HomeMy WebLinkAboutWastewater Facility Plan - Selected Plan - 1982Inc. Village of Greenport
and
Town of Southold
Suffolk County, New York
Section 201
Wastewater Facility Plan
C- 36 -1120
Selected Plan
Report
MAY 1982
UzktHOLZMACHER,MCLENDONand MURRELL,P.C.
Consulting Engineers. Environmental Scientists and Planners
Melvl1lo.N.Y. Farmingdale. N.V. Riverhead. N.V.
FJ
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. • CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS
I
' Supervisor William R. Pell, III
and Members of the Town Board
' Town of Southold
Town Hall, Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
May 4, 1982
We will submit copies of this report, under separate cover,
to NYSDEC, USEPA, and Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services.
A Public Hearing is required to provide the public an opportunity
to comment on the report. Since 45 days advance notice is required,
we recommend that this meeting be scheduled for late June/early
July. At your convenience, we would be pleased to discuss any
aspects of this report.
GEL:vm
Very truly yours,
HULER„McL
Gary t. LLooeeesch, P.E.
Project Director
Dennis M. Kelleher
Project Manager
Melville. New York • Farmingdale, New York • Riverhead. New York
MURRELL
Mayor George W. Hubbard
'
and Members of the Board of Trustees
Inc. Village of Greenport
Village Hall
'
236 Third Street
Greenport, New York 11944
Gentlemen:
We are pleased to submit herewith
Volume III of three volumes
entitled, "Selected Plan Report."
This report has been prepared
'
in accordance with our engineering
services agreement dated Novem-
ber 14, 1977 and as amended on September
13, 1979.
'
The recommended selected plan
calls for the construction of
a scavenger waste/sludge treatment
and disposal facility. In ad-
dition, the preliminary design and
costs of an effluent reuse
system to supply treated effluent
to the proposed Energy Develop-
included.
ment Corp. incinerator complex are
We will submit copies of this report, under separate cover,
to NYSDEC, USEPA, and Suffolk County Dept. of Health Services.
A Public Hearing is required to provide the public an opportunity
to comment on the report. Since 45 days advance notice is required,
we recommend that this meeting be scheduled for late June/early
July. At your convenience, we would be pleased to discuss any
aspects of this report.
GEL:vm
Very truly yours,
HULER„McL
Gary t. LLooeeesch, P.E.
Project Director
Dennis M. Kelleher
Project Manager
Melville. New York • Farmingdale, New York • Riverhead. New York
MURRELL
Inc. Village of Greenport
and
Town of Southold
Suffolk County, New York
Sect ion 201
Wastewater Facility Plan
C-36-1120
Selected Plan
Report
MAY 1982
HOLZMACHER,McLENDON andMURRELL,P.C.
Consulting Engineers. Environmental Scientists and Planners
UIZ401t Melville, N.V. FarRlingdale.N.V. Ftivelneag.N.Y.
UlAki HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
AND
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE NO.
1.0
SUMMARY
1.1
2.0
INTRODUCTION
2.1
3.0
SELECTED FACILITY PLAN - STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
3.1
3.1 PLANNING PERIOD
3.1
3.2 NEEDS OF STUDY AREA
3.1
3.3 WASTE FLOW AND CHARACTERISTICS
3.4
3.4 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
3.6
3.5 COST ESTIMATES FOR STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS
3.21
4.0
CESSPOOL/SEPTIC TANK MANAGEMENT PLAN (CSTMP)
4.1
4.1 GENERAL
4.1
4.2 DISTRICT MANAGEMENT
4.2
4.2.1 TOTAL MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
4.2
4.2.2 ON-SITE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
4.4
4.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
4.5
4.2.4 PROBLEM CORRECTION
4.5
4.3 FEE STRUCTURE
4.6
4.4 STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
4.7
4.5 MODEL SCAVENGER WASTE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
AND CESSPOOL/SEPTIC TANK MAINTENANCE PERMIT
ORDINANCES
4.8
i
U2AAHOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D.)
PAGE NO.
5.0
STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TREATMENT
FACILITIES
5.1
6.0
NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
6.1
7.0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN
7.1
7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE SCAVENGER
WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
7.1
8.0
ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
8.1
8.1 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
8.1
8.2 MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
8.5
8.3 FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
8.6
8.4 PROJECT COSTS
8.15
8.5 PROJECT SCHEDULE
8.16
9.0
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE 201 FACILITY
PLANNING PROCESS
9'1
ii
HIEN HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
PAGE
NO.
TITLE
NO.
1
SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
3.4
2
FUTURE WASTE LOADINGS (YEAR 2005)
3.5
3
FUTURE SLUDGE QUANTITIES
3.16
4
SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY -
ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
3.22
5
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL -
ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
3.24
6
EFFLUENT FORCE MAIN AND PUMP STATION -
ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
3.25
7
SELECTED PLAN COST SUMMARY
3.26
8
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE FUNDING OF PROJECT
8.9
9
ESTIMATED 0 & M COST FOR THE SCAVENGER
WASTE/SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITY
8.11
10
ANNUAL BUDGET DATA FOR CSTMP
(1983 DOLLARS)
8.12
11
BUDGET AND TAX RATE FOR IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
8.13
12
PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
8.17
iii
V1 "t HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
NO. TITLE NO.
1 PROPOSED SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY -
FLOW SCHEMATIC 3.11
2 HYDRAULIC
PROFILES
3.12
3 PROPOSED
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL METHOD
3.19
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
"A"
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
A-1
APPENDIX
"B"
"B-1"
PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF SCAVENGER
WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
B-1
"B-2"
PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF EFFECT OF
SCAVENGER WASTE ON EXISTING
GREENPORT STP
B-5
"B-3"
PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF SLUDGE
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
B-6
"B-4"
PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF EFFLUENT
FORCE MAIN AND PUMP STATION
B -g
APPENDIX
"C"
PROPOSED FORCE MAIN LAYOUT
C-1
APPENDIX
"D"
SAMPLE ORDINANCE FOR ESTABLISHING
FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE PROPOSED
SCAVENGER WASTE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
D-1
APPENDIX
"E"
MODEL ORDINANCE REQUIRING A CESSPOOL/
SEPTIC TANK PERMIT
E-1
APPENDIX
"F"
JOB DESCRIPTIONS
F-1
iv
U214 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
1.0 SUMMARY
The recommended selected plan is for constuction of a
scavenger waste/sludge treatment and disposal facility to serve
all unsewered areas on the mainland of Southold. The existing
method of disposal of raw scavenger waste at the town landfill
is environmentally unacceptable. Since the proposed facility
will be constructed at the existing Greenport Sewage Treatment
Plant, its operation will be integrated with that of the sewage
treatment plant. Consequently, it is recommended that the
Village of Greenport be responsible for managing and operating
this combined facility.
The Town of Southold will be responsible for forming the
Scavenger Waste Improvement District and managing the Cesspool/
Septic Tank Management Plan. A scavenger waste improvement dis-
trict must be formed in order to qualify for federal and New
York State aid in designing and constructing the proposed fa-
cilities.
The costs of the proposed scavenger waste/sludge treatment
and disposal system in 1983 dollars are estimated below:
' I. Scavenger Waste Treatment
Capital Cost
Construction
' Engineering, Legal, Admin.,
and Contingencies
Interest During Construction
= $837,000.
176,000.
= 100,000.
$1,113,000.
■ IZ1144 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON fl MURRELL, P.C.
1
Revenue to cover this annual cost can be generated in a va-
riety of ways. One method would be to charge for O & M at $12.50/
1000 gallons and tax the residents of the district for the balance
' of the annual costs. The resultant annual tax is estimated at
$7.26/unit, or $0.085/$100. Assessed Valuation (A.V.).
A preliminary design and cost estimate of an effluent reuse
' pump station and force main to transport treated effluent from
the Greenport S.T.P. to the proposed Energy Development Corp.
1 1.2
II. Sludge Treatment and Dis
posal Capital Cost $ 632,000.
Construction = $475,000.
Engineering, Legal, Admin.,
and Contingencies = 100,000.
Interest During Construction = 57,000.
III. Total Capital Costs (I & II) . . . . . .$1,745,000.
Based on current levels of funding and that this project
'
qualifies as innovative and alternative technology, the federal
'
share will be 85 percent and the New York State share 7.5 percent
of the eligible cost. This reduces the local share to 7.5 per-
cent of the eligible cost. Since interest during construction
is not eligible, the local share is estimated at $276,100. Fi-
nancing the local share at 11 percent ($280,000. Bond over 20
years), the annual principal and interest charge is $35,200. The
'
annual operating and maintenance costs plus district administration
II, '
costs are estimated at $114,000. The resultant annual cost is
$149,200.
Revenue to cover this annual cost can be generated in a va-
riety of ways. One method would be to charge for O & M at $12.50/
1000 gallons and tax the residents of the district for the balance
' of the annual costs. The resultant annual tax is estimated at
$7.26/unit, or $0.085/$100. Assessed Valuation (A.V.).
A preliminary design and cost estimate of an effluent reuse
' pump station and force main to transport treated effluent from
the Greenport S.T.P. to the proposed Energy Development Corp.
1 1.2
■ HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
incineration complex has also been included. Such a facility
would decrease the required withdrawals of the incineration com-
plex on the limited and fragile North Fork groundwater aquifer.
' The costs of the effluent reuse system in 1983 dollars are
estimated below:
' Effluent Reuse System
Capital Cost $3,160,000.
