NEW YORK
Solid Waste Management Plan
Status Report 1970
This report (SW-5tsg) was prepared
by ROy F. WESTON, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS
for the New York State Department of Health
under State planning grant (UI-00021)
from the Federal solid waste management program
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1971
Ciiicago, liliaoa GOOCi
-------
An environmental protection publication
in the solid vaste management series (SW-5tsg)
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U,S Governmenl Pnntmg Office
Washington, D C. 20402 - Pnce 14.75
STOCK NUMBER 5502-0045
L-
-------
FOREWORD
TO ENCOURAGE SYSTEMATIC PLANNING for better management of the Nation's
solid wastes, Congress in the 1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act provided
grant monies for the States for solid waste planning. By June 1966,
fourteen States had met the stipulations of the Act and had embarked
upon the planning process with the help of the Federal funds. Today,
almost every State has applied for and received a solid waste planning
2
grant. From each of the grants the Federal government expects two
practical results: first, a plan (and report) for the State's manage-
ment of its solid wastes; second, development of an agency for the
managing function.
The present document publishes the first phase of the New York
State solid waste management planning program, developed by the State
under a Federal solid waste management planning grant that went into
effect June 1, 1966. The report identifies the overall solid waste
problem and establishes a framework for State action to ensure effi-
cient and effective management practices. But, the planning process
is dynamic; future revision will be an important part of the process
The Solid Waste Disposal Act as amended; Title II of Public
Law 89-272, 89th Cong., S.306, October 20, 1965; Public Law 91-512,
91st Cong., H.R.11833, October 26, 1970. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1971. 14 p.
2
Toftner, R. 0., D. D. Swavely, W. T. Dehn, and B. L. Sweeney,
comps. State solid waste planning grants, agencies, and progress
1970; report of activities through June 30, 1970. Public Health
Service Publication No. 2109. Washington, U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1971. 26 p.
3
Toftner, R. 0. Developing a state solid waste management plan.
Public Health Service Publication No. 2031. Washington, U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1970. 50 p.
iii
-------
to take account of changing conditions and better data. Moreover,
a plan is not an end in itself. I--s formulation is the key to action:
to legislation, standards, technical assistance, public relations, and
enforcement.
Besides providing the State solid waste management agency
with a guide for action, the State plan will help to guide local
and regional solid waste planning and subsequent implementation.
The plan can also provide support for improved State legislation
related to solid waste management.
New York's plan is designed, therefore, to: (1) begin the
plamning process; (2) establish policies and procedures to guide
the State solid waste agency, formerly, the Department of Health
and now the Department of Environmental Conservation; (3) guide
regional planning; (4) provide both a documented base for im-
proved solid waste legislation and operating regulations and
a summary of objectives and goals. With these objectives in
mind, this plan report presents and analyzes pertinent solid
waste data, identifies problems indicated by the data, sets
objectives that if achieved would solve identified problems,
and finally, proposes immediate, intermediate, and long-range
measures for achieving objectives. This plan should thus pro-
vide the New York State Department of Health with an invaluable
management tool with which to begin solving the State's solid
waste management problems.
RICHARD D. VAUGHAN
Deputy Assistant Administrator
fov Solid Waste Management
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
LIST OF MAPS
SUMMARY
PART I: THE NEW YORK STATE SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
Chapter One: The Current Solid Waste Program in New York State
INTRODUCTION 1-1
STA TE OBJECT! VES 1-2
STRATEGY 1-2
PRESENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES 1-3
NATIONAL SURVEY 1-3
PUBLIC INFORMATION 1-4
ENFORCEMENT 1-4
PURE WA TERS AUTHORITY 1-4
Chapter Two: Approach to Statewide Solid Waste Planning
SELECTION OF STA TE ROLE 2-1
ORGANIZING FOR MANAGEMENT 2-2
THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM 2-3
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION 2-4
Chapter Three: Objectives and Scope of Study
DATA COLLECT/ON 3-2
DA TA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETA TION 3-2
THE STATE ROLE 3-2
SERVICE AREAS 3-3
PLAN AND PROGRAM 3-3
PUBL 1C RE LA TIONS 3-3
PART II: CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE SOLID WASTE PROBLEM
Chapter Four: Background and Outline
INTRODUCTION 4-1
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS 4-1
INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT 4-2
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
TRANSPORTATION 4-2
PHYSICAL AND NA TURAL CONDITIONS 4-2
STATE AGENCIES AND LEGISLATION 4-3
POLITICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL, AND FINANCIAL FACTORS 4-3
Chapter Five: Population Growth and Development Patterns
INTRODUCTION 5-7
HISTORIC DE VEL OPMENTAND POPULA TION GROWTH 5-1
LAND USE AND ZONING CONTROLS 5-3
CURRENT STATE-WIDE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 5-4
CENTERS OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY 5-4
POPULATION GROWTH AND CHANGE BY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREAS 5-6
SUMMARY OFTRENDS 5-12
Chapter Six: Industrial and Agricultural Activity
INTRODUCTION 6-r
EXISTING AND FUTURE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT AND
A GRICUL TUP A L ACTIVITY 6-1
SUMMA RYOF MANUFA CTURING TRENDS 6-11
SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURAL TRENDS 6-14
Chapter Seven: Transportation
INTRODUCTION 7-1
HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 7-1
SYSTEMS, METHODS AND PRACTICES 7-2
HIGHWA YS 7-3
RAILROADS 7-6
CANALS AND WATERWAYS 7-8
ULTIMATE SYSTEM CAPABILITIES AND LIMITATIONS 7-11
Chapter Eight: Physical and Natural Conditions
INTRODUCTION 8-1
GEOLOGICAL FACTORS 8-1
TOPOGRAPHICAL FACTORS 8-2
HYDROLOGICAL FACTORS 8-3
METEOROLOGICAL FACTORS 8-3
OUTLINE OF PHYSICAL AND NATURAL CONDITIONS IN
NEW YORK STATE 8-4
PH YSIOGRAPHIC PRO VINCES 8-4
SUMMARY 8-9
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
Chapter Nine: State Agencies and Legislation
INTRODUCTION 9-1
EXISTING LEGISLATION AND LAWS 9-1
STATE AGENCIES 9-4
STATE A GENCIES - SUMMA RY 9-7
CURRENT RESPONSIBILITIES - LOCAL AND STATE 9-8
ENFORCEMENT AND CONTROL 9-9
Chapter Ten: Political, Sociological, and Financial Factors
INTRODUCTION 10-1
POLITICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS 10-1
INTERMUNICIPAL COOPERATION 10-4
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL FACTORS 10-6
PART III: INVENTORY, ANALYSIS, AND DEVELOPMENT OF DATA
Introduction
Data Requirements
Existing Facilities and Land Disposal Sites
Waste Production
Special Wastes
Supplemental Data Requirements
Chapter Eleven: Data Requirements and Sources
INTRODUCTION 11-1
DATA SOURCES 11-2
DATA REQUIREMENTS 11-2
WASTE PRODUCTION 11-2
SITES AND FACILITIES 11-3
SPECIAL WASTES 11-4
COSTS 11-4
Chapter Twelve: Existing Facilities and Land Disposal Sites
GENERAL 12-1
LAND DISPOSAL SITES 12-1
CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND DISPOSAL SITES 12-2
CAPACITIES OF LAND DISPOSAL SITES 12-3
FACILITIES 12-4
INCINERATORS 12-4
OTHER FACILITIES 12-5
vii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
COSTS 12-5
LAND DISPOSAL SITES 12-5
INCINERATORS 12-6
TRANSFER STATIONS 12-7
REFERENCES 12-8
Chapter Thirteen: Municipal Wastes
DA TA TYPES AND SOURCES 13-1
PER CAPITA MUNICIPAL WASTE COLLECTION 13-2
WASTE COLLECT/ON RA TE TRENDS 13-S
POPULA TION AND PROJECTIONS 13-7
EXISTING AND PROJECTED WASTES 13-8
REFERENCES 13-10
Chapter Fourteen: Industrial Wastes
APPROACH TO WASTE QUANTITY DETERMINATION 14-1
UNIT WASTE PRODUCTION 14-2
EXISTING AND PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT 14-4
EXISTING AND PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL WASTES 14-5
REFERENCES 14-7
Chapter Fifteen: Agricultural Wastes
EXISTING AND PROJECTED AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES 15-2
EXISTING AND PROJECTED AGRICULTURAL WASTES 15-3
REFERENCES 15-6
Chapter Sixteen: Special Wasies
GENERAL 16-1
SOURCES, QUANTITIES, AND CUR RENT DISPOSAL PRACTICES 16-1
RADIOACTIVE WASTES 16-1
MINING WASTES 16-3
DREDGINCS 16-3
INDUSTRIAL SPECIAL WASTES 16-4
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER SLUDGES 16-5
WASTE TREA TMENT SL UDGES 16-6
SITE AND FACILITY RA TING 16-7
SITE AND FACILITY MODIFICA TION 16-7
viii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
Chapter Seventeen: Supplemental Data Requirements
APPROACH TO FUTURE STUDIES 17-1
GENERAL DATA REQUIREMENTS 17-2
PLANNING DATA NEEDS 17-2
COLLECTION PROCEDURES 17-4
WASTE QUANTITY INFORMATION 17-5
PROPOSED SYSTEM OF NOMENCLA TURE AND CLASSIFICA TION OF REFUSE 17-7
EXISTING FACILITIES AND LAND DISPOSAL SITES 17-9
FACILITY COST RELATIONSHIPS 17-11
SUMMARY 17-12
PART IV: ELEMENTS OF A STATEWIDE SOLUTION
Chapter Eighteen: Site Reuse
INTRODUCTION 18-1
SITE REUSE IN PERSPECTIVE 18-1
REUSE FACTORS AND CONSIDERA TIONS 18-3
EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE 18-4
GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SOILS 18-4
DESIRED ULTIMATE USE 13.4
OTHER FACTORS 18-5
UL TIM A TE USE A L TERN A Tl VES 18-5
RECREATION 18-6
RESIDENTIAL 18-6
COMMERCIAL 18-7
INDUSTRIAL 18-7
OTHER USES 18-7
ILLUSTRA TION OF SITE REUSE 18-8
REGIONAL LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT 18-8
THE EXISTING SITE 18-9
CONCEPT OF PROPOSED REUSE 18-10
UL TIMA TE REUSE PLAN 18-13
Chapter Nineteen: Service Areas
INTRODUCTION 19-1
ADVANTAGES OF A REGIONAL APPROACH 19-1
CRITERIA FOR SER VICE A REA DEFINI TION 19-3
DELINEATION OF SERVICE AREAS 19-5
FUTURE IMPACT OF SOLID WASTES 19-6
ix
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
Page
Chapter Twenty: Role of the State
ALTERNATIVE ROLES 20-2
RECOMMENDED ROLE OF THE STA T£ 20-3
PART V: NEW YORK STATE PLAN AND PROGRAM
Chapter Twenty-One: Plan and Program
INTRODUCTION 21-1
BASIS FOR THE PLAN AND PROGRAM 21-1
THE DYNAMIC PLANNING CONCEPT A REVIEW 21-2
NEW YORK STA TE OBJECT! VES, GOALS, AND TASKS 21-3
MAPS
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
CHAPTER FIVE
Tables
5-1
5-2
5-3
Figures
5-1
5-2
5-3
5-4
Total Population Projections by Economic Areas
Total Population Projections by Counties
Population Density Projections by Counties
Patterns of Development - New York State
Economic Areas - New York State Dept. of Commerce
Planning Regions - New York State Office of
Planning Coordination
Population Change - New York State - 1900 to 1995
CHAPTER SIX
Tables
6-1
6-2
6-3
6-4
F igures
6-1
Total Industrial Employment Projections for Economic
Areas
Agricultural Activity Projections for Economic Areas
Total Industrial Employment Projections for Counties
Industrial Employment Density Projections for
Counties
Change in Industrial Employment and Agricultural
Activity by Economic Areas
CHAPTER EIGHT
Figures
8-1
8-2
Distribution of Precipitation and Runoff in New
York State
Physiographic Provinces of New York State
XI
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
(continued)
CHAPTER NINE
F igures
9-1
9-2
9-3
Organization Chart - New York State Department
of Health
Organization Chart - Division of Environmental
Health Services
Health Regions and Districts and Local Full-time
Health Departments - New York State Department
of Health; July 1, 1968
CHAPTER TWELVE
Tables
12-1
12-2
12-3
12-4
12-5
Figures
12-1
Conditions of Land Disposal Sites - Number of Sites
Land Disposal Area
Remaining Land Disposal Site Life
County-wide Incinerator Data
Environmental Aspects of Incinerators
Existing Landfills - Operating Costs vs. Yearly
Tonnage Handled
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
Tables
13-1
13-2
13-3
13-4
Figures
13-1
Municipal Solid Waste Collection Rates
Municipal Solid Waste - County Remainder Waste
Collection Rates
Illustrative Table Showing Principal City/Village,
County Remainder, and Total County Wastes for
Westchester County - 1970
Existing and Future Total Collected Municipal
Wastes by County
Unit Municipal Waste Collection vs. Population Density
xii
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
(continued)
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
Tables
14-1
14-2
14-3
14-4
Preliminary Industrial Solid Waste Production Rates
Industrial Solid Wastes - Comparison of Employment
in Primary Metals Group
Final Industrial Solid Waste Production Rates
Total Industrial Wastes by County and State
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
Tables
15-1
15-2
15-3
Agricultural Solid Wastes - Waste Production Rate
Total Agricultural Wastes by County and State
Total Wastes from All Sources by County and
State
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
Tables
17-1
17-2
Figures
17-1
Waste Classification System
Guidelines for Evaluation of Land Disposal Sites
Waste Classification System - Effect on Elements
of a Waste Management System
CHAPTER NINETEEN
Tables
19-1
19-2
19-3
19-4
19-5
19-6
Service Areas
Acreage Requirements to Dispose of Future Municipal
and Industrial Solid Wastes by Sanitary Landfill
Total Operating Costs to Dispose of Future Municipal
and Industrial Solid Wastes by Sanitary Landfill
Total Operating Costs to Dispose of Future Municipal
and Industrial Solid Wastes by Incineration
Selected State Owned Lands - 200 or More Acres
Projected State Land Requirements for Disposal
of Future Solid Wastes
xiii
-------
LIST OF MAPS
The maps listed below appear in consecutive order at the end of the volume.
Map Number Title
1 Population Density - 1970
2 Population Density -1985
3 Population Density - 1995
4 Industrial Employment Density - 1970
5 Industrial Employment Density -1985
6 Industrial Employment Density -1995
7 Transportation Systems
8 Existing Disposal Sites
9 Municipal Waste Density -1970
10 Municipal Waste Density -1985
11 Municipal Waste Density - 1995
12 Industrial Waste Density -1970
13 Industrial Waste Density - 1985
14 Industrial Waste Density -1995
15 Municipal and Industrial Waste Density - 1970
16 Municipal and Industrial Waste Density - 1985
17 Municipal and Industrial Waste Density - 1995
18 Agricultural Waste Density - 1970
19 Agricultural Waste Density - 1985
20 Agricultural Waste Density 1995
21 Total Waste Density - 1970
xiv
-------
LIST OF MAPS
(continued)
Map Number Title
22 Total Waste Density - 1985
23 Total Waste Density - 1995
24 Regional Development and Site Location
25 Proposed Landfill Operation
26 Proposed Development - 1975
27 Proposed Development - 1980
28 Proposed Development - 1990
29 Typical Site Sections
30 Proposed Ultimate Development - 1995
31 Service Areas-1995
32 Service Areas - 1985
33 Municipal and Industrial Waste Density - 1970
34 Selected State Owned Lands
xv
-------
-------
SUMMARY
GENERAL BACKGROUND
Getting rid of solid waste, which was a relatively simple matter not too many
years ago, has become a major and complex problem. It is already a signifi-
cant item in the budget of most communities, generally surpassed only by
schools and roads. In the future, the solid waste problem will become bigger,
more expensive, and even more complex. In 1995, for example, the solid
waste generated in New York State will amount to almost 80 million tons
per year if present, well-established trends continue. The cost for disposal of
this amount of waste will be between one and four billion dollars per year,
depending on the method of disposal. The strictly technical problems of
handling and disposal are increasing, largely because of the growing variety
and complexity of the solid wastes themselves, which in turn can be
attributed to the ever-increasing sophistication and convenience trends of
our affluent society. Political considerations and natural conditions further
complicate the search for a reasonable solution.
Many communities are running out of or already have used up the land areas
suitable for disposal of solid wastes. Thus, they are coming face to face with
the situation of scarcity of proper disposal sites, complicated by the
reluctance (or even belligerent refusal) of communities to accept solid wastes
from other communities for disposal. It is becoming increasingly clear that
individual communities acting independently cannot be expected to find the
most satisfactory solutions. Action at a higher governmental level is clearly
indicated.
THE CURRENT NEW YORK STATE PROGRAM
This situation is not peculiar to New York State. It is a countrywide and
even a worldwide problem. However, in New York there probably is more
urgency because of the high degree of urbanization and industrialization, and
there is already some activity because the State has recognized the existence
and general outline of the problem earlier than most other jurisdictions have.
The first official State recognition of solid waste disposal as a major problem
in environmental health came in 1962 with the adoption of refuse disposal
regulations in the State Sanitary Code. In brief, these regulations require that
all refuse disposal sites be operated as sanitary landfills (thus, no more open
dumps) and that municipal refuse incinerators be operated in such a manner
as to prevent any nuisance or hazard to public health. The Federal Solid
Waste Disposal Act in 1965 gave a substantial boost to the State program,
largely by facilitiating program development and establishment of an
effective staff. Thus, early in 1966 the Department of Health was designated
as the State agency to see that the purposes of the Federal Act were carried
out.
S-1
-------
Formal planning for solid waste disposal is already underway in New York
State. By 1968, comprehensive studies of solid wastes had been conducted in
nine counties and in New York City. By fiscal 1970, similar studies for 12
more counties are expected to be completed, and by 1972, each county of
the State is expected to have the benefit of a comprehensive solid waste
planning study. Through 1971, the State expenditures for these studies will
be about two million dollars.
New York has participated in the U. S. Public Health Service's national
survey of incinerators, land disposal sites, and community solid waste dis-
posal practices. In addition, the State has started a county-by-county
inventory of industrial and agricultural solid and liquid waste generation.
The State has also launched an aggressive public information campaign
including such features as: demonstrations of sanitary landfill operations;
technical and public relations symposia; and dissemination of applicable
technical publications.
Enforcement of the State Sanitary Code and other laws and regulations has
resulted in the elimination of almost half the open dumps that were in
operation in 1962. Inspections by local health units, conferences with
municipal officials and private contractors, and judicious imposition of fines
have been key points of the enforcement program.
Another organization used in New York State in the approach to the solid
waste problem is the Pure Waters Authority. This unique organization,
created by the State in 1967, is a public benefit corporation which, upon
invitation by the municipality or municipalities concerned, can plan, finance,
construct, operate, and maintain solid waste disposal facilities. The contracts
between the municipality and the Authority can provide for either municipal
or Authority operation.
APPROACH TO STA TE-WIOE SOLID WASTE PLANNING
There are many activities and agencies involved in solid waste planning, and
it is highly probable that there will continue to be a need and justification
for this multi-faceted attack on the problem. This is just one indication of
the complexity of the problem that compels an organized and systematic
approach to State-wide planning. Development of this systematic approach
requires the following steps:
1. Select the State role (or scope of activities) which will best serve
State needs.
2. Establish the overall Objectives commensurate with the selected
role.
S-2
-------
3. Define the approach (Goals) for the Objectives.
4. Then develop a Plan by which the Objectives and Goals may be
attained.
Selection of the State role must be based on the present functions of the
State agencies, analysis of the present and projected solid waste situation,
and consideration of additional functions. All agencies now involved in solid
waste planning should cooperate in the development of a master set of
Objectives, and then each agency should develop its own Goals and Plans to
delineate its own assigned share of functions in the State role. The emphasis
should be on planning rather than plans, because otherwise there is the
danger of developing a static, immobile pattern that would lose its relevance
with the passage of time.
An effective solid waste management program should have three basic parts:
1. Development of a long-range State-wide plan, with adequate con-
sideration of community, industrial, and agricultural growth, land
use, and all applicable aspects of solid waste technology.
2. Development of interim local and regional plans compatible with
the State-wide plan.
3. Assistance to municipalities in solving immediate problems in such
a manner as to promote compatibility with the long-range plans.
All planning studies undertaken in the State of New York must be concerned
with effective collection of basic data, because the handling and disposal
programs can be only as valid as the information on which the calculations
and analyses are based.
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
To complement its own professional resources, both in numbers and in
variety of disciplines available, the New York State Department of Health
retained ROY F. WESTON, Environmental Scientists and Engineers, of West
Chester, Pennsylvania to assist in preparation of the State Plan and Program.
The extent of the ROY F. WESTON effort was divided into phases to clarify
the requirements and to facilitate scheduling. Phase 1, the subject of this
report, was designed to:
1. Analyze the status of solid waste data collection efforts and the
accuracy and reliability of the data.
S-3
-------
2. Determine the extent of tne solid waste problem in the State.
3. Review the needs for solid waste management, and determine how
the State Government should fulfill these needs.
4. Conduct a preliminary evaluation of existing and future
approaches to solid waste management.
5. Define legislative needs.
6. Develop the directional or planning aspects of the Plan and Pro-
gram.
Refinements of emphasis which developed as the study progressed showed
the need for additional data for all types of solid wastes, the paramount
importance of definition of the State's role or scope of functions, the
importance of intermunicipal cooperation, the need for preliminary delinea-
tion of regional service areas, and participation of the consultant in the
public relations aspects of the program.
CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE SOLID WASTE PROBLEM
Considerations of population, industrial and agricultural activity, transporta-
tion, geography, political organization and attitudes, sociological
implications, and financial resources, all strongly affect the solid waste pro-
blem and the development of workable solutions. Hence, the underlying
physical, demographic, political, and economic considerations must be ex-
plored as a basis for understanding of the solid waste program.
POPULATION GROWTH
The historic and projected future growth patterns in the State of New York
constitute a strong determinant for selection of disposal sites and other solid
waste handling facilities. Adequate knowledge of the present and projected
concentrations of population are an essential basis for determination of the
solid waste distribution.
The importance of land use and zoning controls cannot be overstated in
relation to disposal site development. Compatibility of the site with overall
area development is critical from the standpoint of operations and efficiency
as well as from that of aesthetics and public acceptance. While location of
solid waste disposal sites and facilities in terms of proximity to existing land
uses is important, it is even more important when related to future land use.
A landfill operation represents an interim use of a given tract of land; thus,
its land redevelopment aspects must be closely coordinated with the pro-
jected land use for the surrounding area.
S-4
-------
Significant data on present and projected total population and population
density, State-wide and for economic development areas and counties, were
accumulated and presented in appropriate tables and maps. Of particular
interest are the computer-constructed population density Maps which pro-
vide a quick, clear picture of the trends of population growth and
distribution.
The following tabulation shows the areas most significantly affected by
population shifts.
Percent of
Total State Population
Area 1965 1995
New York City 44.9 34.3
Mid-Hudson 4.2 6.7
Nassau-Suffolk 12.9 19.3
Westchester-Rockland 5.8 7.6
The projected pattern of growth in all the metropolitan regions of the State
is little change in the core cities accompanied by substantial population
increase in the surrounding suburban and rural areas. The impact, on solid
waste management, of this general pattern is that there will be less land
available within convenient distances of population centers for solid waste
disposal.
INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICUL TURAL ACTIVITY
Not only are industry and agriculture two of the principal generators of solid
waste, but the types and amounts of waste are significantly influenced by
the types and levels of activity. Thus, examination of the industrial and
agricultural mix and activity levels in all parts of the State is an important
part of the information basis for a State-wide solid waste plan. In particular,
locating the centers of activity is important in determining concentrations of
waste generation and in laying the foundations for possible regional ap-
proaches to solution of the solid waste problem. As with population analysis,
the twelve Economic Development Areas were used to facilitate data col-
lection and interpretation. The data collection effort involved determination
of the number of employees in various significant industries (by SIC codes)
and of the activity levels in the significant crop and livestock operations.
The following summary indicates the areas where the most significant
changes are expected:
S-5
-------
Industrial Employment
1965
2.60
11.59
3.05
47.41
1.26
8.22
4.54
1995
8,63
10.38
7.31
1682
'5.44
21.45
3.72
Change
+ 4.03
. 1 21
+ 4.26
30.59
+ 4 18
+ 13.23
+ 4 18
Agricultural Acreage
1965
2.59
1255
9.13
5.99
41 02
1261
1995
1 06
1737
6.32
4.23
4658
10.36
Change
1.53
+ 482
2.81
1 76
+ 5.56
2.25
Percent of State Total
Industrial Employment
Economic Area
Binghamton
Buffalo
Elmira
Mohawk Valley
New York City
Northern
Rochester
Syracuse
These intra-State changes of distribution are projected in the context of a
166 percent increase in overall industrial empolyment and a 35 percent
decrease in overall agricultural activity.
TRANSPORTATION
In assessing the present situation and future development of transportation,
this study covers only those transportation elements (highways, railroads,
and canals or other waterways) pertinent to the economic transport of solid
waste to ultimate disposal sites. Two general considerations or aspects of
transportation are important in the evaluation of its impact on the solid
waste situation: the physical extent of the various transportation networks,
in terms of miles and quality of roads or trackage, geographical distribution,
etc; and the methods and practices of each transportation mode, in terms of
types of equipment, technological improvements, accessory facilities, etc.
Another important consideration i> coordination among the highway, rail-
road, and waterway systems.
The real question, in the final analysis, is the effectiveness of these major
transportation systems in the handling of waste materials. Their usefulness
will vary for different solid waste situations. For instance, for small popula-
tion centers in relatively sparsely settled areas, highways are of paramount
importance. For major population concentrations, where area-wide or
regional disposal systems may be required, highway effectiveness, although
still important, is conditioned by development of "containerized" vehicles,
changes in vehicle limitations on highways, and other elements of highway
methods and practices. The applicability of railway and waterway systems is
a function of the type of waste and the relative locations of waste generation
and waste disposal.
PHYSICAL AND NATURAL CONDITIONS
The physical and natural conditions most relevant to development of satis-
factory solid waste disposal are geology, topography, hydrology, and
meteorology. The types of soil and bedrock, the location of ground-water
aquifers, the terrain, and the climate, all affect the location of solid waste
disposal facilities, especially of landfill sites and incinerators. Meteorological
conditions (wind velocity and direction, temperature, rainfall, etc.) also
S-6
-------
affect the operation of disposal facilities and transportation systems. The
diversity and complexity of pertinent natural conditions are such that
detailed investigations by hydrogeologists and other environmental scientists
is necessary for satisfactory site selection.
STA TE AGENCIES AND LEGISLATION
The most critical elements in the effectiveness of any State-wide solid waste
plan may very well be the legislation and the functions and responsibilities of
the agencies designated to implement the legislation. There is already signifi-
cant legislation in the State of New York with current or potential impact on
solid waste management and disposal. Much of it is clear and provides
explicit direction, but some laws and regulations overlap, which generates
some difficulty in interpretation and direct effectuation. In general, the
present legislation and related activities provide the basic machinery for
action but are lacking in regard to enforcement requirements, particularly in
connection with existing facilities and operations.
The three most significant legislative actions (Part 19 of State Sanitary Code,
adopted in 1963; the creation of the Bureau of Solid Wastes Engineering and
Community Environmental Health in 1966; and the establishment of the
New York State Pure Waters Authority in 1967) must be viewed in the light
of what they permit or require counties and municipalities to do regarding
solid waste collection, storage, treatment, and disposal. The Municipal Home
Rule Law, the General City Law, the County Law, the Town Law, the
Village Law, the Public Health Law, and the charters of cities and some
counties, all contain provisions authorizing units of local government to
enact laws, ordinances, or rules and regulations pertaining to solid waste
collection and disposal.
Despite the general soundness and coverage of the legislative base, these are
some aspects that may present problems in achievement of the objectives of
the solid waste program. This limiting factor can generally be summarized as
lack of State legislation requiring local governments to provide for solid
waste disposal; the existing laws merely empower or allow such provisions,
but do not make them mandatory.
Currently there are three State agencies that have a substantial direct involve-
ment in the solid waste program:
1. Environmental Health Services, in the Department of Health.
2. Community Health Services, also in the Department of Health.
3. Pure Waters Authority.
S-7
-------
The combined activities of these threo agencies represent the major part of
the State involvement. There are other agencies that have impact on or
interest in solid waste disposal as it affects their primary function; these
include: The Bureau of the Budget, The department of Audit and Control
(Division of Municipal Affairs),The Office for Local Government, The Office
of Planning Coordination, The Department of Transportation, The Depart-
ment of Conservation, The Bureau of Surplus Real Property of the Office of
General Services, The Department of Commerce, and The Department of
Agriculture and Markets.
There is need for an improved structure and better definition of relationships
between and within the principal agencies, and between them and the
agencies which now have only peripheral involvement. The State Legislature
has investigated such a reorganization, but the final report is not yet avail-
able. Reorganization, along with clarification of enforcement responsibilities
of the State and of local governments, would greatly facilitate accomplish-
ment of the major objectives of the Sitate-wide solid waste disposal program.
POLITICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL, AND FINANCIAL FACTORS
Closely related to the actual legislation and regulations is the political and
sociological framework within which government actions are carried out in
the State of New York. The political climate and cultural aspirations
influence the kind of legislation that can be enacted and the vigor of its
enforcement.
Politically, New York is a "home-rule" State, in that virtually all prerogative
for action and provision of services lies at the local level. Proposals to move
away from this base generally encounter strong opposition, frequently with
emotional overtones. There is ample legal basis for intermunicipal
cooperation to provide any service or function that municipalities are
authorized to perform on an individual basis. But the political climate is such
that intermunicipal cooperation is still very much the exception rather than
the rule.
In regard to solid waste disposal, the situation is further complicated by
sociological considerations which generate resistance to disposal of refuse
across municipal boundaries. "No one wants his own or anyone else's
garbage in his backyard", is an accurate reflection of the prevailing senti-
ment. As a consequence, less than 35 percent of the State's 1500
municipalities use solid waste disposal facilities operated by another unit of
local government.
The financing of solid waste disposal is a serious problem now and will
become more serious. Cities, towns, and villages are becoming financially
strapped. The economies of the larger-scale operations of regional facilities
should be an important consideration, but proposals of this sort have
S-8
-------
frequently been a casualty of the home-rule spirit and its concomitant
resistance to intermunicipal cooperation. State financial aid could help break
down these barriers, but the State's financial picture is not much brighter
than that of the local governments. Nevertheless, the State will have to
become involved in the solid waste program, and new State vehicles for
financing will have to be found to insure development of an adequate pro-
gram.
One potential source of outside aid is the Federal Government. There is
federal legislation pending which would provide construction grants for new
solid waste disposal facilities, but these legislative proposals do not yet
include the provision for grants to encourage and insure proper management
and operation once a facility has been constructed. This latter type of grant
would be an essential factor in promoting and maintaining the inter-
municipal cooperation demanded by the nature of the overall solid waste
problem.
COLLECTION AND ANAL YSIS OF DA TA
The primary objective of the current data inventory, analysis, and develop-
ment is to provide the desired information accurately enough to satisfy the
planning requirements. However, solution-oriented information, such as
precise locations of sites, precise sizing of facilities, etc., is unnecessarily
detailed for this stage of the program.
Basic data sources are scarce. The U. S. Public Health Service's National
Survey of Community Solid Waste Practices, the New York segment of
which was completed in 1968, is currently the most comprehensive source of
data applicable to development of solid waste management plans for the
State of New York. Other reports of solid waste studies conducted for
governments both within and outside of New York State provide data on
solid waste generation, collection and disposal costs, and facility operational
characteristics.
Waste generation rates are dependent on the makeup of the community or
area under study. Since solid waste generation depends on many factors, the
use of a single waste generation rate to define all wastes for every com-
munity and region of New York State would be unsatisfactory. In this study,
wastes were grouped into municipal, industrial, and agricultural categories
for separate determination of waste generation rates. Waste generation rates
are used in preference to waste collection rates; although the latter may be
easier to obtain, they do not furnish as firm a basis for calculation of future
solid waste quantities because some current on-site disposal practices (back-
yard burning of domestic refuse, in-field burning of agricultural refuse, etc.)
probably will change.
S-9
-------
EXISTING SITES AND FACILITIES
Without knowledge of capacities, remaining life, cost, environmental effects,
and special capabilities of existing solid waste disposal sites and facilities, it
would be impossible to determine what aspects of solid waste disposal are
deficient at present, what improvements are needed, and what the magnitude
of the facilities and sites program is.
Information on solid waste collection and disposal costs, along with related
data on tax base, bonded indebtedness, and similar factors, is needed to
ascertain both the demand of solid waste disposal activities on public funds
and the competition from other municipal services. Then appropriate
allocations of State funds to support a solid waste program can be made
without unjustifiably reducing other State programs.
The New York State segment of the USPHS National Survey of Community
Solid Waste Practices included determination of the operating characteristics
and capabilities of solid waste land disposal sites, incinerators, and other
facilities. Tabulation of operationa characteristics of land disposal sites
shows various deficiencies for the existing sites:
66 percent pollute the air (particulates and malodors as a result of open
burning).
18 percent are vulnerable to washing of refuse into surface waters,
because of improper drainage.
18 percent have leaching problems.
15 percent place refuse below the ground-water table.
44 percent experience uncontrolled rodent problems.
31 percent experience uncontrolled insect, odor, or dust problems.
Of the 921 sites investigated during the survey, 168 were reported as sanitary
landfills, but only 51 of these meet the principal criteria for sanitary land-
fills. Re-inspection of 26 of the "sanitary" landfills in the summer of 1969
revealed that only 13 were meeting "sanitary" requirements. It is apparent
that landfill conditons can vary and that continued vigilance is necessary to
maintain satisfactory operation.
Unused capacity of existing sites is another landfill factor that significantly
aff°cts the development of a solid waste disposal plan. Review of
compilation of existing solid waste land disposal area indicates that more
than 40 percent of the sites will be exhausted in five years or less.
S-10
-------
Solid waste facilities include incinerators, grinders, crushers, transfer
stations, compost plants, conical burners, and hog feeding lots. Of these,
incinerators are the most prominent. Incinerators with a rated capacity of
about 22,000 tons/day handle solid waste for alrnoit 4,000,000 people.
Many of these are approaching or are well past the widely-applied criterion
of 20 years of useful life, and new air pollution control regulations threaten
the continued use of many others. The tabulation of environmental aspects
of the existing incinerators, although insufficient for definitive evaluation of
future feasibility, does point out the general inadequacy of present
incinerators for future solid waste disposal.
The preliminary State-wide solid waste survey provides some information on
annual operating and facility replacement costs from which unit cost (per
ton) values can be calculated. The most obvious conclusion is that costs vary
widely throughout the State. For example, incinerator operating costs
ranging from $0.21 to $28.00 per ton have been reported. Replacement cost
estimates generally fall in to $6,000-$ 12,000 per design ton range, which
seems quite low compared to recently published estimates.
PROJECTIONS OF SOLID WASTE GENERATION
The heart of the solid waste data inventory and analysis is the determination
of future solid waste tonnage and its distribution. In this study, solid wastes
were divided into three general categories - municipal, industrial, and
agricultural - to facilitate calculation. The ground work was provided by the
population, industrial employment, and agricultural acreage projections
presented earlier. What remained to be done was to develop unit waste
generation rates, including projections for future years, and then to calculate
tonnages for the selected target years.
Municipal wastes are those attributable to non-manufacturing and non-
agricultural activities, and include: residential wastes, commercial wastes,
institutional wastes, demolition and construction debris, and street
sweepings. The obvious basis for unit rates is population, and considerable
data on waste collection rates are available. The most reliable relationship for
projecting future waste loads appears to population density vs. per capita
collection rates.
Practically all studies of the solid waste problem show that per capita solid
waste generation will increase in the future; thus current per capita figures
cannot be used for calculating future waste quantities unless they are
adjusted for growth.
The adjusted collection rate multiplied by the population for the desired
target year gives the total waste collected for each community for that year,
S-11
-------
in pounds per day. Conversion to tons per year and development of county
and State totals are straightforward arithmetical operations.
Determination of a unit generation rate for industrial solid waste was based
on the number of employees. While specific circumstances at a specific
manufacturing establishment could distort an average unit waste generation
rate, the rate should be reasonably uniform throughout an industry group.
Although no comprehensive survey of industrial solid wastes has been con-
ducted in New York, results of such surveys in California (and, to a limited
extent, in Pennsylvania) are applicable to the New York State situation. To
determine unit solid waste generation rates for the various industries, the
solid waste tonnages reported in the 1967 California report for the various
Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC) were divided by the California
employment in those SIC coded industries as reported in the 1967 U. S.
Census Bureau publication, County Business Patterns.
Industrial solid waste quantities for the target years were calculated from the
unit waste generation rates based on the California data and from projected
employment data, based on County Business Patterns for 1962, 1965, and
1967 and supplemented by New York Department of Commerce forecasts
of SIC coded industries in the various counties. Current unit waste
generation rates could be used because there was no discernible time-related
trend in the available data.
Agricultural wastes include: manure from penned animals; harvesting residue
and crop spoilage from field crops; trimmings, residue, and spoilage from
fruit and nut growing; and trees lost through disease. As with industrial solid
waste, there was little information readily available on agricultural waste
generation in New York State. However, Cornell University and California
studies on agricultural solid waste proved to be sources of usable infor-
mation. From them, unit waste generation rates in terms of Tons per acre (or
per head) per year were derived. Barring an abnormality such as the onset of
a serious and widespread tree disease, the unit quantities of agricultural
waste are not expected to change significantly in the future.
Projections of acreages and number of animals for the target years were
developed in a manner similar to that used for industrial solid wastes. In this
case, the basic agricultural activity data were obtained from the Census of
Agriculture (U. S. Bureau of the Census) for 1954, 1959, and 1964 for each
county. The waste generation rate for each agricultural activity class was
then multiplied by present and projected number of animals or of acres to
get the county and State totals for each target year.
The municipal waste projections, industrial waste projections, and
agricultural waste projections were added to obtain "Total Wastes from All
S-12
-------
Sources by County and State" for 1965, 1970, 1975, 1985, and 1995. The
following tabulation, gives an overview of the main sources of solid waste
State-wide:
Solid Waste in Thousands of Tons
Source 1965 1970 1975 1985 1995
Municipal 13,640 14,470 17,380 25,680 38,280
Industrial 5,090 5,080 5,450 9,040 19,070
Agricultural 22.100 21.340 20,800 20,400 21.180
All Sources 40,830 40,890 43,630 55,120 78,530
This indicates that solid waste generation will practically double between
1965 and 1995, with about 30 percent of the increase in the 1975-95 decade
and 60 percent in the 1985-95 decade. However, these data are based pri-
marily on waste generation and thus may not always be an accurate
reflection of the load or demand on public waste disposal facilities. Strangely
enough, the projected values for 1975 and beyond may be more meaningful
from a disposal basis than the 1965 and 1970 values. Agriculture is the
source of more than half of the 1965 total, but only those agricultural
activities involving penned stock currently have an impact on disposal,
because other agricultural solid wastes normally are disposed of on-site. The
present agricultural load on public solid waste facilities is also affected by
the sale or use of manure for fertilizer. However, air pollution and water
pollution regulations may prohibit present on-site disposal practices, and
manure may be replaced by synthetic fertilizers. On the basis of such con-
siderations, the longer range projections become more realistic.
SPECIAL WASTES
Up to this point, special wastes have not been included in the discussions or
in the projection of future waste quantities, largely because of the almost
total lack of usable information. A special waste is defined here as any refuse
which presents a specific problem to one or more of the elements of any
public waste collection and disposal system.
The major categories of special wastes are radioactive wastes, mining wastes,
dredgings, industrial special wastes, and wastewater and water treatment
sludges. The radioactive wastes and the sludges do not constitute a signifi-
cant portion of the overall quantity of waste requiring disposal but do
involve unique quality problems and consideration of special types of fa-
cilities. Mining wastes and dredgings, on the other hand, involve enormous
quantities of materials. Dredgings probably represent the more serious
problem, because in most cases, mining operations, which are extractive
S-13
-------
processes, permit extensive use of acceptable or even desirable on-site dis-
posal. Industrial special wastes constitute a kind of catch-all category. Know-
ledge of the processes and procedure:; makes possible a reasonable qualitative
definition of the classes of waste that are generated, but specific and detailed
data of an industry's actual capacity and waste production potential are
required for estimation of the quantities involved.
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA REQUIREMENTS
This problem of special industrial wastes, as well as the previously-indicated
problems related to continuation of present disposal practices for the more
conventional industrial and agricultural solid wastes, underscore the need for
additional efforts in the field of data acquisition and record keeping. The
data developed to date are sufficient for the initial phase of the planning
effort -- the development of the State-level approach. Whether or not these
data are sufficient for subsequent studies depends, of course, on the
purposes of those studies. It would be presumptive to attempt a full
definition of such studies at this time, but it can be safely assumed that some
will be sufficiently sophisticated to require improvement in the existing data
and that others will be so different in concept as to require new types of
data. Systems analysis including the development and solution of
mathematical models, appears to be' a highly effective approach to decisions
involving location and size of sites and facilities, the quality of their
operation, the transfer of wastes from their sources to the facilities, and the
scheduling of the development of the various facilities. It is apparent that the
following will be required:
1. Sources and quantities of solids waste requiring disposal.
2. Additional data collection and analysis, for refinement of
municipal, industrial, anc! agricultural solid waste generation rates.
3. Capabilities of existing sites and facilities for disposal of the
expected quantities of solid wastes.
4. Environmental, technological, and financial impact of special
wastes whose complex nature present distinct handling and dis-
posal problems.
5. Estimated costs of future solid waste disposal.
6. Future conditions such as land availability and air pollution
control regulations, which will affect solid waste disposal.
Many of the data accumulation efforts require recording over appreciable
periods of time, in addition to specific surveys. Perhaps the key element in
supplemental data acquisition is the implementation of a waste classification
system.
S-14
-------
Such a classification system has been developed through the cooperative
effort of ROY F. WESTON and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH personnel. It
has not yet been tested, however, and some modification may be required
when it is put into practice. Essentially it consists of: 1) a division into the
three major classes of Solid, Liquid, and Gaseous Wastes; 2) a first sub-
division into functional classes, i.e. physical descriptions which denote
particular problems particularly in collection and handling; and 3) a second
subdivision into analytical classes, generally chemical descriptions of the
nature of the material, which also denote particular problems of collection,
handling or disposal and which provide immediate problem definition.
Information through the second level of classification generally will be
sufficient for a State-level study, but information through the third level will
be needed for engineering design of facilities. The proposed Plan and Pro-
gram includes further development and extensive use of the waste classifica-
tion system.
ELEMENTS OF A STATE-WIDE SOLUTION
Two major elements underlie the development of a State-wide solution to
the solid waste disposal problem: ultimate use of the filled land, and the
advantages of a regional approach. Not only is understanding these two
elements essential for determination of sites for land disposal of solid wastes,
but they are also major considerations in securing the public acceptance that
is necessary for the development and implementation of an effective State-
wide program.
Site reuse, or redevelopment, is described and discussed first as a frame of
reference for selection of the most beneficial end use from among the
reasonable alternatives, and then in relation to implementation requirements
and related problems. To illustrate site reuse and the attendant problems, a
case history of a hypothetical disposal site is presented as a complete pro-
gram of site development from the original use before the landfill operation
to implementation of the ultimate use.
This case history concerns the use of a 600-acre plot as a sanitary landfill,
with eventual conversion of the original farm land into a Planned Unit
Development embodying a mixture of several residential structure types, a
small commercial facility, an area for light industry, and various kinds of
recreational areas. The placement of the various uses recognizes the inherent
constraints of building on fill areas, on areas of cut and fill, and on un-
disturbed earth; the location of the industrial and commercial facilities also
takes into account the adjacent land uses and the requirements for access.
Commercial activities are geared to the projected needs of the residents of
the site and of the surrounding area. Recreation to meet the needs of the
area residents (riding trails, picnic areas, active play fields, a golf course,
S-15
-------
swimming pool), is proposed as the most practical used for the actual filled
areas. A series of maps gives an excellent overview of the entire illustrative
project.
This hypothetical site project implies, particularly in the discussion of access
to the disposal site, a regional approach to solid waste disposal, i.e. the site
would serve not only (not even principally) the residents of the immediate
area, but would take care of the waste from a considerable surrounding area.
SERVICE AREAS
The advantages of regionalization (lower unit costs, better operation, more
effective site selection, more thorough pre-planning, and a sounder basis for
financing) are widely recognized, but its application has been hampered by
the inability to obtain the necessary cooperation of adjoining municipalities.
However, the exigencies of the situation are such that the State Government
will have to undertake the responsibility for promoting regionalization.
What exactly should the State promote? The factors affecting the creation of
a regional system must be analyzed to define those areas which logically
would be engaged in cooperative efforts. To avoid confusion with existing
usages of the term "region" in New York State, the term "Service Area" has
been chosen to represent a portion of the State for which cooperative solid
waste effort is appropriate.
The major objective in delineating a Service Area is to realize the least cost
consistent with the most effective and manageable disposal means. The
delineation of Service Areas must be directed primarily at meeting future
demands, but as an interim measure it may be economically feasible or
politically expedient to develop cooperative efforts only on a sub-area basis.
The task of defining a Service Area is clearly in the realm of systems analysis,
based on a mathematical model for selection of the optimum alternative.
Boundary definition is best accomplished through solution of such a
mathematical model. Nevertheless, general criteria provide sufficient basis
for an illustrative delineation of Service Areas in New York State. The data
defining the density of waste generation were used to delineate Service Areas
and sub-Service Areas.
Although the intent is to divide the entire State into Service Areas, it is not
necessary to set up a Service Areas for any portion of the State where the
regional approach would provide no significant benefit. In fact, the current
study indicated that two large sections (in the Northern and Southwestern
parts of the State) would not benefit by regionalization.
S-16
-------
Division of the State into Service Areas permits rational estimation of future
land requirements and facilities costs. Tabulation of the acreage require-
ments for the Service Areas and for the two general regions, indicates that
more than 80,000 acres would be needed in the 1970-1995 period if all
projected municipal and industrial wastes were to be disposed of solely by
sanitary landfill. This requirement would be reduced to 20,000 acres if all
such waste were incinerated before being landfilled. This is a significant
amount, as is clearly demonstrated by the comparison with the
1966-reported figure of 16,385 acres devoted to land disposal of solid
wastes. The significance increases upon consideration that less than half of
this acreage had a life expectancy of more than 10 years.
The cost estimates, State-wide, are as follows:
Operating Costs for Disposal of
Solid Wastes in Millions of Dollars
ML75_
133
536
im&L
362
1,462
12S5^
544
2,206
,1970-85
495
1,998
1970-95
1,039
4,204
Sanitary Landfill
Incineration + Landfill
This summary shows that the cost over the next 25 years can range between
One Billion dollars (for landfill alone) and Four Billion dollars (when
incineration is involved for all municipal and industrial solid wastes). Actual
costs probably will fall between these extremes, because various com-
binations of landfill and incineration are likely to be used. In any event, it is
obvious that the cost will be high.
The delineation of Service Areas also helps to dramatize the problem posed
by the decreasing availability of land suitable for sanitary landfill. To
illustrate this problem, a complete listing of all State-owned properties was
prepared and analyzed for suitable size, topography, present land use, and
proximity to transportation.
The resultant list of selected State-owned lands indicates that 27 percent of
such acreage would be required for disposal of solid wastes, which may
actually represent all the potentially available State-owned land, because
many of these lands are already being used for activities high in public
interest. It must be emphasized that this exercise with State-owned lands is
for illustrative purposes only and must not be construed as any gurarantee of
their availability.
STATE ROL£
Just as the data previously discussed must be directed to specific local con-
ditions, the Role of the various governmental agencies cannot be pre-
determined precisely. However, general guidelines can be developed at this
S-17
-------
point. Two levels of governmental involvement are involved in overall solid
waste management:
1. State, which refers to a level of government and not to specific
organiztion units.
2. Local, which covers all governmental entities below the State level.
In the development of the State role it is clear that many alternatives are
available. These alternatives can be categorized as: 1) a Control Agency; 2) a
Control Agency and Technical Center, and 3) a Control Agency, Technical
Center, and Implementation Agency. Within these broad categories are
gradations of involvement.
The conclusion of ROY F. WESTOM is that the State level of involvement
should be that of Control Agency arid Technical Center plus some aspects of
an Implementation Agency. This would include: review of plans (of local
governments) for scope and for technical and geographical sufficiency; pro-
vision of a data bank, computer system, technical advice, training programs,
and field consultation; sponsorship of research and development activities;
administration of construction and operation grant funds; planning for and
promotion of advance acquisition of landfill sites; and participation in
construction and operation o1 special demonstration projects. While the
State should not be in the business of providing actual disposal of solid
wastes, it has a responsibility to develop and demonstrate solid waste
planning, engineering, and management techniques, and to set up the instru-
ments for effective implementation.
PLAN AND PROGRAM
The Plan and Program developed from the current study are presented in the
form of Objectives, Goals, and Tasks. The basic foundation is the State Role
and scope of functions just discussed. The form of presentation is consistent
with the concept of dynamic planning, which provides positive direction for
meaningful action. The Objectives provide the stable, long-term frame of
reference for action; they are specific enough to provide positive direction
and at the same time are broad enough that major changes in basic policy
would be required before the Objectives would have to be restated. The
Goals are the major guideposts along the routes pointed out by the
Objectives; consequently, they are more detailed, more positive, and
frequently have target dates for completion. The Tasks, which are com-
ponent parts of the Goals, must contain the details requiring attention
during the specific planning period.
An essential element of the dynamic planning concept is the periodic
(usually annual) review of the entire set of Objectives, Goals, and Tasks.
S-18
-------
Objectives are seldom changed, because they reflect basic policy which,
when properly established originally, should not change very often. Goals
and Tasks are reviewed for progress or completion, and to determine the
need for changes in content or priority. Necessary changes are made to the
Goals, and a complete new set of Tasks is developed for the next planning
period.
In the solid waste Plan and Program for New York State the Objectives are as
follows:
/. Achieve and maintain effective disposal of all solid wastes in New York
State.
This includes all the actions necessary for development of facility
design and operating criteria and for proper enforcement of all
pertinent laws, rules, and regulations.
//. Achieve efficient and economical disposal of all solid wastes in New
York.
The main focus here is the responsibility of the State to help the local
and regional systems to achieve economical solutions. State-level solid
waste planning is also a part of this effort to achieve efficiency.
///. Develop and maintain competent solid waste management practices.
The emphasis here is on measures to insure competent operation,
chiefly through operator training programs and development of
management guidelines for local governments.
IV. Provide proper utilization and conservation of resources.
This objective forces attention on the overall environmental effects of
solid waste handling and disposal, i.e. the land redevelopment aspects,
reductions in the amounts of waste generated, reclamation of refuse,
etc.
Objectives, Goals, and Tasks have been developed, with Task schedule dates
for 1970 and 1971. These cover the actions discussed in this report, as well
as programs currently underway in the Bureau of Solid Wastes Engineering
and Community Environmental Health. Specific actions are defined, but
there has been no allocation of functions to specific State agencies. Such an
allocation requires supplementary planning effort on the part of the State of
New York, and is included as one of the Goals with a 1970 target date.
The Objectives, Goals, and Tasks provide a sound basis on which the State
can build an effective solid waste management program.
S-19
-------
-------
CHAPTER ONE
THE CURRENTSOLID WASTE
PROGRAM IN NEW YORK STA TE
INTRODUCTION
Some years ago, getting rid of solid waste was relatively simple - find a place
and dump it. If land was scarce - burn the dumped material. Although these
practices resulted in health hazards, air pollution, water pollution, and un-
imaginable eyesores, the vastness of the environment was able to absorb
these conditions without extensive deterioration. This situation has changed.
Our affluent society is generating wastes at an increasing rate and in greater
complexity each year. At the same time, the amount of land available for
disposal is decreasing as the trend toward suburban sprawl creates a megalop-
olis. More people are demanding a higher-quality environment, not only in
the interest of a healthier life, but also for the fuller enjoyment of outdoor
recreation and scenic beauty. One effect of these desires and pressures has
been to make waste disposal the third highest category of expense ior many
communities (following schools and roads). Resistance to inter-municipal
transfer of solid waste has been a complicating factor; all too frequently, the
most economical solution in a given situation has been rejected because
nobody wants someone else's "garbage" disposed of in his backyard.
This problem has been building for years, and in the early 1960's New York
State realized that the development of satisfactory corrective measures was
falling seriously behind the rapid growth of the problem. It was estimated
that there were over 1,600 open dumps in New York State in 1962, the year
before the State officially recognized refuse disposal as a major environmen-
tal health problem. The New York State Solid Waste Disposal Program had
its start on 28 September 1962 with the adoption, by the Public Health
Council, of refuse disposal regulations in the State Sanitary Code. These
regulations, in brief, require that refuse disposal sites be operated as sanitary
1-1
-------
landfills and that municipal incinerators be operated and maintained so as
not to create a nuisance or hazard to public health. The Federal Solid Waste
Disposal Act (1965) stimulated this state program by making possible the
acceleration of staffing and program development. On 11 January 1966,
Governor Rockefeller designated the New York State Department of Health
as the single State Agency for carrying out the purposes of the Federal Solid
Waste Disposal Act.
Solid waste activities for the most part are the concern of the Department of
Health's Division of General Engineering and Radiological Health, with over-
all administrative direction delegated to the Assistant Commissioner. The
division has five bureaus, of which the Bureau of Solid Waste Engineering
and Community Environmental Health is most deeply involved in the State
solid waste program. The Bureau has three sections: Solid Waste Engineering,
Solid Waste Planning Grant, and Community Environmental Health. The
Bureau currently has a director, an urban planner, six sanitary engineers, and
a soils engineer and has openings for an urban planner, two sanitary engi
neers, and a public information specialist.
STATE OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the current New York State Solid Waste Disposal Program
are: elimination of open dumps by disposal of all solid wastes in an economi-
cal manner in accordance with a comprehensive area-wide plan which pro-
tects the air, water and land resources; reclamation of submarginal or waste
land for productive use; prevention of public health hazards and nuisances.
STRATEGY
The strategy to achieve these objectives in New York State includes the
following activities:
1. Direct, administer, supervise, coordinate, control, and evaluate the
State Program on a continuing basis.
2. Provide for or conduct state, regional, and local planning for solid
waste management.
3. Set standards, provide technical assistance, prepare publications
and news releases, and give talks to assist in training, development
of public understanding, development of professional interest at
the university level, and promotion of the concern of knowledge-
able consultants in the field.
1-2
-------
4. Enforce the State Sanitary Code and other State laws and regula-
tions, in general conformance with the State Plan.
5. Administer any State or Federal grant programs for planning, con-
struction, and operation and maintenance.
6. Integrate the State Solid Waste Program with the Water Pollution
and Air Pollution Control Programs and with any other related
state, regional, and local planning.
7. Promote advanced acquisition of large tracts of land by county,
regional, and state agencies for multi-purpose uses in which sani-
tary landfill could be used to expedite completion of a specifically
desired community project.
8. Conduct, participate in, and stimulate research, demonstration
projects and special studies, including waste reduction at the
source, waste reuse, and central processing plants for special
wastes.
9. Develop technical competence in the solid waste management
field.
PRESENT PLANNING ACTIVITIES
One of the most important elements of the New York State Program is the
development of comprehensive regional and county solid waste plans cover-
ing all populated areas of the State. The planning studies are made possible
by 1966 state legislation authorizing 100 percent funding of comprehensive
solid waste studies conducted by qualified consulting engineers. These grants
stimulate and encourage county and regional planning fc, the collection,
treatment, and disposal of all solid wastes. During 1967 and 1968, nine
counties and New York City were studied, the State anticipates that twelve
additional counties will be studied during the 1969-70 fiscal year, and plans
to have every county covered by 1972. The solid waste planning program
was allotted $900,000 for the 1969-70 fiscal year, and the 1970-71 request
for funds amounted to $1,200,000. These amounts are exclusive of Federal
support.
