HomeMy WebLinkAboutWastewater Facility Plan - Env. Assessment - 1981Inc. Village of Greenport
and
Town of Southold
Suffolk County, New York
t� E
OF SOUTh,
Section 201
Wastewater Facility Plan
C-36-1120
Alternatives Evaluation
and
Environmental Assessment
Report
February 1981
IH2j*A
Consulting
Engery MoLondon and and
Environmental
P.C.
Consulting Engineers. Planners and Environmental Scientists
Melville. N.V. Farmingdale. N.V. Rlverhead, N.V.
Inc. Village of Greenport
and
Town of Southold
Suffolk County, New York
Section 201
Wastewater Facility Plan
C-36-1120
Alternatives Evaluation
and
Environmental Assessment
Report
February 1981
U2"olzmMcLendon and Murrell, P.C.
Consulting
Eng Engineers. Planners and Environmental Scientists
Melville, N.V. Farmingdale. N.V. Riverhead, N.V.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. i H2M CORP.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
AND
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONT'D.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
3.0 FUTURE ENVIRONMENT OF THE PLANNING
INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
AREA WITHOUT THE PROJECT
3.1
AND
3.1 SUB -REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND
AND DISPOSAL (GREENPORT SEWAGE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
TREATMENT PLANT)
3.1
3.1.1 EXISTING SITUATION AND FUTURE
CONTINUATION
3.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
3.1.2 SOCIAL IMPACTS
3.3
3.1.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
3.5
PAGE NO.
3.2 ON-SITE SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL
3.9
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1
3.2.1 EXISTING SITUATION AND FUTURE
CONTINUATION
3.9
2.0 ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE SITUATION
2.1
3.2.2 SOCIAL IMPACTS
3.10
3.2.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
3.11
2.1 PLANNING PERIOD
2.1
3.3 ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF SCAVENGER WASTE
3.13
2.2 LAND USE
2'1
3.3.1 EXISTING SITUATION AND FUTURE
2.3 DEMOGRAPHIC PROJECTIONS
2.1
CONTINUATION
3.13
3.3.2 SOCIAL IMPACTS
3.13
2.4 SEWERING CRITERIA
2.2
3.3.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
3.14
2.4.1 POPULATION DENSITY
2.5
3.4 AGRICULTURAL AND HOUSEHOLD FERTILIZATION
2.4.2 NITRATE CONCENTRATION IN GROUNDWATER
2.8
PRACTICES
3.15
2.4.3 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS AND RELATIVE
GROUNDWATER ELEVATION
2.14
3.4.1 EXISTING SITUATION AND FUTURE
2.4.4 SURFACE WATER QUALITY
2.15
CONTINUATION
3.15
2.4.5 AREAS TO BE SEWERED
2.18
3.4.2 SOCIAL IMPACTS
3.15
2.4.6 AREAS OF POSSIBLE FUTURE SEWERING NEEDS
2.21
3.4.3 NATURAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
3.17
2.5 EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
2.22
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
4.1
2.6 EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE AT THE INC. VILLAGE
4.1 NON-STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS
4.3
OF GREENPORT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT (STP)
2.23
4.1.1 INTRODUCTION
4.3
2.7 EXPANSION OF THE GREENPORT SERVICE AREA
2.28
4.1.2 NO ACTION
4.4
4.1.3 NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
4.4
2.7.1 ADDITIONAL FLOW FROM EXPANSION OF
4.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.28 - 1
GREENPORT SANITARY SEWER COLLECTION
SYSTEM
2.30
2.8 EVALUATION OF WATER SUPPLY
2.32
i
ii
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
TABLE OF CONTENTS — CONT'D.
PAGE NO.
4.2 STRUCTURAL SOLUTIONS
4.28
4.2.1
INTRODUCTION
4.28
4.2.2
REGIONAL TREATMENT FACILITY
4.29
4.2.3
SUB—REGIONAL TREATMENT
4.30
4.2.4
WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND REUSE
4.54
4.2.5
LAND APPLICATION
4.59
4.2.6
SURFACE WATER DISCHARGE
4.73
4.2.7
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.74 — 1
4.3 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROCESSES
4.75
4.3.1
INTRODUCTION
4.77
4.3.2
SLUDGE THICKENING AND DEWATERING
4.78
4.3.3
ANAEROBIC AND AEROBIC DIGESTION
4.79
4.3.4
COMPOSTING
4.80
4.3.5
LAND APPLICATION OF SLUDGE
4.81
4.3.6
SLUDGE INCINERATION
4.83
4.3.7
CO—DISPOSAL
4.85
4.3.8
SANITARY LANDFILL
4.86
4.3.9
OCEAN DUMPING
4.87
4.3.10
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE SLUDGE
MANAGEMENT PLANS
4.88
4.3.11
SUMMARY EVALUATION
4.92
4.3.12
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.95 — 1
4.4 SCAVENGER WASTE
4.96
4.4.1
INTRODUCTION
4.96
4.4.2
EXISTING DISPOSAL METHODS
4.97
4.4.3
QUALITY OF SCAVENGER WASTE
4.99
4.4.4
PRESENT AND FUTURE SCAVENGER
WASTE VOLUMES
4.105
4.4.5
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
4.110
4.4.6
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
4.117
4.4.7
REGIONAL TREATMENT — COMBINED
TREATMENT WITH SHELTER ISLAND
4.140
4.4.8
SCREENING OF SCAVENGER WASTE
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
4.140
4.4.9
CESSPOOL AND SEPTIC TANK
MANAGEMENT PLAN (CSTMP)
4.152
4.4.10
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
4.157
5.0 COST—EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS OF VIABLE STRUCTURAL
ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
5.1
iii
-' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
1
'
TABLE OF CONTENTS - CONT'D.
PAGE NO.
'
5.1 COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS
5.3
5.1.1
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
5.3
5.1.2
EXPANSION OF GREENPORT COLLECTION
5.4
SYSTEM - COST ANALYSIS
5.1.3
SUB -REGIONAL TREATMENT - MATTITUCK
5.5
TREATMENT FACILITY - COST ANALYSIS
5.1.4
SLUDGE - ULTIMATE DISPOSAL -
5.7
COST ANALYSIS
'
5.1.5
SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES -
5.7
COST ANALYSIS
'
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1
6.1 NON-STRUCTURAL
ALTERNATIVES
6.1
6.1.1
OPTIMIZATION OF THE EXISTING GREENPORT
SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY
6.2
6.1.2
LAND USE CONTROLS
6.2
6.3
'
6.1.3
FERTILIZER CONTROL
6.4
6.1.4
WATER SUPPLY MANAGEMENT PLAN
6.5
6.1.5
SEPTIC TANK MANAGEMENT PLAN
'
6.1.6
ALTERNATIVE ON-SITE SEWAGE
6.5
DISPOSAL METHODS
'
6.2 STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
6.6
6.2.1
EXPANSION OF INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
6.6
COLLECTION SYSTEM
6.7
'
6.2.2
SEWERING OF THE MATTITUCK AREA
680
6.2.3
SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
6.2.4
ULTIMATE SLUDGE DISPOSAL
.
iv
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
v
LIST OF TABLES
PAGE
TABLE
NO.
NO.
TITLE
2.1
1975 POPULATION AND PROJECTIONS FOR
DRAINAGE BASIN SUBDIVISIONS
2.3
2.2
POPULATION DENSITY
2'7
2.3
CHARACTERISTIC COMPARISON OF SOUTHOLD
2.12
VS. EAST HAMPTON (BASED ON 1975 DATA)
2.4
INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT — S.T.P.
2.24
PERFORMANCE
2,5
CALCULATION OF ADDITIONAL FLOW FROM
2,31
THE EXPANSION OF SEWER DISTRICT
2.6
GREENPORT WATER SERVICE — WATER QUALITY
2,34
TEST DATA
4.1
ANNUAL NITROGEN LOADING — EXISTING AND
4.14
FUTURE
4.2
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIOUS
4.45
TREATMENT PROCESSES
4.3
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
4.47
4.4
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER
4.48
TREATMENT PROCESSES
4.5
COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF IRRIGATION,
OVERLAND FLAW AND INFILTRATION/PERCOLATION
4.62
SYSTEMS
4.6
SITE CHARACTERISTICS FOR LAND DISPOSAL
4.64
OF WASTEWATER
4.7
ESTIMATED SLUDGE VOLUMES
4.76
4.8
ULTIMATE SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
4.89
4.9
TYPICAL SEPTAGE (SCAVENGER WASTE)
4.103
CHARACTERISTICS
4.10
SCAVENGER WASTES — RAW WASTE VARIATIONS
4.104
4.11
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND VARIATIONS
4.104
v
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. i H2M CORP.
LIST OF TABLES - CONT'D.
TABLE
PAGE
NO.
TITLE
NO.
4.12
SCAVENGER WASTES RECEIVED AT BAY PARK
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
4.104
4.13
SCAVENGER WASTE ANALYSES (mg/1)
4.106
4.14
ADDITION OF SCAVENGER WASTES TO
EXISTING GREENPORT STP
4.125
4.15
PRESENT AND FUTURE SCAVENGER WASTE FLOW
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
4.141
4.16
SCREENING MATRIX FOR THE SCAVENGER WASTE
TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
4.142
5.1
PRELIMINARY COST OF EXPANDING EXISTING
SEWER SERVICE AREA
5.6
5.2
COST ANALYSIS OF MATTITUCK TREATMENT
ALTERNATIVES
5.8
5.3
COST ANALYSIS OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL
ALTERNATIVES (BASED ON 1 DRY TON/DAY)
5.9
5.4
SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
5.11
5.5
COST COMPARISON OF RECOMMENDED SCAVENGER
WASTE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE - SOUTHOLD
VS. SOUTHOLD AND SHELTER ISLAND FLAW
QUANTITIES
5.12
vi
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. i H2M CORP.
LIST OF FIGURES
vii
PAGE
FIGURE
NO.
NO.
TITLE
2.1
PRESENT LAND USE
APPENDIX "A"
2.2
FUTURE LAND USE
APPENDIX "A"
2.3
SUB DRAINAGE BASINS
2'4
2.4
RESIDENTIAL AREAS EVALUATED FOR
2.6
SEWERING NEEDS
2.5
NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER -
"B"
APPENDIX
1974
2.6
NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER -
APPENDIX "B"
1975 - 1978
2.16
2.7
SOIL LIMITATIONS
2.8
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER DEPTH
2'17
2.9
AREAS RECOMMENDED FOR SEWERING
2.29
4.1
COMPOSTING TOILET
4.24
4.2
TYPICAL SEPTIC TANK - MOUND SYSTEM
4•27
4.3
TRICKLING FILTER FLOW SCHEMATIC -
4.35
ALTERNATIVE C-1
4.4
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL DISCS FLOW SCHEMATIC -
4.37
ALTERNATIVE C-2
4.5
EXTENDED AERATION ACTIVATED SLUDGE FLOW
4.38
SCHEMATIC - ALTERNATIVE C-3
4.6
CONTACT STABILIZATION ACTIVATED SLUDGE
4 40
FLOW SCHEMATIC - ALTERNATIVE C-4
4.7
COMPLETE MIX ACTIVATED SLUDGE FLOW
4.42
SCHEMATIC - ALTERNATIVE C-5
4.8
MARSH/POND SYSTEM FLOW SCHEMATIC -
4.44
ALTERNATIVE C-6
4.9
LAND APPLICATION METHODS
4.61
4.10
LOCATION OF EXISTING SCAVENGER WASTE
4.98
DISPOSAL SITE
vii
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. % H2M CORP.
LIST OF FIGURES — CONT'D.
FIGURE
PAGE
NO.
TITLE
NO.
4.11
TYPICAL CESSPOOL
4.100
4.12
TYPICAL SEPTIC TANK
4.101
4.13
SCAVENGER WASTE SURVEY
4.108
4.14
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE — TOTAL BOD
4.111
4.15
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE — AMMONIA NH3—N4.112
4.16
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE — TKN
4.113
4.17
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE — TOTAL SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
4.114
4.18
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE — TOTAL SOLIDS
4.115
4.19
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE — TOTAL VOLATILE
SOLIDS
4.116
4.20
FLOW SCHEMATIC — HEAD END FACILITIES —
ALTERNATIVES SW -2 TO SW -10
4.122
4.21
FLOW SCHEMATIC — ALTERNATIVE SW -3
4.126
4.22
FLOW SCHEMATIC — ALTERNATIVE SW -4
4.129
4.23
FLOW SCHEMATIC — ALTERNATIVE SW -5
4.130
4.24
FLOW SCHEMATIC — ALTERNATIVE SW -6
4.133
4.25
FLOW SCHEMATIC — ALTERNATIVE SW -7
4.134
4.26
FLOW SCHEMATIC — ALTERNATIVE SW -8
4.136
4.27
FLOW SCHEMATIC — ALTERNATIVE SW -9
4.138
LIST OF REFERENCES — LITERATURE SEARCH R.1
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
11
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This is the second volume of three concerning Wastewater
Facility Planning in the Town of Southold - Inc. Village of
Greenport study area.
The first volume entitled, "Engineering and Environmental
Data Report", provided a description of the existing situation
and requirements prerequisite to detailed planning for waste-
water facilities. This included effluent limitations and dis-
charge requirements, status of existing treatment systems, popu-
lation projections, zoning, land use, environmental inventory,
along with an overview of the historical and archeological re-
sources of the study area.
This document focuses on the various alternatives that were
considered to solve the existing and future wastewater needs in
relationship to groundwater and surface water quality• Initially,
the future situation is reviewed with data presented on future
wastewater needs to minimize groundwater quality degradation.
Proposed sewer service areas are evaluated based on popu-
lation density, land use and environmentally sensitive factors
which dictate present or future needs for collection of waste-
water. With this information as a baseline, various alternatives
are examined with regard to: expansion of the Inc. Village of
1.1
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
Greenport wastewater treatment facility; construction of re-
gional/sub-regional treatment facilities; and/or non-structural
alternatives for non-sewered areas. Within each major alterna-
tive, various treatment methodologies are evaluated. Alterna-
tives examined are evaluated based on cost, both capital and
operations, environmental assessment and implementational feasi-
bility.
Subsequent to the various meetings to be held with repre-
sentatives of USEPA, NYSDEC, SCDHS, Inc. Village of Greenport,
Town of Southold, other interested government agencies and the
public, a selection from the alternatives of Volume II will
recommend a plan of action to be adopted. This plan will be
fully developed with preliminary design, cost opinions, opera-
tion and maintenance costs, environmental assessment and recom-
mendations for implementation in Volume III - Selected Plan Re-
port.
1.2
IHOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. i H2M CORP.
JI
LJ
1
2.0 ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE SITUATION
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
2.0 ASSESSMENT OF FUTURE SITUATION
2.1 Planning Period
It is anticipated that the final selected facility plan
will be placed in operation by 1985. Based on a 20 year plan-
ning period, we have forecasted wastewater management needs to
the year 2005.
2.2 Land Use
At the present time, a master plan for future development
does not exist for the Town of Southold - Inc. Village of Green-
port• A review of existing and future land use, as shown on
Figures 2.1 and 2.2, shown in Appendix "A", indicates that for
the most part, future development will continue the existing
land use mix with one exception. This exception is that vacant
and small portions of farm land will be developed as low density
residential areas•
Expansion of commercial districts will most likely be at
existing commercial developments, rather than new commercial
developments. In general, the existing land use will expand
into neighboring vacant land areas.
2.3 Demographic Projections
The Nassau -Suffolk Regional Planning Board (NSRPB) collected
present population data from the LILCO annual population survey
and developed population projections through 1995 on a townwide
basis. These projections were then used to determine population
projections for each sub -drainage basin within the study area in
2.1
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' cooperation with the NSRPB. Population projections to the year
2005 can be found in Table 2.1, with the location of each sub -
drainage basin shown in Figure 2.3. A more detailed discussion
of these projections appear in subsection 3.1.3 of the Engineer-
ing and Environmental Data Report (Volume I). Population den-
sities have been calculated using the entire land area of each
sub -drainage basin. Densities for developed areas within each
basin are evaluated in Section 2.4.1.
'
2.4 Sewering Criteria
Within the Nassau -Suffolk sole source aquifer, the relation-
ship most commonly evaluated in determining sewering needs in
an area is population density as it relates to nitrate input to
'
the groundwater. Roy F. Weston, Consulting Engineers for the
'
Nassau -Suffolk 208 Study, compiled nitrate data from 1962 through
1977. Based on Weston's analysis, a nitrate (NO3-N) concentration
'
of 10 mg/l (drinking water standard) in the Upper Glacial aquifer
occurred at densities of 8 to 10 persons per acre or more. There-
'
fore, they concluded that at a density of 9 persons per acre
(three dwelling units per acre), sewering is recommended. The
NSRPB has adopted this criteria of 9 persons per acre as a basis
'
for sewering needs.
Only three (3) relatively small developments within the
study area would obtain a density of 9 persons per acre, as de-
termined through our population projections. However, the study
area is not typical of the Nassau -Suffolk area examined in the
I
1
2.2
TABLE 2.1
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION &ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
SEC-
TION
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX***
Village
X
XI
XII
TOTAL
STUDY
AREA
1975 POPULATION AND PROJECTIONS
FOR DRAINAGE BASIN SUBDIVISIONS
AREA 1975 1985* 1995 2005**
(ACRES) POPU. DENS. POPU. DENS. POPU. DENS. POPU. DENS.
415
400
2,995
6,460
2,090
400
5,695
3,005
2,130
575
155
540
4,025
28,885
143
0.34
185
600
1.50
780
3,209
1.07
4,165
792
0.12
1,030
1,929
0.92
2,505
577
1.44
750
1,861
0.33
2,415
3,141
1.05
4,070
1,531
0.72
1,990
2,518
4.38
2,652
240
1.55
270
557
1.03
725
1,061
0.26
1,380
18,159
28,996
22,917
0.45
302
0.73
1.95
1,333
3.33
1.39
5,419
1..81
0.16
1,337
0.21
1.20
3,258
1.56
1.88
925
2.31
0.42
2,978
0.52
1.35
5,028
1.67
0.93
2,252
1.06
4.61
2,830
4.92
1.74
302
1.95
1.34
1,043
1.93
0.34
1,989
0.49
28,996
*Population was allocated based on 1975 distribution.
**Population was allocated based on 1995 distribution
***Does not include Inc. Village of. Greenport
2.3
390
0.94
1,730
4.32
7,025
2.35
1,735
0.27
4,225
2.02
1,200
3.00
3,860
0.68
6,520
2.17
2,920
1.37
2,970
5.16
390
2.52
1,350
2.50
2,575
0.64
36,890
LIMITS OF STUDY
4. q
AREAY^
L 0 N G I S L A N D S O U N D
I
O
31
ANS
4,
n A
=u
:4.T i. h i •. .•.JC •: .'a 4:i > s,. Ny t '1 SI '1 PPS _' -_} !!F
„
. a
a.
" '7-1
�^..._,
I �
i
vim'
p .
yy.
I ! F ,tea .! i / .� �. P� g ,. T:$� `r .S .{` Fyy, O�� c• �w +. • f�,� s P,d•N' .
2 2 � '', �S ,i. .::(� `S t F i .,+ ! e r'• J• -y'• R i+ + '� '�.F' 'P \ � - _ ....
30
t :� K ♦ .�I '� k. r�" 'M�w.. .a rti►' s- - `�E' `..i� t .(h fib.. .J• euw, v`
r
b •,3,,� T �1- h _'t^ a �j �.` '�'
CONNECTICUT -fy 'a�
STUDY 0e "
NEW YORK AREA
\ SENO y r o
0 �..t.
' ISLANO i tStt 9 R r•'" _
ONO
NEW
JERSEY SUFFOLK''-'
NASSAU'
OCEAN
Bo o ArLAN'
KEY MAP
SUB DRAINAGE BASINS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 6 MURRELL, P.C. /H 2 M CORP. MEIYIIIE. N.Y.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FARMINGDALE. N.Y.
NEWTON. NA
2.4
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
208 study. It is, therefore, reasonable that environmental fac-
tors in conjunction with population densities be used as the cri-
teria in considering an area to be sewered. Listed below are the
criteria to be examined.
-- Population density
-- Nitrate concentration in groundwater
-- Soil characteristics
-- Depth between groundwater and surface elevation
-- Surface water quality
Regions having a high demographic density and an adverse environ-
mental impact will be considered in need of sewering•
2.4.1 Population Density
In order to calculate the density of developed areas within
each sub -drainage basin, data were required on future land use
and projected population (see subsection 2.2 and 2.3, respec-
tively)• Eight (8) populated regions were examined and are out-
lined on Figure 2.4. For the larger regions, the total acreage
of residential land use was determined. Using the projected
population of each region and the assumptions listed below, den-
sities of the regions were calculated and listed on Table 2.2.
Assumptions:
' -- Land use of one or less D.U./Acre treated
as 1 D.U./Acre.
-- Yield factor of 1 D.U./Acre = .85 D.U./Gross Acre
' -- 3.0 Persons/Household(1)
1 (1) NSRPB - 208 Study
2.5
LIMITS OF STUDY
AREA
I s
E. y�
{
� � N r
CONNECiK UT
STUDY
nEM1 roxx/,� AREA-
. Y sdlNo
EON6
NES �v
JEIYSEY � s11F FOlx
xusw'
6E�N
•TR�NT2
' KEY MAP
7
H
R
F E D
G
FIGURE 2.4
REGION DESIGNATION
A- MATTITUCK
e B- LITTLE HOG NECK
C -GREAT HOG NECK
D- EAST MARION RESIDENTIAL AREAS EVALUATED
E -STERLING BASIN FOR SEWERING NEEDS
F- PIPES COVE
G- CONKLING PT. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
H- NORTH GREENPORT WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
2.6
MELVILLE. N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
FARMINOOAL2N v
N v
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
NEWTTOONN
NEWN J
2.6
AREA*
DESIGNATION
A
B
C
D
TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL
ACREAGE
1,530
1,705
2,151
400
TABLE 2.2
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
TOTAL
POPULATION
(2005)
8, 755
5,425
6,520
1,740
POPULATION DENSITY
ACREAGE OF
ACREAGE OF
LAND USE
LAND USE
AT
AT
D.U. OR
2-10 D.U.
LESS/ACRE
/ACRE
D.U.
700
830
420
1,285
569
1,582
---
400
FUTURE
POPULATION
270
150
375
510
POPULATION
AT
1-D.U. OR
LESS/ACRE
1,785
1,071
1,451
FUTURE
POPULATION
DENSITY
2.7
POPULATION
AT
2-10 D.U.
/ACRE
6,970
4,354
5,069
1,740
DENSITY OF
AT
2-10 D.U.
/ACRE
8.4
3.4
3.2
4.35
NO. OF
EXISTING
MAXIMUM
TOTAL
D.U.
D.U.
AREA*
RESIDENTIAL
(BASED ON
(BASED ON
DESIGNATION ACREAGE
LAND USE)_
ZONING)
E
28
80
90
F
15
40
50
G
51
120
125
H
45
160
170
-A thru
D based on Land Use and Population Projections
-E thru
H based on Actual
Field Observations
*A -
Mattituck
B -
Little Hog Neck
C -
Great Hog Neck
D -
East Marion
E -
Sterling Basin
F -
Pipes Cove
G -
Conkling Point
H -
North Greenport
**Maximum
Density During Summer
Months
FUTURE
POPULATION
270
150
375
510
POPULATION
AT
1-D.U. OR
LESS/ACRE
1,785
1,071
1,451
FUTURE
POPULATION
DENSITY
2.7
POPULATION
AT
2-10 D.U.
/ACRE
6,970
4,354
5,069
1,740
DENSITY OF
AT
2-10 D.U.
/ACRE
8.4
3.4
3.2
4.35
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
The relatively smaller developments were examined through
field observations to obtain actual house counts and potential
expansions. Again, the assumption of 3.0 persons/household was
utilized to calculate the densities listed on Table 2.2.
2.4.2 Nitrate Concentration in Groundwater
The use of on-site subsurface septic systems is considered
a primary source of nitrogen pollution to the groundwater. The
nitrate concentration found in groundwater which is to be util-
ized as a potable water supply is an important parameter. The
reason being that some infants (less than 1 year old) do not
have a complete intestinal flora. Consequently, the bacteria
which are present are capable of reducing nitrates to nitrites,
but further reduction to nitrogen gas does not occur. As a
result, nitrites are available to combine with hemoglobin to
produce methemoglobin, which is incapable of carrying oxygen.
This results in a temporary blood disorder that can be fatal,
whereby the infant suffocates and may die from methemoglobi-
nemia, also known as cyanosis and "blue baby disease." Methe-
moglobinemia can occur at nitrate concentrations greater than
10 mg/1 -N (45 mg/1 -NO3)• Consequently, the USEPA and New
York State have established a maximum allowable nitrate con-
centration in potable water of 10 mg/1 -N. The natural back-
ground nitrate concentration in Suffolk County is generally
accepted to be 1 mg/1 -N. Higher concentrations are assumed
to be due to man's activities. Sources of nitrates in the Town
2.8
IHOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. ; H2M CORP.
'1
of Southold are primarily agricultural fertilizer, turf ferti-
lizer, and on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems and to a
lesser extent due to leaching from sanitary landfills, indus-
trial process/sanitary stormwater recharge and rainfall.
Nitrate concentrations in the groundwater of Southold are
significantly higher than most of Suffolk County groundwater, as
shown in subsection 3.1.1.8 B of the Engineering and Environmental
Data Report. An average of 59 percent of the Upper Pleistocene
(Glacial) wells tested in Southold have nitrate concentrations at
an unacceptable level, while the Suffolk County average was only
11 percent.(') However, it should be substantiated that the
nitrogen source stems more from the extensive use of fertilizer
on agricultural land than from the use of fertilizers applied to
lawns (residential) and on-site subsurface septic systems in
populated areas.
An evaluation of previous studies which examined areas with
high nitrate concentrations indicates areas where high nitrate
plumes have developed. Figure 2.5, shown in Appendix "B", depicts
these areas based on 1974 test data. By updating this map with
1975 through 1978 nitrate data, the movement or change in the
plumes could be detected. Nitrate test data for 1977 and 1978
were obtained from SCDHS on private wells within Southold Town-
ship• SCDHS also maintains 20 observation wells within the
(') Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, "Comprehensive Public Water
Supply Study of Suffolk County, New York", 1970.
2.9/10
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. , H2M CORP.
Township that are tested annually. Highlighting those wells for
which the nitrate concentration is equal to or greater than 8
mg/1 nitrogen, new areas with high nitrate concentrations were
located as shown on Figure 2.6 (see Appendix "B"). By comparing
the areas of high nitrate concentrations on Figures 2.5 and 2.6,
it can be seen that the nitrate plumes have increased. Based on
present land use, the center of each plume correlates to a heavy
agricultural region. However, in some areas that are not agri-
culturally worked, such as Mattituck, nitrate problems are now
developing. Figure 2.6 indicates that the nitrate plumes are
expanding into the Mattituck area from the agricultural regions,
in Cutchogue (to the east), and Northville in Riverhead (to the
west). Further evidence that supports this expansion can be found
by evaluating the direction of groundwater flow. The direction of
flow corresponds with the movement of nitrates to areas outside
the immediate region of farm land. These outside areas correspond
to the addition to the plumes in 1975 through 1978.
In order to differentiate between various nitrogen sources,
a further evaluation is necessary. By comparing the North Fork
(Southold) of Long Island to the South Fork (East Hampton), we
can further determine the adverse impact of fertilizer practices
versus the use of on-site subsurface disposal systems on the
groundwater. Table 2.3 compares the land use and population of
the Townships of Southold and East Hampton. Both towns have
similar hydrogeological characteristics and somewhat similar
residential densities. In contrast, Southold has approximately
2.11
TABLE 2.3
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
CHARACTERISTIC COMPARISON OF
SOUTHOLD* vs. EAST HAMPTON
(BASED ON 1975 DATA)
EAST HAMPTON
46,416
1,580
6,034
13,053
4,789
17,842
38 persons/acre
3.0 persons/acre
*Excludes the Inc. Village of Greenport Sewer District
**Based on seasonal homes being occupied for 4 months/year.
SOURCE: NSRPB - 208 Study, Summary Plan
2.12
SOUTHOLD
Total Acreage
29,871
Agriculture Acreage
9,060
Residential Acreage
4,150
Year-round Population
14,733
Seasonal Population**
Equivalent
3,219
Total Population Equivalent
17,953
Density (Total Average)
.60 persons/acre
Density (Residential
Acreage)
4.3 persons/acre
EAST HAMPTON
46,416
1,580
6,034
13,053
4,789
17,842
38 persons/acre
3.0 persons/acre
*Excludes the Inc. Village of Greenport Sewer District
**Based on seasonal homes being occupied for 4 months/year.
SOURCE: NSRPB - 208 Study, Summary Plan
2.12
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2MCORP.
9,060 acres of agriculturally worked land, while East Hampton
has only 1,580 acres. Long Island Water Resources Bulletin No.
8 has revealed that 100 percent of the Glacial aquifer under
Southold has at least moderate to high nitrate concentrations.
East Hampton on the other hand, has only 10 percent of its
Glacial aquifer with moderate to high nitrate concentrations,
with 90 percent of the aquifer having a low nitrate concentra-
tion. The one area of East Hampton that contains the moderate
to high nitrate concentration correlates to the agricultural
land use in the Town.
In addition, we have estimated the nitrogen load to the
groundwater from on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems,
residential lawn fertilizers and agriculturally worked areas
within Southold Township. Assuming an annual average waste-
water nitrogen loading of 10 pounds per person and that 50 per-
cent of the loading will leach to the groundwater, we have
estimated the annual nitrogen loading to be approximately 90,000
pounds from on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems. Based
on 4,150 acres of residential land use, of which 67 percent
apply fertilizers to their lawns, we have estimated the acreage
of land which receives turf fertilizers• A survey conducted by
Cornell Cooperative Extension in the Town of Southold estimated
that 52 percent of residential land use is actually turf. Using
an assumed rate of 1.72 pounds nitrogen per 1,000 square feet and
a leaching factor of 60 percent, we have estimated the annual
nitrogen loading due to turf fertilizers to be approximately
2.13
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. ' H2M CORP.
' 66,000 pounds. We have conservatively estimated the annual
nitrogen loading from agricultural fertilizers to be approxi-
mately 453,000 pounds, assuming an annual average nitrogen
loading of 200 pounds per agriculturally worked acre, and that
25 percent of the nitrogen will leach to the groundwater. Our
estimate indicates that of the three major nitrogen sources,
74 percent is from fertilizers used on agriculturally worked
areas, 11 percent from fertilizers applied to lawns and 15 per-
cent from on-site subsurface sewage disposal systems.
Based on the above data, we conclude that nitrate pollution
in the groundwater is primarily due to the fertilizer practices
used on 9,060 agricultural acres of Southold Township. Although
on-site subsurface disposal systems constitute a nitrogen input
source, structural alternatives to remove the nitrogen, such as
area -wide sewering, will have a minor effect on groundwater
quality improvement. Non-structural alternatives, such as agri-
cultural and turf fertilizer management, will have a far greater
' effect in reducing the nitrate input to the groundwater.
' 2.4.3 Soil Characteristics and Relative Groundwater Elevation
' The performance of subsurface leaching systems depends
heavily on the soil conditions and depth to groundwater in the
' surrounding area. The Town of Southold, with the exception of
the Inc. Village of Greenport, relies on subsurface leaching
' systems• Detailed soil maps of Southold Township taken from
the "Soil Survey of Suffolk County, New York" may be found in
II
2.14
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. % H2M CORP.
the appendix of Volume I. Using these maps in conjunction with
the soil limitations (see subsection 3.1.1.7, Table 3-9), areas
with soils that hinder the performance of a leaching system can
be located. Areas with poor soil characteristics are shown on
Figure 2.7.
The depth of soil between the groundwater elevation and
surface elevation is an important factor to consider. Using
the groundwater elevation map (see Section 3.1.1.8, Figure 3.9)
and the topographic map (see Section 3.1.1.4, Figure 3.4) lo-
cated in Volume I of this Report, the depth of soil can be de-
termined. This soil layer acts as a buffer by filtering the
discharge of the subsurface leaching systems. The deeper the
layer of soil, the better the filtration of the water. A mini-
mum depth of 10 feet should be considered sufficient to filter
the wastewater before it reaches the water table. Areas that
do not meet the 10 foot minimum are shown on Figure 2.8.
2.4.4 Surface Water Quality
There is little information leading to an indication of de-
grading environmental quality of surface waters within the study
area. All surface waters, both fresh and saline, seem to show
acceptable quality. Mattituck Creek, however, could be an area
of future concern because of the projected development within
the immediate surrounding area and the lack of sufficient tidal
flushing within the Creek.
2.15
r I��rct c. r
1 S L A N D
LIMITS OF STUDY
'
N U
'�`
AREA"•
i
L O N G
0
^N •�I
r
j
Ilk;
~•
.•
CONNECTICUT.
\ �'
f
4
NEW
YORK /
/ ONO
Sp
STUDY
AREA
cGH
A A Np
'ONO
r
NEW
JERSEY
SUFFOLK
LEGEND
NASSAU
cx CAN
'
20®
INDICATES SEVERE SOIL
UMRATION FOR USE AS
AT'Am"c
SEWAGE DISPOSAL FIELDS
r I��rct c. r
1 S L A N D
S 0 U
N U
i
SOIL LIMITATIONS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
NAELVLLE, N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARNIXDAIE N Y
RIVERHEAD NY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON N J
2.16
CONNECT iCOT
$1
NEW roan AI
/ ,,NO
�� ISLpNO
NEW
ONO
JERSEY SUFFOLK
NASSAU
OCEAN
b^ �
ATL Nric
l`PN11C
1
L 0 N 6 `�, I S L A .V p
i
o
T i '• f w
A I{
el _
I
" ] D
LEG ND SHALLOW GROUNDWATER DEPTH
AREAS THAT DO NOT HAVE
0 — A MINIMUM 10 FEET DEPTH
OF SOIL TO GROUNDWATER
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE
. N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE NY
RI V ERHE AD N Y
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON N J
2.17
LIMITS OF STUDY
AREA
z
I l
4 -
i
r
CONNECT iCOT
$1
NEW roan AI
/ ,,NO
�� ISLpNO
NEW
ONO
JERSEY SUFFOLK
NASSAU
OCEAN
b^ �
ATL Nric
l`PN11C
1
L 0 N 6 `�, I S L A .V p
i
o
T i '• f w
A I{
el _
I
" ] D
LEG ND SHALLOW GROUNDWATER DEPTH
AREAS THAT DO NOT HAVE
0 — A MINIMUM 10 FEET DEPTH
OF SOIL TO GROUNDWATER
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD -INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE
. N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE NY
RI V ERHE AD N Y
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON N J
2.17
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. H2M CORP.
therefore determined to be an environmentally sensitive area,
justifying future considerations. If further studies prove that
the high nitrate concentrations are primarily due to the leaching
of subsurface septic systems and that Mattituck Creek water
quality is degrading, sewering should be reconsidered.
Sewering of an area with a density of less than 9.0 per-
sons per acre would have a limited impact on improving ground-
' water/surface water quality. Future monitoring of the groundwater
2.18
2.4.5 Areas to be Sewered
By examining each area under the criteria previously dis-
cussed, the following conclusions were reached:
'
All of the larger regions under evaluation (A, B, C, and
D, as shown on Figure 2.4), although having some minor adverse
'
environmental impact, would not develop a population density
that would substantiate sewering based on 208 density criteria
'
of 9.0 persons per acre. However, the Mattituck region - Area
'
A has been calculated to generate a future population density
of 8.4 persons per acre, just below the 9.0 persons per acre
'
criteria. It was therefore decided that a more detailed evalua-
tion of this area was warranted. Residential areas are continu-
ing to develop along Mattituck Creek and Inlet. This close
'
proximity of dwelling units and surface waters will most likely
adversely impact Mattituck Creek. The lack of tidal flushing
within the inner reaches of the Creek prevents a dilution affect
from the Long Island Sound, thereby causing a possible buildup
of nutrients within the surface waters. The Mattituck area is
therefore determined to be an environmentally sensitive area,
justifying future considerations. If further studies prove that
the high nitrate concentrations are primarily due to the leaching
of subsurface septic systems and that Mattituck Creek water
quality is degrading, sewering should be reconsidered.
Sewering of an area with a density of less than 9.0 per-
sons per acre would have a limited impact on improving ground-
' water/surface water quality. Future monitoring of the groundwater
2.18
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P . ' H2M CORP
and surface water quality within populated and agricultural
areas should be conducted to detect trends in the nitrate con-
centration or any other parameter that might indicate pollution
affects from on-site systems. A groundwater and surface water
monitoring program will be described in subsection 4.1.3.
Evaluation of the small residential areas in close proximity
to the existing Greenport sanitary collection system indicates
four (4) specific areas, listed below, in need of sewering:
E. Sterling Basin Area
F. Pipes Cove Area
G. Conkling Point Area
H. North Greenport
The basic criteria that classifies these areas in need of
sanitary sewers are population density and unsuitablility of
the soils for proper operation of a subsurface disposal system.
Poor soil permeability is a common reason for septic system
failures and results in public health problems. A shallow
depth between surface elevation and the groundwater table (less
than 10 feet) produces insufficient filtration of the wastewater
prior to entering the groundwater. Deterioration of the ground-
water quality results if no further steps are taken.
The following briefly describes each area. Note that all
homes presently outside the sewer service area have on-site sub-
surface sewage disposal systems, such as septic tanks or cess-
pools and/or tile fields.
2.19
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. H2M CORP.
Sterling Basin Area
' The Sterling Basin Area presently consists of approximately
80 dwelling units which cover 28 acres. The area is located
2,750 feet east of the Inc. Village of Greenport sewer district.
Calculation of a future population projects a density of 9.6
1 persons per acre. The impact on environmental quality was con-
' sidered as previously discussed in subsection 2.4.3. Unsuitable
soil characteristics in relation to on-site wastewater disposal,
' combined with a high groundwater table (depth from surface eleva-
tion to groundwater elevation is less than 10 feet) results in
this area being unsuitable for continued dependence on subsurface
septic systems.
Pipes Cove Area
Approximately 40 dwelling units now exist on 15 acres in
the Pipes Cove Area. Most of the units are owned and operated
by the Silver Sand Motel. The motel and resort cottages are
considered seasonal, and are only heavily occupied during the
summer months. Population density during the summer months
may reach a maximum of 10 persons per acre. The dwelling units
are situated 2,500 feet southwest of the existing sewer district.
Adverse environmental impact results from poor soil character-
istics and a shallow depth to groundwater. Therefore, this area
is unsuitable for subsurface disposal systems.
2.20
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. i H2M CORP.
Conklinq Point Area
The Conkling Point Area consists of approximately 120
small homes on Kerwin Road along the shoreline, covering 51
acres. Calculating a future density reveals 7.4 persons per
acre in this area. An environmental analysis discloses poor
soil characteristics and shallow depth to the water table in
this area. Therefore, this area is also unsuitable for sub-
surface disposal systems.
North Greenport
Located adjacent to the northeast border of the Inc.
Village of Greenport, approximately 160 dwelling units cover
45 acres of land. This area, known as North Greenport, will
have a future population density of approximately 11.3 per-
sons per acre. This density in itself justifies the need
for sewering.
2.4.6 Areas of Possible Future Sewering Needs
Inlet Point, located to the north of the Inc. Village of
Greenport, consists of 75 acres that has the potential of heavy
residential development. Presently there are 20 dwelling units
within this area. Based on the zoning map, it is approximated
that 165 dwelling units will be constructed in this area. Pro-
jected density of this area is calculated to be 6.6 persons
per acre. Soil characteristics are acceptable for subsurface
disposal. Therefore, no immediate need for sewering exists.
2.21
�'. ' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P. C.' H2M CORP.
' However, if the land is developed at a greater density, re-evalua-
tion of this area is recommended.
'
As previously discussed, the Mattituck area does not indi-
cate an immediate need for sewering. Future development is
'
anticipated to increase the population density to 8.4 persons
'
per acre, just below the sewering density criteria. Due to the
environmental sensitivity of Mattituck Creek, implementation of
'
a monitoring program to detect degradation of both groundwater
and surface waters is required. If degradation is verified, re-
evaluation of sewering this area is recommended.
'
2.5 Effluent Limitations
It is anticipated that the effluent limitations to cover
'
follows:
any type of ocean/sound disposal shall be as
1. BOD -5 85 Percent Removal
'
30 mg/l (30 Day Avg.)
45 mg/1 (7 Day Avg.)
'
2. Suspended Solids 85 Percent Removal
30 mg/1 (30 Day Avg.)
45 mg/1 (7 Day Avg.)
These limitations are consistent with the existing dis-
charge permit requirements, and are not anticipated to change.
Effluent limitations for land application are expected to
' be governed by N.Y.S.D.E.C. groundwater standards, Class GA
waters. Due to the fact that the receiving waters have been
' designated as a sole source aquifer, further consideration of
' the following effluent limitations is required:
1. Dissolved Solids, Total 1,000 mg/1
' 2. Nitrogen, Total (as N) 10 mg/1
2.22
' HOLZMACHER. MCLENOON and MURRELL. P.C. ' H2M CORP.
Based on this stringent nitrogen limitation, nitrification -
denitrification processes or substantial land areas will be
required prior to land application of effluent.
' 2.6 Evaluation of Performance at the Inc. Village of
Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant (STP)
' The existing Inc. Village of Greenport Wastewater Treatment
Facility is operating at approximately 50 percent of its design
flow. Population projections of the existing sewer district in-
dicates a minimal increase in flow, therefore, no need for ex-
pansion of the facility is anticipated.
' A comparison between the treatment plant performance for
' the period of February 1978 to October 1980 and the SPDES ef-
fluent limitation requirements are presented on Table 2.4. The
with a heavy scallop waste load.
2.23
comparison illustrates that for the period of record, the Green-
port facility did not consistently meet the effluent limitations
'
set forth in its SPDES permit. Major operational problems were
encountered throughout 1978, with a distinct improvement in
operational efficiency noticed after November 1978. The improve-
ments in performance after November 1978 can be attributed to
the following reasons:
'
1. Shelter Island Oyster Co., Inc. has discontinued the
discharge of scallop processing waste and decreased the clam
'
processing waste to a minimum. Previous operational observa-
tions have detected that the plant cannot operate efficiently
with a heavy scallop waste load.
2.23
TABLE 2.4
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT - S.T.P. PREFORMANCE
2.24
B O D -
5
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
DATE
INF.
EFF.
% REMOVAL
INF.
EFF. %
REMOVAL
2-78
235
33
86
153
25
84*
3-78
142
20
86
171
39
77*
4-78
175
11
94
182
39
79*
5-78
112
18
84*
336
119*
65*
6-78
105
27
74*
152
39
74*
7-78
193
19
90
94
34
64*
8-78
169
17
90
174
35
80*
9-78
177
7
96
191
12
94
10-78
189
22
88
216
39
82*
11-78
188
21
89
163
44
73*
12-78
169
4
98
231
15
94
1-79
186
14
92
197
22
89
2-79
103
4
96
90
12
87
3-79
175
4
98
137
12
91
4-79
220
5
98
129
13
90
5-79
157
7
96
123
16
87
6-79
262
27
90
218
41
81*
7-79
159
5
97
151
59*
61*
8-79
133
20
85
141
22
84*
9-79
202
4
98
136
8
94
10-79
169
16
91
136
11
92
11-79
216
6
97
137
26
81*
12-79
136
10
93
128
18
86
1-80
253
9
96
340
24
93
2-80
255
13
95
217
25
88
3-80
310
10
97
153
26
83*
4-80
293
9
97
152
27
82*
5-80
237
15
94
94
39
59*
2.24
TABLE 2.4 (CONT'D)
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
DATE
INF.
EFF.
% REMOVAL
INF.
EFF.
% REMOVAL
6-80
334
16
95
223
38
83*
7-80
168
11
93
163
24
85
8-80
266
16
94
221
36
84*
9-80
297
17
94
131
37
72*
10-80
322
20
94
309
21
93
SPDES PERMIT LIMITATIONS - BOD - 5
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
30 mg/l (7 day Avg.)