' Construction $2,376,000.
Engineering, Legal, Admin.,
and Contingencies 499,000.
' Interest During Construction = 285,000.
'
Based on 75 percent federal assistance and 12.5 percent New
York State (current funding levels), the local share will be 12.5
'
percent of the eligible cost. As indicated previously, interest
during construction is not eligible. The resultant local share
'
of the scavenger waste/sludge treatment and disposal facility
'
and the effluent reuse system is $920,475. Financing the local
share at 11 percent ($925,000. Bond over 20 years), the annual
'
principal and interest charge is $116,300. Annual operating
and maintenance costs plus district administration costs are
'
estimated at $115,500. The resultant annual cost is $231,800.
'
Revenue to cover this annual cost can be generated utilizing
the same method indicated above. Using the same O & M charge of
$12.50/1000 gallons, the resultant annual tax is estimated at
$17.93/unit, or $0.211/$100. A.V.
We believe that the approach utilized in this analysis is
'
conservative. The following factors will all influence the
1 1.3
U2M HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
costs shown in this report. All of the factors will tend to de-
crease the annual cost.
1. Zero percent N.Y. State aid for 0 & M was utilized.
The state will fund anywhere from 0 to 33-1/2 per-
cent of the 0 & M costs.
2. Interest during construction is based on the total
construction costs. The town may only have to fi-
nance a portion of these costs during construction.
3. The design is based on Shelter Island joining with
the Town of Southold. The costs per unit and per
$100. A.V. are based only on Southold's population.
Also discussed herein are various non-structural controls
which, if implemented, will help maintain and improve the quality
of the North Fork water resources. These controls, in addition
to the cesspool/septic tank management plan, include land use
controls, stormwater management, fertilizer controls and other
non -point source controls.
In summary, we recommend that the proposed scavenger waste/
sludge treatment and disposal facility be constructed. Imple-
mentation of the effluent reuse system is recommended if it re-
ceives funding and the town reaches an agreement with the Energy
Development Corp. on the proposed solid waste incineration com-
plex. All of the non-structural controls should be given further
consideration with regard to their implementation.
1.4
H%ri HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.0
2.0 INTRODUCTION
This is the third and final volume concerning Wastewater
Facility Planning in the Inc. Village of Greenport, Town of
Southold Drainage Basin. Prior reports included:
Volume I - Engineeripa and Environmental Data Report
This volume provided a description of the existing situation
and requirements prerequisite to detailed planning for wastewater
treatment facilities. Included were effluent limitations and
discharge requirements, status of the existing treatment plant,
present population totals and projections, zoning, present and
future land use, environmental inventory, along with an overview
of the historical and archeological resources of the drainage
basin.
Volume II -
:ernatives Evaluati
ironmental Assessment
This document focused on the various alternatives that were
considered to solve the existing and future wastewater needs in
relationship to protecting groundwater and surface water quality.
The future situation was reviewed in terms of utilizing individual
on-site systems versus community -wide collection treatment systems,
in order to meet the future wastewater treatment needs and main-
tain and protect the quality of the groundwater aquifers and sur-
face waters. Various alternatives that were examined include:
Optimize Operation of Existing Facilities, No Action, Regional
Treatment, Sub -regional Treatment and Non -Structural Alternatives.
2.1
UIM
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
Within each major alternative, various treatment methodologies
were evaluated. Sludge treatment and ultimate disposal manage-
ment schemes were also presented and evaluated. A cost-effec-
tiveness analysis was presented for all feasible structural al-
ternatives. All alternatives were then assessed based on their
environmental impact and implementation feasibility.
Volume III - Selected Plan Report
This document deals primarily with the development of a
wastewater management plan recommended for the Inc. Village of
Greenport, Town of Southold Drainage Basin. The plan, a sub -
regional approach, consists of two major elements: 1) a sewered
area management plan, and 2) a cesspool/septic tank management
plan for areas of the basin not served by sanitary sewers.
The sewered area management plan will only pertain to the
existing Inc. Village of Greenport sewage collection and treat-
ment system. Expansion of the collection system is not recom-
mended at this time. Based on our analysis, the Greenport fa-
cility did not consistently meet the suspended solids removal
effluent limitation set forth in its SPDES (State Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System) permit. However, due to recent changes
in governmental policies, the treatment requirements for aerated
lagoon treatment systems, such as the Greenport plant, have been
relaxed with regard to suspended solids from 85 percent to 65 per-
cent removal. Therefore, this change in effluent limitations re-
sults in the Greenport facility consistently meeting its SPDES
2.2
' ■ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
requirements. Consequently, the design capacity of the Green-
port sewage treatment facility is sufficient to meet the future
' needs of the service area.
The cesspool/septic tank management plan (CSTMP) will be
1 implemented throughout the mainland of the Town of Southold in
all areas that are served by individual on-site septic systems.
The major objective of the CSTMP is the treatment and disposal
' of septage waste generated from the individual on-site systems.
NYSDEC has deemed the present method of disposal environmentally
unacceptable. The proposed management plan consists of con-
structing a scavenger waste pretreatment system at the existing
Greenport sewage treatment plant site and provide a management
system that will protect the environment through proper mainte-
nance and operation of on-site systems.
After scavenger waste has been partially treated, the ef-
fluent from the system will be added to the influent of the
Greenport sewage treatment facility, in order to achieve secon-
dary treatment effluent quality. It is advantageous to both the
town and the village to construct the scavenger waste facility
at the Greenport sewage treatment plant site. Excess capacity
of the existing sewage treatment plant will be utilized by the
town's pretreated scavenger waste to achieve additional treat-
ment, in turn reducing the overall construction cost to the town.
By allowing Southold to utilize the existing sewage treatment plant,
Greenport can defray portions of their capital and operating costs
by charging the town an appropriate user's fee.
2.3
UZ4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Implementation of the selected plan is recommended through
the formation of a mainland town -wide Scavenger Waste Improvement
District (excluding all sewered areas) and continuation of the
existing Greenport sewage treatment operations as is. A cost-
effective analysis, previously described (see Volume II) and the
assessment of environmental factors, concluded that the above
plan was cost effective, environmentally sound and implementally
feasible.
The preliminary design elements of the sub -regional system,
cost estimates, environmental assessment and implementation
recommendations are described in the following sections of this
report.
2.4
■ Z4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
3.0 SELECTED FACILITY PLAN - STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
The selected sub -regional wastewater management plan in-
' volves the integration of sewage treatment with septic (scaven-
ger) waste treatment. While the Greenport collection and treat-
ment system will continue to operate in its existing mode, a new
septic waste treatment method will be implemented. The Southold
scavenger waste treatment facility will be constructed adjacent
to the existing Greenport sewage treatment plant. This plan was
most cost effective, environmentally acceptable and implementable.
Considered in the following sections are the structural ele-
ments of the selected plan. These are divided into wastewater
treatment, scavenger waste treatment, effluent disposal, sludge
treatment and disposal and non-structural solutions. The de-
scription, preliminary design and cost estimate of each selected
alternative are given.
3.1 PLANNING PERIOD
The planning period is a twenty year span, commencing in
1985 and ending in the year 2005.
3.2 NEEDS OF STUDY AREA
Long Island has been classified by USEPA as being one of
seven regions in the nation having a sole (single) source of
potable water. The Town of Southold and Inc. Village of Green-
port are in an even more critical position, since they obtain
their potable water from a limited, single aquifer. If this
groundwater supply becomes contaminated by point source and/or
3.1
H2M HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
non -point source pollution, other feasible means of obtaining
water are not readily available and are prohibitive based on
costs. Due to the delicate and finite nature of the fresh
groundwater supply, significant efforts are required to pre-
serve the quality and quantity of the fresh water aquifer.
Signs of groundwater contamination have already been de-
tected throughout the town and village. Major contamination
parameters are nitrates, chlorides and organic chemicals in-
cluding pesticides.
This 201 Wastewater Facility Plan Study is aimed at try-
ing to reduce the input of contaminants to the water resources
of the study area from wastewater sources. Approximately 80
percent of the study area's present population utilizes indi-
vidual on-site septic systems for sanitary waste disposal.
These individual systems, typically cesspools and septic tanks,
provide marginal treatment of wastewater in terms of nitrogen
removal. With nitrate contamination a major concern in terms
of groundwater quality within the study area, the need for al-
ternative wastewater treatment was evaluated in the Alternatives
document. Due to the fact that on-site subsurface disposal
systems contribute only a minor percentage of the total nitro-
gen loading, and that the associated costs of alternative waste-
water treatment are excessive, the expansion of the Greenport
sewage collection system has been eliminated from further con-
sideration.
3.2
U2/4 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.0
With the majority of the study area continuing to utilize
on-site disposal systems, it is anticipated that scavenger
' waste generation will continue. The present method of scavenger
' waste disposal utilizing open leaching basins has been classified
as unacceptable by New York State Department of Environmental
' Conservation (NYSDEC), due to the many environmental problems
associated with this practice. The most critical environmental
problem is groundwater contamination. As part of a compliance
' schedule incorporated within the State Pollution Discharge Elimi-
nation System (SPDES) permit, the Town of Southold must provide
an alternative scavenger waste treatment and disposal method
that will be acceptable to NYSDEC. The Alternatives document
' has evaluated several alternatives and has selected a treatment
method in. which the scavenger waste will be partially treated
and then bled into the existing Greenport sewage treatment plant
' for further treatment. The subsequent sections of this report
will provide further details and the basis of design of the se-
lected plan.
