IUNE1976
                                             site

-------
       LEACHATE  DAMAGE  ASSESSMENT

Case Study of the Sayville Solid Waste Disposal Site
         in Islip (Long Island), New York
         This report (SW-509) was written
            by KENNETH A. SHUSTER
   U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     1976

-------
An environmental protection publication (SW-509) in the solid waste management
series.  Mention of commercial products does not constitute endorsement
by the U. S.  Government.  Editing and technical content of this report were
the responsibilities of the Systems Management Division of the Office of
Solid Waste Management Programs.

Single copies of this publication are available from Solid Waste Information,
U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati, Ohio 45268.
                                   ii

-------
                               FOREWORD
    Since its beginning in 1965, one of the concerns of EPA's Office of Solid
Waste Management Programs (OSWMP) has been the development and use of
environmentally sound methods of solid waste disposal.  OSWMP recognizes
that land disposal of wastes is  an essential element in any present and future
solid waste management system, and it is necessary to ensure that these land
disposal sites do not adversely impact the environment.  To this end, OSWMP
currently has four studies in the area of leachate control: (1) leachate
characterization, production, and migration,  (2) leachate damage assessment,
(3) leachate control technology, and (4) leachate administrative controls (land
disposal site permitting and enforcement programs). The goal of these projects
is to develop landfill standards or guidelines to protect our surface and ground
water resources from leachate contamination.

    This report is an output of the leachate damage assessment project.  It
discusses the leachate damages which occurred at a specific  land disposal site.

    The leachate damage assessment project examines the impacts and magnitude
of the leachate contamination problem in the United States on local, regional,
and national levels.   This includes the identification of the types and locations
of sites causing leachate damages, the types and extent of leachate damages,  and
the comparison of damage costs and risks to control costs.  The leachate
damage assessment project establishes the need, if any, for  leachate control
standards or guidelines,  and gives insights into what controls are necessary.
This project is  described further in Leachate Damage Assessment;  An
Approach. *
                                      SHELDON MEYERS
                                        Deputy Assistant Administrator
                                        for Solid Waste Management
 *Leachate Damage Assessment:  An Approach.  Kenneth A.  Shuster.
  Environmental Protection Agency,  1976.
                                    iii

-------
                                  PREFACE
     Leachate is contaminated water which is produced when rain or other
water passes through wastes in a land disposal site, picking up various mineral,
organic, and other contaminants.  Depending on the types of wastes received at
the disposal site,  leachate may contain various decaying organLcs, bacteria
and viruses,  and heavy metals and other toxic chemicals.  Unless controlled,
each of these contaminants will migrate different distances based primarily
on the type of operation, the physical and chemical properties  of the contaminants,
and the hydrogeologic conditions around the site.  If allowed to migrate from
the site, leachate may contaminate ground or surface water  and result in
damages such as polluted wells or fishkills.  The occurrence of such damages
is directly related to the proximity of the resource to the disposal site, the
direction of surface or ground water  (leachate) flow, and dilution.

     Past disposal practices in the United States have typically overlooked the
leachate problem, frequently favoring the use of cheaper and more remote
"waste  lands" such as flood plains, quarries, sand and gravel  pits,  and
marshlands.  These marginal sites tend to be more socially  and politically
acceptable, as well as cheaper when  the leachate problem is ignored.

     Due to lack of ground-water monitoring around disposal sites  in the
United States, the seriousness and extent of the leachate problem  is unknown.
In most situations, only when wells are polluted or fish are killed, does the
problem surface and attract attention.  A number of studies  of leachate
production and migration at specific sites, however, has been  recently
completed.  Information on leachate migration from damage cases and specific
site studies coupled with general information on disposal site locations and opera-
tions in the United States  indicate that at least one-fourth and possibly as many as
three-fourths of the municipal land disposal sites in the United States have
leachate migration problems.  Hopefully, as more  of the older sites are replaced
by new  sites which are better located, designed, and operated, these conditions
will improve.

    This report is the second in a series of case studies documenting damages
caused by leachate from municipal land disposal sites.  Described are the
history  and type of operation,  damages caused by leachate, remedial actions,
and associated costs.