45 mg/l (30 day Avg.)
85% Removal
30 mg/l (7 day Avg.)
45 mg/l (30 day Avg.)
85% Removal
*Non-compliance with SPDES Permit Limitations.
2.25
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P . H2M CORP.
I
2. Robert Cooper Inc. has installed an on-site pretreat-
ment process which provides for a better collection of solid
tfish process waste. Prior to this addition, the solids would
' be sent to the wastewater treatment plant for removal.
3. K.O.A. (Kampgrounds of America) has ceased discharging
tan acidic cleaning agent into their wastewater stream.
Any one or combination of the above could have been the
cause of the Greenport STP inability to consistently meet its
' SPDES permit.
It can be seen that BOD -5 removal is not a problem of
' treatment efficiency at the Greenport Facility. However, con-
sistent suspended solids removal has been difficult to maintain.
' As discussed in Volume I, Engineering and Environmental Data,
the settling tank and weir loading designs at the treatment
plant meet the Ten State Standards and therefore should be able
' to effectively remove the suspended solids. Therefore, the
problem appears to be due to the aerated lagoon treatment pro-
cess. Suspended solids can be a problem in systems where the
' detention time is greater than 10 days. Since the treatment
plant has been operating at less than capacity, detention times
' on the order of 15-20 days have been occurring. It is therefore
recommended that the STP consider upgrading to include an addi-
tional process such as a sand filter or micro -strainer. Another
reason for the poor settling rates can be attributed to the
oil/grease problems that the Greenport STP has been subjected to.
1 2.26
HOLZMACHER. MCLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. ' H2M CORP
Discussions with key treatment plant personnel indicate
that the plant, since its recent upgrading, has been operating
few items within expectations. However, two major problems
were discussed which are described below:
1. Inability to Obtain Consistent Bacteria Kil
Over the past year, both the total and fecal coliform count
of the effluent has not been consistently meeting the discharge
limitations set by the permit. The chlorine residual analyzer
was not operating correctly and in turn was sent to the manu-
facturer for repairs and recalibration. After reinstallation,
the coliform count did decrease, but not to an acceptable level.
Investigation into the disinfection problem also indicated two
other possible causes. One is the sampling location for the
chlorine residual analyzer. If situated in a poor location,
false readings can be recorded thereby limiting the amount of
chlorine being added to the effluent. The sample location must
be located a sufficient distance from the point of chlorine
addition to allow for effective mixing throughout the flow.
The second cause is due to the operation of the chlorinator.
The manufacturer recommends that the chlorinator operate with
40 psi of water pressure. However, the operator has indicated
that when the potable water supply is being utilized for other
purposes throughout the plant, the water pressure in the water
line decreases. It is felt that the decrease in pressure is
affecting the chlorinator. Installation of another backflow,
preventer prior to the chlorinator has been recommended in
2.27
HOLZMACHFR. McLENDON and MURRELL. P H2M CORP
order to stabilize the pressure within the water supply feed
line to the chlorinator.
2. Excessive Amounts of Oil in Influent.
Within recent months, excessive amounts of oil have been
detected in the wastewater entering the treatment facility,
causing operational problems throughout the plant. It was
speculated that there are two sources of oil. One being a
petroleum -base product seeping into the collection system and
the second being a fish -base oil from a local seafood process-
ing facility. The industry has been requested to eliminate
their oil/grease discharge. The New York State Department of
Transportation is drilling wells in the vicinity of the col-
lection system to determine the source of the petroleum. It
is thought to be from some buried abandoned tanks on adjacent
property to the sanitary sewer.
2.7 Expansion of the Greenport Service Area
With the Inc. Village of Greenport Wastewater Treatment
Facility operating hydraulically at approximately 50 percent
capacity, there is sufficient capacity for expansion of the
existing sewer district. This section evaluates areas in need
of sewering that are in close proximity to the existing col-
lection system and could be incorporated within the sewer dis-
trict. Since the Greenport STP has available capacity, it may
be cost-effective to treat sewage from these areas at the
Greenport STP. Areas to be considered are shown on Figure 2.9.
1 2.28
Inlet P[/
Parae� now :
i�
0
glue
s'a
Onve-in
heater
Substation,
0
o0 o
0
Arshatnonaque,',:, p C
6
-r.0 SANE
FIGURE N° 2.�
NOFv. O
•.o . • z
tit .o..Q O
e
o Doo jq'fy. Tv1, t� I ,goP4op .0
.moo o •[`h .( ��_ .:e�'„ ip
e Z,�
SO
e 6 n ->s t� a 'O
'i R
r�rCI
OPO Lill; v .� an6Y p Yor nE;° Pt
p.. (jo fCS woirl
Dt"
Grprt
Sewage N;I X11 ow "At,' s•. PIcy �2nt
Disoosal
POS ,.•ei. @�
Vnlnn'
0 �'�� Seh1�l ;� •�
o ICBM it
0 13 �
I G
♦ �L i rt LigM1ts
O •Gasoline
pip",
Pipes
Cove
Fannmr
Pt
Do
LEGEND
5 9
° z oo INDICATES AREAS
a l EYab�aa. o°oo RECOMMENDED FOR
SEWERING
ling
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE. N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE. N Y
RIVERHEAD. N.Y.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON. N. J
2.29
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. H2M CORP.
Future population projections will increase the Village's
' flow to approximately 0.3 m.g.d. Examination of the seasonal
' influx of tourists during the summer months indicated only a
slight increase in wastewater generation within the Greenport
' system. Peak daily flows (weekends during the summer) provided
an increase of less than 16 percent over the average daily flow
' during 1980. Reserving a plant capacity of .35 m.g.d. for future
population and seasonal peak flows, allows a maximum flow of 0.15
m.g.d. to be available for expanding the system while keeping
the facility at or below capacity.
In order to properly evaluate the areas under consideration,
future population projections are required. The projected popu-
lations shown on Table 2.5 are based on existing dwelling units
and zoning criteria established by the Town of Southold. Assuming
an average household size of 3.0 persons per household, based on
the NSRPB - 208 Study, densities were calculated and are listed
in Table 2.5.
2.7.1 Additional Flow from Expansion of Greenport Sanitary
Sewer Collection System
The expansion of the Greenport sanitary sewer collection
system will increase the future total population being served
by the sewage treatment plant by approximately 1,350 people.
Recognizing that the existing service area will have an in-
crease in population in the year 2005 of approximately 460
persons, a total increase of 1,810 above the existing popula-
' tion served can be expected
I
Using an average wastewater flow
2.30
TABLE 2.5
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
CALCULATION OF ADDITIONAL FLOW
FROM THE EXPANSION OF SEWER DISTRICT
FUTURE
POPULATION
Sterling Basin 270 x 65 gpcpd(1)
Pipes Cove (private) 150 x 65 gpcpd(2)
20 units x
(Hotel) x 2 per/unit x 50 gpcpd(2)
Conkling Pt. 375 x 65 gpcpd
North Greenport 510 x 65 gpcpd
Total Future Flow from Expansion
= 17,550
9,750 (3)
2,000 (3)
24,400
33,150
86,850 gpd
Existing Population of Service Area = 3,940
Population Projection 2005 of Existing Area = 4,400
Net Increase = 500 persons
Future Flow From Existing Area 4,400 x 65 gpcpd = 286,000 gpd
Industry = 30,000 gpd
Future Flow From Expansion Area = 86,850 gpd
Total Future Flow = 402,850 gpd
(1) Infiltration/Inflow Analysis of Greenport Collection System;
Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C., 1974
(2) Assumed Hotel Wastewater generation at '75 percent of normal
domestic usage
(3) Maximum Average Daily Flow (summer months)
2.31
IHOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. H2M CORP
' per capita of 65 gpcpd(1) and 50 gpcpd for hotel residence,
the increase in flow will be 116,725 g.p.d. Therefore, using
' the existing average daily flow of 0.286 m.g.d., plus the fu-
ture increase of 0.117 m.g.d., the future average daily flow
' will be approximately 0.403. This is still below the plant's
' design capacity of 0.5 m.g.d. Therefore, no future expansion
of the plant is expected. The calculation of future flows are
' on Table 2.5.
' 2.8 Evaluation of Water Supply
Long Island has recently been classified by USEPA as being
' one of seven regions in the nation as having a sole (single)
source of potable water. This designation places Long Island
in a crucial planning situation, for if the groundwater becomes
' contaminated by point source and/or non -point source pollution,
other feasible means of obtaining water would not be readily
available or prohibitive, based on costs.
' The Town of Southold -Inc. Village of Greenport is in an
even more critical position compared to the majority of Long
Island. Most townships on Long Island obtain their potable
water supply from both the Glacial and Magothy aquifers. How-
' ever, water present in the Magothy formation underlying Southold
is too saline for domestic use. Therefore, the Glacial aquifer
' is the only source of potable water for the township. Due to
(l) Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C., I/I Study for
' Inc. Village of Greenport, 1974.
1 2.32
HOLZMACHER. McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. , H2M CORP.
delicate and finite nature of the fresh groundwater supply,
extreme efforts will be required to preserve the quality and
quantity of fresh water.
Signs of groundwater contamination have already been de-
tected throughout the Town. For example, the Inc. Village of
Greenport operates water supply facilities that supply potable
water to approximately 2,200 households. Nineteen (19) wells
on six (6) well fields (only 12 wells in use) pumped approxi-
mately 287 million gallons in 1979. However, the quality of
this water has deteriorated in recent years. Table 2.6 shows
chloride and nitrate concentrations for the years 1974-1979.
It should be noted the each well field has had problems with
some constituent as noted below:
Well Fields No. 1 & 2 High Chlorides
Well Field No. 3 High Manganese
Well Field No. 4 High Chlorides
Well Fields No. 5 & 6 High Nitrates
Well Field No. 1 has shown excessive chlorides and bacteria
contamination and is now used only as a power plant coolant source.
Field No. 2 has also shown signs of excessive chlorides and has
been put on reserve only to be used in an emergency situation.
Well Fields No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are presently being used as the
potable water supply and are described below.
PLANT NO. 3 - This plant is situated on the southwest
corner of North Road and Moore's Lane and consists of 6 driven
wells 45 to 57 feet deep on a common suction and pumped by an
2.33
TABLE 2.6
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAI, ASSESSMENT REPORT
WELL NO.
3*
4-6
4-7
4-8
5
6-1
6-2
NOTES:
GREENPORT WATER SERVICE
WATER OUALITY TEST DATA
NITRATES
1974
1975
CHLORIDES
1977
1974
1975
1976
1977
1979
130
46
44.5
55
--
135
170
120
165
132
99
120
55.5
85
86
33
80.5
70
185
62
50
170
47.5
49.5
38
37
52
41.5
42
38
27.5
28
27
25.5
26
NITRATES
1974
1975
1976
1977
1979
2.8
2.2
2.3
2.0
--
8.0
7.1
4.6
7.7
7.0
6.9
6.5
8.2
7.0
7.4
1.3
3.1
3.4
3.2
4.3
12.5
7.4
12.1
11.9
11.3
12.5
10.9
10.5
10.1
10.4
6.05
5.5
7.9
7.5
9.1
(1) Well 43 in 1974 - High Manganese - .87
(2) Well 44-6 in 1975 - Iron at limit (potable water)
(3) Well 43 in 1976 - High Manganese - 1.12
Recommended Not to Use Unless Necessary
(4) Well 44-6 in 1977 - High Total Solids - 516 mg/l
(5) Well 44-8 in 1979 - Total Iron - .60
*Wells 3-1 to 3-6 are six wells with common suction.
2.34
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. ' H2M CORP.
electrically -driven reciprocating pump of 500 g.p.m. capacity.
Composite chloride analyses (as Cl) at this station have varied
widely from 40 to almost 500 mg/1. In recent years, iron and
manganese content have increased to a point where this plant
should only be used in an emergency. The southerly portion of
this well field has been periodically flooded with pumped ex-
cess surface water in an attempt to induce recharge, reduce
salt water intrusion and limit the rise in chloride content
which accompanies heavy pumping. There is also piping avail-
able to flood the northerly portion of the well field. The
annual volume of recharge has varied from 0 to 90 percent of
Plant No. 3 pumpage since 1950. According to well log records
and test borings made in connection with the sewage treatment
plant project in recent years, there is a thick, tough clay
strata which underlies the area south and west of this well
field, but which thins in its extension northerly. The details
of the northerly termination of the clay are not known, but
believed to be within the limits of the No. 3 well field. An
attempt was made in 1965 to construct shallow wells within the
pits of existing well fields with the hope that an additional
300 gallons per minute could be obtained from the shallow for-
mation. One well was installed, but only 15 gallons per minute,
with a very poor specific capacity, was obtained. This well
was abondoned as a public supply well and the other contem-
plated wells were not drilled.
2.35
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. ' H2M CORP.
PLANT NO. 4 - This plant is situated on a 15.4 acre parcel,
1,000 feet north of North Road and 1,700 feet west of Rocky
Point Road, near the community of East Marion, and consists of
three wells, each equipped with an engine -driven vertical deep
well type pump. Two wells have a capacity of 200 g.p.m., but
the third well's capacity has been reduced to 100 g.p.m. There
is no electric power to this well field.
Neighboring irrigation wells and their extensive use during
drought periods, the lack of control by any responsible agency
over their use, and the dredging and construction of canals
south of the main road, have imposed threats to the future re-
liability of a saline free supply from these wells.
Chloride data from 1957 to date indicated considerable
variations in chlorides, with a general increase especially at
Wells No. 4-6 and 4-8, where chlorides have fluctuated to 165
and 185 mg/l in 1977.
PLANT NO._5 - Until 1965, this plant supplied the entire
needs of the North Fork division. It is situated in Southold
on the east side of South Harbor Road, 1,000 feet south of Main
Street (New York State Route 25) and did consist of four wells,
from 44 to 60 feet in depth, only one of which is operable and
equipped with a pumping unit. No auxiliary engine exists at
this site. The only pumping unit (No. 5-5) that is available
for normal supply has a capacity of 200 g.p.m. The quality of
water from these wells is typically eastern Long Island shallow
well quality, with excessive nitrates and appreciable chlorides
2.36
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. ' H2M CORP.
and hardness. This station has continued for years to supply
the Southold area in a separate pressure zone from the rest of
the system. This separate pressure zone was dictated by the
existence of some old piping which may not withstand the higher
pressures carried in the balance of the system. A continued
gradual increase in pressure in this zone permits the entire
system to be on one zone, and any weak point repaired or re-
placed as discovered.
PLANT NO. 6 - This plant is situated on Old North Road,
800 feet east of Horton Lane, in Southold. Well No. 6-1 is 90
feet deep, is equipped with an electric and diesel -driven deep
well type pump with a capacity of 550 gallons per minute. Well
No. 6-2 is 78 feet deep, and is equipped with an electric -driven
deep well type pump. It has an approved capacity of 450 gallons
per minute, but at last report, the actual capacity had decreased
to less than 200 gallons per minute due to the limited capacity
of the aquifer in the immediate location of the screen.
Both of these wells have been high in nitrate (as much as
11 mg/1) content for several years, but have remained in service.
Before the nitrate levels were too high, a third well was recom-
mended for this site, but not authorized or built. More recently,
both wells have been discontinued from use because of the detec-
ted presence of aldicarb at levels exceeding the New York State
Department of Health limit of 7 ppb.
Wells 6-1 and 6-2 have been the major supply to the water
supply system, accounting for up to 61 percent of the water
2.37
'. I HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. ! H2M CORP.
' pumped during the last few years. Together, these wells repre-
sent over 50 percent of the available, acceptable quality well
capacity with a combined capacity of 1.08 m.g.d. Until now,
' Wells 6-1 and 6-2 have also been the most reliable source of
water which almost meets water quality standards. With the
closure of Plant No. 6, the burden of supplying quantities of
potable water rests on the remaining three plants, one of which
' (Plant No. 3) is so high in iron and manganese that it should
' only be used as a last resort.
There are no sources in this entire area which are free
from the threat of salt water intrusion, although Plant No. 3
is considered the most vulnerable and is rested for much of the
year and Plant No. 6 is least likely to be affected by salinity.
With the recent loss of Wells 6-1 and 6-2, the extreme
manganese and iron in Plant No. 3 and the nitrates above the
limit at Well No. 5-5, the only remaining good quality water
is at Plant No. 4 whose yield is less than 500 g.p.m. Even here
at Wells 4-6 and 4-8, the chlorides have increased to about two-
thirds to three-quarters the limit and are suspect for future
reliability. It is, therefore, conceivable that the system
capacity could be reduced to one well (No. 4-7) at 200 g.p.m.
The high concentration of chlorides is primarily due to the
encroachment of salt water. With the groundwater table elevation
approximately 1.8 feet above zero datum in the vicinity of Well
Field No. 4, the fresh water -salt water interface is approximately
72 feet below zero datum. The three (3) wells on Well Field No. 4
2.38
-I HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
are drilled to a depth near 80 feet with a surface elevation of
' 30 feet. Therefore, there is approximately 22 feet between the
bottom of the wells and the salt water interface. Excessive pump -
age reduces the hydraulic head around the well causing upconing
of the interface. Consequently, the chloride concentration in
the water being pumped increases.
The excessive concentration of nitrates is primarily due to
the use of fertilizers on agricultural land. The leachate of
irrigation water and precipitation with soluble nitrogen, perco-
lates down and contaminates the groundwater. A more detailed
analysis has been included in Section 2.4.
The high manganese concentration in Well Field No. 3 is due
to a manganese strata leaching in the soil. Effects of manganese
in potable water are poor taste and discoloration.
With even 50 percent of the domestic water supply being
pumped from small individual wells, similar pollution problems
' can be expected to an even greater extent. This is due to the
fact that small individual wells tend to be shallow and are more
susceptible to nitrate contamination than deep wells. With an
estimated 12,000 persons obtaining potable water from shallow
' wells in the township, water treatment such as denitrification
' on an individual well basis is not feasible. Therefore, the
alternative of eliminating or decreasing the pollution input to
' the groundwater seems to be the most cost-effective alternative.
This alternative requires a combined water management, fertilizer
1 2.39
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. 1 H2M CORP.
management and septic tank management pian. All three management
plans are described in greater detail later in this report.
In the early months of 1980, the chemical aldicarb was found
in two of the public wells in Greenport and various private wells
throughout Southold, at a level higher than the New York State
Department of Health standard of 7 parts per billion. The source
of aldicarb has been traced to the agricultural use of the pest-
icide Temik, of which aldicarb is the major constituent. It has
been proven that this chemical compound is highly toxic and does
not decompose easily in Long Island groundwater because of the
acidity of the groundwater.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency has since
taken action to prohibit the sale of Temik on Long Island, in
order to prevent further contamination of the groundwater by
aldicarb. Studies, such as those currently being performed by
the Cooperative Extension Association, are currently being con-
ducted to determine acceptable application rates for the chemi-
cal and methods of removing aldicarb from the drinking water.
This is only one chemical which has been examined in detail
and detected. Further work in this area by the Village of Green-
port, Town of Southold, local and state agencies is required to
evaluate and monitor constituents in order to protect the ground-
water.
Due to the urgent need of new sources of water in the Vil-
lage, the Inc. Village of Greenport is now implementing plans
to construct 2 well sites within the area. Completion of both
projects is expected in mid 1981.
2.40
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. H2M CORP.
' 3.0 FUTURE ENVIRONMENT OF THE
PLANNING AREA WITHOUT THE
' PROJECT
IHOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. i H2M CORP.
' 3_u
ENVIRONMENT OF THE PLANNING AREA WITHOUT THE PROJECT
The future environment of the planning area without this
project or some other plan would be the "No Action" alternative.
No Action does not provide for more advance treatment or dis-
posal methods to keep pace with the projected population growths
in the study area, nor does it correct, modify or improve waste-
water management practices now in use. The following is a de-
scription of the existing practices and their probable social
and natural environmental effects if continued without the imple-
mentation of a wastewater management and facility plan:
3.1 SUB -REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
(GREENPORT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT)
3.1.1 Existinq Situation and Future Continuation
The existing Inc. Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment
facility would continue to handle domestic wastewater from the
existing sanitary collection system, as outlined in Figure 3.1.
The Greenport plant is a secondary treatment plant utilizing an
aerated lagoon system for the biological oxidation of suspended
solids and dissolved organic material in the wastewater.
Comminuted wastewater from the central pump station enters
the Imhoff tanks, where the upper portion of the tanks provide
a period of quiescence to permit the settleable and suspended
solids to settle to the lower portion of the Imhoff tanks form-
ing primary sludge which undergoes anaerobic digestion. The
scum floats to the surface. Primary effluent from the Imhoff
19MI
r IUUnL 0.1
60 ('.ait Marl
le ILONCJJ ISLAItG�7��.
66 3a D so uNn
b
z
69;..OA
24
/ 6 l �50 9M•.�_ I .S
39 Inlet,'Pt/, StiL�mti �' PUMP STATION No. 4
U� �'" `�° ' YF�L ��Iry,iuA
/ �;
2e _ zs it
CENTRAL PUMP STATION
37 t,�/ 0 ;.'� holyTL y _ f St AF" 'PUMP
2] t tt
eM STATION No.3
6
Pailw Roca ; u i// .a_ I ��•� ' v `- z� �r l � • i
/ a 40t Si ler
t♦ llll_'i7 �, <b�7.a�Y� �'7►-Youngs Pt
39 24
til
FINAL PUMP STATION S�Be
22 5 , n'' DnDgal
26 NURSIq '
1 10
00
z' elug�
v
0
,o 'O
Dnve"" ) DBOA
7heate/
CIT
to �'_5 Gr
JI n h IN
c
.n_
�a !I
�
PUMP
STATION"
No. 1—'
PO
2
_ _ n
� M
6- r�,�0n1�n6
'A Otlaque
v ;LAN3F 1Jf �� 3 �O ��95
Colne
- �bZ � ijeach 91�
J �
i
X
.6 7 p
LOCATION MAP
�e
,Ln
00
STATION No.2
U�y❑t
1 IJO IFI(>I<J�
j I I
90
t°
Derilly
I,Har6or
la �� Eheclult
rr
„Pf
Ye hl Club
6
-;,�, 14 • n 1 . 30
,Ny 00
1
SCALE: I% 2004
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. �H2 M CORP. MELVI LLF, NV
FARM. G DA L E, N.Y
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON, N.1
3.2
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
tanks is distributed to the aerated lagoons. Within these
lagoons an environment is created to promote growth of micro-
organisms which feed upon, and reduce the amount of organic
matter in the wastewater. Air is supplied to the flow by float-
ing mechanical aerators, which satisfies the oxygen requirements
for biological life and maintains solids in suspension. Follow-
ing the detention period in the lagoons, the stabilized effluent
flows to the final settling tank where further settling of solids
is obtained. The final effluent is then chlorinated, metered
and flows to the wet well of the effluent pumps which discharge
the flow to the Long Island Sound.
Sludge from the final settling tank is intermittently pumped
to the Imhoff tanks where it settles with the primary sludge in
the lower compartments of the tanks to undergo anaerobic digestion.
Digested sludge flows by gravity to the sludge drying beds and
from here, the dried sludge is trucked to the Village landfill
for ultimate disposal.
3.1.2 Social Impacts
Primary social impacts resulting from the continuation of
the existing sewage treatment plant in Greenport are related to
public health and safety considerations. As a conservative ap-
proach, the lack of a well-maintained and operated sewage treat-
ment system could expose the population to potential health risks.
It can not be stated definitively, however, that the health risks
from the No Action alternative would be any more significant than
that of the proposed project.
3.3
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' Secondary social effects are the indirect or induced changes
resulting from sub -regional wastewater treatment practices and
disposal. These include changes in population, economic growth,
land use, level of services, and development patterns.
The existing sewage treatment plant in Greenport can meet
' projected effluent flows for the Village. The facility was de-
signed to serve a population equivalent to 5,000 (winter and
' summer). Presently operating at 50 percent of design capacity
(1978) and with a projected permanent population in 2005 of
2,970 for the Inc. Village of Greenport, there is adequate ex-
cess capacity to allow for future population increases. It is
not expected that the facility will induce unwanted urban de-
velopment due to the remote location of the facility and the
rural nature of the study area.
' It is not expected that the continuation of the existing
' treatment plant will cause significant social dislocations or
will adversely affect agricultural land. Sewage outfall to the
' Sound, however, has a negative impact of loss of recreational/
open space and fisheries opportunities in the immediate vicinity
of the discharge area.
Positive long term impacts as a result of the facility in-
clude increased property values for homes, greater supply of
reasonably priced housing, and new commercial/industrial de-
velopment. However, as the facility ages, unless operated and
maintained properly, it can affect treatment levels and relia-
' bility.
1 3.4
HOLZMACHER. McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. ' H2M CORP.
3.1.3 Natural Environmental
The effects of the No Action alternative will impact the
natural environment through losses in both quantity and quality
of potable drinking waters, disturbance of groundwater flows
into fresh and tidal wetlands, and continued input of suspended
solids (SS), biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nutrients, and
trace metals/chlorine to Long Island Sound.
3.1.3.1 Impacts to Groundwater
The North Fork is naturally divided by salt water ponds,
marshes and inlets into four fairly distinct hydrogeologic units
(see Figure 3.2). Greenport's sanitary collection system lies
over part of a relatively small unit, which will be referred to
as the Greenport aquifer, located between Hashamomuck and Dam
Ponds. When the collection system/S.T.P. became operational in
January 1940, recharge of wastewaters to the Greenport aquifer
from on-site, private disposal systems within the sewered areas
ceased. This action probably caused a decrease in average ground-
water levels and some upward and landward movement of the salt
water -fresh water interface in this hydrogeologic unit. Since
1940, there has been no major expansion of the sanitary collec-
tion system and groundwater fluctuations from the loss of ground-
water resources have already stabilized. Therefore, continuation
of the existing sub -regional sewage treatment plant and sanitary
collection system will cause little further change in groundwater
levels.
3.5
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SANITARY LANDFILL
AND SCAVENGER
WASTE DISPOSAL
SITE
GREENPORT
SEWER
DISTRICT
FRI
o �
o ,�o
• 'i�J~Sp�Q
J4
I'D
`-HOG NECK
UNIT
WESTERN SOUTHOLD
UNIT
BOUNDARIES OF HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS IN SOUTHOLD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
REF: HOLZMACHER, McLENDON a MURRELL, P.C., 1978
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P. C. /H 2 M CORP. MEEVILIE. NY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FARMINGDALE, N.Y.
NEWTON N.).
3 F�
\XORIENT
�SOUJ UNIT
SNF lf,04 "
ISl4ND
GREENPORT
UNIT
`-HOG NECK
UNIT
WESTERN SOUTHOLD
UNIT
BOUNDARIES OF HYDROGEOLOGIC UNITS IN SOUTHOLD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
REF: HOLZMACHER, McLENDON a MURRELL, P.C., 1978
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P. C. /H 2 M CORP. MEEVILIE. NY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FARMINGDALE, N.Y.
NEWTON N.).
3 F�
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
Construction of the sanitary collection system probably
positively impacted groundwater quality in the Greenport aqui-
fer by decreasing the number of private, on-site disposal sys-
tems and thereby reducing the input of nitrates to groundwater.
However, a large part of this aquifer's population, continue to
utilize on-site disposal systems. Since the use of fertilizers
throughout Southold has increased since 1940, construction of
the sanitary collection system temporarily decreased, but did
not eliminate, input of nitrates to the Greenport aquifer. No
Action will, therefore, result in continued deterioration of
water quality in this hydrogeologic unit. Eventually, its water
quality will become unsuitable for human consumption, and expen-
sive measures for pretreatment or transport of water from out -
public water supply.
A further groundwater contamination impact results from
ultimate sludge disposal at what is essentially a landfill at
the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. This landfill is unlined
and, since sludge will often contain significant concentrations
of metals (i.e., cadmium) and nutrients, metal and nutrient con-
taminated leachate from this sludge will flow directly into the
underlying aquifer. From the landfill, the leachate plume then
follows the direction of groundwater flow toward Shelter Island.
To keep the leachate impact in perspective, it is important to
note that nutrient and metal contaminants would be present in
wastewater, whether or not it received secondary treatment.
This treatment removes some nutrients, but concentrates metal
3.7
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
contaminants in the sludge. Ultimate disposal in a small area
concentrates the impact. No Action would result in continued
leaching of contaminants from sludge already landfilled, and
additional leaching from sludge disposed of through the year
2005.
3.1.3.2 Impacts to Natural Ecosystems
When the sanitary collection district started operation,
natural ecosystems in Southold were primarily impacted by dis-
posal of effluent to Long Island Sound and probably secondarily
impacted by decreased input of fresh water to wetlands. From
1940 to 1976, the plant included only primary treatment which
removes only 25 to 40 percent of five-day BOD, very little of
the suspended solids and few nutrients (i.e., nitrates and phos-
phates). This effluent most probably severely impacted natural
proximate to the outfall through greatly increased nutrient in-
put (causing excessive primary production), oxygen depletion in
the water column due to increased BOD, and introduction of metals
and chlorine which causes the formation of environmentally damag-
ing compounds (i.e., chloramines).
Since 1976, this facility has been operating as a secondary
treatment plant. While it consistently has not met its discharge
permit requirements of 85 percent SS and BOD removal, the efflu-
ent is much less environmentally damaging than the primary efflu-
ent previously discharged. Therefore, No Action will result in
primary impacts to natural ecosystems proximate to the outfall
which are less severe than those prior to 1976, but which do not
W-1
' HOLZMACHER, MCLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
meet acceptable impact levels implied by SPDES permit require-
ments.
Wetlands were probably secondarily impacted by the Green-
port STP through loss of groundwater resources and by decreasing
groundwater quality. Loss of groundwater resources most probably
' resulted in reduced input of fresh waters to fresh and tidal wet-
lands with a proportionate decrease in their value. However,
' Greenport STP has been operating for 40 years, and this impact
has, therefore, already occurred. Decreasing groundwater quality
may have more subtly impacted wetlands by introducing small
' amounts of nutrients (i.e., nitrates), and environmentally damag-
ing to these environments. No Action will, therefore, result in
increased secondary impacts to wetlands only through decreases
in groundwater quality.
3.2 ON-SITE SUBSURFACE SEWAGE DISPOSAL
3.2.1 Existing Situation and Future Continuation
The Inc. Village of Greenport sewer system encompasses only
a limited area, leaving large areas within the Town of Southold
without a sewage collection and treatment system. These areas
primarily rely on subsurface disposal systems, such as septic
tanks and leaching pools, cesspools or tile fields, for sanitary
waste disposal. All of this waste ultimately finds its way into
the Glacial aquifer.
Soil conditions and depth to groundwater determine the leach-
ing system that will be utilized.
3.9
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
In all cases, unsuitable soils must be removed and replaced
with a 3 -foot clean sand and gravel collar around the leaching
pools to a depth of at least 6 -feet into a virgin strata of typi-
cal Long Island sand and gravel.
Composite soil profiles for the study area indicate that the
subsoil in the various communities is suitable for septic tank/
leaching pool systems (sand and gravel strata for leaching pools).
It should be noted that for some areas, subsoil modifications
were required where loam and large amounts of clay were encountered.
A requirement of the Bureau of Environmental Health Services
is that septic tanks be cleaned at least once per year. However,
there are no records available which indicate the frequency of
cleaning from each home or any septic tank/leaching pools failure
within the planning area.
3.2.2 Social Impacts
The primary impacts of continued on-site sewage disposal sys-
tems are related to public health considerations. As the popula-
tion density increases, the number of septic systems and private
wells will increase proportionately. As these systems age and if
they are not properly maintained and operated, there will be an
increased number of system failures, thus increasing the possi-
bility of contaminating potable water supplies from the leaching
of nitrogen.
Without a viable septic tank management plan, problems could
go unnoticed and unmitigated until they resulted in adversely
impacting ground and/or surface waters. Degradation of these
3.10
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
resources would have an ensuing adverse impact on public health.
Improperly functioning septic systems may also be considered a
nuisance to the community primarily from the generation of un-
desirable odors. Land use may be impacted as optimum use may
not be gained because of the presence of soils which are un-
suited for subsurface septic systems. This is particularly true
of areas of higher elevation with a more sparse covering of soil
or in areas with a high water table or poor soil permeability.
Secondary social impacts of on-site sewage disposal systems
include urban sprawl and its numerous effects, such as, increased
water consumption, impingement on open space and recreation and
prime agricultural land. Although with the No Action, there is
less development pressures on the land than with sewering or non-
structural alternatives, increased growth is at a slower rate and
tends to be more leap frog. There is less in -fill around es-
tablished centers of activities due to availability of cheaper
land on the fringes. This provides for a greater availability
of moderately priced housing and constitutes a positive social
impact.
3.2.3 Natural Environmental Impacts
3.2.3.1 Impacts to Groundwater
Cesspools, septic tanks and leaching fields are sources of
groundwater recharge and contamination within the study area.
In on-site disposal systems, bacterial action digests the solid
material and the liquid effluent then leaches to and recharges
groundwater aquifers. Theoretically, filtration by earth material
3.11
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
provides additional treatment so that the liquid arrives at the
groundwater table with a relatively low solids concentration.
However, many constituents dissolved in the effluent are intro-
duced to groundwater. Those which present the greatest threat
to groundwater quality are excessive concentrations of nitrogen,
organic chemicals, metals, and to a lesser extent, viruses.
No Action, or continued use of on-site disposal systems
without modifications or a management program, will have the
positive impact of continued recharge of aquifers by their ef-
fluent. However, this will also result in further deterioration
of the quality of Southold's aquifers, eventually causing them
to become unfit for human consumption. Prohibitively expensive
pretreatment or transport from outside the study area would
then be required for public water supply.
3.2.3.2 Impacts to Natural Ecosystems
Wetlands and surface waters would be secondarily impacted
by decreasing groundwater quality, which would introduce small
amounts of nutrients and possibly toxic metals or organic com-
pounds into their nutrient cycles. Additionally, environmental
conditions near wetlands and surface waters usually include
' soils with poor drainage characteristics and high water tables,
which are two very important factors in failures of on-site dis-
posal systems• Therefore, wetlands and surface waters would also
' be expected to sustain rare, but significant, localized impacts
due to failure overflows into them from septic tank systems.
1 3.12
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
3.3 ULTIMATE DISPOSAL OF SCAVENGER WASTE
3.3.1 Existing Situation and Future Continuation
' Scavenger wastes are the liquid pumpings of cesspool and
septic tank leaching systems.
Presently, septic wastes from non-sewered areas are dis-
posed to open leaching beds at the Southold landfill in Cutchogue.
The existing Southold septic waste disposal site is part of the
' Southold Solid Waste Disposal Facility (sanitary landfill) lo-
cated in the community of Cutchogue on North Road (County Road
27) between Cox Lane and Depot Lane. The facility is situated
' in a rural industrially zoned area. The location is shown on
Figure 4.10.
' Scavenger waste is discharged into either of two (2) un-
covered, unlined, 100 feet by 75 feet leaching lagoons located
in the northwest corner of the Southold landfill site.
' Under the No Action alternative, septic wastes would con-
tinue to be disposed into leaching beds. No alternative treat-
ment and disposal system of scavenger waste would be implemented.
3.3.2 Social Impacts
' The No Action alternative for scavenger waste treatment and
' disposal is not a viable alternative, since it will not be legally
permitted. NYSDEC has called for cessation of existing disposal
' via leaching beds and will not issue Southold a SPDES permit to
continue this practice. If the Town continues to discharge with-
out a SPDES permit, most likely NYSDEC will take legal action
' against the Town, impose monetary fines and imprison Town officials.
1 3.13
' HOLZMACHER, MCLENOON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
' The No Action alternative is therefore found to be non-viable,
since it will not meet the needs of the study area to provide
' for an adequate treatment and disposal method for scavenger
waste.
' 3.3.3 Natural Environmental Impacts
3.3.3.1 Impacts to Groundwater
Although the present open lagoon method of scavenger waste
' disposal is the least expensive, it creates an unacceptable pri-
mary environmental impact by contaminating groundwater in Southold's
westerly and largest hydrogeologic unit (see Figure 3.2, previously
' shown). Leachate from the lagoon must percolate through 26 feet
of soils to reach groundwater. While this process effectively re-
moves suspended solids and reduces BOD from leachate, many dis-
solved contaminants (i.e., metals and nutrients) remain and enter
' the groundwater with leachate from the landfill. To keep this
' impact in perspective, this volume of wastewater and its contami-
nants are normally spread throughout Southold in on-site disposal
' systems. Present scavenger waste disposal methods simply concen-
trate the impact. Since scavenger waste volumes are expected to
increase with population, the No Action alternative will increase
' the input of contaminants to the groundwater and the amount of
groundwater affected as the contamination spreads through the
' aquifer in the direction of groundwater flow.
3.3.3.2 Impacts on Natural Ecosystems
' The present scavenger waste disposal method has thus far had
' a direct impact on the groundwater. When the leachate plume reaches
3.14
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. i H2M CORP.
wetlands or surface waters, it will then also have a primary
impact on these areas, as described in Section 3.2.3.2.
3.4 AGRICULTURAL AND HOUSEHOLD FERTILIZATION PRACTICES
3.4.1 Existing Situation and Future Continuation
' Fertilizers are applied mainly to residential and agri-
cultural properties in the study area. As part of the 208 study
' for the Nassau -Suffolk region, it was determined that approxi-
mately 25 percent of the nitrogen in fertilizers applied to
agricultural land and approximately 60 percent of fertilizers
' applied to house turf leached to the groundwater. These fertili-
zation practices have resulted in a conservatively estimated
1 annual nitrogen loading of 578,000 pounds. Since nitrogen load-
ing from on-site disposal systems is approximately 90,000 pounds
per annum, fertilizers are the most significant source of nitro-
gen groundwater contamination in Southold. Under the No Action
alternative, current fertilization practices would be continued
' without alternatives to reduce the nitrate input to the ground-
water.
3.4.2 Social Impacts
' Primary social impacts related to continued use of ferti-
lizers on residential and agricultural land include land use
' and health considerations.
' Fertilizers applied to household lawns will become a more
important source of nitrogen groundwater pollution in the future.
3.15
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' Presently, there are approximately 2,200 acres of turf within
the Township of Southold. Land use projections estimate that in
' 1995, there will be approximately 8,180 acres of turf. The in-
crease in developed residential acreage emanates from existing
' vacant land and agricultural land converted to residential land
' use. This change will quadruple the leaching potential unless
fertilizing characteristics practices are modified. If fertili-
zation practices do not change, a net nitrogen increase of 20
percent will leach into the groundwater over the next ten years.
In addition, this problem becomes more serious a threat
' where there is no public water supply as in the case with the
study area. The No Action alternative would lead to further
' nitrate/nitrite contamination of all four hydrogeologic units
in Southold (see Figure 3-2) until they become too contaminated
' for human consumption. Once this occurs, these groundwater re-
sources will be unusable for potable purposes for several gener-
ations, or expensive pretreatment methods would have to be under-
taken for providing public water supply.
Another primary impact of increased fertilization practices
' is increased water consumption and its effect on the water table
' and impingement on open space and recreation.
Fertilization practices will not have any significant secon-
dary social impacts such as shifts in population or excessive
development in the study area. However, fertilizers do allow
for agriculturally working marginal soil quality areas and pro-
vide for better lawn appearance in these areas. In the long
3.16
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
' term, it will have a beneficial effect of preserving prime farm-
land as residential development spreads to marginal agricultural
1 land use areas. It may affect negatively on preserving areas
' for open space and greenbelt areas, since it allows for greater
urban sprawl.
3.4.3 Natural Environmental Impacts
Natural ecosystems would be affected by current fertilizer
application techniques. Primary impacts to Southold's ecosystems
are due to direct runoff of precipitation from fertilized areas
to wetlands and surface waters. This runoff will have a high
nitrate concentration, which will cause excessive primary pro-
duction in the recipient wetland. Secondary impacts will re-
sult from the input of small quantities of nitrates to Southold's
' wetlands and surface waters from nitrate -contaminated groundwater
flows.
' The No Action alternative will increase the occurrence of
primary and secondary wetland disturbance in Southold.
1
I
3.17
�' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
II
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
4.0 ALTERNATIVES
The preceding sections of the facility plan have presented
qualitative data supporting the fact that the quality of the
North Fork's potable water supply has been deteriorating over
the past decade. If this trend is to continue, it is anticipated
that the water quality will reach the point where it will become
unfit for human consumption. Once the groundwater becomes "un-
usable", measures would have to be taken to provide extensive
treatment to purify the local polluted groundwater or to trans-
port water from outside the immediate area to this area. Both
options would be extremely expensive, requiring extensive con-
struction of water mains to all homes throughout the study area.
A more reasonable answer for overcoming the pollution problem
is to prevent the groundwater from becoming further deteriorated
In order to prevent this continued deterioration, preventive
actions must be implemented to reverse the groundwater pollution
affects. The following sections will examine alternative means
of eliminating or reducing the sources of pollution.
The land use of the Southold/Greenport Study Area dictates
the degree of nitrogen pollution for the various sources. On-site
sewage disposal systems have been determined to contribute only
a small portion of the areawide problem. Therefore, structural
alternatives, such as sewering, will only be considered on a
limited basis. Populated regions were examined to determine if
a need for sewering exists. Fertilizer from agricultural land
is the major contributor of nitrogen pollution. Non-structural
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. ' H2M CORP.
' alternatives, such as fertilizer management programs, will
therefore be the basis for reducing groundwater pollution.
' Other management programs to be evaluated are:
'I. Cesspool/Septic Tank Management Program.
2. Groundwater Monitoring and Management Program.
' 3. Land Use Management.
One of the major reasons for conducting this facilities plan
' is related to the obvious source of groundwater pollution due to
existing scavenger waste disposal via leaching lagoons. New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) has man-
dated the Town of Southold to discontinue the use of leaching
lagoons and find an alternative disposal method that will be
' environmentally acceptable. As part of this wastewater facili-
ties plan, we shall examine various scavenger waste treatment
and disposal methods that are appropriate for the study area.
' The Town of Shelter Island also has been mandated by NYSDEC
to find an alternate means of scavenger waste disposal instead
' of the present method of leaching lagoons. It was therefore
' proposed that the Town of Southold permit the Town of Shelter
Island to join with them in developing and implementing an en-
tvironmentally acceptable treatment and disposal plan. It is
anticipated that a cost savings due to economies of scale will
' be achieved by both Towns if Southold combines efforts with Shelter
Island. A cost-effective analysis will be performed to determine
if it would be advantageous for Southold to combine efforts with
' Shelter Island.
1 4.2
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
The following sections of this facilities plan will de-
scribe and evaluate numerous alternatives concerned with the
following subjects, all of which focus on the reduction or
elimination of pollution to the groundwater:
1. Non -Structural Alternatives
a. Optimization of Existing Facilities
b. Land Use Controls
C. Fertilizer Controls
d. Water Supply Management Plan
e. Septic Tank Management
f.. Alternative On -Site Sewage Disposal Methods
2. Structural Alternatives
a. Expansion of Sewered Areas
b. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
C. Land Application of Wastewater
d. Sludge Disposal
e. Scavenger Waste Treatment and Disposal
Each alternative will be evaluated and compared to the other
alternatives in terms of effectiveness in meeting effluent limi-
tations, implementability, environmental assessment and cost.
Finally, the most viable alternatives will be recommended for
implementation.
4.1 Non -Structural Solutions
4.1.1 Introduction
Various non-structural solutions have been studied to deter-
mine if they can meet the needs of the study area. These include
cm]
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. H2M CORP.
1
' No Action or status quo, optimization of the Inc. Village of
Greenport STP, non-structural solutions, including land use
' controls, fertilizer controls and septic tank management, and
alternative on-site sewage disposal methods.
4.1.2 No Action
The No Action alternative, which is essentially a fore-
' cast of conditions in the planning area without the project
was addressed in Section 3.0.
