were caused by the absence of redundant subsystems ,which could not be added to the original Monsanto-Landguard I concept. Although successful operation of this process was achieved following major retrofitting, thereby achieving a successful technological demonstration and satisfying the City of Baltimore's desire to make the system operational, processing costs far outweighed revenues, resulting in an economic failure and facility shutdown. The facility has since been demolished and replaced with a MSW mass burn facility which has been in successful operation since mid 1985. ( i Waste Distillation Technology. Inc. The "Waste Distillator" system, developed by Waste Distillation Technology, Inc., is a "destructive distillation" process. This system differs from past- pyrolysis systems in that there is absolutely no burning in the retort. Y A waste distillation system is comprised of modular units each with a capacity of 50 tons per day. A preprocessing system which shreds, magnetically separates, and dries the incoming refuse preceeds a horizontal retort in which the refuse is distilled. Figure 5-13 shows a process schematic of the waste distillation process. By-products of the process include the flammable gas, a char residue, and an unprocessed portion of the waste stream. This technology was tested for several months in 1983. The test was monitored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the reported results were very favorable. The , conclusions, however, raised several questions and concerns. i i 2968M 5-53 It appears that the process, which has not yet been fully proven, may be a feasible alternative for the processing of municipal solid waste. Potential benefits of this technology include possible reduction of air emissions of particulates, heavy metals and organic compounds, and possible reduction in leaching of contaminants from residue (char). In addition the use of off-the-shelf equipment components throughout the process and modular system design (50-TPD units) may have the potential to reduce construction and other capital costs; however, the economics over a project- life cycle of 20-25 years relative to fully proven technologies may be less cost effective. 'In,,addition, there are a number of unresolved issues and questions concerning this technology which need to be addressed regarding suitability for application in the Town of Southold. Among these issues/questions are the following: 1. A full-scale modular unit of 50-TPD (DOE project) has been demonstrated (most likely intermittently) only on a relatively short-term basis (2 years). This facility, while in operation, was subject to a number of modifications to almost the entire process train during the demonstration period. It is unknown how long the final process system (assumes the final was the most successful) was operated. Furthermore, there is,- only one very small scale (8 TPD unit) currently in operation in Upland, California which utilizes this technology. As a result, recent long-term, commercial-scale (50 TPD unit) reliability, regarding municipal solid waste processing has not been demonstrated. 2. Currently, the detection limit for analytical tests conducted to measure the concentrations of dioxins and furans in flue gas emissions are on the order of one part per billion. However, the detection limit for emission test results presented in the DOE, funded evaluation and test program report are significantly higher. A concentration of one part per million was the detection limit for the tests. Although dioxins and furans were not detected at this level, and because there are concerns at levels much lower than this, sufficient information is not available to determine the technology's potential health impacts. c 1 _ 2968M 5-54 J SCHEMATIC OF PROCESS PROCESS STEAM MAGNETIC \ SEPARATION BOILER GENERATOR FEEDSTOCK O O © I STEAM TURBINE ImWREFUSe / ` v SHREDDER PRODUCED GAS DRYER STORAGE } —, GAS TURBINE BIN I I WASTE DISTILLATOF GAS f PRODUCED - RAM I IIS\ USEO t0 - SUSTAIN PROCESS) - CHAq BSN O SOURCE: SUFFOLK WASTE DISTILLATION INC. dD„kkm WASTE DISTILLATION -2 and SCHEMATIC OF PROCESS OO..UI, FIGURE 5- 13 i 3. Even'though the waste delivered to the 50-TPD demonstration facility was shredded, an additional two-stage shredding operation is required before thermal processing. Shredding systems are somewhat prone to mechanical difficulties andfailures and typically require frequent maintenance. 4. It appears that both the pilot-scale and demonstration facilities have been operated under research oriented environments where engineers and/or college professors were readily available. Additional information is required to understand how effectively this technology functions in a normal plant setting. 5. Because there _is no long-term, commercially operating facility, this process remains a developing technology. It should be noted that although Waste Distillation Technology is not exactly the same as previous pyrolysis systems that were tried (indirect vs. direct heating, which may be less complex), it is a form of pyrolysis and other firms (such as Monsanto, Occidental, Union Carbide and Torrax) have in the past attempted to develop related technologies for years and have not been able to achieve a reliable long-term, full-scale commercial system. Reportedly, Waste Distillation Technology,- Inc. is currently actively developing commercial scale projects in Ohio, the Virgin Islands and Toronto; however, to date construction has not commenced on any of these projects. Therefore, at this time, there exist no recent long-term environmental or operational performance history or O&M cost data for the application of this _technology to municipal solid waste processing and disposal. Other Gas Producing Pyrolysis Systems Other gasification pyrolysis systems, which have been researched or tested in small pilot plant operations, are listed below: Resource Recovery Corn. - Plasma Torch slagging pyrolysis Urban Research Development Corn. - Vertical shaft pyrolysis furnace similar to "TORRAX" process. J 2968M 5-56 Battelle Memorial Institute - Vertical shaft, medium temperature (16000F) pyrolysis furnace. ' Devco Management. Inc. - Rotary kiln pyrolysis furnace similar to Monsanto "LANDGUARD" process. While the listing of processes is not necessarily all inclusive, other systems which could be added to this 'list would yield little additional information that would be of significant benefit to-this review. 5.5 Environmental Impact and Safety of Thermal Processing 5.5.1 Mass Burn/Modular Facilities Aside from the extended successful operational record of stoker fired mass burning systems in Europe, a successful history of meeting air, water,.noise, and odor regulations has been recorded as well. In western European countries, emissions regulations,are comparable to those in the United States. As knowledge of emissions characteristics and impacts have advanced due to improved research and analytical methods, regulations have become more strict. The development of mass burning technology, particularly stoker fired systems, has proceeded in parallel with the tightening of regulations. Through refined combustion system design improvements, major advances in systems instrumentation, pollutant control devices, and design and operational'reliability, stoker fired mass burn systems have consistently demonstrated their ability to operate in compliance with the stricter regulations. The most recent advances in scientific knowledge have focused attention on emission of organic compounds and trace metal emissions from refuse combustion facilities, particularly emissions of polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (PCDD) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDF). This focus has been on both mass burning facilities and those combusting refuse derived fuel which are described in a later section. The potential for public health impacts from such emissions has been discussed and analyzed in connection with many proposed and existing facilities in this country, Europe, and Japan. In response to this concern regarding PCDD and PCDF emissions, a substantial amount of research has been conducted and is in progress regarding their origin, formation and destruction during combustion, rate of capture by control devices and affect on public health. 2968M 5-57 t One of the key tools which has been utilized in judging the effects of these emissions is risk assessment. This technique provides a worst case estimate of future health impacts resulting from the operation of a refuse combustion facility which is based upon a number of conservative assumptions concerning the facility. Typical assumptions are: o The facility will emit the maximum projected amount of pollutants. o Weather conditions will match the worst of several previous years, resulting in the highest of the modeled maximum annual concentrations. o The entire study population will be exposed to the maximum concentrations; which actually are predicted to occur only in a small area. o The maximum exposure will continue day and night for 70 years. o All of the dispersed pollutant will be respirable. 0 75% of what is inhaled will be retained. J 0 100% of what is retained will be absorbed (the true number may be closer to 10%). o .Toxic and carcinogenic effects can result from a single exposure to one molecule of the pollutant under study. Waste-to-energy projects incorporating refuse combustion utilize risk assessment in _ providing permit application review agencies, elected officials and the public-at-large with information concerning the impact of various trace metals and organic compound j1 found in air emissions. This is a required part-of permit applications in New York State. In preparing this report, risk assessments conducted on existing and proposed mass burning and refuse derived fuel facilities were available and reviewed. These include: o Onondaga County, New York (proposed mass burning facility). 2968M 5-58 o Huntington, New York (mass burning facility). o Broome County, New York (proposed mass burning facility). o Hempstead, New York (existing (closed) refuse derived fuel facility). o Hempstead, New York (mass burning facility). o San Marcos,.California (proposed mass burning facility). o Essex County, New.Jersey (mass burning facility). o New York City (proposed mass burning facility). In each of these risk assessments, toxicologists or public health professionals were involved in the evaluation of the public health impacts or in a review of the report's findings. These persons were affiliated with such institutions as Mount Sinai Medical School (New York City and Hempstead - mass burn), Cornell University (Hempstead - refuse derived fuel), and Rutgers University (Essex County - mass burn). The conclusion of each of the risk assessments was that the emitted amounts of pollutants studied were too small to conclude that there would be any discernable impact on public health over a short or long time-frame. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted its own risk assessment on five operating mass burning facilities and reached similar conclusions. Criticisms have been made of these results. These criticisms have been directed at the technique of risk assessment itself and the assumptions utilized in the risk assessments. However, risk assessment is a widely accepted and utilized technique that accommodates a lack of absolute certainty on many factors by utilizing worst case assumptions. A primary assumption of risk assessments which is receiving attention and criticism has been the expected stack emissions of the pollutants under study. 2968M 5-59 Stack emission rates of pollutants have been shown to vary over a wide range. r- Critics have said that the highest rates measured from mass burning facilities should be utilized in any risk assessment. However, the risk assessments have generally utilized conservative emission factors from facilities of similar design and operation to those being proposed, in recognition of the important effect which furnace/boiler design, waste characteristics, air pollution control devices and mode of operation have on pollutant emissions. As the results of numerous stack emission tests are received, it has become -- clear that the type of combustion process and mode of operation are important factors affecting emissions. Recent emissions tests on the Peekskill, Albany, and Niagara Falls, I New York facilities provide strong evidence in support of this contention (NYDEC 1985, 1986). Table 5-8 lists emission estimates compiled from Best Available Control Technology (BACT) reports for resource recovery projects which are currently in the permitting - phase. I- Additional points have been raised in criticism of risk assessment and refuse combustion in general, such as the effectiveness of high combustion temperature in destroying toxic organic compounds and the imposition of a moratorium on the permitting of new mass burning facilities in Sweden. However, the Swedish equivalent of the Unites States Environmental Protection Agency, In proposing the moratorium in 1985, reaffirmed its support for refuse combustion and acceptance of combustion temperature as an important factor in destroying organic compounds. The moratorium was proposed in order to precisely define the design and operational requirements necessary to maintain optimum combustion conditions, and to identify the best means of retrofitting older plants, which often operate in a batch-feed (as opposed to the modern continuous feed). mode, in order to improve performance. A year long major governmental investigation,conducted in Sweden, concerning new ! policies relating to waste-to-energy facilities found that waste incineration is,considered environmentally acceptable provided new emission guideline are fulfilled. The moratorium was lifted in June 1986. Sweden has over twenty mass burning facilities, ` serving a 1987 population of approximately 8.34 million persons. Other regulatory agencies and scientists in Norway, West Germany and the United States are in agreement with the proposition that potential pollutants are essentially destroyed by the maintenance of efficient combustion. 2968M 5-60 Table 5-8 EMISSION ESTIMATES FOR PROPOSED MASS-BURN WATERWALL PROJECTS Emissions (#/Ton Feed) Pollutant Onondaga Co. St. Lawrence Co. TSP 0.23 0.30 PM-10 0.23 N/A SO2 2.38 2.1 CO 1.16 2.76 NO 4.74 5.03 HC x 0.46 0.41 Pb 0.0232 0.0091 HF 0.041 0.0073 HC1 0.752 1.20 H2SO4 0.17 0.13 As 0.00029 0:000034 Cd 0.00081 0.00049 Be 0.000019 0.00000022 Cr 0.00037 0.00061 Mn 0.000895 0.00032 ; Hg 0.00394 0.00112 Ni 0.00025 0.00056 Se 0.00049 - V 0.0000 0.00008 Zn 0.0594 0.0146 Formaldehyde ' 0.07 0.007 PAH 0.0005 0.00004 PCB 0.00001 0.00001 BaP 0.000318 - Chrysene 0.000207 2378TCDD 5.286x10-9 3.34x10-9 2968M a 5-61 I -I Emission data from continuous feed (as opposed to batch feed) stoker-fired units in Chicago, IL; Peekskill, NY; Tulsa, OK; Marion County, OR; Commerce, CA and Wurzburg, LWest Germany indicate that optimum combustion conditions and proper operation of air pollution control devices efficiently destroy organic compounds and capture particulates. Moreover, metals and organics are condensed onto captured particulate surfaces. It is also important to recognize that any material and/or energy recovery system produces a residue that must be disposed of or utilized. Therefore, this issue must be addressed in connection with any proposed alternative, not just with mass burn. Ash from combusted refuse has elevated concentrations of heavy metals relative to uncombusted refuse. This is because the moisture and volatile fractions of the wastestreams are driven off in the furnace, leaving the ash. Approximately ten percent of the ash is collected from the particulate control device which is usually a high efficiency electrostatic precipitator or baghouse. PCDD and PCDF tend to form on the surface of microscopic flyash particles. Flyash typically contains higher concentrations of these materials than bottom ash collected in the furnace/boiler. However, the presence of such contamination is offset by the fact that the ash does not tend to release the pollutants to the environment by leaching mechanisms, due to its high buffering capacity. As a result, numerous tests have shown combined fly ash and bottom ash from an efficiently operated mass burning unit will not release toxic material. The NYSDEC has instituted several programs to investigate reducing the leachability of ash'as well as finding alternatives to landfilling. It is also possible that the implementation of a successful STOP program could reduce levels of metals and toxic organics in ash by reducing the volume of household hazardous waste entering the mass burn incinerator. j 5.5.2 Prepared Waste (RDF) Facilities To date, the environmental or safety track record of the RDF processing facilities placed into operation in the U.S. is not a good one. Numerous documented explosions ind fires coupledwith employee deaths due to such occurrences have given cause for serious concern relative to occupational safety, and facility siting relative to the safety of the surrounding community. z968M 5-62 Systems incorporating high speed shredding or milling processing have a record of susceptibility to the occurrence of explosions and fires within the facility. Major explosions and fires have occurred at facilities in Brockton, Massachusetts; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Akron, Ohio; Baltimore County, Maryland; AIbany, New York; Chemung County, New York; North Hempstead, New York; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Duluth, Minnesota; and Hamilton, Ontario. Both Brockton and Akron explosions resulted in deaths to plant personnel. The usual cause of explosions in these facilities is the shredder, where explosives, paints, gases, fuel oil, high concentrations of dust or other volatile material are subject to the impact of the hammers. However, the Akron, Ohio explosion is reported to have been caused by the ignition of an accumulation of volatile gases released by a shipment of industrial wastes in an inadequately ventilated area of the facility. A report published by the Factory Mutual Insurance Company of Boston evaluated explosions at facilities utilizing shredders. It is estimated that a large shredder processing municipal refuse will annually experience one major and three minor explosions. Design and operational measures can be incorporated into a facility in an attempt to minimize explosions. Liquid and gas suppressant devices are'available which are designed to actuate in response to the initiation of an explosion. However, these measures cannot provide a high level of safety in view of the record of the large number of explosions and fires at these facilities. These explosions have resulted from a variety, of conditions, which are difficult to avoid simultaneously. Arguments made by special interest groups that emissions from facilities firing RDF would be lower than emissions from mass burn systems, have thus far been without substantiation. , A Resource Recovery Facility Emission characterization study was conducted by the NYSDEC. The results appear below: Excess Cancer Risk Plant Location Combustion Type (per million population) Peekskill Stoker fired mass 1-2 burning Albany Refuse derived fuel 3-12 Niagara Falls Refuse derived fuel 11-20 2968M 5-63 As the results show, existing RDF combustion facilities were found to have higher toxic emissions than the as—received MSW mass burning facility in Peekskill, ,NY. The Niagara Falls RDF facility had unacceptably high PCDD emissions. The operators have agreed to undertake a program to identify the cause and reduce those emissions. In contrast to the NYSDEC findings, a study of emiss_ions from the Gallatin, Tennessee rotary combustor facility was performed when the 'plant was burning unprocessed or preprocessed refuse. The preprocessed refuse came from a National Recovery Technologies unit located at the site of the rotary combustor unit. In this study the results were favorable. The emissions analyses showed reduced emissions of certain heavy metals, nonmethane hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, and hydrogen fluoride when burning the preprocessed fuel. Hydrochloric acid emissions were increased. Emissions testing results have been mixed. The relatively small amount of data. on emissions from facilities which fire the refuse derived fuel (RDF) produced by certain front—end processing facilities do not provide strong support for the theoretical expectation that RDF fired systems would have lower emissions than mass burning facilities, due to the removal of noncombustible materials and reduced combustion air requirements associated with RDF and RDF fired facilities respectively. Overall, the emissions expected from well designed and operated RDF and as—received MSW mass burning systems would be expected to be approximately the same. Both systems should be able to consistently meet regulatory-standards. 5.5.3 . Pyrolysis Facilities Operational data from testing of the processes described in Section 5.4.1 are mostly inconclusive. Emissions testing on pyrolysis facilities has been very limited due to the relatively small number of facilities which have operated and because of difficulties in achieving a facility steady state condition essential for obtaining acceptable emissions data. Questions still remain as to the emission levels that would be generated by these plants (including PCDD and PCDF) and the leachability of the char residue. In addition, information as to capital, operational and maintenance costs, reliability, and mechanical availability is, for the most part, not available. 2968M 5-64 6.0 MSW COMPOSTING TECHNOLOGIES Composting involves the controlled application of a biological process in which organic material is decomposed to .a humus—like product. A number of technologies have been developed which utilize composting principles to process mixed municipal solid waste. Application of the technology, however, and the manner in'which the biological process is employed and controlled has been shaped by the industry. The extent to which various preprocessing and postprocessing equipment is used as well as the actual composting method varies widely across the industry. Therefore, vendor specific systems are discussed here to provide a broad view of the, technology. A discussion of the fundamentals of the biological process as it relates to the composting of MSW is presented first in this section. 6.1 Fundamentals of the Biological Process In the composting process microorganisms such as bacteria, fungi and actinomycetes digest the organic matter in the wastestream. In order for the process to proceed rapidly, to produce a desirable end product and to minimize the generation of obnoxious odors the proper physical, chemical and biological environment must be maintained to support the growth of the microorganisms. The principal parameters which must be regulated to provide the proper environment are moisture and oxygen concentration, pH, particle size, composition of the feed,-temperature and frequency and degree of mixing. c Oxygen Typically, anaerobic conditions (without oxygen) are associated with microorganisms which produce foul odors and yield slower rates of decomposition than aerobic microorganisms which thrive in the presence of oxygen. Therefore, as a general guideline, the 02 content of a compost mass must be maintained above 5% to prevent anaerobic activity from developing. Oxygen must be supplied to interstitial spaces as well, to prevent formation of pockets of anaerobic activity in the mass. This may be effected by forced aeration, mixing or turning. However, excess aeration may promote too ,much cooling and evaporation; thereby .resulting in less than ideal temperature and moisture conditions (discussed below). Aeration feedback systems may be employed to regulate oxygen concentrations. 2971M 6-1 Particle Size Particle size may influence the success of the biological process for two reasons: (1) particle size determines the surface area to volume ratio and (2) it affects the amount of void space in the compost mass. A small particle size generally means a greater surface area to volume ratio and since microbial attack occurs on the surface of the waste particles, smaller particles may be decomposed more rapidly. However, smaller particles also tend to pack together more closely, eliminating void space required to permit air to circulate for microbial respiration. Therefore, an optimum particle size may exist. Most MSW composting systems include a front end size reduction and/or classification operation (i.e., screening) to meet particle size requirements. Moisture Ordinarily the moisture content of municipal solid waste is less than 25%, which is not high enough to support rapid growth of the microorganisms responsible for the compost process. Therefore, addition of water is common to all MSW,compost processes. However, excess moisture content may impede oxygen transfer by clogging the interstitial void spaces. A moisture content of 50% to 60% is considered to be ideal. It is critical that as water is added to the substrate it .is thoroughly combined with all portions of the mass so that water is available to support microbial activity throughout the waste. Temperature Under aerobic conditions, as the microorganisms convert organic matter to carbon dioxide, water and humic by—products, heat is released. The heat generated by the decomposition process is usually sufficient to, maintain the optimal 55°C to 75°C temperatures required to support rapid growth as well as destroy undersirable pathogens, since the high water (which possesses a high heat capacity) content of the compost mass and the insulating capacity of the mass itself act to retain the heat. However, frequency of turning, mixing, etc.; the size and shape of the compost mass as well as the rate of forced aeration (if used) will affect the heat retention properties `of the, compost. Typically an optimal temperature range is established and these operating parameters, which affect the rate of heat transfer, are controlled to_maintain the desired range. It is, important to expose all portions of the decomposing mass to temperatures,of 55'C for at least three days to assure adequate destruction of pathogens. 2971M 6-2 H P A pH value of 6 to 8, anywhere between slightly acid and slightly basic, is acceptable. The pH will affect the nutrient availability to. the microorganisms, the solubility (leaching potential) of heavy metals and the the overall metabolic activity of the microorganisms. Typically pH adjustments are, however, not necessary, as organic materials are naturally well buffered. Mixing - In order for the biological process to proceed rapidly and at a uniform rate, throughout the decomposing mass, the waste solids, the liquids and the microorganisms must be well distributed and in intimate contact with each other. This is accomplished by ! effective mixing of the mass as the process proceeds. It. is also crucial to ensure that thorough mixing is performed during initial liquid addition. There exists a wide variety of equipment and methods employed to effect the required mixing. The means used to mix the decomposing mass is often fundamental to the technology and the physical properties of the waste. For example, mixers equipped with a series of rotating paddles or augers are most common for mixing shredded wastes, and in a number of composting technologies which utilize rotary drums, the rotating action of the drum itself serves to mix and shred the waste. Composition of the Feed - Although almost all organic wastes are amenable to composting, microorganisms have certain preferences as to the type of organic matter they will consume. The presence of an adequate food/energy source as well as a balanced amount of nutrients are essential requirements for rapid microbial growth. Carbon is the principal food/energy source consumed by the microorganisms. Nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium must also be available in adequate concentrations as well as a number of other micronutrients. Nutrients other than nitrogen however, are j generally not a limiting factor due to their availability in municipal solid wastes. The carbon-to-nitrogen ratio is considered critical in determining the rate of decomposition, 2971 M 6-3 of MSW. Generally, a ratio lower than 30:1 (carbon:nitrogen) is considered ideal. Since typically carbon:nitrogen ratios for MSW range from 40 to 100, nitrogen rich waste such as animal manure or sewage sludge may be added. Sewage sludges with solids contents of 20% or less also supply the additional moisture required to compost MSW. Composting of two or more wastes with different characteristics, such as the composting of dewatered sewage sludge with MSW, is commonly referred to as cocomposting. 6.2 Systems Description Municipal solid waste composting systems typically include three major steps: (1) preprocessing, (2) microbial decomposition (composting), and (3) curing and additional postprocessing. Preprocessing stages are employed to obtain the desired physical and chemical conditions to promote rapid and effective decomposition. The intent of most postprocessing techniques is to upgrade the quality of the compost product. Preprocessing is performed to remove bulky, hazardous and nondegradable materials in the waste stream, recover recyclable constituents, achieve desired particle size reduction and distribution, and effect thorough mixing of the solid waste and liquid fraction. Separations may be accomplished by hand picking, magnet removal of ferrous metals, air-classification, screening, etc., and particle size 'reduction can be accomplished by tumbling the wastes in rotating drums or by shredding the waste using hammer mills or shear shredders. , Typically the equipment used in these composting preprocessing operations is similar to the equipment found at an RDF processing plant or a materials recovery center, and is discussed in a generic context earlier in this Appendix. The extent to which MSW compost system vendors employ proprietary preprocessing equipment and the various configurations used are discussed in the vendor—by—vendor system descriptions below. Several ' composting technologies are available, some proprietary and some nonproprietary. The technologies vary in the method of air supply, temperature control, mixing/turning methods and process residence time. Capital and operating costs vary as well. In general, however, the objectives are the same: to reduce the volume of the waste in an environmentally acceptable manner and generate a usable compost product. 2971 M 6-4 Composting operations may usually be classified into one of three technologies: i windrow, aerated static pile and in-vessel. The principal characteristics of each of the ! three technologies are discussed below. , i Windrow Composting In composting via the windrow method, materials are placed into rows up to 7 feet - high and 14 to 16 feet wide at the base. The piles are typically trapezoid shaped in cross section, narrower at the top. With the use of a compost turning machine the piles are - turned from one to five times per week, to promote aerobic conditions throughout the pile -� and maintain uniform temperature profiles. Machines equipped with augers, paddles or tines are used for turning the piles. Some windrow turners are capable of adding water to the piles as the turning operation is performed. In small scale operations front-end loaders may be used to turn the piles. The time required for composting using the windrow method ranges from two to six months depending on the characteristics of the waste, frequency of turning and local climatic conditions. This is generally longer than the time required for aerated static pile and in-vessel composting due to the fact that in the- low-tech windrow pile it is more difficult to maintain optimum oxygen supply and temperature conditions continuously. The long residence times dictate high land use requirements. Generally placing the windrow piles under a roof is preferred over out-of-doors composting to prevent free liquid runoff, or leachate, from natural precipitation. Aerated Static Piles Aerated static pile composting has been used extensively for sewage sludge. The process is similar to the windrow method, except air'blown or drawn through the material eliminates the need for pile turning. The piles are placed over a network of pipes which are connected to a blower which is generally controlled by a timer or a temperature feedback system set to maintainoptimumtemperatures. The piles are left•undisturbed for two .to twelve weeks and then the material is usually moved to a curing area for final stabilization and postprocessing if required. In order to ensure that the outer portions of the pile reach the temperatures required for 2971 M 6-5 s pathogen destruction a 6" to 12" blanket of finished compost may be applied to insulate the aerated pile. The quicker turnover time and larger allowable pile sizes associated with the aerated static pile method results in lower land requirements than those for windrow composting. In-Vessel Composting In-vessel composting has been used in European composting operations for many - years. Materials to be composted are placed in a chamber or vessel in which mixing, temperature, oxygen and moisture concentration may be accurately controlled. In-vessel systems, most of which are proprietary, utilize drums, silos, digesters, bins and tunnels, which may be single or multicompartmentalized. In some cases the vessel rotates; in others the vessel is stationary and a mixing mechanism stirs the materials. In-vessel systems may be continuous feed or batch operated. A stabilized product can be achieved in less than one week utilizing in-vessel methods. Although more capital intensive, less land is required than for the open-air = composting procedures; odor problems can be more easily controlled and leachate problems are easily avoided. The amount and type of postprocessing required after the composting stage' is a function of the projected use of the material; the type and extent of preprocessing performed prior to composting; and the compost system utilized. Typically,, postprocessing includes the use of screens, grinders and separators or any combination of this type of equipment to remove inert materials from the organic composted fraction. Postprocessing may also include a final curing step in which microbial activity continues but at a slower rate than during actual composting and a more stable product is obtained. Details on existing,U.S. MSW composting facilities operating and under construction are summarized in Table 6-1. MSW composting is an emerging technology in this country and presently there is not a great deal of data available on operating experience, environmental impacts, and economic viability of these systems. Although European operating experience is more extensive for this technology, differences in waste stream composition make it difficult to draw direct comparisons. 2971 M 6-6 TABLE 6-1' PARTIAL LISTING OF DOMESTIC MSW COMPOSTING FACILITIES OPERATING AND UNDER CONSTRUCTIONI,2 a Design Capacity (Tons MSW/Day) Vendor Operational: Big Sandy, TX 35 Bedminster Bioconversion Corp. Fillmore County, MN 30 County Portage, WI 20 City -, St. Cloud, MN 50 Recomp, Inc. Sumter County, FL 200 Ecological Technologies, Inc. - Wilmington, DE 330 Compost Systems Company { Under Construction: Dade County, FL 800 Agripost, Inc. f Des Moines, IA 85 Trash Reduction Systems, Inc. Portland, OR 600 Resource Systems Corp. Proposed on Long Island Town of Southold3 168 Daneco, Inc. Town of Brookhaven4 150 1. SRMG, Inc.; June 1989 2. Goldstein, N., Key Issues in Solid Waste Composting, Biocycle, Jan. 1989. 3. Includes capacity for sludge and MSW. Project voted down in Town referendum. 4. A Draft Request for Proposals was issued by the Town of Brookhaven on January 31, 1990 for the procurement of a project which will employ front-end processing, MSW composting and energy recovery. The MSW composting plant throughput capacity represents approximately 10% of the solid waste processing capacity being procured for the Brookhaven facility. 2971 M 6-7 6.3 Systems Vendors Table 6-2 presents a list of vendors located in the U.S. which are currently marketing systems or supplying equipment for composting the mixed municipal solid waste stream. Available information on several of these vendors is summarized in the descriptions which follow. Attention has been given to determining the configuration of pre- and postprocessing lines;�the method of composting employed; capacity of systems; financing capabilities of vendors; and the extent of U.S. operating experience and experience in developing projects in this country. Information was obtained through personal communications, vendor literature, conference proceedings and trade journals. l Agripost, Inc. Agripost, Inc. is an independent, publicly traded company, incorporated under the laws of the State of Florida in 1978, located in Pompano Beach, Florida, which is engaged exclusively in the business of developing, building and operating municipal solid waste composting projects. Although Agripost does not have any operating facilities, the company is currently constructing a solid waste composting facility in Dade County, Florida with a design capacity of 250,000 tons per year. The facility is expected to be in full-scale operation by early 1990. According to literature furnished by Agripost„ Inc., raw MSW delivered either by collection vehicles or transfer trucks to the Dade County facility will be emptied onto a tipping floor inside the Agripost solid waste composting plant. After removing unshreddable and hazardous waste, the waste will be conveyed to primary and secondary shredders; and subsequently, a proprietary bacterial enzyme formula will be added. The windrow method will be utilized; the piles will be formed_in a large building and turned as needed. Temperatures within the windrows will be maintained between 130'f and 175°F and within a month of waste delivery, Agripost, .Inc. reports, the composting period will be complete and the product delivered to a tertiary shredder for further size reduction. After the third shredding stage the material will be screened, and oversized material recycled back into the process. The shredders, conveyors and screens employed by Agripost will be purchased "off-the-shelf"(from equipment manufacturers. z971M .6-8 TABLE 6-2 MSW COMPOST SYSTEMS VENDORS Vendor Location Technology Agripost Pompano Beach, FL Agripost process Bedminster Bioconversion Corp. Cherry Hill, NJ Eweson Digester Buhler-Miag, Inc. Minneapolis, MN Buhler System of Solid Waste Composting Compost Systems Co. Cincinnati, OH Fairfield Composting Process Daneco; Inc. New York, NY Daneco Ecological Technologies Inc. Fort Worth, TX BDX Process Environmental Recovery Systems, Denver, CO ERS System Inc. Harbert/Triga Birmingham, AL Triga System Recomp, Inc. Bloomington, MN Eweson Digester Resource Systems Corp. Portland, OR Dano 2971M 6-9 Agripost claims that as a result of the shredding and compost process, waste will be completely transformed to a soil conditioner. The literature states that, "The organic materials are converted into humus through aerobic bacterial digestion, the metals, are converted into small-grained oxides and the remaining materials (e.g., glass and plastic) are ground into fine, sand-like particles. The process reduces the weight of the incoming MSW by approximately 30% (due primarily to moisture loss) and reduces volume by 75% to 90%..." Agripost will accept all MSW materials except bulky, toxic or hazardous materials at the Dade County facility. The $25 million processing facility funded through a combination of private equity, and $18.8 million of private debt provided by National Westminster Bank USA and Dresdner Bank AG, is being built on a 20-acre site. Dade County will pay Agripost $24 for each ton of garbage accepted at the facility. Agripost is prepared to finance additional facilities entirely through private financing. At the Dade County facility the company itself will manage the marketing of the compost product, and will keep the revenues. Bedminster Bioconversion Corp. Literature supplied by Bedminster Bioconversion Corp. introduces the company as a municipal solid waste and liquid waste disposal company which constructs and owns plants which will be operated under long-term contracts on a "put or pay" basis with local municipalities. Bedminster, founded in 1981, owns the rights to the Eweson digester technology, a proprietary, patented composting process. The first Eweson digester, sized to conduct research studies, was installed in 1971 at Ambassador College, Big Sandy, Texas, and is in operation today. 13edminster recently entered into a full-service contract with the City of Brooksville in Hernando County,, Florida to process the City's solid waste (approximately 100 tons per day) and sewage sludge. A 50 ton/day Eweson digester is currently operating in St. Cloud, Minnesota (see Recomp, Inc. below). } According to the company's literature, 'Bedminster's preprocessing line includes hand sorting and magnetic separation. The Eweson digester is a long (horizontal) rotary. drum digester (typically 12 feet in diameter by 120 feet long). It is divided into three 2971M 6-10 compartments and rotated by an electrically driven bullgear. The tumbling action within the drum tears open plastic bags and shears other plastic and paper products. Air is circulated counter-current to the direction of material flow. Waste is fed into the first compartment by a hydraulic ram and sewage sludge is added to bring the moisture content up to about 50% producing an overall carbon:nitrogen feed ratio of 35:1 or less. As air passes through the second and third compartments, it is heated by the microbial process. Temperatures in the first compartment reach 160°F. The high temperatures act to soften the materials in the first compartment which are subject to internal projections as the tumbling action proceeds, exposing more surface area to the microbial population. After one to two days, the bulk of the material is transferred to the second compartment, where bacterial degradation continues. This compartment is charged with an inoculum and again after one to two days the waste is transferred to the third compartment, where some drying occurs due to the contact with forced dry air. Material emerging from the third chamber is screened to remove inorganics (20 to 30 percent) and the fines are placed in aerated piles for two weeks, after which a final fine screening is performed. The minimum size of the Bedminster System is 50 tons/day, the maximum is 300. Bedminster's target markets, according to the literature, are municipalities with populations between 10,000 and 100,000. Bedminster did not provide any data on its financing capabilities: Buhler-1Vliag, Inc. Buhler-Miag, Inc. is a privately held subsidiary of the Swiss firm Buhler Brothers, Ltd:, with U.S. corporate headquarters in Minneapolis, primarily involved in designing and manufacturing equipment, systems and plants for the processing industries. Until recently, the Buhler-Miag composting system was marketed through Reuter, Inc.; however, in November 1988 the company terminated its agreement with Reuter, and Wheelabrator Technologies,�Inc. of Danvers, Massachusetts is currently the exclusive U.S. distributor of Buhler-Miag's front-end solid waste processing, recycling and composting systems. 2971 M 6-11 Currently, there is no operating Buhler-Miag MSW composting facility in the U.S. Facilities in various stages of negotiation, design and permitting include Nantucket, Massachusetts; Broward County, Florida and Wright County, Minnesota. In a response to a Request for Qualifications submitted to Wright County, the company indicated that Buhler-Miag has participated in the design, construction and equipment supply of over 100 solid waste processing facilities worldwide over the past thirty years, and cites the Falkenberg, Sweden facility as a reference plant which reportedly processed 25,000 metric tons of residential and commercial waste in 1986. Prior to the actual composting stage, the preprocessing line includes the following operations: (1) visual screening for nonprocessible and hazardous waste, (2) hammer mill shredding for size reduction, (3) magnet removal of ferrous metals, (4) mixing/screening drum for homogenizing the shredded MSW and mixing in water or sludge. The preprocessed feed is brought to a covered hangar and piled on an aerated slab; a windrow turning machine is used to agitate, mix and move the compost inside the hangar during a six to twelve week composting period. Subsequently, the compost is again screened and may be passed through a ballistic separator to remove inert materials such as glass particles and stones: Buhler=Miag states that the process can reclaim recyclable materials such as corrugated paper, plastic, aluminum and ferrous metals, and anticipates that approximately 35% of the waste received_ will be rejected for landfilling. The minimum size of the system is 50 tons/day; the maximum capacity is 700. Buhler-Miag indicates in its response to the Wright County RF.Q that the facility, sized to process 41,600 tons per year, would require a minimum site size of 10 acres,- to accommodate three major structures. A fully enclosed,tipping hall and the preprocessing equipment would be housed in one building. The second building, a covered, ventilated airplane-like hangar is where the preprocessed MSW would be formed into aerated piles for composting and the third major structure would house the postprocessing, screening and destoning equipment. Compost Systems Company Compost Systems Company located in Cincinnati, Ohio manufactures and markets the Fairfields Systems technology used to compost refuse and refuse-sludge mixtures. The Delaware Reclamation Plant, the first large scale MSW composting facility constructed in the U.S., utilizes four Fairfield units to compost a mixture of 330 tons per day of refuse and 350 tons per day of sewage sludge. 2971M 6-12 Completed in 1985, the Wilmington, Delaware facility is highly mechanized and designed to produce RDF as well as an organic fraction for composting. Through a '- complex network, the refuse is shredded and air classified into separate components. The metal and glass recovered is sold as recyclable products. The organics, plastics, and paper either are used as refuse derived fuel (RDF) or, if the moisture content is too high, mixed with sewage sludge and composted into a humus material. 'r I The Fairfield digester consists of a covered, circular container. Aeration augers are suspended from a bridge, which rotates around the top of the container walls. The waste ' materials are aerated and moved toward the center discharge point by action of the augers. The speed of rotation of the augers controls the digestion time. Normal retention of the mass is 5 to 7 days. The ratio of air classified MSW to sludge is 1 to 0.7 in this facility. As the cocompost material is removed from the digesters, it is again screened to remove any noncompostable plastics and other unwanted materials. This final product is then either sold as a soil amendment or fed back into the furnaces as a source of fuel. 1 According to a report in a recent issue of Biocycle Magazine, CSC offers a more simplified line for MSW composting as follows: The material is dumped onto the tipping floor, goes through a bag slitter and then on a conveyor to a hand—picking table, where recyclables (aluminum, nonferrous, glass) are removed (about 10 percent of the incoming waste stream). The remaining material is shredded and then passes through a magnetic separator. Prior to composting, it goes through a secondary shredder and then is screened to a size of one to two inches in a rotating disc screen. Sludge can be added prior to composting. Between 40 percent and 80 percent of the incoming waste stream actually goes into the composting reactor, and consists primarily of paper,wood, yard waste, food waste, mixed combustibles and corrugated board. The length o the composting process is 14 to 21 days in the vessel, followed by 30 days in curing piles. The material goes through a half—inch screen prior to curing. Reportedly, the amount of residuals that need to be landfilled after composting is 17 percent. The minimum size of a CSC system is five tons/day; the maximum is over 2,00A. tons/day. _ 2971 M 6-13 Daneco, Inc. Daneco is an Italian company which began marketing its MSW/sludge composting system in the U.S'. in mid-1988. According to literature provided by the company, as of May 1989, Daneco had constructed three operating MSW composting facilities in Italy and three operating facilities in the U.A.E. Additionally, two• more facilities are reportedly under construction in Italy and one in Lebanon. In the U.S. the company has been chosen as the preferred vendor for the construction of a 168 ton per day MSW composting facility in Southold, NY and is a finalist for a recycling/composting project to be located in San Diego, California. The Daneco preprocessing line begins with a hammer mill shredder followed by a trommel screen. The smaller fraction is conveyed past an electromagnetic separator and passed through a second trommel screen; the larger sized materials are rejected. Subsequently a second trommel screen is employed; the large fraction is passed onto a*wet separator where aggregate (i.e., glass, grit, etc.) and metals are removed from the process line. The light materials from the wet separator are recombined with the smaller fraction and mixed with dewatered sludge. Composting takes place in an indoor aerated static pile: An alternating negative and positive ventilating system is used and water is applied by an overhead spraying system. Piles are turned after two weeks and after two more weeks the compost is relocated to a curing area for 2 to 3 months. Postprocessing consists of shredding and screening to remove oversize nondegradable materials such as plastics. For the Southold project, Daneco anticipates that approximately 30% of the waste received at the facility will be rejected to the landfill. The company would be responsible for marketing the compost and the municipality would pay fo'r construction and a fixed _ operations and maintenance fee after facility acceptance. Ecological Technologies, Inc. Ecological Technologies, Inc. (Ecotech) located in Fort Worth, Texas markets the USWRS Process for municipal solid waste composting. , The USWRS Process is owned by. U.S. Waste Recovery Systems, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of U.S. Waste Group. The USWRS Process is utilized at the Sumter County, Florida facility, a 200 ton per day (design capacity) MSW composting plant that began operating in mid-1988. 297 1 M 6-14 i According to literature provided by the company, the preprocessing line at the Sumter County facility is housed in an approximately 14,000 .sq.ft. metal building. Approximately 100 tons of garbage per day is currently received at the facility where ' --i incoming refuse is dumped onto a concrete floor and then moved by forklift to an adjacent pit area. Large nonprocessible objects are removed by hand and the waste is conveyed to a single rotor flail mill that opens up bags and boxes of garbage which pass through a j I magnetic separator to remove ferrous metals. Next, the garbage is conveyed past four hand sorters where recyclable aluminum and glass as well as other undesirable objects are screened out. The conveyor belt then moves the garbage into a double rotor flail mill which breaks the refuse into one to three inch particles. The ground garbage is dumped off the conveyor into a truck and transported to a composting pad where windrows 250 feet long, 12 feet wide and 5 feet high are formed by i a Scarab windrow machine. The windrows are innoculated with a starter material and monitored by inserted metal temperature probes. Three to five weeks are allowed for j ) composting; during which temperatures average 150°F. Apparently, finished compost piles are screened in the final stages of processing, however, no details are provided in the ° literature. Materials to be landfilled include oversized material and inerts left over after the compost has been screened. Reportedly,*these constitute 6% to 15% of the original _l MSW volume. I - The company brochure states that USWRS will provide engineering, construction and start-up turnkey service, and can provide financing assistance. Systems sized from 100 tons per day up are available. Environmental Recovery Systems, Inc. Environmental Recovery Systems, Inc. (ERS) of Denver, Colorado, founded in 1985, is actively marketing an MSW recycling/composting technology which it claims, in literature provided by the Company, requires no landfill. The company is .developing projects in Danbury and Durham Connecticut, and states that they are willing to build a waste processing plant entirely at their own expense, with no capital expenditure required by the municipality. The system, according to the literature, has been "thoroughly engineered by Morrison-Knudsen Engineers, Inc."; and, Marsh and McLennan insurance brokers have been retained by the company to provide system performance insurance. 2971M 6-15 In the ERS process, waste is dumped onto a tipping floor where sorters open bags and remove unacceptable materials and corrugated cardboard which is baled for recycling. The waste is then moved onto conveyors through a screening process to a sorting table where plastics, nonferrous metals and redeemables such as aluminum cans and bottles are removed. Ferrous metals are then pulled off the conveyor by a magnetic separator and the waste proceeds to a shredding mill, a second magnetic separator pulls out any remaining ferrous, and next the waste is moved to a vibrating screen conveyor where, reportedly, oversized materials such as grass and leaves are removed to be composted. The oversized material waterfalls off of the vibrating screen conveyor onto the composting conveyor and, according to the literature, while the waste is suspended,in the air a pneumatic conveyance separator pulls out the paper. The remaining waste along with smalls which passed through the vibrating screen are placed in long (hundreds of feet) windrows approximately eighteen feet wide and seven to eight feet tall. The composting period is three to six weeks. The mature compost is run through a screening process and then moved through another shredding mill. Harbert-Triga Harbert-Triga is a general partnership, formed in 1985, between a wholly-owned subsidiary of Harbert International, Inc. of Birmingham, Alabama and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the French based solid waste handling company Sita, S.A. Triga, S.A. headquartered in Paris, France, is a subsidiary of Sita, which according to literature provided by the company has developed more than 100 sorting, composting and incineration plants throughout the world. The literature reports that Harbert/Triga was formed for the exclusive purpose of designing, constructing, owning and operating waste processing facilities in the United States. Triga's-most recently installed composting plant was built in Brazil, with a capacity of 600 TPD, including material recovery capacity. The facility, includes two process lines with design capacities of 300 tons per day, operating two shifts per day. c To begin the process, waste hauling trucks bring raw MSW to the facility and dump it into a large pit in the receiving area. t:grapple crane removes -the waste from the pit and loads it into one of two feed hoppers. The MSW then enters a trommel where bags are 2971 M 6-16 - opened and the refuse is sorted through six-inch by nine-inch rectangular holes. Oversized material that will not fall through the holes is discharged from the end of the -- trommel onto a conveyor belt and is hand sorted to remove larger plastic containers, corrugated cardboard, aluminum containers, and mixed paper. Smaller sized material that drops through the trommel holes falls through hoppers under the trommel onto conveyor belts. This stream contains the compostable organic portion of the waste stream as well as some smaller recyclables. The stream passes initially under an oversize belt magnet separator to remove ferrous metal; then the remaining material moves onto a ballistic sorting device that separates heavier/harder items (glass, cans, and so forth) from the lighter/soft organic items (food waste, paper, '-1 etc.). The heavy rebounding material drops onto a conveyor belt where aluminum, plastic items and glass are manually picked out, and the remainder—mostly small pieces of- plastic, glass or other containers contaminated with other refuse, plates, etc.—is sent to the landfill. The lighter, adherent organic stream from the bounce and adherence device is shredded, then passed under a second belt magnet for secondary ferrous removal. Film plastic also is separated with a pneumatic vacuum collection system. All remaining material in the organic stream is conveyed to vertical concrete towers for composting. In Triga's proprietary system, compostable material is added at the top of the first tower and works its way down to the bottom while being aerated. Partially fermented material is periodically removed from the bottom of the first tower by an extractor, which mixes and agitates the material. The material is then added to the top of the next chamber. The process is repeated through as many as six chambers. Vacuum pumps for each tower continuously draw air up through the material. The temperature in the compost, near 65 degrees Celsius, is controlled by regulating air flow. The compost process at the Brasilia facility takes approximately six days to complete. At this point, the compost material is sent out to the curing areas, where it is cured in windrows for an additional 30 to 60 days. At the end of the curing phase, the compost is screened, shredded, then put through a final trommel screening process where it is sorted into three streams—fine, medium, and oversized and offered for sale. 297 1 M 6-17 Harbert/Trigs reports that 53 to 57 percent of Brasilia's incoming MSW is processed by composting and estimates that in a U.S. application, where the composition of the waste stream is substantially different, 70% of incoming MSW could be recovered through r recycling and composting. According to the literature, the company is offering to provide full design, construction, start—up, operating and maintenance services to municipalities. Recomp, Inc. Recomp is licensed by Bedminster Bioconversion to market the Eweson technology (described earlier) in some western states. The company is currently operating a 50 ton/day cocomposting project in St. Cloud, Minnesota which began operating under Recomp's ownership in April 1988. The incoming waste stream goes through a presort process on the tipping floor, then goes through a bag splitter and into a trommel screen that separates the light and heavy fraction. The recyclable materials are pulled out by hand—sorting, and the remaining material (except for ferrous pulled out by magnetic separation) gets mixed with sludge and is loaded into the digester. The mixture is about 75 percent MSW and 25 percent sludge with a solids content of about five percent. The rotating action of the digester as described earlier accelerates breakdown of the materials. The digester operates on a three to four day batch cycle. Digester output is immediately screened to 1 1/2" by a trommel screen, (oversized objects are landfilled) and ,then sent to a curing pad. About 65 percent of the incoming waste stream actually goes into the composting system; the feedstock consists primarily of food waste, paper, glass, yard waste and some plastic, nonferrous metal, and textiles. After the material is cured for 2-3 weeks, it goes through a final screen to meet desired specifications. The percent of residuals that need to be landfilled after composting is 30 percent. The minimum size of the system is 50. tons/day; the maximum recommended capacity is 250 tons/day. In literature provided by the Company, Recomp indicates that if will provide full design, construction, permitting, financing and marketing services as well as retain ownership of its facilities. 2971M 6-18 Resource Systems Corporation/Riedel Environmental Technologies, Inc. Resource Systems Corporatibn (RSC) of Portland, Oregon and Riedel Environmental Technologies, Inc. are co-licensees -in the .United States for the Swiss Dano MSW composting system, which is also marketed in Minnesota by Waste Processing Corporation of Bloomington. Literature provided by Resource Systems Corporation states that Dano technology has been installed in more than 100 operating plants around the world. According to RSC, negotiations to construct a 600 ton per day facility in Portland are complete, construction has begun and the plant is expected to be on-line by early 1991. The City of Portland is obligated to deliver 185,000 tons per year of solid waste to the facility and will pay $42 for each ton processed (subject to price index increases). RSC'indicated that they are also close to finalizing negotiations for development of an MSW composting facility in the,City of San Diego. In the Dano facilities, garbage is received on an enclosed concrete tipping floor where -oversized items are first removed and 'the waste is pushed onto a conveyor'by front-end loaders. A magnetic separator pulls off ferrous materials, and recyclable items such as glass, paper, plastics, aluminum and other nonferrous metals are hand picked from each s de of a four-foot wide belt conveyor. The remaining waste enters the charging hopper of the Dano drum, where it is pulverized for six to eight hours. The Dano drum is 12 feet in diameter and 80 feet long and rotates at 2-3 RPM. According to RSC, water (or sludge) is injected at a ratio of approximately 100 gallons per ton of MSW. Hard items in the drum such as rocks and bricks act (as balls do in a ball mill) to pulverize the water softened paper and other organic items. After the organic material-has been ground to a pulp, and reaches the discharge end of the drum, big rotating screens separate off large, mostly inorganic items, which are landfilled. The pulp is conveyed to an outdoor concrete aeration slab with internal ducts where it is placed in piles six to eight feet high. Moist air is pumped through the ducts to slots in the floor where it is expelled upward through the piles. Following 3-weeks on the aeration slab, the material is moved to static maturation beds for an additional three weeks. The compost is then conveyed to a final fine screen to remove pebbles, bottle caps, and other small inorganic items. RSC has guaranteed the City of Portland that only 35% of the MSW received at the facility will be rejected to a landfill. 