NATIONAL SURVEY
An inventory of existing solid waste management practices in New York
State was completed in December 1968 for the U. S. Public Service Bureau
of Solid Waste Management. The inventory included a survey of all incinera-
tors and land disposal sites, and community solid waste practices in New
York State. The information obtained was recorded in the State Health
1-3
-------
Department's Office of Electronic Data Processing for use in state planning
and then forwarded to the U. S. Public Health Service for its national inven-
tory. In addition, New York State initiated an inventory of industrial and
agricultural solid and liquid waste generation in the State. This is underway,
but the results are not available lor this report.
PUBLIC INFORMA TION
In its efforts to convert open dumps to sanitary landfills, the State is en-
deavoring, through an agressive multi-pronged public information program,
to provide an understanding of what constitutes a true sanitary landfill.
Some of the key points of this program include: demonstration sessions for
public officials showing sanitary landfill operations and rat eradication by
converting an open dump to a sanitary landfill; symposia on public relations
aspects of sanitary landfill disposal 1or public officials and community lead-
ers; technical symposia on special solid waste handling and disposal for con-
sulting engineers and municipal officials, and dissemination of such publica-
tions as "Municipal Refuse Collection and Disposal" and "Sanitary Landfill
Planning, Design, Operation ard Maintenance". An expanded Public Rela-
tions program is planned.
ENFORCEMENT
The State Program is structured to accomplish much of its overall objective
through education, consultation, and persuasion, and at the same time retain
the cooperation and good will of the local official and operator. However, it
also provides for initiating legal action where violations continue unabated.
The objective of the enforcement actions is to obtain compliance with the
State Sanitary Code and other pertinent laws and regulations. In some cases
fines have been levied and collected; this has been successful in stimulating
corrective action at other refuse disposal operations.
As previously mentioned, in 1962 i.here were more than 1,600 open dumps
in New York State. Almost 700 open dumps have been eliminated since
then, in part because of an aggressive enforcement program. In 1968 alone,
local health units made approximately 5,500 inspections of refuse disposal
areas and held some 2,300 conferences with municipal officials and private
contractors to make recommendations and discuss improvements of opera-
tion and maintenance of disposal sites.
PURE WA TERS A UTHORITY
A unique approach to accelerate solution of the solid waste problem was the
creation of the New York State Pure Waters Authority in 1967. This Author-
ity is a public benefit corporation that can plan, finance (through the sale of
1-4
-------
bonds), construct, maintain, and operate sewage treatment works and solid
waste disposal facilities. Municipalities may contract with the Authority for
the design and construction of needed facilities. These contracts may provide
either for municipal operation of the completed facility or for operation and
maintenance by the Authority on a continuing basis. In addition, the Au-
thority may arrange for the financing of proposed facilities, with design,
construction, and operation by the municipality. The Pure Waters Authority
therefore provides another mechanism for the solution of the solid waste
problem on a regional or area-wide basis in New York State.
1-5
-------
-------
CHAPTER TWO
APPROACH TO STATE-WIDE
SOLID WASTE PLANNING
To coordinate the many efforts and activities which are involved in State-
wide solid waste planning, an organized approach is required. This approach
must include the following steps:
1. Select the role or scope of functions which will best serve State
needs.
2. Establish the overall Objectives of activities commensurate with
the selected functions.
3. Define the approaches (Goals) for obtaining the Objectives.
4. Develop a Plan by which the Objectives and Goals may be im-
plemented.
SELECTION OF STATE ROLE
The Role or scope of functions of the State and its various agencies provides
the underlying basis for the planning effort. Selection of the State Role must
be based on the functions presently being carried out by each agency, analy-
sis of the existing and projected solid waste situation in the State, and
consideration of additional functions requiring attention or effort.
The many elements which affect the selection of State Role are discussed in
Parts II and III of this report, and Chapter 20 is devoted to a discussion and
description of the recommended Role.
2-1
-------
ORGANIZING FOR MANAGEMENT
All decision-making relative to solid waste management should follow an
accepted set of Objectives, Goals, and Plans established by the State. Objec-
tives, Goals, and Plans each may be defined as follows:
Objective - A subjective desirable condition that is reflective of the
needs of the State and is generally arrived at by con-
sensus.
Goal - A measurable end-point within the framework of an
Objective, towards which effort is expended, and
which is consistent with the selected Role.
Plan - An action program by which Objectives and Goals may
be achieved.
By organizing in terms of appropriate Objectives, Goals, and Plans, the State
of New York will be able to provide a realistic solid waste management
program for New York State. For example, the primary objective may be to
ensure appropriate solid waste disposal within the State at least cost to its
citizens. With this in mind, it would be necessary to decide which goals will
be required to achieve this objective. A first goal in attaining this objective
has been completed by the adoption of regulations in the State Sanitary
Code. A second goal may be to meet the regulations in reality by developing
a solid waste management plan for 'the State. Within the framework of each
objective, there should be a consistent policy or set of policies by which
immediate and long-range decisions can be made, The goals should reflect
these policies.
To attain each goal, a plan or set QI: plans should be formulated. Generally,
the plan should be composed of a list of specific tasks which, when accom-
plished, will effectively move toward achieving the goals. Commonly, each
task specified in the plan should be set for one year, so that each year the
program status can be reviewed and the next year programmed accordingly.
Many areas of action must be covered by the Objectives, Goals, and Plans.
Certain of the tasks will be highly definitive, in that the action required is
obvious, once the objectives and goals are set. Other tasks may be less
obvious in their relationship to the objectives and goals, and may be designed
to obtain information necessary to refine or even define the next step.
A master set of Objectives should be developed in a cooperative effort of all
the agencies involved in solid waste planning. Each agency should then de-
velop its own Goals and Plans to conform to the Objectives, and should
delineate its own assigned share of functions in the State Role. This report
22
-------
will provide a complete set of preliminary Objectives, Goals, and Plans to
serve as a guide for the next year of the planning program, or as guidelines
for the construction of a final set in accordance with the procedures outlined
above.
This process is basic to any planning analysis and is outlined in the following
six-point sequence:
1. Develop a first estimate of existing conditions and significant
trends in the area of concern.
2. Determine the principal and most pressing problems and needs,
briefly evaluate them, and develop an interim program.
3. Formulate a detailed program indicating priorities for undertaking
component studies and comprehensive plans.
4. Carry out detailed plan studies according to program and priority.
5. Integrate various plan studies into comprehensive plans.
6. Revise plans as conditions alter their applicability.
This approach is geared directly into the cycle-like sequence that is essential
to dynamic planning. With such a process, the policies and plans are progres-
sively refined to develop an acceptable plan, but as conditions alter the
applicability of the findings, the policies and plans are modified to conform.
The emphasis on planning rather than plans is underscored as an essential
thought process as differentiated from a "blue print" concept, which tends
to fix end points in a static, immobile pattern that loses its relevancy over
time.
THE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The Objectives, Goals, and Plans constitute the overall program for the state
and its constituent agencies. It is a composite of policies and projects which
are defined in a hierarchy of scope and time. As the formulation of the
elements or policies proceed from the general to the particular, each level of
policy making supplies the foundation for subsequent, more detailed policy
determinations. The solid waste management program is the engineering
counterpart to this conceptual approach to policy making.
The solid waste management program contains three basic parts or concepts
of service and solution.
2-3
-------
1. Development of a long-range comprehensive plan for solid waste
management in the State, considering community and industrial
growth, land use, and all appropriate aspects of solid waste tech-
nology-
2. Development, within the long-range plan, of interim local and re-
gional plans which will consider community and industrial solid
waste problems and disposal needs, and which will maintain the
necessary flexibility and compatibility with the long-range plan,
3. Assistance to municipalities in solving immediate problems. This
may range from initial investigations of problem situations to ad-
vising on construction of facilities in situations where the problem
has already been defined and the proposed solution has been ap-
proved by the appropriate regulatory body. The State should
recognize such problems and assist in a manner which will insure
that such measures are compatible with the long-range plans.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION
An effective Plan of Implementation requires effective collection of basic
data and information. The answers produced are only as valid as the basic
information upon which the calculations and analyses are based.
The planning studies and efforts initiated in the State of New York must be
(and to a great extent are) directed toward an accumulation of these re-
quired basic data. These efforts must include:
1. Collect, analyze, and summarize all available data to determine
waste sources (locations), quantities, characteristics, and modes of
occurrence. Using appropriate methodology dictated by the suffi-
ciency and validity of data, make projections of solid waste data,
population, employment, land use, and other pertinent informa-
tion.
2. Review solid waste practices, programs, existing and proposed leg-
islation, and intermunicipal cooperation to assess the status of
solid waste management in New York State.
3. Identify solid waste management problems and needs and define
additional data requirements.
4. Develop alternative solutions by utilizing a mathematical model
capable of designing both individual disposal systems and a master
system of systems.
2-4
-------
a. Develop estimates of capital, operating, and administrative
costs for the initial and future facilities required and a form-
ula for equitable sharing of costs by the users in the systems.
b. Develop the need for immediate or short-range facilities and
evaluate possibilities of these facilities serving as interim solu-
tions compatible with long-range plans.
5. Define the roles of regional and local government agencies in solid
waste management.
6. Develop the priorities for implementation.
7. Devise an implementation schedule which is consistent with the
priorities and with the overall program, paying particular attention
to the following aspects:
a. Technical assistance
b. Economic impact
c. Financial assistance
d. Legislative requirements
8. Develop a well-planned public information program, which will
not only advise industries and municipalities within the State but
will also encourage their participation wherever possible in the
development of a comprehensive plan and of regional facilities.
Dissemination of information should logically occur through the
normal media of newspapers, radio, and television. Popularized
versions of completed reports should be issued to keep the inter-
ested parties well advised.
9. Simultaneously with the development of a State-wide plan, de-
velop research and demonstration projects aimed at improving the
design arid operation of applicable facilities.
Development of the Implementation Plan should proceed simultaneously
with or immediately after the creation and refinement of the mathematical
models. The public information program required to advise the public and
industry as well as State and Federal governmental officials of the compre-
hensive plan should begin before the plan is finalized. In fact, a portion of
the comprehensive planning should include public meetings, held primarily
to gather information and to publicize the intentions of the State Depart-
ment of Health.
2-5
-------
Some of the elements listed above are a part of this study and have been
completed or effectively begun. Others remain for future study phases and
are outlined in Chapter Seventeen.
2-6
-------
CHAPTER THREE
OBJECT! VESAND SCOPE OF STUD Y
Development of all parts of the State Plan and Program requires a compre-
hensive investigation of many elements. This necessarily involves a multi-
disciplinary approach to ensure effective evaluation of each element and to
blend the elements into an appropriate solution. Completion of such a study
also requires a considerable amount of time and effort. To complement its
own professional resources, both in numbers and in variety of disciplines
available, the New York State Department of Health retained ROY F.
WESTON, Environmental Scientists and Engineers of West Chester, Pennsyl-
vania, to assist in the preparation of the State Plan and Program.
A proposal was prepared which covered all of the efforts necessary to com-
plete the elements in the State Plan and Program. It was immediately appar-
ent that this project could not be completed within a year. Furthermore,
funding limitations prevented consideration of the total effort in one con-
tract. Therefore, the project was divided into phases. This report presents the
results of Phase I.
This first phase was designed to: analyze the status of solid waste data
collection efforts and the accuracy and reliability of data; determine the
extent of the solid waste problem in the State; review the needs for solid
waste management, and determine how the State Government should fulfill
those needs; conduct a preliminary evaluation of existing and future ap-
proaches to solid waste management practices, define legislative needs; and
develop the directional or planning aspects of the plan and Program. Efforts
toward implementation of the Plan and Program were reserved for subse-
quent phases.
This phase of study began in March 1969 and was to be completed in eight
months. The efforts included are described in more detail in the following
paragraphs.
3-1
-------
DATA COLLECTION
The logical first steps in any study fire to determine what data are available
and what additional data processing may be required, and to collect those
data for analysis. In this study, the status of present programs was to be
reviewed, and a thorough familiarity with methodology applied to previous
efforts was to be obtained.
DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
Available data pertaining to solid waste management were to be reviewed
and analyzed for accuracy, consistency, and utility. It was anticipated that
data would not be sufficient to define the industrial waste and other special
waste situations. Therefore, an Interim Report was included in the scope,
which was to define the need for data in these particular areas.
After this project was underway, it was determined that data insufficiencies
were present in all aspects of solid waste information and facility character-
istics. Therefore, the scope of the Interim Report was modified to cover the
complete area of data needs. Since subsequent data collection steps relate
quite closely to other elements of the final Plan and Program, it was decided
to include data requirements as a part of the principal report. Although an
interim submission of this part of the report was made, these elements once
considered to be a special report became a major part of the principal report.
THE STATE ROLE
Determination of the proper Role or scope of functions of the State Govern-
ment in the overall problem of solic waste management is the most impor-
tant policy decision to be made. It directs and provides a basis for every
element of the Plan and Program.
Factors which were to be studied for their impact on Role determination
were:
1. The existing Role, as evidenced by the combined scope of func-
tions of all State agencies which have an involvement with solid
waste management.
2. The status of coordination, cooperation, progress, and implemen-
tation of appropriate methods presently used in New York State,
and the effect on the need for a different State Role than present-
ly employed.
3-2
-------
3. Financial impact of the overall solid waste problem in the State,
and the effect that State participation might have on that impact.
4. Extent of common needs which can best be solved by a level of
government which is common to each entity which reflects the
need.
SERVICE AREAS
Based on known economies of scale and on experience in various areas
throughout the country, it was anticipated that long-range planning would
include provision for cooperative solid waste ventures between local govern-
mental entities. To avoid confusion with existing Regional efforts which
might not be appropriate to regions defined by solid waste needs, the term
"Service Areas" was chosen to represent these geographical subdivisions of
the State.
A mathematical model was proposed to aid in Service Area definition, but
development of the model was deferred to subsequent phases of study. It
was still desirable, however, to have a preliminary definition of whether the
Service Area concept did apply and how these areas might be defined.
Therefore, criteria for Service Area delineation were to be developed, and a
preliminary definition of the most probable boundaries was to be made.
PLAN AND PROGRAM
The results of the investigation were to be translated into a Plan and Program
for the State of New York, and were to cover subsequent study needs, data
collection efforts, legislative needs, and the approach to initiating the full
scope of functions defined by the State Role.
The Plan and Program along with discussion of the study effort was then to
be incorporated into a report.
PUBLIC RELA TIONS
It was stipulated that ROY F. WESTON would assist the State in appropriate
efforts to publicize the various elements of the Plan and Program, and to
identify those areas of implementation which could benefit by advance pub-
lic relations.
Specific tasks under this general objective were:
1. Prepare a summary of the final project report which could serve as
the basis for a popular version of the report for general distri-
bution.
3-3
-------
2. Develop a plan for a land reclamation project which would employ
sanitary landfill, and provide artistic renderings to illustrate the
plan. Such materials would be used as appropriate to portray the
beneficial aspects of the sanitary landfill method of solid wastes
disposal.
The results of this Phase I study are presented in the following chapters,
along with discussion of the findings.
3-4
-------
CHAPTER FOUR
BACKGROUND AND OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION
Development and implementation of a solid waste program for New York
State cannot be accomplished by examination of solid waste alone. Consider
ations of population, industrial and agricultural activity, transportation,
geography, political organization and attitudes, sociological implications, and
financial resources, all strongly affect the solid waste problem and develop
ment of solutions. In any of these cases there could be contraints which
would limit the flexibility of program implementation. Each of these areas
must be examined to make sure that sufficient data are available, to deter-
mine the need for and priority of supplemental investigations, and to see if
any significant parts of the program development are being duplicated by
other agencies.
This part of the report, then, is concerned with the underlying physical,
demographic, political, and economic considerations. Each Chapter is sum-
marized in the following sections.
POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS (CHAPTER FIVE}
The discussion centers on two major topics: 1) Patterns of Development, and
2) Population Growth and Change. The first reviews the historic and future
growth patterns in the State of New York as a tool in guiding selection of
disposal sites, transfer stations, and other handling facilities necessary to
serve the shifting growth areas within the State. The importance of land use
and zoning data in site selection for a landfill or other facility is stressed.
Centers of activity and future development patterns are reviewed.
Discussion then turns to the current and future changes in population by
Economic Development Areas (as defined by the Department of Commerce
4-1
-------
of New York State). Present and projected concentrations of population are
presented, with appropriate maps, as a basis for development of waste load
distribution,
INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT (CHAPTER SIX)
The amount of solid waste generated by industrial and agricultural activity is
a significant portion of the total solid waste load of New York State. This
chapter examines the State on the basis of the Economic Development Areas
and identifies existing and projected major industrial employment and agri-
cultural activity levels and concentrations. Trends are also noted and
discussed. Location of the centers of activity is important in determining the
concentrations of waste generation and the implications for area-wide solu-
tions. The data presented in this chapter were collected and projected as a
specific part of this solid waste study. The techniques used in deriving this
material are presented and discussed in Chapters Fourteen and Fifteen.
TRANSPORTATION (CHAPTER SEVEN)
This chapter focuses on the historic growth and detailed characteristics of
transportation means - highway, rail, and water - most appropriate for the
handling of solid waste. Each is discussed with regard to current and future
networks and the sufficiency of the networks. Then each is reviewed in
terms of the existing characteristics, methods, practices, and constraints, and
with regard to the potential future developments in their system character-
istics. Finally, the potential system capabilities and limitations are explored
to determine the role each might play in an inter-related transport network
for the handling of solid waste. The impact which these factors could have in
determination of a one-mode, bi-modal, or tri-modal system is critical in the
development of a feasible solid waste plan.
PHYSICAL AND NATURAL CONDITIONS (CHAPTER EIGHT)
Physical and natural conditions are important considerations in locating and
operating waste disposal sites and related facilities. This chapter discusses the
implications of geology, topography, hydrology, and meteorology in locating
and operating a successful disposal operation. The geology section indicates,
in general, which geologic factors are relevant to selection and operation of a
good landfill. The influence of topography covers site elevations, slopes,
drainage, and the determination of the type of landfill operation, i.e., area
method or trench method. Hydrology is an important component in site
selection because of the danger of polluting the ground or surface waters;
proper drainage patterns have to be established and maintained. The section
on meteorology is concerned with the effects of weather on landfills and
other solid waste disposal facilities; cold, wet, and windy weather can all
4-2
-------
affect the acceptability of a site or its operation unless proper precautions
are taken. The final section is an outline of natural and physical conditions
in various parts of New York State.
STATE AGENCIES AND LEGISLATION ICHAPTER NINE)
The political and legal arena within which implementation must take place
and the feasibility of change are important to successful development of a
State-wide solid waste management plant. This chapter looks first at the
existing legislation on which elements of the current state solid waste pro-
gram are based. Strengths and weaknesses are discussed, and directions for
potential change and improvement are reviewed. Next, the action areas and
responsibilities of the State agencies currently involved in the solid waste
program are presented, with commentary as to their applicability and effec-
tiveness.
After these first two discussions, the current allocation of responsibilities
between state and local agencies is reviewed, and the feasibility of obtaining
the proper balance between local and State power as a means of achieving a
more integrated State-wide solution of the solid waste program is examined.
Finally, the problem area of enforcement and control is reviewed in terms of
State/local powers and of the inadequacy of the current legislation, regula-
tions, and enforcement methodology. Potential methods for improving this
program element are briefly discussed as a basis for plan development.
POLITICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL, AND FINANCIAL FACTORS (CHAPTER TEN)
This last chapter of Part Two covers three other important factors which
have a decided impact on development and implementation of the solid
waste plan. The first of these is the political and sociological climate in
which planning and execution must occur. The second factor is inter-
municipal cooperation. Although numerous laws and legal vehicles exist for
inter-municipal cooperation in solid waste disposal, very few municipalities
have chosen this path as a solution to the problem. The nature of the
existing legislation is reviewed with commentary on the reasons for lack of
success and on the type of inducements or programs which may be appro-
priate to achieve the necessary cooperation. The final section of Chapter Ten
is a brief review of the economics and finances of municipalities and of the
State with regard to their ability to implement solid waste collection, trans-
portation, processing, and disposal plans. A discussion of the reasons for
what is currently a tight financial situation and of several potential means for
effectuating proposals despite these current problems closes the presentation
in this chapter.
4-3
-------
-------
CHAPTER FIVE
POPULATION GROWTH AND
DEVELOPMENT PA TTERNS
INTRODUCTION
Population in the state of New York is projected to increase by almost 40
percent in the next 30 years, from approximately 18 million people in 1965
to nearly 25 million by 1995. Because of the impact of population growth
and land use on waste generation and its ultimate disposal, it is important to
know the present and future location and relative scale of these population
increases and changes in land use in order to develop a relevant State-wide
solid waste management plan. The patterns of growth in New York are
related to the historic development of the State along major transportation
corridors. These patterns have been affected by changes in transportation
technology, by changes in transportation routes, by the development of
natural or imported resources, and by the consumption of available devel-
opable land. What had been a tightly defined and contained population
growth pattern within the strict confines of the Hudson and Mohawk River
Valleys, is now beginning to be distributed outward along new valleys and
transportation corridors.
Land use information for the entire State is currently being compiled by the
Office of Planning Coordination. Aerial photo-surveys have been flown to
collect land-use information for the State of New York, and maps for ap-
proximately 28 counties have been completed. Land use and zoning data are
important in selecting waste disposal sites and in ensuring their compatibility
with present and future activities in the surrounding area.
HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION GROWTH
Early development took place along the rivers and at major sea and lake
ports of New York State. Mills and factories were located there because of
5-1
-------
the transportation potential and the cheap source of power, and cities grew
where these mills and factories were located. Steam power and, later, elec-
tricity promoted development of uroan concentrations at other locations.
People shifted from farm to city as mechanization of agriculture and in-
creasing farm size reduced the viability of the small family farm, because of
economic pressure.
The early centers established in the Hudson and Mohawk River Valleys
increased in size, and the extension of the Erie Canal reinforced the already
extant New York-to-Albany anc Albany-to-Erie development corridors. The
State population grew from 1.4 m Ilion in 1820 to 3.1 million in 1850.
Upstate cities along the Canal grew from small settlements to major urban
centers - Buffalo, Lockport, Rochester, Syracuse, and Utica emerged as
cities. Buffalo grew from a town of 5,000 in 1825 to almost 75,000 by
1855. New York City more than quadrupled in population in 30 years, going
from almost 165,000 in 1825 to to 655,000 in 1855. With the advent of rail,
the existing cities and the development corridor grew even more. The State
increased in population from 3.9 million in 1860 to 6.0 million in 1890, and
reached 10.4 million in 1920. The large influx of European immigrants
provided an impetus to growth, especially in New York City, which grew
most. New York City had 30 percent of the State's population in 1860 and
54 percent by 1920.
As a result both of the demand exerted by a growing urban population and
the freedom offered by the development of electricity, the elevator, light-
weight steel construction, and mass public transportation, changes in form
and structure took place within the cities. Cities grew upward and outward.
After 1930, the automobile exerted its influence on the urban form. A more
scattered development pattern, with densities much lower than those which
had been prevalent, emerged as the cities added suburbs and grew into met-
ropolitan areas. From 1920 to 1950, cities continued to grow, although
1940 signaled the beginning of a faster rate of growth outside cities and
villages in the suburban and exurbar areas of towns. A major proportion of
this increase, however, was still concentrated in the principal development
corridors. By 1950, cities began to experience a small decline in population,
while the surrounding towns and villages grew rapidly. The total State popu-
lation had increased to 14.8 million people by 1950.
Since 1950 State population has continued to grow, increasing to 18.3 mil-
lion by 1968. Nearly all of the population gain between 1950 and 1968 took
place in the urban belts surrounding the central cities in metropolitan areas.
These areas experienced an average of 70 percent gain in population. Heavy
increases took place in the suburbs of New York City, especially in Nassau,
Suffolk, Rockland, and Westchester Counties. Virtually all of the central
5-2
-------
cities experienced some population deline. The remaining sections of the
metropolitan areas outside the urban cluster had an increase of 27 percent.
Outside of the metropolitan areas, the growth was about 12 percent.
LAND USE AND ZONING CONTROLS
The importance of land use and zoning controls cannot be overstated in
relation to disposal site development. Compatibility of the site with existing
and future area development is critical from the standpoint of operations
and efficiency, as well as from that of aesthetics and public acceptance. By
right, a disposal site, as a public activity, can be located anywhere with
regard to zoning, as long as it does not constitute a nuisance or hazard.
However, zoning, when instituted as part of a comprehensive plan and pro-
gram, may reserve for residential use land that may be most appropriate for
disposal sites, and usually relegates disposal sites to industrial zones.
The location of sites is important in terms of proximity to existing land uses,
but is even more important when related to future land use. Most people
overlook the fact that a landfill basically is either a land reclamation opera-
tion or an interim use for a given tract of land. Therefore, it is essential to
give careful consideration to future land uses in selecting a site and planning
its operation. Depending on the intended final use of a site, on the projected
land use activity for the surrounding area, and on the projected needs of the
future expected population, the fill configuration and operating criteria must
be established to be certain that the completed landfill can support struc-
tures if industry will eventually use the site, or that it has been contoured
appropriately for a park or golf course if recreation is to be the ultimate use.
If recreation is intended, then phasing of the landfill operation should be
considered so that sections could be opened reasonably soon after the opera-
tion is initiated. This helps in public relations and can go a long way toward
making acceptance of subsequent site location easier. Land use planning and
implementation are discussed in detail in Chapter Eighteen.
As part of solid waste plan development, land use information is usually
collected and plotted for two purposes: 1) to facilitate general calculation of
waste material generated for current and future conditions, and 2) to provide
a guide for site selection. Unfortunately, achievement of the basic goal - col-
lection, plotting, and tabulating - was not possible at this time, because the
completion of State-wide land use data (existing and future) by the Office of
Planning Coordination (OPC), a cooperating agency in the study, did not
coincide with the schedule of this phase of the study. It will be available by
the time detailed site selection is carried out in subsequent phases. Chapters
Thirteen, Fourteen, and Fifteen describe how current and future waste loads
were determined using existing and forecasted population, industrial employ-
ment, and agricultural activities. Thus, the first purpose was satisfied through
5-3
-------
the use of more sophisticated techniques. The second purpose will be sat-
isfied through field survey and review of the planning document, as part of a
site reuse model approach discussed in Chapter Eighteen of this report. When
the completed land use information is available, OPC will forward it to the
Division of General Engineering and Radiological Health for its use in other
studies.
CURRENT STATE-WIDE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Manufacturing occupies a leading place in the State's economy. Outstanding
laboratories and educational institutions, and the favorable environment for
development and growth of research are important assets contributing to the
industrial vitality of New York State. The future economic growth of the
State is being actively stimulated by projects currently underway at over
1,300 industrial laboratories operated by private firms, schools, and the
government. During 1967 and 1968, the State Commerce Department re-
ceived reports of more than 900 major new or expanded manufacturing
facilities being "planned, underway or completed" in the State; during the
same year, more than 100 new or expanded research facilities were
"planned, underway or completed".
Farm business, although over-shadowed by other segments of the State's
economy, is still substantial. Individually, New York's farms have been in-
creasing in size and efficiency, but the area under cultivation and the number
of farms have declined. Increasing amounts of land previously devoted to
farming have been taken over for suburban residential, commercial, and
industrial projects in regions convenient to metropolitan areas. Other mar-
ginal farmland has reverted to pasture, brush, and forest lands. Land devoted
to farming has been decreasing approximately 5 percent every five years. At
present, approximately 19 percent of the State area is crop land, and 14
percent is open pasture land. Nearly half of the State's area is in forest land,
both State and private; this percentage has remained approximately the same
for several years.
CENTERS OF DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Within the State there are several major development areas. The New York
City metropolitan area (the city, plus Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Rock-
land, Sullivan, Putnam, Ulster, and Dutchess Counties) currently has 67
percent of the state's population. New York City's population is expected to
be relatively stable through 1995, but a 58 percent growth is projected for
the remainder of the metropolitan area. The Nassau-Suffolk district has been
growing rapidly; between 1940 and 1960, vast stretches of farmlands and
many exclusive estates were transformed into housing developments and
flourishing communities, as the huge in-migration of population took place.
5-4
-------
Rapid growth is still continuing, primarily in eastern Nassau and western
Suffolk. Additional mammoth shopping centers are being constructed, and
industrial construction is experiencing an unprecedented boom. The popula-
tion growth in western Nassau is continuing, but at a slower rate. Suffolk
County is also experiencing population growth generated by improved trans-
portation.
The Westchester-Rockland district of the New York City metropolitan area
is one of the fastest growing districts of the State. Between 1960 and 1966,
Rockland County population increased at a faster rate than any other
county except Suffolk. The Mid-Hudson district is emerging as an important
commercial and industrial center. The area is also one of the leading agri-
cultural regions in New York State, and is a glamorous vacation land, with
the Catskill resorts, the Washington Irving country, Bear Mountain, West
Point, Saratoga, and other recreation and historical attractions. The sub-
urban and rural areas of Dutchess, Orange, Putnam, and Ulster Counties have
been growing rapidly, with an overall population growth of 18 percent be-
tween 1960 and 1967. Part of the stimulus for this growth has come from
industrial expansion in the Hudson River Valley, where Dutchess, Orange,
and Ulster Counties are the centers of manufacturing activity. Orange and
Sullivan Counties are the district's most important agricultural areas.
The Albany-North region has 8 percent of the State's total population. Popu-
lation projections show a 25 percent increase for the Albany area and a 9
percent increase for the remaining areas. Population and industry are concen-
trated in the four-county Albany-Schenectady-Troy metropolitan area. Rural
Warren, Washington, and Schoharie Counties are largely agricultural and va-
cation lands, with scattered but important industrial communities; manu-
facturing activity is concentrated in the cluster of Glens Falls, Hudson Falls,
and Fort Edward, north along the Hudson River, and to a lesser degree near
Saratoga Springs. The northern part of the region, about one-third of which
is within the Adirondack State Park, is the least densely inhabited area of the
State. Most of the northern area is rural, and population concentrations are
small; Watertown with 33,000 residents (1960 Census) is the largest city, and
other population centers are Plattsburg, Massena, and Ogdensburg.
The Syracuse-Utica-Binghamton region has approximately 10 percent of the
State's population. Population projections indicate a minimum of 28 percent
growth in the major urban areas of the region and a 16 percent increase in
the other areas. The Mohawk Valley area of this region is an area of physical
and economic contrasts. The southern portion is highly industrialized, and
the northern section is far less populous and is partly within the Adirondack
State Park. Population and industry are concentrated in and near Utica and
Rome. Smaller centers along the valley include Herkimer and I lion in
Herkimer County, Gloversville and Johnstown in Fulton County, and
5-5
-------
Amsterdam in Montgomery County. Broome County is the major industrial
and population center of the southern part of this region, and Delaware,
Otsego, and Chenango Counties are the chief agricultural areas. Manu-
facturing is concentrated in Broome County, mostly in and around
Binghamton. The Syracuse area completes this region. Population and indus-
try in this area are concentrated in Onondaga County and in Syracuse, its
largest city. Cayuga and Madison are the main agricultural counties of the
area. Elmira, in Chemung County, and Corning, in Steuben County, are also
centers of industrial activity.
The Buffalo-Rochester region has approximately 16 percent of the State's
population. A 30 percent increase is forecast for the major urban areas and a
13 percent increase for the other areas. The Buffalo area of this region is the
largest industrial and commercial center in upstate New York. Manufacturing
is concentrated in Erie County (Buffalo metropolitan area), where one-third
of the State's 1965 output of transportation equipment was manufactured.
Dairying is an important activity in Chautauqua and Cattaraugus Counties,
and Chautauqua County is also noted for its vineyards. The famous Niagara
Fruit Belt, located in the northern section of the area, is one of the leading
fruit producing areas of the Slate. The Rochester area of this region is
famous both for its manufactured goods and its farm produce, and is the
second most populous area in upstate New York. Monroe County is the
industrial center of the area. Wayne County ranks second in the State in
agricultural activity, with other important agricultural counties in this area
being Wyoming, Genesee, and Ontario.
POPULA TION GROWTH AND CHANGE B'Y ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREAS
NEW YORK CITY AREA
Made up of Bronx, Kings (Brooklyn), New York (Manhattan), Queens, and
Richmond (Staten Island) Counties, this area has one of the largest concen-
trations of population in the world. Population is projected to increase, but
at a slower rate. In 1965, this area had 45 percent of the State's population,
but by 1995, its share will decrease to 34 percent.
Bronx, Kings, New York, and Queen:; house the majority of the area's popu-
lation (97 percent). This share is projected to decrease slightly to 93 percent
because of projected losses in Kings and New York Counties and the popula-
tion growth expected in Richmond County. Kings County has the largest
individual share of the area's population, some 34 percent. Queens, New
York, and Bronx follow with 24, 20, and 19 percent, respectively. The
projected distribution of population remains essentially the same through
1995, with only slight percentage changes for each of the four principal
counties. Richmond should double in population, but this increase is small
compared to the projected change of about 1.1 million people in the four
more populous counties.
-------
NASSA U-SUFFOLK AREA
This two-county area is among the fastest growing and most dynamic areas
in the State and in the nation. The area experienced substantial in-rrugration
during 1940-1960, and the rapid growth is continuing, primarily in eastern
Nassau and western Suffolk. Nassau County is the most populous county in
the State outside of New York City, despite the fact that it is one of the
smallest in area. The area's 1965 population was nearly 13 percent of the
State's total. By 1995, this ratio is expected to increase to over 19 percent.
At the present time 60 percent of the area's people reside in Nassau County,
61 percent of whom are in the 15 principal municipalities. Hempstead is the
largest community with 40 percent of the population. By 1995, however,
because of tremendous projected growth of some 210 percent in Suffolk
County, the Nassau/Suffolk distribution will reverse, and Suffolk County
will contain 63 percent of the area's population. Internally, the principal
Nassau County municipalities will gain population by 1995, but population
in the suburban and rural areas will grow at a faster rate. The dramatic
population growth in Suffolk will take place around Babylon and
Lindenhurst in the western half of the county.
WESTCHESTER-ROCKLAND A REA
This Economic Area, composed of Rockland and Westchester Counties, is
also one of the fastest growing areas in the State. In 1965, the area's popu-
lation was nearly 6 percent of the State total, and is projected to increase to
nearly 8 percent by 1995.
Westchester County accounts for 82 percent of the area population, with 61
percent located in the principal cities and villages. Although an increase in
population is forecasted, Westchester's share of the area is projected to de-
crease to 75 percent by 1995. This is because Rockland County's population
is growing at a very rapid rate. From 1960 to 1968, Rockland's population
grew faster than any other county in the State except Suffolk's. By 1995,
Rockland's population is projected to increase to more than two and one-
half times the present level. A large amount of this expected growth can be
attributed to growth from New York City and adjacent New Jersey, as well
as to "spillover" from Westchester.
MID-HUDSON AREA
Composed of Columbia, Dutchess, Green, Orange, Putnam, Sullivan, and
Ulster Counties, this is another fast-growing area. Between 1960 and 1968,
population increased by nearly 19 percent. The area currently has more than
5-7
-------
4 percent of the State's population, and this relationship will probably in-
crease beyond 6 percent by 1995.
Orange is the most populous county and accounts for 30 percent of the
area's population, a share which is arojected to increase to 38 percent by
1995 as the county population virtually trebles. Dutchess County is pro-
jected to experience almost the same rate of growth, to a 30 percent share of
the area's population. Putnam and Lister are both projected to grow signif-
icantly by 1995, although Ulster's share of the area population will be sig-
nificantly lower because of its slow growth rate relative to the three other
growth counties. In all four of the growth counties, a substantial majority of
the population increase will take place in the suburban and rural areas while
the principal cities generally lose population.
Columbia, Greene, and Sullivan Counties are only sparsely populated relative
to the other four counties in the area. All three are projected to experience
only moderate growth and ultimately contain only one-half of their present
small (18 percent) share of the area population.
CAPITAL AREA
This area is made up of Albany, Rensselaer, Saratoga, Schenectady,
Schoharie, Warren, and Washington Counties, and accounts for 4.6 percent
of the State's population. This share is projected to increase to 4.9 percent
by 1995. Population is concentrated in the four-county Albany-
Schenectady-Troy metropolitan area, with 85 percent of the area population
residing in those counties. Albany, Schenectady, and Troy each now contain
from 40 to 50 percent of their respective county's population; however, that
share in each case is projected to fall (to as low as 16 percent by 1995) as the
suburban and exurban areas build up. The remaining principal cities and
villages account for only 7 percent of the metropolitan area population.
Schoharie, Warren, and Washington Counties are largely rural and account
for approximately 15 percent of the area population. Although these three
counties are projected to increase in population by 1995 (particularly
Warren County), they will still lose 3 percent in their share of the area
population. Glens Falls, the principal municipality in Warren County, is
projected to lose some population, with the remainder of the county in-
creasing by over 40 percent.
NORTHERN AREA
This area, composed of Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Jefferson, Lewis and St.
Lawrence County, is the largest of the twelve Economic Areas, but is the
least densely populated, with much of the region (34 percent) located within
5-8
-------
the Adirondack State Park. The total population of the area was a little more
than 2 percent of the State total in 1965, and projections indicate a small
decrease in this share by 1995. Population concentrations are
small - Watertown (1965 Population 32,400) is the largest city. Other popu-
lation centers are Plattsburg in Clinton County and Massena and Ogdensburg
in St. Lawrence County.
St. Lawrence County has the largest share of population (31 percent) of this
area, and this is projected to increase to 36 percent by 1995. Clinton and
Jefferson Counties are next with 20 and 22 percent respectively, which will
change to 23 and 18 percent, respectively, by 1995 because of more rapid
growth in Clinton. Essex, Lewis, and Franklin Counties had respective 1965
area population shares of 9, 6, and 12 percent, which are forecasted to
change to 8, 5, and 11 percent by 1995. This loss in share of area population
is part of the expected phenomenon of a shift in the population concentra-
tion to the waterway boundaries of the region.
MOHAWK VALLEY AREA
In this Economic Area (Fulton, Hamilton, Herkimer, Montgomery and
Oneida Counties) population is concentrated in and near Utica and Rome.
Smaller centers along the valley include Herkimer and Ilion in Herkimer
County, Gloversville and Johnstown in Fulton County, and Amsterdam in
Montgomery County. The area has approximately 2.6 percent of the State's
population, and this ratio is projected to decrease slightly by 1995.
Oneida County accounts for the largest share of population in the area with
61 percent. Rome and Utica together contain 55 percent of the county's
population, a distribution which will change by 1995. By that time, although
Rome will have gained population, Utica will have lost, and the bulk of the
population growth will have occurred in the surrounding rural and suburban
areas, which will then account for 60 percent of the county population.
Herkimer, the second largest county in population, will grow to a limited
extent with the same shift of rapid population growth from the city to
surrounding areas. Population in Montgomery County is projected to in-
crease only a modest amount in the suburbs and rural areas while
Amsterdam loses a significant number of people, resulting in an overall popu-
lation loss by 1995. Fulton County is projected to grow only a modest
amount with a significant increase in the suburban and rural areas and a
significant decrease in the population of Johnstown and Gloversville.
Hamilton County's population (less than 1 percent of the area population) is
projected to remain stable.
5-9
-------
SYRACUSE AREA
This area is made up of Cayuga, Cortland, Madison, Onondaga and Oswego
Counties and accounts for 4 percent of the State's population. This share is
projected to increase only slightly, to about 4.5 percent by 1995.
Population is concentrated in Onondaga County and in Syracuse, its largest
city. Nearly 30 percent of the area's people live in Syracuse, and another 32
percent live in the remainder of Onondaga County. This county contains 62
percent of the area population; the remainder is distributed among the other
counties in the following proportions: Oswego, 13 percent; Cayuga, 11 per-
cent; Madison, 8 percent; and Cortlend, 6 percent. Projections indicate that
Onondaga will increase its share to 64 percent by 1995. The other county
shares will be redistributed to some extent and are projected to be: Oswego,
14 percent; Cayuga, 8 percent; Madison, 9 percent, and Cortland, 5 percent.
Therefore, Onondaga, Oswego, and Madison increase their shares slightly,
while Cayuga and Cortland decrease 1 heirs. This redistribution is projected to
take place coincident with a population increase in all counties.
ROCHESTER AREA
The Rochester Area is composed of nine counties - Genesee, Livingston,
Monroe, Ontario, Orleans, Seneca, Wayne, Wyoming, and Yates. This is the
second most populous region in upstate New York. In 1965, the area had
almost 6 percent of the State's total population, and projections indicate
that this share will increase slightly by 1995.
Slightly more than 63 percent of the area's people live in Monroe County,
and 49 percent of these reside in Rochester. By 1995, that distribution is
expected to shift with an increase of population outside Rochester of almost
50 percent, and a decline of Rochester's population of some 9 percent. The
net effect will be a slight gain in Monroe's share of the area's population. The
remaining counties in this area all have relatively small shares of the popu-
lation, ranging from a high of 7.2 percent in Wayne County to a low of 1.8
percent in Yates. Wayne's share will increase slightly to 8.2 percent in 1995,
while the remaining counties all lose in terms of relative share, although
generally growing in absolute population.
BUFFALO AREA
This area, consisting of Cattaraugus, Chautauqua, Erie, and Niagara Counties,
accounts for 8.8 percent of the tote I State population. Projections indicate
that this ratio will decrease slightly by 1995. Erie and Niagara Counties make
up the Buffalo metropolitan area, and have 85 percent of the area
15-10
-------
population. This share is projected to increase. Buffalo and the other prin-
cipal cities and villages in the two counties account for nearly 50 percent of
the area's population; less than 42 percent of the people currently reside
outside the principal cities and villages. This city/rural distribution is pro-
jected to change, however, in both counties, with Buffalo losing the greatest
relative share of population to surrounding suburbs and developing towns
In Cattaraugus and Chautauqua Counties, which are less densely populated,
at least 60 percent of the population currently resides outside the principal
cities, a distribution which is projected to continue. The two counties to-
gether presently account for only 15 percent of the area population, and this
share is projected to decrease slightly to around 13 percent by 1995 in spite
of an expected 13 percent increase in absolute population.
ELMIRA AREA
Allegany, Chemung, Schuyler, Steuben, and Tompkins Counties, which com-
prise the Elmira Area, account for 1.9 percent of the State's population, a
share which is expected to remain relatively constant through 1995. Centers
of population are not as concentrated in this area. Elmira, Ithaca, and
Corning are the largest cities. Chemung County contains 31 percent of the
area population and Steuben County, 29 percent. Chemung's share will in-
crease only slightly by 1995, while Steuben's share declines to 25 percent.
At the same time, Tompkins County's share of the area population is pro-
jected to increase from 22 to 28 percent, following the trend of a shift of the
population concentration to suburban and exurban Tompkins County, with
a concomitant loss of population for Ithaca. Chemung and Steuben Counties
will experience the same trend, with a rapidly increasing suburban-exurban
population coupled with a population loss in the principal cities.
BINGHAMTON A RE A
This area is made up of Tioga, Broome, Chenango, Otsego, and Delaware
Counties. The area's population is 2.3 percent of the total State population,
and projections from the Office of Planning Coordination indicate this ratio
will remain constant. Broome County is the major population center, with
over one-half of the area's population concentrated in the "triple cities" of
Binghamton, Endicott, and Johnson City; Binghamton, the largest of the
three, accounts for one-third of the county's 1965 population, although this
share is projected to decline to just over 20 percent by 1995. The population
outside the three cities, currently 50 percent of the county total, is projected
to increase to almost 70 percent by 1995, following the general trend of
population increase outside central cities accompanied by a decrease of
central city populations.
5-11
-------
Chenango and Delaware Counties eire projected to lose a small share of the
area population because of a loss in absolute population, while Tioga County
is projected to increase its share of area population because of a substantial
growth. Otsego County is projected to lose a small share of the area popu-
lation; Oneonta, the principal city, is projected to lose population, while the
surrounding towns gain additional people.
SUMMARY OF TRENDS
New York State is still expenencing growth in all twelve population areas.
This growth is projected to continue at a steady rate through 1995. Eighty-
five percent of the State's people live in the seven metropolitan areas of the
State. Six of these areas lie along the Hudson River- Mohawk Valley cor-
ridor, which stretches from the Great Lakes to the Atlantic Ocean. Area
projections indicate that this development corridor will continue to receive a
major portion of the population growth in the State, although a redis-
tribution within this corridor is taking place. Tables 5-1 through 5-3, Figures
5-1 through 5-4, and Maps 1 through 3 present significant data and illus-
trations of trends.
New York City's share of State population, 54 percent in 1920 and 45
percent in 1965, is projected to decrease to 34 percent in 1995. Although
this area is the single largest concentration of population, several other areas
in the development corridor are projected to increase their share sub-
stantially. Nassau and Suffolk Counties will increase their combined share
from 13 to 19 percent, while Westchester and Rockland are projected to
increase their share by two percent. The Mid-Hudson Area will increase its
share by two and one-half percent. Some of the Economic Areas (Buffalo,
Elmira and Mohawk Valley) will lose a small percentage of their share by
1995. The remaining areas are projected to increase in population at a suffi-
cient rate to allow them to maintain their present shares of State population
by 1995. The pattern of low development activity and population levels in
southwestern and northern New York State will continue and may be inten-
sified to some degree.
Major changes are taking place within areas, as population in central cities
declines and major growth takes place in suburban and rural areas adjacent
to, but a greater distance from, principal cities and villages. In some cases
this growth is shifting centers of area population from one county into an
adjacent county. To a certain limited extent, the "Expansion in Linking-
Valley Areas" discussed earlier has begun. The impact on solid waste
management is that less free land will be available within or very close to
principal cities, and the distance to large land areas suitable for regional
disposal facilities is increasing.
5-12
-------
The relationship of these population centers and growth areas, to
concentrations of and developments in industrial and agricultural activity are
discussed in Chapter Six.
5-13
-------
Table 5-1
Total Population Projections
by Eiconomic Areas^
Area Population and Percentaae
Economic Areas
Binghamton
EJuffalo
Capital
Elmira
Mid-Hudson
Mohawk Valley
Nassau-Suffolk
New York City
Northern
Rochester
Syracuse
Westchester
Rockland
STATE
laea.
407,282
2.29%
1 ,556,567
8.75%
816,592
4.59%
339,801
1.91%
740,652
4.16%
460,860
2.59%
2,297,296
12.91%
7,996,241
44.94%
393,609
2.21%
1,019,221
5.73%
727,056
4.09%
1 ,038,609
5.84%
17,794,146
100%
mi
421,422
2.25%
1,585,620
8.46%
860,326
4.59%
354,365
1 .89%
844,054
4.50%
475,293
2.54%
2,610,254
13.92%
8,162,094
43.53%
404,211
2.16%
1,091 044
5.82%
774,852
4.13%
1,165,672
6.2:!%
18,749,207
100%
1975
442,901
2.25%
1 ,644,694
8.36%
913,746
4.65%
369,773
1 .88%
962,931
4.90%
491,913
2.50%
2,890,369
14.70%
8,233,476
41.87%
414,920
2.11%
1,161,668
5.91%
829,341
4.22%
1,309,585
6.66%
19,665,317
100%
of State Total
1985
499,569
2.27%
1 ,824,498
8.29%
1 ,046,435
4.76%
411,485
1 .87%
1,264,237
5.75%
541,792
2.46%
3,700,980
16.82%
8,374,462
38.06%
451,282
2.05%
1,328,531
6.04%
964,545
4.38%
1,596,064
7.25%
22,003,880
100%
1995
560,534
2.27%
2,013,229
8.14%
1,198,967
4.85%
458,497
1 .85%
1,647,791
6.66%
593,428
2.40%
4,764,981
19.27%
8,487,248
34 33%
497,282
2.01%
1,507,852
6.10%
1,112,086
4.50%
1 ,882,399
7.61%
24,724,294
100%
1Data provided by New York State Office of Planning Coordination.
-------
Table 5 2
Total Population Probations
by Counties^
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Cbenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Flockland
St Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schohane
Schuyler
Seneca
Steuben
Suffolk
Sulltvan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
STATE TOTAL
J2fiS-
284,601
45,972
1,522,322
222,039
82,042
76,603
150.556
103,768
45,566
80,550
49,478
44,108
43,338
210,456
1,083,239
35,912
45,471
51,153
57,349
32,529
4,204
67,991
88,514
2,704,456
23,6)0
47,641
56,899
643,816
57,120
1,386,983
1,563,871
240,730
280,292
456,632
72,500
223,050
36,810
92,814
53,677
41,873
1,945,864
153,402
259,728
182,182
119,552
99,488
160,631
22,863
15,304
33,535
99,976
910,313
47,664
42,662
74,781
135,602
47,157
48,810
73,159
856,427
35,637
18,774
JL9/-Q
303,461
46,626
1,554,648
231,397
81,960
77,954
153,217
108,202
47,269
85,544
51,021
46,027
42,225
240,197
1,102,034
36,004
45,333
50,852
59,788
33,408
4 199
69,358
87,390
2,724,680
23,597
49,966
61,362
699,008
55,847
1,444,150
1,540,248
248 409
295,037
490,524
75,696
268 452
38,545
98,985
53,760
53,142
2,046,931
163,163
295,587
231,292
126,343
107,867
164,995
22,892
15,579
34,499
101,869
1,166.104
49,040
46,771
82,089
148,794
49,474
48,474
78,695
934,380
36,015
18,832
LfidU
1975
326,511
47,753
1,575,527
245,226
82,090
79,550
157,044
113,133
49,235
89,637
52,748
47,848
41,798
275,174
1,149,716
36,357
45,140
50,446
62,308
34,422
4,213
71,143
86,073
2,697,482
23,534
52,475
67,551
750,808
54,779
1,510,834
1,506,042
255,844
311,332
526,939
79,707
323,932
40,414
107,453
55,647
66,764
2,119,601
173,962
334,824
265,785
134,179
117,132
172,436
23,078
15,916
35,362
104,012
1,379,535
50,225
50,995
88,959
159,666
51,782
48,845
85,063
1,043,800
36,514
19,017
1985
381,466
50,534
1,608,150
280,183
83,978
84,286
167,536
127,987
54,129
100,565
57,459
53,200
42,554
370,260
1,281,559
37,965
48,111
52,313
70,330
37,115
4,260
76,475
86,992
2,649,057
23,848
58,754
83,806
866,664
54,298
1,678,840
1,450,160
291,425
354 446
613,996
89,685
459,018
44,940
129,257
61,035
99,680
2,233,128
199,650
433,967
354,249
153,851
140,373
191,802
23,619
17,255
37,720
110,388
2,022,140
53,428
61,668
105,321
187,277
57,843
51,682
102,247
1,241,815
38,302
19,889
1995
445,717
53,957
1,639,180
316,482
86959
88,626
180,392
142,274
59682
113,649
62,777
61 059
43,621
504,367
1419116
39,362
53,377
54 613
78.726
40 173
4264
81,497
90,445
2,605,996
24 121
65,984
101 534
988,404
53675
1,791,288
1,395,398
326,762
399,379
708,627
99,812
619,685
49,153
152,240
67,490
144,551
2,301,353
228,592
545,321
461,527
176,328
167,717
210,884
24,487
18,587
39,925
116,752
2,973,693
56,515
73,259
126,927
219,723
64,220
57,350
123,263
1,420,872
40,955
21,630
17,794,146
18,749,207
19,665,317
22,003,880
24,724,294
Data provided by Mew York State Office of Planning Coordination
-------
Table 5 3
Popilation Density Project 3ns
by Counties
Number of Persons per Square Mile
Counties
Albany
Ahpu,any
B'onx
Broome
Cdttaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqud
Cheinuny
Chenango
Chnton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kinqs
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
St Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schohane
Schuyler
Seneca
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
1965
541
44
37,130
311
62
110
139
250
50
76
77
88
30
259
1,024
20
27
103
114
50
2
47
68
38,635
18
75
86
954
140
4,799
67,994
453
229
611
1 1 1
268
93
96
53
180
18,017
231
4,478
1,035
43
122
776
37
46
99
71
980
49
81
155
119
53
58
121
1,933
60
55
1970
577
45
37,918
324
61
112
142
261
52
81
79
92
29
295
1,042
20
27
102
119
51
2
48
68
38,924
18
78
93
1,036
137
4,997
66,967
467
241
657
116
322
97
103
53
229
18,953
245
5,096
1,314
46
132
797
37
47
102
72
1 255
50
89
170
130
56
58
130
2,109
60
55
197!j
e:n
16
38 427
3-13
C2
1 14
145
2/3
"A
35
32
95
?9
338
1,037
?0
27
i:)1
124
53
2
')0
67
38,535
18
82
102
1,1 12
134
5,278
65,430
431
254
705
122
389
102
1 11
55
288
19,626
262
5.T73
1,1:10
48
1 43
833
37
48
105
74
1,485
51
97
85
40
58
58
140
2,356
61
55
1985
725
48
39,233
392
63
121
155
308
60
95
89
106
29
455
1,211
21
29
105
140
57
2
53
67
37,844
18
92
127
1,284
133
5,809
63,050
548
290
822
138
551
113
134
60
430
20,677
300
7,482
2,013
56
172
927
38
52
112
78
2,177
55
118
219
164
65
62
169
2,803
64
58
1995
847
c, I
3-1 980
441
6'i
12/
Ifi/
343
6b
10/
97
122
30
h20
1 341
22
32
1 10
157
61
2
57
70
37 229
19
103
154
1,464
132
6,198
60,669
614
326
949
153
744
124
158
67
623
21,309
344
9,402
2,622
64
205
1,019
39
56
118
83
3,201
58
140
263
193
72
69
203
3,207
68
63
'Data provided by New York State Office of Planning Coordmai on
-------
PATTERNS OF DEVELOPMENT;
NEW YORK STATE
FIGURE 5-1
NtW ICBf OTT
9rjlti/no'f
Wellington
FORCES CONCENTRATING
DEVELOPMENT
FORCES CONNECTING
DEVELOPMENT
' «'
* " *
FORCES DISTRIBUTING
DEVELOPMENT
EXPANSION OF
METROPOLITAN AREAS
* *
-* *
EXPANSION IN
LINKING-VALLEY AREAS
* *
*
* *
*
EXPANSION ON
A STATEWIDE BASIS
SOURCE: CHANGE/CHALLENGE/RESPONSE:
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PLANNING COORDINATION
-------
ECONOMIC AREAS:
NEW YORK STATE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
FIGURE 5-2
-------
PLANNING REGIONS:
NEW YORK STATE
OFFICE OF PLANNING COORDINATION
FIGURE 5-3
-------
POPULATION CHANGE:
NEW YORK STATE; 1900-1995
26
FIGURE 5 - 4
Z
o
Z
o
a.
O
o.
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990
1965 1975 1985 1995
YEAR
SOURCE: PROJECTIONS PROVIDED BY
NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PLANNING COORDINATION
-------
CHAPTER SIX
INDUSTRIAL AND
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY
INTRODUCTION
Not only are industry and agriculture two of the principal generators of solid
waste, but the types and amounts of waste they generate are significantly
influenced by the types and levels of activity. Therefore, an examination of
the industrial and agricultural mix and activity levels in all parts of New
York State is essential to development of any reasonable State-wide plan for
solid waste disposal. In particular, locating the centers of activity is impor-
tant in determining the concentration of waste generation and the implica-
tions for area-wide solutions. A data collection program, with projection of
trends through 1995, was a specific part of this solid waste study. In this
chapter, industrial employment and agriculture activity (number of employ-
ees in various significant industries; types of crop, livestock, and other
agricultural activity; indications of intra-area concentrations and relative
position of specific industry or agriculture activities within area and State-
wide) are examined for each of the twelve Economic Development Areas
used in the population discussion of the preceding chapter. The projection
techniques used in deriving this material are presented and discussed in
Chapters Fourteen and Fifteen.
EXISTING AND FUTURE INDUSTRIAL EMPLOYMENT AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY
NEW YORK CITY AREA
New York City is the center of the largest and most concentrated industrial
and consumer market in the world. Total manufacturing employment ex-
ceeded 818,000 persons in 1965.
6-1
-------
Kings, Queens, and Bronx Counties house important segments of the popu-
lation and provide substantial employment opportunities in manufacturing
and trade as well. Richmond County has the smallest employment and ac-
counts for only 1 percent of the total area employment.
Manufacturing is the area's major activity, and indeed, New York City is the
largest manufacturing center in the nation. The manufacturing activity is
characterized by a high degree of diversification, with a dominance of non-
durable over durable goods production.
Over 60 percent of the manufacturing employees work in the four major
industries. Apparel ranks first with 32 percent, followed by: printing and
publishing, 15 percent; miscellaneous manufacturing, 9 percent, and food
products, 8 percent.
