Document ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2002-0049-0106
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2003-03-19T05:00Z

Peconic
Estuary
Program
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
1
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
SIX
TOXICS
MANAGEMENT
PLAN
OBJECTIVES
1)
Measure
the
levels
of
toxics
in
the
environment
to
discern
trends
in
environmental
quality
and
to
determine
the
effectiveness
of
management
programs.

2)
Minimize
human
health
risks
due
to
the
consumption
of
shellfish,
finfish,
and
drinking
water.*

3)
Protect
and
improve
water
and
sediment
quality
to
ensure
a
healthy
and
diverse
marine
community.

4)
Eliminate
where
possible,
and
minimize
where
practicable,
the
introduction
of
toxic
substances
to
the
environment,
through
regulatory
and
non­
regulatory
means.

5)
Where
toxic
contamination
has
occurred,
ensure
clean­
ups
occur
quickly,
and
according
to
the
most
appropriate
and
stringent
environmental
standards.

*
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
is
not
primarily
a
drinking
water
protection
program.
However,
many
actions
in
this
Plan,
if
implemented,
may
result
in
protection
and
improvement
to
groundwater
resources.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
2
MEASURABLE
GOALS
The
PEP's
measurable
goals
with
respect
to
toxics
include:

 
Improve
the
quality
of
the
ambient
environment
(
surface
waters,
groundwaters,
sediments,
and
biota)
where
there
is
evidence
that
human
inputs
impair
or
threaten
these
resources
(
as
measured
by
surface
water,
groundwater,
sediments,
and
biota
monitoring
programs).
[
See
Actions
T­
2,
T­
3,
T­
4,
T­
5,
T­
6,
T­
7,
T­
8,
POE­
4]

 
Comply
with
schedules
for
conducting
site
characterizations,
remedial
actions,
and
postremedial
monitoring
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
effectively
characterize
risks
and
protect
human
health
and
the
environment
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
ensure
compliance
with
permit
limits
for
point
source
discharges
(
as
measured
by
compliance
with
schedules
at
hazardous
waste
sites;
conducting
effective
characterizations;
and
point
source
monitoring).
[
See
Action
T­
2]

 
Decrease
overall
emissions
of
reportable
toxics
from
the
five
East
End
towns
(
as
measured
by
the
Federal
Toxics
Release
Inventory).
[
See
Action
T­
7]

 
Eliminate
holdings
of
banned,
unneeded,
and
unwanted
pesticides
and
hazardous
substances
by
2005
(
as
potentially
measured
by
collections
during
"
Clean
Sweep"
programs,
household
hazardous
waste
collection
programs
and
events,
or
surveys
of
farmers/
commercial
landscapers/
homeowners).
[
See
Action
T­
4]

 
Decrease
overall
agricultural/
residential/
institutional
pesticide
applications
in
the
five
East
End
towns
(
as
potentially
measured
by
point­
of­
sale
surveys,
surveys
of
residents,
or
commercial
applicator
tallies).
[
See
Actions
T­
4,
POE­
4]

 
Eliminate
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable,
pesticide
applications
on
turf
grass
on
all
publicly
held
land
by
2003
(
as
potentially
measured
by
municipal
resolutions
passed
[
or
equivalent]).
[
See
Action
T­
4]

 
Eliminate
underground
storage
tanks
exempt
from
current
replacement
requirements
via
incentive
programs
and
public
education
and
outreach
(
as
potentially
measured
following
baseline
established
of
number
of
underground
storage
tanks
(
USTs)
and
monitoring
of
the
number
of
underground
tanks
removed,
retired,
and
replaced).
[
See
Actions
T­
6,
POE­
4]

 
Decrease
the
total
amount
of
treated
lumber
installed
in
the
marine/
estuarine
environment
(
as
potentially
measured
by
baseline
established
from
shoreline
surveys
and
monitoring
of
permits
issued
for
bulkheading
installations,
replacements,
and
removal).
[
See
Actions
T­
6,
POE­
4]

 
Reduce
the
number
of
two
stroke
marine
engines
in
use
in
the
estuary
(
as
potentially
measured
by
harbormaster
conducted
surveys).
[
See
Action
POE­
4]
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
3
INTRODUCTION
Toxic
contaminants
refer
to
either
man­
made
or
naturally
occurring
substances
that,
when
found
in
certain
concentrations,
can
cause
adverse
ecosystem
or
human
health
effects.
Within
the
estuary
system,
toxic
substances
can
be
found
in
surface
waters
and
groundwater,
attached
to
sediments
and
soils,
and
in
plants
and
animals.
These
substances
can
directly
affect
the
ability
of
fish,
shellfish,
wildlife,
and
plants
to
survive
or
reproduce.
Some
toxic
contaminants
can
accumulate
in
the
tissues
of
edible
fish
and
shellfish,
making
them
dangerous
to
wildlife
and
unsuitable
for
unrestricted
human
consumption.
Toxics
of
concern
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System
are
listed
in
Table
6­
1.

The
Peconic
Estuary
System
generally
has
low
levels
of
toxic
materials
in
the
water,
sediment,
and
organisms,
especially
when
compared
to
other
regional
coastal
areas.
There
are,
however,
impairments
that
prevent
the
goals
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Management
Conference
from
being
fully
realized
and
threats
that
should
be
addressed
now
to
prevent
impairments
from
occurring
in
the
future.

OVERALL
QUALITY
AND
USE
IMPAIRMENTS
Environmental
Criteria
and
Standards
for
Toxic
Substances
The
Federal
and
State
governments
generally
take
a
chemical­
specific
approach
to
regulating
toxic
contamination.
Under
this
approach,
the
concentration
of
pollutants
in
the
environment
(
water
column,
fish
tissues,
or
sediments)
is
measured
and
compared
to
numeric
criteria,
standards,
or
effect
levels.
These
criteria
are
generally
developed
in
such
a
way
so
as
to
be
protective
of
aquatic
life,
wildlife,
and
humans.
These
criteria,
standards,
and
effect
levels
serve
as
surrogates
for
direct
measurements
of
adverse
pollution
effects
and
are
used
as
guidelines
for
pollution
control
and
management
programs.
An
ecosystem
or
effects­
based
approach
can
be
utilized
as
a
substitute
for
the
chemical­
specific
approach
or
as
a
check
on
the
chemical­
specific
approach.
Under
an
effects­
based
approach,
direct
field
and
laboratory
studies
of
the
adverse
effects
of
toxic
contamination
in
plants
and
animals
are
used
to
try
to
determine
the
level
of
contamination
that
results
in
an
observed
effect.

Surface
Water
Quality
Criteria
The
State,
under
Federal
and
State
Laws,
establishes
water
quality
criteria
to
protect
both
aquatic
life
and
wildlife,
ensure
their
propagation
and
survival,
and
prevent
tainting
of
species
consumed
by
humans
or
other
wildlife.
These
criteria
also
are
designed
to
protect
human
health
from
oncogenic
(
tumor­
forming)
effects
and
chronic
non­
oncogenic
effects
from
the
consumption
of
fish,
shellfish,
and
drinking
water.
Toxic
substances
can
enter
the
estuary
system
from
either
point
sources
or
nonpoint
sources.
Point
source
pollution
is
pollution
that
comes
from
discrete,
identifiable
locations
or
sources
such
as
a
discharge
pipe
from
a
sewage
treatment
plant.
Nonpoint
source
pollution
originates
from
a
variety
of
dispersed
and
diffuse
sources,
including
pollutants
deposited
within
the
watershed
and
then
carried
to
the
estuary
through
freshwater
flows
from
rivers,
runoff,
and
stormwater,
as
well
as
watershed
drainage
through
groundwater
underflow.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
4
Groundwater
Quality
Criteria
Groundwater
ultimately
enters
the
estuarine
system
and
contaminants
that
the
groundwater
delivers
can
affect
aquatic
life,
wildlife,
and
humans.
While
groundwater
is
especially
important
as
a
source
of
nutrients
to
the
estuary,
it
can
also
be
an
important
source
of
toxic
substances,
particularly
pesticides
that
are
applied
to
the
landscape.
The
extent
of
pesticide
contamination
of
groundwater
has
been
extensively
studied
on
Long
Island.
Most
groundwater
quality
criteria
are
based
on
the
protection
of
human
health,
and
are
expressed
as
Federal
Maximum
Contaminant
Levels
(
MCLs)
or
New
York
State
Maximum
Contaminant
Levels.
Federal
MCL
standards
are
applicable
for
treated
drinking
water
sources
and
are
based
on
a
one­
year
average
concentration
of
more
than
one
sample.
Other
applicable
criteria
are
Federal
Lifetime
Health
Advisories
(
HA)
and
New
York
State
Class
GA
standards.
Class
GA
standards
are
for
fresh
groundwaters
whose
best
usage
is
as
a
source
of
potable
water
supply.
New
York
State
includes
general
standards
of
50
ug/
L
for
unspecified
organic
contaminants
and
5
ug/
L
for
principal
organic
contaminants.

Sediment
Quality
Criteria/
Dredged
Material
Guidelines
Toxic
contaminants
in
bottom
sediments
create
the
potential
for
continued
environmental
impact
even
where
water
column
levels
comply
with
established
criteria.
The
EPA
is
in
the
process
of
establishing
sediment
quality
criteria
for
chemicals
which
cause
or
have
the
potential
to
cause
adverse
effects
to
the
pelagic
(
water
column
dwelling)
and
benthic
(
bottom
dwelling)
organisms
and
their
food
chains,
including
humans.
Guidelines
already
exist
for
assessing
dredged
material.

The
U.
S.
Department
of
Commerce
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(
NOAA)
has
specified
"
Effects
Range"
values
for
toxics
in
sediments
to
indicate
contaminant
concentrations
at
which
bottom
dwelling
organisms
may
be
adversely
affected,
and
as
an
indicator
of
overall
ecosystem
health.
While
the
NOAA
Effects
Range
values
are
not
sediment
quality
criteria
for
regulatory
purposes,
they
provide
a
benchmark
for
evaluating
sediment
contaminant
measurements.

Finfish,
Shellfish,
and
Game
The
State
routinely
monitors
contaminant
levels
in
fish
and
game
and
issues
advisories
on
eating
sportfish
and
game
because
some
of
these
foods
contain
chemicals
at
levels
that
may
be
harmful
to
human
health.
These
advisories
are
updated
yearly.
At
the
present
time,
chemical
contaminants
are
present
or
believed
to
be
present
at
elevated
levels
for
a
number
of
species
throughout
the
State
and
within
the
Peconics
which
has
led
to
the
consumption
advisories
shown
in
Table
6­
2.

Criteria
for
Radioactive
Materials
The
presence
of
radioactive
materials
in
the
environment
is
of
concern
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System,
primarily
due
to
the
presence
of
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
(
BNL)
in
the
headwaters
of
the
Peconic
River.
Safe
drinking
water
standards
can
be
used
to
assess
observed
radiological
measurements
in
the
freshwater
portion
of
the
Peconic
River,
even
though
the
Peconic
River
is
not
used
as
a
source
of
drinking
water.
Standards
for
radionuclide
concentrations
in
sediments
or
fish
do
not
exist.
Sediments
and
fish
are
normally
evaluated
in
terms
of
their
potential
contribution
to
the
radiation
dose
to
the
public.
New
York
State
has
established
limits
for
the
effective
dose
equivalent
to
an
individual
from
any
facility.
The
NYSDEC
has
established
guidance
for
evaluating
clean­
up
plans
for
radioactively
contaminated
soils
and
specifies
an
annual
exposure
(
greater
than
background
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
5
radioactive
exposure)
goal
after
the
remedial
action
is
complete,
while
also
requiring
that
the
radiation
exposures
to
the
public
from
residual
radioactive
material
in
soil
after
clean­
up
be
"
as
low
as
reasonably
achievable"
(
ALARA).

Risk
Based
Criteria
The
EPA
and
New
York
State
both
take
a
risk­
based
approach
toward
the
protection
of
human
health
from
known,
probable,
and
possible
carcinogenic
substances.
In
the
scientific
literature
and
as
a
matter
of
public
policy,
it
is
recognized
that
for
some
chemicals,
the
presence
of
any
amount,
however
small,
is
associated
with
some
adverse
effect,
though
the
risk
of
this
adverse
effect
may
likewise
be
small.
Recognizing
that
achieving
a
"
zero
level"
in
the
environment
for
some
contaminants
is
not
possible
at
this
time,
these
agencies
have
established
risk
based
criteria
(
i.
e.,
levels
in
the
environment
associated
with
a
one
in
one
million
incremental
cancer
risk).
This
type
of
approach
is
not
used
for
developing
environmental
criteria
for
the
protection
of
aquatic
life
and
wildlife.
It
is
possible
that
the
presence
of
some
chemicals
at
any
concentration
may
affect
aquatic
life
and
wildlife
both
at
the
level
of
the
individual
as
well
as
populations,
and,
therefore,
complex
food
webs.
Individual
criteria
also
do
not,
at
this
time,
take
into
account
additive
or
synergistic
toxic
effects.
The
risk
associated
with
individual
man­
made
radionuclides
is,
however,
considered
additive,
and
the
allowable
risk
reflects
the
additive
effect
of
exposure
to
multiple
manmade
radionuclides.
For
these
reasons,
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
participants
do,
therefore,
recognize
that
zero
discharge
(
from
point
and
nonpoint
sources)
of
toxic
and
manmade
radionuclide
pollutants,
and
particularly
of
bioaccumulative
chemicals,
is
a
goal.

SOURCES
OF
TOXIC
CONTAMINANTS
WITHIN
THE
PECONIC
ESTUARY
SYSTEM
Both
point
sources
and
nonpoint
sources
of
pollution
contribute
toxic
contaminants
to
the
estuary
system.
Because
there
are
a
limited
number
of
point
source
surface
water
discharges
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System,
most
toxic
pollutants
found
in
the
area
are
nonpoint
in
origin,
carried
into
the
bays
via
groundwater
and
runoff.

Point
Sources
of
Pollution
Point
source
discharges
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
consist
of
wastewater
discharges,
certain
stormwater
discharges,
and
a
limited
number
of
industrial
discharges.
Point
source
discharges
to
surface
and
ground
waters
are
regulated
under
the
State
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
SPDES)
Program
administered
by
the
NYSDEC.
Permits
are
written
to
ensure
that
the
discharge
does
not
cause
or
contribute
to
the
violation
of
ambient
water
quality
standards.
Under
Phase
I
of
the
SPDES
stormwater
program,
permits
are
required
to
be
issued
for
municipal
separate
storm
sewer
systems
serving
large
or
medium­
sized
populations
(
greater
than
250,000
or
100,000
people,
respectively),
and
for
stormwater
discharges
to
surface
waters
associated
with
industrial
activity,
including
certain
types
of
marinas.
At
the
present
time,
nine
establishments
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Study
Area
have
been
issued
SPDES
stormwater
general
permits.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
6
Table
6­
1.
Toxics
of
Concern
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.*

Contaminant
Measured
Levels
and
Area
of
Impact
Potential
Sources
Polychlorinated
Biphenyls
(
PCBs)
ER­
La
exceeded
for
sediments
in
Meetinghouse
Creek;
elevated
levels
in
freshwater
fish
at
BNL
(
on­
site
only);
Statewide
consumption
advisories
in
place
for
lobster
and
crab
hepatopancreas,
snapping
turtles,
and
waterfowl;
local
consumption
advisory
in
place
for
striped
bass,
bluefish,
and
American
eels
Potential
sources
are
outside
of
the
Peconics
aside
from
evidence
of
historical
discharges
from
BNL
Mirex
Statewide
consumption
advisory
in
place
for
waterfowl
Statewide
problem
Chlordane
(
banned
from
use
in
the
1980s)
Statewide
consumption
advisory
in
place
for
waterfowl
Statewide
problem
DDTb
(
banned
from
use
in
the
1970s)
ER­
Ls
exceeded
for
sediments
at
Upper
Sag
Harbor
Cove,
East
Creek,
and
Meetinghouse
Creek
Agricultural
areas
containing
residual
DDT
Aldicarb
(
an
insecticide
which
is
no
longer
in
use)
Does
not
exceed
State
water
quality
criteria
for
toxics;
widespread
groundwater
contamination
along
North
Fork;
detected
in
surface
waters
of
East
Creek
and
other
North
Fork
creeks
Agricultural
areas
containing
residual
Aldicarb
MTBE
(
methyl
tert­
Butyl
Ether)
Does
not
exceed
State
water
quality
criteria
for
toxics;
detected
in
surface
waters
of
Sag
Harbor
Creek
near
Havens
Beach,
Peconic
River,
and
other
surface
waters
Octane
booster
in
gasoline
PAHs
ER­
Ls
exceeded
for
sediments
in
East
Creek,
mouth
of
Peconic
River,
Upper
Sag
Harbor
Cove,
and
Meetinghouse
Creek
Atmospheric
deposition
from
the
burning
of
fossil
fuels,
road
runoff,
and
boat
wet
exhaust
Arsenic
ER­
Ls
exceeded
for
sediments
in
six
sites
(
Great
Peconic
Bay,
West
Neck
Bay,
Fish
Cove,
East
Creek,
Mouth
of
the
Peconic
River,
and
Meetinghouse
Creek)
Pesticides
and
stormwater
runoff;
treated
lumber
Copper
Elevated
levels
in
Peconic
River
sediments
at
BNL
BNL
Lead
ER­
Ls
exceeded
for
sediments
in
four
sites
(
West
Neck
Bay,
East
Creek,
Upper
Sag
Harbor
Cove,
and
Meetinghouse
Creek)
Primarily
historic
anthropogenic
sources
such
as
lead
additives
in
gasoline
Mercury
ER­
Ls
exceeded
for
sediments
at
two
sampling
sites
(
West
Neck
Bay
and
Meetinghouse
Creek);
elevated
levels
in
Peconic
River
sediments
outside
BNL
Stormwater
and
urban
runoff;
BNL
Silver
ER­
Ls
exceeded
for
sediments
at
two
sampling
sites
(
mouth
of
Peconic
River
and
Meetinghouse
Creek);
elevated
levels
in
Peconic
River
sediments
outside
BNL
Stormwater
and
urban
runoff;
BNL
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
7
Table
6­
1.
Toxics
of
Concern
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.
(
continued)

Contaminant
Measured
Levels
and
Area
of
Impact
Potential
Sources
Radionuclides
Water,
sediment,
and
fish
samples
taken
from
Peconic
River
outside
BNL
contain
measurable
levels
of
radioactive
materials;
however,
observed
concentrations
are
well
below
State
established
criteria
BNLc
*
Toxics
of
concern
and
potential
sources
are
based
on
currently
available
data
and
information.
Additional
toxics
of
concern
may
be
identified
in
the
future.

a
Under
NOAA's
effects
range
values
for
toxics
in
sediments,
concentrations
below
the
ER­
L
(
effects
range­
low)
represent
conditions
in
which
adverse
effects
on
bottom
dwelling
organisms
would
rarely
be
observed.
Concentrations
equal
to
and
above
the
ER­
L,
but
below
the
effects
range­
median
(
ER­
M)
represent
a
possible
effects
range
within
which
effects
would
frequently
be
observed.
b
Concentrations
of
other
organochlorine
pesticides
did
not
exceed
ER­
L
concentrations
in
any
of
the
tested
sediments.
c
Natural
occurring
radioactivity
and
fallout
from
atmospheric
nuclear
weapon
tests
also
contribute
to
measurable
levels
of
radioactivity,
including
areas
not
affected
by
releases
from
BNL.

Permits
also
are
issued
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
if
the
EPA
or
the
State
determines
that
a
stormwater
discharge
to
surface
water
contributes
to
a
violation
of
a
water
quality
standard
or
is
a
significant
contributor
of
pollutants
to
waters
of
the
United
States.
No
permits
of
this
type
have
been
issued
to
date
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area.

Discharges
to
ground
waters
include
sanitary
wastes
from
residences
and
commercial
establishments
and
noncontact
cooling
waters.
There
are
no
permitted
discharges
of
wastewater
from
industrial
activities
to
groundwater
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
(
aside
from
a
permit
at
BNL).
Businesses
which
generate
wastewater
containing
toxic
substances
dispose
of
such
wastewater
by
containing
the
limited
volumes
on­
site,
and
then
removing
them
by
approved
hazardous
waste
handlers/
transporters
for
treatment
off­
site.
This
method
is
often
referred
to
as
"
hold
and
haul."

Nonpoint
Sources
of
Pollution
There
are
numerous
nonpoint
sources
of
toxic
substances
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
These
nonpoint
sources
frequently
contribute
a
wide
variety
of
pollutants
to
the
estuary
in
addition
to
toxic
contaminants,
such
as
pathogens
and
nutrients.
Groundwater
underflow
and
stormwater
runoff
are
the
primary
pathways
by
which
nonpoint
pollution
enters
the
estuary
system.
Loadings
from
suburban
and
urban
areas
(
residential
and
commercial
uses),
roads,
agricultural
land,
marinas,
boating,
and
industrial
sites
contribute
pollutants
to
the
estuary
system.
In
addition,
some
toxics
enter
the
estuary
system
via
atmospheric
deposition.
Once
deposited
on
land
within
the
estuary,
stormwater
runoff
and
groundwater
can
carry
these
substances
into
receiving
waters.
While
each
of
There
are
eight
permitted
surface
water
dischargers
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
system:
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
(
discharge
includes
sanitary
wastewater
and
cooling
waters
as
well
as
wastewater
from
industrialtype
activities),
Navy
Weapons
Industrial
Reserve
Plant
(
NWIRP)
at
Calverton,
Riverhead
Sewage
Treatment
Plant,
Plum
Island
Animal
Disease
Center,
Riverhead
Foundation
Aquarium
(
discharges
wastewater
from
animal
display
and
rehabilitation
operations),
Bayview
Ventures
(
discharges
filter
backwash
from
a
potable
water
treatment
plant),
Shelter
Island
Heights
Sewage
Treatment
Plant,
and
Sag
Harbor
Sewage
Treatment
Plant.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
8
these
diffuse
sources
of
pollution
may
seem
unimportant,
the
cumulative
effect
of
the
nonpoint
source
loadings
can
be
significant.

Pesticides,
an
emerging
concern,
may
be
introduced
to
the
Peconic
System
from
suburban
and
urban
sources
as
well
as
from
agricultural
operations.
Though
no
causal
link
has
been
identified,
low
levels
of
pesticides
may
be
affecting
aquatic
resources,
including
eelgrass,
sensitive
larval
stages
of
commercially
and
recreational
important
finfish
and
shellfish,
including
lobsters,
and
other
ecologically
important
species.
Even
pesticides
that
are
banned
or
not
being
applied
can
cause
or
contribute
to
environmental
problems
if
they
are
not
disposed
of
or
improperly
stored.

