The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutSludge Managment Infor 1987-1988_ SLUDGE MANAGEMENT _ PLAN- . .. �.._. �.. __a_yZc:-AND - _ �,a�.�-»_.��w..•r.�� r.a.�.P�_.. __ ..�_. . - - .........PART 360 APPLICATION��— "prepared =For - MUNSON FARMS-- _._., -. _. �• RD #1-biUNSON RD= - GROTON , _ NY _13 0 >r CD _- -. ....-.{ ._...;:a�a:a..-.....a.�.__. _ ..,.:Y�.,.. ., _a_... _. - _ e111{11111111 _.,,.--'•,,.._. ..._... .. ..:............ .�.__,_.., ,.. ..,, ___-,.--,.,...,_..,,-.,,.,�_..-. ., -_ _ .. ._._ - .. - - - - - • _ .. .. _ _ -�°ee II, .., ^+•--«�-. - - ..e- �, va - _- �.-�.�a%.__r.^�,..« _ --ter.-� - - r_ 4 A: it • _ - - - ism'' -... _ - - 55 a -' — - - — - - --- — —_— — --- — ----- Prepared By FAGAN ENGINEERS :. 200 WILLIAM ST .- - ELMIRA, NY .14901 w -+ Al I J _..... - _. ... - _ - o - - . AUGUST, 1987 DIVISION OF REGZiGRY AFFA;Rs = = 47-19-2 (4/85) FOR STATE USE ONLY NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION PROJECT NUMBER DATE ECEIYED DIVISION OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE r� -0 9 0 � 5, �'� c APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A DEPARTMENT ACTION DATE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT _ FACILITY ❑ Approved ❑ Disapproved SEE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE j '! �3 sus �-t 1. OWNER'S NAME - ---_- 2. ADDRESS (Street, City, State, Zip Code) - .+�.t. + 3. TELEPHONE NUMBER Munson Farms _ _ �,� iM# Munson nson Rd Groton,_XLY - (60,0 $:38-��43 4. OPERATOR'S NAME -- : _ _ - _ _ - - = 5. ADDRESS (Street, City, State, Zip Code) - -_=-_ = -_ _ . _ 5. TELEPHONE NUMBER - = - Same - -- I 7A. ENGINEER'S NAME 8. ADDRESS (Street, City, State, Zip Code) ..:�©�. 9.. TELEPHONE NUMBER :YDennis 'Ai `'Fagan.,..�- •7B. ENGINEER'S NYS LICENSE NUMBER `10_-TYPE OF PROJECT FACILITY:-[]Sanitary rr•�� _ -❑Cornpostirig ❑T£ansfer -❑Shredding ❑Sating LJSarritarylandfili __ . ___.- _ - -- -_ ❑ Incineration a❑Pyrolysis - Resource Recovery -Energy Recovery- ------- - �� ..•,�--._ ❑Resource Rec Materials - F- ®Other.-:=-s.'L'dgaa:afss3ra.+3 =s z.� 11. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE THE PROJECT INCLUDING THE BASIC PROCESS AND MAJOR COMPONENTS: 8 :abl l l zed dewca tered T sludge will be trucked from Onondaga County:s Hetro ST-D plant to the Munson Farm application sites. S-ludge will be spread Via lime spreaders _ Qmd 'i ncorpora+ad.:.nto the sail within- 24. h4*Lirs of '-appUcatiOn: Ai3pIiCa.tIOU - rates will_ meet _the nitrogen needs of a corn cropstorage during_ -.nclenent rites then progidr�c3 b :concrete -.t sib os.: =- 12. DESCRIBE LOCATION OF FACILITY. (Attach a USGS Topographic Map showing the exact location of the facility) Main :.Farm Site Located F:_5 milse-northeast :__of .:.Ithaca -.and .-1 _�.1e west'Of.�. ;•_r. , : state - Rohe 34,-Towns--of Lansing- & Groton, =Torapkins -CO" Asbury Rd. --Site: Located 2 s 5 -miles -northeast •of - Ithaca and -.1.5 milee vw&st of forth Triphan er . R.d:-�- - Town of-:-:.Lansing,=:'tomg�ins Can ==° - 13. COUNTY IN WHICH FACILITY IS LOCATED. ._• ' _ - 14. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION REGION IN WHICH FACILITY IS LOCATED: TomPkins 15. MUNICIPALITIES SERVED BY FACILITY NO. OF MUNICIPALITIES j Syracuse Metropolitan Area Onondaga i Y 16. Describe briefly how the proposed facility relates to the Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan for the Municipality. Explain any deviation from that Plan. County would like -to reduce _current sludge disposal �:osts..Facility 'will - be operated .in accordance with �"the Nam+ Ford =-State- Regu�.ations 6N=%R Part 360. - - 7. i 17. If facility is other than a sanitary landfill, describe the residues in terms of quantities and types. Also indicate the methods and locations of residue disposal or, if recyclable, indicate markets. MaXimum application on 314.3 spreadable acres is 7711 wet tons of sludge (18.18p solids). This is equivalent to 43 days of production at the Onondaga Co. Metro STP based on a daily generation rate of 180 TPD. j 18. IF FACILITY IS A SANITARY LANDFILL, PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: NA a. Total useable area- acre b. Distance to nearest surface water feet c. Depth to nearest groundwater feet d. Depth to nearest rock: feet e. Distance to nearest airport miles f. Expected life of sit-- years = g. !s site on a flood pfaini' ❑Yes year flood ❑ No = h. Predominant type of soil on site - (Use Unified Soil Classification System) i - 19. ANTICIPATED CONSTRUCTION STARTING AND COMPLETION DATES 20. ESTIMATED POPULATION SERVED tii - From NA To Current Design i 21. ESTIMATED COST _ _ _ 22. ESTIMATED DAILY TONNAGES OF SOLID WASTE Initial NA Annual �- - -- Current, d - - ' Design " 23. OPERATING HOURS PER DAY 24. Are attached plans and specifications in substantial conformance with _ 12 "Solid Waste Management Facilities Guidelines" 0 Yes ❑ No 25. CERTIFICATION hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that information provided on this form and attached statements and exhibits is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. False statements made herein are punishable- A a`Class jmisdeme or pursuant to S�ec/t 210.45 of the Penal Law. Date Signature and Title REGIONAL OFFICE COPY; 47-19-4 (4/85) FOR STATE USE ONLY AM �t NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION PROJECT NUMBER DATE ECEIVEJD_ DIVISION OF SOLID AND HAZARDOUS WASTE APPLICATION FOR APPROVAL TO OPERATE A DEPARTMENT ACTION DATE SOLI® WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY ❑ Approved ❑ Disapproved t SEE APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE SIDE 1. OWNER'S NAME 2. ADDRESS (Include street, city, state, zip code) 13073 3. TELEPHONE NUMBER Munson Farms RD#i Munson Rd Groton. NY 607) 8-a -�24:3 4. OPERATOR'S NAME 5. ADDRESS (Include street, city, state, zip code) - 6. TELEPHONE NUMBER - 7. ENGINEER'S NAME _ - _ - , 8. ADDRESS (Include street, city, state, zip code) _JAC101 9. TELEPHONE NUMBER - Dennis Fagan 200 William St Elmira. NY 607) 234=i635 10. ON -SITE SUPERVISOR 11. ADDRESS (Include street, city, state, zip code) 12. TELEPHONE NUMBER Phillip A;lunso„ Jr. as 3 am(S o 13. HAS THE INDIVIDUAL NAMED IN ITEM 10 ATTENDED A DEPARTMENT SPONSORED OR APPROVED TRAINING COURSE? ❑ Yes No If yes, give the Date, Course Title and Location: 14. PROJECT/FACILITY NAME 15. COUNTY IN WHICH FACILITY IS LOCATED 16. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION REGION Munson Farm Landsnreadinlg Site Tompkins 7 17. TYPE OF PROJECT FACILITY: ❑ Composting ❑ Transfer ❑ Shredding ❑ Baling ❑ Sanitary Landfill ❑ Incineration - ❑ Pyrolysis ❑ Resource Recovery —Energy ❑ Resource Recovery —Materials Other. Sludg? LandspreadlIIg �teS 18. HAS THIS DEPARTMENT EVER APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR ENGINEERING REPORTS FOR THIS FACILITY ❑ Yes No If yes, give date: 19. LIST WASTES NOT ACCEPTED Only wastes to be accepted will the Metro STP meeting Part 3630 be dewatered €1ondaga Co. sludge.from sludge quality requirements. � C 20. BRIEFLY DESCRIBE OPERATION Stabilized dewatered sludge from the Onondaga County Metro STP will be trucked to the Munson Farm sludge landspreading sites. The dewatered sludge will be applied to the agricultural fields utilizing lime spreaders. Application rates are based on supplying 140 lbs per acre of available nitrogen for a corn crop. The estimated available nitrogen froze the sludge analyses is 31.41 �bs per dry ton assuming 50; ammonia nttrogen loss with surface application. This results in an application rate of 4.46 dry tons/acre or 24.5 wet tons/acre. Sludge will be incorporated into the soil within 24 hours of application. A total of 314.3 acres of spreadable land is included in this application. Corn will be grown for grain for animal feed. All operations will be conducted in accordance with Part 360 regulations. During inclement weather periods, sludge will be stored in two 40' x i001 x 101 deep concreLe Pit silos. A b1a.ck plastic cover will be 1;0 keep sludges dry and minimize odor potential. Lime will be mixed with stored sludge as needed to control odors. 21. IF FACILITY IS A SANITARY LANDFILL, PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: s a. Total useable area: (Acres) b. Distance to nearest off -site, downgradienntt, c. Number of groundwater monitoring wells I - Initially Currently water supply well Feet Upgradien* Downgradienr 22. INDICATE WHICH ATTACHMENTS. IF ANY, ARE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION: Soil & ER Form 47-19-2 ❑ Operations Plan & Report 5d USGS Topographic Map ❑ Record Forms Sludge ❑ Construction Certificate ElBoring Logs ❑ Water Sample Analysis ElNone Ek Other: Ancalvses 23. CERTIFICATION: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that information provided on this form and attached statements and exhibits is true to the best of my knowledge and belief. False statements made herein are punishable.-assa Class�A misdemeanor pursuant to Setlon 210.45 of the Penal Law. Date GSignature and Title REGIONAL OFFICE MUNSON FARMS SLUDGE LANDSPREADING SITE MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION Munson Farms currently has some 1000 acres of agricultural land in production. The main farm is located in the northeast corner of the Town of Lansing and the northwest corner of the Town of Groton approximately one mile west of State Route 34. The Asbury Road site is located in the Town of Lansing approximately 4 miles due south of the main farm site. In•order to enhance farm revenue and reduce inorganic fertilizer costs, Munson Farms proposes to take a small portion (approximately 43 days production capacity) of the stabilized, dewatered sludge produced at the Onondaga County metro plant for agricultural utilization on the two farm sites. It is estimated that a net spreadable area of 314.3 acres would be available for sludge landspreading based on the following setback criteria found in DEC's sludge landspreading guidelines: Landspreadinz Constraint Horizontal Separation Distance (ft Property Line 50 Residence* or Place of Business 500 Potable Water Well or Supply 200 Surface Water Body 200 Drainage Swale 25 *Landowner's or operator's residence is excluded. There has been no previous sludge or septage landspreading conducted on these fields. The majority of the fields are flat with slopes typically in the 0-4% range. The maximum sloped field is 8%. QUANTITY OF SLUDGE Onondaga County generates approximately 180 wet tons per day of stabilized sludge that has been dewatered to a solids content of -1- PAGAN ENGINEERS • Environmental Consultants 200 William St.. Suite 211 . Elmira, New York 14901 . (607) 734-2165 August 27, 1987 Permit Administrator Division of Regulatory Affairs NYSDEC - Region 7 7841 Henry Clay Boulevard Liverpool, NY 13088 RE: Part 360 Sludge Landspreading Permit Application - Munson Farms Lansing (T), Groton (T), Tomkins Co. Dear Sir or Madam: On behalf of Munson Farms enclosed please find a Part 360 sludge landspreading permit application submitted in triplicate for the above referenced project. This application has been prepared in accordance with discussions with Mr. Brian Rogers of the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste. Based on my experience with similar Part 360 sludge landspreading applications, I believe this submittal is complete. However should I have overlooked something or if you have any questions regarding this submittal, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you in advance for your prompt completeness determination of this submittal. Sincerely, FAGAN ENGINEERS Dennis A. Fagan, P.E. cc: Mr. Phil rlunson , Jr. DAF/tlf PAGAN ENGINEERS • Environmental Consultants 200 William St . Suite 211 . Elmira. New York 14901 . (607) 734-2165 September 23, 1987 Ms. Joanne L. March Sr. Environmental Analyst Division of Regulatory Affairs NYSDEC - Region 7 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard Liverpool, NY 13088 RE: Munson Farms Part 360 Sludge Landspreading Application Lansing (T), Groton (T), Tompkins Co. UPA No. 70-87-0155 Dear Ms. March: This letter is in response to your September 21, 1987 letter. The dewatered sludge will be loaded into two lime spreaders each with a 14 foot long box (64' Dodge & '67 White). The spreaders will surface apply the sludge to the landspreading fields just as lime is currently applied to the farmland. Once spread on the fields, the sludge will be incorporated into the plow layer via a tractor and either tillage plows, plow discs or chisel plows. All these incorporation methods are the same as current agricultural operations. The sludge is simply being utilized as a substitute for inorganic fertilizer. Hence there appears to be no potential impact to cultural resources beyond what has occured with past and present agricultural practices. In accordance with your request, I will contact Mr. Cinquino in Albany to initiate a file search to determine if any known cultural resources exist on the Asbury site. Sincerely, FAGAN ENGINEERS S;4wl� 71� Dennis A. Fagan, P.E. cc: Mr. Phil Munson, Jr. DAF/tlf r fit The Sludge Crisis: Sem0 0 i-Solid, Semi -Solved Shrinking landfill capacity and growing regulatory restrictions are leaving municipalities in New York and around the country with alarmingly few sludge disposal options. By RICHARD J. HAMMOND PHOTO COURTESY OF DEC Landspreading of sludge by injection When sewage treatment first be- came a practice for many New York State communities in the 1930s, sludge disposal was not considered a major problem. Most treatment plants used primary settling, anaerobic digestion, and sludge drying or sand beds. Munici- palities in turn used the stabilized dry sludge as a soil conditioner for public grounds, gave it away to homeowners, or put it in a landfill. There was little concern about the quality of the sludge. Even as late as the 1970s, the princi- pal concerns for sewage sludge were filth, nuisance, odors and surface run- off contamination, and regulatory con- trol responsibility was left to the local government. It was during this same period, how- ever, that some of the medium and larger sized communities became aware of the potential for groundwater con- tamination and plant uptake of heavy . metals when sewage sludge was spread over the land. Responding to this concern, the state Department of Environmental Conser- vation (DEC) established a task force to evaluate the need for a sludge manage- ment program. The recommendations of the task force resulted in some major advances in the way sewage sludge was disposed of in New York State. Sewage sludge, by definition, is a solid waste and, as a result of the task force recommendations, is now regu- lated by the DEC's Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste. Sewage sludge is the accumulation of solid and semi- solid waste generated from municipal or private wastewater treatment plants. This by-product is 93 to 99 percent wa- ter and also contains solids and dis- solved substances that were present in the raw sewage and removed by the wastewater treatment processes. The concern about environmental im- pact has been coupled in recent years with a concern about the sheer quantity of sludge. The amount of municipal sewage sludge generated increases an- nually as wastewater treatment plants service a larger percentage of New York State's population and become more ef- 6 CLEARWATERS Fall '87 The 500 municipal sewage treatment plants in New York State generate more than 1,000 dry tons of sewage sludge every day. ficient in removing solids from the was- tewater. When the task force made its recom- mendations in 1979, it prompted many positive changes, including: • Completion of an inventory of munic- ipal sludge management practices in New York State. • A complete review of the existing regulations governing the use and dis- posal of sewage sludge,with major re- visions effective May 1981. • Development of guidelines for land application of sewage sludge that were incorporated into comprehen- sive solid waste management facility guidelines. • Consideration of sludge management and disposal in wastewater facility planning and development of local in- dustrial pretreatment programs. • Coordination of sludge management activities with other state programs, education and research programs, and industrial and private activities. • Initiation of a comprehensive sam- pling and analysis program to charac- terize the quality of wastewater treat- ment sludges generated in New York State. • Creation of a DEC Sludge Manage- ment Program designed to: provide maximum protection of public health and the environment; ensure effective and efficient treatment and disposal of sludge; maximize the resource value of sludges; and provide techni- cal assistance and guidance to indus- tries and municipalities. There have been two significant gov- ernmental actions since 1981 which have had a considerable impact on the way several municipalities dispose of wastewater treatment plant sludges. In May 1981, the DEC and the state Department of Agriculture and Markets imposed a landspreading moratorium. This action placed a two-year suspen- sion on new landspreading facilities on certain soil classes. The moratorium provided time to study the environmen- tal impacts of applying municipal sludge on high quality farmlands. Ter- minated in August 1983, the morato- rium provided valuable information pertaining to land application of sew- age sludge, and allowed for the creation of guidelines to complement land - spreading regulations intended to mini- mize or prevent adverse environmental impacts. The second significant event involved ocean disposal of municipal sludge. Federal authorities had ordered all ocean dumping to cease by Dec. 31, 1981, but affected municipalities brought suit and were granted an in- junction which suspended the deadlines and allowed time to assess whether ocean dumping was a permissible alter- native to land -based disposal. As a result of the suit, ocean dumping is still permitted, but all dumping must be moved to a new site further out in the ocean by the end of this year. The primary methods of sludge dis- posal practiced by municipalities across the state are landfilling, land - spreading and composting, incinerat- ing, ocean dumping, and a number of other methods usually carried out by contracted haulers. The 500 municipal sewage treatment plants in New York State generate more than 1,000 dry tons of sewage sludge every day. Each of these methods of disposing of sewage sludge has advantages and dis- advantages. All are becoming more dif- ficult and expensive to accomplish while still meeting New York State's en- vironmental standards. Landfilling is the most popular sludge disposal method practiced by 256 (more than half) of the plants in New York State. These wastewater treatment plants landfill over 100,000 dry tons, or 27 percent of the annual amount of municipal sludge generated. Nearly all of the sludge disposed of in landfills is mixed with municipal solid waste in a sanitary landfill. Existing solid waste management regulations allow sludge to be disposed of or managed at landfills provided that the sludge is dewatered to 20 percent solids and that no free moisture is evi- dent in the dewatered sludge. The amount of sludge accepted into the landfill may not exceed 25 percent of the combined weight of sludge and refuse landfilled unless leachate collec- tion, treatment and monitoring is pro- vided. Additional safeguards to ensure the proper management of sludge disposal at landfills require that the sludge quan- tity, type and general quality be identi- fied in the landfill operating permit. The quality analysis should include the percent of dry solids, cadmium, total chromium, lead, mercury, polych- lorinated biphenyls (PCB) and other persistent organics known or suspected to be in the sludge. Also, the sludge must be digested or otherwise stabi- lized to avoid odors. Landspreading and composting of municipal sewage sludge is practiced by 80 plants in New York, yet only ac- counts for 20,000 dry tons, or five per- cent of the annual amount of municipal sludge generated. Land application of municipal sludge is one of the more ec- onomical methods of sludge disposal available to municipalities. DEC policy allows the use of municipal sludge in agricultural practice provided the sludge meets heavy metal concentra- tion limits, is non -toxic, and is applied to the land at the appropriate rate to meet crop nutrient needs. The landspreading regulations cover three categories of requirements: goal - oriented requirements, permit applica- tion requirements and operating condi- tions. The goal -oriented requirements en- sure that the sludge application is con- trolled to avoid surface runoff and vio- lation of surface and groundwater standards, and that the site is operated to control pathogens and odors. Permit application requirements include sub- mission of representative sludge and soil analyses, detailed mapping, sludge loading rate calculations and a project management plan. The operating re- quirements identify standard permit conditions, including submission of up- dated sludge analyses, site specific ap- Fall ' 87 CLEARWATERS The landfill crisis in New York State will have a serious impact on municipal wastewater treatment facilities as landfills are closed for non-compliance or lack of capacity. plication rate determined by sludge quality, plant nutrient requirements and site characteristics, application tech- niques, stabilization requirements and prohibition of cultivating food chain crops. Composting of municipal sludge, like landspreading, offers the advantage of beneficial reuse of the sludge. Com- posted sewage sludge is similarly sub- ject to stabilization and pathogen re- duction requirements. DEC regulations allow the use of municipal sludge for composting and distribution provided the sludge meets heavy metal concen- tration limits and is composted using an approved method. Analysis of the com- pleted compost must be submitted on a regular basis, and any compost not suit- able for land application must be dis- posed of in an approved manner. Com- posting is used by only 15 municipal treatment plants at 10 separate facili- ties, but has a potential for much greater use. Incineration of municipal sewage sludge is practiced by 40 plants in New York State, accounting for nearly 100,000 dry tons, or 26 percent of the annual sludge production. Incineration unicipal sewage sludge is a complex mix of organic material, inert solids and other wastes that reach the sewers. Sludge contains variable amounts of nutrients, bacteria, pathogens, heavy metals and organic chemicals. Munici- pal sludges may contain significant amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus and potas- sium and varying amounts of heavy metals such as nickel, cadmium, lead, cop- per, chromium, zinc and mercury. The concentration of heavy metals is generally related to the type and amount of industrial waste discharged to the sewer system. Sludges can also contain or- ganic chemicals from household products and industrial sources. These chemi- cals are usually low in concentration, and can generally be controlled by indus- trial pretreatment and sludge management practices. Sludge quality plays an