In addition to the structural alternative recommended above,
several non-structural alternatives can be implemented within the
' study area which can help protect and preserve the groundwater
quality. These include land use controls, fertilizer controls,
' and a cesspool and septic tank management plan. Each of these
management plans will also be discussed in a later section of
this report.
I
1 3.3
iLl�\ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
3.3 WASTE FLOW AND CHARACTERISTICS
As mentioned previously, the existing Greenport sewer sys-
tem will not be expanded within the planning period and the re-
maining portions of the study area will continue to utilize in-
dividual on-site septic systems. In order to properly design
treatment systems for wastewater, scavenger waste and sludge;
quantities and characteristics of each waste were calculated
within the Alternatives Report. Population projections were
also presented to determine these waste volumes.
Table 1 indicates the year 1985 and year 2005 population
estimates that will be served by the Greenport collection system,
and corresponding projected populations of the Town of Southold
that will utilize individual on-site septic systems.
TABLE 1
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
1985 POPULATION
Greenport Collection System 4,023
Remaining Town of Southold 21,172
TOTAL 25,195
2005 POPULATION
4,400
34,658
39,058
Influent sewage waste loadings from the collection system,
as well as scavenger waste loadings, are summarized in Table 2.
In addition, the estimated Shelter Island scavenger waste flow
and loadings are also summarized so that if an agreement can be
3.4
' ■ HOLZMACHER, MCLENOON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 2
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
FUTURE WASTE LOADINGS
(YEAR 2005)
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
CONCEN-
596
TRATION
LOADING
(m 1)
Lbs Da
FLOW
682
4,770
(GPD)
4,150
1. Raw Wastewater
4,770
123
Greenport Collection
'
System
- Projected (for
'
Year 2005)
286,000
- Design
500,000
2. Scavenger Waste
Town of Southold
19,700
3. Scavenger Waste
Town of Shelter
Island
3,100
'
SUSPENDED
SOLIDS
CONCEN-
596
TRATION
LOADING
(m 1)
Lbs Da
BOD -5
CONCEN-
TRATION
(mg/1)
LOADING
Lbs/Day
250
596
250
596
250
1,043
250
1,043
4,150
682
4,770
784
4,150
107
4,770
123
3.5
■ ILJ�` HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
rl far i 1 i f v wouI d he designed to
rcacucu, uuc vac... ..i...�... ...... ......__ __.. _._
Mand thi add it inn n i
„a„��e a � al 1_ad_ng.
' The Town of Shelter Island is in a similar situation as
Southold, in that its existing scavenger waste disposal method
' is also environmentally unacceptable. Due to the fact that
Shelter Island has indicated an interest in transporting their
scavenger waste "off the Island", the Alternatives document per-
formed an evaluation to determine if it would be advantageous
for Southold to accept and treat Shelter Island's waste. Ac-
cepting the waste would only slightly increase the capital cost
of the project, thereby enabling Southold to set an equitable tip-
ping fee for Shelter Island. This fee will be sufficient to cover
the additional capital costs, increased operation and mainte-
nance costs and provide minimal surplus monies to defray the
overall costs of this project to Greenport and Southold.
3.4 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
1 A. Greenport Sewage Treatment Facility
' The Alternatives document had stated that the Greenport
Sewage Treatment Plant was not consistently meeting its efflu-
ent limitations, as stated in the SPDES permit. Intermittently,
problems were encountered in trying to meet the 85 percent sus-
pended solids removal requirement. As a result, the Alternatives
Report suggested that an effluent sand filter be constructed to
ensure that sufficient suspended solids removal be achieved.
Recently, however, pursuant to Environmental Conservation
Law, Article 17, Title 8 (McKinney's) and 6NYCRR, Part 757, NYDEC
'1
3.6
' ■ lAt HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
has made a determination to modify the SPDES permits for aerated
lagoon treatment systems. The Inc. village of Greenport re-
quested a modification of their permit based on input from NYSDEC
and H2M's recommendation and has received a change in the sus-
pended solids effluent limitation.
The new permit indicates the deletion of the 85 percent
removal requirement for suspended solids to reflect the in-
crease in the suspended solids effluent limitation, which was
granted on October 20, 1981.
are as follows:
The revised effluent limitations
a. Suspended Solids (30 day mean) 70 mg/l
292 lbs/day
b. Suspended Solids (7 day mean) 105 mg/l
438 lbs/day
All other parameters remained the same.
This reduction in treatment requirements for the Greenport
' sewage treatment plant eliminates the need to construct an ef-
fluent sand filter, as was previously suggested. Therefore,
' the existing treatment system provides sufficient treatment to
meet the existing and future needs of the Greenport collection
system. The design flow capacity of the facility is 0.5 MGD,
with the year 2005 flow estimated at 0.286 MGD.
B. Scavenger Waste Treatment Facility
' The selected scavenger waste treatment alternative utilizes
preliminary treatment, primary treatment and the rotating bio-
' logical disc (RBD) process to separately treat septic (scavenger)
' waste, in order to reduce the BOD strength to that comparable
i1
3.7
Hifi HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.0
to a typical raw wastewater. This partially treated flow is
then combined with the raw wastewater collected from the Green-
port sewer system and treated by the existing aerated lagoon
facility. The combined treatment of the wastes provide bene-
fits to both parties. Greenport has an existing sewage treatment
plant having capacity to treat pretreated scavenger waste, and
Southold benefits from the fact that it is cost effective to
utilize Greenport's available capacity rather than construct a
separate facility to treat scavenger waste to secondary treat-
ment levels.
As previously mentioned, the scavenger waste facility will
be designed to treat 23,000 GPD. This will enable the plant to
' receive waste from both Southold and Shelter Island.
' The head end facility of the proposed scavenger waste treat-
ment plant will be designed to facilitate the discharge of waste
by the haulers. Dual influent portals will be constructed to
permit two haulers to discharge simultaneously. The waste will
' then flow through a stationary bar screen and an aerated grit
chamber to remove grit and large objects. These processes will
prevent excessive wear and damage to downstream equipment. The
' effluent from the grit chamber will then flow to the equalization
tank.
' The equalization tank will:
' 1. Provide sufficient aeration to ensure adequate mixing
of the waste.
II
1
3.8
HIM HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON & MURRELL, P.0
2. Provide sufficient aeration to improve settling charac-
teristics and increase biological activity.
3. Provide a sufficient waste stream, in order to continu-
ously operate the treatment facility.
The tank will be sized to provide sufficient storage capa-
city in order to constantly feed the plant during weekends. From
the equalization tank, two submersible pumps will transport the
scavenger waste to a flash mix tank where chemical additioning
will be employed. This process will improve settling charac-
teristics. Research has shown that ferric chloride in dosages
of 400 to 600 mg/l has achieved consistent settling results in
pilot study tests. The flow will continue to a flocculation
tank, and then to a primary settling tank for solids separation.
It is anticipated that suspended solids and BOD -5 removals of 70
and 50 percent respectively, can be obtained with primary settling.
Additional BOD -5 removal will be achieved through the use of
Rotating Biological Disc (RBD) units. The effluent from the pri-
mary settling tank will flow to the RBD system. Effluent from
the RBD tanks will flow to a secondary clarifier for additional
suspended solids removal. The media of the RBD units will be
designed to achieve a BOD -5 effluent quality of 300 mg/1, after
secondary clarification. The clarification process will reduce
the suspended solids concentration by 80 percent to 250 mg/1.
Following secondary clarification, the treated effluent will
be pumped to the Imhoff tank influent channel where the scavenger
waste effluent will mix with the raw wastewater from the Greenport
3.9
' ■ IIJ�` HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.G.
collection system. The combined flows will be treated by the
' existing Greenport sewage treatment plant. The treated effluent
will be required to meet the effluent limitations set by the
' SPDES permit.
A superstructure (Mechanical Building) will be required to
house the supporting mechanical equipment for the proposed treat-
ment system, including blowers and electrical controls. A second
superstructure will be constructed to house the grit removal and
' lime feed equipment.
The proposed flow schematic and hydraulic profile are shown
' on Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Preliminary site plan and de-
sign data for these facilities are provided in Appendix A and B.
The resultant effluent quality of the scavenger waste treat-
ment system is estimated to be 250 mg/l of suspended solids and
300 mg/l of BOD -5. The effect of these loadings on the Greenport
' plant from scavenger waste should be minimal, since they are simi-
lar to medium to high strength sanitary wastewater.
■ C. Effluent Disposal
The recommended method of effluent disposal is to continue
with the current disposal procedures. The Inc. Village of Green-
port sewage treatment plant currently utilizes a Long Island Sound
outfall to dispose of the treated wastewater. Due to the rela-
tively minute volume of discharge in comparison to the volume of
' the receiving waters, any constituents remaining in the waste
stream after treatment become highly diluted.