In
1995,
Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
of
Suffolk
County
conducted
an
"
Agricultural
Clean
Sweep"
to
provide
Long
Island
farmers
and
agribusiness
associates
(
such
as
those
involved
with
landscape
and
turf
maintenance)
with
an
opportunity
to
dispose
of,
in
an
environmentally
sound
manner,
a
variety
of
pesticide
products
that
could
no
longer
be
used
legally
or
effectively
in
current
operations.
The
collected
unusable/
unwanted
pesticides
became
the
property
of
the
contracted
hazardous
waste
disposal
firm
and
were
properly
disposed
of
in
an
environmentally
sound
manner.
Participation
was
voluntary
and
free
of
charge.
Waste
pesticides
for
collection
were
pre­
registered
only
after
the
participants
attended
a
training
session
which
prepared
them
to
safely
transport
their
own
pesticides.
In
this
single
two­
day
collection
28,150
pounds
of
waste
pesticides
were
collected
from
76
participants.

At
the
Suffolk
County
Pesticide
Collection
Project
conducted
on
July
10,
1999
in
Riverhead
and
on
July
12,
1999
in
Huntington,
a
total
of
ninety­
nine
55­
gallon
drums
of
unwanted
and
unusable
pesticide
were
collected
for
appropriate
disposal.
This
$
75,000
program
was
funded
by
Suffolk
County
in
connection
with
an
Environmental
Benefit
Project
associated
with
an
enforcement
action
by
the
NYSDEC.
Among
the
pesticides
turned
in
were
such
outlawed
agents
as
DDT
and
aldicarb
(
Temik).
Working
in
cooperation
with
NYSDEC,
two
trade
groups
sponsored
the
event:
the
Professional
Certified
Applicators
of
Long
Island,
Inc.
and
the
Nassau/
Suffolk
Landscape
Gardeners
Association.

Agricultural
Inputs
When
rainwater
drains
agricultural
lands
where
pesticides
are
in
use
or
were
used
in
the
past,
the
water
can
carry
contaminants
into
the
estuary
system.
Both
DDT
and
Aldicarb
have
been
found
in
sediment
and
water
samples
in
the
Peconics,
despite
the
fact
that
these
substances
can
no
longer
legally
be
used.
Pesticides
are
also
believed
to
be
a
source
of
arsenic
found
in
the
estuary
system.

Suburban
and
Urban
Inputs
Stormwater
runoff
and
groundwater
can
carry
many
different
substances
from
parking
lots,
roads
and
highways,
and
residential
and
commercial
areas.
When
contaminants
are
introduced
to
these
areas,
they
can
be
swept
into
receiving
waterbodies
with
groundwater
and
stormwater
runoff
during
rainfall
events.
Suburban
and
urban
areas
are
believed
to
contribute
a
variety
of
chemicals,
including
arsenic,
copper,
lead,
mercury,
silver,
cadmium,
zinc,
MTBE
(
methyl
tert­
Butyl
Ether),
and
Polynuclear
Aromatic
Hydrocarbons
(
PAHs)
to
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
9
Potential
sources
of
toxic
substances
include:

 
Leaks
from
industrial
facilities
due
to
poor
housekeeping
practices,
insufficient
containment
and
improper
storage;

 
Improper
storage,
use,
and
disposal
of
household
hazardous
chemicals,
including
automotive
fluids,
solvents,
cleaning
fluids,
and
lawn
and
garden
pesticides;

 
Operation
and
maintenance
of
on­
site
disposal
systems,
including
organic
solvents
improperly
used
as
septic
system
"
cleaners"
containing
halogenated
and
aromatic
hydrocarbons,
which
are
now
banned;

 
Discharge
of
pollutants
in
storm
drains,
such
as
waste
oils;

 
Commercial
activities
and
land
uses,
including
parking
lots,
gas
stations,
and
other
entities
not
under
SPDES
permit
purview;
and,

 
Existing
underground
storage
tanks
under
1,100
gallons
for
storage
of
heating
oil,
for
use
on
premises,
that
are
not
double
walled,
constructed
of
non­
corrodible
materials
and
equipped
with
leak
detection
or
overflow
prevention
systems.

Pesticide
use
on
residential
and
commercial
properties,
publicly
owned
lands,
and
golf
courses
is
a
concern.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
encourages
the
management
of
lawns
and
landscaped
areas
in
accordance
with
integrated
pest
management
(
IPM)
principles
(
properly
applying
only
those
pesticides
when
needed).
As
reported
in
the
Consumer
Unions
1996
piece
Pest
Management
at
the
Crossroads,
"
Consumer
lawn
care
products
and
the
formulation
applied
by
lawn
care
companies
tend
to
be
mixtures
of
fertilizers
and
herbicides,
insecticides
and
sometimes
fungicides.
By
selling
a
few
common
mixtures,
the
industry
keeps
costs
down,
but
on
the
downside,
many
applications
include
one
or
more
active
ingredients
not
really
needed
on
a
particular
lawn
or
only
marginally
useful
in
many
areas."
Improper
storage
and
disposal
of
pesticides
can
also
result
in
impacts
to
groundwater
and
surface
waters.

Vector
control
ditches
(
mosquito
ditches)
are
maintained
by
the
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Public
Works
(
SCDPW),
which
typically
applies
sprays
for
larval
control
of
mosquitoes.
Problem
areas
are
monitored
to
determine
effective
treatments.
The
primary
insecticide
used
is
Bti
(
bacillus
thuringiensis
var,
israelensis);
in
some
areas
methoprene
is
used.
The
use
of
the
mosquito
larvicides
in
storm
drains
and
catch
basins
has
been
advocated
as
a
mosquito
control
measure.
This
could
contribute
larvicides
to
surface
waters
following
rainfall
events.
Recently,
the
pesticide
malathion
has
been
applied
in
residential
areas.
Malathion
is
labeled
for
use
on
adult
mosquitoes
and
cannot
be
applied
to
water.
Historically,
spills
or
leaks
of
contaminants
within
the
Peconic
Estuary
System
have
not
been
a
major
source
of
pollution.
Records
from
October
1985
through
August
1988
indicate
that,
of
the
25
reported
spills
or
leaks
within
the
study
area,
approximately
25
percent
involved
volumes
greater
than
100
gallons.
The
predominant
type
of
spill
or
leak
during
this
review
period
involved
electrical
transformers
on
poles
that
spilled
or
leaked
coolant
oil.
Such
spills
have
on
occasion
contained
PCBs.
Most
of
these
spills
were
reported
to
be
one
gallon
or
less
in
volume.

Major
fuel
storage
sites
pose
a
potential
threat,
in
the
event
of
catastrophic
failure.
In
the
Peconics,
bulk
storage
exists
at
Plum
Island,
Shelter
Island,
and
at
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory.
Spillage
in
Northville
also
could
conceivably
drift
around
the
North
Fork
into
the
Peconics.
Recommendations
regarding
the
State
Oil
Spill
Areawide
Contingency
Plan
for
the
Peconic
Estuary
are
discussed
in
the
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
Chapter
of
this
Plan
(
see
HLR­
15.7).
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
10
Pollutants
associated
with
construction
sites
(
including
roads,
highways,
and
bridges)
and
road,
highway
and
bridge
operation,
maintenance
and
runoff
systems
include
pesticides,
petrochemicals
(
oil,
gasoline,
and
asphalt
degreasers);
construction
chemicals
such
as
concrete
products,
sealers,
and
paints;
wash
waters
associated
with
these
products
and
paint
chips.
Road
runoff
can
contain
petroleum
products
(
including
the
octane
booster
MTBE),
heavy
metals
(
lead,
zinc,
copper,
cadmium,
chromium,
nickel,
and
manganese)
and
cyanide
from
vehicle
and
tire
wear­
and­
tear
and
exhausts.

MTBE
is
a
special
concern
nationally,
in
New
York,
on
Long
Island,
and
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
study
area.
Congress
required
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
of
1990
that
areas
of
the
country
with
the
worst
ozone
smog
problems
use
reformulated
gasoline
(
RFG).
MTBE
is
the
oxygen
additive
most
commonly
used
by
the
petroleum
industry
to
satisfy
the
RFG
mandate.
Ethanol
is
the
second
most
commonly
used
additive.
MTBE
is
very
soluble
in
water,
does
not
"
cling"
to
soil
well
and
has
a
tendency
to
migrate
much
more
quickly
than
other
components
of
gasoline.
Most
detections
of
MTBE
are
below
levels
of
public
health
concerns
and
are
within
the
range
EPA
has
set
for
a
taste
and
odor
advisory
(
at
20
to
40
ppb).
Small
individual
fuel
spills
and
stormwater
runoff
contribute
to
lowlevel
detections
of
MTBE
in
water
supplies.
Even
though
significant
air
quality
gains
have
been
made
using
RFG,
these
air
benefits
can
be
maintained
without
using
MTBE
and
without
endangering
water
resources,
through
the
use
of
safe
alternatives
like
ethanol.

In
March
2000,
EPA
and
the
USDA
released
a
legislative
framework
to
encourage
immediate
congressional
action
to
reduce
or
eliminate
the
use
of
MTBE
and
promote
renewable
fuels
like
ethanol,
through
amendments
to
the
Clean
Air
Act.
Further,
EPA
announced
the
beginning
of
a
regulatory
action
to
eliminate
MTBE
in
gasoline,
issuing
an
advanced
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
under
section
6
of
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act.
This
section
gives
EPA
the
authority
to
ban,
phase
out,
limit
or
control
the
manufacture
of
any
chemical
substance
deemed
to
pose
an
unreasonable
risk
to
the
public
or
environment.
EPA
expects
to
issue
a
full
proposal
to
ban
or
phase
down
MTBE,
that
will
be
followed
by
a
time
period
required
by
law
for
analysis
and
public
comment
before
a
final
action
can
be
taken.
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
Districts
The
Town
of
East
Hampton
recognizes
that
those
who
own
property
bordering
on
the
Town's
harbors
(
including
flag
lots,
flag
strips,
and
flag
access
strips)
derive
many
benefits
from
proximity
to
these
waters
and
therefore
have
a
special
responsibility
to
help
protect
them.
The
Town
has
established
a
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
District
(
HPOD)
whereby
all
lots
in
this
district
are
subject
to
special
requirements
for
maintaining
or
protecting
wildlife
habitats
and
surface
water
quality
to
protect
aquatic
life.
This
includes:

 
Requiring
new
parking
lots
and
driveways
to
have
"
unimproved"
surfaces
or
be
constructed
of
one
or
more
of
the
following:
poured
concrete,
hot
plant
asphalt,
rapid
curing
cut­
back
asphalt
or
quartz
gravel;

 
Requiring
that
runoff
from
new
paved
roads,
parking
lots
and
driveways
be
managed
on­
site;

 
Requiring
that
fuel
tanks
be
double
walled
fiberglass
if
installed
below
ground
or
include
specified
containment
provisions
if
installed
elsewhere;

 
Requiring
that
swimming
pools:
be
constructed
or
installed
with
a
system
to
reduce
the
use
of
chlorine,
such
as
an
ozonator,
ionizer,
or
ultra
violet
disinfectant
system;
have
drywells
constructed
for
evacuation
of
water
from
the
pool;
not
be
drained
anywhere
but
to
the
dry
well;
and
not
be
cleaned
by
means
of
an
acid
wash
unless
the
acids
used
are
neutralized
prior
to
discharge
from
the
swimming
pool;
and,

 
Allowing
the
use
of
wood
treated
with
copper
chromated
arsenate
(
CCA),
ammoniacal
copper
quat
(
ACQ),
or
creosote
in
tidal
waters
only
when
it
can
be
shown
that
no
reasonable
alternatives
exist
to
using
these
treated
woods.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
11
Golf
Courses
The
use
of
pesticides
and
fertilizers
on
golf
courses
is
a
potential
groundwater
problem.
A
SCDHS
1999
study
detected
pesticides
in
seven
of
the
31
golf
course
wells
tested,
with
two
of
these
wells
exceeding
the
drinking
water
MCLs.
However,
in
shallow
wells
that
would
show
impacts
from
recent
pesticide
and
fertilizer
applications,
no
pesticides
were
detected
and
average
nitrate
concentrations
were
below
state
and
Federal
MCLs.
Thus,
the
recent
implementation
of
Best
Management
Practices
appears
to
have
greatly
reduced
the
risk
of
pesticide
and
fertilizer
contamination
in
the
golf
courses
tested.

Marinas
and
Boating
During
the
course
of
normal
marina
operations,
various
activities
and
locations
in
the
marina
can
generate
polluting
substances.
Such
activities
include
waste
disposal,
boat
fueling,
and
boat
maintenance
and
cleaning;
such
locations
include
storage
areas
for
materials
required
for
these
activities
and
hull
maintenance
areas.
Of
special
concern
are
substances
that
can
be
toxic
to
aquatic
life,
pose
a
threat
to
human
health,
or
degrade
water
quality.
Paint
sandings
and
chips,
oil,
grease,
and
fuel
are
examples.
Because
marinas
are
located
at
the
water's
edge,
there
is
often
no
buffering
of
the
release
of
pollutants
to
waterways.
There
are
69
marinas
in
the
Peconics.

The
principal
pollutants
in
runoff
from
marina
parking
areas
and
hull
maintenance
areas
are
suspended
solids
and
organics
(
predominately
oil
and
grease).
Toxic
metals
from
boat
hull
scraping
and
sanding
are
part
of,
or
tend
to
become
associated
with,
the
suspended
solids.
For
example,
lead
is
used
as
a
fuel
additive
and
ballast,
and
may
be
released
through
incomplete
fuel
combustion
and
boat
bilge
discharges.
Arsenic
is
used
in
paint
pigments,
pesticides,
and
wood
preservatives.
Zinc
anodes
are
used
to
deter
corrosion
of
metal
hulls
and
engine
parts.
Copper
and
tin
are
used
as
biocides
in
anti­
foulant
paints.
Other
metals
(
iron,
chrome,
etc.)
are
used
in
the
construction
of
marinas
and
boats.
Petroleum
hydrocarbons
(
including
polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons,
or
PAHs)
can
be
elevated
in
marina
waters
due
to
refueling
activities
and
bilge
or
fuel
discharge
from
nearby
boats.
National
Toxic
Substance
Control
Efforts
In
developing
management
strategies
for
toxics,
some
actions
occur
at
the
national
level,
such
as
decisions
regarding
pesticide
use
and
toxic
substance
bans.
For
example,
among
its
provisions,
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA)
authorizes
EPA
to
control
pesticides
that
may
threaten
ground
water
and
surface
water.
FIFRA
provides
for
registration
of
pesticides
and
enforceable
label
requirements,
which
may
include
maximum
rates
of
application,
restrictions
on
use
practices,
and
classification
of
pesticides
as
"
restricted
use"
pesticides
(
which
limits
use
to
certified
applicators
trained
to
handle
toxic
chemicals).
Under
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act
(
TSCA)
and
FIFRA,
the
sale,
use
or
distribution
of
certain
toxic
substances
has
been
banned
or
reduced.

State
Pesticide
Program
Under
the
Pesticide
Use
Program,
NYSDEC
regulates
the
sale
and
use
of
restricted
and
general
use
pesticides
in
order
to
prevent
the
unsafe
or
excessive
application
of
pesticides.
This
program
is
implemented
through
certification
of
pesticide
applicators
and
backed
up
by
examinations
to
ensure
that
only
knowledgeable,
qualified
people
are
permitted
to
handle
and
apply
these
chemicals.
A
certification
is
required
by
commercial
applicators
if
they
handle
and
apply
restricted
or
general
use
pesticides,
and
by
private
applicators
(
e.
g.,
farmers)
if
they
plan
to
use
a
restricted
use
pesticide.
It
has
been
estimated
that
50
percent
of
the
commercial
pesticide
applicators
on
Long
Island
may
be
operating
without
the
required
approvals.
While
pesticides
have
not
been
identified
as
impairing
water
quality
or
living
resources,
the
potential
for
misuse
or
unintended
off­
site
impacts
exists,
particularly
from
uncertified
applicators.
The
NYSDEC
is
currently
working
with
involved
government
agencies
and
other
organizations
to
develop
a
Long
Island
Pesticide
Management
Plan
that
will
further
address
pesticide
use
in
the
Estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
12
It
is
important
that
marina
operators
and
patrons
take
steps
to
control
or
minimize
the
entry
of
toxic
substances
into
marina
waters.
For
the
most
part,
this
can
be
accomplished
with
simple
preventive
measures
such
as
performing
boat
cleaning
and
repair
activities
on
protected
sites,
locating
servicing
equipment
where
the
risk
of
spillage
is
reduced,
providing
adequate
and
well­
marked
disposal
facilities,
and
educating
the
boating
public
about
the
importance
of
pollution
prevention.
The
benefit
of
effective
pollution
prevention
to
the
marina
operator
can
be
measured
as
the
relatively
low
cost
of
pollution
prevention
compared
to
the
potentially
high
cost
of
environmental
cleanup.

A
marina
is
required
to
obtain
a
SPDES
stormwater
discharge
permit
if
vehicle
maintenance
activities,
such
as
vehicle
(
boat)
rehabilitation,
mechanical
repairs,
painting,
fueling,
and
lubrication
or
equipment
cleaning
operations
are
conducted
at
the
marina.
SPDES
permits
apply
only
to
the
point
source
discharges
of
stormwater
from
maintenance
areas
at
the
marinas.

Marinas
not
involved
in
equipment
cleaning
or
vehicle
maintenance
activities
are
not
covered
under
the
SPDES
stormwater
program.
Likewise,
a
marina
that
has
no
point
source
discharges
of
stormwater
is
not
regulated
under
the
SPDES
stormwater
program,
regardless
of
its
classification
and
the
types
of
activities
conducted.
In
addition,
some
marinas
are
marine
service
stations
which
are
not
regulated
under
the
SPDES
stormwater
program.
These
types
of
marinas
are
primarily
in
the
business
of
selling
fuel
without
vehicle
maintenance
or
equipment
cleaning
operations.

Marine
Engine
Wet
Exhaust
Small
boat
engines
commonly
use
seawater
to
both
cool
and
quiet
their
exhaust.
Seawater
passes
through
the
heat
exchanger,
gear
oil
cooler,
and
aftercooler
(
if
equipped),
and
is
then
injected
into
the
exhaust.
When
injected,
some
of
the
gaseous
and
solid
component
of
the
exhaust
transfers
into
the
cooling
water.
The
cooling
water
then
discharges
into
the
receiving
water.
Small
boats
are
powered
by
either
inboard
or
outboard
engines.
Inboard
engines
are
generally
diesel
fueled
while
outboard
engines
typically
use
gasoline.
Inboard
and
outboard
engines
can
be
either
two­
stroke
or
four­
stroke.
The
majority
of
small
boat
outboard
engines
are
two­
stroke
gasoline
engines.
The
moving
parts
of
gasoline­
powered,
two
stroke
outboard
engines
are
lubricated
with
oil
that
is
pre­
mixed
with
gasoline.
Thus,
the
oil
is
continuously
burned
with
gasoline.
In
four­
stroke
engines,
lubricating
oil
is
circulated
and
not
intentionally
introduced
into
the
combustion
chamber.
The
discharge
consists
of
water
injected
as
a
cooling
stream
into
the
exhaust
system
of
small
boat
engines.
Exhaust
constituents
generated
during
the
operation
of
the
engines
can
be
transferred
to
the
engine's
water
cooling
streams
and
discharged
as
wet
exhaust.
Inboard
engines
usually
discharge
wet
exhaust
above
the
water
line,
outboard
engines
generally
discharge
their
wet
exhaust
through
the
propeller
hub.

The
main
discharge
constituents
from
all
engines
are
oxides
of
nitrogen,
organic
compounds
(
including
hydrocarbons
[
HCs]),
carbon
monoxide
(
CO),
and
particulates.
The
hydrocarbon
constituents
are
primarily
the
result
of
incomplete
combustion.
Since
diesel
fuels
have
a
different
composition
than
regular
gasoline
the
distribution
of
constituents
in
their
exhaust
differ
between
the
two
engine
types.
In
general,
diesel
engines
produce
higher
particulate
emissions
and
lower
organic
emissions
than
gasoline
powered
engines.

Some
limited
studies
have
been
done
on
the
impact
of
marine
engine
exhaust
on
water
quality.
A
1995
study
measured
the
rate
of
introduction
of
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOCs)
into
water
during
the
operation
of
gasoline
powered
two­
stroke
and
four­
stroke
outboard
engines.
The
VOC
compounds
found
in
the
water
were
almost
exclusively
aromatic
hydrocarbons,
including
pollutants
such
as
benzene,
toluene,
ethylbenzene,
and
napthelene.
In
most
cases,
other
types
of
hydrocarbons
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
13
were
not
found.
No
bioaccumulative
pollutants
are
suspected
to
be
present
in
these
discharges.
For
many
toxic
constituents,
there
is
a
significant
reduction
in
the
individual
pollutant
loadings
in
twostroke
vs.
four­
stroke
engines.
While
the
reduction
varies
by
pollutant,
it
typically
ranges
from
90
percent
reduction
to
over
99
percent
reduction.

Treated
Lumber
in
the
Marine
Environment
As
reported
in
"
Assessment
of
the
Risks
to
Aquatic
Life
from
the
Use
of
Pressure­
Treated
Wood
in
Water"
(
T.
J.
Sinnott,
NYSDEC,
June
1999),
when
wood
is
used
for
in­
water
construction
such
as
pilings,
breakwalls,
abutments
or
other
submerged
or
partially
submerged
structures,
the
potential
exists
for
toxic
preservatives
to
leach
from
the
wood
and
harm
adjacent
aquatic
ecosystems.
Wood
preservatives
are
chemical
pesticides
that
are
applied
to
wood
to
protect
it
from
decay
brought
about
by
fungi
or
insect
attack.
While
preservatives
can
be
brushed
on,
sprayed
on,
or
soaked
into
wood,
the
most
effective
treatment
is
to
force
preservative
solutions
deeply
into
the
wood
under
high
pressure.

Creosote,
pentachlorophenol,
and
inorganic
arsenicals
are
the
three
most
widely
used
preservative
compounds.
Creosote
is
a
mix
of
PAHs
that
are
products
of
the
fractional
distillation
of
coal
tar.
Pentachlorophenol
is
a
manufactured
organochlorine
pesticide.
Inorganic
arsenicals
are
various
blends
of
metallic
salts
such
as
CCA
(
chromated
copper
arsenic)
or
mixtures
of
metallic
salts,
arsenic,
and
organic
compounds
such
as
ACA
(
ammoniacal
copper
arsenate)
or
copper
naphthenate.
All
three
wood
preservatives
work
because
they
are
toxic
to
insects
and
fungi.