2971 M 6-19 6.4 Environmental Considerations NYCRR Subpart 360-5 regulates the construction and operation of solid waste - composting facilities 'in New York State. In addition to meeting the operational requirements for all solid waste management facilities set forth in Section 360-1.14, mixed solid waste composting processes, in accordance with subdivision 360-5.3(a), must utilize one of three acceptable methods as prescribed, to reduce pathogens. Processes utilizing the windrow composting method must maintain aerobic conditions, and a minimum of five turnings is required during a period-of 15 consecutive days when the temperature is not less than 55°C within 6 to 8 inches below the surface of the pile. Using the aerated static pile method, the compost pile must be insulated and a temperature of not less than 55°C must be maintained throughout the_compost pile for at least three consecutive days. Similarly, if enclosed vessel composting methods are used, a temperature of not less than 55'C must be maintained throughout the mixture for three consecutive days., Additionally, composting ,facilities are required to have daily temperature monitoring systems to ensure the above criteria are met, provisions to minimize leachate releases, and must meet minimum horizontal separation distances from residences, businesses, potable water supply wells and surface waters. The compost product will be categorized Class I or Class II depending on quality, and, allowable product uses will be determined accordingly. Under the regulations Class I compost must not contain contaminants in levels greater than those indicated below. Concentration Parameter oom, dry wt. Mercury 10 Cadmium 10 - Nickel 200 Lead 250 Chromium — total 1000 Copper 1000 Zinc 2500 PCBs — total 1 Furthermore, particle size of Class I compost must not exceed 10 millimeters and it must be produced from a composting process having a minimum detention time (including active composting and curing) of 50 days. Class H compost must not exceed a particle 2971 M 6-20 J • it size of 25 millimeters, must be produced from a composting process with a minimum detention time of 50 days, and must not have contaminant concentrations greater than the levels identified below. Maximum Concentration Parameter ppm, dry wt. Mercury (Hg) 10 Cadmium (Cd) 25 Nickel (Ni) 200 Copper (Cu) 1000 Lead (Pb) 1000 Chromium (Cr) 1000 Zinc (Zn) 2500 Total PCBs 10 According to the regulations, Class I compost "...must not be used on crops grown for direct 'human consumption (i.e., crops consumed by humans without processing to minimize pathogens before distribution to the consumer); and can be distributed for use by the public, used on food chain crops and other agricultural and horticultural uses..." Class II compost "...must be restricted to use on nonfood chain crops." As indicated by the scope of the regulations, product contamination is a primary potential environmental impact associated with MSW compost processes, as is potential damage due to process runoff entering ground and surface waters. The concentrations of contaminants in the compost product will depend to a large extent on the composition of the feed (MSW and sewage sludge, if utilized) which in turn will depend to some extent on the degree of separation (removal of metals, toxics, etc.) during preprocessing. -Available data on product contaminant concentrations is scarce due to limited operating experience. Table 6-3 presents results of analytical tests performed on compost produced at Big Sandy, Texas in the Eweson digester; the Agripost, Inc. facility in Dade County, Florida; and, at Fillmore County Resource Recovery Center. The produce tested at Big Sandy was produced from sandbed dried sludge provided by a wastewater treatment plant, liquid brewery sludge and municipal solid waste. The contaminant concentrations presented for the Agripost MSW compost are the results of analytical testing performed by Environmental Laboratories Inc., of Glen Cove, New York on a sample collected at the Dade County facility by Dvirka, and Bartilucci personnel in January, 1990. The Fillmore 2971M, 6-21 Table 6-3 RESULTS OF ANALYTICAL TESTS 014 COMPOST PRODUCT l - mg/kg (unless noted otherwise) Parameter Big Sandy, TXr Fillmore County. MN2 Agrinost. Inc.3 Mercury 0.094 N.A. 5.4 Cadmium 12.5 2.3 3.3 Nickel 21.9 34.0 29.3 Lead 334.0 197.0 351.0 . Chromium 5.6 64.0 41.3 Copper 224.0 122.0 28.0 Zinc 650.0 487.0 N.A. PCBs N.A. N.A. 1.94 Total Solids 55.6% N.A. N.A. N.A. - Not Available 1. "Eweson Digester Cocomposting Process Monitoring Report for Bedminster Bioconversion Corporation," updated June 1989, WRc Inc./Guarino Engineers. 2. Craig, Norman L., "Case Study: Low-Tech Composting - Fillmore County," Conference on Composting and Recycling of Solid Waste, Madison, WI, August, 1989. 3. Sample collected January; 1990 by Dvirka and Bartilucci and analysis by Environmental Laboratories Inc., Glen Cove, New York. 2971M 6-22 r -� County results represent the average for fifteen samples analyzed during the first year of operation (1988). The Fillmore County facility is a low-tech labor-intensive project; recyclable glass, aluminum, cardboard, tin, newsprint and plastic are hand sorted and ferrous metals are removed by a magnetic separator prior to composting the MSW in i windrows. i In addition to the parameters in Table 6-3, the Agripost, Inc. sample was tested for higher heating value and foreign matter content (glass, metal, plastic, etc.). The results for these parameters were 2,819 Btu/lb and 15.7%, respectively. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services has expressed a particularly strong concern for the potential leaching of contaminants from MSW compost applied to lands over Long Island's deep flow recharge zones. In correspondence dated May 2, 1990 addressed to Mr. Harold Berger, Regional Direction of the NYSDEC (Stony Brook), the commissioner of the Department of Health Services (Dr. David Harris) wrote: I � D "Article 7 of the sanitary code restricts the storage and _ disposal of hazardous substances in a deep recharge area, and this process [MSW composting] and its end product may fall L squarely under the provisions of this article. We recognize that the garbage material being composted may contain toxic materials; it stands to reason that the end product, the compost, may also contain similar materials. Therefore, compost would be considered a hazardous waste subject to the provisions of Article 7." In response to this concern Daneco, Inc. has provided the Department (through written correspondence dated July 11, 1990) with the results of E.P. Toxicity Tests performed by HZM Labs, Inc-of Melville, New York on MSW compost ". . . produced by, the solid waste composting facility designed, built and operated by Daneco and located in Piere de Coriano, Italy (north central)." The data is reproduced in Table 6-3A, along with County, State and-Federal water standards, as provided by Daneco. As can be seen, the i results/are below the standards. How well these results would correspond with the results of E.P. Toxicity Tests performed on compost produced from local MSW; however, is indeterminable. At this time, it is apparent that any public or private entity proposing to construct a MSW compost facility would be advised to consult with the Department of Health Service early in the planning process. - _ 1 297 1 M 6-23 i Table 6-3A E.P. Toxicity Test Resultsl Daneco Compost NYSDEC NYSDOH Daneco Compost Groundwater Drinking Water Parameter E.P. Toxicity2 USEPA MCLS Standard4 Standards Mercury <.0002 .002 .002 .002 Cadmium <.005 .01 .01 .01 Nickel <0.04 — — — Lead <.025 .05 .025 .05 Chromium <0.01 .05 .056 .05 Copper 0.07 — 1.0 1.0 Zinc 0:09 — 5.0 5.0 1 Results in mg/l or ppm except as noted. 2 Material tested by 112M Labs, Inc. 3 United State Environmental Protection Agency, maximum contaminant levels for drinking water, 40 CRF 144.11 (effective May 2, 1986) and 40 CFR 141.62 (effective October 2, 1987). 4 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Groundwater Quality Standards, 6 NYCRR 703.5, revised July 24, 1985. 5 New York State Department of Health, Public Water Systems maximum contaminant levels, 10 NYCRR 5-1.52 (effective November 28, 1988). 6 Guidance values are given where no standards exist. No data available. _ I 2971M 6-24 it Dust, particulate and odor releases from MSW composting facilities may also be environmentally offensive. Odors unique to the process are generated if the material is i - allowed to decompose under anaerobic conditions (as discussed earlier) instead of aerobic conditions, whereby hydrogen sulfide gas (H2S) is produced. Moreover, if the compost products are not completely stabilized prior to use, anaerobic decomposition will occur and odor problems will exist. Potential adverse health impacts may affect those ,involved both directly and indirectly with the use and production of compost products due to exposure to a variety of microorganisms which may present problems ranging from allergic reactions to respiratory infections. Again, however, few studies have been performed to thoroughly quantify these potential effects at MSW composting facilities. The main microorganism of concern is A. fumigatis, a fungus which causes a _ respiratory disease known as Aspergillosis. This microorganism as well as other secondary pathogens found at compost facilities are ubiquitous in the environment and are very common in agricultural situations. The intent of the Part 360 'regulations for facility operations (temperature and residence times cited above) is in part to reduce microbial pathogens during the compost process. A review of available literature indicates the concensus is that exposure to the materials presents no major threat of infection or serious reaction to healthy individuals. The long—term effects of exposure, however, are unknown at this time. The potential`hazards associated with particle size reduction equipment used in the preprocessing lines of a number of the MSW composting systems currently being marketed in'this country are discussed under the mechanical processing section of this Appendix. 6.5 Economic Considerations Available data on capital costs associated with MSW composting facilities in operation and under construction in the U.S is presented in Table 6-4 along with annual" operations and maintenance costs reported for operating facilities. As can be seen costs vary widely. This is due in part to differences in technology. However, capital cost per, installed ton of daily capacity of the Dade County facility and Portland facility (both_ currently under construction) at $31,000 and $30,000-32,000, respectively, are very close. 2971M 6-25 r i Table 6-4 CAPITAL AND OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE COSTS AT DOMESTIC MSW COMPOSTING FACILITIES OPERATING AND UNDER CONSTRUCTIONI Design Capacity Capital Annual (Tons MSW/day) Cost O&M Operational: Big Sandy, TX 35 N.A. N.A. Fillmore County, MN 30 709,3252 25220002 Portage, WI 20 1,100,0003 9397002 St. Cloud, MN 50 3,159,0004 472,0004 Sumter County, FL 200 N.A. N.A. Delaware Reclamation Plant 330 73,000,0005 12,028,0006 Under Construction: Dade County, FL 800 259000,0004 — Des Moines, IA 85 N.A. — Portland, OR 600 18-19MM4 — j 1. Annual O&M does-not include landfill costs or debt service 2. 1988 dollars 3. 1986 dollars 4. 1989 dollars 5. 1984 dollars 6. 1985 dollars Sources Fillmore: Craig, Norman, L.; "Case Study: Low-Tech Composting - Fillmore County'; Conference on Composting and Recycling of Solid Waste; Madison Wisconsin; August 1989. Portage: Pinion, T.; "Case Study: In-Vessel Composting - City of Portage"; Conference on Composting and Recycling of Solid Waste; Madison, Wisconsin; August 19$9. St. Cloud: Recomp, Inc.; "Recomp, Inc. Resource Recovery CoComposting Facilities"; 1989. Numbers represent estimates provided by Recomp, Inc. for 50 TPD facility. Delaware Reclamation Plant: Vasuki, et al.; "Delaware Reclamation Project"; Journal of Resource Management and Technology; January 1983. Dade County: Boca Raton News, November 20, 1988. Portland: Personal Communication. 2971M 6-26 6.6 Yard Waste Composting In general, yard waste composting may be accomplished by applying relatively simple operating principles and utilizing low-tech equipment. In fact, this activity has been,successively carried out on a small scale by individual homeowners and farmers for centuries. The biological process is identical to that employed in MSW composting and the same fundamental principles apply. Since separation of yard' waste can be effectively achieved at the source by homeowners, groundskeepers, landscapers, etc., preprocessing at municipal yard waste composting facilities typically consists of no more than visual screening and manual '._ removal of unacceptable waste, followed by optional size reduction through shredding. Grass clippings and leaves, as well as chipped brush all may be composted utilizing the windrow method; however, it is preferable to compost each of these materials in separate piles since they decompose at different rates; and to obtain the best product, different pile dimensions, turning frequencies and residence times should be applied to each. Equipment selection will depend on the quantity of waste being processed and the " desired product quality. A simple mulch bulking agent can be produced utilizing only a - front-end loader and tub grinder, whereas production of a high quality peat moss or top soil amendment would require a shredder and trommel or vibrating screen for final post _ processing. Quality control may be improved by employing a temperature probe,- pH j meter, oxygen meter, and moisture indicator to monitor and maintain optimal conditions. Site size requirements are dependent on projected processing requirements and the composting methedology to be applied. Generally, one acre should be allocated" to each 3000 cubic yards of materials to be windrowed. And, a buffer zone of up to 1.5 miles from residences is recommended (especially if grass clippings are to be composted). An adequate water supply is required to maintain moisture levels and should be continuously available for fire-fighting. Very gentle grades, a low water table and well drained and rapidly permeable soils will alleviate potential run-off ponding. 2971 M 6-27 7.0 OTHER WASTE REDUCTION TECHNOLOGIES 7.1 Hydrolysis (Refuse-to-Ethanol) _ L Following the 1978 energy crisis in this country, much attention has been given to the production of ethanol from cellulose wastes. The combustible-fraction of municipal ' solid waste, with its cellulose content, has been viewed as a potential feedstock in the enzyme hydrolysis production of ethanol. In a 1980 report, prepared for the National Alcohol Fuels Commission, a typical refuse-to-ethanol process was described and assessed. This process would involve eight individual steps: o A front-end separation process - 0 Feedstock storage and preparation o Enzyme production o Simultaneous saccharification and fermentation o Solids separation o Distillation o Alcohol dehydration o Evaporation. The front-end separation, while not specifically addressed in the report prepared for the National Alcohol Fuels Commission, could be similar to that as described earlier in this overview (Section 4). Figure 7-1 indicates the RDF feedstock storage and preparation process. .Figure 7-2 shows the enzyme production part of the process. Figure 7-3 indicates the simultaneous saccharification and fermentation part of the process. Figure 7-4 indicates the solids separation portion of the process. Figure 7-5 indicates the distillation portion of the process. Figure 7-6 indicates the dehydration portion of the process._ Figure 7-7 indicates the evaporation portion of the process. In addition to the processes described above, a steam generating facility would also be required in I order to meet the requirements of the ethanol producing- facility. According to the report prepared for the National Alcohol Fuels Commission, the dried organic residues from the ethanol producing-facility would supply more than enough boiler fuel to.generate the steam required by the ethanol manufacturing facilities. 2972M 7-1 The report addressed a 5 million gallon per year facility as a base analysis. Information provided in the report indicates that 225 TPD of RDF are required as feedstock to a 5 MM gal/year ethanol facility and that 67% of municipal solid waste could be utilized as RDF feedstock. While production of ethanol from municipal solid waste would appear to be a good idea from an alternative fuels production point of view, it would appear to provide no advantages over mass-burn technology from a solid waste disposal point of view. The enzyme hydrolysis production of ethanol still results in 33% of the municipal solid waste stream to be landfilled, as compared to only 10% for mass-burn, systems. Furthermore, the -mass-burn systems also utilize municipal solid waste as an alternative fuel in the generation of useful energy (steam and/or electricity), which under current and projected prices have a significantly better market than ethanol. At this time, the use of enzyme hydrolysis can only be recommended if there is an available organic feedstock. The enzyme hydrolysis system, utilizing municipal solid waste as a feedstock, has.yet to be successfully demonstrated on a municipal scale. 7.2 Anaerobic Digestion (Biogasification) The anaerobic digestion process involves the biological gasification of municipal solid waste and sewage sludge to produce a methane-rich gas which is then refined and upgraded to pipeline quality for commercial distribution. RefCOM-(Refuse Conversion to Methane) Prior to 1978 the anaerobic digestion process was limited to laboratory bench-scale studies, with the most promising studies performed at the University of Illinois. Under a U.S. Department of Energy grant, Waste Management Inc. constructed a 50-100 TPD demonstration project in Pompano Beach, Florida. The facility, which is referred to as RefCOM (refuse conversion to methane), commenced operation in November 1978. Figure 7-8 presents the RefCOM anaerobic digestion process at the Waste Management Inc. facility in Pompano Beach. 2972M 7-2 1 55F NUTRIENT P�POCESS WATER FROM 5 5 F WATER TANK PURGE TO NUTRIENT PREP 10ELT CONVEYOR �" AND WASH WATER ® HYORADEA15EK -VENT TO 55F ATTR/TOR(Z) L10NE STEAM PASTEUR/ZER PNET/ RC- FEEDSTOCK BELT PRESS �'D67NT/ON CONVEYOR STORAGE - AL CONVEYOR B//V FLA5N DRUM CWR ' BELT ® CONVEYOR CCb[ER SCALE 70 ENZYME CWS PRODUCTION" NUMIENT HAMMER sow. MILL WATER MIXING - TANA S TEA M STERILIZER WASTE TO ALCOHOL PLANT Dvirka FEEDSTOCK STORAGE AND PREPARATION and Q Bersucxc FIGURE 7- 1 CoNSmim EHO04EERS ENZYME FEED FROM FEED PREP. Q/R t G02 COMPRESSOR _ AIRqC00LER j 1 EIVZYME FERMENMRS 1 ( 7.) CWR AIR I S I G W S FILTER- STERILIZER � SEED CULTURE FAC/Ll7Y ENZYME TO SS F PURGE WA TER FROM FEED PREP. NUTR/ENTS 12i SO SOLIDS /�M/X-TANK SEPN. NIJTRIEIV75 50LlV. TO FEED- PREP. ANTI-FOAM EW..NVTRiEN CORN AGENT STEEP LIQUOR - ti SURGE TANK A B pH CONTROL o„1,*e ENZYME PRODUCTION (�) and Bartlluccl COMSUI�M+ENGeEERS FIGURE 7-2 YERST PROCESS WATER PmxESS WATER S5F NurR/ENT5 ACID VRVkj 5-:5F NUTRIENT SOL TO FEED PREP. COOCE S 5 S F FEED FROM FEED PREP, C R c S ENZYME FROM ENZ. PROD. ' S S F CWR FERMENTER UP) CWS 0-4 55F PRODUC i lSIMULTANEOUS SACCHARIFICATION-FERMENTATION o) Bertiiucd FIGURE 7-3 CCNSU I!(.ENGf FRS oU9v E WATEfi FRVM En/z Poo. Li BELT Wf9SHEPS Fol O 50u05 TO - E�/gF�F;A7/ON �E WA7EFI MIC7 PRESS -- CONVE YOR 5 S F PRUOUC7 5tF PRo0UC7 REGE/V//VC7 7A NK BEE�i - WELL FE EO MATER 70 [Mrks SOLIDS SEPARATION and eartsucclFIGURE 7-4 l FEED TO DISTILLATION 5TR IFF ER REC TIPIER FEED ENEA7LR CWR ENT CONO NSE VENT C S - L EVEL DRUM GWR ETHANOL S TEAM /eECE/V/NG _ TANK ETHANOL TO C 5 DEH YDRAT QN RIEL 0/1. J 57/1LAGE 5TQ�QAGE THINK STILL AGE TO EVAPORAT/O CL owe DISTILLATION and -ft i• FIGURE 7-5 l99PROOF ETHANOL TO STORAGE STEAM MOLECULE SIEVE DRYER PACKAGE UNIT NITROGEN LECTRODRYER OR EQUIVALENT WATER RETURN 70 ,5EER WELL ETHANOL 190° PROOF (FIGURE ) FROM DISTILLATION DEHYDRATION and B rrWucd FIGURE- 7-6 �..am FLUE GAS 70 SCRuDraER SOLIDS FROM SOLIDS SEPN. (55% MOISTURE STILLAGE FROM J DIS TILLATION CON 6. PNEUMA T/G - 5T/LLAGE (40% ,DRYER VAPOR RECOMPRESSION N10/57URE) EVAPORArOR PACKAGE ON-IT AQUA CHEM Q OR EQUIVALENT MI XER-CON VEYS PAGKA G E UNIT , FLUE GAS C.E RAYMOND OR EQUIVALENT DRY SOLIDS (10%MOISTURE) CWDEVSATE TO DO/LER OF PAREIvr TANK PLANT WATER TO )OROCESff Dvirka _ EVAPORATION and O Bertsucd FIGURE 7-7 PRIMARY FERROUS MUNICIPAL SOLID REMOVAL WASTE DELIVERY SOLID PRIMARY INTER TO LANDFILL 1111111111111111111111111 WASTE 1111111111�11111111111111111111111 SHREDDER 11/1111111 11111 FACE 111111111111111 RECEIVING POINT CYCLONE AIR SECONDARY TROMMEL STORAGE SEPARATOR CLASSIFIER SHREDDER SCREEN ORGANICS HEAVIES H2O (VAPOR) FINES (METAL, TO ATMOS (SANO,OUST, WOOD, ETC.) GRAVEL,ETC) WEIGH OUST FEEDER COLLECTOR FUTURE ( PRODUCT GAS . r CH4 , CO2, H2O PRE MIM TANK DIGESTER DIGESTER VACUUM CAL FILTER NUTRIENTS NH4CL PRIMARY Cu(OHH))2z SLURRY Ca( SLUDGE as RECYCLE FILTRATE H2O STEAM RefC®IIA REFUSE CONVERSION TO METHANE Land 0 R„ FIGURE a-S E The RefCOM process consists of primary shredding of the incoming solid waste, ferrous metals extraction, triommelin_g, secondary shredding, and air classification as part of preprocessing. -Information previously provided by Waste Management Inc. indicates that only 57% of the incoming solid waste leaves the preprocessing train as organic fraction for digestion. Therefore, 43% (less ferrous metals which can be recycled) of the total incoming solid waste is landfilled. The organic fraction is then premixed with primary sewage sludge, steam,'recycled 1 . filtrate water from the process vacuum - filter, and nutrients (ammonium chloride, potassium phosphate, and lime). Process design parameters indicate the following premix make-up on a weight basis percentage: Premix Constituent Percent (By Weight) RDF 16.26 Primary Sewage Sludge 13.85 Steam 4.61 Recycled Filtrate Water 66.23 Nutrients 9.05 100.00 The premix slurry is then fed to two mechanically agitated anaerobic digesters which, through biological (bacterial) action, are designed to convert approximately one half of the organic'solids into a product gas (approximately 50%' methane and 50% carbon dioxide). Based on information provided by Waste Management Inc., the process design should yield 3000 cubic feet of pipeline quality methane gas per ton of unprocessed municipal solid waste. Although a number of difficulties were experienced during its first two years of operation indicative of a "proof of concept" demonstration project, process operation since that time has ,apparently resulted ,in product gas yields, and a methane content somewhat higher than that predicted by the laboratory bench-scale model results. This has resulted in renewed optimism for this process, on the part of the facility's management. Since 'the RefCOM system is the only known operating anaerobic digester, it is obvious that the anaerobic digestion process is still in research and development. Scaling to a full municipal scale operation is required before this process can begin to be evaluated for technological and economic viability. 2972M 7-11 E - Valorga Anaerobic Digestion System The Societa Generale 'Pour 'Les Techniques Nouvelles (SGN), a subsidiary of COGEMA, Compagnie Generales of the French Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) group of companies, is offering the Valorga Process for the anaerobic digestion of household wastes. It is,being offered as a joint venture of Techsearch International Ltd. (New York, New York) and NYHK Energy Investment Corp. (Hoboken, New Jersey). A proposal was presented to the Director of Planning in Patchogue, New York by Energy Investment Corporation. The proposed system would compost 220 tpd (tons per day) of household garbage using the Valorga Process. The Valorga System is made up of the following separate operations: o Receipt of material and primary separation o Methanization o`' Refining o Gas Treatment Figure 7-9 provides a flow schematic for the system. The Valorga System produces a gas which consists of approximately 650 BTU/ft3. The proposed system requires the dilution of the, incoming refuse with water, and subsequent treatment and`disposal of this water. The amount of bypass water and its consistency is not made clear in the proposal. There is one plant currently in operation which uses the Valorga process. The plant is located near Grenoble, France and has a capacity -of 45 TPD (7-day average) of household refuse. There is an 240 TPD plant (7-day average) under construction in Amens, France which is scheduled to start up in February 1988. There are also several other plants planned throughout Europe. Although the plant which is currently in operation near Grenoble, France claims to be"operating successfully and there are several other plants in design and construction, there is still a question as ,to whether or not this system could work in the U.S. This question is raised because of the past failures of anaerobic refuse composting in the, U.S. and the uncertainty of the marketability of the compost and the system produced gas. 2972M 7-12 CRUSHING-SORTING METHANIZATION DIGESTER ' GRAB FLARE ' ~~ BALLJSTIC PRESS _ SOHTTNG WEIOHNG I GRUMBLER CRUSHER OVERB ND FEEDER BELT _ —------ MIxl31 PUMP a} –- HOPPER I _ .�® �� TANK O GASOMETER COMPRESSOR ��� �.1•- , 1•_�1, h TREATMENT OF LJOUID I SINJ(ER 3•>•:�1e + I SECURITY OWN GLASS REFINM(3 DIGESTER HEATING GAS TREATMENT COMPRESSOR DRYER DELNERY OF GAS AI • . DENSI ETRIC BT TRaMEL REFNED PRODUCT or COMPRESSOR COMBUSTION AER BLOWER I J • ,. r I HEAVY HE.ECTS L� OVERSIZED REJECTS AR HEATER GAS TREATMENT BAG-FLING LMF - �wwt ASC 1►INRuhcturing Co.Ina }w WfW 6mg Hllwtnm Cap orr*. VALORGA PROCESS FLOW SCHEMATIC and �) FIGURE 7-9 ' 7.3 ORFA Corporation of America i The ORFA process is an automated, nonburn, patented technology for the recycling of as-received municipal solid waste that is not dependent on manual or curbside separation. Developed by a Swiss Company over a 15-year period at a small scale R&D plant in Leibstadt, Switzerland, process concepts were upsized and incorporated into the now operating Philadelphia facility. A second facility is scheduled for construction this L- year in-Chicopee, Massachusetts. After a 2-year construction period, which included an 8-month start-up, the 71,000 square foot Philadelphia facility, located on a 7.9 acre site, became commercially _ operational in March 1989. This facility was designed to process 92,000 tons of MSW _ annually (252 TPD). ORFA estimates they can process 13 to 18 TPH on a regular basis. They are now operating on a 2-shift, 5-day week (approximately 70 hours per week) or 47,320 to 65,520 TPY. Present staff is 60, including administration. Increased capacity r can be achieved by operating a 3-shift, 7-day week. Unconfirmed figures indicate the Philadelphia facility costs approximately $30-35,000,000 (approximately $129,000 per ton). Philadelphia operating costs are at _ $45.00 per ton with a local $10.00 per ton energy cost included. ORFA presently charges $60.00 per ton tipping fee (acceptable waste only) on a put or pay basis. Products ORFA assumes the responsibility for marketing recycled material and disposal of any residue. "ORFA Fiber" jThe major product recovered (50 to 60% by weight of incoming MSW) is "ORFA Fiber" which is processed organic material that is dry, sanitized and biologically stable. Particle size, dictated by customer requirements, can be accommodated by equipment modification. 2972M 7-14 The final product can- be bagged, baled or pelletized, depending on end user requirements. For example: o Bagged: High grade MIGRO humus Kitty Litter (marketed by ORFA) Bulking agent for sludge composting o Baled: Paper mills (boxboard) Particle board (substitute for wood board) Horticultural (hydromulch, carrier of seed and fertilizer) Bale size approximately 16' x 3' x 4' S-wire tie o Pelletized Substitute for corn cobs,as a carrier of pesticides Granulate: A second major product recovered (approximately 18% by weight of incoming MSW) is granulate or aggregate consisting of plastic nodules, formed during the drying process, of glass, ceramics, stone and nonferrous metals. Suggested uses for this material include < asphalt aggregate and potential landfill cover. Ferrous Metal: The remaining salable product extracted is ferrous metal (approximately 8 to 9% by weight of incoming MSW). Ferrous metal is extracted after being initially shredded. The most probable market for this material would'be detinning firms. Noncontainer items would probably go to scrap dealers. Water Vapr: b As part of the drying process "clean water" vapor is produced (approximately 25 to 30% by weight of incoming MSW), and is expelled into the atmosphere. The quantity varies throughout the year and is related to weather and waste composition. 2972M 7715 f Residue: Although ORFA process claims "zero residue", there will be occasions when the process -produces nonmarketable by—products such as dust from baghouses, or i unacceptable waste, such as tires, batteries, small appliances, which must be disposed of elsewhere. I ! , '- Process ` The ORFA process can be considered to have 3 major operations: o Size separation and ferrous removal o Drying, sanitization and stabilization o Final product classification The Company claims all equipment used in the process is standard, off—the—shelf items with certain modifications. It should be noted that the ozone drum is of ,Swiss manufacture. Plant safety precautions include Haylon system, hydrocarbon detection system, and explosion chutes on the shredder, and a plant fire protection system. MSW is delivered to a receiving area and is off—loaded onto an .enclosed tipping floor. Here the material is visually inspected for unacceptable material. Unacceptable J _ • material is removed and returned to the hauler for disposal elsewhere. MSW is pushed onto two feed conveyors, located at opposite sides of the tipping floor; by' a large front—end loader. The conveyors discharge the MSW into computer controlled, low speed (40-60 RPM) hydraulic shredders equipped with overload reversing capability. Each conveyor and shredder is sized for 100% plant capacity. The selection and spacing of shredder knives is based on maximizing fiber length. At this stage, MSW is reduced to 3" size. Ferrous material is removed from the shredded MSW and conveyed to a storage silo. The remaining material is passed through a second shredder with a larger knife separation. Shredded material is placed into a "buffer box" which acts as a surge bin. Its purpose' is to provide a uniform feed to the separation "screen. The screen separates the material into two categories: Light fibrous material and heavy 2972M 7-16 granular—like material. The light screened material is further reduced in size (8 to 25 mm) as it passes through a cutting mill. The heavy material is also reduced in size as it passes through the hammer mill. Both waste streams pass through a multipass drum dryer (modified alfalfa dryer). Natural gas heats ambient air which in turn acts .as the drying medium for both waste streams. Fiber material leaves the dryer at approximately 5% moisture. Plastic material in the heavy granular stream softens and congeals into a small modular shape and mixes with the glass, ceramics, stone and nonferrous metals. Temperature varies between 212°F and 245*F. Stabilization of material is accomplished in an ozone mixing drum. A high voltage ozone generator is used to break down milk and animal fat into a stable, inert and odor—free material. Final produce classification separates the waste streams by particle size. Granulates are stored in silos and fiber material is baled and stored in a staging area prior to truck loading and shipping. Several comments concerning this new technology follow. 1. Although ORFA claims a sanitized and biologically stable fiber product is produced with their process, some consideration should be given to,the potential of heavy metal leaching from 'the fiber material similar to the problems found in landfills. This should be addressed, especially when the fiber material is used for agricultural purposes. 2. A problem identified by OZRFA is the screen used to separate light and heavy materials. The screen has a tendency to blind. This is not a new problem and can result in considerable rejects of the fiber product.- An associated problem With any shredded MSW material is glass embedment-in the fiber product, which results in a high inert (ash) content. 3. Another problem identified by ORFA is plant fugitive dust. During a recent visit, all of the equipment and, ducts were covered with a fine layer of dust. ORFA is in the process of adding additional dust collectors. 2972M- 7-17 i 4. Another environmental concern is noise. The facility is very noisy inside but relatively quiet on the outside. Odor in the plant is noticeable. It is believed that it comes from the drying air. The plant has 3 natural above ground filter tanks open to the atmosphere. The filter media is wood bark and moss. 5. Plant has high energy (power and natural gas) costs. In Philadelphia, the cost is estimated at $10.00/ton of incoming MSW. i < 6. The facility is tightly designed. It is expected to be difficult to repair and replace equipment. 7. Philadelphia, the first U.S. plant, and upsized from the R&D facility 'in Switzerland, required a 6 to 8-month start—up period and is still experiencing difficulties, and appears to indicate the need for cautious optimism at this time. 8. Although ORFA claims there is no danger from biological organisms normally found in MSW, shredded MSW, drying air and fugitive dust which exist at the facility, they would not share data from current testing saying it was too premature for release. 9. Municipality still needs landfill or incinerator/landfill combination to handle "unacceptable" waste. Limited available information on this process precludes it from further evaluation in this report. 7.4 Processing Waste Tires Nearly twelve million tires -are discarded in New York State every year, either through landfilling or incineration. However, they can cause problems in both systems. Since tires are a potential source of energy, there are other processing alternatives available. In addition, proposed uses'for waste tires include rubber—modified asphalt, sunken artificial reefs, highway safety barriers, and,solar energy applications. Tire (rubber) derived fuel and energy recovery through combustion•are promising technologies. 2972M 7-18 Among the companies utilizing tire processing systems are: o Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. — Cryogenic processing. o Oxford Energy Inc. — Tire incineration. o Rubber Research Elastomerics — Reuse of scrap rubber. o Empire Energy Resources Management — Pyrolysis of tires. 2972M 7-19 • I 1 8.0 TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION AND SCREENING Sections 2 through 7 have provided a description of the different technologies that are available for waste reduction and processing. Also provided were the advantages and disadvantages of each. This section will provide a detailed evaluation of these technologies. The evaluation criteria that will be used appears in Table 8-1. After the detailed evaluation, the technologies will be summarized in Table 8-2. This table will also serve to screen out the least preferred technologies. 8.1 Technology Evaluation As shown previously in this study, waste reduction technologies can be classified into the following groups: L Reduction of Waste Generation Rate 2. Recycling 3. Mechanical Processing 4. Thermal Processing 5. MSW Composting 6. Other Waste Reduction Technologies An evaluation of these technologies appears below: 8.1.1 Reduction of Waste Generation Rate I. System Design — Reduction of the waste generation rate involves reducing the amount of materials entering the waste,stream by voluntary or mandatory programs to eliminate the generation of the waste. This would be accomplished by imposing a fee on goods sold depending on recyclability, and setting standards for packaging to reduce packaging waste. Initiative is being undertaken at the State level, with milestones and legislative action already planned. 2973M 8-1 Table 8-1 EVALUATION CRITERIA ALTERNATIVE WASTE REDUCTION AND PROCESSING TECHNOLOGIES 1. System Design 2. Reliability 3. Environmental Impacts and Safety 4. System Cost 5. Capacity/Applicability 2973M 8-2 _ ` r 2. Reliabilitv — The reliability of this technique is unproven. A moderate reliability is expected since the legislation, economic incentives and alterations in practices •may be resisted by consumers due to perceived loss of convenience and by private groups such as the packaging industry. ii 3. Environmental Impacts and Safety - The impact on the environment will be favorable because of the reduced volume and toxicity of the waste stream. 4. Cost — Unknown 5. Applicability/Capacity — This technology would reduce only a small portion of the waste stream. 6. Conclusions — Although this approach will only address a small portion of the overall residential, commercial, and industrial waste stream, it -is recommended because -it could have a ;favorable reduction in the waste stream. It also has the potential to produce positive environmental results by decreasing the concentration of batteries and other household hazardous items in the waste stream. In addition, waste generation reduction is one of the goals of the 1987 New York Solid Waste Management Plan. 8.1.2 Recycling A. Source Separation 1. System Design — Source separation can be defined as the segregation of recyclable materials from refuse and the 'collection and processing of those materials in order to meet the requirements of a specific market or end use. Typically, a distinction is made between commercial and residential source separation, even though a number of recyclable materials originate from both sources. Commercial wastes are composed of higher percentages of recyclable materials than residential wastes. Many existing recycling firms concentrate on recovering materials, such as corrugated cardboard, office paper or bottles, from the commercial waste stream. This is due to,the fact that the cost to recycling firms of obtaining the materials from commercial waste is relatively low in comparison'to the price they receive from end users. The cost of recovering recyclable materials from the residential waste stream where they are in lower concentrations, is relatively high in comparison to the price received. 2973M 8-3 The materials typically-considered for inclusion- in source separation programs include newspaper, bottles (glass and plastic), cans; (ferrous and aluminum), corrugated cardboard, office paper, leaves, grass clippings, brush, waste oil, tires, and construction and demolition (C&D) debris. The equipment needed is relatively standard and simple, such as special' containers or receptacles, collection vehicles and processing equipment. The processing equipment may include conveyors, glass crushers, magnets, trommels and front-end loaders. The greater the degree of separation implemented at the source, the less subsequent processing is required. However, the greater the number of separate categories, the greater the inconvenience. 2. Reliability - The human and institutional system design factors are of paramount importance to successful operation. Public understanding, acceptance and cooperation with source' separation is crucial to recovering a high ,percentage of potentially recyclable materials. The proper management of these programs is necessary for the maintenance of cooperation., Inadequate attention given to program management has led to failure or poor performance. Market availability is the primary institutional factor affecting the success of source separation. It is common for source separation programs to be cancelled due to the unavailability of markets for the materials being collected. Cancellations of past programs are often cited by public officials as the reason 'for their resistance or skepticism with regard to the initiation of new source separation activities. Market unavailability generally is caused by fluctuations in demand or the failure of the material to conform,to end users specifications. Stable- and accessible market demand for recyclable materials is another principal determinant of material recovery program viability. The demand for recyclable materials is usually linked to the general national or world-wide demand for basic industrial commodities. These types of markets are characterized by either seasonal or sudden shifts in demand which are reflected in changes over pricing, quality requirements or delivery acceptance schedules. The effects of past market demand downturns have caused temporary or permanent disruptions in publicly and privately operated collection • ti � 2973M 8-4 systems. This historical experience is often cited by public officials as the reason why - they regard material recovery as economically_ or politically risky. However, this has stimulated the development, of managerial and technical responses that have been successfully used for minimizing market risk to material recovery-systems. There are source separation programs in existence in the region. Few of the existing programs, however, achieve levels of waste stream reduction that are necessary if source separation is to be a significant part of the Town's response to its solid waste disposal needs. A review of successful programs makes, it possible to identify the essential elements in a source separation program that are capable of achieving significant waste stream reductions. 3. Environmental Impact and Safety - Source separation and recycling are 'i generally regarded as environmentally benign activities. The benefits cited typically include less energy consumption and emissions from end user industries such as aluminum can, glass bottle and newsprint manufacturing. A potential addition to emissions from source separation would occur if a separate set of collection vehicles, in addition to refuse collection trucks, are utilized to collect recyclable materials. No unusual hazards to worker safety have been identified in connection with source separation. 4. System Cost - It is generally cheaper, per ton of material collected and processed, to operate a source separation system than a mass burning ore front end processing system. The actual costs depend upon the design of the program and the prices paid for the materials being marketed. 5. Capacity/Application - Source separation is not capable of handling all of the solid waste generated in the Town due to two factors. The primary reason is that all materials in the waste stream are not recyclable. In addition, all residents and . commercial enterprises cannot be expected to participate. 6. Conclusion - Source separation can be a part of the overall program'undertaken to address the Town's solid waste problem. It is compatible with resource recovery and there are no significant negative environmental impacts that would arise if a source separation system were to fail. 2973M 8-5 i B. Intermediate Processing of Source Separated Materials For the most part, centralized separation systems involve the sorting of waste without the aid of private citizens. This usually involves mechanical processes which are very similar to mechanical reduction systems. For this reason centralized separation is evaluated with mechanical processing systems (see Section 8.1.3). 8.1.3 Mechanical Processing Systems A. Material Separation 1. System Design - These are multiple component, largely automated systems designed to separate mixed refuse into components which are to be further converted by mechanical, thermal, biological or chemical processes for energy (refuse-derived fuel) or material recovery. The components and functions of typical processing" systems such as bag breaking, shredding/bailing, trommeling, screening and magnetic separation are described more fully in Section 4.1. 2. Reliability - These are complex systems utilizing numerous equipment li components in consecutive processing steps to achieve size reduction and sorting. This requires that the size reduction and sorting equipment components be matched with respect to design processing capacities since the outputs from one processing step are inputs to one or more steps following it. In actual operation, adjustments in the processing rate of one component may affect all of the other components requiring coordinate adjustments. A breakdown in one unit operation may shut down an 'entire front-end processing line, thereby necessitating a high degree of equipment redundancy to ensure reliability. These systems were first put into operation in the early 1970s for the purpose of preparing refuse derived fuel for co-firing with coal in utility boilers. Since that time, these facilities have suffered from a high incidence of malfunction and failure. The systems have been subject to processing equipment malfunction, breakdown and explosions during refuse processing, as well as failures of the products, which are the output of these 2973M 8-6 1 � systems, to meet end user specifications. These failures have, generally been the result of cross contamination of the system outputs, e.g., glass mixed in the organic fraction, ' nonferrous metals in the glass fraction, etc. Nevertheless, efforts continue to achieve system design improvements. As opposed to RDF and front-end compost processing systems, MRFs are in general less complex because the combustible' fraction of the waste does not have to be shredded prior to incineration. Many of the failures of RDF facilities have been due to an inferior fuel product. Therefore, MRF's should inherently have a.greater degree of reliablilty. 3. Environmental Impact and Safety - The two primary concerns in this area are odors and explosions. Processing units have had odor problems resulting from inadequate provisions to contain and destroy odors associated with refuse. Additionally, the failure to market recovered materials will result in the negative impacts associated with landfilling this material.' However, if a market were successful, the impacts would be positive. As previously mentioned, processing systems in use in several locations (Baltimore, Maryland;' Brockton, Massachusetts; Bridgeport, Connecticut; Albany, New York; and Akron, Ohio) have experienced major explosions which have resulted in extensive facility damage as well as injuries and deaths. Of course, this problem would only occur at facilities which use one or more shredders in the processing train. Since most MRF's would not shred waste, they would not be subject to explosions. 4. System Cost - RDF and compost system processing will be addressed in this section in connection with• a complete energy and/or material -recovery system incorporating front-end processing in conjunction with a back-end system. A MRF system provides little assurance to users that capital and operating costs will be as bid, that materials sales revenues will be available, and that unexpected capital and operating cost overruns will not occur. In addition, users may have to bear the costs of landfilling unmarketable materials. 2973M 8-7 t 5. rapacity/Applicability - This matter, as it applies to RDF and compost processing systems, will also be addressed in connection with a complete system. 6. Conclusion - RDF systems utilizing material separation and sorting processes have a record of low reliability and high incidence of safety hazards. There is limited operating experience in this country with the pre-processing systems currently being marketed for MSW composting; however, proposed equipment and process line configurations are similar to RDF processing systems. An MRF system should be considered further but not on a total -waste stream scale. Material recycling, on a reasonable scale, coupled with other waste processing technologies can be a successful part of a total integrated system. B. Mechanical Size Reduction 1. System Design - Mechanical size reduction systems are simple systems which accept waste from vehicles at a transfer station or directly at a landfill site and reduce the volume of the waste. The primary ways of reducing the size of the waste are through _ shredding, grinding and compaction/bailing. Equipment commonly used in such systems 'are steel-wheeled tractors, hammermills, concrete grinders and tire shredders. 2. Reliability - Since these are simple"systems they can be as reliable as the major piece of reduction equipment used in the system,. However, unless multiple units are present, a breakdown in one piece of equipment could shut down the entire processing train. y 3. Environmental Impact and Safety - The primary concerns in this area are odors, noise and explosions. Processing units have had odor problems resulting from inadequate provisions to contain and destroy odors associated with refuse which may emanate from a facility. 4. System Cost - Due to the simplistic nature of the system,-the capital costs will be lower then other mechanical systems or thermal processing systems. The maintenance costs for the equipment could be large compared to the capital cost, but would still be lower than other systems. 2973M 8-g 5. Capacity/Applicability- The equipment required for this could be sufficient to handle the Town's waste stream. However, the primary drawback of this system is'that it does not reduce'the weight of refuse to be disposed. The-volume of the waste stream would only be reduced to a limited extent. Mechanical and thermal processing,systems would ha 1e a superior volumetric waste reduction capability while recovering energy from the waste. 6. Conclusion - A mechanical size reduction system is not capable of adequately reducing the volume of the Town's waste stream. It is also not compatible with other mechanical or thermal based waste reduction technologies. For these reasons, it is not recommended here. The cost of this system would probably outweigh the benefits of reducing the volume of the/waste prior to landfilling. 8.1.4, Thermal Processing - c , Significant variations exist within this category primarily with respect to whether or not the waste is pre-processed, use of the supply of combustion air to control the burning process, the design of the mechanisms to feed the waste into the furnace and move it through.the furnace (stoker'design), the extent to which the equipment is field or shop assembled and the degree to which the boiler is integral with or separate from the furnace. These variables can be used for the purposes of this evaluation to define four subgroups within mass burn, which are: o Mass burn field-erected units o Prefabricated modular incinerators o Prepared waste (RDF) incinerators. o Pyrolysis systems 1 A. Mass Burn Field-Erected Units f - 1. System Design - This type of system is designed to achieve maximum agitation of unprepared refuse as it is incinerated such that a maximal burnout of all combustible material is attained, resulting in ash which contains a minimal percentage of unburned material. The refuse either travels on a stoker grate or a rotary combustor. The walls of the furnace above the stoker are lined with refractory material or water-filled tubes (boiler). Individual furnace/boiler units range in waste incineration capacity from approximately 50 to over 1,000 tons per day. a 2973M 8-9 2. Reliability — These are sophisticated and complex facilities which closely resemble coal—fired power plants. However, facilities employing mass burn technology have been in use on a continuous basis for over 20 years in numerous facilities, in Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden and Switzerland and for periods ranging from 10-20 years at over 100 additional locations in Europe, Japan and the U.S. There are few, if any, of these systems which are known to have failed to perform according to design. It is common for existing facilities in Europe to be expanded by adding new stoker—fired units, as necessitated by growth. Therefore, there is extensive experience in design, construction and operation of these systems (equipment and human component). These systems fit well into existing institutional structures because they,do not require any change in waste collection practices and provide a centralized location for delivery of waste. The contractual and financial provisions necessary are similar to those utilized in other types of major projects. They produce a product for sale (hot water, steam or electricity) that can be utilized in homes, institutions, industries, or by power utilities. Over 300 of these facilities are currently operating throughout the world. The system, which originated in the United States, has been developed in Europe over the last forty years. The primary emphasis in its refinement began with efforts to achieve maximum volume reduction of waste by means of complete combustion.. Boilers originally were utilized as a replacement for water sprays to cool down the combustion gases so that air pollution control devices would operate more efficiently and reliably, in addition to the energy production benefit they provided. Stoker and,boiler designs have been refined towards the goal of achieving a high level of on—line reliability. New facilities are capable of operating 85-90% of the time., Computerized control systems are now in use which allow precise adjustment of refuse feed,and combustion air supply to maintain optimum combustion, temperature control and energy production conditions. In. the United States, facilities in Chicago, Illinois, and Saugus, Massachusetts, have been in operation for over 15. and 10 years, respectively. Other facilities in St. Petersburg, Florida (1980); Glen Cove, New York (1982); Peekskill,' New York (1984); Baltimore, Maryland (1985); and North Andover, Massachusetts (1985) have come on—line more recently. Many other facilities have begun operation over the F 2973M 8-10 f past three years. Still many others are under construction or in the development stage. The rotary combustor technology has had less extensive experience in the United States, However, facilities such as Bay County, Florida and Gallatin, Tennessee, have operated successfully. 3. Environmental Impact and Safety - The existing facilities utilizing this technology in the U.S. and abroad have shown a consistent ability to operate within the requirements established by governmental agencies covering air and water emissions; odor and noise control, and ash characteristics. The efficiency of air pollution control devices has been continuously improved and the combustion process itself has been automated and fine tuned, thereby resulting in ongoing reductions in emissions. Recent regulations have included required reductions in allowable particulate emissions, acid gas emissions and limitations•on emissions of trace metals and organics. Particular concern has focused on PCDD emissions. Indications gained from-existing test data have shown that a mass burn incinerator followed by a spray dryer/particulate control device provides the necessary level of control to comply with the revised NYS Part 219 regulations and EPA suggested levels. These indications receive support from test data from facilities in Marion County, OR; Commerce, CA; Bristol, CT; Millbury, MA and Stanislaus, CA. The EPA has also instituted a policy requiring installation of, selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) systems on new mass burn resource recovery facilities to control emissions of NOX* However, it is unclear whether SNCR technology would be required in a Southold facility, if ever built,' due to the-low capacity of such a facility. These systems have.an excellent record for worker safety. The only known major accident at any of the 300 facilities operating was at Harrisburg, PA, when a worker improperly accepted a load of highly combustible,liquids which volatilized when charged into the furnace. 4. System•Cost = These systems have high capital costs, generally in the range of $100,000 - $160,000, for each planned ton of daily waste disposal capacity. The actual cost for construction and operation is determined through a procurement procedure in accordance with Section 120-w of the General Municipal Laws of New York. However, the price quotes received can be relied upon due to the ability to enter into contracts containing fixed construction and operation cost guarantees. 2973M 8-11 Similarly, the energy revenues utilized to offset capital and operating costs can also be assured through contractual .guarantees from a private firm. The sale-of electricity produced by this(or other systems described in this section can 'be guaranteed under contracts with utilities entered into in accordance with the Federal Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) and Section 66-C of the New York Public Service Commission Law. - Therefore, facility users can have a high level of confidence that no unexpected cost overruns due to errors in design, construction or operation will be passed along to them in connection with this type of system. Net- fees estimated for facilities recently financed to be operated and constructed under full service contracts (Babylon, New York and Huntington, New York) have ranged from $44.66 (in 1989) to $100.26 (in 1992 operating at full capacity) per ton. 5. Cagacity/Application - Stoker fired mass burn-systems have been'successfully applied to facilities with individual furnace/boiler units with a capacity range of 50 to over 1000 tons per day. However, because of the Town's low estimated daily waste generation rate and New York State NYCRR Part 360 regulations which require a three unit facility, the number of vendors who could provide such a system to the Town would be limited. In addition, the Westinghouse O'Connor rotary combustor technology has not ' been applied to projects of this scale. 6. Conclusion - These systems, when designed, constructed and operated in accordance with strict technical, contractual and regulatory specifications and conditions, will provide a highly reliable and environmentally and economically sound approach to waste volume reduction and energy recovery. t. o B. Prefabricated Modular Incinerators 1. System Design - These systems differ from stoker-fired units in four primary; respects: o Agitating stokers are not used to feed refuse into the furnace and move it through the furnace. Generally, ram-feeders are utilized. ti 2973M 8-12 o Many modular incinerators operate in a starved-air mode, whereby waste is initially combusted on semi-pyrolytic conditions and a secondary combustion chamber is utilized to finish the burning of the combustible gases produced by the semi-pyrolytic combustion.. There is also a class of modular units which operate on a controlled air principle, which is intermediate between the starved-air and excess-air combustion modes utilized by the• modular and stoker-fired systems, respectively. o The modules are assembled at the factory and delivered to the site, rather than being field erected as are stoker-fired units. o They are typically small capacity units, most commonly less than 100 ,tons per day. 2. Reliability - These;units are somewhat simpler in design and have the same degree of,institutional "fit" attributed to stoker-fired units. These units lend themselves to a dispersed facility siting strategy wherein multiple projects are developed, possibly to serve particular energy users, rather than one central facility. However, added complexity could be associated with the use of'these units if a dispersed siting.strategy were pursued. In'this case added complexity would result from the need to gain multiple _ -site approvals from the Town, to negotiate multiple contracts for construction, operation and energy sales and to apply for permits for each site. This problem may be avoided by placing several facilities on one sight. These units have been in use in this country for municipal refuse incineration for approximately 12 years. There is -less experience-in carrying out successful projects utilizing this system to generate high temperature steam and power. Therefore, less assurance exists that certain elements of system design required for energy recovery have been adequately established. A fairly large number of these systems have been built since the 1970s. However, not all of these burn mixed municipal solid waste. Many utilize a more homogeneous industrial or institutional waste feed stock. The facilities which are utilized for pro- cessing mixed municipal solid waste have a mediocre record. This is primarily related to -the fact that these systems are not manufactured so as to have the same durability as the stoker-fired units and thus, wear out rapidly. The most successful system of this type is at Pittsfield, MA, which utilizes a controlled air unit design. 2973M 8-13 3. Environmental Impact and Safety - The original concept of modular units was oriented toward avoiding some of the regulatory concerns associated with stoker-fired ` units. The starve&air mode of operation in concert with the low processing capacity results in lower total stack emissions. Some units avoided the obligation to obtain Federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permits and were operated without any air pollution control equipment. It is not certain whether the facility would require a PSD permit. However, a modular mass burn facility would have to meet the full requirements of the recently revised NYCRR Parts 219 and 360. Though mass burn field erected units have been able to comply with such regulations, this 'has not been proven yet with modular incineration facilities. The lack of,complete burnout- of combustible, material inherent in this technology poses environmental problems with respect to residue 'disposal. The presence of high percentages of combustible material in the residue of starved-air units results in greater tonnages that must be disposed of in a landfill, poses problems in connection with odor, rodent infestation and attraction of gulls, and severely reduces opportunities for ,productive utilization of residue. The high combustible fraction could also preclude such _ residue from acceptance at ashfills due to regulations regarding ash characteristics. 4. System Cost,- Capital costs for these systems are typically significantly less than for field erected units, while operation and maintenance costs can be much higher. There is also significantly less successful demonstration of the ability of these systems to produce the turbine quality steam necessary to produce electricity and, therefore, generate electrical energy revenues. Price quotations received for these systems can be expected to be reliable with respect to capital costs. However, operations cost estimates generally do not take into account the relatively low durability of the equipment and the necessary major equipment replacement expenditures. Unfortunately, these systems have not been in use long enough, _ to make available any reliable projections of twenty-year operating costs. Therefore, projections of net -costs to users are generally underestimated. Major unexpected capital equipment replacement costs may occur after several years of operation. Systems installed in North Little Rock, Arkansas; Auburn, Maine; and Oneida County, New ,York 2973M 8-14 were subject to such unexpected costs. Total project development costs would also be, increased in connection with a multiple facility/site approach as compared to a single v facility/site. This would result in greater net cost per ton unless particular energy users could be identified with sufficient annual demand and a strong interest in purchasing their energy from waste-to-energy facilities at a price more favorable than that available at current market prices. 