HomeMy WebLinkAboutSludge Page 3(MAW VW thin Fonn for Filing your Local Law with flat Secretary of State)
Tcxt of taw should be given as a►nended. Do not include niauct being
shmitwted and do not uw it►rlics or undetlu►ing to indic►rtt new nutter.
at LANSING
low...........................................Town
. N.NNH....N..p.O.q...U.4.M...... H.. N.. N..M... N..N.. N/M»I».
Ynir�c .
Local Law No..........................4..»......»»...........r...» of tlis YMt 19 8.. ."
TOWN OF LANSING SOLID WASTE IMPORTATION LOCAL LAW NO. 4 1987
A law............................................................. ......................... ........
.......H............N...N.N....M......N..........N.N..N»».M».»MM»»
(b~ aW4
He is enacted by the ........................................row6. BOAK�.............,
................./
!Name of Lasl tee 8"4
at "
Tows Q(/..../.NH.... .................................................LANSING so IOU"&
......../NH./.../.N......./...../......N...O.M/M..H.MM//Mii/.»..//M./N./N/MiM/
1. LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.
The Town Board finds that the disposal of solid waste is a problem of
significant importance involving health, safety, welfare, financial and munici-
pal service concerns which is the primary responsibility of the town initially,
wherein said solid waste is generated within its borders, or, in the alter-
native, the responsibility of any superior municipal entity that has formally
assumed this responsibility (Tompkins County or the State of New York)._ By
Resolution No. 282 of November 24, 1969, the County of Tompkins has assumed said
responsibility. The Town Board further finds that the town lacks the financial
resources to provide solid waste disposal and to maintain a solid waste manage-
ment facility for solid waste generated within the town in accord with existing
regulations and requirements. The Town Board further finds that establishment
of a solid waste management facility within the town by any other entity other
than under the auspices and control of a superior governmental entity would lead
to uncontrolled importation of solid waste generated outside of the town and
possibly outside of the County of Tompkins. Such uncontrolled use could lead to
the utilization on a large scale of vacant lands within the town creating
environmental impacts which would be the responsibility of non -governmental
entity which has no direct re. dons ibility to the residents of the town.
2. DEFINITIONS.
The below definitions are contained in the Solid Waste Management
Facilities Regulations (6 New York Code of Rules and Regulation "NYCRR" §360.1
(c) and (d)). Other terms not herein defined specifically shall be construed as
defined in the aforementioned regulations 6 NYCRR §360.1 (c) and (d).
a) Construction and demolition debris means wastes resulting from
constructiQa , remodeling, repair and demolition of structures, road building and
land clearing. Such wastes include but are not limited to bricks, concrete and'
other masonry materials, soil, rock and lumber, road spoils, paving material and
tree and brush stumps.
b) Disposal means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping,
spilling, leaking or placing of any solid waste into or on any land or water, so
that such wate or any constituent thereof may enter the environment, be emitted
into the air, or discharged into any waters, including ground waters of the
State.
CI[ additional space is nceded, lease attach sheets of the same size as this &ad number e,rcb)
Page 1
• .i•.s `. .'f � nit •� ! ' � ,}j �! •t.x�! .
L
c) Disposal facility means a facility or part of a facility at which
solid waste is intentionally placed into or on any land or water, and at which
waste will remain after closure.
d) Garbage means.putrescible solid waste, including animal and vege-
table waste resulting from the handling, storage, sale, preparation, cooking or
serving of foods. Garbage originates primarily in home kitchens, stores,
markets, restaurants and other places where food is stored, prepared or served.
e) Landfill means a disposal facility or part of a facility where
solid waste is placed in or on land, and which is not a land treatment facility,
a surface impoundment, or an injection well.
f) Operator means the person who is responsible for the operation of
a solid waste management facility.
g) Owner means the person who owns a facility or part of a facility.
h) Person means an individual, trust, firm, joint-stock company, cor-
poration (including a government corporation), partnership, association, state,
Federal government and any agency thereof, municipality, commission, political
subdivision of a state, or any interstate body.
(i) Sanitary landfill means a land disposal site employing an engi-
neered method of disposing of solid wastes on land in a manner that minimizes
environmental hazards and meets the design and operation requirements of this
Part.
j) Solid waste management facility means any facility employed beyond
the initial solid waste collection process, including but not limited to:
storage areas or facilities; transfer stations; rail -haul or barge -haul facili-
ties; processing facilities, including resource recover facilities; sanitary
landfills; incinerators; landspreading facilities; composting facilities; sur-
face impoundments; and waste oil storage, reprocessing and rerefining facili-
ties.
k) Storage means the containment of any solid waste, either on a
temporary basis or for a period of years, in such a manner as not to constitute
disposal of such waste.