4.1.3 Non -Structural Alternatives
' The non-structural alternatives seem to be the most ap-
propriate solutions to the groundwater pollution problems of
' the study area. Due to the population distribution through-
out the entire area, any structural alternative to serve a
' large portion of the Township would be prohibitively costly.
' Non-structural solutions do present positive impacts on the
environment. Non-structural solutions include:
' A. Optimization of Existing Facilities
B. Land Use Controls
C. Fertilizer Controls
' D. Water Supply Management Plan
E. Septic Tank Management
' F. Alternative On -Site Sewage Disposal Methods
A. Optimization of Existing Facilities
' As discussed in Section 2.6 - Evaluation of Performance
' at the Inc. Village of Greenport (STP), the facility is only
'i1 4.4
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
marginally meeting its SPDES effluent limitations. It is felt
that this can be partially attributed to the industrial fish
waste being discharged into the collection system. In order
to lessen the affect of this industrial waste and to try and
correct inefficiencies of the plant so that consistent compli-
ance with the effluent limitation can be achieved, the follow-
ing modifications are recommended:
' 1. Improve communications between the Shelter Island
Oyster Co. and plant personnel. If pretreatment of industrial
wastes is not achieved, the Village shall be contacted immedi-
ately so that measures can be implemented to lessen the shock
load of these wastes into the plant. Measures might include
' discharge during peak plant flows in order to dilute the effect
of industrial waste. The Village should require Shelter Island
' Oyster Co. to upgrade its oil/water separation (pretreatment)
' process, in order to lessen its impact on the efficiency of the
Greenport sewage treatment processes.
' 2. A rapid filtration process after the final clari-
fier is recommended to improve the overall efficiency of the
' plant, particularly with regard to suspended solids removal.
' 3. Plant personnel must continue to evaluate the
problems associated with the high coliform count. It is recom-
mended that another backflow preventer be installed prior to
the chlorinator to maintain high water pressure. In addition,
' the current sampling point should be re-evaluated to ensure
' adequate mixing and detention time prior to sampling.
HM
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. ' H2M CORP.
Land use controls can essentially prevent any major changes
'
within the study area that may lead to excessive development.
4. The existing sludge disposal method of on-site
landfilling will have to be discontinued in the near future.
'
Planning for ultimate sludge disposal will have to be coordi-
nated with the solid waste management plans to be initiated by
for the Five Eastern
'
the Town of Southold. A report prepared
Towns recommended that the sludge quantities from the Towns
1
would be insignificant so as not to impact the selected solid
'
waste management option. Incineration, composting and the use
of an acceptable -lined sanitary landfill are all potential al-
ordinances can be established that would require future high-
ternatives for ultimate sludge disposal.
B. Land Use Controls
Land use controls can essentially prevent any major changes
'
within the study area that may lead to excessive development.
This alternative is presently practiced, to some degree, within
Stricter controls
the study area through the use of zoning.
can be implemented to even further protect the environment.
Under this alternative, legislation would be passed to help
'
regulate land use in developing areas. NSRPB has projected agri-
cultural acreage to decrease by some 2,000 acres. Restrictions
1
should be established to control the development of this land.
Town ordinances can be introduced to limit development by setting
minimum lot sizes. In conjunction with this type of legislation,
ordinances can be established that would require future high-
density residential developments to provide their own sewage
treatment capabilities. Suffolk County Department of Health
'
Services is enforcing regulations that require the builders of
4.6
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. H2M CORP.
' large developments (expected to generate wastewater quantities
of greater than 30,000 g.p.d.) to provide sufficient treatment
prior to discharge. The Town should enforce this requirement
' and possibly consider lowering the maximum allowable flow with-
out treatment, because of the sensitive nature of groundwater
' quality in the area. This type of requirement can also be
initiated for development in all areas that are unsuitable for
' subsurface on-site systems.
C. Fertilizer Controls
In assessing the potential impact of nitrogenous ferti-
lizers on groundwater, it is necessary to have reliable esti-
mates of quantities of fertilizers applied and the subsequent
fate of the nitrogen after application. An Island -wide study,
' performed by the Cornell University/Cooperative Extension As-
sociation, as part of the 208 Study, resulted in the formula-
tion of a water -nitrogen balance model which evaluates sources
and the fate of nitrogen in the bi-county region. This report
' stated that approximately 25 percent of the nitrogen in ferti-
lizers applied to agricultural farms leached to the groundwater.
A total of 60 percent of the nitrogen in fertilizers applied
to turf (household lawns and golf courses) leached to the ground-
water. Both of these large nitrogen leaching systems can be
reduced by the implementation of fertilizer controls.
With approximately 30 percent (9,067 acres) of the present
land use in Southold being agriculturally worked, a fertilizer
' control plan is essential. It is estimated that approximately
4.7
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C.- H2M CORP.
56 pounds of nitrogen leaches to the groundwater for every acre
of agricultural land within Southold. Field studies performed
by the Cooperative Extension Association have found that manage-
ment practices can reduce this nitrogen input.
Experimental field studies were conducted to examine dif-
ferent types of fertilizer uses. Potato farms are a major con-
cern since potatoes are the major crop of Southold. Results of
the field studies indicated that equivalent yields of potatoes
could be obtained with less nitrogen fertilizer than current
fertilizer programs apply. The primary factor in this reduction
is to supply the fertilizer when the plant requires it the most.
It was found that split applications can provide fertilizer more
effectively than single applications at planting, as presently
practiced. Split applications decrease the total amount of
fertilizer required and also decrease the amount of fertilizer
potentially available for leaching.
The following further describes the experimental field
tests where a plot of land was divided with one side farmed
using current management practices, the other side using ex-
perimental practices. The experimental management program con-
sistently used 160 lbs-N/acre. The rate applied by the current
management programs ranged between 190 to 270 lbs-N/acre. The
significance of this comparison is that the lower rates of ferti-
lization were able to produce comparable yields.(') The premise
(1) Sellwick, et al., 1977.
sm
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
II
' Another primary source of nitrates in groundwater is that
of fertilizers being applied to household lawns. Traditionally,
' studies of turf fertilization have been mainly directed toward
' achieving the highest quality of grass. Only recently has there
been considerable interest in environmental degradation as a
direct result of turf fertilization.
Tests have shown that approximately 60 percent of the nitro-
gen in fertilizers applied to a mature grass leaches to the
groundwater. This will vary slightly depending upon the size
of the initial application and irrigation practices. The nitro-
gen uptake by a mature turf is relatively constant over the
growing season. Therefore, the most efficient fertilizing pro-
' cedure would be to apply small amounts of fertilizer with fre-
quent applications. Common present-day practices are to ferti-
lize heavily at the beginning of the growing season and then
fertilize again, but with a lighter application, late in the
season.
Surveys have been performed to assess the various fertili-
zation rates used on Long Island. The Cooperative Extension
Association conducted an extensive field survey in Southold in
order to determine the characteristics of fertilizing practices.
It was estimated that 67 percent of the households surveyed
fertilize their lawns. The average application of those homes
that fertilize was 1.72 pounds per 1,000 square feet. Other
surveys have estimated the average application rate of Long
Island households to be between 2.2 to 3 pounds N/1,000 square
4.10
IHOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. i H2M CORP.
1
feet. Therefore, overfertilizing is not the case in Southold.
The leaching problem lies in the fact that mature grass has a
very low utilization efficiency in comparison to other crops.
Turf roots are relatively shallow, therefore providing little
contact time for a root to absorb the bulk of the nutrients
(i.e. nitrogen) from the leachate. The growth of the grass
also does not require a high rate of nitrogen at any particular
time. Rather, it utilizes small amounts of nitrogen on a con-
tinuous basis. Slow release fertilizers would help simulate
the nitrogen requirements of the turf.
Several studies have concluded that the leaching of ni-
trate nitrogen is greatest when:
a) high annual rates of nitrogen are applied;
b) infrequent and heavy application of soluble
inorganic nitrogen are made;
C) irrigation or rainfall is heavy, and/or;
d) the soil is loose, (high void ratio) and sandy.
After evaluating the above conditions, it was concluded
that nitrogen losses could be greatly reduced by irrigating at
a rate commensurate with evapotranspiration, and by applying
organic and slow release fertilizers. Mandatory use of organic,
slow release fertilizers can be obtained through the implementa-
tion of ordinances to prohibit the sale and use of other ferti-
lizers within Southold and Greenport. Implementation of similar
ordinances in surrounding towns or by Suffolk County would in-
crease the effectiveness of this program.
4.11
HOLZMACHER. McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. i H2M CORP.
A key factor in a nitrogen balance of household lawns is
that grass is not cropped in an agricultural sense. Agricul-
tural crops, once harvested, remove almost the entire amounts
of nitrogen utilized by the plant. Harvesting or cutting of
grass removes nitrogen only if the clippings are collected and
either removed from the area or composted on-site. If the
clippings are not removed and volatilization, denitrification
and runoff are minimal, then virtually all the nitrogen in
fertilizers supplied to mature grass will be leached. However,
there is a possibility that there would be some volatilization
of ammonia from the clippings. Volatilization will greatly in-
crease if composting is employed. It is therefore recommended
that composing of grass clippings be implemented on an indivi-
dual or townwide basis to reduce nitrogen leaching due to lawn
clippings.
In the case of turf on sod farms, the crop is removed en-
tirely at the end of the season. This will produce a large
reduction of nitrogen input
should also be composted.
The grass clippings of sod farms
In conclusion, if the public continues to maintain an es-
thetic value for their lawns, it will be impossible to com-
pletely eliminate the leaching of fertilizers. However, by en-
forcing the use of organic, slow release fertilizers and en-
couraging composting of clippings, a large reduction of nitro-
gen pollution can be obtained without affecting the esthetic
value of household lawns.
4.12
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. ! H2M CORP.
' Fertilizers applied to household lawns will become an even
more important source of nitrogen in the future. Presently,
' there are approximately 2,200 acres of turf within the Town
' of Southold. Land use projections estimate that in 1995 there
will be approximately 8,180 acres of turf. The increase in
developed residential acreage emanates from existing vacant
land and agricultural land converted to residential land use.
' This change will quadruple the leaching potential unless fert-
ilizing characteristics practices are modified. Table 4.1
summarizes our estimates of nitrogen loadings due to turf ferti-
lizers. Also included are the nitrogen loadings due to agri-
cultural fertilizers and on-site sewage disposal systems. If
' fertilization practices do not change, a net nitrogen increase
of 20 percent will leach into the groundwater over the next ten
years•
' D. Water Supply Manaqement Plan
This section addresses the need for a water supply manage-
ment plan within the study area. One of the objectives of a
water supply management plan is to limit the amount of contami-
nants that can enter a public water supply. Since the entire
' water supply for the study area is derived from groundwater
(specifically the Glacial aquifer), it is important that the
contaminant input into the aquifer be limited. The only major
' water supply system in the study area is owned and operated by
the Inc. Village of Greenport. Presently, this supplier utilizes
' a water supply management plan that includes monitoring the
4.13
LANDUSE
Existing :(1975)
Household
Lawns
Agricultural
On -Site
Septic Systems
TABLE 4.1
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
ANNUAL NITROGEN LOADING EXISTING AND FUTURE
UTILIZED INITIAL LEACHING
ACREAGE LOADING(lbs) LOADING (lbs)
% OF
TOTAL LEACHING
2,204
110,640
66,380
10.9
9,060
1,811,460
452,870
74.4
17,953 persons*
179,530
89,770
14.7
r
TOTAL 2,101,630 609,020 1n0.0
— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -
Future (1995
Household
8,176 AC
410,420
246,250
33.7
Lawns
Agricultural
7,200 AC
1,440,000
360,000
49.2
On -Site
25,000 persons*
249,720
124,860
17.1
Septic Systems
TOTAL
2,100,140
731,110
100.0
*Population Equivalents
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
quality of existing wells within the district. The objective of
the present plan is to correct problems after they have occurred.
This plan should be expanded to include measures that, if imple-
mented, would prevent problems from occurring.
The following subsections describe various procedures, some
of which are applicable to the entire Township, while others are
only applicable to the Inc. Village of Greenport water supply
' system:
(1) Groundwater/Surface Water Monitoring Program
The purpose of a monitoring program is to detect changes
in the quality of groundwater and surface water within the study
area. By monitoring various constituents, further deterioration
' can be prevented by implementing various management programs.
The major objectives of such a program within the Greenport -
Southold area would be:
a. Detect changes in the nitrate concentration
in the groundwater throughout the study area,
stressing the agricultural and densely popu-
lated residential areas.
b. Detect changes in the ammonia, nitrate and
coliform concentrations in surface waters.
C. Detect changes in the chloride concentration
in the groundwater in those areas where ex-
tensive pumping occurs.
The locations, depths and number of sampling points
are critical to obtaining meaningful data. Suffolk County
4.15
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. i H2M CORP.
tDepartment of Health Services (SCDHS) and the United States Geo-
logical Survey (USGS) maintain numerous observation wells through-
out Suffolk County. Utilizing these wells, the number of new
wells can be reduced significantly. There may also be existing
' private wells which are inactive and therefore could be used for
' monitoring. Active wells should be avoided, since normal pump-
ing creates a hydraulic cone around the well. This cone yields
water from a strata that is larger in vertical depth than what
one would obtain by sampling the strata with little or no pump-
ing. Consequently, sampling from active pumping wells may re-
sult in the collection of erroneous data. Two major advantages
of using observation wells for monitoring are samples collected
are from a selected vertical section of the aquifer and second,
if the casing diameter is small, wells can be installed inexpen-
sively and rapidly. The major disadvantage in using observation
wells is that improper construction can contribute to vertical
migration of contamination.
Well clusters should be utilized in areas where the chlo-
ride concentration is to be monitored. Advantages of using the
cluster method include, 1) excellent vertical sampling made pos-
sible when sufficient number of wells are constructed, 2) "tried
and true" methodology, accepted and used in most contamination
studies where vertical sampling is required, 3) relatively simple
installation, and 4) low cost if only a few wells per cluster are
required and if the drilling contractor has equipment suitable
for installation of small diameter wells. However, the well
4.16
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
1
cluster method is not problem -free. Disadvantages include, 1)
large vertical sections of the aquifer unsampled if only a few
' wells are installed, 2) small diameter wells can be used only
for monitoring and cannot be used in abatement schemes, and 3)
' in small diameter wells, sample collection is tedious and dif-
ficult if the water level is below suction lift.
As part of the selected plan report, a map will be
prepared showing the location of monitoring wells. In addition,
the analyses to be performed will be discussed in greater detail.
In order for this program to be successful, an efficient
'
record-keeping system is essential. Basic well information and
test data would be arranged in such a manner that regional and
'
local trends in water quality can easily be evaluated. Such a
system will allow for the necessary controls to be implemented
'
upon observation of deteriorating water quality.
(2) Irrigation Wells
Presently, irrigation utilizes approximately 60 per-
cent of all groundwater pumpage from the Town of Southold. No
control or constraints are put on irrigation practices of the
'
farmers. Because of this extremely large quantity of water
'
being withdrawn from the ground, certain restrictions should
be developed to maintain the elevation of the water table. Even
'
though the water is applied immediately to the land, only a
small percentage is recharged back into the aquifer; the rest
is lost through evapotranspiration. Serious groundwater de-
pletion could occur if no constraints are put on irrigation
practices, particularly during drought periods.
'
4.17
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
Continuous pumping with no precipitation recharge
would lower the water table and increase the probability of
' salt water intrusion along the coastline. Irrigating during
the night is one practice that will lessen the quantity of
water lost through evapotranspiration, thereby reducing the
quantity of water that has to be pumped.
Moisture indicating devices that automatically start
irrigation systems when the moisture within the soil drops
below a predetermined level should be investigated. If imple-
mented, this practice would result in irrigation only when the
soil has an insufficient amount of moisture.
(3) Controlled Pumping
The problem of excessive chlorides, due to salt water
intrusion, is directly associated with excessive pumping within
a small area. Controlled distribution of pumpage over a larger
area (i.e., all the well fields together) with the monitoring
of the chloride concentration at each well can help prevent
further salt water intrusion.
(4)
Increase
Recharge
The high
chloride
concentration problem
in the public
wells of Greenport is primarily due to salt water intrusion, as
a result of excessive pumping. We believe that by increasing
the recharge to the groundwater, we can reduce salt water in-
trusion. Presently, subsurface disposal systems, storm water
' recharge basins and natural precipitation infiltration generate
the volume of recharge into the aquifer. The recharge of
1 4.18
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
wastewater effluent in the appropriate areas can form a barrier
j between the salt water and fresh water bodies. The environ-
mental assessment of the alternative of recharging the Green-
port Sewage Treatment Plant effluent will be examined in Sec-
tion 4.2.7.
t (5) Conservation of Water
Water conservation is a means of reducing the total
'
water pumpage being withdrawn from the aquifer. It also re-
duces the total volume of wastewater being discharged back
into the water table through leaching. Flow reduction can be
achieved by simple modifications to water -use appliances and
'
plumbing fixtures. With less wastewater to treat and dispose
'
of, the life of on-site disposal systems would also increase.
Nearly 70 percent of the total household water usage
'
is generated from toilets, laundry and bath. Using low -flow
toilets, "sudsaver" washing machilLes, restricted flow shower
'
heads and recycling bath and laundry wastewater for toilet
'
flushing are four commonly mentioned ways to save water. By
reducing the toilet flushing volume to 3 gallons, clothes wash-
ing to 28 gallons using a sudsaver, and bath and shower volume
to 15 gallons, average water usage could be reduced by approxi-
'
mately 17 percent.(') Recycling bath and laundry wastewater
'
to flush toilets requires more complex modifications, but could
increase the savings to 33 percent.
(1) Witt, M.D., Water Use in Rural Homes, Small Scale Waste
'
Management Project, University of Wisconsin, 1974.
'1
4.19
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' Concerted public information programs, in conjunction with
' requiring future housing developments to install the afore-
mentioned devices, will help conserve water and preserve the
' water supply.
E. Septic Tank Management
' Septic tank management is essentially the only viable non-
structural method of dealing with problems with existing septic
systems in the area. Although septic tank management methods
are capable of removing septic sludges, predicting failures and
preventing overflows by removing septage, they cannot increase
' the nature of percolation rates of the soil. This is, of course,
' the major cause of septic system failure in the study area. In
addition, septage removed from failed systems would have to be
' treated and disposed of by some other method. Presently, septic
wastes are disposed of to open leaching beds at the Southold
' landfill. The provisions made for disposal will be discussed
' in greater detail in Section 4.4 - Scavenger Waste. Septic Sys-
tem failures may create health hazards, become public nuisances
' and adversely impact ground and surface waters.
F. Alternative On -Site Sewage Disposal Methods
' Traditionally, sewers have been recommended to alleviate
' current problems with on-site sewage disposal systems. Alter-
nate technology will be investigated to determine if other on-
site disposal methods are available to cost-effectively treat
the wastewater without adverse environmental impact.
1
1 4.20
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
These systems could be implemented throughout the study
area to supplement or complement a septic tank management plan
as non-sewering solutions to the wastewater needs of the area.
Cesspools, septic tanks and leaching fields are a source
of groundwater contamination within the study area. In on-site
disposal systems, bacterial action digests the solid material
and the liquid effluent then leaches to the groundwater. In
theory, filtration by earth material provides additional treat-
ment so that the liquid, when it arrives at the groundwater
table, has a relatively low solids concentration. However,
many constituents carried by the effluent are introduced to
the groundwater. Those which present the greatest threat to
groundwater quality are, excessive concentrations of nitrogen,
organic chemicals, detergents, metals, and to a lesser extent,
viruses• This section will, therefore, examine alternative
on-site disposal methods that might minimize the leaching of
these constituents to the groundwater.
The following summary of alternative systems is not in-
tended to be an exhaustive list of every available device or
process. Rather, this review classifies into general cate-
gories systems which may be considered as alternatives to con-
ventional collection and treatment facilities.
1. Toilet Facilities
(a) Pit Privies - A pit privy consists of a hand -dug or
bored pit over which a shelter is placed for privacy. Problems
frequently encountered with these units included groundwater and
4.21
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
surface water contamination, health hazards resulting from vec-
tor-borne disease transmission, and odors. Implementation and
acceptance by the public is extremely unlikely.
(b) Drum and Vault Privies - The primary reasons for the
use of these units are that they can be used in areas of high
water tables with no groundwater contamination and can be sub-
stituted for septic tank leach field systems in areas of poor
soil permeability. Wastes are collected above ground either
in a 55 -gallon drum or in a cement vault. The accumulated
wastes must be removed periodically•
(c) Chemical Toilets - These devices use biodegradable
chemicals to inhibit bacterial buildup and control odor. Wastes
are collected in a storage container and removed periodically.
Chemical toilets are currently used mainly for temporary sani-
tation facilities at construction sites and athletic events, in
recreational vehicles, parks and recreational areas.
(d) Incinerating Toilets - 'These units are self-contained
gas or electrically operated systems which evaporate all liquids,
reduce solids and eliminate bacteria by burning. The residual
' ash must be removed periodically. Few incinerating units are
presently in use due to high capital and operating costs.
(e) Waterless Composting Toilets - originally developed
in Sweden, the composting toilet (or clivus multrum) is similar
in operation to the backyard "privy". Both toilet and solid
organic kitchen wastes are discharged to and then composted in
' a specially designed bin
'I
Shower and sink wastewater is disposed
4.22
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
of by different mechanisms, such as a cesspool or septic tank
system. A typical composting toilet is depicted in Figure 4.1.
The system uses the heat of aerobic composting to destroy
pathogenic organisms, decompose organic wastes and drive off the
water content of the wastes. After one to two years of storage
in the composting chamber, the organic waste is converted into a
dried compost material which, if properly treated, is ready for
garden use or other disposal. Gasses and other volatile material
that are produced are vented through a stack. Since the clivus
multrum type of system does not use water, it results in a sig-
nificant water savings (as much as 40 percent in a typical house-
hold). This disposal method would be effective when construct-
ing new residential facilities, however, major modifications
would be required for installation in existing facilities.
2. Graywater/Blackwater Separation
Although the need for a water -carriage system for disposal
of fecal wastes (blackwater) can be solved by substituting one
of the waterless varieties discussed above, there remaims the
problem of disposing of the wastewater from the kitchen, baths
and laundry (graywater). At present, the only acceptable dis-
posal methods for graywater are through sewers or septic tank/
leach field systems. 'There are several proprietary devices
and plumbing modifications on the market which provide for
graywater reclamation for use in the house or yard.
4.23
FIGURE 4.1
VENTILATION STACK
GARBAGE DISPOSAL UNIT
TOILET UNIT
FLOOR ABOVE MULTRUM
n COMPOSTING UNIT
II
II
II
II
II
11 BAFFLE
11
TOILET
WASTES
KITCHEN j ACCESS PORT
WASTES
II
i
REFERENCE' ON-SITE BAFFLE I AIR INLET
DISPOSAL SYSTEMS; II HUMUS STORAGE
USEPA-NATIONAL 11 CHAMBER
CONFERENCE; MARCH 1977 Li
COMPOSTING TOILET
(CLIVUS MULTRUM)
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE, N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 6 MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FAPAVa.DALE.N Y
RVERHE�CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTONN J r.
NEWTON N J
4.24
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
3. Treatment and Disposal Systems
(a) Home Aerobic Treatment Units - Individual home aerobic
treatment units have been used in a few states, most notably in
Colorado, as an alternative to septic tanks. These units bubble
air through the incoming sewage and function in a manner similar
to a small extended aeration activated sludge plant.
Waste treatment, utilizing aerobic microorganisms, is
more biologically efficient because the free oxygen dissolved in
the wastewater allows the organisms to rapidly feed on and de-
grade both the suspended and dissolved organic matter. The
aerobic home treatment, however, does not remove nitrates from
the wastewater. Reportedly, results have been disappointing due
primarily to homeowner neglect of maintenance and insufficient
design allowance for surge flows.
(b) Evapotranspiration (ET) Systems - ET systems provide a
means of wastewater disposal in some areas where site conditions
are not favorable for leach field soil absorption. Evaporation
of moisture from the soil surface and by plant transpiration pro-
vides the disposal mechanism. This system can be used in areas
where the annual evaporation rate exceeds the annual precipitation
rate by a significant amount, so that the wastewater applied to
the ET bed can be disposed of without danger of surface or ground-
water contamination. ET systems can also be designed to supple-
ment absorption in slowly permeable soils.
Utilization of the ET system on Long Island, specifically
in Southold, is not feasible because the annual precipitation
rate exceeds the annual evaporation rate.
4.25
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
(c) Mound Systems - Mound systems take advantage of the
soils' ability to absorb and purify wastewater. Basically,
the method consists of artificially raising the leaching field
(absorption field) above the natural soil by building the seep-
age system in a mound of medium sand. Figure 4.2 depicts a
typical system. The household waste enters a conventional
septic tank. After treatment, the effluent is pumped to the
percolation system located in the mound. This consists of a
drain tile constructed with perforated pipe in an envelope of
sand fill. In this system, the wastewater is uniformly dis-
tributed over the absorption field. The mound system is cur-
rently being researched and evaluated to determine the exact
design parameters. This method is not cost-effective for in-
dividual households, since it requires a pump, pump housing
structure, controls and alarms, and connecting conduits, in
addition to the septic tank and percolation system. There are
operation and maintenance costs involved with this system that
' are also excessive. This method can be utilized in areas where
the depth to groundwater is shallow, such as near the shoreline
where septic systems are unable to percolate efficiently.
' 4. Modification of Existing Septic Tank Systems
Recently, SCDHS has conducted studies which investigated
' methods to remove nitrogen from wastewater in subsurface dis-
posal systems. Results have shown that nitrogen leaching to
the groundwater can be reduced, but only through major modi-
fications of the septic tank system. Modifications including
1 4.26
From
house
Scum
Sludge
SEPTIC TANK
FIGURE
Topsoil
Subsoil Perforated pipe Clay fill or topsoil
Water Sand fill Topsoil
level
LESS THAN
Stone fill Plowed surface 10,
High water GROUND
alarm switch WATER
Pump
Pump switch
PUMPING CHAMBER
-11 ITM TT I IT 117777A ----
1f4- to 2 -inch PVC pipe
from pumping chamber
1 -inch perforated
I r PVA pipe
1
I j I l
ISI I;I
III_1_III
I
lil lil —
1ql
1 � ,
I 1 I
Seepage trench
5/8 to 1 inch stone
TYPICAL SEPTIC TANK— MOUND SYSTEM
REFERENCE: ALTERNATIVES FOR !MALL WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM
ON-SITE DISPOSAL/SEPTAGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
USEPA TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER 1477
rr
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. rAFNANGD,N.r. I
MELVII M.N. NV.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS end ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FIVERMEAO. N.V.
NEWTON, N J.
4.27
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
4.1.4 Environmental Assessment
'
The non-structural alternatives as described in Section
'
4.1.3 would provide inexpensive solutions to some of the waste-
water management problems in the study area. It is expected
'
that they will have a significant beneficial impact on reducing
current sources of groundwater/surface water pollution and each
are outlined below.
tA.
optimization o£ Existing Greenport Sewage Treatment
Facility
1. Social Impacts - Methods to optimize the efficiency
'
and operation of the Greenport STP will have positive primary
social impacts and will provide a large measure of safety for
'
public health. Adequate performance can only be accomplished
if the facility is well maintained and operated properly. This
'
reduces the risk of system upsets and health hazards associated
with inefficient operations. Surface water disposal into the
'
Sound will continue to have a minor secondary effect on recre-
ational (swimming) and fishing opportunities. In the vicinity
of the outfall area, these activities will be prohibited. The
'
loss of this area does not present a significant adverse impact.
2. Natural Environmental Impacts - The Inc. Village
'
of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant is only marginally meeting
'
its SPDES permit effluent limitations. This effluent is dis-
charged into Long Island Sound north of Greenport. Upgrading
of the facility, either through structural changes or through
improved management techniques, as discussed in the previous
'
''
4.28 - 1
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' section, would therefore result in decreased impact on the out-
fall area. Specifically, effluent with lower suspended solids
' and biological oxygen demand would be discharged to Long Island
Sound, and the attendant impact on benthic organisms would there-
by be lessened. Impact to groundwater through improved sludge
handling methods will be discussed in Section 4.3.12.
B. Land Use Controls
Land use control may be practiced to prevent the de-
velopment of areas that have soil, slope or other limitations
that render them unsuitable for subsurface septic systems. Under
this alternative, legislation would be passed restricting land
use in certain areas with the intention of preventing adverse
impacts from poorly planned development.
1. Social Impacts - Land use control, if strictly en-
forced within the study area, would have several beneficial
secondary impacts. This alternative would insure optimum use of
land areas based on land capabilities and suitability, since it
prohibits growth in areas unsuitable for development. Under this
alternative, a high quality of life is maintained, the rural
character of the study area is preserved and property values are
increased. Other possible positive impacts of a secondary nature
are the preservation of open space, farmland, wetlands, woodlands
and aboriginal sites resulting from restricted development. In
addition, land use controls inhibit urban sprawl and thus reduce
the cost of providing public services since service districts are
consolidated. This alternative does not present any significant
1 4.28 - 2
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. 1 H2M CORP.
primary impacts. Depending on the number of unsuitable areas,
this solution may have an adverse secondary effect on enomomic
growth if there is not sufficient land available to develop all
types of land uses.
2. Natural Environmental Impacts - Zoning ordinances
limiting development (or requiring additional sewage treatment
capabilities for high-density residential developments) will
essentially maintain status quo unless combined with other al-
ternatives for reducing existing negative impacts.
C. Fertilizer Controls
Fertilizers have been shown to contribute to nitrogen
pollution in the groundwater. Therefore, controlling and reduc-
ing the amount of fertilizers applied to the land will directly
reduce the amount of nitrogen that leaches into the groundwater.
1. Social Impacts - Reduced nitrogen input to the
groundwater through fertilizer control would have a positive
primary social effect on public health. This alternative would
reduce nitrate contamination of the groundwater aquifer and thus
decrease the associated public health risks.
2. Natural Environmental Impacts - The large amounts
of fertilizer applied to agricultural lands and lawns in the
study area are the primary source both of groundwater contami-
nation by nitrates and of wetland impact through highly enriched
runoff.
Implementation of fertilizer controls through split
agricultural applications and through proper lawn maintenance
4.28 - 3
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. H2M CORP
' and composting of clippings will decrease nitrate contamination
by a significant percentage.
' D. Water Supply Management Plan
Provisions for a water supply management plan include
' a monitoring program to detect changes in the quality of ground-
water and surface water, constraints on irrigation practices,
controlled pumping and water conservation. The objective of a
water supply management plan in the study area is to limit the
amount of contaminants that can enter a public water supply.
1. Social Impacts - Aspects of this plan, such as
' controlling the amount of water pumped and consumed, will have
a positive secondary impact of conserving and preserving ground-
water resources. This ultimately allows for sustaining existing
population and for future population increases and economic
growth in the study area. This non-structural alternative does
' not present any adverse social impacts.
2. Natural Environmental Impacts
a. Groundwater/Surface Water Monitoring Program -
This program would utilize existing observation wells from on-
going groundwater monitoring. Thus, secondary construction im-
pacts from well installation would be avoided. In areas where
it is found necessary to install new wells (i.e., areas where
tchloride concentrations are to be monitored), the installation
of cluster wells for vertical sampling would reduce construction
1 impacts.
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. ' H2M CORP.
One primary positive impact over the long term is improved
groundwater quality, since the prompt implementation of manage-
ment plans would prevent further groundwater deterioration.
' b. Irrigation Wells - These wells represent 60% of
all groundwater pumpage in the Town of Southold. Only a small
' amount is available for recharge, the remainder undergoing evapo-
transpiration. Primary impact is on groundwater quantity and
quality; continuous pumping with minimal precipitation and re-
charge lowers the water table and permits an inland and upward
extension of the fresh/salt water interface. Irrigation moni-
toring, including nighttime irrigation to reduce evapotrans-
piration losses, would reduce the aquifer loss.
C. Controlled pumping would mitigate the primary
groundwater impact of salt water intrusion, as described in b.
above.
d. Increase Recharge - Recharge of properly treated
effluent will not only mitigate the effects of withdrawal from
the aquifer, but will also help form a barrier at the fresh/salt
water interface. Thus, salt water intrusion will be halted when
recharge occurs in carefully selected areas.
e. Conservation of water would obviously put less
stress on fresh water reserves, but would have to be combined
with some other method of wastewater treatment to avoid ground-
water contamination.
4.28 - 5
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. H2M CORP.
' E. Septic Tank Management Plan
Septic tank management is essentially the only environ-
mentally sound, non-structural method of dealing with existing
' and future on-site septic system problems. Provisions for rou-
tine pumping and maintenance for on-site systems would extend
' the service life of the leaching facility and ensure its continued
efficiency. This type of maintenance program allows for early
' identification of areas where problems develop and mitigating
measures may then be implemented to abate any adverse impacts.
In addition, regulations are recommended to prohibit the use of
' certain chemicals which decrease the effectiveness of on-site
systems and have a negative impact on the groundwater aquifers.
1. Social Impacts - Implementation of a septic tank
' management plan will reduce the risk of system failures and ad-
verse effects of system overflows. This will have a positive
' primary impact on public health by reducing groundwater contami-
nation. The primary negative impact of this alternative is that
' it is effective only where subsurface conditions are marginal for
septic systems, or where older systems are failing. In addition,
it does not eliminate the problem of system failures and over-
flows, but merely reduces the chance of them occurring. It should
be noted that since the septage removed from septic systems must
be treated and disposed, this alternative should be viewed in
' conjunction with scavenger waste alternatives. These alternatives
are addressed in Section 4.4.
1 4.28 - 6
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
2. Natural Environmental Impacts - Even properly oper-
ating cesspools, septic tanks and leaching fields introduce con-
taminants such as nitrogen, metals and organics to groundwater.
Failure of these systems results in secondary impact of overflow
to, and contamination of, natural ecosystems such as wetlands and
' surface waters, in addition to a higher degree of groundwater con-
tamination. System failures also create health hazards, since
' viruses can enter groundwater along with leachate. Septic tank
management would reduce the number of failures and thus positively
impact the environment by reducing or minimizing the amounts of
' contaminants reaching both groundwater (primary positive impact)
and natural ecosystems (secondary positive impact).
' F. Alternative On -Site Disposal Methods
Investigated under this alternative is alternate tech-
nology to conventional on-site sewage disposal systems. The ob-
jective of this non-structural alternative is to determine if
other on-site disposal methods are available to cost-effectively
' treat the wastewater without significant adverse environmental
impacts. These alternate devices are examined below and dis-
cussed individually where they have varying environmental effects.
1 1. Social Impacts - Alternative on-site disposal methods
should not be considered viable alternatives for existing non-
' sewered developed areas due to the magnitude of the cost for re-
placing present conventional subsurface systems. As older systems
' are being replaced, and new areas are developed, these alternative
4.28 - 7
IHOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
disposal methods should be evaluated since, in some cases, they
Produce better results than conventional septic tank systems.
1
For example, the mound system may be advantageous in areas with
'
severe soil limitations, since it will provide for more efficient
percolation and provide greater marginal of safety for preventing
'
system failures. Since SCDHS and town ordinances outlaw privies,
this alternative method is considered non-viable. In addition,
these types of devices constitute a public nuisance in terms of
'
their unesthetic appearance and potential odors associated with
containing wastes above ground. Further, these methods merely
'
transfer the problem from one of wastewater to a scavenger waste
problem. Since these methods do not reduce wastes or discharge
'
effluent, this increases wasteloads which must be treated by a
'
scavenger waste facility. All alternative technologies present
similar adverse social impacts which are secondary in nature.
'
They allow for development in areas which might otherwise re-
main unsuitable for development, due to poor soil permeability
'
and high water table. This puts greater developmental pressures
on the land which leads to increased population density and loss
'
of open space/recreation areas, historic sites and prime farm-
'
land. Other secondary adverse social impacts include urban
sprawl and its effects on increasing costs of providing other
'
public services, such as schools, fire protection and utilities.
In addition, the possibility of instituting education programs
and tax credits should be investigated to insure public acceptance.
4.28 - 8
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
tThere have been problems in other areas of the country in shift-
ing developers and private homeowners from conventional septic
1 systems to utilize some of these alternative on-site disposal
' systems.
2. Natural Environmental Impacts
' a. Toilet Facilities
pit privies would result in negative impacts,
such as groundwater (primary) and secondary surface water con-
tamination, health hazards from vector disease transmission,
and odor.
' drum and vault privies would remove contami-
nants which would otherwise enter groundwater. However, if
' generally used, groundwater recharge would be significantly
reduced (by -3 m.g.d.), resulting in the primary groundwater
impact of lowered water table, increased saline intrusion into
' the underlying aquifers, and lessening of potable water supply.
chemical toilets - as above.
' incinerating toilets - as above.
' waterless composting toilets would introduce
contaminants to groundwater only to the extent that they are
present in shower or sink effluent. This system, being non -
water consumptive, would thus have the primary positive impact
' of increasing the amount of potable water available in the
aquifer.
1 4.28 - 9
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
I
I
I
1
b. Greywater/Blackwater Separation
Utilization of a waterless system for disposal
of blackwater would reduce both contamination and recharge of
groundwater, as discussed above. Greywater would still be avail-
able for recharge through septic systems, and there would be less
negative primary impact on groundwater quantity. Devices for
' greywater reclamation would further increase the potable water
supply.
C. Treatment and Disposal Systems
Home aerobic treatment units degrade suspended
and dissolved organic matter. There would be no decrease, how-
1 ever, in the amount of nitrate entering groundwater and natural
' ecosystems.
Evapotranspiration (ET) systems would reduce
' groundwater and surface water contamination, but would also limit
aquifer recharge. Odors may be a secondary impact problem.
' Mound systems - impacts would be the same as those
' for cesspools and septic tanks, i.e., potential contamination of
groundwater, surface water and natural ecosystems.
' d. Modification of Existing Septic Tank Systems
This plan would effectively reduce nitrate con-
tamination of groundwater, but would have no effect on the amount
of metals and organic compounds entering the aquifer(s).
1 4.28 - 10
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. % H2M CORP.
4.2.2 _Regional Treatment Facility
The alternative of a regional treatment system would pro-
vide for a wastewater transportation system consisting of a
sewage treatment facility capable of serving the entire popu-
lation of the Town of Southold. This would eliminate existing
and future discharges from all sub -surface septic systems
throughout the study area. An extensive collection system
would be required to transport the sewage from the entire
Township of 45 square miles to the treatment facility. The
existing Inc. Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant could
be upgraded and enlarged as required, or a new regional facility
could be constructed. Effluent discharge would be to Long Is-
land Sound via an outfall at either the existing outfall site
or to Gardiners Bay, or disposed of on land. Immediate con-
siderations were given to transporting the wastewater generated
throughout the study area. With slightly greater than 20,000
persons occupying over 45 square miles of land, preliminary in-
vestigations indicate that the collection system required to
connect all of the dwelling units to the treatment facility is
of such magnitude that the cost for transporting the wastewater
alone is prohibitive.
Furthermore, this alternative does not take into account
the need for sewering. Regional treatment results in the en-
tire population being sewered, regardless of need, and is
therefore not recommended.
4.29
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
4.2.3 Sub -Regional Treatment
This management alternative would provide wastewater treat-
ment on a sub -regional basis as indicated below:
' 1. Expand and upgrade the existing Inc. Village of
Greenport facility in order to serve the surround-
ing areas.
' 2. Construct a treatment facility within the western
section of the Township (i.e. Mattituck) to serve
the surrounding areas.
1 Once again, the transportation cost of conveying the waste-
water from all dwelling units to a treatment facility is too
significant for a town of this size. Therefore, it is bene-
ficial to evaluate distinct areas in order to determine the
needs for sewering. Then, only the areas in need will be
sewered.
As discussed in Section 2.4 - Sewering Criteria, only a
few areas have shown an obvious need for sewering. These areas
surround the Inc. Village of Greenport and will not need to be
evaluated in the treatment alternatives section since sufficient
treatment capacity is available at the existing Greenport STP.
Sewering/treatment needs are not as critical in the Matti -
tuck area. As previously discussed, if the recommended ground-
water monitoring program for the Mattituck area indicates a need
for sewering, a sub -regional treatment alternative will have to
be implemented. The following subsection evaluates alternative
treatment schemes that can be utilized in the Mattituck area,
if required by the monitoring program:
4.30
, I HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. i H2M CORP.
1
A. Evaluation of the Mattituck Area
The groundwater beneath the Mattituck area is high in ni-
trates, and in some places, exceeds the drinking water standard
of 10 mg/l -N. We have recommended that a monitoring program
be implemented in this area. If the results of this program
indicate the source of nitrate contamination to be on-site
tive, B or C, is the most cost-effective, total costs of each
must be calculated and analyzed. The following section will
evaluate various treatment systems and select the most cost-
' effective for treating .50 mgd at Mattituck. This cost will
4.31
subsurface sewage disposal systems, then a cost-effective
'
method of collecting and treating the wastewater from this
area is needed.
'
is to determine the most cost-
The intent of this section
effective method based on an evaluation of the following alter-
natives= The first, Alternative A, is to take no structural
'
action. The community will continue to use subsurface disposal
systems. Alternative B is to collect and then pump the waste-
Village Greenport STP. This
water to the existing Inc. of plant
is presently operating .25 mgd below design capacity. Since
the additional flow from Mattituck would be .46 mgd, expansion
of this plant would be required. Alternative C would be to
construct a treatment plant in the Mattituck area to treat a
1
indicates contam-
minimum of .46 mgd. If the monitoring program
ination, then Alternative A is not an environmentally sound plan
and is, therefore, not recommended. To determine which Alterna-
tive, B or C, is the most cost-effective, total costs of each
must be calculated and analyzed. The following section will
evaluate various treatment systems and select the most cost-
' effective for treating .50 mgd at Mattituck. This cost will
4.31
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
then be compared to the total cost of pumping the Mattituck flow
to Greenport and upgrading the existing Greenport Sewage Treat-
ment Plant.
The following treatment processes are to be considered as
a possible system to treat wastewater from the Mattituck area:
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION
C-1 Trickling filter with primary sedi-
mentation
C-2 Rotating biological discs
C-3 Extended aeration activated sludge
C-4 Contact stabilization activated sludge
C-5 Complete mix activated sludge
C-6 Marsh/Pond system
Each of the above alternatives will be evaluated under two
(2) options, except Alternative C-6. Option "a" requires that
the effluent be discharged into Long Island Sound by an outfall.
In Option "b", land application will be utilized to treat and
dispose of the effluent.
The limiting factor used to select the treatment system is
that it must be able to achieve the expected effluent discharge
criteria listed below:
Minimum Percent Removal of BOD -5 = 85 Percent
Maximum BOD -5 Concentration = 30 mg/l
(30 Day Avg.)
Minimum Percent Removal of SS = 85 Percent
Maximum SS Concentration = 30 mg/l
(30 Day Avg.)
4.32
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
In addition to these effluent standards, a nitrogen limi-
tation of 10 mg/1-N will also be required for all alternatives
under Option "b" - Land Application. Therefore, Option "b" re-
quires nitrification/denitrification prior to discharge or sub-
stantial land area to allow for low nitrogen loadings to the
groundwater.
If an alternative cannot achieve these performance standards,
it will be eliminated from further evaluation.
Description of Alternative Wastewater Treatment Processes
1. Alternative B
Pumping to Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant - As previously
discussed, the Inc. Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant
has sufficient excess treatment capacity for both the future
population and future expansion within the immediate vicinity
of the sewered area. We have therefore examined the alternative
of transporting sewage from Mattituck to Greenport in order to
utilize available excess capacity.
Preliminary examination of this alternative indicates that
the distance between the collection point in Mattituck and the
Greenport site is over 13 miles (70,000 feet). Due to the
topography between the two sites, it was determined that two (2)
pump stations will be required to transport the wastewater to
Greenport.