1
'1
3.10
I
1
1
1
PROPOSED
SCAVENGER WASTE
TREATMENT SYSTEM
Bar
Screen
Receiving
Chamber
(Two Porta/s)
Scavenger Imhoff
Waste Tank
Effluent _ I I
Grit to
Landfill
Air
Aerated
Grit Chamber
FIGURE I
Ferric Chloride
Storage Tank pH Adjustment
Odor
ontro l Primary
Secondary
TAdditionlng
ical
Settling
9 Settling Intermediate
rust rank IntediaJe
Pumps
Flash Flocculation Ro tot/ng
Air A`f ix Tonk Tank I Biolog/cal Disc
(80D Removal)
I
Equalization
Tank
Air
Headers
Blowers
Aerated
L ogoons
Raw Wastewater
From Centro/
Pump Station I
Sludge Removal
yI
1
Sludge Removal
(See Flow Schematic
Figure 3 )
EX/ST/NG
GREENPORT SEWAGE
TREATMENT SYSTEM
Fina/
Clarifier
I
Sludge Removal
(See Flow Schematic
Figure 3 )
Metering
Pit
Chlorine
Contact
Tank
Effluent
Wet
We //
I
I
Sludge Removal
(See Flow Schemot/c
Figure 3 )
Outfall Force Main
PROPOSED SCAVENGER WASTE
TREATMENT FACILITY
FLOW SCHEMATIC
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD - INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
SECTION 201
WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN STUDY
C-36-1120
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
To Sound
H(� HOLZMACHER, MoLENOON S. MURRELL, P.C. FARMING ALE
L 4 CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVERHEAD NE,YNN
3.11
Pauke 2
3.11
Imhoff Tank
Influent Channel
W.L. /90
We/rE/ev.
_
20
/
Eley. 18.0 --Cha
Outfall Force
—
nel
Main to
L.
W.L./3.88
L.I. Sound
W.L./5.0
W.L. 4.75
15
=
=
/2.05
Wet
_
Aerated
Distribution
Fina/
We//
Chamber
Lagoons
Clarifier
Inv/296
10
Force Mains
Metering lnv.
from Central
Pit //.86
Effluent
Pump Station
Chlorine
Pumps
5
Contact
Toanle
n*
0
--
Imhoff Tank S
Sludge Digester
EXISTING
GREENPORT SEWAGE
TREATMENT PLANT
25
- - -
Rood Surface
To Imhoff Tonle
E/ev20.0
o za Had_ WL /70 WL. 16.5 Influent Channel
E '
20
Tank Box
—
Inv/6.0
—
_W.L./60
WL./ W.L. /4.5
= 4.5
15
_W.L./5.0
— —
Influent
--
Primary
Ports Bar Screen
Flash
Settling
Flocculation Tank ..T
10
Tank
Tank RotatingSecondary
Overf/ow
Bio Dis
Settling
Tank
Return
Units
Scavenger Waste
5
Effluent
Aerated
To Digester
Wet Well
Grit Chamber
1<
—
0
To Digester
PROPOSED
SCAVENGER WASTE
TREATMENT FACILITY
HYDRAULIC PROFILES
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
SECTION 201
WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN STUDY
c-�-Ilza
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
Jiff ��♦ HOLZMACHER McLENOON 6 MURRELL, P.C.
FARMING N.Y.
DALE
■ ',(J \ CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS
RVERIHEAp
3.11
II
UZ4 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
' Under the selected plan, scavenger waste effluent will be
combined with raw wastewater at the Greenport sewage treatment
' plant. Therefore, effluent of wastewater and scavenger waste
' will both require disposal. Due to the degree of treatment
being provided, the effluent quality of the combined waste
' stream will conform to the effluent limitations indicated in
the existing Greenport S.T.P. SPDES permit. Since the pro-
jected total volume of effluent to be discharged is below the
' permit flow rate, no change to the permit is required.
Long Island Sound will remain relatively unimpacted, since
' it has a good flow exchange with the Atlantic Ocean. As a
standard safety procedure, the harvesting of shellfish will con-
tinue to be prohibited within close proximity to the outfall
' site. This safety zone is required in case of malfunctioning
of the chlorination equipment at the sewage treatment/scavenger
waste treatment facility.
Concurrent with the utilization of the existing outfall, it
is proposed that wastewater reuse be employed to supply process
water to the proposed Town of Southold incineration facility,
proposed by Energy Develbpment Corp. (EDC). The town is cur-
rently evaluated EDC's proposal to construct a solid waste in-
cinerator at the existing Cutchogue landfill site. Preliminary
communications with the developers of the incineration process
have indicated that secondary treated effluent can be utilized
by their process. By utilizing wastewater, on-site pumping from
3.13
HIM HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
the groundwater aquifer will not be required at the Cutchogue
landfill site. Consequently, re -use of treated wastewater will
help conserve the limited water resources available to the Town
of Southold/Village of Greenport.
Information supplied by Energy Development Corporation in-
dicates that between 45.6 and 71 million gallons of water per
year will be required by the incinerator complex from the year
1985 to 2005. The quantity of process water will progressively
increase as the volume of solid waste being incinerated increases.
In order to transport this volume of effluent from the Greenport
sewage treatment facility to the Cutchogue site, an effluent
pump station and force main is required. Our preliminary de-
sign and force main layout indicates an 8 -inch diameter, 9 mile
force main is required. The pump station will be equipped with
two sets of two pumps. Each pump will be sized at 400 GPM at a
head of approximately 100 feet. By installing them in tandem
(series), it is anticipated that the same flow rate can be ob-
' tained at approximately twice the head given. A proposed layout
of the force main is shown in Appendix C. Design calculations
can be found in Appendix A.
' Under this option, effluent would be pumped to the in-
cineration facility as needed, with the remaining flow being
' discharged through the existing outfall.
D. Sludge Treatment and Disposal
' Sludge volumes from the Imhoff tank, secondary settling
' tank and scavenger waste treatment system will equal more than
1 3.14
1HIA4 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
the design capacity of the existing sludge treatment and dis-
posal processes. Table 3 summarizes the volumes of sludge anti-
cipated to be generated from the various waste streams. The
solids being removed from the total waste stream are in excess
of the design capacity of the Imhoff tank (sludge storage capa-
bility) and the sludge drying beds.
In performing a solids balance for the various unit
processes at the sewage treatment plant, we have estimated
that treatment of the combined scavenger waste effluent and
raw influent wastewater will result in a solids loading that
is within the design capacity of the Imhoff tank. However, if
the scavenger waste primary and secondary sludges were added
to the Imhoff tank for digestion, insufficient solids retention
time would result. Therefore, we have recommended that a sepa-
rate digestion process be utilized to stabilize the scavenger
waste sludge.
The proposed digestion process will consist of a single
stage, high rate anaerobic digester. The digester will be sized
to accept 600 cubic feet of sludge per day, which is equal to
the maximum daily sludge volume expected from the scavenger
waste primary and secondary settling tanks. The digester
system will be equipped with external mixing and heating systems.
Provisions will be made to the fuel feed equipment to utilize
methane gas for heating. Excess methane gas will be burned on
site. A floating cover will be utilized and equipped with ap-
propriate safety equipment, including flame check and arrester,
3.15
' ■ IL7� HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 3
SELECTED PLAN
REPORT
'
FUTURE SLUDGE QUANTITIES
INFLUENT
SLUDGE
'
FLOW
CONCEN.
QUANTITIES
(GPD)
(mg/1)
(Lbs/Day)*
1. Greenport Sewage
Treatment Plant
(actual) 286,000
250
525
'
2. Southold Scaven-
gen Waste 19,700
4,150
677
'
3. Shelter Island
Scavenger Waste 3,100
4,150
107
'
TOTAL of 1, 2 & 3
1,309
Greenport S.T.P.
'
Design 500,000
250
917
*Assumes 30 mg/1 suspended solids
remians in effluent
of treat-
'
ment process (in dry solids)
'
3.16
UZ4 HOLZMACHER. MCLENDON & MURRELL. P.C.
and automatic gas relief equipment. Supernatant from the di-
gester will be returned to the head end of the scavenger waste
treatment plant.
Sludge dewatering will be accomplished through the con-
tinued use of sludge drying beds. The existing drying bed
capacity is insufficient to handle the entire quantity of
sludge expected from the combined facilities. We have esti-
mated that an additional 2200 square feet of covered and 5800
square feet of uncovered beds are required to effectively de -
water the sludge volumes anticipated over the 20 year design
life. Conventional sand drying beds will be utilized which will
include an underdrain piping system to assist in the dewatering
process. Construction is to be consistent with the existing
drying beds, by providing 12 inches of 1/2 to 3/4 -inch gravel,
plus 4 inches of 1/8 to 1/4 -inch pea gravel, with a final layer
of 8 -inches of coarse sand.
After drying, the sludge is currently stored or landfilled
on site. This current method of ultimate sludge disposal utilized
by the Inc. Village of Greenport can not be continued. Sludge
disposal at the existing Town of Southold sanitary landfill at
Cutchogue is recommended. The Alternatives document stated that
the landfill would require a liner. However, NYSDEC is per-
mitting sludge disposal at unlined sanitary landfills. Since
disposal of treated/digested sludge to an unlined landfill is
cost effective and environmentally acceptable, dried sludge will
3.17
' F12M HOLZMACHER, MCLENOON & MURRELL, P.C.
be transported from the wastewater treatment site at Greenport
to the Cutchogue landfill site.
' Additional equipment required for implementation of this
t method of sludge treatment and disposal includes a front end
loader to help scrape the dried sludge from the beds, and a
' five cubic yard dump truck to transport the sludge to the land-
fill.
' The entire sludge treatment and disposal flow schematic
is shown on Figure 3. Preliminary design calculations can be
found in Appendix B.
' E. Miscellaneous Design and Construction Characteristics
All construction to be implemented as described in the se-
lected plan will be in accordance with the provisions of NYSDEC
"Standards for Waste Treatment Works - Municipal Sewerage Facili-
ties", 1970, and the latest addenda. In addition, it will comply
' with USEPA Design Criteria for Mechanical, Electrical and Fluid
System Component Reliability", EPA 430-99-74-001.