1) Town means the Town of •
m) Transporter means a person engaged in the off -site transporation
of solid waste by air, rail, highway or water.
3. SOLID WASTE ORIGINATING OUTSIDE TOWN.
No person shall transport, import or bring for deposit, or cause any
other person to transport, import or bring for deposit, into the town any gar-
bage or other solid waste and construction and demolition debris originating or
generated outside of the town.
No person shall store, operate a landfill or other solid waste manage-
ment facility which accepts garbage or other solid wastes and construction and
demolition debris originating or generated outside of the town.
Excepted herefrom shall be any solid waste which is being recycled
under a program approved by the town or being reused in a commercial activity.
4. PENALTIES AND OTHER REMEDIES.
Any person v. _off a: i ng this local 1&w shall' be punished upon conviction,
by a fine not exceeding .five hundred dollars ($500.00). Each days continued
violation shall constitute a separate and additional violation hereunder.
In addition the town may enforce this local law by injunction in accor-
dance with Article 63 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules and other applicable
law. Should the town seek such injunctive relief and it is granted, the person
found in violation and enjoined shall be responsible for reasonable attorneys
fees and disbursements in connection therewith to be fixed by the court granting
said relief.
(2)
o
-. - - 5. SEVELtABILITY.
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, subdivision, section or part of
this local law shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid, such judgment shall not affect, impair or invalidate the remainder
thereof but shall be confined in its operation to the clause, sentence,
paragraph, subdivision, section or part thereof directly involved in the contro—
versy in which such judgment is rendered.
6. WHEN EFFECTIVE.
This local law shall become effective on , 1987.
(3)
.JAN
New York Braes Department of Environmental ConSler rapion
7481 Henry Glay Blvd., Liverpool, Now York 13088 :.
Division of Regulatory Affairs, Region 7"''"'j"
( 315 ) 4 2 8- 4 6 9 7
January 5, 1988 5
m
Thomas C. Jorling
Philip H. Munson, Jr. Commissioner
Munson Farms
RD #1, 248 Munson Road
Groton, NY 13073
Re: Part 360 - Landspreading Sludge, Lansing and Groton (Town's),
Tompkins Countyr UPA No. 70-87-0155
Dear Mr. Munson,
Our Cultural Resource Section has reviewed the information from Fagan
Engineers concerning the New York State Museum Site Files for the
Asbury Site. Based on the Museum site files and their recommendations,
a cultural resource survey must be conducted in the Southeastern
portion of the Asbury Site to determine the boundaries of the Native
American burial site. Landspreading may effect and damage -bone and
organic remains found at burial sites.
No land -spreading activities will be permitted in the southeastern
portion of this site until boundaries of the burial site are determined
and clearly defined.
Enclosed is "A Word About Archaeological Surveys" and "Report
Archaeological Field Reconnaissance". If further assistance
required in completing this form or if you have any questions
concerning this matter, contact. Mike Cinquino of our Cultural
Section, at (518) 457-3811.
If there are any questions, please contact this office.
Sincerely,
JoanXl v !
ne L. March
Sr. Environmental Analyst
Enclosure
cc: Division of Solid Waste, Region 7
Division of Solid Waste, Albany, S. Rowland
R. Brickwedde
Sid Schwartz (Office of Hearings)
M. Cinquino, Albany
Louis Inglis
Tompkins County Health Department
Louise Birkhead (Senator Hoffman's Office)
Randy Ott (Onondaga Co. Drainage & San.)
Lansing (T)
Groton (T)�
DRA File
for
is
Resource
Tompkins County Solid Waste Management Committee
'.:i is
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
PROGRESS REPORT #6
OVERVIEW OF PHASE I
In February, 1987, Phase I of the Tompkins County Solid Waste Management
Program was completed. This phase consisted of a landfill siting and volume
reduction study. I
The landfill, siting study was completed in three steps. The first.step
identified areas within the entire county that did not satisfy minimum
requirements for various physical land characteristics and site development
factors. The second step identified areas that, while generally incompatible
with landfill development, could be further considered in the event that
suitable sites could not be found in the remainder of the county. The
regions identified as having the highest potential for landfill development
were further evaluated with respect to specific suitability factors
incorporating geological, developmental, and operational considerations
associated with landfill design. . A total of 23 candidate site areas were
identified and rated with respect to suitability for landfill development.