2. Alternative C -la
This alternative entails the use of a single stage trick-
ling filter preceded by primary sedimentation. Primary effluent
4.33
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
4. Alternative C -2a
The second alternative uses rotating biological discs,
consisting of a series of large diameter plastic discs mounted
vertically on a shaft and installed in a cylindrical tank. The
discs are partially submerged and are slowly rotated through
' the mixed liquor. When rotated, air enters the voids while the
liquid trickles out over the fixed film of biological growth
' attached to the disc. Sludge is produced when the biological
' growth film becomes too thick and sloughs from the disc into
' 4.34
cept that the effluent will be discharged using land
application.
'
is sprayed on a bed of crushed rocks or other
media coated with
land appli-
biological film. As the wastewater flows
over the biological
'
film, the soluble organics are rapidly metabolized
and the col-
water. Since the lower portion
loidal organics absorbed into the surface.
Sludge is produced
'
when the biological film is sloughed from
the media. Clarifiers
only a
remove the solids through sedimentation.
The sludge is then de -
needed.
watered using sludge drying beds. Effluent
from this system will
be discharged to the Long Island Sound or
Peconic Bay through an
outfall pipe. The flow schematic is shown
on Figure 4.3.
'
3. Alternative C -lb
This alternative is identical with
Alternative C -la, ex-
4. Alternative C -2a
The second alternative uses rotating biological discs,
consisting of a series of large diameter plastic discs mounted
vertically on a shaft and installed in a cylindrical tank. The
discs are partially submerged and are slowly rotated through
' the mixed liquor. When rotated, air enters the voids while the
liquid trickles out over the fixed film of biological growth
' attached to the disc. Sludge is produced when the biological
' growth film becomes too thick and sloughs from the disc into
' 4.34
cept that the effluent will be discharged using land
application.
Sufficient nitrogen removal will
be required prior to
land appli-
cation in order to minimize the
nitrogen loading to
the ground-
water. Since the lower portion
of a deep trickling
filter fre-
quently supports populations of
nitrifying bacteria,
only a
denitrification process will be
needed.
4. Alternative C -2a
The second alternative uses rotating biological discs,
consisting of a series of large diameter plastic discs mounted
vertically on a shaft and installed in a cylindrical tank. The
discs are partially submerged and are slowly rotated through
' the mixed liquor. When rotated, air enters the voids while the
liquid trickles out over the fixed film of biological growth
' attached to the disc. Sludge is produced when the biological
' growth film becomes too thick and sloughs from the disc into
' 4.34
LEGEND
WASTEWATER TRICKLING FILTER
11111111sligSLUDGE FLOW SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE C- I
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
E N
HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. cARMNGDALE N
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RiVERREAD N NEwTONTDN N .
RECIRCULATION
PRELIMINARY
TREATMENT
(SCREENING)
AND GRIT
REMOVAL)
RAW
PRIMARY
TRICKLIN FINAL
EFFLUENT
SETTLING
FILTER
TO OUTFALL
WASTEWATER
TANK
UNIT LARIFIER
OR LAND
FROM
DISINFECTION APPLICATION
COLLECTION
SYSTEM
'[
A LANDFILL
GRAVITY
1110 DEWATERING BCOMPOSTING
THICKENE
C INCINERATION
ULTIMATE DISPOSAL
FILTRATE
AND SUPERNATANT
LEGEND
WASTEWATER TRICKLING FILTER
11111111sligSLUDGE FLOW SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE C- I
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
E N
HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. cARMNGDALE N
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RiVERREAD N NEwTONTDN N .
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
the tank. A final clarifier removes the solids by sedimenta-
tion. Sludge will be thickened, digested and then dewatered
on drying beds and the final effluent discharged to the Sound
or Bay by an outfall. The flow schematic is located on Figure
H"
5. Alternative C -2b
This alternative is similar to Alternative C -2a, except
that the effluent will be discharged utilizing land application.
Land application will require a higher degree of nitrogen re-
moval than surface water discharge. By installing additional
biodiscs, nitrification can be achieved. Furthermore, a de-
nitrification process will be required.
6. Alternative C -3a
Under this alternative, an extended aeration activated
sludge plant would treat the wastewater. This process operates
in the endogenous respiration phase of the growth cycle, which
necessitates a relatively low organic loading and long aeration
time. The aeration time is approximately 24 hours compared to
6 to 8 hours for a conventional activated sludge system. The
extended aeration system excludes the primary sedimentation
phase. Following screening and degritting, raw wastewater is
aerated and sent to the final clarifier. Sludge will be de -
watered on drying beds while the effluent is pumped to Long
Island Sound or Peconic Bay. The flow schematic is shown on
Figure 4.5.
4.36
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTAT
TANK
RAW WASTEWATER
FROM COLLECTION I
SYSTEM SCREENING AND
GRIT REMOVAL
LEGEND
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
RECIRCULATION
FINAL
CLARIFIE
BIO -DISCS
GRAVITY (ANAEROBIC
DEWATERING
THICKENE GESTION
DISINFECTION
EFFLUENT
TO
OUTFALL
OR LAND
APPLICATION
A LANDFILL
B COMPOSTING
C INCINERATION
ULTIMATE
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
ROTATING BIOLOGICAL DISCS
FLOW SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE C-2
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
ELTN
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE N
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD N MEw1ONoN N
RAW WASTEWATER
Ph
FROM COLLECTION
SYSTEM
SREENING AND
GRIT REMOVAL
AIR
LEGEND
WASTEWATER
511116112121 SLUDGE
EXTENDED EFFLUENT
AERATION CLARIFIER TO
TANK OUTFALL
DISINFECTION OR LAND
APPLICATION
GRAVITY
THICKENE
DEWATERING
DIGESTER
EXTENDED AERATION ACTIVATED SLUDGE
A LANDFILL
B COMPOSTING
"--►C INCINERATION
ULTIMATE
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
FLOW SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE C-3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
I E N.V
HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. GARMiNGDALE N
RIVERHEAD NNv
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON
N n
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P . ' H2M CORP.
' 7. Alternative C -3b
This alternative is identical with Alternative C -3a, ex-
cept that land application will be utilized in lieu of surface
water discharge. Both nitrification and denitrification pro-
cesses will be required to remove sufficient nitrogen.
' 8. Alternative C -4a
This alternative utilizes contact stabilization, which
' is a modification of the conventional activated sludge process.
The return activated sludge is reaerated before being mixed with
' the primary effluent. This reaeration permits a smaller aeration
' tank to be used. Effluent from the secondary clarifier would be
pumped to the Sound or Bay through an outfall. Sludge would be
dewatered using drying beds. Figure 4.6 shows the flow schematic
from this alternative.
' 9. Alternative C -4b
' This alternative is identical to Alternative C -4a, ex-
cept that land application will be utilized in lieu of surface
' water discharge. Again, both nitrification and denitrification
processes will be required.
' 10. Alternative C -5a
This fifth alternative is a complete mix activated sludge
treatment plant. Primary effluent is mixed with return acti-
vated sludge and introduced at several points in the aeration
tank. This produces a complete mixing effect within the aera-
tion tank, rather than the plug flow effect of the conventional
' activated sludge process. Sludge is removed from the clarifier
and dewatered using sludge drying beds. The effluent will be
' 4.39
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
TANK
RAW WASTEWATER
FROM COLLECTION J
SYSTEM
SCREENING AND
GRIT REMOVAL
LEGEND
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
CONTACT ECONDAR
BASIN CLARIFIER
"e RArR AIR
ERATI(
-WAS TANK
GRAVITY \ _ /ANAEROBIC
HICKENER "'w( DIGESTER
DISINFECTION
EFFLUENT
TO
OUTFALL
OR LAND
APPLICATION
A LANDFILL
►I DEWATERINGt110 B COMPOSTING
C INCINERATION
ULTIMATE
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
CONTACT STABILIZATION ACTIVATED SLUDGE
FLOW SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE C-4
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
E N.Y
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE N
CONSULTING ENGINEERS PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERREAG N v NEwTONtoN N .;
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. i H2M CORP.
' discharged via an outfall to Long Island Sound or Yeconic Bay.
The flow schematic is shown on Figure 4.7.
' A complete mix activated sludge plant can operate at the
highest BOD -5 load per unit volume aeration tank of any acti-
vated sludge system.
' 11. Alternative C -5b
This alternative is similar to Alternative C -5a, except
' that the effluent will be discharged using land application
methods. Nitrification and denitrification will be required
to meet effluent standards.
1 4.41
'
12. Alternative C-6
This alternative consists of a natural system of treat-
ing domestic sewage by land application through marshes and
ponds. Wastewater would receive preliminary treatment and then
'
aeration. The flow would then be pumped intermittently into a
marsh which would overflow into a pond. The pond effluent would
be pumped to an area where ground infiltration through a vege-
tated soil would take place. This process has been tested and
has comparative effluent qualities with that of an advanced
'
wastewater treatment (AWT) facility. The only end product of
'
this process is the effluent water that is recharged into the
ground.
However, it should be noted that this process has seen
limited use in the United States and that the long-term effects
'
of this treatment process are unknown. Similarly, it is not
known how the system will perform if the same land is used year
1 4.41
PRIMARY
SEDIMENTATION
TANK
RAW
ERATION ECONDA
WASTEWATER TANK CLARIFER
SCREENING
AND GRIT - ::RAS
REMOVAL =
�uuu�Auuunuuuunuuonouun�_
WAS
GRAVITY NAEROBIC
DIGESTER DEWATERING
THICKEN
LEGEND
WASTEWATER
mmilmu SLUDGE FLOW
EFFLUENT
TO OUTFALL
DISINFECTION OR LAND
APPLICATION
A LANDFILL
B COMPOSTING
C IN
ULTIMATE
SLUDGE
DISPOSAL
COMPLETE MIX ACTIVATED SLUDGE
FLOW SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE C-5
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MEL V ILLE. N. V
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE N.rr
RIVERHCONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON
N NEwroN N J �
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
after year. Therefore, the expected life of initial land is un-
known. The flow schematic for the Marsh/Pond system is shown
on Figure 4.8.
B. Screening of Alternative Wastewater Treatment Processes
Selection of a treatment process includes an evaluation of
the ability of a process to treat the wastewater under the ex-
pected conditions at the Mattituck plant. Using a list of
operational characteristics of the various treatment processes
on Table 4.2 and a list of advantages and disadvantages on Table
4.3, a comparison of the alternatives can be made using a matrix.
A matrix was devised to display the various wastewater treat-
ment processes and to serve as a guide for screening. This matrix
provides a quantitative summary of judgments resulting from the
screening of the qualitative information on Tables 4.2 and 4.3.
The matrix, which has been generated as a result of eval-
uating the alternative wastewater treatment processes described
previously in this section, is presented on Table 4.4.
This matrix functions on a series of discrete decisions.
Each alternative is screened with respect to various factors
and assessed a rating. The rating range depends on the screen-
ing factor involved. For example, under the category of "Required
operator Skills", the factor is assessed as Minimal Skills (1),
Good Skills (2), or Highly Skilled (3). This is similarly done
for each item under the screening factor column. The ratings for
all alternatives are arranged at the appropriate points in the
matrix. Each column of the matrix is added to provide a total
51KIN
I
RAW WASTEWATER
FROM COLLECTION
SYSTEM
AERATED MARSH I POND
PONDS AREA AREA
SCREENING AND
GRIT REMOVAL
MARSH/POND SYSTEM
FLOW SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE C-6
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD-INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTE WATER FACILITIES STUDY
VEGETATED
RECHARGE
AREA
EFFLUENT
TO GROUNDWATER
E N.V.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMtNGOALE N
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD N v NEwTONroN N .
OAK
TABLE 4.2
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIOUS TREATMENT PROCESSES
PROCESS
ITEM
TRICKLING FILTERS
ROTATING DISC
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
MARSH/POND
'
(ALT. #1)
(ALT. 42)
(ALT. #3)
(ALT. 1W
(ALT. #6)
(ALT. #5)
Process Characteristics
'
Reliability with respect to:
Basic Process
Good
Good
Very Good
Fair
Very Good
Influent Flow Variations
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Influent Load Variations
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Good
Presence of Industrial Waste
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Industrial Shock Loadings
Fair
Fair
Good
Fair
Fair
'
Low Temperatures (<200C)
Sensitive
Sensitive
Good
Good
Good
(will not nitrify)
(will not nit-ify)
Expandability to Meet:
'
Increased Plant Loadings
Good
Good, must add
Good, ultimately more
Fair to good if
Fair,more land
disc modules
volume will be re-
designed conserva-
required
quired
tively
More Stringent Discharge
Requirements with respect to:
SS
Good, add filtration
Good, add filtration
Good, add filtration
Good, add polishing
Fair, add additional
t
or polishing lagoons
or polishing lagoons
or polishing lagoons
or polishing lagoons
polishing trench
BOD
Improved by filtration
Improved by filtration
Improved by filtration
Improved by filtration
Fair, add additional
'
polishing trench
Nitrogen
Good, denitrification
Good, denitri-ication
Good,denitrification
Good, nitrification-
Good, denitrificatim
must be added
must be added
must be added
denitrification must be
must be added
'
(3)
added
Operational Complexity
2
2
3
4
1
Ease of Operation & Maintenance
Very Good
Very Good
Very Good
Fair
Very Good
'
Power Requirements (4)
Moderately High
Low
Relatively High
High
Low
ITEM
Waste Products
Potential Environmental Impacts
Site Considerations
Land Area Requirements
Topography
TABLE 4.2 (CONT'D)
OPERATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIOUS TREATMENT PROCESSES
TRICKLING FILTERS
ALT. #1
Sludges
Odors
Moderate plus
buffer zones
Relatively level
ROTATTNG DISC
ATL. #2)
Sludges
Odors
Moderate plus
buffer zones
Relatively level
NOTES: 1
Contact stabilization (Alt. #4) and complete Mix (Alt. #5)
2Extended aeration (Alt. X03)
3operational Complexity Range. . . (1 -simple) to (5 -complex)
4Power Requirements - Order of Intensity: Low
Moderately High
Relatively High
High
PROCESS
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
(ALT. #3)
Sludges
Large plus buffer
zone
Relatively level
ACTIVATED SLUDGEl
(ALT. #4)
(ALT. #5)
Sludges
Moderate plus
buffer zone
Relatively level
MARSH/POND
(ALT. #6)
Possible clearing
of marsh annually
Odors
Very large
Relatively level
COMPARISON
FACTORS
Expected BOD
Removal
Advantages
Disadvantages
TABLE 4.3
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
ALTERNATIVE
#1
75-90%
-good with
BOD shock load
-simple oper.
-little power
-fully nitrified
-low BOD
efficiency
-sensitive to
temperature
-denit req'd
for disppal
option
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES
ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE ALTERNATIVE
#2 #3 #4
85-95%
-low sludge
production
-resistant to
organic & hydra.
loads
-simple oper.
-low cost
-sensitive to
temperature
-sensitive to
precipitation
-denit. req' d
for disposal
option b"
' *Complete mix alternative only (alternative 5).
85-95%
-flexible
-resistant to
hydraulic load
-simple oper.
-low cost
-low sludge
production
-large oxygen
requirements
-limited
expansion
denit. req' d
for disposal
option 'b"
85-95%
-flexible
-smaller
aeration tank
needed
-no good on
industrial
waste
-complex oper.
-Nitro.-denit.
needed for
disposal option
"b"
4.47
ALTERNATIVE
#5
85-95%
-very good
on shock loads
-high quality
eff.
-constant bio
conditioner
-can handle
scavenger waste*
-complex oper.
-nitro-denit.
needed for
disposal option
"b"
ALTERNATIVE
#6
95%
-no sludge
production
-can handle diluted
scavenger waste
-little knowledge
on process
-high land
requirements
-high O & M
-denit. req 'd
for disposal
option "b"
SCREENING FACTORS
Abatement of Existing
Water Pollution
Problems
Achieve Water Quality
Goals for Outfall or
Groundwater Recharge
Monetary Costs
Process Reliability
Stability of Waste Sludge
Required Operator
Skills
Power Requirements
Advantages
Disadvantages
TOTALS
TABLE 4.4
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESSES
ALT.
ALT.
ALT.
ALT. ALT. ALT.
ALT.
C -la &
C -2a &
C -3a &
C -4a & C -5a & C-6
B
C -lb
C -2b
—C -3b
C -4b C -5b
(PUMPING)
4
4
4
4 4 4
0
NG
0 0 0 0 0 0
3 2
4
4
3
NG
2 1
2
2
1
-1.5
2 2
2
2
0
6
1 2
3
3
1
15.5 NG
2
3
3
3
2
-2
-2.5
-1
-1.5
-1.5
4
4
6
4
6
16
15.5
23
20.5
15.5 NG
LEGEND: 1.
NG - denotes that the alternative will not be compared with the remaining alternatives due to the reason(s)
cited in the report.
2.
N/A - Not Applicable.
3.
Abatement of Existing Water Pollution Problems: Resolved -0, Significant -4, Moderate -6, Minimal -8,
Insignificant -NG.
4.
Achieve Water Quality Goals for Outfall or Groundwater Recharge: Compliance -0, Moderate Compliance -6,
Minimal Compliance -8, Non -Compliance -NG.
5.
Monetary Costs: Minimal -1, Moderate -2, Significant -3, Expensive -4, Very Expensive -8.
6.
Process Reliability: Reliable -1, Conditional -2, Unreliable -3.
7.
Stability of Waste Sludge: Very Stable -1, Stable -2, Unstable -3, No Sludge -0.
8.
Required Operator Skills: Minimal Skills -1, Good Skills -2, Highly Skilled -1.
9.
Power Requirements: Low -1, Moderate -2, High -3.
10.
Advantaqes: Number of advantages x (- 0.5).
11.
Disadvantages: Number of disadvantages x (2).
F1"I .
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. H2M CORP
fnr earn alternative. This cum will then ha pompared with each
sum of the various alternatives. The detailed analyses which
provide the substantiation for each of the judgments in the ma-
trix is contained in the following subsections:
I. Alternative B
The pumping of wastewater from Mattituck to Greenport was
considered as an alternative, in order to try and utilize the
excess capacity at the Greenport STP for economic reasons. How-
ever, further examination of this alternative indicates that the
capital construction and annual O & M costs of providing for a
13 mile force main with two (2) pump stations, in addition to
expansion of the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant, is extremely
expensive. For this reason, further consideration of this al-
ternative has been eliminated.
2. Alternatives C -la and C -1B
Since both of these alternatives will not consistently
achieve the effluent quality limitation expected to be set by
the discharge permit, they were assigned a rating of NG. Thus,
Alternatives C -la and C -lb are eliminated from further consid-
eration.
3. Alternatives C -2a and C -2b
The use of rotating biological discs, together with sett-
ling clarifiers as a treatment facility, would be an appropriate
selection for a Mattituck treatment plant. The somewhat simple
operational complexity, together with a relatively low cost, ex-
tends the suitability of this process for the Mattituck area.
HOLZMACHER. McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. H2M CORP.
The
total estimated annual cost is $287,700.
for C -2a and
$346,200. for C -2b.
The screening factors were evaluated as
follows:
I.
Abatement of Existing Water
Pollution Problems:
4 - Significant
2.
Achieve Water Quality Goals
for Discharge:
0 - Compliance
3.
Monetary Costs:
3 - Significant
4.
Process Reliability:
2 - Conditional
5.
Stability of Waste Sludge:
2 - Stable
6.
Required Operator Skills:
1 - Minimal Skills
7.
Power Requirements:
2 - Moderate
8.
Advantages: 4 x -.5 = -2
-- low sludge production
-- resistant to organic and hydraulic
loads
-- simple operations
-- low cost
9.
Disadvantages: 2 x 2 = 4
-- sensitive to temperature
-- sensitive to precipitation
10. Total • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4. Alternatives C3a and C -3b
The activated sludge process using extended aeration is a
feasible facility for a small community wastewater treatment
plant. A high efficiency of BOD -5 and Suspended Solids re-
moval together with a relatively low cost makes extended aera-
tion appropriate for the Mattituck plant. The total estimated
annual cost is $235,300. for C -3a and $292,900. for C -3b.
The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
4.50
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. ' H2M CORP.
1. Abatement of Existing Water
5. Alternatives C -4a and C -4b
Contact stabilization activated sludge treatment process
will obtain a high quality effluent, but at a relatively high
cost• Total estimated annual cost is $395,900. for C -4a and
$452,800. for C -4b.
The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
1. Abatement of Existing Water
Pollution Problems: 4 - Significant
2. Achieve Water Quality Goals
for Discharge: 0 - Compliance
3. Monetary Costs: 4 - Expensive
4. Process Reliability: 2 - Conditional
4.51
Pollution Problems:
4 -
Significant
2.
Achieve Water Quality Goals
for Discharge:
0 -
Compliance
3.
Monetary Costs:
2 -
Moderate
4.
Process Reliability:
1 -
Reliable
5.
Stability of Waste Sludge:
2 -
Stable
6.
Required Operator Skills:
2 -
Good Skills
7.
Power Requirements:
3 -
High
8.
Advantages: 5 x -.5 = -2.5
-- flexible
-- resistant to hydraulic load
-- simple operations
-- low sludge production
-- low cost
9.
Disadvantages: 2 x 2 = 4
-- large oxygen requirements
-- limited expansion
10.
Total • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 15.5
5. Alternatives C -4a and C -4b
Contact stabilization activated sludge treatment process
will obtain a high quality effluent, but at a relatively high
cost• Total estimated annual cost is $395,900. for C -4a and
$452,800. for C -4b.
The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
1. Abatement of Existing Water
Pollution Problems: 4 - Significant
2. Achieve Water Quality Goals
for Discharge: 0 - Compliance
3. Monetary Costs: 4 - Expensive
4. Process Reliability: 2 - Conditional
4.51
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. % H2M CORP.
5. Stability of Waste Sludge: 2 - Stable
6. Required Operator Skills: 3 - Highly Skilled
7. Power Requirements: 3 - High
8. Advantages: 2 x -.5 = -1
-- flexible
-- smaller aeration tank needed
9. Disadvantages: 3 x 2 = 6
-- no good on industrial wastes
-- complex operation
-- nitrification needed prior to denitrification
10. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
6. Alternatives C -5a and C -5b
Complete mix activated sludge for the secondary treatment
facility proposed at Mattituck will obtain a high quality efflu-
ent, but at a relatively high cost. If scavenger waste is to
be disposed of at the treatment plant, this alternative will be
a feasible process because of its ability to handle high BOD
loadings. The total estimated annual cost is $395,900. for C -5a
and $452,800. for C -5b.
The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
1. Abatement of Existing Water
Pollution Problems: 4 - Significant
2. Achieve Water Quality Goals
for Discharge: 0 - Compliance
3. Monetary Costs: 4 - Expensive
4. Process Reliability: 2 - Conditional
5. Stability of Waste Sludge: 2 - Stable
6. Required Operator Skills: 3 - Highly Skilled
7. Power Requirements: 3 - High
4.52
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
8. Advantages: 3 x -.5 = -1.5
-- very good on BOD loading
-- high quality effluent
-- constant biological conditions
9. Disadvantages: 2 x 2 = 4
-- complex operation
-- nitrification needed prior to denitrification
10. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20.5
7. Alternative C-6
The marsh/pond system of treating wastewater is a very ad-
vantageous process. High quality effluent water is easily at-
tended without sludge as a by-product. However, little data
are available on how the system will fair after 20 years of
service. Will the soil characteristics deteriorate over this
period? A lack of information makes it questionable if this
system should be used. Excessive land requirements of the
marsh/pond system results in a large initial cost. The total
estimated annual cost is $358,700. for Alternative C-6.
4.53
The screening factors were
evaluated as
follows:
1.
Abatement of Existing Water
Pollution Problems:
4
- Significant
2.
Achieve Water Quality Goals
for Discharge:
0
- Compliance
3.
Monetary Costs:
3
- Significant
4.
Process Reliability:
1
- Reliable
5.
Stability of Waste Sludge:
0
- No Sludge
6.
Required Operator Skills:
1
- Minimal Skills
7.
Power Requirements:
2
- Moderate
4.53
'
having one source of potable water, the alternative of wastewater
reuse at either facility will be examined in order to conserve
HOLZMACHER.
McLENDON and MURRELL,
P.C.
i H2M CORP.
1
8. Advantages: 3 x -.5 = -1.5
-- no sludge production
-- can handle scavenger waste
-- high quality effluent
9. Disadvantages: 3 x 2 = 6
-- little knowledge on process
-- high land requirements
-- high operation and maintenance costs
10. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5
4.2.4 Wastewater Treatment and Reuse
Conventional means of effluent disposal on Long Island is
through surface water discharge. The existing Greenport STP
utilizes a Sound outfall. A Mattituck facility could possibly
use a Sound or Bay outfall. However, with the study area only
' follows:
(1) Municipal Reuse - Treated wastewater may be used as
' drinking water after dilution in natural waters, i.e. rivers
1
4.54
having one source of potable water, the alternative of wastewater
reuse at either facility will be examined in order to conserve
'
the limited groundwater resource.
In most instances, it is generally not feasible to reuse a
treated wastewater effluent completely or indefinitely. The
reuse of treated effluents by direct or indirect means is a
method of disposal which invariably complements another dis-
posal method. Usually the parameters which serve to control
the amount of effluent that can be reused include: (a) avail-
ability and cost of potable/irrigation water; (b) transportation
and treatment costs of wastewater; and (c) water quality standards.
'
Water reuse is generally classified according to use as
' follows:
(1) Municipal Reuse - Treated wastewater may be used as
' drinking water after dilution in natural waters, i.e. rivers
1
4.54
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
or streams. After dilution, the water is treated by coagula-
tion, filtration and heavy chlorination for disinfection and
then may be used for drinking water, most practicable on an
emergency basis only. This practice is very similar to the
situation existing on many rivers that are used for both water
supply and waste disposal with the only variation being the
degree of water treatment.
In municipalities where inadequate water supplies exist,
it may be necessary to employ advanced methods of wastewater
and water treatment. These methods are capable of almost com-
plete removal of impurities. Further, water treated by these
methods, after disinfection, is safe to drink. However, these
methods are extremely expensive and where they are found to be
absolutely necessary, may be economically feasible only if a
dual supply system is adopted. For example, adequately treated
effluent could be reused for toilet flushing, lawn watering, park
or golf course watering or other similar applications.
(2) Industrial Reuse - Presently, the reuse of treated
municipal wastewaters by industry is small, but the practice is
on the rise. The increasing number of examples where this is
carried out attests to the enormous future potential that exists.
Properly treated wastewater can be used successfully for
general plant application, for cooling water and also boiler
feed -water. Since approximately 50 percent of all industrial
water use falls within the latter two categories, it can be
said that the value of treated wastewater to industry is
4.55
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
significant. However, treated wastewater is used industrially
in areas where economic conditions make treatment and reuse a
favorable choice.
Generally, the factors which must be considered in deciding
on the practicality of the reuse of wastewater plant effluent by
industry are the following:
A. An industry in the locality must exhibit the need
for a process water which does not involve a risk
to public health. (Not directly utilized in end
product.)
B. Processing costs, including wastewater trans-
portation and pumping, must not exceed those
of an alternate supply.
C. The quality of the wastewater plant effluent
should be consistent enough to allow its day-
to-day use by the particular industry•
Further, it has been found that the requirements for water
' used in industry are highly variable. Because of this, and
the variability in quality of wastewater effluents, the neces-
sary degree of treatment should usually be determined on an
' individual industry basis. Consequently, the cost of treating
the water for industrial use is also variable with the particular
circumstances.
(3) Agricultural Reuse - Irrigation of lands with waste-
water has been practiced for centuries. In certain instances,
' the objective is to simply dispose of the wastewater, however,
in other instances the primary purpose is the production of
' crops and the raising of animals. In the United States, the
practice of irrigating with treated municipal wastewaters is
usually confined to arid or semi -arid areas.
' 4.56
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
The types of crops that can be irrigated with treated waste-
water usually depend on: (a) the quality and quantity of waste-
water; and (b) the local, State or Federal health regulations
governing the use of the wastewater or treated wastewater on the
crops• Health considerations in the United States have dictated
negligible use of raw wastewater. In addition, field crops nor-
mally consumed in the raw state, i.e. lettuce, escarole, tomatoes,
etc., cannot be irrigated with wastewater of any kind with the
only exception being the use of a well oxidized, non-putrescible
and reliably disinfected or filtered treated wastewater which
always meets strict bacterial content standards.
Preliminary treated or undisinfected wastewater effluent is
usually allowed for: (a) field crops such as cotton, flax, sugar
beets or vegetables grown for seed production; (b) for animal
feed and pasture crops; (c) for woodlands; and (d) for a variety
of other crops where wastewater irrigation will not affect the
public health•
In semi -arid or arid areas where water is generally scarce
and often difficult to obtain in extremely dry years, a size-
able supplementary water supply can often be derived from waste-
water flows. A major obstacle is that the large population con-
centrations are usually located considerable distances from farm
' lands. Under these circumstances, transportation costs might
make it uneconomical to use the treated wastewater for agri-
cultural purposes. However, where municipalities are located
' near farm lands, the practice might prove to be highly economical.
' 4.57
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
,nX } i Reus- - mhe =terinn of rtn7F rn,irsPs, park
1`t/ Re Creational ...- .� p ----
watering, establishment of ponds for boating and recreation, and
maintenance of fish or wildlife ponds are some of the methods em-
ployed for recreational reuse of treated wastewater. Considering
the emphasis being placed on the recreational use of our water re-
sources today, there appears to be little doubt that the increased
development of facilities of this nature will be forthcoming in
the future. Further, today's technology permits the production
of a well suited treated wastewater for the purposes described
above.
Finally, the watering of parks with treated wastewater has
been practiced for many years in this country and there is no
viable technological reason which dictates that it should not
continue.
(5) Groundwater Recharge - Replenishment of groundwater
supplies by groundwater recharge is one of the most common
methods for combining water reuse and effluent disposal. Today,
recharging is being practiced in many areas especially in those
where the natural groundwater tables are rapidly falling or
are being contaminated with salt water or nutrients.
In Long Island, (New York), California and other coastal
areas, rapid development of industry in conjunction with in-
creased residential development have caused a lowering of the
natural groundwater table, resulting in salt water intrusion
into the fresh water aquifers along the coastline. Consequently,
treated wastewater is being considered or used to replenish the
groundwater and halt this intrusion in these areas.
-I HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
I
Some of the many advantages gained by groundwater recharge
'
are the
following:
the present time,
A.
Control of salt water
(saline) intrusion.
'
Town of Southold - Inc. Village of
Greenport.
Reuse of waste-
B.
Reduction of aquifer
overdrafts.
'
C.
Supplementing natural
recharge where man's
dressed in the following subsection
activities have reduced
or eliminated recharge.
'
(6) Evaluation of Wastewater
Reuse - At
the present time,
wastewater reuse to some degree is
a viable alternative
in the
'
Town of Southold - Inc. Village of
Greenport.
Reuse of waste-
water by land application on agricultural
or
recreational tracts
'
is recommended. A further evaluation
of this
alternative is ad-
dressed in the following subsection
entitled
"Land Application".
Direct reuse of wastewater as
a potable
water supply is ex-
tremely expensive and consequently
not economically
feasible at
this time.
4.2.5 Land Application
The Greenport STP is presently discharging its effluent
through an outfall to Long Island Sound. With the deterioration
of the groundwater quality within the vicinity of the Greenport
water supply area, we have investigated the feasibility of land
application of effluent. Recharge of effluent to the aquifer
could have the effect of reversing the trend in groundwater
contamination due to chlorides from salt water intrusion and
lowering the nitrate concentration of the groundwater.
Land application (disposal) systems can be divided into
three categories or classifications. These are: (1) spray irri-
gation; (2) infiltration/percolation; and (3) overland flow.
4.59
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
These three methods are shown schematically in Figure 4.9 and
comparative characteristics are given in Table 4.5.
(1) Spray Irrigation - This is the most popular of the
land application techniques and the most reliable. This method
involves applying wastewater to land, either by spraying or sur-
face spreading. Supporting plant growth and treating the waste --
water are the results of this technique.
Treatment is accomplished by physical, chemical and bio-
logical means as the wastewater seeps through the soil. Irri-
gation systems are usually designed to accomplish the following
purposes:
A. To avoid the discharge of nutrients into surface
waters•
B. To obtain economic return from the use of waste-
water nutrients for producing marketable crops,
if feasible.
C. To conserve water by utilizing wastewater for
lawns, parks or golf courses.
D. To preserve and enlarge green belts and open space.
Pre -application treatment of wastewater is required for most
irrigation systems and a wide range of treatment requirements are
encountered. The bacteriological quality of wastewater is usually
a limiting factor where food crops or landscapes are to be irri-
gated. In other instances, reduction in BOD and SS may be neces-
sary to prevent clogging of distribution nozzles or to prevent
generation of odors•
4.60
SPRAY OR
SURFACE
APPLICATII
ROOT ZOI
SUBSOIL
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
(A) IRRIGATION
EVAPORATION
SPRAY OR
SURFACE APPLICATION
PERCOLATION THROUGH
r wunt
ARIABLE
LOPE
DEEP
PERCOLATION
SPRAY APPLICATION EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
/ �\ ! GRASS AND VEGETATIVE LITTER
SLOPE 2.4%
/ I \
PERCOLATION
100-300 FT
RUNOFF
COLLECTION
(C) OVERLAND FLOW
SOURCE LAND TREATMENT OF MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER EFFLUENTS
USEPA TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER JANUARY 1976
LAND APPLICATION METHODS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE. N.Y.
HOLLMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMIM30ALE.NY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RVERHEAD. N V
NEWTON. N J
4.61
TABLE 4.5
GREFNPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION &ENVIRONM"7TAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
COMPARATIVE CHARACTERISTICS OF IRRIGATION,
OVERLAND FLOW AND INFILTRATION/PERCOLATION SYSTEMS
TYPE OF APPROACH
INFILTRATION/
FACTOR IRRIGATION OVERLAND FLOW PERCOLATION
Liquid Loading
Rate** 0.5-4.0 in/wk 2.0-5.5 in/wk 4.0-120.0 in/wk
Annual Appli-
cation
Land Required
for 1.0 mgd
Flow
Application
Techniques
2.0-8.0 ft/yr
140-560 acres
plus buffer
zones
Spray or
surface
8.0-24.0 ft/yr 18.0-500.0 ft/yr
46-140 acres 2-62 acres plus
plus buffer buffer zones
zones
Usually spray
Usually surface
1 4.62
Soils
Moderately per-
Slowly perme-
Rapidly permeable
'
meable soils
able soils such
soils such as
with good pro-
as clay loams
sands, loamy sands,
ductivity when
and clay
and sandy loams
'
irrigated
Probability of
Moderate
Slight
Certain
Influencing
'
Groundwater
Quality
'
Needed Depth
About 5.0 ft.
Undetermined
About 15.0 ft
to Groundwater
Wastewater
Predominantly
Surface dis-
Percolation to
t
Lost to
evaporation or
charge domin-
groundwater
deep percolation
ates over eva-
poration & per-
colation
**Irrigation rates of 4.0 in/wk are
usually seasonal; yearly maximum
'
loads of 8.0
ft/yr would average
about 2.0 in/wk.
SOURCE: USEPA
1 4.62
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. ' H2M CORP.
Lor
Essential LO all land application LeCII[Il gUeS 1J file heed LVL
suitable site characteristics. Table 4.6 summarizes the basic
site characteristics required for the land application techniques.
Other considerations which should not be disregarded in irri-
gation systems are the hydraulic and nitrogen loading rates. In
most cases, one of these factors will be a limiting factor. how-
ever, in special cases other loading rates such as phosphorus
and organic matter, or loadings of constituents of abnormally
high concentration, may be more critical. In order to obtain
loading rates, water and constituent balances must usually be
performed.
In conducting the water balance, the factors of primary con-
cern are: (a) the quantity of wastewater applied; (b) precipita-
tion; (c) evapotranspiration; (d) percolation; and (e) runoff.
In conducting the constituent (nitrogen or other nutrient)
balance, the amount of constituent applied in the wastewater per
year is compared to the amount taken up (uptake) by a particular
crop (grass or other vegetation), and the amount that passes
through to the groundwater.
The farming operations within the Township increase the
suitability of the alternative of effluent irrigation. Major
crops produced in Southold are potatoes, cauliflower and sod.
The use of effluent on potatoes is not recommended because
tuberous crops have a potentially high probability of contami-
nation from pathogenic bacteria and viruses. Effluent irrigation
of cauliflower crops is not an acceptable practice because of its
4.63
TABLE 4.6
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVE'S EVALUATION &ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
SITE CHARACTERISTICS FOR LAND DISPOSAL
OF WASTEWATER
SITE
APPLICATION TECHNIQUES
CHARACTERISTIC
SPRAY
OVERLAND
INFILTRATION/
CONSIDERATION
IRRIGATION
FLOW
PERCOLATION
Climate
Warm to arid prefer-
Same as spray
All climates
red. Severe climates
irrigation.
acceptable.
acceptable only if
Loadings may need
adequate storage is
to be reduced
provided for wet or
for cold weather.
freezing conditions.
Topography
Slopes up to 15% for
Rolling terrain--
Level terrain pre -
crop irrigation are
level terrain can
ferred--rolling
acceptable. Runoff
be used to create
terrain acceptable.
or erosion should be
uniform slopes 2
controlled.
to 6%,in some cases
as high as 8%
Soil Type
Loamy soils prefer-
Clay and clay
Acceptable soils
red. Sandy loams to
loams preferred
include sand,
clay loams are suit-
sandy loams, loamy
able.
soils and gravel.
Soil Drainage
Well drained is pre-
Poor or slow
Moderate to rapid
ferred. Poorly drain-
drainage preferred.
drainage.
ed is suitable if
drainage features
are included in de-
sign.
nw-v
TABLE. 4.6 (CONT -D)
SITE CHARACTERISTICS FOR LAND DISPOSAL
OF WASTEWATER
SITE
CHARACTERISTIC SPRAY
CONSIDERATION IRRIGATION
Soil Depth At least 6-8 ft. or
more for most de-
velopment and/or
wastewater renova-
tion.
Geologic Should not contain
Formation major discontinu-
ities which provide
short circuits to
groundwater.
Groundwater Minimum depth to
groundwater should
be 5 ft.
APPLICATION TECHNIQUES
OVERLAND INFILTRATION/
FLOW PERCOLATION
Depth must be
sufficient to
form slopes and
maintain vegeta-
tive cover.
(about 2 ft.)
Same as spray
irrigation.
Groundwater
should not
interefere with
plant growth.
(About 2 ft.)
4.65
Uniform depth of 15
ft. is preferred.
Same as spray
irrigation.
A minimum of 15 ft.
to the high water
table is required.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
short growing season and direct digestion into the human food
chain. The four month season limits the use of irrigation and
'
would not justify the cost of transporting the effluent from the
sewage treatment plant to the farm. Recent studies performed by
Pennsylvania State University, have shown that a sod crop of
'
reed canary grass is a very suitable crop for effluent irrigation.
The nitrogen loading of the effluent applied at the rate of 2
'
in/wk provided enough nutrients to the grass that the application
of fertilizer was not necessary to obtain equivalent yields. The
'
efficiency of sod as a wastewater renovating agent was assessed
by computing a removal efficiency expressed as the ratio of the
'
weight of nitrogen removed in the harvested crop (clippings) to
'
the weight of the nitrogen applied in the wastewater. An average
of over 97 percent removal efficiency was obtained through the
'
six (6) year study period. Average concentrations of nitrate
-N in the percolate at the four (4) foot soil depth was 3.5 mg/l
'
in the effluent irrigated areas.
'
The average concentration of nitrate in the control plot of
reed canary grass receiving applications of commercial fertilizer
'
was 0.2 mg/l. This study, therefore, shows that effluent can re-
place the use of fertilizers, however, a more significant nitrate
concentration leaches to the groundwater from effluent rather than
'
fertilizers.
In trying to relate the data of this study to the present
conditions of the sod farms located in Southold, certain dif-
ferences should be noted. Merion bluegrass is grown instead of
'
4.66
11
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
reed canary grass. This condition could have a significant
change in results of effluent irrigation due to the different
characteristics of grass types. It is suggested that a pilot
plant study be performed using existing conditions before going
to a full scale irrigation system.
Effluent irrigation will help conserve the groundwater
supply. However, the additional nitrate input will further
deteriorate the water quality of the aquifer, which cannot be
tolerated. It would be possible to apply the effluent at very
low nitrogen loadings, thereby allowing optional uptake from
the turf and minimal leaching of nitrogen. This, however, will
require either a denitrification process at the treatment fa-
cility or a blending procedure of effluent with irrigation water
prior to the irrigation method.
Another major concern when using effluent irrigation is
that of public health considerations. Spray irrigation trans-
ports pathogenic bacteria and viruses out of the immediate area.
Recent studies have found that the median size of viable parti-
cles collected downwind from effluent spray was 5 microns. This
is important because this size particle is subject to inhalation
by humans. Modifications and precautions must be taken to mini-
mize aerosol dispersement.
One major disadvantage of effluent irrigation for the Green-
port/Southold study area is that of a short growing season. Ef-
fluent irrigation can only be utilized during the growing season
which lasts approximately 190 days (April through September) per
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
year. rnerefore, an alternate disposal method would iiave to be
employed during the remainder of the year. For the Greenport
facility, the existing outfall is most appropriate for utili-
zation during the winter months, if a dual discharge permit
could be obtained. Effluent irrigation at a Mattituck sub -
regional treatment facility is somewhat unlikely due to the
prohibitive estimated capital construction cost of providing
two separate effluent disposal systems.
(2) Infiltration/Percolation - In this method, wastewater
is usually applied to the soil by spreading in basins and is
treated as it travels downward through the soil. Vegetation is
generally not used, although grass may be placed at the bottom
and sides of the basins. Pre -application treatment is performed
to reduce the SS content, and thereby allows the continuation of
' high application rates. Biological treatment is most often recom-
mended prior to spreading, although effluent with only primary
treatment has been used. Once again, treatment is accomplished
' by physical, chemical and biological means.
Since most of the applied effluent percolates through the
' soil, soil drainage is usually the limiting site characteristic.
' Other site evaluation criteria are summarized in Table 4.6.
Loading rates, liquid or nitrogen, should be considered
' limiting factors for this treatment technique. However, load-
ings of salt as a result of weathering and soil lime dissolution
' may be critical in some cases. Basin loading schedules and al-
ternating loading and resting periods are required to restore
' 4.68
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
1
' the infiltration capability of the soil surface and to promote
optimum nitrogen removal by nitrification -denitrification.
' The water balance for this treatment technique is similar
to that for irrigation, except that greater quantities of water
' are undoubtedly lost to percolation. The limiting percolation
rate should be estimated for saturated soil and adverse climatic
conditions• Runoff is not a consideration in this treatment
method.
Lastly, where concentrations of nitrogen compounds (es-
pecially nitrates) in the groundwater are a limiting factor, the
wastewater loading rate and/or schedule must be established to
maximize denitrification.
Previous studies have shown that infiltration/percolation
techniques can only obtain approximately 80 percent nitrogen
removal.
This would reduce
the
nitrate concentration of the
recharge
to about 6 mg/1.
It is
felt that this concentration is
still too high to recharge directly into the groundwater. There-
fore, a nitrification -denitrification process will be required
to reduce the nitrate concentration before land application.
This in turn will increase the total cost of treatment. Methods
for increasing nitrogen removal through land applications are
being tested using different management systems which include
reduction of infiltration rates or recycling high nitrate per-
colate. These techniques for achieving high nitrogen removal,
although promising, require testing on a field scale before
widespread adoption.
OHM
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
Advantages of this technique are the considerable amount of
groundwater recharge obtainable and the adaptation to cold cli-
mates. With groundwater quality being degraded by salt water
intrusion, groundwater recharge can reverse the hydraulic gra-
dient and protect the existing aquifer. Site selection is of
utmost importance for this method to be efficient. With salt
water intrusion being apparent at Well Field No. 4, an infil-
tration basin should be located within close proximity to the
wells. The adaptation of infiltration/percolation to cold cli-
mate lends the method for year-round operation unlike the other
methods.
(3) Overland Flow - In this technique, wastewater is ap-
plied to the upper reaches of sloped terraces and allowed to
flow across a vegetated surface to runoff collection ditches.