-------
    The author acknowledges the special assistance of Grant Kimmel and Olin
Braids, United States Geological Survey (U.S.G.S.), and Mr. and Mrs. Joseph
Bivona for providing the major information upon which this report is based, and
Joyce Corry for editing the report.
                                       KENNETH A. SHUSTER
                                       Program Manager
                                       Systems Management Division
                                       Office of Solid Waste Management
                                         Programs
                                  vi

-------
                              CONTENTS


                                                                 Page

CONCLUSIONS	     1

SUMMARY	     3

    History	     3
    Damages	     3
    Remedial Action	     3
    Costs	     3

HISTORY OF SITE DEVELOPMENT	     5

    Location	     5
    History and Type of Operation	     5
    Types and Amounts of Waste Disposed	     7
    Site Selection and Engineering Design	     7
    Hydrogeological Description of Site	     7

LEACHATE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT	     9

    Problem Identification	     9
    Leachate Characterization	     9
    Damages	    11
    Litigation	    11
    Remedial Action	    11

LEACHATE DAMAGE COSTS	    14

    Tangible Direct Damage Costs	    14
    Intangible Direct Damage Costs	    14
    Avoidance Costs   	    14
    Corrective Costs	    15
    Administrative Costs   	    15

SOURCES	    17

APPENDIX	    18
                                 vn

-------
                               CONCLUSIONS
1.     The Islip Sayville disposal site was neither located nor operated according
       to currently accepted sanitary landfill practices.  It was located, in 1933,
       in a sand and gravel pit,  with wastes placed at and possibly below the
       water table.  It evidently was originally an open dump at which com-
       paction and application of daily cover were later initiated.

2.     Leachate has migrated at least 5,000 ft from this disposal site to a
       depth of 170 ft, and contaminated about 0. 22 square mile of the
       surficial aquifer.

3.     From 1968 to 1971, three residential wells were placed in the leachate
       plume near the disposal site.  These wells were developed as  a result
       of ignorance on the part of the well developer and homeowners of the
       contaminated ground water.

4.     In addition to the loss of the three wells, damages included ruined
       laundry,  corroded or stained faucets and sinks, and a destroyed water
       heater.

5.     The well owners obtained no financial assistance and little technical
       advice to solve their problem.  The first remedial actions, done upon
       the misadvice of the well developers, were to install filters on the
       wells. Temporary (bottled) water was obtained by the homeowners for
       drinking and cooking.  The only long-range solution identified  was to get
       hooked up to the public water system.  In doing so, the homeowners
       had to first donate their private road to the town.   Another alternative
       which was never mentioned would have been to drill a well into the lower
       (Magothy) aquifer which is not contaminated. It took four years before
       the homes were finally hooked up to the public water supply.   During
       this period,  the town of Islip did nothing to assist the homeowners,  but
       insisted that the private road be  given to the town before hookup to the
       Suffolk County public supply system.  The town did not attempt to correct
       the ground water contamination problem.

6.     The impacts on the well owners included:  1) material damages including
       wells, water fixtures,  and water heater; 2) inconveniences of temporary
       water, torn up street and lawns, and repairing damages; 3) lost time
       seeking assistance and advice from the town and elsewhere,  using
       temporary water, and making repairs; 4) psychic impact of the incon-
       venience; lost time; damages; financial impact; anxiety over the possible
       health effects including those of a newborn; embarrassment caused

-------
       by need to borrow water, lack of adequate water, stains,  and repair
       activities; anxiety over placement of the wells in contaminated water,
       inadequacy of filters,  and lack of response from the town; disruptions
       caused by noise and dirt of construction and scheduling of household
       repairs; decreased aesthetics caused by damaged fixtures and torn
       up street and lawn; and 5) economic impacts.

7.     The economic impact (out-of-pocket expenditures) was $6,884,  or $2,295
       per home.  This does not include the value of damaged wells  (about
       $3,600), the value of the private road given up,  and the expense of water
       consumption over the expense of electrical consumption of the well
       system. It also does not include  the inconvenience, lost time, or
       psychic  costs,  or the value of temporary water which was obtained free
       of charge.

8.     The contamination and discontinued use of the three domestic wells
       described in this report represent only a very small fraction of the
       potential economic damage and value of foregone future usage indicated
       by the extent of the leachate plume and amount of leachate-contaminated
       ground water.