' Site work under this project will entail clearing of trees
and shrubs in the immediate area of the proposed scavenger waste
1 system layout. Relocation of fencing will be required to enclose
' the additions to the combined treatment systems. Additional in-
ternal road work will be required to permit easy entrance and
exit of the scavenger waste haulers.
Construction of superstructures will include the Scavenger
1 Waste Pretreatment Building, Scavenger Waste Mechanical Building
' and the Effluent Pump Station. The Mechanical Building will
1 3.18
w
r
k.r - Proposed
Sludge Uncovered
Pump High Rafe Sludge
Anaerobic Drying Beds
Digester
Existing
Uncovered
GREENPORT Imhoff Sludge
SEWAGE Tonk Drying Beds
1"REATMENT
SYSTEM Secondary Sludge
--� --
from
Final Clarifier
Existing
10 Covered
Digested Sludge Sludge
Drying Beds
PROPOSED SLUDGE TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL METHOD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
SECTION 201
WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN STUDY
C-36-1120
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
NOL2MACIiER McLENDON 6 MUIaRELL, P.C. FARMLE,
IALE
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVERHEAD NY.
Dried Sludge
Trucked to
Sanitary Landfill
of Cutchogue
Primary
Supernatant to Head End
Proposed
SCAVENGER
s
Secondary
of Greenport Plant
,
Covered
w'ASTE
ettling
Sludge
Tanks
F1
Drying Beds
SRSTEMENT
---�
k.r - Proposed
Sludge Uncovered
Pump High Rafe Sludge
Anaerobic Drying Beds
Digester
Existing
Uncovered
GREENPORT Imhoff Sludge
SEWAGE Tonk Drying Beds
1"REATMENT
SYSTEM Secondary Sludge
--� --
from
Final Clarifier
Existing
10 Covered
Digested Sludge Sludge
Drying Beds
PROPOSED SLUDGE TREATMENT
AND DISPOSAL METHOD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
SECTION 201
WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN STUDY
C-36-1120
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
NOL2MACIiER McLENDON 6 MUIaRELL, P.C. FARMLE,
IALE
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVERHEAD NY.
Dried Sludge
Trucked to
Sanitary Landfill
of Cutchogue
U2M HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
house aeration equipment, chemical feed pumps, electrical control
room and an equipment storage room. The Pretreatment Building
will house the grit removal and lime storage/feed equipment.
All structures will have reinforced concrete foundations.
Above grade construction will be painted concrete block, floor
slabs will be painted concrete and interior walls will be epoxy
coated. Electrical fixtures will be fluorescent strip -lights
and all electrical work will conform to the National Electric
Code.
Mechanical ventilation will be provided in each of the three
' superstructures. An odor control system will service the Scaven-
ger Waste Pretreatment Building, as well as the scavenger waste
equalization tank.
tAll gratings, railings and slide gates will be of aluminum
construction, primed with a chromate material where in contact
with concrete. All other exposed miscellaneous metals shall re-
ceive three (3) coats of acceptable enamel paint.
All concrete tank structures shall be painted to blend with
the existing background. Tank interiors shall be coated for cor-
rosion protection.
The entire area within the site that is disturbed due to
construction shall be finished, seeded and otherwise landscaped
to present a pleasing appearance.
3.20
FILM HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
3.5 COST ESTIMATES FOR STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Cost estimates have been prepared for the various elements
of the selected plan, including scavenger waste treatment, ad-
ditional sludge treatment and disposal, and effluent reuse.
Tables 4, 5 and 6 provide the cost opinions for construction,
engineering, legal, administration, interest costs during con-
struction, and contingencies associated with the implementation
of each of these elements of the selected plan. The construction
costs are presented in 1982 dollars and then projected to the
anticipated time of construction. This is based on an projected
annual 8 percent inflation rate for 1982-83.
The construction cost for scavenger waste treatment and ad-
ditional sludge treatment and disposal is estimated at $1,312,000.
in 1983 dollars. Engineering (including plans and specifications,
nominal contractor observation services, survey and topographic
services), administration and legal fees were estimated at 21
percent, resulting in a cost of $276,000. Adding interest during
construction, estimated at 12 percent ($157,000), the total capi-
tal cost for scavenger waste and sludge treatment and disposal is
estimated at $1,745,000.
The construction cost for the effluent force main and pump
station is estimated at $2,376,000. in 1983 dollars. Engineering
(including plans and specifications, nominal contractor obser-
vation services, survey and topographic services), administration
and legal fees were estimated at 21 percent, resulting in a cost
of $499,000. Adding interest during construction, estimated at
3.21
HIJN HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 4
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
1. Construction Cost
A.
Pretreatment
Receiving Station, Bar Screen,
Aerated Grit Chamber, Super-
structure, Odor Control System
$120,000.
B.
Equalization Tank & Associated
Equipment
105,000.
C.
Chemical Additioning
Flash Mix Tank, Chemical Feed
Equipment, Chemical Storage Tank
and Vault, Flocculation Tank
45,000.
D.
Primary/Secondary Settling Tanks
75,000.
E.
Rotating Biological Discs
200,000.
F.
Mechanical Building
75,000.
G.
Plant Piping
20,000.
H.
Site Work
30,000.
I.
Excavation
25,000.
J.
Electrical & Instrumentation
50,000.
K.
Mobilization & Miscellaneous
30,000.
Sub -Total (Construction - 1982 $)
$775,000.
Allowance for Inflation to 1983
(88 per year)
62,000.
Sub -Total (Construction - 1983 $)
$837,000.
3.22
U2N HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 4 (CONT'D.)
2. Engineering, Legal, Administration
and Contingencies
Engineering, Legal, Administration
and Contingencies (218)
Interest During Construction
(128 of Total Construction Cost)
ESTIMATE BASED ON 1983 DOLLARS
3.23
$176,000.
100,000.
$1,113,000.
■ Z4 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
1. Construction Cost
A. Anaerobic Digester with
Associated Equipment
$250,000.
B. Additional Sludge Drying Beds
(Covered and Uncovered)
70,000.
C. Plant Piping
10,000.
D. Site Work
15,000.
E. Electrical & Instrumentation
10,000.
F. Mobilization & Miscellaneous
15,000.
G. Sludge Transport Vehicle
50,000.
B. Front -End Loader (Scraper)
20,000.
Sub -Total (Construction - 1982 $)
$440,000.
Allowance for Inflation (88 per year)
35,000.
Sub -Total (Construction - 1983 $)
$475,000.
2. Engineering, Legal, Administration
and Contingencies
Engineering, Legal, Administration
and Contingencies (218)
$100,000.
Interest During Construction (128 of
Total Construction Cost)
57,000.
ESTIMATE BASED ON 1983 DOLLARS
$632,000.
3.24
UIM HOLZMACRER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 6
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
EFFLUENT FORCE MAIN AND PUMP STATION
ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
1. Construction Cost
A. Installation of Force Main
(9 Miles)
$1,900,000.
B. Pump Station
_ 300,000.
Sub -Total (Construction - 1982 $)
$2,200,000.
Allowance for Inflation to 1983
(88 per year)
176,000.
Sub -Total (Construction - 1983 $)
$2,376,000.
2. Engineering, Legal, Administration
and Contingencies
Engineering, Legal, Administration
and Contingencies (218)
$ 499,000.
Interest During Construction (12% of
Total Construction Cost)
285,000.
ESTIMATE BASED ON 1983 DOLLARS
$3,160,000.
3.25
' ■ I HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
1
' 12 percent ($285,000.), the total capital cost for scavenger
' waste and sludge treatment and disposal is estimated at $3,160,000.
A summary of the total project costs is presented on Table 7.
TABLE 7
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
' SELECTED PLAN COST SUMMARY
1. Construction Cost (1983 $)
A. Scavenger Waste $ 837,000.
B. Sludge 475,000.
C. Force Main & Pump Station 2,376,000.
Sub -Total
2. Engineering, Legal, Administration
' & Contingencies (218 of Construction)
3. Interest During Construction
' (12% of Total Construction Cost)
TOTAL PLAN COST. . . . . . . . .
3.26
$3,688,000.
775,000.
442,000.
$4,905,000.
HOLZMACHER. McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4.0 CESSPOOL/SEPTIC TANK MANAGEMENT PLAN (CSTMP)
4.1 GENERAL
With the exception of those areas served by the Inc. Village
of Greenport sanitary collection system, the remainder of the
Town of Southold is served by individual on-site septic systems.
Our study has shown that there are many on-site system failures
that need to be periodically pumped out. In addition, there are
many systems that are pumped out routinely in order to maintain
the septic system. The reasons for on-site system failures vary
and include poor soils, poor system design, improper installation,
aged systems, etc. It is recommended that the Town of Southold
propose and adopt a cesspool/septic tank management program that
will:
1. Provide for the protection of the environment by proper
installation and management of septic and cesspool systems.
2. Provide 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. Extend the life of the septic leaching system by proper
management practices which in many instances may reduce the need
for extensive sewering and its associated costs, particularly in
sparsely populated areas.
4. Insure proper disposal of septic and cesspool wastes in
order to safeguard the groundwater and surface waters from con-
tamination, and prevent public health and nuisance problems as-
sociated with improper septage disposal.
4.1
1 )��
HLJ�\ HOIZMAGHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
5. Provide for an accurate record system which in turn
can help designate problem areas.