Soils should be relatively impermeable. Treatment is ac-
complished by physical, chemical and biological means as the
wastewater flows uniformly through the grass and vegetative
' cover. Pre -application of wastewater, at minimum, should in-
clude removal of solids, grit and grease which generally hamper
effective sprinkling application. If pre -application treatment
' includes secondary treatment, overland flow can be used for
polishing of the effluent and the removal of nitrogen compounds.
' Recommended site characteristics for this method of treat-
ment are summarized in Table 4.6.
' Loading rates should be determined for primary and secondary
' treated wastewaters. A water balance is conducted to estimate
1 4.70
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
' the expected runoff. rhe required length of runoff 'terrace is
usually dependent on the degree of treatment required, wastewater
' characteristics, climate and slope of land.
Once again, the effluent must go through a nitrification -
denitrification process to remove all of the nitrogen so not to
' have nitrates leaching into the groundwater. It also has been
observed that operational efficiency decreases in cold climates.
(4) Environmental Considerations - Land application of
treated effluent is desirable in some cases and in certain geo-
graphical areas because it may serve to fertilize and irrigate
' cropland, recharge and conserve groundwater and provide or in-
crease the buffer between the fresh -salt water interface. The
' environmental shortcomings of land application disposal tech-
niques are:
' A. Relatively large amount of suitable land is
needed for application.
' B. Large areas are needed for storage lagoons.
C. Undesirable odors may be generated.
D. Energy consumption to operate land application
techniques is greater than a surface water
■ outfall.
E. There may be a potential hazard to public health
' from airborne pathogens and contaminated food
crops.
F. Operating costs are significantly greater than
' for a surface water outfall.
G. There may be a potential impact upon groundwater
' quality.
H. Surface waters may be adversely impacted by run-
off from application sites.
1 4.71
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
'
(5) Evaluation of Land Application - After a thorough ex-
amination of all land application techniques, it is determined
that the most feasible disposal alternatives for the Greenport
'
STP's effluent are:
A. Irrigation of a sod farm.
B. Infiltration/percolation.
1
Effluent irrigation on a sod crop would be the most ac-
ceptable method, only if the amount of nitrate leaching to the
'
groundwater is less than that leaching from fertilizer practices.
In order to determine if a reduction in nitrate percolation can
'
be achieved, it is suggested that a pilot plant study be initiated.
'
If proven acceptable, full scale irrigation can be developed for
either existing privately -owned sod farms or a new farm be pur-
chased and operated by the Inc. Village of Greenport.
Infiltration/percolation is an acceptable disposal method
'
that will recharge groundwater with up to 90 percent of the ef-
fluent applied to the land. Selection of a site location is in-
fluential in preventing salt water intrusion. This method will,
however, require the addition of a nitrification -denitrification
process prior to land application. The additional cost of treat-
ment will be reflected in the cost-effective analysis of alter-
natives in Section 5.0. Previous studies at Greenport indicate
the presence of a extensive clay layer near the treatment plant.
'
As a result, some pumping will be required to reach a satisfactory
site.
4.72
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
4.9.r Rn rfare Water Dis
Surface water effluent disposal is typically accomplished
by submarine outfalls that transport the sewage some distance
from shore prior to discharging the wastewater to the receiving
waters. At the end of the outfall, the wastewater is released
in a single stream or equally distributed via a manifold or
multiple point diffuser. The combination of dispersion and
dilution provides an effective effluent disposal method with
little impact on the surrounding environment.
The Inc. Village of Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant cur-
rently utilizes a Long Island Sound outfall to dispose of the
effluent water. Due to the minute volume of discharge rela-
tive to the volume of receiving waters, the constituents remain-
ing in the wastewater become highly diluted. The Sound remains
relatively unimpacted due to a good exchange with the Atlantic
Ocean. Harvesting of shellfish is prohibited within the closure
area around the outfall in order to rule out any possible chances
of contamination. As long as the sewage treatment plant con-
tinues to conform to the effluent limitation set by NYSDEC,
there will be few adverse affects on the surrounding environ-
ment. Coliform tests were performed on samples obtained from
beaches in close proximity to the outfall and results have
shown the water quality of the beaches to be in excellent
condition.(l)
' (1) 1977 Bathing Beach Water Quality Report, SCDHS
4.73
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. % H2M CORP.
Other discharge pOlIIt6, suchas,. o Gard.-�-� Ray, may be an ••
equally attractive outfall location. However, since there are
no significant environmental impacts due to the existing out-
fall, there is no reason to choose an alternate surface water
discharge site.
Surface water discharge, as currently practiced, is the
most cost-effective method of effluent disposal. However, with
the increase in salt water intrusion within the Southold/Green-
port area, it may be advantageous to artificially recharge the
groundwater aquifer in order to retard salt water intrusion and
1
4.74
increase recharge.
for the Mattituck
Surface water discharge is also feasible
'
sub -regional facility. Since an exact location for this fa-
cility has not been selected, the discharge location can not
'
be determined. Possible receiving waters are: 1) Long Island
Sound; 2) Mattituck Creek; and 3) Peconic Bay. As previously
'
discussed, a Sound outfall would provide optimal conditions for
effective dilution and dispersion. However, if a facility lo-
cation is selected on the south shore of Southold, it would be
'
more cost-effective to discharge into Peconic Bay rather than
to the Sound. The Peconic Bay also provides sufficient dilu-
tion characteristics to receive the waste load. Mattituck
'
Creek, however, does not receive sufficient tidal flushing to
be able to accept the flow from the Mattituck area. Once a
'
site is determined for the Mattituck Treatment Facility, a
cost-effective analysis will be required prior to selecting
1
a discharge location.
1
4.74
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' 4.2.7 Environmental Assessment
In addition to the non-structural alternatives, structural
' alternatives are being considered for regional sewage collection
and treatment, in response to public health and environmental
1 concerns• This section will evaluate the environmental impacts
' of the various structural alternatives.
A. No Action Alternative (Engineering Alternative A)
' The No Action alternative does not construct or imple-
ment any additional facilities to address the problem of ground-
water contamination in the study area, but maintains status quo.
It is not a viable and recommended alternative, since it does not
solve current public health problems. Section 3.0 contains a
more detailed analysis of the planning area without the imple-
mentation of this project.
B. Regional Sewering - Town of Southold
This alternative would involve sewering of the entire
Town of Southold and be capable of serving the existing popu-
' lation of 20,000 persons. Section 4.2.2 previously described
the various components of this alternative.
1. Social Impacts
Sewering the entire town would present significant
beneficial long term impacts. These primary impacts relate to
' public health and safety, resulting from this higher level of
treatment and reduced groundwater contamination. Town -wide
' treatment would particularly reduce contamination of rural
1 4.74 - 1
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
private domestic wells. In addition, this alternative would
4.74 - 2
induce full scale development in the study area, having removed
However,
potential limitation due to groundwater protection.
this alternative presents secondary negative impacts which are
more significant than the positive impacts above. The long
'
term burden of repaying capital costs and on-going operating
costs represents a significant impact on a rural economy. The
secondary impacts of full scale development on public services
'
are also considerable, unless limited by statute or other means.
Inordinate pressures would be placed on domestic water, electric
and gas infrastructure and supply, and on solid waste disposal.
Other impacts on water supply may result from discharge of ef-
the affecting
fluent and the reduced recharge to aquifers,
'
quantities for both public and private supply. These water
supply impacts may also be compounded by salt/fresh water inter-
face shifts, as detailed in the following section.
Long term negative impacts may also be realized
on the esthetics of the study area. Increased outfall would
impact the recreational value of the area. Salt water/fresh
water interface shifts landward would reduce scenic wetland
'
areas and may also reduce recreational fishing, due to lower
productivity of the wetland areas.
'
Dependent on actual location of the sewers, con-
struction would result in extensive disturbance over the con-
struction period. Impacts would include noise, vibration and
4.74 - 2
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
' dust. Construction through an extended service area is more
4.74 - 3
likely to result in disturbance of historic and archaeological
'
as well.
resources
'
2. Natural Environmental Impacts - A positive environ-
mental impact of this alternative would include reducing annual
'
nitrogen loading by 90,000 pounds, and a consequent reduction in
the rate of groundwater contamination. However, this positive
'
impact is far outweighed by negative impacts to groundwater
'
quantities and natural ecosystems. Since approximately 8 per-
cent of Southold's 2005 population will utilize Greenport's STP
'
(unexpanded), regional sewering could be expected to increase
the flow to the facility from 0.3 M.G.D. (unexpanded sanitary
'
collection system, 2005) to 3.7 M.G.D. or 1,350 M.G.Y. This
loss of fresh groundwater resources to Long Island Sound via
'
the STP outfall would cause a significant reduction in the re-
charge and volume of Southold's fresh water aquifers, with a
consequently lowered water table and landward/upward movement
of the fresh/salt water interface. This impact to North Fork
aquifers and public water supply could be particularly severe
in Southold's three smaller hydrogeologic units.
'
If the regional treatment alternative was implemented,
most wetlands and surface waters would receive decreased fresh
'
water input as a result of receding groundwater levels. In
fresh water wetlands, this impact would reduce pollution abate-
'
ment, wildlife and open space values, and could possibly lead
4.74 - 3
HOLZMACHER. McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
to more closely encroaching development. In tidal wetlands, the
fresh/salt water interface would move landward and be reduced in
size, possibly reducing the fisheries values of these areas.
Additional damage to wetlands would also result from construc-
tion activities necessary to sewer 45 square miles.
Natural ecosystems proximate to the Long Island Sound out-
fall would also be impacted by this alternative. Since the flow
to the plant would increase 12 times the 2005 value, outfall
volumes will similarly increase. If there were no improvements
to the plant past the secondary level of treatment, impact to
this part of the Sound (increased BOD, suspended solids, environ-
mentally persistent chemical and nutrient loads) would be sig-
nificant. In addition, regardless of the level of treatment,
a diffuser assembly on the outfall would have to be considered.
Finally, natural ecosystems would sustain considerable primary
impacts, as a result of constructing a regional sanitary col-
lection system. These impacts would include, but not be limited
to:
a. Excavation in wetlands and terrestrial ecosystems.
b. Sedimentation of surface waters.
C. Disruption of faunal utilization of natural areas
due to activity and noise.
C. Sub -Regional Treatment
(A) Greenport Expansion
Population densities in the small communities of
Sterling Basin, Pipes Cove, Conkling Point and North Greenport,
4.74 - 4
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' adjacent to the existing Greenport sanitary coiiection system,
have been increasing to the point where these communities have
' shown a need for sewering. This alternative considers expanding
and upgrading the existing Greenport facility in order to service
' these surrounding areas. This expansion is anticipated to in-
crease wastewater flows to the Greenport sewage treatment plant
by 112,000 gallons per day.
1. Social Impacts
This alternative will provide limited long term
benefits. By serving the specific populations of the Sterling
Basin, Pipes Cove, Conkling Point and North Greenport communi-
ties, sewering will improve public health and safety. A secon-
dary impact may be increased development pressures in these com-
munities, resulting in additional homes and higher densities.
Other secondary impacts include the esthetic improvements as-
sociated with the elimination of private septic systems and the
periodic odors and nuisances of pumping or overflows.
Short term impacts resulting from construction
include noise, odors and dust. Potential disturbance to his-
torical or archaeological resources depend on specific design
and construction procedures.
2. Natural Environmental Impacts - The impact of this
alternative will be decreased groundwater recharge and nitrate
contamination of the aquifer underlying Greenport. Since this
expansion will increase outfall by approximately 40 percent,
additional groundwater resources will be lost from the Greenport
4.74 - 5
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
hydrogeologic unit. However, it is expected, due to high popu-
lation densities in areas to be sewered, that this negative im-
pact will be compensated for by decreased nitrate pollution of
the Greenport aquifer. If this expansion is carried out, Green-
port STP will have to be upgraded through improved operating
procedures and/or facilities, in order to remove 85 percent of
suspended solids and five day BOD, as specified in the SPDES
permit. The impact of increased outfall will be a 25-35 per-
cent greater BOD -5, suspended solids, nutrient, metals and
chlorine loadings of Long Island Sound marine communities
proximate to the outfall than will occur with the No Action
alternative.
Damage to natural ecosystems resulting from construction
of additional sewers will be minimal due to the higher population
densities of areas in which expansion will occur.
(B) Pumping to Greenport (Engineering Alternative B)
If a nitrate contamination monitoring program, to be
conducted in the Mattituck area (western Southold), indicates
that on-site disposal systems are contributing significantly to
groundwater pollution problems in Southold's largest and most
westerly hydrogeologic unit, then sewering would be a viable
solution to this problem. This alternative examines collecting
and pumping wastewater from the Mattituck area (western Southold)
' to the existing Inc. Village of Greenport STP. The plant would
have to be expanded to handle estimated wastewater flows of ap-
proximately 0.4-0.5 million gallons per day from the Mattituck
' area.
4.74 - 6
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
1
' 1. Social Impacts
This alternative presents moderate positive long
' term impacts. Benefits will be realized by improved public
health and safety, due to improved groundwater quality. Es-
thetics will also be improved as private septic systems would
' be eliminated, ending periodic pumpage, overflow and odor an-
noyances. While this alternative would induce land development
' in the Mattituck area, long term engineering design would have
to allow for this induced growth to minimize future constraint
on development.
Short term impacts are due to construction in the
Mattituck area. These impacts include noise, odors and dust.
A direct long term impact due to construction, could be distur-
bance of historic and archaeologic resources. These impacts
may only be determined based on subsurface investigation.
2. Natural Environmental Impacts - This alternative
would cause several environmental impacts to groundwater and
natural ecosystems in Southold. Groundwater resources would
be reduced by approximately .4 to .5 M.G.D., since the treated
effluent would be discharged to Long Island Sound via Green -
port's outfall. The magnitude of impacts resulting from this
additional irreversible consumption cannot be predicted. How-
ever, if on-site disposal systems are a significant contributor
to nitrate pollution problems in the Mattituck area, then it is
expected that decreased contamination of this aquifer would com-
pensate for the loss of groundwater resources. Impacts to
4.74 - 7
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
natural ecosystems would occur during construction of a 13 mile
pipe and two pump stations, from Mattituck to Greenport. Addi-
tionally, the doubled outfall from Greenport would double the
BOD, suspended solids, nutrients, chlorine and metals loadings
in marine communities proximate to the Greenport STP outfall.
This combined outfall is, however, environmentally preferable
to a separate Mattituck outfall, because it would concentrate
the impacts outlined above to one area which has already re-
ceived these impacts. Finally, since decreased recharge will
occur only in Southold's largest hydrogeological unit, decreased
input of fresh water to wetlands is not expected to be signifi-
cant.
native C)
(C) Treatment Plant in Mattituck (Engineering Alter-
If the monitoring program in the Mattituck area indi-
Cates contamination, this alternative calls for constructing a
treatment plant in the Mattituck region to treat a minimum of
.46 M.G.D. The following are several treatment processes to be
considered as a possible system to treat wastewater from the
Mattituck area, under this alternative:
ENGINEERING
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION
C-1 Trickling filter with primary
sedimentation
C-2 Rotating biological discs
C-3 Extended aeration activated sludge
5WZ�.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
ENGINEERING
ALTERNATIVE DESCRIPTION
C-4 Contact stabilization activated
sludge
C-5 Complete mix activated sludge
C-6 Marsh/Pond system
Each of the above alternatives will be evaluated under two
(2) options, except Alternative C-6. Option "a" requires that
the effluent be discharged into Long Island Sound by an outfall
separate from Greenport STP's outfall. In Option "b", land ap-
plication will be utilized to treat and dispose of the effluent.
A detailed description of each of these alternatives can be found
in Section 4.2.3.
1. Social Impacts
Alternatives C-1 through C-5 present long term
positive impacts on land use development in the Mattituck area.
Each of those alternatives will allow continued development in
that community by providing improved waste water management and
result in improved groundwater quality. In turn, restrictions
or limitations on using private wells for domestic water supply
will be removed or less severe. Alternatives C-1 through 5 pro-
vide better long term service to the Mattituck area than the al-
ternative previously discussed in Section 5.2.4, which sends
Mattituck wastes to the Greenport plant. With a local sub -
regional plant, future development will be less restricted as
required capacity would be easier to achieve.
4.74 - 9
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
Other long term benefits include improved esthetics,
as the periodic odors and nuisances associated with private sep-
tic systems would be eliminated. Long term impacts on histori-
cal and archaeological resources are dependent on actual sewer
placement and treatment plant siting. Assessment of impacts is
subject to a Phase IA, B and II survey.
Short term impacts resulting from Alternatives
C-1 through C-5 are more extensive than for the other Mattituck
alternative discussed in Section 5.2.4.1. In addition to the
1
4.74 - 10
odors, noise and dust of construction of the sewer system, im-
pacts result from construction of the new treatment plant.
Impacts associated with the effluent disposal al-
ternatives differ. Option "a" may produce a long term esthetic
impact in the vicinity of the outfall. These impacts would be
'
specific to impacts on the wetland community and recreational
fishing and swimming in the outfall area. Short term impacts
relate to construction of this facet of the facility, in addi-
tion to the plant itself.
Option "b" would result in a long term positive
impact on groundwater quantity and future water supply. Recharge
'
through land application is preferable to ocean outfall and the
net loss of groundwater. Moderate esthetic impacts could, how-
ever, result from land application. The level of impact is
directly related to public awareness and perception of the land
'
application method and site. Location of a lagoon on a municipal
1
4.74 - 10
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
site will result in fewer perceived impacts than irrigation of
agricultural lands. Irrigation of recreational lands would be
most visible to the public and would result in a higher degree
of impact than the previous means.
Short term disturbances due to construction of a
land application system would be minimal compared to construc-
tion of an outfall. The actual level of impact depends on siting
of the application system, in relation to the treatment plant
and means of transporting the effluent.
Alternative C-6 would provide beneficial long
term impacts as did 1-5 on land development. If the marsh/pond
system is less flexible to accommodate increased flows due to
development in Mattituck, then Alternatives 1 through 5 would
provide more extensive benefits to the community. Similarly,
a marsh/pond system, properly implemented, would improve ground-
water quality over the long term. Other impacts associated with
this system are similar to the esthetic and construction impacts
described above for land application.
2. Natural Environmental Impacts
Alternative C-1, a + b - This system will regularly
achieve only 80 percent BOD and suspended solids removal. Since
permitting standards require 85 percent removal of these pollu-
tants, C-1, a + b alternatives are environmentally unacceptable.
ternatives C-2 - C-5 - All of these alternatives
achieve a reliably high level of secondary treatment, and so
4.74 - 11
HOLZMACHER. MCLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. ' H2M CORP.
all are environmentally acceptable. However, rotating biologi-
cal discs are preferred to activated sludge processes, because
of their generally higher degree of BOD/suspended solids re-
moval, more complete nitrification of ammonia in the waste
stream, lower sensitivity to shock loads, and simplified opera-
ting procedure. All of these characteristics indicate that ro-
tating biological discs would most reliably produce the cleanest
effluent. Therefore, they would have the least significant out-
fall impacts and would possibly only require a denitrification
step to achieve the 10 mg/l nitrate groundwater discharge standard.
Alternatives C-2 - C-5 a - Outfall disposal of efflu-
ents from a Mattituck STP would have groundwater impacts as de-
scribed previously in this section.
A separate outfall for Mattituck STP effluent will,
however, have more adverse BOD, suspended solids, nutrients,
metals and toxic (i.e., chlorine) loading effects upon natural
ecosystems than discharging via Greenport's outfall. This in-
creased impact will result from introduction of these pollutants
to a marine system not previously disturbed by a sewage treat-
ment plant discharge. If other environmental and economic con-
siderations outweigh this increased impact, and a separate out-
fall is utilized, the outfall should be located in Long Island
Sound and not in Peconic Bay. Outfalling to Peconic Bay would
have unacceptable impacts and risks because of the aforementioned
pollution loads and, in the event of treatment failure, much
4.74 - 12
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
greater pollution loads would be introduced to a very productive
marine community which currently provides a significant portion
of the catch for eastern Long Island's fisheries. Furthermore,
the Peconic Bay area has more wetlands, a relatively restricted
current pattern and lower dilution capabilities than Long Island
Sound.
If outfall to Long Island Sound is utilized, care
should be taken to position the outfall so that currents from
either tide will not carry the effluent on -shore or into bays
and tidal creeks. Finally, free chlorine in the effluents of
these alternatives can greatly increase their toxic impact upon
the receiving environment. This impact results from the com-
bination of these free chlorines with organics in the receiving
surface water, forming toxic chlorinated hydrocarbons (i.e.,
chloramines). Therefore, in these facilities, chlorination
practices should be established to prevent higher free chlorine
concentrations than are necessary for disinfection.
Alternatives C-2 - C-5 b - Land application of efflu-
ent from a Mattituck STP would be a more expensive, but also
more environmentally sound effluent disposal alternative than
an outfall to either Long Island Sound or Peconic Bay. Land
application will require more expensive treatment because it
will probably have to include nitrification/denitrification
processes or use a large application area so that the effluent
will meet a 10 mg/l groundwater discharge standard for nitrates.
EAWZ— ]
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
This additional cost may, however, be justified by the conser-
vation of groundwater resources, and prevention of further up-
ward and landward movement of the fresh water/salt water inter-
face.
Land application would have to be accomplished either
in lagoons, recreational areas, or on crops which are not for
human consumption. 'Therefore, wastewaters could not be used to
irrigate potatoes or cauliflower, but would be suitable for irri-
gating sod farms, and recreational areas (i.e., golf courses).
Land application could also be utilized for Greenport's
effluent, if treatment were upgraded to produce an effluent which
met groundwater discharge standards.
Alternatives C-2 - C-5 a + b - In addition to impacts
already discussed for each of these alternatives, natural eco-
systems may sustain additional primary impact as a result of
their construction. These impacts will include, but are not
limited to:
a) Excavation of shoreline or wetlands (outfall).
b) Excavation or disruption of terrestrial ecosystems.
c) Excavation or disruption of agricultural lands.
Alternative C-6 - This alternative consists of a
natural system of treating domestic sewage by land application
' through marshes and ponds. Wastewater would undergo preliminary
screening, then aeration; the flow would then be pumped inter-
mittently into a marsh which would overflow into a pond. The
', 1 4.74 - 14
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. ' H2M CORP.
pond effluent would then be suitable for land application or
groundwater discharge.
Construction of the Marsh/Pond Treatment System en-
tails selecting a 10-12 acre tract of land, suitable for effec-
tive filtering of wastewater. This involves an initial excava-
tion of the site to line the area with PVC containers, and grad-
ing to insure the flow of water to the collecting pond. During
construction and in selection of the site, attention should be
given to minimize detrimental environmental impacts, with par-
ticular regard to groundwater contamination, loss of primary
agricultural lands and destruction of wildlife habitats.
The clean water from the pond is treated as effluent,
and will be transported via pumping to an area outside of the
PVC -lined system. This effluent is available for land usage,
either as recharge or direct application to agricultural crops
(not destined for human consumption). With the current stressed
situation of the groundwater in the Southold area, due to salt
water intrusion, land application is an effective way of reduc-
ing the infiltration of chlorides and improving groundwater
quality.
The construction of this Marsh/Pond Complex creates
some new habitats for aquatic -related species, including water
fowl, insects, bacteria and algae. Consideration should be given
to health associated problems which might occur from water -breed-
ing pathogens•
4.74 - 15
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
The Marsh/Pond system is relatively new and many of
the long range effects are not known. Consideration should be
given to the effects of extended periods of wastewater applied
to the soil environment in a closed system (i.e., areas in which
the wastewater does not reach the water table and thus does not
recharge the underlying squifer). The possibility exists that
the soil's interstitial spaces may become clogged or contami-
nated, thus affecting the soil's filtration capacity. Careful
management and monitoring could avert associated environmental
problems which might occur with the soil's reduced cleansing
capacity.
D. Other Non-Sewering Alternatives
The previous sections on structural alternatives dealt
with conventional means of effluent disposal, i.e., surface water
discharge utilizing a Long Island Sound outfall. This section
deals with the environmental impacts of three alternative methods
of effluent disposal in order to conserve the limited groundwater
resource; groundwater recharge, industrial and municipal waste-
water reuse, and land application for wastewater treatment and
disposal for a new sub -regional treatment facility at Mattituck.
1. Social Impacts
Groundwater Recharge of effluent would provide
long term benefits to the groundwater supply. Therefore, quanti-
ties available for public water would be available to support
the projected population growth. Possible esthetic impacts may
result, as described in the previous section on land application
of effluent.
4.74 - 16
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
Water Reuse would preserve and maintain quantities
of water available for public use by reducing the quantities in-
itially drawn. This alternative would benefit supply for both
public and private wells, and domestic and commercial use.
Land Application of Wastewater Treatment and Dis-
posal for Mattituck
1. Infiltration and percolation present long term
' negative impacts to public health and safety due to impaired
groundwater quality. This negative impact is not offset by bene-
fits of recharge and the maintained quantities of water for pub-
lic and private use.
2. Overland flow would, as other recharge alter-
natives, positively benefit groundwater quantities. However,
significant land requirements to achieve the desired level of
treatment would result in significant esthetic impacts, includ-
ing visual and odors.
2. Natural Environmental Impacts
Groundwater Recharge of effluent from both STP's
would provide a more efficient method of groundwater conservation
and prevention of salt water intrusion than land application, be-
cause it would require less land and no waters would be lost by
evaporation. However, groundwater recharge would require more
extensive treatment to produce an effluent meeting groundwater
discharge standards, because plants and percolation would not be
used to "treat" the effluent. Therefore, since a relatively large
4.74 - 17
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
'
amount of open space is available for land application of efflu-
ent in Southold, the extra expense of groundwater recharge may
'
not be justified.
'
Wastewater Reuse is an environmentally attractive
alternative, because it would conserve groundwater resources by
'
reducing the initial demand for water. If wastewaters are re-
used once, initial water demand can be reduced by approximately
50 percent. For non-food processing industries, the current
'
level of treatment may be sufficient to meet their needs. How-
ever, municipal reuse would require a high degree of treatment
'
to render effluent potable. Reuse by irrigation of recreational
areas was discussed under Alternatives C-2 - C-5, Option b.
Recently, the Town of Southold was approached by a firm which
'
designs and constructs incinerators for solid waste disposal.
These facilities require, according to the manufacturer, over
'
100,000 gpd of low quality water for cooling and quenching oper-
ations. Therefore, the possibility of diverting a portion of
'
Greenport's treated effluent to Cutchogue (landfill site) exists.
If the solid waste incineration complex is constructed, imple-
mentation of reuse would reduce:
a) the quantity of water discharge by Greenport to
Long Island Sound, and
b) minimize withdrawals of groundwater from the Cut-
chogue area for the incineration complex.
These beneficial impacts of reuse would have to be
weighed against the capital and O & M costs of pumping the treated
4.74 - 18
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. i H2M CORP.
effluent to Cutchogue from Greenport. This alternative will be
evaluated further if the town responds favorably to this solid
waste disposal option.
Land Application of Wastewater Treatment and Dis-
sal for Mattituck
1. Infiltration and Percolation - This method
utilizes pre -application treatment to reduce suspended solids,
' and then discharges the effluent to a lagoon for groundwater
' recharge, If properly operated, this method could sufficiently
reduce BOD to meet groundwater discharge standards. However,
' only 80 percent nitrogen removal would be achieved, and it is
believed that this would be insufficient to meet the 10 mg/l
' groundwater discharge standard. Therefore, although this alter-
native will conserve groundwater resources, it will result in
' contamination of the aquifer, which it recharges and so is an
' environmentally unacceptable alternative.
2. Overland Flow - In this technique, wastewater
is applied to the upper reaches of sloped terraces and allowed
to flow across a vegetated surface to runoff collection ditches.
Soils should be relatively impermeable. Treatment is accomplished
' by physical, chemical and biological means as the wastewater flows
uniformly through the grass and vegetative cover. Pre -application
' of wastewater, at minimum, should include removal of solids, grit
and grease which generally hamper effective sprinkling application.
In Southold, it would be difficult to find an area
' with suitable topographic and soil conditions, and which is far
'1 4.74 - 19
-I HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
' enough from a surface water body or wetland to utilize this al-
ternative. In addition, land application for wastewater treat-
ment would require the greatest amount of land of all alternatives.
This is because nitrogen loads per unit of land would have to be
low enough to provide sufficient uptake of nitrates by plants and
' denitrification by soil bacteria to produce an effluent which
meets groundwater discharge standards, even during precipitation
events and cold weather.
' The positive impacts of this alternative would be
the conservation of Southold's groundwater resources and elimina-
tion of effluent discharge to surface waters.
I
I
1
1
',1 4.74 - 20
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
4.3 Description of Alternative Sludge Treatment and
Disposal Processes
For the purpose of this report, sludge treatment alterna-
tives will be examined under two separate sub -groupings, (a)
sludge treatment methods and (b) ultimate disposal methods.
This section provides a brief description of each of the
specific sludge treatment and disposal processes which might
be utilized for either the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant
or a sub -regional wastewater management plan which would in-
clude the Greenport plant and one or more additional waste-
water facilities within the Township.
One of the most important factors that must be examined
when analyzing sludge treatment and disposal alternatives is
the quantity of sludge to be handled. In determining a design
flow for a facility, present and future sludge volumes have -to
be estimated. Table 4.7 summarizes the estimated sludge vol-
umes from the Inc. Village of Greenport STP, scavenger waste
from Southold and Shelter Island, and sludge volumes from the
Shelter Island Heights Association STP. No consideration is
given to the sludge produced from a plant to be constructed at
Mattituck. However, scavenger waste from the Mattituck area is
included which would be replaced by sludge produced from a
Mattituck Plant, if such were constructed.
4.75
MUNICIPALITY
Inc. Village
of Greenport
Town of
Southold
Town of
Shelter Island (3)
TABLE 4.7
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
TYPE OF WASTE
Wastewater
Scavenger
Waste (2)
Wastewater
Scavenger
Waste
TOTALS
(dry solids)
ESTIMATED SLUDGE VOLUMES
PRESENT
PRESENT
FLOW
SLUDGE (1)
(GPD)
(LBS/DAY)
260,000
369
TOTALS AT 5% SOLIDS
4,200 144
20,000 28
710 24
565 lbs/day
11,300 lbs/day
5.65 TPD
YR. 2005 YR. 2005
FLOW SLUDGE (1)
(GPD) (:LBS/DAY)
400,600 567
12,800(4) 440
25,000 35
2,300(4) 79
(1) Sludge based on weight of dry solids
(2) Average Suspended Solids Concentrate Utilized: Wastewater - 200 mg/l
Scavenger Waste - 4,150 mg/l
Assume 30 mg/l in effluent
(3) All Shelter Island volumes are preliminary estimates
(4) Volumes based on a implementation of a Septic Tank Management Plan (STMP)
1,121 lhs/day
22,420 lbs/dav
11.2 TPD
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
1
' 4.3.1 _Introduction
The solids generated from a wastewater treatment plant repre-
sent a substantial and important aspect to the total treatment
process. Sludge treatment is necessary to permit disposal of
' these wastes in an environmentally sound manner. The treatment
' process to be selected depends on quality and characteristics
of the sludge, method and cost of disposal, and cost of treat-
ment.
Treatment of sludge is performed to either reduce the volume,
by removing water for final treatment and disposal, or converting
the organic portion to a more stable and inert substance. The
following are sludge treatment methods or processes which will
be discussed in this section:
A. Treatment
1. Sludge Thickening
2. Sludge Dewatering
3. Digestion
B. Disposal
1. Composting
2. Land Application of Sludge
3. Incineration
4. Co -Disposal (Incineration or Composting)
5. Sanitary Landfill (Lined and Unlined)
6. Ocean Dumping
Sludge thickening or dewatering will be required prior to
' any of the disposal methods in order to obtain a manageable
material. Thickening involves the increase in solid concen-
tration to a more dense sludge. Thickening methods include:
gravity settling, flotation and centrifugation. Sludge de-
watering is designed to extract water from sludge such that
1
4.77
HOLZMACHER. McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
it assumes a non-fluid character. Sludge dewatering is ac-
complished by a number of natural and mechanical means that
incorporate the use of vacuum pressure, evaporation, centri-
fugation and capillary action. Dewatering methods include:
rotary vacuum filters, centrifuges, drying beds, filter presses,
horizontal belt filters, rotating cylindrical devices and la-
goons•
The disposal of the sewage sludge produced at a treatment
plant encompasses the second stage of sludge handling treat-
ment processes described above, reduces the volume or changes
the character of the sludge so that disposal can be facilitated.
Cost is one of the primary considerations for sludge disposal
methods. Thought should be given to the following items when
determining the best alternative:
1. The cost of producing the form of sludge required
for disposal.
2. Pre -transport storage cost.
3. Solids transportation to the disposal site.
4. Site storage costs.
5. Application costs.
6. Environmental protection and monitoring costs.
4.3.2 Sludge Thickening and Dewatering
Conventional sedimentation processes in wastewater treat-
ment achieve sludges with solids concentration of approximately
2 to 3 percent. Therefore, for both operational and economical
4.78
HOLZMACHER. McLENOON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
reasons, thickening or dewatering must be implemented prior to
ultimate sludge disposal.
The existing sewage treatment plant utilizes sludge drying
beds as a dewatering method. Secondary sludge from the final
clarifier is pumped back to the Imhoff tanks, where it settles
with the primary sludge. The sludge undergoes anaerobic diges-
tion by the excessive retention time at the bottom of the Imhoff
tank. The sludge is drawn off intermittently to the drying beds.
A solids concentration of approximately 10 percent, obtained from
the Imhoff tanks, increases to approximately 40 percent after
sufficient time on the drying beds.
Utilizing sludge drying beds is the most advantagous de-
watering method for small facilities. Both low cost and mini-
mal operation lends this method to be the most ideal alternative.
4.3.3 Anaerobic and Aerobic Digestion
The major objectives of sludge digestion or stabilization
Iare to reduce sludge volume, odors and the concentration of
pathogenic organisms. Some form of sludge stabilization will
Ibe implemented unless the sludge is to be incinerated. An-
aerobic and aerobic digestion are the most popular stabilization
methods used.
IA. Anaerobic Digestion
This is a complex biochemical process in which the organic
Ifraction of sludge is decomposed by anaerobic and facultative
organisms. During the first phase of this two-phase process,
I
4.79
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. i H2M CORP.
e cha n;,.a1 4:-1, tefq rlr.++Tho raartinn whish takps
place produces temperatures ranging from 140 degrees F to 160
' degrees F. After this period of rapid digestion, the material
is allowed to cure. The decomposition rate is slowed and the
' temperature of the mixture drops back to ambient with the pro-
cess brought to completion. All remaining non -digestible debris
present in the mixture is removed via screening.
' This process produces a product which is easily stored
until needed, free of pathogenic organisms and odorless. How-
ever, the primary problem has been lack of a market for the
' stable product. A market is required to produce revenue which
would offset the high cost of operation and maintenance (par-
ticularly the cost of a bulking agent and labor.)
4.3.5 Land Application of Sludge
Sewage sludge contains many nutrients essential to plant
' life, such as the three basic plant nutrients, nitrogen, phos-
phorus and potassium. The minor, but essential, nutrients in
' sludge are sulfur, calcium and iron. In addition to these ele-
ments, boron, copper, magnesium, manganese and zinc are found
in trace concentrations. Sometimes these minor elements are
' found in concentrations from industrial waste, which may be
detrimental to plant growth. The sludge also benefits the soil
' by increasing the water holding capacity, improving the tilth
' and by retarding erosion.
Sludge may be applied to crops in either the liquid or
' dried state. Common practice is to till dry sludge into the
1
4.81
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.0 ' H2M CORP.
soil while crops are being planted. Liquid sludge is applied
' during other times. When applying sludge to crop land, the
' mode of transportation, application procedure and rate of
application must be considered.
' Transportation is accomplished by tank truck, barge, rail
or pipeline. Transportation by tank truck is the least costly
and most flexible method. Pipelines entail relatively high
' capital cost.
Application rates depend on sludge composition, soil
characteristics, climate, vegetation and cropping practices.
The nitrogen component of sludge is the first factor that limits
the rate of application, since adding excess nitrogen to soil
involves the risk of polluting the groundwater with nitrates.
High nitrate concentrations can be toxic to infants and live-
stock. Therefore, it is essential that sludge be applied at
a rate that would allow plants to uptake the nitrate before
' it leaches into the groundwater or runoff into surface waters.
Pathogen control is also important when applying sludge to
crop land. Some pathogens do survive the treatment process
' and remain in the soil for several months. Therefore, liquid
sludge should not be applied to root crops or crops intended
for human consumption in the raw form. Pastureland and farm-
land used to grow forage crops can be used as land application
sites. These present little problems in transmitting disease.
' Crops vary in their reaction to sludge enriched soils.
Specific crops may be affected adversely by the trace elements
4.82
-1 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. i H2M CORP.
1
' in the sludge. The crop may concentrate these certain trace
elements, thereby, inhibiting future use of the harvested crop•
The reaction of a specific crop to sludge application depends
on soil type, pH, moisture content, climate and the species
the method, monitoring of incoming sludge is essential to the
proper operation of the process.
1 4.83
of crop.
'
if treated to
Sludge application to agricultural land,
'
reduce pathogen content, is of definite value as a source of
nutrients. They are comparable to fertilizers and farmyard
'
manure. It is a very popular utilization method because it
is both cost-effective and simple.
1
for disposal
A monitoring and surveillance program sludge
'
sites would be required. It is essential to monitor certain
constituents in groundwater for the above mentioned reasons.
4.3.6 Sludge Incineration
'
To reduce the weight and volume of sludge and produce an
odorless and inert residue free of pathogenic organisms, com-
bustion (incineration) is utilized for both treatment and final
disposal. The basic elements of sludge incineration is part
'
of an overall sludge treatment system which includes sludge
'
thickening, sludge dewatering, a sludge feeding system, air
pollution control devices, ash handling facilities and miscel-
laneous related automatic controls. Due to the complexity of
the method, monitoring of incoming sludge is essential to the
proper operation of the process.
1 4.83
IHOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' Incineration is a two-step process involving drying and
combustion. Drying should not be confused with preliminary
' dewatering; dewatering is usually accomplished by mechanical
' means, such as via a vacuum filter, centrifuge or filter press.
The purposes of heat drying sludge are to raise the tempera-
ture of the feed sludge to 212 degrees F; evaporate water from
the sludge to practical limits and reduce the total volume.
' The purposes of incinerating sludge are to remove all moisture
' from the sludge by complete combustion; to destroy pathogenic
organisms; and, produce an odorless ash. This ash would then
' be transported to a sanitary landfill for final disposal.
Incineration of sludge is gaining popularity, especially
' at larger municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants.
1In comparatively larger facilities, it has the advantages
of economy, freedom from odor, independence of weather and
' great reduction in the volume and weight of the end product
requiring disposal. However, it is not cost-effective for
' small sewage treatment plants. There must be enough sludge
to necessitate the use of the costly equipment.
Although incineration rec,uces the volume and removes of-
fensive odors of the sludge, it also has the potential to be a
contributor to air pollution. If operating procedures and in-
coming sludge feed are not conducive to complete combustion,
hydrocarbons and other objectionable products will be produced.
1
1
1 4.84
I
1
1
h
1
1
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
Also, auxiliary fuel requirements will be needed to raise
incinerator temperatures to the ignition point. Only if com-
plete combustion is present will the process be self-sustaining.
4.3.7 Co -Disposal
Co -disposal is the combined disposal of sludge and solid
waste. Recent studies have shown that sanitary landfills are
not an environmentally acceptable method of refuse disposal
when liners, capping and leachate collection systems are not
employed. The Town of Southold is presently evaluating alter-
native methods of refuse disposal, since the existing landfill
site will exhaust its available capacity by the year 1985.
Over the next few years, the Town must choose an alternative
method of refuse and sludge disposal in order to insure design,
construction and operation of a new facility by 1985.
Briefly, there are two primary methods that can be util-
' ized to dispose of sludge and refuse simultaneously. One is
the system of incineration of solid waste and small amounts of
sludge. This is somewhat similar to incineration of sludge
as discussed in Section 4.3.6. The raw solid waste will have
to be conditioned through separation, shredding, grinding and
slurry preparation so that waste can be easily mixed with
sludge. This method can be used as an energy recovery system
if the heat given off by incineration is utilized to generate
steam which in turn can generate electricity. However, this
method is cost intensive and must be designed on a large scale
El":
-I HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. i H2M CORP.
operation. Southold presently generates approximately 95 tons
per day (tpd) of refuse. Therefore, co -disposal incineration
must be considered on a regional basis, incorporating surround-
ing townships, if it is to be a viable alternative. This was
examined in a recent study entitled "East End Solid Waste Manage-
ment Study for the Towns of Southampton, Riverhead, Southold,
East Hampton and Shelter Island" and found not economically
feasible.
Composting sludge with solid waste is a second means of
co -disposal. Separated and shredded refuse can be utilized as
the bulking material as described in Section 4.3.4. Composting
is one of the oldest solid waste management practices available,
yet its full use has not been realized. Unfortunately, the num-
ber of failures of commercial composting plants in the United
States, coupled with the lessening percentage of organic food
waste in refuse, has significantly reduced the promise of this
system as the sole method of municipal refuse disposal. The
addition of sludge to the system may complicate operations.
4.3.8 Sanitary Landfill
A sanitary landfill can be used for the disposal of sludge,
grease and grit before or after stabilization. A sanitary land-
fill must be managed so that wastes are systematically deposited
in designated areas, compacted in place with a tractor or roller,
and covered with a 12 -inch layer of clean soil to control environ-
mental impacts within set limits
When organic solids containing
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
free unbound water are placed in a landfill, decomposition, sur-
face water contamination and leaching of sludge constituents to
the groundwater must be considered. Decomposition may result
in two problems• odors may be produced if the required opera-
tion of the facilities and soil cover is not maintained. Also,
soil settlement might occur causing surface water ponding.
Therefore, it is desirable to stabilize and dewater sludge prior
to landfilling. The landfill must be managed so that surface
topography would allow rainfall to run off the site rather than
allow it to infiltrate into the soil. In addition to surface
topography, vegetation must be established quickly to prevent
erosion. Further envrionmental measures, such as leachate lin-
ing, leachate treatment and methane venting are required. En-
vironmental regulatory agencies require long-term monitoring
of landfill leachate.
Stringent environmental impact control procedures have in-
creased the cost of operating a landfill, though it is still
generally less expensive than other disposal procedures. A
second consideration would be the cost of dewatering require-
ments which would increase the cost of this disposal alternative.
4.3.9 Ocean Dumping
This has been an economical alternative for coastal cities
for many years• Raw or digested sludge is pumped onto barges
and carried to sea to be dumped far enough offshore to provide
dilution and prevent any ill effects along the coast.
I1 4.87
HOLZMACHER, McLENOON and MURRELL, P.C. ' H2M CORP.
Due to recently promulgated USEPA regulations which call
for an end to ocean disposal by December 31, 1981, this alter-
native will not be further evaluated.
4.3.10 Screening of Alternative Sludge Management Plans
For the purposes of this report, a sludge treatment process
has been defined as a combination of treatment and ultimate dis-
posal methods for handling the sludge generated from the waste-
water stream.
The selection of an ultimate sludge disposal method is rela-
tively independent of the wastewater treatment method. However,
selection of a sludge treatment method is directly dependent on
the upstream wastewater treatment methods. For example, if the
chemical oxidation alternative is implemented, there would only
be a need for dewatering and no need for stabilization. There-
fore, each wastewater treatment alternative has already been
matched up with a sludge treatment scheme in Sections 4.2 and
4.4. The selection of an ultimate disposal method is discussed
later in this section.
Table 4.8 represents a matrix system that was prepared to
display the various sludge management plans previously discussed.
This matrix was developed to serve as a guide for comparative
screening, since it provides a quantitative summary of judgments
resulting from the screening of quantitative information.
The detailed analyses which provided the substantiation
for each of the judgments in the matrix is contained in the
following sections.