important role in determining the ultimate disposal plan. Since 1980, approximately 1,000 records of sewage sludge chemical com- position data have been collected. This information mainly comes from the an- nual residuals sampling program, the pretreatment program, permit applications and the county sludge studies. The results of data analysis for the major contaminants are summarized in the table below. Since sludge characteristics are highly variable, a continuous sam- pling program is absolutely necessary for a good management plan to obtain the maximum beneficial reuse of sludge while adequately protecting the public and the environment. Concentration of Potentially Toxic Contaminants in Sewage Sludge ppm (mg/kg) Dry Weight (1,000 Records) Metals Median Mean Landspreading Regulatory Limits Mercury 2.50 7.44 10 Cadmium 6.10 17.93 25 Nickel 32.97 101.38 200 Chromium 64.00 299.51 1000 Copper 740.00 1105.28 1000 Lead 188.00 311.59 1000 Zinc 894.00 1369.94 2500 PCBs 0.50 1.89 10 is not a method of sludge disposal, but a treatment method that reduces the vol- ume of sludge to ash for disposal or re- use. This ash or residue is then man- aged and disposed of in accordance with solid waste management facility regulations. Incineration is generally most appli- cable to larger wastewater treatment fa- cilities (greater than 10 million gallons per day design capacity) depending upon economic considerations and ac- ceptability comparisons with alternate sludge treatment and disposal options. Regulations governing the construc- tion and operation of incinerators are enforced by the DEC Division of Air Resources. Ocean disposal of municipal sludge is practiced by 24 plants in the state, ac- counting for over 150,000 dry tons, or 41 percent of the annual sludge produc- tion. These wastewater treatment plants are located on Long Island, New York City and Westchester County. These treatment plants, which account for the largest percentage of New York State's total sludge production, are primarily larger plants with access to ocean wa- ters. Ocean disposal of sewage sludge is federally regulated and permits are is- sued by the federal Environmental Pro- tection Agency (EPA) pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The future of ocean dumping as an option for sludge disposal is uncertain. With ocean dumping sites being moved farther out to sea (from 12 miles to 106 miles), the added transportation ex- pense and the uncertainty over the long- term viability may force several of the affected municipalities to consider land -based disposal options. Given the quantity of sewage sludge involved, the elimination of the ocean dumping op- tion would have a considerable impact on New York State. Other disposal methods for municipal sludge —including lagooning, on -site storage and contracted hauling —are practiced by 100 plants, or 20 percent of the total facilities in the state. These methods are generally limited to small community treatment plants accounting CLEARWATERS Fall '87 Incineration is not a method of sludge disposal, but a treatment method that reduces the volume of sludge to ash for disposal or reuse. for less than 5,000 dry tons, or one per- cent of the annual sludge production. These methods are generally unreliable and subject to unpredictable price in- creases. Long-term stockpiling, illegal in this state, is sometimes used as a temporary measure while a municipality is plan- ning, designing or constructing an ulti- mate sludge disposal method. The state regulates waste hauling: the collection, transport, and delivery of regulated waste (including sewage sludge) originating or terminating at a location within the state. This, com- bined with solid waste management fa- cilities requirements, gives New York a comprehensive package for controlling sewage sludge utilization and disposal. The future rules and regulations for sludge management depend upon the implementation of federal regulations for sewage sludge management as well as the possible discovery of any adverse S� ',a i�. ... ate- E �.. .h.� ,► . . � it o•r 1F . � .�,.., � - ��. •� �•-�r tip + � � ,' . environmental or health effects from current disposal practices. Recent amendments to the federal Clean Water Act require the EPA to is- sue regulations providing guidelines for the disposal and utilization of sludge for various purposes. The EPA has pro- posed rules that require states to de- velop programs to assure that munici- palities and other generators of sewage sludge comply with federal sludge use and disposal criteria. In addition, spe- cific technical criteria for use and dis- posal of sewage sludge are being devel- oped and are expected to be implemented in the near future. The DEC believes existing state regu- lations meet and exceed both existing and proposed federal regulations. A state sludge management program which complies with these proposed regulations will adequately protect public health and the environment with- out imposing undue costs on the regu- lated community. With regard to a shifting of disposal methods, the landfill crisis in New York State will have a serious impact on mu- nicipal wastewater treatment facilities as landfills are either closed for non- compliance or lack of capacity. With the uncertainty of landfilling as a fu- ture sludge disposal method, munici- palities may be forced to consider alter- natives. This crisis will also affect incinera- tion facilities. If a treatment plant with an incinerator does not have its own ash landfill, it is likely that it will face the same crisis. With both composting and landspreading gaining favor, these alternatives may represent a viable long-term sludge management program. ■ Richard Hammond, P.E., is the supervisor for the residuals management section of the DEC's Bureau of Municipal Waste, Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste. • �` q,,,.t `yk. � � � `�� 'ti 1Yc..,,� � r �:a'�`ir��. � � � »4.hr'�q.��'t.� . +•' ..: The landfill option PHOTO COURTESY OF DEC 10 CLEARWATERS Fall '87 Zoning Law Enforcement The New Cloud On The Magistrate's Horizon By: JOHN F. COFFEY, Esq. and Town Justice, Town of Gallatin While downstate communities have had zoning in ef- fect for almost an entire generation of citizens, many upstate rural communities have just recently enacted land use regulations as a result of a population drive that threatens the local water supply and poses severe en- vironmental hazards. Local, long established residents of these communities, having lived a life 9f unfettered freedom in the use of their lands, are now frequently balking and defying the municipalities in the imposition of restraints on their ,desires to build, sell or subdivide their large area holdings. In the near future, the magistrate will be facing the pressures of municipal officials seeking to enforce the newly adopted Ordipances and he or she should become aware of the highly technical aspect of this area of Law Enforcement. The Court clerks should also be aware of some basic tools needed by the Town Justice to cope with a potential deluge of zoning and environmental cases. It is, indeed, likely that the magistrate will be met with highly sophisticated defenses to any enforcement pro- ceedings, since it is possible that the result of a convic- tion can cost the owner not only the fines and penalties imposed, but in addition, thousands of dollars in lost in- come, or sales value of the property involved. First, it must be borne in mind, that the power to regulate the use of real property is derived from the Police Powers of every State, which is an inherent at- tribute of government. This power may be loosely defin- ed as the right of the State to enact laws for the general welfare, comfort, safety and convenience of the general public. (16 C.J.S. Constitutional Law §175). Inasmuch as this power lies solely with the State and not to a municipality, our Towns, Cities and Villages can enact zoning laws only when that power is delegated to them by the State (Inc. Village of Brookville v. Paulgene Real- ty Corp., 11 N.Y.2d 672; Wells v. Saline, 119 N.Y. 280). This delegation has been accomplished by appropriate statutes, enacted by the State Legislature, now found in the Town Law, ' Village Law, General City Law, General Municipals Law, Real Property Law, Home Rule Laws and the Environmental Conservation Law. These delegating s�atutes contain many technical re- quirements both as' to the procedural requirements of the local municipality in adopting an Ordinance as well as definative substantive limitations of the local Or- dinance provisions. Let us now examine the areas with which a local Justice should direct his concern when facing a zoning r violation charge having a serious ripple effect on the landowner over and above the simple fine or penalty involved. Zoning enforcement is authorized under §268 of the Town Law and is generally initiated by the Building In- spector or the Zoning Enforcement Officer appointed by the Town Board (for the purposes of this article, reference is made solely to Towns in the interest of brev- ity, but the reader should be aware that similar provi- sions exist in the Village Law and General City Law). The information and Summons are issued by the Building Inspector under §138 of the Town Law. Zon- ing Ordinances are not generally prosecuted by the District Attorney, but, rather, by the Town Attorney or a Special Prosecutor appointed by the Town. Section 268 of the Town Law, however, permits citizens, under appropriate conditions, to initiate such proceedings if the building inspector fails to do so. The Justice should be mindful that the Ordinance ap- plies only to lands within the Town. Thus, if a Town boundary line ends at mean high water of a river and a local Ordinance requires booming of off-loading fuel barges on the river side of the docked barge, such viola- tion would have occurred outside the Town's jurisdic- tion and the justice would have to dismiss the informa- tion for lack of jurisdiction. Astute defense counsel will rarely meet the Ordinance violation directly. Their first line of defense is to over- come the presumption that the Ordinance is, in fact, valid. This test, is asserted by first attacking the Or- dinance adoption procedures used by the Town and the substantive limitations imposed by the delegating statutes (§§261 through 268 Town Lave). If the Or- dinance was improperly enacted or exceeds the delegating limitations, the Town justice may be called upon to dismiss the information, predicated on a finding of improper adoption or local legislative excess in the Ordinance itself. The next line of defense might be the constitutional prohibition that no person shall be deprived of proper- ty without due process of law,. In this quarter of the ball game, the defense may assert that the imposition of the Ordinance on his clients property deprives the owner of all, or substantially all of the value of his property. (Con- stitutional defenses may also include exclusionary zon- ing and discriminatory zoning.) It is a recognized principle of Law that zoning, in almost every instance, by limiting the uses of land, deprives the owner of some value. The law is quite clear that mere diminution of value is not the criteria for this type of constitutional attack, (deprevation of property) but rather the test is confiscation of property which re- quires the defense to demonstrate that the Ordinance limitation literally wipes out the value of the real estate. (Continued on Page 4) 3 • SOILS ANALYSIS FORM ayner �v t/Sd,J �,Q,e�s Lot# 8"/o, / /, /3/0/7 Acreage 3S. % Laboratory Date Sample Taken ��i/�� Date 9/1-.,/9';7 Crop Grown Before Sample When /;5;� K., Previous Application Date Rate ton/acre *Samples should be taken Location (see map) 4"-S" deep. Soi 1 Cl ass fi cati on 1,z r3, i�C , L-CX Agricultural Soil Group 3, 5 , Lab Results Total PCQ's Z: Mercury -- Potassium 3�S Cadmium D• /6 S Phosphorous Z Nickel NO3=N yi. c' Copper NO?=N — Chromium % TKN D, Z 7 Lead 7, % NH3=N /Z. % Zinc S3• pH . CEC (optional) Moisture Content — THiS:mb1 10/13/83 • SOILS ANALYSIS FORM -5;- _ -.� /P 4�f Nne r �c/,r/sei✓ ��},2.�_S Lot# / — 7 Acreage . Laboratory Date Sample Taken 9 i �� 7 Date L� v Crop Grown Before Sample When Previous Application Date wim Rate ton/acre Location (see map) �`'�,�e *Samples should 4"-8" deep. be taken Soil Classification Agricultural Soil Group Lab Results 4.0-jei1 Total PCB's Mercury O j�i�ctP /?v/P4' — Potassium 7' Cadmium O, iSS Phosphorous / 3' 5z Nickel /0,7`z NO3=N Z, �l Copper 7 G NO2=N _ Chromium /S . TKN D, //7 Lead 7. NH3=N Zinc tea• z pH ,o CEC (optional) Moisture Content — T11S:nib 1 10/13/83 SOILS ANALYSIS FORM 5-a-,�Ie.7--) Nner /'11�N.Sd LotP zCe, Z 7 Acreage 417.0 Laboratory Date Sample Taken S"// y- % Date Crop Grown Before Sample When Previous Application Date Rate ton/acre Location (see map) �'�s,� *Samples should 4"_8" deep. be taken Soil Classification Agricultural Soil Group Lab Results /� �.�.s Total PCO's /U•-D Mercury OG w'l� — Potassium Cadmium Phosphorous / Nickel 17,73 NO3=N /o• 3 Copper/�. flS' NO?=N _ ,'Chromium /f, `7 TKN Lead 2 3. NH3=N 1� • Zinc FZ. pH 7. 3 CEC (optional} — Moisture Content TM : nib 1 10/13/83 • SOILS ANALYSIS FOR14 Nner /"��/ir/So •J �, •�-S Lot# Zl, z3, 2�zs'2fr,z5Acreage Laboratory Date Sample Taken F// IS Date 81z11,F7 Crop Grown Before Sample When / y Flip Previous Application Date �d'x-e Rate — ton/acre *Samples should be taken Location (see map) Gos,;fP 4"-8" deep. Soil Class ification��f�3, Agri cul tural Soi 1 Group Z, 3, Lab Results Mercury Cadmium Nickel Copper ,Chromium Lead Zinc CEC (optional) T� iS : nib 1 10/13/83 Total PCB's Potassium Phosphorous NO3=N NO2=N TKN NH3=N pH ' Moisture Content /3.z r 13 f SOILS ANALYSIS FOR14 Nner i�'/�/ir/Sv�J ��e,�_S L o t # S S�,S�,.S� 6o Acreage Laboratory = �2 Date Sample Taken F/j Ak % Date' Crop Grown Before Sample Cam When /5,�z Previous Application Date 11�1a>c-e Rate _ ton/acre *Samples should be taken Location (see map) ��a s,� 4"-8" deep. Soil Classification o Agricultural Soil Group Lab Results I lercury Cadmium Nickel Copper ,Chromium Lead Zinc CEC (optional) THS:nib 1 10/13/G3 Total PCD's Potassium Phosphorous NO3=N NO?=N , TKN NH3=N pH ' h;oi s ture Content Z Z�S /C7 SOILS ANALYSIS FORM Owner A�/ 4;'e /1-z's Lotll 3� -3,?, V� ys-,MAcreage Laboratory Date Sample Taken Date - elzI /J` 7 Crop Grown Before Sample When Previous Application Date Rate ton/acre Location (see map) *Samples should 4"-8" deep. be taken S o i 1 Cl a s s i fi c a t i on z6 3�� e Agricultural Soil Group 3, 5, z, Lab Results/ �A le S-5 Total PCD's Mercury — Potassium �3 3 Cadmium (�, 3 S Phosphorous 7 Nickel / T, z3 NO3=N Copper /�, 6, Z NO?=N ,Chromium TKN Lead Z z. -S NH3=N l 2 •�� Zinc 7 (v / pH 3 CEC (optional) — Moisture Content TM : nib 10/13/83 i S-1 SLUDGE LOADING RATE CALCULATIONS FORM NITROGEN LOADING RATE - STEP 1-A- Is sludge incorporated daily? If YES, continue. If-libb ski p to Step 1-3 lb. N/ton = (%N11420) + (%N0320) + (%Norg4) (from Sludge Analysis Form) lb. N/ton = ( x20) + ( x20) + ( x4) • STEP 1-8- If sludge is surface applied; y C ✓ �l / C � � J.+ J lb. N/ton sludge = (%N11410) + (%NO320) + (%Norg4) (from Sludge Analysis Form) 1b N/ton x10) + (ao26x20) + Sx4) STEP 2 - If a new site, skip to Step 5 to If an existing site, continue; Using % organic N and the number of years of previous application, find the lb. N released per ton of sludge previously added. See -table below. Release of Residual Nitrogen During Sludge Decomposition in Soil, Organic N Content of Sludge % Years After Sludge Application ication 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4 .5% .5.0% lb. N Released per Ton Sludge Added • 1 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9 - 2.2 2.4 2 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.3 3 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0- 2.2 • (1bs. N.released/ton of sludge) (application rate in tons of sludge/ac lbs. N released/acre Year 1L- x = Year 2- x = Year 3- x = + ------------ Total Residual N = lbs. N released/acre S -r2 NITROGEN LOADING RATE (Continued) - STEP 3- Choose a crop Range of Annual Fertilizer Needs for Field Crops in New York State ( in lb./acre ) Crop Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium (:�1__r ry_% 10 4 0�; 0 -10 0 �7 Grasses 20-75 0-50 0-100 Grains 40-.70 ' 10-85 0-100 , Legumes 0 0-85 0-100 STEP 4- Subtract residual N (from Step 2) from total crop N needs (from Step 3) total lb N needed/acre) -( 0 lb residual N/acre) _ v /- net lb N needed/acre STEP 5- Divide the net N needed (Step 4) by N (from Step 1) _ .Tons of sludge needed to meet crop nitrogen needed per acre ( /moo 1 bs/acre ) _tons /acre ( 3/.q/1 bs/ton) Conversion factors - Wet Weight to Dry Weight ,(mg/1)/(%so1ids) = Dry Weight 1 lb/acre = 1.12 kg/ha 1ppm = lµgm/gm = lmg/kg = .0021b/ton = .0001% = .000001 I 573 PHOSPHORUS LOADING RATES & POTASSIUM LOADING RATES ' STEP 1 - From sludge analysis,obtain phosphorus(P)'and potassium(K) values P- % or 37.9 lb/ton 1% = 20 lb/ton K- % or 2, 4 lb/ton STEP 2 - Choose crop to be grown - see table,Step 3-Nitrogen Loading Rate Calculations Crop 61"oe o, P 70 lb/acre K -70 lb/acre STEP 3 - Determine the P and K in the soil from -a recent soil test P 7yl b/acre K �U31 b/acre STEP 4 - Subtract the soil f and K levels (Step :3) from the crop P and KI��Pr needed (Step 2.) to determine the effective crop needs Crop needs P % lb/acre K �70 lb/acre -Existing -P 7�7 lb/acre -K b/acre -------------------------------------------------------- Amount needed = P O lb/acre K o lb/acre ,STEP 5 - Determine the P and K .supplied by the -sludge to be applied at the rate determined to meet the N requirements of the crop.* Sludge Concentration P 371 l b/ton K Z,(, l b/ton x Sl udge application rate x ton/acre x y y6 ton/acre --------------------------------------------------------------- Pnount supplied = P /6 5 lb/acre K //. / lb/acre STEP b - Compare effective crop needs with the P and K supplied by the sludge- . , to be applied. If quantity is greater than needed, no supplemental additions needed. I•f quantity is less than needs of crop, supplements will be needed. P- lb/acre supplement K- 0 lb/acre supplement ( Step 4) - (Step 5) = (Supplement needed) S,64 HEAVY METAL LOADING LIMITS - STEP 1 _ Determine the heavy metal concentrations from the sludge analysis Value Limits Cd mg/kcJO032._lb/ton 10 mg/kg � Ni 0 mg/kg O. z&81 b ton 200 Cu �Io/. G mg/kg /.Go.3 lb/ton 1000 " Cr ?9, o mg/kg /. 3791 b/ ton 1000 " r Pb i72, mg/kg b/ton 1000 , Zn lv� v mg/kg 2 i 01 b/ ton 2500 " fig O,87 mg/kg 10 " t PCB mg/kg 10 " l� STEP 2 - Determine the cumulative heavy metal y loadings et 1 1 a ngs from previous years. I Metal loading = (Metal Concentration) x (Sludge Loading Rate) j (lb/acre) = (lb/ton) x (ton/acre) Cumulative Loadings Metal Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 This Year lb/acre kg/-F itlmits* Class 1-3 Class 4-10 Cd 3.4 z12-65 N1 34 1-12,4zl 50 Cu 84 /U(,/� 125 Cr 337 y25.o 500 P1) _ --- -----------._.._ ..___._...._.__.._.� __._ .137 yZ5O 500 Zn 168 ,2/2,-3, 250 L,Jr ,�•�Oci C7Jf�1 Z Sit :i?.�'�. `7t T� � �� .. 7� S�rP?CI20✓P 2�r� Z�O � .� S -<5 HEAVY 14ETAL LOADING LIMITS (Continued) - STEP 3 - Site life evaluation (Cumulative Metal Loading Limit) -(Existing Metal Loadi ng)=( Future Metal Loading) (kg/ha) - (kg/ha) = (kg/ha) ; Metal Metal Limit Existing Loading Future Loading Cd 2 C� 2 6 �f Ni i Cu /off, l �4 .Cr y2 5-, D 5, o y 1 Pb -'/zS, o Zn STEP 4 - Future Site Life ( Future Metal Loading) : (Yearly Loading) = (Site Life In Years) Remaining Metal Future Loading Yearly Loading Site Life 61 ,Cd �f Z�� `, i Z6,7 Ni 3 Cu Cr y2 .s o Pb 412S, o /• 7 Z y7 / Zn • Ziz,3 0.9 zo,Z HYDRAULIC LOADING RATES Using N loading rate, determine hydraulic loading (ton/acre) (1/% solids) (2000lb/ton) (1/62.4lb/cf) (lacre/.43,56pft2) (12"/ft) _ inches H20/application tons/acre)/ (( 16,16 %SOLIDS) (113.256)) = 0.00Z i nches H2O/Appl i cati on X _ 5/ - �'o / & k lb'�i_ T / h5/4 �. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN Sludge Data - Amount of Sludge Generated /8d� Tons�;�/9,/8 % Solids If Sludge is Wasted Continuously, What is the Storage Capacity at the Facility? ; If Sludge is Wasted on a Batch Basis, What is the Frequency of Wasting? xf What Method of Sludge Stabilization - Aerobic Digestion is Utilized? - Anaerobic Digestion X --Sand Drying Beds - Lime - Other (Stablization processes must meet the requirements of 40 CFR Part-257 Appendix 11) Land Spreading Sites Available Slope Agricultural Owner's Name Acreage (Max) Class Site # 1 - Site # 2'- Site'#3 ` - Se aP Z . Site 114= Crops To Be Grown Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Site #1- Site # 2 - Site # 3 - ' Site #4- ki _- �-. �..--.�-.,..,--............s.. - corer _ w�.ol-.-....r ,._. .,. _ .. _ e..it._ -- .,,y.�..v:.v.a=�..c.a-.,fie-sw..•......r�::__. ...p.,.-....__�.__._-_"._ a„:. .r....__... ...-..-..r.-.....r-. .. _ u •nr MULTI PARTY CERTIFICATIONS-- s .�.,r• .-. _.. mWnY 9-�w •......•,._. ssuwew-r. iv .� - .. . ..•..- _.. e • ... ..- .. .... a.•.ea • e_st cm _.+x:-.: ..-.r ..- e:.-n-wS_.wu, •-Sr.a .-+._•-r-_re.e. ..-_ a.a +.•w-z+c. ra ♦.... • ., .. .r. e HULT I - PARTY CF PT I F I CATION FORMI , Directions: Each of the follovrinn responsibilities must; he assigned to at least one of the involved parties. All responsibilities must be as- signed to the party or parties who will he responsible for ensuring that the landspreadinq operation conforms to the stipulated requirements. If any of the responsibilities are not assigned to a particular party, a j us ti fi cats on shall be required to be submitted along with a variance request. 1. Farm operations shall conform to the practices identified in the approved management plan. 2. The application of sludge shall hp utilized to meet the nitrooen needs of the crops to be grown. Excessive fertilization will not be practiced. 3. The sludge shall he sampled and tested at the following frequency: STP Design capacity less than 1MGD - bi -annual l y STP Design capacity from 1MGD to 5MO - g0arterly STP Design capacity greater than 5MGD - monthly Sample analysis shall be required for the following parameters: Heavy Metals - Hq, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni , Zn mg/I<q PCB total ma/kci TOX mc1/I<g T I\N , x. rll l3 7 N01 Mn/kg NO P,g/kcl pll Standard Units P, K mg/kg All rrq/kg shall he on a dry wei qht hasi s . Si nni fi cant vari ati ons in sludge quality shall be'reported to the appropriate DEC Regional Office. 4. The soil shall be sampled and tested in accordance with the fol 1 owi nit criteria: �- annual samol inn - composite sampl i nq of all major soil groups in land application , area is requi red. - a minimum of one sample per 25 acres in a heterogeneous soil area and one sample per 50 acres in a•homogeneous soil area. Sample analysis shall be required for the following parameters: Heavy Metals - Hg, Cd, Cr, Cu, Pb, Ni, Zn mq/kq PCB total mg/kc1 TOX mg/kg T KN -- % • NH3 % 2.6 MIULTI-PARTY CERTIFICATION FnRI1 Nn3 mg/kg NO mg/kg PH2 Standard Units P, is - mg/kg All mg/kg shall be on a dry weight basis. Sionificant variations in sludge quality shall be reported to the appropriate DEC Regional Office. 5. Test pH of the soil at the time of each sludge application. 