Over one-half of the area's manufacturing activity is located in New York
County (Manhattan). Eighty-five percent of the printing industry is here, as
is 70 percent of the apparel industry's employees. The 1965 industrial em-
ployment density was over 18,000 employees per square mile. This will
decrease to 17,500 by 1995. Approximately 70 percent of the employees in
the metal products and machinery industries are in Kings and Queens
Counties.
There is virtually no agricultural activity in this area. The small amount that
there is takes place in Richmond Courty, where there is some dairy and row
crop activity; this will show a slight increase by 1995.
Projections indicate a decrease in the number of employees in the apparel,
printing, and food products industries. The area's percentage of the State's
manufacturing employees is projected to decrease from the current 47 per-
cent to 17 percent by 1995.
NASSA U-SUFFOLK AREA
This area is among the fastest-growing and most dynamic areas in the State
and the Nation. In 1965, 75 percent of the area's 122,500 manufacturing
employees worked in durable goods; industries - principally aircraft, ma-
chinery, and instruments. One of every four manufacturing employees
worked in the transportation equipment industry in 1965, and there was a
similar share for the electrical machinery and instruments groups combined.
The aircraft industry is the largest segment of the transportation equipment
industry. The electrical machinery industry is the area's second largest manu-
facturing employer and accounts for approximately 14 percent of the
manufacturing work force. Instruments is the third ranking manufacturing
employer and accounts for 12 percent of the manufacturing work force.
62
-------
Printing and publishing, non-electrical machinery, apparel, and fabricated
metal products industries each employ between six and seven percent of the
manufacturing work force. All of these activities are projected to grow, and
will increase the area's percentage of the State's total manufacturing em-
ployees from the 1965 percentage (7.2) to 8 percent by 1995.
Suffolk County is the leading producer of farm products in the State. This
activity is in field crops, forest products, and poultry, especially ducks.
Suffolk County is also an important producer of potatoes, vegetables, and
cut flowers. Field crop activity will decrease somewhat, but the other agri-
cultural activities will show an increase.
WESTCHESTER-ROCKLAND AREA
The area's manufacturing is concentrated in Westchester County, where (in
1965) 85 percent of the area's 69,000 manufacturing employees worked. By
1995, this will decrease to about 70 percent.
In 1965, the leading manufacturing employers were non-electrical ma-
chinery, chemicals, electrical machinery, transportation equipment, printing,
and apparel. Each employed approximately 8 to 12 percent of the area's
total manufacturing employees.
The chemical industry is an important employer in both counties of the area,
and is the leading employer in Rockland County. The area's largest food
products firms are located in White Plains and Tarrytown (Westchester
County). Westchester County is also an important center for apparel produc-
tion.
Several large firms in other industries employ a substantial number of manu-
facturing employees. Transportation equipment manufacturing has several
plants in the Tarrytown area. Printing and publishing is also represented with
a plant in Chappaqua (Westchester County). The area's share of total State
manufacturing employment was 4 percent in 1965, and this will decrease to
2.0 percent by 1995.
Agriculture is a relatively minor sector of the area's economy. However,
Westchester County's dollar sales in nursery and greenhouses ranked third in
the State in 1963. At that time, approximately one-third of the agricultural
activity was in the livestock and livestock products groups, with poultry
raising being the major component. Agricultural activity will increase only
slightly by 1995.
6-3
-------
MID-HUDSON AREA
This is one of the fastest growing areas of the State, and currently has over
62,000 manufacturing employees, concentrated in Dutchess, Orange, and
Ulster Counties. Significant manufacturing growth has taken place in the
electrical and non-electrical industries; approximately 90 percent of the em-
ployees of these industries work in Cutchess and Ulster Counties.
The apparel industry ranks third in manufacturing employment and accounts
for 10 percent of the area's manufacturing employees. Half of this activity is
located in Orange County, with another 40 percent located in Ulster and
Dutchess Counties.
This area is one of the State's most productive agricultural regions. Sullivan
County is the State's foremost poultry-raising region, and its share of the
area's activity will increase significantly. Orange County is the State's third
largest agricultural producer (based on total receipts), and will continue to
be important. Three-fourths of total sales in 1967 were in livestock and
livestock products. Ulster County ranks third in the State in the sale of
fruits, but overall activity will decrectse slightly by 1995.
Activity in apparel will increase from the current 3,600 employees to 11,000
employees by 1995. Non-electrica machinery activity is projected to de-
crease from 21,000 to 9,000 employees, while the electrical machinery
industry is expected to grow ten-fold by 1995. The percentage of the State's
manufacturing employees in this area will increase slightly from the current
3.6 percent to 4 percent by 1995.
CAPITAL AREA
Population and industry are concentrated in the four-county Albany-
Schenectady-Troy metropolitan area. Warren, Washington, and Schoharie
Counties are rural and largely agricultural and vacation land, but have scat-
tered and important industrial centers.
Schenectady (Schenectady Count/) and Troy (Rensselaer County) are
heavily industrialized, while Albany is somewhat less dependent on manu-
facturing. Manufacturing activity is also concentrated in the cluster of Glens
Falls, Hudson Falls, and Fort Edward (Warren and Washington Counties).
Less than half of the area's 70,000 manufacturing workers are employed in
the four largest industries, but three-fourths are employed by firms in
Albany, Schenectady, and Rensselaer Counties. Electrical and non-electrical
machinery groups are the leading industries in the area and employ approxi-
mately 30 percent of the manufacturing workers; activity in these industries
6-4
-------
is centered in Schenectady. Papermaking firms employ approximately 11
percent of the area's manufacturing employees, and are concentrated in
Saratoga County. The apparel industry ranks fourth in employment and is
centered in Rensselaer County. The stone, clay and glass industry employs
about eight percent of the area's manufacturing employees. The major firms
of this industry are mainly located in Albany County, and to a lesser extent,
in Schenectady County. Much of the area's food-processing industry is also
located in Albany County.
Dairying is the chief agricultural activity in the area. Field crops, forest
products, and horticulture specialties comprise the major portion of the
value of the crops produced in the area. Most of the agricultural activity is
located in Washington County, with nearly 40 percent of the area's dairy
activity located here. By 1995, Washington County will increase in its share
of dairy activity, while Schoharie County's share will decrease somewhat.
Washington and Schoharie Counties are among the top 100 dairying counties
in The nation.
Projections show that the electrical and non-electrical machinery industries
will have fewer employees, while the paper products industry will show an
increase from the current 6,600 to 25,000 employees in 1995. Apparel
activity will also show a decrease, and stone and clay products activities will
increase slightly. In 1965, this area had 4 percent of the State's manu-
facturing employees, and projections indicate that this ratio will decrease to
3 percent by 1995.
NORTHERN AREA
This area is the largest in area of the twelve Economic Development Areas
but is the least densely populated, with much of the region located within
the Adirondack State Park.
The area is one of the State's most important agricultural areas and leads all
other areas of the State in dairying. Over half of this activity occurs in
Jefferson and St. Lawrence Counties. Lewis and St. Lawrence Counties are
also the maple syrup center of the State. Dairy activity in Jefferson will
remain at the same level, while St. Lawrence will decrease slightly, and
Franklin will increase. Essex will experience a rise in row crop activity. Lewis
County levels will remain the same.
Primary metals, printing and publishing, apparel, and non-electrical ma-
chinery were among the industries registering the largest gain in employment
in the 1958-1963 period. In 1966, one-half of the area's 21,000 manu-
facturing employees worked in the paper and primary-metals industries,
nearly two-thirds of them in St. Lawrence and Jefferson Counties. Industrial
6-5
-------
employment density in 1965 was 2.4 and 5.8 employees per square mile,
respectively for these counties. Jeffursons's employment density is projected
to increase to 70 employees per square mile by 1995, while St. Lawrence
will increase only to 7.5 by 1995.
The production of paper and paper products is the major employer in three
of the six counties. The area's second largest manufacturing employer is the
primary-metals industry, which employs approximately one-fifth of the
area's manufacturing employees.
Transportation equipment, food processing, and non-electrical machinery
rank next in importance (measured in employment). Together, these indus-
tries employ approximately one-fifth of the area's manufacturing employees.
Currently, the area has 1.3 percent of the total State manufacturing em-
ployees. This will increase to 5.4 percent by 1995.
MOHAWK VALLEY AREA
Population and industry are concentrated in and near Utica and Rome
(Herkimer and Oneida Counties). Smaller centers along the valley include
Herkimer and Ilion in Herkimer County, Gloversville and Johnstown in
Fulton County, and Amsterdam in Montgomery County. Total manu-
facturing employment for 1965 in this area was 52,000.
The leather goods industry, which ranks first, is located mostly in Fulton
County. The second ranking industry, non-electrical machinery, has its major
firms located in the Utica area (Herkimer County). Electrical machinery,
which is the third ranking industry, is concentrated in Oneida County, where
about 90 percent of the industry's 5,700 workers are employed. These three
major industries employ more than one-third of the total manufacturing
employees of the area.
Electrical and non-electrical machinery employment is expected to increase
substantially, while leather goods activity will decrease slightly.
The textile, primary metals, and food industries together employ ap-
proximately one-fourth of the area's manufacturing employees. The leading
firm in the textile industry is located at Amsterdam (Montgomery County).
The largest employer in the primary metals industry is located in the Rome
area (Oneida County). The largest food industry employer is located at
Canajoharie (Montgomery County). The area's percentage of total State
manufacturing employees will increase from 3 percent to 7.4 percent by
1995.
6-6
-------
Dairying is the most important agricultural activity in this area, and is con-
centrated in Oneida, Herkimer, and Montgomery Counties. Relatively little
change is projected by 1995 in relation to both the area and the State.
SYRACUSE AREA
Population and industry are concentrated in Onondaga County, and in
Syracuse, its largest city. Approximately three-fourths of the area's 78,000
manufacturing employees work in Onondaga County.
The electrical machinery industry ranks first in area employment and ac-
counts for 27 percent of all manufacturing employees. Non-electrical ma-
chinery ranks second with 19 percent. Primary metals firms are the next
largest manufacturing employer, followed closely by food processors. Each
of these industries employs about eight percent of the area's manufacturing
employees. Next in importance are transportation equipment, chemicals, and
paper and paper products.
Non-electrical machinery manufacturing is concentrated around the Syracuse
area (Onondaga County). The principal firm in electrical machinery manu-
facturing is located in Syracuse. Also located near Syracuse are
manufacturers of chemicals, primary metals, food products, and trans-
portation equipment. The leading food products firm is located at Fulton
(Oswego County) as is also the largest firm in the paper industry.
The area's share of total State employment will increase from 4.5 percent to
9.5 percent by 1995. Electrical machinery is projected to triple in employ-
ment, while non-electrical machinery employment will increase by six-fold.
Primary metals and food processing will double their employment.
Dairying is the leading agricultural activity in the area. Field crops rank
second. Most of the activity is in Cayuga and Madison Counties, where it is
projected to remain at the same level through 1995. Cortland County is
noted for its maple syrup and dairy products, while Oswego County is highly
noted for pears, onions, and lettuce.
Onondaga, Cayuga, Madison, and Cortland all rank among the top 100
dairying counties in the nation. Cortland County will increase slightly in
dairy activity, but decrease in other agricultural activities. Madison and
Onondaga will also experience slight decreases in agricultural activities.
6-7
-------
ROCHESTER AREA
This is the second most populous area in upstate New York, and ranks first
in agricultural income. Most of the agricultural activity is in crops and in
livestock and livestock products. Major yields are dairy products, field crops,
and fruit. Apples and cherries from the famous Lake Ontario fruit belt,
which extends across the northern part of Wayne County, are the principal
fruit crops. Wayne County ranks second in the State in agricultural sales; the
other important agricultural counties are Wyoming, Ontario, Genesee, and
Monroe. Projections indicate that the area will show an overall decline in
agricultural activity; however, Genesee County will show a slight increase in
row crops, and Wyoming will show an increase in dairying.
Between 1958 and 1963, the area's manufacturing industries were among the
fastest growing in the State. Approximately 90 percent of the area's man-
ufacturing takes place in the four-county Rochester metropolitan area
(Livingston, Monroe, Orleans, and Wayne Counties).
Instruments, by far, is the leading manufacturing employer and employs over
one-third of the area's 141,000 manufacturing employees. Nearly all of the
firms are located in Rochester (Monroe County).
Electrical machinery ranks second, and non-electrical machinery, third. The
electrical machinery manufacturers employ approximately 11 percent of the
manufacturing work force. Film processing and related activities account for
about 12,000 employees. The Rochester Area is the State's leading producer
of apparel outside of New York City, and employs 8,800 persons.
Food processing, the largest industry group among the non-durables in the
area, employs approximately 10 percent of the manufacturing employees.
The firms in this industry are scattered throughout many small towns of the
area. Some of the largest are located in Avon (Livingston), and Medina
(Orleans). Currently, the manufacturing employees account for 8.2 percent
of the State total, but this is projected to increase to 21.5 percent by 1995.
BUFFALO AREA
The Buffalo Area is the largest commercial and industrial center in upstate
New York. Manufacturing is concentrated in Erie County, where two-thirds
of the area's 198,500 manufacturing employees work.
In the Buffalo metropolitan area (Erie and Niagara Counties), which ac-
counts for over 85 percent of the area's manufacturing activities, trans-
portation equipment has registered one of the sharpest gains, with output
6-8
-------
increasing by 44 percent, (1958-1963). Erie and Niagara County firms in this
industry (particularly producers of motor-vehicle parts) account for almost
one-third of the State's output of transportation equipment. Employment in
the field is projected to increase from the current 32,000 employees to
56,000 by 1995.
The Buffalo Area is noted for the production of durable goods, which in
1965 provided jobs for 70 percent of the area's manufacturing workers.
Primary metals is the area's leading industry and accounts for nearly 18
percent of all manufacturing jobs in the area, and for half of the total
employment in this industry in the whole State. The fourth largest steel mill
in the nation is located at Lackawanna (Erie County). The transportation
equipment industry, ranked second in the area, employs 15 percent of the
manufacturing employees, mainly in Erie County. The non-electrical ma-
chinery, fabricated metals, food processing, electrical machinery, and
chemical industries each employ between eight and ten percent of the area's
manufacturing work force. Manufacturing of electrical machinery is one of
the area's expanding industries; projections indicate that it will grow signifi-
cantly from the current 18,000 level.
The chemical industry employs almost one-fifth of the manufacturing
workers in Niagara County, and it is also an important employer in Erie
County. Furniture manufacturing is Chautauqua County's most important
industry and one for which the county has long been noted. Buffalo is one
of the major grain-milling centers in the world.
Dairying is the leading agricultural activity in the area and accounts for 46
percent of all agricultural receipts. Over 70 percent of this activity is in
Chautauqua and Cattaraugus Counties. Future activity is expected to de-
cline. The Buffalo Area is also one of the leading fruit-producing regions in
the State. The Niagara fruit belt is located in the northern part of the area,
and the Chautauqua vineyards in the southern portion.
Primary metals employment is expected to increase in the future as are
transportation equipment and machinery employment. Chemicals also will
increase, but only slightly. The furniture industry will remain at the same
level of employees. The overall percentage of the State's manufacturing em-
ployees will decrease from the current 11.5 percent to 10.4 percent by 1995.
ELMIRA AREA
Centers of industry and population are not as concentrated in this area.
Elmira in the area's largest city, while Elmira Heights and Horseheads (in
Chemung County) comprise the leading industrial center.
6-9
-------
Industry is concentrated in Cheming and Steuben Counties, where over
two-thirds of the Area's 42,000 manufacturing employees work. Durable
goods manufacturers predominate and account for 82 percent of all manu-
facturing job-holders.
Non-electrical machinery is the leading manufacturing industry, and the
stone, clay and glass industry ranks second. Combined, they employ over
half of the total number of manufacturing employees, and non-electrical
machinery itself employs nearly one-third of the total manufacturing work
force. The largest of the firms in this category is located at Painted Post
(Steuben County). Stone, clay and glass, ranking second, is located almost
exclusively at Corning (Steuben County). The next three largest industries
(by total employment) are electrical machinery, fabricated metal products,
and food products, and together they employ one-fourth of the manu-
facturing work force included in the SIC categories. Electrical machinery
ranks third, and the major employer is located in Bath (Steuben County).
Much of the transportation industry is the production of fire fighting appara-
tus and is concentrated in Elmira (Chemung County).
The area's food producers include the vintners who make most of New York
State's wine. The leading producers are located in Hammondsport (Steuben
County). One of the largest food processors is located at Horseheads
(Chemung County).
Livestock and livestock products, particularly dairying, account for three-
fourths of the agricultural dollar volume. Field crops are another important
agricultural activity, with much of this activity located in Steuben County.
Potatoes are also an important agricultural product of this area.
All of the major industries are expected to grow and add employees, which
in turn will increase the area's percentage of the State's manufacturing em-
ployees from the present 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent by 1995. Agricultural
activity, except beef and chickens, is expected to decrease in activity.
BINGHAMTON AREA
Broome County is the major industrial and population center, while
Delaware, Otsego, and Chenango are the chief agricultural counties. Over
two-third of the area's 44,600 manufacturing employees worked in Broome
County in 1965, and this is projected to increase to 92 percent by 1995. The
three largest industries (electrical machinery, non-electrical machinery, and
leather and leather-products) employ nearly 60 percent of all the manu-
facturing employees. The machinery industries (electrical and non-electrical)
provide for the largest number of manufacturing jobs, each accounting for
approximately 22 percent of the manufacturing employment. Projections
6-10
-------
indicate that employment in the electrical and non-electrical machinery
industries will grow from the current level of 19,000 to 26,000 by 1995,
while the leather products industry will experience a decline in employment
from 7,000 to 4,400 by 1995.
Instruments and transportation rank fourth and fifth, respectively, with
most of the activity located in Binghamton (Broome County). A decline in
employment is projected for the instruments industry from the current
1,600 to 165 by 1995, while the transportation products industry is expec-
ted to grow to 67,000 employees from the current 3,200 employees. Food
processing is another important manufacturing industry in the area; dairy
products rank first within the industry.
Overall industrial employment is expected to increase to nearly 400,000 by
1995, and the area's percentage of the State's manufacturing employees will
increase from the current 2.6 percent to 8.5 percent by 1995. Also projected
is an overall decline in agricultural activity, with only the fruit and nut crop
activities showing an increase. Most of the present agricultural activity is in
dairy cattle with nearly 90 percent of the Area's activity in Chenango,
Delaware, and Otsego Counties.
SUMMARY OF MANUFACTURING TRENDS
Projections indicate that, in general, upstate areas west of the Capital Area
will increase their percentage of total State manufacturing employees, only
the Buffalo Area will experience a decrease. In the New York City metro-
politan region, the Mid-Hudson and Nassau-Suffolk Areas will increase
slightly, while the remaining areas will experience decreases in their shares of
total State manufacturing employees. The apparel industry will experience
an overall State-wide decline in employment activity in 1995.
Table 6-1 presents industrial employment projections for the twelve Econ-
omic Areas from 1965 through 1995; Tables 6-3 and 6-4 present projected
industrial employment and employment density, by county, for the same
period. Maps 4, 5, and 6 portray the projected levels of employment density
(State-wide) for 1970, 1985, and 1995. Figure 6-1 is a chart which indicates
the expected direction of change in industrial employment and agricultural
activity for each Economic Area.
Increased employment activity will occur principally in the transportation
equipment, electrical and non-electrical machinery, fabricated and primary
metals, stone and clay, rubber and plastics, chemicals, wood products, furni-
ture, paper products, and printing industries. Some increase can also be
expected in the meat processing, canning, and frozen food industries.
6-11
-------
In the New York City Area, Queens County will increase its percentage of
total area employment very slightly, through gains in non-electrical ma-
chinery employment. New York County will increase by a significant
number the employees in the store and clay products industry, which
reflects a shift in emphasis from Kings, Bronx, and Queens Counties. Kings
and Queens Counties will gain from .3 shift in employment in the fabricated
metals industry from the Bronx and New York Counties. As a result, Kings
County will increase slightly its percentage of total area manufacturing em-
ployees, while Bronx County's share will decrease.
Area-wide increases can be expected in the leather products industry, while
decreases in employment will occur in the electrical machinery, printing,
apparel, instruments, food processing, and paper products industries.
In the Nassau-Suffolk Area, Suffolk County will increase its share of the
total area employment. Significant gains in employment will take place in
nearly all the industrial activities. Nassau County in particular will gain signi-
ficantly in the paper and printing industries. Nassau County will, however,
experience a decline in employment in electrical machinery, transportation
equipment, rubber and plastics, and canning.
In the Westchester-Rockland Area, Flockland County will increase its share
of total area manufacturing employees. It will gain employees in the food
processing, textiles, apparel, furniture, printing, chemicals, primary metals,
fabricated metals, electrical machinery, and transportation equipment
industries. Westchester will have more employees in the printing, chemicals,
rubber and plastics, stone and clay products, and primary and fabricated
metals. It will lose employment, in food processing, apparel, electrical ma-
chinery, and instruments.
In the Mid-Hudson Area, Orange, Ulster, and Columbia Counties will in-
crease their percentage of total area manufacturing employment. Significant
area increases can be expected in fabricated metals, paper, rubber and
plastics, printing, and non-electrical machinery industries. The stone and clay
products industry employment will increase appreciably in Columbia
County. Electrical machinery employment will also increase, mainly in
Ulster County. An area-wide decline in employment in the apparel industry
can be expected.
In the Capital Area, Rensselaer, Albany, and Warren Counties will increase
their percentage of total area manufacturing employees. Increases will be in
the field of printing and publishing, transportation equipment, fabricated
and primary metals, chemicals, stone and clay products, and rubber and
plastics products. Also indicated is a geographical shift of employees in the
paper industry from Washington County to Warren and Saratoga Counties.
6-12
-------
Employment emphasis in non-electrical machinery will shift from
Schenectady and Washington Counties to Rensselaer. An overall area de-
crease in employment will occur in the apparel industry.
In the Northern Area, Clinton County will increase its percentage of total
area manufacturing employees; a significant increase in chemical employ-
ment will account for this change. Jefferson County will increase substan-
tially its employment in the instruments industry. Wood products em-
ployment will increase area-wide, while paper products and food processing
employment will experience a general decline.
In the Mohawk Valley Area, Herkimer and Oneida Counties will increase
their shares of total area employment. Significant increases will take place in
transportation equipment and chemical products, especially in Oneida
County, and in the furniture and non-electrical machinery industries in
Herkimer County. Area-wide increases will also occur in the paper, printing,
fabricated metals, and electrical machinery industries. Textile employment
will experience a decline throughout the area.
In the Syracuse Area, Cayuga and Madison Counties will increase their shares
of the total area employment. Cayuga County will add significant numbers
of employees in the fabricated metals, and in the non-electrical and electrical
machinery industries. Gains will also take place in the rubber and plastics,
stone and clay products, leather, printing, apparel, and food processing in-
dustries. Onondaga County will add significant numbers of employees in the
chemicals, and rubber and plastics industries. Other gains will be in the
printing, primary metals, fabricated metals, non-electrical and electrical ma-
chinery, and transportation equipment industries. Area-wide losses will occur
in food processing, paper and paper products, and wood products.
In the Rochester Area, Ontario and Genesee Counties will increase their
percentage of total area employment. Livingston County will have greater
employment in the food processing industry, and Genesee County will ex-
perience an employment increase in the transportation equipment industry.
Monroe County will increase its employment in the instruments industry by
a significant amount, but will have a lower percentage of total-area manu-
facturing employees. Area-wide employment increases will occur in the
canning, non-electrical and electrical machinery, fabricated metals, paper,
printing, stone and clay products, and chemicals industries. Decreases will
occur in the rubber and plastics, frozen foods, and textiles industries.
In the Buffalo Area, Niagara County will remain at its current percentage of
total area employees. Increased employment will occur mainly in the fields
of primary metals, electrical machinery, frozen foods and chemicals. Erie
County's percentage of area manufacturing employees will decrease, while
6-13
-------
Chautauqua and Cattaraugus will increase their percentage of area em-
ployees, especially in fabricated metals, electrical machinery, transportation
equipment, instruments, printing, and plastics. Declines can be expected in
food processing and furniture products.
In the Elmira Area, Chemung and Allugany Counties will increase their share
of total area employment. Area-wide1 employment increases will be signifi-
cant in the fabricated metals, and electrical and non-electrical machinery
industries. Other increases will be in the paper products, stone and clay
products, food processing, and transportation equipment.
In the Binghamton Area, Broome Cojnty will continue to be the center of
employment for the area and will add significant numbers of employees in
the fields of non-electrical machinery and transportation equipment.
SUMMARY OF AGRICULTURAL TRENDS
Agricultural activity will experience a State-wide decline in activity by 1995.
As shown in Table 6-2, which is a projection of agricultural acreage through
1995, eleven of the twelve Economic Areas are expected to experience a
decline in the acreage devoted to agricultural activity, with a State-wide drop
of more than 25 percent. Only certain agricultural areas and activities will
increase. General declines can be expected in hogs, dairy cattle, horses, and
Class 1, 4, and 5 field and row crops. I See Chapter Fifteen)
Some of the New York City Area's little agricultural activity can be expected
to increase slightly. Horses, Class 1 and 2 fruit and nut crops, and Class 1
field and row crops will experience some growth activity.
The Nassau-Suffolk Area can expect increased activity in chickens, hogs,
ducks, and in Class 1, 4, and 5 fruit arid nut crops.
The Westchester-Rockland Area will increase agricultural activity in only
hens and beef cattle, and in Class 4 fruit and nut crops (prunes and plums).
In the Mid-Hudson Area, several agricultural activities will experience in-
creases. Hens and beef cattle will increase as will Class 4 and 5 fruit and nut
crops, and Class 2 and 4 field and row crops.
The Capital Area will experience some increase in chickens and hens and in
Class 1, 4, and 5 fruit and nut crops. Class 4 field and row crops will also
increase in activity.
The Northern Area will increase some of its agricultural activity. Hens and
dairy cattle, Class 2 and 4 fruit and nut crops, and Class 2 field and row
crops all will experience some area-wide increase in activity.
6-14
-------
The Mohawk Valley Area will have increased agricultural activity in chickens
and in Class 1 fruit and nut crops (grapes, peaches and nectarines).
The Syracuse Area's only area-wide activity increase will be in chickens,
although individual county activities might vary.
The Rochester Area will increase area-wide activity in beef cattle, Class 2
fruit and nut crops, and Class 2 and 4 field and row crops.
In the Buffalo Area, grape activity will increase, as will Class 3, 4, and 5 field
and row crops.
In the Elmira Area, only chicken and beef cattle activity will increase on an
area-wide basis.
In the Binghamton Area, the only projected agricultural activity increases
will be in fruit and nut crops (Classes 1, 2, and 4, which include grapes,
peaches, apples and plums). All other agricultural activities on an area-wide
basis will decline.
6-15
-------
Table 6-1
Total Industrial Employment
Projections for Economic Areas'
Area Employment and Percentage of State Total
Economic Area
Binghamton
Buffalo
Capital
Elmira
Mid-Hudson
Mohawk Valley
Nassau-Suffolk
New York City
Northern
Rochester
Syracuse
Westchester-
Rockland
1965
44,587
2.60%
198,510
1 1 59%
69,602
4.07%
42,239
2.47%
61,928
3.62%
52,185
3.05%
122,511
7.16%
811,689
47.41%
21,591
1.26%
140,668
8.22%
77,817
4.54%
68,869
4.02%
1970
50,674
2.88%
218,690
12.44%
70,799
4.03%
48,930
2.78%
58.84H
3.35%
60,383
3.43%
134,72''
7.66%
759,017
43.14%
24,34(5
1.38%
170,264
9.68%
91,158
5.18%
70,619
4.02%
1975
67,784
3.68%
243,981
13.23%
75,562
4.10%
59,306
3.22%
63,359
3.44%
26,834
1.46%
153,123
8.31%
723,876
39.27%
31,432
1.71%
213,987
11.61%
110,776
6.01%
73,446
3.98%
1985
152,676
5.96%
322,984
12.62%
97,153
3.79%
96,301
3.76%
95,307
3.72%
145,823
5.70%
219,705
8.58%
701,757
27.41%
72,175
2.82%
385,352
15.05%
187,303
7.32%
83,608
3.27%
1995
392,675
8.63%
472,363
10.38%
147,510
3.24%
173,042
3.80%
181,541
3.99%
332,720
7.311%
363,403
7.99%
765,338
16.82%
247,382
5.44%
976,274
21.45%
396,638
8.72%
101,615
2.23%
STATE
1,712,196
1,758,455
1,843,466
2,560,144
4,550,501
Consultant's Analysis.
-------
Table 6-2
Agricultural Activity Projections
for Economic Areas ^
Area Acreage and Percentage of State Total
Economic Area
Binghamton
Buffalo
Capital
Elmira
Mid-Hudson
Mohawk Valley
Nassau-Suffolk
New York City
Northern
Rochester
Syracuse
Westchester-
Rockland
1965
34,676
2.59%
168,062
1255%
34,645
2.58%
122,224
9.13%
71,409
5.33%
60,019
4.48%
47,103
3.51%
108
80,247
5.99%
549,159
41.02%
168,834
12.61%
2,101
0.15%
1970
27,629
2.26%
155,705
12.76%
27,559
2.25%
106,393
8.72%
65,251
5.34%
54,883
4.49%
41,699
3.41%
82
< 0.1%
70,444
5.77%
515,434
42.25%
153,100
12.54%
1,749
0.14%
1975
22,308
1.97%
148,460
13.14%
22,585
1.99%
93,661
8.29%
61,274
5.42%
50,371
4.45%
37,075
3.28%
69
< 0.1%
62,286
5.51%
490,234
43.40%
139,636
12.36%
1,496
0.13%
1985
15,203
1 50%
148,998
14.65%
16,871
1.66%
74,832
7.36%
58,373
5.74%
42,898
4.22%
29,768
2.93%
60
< 0 1%
49,894
4.91%
461,472
45.35%
118,045
11.60%
1,183
0.12%
J225.
10,382
1.06%
170,834
17.37%
14,857
1.51%
62,138
6.32%
61,049
6.21%
37,117
3 98%
24,656
2.51%
74
< 0.1%
41,590
4.23%
458,175
46.58%
101,868
10.36%
1,029
0.11%
STATE
1,339,000
1,220,000
1,130,000
1,018,000
984,000
Consultant's Analysis.
-------
Table 6-3
Tctal Industrial Employment
Projections for Counties'
County
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
New York
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
St Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schohane
Schuyler
Seneca
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
Totals
1965
25,735
5,942
51,279
31,142
8,840
9,314
20,547
14,954
5,085
2,759
4,838
5,639
4,587
22,028
134,923
1,092
1,623
8,415
7,303
3,019
0
10,917
7,604
209,913
1,748
3,532
996
109,111
7,176
84,868
421,311
34,200
25,677
54,098
4,108
16,957
912
7,771
1,182
1,101
119,822
8,617
9.364
9,781
6,765
7,855
16,698
434
1,407
3,460
15,069
37,643
432
2,591
4,867
13,553
4,884
5,379
6,246
59,088
4,751
1,245
1970
26,368
8,609
45,258
37,874
11,017
13,865
23,164
17,250
5,534
2,911
5,896
6,166
2,992
15,499
145,147
833
1,568
7,833
9,202
2,941
111
13,682
9,962
195,217
1,199
4,413
1,479
134,183
6,337
88.543
395,170
39,362
32,425
61,503
6,196
18,252
1,007
8,146
1,646
966
113,084
9,140
10,288
11,685
7,873
8,402
15,997
396
986
3,890
16,644
46,184
450
2,628
5,443
14,846
5,392
5,109
5,990
58,934
4,281
1,102
Years
1975
29,082
12412
41,585
54,280
14,747
21,596
27,259
21 153
6,585
4,754
7,830
6,760
2,427
13,045
158289
810
1 719
8040
13792
3 154
122
18,674
13,964
186814
1,045
5 756
2498
169 165
6,050
95,955
376,344
43,686
43.683
71,036
8,647
20.926
1,113
8.886
1.640
841
108.530
10,281
10,603
13,743
9.141
8.948
15,641
365
966
4,500
18,903
57,168
469
2,853
5.873
17.094
6,406
4,830
5,977
59,704
4,002
1,035
1985
40,308
26,709
37,940
134,563
29,745
58,499
39,855
35,997
10,392
21,867
15,841
8,585
2,636
15,422
195,885
1,188
2,760
8,650
55,087
4,318
148
38,284
32,873
184,777
859
1,078
8,630
280,796
6,595
129,618
361,919
92,146
92,145
99,850
19,699
32,256
1,368
11,739
1,673
644
105,030
14,439
12,091
19,883
12,628
10,585
15,895
314
928
6,587
25,819
90,088
516
3,414
6,850
26,311
11,062
4,551
6,104
63,725
3,903
1,021
1995
65,566
59,589
37,251
362,231
70,417
183,380
62,930
67,397
20,648
129,820
36,388
11,668
3,910
28,735
255,773
2,624
5,524
9,400
377,568
7,270
179
84,214
90,644
200,578
733
222
32,876
494,025
8,729
215,745
404,585
83,243
230,198
51,479
58,151
58,381
1,693
17,227
1,757
499
108,196
22,835
14,728
30,939
18,037
13,140
17,400
278
898
10,762
37,158
147,658
569
4,129
8,1X35
49,700
23,700
4,593
6,384
70,676
4,310
1,084
1,712,196
1,758,455
1,843,466
2,560,144
4,550,501
Consultant's Analysis
-------
Table 6-4
Industrial Employment Density
Projections for Counties^
(Employees/Sq. Mi )
County
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
St Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schohane
Schuyler
Seneca
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkms
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
Years
1965
49
6
1,251
44
7
13
19
36
6
3
8
11
3
27
128
(0.60I
1
17
15
5
(0.00)
8
6
2,999
( 1 .35)
6
2
162
18
294
18,318
64
21
72
6
20
2
8
1
5
1,109
13
161
56
2
10
81
(0701
4
10
11
41
(044)
5
10
12
6
6
10
133
8
4
1970
50
8
1,104
53
8
20
21
42
6
3
9
12
2
19
137
(0.46)
1
16
18
5
(0.06)
10
8
2,789
(093)
7
2
199
16
306
17,181
74
26
82
10
22
3
8
2
4
1,047
14
177
66
3
10
77
(064)
3
12
12
50
(0.46
5
11
13
6
6
10
133
7
3
1975
55
12
1,014
76
11
31
25
51
7
4
12
13
2
16
150
(044)
1
16
28
5
(0.07)
13
11
2,669
(081)
9
4
251
15
332
16,363
82
36
95
13
25
3
9
2
4
1,005
15
183
78
3
11
76
(058)
3
13
13
62
1048)
5
12
15
7
6
10
135
7
3
1985
77
26
925
188
22
84
37
87
11
21
25
17
2
19
185
(065)
2
17
110
7
(009)
27
25
2,640
(0.67)
17
13
416
16
449
15,736
108
75
134
30
39
3
12
2
3
973
22
208
113
5
13
77
(050)
3
19
18
97
(0.53)
7
14
23
12
5
10
144
7
3
1995
125
57
909
507
53
263
58
162
23
123
56
23
3
35
242
(1 44)
3
19
754
11
1010)
59
70
2,865
(0.57)
35
50
732
21
747
17,591
156
188
203
89
70
4
18
2
2
1,002
34
254
176
7
16
84
(045)
3
32
26
159
(058)
8
17
44
27
5
11
160
7
3
Consultant's Analysis.
-------
3 D 3 *i
tn -D *J o
SI '
K-OOI *+
HI II
Cll Ol Ol Ol
Ol Ol Ol II
O Ol Ol O
t-|*+ +
O I O I O I +
II II I -4- O -
O I + * I * +
O + + t O
o i o * o +
O I +" O I O I +1 O
C\J] O
HI O
4- 11 +
II + + I
I O O I I
I O O I +
I O O + +
i O O O +
I II O <
1-
3
O 1-
BInghamton
H
t 3 £3
Ife Ife
0
fl *J
£ "CL
3 m
-
Mohawk Val
Nassau-Suf
» ^
t
a
1
1
CO
t 3
il
Northern
0,
t
T3 *Z
4)
1
3
+J 3
11
Syracuse
d
t ,
i'i,
Westcheste
Rockland
OJ
t "i o
tJ or m c
!lll
I "f~
() c/1 t- O
£- 0) J3
1.81:1.
I- CL in
* H t\J ^
-------
CHAPTER SEVEN
TRANSPORTATION
INTRODUCTION
The growth, development, and employment patterns discussed in Chapters
Five and Six are intimately related to the transportation corridors and net-
works which have developed historically. Future inputs to the transportation
system can reinforce or change past patterns, and the degree to which areas
are served controls the amount and location of growth as well as the ease of
movement of people and goods to other areas.
Since the principal concern of this study is a State-wide solid waste manage-
ment plan, only those elements of transportation systems which appear to be
most compatible with the economic transport of solid waste to ultimate
disposal sites are considered. These include the highway network, railroad
systems, and canals and waterways. Although airlines and pipelines can move
materials rapidly over long and short distances, they appear to have no
current feasible applications to the solid waste problem.
HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT
Canals were a tremendous stimulus for New York State's economic develop-
ment. The Erie Canal, which opened in 1825, provided a sea-level route and
reduced shipping costs across the Appalachians. Later, feeder canals tied
much of the State to the Erie Canal. At its peak, the canal network extended
into more than half of the State's counties.
Where the canals were unable to go, the railroads often could. The first
railroads in New York State were begun in the 1830's, and at first supple-
mented the canals, whose routes they generally followed. Only later did the
railroads become competitors of the canals. By 1870, the standard-gauge
track had been adopted, and twenty years later many of the small lines had
7-1
-------
been consolidated into several large networks which encompassed the entire
State. Because of the increased service, speed, and dependability offered by
the railroads, canals lost passenger business, and although they retained their
freight business, the volume did rot increase. The tremendous growth in
passenger and freight traffic between 1855 and 1915 was dominated by the
railroads. Significant expansion of the canals ceased, and they began to
shrink as some of the lesser-used links of the network were abandoned.
The turnpikes, which had flourished in the early part of the nineteenth
century, fell into disrepair when the canals and railroads became the major
transportation modes. Only toward the end of the century, when the
automobile appeared, did roads begin to receive governmental attention.
New York State created its Department of Highways in 1909 and began
paving existing roads for year round use. In 1916, the federal government
made funds available for road construction, and in 1921 established a
federal-aid primary road system intended to link major cities. In 1923, New
York combined the Department of Highways with the Department of Public
Works, which had been maintaining the canal system since 1878. In the
1920's and 1930's, efforts were made to pave all roads, urban and rural. By
1924, paved roads extended to all major communities in New York State,
and by 1940, virtually all State roads were paved.
In the 1930's, roads serving consicerable numbers of automobiles, trucks,
and buses, began to become an increasingly important part of the overall
transportation system. Today, trucks carry about one-fifth of the total ton-
miles of freight in New York State. In the 1950's and 1960's, a major new
network of expressways and parkways, stimulated by the federal Interstate
Highway construction program, began to be superimposed over the network
of two-lane and four-lane rural highways.
The importance that current and future transportation methods and systems
have in regard to solid waste handling and disposal is obvious. The following
discussion focuses on the nature, configuration, and capabilities of transpor-
tation systems as a factor in the development of the solid waste management
plan.
SYSTEMS, METHODS, AND PRACTICES
In order to discuss in detail the existing and future networks and practices,
each system (highway, rail, and waterways) is presented separately. The
three systems are delineated on Map 7. Points of interface between systems
and the implications on system and network development will be covered as
the points occur in the presentation.
7-2
-------
HIGHWA YS
STATE-WIDE NETWORK
Several major expressways link the urban area of New York State. The major
north-south route in the eastern part of the State is Interstate 87, which is
the New York Thruway from Albany south and the Adirondack Northway
from Albany north to Canada. Interstate 81 is the major north-south route
in the central section of the State, it links Binghamton with Syracuse and
continues north to the Canadian border. Interstate 90, the New York Thru-
way, traverses the entire State from east to west, linking Albany, Utica,
Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo.
The Southern Tier Expressway (Route 17) is another major east-west route.
At present it links the Mid-Hudson area with Binghamton and Elmira. Pro-
posed sections of this road will continue west through Jamestown, with a
northern segment connecting Elmira with Rochester. Another proposed
expressway (reconstructed Route 7) will link Binghamton with Albany.
Overall, the short-range highway plan provides for the construction of 350
miles of expressways, both inter-city and rural. The upstate urban areas of
Rochester, Herkimer-Oneida, Niagara Frontier, Capital District, and
Binghamton are part of planned transportation networks which will
eventually link all cities with populations of 50,000 or more.
REGIONAL NETWORKS
The Westchester-Rockland Area is served by the New York Thruway (I-87)
which passes through the two counties, connecting them at the Tappan Zee
Bridge, which spans the Hudson River, between Tarrytown and Nyack. The
east-west Cross-Westchester Expressway (I-287) links the New York Buffalo
Thruway with the New England Thruway (I-95). Supplementing the limited-
access superhighways is a network of parkways and other key arteries, many
of which are restricted to passenger car travel.
The Mid-Hudson Area is served by I-87 and the Route 17 expressway on the
west side of the Hudson River, and by Route 22 and the Taconic State
Parkway on the east side of the river. When completed, Interstate 84 will be
the major east-west route in the southern part of the district. The Berkshire
section of the Thruway (part of I-90 which connects with the Massachusetts
Turnpike) crosses the northern part of the district.
The Capital Area is cut by the crossroads of major travel routes in the
Northeast. Interstate 87 crosses Interstate 90 at Albany. Several short
sections of expressway are proposed in the Albany Area to provide better
access to the major highways.
7-3
-------
The Northern Area, which is the least densely inhabited area in the state, is
served by two major north-south expressways: 1-87 in the east, and the
North-South Expressway (1-81) to Syracuse and Binghamton, in the west.
The 25-mile long St. Lawrence Scenic Highway, which follows the St.
Lawrence River, was completed in 1967.
The "main street" of New York State, the Thruway, cuts through the
Mohawk Valley district. Connections with the other expressways provide
this area with direct access to Canada, Pennsylvania, New York City, and
Buffalo.
The Binghamton Area is fast becoming known as the crossroads of the
Southern Tier, as work progresses on two major highway-construction pro-
jects: the Southern Tier Route 17 Expressway, crossing the area in an east-
west direction to connect Binghamton with New York City and the Great
Lakes region, and the North-South Expressway (1-81), which ties the region
to central New York, Canada, and Pennsylvania. In addition, the planned
reconstruction of Route 7 between Binghamton and Albany will provide a
direct, high-speed route to other important eastern cities.
Syracuse, the center of activity for the Syracuse Area, is the point of inter-
section for the east-west New York Thruway (I-90) and the North-South
Expressway (1-81).
The Elmira Area's transportation network links it to Buffalo, New York, and
other large cities throughout the State. The Southern Tier Route 17 Express-
way, which is being developed into a major superhighway, traverses the area.
The Rochester Area is served by the Thruway (I-90), which crosses the area,
and by I-490, which provides a loop access into the City of Rochester.
The Buffalo Area is connected with other major industrial centers of the
State, the New York metropolitan area, Canada, and points west and south
by the Thruway and by several other modern limited-access expressways.
I-290 and 1-190 form a loop around Buffalo and connect this city with
Niagara Falls.
The New York City and Nassau-Suffolk Areas have many miles of
expressways. The many bridges and tunnels provide access to outlying points
in all directions. The Long Island Expressway is the main spine of access to
Long Island (Nassau-Suffolk Counties); now under construction is an ex-
tension to this expressway which will provide better access to points east of
Riverhead.
7-4
-------
TRUCK-HAUL METHODS AND PRACTICES
The importance of the highway network to a solid waste management plan is
in providing the capacity for the large numbers of trucks required to move
wastes from urban centers to disposal areas rapidly and efficiently. This is
particularly true for large urban areas, where haul-time to a disposal facility
or transfer station is critical to the economic success of an operation. The
success is also a function of allowed load and size limits and speeds on major
links of the network.
At the present time, virtually all solid waste generated in the State by the
residential and municipal sector is moved by truck. They generally move
short distances (less than 20 miles) to disposal sites, and when necessary and
where feasible they use segments of the existing freeway and expressway
systems. The vehicles generally in use have not as yet reached the weight and
size limits set as maximum allowables on the interstate routes, State
expressways, and State and local primary and secondary routes in New York.
More to the point, waste hauling is carried out by a multiplicity of separate
groups which have not yet melded together into operations large enough to
demand "container system" hauling and handling so far as a truck-based
vehicle over the highway network is concerned.
Manufacturers, on the other hand, in concert with the trucking, rail, and
shipping industries, have developed an increasingly sophisticated goods-
hauling system making use of containers, handling equipment, and vehicles.
Trucking concerns have also introduced, and are constantly pressing for
expanded right-of-way for tandem or double-and-triple trailer rigs over the
interstate systems to gain the greater efficiency in haul cost resulting from
delivery of two or three times the same payload on a one-cab trip.
At the present time, doubles or tandems are permitted only on the New
York Thruway segment of the Interstate System. They must break to con-
ventional rig when they leave the Thruway. Although federal agencies have
given approval for tandems on all interstate links, the New York State
Department of Transportation has not yet given its approval for any segment
other than the Thruway.
In current practice, the largest conventional rig allowed on a State primary,
expressway, or interstate route is 35 feet. The total length of a combination
rig (tandem or semi-trailer) is 50 feet (55 feet on the Thruway). Total rig
weight allowed on all highways except the Thruway is 65,000 pounds per
trailed unit and 71,000 pounds per unit on the Thruway.
The important consideration for this report is use of the highway network
with regard to movement of waste. On a broad scale, it is apparent that the
State is well served by the regional and State networks with regard to
7-5
-------
inter-urban and exurban access. At a more local level (intra-urban and within
a 15-mile radius of population centers) the picture with regard to access and
road condition may not be so bright; a detailed investigation would be
required to clarify the situation. It is in this 15-mile range that truck haul is
an important element of waste handling, whether it be to an ultimate
disposal site or to transfer station for conveyance by another mode. Modern
materials-handling systems may be an important consideration; for instance,
if the "packer unit" were removable from the truck bed, a tractor could
trade a full unit for an empty one, thus cutting vehicle time for collection.
RAILROADS
STA TE-WIDE NETWORK
Railroads provide the means for a la'ge-scale movement of bulk materials at
relatively good speeds and at generally lower rates than a long truck-haul
operation. This makes them well suited for transporting large amounts of
solid wastes over long distances between major collection points and disposal
facilities. As yet, this mode has not been used despite recognition of its
technical feasibility.
The State is provided with an extensive network of rail lines. The present
system, shown on Map 7, provides freight service to every community of
10,000 or more population. As would be expected, those areas with little or
no population are not served, even by feeder lines, and the major main lines
run up and across the principal development corridors of the State. In the
process of growth, many separate companies built parallel lines in a number
of sections of the State. As business on branches declined, the railroads, as
part of an efficiency plan and upgrading of service standards, have gradually
been reducing duplicate and uneconomical trackage, particularly on branch
lines. Mergers have also led to abandonments as trackage of two competing
railroads was consolidated into one rail line.
The Department of Transportation plans to intensify industrial and other
growth centers and corridors and link them by an intensive rail-freight net-
work with a series of feeder lines. Lines are proposed to link the southern
tier rail-freight centers with the Mid-Hudson Region (Middletown). Another
north-south line is proposed to link the Binghamton area with Syracuse and
the St. Lawrence Seaway. These proposed new links, in conjunction with
improvement of existing rights-of way, would provide the State with
intensive rail-freight service through the major corridors and the connecting
valleys and would connect these areas in a complete-interval system. This
would permit large-scale bulk shipping from any population center, via
feeder lines, to any other location. The implications of this proposed system
to solid waste handling would be to allow efficient mass shipment of wastes
via special spurs to centralized large-scale disposal operations on a more
7-6
-------
economic basis than is now possible. It also implies an increasing sophisti-
cation in rail vehicles and their capabilities, which would benefit a waste-
hauling system.
RAIL -HA UL ME THODS A ND PR A CTICES
The railroads operate under federal regulations insofar as passenger and
freight rates and materials are concerned. This is purportedly to maintain
equal competitive advantage between rail, truck, and water-haul operations.
The Interstate Commerce Commission sets rate schedules and reviews any
requested changes, and no State agency has been delegated (by the Federal
Government) to set rates or to affect them. Therefore, costs of using rail
haul are not subject to State control. The cost to a region which might use
rail haul for solid waste transport could be reduced through a State-
sponsored subsidy program, but all information indicates that this not likely
to happen.
In contrast to the many regulations governing vehicles on State highways,
there are no State or federal rules and regulations governing length of cars,
axle loads, or other related items. The railroads have corne up with their own
regulations based on the loads their tracks will carry. The biggest free-
running car (one that can go on any main line in the country without
previous special interline arrangements) is allowed a maximum of 65,750
pounds per axle, a height of 15'1" from the track to the top of the car, a
width of 10'8", and a length of 41'3" between axles. Longer cars are in
operation over restricted trackages or with special interline arrangement; the
longest car in use is 136 feet.
The railroads have completed some (and are forecasting even more) technical
innovations in equipment and control to increase the capacity of the system.
Among these have been the introduction of special-purpose cars, automatic
car identification, and a computerized car-location system. Piggy-back
operations - the use of container-on-flatcar (COFC) and truck-on-flatcar
(TOFC) increasingly account for an important share of rail freight move-
ments. Piggy-back and container operations also increase intermodal ef-
ficiency, because transfers to trucks, ships, or barges are handled more
quickly. Although container handling is efficient and rapid, there is evidence
to suggest that waste handling, unless the waste is specially treated and
packaged in COFC disposal units, is most economical in deep ore-bin or
hopper cars.
1 From a Reading Railroad Report of a solid waste rail-haul study in the
Philadelphia metropolitan area.
7-7
-------
New marketing techniques have abo been adopted. Among these are the
rent-a-train, used to date only for grain shipments, with the shipper charged
an annual "rental" and a low cheirge per ton mile. With regard to spur
extension, which in most cases would be required for regional rail haul
directly to large "disposal parks", most railroads require the estimated cost
to be advanced before construction is begun by the railroad, with subsequent
funds or additional payments to adjust estimated cost to real cost. Then,
generally for the following five years, the railroad refunds to the client the
deposit paid on the basis of number of cars and road haul revenue per car
using the spur. Although it is anticipated that the revenue per car on waste
material may be low, such revenue would reduce the cost of spur extension
to some extent.
CANALS AND WA TERWA YS
STA TE-WIDE NETWORK
New York State is served by two segments of water-borne transport: the
Hudson River and Great Lakes essentially at the perimeter and the New
York Barge Canal in the interior. Together they provide a southern access for
continuous water transport from the Atlantic Ocean up the Hudson River to
the canal junction at Waterford and then either north to Lake Champlain or
west to Lake Ontario or Lake Erie. From these points ships or barges can
move out to the Atlantic Ocean or to other Great Lakes ports.
Of New York State's ports, eight have a depth of at least 22 feet and handle
more than 250,000 tons of freight annually. These are the Ports of: New
York and Albany on the Hudson River; Buffalo, on Lake Erie; Rochester,
Sodus Bay, and Oswego on Lake Ontario; Ogdensburg, on the St. Lawrence
River; and Port Jefferson, on Long Island Sound. A new port has been
proposed near Kingston on the Hudson River, and expansion of existing
ports has also been recommended to meet anticipated growth in water
shipping.
The total New York State Barge Canal, some 524 miles in length, is com-
posed of four divisions. In the east, connecting with the Hudson River at the
Waterford Locks maintained by the Corps of Engineers, the Champlain
Division is 60 miles long and provides access to Lake Champlain and the
northeast. The Erie Division connecting with the Hudson River near
Waterford, extends westward some 348 miles, connects with the Tonawanda
River, and provides transport to Buffalo's port and into Lake Erie. Two
other divisions tie into the Barge Canal near the midpoint of the Erie
Division. The Oswego Division, 24 miles long, provides access from the Erie
Division to the port in Oswego and into Lake Ontario. The Cayuga-Seneca
7-8
-------
Division, 92 miles in length, provides access from the Erie Division into
Seneca and Cayuga Lakes and the City of Ithaca. Very little tonnage has
been moved across this last division in recent years in comparison to the
other three divisions.
No major expansion or improvements to the Barge Canal are currently pro-
posed. However, the Federal Government is studying all facets of canal use
and operation to determine the extent of modernization required to permit
its use by modern float equipment. The U. S. Corps of Engineers is also
conducting a study and evaluation of the feasibility and justification for a
new canal in western New York State. Called the All-American Canal, it
would connect Lake Ontario and Lake Erie across Niagara and Erie Counties.
This canal, if effectuated, would cut travel distance and time between the
two lakes.
WA TER-HA UL METHODS AND PR A CTlCES
An important consideration in the increased future usefulness of the water-
ways, ports, and canals for general freight movement, is the availability of
satisfactory facilities to transfer materials to land-based transport modes.
The applicability of water-haul (particularly barging) transportation of solid
waste has already been proven to a certain extent by the increased use of
barges to dispose of sewage sludges, certain industrial waste liquids and
sludges, and building materials in the Atlantic Ocean. Only non-floatable
wastes may be disposed of in this manner. Today, there are six dumping
grounds designated in the Atlantic Ocean off the entrance to New York
Harbor, each for a particular type of waste, as follows: Mud (dredgings),
Cellar Dirt (excavation and foundation material), Sewage Sludge (raw and
treated), Wrecks, Waste Acid, and Waste Chemicals. The entire procedure,
which involves issuance of dumping permits, is supervised by the Corps of
Engineers. Disposal of solid waste at sea may be feasible if the wastes comply
with requirements, e.g. must be not floatable. Studies are currently under-
way by the Corps of Engineers, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute,
and others to determine the effects of this disposal method.
Special loading facilities are operated by the various municipalities,
industries, and private interests using waste barging in this manner. The haul
distance involved appears to be a significant factor in determining whether
this particular disposal method is economically feasible. The economics are
further affected by size of float and load transported.
There are no specific restrictions on the movement of wastes by barge on the
State's waterways (Hudson River, Lake Champlain, Lake Erie, and Lake
Ontario). In fact, large bulky wastes such as scrap metal, wrecked autos, and
similar materials are handled in that manner now. The Corps of Engineers
7-9
-------
maintains the channels on these waterways, coordinates and cooperates in
port and transfer operation development, and would control the use of any
waterway areas for dumping or filling At the present time, all of New York
State's ports function separately and independently of each other.
Coordination of port activites by the Corps of Engineers, the Port
Authorities, and the Department of Transportation would permit spe-
cialization based on the locational advantages of each port for different
products, materials, and shipping patterns. This could include development
of special ports and facilities to handle the transfer and loading of appro-
priate wastes (sludges, industrial liquids, large bulky wastes) for haul to
appropriate disposal sites or dumping grounds.
The feasibility of moving wastes across the Barge Canal System is subject to
certain constraints. Operated by the State, the Barge Canal is controlled by
the Waterways Division of DOT, which is responsible for dredging, lock and
bridge maintenance, and coordination of port and loading facilities develop-
ment along the banks. Terminals are provided for the receipt and discharge
of canal freight at the principal points of shipment. Any loading, unloading,
or storage operation development at points other than these terminals re-
quires a permit.
Restrictions regarding size of float are a function of lock size and bridge
clearance. The canal from Waterford to the Oswego branch leading into Lake
Ontario can take a maximum draft of 12 feet, with a maximum height of
load and float above waterway of 19-1/2 feet. On the remaining reach of the
Erie Division and on the three other 'Divisions of the canal system the maxi-
mum draft allowed for any barge or float is 10 feet, and the maximum
allowable height of load plus float above the water line is 15 feet. The largest
size float (float is defined as a barge by itself or a barge with tug) that can be
accommodated is 43-1/2 feet in width by 300 feet in length. The most
common units or combinations operating in the canal are: a) 260-foot barge
with tug making up the allowed 300-foot floating apparatus; b) 300-foot
long barge pushed by tug, which requires two lockings to get the entire
combination through a lock; c) a self powered 300-foot long barge; and d) a
300-foot long barge pushed by a second 240-250 foot barge and tug, making
two 300-foot floating units, which also requires two lockings to get the
entire assembly through. Without special permission of the superintendent,
no fleet can consist of more units than may be passed through a lock in two
lockings. Finally, in the canal channels, floats are restricted to a speed of six
miles per hour except in canalized rivers and lakes, where the speed limit
depends upon traffic conditions.