' A CSTMP is proposed for the entire mainland of the Town
of Southold, with the exception of those areas already con-
nected to the Greenport sanitary collection system. It is pro-
posed that the Town of Southold form a scavenger waste improve-
ment district which will encompass the aforementioned areas.
' District formation is a necessity in order to obtain federal
and N.Y. State aid. The following is an outline of the essen-
tial elements of the CSTMP:
1. Total Management Responsibilities
' 2. On -Site System Maintenance
3. Environmental Monitoring
4. Problem Correction
' The following sections will expand on these elements.
4.2 DISTRICT MANAGEMENT
' 4.2.1 Total Management Responsibilities
' The Scavenger Waste Improvement District should have the
authority to:
' - Tax, collect service charges, or in some other way,
raise revenues to finance district operations.
' - Authorize construction of the scavenger waste treat-
ment facility.
- Negotiate a contract with the Inc. Village of Green-
port for the operation of the scavenger waste treat-
ment facility.
1
4.2
' ■ HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
- Review, negotiate and approve annual budgets submitted
by the Inc. Village of Greenport for the operation of
' the scavenger waste treatment facility.
- Establish a record keeping system that will register
' each on-site system when it requires pumping, regard-
less of whether the system has failed or needs to be
cleaned (maintenance).
- Obtain easements, as may be required, over the primary
treatment and effluent disposal sections of an on-site
system.
- 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.
- Institute abatement proceedings.
- Review the need for sewers, when and if needed.
- Adopt and enforce appropriate ordinances governing
sewage disposal practices.
- 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.
- Require initial and renewal licensing of septic and
cesspool systems and levy a fee for same, as may be
established by the Town Board.
4.3
1111M HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
Hire consultants and contract for services when required.
- Require haulers to inform scavenger waste facility oper-
ators of the following prior to dumping waste:
'
(a) Verification as to the generator of the wastes
should be required via a signed form from resi-
'
dence, commercial establishment, etc. Form
should give name, address, cause for pumping
and approximate volume.
'
(b) Classify type of waste on truck, i.e., resi-
dential, commercial, industrial, etc.
(c) Give approximate volume from each source ob-
tained in (a) above, if more than one source
is on truck.
4.2.2 On -Site System Maintenance
The CSTMP must be able to ensure that during the operating
'
life of the on-site systems, all systems within the scavenger
'
waste improvement district are properly maintained and operated
at their optimal level. This will require the town to have the
'
authority to:
1. Issue maintenance permits for individual sites in the
'
determined.
town and inspect them periodically or as otherwise
'
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 must be transported to the scavenger waste treatment
'
facility.
'
3. Maintain adequate records.
'
4.4
UIM
HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
4.2.3 Environmental Monitoring
Southold must be able to ensure that the total effect of
the operations of the sum of the systems within the boundaries
of the town are not degrading the quality of the environment.
To accomplish environmental monitoring, the town needs to
be able to periodically enter a representative number of sites
and collect samples from the potable water supply well and on-
site system (where feasible) for monitoring purposes.
The following periodic sampling schedule is recommended:
1. Septic tank influent and effluent composite samples.
2. Grab sample from water supply well or adjacent surface
water (for both cesspool and septic tank systems).
The water sampling program will provide an early warning
of potential well contamination (nitrate -nitrogen and/or total
coliform MPN).
4.2.4 Problem Correction
The town must be able to ensure that if a system malfunc-
tions, the necessary powers and capabilities for prompt cor-
rection of the malfunctioning system are at hand and applied.
To accomplish problem correction, the town must be able to:
1. Declare and abate a nuisance.
2. Recommend correction procedures.
3. Correct a malfunctioning system and bill the owner, if
the homeowner fails to repair the system within a reasonble time
set by the town.
4.5
IHIM HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
hl .cmc that
4. 'fake other measures necessary to reSv1velvc
concern an area as a whale, rather than an individual malfunction-
ing system. For instance, establish alternate on-site or com-
munity sewage systems in areas that have frequent pumpouts, due
to system failures.
' 4.3 FEE STRUCTURE
We propose the following fee structure for consideration to
' the town for the collection of revenues needed to support a CSTMP:
1. A one-time Cesspool/Septic Tank Maintenance Permit fee
' of $25. for residential users, and a fee of $50. for commercial
' users. Various methods of implementation exist. One method
would be to tax all homeowners for the fee during the first year.
' Another method is to obtain the fees on a needs basis. When the
initial services of a scavenger waste collector are requested by
' a resident located within the scavenger waste district, the
' maintenance permit form would be issued and the fee collected
prior to acceptance of the waste at the treatment facility.
' For new dwelling units/establishments constructed in the
scavenger waste improvement district, the developer/owner will
' be required to obtain the maintenance permit.
' 2. An annual tax or fee to provide the necessary funds for:
(a) Administration, period inspections, collection
' and analysis of water and wastewater samples.
(b) Capital and interest costs associated with
' construction of the scavenger waste treatment
' facility, including land requirements.
1 4.6
' ■ 1"A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL. P.G.
3. The scavenger waste disposal fee, as determined peri-
odically, to be paid by the scavenger waste hauler for disposal
' at the treatment facility. These fees shall be utilized to off-
set the cost of operation and maintenance of the scavenger waste
treatment facility, as well as the cost to utilize the Greenport
' sewage treatment plant.
4.4 STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
It is recommended that the scavenger waste treatment facility
' be an integral part of the existing Inc. Village of Greenport
sewage treatment plant. The same personnel that operate the
' sewage treatment facility would be assigned to operate the scaven-
ger waste treatment system. The village will most likely be re-
quired to employ two additional attendants to handle the ad-
ditional duties of operating the combined facilities. The village
will in turn prepare an operating budget on an annual basis that
' will include manpower. The Town of Southold will reimburse the
village for these services. Administrative duties of the CSTMP
should be assigned to existing personnel employed by the town
' (i.e., Town Clerk's office). A CSTMP Administrator shall be ap-
pointed by the Town Board to supervise the operations of the
' management plan. Since total effort on a weekly basis is not ex-
pected to exceed 20 hours, the Administrator should be a full
' time employee with other town -related responsibilities, or a
' part time employee.
1 4.7
H2iN HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
L
4.5 MODEL SCAVENGER WASTE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND CESSPOOL/
SEPTIC TANK MAINTENANCE PERMIT ORDINANCES
' Integral elements for the implementation of a CSTMP are
the ordinances that must be enacted by the Town Board in order
to enforce conformance with the management plan.
The first ordinance must provide a rate/use charge schedule
after formation of the Scavenger Waste Improvment District. In
addition, an ordinance is needed that will require a maintenance
permit for all operating septic systems. A sample ordinance for
establishing a fee structure for scavenger waste disposal is in-
cluded in Appendix D. Similarly, a sample ordinance requiring
a Cesspool/Septic Tank Maintenance Permit is included in Appen-
dix E. It must be emphasized that these are only model ordi-
nances and should be examined and revised as necessary to meet
the specific needs of the district. We recommend that an at-
torney be retained to examine these sample ordinances and modify
them as required.
4.8
' H 2 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
5.0 STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TREATMENT FACILITIES
The proposed construction of the scavenger waste treatment
' facility adjacent to the existing Greenport Sewage Treatment
Plant will require additional operating personnel to perform
various plant operation and maintenance tasks. By utilizing
' the same operating staff to manage both plants, an optimization
of manpower utilization is expected.
' Currently, the Inc. Village of Greenport plant staff con-
sists of only a chief operator and plant attendant who perform
the routine operation and maintenance tasks. Administrative
tasks are handled by the village's Superintendent of Utilities.
Under the new combined treatment arrangement, it is anti-
cipated that in addition to the existing staff, a maximum of
' two additional attandants will be required, plus a part time
Administrator, as indicated in Section 4.4.
5.1
H%N HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.G.
6.0 NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
Non-structural alternatives are implementable steps which
can increase the effectiveness of disposal systems (and manage-
ment programs) and are appropriate solutions to some of the
existing and potential groundwater pollution problems of the
' study area.
Land use controls are a non-structural wastewater manage-
ment strategy which are primarily concerned with reducing non -
point sources of pollution. This can be accomplished through
restrictions related to two factors, density and zoning.
' Population density can be controlled by regulating minimum
lot sizes for development required in the town or incorporated
' village zoning ordinances. By requiring larger lot sizes for
undeveloped land proposed for residential development, popu-
lation growth and density will be reduced which will ultimately
' lower wastewater flows and associated nitrate loadings. This
will also place a lower demand on the limited water resources
' available on the North Fork.
In addition to regulating residential development densities,
' the types and locations proposed for other land uses should be
evaluated in the zoning ordinances. For non-residential uses,
the land suitability for certain types of uses should be ana-
lyzed. Stricter controls on the intensity of development can
also be implemented. Under setback and building requirements,
' the amount of developed area in relation to total lot size can
be reduced. Also maximum height restrictions on structures can
' 6.1
' Vim` HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
be imposed to furtner reauce excessive developmei7t. Tne Town
and Village Zoning Boards should carefully review zoning vary-
' ances and special exception permit requests, so that they are
granted in accordance with the nature and the character of the
' community and its established plans for growth. Proper site
evaluation should be conducted for the location of industrial
chemical plants, landfills and salt storage facilities. Each
' should be designed for maximum protection to prevent leachate
contamination of groundwater.