5. Capacity/Application - Modular incinerators are available to meet the capacity requirements of the Town. In order to assure a higher level of reliability a spare (fourth) furnace/boiler unit could be provided. 6. Conclusion - Prefabricated modular incinerators, despite their availability and suitability for satisfying the capacity requirements of the Town, cannot be strongly recommended until such systems have demonstrated an ability to meet applicable regulations and until a demonstration is made that such facilities can provide the high level of reliability required for municipal projects. C. Prepared Waste (RDF) Incineration r 1. System Design - This system processes incoming refuse to produce an organic combustible fraction which can be burned alone or in combination with other fuels. Noncombustible components of the waste stream are subjected to processing for material recovery, which has been evaluated above. Various types of RDF have been developed, with the most refined being a powder designed for co-firing in oil burning utility furnace/boilers. The more refined the RDF, product, the more processing required and the more residue produced. Currently, operating RDF systems generally produce a coarse fuel for firing in dedicated furnace/boilers. Utilization of a dedicated furnace/boiler eliminates the problem of rejection of the RDF by an end user. The various systems available for combustion of RDF were discussed in Section 5.3. 2. Reliability- The most success in burning RDF has occurred when it is burned by itself in so-called dedicated furnace/boilers, in which RDF alone is burned. The problems which have occurred are amenable to solution by proper furnace/boiler design and 2973M 8-15 combustion controls. Attempts to co-fire RDF with coal in utility boilers have largely been unsuccessful, due to the differing combustion conditions required for each fuel component and the failure of the RDF to meet the specifications of the end user. 3. Environmental Impact and Safety - RDF was expected to generate lower emissions of certain substances such as metals due to the removal of metallic materials during front-end processing. However, emissions tests from RDF combustion facilities have' not supported this assumption. In,certain instances, RDF was found to have greater emissions of metals as well as nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. In general, however, the emissions expected from well designed and operated RDF, and as-received MSW mass burning systems would be expected to be approximately the same. Both systems should be abWto consistently meet regulatory standards. 4. System Cost - The projected costs of an RDF dedicated furnace/boiler system would be projected to be approximately the same as a mass burning stoker-'fired facility. However, the additional cost to build and operate a fuel processing system must be considered. The performance record of these systems increases the likelihood that maintenance costs would exceed projections and unexpected system malfunctions would occur. 5. Ca aacciy/Application - Systems,of this type are generally not economically viable at the capacities required by the Town. However, at larger capacities the benefits of the economies of scale may be realized. 6. Conclusion - The production of RDF for use in a dedicated furnace/boiler is generally regarded as a commercially available alternative for energy recovery. However, this technology can not be recommended for the Town due to a lack of demonstrated performance at the required capacity and uncertainty regarding economic viability in the appropriate size range. Also it is not a preferred technology for meeting the Town's needs due to its low reliability, the high reported incidence of safety hazards and lack of environmental or net cost advantages over more reliable and safer alternatives. D. Pyrolysis - 1. System Design - Pyrolysis is a chemical decomposition process affected by the application of heat to carbonaceous solids in' the absence or near absence of oxygen. The 2973M 8-16 solids decompose into gaseous, liquid and solid products. Past pyrolysis designs which were marketed or tested in the U.S. for solid waste disposal include the Union Carbide's "PUROV System, the Carborundum Company "TORRAV System and the Monsanto "LAND GUARD" System. None of these systems were successful in commercial operation. In the early 1980's the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) tested a 50-TPD pyrolysis system which is currently being actively marketed in the region by Waste Distillation L- Technology, Inc. The DOE evaluation and test program report indicates that this system -_I may be considered an emerging technology. However, the system has no recent ---' long-term, commercial operating history. Furthermore, complete environmental testing i which would permit evaluation on the basis of current regulatory standards has not been I } performed.' 2. Reliability - Pyrolysis utilizes a waste processing system to produce the input to the pyrolysis system, therefore, it is subject to the shortcomings of,the pre-processing system employed. Given the limited history of the pyrolytic processing of MSW, system equipment performance can not be adequately evaluated for,this application, however, available ' records 'on operating experience indicate a high occurrence of system breakdowns. Institutional and human design factors may also pose difficulties but they must be considered small relative to the difficulties associated with the processing equipment. Based on available information there has never been a successful, full scale (greater than 100 TPD) municipal solid waste pyrolysis facility in the U.S. Because the Waste Distillation system is relatively new, primary concerns regarding long-term reliability, operational and maintenance costs, and air quality and residue quality need to be resolved. 3. Environmental Impact and Safety - When conceived, pyrolysis systems were to have two advantages over mass burning systems. Destruction in an oxygen free (anaerobic) or low oxygen environment necessitates the use of little combustion air thereby lessening air emissions concerns. In addition, residue was to be fused at high temperature into a nondegrading and nonleaching glass-like material. However, the fuels, produced would have to be combusted on-site or off-site to achieve maximum volume reduction, which would then necessitate flue gas cleaning and air emissions permits. 2973M 8-17 4. System Cost Due to the failures previously associated with this system and the lack of a successful full scale commercial operation, the net cost to users of a pyrolysis system can not be accurately projected. 5. Capacity/Application - A system of this type could be designed to handle either a portion or all of the solid waste generated in the Town. 6. Conclusion - At the -present time, pyrolysis cannot be recommended as an available system for meeting the Town's needs, due to its complete performance failure in full scale operation to date. The technology which is currently being actively marketed in the region by Waste Distillation Technology, Inc. remains unproven in the type . of long-term application which must be contemplated for planning purposes by the Town at this time. 8.1.5 MSW Composting 1. System Design - Composting involves the controlled application of a biological process in which organic material is decomposed to a humus-like product. Concerning mixed municipal solid waste composting, technologies presently being marketed typically include three major steps: (1) preprocessing, (2) composting, and (3) post-processing. Both proprietary and non-proprietary process configurations are available; in general, however, the equipment employed in pre- and post-processing is similar to the equipment found at an RDF processing plant or a materials recovery facility. The composting step may be conducted in specially designed chambers (in-vessel) or by the window or aerated static pile methods. Yard waste composting requires less sophisticated equipment and simpler processing operations, and is more widely practiced by municipalities in an effort to reduce the volumes of leaves, grass, etc. to be deposited in landfills. 2. Reliability - MSW composting is an emerging technology in this country and presently there is not a great deal of data on long-term operating experience. Although European operating' experience is more extensive, differences in waste stream composition make it difficult to draw direct comparisons. 2973M 8-18 • i The degree of pre-processing called for in most of the systems currently being offered involves complex configurations utilizing numerous ,equipment components in consecutive steps to achieve size reduction and sorting and the desired physical, chemical and biological conditions. As discussed in Section 8.1.3.A, a high occurence of equipment breakdown and malfunction, experienced at RDF processing facilities, is inherent in these 'mechanical processing systems. Since the feasibility of MSW composting depends to a large extent on the characteristics and composition of the feedstock entering the composting stage the overall reliability of these systems will depend on the reliability of the pre-processing line (when mechanical pre-processing is employed). 3. Environmental Impact and Safety - Again, limited operating experience in this country makes the potential environmental impact and safety issues associated with MSW composting difficult to accurately quantify at this time. NYCRR Subpart 360-5 regulates the construction and operation of solid waste composting facilities in New York State; and is generally concerned with: (1) the establishment of residence times and temperatures to reduce pathogens as well as related monitoring requirements, (2) prevention of leachate releases, and (3) buffer requirements. The regulations also set forth compost-product classification parameters. MSW compost may be either Class I or Class II depending on contaminant (metals and PCBs) levels, particle size and process residence time. As indicated by the scope of the regulations, _potential adverse environmental and health impacts associated with MSW composting include soil and groundwater contamination due to leaching of waste stream contaminants, and exposure to pathogenic microorganisms. Dust, particulate and odor releases may , also be environmentally offensive. 4. System Cost - Systems cost will vary with technology, size, revenues received for materials recovered and vendor chosen. Tip fees at the Portage facility in 1988 were reported to be $13.28/ton (does not include,landfill costs) and at the Fillmore County facility in 1988 the average cost per ton of waste processed was $40.68 (including landfill costs). These are municipally constructed, owned and operated facilities. Tip fee information on the other four facilities currently operating in this country is unavailable. Reportedly, Dade County will pay Agripost, Inc. $24, for each ton of refuse accepted and the City of Portland will pay Resource System Corporation $42 (subject to price index increases, does not include landfill costs) for each ton of waste processed when commercial operations commences at these facilities. 2973M 8-19 a Due to the range of uncertainties stated above and limited operating data, where in this range (if at all) the tip fee for a project in Southold would fall, remains unknown. However, reportedly, for a recently proposed MSW composting project in the neighboring Town of Southold, which was. to be -designed to process 32,850 tons per year, the operations and maintenance charge was to be approximately $45 per ton; and, debt service on an approximately $9 million bond to finance construction at an interest rate of 7.3 precent,,would add another approximately $35 per ton in the first year decreasing to $22 per ton in the last year. Daneco was_the proposer selected to construct and operate the project, which has not gone forward-as a result of the Town's rejection of a referendum to finance construction of the facility. In addition, in the DGEIS prepared by Southampton in which MSW composting is the proposed solid waste management alternative, it is estimated that capital cost for a facility sized to handle all of that town's waste would be about $17MM to $18MM in 1990, and that,a bond size including all development costs would be about $22MM to $25MM. According to the Southampton DGEIS, the total cost per ton of waste processed was estimated to range between $85-$99 including provision for landfilling all rejects, residue and non-processibles, based on financing the project over a 20 year period. The Town of Brookhaven which has also evaluated MSW composting in a GEIS/SWMP, and is proceeding with the issuance of an RFP for a composting and energy recovery facility, estimated that the per ton cost for a 100 ton per day MSW compost facility would range from $45 - $37/ton, not including associated landfill costs. 5. Capacity/Application - The ability of this type of system-to process any portion of the Town's waste is limited by the problems associated with pre-processing systems stated in Section 4.2 and 5.2. In addition, a lack.of markets for compost could result in a complete failure of the system unless the-compost were simply used for landfill cover. 6. 'Conclusion = Refuse composting cannot be highly recommended for this project due to limited application and experience n this country at this time and the uncertainties concerning the mechanical reliability of preprocessing systems. However, there are a number of successfully operating refuse-only composting facilities in Europe and Japan, 2973M 8-20 and solid waste composting may be.considered an emerging technology in the U.S. MSW _ composting should not be relied upon as a sole means of MSW disposal for the entire waste stream, however, the Town could consider initiating a pilot or demonstration project. Valuable experience will be gained on Long Island as the Town of Brookhaven proceeds with its composting and energy recovery project; and, therefore the Town may wish to wait until this technology is demonstrated by operating experience in Brookhaven before proceeding with a Town project. 8.1.6 Other Waste Reduction Technologies A. Hydrolysis (Refuse to Ethanol) 1. System Design- The cellulose-rich, organic fraction of presorted refuse may be converted to ethanol. Ethanol production involves use of an enzyme to hydrolze cellulose into simple glucose molecules and other sugars. The hydrolyzed sugar is then fermented and distilled to produce ethanol. Ethanol is marketed as an alternate octane enhancer for gasoline. It competes with octane enhancers produced from petroleum. 2. Reliability - Each step in this system is complex and capital intensive. The pre-processing techniques utilized by this system have been discussed. The hydrolysis step is more difficult when processing MSW than it is when homogeneous feed stocks (corn or soy) are used, due to the cross contamination of,the organic fraction by inorganics components of refuse. The fermentation and distillation process is well established. However, it relies on successful performance by the preprocessing and hydrolysis subsystems. An institutional concern also exists in connection with this system. The marketing of ethanol must be conducted in competition with other gasoline octane enhancers. It has been shown through existing ethanol production facilities which utilize agricultural products as a feed stock that significant subsidies are required to make the price of ethanol competitive. Other states have accomplished this with tax credits which do not exist in New York. 2973M 8-21 Based on available information, no commercial scale applications of this system exist. Research has been conducted by the U.S. Army Natick Research and Development Command, Cal Recovery Systems and the National Alcohol Fuels Commission. 3. Environmental Impact and Safety - The safety and high residue production concerns applicable to any front-end processing system exist in this case. In addition, the ethanol production process is associated with high volumes of wastewater and ethanol storage considerations which have to be addressed as part of the permitting process. 4.- System Cost - The capital intensive subsystems, lack of full service contractors, end uncertain market for ethanol indicate that the net cost of such a system could be very high. 5. Capacity/Application - A facility utilizing this system could, in theory, be designed to handle all or a portion of the Town's solid waste. 6. Conclusion- Refuse-to-Ethanol cannot be considered as a viable alternative in meeting the Town's needs due to the absence of any commercial scale operation and its reliance on pre-processing. B. Anaerobic Digestion (Biogasification) 1. System Deaien - The organic fraction output of a pre-processing system may be mixed with water or liquid sewage sludge and placed in an anaerobic digestor where fermentation will produce methane gas. 2. Reliability- Potential for malfunction of this system is primarily related to the pre-processing system and the cross contamination by inorganics which could interfere with the operation of the digestor. One facility utilizing this system is in operation in this country. It is a 100 TED system development and testing facility in Pompano Beach, Florida. It has been operating relatively successfully in this mode since 1978. 2973M 8-22 3. Environmental Impact and Safety - In addition to the concerns associated with pre-processing such a 'system would have a very high water demand exceeding one million gallons per day for each. one thousand tons per day processed, a high liquid 'waste output requiring treatment and the generation of a filter cake containing elevated heavy metals. 4. System Cost - Sufficient information is not available to make an estimate. Net costs, however,,would-be affected by revenues from the sale of methane, residue disposal and treatment costs and unexpected capital or operating costs associated with the scale-up of a relatively unproven system. 5. Capacity/Application - As in-the case of refuse-to-ethanol, a facility could be designed to handle all or a portion of the Town's waste. 6. Conclusion - Biogasification cannot be considered as a viable alternate in meeting the Town's needs due to its reliance on pre-processing, high residue production and limited operational record. 8.2 Technology Screening Table 8-2 provides a summary of .the technologies examined in this appendix. The table also provides a summary of the detailed evaluation presented in Section 8.1. The table uses the following format to summarize the technologies and provide a basis for deciding upon a preferred system. Design: Technology Design (proven, tested, unproven, partially tested, partially proven) Reliability: Estimated Level of Reliability (low, medium, high) Environmental Impact: Estimated Level of affect on the environment (low, medium, high) Safety: Estimated Level of Concern for Operational Safety (low, medium, high) Cost: Estimated Capital Costs (low, medium, high) Estimated' Operation & Maintenance Costs (O&M) (low, medium, high) 2973M 8-23 Capacity/Applicability: Ability to Handle All of the Town's Municipal Solid Waste Disposal Needs and Available in the ' Required Size Range (yes, no) Overall Recommendation: Level of Recommendation (low, medium, high) Since mechanical processing systems are, for the most part, only part of a particular technology system they are not treated separately in Table 8-2. They were, however, considered in the evaluation of overall technologies, as applicable, such as the preprocessing portion of an RDF burning system. 2973M 8-24 Table 8-2 TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION AND SCREENING Technology/ Environmental Safety Capacity/ Technique Design Reliability Impact Concern Cost Applicability Recommendation Reduction Proven Unknown Low Low Unknown N/A High of Waste. Generation Rate Source Proven Low-Med Low Low Capital:Low No High Separation O&M:Low Material Partially Low Low Low Capital:High No Low Separation Proven O&M:Med Mass Burn Proven High Low Low i Capital:High No Low Field Erected O&M:Low Stoker Fired Convection Boiler Mass Bum Proven Med-High Low Low Capital:High No Low Field Erected O&M:Med Waterwall Boiler Systems Mass Bum Proven Low-Med Med Low Capital:Med Yes Med Prefabricated O&M:High "Module' Incinerators Mass Bum Proven Med-High Low Low Capital:High No Low Rotary O&M:Med Combustion Units Table 8-2(Continued) TECHNOLOGY EVALUATION AND SCREENING Technology/ Environmental Safety _ Capacity/ '— Technique Design Reliability Impact Concern Cost Applicability Recommendation RDF Partially Low Low Med Capital:High No Low Fluidized Bed Proven O&M:High Incinerator RDF Spreader- Partially Low Med Med Capital:Med No Low Stoker Proven O&M:Med RDF Partially Low Med Med Capital:Med No Low Suspension Proven O&M:Med Firing Pyrolysis Partially Low . Low Med Lack of proven Yes Low Tested facility leads to insufficient cost information Hydrolysis Unproven Low Med Med Same as for Yes Low pyrolysis MSW Partially Med Med Low- Capital:Low-Med Yes Low Composting Proven Med O&M:High Yard Waste Proven Med-High Low Low- Capital:Low Yes High Composting Med O&M:Low Anaerobic Partially Med Med Med Sufficient Yes Low Digestion Tested information is (Biogasifi- not available cation) to make an estimate 9.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Dvirka and Bartilucci, Town of Huntington. New York.-Resource Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, May 1986. 2. William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C.,, Western Finger Lakes, Solid Waste Management Project Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement, February 1987. 3. William F. Cosulich Associates, P.C., City of Burlington Department of Streets ' Feasibility •Study of Solid Waste Management Alternatives for Burlington. Vermont, February, 1980. 4. Malcolm• Pirnie, Preliminary Description and Criteria Outline for the North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Facility Project, December 2, 1985. 5. Tchobanoglous/Theisen/Eliassen, Solid Wastes Engineering Principles and Management Issues, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1977. 6. U.S. Department of Commerce - National Technical Information Service, Evaluation and Test Program of a 50-Ton Per Day "Waste Distillator" TM, June 1985. 7. Empire Energy Resources Management, Inc.,: Proposal for a Pyrolysis of Waste Rubber Products Technology, March 1987. 8. Bable, F., Keeping RDF Simple, Waste Age, November 1986. 9. Cundari, K.L. and Dr. M. Lauria, PE, Ashfills and Leachate, Waste Age, November 1986. 10. Repa, Dr. E., Why the Swedish Moratorium Was Ended, Waste Age, November 1986. 11. Waste Age, The Waste Age Refuse-to-Energy Guide, Waste Age, November 1986. -12. O'Leary, P., P. Walsh, and F. Cross, Waste Incineration and Energy Recovery, Waste Age, January 1987. r 2974M 9-1 13.' - Cross, F., P. O'Leary, and P. Walsh, Waste-to-Ener,g.y Systems: The Menu, Waste Age, February 1987. 14. O'Leary, P., P. Walsh, and P. Cross, Energy Production and Markets, Waste Age, March 1987. 15. Cross, F., P. O'Leary, and P. Walsh, Air Quality Protection for Waste-to-Energy Facilities, Waste Age, May 1987. 16. Walsh, P., P. O'Leary, and F. Cross, Residue Disposal -from Waste-to-Energy Facilities, Waste Age, April 1987. 17. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Solid Waste Management Plan, December 31, 1987. 18. Camp Dresser and McKee, City of New York Department of Sanitation Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Resource Recovery Facility at the Brooklyn Navy Yard Technical Appendix Volume I, June 1985. 19. Metcalf and Eddy, Report on Feasibility of Solid Waste Management and Resource Recovery Volume 1. Engineering Report, April, 1979. 20. New Jersey Alliance for Action and New Jersey Institute of Technology, Solving the Garbage Disposal Crisis in New Jersey, 1986. 21. Robinson, William D., The Solid Waste Handbook, Wiley, New York, 1986. 22. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy From Municipal Solid Waste Mechanical Equipment and Systems - Status Report, March 1983: 23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Waste Combustion Study - Combustion Control of Organic Emissions, May 1987. 24. Malcolm .Pirnie, Draft Site and Technology Specific Impact Addendum to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Facility Project - Volume 2 - Health Risk Assessment, February 1987 2974M 9-2 i i � A i _ 25. World Book Inc., World Book Encyclopedia, 1987 26. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Muncipal Waste Combustion Study - Report to Congress, June 1987 27. Techsearch International Ltd. and NYHK Energy Investment Corporation, The - New York Compost Project D estion and Methanization of 66.000 Tons Per Year Urban Refuse by the Valorga Process, June 1987 j 28. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority, Results of the Combustion and Emissions Research Project at the Vicon Incinerator Facilityin j ( Pittsfield, Massachusetts,_June 1987 j 29. Camp Dresser & McKee, Final Environmental Impact Statement - Proposed Resource Recovery Facility at the Brooklyn Naw Yard, June 1985 30,. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Resources Bureau of Solid Waste Management, - Solid Waste - Management. Solid Waste-To-Energy Technical Manual, December 1982 31. The United States Conference of Mayors, City Currents - Resource Recovery Activities, October 1986 i 32. National League of cities, Waste-To-Energy Facilities: A Decision Makers Guide, June 1986 33. A. Kullenforff, B. Janson and J. Olofsson, Operating Experience of Circulating Fluidized Bed Boilers 34. A. Kullendorff (Gotaverkan Energy Systems AB), An Introduction to the Multifuel, Circulating Fluidized Bed Boiler, March 1985 35. New York State Legislative Commission on Solid Waste Management, Recovering Waste Tires, April 1987 36. Sowa, Linda A. and David B., Spencer, Sc.D., Akron RDF Plant Finally Hits Stride, Waste Age Magazine, October 1987 2974M 9-3 37. Long, Michael D., P.E., From Cash Burner to Trash Burner: The Columbus, Ohio Experience, Resource Recovery Magazine, 1987 -Number 2 38. Suffolk Waste Distillation, Inc., Destructive Distillation vs. Direct Heat Pyrosis 39. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Technical Feasibility of Waste Distillation Technology for use in the Virgin Islands, June 1987 40. Suffolk Waste Distillation, Inc., Wate Distillation . . . Converting Refuse into Energv 41. Editors, Waste Age, ' The 1988 Refuse Incineration and Refuse-to-Energy Listings, November, 1988 42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal Waste Combustion Industry Profile - Facilities Subject to Section 111(d) Guidelines, September, 1988 43. The United States Conference of Mayors National Resource Recovery Association, City Currents, October 1988 44. Razvi, A.S., O'Leary, P.R. and Walsh, P. Composting Municipal Solid Wastes, Waste Age, August 1989. 45. Razvi, et. al., Basic Principals of Composting, Waste Age, July 1989. - r 46. Goldstein, N., A Guide to Solid Waste Composting Systems, January 1989. 47. California Department of Transportation, Evaluation of Compost and Cocompost Materials for Highway Construction - Phase I, June 1987. 48. Proceedings of Confrence on Composting and Recycling of Solid Waste, Madison, Wisconsin, August 1989. J 2974M 9-4 J TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN APPENDIX D GENERIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF ALTERNATIVES FOR A SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN JULY, 1990 Prepared By: Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers Syosset, New York 0081N/1 I PREFACE IT This Appendix presents an update of Dvirka & Bartilucci's continual health and safety assessment concerning municipal solid waste processing technologies at the time of I : issuance of this document and represents the firm's analysis and professional opinion on the issues presented and discussed herein. The intent of this Appendix is to assess health and safety concerns inherent in the processing, recycling, and disposal of solid waste. W Although Dvirka & Bartilucci continually updates the evaluation of health and safety issues involved in these planning alternatives, there are, routinely, conclusions which do not change at each update, and therefore, similar, and at times identical language may be found in other generic health and safety assessments for solid waste planning alternatives prepared by this firm. Conversely, conclusions may be reached based on new analyses of emerging or existing'technologies, as well as project/location specific situations, that may differ from those put forth in previous assessments. I 0081N/1 i TABLE OF CONTENTS i Section Title Page - PREFACE i i , 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 - 2.0 CONCEPTS AND THEORY 2-1 2.1 Basic Concepts 2-1 2.2 Potential Risks 2-3 2.3 Acceptable Risks 2-3 3.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 3-1 3.1 Approach 3-1 3.2 Assumptions and Uncertainties 3-2 4.0 CURRENT STANDARDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES 4-1 4.1 Air Quality 4-1 I 4.2 Water Quality 4-4 �- 4.2.1 Drinking Water 4-5 4.2.2 Groundwater 4-5 4.2.3 Surface Water 4-7 4.3 Soil Contamination 4-7 4.4 , Food Contamination 4-12 4.5 Potential Health Effects 4=13 j { 4.6 Sensitive Populations 4-14 5.0 WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES 5-1, 5.1 General Approach 5-1 5.2 Precollection Waste Reduction and Recycling 5-3 5.3 Materials Handling and Processing 5-4 5.4 Energy Recovery 5-5 i 5.5 Landfilling Nonprocessible/Nonrecoverable Wastes 5-5 6.0 POTENTIAL HAZARDS 6-1 6.1 Types of Hazards 6-1 6.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 6-1 6.2.1 Environmental Pathways 6-2 6.2.2 Air Exposures 6-4 6.2.3 Drinking Water- 6-5 6.2.4 Food Contamination 6-5 6.2.5 Skin and Eye Contact 6-6 6.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 6-7 6.3.1• Fire and Explosions 6-7 _ 6.3.2 Accidents and'Injury 6-7 6.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards 6-8 7.0 PRECOLLECTION WASTE REDUCTION 7-1 7.1 Waste Reduction 7-1 7.1.1 Description 7-1 7.1.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 7-1 0081N/1 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 7.1.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 7-2 7.1.4 Biological,Health and Safety Hazards 7-2 7.1.5 Assessment 7-3 7.2 Materials Reuse and Exchange 7-3 7.3 Source Separation 7-5 7.3.1 Description 7-5 7.3.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 7-5 7.3.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 7-5 7.3.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards 7-6 7.3.5 Assessment 7-6 7.4 Household Hazardous Materials Disposal Program 7-9 7.4.1 Description 7-9 7.4.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 7-9 7.4.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 7-10 7.4.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards 7-10 7.4.5 Assessment 7-11 8.0 WASTE HANDLING AND PROCESSING 8-1 8.1 Materials Handling 8-1 8.1.1 Description 8-1 8.1.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 8-1 8.1.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 8-2 8.1.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards 8-2 8.1.5 Assessment 8-4 8.2 Materials Recycling 8-4 - 8.2.1 Description 8-4 8.2.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 8-6 8.2.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 8-6 8.2.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards 8-6 8.2.5 Assessment 8-6 8.3 Materials Processing/Shredding 8-8 8.3.1 Description 8-8 8.3.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 8-8 8.3.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 8-8 8.3.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards 8-9 8.3.5 Assessment 8-11 8.4 Major Household Appliances 8-13 8.4.1 Description 8-13 8.4.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 8-13 8.4.3 'Physical Health and Safety :Hazards 8-13 8.4.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards 8-14 8.4.5 Assessment 8-14 0081N/1 111 i TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page 8.5 Materials Recovery and Recycling 8-16 8.5.1 Description 8-16 J 8.5.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 8-16 8.5.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 8-17 8.5.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards 8-20 8.5.5 Assessment 8-21 8.6 Waste Composting 8-21 8.6.1 Description 8-21 8.6.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 8-21 8.6.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 8-25 8.6.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards 8-26 8.6.5 Assessment 8-29 9.0 ENERGY RECOVERY 9-1 - 9.1 Description 9-1 9.2 Potential Health Concerns 9-1 9.3 Chemical Exposures - 9-2 9.3.1 Air Exposures 9-2 I + 9.3.2 Water 9-2 9.3.3 Food Contamination 9-3 9.4 Biological Hazards 9-4 9.5 Physical Hazards 9-4 9.6 Assessment 9-4 9.6.1 Air Emissions 9-6 9.6.2 Populations Exposed 9-6 9.6.3 Risks From Inhalation 9-8 9.6.4 Risks From Ingestion 9-8 9.6.5 Comparative Risks 9-9 9.6.6 Conclusions 9-9 10.0 OTHER WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES 10-1) 10.1 Sanitary Landfilling 10-1 10•.1.1 Description 10-1 10.1.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 10-1 10.1.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 10-2 10.1.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazard 10-3 10.1.5 Assessment 10-7 10.2 Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal 10-9 10.2.1 Description 10-9 10.2.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 10-10 10.2.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 10-10 10.2.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazard 10-11 j 10.2.5 Assessment 10-11 s 0081N/1 iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Section Title Page ti 10.3 Bypass Waste Disposal 10-13 10.3.1 Description 10-13 10.3.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 10-13 10.3.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 10-13 10.3.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazard 10-14 10.3.5 Assessment 10-14 10.4 Ash Processing Disposal 10-14 10.4.1 Description 10-14 10.4.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 10-16 10.4.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 10-19 10.4.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazard 10-19 10.4.5 Assessment 10-19 11.0 SUh04ARY AND CONCLUSIONS 11-1 11.1 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 11-1 11.1.1 Air 11-2 11.1.2 Water 11-3 11.1.3 Food Contamination 11-4 11.2 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 11-4 11.2.1 Accidents and Injury 11-4 11.2.2 Fire and Explosion 11-5 11.3 Biological Health and Safety Hazards 11-6 11.4 General Conclusions 11-6 References R-1 0081N/1 V ,f i LJ ' ! LIST OF TABLES Number Title Page 2-1 Relative Risk Factors that Result in a One-in-a-Million Chance of Dying 2-5 2-2 Federal Regulatory Risk Levels for Selected - Carcinogens 2-6 - 2-3 Risk Factors for Some Common Exposures to Carcinogens 2-7 4-1 Summary of Federal and State Ambient Air Standards and PSb Increments 4-2 E 4-2 NYSDOH Drinking Water Standards and Guidelines 4-6 4-3 Recommended Limits on Metals for Application i to Agricultural Soils 4-9 i 4-4 NJDEP Soil Guidelines 4-10 4-5 Maximum Concentration of Contaminants of TCLP for Hazardous Wastes 4-11 4-6 Risk Factors for Cancer 4-15 7-1 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and _Hazards: Source Waste Reduction and Recycling 7-4 i � 7-2 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and Hazards: Source Separation 7-7 7-3 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and Hazards: Household Hazardous Wastes 7-12 8-1 National Safety Council Recordable Occupational Injury and Illness Rates for 1986 8-3 8-2 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and Hazards: MSW Collection and Handling 8-5 8-3 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and Hazards: Material Recycling Facility 8-7 0081N/1 vi LIST OF TABLES (Continued) Number Title Page 8-4 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and Hazards: Materials Processing/Shredding 8-12 8-5 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and 8-15 Hazards: Material Reuse and Exchange 8-6 Air Pollutant's Associated with the Production of Steel, Aluminum Glass 8-18 8-7 National Safety Council Recordable Occupational Injury & Illness 1980-1982 8-19 8-8 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and Hazards: Materials Recovery & Recycling 8-22 8-9 New York State Maximum Heavy Metal Concentrations for Land Application of Sewage Sludges 8-24 8-10 Concentrations of Thermophilic Actinomycetes in Different Materials 8-27 8-11 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and Hazards: Composting 8-30 9-1 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and Hazards: Energy Recovery 9-5 9-2 Some Potential Air Emissions from Municipal Waste Combustion Facilities 9-7 10-1 Fly-borne Diseases 10-4 10-2 Rodent-borne Diseases J 10-5 10-3 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and Hazards: Sanitary Landfills 10-8 10-4 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and Hazards: Construction and Demolition Wastes 10-12 10-5 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and Hazards: Bypass Wastes 10-15 0081N/1 vii - f LIST OF TABLES (Continued) i Number Title Page 10-6 Concentration of Lead and Cadmium in New York State Ash Residues 10-18 10-7 Summary of Health and Safety Benefits and Hazards: Ash Disposal 10-20 0081N/1 Viii LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page 5-1 Integrated MSW Program Potential Waste Flow 5-2' 6-1 Environmental Pathways for Chemical Exposures 6-3 ooa1N/1 ix 1 a 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report examines health and safety issues related to the implementation of a solid waste management plan in the Town of Southold. Potential health and safety hazards are identified for each element of the solid waste plan and evaluated in terms of public and occupational health and safety. This assessment is based on a review of existing documents pertaining to various processes used for disposal ,of municipal solid wastes (MSW). This document comprises a qualitative assessment of the health and safety impacts of an integrated solid waste management project. Data needed for such a quantitative assessment for most process-options are lacking. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) requires that a detailed quantitative health risk assessment be prepared for any waste combustion facility. Should such a facility be built, a quantitative health risk assessment of that facility will be prepared as part of a site-specific environmental impact statement and the NYSDEC permitting process. For the purposes of this generic evaluation, which is to be used in conjunction with the development of a solid waste management plan, seven waste management activities are assumed: o Storage o Source Separation o Collection o Transportation o Transfer o Processing - 0 Disposal Several of these activities may be included in each of the four waste management components: precollection, handling and reduction, -resource recovery, and landfilling. This assessment evaluates a scenario in which all components' are integrated into one program. Alternative combinations of MSW process options are not evaluated. 0094N 1-1 Precollection activities assume regional government action and strong public participation. This component would include waste reduction, separation, and removal of materials from the waste stream prior to collection. Precollection elements include: o Source reduction by producers and distributors o Source separation by residents o Material reuse by residents o Household hazardous materials removal Implementing these activities would require that the residents be heavily involved. Some of these activities could expose the public to potential health and safety impacts. The main objective of these precollection activities is to reduce the amount of wastes and hazardous waste components entering the waste stream. Source reduction, for example, would involve reduction of packing materials by producers and distributors and return of beverage containers by residents to distributors. Materials reuse by residents -would also reduce the waste stream. This recycling and reuse includes items such as appliances, yard equipment, and bicycles. For each process, possible chemical, physical, and biological hazards to occupational and public health are identified. These evaluations are based on uncontrolled applications and include "worse case" evaluations. Ideally, these examinations would result in quantitative estimates of the potential public and occupational health impacts associated with each of these process options. For example, one would compare excess cancer risks per million people for each option. In practice, however, this is not possible due to the generic nature of the solid waste management plan, as well as limitations in the available data and'state—of—knowledge. Consequently, the discussions included in this Appendix focus on the types of potential hazards workers or the public may face, often without attempting to quantitatively characterize these hazards. Actions that may result in risk reduction will be identified and assessed. The evaluations are'-divided into three categories: chemical, physical, and biological health and safety hazards. As used here, chemical hazards refer to chemidals used, generated or released to the environment; physical hazards refer to fire, explosion or accidents (e.g., truck accidents); and biological hazards refer to microbial pathogens, rodents, and other biological pests and vectors (e.g., insects). 0094N 1-2 i ! 2.0 CONCEPTS AND THEORY ! 2.1 Basic Concepts All activities involved in handling, transporting, sorting, processing, recycling, or disposing of MSW have some potential for causing injury or disease. Some processes may have less potential adverse impacts than others. The implementation of some options may result in a reduction of risks in other options. Evaluation of these effects include chemical, physical, and biological health and safety hazards. Safety hazards of waste disposal processes include injury or death from: o Fires o Explosions o Vehicle accidents o Falls o Mechanical equipment o Electrical shocks o Moving debris o Lifting and twisting Health hazards of waste disposal processes include diseases or death from exposure to: o Air emissions o Contaminated drinking water o Contaminated food o Household chemicals o Pathogenic organisms Several factors must be considered when assessing health impacts of environmental contaminants. These include: o Emission levels, environmental dispersion, and deposition of a pollutant o The time and place of exposure resulting from a specific waste management process 0083N 2-1 o Direct exposure and indirect exposure from bioaccumulation o Human exposure levels via inhalation, ingestion, and/or skin contact o Actual dose of the chemical taken in via these three pathways o Diseases caused by the received dose o Excess risks to the population exposed Unless there are levels of emissions or discharges which, are toxic, and which are distributed in the environment where people are exposed to the pollutant, there can be no significant health. risk. Likewise, if there is an exposure but no uptake or dose which is toxic to the people exposed, no health effect will occur. The dose of the pollutant to the population must be high enough to result in an increase in the frequency of the disease or death which is cause for concern. , If there are no physical hazards (i.e., explosions, fires, traffic) then risks of injury or death are not a concern. However, wherever human activity is required in a MSW option, some accident risk is likely. ' Routes of exposure must be considered when assessing hazards. The three principal routes of entry for chemical exposures are inhalation, ingestion and dermal absorption. Dermal absorption is the least important pathway for the general public. However, this pathway is more significant for MSW workers. Procedures for determining inhalation hazards are more developed and are commonly used for determining health impacts from air pollutants. Exposures via ingestion are complex and risk assessments for this route are difficult because of the need to evaluate two major pathways: drinking water and food. Direct ingestion of contaminated soil may be a pathway of concern in small children. Skin contact is of minor importance to the public except for possible contact with household chemicals. 0083N 2-2 r" 2.2 Potential Risks There is no risk free solution to MSW management. Therefore, an assessment of health and safety hazards is important in evaluating potential health effects of alternative options for waste disposal. The risks of any given alternative should be evaluated in order to assure that a safe technology is selected (NYSDEC, 1986). For example, the risks and offsetting benefits of waste reduction, recycling, energy recovery, and landfilling should be evaluated. Quantitative risk assessment of specific chemical pollutants is not an actual prediction of future risks. Chemical health risk estimates are often theoretical determinations based on animal- studies. Where human data exists, risk estimates are based on epidemiological studies which are most commonly conducted in occupational settings. These risk estimates are not based on measured dose response data on humans. When a risk of 1/100,000 (1 x 10-5) is estimated for a potential chemical exposure, this estimate is not a "bottom line" that states that this particular facility will cause one death per 100,000 people exposed. These estimates are generally "upper bound" assessments assuming situations worse than are likely to occur. Risks based on animal ' studies are not true risks that will likely occur in the future. Each factor used to calculate a risk in environmental health assessments is generally designed to be conservative rather than probable. It is an assessment of an unlikely situation in which a person would be exposed to conditions worse than predicted. Conservative assumptions are made for each stage of the calculation, and can result in many risk estimates being inflated by a factor of 100 to 10,000 (Penner, et al., 1987). 2.3 Acceptable Risks The primary goal of risk assessment is to provide information needed for prudent management of risks to relatively safe levels. The complete elimination of unavoidable risks is generally not attainable. Achieving consensus within the community on an acceptable risk is complex and involves choice in assessing voluntary and involuntary risks, perception of real risks, catastrophic vs. routine risks, and the size and nature of the population at risk. The communication of risk information to the public is important since the public's perception of the risks are affected by their biases, images presented in the press, and fears generated by opponents to particular elements of an MSW program. 0083N 2-3 Risks can be viewed in the context of those commonly encountered, such as, the risk of a "safe job", highway travel, chemical compounds in drinking water, cigarette smoking, or normal daily exposure to radiation. Some risks, such as choice of job or smoking cigarettes, may be considered voluntary risks while others such as drinking contaminated water or being exposed to the smoke of others may be considered involuntary risks. Most regulatory agencies will'accept as not significant a risk of 1 x 10-6, or one excess death per million people exposed over a lifetime (Miley, 1986). This risk may be insignificant when only 1,000 people are exposed but may be of concern if 200 million are exposed. A safe job is viewed as having a risk of one per 10,000. Table 2-1 summarizes several risks to which people are commonly exposed. What is acceptable is also related to one's perception of risk. Air travel is often perceived as unsafe by many individuals in spite of the relatively safe track record (Table 2-1). Technologies that have a potential for a catastrophic accident are perceived as having a higher risk even if'the total risk to the public is not large. Components of waste management systems that emit the slightest amounts of carcinogenic chemicals may be perceived by some in the community as having unacceptable risks even if assessments estimate worse case insignificant risks that are one-in-a-million. Higher risks may be acceptable in some cases (Travis and Hattemer-Frey, 1988). The USEPA does not accept the concept of a universal acceptable level of risk that should never be exceeded. Acceptable levels of risk for regulations have varied between 10-4 to 10-6, or 1/10,000 to 1/1,000,000 (Travis and Hattemer-Frey, 1988). About 70% of regulated chemical carcinogens have lifetime public risks greater than 10-6. In many circumstances, risks greater than 10 4 are in fact tolerated (see Table 2-2 and Table 2-3). These risks are "upperbound" estimates. Actual risks are not likely to exceed these values and are probably lower even for persons exposed to federal standard levels for their entire life. z 00s3N 2-4 i TABLE 2-1 w ! RELATIVE RISK FACTORS THAT RESULT IN - ' ONE IN A MILLION CHANCE OF DYING1 Factors or Situations j Traveling 700 miles by airplane Traveling 60 miles by automobile Living in Denver, Colorado for 2 months Working 3 hours in a coal mine Smoking 1 to 3 cigarettes in a life time Living 2 months with a cigarette smoker Having 1 X—ray in a good hospital i Eating 100 charcoal broiled steaks Eating 40 teaspoons of peanut butter (Aflatoxin) j I Drinking 30 12 ounce cans of diet soda with saccharin Living 15 years within 30 miles of a nuclear power plant Source: Uptown, 1982; and Casarett and Doull, 1980. 1 A risk of one in a million (10 6) is equivalent to the reduction of the average life expectancy by 8 minutes. 0083N 2-5 TABLE 2-2 FEDERAL REGULATORY RISK LEVELS FOR SELECTED CARCINOGENS (PUBLIC EXPOSURE)I LIFETIME RISK CHEMICAL (PER 100.000) Aflatoxins (US) 2.0 Arsenic (Water) 2100 Cadmium (Water) 220 Chromium (Water) 5900 Lead Acetate 0.02 Lindane (Air) 0.05 (Water) 15 Methylene Chloride (Decaffeinated Coffee) 0.1 PCBs (in fish) 100 Perchloroethylene 0.1 Polyorganic Matter 21 Saccharin 40 Trihalomethanes 10 Vinyl Chloride (PVC Plants) 59 (Food) 0.01 Source: Travis and Hattemer—Frey, 1988. 1 Risk estimates calculated using concentration allowed by the standard and carcinogen potency data from EPA's Carcinogen Assessment Group. Values represent upper bound risks. 0083N 2-6 TABLE 2-3 RISK FACTORS FOR SOME COMMON EXPOSURES TO CARCINOGENS RISK FACTORS FOR CANCER _ LIFETIME RISK Median Public Upperbound Risk from 8.6 X 10 Carcinogenic Chemicals at Regulated I Standards Total Cancer'Deaths in U.S. 2.5 X 10-1 Outdoor Environmental Pollution 5.0 X 10-3 Indoor Radon Exposures 4.0 X 10 3 Organic Chemical Exposure Indoors 1.0 X 10 3 Sources: Travis and Hattemer—Frey, 1988 and Nero, 1988. 0083N 2-7 �_1 3.0 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 3.1 Approach For most possible components of a solid waste management plan, there are no quantitative estimates of occupational or public exposures to health risk factors. In i addition, sites, for various MSW management facilities and specific component designs have not been selected. Therefore the evaluations presented in this report will be primarily a qualitative assessment of health and safety risks based upon identification of f hazards for each waste management component. J The assessment approach involves: o Identification and discussion of current environmental standards and exposures pertaining to adverse health effects o Identification of occupational and public health and safety hazards for each plan component of the solid waste management plan o Evaluation of the significance of the identified health and safety hazards for each component o Identification of potential health and safety problems that need to be addressed and mitigated in the final design of the plan A comprehensive literature search was conducted on health and safety effects of current solid waste management practices. The search involved: o Computer search of Dialog on-line databases (Enviroline, Environmental Bibliography, NIOSH, DOE Energy, NTIS, and the Federal Register) o Phone calls to key agencies and associations (NYSDEC, NYSDOH, -USEPA, National Safety Council, National Solid Waste Management Association, and National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health) o Manual literature search of existing reports 0084N 3-1 The results of this search revealed few health and safety studies for almost all waste management alternatives except landfilling, waste combustion, and shredding. Landfilling has been assessed primarily from problems related to groundwater impacts and potential health impacts. No studies were found that' assess relative health and safety risks between landfilling, incineration, recycling, composting, and other technologies. 3.2 Assumptions and Uncertainties For, general comparisons of common health risks, the population of the Town is considered to be equivalent _to that of the United States. Similarly, results from risk assessments on waste combustion facilities from other sites are assumed to be applicable to a facility in the Town. Not all MSW processing would occur in the Town. For example, final processing, energy recovery, -or toxic waste management may occur at distant facilities. Due to the lack of quantitative dose-response data to chemicals that may have adverse health and safety effects, there is a high degree. of uncertainty regarding potential impacts of any solid waste management process. When factors affecting a hazard are unknown or uncertain, conditions worse than expected are often assumed by regulatory agencies to assure that the risk evaluation will not be biased toward•a less hazardous interpretation which could compromise the public's safety. For example, if an emission, discharge, or .leachate contains lead, it may be' assumed that the entire population in the affected area is exposed to the concentration at the point of maximum impact. Potential risks are more likely to be overestimated if the concentrations and distribution of the contaminated plume are included. Thus interpretations in this report are designed to be conservative to assure maximum safety of the proposed project. 0084N 3-2 Ll I 4.0 CURRENT STANDARDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL EXPOSURES 4.1 Air•Quality A discussion of the air quality in the Town is presented in Section 2.1 of the DGEIS. t_ State and Federal air quality standards can be used to assess the significance of exposures to toxic chemicals from MSW management options. National Ambient Air -Quality Standards exist for six criteria pollutants (see Table 4-1). The Town of Southold is in the Metropolitan Air Quality Control Region (AQCR) as designated by the NYSDEC and USEPA. A region may be classified as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassified depending on the concentrations of criteria pollutants and the data available. Nonattainment areas are regions which have reported or estimated concentrations of, a criteria pollutant which exceeds the appropriate standard. Guidelines or standards for �i acceptable concentrations in air have not been established for many chemicals emitted from combustion processes. r , i J The Metropolitan AQCR is considered to be in attainment of air quality standards. In general, air quality in the Town is good. Data from the monitoring stations located in Babylon and Eisenhower Park on Long Island indicate that eastern Suffolk County is in compliance with both Federal and State air quality standards for all pollutants except r ozone, which is a regional nonattainment problem. Carbon monoxide levels for Long Island are in attainment except for an area in western, central Nassau County. Trace metals are emitted from burning leaded gas, incineration of waste, and coal r combustion. Mercury and lead are of concern since some studies have shown these metals to cause adverse health effects at low concentrations. Concern over trace metals has been linked to use of leaded gasoline, paints, batteries, and industrial contamination ! of the environment by mercury. Organic particulates are of concern since some of these compounds are known -" carcinogens, terratogens (embryo toxic) and mutagens. These include such compounds as benzo(a)pyrene common to burning of fuels, wastes, and other organic matter. Except for lead and mercury, there are no specific air quality standards for metals and organic chemicals. New York State provides guidelines for numerous chemicals in its Air Guide I document. In .practice, facility specific emission standards based on site specific health risk assessments are set in the facility's permit application. 0085N 4-1 Table 4-1 SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR STANDARDS AND PSD INCREMENTS Corresponding Federal Standards New York Standards PSD Increments Primary Secondary Averaging (ug/m3) Contaminant° Period Conc. Units StatistiO Conc. Units` Stat. Conc. Units Stat. Class I Class H Sulfur 12 Consecutive Mo. 0.03 ppm A.M.(MEAD 80 ug/m3 A.M. 2 20 Dioxide(SO,) 24-hr 0.14d ppm MAXb 365 ug/m3 MAX' 5 91 3-hr 0.50` ppm MAX 1300 ug/m3 MAX 25, 512 Carbon 8-hr 9 ppm MAX 10 mg/m3 MAX 10 mg/m3 MAX Monoxide(CO) 1 -hr 35 ppm MAX_ 40 mg/ml MAX 40 Mg/m3 MAX Ozone (Photochemical 1 -hr 0.121 ppm MAX 235 ug/m3 MAX 235 ug/m3 MAX Oxidants) Hydrocarbons 3-hr 0.24 ppm MAX 160 ug/m3 MAX 160 ug/m3 MAX (Nonmethane) (6-9 A.M.) Nitrogen Dioxide(NO,) 12 Consecutive Mo. 0.05 ppm A.M. 100 ug/m3 MAX 100 ug/m3 AM 2.5 2.5 Total 12 Consecutive Mo. 45-751 ug/m3 G.M 9 5 19 Suspended 24-hr 250 ug/m3 MAX 10 37 Particulates(TSPP Hydrogenb 1 -hr 0.01 mg/ml Sulfide(1125) (14) Beryllium(BE) Month 0.01 ug/1113 MAX TOSHPSD Table 4-1 (Continued) Corresponding Federal Standards New York Standards PSD Increments Primary Secondary Averaging (ug/m3) Contaminant' Period Conc. Units Statistie Conc. Units` Stat. Conc. Units Stat. Class I Class H Fluoridee 12-hr 3.7 ug/m3 MAX 24-hr 2.85 ug/m3 MAX '1 Week 1.65 ug/m3 MAX 1 Month 0.8 ug/m3 MAX Lead(Pb)' 3 Consecutive Mo. 1.5 ug/m3 MAX Particulate 12 Consecutive Mo. 50 ug/m3 A.M. 50 ug/m3 A.M. Matter<10 (PM-10) 24 hour 150 ug/m3 MAX 150 ug/m3 MAX a. NYS also has standards for Settleable Particulates(Dustfall). b. All maximum values are values not to be exceeded more than once a year(Ozone std.not to be exceeded during more than 1 day per year). C. Gaseous concentrations are corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and to a reference pressure of 760 millimeters of mercury. d. Also during any 12 consecutive months,99%of the values shall not exceed.010 ppm(not necessary to address this standard when predicting future concentrations). e. Also during any 12 consecutive months,99910 of the values shall not exceed 0.25 ppm(see above). - f. Existing NYS standard for Photochemical Oxidants(Ozone)of 0.08 ppm not yet officially revised via regulatory process to coincide with new Federal standard of 0.12 ppm which is currently being applied to determine compliance status. g. Geometric Mean of 24-hour average concentrations. h. No Federal A.A.Q.S.exists for these pollutants. i. New Federal Standard for lead not yet officially adopted by NYS but is currently being applied to determine compliance status. j. NYS Standards depend on the level classifications of the local region;level classifications are designated based on the extent of development and type of land use. Source: NYSDEC, 1987 M TOSHPSD Controversy over health effects resulting from emissions surrounds the class of organic compounds containing chlorine. These include numerous PCBs, chlorinated dioxins, and furans of which the best known is 2,3,7,8 tetrachlorodibenzodioxin or TCDD. TCDD is extremely toxic to laboratory animals and causes cancer in rats, mice, and guinea pigs at very low doses. The USEPA, 1987c has identified several sources of TCDD and other dioxins and furans. These include: o Trichlorophenol (TCP) production o TCP herbicide use and disposal o PCB transformer fires o Pulp and papermills . o Disposal, discharges, and combustion of chlorinated chemicals o Copper smelters o Wood burning stoves o Sewage sludge incineration o MSW incinerators Chlorinated dioxins and furans are produced in trace amounts whenever chlorinated plastics and chemicals, and other materials containing chlorine, including food (salt), are burned with other combustible matter. Also these chemicals have been contaminants of other chlorinated organic chemicals such as the herbicides 3,4-D and 2,4,5-T, as well as certain wood preservatives. They have been detected in minute quantities in paper products and motor vehicle exhaust. Dioxins and furans have been widely distributed throughout the environment. 4.2 Water Quality Contamination of surface waters and groundwater is a major concern in the Town of Southold. Drinking water standards and water quality criteria developed by the USEPA and New York State can be used as guidelines for acceptable contaminant levels in water (NYS Ch. X Parts 700 - 704). The purpose of the Federal primary standards is to protect public health while secondary standards are concerned primarily with taste, odor, color, and corrosivity of drinking water. .J r 0085N 4-4 I In addition to these legal standards, EPA has promulgated drinking water health `- advisories. These advisories, though not legally binding, provide guidance for assessing i safe short-term (days) and longer-term (1-2 years) exposures to contaminated water. �- Also, water quality criteria have been developed by EPA (EPA, 1980) for 129 pollutants including several carcinogens. These water quality criteria do not carry regulatory status but provide a useful public health assessment tool. NYSDEC has established Ambient _ Water Quality Standards for 96 substances, many of which are adopted from EPA's water quality criteria. These standards are set for different water classes and are based on human health protection and aquatic life protection. Some Federal water quality criteria and NYS standards are set at levels well below "those known to cause adverse health effects. Secondary criteria (i.e., iron) are set to control odor, taste, and color. 4.2.1 Drinking Water i Table 4-2 gives the New York State drinking water standards and guidelines. These are set at levels which are considered safe for daily consumption over a human's life time. They are set to protect public health against carcinogens which lack a threshold response, and for chemicals which have a threshold response. It is generally accepted that there is a low level of risk which is acceptable for carcinogens (see Section 2.3 above regarding acceptable risks.) _ The New York State drinking water quality criteria do not have a set acceptable risk level for carcinogens (Anderson, 1983). A risk level between one in 100,000 and one in I. 10,000,000 may be acceptable or unacceptable for drinking water depending on the benefits received from a technology or the feasibility of control (see Table 2-2). For example chlorination of water supplies has a large benefit in protecting public health, but some carcinogenic chlorinated hydrocarbons are produced by chlorinating some water supplies. Thus, a risk of one to ten cancer rates in 100,000 persons has been used by EPA to establish acceptable concentrations for several chlorinated hydrocarbons in water. 