Several issues face DOT with regard to continued use of the Barge Canal. The
first is the question of modernization to permit use by modern float
equipment. This would involve widening locks and channels to permit larger,
7 10
-------
deeper-draft floats. There is also the question of transfer of the Barge Canal
to the Federal Government. The legislature was authorized to do this by
referendum in 1959. The alternatives are: continued operation and possible
improvement of the canal by the State, which night require user charges; or
no improvement and possible contraction of the Barge Canal Network.
UL TIMA TE SYSTEM CAPABILITIES AND LIMITA TIONS
The real question, in the final analysis, is the effective usefulness of these
major transportation systems in the handling of waste materials. It would
appear that this is a function both of the size of the originating population
complex and of the scale of operation.
For small population centers in sparsely settled areas (under 10,000 persons)
use of the current "packer truck" or variations, with road hauls of up to 20
miles to a suitable facility, continues to be the most effective waste transport
medium. However, for areas of major population concentrations where the
volume of waste materials is large, an area- or a region-wide disposal system
is employed; then a "zone of effectiveness" comes into play, and the
particular characteristics of each transportation system and of the waste
being moved become important. In such a situation, where sites are beyond a
15-20 mile distance from the population center, a truck-haul operation to a
transfer station may be the best solution for household, commercial, and
most municipal wastes. It has been established in New York Department of
Health and other studies that beyond 15 miles, a truck operation is un-
economical when large volumes of wastes must be moved. The possibility of
containerized packers to allow faster turnaround and handling at such a
station, while maintaining a cleaner operation, is only one of several practical
methods for handling household and commercial wastes. If feasible and
eventually allowed, "trains" of three packers in tandem could extend the
radius of economic service for transfer station operations.
At this point, the use of the two remaining modes is a function of type of
waste and location of facility. Consider first certain special problem
industrial wastes, such as bulky wastes, or dredgings and sludges. If the
transfer station or waste source is near the water, then barging to appropriate
dumping sites or final treatment facilities is feasible. In these circumstances
the low value of waste, the need for special centralized disposal, and/or the
special nature or possible danger of contamination of waste disposed in the
normal manner generally make barging the preferred solution if carried out
on the major state waterways. The Canal Barge is limited in this regard,
because weather forces a closing from November 15-30 to April 5-20, and
the size of float is restricted.
7-11
-------
The final and most promising mode for large-area, large-volume waste move-
ment is rail haul. With innovations and improvements in types of cars, car
handling, terminal handling, and transfer facilities, the railroads can accept
materials in virtually any form ard move them over long distances, at
relatively low cost, and at good speeds. Speed is significant only as a health
problem, not as an economic one. The only limitations on this system would
be the difficulty o1 encouraging the needed spur construction (owing to low
ton-mile value of waste) and integration of spur construction with on-loading
facilities at transfer stations and o1f-loading facilities at ultimate disposal
sites.
The success of any method that may be adopted depends upon appropriate
distance and operation cut-off points with regard to these transportation
systems. The detailed solutions of loading operations, intermodal transfer,
and handling operations require further investigation concerning relative
costs. For example, rail haul is more economic if fully a point-to-point
operation. Charges for handling "containers" or "vehicles" in a transfer can
cost as much as 100 ton-miles of material-haul, based on 1968 Penn Central
rate schedules. These factors and the many other discussed in preceding and
succeeding chapters, all have a bearing on the choice of the most effective
mode or combinations of modes and transfer facilities.
7-12
-------
CHAPTER EIGHT
PHYSICAL AND NATURAL CONDITIONS
INTRODUCTION
In selecting a site for solid waste disposal the following physical and natural
conditions must be taken into consideration: geology - including soils and
bedrock; topography; hydrology - including surface- and ground-water drain-
age and potential pollution; and meteorology - including climate, prevailing
wind directions, and potential air pollution. Evaluation of these
environmental factors is particularly important in the selection of a proper
site for a sanitary landfill. Some of these factors are also important in the
site location of an incinerator, and specific incinerator considerations will be
discussed whenever they are applicable.
GEOLOGICAL FACTORS
1. The soil permeability at a landfill site should be such that the move-
ment of refuse leachate will be retarded sufficiently to permit purifica-
tion of water by bio-filtration through the subsoil. Sites where coarse
sand gravel occur are generally unsuitable for refuse disposal because of
their high permeability and their consequent use or potential use as
aquifers for water supply.
2. The ideal soil at a landfill site should be workable and compactable.
Such a soil is commonly a sandy loam or a sandy clay-silt.
3. A coarse soil such as sand or gravel at a landfill site may require a
greater depth of cover to prevent rodent infestation.
4. A large amount of stones or boulders in the soil of a landfill site
interferes with excavation, obtaining suitable cover material, establish-
ing grade, and laying out tile drainage, if needed. Where stones and
8-1
-------
boulders are many, they are hazardous to foot and vehicular traffic.
Also, the highly variable nature of stony soils generally allows rapid
transmission of leachate to the water table.
5. A soil containing large quantities of clay may present an operational
problem during wet weather, and, under certain conditions, it may tend
to shrink and crack. Soils of this type may also present an excavation
problem during cold weather.
6. Depth to bedrock or thickness of the soil cover can severely limil the
use of the land for sanitary landfill. Shallow bedrock limits the depth of
the landfill excavation. A basic essential of sanitary landfill is the use of
sufficient earth cover during and after completion of the fill. Thin soils
may be inadequate for obtaining this covering fill. Also, thin soils may
not provide enough filtration/adsorption capacity for leachate; where
bedrock is close to the surface, seepage and pollution problems may
result as the subsurface water, carrying leachate, moves along in contact
with bedrock until it seeps out at the surface or into a potable aquifer.
7. The type of bedrock underlying the landfill must be considered,
especially in areas of thin soil. Water-bearing formations must not be
contaminated by leachate. For example, a cavernous limestone aquifer
would make a landfill site unsuitable in the soil above.
TOPOGRAPHICAL FACTORS
1. The selected landfill site must be large enough to contain the projected
refuse volumes. The size of the depression, ravine, lowland, or other
acceptable site largely determines the amount of fill that can be placed
in the area.
2. The topography of the prospective landfill or incinerator site should be
considered as to its accessibility by trucks and other vehicles through-
out the year.
3. Ultimate elevation and drainage of the completed fill as well as the
effect of changes in elevation of the completed fill on adjacent property
must be considered.
4. The choice of operational method to be used in a landfill depends upon
the topography of the site, e.g. area method, trench method, etc.
5. The topography of selected landfill sites should be such that surface
runoff into or through the site can be controlled.
8-2
-------
HYDROLOGICAL FACTORS
1. Distance from landfills to streams, lakes, or other bodies of water must
be evaluated to prevent surface-water pollution through surface or sub-
surface drainage.
2. Horizontal distance from wells and springs, horizontal and vertical
distance from aquifers, and the characteristics of the intervening subsoil
or rock must be considered to prevent ground-water pollution at a
landfill site.
3. The elevation of the seasonal high water table is an important factor; it
should be as deep below the base of the fill as possible to prevent
ground-water pollution. Refuse deposited below the water table or in
standing water should not be permitted.
4. Natural surface runoff must be considered in site location for a landfill.
Provisions must be made for drainage of the site as the landfill
operation progresses and after it is completed.
5. Flooding conditions that can erode the cover material, expose the
refuse, and cause the rapid travel of pollutants through the refuse to the
ground-water table must be avoided.
METEOROLOGICAL FACTORS
1. In cold weather, problems that may be involved in operating a landfill
include the difficulty of trenching in frozen ground, moving stockpiled
cover material when pre-trenching is practiced, and consolidating large
pieces of frozen soil in the final cover.
2. In prolonged wet weather, problems involved in operating a landfill
may include: a soil too soft to support equipment or too mushy to
trench readily or to consolidate the final cover; and trenches full of
water. Also, increased rainfall is often accompanied by increased
seepage, and more leachate may be produced. Specific provisions for
wet weather operations must be considered.
3. The wind (speed and direction) is an important consideration. The wind
may stir up dust from the general area of operations and may cause a
little problem that could spread beyond the confines of the landfill site.
Knowledge of the direction of prevailing winds will permit planning for
location of fences to control litter and also indicate layout and
direction of refuse placement. Prevailing winds must be considered in
selection of an incinerator site; even if proper air pollution and odor
8-3
-------
control techniques are used, the location of populated areas with
respect to the incinerator site must be evaluated.
OUTLINE OF PHYSICAL AND NATURAL CONDITIONS IN NEW YORK STATE
The climate of New York State may be generally characterized as humid and
temperate. However, there is considerable variation due to location and
topography. The mountain and plaleau regions, for example, have heavy
snowfalls and wide changes in temperatures; whereas Long Island, under the
moderating effect of the ocean, has light snowfall and fairly constant tem-
peratures. The lowland areas adjoining the Great Lakes have a milder climate
than the nearby uplands. Average annual precipitation ranges from about 28
inches near Lake Champlain to over 60 inches in the Catskill Mountains
(Figure 8-1). Average annual snowfall ranges from 27.1 inches in New York
City to 88.1 inches in Oswego. Average annual runoff ranges from over 40
inches in the Catskills and in the Tut| Hill Upland to less than 10 inches in
the Champlain Valley and in the region south of Rochester (Figure 8-1).
In the eastern part of the State, average annual temperatures range from
40.3° at Lake Placid to 54.7° at La Guardia Airport. Extremes ranging from
50°F below zero in the Adirondacks to 105°F at other stations have been
reported.
The climate of the central and western parts of the State is influenced by
proximity to the Great Lakes. Temperature extremes are moderated by the
lakes, and snowfall near the lakes is about 50 percent greater as a result of
lake-borne squalls.
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES
Almost all of New York State underwent glaciation during the Pleistocene
Epoch, and glacial deposits overlie the bedrock in depths ranging from 0 to
about 2,000 feet. However, the subdivision of the state into major physi-
ographic provinces is based mainly on the varying ways in which the under-
lying bedrock, of different lithologies and structure, has reacted to erosional
forces over the past 65 million years. The following brief descriptions of the
nine physiographic provines shown in Figure 8-2 are based on the text of the
1962 Geologic Map of New York State. The soil descriptions are taken from
Cline (9).
ST. LAWRENCE-CHAMPLAIN LOWLANDS
This province is underlain by Cambrian and Ordovician sandstones,
dolomites, and limestones, which dip gently away from the Adirondacks.
Relief is approximately 100 feet. Streams draining the northern and eastern
8-4
-------
Adirondack slopes dissect the province, and much of the Lake Champlain
shoreline is dominated by North-South and East-West faults.
In the Champlain Lowland, (eastern Clinton County), where the Nellis-
Amenia soil association is dominant, the nearly level to sloping areas are
underlain by well- and moderately well-drained soils developed on highly
calcareous glacial till. The dominant soils have good structure, but a high
proportion are shallow relative to the bedrock.
In the St. Lawrence Lowland, the Nellis-Swanton soil association underlies a
large area in St. Lawrence County. In areas of this association, low ridges of
well-drained calcareous glacial till derived from limestone are interspersed
with low-lying flat land of poorly-drained sand over clay. Rockland soils
cover a large area in St. Lawrence County, and are also found in northeastern
Jefferson County. In this area more than 50 percent of the land is bare
bedrock. The intervening soils are generally shallow, and include soils from
clay, glacial till, and sands. Locally, where rock surfaces are nearly level, a
thin uniform cover of soil material covers the rock.
ADIRONDACK HIGHLANDS
The highest mountains in New York State are located in this province, which
is underlain mainly by highly resistant anorthosite. The average relief in the
province is 2,000 feet. The average elevation decreases gradually from the
High Peaks area except where the slope is more abrupt eastward to the
Champlain Lowland. The Adirondacks are transected by long northeast-
southwest lineaments, representing shear zones or major faults, which often
control the drainage and topography. Glacial deposits have clogged the
normal drainage, and the lower areas have many lakes, ponds, and swamps.
The Adirondacks are mantled by very stony soils developed on glacial till.
The Herman-Becket-Rockland association represents the major part of the
Adirondack Highlands.
TUG HILL UPLAND
The Tug Hill Upland is an isolated area lying between the eastern part of the
Erie-Ontario Lowlands and the Black River Valley of the same province. It
has an elevation of 1,800-2,000 feet and low relief. The Tug Hill Upland is
supported by a cap rock of Ordovician Oswego Sandstone, which overlies a
thick series of sandy shales and older limestones. The low slope of the cap
rock and the thin cover of glacial deposits have resulted in poor drainage and
many swamps in the province.
The Tug Hill Upland is underlain by the Worth-Empeyville-Westburg associa-
tion. This area is dominated by very stony, acid soils developed on glacial till
with a strong fragipan horizon.
8-5
-------
A very high proportion of the acid '>oils developed in glacial till in the State
possesses a subsoil horizon that is very tightly packed and slowly permeable
to water, called the fragipan. The horizon has resulted in the development of
very large acreages of poorly-drained soil throughout the acid soil regions. It
retards downward movement of water, causing seepage down hill, and
relatively poor drainage even on strongly sloping areas. A high proportion of
the potential drainage problems of the State are related to this condition.
ERIE-ONTARIO LOWLANDS
This physiographic province, which includes the cities of Rochester, Buffalo,
Niagara Falls, and Syracuse, encompasses the relatively low and flat areas
which border Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and extend up the Black River
Valley. The land rises gently eastward and southward from the lake levels of
570 and 244 feet, respectively, to about 1,000-1,500 feet along the bound-
ary with the Appalachian Upland:;. In the Ontario Lowlands, east-west
trending escarpments are formed by the Silurian Lockport Dolomite (the cap
rock of Niagara Falls and the falls of the Genesee River at Rochester), and
by the Devonian Onondaga Limestone. It should also be mentioned here that
carbonate rocks are the most productive bedrock in the State with regard to
ground water. Glacial deposition has left drumlin fields, recessional
moraines, and shoreline deposits, wh ch modify the topography.
The Fulton-Toledo soil association is common near Lake Erie. In areas of
this association, wetness and fine te
-------
In the Black River Valley, the Camroden-March soil association is developed
on the broad, smoothly-sloping, till-covered hills. This soil is described under
the Mohawk Valley Province. The Colton and Adams soil association also
covers a large area of the Black River Valley and is made up of well to
excessively-drained soils developed on sand and gravel.
HUDSON-MOHAWK LOWLANDS
The topography of this lowland has been developed by erosion of weak-rock
outcrop belts. Much of the area has low elevation and relief, and is underlain
by Ordovician shales. The province includes the Schenectady, Troy, Albany,
and Utica-Rome areas.
The Troy-Cossayuna soils are the dominant association on the undulating to
rolling glacial till plain of the Hudson Valley. These soils are dominantly
deep, well- or moderately well-drained, and only moderately stony, although
the fragipan causes drainage problems in some areas. Also prevalent in the
Hudson Valley is the Rhinebeck-Madalin association, which is developed on
nearly level to strongly sloping areas of calcareous lacustrine silts and clays.
They have a soil-loam surface texture, but silty-clay subsoils. The soils range
from well- to poorly-drained. Bordering the New England Upland in
Dutchess and Columbia Counties are the Nassau, Macomber, and Manlius
associations dominated by shallow or very shallow soils with 10 to 25 per-
cent of the area in bedrock outcrop.
The Camroden-March association is developed on the broad, smoothly
sloping hills of the Mohawk Valley. The slopes are covered with till which
contains a high percentage of local dark-colored shales. The soil has a
medium-textured upper portion over a more clayey fragipan 15 or 20 inches
below. Improvement of drainage is difficult because of the fragipan. The
Mohawk Valley also possesses the Poland Turin and Mohawk-Manheim
associations. On these dominant gently-sloping or undulating areas are dark-
colored glacial till soils, high in dark shale. These soils lack fragipans and are
dominantly deep and well- to moderately well-drained.
APPALACHIAN UPLANDS
This province, which stretches from the Catskills in the east to southern
Chautauqua County in the west, includes the metropolitan areas of
Jamestown, Elmira, Ithaca, and Binghamton. The plateau is formed by the
dissection of uplifted, gently dipping Devonian rocks. Relief is high to
moderate. Drainage is generally southwest into the Allegheny, Susquehanna,
and Delaware River systems, except for Cattaraugus Creek, the Genesee
River, the Finger Lakes, and minor streams along the Catskill front. The
Finger Lake Troughs represent glacially modified valleys of pre-glacial rivers,
and Cayuga and Seneca Lakes have bedrock floors below sea level.
8-7
-------
Glaciation has left thick deposits in the North-South valleys, completely
burying some. On the Uplands the glacial cover is usually thin, and the
Allegany State Park area in Cattaraugus County contains no glacial deposits.
The most common soil associations in the Appalachian Plateau are the
Lordstown-Volusia and Lordstown associations. In the Lordstown-Volusia
areas, the valley floor is normally underlain by glacial outwash, and deep
glacial till occupies a uniformly sloping area that extends from 1/8 to 1/2
mile from the valley floor. The Lord«town association is dominated by sleep
shallow soils.
In the eastern part of the plateau in the Catskill Mountains, which is under-
lain by red sandstone and shale, the Oquaga-Lackawanna association is
dominant. These soils are generally medium-textured and contain fragipans.
On the steep slopes are the shallow Oquaga soils which occupy from 30 to
50 percent of the area. The well-drained, deep Lackawanna soils are on the
steep and strongly sloping hillsides, where the glacial till mantle is deepest.
Two soil associations prevalent in the western part of the plateau are the
Volusia-Mardin and the Erie-Langford associations. The Volusia-Mardin soil
area is one of the major soil problem areas of southwestern New York. The
area presents a landscape of broad, till-covered hills whose long, uniform
slopes are predominantly poorly drained. The dominant soils have strongly
expressed fragipans at 12 to 18 inches below the surface. Drainage is the
problem; the soils are slow to dry in the spring and "seep spots" are
common. The Erie-Langford association occupies broad, smoothly sloping,
till-mantled hills. Water tends to accumulate above a slowly permeable
fragipan horizon in the dominant soils on these long slopes, and makes the
most important soils poorly drained.
NEW ENGLAND UPLANDS
This province encompasses Manhattan, the Bronx, and part of Staten Island,
Westchester County, the Taconic Mountains area, and the Hudson Highlands.
The rocks in this province are either rnetamorphic or igneous, and the topog-
raphy shows a close relationship to the relative resistance to erosion of the
formations. The Rensselaer Plateau, located east of Troy is a rolling plateau
surface with relief of more than 500 feet. This 180 square-mile area is held
up by the resistant Rensselaer Graywacke.
In the New England Upland, the dominant soils are the Rockland and the
Pittsfield, Wassaic, and Stockbridge associations. The Rockland soil, which
predominates in the Hudson Highlands, is very shallow and interspersed with
bedrock outcrops. The Pittsfield, Wassaic, and Stockbridge areas are mainly
steep-sided valleys in which dominantly well-drained soils have developed on
8-8
-------
glacial till. In the Rensselaer Plateau, the gently sloping to hilly areas,
dominated by glacial till, have very stony soil known as the Worth-
Empeyville-Westbury association.
THE TRIASSIC LOWLAND
This province, which is found both in Rockland County and in Staten Island,
is underlain by Triassic "redbeds" (sandstones and shales) and igneous trap
rocks. A prominent feature of the province is the Palisades, a north-south
escarpment developed on the diabase "sill" which forms the west bank of
the Hudson River from Nyack to Staten Island. The Triassic Lowland redbed
areas are mantled by deep glacial till in the valleys and shallow soils on the
upper slopes of the hills. The soils in this area, (the Rockaway-Chatfield
association) are generally stony. The Basalt areas are mantled by the steep
Rockland association where soil is shallow and outcrop is plentiful.
ATLANTIC COASTAL LOWLAND
Long Island and part of Staten Island are the only areas of New York State
within the Atlantic Coastal Lowland or Coastal Plain. This province is under-
lain by a core of Cretaceous sedimentary rocks which dip gently toward the
Continental Shelf. The terminal moraine of the Wisconsin glacier crosses the
province in a hilly area from which an apron of outwash detritus extends
seaward. The outwash plain of Long Island is dominated by coarse-textured
soils developed on sands and gravels. The soils, of the Cotton and Adams
Association, are dominantly well- to excessively-drained. A coarse, sandy soil
developed on glacial till is found in the moraine area to the north. These
soils, in the Plymouth-Haven association are excessively drained.
SUMMARY
Because of the diversity and complexity of natural and physical conditions
that have a direct bearing on land use and development in New York State,
modern practices for site selection for solid waste disposal require detailed
investigation by hydrogeologists and other environmental scientists to
properly select a site for location of a sanitary landfill or an incinerator.
8-9
-------
DISTRIBUTION OF PRECIPITATION AND
RUNOFF IN NEW YORK STATE
FIGURE 8 - 1
AVERAGE ANNUAL PRECIPITATION,
IN INCHES, 1931-55
AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF,
IN INCHES, 1930-63
Source: U.S. Geological Survey folder "Water Resources
Investigations in New York State'.'
Date: (1965)
-------
PHYSIOGRAPHIC PROVINCES OF
NEW YORK STATE
FIGURE 8 - 2
o
Z
Q.
O
u
'o>
_o
o
f>
O
-------
-------
CHAPTER NINE
STATE AGENCIES
AND LEGISLATION
INTRODUCTION
Potentially, the most critical elements in the effectiveness and success of any
State-wide solid waste plan are the legislation and actions by designated
agencies which provide the framework and the power by which a plan is
carried out. To date, most of the applicable New York State legislation
allows action, but does not require it, and delegations of authority or
responsibility are not entirely clear in a number of areas. This chapter
presents a discussion of the current legislation, agencies, responsibilities and
enforcement, and control aspects of solid waste management, planning, and
implementation in New York State. It is from these bases that future actions
and recommendations for change and improvement must be made.
EXISTING LEGISLATION AND LAWS
There is a significant amount of State legislation which has current or
potential impact on solid waste management and disposal. Much of the
legislation is very clear and provides explicit direction, while other laws and
regulations overlap, making interpretation and direct effectuation difficult.
Three pieces of legislative action have had a major impact on solid waste
management and control in New York. The first was the adoption of Part 19
of the State Sanitary Code, "Refuse Disposal," which became effective 1
January 1963. Its basic sections deal with disposal sites, incinerators, and
enforcement. In substance, the Code: 1) requires all refuse disposal sites,
both private and municipal, to be operated as sanitary landfills; 2) includes
regulations prohibiting the burning of refuse at such sites, 3) discourages
scavenging; 4) specifies fill requirements for face and compaction, and for
cover, vector and litter control; and 5) requires approval of new sites and
9-1
-------
proposed operation by health authorities. The Code also prohibits the dis-
posal of solid waste material in any manner or in any location which would
result in a violation of the Public Health law against water pollution. With
regard to incinerators, the Code requ res that municipal as well as private
incinerators be operated and maintained so as not to create a nuisance or
hazard to public health. (Regulation:; of the State Air Pollution Control
Board provide that plans for new incinerators must be submitted to the Air
Pollution Control Section of the State Department of Health for approval
prior to construction.) Finally, the Code specifies and delegates regulatory
control as the responsibility primarily of full-time city and county Com-
missioners of Health, or of State District Health Officers in localities which
do not have full-time Health Officers. Stronger collection, transportation,
processing, and disposal regulations are under study.
Enactment of this legislation was the first step in a long-range program to
deal effectively with solid waste in the State of New York. The program was
given additional impetus by the Fedeial Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965,
which made possible the acceleration of staffing and program development.
The second significant piece of legis ation, promulgated in 1966, created
what is now the Bureau of Solid Waste Engineering, and authorized 100
percent funding for comprehensive solid waste studies to be conducted by
qualified consulting engineers. The State planning grant program encourages
county and regional area-wide planning for the collection, treatment, and
disposal of all solid wastes. To date, tnere are nine such projects underway,
and several reports are to be published soon.
The third important State-level action directed at a solution to the State's
solid waste problem was the creation of the New York State Pure Waters
Authority by Chapter 722 of the Laws of New York, 1967. The New York
State Pure Waters Authority, a public benefit corporation, can plan, finance
(through the sale of bonds), construct, maintain, and operate sewage treat-
ment works and solid waste disposal facilities. A number of flexible arrange-
ments may be reached with the municipality involved. The critical limitation
is that the Authority must be invited to participate.
These three significant legislative actions, overlapping and interrelated with
other legislation and agency regulations, form the State's basis for effective
action. This enabling legislation must be viewed in light of what it permits or
requires counties and municipalities to do regarding solid waste collection,
storage, treatment, and disposal.
Solid waste collection and disposal services and related regulation are local
responsibilities, subject to the State Sanitary Code. The Municipal Home
Rule Law, the General City Law, the County Law, the Town Law, the
92
-------
Village Law, the Public Health Law, and charters of cities and some counties,
all contain provisions authorizing units of local government to enact local
laws, ordinances, or rules and regulations pertaining to solid waste collection
and disposal. Local regulations may prohibit practices which endanger health
or property or which result in nuisances. Such regulations may also control
private collectors in the interest of ensuring satisfactory collection and
disposal service. For example, the Town Law provides authority to regulate
the use of any lands for dumps, the collection of garbage, the storage of
refuse on private property, the disposal of refuse on town highways, and to
control smoke or gases. Likewise, the Village Law provides for authority to
regulate any occupation which affects the public health and welfare.
Furthermore, cities, villages, towns, suburban towns, and counties are
empowered to provide for refuse removal and disposal on a local basis, either
on a municipality- or county-wise basis, or by the establishment of special
districts to serve only certain areas. Establishment of service and disposal is
subject to procedural regulations in all levels of local and county govern-
ment, including permissive or mandatory referendum. All levels of local or
county government are permitted either to provide the service themselves or
to contract for collection and disposal subject to various time limits. The
General Municipal Law also provides a wide range of flexibility for inter-
municipal service arrangements. Municipalities are empowered to perform
any service or function on a cooperative basis that they are now authorized
by law to provide on a separate or individual basis. Thus, any two or more
municipalities may agree on a cooperative program for refuse collection and
disposal; a town and any village or villages within the town are limited to five
years in such an agreement. This Law also authorizes New York counties,
cities, towns, villages, school districts, and improvement districts to enter
into agreement with public agencies in other states either to provide or
receive garbage and refuse services across state lines.
Despite the general soundness and sufficiency of the legislative base, there
are some aspects that may present problems in achievement of the objectives
of the solid waste program. For example, the Pure Waters Authority can
assist a local unit of government only if invited to do so. The lack of power
to act directly in local situations diminishes the Authority's overall effective-
ness. New legislation providing for Pure Waters Authority involvement (with-
out specific local invitation) in situations where current operations are
demonstrably sub-standard is one approach to remedying this shortcoming.
It would be necessary, of course, to define clearly the circumstances and
criteria involved so that a reasonable compromise between local and State
authority could be developed. An alternative approach would be to enact
legislation permitting the Pure Waters Authority to initiate construction and
operation of regional solid waste facilities to which communities would
subscribe when their local facilities were used up or phased out.
9-3
-------
Another deterrent is the lack of legislation requiring lowns, villages, cities, or
counties to make provision for refuse disposal, either through direct
municipal operation of the refuse disposal area, or through contractual
arrangements. All existing laws mere y empower or allow the provision of
such a service; it is not mandatory. IViany local governments not only fail to
make provisions for adequate refuse disposal facilities, but do not recognize
that it is a municipal responsibility. Administrative control of private refuse
collection contractors is now exercised in some instances at the local govern-
ment level, however, it is optional, and in many cases contractors and
control regulations are not adequate.
The Sanitary Code does not now require approval of plans for new, ex-
panded, or converted disposal areas, ;it their option, the health officers may
request submission of such plans. This makes the prospects of adequate
operation unpredictable, and virtually defeats an integrated attempt at long-
range and interim (with subsequent re-use) land planning. Regulations and
specifications on improved collec'ion, transportation, and processing
operations also require legislative reinforcement.
STATE AGENCIES
Even with the substantial amount 01 State legislation affecting solid waste
disposal practice, there are only three State agencies with a substantial direct
involvement in the solid waste program: Environmental Health Services and
Community Health Services in the Department of Health (department
organization is shown in Figure 9-1); snd the Pure Waters Authority.
Within Environmental Health Services (see Figure 9-2) there are three
divisions: Air Resources, Pure Waters, and General Engineering and
Radiological Health. (The Division of Pure Waters should not be confused
with the Pure Waters Authority.) The Division of Air Resources is
responsible for all items found in Article 12A of the Public Health Law and
for those items covered in the Rjles and Regulations concerning Air
Pollution. The Division of Pure Waters is responsible for all items covered in
Article 12 of the Public Health Law, and has the additional task of
administering the Rules and Regulations primarily concerned with water-
carried waste and water supplies. The Division of General Engineering and
Radiological Health, which includes the Bureau of Solid Wastes Engineering
and Community Environmental Hesalth, is responsible for those items
covered in the Public Health Law pertaining to general sanitation and such
portions of the State Sanitary Code which are not covered by either the
Division of Air Resources or the Div sion of Pure Waters. In some instances
there are areas of dual responsib lity; whenever such a case of dual
responsibility arises, the ultimate responsibility is assigned by Environmental
Health Services to that Division for which the task will be most appropriate.
9-4
-------
The Department's normal agreements with other agencies and departments
of State government are formal, these agreements generally are in the form
of memoranda of understanding, letters of agreement, etc. There are, how-
ever, some informal agreements between the Department and other depart-
ments and/or agencies. The Bureau of Solid Wastes Engineering plays the
leading role in coordinating solid waste planning activity, enforcement of the
Sanitary Code, and reviewing and approving plans prepared under the grant
program.
Field operations, inspections, actual code enforcement, and consultation are"
principally the responsibility of the field offices (five Regional and nine
District Offices, six City and twenty-eight County Health Units). The Health
Regions and Districts and the full-time local Health Departments are shown
on Figure 9-3. These field offices are administered by Health Officers who
are responsible to Community Health Services within the Department of
Health. Each field office organization includes an engineer and a sanitation
staff to administer Environmental Health programs. This staff is administra-
tively responsible to the Health Officer, while programmatically responsible
to Environmental Health Services.
The district, county, or regional field office priorities are set by the Health
Officer, with the actual work being done by the staff. Environmental Health
Services is responsible for the supervision and technical advice and guidance
needed for the proper administration of the engineering and sanitation staff
activities. Any additional work load on the field units must be approved by
Community Health Services. There also exists a Health Planning Council
within the Department, which coordinates intra-Department functions of
health planning, sets priorities, reviews programs, etc. The relationship with
other governmental agencies is usually on a commissioner to commissioner
basis.
The third major agency with a direct involvement is the Pure Waters
Authority. This Authority is a public benefit corporation that can plan,
finance (through the sale of bonds), construct, maintain, and operate sewage
treatment works and solid waste disposal facilities. This is the only state
agency empowered to perform these activities. Municipalities may contract
with the Authority for the design and construction of needed facilities.
These contracts may provide for either municipal operation of the com-
pleted facility or for operation and maintenance of the facility on a
continuing basis by the Authority. In addition, the Authority may arrange
for the financing of proposed facilities, with design, construction, and
operation by the municipality. The Pure Waters Authority views itself as an
implementation agency, with duties clearly distinguished from those of the
Department of Health, which is charged with the responsibility for solid
9-5
-------
waste planning and code enforcement. In operation, that distinction is not
quite so clear, for the Pure Waters Authority is involved in its own research
and planning activities, especially those concerning operation.
The combined activities of these three principal agencies represent the major
part of the involvement by State Agencies in solid waste planning, manage-
ment, and implementation. There are, of course, other agencies having
impact on or interest in solid waste disposal as it may affect their primary
operations. These include:
The Bureau of the Budget has an impact as it controls State aid and the
resources flowing to municipalities which allow some local resources to be
used for solid waste management. It also has some power with regard to the
planning grant program and funding of environmental programs.
The Department of Audit and Control (Division of Municipal Affairs)
becomes directly involved in approving bond issues and creation of special
districts, where these are intended for the purpose of public works (in this
case, solid waste disposal). The Department also exerts an influence and
provides counselling in budget and revenue financing, which has an indirect
effect on public works financing of any type.
The Office of Local Government sen/es as a clearing house for information
of common interest to local governments, and was established to help
governing bodies work together on mutual problems and to coordinate state
programs affecting them. The office headed by a Commissioner appointed
by the Governor, includes the State Board of Equalization and Assessment,
which helps local governments administer their real property taxes; the
board also establishes equalization rates, which have a bearing on some forms
of State aid.
The Office of Planning Coordination administers all community planning
work in New York State funded by the Department of Housing and Urban
Development, i.e. the 701 projects. Land use and development plans
developed under this program have an important bearing on site selection.
Proposals for interim and ultimate site use must be coordinated and be
compatible with area land use proposals. This office would coordinate that
effort and provide demographic data important to the maintenance and
updating of local, area, and State-wide solid waste plans.
The Department of Transportation 'DOT) exercises a strong influence on
development of regional or area-wide plans. It is responsible for researching,
planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining all State and federal road-
ways in the State. It also sets rules and regulations for use of the highways as
regards possible changes in vehicles used. The department is fully responsible
9-6
-------
for the Barge Canal, and shares responsibility with the Corps of Engineers for
the other waterways in the State, through State policies, plans, and
regulations.
The Department of Conservationnot only has an interest in solid waste
management, but it is also often directly involved in solid waste problems.
The Division of Lands and Forests, holding over 3 million acres of recreation
land (much of it within the Adirondack and Catskill Forest Preserves), has a
tourist waste problem, but disposal sites on these lands are not permitted.
The Division of Parks, principally interested in intensive recreation, can
provide funds for assistance in developing a site for reuse, providing the need
is there and the landfill is phased in such a way as to permit park operation
to begin as soon as possible after initial landfill operations. The Division of
Mineral Resources is attempting to revise present legislation which will
permit it to take over the approval of sites for all sand and gravel extractions,
and which will require that some form of reclamation be included in the
plan. The reclamation could include landfilling if it can be shown that there
will be no detrimental effects on environmental quality. The Division of
Water Resources has an interest in the effects, on stream flow and water
quality, of topographical and other changes resulting from solid waste dis-
posal activities. The remaining divisions have only marginal interest in or
impact on a solid waste program.
The Bureau of Surplus Real Property, Office of Genera! Sen-ices has
responsibility for lands under water, surplus lands, and unappropriated lands.
It acts as a clearing house, handling transfers between agencies. It can donate
to municipalities for landfills, but only when the planned reuse is for a park,
highway, recreation, reforestation, or mental health.
The Department of Commerce has very little involvement in the solid waste
problem. Its principal roles are (or would be) research in techniques and
provision of industrial data for detailed solid waste planning activities.
The Department of Agriculture and Markets also has very little direct in-
volvement, although it is concerned with hog-feeding operations and with
the disposal of toxic materials such as pesticides, contaminated or
condemned food, contaminated animals, and manures (particularly chicken
manures). These are special wastes and generally are not easily disposed of
by normal landfill procedures without some danger of ground-water
contamination.
STA TE A GENCIES - SUMMA R Y
As previously stated, the Pure Waters Authority and the two agencies in the
Department of Health currently have and will probably continue to have the
critical roles in solid waste management. There is need for an improved
9-7
-------
structure and for better definition of relationships between and within these
three top agencies. For greatest effectiveness, a reorganization under a
separate agency may be necessary as the State's involvement in the environ-
mental field increases. A Joint Committee on Environmental Management
and Natural Resources of the State Legislature is studying the feasibility of
consolidating existing programs and evaluating the need for new programs.
Its report is scheduled for publication this year. The interface with other
agencies will always have some impact, but only with regard to certain
operations or certain elements of the planning, financing, or operating of
specific facilities.
CURRENT RESPONSIBILITIES - LOCAL AND S'TA Tf
In the section of this chapter covering legislation, three major pieces of
legislation were discussed which were important in moving the State of New
York forward in the arena of area-wide and State-wide solid waste problem
solutions. This is only a first step lorward, because the present structure
places virtually all responsibility in the hands of local governments and
agencies. This is an outgrowth of the historic strength of local prerogative
and is reflected in actions by the legislature to curtail State involvement in
local affairs in all matters except the area of disbursement of increasing
amounts of State aid to local governments.
Cities, towns, and villages, so long as they meet minimum requirements
specified in the Sanitary Code, havei the power to set their own rules and
regulations, to operate their own collection and disposal facilities, or to
contract for these services; they use a number of methods to finance these
operations and facilities. They may establish districts to serve only parts of
the municipality. Counties may also establish districts and provide collection
services and disposal, although relatively few have chosen to do so.
Other than State grants for planning studies, there is no direct State-level
financial involvement. The Pure Waters Authority acts only by invitation,
and Environmental Health Services currently supervises and coordinates the
solid waste planning function. Even inspection and enforcement are carried
out on a local level. This is discussed in greater detail in the following
section.
The imbalance of control in favor of local areas, although rightfully
recognizing local prerogative, increases the difficulty of achieving con-
sistency in carrying out the intent of the Sanitary Code. This problem is
compounded by the lack of consistent local management. At present, solid
waste management rules and regulations apply only to refuse disposal areas
and facilities. In all other areas of solid waste management - collection, trans-
portation, processing, etc. - there are few operating or procedural guidelines,
and these are not mandatory. This situation leads to a wide variation in the
resultant quality of environmental management and has a great impact on
the effectiveness and economy of solid waste disposal.
9-8
-------
Until the existing State agencies produce a more cohesive policy of imple-
mentation and assume a more direct responsibility with regard to local
disposal practices, it will be difficult to achieve the objectives of the Solid
Waste Planning Program.
ENFORCEMENT AND CONTROL
As defined in Part 19 of the Sanitary Code, regulatory control over refuse
disposal sites and municipal incinerators is primarily the responsibility of
full-time city and county Commissioners of Health or State District Health
Officers. Exemptions or modifications with respect to disposal sites may be
granted for dumping control and for compaction and cover, provided the
exemption will not result in water or air pollution, a nuisance, or a health
hazard. Any exemption must be applied for by the municipality or by
private contractor, and must be granted in writing by the responsible health
official. Such exemptions are limited to one year and must be renewed
annually in writing. The Sanitary Code further provides for enforcement
where an unsatisfactory refuse operation in one health district creates a
nuisance in another health district. In effect, the health officer having
jurisdiction over the refuse disposal site must take action to abate the
nuisance. This is the structure as established for enforcement and control of
the regulations set forth by the Sanitary Code.
Unfortunately, there are several problems which compromise the intent of
achieving satisfactory solid waste disposal throughout the State of New
York. First, the county health departments are funded partially from State
funds, with the remainder from local funds. The funds are administered on a
local level, although the county departments are an integral part of the
State-local structure. This brings the enforcement under local political and
local economic constraints and does not insure full coordination or com-
parable standards among county health units or among regional and district
units.
Second, it has been found that many county health units cannot justify both
an engineer and sanitarians. This weakens the capability of a local health unit
to deal with all aspects of solid waste management and control. It is not
reasonable for a local health unit to handle all the complex duties of environ-
mental control in addition to all its other roles under the Community Health
Services, which also include the Offices of Nursing. Public Health, Social
Work, and Rehabilitation Therapies, to name only a few.
A third problem, related to the second, is the difficulty of setting and
maintaining priorities with regard to enforcement. Because of insufficient
staff, and varying local views as to the priority of environmental control, a
working priority system now in effect calls for ".. .action first against
99
-------
persistent large violators and those tnat are more visible. Major attention is
also given to those places for which a comprehensive regional or county
study has been completed, and for which an economical and feasible
engineering course of action is available".^ This suggests the need for a major
expansion in field staff, possibly in a new organization, with a clear mandate
and power to act immediately and positively.
The last impediment to consistent and effective enforcement and control is
the lack of management controls. There is no licensing of private refuse
collectors. The Sanitary Code does not now require approval of plans for
new sites; submission of plans is optional on the part of the health officer.
No plan submission is required for conversion of open dumps to sanitary
landfills, for the expansion of existing sites, or for abandonment or termina-
tion of a disposal area and its maintenance. Finally, the Sanitary Code does
not provide for an annual permit to operate a disposal site. This removes
some of the power of enforcement and makes good administrative control
for satisfactory operations difficult. An effective permit system would
provide the mechanism for dealing w th current problems, upgrading existing
operations, and planning for the future.
These problems do not mean that enforcement has been totally ineffective;
some 700 dumps were eliminated in the six years since Part 19 of the
Sanitary Code was enacted. Today, of the 921 land disposal sites still in
operation, approximately 50 can be classified as sanitary landfills. During
1968, local health units made some 5,500 inspections of refuse disposal areas
and held approximately 2,300 conferences with municipal officials and
private contractors to make recommendations and discuss improvement of
operation and maintenance of disposal sites. In some cases, where com-
pliance was not forthcoming, fines were levied and collected; this had an
impact in encouraging corrective action at other operations in the area.
However, there appears to be a definite need for staff expansion and re-
organization, and for stricter and broader coverage of the regulations to
allow a "main-line" direction and control of solid waste collection, handling,
and disposal practices in the State of New York.
' From a paper prepared by Joseph A. Salvato and William G. Wilkie,
Division of General Engineering and Radiological Health, New York
State Department of Health, Albany, New York for presentation at
the 33rd Annual Education Conference, National Association of
Sanitarians, Houston, Texas, June 26, 1969.
9-10
-------
ORGANIZATION CHART:
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
FIGURE 9 - 1
_i
O
oc
Z
O
u
^2
o<
§2
o
Q.
at.
<
IDE CONTROL
iOARD
u
to
LU
to
U-E COMPACT
^.
Of
LU
Z
1 1 1
~ 1
1
1
at
Z
i
!^?
^
O
u
1
"
Of
LU
Z
£o
ff; tO
O
u
_ J
1 1
LTH COUNCIL
LU
X
u
0
a.
ITAL REVIEW
J
ING COUNCI
a. -r
t/> £
°5
X <
lU ^"
ESOURCES
ISSION
«*
So
<<->
UJ
X
fHiHm
oc
HEALTH
MANPOWE
(
.
^ Z tO
U UJ "J
^ ^>
X Q. uj
^J TS
_L
-J CO
^ S
2S-
s 25
Z ">
0 x
ENVIR
HEALT
CO
0£
O £
z tr
u
to
UJ
t >
5 £
-------
ORGANIZATION CHART:
DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
HEALTH SERVICES
FIGURE 9 2
£ «-
00
U
z ««
O x
iu X
0
5
UJ
UJ
o
5-
_j
<
Q£
UJ
Z
UJ
0
X
t-
_j
<
UJ
X
_i
<
O
O
^J
o
o
ee.
o
z > -i
" z z
IU 7
o?
«
u
t
UJ
to
3
O
to
to
> IU
Z
O
-------
HEALTH REGIONS AND DISTRICTS AND
LOCAL FULL-TIME HEALTH DEPARTMENTS:
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH;
JULY 1, 1968
FIGURE 9-3
e
-------
HEALTH REGIONS AND DISTRICTS AND
LOCAL FULL-TIME HEALTH DEPARTMENTS:
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH;
JULY 1, 1968
FIGURE 9-3
-------
CHAPTER TEN
POLITICAL, SOCIOLOGICAL,
AND FINANCIAL FACTORS
INTRODUCTION
In addition to the positive factors and accompanying constraints discussed in
the preceding chapters, there are other considerations, policies, programs,
and questions which have considerable impact on any proposed State-wide
program of solid waste management. The political and sociological frame-
work within which government actions are carried out in the State of New
York is a formidable factor in applying a solid waste plan that requires
inter-governmental cooperation. The degree to which existing vehicles for
intermunicipal cooperation are effective, and the general acceptance of them
as tools in reaching solutions, must be considered. Finally, the financial
resources of local governments and the kind and level of State or federal aid
available will be major considerations in implementing a program.
This chapter describes existing political, sociological, and financial
conditions and discusses the implications of each on the development of the
Solid Waste Management Plan for the State of New York.
POLITICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Politically, New York is a "home-rule" state. As has been pointed out in
several instances in the preceding chapters, virtually all prerogative for action
and provision of services lies at the local level. Proposals in the legislature to
move away from this base generally encounter strong opposition. The most
recent session of the legislature provided an illustration of this political
attitude against control at the State level. Legislation to curtail the powers of
the Pure Waters Authority and to strip it of the power of condemnation was
passed by an overwhelming majority, because the Authority was regarded as
a threat to local interest and self-rule even though it may act only by local
invitation. Governor Rockefeller intervened and vetoed the legislation.
10-1
-------
In a memorandum. Governor Rockefeller commented to the effect that the
bill would result in increased costs to the municipalities and that it would
nullify the capability of the Pure Waters Authority to assist in developing
solutions to solid waste management problems.
An interesting dichotomy in the "home-rule" attitude exists with regard to
this issue of local vs. State control. The local areas resist State intervention in
control of operations, but constantly demand increasing amounts of
financial aid from the State. This is clearly revealed in the current action to
revise the general revenue supplement Per Capita Assistance on the basis of
the 1970 census. The program was originally instituted on the basis of the
1960 records of municipal populat on. Because of the "save harmless"
criteria, those municipalities which hiive lost population between 1960 and
1970 demanded and will continue to receive the same aid, even though their
needs may not justify their portions o the aid money.
This local prerogative is not restricted to situations involving a local munici-
pality and the State. Westchester County developed a rail-haul proposal to
move its waste north along the Hudson River for disposal at large sites in
other counties. These counties and the involved municipalities reacted
immediately by passing resolutions and ordinances prohibiting the disposal
of any wastes other than their own within their boundaries; some towns have
even prohibited the disposal of any refuse in their town. Thus, municipalities
treasure their independence, and with regard to solid waste they consider the
disposal of waste from another municipality a civic affront.
Counties are permitted by law to establish special districts for such activities
as solid waste collection and disposal, provided that they follow certain
procedural requirements and serve more than one municipality. However,
they too encounter local opposition engendered by the "home-rule" spirit.
Largely because of this factor, the counties have had limited success in
establishing Solid Waste Disposal Districts, only Niagara and Broome
counties have been able to set up such Districts.
Conflicts deriving from the power of local prerogative extend even to the
level of municipality versus municipality. Under the Village Law, a village
may acquire land for the establishment of a refuse disposal area within or
outside its corporate limits. Under the Town Law, the Town Board may
establish one or more refuse disposal areas in or outside the town. The broad
grant of powers to all cities enables i.hem to acquire land in or outside their
boundaries for use as refuse disposal sites. When land is purchased or
acquired by a village or town within another municipality, such lands can be
acquired only with the consent of that municipality. There is no similar
requirement for consent where a city acquires land outside its corporate
102
-------
limits.^ However, more than acquisition of a site is involved. Every munici-
pality has authority to regulate and control refuse disposal within its own
boundaries, and permission to operate a refuse disposal site is required in
every instance.
The political environment in New York State is not strange when one con-
siders its history and the charter form by which so many of the cities,
villages, towns, and counties were established.
In addition to the governmental forms, a number of sociological consider-
ations underlie the reticence to accept the onus of waste disposal. One such
consideration is that people have a natural reaction against the disposal of
refuse in "their town". The frequent statement that 'no one wants his or
someone else's garbage in his backyard' certainly provides an insight into the
attitudes of the public. The property owner has paid for his home and has
invested in the community by tax payments; consequently, he does not wish
his investments destroyed by a garbage pile.
A similar attitude affects proposals such as joining with other municipalities
for joint waste disposal programs or accepting refuse from "outside" sources.
People view the acceptance of indirect problems as an added burden which
will eventually include additional costs. Thus, intermunicipal actions have
been attacked on the basis of having to pay taxes to resolve another munici-
pality's problems, with the claim of loss of property values as a justification
for such a position. There have been situations where a contractor has pro-
posed establishing a regional sanitary landfill in a town, with an agreement
which would provide income in an amount sufficient to eliminate local
taxation. The rejection of this type of an arrangement reveals the deep-
rooted opposition to these disposal approaches.
Finally, people remember only the bad examples they have seen and react
negatively to "a landfill in their town" as being an "ugly eyesore; a source of
rats, smoke and stench; and a health hazard".
An intensive program of public relations, coupled with a clearer, stronger,
and more direct means of action by State agencies, will be necessary to
overcome these political and sociological attitudes if area-wide cooperative
solutions are to be realized. Enticement alone has not been effective in other
program areas; thus, enticement plus enforcement may be necessary for solid
waste management.
From Part Four of "Municipal Refuse Collection and Disposal", Office for
Local Government, State of New York. (September, 1964).
10-3
-------
INTER/MUNICIPAL COOPERATION
The question of intermunicipal cooperation has been touched on previously,
but warrants additional detail and discussion.
Municipalities have a wide scope for developing intermunicipal service
arrangements. They are empowered to perform any service or function on a
cooperative basis that they are now authorized by law to provide on a
separate or individual basis. Thus, any two or more municipalities may agree
on a cooperative program for refuse collection and disposal. Under such an
agreement:
1. One municipality could provide service to another;
2. Municipalities could agree on which part of the total service each
would provide, or,
3. They could combine in the joint provision of a partial or complete
service.
A town and any village or villages within the town may agree, for a period
not exceeding five years, for the joint collection and disposal of refuse.
The governing body of a municipality or garbage and refuse district owning a
garbage disposal plant may contract with any other municipality or district
or other public corporation for the d sposal and collection, or disposal only,
of garbage and refuse of the contracting party. The contract terms are
subject to agreement of the contracting parties, but may not be for a term in
excess of five years. Article 14-G of the General Municipal Law authorizes
New York counties, cities, towns, villages, school districts, and improvement
districts to enter into agreement with public agencies in other states either to
provide or receive garbage and refuse services across state lines.
The Town Law allows one municipality to contract with any other munici-
pality, corporation, partnership, or individual for use of a municipally-
operated public dump or dumping ground on such terms as may be agreed
upon. The term of such a contract cannot exceed two years.
To date, intermunicipal cooperation is still the exception rather than the
rule. Less than 35 percent of the some 1,500 municipalities use disposal
facilities operated by another unit o1 local government. Less than five per-
cent provide a collection service for another municipality. This is somewhat
surprising when viewed in terms of the higher degree of success of inter-
municipal cooperation with regard to sewer and water facilities. However, in
all areas of public activity (fire, police, education, etc.), where larger-scale
10-4
-------
operations generally result in economies, intermunicipal cooperation is still
the exception rather than the rule. When viewed in light of the powers
allocated to all municipalities and the political and sociological consider-
ations discussed previously, this lack of cooperation is easier to understand.
Two possible approaches to overcoming this lack of intermunicipal co-
operation are county districts and unresistably-generous financial incentives.
The county district approach, although resisted on political grounds, may be
feasible. Article 5-A of the County Law authorizes Boards of Supervisors to
create county refuse districts. While such a district may consist of a single
area or of two or more non-contiguous areas within a county, it may not,
however, consist wholly of territory within any one city, village, or portion
of a single town outside a village. In other words, the county district must
include territory in two or more component municipalities. Initiative for the
creation of a county refuse district may originate with the Board of Super-
visors acting on its own motion, by petition from a municipality or special
district within the proposed county district, or by petition signed by at least
twenty-five owners of taxable real property within the proposed district.
After various procedural requirements are met, the Board of Supervisors may
issue an order creating the district, subject to approval by the State Comp-
troller and permissive referendum.
A county refuse district may provide for the collection and disposal of refuse
by its own forces and facilities, by private contract, or by arrangement with
other municipalities. The administrative head or body of the district may
establish a scale of charges for refuse service, subject to appeal to the Board
of Supervisors. Rules and regulations may be adopted fixing terms and con-
ditions for refuse service. Cost of equipment and facilities, and of operation
and maintenance, may be assessed and collected as ad valorem charges or
pursuant to a benefit formula. Capital outlays are financed in accordance
with the Local Finance Law. Counties with charter powers acquire authority
to regulate refuse practices and provide collection and disposal service.
Under the State Constitution, counties may incur joint debt to finance and
provide sewer service in a district crossing a county line. The mechanism to
acquire this joint debt requires that the portion of the debt chargeable to
each county be apportioned to that county rather than the total debt
charged to the district. The debt to finance the sewer service can be acquired
outside the bonded indebtedness limitation of each county. As yet no
investigation has been made of the applicability of this approach to solid
waste collection and disposal.
The potential success of any proposal building upon these provisions for
intermunicipal cooperation is a function of the political attitude at the
moment. Change from the "home-rule" syndrome may be slow, but could be
10-5
-------
speeded by changing some permissive functions to obligatory. If such were
the case, municipalities might realize that they have to join and cooperate in
order to be able to afford compliance.
ECONOMIC AND FINANCIAL FACTORS
The financing of any waste disposal facility is a serious problem now and will
become even more serious in the future.
There are no financial mechanisms existing under State law directly appli-
cable to financing of solid waste management systems such as financial assis-
tance for the construction of sanitary landfills. There are, however, other
financial mechanisms whereby a local government may obtain funds through
its own resources. These include: the general property tax and ad-valorem
taxation; the floating of general obligation or special purpose bonds;
formation of special districts or special authorities; and general borrowing up
to the bonded indebtedness of the locality.
Almost every city in the State has reached its bonded indebtedness limit.
Many localities have raised taxes about as high as their residents will let
them. Furthermore, an ad-valorem tax is most unpopular in those areas
which can afford it the most, and in some instances, need it the most. The
special district or authority approach has met with only limited success in
the State Legislature or in most communities in the past, and its financial
impact is yet unproven.
Towns and villages are becoming economically strapped. Irrespective of the
constitutional limitations on real estate taxes or bonding limits as a percent
of assessed rateables, the local areas and even many of the counties cannot
afford to continue to spend at the present rates. One of the major problems
is an over-concern for additional revenues, and insufficient concern for
efficiency and economy in all services - existing and pending. One way of
achieving economy is to consolidate services such as public works, education,
and waste disposal, and to provide them at a higher level of government,
where the larger scale of operation can produce economies and can achieve a
higher quality of service. On an area or regional basis, proper priorities can
be established for the various public services. These financial considerations
have already been recognized to a limited extent by some municipalities. In
an increasing number of major public works projects, the requests to the
Department of Audit and Control for approval of financing are on a two- or
three-town special district basis. Beca jse of the delays in gaining approval for
funds through bureaucratic structures, it has become necessary for the
financing committees to return to the Department of Audit and Control just
prior to the start of construction, to request an increased in the allowed
10-6
-------
bonding for public works. In some cases this has been 40 percent higher than
the original request, because of the rapid escalation of construction costs.
At the present time, there are two billion dollars in local bond issues antici-
pated, and nine billion dollars of bonds outstanding for the next five-year
period alone. No estimation has been made on how much this may increase
within the next ten years.
The financial picture is not much brighter for the State. Federal and State
aid to all areas in the State of New York is high, and the requirements
continue to increase; but this trend cannot continue. The amount of State
aid has reached such proportions that in the past four years State aid to local
governments has amounted to almost 40 percent of the total amount in the
fiscal program of State aid to localities between 1926 and the present. There
is no indication as to when the State's financial picture may improve, but in
any event the State will have to become financially involved in the solid
waste program. Several possible avenues of State financial involvement are
feasible and will be discussed in Chapter Twenty. It is important to note at
the outset, however, that any financial formula must have an enforcement
mechanism to ensure that the capital invested in establishing a facility is not
wasted because of improper or inadequate operation.
One potential source of outside aid, which has not yet come to fruition, is
the Federal Government. The Muskie Bill, S-2005, presently in Congress,
proposes construction grants for new solid waste facilities, but unfortu-
nately, makes no provision for grants to entice and insure proper manage-
ment and operation once a facility is constructed. Hopefully, either by
amendment to this bill or by subsequent legislation, the importance of
maintaining proper and effective disposal will be recognized.
In essence, then, it appears that new State vehicles for financing, outside the
existing structure and methods, are required to insure development of
adequate solid waste disposal programs in the State of New York.
10-7
-------
-------
PART III
Inventory, Analysis, and Development of Data
INTRODUCTION
Data constitute an essential part of the planning process. Comprehensive,
reliable data are required to define the solid waste problem in terms
appropriate for its study and solution. More specifically, data are needed to
determine existing problem areas, and relevant situations, and, more
importantly, to isolate and define the problems and conditions which will
have a bearing upon the future. Without this information, it would be
difficult to objectively determine needs or set goals.
The preceding chapters have provided a background of the planning area.
This part of the report is concerned with providing the information needed
to define the magnitude of the solid waste problem in New York State.
DATA REQUIREMENTS I CHAPTER ELEVEN)
This chapter identifies the types of data needed to meet the objectives of
this study, why they are needed, and what data sources are available. The
primary source of data is the New York State segment of the National
Survey of Community Solid Waste Practices.