6. Adjust soil ply to maintain a minimum soil pH of 6.5. 7. Sludge land application practices shall conform to those de- scribed in the Part 360 application and -as required by the Part 360 regulations. B. Public acces's to the 1 andspreading areas shall he restricted to the extent necessary to ensure public safety. 9. Sludge shall be incorporated daily unless a variance has been granted. 10. Landspreadinq projects shall he operated to minimize odors, vectors, excessive runoff or erosion, excessive percolation and maintain the required separation distances. 11. All sludge to be land applied shall be treated by in process.to si nni ficantly reduce pathogens such as low temperature composting, aerobic.digestion., anaerobic digestion or lime stabilization. 12. All sludge to he land applied shall not contain constituent heavy metal concentrations in excess of the sludge quality limits identified below: Heavy metals - fig - 10 ppm rd - 25 ppm Cr - 1000 ppm Cu - 1000 ppm Pb - 1000 ppm i Zn - 2500 npm Mi - 200 ppm PCQ's - 10 ppm MULTI -PARTY CFRTIFICATIm Fmi-(cont.) - 0 I Party Nunicipality - Hauler - /�luniso� f1s Landspreader - Landowner - Leaseholder - f'.esnonsihilities 1,'.�A5678'910©12 1? 3 4 5 F 7 2 q 10 11 12 234567P.Q1011 r222145678P1011 2 1 3 4 5 F 7 H 9 10 11 2 (Circle all that anplv.) Muni ci pal i � 4- VI I , C�V' isiauthorized representative for (Municipality), hPrPhy certify to the responsi bi 1 i ti es i i caters above. Hauler as authorized representative for (ldaulinn Corp. or Co.), hereby certify to the responsibilities indicated above. Landspreader kdsprnadinn as a��thorized representative for (La Corp. or Co.) , herehy certify to the responsi hi 1 ties indicated above. Landowner I. ?I I , /� , as rennrterl owner of the Property i dnnti fieri in the Fart w app 1 i ca/ri on , hereby cPrti fv to the responsibilities indicated above. Leaseholder I, _ _ as reporters leaseholder nf the property irlentifierl as heinn n�•inP�l by _ _ _ and as id(rntifird in the fart 3h(1 'application, herer e s p o n s i hi 11 ti es indicated above. TITS: mb1 12/15/FI3 STANDARD PERMIT CONDITIONS 1 - Sludges stabilized by chlorine oxidation are not acceptable for land - spreading. 2 - Land application of sludge shall not be practiced on land with a slope greater than 15%. Land' appl i cation of sludges with a solids content of less than 20% shall not be practiced on land with a slope greater than 8% except as applied by subsurface injection along paths parallel to contours. 3 - No sludge may be applied during periods of rain or to snow covered or frozen soils. 4 - Crops for direct human consumption may not he grown on a sludge applied site for at least 18 months of ter the last application. 5 - Dairy ccws shall not be grazed upon a sludge applied site for at least .12 months after the last application. 6 - Grazing animals shall not be grazed upon a sludge applied site for at least one month after the last application. , 7 - Public access shall be controlled for at least 12 months after the last application by the use of fences and gates, or signs. 8 - The soil pH shall be at least 6.5 at the time of each sludge application. 9 - Sludge shall not be applied within the floodway areas of the flood - plain. Minimum distances from points of concern shall he maintained. 10 -,Sludge must be incorporated in the soil within 24 hours of application, unless a variance has been granted. (muni ci Jpay ) i (hauler/landspreaderr ` (landowner/leaseholder) TIM S : mb 1 10/13/83 --- ------ -- ---- - 1� ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR f� _ _ - Y ... ah -••. __ao�-. ..ww¢ u.. _ 3wec Lim+. ._W w .._ _. • - _. �- _ • _-� ••. - ,...'PV--t•u./H+�F 46'�.w...ya.i+hYJi..+Mm *vW-!+•...• - - - _u. rn ._... 4^ +n... ✓ _. -.} _ . / APPENDIX A EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART I Project Information NOTICE: This documr_7: is desi^ned to assist in determining whether the action proposed may have a significant effect on the corfclete the entire Data Sheet. Answers 'o these ouestions will be considered as part of the acolication for aporrval and may be subject to further verification and public review. provide anv additional information you believe will be needed to comoletp PARTS 2 and 3. it is expected tnar ccmolet'en cf the EAF will be dependent on information current'.y available and .ji'.; n0: involve new studies, research cr investigation. If information renuirino sucp additional work is jnavai�aelP, so indicate and seecify each instance. ;1At4E OF PROJECT: NAME AND ADDRESS OF ;wNER ( : f Different / (Name) ./ v ADDRESS AND NAME OF APPLICANT: (Street! Al �o7��s (P.C. / (State) (Zip) (Name) � - ev BUSINESS PHONE: 1 d (Street) �rdfo� G /30-73 (P.0.} (State (Lip) OESCRIPTIO4 OF PROJECT- (Briefly describe type of project or action) /7�ri C c/� /�� cJ7tl, l� ✓ ;PLEASE COMPLETE EACH QUESTION - Indicate N.A. if not applicable) A. SITE DESCRIPTION (Phvsical setting of overall project, both develoned and undevelooed areas) 1. General character of the land: Generally uniform slope K Generally uneven and rollino or irrenular 2. Present land use: 'roan Industrial Commercial Suburtan Ourai Forest Agri cu 1 Lure _/_ , )trier _, 3. Total acreage of oroject area: 3 acres. Ale f 6/P1i-ea Aooroximate acreage: Presently After Cornnleticr P~esen'ly =f'er :zmci e:ion !4eadow or Brushland acres acres '!ater Surface area acr?s a:_^s Forested acres Unvegetated `rick, �dri cul turd 1 __acres �� ear*_n or 'i11; ��acres 3/ 5�acres acres ac-es :oafs, bu,1d'nos •IP*land !`-esnwater r" and other .^,aved 'dal A5 per Ar:iC!eS Sur'?Ces iCr?s acres acres 1. 1hat .s ^redom,nant soli tyoe,S: or. nro-ec. s,•ol S �2hJ!'�vid .-erp ;Pcr CK cut _rc-:o`n,7s _n ^rn'��. '' "S 4� :. 7? / _ 6. A;,nroxirate oercentace of :,r000sed oroject site with slooes: 0-10" /")V': 1n-15" �a; i5� or greater 7. Is oroject contiguous to, or contain a buildinn or site listed on the National Register of Historic Places; Yes X '40 9. '4hat is the depth to tie pater table? �i'Z /_feet 5ez5.%,a w f ?, Do hunting or fishing opportunities presently exist in the project area? Yes "lo 10. Does project site contain any species of plant or animal life that is identified as threatened or endanaered - Yes X Ao, according tc - Identify each species 11. are there any unique or unusual land forms on tie project site? (:.e. cliffs, dunes, other geological formations - Yes X No. (Describe ) 12. ;s the project site presently used by the community or neighborhood as an open space or recreation area - Yes X 'la. 13. Does the :,resent site offer or include scenic views or vistas known to be important to the community? Yes >< No 14. Streams within or contiguous to project area: a. Name of stream and name of river to which it is tributary / o ss �rez1� �2y c/ % z lee 15. lakes, Ponds, Idetland areas within or contiguous to project area: W/41 a, dame b. Size (in acres) 16. 'ghat is the dominant land use and zoning classification within a 1/4 mile radius of the project (e.g. single family residential, R-2) and the scale of development (e.g. 2 story). /��c�/�� z / B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. Physical dimensions and scale of project (fill in dimensions as appropriate) a. Total contiguous acreage owned by project sponsor > 5-0 O acres. o. Project acreage developed: lt4lle acres initially- 16/i acres ultimately. c. Project acreage to remain undeveloped d. Length of project, in miles: Iv I� ',if appropriate) If oroject is an exoansion of existing, indicate oercent of expansion proposed: building square foot- age ; developed acreage J / '. `lumber of off-strE-t oarking spaces existing /(/ proposed _ Maximum venicular trios generated per nour &// (uoon comoietion of oroject', 7. :f residential: Numcer and type of housina units: Cne I=ar.ily Two ;am ily '"ultiole ;amily Condominium t'al ;l '?mate /] e,gncornooe-C y- Recional _stimatec=^eio:,�^en. :nauG :-•a I 2. wow much natural material (i.e. rock, earth, etc.) will be removed from the site = .�/� tons cubic far:s. ?. how ^any acres of vegetation (trees, shrubs, ground covers; will to re-oved fror site - kd_3cres. 41 " anv ^at::re forest ;over 100 years old) or other locally-�mvortant vegetation be removed ^y snit ;,ro.lect.Yes _4210 ,/� 5. Are tmern any olans for re -vegetation to replace that removed during construction? /" � Yes •.0 E. :f s:ncie onase project: Anticipated Period of construction /months, (including demolitior.. ^'•�1 ^�aSeC croject: a. rotas number of chases antic'dated Ay -No. b. antic'cated date of commencement ohase •i month +ear incl6dina de-olition) c. Aooroximate ccmoletion date final onase -)ontn Year. d. :s phase 1 financially dependent on subsequent chases? Yes ''c 8. WW blast.ng occur during construction? Yes k do 9. Number of jobs generated: during construction /&_, after oroject is complete 10. Number of jobs eliminated by this project " - il. Will project require relocation of any projects or facilities? Yes X yo. If yes, explain: 12. a. Is surface or subsurface liquid waste disposal involved? Yes X 'lo. b. If yes, indicate type of waste (sewage, industrial, etc.) c. If surface disposal name of stream into which effluent will be discharged 13. Will surface area of existing lakes, ponds, streams, bays or other surface waterways be increased or decreased by or000sal? Yes No. 1r Is Project or any portion of oroject located in the 100 year flood olain? Yes i No 'S. a. Does project involve disposal of solid waste? x Yes No b. If yes, will an existing solid waste disnosal facility be used? Yes _Z___'10 C. ;f Yes, give name: location d. :liIi any wastes not go into a sewage disposal system or into a sanitary landf4li' Yes _ i<'�C,,� 15. Will orn,ect use herbicides or onstic'des? _YYes 'to ''. ��lill project routinely produce odors (snore than one hour oer dav)? Yes n '+o �-- 18. Will oroject produce ocerating noise exceeding the local ambience noise 'evels' Yes "o 19. '4411 oroject result in an increase in energy use' Yes 7L4o. If yes, -naicate t!cels; 2C. i` water suooly is from Wells indicate oumoing capacity gals/minute 21. -otal antic-nated Water isace oer day _ _ , gals/day. W# D =? zoning_: a. that s �:crinant '.on,no Class,f'catlon of Sate? A�/CfM�v/L� �. :ur-e s;ec.tic Zcronc class, f:ca:'or 5 .e _. ' : cse'' use zt^c 25. AoorovaIs: a. Is any=ederai per -nit recurred? res X No b. Does project involve State or Federal Funding or financing? _ Yes _� No c. Local and Regional approvals: City, Town, Village Board City, Town, Village planning Board City, Town, Zoning Board City, County Health Department Other local agencies Other regional agencies State Agencies Federal Agencies Aooroval Reaui red (Yes, No) (Type) Submittal Approval (Date) (Date) PJ /Z7t,i f' .��K7 i4 "-7- g/9. 7 C. INFORMATIONAL DETAILS Attach any additional information as may be needed to clarify your project. :f tnere are or may be any adverse impacts associated with the proposal, please discuss such impacts and the measures which can be taken to mitigate or avoid th l 111 l"I'/,��''�., PREPARER' S SIGNATURE: �••'%10016 TITLE: �/ i �s' sc�-cti-- `�` cam'`. N s A. F • '• �� 2iuS. ' '�: ?' °I'1 y t REPRESENTING: /�y��--l.J' • - C`3LLi DATE: !jj' err ��+•` `�.`, y `\ �i� �• '1 :� 1 , t T' I�•{f .{�{II a1lto EAF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT - PART II Project Impacts and Their Magnitude General Information (Read Carefully) - In completing the form the reviewer should be guided by the question: Have my decisions and determinat'.ons been reasonable? The reviewer is not expected to be an expert environmental analyst. - Identifying that an effect will be potentially large (column 2) does not mean that it is also necessarily significant. Any large effect must be evaluated in PART 3 to determine significance. 9y identifying an effect in column 2 simply asks that it be looked at further. - The Examples provided are to assist the reviewer by showing types of effects and wherever oossinle tie thrashr of magnitude that would trigger a response in column 2. The examples are generally aoolicable t`'r:�uchout " r State and for most situations. But, for any specific project or site other examples and/or lower tnresncl-:: may be more appropriate for a Potential Large Impact rating. - Each project, on each site, in each locality, will vary. Therefore, the examoles have been offered as guidanc 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. INSTRUCTIONS (Read Carefully) a. Answer each of the 18 questions in PART 2. Answer Yes if there will be any effect. b. Maybe answers should be considered as Yes answers. c. If answering Yes to a ouestion then check the 'appropriate box (column 1 or 2) to indicate the ootential size of the imoact. If impact threshold equals or exceeds any example provided, check column 2. If impact will occur but threshold is lower than example, check column l.' d. If reviewer has doubt about the size of the imoact rhea consider the imoact as Potentially large and Proceed to PART 3. e. If a potentially large imoact or effect can be reduced by.a change in the project to a less than large magnitude, place a Yes in column 3. A No resoonse indicates that such a reduction is not oossible. 1. 2. 3. SMALL TO POTENTIAL CAN IMPACT BE MODERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT ?rQACT PROUECT CHANGE IMPACT ON LAND NO YES 1, WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT AS A RESULT OF A PHYSICAL CHA14GE TO /17\ O PROJECT SITE? Examoles that would Aooly to Column 2 Any construction on slooes of 15% or greater, (15 foot rise ner 100 foot of length), or where the general slooes in the project area exceed 10%. Construction on Land where the death to the water table is less than 3 feet. lonstruction of naved narking area rnr 1,"1 or more vehicles. Construction on land where bedrock is exposed or cenerally wi tnin 3 feet of existing ground surface. _ Construction that will continue for more than 1 wear or involve more than one nnase or stage. Excavation for mining ourooses that would remove more than 1.300 tons of natural material (i,e. rock or soil; ^e- •/ear. nst—ictlon of any new sanitary landf''i. 1. �Z. 3. t"ALL TO Pt1TE`lTIAL CAN I"PACT BE "'ngERATE LARGE REDUCED BY IMPACT IMPACT PROJECT CHANGE Construction in a designated floodway. Other impacts: .40 YES 2. WILL THERE BE AN EFFECT TO ANY UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL LA -NO FnRMS FOUND ON THE SITE? (i.e. cliffs, dunes, aeological forma- tions, etc.) Snecific land forms: IMPACT ON WATER Nn YES 3. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY WATER. BODY DESIGNATED AS .......... PROTECTED? (Under Articles 15, 24, 25 of the Envir- onmental Conservation Law, E.C.L.) Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 I Dredging more than 100 cubic yards of material from ._ channel of a protected stream. Construction in a designated freshwater or tidal wetland. Other imoacts: 4. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY NON -PROTECTED EXISTING, OR NFW NO YES BODY OF VIATER?............................................� f Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 �J A 10% increase or decrease in the surface area of any body of water or more than a 10 acre increase or decrease. Construction of a body of water that exceeds lA acres of surface area. Other impacts: NU YES 5. 14ILL PROJECT AFFECT SURFACF. OR GROUNDuATER nifALITY? 00 Examples that Would Apply to Column 2 Project will require a discharge permit. Project requires use of a source of water that does not have ._._ _ approval to serve proposed project. Project requires water supply from wells with greater _._. _ than 05 gallons per minute oumoing capacity. Construction or ooeration causing any contamination ___.. of a public water suooly system. Project will adversely affect groundwater. Liquid effluent will be conveyed off the site to ^_ _ facilities wnich presently do not exist or have inadequate capacity. Project requiring a facility that would use water in excess of 2n,100 gallons per daY. Project will likely cause siltation or other discharge _ into an existing tcdy of water to the extent that there will ne an ?bvious visual contrast to natural conditions. 1. 2. 3. STALL Tf` PnTENT1AL CAN IMPACT BE ODEr.ATE LARGE REDUCED CY I•,p"-- I..RaCT PoOJECT CHAt;GE 1Ih►r Imoacts- 6. TILL PR7JCCT. ALTER ORAINAGE FLO", PATTEn'rS OQ SURFACE 'EATER 10 YES c-"xamnle that 'lould Anoly to Column 2 00 Project wnuld impede flood Water flows. Proiect is likely to cause substantial erosion. ?ro)ect is incompatible with existing drainaoe patterns. Other imnacts: IMPACT ON AIR I10 YES i 7. tJILL PROJECT AFFECT AIR QUALITY?...........................00I Fxamoles that Mould Apply to Column' 2 Project will ioduce 1,000 or more vehicle trips in any given hour. Project will result in the incineration of more than 1 ton of refuse per hour, Project emission rate of all contaminants will excpect 5 lbs. oer hour or a heat source ^.roducing more than 10 million BTU's per hour. Other imoacts: LNPACT ON P1 ANTS A40 ah I' NO YES 8. WILL PROJECT AFFECT ANY THREATENED OR ENDANGERED SPECIES? 0 Examoles that Mould Apply to Column 2 Reduction of one or more species listed on the 'tew York or Federal l i st, using the site, over or near site or found on the site. Removal of any portion of a critical or sianificant wild- ' 1 if e habi C. C. Ao,�licatinn of Pesticide or herticide over more than U-1c_ a vea ocher than for a4wcirtural n;jrppG?s. ntlo , rDdCtS: ?. '4ILL PROJECT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFEC, '!()N-7HREATE:IE0 OR NO YES E`iOAyr,EREO SPECIES?.......................................0 O Exarmo)e that 4ould Aooly to Column '"-o?ec: would substar.t:ally inte-4ere with any, resident or -1 cratcry °ash or wlldl,fe szecias. R ect recurres the ramova1 of ^ore t'ian 11 aces of -at,re ro-est ;over ,^n Years 1n anei or other locall/ 'r"7or'3nt vecetat`.cn. S!'ALL 71 nCTE!)TIAL CA:: I,'PAC T 9E 101.1ERATE L =aic DEOUCED nY :�naCT ?,,r,C7 aRnJECT CIIANGE 10. ::II.L TEE oonJFCT :F._r7 ':;: c ,ISTAS r! r"F ''SPAL •n vsc CHARACTER OF TIE ::F I GHVIR�'nrD OP C'mu' '1 T _v, .............. (DO Examnles _nat ould A.,oly to Column 2 _ An ;ncomoatible visual affect caused by the introOuction of new materials, colors and/or forms in contrast to t:ie surrounding landsca:e. A project easily visitle. not easily screened,viat is obviously different from nthQrs around it. _ Project •.+i11 result in the Piimination or -+a3or screening of scenic views or vistas kno%rn to 5e important to the area. Other impacts: IMPACT ON HISTORIC RESOURCES 11. WILL PROJECT WPACT ANY SITE OR STRUCTURE OF HISTORIC, 10 YES PP.E-HISTn0rC nR PALE0'1TOrICAL irroPTANCE? ................. o 0 Examoles that 14ould Aoolv to Column 2 _ ProJect occurina wholly or partially within or contiguous to any facility or site listed on the National Renister of historic :)laces. _ Any impact to an archeological site or fossil b?d located within the project site. Other impacts: IMPACT ON OPEN SPACE & RECREATION; 12. :•JILL THE PRnJECT AFFECT THE QUANTITY OR QUALITY OF EXISTING NO YFS OR FUTURE OPEN SPACES CR RECREATIONAL OPPORTU':IT:ES?...... � O Examoles that Would Alooly to Column 2 The aermanent foreclosure of a future recreational 0000rtunit.v. A :major reduc:lon of an open space important to the cormunity. Other impacts: IuoaC- jai 'R,aNSPORTAT'CV 13. ''ILL 'HERE 3E AN =F=C 71C EXISTING, 7RANS?0RTATI^N '10 YES SYSTEIAS?............................................... 00 Examoles tr.at Mould =nnly :o Colunn 2 _ 'Iteration of present patterns of --over-ent :f people and/or goods. protect will result •n severe traffic irotlems. ;ther --cads: SMALL To PnTENTIAL CAN IMPACT CE M DERATE LA°GE REDUCED BY IUPACT I'+PACT PROJECT CPANGE :"PACT ON EMERGY 14. 41'LL PROJECT AFFECT THE COMMUNITIES SOURCES OF FUEL ')R NO YES E*1EPU SUPPLY? ................................ ..........(DO Examoles that Would Pools to Column 2 Oroject causing areater than S; increase in any fora of energy used in municioality. _ Project reouirina the creation or extension of an energy :ransmission or supoly system to serve more than 50 sincle or two family residences. Other impacts: IMPACT ON NOISE 15. '4ILL THERE BE 08JECTInNABLE ODORS, NOISE, GLARE, VIBRATION NO YES or ELECTRICAL DISTURBANCE AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT? ....(D O Examoles that Would Aooly to Column 2 Blasting within 1,500 feet of a hospital, school or other ---- sensitive facility. odors will occur routinely (more than one hour per day). Project will produce ooerating noise exceeding the local ambient noise levels for noise outside of structures. Project will remove natural barriers that would act as a noise screen. I)ther i:nnacts : :"Oa` "! NEALTa & HAZARO$ Y F S =00•:ECT AF=EC P•:8L:� ;!EALTH AND SAFETY? .............0 O EzamG s °5 t'tdL Jou i d 1no1;' tC Column ? =ro'ect Wi'.l taus? a -isk Qr explosion or release of hazardous substances :i.e. cii, oesticides, chemicals, ra(iiation, etc.) •1 the ever of accider-t or upset conditions, or there will ,c a c- rcn,r ;o, 'evei d:scharae or erission. t-at v,11-P.sult in the burial of "hazardous wastes" t�x,c, caisonous, hinnly reactive, radioactive, irritating, 'nfec:•ous, etc., niU inri wastes that are solid, semi -solid, ';uld Cr contain Rases. ..::race 'cll.."s fnr one million nr more aallnns of 1'cuiried _ jra i is 3r "CCERPTE REDUCED BY il'PACT NIPAC T PROJECT CHANGE IuPAC 7 0!! GROWTH .!NO CF44RAC77R .�C OR 'iE'rPRnRWrr0 17. WILL PROJECT AFFECT THE CHAPACTEa ^F TPE ' XISTI'1G '10 DES C04m..1NITY?................................................(3 Q Example that would Apoly to Column 2 The population of the City, Town or Village in whiCr the project is located is likely to crow 5y more than 5% of resident human population. The municipal budgets for capital expenditures or opera- ting services will increase by more than 510 per year as a result of this project. Will involve any permanent facility of a non-agricultural use in an agricultural district or remove nr;me agricultural lands from cultivation. The project will reolace or eliminate existing facilities, structures or areas of historic importance to the community. Development will induce an influx of a particular age group with special needs. Project will set an important precedent for future projects. Project will relocate 15 or more employees in one or -ore businesses. Other imoacts: '10 YES 18. IS THERE PUBLIC CONTROVERSY CONCERNING THE PROJECT? .......0 O Examoles that Would Apply to column 2 Either government or citizens of adjacent communities have expressed opposition or rejected the proiect or have not been contacted. Objections to the project from within the community. IF ANY ACTION IN PART 2 IS IDENTIFIED AS A P11TERTIAL LARGE IMPACT OR IF YOU CANNOT DETERMINE THE MAGNITUDE OF IMPACT, PROCEED TO PART 3. PORTIONS OF EAF COMPLETED F^Q THIS PROJECT: DETERMINATION PART I PART II PART 3 Uoon review of the information recorded on this EAF (Parts 1, 2 and 3) and considerino both the maanitude and imnortance of each impact, it is reasonably determined that: A. The oroject will result in no major imoacts and, therefore. is one Ankh may not cause significant damaae to `hp orvirarrment. 