Available
scientific
data
for
each
of
the
three
types
of
preservatives
have
been
evaluated
to
attempt
to
assess
the
potential
risks
to
aquatic
life
from
the
use
of
pressure
treated
lumber
in
water.
For
all
three
wood
preservatives,
the
greatest
amount
of
leaching
occurs
when
the
treated
wood
is
first
put
in
place.
The
rate
of
leaching
drops
off
significantly
after
a
short
period
of
relatively
high
leaching.
In
general,
any
impacts
to
aquatic
life
are
most
likely
to
occur
during
the
initial
period
of
high
leaching.
The
area
where
adverse
effects
occur
is
likely
to
be
highly
localized.
The
greater
the
distance
from
the
treated
wood,
the
more
dilute
the
concentration
of
leached
pesticide.
For
each
of
the
preservative
pesticides,
fate
processes
such
as
volatilization,
photolysis,
sediment
sorption,
and
microbial
degradation
work
to
degrade
and
reduce
the
concentration
of
the
pesticide
in
the
water
even
while
it
is
leaching.
For
each
specific
type
of
wood
preservative,
recommendations
are
provided
for
minimizing
the
risks
to
aquatic
life.

In
recent
years,
a
number
of
products
made
out
of
recycled
plastic
have
come
available.
These
products
are
designed
to
replace
treated
wood
for
fencing,
pilings,
and
decking.
Products
made
of
recycled
plastics
appear
to
be
safer.
They
do
not
function
by
inherent
toxicity,
rather
they
are
simply
unsuitable
substrate
for
fungi
or
insects
to
subsist
in
or
on.
Whether
or
not
recycled
plastic
products
have
the
necessary
structural
or
functional
integrity
or
are
economically
viable
replacements
to
pressure
treated
lumber
is
not
assessed
for
this
report.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
14
Atmospheric
Deposition
Acid
rain
has
traditionally
been
a
concern
with
respect
to
lowering
the
pH
of
freshwater
ecosystems
due
to
excessive
loadings
of
acidity.
In
the
context
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program,
acid
rain
is
not
a
primary
concern
with
respect
to
direct
impact
on
surface
water
pH,
due
to
the
buffering
capacity
of
the
marine
system.
However,
there
may
be
a
concern
with
respect
to
indirect
impacts
of
rainfall
acidity
on
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.
Such
indirect
impacts
may
be
related
to
the
effects
of
acidity
on
the
Peconic
River
and
on
the
solubility
and
transport
of
contaminants
through
soil,
groundwater,
and
sediment.

While
dry
and
wet
deposition
of
toxic
contaminants
present
in
the
atmosphere
occurs,
no
particular
toxic
pollutants
have
been
identified
as
being
of
concern
from
this
source.
PAHs,
organic
compounds
derived
from
pyrogenic
(
combustion)
and
petrogenic
(
petroleum­
based)
sources,
have
been
detected
in
sediments
within
the
estuary.
The
distribution
of
PAHs
suggests
loadings
are
airborne
(
pyrogenic)
PAHs,
which
are
deposited
directly
on
surface
waters,
as
well
as
in
the
watershed,
and
then
carried
to
the
estuary
through
freshwater
flows
from
rivers,
runoff,
and
stormwater,
and
watershed
drainage
through
groundwater
underflow.
Nationally,
programs
are
being
implemented
by
the
Federal
and
State
governments
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
to
further
study
and
reduce
toxic
emissions.

Dredged
Material
Placement
At
the
present
time,
no
toxic­
related
restrictions
have
been
imposed
on
the
placement
of
dredged
materials
in
the
Peconics.
All
dredged
material
from
the
Peconics
is
put
to
beneficial
uses,
such
as
beach
nourishment
or
wetland
restoration,
or
is
otherwise
placed
upland
(
i.
e.,
above
the
spring
high
tide
water
line).

The
EPA
and
the
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
(
Corps)
have
identified
the
likely
need
to
continue
marine
placement
of
dredged
material
in
the
Long
Island
Sound
Area.
In
1999,
the
EPA
in
cooperation
with
the
Corps
issued
a
notice
of
intent
to
prepare
an
environmental
impact
statement
to
consider
the
potential
identification
of
one
or
more
placement
sites
for
Long
Island
Sound
dredged
material.
EPA
and
the
Corps
have
decided
to
consider
the
use
of
four
existing
sites
and
their
identification
as
dredged
material
placement
sites
under
Section
102(
c)
of
the
Marine
Protection,
Research
and
Sanctuaries
Act.
Other
alternatives
will
also
be
evaluated,
including
other
open
water
placement
sites
and
other
placement
and
management
options.
Identification
of
a
site
does
not
itself
result
in
placement
of
any
particular
material,
it
serves
only
to
make
the
site
a
placement
option
available
for
consideration
in
the
alternatives
analysis
for
each
individual
dredging
project
in
the
area.
Nonpoint
Sources
Addressed
in
the
Coastal
Zone
Act
Reauthorization
Amendments
of
1990
In
the
Coastal
Zone
Act
Reauthorization
Amendments
of
1990
(
CZARA),
Congress
recognizes
that
nonpoint
source
pollution
is
a
key
factor
in
the
continuing
degradation
of
many
coastal
waters
and
establishes
a
new
program
to
address
this
pollution.
In
enacting
CZARA,
Congress
calls
upon
states
to
develop
and
implement
State
Coastal
Nonpoint
Source
Control
Programs,
which
must
be
approved
by
both
the
National
Oceanic
and
Atmospheric
Administration
(
NOAA)
and
EPA.
Congress
gives
the
EPA
the
responsibility
to
develop
technical
guidance
for
state
development
of
such
programs.

Under
CZARA,
EPA
specifies
"
management
measures"
for
three
categories
of
nonpoint
source
pollution
that
may
potentially
contribute
toxics
to
the
Peconic
Estuary:
agriculture,
urban
areas,
and
marinas
and
recreational
boating.
"
Management
Measures"
are
defined
in
CZARA
section
6217(
g)(
5)
as
"
economically
achievable
measures
for
the
control
of
the
addition
of
pollutants,
which
reflect
the
greatest
degree
of
pollutant
reduction
achievable
through
the
application
of
the
best
available
nonpoint
pollution
control
practices,
technologies,
processes,
siting
criteria,
operating
methods,
or
other
alternatives."
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
15
The
PEP
participants
consider
it
unlikely
a
placement
site
will
be
proposed
within
the
PEP
study
area.
(
See
also
the
Habitat
and
Living
Resources
Chapter
of
this
Plan.)

Site
Specific
Concerns
There
are
a
number
of
sites
within
the
Peconic
Estuary
that
contribute
or
have
the
potential
to
contribute
toxic
contaminants
to
the
estuary
system
through
point
source
discharges
and/
or
from
stormwater
runoff.
The
sites
that
are
of
particular
concern
are
shown
in
Figure
6­
1
and
described
briefly
below.

Sewage
Treatment
Plants
Sewage
treatment
plant
(
STP)
effluents
are
subject
to
disinfection
to
limit
the
discharge
of
pathogens.
The
most
common
method
of
disinfection
is
chlorination.
Chlorinated
discharges
to
surface
waters
are
of
concern
because,
in
systems
like
the
Peconics
which
contain
high
levels
of
organic
matter,
chlorinated
compounds
can
be
formed
which,
although
short
lived,
can
be
quite
toxic
to
aquatic
organisms.
The
complexity
of
the
reactions
of
chlorine
in
the
environment
increases
the
difficulty
of
assessing
its
impact.
Increased
attention
is
being
given
to
addressing
the
possible
need
to
limit
all
uses
of
chlorine
as
a
means
of
reducing
the
input
of
chlorinated
compounds
into
the
environment.

Disinfection
methods
other
than
chlorination,
such
as
ultraviolet
(
UV)
radiation
and
ozone,
appear
to
be
as
effective
as
chlorine
for
reducing
bacteria
and
may
be
more
effective
in
reducing
other
pathogens.
UV
disinfection
is
now
used
at
both
the
BNL
and
Plum
Island
Animal
Disease
Center
STPs.
UV
has
been
proposed
for
use
at
Riverhead
and
Sag
Harbor
and
has
been
tested
on
a
pilot
scale
at
Shelter
Island
Heights.
Effective
disinfection
by
methods
other
than
chlorination
can
reduce
impacts
on
aquatic
life
and
human
health
while
still
being
protective
of
human
health
from
pathogens.
These
issues
are
discussed
further
in
the
Pathogens
Chapter.

North
Sea
Municipal
Landfill
Site,
North
Sea,
NY
Remedial
actions
at
this
Superfund
site
have
been
completed
and
EPA
has
determined
that
no
further
action
(
other
than
air
and
groundwater
monitoring)
is
necessary.
Impacts
on
surface
waters
were
considered
in
the
selected
remedy.
Contaminants
of
concern
included
volatile
organic
chemicals
(
VOCs),
PAHs,
metals
(
arsenic
and
lead)
and
other
organics.

Based
on
the
monitoring
that
has
taken
place,
the
EPA
will
be
requiring
the
Town
of
Southampton
to
conduct
additional
benthic
community
and
sediment
toxicity
testing,
in
accordance
with
an
EPA
approved
plan.
Based
upon
EPA's
review
of
the
monitoring,
sampling
and
analysis
results,
EPA
will
evaluate
the
efficacy
of
the
remedy
under
the
Superfund
law.
If
warranted,
the
Superfund
record
of
decision
will
be
amended
and
the
remedy
revised.
The
Riverhead,
Sag
Harbor,
and
Shelter
Island
Heights
STPs
receive
and
treat
wastewater
generated
by
residences
and
local
commercial
establishments.
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
and
the
Plum
Island
Animal
Disease
Center
have
their
own
sewage
treatment
plants.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
16
Figure
6­
1.
Toxic
Chemical
Monitoring
Stations
and
Potential
Toxic
Sources.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
17
Rowe
Industries
Site,
Sag
Harbor,
NY
Remedies
selected
for
this
Superfund
site
include
in­
situ
vapor
extraction,
soil
excavation
and
disposal,
treatment
of
contaminated
groundwater,
and
long­
term
monitoring.
The
toxic
contaminants
of
concern
are
volatile
organic
chemicals,
tetrachloroethylene
(
PCE)
and
trichloroethylene
(
TCE).
The
soil
that
required
excavation
has
been
excavated
and
disposed
of
off­
site.
The
in­
situ
vapor
extraction
system
is
presently
being
operated.
The
groundwater
remedy
is
currently
under
construction.

Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
(
BNL),
Upton,
NY
Point
source
discharges
at
BNL
include
sanitary
wastewater
and
cooling
waters
as
well
as
wastewater
from
industrialtype
activities.
The
BNL
SPDES
permit
requires
monitoring
of
effluents
from
industrial­
type
activities
prior
to
discharge
into
the
wastewater
collection
system.
Information
collected
due
to
this
monitoring
requirement
will
be
reviewed
and
considered
when
the
BNL
discharge
permit
comes
up
for
renewal.
EPA
completed
a
Multi­
Media
Compliance
Evaluation
Inspection
at
BNL,
beginning
May
5,
1997.
This
comprehensive
inspection
evaluated
BNL's
compliance
with
statutory
and
regulatory
requirements
including
the
effectiveness
of
its
treatment
and
disposal
practices,
pollution
controls,
operations
and
maintenance
procedures,
and
self­
monitoring/
reporting
records
and
practices.
BNL
has,
as
a
result
of
the
inspection,
entered
into
a
memorandum
of
agreement
(
MOA)
to
implement
a
facility­
wide
environmental
management
system,
and
EPA
has
issued
enforcement
orders
to
BNL
for
the
violations
found
during
the
inspection.

As
described
in
the
MOA,
it
is
both
EPA's
and
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy's
(
DOE)
objective
that
BNL
be
operated
so
as
to
maintain
full
compliance
with
applicable
environmental
requirements
and
to
protect
the
environment
and
the
health
and
safety
of
workers
at
the
facility
and
the
general
public.
While
DOE
as
a
generator
of
hazardous
waste
at
BNL
is
subject
to
various
legal
requirements,
the
commitments
in
the
MOA
extend
beyond
such
requirements
and
include
a
voluntary
initiative
on
the
part
of
DOE.
The
goal
of
these
voluntary
undertakings
is
to
enhance
environmental
management
at
BNL
through
the
development
and
implementation
of
an
Environmental
Management
System
(
EMS)
that
is
focused
on
environmental
compliance
and
pollution
prevention.

Specifically,
BNL
has
agreed
to
develop
and
implement
an
expedited
process
evaluation
of
all
experimental
and
industrial
operations
at
BNL
for
the
purpose
of
identifying
all
waste
streams
produced
at
the
facility.
The
evaluation
will
also
include
determining
the
proper
regulatory
status
of
each
waste
stream
to
ensure
the
wastes
are
managed
in
accordance
with
applicable
local,
State
and
Federal
environmental
regulations
and
in
such
a
manner
as
to
pose
no
threat
to
the
environment.
The
evaluation
establishes
a
baseline
of
on­
going
BNL
operations
and
will
also
be
used
to
assess
future
activities.
All
experimental
and
industrial­
type
operations
will
be
inventoried
and
pollution
prevention/
waste
minimization
and
assessment/
prevention/
control
opportunities
will
be
identified,
tracked
and
assessed
for
implementation.
The
Federal
Superfund
hazardous
substance
cleanup
program
was
created
by
the
Comprehensive
Environmental
Response,
Compensation
and
Liability
Act
of
1980
(
CERCLA).
The
Act
authorizes
the
Federal
government
to
respond
to
spills
and
other
releases
(
or
threatened
releases)
of
hazardous
substances,
as
well
as
leaking
hazardous
waste
dumps.
There
are
three
Federal
Superfund
Sites
on
the
National
Priority
List
in
the
study
area:
the
North
Sea
Municipal
Landfill,
Rowe
Industries,
and
a
portion
of
the
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
Site.
Two
other
sites
in
the
PEP
Study
Area
have
been
identified
as
inactive
hazardous
waste
disposal
sites
by
the
NYSDEC
­­
Mattituck
Airbase
and
the
East
Hampton
Landfill
Lagoons.
These
sites
are
not
known
to
be
impacting
the
Peconic
Estuary
and
the
State
is
addressing
known
and
potential
contamination
problems.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
18
Actions
under
the
Superfund
Program
Affecting
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
at
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
BNL
has
been
placed
on
the
Federal
Superfund
Site
National
Priority
List.
Because
of
the
complexity
of
the
site,
it
has
been
broken
into
several
"
operable
units"
(
OU).
OU
V
contains
the
portion
of
the
site
which
influences
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area.
The
Superfund
status
is
based
on
preliminary
studies
which
indicate
that
contamination
at
BNL
is
impacting
the
Peconic
River.
A
Remedial
Investigation
(
RI)
for
OU
V
has
been
completed
to
characterize
the
nature
and
extent
of
contamination
and
identify
areas
that
pose
an
unacceptable
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
The
conclusions
drawn
from
the
RI
form
the
basis
for
the
remedial
action
alternatives
to
be
conducted.
Surface
soil,
subsurface
soil,
groundwater,
surface
water,
sediments,
and
fish
tissue
samples
have
been
collected
and
analyzed
as
part
of
the
remedial
investigation
process.
Samples
have
been
analyzed
for
a
comprehensive
list
of
inorganic,
volatile
organic,
and
semi­
volatile
organic
substances,
as
well
as
for
pesticides,
PCBs,
radionuclides,
ammonia,
phenols,
and
cyanide.
The
concern
with
respect
to
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
is
elevated
concentrations
of
metals
in
Peconic
River
sediments
and
other
co­
located
contaminants
including
radionuclides.
No
significant
off­
site
migration
of
these
contaminants
above
sediment
screening
levels
was
found,
aside
from
one
depositional
area
just
outside
the
Laboratory
boundary
on
Suffolk
County­
owned
property.

A
baseline
risk
assessment
was
prepared
to
evaluate
potential
risks
from
exposure
to
contaminants
in
the
absence
of
remediation.
The
baseline
risk
assessments
conducted
for
Operable
Unit
V
were
reported
in
the
Final
Operable
Unit
V
Remedial
Investigation
Report
(
May
27,
1998)
and
the
Final
Operable
Unit
V
Plutonium
Contamination
Characterization
and
Radiological
Dose
and
Risk
Assessment
Report
(
January
31,
2000),
in
which
the
risk
assessment
also
includes
all
radiologic
data
included
in
the
Remedial
Investigation
Report.
The
results
from
the
combined
studies
are
reflected
in
the
proposed
remedy.
An
ecological
risk
assessment
was
also
performed
to
determine
if
any
contaminants
posed
an
unacceptable
risk
to
ecological
receptors.
Ecological
receptors
include
any
plants
and
animals
that
could
be
exposed
to
contaminants
now,
or
in
the
future.

In
the
spring
of
2000,
the
DOE
released
a
plan
proposing
a
remedy
for
Operable
Unit
V
at
BNL.
This
Proposed
Plan
provides
a
description
of
site
concerns
and
discussion
of
completed
investigations,
a
summary
of
risk
assessments
performed,
evaluations
of
remedial
alternatives,
and
recommendations
for
the
preferred
alternative.
This
area
includes
BNL's
sewage
treatment
plant
and
the
headwaters
of
the
western
branch
of
the
Peconic
River.

The
proposed
remedy
included
excavating
Peconic
River
sediment
containing
copper,
mercury,
and
silver
at
concentrations
above
cleanup
goals.
PCBs
and
DDD
are
largely
co­
located
with
the
elevated
metals,
and
will
be
cleaned
up
during
remediation
of
the
metals.
Radionuclides,
mainly
cesium­
137
Tritium
Contamination
Concerns
have
been
raised
about
possible
tritium
contamination
from
BNL
in
the
Peconic
River
and
adjacent
areas
with
possible
impacts
to
human
health
and
the
ecosystem,
including
possible
implications
regarding
Brown
Tide.
However,
the
NYS
Department
of
Health
(
NYSDOH)
has
estimated
the
potential
radiation
dose
to
a
person
to
be
small,
less
than
one
percent
of
the
applicable
standard
in
NYSDOH
regulations,
and
less
than
10
percent
of
the
NYSDEC
remedial
action
threshold.
Radiation
experts
from
EPA
have
reviewed
the
NYSDOH
report
and
concur
with
the
findings.
This
contamination
is
separate
and
distinct
from
the
groundwater
tritium
plume
detected
in
December
1996
associated
with
BNL's
High
Flux
Beam
Reactor
(
HFBR).
The
HFBR
groundwater
tritium
plume
is
out
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
Study
Area.
The
Peconic
Estuary
Program
will
continue
to
involve
radiation
experts
from
the
NYSDOH
and
EPA
to
assist
in
data
interpretation
and
evaluation.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
19
and
low
levels
of
plutonium,
are
below
acceptable
levels
established
by
the
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
15
millirem/
year
above
background),
but
will
also
be
removed
during
sediment
cleanup
where
they
are
co­
located
with
the
elevated
metals.
The
sediment
will
be
dewatered
and
shipped
to
a
licensed
off­
site
disposal
facility.
The
proposed
remedy
also
included
a
localized
removal
of
soil
at
the
Lab's
sewage
treatment
plant
and
additional
monitoring
and
characterization
of
contaminants
in
groundwater.

Soils
in
the
sand
filter
beds
and
adjacent
berms
at
the
STP
contain
elevated
levels
of
mercury,
silver,
chromium,
lead
and
radionuclides
as
well.
A
best
management
practice,
localized
removal
of
soil
contamination,
is
proposed
to
remove
high
levels
of
mercury
and
cesium­
137.
This
removal
of
contamination
will
reduce
the
potential
for
leaching
and
subsequent
migration
to
groundwater
and
the
Peconic
River
and
will
reduce
potential
risks
associated
with
cesium­
137
in
soils.
Soils
from
the
sand
filter
beds
and
berms
exceeding
cleanup
goals
would
be
removed
through
excavation.
Excavated
portions
of
the
sand
beds
would
be
replaced
with
sand
or
gravel,
and
excavated
areas
on
the
berms
would
be
backfilled
with
clean
fill,
compacted
and
graded.
Excavated
materials
will
be
disposed
of
in
a
licensed
off­
site
disposal
facility.

Low
levels
of
VOCs,
primarily
trichloroethene
(
or
trichloroethylene,
TCE)
were
detected
in
groundwater
both
on
and
off
site.
The
highest
concentration
of
TCE
found
on
site
was
32
parts
per
billion
(
ppb),
and
offsite
levels
had
a
maximum
of
8.5
ppb
(
the
drinking
water
standard
is
5
ppb).
These
values
are
reported
in
the
Remedial
Investigation
Report.
A
more
recent
sampling
in
1999
found
a
maximum
TCE
concentration
on
site
of
17
ppb
and
a
maximum
off­
site
concentration
of
8.2
ppb.
Tritium
was
found
with
maximum
levels
about
one­
tenth
of
the
drinking
water
standard
of
20,000
picoCuries
per
liter
(
pCi/
l).

To
be
sure
that
the
health
of
the
residents
located
downgradient
of
OU
V
is
protected,
homes
and
businesses
in
the
OU
V
area
were
offered
public
water
in
1997.
Outpost
monitoring
wells
have
been
placed
along
the
predicted
path
of
the
groundwater
and
additional
monitoring
data
will
be
collected.
If
future
monitoring
data
suggest
a
need
for
a
groundwater
remedy,
the
OU
V
remedy
will
be
modified.

During
the
public
comment
period
on
the
Proposed
Plan,
the
community
raised
numerous
concerns
with
the
proposal
to
remove
contaminated
sediments
from
the
Peconic
River.
The
concerns
included
wetland
restoration
considerations;
the
exact
extent
of
contamination,
particularly
in
the
County
Park
east
of
BNL;
and
other
technologies.
After
considering
all
of
the
public
comments,
DOE
has
made
a
determination
to
work
with
the
community
to
develop
additional
information
regarding
the
best
cleanup
approach
to
the
contaminated
river
sediments.
DOE,
EPA,
and
NYSDEC
will
make
a
final
decision
on
the
cleanup
of
the
contaminated
soil
at
the
STP
and
the
groundwater.
The
decision
will
be
formalized
in
a
document
called
the
Record
of
Decision
(
ROD).
Attached
to
the
ROD
will
be
a
Responsiveness
Summary,
which
will
summarize
public
comments
and
DOE
responses
to
those
comments.
Following
final
remedy
selection,
these
documents
will
be
available
for
public
review.
Finally,
the
public
will
be
kept
informed
during
the
remedy
implementation
phase.