' Natural land features, such as wetlands and sensitive eco-
systems, should be protected from development. Lands suitable
for conservation/natural preserve areas, open space and historic/
' archaeological preservation should also be discouraged from de-
velopment. A high priority should be placed on public acqui-
sitions, based on the protection of groundwater quality and
1 natural resources. However, if private ownership is maintained,
residential development at extremely low density levels should
' be the only other land use allowed.
Land use controls may also be practiced to prevent the de-
velopment of areas that have soil, slope or other limitations
' that render them unsuitable for development and unable to oper-
ate effective sub -surface septic systems. In accordance with
these planning goals, the Town and Village master plans and
zoning ordinances should be re-evaluated. Especially signifi-
cant are the portions of the study area that are vacant or un-
developed. Non -conforming uses in these areas are also important
6.2
1HWA HOLZMACHER, M.LENDON 6 MURRELL, P.C.
to consider in the formulation of land use controls. In these
areas, stricter controls can be implemented to even further pro-
tect the environment. An overlay can be amended to the zoning
ordinance which would restrict land use in the overlay district
with the intention of preventing adverse impacts from poorly
planned developments. Some types of restrictions which would
be included in the overlay district are special site review pro-
visions prior to issuance of building permits, requiring alter-
native on-site systems, modification of septic system design or
location, etc.
Alternative residential restrictions should be utilized
where feasible, such as PUD's (planned unit development) and
clustering techniques. This type of flexible development would
maintain overall desired densities while preserving more open
space. They also conform better with existing land forms and
natural features, and reduce erosion and runoff potential. The
town should consider cluster techniques as a method to retain
valuable farmland in a farmland preservation program.
Other restrictions can be instituted within a zoning ordi-
nance, whereby possible concessions are given to developers if
they use careful site design to control stormwater runoff. This
non-structural alternative will minimize the transport of sedi-
ments, nutrients, metals, organic chemicals and bacteria to sur-
face waters and groundwaters. Included in the implementation are
reduction of paved areas, provisions of retention basins and
increased landscaping requirements. Alternative landscape
6.3
VZ4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
treatments are also possible in order to limit runoff. Bluegrass
lawns, which require large amounts of both fertilizers and water,
should not be encouraged. Other options could include utili-
zation of pebbles, wood chips, fescue grasses and other vege-
tative species requiring less maintenance and water.
Suffolk County Department of Health Services standards are
currently being revised and will be modified to require that a
treatment facility or a "super septic system" be provided for
new commercial, industrial and apartment buildings where the
daily sewage flow exceeds 15,000 gpd, or 300 gpd/acre in hydro -
geologic Zones III and VI, and 600 gpd/acre in all other zones.
The current standards require a treatment system only when the
flow exceeds 30,000 gpd for commercial, industrial or apartment
complexes.
A residential lot size of 40,000 square feet (equivalent to
300 gpd/acre) in Zones III and VI, and 20,000 square feet (equiva-
lent to 600 gpd/acre) in all other zones is required for new resi-
dential developments. A development is defined as two or more
' contiguous parcels, and a parcel means a single body of land or
single building plot, site or unit consisting of five or less
' acres. Development at greater density requires a community
sewage treatment facility.
These guidelines should be strictly enforced in order to
' preserve the water quality of the study area. In particularly
sensitive groundwater areas which are not within Zones III and
' 6.4
' ■ 2/kA HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
VI, large developments should be carefully scrutinized to ensure
that significant impacts to the groundwater will not result.
' Another preventative measure, important for the protection
' of the local shellfishing industry, is the strict implementation
of existing ordinances prohibiting the discharge of untreated
wastes from boats. It should be noted that deodorized wastes
are untreated wastes.
The impact of stormwater runoff could be reduced by requiring
construction of bio -infiltration ponds where new sources of run-
off will flow directly into surface water bodies. Bio -infil-
tration ponds are diked areas constructed immediately adjacent
to surface water bodies which retain stormwater runoff from di-
rectly entering those surface waters. Instead, the runoff flows
to the surface water by leaching through planted marsh vegetation
and soil on the bottom and sides of the pond. In doing so, the
runoff receives some treatment (i.e., filtration, oxidation, etc.)
prior to entering the receiving surface water and its impact is
significantly reduced.
Finally, all commercial and industrial users which produce
large quantities of oils, grease and other materials which im-
pact the effectiveness of sub -surface disposal systems should be
required to utilize grease traps. This would improve the ability
of the system to remove solids, increase the life of the systems
and require less frequent pumpouts.
Fertilizer controls are another type of non-structural con-
trol which can be an effective management tool in preventing
6.5
H%N HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
over -application of fertilizers to agricultural areas, household
lawns, golf courses and parks. This is a significant concern in
the study area, where approximately fifty-three percent of the
total land use is devoted to residential, agricultural, open
space, parks, golf courses and other recreational uses.
As discussed in the Alternatives Report, a water and nitro-
gen budget simulation model was performed by Cornell University/
Cooperative Extension Association during the Nassau -Suffolk 208
Study. This simulation model evaluated sources and the fate of
nitrogen in the bi-county region. The model stated that approxi-
mately 25 percent of the nitrogen in fertilizers applied to agri-
cultural farms leached to the groundwater. With approximately
30 percent of the present land use of Southold being agricultur-
ally worked, the impact of fertilizer nitrogen on groundwater is
significant.
The Cornell/Cooperative Extension Association study also
found that approximately 60 percent of the total amount of nitro-
gen in fertilizers applied to turf (household lawns and golf
courses) leaches to the groundwater. Consequently, implemen-
tation of fertilizer controls will reduce the amount of nitrogen
leaching to the groundwater and will help to minimize future
water quality problems.
The primary factor in a fertilizer control program is to
promote better fertilizer application techniques to increase
their effectiveness and also reduce the amount of fertilizer
MW
' ■ IBJ A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
requirements of turf.
Another 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 sup-
plied to mature grass will be leached. However, there is a pos-
sibility that there would be some volatilization of ammonia from
the clippings. Volatilization will greatly increase if composting
is employed. It is therefore recommended that composting of grass
clippings be implemented on an individual or town -wide basis to
reduce nitrogen leaching due to lawn clippings.
In the case of turf on sod farms, the crop is entirely re-
moved at the end of the season. This will produce a large re-
duction of nitrogen input
should also be composted.
The grass clippings of sod farms
6.7
required. Tests have determined
that nitrogen
uptake by a
ma-
ture turf is relatively constant
over the growing season.
Since
the majority of the study area turf
is mature,
most of the
de-
veloped areas having been built
years ago, the
most efficient
'
fertilization practice would be
to apply small
amounts of
fertil-
izer with frequent applications.
Alternately,
the use of
slow
release fertilizers would also more
closely match the nitrogen
requirements of turf.
Another 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 sup-
plied to mature grass will be leached. However, there is a pos-
sibility that there would be some volatilization of ammonia from
the clippings. Volatilization will greatly increase if composting
is employed. It is therefore recommended that composting of grass
clippings be implemented on an individual or town -wide basis to
reduce nitrogen leaching due to lawn clippings.
In the case of turf on sod farms, the crop is entirely re-
moved at the end of the season. This will produce a large re-
duction of nitrogen input
should also be composted.
The grass clippings of sod farms
6.7
U'4UZ4 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Implementation of these management practices could be two-
fold, through the use of legal ordinances and education programs.
Mandatory use of organic, slow release fertilizers and composting
of clippings can be obtained through the implementation of ordi-
nances to prohibit the sale and use of high nitrogen, quick re-
lease fertilizers within the study area. Implementation of
similar ordinances in surrounding towns or by Suffolk County
would increase the effectiveness of this program.
Educational programs can be developed to increase public
awareness of how their everyday actions impact groundwater re-
sources. Newsletters and adult education courses could teach
proper watering techniques, use of fertilizers, alternative
landscaping and negative species and erosion control practices.
Water conservation efforts should be the primary focus of these
voluntary actions.
In addition, experimental fertilizer management field
studies, conducted by Cornell Cooperative Extension, have found
that the nitrogen input to the groundwater from agricultural
fertilizer can be reduced without decreasing the crop yield by
varying the timing of application. Public information meetings
should be arranged and attended by the farming sector and repre-
sentatives of Cornell Cooperative Extension, in order to discuss
these findings.
EMU
HLP` HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN
In this section, the environmental impacts of the selected
plan, more specifically the construction of a scavenger waste
treatment system, are assessed. The environmental impact of the
existing situation, as previously addressed in the Alternatives
Report, has a major adverse impact on the groundwater and public
health.
Although the present method of raw scavenger waste disposal
to open lagoons is the least expensive, it results in an unac-
ceptable primary environmental impact by contaminating ground-
water in Southold's westerly and largest hydrogeologic unit.
While this process may reduce pathogens and suspended solids to
some degree, many constituents remain, including BOD -5, ammonia,
nitrate, organics, metals and other nutrients and pathogens.
All of these constituents have an adverse impact on the ground-
water.
WMXTT9(1MMRM
la
'T OF THE SC
;ER WASTE TREX
Implementation of the recommended scavenger waste treatment
alternative will eliminate the adverse environmental impacts as-
sociated with the current practices. The groundwater quality
within the proximate location of the leaching lagoon will im-
prove beyond its present quality. Pathogenic organisms, high
levels of suspended solids, BOD, nitrates, organics and inor-
ganic components, all characteristic of scavenger waste, will
be totally removed from the site. These constituents will re-
ceive treatment at the proposed scavenger waste treatment facility.
7.1
V2144 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
The selected plan will present many short-term and long-
term impacts to the social environment.