4.2.2 Groundwater ! Groundwater resources are discussed in Section 2.1.3 of the DGEIS. Groundwater aquifers used for drinking water are protected by New York State by an amendment to Article 15 "Water Resources" of the Environmental Conservation Law. NYS groundwater 0085N 4-5 Table 4-2 NEN YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DRINKING NATER STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES JANUARY 1990 NYS Standard Carbonate Pesticides Limit total coliform <2.2 or <1 /100m1 aldicarb 7 ppb specific cond - Fmhos/cm carbofuran 15 ppb pH - ( oxamyl 50 ppb nitrate 10.0 mg/l carbaryl 50 free ammonia - mg/l methom 1 ppb 0 chloride 250. mg/1 Organic Pesticides 50 ppb sulfate 250.0 mg/1 endrin 0.2 ppb iron 0.3 mg/1* lindane 4 ppb manganese 0.3 mg/1* methoxychlor 50 ppb copperdium 1.0 mg/l toxaphene 5 ppb zinc 5.0 mg +/ 1 2, 4,D5 TP (Silvex) 10 ppb cadmium 10.0 ppb Physical Parameters lead 50.0 ppb color 15 units MBAS-detergents - mg/l odor 3 units corrosivity non-corr turbidity (mon. avg.,) 1 Tu turbidity (2 day avg.) 5 Tu * Iron & manganese combined should not exceed 0.5 milligrams per liter. + Moderately restricted sodium diet should not exceed 270 mg/l. Severely restricted sodium diet should not exceed 20 mg/l. NYS NYS Standard Standard vinyl chloride 2. 2 chloroethylvinylether 5, methylene chloride 5. benzene 5. 1,1 dichloroethane 5. toluene 5. trans dichloroethylene 5. chlorobenzene 5. chloroform 100.* ethylbenzene 5. 1,2 dichloroethane 5. o-xylene 5. 1,1,1 trichloroethane 5. m-xylene 5. carbon tetrachloride 5. p-xylene 5. 1 bromo,2 chloroethane 5. total xylene 5. 1,2 dichloropropane 5. o-chlorotoluene 5, 1,1,2 trichloroethylene 5. m-chlorotoluene 5, chlorodibromomethane 100.* p-chlorotoluene 5, 1,2 dibromoethane (EDB) 0.1 total chlorotoluene 5, 2 bromo 1 chloropropane 5. 1,3,5 trimethylbenzene 5, bromoform 100.* 1,2,4 trimethylbenzene ! 5, tetrachloroethylene 5. m, p-dichlorobenzene 5, cis dichloroethylene 5. o-dichlorobenzene 5, freon 113 5. p-diethylbenzene 5, dibromomethane 5. 1,2,4,5 tetramethylbenzene 5. 1,1 dichloroethylene 5. 1,2,4 trichlorobenzene 5, bromodichloromethane 100.* 1,2,3 trichlorobenzene 5, 2,3 dichloropropene 5. ethenylbenzene (styrene) 5, cis dichloropropene 5. 1 methylethylbenzene (cumene) 5. trans dichloropropene 5. n-propylbenzene 5, 1,1,2 trichloroethane 5. tert-butylbenzene 5, 1,1,1,2 tetrachlorethane 5. sec-butylbenzene 5, s-tetrachloroethane 5. isopropyltoluene (p-cymene) 5. 1,2,3 trichloropropane 5. n-butylbenzene 5. 2,2 dichloropropane 5. hexachlorobutadiene 5, 1,3 dichloropropane 5. 1,2 dibromo 3-chloropropane 5. * Limit established for total trihalomethanes is 100 ppb. Radiological + Limit radium 226 and 228 5 pCi/L +Total man-made organicnuclides gross alpha 15 pCi/L not to exceed 4 millirems per year. gross beta 50 pCi/L Tritium 20,000 pCi/L Strontium 8 pCi/L 0085N 4-6 Class GA applies to potable supplies. Chapter X Part 703 of the NYS Water Laws has specific water quality standards for 83 substances which cannot be exceeded. Refer to Table 4-2 for a listing of standards applicable to NYS groundwater supplies. Landfilling solid wastes, without appropriate ground liners and cover as performed in the Town, is a recognized source of contamination of drinking water. Sources of groundwater contamination that may affect public health in the Town of Southold include: nitrates, volatile organic chemicals, fertilizers, pesticides, stormwater runoff, deicing salts, septic tank and cesspool contamination with household chemicals, leakage from surface and underground storage tanks, and chemical/fuel spills. Animal wastes from pets and livestock are also a recognized contributor to groundwater pollution. 4.2.3 Surface Water New York State has several classes for surface water quality for fresh and marine water bodies. The purest classes (AA and A) are suitable for drinking. Class B is suitable for contact recreation (e.g., swimming). Class SA is suitable for edible shellfish and swimming and Class SB'is suitable for swimming, but taking of shellfish is restricted. The other classes of surface waters may have various characteristics which could cause disease or toxic effects. J The primary health concerns related to surface waters have been attributed to nonpoint source runoff from residential areas, commercial areas, and highways. These problems include nutrient loading, fecal bacteria, and road deicing salts. 4.3 Soil Contamination Contamination of soil is a health concern for the following reasons: o Leachates from soil may contaminate groundwater o Runoff from the soil can contaminate surface waters o Contamination of lawn and agricultural soils by certain chemicals can result in their accumulation in soil 0085N 4-7 o Bioaccumulation in food grown on contaminated soil o Accidental ingestion of dirt, particularly by children The primary health concern pertaining to soil contamination is impacts on groundwater (see Section 4:2). Soil runoff causes contamination of public beaches by infectious agents and contamination of fish and shellfish by chemicals and infectious agents. Agricultural problems_of soil contamination relate to the direct toxic effects of chemicals on crops, use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers, and the potential for specific metals and chlorinated organic chemicals to accumulate in the food (see Section 4.4). There are no Federal or New York State standards regulating specific concentrations of contaminants in soil, however, guidelines have been prepared for certain metals (see Table 4-3). The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) provides a guideline for soil contamination (Table 4-4). Although it is not a New York, guideline, it has been commonly' used for comparison. ,USEPA Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA) -regulates toxic waste disposal practices. Solid wastes which are landfilled are now characterized by the Toxic Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). Solid wastes containing any contaminant concentration determined by the TCLP which exceeds 100 times the National Interim Primary Drinking Water Standard is defined as hazardous under RCRA (see Table 4-5). New York State and the USEPA i regulate the use of sludge and compost materials that can be used on land growing food crops. Certain heavy metals, such- as lead and cadmium can be found at unacceptable levels in sludges. Such materials could be used for soil applications for lawns, nurseries, and sod farms but are prohibited for use on crops. Other unofficial guidelines can be used to assess potential health impacts Guidelines such as these, however, cover only a limited number of chemicals. Another useful guide is to compare the levels of naturally occurring concentrations of metals in the soil to incremental levels of contaminants. Potential uptake of contaminants by food crops depends on several properties of the soil. These include soil pH, cation exchange capacity, particle size, solubility, colloidal properties, salinity, soil moisture, compaction and contaminant movement in the soil. 0085N 4-8 _ I r Table 4-3 RECOMMENDED LIMITS ON METALS FOR APPLICATION TO AGRICULTURAL SOILS Soil Cation Exchange Capacity Levels in kg/ha Metal 0=5 5-15 >15 ,Cadmium 5 10 20 Copper 125 250 500 Lead 500 1000 2000 Nickel 50 100 200 Zinc 250 - 500 1000 Source: EPA, 1986, -Reclamation and Redevelopment of Contaminated Land. 0085N 4-9 Table 4-4 !I NJDEP SOIL GUIDELINES* Soil II Contaminant (MG/KG—PPW METALS Arsenic 20 Barium Cadmium 3 Chromium 100 Copper 170 Lead 100 Mercury 1 Nickel 100 Selenium 4 Silver 5 Zinc 350 ORGANICS Total Volatiles 1 Total Base Neutrals 10 Total Acid Extractables 10 Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons 100 Total PCBs 1 to 5 OTHER Cyanide 12 * used informally in evaluating possible cleanup requirements Source: Intech Biolabs (NJDEP certified laboratory) • ii 0085N 4-10 Table 4-5 . MAXIMUM CONCENTRATION OF CONTAMINANTS, UNDER THE TOXICITY CHARACTERISTIC RULE Regulatory Regulatory i Levels Levels Constituent mg/liter Constituent mg/liter Arsenic 5.0 Benzene 0.50 Barium 100.0 Carbon tetrachloride 0.50 Cadmium 1.0 Chlordane 0.03 Chromium i - 5.0 Chlorobenzene 100.0 Lead 5.0 Chloroform 6.0 Mercury 0.2 m-Cresol 200.0 Selenium 1.0 o-Cresol 200.0 Silver 5.0p-Cresol 20- 0.0 Endrin 0.02 1.4-Dichlorobenzene 7.5 f Lindane 0.4 1.2-Dichloroethane 0.50 Methoxychlor 10.0 1.1-Dichloroethylene 0.70 Toxaphene 0.5 2.4-Dinitrotoluene 0.13 2,4-D 10.0 Heptachlor (and its 2,4,5-TP Silvex 1,.0 hydroxide 0.008 Hexachloro-1.3-butadiene 0.5 ^� Hexachlorobenzene 0.13 { Hexachloroethane 3.0 S ' - Methyl ethyl ketone 200.0 Nitrobenzene 2.0 Pentachlorophenal 100.0 Pyridine 5.0 Tetrachloroethylene 0.7 Trichloroethylene 0.5 2.4.5-Trichlorophenol 400.0 2.4.6-Trichlorophenol 2;0 i. Vinyl chloride 0.20 Source: USEPA RCRA. 40 CFR 261 USEPA, March 1990 0085N 4-11 The US Department of Health and Human Services, Center for Disease Control (CDC) has recommended an action level of 1 ppb, in soils for dioxin (2,3,7,8—TCDD). ' In situations where soil concentrations exceed 1 ppb, the CDC recommends that potential human exposure to dioxin be examined further. If there is human exposure to 1-ppb of dioxin on a regular basis, then actions should be taken to reduce the exposure below 1 ppb. 4.4 Food Contamination Concerns of exposure from contaminated food apply primarily to chlorinated hydrocarbon pollutants and to a lesser extent for trace metals. Concern over PCBs and dioxins is due to the potential for a long retention period in soils or sediments and the fact that they can.accumulate in fatty tissue and milk. At present, there is no evidence that local air emissions of these chemicals are accumulating in soils or sediments of the region or in crops, livestock, or poultry consumed by humans. There is evidence from the USEPA that dioxin is not a widespread contaminant of, soils or cow's milk (USEPA, 1986). It is found in parts per trillion levels in human fat and human milk but its specific source has yet to be identified. There is concern over presence of these chemicals in some fish sampled in the near ` off shore waters, Great Lakes and the Hudson River. Potential lead and mercury contamination has also been a concern. Human milk in mothers from some regions of the United States has also been found to contain traces of dioxin (USEPA, 1987c). The most probable sources identified appear to be from industrial discharges and emissions or from chemicals. Discharges from pulp and paper mills are another source of dioxins (USEPA 1987). At the present time, there is considerable disagreement over levels in,food and fatty tissue that may signify a health problem (Penner, et al. 1987). In spite of the numerous studies, however, no disease or significant risk of disease in humans has been attributed to the concentrations found of these chemicals. The only documented cases of disease from these chemicals have been from occupational exposures, exposures to contaminated herbicides, or industrial accidents, such as in Seveso, Italy. Some theoretical risk assessments have suggested a potential for bioaccumulation of chlorinated organic chemicals. However, site specific risk assessments have found these risks to be insignificant (Penner, 1987; Smith, 1987). r 0085N , 4-12 i 1 r 4.5 Potential Health Effects i Chemical exposure to contaminated air, .water, soil, and food may result in several potential diseases if dosages are sufficient. These may include respiratory diseases, behavioral disorders, neurological diseases, reproductive effects, and cancer. Several chemicals are known to cause birth defects and miscarriages. Effects of certain drugs, heavy metals; chlorinated organics, organic solvents, pesticides, and herbicides have been documented. Diseases of the respiratory system (lungs and respiratory tract) can result from exposure to high levels of air pollutants. Emphysema, chronic bronchitis, and others may be caused or enhanced by pollutants exceeding allowable standards. Asthma, allergies, and viral infections can be aggravated by poorly controlled emissions (Calabrese, 1978). —I For these reasons, State and Federal regulations of industrial air emissions are set to protect the public against the effects of pollutants and to reduce the risks of these health effects to an insignificant level. Some pollutants such as lead and mercury can cause neurological diseases. These f include emissions of lead from leaded gasoline; incidental ingestion of leaded paint, and -direct contamination from mercury from industrial spills, use of herbicides and fungicides, ` illegal dumping and discharges, and worker exposures. Examples of potential effects from exposures to low concentrations are mental retardation and other behavioral disorders in young children. Concerns also have been raised in the past regarding trace metal emissions from burning of coal and refuse. Efficient control of particulates by pollution control devices has resulted in reduced emissions of metals. Mercury emissions are highly variable but are significantly reduced with good controls (USEPA, 1987b). Cancer is of widespread concern, since it is one of the major causes of death. About 22% to 25% of the people in the United States die of cancer. The principal causes of cancer are due to environmental life style factors such as cigarette smoke, certain animal fats, diet and drugs. The estimated proportion of cancer deaths attributed to environmental pollution is about 2% (Doll and Peto, 1981•; and Speizer, 1988). Cancer caused by worker exposure to carcinogens accounts for about 4% to 5% of the total cancer rate. The dominant cause of lung cancer is cigarette smoking. Industrial chemicals and pesticides contribute only slightly to the overall cancer rate (Ames et al., 1987). Chemical emissions produced from burning almost any combustible material can 0085N 4-13 produce carcinogens, but their overall contribution to the cancer death is small compared to other causes (Table 4-6). The American Cancer Society attributes most cancer to life j style factors such as diet and smoking. In addition, genetic factors contribute significantly to the susceptibility to and development of cancer. Air emission standards, where they exist for known carcinogens, are set at levels so that the risk of cancer in the general population will be insignificant (e.g. a risk of one to ten in one million). Since standards do not exist for most carcinogens, exposure levels must be demonstrated to be below levels that would cause a significant risk of cancer (see Sections 2 and 3). 4.6 Sensitive Populations Some segments of the population may be at greater risk from exposure to emissions and contaminants than the average person (Calabrese, 1978). These segments include unborn fetuses, infants, preschool children, the aged, the chronically ill, and persons with genetic or immunologic susceptibility to chemicals. Contrary to public fears, school age children are not more sensitive to pollutants than adults and are probably the healthiest segment of the population. ' Preschool children and infants are considered sensitive for several reasons. They have excessive mouthing behavior and put almost anything in their mouths. They are therefore at potential risk of ingesting pollutants that settle out from the air. Dioxins and furans can be concentrated in human milk which may result in greater potential exposure in nursing infants. Present data indicate human milk contains several parts per-trillion quantities of these substances (Schecter, 1987). Infants and very young children have many more years to accumulate pollutants in their bodies than do adults and may be at a higher risk than adults who have fewer years to accumulate these materials. Residents of nursing homes may be more sensitive to aggravation of existing respiratory illness from direct breathing of polluted air. Chronic care facilities include those which care for mentally and physically disabled. Some mentally handicapped persons•may have excessive mouthing behavior, but their exposure to ingestion of pollutants from dirt would not be as great as for infants or preschoolers. , 0085N 4-14 Table 4-6 RISK FACTORS FOR CANCER % OF ALL FACTOR CANCER DEATHS Diet 35 Tobacco 30 Infection related 10? Reproductive/sexual 7 - Occupational exposure 4 Geophysical (Natural radiation, 3 ultraviolet, and chemicals) Pollution (Automobile, industrial, 2 municipal) Medical (Procedures, drugs, X-rays) 1 Food Additives <1 _- Industrial Products <1 Unknown ? Source: Peto and Doll (1981). ?-% is uncertain 0085N 4-15 5.0 WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES 5.1 General Approach Potential health and safety hazards resulting from municipal solid waste depend on ' the type of materials in the waste. These materials include manufactured items such as furniture, appliances, and toys; putrescible and biodegradable materials such--as food, lawn and garden wastes; combustible wastes such as packaging, plastics, office paper, -magazines, and newspapers; recoverable materials such as glass, reusable containers, paper, aluminum, copper, iron, and certain plastics; manufactured items such as furniture, appliances, and toys; nonrecoverable or nonmarketable materials such as construction demolition, asphalt, and miscellaneous materials. Options to handle these wastes have been categorized into four broad management components: o Precollection waste reduction and recycling o Postcollection waste reduction and recycling o Energy recovery o Landfilling nonprocessible/nonrecoverable wastes Thirteen MSW management activities are evaluated. Each of these activities may involve one or more of the following processes: o Storage o Transfer o Separation o Processing o• Collection o ' Disposal o Transport , Figure 5-1 illustrates an integrated MSW program waste flow diagram. 1 Precollection waste reduction involves -changes in manufacturing, packaging, marketing, consumption and disposal habits. Precollection activities require strong public participation. Implementing these activities involves source separation by residents. In the postcollection component, waste management •activities are shifted to workers and distant processing facilities. Waste-to-energy conversion primarily concerns potential 0086N 5-1 health and safety impacts from local air emissions and ash production. Nonprocessible waste includes those materials that cannot be recycled, composted, or converted to useful energy. These residuals would require land disposal. Evaluation of the health and safety impacts of these MSW management components is made in Sections 8 through 12. The purpose of this evaluation is to identify those activities of the management project that may require mitigative measures to assure acceptable risks to the public and to solid waste workers. 5.2 Precollection Waste Reduction and Recycling Precollection components involve several solid waste management activities prior to MSW collection. These include handling, separating,- storing, transporting, reusing, and removal of certain wastes prior to MSW collection. Materials may include glass and metal containers, appliances, furniture, household chemicals, and materials that can be composted. Precollection waste reduction components include primarily: o Source waste reduction o Material reuse and exchange o Source separation o Household hazardous materials removal Precollection waste reduction is largely a conservation component which decreases the volume of materials entering the waste stream. This, involves activities such as reducing the amount of wastes by using fewer disposable items (e.g., packaging materials), and return of recyclable containers. Source reduction of wastes requires regional, state and federal legislation and incentives in order to be effective. Source separation is a form of resource recovery of materials which includes bundling or packaging of newspapers, bottles, aluminum cans, and other recyclables for removal from the waste stream. Source separation requires public participation and cooperation if it is to be successful. Curbside pickup and/or public drop off of materials would be needed. Commercial waste separation can be used to remove bulky or hazardous materials"that are not suited for the general waste stream. a 0086N 5_2 - - ---- - --J - -- ---- INTEGRATED MSW PROGRAM G POTENTIAL WASTE FLOW a PR COLLECTION MATERIAL HANDLING RESOURCE RECOVERY l aNDFII I INr, 9CTWES I AQnyMES ELIMINATED II COMP OTI MARKETS WASTESSOURCE WASTE REDUCTION (GYPASS) I INDUSTRIAL k WASTE MATERIALS MATERGL&LS MATERIALS DSOSAL REUSE RECYCLING RECOVERY I SOURCE (BYPASS) SEPARATED MSW WASTES MATERIALS (UNPROCESSED) HANDLING COUNTY (MSW) UNSORTED I �g SANITARY LANDFILL MIXED (BYPASS) QP WASTES I 0y I PROCESSING/ CONSTRUCTION I SHREDDING I I AND DEMOLITION WASTES I ENERGY I ASH RECOVERY DISPOSAL HOUSEHOLD ( COMBUSTIBLES) HAZARDOUS I * (COMBUSTIBLES) HAZAc WASTES ARDOUS LISCENCED C D WASTE DISPOSAL HANDLING I I HANDLING FIRM PROCESSING MEDICAL WASTE CONSTRUCTION WASTE I TREE AND BRUSH RECYCLABLES TO I I DISPOSAL LANDI TO COMPOSTING MATERIALS RECOVERY CLEARING PRIVATE RESIDUAL I I- I LANDFILL' WASTE PROCESSING I I I * MAY HAVE PROCESSING/SHREDDING OPERATIONS ** NOT EVALUATED IN THIS ASSESSMENT Dvirka and Bartilucci *** NOT PROPOSED IN COUNTY PLAN Consulting Engineers FIGURE NO.-5-1 Materials reuse and recycling involves extended use or reuse of materials by the owner or reuse by others prior to discarding them. This'activity would reduce the daily volume of MSW stream by extending the life of items such as furniture and appliances. Delivery to a central transfer facility would facilitate distribution of reusable materials. The household hazardous materials component involves the removal of household chemicals and toxic products by source separation from the waste stream. Many solvents, for example, are highly flammable and toxic. Cleaning agents are caustic and corrosive. This activity will involve residents handling and perhaps delivering these materials to a central' facility. Thus, most toxic cleaners, solvents, paints, batteries, .fuels, oils, pesticides, and other hazardous materials would be removed. These materials would then be less likely to contaminate other components of the MSW stream. 5.3 Materials Handling and Processing Once items are discarded, the following components of a waste management project would contribute to further reduction of the waste stream: I o White goods transfer facility o Materials processing o Materials recovery o Composting i j Postcollection white goods recycling involves collecting appliances and other bulk metal items and separating them from the other components of the waste stream. Items that can be- reused would be expected to picked up for redistribution at a materials recycling facility. No usable item would be transferred from a facility to scrap dealers. Materials recycling and processing involves sorting and processing materials that I can be used as raw materials. Examples include paper, glass, aluminum, iron and in some i cases plastics. Recovery and recycling of these items will be variable and dependent on markets for these materials. Processing of materials for recycling requires special processors such as shredders, grinders, and/or separators. Some source separation by residents (e.g. newspapers) will be required. Materials recovery involves final processing of the materials may be at distant manufacturing plants. Recycling of scrap materials often shifts the potential public health risks from the local community to the public in other communities. 0086N 5-4 Composting would primarily handle mixed biodegradable materials such as lawn clippings, leaves, and branches, and possibly municipal solid waste. A well designed compost facility can be built to control odors and leachate formation or its movement into the groundwater. The primary use of composted material is for landscaping, lawns, flower gardens, and home vegetable gardens. Contamination of compost with metals and organic chemicals is a concern. NYS Regulations Part 360.8 prohibits the use of sludge or any composted material on land currently used for producing food chain crops for direct human consumption for at least 18 months following land application. 5.4 Resource Recovery Resource recovery alternatives involve waste combustion. Most organic materials are combustible. Those that are biodegradable can be composted and the compost used. Those materials such as plastic bottles, newspaper, and cardboard that have market value can be recycled. Toxic and hazardous organic chemicals used by residents can be removed from the waste stream. However, there is still a large residual of materials-that cannot be recycled, composted or separated cost-effectively. For these residuals, some type of combustion process which results in energy recovery is a practical alternative. 5.5 Landfilling Nonprocessible/Nonrecoverable Wastes Unprocessible wastes include those that cannot be reused, recycled, composted, or incinerated. Wastes that may bypass MSW management processes are also included. Landfilling is the most widely used method of disposing of unprocessible wastes. Nonprocessible waste components that require landfilling include: o Sanitary wastes o Certain construction, demolition and land clearing wastes o Bypass wastes o Incinerator ash The State is requiring sanitary landfills over deep groundwater recharge areas to close by 1990. Disposing of wastes in the Town will be limited and landfill space will be severely restricted. 0086N 5-5 However, MSW that cannot be effectively composted, reused, recycled, or converted to energy will have to be landfilled. These materials could include ash, nonprocessible sanitary wastes, and bypass wastes that cannot be processed due to facility maintenance, short-term capacity limits, poor market conditions, or separation problems. _ At times, some components of the waste disposal system will not be operating. Other components of the waste management system such as solid waste combustion can ' take up some of the bypass waste. Some materials will require short term storage, transfer to neighboring facilities, or long haul to other landfills or waste processing facilities. Bypass wastes will affect only a small proportion of the total waste generated in a year. i Ash disposal from waste combustion facilities is a major concern. Ash contains two -� major components from combustion of municipal wastes; bottom ash and the fly ash. Bottom ash contains mostly large unburned particles such as glass, metals, and minerals. Fly ash contains finer particles recovered by the pollution-control devices and constitutes a more complex chemical mixture. Fly ash is often combined with the bottom ash and the scrubber lime for disposal. A sanitary- landfill which meets NYSDEC requirements, including double impermeable liners and leachate collecting systems can be used for disposal of ash. Alternatives for disposal include use in asphalt and cement composites for building materials. s i !___' I I o 0086N 5-6 6.0 POTENTIAL HAZARDS f 6.1 Types of Hazards Since sanitary landfilling of MSW over deep groundwater recharge areas is �- prohibited by the.State and permittable sites are scarce, other alternatives such as waste reduction, recycling, composting, and/or energy recovery are needed to reduce the required landfill space. However, the MSW management strategies discussed are not risk -- free. Quantitative comparisons of these risks to other components of an integrated solid ji waste management project cannot be made at present, although, a qualitative evaluation is presented in Sections 8 through 12. Identification of the potential health and safety i hazards is made in order to evaluate those areas of an integrated solid waste management project that may require mitigative measures to assure acceptable and insignificant risks to the public and solid waste workers. The principal potential health and safety hazards -' of these components include: r i o Chemical health and safety hazards from emissions, discharges, leachates and direct contact o Physical health and safety hazards from vehicle accidents, equipment accidents, handling and lifting wastes, falls and collisions, and fire and explosions r-; o Biological health and safety hazards from pathogens, vectors, insect pests and rodents Potential hazards start with the components of the waste stream which include paper, plastics, glass, metal cans, household chemicals, putrescible wastes (i.e., food, disposable diapers, pet wastes), yard wastes, and various manufactured items. 'Potential hazards to workers and the public will depend-on the MSW activity. 6.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards - Factors affecting chemical hazards were discussed in Section 2, and include potential for exposure, emission levels, toxicity, and routes of exposure. The primary 0087N 6-1 i hazards of concern from emissions and discharges are those related to long-term chronic diseases from daily exposures to low concentrations of contaminants. Acute health hazards that could be caused by high short-term releases are not a significant public health problem in MSW. operations. Federal and State air quality standards discussed above in Section 4 are set to minimize potential chronic health hazards. It is necessary to consider public vs. worker handling and exposure to wastes and waste processing by-products. It is important to know whether exposures have the potential to cause acute (i.e., immediate) health effects or chronic (i.e., delayed or long-term) health effects. For chemical health hazards most materials have threshold exposures below which they pose no significant hazard. However, some chemicals, such as certain carcinogens, are thought to have no thresholds below which the disease may be caused. Some of the principal diseases from chemical exposures include: o Cancer o Neurological (brain and nerve damage) o Behavioral disorders (retardation, psychological disorders) o Reproductive hazards (sterility, miscarriages, birth defects) o Respiratory diseases (emphysema, bronchitis) o Visceral organs (liver and kidney damage) 6.2.1 Environmental Pathways Potential chemical hazards depend on the source of the contaminant and its pathway to persons who may be exposed (see Figure 6-1). Once exposed, the route of entry into the person needs to be considered (i.e. skin contact, ingestion, or inhalation). The principal environmental pathways that may be relevant to this MSW management project are: o Air emissions, transport and deposition o Discharges to,surface water from runoff or effluents and their contamination of groundwater, streams, and marine habitats oos7N 6-2 ENVIRONMENTAL PATHWAYS FOR CHEMICAL EXPOSURES WET DEPOSITION AIR EMISSIONS HUMAN EXPOSURES MSW PROCESSING, LIQUID RECOVERY, LANDFILLING, DISCHARGES SOIL COMPOSTING. INCINERATION FOOD SUPPLY LAKES AND STREAMS GROUNDWATER LEACHATES and Bartilucci FIGURE NO.6-1 CO'FUITNG ENf'slEERS , o Leachates in - the soil from MSW operations or by-products which may contaminate the groundwater and drinking water o Direct exposures from handling or contact with hazardous or contaminated materials o Bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals in fish from contaminated aquatic i environments or in crops grown on contaminated soil 6.2.2 Air Exposures The largest sources of air emissions from a solid waste management process would be from stack emissions of a waste-to-energy facility and landfill gas emissions. Secondary emissions sources would be from short-term construction activities, refuse collection trucks, disposal equipment such as front loaders, compactors, and fugitive dust emissions from disposal facilities. Emissions from solid waste and coal combustion are similar in terms of emission products and differ mainly in the relative concentrations of emissions. Chlorinated hydrocarbons such as PCBs, dioxins and furans and heavy metals have the potential to be produced in higher quantities from burning of MSW than from use of other fuels (see Section 9 for more information). There are various pathways of air transport of these emissions from the environment to man. These pathways include 'direct inhalation, deposition from the air onto soil, surface waters and skin, and secondary bioaccumulation, in the food chain from air deposition. All of these pathways must be considered in a health risk assessment (refer to Figure 6-1). To assure public health, emissions must meet or exceed all NYSDEC standards set forth in its Air Guide I document. The air emissions of concern include the following classes of compounds: o Acid gases (hydrogen chloride [HCL], hydrogen fluoride [HF], sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides) o Carbon monoxide o Ozone o Trace metals 0087N 6-4 o Polyaromatic hydrocarbons o Chlorinated hydrocarbons. For combustion emissions which have no air quality standards, a health risk assessment must be prepared in order to evaluate their health impacts and necessary controls. Emissions which are commonly assessed include: o Arsenic o Benzo(a)pyrene o Chlorinated dioxins and furans o Mercury o Cadmium o Polychlorinated biphenyls o Berylium o Nickel o Formaldehyde o Hydrochloric acid o Chromium o Lead o Manganese o Polyaromatic hydrocarbons 6.2.3 Drinking Water Groundwater is the sole source of drinking water in the Town of Southold (excluding Fischers Island which solely utilizes surface water). The primary health and safety hazards from MSW operations are due to chemical leachates and their potential to cause long-term diseases from daily consumption of contaminated drinking water. Current landfilling practices are an identified source of groundwater contamination and a potential health risk. 6.2.4 Food Contamination Food supply may be affected in three ways: o Direct deposition and uptake of chemicals on fruits and vegetables o Secondary accumulation of contaminations by livestock, poultry, or fish o Accumulation in human milk through contaminated drinking water, air, and food Estimating exposures from food contamination is complex (refer to Figure 6-1). Sources of water and soil contamination may be due to leachates, waste discharges, and/or deposition for air emissions. Other properties which may not be precisely known include: chemical stability in air, soil, and water; soil and sediment binding properties; 0087N 6-S i I chemical half-life in the environment; and bioaccumulation by potential food sources (e.g. crops, livestock, milk, poultry, and fish). Therefore, quantitative assessment of ingestion risks require field measurements for accurate estimates of these factors. - The principal concern regarding food contamination that pertains to MSW management is potential accumulation in soil or sediments of trace amounts of chemicals or leachate from landfills. Metals and chlorinated organics can be deposited from air j emissions. Metals and nonbiodegradable organic chemicals be found in contaminated compost (see Section 8.4). i I Possible .ingestion of chemicals by young children may involve ingestion from dirt due to excessive mouthing behavior and potential ingestion of contaminated milk. The potential for contamination of surface water or soil from airborne deposition is very -i small. The potential for exposure is reduced by the low concentrations- of deposited chemicals, the relative infrequency of soil consumption, and the small amount of soil that would be consumed. - Contamination of mother's milk by trace amounts of TCDD has been reported (See Section 9.6). Studies are not yet available that demonstrate the bioavailability and pathways for dioxin contamination of human milk. 6.2.5 Skin and Eye Contact Direct skin or eye contact with chemical contaminants is primarily a hazard associated with direct exposure to commercial chemicals rather than exposures to emissions, discharges, or leachates. Skin contact with hazardous chemicals is a concern not only from skin injury or diseases, but also from. direct absorption of many organic chemicals through the skin. In MSW operations the primary potential hazards would be from disposal of household chemicals and worker's exposure to industrial chemicals used ? in the various operations. Several potential hazards include: o Corneal damage to the eye o Eye irritation o Skin burns from Corrosive materials and oxidizers o Skin irritation and rashes 0087N 6-6 o Allergic reactions o Defattening of the skin o Absorption of toxic chemicals through the skin 6.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 6.3.1 Fire and Explosions Several fire and explosion hazards have been identified in MSW operations. These include: o Methane explosions and fires at landfills o Flammable household solvents o Waste fuels (gasoline, kerosene, bottled gasses) o Incompatible household chemicals (bleaches and combustible materials) o Pit fires in incinerators o Boiler explosions o Electrical fires o Spontaneous combustion of stored combustible wastes 6.3.2 Accidents and Injury Death and injury from accidents associated with municipal waste recycling, processing, and disposal activities` are more probable than potential health risks from exposures to low levels of chemical emissions, or discharges. Accidents, when they occur can be attributed to a specific cause which can be isolated and corrected. Accidents and injuries are a significant cause of death and disability. For solid waste recycling, handling, and disposal the largest risks are to the workers. These hazards will be assessed for each component in Sections 7 'through 10. Potential accidents and injuries associated with solid waste management project components include: o Traffic accidents o Back injuries from lifting o Equipment accidents o Cuts from sharp objects o Falls o Injury from falling or moving o Burns objects o Reactivity of household chemicals o -Eye injury 0087N 6-7 The public may also be exposed to the following accident risks: o Truck accidents involving children o Truck and car accidents o Injury during source separation of wastes o Falls from carrying or moving wastes o Accidents from failure of reused and recycled items o Aircraft accidents from bird collisions 6.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards Infectious diseases are a potential hazard for several MSW operations. The primary i hazard is increased whenever putrescible wastes are retained and exposed for a period of time. Unclean trucks and transfer stations can be a source of pathogens. Disposable diapers and pet wastes are a source viruses and bacteria. Garbage can attract disease vectors such as rats, flies, and birds. Pathogenic fungi can grow on garbage and poorly managed compost piles. Pathogenic diseases are less of a concern from MSW landfills than from septic tanks and cesspools. Pathogenic hazards are discussed in more detail in Sections 8 and 10. Several MSW operations however, may produce biological hazards and each is assessed below. 0087N 6-8 7.0 PRECOLLECTION WASTE REDUCTION MSW precollection waste reduction refers to those activities that result -in a reduction of wastes prior to curbside collection. This includes three broad activities: o Source waste reduction o 'Source,separation o Household hazardous waste removal 7.1 Source Waste Reduction 7.1.1 Description The rate and mass of MSW generated and subsequent health and-safety hazards can be reduced by decreasing the amount of material discarded at the residential and commercial level. In this respect, the Town is committed to compliance with the State's 10 percent waste reduction goal to be achieved by 1997. A largepart of residential wastes is in the form of packaging. Several options have been suggested to reduce the volume of packaging waste: - o Using reusable containers !_ o Using paper products.in place of plastic o Using cloth towels and diapers in place of disposable items o Expanding the Returnable Beverage Act to include wine, wine cooler, champagne, and liquor bottles o Requiring bigger deposits for large containers o Imposing a fee on goods sold depending on the recyclability of the materials o Setting state standards for packaging to reduce packaging wastes o Mandatory deposits on batteries --, o Substitution of nontoxic materials for current household toxics _ 7.1.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards Nonglass containers may be contaminated from transporting liquids including gasoline and solvents. Although glass containers can be adequately washed, some plastic 0088N 7-1 containers could absorb such foreign materials and be unacceptable for reuse or even for recycling into new food or beverage containers (Office of Technology Assessment [OTA], 1979). 7.1.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards J J If a more comprehensive Returnable Beverage Act were implemented, the number of refillable glass bottles would likely increase, while nonreturnable bottles would decrease. Under these conditions, it is not clear whether the consumer and worker injury rates due to broken or exploding containers might increase or decrease. There are no data on the frequency of such events according to type of bottle. If such hazards turn out to be important, steps similar to those taken for beverage containers to improve the quality of the production and handling of beverage bottles to reduce the risk of injury may need to be examined. In addition to these issues, increased emphasis on returnable containers may have other occupational accident related impacts. Although no statistics are available on the nature, frequency, or severity of worker injury from different types of containers, increased handling for all types of containers, and heavier containers in particular, may be associated with a higher incidence of skeletomuscular injuries in delivery and stock workers. However, it is likely that workers move more containers of nonreturnables at a time and thus the weight and consequent injury risk ,remain about the same for both container types. Handling glass refillables might be more hazardous than handling cans because of the hazard from glass breakage. Furthermore, a refillable container will be handled more times per trip than a nonreturnable container, which should increase the probability of injury per unit sold, even if the probability of injury is the same for each handling operation. Of course, these risks must be balanced against those associated with the production of new containers. In an occupational or public health risk sense, these costs do not yet appear to have been studied. 7.1.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards Effects of these activities may be similar to those identified for the Returnable Beverage Act. Of special concern -are pest and hazard control in unwashed, used 0088N 7-2 containers. Unwashed bottles for food-related products (e.g, wine coolers, condiments etc.) are favorable environments for the growth of insects and vermin especially as a result of improper storage and transport. Although concerns exist about such vectors, state authorities have reported that no special pest control problems have arisen where beverage deposit laws have been enacted (OTA 1979). 7.1.5 Assessment The hazards presented by these programs are no different in size or type from those related to current compliance with the Returnable Beverage Act. As noted above, there,_ have not been any significant health and safety impacts reported from this program. As a result, these hazards should not impede the implementation of this process option. Table 7-1 compares the potential health and safety impacts of source waste reduction. Because of the reduction in volume and types of wastes generated, this MSW option may have a beneficial effect on MSW workers. However, no immediate benefit or adverse impact will affect the public. Beneficial impacts to-the public may result from impacts of waste reduction on downstream waste processing activities, particularly source separation, waste-to-energy, and landfilling. 7.2 Materials Reuse and Exchange Precollection materials reuse and exchange refers to the collection and redistribution of bulk components in MSW which may still be useful, for example, used appliances, furniture; and playground equipment. Redistribution can occur at centralized facilities operated and maintained by the Town. The health and safety hazards are discussed in Section 8.4 for the white goods facility and are similar to precollection. redistribution hazards associated with reusable bulk items. The primary difference would be that materials are not collected. 0088N 7-3 TABLE 7-1 SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS SOURCE WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING POTENTIAL BENEFITS Primary Benefits Independent Secondary Benefits on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Benefits - Less injury to public from - Reduced collection and - Fewer injuries to litter processing injuries workers from returned bottles - Less chemical exposure to - Reduced emissions from workers in making packaging energy recovery materials - Reduced ash - Reduced container and - Reduced leachates packaging production hazards and emissions POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazards on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards - Worker injury from returned - Emissions at material - Public injuries from containers reprocessing plants litter - Biohazards to workers from - Discharges at material -Worker risks at unclean containers reprocessing plants current waste facilities -Transportation accidents during -More contaminants at shipping to MSW facilities reprocessing plant -More local traffic risks from waste collection oossN 7-4 7.3 Source Separation 7.3.1 Description Effective waste reduction and recycling requires source separation of wastes for curbside pickup and public drop-off. Elements of source separation and collection include three principal activities by residents: J o Separation-of bundled newspapers, corrugated cardboard, and mixed high grade paper o Separation of metal containers and grades of glass in individual containers o Separation of yard and garden wastes using paper bags for leaves and clippings, and bundling brush and branches Another element involving source separation is, the management of household , hazardous wastes which is described in Section 7.4. The Town's source separation program,would prohibit scavenging of separated wastes, disposal of nonseparated wastes at the curb or at public drop-offs, and use of nonbiodegradable plastic bags for yard waste. 7.3.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards Since chemicals would be expected to managed by a household hazardous waste program few chemical hazards would be likely. Possible hazards might include yard . wastes contaminated with pesticides and herbicides. Some empty containers of household chemicals will inadvertently end up in curbside pickup. Residents would be exposed to these chemicals during the sorting of these containers. 7.3.3'_ Physical Health and Safety Hazards Physical hazards include potential exposure of residents to broken glass and sharp J metal containers during bottle and can separation. Bundling activities would be a potential source of cuts,' scratches, and bruises from handling brush and limbs which are commonly associated with yard work. Depending on the size of the-bundles, back and other muscle strains may occur from lifting and carrying bundled brush to the curb. 0088N 7-5 Likewise, lifting and carrying bundled papers may increase muscle strains, particularly in the elderly. Potential risks would increase during inclement weather and during the winter when conditions are slippery. Source separation would likely result in lighter containers for sanitation workers to handle. However, there will be more bundles and containers to handle per household and commercial establishment. Ingpresent practice, workers generally carry heavy trash cans from the curb to the truck which results in high incidence of back injury. An increase in the number of lighter containers and packages would likely result in mt ore tossing from the curb to the truck with more muscle injuries from rapid bending,- twisting, turning and tossing. Also, the increased use of paper bags for disposal of separated wastes could increase the weight of curbside packages during rainy weather. Frequent breakage of bags is also likely, which would cause more bending for cleanup by workers and residents. _ Depending on pickup practices and frequency of pickup for separated wastes, there could be more frequent truck traffic in residential neighborhoods with children. 7.3.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards The potential for exposure to infectious disease, vectors, insect pests and rodents relates to the/sanitary condition of disposed bottles, cans and yard wastes. If accumulated grass clippings are not disposed of rapidly, growth of mold is promoted. Animal wastes from pets would likely be found in yard wastes and could have a potential for human exposure to disease. Potential health problems associated with yard wastes could be similar to that of composting (see Section 8.4). Unwashed containers would attract rodents, vectors and other pests. The extent of this potential problem depends on the sanitary habits of the residents, the type of storage container for bottles and cans, and the time these containers are stored before pickup. 7.3.5 Assessment The primary health and safety concerns from source separation would likely be a potential for increased physical hazards to -residents and MSW workers (Table 7-2). { 0088N 7-6 _ 1 TABLE 7-2 SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS, SOURCE SEPARATION POTENTIAL BENEFITS Primary Benefits Independent Secondary Benefits on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Benefits - None identified - Reduced landfill gas - Fewer public injuries . emissions from sorting, handling and packaging wastes - Reduced total air emissions from energy recovery - Reduced ash POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazards on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards - Injury to public from -Worker illness and - Higher risks from sorting, handling, injury at recycling landfill gases and packaging, and carrying facilities leachates wastes - Injury to workers from - Emissions and - Higher total air more tossing and twisting discharges at emissions for energy reprocessing plants recovery = Biological exposures from - Transportation risks - Increased ash unclean containers from shipments to reprocessing plants -Added traffic from extra pick ups 0088N 7-7 This conclusion is based primarily on a projected increase in the handling of wastes by residents and workers. Cans and glass will be sorted by residents and more lifting and carrying of packages and bundles will be performed. More tossing of packages by workers is likely. More frequent pickups of different packaged wastes may result in greater exposure of residential areas to truck traffic. Potential physical hazards associated with yard wastes would be similar to those currently encountered by residents and are thus not likely to increase. Falls are a leading cause of death and injury in the home. Therefore, it is essential that the source separation program have a strong home safety education program. Pickup schedules and waste containers should be designed so that risks of falls related to packaging and carrying wastes are minimized. What was once a heterogeneous mixture of trash that was primarily a hazard to workers is shifted and diffused among residents to produce more homogeneous separate packages of wastes. The potential for health and safety hazards will depend on the extent of education programs, enforcement, and resident's hygiene practices. Potential chemical hazards would largely be diverted by the household hazardous waste program. Preparing lighter bundles and waste containers will reduce injury. Minimizing the handling of glass and metal containers will reduce glass breakage and exposure to sharp metal pieces. The amount of handling will depend on the requirement for clean containers and the degree of separation. Source separation activities will likely reduce chemical, physical, and biological health and safety hazards for other components of the MSW management project. Less volume of wastes will need to be landfilled, burned, or disposed as ash, thus reducing the potential for adding contaminants to groundwater and air locally. Physical and biological hazards of these operations will likely be reduced. Although these materials will be diverted from these waste disposal operations, they are the source material for materials recycling (Section 8.3) and for composting (Section 8.4). To the extent that these volumes of wastes are diverted to reprocessing and composting, one may expect some potential increase in adverse health and safety impacts that are associated with these processes (see Sections 8.3 and 8.4). If markets fail, these items may be diverted to a waste combustion or bypass disposal. 0088N 7-8 i � 7.4 Household Hazardous Materials Disposal Program i 7.4.1 Description This management option refers to the centralized collection and controlled disposal of hazardous materials commonly found in the residential and commercial sectors, such _ as: drain cleaners, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, paints, solvents, automobile products (antifreeze and lead storage batteries), dry cell batteries, asphalt and roofing tar, and flammable liquids (gasoline, paint thinners, and kerosene). About , 0.08 to 1.0% of household refuse disposed consists of'hazardous chemicals (Bruno, et al. 1988).' In current practice, these materials are stored in residences or commercial establishments. At these i locations, the materials present continuing hazards to children from accidental poisonings and to building inhabitants from material leakage from storage vessels., They may also iI contribute to fire and explosion hazards. 7.4.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards Centralized collection of household hazardous materials could result in the release of these materials to the environment during any of the following situations: o Loading or transport by private automobiles or commercial trucks from the point - of generation to the point of collection o Fire, explosion or flood at the central collection facility o Deterioration of containers and leakage from a storage facility o Accidents during the loading or transport of these materials from the collection facility to the site of final disposal o Release from the final disposal site The actual hazards presented by these accidents depend on such factors as the nature and quantity of materials released and proximity to people. In these accidents, the most important exposure pathway is likely to be through inhalation of toxic or hazardous fumes. 0088N 7-9 r 1 The second and third largest causes of death in the home, behind falls, are fire and burn related deaths (3,900; or 1.6/100,000), and total poisoning by solids and liquids (2,400; or 1.0/100,000) (National Safety Council, 1987). For household products (cleaning agents, solvents, lawn and garden chemicals, corrosives, etc.) there were 196 poisonings in the U.S. in 1984 (NSC, 1987). Approximately 80% of total poisonings are related to drugs and pharmaceuticals. Unless there is a concerted effort, handling, sorting, storage and transport of these chemical wastes could increase the risk for accidental poisonings. Vapors from improperly sealed containers could present acute and more probably chronic health hazards to refuse workers at the collection facility site who will be working on a day-to-day basis with a wide range of materials. Health impacts from these exposures will vary by material and exposure level, but could range from simple skin rashes to more complex tumorigenic responses including lung cancer. 7.4.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards Hazardous household wastes collected at centralized facilities may be corrosive, oxidizers, flammable, toxic, or explosive. Vapors from improperly sealed containers or spills could be accidentally ignited by flame or spark. -In the event that such an incident occurred, containers for other materials 'could burst and provide additional fuel for the fire or explosion. Workers and individuals in close proximity to these storage sites could be exposed to thermal radiation from a flame, pressure waves from an explosion and toxic materials from the ensuing vapor cloud. In addition to accidental ignition by flame or spark, inadvertent mixing of wastes by plant operators (e.g., strong acids and bases) could produce an exothermic reaction resulting in a flame or explosion. Storage of waste flammables in the home could increase the risk of fire to'the public. 7.4.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards Wastes collected at a centralized facility may be of unknown origin or content. Thus, it is possible that biologically hazardous or infectious materials could be present. To the extent that the containers used to transport these materials-are not adequately sealed or that breakage occurs, workers could be exposed to biologically hazardous or infectious materials. Similarly, these materials could be accidentally released to the environment from accidents during their loading or transport to their final disposal sites. 0088N 7-10 i ! 7.4.5 Assessment � 1 The primary advantage of a household hazardous waste disposal program is to remove hazardous materials from the waste stream, and hence from waste combustion operations and landfills as well as solid waste processes and methods of handling. Thus potential groundwater, toxic air emissions and fire/explosion hazards can be reduced. Table 7-3 summarizes potential health and safety impacts for this program element. The largest hazards to health and safety from this disposal option, probably relate to refuse workers collecting and/or transporting hazardous wastes and for workers operating and maintaining the collection facility and disposal or treatment facilities. To minimize risks to the workers, an aggressive industrial hygiene program, supported by engineering - control (ventilation, sprinklers, containers), administrative training and defined protocols, and personal hazard management options (gloves, and possibly goggles and respirators) will + need to be implemented. In light of the potential for home fires and poisonings a strong public education program should be initiated. Efforts to reduce the risks to the public from handling, sorting, storing, and transporting small quantities of wastes are needed. The frequent drop-off potential provided by a permanent containment facility ,should minimize home storage of wastes. I ; 0088N 7-11 TABLE 7-3 SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTES POTENTIAL BENEFITS Primary Benefits Independent Secondary Benefits on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Benefits - Reduced volume of chemicals - Reduced chemicals in - Less risk handling stored long term landfill gasses and and sorting by leachate public - Reduced illegal dumping in - Reduced explosion - Less worker risks drains and vacant land hazards in shredders from processing and packaging - Reduced metals and possibly dioxins in energy recovery emissions - Reduced metals in ash - Reduced MSW collector exposures POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazards on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards - Public exposures from - None identified if - Chemicals in leachate handling, temporary storage, program highly and transportation effective - Explosions in shredders and - Worker health and safety compactors hazards from handling and processing wastes - Volatile organic chemicals in landfill - Fire hazards to residents gas and workers - Mercury, cadmium - Impact to workers at - lead in ash, and hazardous waste facilities landfills - Hazardous emissions from energy recovery 0088N 7-12 • 8.0 WASTE HANDLING AND PROCESSING MSW handling and reduction management activities refer to those activities that involve the handling, transport, storage, and processing of wastes from the time.they are collected to the time they are delivered to materials or energy recovery facilities, or are finally disposed of in a landfill. The health and safety impacts are discussed for four broad activities: i o Materials collection and handling ' o Materials processing o Materials recycling o Composting The rational for each assessment is given in discussions for each of these activities. 8.1 Materials Collection and Handling 8.1.1 Description There are several tasks commonly associated with the collection, handling, i transport, and transfer of MSW. Handling may require combined or separate collection of• sorted and unsorted MSW by refuse collectors. This activity may involve both municipal refuse workers as well as private collectors and scrap dealers. Depending on the type of wastes collected, materials may be delivered to various points. Some will be taken to transfer stations or processing facilities for further sorting, compacting, bailing, and secondary delivery to other destinations. Source separated materials may be taken to recovery facilities, intermediate processing plants, or scrap dealers. Nonsorted wastes may be delivered to an energy recovery facility or a landfill. Biodegradable yard wastes would be taken to a compost site. 8.1.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards I � Potential exposure to chemicals would occur from handling household hazardous wastes found in MSW. However, since most trash is bagged such exposures are reduced. A_primary exposure could occur when nonbagged trash and glass containers break open when thrown into the collection truck. r � 0089N _ 8-1 8.1.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards Waste materials handling may require combined or separate collection of these materials by refuse collectors. If these activities require additional labor by refuse collectors, an increase in employee injuries would be expected. Refuse workers have an extremely high rate of injury and illness (see Table 8-1). Nationally it is almost two and one-half as high as that for firemen and policemen and six times that for "all industries." Common hazards among sanitation workers and safe work practices are reviewed by NSC, 1969 and NIOSH, 1982. Serious cuts can be caused by torn metals on refuse cans and broken glass or protruding nails in discarded refuse. Other injuries occur when collectors drop heavy containers on their feet or legs. This may be due .to insecure handles that tear off, or because the containers were unsuitable and difficult to handle. Another consideration is overloading of refuse that is too heavy to fit properly due to compacting of materials. Workers who carry containers on their shoulders often get hung up on clothes lines, tree limbs and low overhanging roofs causing severe strains and sprains. The presence of moving mechanical parts on automatic packer type compaction units is potentially hazardous and can cause severe injury or amputation. The human element is responsible for more accidents and injuries than those from purely mechanical causes. This appears to be because collectors are often drawn from the unskilled segment of the work force; have little or no experience with heavy equipment, and receive little education, training and supervision. I I Any increase in the amount of labor required for handling of MSW or vehicle miles traveled during and after collection will result in predictable increases in occupational morbidity and mortality. 