After
DOE
works
with
the
community
to
resolve
the
concerns
related
to
the
sediment
cleanup,
a
new
Proposed
Plan
will
be
issued
for
public
comment
on
the
portion
of
the
OU
V
remedy
related
to
the
Peconic
River
sediments.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
20
Navy
Weapons
Industrial
Reserve
Plant
(
NWIRP)
Site
(
Calverton,
NY)

The
NWIRP
formerly
engaged
in
the
manufacture
of
aircraft
parts
and
subassemblies
The
facility
has
phased
out
all
of
its
manufacturing
process
operations
and
the
former
operator
of
the
property,
the
Northrop
Grumman
Corporation,
vacated
the
property
in
February
1996.
Since
that
time
all
property
contained
within
the
perimeter
fence,
with
the
exception
of
four
parcels
of
land
totaling
approximately
350
acres
which
have
been
retained
by
the
Navy
to
continue
the
installation
restoration
(
IR)
program,
have
been
conveyed
to
the
Town
of
Riverhead.
There
are
no
longer
any
process­
type
operations
that
generate
hazardous
waste
conducted
on
the
Navy's
350
acres.
Any
waste
(
solid
or
hazardous)
generated
will
be
the
result
of
the
continuation
of
the
IR
program.
An
initial
assessment
was
completed
by
the
Navy
in
1986
and
a
site
investigation
has
been
completed.
The
site
is
currently
being
handled
under
the
Federal
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
corrective
action
program.
Corrective
action
implementation
includes
a
RCRA
Facility
Assessment,
a
RCRA
Facility
Investigation
(
RFI),
and
a
Corrective
Measures
Study
(
CMS).
If
determined
necessary,
the
State
will
issue
a
permit
for
carrying
out
corrective
measures
selected
from
the
corrective
measures
alternatives
evaluated
in
the
CMS.

The
RCRA
Facility
Assessment
has
been
completed
at
this
site
for
all
identified
solid
waste
management
units/
areas
of
concern
(
SWMUs/
AOCs).
The
RFI
has
been
completed
for
a
majority
of
the
SWMUs/
AOCs
identified
with
contamination.
The
RFI
process
is
still
in
progress
at
eight
SWMUs/
AOCs.
Solvents
including
toluene,
1,1,1
trichloroethane
(
TCA),
and
methyl
ethyl
ketone
(
MEK
or
2
butanone)
have
been
identified
by
the
State
as
of
concern
in
groundwater.
The
most
recent
permit
for
this
facility
was
issued
on
April
24,
2000
and
will
expire
on
April
30,
2010.
Underground
Storage
Tanks
Leaks
in
excess
of
a
thousand
gallons
from
underground
storage
tanks
are
known
to
have
occurred
in
the
past
in
the
Peconic
Estuary,
on
Long
Island,
and
nationally.
The
extent
of
these
sources
of
pollution
is
potentially
large
because
the
contamination
is
underground
and
may
go
unnoticed
for
an
extended
period
of
time.

New
York
State
law
includes
provisions
for
preventing
spills
of
petroleum.
These
provisions
require
all
facilities
with
a
minimum
capacity
of
1,100
gallons
to
be
registered,
set
forth
standards
for
the
handling
and
storage
of
petroleum,
and
set
forth
standards
for
new
and
substantially
modified
underground
and
aboveground
storage
facilities.
Owners
and
operators
must
notify
NYSDEC
of
any
spills.
Another
State
program
addresses
the
requirements
for
the
bulk
storage
of
other
hazardous
substances,
including
the
registration
of
storage
tanks,
spill
reporting
procedures
and
specifications
for
the
sale
and
delivery
of
such
substances.

Suffolk
County
sanitary
code
requirements
(
Article
12)
are
even
more
stringent
than
state
requirements.
The
County
law
went
into
effect
in
1980
and
addresses
all
underground
and
aboveground
tanks
storing
fuels,
solvents,
and
chemicals,
anything
that
could
contaminate
groundwater
or
surface
water.
New
underground
tanks
are
required
to
have
secondary
containment
and
be
constructed
of
non­
corrodible
materials,
and
must
have
leak
detection
and
overflow
protection
systems.
All
existing
facilities
had
to
be
brought
up
to
new
construction
standards
by
1990.

The
County
law
exempted
existing
tanks
from
the
replacement
requirement
that
were
under
1,100
gallons
and
used
for
the
storage
of
heating
oil
for
on­
premises
use.
However,
new
tanks
of
this
type
must
be
made
of
non­
corrodible
materials.
The
Financing
chapter
of
this
CCMP
includes
several
recommendations
regarding
incentives
for
private
homeowners
to
address
this
potential
threat
to
groundwater
and
surface
water.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
21
The
(
Bulova)
Watch
Case
Factory
Site
(
Sag
Harbor,
NY)

At
this
site,
New
York
State
is
requiring
continued
operation
of
ongoing
soil
and
groundwater
remediation
systems
to
treat
VOCs.
The
VOCs
include
1,1,1­
trichloroethane
(
TCA)
and
trichloroethylene
(
TCE)
which
were
the
solvents
used
in
intermediate
cleaning
operations
during
watch
manufacturing.
A
fate
and
transport
model
demonstrated
that
chemicals
at
the
site
are
not
anticipated
to
impact
Sag
Harbor
Cove.
The
treatment
systems
will
operate
until
remediation
goals
are
achieved
or
it
is
demonstrated
to
the
State
that
achieving
the
goals
is
not
technically
practicable.

Plum
Island
Animal
Disease
Center
The
Plum
Island
Animal
Disease
Center
surface
water
discharge
to
the
Peconic
Estuary
System
consists
of
a
wastewater
treatment
plant,
which
includes
boiler
blowdown
and
diked
tank
farm
stormwater
discharges.
The
wastewater
treatment
plant
effluent
is
disinfected
by
ultraviolet
light
(
UV)
treatment
process.
This
facility
also
has
a
separate
general
stormwater
permit
for
the
other
stormwater
outfalls
that
discharge
to
surface
waters.
The
permit
for
this
facility
includes
a
special
condition
requiring
the
development
and
implementation
of
a
Best
Management
Practices
Plan
to
prevent
or
minimize
the
potential
for
the
release
of
significant
amounts
of
toxic
or
hazardous
substances
through
runoff,
spillage,
leaks,
sludge
or
waste
disposal,
and
stormwater
discharges,
including
but
not
limited
to
drainage
from
raw
material
storage.

CHARACTERIZATION
OF
THE
RESOURCES
OF
THE
PECONIC
ESTUARY
WITH
RESPECT
TO
TOXICS
The
characterization
of
the
resources
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
with
respect
to
toxics
is
based
on
an
analysis
of
existing
and
new
data
on
toxics
in
the
estuary's
surface
water,
groundwater,
sediments,
and
living
resources,
along
with
information
that
has
been
collected
on
specific
areas
of
concern
(
such
as
Superfund
sites).
To
supplement
historical
data
and
data
collected
through
other
environmental
studies
(
i.
e.,
pesticides
in
groundwater),
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
commissioned
a
study
of
toxic
chemical
distributions
in
Peconic
Estuary
sediments
for
12
sites
that
was
completed
in
1996.
In
1998,
the
EPA
conducted
a
survey
of
sediments
from
34
tidal
creeks
and
embayments.
The
sediments
in
this
later
study
were
evaluated
both
for
chemical
specific
contamination
and
overall
toxicity
to
a
marine
organism
("
toxicity
testing").
EPA
conducted
additional
sediment
sampling
for
chemical
specific
analyses
and
toxicity
testing
in
2000.
In
1999,
EPA
collected
finfish,
shellfish
and
crustaceans
and
will
be
analyzing
the
edible
portions
for
toxic
substances,
including
radiological
contaminants.
"
A
Characterization
of
the
Resources
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
with
Respect
to
Toxics"
(
PEP,
January
2001)
may
be
consulted
for
additional
information
and
detail.

Some
toxic
substances,
which
enter
the
estuarine
system
break
down
fairly
rapidly
and
cause
few,
if
any,
problems.
Others
tend
to
be
very
slow
to
break
down,
often
accumulating
in
bottom
sediments,
where
they
may
eventually
be
ingested
or
absorbed
by
bottom­
dwelling
organisms.
Some
toxic
substances
have
a
tendency
to
travel
through
the
food
chain
and
accumulate
in
the
tissues
of
finfish,
shellfish
and
crustaceans.
For
these
reasons,
the
emphasis
of
the
recent
sampling
efforts
for
toxics
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
involved
investigations
of
sediments
and
tissues
of
aquatic
animals.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
22
Surface
Water
Quality
Monitoring
for
toxics
in
the
estuarine
water
column
has
occurred
on
a
limited
basis
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.
Detailed
new
investigations
have
focused
on
sediments
and
fish
tissues
where
toxics
tend
to
accumulate.
The
available
data
show
no
exceedances
of
State
water
quality
criteria
for
toxics.
Therefore,
there
are
no
identified
surface
water
quality
impairments
due
to
toxics
in
the
estuarine
water
column.

Data
analysis
has,
however,
indicated
widespread
contamination
of
groundwater
from
Aldicarb
(
nematocide
used
on
potato
plants),
particularly
along
the
North
Fork.
Aldicarb
also
has
been
detected
in
the
surface
waters
of
East
Creek
and
other
North
Fork
Creeks.
While
Aldicarb
is
no
longer
in
use,
its
presence
in
surface
waters
is
likely
due
to
inputs
from
groundwater.
Another
emerging
concern
is
MTBE
(
methyl
tert­
Butyl
Ether)
which
has
been
showing
up
in
surface
water
samples,
including
Sag
Harbor
Creek
near
Havens
Beach
(
perhaps
related
to
an
active
recovery
operation
nearby),
the
Peconic
River,
and
other
surface
waters.

In
1997,
New
York
State
and
the
U.
S
Geological
Survey
began
a
cooperative
effort
to
monitor
pesticides
in
State
waters,
including
one
station
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
on
the
Peconic
River.
Samples
were
analyzed
for
47
pesticides,
including
herbicides,
insecticides
and
their
degradation
products.
The
pesticide
concentrations
measured
in
this
survey
probably
do
not
reflect
maximum
annual
concentrations
because
most
of
the
samples
were
collected
during
base
flow
(
lowflow
conditions.
While
no
pesticides
with
available
water
quality
criteria
were
identified
present
in
excess
of
the
applicable
criteria,
the
pesticides
atrazine
and
simazine
were
detected
in
surface
water
samples
(
USGS,
1997).

Some
trace
metals
analysis
has
been
performed
on
Peconic
Estuary
waters
(
see
Distribution
of
Trace
Metals
and
Dissolved
Organic
Carbon
in
a
Brown
Tide
Influenced
Estuary:
The
Peconics,
E.
Breuer,
May
1997).
Although
results
for
the
metals
sampled
for
which
New
York
State
has
adopted
and
EPA
has
approved
aquatic
life
based
water
column
criteria
(
cadmium,
copper,
lead,
nickel,
and
silver)
showed
evidence
of
anthropogenic
(
man­
made)
inputs,
they
did
not
exceed
the
established
criteria.

Observed
radiological
measurements
in
the
freshwater
portion
of
the
Peconic
River
have
been
compared
to
safe
drinking
water
standards,
even
though
the
Peconic
River
is
not
used
as
a
source
of
drinking
water.
While
the
tritium
concentration
in
a
few
samples
exceeded
the
drinking
water
standard,
the
annual
average
concentrations
have
consistently
been
less
than
the
drinking
water
standards.

Sediment
Quality
Under
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program,
sediments
from
12
locations
were
sampled
for
the
presence
of
98
naturally
occurring
and
man­
made
substances
(
Arthur
D.
Little,
1996).
Five
stations
were
selected
to
characterize
"
main
bays"
water
quality.
The
other
seven
were
chosen
because
of
specific
management
concerns.

In
this
study,
pollutant
concentrations
were
compared
to
"
Effects
Range­
Low"
(
ER­
L)
and
"
Effects
Range­
Median"
(
ER­
M)
values
developed
by
NOAA.
ER­
L
values
generally
correspond
to
concentrations
below
which
contaminant
induced
effects
are
unlikely.
Values
at
or
above
ER­
M
levels
indicate
that
contaminant
induced
effects
are
likely.
None
of
the
samples
collected
exceeded
ER­
Ms.
Some
ER­
Ls
were
exceeded,
which
indicates
the
need
for
actions
to
reduce
sources
to
prevent
problems
in
the
future.
Sediments
with
levels
above
the
ER­
L
tended
to
be
in
sheltered
bays
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
23
Table
6­
2.
Summary
of
New
York
State
Health
Advisories
for
Chemicals
in
Sportfish
and
Game
Applicable
to
the
Peconic
Estuary
System.

For
additional
and
related
information
on
these
advisories,
please
consult
the
complete
text
of
the
NYSDOH
Chemicals
in
Sportfish
and
Game,
available
from
the
NYSDOH
or
on
the
NYSDOH
web
site
on
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
health.
state.
ny.
us.

Species
Advisory
Potential
Toxic(
s)
of
Concern
Applicable
Areas
Lobster
and
Crab
Do
not
eat
hepatopancreas
(
also
known
as
the
tomalley,
mustard,
or
liver)
Cadmium,
PCBs,
and
other
contaminants
All
marine
waters
of
the
State
Marine
Striped
Bass,
Bluefish,
and
American
Eels
Limit
consumption
to
no
more
than
½
pound
per
week
PCBsa
Peconic
Bay,
Gardiners
Bay,
and
Block
Island
Sound
All
Freshwater
Fish
Limit
consumption
to
no
more
than
½
pound
per
week
Multiple
contaminants
All
fresh
waters
of
the
State
Waterfowl:
Mergansers
Do
not
consume
PCBs,
mirex,
chlordane,
and
DDT
Statewide
All
Other
Waterfowl
Skin
and
remove
all
fat
before
cooking;
discard
stuffing
after
cooking;
limit
to
two
meals
per
month
PCBs,
mirex,
chlordane,
and
DDT
Statewide
Snapping
Turtles
Remove
fat,
liver,
and
eggs
prior
to
cooking
meat
or
preparing
soup;
women
of
childbearing
age,
infants,
and
children
under
15
should
avoid
eating
snapping
turtle
meat
or
soups
made
with
their
meat.
PCBs
Statewide
aThe
source
of
PCBs
leading
to
this
advisory
is
not
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
system
and,
therefore,
management
actions
addressing
this
concern
are
not
included
in
this
CCMP.

and
harbors
in
the
vicinity
of
rivers
where
fine­
grained
sediments
and
decaying
organic
matter
tend
to
accumulate.
ER­
Ls
for
metals
were
exceeded
18
times
(
based
on
12
stations
and
9
metals
with
available
ER­
L
values).
Two
metals,
arsenic
and
lead,
accounted
for
10
of
the
exceedances
of
the
ER­
Ls.
The
other
metals
are
copper,
mercury,
silver,
cadmium
and
zinc.
Overall,
the
Peconic
Estuary
has
clear
instances
of
elevated
metal
concentrations,
especially
in
East
Creek
and
Meetinghouse
Creek.
There
is
the
potential
for
occasional
adverse
biological
effects
due
to
the
presence
of
metals
in
sediments.
Pesticide
concentrations
in
sediments
were
low,
except
DDT
residues,
which
were
present
in
some
locations.
This
is
very
likely
due
to
the
drainage
of
agricultural
areas
containing
persistent
residues
of
DDT.
DDT
was
banned
from
use
in
the
United
States
in
the
1970s.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
24
The
total
PCB
concentrations
at
Meetinghouse
Creek
exceeded
the
ER­
L.
This
measurement,
when
compared
to
the
other
PCB
measurements
in
Peconic
Estuary
sediments,
suggests
a
potential
localized
source
of
PCBs
to
Meetinghouse
Creek.

In
1998,
the
EPA
collected
sediments
for
analysis
under
the
"
Peconic
Estuary
Tributaries
Sediment
Toxics
Survey."
Locations
were
selected
to
be
representative
of
the
typical
land
uses
in
the
estuary
(
undeveloped,
developed
residential,
agricultural,
mixed­
use
urban/
industrial).
A
total
of
34
sites
were
selected.
The
samples
consisted
of
a
composite
of
equal
grab
samples
collected
from
three
locations
at
each
sampling
site.
Sediments
were
analyzed
for
a
total
of
108
toxic
contaminants,
including
PCBs,
PAHs,
pesticides,
and
metals.
In
addition
to
the
analysis
for
individual
chemical
constituents,
the
sediment
was
evaluated
for
overall
sediment
toxicity
using
the
marine
amphipod
Ampelisca
abdita.
These
toxicity
tests
lasted
l0
days
and
the
endpoint
measurement
is
mortality.
Toxicity
testing
is
a
valuable
gauge
because
the
results
provide
an
assessment
of
the
overall
toxicity
resulting
from
exposure
to
multiple
contaminants.

A
complete
report
is
not
yet
available
for
the
chemical­
specific
results
of
the
EPA
Tributaries
Sediment
Toxics
Survey.
A
majority
of
the
analysis
results,
which
have
been
subjected
to
a
quality
assurance
crosscheck,
are
available,
and
some
preliminary
observations
can
be
made.
The
preliminary
results
for
metals
are
comparable
with
the
A.
D.
Little
Toxics
Survey
(
1996),
and
as
in
that
survey,
some
ER­
Ls
for
metals
were
exceeded,
most
noticeably
for
arsenic,
but
also
for
mercury
and
copper,
and
perhaps
silver.
In
addition,
Meetinghouse
Creek
sediments
exhibited
the
only
ER­
L
exceedances
of
zinc,
copper,
and
nickel.
No
ER­
M
values
for
metals
have
been
exceeded
at
those
stations
for
which
data
are
available.
Also
similar
to
the
A.
D.
Little
Toxics
Survey,
levels
of
the
pesticide
DDT
and
its
breakdown
products
(
DDD
and
DDE)
in
excess
of
the
ER­
L
were
observed
in
numerous
locations.
This
included
one
station,
Jockey
Creek,
where
the
level
of
DDT
exceeded
the
level
of
its
breakdown
products,
suggesting
an
ongoing
or
Endocrine
Disruptors
Injury
to
endocrine
function
by
environmental
contaminants
is
potentially
debilitating
to
a
variety
of
physiological
systems.
The
endocrine
system
in
animals
consists
of
glands
that
produce
hormones
that
enter
the
bloodstream
to
regulate
important
bodily
functions
such
as
growth,
development,
reproduction,
and
behavior.
Previous
studies
have
found
correlations
between
specific
impairments
of
reproductive
activity
and
elevated
tissue
concentrations
of
certain
contaminants.
These
contaminants
may
mimic
or
block
endocrine
system
processes,
potentially
affecting
critical
bodily
functions.
The
reproductive
injuries
reported
to
date
include:
reduced
fertility;
impaired
hatchability
and
viability
of
offspring;
impaired
reproductive
hormone
activity;
and
altered
sexual
development
and
behavior.
There
are
also
reports
of
slow
growth,
atrophy,
and
lower
rates
of
metabolic
behavior.
At
least
45
chemicals
have
been
identified
as
potential
endocrine
disrupting
contaminants,
including
industrial
contaminants
(
such
as
polychlorinated
biphenyls
(
PCBs)
and
dioxins),
insecticides
(
such
as
DDT)
and
herbicides
(
such
as
dichlorophenoxy
acetic
acid
(
2,4­
D)
and
atrazine).

At
the
present
time,
environmental
criteria
are
not
being
derived
specifically
to
take
into
account
endocrine
disruption
impacts.
It
is
possible
that
these
effects
may
occur
when
contaminant
concentrations
are
below
current
criteria
and
standards.

Testing
of
dredged
material
for
toxic
substances
is
required
only
under
certain
conditions
(
depending
on
factors
including:
volume;
make
up
of
the
material
(
i.
e.,
percent
sand);
place
of
origin;
likelihood
of
contamination;
and
proposed
placement
location).
Typically,
there
are
betweexn
50
and
100
permit
applications
approved
per
year
in
the
Peconics
involving
dredging
and
dredged
material
placement.
Generally,
dredged
material
from
the
Peconic
Estuary
consists
of
coarse­
grained
sandy
material,
and
testing
for
the
presence
of
toxics
has
not
been
required.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
25
continuing
source
or
application
of
DDT.
The
individual
levels
of
DDD
and
DDE
in
Sawmill
Creek
exceeded
the
ER­
M
for
total
DDTs.
Because
of
the
special
nature
of
the
DDT­
related
results
for
Jockey
Creek
and
Sawmill
Creek,
these
sites
have
been
referred
to
the
NYSDEC
for
further
investigation.
An
analysis
of
the
EPA
sampling
results
for
PCBs
and
PAHs
has
not
been
completed.
A
final
complete
report
on
chemical­
specific
results
with
a
rigorous
analysis
of
the
data
is
being
prepared
by
the
EPA.

A
final
report
on
the
sediment
toxicity
testing
results,
for
the
34
sites
tested,
is
available
(
Sediment
Toxicity
Testing
in
the
Peconic
Estuary/
Watershed
Using
the
Amphipod,
Ampelisca
abdita,
EPA
Region
II,
August
1998).
The
survival
rate
was
relatively
high
across
all
stations,
from
76
percent
to
97
percent.
A
percent
survival
result
of
less
than
80
percent
can
indicate
some
toxicity,
and
this
result
occurred
at
five
stations:
Little
Bay
(
76
percent),
Paynes
Creek
(
78
percent),
West
Neck
Bay
(
78
percent),
Sag
Harbor
STP
(
79
percent),
and
Northwest
Creek
(
79
percent).
Paradoxically,
the
stations
with
the
highest
survival
rates
included
sites
which
had
some
of
the
most
frequent
incidences
of
exceedances
of
ER­
Ls
for
metals.
The
five
stations
with
the
highest
Ampelisca
survival
rates
were:
the
Peconic
River
at
Riverhead
(
97
percent),
Downs
Creek
(
96
percent),
Reeves
Creek
(
95
percent),
Meetinghouse
Creek
(
95
percent)
and
Peconic
River
at
the
STP
outfall
(
94
percent).
These
results
illustrate
the
importance
of
investigations
involving
both
chemical­
specific
analyses
and
overall
toxicity
testing
in
assessing
sediment
quality.
The
toxicity
testing
results
will
be
further
assessed
in
light
of
the
results
on
the
chemical­
specific
report
now
under
preparation.
EPA
conducted
additional
sediment
sampling
for
toxicity
analyses
in
2000.
Results
of
this
sampling
will
be
available
in
2001.