SCREENING FACTORS
1. Groundwater
Pollution
2. Environmental
Impact
3. Monetary Cost
4. Process Reliability
5. Process Flexibility
6. Required Operator
Skills
7. Energy Intensive
TABLE 4.8
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
ULTIMATE FLUDGE DIS=OSAL ALTERNATIVES
SANITARY LAND
LANDFILL APPLICATION COMPOSTING
2 -Minimal NG 2 -Minimal
4 -Moderate
2 -Moderate
2 -Conditional
3 -Limited
1 -Good Skills
2 -Minimal
TOTAL 16
LEGEND: 1.
NG - denotes that the alternative
will not be compared with
the remaining alternatives due to
the reason(s) cited in the
report.
2.
Groundwater Pollution: Minimal -2,
Moderate -4, Significant -8.
3.
Environmental Impact: Minimal -2,
Moderate -4, Significant -8.
4.
Monetary Costs: Minimal -1, Moderate -2, Significant -3,
Expensive -4.
5.
Process Reliability: Reliable -1,
Conditional -2, Unreliable -3.
6.
Process Flexibility: Extensive -1,
Moderate -2, Limited -3.
7.
Required Operator Skills: Good Skills -1, Highlv Skilled -3.
8.
Energy Intensive: Minimal -2, Moderate -4, Significant -8.
4 -Moderate
2 -Moderate
2 -Conditional
2 -Moderate
1 -Good Skills
4 -Moderate
17
4.89
INCINERATION
2 -Minimal
4 -Moderate
4 -Expensive
1 -Reliable
1 -Extensive
3 -Highly Skilled
8 -Significant
23
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
The following factors were evaluated for each sludge treat-
ment alternative:
1. Groundwater Contamination
2. Environmental Impact
3. Monetary Cost
4. Process Reliability
5. Process Flexibility
6. Required Operator Skills
7. Energy Intensive
Sludge Disposal Alternative 1 - Sanitary Landfill
As mentioned in subsection 4.3.10, a major modification to
the existing landfill area will be required to meet NYSDEC guide-
lines, such as double lining, and methane and leachate collection.
The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
1. Groundwater Contamination: Minimal - 2
2. Environmental Impact: Moderate - 4
3. Monetary Costs: Moderate - 2
4. Process Reliability: Conditional - 2
5. Process Flexibility: Limited - 3
6. Required Operator Skills: Good Skills - 1
7. Energy Intensive: Minimal - 2
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Sludge Disposal Alternative 2 - Land Application
This sludge disposal alternative could not be implemented
without having the probability of groundwater degradation from
BSsB]
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
leach -ate generation. Hence. Sludge Alternative 2 has been as-
signed a rating of NG and eliminated from future considerations.
Sludge Disposal Alternative 3 - Composting
The concept of composting has been known for many years.
However, composting sludge is still considered an Innovative and
Alternative Technology. It is not known if a market is available
for the final product, compost. Therefore, no revenues have been
assumed in our cost analysis.
The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
1. Groundwater Contamination: Minimal - 2
2. Environmental Impact: Moderate - 4
3. Monetary Cost: Moderate - 2
4. Process Reliability: Conditional - 2
5. Process Flexibility: Moderate - 2
6. Required Operator Skills: Good Skills - 1
7. Energy Intensive: Moderate - 4
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Sludge Disposal Alternative 4 - Incineration
The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
1. Groundwater Contamination: Minimal - 2
2. Environmental Impact: Moderate - 4
3. Monetary Cost: Expensive - 4
4. Process Reliability: Reliable - 1
5. Process Flexibility: Extensive - 1
6. Required Operator Skills: Highly Skilled - 3
7. Energy Intensive: Significant - 8
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
CM0il
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
Relative to the other alternatives being evaluated, the
monetary cost of incineration is extremely expensive and gives
reason to rate this alternative as being eliminated from future
consideration.
4.3.11 Summary Evaluation
After discussing the various methods of sludge treatment
and disposal, the following judgments were reached:
1. For the existing STP, the sludge drying bed method
should be continued and expanded dependent on the
extent of increased sewering.
2. A further examination will be conducted on the
following sludge management plans:
Sludge Management Plan A - Sanitary Landfill - with double
liner, leachate collection system and a methane collection
system.
Sludge Management Plan B - Land Application of Sludge.
Sludge Management Plan C - Composting.
Sludge Management Plan D - Incineration - Multiple Hearth.
A. Sanitary Landfill - Lined
Using the design criteria of 2.1 cubic yards per day of
dewatered sludge (40 percent solids after drying beds), it was
calculated that approximately 1.3 acres of landfill would be
required for a 20 year period. These calculations were based
on the wide trench method of disposal with a ten (10) foot
depth.
Environmental agencies will require the installation of
a double, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) liner. Equipment associated
MW
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
L will
l
with the liner is a leachate collection Sysystemw„iiic Wiii pr0-
vide the necessary piping to pump out any leachate that collects
above the lining.
In addition, the installation and operation of a methane
gas collection system may also be required.
A groundwater monitoring system will be required by en-
vironmental agencies to determine if any leaks in the liner
occur.
B. Land Application
Due to the agricultural nature of a significant portion
of Southold, the land application of sludge could be publicly
accepted because of the sludge's nutritional value. However,
studies have shown that full utilization of the nutrients is
not possible, thereby allowing a portion of nutrients to be
leached. As previously discussed throughout this report, any
alternative which will contribute to the degradation of the
groundwater quality should be disregarded from further analysis
C. Composting
There are two different methods of composting sludge.
Both the static pile and windrow methods of composting, sta-
bilize the sludge to a final product of humus -like material,
free of odors and useful as a soil conditioner.
The static pile method employes a four -step process where
the sludge is mixed with a bulking material and formed into
aerated piles. Air is then drawn through the pile with the
use of a blower to provide oxygen to thermophilic microorganisms
4.93
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
that facilitate decomposition. After twenty-one days, the sludge
and bulking material are spread out in a 12 -inch layer to dry.
'
Once dry, the sludge is separated from the bulking material
'
and the humus -like sludge undergoes further curing while it
is stored in piles. This is to assure that no offensive odors
'
remain and that stabilization is complete.
The windrow method also employes microbial degradation of
'
sludge by aerobic metabolism in piles or windrows. The piles
are turned periodically to provide for the microoganisms to
carry out the stabilization process and to carry off the excess
'
heat that is generated by the process.
An examination of the windrow method of composting suggests
that this process would be the most appropriate for the Greenport/
'
Southold sludge problem. The main difference between composting
methods is the manner in which air is supplied to the composting
'
pile. The windrow method induces air to the system by periodi-
cally turning over the pile. Advantages of this process are its
'
simple operation and low energy requirements.
'
Composting provides a slow method of releasing some of the
nitrogen within the sludge by converting it to nitrogen gas.
'
The finished compost material can be used as a fertilizer supple-
1
ment where nitrogen can be utilized through plant uptake. A mar -
'
ket for compost should be readily available with both agricul-
tural and horticultural activities in the immediate area. How-
ever, acceptance of compost material by the public may be diffi-
cult.
'
4.94
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' Composting of sludges is an environmentally sound treat-
ment method for the study area as the sludge generated is
relatively free of toxic materials. This method takes a rela-
tively small area and does not have a significant potential
of polluting groundwater. Although the composted sludge is
' rather low in nutrient value, it greatly improves the physical
properties of soils by increasing water content and retention,
' increasing soil aeration, improving permeability and reducing
' crusting. For agricultural applications, it is good practice
to use compost with inorganic fertilizer to sustain optimal
crop yields.
D. Incineration
The multiple hearth furnace is the most commonly used
sludge incineration process. This method of disposal will
reduce sludge volume to approximately one-tenth of the volume
of sludge at 20 percent solids. The residue from incineration
will still require disposal, which is most commonly accomplished
by landfilling.
' The Federal Air Quality Act of 1967, as well as State legis-
lation, has imposed strict limits on sludge disposal by inciner-
ation. Technological advances in incineration process controls
would not significantly degrade air quality in the area. How-
ever, to construct and operate an incinerator designed to meet
' emission standards would be costly in relation to other environ-
mentally sound alternatives.
4.95
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
1 4
2 Environmental Assessment
Many of the wastewater treatment alternatives evaluated
in this section will produce a solid fraction or sludge, in
addition to a liquid effluent. This sludge must be treated and
then disposed of in an environmentally sound manner.
The following sections will evaluate the sludge treatment
and disposal methods for the wastewater and scavenger waste al-
ternatives previously examined.
A. Sludge Treatment
The engineering alternatives for this facilities plan
examined three degrees of sludge treatment prior to any disposal
method. The first degree of treatment for sludge involves re-
ducing its volume by removing water. Initial volume reduction
methods under consideration utilize enclosed systems and the
effluent is recirculated back into the treatment facility.
Therefore, they will have no social or natural environmental
impacts and are not considered further.
The second degree of treatment follows enclosed de-
watering methods. It involves further volume reduction and
stabilization. This stage of sludge treatment is called di-
gestion.
Sludge volume is reduced either aerobically or anaero-
bically by bacterial consumption of carbon compounds. Bacteria
in the aerobic process would produce carbon dioxide (CO2) and
water, and bacteria in the anaerobic process would produce
' methane and carbon monoxide (CO). Anaerobic digestion could
1 4.95 - 1
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' have an air pollution impact resulting from methane and CO pro-
duction* However, collection and combustion of these gases would
eliminate this concern by converting these pollutants to CO2 and
' water. Therefore, there are no social or natural environmental
impacts associated with this stage of sludge treatment.
' The third volume reduction stage involves final dewater-
ing. The method being considered utilizes drying beds, or shallow
lagoons adjacent to the treatment plant which could have potential
environmental impacts, depending on their method of construction.
If the sludge drying beds are lined with an impervious material,
then the liquid fraction of the sludges will not leach to ground-
water. Instead, this liquid will be evaporated without environ-
mental consequences. However, if these beds are unlined, leachate
' from the sludge will carry dissolved contaminants (i.e., nitrates
and metals) to the underlying aquifer. Since contamination of
' groundwater resources is an unacceptable environmental impact in
Southold, unlined dewatering beds should not be utilized.
B. Sludge Disposal
' The disposal of the sewage sludge produced at a treat-
ment plant encompasses the final stage of sludge handling treat-
ment processes. Again, the volume of sludge is reduced or changed
in character so that disposal can be facilitated. A comparative
screening process of various sludge management plans resulted in
the selection of the following four plans:
4.95 - 2
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
1
Plan A - Sanitary Landfill - with double liner,
leachate collection system and a methane
collection system
Plan B - Land Application of Sludge
Plan C - Composting
Plan D - Incineration - Multiple Hearth
An evaluation of each of the plan's environmental impacts
1
1 4.95 - 3
follows:
'
1. Social Impacts - Disposal of stabilized sludges in
a modified Southold landfill, fully equipped with double liner -
'
Management
leachate collection system, as proposed in the Sludge
'
Plan A, would have minimal adverse social impacts. Landfilling
in an environmentally sound manner is a socially acceptable and
'
viable alternative. It is relatively inexpensive, requires little
capital investment and can be quickly implemented. Since Plan A
'
involves modifications to an existing disturbed landfill site
'
and only necessitates 1.3 additional acres, this poses little
land use implications in terms of shifting development patterns,
'
inducing excessive growth or loss of significant unique land areas.
Positive primary social impacts would be realized by
'
to
Plan A since it provides a greater degree of safety public
'
health than existing practices. Groundwater contamination from
nitrogen and other constituents of sludge leaching into aquifer
'
resources would be significantly reduced. The implementation of
a groundwater monitoring system to detect leaks in the liner would
also provide additional protection to public health safety.
1
1 4.95 - 3
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
If not properly maintained, sludge landfilling sites
may produce objectionable odors, creating a public nuisance.
Sludge Management Plan B, land application, has several
adverse social impacts. Presuming that suitable sites would be
found in the study area, there is the potential of adversely im-
pacting public health by leaching of nitrates and pathogens into
ground and surface waters if disposal is not properly managed.
Proper application rates to maximize plant uptake of nutrients
is the controlling factor. Sludge application to some agri-
cultural land may also adversely affect future harvesting of the
crop if it concentrates certain trace elements found in sludge
enriched soils. Other additional adverse impacts may be realized
in the area of offensive odors and energy consumption (increased
transportation costs), although these impacts are forecasted to
be minimal.
Considering the large amount of agricultural and vacant
land within the study area, utilization of these two suitable
land uses by the adoption of this method is not considered a sig-
nificant impact. The major positive impact is that iw would
serve to recharge groundwater in the study area.
Composting of sludge, Management Plan C, is an innova-
tive and environmentally sound method for the study area as the
sludge generated is relatively free of toxic materials. This
method takes a relatively small area, and produces minimal land
use impacts, since adequate suitable land is available in the
' study area. There would be no significant dangers to public
',1 4.95 - 4
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
health from pathogens or public nuisance created by any Offen-
sive odors. The only negative social impacts are associated
with its cost. Composting requires more equipment, materials
and handling of sludge than other methods and it is often neces-
sary to find a market for the end product or to use it in muni-
cipal landscaping porjects to offset its higher costs. It is a
useful and efficient method and especially recommended for the
study area, which is largely agricultural and rural in nature.
The likelihood of finding a market for the product is greater
and it may be used to fertilize and improve the physical proper-
'1 4.95 - 5
ties of the soils.
Sludge Management Plan D, incineration, could have
'
adverse primary social effects due to negative public health
impacts resulting from degrading air quality. In light of
'
federal air quality standards and the lack of public support
for incineration projects, to construct and operate an incinera-
tor designed to meet emission standards and public acceptance,
'
would be extremely costly. Although this incineration alterna-
tive would greatly reduce the volume of sludge, it produces a
'
residue that would have to be disposed in an environmentally
acceptable landfill. This adds another cost dimension to this
'
plan. Considering the relatively small volume of sludge pro-
duced in the study area, a costly volume reduction method such
as Management Plan D does not seem to be warranted. Additional
'
adverse social impacts could be realized in terms of loss of
open space/recreation, agricultural and historia areas• Other
'
'1 4.95 - 5
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
negative social impacts could result from the siting of the in-
cinerator. The facility would have to be located in an area
remote from sensitive land use areas such as residences and
natural resource areas. Sufficient land would also be required
to buffer the site from surrounding uses to minimize negative
impacts due to esthetics, odors, noise and transporation.
2. Natural Environmental Impacts
Sludge Management Plan A - Since Southold's landfill
must soon be equipped with a double liner - leachate collection
system, primary environmental impacts from leachate, discussed
in Section 3.1.3, would not result from this alternative. Fur-
thermore, a methane collection system would eliminate the possi-
bility of air pollution impacts from anaerobic decomposition of
the sludge once it is landfilled. The only negative impact of
this management plan would be the use of an additional 1.3 acres
of landfill space over a 20 -year period. This alternative would,
therefore, be an environmentally acceptable method of ultimate
sludge disposal.
Sludge Man�2ement Plan B - Land application of uncom-
posted sludge to agricultural areas has been demonstrated to
leach significant concentrations of nutrients and possibly metals
to groundwater. Since significant contamination of groundwater
represents a severe, primary environmental impact in Southold,
this alternative is environmentally unacceptable.
Sludge Management Plan C - windrow composting of sludge
followed by land application or marketing of the product could
4.95 - 6
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
possibly be the most environmentally sound alternative for
sludge disposal. In this process, aerobic bacteria will de-
crease the amount and/or solubility of nutrients in the sludge
by converting some nutrients to gaseous form (i.e., nitrates
to nitrogen gas) and others to organic or less soluble forms
(i.e., phosphorus to organic phosphorus). This compost could
then be applied to agricultural lands or marketed as a soil con-
ditioner. Since some nutrients were removed from the sludge by
composting, leachate from compost properly applied to agri-
cultural lands would be expected to meet groundwater discharge
standards. A significant environmental concern in implementing
this alternative would be the concentrations of various metals
and other environmentally persistent consitutents of sludge.
Therefore, sludges and compost products should be analyzed to
determine the concentrations of these contaminants and the sig-
nificance of their impact to groundwater when utilizing several
sludge -load -per -unit -land application schedules. If this method
is proven environmentally acceptable and feasible, it would have
the positive primary impacts of eliminating the need for ulti-
mate sludge disposal by landfilling and slightly decreasing the
need for inorganic fertilizers on Southold's agricultural lands.
Sludge Management Plan D - Incineration of sludge
could have significant primary air quality impacts. However,
EPA Clean Air Act (1970) regulations 40 CFR 60, subpart 0, limit
particulate emissions to 1.35 lbs./ton of dry sludge and gases
4.95 - 7
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' could have no more than 20 percent opacity. Since incinerator
bottom ash and particulates trapped in Electrostatic Precipita-
tors contain most of the metal contaminants from the original
' sludge, a modern sludge incinerator would discharge mostly gases
composed of carbon dioxide and water. The ash, which would be
' greatly reduced in volume and contain significantly higher con-
centrations of metals, would have to be landfilled. If this was
' done in the facility described in Sludge Management Plan A,
' leachate from this ash would not impact groundwater quality.
Therefore, as a result of these environmental regulations, in-
cineration of sludge is an environmentally acceptable alterna-
tive.
II
1 4.95 - 8
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
4.4 Scavenger waste
4.4.1 Introduct
Scavenger wastes (septic wastes) are the wastes collected
from malfunctioning or fully utilized cesspools and septic
tanks of homes, restaurants and commercial establishments.
The Town of Southold currently operates a scavenger waste
disposal site at the Town sanitary landfill. The wastes are
brought to the landfill site and are dumped into open leach-
ing basins• Although this method of disposal is the most in-
' expensive, there are many potential environmental problems
associated with it. The New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation has issued a State Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (SPDES) permit which incorporates a com-
pliance schedule that requires cessation of the present dis-
posal practice.
Part of the compliance schedule requires the Town to com-
plete the 201 Wastewater Facilities Report, and within examine
alternative scavenger waste treatment and disposal methods.
The ultimate requirement of the compliance schedule is to close
the septic waste disposal site upon construction of the alter-
native treatment and disposal facility.
This section will evaluate the current method of disposal,
as well as evaluate alternative means of treatment and disposal.
In addition, regional alternatives for Southold and Shelter
Island will be evaluated. The investigations in this section
have been coordinated and are consistent with the Nassau -Suffolk
208 Study recommendations.
-I HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' 4.4.2 Existing Disposal Methods
There is one (1) scavenger waste disposal site currently
' in operation in the study area. The existing Southold septic
waste disposal site is part of the Southold Solid Waste Dis-
posal Facility (sanitary landfill) located in the community
' of Cutchogue on North Road (County Road 27) between Cox Lane
and Depot Lane. The facility is situated in a rural indus-
trially zoned area. The location is shown on Figure 4.10.
Scavenger waste is discharged into either of two (2) un-
covered, unlined, 100 feet by 75 feet leaching lagoons located
' in the northwest corner of the Southold landfill site. A
third lagoon was previously utilized, but excessive usage re-
sulting in soil pore cloggage has necessitated the abandonment
of this lagoon. The lagoon was covered with excavated earth,
mainly fine sand and gravel, in accordance with the latest New
' York State Solid Waste Management Regulations.
Topographic photographs have shown that the bottom of the
' lagoons are at an elevation of 29 feet. The groundwater table
in the area is approximately 3 feet above sea level. Therefore,
' there is a soil buffer zone of 26 feet between the water table
' and the point of surface discharge.
This buffer provides partial cleansing of the wastes by
' removing many of the solids. However, the degree of treatment
is not sufficient to prevent contamination of the groundwater.
' The percolate from the lagoons attributes to the degradation of
' the groundwater flowing beneath the site.
' 4.97
TOWN
SANITAI
AN
WAS
LOCATION OF EXISTING SCAVENGER WASTE DISPOSAL SITE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON d MURRELL, P.C. /H2 M CORP. Mfl Vlll E, NY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FARMINGDAIE, N.Y.
NEWTON NJ
e nn
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' 4.4.3 Quality of Scavenger Waste
' A literature search was performed in order to determine the
physical and chemical characteristics of scavenger waste based
' on previous studies and/or projects. Since the work of numerous
authors and investigators was reviewed, only a summary of the
literature search is presented in this report.
' Scavenger waste (septic tank/cesspool waste): (a) is
usually an anaerobic slurry containing large quantities of grit
' and grease; (b) has poor settling and dewatering characteristics;
(c) has a high solids and organic content; (d) has an offensive
odor; and (e) may contain an accumulation of heavy metals and
' other chemicals if it is industrial in nature. In Figures 4.11
and 4.12, typical cesspools and septic tanks are depicted.
' The characteristics of scavenger waste are highly variable
and usually depend on the origin of the waste and the frequency
the cesspool or septic tank is pumped. For example, waste
' from laundromats, restaurants and commercial on-site sanitary
systems will all differ in characteristics.
' Restaurant waste will generally be raw and high in grease
and oil concentrations• On the other hand, residential waste,
especially that which has not been pumped from a cesspool has
' a higher solid content and will be a fairly digested slurry•
Since the physical and chemical characteristics of scavenger
1
waste is highly variable, especially
from truck
load to truck
load, a statistical analysis for the
frequency
of occurrence
1
of the design parameter constituents
should be
performed. This
'
information could then be employed in
the basis
of design.
4.99
FIGURE 4. 11
CONCRETE COVER
CONCRETE CHIMNEY
INLET
�--- 20' --i
G moi_ ID
LEACHING
SECTIONS
SOLIDS
Ll
SCAVENGER WASTE = SOLIDS+ 2' MIN.
UNLEACHED WATER. ,
I' MIN. 2'MAX.
Fr
15' MAX.
I_
GROUND WATER
TYPICAL CESSPOOL
OVERFLOW
TO 2nd POOL
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVLLLE, N.V. I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FMMMDALE.N Y.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTO . N N.v.
NEWTON..J
4.100
I INLET—
FINISHED GRADE
.. 2, MAX. I' MIN.
TYPICAL SEPTIC TANK
FIGURE 4.12
OUTLET TO
LEACHING FIELD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE, N. V.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FwM NcowLE. N.v.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RVENHEAO. N v
NEWTON. N. J.
4.101
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' Typical septage characteristics, as reported by the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) in their Tech-
nology Transfer Seminar publication entitled, "Alternatives for
Small Wastewater Treatment Systems - On -Site Disposal/Septage
III ' Treatment and Disposal", are shown in Table 4.9.
' Further, a report prepared by Eckenfelder & O'Conner in 1960
for the Town of Oyster Bay, reported the data presented in Table
' 4.10 for scavenger waste characteristics. The same study in-
cluded the frequency distribution shown in Table 4.11.
' The concentration of BOD -5 and SS and pH values of scaven-
ger wastes received for treatment at the Bay Park Sewage Treat-
ment Plant in Nassau County are summarized in Table 4.12.
' It is demonstrated in Tables 4.9 through 4.12, the charac-
teristic variability scavenger waste can have. This fact is
consistent with the findings of numerous other investigators.
' Lastly, the alternatives addressed in this section are con-
sistent with those recommended for the most part in the litera-
ture. These include chemical oxidation, anaerobic/aerobic
treatment, and aerobic treatment either by rotating biological
' discs or activated sludge preceded by chemical precipitation.
' Due to the similarities of the Townships of Riverhead and
Southampton with Southold, the results of scavenger waste analyses
in Riverhead and Southampton will be used as design criteria for
selection of alternative treatment processes.
Grab samples were taken from scavenger waste trucks arriv-
ing at three facilities in Riverhead and Southampton, on various
1 4.102
TABLE 4. 9
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
TYPICAL
SEPTAGE (SCAVENGER WASTE)
CHARACTERISTICS
USEPA
MEAN
MINIMUM
MAXIMUM
PARAMETER CONCENTRATION
REPORTED
REPORTED
VARIABILITY (1)
Total Solids
40,000.0
1,132.0
130,475.0
115
Total VS
26,000.0
4,500.0
71,402.0
16
Total SS
15,000.0
310.0
93,378.0
301
VSS
18,100.0
3,660.0
51,500.0
14
BOD -5
5,000.0
440.0
78,600.0
179
COD
45,000.0
500.0
703,000.0
469
TOC
15,000.0
316.0
96,000.0
73
TKN
600.0
66.0
1,900.0
29
NH3-(N)
150.0
6.0
380.0
63
NO2-(N)
0.7
0.1
1.3
13
NO3-(N)
3.2
0.1
11.0
110
Total P
50.0
20.0
760.0
38
PO4-(P)
64.0
10.0
170.0
17
Alkalinity (CaCO3)
1,020.0
522.0
4,190.0
8
Grease
9,561.0
604.0
23,368.0
39
pH (units)
6 to 9.0
1.5
12.6
8
LAS
150.0
110.0
200.0
2
(1) Approximate ratio of maximum value to minimum value.
All concentrations measured in mg/1, unless otherwise noted.
4.103
' TABLE 4.10
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
' ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
SCAVENGER WASTES*
RAW WASTE VARIATIONS
CONSTITUENTS
BOD -5 day (mg/1) 260 to 3,000
Suspended Solids (mg/1) 400 to 36,800
pH 2.6 to 11.9
TABLE 4.11
WASTE CHARACTERISTICS AND VARIATIONS*
*Biological Treatment of Septic Wastes, Town of Oyster Bay, N.Y.,
Eckenfelder & O'Connor, Consultants (for Tables IV -2 & IV -3).
TABLE 4.12
SCAVENGER WASTES RECEIVED AT
BAY PARK SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT*
MINIMUM AVERAGE MAXIMUM
BOD - mg/l 440 1,020 1,460
Suspended Solids - mg/l 550 4,500 35,000
pH 1.5 7.2 12.6
*Reported in"Report Upon Scavenger Wastes, Town of Brookhaven"
John J. Baffa, Consulting Engineers (for Table IV -4).
4.104
CONCENTRATION -
mg/l
% FREQUENCY
TRUCK SAMPLES
10%
50%
90%
BOD
350
900
2,200
Suspended Solids
540
3,800
22,000
COMPOSITE SAMPLES
BOD (Total)
500
1,700
5,500
BOD (soluble)
150
480
1,450
Suspended Solids
1,400
5,600
23,000
*Biological Treatment of Septic Wastes, Town of Oyster Bay, N.Y.,
Eckenfelder & O'Connor, Consultants (for Tables IV -2 & IV -3).
TABLE 4.12
SCAVENGER WASTES RECEIVED AT
BAY PARK SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT*
MINIMUM AVERAGE MAXIMUM
BOD - mg/l 440 1,020 1,460
Suspended Solids - mg/l 550 4,500 35,000
pH 1.5 7.2 12.6
*Reported in"Report Upon Scavenger Wastes, Town of Brookhaven"
John J. Baffa, Consulting Engineers (for Table IV -4).
4.104
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
dates in December of 1978 and January of 1979. Analyses were
performed on these samples for various parameters. The results
of the analyses are shown in Table 4.13.
Similar to the literature search, these analyses show a
wide disparity between samples. In order to design a facility
to treat all incoming waste, the design concentration of the
waste must be estimated based on the above data. A frequency
distribution analysis of the parameters will be used as the
design criteria parameter concentration, as indicated in sub-
section 4.4.5 - Design Considerations.
4.4.4 Present and Future Scavenger Waste Volumes
The precise determination of incoming scavenger waste quan-
tities at the Southold landfill is difficult due to the absence
of accurate records.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services requires the
Town of Southold to record the volumes and origin of all scavenger
waste entering the landfill site. However, due to operational
' procedures, the accuracy of the records is questionable. There-
fore, a survey was conducted to obtain a more accurate record
of incoming wastes. As discussed in Volume I of this report,
' an average daily flow at 3,100 gallons was estimated from a
survey conducted in April of 1979, with 68 percent being resi-
dential, 24 percent commercial and 8 percent generated from
' restaurants. Typically, residential waste is collected from
system failures, while commercial and restaurant wastes are
' collected on a periodic maintenance basis.
' 4.105
I
TABLE 4.13
' GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
SCAVENGER WASTE ANALYSES (mg/1)
LOCATION DATE BOD SS TS COD PH O&G TKN NO3 NH3 TVS
North Sea
12-5-78
865
204
767
1,000
6.2
536
44.8
<1.0
28.0
385
'
12-13-78
12-21-78
2,920
3,670
4,430
4,980
5,960
4,210
7,300
6,690
5.9
6.6
1.26% 123.0
2,560 87.4
<1.0
<1.0
5.6
< 1.0
3,750
3,250
1-3-79
2,070
1,810
2,250
4,660
7.4
635
224.0
<1.0
89.6
1,360
1-17-79
2,010
690
1,400
3,020
7.5
497
42.0
<1.0
23.8
814
'
1-26-79
1,830
3,450
4,000
1,400
6.9
420
88.0
<1.0
11.0
1,688
2-1-79
280
101
400
470
7.3
54
95.0
<1.0
20.0
192
Total
13,645
15,665
18,987
24,540
47.8
17,302
704
<7.0
179
11,439
Average
1,949
2,238
2,712
3,506
6.83
2,472
101
<1 0
26
1,634
Riverhead
12-5-78
1.49%
1.87%
1.97%
3.72%
7.1
7,360
448
<1.0
11.2
1.5%
'
12-13-78
5,550
2,820
3,910
5,380
6.4
7,900
112
<1.0
33.6
2,460
12-29-78
2,250
3,120
5,250
4,290
6.7
1,610
381
<1.0
101
4,210
1-3-79
5,390
3,220
3,410
6,730
7.2
2,480
112
<1.0
11.2
2,580
'
1-8-79
1,920
1,720
1,590
3.30%
6.8
1.07%
448
Q.0
154
1,180
1-17-79
3,170
2,410
4,910
1.41%
6.9
1,300
109
Q.0
79.8
2,980
1-22-79
1.27%
1.65%
9,000
1.93%
6.7
7,570
451
Q.0
78.4
5,310
1-26-79
1.10%
1.6%
2.1%
1.81%
5.4
3,270
493
<.0
65.0
1.55%
'
2-1-79
2,550
1,750
1,870
1.15%
6.0
3,770
305
Q O
45.0
1,548
Total
59,430
66,240
70,640
149,600
59.2
45,960
2,859
<9.0
579.2
50,768
' Average
6,603
7,360
7,849
16,622
6.58
5,107
318
<1.0
64.4
5,641
West Hampton
12-13-78
1.02%
1,800
1.42%
2.19%
6.4
1.20%
762.0
<1.0
33.6
9,680
'
12-21-78
1.22%
1.84%
1.80%
2.62%
6.0
2,750
414
<1,0
44.8
1.22%
12-29-78
2,530
3,970
5,230
4,060
7.0
3,220
482
<1.0
123
3,770
1-3-79
1.09%
1.12%
9,130
1.59%
7.1
1.4%
963
<1.0
638
5,130
1-8-79
4,010
8,370
4,680
5,500
8.9
1,710
616
C1.0
112
3,430
'
1-17-79
6,660
2,420
5,020
7,290
8.5
698
1,580
<1.0
1150
2,370
1-22-79
1.82%
8,290
1.20%
1.77%
7.1
5,290
1,190
C1.0
196
6,810
1-26-79
6,750
2,610
5,000
1.85%
9.0
4,500
784
<1.0
468
2,800
'
2-1-79
6,900
8,140
1.27%
1.47%
7.4
3,810
750
el 0
112
8,760
Total
78,350
65,200
85,960
131,750
67.4
47,978
7,541
<9.0
2877
54,950
' Average
8,706
7,244
9,551
14,639
7.49
5,331
838
^1 0
320
6,106
4.106
-I HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' A second survey was conducted in September of 1979 and
revealed a larger volume of scavenger waste being accepted at
the landfill. Figure 4.13 depicts the breakdown of the survey.
An average daily flow was calculated as 6,390 gallons, with
66 percent residential, 11 percent commercial and 23 percent
from restaurants. The increase between April and September
could be due to the seasonal population fluctuation and restau-
rant activity.
In determining the yearly volumes of scavenger waste dis-
posed of at the leaching lagoons, the combined data of conver-
sations with Town personnel, two surveys conducted on the dis-
posal of scavenger wastes at Southold and the actual monthly
averages of scavenger waste disposal at the Town of Riverhead
disposal site provided sufficient data to obtain monthly varia-
tions and average volumes. Approximate scavenger waste volumes
were estimated by interpolating the two surveys onto the monthly
variations as recorded by the Riverhead facility. The peak flow
' usually occurs in the month of August with a minimum flow occur-
ring in December and January. It was therefore estimated that
the present average daily volumes on a yearly basis would be
' approximately 4,200 gpd or 1,533,000 gpy.
Future scavenger waste volumes must be estimated before a
' treatment facility can be adequately designed. Factors to be
used to estimate these volumes include population, number of
1 septic systems, frequency of pumping and the average volume
' pumped from the systems.
1 4.107
mI .IOC A 1S
LEGEND
O — COMMERCIAL
M— RESIDENTIAL
20,000 ® — RESTAURANT
15,000
cn
z
910,000
Q
Co
5,000
0 9/10 9/11 9/12 9/13 9/14 9/15 9/16 9/17 9/18 9/19 9/20 9/21 9/22 9/23 9/24
M T W T F S S M T W T F S S M
DAY
NOTE: SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN SEPTEMBER 1979
SCAVENGER WASTE SURVEY
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE, N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FMMINODALE. NY
PIVEWECONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON. . N N.V.
NEWTON. N. J.
4.108
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' If a septic tank management plan is to be implemented,
all residents will be required to pump their septic systems
every few years. We shall assume that the pumping will occur
every three (3) years.
As with all other alternatives, a design year of 2005 will
shall be the basis of the analysis. The following calculations
depict the procedures used to obtain future residential scaven-
ger waste flow:
Total Town Population in 2005 = 38,056
Sewered Population in 2005 = - 5,700
Population Using On -Site Systems = 32,356
Assume 3.0 Capita Per Dwelling Unit(1)
Therefore, 32,356 CAP = 10,785 D.U.
3.0 CAP/D.U.
= 10,785 Septic System
Assume 1,500 Gallons Pumped Every 3 Years
10,785 x 1,500 gallons x .33 = 5,338,600 gpy
The most appropriate method of projecting commercial flow
is to correlate the present flow with the present land use
acreage. The future flow can therefore be derived from the
projected land use, as described in Section 3.1.3.1 of the Engi-
neering and Data Report. The calculations are depicted below.
Present Commercial Land Use(2) 202 Acres
Future Commercial Land Use (2) 447 Acres
(1) NSRPB - 208 Study
(2) Excludes acreage located within existing sewer district
'1
1 4.109
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' Acreage Increase 121 Percent
Present Annual Flow 505,900 Gallons
' Future Annual Flow 505,900 x 2.21 = 1,118,000 Gallons
' This method of projecting the commercial flow will not be
affected by a septic tank management plan, due to the fact that
most commercial establishments already pump their systems rather
frequently.
' The total future flow is then projected as 6,456,600 gallons
per year for 2005.
4.4.5 Design Considerations
The criteria used to aid in the evaluation of alternatives
is as follows:
1. The 50 percent frequency of occurrence and 90 percent
frequency of occurrence is as follows: (in mg/1)
50 Percent 90 Percent
BOD 4,770 13,970
' NH3-N 105 341
TKN 345 1,090
Suspended Solids 4,150 13,820
Total Solids 5,500 16,500
1 Total Volatile Solids 3,600 11,680
Figures 4.14 through 4.19, depicting the frequency of occur-
rence distribution, were utilized to obtain the above parameters.
The 50 percent occurrence concentrations will be used for the
design of the alternatives. The two major criteria are suspended
4.110
FIGURE 4.14
000
4.111
--
SO k AT 4710 MG/L
b % AT 6,350 MG/L
20,0
ZL18,00 5%AT 1/,950 MG/L
16,0000 0 h
14,0 13,910 MG/L
J
� 12,0
f
2
O
G 10,00O
F
Z
W
U
p 8,000—
U
6,000-
4,
2,00
O
10% 50% 90% 95
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
TOTAL BOD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE, N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE NY.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RVON,N N.V.
NEWTON. N. J.
12c
I Ic
loc
9c
SO
J
(D 70
2
2
O
Q 60
K
H
Z
W
U
ZO 50
U
40
30,
20(
101
O
10%
5D r 9ux 9JX
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
AMMONIA NHS -N
FIGURE 4.15
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. MELv1LLE,N.V.
FARMINGDALE, N.V.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FOVERHEAD. NY
NEWTON. N. J.
4.112
I
•e90%16
3 MG/L
MG/
I
_
••••
10%15 MG/L
O
10%
5D r 9ux 9JX
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
AMMONIA NHS -N
FIGURE 4.15
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. MELv1LLE,N.V.
FARMINGDALE, N.V.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS FOVERHEAD. NY
NEWTON. N. J.
4.112
160
1401
PAS]
z
O
Q
¢ 80(
z
z
w
z
2
OU 60(
401
201
0
IO
w7. WU 937.
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
TKN
1410 MG/L
L
FIGURE 4.16
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDAL r.
MELVI 4DALE. N.Y.
RIVERH
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTO AD, N.Y.
NEWTON. N. J.
4.113
95%
�
90 % 1090 MG,
1
•
50% 345 MG/L
1
10% 70 MG/L
0
IO
w7. WU 937.
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
TKN
1410 MG/L
L
FIGURE 4.16
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDAL r.
MELVI 4DALE. N.Y.
RIVERH
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTO AD, N.Y.
NEWTON. N. J.
4.113
20p0
16po
16,00
14,00
J
12,00
m
Q 10,00
6,00
4,00
2,00
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
300
FIGURE 4.17
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE. N.Y.
FARMINHOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. RIVERH AD,N v.
N.v
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON.. N N
NEWTON. N. J.
4.114
9
%13,820
l
I
% 4.150
�
—10% 550
10%
50%
90%
95%
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
300
FIGURE 4.17
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE. N.Y.
FARMINHOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. RIVERH AD,N v.
N.v
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON.. N N
NEWTON. N. J.
4.114
FIGURE 4.18
000
95 21,
000
O
90'A 16,500
000
000
00
000 —
• 50%5,500 MG/L
000 • __ ——
IOY.I,{00 MG/l
22,
200 MG/L
20,
16,00
16,
1{,
J
i
Z 12,0
O
Q
Z lo,
W
U
Z
O
U
2,
0
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
TOTAL SOLIDS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE, N.V.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMI=ALE. N.Y.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS Nr WT N. N N.v.
NEWTON. N. J.
4.115
22,
200 MG/L
20,
16,00
16,
1{,
J
i
Z 12,0
O
Q
Z lo,
W
U
Z
O
U
2,
0
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
TOTAL SOLIDS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE, N.V.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMI=ALE. N.Y.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS Nr WT N. N N.v.
NEWTON. N. J.
4.115
m
16,001
12.001
4,00
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
Nv,
FIGURE 4.19
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORt
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE, N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ==-A'lE.N Y.
RVERCONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON,
D. NY.
NEWTON. N. J.
4.116
Z90.
11.680
•
• •
50%3600
i
—10%600
InX
50%
90X
95X
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE
TOTAL VOLATILE SOLIDS
Nv,
FIGURE 4.19
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORt
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE, N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. ==-A'lE.N Y.
RVERCONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTON,
D. NY.
NEWTON. N. J.
4.116
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
solids and BOD -5 which will be approximated at 4,150 mg/l and
4,770 mg/1, respectively.
2. Flow equalization is recommended. With proper mixing
and blending, a homogeneous mixture can be obtained. Thus,
this results in a composite sample with the parameter concen-
trations approaching the 50 percent frequency of occurrence.
For Alternatives SW -3 through SW -6, (see Section 4.4.6, Treat-
ment Alternatives), the flow equalization tank will also be
used as a storage tank allowing the septic waste to be bled
into the raw wastewater in proportion to the wastewater flow.
3. Plant Flow - Design Year 2005
Town of Southold
a. With a STMP 17,700 gpd (7/Day/Week)
Town of Shelter Island
a. With a STMP 2,300 gpd (7/Day/Week)
Combined Flows
7 Day/Week 5 Day/Week
a. With a STMP 20,000 gpd 28,000 gpd
STMP = Septic Tank Management Plan
4.4.6 Treatment Alternatives
Scavenger waste disposal is a problem that is not common
only to Southold. All of the eastern towns in Suffolk County
are currently using leaching lagoons, and must find an alternate
means of disposal. The Towns of Riverhead and Southampton have
joined to find a common solution to their problem. We will
examine alternatives on a sub -regional basis, where Southold
4.117
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
'
will SU1VC their own scavenger waste Problem a.... .-�.. .. .--• -
regional basis where Southold and Shelter Island will join
together to solve this problem. A cost analysis will be per-
formed to determine the most cost-effective alternative to
collect and treat scavenger waste.
In this evaluation, ten main flow stream treatment alter-
natives will be investigated. Each alternative will be evalu-
ated on a regional and sub -regional basis. "A" will represent
alternatives examined on a sub -regional basis, treating only
Southold waste. "B" will represent alternatives examined on a
regional basis, treating a combined flow from Southold and
Shelter Island.
The alternatives are:
ALTERNATIVE SW -1 - No Action - Continue Lagoon Disposal
ALTERNATIVE SW -2 - Transporting to Other Treatment Systems
ALTERNATIVES SW -3-6 - Combined Treatment at the Existing
Greenport STP
ALTERNATIVE SW -3 - Activated Sludge - Combined Flow
ALTERNATIVE SW -4 - RBD & Effluent Polishing Combined Flow
ALTERNATIVE SW -5 - RBD -Activated Sludge Combined Flow
ALTERNATIVE SW -6 - Primary -RBD Treatment Prior to Combined
Flow
ALTERNATIVE SW -7 - Aerobic Treatment - RBD
ALTERNATIVE SW -8 - Aerobic -Anaerobic Treatment
ALTERNATIVE SW -9 - Chlorine Oxidation-Purifax System
ALTERNATIVE SW -10 - Natural System - Marsh -Meadow -Pond
4.118
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
In evaluating scavenger waste treatment alternatives, we
shall assume the site to be located at or in close proximity to
the existing Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant (STP). As tabu-
lated below, significant advantages can be obtained by locating
the scavenger waste facility on the same site as the existing
STP:
1. Reduction of capital construction costs.
2. Reduction of operating costs.
3. Inexpensive acquisition of land.
4. Minimize environmental impact.
Some of the alternatives call for the utilization of exist-
ing treatment processes through the combined treatment of sludges
and further treatment of filtrate and supernatant. Utilizing
existing processes eliminates the need to construct additional
processes, in turn reducing the capital construction costs.
In line with the above reasoning, operating costs will also
be reduced. Items such as labor and material costs can be opti-
mized by utilizing personnel more effectively.
The Inc. Village of Greenport presently owns sufficient
land adjacent to the existing plant to accommodate additional
facilities. Agreements between the Towns of Southold and/or
Shelter Island and the Inc. Village of Greenport can be arranged
to decide on management and operation and maintenance of the
facilities and property.
4.119
-' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' By coupling the facilities, esthetically displeasing con-
ditions can be concentrated to one area rather than two or
' more locations throughout the Town. Adverse environmental
impacts, such as odors and excessive noise would also be
' buffered due to the remoteness of the existing location.
' A. ALTERNATIVE SW -1 - (No Action - Continue Lagoon Disposal)
If No Action is taken to implement an alternative treatment
' and disposal system of scavenger waste, New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) will most likely
take legal action against the Town. Monetary fines and im-
prisonment of Town Officials could be the results of discharg-
ing without a SPDES permit. Therefore, Alternative SW -1 has
been found to be a non-viable alternative and will not be fur-
ther investigated in our analysis.
The present method of disposal has unacceptable environ-
mental impact in terms of being a potential public health
hazard and has a negative impact on the groundwater quality
within the Town. This impact will be further discussed in
Section 4.4.10 - Environmental Impact.
B. Preliminary Treatment Facility
' Common to all of the alternatives, except Alternative
SW -1, is preliminary treatment of scavenger waste. This head
end facility would be required to ease the operation of a plant
by simplifying the discharge of scavenger wastes from the
' haulers and removing grit and large objects from the waste
stream to prevent excessive wear on equipment.
1 4.120
-' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
The head end facility consists of a receiving chamber,
' influent pumps, mechanical screens, cyclone degritter and
classifier, and a combination equalization/blending tank.