EX/STING FACILITIES AND LAND DISPOSAL SITES (CHAPTER TWELVE)
Conditions and characteristics of existing land disposal sites and incinerators
are presented in this chapter by counties. Also, included in this chapter are
operating cost data for landfills, incinerators, and transfer stations, and con-
struction cost data for incinerators.
WASTE PRODUCTION (CHAPTERS THIRTEEN THROUGH FIFTEEN)
The quantities of municipal, industrial, and agricultural solid waste generated
in each county in the State for various target years are reported in these
chapters. The general methodology used in determining these waste
quantities, and the location of concentrations or centers of waste generation
are discussed.
SPECIAL WASTES {CHAPTER SIXTEEN)
The magnitude of the special waste problem in New York State is extremely
difficult to define at this stage because of the severe inadequacy of specific
information. However, some general information is presented on radioactive,
-------
wastes, mining wastes, dredgings, special industrial wastes, and water and
wastewater treatment sludges. Also, the data needed to properly assess the
impact of special waste are defined.
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA REQUIREMENTS (CHAPTER SEVENTEEN)
This chapter focuses on the additional data collection and development
required to meet the information needs of subsequent studies. Identified are
the additional data required to complete the remaining planning efforts, and
the types of data required for the implementation and operation-regulation
phases.
-------
CHAPTER ELEVEN
DATA REQUIREMENTS AND SOURCES
INTRODUCTION
The preceding chapters have provided a background of the planning area.
Additional information is required to define the problem sufficiently that,
when complemented by the background information, an overall State pro-
gram can be developed. The following information is required:
1. Sources and quantities of solid waste which will require disposal in
the future.
2. Capabilities of existing disposal sites and facilities to dispose of the
solid waste expected in the future.
3. Environmental, technological, and financial impact of those
special wastes whose complex natures present distinct handling
and disposal problems.
4. Estimated costs of solid waste disposal in the future.
5. Future conditions which may bear upon solid waste disposal, e.g.
land availability, air pollution control regulations.
The primary objective of the data inventory, analysis and development in
this study is to provide the above information. Concurrent with this
objective is a need to obtain a degree of accuracy sufficient to allow the
attainment of the planning objectives. However, solution-oriented
information such as precise locations of sites, sizes of facilities, etc. are
unnecessarily detailed for the purposes of this study.
11-1
-------
DATA SOURCES
To develop this information outlined above, some basic data are required,
such as solid waste source and generation data, facility inspection data, cost
data, and trend data. However, as lucidly stated in the Interim Report, "to
anyone who has attempted to solve a solid waste management problem one
fact is evident: little reliable information is available".^
The recognition of insufficient data prompted the USPHS in 1966 1968 to
sponsor the National Survey of Community Solid Waste Practices, which is
currently the most comprehensive source of data for use in developing State
solid waste management plans. As previously discussed, the survey of New
York State was completed in Decenrber 1968 by the Department of Health,
and the results were presented in three reports: Community Description
Report, Land Disposal Site Investigation Report, and Facility Investigation
Report. The Community Description Report covers four broad areas: 1)
storage, 2) collection, 3) disposal, and 4) budget and fiscal. The two disposal
reports. Land Disposal Site Investigation Report and Facility Investigation
Report, cover four areas: 1) operational characteristics, 2) quantitative data,
3) fiscal data, and 4) design features. The results of the survey have been
recorded in the Department of Health's Office of Electronic Data Processing
for use in study and analysis. Some information is available from county
studies financed under the Title IX Grant Program for comprehensive solid
waste planning. Other sources of information include reports of various solid
waste management studies conducted for governments both within and out-
side New York State. These studies have provided local data concerning solid
waste generation, collection and disposal costs, and facility operations.
Another survey will be undertaken by New York State to assess industrial
and agricultural solid wastes. This survey will focus on a quantitative
description of the waste generated, methods of collection and storage, and
disposal locations.
DATA REQUIREMENTS
WASTE PRODUCTION
One of the objectives of this study is to determine the geographical distri-
bution of the quantities and types of solid waste produced in the State for
various target years. The general methodology involves determining the
number and type of solid waste production units (people) and the solid
1"The Foundation Provided by the New National Data", Black, Ralph J.
1968. Proceedings of the Institute "for Solid Wastes.
11 2
-------
waste production rates which relate the average quantity of waste produced
over a specific period of time to each of the basic units of production
(Ibs/person/day). By estimating trends and projecting the production units
and rates into the future, a multiplication of the production rates by the
number of production units for any given year will give the projected waste
quantities for that year.
Many previous solid waste management studies have based waste production
on arbitrarily-selected production rates which varied widely from area to
area. These rates rarely accounted for all types of solid wastes, and thus they
are not applicable throughout New York State, however, their variability
does reflect the dependency of waste production rates on the makeup of the
community or area studied. Solid waste production has been shown to be
dependent on many variables, ranging from population density to type of
heating fuel used to the season of the year. Certain wastes, such as residential
wastes, are primarily a function of demographic characteristics, while other
wastes such as agricultural manure are not. Thus, to use only one production
rate to define all wastes for every community and area in New York State
would be insufficient.
As will be discussed later in this report, it was decided to group wastes in the
categories of municipal, agricultural, and industrial, and determine pro-
duction rates for elements of these groupings. These categories of waste are
so particularly different that the policies for overall waste disposal manage-
ment are unique for each. One is primarily in the public sector, while the
other two are in the private sector with one being predominantly urban and
the other rural.
Production rates should be related to specific sources of production in a
manner conducive to estimating the waste produced as distinguished from
waste collected. Determining quantities of wastes accepted at landfills and
incinerators may accurately represent current or historic collection rates, but
a considerable amount of waste material generated in any area is never
collected. This is due to on-site disposal of some industrial waste, backyard
burning of domestic refuse, in-field burning of some agricultural refuse,
salvaging of some waste, incineration of refuse in many apartments, grinding
garbage to sewers, etc. These practices will undoubtedly change, possibly
significantly, in the near future. Therefore, extrapolation of historic data is
not an acceptable approach to the projection of future waste quantities.
SITES AND FACILITIES
Data is needed about sites and facilities to determine their general capability,
both now and in the future, for economical disposal of solid waste without
adverse environmental effects. If this capability is deemed insufficient, data
11-3
-------
are needed to indicate what aspects of solid waste disposal management are
deficient and, possibly, what improvements are needed. In this sense, the
information required includes capacities, remaining life, cost, environmental
effects, and any special capabilities.
SPECIAL WASTES
The types of special wastes generated in New York State are numerous,
diverse, and complex. Data are reeded to point out the nature and
magnitude of the problems associated with their handling and disposal. This
would permit an identification of general situations which have the potential
for polluting the air or water, or for causing public nuisances and health
hazards. These data will also indicate: any need for changes in planning and
management policies.
COSTS
Many factors are involved in environmental decision making; and cost is one
of the most important. The cost of solid waste collection and disposal is
high-very high. In fact, getting rid of solid waste in an acceptable manner is
a municipality's third highest expense-exceeded only by school and road
programs. Information on collection and disposal costs is needed at the State
level, along with other relevant information (e.g. tax base, bonded
indebtedness), to ascertain the competition of solid waste disposal activities
for public funds and the ability of certain areas to provide revenues to match
increasing demands. With this knowledge, an appropriate allocation of State
funds can be made to support solid waste disposal activities without
unjustifiably reducing other State programs.
11-4
-------
CHAPTER TWEL VE
EXISTING FACILITIES AND LAND DISPOSAL SITES
GENERAL
Facilities and land disposal sites were investigated in the State-wide solid
waste survey to determine their operating characteristics and capabilities.
The results of the survey were presented in two reports: Land Disposal Site
Investigation Report and Facility Investigation Report. Only the authorized
sites and facilities of such magnitude as to warrant attention by local or
State authorities were surveyed. Not included were on-site facilities such as
apartment incinerators and those facilities and sites privately owned and
operated by industrial, commercial, or institutional establishments exclu-
sively for their own use.
Proper understanding of the definition or meaning of sjtes, facilities, systems
and related terms is important. Unfortunately, their usage in various solid
waste studies has tended to confuse; sites seem to refer only to landfills, and
incinerators seem to be the only kind of solid waste disposal facility. In
reality, however, sites and facilities each cover a variety of activities and
operations. For example, a transfer station facility is located at a transfer
station site and is part of a solid waste transportation and handling system.
LAND DISPOSAL SITES
The final step in the disposal of solid wastes is the ultimate return of wastes
to the land, air, or water. Although extensive use is made of the air resource
via incineration and open burning, and although some dumping is practiced
at sea (as discussed in the Water-Haul Methods and Practices section of
Chapter Seven), the depositing of refuse on land is by far the most widely
used method in New York State.
12-1
-------
CHARACTERISTICS OF LAND DISPOSAL SITES
The disposal of waste on land is considered to be the oldest method ever
used, and it has almost always had an image of being a public nuisance. Until
recently this impression was justified, however, due in part to some pioneer-
ing work done by New York City in the 1930's in developing the sanitary
landfill method (1), disposal on lane can now be accomplished effectively
and economically without nuisances. The major aspects of sanitary landfill
include: 1) proper placing, compaction, and drainage to prevent water pol-
lution; 21 covering refuse to prevent vector problems; and 3) complete re-
striction on burning to prevent air pol ution.
Table 12-1, a listing of the various operational characteristics of sites as
taken from the State-wide survey, indicated 66 percent of the sites pollute
the air with the participate matter and malodors resulting from open burn-
ing. The improper drainage noted a". 18 percent of the sites makes them
vulnerable to washing of refuse into sjrface waters, as a result of stormwater
flushing. Other sites have leaching problems (18 percent of the total) or
place refuse below the ground-water table (15 percent of the total); either of
these conditions contributes to the danger of chemical and/or biological
impairment of the ground water. Threats to the health and well-being of the
public are indicated by the rodent problems, which were reported at 44
percent of the sites in New York S:ate, and by the flies, odor, and dust
problems that are uncontrolled at 31 percent of the sites.
The U. S. Public Health Service Solid (Waste Training Section has developed a
rating system for landfills which car, through an assignment of numerical
values, indicate the apparent effectiveness of landfills for proper disposal of
solid wastes. However, the State-wide; survey did not provide enough infor-
mation to rate the land disposal sites by the USPHS tentative rating method.
Actually, the information provided could expressly answer questions cover-
ing only 22 of a total of 100 points. However, it is possible to glean from the
information whether or not a particular site meets many of the criteria for a
sanitary landfill. Only 51 sites of the total 921 sites in the State are reported
to meet all of the following criteria:
1. Refuse is covered daily.
2. Site is sightly.
3. Flowing paper is controlled,
4. No burning is permitted.
5. No leaching problems are experienced.
6. No surface drainage problems are experienced.
7. Any rodent, fly, bird, dust or odor control programs needed are
provided.
8. Lowest part or fill is not below ground water table.
12-2
-------
These 61 sites collectively provide disposal service for only a population of
620,000 people. (No New York City sites are included in this group.) As part
of the State-wide survey, the investigator of each site was to report if the site
is a sanitary landfill. Of the 921 sites investigated, 168 were judged to be
sanitary landfills as compared to only 51 sites reasonably characterized as
sanitary landfills based on the preceding evaluation. This same trend (rejec-
tion of about two-thirds of the sites judged to be sanitary landfills) was also
encountered in the national survey. As expressed in An Interim Report - The
National Solid Wastes Survey (2) prepared by the USPHS, "this would sug-
gest that perhaps there is some confusion about this term (sanitary landfill),
and that some retraining is in order".
A re inspection ot 26 of these sites in the summer of 1969, revealed that
only 13 were meeting "sanitary" requirements. Thus, it is apparent that
operations can vary. In fact, a sanitary landfill can become unsanitary in one
day if daily cover is not provided.
CAPACIl IES Of- LAND DISPOSAL SITLS
The unused capacities of existing sites are important data in developing a
solid waste disposal plan. Unfortunately, this type of data is scarce. Not even
the National Survey of Community Solid Waste Practices yielded significant
information on unused disposal areas or unused capacities. However, the
National Survey data on anticipated life and usable land disposal area of each
site are helpful in the determination of unused capacity.
Tables 12-2 and 123 list the reported information on a county-wide basis.
The county totals and State totals are not complete because remaining life
was not reported for 27 percent of the State sites, and usable land disposal
area was not reported for 25 percent of the State sites; however, most of
these serve populations of 5,000 or less. Thus, the information reflects the
best available estimate of remaining site life.
The information in Table 12-2 shows that there are very few large-scale land
disposal operations in New York State. Only 4 percent of the State sites have
100 acres or more for use; however, these sites account for close to half of
the total land used in the State for land disposal.
While Table 12-3 is limited somewhat by the lack of data on the life and area
of a number of sites, its information indicates some counties will not require
any significant increase in capacity in the next 5-10 years, but many other
counties will be using up most of the remaining capacity in five years or less.
Overall, 40 percent of the sites will be exhausted in five years or less. It
should be noted that when estimating remaining site life during the survey,
the assumption was made that existing operating conditions will continue in
the future. This is doubtful at the many sites which practice open burning.
123
-------
Open burning reduces the volume of refuse, and if banned because of its
impact on air quality, two-thirds of the sites in the state would start consum-
ing land at a much greater rate. However, technological advances in such
areas as compaction and shredding should greatly modify this relationship.
For example, compaction can accomplish approximately the same degree of
reduction in refuse volume as does open burning.
The impact of tighter operational control on landfill site capacity and the
increasingly stringent water pollution control regulations threaten the con-
tinued use of many sites; therefore, many communities and counties with
apparently sufficient land disposal capacity may have to find new sites far
sooner than they had anticipated. However, the true magnitude of land usage
problems is not known for the majority of disposal sites, because many
reports did not estimate unused areas, much less the unused capacity. If
consumption rates are needed for planning purposes, a rate of 6-9 acre feet
per year for 10,000 people is reasonab e.
FACILITIES
Solid waste facilities include incinerators, grinders, crushers, transfer sta-
tions, compost plants, conical burners, and hog feeding lots. Solid waste
facilities are used to alter the form of solid wastes to facilitate subsequent
transportation and disposal. Although they may provide for disposal of some
refuse, they cannot provide for complete disposal. In the State-wide prelimi-
nary survey, 77 incinerators^, 12 transfer stations, E> hog feeding lots and 1
conical burner were investigated.
INCINERATORS
Table 12-4 is a listing of county-wide incinerator data; as indicated in the
footnotes, some assumptions had to be made and some supplemental data
were required from New York State Department of Health to complete this
table. The principal advantage of an incinerator (centralized location) is
reflected by this table - the weighted distance of the incinerators in the State
to the population centers served is 4.8 miles.
Although a considerable number of incinerators are in operation in the State,
many of them are approaching or are well past the useful life of 20 years
considered to apply to incinerators. New air pollution control regulations
also threaten the continued use of many others. Preliminary evaluations
indicate it is probable that no incinerator built prior to 1961 will meet these
Four sewage sludge incinerators were also investigated.
12-4
-------
regulations, and possibly none built prior to 1964. Only the newer incinera-
tors have air pollution equipment or have the capability to add satisfactory
air pollution equipment at a reasonable cost. Only 20 incinerators have been
built since 1961 and these account for only 30 percent of the total capacity
in the State; of these 20 post-1961 incinerators, 10 have been built since
1964, and they account for only 13 percent of the total capacity. Table 12-5
is a listing of the survey information which pertains to the environmental
aspects of the incinerators in the State. This information is far from being
sufficient to determine the feasibility of the future use of any incinerator.
OTHER FACILITIES
There are twelve transfer stations in New York State; nine of these are
located in New York City. The New York City transfer stations all have a
rated capacity of 1,500 tons/day, an average age of 21 years, and are
operated at equivalent rates ranging from 250 tons/day to 3,000 tons/day.
The other three are located in Broome, Erie, and Otsego Counties. They have
a much smaller capacity and have an average age of only 6 years. Only one of
the twelve transfer stations (the oldest one) is thought to be unsightly; four
transfer stations are deemed to have dust problems, but none has a dust
control program.
There are 48 hog-feeding lots with a hog population of 100 or more each;
together they dispose of 139 tons per day of garbage, primarily from com-
mercial sources. Five hog-feeding lots, located in Albany, Genesee, and
Rensselaer Counties, collectively dispose of close to 1,000 tons annually of
garbage from commercial, agricultural, and institutional activities. One lot
has been operated for only 4 years while the average age of the others is 24
years. This method of disposal is not envisioned as playing a significant role
in the future because of the necessity of segregating and cooking the wastes.
COSTS
Cost information was reported by the preliminary State-wide solid waste
survey. Included are annual operating cost data for practically all sites and
facilities and replacement cost data for most facilities. From this informa-
tion, unit cost per ton values can be calculated for those sites and facilities
which reported annual tonnage handled or design capacities.
LAND DISPOSAL SITES
The calculated operating cost per ton for the land disposal sites in New York
State vary considerably. Throughout the operational size range of 500 to
100,000 tons handled per year, the costs varied by a factor of more than ten.
This variation reflects the innumerable cost and operating variables that can
exist at land disposal operations. While some sites may be nothing more than
12-5
-------
open dumps, the operations at other sites may closely follow sanitary landfill
standards even though a poor site location may require extensive site mainte-
nance or hauling suitable cover material.
In an attempt to reduce this wide variation in cost, sites which were reported
to be sanitary landfills and covered daily, were selected for comparison. Even
with these restrictions, the costs will show a wide degree of variability.
Figure 12-1 illustrates this variability. Also shown in this figure is a cost
relationship developed from information reported in a sales publication (3)
by an equipment manufacturer. The theoretical cost relationship is for
properly-operated and maintained landfills handling a minimum of 60,000
tons of refuse per year, but has been axtended to cover the range of tonnage
handled by sites in New York State. For the most part, the theoretical costs
are higher, which is probably due to -;he cost-cutting practices of inadequate
landfills.
INCINERATORS
Fifty incinerators located in New York State reported operating costs rang-
ing from $0.21 to $28.00 per ton handled. The wide variation in costs is
difficult to account for, because the limited data provided by the survey are
too general. Therefore, no reasonable unit cost versus design capacity rela-
tionship can be formulated. Most of the incinerators in New York State are
operating at costs much lower than the theoretical costs reported in the
literature (3). For purposes of comparison: Rogus (4) asserted that a
modern, 1,000-TPD incinerator would cost $4.70 per ton to operate (exclud-
ing amortization); the results of the National Solid Waste Survey (2) indi-
cated that the older incinerators without air pollution equipment operate at
an average cost of $4.05 to $5.37 per ton, while newer incinerators, which
tend to have air pollution equipment, operate at an average cost of $3.27 per
ton.
Forty-five incinerators also provided information about replacement costs
based on estimates of current design and construction costs. Significantly, 50
percent of the estimates fall in the range $6,000-$12,000 per design ton, and
only 15 percent of the estimates an; higher than $12,000. In contrast, a
recent study by Rogus (4) indicates that capital costs for new plants are
much higher; a rather detailed estimate for a modern 1,OOOTPD incinerator
gave a figure of $12,500 per ton, and smaller incinerators obviously have
higher per ton capital costs than this. Tighter operating controls, air pollu-
tion abatement, and the increased demand of the solid waste problem have
all put a premium on incinerator versatility and efficient operation. These
factors coupled with the rising cost of labor and materials suggest capital
costs of at least $12,000 per ton.
12-6
-------
TRANSFER STA T/ONS
Ten truck to truck transfer stations in New York State provided enough data
to calculate unit operating costs. The costs vary from $0.02 to $1.60 per ton
handled. The average operating cost for transfer stations as reported by the
National Solid Wastes Survey is $1.10 per ton, somewhat higher than those
reported for the New York transfer stations.
127
-------
REFERENCES
1, Banta, J., et al, Sanitary Landfill, ASCE Manual of Engineering Prac-
tice - No. 39, American Society of Civil Engineers, New York, N. Y.
(1959).
2. Black, Ralph J., et al. The National Solid Wastes Survey-An Interim
Report, USPHS, October 1968.
3. Bell, John M., "Sanitary Landfills," Facts for Allis-Chalmers Top Sales-
men, April 1968.
4. Rogus, C. A., "Incinerator Costs," APWA Reporter, March 1969.
12-8
-------
Ill
III
*=£i
6|g£
fc v °- "
pp
E 8 "
!=|
II!
.2 «
Q c/5
2 §
c 2
o
I
Hi
I?
O « O O
--rsirviN^-^^-^i---^ CN »- i-
-------
^ ,- -
*ii4
JiS
III
nl
PI*
il
II
I- o
II
! =
- \ l- I » i M
i I l I i I I I
III!
-------
Sj
Il
o o n t o
-00
£ w
.E ^Sg1
^ C ||1
O O (D O
or
o n o
o> to c*
n
I I
-------
8 ID m in oi eft in
o> o in in W CN
m -- n
^ «T3
15
»- CN Q m n r-* in
s s
SS
O O O CD O
OOtNOOO
S 2
£
IN _
M
I 5
I- -a
ooooooooooooooo oooooo
LnOOOOOOOO
8 8 8 ° £ 8
(N IF- ^- CN T
OOOOOO
ooooooooooooooo oooooo
*-oooooooo«-*-^-ocs oooooo
ill!
t- E -n">
= £ I S |
o uj £ £ £
.$
!!
-------
- .
III
~
in CN
QJ tD
b -
CN o> CM
to i *
O- f-
« * < * CN
CN
CN
.Q C
a O
S s
OOOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOO Q O O
o n o
» ^-
1 oiCN-oooo oo i-
--»-OOOCNO*-O«-'-'-OCNO OOOOJ
II1
«- . CN 00 CO O (D
f> 22 ^ "- CM
I I
522
S S S
> S 5
B ? 8
a a
o o
f) CO CO PO
r
6
o £
s §
a &
r- CM
-------
o M r**
c\ to (n
S]
JS £;
i? I
!
6
I
Is
K
c
5
_*:
c
n
(0
V
<
C
C
6
TJ
«
I
'Si
O
S
J5
"o
o
Z
"o
D
z
Irt
aj
C^
"o
z
§
^
S
^~
o
3
6
|
1
A
S
a
O)
6
1
»
o
1
3
o
>
in
c
0
03
1
£
1
<
«
<
1
O
jg
&
<
£
h
<
S
t/i
X
c
1
§0-0000000^00-00 OOOOO
in" ""
' 1
OO(OO^-«~OOO^~OO(NOO OO^fOO
« N 1
^
tgoooooooooooooo ooooo
CN
gOQOOOOQOOCNOOr^tO UlOOOO
tBtn OO (*} CM ui o
I- (N ^ ,-,-1 T- ^- CM ^.
O^*lflCOQ*TlOLO(N(fl{N^-(Na>inaOtf>tor».aritf>tscocriO r^^-tonto
CNT ^CNinCJ Tf^-"~CN
CsOOOOQOQOOOOOOO OOOOO
OCitnOC*)OO)COCNlflCOCfN t(*lO)*00
8 > c fc
"£-o£*a> c 2tSo>
1 1 H l H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i ! i H i
-°-!8uooiS^3-o-5 S £ £ £ £
u>t-i-^S S5ss>-
55§w5§?gjaSSSS5 SSSSS
-------
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOO
OOOCNOi « *-OOOOOO^
I- "
T
CN CM *~
^ 4
o 23 <
O'-ooomooooO'-ooo
-
oo m
»- CO *~
o5tocO(DO
i r- c*i 0)
CM «
CO
csi
_0)
n
'_!
S
CO
lu
U)
1
a
T:
3
CJl
c
]E
E
0)
nc
c
1
5
J 3
fs
Remain
r
g
n"
£ Al
$
|
f
l§
in
V
V
0 £
A>
£ o
S fe
(N -
>
1
<
o
CO
Allegany
s
CN
1
m
S
^p
0)
1
CO
s
s
3
D)
D
c
x 2
m C
a 2
UJ U_
co r-
O)
Fulton
CO
*r en
Genesee
Greene
2 S
Hamilton
CN
-------
OO <"> «- O O O *-
~*~°OOOOOC)O'-Or-
oo o - o o o o
O O O IN O O n O O <- o O
tocNor^
R
i-
R ~ ?,
D
8
£ £
jQ C.
£ 8
lAll
o-S
OOOOOOmCMOO*-
-------
oo^oooooo« o o « o o oooool
oo ooooooo
o o o o o o o
O J !
OOCNOr-OOOOOOOOOO OOOOO
'-toin
*- *- co
Oi-oOOOOOOt-O'-OoO O »-
°l
-0 5
K.8
1°
£ o
CU
a:
2 2 *°
3 ±- -=
C C oj -C
I 5 * I 8
5 i I i I
in m m m CD
-------
Teble 12-4
County-wid" Incinerator Data
County
01 Albany
02 Bronx
08 Chemung
14 Dutchess
16 Erie
17 Franklin
22 Herkimer
24 Kings
28 Monroe
29 Montgomery
30 Nassau
31 New York
32 Niagara
33 Oneida
36 Orange
40 Putnam
41 Queens
44 Rockland
46 Saratoga
48 Schohane
51 Steuben
52 Suffolk
53 Sullivan
60 Westchester
Number of
Incinerators
2
1
1
1
5
1
2
4
3
3
13
4
2
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
11
1
13
Total Population
Served
1 5,000s
31,000
13,000
14,000
480,000
4,000
13,000
518,000
317,000
23,000
1,126,000
200,000
57,000
3,000
59,000
5,000
123,000
55,000
6,000
3.0004
17.0004
161,000*
2,000
544.000
Weighted
Distance to
Population Center^
(miles)
04
40
30
1 0
46
1 0
1 0
32
24
1 9
65
1.5
1 0
1 0
1 7
50
4 1
150
1 0
20
03
46"
1 0
47
Averaqe
Ager
(years)
21 6
350
400
60
21 9
390
301
97
203
109
92
230
123
250
177"
71 0
174
40
<80
300
?1 0
12.2
20.0
111
Total Rated
Capacity
(Tons/Day)
964
750
80
300
1,055
887
55
4,000
1,100
17Q8
4,325
3,160
340
83?
2904
40
1,300
300
27
244
72
1.744'
30
_2^§&
Equivalent
Operating
Rate2
(Tons/Day)
23
423
119
420
1 ,20Q5'6
88
64
3,120
819
1848
3,603
2,326
28 ?6
83
546s
40
981
140
46
6"
109
2,211
34
-Z32L
State Totaii
3,7 B9,000
48
154
22,324
19,199
1 Based on population servea
f_Based on extending the present operating rate to a 24 hour/day 7 day/week operation
3Data m Facility Description Report, as corrected by New York State Department of Health
^Data void m Facility Description Report supplemented by data from New York State Department of Health
^Operating rate not given for one incinerator, calculated from esurnated tons received yearly
"Operating rate not given for one incinerator and could not be calculated from available data, assumed to be equal to rated capacity
^ Rated capacity not given for one or more incinerators, assumed to be equal to operating rate
°Rated capacity and operating capacity not given for one incinerator, neither one could be calculated from available data
Source Data extracted by Consultant from data collected by Mew York State during National Survey (1968)
-------
" > > 03 - (^, I
CN O t-
O O O : o : ,
; O : o -. '
US
CN
01
-D
CD
h-
£
O
2
1
u
f
pects of li
V)
<
1
1
c
O
k~
->
c
LU
^ I
i
u C
0 111
2 o
4* i
c ^
13
*- c
0 O
S §
|E
?">
2-g
n
c/
1
O
o
u
_0>
LU
1
I
U
4)
s
1
it.
Q
j; E
t; -5
S g fe
!"- 1
§Ii
= s
§>2
0)
c 1
E c
ii
CNOOOOOQOOO^-i
ooooooooooot
> «- O O «- O CN
o o o o o o o'^ 0% o o o »- i
5 CO O ^-f O)
> CO O OOJ CN
)«- o «)| m
'"Lf'^r
5±£
o ^ 2 i
O re .D
S 8 |j 3
-g E I S
-Is.
Ilii
-------
EXISTING LANDFILLS: OPERATING COSTS
VS. YEARLY TONNAGE HANDLED
FIGURE 12 - 1
CL
O
J
O
O :=
u<
O -
z £
§
6
§o
o
§
i
IU O 00
O = =
»
NO! / ISOD
-» O
-------
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
MUNICIPAL WASTES
For the purposes of discussion, municipal wastes are those wastes attribut-
able to non-manufacturing activities of population groupings, and include:
residential wastes, commercial wastes, institutional wastes, demolition and
construction debris, and street sweepings.
DATA TYPES AND SOURCES
The State-wide survey was designed to provide the following information:
1. For each land disposal site and incinerator:
a. Quantity of solid waste received and whether or not this was
weighed or estimated.
b. Percentage breakdown of this waste by weight into house-
hold, commercial, institutional, agricultural, industrial, and
incinerator residue categories.
c. Each community served and the population served within
that community.
d. Types of waste rejected.
2. For basic communities:
a. Quantities of waste collected for twelve categories, e.g. demo-
lition and construction debris.
b. Number of garbage grinders and household incinerators and
whether or not backyard burning is permitted and practiced.
13-1
-------
3. For industrial and agricultural firms:
a. Description and quant ty of waste generated.
b. Percentage (by volume) of waste disposed of on-site.
It was decided to combine commercial, household, and institutional wastes
under the one category of municipal wastes because it was difficult to differ-
entiate the three in the data. Many communities in the Community Descrip-
tion Report included commercial and household wastes in the category of
combined waste. The percentage breakdown in the Land Disposal and Fa-
cility Investigation Reports for commercial, household, and institutional
waste is believed to be inaccurate because:
1. Unless different collection vehicles were used for commercial and
household wastes, it could sometimes be difficult at the site to
distinguish between the two types.
2. Some sites reported the total wastes received from a municipality
as being 100 percent household wastes, which in most cases is not
true.
3. The breakdown of wastes was estimated to the nearest 10 percent
(to indicate the receipt of some institutional or commercial waste,
even though very slight, some sites may have reported the mini-
mum of 10 percent).
Also included under the category of municipal wastes are demolition and
construction debris, street sweepings, and park refuse. Abandoned vehicles
and water and wastewater treatment sludges were excluded.
Very few land disposal sites or communities reported quantities received,
and almost all who did based their information on estimates rather than on
actual weighings. Most incinerators reported this information; however, not
all of this could be utilized, as many communities served by incinerators
were also served by land disposal sites which did not report waste quantities
received; thus, the data could not be correlated.
PER CAPITA MUNICIPAL WASTE COLLECTION
For data that could be correlated to a specific population, the total waste
quantity received was multiplied by the fraction of commercial plus house-
hold and institutional waste. This result was divided by the population
served to obtain a collection rate in pounds per capita per day. Oftentimes,
this result had to be correlated with collection rates calculated for other
incinerators and land disposal sites sen/ing the same community to determine
13-2
-------
a representative value. If a land disposal site or incinerator served two or
more communities, any collection rate obtained was assigned only to the
major community served, unless there were two or more prominent com-
munities being served. Likewise, collection rates were obtained from the
Community Description Report by dividing the quantity of municipal waste
collected by the community population. Although many land disposal sites
and incinerators reject significant municipal wastes such as garbage, bulky
appliances, and construction debris, no effort was made to account for this
in the reports, and consequently the collection rates determined for these
facilities are expected to be lower.
There are other possible data limitations. Even though the quantity of demo-
lition and construction wastes can be significant, there was no specific cate-
gory for reporting these wastes in the Land Disposal Site Investigation Re-
port and the Facility Investigation Report. It is assumed that they were
included under the category of household or commercial wastes and not
under the category of industrial wastes (many communities which could be
assumed to have demolition and construction wastes were reported to have
only household and commercial wastes). Another possible limitation is that
some of the larger communities are served by more than one facility; the
percent population reported to be served by each of these facilities is only an
estimate, the accuracy of which estimate is questionable in many instances.
Finally, some estimates of the quantities of wastes received were reported in
cubic yards without identifying the degree of compaction, if any, in this
estimate. A density of 365 pounds per cubic yard was selected as a reason-
able value for those estimates reported in cubic yards.
Per capita collection rates were determined in the preceding manner for
approximately 200 different communities with populations greater than
5,000. Approximately 50 of these rates appear to be more valid than the
others because they were based on actual weighings, they involved incinera-
tor data (an estimate of waste received at an incinerator tends to be more
accurate than an estimate of waste received at a land disposal site), or they
were for communities with somewhat equal results reported both in the
Community Description Report and the Land Disposal Site Investigation
Report (these reports are on somewhat different bases).
As previously discussed, solid waste production depends upon the make-up
of the community or area being considered. The quantity of municipal waste
collected can be expected to depend in general on population and on popula-
tion density. Although there is little substantiating data, the following obser-
vations indicate this dependence:
1. The more densely populated municipalities are able to offer better
municipal services, such as increased frequency of collection of
refuse. There is a tendency of households both to generate larger
13-3
-------
amounts of wastes with increased frequency of refuse collection
and also to rely less on on-site disposal such as backyard burning.
2. The more densely populated urban areas are also able to support
more institutional and commercial activity per capita, resulting in
an increased per capita production of municipal waste. Regional-
ized shopping may also add to this.
3. Urban renewal, a major source of demolition and construction
debris, is usually more extensive in the larger urban centers than in
the more rural communities
For these reasons, efforts were made to relate per capita collection with
population and population density. The approximately 200 collection rates
obtained from the results of the State-wide survey were grouped in three
levels of population density for four ranges of population (twelve separate
groupings). Probability graphs made of the groupings are extremely frag-
mented, indicating that some of the data are invalid or at least that factors
other than population and density are involved. The 50 percent probability
values as read from these graphs are shown in Table 13-1. The values for
densities less than 4,000 people per square mile are based on a substantial
majority of the 200 data points and seem to be most reasonable.
Describing per capita collection by a continuous mathematical relationship is
an alternative to the use of discrete values for various population and density
groupings. Little correlation could be made between population and per
capita collection; however, some apparently reasonable relationships were
identified between density and per capita collection. Figure 13-1 is a graph
of density versus the collection rates selected to be more valid through the
criteria discussed previously in this chapter. The general trend is for per
capita collection to increase up to a certain density and then decrease. The
apparent range for this transition is around 8,000 to 10,000 people per
square mile, which is also the density range generally marking the transition
from single-family dwelling communities to multi-family dwelling communi-
ties. The multi-family dwelling units have less lawn and garden cuttings, tend
to operate their own incinerators, and are generally occupied by families
with lower income (a factor found in the New York City study (1) to be
directly proportional to refuse production). Also, the larger stores in the
urban areas tend to practice more salvage of paperboard and other similar
wastes than do the smaller stores associated with the less densely populated
areas.
A non-linear approximation of the selected values of per capita waste collec-
tion versus population density (in the range of 500-12,000 people per square
mile) can be expressed by the functional:
13-4
-------
u= 1.54 log D -0.68
where: u = per capita waste collection rate, in Ibs/capita/day
D = population density, in people/square mile
The point of transition from increasing per capita collection rate to decreas-
ing per capita collection rate could not be defined due to the lack of data;
however, it seems reasonable to use a factor of 5.6 Ibs/capita/day for all
cities with densities greater than 12,000 people per square mile. For densities
less than 500 people per square mile, a factor of 3.4 Ibs/capita/day seems
reasonable.
In the calculation of solid waste quantities in the current study, each city
and village with a population of 10,000 or more was treated individually,
while all the smaller cities and villages in a given county were grouped
together as a county remainder. The previously-described logarithmic rela-
tionship was used to calculate the per capita waste collection rate (and the
solid waste quantities) for each larger (210,000) city or village except New
York City. However, the relationship was not applicable to New York City
or to the county remainders, and per capita collection rates specific to these
two situations had to be determined by other means. Several approaches
were used for county remainders. For those counties where solid waste
planning studies had been conducted, a county remainder collection rate was
usually determined from information generated in the studies. In other coun-
ties, the county remainder rate was determined directly from the results of
the State-wide survey if all facilities in the county had reported on the solid
wastes received. In still other counties, the waste collection rate was de-
veloped by assuming that the population density of each community in the
county remainder was less than 4,000 people per square mile and then
selecting a representative average rate based on the information in Table
13-1. The county remainder collection rates are listed in Table 13-2.
WASTE COLLECTION RATE TRENDS
Practically every study and all historic data indicate that per capita solid
waste quantities will increase in the future. A good indicator of this is the
fact that the rate of increase of the Gross National Product (value of goods
and services) has been greater than the rate of increase of population. Also of
significance are the general opinions that effective collection of waste is
increasing at a higher rate than is waste generation and that packaging with
disposable containers will increase.
Many studies have reported expected rates of increase varying from 0.5
percent to 4.0 percent per year; some are for all wastes, while others are only
for residential wastes. A few studies have generated some apparently valid
13-5
-------
rates of increase by relying on historical data. One of these studies by the
APWA (2) indicated that normal (non-bulky) commercial and residential per
capita wastes will increase at a rate of 1.55 percent per year. By averaging
historical data obtained from several communities across the nation which
had maintained better than average data, a 1966 study (3) determined that
the per capita quantity of collected municipal wastes has increased at a rate
of 2.5 percent per year. New York City (4) has maintained sufficient records
for a long enough time to be able to project an 8 percent per year increase in
per capita values for bulky residential refuse and a 4-1/2 percent per year
increase in per capita values for bulky commercial refuse. Based on the
APWA and New York City projections and representative weighings of bulky
and non-bulky wastes, as reported n a well-prepared study (4) for a New
York county, per capita municipal v/aste quantities will increase at a rate of
around 2 percent per year for "low projection" populations and over 3
percent per year for "high projection" populations.
These reported rates of increase are applicable to per capita collection rates
determined in this study because the basic data are waste collection data
rather than waste production data. The actual rate of change of per capita
values for specific communities will depend on such factors as:
1. The collection of waste is expected to improve in effectiveness.
This increase in waste collected should be more significant in the
low-density areas than in the high-density cities.
2. Increasingly stringent air quality regulations could, in the near
future, preclude the economic use of apartment incinerators and
prohibit backyard burning of refuse in certain areas.
3. Communities, presently with low and medium density popula-
tions, can expect increased land development and construction,
with attendant wastes. As less and less land remains undeveloped,
construction waste will tend to be replaced by garden and lawn
cuttings. This should continue for some years. Older cities should
continually be the subject of increased urban renewal with its
substantial wastes.
4. Commercial activities may decline in many high-density communi-
ties if the trend of regional and suburban shopping centers con-
tinues.
Valid data are not available to develop a mathematical relationship between
such factors and the specific rates of increase; however, it seems reasonable
to assume that per capita collected quantities of municipal wastes will in-
crease at a rate from 2 percent to 3 percent per year, with greater increases
in the suburbs and low-density areas than in the cities. Consequently, for this
13-6
-------
study the per capita collection rates are estimated to increase at a rate of 2
percent per year for cities and villages greater than 10,000 population, and 3
percent per year for county remainders. New York City will be projected at
3 percent per year, to reflect the increases from urban renewal and to reflect
the higher actual data indicated earlier.
POPULATION AND PROJECTIONS
It is important in this study to identify geographical distribution of solid
wastes. Since a correlation between population density and solid waste quan-
tities was established, the application of density mapping was explored. The
Harvard SYMAP computer mapping routine (Version 3) was evaluated and
determined applicable to this study. Since this is the first application of a
rather sophisticated mathematical tool in solid waste planning, data had to
be developed specifically for this study.
Chapter Five presented a discussion of current and future population and
density levels by Economic Areas and by counties within the State. These
same basic population data were used in the determination of current and
projected municipal wastes. Population projections for counties and all
Minor Civil Divisions for the five-year intervals from 1965 to 2015, inclusive,
were obtained from the New York State Office of Planning Coordination.
County land area in square miles was taken from the 1968 City-County Data
Book, published by the U. S. Bureau of Census. Land area and density for
principal cities and villages of 10,000 or more population were obtained
from the New York State Department of Health, 1968 Solid Waste Inven-
tory Data, Basic Community Description Report. Because the computer
mapping routine had a limitation on the number of data entries, only cities
and villages with populations of 10,000 or more were treated individually;
the smaller communities were grouped into county remainders. The cities
and villages account for approximately two thirds of the State population,
and the county remainders account for the other third.
Following the procedure prescribed by the derivation of relevant per capita
waste collection rates, the population, land area, and density for cities and
villages in excess of 10,000 population were recorded. Population, land area,
and density for county remainders were derived by simple subtraction and
division. Checks were made to ensure consistency of total county popula-
tions. These figures were derived and recorded for the selected target years
of 1965, 1970, 1975, 1985, and 1995.
For computer mapping purposes, each city and village was assigned a row-
column coordinate which most nearly represented its actual geographic posi-
tion. For county remainders, a moment centroid technique was used to
determine the geographic center of remaining population and the
13-7
-------
corresponding row-column coordinate. For total County information, the
same moment centroid technique was used to determine center of total
population. Population Density Maps 1, 2, and 3, previously discussed in
Chapter Five, are based on the total county population centers.
EXISTING AND PROJECTED WASTES
Two computer based procedures were used to determine the existing and
projected quantities of solid waste, i-or cities and villages with population
densities between 500 and 12,000 people per square mile, the equation
described earlier in this chapter was used to compute an unadjusted per
capita waste collection rate. For cities and villages with population densities
of less than 500 or more than 12,000 people per square mile, 3.4 and 5.6
Ibs/capita/day, respectively, were used as the unadjusted waste collection
rate. The rate was then adjusted for growth by applying a 2 percent com-
pound interest function for every year since 1968 (the base year for the
unadjusted rate). The resultant adjusted collection rate was then multiplied
by the city or village population of the desired target year to yield total
waste collected in pounds per day for that year. This was then converted to
tons per year of total waste for that municipality.
Values of the remainder of counties were derived by adjusting the predeter-
mined county remainder specific waste collection factor for 1968 using a
compound interest function with a rate of increase of 3 percent per year for
every year since 1968. The resultant adjusted rate was then multiplied by the
county remainder population in the desired target year to yield total waste
collected in pounds per day for that year, which was then converted to tons
per year of total waste.
The results of these two operations were added to yield total county waste
collected in tons per year. This two-step procedure was found to be more
reliable than an operation which would directly determine the total munici-
pal waste collected in a county with no intermediate steps. Table 13-3 illus-
trates the results of this two-step procedure for a selected county. Although
computer maps were executed both for municipality with remainder of
county, and for total county waste data, only the latter were used for
purposes of first-round analysis. To obtain a useful differentiation on the
maps, total county wastes for the target year were divided by total county
land area yielding collected municipal wastes per square mile for each target
year.
Total collected municipal wastes for each county and the overall State total
are presented as tons per year in Table 13-4 and as tons per year per square
mile on Maps 9 through 11. As shown in Table 13-4, total collected muni-
cipal wastes for the state of New York were determined to be about
13,640,000 tons per year in 1965. Projections indicated a total of
13-8
-------
approximately 14,475,000 tons per year by 1970 and finally 38,282,000
tons per year by 1995, or nearly three times the amount of municipal waste
collected in 1965. On a county basis, in 1965 Kings County contributed the
highest, and Hamilton County the lowest total tonnages of collected munici-
pal wastes. Five counties contributed over one million tons of collected
waste in 1965: four New York City counties and Nassau County, immediate-
ly adjacent. The same situation is projected to hold true in 1970; and in that
year, Kings County is projected to contribute slightly more than two million
tons of collected municipal waste, the first county to reach that level. By
1975, seven counties (the five previously mentioned plus Erie and Suffolk
Counties) are projected to contribute more than one million tons of col-
lected municipal waste annually. Again, Kings County is projected to con-
tribute over two million tons. The projections for 1995 indicate that ten
counties (the previous seven plus Monroe, Onondaga, and Westchester) will
contribute over one million tons each of collected municipal waste that year.
Of the ten, Monroe and Onondaga were projected to contribute between one
and two million tons, while the remaining eight contribute over two million
tons each. Suffolk County is projected to contribute the highest amount
(slightly more than five million tons) an increase of some 600 percent during
the 30-year interval from 1965.
The density of waste in collected tons per square mile, presented on Maps 9
through 11, illustrates the relative intensity of waste by area and buildup
with time. The overall pattern depicted is one of a major increase in munici-
pal waste collected in those urbanizing counties which make up the Hudson
River-Mohawk Valley State development corridor. Maps for succeeding years
illustrate the general growth expected and imply the extension of major
municipal waste sources out from existing central cities. Information from
these and succeeding maps, influenced by other data, is used in the discus
sion and delineation of tentative service areas presented in Chapter Nineteen.
Chapters Fourteen and Fifteen will present the definition and derivation of
industrial and agricultural wastes, also important in the delineation of tenta-
tive service areas.
13-9
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Population and Refuse Projections", Study for New York City Depart-
ment of Sanitation, performed by Foster D. Snell, Inc., New York, New
York (1968).
2. Refuse Collection Practices, American Public Works Association,
(1969).
3. "Technical - Economic Study of Solid Waste Disposal Needs and Prac-
tices: Volume 1 - Municipal Inventory", Combustion Engineering, Inc.,
(1967).
4. "An Action Plan for Solid Wastes Disposal in Suffolk County, New
York: Volume 2 - Detailed Report", John J. Baffa, Consulting Engi-
neers.
13-10
-------
Table 13-1
Population
0-4,999
5,000-19,999
20,000-99,999
100,000
Municipal Solid Waste
Collection Rates1
Ibs/capita/day
Waste Collection Rates by
Population Density Ranges
0-3,999/sq.mi. 4,000-6,999/sq.mi. 7,000+/sq.mi.
3.3
3.6 5.0 4.6
4.1 4.1 4.6
4.6 5.1 5.6
1
Consultant's Analysis.
-------
Table 13-2
Municipal Solid Waste
County Remainder Waste Collection Rates ^
Ibs/capita/day
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
3.9
3.3,
3.93
3.8
3.3
3.3
3-30
4.72
3.4
3.5
3.02
3.3
3.3
3.7
3.8
3.3
3.4
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.3.
3.93
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.9
3.3
4-40
3.93
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
St. Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenactady
Schoharie
Schuyler
Seneca
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
3.5
3.5
3.9
3.4
3.7
3.3
3.4
2.52
3.5
3.93
3.5
3.9
4.0
3.4
3.4
4.0
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.4
4.43
3.4
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.4
3.4
3.8
3.3
3.3
1
Consultant's Analysis.
Determined directly from reported results of statewide survey.
3Determined from county/city studies.
-------
Table 13-3
Illustrative Table Showing
Principal City/Village, Count" Remainder,
and Total County Wastes for
Westchester County - 19701
Peekskill
Ossining
Tarrytown
White Plains
Port Chester
Rye
Scarsdale
Mamaroneck
Mount Vernon
New Rochelle
Yonkers
County Remainder
Total County
Population
19,491
18,662
12,600
56,362
24,960
16,434
20,480
17,673
76,010
76,812
190,634
416,736
946,854
Municipal Waste
tons/year
15,957
16,030
11,448
48,184
22,986
12,710
16,077
15,009
70,849
67,205
174,690
305,461
776,534
Based on consultant's analysis of information from the Office of
Planning Coordination and the 1968 National Solid Waste Survey.
-------
Tabie 134
Existing and Future
Total Collected Municipal Wastes by County1
(1,000 Tons/Year)
County
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Years
1965
234
28
1,123
177
55
55
105
91
29
57
32
32
27
160
290
22
29
38
39
20
2
45
61
1,995
14
29
36
533
41
1,187
1,153
194
205
376
50
170
1970
245
29
1,169
182
55
55
107
95
31
60
33
33
26
182
922
22
29
37
40
21
2
47
60
2,049
15
31
39
569
40
1,225
1,158
196
213
398
52
203
1975
297
35
1,373
218
63
63
124
114
37
72
33
39
30
237
1,076
26
34
41
48
25
3
55
67
2,352
17
38
50
688
44
1,446
1,313
226
253
482
63
279
1985
444
50
1,384
319
84
86
170
169
55
107
55
55
42
418
1,519
57
49
53
70
36
4
79
87
3,104
23
56
82
1,022
55
2,058
1,699
324
388
723
93
518
1995
576
71
2,581
478
115
117
238
248
81
159
79
82
38
755
2,162
52
73
71
104
53
5
111
119
4,104
32
87
134
1,522
70
2,821
2,197
462
537
1,091
136
927
1
Consultant's Analysis.
-------
Table 13-4
(continued)
Years
1965
22
65
29
27
1,435
119
191
137
80
63
133
14
9
21
71
759
30
28
54
94
34
31
49
716
22
11
1970
24
69
29
35
1,539
124
222
178
85
69
135
14
9
22
72
990
32
31
59
104
36
31
53
111
22
11
1975
29
85
35
52
1,848
148
291
237
104
87
159
17
11
26
84
1,356
38
39
73
128
42
37
65
956
26
14
1985
44
133
49
104
2,617
216
506
425
158
139
228
23
17
38
116
2,667
54
64
112
197
61
52
104
1,447
37
19
1995
63
206
71
204
3,624
322
858
745
241
223
327
32
24
54
160
5,270
77
103
177
307
89
78
167
2,141
54
28
County
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
St. Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
Schuyler
Seneca
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
New York State 13,639 14,475 17,382 25,681 38,282
-------
UNIT MUNICIPAL WASTE COLLECTION
VS POPULATION DENSITY
FIGURE 13-1
CO
O
O
a:
O
K-
z
01
(AYa/dYD/Sfll) NOIiD3nOD 31SYM
UJ OO
3 2 ^
< > O
ss;
i- 4 "J
-5 T
|K ^ ^
UJ j= uj-
^ C/5
^ uj U
a:
-------
CHAPTER FOURTEEN
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Industrial wastes include an almost unbelievable conglomeration of materials
which range from paper used in product packaging, to complex chemicals,
both solids and liquids. Very little information is available on these wastes,
and frequently the industry which produces the waste has no knowledge of
its impact on conventional solid waste disposal practices.
The National Solid Wastes Survey was only peripherally concerned with
identification of industrial wastes. Although the survey results provide an
estimate of the percentage of industrial waste in the total waste received, the
information does not permit definition of industrial waste characteristics. A
separate survey conducted by New York State asked for gross tons of waste
produced per year, along with certain basic information such as number of
employees and square feet of manufacturing area.
This survey was conducted through questionnaires with approximately 50
percent response. However, very little information was reported on solid
waste quantities, no information was obtained on waste characteristics, and
much of the reported information is questionable. For example, one chemi-
cal company with 22 employees reported a waste production of 10,000 tons
per day. When compared to the approximately 300 tons per day from the
largest chemical plant in the United States, employing over 12,000 people,
the reported item is subject to considerable doubt.
In the same manner as with municipal wastes, it was the task of this study to
analyze available data, determine its sufficiency, make projections of waste
quantities into the future, and define further data needs. The last element is
discussed in subsequent chapters, but discussion of the first three follows in
this chapter.
14-1
-------
APPROACH TO WASTE QUANTITY DETERMINATION
As stated above, neither quantitative information or delineation of waste
characteristics was available on a reliable basis from any of the survey data.
It was then necessary to devise some means of forecasting industrial waste
quantities in a manner sufficiently accurate for this study.
If a methodology similar to that used for municipal wastes is to be used
(multiplying the number of projected oroduction units by the projected unit
quantities), a relationship must be established between units of production
and wastes. Previous studies (1) pertaining to water-borne wastes from indus-
tries, have shown a reasonably consistent relationship between wastes dis-
charged and tons of products. While it is reasonable to assume that a similar
relationship would exist for solid wastes, no known studies have been con-
ducted which relate production and solid waste. Furthermore, obtaining
production figures on a regular basis from industrial plants may present
serious difficulty.
Another possible relationship is waste quantity per employee. While it is
recognized that for an individual manufacturing establishment, specific cir-
cumstances could completely distort an "average" condition, it was felt that
waste production rates would not vary significantly within industry groups.
Also, experience with industrial wastes has shown that when dealing with
gross quantities, unit production rates tend to be quite uniform throughout
an industry group. Therefore, the waste generation/employee relationship
was chosen for projection of industrial solid waste quantities in this study.
UNIT WASTE PRODUCTION
Information available in the literature was explored. Two states have been
conducting surveys in the field of industrial solid wastes. California (2) has
collected and published some comprehensive waste data for the fruit proces-
sing, lumber, chemical, and petroleum industries, and has been able to deter-
mine or estimate waste production rales per employee for major SIC (Stan-
dard Industrial Classification) Codes. Pennsylvania's industrial survey is cur-
rently underway, and some of the available results can be applied to deter-
mine approximate breakdown of wastes by type from industry.
The California data were used to approximate the magnitude of industrial
solid waste production throughout New York. The quantity of industrial
solid waste by county was determined by multiplying projected county em-
ployment data from the various County Business Patterns by the per
employee waste production rates determined from California data.
14-2
-------
Many manufacturers, e.g. food processors, have seasonal employment, and
California took special care to base waste production for these manufactur-
ers on man-months rather than man-years. The 1967 County Business Pat-
terns give the count of employees on the payroll as of March and do not
identify seasonal employment. To determine compatible waste production
rates, the 1967 California solid waste tonnages for the various SIC Coded
industries were divided by the total California employment in the cor-
responding SIC Coded industries as taken from the 1967 County Business
Patterns. Since it is reasonable to assume that the ratio of seasonal to March
employment is approximately equal for California and New York,
California-derived waste production rates per employee, determined in the
above manner, can be applied to New York State employment data pro-
jected from County Business Patterns
Table 14-1 is a listing of all per employee waste production rates, by SIC
Codes, which could be determined from California data. Some of these
factors were taken directly from the context of the California report when
seasonal or other factors did not seem important, but most were determined
by dividing the reported tonnages by the corresponding SIC Coded employ-
ment. It is believed that these waste production rates can be applied to New
York State to determine plausible county-wide totals for industrial waste
production. However, these rates should not be used to determine the quan-
tity of waste generated by a particular industry.
There would be no advantage in applying a waste production rate for a
particular SIC Code to New York State if the resulting waste production is
insignificant. To check this, the SIC Coded State employment in 1967 was
multiplied by the corresponding waste production rates to determine total
industrial solid waste in the State. These calculations indicated that major
group 19 (Ordnance), industrial groups 285 (Paints and Varnishes) and 291
(Petroleum Refining), and industry 2411 (Lodging) were insignificant waste
producers from a volume standpoint. Consequently, waste production rates
for these industries and groups were combined with other waste production
rates.
These calculations also substantiate the need for more information on wastes
produced by the primary metals group. Approximately 40 percent of the
total quantity of industrial solid wastes in New York is produced by the
primary metals group. Even though the employment breakdown within the
primary metals group is about the same for New York and California, as
shown in Table 14-2, the preponderance of low unit-waste producing indus-
tries within the primary metals group in a particular county or area could
drastically distort the magnitude of the industrial waste problem there. The
waste production rate for the primary metals group appears to be applicable
to New York State as a whole, but insufficient for determining geographical
distribution of wastes within the State.
14-3
-------
Excluded from the industrial waste category are fruit and vegetable fresh-
pack wastes and mining wastes. Although California determined that fresh-
pack wastes amount to 1.5 tons per man-month, the lack of New York
employment data for this category precluded its inclusion. California did not
study mining wastes.
EXISTING AND PROJECTED EMPLOYMENT
To develop industrial waste quantities, employment in each SIC Code must
be forecast so that the above values may be used to obtain total wastes
generated in the various target years. Existing and projected levels of em-
ployment were presented and discussed in Chapter Six by Economic Areas
and by counties with regard to absolute and relative growth. The accom-
panying computer maps (Maps 4, 5, and 6) of industrial employment density
were based on total employment by county divided by total county land
area for each target year, and represents employees per square mile. One data
point was assigned for each county. The location was determined by a mo-
ment centroid technique.
The employment data for both the existing and the projected levels were
gathered for each of the 62 counties and for the State total from the County
Business Patterns, First Quarter, U. S. Census, for the years 1962, 1965, and
1967. The information was collected for each of the SIC (Standard Indus-
trial Classification) Codes shown in Table 14-1. These were reduced to the
25 SIC Codes shown in Table 14-3 to coincide with the final waste produc-
tion rates developed in the preceding analysis. Forecasts ^ for each county
for SIC Code groupings were provided by the Department of Commerce of
the State of New York.
Using the historic data from 1962, 1965, and 1967, and settingthe base year
as 1965, a modified semi-log projection series was run, using the EDA projec-
tions as iterative control curves to prevent too great an increase or decrease.