Finfish,
Shellfish
and
Crustacean
Quality
Based
upon
the
relative
paucity
of
data
available
on
the
concentrations
of
toxics
in
the
living
resources
of
the
Peconic
Estuary,
EPA
initiated
a
"
Peconic
Estuary
Fish,
Shellfish
and
Crustacean
Toxics
Survey."
The
objectives
of
this
survey
were
to:

 
Determine
whether
the
toxic
compounds
identified
by
the
NYSDOH
as
being
important
for
the
issuance
of
human
health
advisories
for
the
consumption
of
aquatic
species
are
relevant
in
edible
tissues
of
selected
fish
and
shellfish,
and
tissues
and
hepatopancreas
(
tomalley)
of
selected
crustacean
species
in
the
Peconic
Estuary;

 
Assess
and
compare
concentrations
of
toxics
identified
by
the
NYSDOH
as
being
important
for
the
issuance
of
human
health
advisories
in
legal
sized
finfish,
shellfish,
and
crustaceans
in
open
areas
or
tributaries,
as
applicable
to
a
given
species,
for
the
four
Peconic
Bays
and
selected
tributaries;

 
Assess
and
compare
the
general
quality
of
representative
open
and
closed
shellfish
areas
in
creeks
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
with
respect
to
toxics
in
hard
clams;

 
Assess
and
compare
the
general
quality
of
representative
open
shellfish
areas
in
creeks
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
with
respect
to
toxics
in
bay
scallops;
and,

 
Evaluate
whether
radiochemicals
associated
with
Brookhaven
National
Laboratories
are
present
in
blue
crabs
and
fluke
above
background
(
reference
site)
levels.

The
species
that
were
collected
for
analysis
included:
striped
bass
(
bluefish
and
weakfish
were
alternate
species),
American
eel,
fluke/
summer
flounder
(
bluefish
and
weakfish
were
alternative
species),
hard
clams,
bay
scallops,
blue
crabs,
and
lobsters.
Samples
will
be
analyzed
for
a
comprehensive
suite
of
toxic
chemicals
including
metals,
pesticides,
PCBs,
dioxins,
furans,
as
well
as
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
26
radiological
isomers
of
strontium,
cesium,
and
plutonium
and
gross
alpha,
beta,
and
gamma
radiation.
The
complete
results
of
this
survey
should
be
available
in
2001.

NOAA's
Mussel
Watch
Program
includes
one
sampling
site
in
the
Peconic
Study
area
(
in
Gardiners
Bay).
While
samples
from
mussels
from
Gardiners
Bay
did
not
show
concentrations
of
chemicals
exceeding
public
health
guidelines,
concentrations
of
dieldrin
and
PAHs
were
identified
as
"
high"
relative
to
concentrations
in
other
locations,
though
NOAA
reported
there
is
no
reason
to
suppose
such
concentrations
cause
harm
to
marine
organisms
or
to
humans.

Dredged
Material
Quality
At
the
present
time,
no
restrictions
have
been
placed
on
the
placement
of
dredged
material
from
the
Peconic
Estuary
due
to
the
presence
of
toxic
substances.
All
dredged
material
from
the
Peconic
Estuary
presently
is
put
to
beneficial
use,
such
as
beach
nourishment
or
wetland
restoration,
or
is
otherwise
placed
upland
(
i.
e.,
above
the
spring
high
tide
water
line).

Groundwater
Quality
Significant
pesticide
contamination
of
groundwater
resources
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
has
been
found
in
connection
with
at
least
two
recent
studies.
One,
entitled
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
to
Detect
Pesticide
Contamination
in
Groundwaters
of
Nassau
and
Suffolk
Counties,
NY
(
June
1999)
relates
to
an
18­
month
study
conducted
by
the
SCDHS
in
cooperation
with
the
NYSDEC.
The
second
study
is
entitled
Pesticides
and
their
Metabolites
in
Wells
of
Suffolk
County,
New
York
1998
(
June
1999)
and
was
conducted
by
the
USGS
in
cooperation
with
the
NYSDEC.

Pesticides
and
their
Metabolites
in
Wells
of
Suffolk
County,
New
York
1998
(
June
1999)

As
described
in
this
report,
the
permeable
soils
in
Suffolk
County
make
the
surficial
sand­
and­
gravel
aquifer
highly
susceptible
to
contamination
from
activities
on
the
land
surface.
This
highly
permeable
aquifer
is
a
source
of
water
for
domestic
and
public
supply
systems
in
the
county
and
is
hydraulically
connected
to
underlying
aquifers
that
are
also
used
for
public
water
supply.
Because
of
this
vulnerability
and
the
importance
of
the
surficial
sand­
and­
gravel
aquifer
and
in
response
to
the
documented
contamination
of
the
surficial
aquifer
by
Aldicarb
in
the
early
1980'
s,
the
SCDHS
established
a
groundwater
monitoring
program
for
pesticides
and
other
chemicals
of
concern.
The
SCDHS
has
consistently
demonstrated
the
presence
of
older
persistent
residues
from
pesticides
like
Aldicarb,
which
are
no
longer
used
on
Long
Island.
In
a
joint
study
conducted
by
USGS,
NYSDEC
and
SCDHS,
wells
(
including
water
supply
wells)
with
known
or
suspected
pesticide
residues
were
sampled.
The
primary
purpose
of
this
study
was
to
supplement
the
SCDHS
monitoring
program.
Because
all
of
these
samples
were
from
raw,
untreated
water
from
the
surficial
aquifer,
the
results
are
not
representative
of
chemical
characteristics
of
drinking
water.

Pesticides
monitored
included
many
of
the
most
commonly
used
pesticides
in
the
country.
The
laboratory
methods
used
to
analyze
the
samples
collected
had
lower
detection
limits
for
many
pesticides
than
do
the
methods
used
by
SCDHS.
Because
this
study
was
intended
to
complement
the
SCDHS
program,
however,
many
pesticides
that
are
commonly
detected
by
the
SCDHS
(
including
Aldicarb
and
its
degredates)
were
not
investigated.
Thus,
the
results
do
not
represent
a
complete
description
of
all
pesticide
residues
in
groundwater
in
Suffolk
County.
The
report
presents
data
on
the
concentration
and
frequency
of
detection
of
the
60
pesticide
residues
monitored
and
discusses
the
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
27
concentrations
in
relation
to
Federal
and
State
water
quality
standards.
The
report
also
relates
the
detection
of
selected
herbicide
residues
to
the
predominant
land
use
around
50
wells
sampled
and
discusses
the
concentrations
of
these
residues
in
relation
to
one
another.

Of
the
60
pesticide
residues
monitored,
25
were
detected.
Five
of
these
were
insecticides
or
insecticide
metabolites
(
i.
e.,
pesticide
breakdown
products).
At
least
one
pesticide
or
metabolite
was
detected
in
44
of
the
50
samples.
Some
samples
contained
as
many
as
11
different
pesticides
or
pesticide
metabolites.
Many
of
the
compounds
had
not
been
previously
monitored.
The
data
collected
indicated
that
some
pesticides
that
are
commonly
monitored
by
the
SCDHS
are
present
at
trace
levels,
well
below
the
level
of
detection
provided
by
the
laboratory
analytical
methods
used
by
the
SCDHS.
The
concentrations
of
only
a
few
compounds
detected
in
the
samples
collected
exceeded
applicable
State
or
Federal
water
quality
standards.
However,
no
Federal
drinking
water
standards
have
been
established
for
many
of
the
pesticides
and
pesticide
metabolites
that
were
detected.

Comparison
of
the
presence
of
seven
frequently
detected
herbicides
or
herbicide
metabolites
with
land
use
around
the
wells
indicates
that
the
occurrence
of
these
pesticides
is
related
to
land
use,
such
as
weed
control
associated
with
agricultural
production
and
at
utility
substations
and
utility
rights­
ofway
and
possibly
residential
uses.

The
25
pesticide
residues
that
were
detected
are
as
follows:

Insecticides:
p,
p,­
DDE;
Carbofuran;
Dieldrin;
Carbaryl;
Lindane.
Herbicides:
Atrazine;
Simazine;
Deethylatrazine;
Metolachlor;
Metolachlor
ESA;
Metolachlor
OA;
Tebuthiuron;
Deisopropylatrazine;
Metribuzin;
Prometon;
Alachlor;
Alachlor
ESA;
EPTC;
Linuron;
Trifluralin;
2,6­
Diethylanaline;
Alachlor
OA;
Cyanazine;
Hydroxyatrazine;
Terbacil.

Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
to
Detect
Pesticide
Contamination
in
Groundwaters
of
Nassau
and
Suffolk
Counties,
NY
(
June
1999)

As
stated
in
this
report,
the
goal
of
this
study
was
to
obtain
water
quality
information
across
the
full
geographic
area
of
both
Nassau
and
Suffolk
Counties.
The
main
objective
of
the
sampling
program
was
to
identify
pesticides
and
metabolites
that
leach
to
groundwater
and
to
help
define
where
these
pesticide
impacts
have
occurred.
The
sampling
program
was
not
randomly
conducted.
In
addition
to
obtaining
the
geographic
coverage
needed,
specific
areas
thought
to
be
vulnerable
to
pesticide
impacts
were
targeted
by
the
testing
program.
The
results
of
the
testing
are
representative
only
of
the
specific
locales
tested,
and
should
not
be
considered
representative
of
groundwater
quality
in
all
areas.
The
sampling
program
was
conducted
by
collecting
groundwater
samples
from
monitoring
wells,
private
domestic
wells,
and
public
supply
wells,
and
analyzing
them
for
a
wide
range
of
pesticide
and
metabolite
compounds.
In
cases
where
a
public
or
private
well
contained
water
treatment,
only
the
raw
water
was
sampled
for
this
project.
A
total
of
2,306
samples
were
collected
and
analyzed
for
this
project,
including
1,901
from
Suffolk
County.
Fifty
percent
of
the
samples
were
collected
in
Suffolk's
five
eastern
towns
to
determine
pesticide
impacts
to
private
wells
and
because
the
region
contains
the
bulk
of
Long
Island's
agricultural
acreage.

Pesticides
were
found
in
every
type
of
well
tested,
and
were
detected
at
levels
exceeding
drinking
water
Maximum
Contaminant
levels
(
MCLs)
in
all
well
types.
All
of
the
community
supply
wells
found
to
exceed
MCLs
were
either
removed
from
active
service
or
fitted
with
granular
activated
carbon
filtration
for
contaminant
reduction.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
28
The
results
indicate
that
89
percent
of
the
wells
exceeding
pesticide
related
MCLs
are
located
in
Suffolk's
five
eastern
towns,
that
is
15.4
percent
of
the
wells
tested
in
eastern
Suffolk
exceeded
an
MCL.
Private
wells
in
agricultural
areas
of
Suffolk's
five
eastern
towns
are
at
the
highest
risk
of
pesticide
contamination,
with
50.5
percent
(
324
of
642
wells
tested)
containing
detections
of
pesticides.
The
data
show
that
30
different
pesticides
(
including
metabolites)
were
detected
in
(
western
and
eastern)
Suffolk
wells.
Ten
pesticides
(
in
Nassau
and
Suffolk)
exceeding
drinking
water
MCLs
are
now
banned
from
use
on
Long
island
due
to
concerns
of
potential
adverse
health
effects
and
ability
to
leach
to
groundwater.
Banned
or
discontinued
pesticides
accounted
for
88
percent
of
the
wells
that
exceeded
MCLs.
The
stability
and
persistence
of
pesticide
residues
in
Long
Island
groundwater
is
clearly
demonstrated
by
the
fact
that
six
of
the
10
chemicals
found
to
exceed
drinking
water
MCLs
have
been
banned
from
sale
or
use
for
10
to
20
years.

Due
to
the
movement
of
groundwater,
and
the
migration
of
contaminants
with
it,
private
wells
located
hundreds
to
thousands
of
feet
downgradient
of
the
points
of
likely
chemical
applications,
were
found
impacted
by
agricultural
pesticides.
Groundwater
impacts
resulting
from
pesticide
use
at
golf
courses
were
examined
by
testing
31
wells
located
at
18
Long
Island
golf
courses.
One
pesticide/
pesticide
metabolite
was
found
above
the
MCL
in
the
golf
course
monitoring,
in
one
well
in
each
county.
The
monitoring
results
indicate
that
turf
management
practices
can
effectively
control
impacts
to
groundwater
at
golf
courses.
The
implementation
of
Best
Management
Practices
can
even
further
reduce
the
levels
of
pesticides
found
in
the
groundwater.

The
SCDHS
has
done
a
follow­
up
study
of
golf
courses
with
an
expanded
list
of
analytes
and
with
new
monitoring
wells
at
five
more
courses
in
the
county,
including
Shinnecock,
National,
and
Maidstone.
Preliminary
data
suggests
that
a
few
low
concentrations
of
pesticides
exist.
The
NYSDEC
has
been
funding
the
monitoring
program
for
three
years
at
about
$
100,000
per
year.

The
pesticide
chemicals
detected
in
Suffolk
County
Wells
were:

alachlor;
aldicarb
sulfoxide+
sulfone;
arsenic;
atrazine;
bis
2­
ethylhexyl
phthalate;
cadmium;
carbofuran;
2,4­
D;
dicamba;
1,2
dichloroethane;
1,2
dichloropropane,
1,3
dichloropropane;
dieldrin;
dinoseb;
ethylene
dibromide
(
EDB);
endosulfan
sulfate;
ethofumesate;
MCPP;
metalaxyl;
methomyl;
metolachlor;
metribuzin;
4­
nitrophenol;
oxamyl;
prometon;
propachlor;
simazine;
tebuthiuron;
tetrachloroterephthalic
acid;
1,2,3­
trichloropropoane
(
Note:
In
this
study
chlordane
and
propoxur
were
detected
in
Nassau,
but
not
Suffolk,
County
wells).

Environmental
Impacts
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
Study
Area
Associated
with
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
(
see
Figure
6­
2)

New
York
State
Department
of
Health
Sampling
Water,
sediment
and
fish
samples
taken
from
the
Peconic
River
outside
of
BNL,
as
part
of
the
New
York
State
Department
of
Health
monitoring
program,
contain
measurable
levels
of
different
radioactive
materials.
The
detected
radioactive
materials
included
tritium
(
H­
3),
cobalt­
60
(
Co­
60),
strontium­
90
(
Sr­
90),
cesium­
137
(
Cs­
137),
and
americium
(
Am­
241).
The
observed
concentrations
of
these
radionuclides
are
more
than
can
be
attributed
to
fall­
out
(
from
above
ground
atomic
weapon
tests).
This
indicates
that
discharges
from
BNL
have
contributed
to
these
observed
concentrations.
The
radiation
dose
from
the
observed
radionuclide
concentrations
in
fish
is
small.
At
less
than
one
millirem
per
year,
the
average
committed
effective
dose
equivalent
from
radioactive
materials
that
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
29
Table
6­
3.
Pesticide
Chemicals
Detected
in
Suffolk
County
Wells
in
Two
Recent
Studies.

Pesticide
Chemical
Pesticides
and
Their
Metabolites
in
Wells
of
Suffolk
County,
New
York
1998
(
June
1999)*
Water
Quality
Monitoring
Program
to
Detect
Pesticide
Contamination
in
Groundwaters
of
Nassau
and
Suffolk
Counties,
NY
(
June
1999)
Alachlor
X
X
Alachlor
ESA
X
Alachlor
OA
X
aldicarb
sulfoxide+
sulfone
X
arsenic
X
atrazine
X
X
bis
2­
ethylhexyl
phthalate
X
cadmium
X
Carbaryl
X
carbofuran
X
X
Cyanazine
X
2,4­
D
X
p,
p,­
DDE
X
Deethylatrazine
X
Deisopropylatrazine
X
dicamba
X
1,2
dichloroethane
X
1,2
dichloropropane
X
1,3
dichloropropane
X
dieldrin
X
X
2,6­
Diethylanaline
X
dinoseb
X
ethylene
dibromide
(
EDB)
X
endosulfan
sulfate
X
EPTC
X
ethofumesate
X
Hydroxyatrazine
X
Lindane
X
Linuron
X
MCPP
X
metalaxyl
X
methomyl
X
metolachlor
X
X
Metolachlor
ESA
X
Metolachlor
OA
X
metribuzin
X
X
4­
nitrophenol
X
oxamyl
X
prometon
X
X
propachlor
X
simazine
X
X
tebuthiuron
X
Terbacil
X
Tebuthiuron
X
tetrachloroterephthalic
acid
X
1,2,3­
trichloropropoane
X
Trifluralin
X
*
Because
this
study
was
intended
to
complement
the
SCDHS
program,
many
pesticides
that
are
commonly
detected
by
the
SCDHS
(
including
aldicarb
and
its
degredates)
were
not
investigated
in
this
study.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
30
may
be
attributed
to
releases
from
BNL
is
less
than
one
percent
of
the
established
New
York
State
limit
of
100
millirems
per
year.
The
projected
radiation
dose
from
Sr­
90
and
Cs­
137
contamination
in
the
river
is
less
than
10
percent
of
the
New
York
State
guidance
value
for
remedial
action,
and
therefore
no
remedial
action
to
reduce
contamination
in
the
Peconic
River
is
called
for.
The
overall
trend
of
the
concentration
of
Sr­
90
and
Cs­
137
in
fish
shows
a
decrease
with
time.

Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
Sampling
BNL
is
a
DOE
laboratory
conducting
research
in
physical,
biomedical,
and
environmental
sciences,
as
well
as
in
selected
energy
technologies.
Brookhaven
Science
Associates,
a
not­
for­
profit
research
management
organization,
operates
BNL
under
a
contract
with
DOE.
In
1980,
the
BNL
site
was
placed
on
the
NYSDEC
list
of
Inactive
Hazardous
Waste
Disposal
Sites.
In
1989,
it
was
included
on
EPA's
National
Priorities
List
of
Superfund
sites.
BNL's
inclusion
on
the
Superfund
and
NYSDEC
lists
was
primarily
due
to
the
effects
of
discontinued
past
operations,
which
could
impact
Long
Island's
sole
source
aquifer,
the
Island's
sole
primary
drinking
water
source.

As
reported
in
the
Proposed
Plan
for
Operable
Unit
V:
Peconic
River/
Sewage
Treatment
Plant
(
BNL,
February
9,
2000)
BNL
has
a
total
of
29
Areas
of
Concern.
To
ensure
effective
management
of
them,
these
areas
were
grouped
into
six
distinct
Operable
Units
(
see
Figure
6­
3).
Only
Operable
Unit
V
potentially
influences
the
Peconic
Study
area.
Operable
Unit
V
consists
of
three
Areas
of
Concern:
the
Sewage
Treatment
Plant
(
AOC
4))
(
see
Figure
6­
4);
Capped
and
Retired
Formerly
Leaking
Sewer
Pipes
within
the
Operable
Unit
(
AOC
21);
and
the
Former
Eastern
Tritium
Plume
(
AOC
23).
The
Sewage
Treatment
Plant
AOC
includes
Peconic
River
sediment
and
surface
water,
the
soils
in
the
area
of
the
Sand
Filter
Beds,
Hold­
up
Ponds,
and
the
Satellite
Disposal
Area.

An
OU
V
Remedial
Investigation
was
conducted
to
identify
the
nature
and
extent
of
soil,
sediment,
groundwater,
and
surface
water
contamination.
The
investigation
included
geophysical
and
biological
surveys;
sampling
of
soil,
groundwater,
surface
water,
and
sediments;
chemical
and
radiological
analyses;
benthic
invertebrate
toxicity
testing;
fish
bioaccumulation
studies;
data
validation;
and
preparation
of
the
Remedial
Investigation
and
Risk
Assessment
Report.
Subsequent
to
the
final
Remedial
Investigation
report,
BNL
conducted
a
more
comprehensive
sampling
of
soils,
sediment,
and
water
for
plutonium,
uranium,
and
other
radionuclides.
The
results
of
this
study
are
presented
in
BNL's
Plutonium
Contamination
Characterization
and
Radiological
Dose
and
Risk
Assessment
Report
(
January
21,
2000).

State
and
Federal
standards,
criteria
and
guidance
values
were
reviewed
to
evaluate
the
nature
and
extent
of
contamination
in
soil,
sediment,
groundwater
and
surface
water.
Screening
criteria
used
to
identify
contamination
were
derived
from
these
requirements.
These
screening
criteria
are
given
in
the
Operable
Unit
V
Remedial
Investigation
and
Risk
Assessment
Report.
The
principle
contaminants
that
have
been
released
to
the
STP
include
metals,
solvents,
and
radionuclides.
Elevated
levels
of
metals
and
PCBs,
and
low
levels
of
pesticides
and
radionuclides,
were
detected
in
Peconic
River
sediment.
Concentrations
were
highest
in
on­
site
surface
sediments
and
most
prominent
in
the
on­
site
depositional
areas
located
approximately
0.5
mile,
1
mile,
and
1.5
miles
downstream
of
the
STP.
The
following
is
a
summary
of
the
range
of
contaminants
found
in
the
Peconic
River
sediments,
STP
soils,
fish,
sludge
inside
and
soils
surrounding
the
retired
and
capped
sewer
lines,
and
groundwater.

Peconic
River
Sediments:
Fourteen
inorganic
contaminants
were
detected
at
concentrations
greater
than
the
sediment­
screening
levels
(
see
Figure
6­
5).
Of
these,
the
metals
mercury
(
maximum
24.5
mg/
kg),
silver
(
maximum
171
mg/
kg),
and
copper
(
maximum
1140
mg/
kg)
were
detected
most
often,
and
at
the
highest
concentrations
above
the
screening
level.
Other
analytes
detected
at
concentrations
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
31
above
the
screening
level
included
the
PCB
Aroclor­
1254
(
maximum
1.5
mg/
kg),
DDD
(
maximum
0.096
mg/
kg),
DDE
(
maximum
0.089
mg/
kg),
alpha­
chlordane
(
maximum
0.073
mg/
kg),
gamma­
chlordane
(
maximum
0.043
mg/
kg),
and
endosulfan
(
0.018
mg/
kg).
Contamination
was
highest
in
surface
sediments
and
was
most
prominent
in
a
depositional
area
approximately
one
mile
downstream
of
the
STP.