Phase I was completed using available existing information. It was
recommended that the potential of the site areas be confirmed and further
explored in Phase II through on -site investigations.
In the volume reduction study, several methods for reducing the volume of
waste requiring landfilling were explored, including waste -to -energy systems,
materials recovery and recycling, composting, and baling. From a review of
existing operations, economic factors, and the nature of the county, it was
recommended that recycling, co -composting of sewage sludge and yard wastes,
and baling technologies be further explored in Phase II.
PHASE II
LANDFILL SITING STUDY
At the direction of the Solid Waste Management Committee, Phase II
investigations were conducted on eight of the candidate site areas for which
right -of -entry was secured. These sites included DR-2, DR-3, DR-4, and DR-7
in the Town of Dryden;.EN-2 and EN-3 in the Town of Enfield; and GR-2 and
GR-3 in the Town of Groton. The investigations followed a systematic
approach. in that the 'simpler, least costly methods of investigation were
accomplished first, thereby allowing for the early termination of field work
at sites where unfavorable conditions were encountered. Investigations
generally proceeded in the following order: site reconnaissance; excavation
of test pits; electrical resistivity surveys; drilling of borings and ground
water observation wells; laboratory analysis of soil properties; site
development evaluations; environmental impact assessments; and development of
,-apital, operational, and maintenance cost estimates.
Investigation of DR-4, EN-2, GR-2, and GR-3 stopped following completion off
the electrical resistivity surveys because of shallow bedrock and/or shallow
ground water conditions. Because of the marginally suitable depth to bedrock
_:ic,)untered during on -site drilling, subsequent investigation of DR-3 was r:ct
n ducted .
Complete investigations performed on DR-2, DR-7, and EN-3 determined each
site to be suitable for landfill development. All three sites were found to
have good soil conditions consisting of glacial till having relatively low
permeability. Due to this low soil permeability, all three sites have
shallow depths to ground water and will require a ground water control system
as part of site development. Other features common to DR-2 and DR-7 are the
gently sloping topography, requiring special attention to surface drainage,
and good, deep depth to bedrock.
All three sites are situated in a rural residential/agricultural setting.
DR-7 and EN-3 have somewhat higher residential population in adjacent areas,
and, therefore, would likely ha d "a slightly greater potential for noise,
odor- visual , -and other__ p_eopae-related_ _.impacts o_.=. EN-3 would have the___greatest
impact on traffic.
DR-2 and DR-7 each could be developed to handle the County's landfill needs,
disposing of residual material following recycling, composting, and baling,
for 20 years or more. EN-3 could be developed with a life of about 14
years. Although site specific characteristics would require somewhat
different development procedures at each site, the difference in overall cost
to develop and operate the three sites does not appear to be significant.
Annual costs including facility operation and maintenance and capital
amortization would be about $35 per ton of -waste landfilled.
BALING AND"TRANSFER
The Phase II study included an evaluation of the costs and benefits
associated with utilizing solid waste transfer facilities and a consideration
of utilizing baling facilities for the reduction in volume of materials
requiring disposal that are not recycled.or composted. Transfer offers the
ability to reduce vehicle traffic in the vicinity of the new landfill,
thereby helping to reduce impacts on neighboring residents. Baling offers
the additional benefits of reducing blowing papers, potential odors, and
other adverse .imp acts
Transfer alternatives include part -county and full transfer, in comparison to
direct haul options. Part -county transfer options refer to those options in
which the waste generated in municipalities in close proximity to the
landfill is hauled directly to the landfill, while waste generated in the
remaining municipalities is transported to a baling and/or transfer
facility. Full transfer refers to those options in which all of the waste,
with the possible exception of large quantities of non-baleabl.e material such
as construction and demolition debris, is hauled to a centrally -located
baling and/or transfer station. The costs per ton for the transfer
alternatives ranged from $8.94 to $9.78 while direct haul costs range from
$5.94 to $7.20 per ton..