-------
                                SUMMARY
      History.  The town of Islip's Sayville Landfill was started in a sand and
gravel pit in 1933, and is still in operation. The waste at this disposal site,
which extends from about 20 feet above grade to the water table about 30 feet
below grade, covers about 17 acres (Table 1).  Incinerators were built on this
site in 1939 and 1968.  The 1939 incinerator is currently used as a recycling
center. Initially, the site was an open dump and received all types of wastes.
Presently it receives mostly incinerator residue, and some individually hauled
residential wastes.   The site is underlain by mostly coarse sand with streaks
of gravelly sand.  No engineering designs were done on the site.

      Damages. The leachate plume at Islip's Sayville Landfill extends more
than 5, 000 feet downgradient of the site,  170 feet in depth,  and up to 1,300 feet
in width.  The major ground water discharge zone,  Great South Bay, is 3.9
miles due south of the disposal site.   About 0.22 square mile and one billion
gallons of ground water have been  contaminated.

      Three residential wells which were contaminated  and had to be abandoned
were located near the disposal site and in the leachate plume.  Laundry,  sink
fixtures, pipes, and a water heater were among the items damaged as a result
of the wells' contamination.

      Remedial Action.   The three wells were abandoned in December 1974
when a public supply line was hooked up to the homes.  During the  four years
between well contamination and hookup to the public supply, bottled water
obtained from other homes and buildings was used for drinking,  and filters
were placed on the wells so they could be used for laundry  and other non-
consumption uses.  No corrective  actions were attempted by the town of Islip.

      Costs.  The total direct cost to the three residences was about $6, 884,
or $2, 295 per home.  This cost  includes $4,470 for public water supply mainline
and hookups, $852 for replacing corroded and stained fixtures and damaged
laundry,  and $1,562 for well filters and a water pump.  Not included are the
values of the damaged wells, consumption charges for public water over usage
costs  for the wells, costs of bottled water, the value of the street donated to the
town,  and costs of inconvenience and time over the four-year period.

-------
                               TABLE 1

 SUMMARY OF ISLIP'S SAYVILLE LANDFILL LEACHATE DAMAGE CASE
Type of operation
open dump, landfill
incinerator residue
Location
sandpit
Years of operation
1933 to present
Size of operation
 Acres
 Peak annual tonnage
 Waste thickness (ft)
17 (6.8 ha)
 ?
50 (15 m)
Annual precipitation (in0 /year)
43 (109 cm)
Extent of contamination
leachate plume extends 5,000 ft
(1,500 m) downgradient of the landfill,
170 ft (52 m) in depth, aiid uji to 1,300
ft (400 m) in width. About 0.22 mi2
(0.57 km2) have been contaminated,,
One billion gal (4 x 106 m3) of ground
water are in this plume.
Damages
3 residential wells;
home fixtures
Remedial actions
filters on wells;
wells abandoned;
public water supplied;
fixtures replaced
Litigation
none
Costs
 Value of damaged resources (wells)   $3,600
 Damage  costs (e.g., clothes,
 fixtures)                            $  852
 Corrective costs                    $    u
 Avoidance costs                     $6,032
 Administrative costs                    ?
Total costs (excluding value of wells)   $6,884
Cost per home affected (excluding
 value of wells)                       $2,295
Status
concluded

-------
                   HISTORY OF SITE DEVELOPMENT
      Location.  The town of Islip is in south central Suffolk County, Long
Island,  New York (Figure 1). Islip currently has three operating solid waste
disposal sites serving a population of 290, 000.  One of these, in the eastern
(Sayville) section of town, contaminated several residential wells.
     LOCATION OF LANDFILL IN ISLIP

      Figure 1.  Location of Sayville, Islip Landfill in Suffolk County,
                         Long Island,  New York

      History and Type of Operation.  The town of Islip Sayville Landfill is
about 42 years old (Figures 2 to 4).  I^'ally it was an open town dump.   In
1939 an incinerator was built on the s.te. In 1968 a second incinerator with a
300 ton-per-day design capacity was built.  This incinerator is currently
operating. The older incinerator has been shut down and is currently used as
a recycling center.  Ferrous salvage from the incinerator residue by  a private
metal scavenger using a shaker,  conveyor,  and magnetic separator is soon to
start.

      On the site was a sand and gravel recovery and washing operation which,
except for periodic washings,  was shut down about 1970-71.  At that time,
raw waste was placed in the perimeter of the gravel pit to protect the  sides and
fence from eroding into the pit.