Cesium­
137,
americium­
241,
and
plutonium
239/
240
were
found
at
higher
activities
in
the
Peconic
River
sediments
than
in
the
reference
sediment
samples
collected
from
the
Connetquot
River,
a
river
with
similar
characteristics
as
the
Peconic
River
and
outside
the
influence
of
the
BNL
site.
The
maximum
cesium­
137
concentration
in
sediments
on
site
was
21.1
picoCuries
per
gram
(
pCi/
g).
The
maximum
americium­
241
and
plutonium­
239/
240
concentrations
were
also
found
on­
site
at
1.91
pCi/
g
and
0.158
pCi/
g,
respectively.
Similar
to
the
inorganic
contaminants,
the
low­
level
radionuclides
detected
were
highest
in
the
surface
sediments
and
were
most
prominent
in
a
depositional
area
approximately
1
mile
downstream
of
the
STP.

Sewage
Treatment
Plant
Soils:
Surface
soils
and
subsurface
soils
in,
or
in
the
vicinity
of,
the
STP
(
including
the
sand
filter
beds
and
related
berms)
were
found
to
contain
elevated
levels
of
several
inorganic
constituents
including
mercury,
silver,
copper,
chromium,
lead,
zinc,
and
thallium.
The
maximum
concentrations
were
15.1
milligrams
per
kilogram
(
mg/
kg)
for
mercury,
112
mg/
kg
for
silver,
80.7
mg/
kg
for
copper,
157
mg/
kg
for
chromium,
95.5
mg/
kg
for
lead,
60.7
mg/
kg
for
zinc,
and
1.2
mg/
kg
for
thallium.
Elevated
levels
were
concentrated
in
the
top
6
inches
and
did
not
extend
beyond
a
depth
of
3
feet.

In
the
soils
of
the
sand
filter
beds
and
berms,
the
most
frequently
detected
radionuclides
were
naturally
occurring
uranium­
233/
234
and
uranium­
238;
all
detected
activities
of
both
were
within
the
range
of
background.
Plutonium
was
detected
less
frequently,
and
at
low
activities.
The
maximum
activity
of
plutonium­
239/
240
in
the
berms
was
7.31
pCi/
g,
and
in
the
sand
filter
beds
was
0.399
pCi/
g.
The
radionuclide
with
the
highest
levels
was
cesium­
137;
its
levels
were
highest
in
the
berms
and
areas
adjacent
to
the
sand
filter­
beds,
with
a
maximum
concentration
of
98.8
pCi/
g.
Americium­
241
was
highest
in
the
sand
filter
beds
with
a
maximum
concentration
of
3.74
pCi/
g.
Generally,
the
activities
of
the
radionuclides
were
highest
in
the
top
one
foot
of
soil.

Peconic
River
Fish:
Fish
collected
from
the
Peconic
River
headwaters
had
bioaccumulated
PCBs
(
the
average
Aroclor­
1254
concentration
in
fish
on
site
was
1.8
mg/
kg).
Naturally
occurring
uranium
radionuclides
were
detected
in
some
of
the
fish
samples,
with
highest
activities
in
the
inedible
portions
of
the
fish.
The
radionuclide
cesium­
137
was
detected
most
frequently.
It
was
found
in
higher
concentrations
in
fish
collected
on­
site,
and
generally
in
slightly
higher
concentrations
in
the
flesh
and
skin
than
in
the
bone
and
viscera.
The
highest
activity
of
cesium­
137
in
fish
was
in
a
whole­
body
sample
of
pickerel
taken
on
site
(
2.712
pCi/
g).

Sludge
and
Soil
(
retired
and
capped
sewer
line):
The
Laboratory
sampled
soils
surrounding
the
areas
where
leaks
were
identified
along
the
retired
and
capped
sewer
line
during
the
Operable
Unit
V
investigation.
The
results
of
the
investigation
identified
only
a
few
areas
with
low
concentrations
of
inorganic
constituents.
This
indicates
that
the
sewer
line
leading
to
the
STP
is
not
a
likely
source
of
significant
contamination
to
the
surrounding
soils.
The
formerly
leaking
pipes
in
Operable
Unit
V
were
replaced
in
1993.
As
part
of
a
more
recent
investigation,
sludge
was
collected
from
the
bottom
of
manholes
along
the
retired
and
capped
sewer
line
and
analyzed
for
radionuclides.
The
results
identified
elevated
activities
of
a
few
radionuclides.
Americium­
241
and
cesium­
137
were
found
at
the
highest
activities
relative
to
screening
levels,
and
plutonium
was
detected,
generally
at
low
levels.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
32
Groundwater:
Current
groundwater
sampling
results
indicate
that
levels
of
tritium
in
the
groundwater
are
well
below
the
drinking
water
standard.
The
highest
concentration
of
trichloroethene
(
TCE)
found
on
site
during
the
Remedial
Investigation
was
32
ppb.
Maximum
off­
site
levels
were
8.5
ppb,
slightly
greater
than
the
drinking
water
standard
of
5
ppb.
Concentrations
of
VOCs
are
decreasing
in
magnitude.
A
more
recent
sampling
in
1999
found
a
maximum
TCE
concentration
on
site
of
17
ppb
and
a
maximum
off­
site
concentration
of
8.2
ppb.

The
elevated
levels
of
TCE
in
groundwater
off
site
were
found
at
depths
(
200
feet)
below
the
depths
at
which
residential
wells
are
typically
screened,
and
public
exposure
to
TCE
in
groundwater
is
unlikely.
Homes
and
businesses
in
the
Operable
Unit
V
area
were
offered
public
water
in
1997.
Seventeen
new
monitoring
wells
have
been
installed
as
outpost
wells
on
the
eastern
perimeter
of
the
public
water
hookup
area.
Monitoring
of
contaminants
in
groundwater
will
continue.

Both
soil
and
groundwater
samples
were
collected
in
the
area
of
the
Hold­
up
Ponds
during
the
investigations,
and
no
evidence
of
leakage
was
found.
No
further
action
is
planned
and
these
ponds
will
remain
as
part
of
the
operating
Sewage
Treatment
Plant.
A
groundwater
monitoring
network
will
be
put
in
place
as
part
of
the
Lab's
Groundwater
Improvement
Program
(
Phase
II)
to
assure
continued
effectiveness
of
the
Hold­
up
Ponds.

Extensive
sampling
and
exploratory
excavations
were
conducted
at
the
Satellite
Disposal
Area
and
no
evidence
of
contamination
was
found.
In
1985,
bromine
trifluoride
cylinders
and
two
boxes
of
laboratory
chemicals
were
removed
from
the
Satellite
Disposal
Area.
No
additional
remediation
is
planned
for
this
area.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
33
Figure
6­
2.
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory's
Location
with
Respect
to
New
York
State
and
Long
Island
(
from
Proposed
Plan
for
Operable
Unit
V:
Peconic
River/
Sewage
Treatment
Plant,
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
(
BNL,
February
9,
2000)).

Figure
6­
3.
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory's
Six
Operable
Units
and
OU
V
Areas
of
Concern
(
from
Proposed
Plan
for
Operable
Unit
V;
Peconic
River/
Sewage
Treatment
Plant,
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
(
BNL:
February
9,
2000)).
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
34
Figure
6­
4.
BNL's
Sewage
Treatment
Plant
(
AOC
4)
and
the
Sub­
Areas
of
Concern
within
the
plant
(
from
Proposed
Plan
for
Operable
Unit
V:
Peconic
River/
Sewage
Treatment
Plant,
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
(
BNL:
February
9,
2000)).

Figure
6­
5.
Areal
Extent
of
Sediments
Contaminated
or
Potentially
Contaminated
with
Metals
above
Toxicity­
Based
Cleanup
Goals
(
from
Proposed
Plan
for
Operable
Unit
V:
Peconic
River/
Sewage
Treatment
Plant,
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
(
BNL:
February
9,
2000)).
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
35
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
The
Toxics
Action
Plan
addresses
research
and
monitoring,
specific
strategies
for
sites
of
concern
and
nonpoint
sources
of
pollution,
and
general
management
strategies
for
pollution
prevention
and
regulation
of
toxics
within
the
estuary.
The
actions
encompass
a
wide
scope
of
management
strategies,
including:

 
Remediation
at
specific
sites
or
sources;

 
Enforcement
of
existing
and
new
regulatory
requirements
that
control
toxics;

 
Reduction
of
the
use
of
toxics;

 
Pollution
prevention
programs;

 
Research,
monitoring,
and
data
analysis;
and,

 
Public
Education
(
included
in
the
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Management
Plan).

In
the
CCMP,
some
steps
within
the
actions
have
been
identified
as
priorities,
as
indicated
under
the
step
number.
The
PEP
will
seek
to
implement
priority
actions
in
the
near
term.
Priorities
may
be
either
new
or
ongoing,
commitments
or
recommendations.
Completing
some
priority
actions
will
not
require
any
new
or
additional
resources
because
they
are
being
undertaken
through
"
base
programs"
or
with
funding
that
has
been
committed.
In
other
cases,
new
or
additional
resources
need
to
be
secured
by
some
or
all
of
the
responsible
entities
in
order
to
complete
the
priority
actions.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
36
TOXICS
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
T­
1.
Review
Historical
Monitoring
Data
and
Conduct
New
Monitoring
Studies
Where
Needed
to
Further
Characterize
Sources,
Loadings,
and
Impacts
of
Toxic
Contaminants.

T­
2.
Continue
Remedial
Efforts
and
Review
of
Regulatory
Compliance
at
Sites
of
Concern
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.

T­
3.
Assess
Alternatives
to
Chlorination
for
Disinfection
at
Sewage
Treatment
Plants.

T­
4.
Reduce
Loadings
of
Pesticides
and
Herbicides
within
the
Peconic
Estuary.

T­
5.
Develop
Requirements
Regarding
Proper
Storage
and
Disposal
of
Toxic
Substances
and
Chemicals
Associated
with
Construction
Sites
and
Road,
Highway,
and
Bridge
Operation
and
Maintenance
and
Construction
Activities.

T­
6.
Adopt
Requirements
for
Controlling
Toxic
Loadings
in
Stormwater
Runoff
and
Activities
in
Developed
Areas.

T­
7.
Explore
Management
Strategies
that
Emphasize
the
Elimination
or
Reduction
of
Toxic
Substances.

T­
8
Ensure
that
Dredged
Material
is
Managed
and
Placed
in
Such
a
Way
as
to
Reduce
Toxic
Impacts
Associated
with
Contaminated
Sediments.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
37
Addresses
Toxics
Management
Objectives
1
and
5.

Periodic
monitoring
of
the
groundwater,
surface
water,
sediments,
and
organisms
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
is
necessary
to
identify
new
or
emerging
problems
and
to
assess
and
measure
the
impact
of
ongoing
programs
and
CCMP
management
actions.
In
particular,
additional
sampling
and
analysis
of
sediments
in
creeks
and
peripheral
embayments
may
be
warranted
as
metals
such
as
arsenic,
lead,
cadmium,
and
zinc,
as
well
as
PAHs
have
been
detected
in
various
surveys,
and
the
potential
for
pesticide
contamination
also
exists
in
the
estuary.
Investigations
should
focus
on
agriculturally
influenced
creeks
(
including
sampling
for
pesticides),
as
well
as
creeks
influenced
by
development
and
those
with
significant
stormwater
runoff
inputs.
Former
agricultural
land
may
also
be
a
continuing
source
of
pesticide
inputs.

Past
and
present
marinas
and
boatyards
are
potential
sources
of
heavy
metal
contamination
if
boat
bottom
scraping
and
painting
takes
place
and
paint
scrapings
(
which
are
almost
entirely
copper)
were
not
collected
and
disposed
of
properly.
Additional
metals
of
concern
in
these
sites
include
lead,
zinc,
mercury
and
tin.
Historic
aerial
photos
could
be
used
to
identify
sites
where
boat
bottom
maintenance
activities
took
place
in
the
past.

Additional
related
actions
are
included
in
the
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter
of
this
CCMP,
including
an
action
addressing
fish
consumption
advisories.

Steps
T­
1.1
Include
toxics
monitoring
in
the
PEP
Long­
Term
Monitoring
Plan.

T­
1.2
Conduct
toxicity
testing
as
well
as
chemical­
specific
analyses
of
Peconic
Estuary
Priority
sediments,
including
open
water
areas,
tidal
creeks,
and
peripheral
embayments.
Where
toxicity
is
observed,
identify
the
toxic
agent(
s)
of
concern.

T­
1.3
Continue
to
collect
and
evaluate
data
on
concentrations
of
bioconcentratable
chemicals
in
mussel
tissue
through
NOAA's
Mussel
Watch
Program.

T­
1.4
Analyze
new
data
collected
in
EPA's
1999
"
Peconic
Estuary
Fish,
Shellfish
and
Priority
Crustacean
Toxics
Survey."
Review
data
on
organic
chemical
and
metal
residues
in
fish
and
shellfish
tissues
to
determine
whether
consumption
advisories
are
due
to
sources
and
loadings
of
toxics
within
the
Peconic
Estuary
System,
and
the
appropriateness
of
existing
NYS
consumption
advisories.

T­
1.5
Re­
evaluate
PEP
sediment
survey
data
to
identify
chemicals
present
above
known
effects
Priority
levels.
Identify
toxics
present
at
low
levels
that
individually
or
cumulatively
may
be
affecting
aquatic
resources.
T­
1
Review
Historical
Monitoring
Data
and
Conduct
New
Monitoring
Studies
Where
Needed
to
Further
Characterize
Sources,
Loadings,
and
Impacts
of
Toxic
Contaminants.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
38
T­
1.6
Determine
the
potential
local
source
of
PCBs
in
Meetinghouse
Creek
and,
once
Priority
identified,
control
or
otherwise
remediate
the
source.

T­
1.7
Monitor
progress
on
research
on
endocrine
disruptors,
and
encourage
pollution
prevention
programs
to
reduce
loadings
or
address
potential
sources
of
these
contaminants.

T­
1.8
Identify
past
and
present
marinas/
boatyard
sites
as
potential
sources
of
heavy
metal
Priority
contamination
to
the
estuary;
quantify
the
extent
of
the
problem
and
possible
effects
on
the
estuary.

Responsible
Entities
T­
1.1
PEP
(
EPA,
NYSDEC
and
SCDHS),
other
public
and
private
groups
T­
1.2
EPA
(
lead),
PEP
T­
1.3
Data
collection:
NOAA
(
lead);
data
evaluation:
EPA
(
lead),
PEP,
NOAA
T­
1.4
EPA
(
lead
for
data
collection
and
report
preparation);
EPA,
NYSDEC,
NYSDOH
for
data
interpretation
T­
1.5
PEP
T­
1.6
Investigation:
NYSDEC;
control/
remediation:
NYSDEC,
responsible
parties
T­
1.7
EPA
(
lead),
NYSDEC
T­
1.8
PEP
(
through
contract)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
39
Addresses
Toxics
Management
Objectives
4
and
5.

There
are
three
Federal
Superfund
Sites
on
the
National
Priorities
List
in
the
study
area:
the
North
Sea
Municipal
Landfill
(
North
Sea,
NY),
Rowe
Industries
(
Sag
Harbor,
NY),
and
a
portion
of
the
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
Site
(
Upton,
NY).
The
(
Bulova)
Watch
Case
Factory
Site
(
Sag
Harbor,
NY)
and
a
portion
of
the
Navy
Weapons
Industrial
Reserve
Plant
(
NWIRP)
Site
(
Calverton,
NY)
are
also
under
investigation
or
being
remediated
or
otherwise
permitted
at
the
Federal
or
State
level.
These
sites
are
contributors
or
potential
contributors
of
toxic
contaminants
to
the
estuary.
The
following
actions
address
site­
specific
concerns
at
Superfund
sites,
inactive
hazardous
waste
disposal
sites,
remediation
efforts
under
the
Resource
Conservation
and
Recovery
Act
(
RCRA)
sites,
and
the
facilities
regulated
under
the
State
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
SPDES).

Marinas
and
boatyards
represent
areas
of
particular
concern
due
to
their
proximity
to
the
water
and
certain
maintenance
and
repair
actives
that
may
occur
there.

Steps
T­
2.1(
A)
Continue
remedial
efforts
and
evaluate
impacts,
monitoring,
and
ensure
consistency
with
local
requirements
associated
with
the
surface
water
discharge
for
the
Rowe
Industries
site.

T­
2.1(
B)
Continue
groundwater
monitoring
at
the
North
Sea
Municipal
Landfill;
implement
benthic
community
and
sediment
toxicity
testing
to
ensure
remediation
efforts
are
achieved.

T­
2.1(
C)
Continue
oversight
and
remedial
efforts
at
the
(
Bulova)
Watch
Case
Factory
site.

T­
2.2
Complete
inventory
of
RCRA
facilities
within
the
Peconic
Estuary
System;
review
compliance
history
of
facilities;
ensure
all
facilities
comply
with
regulatory
and
permit
requirements.

T­
2.3
Ensure
that
upon
Environmental
Benefits
Permitting
Strategy
(
EBPS)
review,
the
effluent
limitations
and/
or
monitoring
requirements
in
BNL
SPDES
Permit
(
NY­
0005835)
for
Outfall
001
(
the
sewage
treatment
plant
discharge)
will
be
revised
if
findings
from
the
industrial­
type
effluent
monitoring
program
or
any
other
available
data
indicates
that
increased
protection
is
needed.
Permit
elements
that
will
be
evaluated,
as
appropriate,
include:
pretreatment,
BMPs,
toxicity
testing,
and
bioaccumulative
contaminants.

T­
2.4
Ensure
that
BNL
adequately
implements
its
Environmental
Management
System
focused
Priority
on
environmental
compliance
and
emphasizing
pollution
prevention
as
specified
in
the
EPA/
DOE
March
1998
MOA.
T­
2.
Continue
Remedial
Efforts
and
Review
of
Regulatory
Compliance
at
Sites
of
Concern
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
40
T­
2.5
Implement
environmental
clean­
up
remedies
under
Superfund
for
Operable
Unit
V
at
Priority
BNL.
Ensure
that
the
remedial
investigation
currently
underway
adequately
addresses
human
health
(
chemical
and
radiological)
and
ecological
impacts,
including
potential
downstream
and
off­
site
impacts.

T­
2.6
Continue
to
implement
the
RCRA
corrective
action
program
at
the
NWIRP.
Ensure
that
the
Corrective
Measures
Study
adequately
addresses
human
health
and
ecological
impacts,
including
potential
downstream
and
off­
site
impacts.

T­
2.7
Conduct
seasonal
inspections
of
marinas
and
boatyards
to
ensure
maintenance
and
repair
activities
are
being
done
properly
and
there
is
proper
disposal
of
wastes.

Responsible
Entities
T­
2.1(
A)
EPA
T­
2.1(
B)
EPA
(
lead)

T­
2.1(
C)
NYSDEC
(
lead)

T­
2.2
EPA
(
lead)

T­
2.3
NYSDEC
(
lead),
BNL
T­
2.4
EPA
(
lead),
USDOE,
BNL
T­
2.5
EPA
(
lead),
NYSDEC,
BNL,
USDOE,
NYSDOH
T­
2.6
EPA
(
lead),
NYSDEC
T­
2.7
NYSDEC
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
41
Addresses
Toxics
Management
Objectives
3
and
4.

Disinfection
of
effluent
from
STPs
is
essential
to
prevent
the
spread
of
disease.
Disinfection
can
be
accomplished
by
a
variety
of
methods,
all
of
which
have
been
proven
effective
under
specific
conditions.
Chlorine
may
have
toxic
effects
on
living
organisms
following
discharge
when
it
becomes
complexed
in
seawater
with
organic
compounds.
Ultraviolet
(
UV)
disinfection
has
proven
to
be
an
effective
disinfectant
alternative.
Presently,
the
Brookhaven
National
Laboratory
and
Plum
Island
Animal
Disease
Center
STPs
use
and
the
Riverhead
and
Sag
Harbor
STPs
have
proposed
UV
disinfection
in
planned
plant
upgrades;
use
of
UV
has
been
piloted
on
a
portion
of
the
Shelter
Island
Heights
STP
flow.
The
STP
at
the
former
Naval
Weapons
Industrial
Reserve
Plant
(
NWIRP)
in
Calverton,
New
York,
continues
to
use
chlorine
disinfection.
The
permit
for
this
facility
is
expected
to
be
modified
significantly
as
redevelopment
plans
for
this
property
move
forward.
This
STP
may
ultimately
discharge
to
groundwater
(
outside
of
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed)
in
place
of
the
current
surface
water
discharge
to
the
Peconic
River
System.

Steps
T­
3.1
Install
UV
disinfection
at
the
Riverhead
and
Sag
Harbor
STPs.
Evaluate
alternatives
to
chlorine
disinfection
at
the
Shelter
Island
Heights
STP
and
the
NWIRP
STP
if
the
effluents
are
of
sufficient
quality
for
alternatives
to
be
effective
and
protective
of
human
health.
See
related
action
P­
10
in
the
Pathogens
Management
Plan.

Responsible
Entities
T­
3.1
Treatment
plant
operators
at
Riverhead,
Sag
Harbor,
Shelter
Island
Heights,
and
the
former
NWIRP;
NYSDEC
T­
3.
Assess
Alternatives
to
Chlorination
for
Disinfection
at
Sewage
Treatment
Plants.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
42
Addresses
Toxics
Management
Objectives
2,
3,
and
4.

Significant
pesticide
contamination
of
groundwater
resources
in
the
Peconic
Estuary
watershed
has
been
documented
in
at
least
two
recent
studies.
This
includes
some
pesticides
that
were
found
in
raw
untreated
groundwater
at
levels
exceeding
drinking
water
Maximum
Contaminant
Levels.
However,
at
the
present
time,
there
are
no
known
environmental
impairments
due
to
pesticides
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
There
is
also
the
potential
for
pesticide
use
to
increase
and
change,
particularly
with
shifts
to
intensive
agriculture
systems
(
e.
g.,
vineyards,
turf
grass,
ornamentals)
and
increased
residential
development.
Some
pesticides
may
enter
surface
waters
directly
with
stormwater
runoff.
Efforts
to
manage
stormwater
primarily
due
to
concerns
of
pathogens
contamination
may
also
result
in
the
prevention
of
direct
loadings
of
pesticides
(
and
other
toxic
substances)
to
surface
waters
(
see
Pathogens
Management
Chapter
of
this
Report).
It
may
be
particularly
important
to
ensure
commercial
applicators
of
pesticides
are
properly
certified,
and
to
eliminate
or
reduce
pesticide
use
on
or
in
the
vicinity
of
wetlands.
A
"
Clean
Sweep"
program
was
successful
in
collecting
and
properly
disposing
of
a
large
quantity
of
agricultural
and
turf/
landscape
maintenance
pesticides
that
were
unusable
and
unwanted.