3. Mlthouen tie orojec: could nave a significant effec: on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in :his :a:e because the mitigation measures described in PART 3 nave teen included as part of the nr000sed oroiect. C. "he oroject will result in one or more major adverse imoacts that cannot be reduced and may cause significant damage to the environment. .)a to Signature of -renarer ' " r"nt 'rim resnor5'ole �fflCer agE%RE �=��RC �''�. i':E ''E"' �P�';�•'� '�!'CS=O Ai��i C:S cna-soonsizle 'f"c-ai in _aaa 'gene, ?�7rr ..-0 ^ar? :)on5•�;� y.r . _�:. ;<to-_:..,.=_.,R:.�...�.�.>..- ..... _. _, _ ... _.:......< ,_•. _. ... . - . _ . _.,ram -._ s __ �.-.r<.ro..,. ...... -. .._�,_.-_�_.<.>„_..-b... _ _ _ �c�—___::_� �.� --- - - - Tj. L. - -- - :..._.,_APPENDIX -A - --= � •--. _ .._..__ .._:.:._ n ____...l-_-�.-�_:,�___' . SLUDGE ANALYSES - L �- - --- - - ----------- - - FOR METRO STP ONONDAGA COUNTY, NY- • UNUNDwGA COUN7Y SLUDGE DEWATERING ANALYSES SOLID WASTE Sample Type: 7-Day Composzte ********+******************* oa+e :o1l '-- -- - -------------------------------------------------------------- CaCfm�L,o` LhromzuFr: Copper Iron Lead Mercury Nzckel Zznc Q`?/'1'l/O B7 j A07.0 807.2 28002 16� .2 13o8. 923.0 246.1 1/7.�150.o 908.3 4G8.7 28794 192.8 .22 97.22 935.1 15 441.2 663.8 24787 215.7 .13 103.3 952.9 "M1.1 682.4 25635 159.0 .13 101.4 723.9 510.8 714.3 27492 192.6 .2o 130.8 972.4 0z/o1/�7 18.08 1149. 787.6 30045 165.1 .09 209.4 1126. 02/15/87 ' 15.68 852.1 739.6 28698 200.0 .03 166.9 1�83. 03/01/87 16.79 781.8 694.9 31388 205.0 .39 156.9 897.6 03/15/87 17.71 885.6 996.3 29280 238.0 .20 164.4 l068. 04/o6/87 21.54 738.63 811.4 28649 166.2 .57 101.8 1057. 04/sic) /87 20.38 721.9 765.1 23499 166.7 .24 109.8 1006. 05/04/87 16.74 628.9 802.2 27462 141.6 .42 138.2 1277. CI5/18/87 lea. 95 883.4 1099.1 26245 123.8 .19 149.5 1114. Averaqe 1�.0'! 689.0 801.6 27692 172.5 .87 134.0 1050. Date Coll Pc! �:assium Chloride Tot Phosphates % TS % TVS C9/14/8� 1118. 19484. 17.9630 10�05/86 1250. 13674. 20.47630 1o75. 11497. 21845. 17.:'L952 12/07/U� 1220' 5283. 20077. 18.927 1.4466 12/15/8� AL 7476. 18738. 18.67B4 63.4294 13� 11`�9. 11868. 23736- 1�.8515 Q5.4277 9,Q7 l5�o. :21 11' 222l0, 16. 6313.z294 l�/,/. 11668. 2. 17'l41V ��.4314 11/2. 5917. 17�51. 16.1/03o0 5.8284 |1582' z�3/3. 1�268u *1.8795 1'j/6, z��' 110/o. 177l2. 18.0�70 �3.3807 |701 5595' j8z86. 17.8710 a4.z�3,/� 10900. 18.8o 64'6�90 �0'``1�x�' 1v'i5' 4952. 1 20.3 4 V 6 4 o5/18'O7 '/5`�' 256�o. 20031. 19.4700 52.��'�0 K'e,Our, /�'u4. 14v7<`. 18V54. 3EA. ]FA41: .^] � tes /epc'rt.ei in kk� w'�z'lht ONOWDAGA COUNlY SLUDGE DEWA7ERING ANALYSES SULID WASTE Sample Type: GRAI- * -.*t- -s- * -K.- * K. * -X. * 4-L * * -Y. -x Date Coll NH3 TKN NO3 mu� z (� --------------------------------------------------------------`-----' 09,20/O� 11134. 5 63488. 9 4 28/.44 12 916 2o 12/16/8 1859. 77345. 0I/0�/87 13840. 01/20/87 11875. 59377. 415.�4 59.38 16'8415 02/03/87 10762. 64572. 107.61 53.81 18.5840 02/18/87 . 13658. 59381. 59.38 59.38 16.8405 03/0387 1z147. 106620. 145.39 48.46 03/18/87 10269. 51345. 102.69 51.34 1Y.4760 04/08/87 9374'3 46871. 104.16 52.08 19.2015 04/21/87 912�.5 54759. 53.u8 53.68 18.�270 0587 12932. 26900. 206.92 51.73 3.9.3310 05/20/87 9898,4 37510. 104.19 52.1U 19.1950 Avsrage z1429. �0083. 256.10 54.20 18.53�1 All analytes reported in mg/kg dry weight RECEIVED f, A. r. n; I V!TY JUL 10 2 41 PH '81 "!k -1 M E ft - DRAINAGE& SANITATION ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT w QK vs t: sari d sR r- ci o n 1. 1: s.. 17 of Es P H. 0i j 1. W 11 �5 1 1! 0 4 lyd E17 7 ell "'D 501. W 1A A �i 1 k 3 0AL Q! Wils? f V all- ,4 I w t - ; I * y II i WAT ; V0150 1 11w M. 1 w! ON 21 1 QW(Ink F01 1 HIM'' 1 WA: 1--0.1 1 LIM, COUNTY OF ONONDAGA corcy� txO'� I. DEPARTMENT OF DRAINAGE AND SANITATION JOHN H. MULROY COUNTY EXECUTIVE Mr. Dennis Fagan 200 Williams Street Suite 211 Elmira, New York 14901 Mr. Fagan: 650 HIAWATHA BOULEVARD, WEST SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13204-1194 478-3755 — 425-2260 July 13, 1987 JOHN M. KARANIK COMMISSIONER In accordance with your request, please find enclosed the results of ten (10) samples of Metro dewatered sludge which were analyzed for PCBIs and TOX. The ten samples were collected during the period from December 1986 to the present. Also included is a listing of pH results for six (6) samples collected from April through June 1987. If you have any questions regarding the enclosed data, or if you need further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, DEP MENT OF DRAINAGE AND SANITATION 0 RANDY R. 0 , P.E. Process ontrol Director JJM/d Encs. cc: Metro Dewatered Sludge File Envlronment New York State j .LABORATORY, INC. Approved Laboratory 5854 Butternut Orlre, Fast Syracuse, NY 13057 (318) 4I8-8798 To: ONONDAGA CO. DEPT. OF D & S 650 HIAWATHA BLVD. SYRACUSE, NY 13204 Attention: RANDY OTT Date: Jan 19 1987 - - -- -- - - - -- -- - - ----9� -31&-x -X--X--X--x--x--X--X--X--*--X-4(-- -- -- -- - - - -- --art- -- - SAMPLE #9433 L—AECO RATO RY ANALYSIS REPORT - - - - - -art- -X- -*- -art- -x- -X- -x- -X- -X- -X- -X- -x- -X- -art- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -(- -art- -& 4& -3 - 4(- 44- - - - - - - - - - - - - -*- - - - SAMPLE SUMMARY CLIENT : ONONDAGA CO. DEPT. OF D & S DATE RECEIVED : 12/17/86 JOB # : 125.252.00 DATE COLLECTED : 12/07/86-1`/13/86 LOCATION : DELT ('REOP DEWATERED SLUDGE TIME COLLECTED : NA METHOD :COMPOSITE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARAMETER RESULTS UNITS GCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1221 (1j PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1232 (14. PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1242/1016 (2.8 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1248 (8.2 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1254 (2. 8 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1260 (1.4 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1262 (1.4 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1268 (1.4 TDX 3. 7 Total Solids 19. % rag/kg rag/kg rng/kg rng/kg rng/kg rng/kg rng/kg rng/kg rng/kg NOTE: All analyses performed and reported on a mg/kg wet weight basis. i warrants that any sampling and analyses conducted as part of this report are perforated in accordance with the analytical industries >cognized methodologies and professional standards. CS will not assume liability for any damages resulting from deficient work other )an reperformance or cost of said work and will not accept any liability as a resul f data interpretation by the client. APPROVED BY: ,�� / 1' DATE: /?h7- i Ehvir6nme� . ) r\ Now Yor# State �--� LABORATORY, INC. APP►ovadLaborafory isiaw 5854 Suffarnut Drive, Fast Syracuse, NY 13057 (315) 446-8795 To: ONONDAGA CO. DEPT. OF D & S 650 HIAWATHA BLVD. SYRACUSE, NY 13204 Attention: RANDY OTT Date: Jan 19 1987 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -*- -f- 4& -X- -x- -X- -x- - - -K- -X- -X- -X- - - -X- 4(-- 4- -(- 4& -& 4& 4(- -*- -� -X- -x- -X- -X- SAMPLE #9675 L A B O R A T O R Y A N A L Y S I S R E P O R T -a& -X- -X- -X- -*- -x- -X- -x- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -*- 4e- -W 4 - - -X- -x- -X- -x- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- �- 4(- -�- 4E- 4& 4E- -31� 4E- -& -X- -3*- -X- -X- -X- -X- SAMPLE SUMMARY CLIENT : ONONDAGA CO. DEPT. OF D & S JOB # : 125.252.00 LOCATION : PELT PRESS #2 DEWATERED SLUDGE METHOD :COMPOSITE DATE RECEIVED : 12/23/86 DATE COLLECTED : 12/15/86-12/21/86 TIME COLLECTED : NA PARAMETER RESULTS UNITS PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1221 (27. rag/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1232 (14. rig/kg PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1242/1016 (14. rng/kg PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1248 (14. rng/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1254 (2.5 rag/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1260 (2. 5 rag/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1262 (2. 5 rng/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1268 (1. 3 rag/kg TOX 3.0 rag/kg Total Solids 19. 1 NOTE: All analyses perforrned and reported on a rag/kg wet weight basis. ,S w; )ts that any sampling and analyses conducted as part of this report are performed in accordance with the analytical industries •ecognized methodologies and professional standards. CS will not assume liability for any damages resulting from deficient work other han reperforsance or cost of said work and will not accept any liability as a result of data interpretation by the client. APPROVED BY: lY DATE: �� 7 • `.•Y Off^. _ :�.ey,r. {..r • • i i } Ll ' r :: ."S :' r+y'y � � .... k^ y _ . Environr»renfa:. LAB®RATORY,' 1 Cc-o 6854 Butternut Drtrar East Syracuse, FEB G 3usNIT To: ONONDAGA CO. DEPT. OF D & S 650 HIAWATHA BLVD. SYRACUSE, NY 1322"04 Attention: JOSEPH MASTRIANO •►nor' Now York State Approved Laboratory (315) 446-8795 Data: Feb OG 1987 - - - - * - - - - - - - - - - - 4e- 4 - -),� -3- - -:0& -X- -X- -X' -X- -X- -X- -3f -X- -X- -X- -X- 4E- 4& 4 - -3E -3* 4E- -)� -X- -E- -X- -X- SAMPLE #201 LABORATORY ANALYSIS REPORT -x- -X- -X- -X- -3f -3rt- -3# -X- -3f 4c- 4& 4E-- 4e- -X- -3f -3rt' -x- -x- -X- -A- -X- -3f -x- -x- 411- 4k- -art- 4 - -art- # 4f- -)� 4e -3f- -x- -3f -3k- -art- -X- -X- SAMPLE SUMMARY CLIENT : ONONDAGA CO. DEPT. OF D & S JOB # : 125. 252. 00 LOCATION : METRO T.P. DEWATERED SLUDGE METHOD :COMPOSITE DATE RECEIVED : 01/113/87 DATE COLLECTED : 01/04/87-01/11/87 TIME COLLECTED : NA PARAMETER RESULTS UNITS wet weight dry weight PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1221 (1.2 mg/kg LT 7.1 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1232- (1. 2 rag/kg' LT 7.1 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1242/1016 (1. 2 rng/kg LT 7.1 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1248 (1.2 rng/kg LT 7.1 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1254 (1. 2 rng/kg LT 7.1 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1260 (0. 21 rng/kg LT 1.2 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1262 (0.21 m g/ k g LT 1.2 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1268 (0. 21 mg/kg LT 1.2 TOX 0. 35 rng/kg 2.0 S warrants that any sampling and analyses conducted as part of this report are performed in accordance with the analytical industries ecognized methodologies and professional standards. CS will not assume liability for any damages resulting from deficient work other han reperformance or cost of said work and will n_t accept any liability as a result of data interpretation by the client. APPROVED BY : ,r-% � - DATE: CELA q SS34 Butternut Drive, East Syracuse, NY 13057 New York Stat• `. Approved Laboratory R E0 E Y4 Q (315) 446-0795 FEB G 3 us P`-! '87 t•_ .hY ^.Cis DRA18AGE & SANITATIC-N To: ONONDAGA CO. INDUSTRIAL WASTE Date: Feb 06 1987 650 HIAWATHA BLVD. WEST SYRACUSE, NY 13^c04 Attention: JOSEPH MASTRIANO - - - - - - - - -3•E- -*- - - - - - - - - - - -3F- -c- -E- •X- -X- -X- -X- -K- -x- -X- -X- -X- -X- -K- 4(- -)- 4& -)� -)- - - - - -*- - - - - SAMPLE #446 LABORATORY FINALYs I S REPORT SAMPLE SUMMARY CLIENT : ONONDAGA CO. INDUSTRIAL WASTE JOB # : 125. 248. 00 Ms7i' o LOCATION :NDEWATERED SLUDGE METHOD :COMPOSITE DATE RECEIVED : 01/26/87 DATE COLLECTED : 01/18/87-01/24/87 TIME COLLECTED : NA PARAMETER RESULTS UNITS wet weight dry weight PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1221 (5.5 rng/kg LT 32.4 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1232 (5.5 rng / kg LT 32.4 PCBI S IN SEDIMENT AS 12:42/1016 (1.0 mg/k.g LT 5.9 PCP' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1248 (1.0 rig/kg LT 5.9 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1E54 (1. 0 rag/kg LT 5.9 PCP' S IN SEDIt=TENT AS 1E60 0. 0 rng/kg LT 5.9 PCBI S IN SEDIMENT AS 1262 (1.0 rag/kg LT 5.9 PCP' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1268 (1. 0 rng/kg LT 5.9 TOX 0.40 mg/kg 1. : 2.35 CS warrants that any sampling and analyses conducted as part of this report are performed in accordance with the analytical industries recognized methodologies and professional standards. CS will not assume liability for any damages resulting from deficient work other than reperformance or cost of said work and will not accept any liability as a result of data interpretation by the client. PPPROVED DY. DATE: a/ 'g- 7 ®�ivlr"anmer� _ New York State L 'LABORATORY, INC. Approved Laboratory 58S4 Butternut Drive, East Syracuse, NY 13057 (315) 446-8795 To: ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPT. OF D&S Date: Feb 27 1987 650 HIAWATHA BOULEVARD WEST SYRACUSE, NY 13204 Attention: JOE MASTRIANO PURCHASE ORDER # :95974 SAMPLE #815 LABO RATO RY ANAL.YS I S REPORT - - _x_ -31& -X_ _x_ -X- _X_ 4k- 4*_ 4e. -*- -*- 4& -e- -X_ -X_ -x- _X_ _*- _x_ -*_ -X_ _X_ _x_ _X_ 41- 4- 4*_ -& -(- -c- 4& 4*- 4*- -art- -X_ _X_ _W _X- _X- -X_ -x_ -X_ _X_ SAMPLE SUMMARY CLIENT : ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPT. OF DBMS JOB # : 125.087.00 LOCATION : DEWATERED SLUDGE 710 METHOD :COMPOSITE' PARAMETER DATE RECEIVED : 02/10/87 DATE COLLECTED : 02/01/87-02/07/87 TIME COLLECTED : NA RESULTS UNITS PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1221 (15. PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1232 (15. PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1242/ 1016 (7.7 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1248 (7.7 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1254 (7.7 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1260 (7.7 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1262 (7.7 PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1268 (7.7 TOX 1.2 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg NOTE: Results calculated and reported on a mg/kg dry weight basis. CS M Ants that any sampling and analyses conducted as part of this report are perforved in accordance with the analytical industries recognized methodologies and professional standards. CS will not assume liability for any damages resulting from deficient work other than reperforuance or cost of said work and will not accept any liability as a result of data interpretation by the client. APPROVED BY: DATE: FEB 2 7 1987 4 LAB%0R '^' } 0R Y, INC. I _ A►Inr�I L�lerel®ry NN PYNIrnut Drive, Lief tyrseuse, MY 18067 (81S) 440-17#5 -�� RECEtVED Ty VJUR g3m191 5EPKR71 EOT To : CALOCER I NOS _ & SPINA ENG I NEq j9*kGE4 $kKt'i+1k4At e a Mar 27 1987 1020 SEVENTH NORTH STREET LIVERPOOL, NY 13088 Attention: ALLIED WASTE BEDS PURCHASE ORDER # :96165 SAMPLE #1394 LABORATORY ANALYSIS R E P O R T SAMPLE SUMMARY CLIENT : CALOCERINOS & SPINA ENGINEERS JOB # : 905.005.00 DATE RECEIVED : 03/09/87 DATE COLLECTED : 03/01/87-03/08/87 LOCATION : METRO DEWATERED SLUDGE #710 TIME COLLECTED : NA METHOD :COMPOSITE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARAMETER RESULTS UNITS PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1221 (6.5 mg/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1232 (6.5 mg/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1242/1016 (6.5 mg/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1248 (6.5 mg/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1254 (6.5 mg/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1260 (6.5 mg/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1262 (6.5 Ong/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1268 (6.5 mg/kg TOX 1.7 mg/kg NOTE: Results calculated and reported on a mg/kg dry weight bas' c'12 <c.EEBILLI=D III M? 2 7 1987 U -rants that any sampling and analyses conducted as part of this report are performed in accordance with the "lytical industries rmv sized methodologies and professional standards. CS will not assume liability for any damages resulting from deficient work other than reperforsance or cost of said work and will not accept any liability as a result of da a interpretation by the client. • ( / 3/2 7/�% NYSDOH ELAP #�10067 APPROVED BY. DATE.. silt' L! iB®Ri ®R r �INC. r. 1 5854 Butternut Drive, East Syracuse, NY 1105A E: C =lx E D DF�AiiiAG�t$ c,AnLT�rTiC[i To: ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPT. OF D&S 650 HIAWATHA BOULEVARD WEST SYRACUSE, NY 13204 Attention: JOE MASTRIANO Now York State Approved Laboratory (Jib) 446-8795 Date: Apr 10 1987 PURCHASE ORDER # :96165 SAMPLE #1744 LABORATORY ANALYSIS R E P O R T - - - - - -*- -art- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- 4& 4*- 4- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- 4f- -(- -) - -*- 4*- -)e 4- 4& 46- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- SAMPLE SUMMARY CLIENT : ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPT. OF D&S DATE RECEIVED : 03/24/87 JOB # : 125.087.00 DATE COLLECTED : 03/15/87-03/21/87 LOCATION : METRO STP BELT PRESS TIME COLLECTED : NA METHOD :COMPOSITE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARAMETER RESULTS UNITS PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1221 (13. PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1232 (13. PCH'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1242/1016 (13. PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1248 (13. PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1254 (13. PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1260 (13. PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1262 (13. PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1268 (13. TOX 2.5 mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg mg/kg rng/kg rng/kg NOTE: Results calculated and reported on a mg/kg dry weight basis. CS r.._.,-ants that any sampling and analyses conducted as part of this report are performed in accordance with the analytical industries recognized methodologies and professional standards. CS will not assume liability for any damages resulting from deficient work other than reperformance or cost of said work and will not accept any 1'abi11ty as a result of data interpretation by the client. NYSDOH — ELAP # 10067 APPROVED BY: - DATE: /i n n a i Q Ess#54 Environmen,-N L,� BORA JRY, Il C. lulternut Drive, East Syracuse, NY 13057 To: CALOCERINOS & SPINA ENGINEERS 1020 SEVENTH NORTH STREET LIVERPOOL, NY 13088 Attention: CLARKSON/SLUDGE Now York State Approred Laboratory R�OEiV�D (316) 116-8798 C-OPITY MAY 29 11 36 V '87 0c--IZ014ibiT DAAINAGc * SANITATION ate: May 19 1987 PURCHASE ORDER # :96165 - - �;- - - - -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -x- -X-X- -art- -X- -X- -art- -X- -x- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -* - SAMPLE #c^I9c L nBO RATO RY ANALYSIS REPORT - -X- -x- -X- -)*- -X- -X- -X- -rt- -X- -X- -3rt- -X- -X- -art- art- -art- -rt- -x- -x- -x- 4 - -art- 4*- -art- 4*- 4(- -E- -3rt- -art- -X- -X- -X- -*- -X- -X- -art- -X- SAMPLE SUMMARY CLIENT : CALOCERINOS & SPINA ENGINEERS JOB # : 905.00,5.00 DATE RECEIVED : 04/15/87 DATE COLLECTED : 04/06/87-04/12/87 LOCATION : METRO DEWATERED SLUDGE TIME COLLECTED : NA METHOD :COMPOSITE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PARAMETER RESULTS UNITS PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 122'1 (34. mg/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 123c (34. ritg/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1E45/1016 (13. mg/kg PCP'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1248 (34. mg/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1254 (34. mg/kg PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1260 (34. mg/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1 2*E2, (34. mg/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1268 (6.15 mg/k.g TOX 4.4 mg/kg r�� r�E �� o�'-*.,-iTr�.I:0 6LV06E7' CS warrants that any sampling and analyses conducted as part of this report are performed in accordance with the analytical industries recognized ,methodologies and professional standards. CS will not assume liability for any damages resulting from deficient work other than reperformance or cost of said work and will not accept any liability as a result of d a interpretation by the client. NYSDOH — ELAP 410067 APPROVED BY: /.P J/• DATE: �Aff 7 �nvlronmen�*�� Now State ,._--- York. LABOR 4. y OR Y' INC. Approved Laboratory 6d6I Butternut Drive, East Syracuse, NY 13057 . RECEIVED (315) 446-8795 ONONDArA COUNTY MAY 10 1 ei PH'87 QEFhR T HEN.r To: ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPT. OF DRY IMAGE &SANITATIO8at e : May 18 1987 650 HIAWATHA BOULEVARD WEST SYRACUSE, NY 13204 Attention: JOE MASTRIANO PURCHASE ORDER # :96165 3F 3f 3f -3f- art- 3f -3� -3E- -3f- �4- -�f- -3�- -34- -3f -3�E -34- -3�E- �4- -34- -3f- -3E- -34- 3E -34- 3E 3•E- -34- _4� 4(-- 4*_ SAMPLE #12525 LABORATORY ANALYSIS R E P O R T _X_ _E- _X_ _)• 4f _X_ ••3_ _X- -x- -3- -x- -3f -x- -x- -xrt- -E- -3� -)4 -)E 4& 4f 4E- 4*- -)� 4f -x- -x- 3�- -3�- -3•f -3f -3f �E- -3f -3f # -3rt- SAMPLE SUMMARY CLIENT : ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPT. OF D&S JOB # : 125.087.00 LOCATION : METRO DEWATERED SLUDGE METHOD :COMPOSITE -------------------------------------- PARAMETER PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1221 PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1213E PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1242/1016 PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1248 PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1254 PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1260 PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1262 PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1268 TOX DATE RECEIVED : 04/29/87 DATE COLLECTED : 04/20/87-04/26/87 TIME COLLECTED : NA RESULTS UNITS (67. rng/kg (67. rng/kg (30. rag/kg (130. mg/kg (30. mg/kg (30. mg/kg (30. rig/kg (130. rng/kg rng/kg NOTE: TOTAL SOLIDS=18% All values calculated and repc,rted cin a rng/kg dry weight basis gh detectic.n limits due t-D sarnple matrix int rfe er►c j , �= I LC - r�- � rT� ,ter - tz�,�c C crt G CC - J-1ono 0��,��y -� �� F1C_jLS-- :S warrants that any sampling and analyses conducted as part-o this re -rt are p farmed in accordance with the analytical industries "_ =d methodologies and professional standards. CS/�ill not ass 1 -bili for any dam es resulting from deficient work other :han reperformance or cost of said work and will not accept any li�bi ty a cult of dat- interpretation by the client. NYSDOH — ELAP # 10067 APPROVED Y : ' l/� DATE: _,'� I1 �l 7 Environmental LABORATORY, INC. 5854 Butternut Drlra, East Syracuse. NY 13057 To: ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPT. OF D&S 650 HIAWATHA BOULEVARD WEST SY RACUSE, NY 13c^04 Attention: JOE MASTRIANO RECEIVED ()MOSIACA COUNTY JUL 9 7 39 V 181 CePARTHENT DRAINAGE&SANITATION Now York State Approved Laboratory (315) 448-8795 Date: Jul 06 1987 PURCHASE ORDER # :96165 SAMPLE #30 18 LAE30RATO RY ANALYSIS REPORT - - - - -*- -E- 4 - -31� -E- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X--•F -X- -X- -X- 4e- -) - -31& � -) - -31� � 4*- -31� -X- -X- -X- -X- -3*- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- -X- SAMPLE SUMMARY CLIENT : ONONDAGA COUNTY DEPT. OF DES JUL1 tt : 1c5. 087. 