-------
Figure 2.  Incinerator residue at the Islip disposal site (1975).
        Figure 3.  Sandpit adjacent to landfilled waste
               at the Islip disposal site  (1975).

-------
     Figure 4.  View of incinerator, sandpit, and disposal site (1975).

      Types and Amounts of Waste Disposed.   Except for a part of the sand
borrow pit, most of the Sayville land disposal site has been covered with
wastes and incinerator residue*  The wastes cover about 17 acres and extend
about 30 feet below and 20 feet above grade. From 1970 through 1972, a daily
average of 151 tons was incinerated, and a total of 6, 200 tons  of demolition and
noncombustible waste was deposited directly in the disposal site.  About 0. 8
million cubic yards of waste and residue have been placed in the site since
1933.  Initially all types of waste were delivered to the site.  From about 1970
to the present, the site has received only residential wastes hauled by individuals,
incinerator residue from residential and commercial wastes burned at the
incinerator,  and some demolition wastes.   The site has settled about  10 feet
in the past three to four years to about 40 feet in depth.

      Site Selection and Engineering Design.   No information is available on
site selection.  There was no engineering design done for the  site.

      Hydrogeological Description of Site.   The upper glacial (water table)
aquifer on  Long Island consists  mainly of medium to coarse sand with streaks
of gravel.  Under the Islip Landfill, the  upper glacial  aquifer rests on beds  of
fine sand and silt which effectively reduce the hydraulic conductivity and form
a hydrologic boundary above the  Magothy aquifer about 170 feet below the water
table.  The wastes in the disposal site extend to and possibly below the water
table.

-------
      The upper aquifer has a hydraulic conductivity of about 270 feet per day.
The ground water moves at a velocity of about 0.5 to 2 feet per day due south
of the site toward Great South Bay, 3.9 miles from the site. The leachate
plume has been traced 5, 000 feet downgradient of the site.

      It has been estimated that about one-half of the 43 inches of annual precipi-
tation in the area infiltrates to the water table.  At the disposal site, the infiltra-
tion is probably greater because of the thin, loose, and coarse sand cover and
lack of vegetation.

-------
                   LEACHATE DAMAGE ASSESSMENT
      Problem Identification.  The tap water in three residences on Ellsworth
 Street in Islip developed unfavorable taste, odor,  and appearance.  The three
 affected wells were drilled in the water table aquifer, which extends to about
 190 feet below grade,  long after  the disposal site had begun operating in 1933
 (Table 2).

      In the mid- to late-1950s,  two wells were drilled at 45- to 60-foot depths
 for 264 and 258 Ellsworth Street.  These wells  stopped producing water, possibly
 due to clogging,  so new,  deeper  wells were drilled in about 1971.  In the
 summer of 1969, the well at 254  Ellsworth picked up a hydrogen sulfide (H2S)
 odor and taste, and had iron oxide  settling from it upon heating.  The new
 wells at 264 and 258 picked up odor and taste soon after they were drilled.  The
 deeper well at 264 developed an oily scum in it  as well as the iron and hydrogen
 sulfide tastes and coloring.  By taste, odor, and appearance criteria, the worst
 contaminated well was at 264 Ellsworth and the  least affected was at 258
 Ellsworth.  This situation corresponds with  the depth of each well:  the
 deeper  the well, the worse the contamination.   However,  there are  con-
 flicting reports  on  the depths of these wells.
                                TABLE  2

 DESCRIPTION OF RESIDENTIAL WELLS CONTAMINATED BY LEACHATE
Location
264 Ellsworth
258 Ellsworth
254 Ellsworth
Date drilled
1971
1971
1968
Approximate
depth (ft)
110
65-70
90
    Leachate Characterization.  The U.S. Geological Survey (U. S.G.S.)
collected water samples over a three-year period (1972-74) from different
depths at 30 monitoring well locations in order to describe the leachate plume.
Using these data, various plots of the leachate plume were made using various
leachate characteristics, such as specific conductance (Figures 5 and 6).
Ambient water near the bottom of the aquifer has a specific conductance of less
than 100 jumhos.  The plume of the leachate-contaminated ground water extends
about 5, 000 feet from the site in the upper glacial aquifer.  The worst,  unpotable,
ground water is  near the disposal site.  The plume moves as slugs  of leachate,
tending to sink toward the bottom of the aquifer, which is 170 feet below the
water table.  At 3,000 feet south of the  site, the plume starts about 60 feet
below the water  table,  and extends down to 150 feet below the water table.