An odor control system is also provided in this facility.
A flow schematic is depicted on Figure 4.20.
C. ALTERNATIVE SW -2 - Transport to Another Treatment System
Alternative SW -2 includes the collection of septic wastes
' at a central point within the Town and then transportation to
another treatment facility. Suffolk County has constructed a
' scavenger waste treatment facility, which is scheduled to go
on-line during 1981 at the Bergen Point Sewage Treatment Plant
' located in West Babylon. In addition, the Towns of Riverhead
' and Southampton are planning to construct a scavenger waste
treatment facility which is to be operational in late 1982.
' Both of these facilities will be considered in this evaluation.
Components to be examined are: loading facilities construction;
' transportation vehicles acquisition; manpower; fuel; maintenance;
and a tipping fee that will be instituted by the accepting
facility.
Selection of Alternative SW -2 requires implementation of
an interim program of transporting scavenger waste to the Ber-
gen Point facility until the completion of the Riverhead -South-
ampton facility. At that time, the cost-effective analysis
should be revised to re -confirm that transporting to and treat-
ing at Riverhead would be cheaper than transporting to West
Babylon for treatment. In order for Bergen Point to remain
4.121
S DISCHARGE SCAVENGER WASTE
ODOR CONTROL
RECEIVING CYCLONE
CHAMBER DEGRITTER
a SCREENS
ODOR CONTROL
EQUALIZATION
TANK PLUS
BLENDING
FIGURE 4.20
TO TREATMENT UNITS OR
HAULED TO ANOTHER TREATMENT
LWASHED GRIT TO LANDFILL
SCREENINGS TO LANDFILL
FLOW SCHEMATIC
HEAD END FACILITIES - ALTERNATIVES SW -2 TO SW -10
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. MGDALE
N.
PARMINMMLE. N
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD. NY
NEWTON N 1
4.122
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
cost-effective, a significant tipping fee would have to be
imposed by Riverhead and Southampton. We anticipate that
the tipping fee at Bergen Point will be the same or slightly
less than the fee to be charged at the proposed Riverhead
plant. Consequently, the long-term solution under Alter-
native SW -2 would be teatment at the proposed Riverhead -
Southampton facility.
If one of the other alternatives is selected, NYSDEC
has indicated that the Town(s) may continue the present dis-
charge methods until construction is complete. However, if
in the interim period, governmental agencies require the
immediate cessation of lagoon disposal, Alternative SW -2
on a short-term basis should be implemented.
D. ALTERNATIVES SW -3-6 - Combined Treatment at the
Existing STP
Since the Inc. Village of Greenport presently operates
a STP, it may be economical to modify the plant to accommo-
date the additional flow from scavenger wastes. There are
some existing treatment plants on Long Island currently using
this dual system to handle a combined flow of sewage and sep-
tic waste.
As previously stated in Section 2.6, the existing sewage
treatment plant is only marginally meeting the discharge limi-
tations set forth in the SPDES permit. It is anticipated that
if a concentrated waste is added to the influent, the existing
4.123
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' treatment processes will not provide the treatment necessary
to maintain compliance with the permit.
' We have estimated that a combined flow of sewage and septic
wastes would provide average influent concentrations of 418 mg/l
of BOD -5 and 388 mg/l of Suspended Solids (SS), as shown in
' Table 4.14. This would not be adequately treated by the aerated
lagoon system as it now exists. Upgrading or modifying the
existing system to accommodate this highly concentrated waste-
water would be required.
Alternatives SW -3 through SW -6 are various methods whereby
the existing treatment facility could be upgraded or modified.
D.1 ALTERNATIVE SW -3 - Activated Sludge (Combined Flow)
After preliminary treatment, the septic waste is bled into
the raw wastewater flow stream. A complete mix process modi-
fication of activated sludge is established by having the in-
fluent settled sewage and return sludge flow introduced at
several points into the aeration tank from a central channel.
The mixed liquor is aerated as it passes from the central channel
to effluent channels at both sides of the aeration tank. This
process provides resistance to shock loads that may occur from
an excessive hydraulic and/or organic loading of scavenger
wastes. A flow schematic of this alternative is shown on Figure
4.21.
One operational problem that might plague this system is
that of obnoxious odors, a primary characteristic of scavenger
4.124
*See Section 4.4.5, we have assumed a concentration equal to the 50% frequency occurrence.
TABLE 4.14
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES
EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
REPORT
ADDITION OF SCAVENGER WASTES
TO EXISTING GREENPORT STP
GREENPORT
SOUTHOLD SHELTER ISLAND
SEWERED AREAS
SCAVENGER WASTE SCAVENGER WASTE
TOTAL
Flow Year
2005 (mgd)
0.40
.0177 .0023
.42
BOD -5 Conc.
(mg/1)
200
4770* 4770*
418
N Loading
Ln (#/Day)
667
704 92
1463
S.S. Conc.
(mg/1)
200
4150* 4150*
388
Loading
(#/Day)
667
613 80
1360
*See Section 4.4.5, we have assumed a concentration equal to the 50% frequency occurrence.
SCAVENGER
WASTE
FROM HEAD
END FACILITY
RAWIII-
PRIMARY
I
A ERAT ION
FINAL
CL2
EFFLUENT
DISPOSAL
WASTEWATER
SETTLING
TANK
TANKS
SETTLING
TANK
(OUTFALL OR
I
LAND APPLICATION)
I
CHLORINE
I
CONTACTCo
TANK
—j
I
E
RAS
r
9
`PS �---L- --------J
.
IWAS
VACUUM IJANAEROBIC
FILTER - DIGESTER
t
....... ..........................
DRYING BEDS
(c) INCINERATION
0 COMPOSTING
LANDFILL
ULTIMATE SLUDGE
1 F� DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
WASTEWATER
-- SLUDGE FLOW SCHEMATIC
......••. FILTRATE 8 SUPERNATANT ALTERNATIVE SW -3
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
I MELVILLE. N.Y.
Illll HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C. I HYM CORP. FARM INEAGDALE NY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHNEWTON
Ao N v
NEw1oN N
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
waste. To keep these odors to a minimum, the primary settling
and aeration tanks will require some type of odor control.
An appropriate sludge treatment system will include gravity
thickening, anaerobic digestion and dewatering with the use of
sludge drying beds with ultimate disposal at a sanitary landfill.
Ultimate disposal is discussed in Section 4.3.
In order to implement this alternative, the installation
of new primary settling tanks, aeration tanks and additional
sludge treatment facilities would be required. Utilization of
existing structures would include the final settling tank,
chlorination system, outfall sewer and the sludge drying beds.
D.2 ALTERNATIVE SW -4 - Rotating Biological Discs and
Effluent Polishing (Combined Flow)
Modifying the existing treatment plant by the installation
of a chemical addition system for scavenger waste, a Rotating
Biological Disc (RBD) unit immediately after the Imhoff tanks
and an effluent polishing process after chlorination is an
alternative in treating the combined scavenger waste -wastewater
flows.
The RBD unit process reduces high BOD loadings into a
range where an aerated lagoon system can operate efficiently.
However, the Imhoff tanks are not capable of removing a signi-
ficant percentage of solids. 'Therefore, the aerated lagoon
and/or final settling tank would become overloaded with solids,
resulting in depletion of the oxygen supply and large quantities
of solids in the effluent overflow.
4.127
-I HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
' Implementation of this alternative would result in many
operational problems which in turn reduce the efficiency of the
' plant. Again, odor problems will exist in the Imhoff tank and
aerated lagoon areas causing the need for odor control.
' A selected sludge train includes anaerobic digestion and
' additional sludge drying beds. Ultimate sludge disposal will
be at a sanitary landfill.
A flow schematic of Alternative SW -4 can be found on Figure
4.22.
D.3 ALTERNATIVE SW -5 - Rotating Biological Discs and
Activated Sludqe (Combined Flow)
Alternative SW -5 is the same process as Alternative SW -3
with the addition of the rotating biological disc (RBD) process
prior to the activated sludge process. The RBD units will be
operated as a roughing filter. The RBD reduces the carbonaceous
BOD, therefore providing a buffer for the activated sludge
system and allowing for consistent BOD removal. The primary
settling tanks need to be oversized in order to provide suf-
ficient settling due to the high solids loading that is antici-
pated.
An appropriate sludge treatment system comprised of gravity
thickening, anaerobic digestion, dewatering by drying beds and
ultimate disposal by sanitary landfilling will be further dis-
cussed in Section 4.3.
4.23.
A flow schematic for this alternative is located on Figure
4.128
SCAVENGER WASTE
FROM
HEAD END
FACILITY
RAW WASTEWATER
CHEMICAL
ADDITIVE a
FLOCCULATION
MHOFF RBD AERATED
TANK UNIT LAGOONS
SLUDGE
I
ANAEROBIC I G I
DIGESTION —♦ �r
T " E:ai
II FG SLUDGE E
DRYING BEDS:
WASTEWATER.........I.......... ..................................... I
--- SLUDGE FILTRATE a SUPERNATANT
......••. FILTRATE a SUPERNATANT
FINAL
ETTLING
TANK
EFFLUENT
C12 DISPOSAL
I-1 EFFLUENT (OUTFALL
—�L_J"� POLISHING R
CHLORINE LAND
CONTACT SAND FILTER APPLICATION)
TANK CARBON AD.
(c) INCINERATION
(b) COMPOSTING
(a) LANDFILL
ULTIMATE SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
FLOW SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE SW -4
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVRLE. N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON $ MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE NY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS antl ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS niVEAHEAD N v
NEWtON N
SCAVENGER WASTE
FROM HEAD END
FACILITY
CHEMICAL
ADDITION a
SFLOCCULATION
PRIMARY ROTATING
EFFLUENT
AERATION FINAL C12 DISPOSAL
SETTLING BIOLOGICAL
SETTLING (OUTFALL OR
TANKS
TANK DISC
TANKS LAND
CHLORINE APPLICATION)
CONTACT
I
TANK
RAW WASTEWATER
+RAS
L PS •ACT SLUDGE
—F—�---
T
(c) INCINERATION
I =�
GRAVITY
THICKENE
ANAEROBIC LI _
—(b) COMPOSTING
DIGESTER P,�j
I
LE
`►1 r+� (a) LANDFILL
T ULTIMATE
WASTEWATER
.................4...........................4..........................
E SLUDGE
; DRYING BEDS
DISPOSAL.�.............._
SLUDGE•
ALTERNATIVES
••••••••• FILTRATE a
SUPERNATANT FILTRATE a
SUPERNANT
FLOW SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE SW -5
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE, N.Y. I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARM NGDALE NY
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS AIVERIHEAO N v
NEWTON N J
c�
c
X
m
J�
N
UI
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
Construction of this alternative would include the in-
stallation of a RBD unit, and primary settling tanks, modifi-
cation of the aerated lagoons and construction of additional
sludge treatment facilities. Existing structures, such as the
final settling tank, chlorine facilities, outfall sewer and
the sludge drying beds would continue to be utilized.
D.4 ALTERNATIVE SW -6 - Primary Treatment, Rotating Bio-
logical Discs and Effluent Polishing (Combined Flow)
Alternative SW -6 utilizes preliminary treatment, primary
treatment and the rotating biological disc (RBD) process to
treat scavenger wastes separately to reduce the waste strength
to that of a typical raw wastewater. This flow is then com-
bined with the raw wastewater collected from the sewered area
and treated by the existing system. Minor modifications and/or
additional equipment added to the existing plant would increase
its capability to treat high organic loadings that may enter
the plant. Additional aerators would be provided in the aerated
lagoon to supply sufficient air to meet the additional oxygen
demands imposed by scavenger wastes. A gravity sand filter
would also be installed as an effluent polishing process to
provide additional treatment to insure that the plant will meet
SPDES discharge limitations.
Scavenger waste would receive chemical addition, floccula-
tion, primary settling and biological treatment via RBD units
prior to being combined with the raw wastewater.
4.131
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
The sludge treatment scheme includes anaerobic digestion,
dewatering on open and covered drying beds and ultimate disposal
via landfilling. Thickening would not be required due to the
high solid content obtained from the Imhoff and primary settling
tanks.
4.24.
A flow schematic of Alternative SW -6 is located on Figure
Implementation of this system requires the construction of
a flocculation tank, primary settling tank, RBD units, sand
filter and anaerobic digester. Odor control facilities would
be required for the settling tank and RBD units.
The entire existing treatment facility will continue to
be utilized with additional aerators and covered sludge beds
required.
' E. ALTERNATIVE SW -7 - Aerobic Treatment - RBD
Alternative SW -7, as shown schematically in Figure 4.25,
utilizes RBD units to reduce the carbonaceous BOD. Nitrifi-
cation also occurs when sufficient detention time is provided.
Preceding the RBD units, settling would be required. The
' operation would consist of chemical addition and mixing, floc-
culation and sedimentation. After the RBD units, a final
tsettling tank would be required. The effluent from the system
would flow to a chlorine contact tank for disinfection and the
final effluent would be discharged into an outfall sewer.
' Primary and secondary sludges will be stabilized and de -
watered by gravity thickening, anaerobic digestion and drying
beds.
' 4.132
w
w
w
CHEMICAL
ADDITION__
FROM
HEAD END
FACILITY
I
I IMHOFF
FWD
NOTE: SCAVENGER WASTE AT
200-300 mg/1-BOD
PRIOR TO COMBINING WITH
RAW WASTEWATER
RAW WASTEWATER TANKS AERATED FINAL
I LAGOON SETTLING
v I (ADD EXTRA
I AERATORS)
I
I
L ANAEROBIC
DIGESTION
WATER I I
SLUDGE J
......••. FILTRATE 8 SUPERNATANT SLUDGE
DRYING BEDS
(ADDITIONAL)
FLOW SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE SW -6
C12
SAND
FILTER
(c) INCINERATION
) COMPOSTING
(a) LANDFILL
ULTIMATE SLUDGE
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE. N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE N Y
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD N Y
NEWTON. N. J
EFFLUENT
DISPOSAL
(OUTFALL OR
LAND
APPLICATION)
C)
c
m
m
N
SCAVENGER WA;
FROM HEAD END
FACILITY
CHEMICAL
ADDITION &
FLOCCULATION
[PRIMARY
SETTLING
Cl2 EFFLUENT DISPOSAL
RBD FINAL (OUTFALL OR
SETTLING LAND APPLICATION)
{
L_ ----SLUDGE —J
I
VACUUM NAE BIC
FILTER DIGESTER I ~�
LEGEN
t T ' L�►J
WASTEWATER
: DRYING BEDS:
SLUDGE.....................................:..........,..........:...................................
......••. FILTRATE 6 SUPERNATANT FILTRATE a SUPERNATANT
FLOW SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE SW -7
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
(c) INCINERATION
COMPOSTING
L -(a) LANDFILL
ULTIMATE SLUDGE
DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
■9i
F.9
MELVILLE, N.Y. N
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP. EARMINGDALE N v
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD N v
NEWTON
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
odor control will be required at the primary settling tank
and RBD units, similar to Alternative SW -6.
F. ALTERNATIVE SW -8 - Anaerobic/Aerobic Treatment
The anaerobic/aerobic treatment system employs high rate
anaerobic digestion for solids degradation and stabilization.
Further, the anaerobic stage of the process should improve pro-
cess control for the secondary stage of aeration by minimizing
the effects from shock -loading conditions and from the vari-
ability of the properties of scavenger waste. The aerobic
design of the aerobic stage is based on the biochemical oxygen
demand to be removed.
4.26.
The flow schematic of Alternative SW -8 is shown in Figure
Dewatering of sludge can be accomplished utilizing a blend-
ing tank that mixes sludge from the anaerobic digester with
sludge from the settling tank. Filtrate from the dewatering
operations would require further treatment that can be obtained
by returning the filtrate to the head end of the Greenport STP.
G. ALTERNATIVE SW -9 - Chlorine Oxidation-Purifax System
BIF Purifax Inc., a unit of the General Signal Corporation,
markets a fairly compact self-contained chemical oxidizer. This
system employs the principal of chemical oxidation at low pres-
sure and normal temperatures. The system treats scavenger wastes
with chlorine gas to form hypochlorous acid and nascent oxygen,
and thereby, converts organic matter into stable non -odorous
sludge.
4.135
HEAT
FIRST
STAGE
ANAEROBIC
SCAVENGER
WASTE FROM
HEAD END
FACILITY
CH4
SUPERNATANT
SECOND
STAGE
ANAEROBIC
, DIGESTER,
TO SLUDGE TRAIN
TO INFLUENT END OF EXISTING STP
AERATED
LAGOON
FLOW SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE SW -8
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD-INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTE WATER FACILITIES STUDY
FINAL
SETTLING
LENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. M RMINGD, N. v.
HOLZMACHER, Mc
L FAMM LE. N, N
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERHEAD N v
NEWTON N J
TO SLUDGE
TRAIN
T
c
rr
m
z
�o
A
N
0)
-' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
1
Figure 4.27 depicts a flow schematic for the Purifax system.
This system consists of chlorine oxidizers, chlorinators, evapo-
rators, sludge feed pumps, disintegrators and associated acces-
sories.
' Effluent from the chlorine oxidizers can then be dewatered
' by either: (a) sand drying beds; or (b) flotation thickening and
vacuum filtration. The filtrate from the dewatering operation
' could be treated at the existing Greenport STP.
H. ALTERNATIVE SW -10A & SW -10B - Natural Systems
' Two novel sewage treatment systems are in operation at the
' Brookhaven National Laboratory. Both are closed natural systems
and are described as the M/M/P (Marsh/Meadow/Pond) and the M/P
(Marsh/Pond) systems.
In the M/M/P system, raw sewage and septic wastes are
' equalized and screened. The wastewater is then degritted and
comminuted. The wastewater is subsequently aerated and pumped
to a distribution header, feeding an overflow box at the heads
' of two sloped meadows. The two meadows are alternated, with
one in operation while the other is being dried for crop har-
vesting. After flowing by gravity through the sloped meadow,
' the wastewater then enters the marsh which merges with the
meadow. Various biota are available for the planted marsh.
The marsh then terminates in a stabilization pond which is
stocked with a harvestable aquatic species. A common head is
' maintained in both the marsh and pond. It is at this point
that the treated wastewater can be recharged to the groundwater
1 4.137
r -
w
CHLORINE
STORAGE EVAPORATOR
81
CHLORINATOR
CL2
SCAVENGER
WASTE PURIFAX
UNIT
FROM HEAD
END FACILITY
DRIED SLUDGE CAKE
SAND DRYING TO LANDFILL
BEDS 1111111131111111*
FILTRATE
TO HEAD END
'OF EXISTING
GREENPORT S.T. P.
IFS
WASTEWATER
SLUDGE
......••• FILTRATE 9 SUPERNATANT
FILTRATE
EQUALIZATION
TANK
FLAW SCHEMATIC
ALTERNATIVE SW -9
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE. N.Y. I
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGDALE N v
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS NEWTO AD N v
NEWTON N J
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
table. The entire system is lined with either polyvinyl chloride
(PVC) or polyethylene (PE) which prevents seepage to the ground-
water table until treatment is complete.
The M/P system is identical to that previously described,
except that no meadow is involved. It requires 50 percent less
land, but does not yield a cash crop. Both systems reportedly
can achieve groundwater recharge limits with the M/M/P system
slightly out -performing the M/P system. The major advantages
to these systems are that they generate little or no sludge,
they require comparatively little land, and have very low opera-
ting costs. The major disadvantage is that these systems have
never been demonstrated on septic tank (scavenger) wastes alone.
The preliminary steps required before operation would appear
to be equivalent to that required for the rotating biological
' disc (RBD) scheme. In addition, the effluent would also require
chlorination before recharge. It has also been indicated(1)
1 that chemical polishing might be required for strong sewages
between the pond overflow and the recharge basins. For the
wastewaters treated thus far by these systems, BOD, solids and
' nitrogen removals have been adequate to meet standards. However,
the characteristics of the waste were much weaker than that which
' would be anticipated from scavenger waste. Until such time as
(1)
Meadow/Marsh Systems as Sewage Treatment Plants, Maxwell M.
' Small, Brookhaven National Laboratory, November 1975.
1 4.139
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
it can be established that these natural systems can adequately
treat high strength septic waste, which receives significant
percentages of its load from restaurant and commercial sources,
such natural systems cannot be recommended.
4.4.7 Regional Treatment- Combined Treatment with Shelter Island
The neighboring Town of Shelter Island has recently shown
an
interest
in jointly
treating scavenger waste with the Town
of
Southold.
It would
be financially advantageous for the Town
of Southold to combine efforts in order to benefit from the
economy of scale achieved by the increase in facility capacity.
The present unsewered population of Shelter Island is ap-
proximately 1,790 persons. The population projection for the
year 2005 is 4,240. Again, if we assume the implementation of
a septic tank management plan, it is estimated that the scaven-
ger waste flow will be .84 mgpy. Combining the projected flow
rates for Southold and Shelter Island, the capacity of the pro-
posed treatment facility would be increased from 17,700 gallons
per day to 20,000 gallons per day. Table 4.15 summarizes the
projected scavenger waste volumes for both the Town of Southold
and Shelter Island.
4.4.8 Screening of Scavenger Waste Treatment Alternatives
A matrix system was devised to display the various scaven-
ger waste treatment processes previously described. The matrix,
shown on Table 4.16, was developed to serve as a guide for com-
parative screening since it provides a quantitative summary of
judgments resulting from screening of qualitative information.
4.140
' A. Town of
Southold
TABLE 4.15
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
PRESENT AND FUTURE SCAVENGER WASTE FLOW
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
PRESENT
PRESENT
1985
1985
2005
2005
UNSEWERED
SCAVENGER WASTE
UNSEWERED
SCAVENGER WASTE
UNSEWERED
SCAVENGER WASTE
POPULATION (1)
FLOW
POPULATION (3)
FLOW
POPULATION (3)
FLOW
C.
Town of
20,239
1,553,000 gpy
23,814
1,726,000 gpy
38,056
3,083,000 gpy
-3,940
5,393,000
-5,700
-5,700
16,300
18,114
32,356
B.
Commercial
COMM.
505,900
gpy
708,000
gpy
1,118,000
gpy
Waste
C.
Town of
16,300
2,717,000
gpy
18,114
3,019,000
gpy
32,356
5,393,000
gpy
Southold
with STMP (4)
D.
Town of
2,140
258,000
gpy
1,990
287,000
gpy
4,240
661,000
gpy
Shelter Island (2)
- 350
1,790
E.
Town of
1,790
358,000
gpy
1,990
398,000
gpy
4,240
848,000
gpy
Shelter Island
with STMP (4)
F.
Southold &
18,090
3,075,000
gpy
21,790
3,417,000
gpy
36,596
gpy
Shelter Island
COMM.
505,900
708,000
1,118,000
Combined
TOTAL
3,580,900
4,125,000
7,359,000
(with STMP)(4)
(1)
1980 population -
L.I.L.C.O.
Population Survey, 1979.
Adjusted
for 1980.
(2)
Based on Average
Per Capita
Flow Rate of
4 Eastern Townships
(114 gpcpy).
(3)
Based on N.S.R.P.B.
208 Study.
(4)
Based on each septic
system
being pumped
once every 3
years;
Average 1,500 gal.
per
system; 3 persons
per household
in Southold and 2.5
per household
in Shelter Island;
Adjusted
for expansion of
commercial land use.
4.141
SCREENING FACTORS
Abatement of Existing
Groundwater Pollution
Problem
Monetary Cost
Effluent Quality
Process Reliability
Process Flexibility
Stability of Waste
Sludge
Required Operator
Skills
Site Modification
to Existing Units
Advantages
Disadvantages
TABLE 4.16
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
SCREENING MATRIX_ FOR THE SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
NO
ACTION TRANSPORT PURIFAX
ALT. ALT. ALT. ALT. ALT. ALT. ALT. ALT. ALT. ALT.
SW -1 SW -2 SW -3 SW -4 SW -5 SW -6 SW -7 SW -8 SW -9 SW -10
NG
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NG 3
2
3
2
2
3
3
0
2.
0
0
2
2
2
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
2
2.
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
3
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
1
1
1
2
-1.5
-1
-1
-1.5
-1
-.5
-.5
4
6
6
2
2
2
4
NG
TOTAL NG NG 16.5 19 19 9.5 12 14.5 17.5 NG
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Abatement of existing Water Pollution Problems; Resolved -0, Significant -4, Moderate -6, Minimal -8, Insiqnificant-NG
Monetary Costs; Minimal -1, Moderate -2, Significant -3, Expensive -4.
Effluent Quality; Good -0, Moderate -3, Poor -4.
Process Reliability; Reliable -1, Conditional -2, Unreliable -3.
Process Flexibility; Extensive -1, Moderate -2, Limited -3.
Stability of Waste Sludge; Very Stable -1, Stable -2, Unstable -3.
Required Operator Skills; Good Skills -1, Highly Skilled -3.
Site Modification for Accommodation w/ Existing Units; Insignificant -0, Minimal -1, Moderate -2, Extensive -3.
Advantaqes; -Number of advantages x(- 0.5).
Disadvantages; Number of disadvantages x (2).
NG -denotes that the alt. will not be compared w/the remaining alts. due to the reason (s) cited in the report.
N/A -Not Applicable.
4.142
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
The matrix functions are a series of discrete decisions.
Rating factors include: abatement of existing groundwater
pollution problem; monetary cost; effluent quality; process
reliability; process flexibility; stability of waste sludge;
required operator skills; site modification for accommodation
with existing units; advantages and disadvantages. Each alter-
native is screened with respect to these various factors and
assessed a rating.
The detailed commentary which provided the substantiation
for each of the judgments in the matrix is contained in the
following sections.
With Shelter Island estimated to contribute only 11.5
percent of the combined scavenger waste flow from the two
towns, it seems advantagous for Southold to combine efforts
with Shelter Island. This should provide an economy of scale
and, in turn, reduce their costs. The design and associated
costs of the following scavenger waste treatment alternatives
are based on a combined Southold -Shelter Island flow. Within
the cost-effective analysis section, a comparison of treatment
with and without Shelter Island will be provided.
A. ALTERNATIVE SW -1 - No Action - Continue Existing
Disposal Methods
As previously indicated, continuing the present disposal
methods will not be legally implementable. This alternative
will not resolve existing groundwater pollution problems and
is unacceptable. This alternative will be assigned a rating
of NG and will not be evaluated further.
4.143
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
B. ALTERNATIVE SW -2 - Transporting to Another Treatment
System
Implementation of Alternative SW -2 would completely re-
solve the groundwater pollution problem which presently exists
from scavenger waste disposal. However, annual operating costs
associated with this alternative are such that the total annual
cost is greater than all other alternatives. With the increases
in cost of fuel becoming unpredictable, it is difficult to con-
fidently estimate operating costs through the 20 year planning
period. The total estimated annual cost is $336,300., subject
to the above concerns• So the screening factors were evaluated
as follows:
1. Abatement of Existing Groundwater Pollution
Problem: Resolved - 0
2. Monetary Cost: Expensive - 4
3. Effluent Quality: Not Applicable - N/A
4. Process Reliability: Conditional - 2
5. Process Flexibility: Moderate - 2
6. Stability of Waste Sludge: Not Applicable - N/A
7. Required Operation Skills: Not Applicable - N/A
B. Site Modification of Existing Units: Moderate - 2
9. Advantages (1 x -0.5 = 0.5)
a. totally removes waste from study area
10. Disadvantages (2 x 3 = 6)
a. excessive operating costs
b. probable increase in fuel cost
C. possible disruption of disposal if avail-
ability of fuel decreases
11. Total . • • • • • • • • • • . • • • • • • • • 15.5
4.144
-I HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
1
C. ALTERNATIVE SW -3 - Activated Sludge Combined Flow
By over -designing the primary settling tank for solids
' handling and designing the aeration tank at 35 pounds -BOD -5/
1,000 cf/day, the effluent discharge limitations should con-
sistently be met. Assuming a 35 percent BOD removal in primary
settling, a loading of 312 pounds of BOD per day can be ex-
pected to enter the aeration tank. Gravity thickening is
' required to increase the solids content from approximately
2 - 3 percent solids to 8 - 9 percent solids. The total esti-
mated annual cost is $241,900.
II
The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
1. Abatement of Existing Groundwater Pollution
Problem: Resolved - 0
2. Monetary Cost: Significant - 3
3. Effluent Quality: Good - 0
4. Process Reliability: Reliable - 1
5. Process Flexibility: Moderate - 2
6. Stability of Waste Sludge: Stable - 2
7. Required Operator Skills: Highly Skilled - 3
8. Site Modifications to Existing Units: Extensive - 3
9. Advantages (3 x -0.5 = -1.5)
a. reliable process
b. resistance to shock loadings
C. high quality effluent
10. Disadvantages (2 x 2 = 4)
a. odor problem at aeration tank
b. requires frequent monitoring
11. Total
1 4.145
. 16.5
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
D. Alternative SW -4 - Addition of RBD and Effluent Polishing
to Existing System - (Combined Flow)
With Alternative SW -4 utilizing the Imhoff tanks for primary
settling, sufficient settling may not take place. Effluent from
the Imhoff tanks may be too strong to be efficiently treated by
the existing aerated lagoon. operational efficiencies will de-
crease due to the extra solids loading from scavenger wastes.
The elimination of this alternative is suggested due to
the uncertainty of achieving sufficient treatment to meet dis-
charge limitations. The total estimated annual cost is $231,300.
The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
1. Abatement of Existing Groundwater Pollution
Problem: Resolved - 0
2. Monetary Cost: Moderate - 2
3. Effluent Quality: Moderate - 2
4. Process Reliability: Unreliable - 3
5. Process Flexibility: Moderate - 2
6. Stability of Waste Sludge: Stable - 2
7. Required Operator Skills: Good Skills - 1
8. Site Modification to Existing Units: Moderate - 2
9. Advantages (2 x -0.5 = -1)
a. ease of upgrading with additional RBD units
b. full utilization of existing system
10. Disadvantages (3 x 2 = 6)
a. overload Imhoff tanks
b. odor problem in aeration system
C. low quality effluent expected
11. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
E. ALTERNATIVE SW -5 - RBD Plus Activated Sludge Process
As with Alternative SW -3, oversizing the primary settling
tank will provide for the removal of approximately 70 percent
of the suspended solids. The rotating biological disc units
will insure that BOD removal is accomplished. The design of
Alternative SW -5 will provide excellent removal efficiencies,
enabling the plant to meet the discharge limitations. Again,
gravity thickening is required to increase the solids content
of the sludge from 2 - 3 percent to 8 - 9 percent solids.
The total estimated annual cost is $267,700.
The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
1. Abatement of Existing Groundwater Pollution
Problem: Resolved - 0
2. Monetary Cost: Significant - 3
3. Effluent Quality: Good - 0
4. Process Reliability: Reliable - 1
5. Process Flexibility: Moderate - 2
6. Stability of Waste Sludge: Stable - 2
7. Required Operator Skills: Highly Skilled - 3
8. Site Modification to Existing Units: Extensive - 3
9. Advantages (2 x -0.5 = -1)
a. resistance to shock loading
b. ease of upgrading with additional RBD units
10. Disadvantages (3 x 2 = 6)
a. gravity thickening required
b. little utilization of existing system
C. requires frequent monitoring
11. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.147
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
F. ALTERNATIVE SW -6 - Primary -RBD Treatment Prior to
Combined Flow
The design of Alternative SW -6 will require pretreatment
of scavenger waste such that its characteristics are similar
to that of raw wastewater. The BOD -5 and suspended solids
concentration will be in the range of 200 to 300 mg/1. This
existing Greenport STP system will meet effluent limitations
with the addition of extra aerators and a sand filter. The
total estimated annual cost is $213,200.
The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
1. Abatement of Existing Groundwater Pollution
Problems: Resolved - 0
2. Monetary Cost: Moderate -2
3. Effluent Quality: Good - 0
4. Process Reliability: Reliable - 1
5. Process Flexibility: Moderate - 2
6. Stability of Waste Sludge: Stable - 2
7. Required Operator Skills: Good Skills - 1
8. Site Modifications to Existing Units: Minimal - 1
9. Advantages (3 x -0.5 = -1.5)
a. full utilization of existing units
b. high quality effluent
C. ease of upgrading with addition of RBD units
10. Disadvantages (1 x 2 = 2)
a. possible clogging of filter if large solids
loadings occur.
11. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.5
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
G. ALTERNATIVE SW -7 - Aerobic Treatment - RBD
The designing of Alternative SW -7 will depend on the
degree of treatment required. The sizing of the RBD units will
depend on whether nitrification is required in addition to
carbonaceous BOD removal. The total estimated annual cost is
$219,500.
The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
1. Abatement of Existing Groundwater Pollution
Problem: Resolved - 0
2. Monetary Cost: Moderate - 2
3. Effluent Quality: Moderate - 2
4. Process Reliability: Conditional - 2
5. Process Flexibility: Extensive - 1
6. Stability of Waste Sludge: Stable - 2
7. Required Operator Skills: Good Skills - 1
B. Site Modification to Existing Units: Minimal - 1
9. Advantages (2 x -0.5 = 1)
a. ease of plant expansion with RBD units
b. minimal operational needs
10. Disadvantages (1 x 2 = 2)
a. Sensitive to temperature
11. Total
. . . . . . 12.0
H. ALTERNATIVE SW -8 - Aerobic/Anaerobic Treatment
Alternative SW -8 might prove to be an ineffective selection,
since (a) high ammonia build-up might occur in the digester, caus-
ing digester upset; and (b) pilot program would be required to as-
certain viability of alternative. The total estimated annual cost
is $232,600.
4.149
-' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
' The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
1. Abatement of Existing Groundwater Pollution
Problems: Resolved - 0
2. Monetary Cost: Significant - 3
3. Effluent Quality: Moderate - 2
4. Process Reliability: Conditional - 2
5. Process Flexibility: Moderate - 2
6. Stability of Waste Sludge: Stable - 2
7. Required Operator Skills: Good Skills - 1
8. Site Modification to Existing Units: Minimal - 1
9. Advantages (1 x -0.5 = -0.5)
a. little operation needed
10. Disadvantages (2 x 1 = 2)
a. poor effluent quality
11. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14.5
I. ALTERNATIVE SW -9 - Chemical Oxidation
The utilization of the chemical oxidation process, widely
known by its trade name "Purifax," has been proven effective in
treating scavenger waste. Several facilities within the region
presently use Purifax in treating scavenger waste. However, the
Nassau -Suffolk 208 Technical Advisory Committee has recently ob-
jected to the use of Purifax on Long Island, due to possible en-
vironmental problems with sludge disposal and the impact of
chlorinated organics on surface waters. In addition, Suffolk
County Department of Health Services is concerned about the
transportation of large quantities of chlorine through Suffolk
County. The total estimated annual cost is $199,100.
4.150
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
The screening factors were evaluated as follows:
1. Abatement of Existing Groundwater Pollution
Problems: Resolved - 0
2. Monetary Cost: Significant - 3
3. Effluent Quality: Moderate - 2
4. Process Reliability: Conditional - 2
5. Process Flexibility: Moderate - 2
6. Stability of Waste Sludge: Stable - 2
7. Required Operator Skills: Good Skills - 1
8. Site Modifications to Existing Units: Moderate - 2
9. Advantages (1 x -0.5 = -0.5)
a. able to run intermittently
10. Disadvantages (2 x 2 = 4)
a. environmental problems with sludge disposal
b. 208 TAC will not accept alternative
11. Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17.5
J. ALTERNATIVE SW -10 - Natural Systems
As previously indicated, natural treatment systems have been
proven effective for wastewater treatment and for combined septage
and wastewater. However, natural systems have not been effective
with wastewater to septage ratios of less than 10:1. Therefore,
if this alternative is to be utilized, wastewater would have to
be diverted from the sewage treatment plant to the scavenger
waste plant. The capacity of the natural treatment system would
then be ten times the scavenger waste flows, which in turn, in-
crease the land requirements for this facility• Alternative SW -10
' has been given a rating of NG due to the fact that the required
effluent quality cannot be achieved.
4.151
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
4.4.9 Cesspool and Septic Tank Management Plan (CSTMP)
Although there are no specific USEPA or NYSDEC require-
ments for cesspool and septic tank management, regulatory
agencies require that a management program be proposed and
adopted by the Town of Southold and/or the Town of Shelter
Island•
With the exception of the Inc. Village of Greenport, the
remainder of Southold is served by individual on-site septic
systems. In Shelter Island, aside from the Shelter Island
Heights Association, the remainder of Shelter Island is served
by on-site septic systems. Therefore, in order to regulate
the cesspools and septic tanks in both Towns, a CSTMP is re-
quired.
The purpose of a cesspool and septic tank management plan
are manifold and include:
1. Providing for the protection of the environment by
proper installation and management of septic and cesspool
systems•
2. Providing for periodic maintenance of septic tanks
and cesspools in order to prolong the life of leaching systems
and the attendant impacts associated with their failure.
3. Extending the life of the septic leaching system by
proper management practices might in many instances reduce
the need for extensive sewering and its associated costs
particularly in sparsely populated areas.
4.152
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
4. Proper disposal of septic and cesspool wastes in order
to safeguard the ground and surface waters from contamination,
as well as prevention of public health and nuisance problems
associated with improper septage disposal.
5. Provide for an accurate record system which in turn
can help designate problem areas.
The CSTMP should address the following four (4) catagories:
A. Total Management Responsibility
1. Tax, collect service charges, or in some other way
raise revenue to finance the management plan operations.
2. Perform a survey to locate and establish the number
of existing on-site systems in the Town of Southold. Another
approach is to register each on-site system when it requires
pumping, regardless of whether the system has failed or needs
to be cleaned.
3. Obtain easements, as may be required, over the primary
treatment and effluent disposal sections of an on-site system.
4. Enter outside premises where the on-site system is
located, to inspect, take water and wastewater samples and to
provide routine maintenance or remedy overloaded systems.
5. Institute abatement proceedings.
6. Review the need for sewers, when and if needed.
7. Adopt and enforce appropriate ordinances governing
sewage disposal practices.
4.153
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. i H2M CORP.
8. Levy annual registration fees, registration numbers
and decals to private scavenger waste collectors/haulers.
Decals must be displayed on all vehicles discharging at the
scavenger waste facility.
9. Require initial and renewal licensing of septic and
cesspool systems and levy a fee for same, as may be established
by the Town Board.
10. Hire consultants and contract for services when
required.
11. Enter into contract with other agencies or private
parties for disposal of septage effluents.
12. Coordinate a comprehensive drainage basin protection
program (groundwater monitoring) in conjunction with the
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, NYSDEC and other
regulatory agencies.
13. Require haulers to inform scavenger waste facility
operators of the following, prior to dumping waste:
(a) Verification as to where the wastes came from should
be required via a signed form from residence, com-
mercial establishment, etc. Form should give name,
address, cause for pumping and approximate volume.
(b) Classify type of waste on truck, i.e. residential,
commercial, industrial, etc.
(c) Give approximate volume from each source obtained
in (a) above, if more than one source is on truck.
4.154
IHOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
B. Maintenance
The Town must be able to ensure that, during the operating
life of on-site systems, they are properly maintained and func-
tioning at their optimal level.
To accomplish system maintenance, Southold needs to:
1. Issue maintenance permits for individual sites in
the Town and inspect them annually or as otherwise determined.
2. Require that each residence or commercial establish-
ment have their septic tank or cesspool pumped once every three
(3) years of use or as operating experience dictates. The
septage will be transported to the scavenger waste treatment
facility.
3. Maintain adequate records.
4. Operate and maintain the scavenger waste treatment
facility.
I C. Environmental Monitoring
Southold must be able to ensure that the total effect of
Ithe operations of the sum of the systems within the boundaries
of the Town are not degrading the quality of the environment.
ITo accomplish environmental monitoring, the Town needs
' to be able to enter onto property and collect samples from
the potable water supply well for monitoring purposes.
The following periodic sampling schedule is recommended:
1. Septic tank influent and effluent composite samples.
II 2. Grab sample from water supply well or adjacent surface
Iwater (for both cesspool and septic tank systems).
4.155
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
4.4.10 Environmental Assessment
Scavenger wastes are currently collected by trucks from
malfunctioning or fully utilized on-site sewage disposal sys-
tems of homes and commercial establishments, in the portions
of the study area which are not serviced by the Greenport STP.
The scavenger wastes collected from these areas are being dis-
posed via leaching lagoons at the existing Town of Southold
landfill in Cutchogue. NYSDEC has requested that this practice
be terminated and, therefore, Southold must find an alternate
method of disposal. Since Shelter Island is a neighboring com-
munity of Southold and also has a similar problem of finding
an alternate means of disposal to leaching lagoons for their
scavenger wastes, regional and sub -regional solutions have been
developed to include the Town of Shelter Island in the scavenger
waste portion of this facilities plan. one of the alternatives,
the No Action, is considered a non-viable alternative, since it
entails continuing the present unacceptable method of disposal.
For a further discussion of the ramifications of this alterna-
tive, see Section 3.0. Nine other treatment alternatives are
being considered and in this section, the environmental impacts
of each of these are examined.
1. Social Impacts - Implementation of any of the nine
scavenger waste alternatives would represent a significant, long-
term improvement in public health and safety over the present
scavenger waste disposal method
4.157
Due to the similarity of social
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
impacts with some of the alternatives, this section will dis-
cuss them in four groupings:
1. Alternative SW -2 - Transport to another
facility
2. Alternatives SW -3 - SW -6 - All involving
Greenport STP
3. Alternatives SW -7 - SW -9 - All involving
separate treatment facilities
4. Alternative SW -10 a & b - Marsh/Pond
Alternative SW -2 - The primary social benefit of this al-
ternative is that it would abate the groundwater pollution and
public health problems which presently exist from scavenger
waste disposal. The primary adverse social impacts of imple-
menting this alternative are fiscal. Since the operating costs
of this alternative are tied to the escalating costs of trans-
portation (i.e., fuel prices), estimating costs over a 20 -year
planning period is unpredictable.
Alternatives SW -7 - SW -9 - The main social impacts associ-
ated with building separate scavenger waste facilities are sit-
ing, traffic, esthetics, short-term construction and economics.
The siting of a scavenger waste facility in the study will pre-
sent both long and short-term impacts. On a long-term basis,
providing the location is properly selected and there is ade-
quate site planning to ensure buffering of noise and odors,
there is not expected to be any adverse social impacts. Posi-
tive land use impacts will result from providing favorable
conditions for development, since adoption of a needed waste
4.158
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
treatment measure will help to remove land use restrictions as-
sociated with groundwater protection. In the long run, the
implementation of improved and reliable scavenger waste treat-
ment provides a basis for improved esthetic quality and is a
positive impact on the area. This offsets the impacts associ-
ated with utilizing an additional site for the construction of
a new facility.
Considering that Southold and Shelter Island are two small
rural communities with comparable small town budgets, unforeseen
increases in the annual operating costs of this alternative
could have adverse monetary consequences to the tax bases of
these communities. It is therefore not a highly recommended
alternative.
Alternatives SW -3 - SW -6 - The overall social impacts re-
sulting from upgrading the Greenport facility to handle the com-
bined scavenger waste - wastewater flows are positive and would
be about the same for each of the alternatives. Implementation
of any of these reliable, environmentally sound and efficient
waste treatment methods represent a long-term improvement in
public health and safety, and are therefore recommended. The
potential adverse impacts to public health and safety deal with
the sludge drying beds and landfill treatment. If existing
facilities are to be utilized or enlarged, adequate steps should
be taken to ensure that the bottoms of both are impervious. If
not, there is the threat to public health from contaminated
leachate reaching groundwater resources.
4.159
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
Short-term impacts are primarily associated with construc-
tion of the treatment facility, the noise and odors of construc-
tion equipment, and the unsightly nature of construction and its
debris.
Since these impacts are short-term, lasting only the dura-
tion of construction, they do not represent significant adverse
impacts. Construction and operation of a new facility creates
jobs and constitutes a positive primary social impact.
In summary, these alternatives generally result in positive
social impacts and are therefore recommended alternatives.