The
public
has
clearly
indicated
its
preference
for
farmland
preservation
in
the
watershed.
Creating
additional
pesticide
program
requirements
may
be
in
conflict
with
that
goal,
though
there
will
continue
to
be
opportunities
for
applying
best
management
practices.
In
addition,
market
incentives
should
be
explored
as
a
possible
driving
force
for
producing
agricultural
products
using
the
specified
pesticide
management
measure
or
for
producing
natural/
organic
agricultural
products,
particularly
for
local
sale.
Standards
could
be
specified,
labeling
developed,
and
promotional
materials
prepared
to
advertise
the
availability
of
products
which
are
produced
using
Integrated
Pest
Management
techniques
or
which
are
pesticide­
free.

Cornell
Cooperative
Extension
will
continue
work
on
the
Peconic
Estuary
Pesticide
Reduction
Initiative
funded
under
a
EPA
Pollution
Prevention
Grant,
demonstrating
on
a
pilot
scale
the
use
of
"
scouting"
by
trained
personnel
to
determine
the
timing
of
pesticide
applications
for
insects,
diseases
and
weeds,
and
provide
training
to
assist
farm
managers
in
acquiring
their
own
"
scouting"
expertise.

State
agencies
have
proposed
the
development/
establishment
of
enforceable
State­
wide
program
requirements
to
manage
pesticide
use
under
the
State
Coastal
Nonpoint
Source
Management
Plan
under
the
Coastal
Zone
Act
Reauthorization
Amendments
(
CZARA).
However,
the
extent
to
which
there
is
compliance
with
the
pesticide
use
management
measure
for
agricultural
areas
under
CZARA
is
unknown.
State
agencies
have
also
proposed
the
development
of
a
Long
Island
Pesticide
Management
Plan.

Pesticide
use
on
public
lands
can
effectively
be
eliminated
or
significantly
reduced,
through
initiatives
such
as
the
Federal
government's
Presidential
Memorandum
that
addresses
"
Environmentally
and
Economically
Beneficial
Practices
on
Federal
Landscaped
Grounds"
and
Suffolk
County's
restrictions
on
pesticide
use
at
county­
owned
golf
courses.
"
Environmental
Principles
for
Golf
Courses
in
the
United
States"
is
a
program
developed
by
golf
and
environmental
organizations,
and
includes
objectives
regarding
reductions
in
pesticide
use.
T­
4.
Reduce
Loadings
of
Pesticides
and
Herbicides
within
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
43
Financial
incentives
for
voluntary
compliance
by
private
growers
with
the
pesticide
management
measure
and
for
Integrated
Pest
Management
(
IPM)
strategies
may
be
available
through
the
1995
Federal
Farm
Bill's
Environmental
Quality
Incentives
Program
(
EQIP).
The
Suffolk
County
Office
of
the
United
States
Department
of
Agriculture
(
USDA)­
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
(
NRCS)
should
apply
for
funding
from
the
NYS
NRCS
Office
for
a
5­
year
comprehensive
pesticide
management
program
initially
in
the
Towns
of
Riverhead
and
Southold
as
a
priority
and
in
the
other
towns
in
future
years.

Additional
related
actions
are
included
in
the
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter
of
this
CCMP,
including
actions
addressing
pesticide
use
near
wetlands,
dealing
with
certified
commercial
applicators,
reducing
residential
pesticide
use,
and
golf
courses.

Steps
T­
4.1
Continue
to
pursue
development/
establishment
of
the
Long
Island
Pesticide
Management
Priority
Plan
and
enforceable
Statewide
agricultural
pesticide
program
requirements
under
CZARA,
which
reduce
the
potential
for
contamination
of
surface
water
and
ground
water
due
to
the
application
of
pesticides.
In
the
meantime,
seek
commitments
on
a
voluntary
basis
from
landowners
to
comply
with
this
management
measure.

T­
4.2
Plan,
advertise,
and
carry
out
a
"
Clean
Sweep"
program
to
collect
and
properly
dispose
of
Priority
banned
or
unneeded
agricultural
and
turf/
landscaping
pesticides.

T­
4.3
Ensure
that
commercial
pesticide
applicators
and
applicators
of
restricted
use
pesticides
are
properly
certified.
See
related
Public
Outreach
and
Education
Action
POE­
4.1.

T­
4.4
Enforce
the
provisions
of
the
State's
Freshwater
Protection
Law
to
reduce
or
eliminate
loadings
of
pesticides
and
herbicides
on
or
in
the
vicinity
of
wetlands
and
associated
waterbodies.
See
related
Public
Outreach
and
Education
Action
POE­
4.2.

T­
4.5
Develop
and
implement
integrated
pest
management
(
IPM)
programs
that
manage
pests
with
minimal
impact
on
human
health
and
the
environment.

T­
4.6
Develop
and
implement
a
comprehensive
agricultural
pesticide
management
proposal
for
Priority
funding
by
the
USDA.

T­
4.7
Investigate
opportunities
for
expansion
of
organic
agricultural
operations
in
the
Peconic
watershed,
as
well
as
marketing
and
labeling
to
encourage
local
sale.

T­
4.8
Implement
IPM
programs
on
public
lands,
such
as
Suffolk
County's
IPM/
pesticide­
free
golf
course
initiative.
Ensure
that
all
Federal
facilities
and
operations
in
the
PEP
Study
Area
comply
with
the
Presidential
Memorandum
of
April
26,
1996
that
addresses
"
Environmentally
and
Economically
Beneficial
Practices
on
Federal
Landscaped
Grounds."

T­
4.9
Restrict
or
ban
pesticides
whose
residues
are
frequently
detected
at
levels
of
environmental
or
public
health
concern
in
groundwater
or
the
estuary.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
44
Responsible
Entities
T­
4.1
NYSDEC,
NYSDOS
(
co­
leads),
NYS
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Markets,
NYSDOH,
and
other
public
and
private
groups
T­
4.2
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
(
lead),
with
NRCS,
EPA,
PEP,
Towns
and
the
agricultural
community
T­
4.3
NYSDEC
(
lead)

T­
4.4
NYSDEC
(
lead)

T­
4.5
State
(
lead);
County,
Town
and
Village
governments
and
agencies,
homes,
businesses
and
farms
T­
4.6
USDA­
NRCS
and
SCSWCD
(
leads)

T­
4.7
PEP
(
lead)

T­
4.8
Federal,
County
governments;
other
governmental
entities
T­
4.9
NYSDEC
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
45
Addresses
Toxics
Management
Objectives
3
and
4.

While
there
are
existing
State
requirements
regarding
pesticide
use
and
handling
and
solid
and
hazardous
waste
disposal
on
State
funded
projects,
there
are
no
comprehensive
regulatory
requirements
specifically
for
construction
site
chemical
use
for
projects
at
the
County
or
local
level.
Aside
from
State
pesticide
management,
spill
management,
and
solid
and
hazardous
waste
disposal
requirements,
there
are
no
comprehensive
regulatory
requirements
regarding
chemical
controls
at
road,
highway,
and
bridge
construction
sites
and
operation
and
maintenance
activities
at
the
county,
town,
and
village
level.

Steps
T­
5.1
Continue
to
pursue
development/
establishment
of
enforceable
State­
wide
program
requirements
which
manage
the
application,
generation,
and
migration
of
toxic
substances,
and
ensure
the
proper
storage
and
disposal
of
toxic
materials
at
all
construction
sites.

T­
5.2
Adopt
requirements
consistent
with
State
program
requirements
at
the
County,
town,
and
village
level
regarding
chemical
controls
at
construction
sites,
including
road,
highway,
and
bridge
construction
sites.
Until
these
are
adopted,
seek
commitments
on
a
voluntary
basis
from
highway
department
personnel
and
contractors
to
comply
with
this
management
measure.

T­
5.3
Adopt
requirements
consistent
with
State
program
requirements
at
the
County,
town,
and
village
level
regarding
chemical
controls
for
road,
highway,
and
bridge
operation
and
maintenance
activities.
In
the
meantime,
seek
commitments
on
a
voluntary
basis
from
highway
department
personnel
and
contractors
to
comply
with
this
management
measure.

Responsible
Entities
T­
5.1
NYSDEC,
NYSDOS
(
co­
leads),
local
governments,
contractors
T­
5.2
NYSDEC,
NYSDOS,
County,
town,
and
village
governments,
contractors
T­
5.3
NYSDEC,
NYSDOS,
County,
town,
and
village
governments,
contractors
T­
5.
Develop
Requirements
Regarding
Proper
Storage
and
Disposal
of
Toxic
Substances
and
Chemicals
Associated
with
Construction
Sites
and
Road,
Highway,
and
Bridge
Operation
and
Maintenance
and
Construction
Activities.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
46
Addresses
Toxics
Management
Objectives
3
and
4.

There
are
many
toxic
pollutants
potentially
associated
with
activities
in
developed
areas,
such
as
road,
highway,
and
bridge
runoff
systems;
stormwater
runoff
and
activities
from
government­
owned
and
operated
sites;
stormwater
and
runoff
from
marinas
and
activities
associated
with
boating;
materials
for
roads,
driveways
and
parking
lot
surfaces
and
management
of
runoff
from
these
surfaces;
fuel
storage
tanks;
swimming
pools;
solvents
used
inappropriately
in
on­
site
septic
systems;
and
treated
lumber.
MTBE
is
a
substance
of
particular
concern
due
to
its
potential
to
contaminate
both
groundwater
and
surface
waters.

Roads,
highways,
and
bridges
under
State
jurisdiction
comply
with
the
CZARA
nonpoint
source
management
measure
to
develop
and
implement
runoff
management
systems
to:
reduce
runoff
pollutant
concentrations
and
volumes;
identify
priority
and
watershed
pollutant
reduction
opportunities
(
e.
g.,
improvements
to
existing
urban
runoff
control
structures);
and
establish
schedules
for
implementing
appropriate
controls.
At
the
present
time,
however,
there
are
no
regulatory
requirements
regarding
controls
for
road,
highway,
and
bridge
runoff
systems
under
county
or
local
jurisdiction.
Additional
work
is
needed
to
ensure
that
there
is
widespread
implementation
with
this
management
measure.

The
Town
of
East
Hampton,
recognizing
that
those
who
own
property
bordering
on
the
Town's
Harbors
(
including
flag
lots,
flag
strips,
and
flag
access
strips)
derive
many
benefits
from
proximity
to
these
waters
and
have
a
special
responsibility
to
help
protect
them,
has
established
a
Harbor
Protection
Overlay
District
(
HPOD).
All
lots
in
this
district
are
subject
to
special
requirements
for
maintaining
or
protecting
wildlife
habitats,
and
surface
water
quality
to
protect
aquatic
life.
The
following
topics
are
addressed
in
this
law:
parking
lots
and
driveways;
runoff
management;
underground
storage
tanks;
swimming
pool
disinfection
systems,
cleaning
and
evacuation
systems;
and
the
use
of
treated
lumber.
Some
of
these
requirements
may
also
be
applicable
in
areas
beyond
the
HPOD.

Additional
related
actions
are
included
in
the
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter
of
this
CCMP,
including
actions
addressing
septic
system
"
cleaners"
and
the
use
of
treated
lumber
in
the
marine
environment.

Steps
T­
6.1
Adopt
requirements
consistent
with
State
program
requirements
at
the
County,
town,
and
village
level
regarding
runoff
management
systems
for
roads,
highways,
and
bridges.
Until
adopted,
seek
commitments
on
a
voluntary
basis
from
highway
department
personnel
and
contractors
to
comply
with
this
management
measure.

T­
6.2
Complete
Environmental
Management
Reviews
(
EMRs)
and
Pollution
Prevention
Opportunity
Assessments
(
PPOAs)
at
Federal
Installations.
T­
6.
Adopt
Requirements
for
Controlling
Toxic
Loadings
from
Stormwater
Runoff
and
Activities
in
Developed
Areas.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
47
T­
6.3
Pursue
development
of
enforceable
Statewide
program
requirements
to
address
stormwater
runoff
at
marinas.
Seek
commitments
on
a
voluntary
basis
from
marina
owners
to
comply
with
this
management
measure.

T­
6.4
Adopt
harbor
protection
overlay­
type
districts
addressing:
materials
for
roads,
driveways
and
parking
lot
surfaces
and
management
of
runoff
from
these
surfaces;
fuel
storage
tanks;
swimming
pools;
treated
woods;
and
other
activities
as
appropriate.
See
related
action
P­
2.2
in
the
Pathogens
Management
Plan.

T­
6.5
Conduct
regular
inspections
of
retail
stores
to
enforce
the
County
ban
on
the
sale
of
illegal
on­
site
disposal
system
(
cesspool)
products.

T­
6.6
Develop
model
guidelines
for
the
placement
of
treated
lumber
in
the
marine
environment
Priority
and
identify
non­
toxic
structures,
consistent
with
PEP's
overall
policy
of
no
net
increase
of
shoreline
hardening
structures.
These
guidelines
should
also
address
disposal
of
treated
lumber
following
demolition.

T­
6.7
Support
Legislative
framework
and
EPA
regulatory
action
to
reduce/
eliminate
the
use
of
Priority
MTBE
in
gasoline.

T­
6.8
Determine
the
adequacy
of
voluntary
programs
addressing
the
replacement
of
onpremises
home
heating
oil
tanks.
Determine
if
regulatory
replacement
programs
should
be
instituted
watershed­
wide
or
in
certain
areas.

Responsible
Entities
T­
6.1
County,
town,
and
village
governments
(
co­
leads),
contractors,
NYSDOS,
NYSDEC
T­
6.2
EPA
(
lead
with
contractor
assistance)
and
other
Federal
departments
and
agencies
T­
6.3
NYSDEC,
NYSDOS
(
co­
leads),
marina
owners
T­
6.4
Local
governments
(
lead),
Towns
of
Riverhead,
Southold,
Southampton,
Shelter
Island,
and
villages
T­
6.5
SCDHS
T­
6.6
PEP
T­
6.7
PEP
T­
6.8
PEP
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
48
Addresses
Toxics
Management
Objectives
3
and
4.

Existing
State
regulatory
programs
are
in
place
to
adequately
address
industrial/
commercial
hazardous
wastes.
Additional
opportunities
may
exist
to
further
reduce
the
potential
for
toxic
pollutants
to
enter
the
environment
through
pollution
prevention
initiatives
involving
reduction/
reuse/
recycling
efforts.
For
example,
areas
immediately
adjacent
to
surface
waters,
serviced
by
sewer
districts,
storm
sewer
collection
systems,
or
businesses
which
create
or
use
toxic
substances
(
e.
g.,
dry
cleaners,
automotive
service
stations)
can
be
targeted
as
priority
candidates
for
pollution
prevention
initiatives.

Town
"
Stop
Throwing
Out
Pollutants"
collection
and
disposal
programs
are
an
effective
means
of
keeping
toxics
from
being
stored
or
disposed
of
improperly.
Programs
vary
among
the
towns,
some
operate
all
the
time,
some
are
limited
to
particular
designated
days.

Mosquito
control
is
an
important
human­
health
issue.
Management
approaches
that
do
not
rely
on
the
use
of
pesticides
should
be
pursued
to
the
extent
possible.
When
deemed
necessary,
pesticide
selection
should
be
limited
to
the
extent
practicable
and
minimizing
adverse
impacts
on
the
environment
should
be
considered
in
their
selection.

Additional
related
actions
are
included
in
the
Public
Education
and
Outreach
Chapter
of
this
CCMP,
including
actions
addressing:
pollution
from
boating,
wet
exhausts
from
marine
engines,
upgrading
old
heating
oil
underground
oil
storage
tanks,
and
general
pollution
prevention
programs.

Actions
T­
7.1
Develop
and
implement
pollution
prevention
programs
targeting
establishments
and
industries,
which
generate
or
use
toxic
materials,
such
as
marinas
and
boatyards.

T­
7.2
Continue
Town
"
Stop
Throwing
Out
Pollutants"
programs.

T­
7.3
Reduce
the
use
of
insecticides
used
for
mosquito
control
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable
that
still
adequately
protect
human
health
and
consider
adverse
impacts
on
the
environment
in
insecticide
selection.
Encourage
good
housekeeping
methods
of
control,
such
as
eliminating/
reducing
standing
water
that
functions
as
breeding
sites.

Responsible
Entities
T­
7.1
PEP
(
lead)

T­
7.2
Towns
T­
7.3
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Public
Works
Division
of
Vector
Control
(
lead),
NYSDEC,
NYSDOH
T­
7.
Explore
Management
Strategies
that
Emphasize
the
Elimination
or
Reduction
of
Toxic
Substances.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
49
Addresses
Toxics
Management
Objectives
3
and
4.

Dredging
and
dredged
material
placement
operations
require
State
and
Federal
permits.
Between
50
and
100
permits
are
approved
annually
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
Generally,
dredged
material
from
the
estuary
consists
of
coarse­
grained
sandy
material
that
can
be
used
beneficially
or
otherwise
placed
upland.
A
beneficial
use
determination
(
BUD)
must
be
obtained
from
the
NYSDEC
to
place
or
beneficially
use
dredged
material
in
an
upland
setting.
Before
a
BUD
can
be
granted,
the
dredged
material
must
be
physically
and
chemically
characterized.
Testing
of
the
dredged
material
for
toxic
substances
may
be
required
depending
on
factors
including:
volume;
make­
up
of
the
material
(
i.
e.,
percent
sand);
place
of
origin;
and
likelihood
of
contamination
(
i.
e.,
proximity
of
present
or
historical
sources
of
contamination).
Testing
for
the
presence
of
toxics
has
typically
not
been
required
in
the
Peconics,
but
if
required
should
include
both
chemical
specific
and
overall
toxicity
considerations,
particularly
sediments
from
tidal
creeks
where
elevated
levels
of
toxics
in
sediments
have
been
observed
(
i.
e.,
Meetinghouse
Creek).

In
addition
to
addressing
dredging
and
dredged
material
management,
there
is
also
a
need
to
continue
to
implement
regulatory
and
voluntary
programs
that
will
reduce
toxics
that
may
accumulate
on
sediments
to
ensure
that
in
the
future
dredged
material
is
suitable
for
beneficial
uses
or
placement
without
restrictions
with
respect
to
toxic
contaminants.
There
is
also
a
need
to
continue
to
implement
regulatory
and
voluntary
programs
that
reduce
sedimentation
so
that
dredging
and
dredged
material
placement
operations
are
needed
less
frequently
in
the
future.
These
actions
and
programs
are
contained
elsewhere
in
this
Plan.

The
EPA
and
the
Corps
have
identified
the
likely
need
to
continue
marine
placement
of
dredged
material
in
the
Long
Island
Sound
Area.
In
1999,
the
EPA
in
cooperation
with
U.
S.
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
issued
a
notice
of
intent
to
prepare
an
environmental
impact
statement
to
consider
the
potential
identification
of
one
or
more
placement
sites
for
Long
Island
Sound
dredged
material.
The
PEP
participants
consider
it
unlikely
a
placement
site
will
be
proposed
within
the
PEP
study
area,
but
should
remain
involved
in
this
process.

Actions
T­
8.1
Ensure
that
all
applications
for
dredging
and
dredged
material
placement
are
critically
evaluated
with
respect
to
their
potential
to
cause
adverse
toxic
effects
to
the
Peconics
ecosystem,
and
particularly
to
pelagic
and
benthic
organisms
and
their
food
chains,
including
humans.

T­
8.2
Ensure
that
all
permits
for
dredging
and
dredged
material
placement
activities
are
protective
of
the
Peconic
ecosystem
and
particularly
pelagic
and
benthic
organisms
and
their
food
chains,
including
humans,
from
toxic
effects.

T­
8.3
Participate
in
the
EPA/
Corps
efforts
to
identify
potential
placement
sites
for
Long
Island
Sound
dredged
material.
T­
8.
Ensure
that
Dredged
Material
is
Managed
and
Placed
in
Such
a
Way
as
to
Reduce
Toxic
Impacts
Associated
with
Contaminated
Sediments.
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
50
Responsible
Entities
T­
8.1
NYSDEC,
US
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
(
co­
leads),
EPA,
NYSDOS,
USFWS,
NMFS
T­
8.2
NYSDEC,
US
Army
Corps
of
Engineers
(
co­
leads),
EPA,
NYSDOS,
USFWS,
NMFS
T­
8.3
NYSDEC
(
lead),
PEP
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
51
BENEFITS
OF
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
The
Toxics
Management
Actions
focus
on
reducing
the
levels
of
toxic
contaminants
within
the
estuary
system
through
remediation,
source
reduction,
and
pollution
prevention
and
education
programs.
The
benefit
of
these
actions
is
an
environment
free
from
toxic
substances
in
toxic
amounts,
which
supports
a
healthy
and
diverse
marine
and
terrestrial
community.
Specific
benefits
include:

 
Reducing
acute
(
short­
term)
and
chronic
(
long­
term)
effects
on
aquatic
life
and
wildlife
or
their
progeny;

 
Limiting
the
public's
exposure
to
toxics
through
consumption
of
seafood
and
wildlife;

 
Ensuring
that
dredged
material
is
available
for
beneficial
uses;

 
Minimizing
costs
associated
with
environmental
cleanup
and
remediation;
and,

 
Restoring
contaminated
areas
to
productive
uses.

COSTS
OF
MANAGEMENT
ACTIONS
Because
the
Peconic
Estuary
is
generally
of
high
quality
with
respect
to
toxics,
many
management
actions
call
for
a
continuation
or
expansion
of
ongoing
efforts,
resulting
in
no
new
program
costs.
Other
actions
are
tied
to
different
action
plans,
and
therefore
the
benefit
and
cost
information
is
included
elsewhere
in
this
document
(
i.
e.,
roadway
stormwater
runoff
management).
The
actions
calling
for
new
programs
tend
to
emphasize
preventing
or
reducing
the
introduction
of
pollutants
to
the
ambient
environment.
This
approach
is
a
more
cost
effective
means
of
achieving
or
maintaining
compliance
with
environmental
standards,
as
compared
to
remedial
and
restoration
programs
which
are
generally
expensive
and
time­
consuming,
particularly
for
persistent
or
bioaccumulative
substances.

The
total
cost
of
all
new
actions
proposed
for
the
toxics
management
in
this
chapter
is
$
1,845,000
in
one­
time
costs
and
$
1,977,500
annually.
(
See
"
Action
Costs"
in
Chapter
1
for
an
explanation
of
how
these
costs
were
determined.)
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
52
TOXICS
ACTIONS
SUMMARY
TABLE
Table
6­
4
provides
the
following
summary
information
about
each
of
the
actions
presented
in
this
chapter.