-------
                                                                 EXPLANATION


                                                                 WELL AND NUMBER

                                                                 LINE OF EQUAL SPECIFIC

                                                                 CONDUCTANCE-lntirvil,

                                                                 100, 500,1000, ind 2000
                                                                 micromhos per centimetre

                                                                 it 25 Celsius

                                                                 TRACE OF SECTIONS

                                                                 (Fig 7)
                                                                   1000

                                                                  iIi
                                                                      500 METRES
      Figure 5.  Specific conductance of ground water in the upper glacial aquifer

 south of the Islip disposal site, in 1973, at the indicated depths below the water

 table.   Source:  Kimmel,  G. E.  and O. C. Braids.  Preliminary findings of a

 leachate study on two landfills in Suffolk Cwn4y, New York.   Journal of Research

 of the U. S. Geological  Survey. 3(3):273-280, May-June 1975.
B  a s
FEE
BO-
SEA LEVEL-
-40-
.80-
120-
T i i i
' S8^'l.v$
V^SOO \\^S)
3 Z
u WATER TABLE jjj
tODI A  	 2100
>OoiBB 	 130
i&ssszszsm
75
AA 	
B
WELL19E
WELL19E
-1 R'
1972 SOLID WASTE *
-- 	  	 	 ^ 	
x- /*%!*
	 tat a 	 'Z-'ZZ*
^s.-= s ASKlsjgjr  Coene send end greuel
METRES
:
~-_
-SEA LEVEL
--10
--20
30
Silty fine sind
C ^
FEET S
SEA LEVEL-
JU>-
80-
-120-
IclSO
u " WATER TABLE i i
185
80
B 	 J!.
o l' t'~-f3m
B ,... I
c-^300-^0 jjp-^-v "O C
_i
ZIDlA
245 B
aol
ME
" r=T--"-f=-= -=--=---^ NO VERTICAL EXAGGERATION ""
0 100 200 300 FEET



0 25 40 BO 80 100 METRES


C'
TRES
r-20
-10
-SEA LEVEL
-10
-20
-30
                        EXPLANATION

               451C WELL AND NUMBER- Showing specific
                   conducting ului it indiottd men
               -200 LINE OF EQUAL SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE-
                   Interval. 100,500, end 1000 miaomhoi per
                   centimetre It 25 Ciliiui



     Figure 6.  Specific conductance of ground water in the upper glacial aquifer

south of the Islip disposal site (cross sections from Figure 5).  Conductance

for wells 1A,  1C and  3B in  1972; conductance for all wells in 1973.  Source:

Kimmel, G. E. and O. C. Braids.  Preliminary findings of a leachate study

on two landfills in Suffolk County, New York.  Journal of Research of the U. S.

Geological Survey,  3(3):273-280, May-June 1975.
                                        10

-------
    Only two well sample analyses of the contaminated wells were located
(Table 3, Appendix).  Monitoring well  8 is provided as essentially background
to contrast cleaner ground water in the area with that of the affected wells at
264 and 258 Ellsworth.  Monitoring well  23, at the  end of Ellsworth Street,
and monitoring well 3, on the disposal site perimeter and in line with 23, are
provided to show additional leachate-contaminated ground water analyses in
the vicinity of the individual residential wells  (Figure 7).

    The levels of consituents in well 8 are significantly  lower than in wells
near the disposal site, which have constituents that exceed the 1962 PHS and
1972 EPA recommended drinking water standards.  Particularly high, and
indicative of leachate, are chloride, iron, manganese, sodium,  calcium, and
dissolved solids.  Specific conductance and hardness were other characteristics
of leachate that appeared in high concentration in the wells. The wells were
not tested for pesticides and herbicides.

    Damages.    The private wells of  three residences downgradient from the
Islip Sayville Landfill site were contaminated.  In addition to the loss of well
water, these residences had ruined laundry, discolored  clothes, corroded and
stained faucets, sinks,  and a water heater, and other damaged water fixtures
and devices because of the leachate. The water also resulted in ruined food,
such as orange spaghetti and black rice.

    Litigation.   There were no lawsuits filed in this case.