Projections were made in five-year increments, beginning with 1965 and
extending to 2000 for each final SIC Code (25) for each county (62). Three
to five growth curves were developed for each SIC for each county. Several
techniques and tests were used to reduce those curves to one final curve for
each SIC within each county. Results for the target years 1965, 1970, 1975,
1985, 1995 were recorded for each SIC Code for each county to be used in
the waste load derivations, and these were then added to yield total indus-
trial employment in each county for each target year.
^Originally prepared (with projections through 1975) by Dr. Curtis Harris,
of the University of Maryland, for the Economic Development Adminis-
tration.
14-4
-------
EXISTING AND PROJECTED INDUSTRIAL WASTES
In contrast to forecasts of municipal wastes, there is no evidence that unit
waste quantities for industrial wastes are growing with time. Therefore, the
same waste production rate for each SIC given in Table 14-3 in
tons/employee/year was multiplied by the existing and projected employ-
ment in that SIC for all target years for each county. The 25 results for each
county were added to yield total industrial waste by county in tons per year.
The county waste totals were then added to obtain State waste totals for
each target year in tons per year. Table 6-3 (Chapter Six) presented total
employment for each county for each target year. Table 14-4 contains the
total waste tonnages derived for each county for each target year in tons per
year and total industrial waste tonnages for the State. Reasonablensss checks
were made by using reported figures from New York State county studies
and other waste surveys whenever available.
The resultant total industrial wastes for each county were divided by total
land area in each county to yield tons/year/square mile. This information
was mapped and is shown on Maps 12 through 14. To further the utility of
the information, resultant total industrial wastes for each county were com-
bined with total municipal wastes for each county and were divided by total
land area. This information is presented on Maps 15 through 17, using the
same scaling factor as was used for the maps of municipal wastes. (The maps
depicting industrial waste tonnages per square mile alone, use a smaller scal-
ing factor to allow greater differentiation.) On both sets, the obvious pattern
is a high intensity in the counties located in and near the principal State
development corridors, with a concomitant low density in rural counties and
in those containing major park lands such as the Forest preserves.
Some interesting facts come to light when the maps depicting industrial
waste density alone are compared with the industrial employment density
maps. In certain counties, employment density is high, while waste density is
low; in other counties, the reverse is true. This is a function of the relative
levels of waste produced from the industries responsible for the high employ-
ment. The best example is the electronics industry (SIC 38), with a very
small waste production rate (9.12 tons/employee/year). Monroe County has
very high employment, principally in this industry, and a high employment
density. However, the resultant waste load is relatively small. The ability to
identify detailed information of this nature will be significant in the later
development of the detailed solid waste plan.
In terms of absolute tons per year, industries in the State of New York
generated about 5,100,000 tons of waste in 1965. This was projected to
decrease slightly in 1970 because of a major loss in certain high waste-
producing industries in several counties. However, by 1985 the total waste
14-5
-------
tonnage is projected to increase to more than 9 million tons per year. The
projection for 1995 indicates a significant increase to a little over 19 million
tons per year, almost 400 percent of the quantity produced in 1965. On a
county basis, industries in Erie County (a heavily industrialized area) in 1965
generated just over one million tons of waste, a level which will increase
steadily through 1995. Total waste in most counties averages less than
50,000 tons per year, and is projected to change only a small amount
through 1970 and 1975. From 1965 through 1995, Putnam and Schoharie
Counties decrease in their contribution of industrial waste to almost insigni-
ficant levels. Hamilton County, with no industry in 1965, picked up some
industrial activity in 1967, but the resultant wastes are projected to increase
only slightly by 1995.
By 1985, a significant increase in industrial waste generation is projected,
with contributions of over one million tons each from Erie and New York
(Manhattan) Counties. Eighteen additional counties, all in the major develop-
ment corridor, are each forecasted to generate in excess of 100,000 tons per
year of industrial waste. In 1995, Erie and New York Counties again are
projected to generate more than one million tons of waste per year, and
twenty-six other counties are projected to generate in excess of 100,000 tons
each, and five of these in excess of 500,000 tons.
The major increases and the intensification of industrial waste generation are
occurring generally within the same counties which have a high projected
level of collected municipal waste. Although a large number of industries do
have some internal waste disposal systems, it is expected that an increasing
amount of industrial wastes will require public disposal. The combination of
these two types of waste and their differences in composition could present
problems in collection and ultimate disposal. The future quantity of indus-
trial waste may depend largely on technological changes and on the feasibil-
ity of utilizing or marketing by-products. Industrial waste production based
on the number of employees will not reflect any trend toward highly auto-
mated manufacturing. However, this may be offset by efforts of labor unions
to gain shorter working hours. Possibly of significance is the quantity of
industrial waste to be disposed of by the industrial concerns on their own
sites. An industrial inventory study [3) showed that 55 percent of the solid
wastes produced by industry is disposed of on industrial sites, the remaining
45 percent being handled primarily by private contractors and disposed of at
either private or municipal facilities, ^ny decrease or increase in the quantity
of waste disposed of in the industrial sector may offset or compound any
decrease or increase in quantity o1 waste produced. More information is
needed to determine the long-range potential and effects of materials reuse
and recapture in developing service areas and an ultimate disposal plan.
14-6
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Cost of Clean Water", FWPCA Publication IW-3.
2. "Status of Solid Waste Management in California", California State
Department of Public Health, (September 1968).
3. "Technical - Economic Study of Solid Waste Disposal Needs and Prac-
tices: Volume 2 - Industrial Inventory", Combustion Engineering, Inc.,
(1967).
14-7
-------
Table 14-1
Preliminary Industrial Solid Waste Production Rates ^
Waste Production Rate
SIC Code
19
201
2033
2037
Other 203
Other 20
22
23
2411
2421
Other 24
25
26
27
281
285
Other 28
291
Other 29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Industry
Ordnance
Meat Processing
Cannery
Frozen Foods
Preserved Foods
Food Processing
Textile Mill Products
Apparel
Logging
Sawmills and Planing Mills
Wood Products
Furniture
Paper and Allied Products
Printing, publishing
Basic Chemicals
Paints, varnishes
Chemical and Allied Products
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum and Coal Products
Rubber and Plastic
Leather
Stone, clay
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metals
Non-electrical Machinery
Electrical Machinery
Transportation Equipment
Professional and Scientific Inst.
Miscellaneous Manufacturing
(tons/employee/year)
0.43
6.2
55.6
18.3
12.9
5.8
0.26
0.31
1,930
162
10.3
0.52
2.0
0.49
10.0*
2.25*
0.5*
23.5*
10.0*
2.6
0.17
2.4
24
1.7
2.6
1.7
1.3
0.12
0.14
^Consultant's Analysis.
aken directly from California study (1).
-------
Table 14-2
Industrial Solid Wastes
Comparison of Employment in Primary Metals Group^
Percentage of 1967 State
Employment in SIC 33
SIC Code
331
3312
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
Description
Steel Rolling & Finishing
Blast Furnaces & Mills
Iron & Steel Foundries
Primary Non-Ferrous Metals
Secondary Non-Ferrous Metals
Non-Ferrous Rolling & Drawing
Non-Ferrous Foundries
...
N. E.G.
New York
46%
39%
11%
3%
3%
24%
10%
0%
0%
3%
California
39%
31%
14%
1%
2%
18%
16%
0%
0%
10%
Consultant's Analysis.
-------
Table 14-3
Final Industrial Solid Waste Prodjction Rates1
Activity
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SIC Code
201
2033
2037
Other 203
Other 20
22
23
2421
Other 24
25
26
27
281
Other 28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Waste Production Rate
Industry (tons/employee/year)
Meat Processing
Cannery
Frozen Foods
Preserved Foods
Food Processing
Textile Mill Product.
Apparel
Sawmills and Planing Mills
Wood Products
Furniture
Paper and Allied Products
Printing and Publishing
Basic Chemicals
Chemical and Allied Products
Petroleum
Rubber and Plastic
Leather
Stone, Clay
Primary Metals
Fabricated Metals
Non-electrical Machinery
Electrical Machinery
Transportation Equipment
Professional and Scientific Inst.
Miscellaneous Manufacturing
6.2
55.6
18.3
12.9
5.8
0.26
0.31
162.0
10.3
0.52
2.00
0.49
10.00
0.63
14.8
2.6
0.17
2.4
24
1.7
2.6
1.7
1.3
0.12
0.14
1
Consultant's Analysis.
-------
Table 14-4
Total Industrial Wastes by County and State
(1,000 Tons/Year)
1
County
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genessee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Years
1965
103
12
102
59
59
23
134
42
21
6
8
20
31
50
1,030
20
4
5
30
5
61
14
480
3
10
3
207
13
298
454
173
142
236
23
29
1970
105
21
84
79
25
32
142
50
9
4
6
22
27
33
1,045
2
6
4
38
4
1
30
16
399
2
15
4
225
11
298
548
199
49
258
30
34
1975
113
30
74
115
32
48
160
63
12
5
9
24
25
26
1,069
3
8
5
54
3
1
42
21
374
2
22
6
267
12
304
526
249
62
285
38
40
1985
140
62
65
282
60
124
207
105
30
15
21
31
23
30
1,153
9
20
5
145
4
1
90
42
398
2
57
22
423
18
352
2,430
404
121
359
70
62
1995
198
134
64
749
124
381
281
188
102
83
56
42
22
56
1,327
24
47
7
656
5
1
198
99
520
2
155
85
760
31
495
8,137
741
290
474
164
110
^ Consultant's Analysis.
-------
County
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
St. Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
Schuyler
Seneca
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
Table 14-4
(continued)
Years
1965
25
38
3
2
296
18
72
13
107
12
42
37
5
39
63
16
4
11
28
52
9
53
176
10
16
1970
29
43
4
1
287
19
78
25
121
13
41
1
6
43
78
16
3
13
31
65
9
53
182
10
16
1975
32
50
4
1
282
22
85
32
136
15
40
1
8
49
98
16
4
14
36
83
9
54
193
10
16
1985
42
72
5
1
304
32
103
52
171
20
41
1
13
66
161
16
4
16
53
138
9
55
226
11
17
1995
53
108
5
369
53
126
89
217
26
43
1
24
95
279
17
5
20
94
240
9
58
273
13
17
New York State 5,086
5,076
5,449
9,041
19,073
-------
CHAPTER FIFTEEN
AGRICULTURAL WASTES
Agricultural wastes include manure from confined animals, harvesting resi-
due and crop spoilage from field crops, trimmings, residue, and spoilage from
fruit and nut orchards, and trees lost through disease. Some apparently valid
manure production factors were reported in a recently published Cornell
University study (1), and the State of California (2) has conducted some
extensive surveys and studies to identify waste production from field crops
and orchards. Because little information was readily available on agricultural
waste production in New York State, it was decided to use the California
and Cornell data. Fortunately, practically all the crops grown in New York
are grown in California and were reported on.
Table 15-1 lists the categories of agricultural waste producers and the cor-
responding waste production rates. The extended growing season in Cali-
fornia prompted concern that some waste production rates may be based on
double cropping, and therefore, cannot be applied to New York State with-
out adjustment. Communication with California officials revealed that this
was of little concern as acreage in some area of California is double cropped,
but with different crops, e.g. one tract may be used to raise broccoli in the
spring and carrots in the summer, but never the same crop both in the
summer and spring. Plums and prunes, designated separately as Class 3 and
Class 5 waste producers by California, were combined and reported as one
crop in the New York State agricultural census. To adjust for this, the two
fruits were grouped in Class 4.
Two animal types not reported in either the California or the Cornell study
were deemed to be significant waste producers in New York. These were
horses and ducks. Duck raising is confined to Suffolk County (8 million
ducks slaughtered in 1967). Ducks are considered to produce manure at the
same rate as fryers, 6.4 tons/1,000 birds/year. In some counties, horses
produce considerable quantities of manure, which may be significant since
15-1
-------
many of the horses are penned. Horses were considered to produce manure
at an annual rate between those of beel cattle and dairy cows, approximately
12 tons/head/year. Sheep are not considered significant waste producers as
they are usually pastured. It should be noted that the production rates are
for wet manures and that the rates also do not include any straw bedding,
which is sometimes used to facilitate removal of manure.
Exclusive of abnormalities such as the advent of a serious tree disease, the
quantity of agricultural waste produced per acre or per animal should not
vary significantly in the future. Of far more consequence, will be the quanti-
ties of waste which can be disposed of on the farm. The harvest residue and
crop spoilage from field and row crops do not present a significant disposal
problem at this time. However, these wastes are sometimes burned at the
farm. This practice may be banned h the future as air quality regulations
become increasingly stringent. These wastes may then require serious consid-
eration.
Manure could present a major solid waste disposal problem. The large quanti-
ties of manures from confined animals (hog-feeding lots, poultry, penned
horses, etc.) are presently being sold as soil conditioners and fertilizers,
spread on farm lands, or sold as medic for mushroom growing. However, the
impact of storm runoff from farms on water quality could be deemed seri-
ous, the use of inorganic chemical fertilizers could increase, and a synthetic
mushroom soil could be developed. Any of these or other developments
could make manure disposal a major p-oblem.
EXISTING AND PROJECTED AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES
A brief discussion of general levels of agricultural activity by Economic
Areas, and by counties was presented in Chapter Six. The information pre-
sented was derived from the existing and projected numbers of penned stock
and of acres in the various classes of fruit, nut, field, and row crops, and was
prepared as a basis for developing tonnages of agricultural wastes by counties
and for the State.
Raw data for agricultural activity were collected for animals, fruit and nut
crops, and field and row crops from the Census of Agriculture, U. S. Bureau
of the Census, for 1954, 1959, and 1964 for each county. Average annual
yields for: 1) fruit and nut crops in pounds or bushels per tree or vine; 2)
average pounds of fruit per bushel yield; and 3) average trees or vines per
acre in fruit and nut as well as field and row crops, were obtained from the
records of the AES at Cornell University and in Washington, D.C., and from
the experimental pollenization studies underway in New York.
15-2
-------
Reported counts of animals in 1,000's or units of head were recorded
directly. Acreages for fruit and nut crops were derived from reported total
trees and vines using an average number of trees or vines per acre for each
fruit and nut crop. Acreages for each fruit and nut crop were then added to
yield total acres by class. A technique based on productivity and yield was
discarded as being unreliable because of the many factors which affect yield
without changing the wastes due to pruning, spoilage, and termination.
Acreages for individual field and row crops were extracted as reported in the
census and then added to yield total acreages for each field and row class. All
data, once collected and converted to its proper form, were adjusted to
represent the base years 1955, 1960, and 1965.
Projections were carried out using a modified semi log computer program
similar to that used for the industrial employment projections. Forecasts
were made in five-year increments beginning with 1965 and extending to
2000 for each final activity class (15) for each county. Three to five growth
curves were developed for each agricultural activity class for each county.
Several techniques and tests were used to reduce these curves to one final
curve for each activity class for each county, to be used in the derivation of
agricultural waste loads.
For computer-mapping purposes, a separate base was established for agricul-
tural activity. Data on agricultural activity by Minor Civil Divisions was used
in conjunction with a moment centroid technique to determine the center of
agricultural activity for each county. This center was assigned a row-column
coordinate for map presentation.
EXISTING AND PROJECTED AGRICULTURAL WASTES
Because insufficient information exists to develop a reliable trend in future
agricultural activity and because there is no conclusive proof that changes in
crop yield significantly affect crop waste, the agricultural waste generation
rates for each class were assumed to remain constant through time. There-
fore, the procedure for derivation of projected wastes was a direct function.
The waste production rate for each agricultural activity class given in Table
15-1 in tons/head/year or tons/acre/year was multiplied directly by the exist-
ing and projected number of head or acres in that activity class for all target
years for each county. This was repeated for each agricultural activity class
for all counties. The fifteen results for each county were added to yield total
agricultural wastes by county in tons per year. The county waste totals were
then added to obtain State waste totals for each target year in tons per year.
Table 15-2 presents the total waste tonnages derived for each county for
each target year and total agricultural tonnages for the State. Reasonableness
checks were made using census trends for growth or loss of activity and using
other reports, including California, for waste tonnages.
15-3
-------
For comparison and analysis, the resultant agricultural waste tonnages for
each county were divided by the respective total county land areas to yield
agricultural waste density in tons per year per square mile. This information
is presented on Maps 18 through 20. To increase the utility of the data,
resultant total wastes for each county were combined with total municipal
and total industrial wastes for each county and were divided by total county
land area. Thus, the map series - Map 21 through 23 depicts total waste from
all sources in tons per year per square mile for each target year. Absolute
tonnages of total wastes from all sources in tons per year are presented in
Table 15-3. For purposes of comparison, the scaling factor used on the map
of total tonnages is the same as that used on the maps of municipal wastes
alone and municipal plus industrial wastes. For greater differentiation and
for purposes of comparison, the scaling used for agricultural wastes alone is
smaller and is the same as that used for industrial wastes alone. A quick
comparison of agricultural with the industrial and the municipal waste gener-
ation reveals that, to a great extent, agricultural wastes are highest where
municipal and industrial wastes are lowest, which is expected. There are,
however, areas of overlap in counties experiencing only moderate urbaniza-
tion and industrial activity, but which are relatively active in agriculture,
particularly in livestock and dairying. A good example of such a county is
Chautauqua, with both furniture manufacturing and dairying, and yet pos-
sessing only a moderate level of urbani2'ation.
In terms of absolute tons per year, agricultural activity in the State of New
York generated some 22 million tons af waste in 1965. This is projected to
decrease slightly each year to a low of 20,400,000 in 1985, then to increase
again to about 21,200,000 by 1995, principally due to a projected increase
in dairying and poultry raising. Since only those activities involving penned
stock generate a waste (manures) which must be dealt with at disposal facili-
ties (other agricultural wastes normally are disposed of on-site), and because
wastes from this source average 40 to 50 percent of the total wastes in any
target year, then the figure of tons per year to be considered drops to
between 8 to 11 million tons.
Considering that as much as 60 percent or more of these manures are used
on the farm or sold for fertilizer purposes, then the tonnage to be dealt with
drops to as low as 3.2 million tons per year for disposal. However, there are
trends toward replacement of natural manure with synthetic fertilizers;
therefore, this figure could increase in the future.
On a county basis, the New York City area counties of Bronx, Queens, and
New York (Manhattan) will remain constant at zero tons per year, while
Kings begins with a small amount and declines. St.Lawrence County agricul-
tural activity generated over one million tons of waste in 1965, a level which
will remain above one million tons, though decreasing slightly, through
15-4
-------
1995. There are two counties in which generated agricultural waste increases
from 1965 to a level above one million tons per year by 1995 - Jefferson and
Sullivan. Close to 50 percent of the counties generate a slowly increasing or
decreasing level of wastes, averaging between 350 and 750 thousand tons.
With regard to the total waste picture, sources in the State of New York
generated some 40.8 million tons of waste in 1965. This is projected to
increase at an increasing rate to reach approximately 78.5 million tons by
1995, almost a 97 percent increase over and above 1965 levels. By 1995, 22
counties are each projected to generate a total of over one million tons per
year, with four of these counties - Erie, Kings, New York and Suffolk - ex-
ceeding 4 million tons per year. The implications of such a tremendous
volume of waste are vast. Only one county - Hamiltion - is projected to gen-
erate less than 100,000 tons per year by 1995.
15-5
-------
REFERENCES
1. "Status of Solid Waste Management in California", California State
Department of Public Health, (September 1968).
2. Raymond C. Loehr, "Animal Wastes - A National Problem", Journal of
the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings American Society of
Civil Engineers, (April 1969).
15-15
-------
Table 15-1
Activity
No.
Agricultural Solid Wastes
Waste Production Rates
Category
Wet Manures
1 Chickens (Fryers)
2 Hens (Layers)
3 Hogs
4 Horses
5 Beef Cattle (feedlot)
6 Dairy Cattle
Fruit and Nut Crops
7 Class 1 (grapes, peaches, nectarines)
8 Class 2 (apples, pears)
9 Class 4 (plums, prunes, miscellaneous)
10 Class 5 (walnuts, cherries)
Field and Row Crops
11 Class 1 (field and sweet corn)
12 Class 2 (cauliflower, lettuce,
broccoli)
13 Class 3 (sorghum, tomatoes, beets,
cabbage, squash, brussel
sprouts)
14 Class 4 (beans, onions, cucumbers,
carrots, peas, peppers,
potatoes, garlic, celery,
miscellaneous)
15 Class 5 (barley, oats, wheat, milo,
asparagus)
Annual Waste
Production Rate
6.4 tons/1,000 birds1
67 tons/1,000 birds1
3.2 tons/head1
12 tons/head2
10.9 tons/head1
14.6 tons/head1
2.4 tons/acre3
2.25 tons/acre3
1.5 tons/acre3
1.0 tons/acre3
4.5 tons/acre3
4.0 tons/acre3
3.0 tons/acre3
2.0 tons/acre3
1.5 tons/acre3
Determined from data reported in Cornell University Study (2).
^Estimated.
3Determined from data reported in State of California Study (1).
-------
Table 15-2
Total Agricultural Wastes By County and State ^
(1,000 Tons/ Year)
County
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
1965
170
385
306
605
624
704
143
618
446
420
448
780
407
580
98
390
110
493
151
1
545
890
540
498
636
385
415
10
351
840
486
492
588
1970
151
357
267
558
621
689
127
580
452
447
452
693
392
555
88
418
103
495
130
2
525
893
1
539
465
624
342
414
7
327
809
448
457
560
Years
1975
138
332
234
517
620
677
116
545
461
483
458
616
382
538
79
452
97
501
115
4
506
906
1
540
435
614
306
414
6
310
781
415
426
537
1985
145
289
181
449
625
662
104
484
484
594
471
493
369
527
65
531
87
528
96
14
472
984
1
544
384
598
251
415
4
292
730
357
373
502
1995
300
253
141
393
638
655
111
433
512
784
487
392
364
554
53
630
78
574
91
47
442
1,210
553
342
586
213
418
3
294
685
310
332
484
1 Consultant's Analysis.
-------
County
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
St. Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
Schuyler
Seneca
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
1965
329
326
711
28
251
7
13
1,032
218
59
362
116
224
633
147
364
302
275
256
18
559
433
35
608
215
Table 15-2
(continued)
1970
328
280
658
22
224
7
11
1,020
204
54
365
115
217
624
133
430
287
261
236
15
554
416
34
615
206
Years
1975
330
242
610
18
201
8
10
1,012
192
51
370
116
210
618
126
523
275
251
219
13
552
404
33
625
199
1985
339
184
525
12
166
10
9
1,004
173
51
385
122
198
612
132
831
255
235
193
10
552
391
35
652
193
1995
356
142
454
10
138
12
10
l \J
1,004
158
60
405
134
188
612
178
1 417
i fi
240
223
175
8
\J
555
391
41
685
197
New York State 22,104 21,337 20,797 20,401 21,184
-------
Table 15-3
Total Wastes From All Sour:es By County and State1
(1,000 Tons/Year)
County
Albany
Allegany
Bronx
Broome
Cattaraugus
Cayuga
Chautauqua
Chemung
Chenango
Clinton
Columbia
Cortland
Delaware
Dutchess
Erie
Essex
Franklin
Fulton
Genesee
Greene
Hamilton
Herkimer
Jefferson
Kings
Lewis
Livingston
Madison
Monroe
Montgomery
Nassau
New York
Niagara
Oneida
Onondaga
Ontario
Orange
Years
1965
508
426
1,225
543
721
703
944
278
779
509
461
510
839
618
2,531
141
423
154
562
176
4
652
965
2,477
558
538
675
1,126
470
1,495
1,608
719
1,189
1,098
56
788
1970
502
409
1,254
530
639
709
939
274
620
518
487
508
7^7
607
2,523
1"3
454
145
574
156
6
602
970
2,450
557
512
658
1,137
466
1,531
1,707
723
1,072
1,105
540
798
1975
548
398
1,448
568
614
732
962
293
595
330
532
521
672
646
2,684
110
495
143
604
144
8
605
995
2,728
560
497
671
1,262
470
1,757
1,840
786
1,097
1,183
528
856
1985
731
402
1,950
783
594
836
1,040
379
571
607
671
558
559
818
3,200
111
601
146
744
137
20
642
1,114
3,503
570
500
704
1,697
489
2,415
4,132
7,021
1,241
1,440
538
1,083
1995
1,176
459
2,646
1,361
633
1,137
1,175
549
618
755
920
613
473
1,176
4,044
130
751
157
1,335
150
55
752
1,429
4,625
587
586
806
2,496
520
3,320
10,334
1,498
1,513
1,877
633
1,523
1
Consultant's Analysis.
-------
County
Orleans
Oswego
Otsego
Putnam
Queens
Rensselaer
Richmond
Rockland
St. Lawrence
Saratoga
Schenectady
Schoharie
Schuyler
Seneca
Steuben
Suffolk
Sullivan
Tioga
Tompkins
Ulster
Warren
Washington
Wayne
Westchester
Wyoming
Yates
1965
378
431
745
58
1,732
388
271
165
1,220
293
235
377
162
252
744
969
412
334
342
379
105
600
535
929
641
243
Table 15-3
(continued)
1970
382
394
693
60
1,827
368
308
215
1,227
288
231
380
126
246
741
1,202
479
323
334
372
117
596
523
982
648
234
Years
1975
392
379
650
72
2,131
372
386
280
1,252
296
251
388
129
245
752
1,580
577
319
338
384
139
599
524
1,183
662
230
1985
425
389
580
119
2,921
415
622
488
1,334
333
320
409
140
251
795
2,961
901
324
364
444
210
614
551
1,709
701
230
1995
475
T^ / \J
458
531
215
3,993
513
997
845
1,464
408
431
438
160
268
868
5,728
1^511
349
421
577
338
643
617
2,456
'753
243
New York State 40,831 40,876 43,621 55,124
78,540
-------
-------
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
SPECIAL WASTES
GENERAL
A special waste is any refuse which presents a specific problem to one of the
elements of any waste collection and disposal system when normal municipal
practices are used. The term "special wastes" is more appropriate than "spe-
cial solid wastes" because solids are only a part of the problem. Special
wastes can include containerized toxic gases, radioactive wastes, sludges and
slurries from chemical manufacturing processes and wastewater treatment
plants, and even wastewaters which contain contaminants in a concentration
so high, or of such a nature, that handling through a wastewater treatment
plant is not practical. These wastes obviously may present problems when
stored, processed, transported, handled, incinerated, or landfilled.
SOURCES, QUANTITIES. AND CURRENT DISPOSAL PRACTICES
The magnitude of the special waste problem in New York State cannot be
defined at this point because of the almost total lack of information. There
is little available literature written from a viewpoint of special waste. How-
ever, some general information can be gleaned from the results of the State
survey, from communication with governmental agencies, and from the in-
dustrial experience of the ROY F. WESTON professional staff. The major
sources of special wastes will be discussed to establish a basis for an under-
standing of their uniqueness and the importance of special consideration.
RADIOACTIVE WASTES
There are two Atomic Energy Commission-approved sites in New York State
for the disposal of radioactive wastes. Cornell University operates a small site
for the waste it generates in its research laboratory. This waste, however, is
almost insignificant when compared to the amount of waste handled at the
Nuclear Fuel Service Disposal Site in Cattaraugus County. This site is the
16-1
-------
major disposal site for the eastern United States. Nuclear power stations
generate most of the waste received, with small contributions coming from
research laboratories, private industry, and hospitals.
Approximately 30 percent of the waste buried at the site (4,300 cubic yards
in 1968) is generated by Nuclear Fuel Services. The remainder is delivered by
private contractors. Only about 1 percent of the waste received is considered
a high-level waste, i.e., with radioactivity greater than 200 mr/hr (milli-
roentgens per hour).
Presently, there is only one nuclear power plant producing radioactive waste
in New York. However, there are three new plants under construction, which
upon completion in late 1969 should increase the nuclear power output in
the State from 275 to 2,400 megawatts. Future plans call for the building of
at least four more plants by 1978, which will increase the total power
generation by nuclear power plants to approximately 6,400 megawatts or
about 25 times the current output of 275 megawatts. The radioactive waste
output in the future should increase proportionally with the proposed de-
velopment of nuclear power in New York.
The information received has facilitated locating the major contributors of
radioactive wastes and the current disposal sites in operation. Figures are also
available for total waste quantities that are disposed of in New York State.
These figures, however, do not indicate the fraction of the waste that is
produced in New York State. Nuclear power plants contribute the major
portion of radioactive waste loads. With the projected completion of eight
nuclear power plants in New York State by 1978, some better method of
estimating nuclear waste production should be developed. This is necessary
to determine the required disposcil site capacity and to effectively manage
waste disposal.
Operational wastes exposed to radioactive contamination, such as clothing,
towels, research equipment, and waste resins from cooling water, are pro-
duced in predictable quantities. Tnese wastes will also have some relation to
the size of the plant.
However, a large quantity of this waste is unpredictable. Spills and handling
accidents at nuclear power plants require the removal of all machinery,
clothing, building material, etc., that suffered contamination. Although acci-
dents are rare, the quantity of wastes is considerable and cannot be directly
related to the size of the plant.
16-2
-------
MINING WASTES
The standard industrial classification system of the Department of Com-
merce indicates that there are eight different classifications of mining opera-
tions in New York. The majority of these operations consist of sand and
gravel or crushed stone extraction. The limited metal mining in the State
produces the greatest quantity of waste, which consists mainly of inert
country rock and very low grade ore which cannot be processed economical-
ly. The quantity of material to be removed presents the biggest problem to
disposal, but the general location of such operations and the nature of the
material makes it suitable for landfill disposal at or adjacent to the operating
site.
The location of mining operations classified by standard industrial classifica-
tions (SIC) is reported in a State-wide industrial waste survey. In a few cases,
estimated waste output is provided. For instance, six sand and gravel opera-
tions reported a collective average waste production of about 20 tons per
day, while the reported wastes from crushed stone operations averaged 120
tons per day. Metal mining is the largest waste producer with 1,790 tons per
day coming from one lead-mining operation and 2,600 tons per day pro-
duced from one iron-mining operation.
The majority of the mining operations are undefined as to daily waste pro-
duction, size of operation, and number of employees. While this information
would facilitate the computing of unit values of waste production and per-
mit defining the geographical distribution of mining wastes in New York
State, it is believed this is not necessary. As stated before, mining operations
permit extensive use of on-site disposal. This is especially true since mining is
an extractive process, and most of the waste produced could be used to fill
the pits, etc. created.
However, some regulation and study may be required, because the chemical
nature of some mining wastes, if coupled with a poor disposal site selection,
may result in serious impairment of local ground-water resources.
DREDCINGS
In New York State, the dredging of all navigable waterways is performed by
the State Department of Transportation and by the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The Department of Transportation is responsible for maintaining
the 520 miles of the State Barge Canal System and Connecting Waterways. It
is estimated that 1.45 million cubic yards of dredged material is removed
from the system yearly.
16-3
-------
The Corps of Engineers divides the State into two districts, with district
offices in New York City and Buffalo. The New York City office has juris-
diction over maintenance and special project dredging in Lake Champlain,
the Hudson River, New York Harbor, and the waterways around Long
Island. The Buffalo district includes harbor dredging for ports along the
shores of Lake Erie, Lake Ontario, and the St. Lawrence River. In 1968,
close to 30 million cubic yards of material was dredged from Lake Cham-
plain alone, and 100,000 or more cuaic yards from the Hudson River.
Disposal of dredged material is usually accomplished by pumping into low-
land areas close to the shore, whenj the material can drain. State lands are
used for this purpose unless specific requests are received for fill material on
private land. In the New York City area, where available land is scarce,
dredged material is usually barged to deep sea dumping grounds six to eight
miles off-shore. The Buffalo District has specific off-shore disposal sites in
the Great Lakes for its dredged material.
Because dredging operations are carried out as the need arises, specific waste
loads at specific locations cannot bo predicted. However, dredgings present a
complex disposal problem due to their large volume and sometime organic
nature, and constitute a significant factor in planning the disposal of special
wastes.
INDUSTRIAL. SPECIAL WASTES
A majority of the industries in New York State can be expected to produce
at least one type of waste that can present a waste disposal problem. This
special waste can be in either the liquid, gas, or solid state and is considered
special because of its size, reactivity, or the problems related to or resulting
from its disposal.
A knowledge of the processes and operational procedures involved in an
industry makes it possible to define qualitatively the possible classes of waste
that may be produced. However, without specific knowledge of an industry's
actual capacity and waste production potential, it is impossible to arrive at
any estimation of quantities.
Current disposal methods practiced by industry have included burial, inciner-
ation, lagooning, and dilution. In most cases, industries have acted indepen-
dently of each other to solve their specific disposal problems, resulting in a
wide variation in disposal practices and techniques. Data from the industrial
waste survey by New York State Department of Commerce are insufficient
to define the industrial special waste problem in New York State. Only a
small percentage of the industries in the State provided an estimate of total
waste production, and these estimates do not identify types of wastes.
16-4
-------
A major effort is required to accumulate sufficient data for definition of the
industrial wastes problem. Guidelines for this effort are outlined in Chapter
Seventeen.
MUNICIPAL WASTEWA TER SLUDGES
Because of the extensive design work done in the field of sewage treatment,
relatively constant per capita sewage quantities have been developed. Gen-
erally, 0.25 Ibs/capita/day is the accepted value for the total quantity of dry
solids generated and produced in the treatment of sewage. This value can
double depending on how extensively garbage grinders are used, the nature
and quantity of industrial wastes entering the system, and the treatment
process used. To accommodate these variable waste factors, a value of 0.30
Ibs/capita/day for dry solids production seems reasonable for forecasting
purposes.
It should be understood, however, that this solids production is a dry weight
figure and does not account for the moisture content of the sludge. The
percent moisture can vary from 99.5 to approximately 50 percent, depend-
ing on the sludge source and the degree to which it has been treated and
dewatered. This moisture will significantly increase the volume and weight of
the waste to be disposed of and should be considered in any determination
of sludge quantity. Listings are available which locate all treatment facilities
in the State, the populations they serve, and the degree of treatment pro-
vided. These listings furnish the data necessary for a reasonable estimate of
the current sewage sludge production; however, this information is of limited
use because New York State has recently started a program to upgrade some
existing plants, abandon others, and construct a considerable number of new
plants.
Areas not served by municipal sewers produce solids which are termed sca-
venger wastes. These are slurries pumped from cesspools, septic tanks, and
similar facilities. The quantity of waste depends on population served and
frequency of pumping, which is related to soil conditions, degree of enforce-
ment of ordinances, and attitudes of owners. One county solid waste man-
agement study indicated "that, on an overall population basis, the per capita
contribution of scavenger wastes varied from 0.1 to 0.8 gallons per day".^
At one percent solids, this scavenger waste production rate is calculated at
0.008 to 0.06 Ibs/capita/day.
'"An Action Plan for Solid Wastes Disposal in Suffolk County, New York:
Volume 2 - Detailed Report", John J. Baffa, Consulting Engineers.
16-5
-------
It is reasonable to assume that 85 percent of the State population will be
serviced by municipal sewerage systems in 1995. On that basis and assuming
that the remaining 15 percent of the population produces sewage solids at
the maximum of the reported scavenger range, a total sewage sludge contri-
bution can be determined. The rrunicipal contribution will be 0.255
Ibs/capita/day, (0.85 x 0.30) and the on-site contribution will be 0.009
Ibs/capita/day, (0.15 x 0.06) for an overall sewage sludge production of
0.264 pounds of solids/capita/day. Tiis rate when multiplied by the pro-
jected 1995 State population would yield a State total of 1.19 million tons
per year, which is about 1.5 percent of the projected solid wastes from all
sources. Thus, even with the highest reported scavenger waste production
rate, the contribution of sewage sludge to the total solid waste load would
not be significant from a quantity standpoint in 1995 and would be even less
so in the intervening years, when the proportion of the population without
municipal sewerage service would be higher. However, the nature of the
sludge requires special handling and could be a problem in certain areas.
The ultimate disposal of raw and digested sludge usually requires a drying or
dewatering step before burial or incineration. There are some instances
where sewage solids have been used for fertilization and irrigation, but this
has not been a universally accepted practice.
WATER TREATMENT SLUDGES
All the water treatment facilities in New York State can be expected to
produce waste sludge to some degree. The amount of sludge generated,
however, is difficult to determine without specific information. Unlike sew-
age solids, water treatment sludges are not completely dependent on the
population served. The amount of s udge also depends directly on the raw
water quality and the type and degree of treatment required.
From the limited data available, estimates of the sludge production from the
treatment of a New York State surface water supply ranged from 50 to 200
pounds per million gallons of raw water treated. By assuming an average
daily consumption of 100 gallons/capita, the daily sludge production in
Ibs/capita varied from 0.005 to 0.02. When compared to a typical daily
refuse production of 4.4 Ibs/capita, the water treatment sludges compute to
be less than 0.5 percent of the total waste load. Even so, special considera-
tion must be given to this waste due to its physical nature and its geographi-
cal distribution.
Currently, water treatment sludges are discharged to watercourses and in
some cases, to waste treatment plants where some lagooning and drying beds
are used. Only recently have regulatory agencies begun to require treatment
of water plant sludges. Since these wastes are essentially non-combustible,
16-6
-------
incineration is not practical, and landfills cannot accept these solids unless
they have been dewatered. These materials will present substantial technical
problems. Therefore, water treatment plant sludges must be included in solid
waste planning.
SITE AND FACILITY RATING
The preliminary State-wide solid waste survey provided little information
about the special waste handling ability of existing facilities and sites. The
survey reported whether or not sewage solids, waste oils, and hazardous
materials were rejected. From this it could be inferred that facilities and sites
not accepting these wastes did not have the capability for handling them;
however, no conclusions could be made on those accepting these wastes. The
survey report was also unable to indicate what differences existed between
those accepting certain wastes and those rejecting them. Without knowledge
of the total special waste situation and the differences between the disposal
sites and facilities, determination of current capabilities and rating of opera-
tions cannot be made.
Land disposal sites in the State which were considered for special waste
ratings were those sites with a land area of at least 100 acres and an expected
life span of greater than five years. There were twenty-six sites that met
these limitations, and thirteen of the sites were reported to have accepted
one or more of the three previously-mentioned special wastes. Eight of the
sites supposedly accepted hazardous material, but no definitive statements
are available to indicate what these materials are and whether good practice
would have prohibited their acceptance. No mention is made of the tech-
niques or procedures used for the disposal of these wastes or the quantity in
which they exist.
About one third of the 77 incinerators in the State (excluding the 4 sewage
sludge incinerators) accept at least one of the special wastes mentioned and
more than half accepted only sewage solids. A total of 8 incinerators accept
hazardous materials, while 10 reported the acceptance of waste oils. Most of
the incinerators in the State are for typical municipal refuse. For the few
facilities that did have some special waste capability, no comparative infor-
mation concerning equipment or handling techniques was available for rating
them.
SITE AND FA CILITY MODIFICA TION
The majority of existing facilities and sites in New York State handle typical
municipal refuse. Only a very small percentage appears to have any special
waste handling capability, which, in most cases, is undefined.
16-7
-------
Industrial special wastes present the greatest problems to disposal and will
greatly influence site modifications. Depending on the nature and quantity
of the waste, changes will involve both equipment and operating procedures.
Equipment changes will involve waste; handling, storage, feeding, pollution
control, and general expansion. Procedural changes may include strict con-
trol over waste type, quantity, location relative to other wastes at site,
scheduling of actual disposal, and the training of personnel to handle wastes
properly.
Until more specific information as to capabilities and type of waste received
is obtained, it will be impossible to estimate individual modifications. Addi-
tional information and data collection guidelines are presented in Chapter
Seventeen.
16-8
-------
CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA REQUIREMENTS
APPROACH TO FUTURE STUDIES
The development of an overall solution to the solid waste problem in New
York State begins with planning and rationally proceeds through an engi-
neering phase toward a continuing phase of management and regulation.
The planning phase is concerned initially with the development of a State-
level approach, and later with the preparation of a master plan for the phase
development of solid waste management systems. More specifically, the
master plan will identify site locations, type and capacity of facilities to be
constructed at the sites, and major solid waste transportation arrangements,
all of which must be designed and phased to collectively provide the most
efficient and economical disposal of the solid waste anticipated in the future.
The necessary sites and facilities should be designed in detail and constructed
in the engineering phase.
The management phase is initiated some time before construction to provide
the financing required; however, it is primarily concerned with operations--
maintaining and improving quality and coverage of service. This task has
many facets. Some of these are involved with planning such as the periodic
review and updating of local, regional, and State solid waste planning; others
are concerned with technology such as Research and Development and
technical assistance; and others are involved with such varied aspects as
manpower training, public information, and grants-in-aid. To support the
State goal for economical, efficient solid waste disposal without causing air
pollution, water pollution, a nuisance or a public health hazard, regulation of
management is essential. This would be in the form of provision of new
legislation, monitoring of operations, and enforcement of existing legislation.
17-1
-------
This study is in the initial step of the: planning phase - the development of
the State-level approach. Subsequent studies, by State agencies or by quali-
fied consultants under State sponsorship and direction, are required to take
the solution process through the remaining planning elements, through the
engineering phase, and into the management-regulation phase.
GENERAL DATA REQUIREMENTS
The data developed to date are sufficient to accomplish the objectives of this
study. Whether or not these results are sufficient for subsequent studies
depends, of course, on the objectives of those studies. Although the scope of
those studies cannot be fully defined at this time, it can be assumed that
some will be sufficiently sophisticated in concept to require improvement in
the existing data, and that others will be so entirely different in concept that
new types of data will be required.
In defining supplemental data requirements, it is recognized that the efforts
involved in data collection would be minimized if the data development in
the initial studies is patterned to form a data basis for the subsequent
studies. That is, rather than having to disregard existing data at the outset of
each study and collect totally new data, less effort is obviously required if
just the refinement of the data used in the previous study is sufficient. This
condition can be achieved only if current data collection is directed towards
meeting the ultimate requirements of the most sophisticated study that is
anticipated. Although this would reduce overall collection efforts, it may
also result in a considerable delay in the initial studies. This delay would be
brought about by having to ignore readily available data, sufficient for only
the initial studies, and collecting data which is sufficient for all studies but
not as readily available.
Thus, if delays are unacceptable, there should be two or three separate and
possibly concurrent data collection tasks: one task directed towards meeting
the requirements of the immediate studies, one task directed towards
meeting the requirements of the final studies, and, if necessary, one task
directed towards meeting the requirements of the intermediate studies. It is
in this sense that the actions outlined in this chapter are recommended.
PLANNING DATA NEEDS
The development of a solution for the New York State Solid Waste Manage-
ment problem is still in the planning phase. Remaining in this phase is the
development of a master plan which specifies the combination of solid waste
management operations throughout the State and their phased development
which will meet the objectives of the State program while providing maxi-
mum benefits. Obviously, there are innumerable alternatives for
17-2
-------
accomplishing these objectives, each having different technical, economical,
and social consequences which must be examined in the decision-making
process. Systems analysis is a highly useful tool for examining possible alter-
native means. In this sense, the process of deciding on the location and size
of sites and facilities, the quality of their operation, the distribution of waste
from their sources to the facilities, and the schedule of the time for the
development of these activities should consist, in part, of the solution of
mathematical programming problems formulated to provide information on
the technological and economic consequences of the promising alternatives.
This information together with thoughts on the many social aspects involved
in the solid waste problem will provide a basis for decision-making.
The data collection and development required to meet the ultimate informa-
tion needs of the planning phase will be implicit in the definition of objec-
tives. It is apparent that at least the following will be required:
1. Waste Collection Procedures
Information is needed on the solid waste collection procedures,
efficiency, and equipment in the local areas, so that the total
system plan can reflect these problems.
2. Waste Quantities by Type of Waste
Additional data collection and development should be accom-
plished to refine existing waste production rates for municipal,
agricultural, and industrial solid waste to provide more accurate
projection of quantities of waste, by source, for the target years
desired.
3. Existing Facilities and Land Disposal Sites
Information is needed on the feasibility for continued use, the
special capabilities, and the capacities for existing incinerators,
landfills, and transfer stations. It is recognized that existing fa-
cilities should be used to the fullest extent possible without
adversely affecting the environment.
4. Facility Costs
Reliable estimates of capital and operating costs are required for
various types of handling and disposal facilities (both existing and
projected) for different kinds of solid wastes, including cost rela-
tionships for ranges of waste quantity. Costs are of paramount
concern in decision-making.
17-3
-------
Each of these four areas of data requirement and the guidelines for collecting
these data will be described in this chapter.
COLLECTION PROCEDURES
Surveys of collection practices in various cities have shown that collection
time can vary from less than one man minute per service to as high as twelve
man-minutes. Some of this variation occurs because of unavoidable problems
in topography and because of weather problems (such as ice and snow),
while in other cases poor equipment or outright inefficiency causes the
difference.
Since as much as 80 percent of solid waste disposal costs is involved with
collection, an effective State program must look at sufficiency of collection
practices. If collection is inefficient, a per capita grant-in-aid program may
only perpetuate these inefficiencies rather than provide incentive for
improvement of disposal practices, unless appropriate guidelines are included
in the program. One problem associated with the implementation of such a
State program results from the practice of selecting an inter-municipal or
regional disposal site on the basis of a weighting of the refuse quantities and
collection and travel times for the various communities involved. If this
weighting process includes an inefficient community, the efficient operations
would be unfairly penalized.
It is not the responsibility of the State to conduct collection time studies for
re-design of local operations, but it is a State responsibility to ensure that
funds are granted only for improvement of effectiveness, and that local plans
are correctly designed where inter-municipal cooperation is proposed. These
responsibilities require a knowledge of the collection efficiency and
governing conditions.
The data required are tabulated below. They must be collected by spot
survey or (preferably) by requiring continuous recording by the local com-
munities over a period of time.
A. Basic Data
1. Collection frequency and schedule (domestic and
commercial)
2. Container location (curb-side or backdoor)
3. Type of container (cans, sacks, non-specified)
4. Type and size of collection vehicle (domestic and com-
mercial)
17-4
-------
5. Crew size and individual duties (collect, drive, drive and
empty tubs, etc.)
6. Wastes collected (household, bulky, yard wastes, etc.)
7. General (manpower problems, equipment age, etc.)
B. Survey Data
1. Arrival time at disposal site.
2. Services collected per trip (if not able to be counted each
trip, may be averaged over the day, or week, from the route
design figure).
3. Travel time from "full" point to disposal site.
4. Travel time from truck yard to beginning of route.
5. Starting and quitting time.
6. Full and empty weight of truck at disposal site (if possible).
In addition to the above data, an objective observer should evaluate com-
munity factors which affect collection such as:
1. Topography
2. Width of streets and alleys
3. Number and frequency of open spaces with travel but no col-
lection
4. Lot size (width, plus depth if back-door collection)
Determination of the above elements will not be a substitute for detailed
investigation to re-design collection procedures, but will provide precise
information for evaluating a community collection system.
WASTE QUANTITY INFORMATION
The second area of data requirements involves detailed quantitative informa-
tion on waste quantities by type of waste. As indicated earlier in this report,
data on the generation of solid wastes are extremely meager except in
17-5
-------
locations where effective detailed studies have been conducted. As a result,
only two approaches to this data have been devised.
1. General consideration of gross quantities and type of wastes, and
2. Highly-detailed studies for specialized problem-solving or research
into domestic waste characteristics.
Neither form of data is appropriate to a State program which includes
development of a Master Plan, and in many cases has been inappropriate for
a local program in that each succeeding data collection step could not build
upon what was done previously, thus requiring a new, more costly effort to
collect the desired additional data.
The chief cause for this data dilemma is the absence of a means of classifying
wastes into functional categories which can provide a basis for further
detailed classification when needed for design, and still provide an indication
of problems to be encountered at lesser levels of detail.
A classification system for refuse should serve a useful purpose beyond that
of simply providing a name for a certain waste material. The potential
functional uses for such a refuse classification system are:
1. Provide information on .storage, handling, or disposal problems
and potentially effective remedial methods.
2. Serve as a checklist for the study phase of a waste disposal project,
to insure that all types of waste are ascertained, that each is
recognized for its own peculiar problems, and that facility design
effectively solves those problems.
3. Serve as a checklist on potential problems for an existing disposal
facility which may have been requested or has been forced to
handle a new type of waste material.
To serve all of the above purposes, the classification system must be com-
plete. That is, it must be structurec to be able to place any and all materials
into an appropriate slot. This, of course, requires a system not directed at
any single waste (such as municipal solid wastes), but rather at all types of
refuse including industrial and institutional solid wastes and even certain
liquids and gases.
Such a classification system has been developed, and is outlined in Table
17-1. The system is complete, in that the combined knowledge of the staff
of ROY F. WESTON and of the New York State Department of Health has
17-6
-------
been reflected in its categories and classes. It has not yet been tested, how-
ever, and some modification may be required when it is put into practice.
PROPOSED SYSTEM OF NOMENCLA TURE AND CLASSIFICA TION OF REFUSE
MAJOR CLASSES
Solid Wastes
Liquid Wastes
Gaseous Wastes
FUNCTIONAL CLASSES
The first subdivision of the major classes. It is generally a physical
description of the type of refuse, used because that description
denotes a particular problem, usually in collection and handling. A
data collection program geared to this level of definition will most
probably be sufficient for a State-level study.
ANALYTICAL CLASSES
The second subdivision of classes of refuse. It will generally be a
chemical description of the nature of the material, used because
that chemical description either denotes a particular problem in
collection, handling or disposal, or immediately provides problem
definition information about the material. Some of these classes
are repeated under several functional classes. Data at this level is
needed for engineering design of facilities for collection, handling,
or disposal.
The tabulation of proposed classes shown in Table 17-1 is intended to be
complete, rather than typical. That is, all possible refuse classifications have
been listed. Certain functional classes contain sufficient description within
themselves that no analytical classification is required to further describe
them (e.g., abandoned automobiles).
In its use, any given waste may have more than one location in the system.
The user must select the most critical classification based on his particular
disposal or handling system. For example, a dead animal is always a
putrescible, but if also pathological, it may be preferentially listed as patho-
logical. Again, a bottle is just a piece of non-combustible mineral, but if it
contains gasoline, it suddenly becomes a fire bomb. If the data collection
precedes system design, then a certain item may have to be listed in more
than one place until the design basis is chosen.
17-7
-------
When the classification "Others - Not Elsewhere Classified" appears, it is not
intended to be a catch-all for items forgotten or not considered. Rather it
should contain only materials specifically determined as not containing a
contaminant that would place it in a problem category. Therefore, it
represents the best and cleanest materials, not miscellaneous problems.
Classifying wastes by this type of system provides significant problem-solving
information about the specific waste and all others in that category. This
type of information is an importcint step in development of an effective
solution to solid waste problems.
With the classification system as a base for data collection, consideration
may now be given to the specific use of the system and the details of the
data collection effort.
A. Preliminary Data Solicitation
1. Municipal - A questionnaire should be prepared, based on the
waste classification system. It should be a basis for data col-
lection in comprehensive plans yet to be completed, for com-
parison with data sufficiency in completed plans, and for
circulation to communities which require additional data. It
should be similar in type to the National Survey forms, but
must answer those questions found wanting when these
forms were analyzed. Interviews should be conducted by
knowledgeable solid wastes engineers, and must include:
a. Details of means of control and delivery or rejection of
wastes at the disposal site.
b. Details on means of waste quantity measurements.
c. Details on decisions for acceptance or rejections of
wastes.
d. Details on method of delivery of wastes by element in
the waste classification system.
e. Quantitative information on each type of waste received
by element in the waste classification system.
f. Density information on volumetric waste quantities.
17-8
-------
2. Industrial - A second questionnaire should be developed to
obtain industrial waste information. It will contain most of
the above questions, except that the ability to accept or
reject wastes will not be appropriate.
B. Secondary Data Collection - Many of the questionnaires will be
incomplete, and in the case of industry, total lack of knowledge
may be evident. A secondary program will then be required to fill
in data gaps. This program will vary from location to location,
depending upon the attitude and cooperation of the entity visited.
It may include any one or more of the following:
1. Assignment of a State Engineer for about two to three weeks
to set up and/or conduct an intensive study.
a. Set up the program and train local people to continue.
b. Collect data over the intensive period and encourage the
local people to continue or spot repeat the program.
2. Provide guidelines for a data collection program to be
reported periodically or continuously.
3. Collect basic information on the locality so as to apply waste
generation rates developed from other more comprehensive
studies.
Collection of data on generation of solid wastes must be a phased program,
and once underway, must be continuous. Many types of solid wastes have
never been classified or counted because they have been outside the usual
sphere of influence of the traditional solid waste agencies. Therefore, the
first trial in data accumulation will encounter many entities who have never
reported or even considered the functional problems of the various waste
elements and may be subject to much error and frustration. Subsequent
efforts should be considerably more satisfactory. The data collection should
be geared to the entity which generates solid wastes, and therefore, two
separate programs are required as outlined above - one for domestic wastes
and one for industrial wastes.
EXISTING FACILITIES AND LAND DISPOSAL SITES
The third necessary data area covers information required on present solid
waste handling and disposal facilities. It is necessary in a comprehensive solid
waste management study to evaluate existing land disposal sites and
incinerators to determine the feasibility of their future use. It is also
17-9
-------
necessary to define the unused capacity of sites and the remaining life of
incinerators. As previously stated, no reasonable determination of these
aspects could be made from the nformation provided by the Statewide
survey, which was not designed for this purpose. The considerations which
follow are presented as general guidelines for obtaining the pertinent data.
Incinerators- It is not practical to provide one set of guidelines for detailed
evaluation of incinerators, because each incinerator varies tremendously in
its ability to be modified to be effective in air pollution control, or to handle
a new variety of industrial wastes. Thus, any single set of guidelines would
have to be general enough to servo for any incinerator situation, and this
generality defeats the purpose of rating the specific facility. Furthermore,
incineration as practiced today has not been effective in protecting the
environment nor in handling and disposing of all wastes generated in the area
it serves. Therefore, the only practical method of rating an incinerator is
through an intensive study (about one to two weeks) by an engineer who has
a knowledge of most or all of the elements in the waste classification system
and a thorough knowledge of combustion processes.
Such a program is of definite value to New York State in its long-range
planning effort and should be instituted for those incinerators which are
either located strategically or are new enough for possible incorporation into
any long-range plan. If such expertise is not available on the staff of the New
York State Department of Health, it should be procured from outside
sources.
Transfer Stations and Waste Processing Facilities - The justification and basis
of design is to reduce waste handling costs by permitting collection vehicles
to dump a full load at a point closer to the collection operation, and thereby
return to collection more rapidly. This type of facility, although much less
complicated, requires the same form of approach to evaluation as
incinerators. Most of the transfer stations in operation today were built to
handle only domestic solid wastes.
If such a facility can be justified for a normal municipal collection vehicle
with 16 or more cubic yards of refuse capacity, it might be far more easily
justified for certain industrial waste:; which are generated in lots as small as
three cubic yards and occupy a truck to move that relatively small quantity.
Yet seldom are the industrial wastes handled through a transfer station.
If any form of long-haul of refuse to centralized disposal facilities is contem-
plated as an alternative for the Master Plan, the success of that alternative
may completely depend upon the ability to make economical movements of
the specialized waste materials. Therefore, the same knowledge of the
elements in the waste classification system required for evaluation of
incinerators applies to the evaluation of transfer stations.
17-10
-------
Land Disposal Sites - In marked contrast to incinerators, land disposal sites
all have much in common. Their ability to accept or reject wastes is far more
a function of the waste itself than of the landfill. Factors such as
topography, climate, and geology relate more to whether or not the site
should be used at all, rather than to any relative value of a site. Also,
technological advances are not anticipated to produce any marked change in
the ability of a landfill to receive more wastes without harming the
environment. Rather, as more is known about the various waste materials, it
is expected that new levels of rejection from landfills will occur.
This "yes or no" type of situation lends itself more readily to development
of a single set of guidelines for evaluation of land disposal sites, whether
existing or proposed. Furthermore, the basic nature and lesser complexity of
the factors themselves permit effective evaluation of a site by persons with
less specialized expertise than with incinerators. For these reasons, guidelines
for evaluation of land disposal sites have been developed and are included in
Table 17-2.
The primary considerations involved in evaluating existing land disposal sites
to determine the feasibility of their future use include: the accessibility of a
site to communities served, the relative economic impact of improving a site
to acceptable standards, and the definition of acceptable standards. There is
little advantage in considering existing operational characteristics, such as
frequency of daily cover, because some sites presently operated as serious
nuisances may only require some minor adjustments to be acceptable as
sanitary landfills. Therefore, only those factors which are pertinent to
inclusion of the site into the Master Plan need be evaluated.