Status
An
action's
status
is
designated
in
the
table
by
either
an
"
R"
for
"
Recommendation"
or
a
"
C"
for
"
Commitment."
Actions
that
are
commitments
are
being
implemented
because
resources
or
funding
and
organizational
support
is
available
to
carry
them
out.
Actions
that
are
"
recommendations"
require
new
or
additional
resources
by
some
or
all
of
the
responsible
entities.
"
O"
refers
to
ongoing
activities;
"
N"
indicates
new
actions.

Timeframe
This
category
refers
to
the
general
timeframe
for
action
implementation.
Some
actions
are
ongoing
or
nearing
completion;
implementation
of
other
actions
is
not
anticipated
until
some
time
in
the
future.

Cost
Information
in
the
cost
column
represents
the
PEP's
best
estimate
of
the
costs
associated
with
action
implementation.
"
Base
Program"
means
that
no
new
or
additional
funds
will
be
needed
outside
of
the
responsible
entity's
operating
budget
to
implement
the
action.
Where
additional
funding
is
needed,
resources
to
implement
an
action
may
be
expressed
in
dollar
amounts
or
work
years
or
both.
One
full
time
equivalent
employee
or
"
FTE"
is
estimated
as
costing
$
75,000
per
year
which
includes
salary,
fringe
benefits
and
indirect
costs.
The
"
Action
Costs"
description
in
both
Chapter
1
and
Chapter
9
provides
a
expanded
explanation
of
base
programs
and
action
costs.
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
53
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
6­
4.
Toxics
Management
Actions.

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
T­
1
Review
Historical
Monitoring
Data
and
Conduct
New
Monitoring
Studies
Where
Needed
to
Further
Characterize
Sources,
Loadings,

and
Impacts
of
Toxic
Contaminants.
(
Objectives
1
and
5)

T­
1.1
Include
toxics
monitoring
in
the
PEP
Long­
Term
Monitoring
Plan.
PEP
(
EPA,
NYSDEC
and
SCDHS),
other
public
and
private
groups
Post­
CCMP
See
environmental
monitoring
plan
(
Action
M­

2.1)
C/
N
C­
R/
O­
N
T­
1.2
Conduct
toxicity
testing
as
well
as
chemical­
specific
analyses
of
Peconic
Estuary
sediments,

including
open
water
areas,
tidal
creeks,
and
peripheral
embayments.
Where
toxicity
is
observed,
identify
the
toxic
agent(
s)
of
concern.
EPA
(
lead),
PEP
Summer
1998:
sampling
completed;
winter
2000:

final
report
Summer
2000;
sampling
completed;
fall
2001:
final
report
Annually
thereafter.
New
annual
sample
collection,
analysis,

interpretation:

EPA:
1
FTE/
yr
SCDHS:
0.1
FTE/
yr
$
25,000/
yr
for
analyses
C/
O
R­
N
for
funding
for
new
analyses
T­
1.3
Continue
to
collect
and
evaluate
data
on
concentrations
of
bioconcentratable
chemicals
in
mussel
tissues
through
NOAA's
Mussel
Watch
Program.
Data
collection:
NOAA
(
lead);
data
evaluation:
EPA
(
lead),
PEP,
NOAA
Ongoing;
annually
Base
Program
(
NOAA)
C/
O
T­
1.4
Analyze
new
data
collected
in
EPA's
1999
"
Peconic
Estuary
Fish,
Shellfish
and
Crustacean
Toxics
Survey."
Review
data
on
organic
chemical
and
metal
residues
in
fish
and
shellfish
tissues
to
determine
whether
consumption
advisories
are
due
to
sources
and
loadings
of
toxics
within
the
Peconic
Estuary
system,

and
the
appropriateness
of
existing
NYS
consumption
advisories.
EPA
(
lead
for
data
collection
and
report
preparation),
EPA,

NYSDEC,
NYSDOH
for
data
interpretation
Summer
1999
(
sample
collection)

Spring
2001:
final
report
Data
analysis:

EPA:
0.1
FTE
NYSDEC:
0.1
FTE
NYSDOH:
0.1
FTE
Data
report
preparation:

EPA:
0.2
FTE
C/
O
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
54
Table
6­
4.
Toxics
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
T­
1.5
Priority
Reevaluate
PEP
sediment
survey
data
to
identify
chemicals
present
above
known
effect
levels.

Identify
toxics
present
at
low
levels
that
individually
or
cumulatively
may
be
affecting
aquatic
resources.
PEP
Post­
CCMP
$
10,000
(
estimate)
R
T­
1.6
Priority
Determine
the
potential
local
source
of
PCBs
in
Meetinghouse
Creek
and,
once
identified,
control
or
otherwise
remediate
the
source.
Investigation:
NYSDEC;

control/
remediation:

NYSDEC,
responsible
parties
Post­
CCMP
$
10,000­
$
20,000
(
preliminary
estimate
for
identification)

NYSDEC:
0.1
FTE
Remediation:
to
be
determined
R
T­
1.7
Monitor
progress
on
research
on
endocrine
disrupters,
and
encourage
pollution
prevention
programs
to
reduce
loadings
or
address
potential
sources
of
these
contaminants.
EPA
(
lead),
NYSDEC
Post­
CCMP
EPA:
0.1
FTE/
yr
NYSDEC:
0.1
FTE/
yr
R/
N
T­
1.8
Priority
Identify
past
and
present
marina/
boatyard
sites
as
potential
sources
of
heavy
metal
contamination
to
the
estuary;

quantify
the
extent
of
the
problem
and
possible
effects
on
the
estuary.
PEP
(
through
contract)
Post
CCMP
$
20,000
(
estimate)
R/
N
T­
2
Continue
Remedial
Efforts
and
Review
of
Regulatory
Compliance
at
Sites
of
Concern
in
the
Peconic
Estuary.
(
Objectives
4
and
5)

T­
2.1
(
A)
Continue
remedial
efforts
and
evaluate
impacts,
monitor,
and
ensure
consistency
with
local
requirements
associated
with
the
surface
water
discharge
for
the
Rowe
Industries
site.
EPA
Ongoing
Base
Program
C/
O
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
55
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
6­
4.
Toxics
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
T­
2.1
(
B)
Continue
groundwater
monitoring
at
the
North
Sea
Municipal
Landfill;
implement
benthic
community
and
sediment
toxicity
testing
to
ensure
remediation
efforts
are
achieved.
EPA
Ongoing
Base
Program
C/
O
T­
2.1
(
C)
Continue
oversight
and
remedial
efforts
at
the
(
Bulova)
Watch
Case
Factory
Site.
NYSDEC
Ongoing
Base
Program
C/
O
T­
2.2
Complete
inventory
of
RCRA
facilities
within
the
Peconic
Estuary
system;
review
compliance
history
of
facilities;
ensure
all
facilities
comply
with
regulatory
and
permit
requirements.
EPA
(
lead)
Pilot
inventory/
inspections
ongoing.

Fall
2001:
Final
report
Base
Program
C/
O
T­
2.3
Ensure
that
upon
Environmental
Benefits
Permitting
Strategy
(
EBPS)
review,
the
effluent
limitations
and/
or
monitoring
requirements
in
BNL
SPDES
Permit
(
NY­
0005835)
for
Outfall
001
(
the
sewage
treatment
plan
discharge)
will
be
revised
if
findings
from
the
industrial­
type
effluent
monitoring
program
or
any
other
available
data
indicate
that
increased
protection
is
needed.

Permit
elements
that
will
be
evaluated,
as
appropriate,
include:

pretreatment,
BMPs,
toxicity
testing,
and
bioaccumulative
contaminants.
NYSDEC
(
lead),
BNL
Ongoing
Base
Program
C/
O
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
56
Table
6­
4.
Toxics
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
T­
2.4
Priority
Ensure
that
BNL
adequately
implements
its
Environmental
Management
System
focused
on
environmental
compliance
and
emphasizing
pollution
prevention
as
specified
in
the
EPA/
DOE
March
1998
MOA.
EPA
(
lead),
USDOE,
BNL
Ongoing
Base
Program
C/
O
T­
2.5
Priority
Implement
environmental
cleanup
remedies
under
Superfund
for
Operable
Unit
V
at
BNL.
Ensure
that
the
selected
remedy
adequately
addresses
human
health
(
chemical
and
radiological)
and
ecological
impacts,
including
potential
downstream
and
off­
site
impacts.
EPA
(
lead),
NYSDEC,

BNL,
USDOE,
NYSDOH
Ongoing
Base
Program
C/
O
T­
2.6
Continue
to
implement
the
RCRA
corrective
action
program
until
completed
at
the
NWIRP.
Ensure
that
the
Corrective
Measures
Study
adequately
addresses
human
health
and
ecological
impacts,
including
potential
downstream
and
off­
site
impacts.
EPA
(
lead),
NYSDEC
Ongoing
Base
Program
C/
O
T­
2.7
Conduct
seasonal
inspections
of
marinas
and
boatyards
to
ensure
maintenance
and
repair
activities
are
being
done
properly
and
there
is
proper
disposal
of
wastes.
NYSDEC
Post­
CCMP
and
Annually
as
Needed
NYSDEC:
1
FTE/
yr
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
57
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
6­
4.
Toxics
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
T­
3
Assess
Alternatives
to
Chlorination
for
Disinfection
at
Sewage
Treatment
Plants.
(
Objectives
3
and
4)

T­
3.1
Install
UV
disinfection
at
the
Riverhead
and
Sag
Harbor
STPs.

Evaluate
alternatives
to
chlorine
disinfection
at
the
Shelter
Island
Heights
STP
and
the
NWIRP
STP
if
the
effluents
are
of
sufficient
quality
for
alternatives
to
be
effective
and
protective
of
human
health.
See
related
Action
P­
10
in
the
Pathogens
Management
Plan.
Treatment
plant
operators
at
Riverhead,
Sag
Harbor,

Shelter
Island
Heights,
and
the
former
NWIRP;

NYSDEC
Ongoing
Base
Program
(
costs
for
UV
disinfection
at
Riverhead
and
Sag
Harbor
included
in
NYS
Bond
Act
Proposals.

Cost
for
full
scale
UV
at
Shelter
Island
Heights
not
yet
determined.)

NYSDEC:
0.5
FTE
R
T­
4
Reduce
Loadings
of
Pesticides
and
Herbicides
within
the
Peconic
Estuary.
(
Objectives
2,
3
and
4).

T­
4.1
Priority
Continue
to
pursue
development/
establishment
of
the
Long
Island
Pesticide
Management
Plan
and
enforceable
Statewide
agricultural
pesticide
program
requirements
under
CZARA,

which
reduce
the
potential
for
contamination
of
surface
water
and
ground
water
due
to
the
application
of
pesticides.
In
the
meantime,

seek
commitments
on
a
voluntary
basis
from
landowners
to
comply
with
this
management
measure.
NYSDEC,
NYSDOS
(

coleads
NYS
Department
of
Agriculture
and
Markets,

NYSDOH,
and
other
public
and
private
groups
Post­
CCMP
Estimates:
NYSDEC:
2
FTE
NYSDOS:
TBD
NYSDOH:
TBD
NYS
Ag
&
Markets:
TBD
R
T­
4.2
Priority
Plan,
advertise,
and
carry
out
a
"
Clean
Sweep"
program
to
collect
and
properly
dispose
of
banned
or
unneeded
agricultural
and
turf/
landscaping
pesticides.
Suffolk
County
Soil
and
Water
Conservation
District
(
lead),
NRCS,
EPA,
PEP,

Towns
and
the
agricultural
community
Post­
CCMP
$
150,000
(
estimate)
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
58
Table
6­
4.
Toxics
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
T­
4.3
Ensure
that
commercial
pesticide
applicators,
and
applicators
of
restricted
use
pesticides,
are
properly
certified.
See
related
Public
Outreach
and
Education
Action
POE­
4.1.
NYSDEC
(
lead)
Ongoing
Post­
CCMP
Base
Program
for
existing
program
NYSDEC:
1
FTE/
yr
for
program
enhancement
C/
O
R/
N
T­
4.4
Enforce
the
provisions
of
the
State's
Freshwater
Protection
Law
to
reduce
or
eliminate
loadings
of
pesticides
and
herbicides
on
or
in
the
vicinity
of
wetlands
and
associated
waterbodies.
See
related
Public
Outreach
and
Education
Action
POE­
4.2.
NYSDEC
(
lead)
Ongoing
Post­
CCMP
Base
Program
for
existing
program
NYSDEC:
1
FTE/
yr
for
program
enhancement
C/
O
R/
N
T­
4.5
Develop
and
implement
integrated
pest
management
(
IPM)
programs
that
manage
pests
with
minimal
impact
on
human
health
and
the
environment.
State
(
lead);
County,
town
and
Village
governments
and
agencies,
homes,

businesses
and
farms
Post
CCMP
NYSDEC:
2
FTE/
yr
R/
N
T­
4.6
Priority
Develop
and
implement
a
comprehensive
agricultural
pesticide
management
proposal
for
funding
by
the
USDA.
USDA­
NRCS
and
SCSWCD
(
leads)
FFY2001
Base
Program
for
proposal
development
5
FTE/
yr
and
$
1M/
yr
for
implementation
R/
N
T­
4.7
Investigate
opportunities
for
expansion
of
organic
agricultural
operations
in
the
Peconic
watershed,
as
well
as
marketing
and
labeling
to
encourage
local
sale.
PEP
(
lead)
Post
CCMP
PEP:
0.5
FTE/
yr
(
estimate)
R/
N
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
59
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
6­
4.
Toxics
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
T­
4.8
Implement
IPM
programs
on
public
lands,
such
as
Suffolk
County's
IPM/
pesticide­
free
golf
course
initiative.
Ensure
that
all
Federal
facilities
and
operations
in
the
PEP
Study
Area
comply
with
the
Presidential
Memorandum
of
April
26,
1996
that
addresses
"
Environmentally
and
Economically
Beneficial
Practices
on
Federal
Landscaped
Grounds."
Federal,
County
governments;
other
governmental
entities
Post­
CCMP
Base
Program
for
existing
efforts
To
be
determined
for
new
initiatives
C/
O
R/
N
T­
4.9
Restrict
or
ban
pesticides
whose
residues
are
frequently
detected
at
levels
of
environmental
or
public
health
concern
in
groundwater
or
the
estuary.
NYSDEC
Post
CCMP
Base
Program
C/
O
T­
5
Develop
Requirements
Regarding
Proper
Storage
and
Disposal
of
Toxic
Substances
and
Chemicals
associated
with
Construction
Sites
and
Road,
Highway,
and
Bridge
Operation
and
Maintenance
and
Construction
Activities.
(
Objectives
3
and
4)

T­
5.1
Continue
to
pursue
development/
establishment
of
enforceable
Statewide
program
requirements
which
manage
the
application,
generation
and
migration
of
toxic
substances,
and
ensure
the
proper
storage
and
disposal
of
toxic
materials
at
all
construction
sites.
NYSDEC,
NYSDOS
(

coleads
local
governments,

contractors
Ongoing
Base
Program
C/
O
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
60
Table
6­
4.
Toxics
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
T­
5.2
Adopt
requirements
at
the
county,

town,
and
village
level
regarding
chemical
controls
at
construction
sites,
including
road,
highway,
and
bridge
construction
sites.
Until
these
are
adopted,
seek
commitments
on
a
voluntary
basis
from
highway
department
personnel
and
contractors
to
comply
with
this
management
measure.
County,
town,
and
village
governments,
contractors,

NYSDOS,
NYSDEC
Post­
CCMP
Towns:
1
FTE/
town
County:
1
FTE
PEP:
1
FTE
(
Resources
also
address
Action
T­
5.3
and
T­
6.1)
R
T­
5.3
Adopt
requirements
consistent
with
State
program
requirements
at
the
county,
town,
and
village
level
regarding
chemical
controls
for
road,
highway,
and
bridge
operation
and
maintenance
activities.
In
the
meantime,
seek
commitments
on
a
voluntary
basis
from
highway
department
personnel
and
contractors
to
comply
with
this
management
measure.
County,
town,
and
village
governments,
contractors,

NYSDEC,
NYSDOS
Post­
CCMP
See
Action
T­
5.2
R
T­
6
Adopt
Requirements
for
Controlling
Toxic
Loadings
in
Stormwater
Runoff
and
Activities
in
Developed
Areas.
(
Objectives
3
and
4)

T­
6.1
Adopt
requirements
consistent
with
State
program
requirements
at
the
County,
town,
and
village
level
regarding
runoff
management
systems
for
roads,
highways,
and
bridges.
Until
these
are
adopted,

seek
commitments
on
a
voluntary
basis
from
highway
department
personnel
and
contractors
to
comply
with
this
management
measure.
County,
town,
and
village
governments
(
co­
leads),

contractors,
NYSDOS,

NYSDEC
Post­
CCMP
See
Action
T­
5.2
R
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
61
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
6­
4.
Toxics
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
T­
6.2
Complete
Environmental
Management
Reviews
(
EMRs)
and
Pollution
Prevention
Opportunity
Assessments
(
PPOAs)
at
Federal
installations.
EPA
(
lead
with
contractor
assistance)
and
other
Federal
departments
and
agencies
Summer
1999:
Inventory/

coordination
with
Federal
agencies
Fall
2001:
Final
Report
EPA:
0.1
FTE
C/
O
T­
6.3
Pursue
development
of
enforceable
Statewide
program
requirements
to
address
stormwater
runoff
at
marinas.
Seek
commitments
on
a
voluntary
basis
from
marina
owners
to
comply
with
this
management
measure.
NYSDEC,
NYSDOS
(

coleads
marina
owners
Post­
CCMP
NYSDEC:
1
FTE
R
T­
6.4
Adopt
harbor
protection
overlaytype
districts
addressing:
materials
for
roads,
driveways
and
parking
lot
surfaces
and
management
of
runoff
from
these
surfaces;
fuel
storage
tanks;
swimming
pools;

treated
woods
and
other
activities
as
appropriate.
See
related
action
P­
2.2
in
the
Pathogens
Management
Plan.
Local
governments
(
lead),

Towns
of
Riverhead,

Southold,
Southampton,
and
Shelter
Island,
villages
Post­
CCMP
Towns:
1
FTE/
town
R
T­
6.5
Conduct
regular
inspections
of
retail
stores
to
enforce
the
county
ban
on
the
sale
of
illegal
on­
site
disposal
system
(
cesspool)

products.
SCDHS
Post­
CCMP
SCDHS:
1
FTE/
yr
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
62
Table
6­
4.
Toxics
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
T­
6.6
Priority
Develop
model
guidelines
for
the
placement
of
treated
lumber
in
the
marine
environment
and
identify
non­
toxic
structures,
consistent
with
PEP's
overall
policy
of
no
net
increase
of
shoreline
hardening
structures.
These
guidelines
should
also
address
disposal
of
treated
lumber
following
demolition.
PEP
Post­
CCMP
$
100,000
(
estimate)

NYSDEC:
1
FTE
R
T­
6.7
Priority
Support
Legislative
framework
and
EPA
regulatory
action
to
reduce/
eliminate
the
use
of
MTBE
in
gasoline.
PEP
Post­
CCMP
Base
Program
C/
N
T­
6.8
Determine
the
adequacy
of
voluntary
programs
addressing
the
replacement
of
on­
premises
home
heating
oil
tanks.
Determine
if
regulatory
replacement
programs
should
be
instituted
watershedwide
or
in
certain
areas.
PEP
Post­
CCMP
$
50,000
PEP:
1
FTE
R
T­
7
Explore
Management
Strategies
that
Emphasize
the
Elimination
or
Reduction
of
Toxic
Substances.
(
Objectives
3
and
4)

T­
7.1
Develop
and
implement
pollution
prevention
programs
targeting
establishments
and
industries
which
generate
or
use
toxic
materials,
such
as
marinas
and
boatyards.
PEP
(
lead)
Post­
CCMP
$
100,000
(
estimate)

PEP:
1
FTE
R
T­
7.2
Continue
Town
"
Stop
Throwing
Out
Pollutants"
programs.
Towns
Base
Programs
C/
O
Table
continued
on
next
page
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
63
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
Table
6­
4.
Toxics
Management
Actions.
(
continued)

Action
Responsible
Entity
Timeframe
Cost
Status
T­
7.3
Reduce
the
use
of
insecticides
used
for
mosquito
control
to
the
maximum
extent
practicable
that
still
adequately
protects
human
health
and
consider
adverse
impacts
on
the
environment
in
insecticide
selection.
Encourage
good
housekeeping
methods
of
control,

such
as
eliminating/
reducing
standing
water
that
functions
as
breeding
sites.
Suffolk
County
Department
of
Public
Works
Division
of
Vector
Control
(
lead),

NYSDEC,
NYSDOH
Post­
CCMP
Base
Program
R
T­
8
Ensure
that
Dredged
Material
is
Managed
and
Placed
in
Such
a
Way
as
to
Reduce
Toxic
Impacts
Associated
with
Contaminated
Sediments.
(
Objectives
3
and
4)

T­
8.1
Ensure
that
all
applications
for
dredging
and
dredged
material
placement
are
critically
evaluated
with
respect
to
their
potential
to
cause
adverse
toxic
effects
to
the
Peconics
ecosystem,
and
particularly
to
pelagic
and
benthic
organisms
and
their
food
chains,

including
humans.
NYSDEC,
USACE
(

coleads
EPA,
NYSDOS,

USFWS,
NMFS
Ongoing
Base
program
Enhanced
program:

NYSDEC:
1
FTE/
yr
(
Resources
also
address
Actions
T­
8.2
and
T­
8.3)
C/
O
R
T­
8.2
Ensure
that
all
permits
for
dredging
and
dredged
material
placement
activities
are
protective
of
the
Peconic
ecosystem
and
particularly
pelagic
and
benthic
organisms
and
their
food
chains,
including
humans,
from
toxic
effects.
NYSDEC,
USACE
(

coleads
EPA,
NYSDOS,

USFWS,
NMFS
Ongoing
Base
program
Enhanced
program:
see
Action
T­
8.1
C/
O
R
T­
8.3
Participate
in
the
EPA/
Corps
efforts
to
identify
potential
placement
sites
for
Long
Island
Sound
dredged
material.
NYSDEC
(
lead),
PEP
Post­
CCMP
Base
Program
Enhanced
program:
see
Action
T­
8.1
C/
O
R
Table
continued
on
next
page
Peconic
Estuary
Program
CCMP
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
S
I
X
6­
64
This
Page
Intentionally
Left
Blank.