    Remedial Action.  The  town of Islip did nothing to protect the ground water,
to assist the well owners,  or to impede the leachate migration.  In fact, the
Environmental Commissioner said he knew of no wells that had been contami-
nated by leachate from his landfills. When the residential wells on Ellsworth
were mentioned to him as being contaminated,  he said he recalled some
"bitching" about water quality by some residents down there.  The residents
had requested assistance from the town,  but received none.

    A Suffolk County Taxpayers Association representative investigated the
problem by  interviewing the residents, and he told  them that he  would seek
remedial action.  However, he never came back, the telephone number he gave
was discontinued, and telephone information had no listing for that Association.

    The residents put filters on their wells and used the water temporarily
for nondrinking uses.  They used bottled water for  drinking and  cooking.
Ultimately,  they  paid for a public waterline and abandoned their wells.   In
addition, they replaced and repaired faucets,  sinks, shower doors, a hot water
heater, etc.
                                    11

-------
to
                                                           TABLE 3

                        WATER ANALYSES FROM RESIDENTIAL WELLS AND MONITORING WELLS
Well location
Sampling date
Sampling depth
Chloride (Cl)
Iron total (Fe)
Manganese total (Mn)
Zinc total (Zn)
Boron dissolved (B)
Magnesium (Mg)
Calcium (Ca)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Fluoride (F)
Sulfate (SC-4)
Nitrogen tot. as N
Conductivityt
Diss. solids 180C
pH (Field)
Alk tot as CaCOs
Hardness total
8
5-16-73
23-26 ft
mg/1
6.0
0.15
0.1
0
0.09
0.9
2.2
0.4
3.7
0.6
8.0
	
53
27
5.4
2
9
264 Ellsworth
7-23-73
100ft
mg/1
88.0
9.4*
24.0*
0.73
0.43
7.4
13.0
17.0
64.0
0.1
4.2
60.2
845
445
6.3
284
63
258 Ellsworth
7-23-73
150ft
mg/1
170.0
7.0*
17.0*
0.90
0.53
4.4
35.0
23.0
140.0
0.1
80.0
	
1030
575*
6.5
126
106
23
6-25-73
22-26 ft
mg/1
17.0
0.16
2.0*
0.01
0.11
1.9
16.0
3.7
11.0
0.1
7.3
3.82
151
95
6.4
30
48
23
8-12-74
26ft
mg/1
72.0
170*
2.8*
0.06
0.47
3.0
120
22.0
37.0
0.0
41.0
	
1260
495
	
262
310
23
6-26-73
38-42 ft
mg/1
170.0
52.0*
3.7*
0.01
0.83
9.7
70.0
43.0
140.0
0.1
92.0
22.02
2230
718*
6.6
318
215
23
6-25-73
140-144 ft
mg/1
400*
3.4*
0.82*
0.19
1.20
55.0
180
75.0
260
0.2
57.0
14.13
2665
1560*
6.35
828
676
3
11-16-73
45ft
mg/1
180.0
65.0*
42.0*
0.14
1.03
33.0
90.0
70.0
160.0
0.3
74.0
28.00
1920
974*
6.6
551
361
3
10-19-73
116-120 ft
mg/1
88.0
7.5*
4.6*
0.17
0.99
30.0
52.0
65.0
150.0
0.3
0.019
35.01
1620
920*
6.7
513
253
        *Exceed 1962 PHS or 1972 EPA drinking water standards.
        TAverage of field and lab analyses.

-------
                                            MONITORING WELL

                                            RESIDENTIAL WELL
           VETERANS MEMORIAL
                 HWY
                                                              40 48'
                                                              40 45'
7306'
                                                          7304'
Figure 7. Location of residential wells and monitoring wells.
                               13

-------
                     LEACHATE DAMAGE COSTS
    Tangible Direct Damage Costs.   The leachate-contaminated water stained
laundry a pinkish-reddish color.  Some clothes had to be thrown out and
replaced; others were worn despite the discoloring.   At first, the resident
experiencing this discoloration thought the laundry damage was due to a wash-
ing machine malfunction, but found out otherwise when a repairman investigated.
The washing machine was still under warranty so there was no charge for the
repairman.  Food was also ruined (e.g., orange spaghetti).  The value of
discarded laundry and food is estimated at $51 (Table 4).