8.1.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards Insect stings from wasps, hornets, and yellow jackets are a problem. Some workers can, develop 'severe allergic reactions to these stings. The primary source of biological hazards are from insect bites. Fungal spores may result from a long ,storage period of residential and commercial wastes prior to collection. The kind of biological hazards would be similar to those for materials processing discussed in Sections 8.3.4 and 10.1.4 for landfilling. Animal bites from residential pets are a frequent occurrence, especially in regard to backyard collection practices. 0089N 8-2 TABLE 8-1 NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL RECORDABLE OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND ILLNESS RATES FOR 19861 Cases Nonfatal Days Total Total Involving Cases Away SIC Code/ Recordable LWD2 Days Away Without Total From Indy Cases Cases from Work LWD LWD Work 495/Sanitary Services 22.43 9.66 8.98 12.75 162 147 4215/Refuse Collection 42.30 25.65 24.35 16.65 364 333 4953/Refuse Systems 18.17 9.80 9.60 8.37 158 151 (Public) 9221/Police Protection 16.21 6.45 7.20 97.30 121 107 9224/Fire Protection 17.04 7.39 1.57 7.64 112 104 r All Industries. 6.88 2.94 2.22 3.85 56 43 Source: National Safety Council, 1987 1 Incidence Rates per 100 full time employees 2 LWD - Lost Work Days 0089N 8-3 8.1.5 Assessment Table 8-2 summarizes-the potential health and safety benefits from MSW handling. The primary impact from MSW handling activities are to the sanitation worker. The primary hazard to the public from waste collection would be from traffic accidents. To some degree source separation by residents may reduce certain kinds of worker injury. Although precollection activities may reduce MSW volume, they may"not substantially reduce the rate of injury, illness, and mortality among sanitation workers. The collection and handling activities are likely to diversify because of precollection activities and various resource recovery and disposal options. Any increase in vehicle miles traveled would likely result in increased accident risks. Considering the present high accident and injury rate for sanitation workers, specific health and safety procedures including strict compliance with existing OSHA and State regulations are needed to reduce current hazards and potential incremental hazards associated with this MSW Plan. Following of NSC (1969) and NIOSH (1982) standard work practices for sanitation workers is recommended. A rigorous safety training program and effective supervision could help reduce accidents. 8.2 Materials Recycling 8.2.1 Description Postcollection materials recycling is similar to precollection activities described in Section 7.2. The primary difference is that workers pick up sort and package items that can be reused. Therefore, the primary impacts discussed in Section 7.2 for the public are focused on the workers involved in recycling processes. Postcollection materials recycling may involve several activities including sorting, compacting, baling, packaging, and transporting. Processing of recyclable MSW is discussed in Section 8.3 as a separate activity. Recycling of bulk items, such as appliances, is discussed in Section 8.4. Recyclable materials would likely be handled by recycling facilities and local scrap dealers. They would include both source separated and' worker separated materials. 0089N 8-4 TABLE 8-2 SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS MSW COLLECTION AND HANDLING POTENTIAL BENEFITS Primary Benefits Independent Secondary Benefits on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Benefits - Timely removal of - None identified - Reduced truck traffic putrescible wastes since wastes go to in residential areas. and biologic hazards downstream facilities (Note: No action is not feasible. Public - Fewer public physical and and/or private biological hazards related collectors are I.- to drop off required) - Fewer traffic accidents at public drop off POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazard's on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards - - Traffic accidents with - Potential hazards - Exposure to chemical, MSW trucks dependent on type biological, and safety ( and volume of MSW hazards from public - - Higher worker injuries collected for the handling, transport, various downstream and drop off of MSW - Worker insect stings options - Increased hazards from -Worker exposure to molds, illegal dumping spores and pathogens - Flammable and explosion hazards to workers - Household chemical hazards 0089N 8-S 8.2.2 Chemical Health and Safety'Hazards J Items disposed in the recycling program could contain chemicals or be contaminated. Examples of such hazards include fuel and solvent containers or contamination of containers used originally for pesticides or other hazardous materials. These hazards can endanger worker health. 8.2.3 , Physical Health and Safety Hazards Physical health and safety hazards would be similar to those discussed for waste handling. Accidents may occur during sorting, bailing or packing operations. Skeletomuscular injuries, cuts, and abrasions would also be expected from the handling of recyclable items. Finally, items picked up by workers would need to be moved and transported. To the extent that they are large or heavy, workers could be injured during the handling of these items or from accidents during their transport. Fires could-also be a hazard at recycling facilities. 8.2.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards Materials collected and handled ,for recycling could harbor microbiological pathogens, insects, rodents, or other biological pests. Without prior knowledge of the exact materials' recycled it is not possible to assess the type and magnitude this problem. These potential hazards will depend largely on sanitation conditions and length of storage of recyclable materials. 8.2.5_ Assessment Table 8-3 summarizes the health and safety impacts of material recycling. Selected types of items to be recycled could present chemical or physical hazards to recycling facility workers from contaminated wastes. An ,aggressive industrial hygiene program should be implemented to monitor the ongoing health of workers in the facility. Since the public may be involved in-bringing recyclable to a recycling center, some public accident risk is expected. The liability to the town from accidents arising to individuals transporting these items to the facility should be considered. With the implementation of standard hygiene practices, few if any biological hazards are expected. 0089N 8-6 i Table 8-3 SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS MATERIAL RECYCLING FACILITY POTENTIAL BENEFITS _ Primary Benefits Independent Secondary Benefits on of Other Activities Downstream-Activities No Action Benefits - None identified - Reduced emissions - None identified - from energy recovery - Reduced le_achates at landfill - Reduced landfill gas - Reduced ash POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazards on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards - Chemical leaks and exposure - Emissions at - Increased landfill - from contaminated materials reprocess- gas containers ing plants - Worker injury from sorting, - Discharges at - Increased energy handling, and packaging materials reprocess- recovery emissions ing plants -Worker injury from lifting - Risks associated with - Increased ash and moving bulk items transportation to reprocessing plants - Increased 4eachates - Transportation risks - Increased leachates from added pickups 0089N 8-7 8.3 Materials Processing/Shredding 8.3.1 Description Some waste processes (e.g., composting, incineration, landfilling, and scrap processing), may require special processing and shredding of the MSW. Shredding reduces the volume of solid waste and turns it into a relatively homogeneous material. Shredding in this context, is often used as(a generic term for many volume-reduction processes, including pulverization, milling, hammermilling, and grinding. 8.3.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards 4 Processing MSW can produce considerable quantities of dust containing a variety of substances of concern to health (i.e., asbestos, 'metal dusts and other toxic substances). At the Ames plant, a resource recovery facility in Iowa, roughly half the dust on a particle count basis is composed of particles less than 4 microns in diameter (OTA 1979). Similar results are reported elsewhere -(Diaz et al., 1976). Retention of dust in the lungs is highest for particles of about 2 microns, so it has been suggested that MSW dust retention may present .a problem. Dust particles too large to enter the lungs can be captured in mucous membranes,and ultimately carried into the digestive tract. This is another source of infectious potential of unknown significance. 8.3.3 . Physical Health and Safety Hazards In MSW facilities, shredders can produce noise, explosion, fire, ,and mechanical and , electrical hazards. OTA (1979) notes that shredders can produce noise in excess of the present Occupational Safety and Health Administration standard of 90 dB(A). A study of a small 3-ton per hour resource recovery system :reported noise levels in excess of 90 dB(A) near these devices. Control of noise in such equipment by engineering design will probably be costly. Consequently, administrative controls and personal protective equipment may be needed to control exposure. Noise levels in larger commercial-sized shredders will undoubtedly heighten the problem. 0089N 8-8 . i f j In these processing operations, it is almost inevitable that some potentially flammable or explosive materials will enter•the facility.- The_ majority of these, such as ' aerosol cans and nearly empty gas cans, may explode within the shredder with little or no - hazard. There are, however, some materials which may cause extensive damage to the facility, and more importantly, cause danger to the workers. At- MSW processing facilities, more than 100 explosions have been reported, and the majority of these have occurred at shredding-landfill operations (Zalosh et al, 1976; Duckett 1981). In 95 explosions studied by Zalosh, et al. (1976), three resulted in worker injuries; there were no reported fatalities. -A similar study was conducted by Ahlberg and Boyka (1980) who described three major explosions and one minor that occurred at the Ontario Center for Resource Recovery, resulting in no personal injuries. The only reported death from a i resource recovery facility resulted from an explosion in a cyclone which deentrained refuse derived fuels; the cause remains unknown. " MSW processing and recovery systems contain an array of mechanical and electrical devices ranging from equipment for handling materials (e.g., front-end loaders, cranes and conveyors) toseparation and combustion processes. This environment exposes employees to a variety of potential safety hazards. 8.3.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards �- As MSW is shredded, workers may be exposed to bacterial, fungal and virological pathogens contained in the waste stream. Although there appears to be no significant epidemiological evidence to suggest that,microbiological aerosols found in MSW handling facilities pose a human health hazards, the presence of these materials has aroused i interest. Levels of airborne microorganisms within MSW handling facilities vary considerably. Studies by various investigators at MSW handling facilities have found airborne microorganism levels ranging from 102 to 107 CFU/m3 (CFU = colony-forming i units). These levels were generally two or three orders of magnitude higher than those found at other locations including enclosed shopping malls and parks. 0089N 8-9 The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has evaluated 'microbiological aerosols generated at MSW resource recovery facilities (Fletcher et al., 1981). Staphylococcus aureau and K. pneumoniae were recovered at levels ranging to 103 to 104 CFU/m3. Other organisms were also recovered: Mycobacterium not tuberculosis, Nocardia sp., Streptomyces sp., Salmonella sp., Aspergillus fumigatus and A. flavus. The Ames, Iowa MSW facility has been studied by Duckett et al. (1980) and Lembke et al (1981). Duckett et al. report that the level of airborne microorganisms within MSW waste handling facilities varies between different sampling sites. Inside the processing area, total aerobic bacteria and fungi ranged from 7.5 x 104 to 2.6 x, 105 CFU/m3. Similar levels were also found in the control room. Counts recovered from the air of the tipping floor and entryway were approximately one order of magnitude lower. Installation of dust control equipment over the processing equipment reduced the levels of total aerobes inside the processing area by 82%. levels of fungi, and total fecal coliforms 'were reduced by 48% and 63%, respectively. Similar variations were also noted with respect to the status of the facility operation and season. Higher counts were observed during the summer months and when the facility was in full scale operation. In a study of this same facility, Lembke et al showed that during the period from July 1978 through August 1979 Aspergillus sp. were the most prevalent fungi, with A. fumigatus and A. flavus occurring at a frequency of 100% and at levels up to 103 CFU/m3. A. ,fumigatus was the predominant species with A. flavus, A. nidulans- or A. niger the other most predominant species. Species of Penicillium occurred frequently, but at lower levels. Opportunistic phycomycetes such as Absidia sp. and Mucor sp. were recovered at a lower frequency. .Mansdorf et al. (1981) reported illnesses at five MSW handling facilities. They noted: o Several cases of skin rashes at facility "B" o One worker out of 61 reported an infection of unknown cause at facility "C" o One worker out of 11 reported respiratory difficulty,at facility "D" o There were no reported illnesses at facilities "E" and "F" 0089N 8-10 A Assessment of the human health risks associated with microbiological aerosols at MSW processing facilities is difficult because of variables associated with human resistance and exposure routes, and the many unknowns relating- to the viability of the pathogens present. Consequently, interpretation of microbiological air quality data must be approached cautiously. 8.3.5 Assessment Primary health and safety hazards .from waste processing operations are to the worker (see Table 8-4). Fires and explosions represent the most obvious hazards at shredding waste, processing operations. The potentially robust construction of shredders, however,. can enable them to contain all but he most violent explosions. Noise hazards are a-problem at these facilities. An important issue remaining probably relates to the presence of the microbiological fauna present in the working environment. Although the hazards presented by these organisms are not clear, various hazard management alternatives coupled with an active industrial hygiene program will be required to protect workers. Shredding impacts are discussed further in Section 8.5, and are summarized in Table 8-8. Health and safety impacts are generally negative for these processes. The hazards are generally confined to the work site. Public hazards are not considered significant since emissions are generally confined to the site. Several measures need-to be taken to improve worker safety at MSW processing plants. o MSW should be sorted as thoroughly as possible to keep flammable materials out of shredders and compactors (e.g., fuel and solvent cans, and gas bottles) o Dust control should,be, implemented to minimize exposures to metal, glass, wood and other dusts o Noise and hearing conservation programs should be implemented o All workers should wear protective clothing (hard hats, goggles, safety shoes, gloves, dust masks and hearing protectors) 0089N 8-11 Table 8-4 SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS MATERIALS PROCESSING/SHREDDING POTENTIAL BENEFITS Primary Benefits Independent Secondary Benef its on of Other'Activities Downstream Activities No Action Benefits i - None identified - More compact waste - Reduced.worker with less landfill risks to explosions, leachate fire,•and equipment injuries - More efficient burn- ing with less toxic emissions - More waste in fewer trucks with-less trans- portation risks POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazards on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards - Shredder and compactor - Dependent on type - - Less compact wastes explosions and volume of MSW with more leachates processed for down- - Worker injury from stream options - Poorer burning with equipment more emissions -Worker exposure to - More truck traffic toxic dusts with uncompacted waste -Fires - Worker noise exposure i 0089N 8-12 o Appropriate fire and explosion control devices should be incorporated in processing plant design o All workers should have thorough safety training o Workers should maintain high standards of hygiene • 1 o Workers should have appropriate medical exams and innoculations against diseases 8.4 Major Household Appliances 8.4.1 Description Bulk materials exchange prior to collection was introduced in Section 7.2. The primary difference between precollection reuse and exchange of major household appliances and activities related to 'a major household appliances facility is that workers pick up items that can be reused or scrapped. Therefore, the primary impacts are focused on the workers rather than the public. Processing of white goods as scrap would also involve the hazards discussed in Section 8.2. 8.4.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards Hazardous emissions from this activity include leaching from pressure treated lumber, PCB's and freons from used appliances, or cross—contamination of containers used originally for the transport of pesticides or other hazardous materials. These hazards can endanger both public and occupational health. 8.4.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards If the items included electrical (e.g., clothes dryer), thermal (e.g., gas stove), or pressurized gas (e.g., compressed air cylinder) devices, consumers could be exposed to electric shock, fire or pressure—related impacts from improperly operated or functioning devices. Similarly, if these devices were tested by refuse workers prior to their placement in the exchange facility, they could face similar hazards. In addition, oo89N 8-13 skeletomuscular injuries, cuts and abrasions would also be expected from the handling of the items. Finally, items picked up by consumers would need- to be moved and transported. To the extent that they are large or heavy, consumers and the general public could be injured during the handling of these items ,or from accidents 'during their transport. 8.4.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards It is possible that items collected could harbor insects, rodents or other biological pathogens. Without prior knowledge of the exact usage of the exchange materials it is not possible to assess the type, magnitude, and extent of this problem. Since organic wastes are uncommon in this component, these hazards are expected to be small compared to other components of the plan. 8.4.5 Assessment Selected types of items-to be redistributed could present chemical or physical hazards to plant operators and to consumers from improperly functioning or improperly operated devices. Because of the special hazards associated with electrical and pressurized gas systems, protocols should be developed to determine the types of items to be collected, and test procedures should be followed to determine device functionality. An aggressive industrial hygiene program should also be implemented to monitor the ongoing health of workers in the facility. The liability to the Town from accidents arising from individuals picking up or transporting these items should be considered. Table 8-5 summarizes the potential health, and safety impacts for material reuse and exchange. A precollection component of this waste reduction activity, would include public participation. Precollectioa occupational impacts would be beneficial since workers would be handling fewer wastes downstream. However, workers at a recycling or transfer center would be exposed to several physical hazards and possible chemical hazards. These hazards may outweigh benefits to workers downstream. Impacts to the public are viewed as negative for reasons stated above. Since this MSW activity would result in a waste reduction downstream, it •will likely result in secondary beneficial impacts or have no effects on health and safety on other MSW processes. It may reduce adverse impacts from source separation, shredding, waste-to-energy, landfilling, and ash disposal. 0089N' 8-14 Table 8-5 SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS MATERIAL REUSE AND EXCHANGE POTENTIAL BENEFITS Primary Benefits Independent Secondary Benefits on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Benefits - None identified for public - Less handling and - Less public injury processing injuries from old unsafe items to workers - Reduced emissions - Reduced leachates - Reduced ash POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazards on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards - Public risks from unsafe - Injuries associated -Added scrap processing items with scrap metal hazards dealers - Repair, refurbishing and -Landfill worker lifting injuries to public injuries -Worker injury from handling - Leachates at landfill bulk items 6 0089N 8-15 8.5 Materials Recovery and Recycling' 8.5.1 Description Paper, aluminum, glass, plastics, and ferrous materials can be recovered and recycled from mixed unsorted municipal waste. Facilities used for this option included materials recovery facilities and materials reprocessing facilities. Materials recovery involves processes which may be local or distant. Materials reprocessing involves regeneration of new materials from separated materials and would occur mostly out of the Town. The process for aluminum recovery is based on an eddy current separation system commonly called an aluminum magnet. With this technology, nonferrous metals mixed with other wastes are conveyed through a magnetic field in such a way that an eddy current is induced in the metals. Electrostatic separation is another method for separating , nonferrous metals from organic materials. Postdisposal separation and recovery of glass can be obtained through the use of froth flotation. 8.5.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards Materials reprocessing may result in primary and secondary effects from final processing of sorted wastes. Primary effects arise'from the processing of the collected materials to transform them back into a form suitable for remanufacturing. Secondary effects are the total system-wide impacts of implementing such a waste recycling program. These include effects of substituting materials recovered from-MSW for virgin materials in the the production of steel, aluminum, and glass. The primary effects of materials recycling activities are process specific. Visalli (1985) in examining these effects notes that chemicals may be added;to the ,collected wastes to facilitate the processing or are formed during the process operation itself. One example is the deinking of waste paper prior to its reuse. Modern inks used in different printing processes are comprised of a wide variety of hydrocarbon compounds including acrylics, plastics, resins, pigments, varnishes, defoamers and alcohols. In addition, some coloring pigments with'a heavy metal base "(e.g., cadmium) are used. Paper itself contains a variety of chemicals which are added during manufacture such as preservatives, brighteners and 'strength enhancers (e.g., phenolic and chlorinated phenolic compounds, organomercuric compounds, inorganic metallic salts and urea-formaldehyde based resins). 0089N 8-16 During deinking processes these and other agents added to assist the process may find their way into the wastewater stream. i In the case of secondary aluminum can processing, Visalli notes that painted recycled cans and siding along with other contaminants such as greases, oils, plastics, dirt etc. are combined with other aluminum scraps and melted in electrically heated or fuel fired furnaces. Fluxes, many of which are chlorine based, are also added to separate other metals from the melted aluminum and to protect the metal from exposure to air. The metal/flux contaminant mixture is typically heated to 1300-1500°F and contaminants are driven off. The major pollutants from such processing are particulates (metallic chlorides and oxides), acid gases (HCL and HF) and'chlorine gas. Similar processes are used for recovery of other metals (e.g., copper, lead and steel). Copper wire reprocessing emits fumes from the melting insulation. Air pollutant emission factors associated with the produdtion of virgin and recycled steel, aluminum and glass are given in Table 8-6. As shown, the air pollutant impacts of recycling are much smaller than from the production of some materials from virgin stocks. The secondary or system—wide effects of waste recycling have been examined by the USEPA (1979). They showed that the net secondary impacts of resource recovery from MSW will again be primarily beneficial. Emissions of most air pollutants will be reduced. The quantities of all pollutants present in leachate from landfilled solid waste and resource recovery residue will decrease. Less landfill capacity will be required for disposal of MSW. The discharge of pollutants to surface waters due to recycling processes may however increase. 8.5.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards Materials recovery may require residents to separate their refuse by type, and refuse workers to collect each waste type. No new health or safety hazards have been reported for residents involved in source separation activities. If these activities require additional labor by refuse collectors, an increase in employee injuries would be expected. Refuse workers have an extremely high injury rate (see Table 8-7), which is almost twice as high as that for firemen and policemen and 6-10 times that for "all industries." 0089N 8-17 i TABLE 8-6 AIR POLLUTANTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PRODUCTION OF STEEL, ALUMINUM, AND GLASS EMISSION FACTORS LB/TON OF PRODUCT Medium/ Steel Aluminum Glass Pollutant Vir i Recycled Virein Recycled Vind Recycled TOTAL PARTICULATES 5.5 0.37 12.0 2.9 3.3 0.2 CaF2 0.002 0.002 0:35 — — — HF 0.002 0.002 2.7 — — — CO 1885 90 -- — — SO2 4.02 0 — — — — NO2 0.04 0 -- — — — NH3 0.18 0 — -- — — HC(as CH3) - 4.3 0 -- — — — Source: Gordon, J. G., 1979. • s 0089N 8-18 I TABLE 8-7 NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL RECORDABLE OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND ILLNESS RATES FOR 1980 - 1982* Cases Nonfatal Days SIC Code Total Total Involving Cases Away Industry Recordable LWD** Days Away Without Total From Year Cases Cases From Work LWD LWD Work 4215 REFUSE COLLECTION 1980-1982 54.0 28.3 24.6 25.8 326 297 1982 44.8 24.9 24.9 19.9 333 318 4953 REFUSE SYSTEMS 1980-1982 35.5 18.8 15.7 16.7 269 219 1982 - 34.1 19.6 13.72 14.5 503 415 ALL INDUSTRIES 1982 6.2 2.7- 2.1 3.5 51 40 7 , I * Incidence rates per 100 full-time employees -** LWD - Lost Work Days Source: National Safety Council, 1983. 0089N 8-19 In-refuse collection, back strains account for 25% of all lost-time injuries and at least 28% of,the compensation expenses. This represents the leading single type of injury sustained by refuse collectors and results from improper lifting and over-exertion. The next largest category of injury to body parts is injuries ,to hands and fingers, accounting for 22% of total injuries. Sprained ankles are recorded more frequently for workers injured in refuse collection than for• all injured workers as a group. Frequent movements, in and out of vehicles contribute to this, as well as improper carrying of loads of refuse. Common skin injuries among collectors include abrasions, puncture wounds, lacerations, burns, frostbite, dog bites, bee and wasp stings, and rat bites. Serious cuts can be caused by torn metals on refuse cans and broken glass or protruding nails in discarded refuse. Other injuries occur when collectors drop heavy containers on their feet or legs. This may be due to insecure handles that tear off, or because the containers were unsuitable and difficult to handle. Another consideration is overloading of refuse that is too heavy to fit properly due to compacting of materials. Workers who _carry containers on their shoulders often get hung up on clothes lines, tree limbs and low overhanging roofs, causing severe strains and sprains. The presence of moving mechanical parts on automatic packer-type compaction units is potentially hazardous and can cause severe injury or amputation. The human element is responsible for more accidents and injuries than those from purely mechanical causes. This appears to be because collectors have little or no experience with heavy equipment, and they receive little training and supervision. Thus, any increase in the amount of labor required to implement this process will result in predictable increases in occupational morbidity and mortality. However, source separation from precollection activities of residents will likely lighten average worker loads. The lighter loads may require handling of more numerous packages and containers. 8.5.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards Potential biological impacts may be similar to those discussed in Section 9.2 on shredding, which may be used in conjunction with some postcollection recycling alternatives. 0089N 8-20 8.5.5 Assessment A study prepared for USEPA has shown that most system-wide environmental effects will be reduced by the recycling of various materials. Thus, on the grand scale, this process should reduce hazards to public and occupational health from chemical sources. On the other hand, not all of the facilities associated with all steps in the processing of these materials are or will necessarily be' located within the Town's boundaries. To the extent that secondary material processing facilities are constructed in the Town, careful consideration should be given to atmospheric, liquid and solid wastes discharged by these facilities. Occupational injuries probably present the greatest hazard from these process options. Any increase in handling, will likely result in a parallel increase in occupational injuries. These are well understood, however, and should not impede the selection of this management option. See Table 8-8 fora summary of impacts. 8.6 Waste Composting 8.6.1 Description Composting of MSW is a method of solid waste stabilization in many parts of the world. The process involves the biological decomposition of the putrescible components of the waste stream, thereby producing a stable end-w--product, which has a value as a soil conditioner or organic fertilizer base. MSW composting processes could occur at a regional out-of-Town facility or a privately owned and operated facility. 8.6.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards In terms of product use, the major chemical and public health concerns are the chemical constituents yin the compost with emphasis on heavy metals and potentially toxic organic compounds. One potential source of chemical contamination is the use of lawn and garden herbicides, pesticides and insecticides. Compost applied to land can potentially result in heavy metal contamination of soils. Uptake of certain elements can cause phytotoxicity or accumulate in plants and be toxic to humans or animals. 0089N 8-21 Table 8-8 SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS MATERIALS RECOVERY AND RECYCLING POTENTIAL BENEFITS Primary Benefits Independent Secondary Benefits on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Benefits - Le'ss volume of emissions - Reduced risks in - None identified than virgin materials parallel MSW options - Fewer solid wastes generated- POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazards on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards - Toxic air emissions at - None identified, - More solid waste from reprocessing plant represents end point virgin materials of waste management - Reprocessing plant --More volume of discharges emissions from virgin resources - Toxic chemical contamination in scrap - Increased local materials landfill hazards - Transportation safety - Increased local energy risks to plant recovery emissions and ash - Worker safety at reprocessing plants 0089N 8-22 1 j- The availability of heavy metals to plants, their uptake and the accumulation depend on a number of soil, plant and other factors. The soil factors of concern include pH, organic matter, phosphorous, cation exchange capacity, moisture, temperature and aeration. The plant factors are species and variety, organ of the plant and plant age. Other factors to be considered include reversion of metals, and form and type of metal content. Heavy metals that'accumulate in plant tissues can enter food chains, subsequently reaching man directly by ingestion or indirectly through animals (Chaney and Giordana 1977; Travis et al., 1983). -The elements of concern to human health include, cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), arsenic (As), selinium (Se) and mercury (Hg) (Braude et al., 1975). Concentrations of some of these are currently regulated in the land application of sewage sludge, the limits of which are shown in Table 8-9. Cd is the element of greatest concern to human health. When added to soils, Cd is readily absorbed and can accumulate in edible vegetation. Most human exposure to Cd comes from smoking and food — principally grain products, vegetables (especially leafy) and fruits. Dugan and Corneliussen (1972), for example, estimate that 26.5, 26, and 10% of the calculated daily intake of Cd came from grains and cereals, vegetables and fruits, respectively. The World Health Organization has recommended that the maximum permissible level of dietary Cd intake should not exceed 70 ug/person/day. Studies in the U.S. have shown that dietary intake of Cd is between 50 and-100 ug/day; consequently, an incremental increase in intake of this element would not be acceptable. Hg is very hazardous to human health, but levels in compost are generally low with little chance of increased levels in plants. Pb is a heavy metal of concern to health authorities (Braude et al. 1975) and hence its application to soils, like other metals (see Table 8-9) is regulated by the USEPA and NYSDEC in sludge composting operations. Soluble lead added to soils can become insoluble due to reactions with clays, phosphates, carbonates, hydroxides, sesquioxides and organic matter. This reduces its potential uptake by plants. Sabey and Hart (1975) show, for example, that when sewage was applied to land, the lead content of leaves and fruit was not significantly altered. The results from this study may also be applicable to Pb mobility in MSW composting operations. 0089N 8-23 TABLE 8-9 NEW YORK STATE MAXIMUM HEAVY METAL CONCENTRATIONS FOR LAND APPLICATION OF SEWAGE SLUDGES CHEMICAL CONCENTRATION (PPM) Cadmium 25 Chromium 1000 Copper 1000 Lead 1000 Mercury 10 Nickel 200 Zinc 2500 Source: E&A, 1987. 0089N 8-24 i The issue of organics has historically been associated with chlorinated hydrocarbons, pesticides and PCB's. Pahren et al. (1977) and Jelinke and Braude (1977) have examined the impact of organic compounds on land application practices. Concerns include uptake, -" adsorption, translocation, direct ingestion by grazing and foraging animals and the formation of breakdown products and subsequent movement of these compounds in the environment. Very little information is available on land contamination by sludge containing organic residues. Most municipal sludge contains relatively small amounts of organics. In a study of municipal wastewater sludge in Michigan, PCB concentrations ranged from less than 0'.1 ppm to 352 ppm (Anonymous 1973). Furr, et al. (1976) reported PCB levels ranging from less than 0.01 to 23 ppm in sludge in 16 U.S. cities. Only two cities had concentrations in excess of 10 ppm, which is the limit suggested by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (Jelinke 1976). Similarly, data on pesticides indicate that - municipal sludge generally contains low levels of these chemicals. Analyses of raw sludge from the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant in Washington, DC showed lindane, DDT, and PCB concentrations of 1.22, 0.6 and 0.24 ppm respectively. Furr et al. (1976) found dieldrin concentrations under 0.44 ppm in 15 of the 16 cities he examined. Dean (1975) indicated that the' hazards from organic pesticides and chlorinated organics in sludge applied to land appear to be minimal. i There is some indication that several pesticides may be biodegraded during - composting (Wilkinson et al. 1978). Preliminary studies showed that 79% of the Diazinon �. present in the compost was degraded during 10 days of composting and 68% of the chlordane in 16 days. 8.6.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards i Fires may result from spontaneous combustion which can occur when organic materials decompose and the associated heat release is not all able to escape. These can present dangers to workers in facilities at the composting site. The major hazards at I compost facilities would be from shredding activities. Branches and limbs require _. shredding for efficient ,composting. Physical hazards are similar to those discussed in Section 8.2.3. 0089N 8-25 Workers at compost facilities also face other physical hazards similar to those noted for sanitary landfill workers. These are described in Section 10. 8.6.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards The first biological hazard to be addressed is the release of fungal spores from a compost facility- and the potential consequence of these releases. The compost process uses a diverse population of microorganisms to decompose the organic fraction of the waste stream. The primary group of concern from aerospora are fungi, which can be classified as secondary pathogens. Secondary pathogens affect people whose defense systems have been weakened by certain diseases or therapies. They may be present in sewage, sludge or night soil and some are able to grow in compost. Examples of secondary pathogens are some thermophilic fungi and actinomycetes. These infect people who•have had respiratory infections or prolonged antibiotic or steroid treatment (Hart, Russell, and Remington, 1969). The main thermophilic fungus of concern here is Aspergillus fumigatus, which causes a respiratory disease known as Aspergillosis. The thermophilic actinomycetes (for example, Thermopolyspora polyspora and Micromonospora vulgaris cause allergic " reactions such as Farmer's Lung (Lacey, 1974; Marsh, Millner and Kla, 1979). Millner (1982) lists several other actinomycetes reported to grow at the thermophilic temperatures attainable during the composting process (500Q., These secondary pathogens are ubiquitous (found everywhere, including hospitals, homes, etc.) and are very common in agricultural situations. Aspergillus fumigatus, for example, is found in soils, hay, wood, cereals, foliage, and various moldy farm wastes. From the data on maximal concentrations of thermophilic actinomycetes in different materials (see Table 8-10), it appears that the concentrations in compost are generally lower than those in the other materials (more mature compost 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 the process. Aspergillus fumigatus grows at temperatures of less than 20°C to about 60°C (Cooney and Emerson, 1964;•Kane and Mullins, 1973a,b) and has been readily isolated from woodchips at 50°C (Tansey, 1971). The actinomycetes have a similar temperature range (Lacey, 1974). High concentrations have been isolated between 55°C and 60°C (Millner, 1982). Certain factors can inhibit the growth of these secondary pathogens: low pH, anaerobic conditions, excessive moisture and high temperatures (650C). 0089N 8-26 { I TABLE 8-10 CONCENTRATIONS OF THERMOPHILIC ACTINOMYCETES IN DIFFERENT MATERIALS (NUMBERS PER GRAM, DRY WEIGHT) GROWTH MATERIAL CONCENTRATION Moist hay 1.7 x 107 21—day sewage sludge compost 5.7 x 105 4—month sewage sludge compost 1.8 x 103 Bagasse 9.6 x 106 Mushroom compost 6.6 x 106 Moist grain 6.6 x 106 Source: E&A Environmental Consultants, 1987. 0089N 8-27 Toward the end of a composting process, when the compost is cooling down and becoming drier, 'the secondary pathogens may predominate. 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; Millner, 1977) have shown that Aspergillus levels in the area 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. Hampton Roads, Virginia (1982) reported monitoring four locations and several sites per location in their service area prior to starting a compost operation. They found very little, if any, impact of the compost operation on the ambient Aspergillus levels. As a matter of fact, they found that several of the background sites had higher levels than did the active compost site. Millner, et al., (1980) showed that within 15 minutes after cessation,of activity, aerospora concentrations were at concentrations comparable to those at noncomposting sites. , The degree of dispersal also 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 associated with secondary infections from moldy hay (Burge and Millner, 1980; Millner, 1982). The possibilities of people who are in good health becoming infected is very low (Oliver, 1979; Rippon, 1979; Wilson et al., 1980; Burge and Millner, 1980). R. John Garner (1978), the USEPA Health Effects Research Laboratory Director and Jack J. Schramm, former Regional Administrator of-the USEPA Region III, concluded a review of a siting problem involving a compost facility as follows: "The natural occurrence (of A. fumigatus) in a residential neighborhood, both indoors and outdoors, appears to be much more significant." The USEPA has addressed the issue of pathogenic organisms in 40 CFR 257. These regulations layout a series of time—temperature criteria, which have been shown to effectively eliminate human pathogens. The first level of pathogen kill called "Processes to Significantly Reduce Pathogens (PSRP)" requires that all compost processes be 0089N 8-28 maintained at minimum operating conditions of 40°C for five days. For four hours during this period, the temperature must exceed 55°C. Using the within—vessel composting method, the solid waste is maintained at operating conditions of 55°C or greater for three days. Using static aerated pile composting method, the solid waste is maintained at operating conditions of 55°C or greater for three days. Using the windrow composting method, the solid waste attains a temperature of 55°C or greater for at least 15 days during the composting period. Also, during the high temperature period, there will be a minimum of five turnings of the windrow. Studies have shown that, if good composting practices are maintained, pathogenic organisms can be eliminated as a health problem. The second area of concern is vectors. MSW improperly stored is a haven for rats, insects, and other organisms which can carry disease—causing organisms to the general population. Compost systems should have all storage of unprocessed MSW occur in an enclosed building or in enclosed containers. Furthermore, the storage capacity would be limited to no more than two to three days to make sure that all potential vector situations can be easily controlled. Experience at other solid waste facilities has shown that j periodic visits by a professional exterminator and good housekeeping practices can minimize the potential for any vector problems. Several studies have shown that ground refuse is not as suitable a habitat for vectors. Once the MSW is placed in a compost pile, the high temperature generated will kill off maggots and is inhospitable for most other vectors. 8.6.5 Assessment _ Table 8-11 summarizes the potential benefits and potential hazards of composting. The primary health concerns from composting are impacts on workers rather than on the public. With a ban of most highly toxic and persistent pesticides risk of compost contamination is less likely. The primary public health concern is from potential contamination of compost by metals and its use in vegetable gardens. Certain measures can be taken to improve the general health standards at a composting plant, and thus reduce the risk of these secondary infections even further: 1 0089N 8-29 Table 8-11 SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS COMPOSTING POTENTIAL BENEFITS Primary Benefits.Independent Secondary Benefits on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Benefits - None identified Reduction of,landfill - None identified gas - Reduction of organic- leachates - Reduced energy recovery emissions - Reduced ash POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazards on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards - Microorganisms and fungal - None identified - Increase methane gas spores exposure to workers in landfill - Metals in contaminated - Increased energy compost recovery emissions - Fire and smoke from - Increased ash accidental compost fire - Increased landfill - Worker equipment injuries leachates i 0089N 8-30 - I 1. Workers should be encouraged to maintain high standards of hygiene. 2. During periods of 'dry weather, the' composting area should be sprinkled periodically with water to reduce dust dispersal. The dustiest areas should be enclosed to keep dispersion to a minimum. 3. During adverse weather conditions, workers should be encouraged to wear masks or respirators or some other covering to reduce dust inhalation. 4. Workers should be isolated from the spore-dispersing parts of the process, such as mechanical turning. S. The composting plant should be located at "discrete" distances from hospitals and residential areas. 6. Protective clothing, i.e., uniforms and/or coveralls, and safety shoes must be worn by all employees working at the compost facility. 7. Workers should change from protective clothing to street clothing at the end of each day. Soiled protective clothing shall not leave the premises. 8. It is suggested that tetanus, polio, and typhoid inoculations be given. Individuals who are diabetic or have severe allergies or asthma should not be employed. At this point it is not possible to characterize the heavy metal content of compost which could be produced by the Town's waste stream.-In general, MSW compost alone is quite low in heavy metal content, since most of the metal component would be removed by separation. Furthermore, most modern inks are organic rather than heavy metal based, so this source of metals is greatly reduced. In any event, for the compost to be distributed widely in the Town, it must have a very low metal, as well as PCB content. If for some reason, the compost can't comply with USEPA or NYSDEC guidelines, its use will be most likely limited to discrete applications at sanitary landfill sites (e.g., cover material) or elsewhere in the Town where it can be shown •that runoff to surface water bodies or leachate to groundwater will not occur. This may not be a large problem because the,organic,matter in the compost will increase the cation exchange capacity of the soil and thereby retain materials which might otherwise leach into the groundwater. oos9N 8-31 The ability, to produce usable compost would have beneficial health and safety, impacts on sanitary landfills by greatly reducing biodegradable wastes in the landfill. There are also minor secondary benefits associated with the reduction of the importation of products that. compost end products would replace. Thus leachate production is reduced and no methane gas is produced in the landfill. The volume of compost generated would reduce the use of a regional waste-to-energy facility and would; therefore, reduce the total air emissions and ash production. l f 0089N 8-32 9.0 ENERGY RECOVERY 9.1 Description The large majority of energy recovery facilities are mass-burn, stoker fired systems with state-of-the-art acid gas scrubbers and electrostatic precipitators for controlling particulates. Facilities of this type are typically designed to have no liquid effluent discharges to the environment. - The combustion of MSW and recovery of heat from exhaust gases to generate steam or electricity represents an increasingly important element of many solid waste disposal programs in the U.S. In this option, raw MSW is burned directly in large waterwall furnaces, with or without the preprocessing of the wastes. Mass-burn units are usually field erected and range in size from 50 to 1000 tons per day of refuse feed capacity. A large base ,of literature exists on health and safety hazards of waste combustion systems. This summary is intended to cover briefly the principal concerns and existing assessments of these systems. A detailed health risk assessment is required by New York State as part of the permitting process for the construction of an energy recovery facility. These risk assessments must analyze the"potential risk to public health from inhalation, dermal absorption, and ingestion. ; 9.2 Potential Health Concerns The USEPA (1987) has prepared a study of the health risks associated with exposure to municipal waste combustion emissions. A large technical research literature exists for this- technology. Repeated risk assessments on several planned and existing waste combustion facilities indicate no significant adverse health effects from well-designed facilities with state-of-the-art emission controls. (Penner et al., 1987; Hempstead EIS, 1985; Adirondack Resource Recovery EIS, 1986; Huntington DEIS, 1986; Westchester RESCO, 1986). In spite of these studies and the assurances of the NYSDEC Solid Waste Management Plan, concerns over potential health impacts of resource recovery facilities have been expressed. These center around the following health issues: o Production of toxic emissions from incineration of solid wastes J o Ash toxicity and its potential for pollution related to its disposal 009ON 9-1 o , 'Carcinogenicity of several chemicals in air emissions o Safe levels and acceptable risks of emissions o Accumulation of certain chemicals, such as dioxins, in the food chain o The high level of toxicity of chlorinated dioxins in animals 9.3 Chemical Exposures 9.3.1 Air Exposures The primary source of air emissions from a solid waste management system would be from a waste-to-energy facility. Secondary emissions sources would be from short-term construction activities, disposal trucks, disposal equipment such as front loaders, compactors, etc., and fugitive emissions from disposal facilities. All combustion processes produce emissions which, if high enough, can cause adverse health effects. Emissions from solid waste combustion differ mainly in the relative concentrations of emissions, not in the specific emissions produced. Trace metal emissions are! similar on a BTU basis to those from coal-burning power plants with good controls. Chlorinated organic materials are one group of chemicals that are associated with municipal refuse incinerators, improper disposal of chemical wastes, and fires involving electrical transformers (Tiernan, et al., 1985). There is some evidence that wood-burning stoves, automobile exhaust and forest fires also produce these materials. These emissions can be produced whenever there is a source of chlorine in the combustible material (Rappe, 1984). The primary source of these 'compounds is from the combustion of chlorinated compounds in industry, not from municipal waste incinerators (Penner et al,, 1987). In municipal solid waste, the principal sources of chlorine appear to be paper, bleach, chlorinated plastics, and food (salt). 9.3.2 Water Groundwater provides the sole source of drinking water in the Town of Southold (excluding Fishers Island which solely utilizes surface water). Proposed waste combustion facilities are a solution to reduce this health risk. Waste combustion facilities designed today recycle wastewater and utilize air cooled condensers so that there is zero discharge of water from the facility. Wastewater is used to quench bottom ash which is then disposed in an appropriate landfill (see Section 10.4 on ash disposal). Therefore there, would be no discharge which would contaminate the groundwater or surface waters. 009ON 9-2 9.3:3 Food Contamination Food supply may be affected in three ways: o Direct deposition and uptake of chemicals on fruits and vegetables I_ o Secondary accumulation of contaminants by livestock, poultry or fish and o Accumulation in human milk through contaminated drinking water, air and food No significant adverse impacts to regional food and crops are expected from the waste management project. Acid gas emissions such as sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides, and hydrogen chloride or fluoride are toxic to plants at high levels. Concentrations emitted from the proposed facility will meet or be below required standards. These low levels are not known to cause damage to crops, vineyards or other types of vegetation. i_ Accumulation of deposited or absorbed airborne emissions in crops and livestock from waste—to-energy facilities is generally considered insignificant since emissions will be controlled at levels below which human health effects are known. However, chlorinated organics such as PCBs, dioxins, and furans are of most. concern because of their high toxicity to animals, potential long life in soil, and potential to accumulate in L body fat and milk. Contamination of fish in the Great Lakes and Hudson River has been documented (Ryan, et al., 1984). However, there are few scientific data which identify this as a significant health problem. Fears have been generated that dioxins, such as - TCDD from energy recovery facilities, will contaminate food. Deposition in soil or sediments of trace amounts of dioxins from municipal waste incinerators appears to have much less importance than other sources of chemical contamination such as hazardous waste incineration (Penner et al., 1987). Also TCDD is tightly bound in contaminated soils impeding leaching through the soil ands uptake by plants. Data gathered by USEPA on TCDD'in soils show that widespread contamination of the soil is not a problem, either in rural or urban settings. Low dioxin levels have been found in only 17 out of 221 urban soils and in one out of 138 rural areas that were sampled. This is in spite of widespread use of dioxin contaminated herbicides and chemicals in the past (USEPA, 1986). 009ON 9-3 1 Trace dioxin emissions in the air from waste-to-energy .facilities are not a significant contribution to reported dioxin contamination of sediments of aquatic environments (Penner et al., 1987). 9.4 Biological Hazards When organic .wastes are collected, stored, transferred, and landfilled, there is concern over pests and transmission of infectious diseases. If a solid waste management project provides for composting of organic wastes, little of this waste will be burned. Some bypass organic wastes will likely be processed on an intermittent basis. Therefore, the waste combustion facility is not expected to pose a significant problem for generating pests and pathogens. 9.5 Physical Hazards Accidents and injuries are a significant cause of death and disability. , For a waste combustion facility the largest risks are to the workers. For example, pit fires are a documented hazard in refuse disposal facilities (Brinkman, 1986). Depending on the design of the facility, the following physical hazards could likely include: o Traffic accidents o Back injuries o Equipment accidents o Cuts and punctures o Falls o Injury from falling or moving o Burns objects o Eye injuries o Garbage pit fires 9.6 Assessment The primary public health risks from combustion of municipal refuse are related to air emissions and disposal of ash. Table 9-1 summarizes the potential benefits and potential hazards -of energy recovery. The health and safety concerns focus on potential chemical' hazards. Therefore, this assessment will review the conclusions presented in several studies on emissions and potential risks from waste combustion. 009ON 9-4 TABLE 9-1 SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS ENERGY RECOVERY POTENTIAL BENEFITS f Primary Benefits Independent Secondary Benefits on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Benefits - Removal of direct MSW risks - Reduction of landfill - Reduced air emissions from the public gas - Reduction of landfill - No ash leachates POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazards on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards , F - Potential health risks - Ash disposal risks - Higher landfill risks from air emissions - -Worker exposure to ash - Pit fires - Worker safety risks i , I _ i ; i ' _ _ P � I 0090N 9-5 J If the proposed facility has no discharge of liquid effluents, no potential health risks from the groundwater are expected. A principal health benefit of such a -Facility is to reduce or eliminate the need for sanitary landfilling and its potential hazards as discussed in Section 10. Quantitative estimates comparing these benefits to air emission risks are not available. As discussed above, a detailed risk assessment is required for chemicals that are likely to be emitted from a waste combustion facility. This health risk assessment would be part of a site-specific environmental impact statement. The risk assessment must analyze the potential risk to public health from -the inhalation, dermal absorption or ingestion which could result from emissions from the facility. This risk assessment would be reviewed by the NYSDEC with the assistance of the NYS Department of Health. 9.6.1 Air Emissions The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Application must demonstrate the proposed facility's ability to meet the NYSDEC operation requirements related to air emissions and other facility operating requirements. To assure public health, emissions must meet or exceed all NYSDEC standards set forth in its Air Guide I. Potential emissions from waste combustion facilities are given in Table 9-2. 9.6.2 Populations Exposed Possible ingestion of dioxins by young children has been questioned. .Two concerns include ingestion from dirt due to excessive mouthing behavior of very young children and potential ingestion of contaminated milk. The potential for contamination of soil from air—borne deposition is very small for reasons discussed above. The potential for exposure is further reduced by the relative infrequency of soil consumption and the amount of soil that would be consumed. Contamination of a nursing mother's milk by trace amounts of TCDD has been reported for some areas. The extent of'contamination has not been fully studied and its source has not been pinpointed. It has been reported to be found in Swedish studies, Vietnam mothers, and in some samples of human milk from the United States. Studies are not -yet available that demonstrate the bioavailability and pathways for dioxin contamination of human milk. A nursing mother that may have concentrations of dioxin - 0090N 9-6 TABLE 9-2 SOME POTENTIAL AIR EMISSIONS FROM MUNICIPAL . t WASTE COMBUSTION FACILITIES Sulfur Oxides Chlorophenols Nitrogen Oxides Chlorobenzenes Carbon Monoxide Chlorinated Dioxins and"Furans Arsenic Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons Cadmium Formaldehyde Beryllium Chrysene j Chromium Benzo(a)pyrene Manganese Polychlorinated Biphenyls Mercury Hydrochloric Acid Nickel Hydrofluoric Acid I , Lead Vanadium 009ON 9-7 above acceptable levels is a concern and the source of this contamination needs to be determined. However, the data at present do not provide a link between grace airborne emissions and other dioxin sources and bioaccumulation in human milk. 9.6.3 Risks From Inhalation Estimates of carcinogenic risk have been made by the USEPA using the best available estimates of potency for various carcinogens. The maximum range for lifetime individual' risks from emissions was 10-6 to 10-4 excess cancers (USEPA, 1987b). Estimates made by several consultants for MSW plants show a worst-case estimate of carcinogenic risk is in the range of one case of cancer in a million persons exposed over'a period of 70 years. Such emission levels over an extended period are unlikely and 24-hour per day exposure to these levels for 70 years is even more unlikely. Such risk estimates are based on very conservative assumptions so that the actual risk to an exposed population is most likely less than the estimated theoretical risk but very unlikely to be larger. Furthermore, risk estimates are based on animals that appear to be more sensitive to dioxins than humans. Levels of exposure to laboratory rodents are much higher than expected for a person who would be exposed daily for 70 years to incinerator emissions. Risks of cancer for all chlorinated dioxins including TCDD, are likely on the order of 1 to 10 per 100,000,000 persons exposed (Huntington DEIS, ,1986; F.C.Hart, 1987; Malcolm Pirnie, 1987). 9.6.4 Risks From Ingestion There is public concern over potential health effects from eating food and drinking water contaminated--by waste-to-energy facilities. Of the numerous trace emissions, attention has been focused on chlorinated dioxins and furans, and in particular TCDD which is the most potent of this family of chemicals. Since there is no discharge of contaminated water, this source of potential contamination will not exist. Any airborne dioxins would be bound to particles which are insoluble in water. Any trace amounts that might settle out of the air and into water would be minute and not measurable. Any accumulation over time, if it occurred would be in sediments, not in the water. 0090N 9-8 1 The primary concern regarding ingestion of dioxins is possible contamination of human food and potential' biomagnification of dioxin concentrations in milk and fatty tissue. Studies have not yet been completed that demonstrate the bioavailability and- pathways of dioxin in the environment. The greater potential for food chain transfers to man would be through bottom feeding fish in if sediments were contaminated. In an environment where trace amounts of dioxins are emitted as a combustion by=product, skin absorption by humans is an unlikely route of exposure. Potential exposure to humans would be through direct deposition from the air and/or from contaminated soil. Chlorinated dioxins tend to be absorbed on other particles from which they are not readily absorbed through the skin. Unlike laboratory• animals which are painted with material that enhances absorption through the skin, humans tend to be covered and wash their hands and faces of potential skin contaminants. If there were any significant exposure to dioxins, inhalation would by far outweigh any contribution from dermal absorption. 