Collecting such data on all 921 land disposal sites in New York State would
be a task of major proportions, but this is not required. Information from
the State survey indicates that only about 25 sites have a life expectancy of
greater than five years (indicating some unused land available) and a total
acreage of 100 acres or more. Performing the necessary data collection on
only these 25 sites should not limit any subsequent decisions, because the
remaining sites have so little unused space that they are of little consequence
in a regional plan.
FACILITY COST RELA TIONSHIPS
The fourth and final area of data needs involves the cost information neces-
sary to economic evaluation of alternatives. These factors are extremely
important in any decision-making process, but present costs are important
only where present facilities are to be continued for some period of time in
the long-range plan. During the preliminary and secondary data collection
phases, details of operating and depreciation or amortization costs should be
17-11
-------
obtained for any facility with a potential life sufficient to be a possible part
of any long-range plan. If not available, procedures should be instituted to
make such costs available.
Within a few weeks after this report is published, the U. S. Public Health
Service booklets on the accounting procedures for landfills and incinerators
should be available for distribution to any agency which requires guidance
on such matters. These booklets, plus the comments of the technical staff
personnel who visit each site, should be sufficient to establish the manner of
data collection.
Costs obtained from old facilities will not be applicable to costs for new
facilities, or even for costing required modifications to the old facilities.
Such costs will have to be developed from the literature or from the
experience of the engineer.
SUMMARY
Part II of this report has discussed and evaluated previous solid waste data
collection efforts, and found that while considerable information has been
obtained on the status of solid wastes collection and disposal, very little of
the data is useful in providing a basis for decision-making. Totally new data
were required to complete the objectives of this study, and many of the
Chapters in Part II document the approach to data development which was
used.
While the new data have been effective in providing a basis for determination
of directions for the New York State plan and program, they are too general
for development of a Master Plan, and even less adequate when viewed as a
basis for decisions in an engineering plan for implementation. Thus, Chapter
Seventeen has outlined an approach to subsequent data collection efforts
which is both consistent between levels of detail in data collection and
effective in providing only that amount of detail required at each level of
planning and implementing activity.
17-12
-------
Table 17-1
Waste Classification System
Class
I Solid Wastes
A Putrescibles
Household Garbage
Vegetable and Fruit Processing
Wastes
Animal Manure
Dead Animals
Meat, Poultry and Seafood
Processing Wastes
Others, Not Elsewhere Classified
B Bulky Combustibles
Wood
Paper and Paper Products
Cloth
Plastics
Rubber
Leather
Yard and Street Wastes
Remarks
Example
Bulky is defined to mean a material of a
size to present problems by jamming in
a compaction truck hopper, an incinerator
feed chute, or other such problems in
handling or disposal. Its dimensions may
not be defined, except by the size and
nature of handling or disposal equipment
Timbers, pallets, cross-ties
Large cardboard packing boxes,
box car linings
Filter cloths, mattress
Styrofoam logs, polystyrene
sheets, garden hose
Belting, tires
Conveyor belting
Tree Ifmbs
C Bulky Non-Combustibles
Metal
Mineral
D Small Combustibles
Wood
Paper and Paper Products
Cloth
Leather
Plastics
Rubber
Yard and Street Wastes
E Small Non-Combustibles
Metal
Mineral
Ashes
F, Non-Empry Cans, Bottles
and Drums
G Gas Cylinders
H. Powders and Dusts
Organic
Metallic inorgamc
Non-metallic Inorganic
Explosive
Small is defined to mean a piece of
waste material of a small enough
size so that no danger of jamming
equipment, or otherwise causing
problems because of its size It
refers to the size of a piece of the
material, not the size of the delivered
load.
This functional class will require precise
defmtion of the contents by one of the
other classes 11 must be considered fo
establish the quantity of material de-
livered in this manner instead of in
bulk form
Drums, bedspnngs
Carboys, bathroom fixtures
Gloves
Shoes
Milk cartons
Galoshes, butyl rubber crumb
Street sweeping, leaves
Cans
Bottles
Furnace ashes
So/vent drums
Bottles of wastes from laboratory
Oxygen, acetylene
Pesticides, grain dusts, chemical
powders, coal dusts
-------
Table 17-1
(continued)
Class
I Pathological Wastes
Cloth, Paper and Plastic
Animal and Human Wastes
Instruments and Utensils
J Sludges
Chlorinated
Brom mated
Fluonnated
Acid
Alkaline
Water Reactive (unhydrolyzed)
Air-Reactive
Putrescible
Miscellaneous Organic
Metallic Inorganic
Non-metallic Inorganic
K. Demolition and Construction
L Abandoned Vehicles
M. Radiological Wastes
Materials which are solid in appearance,
but are w*'t, either from water or liqu-d
organic? The solids portion is classified
May represent a material highly reactive
with the moisture in air, or with the
oxygen ir the air
May represent the wet form of any ot
the materials listed under the Functional
Class of tie same name, but also includes
such materials as wastewater treatment
plant sludges.
Refers to metals in the uncombmed form
Inorganic compounds
This functional class will be subdivided
into the Analytical Classes shown for
bulky and small, combustibles and non-
combustibles. It is included as a separate
class to quantify materials from this source,
and to recognize that a delivery may con-
tain a wide mixture of large and small
combustibles and non-combustibles.
This functional class will require further
definition by one of the other classes. It
must be considered to define this type
of contamination to refuse, and to con-
sider the special measures involved.
Examples
Particles of metal in oil
Filter cakes, CaCQg precipitate
II Liquid Wastes
A. Wastewaters
B. Contaminated Waters
Chlorinated
Brominated
Fluoridated
Acid
Alkaline
Putretcibles
Insoluble Oils
Soluble Oils
Toxic Organic!
Toxic Inorganics
Soluble Metals
Others, NEC
Waste hcuids composed almost entirely
of water but containing contaminant!
in low enough concentration (usually
much less than 1 0 percent) to be
handled through a sewer system to a
wastewater treatment plant. This
definition ts proposed for exclusion
purposes, since these wastes are not
considered normally as refuse
Waters containing contaminants in a
concenfation too high, or of a nature,
that handling through a wastewater
treatment plant is not practical.
Blood, grease
-------
Table 17-1
(continued)
Class
C. Liquid Organics
Chlorinated
Brominated
Fluonnated
Sulfurated
Acid
Alkaline
Water Reactive (unhydrolyzed)
Shock Reactive
Toxic and Hazardous
Soluble Metals
Others, NEC
D. Tars
Chlorinated
Brominated
Fluorinated
Sulfurated
Acid
Alkaline
Water-Reactive
Chemically Reactive
Self Reactive (monomers)
Toxic and Hazardous
Soluble Metals
Others, NEC
E. Slurries
Organic in Water
Inorganic in Water
Organic in a Liquid Organic
Inorganic in a Liquid Organic
Remarks
Liquid at all ambient temperatures.
Stiff materials which are semi-solid at
low ambient temperatures.
Liquid materials which contain solids,
but which readily flow or pump. The
liquid and solid materials both are
classified.
Examples
Many solvents
Pesticides
Chlorine-substituted
hydrocarbons
Bromine-substituted
hydrocarbons
F luorme-substituted
hydrocarbons
Sulfur-substituted
hydrocarbons
Low pH, corrosive
solvents
Unhydrolyzed materials
which react violently
with water
Sodium, calcium
Lime slurry
Metallic sodium in oil
III. Gaseous Wastes
A. Odorous
B. Combustible Paniculate
Solids
Mists
C. Organic Vapors
D. Acid Gases
This classification is restricted to those
gaseous materials which have been or
might become the responsibility of a
disposal group or department to treat,
burn, or otherwise alter before dis-
charge to the atmosphere.
Mercaptans, H2S
Volatile solvents
SO2, HCI
-------
Table 17-2
Guidelines
for
Evaluation of Land Disposal Sites
These evaluation guidelines include only the information which is basic to
the fundamental value of the site. It ignores any element which may readily
be altered by a change in operating procedure.
ACCESS ROADS
1. Are the site and access roads negotiable by all types of vehicles in all
weather? Is the maximum grade less than 5 percent? Is proper slope and
drainage provided?
2. If the access road is deemed insufficient, can it be improved or must a
new access road be constructed? What efforts will be required (distance,
type of terrain, bridges, etc.)?
3. Are there any alternate sites for disposal of refuse during inclement
weather? If so, how convenient are they?
4. Considering surrounding land use, can the dust and noise which result
from normal operations be considered as significant problems along the
existing access roads or along any proposed access roads? If significant,
would it be practical to resurface the roads, add fencing, oil the roads,
or add tree breaks?
5. What is the accessibility (i.e., miles, traveling time) of the land disposal
site to well-developed highway systems and railway systems?
CLIMATE
1. Have provisions been made to maintain operations during extended
rainy periods?
2. What are the temperature extremes? What are the anticipated quantities
of rain or snow, and the frequency of severe storms?
COVER MATERIAL
1. What types and quantities of soil are available at the site for cover
material?
2. What types and quantities of soils are available nearby? How far? What
are their sources?
-------
Table 17-2
(continued)
WATER POLLUTION
1. Are there any problems, e.g., ponding, scouring, etc., due to improper
surface drainage of stormwater runoff? If so, what modifications are
required to correct these problems? What are the downstream uses of
this water?
2. Is any part of the site located within a flood plain? If so, what return
frequency storm would result in flooding of any part of the site? What
modifications are required to correct this problem?
3. Is any refuse placed where the ground-water table will come in contact
with it? If so, is it practical to resolve this problem? What are the
present and programmed uses of the ground water in this area? What
are the duration and frequency of the contact period? What is the
hardness of the ground water away from the direction of horizontal
flow? Is the aquifer of a calcareous nature?
4. What is the bedrock elevation and what type of rock is it?
LAND use
1. In general, what is the surrounding land use? What is the programmed
land use?
2. What is the programmed use for the site once it is filled? Will this use be
of significant value to the surrounding community?
3. In general, is suitable land available nearby for expanding the site? If so,
how much? How far way?
REMAINING CAPACITY
1. What is the estimated remaining capacity of the site for refuse? This is
to be based on definitive operational plans if the site is a sanitary
landfill. If not, assume the area method of landfill is to be applied to
gully, canyon, ravine, etc., locations and the trench method is to be
applied to gently sloping land areas. Then assume for area method
landfills that fill will be to a depth no greater than 40 feet (5 levels at 8'
each) if that is possible, and assume for trench method landfills that the
fill will be to a depth of 8' in trenches 4' deep and 12' wide with a
separating ridge width of 3'. The capacity of the site required for filling
the existing quantity of refuse must be subtracted from this estimate.
-------
Table 17-2
(continued)
EQUIPMENT
1. What amount and types of major equipment are available at the site?
2. What is the general condition of this equipment and what is the owner-
ship?
FACILITIES
1. In general, what are the existing facilities (weighing facilities, fencing,
etc.)?
-------
Figure 17-1
Waste Classification System
Effect on Elements of a Waste Management System
Wastes
by
Classification Storage
Sol id Wastes Putrescibles
Household Garbage X
Veg and Fruit Proc XX
Animal Manure X
Dead Animals XXX
Meat, Poultry, and
Seafood XX
Bulky Combustibles
Wood
Paper and Paper Prod
Cloth
Plastics
Rubber
Leather
Yard and Street
Wastes
Bulky Non-Combustibles
Metal
Mineral
Small Combustibles
Wood
Paper and Paper Prod
Cloth
Leather
Plastic!
Rubber
Yard and Street
Wastes
Collection
and
Transfer
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Processing Handling
X
XX XX
XX XX
X
X
X
X X
XXX X
XX X
X
X X
X
Post
Disposal Disposal
Landfill Incin. Compost Other Problems
XX X XXX
X
X XXX XX XX
X XX X XX
X XX
X XX
X XX X XX
X XX X XX
Small Non-Combustibtw
Note X ngnifies a minor problem
XX ugnifm a moderate problem
XXX ugnifiM a major problem
-------
-------
CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
SITE REUSE
INTRODUCTION
Ultimate use of the filled land and the opportunity to achieve this use
quickly are as important as the technical and economic aspects of the actual
landfill operation. In practice, these major considerations interact: ultimate
use guides and constrains the configuration and method of fill; and the
characteristics of the resultant filled area significantly influence the range of
choice for ultimate use. Therefore, selection of a site, determination of
landfill methods, and evaluation of feasible alternatives for ultimate land use
must be closely coordinated.
This chapter first presents the broad perspective of site reuse as a frame of
reference for reviewing the considerations essential to selection of alternative
end uses for any site. Next, these alternatives are reviewed in reference to
implementation requirements and related problems. Finally, a case history of
a hypothetical site is presented, with a complete program of site develop-
ment from the original use before the landfill operation through implementa-
tion of the ultimate use. Fill operation and phasing of the ultimate use are
emphasized as important elements of a properly executed reuse program.
SITE REUSE IN PERSPECTIVE
In the consideration of solid waste disposal, sanitary landfill stands out as
the least expensive method available, even when operating practices are re-
fined to conform to the best known procedures. In the development of any
Implementation Plan for solid wastes which includes sanitary landfill as an
alternative, three factors that must be considered are often forgotten. Even
when they are included in the evaluation, they are frequently evaluated on a
basis which is not consistent with all aspects of a true planning concept.
18-1
-------
The first factor relates to the flexibility of a sanitary landfill with respect to
all of the solid wastes generated. Proponents of the sanitary landfill have
traditionally ignored many types o1 waste produced. An "ideal" sanitary
landfill will proclaim with pride that one of the measures used to protect the
environment is unequivocal rejection of any waste material known to be or
suspected of creating problems, and (or that matter, any material for which
the problems may riot be understood This leaves the rejected materials to be
disposed of by a segment of the society which may or may not approach the
problem with any degree of care or diligence Thus, the sanitary landfill is
/lot a total solution, and frequently ignores a fraction of the wastes that is
larger than the fraction considered acceptable at the landfill.
The second factor relates to the role of sanitary landfill in combination with
other disposal schemes. Some proponents of incineration have referred to
this method as "ultimate disposal". This concept is a long way from the
truth, and most knowledgeable people in the field of solid waste have long
since discarded this term. Incineration and other forms of solid waste dispo-
sal produce a residue which is non-combustible or non-degradable, and sani-
tary landfill is the usual means of disposal of this residue. Attention has been
given recently to the recovery of resource materials from refuse and from
incinerator residue, both directed primarily at the non-combustible portion.
This approach does effectively move the combination of incineration and
salvage or recovery more toward an "ultimate disposal", but for some time
to come, the land requirement for incinerator residue must be an integral
part of an Implementation Plan which considers incineration. This require-
ment for landfill space necessitate? conservation of the land resource for
such unavoidable uses.
The third factor is seldom or never discussed, both because it is least under-
stood and because it is difficult to explain to the general public, who must
spend the money for the scheme proposed by the "experts".
Sanitary landfill is a destructive use of a natural resource - land.
It is destructive in the sense that once used for sanitary landfill purposes, it is
not reusable for that same purpose. The terms "site reuse" and "land recla-
mation" have become by-words in solid waste disposal, and these concepts
are too often improperly used to sell sanitary landfill as a beneficial interim
step. In reality, both of the terms really refer to the process of converting
land to a more beneficial use, whereas, "reuse" implies the ability to use a
resource again for the same or a similar purpose. Sanitary landfill does have a
place as a means of achieving land reclamation, but land reclamation does
not necessarily justify sanitary landfill.
18-2
-------
It is common practice in the Engineering profession to select a design year
for proposed facilities at some significant time in the future. This time
period is frequently tied to the period of bonded indebtedness for the facili-
ties for which the bonds are sold. This is sound engineering logic, in that a
community should build a facility which serves at least as long as it takes to
pay for it.
In recent years, the planning function has come more into play, and pro-
grams for land use, zoning, utilities, and other elements of a community have
been considered with a view well into the future. This has caused long-range
planning efforts to consider periods of time as much as 50 years into the
future, instead of the 20 to 30 years which was typical of the engineering
"design year" concept.
Both of these concepts are sound, as long as they are applied to planning for
facilities which may be replaced or modified in the future. It isjiot appropri-
ate to apply them to destructive or consumptive uses of a resource. The fact
that land is available for sanitary landfill for 50 years into the future does
not satisfy the question of what happens in year 51. A wastewater treatment
plant can be expanded, a rapid transit system can be built to move people
from outlying areas, but new land cannot be created.
In the general field of environmental engineering and planning, the sanitary
landfill stands alone as the only "modern" approach which defines its own
ultimate limits by the very nature of the process. Water may be treated and
reused. Air may be cleaned of its contaminants. Metals, glass, and paper have
already been recycled into use in actual practice, and even ash has been
turned into blocks used in the building industry.
Sanitary landfill must be treated for what it is - an interim solution, even if
the interim period extends for as long as 50 years. A true plan concept
cannot and must not be content to consider this approach as a viable long-
term alternative, for in so doing, it only defers to and compounds the prob-
lem of future generations.
REUSE FACTORS AND CONSIDERATIONS
Where sanitary landfill has been determined to be a logical means of achiev-
ing a land reclamation program, there are still many factors which must be
considered to ensure both a proper operation and maximum benefit from
the ultimate use. These factors include: existing land use, geology; hydrol-
ogy, topography, and soil cover of existing sites desired ultimate use for the
site; interim use of the site; operations (including phasing) of the landfill
itself; transportation access to and within the site; and the economics of the
landfill operation and of the ultimate land use. The folio- 'ing discussions
18-3
-------
focus on the impact of each of these factors on definition, planning, and
implementation of any alternative ultimate use for a landfill site.
EXISTING AND FUTURE LAND USE
Existing and future land use of the site and in the surrounding region are
extremely important in determining the potential of a given landfill site.
important considerations are the compatibility of alternative ultimate uses
with immediately adjacent uses and the demand or need for proposed uses in
view of growth and activity in the surrounding region. For example, it may
not be wise to propose a recreation facility in an area where a major regional
recreational facility already exists within a few miles of the site. Further, it
would not be wise to consider industrial activity in a site that is far removed
from related markets, necessary transportation, etc. Part of the existing and
future land use consideration is that of zoning; full assurance should be made
that the proposed use for the filled land does not conflict with existing or
proposed zoning requirements for the area.
GEOLOGY, HYDROLOGY, TOPOGRAPHY, AND SOILS
The geology, hydrology, and topography of a site have a strong impact both
on the landfill operation itself and on the choices available for potential land
use. In a site where there is great depth to bedrock, it may not be feasible to
consider heavy construction which would require expensive pilings, although
this site might otherwise be appropriate for landfill activity in that sufficient
depth between cover and bottom of lowest cell would preclude any operat-
ing problems. The topography of the site is important (both as it exists and
as it may be shaped by the landfill operation) to assure adequate safe drain-
age of surface and subsurface waters and to allow redistribution of land for
proper fill and compaction. Hydrology of a site is important both in opera-
tion and in ultimate use to ensure that the natural water flow and water
table in a given site will not be disturbed. The availability of proper soils,
both for redistributing cover matericil in the landfill operation and for pro-
viding suitable building soils for ultimate construction (or other use), is also
important in a reuse definition.
DESIRED ULTIMATE USE
The desired ultimate use itself has an impact on the landfill operation. Con-
sideration of the demands of a proposed reuse such as roadways, parking,
structural requirements, phasing, and construction costs must be taken into
account when viewed with relation to the proposed operation of the fill.
Planning for the ultimate use must take into account consideration of flexi-
bility and change, because demand for activity may change in the surround-
ing area and region. To lock fully into one specific use without allowing the
18-4
-------
capability of accepting additional uses on a site could preclude the best
long-range mix of uses for a site to serve the community, surrounding area,
and region.
OTHER FACTORS
Other factors which are important in planning for and implementing a land-
fill operation include any proposed interim uses. Consideration of the feasi-
bility of using filled land for some other purpose before it is ready for the
ultimate use may be an important factor in some cases. Operations and
phasing of the site are linked with interim use and ultimate use in that
appropriate amounts and conditions of land must be available in a reasonable
length of time to allow final construction or other desired ultimate activity
to be undertaken. Transportation to, from, and within the site is important
in allowing smooth and economic flow of waste materials to the site, dispo-
sal on the site, and the flovV of service vehicles from the site. Transportation
must also be considered in light of the demands and needs of the ultimate
uses such as rail for industry, or major highways for dense residential devel-
opment. Finally, the economics of the landfill operation and the resultant
value of the land at the ultimate-use activity level must be considered in light
of tax return as a discount against the cost of capital investment and opera-
tions during the life of the landfill. Proper selection of ultimate use can often
provide a significant repayment to the municipality in which the landfill
operation is located, by virtue of the increased tax return on the developed
property.
UL TIM A TE USE ALTER NAT IVES
Alternatives for ultimate use of a sanitary landfill site are relatively broad;
however, there are certain restrictions as to weight and type of construction
which may take place on a landfilled area. These restrictions frequently can
be overcome by proper engineering, although in many cases the required
engineering may be quite involved. Proposed use of areas of undisturbed
earth adjacent to the actual fill areas is a factor in considering each potential
use. The use of a site may be restricted by its surroundings, and to some
extent by the amount of settlement in the fill. A fill several miles from a
residential district is not a desirable site for a playground or parking area,
and the fill that can be expected to settle rapidly and unevenly is not
suitable for even light construction. Throughout the United States many uses
have been made of landfill sites, including: recreation; residential; commer-
cial; industrial; and other uses such as airports, parking areas and even
stables. The following discussion touches briefly on the examples and con-
straints of uses in various sections of the United States. The examples were
generally drawn from an article, "How to Use Your Completed Landfill" in
the August 1965 issue of The American City. A 1966 American Public
18-5
-------
Works Association publication, "Municipal Refuse Disposal", was the prin-
cipal basis for discussion of construction details on landfill sites and of
measures for coping with escaping gases.
RECREATION
Parks, playgrounds, and ball fields are the most popular uses for landfill sites.
Two feet of well-compacted final ccver is generally sufficient for most parks
and playgrounds. If trees or large shrubs are to be planted, a deeper final
cover may be necessary to provide sufficient soil depth for root growth.
Special provisions will be necessary to remove methane gas from areas that
are to heavily landscaped, because methane gas will damage the roots of
most plants. Typical recreation uses of completed landfills include parks,
golf courses, riding, and general recreation areas. Many of the major cities in
the United States have at some time used landfill area for a park site. Special
recreation uses have included development of a ski slope by contouring and
working the fill in lifts in Virginia Beach.
RESIDENTIAL
Residential projects have been constructed on existing landfill sites. New
York City has a substantial number of housing units built on landfill sites.
The Eastwick Project in the City of Philadelphia is constructed on a landfill
site. Both single-family and multi-fcmily uses have also been completed in
Grand Rapids, Michigan; Charlotte, North Carolina; St. Louis Park, Minneso-
ta; Richmond, Virginia; and Dallas, Texas.
If construction is carried out over a filled area, pilings or deep-cut, spread-
footing foundation walls should be used. Special techniques including cap-
ping and venting should be used to disperse methane gas to areas as far
removed as possible from proposed housing projects. Techniques for handl-
ing subsurface gases include: the intercepting and dissipating by means of
suitably-designed, porous, gravel-filled trenches or by pipes inserted into the
body of the fill; confining the gas by means of subsurface enclosing en-
velopes of gas-tight construction. Generally, no service basements, crawl
spaces, or similar open spaces should be permitted below finish grade. The
ground floor should be at least one foot above finish grade and should be of
permanently gas-tight construction; the fill immediately beneath the struc-
ture should be of non-porous materials to a depth of 24". All pipes, ducts,
and conduits piercing the ground floor should have gas-tight gaskets of an
improved permanent nature. For multiple dwellings, a three-foot high,
permanently-ventilated crawl space above finish grade is recommended under
the area of the entire building. The crawl space itself should have gas-tight
floor construction at the top and an impervious slab at the bottom. Where
structures are to have a basement or a cellar, there are techniques to provide
a gas-tight enclosed area.
18-6
-------
COMMERCIAL
Commercial buildings and shopping centers have been developed in a number
of cities including Nashua, New Hampshire; Belmont, Texas; Seattle, Wash-
ington; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As was the case in multiple dwellings
of lightweight construction, care must be taken to capture and/or divert
methane gas away from the structures by providing gas-tight construction.
Good compaction is required to minimize settling and, therefore, structural
faults. The most successful sites have reserved a tract of undisturbed earth
for the construction of major buildings or have used pilings where heavy
construction was involved over fill areas.
INDUSTRIAL
Industrial projects have been built in Dallas and Beaumont, Texas; San Diego
and Burbank, Claifornia; Davenport, Iowa; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
These range from lightweight, double-frame construction to buildings using
80-foot piles driven to refusal. Another technique used for heavy construc-
tion of industrial activities involved excavation through the landfill area to
base level, with accompanying special treatment of the exposed waste to
prevent putrification and the spread of noxious odor. Again, the problems of
gas removal and settling must be carefully watched, and planning for undis-
turbed earth for construction of major buildings is generally the route which
has provided the greatest success with minimum problems.
OTHER USES
A number of cities have found other uses for completed landfill sites or have
combined uses on a single site. Major reuses include: airports such as La
Guardia Field in New York City; and an extension of runways as in the case
of Morgantown, West Virginia. In both instances, compaction was a critical
factor in order to withstand the heavy impact loadings provided by the
landing and taking off of aircraft.
Other special uses include light-duty outdoor operations such as parking
areas and handling or goods-transfer yards. In these cases, the paving that is
used must be flexible and generally must have a bituminous binder to allow
for any sub-settling which may take place. The City of Seattle, Washington
used one site for the University Field House. This was-a reasonable reuse
because of the overall light-duty construction and the provision for free
escape of methane gas from below the surface. The World's Fair site, well
known in the New York City area, is constructed over a landfill. An unusual
reuse is illustrated by the construction of a hospital using pilings for the
main support in Cincinnati, Ohio. Also, one of the few landfill reuses of its
type is the Mill Creek Water Commission Control Plant in the same city.
18-7
-------
ILLUSTRA TION OF SITE REUSE
Based on the information presented above, virtually any reuse is feasible so
long as proper planning, landfill operations, and construction techniques are
carried out. To better illustrate the potential for site reuse in New York
State, a hypothetical site was developed which incorporated natural surface
and subsurface features of existing landfill sites. Conditions with regard to
site features, surrounding land uses proximity to major highways and rail
lines, and distance from a major urban center were based on typical situa-
tions in the State. The following sections present an example based on
development in the region to be sen/ed, a description of the typical site, the
concept of the proposed reuse, landfill operations and phasing of the reuse,
and the ultimate reuse development plan. Details as to site and development
characteristics, operations and fill methods, and ultimate site preparation
and drainage are also discussed. This presentation is intended to serve as a
guide in the planning, effectuation, and final development of a landfill site
reuse program.
REGIONAL LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
As shown on Map 24, the hypothetical site is located approximately four-
teen miles from the center of a major city. An interstate highway runs
east-west fourteen miles north of the site, and one of the two major rail lines
is less than four miles to the west of the site. A two-lane primary State
highway provides access to the site from an existing major highway and
expressway network servicing the urban growth areas. Growth within the
city has ceased and expansion into suburbs and rural areas is progressing at a
rapid pace. Small clusters of development on larger lots are already taking
place near the site. Increased development is projected to take place in the
area of the site within the next ten years.
To provide smooth, efficient access to the site and support projected devel-
opment, highway and rail improvements will be required. The "cross-town
expressway" must be extended east to the north-south State primary high-
way. The State primary, now two lanes, must be improved and widened to
four lanes south from the "cross-town expressway" to the site area. A major,
heavy road-bed spur track must bo extended from the existing rail line
eastward into the site, and a tipple siding constructed on the site. At two
points on the spur, passing or blocking sidings will be required to allow
sequencing of the loaded cars and to maintain a smooth flow for unloading
of waste.
18-8
-------
THE EXISTING SITE
The site is approximately 600 acres in area and has a soil consisting mainly
of glacial till with other soils which vary from gravelly fine sand to silt loam.
Four hills dominate the site with slopes in excess of 15 percent; however,
most of the site is gently sloped and rolls to a moderate level. Deciduous
hardwood trees and some evergreens cover approximately 20 percent of the
site, and a major creek, with an impoundment, flows through the south-
western portion of the area. The site is moderately well drained; depth to
water table varies from 12 to 15 feet, and depth to bedrock is greater than
50 feet at minimum level. Sufficient cover material is available on the site for
most of the landfill operation.
Present land use activity on the site includes grain and cover crops on ap-
proximately 50 percent of the site area, and a one-acre lot, one-family subdi-
vision in the southeast corner of the site. The site is bounded on the west by
the two-lane State primary roadway (which is to be improved to four lanes)
and on the north, east, and south by two-lane State secondary highways. The
general surroundings include a mixture of large-lot, one-family developments
and active farms. Zoning in the area allows for one-family housing, with
agriculture as a permitted use. A Planned Unit Development Ordinance is in
effect in the municipality, allowing a mix of land uses on tracts meeting
minimum specifications.
Map 25 illustrates the existing conditions on and adjacent to the site. This
map also delineates the various assumptions and constraints imposed on the
site after an analysis of existing conditions. Minimum setbacks from adjacent
roads, watercourses, and existing residential areas are established. Locations
most suitable for sanitary fill, cover material removal, and for required buf-
fer planting, screening, and berms are indicated. Areas of undisturbed earth
as well as areas of cut and fill requiring normal stabilization are also shown as
locations for possible construction. Finally, the phasing of the fill operation
and reuse development are shown by general areas for selected target years.
CONCEPT OF PROPOSED REUSE
The reuse proposed for the 600-acre site is a Planned Unit Development.
This plan was chosen on the basis of projected regional growth into the are
and the compatibility of existing site conditions with the requirements of
various land use activities. A mixture of several residential structure types at
different densities, a small commercial facility, and light industrial activity
and recreation areas are suggested in those areas of the site for which they
are best suited. This placement recognizes the inherent constraints of build-
ing on fill areas, on areas of cut and fill, and on undisturbed earth. The
location of the industrial and commercial facilities also takes into account
the proximity to and type of adjacent land uses, as well as the requirements
for access from points outside the site.
18-9
-------
Campus-like industrial activities are included because a spur for rail haul
would already exist, and an improved State primary on the west side of the
site would provide necessary access while allowing a separation of the
service-type area from residential and commercial areas. Commercial uses are
proposed to serve the needs of the current and future residents of the site
and surrounding area. A variety of residential unit types and densities are
suggested to make best use of the amenities of the site, to assure market
coverage, and to allow a natural phasing of development. Finally, recreation
to meet the needs of the area residents is recommended as the most practical
use over actual fill areas.
OPERATIONS AND PHASING
The potential success of any proposed reuse is a direct function of the
quality, the control, and the filling techniques used in the operation of the
landfill and surrounding site development. A landfill operations plan and
phasing program was designed based on the information describing the exist-
ing site, the goals and proposals of the ultimate reuse proposed, and high
standards of sanitary landfill implementation. The proposed operation in its
various stages and phases of development is shown in Maps 26 through 29.
OPERATIONS
There are many methods of operating a sanitary landfill. The methods to be
used on this site are the trench, area, and valley fill methods, depending
upon the topography and final use. The trench method has the advantage of
providing a more direct means of dumping control which is not always
possible with the area method. Since a specific place is designated for dump-
ing, the scattering of refuse by the wind is minimized and refuse trucks can
be readily directed to the trench. The area method is more suitable for level
ground. Here sufficient cover material will be stripped and stockpiled to
meet the total need for earth cover or, if this is not possible, earth will be
hauled in. In all cases, refuse will be spread and compacted in 12-inch layers
as dumped, and promptly covered. The spreading and compaction will take
place on a working face which has a 30-percent slope.
The trench method will be used primarily on level ground, although it is also
suitable for moderately sloping ground. In this method, a trench is con-
structed by making a shallow excavation and using this excavated material to
form a ramp above the original ground. Refuse is then methodically placed
in the excavated area, compacted, anc covered with suitable material at the
end of the day's operation. Earth for cover material may be obtained from
hillsides or from the area where the next day's refuse will be placed.
Trenches will be made 20 to 25 feet wide, and the depth of fill will be
determined by the established finished grade and by the depth to ground
water or rock. Wherever trenches can be deeper, more efficient use can be
made of the available land area.
18-10
-------
The area method will be utilized on fairly flat and rolling terrain by using the
existing natural slope of the land. The width and length of the fill slope will
depend on the nature of the terrain, on the volume of refuse delivered daily
to the site, and on the approximate number of fucks th-rt will unload at the
site at one time. Side slopes will be of a 30 percent grade, while width of fill
strips and surface grades will be controlled during operation by means of line
poles and grade stakes. The working face should be kept as small as practical
to take advantage of truck compaction, to restrict dumping to a limited area,
and to avoid scattering of debris. In the ramp method, earth cover will be
scraped from the base of the ramp. In the area method, cover material will
be hauled in from a nearby stockpile or from some other source.
In valleys and draws, the area method is usually the best method of opera-
tion. In those areas where the valley is deep, the refuse will be placed in
"lifts" from the bottom up with a depth of six to ten feet, although greater
depths may also be used. Cover material will be obtained from the sides of
the valley. The first layer will be constructed for a relatively short distance
from the head of the valley across its width. The length of this initial lift will
be determined to allow for initial settlement. Succeeding lifts will be con-
structed by trucking refuse over the first lift to the head of the valley. When
the final grade has been reached (with allowance for settlement), the lower
lift will be extended and the process repeated.
Care will be taken to avoid pollution of both surface and ground waters. This
will be done by intercepting and diverting ground water away from the fill
area or by directing its flow through pipes of suitable size. Special provision
will also be made for temporary surface water drainage and runoff to prevent
erosion, washout of refuse, and contact of surface water with the filled area.
In some cases, it may be practical to provide a diversion ditch to carry most
of the runoff away from the fill area. In other cases, it may be necessary to
line the sides and bottom of the area perimeter with a layer of coarse gravel
or other permeable material, to allow ground water and runoff to drain
without contact with the refuse. As with other fill methods, grading during
operations will be implemented, to avoid ponding on the surface or seepage
into the completed lifts. As areas are filled, methane-collecting impervious
material with stone-lined vents would be provided.
To ensure proper control once the major fill areas are in operation, full
perimeter fencing with a weigh station at the entry road should be provided.
Offices, restrooms, showers, and rest facilities will be provided for the site
employees. A lightweight equipment-storage structure would also be built in
this area. It is expected that a full complement of equipment including
several wheeled front end loaders, bulldozers, and landfill compactors will be
required. At least one earth mover, one motor grader, a drag line, and pos-
sibly a clam scoop shovel will also be required for fill operations and site
18-11
-------
redevelopment. As rail haul of refuse becomes feasible, a spur will be ex-
tended on a heavy bed into the site. Hopper and tipple cars will be used to
transport waste onto the site. An enclosed tipple and bin complex would be
constructed at a mid-point in the major fill area to allow rail cars to be
emptied as they arrive and to be moved away soon after. Twelve- to
fourteen-cubic-yard trucks can move the waste from the bins to the current
fill area. These trucks can also be used to move cover material across the site
or from areas outside of the site.
PHASING
It is proposed that a fill operation receiving wastes delivered only by truck
be started in the northeast corner of tne 600-acre site in 1970. The site area
south of the creek would be placed in development for recreation uses such
as ball fields and tennis courts, with picnic areas near the creek; regrading to
create berms as visual barriers would be implemented. Landscaping and
screening would be started to protect the residential development in the
southeast corner of the site.
Between 1970 and 1975, extension of the rail spur, construction of rail car
tipple and access road, and industrial :;ite development would begin. Where
necessary, regrading will be carried out to shape the site as required for these
activities and to provide an initial stockpile of cove material. In those areas
not intended for immediate use as fill or cover materials areas, existing
agricultural activity would be allowed to continue. Recreation development
south of the creek should be nearing completion. As landscaping is required,
fresh vegetation and trees will be imported from off-site locations, because
the relative cost of moving on-site landscape vegetation is generally not
competitive.
By 1975, the first fill area is to be completed and will remain undeveloped
for at least one year to allow for initial settlement. Additional soil fill ma-
terial will then be added and compacted. The first of the two major fill areas
(Fill Area No. Two) will then be in operation, with the expectation that a
major portion of the waste material will be arriving by rail haul. Valleys and
draws will be filled first, proceeding south into the flatter areas, where
trench and area fill methods will be used. By 1980, the industrial area should
be in use, residential construction should be underway in the eastern part of
the site on undisturbed land, and the first construction phase of the commer-
cial facilities should be in progress.
Between 1980 and 1990, Fill Area No. Two should be completed and Fill
Area No. Three placed into operation. By this time, most of the residential
areas should be under development, the commercial complex should be com-
pleted, and the first nine holes of an eighteen-hole pitch and putt golf course
18-12
-------
can be started over Fill Area No. Two. Small play areas, hiking and riding
trails, and possibly picnic areas can be integrated with the golf course de-
velopment.
It is expected that by 1990, Fill Area No. Three will be finished or nearing
completion. The remaining nine holes of the golf course can be completed.
Residential development will continue until completion of the ultimate plan.
Final landscaping and grading will be carried out to remove all indications of
the fill operation. Unneeded sections of the rail spur and the off-loading
tipple installation would be removed. What was a temporary site access road
will be improved as the final section of the internal circulation plan.
ULTIMATE REUSE PLAN
The ultimate development plan as proposed for the 600 acres is shown on
Map 30. If developed according to this plan, the site would provide a com-
mercial complex, industrial development, a variety of residential unit types,
and recreation facilities.
The commercial complex is located on a 25-acre site which includes all
associated land uses such as parking, service, pedestrian malls, and buildings.
It is envisioned that this would be a commercial complex of substantial
proportions, supporting both local and surrounding area residents. Access
would be provided by means of a service road connecting the site to the
State secondary highway along the southern edge of the site, thus avoiding
dangerous ingress and egress directly onto a highway.
The industrial development, intended principally for light industry, goods
handling, and research or office activities, is provided with rail access at the
rear and restricted road access at the front of the properties. Parcels of land
range from some three to eight acres, with the potential for subdividing the
larger parcels. The access road is planned with a 60 foot right-of way and a
32- to 36-foot paved cartway. This access road would also provide service
access to the rear of the commercial facilities and allow separation of de-
livery vehicles from shopper traffic.
A variety of housing types including townhouses, apartments, and one-
family homes is recommended for the residential area. These types would be
mixed and clustered to provide for a wide range of choice to allow creative
siting during actual development, to take full advantage of existing and
created site topography, and to provide landscaping and pedestrian pathways
separated from roads. Road access into the residential areas is proposed at
one point on each of the four boundary roadways. A minimum right-of-way
of 50 feet and a minimum paved cartway of 26 feet are recommended as
residential roadway standards. Where roads and parking areas cross or are
located on areas filled with waste, a flexible paving material with bituminous
binder is recommended.
18-13
-------
A variety of recreation facilities are suggested. Riding trails, picnic areas,
active play fields, and an eighteen-hole pitch and putt course are proposed
over Fill Areas Two and Three in the center of the site. South of the creek,
active play fields, picnic areas, and a swimming pool are recommended.
Seasonal uses on a small scale could take place on the lake. Parking areas
with direct access from the highway cm the south are provided. Improved
drainage ways are shown as necessary to collect and channel surface runoff
into the creek.
The plan shown is indicative of the final use of a landfill site where careful
pre-planning and fill operation have been implemented. There is no require-
ment that the complete range of land uses shown here should be developed.
However, their inclusion is feasible where proper procedures of fill methods,
site development, grading, and landscap ng are employed, and where demand
for such uses exists.
18-14
-------
CHAPTER NINETEEN
SERVICE AREAS
INTRODUCTION
In New York State, there are essentially no regional solid waste disposal
operations. Through the State, there are many small dumps serving one or
two small towns unable or unwilling to afford the cost associated with
sanitary disposal. Expensive incinerators have had to be constructed when
rapidly-developing municipalities were unable to come up with a landfill site
and the enveloping municipalities were either in the same position or refused
to accept the waste. However, even these incinerators were developed as
local rather than regional operations. Only ten of the 77 municipal incinera-
tors in the State serve more than one municipality, and only two of the ten
have capacities greater than 200 tons per day.
The aesthetic problems, the air and water pollution, the possible health
hazards, and the magnitude of the public costs associated with disposal in
this fashion certainly indicate that a different approach is needed.
ADVANTAGES OF A REGIONAL APPROACH
Recent study and analysis of waste management suggest that it is desirable to
establish regional means of handling and disposing of wastes on a broad,
systematic basis. Some of the advantages of regional area-wide solid waste
management are:
1. It makes possible a comprehensive study of the total area generat-
ing the solid wastes, and facilitates consideration of area-wide solu-
tions of common problems, both on short-term and long-term
bases. An effective study which considers local problems can also
help overcome the mutual distrust that often hampers joint opera-
tions among adjoining municipalities.
19-1
-------
2. There is usually no more objection to one large regional operation
than to an individual town lor village or city) operation. Coordi-
nated effort can therefore be directed to overcoming the objec-
tions to one site and operation, rather than to each of severa!
town, village, and/or city sites.
3. The unit cost for the disposal of a large volume of solid waste is
less. Duplication of engineering, overhead, equipment, labor, and
supervision is eliminated. For example, the annual cost of refuse
disposal by sanitary landfill for a community of 50,000 would run
around $1.50 per capita ($1.85 per ton), For a community of
450,000, the cost would run around $1.00 per capita ($1.25 per
ton). Incineration cost for the same example would range from
$7.00 per capita ($8.75 per ton) for the smaller community, to
$3.95 ($5.00 per ton) for the larger community.
4. Better operation is possible with area-wide service, because ade-
quate funds for proper supervision, equipment, and maintenance
can be more easily provided. A properly qualified superintendent
can run a large operation as easily (or more easily) than a small
one, and the shortage of people with these qualifications rein-
forces the practical advantage of a centralized operation.
5. Site selection may be more effective on a regional basis, because
more land areas would be available for consideration. A local gov-
ernment or authority may be forced to resort to the more costly
method of incineration simply because suitable landfill sites may
not be available within or near the municipality.
6. County or regional financing costs for solid waste disposal are
often less, because a lower interest rate can usually be obtained on
bonds because of the broader tax base.
Most of these advantages are widely recognized, but regionalization has been
hampered by the inability to get adjoining municipalities to cooperate with
each other. A trend toward regionalization is evident in New York State, as
evidenced by inter-municipal cooperation in various programs, such as educa-
tion. However, if regional solid waste systems are to be implemented within
a reasonable time, it is apparent that the New York State Government will
have to assume responsibility for promoting and prompting them. This im-
plies the further responsibility of analysis of the factors which affect crea-
tion of a regional system in order to define those geographical areas which
should logically be engaged in cooperative efforts.
19-2
-------
The term "Region" has several popular connotations already in use across
the country, as well as in New York. A region may be defined because of
past cooperative efforts, by a Planning Agency and its geographical scope, or
even by the Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas defined by the Bureau
of the Census. An existing "Region" may have been devised for purposes
totally disconnected with the problem of solid waste handling and disposal,
and therefore may not be applicable or appropriate in establishing solid
waste regions.
To avoid confusion with existing regions or regional efforts, the term "Ser-
vice Areas" has been chosen to represent a portion of New York State for
which cooperative solid waste efforts are appropriate and should be pro-
moted. A service area is characterized by:
1. The geographical boundaries within which the system functions.
2. The location and size of appropriate sites and facilities within its
boundaries.
3. The quality of the operation of the facilities.
4. The quality of the service involved in collecting wastes at their
sources.
5. The distribution of wastes from their sources to the facilities.
6. The responsibilities, powers, and authorities of the management
agency or agencies within the service area.
CRITERIA FOR SERVICE AREA DEFINITION
The major objective in defining a Service Area must be to realize the least
cost with the most manageable and effective disposal means. Because each of
the elements of a service area can differ greatly, there is an extremely wide
variety of alternative measures available for the disposal of solid waste in
New York State. Selecting from these alternatives is a most complex task
because the selection must consider not only costs, but also the political,
institutional, technological, aesthetic, and social issues which are closely in-
terrelated. The delineation of service areas must be directed toward meeting
future demands. In the interim, it may be economically feasible or politically
desirable to develop cooperative efforts on only a "sub-service area" scale.
Such efforts should be encouraged provided they represent an effective ap-
proach either in themselves or as a step toward the ultimate service area
solution.
19-3
-------
The task of defining a service area is clearly in the realm of systems analysis,
which is concerned with pointing out promising alternatives and describing
the economic and technological consequences of each in quantitative terms
to provide a basis for decision-making. The most effective means of develop-
ing this decision-making basis is to formulate the relevant variables in a
mathematical model programmed to minimize the cost of refuse disposal in
New York State. Application of such a model could determine optimum
location and size of facilities, communities to be served by these facilities,
and the best means of moving the waste to these facilities. If this is done
effectively, the solution of the mooel will implicitly define proper service
area boundaries.
Such a mathematical model has been proposed for development in subse-
quent phases of the New York State planning effort. However, some indica-
tion of potential service area boundaries was desired at this stage of study.
Regardless of any difference in the amount of study or detail used to de-
velop the Service Areas, the criteria for selection must be the same. These
criteria are:
1. A service area must be a contiguous geographical area, which to
the greatest extent possible approximates a square or circle in
shape so as to minimize travel from the center to its most remote
points.
2. Wherever undue distortion of technical or economic considera-
tions will not occur, boundaries should be coterminous with exist-
ing county lines, to minimize the extent and complexity of politi-
cal and legal considerations.
3. The method of dealing with the solid waste problems should be
compatible within a Service Area, in that a single management
approach (and hopefully, a single technical approach) can apply
over the entire area.
4. Physical, economic, and political features of the component parts
of the area should be compatible.
5. High-density waste producing centers should generally not be lo-
cated at or near the boundaries of a Service Area, where the result-
ing ton-miles of refuse haul tends to be near maximum.
6. All solid waste generated within a Service Area should be disposed
of within the Service Area. Where this is impractical on a short- or
long-term basis, arrangements may be made between Service
Areas.
19-4
-------
7. Although the intent is to divide the entire State into Service Areas,
a Service Area does not have to be defined for any portion of the
State for which inter-governmental cooperation produces no bene-
fit.
DELINEA TIONOF SER VICE AREAS
Boundary definition is best accomplished by solution of an appropriate
mathematical model; however, the criteria developed in the preceding sec-
tion provide sufficient direction for an illustrative delineation of service areas
in New York State. The only data needed for tentative selection of service
areas are those defining the waste density throughout the State. This has
been developed in previous Chapters and is available for municipal, agricul-
tural, and industrial solid waste classes.
It is reasonable to assume that on-site disposal of most agricultural wastes
(with perhaps the exception of chicken and duck manure in certain locali-
ties) will continue to be an acceptable practice, and consequently agricul-
tural wastes as a separate class will not have any significant impact on the
service area definition for several years to come. This is obviously not true
for municipal and industrial waste; it is likely that service area operations
will be concerned with providing disposal for most industrial waste as well as
all municipal waste. In this sense, the data most appropriate for delineation
of service areas are the waste densities for municipal plus industrial wastes.
The concept of service areas is directed to the needs of the future; therefore,
the service area delineations should be based on future quantities of wastes.
These data for the years 1975, 1985, and 1995 were developed and have
been presented in Chapters Thirteen and Fourteen.
The methodology used to make the illustrative delineation of service areas
was as follows:
1. Use the criteria developed in the previous section and 1995
municipal-plus-industrial waste density data to define service areas
appropriate for that horizon year.
2. Use 1985 waste density data to divide, if appropriate, the 1995
service areas into sub-service areas.
The selected service areas are shown superimposed over the 1995 municipal-
plus-industrial waste density map in Map 31, which was developed from Map
17 by omitting the two lowest waste density levels; in this example, the
service area boundaries follow the existing county lines. However, in all
cases, political county boundaries cannot necessarily be e 'pected to be com-
patible with service area boundaries. For example, Herkimer County in
19-5
-------
Central New York State is a long, narrow county (90 miles by 20 miles) with
the northern portion lying in the Adirondack Forest Preserve and the lower
portion within the Mohawk Valley corridor of growth and development.
While it is readily apparent that the service areas boundaries will not con-
form to county lines, it is not possible to establish the exact boundary lines
without using the mathematical model. Similarly, the selected sub-service
areas are shown in Map 32, which is derived from the 1985 municipal and
industrial waste density data of Map 16. This series of Maps (31, 32 and 33,
which is a comparable derivation of ne 1970 data of Map 15) are presented
to highlight the density of waste development pertinent to Service Area
delineation.
Table 19-1 is a listing of the counties in each of the six service areas. Because
of low density of expected wastes, large-scale cooperative efforts are not
warranted in the northern and southwestern part of New York State, and
thus counties in these regions are not considered to constitute service areas,
and solid waste disposal on a local or county basis would be appropriate
there.
FUTURE IMPACT OF SOLID WASTES
Dividing the State into areas such as these does permit general observations
to be made. The future demands of solid waste disposal can be indicated by
region. Table 19-2 lists the land area requirements (based on 10,000 tons per
acre and a fill depth of 8 feet) by service areas and regions, based on all
projected municipal and industrial wastes being disposed of solely by sani-
tary landfill. The information indicates that more than 80,000 acres of land
would be required during the 25-year period from 1970-1995 if current
landfill practices are used and if all municipal and industrial wastes were to
be disposed of on sanitary landfills. To further illustrate the impact on land
resources, if all municipal and industrial wastes were incinerated and the
typical weight reduction of 75 percent were achieved, the 1970-1995 land
requirements would still be more than 20,000 acres. This is a significant
amount, particularly in view of the report that only 16,385 acres were
devoted to land disposal of solid waste in 1968, of which only 7,627 acres
had a life expectancy of more than 10 years (See Tables 12-2 and 12-3).
Another result desired from this study was an estimation of costs for solid
waste disposal. Tables 19-3 and 19-4 are listings of the operating costs in-
volved in the disposal of future solid wastes via sanitary landfill and incinera-
tion, respectively. It should be noted that these tables do not include collec-
tion costs, which can (based on current practices) be more than five times
the cost per ton for sanitary landfill. From this information, disposal of
projected municipal and industrial wastes during the 25-year period from
to 1995 is estimated to cost $1,039,000,000 if all solid waste disposal is by
196
-------
sanitary landfill, and $4,204,000,000 if all solid waste is disposed of via
incinerators. Actual costs should be between these two values because com-
binations of landfills and incineration will probably be used. In any event, it
is apparent that solid waste disposal will have a significant financial impact.
The above data on costs and area requirements were determined by multiply-
ing anticipated waste production in the service areas by typical unit cost
values ($5.00 per ton for incineration, $1.25 per ton for landfill) and unit
land consumption (10,000 tons per acre assuming a fill depth of 8 feet).
These unit values were not derived from available New York State data, for
reasons explained in previous chapters. However, the information represents
average values obtained from current practices and are valid for illustration
of the impact of solid wastes.
In 1965, communities in New York State spent $174,200,000 for refuse
collection and disposal, for a per capita cost of $10.38. These were based on
960 out of a total of 1,547 cities, towns, and villages reporting, and included
only the payments made by municipalities (payments made by individuals to
contract operations were excluded from the data calculations). ^ A subse-
quent Special Report on Municipal Affairs, submitted by the Comptroller of
the State of New York to the State Legislature on March 29, 1967 indicated
that the solid waste problem is rapidly becoming a major fiscal problem
because collection and disposal costs had increased by 150-200 percent be-
tween 1955 and 1965.
Realizing the future problems posed by the decreasing availability of suitable
land for sanitary landfills, the Bureau of Solid Wastes Engineering and Com-
munity Environmental Health conducted a study to locate State-owned
lands which could be considered for landfill use. State-owned lands were
used in this analysis of the land requirement-availability problem; however,
they were used for illustration only, and this discussion must not be inter-
preted as any guarantee of their availability, even though they are not sub-
ject to the legislative constraints that would affect privately-owned lands.
Once a complete listing of State properties was obtained, a systematic proce-
dure was used to eliminate those properties which appeared to be unsuitable
for sanitary landfill sites. The considerations used to select properties were:
size, topography, present land use, and proximity to mass transportation.
Table 19-5 is a listing of the selected State-owned lands, and Map 34, with
sites numbered to key in to Table 19-5, shows their location.
M965 Refuse Cost Data, compiled by the Bureau of Solid Wastes Engineering
and Community Environmental Health from records of the Department of
Audit and Control, Division of Research.
19-7
-------
The total acreage of State-owned lands in each service area is presented in
Table 19-6, along with the percentage required if all wastes were disposed of
by sanitary landfills on State-owned lands. The projected requirement for 27
percent of the selected State-owned lands may seem insignificant however,
since many of these lands are already being used for activities high in public
interest (wildlife management, recreation), the figure of 27 percent may
actually represent essentially all the potentially available State-owned land.
The previous information on costs, landfill acreage requirements, and re-
quirements for State-owned lands certainly indicates that solid wastes will
have a significant impact. The firm basis for effective, economical waste
management practices inherent in regionalization suggests that the concept
of service areas should be promoted tD the fullest extent possible.
19-8
-------
Table 19-1
Northern Region*
County
Clinton
Essex
Frnaklin
Hamilton
Jefferson
Lewis
St. Lawrence
Warren
Washington
Buffalo-Rochester
Service Area
County
Erie
Genesee
Niagara
Wyoming
Livingston
Monroe
Ontario
Orleans
Wayne
Service Areas
Central State
Service Area
County
Cayuga
Cortland
Madison
Onondaga
Oswego
Seneca
Tompkins
Herkimer
Oneida
Broome
Chenango
Delaware
Otsego
Tioga
Hudson Valley
Service Area
County
Fulton
Montgomery
Schoharie
Albany
Rensselaer
Saratoga
Schenectady
Columbia
Dutchess
Greene
Orange
Putnam
Sullivan
Ulster
Southwestern Region1
County
Allegany
Cattaraugus
Chatauqua
Chemung
Schuyler
Steuben
Yates
Lower Hudson
Service Area
County
Rockland West
Westchester
New York City
Service Area
County
Bronx
Kings
New York (Man.)
Queens
Richmond
Long Island
Service Area
County
Nassau
Suffolk
'Not a service area.
-------
Table 19-2
Acreage Requirements to
Dispose of Future Municipal and
Industrial Solid Wastes
By Sanitary Landfill1
Service Area
Northern Region
Buffalo-Rochester Service Area
Central State Service Area
Hudson Valley Service Area
Southwestern Region
Lower Hudson Service Area
New York City Service Area
Long Island Service Area
1970-1975
400
1,900
1,000
900
300
600
4,200
1,500
10,800
1975-1985
900
4,800
2,800
2,500
900
1,800
11,700
3,900
29,300
Area Required, acres2
1985-1995
1,300
7,200
4,600
3,900
1,400
2,700
16,300
6,700
44,100
1970-1985
1,200
6,700
3,800
3,400
1,300
2,400
15,900
5,400
40,100
1970-1995
2,500
13,900
8,400
7,300
2,700
5,100
32,200
12,100
84,200
^Consultant's Analysis.
2Based on 10,000 tons/acre at 8-ft. depth.
-------
Table 19-3
Total Operating Costs to
Dispose of Future Municipal and
Industrial Solid Wastes
By Sanitary Landfill1
Service Area
Disposal (
. millions of dollars
Northern Region
Buffalo- Rochester Service Area
Central State Service Area
Hudson Valley Service Area
Southwestern Region
Lower Hudson Service Area
New York City Service Area
Long Island Service Area
1970-1975
4
24
12
11
4
8
52
18
133
1975-1985
10
60
35
31
11
22
145
48
362
1985-1995
14
89
57
48
18
33
202
83
544
1870-1 BBS
14
84
47
42
15
30
197
66
495
1970-1995
28
173
104
90
33
63
399
149
1,039
^Consultant's Analysis.
Table 19-4
Total Operating Costs to
Dispose of Future Municipal and
Industrial Solid Wastes
By Incineration1
Service Area
Disposal Costs, millions of dollars
Northern Region
Buffalo-Rochester Service Area
Central State Service Area
Hudson Valley Service Area
Southwestern Region
Lower Hudson Service Area
New York City Service Area
Long Island Sen/ice Area
1970-1975
16
95
50
44
17
32
210
72
536
1975-1985
42
242
140
123
46
89
585
195
1,462
1985-1995
65
358
230
195
72
135
815
336
2,206
1970-1985
58
337
190
167
63
121
795
267
1,998
1970-1995
123
695
420
362
135
256
1,610
603
4,204
Consultant's Analysis.