Baling alternatives include the installation
of a central transfer facility, a baling
site, and baling facilities- located at both
and the landfill. The cost for.the*first
least costly at $9.24 *per ton. Potential
transfer facility would be in the vicinity
Route 13 corridor.
of -baling equipment at the site
station located at the landfill
a part -county transfer station
alternative was found to be°the
locations for a baling and/or
of the City of Ithaca along the
MATERIALS RECOVERY; RECYCLING; AND•COMPOSTING
Materials' recovery, recycling, andcomposting were further evaluated in Phase
II as a means for reducing the volume of waste material requiring disposal in
the County.
Development of the recycling plan included a compilation of waste quantities,
along with demographic and geographic data. A 1987 annual total tonnage of
solid- waste for the County is estimated -at 71,164. Demographic information
for each municipality included population, acreage, number of households,
commercial and industrial acreage, and total miles of city and town roads.
The feasibility of collecting recyclables set out by homeowners at the
roadside (curbside collection) was evaluated .on the basis of a sufficient
density of' households from which a collection truck could be kept busy with
pick-up of the area. An alternative to curbside collection is unattended
drop-off collection of recyclable' materials.. Curbside collection currently
appears `feasible in. the City and Town of Ithaca, the Village of Cayuga
Heights,. the Village of Lansing, the Town of Ulysses, and the Village of
Trumansburg. Municipalities indicating,,4jpossible future curbside collection
te.asibility include the Town of.Dryden, the Villages of Dryden and Freeville,
the Town ..of. Groton, and the Village.of Groton. Additional areas, for which
unattended drop-off collection is currently the more feasible method for
recovering recyclables, may be considered for curbside collection in the
-future-as demographics in the County.change.
The market survey identified markets in several states and Canada for
recyclable glass, paper, plastics, and metals. The survey also established
market specifications and processing requirements, minimum quantities,
anticipated market prices, and potential contract terms. Based upon the
quantity of recyclables in the county and the available markets, the
following items appear to be feasible for collection in the recycling plan:
newspaper, corrugated cardboard, office paper, glass, and rigid plastic
bottles. In order to meet market standards, some limited processing of the
recyclables will be required, including baling of paper and plastic. Glass
processing equipment will include a sorting line, a crusher, magnetic
separators, and screening. Both the baling and glass processing operations
can be located in a separate materials handling facility or incorporated into
a centrally located baling and/or transfer station.
Implementation of the recycling plan is recommended in three stages: Pilot,
Stage I, and Stage II. The purpose of the Pilot in
program is to test
collection efficiencies and participation rates. Two Pilot alternatives
exist: Alternate 1 involves only curbside collection of newspapers and glass
from selected municipalities and Alternate 2 includes unattended drop-off
collection of. newspaper and glass in addition to the Alternate 1 curbside
collection. The purpose of Alternate 2 is to extend recycling -efforts to a
greater part of the county early on in the Recycling Program. Stage I.
scheduled to coincide with the opening of the recycling processing facility,
includes two features: (1) curbside collection of recyclables in all those
municipalities for which curbside collection is currently feasible and (2)
unattended drop-off collection of paper and glass. Stage II, suggested for
implementation twelve to eighteen months after implementation of Stage I, is
expected to. further extend curbside collection to the full list of
municipalities indicating both current and possible future curbside
collection feasibility.
Based on expected recovery rates of 75% for newspaper, glass, and plastic
from curbside collection, 20% for newspaper and glass from unattended drop-
off, and 50% for commercial recyclable materials, the recyclable portion of
these materials represents about .20% of. the- solid waste stream, at this
time. The program will remain flexible to respond to market and demographic
fluctuations which may allow for a greater recyclable percentage. The net
cost of recycling, including both annual costs and expected revenues, is
about $26 per ton of material recycled exclusive of the cost'of transporting
the materials to market.
.231
-CU Waste- Management histitute9s. report calls *-for more EPAiestrictions
By Roger Segelken
GrowerswhofollowU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAg -hcy
(EPA) rules in applying sewage sludge as fertilizer to their
land may ' be inadvertently endangering human health, the
environment and tfi-e future productivity of their own crops,
an analysis by the Cornell Waste
Management. Institute has found.
"The potential for widespread use
of sludge on agricultural and residen-
tial land, the -persistence of many pol- - e
lutantswhich remain in soils for a very
long time and - the difficulty of
remediation" warrant tougher rules y
than the federal EPA and most state
environmental agencies have estab-
lished, the university -based institute
states in -a new report.
Some states, including New York, have regulations in
place that are more strict than the EPA's "Part 503" rules,
and producers and applicators of sludge products in those
states must follow the applicable state regulations. How-
ever, no state's regulations are as strict as those recom-
mended by the Cornell institute, or as restrictive as sludge -
application regulations in some European countries and the
Canadian province of Ontario.