00 LOCATION : METRO DEWATERED SLUDGE METHOD :COI{POSITE DATE RECEIVED : 05/12/87 DATE COLLECTED : 05/04/87-05/10/87 TIME COLLECTED : NA PARAMETER RESULTS UNITS TS 251000. rag/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1221 (24. rng/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 12.32 (24. rig/kg PCB'S IN SEDIMENT AS 1242/1016 (19. rng/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1248 (19. rng/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1`54 (10. rng/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1260 (10. rng / kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 12E2 (1L71. mg/kg PCB' S IN SEDIMENT AS 1268 (4.7 rng/kg TOX 4.2 rig/kg NOTE: PCB and TOX analyses calculated and reported --n a mg/kg dr-y weight basis. CS warrants that any sampling and analyses conducted as part of this report are performed in accordance with the analytical industries recognized methodologies and professional standards. CS will not assume liability for any damages resulting from deficient work other than reperformance or cost of said w+Drk and will not accept any liability as a result of data interpretation by the client. NYSDOH — ELAP #10067 APPROVED BY: �j DATE: Galson Technical Services, Inc. 6601 Kirkville Road Post Office Box 546 E. Syracuse. N Y 13057 Tel: (315) 432-0506 11W.31r„p .. Environmental Sciences August 14, 1987 Division D. Fagen Engineers 200 Williams St. Suite 200 Elmira, NY 14901 RE: GTS# G5129 Dear Sirs: Enclosed are the results of the analyses performed on the samples we received on August 4, 1987. These results were phoned to you on August 12, 1987. If you have any questions concerning our results, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, GALSON TECHNICAL SERVICES, INC. Eva Galson, CIH Laboratory Director EG/se r Enclosure cc: Munson Forms 248 Munson Rd. Groton, NY 13093 �. Galson # Technical Services, Inc. 6601 Kirkville Road Post Office Box 546 E. Syracuse. N Y 13057 Tel 13 t 51 a 32-0506 LABORA= ANnYSIS tC�r Client: D . FACET ENGINEERS Job Number: G5129 Task Number: 87080414 Location: NS Date Sampled: NS Lab ID: E19953 Client ID: SLUDGE MG/KG <6 TYPE NA Method(s): SW 846 M - Less Than Footnotes: ( > ) - Greater Than NA - Not Applicable Not detectable Submitted by Approved by:� ND - l� NS - Not specified Date: 15-AUG-1987` MG - Milligrams L - Liters M3 - Cubic Meter a MG/M3 - Milligrams Per Cubic Meter PP�M1 - Parts Per Million Pg - Micrograms NG - Nanograms Page 1 of 1 e_ • - _ - APPENDIX B - SOIL ANALYSES .... - - - � - - � •t-•-• - � - - - -' vim.-- - - -w:.. _ �..�.,•_......•._a...w..t _,.vs....er,,_- •.�.s.+w w,an.e-_ � '..... .... . re— - . --'N d . ___ ..-._....�« _... ..e_.,r.. «..._,.•. ssz+.e•.casr.w..mr,a.+.-=.��.•. .� w. _.,«__-_.;.._ � .. t ° New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences ... a Statutory College of the State University Cornell University r � l Department of Agronomy Bradfield and Emerson Hails, Ithaca, N. Y. 14853 DATE: n,,n . j, j�'�ro2 TO: FROM: AGRONOMY ANALYTICAL LABORATORY RE: FIELD NUMBER � 2'� The box checked below indicates the status of this Field Number: ALL WORK has been completed and the results are attached. Please pick up the samples. Our policy is to discard them in 2 weeks if not picked up. ®PARTIAL RESULTS are attached. Further analyses will be completed and sent to you as soon as possible. THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE AGRONOMY ANALYTICAL LABORATORY ANALYZE YOUR SAMPLES. ROUTINE TESTING LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS 1. pH: Soil pH is determined on a 1:1 (by volume) soil:water or soi1:0.01 M CaC12 suspension. For organic soils which absorb a large amount of water, or if insufficient sample is available, a 1:2 -suspension is used. 2. Ex H+: Exchange acidity is determined by extraction with a solution of barium chloride/triethanolamine buffered at pH 8.0 followed by titration of the excess base. The units, cmol (+)/kg, stand for centimoles of ion charge per kilogram of soil, and are equivalent to the previously reported units of milliequivalents per 100 g. 3. "Available" nutrients: Major and minor nutrients are extracted with Morgan's solution, 10% sodium acetate in 3% acetic acid buffered to pH 4.8, using a 1:5 (by volume) soil:solution ratio. Potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), calcium (Ca), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe), aluminum (Al), and zinc (Zn) are determined by atomic absorption. Phosphorus (P), nitrate nitrogen (NO3-N), and ammonia nitrogen (NH4-N) are determined colorimetrically by stannous chloride reduction, automated hydrazine reduction, and phenate-hypochlorite methods, respectively. Nitrate and ammonia nitrogen results are given in mg of N per kg of soil (not mg of NO3 or NH4). For all nutrients, mg/kg = ug/g — ppm by weight of soil. ;. to convert to pounds per acre -furrow slice (2,000,000 pounds of soil), multiply by 2. 4. B: Water-soluble boron is extracted by boiling a 1:2 (by weight) soil:water suspension containing 0.125% barium chloride. Boron is determined by plasma emission spectroscopy. Unit conversions are the same as for available nutrients. 5. OM: Organic matter is determined by loss on ignition. The soil is first dried @500C for one hour, then ignited @5000C for two hours. Results are reported as loss on ignition. To convert LOI to organic matter: (0.7 x LOI) - 0.23 — OM. NOTE: This equation is valid up to 6% OM. 6. Soluble Salts: Soluble salts are determined by measuring the electrical conductivity of a 1:2 (by weight) soil:water extract (1:4 for organic soils; listed results are corrected for the dilution). The units are siemen per meter, S/m. 1 S/m — 0.1 mmho/cm — 100 umho/cm — 10 (K x 105) 7. Bulk Density: The laboratory bulk density is calculated from the weight of 10 cc of soil scooped for the available nutrient extraction. The units of megagrams per cubic meter are equivalent to grams per cubic centimeter. ' DATE 08/21/87 CALS ANALYTICAL LABORATORY REPORT () INDICATE ANALYTE AT LIMIT OF DETECTION Client Identification A B C D E F G Lab Bulk Density (Mg/m3) 0.92 0.98 1.00 0.96 1.05 1.04 0.99 P, available (mg/Kg) 8.6 32.0 13.4 64.1 21.3 75.8 62.9 K, available (mg/Kg) 59 345 94 419 185 225 433 Mg, available (mg/Kg) 200.8 86.3 49.8 300.2 113.9 177.7 302.1 Ca, available (mg/Kg) 2660 2439 3539 2898 997 1825 2719 Ex. Acid. (cmol +/Kg) PH in water (PH) 6.2 6.8 7.6 7.3 6.0 7.0 7.3 NO3, available (mg/Kg) 5.4 41.6 2.4 10.3 13.2 14.8 17.6 NH3, available (mg/Kg) 11.4 12.7 9.9 16.0 5.6 8.1 12.5 Pb, acid -soluble (mg/Kg) 21.00 17.70 17.80 23.40 23.00 21.40 22.50 Cd, acid -soluble (mg/Kg) 0.385 0.165 0.155 0.345 0.155 0.195 0.315 Zn, acid -soluble (mg/Kg) 88.10 53.40 50.20 82.40 65.50 61.60 76.10 Cu, acid -soluble (mg/Kg) 19.83 10.58 8.76 18.85 12.84 12.05 18.62 Ni, acid -soluble (mg/Kg) 10.14 10.84 10.74 17.73 15.59 13.20 17.23 Cr, acid -soluble (mg/Kg) 18.4 12.7 15.8 19.9 15.7 16.1 20.6 Mn, acid -soluble (mg/Kg) 953.0 388.0 375.0 730.0 613.0 284.0 666.0 Mo acid soluble, (mg/Kg) 1.35 2.85 3.05 2.65 3.45 1.85 3.95 N, total N M 0.42 0.27 0.17 0.31 0.15 0.18 0.33 FIELD NUMBER 13290 AGWAY INC., 777 WARREN ROAD, ITHACA, NY 14850 RESEARCH LABORATORIES CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS DATE - August 12, 1987 SAMPLE OF - Six Soil Samples FROM - Munson Farms, 248 Munson Road, Groton, New York 13073 DATE RECEIVED - VIA - T.a k A1n 45194 Sample # "B" 45195 Sample # "C" 45196 Sample # "D" 45197 Sample # "E" 45198 Sample # "F" 45199 Sample # "G" July 28, 1987 Philip Munson N.D. - None Detected ASSAY REPORT PCB'S N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. Pesticide Screen (Organic Halogens) N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. N.D. S I G N E,-� �_�� AGWAY INTER -OFFICE MEMO TO Philip Munson FROM George Willkens DATE August 12, 1987 SUBJECT Soil Samples Lab. No. Pendimethalin (Prowl) DDm 45194 Sample # "B" 45195 Sample # "C" 45196 Sample # "D" 45197 Sample # "E" 45198 Sample # "F" 45199 Sample # "G" GIW:rs 0.25 N.D. 0.0065 0.081 0.029 0.12 „-.a�rY-. x+., .h�'� �n-._�«•��-..-T�:�_e,z,...•_,_-...... •, .•... .,. : � ve •_ _ ,- '--3'.a _ rr..- _ .. - -.. -- ._._ .._.. .� -._ .._..-_.-. - - -T•ax .. ,r -___..,_...r_av+r.�T^�CVAIR.GINeC,.•M.__.._�a.-e_m•.� _. -__ .-_ .... r�..._-•__,..__,..-..._.:r✓v.__-«.r.a1:�e�'a.r_._.a,r--r. .?~ >. _^ ��.�.>,v.-c.sa=ss.e-m=. __�v,___:-m v.a. .s,....m• . _QfPRT4tt�'�...�aer. _x � .�•v+•er,.«.r.«�.ma_] - v.....u...•-.•...,ca..-:..•rvv.rr+..-_aa��a - . .. .. ..- _. .-. _. .. ... --_-_ -- • �... ..._ - _ -' - _- -�. z - - ' � ._. -Yep.a __- -. .. ... _ ,. --.. � .• - w _ .e -_ - , . . _ - - __ _- - _ - __ - ___ -- -- w a _ .c s.. .�..s r_ .v-a --_----t.sa r-•eaan very .v-i _ •- -__ _v avru..� ea .. cr.n az'> .-o u. sA a • v a•-e.a- _ _ _ _ . �___ _ _ rrrr. .•-...s-- •• _w.-• ....x>._uaea-a:.rn:r r..•xz.. .t•u _ _ _ _ : _ T _ , .. _. _. ..s+. v� ._• _- _ r.. ,-- ... - � _r _ ..r .r. .. .. ._ w •rr.. .4au.•..a ......:. -.._.. _.. .. z-v .._ .. .�..su�e._ r. e_a.. «. .. -.•. .,w ...... __- - • �_ • .• -- •. _. - _ - ..-,e•.-.•b.n:.v �..:,.. �"�i. q-�wr.. ...vim .^ ":,�:_' . , ... _. . r _PROJECTS •MAPS • F y - . ae _ ,. ... __ _•.. _ .. x.-.: -. '. _ -. �. ... - .. _'_ ... re.-• - - .. 1 -z - r .. -. .ts .r L.--. a r _ '. tj = '_• _ _• a - �7: -: - _ --_ - . .t +a _ -. L'ti,v.-E�•Er.'1wts+mc-��wn•--nr_rra+• scrs.-.. _.r+....: _:...r -_ ._ - . _ .v --._ .• -row.-i-.r.nu._.aaeaCrs..S.s':.vwC i'�Wr+r..ea1'.�r. •w _ .� . _ .. _ _ y., _ ._ � . - �- - � - „ -Paz•+_. .. r %\ — — , // \~ W R-earn s ljT� ✓ OAD NEWMA / �l I75 • 81lCON \ dtj= r �H o u _ ' I ..a�.. _ _- �c Otvper---7RAIL---BII •rners OakAer III --. , •, c orn fk .� �:r •" _ �+`''�` din ' p _--- -• .: �f� Strip ° alp I _�— ^�'•'o ii = OO p r I udloW Co ex i L _ 268' , -ell - sti Lansin I ts soURGE USGS TOPOGRAPAtC MAP LOCAT 10M MA P 197 0 W E5T GROTON I W `4 G UADRANGL. 1 - M U J 50 N FAR M - LAN0599SA,01 l G SITES -0 1 / !00 AtitDS READING St-t't S FAGAN ENGINEERS o aESICIF-MOSS WITH POTABLE WEL1, WITNiKi 2000' OF Sil-S.5 SGALS — I" - 2000' r - Te rp ' n i ng ; Corners • "� 8M �1081 Yan Ostrand •,; r BM r ll .Corners _ t 99 . L 3 �j ,. H Q.: ( :� vland Corners f - Q'. I I� •� \ / ' :,, ' � fig �, '•. •, f of �I•o r-��- • tSiS 11M' Lupl i i• O U. �: �__._ •�_ �.='�.'.;i -- a s -- -.mith Corners ~11 Head Corners • ail �; ¢ . _ .».. `:•, .j, a \ �.. �VI t . , � �, /� :j _ \ Grav( i i1 96 ]Bean Ii it \ Hill RD N. ;i• : �. r0 B �� II--. 0 FARRELL - ROAD _ _1 \ 2..: O y Q: , • �. 1 - .. III �' n r • CHERRY * + Orne1 I University ------ - ROAD _ Radiation 8,010 " l_a bora tory � - -- - ---- — - --- - 'Brown Cem _1. ------ - s SOURCG: U5GS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP WEST' GROTON , u.y. QUADRAntGf✓5 LOCATION MAP 19 -70 -- " PROPERTy MUNSON FARM L!>uf� LAND 5 P W Iru Po TA8r✓E R EA.DING 51-rr-5 WEu. WI-'14(N Z000' FAGAN ENGINEERSC2 L-AMDSPR15ADING Epp U t�! OL\R� 5GA LE — jib 0 2400 Ka 4: i b -i L Q Lill 'rLbE3�,,, Co. 5,01L cotis�R�AT �� S01 S MAP AER1Al� SOURG� �-rOMp}C(NS stiR��GE 19$5 tAUN 50 N E t.iDSPR�ADI�G S1T�S 1 � too PRoPERY`� OVtilOAR`� FAGAN ENG1NECii1S No-r YO SG ALE uN��4,0 N U, P, '50 lz 14 ,(),FG9 p,G New Yol✓'.c State Department of Environmental Conservation ` TT Division of Regulatory Affairs, Region 7'''=`i�. 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard;st A Liverpool, NY 13088 ( 315 ) 428-4697 Henry G. Williams Commissioner September 15, 1987 NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE APPLICATION Dennis A. Fagan, P.E. Fagan Engineering 200 William Street Suite 211 Elmira, NY 14901 PERMIT APPLIED FOR: Part 360 - Sludge Landspreading LOCATION: Munson Farms, Lansing (T), Groton (T), Tompkins Counties APPLICATION NUMBER: UPA No. 70-87-0155 YOUR APPLICATION FOR THIS PERMIT IS INCOMPLETE. We hve received the above -referenced application. The following pertains to its completeness: 1. Proposed storage of sludge in concrete bunkers must satisfy Part 360 requirements. The storage area must have leachate collection, groundwater monitoring and runoff explained. Detailed drawings of the facility will need to be submitted for review and approval. 2. Due to irregular shape of sites, it will be difficult to ensure that the appropriate separation distances are maintained. The site boundaries should be flagged or otherwise appropriately marked to ensure landspreading occurs in the appropriate areas. 3. Depth to seasonal groundwater should be at least 20 inches. The application states that the groundwater level in some areas may be as low as six inches from the surface. Landspreading should only occur in those areas where the groundwater depth is greater than 20 inches in depth. The method for determining the groundwater depth should also be explained. 4. The available nitrogen from sludge should be calculated from the equation that assumes the sludge is incorporated daily. This will increase the available nitrogen to 42.83 pounds nitrogen per ton and reduce the loading rate to 3.27 dry tons per acre. 5 ' All t e soil analyses are missing for mercury ? In addition, the soil 5 ould be designated on the site map. 44 q 1"?-e kv� -2- 6. Some of the proposed landspreading sites separation requirements. For example: 500' from a residence and less than 200' a drainage swale). Site #27 and 17 are stream. Site #1 is less than 200' from and 3a are less than 200' from a potable less than 500' from a residence and one to a second residence. do not appear to meet the Site #39--43 is less than from a stream (this may be less than 200' from a a potable well. Site #3 well. Site #38 and 58 are of these sites is too close 7. The original sample results for the Metropolitan -Syracuse STP sludge should be included, not just tabulated data. 8. The application states weighted average cumulative loading limit in calculating the site life, based on the fact that 46 percent of the acreage is in soil groups 1-3. It should be understood that the lower cumulative loadings will still apply to class 1-3 acreage for the whole site. 9. If there are only 43 days per year available for landspreading, where will the sludge be stored year round? Storage is mentioned for only temporary (poor weather) conditions. Will there be winter storage? What time of year are you planning to haul/landspread? - All year, spring to fall? Please note that the revised loading will be less than 30 days for landspreading. This must be recalculated. 10. Who is hauling the sludge? A Part :364 permit must be obtained. Enclosed is the appropriate form and regulations. 11. How many vehicle trips per hour will be made? , 12. It has been determined that your project is subject to Article 14 .of the Parks and Recreation Law, the State Historic Preservation Act (SHPA). Project information is under -review to establish'the potential for significant impacts to historic/cultural resources. You will be notified if additional information'is required to complete this assessment. 13. The application has also been sent to Agriculture & Markets, Louise Inglis, (518) 457-2713, for her review. You may wish to contact her directly to discuss her position on this application. If there are any questions, please contact Sally Rowland, Division of Solid Waste, at (518) 457-2051, or myself at the phone number listed on the cover page of this letter. Sincerely, (___.JO�nne L. March Sr. Environmental Analyst cc: Division of Solid Waste, Region 7 Division of Solid Waste, Albany, S. Rowland DP.A File.--' A.., �Y V, 4 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Regulatory Affairs, Region 7 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard Liverpool, NY 13088 (315 ) 428-4697 Henry G. Williams Commissioner September 21, 1987 Dennis A. Fagan, P.E. Fagan Engineering 200 William Street Suite 211 Elmira, NY 14901 Re: Munson Farms, Part 360 - Landspreading Sludge, Lansing (T), Groton (T), Tompkins County, UPA No. 70-87-0155 Dear Fagan, _b This is in reference to my letter of September 15, 1987 concerning a Notice of Incomplete Application. Below is additional information we are requesting as per item #12. Our Cultural Resource Section has reviewed the application and request that the specific application techniques be described in detail in order to assess if any potential impacts to cultural resources may occur. In addition, it is requested that a site file search be requested from the State Museum and the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation office in Albany, to determine if any known cultural resources exist on the proposed site. If there are -any questions on this, please contact Mike Cinquino, of our Cultural Resource Section, at (518) 457-3811. Please note that of the two sites requested for landspreading, the Asbury site is the only one which has Cultural/Archaeological potential. The information requested is geared to specifically this site and not the Main Site. If there are any questions, please contact this office. Since ly, Joanne L. March Sr. Environmental Analyst cc: Division of Solid Waste, Region 7 Division of Solid Waste, Albany, S. Rowland Mike Cinquino, Albany DRA File-,— 297 Munson Rd Groton NY 13073 December 12 1991 Town of Groton Conger Blvd Groton NY 13073 Dear Board Members: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you at your meeting and discuss with you our ongoing composting operations with crop biomass, leaves and yard waste and Food grade quality processing residuals. To tidy up any gray areas which may exist in the minds of some, I am sending this letter t❑ request receiving a permit exemption from the Town. Pursuant to the state regulations, it continues to be my understanding that my activities do not require a permit to operate a solid waste facility; because in fact we are not operating a solid waste facility. Please be very clear however, that is not to say that we are unwilling to meet with you, at the earliest possible convenience, even informally, to review and discuss our activities. Kindly accept this letter, if necessary, as a written request for prompt permit exemption authority from the appropriate local authority. It is our intention to compost food grade quality residuals such as winery, cannery, and brewery wastes and other food processing wastes, as set forth and defined by the DEC, with crop biomass and animal wastes for organic fertilizer to be used in agricultural crop production on our farm. Please be advised that I wish to do so on the Farm at the above address employing the windrow method of composting, similarly to that of the Broome County project which I understand has been monitored and developed with the DEC. In reaching your determination I ask that you bear in mind that in over forty years of handling animal waste upon our farm, there has not been even one complaint as to the methods or cultural practices we have employed in the disposal of such wastes. Suffice to say that the Town can be assured that it is our intention to develop the operation and maintenance of this project in a safe nuisance free manner. It is our desire,upon application, to readily incorporate this material for organic crop nutrition for agricultural crop production. By so doing, any odors should be greatly minimized. Be well assured that there will be no garbage, domestic sewage, sewage sludge, or septage involved. Also rest assured that we are aware of the conditions set forth in the regulations at Subdivision 360-q.q(d) and have every intention of being in compliance with the same. Having met all State requirements for a permit exemption, I anticipate that this project will be declared permit exempt. As always, I will be happy to meet with you and or the Board at your earliest convenience, even informally if it could expedite matters, to discuss this with you if you have any questions. Accordingly, would you kindly promptly advise me. Thank you very much for your prompt assistance with these matters. Sincerely, -'01 Phil Munson Jr CC: Counsel Mr Morrow FAGAN ENGINEERS . Environmental Consul n s � r 200 William St • Suite 211 . Elmira, New York 14901 . (607) 734-216 i ► September 22, 1987 Ms. Joanne L. March DEPART1.1- Sr. . Environmental Analyst ENVIRONMENT Division of Regulatory Affairs REC NYSDEC - Region 7 DIVISION OF REG� _ , 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard Liverpool, NY 13088 RE: Notice of Incomplete Application Response Munson Farms, Lansing (T) Groton (T) Tompkins Co. UPA No. 70-87-0155 Dear Ms. March: This is in response to your September 15, 1987 notice in the order of your comments. 1. In describing the concrete bunkers I should have utilized the phrase transfer facility rather than storage facility. In order to insure that the project is run in an environmentally sound manner, no sludge will be hauled from Onondaga County during inclement weather. The concrete bunkers have a concrete bottom slab on which the trucks would empty the dewatered sludge. This sludge would then be transferred directly into spreading equipment as it arrives. No storage would take place other than overnight whena late truck load arrives at the farm. If rain occurs the following day prior to the overnight stored material being spread, a black plastic sheet will cover the small stockpile. Due to the dewatered nature of the sludge (20+% solids), incidental moisture will be absorbed by the solids. Therefore no leachate facilities appear necessary for this transfer operation. 2. During landspreading operations, spreading areas will be flagged to insure adequate separation distances are being maintained. 3. To my knowledge, there is no statement that depth to seasonal groundwater must be at least 20 inches. In fact the Solid Waste. Management Facility Guidelines indicate soils with depth to seasonal high water table of 12-20 inches are fairly suitable for sludge applications. A permit condition requiring no landspreading when depth to groundwater is less than 20-inches can be met for "wetter" fields by simply delaying sludge applications until the seasonal high water table drops to at least 20-inches. From a practical matter, capillary action of some silty soils is such that during high groundwater periods you wouldn't want heavy farm equipment damaging the fields in September 22, 1987 Ms. March Page 2 the first place. To insure that a field has at least a 20-inch depth to groundwater, core soil samples will be taken in each field prior to landspreading. 4. I assumed there would be a 50% loss of ammonia nitrogen by surface application of the sludge via lime spreaders followed by discing or plowing within 24 hours of application. For the purpose of this permit application, I will conservatively assume that there is no ammonia nitrogen loss. As you indicate, this will increase the available nitrogen content in the sludge to 24.84 pounds per dry ton and reduce the application rate for a corn crop to 3.27 dry tons per acre. See revised sheets S-1 through S-5. However to insure that adequate nitrogen applications are being made in the field (i.e. no significant nitrogen loss is occurring during sludge application periods), Munson Farms would like to take soil samples before and after sludge applications to redetermine available nitrogen levels and vary sludge application rates accordingly. 