-------
T;ble 19-5
Selected State Owned Lands - 200 or More Acres1
Site
No
1
1
2
3
!
3
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
1
1
Site
Partridge Run Game Management
Crystal Lake
Hanging Bog Game Management
Rattlesnake Game Management
Agricultural and Technical College
ChPnango State Park
Whitney Point Reservation
Binghamton State Hospital
State University at Binghamton
Allegany State Park
Syracuse College of Forestry
Howland Island Game Management
Canadaway Creek Game Management
Elmira Reception Center and Farm
Pharsalia Game Management
Nlacomb Reservation
Lake Alice Game Management
Ausable Game Management
Clinton Prison
Dannemora State Hospital Farm
Rogers Island Game Management
Wassaic State School Farms
Syracuse College of Forestry
Bear Springs Game Management
Locition^
Albany C junty
Berne (T)
Rensielae'Ville (U)
Allegany bounty
Black Creek (VI
Grove (T
Alfred (V)
Broome t.ounty
Chenangt (T)
Triangle 'T|
Kirkwood (T)
Vestal (Ti
Cattarau< us County
Salamanca (C)
RedHoua(T)
Cayuga County
Port Byron IV)
Chautauilua County
Arknght (T)
Chemurv) County
Elmira 10)
ChenangD County
Pharsalii (T)
Clinton -ounty
Schuylei Falls (Ul
Chazy I")
Peru (T)
Dannemora (T)
Saranac (T)
Co umb a County
Greenpc rt (T)
Valatie U)
Cortland County
Preble ( D
Delaware County
Colches er (T)
Distance Total
to R R Area
miles acres
4,680
7,000
2-3 4,210
02 1,817
2 895
5 983
4,200
5 912
23 522
0-10 60,480
1,983
3,200
2,035
744
4,420
2-4 700
4 1,465
712
12,719
02 313
5 270
5 295
1 5 989
7.186
Owner
(State Agency)
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
State University
Conservation
Conservation
Mental Health
State University
Conservation
State University
Conservation
Conservation
Correction
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Correction
Correction
Conservation
Mental Health
State University
Conservation
^Data provided by New York State Bureau of Solid Wastes Engmefnng and Community Environmental Health State-owned lands
are listed for illustration only, their inclusion in this table must not be interpreted as any guarantee of their availability, even though
they are not subject to the legislative constraints that would affect privately owned lands
2C = City, T =Town, V ^Village, U - Unincorporated
-------
Site
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
1
1
1
1
1
2
3
4
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
2
3
Site
Green Haven State Prison
Mattewan State Hospital
Harlem Valley State Hospital
Hudson River State Hospital
Wassaic State School
Stonykill Farm
Gowanda State Hospital
Newark State School
College at Buffalo
W Seneca State School
Ray Brook State Hospital
Training School for Boys
Tonawanda Game Management
New York Vocational Institute
Perch River Game Management
Wetlands Lake View
French Creek
Little John Game Management
Tug Hill Game Management
Craig Colony
Ten Wildlife Management
Tioughnidga Game Management
Hamlm Beach State Park
State Agricultural and Industrial
School
Tonawanda Game Management
Marcy State Hospital
Rome State Hospital
Utica State Hospital
Table 19-5
(continued)
Location
Dutchess County
Beekman (T)
Fishkill (T)
Dover (T)
Poughkeepsie (C)
Amenia IT}
Fishkill (T|
Erie County
Collins (T)
E Aurora (V)
Amherst IT)
W Seneca IT}
Essex County
N. Elba (T)
Fulton County
Perth (T)
Genesee County
Alabama (T)
Greene County
Coxsacki (T)
Jefferson County
Orleans IT)
Ellisburg (T)
Clayton (T)
Worth m
Lewis County
Montague (T)
Livingston County
Groveland (T)
Spnngwater (T)
Madison County
Nelson ITI
Monroe County
Hamlm IT)
Rush IT)
Niagara County
Wolcottsville (U)
Oneida County
Marcy (T)
Rome (C)
Utica (C)
Distance Total
10 R R Area
miles acres
5 2,174
0-1 834
5 1,066
o-i 1,214
0-1 1,300
1-1 5 754
1 1,204
1 672
686
666
0-5 544
544
1,929
0-1 880
5,677
1,806
583
1,889
4,980
0-.5 2,069
3,694
3,604
3 1,118
1,545
2,797
0-5 815
1,617
1,381
Owner
(State Agency)
Correction
Correction
Mental Health
Mental Health
Mental Health
State University
Mental Health
Mental Health
State University
Mental Health
Health
Social Service
Conservation
Correction
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Mental Health
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Social Services
Conservation
Mental Health
Mental Health
Mental Health
-------
Site
No Site
1 3 Rivers Game Management
2 Syracuse State School
3 Clark Reservation
1 Spenser Game Management
2 Ten Wildlife Management
1 Middletown State Hospital
2 Warwick State School
3 Palisades State Park
1 Lakeside Beach State Park
2 Oak Orchard Game Management
3 Albion State Training School
1 Three Mile Bay Game Management
2 Little John Game Management
3 Selkirk Shores State Park
4 College at Oswego
5 Happy Valley Game Management
Home Folks Memorial Hospital
Capital District Game Management
1 Harnman State Park
2 Tallman Mountain State Park
3 Rockland State Hospital
4 Letchworth Village
1 Wilson Hill Game Management
2 St. Lawrence State Hospital
3 Agricultural and Technical College
4 Syracuse College of Forestry
5 Yellow Lake
1 Vishers Ferry Game Management
2 Rome State School
1 Connecticut Hill Game Management
2 Sugar Recreation Area
3 Cornell University
1 Sampson State Park
2 WiMard State Hospital
T;ible 19-5
(continued)
Distance
Location to R R
miles
Onondaga County
Lysander (T) 2
Camillus(T) 0-5
DeWitt ( r) 5
Ontario County
Canadice IT)
Naples (")
Orange County
Middletcwn (C) 5
Warwick IT) 5
Monroe T)
Orleans County
Carlton T) 3
BarrelTl
Albion (V) 5
Oswego County
Constants (T)
Redfielc (T)
Pulaski V) 2-3
Oswego 1C) 1
Albion (T) 3
Otsego bounty
Oneonta(C) 2
Rensselaer County
Berlin (T)
Rockland County
Haverstraw (V)
Nyack V) 1-2
Orange own (T)
Thiells IT) 0-2
St. Lawrence County
Louisville (T)
Ogdensburg (C) 1.5
Cantor (V) 2
Clifton (T)
Rossie (T)
Saratoga County
Cliftor Park (T)
Wilton (T)
Schuyler County
Catherine (T)
Orangt (T)
Cayug.i (T)
Senece County
Seneci Falls (U)
OvidlD 1
Total
Area
acres
3,438
573
228
677
860
717
696
7,338
650
2,051
210
1,803
6,709
967
610
261
306
3,997
45,844
687
691
1,971
3,410
1,391
669
500
689
810
1,608
673
2,000
8,000
1,000
1,963
Owner
(State Agency)
Conservation
Mental Health
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Mental Health
Social Services
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Correction
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
State University
Conservation
Health
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Mental Health
Mental Health
Conservation
Mental Health
State University
State University
Conservation
Conservation
Mental Health
Conservation
Conservation
State University
Conservation
Mental Health
-------
Site
No
Erwm Game Management
Hither Hills State Park
I slip State Hospital
Pilgrim State Hospital
Kings Park State Hospital
Suffolk State School
State University at Stony Brook
Agricultural and Technical Institute
Woodbourne Institute
Otisville State Training School
Butterrmlk Falls State Park
Treman State Park
Taughannock Falls State Park
Cornell University
Connecticut Hill Game Management
Wallkill Prison
Eastern Correctional Institute
Wallkill Prison
Eastern Correctional Institute
Ellenville Game Management
Highland State School
Great Meadow Correctional Institute
Port Bay Beaver Creek
Newark State School
Westfield State Farm
Silver Lake State Park
Carlton Hill Game Management
Attica Prison
Ten Wildtife Management
High Tor Game Management
Table 19-5
(continued)
Distance
Location to R.R
mites
Steuben County
Erwm (T)
Suffolk County
E. Hampton (Tl 0-1
lshp(TI 2
Babylon (T) 2
Smithtown (T) 0- 5
Huntington (T)
Babylon (T)
Huntington (T) 2
Sullivan County
Fallsburg(T)
Mamakatmg (T)
Tompkins County
Ithaca 1C)
Ithaca (C)
Ithaca (C)
Ithaca (C)
Newfield (Tl
Ulster County
Shawangunk (T) 0-.5
Wawarsing (T)
Ulster County
Shawangunk (T| 0- 5
Wawarsing (T)
Ellenville(T)
Lloyd (T)
Washington County
Fort Ann (T) 5
Wayne County
Huron (T)
Arcadia (T) 0-.5
Westchester County
Bedford (T) 5
Wyoming County
Silver Springs (VI 1
Middlebury (Tl
Attica (VI 5
Yates County
Italy (T)
Italy (Tl
Total
Area
acres
2.504
1 755
939
1,880
891
685
1,168
795
847
1,215
675
1,020
742
507
3,090
850
735
850
735
8,000
372
2,274
617
517
834
734
2,445
934
2,857
1,697
Owner
(State Agency I
Conservation
Conservation
Mental Health
Mental Health
Mental Health
Mental Health
State University
State University
Mental Health
Mental Health
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
State University
Conservation
Correction
Correction
Correction
Correction
Conservation
Social Services
Correction
Conservation
Mental Health
Correction
Conservation
Conservation
Correction
Conservation
Conservation
-------
Table '9-6
Projected State Lard Requirements
for Disposal of Futi re Solid Wastes ^
Service Area
Northern Region
Buffalo-Rochester Service Area
Central State Service Area
Hudson Valley Service Area
Southwestern Region
Lower Hudson Service Area
New York City Service Area
Long Island Service Area 8,100 18 48 83 66 150
All Regions and Service Areas 316,300 4 9 14 13 27
'Consultant's Analysis
Note Use of the words "requirements" and "required" in connection with State-owned lands is for illustration of solid waste disposal
requirements only, and must not be construed as any guarantee of the availability of State-owned lands.
Total Acreage
of Selected
State Owned Lands
40,300
26,100
53,700
48,200
89,800
50,100
Percentage of Selected State Owned Lands Required
to Dispose of Future Solid Wastes
19701975 1975-1985 19851995 19701985 19701995
1
7
2
2
1
1
2 3
18 27
5 9
5 8
1 2
4 5
3
26
7
7
1
5
6
53
16
15
3
10
-------
CHAPTER TWENTY
ROLE OF THE STA TE
Traditionally, solid waste disposal has been a local responsibility. If a munici-
pality had problems, it could expect little assistance from outside sources.
While an adjacent municipality may be sympathetic, no town wants to
handle the wastes from another. Therefore, each municipality had to resort
to its own method of providing solid waste disposal in the least objectionable
manner. This usually resulted in a fragmented approach to disposal tech-
nology, because local municipalities generally could not afford to conduct
research in methodology. Therefore, it is apparent that a level of government
higher than the local municipality must be involved if solid wastes are to be
disposed of properly and economically.
As previously discussed, New York State must establish overall objectives,
define goals for obtaining the objectives, and develop a plan by which the
objectives and goals may be implemented. However, the State government is
comprised of many agencies and, thus, each agency should have its own goals
and plans formulated to meet the State's objectives. Within the framework
of each objective, there should be a consistent policy within which
immediate and long-range decisions can be made, the goals should reflect
these policies, and the policies will then determine the Role or scope of
function that each agency is to assume.
Just as the data needs which have been discussed must be directed to specific
local conditions, the Role or scope of functions of various governmental
agencies in a given area cannot be predetermined. The determination of who
will do what is vital to establish how the solutions will be implemented. An
approach in one region may not be applicable to another. However, general
considerations of governmental agency roles can be enumerated and
discussed.
20-1
-------
This chapter will consider two levels of involvement in solid waste manage-
ment. The first will be the Role of the State. In this context the term
"State" will refer to a level of government and not to specific governmental
departments. The second level will be referred to as "Local" and is intended
to refer to any involvement below the State level. Primarily, the term, local
government, refers to towns, cities, and villages, but could also refer to
counties, regions, or entire service areas
ALTERNATIVE HOLES
The preceding discussions point out that State government has a role in solid
waste planning and management; and that role must be clearly established.
Following is a list of alternative roles broken down by varying levels of
increasing State involvement:
State Level
of
Involvement
1. Control
Agency
2. Control
Agency
3.
4.
Control
Agency
Control
Agency
and Tech-
nical Cen-
ter.
Description
of
Role
Review plans
for technical
sufficiency
Review plans
for scope and
technical suf-
ficiency.
Review plans
for scope, and
for technical
and geograph-
ical sufficiency.
All control
agency func-
tions, plus
technical
data center.
Scope of Actions
Review local plans to insure
that appropriate methods
were used, that the functional
operating elements are pro-
perly considered, and that the
plans are realistic and can be
implemented.
Above scope, plus review plans
to insure that all specific local
conditions have been incorpo-
rated and that all foreseeable
types of wastes are handled.
Above scope, plus review plan
with respect to geographical
boundaries to insure that areas
served are commensurate with
the State objectives.
Above scope, plus provide data
bank for dissemination of tech-
nical information and public
relations materials. Provide
technical advice and make
the State computer system
and programs available.
202
-------
State Level
of
Involvement
Description
of
Role
Scope of Actions
5. Control
Agency
and Tech-
nical Cen-
ter.
6. Above plus,
Implemen-
tation
Agency
All control
agency func-
tions, plus
technical
service
center.
All above
functions,
plus pro-
vide finan-
cial aid for
implemen-
tation.
Above scope, plus provide for-
mal or in-field training programs
and consultation. Use local data
to develop local systems, using
State programmers and com-
puters. Sponsor research and
development activities.
Above scope, plus administer
construction grant funds or
grant-in-aid programs for
maintaining satisfactory
operations.
7. Same as
Above
8. Same as
Above
All above
functions,
plus ac-
quisition
of Sites.
All above
functions,
plus con-
struction
and/or op-
eration of
facilities.
Above scope, plus provide a
land bank through advance
acquisition of sites or selec-
tion and reservation of State-
owned lands, based on a Master
Plan for the State.
Above scope, plus construc-
tion and/or operation of re-
gional facilities. Special dem-
onstration projects could be
undertaken to demonstrate
planning, engineering, or
management techniques.
RECOMMENDED ROLE OF THE STATE
After careful analysis of the situation in New York State, it is the conclusion
of ROY F. WESTON that the State level of involvement should be that of a
control agency, a technical center, and in part an implementation agency.
20-3
-------
This role will include all scopes of action through Level No. 6 (Financial Aid
for implementation) and will also include planning for and promotion of
advance site acquisition, and participation in construction and operation of
special demonstration projects.
The State should sponsor local planning within the framework of the objec-
tives, goals, and plans. Planning must be timely to insure that short-range and
intermediate solutions are consistent with and moving toward the long-range
plan.
The State should review solid waste plans for scope and technical sufficiency
to insure that each plan is sufficient for the area considered, that it includes
all types and sources of wastes, and that the design basis and implementation
plan are complete and technically sound.
The State should review the geographical sufficiency of the plan. For
example, it should check to see thai all communities which should logically
be considered together are in fact included in the plan, or that positive
individual programs are underway for any excluded community.
The State should establish a technical data and service center to assist local
agencies in all aspects of their solid waste programs. The mathematical model
developed for the State master plan could be provided to the local agencies
for development of local disposal .systems. The State should also provide
technical service to those communities that require assistance in upgrading
their disposal systems and updating their current programs. For example,
this may include services of a State solid waste consultant for a short period
of time for specialized or unique problems or the training and licensing of
operators. The State should also develop detailed guidelines for solid waste
data collection efforts, to insure that the local efforts are complete in this
regard before solutions are developed.
The State should consider a grant-in-aid program on a per capita basis to
those communities maintaining satisfactory disposal operations. The major
objective of such a program, which would certainly be compatible with the
recommended State Role, would be to stimulate the communities or regions
to achieve and maintain satisfactory levels of collection, handling, and dis-
posal. Many communities still use inefficient collection and disposal
practices, and significant economies could be achieved from elimination of
these inefficiencies. To promote maximum accomplishment of the major
objective and to avoid any use of the funds for perpetuation of inefficient
practices, a set of guidelines for "satisfactory practice" must be developed.
Thus, there would be two main thrusts in the program: 1) encouragement,
by virtue of the funds to be made available; and 2) control, by careful
20-4
-------
definition of the qualifying conditions. An alternative or supplementary
form of financial assistance could be State grants or loans for construction of
facilities that meet the requirements of the State's Implementation Plan.
The State has also recognized that the availability of suitable land disposal
areas will be a problem, because of public reaction and the increasing
demand for land. Therefore, the recommended role includes site acquisition
as an important State function. This effort requires a very detailed Imple
mentation Plan so that the sites acquired are sure to fit into the plan in the
future. However, this is not meant to imply that the State should provide
land for disposal of all wastes in the State.
Solid waste disposal has been and will probably continue to be primarily a
local responsibility. However, it is becoming increasingly evident that
regionalization offers many advantages through the economy of scale of the
larger operations and through a better capability of coping with the growing
technical and land availability problems. The State has already shown,
through the Pure Waters Authority and various Department of Health
activities, the value of the expertise of a higher level of government in
developing solutions for solid waste disposal problems. Demonstration pro-
jects involving the construction and/or operation of selected facilities, by the
Pure Waters Authority or other State or State-sponsored agencies, would
extend this influence. However, there are serious problems of inter-
governmental relations and public attitudes that must be overcome. It is
recognized that a conflict of interest may arise if the State assumes the
functions of implementation and control, since these are not always com-
patible. Nevertheless, the State should complement the effort of and co-
operate with municipalities and private enterprise in the design, con-
struction, acquisition, and/or operation of disposal sites and facilities. While
it should not be in the business of providing actual disposal of solid wastes,
the State has a responsibility to develop and demonstrate solid waste
planning, engin°ering, and management techniques and to set up the
instruments for effective implementation.
20-5
-------
-------
CHAPTER TWENTY-ONE
PLAN AND PROG RAM
INTRODUCTION
Earlier in this report, a planning concept was outlined; the concept is
dynamic in that it has the inherent ability to respond to change in con-
ditions, yet it provides positive direction for meaningful action in light of the
known or reasonably anticipated conditions. This concept is recommended
for use in the continuing effort toward effective solid waste management in
New York State. To be consistent with this recommendation and to initiate
the effort, the Plan and Program developed from this study are presented in
the form of Objectives, Goals, and Tasks.
It is necessary in any report to define terminology so that when a word is
used, its meaning is properly conveyed. The term "plan" as used in the
context of the preceding discussion implies action to be taken. However, the
use of "plan" is widespread and often has different meanings. Therefore, it
seems appropriate to refer to actions in the State program as "tasks",
recognizing that "tasks" make up a "plan" as previously described.
BASIS FOR THE PLAN AND PROGRAM
Before the Objectives can be defined, the basic policy and direction must be
established. The establishment of an Objective inconsistent with the policy
or function of a State Government will generate effort which cannot and
should not come to fruition. The basic policy required is the determination
of the appropriate State Role and scope of functions. This has been
discussed, in Chapter Twenty, and a clear recommendation for this Role is
available from analysis of all pertinent information.
The Goals and Tasks which are developed within the framework of the
Objectives must reflect the conditions and needs existing in the State, as well
21-1
-------
as the priorities for fulfillment of ^hose needs. These conditions and needs
have also been reviewed in detail in various chapters of this report, and
provide the basis for definition of appropriate Goals and Tasks.
THE D YNAMIC PLANNING CONCEPT - A RE VIEW
Long-range planning is essential to the economic well-being of an individual,
a corporation, or a Governmental body. Yet, the fixing of long-term effort
based on today's knowledge may be quite short-sighted. The pace of
technology is so rapid today that premature commitment to a particular
solution may produce an obsolete system before it is completely imple-
mented.
This apparent conflict can be resolved by a concept of dynamic planning,
which can ensure progress while readily responding to change. The concept
incorporates Objectives which provide the stable, long-term frame of
reference for action. These are stated in a manner to be specific enough to
provide positive direction, but yet sufficiently general that only basic policy
changes can alter their permanency.
Goals are subordinate to Objectives and are the major guideposts along the
direction indicated by an Objective. As a result, they must be stated as a
more detailed or more positive planning element, and frequently contain a
target date for accomplishment. Some planners identify Goals as
representing achievement five years into the future. When a five-year plan is
required (as is often the case for Governmental agencies), the Goals then
may serve a&the outline for a five-yetar planning effort.
Tasks are subordinate to Goals and must contain the details of the elements
requiring attention during the specific planning period. The period usually
chosen is one year. Each Task must be definitive in that the task or tasks
required to complete it must be clearly outlined. Each must be measurable in
terms of the progress toward completion at any desired status review point.
This usually requires that a target elate for completion be incorporated into
each task. It is recognized that certain Goals require a continuing or regular
effort for full achievement of the desired status. In such a case, a Task may
never be completed, because it covers what is inherently a continuing effort.
An example of such a Task is the periodic review of operating reports sub-
mitted to the State by local or regional facilities.
At the end of each year, the entire set of Objectives, Goals, and Tasks must
be reviewed. Objectives are seldom altered except to change emphasis or to
include a new element, because they reflect basic policy which, when
properly established, seldom changes. Goals and Tasks are reviewed for
progress or completion in light o1 any changes in conditions, needs, or
priorities. Necessary changes are made to the Goals, and a complete set of
Tasks is developed for the next planning year.
21-2
-------
NEW YORKSTA TE OBJECTIVES, GOALS, AND TASKS
A complete set of Objectives, Goals, and Tasks has been developed for the
New York State solid waste program and is presented on the following pages.
It reflects the conclusions and recommendations derived from this study in
the solid waste management program.
Since several agenices at the State government level have varying degrees of
involvement with solid wastes, it is logical to assume that action would be
required from each agency to attack a total program effectively. The specific
actions are defined in the Objectives, Goals, and Tasks, but no effort has
been made to differentiate between agencies or agency functions. Supple-
mental planning effort will be required to assign each Task to the appro
priate agency, and perhaps to add Tasks or even Goals in areas not covered
by this study.
The following set of Objectives, Goals, and Tasks has been jointly developed
by NEW YORK STATE personnel and ROY F. WESTON. It represents the
actions discussed in this report as well as programs currently underway by
the Bureau of Solid Wastes Engineering and Community Environmental
Health. Tasks and targets are set to cover both 1970 and 1971, and the time
period over which the action will take place is shown in bar graph form.
Before presenting these Objectives, Goals, and Tasks in tabular form, the
following discussion is offered to clarify the many actions and their relation-
ships to the chapters and sections of this report which contain the detailed
background for each action.
The first step in a planning effort is to establish and present the basic
objectives. In this case, the Objectives are as follows:
I. Ach|eve and maintain effective disposal of all solid wastes in New York
State.
This Objective should cover all of the actions necessary for develop-
ment of design and operating criteria and for proper enforcement of
laws, rules, and regulations pertaining to solid wastes in the State.
II. Achieve efficient and economical disposal of all solid wastes in New
York State.
This Objective recognizes the responsibility of the State to aid the local
and regional systems in obtaining economical solutions. It also covers
the planning function at the State level.
21-3
-------
III. Develop and maintain competent solid waste management practices.
Any solid waste system will be only as good as the quality of its
operation, regardless of how well it has been designed. Enforcement
must continue into the operating phase, and training programs can be
most easily organized and conducted at the State level.
IV. Provide proper utilization and conservation of resources.
In the process of handling and disposing of solid wastes, the
environment may be damaged, the wastes themselves may have some
value, and land resources may be consumed or altered. A solid waste
management program must consider each of these factors in addition to
the actual practice of handling and disposal to obtain the maximum
beneficial use from any selected site.
Within each of these four Objectives, several Goals are set, each contributing
to the attainment of the Objective These Goals and their relation to this
report will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
Objective I. Achieve and maintain effective disposal of all solid wastes in
New York State.
Five areas of activity are needed to achieve this Objective.
The first relates to the enforcement action necessary to
insure that all new facilities are constructed properly. Since
existing controls are inadequate, the specific actions required
are in developing guidelines for proper disposal and
operation practices and in developing legislation to institute
a permit system (See Chapter 9).
The second goal is complementary to the first and considers
the incentives for effective systems such as construction and
operation grants (See Chapter 20). All wastes should be
effectively handled, regardless of whether they are of
domestic or industrial origin. The third goal recognizes that
very little information is available on wastes from the
industrial segment, and its tasks are directed at efforts to
obtain the data necessary for reasonable evaluation of these
wastes (See Chapter 17).
The fourth Goal is directed at nuisance-free diposal. Earlier
goals referred to effectiveness, but additional procedures are
required to insure that odors, litter, vermin and other
nuisances are controlled (See Chapter 17). Finally, any con-
trol program requires periodic inspection, and the last Goal is
21-4
-------
directed to such inspection efforts. Initial programs include
additional training for the Solid Wastes Bureau staff as well
as beginning the inspection programs (See Chapter 9).
Objective 11. Achieve efficient and economical disposal of all solid wastes
in New York State.
Five Goals have been chosen to direct efforts toward this
Objective. To ensure that a coordinated program is devised
for the entire State, a master implementation plan is pro-
posed. The first Goal covers the development of the master
plan through the completion of comprehensive regional
planning studies and utilization of a computer model. The
second Goal sets up the tasks to keep all planning efforts
current by a continuing program of evaluation (See Chapter
20). The third Goal recognizes that existing facilities must be
considered and factored into the master plan wherever
possible. Tasks are outlined to obtain necessary facility data
for evaluation (See Chapter 17).
Several agencies of the State of New York have interest and
responsibility in planning, implementation and operation of
solid wastes systems. This report confines itself to the Role
of the composite of these agencies, but the fourth Goal
under this Objective recognizes that specific tasks must be
set for each agency in accordance with their assigned
responsibilities. (See Chapter 20).
New York State does not have many functioning examples
of regional efforts to solve environmental problems. The
costs of solid waste disposal plus the increasing complexity
of the problem strongly indicates a need for regional
solutions. The tasks under the fifth Goal initiate efforts to-
ward achieving acceptance of the regional approach. (See
Chapters 9 and 20).
Objective III. Develop and maintain competent solid waste management
practices.
Two areas of activity have been identified for this Objective.
The first goal includes guidelines for data collection,
recording, and accounting procedures, plus development of
technical aids for the local governments (See Chapters 17
and 20). The second goal outlines the efforts necessary to
institute an operator training and certification program (See
Chapter 20).
21-5
-------
Objective IV. Provide proper utilization and conservation of resources.
Three separate and distinct programs are required for this
Objective, and each constitutes a Goal. The first goal con-
siders that salvage and quantity reduction of wastes must be
viewed on a sou rce-by-source basis, but the State can provide
research and development of applicable techniques. (See
Chapter 20). The second goal recognizes that protection of
the environment is always a concern with any disposal
operation, and that in the case of sanitary landfill environ-
mental enhancement may occur through land redevelopment
(See Chapter 18). The third goal reemphasizes that land is a
natural resource, and that operations which use the land
must be viewed carefully to ensure that this fixed resource is
used properly (See Chaoter 18).
The subsequent pages show the Objectives, Goals, and Tasks in tabular form,
along with the schedule and target dates for each action. As stated earlier,
this plan and program must be dynamic. It must be reviewed frequently and
modified if conditions or policies change. Most important, however, is the
immediate problem of insuring cooperation and coordinated action among
local governments and all of the specific agencies and departments of the
State of New York.
21-6
-------
o
z
o
LO
<
- -,
o- -.
J
<
i
li.
-V
O
Z
o
in
<
c- -,
* 1
« 1
* 1
- 1
OBJECTIVE 1 ACHIEVE AND MAINTAIN EFFECTIVE DISPOSAL OF ALL SOLID WASTES IN NEW YORK STATE
Goal A Require that equipment and facilities are constructed and operated properly
Task 1 Prepare proposals for legislation authorizing a permit system, and submit to State Legislature M
Task 2 Develop administrative procedures for the permit system, including preparation of Environmental Health
Manual items, permit and application forms, conditions of approval, etc
Task 3 Prepare and enact regulations for the permit system under new legislation, and revise any applicable existing
regulations
Task 4 Develop standards for design, construction, and operation of collection, transportation, processing, and dis-
posal facilities
1
1
Task 5 Initiate and administer the permit system
Goal B Provide Legislation, Regulations, and Other Means of Attaining Quality Construction and Operation
Task 1 Prepare proposals for legislation authorizing grants-m aid to municipalities for preparation of detailed plans
for construction of disposal facilities Submit proposal to State Legislature
Task 2 Develop administrative procedures for a grant-in aid program for detailed planning, including preparation of
Environmental Health Manual items and application forms
Task 3 Prepare and enact regulations for the grant m-aid program for detailed planning
Task 5 Prepare proposals for legislation authorizing a per capita grant m-aid program to promote construction, opera-
tion, and maintenance of systems complying with State requirements Submit proposal to State Legislature
Task 6 Develop administrative procedures for the per capita grants-m aid program, including preparation of Environ-
mental Health Manual items, application, and qualification forms
1
1
1
1
1
Task 7 Prepare and enact regulations for the per capita grant-m-aid program, defining qualifications for eligibility
Task 8 Initiate and administer the per capita grant-m-aid program
Goal C Ensure That Management Systems are Capable of Handling All Waste m the Area Served
Task 1 Advise the U S Public Health Service of the intent of New York State to redesign the present waste inventory
system in accordance with a functional waste classification system, and request their support of this procedure
Task 2 Develop a demonstration project on data collection using the waste classification system
21-7
-------
o
z
0
Irt
<
o- .
i
<
j
u.
-<
Q
Z
0
<
o -»
I
<
i
u.
-
Task 3 Develop new questionnaires and instructions for municipal, agricultural, and industrial waste data collection
and begin data collection efforts
Task 4 Evaluate results of surveys and make recommendations for necessary improvements
Godl D Require Nuisance Free Operation of Solid Waste Management Systems
Task 1 Develop and make available model local ordinances and contracts for storage, collection, transportation,
processing, and disposal of solid wastes
Goal EE Provide Effective Administration and Enforcement of Applicable Laws, Rules and Regulations
Task 1 Prepare training program for facility inspection and evaluation by professional staff
Task 2 Conduct facility inspection and evaluation training program
Task 3 Prepare inspection manuals and operation manuals
Task 4 Establish compliance schedules for sub standard operations
KJ OBJECTIVE II ACHIEVE EFFICIENT AND ECONOMICAL DISPOSAL OF ALL SOLID WASTES IN NEW YORK
7» STATE
00
Goal A Develop a Master Implementation Plan for the State to Determine the Most Effective Systems in the State.
Task 1 Complete comprehensive county or regional solid waste planning studies for all counties in the State
1
1
1
Task 2 Develop a mathematical model using functional waste classifications for solid waste management system
analysis and design
Task 3 Select a county or region to serve as a model test run area
Task 4 Collect supplemental data needed for the test area
Task 5 Develop data input and make initial model run
Task 6 Field check the model results and refine the model as necessary
Task 7 Use the model to update and correlate comprehensive county and regional studies to develop a State-wide
master implementation plan
Goal B Keep the Master Implementation Plan Current by Periodic Review, and Coordinate Local or Regional Imple
mentation Plans With the Master Plan
-------
o- -^
S
Z
o
o _,
i "
4
s4f-
lie-
Jt <-
^
- C
"o O
"D ^
ai
s &
D E
I
g
&
%
i L-
> JS
»s 1.
*- a
> i
S 2
E E
1 a* |1
S c > E^
5 S
| "i
S S
S s
new qu
improvf
lop ev
tie
li ^1 c
« S So
O c " .!°
u k_
0* ^ E
E o S
5 S S
"c
s- i
c &
li
< E
S
a
? I
8,
g
E a» o <5
l
£
3
"§
5
1
O
^5
"> 2
^ -s
Si « iS
21-9
-------
0
z
o
<
0- -,
f
<
J
a.
->
1
3
D
D
K
JB
S
I
1
i
g
Si
1
C
3
£
c
c
i
§
0
I!
ri
Task 4 Seek invitations to present the land development concept of solid waste disposal using drawings prepared as
a nart nf thp 19R9 stiiHu
I
? 5
i ! u
1
1
Task 5 Publicize the mathematical model concept and specific cases where the model has been applied
ECTIVE III DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN COMPETENT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
1 A - Provide Management Assistance to Local Government
Task 1 Prepare intermumcipal cost-sharing guidelines for financing of construction and operations.
Task 2 Prepare guidelines for uniform data reporting and record keeping in accordance with a functional waste
classification system
1 ask J Develop uniform municipal accounting procedures for solid waste collection and disposal.
Task 4. Run a mathematical model to assist local or regional agencies in improving existing operations and in
developing implementation schedules for obtaining regional solid waste management systems.
Task 5 Review State and local manpower needs, and prepare recommendations for State and local action
Task 6 Develop and staff a scientific data clearing house and library
1 B - Obtain Competent Operation of Solid Waste Management Systems
1
1
Task 2 Develop administrative procedures for an operator certification program, including preparation of Environ-
mental Health Manual items, application forms, etc
Task 3 Prepare and enact regulations for certification of operators.
Task 4. Initiate and administer operator certification program.
ECTIVE IV PROVIDE PROPER UTILIZATION AND CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES
IA - Reduce Amount of Refuse Requiring Disposal
Task 1 Develop at-source waste reduction techniques on a State-wide level.
21-10
-------
Q
Z
0
t/1
<
~ -,
o -^
S
<
S
u_
-
a
z
O
I/)
<
o- -,
*
<
X
u.
1
i
1
1
- 1
-1
i|*
Task 2 Develop programs to test and promote reduction, salvage, and recycling of solid wastes
Task 3 Develop pilot projects to demonstrate the feasibility of waste reduction, salvage, and recycling
Goal B Utilize Solid Waste for Environmental Improvement
Task 1 Review solid waste management elements of land use planning and incorporate with land development
policy m New York State
j
t
Task 2 Develop guidelines for disposal of segregated and specific wastes in marginal lands.
Goal C Conserve and Improve Natural Resources
Task 1 Promote efficient use of land devoted to solid waste disposal, and encourage planning for reuse of disposal
Task 2 Encourage conservation of fixed land resources in New York State through proper planning and operation of
Task 3 1 nitiate research and demonstration projects exploring solid waste management techniques that minimize
.
21-11
-------
-------
J; : > /J ||||L J/--v|li|ljlV
t - """ : 7-v/ v"'": ::*:' 1 ; '/ -, ij,--*
\i-:if!T?m*?:;H :*5::II|ini::
i Nuuu-u:!!-11 ,,i.mmmi
-------
/""^V^^-iHHHh ' S V~-
/^ , j^liWnillnHrv. V^:-X'
v / \ ;i! = pn!5Hi!HJi[]!i|i^ ';t!!|itlf
I ^^Iflffi-^-^fflijnifll
-------
a. 2
^ X
S 0
1
Z
LU
h-
D£
LU
LU
&
*
O
LU
Z
>
H
irt
Z
Ul
o
Z
0
^
2
3
a.
O
^
LU
>
1/5
Z
LU
r
LU
tf» |
? 8
LU
a
S
LU
1
1
a
:D
LU
S
z
5
LU
CO
^
a
0 |
CO ^
~*
s
0
PERS /S
u
Z
2
ae
O
S
>
"
O 0 0 0 0 0 ^
o o o o o *r
1 1 1 1 1 1 Z
o ^- _ ^ ^ ^ ^
CN o ^ n
fe S 2 " " " £
in! H = ; ?!ii iiii iiii
;;: -Hi j!?f HIS III!
CN n -«t "0 -O K
N'ili
lEs'lls
5 J, s|s
5 Il2
-------
rt
0.
^
2
X
5
LU
I
O
1
LU
1
LU
Q
>.
^
M
Z
Ul
o
z
o
in
o»
»
LU
LU
X
LU
O
u
Q
Z>
h
1
UJ
LU
O
1.
s
o
^1
[X
£
EQUENCV
Q LU
ex
o
LU
Z
POPUL
UJ
l
l
t/5
Q
0
O
§
2 :!=i =::= \\\\ Hi! Nil
1 1P= Hi! III! iiH HI!
1
^
3 <
o Q
a
:::::: i::::: :. : . . .!. .:: ifepis;:
W!;i|)U:,«:,bri*iil.
Pff "\l ,
'[ = = IK'"\ '%, ' ":' -. \
ipiiy~y-\ i j., i;L T J
-------
a. m
2 g
o
z
>.
O
Q .j
£ <
LU UJ
|S
if o
5 <
0 5
u <
u, S
Q LU
O 3
mm m
± O
iiii
m
-------
"I
a- 2
< x
^ U-
< O
i
z
LU
5
i
a:
O.
LU
o
LU
t
1
a:
0
^
s
uj
Z
rMENT
W^
O
^t
s
UJ
_l
s
h-
3
Q
Z
00
*^ UJ
c/^
LJJ
X
UJ
a:
a.
O
U
LU
Q
> s
^ UJ
HM t
(/| CO
z
III
o
a
Z)
i
UO
UJ
m
0
z
^
s
LU
1
to
^
Q
0
CO
w O O O O O ^
5°S3SSg>
a °
^ 1 1 1 1 1 1 §
£ <
u
2
^»^^1«1»1CNO
S
2^
r\ -: .-. ffii ;«;; 3SS8
2 Hi: ::;: illf |!|| !S|:
Wl
z __,
^ ^i
0
<
i §
z o
O 3
^
s KZ
11 \
III
S £ S <
g Q 5 o
< i <
. l-f
£ is
0
^
^
^
-------
h-
tf)
Z
111
a
LU
LU
X
UJ
O-
^
o
U
LU
^
UJ
t
h-
CO
a
t
to
^
LU
LU
O
^
Z
LU
CO
^
O
6 §
-
s 3
° 1
25 p
°- 0
u
Z
3 ^0
2
"
0
^
w
_,
UJ
o o o o o
JN -9 0 CO O
CO -o w-
-------
<
UJ
X
LL
0
ARTMEN1
Q_
LLJ
Q
UJ
I
_
LO
^
C£
O
i.
X
LLJ
z
Z
0
«.
p
<
Hi
tt
0
o.
t/i
IF*
Z
tt
k_
^^
U»
iu
h-
(/)
^.
^"
*/>
UJ
>
1/3
MPREHEN
O
u
UJ
Q
UJ
h-
<
1
-
Q
O
1
OO
1
AGEMEN
Z
<
5
LU
1
t/}
<
5"
Q
6
I/)
c
d
O
O
z
o s
Z X
LU ^
O
UJ
II ' 1 [
< 1 ]
II i | i
» ! 1 i 1
5 £ r O I
5 u o 5 o
X *-* st O T
O < 5 £ «
x m 5 *~ x
o | | 5
z o z
u *
III
!
y
5 g
2 *
2 2
£ o
O £
^ 2
O <
-------
00 X
0. <
^ UJ
< X
« u.
< 0
t
UJ
5
C*L
£
LU
Q
UJ
i
<
i
to
^
DC
0
i
LLJ
Z
u>
III
!_
s*
is
xo
uj a
lA
V4
0
UJ
>
REHENS
Q_
5
O
u
UJ
Q
5
UJ
>
<
OO
O "J ""
3 =; 2
ft s£
5 2 ^ «
| s : vi
5 < * 0
O o n ES ilj
< ^- ol ^ =*
z < S y y
6 £ 0 < <
| ^ % S S
uj z < AJ V
|
Vi
5 I
* o < * m
Q a
6
t/1
X
O
I
<
S
z
i
Q
8 !
S j
u
Zl
«
!s ?l
, > si
s | 55
2 0*0
s z i
= sss
J"!
s!s
o
?
" ^i^
Q Fst^\
K^_ 1
^^
[ i?^ >':i^^;i^^^3i&
rr, '* ri - . A '- -> .v :^.^- . :/ vr 'f^f
I. i MV i j.-...:!,
-------
o»
a
<
1
LU
X
u_
o
t
Z
LU
1
QC
a.
LU
a
LU
Cfci
2
^
LU
z
Ul
H-
<
2
J
a
u
Z
3
5
0
K
f-
l-
«/)
Z
Ul
O
LU
t/5
Z
LU
X
LU
Q_
5
O
u
LU
9
LU
)
I/)
a
i
oo
f
LLJ
LU
O
<
Z
<
s
LU
5
a
_i a
0 2
UJ
"
J_O OOO O«
O » oo -(NC) ^>O-OfS
J
Jiii
- Js ^
I Ws Js
i Js ||
! ' c 5
- Tl ° * S
S i 1
1
7~7 ^^^
" %\ \~^~J
2 ^i^
i
0
i
a
S
J
-------
= 5
&LU
X
£ °
z
LU
5
c*
LU
Q
1
h-
or
O
>^
i
Z
Ul
<
2
.
^
a.
u
Z
3
5
m
to
»
>.
H
trt
Z
Ul
LU
>
l/>
LU
X
LU
O-
s
o
LLJ
9
LU
t
CO
Q
Z)
l
z
1 1 1
LU
O
<
z
<
5
UJ
f
Q
1 Q
O 5
'
5 -- O OOO Ooc
oo ooo oit!
OO OOO O *"
^ » oo r^ -o o O
ooo oo
_ -. 0. c-J _ 0
>-
z
1
"
O .;.. ,. jtij ,,;. 5:5:
J .':.""" ; -: >'::\ jrll S-Si
_j
UJ
-1
1
u
\
i r
1
5 s
if
o =
£
« 1U EK^
82%
* t
ia !i«
:iii
la jig
i2 l*i
2
-^f^
^F==\
r^
-.=]
^
-------
CL UJ
S °
i
z
LU
5
h
4f
a.
UJ
Q
LU
k-
2
O
^
UJ
Z
UJ
|~
<
2
.
"J
0.
u
z
3
s
o<
j-
in
Z
w
0
UJ
>
V)
Z
UJ
X
UJ
ol
5
0
o
UJ
S
LU
<
1
(/i
Q
LO
I
Z
2
UJ
O
<
Z
<
s
LU
K~
C/l
Q
_J Q
O 5
UJ
5 00005;
S ^§§280
i i i t . O
? 1 1 1 1 1 1 z
i/)O ^-,-^~^^
Zoo OQO oo
O o o o o o
t- 'n 00 CN -O O
~ "" CN
ft
U
O
ff
co :::: , : ill! H t J SS3S
5 " : : - - : : - - ! , 1 ' $*fl \ \ a !
> .:-: ::-- m; ;5t: : = ::
_.
> CMcO^iO-O K
B.H
ic:i
5 Ja ° 1
5 I ° =
ni ~ * * '*
H. is
a s 3 o
1 -
§
3
^^
P^r j
< v\ ^s
, a
-------
e* i
- 5
0. £
2 o
LU
1
^
UJ
Q
LU
1
1
<-O
O
5
LU
Z
WASTE
^
tt
tf)
o
z
o
Is
>.
H
CA
Z
Ui
o
EHENSIVE
of
S
o
LU
Q
S
LU
1
u->
EMENT STUDY
O
Z
2
LU
t
S
Q
i Q
0 z
UJ
o ° 8
t/)
« 1 1
Zoo
O
>
u
z
ID !o ^
2 *
O
CO
«
uJ
>«>*
CO C^ O O O£
1 i s 5 g
1 1 1 I §
8 § i s s
CM CN 0 r- -0
;!ii r[:= HI; .Mil III:
ns z s
5 Js s ? °
- 1 i ° S ^
^ n|2 2 g s
z SJ= i " a
So. lo g^
I -
« 3
^^fe,
S ^21 )
1<%^
-------
jo E
_ LU
O. X
5 b
UJ
i
LU
Q
LLJ
<£
QC
O
LU
Z
WASTE
_i
2
tt
1/1
3
0
Z
in
00
O<
>-
^
1/1
Z
Ul
O
: EHENSIVE
O-
o
LU
LU
1
1
1/3
O
1
CO
i
LLJ
LU
O
Z
5
t^
^J O
O 2
1/3 is
~j
5^-^00 cNco^io^pr^
~"
OJ!^"
Il
£ !]=; = -
1 ffi= i ' *
z S 9
il
S3
If!
82 ^^
-------
_» X
2 5
A LU
O- x
< O
z
LU
5
I
^
Q.
n
LU
1
2
CO
O
LU
Z
WASTE
j
a
vt
O
z
1995
:EHENSIVE
a_
5
0
<_)
^* LU
J
Iw a-i
Z 5
ui h-
o "
y
Q
I
CO
1
Z
LU
LU
O
CN
00 OJ o O e*
O O fO £^ ^
» « 0) g Q
1 1 1 1 |
8 § i s 5
o* o o* n ^
-;:: -: ;;,j i;:: ssss
;::; -.- i'i! '-» s.sn
':':': '':-, ; :' i ; ;|ss !!!!
fn -^ to o K
n*" ? ^
ill
' Ij ° § ^ "
[j| ~ 3^5
Eo 1 " o
1 1, ifi
K"
I
Ic7 I
5 y\ \==~f
a ^^
:j:;?i;:?s:f|5
ilHHHIii
; '-;=S--:ii-
-------
51
«» ""
O- I
* o
UJ
s
1
O-
UJ
Q
LU
t
O
3t
LU
Z
^
tt
H
O
Z
~
-.
a
u
Z
*
O
K
CO
LU
I
UJ
at:
^_ °-
*~ 2
i- o
JJ u
^ UJ
Z Q
in 5
0 ^
w 2
K f
*
X
a
t
t
LU
0
z
UJ
t/)
a
0 |
'
^r-OOOOOM
o ** °> 2 s 8 o
g 1 1 1 1 1 1 |
"^ O r ~- r-
700 QQo oo
O O O O O o
?-
2 !
^(VKCN1^ K
0
LU
6 . = .- ..-- if" :i« : = = :
f '.'':. ':".' I'M illl "11
1 -.] '- ,}'} :::i ::::
to
>^-CNCO-^»O-OK
y s
!ll
S|
a 8
s !
w -
3
O
X^?T=^X
S ^ F=
2 ^JP
E
y
i
|
i
1
\
i
i
a
1
1
i
-------
n
00
O x .j
- 5 <
* x S
" "- l_
s ° K
5 3
LU Q
LU oS -
Q I/)
e i z
< 4 Ui
Lo » Q
2 Z S
>-
Q
- 2
> CO
z£
UJ LU
£S
if O
o z
m 5
-r
*:
O
-
o b
o o
~
OQ
O O
"
IE
£ !§
S
|SCZ
o <
-------
5
LU
Q
-I 10
< o
- O"
? >.
5 <
o 5
u <
sS
£ > «
s * **
"! |Eo
s ?!5
S|l|
Hi
a ^ *
. t-a
*
-------
00 §
a LJJ
X
2 °
LLJ
rv
Q_
LLJ
a
LLJ
t
V
2
LLJ
Z
Ul
1-
«/>
<
5
_i
<
of
3
^j
3
u
«
O
<
O
K
0>
>-
1-
<7»
Z
Ul
O
LLJ
>
PREHENS
^
O
LJJ
a
LLJ
<
i
t/>
>-
Q
3
I
CO
CEMENT
<£
z
s
LLJ
I
CO
5
Q
6 i
1/5 !£
'
5 - -r as
* 0 ri g
O 8 »
to
gill
0 en -o
2 < ~ ^
O
gt
O
CO
5
_,
> - CM tO
-1
(N -O O «
o o r*> w
* 5 2 g
i I i !
^ 5 5 o
8 2 *
:. :|f| fill
1 >O -O Is-
ne s *
J:!L
. |:i
V ^|' e 5 i K
Z Bo 1* !
|2 o. S o ^ ^ "
3 1
§S
U <
B . fz^j
S " V\_ fiy
82 ^^^
'i. ' '.-.i3' «:- :; --::,5\-::^:::r-\::'^,-;i;:;:?:::
; - * -5* - -s- ' >\ *'<*%< ^ ^ '''. 1 ! * t >* ' ~
j-vn1!:!-:.: :?.,;
^--^H-^!;N^y;^;iHT
- : \ ::.::: ^
s-^ii:,:^"
-------
w 5
«~ <
Q. -
S 5
< h-
UJ
5
i
C£
<
Q_
LU
a
LU
)
2
t/)
^
a:
0
i
LLJ
Z
Ul
-
(A
<
2
_i
tt
3
^_
^^
^
3
U
«
O
<
m
00
*" to
LU
I
LU
o;
CL
2
o
U
LU
V. Q
^ i
^ LU
tA j<
*M <
2 ft
111
Q
>-
Q
^
1
m
f
z
LLJ
5
O
<
z
<
LU
1
CO
<
5
Q
^ Q
O z
LO ^
O
a
S~~ * co
0 n g
2 °
2 i l 1
t/> O »O
Z o o <*i
o S
>-
u
1s2-
a!
2
>-
_i
> (N en
'
CN -o o a:
0 o fx £
* « 0 g
1 1 1 |
o- co rx .
§ £ 2 fc
5j -O CO O
C-J ^
r - f 3 S : S
. . : ; :;:s
:,;£ :.::
riii ::::
"> 3
§s
U <
^1
«.&
0 5 %K^
° Q ^£?
; -
ii
s s
is
!s
; £
M
j i
Is
i 5
^
j
^
I
5
5
s
S
-------
X
6
i
Z
ui m
o
3
U
tt
O
z z
UJ UJ
ii 5
if O
5 <
O 2
W» < *
Z 5 §
!if o
m
m
-------
^
M
&
2
X
5
UJ
I
u_
o
I
Z
UJ
5
i
ad
<
Q_
UJ
n
>
kS
c/>
O
LU
Z
>
h-
35
Z
Ul
0
ui o
l_ Zr
15 *
^ i^
j
"*
t-
o
EHENSIVI
o:
Q_
^
O
u
|jj
Q
$:
i
i
LO
ns
Jr-OOOOOtt 1
I ? i i i i i i I 3jl!
!IS5I§!§§ iNa
S - - ^ i°
5 gt 1-5 B3s
LLJ < 2
u^ _i ^ i
5 2 ** ; ' ! ' -'^s ii" o §
^ 5 - i ' ; , ? r ; E 5 r 5 ! u<
Q £ -;_-!;,' ;Us :::= ^^
I ^ 2 &1
O> cNn -*
-------
a. i i-
3*2
" Z III
LJJ -^
5 o
< s-
z
O
s;l
|o 2 S
r n
s !sa
iSe
11?
Ja = ss
i y -
85°
-i!i
£: a
Sis
DC r*j
>- Q
5^^
^*
LU
Z
UJ : : .
if>
_,
> CN r
B
= .-;= i!H !iii FHi
i [ = :! !:i; «!l HII
i -^ «> -o r**
II
-------
« £
«*i '
vl <
&OJ
X
2 o
4 i
~z
UJ
5
DEPART,
LU
>-
H-
I7>
z
ui
o
UI
H-
I/I
^
m
»
o
^
UJ
>
z
LU
I
UJ
COMPR
UJ
Q
tn
i
Z
UJ
5
lANAG!
S
i
a
-1
^1 ^
! 2
LU
Z
^5 2 -:. ,.:: iiii II
< * i - '\ \i\i
"^O^-CNC^^^OK 3" ^^ F==y
3 a S2 t;?^^'
-------
cs
0.
£ 2
X LU
LL ^
o 5
i- a.
2 O
5 I
H UJ
"C >^
< ^
CL LU
g 0
" ^
? $
co Z
£ Q
S2 CD
^ UJ
5 «
a
D
CO
o *
s
o
LU
O
z
DC UJ
ot O
s <
21
Q UJ
5 0
55
s§
o
CO
I
00
oc
I
CO
CO
UJ
oc
Q_
X
>-
CC
CL
a
z
o
o
CO CO
<
oc
z
UJ
5
D_
O
_J
UJ
>
LJJ
Q
UJ
H
Z
LJJ
CJ
z
<
m
CC
D
<
m
a:
D
CD
D
CO
1-
co
CO
1
<
CC
3
oc
LU
H
CO
_1
.J
Q
z
3
ul 1 -.
-------
2
5 <
O §
o <
UJ *i:
Q LJJ
5 te
o
C/3
<
LU
cc
o
<
CD
<
LU
LT
<
_J
_J
LL
Q
Z
3
ir
<
o:
O
Q
LU
m
cc
oo
D
z.
ir
-------
cs
a.
tu
Q
" o
cc Q-
CC W
|<3
o
LU
o
(S)
<
o
CC
<
O
H
0.
o
Q
o
CC
8
03
<
CC
<
3
o
e>
z
^:
CC
<
Q_
Q
<
2
c/)
Q
<
o
CC
^
<
CC
1
-------
->
s
UJ
Z
<
5 ^
§ S
g -
m %
> o i
LU CO §
Q 0 8
Q "~ S
U4 >
to >
0 ^
O. t-
o w
o;
A
^
>-
Q
H z rlz
CO O II
1 i 1 5 13 i K
i ^ss-s^ =(1
< ^5o<3t-OoUJOOC S mB :
< 5PZ 000"-<§0< G
> oiroc o
D ^ ^
=; Q nm r^i r^n ^m tr^t * /=FH=
o z TTT i 1 -'" ^H ^55 1 iP'
co LU TTT ) - I "; ^H g;; | T Z
13 "|~H" I 1 ^H ^5^ I = " ^>. i=
iy HI L 1 '"' ^1 ^ ! as ^^
s
i
9
1
1
9
a
^.
=A
_/
i?
7
-------
00
CN
o.
h- O.
5 O
S Q
P Q
cc Q_
? o
£ S
Q "J
5 3
£f
feQ
o
CO
5
o
g
v-
o a
P a
Q
LU
Q-
<
-------
cs
Q.
UJ
co z
< 2
5 c
£ £
oc
O
Q
a: LU
Q- C3
5 <
0 5
u <
5 <£
LU
^ §
O
to
Q
<
o:
§
X
co
LU
Q
or
Q
LU
CO
2
ir
<
1 !
m
m
O
UJ
(A
-------
o
fO
Q.
LL
O
STATE DEPARTMENT
^
en
PROPOSED
5
ATE DEVELOP
5
m
0
O
>
en
"EWIDE COMPREHEN
I
<
H
K
(/)
'ASTE MANAGEMENT
§
D
ESIDENTIAL
o:
_
O
z
Q_
|
Q
O
S
8
IS
"If
-------
CO
O i/t
at
< m
5*
ee
in
(A
O
UJ UJ
13
£ o
2 <
O Z
u <
Q LU
5 K
o
01
z
0
2
E
B|
-------
- i~r
rt 3
LLJ
a x
LLJ
C£
<
O~
LLJ
Q
UJ
tt
Itm W
y *
Ul
(A
> C5
z5
LLJ UJ
1 5
£ o
O Z
u <
LU 2
Q LU
1 2
s |--
1 II
Z u <
o ft e
^ o
> (^
U,l
z
Q
UJ
0-
U (li
s
II Bm i^Tj
I § Q ^^^
-------
n
rt
a
*
HEALTH
6
1
LU
<£
CL-
LJJ
O
LU
1
^
_-
0£.
O
£
UJ
Z
-J
tt
INDUST
08
~j
a.
u
Z
^
^
O
K
h-
(/)
Z
111
O
111
l/l
^
^
PREHENSIVE
S
O
o
UJ
Q
§
1
1
I/)
>-
Q
CEMENT STI
<
Z
^
2
UJ
I
>
/~\
6 1
<-n &
"
^ O O O O O CML
* 0 000 0 £|
0 ^ 00 CN -O O O
y, CS
1^11115
7 O O O O O O
r\ 0 0 0 O o
O * oo cs « o
(- CN
z
O "~
£
n "* - - ' i ± r i ;;-; s ! s
2 :.;:- :;- 7iU sit! :ss:
5 ::i: ::: i '! ! 1 stts =S = !
_,
> ^t n ^» m o rs.
s
1
-
5 1
| !
i s
i§
8 i
£
SuiO
° 5 x
K *0. 70
, F(N*NaD IN
'ICE UNM* THE
fl-U
Dsii
1* °?
U- I3
k- fi
y° |*
1 -!
^n.
^
^
s^^^
5
5
ft
s
<
9
2
-------
o 5
LU
O. x
MA
ARTMENT OF
a.
LLJ
o
UJ
i
<
t
t/1
^
C£.
O
z
STATE
a
ui
L_
^^
u
in
ui
«/»
.AMDS
^*
O
2
^
0
MPREHENSIVE
0
u
LLJ
O
UJ
t
-<
^
^
>-
Q
1
AGEMENT STI
Z
<
5
UJ
1
------- |