The August 1997 publication of "The Case for Caution:
Recommendations for Land Application of Sewage Sludge
and an Appraisal of the U.S. EPA's Part 503 Sludge Rules"
follows the earlier issuance of a bulletin from Cornell
CooperativeExtension. That bulletin urged greater caution
in sludge application to agricultural lands —and no sludge or
sludge compost -whatsoever on home gardens. .
Ezplaning.why a university -based organization is so
vocal in opposing federaFhgen.cy rules, institute Director
Ellen ZrHarrison said: "We believe that the soil, water and
crop,conditions make these federal rules particularly -,in' p-
propriate i 4 NOV York -state and .the Northeast. As the land -
gram university for New York state,-it-is`Comell's role to
address thisissae: -_
"We're not making a case for prohibition of sewage
sludge in agriculture, but rather for more restrictive rules,"
said arrison, one of three report authors (along with
Murray B. McBride and David R. Bouldin, professor and
professor emeritus, respectively, in .the Department of Soil,
Crop and Atmospheric Sciences at Cornell).
"Clearly there are societal benefits to recycling this
material and potential benefits for agricultural productiv-
ity," said Harrison, a geologist. "But we are concerned that
the EPA — in setting rules that are far less protective than
those of many other nations — has made many overly
optimistic or simplistic assumptions about contaminant
impacts. We need to take a closer look at the contents of
sewage sludges and the conditions under which they are
applied before we make decisions that will affect agricul-
tural productivity and human health, as well as the health of
the environment for years to come."
Also known as biosolids, sewage sludges are the
byproduct of municipal sewage -treatment processes. Sepa-
rating liquids from treated sewage yields wastewater efflu-
ents and truckloads of an organically rich material — and a
waste -disposal problem for municipalities. Until ocean
dumping was outlawed, New York City and some other
municipalities hauled sewage sludge off -shore. Two legal
alternatives, incineration and landfilling, cost municipali-
ties money. Land application of sewage sludge offers an
attractive option becaase municipalities can sell the mate-
rial onat least contract with haulers to remove the material
at a lesser cost to taxpayers.
However, sewage sludge contains more than organic
matter and agriculturally useful chemicals like nitrogen and
phosphorus. Depending on, what households, businesses
and industries are flushing down their drains = and what is
leaching from miles of pipes in every city — untreated
sewage includes a mixture of heavy metals.(such as lead,
mercury and cadmium) and toxic organic chemicals (such
as PCBs), as well as pathogens (including bacteria, viruses,
protozoa 'and other parasites} from fecal matter. -
dewatered sludge. Humans and other animals potentially can
be exposed by contacting sludge contaminants on the surface
of soils and plants, through ground- and surface -water move-
ment of contaminants, and by eating plants that are grown in
soils with heavy metals and other contaminants.
The Cornell Waste Management Institute's report lists
14 reasons why the EPA's sludge rules may not adequately
protect human health and the environment. Among them:
• Contrary to EPA analysis, contaminants might find their
way into drinking water, according to analysts at Cornell.
They concluded that low mobility of contaminants is pre-
dicted by unrealistic laboratory simulations of water moving
through soil packed in columns, rather than soil with natural
channels created by worms, roots and other "macropore"
processes. A Cornell study published in 1997 found metals in
water percolating from fields where sludge was applied more
than a decade earlier. Application of sludge according to EPA
rules could possibly result in a violation of drinking -water
standards in private wells, the report said.
• Sewage sludge contains phytotoxic (or plant -damag-
ing) metals, such as copper, zinc and nickel that accumulate
in soil and can reduce yields of the same crops the fertilizer
is supposed to help. High concentrations of these metals
also harm soil microorganisms that contribute to plant
growth, while other metals in sludges can create dietary
imbalances in animals that graze on plants growing in
sludge -treated soil.
• The EPA does not require labeling of sludges and
sludge products. Without labels, the Cornell institute sug-
gested, consumers may assume that all sludge -based prod-
ucts are alike, when in fact the levels of contaminants and
other properties vary widely.
The "Case for Caution" report includes more protective
recommendations for farmers and for applicators of sewage
sludge, as well as suggestions for stricter policies and
regulations on the state and federal levels and advice for
home gardeners who already have applied sludge products.