9.6.5 Comparative Risks Public health risks from potential exposure to emissions of modern waste combustion facilities have been estimated to be on the order of one to 10 cancer deaths from a million persons exposed. To put this estimated risk in perspective, consider the risks given in Table 2-1. Compared to other effects to the Town potential health risks from a waste-to-energy facility are relatively minute and would not likely be detected in the- population even if each one could be exposed to worst-case levels of emissions everyday for their lifetime. In contrast, it is likely that 2/100,000 persons in the Town would die of lung cancer from involuntarily breathing the cigarette smoke of others. 9.6.6 Conclusions Assessment of potential chemical emissions from other planned energy recovery facilities in New York State have been performed. Projected exposures from these facilities are so low as to fall far below the threshold exposures for acute and chronic diseases. Most of the concerns of health effects are effects from long-term exposure from chemical mixtures at low concentrations. Diseases such as cancer, which are caused 009ON 9-9 1 by repeated low level exposures do not appear for many years after exposure. Potential adverse impacts from these facilities were found to be insignificant. In these assessments, very conservative assumptions are used to perform the analyses in which conditions were assumed,to be worse than they were likely to be. New York State regulations require that emissions from these facilities meet all standards and guidelines and that any potential risk to public health will be insignificant. Based on these findings, no significant adverse health impacts are anticipated for the population of the Town or to populations in the vicinity of a possible future waste combustion facility. 009ON 9-10 n i 10.0 OTHER WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES 10.1 Sanitary Landfilling 10.1.1 Description Sanitary landfills are operated.to confine the refuse to the smallest practical area, to reduce it to the smallest possible volume, and to cover it with a layer of earth at the conclusion of each day's operation, or at more frequent intervals as may be needed. No on—site burning is permitted at a sanitary landfill. These practices may be supported by lining the landfill to inhibit leachates and groundwater contamination. `Pollution control equipment to treat leachate present in the landfill may also be used. 10.1.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards In sanitary landfills which do not have liners or which fail to treat leachate, a large potential for ground or surface water quality impairment from leachate exists. Landfill gases such as methane and volatile organic chemicals are also produced. Water quality sampling results for wells found on the Town landfill complex can be found in the Part 360 and Phase H Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan prepared for the Town by Dvirka and Bartilucci. The Work Plan presents nearly 10 pages of on and off—site sampling results that characterize the local water quality. Leachate from landfills may have a biological oxygen demand of over 20,000 mg/liters, which is about 100 times stronger than raw sewage (Wilson, 1979). The amount of leachate and its composition are dependent on the material in the fill (organic, inorganic, soluble or insoluble), conditions in the fill (e.g., temperature, pH, moisture content), soil conditions (e.g., chemical characteristics, permeability) and volume and type of percolating water. For example, acidic leachates tend to be high in metal content. Similarly, detergents enrich the organic content of the leachate. There are two primary ways that the fill material can become saturated with water: 1. The fill can be in contact with the ground or surface waters resulting in direct horizontal leaching through the fill material 2. Water)can be recharged through the fill from rainfall 0091N/2 10-1 If the solid wastes intercept the zone of saturation or if the leachate reaches nearby surface waters, the contaminated waters in the immediate vicinity of the disposal site may exceed Federal or State drinking water or surface water standards and thus be unsuitable for domestic consumption or for irrigation use. Concentrations of some mineral constituents such as hardness, chloride and dissolved solids can increase beyond drinking water standards. Studies have shown, for example, that the continuous leaching of one acre of refuse one foot deep can result in a minimum extraction of approximately seven tons of various ions, most of which would be removed during the first year. The distribution of these pollutants is largely controlled by the pattern of groundwater movement. During the decomposition of refuse, methane and other organic gases are produced. Vinyl chloride, a 'known carcinogen, has also been shown to be produced in landfills (Molton et al., 1987, USEPA, 1988a). Benzene has been related to leukemia in industrial settings. Other volatile organics are neurotoxic at higher levels .of exposure. For some landfills, gas emissions may result in potentially high carcinogenic risks. Of the many kinds of wastes that are deposited at sanitary landfills, some such as insecticides, solvents, asbestos and other poisons and hospital wastes (excluding "red bag" wastes) may be particularly hazardous. The exposure of refuse workers to these materials is of special concern. Infrequently encountered "special" waste items may create health and safety hazards if not properly handled. For example, it was reported that 'a landfill site in the State of California received large quantities of fiberglass wastes. As the tractor driver incorporated these wastes with other refuse, a glass dust problem was created resulting in a severe skin rash to the equipment operator. •10.1.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards The production of methane and its movement from landfills may present serious fire and explosion hazards to the neighboring areas and to buildings located at,the landfill. Such effects have been observed in many sites proximate to landfills. Injury- and deaths have been associated with several landfill explosions and fires. Additionally, as the gas escapes from the disposal site, it may chemically affect trees, shrubs and other vegetation. The type of soil and pressure of the gas in the fill .are the dominant factors affecting the distance of gas movement. 0091N/2 10-2 In addition to fire and explosion hazards, sanitary landfills can also present hazards to operators and the public using these facilities. The physical layout of some disposal operations can create special safety hazards, especially if public drop-off is permitted or encouraged. Uncontrolled traffic creates still another potential safety hazard. •If good traffic lanes are not established and equipment operation and vehicle traffic are not supervised, accidents may occur resulting in damage to life or property. If the sites are constructed with high embankments, operators risk rolling their equipment over the edges of the embankments or steep operating faces of the disposal sites. Statistics on occupational injuries for sanitation workers bear witness to the hazardous environments which these workers face. 10.1.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards The most prominent health concerns associated with improperly operated landfilling activities are flies and rodents. Flies pose a multiple threat to a community: o They are a vector of disease (see Tables 10-1 and 10-2) o They threaten the cleanliness and wholesomeness of processed foods o They are annoying pests Any warm, moist, organic material is a potential source of fly breeding. Flies quickly find suitable material to deposit their eggs. `The life cycle of the fly is well adapted to a organic rich refuse environment. Adult females lay 50 to 200 eggs that hatch in about five days. The larvae (maggots) feed in the garbage for about five -days and then pupate on the ground. The presence of large numbers of adult flies at a disposal site usually indicates a sanitary deficiency. This problem becomes serious -when the fly population pressure becomes so high that spillover to the surrounding area occurs. When this happens, flies leave their "source point" and go to an "attractant point" such as a residence, restaurant, or business. Flies migrate as far as twenty miles from a source of production. 0091N/2 10-3 Table 10-1 FLY-BORNE DISEASES Typhoid Bacillary dysentery Amoebic dysentery Diarrheas Asiatic cholera Helminth/infections (worm) Myiasis Loiasis Onchocerciasis Ozzards filariasis Leishmaniasis African sleeping sickness (trypanosomiasis) Yaws Tularemia Bartonellosis Cararrhal conjunctivitis Sand fly fever Source: Wilson, D.G., 1979 0091N/2 10-4 Table 10-2 RODENT—BORNE DISEASES Echinostomiasis Hemorrhagic septicemia Histoplasmosis Lymphocytic choriomeningitis Bubonic plague Rat—bite fever Rat mite dermatitis Rat tapeworm infection Rocky Mountain spotted fever Salivary gland virus infection Salmonellosis Schistosomiasis Bilharziasis Sporotrichosis Swine erysipelas Trichinosis Leptospirosis Leishmaniasis Relapsing Fever Tularemia Rickettsial pox Murine ryphus Source: Wilson, D.G., 1979 0091 N/2 10-5 MSW disposal sites which are not covered daily with compacted soil, can also be a primary source of food and shelter for rats and mice. These rodents can be difficult to destroy with poison baits because of the abundant and varied food supply. In addition to rats and mice, several other species of small wild mammals may be attracted to these wastes. These include opossums, raccoons, and cats. Rodents may act as vectors for many different diseases (refer to Table 10-2). A factor of public health concern can arise if field and domestic rodents commingle at an improperly operated sanitary landfill. Rodents, are a source of bubonic plague (Pasteurellaep stis). The landfill can provide a point of transfer for infection from wild to domestic rodents, thereby increasing the potential for human exposure. In addition to the hazard of infectious disease transmission, rats may attack MSW workers or- infants or small children living near a landfill. Municipal solid waste contains a large population of microorganisms which may be contaminated with pathogens. Refuse is an excellent medium for supporting growth and survival of,pathogens. MSW landfills may contain pet feces, animal remains, food wastes, disposal baby diapers, hospital wastes, and sometimes sewage sludge. Various fecal indicator bacteria, pathogenic bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites have been identified in numerous landfill studies (Lu gt al., 1984). ' The populations of microorganisms in leachates vary with the type, amount and age of refuse in the landfill. Fresh refuse shows high bacteria counts. With time, counts decrease in the leachates tested. The presence of fecal coliforms indicates•contamination from warm-blooded animals. The presence of fecal streptococci indicates contamination from humans or chickens. Total coliform bacteria counts imply potential contamination of pathogenic bacteria. However, coliform bacteria may be present in a sample that does not contain any pathogenic bacteria. Several species of bacteria which are classified as moderately infectious agents by the U.S. Public Health Service, have been found in landfills and leachates. These agents include Listeria monosytogenes, Moraxella sp., and Acinetobacter sp., Allescheria boydii, a pathogenic fungus, has also been found. Persons working with substances containing these agents must take precautions to prevent inoculation by this class of agents. 0091N/2 10-6 �l Several natural processes in landfills increase bacteria mortality and inhibit their growth. Initial high temperatures of anaerobic decomposition inhibits bacterial growth. Inactivation of growth also occurs at low (acid) pH levels found in landfill leachate. Although fecal indicator bacteria counts are usually below detection levels for landfills inactive for two or more years, pathogens can still be isolated from solid wastes in• inactive landfills. The infectious agents listed above were found in 9—year old landfill wastes. Conditions for survival depend on, the level of aerobic and anaerobic waste decomposition,,level of moisture, and degree of waste shredding (Lu et al., 1984). Enteric viruses that are generally associated with fecal contamination are rarely found in landfill leachates (Lu et al., 1984). Municipal landfills and leachates do not provide an environment for the survival of viruses. The mechanism of viral destruction in ; landfills 'is- not fully known. It has been concluded from several studies that properly operated sanitary landfills do not constitute a public health hazard-due to enteric viruses. Very little information is available on fungi in landfill leachates. Nonpathogenic fungi such as Aspergillus, Penicillium and Fusarium are common and may be found in older leachates (Lu et al., 1984). Several types of yeasts are also common. The fungi Allescheria boydii, which causes mandura foot abscesses, is the primary pathogen identified. - There is also limited information on the presence of parasites in landfill leachates. Protozoan, helminth, and nematode parasites are a potential health hazard in landfills due to the,presence of human and animal feces (Lu et al., 1984). It is a particular concern when unstabilized sewage sludge is landfilled. Parasitic cysts and eggs are capable of surviving landfill conditions that inactivate bacteria and viruses. 10.1.5 Assessment Table 10-3 summarizes thepotential benefits and potential hazards of a present day sanitary landfill. ' Potential health and safety impacts to workers{and the public have been identified for sanitary landfill operation. Worker accidents are a documented safety problem. Landfill gas emissions and groundwater leachates are a .potential health concern. Micro organisms, animal pests and insects are potential hazards that require I hygiene and sanitary controls. 0091N/2 10-7 J - f I Table 10-3 SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS SANITARY LANDFILL POTENTIAL BENEFITS Primary Benefits Independent Secondary Benefits on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Benefits - Removal of direct chemical - None identified - No leachates, toxic or physical, and biological explosive gas hazards MSW hazards from the public - No landfill animal vectors or disease vectors POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazards on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards - Chemical risks from - None identified - Health and safety leachates and toxic gases risks from illegal dumping - Physical hazard from methane gas - Increased resident exposure to bio- ' -Worker risks from dusts, hazards, and chemical gases, and household hazards chemicals - Worker equipment accidents - Traffic accidents 0091 N/2 10-8 I i ' In- an integrated solid waste management program for the Town, organic wastes may be diverted by a composting program (see Sections 5.3 and 8.4), paper recycling and . i recovery (see Sections 5.2, 7.3, and 8.3), and/or a waste-to-energy facility if one were built (see Sections 5.4 and 9.1). Similarly, many household toxic wastes could be managed by a Household Hazardous Materials Management Program (see Sections 5.2 and 7.4), although its potential net benefit is uncertain due to this category comprising less than 1.0% of MSW. Landfill operators are required by the EPA and the State to prevent or control disease vector populations thus minimizing biological hazards. Thus chemical (leachate and gas emissions), physical (methane production), and biological (pathogens, ! insects, and rodents) exposures at sanitary landfills would be reduced substantially by these MSW management activities. As a result, many of the health and safety hazards -, associated with these exposures would be greatly reduced. To the extent that toxic residuals remain, active strategies to control leachate using � liners, and to monitor groundwater quality on or adjacent to the site would be implemented. Thus, health and safety hazards would be further reduced. Similarly, if new disposal sites are constructed, strict attention must be given to their potential proximity - to important groundwater recharge areas. Risk assessments conducted by the USEPA indicate that recently constructed landfills that follow required standard landfill design have acceptable risks. The proposed EPA design criteria which is based on acceptable - upper bound risks would further assure public health and safety for new landfills. Worker hazards (e.g., accidents at the disposal site) will need to be actively managed using a combinations of engineering (e.g., limiting slopes of embankments), administrative (e.g., limiting site access) and personal (e.g., operator training) controls. Strict compliance and enforcement. of OSHA standard are needed to reduce worker injury. Attention should be given to potential exposure of workers to respirable quartz dust. 10.2 Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal 10.2.1 Description Construction and demolition produce a variety of wastes, such as land` clearing debris, wood, ferrous and nonferrous- metals, wallboard, insulating materials and old appliances. Currently, these materials are placed in sanitary or other landfills for final 0091N/2 10-9 i disposal. They may be mixed with residential and commercial wastes or separated in separate landfills or cells. 10.2.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards The level and types of leachate and gas formation are expected to be lower for these wastes than for residential and bypass wastes since the volume of organic wastes is lower. Some leachates are formed but their character is not well defined. Construction wastes may contain a variety of nonhazardous and hazardous materials. Dust generated from demolition waste disposal contains numerous chemicals of concern. Of special concern is the presence of asbestos fibers which were used'for several decades in the construction industry as an insulating material. In the process of dumping,- commingling and covering the construction—related debris, it is possible that asbestos fibers could be mobilized to the atmosphere. In this situation, refuse workers at the site would be at greatest risk. Fiberglass insulation is a potential occupational hazard. Landfill vehicles and earth—moving equipment could generate fiberglass dusts which ' are disposed in the landfill. In addition, other dusts are generated by these activities. Dusts are a known source of pneumoconiosis, a lung disease. Depending on the nature and quantity of releases, and the proximity to the public, exposures to fugitive dusts could result. Respirable quartz dust is a potential health hazard and is likely to be similar to that for sanitary landfills (see Section 10.1.2). These dusts are known to cause silicosis, a form of pneumoconesis. In bulldozer operations, exposure can.exceed exposure standards. 10.2.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards At a construction demolition disposal site, refuse workers generally move or compact the construction wastes. The hazard's to workers from these activities should be similar to those discussed in Section 10.1.3 on sanitary landfills. 1 A large fraction of the material disposed of are combustible. Consequently, a fire hazard could exist. This would principally endanger occupational health. Public health would be involved to the extent that a fire and smoke would spread beyond the facility boundaries. 0091N/2 10-10 10.2.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards Construction and demolition wastes may contain small quantities of organic materials. The waste site could provide both shelter and food for rodents and insects. These potential hazards are discussed in Section 10.1.4 on sanitary landfills. Although these hazards are similar in type, their magnitude is much lower than for residential wastes. Demolition workers have shown a high incidence of Cryptococcosis which is a fungus disease carried in pigeon feces. Some deaths have been attributed to mycosis (Wilson 1979). This should not present a large risk even if the mycosis is present, because of the worker's limited interaction with the materials. In addition, the small volume of organic wastes would minimize potential biological hazards. 10.2.5 Assessment Table 10-4 summarizes the potential benefits and potential hazards resulting from construction and demolition waste disposal. The primary hazards will be to workers. Little public health and safety impacts are expected. The most frequent worker hazard would be from accidents. Possible exposure to toxic materials, or biological pathogens may occur. On-site fugitive dusts are a potential long-term health hazard. Asbestos related wastes are of special concern. Asbestos waste, whether loose or in sealed bags or receptacles should only be disposed of in these facilities in such a way that no dust is emitted into the air during dumping or-after dumping. All asbestos bearing wastes should be covered with at least 9 inches of consolidated earth or other suitable material capable of forming a seal to prevent subsequent dispersal of dust. Covering should be done promptly; no asbestos-bearing waste should be left uncovered at the end of the working day. Other MSW management activities are expected to have little beneficial or negative impacts on construction and demolition this disposal. Only materials recovery and recycling of building materials process would likely result in beneficial reduction of hazards to workers at the disposal site. 0091N/2 10-11 Table 10-4 SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES POTENTIAL BENEFITS Primary Benefits Independent Secondary Benefits on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Benefits - None identified - Reduced risks due to - None identified separate control of landfilled wastes POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazards on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards -Worker equipment accidents - None identified - Risks from mixed MSW in landfill - Worker exposure to dusts - Risks from illegal - Worker exposure to bio- dumping logical hazards 0091N/2 10-12 10.3 Bypass Waste Disposal 10.3.1 Description Bypass disposal',includes temporary storage and disposal of MSW that is diverted from other processing pathways. It also includes process wastes by each MSW activity. Resource recovery wastes are not included. This disposal activity may be needed for the following reasons: o Short-term transfer station overflow o Backup when alternative waste management systems (e.g., recycling facilities or incinerators) are undergoing maintenance o Load leveling of excess wastes o Fluctuation of recycling markets These wastes would be disposed in a sanitary landfill as discussed in Section 10.1.1. 10.3.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards Since the composition of the bypass MSW is the same as present-day MSW that is landfilled, chemical hazards of bypass operations are similar to those noted for sanitary landfills. Their high organic and biodegradable waste content will add to the landfill and its leachate load. However, the volume and frequency of disposal of these wastes will be low over time and the excess gas or leachate production will likely be small compared to the total volume of wastes that would be disposed in the landfill under and integrated MSW program. Therefore, the potential chemical risks from bypass MSW activities are expected to be proportionally lower for both the worker and the public. 10.3.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards Occupational accidents arising from materials handling activities and processing activities similar to those discussed above for sanitary landfills are likely impacts of the bypass operation. These will probably occur in direct proportion to the amount of labor involved in the handling, movement and reloading of MSW for final disposal. As handling increases, occupational hazards and mortality will likely increase. 0091N/2 10-13 10:3.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards If the bypass operation maintains MSW at a facility for more than one day without protective covering, rodents and insects (particularly flies) can present biological hazards. These have been discussed previously in Section 10.1.4. 10.3.5 Assessment Potential benefits and potential hazards -from bypass disposal are shown in Table 10-5. Physical hazards would most likely impact workers. Other hazards would be similar to sanitary landfill but-on a much smaller scale. The greatest hazard to health from the bypass process appears to be related to the potential harborage of rodents and flies. Both can be reduced or eliminated by limiting the residence time of the MSW -at facilities where the wastes are normally processed. 10.4 Ash Processing and Disposal 10.4.1 Description Ash from a waste combustion facility will be disposed of in a landfill. It is possible that some portion of the ash may be recycled in some manner-as a construction material (i.e. cinder blocks). An ashfill will be a separately designed facility or it may be disposed in adjacent cells at a standard sanitary landfill. To assure control of potential leachates, the ashfill should not be located in a groundwater recharge area. The ashfill would be lined and-where appropriate, leachate control and monitoring be installed. In all MSW combustion activities, fly ash and bottom ash are produced. Even in an ' efficient incinerator, up to 30% of the mass of the MSW is left behind as ash. This ash is not classified as hazardous by EPA' under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. However, it is necessary to treat and dispose of this ash in special waste landfills if the ash is classified as toxic. Ash contains two•major components from combustion of municipal wastes: the bottom ash from the combustion system and the, fly ash from the pollution control devices. Bottom ash contains mostly large particles such as glass, metals, and other noncombustible material. Fly ash contains finer particles and constitutes a more complex 0091N/2 10-14 Table 10-5 SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS BYPASS WASTES POTENTIAL BENEFITS Primary Benefits Independent Secondary Benefits on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Benefits - Reduce gas hazards - Reduced risks due to - None identified separate control of - Reduced leachates relative landfilled wastes to total sanitary, landfill i POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazards on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards - Chemical contaminated - None identified - Risks associated with wastes sanitary landfill - Some leachate production - Worker equipment accidents - Worker exposure to dusts - Worker exposure to bio- logical hazards 0091N/2 10-15 ` chemical mixture. It is often combined with the bottom ash and the scrubber lime for i disposal. Scrubber lime a third component, consists primarily of nontoxic calcium carbonate which buffers the ash and limits the ability 9f most metals to leach from it under normal conditions. A fourth component of ash is quench water which is used to cool the-hot ash from the furnace. This water consists of waste water from boiler blow down and treatment as well as clean water. The uses of waste water for this purpose serves two other functions besides cooling the ash: o No discharge that could contaminate surface waters will come from the facility o The ash will be wet or moist which will in turn prevent generation of dusts during handling; moving, transport, and disposal In addition, wet ash with scrubber lime generally solidifies when dry thus reducing leachability in the landfill. 10.4.2 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards Dominant inorganic residues from burned MSW include silicon, potassium, sodium, calcium, aluminum, and iron compounds. , These chemicals generally form chloride, carbonate, sulfate, oxide and hydroxide compounds. Trace quantities of toxic metal compounds such as lead,- copper, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, mercury and others are also found in ash. The relative concentrations of these chemicals vary greatly depending on the nature and composition of the wastes incinerated. The fly ash is a health concern because it contains over 200 potentially toxic r chemicals. Their concentrations are generally in milligram to nanogram amounts per gram of residue. These chemicals include metals, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, polychlorinated biphenyls, and chlorinated dioxins and furans. Several of these compounds are highly toxic and potential carcinogens (see Sections 2 and 6). The extent and type of hazard from these materials varies by exposure pathway, pollutant species, and receptor sensitivity. Fly ash particulates may 'contain trace elements of cadmium, -cooper, lead, beryllium, and mercury. A summary of leachable metals in fly ash is given by Denison and Silbergeld (1988). They estimated that 100% and 95% respectively of cadmium and lead 0091N/2 10-16 are leachable from fabric filter ash. These materials may be blown by the wind into the atmosphere or leached into ground or surface waters. If the ash is dry and uncovered, blown dusts can present hazards to humans from the inhalation of these materials as well as from indirect ingestion. Ingestion by children may be a concern if they are exposed. r If such activities generate dust and the dust is of respirable size (less than 10 _M microns), workers and possibly the general public could be exposed to hazardous or toxic -dusts. Refuse workers involved in the collection and placement of the ash would be at higher risk. However, quenching of ash would reduce generation of dusts. Water content of wet ash may range from 15 to 25% water. J Mobility of toxic metals will depend on pH of water percolating through the �- landfill. Metals such as cadmium, lead and zinc are more soluble under acidic or highly alkaline conditions (Denison and Silbergeld, 1988). Metal solubility tends to be more limited under neutral to slightly alkaline conditions. The EP (Extraction Procedure) Toxicity test is a measure of leachability of ash under acidic test conditions. This test is not a measure of toxicity of ash leachates and is' not a measure of true leaching in a landfill. The USEPA has recently finalized the Toxicity Characteristic Rule which adds 25 organic chemicals to the eight metals and six pesticides regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Refer to Table 4-5 for a listing of the regulatory levels. The rule also replaces the Extraction Procedure (EP) leach test with the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP). The USEPA does not classify municipal incinerator ash as a toxic waste but is considering classifying it as a special waste requiring specific disposal procedures to prevent potential leaching of metals and protection of groundwater from chemical contamination. As a special solid waste it will require testing and disposal in regulated landfills with liners and leachate monitoring and control. Trace amounts of dioxins and furans have been found in ash, particularly in fly ash from particulate control (USEPA, 1987b). Batch leaching and column leaching texts show them to be nondetectable. This is expected since these compounds are not water soluble. Leached materials could ultimately end up in public drinking waters. Lead and- cadmium are the primary metals,found in laboratory ash leachate tests. A study by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC, 1987b) evaluated ash samples from six operating resource recovery facilities. Table 10-6 gives the summary of their results. 'Using the EPA's EP Toxicity Test for leaching metals, the 0091N/2 10-17 Table 10-6 CONCENTRATION OF LEAD AND CADMIUM IN NEW YORK STATE ASH RESIDUES Lead Ash Number Mean Std EPA Residue Sampl ppm Dev. Ranee Limit Bottom 12 5.6 7.8 <0.2 - 27 , 5.0 Fly 8 17.8 8.8 8.6 - 34 5.0 Combined 17 6.8 6.9 0.2 - 21 5.0 Cadmium Ash Number Mean Std EPA Residue Samples MOM Dev. Ranee Limit Bottom 12 0.094 0.16 <0.02 - 0.58 1.0 Fly 8 30.5 38.5 2.1 - 90 1.0 Combined 17 0.7 0.8 0.11 - 2.8 1,.0 Source: NYSDEC, 1987b. Ash Residue Characterization Project Summary Report. l - RCRA Extraction Procedure Toxicity Test definition for industrial toxic waste. 0091N/2 10-18 NYSDEC found that of the eight metals tested only lead and cadmium exceeded the EP I Toxicity Test limits. Four of twelve bottom ash samples exceeded the 5 ppm limit for lead. All fly ash samples exceed the limit for lead and the 1 ppm limit for cadmium. Eight of 17 combined fly ash and bottom ash samples exceed the limits for lead and cadmium. Of the other metals tested (arsenic, barium, chromium, mercury, selenium, and r silver) few could be found above the reported detection limit. Similar results have been found for more than 30 U.S. incinerators (Denison and Silbergeld, 1988). 10.4.3 Physical Health and Safety Hazards I . Complete combustion of the MSW in an incinerator reduces or eliminates explosivity and flammability hazard of MSW. Consequently, fire and explosion hazards from ash handling activities should be unlikely once the ash is quenched. Occupational,accidents, however, will likely occur from handling, moving, transporting, and disposing of the-ash. Contact with hot ash would cause burns. 10.4.4 Biological Health and Safety Hazards Since ash is the result of MSW combustion, it is not likely that microbiological pathogens will be present in the ash. To the extent that the incineration process destroys all of the putrescible organic matter present in the refuse, hazards associated with insects i and rodents will be very unlikely. 10.4.5 Assessment The potential benefits and potential hazards from ash disposal are presented in Table- 10-7. Worker exposures and accidents present the principal health and safety hazards. The primary health concern from ash in landfill disposal is its potential to contaminate groundwater. Ash residue should be tested to ensure that it does'not contain concentrations of toxic metals that are classed hazardous. Tests of mixed residues (bottom ash, fly ash, and scrubber lime) from resource recovery plants have generally shown them not to be a health hazard if disposed of properly. If the EP toxicity tests or 0091N/2 10-19 t Table 10-7, SUMMARY OF HEALTH AND SAFETY BENEFITS AND HAZARDS ASH DISPOSAL POTENTIAL BENEFITS Primary Benefits Independent Secondary Benefits on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Benefits -No significant biohazards - Reduced landfill - None identified F leachates - No gas hazards ' - Reduced bypass gas - Dust hazards controlled hazards - Lower levels of organic chemical leachates POTENTIAL HAZARDS Primary Hazards Independent Secondary Hazards on of Other Activities Downstream Activities No Action Hazards - Toxic metals in leachates - None identified - Mixed MSW and ash hazards in landfill - Polyaromatic and chlori- nated organic chemicals - No control over toxic in fly ash metal leachates t - Worker exposure to ash - Worker equipment accidents - Ash transport accidents 0091N/2 10-20 TCLP Tests show ash residues to contain concentrations of metals which are classified as \ hazardous then ash would be disposed of safely at a permitted special waste disposal site. The principal potential hazard from ash disposal is the concentration of trace metals and possible organic chemicals present. These can be blown into the atmosphere as a dust or leached into nearby groundwater if uncontrolled. Hence, methods to control dust and leachate are important. The quenching of ash and mixing- with scrubber lime reduces several of the potential hazards. If solidification of the lime ash mixture were enhanced, then leaching in the landfill would be substantially limited. It would, therefore, be unlikely that any leaching would exceed drinking water standards. If leaching of untreated ash occurs then a leachate control system and treatment facility may be needed to meet i ! Federal and State groundwater quality standards. I Source separation of MSW and household hazardous .wastes would have a beneficial impact on reducing toxic, metals in ash. In addition strict enforcement and compliance with Federal and State requirements for industrial and commercial small quantity hazardous wastes as proposed by the USEPA would be effective in reducing levels of toxic metals in ash. Ash residue can be used as aggregate in concrete blocks and bituminous filler. It is possible that certain metals could be reclaimed from ash. However, chemical and electrochemical extraction processes would likely increase worker risks and produce sludge and liquid wastes with additional health concerns and disposal problems. - Safe landfill of municipal waste ash can be done. A sanitary landfill which meets proposed federal requirements, including double impermeable liners and leachate collecting systems, could be used for safe disposal, of ash if it -is determined that the residue contains levels of chemicals that would classify it as toxic. 0091N/2 10-21 11.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS A qualitative assessment of health and safety hazards associated with the different municipal solid waste (MSW) management options for the Town of Southold has been made.. Quantitative-comparisons of these options were not prepared -because of the limited availability,of data. To assist in the presentation and interpretation of health and safety impacts, the discussions are divided into three different hazard categories: chemical, physical and biological. These span the types of impacts which could arise from the implementation of the different management options if appropriate mitigative measures are not implemented. 11.1 Chemical Health and Safety Hazards Potential chemical hazards depend-on the source of the contaminant, its type, and its pathway to persons who may be exposed. Once exposed, the route of entry into the person needs to be considered (i.e. skin contact, ingestion, or inhalation). The principal sources of chemicals and environmental- pathways that are relevant to this MSW management plan include: o Air emissions from landfill gases, waste combustion, and material reprocessing facilities -� o Environmental transport and deposition of these emissions with subsequent potential human exposures o Discharges, runoff, and seepage from landfills, composting operations, and reprocessing facilities to streams, lakes, and marine habitats o Leachates from landfill operations, ashfills, and compost which may contaminate the groundwater and drinking water o Direct exposures from handling, contact, storing or transporting wastes, hazardous household chemicals, and ash o 'Bioaccumulation of toxic chemicals in crops, milk, and seafood from contaminated soil and water 0092N 11-1 11;:1.1 Air -In general, precollection activities attempt to segregate and concentrate chemical components. This process may result in risks from direct chemical exposures. Certain postcollection processes result in trace amounts of complex chemicals in emissions, discharges and leachates. In the proposed ,plan, potential exposures to these diverse chemical mixtures would be reduced by controls, diversified by using a variety of options, and dispersed among different populations. There are various pathways of air transport, of these chemicals from the environment to man. These pathways include direct inhalation, deposition from the air onto soil, surface waters and skin, and secondary bioaccumulation in the food chain from air deposition. There would not be any significant sources of air emissions in the proposed waste management plan since it would be based on waste reduction, recycling, composting, and landfilling. An energy recovery facility would be the largest source of air emissions if one were built. Secondary emissions sources would be from decomposition of products in a sanitary landfill and from distant material reprocessing facilities. Short-term and localized sources would include construction activities, disposal trucks, disposal equipment such as front loaders, compactors, etc., and fugitive emissions from disposal facilities. Any of these processes can produce emissions which, if high enough, may cause adverse health effects. A smaller, but significant air-related hazard could also arise from the centralized collection off hazardous wastes by the Town. As noted in the text, workers at these facilities could be exposed to a wide range of chemicals from leaking and/or improperly sealed containers. These workers may be at high risk from both chronic long-term and acute short-term exposures. An effective industrial hygiene program similar to that provided for hazardous waste workers should be implemented to protect workers from toxic household chemicals. Any combustible that may be landfilled or recycled can result in a secondary air, emission. Landfills can emit 'toxic volatile gases. Some such as vinyl chloride, are carcinogenic. Distant reprocessing plants emit air pollutants which may expose populations in other regions. 0092N 11-2 r- • I ' Hazardous air emissions can be controlled to acceptable levels using state-of-the-art controls and by removal of potential chemical contaminants of concern such as chlorinated plastics and batteries. Waste reduction, source separation, and household waste chemical management would be effective for reducing chemical sources in the waste stream. Its effectiveness will depend on the degree of public participation, incentives and the collection program. 11.1.2 Water Groundwater contamination is a major concern of MSW management, since groundwater is the sole source of drinking water in the Town. Current landfilling practices are an identified source of groundwater contamination and a potential health risk. Landfilling options in this assessment include bypass sanitary wastes, construction demolition debris, ash from waste combustion, and residual nonprocessible wastes. The primary health and safety hazards from MSW operations are due to chemical leachates and their potential to cause long-term diseases from daily consumption of contaminated drinking water. Leachates from sanitary landfills contain numerous chemicals, including trace concentrations, of toxic metal compounds, volatile organic chemicals, and chlorinated hydrocarbons. Secondary potential contamination of water includes accidental spills, landfill and compost runoff, and discharges at distant reprocessing facilities such as paper mills. Paper mills have been identified by the USEPA as a-generator of dioxins which have been found in several rivers. The Town's Solid Waste Management Plan would likely reduce health risks from contaminated groundwater. Its components, would be designed to reduce chemical inputs to the waste stream and to reduce discharges that would contaminate the groundwater. j Potential contamination of surface waters and marine environments is limited. Properly located landfills outside the deep flow recharge area can be designed with impermeable liners, runoff control, and leachate collection systems. These landfills can be used to dispose of C&D debris, ash, bypass wastes and nonprocessible MSW in a safe manner. Composting of organic wastes would be safe since leachates from a composting facility would be controlled. 0092N 11-3 { 11.1.3 Food Contamination ! Bioaccumulation of chemicals in food is a concern. Potential- health impacts_ from food may occur in three ways: o Direct deposition and uptake of chemicals on fruits and vegetables o Secondary accumulation of contaminants by livestock, poultry or fish o Accumulation in human milk through contaminated drinking water, air, and food The'principal concern over food contamination that pertains to MSW management is potential accumulation in soil or sediments-of trace amounts of chemicals from MSW incineration or composting. Metals and chlorinated organics can be deposited from air emissions. Metals and nonbiodegradable organic chemicals be found in contaminated sludge and compost. / f Potential health risks from these ' contaminants can be largely mitigated_ by aggressive source,separation, household chemical waste management, material recycling, and control of compost uses. Predisposal processes would likely provide health and safety benefits to processes which are further down the waste stream. However, quantifying the extent of these benefits and comparing them to potential chemical risks cannot yet be made. 11.2 Physical Health and Safety Hazards 11.2.1 Accidents and Injury Death and injury from accidents associated with municipal waste disposal activities are more probable than potential health risks from exposures to low levels of chemical emissions or discharges. Accidents and injuries are a significant cause of death and disability. For solid waste handling and disposal the largest risks are to the workers. Shredding and collection operations are a particular concern. Changes in waste handling activities will impact worker safety. Source separation will likely result in lighter - curbside containers. However, there will be a greater number of different waste packages for workers to handle. Household hazardous wastes will concentrate potential hazards for the public and workers involved in this process. 0092N 11-4 The public as well as workers will be exposed to accident risks. Risks to workers identified for the Town of Southold's Solid Waste Management Plan include: o Traffic accidents o Back injuries from lifting ' o Equipment accidents o Cuts from sharp objects o Burns o Injury from falling or moving objects, - o Reactivity of household o Eye injury i ' chemicals o Falls l The public will be required to handle and separate more wastes including household hazardous materials. Some principal public risks include: o Truck accidents involving children o Truck and car accidents o Injury from source separation of wastes o Falls from carrying and moving wastes o Accidents from loading and transporting reused and recycled items o Accidents from failure of reused and recycled items In general, the precollection options tend to increase the accident risks to the public, while the postcollection options tend to increase occupational risks. These physical risks should be weighed against reducing the potential chemical risks from the MSW options which are downstream in the waste management process. Quantifying the safety risks against the,benefits cannot yet be undertaken. 11.2.2 Fire and Explosion Several options can present fire and explosion hazards. In shredding operations, fires and explosions occur routinely. These explosions can damage plant equipment and threaten occupational health. In addition, it is possible for composting' piles to spontaneously combust. These fires can present dangers to plant facilities and adjacent i properties. Methane gas produced from the decay of putrescible wastes pladed in sanitary landfills can present fire and explosion hazards to adjacent facilities as well as environmental hazards to nearby vegetation. oo92N 11-5 Several MSW options can reduce these potential fire and explosion hazards. Methane gas hazards are mitigated by composting, paper recycling, and waste combustion. Household hazardous chemical management would reduce fire and explosion hazards- in shredding operations, waste combustion facilities and landfills. However, f storing, handling, and transport of flammable waste containers may present a public fire hazard. 11.3 Biological Health and Safety Hazards Infectious diseases are a potential hazard for several MSW operations. The primary hazard is increased whenever putrescible wastes arse retained and exposed for a period of time.. Unclean trucks and transfer stations can be a source of pathogens. Garbage cans and unclean food containers can attract disease vectors such as rats, flies, and birds. Pathogenic fungi can grow on garbage and poorly managed compost piles. MSW facilities that maintain high sanitary standards _reduce these potential hazards to -a minimum. Waste combustion reduces available putrescible garbage which would enhance the development of disease vectors. The implementation of sound compost management practices would control.growth of and exposure to potential disease organisms. 11.4 General Conclusions A review of each of the MSW management options for the Town shows that there is no risk free solution to MSW management. Each of the options have health and safety risks as well as benefits. Past waste management practices involved collection of a heterogeneous mixture of wastes and burying the mixture at the landfill. The proposed MSW management plan sorts, separates, and concentrates wastes into more homogeneous lots which can be recycled, reprocessed, burned, landfilled, composted, or otherwise safely disposed. Therefore, risks and hazards are shifted in some options to workers and in others to the public. Risks and hazards are often shifted from_ the_local population to distant populations where material reprocessing occurs. Potential environmental contamination is shifted from groundwater to air in some options and produces a different set of chemical contaminants. Overall, the health and safety hazards are broadly distributed rather than concentrated in one locality. 0092N 11-6 I If-some or all of these proposed MSW management alternatives are implemented there will most likely be a reduction of overall potential health and safety risks from landfill operations. The largest safety hazards will probably be to workers from shredding f operations. Because of the handling of diverse hazardous chemicals, the household hazardous materials program has a potential for risks to residents and workers. In general the net benefits from an integrated solid waste management program appear to outweigh the potential health and safety risks to workers and the public who are involved in source i separation, household hazardous wastes, and materials reprocessing. 1 ' i I i j i 0092N 11-7 r - References Ahlberg, N.R. and Boyka, B.I. 1980. Explosions and Fires - Ontario Centre for Resource Recovery Proceedings of 1980 National Waste Processing Conference, May 1980. American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, New York. Ames, B., R. McCaw, and L.S. Gold. 1987. Ranking Possible Carcinogenic Hazards. Science 236:271-280. Anderson, E.L. 1983. Quantitative Approaches in Use to Assess, Cancer Risk Analysis 3:277-295. Beck, H. 1985. Dioxins and Dibenxofurans in Mother's Milk. Arch. Gynecol.238:207. i Brinkman, R.F. 1986. Fire in the Pit. Pollution Engineering, March:36-37., Burge, W.D. and P.D. Millner, 1980. Health Aspects of Composting: Primary and Secondary Pathogens. In G. Bilton, B.L. Damron, G.T. Edds, and J.M. Davidson (eds.). Sludge-Health Risks of Land Application, pp. 245-264. Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Calabrese, E.J. 1978. Pollutants and High Risk Groups. John Wiley and Sons, New York. Casarett and Doull. 1980. Toxicology: The Basic Science of Poisons. p. 714 Macmillan Publ. Co., New York. CDC. 1984. Health-risk Estimates for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin in Soil. J.Am. Med. Assoc. 251(7):878-879. 40CFR, Part 50. National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40CFR, Part 141. National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. 40CFR, Part 143. National Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. Cimino, J.A. 1975. Health and Safety in the Solid Waste Industry. American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 65, No. 1. Cooney, D.G. and R. Emerson, 1964. Thermophilic Fungi; an Account of Their Biology, Activities and Classification. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco. Diaz, L.F., C. Riley, G. Savage, and G. Trezek. 1976. Health Aspect Considerations Associated with Resource Recovery. Compost Science, Vol. 17, No. 3. Doll, R, .and R. Peto. 1981. The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today. Oxford University Press. Duckett, E.J. 1981. Health and Safety Aspects of Resource Recovery. Proc. Seventh Annual Research Symposium, March 16-18, 1981, EPA 600/9-81-002c, Cincinnati, OH. Dvirka & Bartilucci, 1990. Part 360 and Phase H Hydrogeologic Investigation Work Plan. Southold Landfill, Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York. 0093N R-1 References (cont.) Duckett, E.J., J. Wagner, R.B. Roger, and V. Usdin, 1980. Physical/Chemical and Microbiological Analyses of Dusts at a Resource Recovery Plant. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 41:908-911. E&A 1987. Phase I Brookhaven, New York MSW/Compost Report. E&A Environmental Consultants, Stoughton, MA. Fingerhut, M.A. et al., 1984. An Evaluation of Reports of Dioxin Exposure and Soft Tissue Sarcoma Pathology in US Chemical Workers. Banbury Report 18:461. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY. Fletcher,'M.W., N.J. Lindsey and A.M. Behbane. 1981. Industrial Hygiene Evaluation of Microbiological Aerosols Generated at Resource Recovery Facilities. Annual Meeting, American Society for Microbiology, Washington, DC. Fossa, A.J. 1987. Resource Recovery and Dioxins in New York State. S.C. Schwarz and P.L. Wolfe, (eds.). Proceedings of a Symposium on Dioxin and Resource Recovery. Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, New York. Gordon, J.G. 1979. Assessment of the Impact of Resource Recovery on the Environment. EPA-60018-79-011, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinatti, OH. Gordon, W. 1979. Refuse Collectors. Luigi Prameggiani, MD, ed. Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, 3rd Ed. International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland. 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. Hempstead, Town of. 1985. Final Environmental Impact Statement Proposed Redevelopment of the Hempstead Resource Recovery Facility. Town of Hempstead, Nassau County, December 1985. Hoffman, R.E. et al., 1986. Health Effects of Long-term Exposure to 2,3,7,8-Tetrachloro dibenzo-p-dioxin. J.Am. Med. Assoc. 255(15):2031-2038. Huntington. 1986. Resource Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Town of Huntington, NY. May, 1986. Dvirka and BaTtilucci Consulting Engineers. Jelinke, C.F. and G.L. Braude. 1.977. Management: of Sludge Use on Land: FDA Considerations. Includes Management Disposal and Utilization. _ Information Transfer, Inc., Rockville, MD. - Kane, B.E. and J.T. Mullins. 1973. Thermophilic Fungi in Municipal Waste Compost System. Mycologia 65:1087-1100. C 0093N R-2 1 References (cont.) Kim, N.K. and D.W. Stone. Organic Chemicals in Drinking Water. NYS Department ; of Health. Kimbrough, R.D., H. Falk, P. Stehr, and G. Fries. 1984. Health Implications of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (TCDD) Contamination of Residential Soil. J. Toxicology and,Environmental Health 14:47-93. Kimmel, G.E. and O.C. Braids.- 1980. Leachate Plumes in Ground Water from Babylon and Islip Landfills, Long Island, NY. US Geological Survey., Professional 1_ Paper No. 10985. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Krauss, J.F. 1985. Fatal and Nonfatal Injuries in Occupational Settings: A Review. Ann. Rev. Public Health 6:304-418. Lacey, J. 1974. Thermophilic Actinomycetes Associated with Farmer's Lung. In R. de Haller and F. Suter (eds.), Aspergillosis and Farmer's Lung in Man and Animal, pp. 155-163. Bern, Switzerland: Hans Huber. Lave, L.B. 1987. Health and Safety Risk Analyses: Information for Better Decisions. Science 236:291-295. Lembke, L.L., R.N. Kniseley, R.C. Van Nostrand, and M.D. Hale. 1981. Precision of the All-Glass Impinger and the Andersen Microbial Impactor for Air Sampling in Solid Waste Handling Facilities. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 42: 222-225. LIRPB, 1978. The Long Island Comprehensive Waste,Treatment Management Plan, LI 208 Study. Long Island Regional Planning Board, Hauppauge, NY. Long, J. 1987. Hazardous Waste in Household Garbage: Chemical and Engineering News. October 12, 1987. p. 14-15. Lundholm, M. and R. Rylander, 1980. Occupational Symptoms Among Compost Workers, Journal of Occupational Medicine 22:256-257. Malcom Pirnie, Inc. 1987. Vol. 2 Health Risk Assessment. Draft Site and Technology Specific Impact Addendum to DGEIS for North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Facility. Malcom Pirnie, Inc., White Plains, NY. February 1987. Mandorf, S.Z., M.A. Golembienuski, and M.W. Fletcher. 1981. Industrial Hygiene Characterization and Aerobiology of Resource Recovery Systems. Draft Summary Report. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, WV. Marsh, P.B., P.D. Millner, and J.M. Kla, 1979. A Guide to Recent Literature on Aspergillosis as Caused by Aspergillus Fumigatus. U.S. Department of Agriculture Publication ARM-NE-58EA. Washington, D.C. Merz, R.C: and R. Stone. 1963. Factors Controlling the Utilization of Sanitary Landfill Sites. Final Report to the National Institute of Health, Washington, DC. 0093N R-3 References (cont.) Millner, P.D. 1982. Thermophilic and Thermotolerant Actinomycetes in' Sewage Sludge Compost. Devel. Ind. Microbiology 23:61-78. Millner, P.D., D.A. Bassett and P.B. Marsh. 1980. Dispersal of Aspergillus Fumigatus from Self-heating Compost Piles Subjected to Mechanical Agitation in- Open Air. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 39:1000-1009. Millner, P.D., P.B. Marsh, R.B. Snowden and J.F. Parr. 1977. Occurrence of Aspergillus Fumigatus During Composting of Sewage Sludge. Appl. and Environ. Microbiol. 36(6):765-772. Milvy, P. 1986. A General Guideline for Management of Risk from Carcinogens. Risk Analysis 6:69-79. Molton, P.M., R.T. Hallen, and J.W. Pyne. 1987. Study of Vinylchloride Formation at Landfill Sites in California. Batelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. January, 1987. National Safety Council. Accident Facts, 1984 Edition. National Safety Council, Chicago IL. _ National Safety Council. 1969. Refuse Collection in Municipalities. NSC Data Sheet I-618-69. National Safety Council, Chicago, IL. National Safety Council. 1983. Work Injury and Illness Rates, 1983 Edition. National Safety Council, Chicago IL. Nygren, M., et al., 1987. Identification of 2,3,7,8,-substituted Polychlorinated Dioxins (PCDD's) and Dibenzofurans (PCDF's) in Environmental and Human Samples. In Chlorinated Dioxins and Dibenzofurans in the Total Environment; , Vol. 3 Butterworth, Boston, in press. NYS Legislative Commission. 1987. Understanding Dioxin. NYS Join Lesislative Commission on Toxic Substances and Hazardous Wastes. Legislative Office Bldg. r Albany, NY. NYSDEC. 1984. Long Island Landfill Law Implementation Guidelines. NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. NYSDEC. 1986a. Water Quality Regulations: Surface Water and Groundwater Classifications and -Standards. NYS Codes, Rules and Regulations Title 6, Ch X, Parts 700-705. NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. NYSDEC. 1986b. Air Guide-l.- NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. NYSDEC. 1986c. In the Matter of the Applications by the Adirondack Resource Recovery Associates Hudson Falls Plant. NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation Application No. 50-85-0473. Oct. 31, 1986. NYSDEC. 1987a. New York State Solid Waste Management Plan. NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. March, 1987. 0093N R-4 References (cont.) NYSDEC. 1987b. Solid Waste Guide #1 (Resource Recovery). Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste. NYS Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY. i NYSDEC. 1987c Ash Residue Characterization Project Summary Report. NYSDEC Division of Solid Waste, Albany, NY. July, 1987. Office of Technology Assessment. 1979. Materials and Energy from Municipal Waste. Washington, DC. O'Keefe, P., D. Hilker, C. Meyer, K. Aldous, L. Shane, R. Donnelly and R. Smith. 1984. Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxins and Tetrachlorodibenzo-furans in Atlantic Coast Striped Bass and in Selected Hudson River Fish, Waterfowl, and Sediments. Chemosphere 13:849-860. Olver, W.M. 1980. Cold Weather Sludge Composting Works in Maine. Compost i Science/Land Utilization 21(5):20-22. Passman, F.J. 1983. Aspergillus Fumigatus Aerospora Associated with Municipal ! Sewage Sludge Composting Operations in the State of Maine. 45 pp. ' i Pearsall, K.A. and E.J. Wexler. 1986. Organic Compounds in Ground Water Near a Sanitary Landfill in the Town of Brookhaven, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation Report 85-4218. Y Penner, S.S., D.F. Wiesenhahn and C.P. Li. 1987. Incinerator Production, Fate and Health Effects of Polychlorinated Dioxins and Furans. Energy 12:33-43. Rappe, C., et al., 1984. Chemistry and Analysis of Pblychlorinated Dioxins and - Dibenzofurans in,Biological Samples. Banbury Report 18:17-25. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY. Rippon, J.W. 1974. Medical Mycology: The Pathogenic Fungi and the Pathogenic Actinomycetes. W.B. Saunders Co.,'Philadelphia, PA. Ryan, J.J. et al., 1984. Incidence and Levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Lake Ontario j Commercial Fish. Environ. Sci. Technol. 18:719-721. - SCDHS. 1987. Annual Report. Suffolk County Department of Health Services. Hauppauge, NY. Schecter, A. et al., 1985. Chlorinated Dibenzodioxins and Dibenzofurans in Human Adipose Tissue from Exposed and Control New York State Patients. Chemosphere 14:697-706. Schecter, A. 1987. Unpublished Results as cited in Toxic Material News, December 23, 1987. p. 401. Schwarz, S.C.and P.L. Wolfe, eds. 1987. Dioxin and Resource Recovery. Proceeding of a Symposium. American Society of Civil,Engineers, New York, NY. 0093N R-5 1 References (cont.) Sliepcevich, D.P.E. 1955. The Effect of Work Conditions Upon the Health of Uniformed Sanitation Men of New York City. Doctoral Dissertation Series, Publication No 20,008, University of Michigan, University Microfilms, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of Risk. Science 236:280-285. Suffolk County. 1987. Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. Hauppauge, NY. _ Smith, A.H. 1987. Infant Exposure for .Breast Milk Dioxins and Furans Derived from Waste Incinerator Emissions. Risk Analysis 7:347-353. Town of Riverhead, 1989. Part 360 Permit Application for the Construction and Demolition Debris Cell, ERM Northeast. Tschirley, F.H. 1986. Dioxin. Sci. Am. 254:29. Tuthill, R.W., E.J. Stanek, C. Willis, and G.S. Moore. 1987. Degree of Public Support for Household Hazardous Waste Control Alternatives. Am. Jour. Public Health 77:304-306. Upton, A.C. 1982. The Biological Effects of Low-Level Ionizing Radiation. Scientific American 246(2):41-49. U.S. Environmental - Protection Agency. 1977. Environmental Assessment of Waste-to-Energy Processes: Source Assessment Document, EPA 600/7-77-091, Cincinnati, OH. USEPA. 1985. Interim Risk Assessment Procedures for Mixtures of Chlorinated Dibenzodioxins and Dibenzofurans (CDD's and CDF's). USEPA Chlorinated Dioxins Workgroup Position Document. US Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. USEPA. 1986. Reclamation and Redevelopment of Contaminated Land: Vol. 1. US Case Studies. USEPA, Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development, Cincinatti, OH. USEPA. 1987a. Assessment of Municipal Waste Combustor Emissions Under the Clean Air Act. Federal Register, 52(129):25399-254.08. July, 1987. USEPA. 1987b. Municipal Waste Combustion Study: Report to Congress. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/530-SW-87-021 a. June, 1987. USEPA. 