2. Natural Environmental Impacts - Alternative SW -2 -
The collection and screening/degritting station constructed for
this alternative should not be located in an area that would ad-
versely affect groundwater, use primary agricultural lands, or
destroy wildlife habitats. Additionally, the facility should be
sited so that accidental spills would not drain into a surface
water or wetland.
Trucking of wastes should be done at off peak travel
times so as to minimize the chance of accident and possible
leakage of waste. Trucks should also receive regular checks
and maintenance to assure that no waste is escaping into the
environment from leakage.
Alternatives SW -3
- SW -6 - The
existing sewage treat-
ment plant at Greenport is,
on occasion,
exceeding discharge
'
limitations specified in its
SPDES permit.
If this facility is
not upgraded, the addition
of untreated
scavenger wastes, either
'
4.160
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
' combined with Shelter Island or alone, would undoubtedly in-
crease the frequency of outfall in contravention of standards.
Therefore, these alternatives consider upgrading Greenport STP
' to treat these combined wastes.
The structural changes involved for these treatments
' vary with each alternative. However, if construction occurs on
' an already disturbed site well removed from surface waters and
wetlands, no construction impacts to natural areas or endangered
and threatened species would occur.
Alternative SW -3 - The advantages of this treatment
are production of high quality effluent, reliability, and re-
sistance to shock loadings. Disadvantages include frequent
monitoring and odors at the primary settling and aeration tanks.
Alternative SW -4 - This alternative is not recommended
due to uncertainty of achieving sufficient treatment to meet dis-
charge limitations. The problem with this method would occur
in primary settling (Imhoff) tanks, which would not be capable
of removing a sufficient percentage of solids from the combined
flow. Therefore, the aerated lagoon and/or final settling tank
would become overloaded with solids, resulting in depletion of
the oxygen supply and large quantities of solids in the effluent.
This effluent would not be acceptable for outfall disposal, due
to its inability to meet SPDES permit requirements and its en-
vironmental impacts, as described in Section 3.0
4.161
IHOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
Alternative SW -5 - In this alternative, rotating bio-
logical discs reduce the carbonaceous BOD and create a buffer
for the more easily upset activated sludge system. This process
ensures consistent BOD removal. The SW -5 alternative would,
therefore, provide excellent removal efficiencies, producing an
II effluent which would reliably be within the SPDES limitations.
This system would be environmentally acceptable.
Alternative SW -6 - In this alternative, scavenger waste
III would receive chemical addition, flocculation, primary settling
and biological treatment, via RBD units prior to being combined
with the raw wastewater collected from the sewered area. The
combined flow is then treated by the existing STP, which, with
minor modifications and/or additional equipment added, would be
I able to treat high organic loadings that may enter the plant.
This system would produce a high quality effluent suitable for
jI outfall (reliably meeting effluent limitations) and would, there-
fore, be an environmentally acceptable alternative.
Alternatives SW -7 - SW -9 - These alternatives all in-
volve construction of basically separate facilities to treat
scavenger waste. As with alternatives SW -3 - SW -6, proper siting
of these facilities would not cause primary environmental impacts
to natural ecosystems as a result of construction.
Alternative SW -7 - Since effluent from this treatment
plant would meet SPDES permit requirements, this alternative is
environmentally acceptable.
L
4.162
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
Alternative SW -10 a & b - In these systems, vegetation
planted in artificially constructed meadows, marshes and ponds
is used to treat wastewaters. The major environmental advantages
to these systems would be that they generate little or no sludge,
and may offer a natural way to treat scavenger wastes with bene-
fits of harvestable terrestrial and aquatic crops. For the waste-
waters treated thus far by these systems, BOD, solids and nitrogen
removals have been adequate to meet standards for both outfall and
land application.
The major disadvantage of these natural methods is that
they have never been demonstrated on pure scavenger wastes for an
extended period. Therefore, it is not known whether these systems
would be capable of handling the varied composition of scavenger
wastes from residential, commercial and restaurant sources.
Since the meadows, marshes and ponds composing these
systems would be lined with impervious materials, none of the
liquid fraction of scavenger wastes would leach to groundwater
prior to full treatment.
Approximately one to two acres would be required for
both the marsh/pond and the meadow/marsh/pond. This is approxi-
mately the same acreage required for other, separate scavenger
waste facilities, but less than required for upgrading the Green-
port STP. If the marsh/pond facility was constructed on an al-
ready disturbed site (i.e., adjacent to Greenport STP) in an area
well removed from wetlands and surface waters, no natural impacts
would be anticipated.
4.164
-I HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
1
1 4.165
Alternatives SW -2 - SW -8 and SW -10 - Finally, in addi-
tion to impacts already outlined for these alternatives, free
chlorine in the effluent from an upgraded Greenport STP, or a
separate scavenger waste facility could have an impact on the
surface waters, if not properly controlled. Therefore, proper
control/monitoring over effluent chlorination is necessary.
The marsh/pond alternatives would present several
'
negative social impacts. This alternative requires a great
deal more land than any of the other scavenger waste alterna-
tives. This fact alone is not a significant adverse impact in
'
the Town of Southold however, since ample vacant land is avail-
able for this type of system. The major concern is with sur-
rounding land uses. Since this alternative has not been empiri-
cally tested, there are no data on the effects to surrounding
land areas and how it will affect the quality of life. If sited
adjacent to residential uses, the problems of odor, esthetics
and insects could have quite adverse social impacts. It could
'
lead to decreased property values of homes, which could result
in changes in the character of the neighborhood. Adverse secon-
dary social effects include potential loss of open space/recre-
ation areas, unique natural areas, historic sites and prime
farmland.
'
This alternative is not a highly socially recommended
alternative until additional data are available on the long-term
'
effects of this system and it is demonstrated to be efficient.
1
1 4.165
IHOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
This alternative would be acceptable if located in an area where
sufficient land is available isolated from the general public.
4.166
-I HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
5.0 COST-EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS OF VIABLE STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVE
WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT PLANS
' After screening the various wastewater management alter-
natives that were described in Chapter 4.0, the following are
' the most viable wastewater/scavenger waste management alter-
natives:
I - NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE
II - EXPANSION OF THE GREENPORT SANITARY COLLECTION
SYSTEM
III - SUB -REGIONAL TREATMENT AT MATTITUCK
Alternative C-2 Rotating Biological Discs (RBD)
Alternative C-3 Extended Aeration Activated Sludge
Alternative C-4 Contact Stabilization Activated
Sludge
Alternative C-5 Complete Mix Activated Sludge
Alternative C-6 Marsh -Pond
IV - EFFLUENT DISPOSAL (Mattituck and Greenport)
1. Outfall Discharge
2. Land Application
V - SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVE
SD Alternative 1 - Sanitary Landfill
SD Alternative 3 - Composting
SD Alternative 4 - Incineration
VI - SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
Alternative SW -2 - Transporting to Other
Treatment Systems
Alternative SW -3 - Activated Sludge Combined
Flow at Greenport
Alternative SW -4 - RBD & Effluent Polishing,
Combined Flow at Greenport
5.1
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
I
The alternatives described above have been evaluated to
ensure that they can provide the basic function for which they
' were intended. The following sections will further investigate
the alternatives based on a cost-effective analysis.
1
I
1
1 5.2
Alternative
SW -5 -
RBD - Activated Sludge Com-
'
bined Flow at Greenport
Alternative
SW -6 -
Primary RBD Treatment Prior
to Combining with Greenport
Alternative
SW -7 -
Aerobic RBD Treatment
Treatment
Alternative
SW -8 -
Aerobic -Anaerobic
Alternative
SW -10 -
Natural System-Marsh/Meadow/
'
Pond
The alternatives described above have been evaluated to
ensure that they can provide the basic function for which they
' were intended. The following sections will further investigate
the alternatives based on a cost-effective analysis.
1
I
1
1 5.2
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. i H2M CORP.
5.1 Cost -Effective Analysis
' the waste treatment management system having the lowest present
worth and/or equivalent annual value, without overriding adverse
' non -monetary costs. The following subsections will analyze each
set of alternatives in order to obtain the most cost-effective
talternative:
5.1.1 Methods and Procedures
Cost analysis for this phase of alternative evaluation is
a comparative process. Given this fact and the number of alter-
natives requiring evaluation, the majority of the cost estimates
were based on USEPA publications rather than detailed engineer's
estimates• These publications include various formulas and curves
generated as a result of nationwide surveys. Cost factors were
applied to these costs to reflect local labor and material costs.
The following general assumptions were made to help compare
alternatives:
1. 1980 was arbitrarily chosen as the design year. An En-
gineering News Record Construction Cost Index of 3,130., repre-
senting January 1980, was used.
5.3
One of the major factors that is utilized in
the alter-
'
native selection process is
that of monetary costs
associated
'
with the implementation of
a management plan. Federal
guide-
lines require the selection
process to be based on
"The Most
'
Cost -Effective Alternative"
concept. This can be
defined as
' the waste treatment management system having the lowest present
worth and/or equivalent annual value, without overriding adverse
' non -monetary costs. The following subsections will analyze each
set of alternatives in order to obtain the most cost-effective
talternative:
5.1.1 Methods and Procedures
Cost analysis for this phase of alternative evaluation is
a comparative process. Given this fact and the number of alter-
natives requiring evaluation, the majority of the cost estimates
were based on USEPA publications rather than detailed engineer's
estimates• These publications include various formulas and curves
generated as a result of nationwide surveys. Cost factors were
applied to these costs to reflect local labor and material costs.
The following general assumptions were made to help compare
alternatives:
1. 1980 was arbitrarily chosen as the design year. An En-
gineering News Record Construction Cost Index of 3,130., repre-
senting January 1980, was used.
5.3
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
' 2. Salvage values for all alternatives were excluded,
since accurate data were not attainable without detailed analy-
sis and were judged insignificant. The omission of salvage
values should not alter the outcome.
' 3. A service and interest factor of 27 percent was used,
' representing engineering, contingencies, legal and administra-
tion costs and interest during construction.
' 4. Land costs were based on $10,000. per acre.
5. Cost comparisons were based on the total annual cost
' which equals the amortized capital cost plus the annual opera-
tion and maintenance cost. Amortization was calculated using
7-1/8 percent interest for 20 years.
' In most cases, cost estimates were derived from various
USEPA publications. In some instances, however, assumptions
' had to be made, costs modified and adjustments to the particu-
lar alternative taken into consideration. Due to the large
number of alternatives evaluated, it is not feasible to pro-
' vide the details of all cost estimates, procedures and varia-
tions. In all cases, however, the costs were analyzed to en-
sure their accuracy for the intended purposes. For similar
' reasons, all formulas and curves are not duplicated in this
document, but may be found in the references.
5.1.2 Expansion of Greenport Collection System - Cost Analysis
' The construction costs for the collection system, pumping
stations and force mains are based on engineering estimates
' 5.4
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
recently prepared for another collection system within Suffolk
County. The unit costs on which the estimates are based are:
Pipe Unit Price
6" D.I. Pipe - Force Main $35.00/L.F.
8"
V.C.
Pipe
- Gravity
60.00/L.F.
8"
V.C.
Pipe
- Gravity (Dewatering)
80.00/L.F.
Calculations were executed to determine the most economi-
cal sewer layout in order to connect the areas in need of sewer-
ing to the existing system. Field observations of the areas were
' used to determine the approximate needs and locations of gravity
sewers, force mains and pump stations. Total costs required to
expand the Greenport Collection System, to include Conkling Point,
5.1.3 Sub -Regional Treatment - Mattituck Treatment Facility -
' Cost Analysis
As previously discussed in Section 4.2.3, it is questionable
' whether the Mattituck area should be sewered at this time. If
' the results of the recommended groundwater monitoring program
indicate that individual septic systems are severely impacting
the groundwater quality, then implementation of a sewering plan
should commence.
Most of the construction and operation and maintenance costs
' for these facilities were obtained from the USEPA publication
entitled "Cost -Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems", dated
1 5.5
Pipes
Cove,
Sterling Basin and North Greenport, are depicted on
Table
5.1.
5.1.3 Sub -Regional Treatment - Mattituck Treatment Facility -
' Cost Analysis
As previously discussed in Section 4.2.3, it is questionable
' whether the Mattituck area should be sewered at this time. If
' the results of the recommended groundwater monitoring program
indicate that individual septic systems are severely impacting
the groundwater quality, then implementation of a sewering plan
should commence.
Most of the construction and operation and maintenance costs
' for these facilities were obtained from the USEPA publication
entitled "Cost -Effective Wastewater Treatment Systems", dated
1 5.5
m
Conkling Pt.
Pipes Coves
Sterling Basin
North Greenport
SUB -TOTAL
Eng., Admin.,
Legal & Conting.
(27%)
TOTAL
TABLE 5_1
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
PRELIMINARY COST OF EXPANDING EXISTING SEWER SERVICE AREA
APPROX. LENGTH
5,000
OF PIPE (FEET)
5,000
COLLECTORS
5,000
REQ'D (1)
FORCE
COLLECTORS DEWATERING
MAIN
-- 6,700
12,000
1,200 1,500
2,500
3,200 2,000
4,800
6,700
11,100
10,200 19,300
CAPITAL
COST SEWER
ONSTURCTIO
956,000
280,000
520,000
402,000
2,158,000
583,000
PUMPING
COST
CAPITAL 0&M
150,000
5,000
150,000
5,000
150,000
5,000
450,000 15,000
122,00
TOTAL
ANNUAL
$2,741,000 $572,000 $15,000 $330,800
NOTES: (1) Length of collector requiring dewatering estimated utilizing
groundwater and surface elevations.
(2) Capital Costs amortized at 7-1/8% interest over 20 yrs. (Crf = 0.095323)
-I HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
1
July 1975. The costs for the Marsh -Pond Treatment System were
estimated with the use of the publication "Natural Sewage Re-
cycling Systems", dated January 1977. A design sewage flow of
0.5 million gallons per day was utilized in estimating capital
' costs. Table 5.2 summarizes our cost analysis.
' groundwater quality) and the small quantity of sludge, prelimin-
ary cost estimates had to be developed in order to perform the
cost analysis for the ultimate sludge disposal alternatives.
Table 5.3 summarizes the cost analysis for sanitary landfill,
composting and incineration. The facility costs were based on
disposing of 1 dry ton of sludge per day.
'
5.1.5 Scavenger Waste Treatment Alternatives - Cost Analysis
The construction and operation and maintenance costs for
Alternatives SW -3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were obtained from the USEPA
publication entitled "Cost Effective Wastewater Treatment System",
dated July 1975. Preliminary cost estimates were prepared in
order to perform the cost analysis for Alternatives SW -2 and
SW -9.
The cost estimates are based on a facility designed to
' handle an average flow rate of 20,000 gallons per day (based on
a 7 -day week) of scavenger waste. As previously discussed, this
' flow represents the combined waste from Southold and Shelter Is-
land, assuming that a cesspool and septic tank management plan
' will be implemented.
5.7
5.1.4 Sludge
-
Ultimate Disposal
- Cost Analysis
'
Due to
the
unique local
conditions (i.e.,
sensitivity of
' groundwater quality) and the small quantity of sludge, prelimin-
ary cost estimates had to be developed in order to perform the
cost analysis for the ultimate sludge disposal alternatives.
Table 5.3 summarizes the cost analysis for sanitary landfill,
composting and incineration. The facility costs were based on
disposing of 1 dry ton of sludge per day.
'
5.1.5 Scavenger Waste Treatment Alternatives - Cost Analysis
The construction and operation and maintenance costs for
Alternatives SW -3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were obtained from the USEPA
publication entitled "Cost Effective Wastewater Treatment System",
dated July 1975. Preliminary cost estimates were prepared in
order to perform the cost analysis for Alternatives SW -2 and
SW -9.
The cost estimates are based on a facility designed to
' handle an average flow rate of 20,000 gallons per day (based on
a 7 -day week) of scavenger waste. As previously discussed, this
' flow represents the combined waste from Southold and Shelter Is-
land, assuming that a cesspool and septic tank management plan
' will be implemented.
5.7
1
1
t
1
1
1
1
1
1
ALTERNATIVE
ITEM
A. Construction Cost
- Unit Processes
(incl. Sludge Train
of anaerobic digestion
and drying beds)
- Effluent Disposal (1)
- Site Work, Electr.,
HVAC, Piping & Mobil.
D. SUB -TOTAL
C. Eng., Admin, Legal &
Conting. (27% of
Sub -Total)
D. TOTAL CAPITAL COST
E. Amortized Capital Cost (2)
F. O & M Cost
C. TOTAL ANNUAL COST
TABLE 5.2
CREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
COST ANALYSIS OF MATTITUCK TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
($ X 103)
C -la
C -lb
C -2a
C -2b
CC -3a
C -3b
C -4a
C -4b
C -5a
C -5b
C-6
1,182
1,549
1,182
1,549
840
1,200
1,919
2,273
1,919
2,273
1,140
295
411
295
411
295
411
295
411
295
411
411
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
346
446
1,823 2,306 1,823 2,306 1,481 1,957 2,560 3,030 2,560 3,030 1,997
492 623 492 623 400 528 961 818 691 818 539
2,315
2,929
2,315
2,929
1,881
2,485
3,251
3,848
3,251
3,848
2,536
220.7
279.2
220.7
279.2
179.3
236.9
309.9
366.8
309.9
336.8
241.7
68
68
67
67
56
56
86
86
86
86
117
228.7
347.2
287.7
346.2
235.3
292.9
395.9
452.8
395.9
452.8
358.7
(1) Sub -Alternative a. utilizes outfall disposal. Sub -Alternative b. utilizes land application cost based on
infiltration - percolation method.
(2) Amortized over 20 years ENR Cost Index = 3,130 Jan., 1980.
SOURCES: 1. Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Sewered Small Communities; USEPA, 1977.
2. Natural Sewage Recycling Systems; Maxwell M. Small, January, 1977.
5.8
TABLE 5.3
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
COST ANALYSIS OF SLUDGE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES
(BASED ON 1 DRY TON/DAY)
ITEM
Capital Cost
Amoritized (1)
Annual Capital
Annual 0 & M
LANDFILL DISPOSAL
$178,000 (3)
16,900
15,000
TOTAL ANNUAL COST $ 31,900
COMPOSTING (4)
$141,000
13,200
25,000
$ 38,400 (2)
INCINERATION
$692,000
66,000
$116,000 (2)
NOTES: (1) Amortized over 20 yrs at 7-1/8% interest (CRF=0.095323).
(2) Excludes any revenues that might be received from sale
of end product (ie. compost, electricity).
(3) Includes installation of double liner with leachate and
methane removal capabilities, as part of an overall liner
installation at the landfill in compliance with Part 360.
(4) Static Pile Method.
5.9
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. i H2M CORP.
Table 5.4 summarizes the cost analysis. The total costs
exclude ultimate sludge disposal costs.
' It should be noted that the cost-effective analysis does
not take into account the cost of utilizing the Greenport fa-
cility. A cost will be associated with utilizing the Green-
port STP to provide further treatment of the effluent or by-
product of the scavenger waste alternatives. At this time,
' it is felt that this cost could be neglected since the cost-
effective analysis is basically a comparative analysis. All
' alternatives will require this "user charge", with the excep-
tion of Alternatives SW -2 and SW -10. As previously discussed,
Alternative SW -2 was eliminated due to high costs and the un-
' certainty of fuel costs and availability. Alternative SW -10
was eliminated because of its inability to treat scavenger
' waste.
' Calculation of a cost savings due to economy of scale
from combining waste flows with Shelter Island is difficult
' to perform. The construction cost equations, utilized in the
cost-effective analysis, do not provide sufficient accuracy
in comparing such small changes in flow. Actual savings will
' be further realized when a more accurate cost estimate is per-
formed in the selected plan.
' However, in utilizing the construction cost equation,
Table 5.5 was prepared to compare the cost of treating Southold
flow versus Southold and Shelter Island. As can be seen, an
1
5.10
TABLE 5.4
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVES
G. TOTAL ANNUAL $336,300 $241,900 $231,300 $267,700 $213,200 $219,500 $232,600 $199,100
COST
NOTES: 1. Amortized over 20 years
at 7-1/8i interest (CRF = .095323)
2. Base year 1980, ENR Cost Index = 3,130, January 1980.
ITEM
SW -2
SW -3
SW -4
SW -5
SW -6
SW -7
SW -8
SW -9
A.
Construction Cost
-Pretreatment
$ 86,000
$136,000
$136,000
$136,000
$136,000
$136,000
$136,000
$136,000
-Unit Processes
780,000
402,000
504,000
682,000
518,000
514,000
950,000
730,000
-Sludge Handling
--
586,000
498,000
586,000
498,000
498,000
118,000
118,000
-Site Elect.,
--
162,000
162,000
200,000
162,000
162,000
200,000
162,000
Mobilization,
Pipingetc.
- - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - - -
B.
Sub -Total
$866,000
$1,286,000
$1,300,000
$1,604,000
$1,314,000
$1,310,000
$1,404,000
$1,146,000
C.
Eng., Admin.,
234,000
347,000
351,000
433,000
355,000
354,000
379,000
309,000
Legal, Contin.
(27% of Sub -Total)
- - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
- - - - - -
- - - - - - -
D.
TOTAL CAPITAL 1,100,000
$1,633,000
$1,651,000
$2,037,000
$1,669,000
$1,664,000
$1,783,000
$1,455,000
COST
E.
Amortized
104,800
155,700
157,400
194,200
159,100
158,600
170,000
138,000
Capital Cost
F.
O & M Cost
231,500
86.200
73.900
73.500
54.100
60.900
69.60n
61.00n
G. TOTAL ANNUAL $336,300 $241,900 $231,300 $267,700 $213,200 $219,500 $232,600 $199,100
COST
NOTES: 1. Amortized over 20 years
at 7-1/8i interest (CRF = .095323)
2. Base year 1980, ENR Cost Index = 3,130, January 1980.
TABLE 5.5
GREENPORT - SOUTHOLD 201 STUDY
ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION & ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
COST COMPARISON OF RECOMMENDED
SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT ALTERNATIVE
SOUTHOLD VS. SOUTHOLD & SHELTER ISLAND
FLOW QUANTITIES
Cost Item
Construction Cost
- Pretreatment
- Unit Process
- Sludge Handling
- Sitework, Elect.,
Mobiliz., Piping, etc.
Sub -Total
- Engineering, Admin, Legal
and Conting.
- TOTAL CAPITAL
- Amortized Capital
- O & M Cost
- TOTAL ANNUAL COST
Southold's Share
Shelter Island's Share
Southold Flow
(17,700 apd)
$ 130,000
465,000
440,000
144,000
$ 1,179,000
318,000
$ 1,497,000
142,700
47.900
$ 190,600
$ 190,600
Southold &
Shelter Island Flow
(20,000 apd)
$ 136,000
518,000
498,000
162,000
$ 1,314,000
355,000
$ 1,669,000
159,100
54,100
$ 213,200
$ 188,700*
24,500*
*Division of Cost based strictly on flow proportions.
5.12
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
annual cost savings of $1,900. can be obtained by Southold if
efforts are to be combined. This verifies the recommendation
' that Southold should implement a plan with Shelter Island to
treat their wastes together.
1
5.13
IHOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
I
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
I
11
I
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
6.0 UONULUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Town of Southold and the Inc. Village of Greenport must
' continue to respond to the increasing demands for potable water,
agricultural irrigation and water-based recreational opportunities
within the study area. Numerous structural and non-structural
' alternatives were evaluated which focus on the preservation of
the underlying groundwater aquifer and/or surface waters. By
eliminating and/or reducing groundwater/surface water contamina-
tion, the quality of both groundwater and surface water will be
maintained.
The following section provides recommendations as to the
structural and non-structural alternatives that should be imple-
mented. These recommendations will be further expanded upon in
the final document entitled "Selected Plan". The Selected Plan
will provide procedures and associated costs of implementing non-
structural alternatives and include the preliminary engineering
designs for the recommended wastewater/ scavenger waste structural
alternatives.
6.1 Non -Structural Alternatives
It has been determined that non-structural alternatives, if
implemented, will have a very significant impact on the current
sources of groundwater/surface water pollution. The following
sections highlight the various non-structural alternatives that
were examined.
6.1
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
6.1.1 optimization of the Existing Greenport Sewage
Treatment Facility
' The Facility Plan has evaluated the existing Greenport Sewage
Treatment Plant and evaluated various methods to optimize its
operations and efficiency. Since the recommended treatment al-
ternative for scavenger waste disposal utilizes the Greenport
facility, implementation of the optimization methods is not neces-
sary. Under the recommended scavenger waste treatment alternative,
' the Greenport STP will be upgraded to handle the additional waste
loading from the scavenger waste.
' 6.1.2 Land Use Controls
It is recommended that land use regulations be utilized to
control point and non -point sources of pollution throughout the
study area. The County of Suffolk has already established regu-
lations requiring new developments expected to generate over
30,000 gallons of wastewater per day to provide acceptable treat-
ment prior to discharge. The Town and Village should see that
this regulation is enforced within their jurisdiction. They should
also establish an appropriate regulatory program which can regulate
the location, modification or construction of any facility (in-
dustrial, commercial or residential) within the study area that
may result in an adverse impact on the environment. The munici-
palities must be able to control the development of the study area,
such that no direct, adverse impact is placed on the groundwater
aquifer.
6.2
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
i
6.1.3 Fertilizer Control
With fertilizers estimated to contribute the major portion
' of the nitrogen leaching to the groundwater within the Town of
Southold, it is recommended that efforts be made to minimize
tthe nitrogen input to the groundwater. Quantities of fertilizers
' applied to household lawns are expected to increase nearly four
fold in the next twenty years. The Town should, therefore, man-
' date the use of slow release organic fertilizers through the
implementation of ordinances prohibiting the sale and use of
other fertilizers within the Town.
' Related to lawn fertilization is the problem of grass clip-
ping disposal. Many homeowners presently do not remove the
' clippings when cutting the lawn. It is recommended that the
Town encourage individual composting to provide for volatili-
zation of ammonia (form of nitrogen) from the clippings. Pro-
viding public awareness through informational meetings and
literature should encourage individual implementation of com-
posting techniques.
Agricultural fertilization in Southold has been cited as
' contributing the bulk of nitrogen entering the groundwater
' through leaching. Experimental fertilizer management field
studies, conducted by Cornell Cooperative Extension, have found
that the nitrogen input to the groundwater can be reduced with-
out decreasing the crop yield by varying the timing of applica-
tion. Public information meetings should be arranged and at-
tended by the farming sector and representatives of Cornell
Cooperative Extension, in order to discuss these findings.
i' 6.3
' HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. i H2M CORP.
6.1.4 Water Supply Management Plan
It is imperative that the groundwater/surface water quality
of the study area be maintained and improved where possible. An
integral part of this plan is a comprehensive groundwater/ surface
' water monitoring program. Trends in regional and local ground-
water quality will be determined, based on the monitoring system.
Areas indicating a deterioration in quality will be acted upon
by implementing the necessary management controls.
Observation wells should be located in areas of unsewered,
high density, residential land use, such as within Mattituck,
agricultural areas, and areas where the land use is expected
to change in the future to a more dense residential land use.
Nitrogen should be utilized as the key pollutant parameter,
because of its presence in sources such as domestic sewage and
fertilizers• Results of a monitoring program can be the guide-
lines for delineating areas requiring structural corrective
measures•
Pesticide testing should also be conducted periodically
within the monitoring program to determine if excessive amounts
of toxic chemicals are accumulating within the soil and ground-
water. Early detection of such conditions can minimize the ad-
verse impact of such chemicals through prohibiting the use of
specified pesticides•
In addition to monitoring, other techniques to be incor-
porated are:
a. Increase control over irrigation practices.
6.4
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
U
extending the service life of on-site systems. A program to
identify such products is presently being conducted by Suffolk
County. The Town should adopt and enforce a policy banning
these products or enforce the County ban once it becomes law.
6.1.6 Alternative On -Site Sewage Disposal Methods
After reviewing the various alternative on-site disposal
methods, it seems unlikely to implement any major modifications
to existing septic systems. At this time, implementation of
any viable alternative would not be cost effective. The Town
should, however, continue to consult the Suffolk County De-
partment of Health Services for updated results as to the
treatment improvement experiments of conventional septic sys-
tems.
6.5
b. Increase the quantity of recharge.
Implementation of conservation techniques.
'C.
6.1.5 Septic Tank Management Plan
'
Implementation of a Septic Tank Management Plan (STMP)
will ensure the proper functioning of on-site waste disposal
systems• Provisions should be made for routine pumping (once
'
every three years) and maintenance of on-site systems, in
order to extend the service life of the leaching facility and
'
to ensure its continued efficiency. The Town will maintain
'
and operate a scavenger waste treatment and disposal facility.
As part of the STMP, regulations are recommended to pro-
hibit the use of certain chemicals utilized for cleaning or
extending the service life of on-site systems. A program to
identify such products is presently being conducted by Suffolk
County. The Town should adopt and enforce a policy banning
these products or enforce the County ban once it becomes law.
6.1.6 Alternative On -Site Sewage Disposal Methods
After reviewing the various alternative on-site disposal
methods, it seems unlikely to implement any major modifications
to existing septic systems. At this time, implementation of
any viable alternative would not be cost effective. The Town
should, however, continue to consult the Suffolk County De-
partment of Health Services for updated results as to the
treatment improvement experiments of conventional septic sys-
tems.
6.5
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
Sewage Disposal Plans for new developments (residential,
commercial and industrial) should be examined by the Town for
the suitability of the soil and groundwater elevation for con-
ventional septic systems. The mound system should be employed
in areas of high groundwater to allow for sufficient percolation
prior to wastewater entering the groundwater.
Literature should be provided to the public on the com-
posting toilet and alternative toilet facilities. However, due
to the lack of public acceptance in various areas throughout
the United States, it is unlikely that these systems will have
any major beneficial impact.
6.2 Structural Alternatives
In addition to the non-structural alternatives recommended
in Section 6.1, structural alternatives are required in order
to effectively treat and dispose of scavenger waste generated
within the study area. We have also recommended that those
densely -developed areas in the vicinity of Greenport be incor-
porated by expanding the current sanitary collection system.
The following sections briefly describe the recommended struc-
tural alternatives to be implemented within the study area.
6.2.1 Expansion of Inc. Village of Greenport Collection System
The small communities of Sterling Basin, Pipes Cove, Conk -
ling Point and North Greenport have all shown a need for sewer-
ing, due to high residential development and being located in
environmentally sensitive areas, as previously discussed. Being
[:S0
HOLZMACHER. McLENOON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
i, oinGA nrnximity to the existinq Greenport collection system,
rfip most cost-effective method of treatment is to transport the
sewage to the existing sewage treatment plant. Excess capacity
is available at the plant to handle both the future needs of the
existing collection district, plus the aforementioned expanded
areas. The estimated cost for construction of pump stations,
force mains, laterals and gravity sewer is $3,313,000. Amortized
over 20 years at 7-1/8 percent interest, this results in an annual
capital cost of $315,000. Based on estimated annual operation and
maintenance costs of $15,000., the total annual cost is estimated
at $330,800.
6.2.2 Sewering of the Mattituck Area
At this time, the Mattituck area does not indicate a need
for sewering. However, examination of both future land use and
the configuration of Mattituck Creek indicates the strong possi-
bility of sewering in the future. Residential development along
Mattituck Creek, in conjunction with a lack of tidal flushing
within the surface water body, dictates probable contamination
in the future. As part of our non-structural recommendations,
the groundwater and surface water monitoring program will ob-
serve patterns of pollution within the Mattituck area and deter-
mine if on-site disposal systems are a major source of contami-
nation.
With the high probability of on-site systems adversely af-
fecting the environment, we analyzed various treatment alterna-
' tives for the Matticuck area
A cost-effective analysis selected
6.7
-I HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP.
Alternative C -3a to be the most appropriate process for providing
treatment for this area. The extended aeration, activated sludge
plant would be designed to treat up to 0.50 m.g.d., with a Sound
' or Bay outfall to discharge the treated effluent. The sludge
train would entail gravity thickening, anaerobic digestion and
' dewatering, utilizing sludge drying beds. Ultimate disposal of
the sludge will be handled off-site with the Greenport sludge.
1 Implementation of this alternative is estimated to cost
$1,881,000., excluding the cost of sanitary sewers and laterals.
Based on 7-1/8 percent interest and amortized over 20 years, the
' annual capital cost is $179,300. Utilizing an estimated annual
operation and maintenance cost of $54,000., the total annual cost
1 is estimated at $235,300.
1 6.8
6.2.3 Scavenger Waste Treatment and Disposal
The present scavenger waste disposal method of utilizing
'
Depart-
leaching lagoons has been classified by New York State
ment of Environmental Conservation as being environmentally un-
acceptable. NYSDEC has mandated the Town of Southold to find
'
alternate means of disposal. The Facility Plan has evaluated
various treatment processes, including combined treatment with
'
the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant. As a result of the cost-
effective analysis and screening process, Alternative SW -6 is
recommended as the most applicable treatment process for treat-
'
ing and disposing of scavenger waste. This alternative utilizes
a separate pre-treatment process for scavenger waste prior to
'
1 6.8
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. i H2M CORP.
combining with the Greenport STP wastewater flow. Unit pro-
cesses of screening, degritting and primary settling will pre-
treat the scavenger waste before it flows to a Rotating Biolo-
gical Disc, where the BOD -5 concentration can be reduced to
that of a typical wastewater (250 mg/l BOD -5). The scavenger
waste will then be bled into the main wastewater stream at the
head end of the Greenport plant. The existing STP will be up-
graded with the addition of an effluent polishing process, such
' as a sand filter. Effluent will continue to be discharged
through the existing outfall. The recommended sludge train
will include anaerobic digestion, additional sludge drying beds
(covered) and ultimate disposal, as discussed in the following
subsection (6.2.4).
Since the cost-effective analysis justifies a cost savings
to the Town of Southold, as well as the Town of Shelter Island,
it is recommended that the Towns negotiate an agreement for im-
plementation of the recommended alternative in providing treat-
ment and disposal of scavenger waste.
The estimated capital cost for scavenger waste treatment
and disposal is $1,669,000. This cost amortized over 20 years
at 7-1/8 percent interest, results in annual capital costs of
$159,100. Annual operation and maintenance costs are estimated
at $54,100. The resultant total annual cost is estimated at
$213,200. Based on 87.5 percent Federal and New York State
funding, the costs to Southold and Shelter Island are:
6.9
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. / H2M CORP.
Town
Southold
Shelter Is.
Total Towns
Amortized
Capital Costs*
$17,600.
2,288.
$19,888.
* Local share based on 12.5%
**Local share based on 100$
Operation &
Maintenance Costs**
$47,879.
6,221.
$54,100.
Total
Annual Costs
$65,479.
8,509.
$73,988.
6.2.4 Ultimate Sludge Disposal
Dewatered sludge from the existing sewage treatment plant in
Greenport and any other plant that is to be constructed in the
future (i.e, Mattituck) has been recommended to be ultimately
disposed of at an environmentally secure landfill. Current prac-
tices of landfill disposal utilizing the open pit method will be-
come unacceptable in the near future. We have estimated the in-
cremental costs of utlimate sludge disposal based on utilizing
a portion of a sanitary landfill which will be constructed to
conform with Part 360 requirements (i.e., double liner, leachate
and methane collection).
This alternative ultimate sludge disposal method is sub-
ject to Southold's plans with regard to solid waste management.
If a solid waste disposal plan is selected that also has the
capabilities of providing sludge disposal, a cost-effective
analysis will have to be prepared to compare co -disposal of
solid waste with sludge versus sanitary landfilling of sludge.
The estimated capital cost of this ultimate sludge dis-
posal alternative is $178,000. Amortized over 20 years at 7-1/8
6.10
' HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P . I H2M CORP.
eLIST OF REFERENCES - LITERATURE SEARCH
(1) Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment Systems, EPA
' Technology Transfer Seminar Publication EPA -625/4-77-011.
(2) Eckenfelder & O'Connor, Report on Scavenger Wastes for
the Town of Oyster Bay, "Biological Treatment of Septic
Tank Wastes".
(3) Baffa, John J., Consulting Engineers, Report on Scavenger
Wastes, Town of Brookhaven.
(4) Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, Consulting Engineers,
Engineering Report, Town of Smithtown, "Scavenger Waste",
June 1970.
(5) Eckenfelder & O'Connor, Consultants, "Biological Treat-
ment of Septic Tank Wastes, Town of Oyster Bay", Decem-
ber 1960.
(6) Lockwood, Kessler & Bartlett, Inc., Consulting Engineers,
Engineering Report, "Sanitary Landfill Disposal of Refuse
and Sanitary Disposal of Septic Tank Sludge", Town of East
Hampton, September 1961, May 1962.
(7) Standards for Sewage and Waste Disposal Systems. Design
of Residential Subsurface Sewage Disposal Facilities by
Suffolk County Department of Health Services, Division
of Public Health. The Bureau of Environmental Health
Services, February 1972.
(8) Small, Maxwell M., BNL 50630 Natural Sewage Recycling
Systems, Brookhaven National Laboratory, January 1977.
(9) Kolega, J.J. et al., Anaerobic -Aerobic Treatment of Septage,
Department of Agricultural Engineering at the University of
Connecticut, Storrs, Conn., 1973.
(10) Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C., Consulting Engi-
neers, Engineering Report and Study, Town of Riverhead
and Southampton, "Scavenger Waste in Riverhead and
Southampton", June 1979.
R. 1
FIGURE
s n v v
to•
T
I .
r
Y
rq
�' •W .,� .. -. a b - _ �c.�♦ - c _ .' a. ' S�. Kral
• �a
f
-.:. ::L._�: .. � ..y� ... J- .'r" '�. L!'"�•%J�.� r.: Vii. .b
I
y,
a
Y i4�
py _
C f SVr �A
-
yy
•L"' STUDY
NEW YORKAREA
- 0 O
s uN
NG
LO
NEA
JERSEY SUFFOLK
- I OR LESS D.0 /AC
NASSAU
OCEAN
$o o ArLANr C - 2 OR MORE D.U./AC
\� KEY MAP - COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL OR INSTITUTIONAL
- OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL
- AGRICULTURAL
SOURCE N S R P 8
4000
FUTURE LAND USE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD-INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
'.c
AL `.
■■■■■■■iii■■
'
■ ■■■mar
a■■■
■mar ■■■■■
iI■■
'■�Aa
ii•�
AYE
i
�•�
■■
trt■mlrl��
,�'s _
S Emma■■lE�i
■■am■
as
p=
Im■■Err
���/
It ■m
FIGURE
s n v v
to•
T
I .
r
Y
rq
�' •W .,� .. -. a b - _ �c.�♦ - c _ .' a. ' S�. Kral
• �a
f
-.:. ::L._�: .. � ..y� ... J- .'r" '�. L!'"�•%J�.� r.: Vii. .b
I
y,
a
Y i4�
py _
C f SVr �A
-
yy
•L"' STUDY
NEW YORKAREA
- 0 O
s uN
NG
LO
NEA
JERSEY SUFFOLK
- I OR LESS D.0 /AC
NASSAU
OCEAN
$o o ArLANr C - 2 OR MORE D.U./AC
\� KEY MAP - COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL OR INSTITUTIONAL
- OPEN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL
- AGRICULTURAL
SOURCE N S R P 8
4000
FUTURE LAND USE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD-INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
'.c
AL `.
LIMITS OF STUDY
AREA
II�I'I I
+i!
L 0 , G
CONNECTICUT
STUDY
Fw +`RK
aINO AREA-
15LAND
vEw �' ��N
_ERSE.
SUFFOLK
i
NASsAu'. N
��
OCEp
TIC
KEY MAP
H I
( S L A A' !i
ime
sms
® - I OR LESS D.U./AC
- 2 OR MORE DU/AC
- COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL OR INSTITUTIONAL
- OREN SPACE AND RECREATIONAL
Fri - AGRICULTURAL
SOURCE; N S R P B
.. �• 3
4Z I+
r .r
on
v
,,,. y. Jc�•1 .pro - ,
FIGURE 2.1
PRESENT LAND USE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD-INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
MELVILLE, N.Y.
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. FARMINGOALE N.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS. PLANNERS and ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS RIVERREAO NY
NEWTON N J
A-1
`S\'PN11
5.30,
s� ,
]o ,
UE
S-1240.4 65
?" � 64 c ,gab,.• ( ra t� '.1 ;,�,.
sl MARATOOKA
41 29 2O POND
_ s-20 S-II6 ].e s-1 0
C 416 1 4 s1 /5-22 S 23 5-104
1 2 1.0 04
04
F 115 s-17
IIS
S'1 4
$� 28
S �e
13
GREAT PECON I C BAY
GREAT
PONID
VI
NO T 3 ��:." ..;
x -,'1r5, '*Y*"
�O 4.5 +a,1�51 , r ,�I.
T-2 II � �' 'S 09
r-31 a.3 46 � MARION
.oq _„r4� T -I .�I`� LAKE
Y T=9 Ob
23 P
T-15
]0
GREENPORT \
T_'
11, T-10
13
T-16 ��
GARDINERS BAY
21
j
P/
63
\ ( / T 813
INDICATES NITRATE VALUES IN mg/I
32
T-9—INDICATES SAMPLE NUMBER
SHADED AREAS INDICATE HIGH NITRATE ZONES,
:GREATER THAN 8mg/I "
S- SAMPLES BY SUFFOLK COUNTY HEALTH DEPT.
M 8 T- SAMPLES BY H2M, SAMPLES COLLECTED
JUNE 3 & 4 , 1974
SCREEN DEPTH NOT AVAILABLE FOR ALL WELLS;
VARIES THROUGHOUT TOWNSHIP
rwuHt 2.5
ORIENT
POINT
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD- INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
1974
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 6 MURRELL, P C. / H2M CORP.
GONSUI RN,EN(.INEFRS PLnNNFRSandFNVIRONMFNTM SCIENIIS(5 vn,
\01GNG
N/T
T-15
/(N/T
GREENPORT
T-10
5.2
T-12 J
N/T �0 ',1501
T-�2
T-31 IN
ARION
LAKE
p
GARDINERS BAY
SHADED )AREAS INDICATE HIGH NITRATE ZONES,
GREATER THAN 8mg/I.
S- SAMPLES BY SUFFOLK COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. -- - --
M & T - SAMPLES BY' H2M
'O -SUFFOLK CO. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES' -
OBSERVATION WELLS WITH NITRATES>;Bmg/I
IN 1975 -1977
PRIVATE WELLS WITH NITRATES > 8mg/I
IN 19,77 AND 19,78
;
I
N/T- NOT RETESTED IN 1975-1978
SCREEN DEPTH- NOT AVAILABLE FOR ALL _
- WELLS;VARIES THROUGHOUT TOWNSHIP
a
I
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD- INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
1975 - 1978
HOLZMACHER, MCLENOON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Mw: I+ Ee «v
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS mxI ENVIRONMENTAL SOENTISTS RVEr EAoL
N
B-2
77
I
1
N/T
T-15
/(N/T
GREENPORT
T-10
5.2
T-12 J
N/T �0 ',1501
T-�2
T-31 IN
ARION
LAKE
p
GARDINERS BAY
SHADED )AREAS INDICATE HIGH NITRATE ZONES,
GREATER THAN 8mg/I.
S- SAMPLES BY SUFFOLK COUNTY HEALTH DEPT. -- - --
M & T - SAMPLES BY' H2M
'O -SUFFOLK CO. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES' -
OBSERVATION WELLS WITH NITRATES>;Bmg/I
IN 1975 -1977
PRIVATE WELLS WITH NITRATES > 8mg/I
IN 19,77 AND 19,78
;
I
N/T- NOT RETESTED IN 1975-1978
SCREEN DEPTH- NOT AVAILABLE FOR ALL _
- WELLS;VARIES THROUGHOUT TOWNSHIP
a
I
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD- INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
WASTEWATER FACILITIES STUDY
NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS IN GROUNDWATER
1975 - 1978
HOLZMACHER, MCLENOON & MURRELL, P.C. / H2M CORP. Mw: I+ Ee «v
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, PLANNERS mxI ENVIRONMENTAL SOENTISTS RVEr EAoL
N
B-2