The Cornell institute was established in 1987 to address
Some sewage=treatmentpTocesses kill mostpathogens, bpf vironmental and social issues associated with waste man-
thehm&y metals and other contaminan+ts"�are concentrated -in age enz;ough research, education and outreach.
Composting was also evaluated as a means of reducing the volume of sewage
sludge and leaves and yard wastes requiring landfilling. Windrow composting
has a high potential for odor problems and unproven success in climates such
as Tompkins County. In -vessel composting, while offering the greatest amcunt
of process control, is associated with high costs'(about $91 per ton ;f
sludge composted) and is unable to accommodate leaves and yard wastes.
Aerated static pile co -composting of leaves, yard wastes, and sewage sludge
offers some degree of process control, requires less space than windrow
composting, has lower capital and annual costs than in -vessel systems, and
reduces the volume of- both sludge and leaves and yard wastes requiring
landfilling. Research into implementing aerated static pile composting s
currently being undertaken with the New York State Energy and Researcnh
Development Authority (NYSERDA).
OVERALL PHASE II SUMMARY
Three prospective landfill sites have been Aidentifiedwhich shouldfbe able to
be permitted under the current.NYS_ Department of Environmental Conservation
regulations. A centrally located transfer/baling station offers 'advantages
that should positively influence the siting of a landfill and enhance the
overall operation of the County's solid waste management program. Recycling
on a county -wide basis can reduce the quantity of material requiring
landfilling by an estimated 20%. The cost of incorporating these waste
management programs into 'an integrated system for Tompkins County is
estimated at $44 per ton.
Tompkins County
Department of Planning
Biggs Building A
301 Dates Drive
Ithaca, NY 14850
(607) 274-5360
Teresa Robinson
Groton Town Supery i scar
J01 Ganger Sled.
Groton, NY
0073
. 3 V)
Y:; LO.C'�.'.�`
BOART
October 4, 1991
The Honorable Teresa Robinson
101 Conger Boulevard
Groton, NY 13073
RE: 1992 Disposal Fees
Dear M . Robinson,
A,TIVES
�. ®o �giGawo
The County Board of Representatives has established the solid waste
disposal fees for 1992 as follows:
Solid Waste (excluding sludge)
Sewage Sludge
$145/ton
$ 40/ton
These fees will be effective January 1, 1992. The fee for solid waste is
based on a cost estimate for 1992 of $7,579,454. This estimate includes
shipping trash to an out of county disposal site, recycling operations,
closure of the old landfills, illegal dumping enforcement, administration, and
debt service for the new landfill and the Central Processing Facility.
If you would like a public information meeting or have any questions,
please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
/& IA -
Beverly Lives
Chair, Solid aste and Resource Management Committee
BAE/ls
cc: B. Eckstrom, Solid Waste Manager
4rty
��� Recycled paper
REPORT
�L6 BJ41 �7,r�� V.L.' r:� �8�._
TELEPHONE (607) 565-2893 FAX (607) 565-4083 Oct 161, 1 ag 1
DATE
LAB SAMPLE ID : 38191
WPA'29 o � PRETREATMENT PLANT
Le_nri no Foods Inc. `'' BELT PRESS CAKE
Mr. Keith Houmes COMPOSITE
117 Bradford Street 09/.25/91
South Waverly..- PA 18840 0912S/91
AnaluSis
0gto
letehook I
Perfanxed
kesvlt
UniL's
An lrrznel
; ethod
Reference
Chloride
9090
-x01ra
10/02131
ErA 32S.3
91-141-17
.1ardnessI .Ca
43.9 -
oercent
#d/1l1/91
S216-314A
91-IS8-EI
IS7G OAia aS li
18.D
�ro1�e
_ -
00130/91
EPA 310.1
9i-72-20 i
Eieldahl as W
40800
xa/Eo
.10/01/31
EPA 351.3
91-ISS-3
Witrate
WRO.03
Mall_a
10/0919i
EPA 353.2
90-224-27
uB
8102
.10/01/91
EPA 9045
E
91-28-39
Phosahal.-f Total
142
Rally
09/27/91
EPA 36S.2
9i-12-43 s
Solids .Total
16.13
aercent
09/26/91
EPA 160.3
_I
°1-48-83
Salids•.Vol Total
56.36
nerce-nt
09/27/91
EPA 160.4
91-511-3a
Sulfate
15300
as/ra
16101191
EPA 375.4
91-f15-21
Snerific 1;ravitu
1.11
09130191
91-18-80
Ca Carbonate Ev
20
bercent
10/1619I
SOBECE
91-237-3? I�
Weutrslizino Po€..