1981c. National Dioxin Study. USEPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA/530-SW-87-025. August, 1987. Van den Berg, M.F. Van der Wielen, K. Olie, and C.J. Van Boxtel. 1986. The Presence of PCDDs and PCDFs in Human Breast Milk From .the Netherlands. Chemosphere 15(6) 693-706. 0093N R-6 Webb, K., R.G. Evans, P. Stehr, and S.M. Ayres. 1987. Pilot Study on Health Effects of Environmental 2,3,7,8-TCDD in Missouri. Amer. Jour. Ind. Med. 11:685-691. Wilson, D.G., 1979.• Health Hazards of Solid-Waste Treatment. In N.I. Sax, Ed., Dangerous Properties of Industrial Materials, Fifth Edition, pps. 215-233. Van Nostrand, New York, New York. Willson, G.B., J.F. Parr, E. Epstein, P.B. Marsh, R.L. Chaney, D. Colacicco, W.D. Burge, L.J. Sikora, C.F. Tester, and S. Hornick, 1980. Manual for .Composting Sewage Sludge by the Beltsville Aerated Pile Method. U.S. EPA 600/8-80-022. May 1980. Washington, D.C. Vasalli, J.R. 1985. Environmental Impact Considerations in Recycling Solid Wastes. Journal of Resource Management and Technology 14(4):241-245. Zalosh, R.C., S.A. Weiner, and J.L. Buckley. 1976. Assessment of Explosion Hazards in Refuse Shredders. ERDA-76-71, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. r ; i I ' i , I i 0093N R-7 f TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN DRAFT GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT f APPENDIX E SMALL SCALE YARD WASTE COMPOSTING OPERATION ENGINEERING REPORT 2101M t New York State Department of Environmental,Conservation Region 1 Headquarters SUNY, Building 40, Stony Brook, NY 11794 ( 516 ) 751-2617 _ Thomas C. Jorling Commissioner 'May 2 , 1990 The Honorable Scott Harris Supervisor Town of Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 ' Southold, NY 11971 Re: Town of Southold- Yard Waste Composting Operations D & B No. 1027-A201 Dear Supervisor Harris: This is in -response to your letter of April 10 , 1990, to Mr. Berger requesting the Department ' s conceptual approval of the Town' s yard waste composting plan. We have reviewed the Engineering Report, submitted along with the letter, and determined that the proposed operational methods are acceptable. Since the proposed facility processes less than 3000' cubic yards of yard waste per year and follows acceptable � ! - composting methods , as demonstrated in the report, •the facility is exempt from 360 -Permit under Part 6NYCRR 360-5 .1 (b) ( 1) . Although it is an exempted permit, the Town requires you to submit an annual report as described in Part 6NYCRR 360-5 . 5 (m) . If you have any questions, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, ' 1 Paul M. Roth, P.E. Regional Solid Waste Engineer, PMR:mz CC: A. Conetta D. DeRidder N. Harrington P. Daniel I TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK r SMALL SCALE YARD WASTE COMPOSTING OPERATIONS ENGINEERING REPORT Prepared by: Dvirka and Bartilucci Consulting Engineers Syosset, New York April 1990 2069M/1 SCOTT L. HARRIS O yL Town Hall, 53095 Main Road SUPERVISOR = Z P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 FAX (516) 765 - 1823 TELEPHONE (516) 765 - 1800 '7 1 OFFICE OF THE SUPERVISOR TOWN OF SOUTHOLD April 10, 1990 Mr. Harold Berger Regional Director - ' NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, Region 1 Building 40 SUNY Stony Brook, New York 11790 Dear Mr. Berger: On behalf of the Town of Southold, I am pleased to submit for your approval the enclosed "Small Scale Yard Waste Composting Operations Engineering Report. " I and members of the Town Board are confident that this !- submittal will result in the expeditious approval of the proposed small scale yard waste composting operations. Clearly, your approval will result in the Town taking a major step in its efforts' to expand its current recycling program. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, Scott Louis Harris, Supervisor SLH:cc I I Vvi■ ka and oD Bartilucci f CONSULTING ENGINEERS 6800 Jericho Turnpike, Syosset, New York 11791 516-3649892 Fax: 516-364-9045 April 10; 1990 . 1 Mr. Paul Roth ? i Regional Solid Waste Engineer -' New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Building 40, SUNY Campus Stony Brook, NY 11794 Re: Town of Southold Yard Waste Composting Operations D&B No. 1027-A201 Dear Mr. Roth: i Dvirka & Bartilucci is pleased to submit the enclosed report entitled "Small Scale Yard Waste Composting Operations Engineering Report." The Report documents the proposed site layout and- acceptable methods for yard waste composting, to be used by the Town as required by 6 NYCRR Part 360-5.5. Additionally, this report follows 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.9 and 5.4 regulations for yard compost facilities. As part of the Town's ongoing recycling effort, and in order to diminish landfilling prior to December 1990, the design of the composting operations has the flexibility to be expanded in the future. The determination for any expansion E or full-scale operation, is expected- to be made as part of the solid waste management planning effort that is underway. i Should you or your office have any questions, or wish to meet concerning - this matter, I am available at (516) 364-9892. Very truly yours A ny O. Conetta, P.E., AOC/de Enclosure - cc: NYSDEC Town W.M. Task Force H. Berger Scott L. Harris William Cremers i G. Brezner Raymond W. Edwards Johanna Northam N. Harrington George L. Penny IV Henry Pope Ruth D. Oliva John Romeril Ellen M. Larsen Thomas Samuels ( Thomas H. Wickham Stanford Searl Reginald Tuthill 43/11 C Recycled Paper 1 t. ' Town of Southold Suffolk County, New York r Small Scale Yard Waste Composting Operations Engineering Report - TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Title Pace 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1 1.1 Facility Integration 1-1 1.2 Waste Generation Rates and Waste Characterization 1-2 1.3 Facility Design 1-2 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2-1 2.1 Regional Map 2-1 2.2 Vicinity Map ' -2-1 2.3 Site Plan 2-2 i ! 2.4 Freshwater Wetlands J 2-3 2.5 Floodplain 2-3 2.6 Surficial Geology and Drainage Characteristics 2-3 2.7 Groundwater 2-6 2.8 Air Resources 2-10 2.9 Traffic 2-14 2.10 Topography 2-14 2.11 Utilities 2-15 3.0 FACILITY OPERATIONS PLAN 3-1 3.1 Yard Waste Composition and Handling 3-1 3.2 Operation Schedule 3-1 3.3 Traffic-Flow Pattern 3-2 3.4 Unloading Procedures 3-2 '3.5 Inclement Weather Precaution 3-2 3.6 Equipment Requirements 3-3 3.7 Surface Water Collection and Control 3-4 3.8 Seed Material Description 3-4 3.9 Compost Timing Consideration 3-4 3.10 Windrow Construction 3-4 3.11 Aeration Techniques - 3-5 3.12 Site Access Control " 3-5 3.13 Fire Safety Procedures 3-6 3.14 Personnel Requirements and Responsibilities 3-6 3.15 Equipment Procurement 3-8 3.16 Operating Records 3-8 2069M/1 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) ' Section Title Page 4.0 MONITORING 4-1 { 4.1 Quality Control-Measures for,Deliveries- 4-1 4.2 Compost Monitoring, Sampling and Analysis 4-2 4.3 Soil Sampling and Analysis - 4-2 4.4 - Groundwater Monitoring Program 4-3 t 5.0 FACILITY CONTINGENCY PLAN 5-1 • � I 5.1 Equipment Breakdown 5-1 5.2 Odor Control 5-1 5.3 Vector Control 5-1 5.4 Emergency Responses , 5-2 6.0 MAINTENANCE MEASURES 6-1 6.1 Roadway Maintenance 6-1 6.2 Equipment Maintenance 6--1 6.3 Utility Maintenance 6-1 7.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS 7-1 7.1 Cost Estimates for Composting Operations 1 7-1 7.2 Compost Market Discussion 7-1 7.3 Product Characterization 7-2 7.4 Marketing and Distribution Alternatives Practiced Elsewhere 7-5 7.5 Marketing Approach to be Utilized by the Town of Southold 7-10• 8.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE 8-1 8.1 SEQRA Compliance 8-1 8.2 Consistency with NYSWMP and Act 8-1 8.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action 8-2 8.4 Unavoidable Impacts 1 8-2 Appendices A. D&B Drawing No. 1: Regional and Vicinity Map --B. D&B Drawing No. 2: Site Plan and Property Boundaries C. Sample Facility Log Sheets D. SEQRA Negative, Declaration and EAF i 2069M/1 ii 4 LIST'OF TABLES Number Title Page 1.2-1 Waste Quantities and Categories 1-3 2.6-1 Stratigraphy and Hydrogeologic Units 2-4 2.7-1 Hydrogeologic Zone Definitions 2-8 2.8-1 Average Monthly Temperatures 2-11 t 2.8-2 Monthly Precipitation 2-12 - 3.14 1 Manpower Requirements 3-7 7.3-1 Categories of Compost Users 7-4 i 2069M/1 iii LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page 1.4-1 Composting Area Layout 1-5 2.6-1 General Soil Map 2-5 2.7-1 Water Table 2-7 2.7-2 Hydrogeologic Zones 2-9 2069M/1 iv - 1.0 INTRODUCTION i The Town of Southold has directed the preparation of this engineering report in order to implement a small scale yard waste composting operation of no more than 3,000 i cubic yards of leaves. The composting of yard wastes will expand the scope of the Town's recycling effort while reducing the amount of solid waste that is landfilled. Yard waste composting operations of greater than 3,000 cubic yards require permits for construction -- and operation as provided for in the 6 NYCRR Part 360 regulations. Yard waste LL, composting operations-of less than 3,000 cubic yards are exempt from regulation as provided for in 6 NYCRR Part 360-5.1(b)(1). The purpose of this engineering report is to describe and document the composting- operations, to be used for the yard waste as provided for in 6 NYCRR Part 360-5.4, 5.5 and Part 360-1.9. j 1.1 Facility Integration The start-up of yard waste composting operations is a natural expansion of the - Town's current recycling efforts. Currently a long-term solid waste management plan is being developed; however, in conjunction with the spring season, it was considered timely ?_ to initiate a yard waste composting operation in order to diminish the volume of waste that is landfilled and to convert a waste material to a usable product. The proposed j location, on a portion of the west side of the Town's landfill on Middle Road (County Road 48),' allows for a convenient drop off point 'for a variety of wastes and recyclable materials. The single site/multiple material drop off allows homeowners and carters the convenience of a single visit. Additionally, according to NYS Solid Waste Management Plan (NYSMP) guidelines and the NYS Solid Waste Management Act, this is one of a variety of strategies to reduce waste streams and promote recycling of resources. The Town, as part of its planning process, is evaluating beneficial uses of leaves, brush, wood waste, grass and other yard wastes to enhance its recycling efforts. Such uses may include those by greenhouses, farms, landscapers, private residents and the Town itself. To the extent such uses are identified, the Town will assess environmental impacts, methods and costs of arranging for the collection and subsequent distribution of the composted yard waste material in the Draft Generic Environmental Impact Statement (DGEIS) being prepared as part of the Town's solid waste management plan. 2072M/2 1-1 I f 1.2 Waste Generation Rates and Characterization As part of development of this comprehensive solid waste management program, Dvirka and Bartilucci is preparing an analysis of waste generation rates projected to the , year 2010. Currently, approximately 43,000 tons of solid waste is received at the Town's landfill each year. Table 1.2-1 presents a component materials breakdown based on scale ;house data. It should be noted that this data is for materials received by the landfill, and/or sent for recycling during 1989. The actual composition of the waste stream will be determined in the DGEIS that is being prepared as part of the Town's solid waste management plan. Agricultural waste received by the Town was approximately 540 tons in 1989, with approximately 4,000 tons of yard waste accounting for grass, leaves, mulch, and brush. The Town's Highway Department reported collecting approximately 1,400 tons of yard waste during the 1989 spring and fall cleanup season. This value is expected to decrease to approximately 800 tons annually due to recent changes in collection policies. Percentages for the individual components of the yard waste have not yet been developed to date. However, for the purposes of these initial small scale operations, only leaves are proposed to be composted at this time. 1.3 Facility Design f The small scale yard waste composting operation utilizing windrows would be used by the Town to compost leaves. Leaves would be dropped off by residents, landscapers, and Town Highway trucks who will self-haul their refuse to the site. The ;compost end product(s) would be available for use free of charge to residents of the Town., In order to minimize the potential for odors during the initial operation, grass would not be included in the composting operation, but would continue to 'be landfilled. It is proposed that an approximate 2.5 acre area, on the southern portion of the landfill, be used for the small scale yard waste composting operation. The windrows and aisle spaces would occupy a site of approximately 1 acre. The composting area would maintain 200 foot buffers :to the southern and western property lines. A buffer of at least 150 feet would also be maintained between the composting area and the boundaries of the Town's current landfilling operation as contained in, Part 360-1.9(8)(2). For the last 5 years the proposed area had been used for land clearing debris. In addition,i this location had also been previously used to cocompost leaves and sewage sludge in the past. I 2072M/2 1-2 1 - 1 i Table 1.2-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YARD WASTE COMPOSTING PLAN WASTE QUANTITIES AND CATEGORIES January 1 through December 14, 1989 Scale House Category Weight (tons) % of Total Garbage 14,037.0 32.85 Construction Debris 6,416.9 15.02 Sand/Sod 5,964.8 13.96 Landclearing Debris 5,056.3 11.83 Rubbish 3,735.0 8.74 Brush 2,623.7 6.14 Leaves/Grass/Mulch 1,306.8 3.06 Concrete/Asphalt/Bricks 1,263.8 2.96 Metal* 540.6 1.27 Agricultural Debris 535.9 1.25 Paper* 425.3 1.00 Sludge 311.3 0.73 Cleanup Debris 285.4 0.67 Tires* 126.2 0.30 Woodchips 44.0 0.10 Shellfish Debris 42.0 0.10 Lead Batteries* 17.9 0.04 TOTAL 42,732.6 100.00 *Recyclable Materials (Outgoing Loads) 2072Mi2 1-3 The composting area will be,approximately 296 feet north to south, and 370 feet west to east. This area will accommodate six windrows that are 16 feet wide at the base, 4 feet wide at the top, 6 feet high, and 225 feet long. A perimeter aisle of approximately 40 feet will be maintained for equipment maneuvering at the north and south regions of the composting area, while a perimeter aisle of approximately 50 feet will be maintained in the eastern portion to insure an adequate drainage area. The western 'region of the composting area will utilize an area of approximately 75 feet by 276 feet to store the finished compost product. Working aisles of approximately 20 feet will be maintained between windrows. Room for expansion of the composting operation is available in the adjacent area to the north of, the proposed composting area. This arrangement is expected to be sufficient to compost up to 3,000 cubic yards of leaves, and also provide sufficient storage area for the finished compost product (see Figure 1.3-1). Seeded earth berms, 10 feet wide and 6 feet high, will be established around the composting area with an opening for an entrance on the northwest side and two additional openings designed to allow water drainage at the southeastern end. The composting area will be graded to direct drainage to the southeast. The extent of these grading operations are expected to be minimal due to the existing southeastern slope of, the natural topography. Swales on the exterior perimeter of the bermed area allow for the collection and distribution of surface water runoff. The soils of"the composting area are generally medium to coarse sand and gravel and are on top of areas that have been used in the past to dispose of trees, cars, metal, cocomposting residues, and land clearing debris. The grading and permeability of this area is considered to be sufficient to prevent ponding. i Access to the composting area will be from the landfill and will be limited to Town equipment and personnel. Drop-off of yard wastes will be at two separate staging areas. A staging area for residents will be located near the existing Collection Center, while another staging area near the composting area will allow landscapers and trucks to deposit bulk yard wastes. Inspection of deposited yard wastes will be accomplished, 'as described in Section 3 and 4, before delivery to the windrow piles. i 2072M/2 1-4 i 370 /0' BERM to BERM 75� 225 WINDROW L ENGHT SWAL E— DRAWAGE /6 O Q I SWAL E W 2 4 20' DRAINAGE 3 3 AREA AREA FORy END PRODUCT 4 I� STORAGE ou Q )) I 6 )� 5020DRAINAGE p DRAINAGE, AREA /ACRE ACT/VE SWAL E� 20" DRAINAGE COMPOST/NG AREA AREA SCALE-1"-60' TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN [M,ka COMPOSTING AREA LAYOUT and Cearmuccl FIGURE 1 .3- 1 Cdi51AT..4 BR-POURS 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL. SETTING This Section presents information and materials needed to establish a baseline for the purposes of reviewing the proposed small scale yard waste composting operation. Environmental impacts for this operation are not considered to be significant as cited in the SEQRA Negative Declaration and Environmental Assessment Form'in Appendix D. Impacts associated with yard waste composting will be fully evaluated in the DGEIS for the Town's Solid Waste Management Plan that is being developed. 2.1 Regional Map The Town of, Southold is located on the North Fork of eastern, Long Island. The proposed compost area is off of Middle Road (C.R. 48), between Cox Lane and Depot Lane. Cox Lane is the,nearest north-south roadway. Middle Road is currently used by private and commercial vehicles to deliver wastes to the Town's landfill. Appendix A presents the regional map of the Town. 2.2 Vicinity Map The solid waste complex including the proposed composting area is located on the north side of Middle Road. The composting area is bordered by farms and open land to the north, by the landfill and a sand mine to the east, farmland to the west, and some residential areas to the south. Between the landfill and Cox Lane ,is an area under construction by a developer. Only the entrance to the complex fronts along Middle Road. The vicinity around the site has a relatively light residential density with much"of the surrounding area consisting of farmland. South of the site for the composting area are _ four houses between the landfill entrance and the site's western boundary. On the east is a farm with its associated buildings and some homes across open fields to the northeast. The western portion of the northern boundary of the site also borders along farmland. Immediately to the east of this is a dense stand of trees. Sand mining and landfilling operations of the complex, as well as the drop off/collection building and scale house, are on the eastern side of the proposed site for the composting area. The vicinity map is found in Appendix A. 2075M/3 2-1 The only commercial airport within the Town is the Mattituck Airport which is j located in Mattituck approximately 3 miles southwest of the proposed operations. Current waste disposal at the landfill does not appear to interfere with operations at this airport. 2.3 Site.Plan The Town owned property that includes the Cutchogue landfill covers pan estimated 60.9 acres. Landfilling operations have occurred in the eastern region of the property. The proposed composting area is 5 miles west of the Riverhead/Southold Town line and approximately 5,000 feet south'of the Long Island Sound. Refer to Appendix A for the regional and vicinity map. The proposed 2.5 acre composting area is approximately rectangular in shape with dimensions of approximately 296 feet by 370 feet.. The eastern portion of this parcel, is adjacent to the active portion of the existing landfill. This eastern area of;the complex has been mined for sand and gravel for use as cover material for the existing landfill operation and for the Town's Highway Department. The southern portion' of the site, where the proposed compost area is located, is currently flat, unused land. ',The proposed composting area is situated near an existing 500 gpm well that 'would bell utilized for windrow maintenance. This well is not used for drinking water and would be used solely for the composting operations. The site plan is provided in Appendix B. The main entrance to the landfill, off of Middle Road, would be utilized for deliveries of the leaves. Residents would drop off leaves at a staging area to the north of the existing Collection Center, while a separate drop off area for bulk delive flies ies of leaves by landscapers and trucks would be established on the south side of the fence between the landfill portion of the complex and the composting area. The bulk deliveries will be weighed at the scale house and directed to the appropriate drop_off area. Both drop off areas will be clearly marked by signs. I The proposed composting area, including the bulk delivery drop off area, will be over 150 feet from the landfill, and therefore, exceed the buffer requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 360-1.9(g)(2). Buffer zones of 200 feet to the western and southern property 2075M/3 2-2 boundaries will also be maintained. The horizontal separations found in Part 360-5.5(g) will also be maintained at this location. Access to the composting area will be through the existing entrance to the complex, and use of existing on-site roads. 2.4 Freshwater Wetlands Freshwater wetlands are generally low-lying areas saturated with moisture, including swamps and marshes. Those freshwater parcels of 12.4 acres or larger, along with smaller wetlands of special importance, are protected by New York State pursuant to Article 24 of the Environmental Conservation Law. Freshwater wetlands provide flood -; and stormwater control, spawning grounds for fish, wildlife habitats, and opportunities for recreation, aesthetic appreciation, scientific research, and education. Wetlands identified from USGS maps are located in the outlying regions of East Creek, and are over 7,000 feet from the proposed composting area. 2.5 Floodplain There are no floodplains on or within one thousand feet of the proposed composting area. There are several small farm ponds in the general vicinity, but there are no major surface water bodies in close proximity to the site. The nearest major surface water body Iis the Long Island Sound which is approximately 5,000 feet to the northwest of the proposed site. 2.6 Surficial Geology and Drainage Characteristics The landfill and the adjacent property overlays approximately 1,200 feet of unconsolidated glacial deposits. The approximate thickness and elevation of the geologic units are presented on Table 2.6-1. In general, the soil and gravel deposits in and around the proposed composting area are well drained and rapidly permeable, both in the surface layers and at depth. High soil percolation rates are desirable so that excessive water and leachate will not run off the site and ponding'will not occur during windrow wetting operations or heavy rains. A general soil map of the Town of Southold is presented in Figure 2.6-1. It should be noted that- the soil information included here is generalized, and field investigations 2075M/3 2-3 Table 2.6-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YARD WASTE COMPOSTING PLAN STRATIGRAPHY AND HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS Approximate tem des Geologic Unit Hydrogeologic Unit Thickness (ft.) Quaternary Holocene Shore, beach, salt marsh Upper glacial aquifer 0 - 60 deposits and artificial fill Pleistocene Till; Harbor Hill Terminal 0 - 150 Moraine Outwash'deposits 0 - 350 . Cretaceous Upper Cretaceous Matawan Group - Magothy Magothy Aquifer 0 - 1000 Formation undifferentiated Raritan Formation, Raritan Clay 0 - 250 Clay Member Raritan Formation, Lloyd Aquifer 0 - 550 Lloyd Sand Member Precambrian Precambrian Crystalin rocks Bedrock Not Known Source: USGS 1974 l 2075M _ L/TYLE GULL " •/// '. /// RS � \\ ISLAND 0{il N q, // //i/ •-' //; ' POINT GREAT GULL ISLAND AM \1• %/ •/j/ ' GREENPORT GARD/NERS ` V / / BAY 'OU'HOLNO D 15�A ///// LEGEND CARVER-PLYMOUTH'RIVERHEAD ASSOCIATION // / ,,�, ' ' //.• �' . �' .' HAVEN'RIVERHEAD ASSOCIATION /L TILE PECON/C DUNE LAND-TIDAL MARSH-BEACHES ASSOCIATION Z ' ' M [TUCK BAY T 1 c GREAT ROB/NS PECON/C ISLAND BAY SOURCE: USSCS.1975 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Dvkks GENERAL SOIL MAP ��� .. ' FIGURE 2.6- 1 f i t f k are necessary for an accurate analysis at any given site. The soil association found on the site of the proposed composting operations is described below. I o Haven-Riverhead Association: Deep, nearly level to gently sloping, well drained, medium texture soils in outwash plains. This area is good for farming and development. High water table areas are a limitation for nonfarm use. This soil underlies most of the Town. 2.7 Groundwater j 1 The entire aquifer system found under Long Island has been designated a sole source of drinking water by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974. All of the groundwater utilized in the Town is obtained from the Upper Glacial and Magothy Aquifers. The glacial Pleistocene deposits are the main source of water in the Town of Southold. The Magothy is the major source of public water supply for the Towns of Suffolk County that are west of Southold, but it is only available for water supply in the portion of Southold that is west of Mattituck Creek due to the - presence of the salt water interface in the Magothy Aquifer in the eastern regions of the North Fork. These regions, that are situated to the east of Mattituck Inlet, contain isolated, relatively thin, fresh groundwater lenses. The water table, on the average, is located approximately 10 feet above mean sea level in the region of the proposed composting operations. Average depth to groundwater in,-the vicinity of the proposed composting area is approximately 40 feet. The 1983 elevations of the water table, above mean sea level, is shown in Figure 2.7-1. The July, 1978, Long Island Comprehensive Waste Treatment "208" Management Plan (208 Plan) defined eight hydrogeologic zones on Long Island. These zones are based on hydrogeologic conditions and are used as a basis for land use and waste ' disposal recommendations. The hydrogeologic zones are defined in Table 2.7-1, and the boundaries of the zones, as presented in the 208 Plan, are presented in Figure 2.7-2. The entire Town of Southold, with the exception of Fishers Island, lies within Zone IV. Fishers Island was not assigned a zone. 2075M/3 2-6 Table 2-7-1. C TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YARD WASTE COMPOSTING PLAN HYDROGEOLOGIC ZONES Type or Zone Number Location of System Characteristics of System I Central and northern Deep aquifer recharge area. This�zone is Nassau and portions of a primary source of public water supply western Suffolk II East central Nassau Deep aquifer recharge area. An area of existing water quality problems. III East central Suffolk Deep aquifer recharge area Exceptionally high water quality with high potential yields. *IV North fork and Local water quality problems, but eastern south forkP otential for groundwater development,particularly on south fork; �! significant agricultural input. V Western south fork Local water quality problems, but potential for groundwater development; little agricultural input. ' ' r VI South central suffolk Generally shallow groundwater . levels,with horizontal flow,which has impact on surface water. VII Southern Nassau and Generally shallow horizontal groundwater southwestern Suffolk. flows. VIII Most of the area bordering Generally shallow horizontal groundwater Long Island Sound,from flows. Hempstead Harbor to Wading River. * Zones located within the Town of Southold Source: Table 5-1,Long Island Waste Treatment('208')Management Plan, 1978 TOSHCHYD I \qac L/TYLE GULL RS � � ISLAND SNE 0192 0' GNEAT GULL 64 57 ISLAND \ - _ •484 , 82.15 216 8 �•9rcy L)N4 0314 , 82 74 GARD/NERS V BAY 524 ANO 8459 85.18 6 G 8 4 59 r 0451 88 35 0170 8889 i' 8374 O Y 082 534 ' 561 933 O - 0900 428 �' • 85.82 /L TLE 8678 o PECON/C Z% 0801 049 o BAY �0 95.42 ?` 8618 o GREAT ROB/NS PECON/C JSL 4NO BAY SOURCE: DONALDSON 8 KASZALKA 198 (ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET ABOVE MEAN S-EA LEVEL) TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN aDwirka lr _ WATER TABLE ELEVATIONS Q� B�rtM FIGURE 2.7- 1 Huntington SHELTER 13LAND Hampstead YNI goy Harbor i VIII • Loa! 1 folded Sound 1 Y it Gdrdlnuc FIS ERS ISLAND ` HUNTINOTON r ; �� \ SOUTHOLD C tY of NORTH OYSTER 1 W1 \ „_ BaY Block World EM )HPlT[A® r SMITHTOI \ Sound Now York MAY RIVERNEAD IV HE MPSTEA -- _•i BROOKHAVEN �II. i 1 �''' BEAST HAMPTON rrr 1 iAIYLON l lLlr i � I � � lOUTHAi1rTON e .1 p_ VII i� i VI Great South Boy lAlnnseack tiny �O Allelllli Ocean MelrloAaa aey REPRODUCED FROM: LARP8,'Comprehensive Long bland Waste Management Plsn',1978_ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN HYDROGEOLOGIC ZONES �� and FIGURE 2. 7- 2 2.8 Air Resources The climate of the Town of Southold may be characterized as temperate. Air masses and weather systems generally originate in the humid-continental climate of I North America and are tempered by the maritime influences of the Long Island Sound, Peconic Bay and Atlantic Ocean. The result of the influences of these water bodies is a i � reduced range in daily and annual temperatures. -Winter temperatures are milder than those of mainland areas at similar latitudes, while summer temperatures are cooler. If _ , ! Seasonal temperature extremes occur in January and August. At the Greenport station the average January temperature for 1989 was 34.57, while the average temperature for August 1989 'was 71.9°F. Mean annual temperature measured in the Cutchogue region of the Town, averaged 51°F over a 54 year period, with the mean annual precipitation measured at the same station calculated to be 45 inches over a 51 year period (Crandell, 1963). _ Temperature data from the period 1951 to 1980, 1988, and 1989 are listed in Table - 2.8-1. Table 2.8-2 provides monthly precipitation data for the same years. Precipitation includes rain, snow, sleet, and freezing rain. 1988 and 1989 data were collected at the Greenport Power-House, which is located within the Town of Southold. Since no historical data was available from this station, 1951 to 1980 data were obtained from the Long Island Vegetable Research Farm located in Riverhead. Data on wind speeds and directions for the Town have not yet been found. Historical wind data from Montauk, Brookhaven, and Westhampton, have been reviewed to characterize the principal direction and strength of the wind that can be expected at the site. It should be noted that the surrounding waters of the bays and ocean can affect the direction, strength and duration of the wind locally as a result of temperature differences between the land and the water. In general, the winds at the site are expected to have a strong westerly component, but in the same sense, do not originate from the west. During the fall, winter and-early spring, the wind tends to be more out of the northwest. During the summer the westerly predominance is modified by weather masses that generate southerly winds so that overall winds tend to be out of the southwest. 2075M/3 2-10 i Table 2.8-1 l TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YARD WASTE COMPOSTING PLAN AVERAGE MONTHLY TEMPERATURES Month Temperature CF)* 1951 - 80* 1988** 1989** January 30.9 26.8 34.5 February 31.8 33.3 30.8 March 39.1 38.6 37.2 April 48.9 46.6 46.3 May 59.2 56.9 57.6 June 68.1 66.3 67.6 July 73.3 73.8 71.7 August '72.5 74.4 71.9 - September 66.1 63.9 66.1 October 55.9 51.1 55.1 November 45.7 46.6 45.3 December 35.4 34.6 24.2 Average 52.2 51.1 50.7 *Measurements taken at L.I. Vegetable Research Farm (Riverhead) **Measurements taken at Greenport Power House Sources: NOAA, 1989 NOAA, 1982 2075M/3 2-11 Table 2.8-2 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YARD WASTE COMPOSTING PLAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION Month Precipitation (inches) 1951 - 80* 1988** 1989** January 4.07 3.66 1.73 February 3.63 5.49 3.53 March 4.28 4.95 4.62 April - 3.74 2.19 5.48 May 3.53 3.36 6.17 June 2.90 2.67 8.57 July 3.20 3.43 7.41 August 4.17 2.21 8.08 September 3.60 2.84 4.56 October 3.56 3.77 4.77 November 4.18 7.79 6.11 December 4.46 2.06 1.12 Total 45.32 44.42 62.15 *Measurements taken at L.I. Vegetable Research Farm (Riverhead) **Measurements taken at Greenport Power House Sources: NOAH, 1989 NOAH, 1982 2075M/3 2-12 The Town of Southold, as part of Suffolk County, is in the Metropolitan Air Quality Control Region (AQCR), as designated by the NYSDEC and the United States Environmental Protection Agency, (USEPA). Ambient air quality is monitored by NYSDEC at several stations located throughout Long, Island. The stations that serve as a primary basis for evaluating ambient pollutant concentrations are located in Babylon, Oyster Bay, and Eisenhower Park. In addition, the Long Island Lighting Company maintains six sulphur dioxide monitoring stations. The NYSDEC previously monitored total suspended particulates levels at two sites located in Port Jefferson, but activity at these stations ceased during the summer of 1984. In general, air quality in the Town is good. Data from the monitoring'stations located in Babylon and Eisenhower Park on Long Island indicate that eastern Suffolk County is in compliance with both Federal and State air quality standards for all pollutants except ozone, which is a regional nonattainment problem. Carbon monoxide levels for Long Island are in attainment except for an area in western, central Nassau County, Airborne compounds generated by an actual composting operation, if properly implemented, are typically innocuous.. During the biodegradation of the organic matter (leaves) oxygen is consumed'and-heat is produced and carbon dioxide and ,water are given off. The primary air contaminant which would be expected to be emitted at the site is carbon monoxide from truck traffic and equipment exhaust. Under less than optimal composting operating conditions, potential air quality impacts consist of odor and airborne dust. Concern has been raised regarding the release of spores of the fungus Aspergillus fumigatus. These spores are capable of producing an allergic response in some individuals. In a few cases they are also capable of causing infections in individuals with a weakened immune system, and have been found to be of some limited concern in sludge composting. However, no work has been published to date indicating the presence of pathogens in composted yard waste. In any case, adequate wetting and proper windrow construction, as discussed later, is expected-to eliminate any potential problem. 2075M/3 2-13 2.9 Existing Traffic Flow Patterns Traffic to the landfill consists of Town vehicles, commercial haulers and private vehicles that deliver wastes and recyclable materials. Traffic patterns are not expected to permanently change as a result of implementation of the yard waste composting s operations at the landfill. The site is centrally located in the western region of the Town ; with primary access travelling along Cox Lane, or Depot Lane to Middle Road. - C - Middle Road _ I r The Town owned properly is bordered on the southeast by Middle Road (County Road 48). An existing entrance between Depot and Cox Lane provides access to the active area of the landfill and would allow access to the staging areas for drop-off' of leaves. Middle Road is a generally straight, two lane, paved roadway that travels in a northeasterly direction from Mattituck to Southold. 'Cox Lane Cox Lane is a straight, two lane, paved roadway that runs in a northwest-southeast direction and borders the landfill to the northeast. It is just over a half-mile long, running from Middle Road to Oregon Road, and provides access to the 'northwestern region of the landfill. Depot .ane Depot Lane is a three-quarter mile long, straight, two lane, paved roadway that travels in a northwest-sbutheast-direction. It is located to the southwest of the landfill and can be traveled to obtain access to Middle Road from the northern region of the Town. 2.10 Topography The Town's topography is largely the result of glacial activity. The extreme southern parts of the Town are characterized by gentle slopes, though there are some bluffs in the vicinity of Nassau Point and Indian Neck. The north shore, classified as 2075M/3 2-14 � - r i the Harbor Hill Terminal,Moraine, consists of steep slopes, bluffs; and rolling landscape. The central portion of the Town, including the area of proposed composting operations, is located on gently sloping outwash plains resulting from glacial melting. Elevation in the Town ranges from sea level to 160 feet above mean sea level, although most of the Town is at an elevation less than 50 feet msl. The highest elevations and steepest slopes `are 'found along the north shore in the western part of town. A peak elevation of 160 feet msl is found at Mattituck Hills. The, topography of Robins Island and Fishers Island is also characteristic of the morainic deposits in the area. Both islands have very irregular' topography, with many hills and steep bluffs. 2.11 Utilities Electricity to the scale house and Collection Center is supplied by LILCO. Existing LILCO towers transect the southern portion of the complex but have not caused significant problems with any current operations. NYNEX provides telephone service to the complex at the Collection Center and scale house. Water is supplied to the landfill by on-site wells. Potable water,is present in the office/maintenance building. Water supply for windrow wetting will be taken from a 500 gallon per minute well adjacent to the compost area. This well is not used for drinking water.and would be utilized solely for the composting operations. r 2075M/3 2-15 3.0 FACILITY OPERATION PLAN This Section describes the operation plan for the small scale yard waste composting operation., 3.1 Yard Waste Composition and Handling In the initial stage of operation, leaves are expected to be delivered in plastic bags by private vehicles, and in unpackaged bulk by the Town Highway Department, -private trucks, and landscapers. The only wastes accepted by the operation would be leaves. The initial small scale program would not accept grass. It is also anticipated that the method of leaf collection may change in future years to utilize either paper or possibly corn starch bags which would be degraded during the compost process. Leaves from the drop off areas would be deposited at, a staging-area where the loads can-be inspected by site personnel. All yard waste handling on site could be accomplished by use of a rubber tire payloader and dump truck. Initially, the leaves would be turned weekly during the first month of operation. Turning of the windrow piles would then be conducted on a monthly basis using a bucket loader. Waste composition and generation rates were discussed in Section 1.2. The actual density of yard wastes collected by the Town Highway Department, and delivered by residents in unknown. However, using an average density for the leaves of 200 pounds per cubic yard, 3000 cubic yards of leaves translates into 300 tons of leaves that can be composted by the proposed small scale operations. Calculations are presented below: (200 lbs/yd3 x 3000 yd3) = 300 tons of leaves 2000 lbs/ton 3.2 Operation Schedule The landfill hours of 6:45 a.m. until 5:15 p.m., seven days per week, are also the hours during which leaves would,be accepted. Composting operations are expected to be performed Monday through Saturday as equipment operators are available and scheduled by the Supervisor. A water truck or sprinkling system would be used, as determined by windrow monitoring for moisture content, during the same Monday through Saturday schedule. Monitoring of temperature and moisture would be performed daily for the first two months, and three times a week thereafter. 208OMi2 3-1 3.3 Traffic Flow Pattern Traffic flow to the landfill is not expected to be affected by the proposed operations, and is expected to vary on a seasonal basis throughout the year. During- October and November, the receipt of leaves as well as the-related traffic `flow is expected to be at a maximum. On-site traffic will enter the landfill off of Middle Road,and follow directions to the appropriate leaf drop off area. Existing on-site roads allow access to both staging areas. 3.4 Unloading Procedures Signs,-or the scale house operator, will direct traffic to the appropriate deposition area. Field laborers and equipment operators will inspect all drop-offs for extraneous debris that will then be removed. As stated previously, there will be two separate drop off areas in order to facilitate unloading of private vehicles,separately from trucks. A drop-off area for private vehicles will be located near the main entrance, off of - Middle Road, to the north of the existing Collection Center. A staging area for unloading of trucks and other bulk leaf deliveries will be situated near the proposed composting area. These areas are illustrated on the Site Plan in Appendix B. 3.5 Inclement Weather Precautions Inclement ,weather can affect the operation in several different ways. The first is on the delivery of the yard waste. •The roadways that access the landfill can become slick and make it difficult to deliver the yard waste,material to the site. In these cases, it would be at the discretion of the site supervisor to cease the collection and transportation operations during particularly hazardous ice and snow storms. All on site roadways are 6 - crushed gravel or packed soils, and will be maintained with appropriate coarse 'base materials so access to, and movement around, the site by trucks delivering the yard waste should not pose any undue problems during normal rainstorm events. 208oMi2 3-2 I i A second situation where inclement weather would affect the operation is in access E to the compost areas in order to turn the windrow piles. The site chosen for the compost operation has good drainage so ponding should not pose a major impediment to successful operation at this site. If ponding does occur at the site, which would preclude easy access to the windrows, then activities would cease until the site can be properly graded to allow continuation of operations. { Inclement weather could also affect the operation by hindering the biological i activity in the windrows. This hindrance would occur if the leaves became saturated and ; the pile turns anaerobic. This is most likely to occur when a pile is being formed since the surface area to volume ratio is highest at this time and the rain is most easily absorbed. ; -Once a pile is built, saturation is only likely to occur during extreme weather conditions. If the windrows become too wet (>55% moisture), they will be turned to aerate and 1 ! evaporate the excess moisture. i 3.6 Equipment Requirements Currently the staff is not equipped for monitoring operations, but could begin- the small scale composting program with existing equipment. Possibly needed at the site are: 0 1 Royer shredder or equal o Screening equipment o Compost mixing attachments for existing bucket loaders .o Temperature and oxygen monitoring equipment o Sprinkler system As stated previously, windrows will be formed,and turned by bucket loaders. Leaves will be moved from the staging area to the composting area by bucket loader or dump truck. Royer shredders can be used to reduce the composted material in preparation for final screening for end product delivery. This piece of equipment does not need to be purchased or leased until the finished compost is ready for processing. Screening equipment may improve the marketability of the final product and should be considered in the future. Attachments exist for use with bucket loaders that can help to'shred and turn the windrows efficiently. These compost mixer attachments can reduce the composting time and should be considered, most notably if this program expands. It will be the Town's decision to utilize existing equipment on site, lease or purchase equipment as needed. 208OMi2 3-3 3.7 Surface Water Collection do Control Well drained sand and gravel soils overlay the site. Drainage is expected to be controlled on-site by a combination of swales, grading to a 2% to 4%, slope under the windrows. and percolation. The 20 foot aisles between windrows will allow surface water to be directed to the 50 foot perimeter aisle in the eastern region of'the composting area. Openings in the berm on_the southeastern section of the proposed area will allow water to flow off-site. Surface water run off will be directed to the southeastern portions of the proposed site by the natural topography in addition to the graded area and the construction of swales. 3.8 Seed Material Description No compost seed material will be utilized at this site. If seed material is needed, active yard waste composting material can be obtained from other local towns. 3.9 Compost Timing Considerations The leaf compost cycle can take approximately eight to nine months'from inception of windrow formation. Composted material can be marketed after this time frame when all processing has been completed. 3.10 Windrow Construction Windrows -will be formed by a bucket loader. The windrows will be trapezoidal in shape with initial dimensions of approximately 16 feet wide at the base, 4 feet wide at the top, and 6 feet high. This represents a cross sectional area of approximately 60 square feet. The composting area dimensions of 296 feet (north to, south) by 370 feet (east to west) will accommodate a 40 foot perimeter border for maneuvering the loader, six 225 foot windrows, a 20 foot aisle between windrows, and a 50 foot by 276 foot drainage area. The .design of the six windrows will accommodate approximately 3,000 cubic yards of leaves. Space is available in the adjacent northern section of the proposed area to allow for possible future expansion of the composting operations. 208oM/2 _ 3-4 Leaves will be brought from the staging areas to the composting area by dump truck and deposited for windrow formation by a bucket loader. Windrows will be turned once per month, at a minimum, -and more frequently if the monitoring program indicates high moisture content (>55%), high temperatures (>140°F), or anaerobic conditions, which is indicated by odor generation. In the first month, windrows will be turned weekly to assure proper moisture content, complete aeration and thorough mixing of the material that has been stockpiled. Windrows will run in a west to east direction. The oldest windrows will be turned first, with subsequently younger windrows being turned in progression. Turning will be done in alternate directions to insure a maximum consistancy of windrow conditions. For example, if an initial turning is performed from north to south, the subsequent turning will progress from south to north. Windrows will be combined as necessary to maintain the 16' x 4' x 6' dimensions. This is expected to be necessary after two or three turnings of a windrow. Sufficient room is available in thero sed composting P Po posting area to accommodate the turning of the windrows, deposition of leaves, and final product storage. 3.11 Aeration Techniques The required aerobic conditions will be maintained by turning of the windrows (as discussed in Section 3.1), and convective action caused by the temperature differential between the piles and the air. The windrows will be placed in an east to west direction to allow the wind to assist in the uniform aeration of the windrows. During the summer months, windrow temperature may also determine the frequency of turning. Piles will be turned if internal temperature exceeds 140°F to prevent microbial die-off above this temperature. However, the temperature should be maintained higher than 95°F to promote aerobic biologic processes. This should prevent the windrows from becoming anaerobic and producing odors. 3.12 Site Access Control Site access to the composting area will be limited to Town employees or their designated representatives. Access to the landfill is controlled by personnel at the gate house during operations, and by gates during nonoperation hours. Access to the 208OM/2 3-5 r drop-off and staging area will be during normal operating hours of the landfill. All vehicles entering the landfill are controlled by the personnel at the gate house. 3.13 Fire Safety Procedures , Normally windrowed leaves will burn poorly, since the interior is wet. Vandals may be able to ignite dry surface leaves, but a major fire is unlikely. Nevertheless, a water truck could be used to extinguish fires at the site. The 500 gpm well at the landfill provides an adequate water source to a first response piece of fire apparatus. In addition, the windrows will be kept adequately wet and the design of the area allows for quick access, via the perimeter aisles and on-site roadways, to all parts of each pile. Water truck operations and windrow design should substantially lower the possibility of fire. In an emergency, the telephone at the scale house, gate house or in the office. will be utilized to contact the Cutchogue Fire Department. 3.14 Personnel Requirements and Responsibilities Equipment operators will meet any and all requirements of the Town. The site supervisor will be responsible for all activities at the site. He will act solely as the site supervisor and he will be responsible for directing personnel in all aspects of site maintenance including picking up blowing materials, windrow monitoring, watering leaves, and other activities as necessary. In addition to the site supervisor, additional necessary personnel include: heavy equipment operators, a weigh master, and laborers. The initial labor requirements for the small scale composting operations are shown on Table 3.14-1. It is estimated that between 198 and 338 man-hours would be needed to prepare the site, form and turn windrows, monitor composting conditions and water windrows. This amount ,of labor, over the composting time frame, is available from existing personnel in the Town. 208OM/2 3-6 v � TABLE 3.14-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YARD WASTE COMPOSTING PLAN MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS 'i . TASK f ESTIMATED,NO. OF MAN HOURS PER YEAR Site Preparation 50 to 60 Creation of 6 Windrows 4 to 8 First Month Windrow Turningl 12 to 18 Routine Windrow Turning 24 to 36 Windrow Monitoring3 72 to 144 Windrow Watering 36 to 72 Estimated Total Man Hours for the year 1198 to 338 Notes: 1 Windrows turned once per week for 4 weeks at 20 to 30 minutes per windrow. 2 Eight months at one time per month, at 20 to 30 minutes per windrow. 3 Daily for first 60 days, three times per week for 28 weeks, 0.5 to 1 hour per day. 4 This is dependent upon precipitation amounts _during composting operations. This estimate assumes 1 hour per wetting with a range of 1 to 2 wettings per week over 36 weeks. r 208OM/I 3-7 r 1 _ Further, the supervisor will serve as the local emergency coordinator for the contingency plan., In addition to-, the existing personnel, additional heavy equipment operators (1), and laborers (3), may be brought in as required to insure orderly operation of the site during peak season. Prior to operation of the site, all personnel will be trained in, proper composting operations including compost biology,, pile building, monitoring, and trouble shooting. Proper training of current personnel is critical to proper operation of the composting process.- Furthermore, proper staffing levels should be maintained, during the composting season, to assure adequate control over the biological and site specific processes of this operation. The laborers are expected to operate the water truck, dump truck,,and open bags for inspection and'unloading. 3.15 Equipment Procurement To the extent that additional equipment is needed (as discussed in Section 3.6), it should be locally procured to assure that adequate maintenance capability is available. At this time, no decision has been made as to whether the specialized equipment will be Town owned, leased, or rented. All equipment necessary to initial small scale operations can be maintained by the Town, and backup equipment could be leased on a short term basis from local suppliers, or borrowed from other Town departments, if this proves necessary. 3.16 Operating Records" The site supervisor or his designee will keep the following records: 1. Log of daily deliveries of yard waste to the site; including volumes, and types of material entering the site. 2. Log of daily removal of compost, other products, and residuals. 3. Logs of temperatures achieved in the piles. 4. Logs of routine monitoring results on compost quality. 5. Logs of operational problems on the site. 6. Records of water consumption. Sample copies of the data/log sheets are provided in Appendix C. 208oMi1 3-8 I 4.0 MONITORING This Section describes the monitoring and oversight of the composting operation. 4.1 Quality Control Measures for Deliveries All deliveries of compostable material will be inspected prior to incorporation into the windrows. While it is unlikely that hazardous waste will be deliberately delivered to the site, personnel will be properly instructed to immediately identify such waste and to arrange for the proper disposal by a NYSDEC licensed contractor. NYSDEC will be notified of any such occurrence, and pertinent information will be maintained on the daily i log sheets. Leaves are to be delivered to two separate staging areas that are accessible through the use of on-site roadways. The staging area for private vehicles is expected to receive a high percentage of bagged leaves. Signs at this deposition/staging area will state that -- bags are to be opened and the contents placed in the pile. Unopened bags left at the staging area will be opened by laborers and the contents inspected prior to addition to the pile. Litter and other contaminants, including empty bags, will be removed daily by laborers and placed in the active portion of the landfill. ii The other staging area will be used by Town Highway trucks and landscapers for bulk leaf drop-offs. Fewer bags are expected at this staging area because most deliveries i from these two sources appear to come from open trucks or large cans/barrels that allow handling of loose yard waste by one worker. Laborers will inspect and remove any litter or contaminants from this area daily. i Leaves from both staging areas will be inspected for contaminants such as grass and litter as they are picked up by the bucket loader, and as it is being deposited into the truck that will deliver the leaves to the composting area. Signs at the staging areas will be clearly marked to prohibit the deposition of grass and garbage. Any significant grass deposition at the staging areas is to be removed at the earliest possible time each day. No grass will be composted at this time and no grass will remain in the staging area at the end of the day. The separate staging areas and layered inspection efforts are expected to maximize the quality of the leaf feedstock to the composting operation. 2081 M/2 4-1 4.2 Compost Monitoring, Sampling and Analysis Monitoring of the composting conditions in the windrows is necessary to avoid and prevent unfavorable conditions. Once all six windrows have been formed, daily temperature and moisture conditions will be monitored and recorded. The moisture in the center of a windrow could be judged as temperatures are taken from the windrows by judging both visual and tactile indicators. Compressing a handful of compost should yield at most a couple of drops, corresponding to a moisture content of 45% to 55% If no drops are observed the windrow would be wetted, whereas if more than a couple of drops are observed the windrows would be turned. A daily log of temperatures and moisture conditions will be kept. If either condition is found to be unacceptable, too wet or dry, lower than 95° F, or higher than 140° F, the windrow would be watered or turned as appropriate. Initially, this is expected to be performed daily to establish a baseline for the operation, and decrease to three times per week, or less, as conditions stabilize. The purpose of compost sampling and analysis will be to chemically characterize the final product prior to distribution. Composite compost samples from the finished product will be analyzed for selected heavy metals and specific organic compounds including arsenic, barium, cadmium, hexavalent and total chromium, lead, nickel, mercury, zinc, selenium, copper, endrin, methoxychlor, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-TP and lindane. One composite sample for each finished windrow will be collected from a minimum of three (3) locations in the finished windrows and analyzed according to NYSDEC protocols by a NYSDOH certified laboratory. Sampling should be planned for six (6) weeks in advance of final preparation of the composted material. This would allow enough time to receive the results of the analysis from the laboratory, prior to final product processing. 4.3 Soil Sampling and Analysis The impact of composting on surficial soils could be evaluated by the chemical analysis of composite compost samples collected from a minimum of'three (3) locations in a windrow prior to distribution of the final compost product. The need for soil sampling 'should await the results of the compost sampling. This samplingwould be expected to occur six (6) weeks before the final compost product is prepared. One soil sample could 2081 M/2 4-2 also be analyzed for the same chemical constituents as the composite compost analysis, namely arsenic, barium, cadmium, hexavalent and total chromium, lead, nickel, mercury, zinc, selenium, copper, endrin, methoxychlor, 2,4-D, 2,4,5-TP and lindane. Samples would, be analyzed according to NYSDEC protocols by a NYSDOH certified laboratory. Sampling and analysis of the soils should be preformed annually at a minimum. 4.4 Groundwater Monitoring Program As discussed in Section 2.7, the composting area is located in Hydrogeologic Zone IV. Compost leachate is not considered a problem at this site for the following reasons: o The small size of the proposed composting operation o Data showing that compost toxicity is not a significant environmental problem With respect to the last item, EP toxicity analysis performed on a- composite sample of leaf compost by the Town of Islip supports this conclusion. The Town can also collect an annual composite sample from the compost (as discussed in Sections 4.2 and 4.3), for analysis of heavy metals, as well as organic,constituents. The small scale of this yard waste composting operation is exempt from regulation as previously discussed. While a groundwater monitoring program would normally be conducted for a full scale, larger permitted operation, it is not considered to be necessary at this time for this exempt small scale operation. 2081M/2 4-3 l _ 5.0 FACILITY CONTINGENCY PLAN This Section discusses the various contingencies and planned responses that may be expected at the compost operation. 5.1 Equipment Breakdown Equipment used during on-site operations is owned and regularly maintained by Town personnel. In those instances where specialized equipment, may be utilized on a �- lease basis, a maintenance agreement should be provided by the vendor to assure continuous operation. If an unforeseen equipment breakdown does occur, the equipment will be replaced immediately in-kind while the repairs are performed. Rolling stock such as collection and transport vehicles are maintained on a regular basis by the Town Highway Department. 5.2 Odor Control Odor control at the site will be accomplished through a combination of generally accepted best management practices, site drainage and windrow monitoring by Town employees. Best management practices include proper construction and maintenance of windrows to ensure maximum aeration and elimination of odor causing conditions. Proper and timely windrow turning, a moisture content of 45% to 55%, and windrow monitoring, should enable composting of leaves without odor generation. In addition, excellent on-site drainage into the soil are expected to preclude standing water. The proposed location of the operations are also advantageous with respect to minimizing odor impacts due to the fact that there is a relatively large amount of open space in the nearby vicinity, and the i nearest residences are at least 1,000 feet from the composting area. Complete and thorough training of the supervisor and staff is critical to odor control in this operation. 5.3 Vector Control Insect and mammalian vectors,'such as rodents, are attracted to a given location if water, food and shelter are readily available. The operation of a compost operations for leaves is not conducive to vector habitation, if properly managed. For example, ponding due to excessive application of water may be a potential source of insect vectors, such as mosquitoes. Properly trained personnel will be aware of this- potential concern and 2082M/2 5-1 'r i will be instructed to inform the supervisor of the ponding as well as to assist in preventing or remediating such an occurrence. Rodents could be troublesome if decomposable food is readily available. Problems in this regard would be prevented in two,ways. Initially, yard waste will be inspected by site personnel to eliminate the inclusion of food waste with leaves. Routine site inspection will be conducted by personnel to monitor for the presence of rodents. A program of rodent baiting would be conducted if rodents are detected, in accordance with the requirements and recommendations of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS). Good housekeeping practices must be. continued at the landfill to contribute to vector control. Site personnel should be trained and realize the necessity of proper site maintenance to establish an environment unsuitable to vector growth and enhancement. 