    Bathroom and other sink fixtures were corroded by the contaminated water.
When the public water was hooked up, 264 Ellsworth  replaced a bathroom sink,
toilet bowl,  and kitchen sink, at a cost of about $125.  This did not include labor
cost since the articles were replaced by the resident himself.  Assuming 24
hours of labor, including purchasing, dismantling, and hooking up, at $4 per
hour, the labor cost was  $96.  The sink fixtures  in the other homes were also
corroded, but they have not been replaced as yet. Shower doors at 264 Ellsworth
discolored a reddish-orange, but extensive scrubbing cleansed them suffi-
ciently to avoid replacing them.  The water heater-boiler in the newest house
(6-year-old  254 Ellsworth) rotted out, so when public water was hooked up,
the boiler was replaced at a cost of $580.

    Intangible Direct Damage Costs.  No attempt was made to estimate the
hours spent,  or to assign a value to the lost time, inconvenience,  or psychic
impacts experienced over the four-year period when  the three homes were not
hooked up to a potable water supply.

    Avoidance Costs.   The first attempt to avoid the leachate problem was to
boil cooking and drinking water.  This precipitated out the solids,  such as
ferrous oxide.  Next, bottled water was used, and garages became storage
places for water.  For 254 Ellsworth, some water was obtained by connecting
a hose to the home of a neighbor who was on public water supply.  For 258,
the resident, a painter, obtained water on the job from the homes  or buildings
of customers. For 264, some bottled water was purchased,  and some water
was obtained from 258 and 254.

    Next, filters were placed on all the wells to make the water usable for
nondrinking purposes.  Macromite filters were installed on all three homes,
at $70 each, when the rusty water color appeared.  In February 1970,  two new
filters were installed on the 254 Ellsworth well for $750 so that the water
could be used for the laundry.  To  charge these filters,  100-pound bags of salt
were purchased.  This salt initially cost $4 per bag in 1970, but by 1974, when
the public waterline was installed,  the cost had risen to $5.50 per bag.  About
15 bags were used each year, the bags lasting about three to four weeks each.

                                   14

-------
The total cost of salt over the 3-1/2 years for 254 Ellsworth was about $277.  In
June 1974, a new pump had to be put on the 254 Ellsworth well at a cost of $325.

    In September 1974, the three residences signed an agreement with tne
Suffolk County Water Authority (SCWA) to be hooked up to the public water
supply.  Before this could be done, the residents had to officially transfer
their formerly private street to the town of Islip.  The paperwork involved in
this transfer delayed the agreement with SCWA.  In December 1974, the
three residences were finally hooked up to the public water supply.  Since
the first 75 feet of mainline in each home was free, 225 feet  of the 460 feet of
of 6-inch mainline required did not have to be paid for by the residents.  The
remaining 235 feet  at $12 per foot cost about $2, 820,  or  $940 per residence.
The cost of the pipes from the street main to the three houses was about $750,
or an average of about $250 for each pipe. The  cost of residential taps and
water meters was about $900, or $300 each.  Thus the total cost of public supply
hookup was about $4,470, or $1,490 each.

    After being hooked up to the public water supply, the three residences had
to begin paying for  the water they consumed.  Counterbalancing this is a
savings of about $20 per month in the electric bill for 254 Ellsworth, since the
pump and filters for the well are no longer operating.  When in use, the filters
had to cleanse themselves for about two hours each night.

    Altogether, the direct damage and avoidance costs totaled $6, 884, or
$2, 295 per home (Table 4).

    Corrective Costs.  The town of Islip did nothing to correct the problem to
prevent further ground water contamination,  to cleanse the aquifer,  or to
attempt to reduce leachate migration.

    Administrative Costs.  There were no administrative costs associated
with corrective actions because there were no corrective actions considered.
There were no litigations in this case.  The only administrative expenses were
those stemming.from efforts on the part of the homeowners to obtain temporary
and permanent water supplies.  These efforts included the petitioning by the
homeowners  to get  assistance from, and public supply lines paid for by,  the town;
the title transfer on the private road to the town before the public  supply lines
would be laid; and perhaps the brief involvement of the Suffolk County Taxpayers
Association.
                                    15

-------
                               TABLE 4

                      LEACHATE DAMAGE COSTS
                                                              Cost
Tangible direct damage costs
  Value of the three damaged wells                              $3,600
  Replaced damaged laundry and food (est.)                           51
  Replaced corroded and stained fixtures                           221
    Parts                                           $  125
    Labor (est.)                                         96
  Water heater replacement                                       580