20
10103191
SOBrul 3.2
91-137-26
TOC
25.4E
perreaat
10/01/11
JOSD
88-146-43
RUE : Pesults are calculated on a dry veiaht basis.
cc APPROVED BY: /G
The information in this report is accurate to the best of our knowledge and ability. In no event shall our liability ?xceed
i the cost of these services. Your samples will be discarded after 14 days unless we are advised o.herwise.
x
NY LAB PA LAB NJ LAB MA LAB RI LAB EPA LAB NVLAP
# 10252 # 68180 # 73168 # AA000046 ORIGINAL AAL-049C3 # NY 033 # 1393
s_ :..._ ------ . _...- -•--- .--......._....... - . -- ----.._....._... ---..-...----------------------
a
al
1 L I REPORT
Y FT1vTV 1��1^ry'\TMTY rym'
SERVICES
446 BROAD STREET, WAVERLY, NY 14892-1445
TELEPHONE (6071, 565-289- FAX (607) 565-4083
DATE
LAB SAMPLE ID Oct 81. 111391
38191 :_ SAMPLE$OURCEN a
•�ORIGII�l:
.LeDrino Foods. Inc. a�scRiPTloiv:Y .tfELI' LAKE
Ar'- Keith Houmes SAAIIPL•'EDjCig0 -1 t. C'UAFU-�)1I b
117 B r a d f o r-d S-t r e e f fDAT.E`RECEi1%ED -M'. O Y/ Z / 31
';!Duth Waverlu PA 18840
AnaI•usis
Date
1lotebook
1 Pefforfled
Eesult
Jlnits
AnaluEed
letbod
keferencg
CalciuR
17.6
aerceni
10/03/91
EPA 6010
91-181-1
1 $aa�esiu>
4610
10103/91
EPA 6010
91-181-1
Potassiu�
188
"fro
10I03191
EPA 6010
91-191-1
Sodiva
i
4280
valro
10/03191
EPA. 6010
QI-181-1
APPROVED BY:
c C' MANAGER
T,he inforrnarion in this report is accurate to the best of our knowledge and ability. In no event shall our liability exceed
-r:�; . .'r•i. ir„.'C. '.] .._. >.j!' ..'!' .. i iC: .::%L ....C'C. i�... -�;:'%:� ..'):c1'�.) %L'r' ./f_' :L:'r'�C'C� :;l'. '%J'C:
10252 68 180 T 73168 z! ^ A000046 ORIGINAL # AAL-049C3 # NY U33 1393
1;ordcory
CL,,,j)ws:Lte Dates
` 6t <, t Solids.
c', 11.1 UM
CIIi t.wium
C ;t;ti.c r
i, Cy
tv :. t~ t= l
Tot �,1- PCBis
4
I..EPRZNO.FOODS COMPANY
PRETREIATKEN`C PLANT SLUDGE
'
BEAVY
METAL CONCENTRATIONS (Mg/Kg
Dry Weight
Basis)
STA }
STA
STA
STA
STA
FLI 2)
STA,
3/1.8-3/24/90
3/4/-3/1.1./90
2/4�--2/10/90
1/16-1/22/90 2/3-3/1/89 1/27-2/3/89
12/12-.12t/I1/8
10, 05%
11,077
11'045%
9:9.6%
1.1.117
13 e,81%
11.0d.
1.9.
2.2
. 2.0
4.2
.,9
NJ) C.71
.6
21,0
9.3
18.0
18.4
9.5
13
20.2
90.2
63.1
82.4
73.6
39.7
36
55A
38.8
37.5
46,0
1.9.8
10.8
26
16.E
< .1
< ,1
< . 1
.2
4 .1
.24
.3
1.2.6
13,1
1.3.6
12.4
6.3
ND�7.1
13.7
1.96
143
130
131
73.6
70
83.7
�.�
<1
<1.
<1.
�1
ND<1.
<1
1) STA = Southern Tier Ana1.ytical
2) FLI Environtne.ntal Services.
n
• .t, ... • is
r
' 1 �
! i
- - - r... ...,....�..........Y. .-.. ... .!. ,tn ,..I.i.a p. t• n. ..l.. .!• :,....y ,Y • utltil l...•♦ .1, r.Y. !"1'�!V ltr•In!re/ i
r