5. Soil analyses for mercury are being run by Cornell's Ilc< Agronomy Analytical Laboratory. Since these soil analyses are '__rrj. for background comparative purposes only, I trust that a delay D 5 in obtaining the mercury data will not hold up the completeness determination of this application as I was previously assured by the Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste. 6. In order to make the non -owner residences standout, they were shown uniformily as 90' square buildings. Obviously they are much smaller than this. In some cases where the map may indicate slightly less than 500' separation distance, it is due to this over enlargement of the size of the residences. All locations in the field will maintain the minimum required separation distances. For site #39-43, a swale was incorrectly identified as a stream. For site #27, the northwest corner was shown too close to a stream. This site was modified accordingly resulting in a reduction of less than one -tenth of an acre. The north boundary of site #17 was shown 10-50 feet too close to a stream while its western boundary was expanded up to 40 feet closer to a stream. A net reduction of 0.3 acres for this field is shown. For sites #1 & 3, the potable wells were incorrectly shown north of the residences when they are in fact south of the residences. A reduction of 0.1 acres is shown for site rr1. For sites #38 & 58, one of the residences was incorrectly shown as a non -owner residence. See explanation above on separation September 22, 1987 Ms. March Page 3 distances. The above minor modifications have reduced the total spreading area by 0.5 acres to 313.8 acres (see revised Table 1). 7. The tabulated data was obtained directly from Mr. Randy R. Ott, P.E., Process Control Director, Onondaga County Department of Drainage & Sanitation. Onondaga County has a certified laboratory which tests the sludge for heavy metals, nitrogen series etc. The computer format for the results is the tabular format presented in the report. As such, this represents _origin-al—samp-l-e--resu4-ts--w]iic h are s i mp 1 y added to with -each subsequent test. �l �` 8. The last phrase of the last sentence "for the whole site" is misleading. Our understanding is that lower cumulative z( I limits will be applied to all Class 1-3 soils. Based on existing sludge quality data, copper is the limiting heavy \� metal resulting in a site life of 16.0 years for Class 1-3 ..soils and 23.8 years for other soils. On a weighted average, the site life for this application is 20.2 years. �9. The 43 day estimate was shown to indicate that this plan will only meet a small portion of the total sludge disposal needs for Onondaga County. Because of this fact, Onondaga County and their sludge hauler, Davis Water & Waste, plan to continue to operate in a manner which will insure their continued sludge disposal at a landfill in Western, NY. This will require a minimum of 100 wet tons of sludge per day to be disposed at the landfill. Hence the maximum available for trucking to Munson Farms would be 80 wet tons per day which represents four truckloads. This is equivalent to 14.5 dry tons per day. Based on an application rate of 3.27 dry tons per acre and a total spreadable area of 313.8 acres, a total of 1,026 dry tons would be applied annually at the Munson Farms from Onondaga County. This would be equivalent to approximately 70 days per year of hauling sludge to the spreading site. As previously indicated, no sludge will be hauled during inclement weather. No sludge will be stored or hauled during the winter. During these periods, all sludge will be landfilled. Sludge applications will occur in the fall after crop harvest and in the spring prior to planting. During the summer, the only sludge applications would be for specific fields that are in fallow. September 22, 1987 Ms. March Page 4 10. Davis Water & Waste has the current contract to haul Onondaga County sludge to the landfill. A modification to their Part 364 hauling permit to the Munson Farms will be made. 11. As previously indicated, 4 vehicle trips per day are estimated. 12. This proposed project is similar to spreading lime on existing agricultural fields. It is difficult to imagine how there could possibly be any impacts (much less significant) to historic/cultural resources. I trust this information will allow you to make a prompt completeness determination. If you have further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me directly. Sincerely, FAGAN ENGINEERS Dennis A. Fagan, P.E. cc: Mr. Phil Munson, Jr. DAF/tlf S-1 SLUDGE LOADING RATE CALCULATIONS FORM ° NITROGEN LOADING RATE STEP 1-A- Is sludge incorporated daily? I ES continue. If NO, skip to Step 1-B lb. N/ton = (MI 420) + (%NO320) + (%Norg4) (from Sludge Analysis Form) ,112.e�11b. N/ton = (//i(JX20) + (a.oz(-x20) + (ys,;.-x4) STEP 1-B- If sludge is surface applied; lb. N/ton sludge = =1410) + (%NO320) + (%Norg4) (from Sludge Analysis Form) lb N/ton = ( x10) + ( x20) + ( x4) STEP 2 - If a new site, skip to Step 5 If an existing site, continue; Using % organic N and the number of years of previous application, find the lb. N released per ton of sludge previously added. See. table below. Release of Residual Nitrogen During Sludge Decomposition in Soil Organic N Content of Sludge Years After Sludge Application 2.0% 2.51, 3.Ox 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% ° lb. N Released per Ton Sludge Added 1 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.9 2.2 2.4 2 0.9 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.1 2.3 3 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 2.0 - 2.2 • (1bs. N.released/ton of sludge) (application rate in tons of sludge/ac l bs . N released/acre Year 1L x = Year 2- x Year 3- x = + ------------ Total Residual N = lbs. N released/acre r S -r2 NITROGEN LOADING RATE (Continued) - STEP 3- Choose a crop Range of Annual Fertilizer Needs for Field Crops In New York State ( in lb./acre ) Crop Nitrogen Phosphorous Potassium �,orrL� 10 4,1A0 0) 0-100. Grasses 20-75 0-50 0-100 Grains 40-_70 ' 10-85 0-100 . Legumes 0 0-85 0-100 STEP 4- Subtract residual N (from Step 2) from total crop N needs (from Step 3) ja total lb N needed/acre) - 0 lb residual N/acre) = tenet lb N needed acre STEP 5- Divide the net N needed ( Step 4) by N (from Step 1) _ :Tons of sludge needed to meet crop nitrogen needed per acre ( /,VO 1 bs/acre) = 3,1,7tons/acre 0 (�2,8 bs/ton) Conversion factors - Wet Weight to Dry Weight . (mg/1)/ (%solids) = Dry Weight 1 lb/acre = 1.12 kg/ha 1ppm = lµgm/gm = Img/kg = .002lb/ton = .0001% _ .000001 r Si3 PHOSPHORUS LOADING RATES & POTASSIUM LOADING RATES STEP 1 - From sludge analysis, obtain phosphorus(P)' and potassium(K) values P- % or 37,9 lb/ton 1% = 20 lb/ton K- % or Z,Co lb/ton STEP 2 - Choose crop to be grown - see table,Step 3-nitrogen Loading Rate Calculations Crop Worn P 70 lb/acre K -7© l b/acre STEP 3 - Determi ne the P and K i n the soi l from -a recent so i 1 tes t P l b/acre K 1 b/acre STEP 4 i - Subtract the soil P and K levels (Step 3) from the crop P and K E needed (Step 2.) to determine the effective crop needs s Crop needs P %O l b/acre K �70 l b/acre -Existing -P l b/acre -K l b/acre • -------------------------------------------------------- r Amount needed = P lb/acre K lb/acre ,STEP 5 m Determine the P and K supplied by the- sludge to be applied at the rate determined to meet the N requirements of the crop.* Sludge Concentration P 37f 1 b/ton K z, a l b/ton x Sl udge application rate x 3,27 ton/acre x 3.z % ton/acre --------------------------------------------------------------- �nount supplied = P /.23 91 b/acre K B Sl b/acre STEP 6 - Compare effective crop needs with the P and K supplied by the sludge to be applied. If quantity is greater than needed, no supplemental additions needed. 0 I•f quantity is less than needs of crop, supplements will be needed. P- lb/acre supplement K- lb/acre supplement (Step 4) - (Step 5) _ (Supplement needed) 5.4 HEAVY 14ETAL LOADING LIMITS - STEP 1 - Determine the heavy metal concentrations from the sludge analysis Value Limi is Cd /�,Ut71 mg/kga 0.32.1 b/ton 10 mg/kg Ni 13V0 mg/kg a, zeP81 b/ton 200 " Cu 5ol, (P mg/kg /G03 1 b/ton 1000 " Cr b, ?9, 0 mg/kg A 3781 b/ ton 1000 " Pb i 72.E mg/kg 0.35151 b/ton 1000 , Zn iv Sv mg/kg Z . / of b/ton 2500 " lig 0,87 mg/kg 10 " PCB mg/kg 10 " STEP 2 _ Determine the cumulative heavy metal loadings from previous years. • Metal loading = (Metal Concentration) x (Sludge Loading Rate) (lb/acre) = (1b/ton) x (ton/acre) ° � /VP �„� cy • 7!Ze Cumulative Loadings Metal . Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 This Year l b/acre kq/ha Limits* Class 1-3 Class 4-10 1 C d 3.4 �IZb �/ 5 N1 34 50 Cu 84 f©,�,Al125 Cr 337 �105,o 500 Jo 500 Zn 168 ,2/2,3 250 cO-cf Z. 5 P C/?s,1 i- 3 sue, /s, Kg/ha r S -<5 HEAVY METAL LOADING LIMITS (Continued) - STEP 3 - Site life evaluation (Cumulative Metal Loading Limit)- (Existing Metal Loading)=(Future Metal Loading) (kg/ha) - (kg/ha) = (kg/ha) Metal Metal Limit Existing Loading Future Loading. Cd `12 4 /7/ . c) #2 44 Ni -,12, 6 4 qZ. � �4 Cu /oe�. / '� /Od, 4 .Cr 5;0 BLS o Pb 0 Zn 2! 2, 3 STEP 4 - Future Site Life ( Future Metal Loading) : (Yearly Loading) = (Site Life in Years) o Remaining Metal Future Loading Yearly Loading Site Life ,.Cd /77111 Z./oy O. %/8 44- 36./ 0 Ni O, 9 82- 'f 3.'S1 Cu 2 q Z Z o. 2.. Cr Z.S O 6-0 G 9� 3 Pb y2S, O %, / Z 8 7 Zn 30.9 HYDRAULIC LOADING RATES ' Using N loading rate, determine hydraulic loading (ton/acre) (1/% solids) (2000lb/ton) (1/62.4lb/cf) (lacre/-43,56Oft2) (12"/ft) _ inches H2O/application (3.z7 tons/acre)/ ( A/6 %SOLIDS) (113.256)) =400/61 nches H2O/Application // • ` of O 3 L / /Y S Z-GJ x Z /" -� //V • T- / bs/A TABLE 1 MUNSON FARMS SLUDGE LANDSPREADING SITE DATA Field # * Spreadable Predominant Soil Types Ag. Soil Class Acreage(Ac) 1 9.4 ErA, LaB 6,3 2 3.7 ErA, EbB 6,6 3 2.5 BgC, Lab 5,3 4-5 6.9 LaB, EcA ErA 3,776 6 10.5 BgC LaB 513 7 10.3 LaB, ErA 316 8 2.0 LaB 3 10 2.2 BgC, EcA 527 11113 5.4 LaB,BgC,EcA 37527 14 5.4 LaB, EbB 326 15 4.7 LaB 3 16 11.2 LaB, BgC 3,5 17 14.6 BgC, LaB 523 21 11.5 CfB, KnA 376 23 3.4 KnA 6 24 3.4 CfA 2 25 4.8 LbB 2 26 3.5 LaB 3 27 43.4 LaB,BgC,EbB,KnA 3,5,6,E 28 10.0 CfA, KnA 2,6 29 5.3 EbB,BgC,KnA 6,5,6 36 7.8 LaB,BgC,LbB 3,5,2 37 4.3 LaB,LbB 213 38 4.0 LbB 2 39-43 39.6 BgC,LaB,ErA 5,3,6 49 20.4 BgC,LaB 5,3 50 10.3 LaB,BgC 325 * Field numbering system is the same as the SCS farm plan. Field # * 51752,54,55 53 56 58 59 60 TOTAL TABLE 1 (CON'T) MUNSON FARMS SLUDGE LANDSPREADING SITE DATA Spreadable Acreage(Ac) 20.8 6.7 8.8 7.1 5.1 4.8 313.8 Acres Predominant Soil Types LaB,ErA,BgC LaB, BgC BgC , LaB LaB,BgC,ErA LaB LaB,LbB Ag. Soil Class 3,6,5 3,5 5,3 3,5,6 3 3,2 * Field Numbering system is the same as the SCS farm plan. 240" Munson iioad trot on, NY 13073 September 25, 1987 Ms. Joanne* L. March Sr. Lnvironental Analyst Livision of -degulatory Affairs NYS DEC xiegi on 7 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard Liverpool, N.Y. 13068 Dear Ms. March: Enclosed please find copies in triplicate concernin.z aasays of Mercury for Munson Farms Pert 360 Sludge Landspreading Application Lansing ('T) , 4roton. (T) Tompkins CO. UPA No. 70-87-0155. Thank you for your attention to these matters. Sincerely, Philip ff�/� oMunso,�Jr. SEP 281987 ..` 4 OEPAR - _ EWRONMENT RED-' i DIVISION OF ,--F,, .. New York State College of Agriculture and Life Sciences a Statutory College of the State University Cornell University Toxic Chemicals Laboratory Tower Road Ithaca, N. Y. 14853-7401 Telephone: 607-255-4538 September 18, 1987 Mr. Philip H. Munson R.D. #1 - 248 Munson Road Groton, NY 13073 Dear Mr. Munson: The results of analysis of mercury in the seven soil samples you submitted are as follows: Code Mercury, ppm FN 13290 A .073 FN 13290 B .034 FN 13290 C .038 FN 13290 D .075 FN 13290 E .049 FN 13290 F .050 FN 13290 G .073 The cost for these analyses are $140.00 (7 samples at $20.00 per sample). Please send a check payable to the Toxic Chemicals Laboratory, Cornell University at the above address. Thank you. DJL:cmr Sely, i Donald J. Lisk+� SEP 2 �T DEPn;� ENVIRONMENf - n DIVISIGtV c;; Theresa Robinson, Supervisor 101 Conger Boulevard Groton, NY 13073 Re: Munson Farms - Part 360 Application for Landspreading Sludge, Groton and Lansing (Town's), Tompkins County, UPA No. 70-87-0155 Dear Ms. Robinson, Enclosed please find the following items as per your telephone request of October 15, 1987: Item 1. Mercury Analysis 2. Additional Information on Arch/Cult data 3. Additional Information as per Notice of Incomplete (part of application) 4. DEC's letter requesting further Arch/Cult data 5. DEC's Notice of Incomplete Application which contains the Long Environmental Assessment Form Date of Letter 9/25/87 9/23/87 9/22/87 9/21/87 dated 9/27/87, officially received by DRA 8/31/87 The Town was sent a copy of the Notice of Complete Application which indicates the start (August 8, 1987), and end (November 6, 1987) of the public comment period. The Town may wish to submit comments on this application during this timeframe. If you have questions on this, you may want to first contact Brian Rogers, of our Division of Solid Waste, at (315) 428-4483, since he performed the initial technical review. Other questions may be directed towards me. 5ince)rely, Joanne L. March Sr. Environmental Analyst Enclosure cc: Division of Solid Waste, Region 7 Division of Solid Waste, S. Rowland, Albany DRA File 18.18%. As shown in Appendix A, the solids content is based on 15 analyses covering the period from September, 1986 through May, 1987. The dry weight sludge production is estimated at 32.7 dry tons per day. This landspreading application encompasses 314.3 acres. At a maximum sludge application rate for a corn crop, the entire operation would only provide 43 days worth of sludge operation from Onondaga County. However upon successful irl lementation of this plan, Munson Farms envisions. if appropriate in the future, to increase the permitted acreage together with institution of a double cropping program to increase yields and sludge application rates. QUALITY OF SLUDGE The quality of the Metro STP sludge is presented in Appendix A and summarized in the sludge quality analysis form. From a heavy metal standpoint, the sludge meets applicable DEC regulations and guidelines. A comparative summary of heavy metal analyses is presented below: Parameter Average Max. DEC Standard mR�/kar (mg/kg) Mercury 0.87 10 Cadmium 16.04 25 Nickel 134.0 200 Copper 801.6 1000 Chromium 689.0 1000 Lead 172.5 1000 Zinc 1050 2500 PCB Total <6 10 TOX 2.82 - Inspection of this summary indicates that copper is the heavy metal that is found closest to its limit (80%). As will be shown later, copper is hence found to be the limiting heavy metal based on cumulative heavy metal loading restrictions. - 2 - It should also be noted that the lab completing sludge analyses for Onondaga County has difficulty with interference for their PCB tests. We therefore obtained a sludge sample from the Metro STP and sumbitted it to another lab which showed total PCB concentrations within the maximum allowable limit. The final comment regarding sludge quality relates to the nitrogen content. The kjeldahl (TKN) nitrogen is relatively high at 6% while the ammonia -nitrogen is moderate at l.lo. These levels indicate that adequate availability of nitrogen are present to promote crop growth at reasonable sludge application rates. APPLICATION RATES The procedure to determine sludge application rates was based on the DEC outline which is attached to this report. It is based on growing a corn crop for animal feed with an available nitrogen content requirement of 140 pounds -N per acre. The available nitrogen content of the Metro sludge is estimated at 31.41 pounds -N per dry ton. This assumes that 507o of the ammonia nitrogen will be lost by volatilization with surface application of the dewatered sludge via lime spreader trucks. This results in a 4.46 dry ton per -acre sludge application rate to meet the entire nitrogen need of a corn crop. Because of the relatively high solids content and moderate sludge application rates, the hydraulic application rate is insignificant. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS Typical environmental concerns for sludge landspreading operations include site flooding potential, odor generation potential, ground slopes and attendant surface runoff concerns, soil types and depth to groundwater, crop type and potential public health concerns with heavy metal or pathogen uptake into the food chain. - 3 - For either spreading site, there are no major streams or surface L/ water bodies, hence flooding potential is minimal. On the main Munson farm, the only streams shown draining the site are small intermittent streams that have no flow during dry weather periods. Odor generation will be minimized by incorporating the dewatered ✓ sludge into the soil within 24 hours of application on the spreading site together with maintaining the minimum setback requirements for these fields. Another potential source for odor generation would be the interim sludge storage facility which consists of two 40 feet wide by 100 feet by 10 feet deep concrete pit silos. These pits are located behind the main barn south of Munson Rd. and due west of site #8. Currently these pits are storing lime which will be used on the spreading sites,to raise the soil pH to a minimum 6.5 level. This sludge storage facility is designed for interim use during inclement weather periods when landspreading is not permitted. Hence odor potential will be somewhat controlled by limiting storage periods to a minimum practical period. If odor potential at this interim storage / facility is found to be a problem, it can be minimized by adding lime and covering the pile with a black plastic sheet. This will also"insure that the sludge is kept relatively dry while being stored. As previously mentioned, ground slopes are quite flat with most fields in the 0-4% range. This fact together with 24 hour sludge incorporation and the lack of major drainageways should minimize surface runoff concerns. As shown on Table 1 and the soils map, approximately eight soils encompass the two landspreading sites. However there are only two predominant soils found in the fields, namely Bath -Valois (BgC) and Langford (LaB). Bath -Valois is a gravelly silt loam with depth to seasonal high water table of 25 inches. These are moderately permeable soils with an agricultural soil group classification of 5. Langford (LaB) soils are moderately permeable - 4 - channery silt loam soils underlain by fragipan with depth to seasonal high water table ranging from 6 to 30 inches. These soils are considered some of the better upland soils for crops. Most wet spots on the farm have been tiled and all the fields are workable even in early Spring. As shown on the soil analysis form, two of the seven samples indicated pH levels slightly below the required minimum of 6.5. Prior to any landspreading, each field will be checked to insure the soil pH is 6.5 or above. The final environmental concern relates to public health impacts of potential food chain contamination with heavy metals or pathogens. Pathogen contamination is minimized since no crops for direct human consumption will be grown on these fields. Only corn grain for animal feed will be grown. Furthermore no animal grazing will be allowed on these fields. As to heavy metal uptake, cumulative heavy metal additions will be accounted for each year for each field. All fields receiving sludge will be limed as necessary to meet a minimum pH of 6.5. At this pH level, potential heavy metal transport to a crop is significantly reduced since heavy metal solubility in soils increases with decreasing soil pH. Current plans. call for liming any field as necessary to raise the pH to 6.5. SITE LIFE/HEAVY METAL CUMULATIVE LOADING The cumulative heavy metal loadings*allowed by DEC to agricultural lands are more restrictive for prime agricultural lands. As shown on worksheet S-4, the cumulative loading limits for Class 1-3 soil groups are one-third less than the Class 4-10 soils. For the proposed Munson Farms landspreading sites, a total of 143.7 acres are estimated to be Class 2 or 3 soils. A summary of this prime agricultural land is presented in Table 2. This represents 46% of the total spreadable acreage. In order to determine the average cumulative heavy metal loadings, 460 of the Class 1-3 limits were added to 54% of the Class 4-10 limits as summarized on S-4. - 5 - Worksheet S-5 shows the estimated site life calculations based on these aforementioned cumulative heavy metal loading limits. The annual heavy metal loadings are based on the average heavy metal concentrations of the Metro sludge presented in this report times the proposed sludge application rates. These annual loadings are then divided into the cumulative limits to obtain the remaining site life. As shown on S-5, copper is the limiting heavy metal with a projected site life of 13.3 years. - 6 - TABLE 1 MUNSON FARMS SLUDGE LANDSPREADING SITE DATA Field # * Spreadable Predominant Soil Types Ag. Soil Class Acreage(Ac) 1 9.5 ErA, LaB 623 2 3.7 ErA, EbB 6,6 3 2.5 BgC, Lab 573 4-5 6.9 LaB, EcA ErA 327,6 6 10.5 BgC LaB 5,3 7 10.3 LaB, ErA 3,6 8 2.0 LaB 3 10 2.2 BgC, EcA 527 11213 5.4 LaB,BgC,EcA 3,527 14 5.4 LaB, EbB 326 15 4.7 LaB 3 16 11.2 LaB, BgC 3,5 17 14.9 BgC, LaB 513 21 11.5 CfB, KnA 376 23 3.4 KnA 6 24 3.4 CfA 2 25 4.8 LbB 2 26 3.5 LaB 3 27 43.5 LaB,BgC,EbB,KnA 3,5,6,E 28 10.0 CfA, KnA 216 29 5.3 EbB,BgC,KnA 6,526 36 7.8 LaB,BgC,LbB 3,572 37 4.3 LaB,LbB 2,3 38 4.0 LbB 2 39-43 39.6 BgC,LaB,ErA 5,3,6 49 20.4 BgC,LaB 513 50 10.3 LaB,BgC 3,5 * Field numbering system is the same as the SCS farm plan. TABLE 1 (CON'T) MUNSON FARMS SLUDGE LANDSPREADING SITE DATA Field # * Spreadable Predominant Soil Types Acreage(Ac) 51152,54,55 20.8 LaB,ErA,BgC 53 6.7 LaB, BgC 56 8.8 BgC, LaB 58 7.1 LaB,BgC,ErA 59 5.1 LaB 60 4.8 LaB,LbB TOTAL 314.3 Acres Ag. Soil Class 3,6,5 3,5 5,3 3,5,6 3 3,2 * Field Numbering system is the same as the SCS farm plan. TABLE 2 MUNSON FARMS SUMMARY OF CLASS 1-3 SOILS Field # Acreage (Ac) Soil Tvpe Classification w 1 3.5 LaB 3 3 0.9 LaB 3 4-5 3.0 LaB 3 6 2.6 LaB 3 7 8.8 LaB 3 8 2.0 LaB 3 14 3.5 LaB 3 15 4.6 LaB 3 16 10.3 LaB 3 17 3.0 LaB 3 21 6.9 CfB 3 24 3.4 CfA 2 25 4.8 LbB 2 26 3.5 LaB 3 27 18.2 LaB 3 36 5.2 LaB,LbB 312 38 4.0 LbB 2 39-43 11.4 LaB 3 49 2.6 LaB 3 50 8.2 LaB 3 51 13.9 LaB 3 53 4.0 LaB 3 56 0.2 LaB 3 58 5.3 LaB 3 59 5.1 LaB 3 60 4.8 LaB 3 TOTAL 143.7 • SLUDGE QUALITY ANALYSIS FORM Limit Average Average R� (ppm) (lbs/Ton) Mercury 10 �8� O,00i7 Cadmium 25 0.0 3 Z/ Nickel 200 /3 o O. Z &8 Copper 11000 x FOA 4 /- 60 3,, Chromi um 1,000 9�F O /, 78 Lead 11000 ac- oO. 3 z`5- Zinc 21500 PCB Total 10 < TOX PH 7 7(3 /1/.14, % Solids /,/8y2- N� Potassium Phosphorus 37_908 N O 2: N SS"y, Z D. T KN NH3 : N //,�12 e 6 8 Units are in ppm on a dry weight basis. Conversion Factor - , ' Parts Per Million x 0.-Qo84� = Lbs. Per Dry Ton Name of Sewage Treatment Plant &4 Design Capacity of Sewage Treatment Plant mgd eQ ;,l�cc�Pcl �� any/C/ =�� - 2/ SPA` /'171? L - S/io/B% leP aj7t;cAeoi CP a�, Z ��S�S zllelg7 - 61ZL/ C ,r t►PC,, 1 SOILS ANALYSIS FORM Owner S Lot # ,3 9 - Y3 , i V, /3 Acreage 5�1. Laboratory Date Sample Taken Y�/4-7 Date ��z✓/�7 Crop Grown Before Sample Gor"Of When Previous Application Date Rate ton/acre *Samples should be taken Location (see map) �.,,�,Q, 4"-8" deep. Soil Classification C /, �rX, Z 63 , Agricultural Soil Group , Lab Results C/• � � Total PCB's O /GaGiL wi�P /1�� fPc� / V Mercury -- Potassium Cadmium D. 3 k 5� Phosphorous Nickel /v, / NO3=N 5, - Copper / y, 3 NO?