5.4 Emergency Responses Spill releases may occur at an active site where-equipment,is routinely used during the workday. In this regard, liquid fuel spills will be eliminated by ensuring that no leaks are occurring through a program of equipment inspection. Fuel storage at the compost area will not occur as a result of the use of heavy equipment from the landfill. If an unforeseen spill does occur, immediate steps will be taken to reduce environmental impacts to groundwater. Absorbent pads can be used to contain and collect any spilled fuel or lubricant materials. Appropriate Town and NYSDEC personnel,will be notified if a spill does occur. The Town will only accept leaves for this project. All other waste including garbage, grass, hazardous waste, and leaves in excess of 300 tons will be banned from the compost operation and staging areas. This will be enforced by the placement of suitable signs on the grounds of the landfill, as well as routine inspection. All truck and private vehicle deliveries of compostable material.will also be inspected in the staging area prior to incorporation into the windrows. r All bags will be opened and their contents inspected by site personnel before being placed in the piles in the staging area. As the truck, that is to be used to move the leaves from the staging area to the compost area, is loaded by bucket loader, the leaf load will receive a second visual inspection. Inadvertent deliveries of unacceptable waste will be 2082M/2 5-2 r l handled by removal of such material from the staging area and moved to the active portion of the landfill. Chronic occurrences would be eliminated by banning responsible parties from access to the landfill. Fires are uncommon at a properly managed yard waste compost site. Because water is periodically applied to windrows to enhance biological degradation, the potential of C fires should be minimal. However, if a fire should inadvertently occur, immediate steps will be taken to -extinguish the fire. First, the Cutchogue Fire Department will be notified. Other fire suppression measures include the quick application of water through the use of a.water truck and the existing 500 gpm well at the landfill, as well as utilizing existing, on-site, quantities of sand. Bucket loaders and a dump truck would be used in the event that sand is needed to smother a fire. Similarly, personnel will be properly instructed in the use of all equipment in an effort to prevent work related injuries. A first aid kit is available at the landfill for minor injuries;,however, telephone contact will be established for more serious injuries r with emergency medical technicians by dialing 911. Emergency response equipment will be either on-site or immediately available to service the site in the event of a fire or medical emergency. Since the leaf compost operation is a low-technology management technique, extraordinary measures are not considered to be necessary to respond to potential emergency occurrences. Other than fires, the potential for illegal delivery of hazardous waste may be possible. Under such circumstances, the staging area would be immediately isolated from use and a hazardous emergency response team from the Town of Southold Police Department, or Suffolk County Department of Health Services, would be notified along with Town officials, the Cutchogue Fire Department, and the NYSDEC. Removal of hazardous waste would be immediate and such waste would be sent to an appropriate disposal facility by a properly licensed contractor. Evacuation of the proposed area is unlikely; however, if necessary this would be accomplished in cooperation with Town officials, the Cutchogue Fire Department, and the Southold Police Department. The supervisor will act as the local emergency coordinator between all responding agencies. 2082M/I 5-3 -� 6.0 MAINTENANCE MEASURES Maintenance measures for the site, compost operations, and equipment are discussed in this Section. t-I - 6.1 Roadways - Landfill entrance and exit roadways will be maintained by Town personnel to assure continued operation of the landfill. Roads on the landfill site and to the compost area will !.- also be maintained. Appropriate coarse base materials will be applied to maintain on-site -- roads as needed; however, paved roadway surfaces on-site' are not anticipated to be necessary. i 6.2 Equipment All equipment will be maintained through a preventive maintenance program managed by the personnel at the landfill. On-site repairs will be accomplished by Town personnel. A maintenance record will be maintained,for each piece of equipment used at either the landfill or compost site. It will be the responsibility of the supervisor to ensure that all equipment is properly maintained and in proper working condition. 6.3 Utilities Maintenance of utility service to the landfill will be the responsibility of the respective utilities including NYNEX, LILCO and the Town of Southold. Landfill personnel will be instructed to immediately notify the respective"utility if failure does ,- occur and to maintain a written record of each occurrence. ii 2083M/1 6-1 7.0 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS A discussion of the economics associated with the small scale pilot yard waste composting operation is presented here. 7.1 ' Cost Estimates for Composting Operations The proposed small/ scale yard waste composting operation will utilize existing personnel and equipment available at the landfill`for the initial composting operations. Consequently, no new personnel or equipment charges are expected to be incurred immediately. As discussed in Section 3.6, a shredder,. screening equipment, and mixing attachments could be purchased to aid compost processing techniques. The total labor effort estimated for the proposed operations involves approximately 50 hours for site preparation and approximately 300 hours related to windrow 'formation and turning for a six month period. This total of approximately 350 hours of labor (0.2 person/year) is not expected to significantly affect the current labor requirements at the landfill. The estimated level of use for equipment is expected to be approximately 150 to 200 hours for the site preparation and windrow formation and maintenance. This use of equipment is not expected to significantly deter the equipment's use or availability for 1 normal landfill operations. The cost of laboratory analysis for sampling the compost is expected to be in the range of $2,000 to $3,000. This would be the only significant cost associated with the implementation of the proposed operations. 7.2 Compost Market Discussion A "market" for composted yard wastes may be defined as a productive use for the material which would divert it from disposal. Markets may pay to buy compost but this is not a necessary criteria for a successful marketing program. The rest of this Section discusses the characteristics of the product, potential markets for the compost, marketing and distribution alternatives practiced elsewhere, and a discussion of the initial marketing 2084M/1 7-1 • approach to be practiced in the Town. It should be noted that marketing of compost products is a continuously evolving process and that new markets which might provide higher levels of income to the Town can be developed over time. r 7.3 Product Characterization _ Compost is the end product resulting from aerobic, biological decomposition of yard waste organic materials. When organic materials are thoroughly composted, 'a product physically resembling soil is the result, which does not resemble the feedstock materials. The term "humus" is often used to describe the end product of composting, whether or not the material is thoroughly decomposed. The final nutrient analysis of the compost product will depend on the types of feedstock. For • example, if various green wastes, such as grass clippings, are inadvertently accepted in sufficient quantity, the nitrogen content of the final product will be enhanced: Some operations include inorganic nitrogen fertilizer as an additive in order to speed up the process of composting.. This practice has an added benefit of increasing the fertilizer value of the product. However, the Town will only compost leaves at this time and use of enhancing agents is not recommended. Exclusive of its minimal value as a fertilizer, compost is an excellent soil additive which improves the physical properties,of soils. Most of the readily decomposable organic matter in the feedstock is consumed during composting. Therefore, the remaining material represents a stabilized organic matter which when applied to soils has effects that are apparent over long periods of time. Improvements in the physical properties of soils that result from the addition of compost include: o Improved water retention o Improved soil porosity o Improved water infiltration o Improved soil aeration o Improved water permeability o Decreased soil crusting o Enhanced soil aggregation " a 2084Mi1 7-2 The greatest improvements in physical properties occur in soils at the extremes of the texture spectrum. Addition of compost to sandy soils increases their ability to retain water and renders them less droughty. In clay soils, the added organic matter increases permeability to water and air while promoting water infiltration into the soil profile. Compost treated soils have a greater capacity to store water for plant use, as well. Addition of compost to clay soils reduces the,effects of compaction. Compost typically has a high cation exchange capacity (CEC). Many plant nutrient elements exist in soil in the cationic state, e.g., nitrogen, potassium, calcium, magnesium, iron, zinc, manganese, and copper. When added to soil, compost can increase the ability of the soil to hold these plant nutrient elements, reducing Teaching. Table 7.3-1 lists 'a number of potential major compost applications. Private residential users,of lawn and garden products can be an important user group for compost end products. The compost can be used as an supplement to improve soils for planting grass, shrubs, flowers and vegetable gardens, and as a decorative top covering for flower beds,etc. The 1985-86 National Gardening Survey conducted by the Gallup Organization for the National Gardening Association shows that gardening activities are rising in popularity among members of the baby boom generation. An increasing number of persons between 30 and 49 years of age are participating in gardening activities, and they also are the biggest spenders for lawn and garden products. The American Association of-Nurserymen reports that $6 billion was spent across the nation in 1985 by families and businesses for, plants, which is a 33 percent increase since 1980. Private, commercial uses vary with •they, different horticultural industries represented. Users might utilize the' product in soil media for containerized plant production in nurseries or greenhouses; in landscape bed plantings; in golf course construction; in turfgrass establishment and maintenance; as a topsoil substitute or amendment; or as a top-dressing on established turf at golf courses or cemeteries. These specialized uses ordinarily require excellent-quality-control during compost production to insure a satisfied and continuous clientele. 2084M/1 7-3 Table 7.3-1 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD YARD WASTE COMPOSTING PLAN CATEGORIES OF COMPOST USERS Growersl Services3 Golf course Landscape planning Greenhouse Landscape design Home gardeners Landscape contractors Lawn maintenance Re—wholesale/Retai14 Nursery Plants Garden center Seeds & Bulbs Greenhouse equip. & supply Sod & sod svc. Lawn & garden equip. & supply Nursery equip. & supply Processors2 , Bulk Users5 Fertilizer contractors Fertilizer manuf. supply Land reclamation Topsoil Landfill cover Sand & gravel Parks Roadsides 1 Growers prefer a refined compost product to meet specific chemical and physical criteria. Potential for use as a field or potting soil amendment. 2 Processors will refine the compost product to their chemical and . physical specifications. Some will require strict quality control on the part of the compost producer. 3 Service businesses are in a position to specify the use of compost for landscaping construction -and maintenance projects. 4 Re—wholesale/Retail markets generally prefer a bagged product for resale. 5 Bulk users represent .businesses or operations that use compost at rates on large acreages or volumes. 1 2084M/l 7-4 Use of the product on public playgrounds, school grounds, parks, ballfields, or roadsides would be primarily as an amendment to turfgrass plantings or as a mulch i around trees and shrubs. New construction sites often require some form of landscaping before they are completed. Consumption of compost for this use is i linked to the level of construction,activity. _ a 7.4 Marketing and Distribution Alternatives Practiced Elsewhere Yard waste compost has potential value to the whole spectrum of horticultural markets. Available information indicates that the material is currently used in a variety of horticultural applications. However, user groups have been primarily J; limited to homeowners and municipal agencies. Most municipal programs have not seen the need to develop extensive marketing programs per se. This is due to the combined effects of high public demand resulting from word of mouth and the use of significant quantities of compost by municipalities. The effectiveness of word of mouth notification is enhanced by the fact that the-success of leaf and yard waste composting depends on- public npublic participation for its feedstocks. Whether the raw materials are delivered to the compost site by residents or are set out for curbside pickup, it is the residents ? who must initially supply the materials. Thus, residents are made aware through participation of composting in their community. Differences do exist in patterns of use of the product, as well as pricing structures and distribution methods. In Brookhaven, New York, over 250,000 cubic yards of leaves are composted annually. About 100,000 to 150,000 cubic yards of compost is distributed each yeaf. Of this amount, approximately 70 percent is used in municipal projects. The Town uses leaf mold in tree plantings and for starting young trees at the Ecology Center greenhouses. Leaf compost is'also used to start plants for beautification activities. The Town also chips waste branches and tree limbs for use as mulch in parks and for cover material at landfill sites to stabilize slopes. t r 2080/1 -7-5 Brookhaven has not entered into any contractual arrangements with users. The Town delivers some of the compost to schools and civic organizations at no charge, and it makes'public service announcements on the radio to promote the availability of the compost. The Town estimates that in the spring and fall between 250 and 300 people per day pick up compost. Residents utilize approximately 30 percent of the total product. Tenafly, New Jersey has been composting leaves for 20 years. They also make wood waste available to residents in the form of firewood and woodchips at no charge. The City has given the compost a name, "Tenafly Humus," for recognition. Two products are distributed, one which sells for $10.00 per yard,' and one not shredded which brings $6.00 per yard. These prices are for commercial businesses such as nurseries and garden centers. Residents are allowed to pick up material free of charge. Early in the program, the product was sold at $5.00 per yard and supply was exhausted- in a short time. Subsequently, the town council raised the price in order to have more material available to residents. In Webster Groves, Missouri residents annually pick up 1,200 cubic yards of compost from stockpiles that the City maintains in several municipal parks. There is no, fee,for the material. The City applies 3500 ,yards annually to its park lands using a manure spreader to apply the material to turf areas. The,Missouri Botanical Gardens uses approximately 500 yards each year. Other special, one—time projects consume significant quantities. The Town of Wellesley, Massachusetts began composting leaves after a hurricane in 1938. After using the leaf mold for turf plantings, public works officials were impressed with the results and began experimenting with other uses and various"formulations of compost and sand. Presently, the vast majority of the material is used by the town in'municipal projects, approximately 5,000• to 8,000 yards per year. During 1979, Wellesley sold 10,000 yards of composted leaves to a nursery for a credit of $2,350 worth of plant material. Topsoil, which costs$8.00 to $10.00 per yard, is no longer purchased for municipal projects. The public is allowed to take compost at no charge. 2084M/1 7-6 i i Greenwich, Connecticut composts leaf and yard waste with sewage sludge by the static pile method. Over 4,000 cubic yards of material are distributed annually with approximately 20 , percent used in municipal projects, 20 percent used by residents and 60 percent sold to landscapers. The City allows residents to pick up the material at no charge and receives $7.00—$9.00 per yard from commercial landscapers. To date, the City has not entered into any contractual agreements for j distribution of the compost, although one landscaper has offered to buy all of the material for $7.00 per yard. City officials estimate that several hundred individuals have used the compost product over the years. Since the material contains sewage _ sludge, the City analyzes the product for heavy metals and pathogens on a regular basis. ' j Midland, Michigan has been operating a leaf composting operation since 1968. i The product has been ,used in a variety of municipal projects, including the preparation of landfill cover material. It is also blended with soil to prepare topsoil for landscaping public parks, buildings, cemeteries, and highways. The finished compost is available to the public and to professional users at no charge in bulk form. City officials estimate saving $37,000 per year in topsoil purchases. Topsoil sells for $5.00 per yard. At La Pere, Michigan approximately 2,000 to 3,000 cubic yards of compost are distributed annually. The City has not assigned a value to the product which is used entirely in municipal projects. The public is not involved with distribution. City J park and cemetery departments use it all. i ! One of the few composting operations that delivers compost to end users is Hennepin County, Minnesota. Approximately 35 commercial landscapers and five nurseries take delivery of the material at no charge. Officials estimate that 40 percent of the material is distributed in this way. Private residents pick up and use j approximately 50 percent of the material produced. The remaining product is used by the municipalities. Total distribution is in the vicinity of 20,000 to 30,000 yards annually. Another unique aspect of the County's program is its advertising campaign. A brochure describing the product and giving locations for pickup is mailed to County residents. Where previously the County was having problems maintaining a user clientele; this is no longer the case due to the publicity generated by the brochure. 2084M/1 7-7 Two of ''the larger and more sophisticated leaf and yard waste composting operations in the country are in California. The City of Davis operates its own facility, while in Berkeley a private firm called Urban Oregon Inc. is used to operate the Compost Facility. In the Davis operation, woody yard waste is ground and added to'leaves and grass 'clippings to undergo composting. The top quality product is reground before distribution to create an even textured material. Due to the size constraints at the site, some material that is only partially decomposed is sold as mulch material. Other incompletely degraded -material is dried and sold as boiler fuel. The City has found its primary markets to be local landscapers and nurseries. These users substitute the composted 'wastes for processed forest waste materials. However, seasonal variation in materials received at the compost site results, in variable products, thus limiting the value of the material to professional users who desire a consistent product. Approximately 25 percent of the compost produced is given free to residents for use in private gardens. The average price that Davis receives from commercial buyers is approximately $4.00 a yard or $20.00 per ton. This ,is their break-even cost. Davis is somewhat unique in having its product analyzed-to aid in marketing to professional users. The published analysis follows: Moisture 60% Total Solids 40% Volatile Solids 34% C/N Ratio 45% Carbon 22% Nitrogen 0.48% Phosphorous 0.16% Potassium 2.24% The analysis shows that the compost cannot be sold as a fertilizer. As with any nonfortified compost product, its value is as a soil-conditioner. Urban Ore, Inc. has marketed its compost products primarily to homeowners and private landscape firms. Production and sales are enhanced by the sale of spent mushroom compost hauled in from a local producer. Five different products accounted for over 95 percent of the sales. 20MM/I 7-8 r Composts and mulches were sold primarily to the same people who brought in the brush, that is, hundreds of landscape contractors. Urban Oregon also sold directly to homeowners, renters, and property managers. Small quantities of bagged materials were kept on hand for these smaller users. Material that was delivered in bulk was hauled by independent truckers. Income came from two main sources: product sales and tipping fees charged to other than municipal dumpers. Initially, income from tipping fees far exceeded that from product sales. However, in fiscal 1984, the two sources of income almost equalized. Disposal fees of $4.00 per yard brought in $169,000 or 54 percent of income. Income from sales of firewood, Com _ posts, and mulches accounted for i 1 $142,000 or 46 percent. Early in the program, the contract with the City called for Urban Ore, Inc. to pay Berkeley 30 percent of any gross income over $125,000. Since this arrangement threatened the continuation of the project, the stipulation was dropped. . Brookside Nurseries, Inc. of Darien, Connecticut provides complete leaf composting services to municipalities in Connecticut,' New York, and New Jersey. Services cover processing right through taking title to the product, if desired. Brookside's operations are unique in that the leaf compost is blended with other' waste organics and inorganic materials to create more than 20 different soil amending products, mulches, and soil substitutes. It has been the experience of i Brookside that professional horticultural tradespeople do not want leaf compost per se. Where they do purchase leaf compost, they are blending it with other materials. Thus, the creation of the various specialty products from a leaf mold base is filling a well-defined need. i i- The organic matter in Brookside's various soil products is derived from bark, manures, leaves, peanut hulls, and wood waste. Each of the materials is composted separately and for various lengths of time before it is blended into a specific soil product. Topsoil is not used in the blends. Mineral matter is derived from ground {' stone. Some of the products are fortified with fish meal fertilizer. 2084M/1 7_9 As might be expected, such a wide variety of products demands a' variety of prices. Cost is related to the degree of processing required to produce the material, whether the material is fortified with fertilizer, and the quantity of material delivered. As examples, the least expensive product, woodchips, is available at $13.50 a yard delivered in one yard quantities or for $5.50 per yard delivered in 25-35 yard\loads. A product referred to as "Light and Leafy Pot Mix" sells 'for $52.50 per single yard load down to $44.50 per yard in 25 to 35 yard loads. The various other products are available for prices intermediate to those quoted above. 7.5 Marketing Approach to be Utilized by the Town of Southold The Town has received indications of interest from local farmers to' accept and use the end product of compost derived solely from leaves. Further, the Town is expected to use the end product for roadside plantings, park maintenance, and in-office plants Other uses can be developed as the program grows. The agricultural history of the Town provides many residents with a familiarity with returning nature's products to the soil. Use of all of the compost generated in the Town is not expected to encounter marketing difficulties and consequently, supply is expected to be depleted annually. There is sufficient space available at the composting area to stockpile finished compost prior to distribution. E 2084M/1 7-10 !- - 8.0 REGULATORY COMPLIANCE Compliance with regulatory structures is discussed in this Section. It should be noted that the Town is developing a GEIS for a solid waste management plan. The Plan, when completed, will address in greater detail, the role of yard waste composting. Sections of the DGEIS will discuss impacts, waste quantities, characteristics, generation rates, recycling and solid waste management for the Town. Since this is a small scale operation sized smaller than the 3,000 cubic yard threshold cited in Part 360-5.1(b)(1) and the DGEIS is being prepared for a Plan, detailed analyses, evaluation of impacts, and a comprehensive recycling plan beyond what is presented in this document, would be preliminary and premature with respect to the ongoing Plan development. I 8.1 SEQRA Compliance The Town Board has adopted a resolution for a Negative Declaration, as defined, under SEQRA, and supported by an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF). The Negative Declaration and EAF are found -in Appendix D. This action complies with the tenets _of Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law (State Environmental Quality Review Act) and the regulations found in 6 NYCRR Part 617 that implement SEQRA. 8.2 Consistency with NYSWMP and Act The small scale yard waste composting operation is consistent with the intent and hierarchy developed in the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan (NYSWMP) and put into law by the New York State Solid Waste Management Act (Act). The hierarchy identified recycling and reuse to be the second key element to effective solid waste management. Composting of yard waste has been defined by NYSDEC as one form of recycling/reuse. Therefore, the small scale pilot yard waste composting operation is consistent with both the NYSWMP and Act. l i 2085M/2 8-1 1 8.3 Alternatives to the Proposed Action Alternatives to the proposed action include no-action (i.e., ongoing landfilling), long-haul, and alternate siting locations. A no-action alternative is not determined to be acceptable since the Town is ,committed to compliance with both the goals of the New York State Solid Waste Management Plan, and Act. The proposed yard waste composting operations will complement and enhance' the Town's commitment to comprehensive recycling. There are currently no alternative regional or 'private yard waste composting operations that can assist the Town in this effort to increase recycling efforts. Off-island transport and landfilling, the long haul alternative, has serious economical and practical drawbacks. Current long hauling costs are in the range of $100 to $200 per ton. Alternative sites are not considered necessary for this small scale pilot operation due to the Town's ownership of the 60.9 acre piece of land which provides, ample room for the incorporation and expansion of any foreseeable waste reduction facilities. 8.4 Unavoidable Impacts Initially site preparation and development will require some added payloader, chipper, and shredder operations during normal operating hours. Once the new area is prepared, seeded 'earth berms would mitigate any visual aspects of the site. Another unavoidable impact would be the consumptive use of water required during compost ,operations. Leaves will be wetted upon receipt at the composting area. Windrows will also be watered to maintain a 45%-55% moisture content. Water use and demand will be dependent on the degree of precipitation and the frequency of windrow turning. This impact is considered insignificant sinct sufficient water supply capacity is presently available at the landfill's 500 gpm well. Reduction of the amount of materials going towards landfilling is expected to have a small but beneficial impact on the current solid waste practices in the Town. The composting operation is another of a recent series of efforts by the Town to increase the types of materials recycled, and increase public awareness of the need for and the ease with which recycling can be accomplished. This is a preparatory step to the ongoing development of a solid waste management plan currently being,developed. 2085M/2 8-2 l APPENDIX A• D&B Drawing No. 1: Regional and Vicinity Map 2182M T [���p oumsnxa �r I •� _,vnmc[n sir[ �•l� ' r,s"^r ns�r 1i• BROONHAVEN � �11'u lsl nxn ra[u p•r isr e.n � 1 IIII,I IQ S U 11 RIVERHEAO SOUTHAMPTON n•. O x ,/ ( �� ` „ r EAST HAMPTON r 'r -TIAL • r • ..,r n. e,n �h•'\s �u',u \r .n r I u I�11 � ,. F�� I( ,I`' /I VICINITY MAP REGIONAL MAP uTxn.sr•r[ �.eo nno — ———— •no�na'°"o o" APPENDIX A �1027 To."I.oo�x,r[".�. '"T" "`"'""`" REGIONAL AND VICINITY .,,, — '-- -- ...,...... ....... xand TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . MAPS araoeoo 1 -' Aoc �A � � ""'"'"""" YARD WASTE A0 c COMPOSTING OPERATION AS Nono f I� f 4 APPENDIX B D&B Drawing No. 2: Site Plan and Property Boundaries l II � I \ U Ol.i.ok r"44 Guu.erw wiY \ \ \ arsw.Y aaM+ ( / � � _ OF FIIO►OEID // U `� � / i-- ,/ ETAOINO A!!A � I � y,,,,' �\\ U��j/•\•\ \/ �.r.Ester a»..,T.lY.a.11»O..NIrNNr. •rc.irk• \ , _ .\ \\ .+.�•�.l off TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION WINDROWS \ i ATONS FOFi a]I T .DNPoSTI AREA wrL mn ..�anon .S" \ '' I � •.fY.Y...lY j 'i ,\t •rs�'' I ATOMNMA MOD�Tti _ AREA OF PROPOSED \� COMPOSTING OPERATION@ un .... .� n... ...,.,. n^ =ko APPENDIX S fid. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SITE PLAN •-•�» 2 �... YARD WASTE COMPOSTING OPERATION ...Neo Ij CYTCMOMN LAIMI,L E , 414. Y f 1 E � »Trf wifr�r r.1•a•nN w seat w.r Iw•r w�w.�w.n APPENDIX 8 TONIN Of SOUTHOLD ►AOPGRTT SOUNDAMES --- ..•.. dYARD WASTE -- -w "" COMPOSTING OPERATION tM�ta YY TNf�ff T��NMY �� r APPENDIX C Sample Facility Log Sheets n, 2182M a k COMPOST FACILITY MONITORING WORKSHEET FACILITY NAME : DATE : WINDROW PILE COMBUSTIBLE- NUMBER HEIGHT OXYGEN LEVELS GAS TEMPERATURE ODOR TRASH i , r I WINDROW MOIS - NEEDS LAST JCOMBINE NUMBER TURE TURNING TURNED PILES COMMENTS r i Yard Waste Composting Facility Daily Log Sheet Date: Operator: Material Received '.Material Truck Twe # Loads CY/Load Total Y Leaves Subtotal Grass Clippings Subtotal Brush Subtotal Other Subtotal TOTAL Compost Removed Material Volume (CYI Comments Leaf Compost Grass Compost Mulch Other Comments Weather Wind Direction and Speed Odor Water Addition Gallons Turning Piles Other Yard Waste Composting Facility Pile Monitoring Sheet , Date(s) Constructed Pile # Date(s) Removed Material(s) in Windrow Initial Windrow Height Ft:Length Ft Volume C Y Height Ft/Length Ft Final Windrow Volume CY 1 Yard Waste Compost Facility Composting Laboratory Worksheet Sample Name: Sample Type: Date Collected: By: Date Analyzed: By: Lj A. Dry Solids (%TS) ' B. Total Volatile Solids (dry weight_percent) C. p: D. Total Nitrogen - TKN'(dry weight percent) E. Ammonia Nitrogen - NH3 (dry weight percent) F. Total Phosphorous (dry weight percent) G. Potassium (dry weight percent) H: Metals (mg/kg dry sludge): i. Cd ii. Cu iii. Cr iv. Hg v. Ni vi. Pb vii: Zn l � i 1 t i i APPENDIX D SEQRA Negative Declaration and EAF 2182M SEQRA NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFICANCE i Lead Agency: Town of Southold Project: #1027 Address: Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 1197.1 Date: APR _ 1990 n This notice is issued pursuant to Part 617 of the implementing regulations pertaining to Article 8 (State Environmental Quality Review) of the Environmental Conservation Law. The Town of Southold, as Lead Agency, has determined that the proposed action described below is not expected to have a significant effect on the environment. Title of Action: Small Scale Yard Waste Composting Operations SEQR Status: Unlisted Description of Action: The Town of Southold proposes to initiate a small scale yard waste composting operation for less than 3,000 cubic yards of leaves. The proposed area to be used for composting operations is an approximate 2.5 acre portion of the Town's existing 60.9 acre solid'waste facilities (recycling drop-off bins- and landfill). The proposed action is an expansion of the Town's recycling effort,and is designed to reduce the amount of solid waste that is landfilled. 2180M r IrF 1 This size yard waste composting operation is exempt from regulation as contained in 6 NYCRR Part 360-5.1 (b)(1). However, the design of the operations and area layout comply with the appropriate sections of 6 NYCRR Part 360-5.4, Part 360-5.5, and Part 360-1.9. An engineering report has been prepared to document the proposed operation plans. Location: Middle Road (CR 48), Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York Reasons Supporting this Determination: Development of a small scale yard waste composting operation is an Unlisted'Action that is not expected to have a significant effect on the environment. Possible beneficial impacts include increased recycling levels, reduced volume of material that is landfilled and a potentially marketable end product that can be reused. Proper operations, in accordance with Part 360 regulations, are expected to mitigate any adverse impacts that may result from the proposed action. For Further Information: Contact Person: Scott L. Harris Town of Southold Supervisor Town Hall 53095 Main Road Southold, NY 11971 (516) 765-1800 Cies of this Notice Sent to this Notice Sent to Commissioner-Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York, 12233-0001 Region I Office Department of Environmental Conservation 2180M 1 4-16-2 871—'c 617.21 S ECIR Appendix A State.,Environmental Duality Review FULL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM Purpose: The rull E-�F is designed to help applicants and agencies determine, in an orderly manner, whether a project or action may be s gniricant The question or whether an action may be significant is not always easy to answer Frequent- Iv there are aspects of a project that are subjective or unmeasureable It is also understood that those who determine signiricance may have little or no rormal knowledge of the environment or may be technically expert in environmental analysis In addition many who have knowledge in one particular area may not be aware or the broader concerns arfecting the question or sjgniricance The rull EAF is intended to provide a method whereby applicants and agencies can be assured that the determination ? process has been orderly. comprehensive in nature, yet flexible to allow introduction of information to fit a project or action Full EAF Components: The full EAF is comprised of three parts. Part 1: Provides objective data and information about a given project and its site. By identifying bask project data. it assists a reviewer in the analysis that takes place in Parts 2 and 3 Part 2: Focuses on identifying the range of possible impacts that may occur from a project or action It provides guidance as to whether an impact is likely to be considered small to moderate or whether it is a potentially- large impact. The form also identifies whether an impact can be mitigated or reduced. Part 3: If any impact in Part 2 is identified as potential lylarge, then Part 3 is used to evaluate whether or not the impact is actually important. , I i � DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE—Type 1 and Unlisted Actions Identify the Portions of EAF completed for this project: 3 Part 1 ® Part 2 Part 3 Upon review of the information recorded on this EAF(Parts 1 and 2 and 3 if appropriate). and any other supporting inrormatjon, and considering both the magitude and importance of each impact,, it is reasonably determined bv-the j lead agency that: I _ 3 A The project will not result in any laige and important impact(s) and, therefore, ,s one which will not have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a negative declaration will be prepared. B Although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect for this Unlisted Action because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 have been required, therefore a CONDITIONED negative declaration will be prepared.* 7 C. The project may result in one or more large and important impacts that may have a significant impact on the environment, therefore a positive declaration will be prepared. A Conditioned Negative Declaration is only valid for Unlisted Actions Small Scale Town Yard Waste CompoG ingOoerations of less than 1,nnn r•nhir �zarrlc Name of Action Town of Southold Name of Lead Agency Scott L. Harris Supervisor :Zr Type Nam of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Title of Responsible Officer Signature of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency Signature o parer(If different from responsible officer) 40 Date - 1 , PART 1 —PROJECT INFORMATION Prepared by Project Sponsor NOTICE This document Is designed to assist In determining whether the action proposed may have a signiricant erre,-. on the environment Please complete the entire form, Parts A through E Answers to these questions will be considereo as part or the application for approval and may be subject to further verification and public review Provide any additior nrormation you believe will be needed to complete Parts 2 and 3 It Is expected that completion of the full EAF'wlll be dependent on Information currently available and will not involve new studies, research or Investigation If inrormation requiring such additional work Is unavailable so Indicate and spec each Instance NAME OF ACTION Small Scale Town Yard Was LOCATION OF ACTION iinaud•Strut Adam& Municipality and County) Town owned property, Middle Road, Southold, Suffolk County BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME OF APPLICANTISPONSOR I Town of Southold ( 5161 765-1800 AOORESS 53095 `rain Road W STATE ZIP CODE CITYIPO NY 12971 Southold/P.O. Box 1179 { 1 - BUSINESS TELEPHONE NAME OF OWNER(If different) AOORESS STATE ZIP COOE CITYIPO I DESCRIPTION OF ACTION - Development of a small scale Town yard waste composting operation for less than 3,000 cubic yards of leaves in an area on Town owned property to the east of- the intersection of Middle Road (CR 48) and Cox Lane, in an existing area of the Town owned landfill. i Please Complete Each Question—Indicate N. G. if not applicable A. Site Description Physical setting of overall project, both developed and undeveloped areas. 1 Present land use: OUrban - Olndustrial GCommercial ^Residential (suburban) 7–Rural (non-rarml CForest ❑Agriculture $]Other Solid Waste Facilities _ 2. Total acreage of project area: approx 2-S acres. APPROXIMATE ACREAGE PRESENTLY AFTER COMPLETION acres acre Meadow or Brushland (Non-agricultural) acres acre Forested acres acres Agricultural (Includes orchards, cropland, pasture, etc ) Wetland (Freshwater or tidal as per Articles 24, 25 of ECL) acres acre acres acre Water Surface Area acres acres Unvegetated (Rock, earth or fill) acres acre Roads, buildings and other paved surfaces 60.9 Other (Indicate type) Town owned landfill 60.9 acres acre 3 What Is predominant soil type(s) on project site? Sand and gravel a. Soil drainage: IRWeil drained 1QO % of site OModerately well drained 96 of site CPoor)y drained - % of site b. If any agricultural land Is involved, how many acres of soil are classified within soil group 1 through 4 of the NY' Land Classification System? acres. (See 1 NYCRR 370). 4. Are there bedrock outcroppings on project site? OYes MNo a. What Is depth to bedrock? 500 to 1000 (in feet) 2 5 1 t 3 Approximate percentage or proposed project iite with slopes o-iu°'o 100 °'1 _10-1 36" I _13% or greater 'o 6 Is prosect substantially contiguous to, or contain a building, site., or district. listed on the State or the `at onai �- Registers or Historic Places? =Yes !No _ 7 Is prosect substantially contiguous to a site listed on the Register or National Natural Landmarks? =Yes ,o 8 What is the depth or the water table? app°X 40 Leet) 9 Is site located over a primary, principal, or sole source aquifer? I Y e s _No 10 Do hunting, r shjng or shell fishing opportunities presently exist in the prosect area? _Yes INo , s `J 11 Does prosect site contain any species of plant',or animal life that js identified as threatened or endangered? s =Yes No According to Identify eachs species 12. Are there any unique or unusual land forms on the prosect site? 0 e , cliffs, dunes, other geological tormatjons) =Yes $No Describe a I 13 Is the prosect site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area? Ir ; _ =Yes ZNo If yes, explain 14 Does the present site include scenic views known to be important to the community? _Yes 'ZNO 15 Streams within or contiguous to prosect area. No a Name of Stream and name of River to which it is tributary No I 16 Lakes, ponds, wetland areas within or contiguous to prosect area: a Name b Size (In acres) 17 Is the site served by existing public utilities? ` ®Yes ONo a) If Yes, does sufficient capacity exist to allow connection? - ZYes ONo �~ b) If Yes, will improvements be'necessary to allow connection? GYes LL3No I 18 Is the site located in an agricultural district certified pursuant to Agriculture and Market's Law, Article 25 AA, Section 303 and 3042 ?_Yes C�No 19 Is the site located in or substantially contiguous to a Critical Environmental Area designated pursuant to Article 8 of"the ECL, and 6 NYCRR 6177 GYes ®No 20 Has the site ever been used for the disposal of solid or hazardous wastes? x,Yes L_ The 60.9 acre property contains the "Town's solid waste management and disposal facilit B. Project Description 1 Physical dimensions and scale of prosect (fill in dimensions-as appropriate) a Total contiguous acreage owned or controlled by prosect sponsor 60.9 acres. b Prosect acreage to be developed: 2.5' acres initially; N/A acres ultimately c Prosect acreage to remain undeveloped N/A acres. d Length of project, in miles: N/A (If Iappropriate) e If the prosect is an expansion, indicate percent of expansion proposed N/A o� f Number of off-street parking spaces existing 0 proposed 0 g Maximum vehicular trips generated per hour N/A (upon completion of prosect)? Vehicle traffic h. If residential Number and type,of housing units: enters landfill One Family Two Family Multiple Family Condominium Initially N/A -N/A N/A N/A Ultimately NA NA NA N/A , i Dimensions (in Leet) of largest proposed structure 6 height: 16 width; 225 length I Linear feet,of frontage along a public thoroughfare prosect will occupy is? N/A ft 3 J 2 How much natural material ' e •ock, earth, etc ) will be removed from the site? one - tons cuo c ;ards 3 Will disturbed areas be recta meds =Yes ::No NiA Minimal Grading a It res. ror what intend ._ purpose is the site being reclaimed? b Will topsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? Yes .No c WWII upper subsoil be stockpiled for reclamation? • CYes ENO 4 How many acres,of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers) will be removed from site? 2.5 acres S ' 5 Will any mature forest (over 100 years old) or other locally-important vegetation be removed by this project? =Yes 2'No 6. If single phase project Anticipated period of construction _N/A months, (including demolition) 7 If multi-phased N/A a Total number of phases anticipated (number) b Anticipated date of commencement phase 1 month year,'(including demolition) c Approximate completion date of final phase month year d Is phase 1 functionally dependent on subsequent phases? CYes CNo 8 Will blasting occur during construction? CYes tNo 9 Number of jobs generated: during construction 0 after project is complete 0 n 10 Number of jobs eliminated by this project 0 11 Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? CYes C3No If yes, explain 12. Is surface liquid waste disposal involved? CYes ONo a. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) and amount b Name of water body into which effluent will be discharged 13 Is subsurface liquid waste disposal involvedi' CYes, $No Type 14 Will surface area of an existing water body increase or decrease by proposal? CYes - nNo txplain ' 15 Is project or any portion of project located in a 100 year flood ,plain? CYes CNo 16. Will the project generate solid waste? ElYes CNo Compost for reuse. a If yes, what is the amount per month a tons b If yes, will an existing solid waste facility be used?, ®Yes CNo Entrance, Inspection, Staging c. If yes, give name Town of- Southold Landfill location Middle Road, So hold d Will any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into-a sanitary landfill? XYes `,No e If Yes, explain End product of compostingopernt•;nn is roc3rQ1-A marari ni to bz markP__c 17 Will the project involve the disposal of solid waste? QYes C1 No a If yes, what is the anticipated rate of disposal? N/A _ tons/month. b If yes, what is the anticipated site life? ) - U/A - years. 18 Will project use herbicides or pesticides? CYes ENo 19 Will project routinely produce odors (more than one hour per day)? CYes J'No 20 Will project produce operating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels? CYes No 21 Will project result in an increase in energy use? CYes CNo If yes , indicate type(s) Fuel for equipment.- 22. quipment.- 22. If water supply is from wells, indicate pumping capacity 500 gallons/minute. E 23 -Total anticipated water usage per day N/A gallons/day. Applied as needed to windrows. 24 Does project involve Local, State or Federal funding? ,CYes [No If Yes,'explain 4 / I I 25 Approvals Required. 5ubmlttal Type Date i City. Town, Village Board CYes =No Town Board City. Town, Village Planning Board -Yes =No City. Town Zoning Board =Yes =No City, County Health Department _Yes -No Other Local Agencies -Yes _No Other Regional Agencies 7-Yes =No State Agencies 'Yes ::No Written Approval Federal Agencies Yes .No I C. Zoning and Planning Information 1 Does proposed action Involve a planning or zoning decision? -Yes No If Yes, Indicate decision required: =zoning amendment Czoning variance - Especial use permit 7subdivision =site plan new,revision of master plan Cresource management plan Cother "A" Residential-Agricultural, & "C-1" General Indust- "- 2 What Is the zoning classification(s)of the situ g - ---- } 3 What Is the maximum potential development of the site If developed as permitted by the present zoning? N/A 4 What Is the proposed zoning of the site? "A" Residential-Agricultural, & "C-1 " Gpnprni Industry ` 5 What is the maximum potential development of the site If developed as permitted by the proposed zoning? N/A 6 Is the proposed action consistent with the recommended uses In adopted local land use plans? CYes .No 7 What are the predominant land use(s) and zoning classifications within a '/, mile radius of proposed,action? Landfill/Solid Waste Facilities 8 Is the proposed action compatible with adjoiningtsurrounding land uses within a '/ mile? 2Yes CN 9 If the proposed action Is the subdivision of land, how many lots are proposed? N/A a What Is the minimum lot size proposed? 10 WIII proposed action require any authorization(s) for the formation of sewer or water districts? -Yes CNo 11 WIII the proposed action create a demand for any community provided services (recreation; education, police. fire protection)? CYes CNo a. If yes, is existing capacity sufficient to handle projected demand? CYes CNo II 12 WIII the proposed action result in the generation of traffic significantly above present levels? `Yes ZNo i a. If yes, Is the existing road network adequate to handle the additional traffic? CYes '—No D. Informational Details Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. If there are or may be any adverse Impacts associated with your proposal, please discuss such Impacts and the measures which you propose to mitigate or i avoid them E. Verification I certify that the Information provided above Is true to the best of my knowledge. AppltcantlSponsor Name L. Harris Date q� Signature Title Supervisor If the action is in the Coastal Area, and you are a state agency, complete the Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment. 4 Part 2—PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE Responsibility of Lead Agency General Information (Read Carefully) • In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by,the question Have my responses and determinations been . reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst • Identifying that an impact will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean, that it is also necessarily significant. Any large impact must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance Identifying an impact in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further • The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of impacts and wherever possible the threshold of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally applicable throughout the State and for most situations But. ror any specific project or site other examples and/or lower thresholds may be appropriate for a Potential Large Impact response, thus requiring evaluation in Part 3 • The_impacts of each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary Therefore, the examples are illustrative and have been offered as guidance They do not constitute an exhaustive list of impacts and thresholds to answer each question • The number of examples per question does not indicate the importance of each question • In identifying impacts, consider long term, short term and cumlatrve effects. Instructions (Read carefully) a Answer each of the 19 questions in PART 2 Answer Yes if there will be any impact. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. , c If answering Yes to a question then check the appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the potential size of the impact If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column 1 , d. If reviewer has doubt about size of the impact then consider the impact as potentially large and proceed to PART 3 e. If a potentially large impact checked in column 2 can be mitigated by change(s) in the project to a small to moderate impact, also check the Yes box in column 3. A No response indicates that such a reduction is not possible This must be explained in Part 3 1 2 3 G Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By IMPACT ON LAND Impact Impact Project Change 1 WWII the proposed action result in a physical change to the project site? ONO AYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Any construction on slopes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise per 100 ❑ ❑ CYes CNo foot of length), or where the general slopes in the project area exceed I 1096. • Construction on land where the depth to the water table is less than ❑ ❑ C:-Yes CNo 3 feet. • Construction of paved parking area for 1,000 or more vehicles. L7 ❑ C:-Yes Construction • Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or generally within Cl Cl C:Yes No 3 feet of existing ground surface. • Construction that will continue for more than 1 year or involve more Cl Cl ❑Yes CNo I than one phase or stage. • Excavation for mining purposes that would remove more than 1,000 ❑ ❑ 7—Yes No i tons of natural material (i e., rock or soil) per year. • Construction or expansion of a sanitary landfill. ❑ ❑ CYes CNo • Construction in a designated floodway. ❑ ❑ CYes =No • Other impacts Removal of on—site vegetation ® Eyes L'—No 2 Will there be an effect t: ...,y un',que or unusual land forms found on I the site?0 e., cliffs, dunes, geological formations, etc.)CSNO OYES • Specific land forms ❑ ❑ CYes CN I r 6 1 2 3 IMPACT ON WATER Moderate to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By 3 Will proposed action atfect any water body designated as protected? Impact Impact Project Change (Under Articles 15, 24. 25 of the Environmental Conservation Law. ECL) ANO =YES Examples that would apply to column 2 T_ • Developable area of site contains a protected water body Yes No • Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from channel of a - - -Yes _vo protected stream • Extension of utility distribution facilities through a protected water body _ - _Yes -No • Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland ❑ -Yes -No • Other impacts. - -Yes _No • S 4 Will proposed action affect any non-protected-existing or new body of water? —NO `YES Examples' that would apply to column 2 • A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water ❑ - ::Yes -No or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease • Construction of a body of water that exceeds 10 acres of surface area ❑ ❑ Yes _No • Other impacts- ❑ ❑ CYes -No 5 . Will Proposed Action affect surface or groundwater quality or quantity? FE NO ZYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action will require a discharge permit. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes -No • Proposed Action requires use of a source of water that does not ❑ ❑ -Yes No have approval to serve proposed (project) action. • Proposed Action requires water supply from wells with greater-than 45 ❑ ❑ -Yes _No gallons per minute pumping capacity • Construction or operation causing any contamination of a'water ❑ -Yes _No supply system • Proposed Action will adverselv affect groundwater Cl -Yes -No • Liquid effluent will be conveved off the site to facilities which presently ❑ `1 -Yes _No., do not exist or have inadequate capacity. • Proposed Action would use water in excess of 20,000 gallons per ❑ -, -Yes NO day • Proposed Action will likely cause siltation or other discharge into an ❑ ❑ -Yes -No existing body of water to the extent that there will be an obvious visual contrast to natural conditions. _ • Proposed Action will require the storage of petroleum or chemical ❑ C2 7—Yes _tio products greater than 1,100 gallons • Proposed Action will allow residential uses in areas without water ❑ ❑ ❑Yes -No and/or sewer services. • Proposed Action locates commercial and/or industrial uses which may ❑ ❑ Yes -No require new or expansion of existing waste treatment and/or storage facilities. _ • Other impacts: Cl ❑ ❑Yes —No 6 Will proposed action alter drainage flow or patterns, or surface water runoff? ?ANO =YES Examples that would apply to column 2 _ • Proposed Action would change flood water flows ❑ ❑ ZYes —No 7 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change i • Proposed Action may cause substantial erosion ❑ Cl 7—Yes _No • Proposed Action is incompatible with existing drainage patterns ❑ ❑ ti ❑Yes "No • Proposed Acton will allow development in a designated flo_odway ❑ ❑ ❑Yes r'No • Other impacts ❑ ❑ "Yes i'—No IMPACT ON AIR ° 7 WWII proposed action affect air quality? ANO OYES Examples that would apply to column'2 • Proposed Action will induce 1.000 or more vehicle trips in any given ❑ ❑ "Yes ❑No hour • Proposed Action will result in the incineration of, more than 1 ton of Cl ❑ CYes "No I refuse per hour. • Emission rate of total contaminants will exceed 5 lbs. per hour or a ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No heat source-producing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the.amount of land commuted ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No I to industrial use. • Proposed action will allow an increase in the density of industrial ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No I development within existing industrial areas. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No I IMPACT ON PLANTS AND ANIMALS 8 Will Proposed Action affect any threatened or endangered species? I 99NO ❑YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Reduction of one or more species listed on the New York or Federal ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ❑No list, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. I, • Removal of any portion of a critical or significant wildlife habitat. ❑ Cl ❑Yes C1 No • Application of pesticide or herbicide more than twice a year, other ❑ ❑ []Yes _C1 No I than for agricultural purposes. • Other impacts: ❑ ❑ ❑Yes C1 No 9 Will Proposed Action substantially affect non-threatened or I non-endangeted species? ANO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 . . 1 I • Proposed Action would substantially interfere with any resident or ❑ ❑ Cf-Yes Cl No migratory fish, shellfish.or wildlife species_. • Proposed Action requires the removal of, more than 10 acres ❑ ❑ C3 Yes 0 N of mature forest (over 100 years of age) or other locally important vegetation IMPACT ON AGRICULTURAL LAND RESOURCES 10 WWII the Proposed Action affect agricultural land resources? NNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The proposed action would sever, cross or limit access to agricultural ❑ C3 ❑Yes ❑No land (includes cropland, hayfields, pasture, vineyard, orchard, etc.) • 8 1 2 3 Small to Potential Can Impact Be Moderate Large Mitigated By Impact Impact Project Change • Construction activity would excavate or compact the soil profile or -7 ❑ ❑Yes .No agricultural land • The proposed action would irreversibly convert more than 10 acres ❑ ❑Yes _No of agricultural land or. if located in an Agricultutal District, more than 2 5 acres of agricultural land • The proposed action would disrupt or prevent installation of agricultural ❑ 71 ❑Yes ❑No land management systems (e g., subsurface drain lines, outlet ditches, strip cropping), or create a need for such measures (e g cause a farm rield to dram poorly due to increased runoff) • Other impacts ❑ Yes _No 'IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES 11 WWII proposed action affect aesthetic resources? 2M ❑YES (If necessary, use the Visual EAF Addendum in Section 617 21, Appendix 8 ) Examples that would apply to column 2 . • Proposed land uses, or project components obviously different from ❑ Cl ❑Yes No or in sharp contrast to current surrounding land use patterns, whether man-made or natural. • Proposed land uses, or project components visible to users of Cl Cl ❑Yes No aesthetic resources which will eliminate or significantly reduce their enjoyment of the aesthetic qualities of that resource. • Project components that will result in the elimination or significant ❑ ❑ _Yes L,No C screening of scenic views known to be important to the area. • Other impacts. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes ::No IMPACT ON HISTORIC AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES 12 Will Proposed Action impact any site or structure of historic, pre- historic or paleontological importance? NNO OYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action occurring wholly or partially within or substantially Cl ❑ ❑Yes L'_No contiguous to any facility or site listed on the State or National Register of historic places. • Any impact to an archaeological site or fossil bed located within the Cl ❑ _Ye, =tio project site. • Proposed Action will occur in an area designated as sensitive for Cl ❑ ❑Yes ❑,No archaeological sites on the NYS Site Inventory. • Other impacts. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes No IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION 13 Will Proposed Action affect the quantity or quality of existing or future open spaces or recreational opportunities? -Examples that would apply to column 2 &NO OYES • The permanent foreclosure of a future recreational opportunity. Cl ❑ ❑Yes 77No A major reduction of an open space important to the community. ❑ ❑ C3 Yes 1ENo • Other impacts ❑ ❑ ❑Yes No 9 1 1 2 3 IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION Small to Potential Can Impact Be 14 Will there be an effect to existing transportation systems? Moderate Large Mitigated By ANO YES Impact Impact Project Change Examples that would apply to column 2 • Alteration of present patterns of movement of people and/or goods ❑ ❑ ❑Yes 7N0 • Proposed Action will result in major traffic problems. ❑ ❑ ❑Yes CNo • Other impacts CYes No IMPACT ON ENERGY 15 Will proposed action affect the community's sources of fuel or energy supply? NO ZYES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed-Action will cause a greater than 5% increase in the use of Cl :1 Yes No any form of energy in the municipality. • Proposed Action will require the creation or extension of an energy Cl ❑ ❑Yes '❑No I transmission or supply system to serve more than 50 single or two family residences or to serve a major commercial or industrial use. • ❑ 11 C2 Yes L�No Other impacts. I NOISE AND ODOR IMPACTS 16 Will there be objectionable odors, noise, or vibration as a result of the Proposed Action? (JNO OYES I Examples that would apply to column 2 • Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other sensitive Cl C3CYes E.No facility • Odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Cl C3 ❑Yes -No I • Proposed Action will produce operating noise exceeding the local Cl Cl ❑Yes No ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. • Proposed Action will remove natural barriers that would act as a Cl C 7_1 Yes C:No I noise screen • Other impacts: ❑ C] ❑Yes uNo IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH 17 WiII,Proposed Action affect public health and safety? I �1N0 I]YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • Proposed Action may cause a risk of explosion or release of hazardous ❑ Cl ❑Yes C2 No substances(i e. oil, pesticides,chemicals, radiation, etc.)in the event of accident or upset conditions, or there may be a chronic low level discharge or emission. • Proposed Action may result in the burial of "hazardous wastes" in any ❑ Cl ❑Yes ❑Nc form (i a toxic, poisonous, highly reActrve, radioactive, irritating, infectious, etc ) •- Storage facilities for one million or more gallons of liquified natural ❑ C3 ❑Yes ❑No I gas or other flammable-liquids. • Proposed action may result in the excavation or other disturbance 13 ❑ ❑Yes C]NG within 2,000 feet of a site used for the disposal of solid or hazardous waste Cl ❑Yes - CNc • Other impacts: 10 1 ' 2 3 IMPACT ON GROWTH AND CHARACTER Small to Potentiai Can Impact Be - OF COMMUNITY OR NEIGHBORHOOD Moderate Large Mitigated By 18 WWII proposed action affect the character of the existing community? Impact Impact Project Change r XNO .:YES Examples that would apply to column 2 • The permanent population of the city, town or village in which the ❑ ❑ —Yes .No project is located is likely to grow by more than 5% • The municipal budget for capital expenditures or operating services -"Yes _'No will increase by more than 5% per year as a result of this project • Proposed action will conflict with officially adopted plans or goals ❑ ❑ —Yes No • Proposed action will cause a change in the density of land use ❑ ❑ _:Yes .`10 • Proposed Action will replace or eliminate existing facilities, structures ❑ -Yes 7—No or areas of historic importance to the community • Development will create a demand for additional community services ❑ —Yes( _No (e g. schools, police and fire, etc.) • Proposed Action will set an important precedent for future projects ❑ ❑ L.Yes _,No • Proposed Action will create or eliminate employment. ❑ Cl 7—Yes —No • Other impacts: Cl Cl ❑Yes =No 19 Is there, or is there likely to be, public controversy related to potential adverse environmental impacts? NNO OYES If Any Action In Part 2 Is Identified as a Potential Large Impact or - f If You Cannot Determine the Magnitude of Impact, Proceed to Part 3 - r I -- Part 3—EVALUATION OF THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACTS` _ Responsibility of Lead Agency NOT APPLICABLE Part 3 must be prepared if one or more impact($) is considered to be potentially largd, even if the impact(s) may be mitigated. -'i Instructions . Discuss the following for each impact identified in Column 2 of Part 2: 1 Briefly describe the impact. 2 Describe(if applicable)how the impact could be mitigated or reduced to a small to moderate impact by project change(s) 3 Based on the information available, decide if it is reasonable to conclude that this impact is important. To answer/the question of importance, consider: • The probability of the impact occurring • The duration.of the impact • Its irreversibility, including permanently lost resources of value • Whether the impact can or will be controlled • The regional consequence of the impact • Its potential divergence from local needs and goals • Whether known objections to the project relate to this impact. ' (Continue on attachments) 11