Intangible direct damage costs
  Lost time (boiling water, doing laundry out,  etc.)                   ?
  Inconvenience (doing laundry out,  cooking prepara-
   tions, temporary water handling and storage,
   torn-up yard and street)                                         ?
  Psychic impacts and costs                                         ?
Avoidance costs
  Temporary and bottled water (for 4 yrs)                            ?
  Loss of use of residential storage space for water                   ?
  Fuel for boiling water                                             ?
  Well filters (5)                                                 960
  Salt for filters                                                 277
  Replaced water pump                                           325
  Public water supply mainline and hookups                       4,470
    460 ft of 6-in.  mainline                            2, 820
    Pipes from mainline to house                        750
    Hookups and water meters                           900
  Cost of piped water over well water                                ?


Administrative costs
  Seeking permanent water supply                                   ?
  Loss of private road                                              ?
  Increased taxes due to public street                                ?

Total damage costs (excluding value of wells)                    $6,884
  Cost per home (excluding value of wells)                        2,295
                                  16

-------
                                SOURCES
1.      Kimmel, G. E.  and O. C. Braids.  Leachate plumes in a highly
           permeable aquifer.  Ground Water,  12(6):388-392,
           Nov.-Dec. 1974.

2.     Kimmel, G. E. and O. C. Braids.  Preliminary findings of a leachate
           study on two landfills in Suffolk County,  New York. Journal of
           Research  of the U. S. Geological Survey,  3(3):273-280, May-June
           1975.

3.     Personal communications.  B. Andres, Environmental Commissioner,
           and J.  Smith,  Incinerator Manager, Town of Islip,  to K. Shuster,
           U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Solid Waste
           Management Programs, Apr. 9, 1975.

4.     Personal communications.  Mr. and Mrs. J.  Bivona, 254
           Ellsworth St.,  (Holbrook) Islip,  N. Y.,  to K. Shuster, U. S.
           Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Solid Waste
           Management Programs, Apr. 1975.

5.     Personal communications.  G. E. Kimmel and O. C. Braids,
           U.S. Geological Survey,  Mineola, N. Y., to K. Shuster,
          , U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,  Office of Solid
           Waste  Management Programs, Jan. and Apr. 1975.
                                    17

-------
                     APPENDIX
CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF AFFECTED RESIDENTIAL WELLS
Constituent
Chloride (Cl)
Iron total (Fe)
Manganese total (Mn)
Zinc total (Zn)
Boron dissolved (B)
Magnesium (Mg)
Calcium (Ca)
Potassium (K)
Sodium (Na)
Fluoride (F)
Sulfate (SO4)
Nitrate diss. as NOs
Nitrate diss. as NO2
Nitrate diss. as N
Nitrite diss. as N
Nitrogen diss. as N
Nitrogen org as N
Nitrogen T Kjel N
Nitrogen tot as N
Ammonia as NH4
Silica
Carbon dioxide (CC>2)
Conductivity (field)
Conductivity (lab)
Diss. solids @180C
pH (field)
ph (lab)
Carbonate
Bicarbonate
Alk COs as CaCOs
Alk HCO3 as CaCOs
Alk tot as CaCO3
Carbonate equiv.
Hardness non-carb
Hardness total
Residue total vol.
264 Ellsworth
7-23-73
100ft
mg/1
88.0
9.4*
24.0*
0.73
0.43
7.4
13.0
17.0
64.0
0.1
4.2
.841
.033
.190
.010
49.00
11.00
60.00
60.20
63.11
3.20
110.0
820.0
870.0
445.0
6.3
6.7
0
346.0
0
284.0
284.0
170.0
0
63.0
59.0
258 Ellsworth
7-23-73
150ft
mg/1
170.0
7.0t
17. Ot
0.90
0.53
4.4
35.0
23.0
140.0
0.1
80,0
	
.036
	
.011
2.80

2.60
	
3.61
4.10
62.0
1060.0
1000.0
575.0"*"
6.5
6.6
0
154.0
0
126.0
126.0
76.0
0
106.0
34.0
*SOURCE:   Kimmel, G.E. and O.C.  Braids.  USGS,
 Mineola,  N.Y.
Exceed 1962 PHS or 1972 EPA drinking water standards.

                         18
                                              yal295
                                              SW-509

-------