_ N — Chromium AF e7l TKN Lead z/, NH3=N Zinc pH �•� CEC (optional) — Moisture Content — Tf,1S :mbl 10/13/83 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Regulatory Affairs, Region 7 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard Liverpool, NY 13088 (315) 428-4697 SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE October 8, 1987 Munson Farms RD 7#1, Munson Road Groton, NY 13073 PROJECT NO.: UPA #70-87-0155 Henry G. Williams Commissioner 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 Department of Environmental Conservation, as lead agency, has determined that the proposed action described below will not have a significant effect on the envi ronment. TITLE OF ACTION: Part 360 - Permit to Construct/Operate a Solid Waste Management Facility SEQR STATUS: Type I DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION: Town of Lansing & Groton, Tompkins County The applicant proposes to landspread (with transfer facility capability) stabilized dewatered sludge approximately 40 days a year from the Syracuse Metropositan Sewage Treatment Plant on approximately 313.8 acres of farmland located at two sites: 1) Main Farm Site is located 6.5 miles northeast of Ithaca between Route 34 (west boundary), Route 101 (east boundary), Munson Road (sites are just north but mostly south of this Road), and Luce Road a.k.a. Route 152 (south boundary), Towns of Lansing & Groton.' 2 Asbury Site is located 2.5 miles N.E. of Ithaca approximately one mile east of Asbury between Route 108 north boundary), Warren Road (west boundary), Farrel Road (south boundary) and the Scofield Road (east boundary), Town of Lansing. REASONS FOR SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION: 1. The Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste has reviewed the sludge for heavy metals, PCB and TOX. The sludge meets DEC regulations and guidelines for these parameters proposed to be landspread on 313.8 acres for approximately 30 - 40 days a year. Page 2 Munson Farms October 8, 1987 2. No protected streams or surface water bodies are located on or near these two sites. However an Article 24 Freshwater Wetlands is located on/near the Main Site. It is WG-5 (map attached). A Special Condition of the permit shall state "No landspreading shall occur within 100' of WG-5 wetland. No run-off, erosion or siltation will be permitted to enter this wetland". 3. Odor generation shall be minimized by incorporating sludge into the soil within 24 hours of application. Also, standard DEC set backs shall be maintained. If odors arise at transfer area, sludge shall be limed and covered with black plastic. 4. Run-off should not be a problem as most of the site is 0-4'/0' slope. Standard conditions limit landspreading to 15% slope. 5. Soil pH shall be maintained at 6.5 (liming may be necessary) which shall reduce heavy metal crop uptake. 6. The sites lie in Tompkins County Agricultural District #1. The cumulative heavy metals loading allowed by DEC to prime agricultural lands is more restrictive. In this Agricultural District and on these sites, various areas are prime soils. The Department is treating the entire two sites as prime farm land, therefore the following condition shall be placed on the permit: "Loading limits shall be those for soil classes 1-3 for the entire two sites". 7. The sites do not lie in or near the 100 Year Floodplains.' 8. The Part 360 - Waste Haulers Permit used by the Onondaga County Department of Drainage & Sanitation to currently haul the sludge to a landfill, must be modified to include these sites, prior to commencement of hauling sludge. The present waste hauler is Davis Water & Waste. This shall be a permit condition. 9. The Asbury Site lies in a potential Archaeological/Cultural area. Since the site is to use only standard farming methods, no cultural assessment form is required. However the following shall be conditions on the permit: "If any prehistoric (stone tools, bone, charcoal, etc.) or historic materials (historic pottery, glass, foundation remains, etc.) are discovered during construction or operation the construction/operation must be stopped and Region 7 DRA and the Cultural Resource Section must be notified immediately to assess the sig- nificance of the materials"; and "Prior to any landspreading, if, site(s) are found in the 'Site File Search', there will be a resource investigation to determine the significance of the site(s)". 10. Approximately four vehicle trips/day are planned, for 30 - 40 days per year. No sludge shall be 1 andspread in inclement weather. No sludge shall be hauled or stored during the winter and/or snow covered ground (sludge shall be landfilled at these times). Application shall occur in the fall, after crop harvest, and spring, prior to planting. Sludge shall be spread in summer only on those sites that are in fallow. Page 3 Munson Farms October 8, 1987 11. No landspreading shall occur when depth to groundwater is less than 20 inches. 12. Nitrogen availability is quite adequate to promote crop growth at regulated loading rates. 13. The following will be some of the Special Conditions on this permit (other conditions may be formulated during Technical Review): a) Surface Transfer Facility: The sides of the bunker silos shall be enclosed using plywood sheets bolted to the concrete sides and lined with plastic. b) Boundaries for landspreading shall be staked out to ensure that all separ- ation distances are observed. c) The loading rates shall .be limited to 3.27 tons/acre as stated in the letter from Fagan Engineers dated 9/22/87. d) An annual report shall be submitted to the Regional Division of Solid & Hazardous Waste Office prior to December 31 of each year. The report shall contain data regarding the quantity of sludge spread on each field during the year, sample results of all soil tests taken, and results of the required sludge analysis. e) The transfer facility will require a Part 360 Permit. There are no exemptions for temporary storage. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Person: Joanne L. March, Sr. Environmental Analyst Address: 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard, Liverpool, NY 13088 Telephone No: (315) 428-4697 Copies of this Notice Sent to: Commissioner -Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany,NY NYSDEC Regional Office Towns of Lansing & Groton Applicant Division of Solid Waste, Albany Division of Solid Waste, Region 7 Dennis Fagan, P.E. M. Cinquino, Albany Louis Inglis Tompkins County Health Dept. Louise Birkhead (Senator Hoffman's Office) Randy Ott =� --- f dui tIi e Ca anal -_; 1154; ■ K E ".c TN [ANSING'�chool No ti ■ fl ■ __rr` Ldn;rng +* 4-_ Cem E3M NEWMAN Quit Hu 937 • • a� O I j t` SCHOOL n b L • Howser_ 186 _ orner SWAMP _ 1 V 35' — BM MUNSON 1147 d _ -4 — 0 rl�ooe�.N. 4 C3 rin 0 ROAD 1120 7 H i 151 CDC •I �, 4 BACON ■ ROAD ■ ,i ` ' - 1175SPRIAG STREET - ---- fX T f 1 ~'. ■ `Tunson C'ol ners t i1, n ROAD 1 I I r Lanterman Ce n� J Cem ' ■ 1 t� 1 , o � ■ GOOOMAN ROAD Terse l Lttdlocs• Corners I F i► o S�—f-�� D•�� ;�� r • r====1 ,apt Lansing,'' 0 , r • : r-r- L UCf 16 WG 9 ° 1 N t Buck October 28, 1987 Dear Town Board: fl OV 2 19B7 We are writing to request a town ordinance to prohibit the spreading of sludge from Syracuse on any land in Groton. Philip Munson Jr. has submitted a permit application to DEC to spread sludge on property in Groton and Lansing. This would be a danger for Groton and well as other surrounding communtities. Our reasons are as follows: DEC sporadically tests the sludge for a limited number of heavy metals, but does not test it for dioxine, organic solvents, PCB -related compounds, asbestos, and many other carcinogenic chemicals. The sludge from Syracuse is from a heavily industrialized area. It may literally contain thousands of chemicals, the concentrations of which can vary from week to week depending on the industrial activity at the time. Many of these compounds are carcinogenic and mutagenic. They represent a serious health hazard to the individuals served by the wells in the surrounding area. DEC has no program to continually monitor the organic content, the carcinogenic,or mutagenic activity of the sludge. Scientific studies have reported abnormal physiologic and biochemical responses in animals fed crops grown on sludge treated soil, and a increased deposition of toxic chemicals and heavy metals in the tissues of these animals. We operate a 100 head dairy farm adjoining the Munson property, and are concerned about the possibility of toxic chemicals leaching into our watering pond near the Munson boundary. Deposits of toxic compounds in the tissues of these animals would enventually enter their milk, and could endanger the health of our family and other consumers that purchase the milk. If Munson were allowed to spread the sludge, it would set a precedent for the town of Groton. If other individuals in the town wanted to engage in -this kind of activity, it would be so much harder to prohibit. If this precedent is set, it would indicate to the state that Groton is an available dumping ground for all the municipal wastes from all over the state. We believe that this permit application to DEC by Munson represents a serious threat to the town of Groton. We request that the board pass an ordinance prohibiting this activity by Munson. Sincerely, A. Fl-ay Benson, Linda T. Benson 546 Cobb St. RD1, Groton, NY 13073 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Regulatory Affairs, Region 7 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard Liverpool, NY 13088 ( 315 ) 428-4697�s 98 November 5, 1987 d. 0 .1. Conger B L.i u l ce v a! «.l Thomas C. Jorling Commissioner Re: Munson Farms - Part 360, Landspreading, Lansing & Groton (Town's), Tompkins County, UPA No. 70-87-0155 Dear Commentor, This is in regard to the public comment period for the above referenced proposal. The last filing date for comments on this project has been changed. The new date for AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT is November 13,1987. If there are any questions, please contact this office. All comments must be in writing. Sincerely, �J Joanne L. March Sr. Environmental Analyst cc: DRA File � 87 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Regulatory Affairs, Region 7 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard Liverpool, NY 13088 - (315) 428-4697 October 8, 1987 Dennis A. Fagan, P.E. Fagan Engineering 200 William- Street Suite 211 Elmira, NY 14901 RE: Munson Farms - Part 360 - Landspreading Sludge Lansing (T), Groton (T), Tompkins County, UPA #70-87-0155 Dear Mr. Fagan, Enclosed are the following: Henry G. Williams Commissioner 1. The "Notice of Complete Application" (Notice) (one page), a public notice to other potentially interested parties describing your proposed landspreading operation and this Department's intention to issue a permit. The Notice will be published in the Department's weekly, ENVIRONMENTAL NOTICE BULLETIN, and you must also have the Notice published in a local newspaper. 2. The Negative Declaration which also contains a few various draft permit conditions. Please review and comment if necessary. You are hereby requested to do the following: 1. Read over the enclosed documents carefully and notify this office immediately if there are any errors. _ If there are no errors, but you want to submit written comments, the comments should be sent to this office prior to the cut-off date underlined in the body of the Notice. 2. The Notice of Complete Application should be published unedited in its entirety (except for bracketed portions) one time only on any day during the week of October 19-22, 1987 in the Dispatch (Oneida) and a local newspaper which covers both the towns involved. The Notice should not be revised or edited unless you have been authorized to do so by this office. Minor revisions will be authorized by phone if necessary. Page 2 Dennis Fagan October 8, 1987 Request the newspaper publisher to provide you with an affidavit of publication and promptly forward a copy of it to this office for filing with your application. You are responsible for the cost of publication. Very truly yours, Joanne L. March Sr. Environmental Analyst ccs Environmental Notice Bulletin (Notice Only) Division of Solid Waste, Region 7 Division of Solid Waste, Albany, S. Rowland M. Cinquino, Albany Louis Inglis Tompkins County Health Dept. Louise Birkhead (Senator Hoffman's Office) Randy Ott Lansing (T) Groton (T) NOTE TO 14-12-4 (11 /86) — 27a Applicant. - Address: PUBLISHER:- -.)0__N01r_ PUBLISH MATET" ` TN BRACKETS NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION NOTICE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION Date: Permits applied for and application numbers Project description and location. Town/City of 1s<-'IIS1.n9rS' A. } :(IIi County of -con4pkins -t-e applac:ant proposes tc. landspread (with trans iacility capability) stabilized dewatered sludge approximately 40 days a from the Syracuse Metropolitan Sewage Treatment Plant on approximately 313.8 acres of farmland located at two sites: 1) Main Farm Site is located 6.5 miles northeast of Ithaca between Rczute 34 (west boundary), Route 101 (east boundary), Munson Road (situ are just north but mostly south this Road) , and Luce Road a.k.a. Route 152 ( south boundary) , Towns o : Lansing & Groton, 2) ,1Sbury Site is located 2.5 mi.lcs N.E. of Ithaca approximately one mile east of Asbury between Route 108 (north boundary), Warren Road (west boundary), Farrell Road ( he- !`nda.a y) and the Scofield Rn,70 �^Kac-a- ?rfst.3>�t�ir:" `7 i , Tr)wr off r:,?ripi nq. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW (SEQR) DETERMINATION: (Check appropriate box) ❑SEQR-1 Project is not subject to SEQR because it is an exempt, excluded or a Type II action. ❑SEQR-2 Project is a Type I action and will not have a significant effect on the environment. A Negative Declaration is on file and a coordinated review with other agencies performed. ❑SEQR-3 her is an unlisted action and will not have a significant effect on the environment, a Negative Declaration is on file: ❑A —coordinated review performed ❑B—no coordinated review performed. ❑SEQR-4 A draft environmental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. ❑SEQR-5 A final environmental impact statement has been prepared on this project and is on file. SEQR LEAD AGENCY STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (SHPA) DETERMINATION: (Check appropriate box) 1:1SHPA-1 Project is not subject to SHPA: ❑A —exempt permit type ❑B—federal review performed. ❑SHPA-2 Project will not have an adverse impact and an assesrrrent7s'tsm'FrF ❑SHPA-3 A cultural resources survey has been prepared on this project and is on file. AVAILABILITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT: CONTACT PERSON: Applications may be reviewed at the address to the right. Comments on the project must be submitted to the Contact Person by no later than: T THE APPLICANT: 1 , 11 . THIS IS NOT A PERMIT a 2. This is to advise you that your application is complete and a review has commenced. Additional information may be requested fro you at a future date, if deemed necessary, in order to reach a decision on your application. 3 Your project is classified MAJOR. Accordingly, a decision will be made within 90 days of the date of this Notice. If a public hear' is necessary, you will be notified within 60 days and the hearing will commence within 90 days of the date of this notice. If a hearing ' held,, � the final decision will be made within 60 days after the hearing is completed. f ` 4. Publication of this Notice in a newspaper is: ❑ required ❑ not required If required, please consult the accompanying transmittal letter for further instructions. CC: Chief Executive Officer Environmental Notice Bulletin, Room 509, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, N.Y. 12233-0001 File New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Regulatory Affairs, Region 7 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard Liverpool, NY 13088 ( 315 ) 428-4697 A[ 17 19 13, 1987 Town Board of Groton 101 Conger Boulevard Groton, NY 13073 Thomas C. Jorling Commissioner Re: Munson Farms - Part 360, Landspreading, Groton & Lansing (Town's), Tompkins County, UPA No. 70-87-0155 Dear Commentor, This is to acknowledge that we have received the resolution on the above referenced project. They are currently being reviewed by the appropriate Unit-(s) for a reply. The comments will be taken under consideration. You will be hearing from us concerning our decision on the proposal. If a hearing is to be held, you will be so advised and placed on our mailing list. Thank you for your interest and concern. Sincerely, J a ne L. March Sr. Environmental Analyst cc: Division of Solid Waste, Region 7 Division of Solid Waste, Albany, S. Rowland DRA File NOV 141987 TOWN of LAN S I NG " Home of Industry, Agriculture and Scenic Beauty" To Ithaca Mary Call Chairman - Tomp. Co. Board of kepresentatives Tompkins County Court House Ithaca, New York 14850 November 12, 1987 Re: Hiring of Attorney's to represent the Town of Lansing vs D.E.C. - Munson Farms Dear Mrs. Call: The Lansing Town Board at it's meeting held on November 11, 1987, approved the attached Resolution concerning the above mentioned. It was decided to limit our contribution to three thousand dollars ($3,000.00). We decided this was necessary so that we can stop and evaluate our position at that point. It does not mean that we will not make additional contributions if it is in the interest of gaining a favorable solution to the problem. The Resolution also gives the Supervisor the authority to negotiate with the other parties on proportionate shares of the Attorney's fees. Tf you have anyi7+..c�StA r_ - � rl o�rcp f eel free to contact me at my J :� ` office. Very truly yours, r Herbert H. Howell Supervisor - Town of Lansing HHH/blb cc: Teresa Robinson Scott Hyman Helen Howell Robert Williamson, Attorney a 777 \ c; f � ID � Town of Lansing N Box 186 Lansing, N. Y. 14882 , 1, To Ithaca TOWN of LAN S I NG "Home of Industry, Agriculture and Scenic Beauty" November 12, 1987 The following Resolution was adopted by the Town Board of the Town of Lansing at a Regular Meeting held by said board on November 11, 1987: RESOLUTION offered by Mr. Emmick, who moved its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Kirby: RESOLVED, that the Resolution adopted by the Town Board on October 29, 1987 be amended to authorize the Supervisor to enter into a contract with Tompkins County and the Town of Groton to do the following: 1) Retain the Costello Law firm of Syracuse, New York to represent the County, Town of Lansing and the Town of Dryden in opposition to the application to transport, store and spread sludge on the Munson Farms in the Towns of Groton and Lansing. 2) To retain the services of an engineer in connection with said litigation. 3) To negotiate the amount to be paid by the Town of Lansing for said Attorney and Engineer fees and not to exceed a total amount of $3,000.00. Vote of Town Board . . . . (Aye) Herbert Howell, Supervisor Vote of Town Board . . . . (Aye) Louis Emmick, Councilman Vote of Town Board . . . . (Aye) Bert Hilliard, Councilman Vote of Town Board . . . . (Aye) Jeannine Kirby, Councilwoman STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) ss: TOWN OF LANSING ) I, Bonita Boles, Town Clerk of the Town of Lansing, Tompkins County, New York, do hereby certify that I have compared the preceding Resolution with the original thereof filed in my office at the Town Hall, Lansing, Tompkins County, New York on the 11th day of November, 1987, and that the same is a true and correct copy of said original in the whole thereof. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Town this 12th day of November 1987.(- j Bonita Boles --Town Clerk, Town of Lansing Tompkins County ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL Biggs Building A, 301 Dates Drive Ithaca, New Fork 14850 (607) 274-5360 ffjJJJ��n 1111 November 12, 1987 3 0 -1997 Ms. Joanne L. March Senior Environmental Analyst New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Regulatory Affairs 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard Liverpool, NY 13088 Dear Ms. March: The Tompkins County Environmental Management Council would like to submit a carefully considered and researched response to the Munson Farms 'Sludge Land - spreading application and the Declaration of No Significant Environmental Impact by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. However, it is clear to us that the time period for public comment is too short for us to investigate the following areas of concern that we have to this point identified: 1. There is no guarantee of consistent composition of the sludge coming from the Syracuse Metro Treatment. The variability of sludge quality is difficult to monitor. 2. The pathogens or viruses being released to the environment in the process of spreading sludge may be harmful. 3. There is a wetland positioned in the center of the proposed landspreading sites. 4. The fields, or at least some of the fields, are located in a part of the county that is already well populated and is the target for much of the expected urban development of Tompkins County. 5. There are no guarantees that the future use of this land, after 13 years of sludge landspreading, will properly retain the heavy metals and other toxins as the currently planned corn field supposedly does. 6. Although depth to bedrock has been estimated, it requires expensive test drilling at each particular site to know bedrock depth and subsurface drainage patterns. Ms. Joanne E. March November 12, 1987 Page 2 7. The potential problems associated with sludge landspreading appear to be compounded when the site involves many, small, scattered fields rather than one large piece of land. 8. The expense, personnel and time that would be required to properly monitor the changes in land, water, and air as a result of sludge landspreading far exceed the means of NYSDEC or any conceivable agency. With these initial reservations in mind we, on behalf of the Tompkins County Environmental Management Council, request a delay in the granting of a permit to Munson Farms for sludge landspreading, so that the Environmental Management Council can provide better -input into the assessment of the environmental impacts of this proposal. Sincerely, Edward A. Cope, Chairman Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Committee Tompkins County Environmental Management Council EC:ys It �-a-�- iiuV 9 1987 IRRESOLUTION NO. 297 - RESOLUTION OPPOSING THE 13 PORTATION OF CONIDERCIAL AL'D RESIDENTIAL SLUDGE AND SOLID WASTES Offered by Mr. Proto, seconded by Mr. Winch. WHEREAS, Tompkins County has recently been notified that a permit application is pending before the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation for the land spreading of Onondaga County sewage treatment plant sludge in the Towns of Lansing and Groton, and WHEREAS, Tompkins County has, by previous action and by its current process of developing a solid waste management plan, taken responsibility for upgrading treatment of sludge in order to eliminate land spreading, and WHEREAS, this Board is previously on record as opposing the importation of ordinary municipal waste from any municipality outside Tompkins County with the exception of the Town of Spencer in Tioga County, now therefore be it RESOLVED, on recommendation of the Solid Waste Management Committee, IMThat this Board of Representatives emphatically expresses its opposition to the 'importation of any sludge or solid wastes into Tompkins County with the one exception noted above and instructs staff to retain immediately an !Environmental Attorney to intervene in all appropriate ways to attempt to i prevent the above mentioned land spreading of Onondaga County sludge or the ;importation of any other solid wastes, i RESOLVED, further, That this Board stands ready to cooperate in every Tway and instructs its staff to do so likewise, with any towns that oppose any I !attempt to import such wastes. jcc: Comptroller Director of Budget and Finance County of Onondaga i� own of Lansing j ,TTown of Groton New York State Department of Environmental Conservation - Region VII STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss: .'COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ) I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of a resolution adopted by the Tompkins County Board of Representatives on the ,4th day of November, 1987. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said Board at Ithaca, New York, this 5th day of November, 1987. Clerk '1''7P— I GI: Ui'LISIED "" Tompkins County Board of Representatives (DE't'E?iS.zII� r_'i'iJi�S OR IiP-.CLUDED HEREIN) all N 0 V 1987 VINCENT A O'NEIL RICHARD D HILLMAN DONALD L NICHOLAS RAYMOND R D AGOSTINO WARREN W BADER TIMOTHY E GORMAN ROBERT D ESSIG KEVIN M GILLIGAN FRANCES A CIARDULLO JAMES A MARTIN DALE 8 JOHNSON ALICIA 5 ZIELINSKI ROBERT J SMITH J LAWSON BROWN. JR. MICHAEL RELIGA JOSEPH M ANESI• JAMES J GASCON THOMAS E TAYLOR COSTELLO, COONEY Sc FEARON ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW THE WHITE MEMORIAL BUILDING 100 EAST WASHINGTON STREET SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13202 TELEPHONE 422-1152 AREA CODE 315 November 13, 1987 Joanne L. March Senior Environmental Analyst New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Regulatory Affairs, Region 7 7481 Henry Clay Boulevard Liverpool, New York 13088 Re: Munson Farms - Part 360, Land Spreading, Lansing and Groton (Towns), Toimpkins County UPA No. 70-87-0155 Dear Ms. March: DAVID F COSTELLO (1893.1934) CHARLES E COONEY (1897.19581 GEORGE R FEARON (1905.1976) ALSO ADMITTED IN TEXAS ALSO ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON D C FAX 315.422-1139 Our law firm has been retained by Tompkins County to represent the County together with the interests of the Towns of Lansing and Groton with regard to the above -referenced application. On November 9, 1987 Ray D'Agostino and myself attended a meeting with the Tompkins County Administrator, the Supervisors of the Towns of Lansing and Groton, the Tompkins Commissioner of Planning and other representatives of both the County and the two Towns. As a result of that meeting, it is readily apparent that this is a very controversial issue of extreme importance to the involved municipalities and their citizens. SEQR NEGATIVE DECLARATION - NOTICE OF DETERMINATION OF NON -SIGNIFICANCE We note with interest DEC's notice dated October 8, 1987 indicating a negative declaration of environmental significance. After a review of DEC's file together with information set forth in this comment, we would urge that the DEC reverse this determination and make a positive declaration with respect -to environmental significance. It is clear that significant and substantive environmental issues have been raised and that a further discussion and development of environmental information is required before a final environmental determination is possible. Given the nature of the operation, it is difficult for our clients to understand how a "hard look" at the environmental aspects of this application could possibly have resulted in a negative declaration. In light of subsequent public comment it is clear that a "harder look" at environmental issues is in order. Joanne L. March November 13, 1987 Page 2 PUBLIC HEARING On behalf of Tompkins County and the Towns of Lansing and Groton, we respectfully demand that a public hearing be granted in order to permit a full airing of all environmental issues and the development of evidence relating thereto. Only after such a hearing would a determination on this application be appropriate. Initially, there has been significant public controversy as indicated by the number of public comments in the DEC file (we understand that the DEC is in receipt of nearcy 70 such comments) together with petitions in opposition to the application which contained signatures of many more local residents. In addition, the municipalities we represent in this matter have received many complaints and inquiries with respect to the proposal and local officials have received strong pressures to effect a more comprehensive review of environmental issues. People are demanding that they have a voice in this procedure. A review of the comments in your file indicates that many of the comments do not reflect simple opposition but rather raise and discuss substantive issues of critical environmental importance. COMPREHENSIVE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLAN Tompkins County has undertaken a comprehensive plan for the treatment of sewage and septage within its municipal boundaries, a plan which has been in the works for more than five years. The plan was originally developed on a public health basis in order to halt the spreading of septage and sludge in Tompkins County. The County, by resolution, has agreed to take all sludge and septage into the system. There are currently seven public treatment plants in the Tompkins County area. They are as follows: 1. Ithaca Intermunicipal Sewage Treatment Pliant (serving the City of Ithaca and portions of the Towns of Ithaca and Dryden); 2. Village of Trumansburg; 3. Village of Cayuga Heights (serving portions of the Town of Ithaca, the Town of Lansing and the Village of Lansing in addition to the Tillage of Cayuga Heights); 4. The Village of Dryden (serving portions of the Town of Dryden as well); Joanne L. March November 13, 1987 Page 3 5. The Village of Groton (also serving portions of the Town of Groton); 6. The Town of Newfield Sewer District; and 7. The City of Ithaca. The City of Ithaca currently has under construction a new sewage treatment plant, 89% of which is being funded by DEC and EPA. The comprehensive County plan calls for this sewage treatment plant (which is due to come on line in early spring of 1988) to take all septage generated in Tompkins County and to handle it as part of the public sewage system. Tompkins County is currently investigating the possibility of a County sewer district. After the new sewage treatment plant is operational, the spreading of sewage and septage will be prohibited in Tompkins County. All of the foregoing sewage treatment plants together with all septic tank pumpers will be handled within the system and no more spreading permits will be issued. The County is also currently considering legislation which would prohibit all sewage and septage spreading within County limits. This plan was initiated based upon environmental and public health concerns. The County has "taken the bull by the horns" and developed a comprehensive plan for the handling of its sewage and septage waste. The end product of the treatment facilities is to be composted and turf grass grown on it which would be sold commercially or landfilled. Tompkins County has been given a NYSERDA grant for a pilot study addressing composting sludge with other biomass. The DEC has been involved in this plan over the past several years. It is clear .that Tompkins County has put forth great effort and should be commended for its attempts to comprehensively deal with its sewage and septage waste. The State of New York and DEC should be encouraging such comprehensive approaches to this problem. Allowing Onondaga County waste to be imported to Tompkins County and spread on open land in contravention of Tompkins County's own plan would be a complete frustration of its effort. WATERSHED As you know, Cayuga Lake serves as a water source for a number of communities along its shore. In fact, the Bolton Point Intermunicipal Water Supply facility serving the Towns of Ithaca, Lansing, Dryden and the Villages of Lansing and Cayuga Heights is located only a short distance from a stream which runs in close proximity to one of the proposed land spreading sites. Obviously, this water supply could be directly adversely affected by any surface or subsurface runoff from the land spreading site. In addition, other water sources could be adversely affected. We are advised that natural drainage flow from the application site would be toward Cayuga Lake. Joanne L. March November 13, 1987 Page 4 At this time Tompkins declaring lands located in the protected watershed area. If, drain toward Cayuga Lake, this 1 watershed areas. At the very le (including borings and ground w the applicant prior to any approvi County is considering seeking legislation drainage flow toward Cayuga Lake as a ►s we believe, the applicant's land does ind would be included within the protected ist a comprehensive drainage pattern study ►ter investigation) should be required of 1 of any permit to spread sludge. CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA For reasons noted in the public comments contained within the DEC file together with reasons set forth in this comment, Tompkins County is also considering the declaration of the watershed area as a "critical environmental area". Again, if drainage patterns are as we believe, the applicant's land would be included within the "critical environmental area". TESTING A review of the DEC file disclosed some proposed conditions relating to the permit. Specifically, we direct your attention proposed conditions No. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 (I have attached a copy of these special conditions for your reference). Please note that all of these conditions refer to "septage". It is clear that these conditions were designed for the spreading of septic tank waste and not the spreading of sewage from public sewage treatment plants. While some of the conditions would undoubtedly apply, it is indicative that the nature of the spread material has not been fully considered. Initially, the application .indicates that only limited tests are run on the sewage and that only these limited tests are anticipated in the future with regard to the material intended to be spread at the Munson farm site. We feel that it is imperative that a broader scope of testing for all priority pollutants be initiated prior to any land spreading. Additionally, these tests should be run on all sewage intended to be spread at the site in advance and the results should be reviewed, analyzed and approved prior to any spreading. Only in this manner can we be sure that the material to be spread is within DEC parameters and is of a sufficient purity to preclude the possibility of pollution from sources other than human waste. We also find interesting the studies conducted by Dr. Lisk of Cornell which idicate a possibility that viruses might be transmitted through sludge spreading. Testimony in this regard should be developed at public hearing. Joanne L. March November 13, 1987 Page 5 We note with interest the proposed condition which would preclude the spreading of material "in a manner which would allow the material to drain or become washed into any body of water, stream or water course". Prior to the completion of a comprehensive ground water and surface water drainage study, no one can know with any certainty what the drainage patterns would be. The proposed condition is much like a provision which would proverbially "close the barn door after the horse has gotten out". It is our position that the drainage study must be completed in advance of any land spreading in order to determine surface and ground water flows so that prediction can be made with some certainty as to whether or not off site contamination is possible. We also note a condition which would require that the sewage not come in direct contact with produce which would be consumed by humans or livestock (proposed condition No. 11). As the application indicates that the land will be used for raising feed corn, we would suggest that the application is in violation of this condition on its face. In summary, we must know the exact composition of material to be spread in advance of each application. We must also be sure (by virtue of a comprehensive drainage study) that no waste, no matter what its composition, will leave the applicant's site and result in the contamination of any waters or land belonging to neighbors or any source of drinking water. SECURITY Our review of the DEC file in this matter disclosed comments relating to the applicant's solvency. In view of the foregoing, we would respectfully demand that substantial security be required if any permit is issued. We cannot conceive of security in any amount less than $1,000,000.00 in this regard. ENFORCEMENT In the event that a land spreading permit is eventually granted by the Department of Environmental Conservation, it is clear that response time to contamination, problems is crucial. With this in mind, we would suggest that the DEC consider deputizing County health personnel so that they can inspect and take immediate action in the event of any pollution problems (much like the Onondaga County Health personnel are deputized to inspect and take action with respect to the Tripoli Landfill). Joanne L. March November 13, 1987 Page 6 CONCLUSION It is clear that the subject application has resulted in strong public interest. Substantive and significant environmental issues have been raised. In addition, proposed conditions are of questionable mitigation value with respect to pollution exposures. A public hearing would substantially aid the agency in its decision -making process by providing a forum for, or an efficient mechanism for the collection of public comment and evidence relating to environmental issues identified in public comments to the DEC and in this letter. We would respectfully submit that an informational hearing is totally inappropriate and that only a public hearing with full and open discussion of the environmental issues would be appropriate in this matter. Very truly yours, COSTELLO, COONEY & FEARON Kevin M. Gilligan KMG/ji Enclosures cc w/encs.: Scott Heyman, County Administrator for Tompkins County Frank R. Liguori, P.E. Department of Planning for Tompkins County Supervisor, Town of L__-;-�upervi sor, Town of : Robert Mulvy, Esq., : Town Attorney, Town : Town Attorney, Town Lansing Groton Tompkins County Attorney of Groton of Lansing SPECIAL CONDITIONS FOR LAND DISPOSAL OF SEPTAGE 1. Not more than two vehicles may be used for collection of contents of septic tanks, cesspools, or privies. 2. A minimum of 15 acres shall be available for landspreading for each vehicle. 3. Wastes shall not be spread closer than the listed distance for the following: MINIMUM DISTANCE (FEET) Property Line 50 Public Road 100 Stream, Watercourse, Body of Water 200 Water Well 500 Residence 500 4. Application of septage shall not exceed 8,000 gallons per acre for each application and shall not exceed 25,000 gallons per acre per year. 5. Septage cannot be spread on any land surface with a slope greater than 8 percent M), except as applied by subsurface injection along a path parallel to contours. 6. Septage shall not be deposited in a manner which will allow the material to drain or become washed into any body of water, stream or watercourse. 7. Septage should be incorporated into the soil within 24 hours of applica- tion. Good soil conservation practices should be used. The discharge should be close to the ground to minimize odors. If environmental problems result from improper septage handling and/or disposal, the registered Septic Tank Cleaner may be subject to either administrative or legal enforcement action and/or have his permit suspended or denied. 8. Septage shall not be spread on snow, frozen or saturated ground, or during periods of rainfall. 9. Lagoons and/or trenches approved by the Department must be used when ground is frozen or snow-covered. Lagoons and trenches must be emptied as early as practical in the spring but not later than June 1. Lagoons shall be constructed according to the following: r -2- a. Lagoons shall only be constructed in impermeable soil or with an approved plastic liner. b. The Department shall make the determination to the acceptability of the soil for lagoon construction. A test pit shall be dug to allow for inspection of the soil profile by a Department representative. c. Lagoons can be constructed and used only when approved by the Department. d. The lagoon bottoms shall be constructed above the water table. if groundwater rises into the lagoon, its use shall be immediately discontinued. 10. Proper control of vectors and odors must be provided so as not to constitute nuisances or hazards to health, safety, or property. 11. Septage shall not come into direct contact with agricultural produce that will be consumed by humans or domestic livestock, the public shall be prevented from coming in contact with the septage. 12. Public access to a septage facility shall be controlled for at least 12 months after the last application by the use of fences and gates, signs, or posted land signs. Grazing by other animals whose products are con- sumed by humans should be prevented for at least one month after the last application. 13. No crop for direct human consumption may be grown on septage amended soil within 18 months of the last application. 14. The applicant shall keep records on the quantity of septage spread on any specific piece of land. The records of quantities of septage spread, the field on which it was spread, the acreage of the fields so utilized, and the type of vegetation planted/harvested shall be made available on request by the Department. These records will also be used in the preparation of the annual reporting form submitted with sub- sequent permit applications. FP COSTELLO, COON EY 8c FEARON f7 1. La �i'.� I PS VINCENT A O'NEIL DAVID F. COSTELLO (1893-1934) RICHARD D. HILLMAN CHARLES E. COONEY (1897-1958) DONALD L. NICHOLAS ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW GEORGE R. FEARON (1905-1976) RAYMOND R. D'AGOSTINO WARREN W. BADER THE WHITE MEMORIAL BUILDING TIMOTHY E. GORMAN ROBERT D. ESSIG 100 EAST WASHINGTON STREET KEVIN M. GILLIGAN FRANCES A. CIARDULLO SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13202 • ALSO ADMITTED IN TEXAS JAMES A. MARTIN •• ALSO ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON D.C. DALE B. JOHNSON TELEPHONE 422-1152 ALICIA S. ZIELINSKI ROBERT J. SMITH • AREA CODE 315 IV J. LAWSON BROWN. JR. FAX 315-422-1139 MICHAEL RELIGA JOSEPH M. AN ESI JAMES GASCON THOMAS THOMAS E. TAYLOR November 18, 1987 R EI�E0' Mr. Scott Heyman, Administrator NOV 9 1987 Tompkins County Courthouse DSAT01 320 North Tioga Street vza- Ithaca, New York 14850 fol Dear Mr. Heyman: Confirming our recent telephone conversation, this firm will provide legal services to Tompkins County and the towns of Groton and Lansing in connection with the proposed land spreading of sewer sludge material on the Munson farm at a rate of $110.00 per hour for work performed by me, Kevin Gilligan or any other partner in the firm and at our regular hourly rates (not to exceed $100.00 per hour) for work performed by associates, paralegals and law clerks. These rates will remain in effect through December 31, 1988. I understand our bills will be submitted to and paid by Tompkins County which, in turn, shall make its own arrangements with the towns of Groton and Lansing for reimbursement to the County for a proportionate share of the fees. If it is agreeable to you, we shall submit our bills on a quarter- ly basis., We consider it a privilege and an honor to represent the County in this matter and appreciate your willingness to retain us. Kevin and I, as well as the other members of the firm, look forward to working with you and other representatives of the County. Very truly yours, COSTELLO, OONEY & -ON--- v Raymond R. D'Agostino RRD:caj n V November 190 '15MM7 Mr* Raymmind I, f%,*ASaSTinO-* 93sq. costalk-11 c4omy & Fear= AMMOY-8 Wid COMMISWIlOx-s- AM LAW nae WkIlte mew-OrIal &UMMIns R lot) &-Ast WaS.W.M.91,01. 195tr-00A Syremu", RAN IN* Dear Rapt This reqrorWs to- YOCUM 12MOM Qiat4d N*VOMber 18, 1987. hO po AITS at YV; would Rkm W CAU-Offy a Iftfle,, fuctht-r S-Omtw, 'Of t 1 1 tk' � U 13-mitlimed in your Man'tar, ftually in *-ar arrang!c-mm-ts E*r outsid's 4W legal S4";wVIce-q,, -,"the, hmarly We of the Vartaus levols OF staff in the Offfirm", to anwould mp reciate it if ve told "Ale Chat 111"D -chms ins tance-V amd if prapc* wrWirn 7mg would send a spec -I c 3 11ft al hourly fees for ass-ma"CIatfta r-MMIfta.13, and. Dam clork's& Iliad Specify in yonum bills the mars "aft* ed by 0-a-zh"O you -%d ai of bills is ,pu aubmit Vkhem more., -frequently every tAn-ce.. mmths ff the tat-11 b-M troat he's a cen-lain polm - I enze-e-t $1,f W. we are Ifirzalse jodking forward zo be!-qg represmted by rout firma mnA we are hieartemd by- oveals to date. Very truly yourst smrlt IIIII-R74an Cmnty Adsmllntstrator jhum cc.,? q* call, Ch4�armaa-,. gowned, of Repm-sentatives P, Shurttleff.,, T*wm of Groton Hetbort Novell, Town of Lamaing, Supervisor V11terema R-Obtam-10, Town 049 Garatvm supervLson COSTELLO, COONEY & FEARON VINCENT A. O'NEIL RICHARD D. HILLMAN DONALD L. NICHOLAS ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELLORS AT LAW RAYMOND R. D'AGOSTINO WARREN W. BADER THE WHITE MEMORIAL BUILDING TIMOTHY E. GORMAN ROBERT D. ESSIG 100 EAST WASHINGTON STREET KEVIN M. GILLIGAN FRANCESA. CIARDULLO SYRACUSE, NEW YORK 13202 JAMES A. MARTIN DALE B. JOHNSON I ALICIA S. ZIELINSKI TELEPHONE 422-If52 DE � I ROBERT J. SMITH • AREA CODE 315 J. LAWSON BROWN, JR. MICHAEL RELIGA JOSEPH M.ANESI•• JAMES J. GASCON THOMAS E. TAYLOR November 25, 1987 Mr. Scott Heyman Tompkins County Administrator Court House 320 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 Dear Scott: Thank you for your letter of November 19th. DAVID F. COSTELLO (1893-1934) CHARLES E. COONEY (1897.1958) GEORGE R. FEARON (1905.1976) • ALSO ADMITTED IN TEXAS •'ALSO ADMITTED IN WASHINGTON D.C. 0 FAX 315-422-1139 RECEIVED DE � �337 I enclose a copy of our 1987 fee schedule indicating the hourly rate for each of the lawyers, paralegals and clerks in the firm. These rates will be in effect until December 31st, subject to our agreement that the hourly rate for partners will be capped at $110.00, through 1988. We anticipate that, effective January 1, 1988, that most of the hourly rates will be increased by $10.00, with the result that some of our associates will be billing at $100.00 per hour. Our bills will specify the hours worked by each person in the firm and I will alert our bookkeeping department to your request 'that bills be submitted whenever services approimate $2,000.00. Very truly yours, COSTELL09 COONEY & FEARON Raymond R. D'Agostino RRD:caj Enclosure - as above