' Short-term primary effects are primarily related to con-
struction activities. Short-term beneficial impacts to the
economy will result from employment opportunities created during
' the building of the plant.
Other short-term, temporary construction impacts include
noise, traffic and air quality. Since the facility is rela-
tively small and is proposed for construction at the existing
Greenport S.T.P. site, these impacts will be minimal. Construc-
tion noise may cause some short-term impacts to surrounding resi-
dences, but this will be nominal, since construction operations
will be restricted to weekdays and normal working hours. Air
quality will be impacted during construction from the blowing
of dust generated by construction activities. However, the
' wooded vacant areas surrounding the undeveloped portions of the
landfill will tend to mitigate noise and air quality impacts.
Good daily maintenance practices by the Contractor, such as
watering down the site roadway, will also mitigate potential ad-
verse construction impacts.
' Long-term primary benefits to public health will be realized
by the construction of a scavenger waste treatment system at the
Greenport site. The recommended treatment alternative will elimi-
nate the dumping of raw septage into open leaching lagoons at the
existing disposal sites, which will mitigate odor and vector prob-
lems.
7.2
' ■ i2/%A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL. P.C.
No adverse long-term noise, air quality, or transportation
impacts are expected from the proposed treatment facilities. By
' relocating the disposal site from Cutchogue to Greenport, there
will be an estimated average of fifteen scavenger waste trucks
coming daily to the site during the design year. Although traf-
fic and noise will increase somewhat from present levels, the
' number of vehicles is not considered significant. In addition,
' good accessibility which is provided at this site will miti-
gate traffic impacts.
' Land use impacts from construction of a facility at the
Greenport S.T.P. site will be minimal. The property has been
utilized for many years for sewage treatment and disposal and
' is projected on future land use maps for this activity. The
existing surrounding land uses are utilities and vacant, with
the Inc. Village of Greenport owning most of the land. Besides
the sewage treatment facility, other utilities in the immediate
area include sewage pump stations, public water supply well fields,
water storage tank and electrical generation plant. The rest of
the surrounding land is wooded area, providing a visual barrier
from potential adverse views, as well as being the natural land-
scape.
Induced land use or population changes are not expected,
since reliance on subsurface septic systems will not effect
development beyond the existing situation. Positive secondary
impacts will be realized in the area of legal/regulatory con-
siderations. NYSDEC program objectives call for community
1
7.3
' ■ I2/4 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
emphasis on developing environmentally sound septage management
' techniques. The upgrading of scavenger waste handling from
land disposal of raw septage to the treatment facility will
greatly improve the existing environmental situation. Further,
regulatory controls, such as non-structural controls indicated
' in Chapter 6.0, will also increase the effectiveness of this
program.
With the effluent from the scavenger waste plant proposed
to be combined with the Greenport raw wastewater to receive
further treatment, there will be minimal impact to the marine
environment. The combined scavenger waste/wastewater effluent
will be discharged via the existing outfall to Long Island
Sound. This discharge will still comply with the existing
effluent standard. The increase in flow by 23,000 GPD is less
than 10 percent of the total discharge volume. The excellent
tidal flushing within the Long Island Sound will mitigate the
impact on the receiving waters.
The implementation of the scavenger waste treatment fa-
cility will have beneficial effects to the groundwater in the
study area. The Selected Plan will provide beneficial effects
to groundwater by removing a potential source of nutrients and
other constituents contained in the scavenger waste. As a re-
sult of outfalling, its detrimental effect is a loss of water
available to the study area. A loss of 23,000 GPD of water
for recharge will not have a significant effect on groundwater
7.4
HIM HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
supply. However, from a strict conservation viewpoint, it will
slightly decrease the available fresh water supply, although it
is not anticipated that it will be measureable.
If the wastewater reuse option is implemented at the Cutchogue
landfill site, beneficial impacts would be realized by reducing
the maximum cooling water supply requirements of the incineration
complex from nearly 200,000 GPD to zero. This would be a signifi-
cant benefit to the underlying groundwater aquifers in the vicinity
of Cutchogue. If an effluent is generated by the incineration com-
plex that can be treated on site and discharged to groundwater,
this will further benefit the environment by maintaining and pos-
sibly increasing the head of fresh, existing groundwater and there-
fore mitigate existing and prevent future local salt water intru-
sion.
Lastly, the proposed scavenger waste treatment facility will
require space adjacent to the existing sewage treatment plant.
Since this required space currently is the land adjacent to the
access road to the sewage treatment plant, a significant impact
to the surrounding environment is not anticipated. The prelimi-
nary layout of the proposed scavenger waste facility indicates a
land requirement of approximately .8 acre.
In conclusion, both of the proposed projects, (1) scavenger
waste/sludge treatment and disposal, and (2) effluent reuse at
the proposed Southold incineration complex at Cutchogue will have
a beneficial impact on the environment
7.5
If the effluent reuse
UIA HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
system is not constructed, the beneficial impacts of this project
are still significant and warrant implementation.
7.6
■ I2/%4 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Accordingly, the improvement district must be formed by the
town or county. To simplify implementation, it is recommended
that the Town of Southold form the district.
The following procedural outline is recommended for the
formation of the Scavenger Waste Improvement District to en-
compass the mainland of the Town of Southold, excluding areas
already served by the Inc. Village of Greenport's sewer system.
The following implemental steps are recommended:
Step I. Engineer's maps, plans and reports for the pro-
posed district are filed with Southold Town Board and Inc.
Village of Greenport Village Board of Trustees, accepted there-
by, and are available for public inspection.
Step II. Southold Town Board to negotiate agreement with
the Inc. Village of Greenport Board of Trustees on the conceptual
plan of constructing the scavenger waste treatment facilities
adjacent to the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant on village -owned
property, as well as utilizing the Greenport plant for secondary
' treatment.
Step III. The Town Board adopts an order calling a public
hearing on the proposed establishment of its district. The pub-
lic hearing may be scheduled on not less than 10 or more than 20
days after published notice. Following the public hearing, the
Town Board adopts a resolution approving the establishment of
the district. This resolution is subject to permissive referen-
dum or may be submitted at a special election.
8.2
' ■ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
(a) If subject to permissive referendum, a petition re-
questing a referendum may be filed within 30 days after adoption.
' The petition must be signed and acknowledged by the owners of
taxable real property situated in the proposed district, as shown
' upon the latest completed assessment roll of the town, in number
' equal to at least 58 of the total number of such owners, or by
100 of such owners, whichever is lesser. (A coprorate owner of
' taxable real property shall be considered as one owner).
(b) The Board may call a Special Election giving at least
10 days published notice of election.
' (c) Eligible voters at the Special Election include
owners of taxable real property situated within the boundaries
' of the proposed district, as well as qualified electors (regis-
tered voters) of the town therein.
' Step IV. Within 10 days following adoption by the Town
Board of the resolution approving district establishment, appli-
cation to the Department of Audit & Control should be made for
' permission to establish the district. Frequently, application
is not made until the expiration of the permissive referendum
' period or following a special election.
' Step V. Approval by the Department of Audit & Control is
not expected for at least 6 weeks. Upon receipt of State Comp-
troller's consent order, the Town Board adopts a final resolu-
tion establishing the district. Thereafter, funds may be appro-
priated and financing by bonds and notes authorized to pay for
the scavenger waste treatment facility proposed to be constructed.
8.3
F12144HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL. P.C.
Step VI. Once established, the district is operated pursuant
to the provisions of the Town Law. All financing for the district
is arranged by the town.
An essential element in the implementation of this scavenger
waste/wastewater management plan will be the negotiation, coopera-
tion and agreement between the Town of Southold and the Inc. Village
of Greenport.
In this study, the potential points of discussion regarding
facility operation are:
1. The town -owned scavenger waste system will be constructed
on village property. A lease agreement or similar arrangement will
have to be negotiated.
2. It is recommended that the village operate the scavenger
waste facility due to the potential impact it can have on the sewage
treatment plant. An annual budget will have to be prepared by the
' village and submitted for approval and payment by the town.
3. The town will have to pay a "key money" charge for utili-
1 zation of existing capacity at the Greenport sewage treatment plant.
4. The town will have to pay a user charge for its portion
of the operating and maintenance costs incurred in operating the
Greenport sewage treatment plant.
It is envisioned that these matters will be resolved between
the town and village and will not impede implementation of the
Selected Plan.
8.4
UIM HOLZMACHER. MOLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Step VII.
After formation
of
the
district,
the
Town Board
should begin the
implementation
of
the
Selected
Plan.
This will
require:
(a) Selection and appointment of a Consulting Environ-
mental Engineering firm. Selection procedure should be in ac-
cordance with USEPA regulations. The Engineer will be responsi-
ble for detailed design, topographical surveys, preparation of
easements, plans and specifications, assistance in securing bids,
coordination with USEPA, NYSDEC and Suffolk County regulatory
agencies, preparation of plan of operation, observation of con-
struction, plant start-up, preparation of operation and mainte-
nance manuals, environmental monitoring to protect wetlands,
archeological and historical resources, preparation of "as -built"
drawings,. user charge schedules and SPDES permits.
(b) Selection of legal counsel. Counsel will be re-
sponsible for obtaining easements and bonding and insuring that
all required legal steps are provided for.
(c) Application to USEPA and NYSDEC for a Step 2 + 3
grant (also known as a Step 4 grant).
8.2 MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
Due to the integration of the scavenger waste and sewage
treatment plants operation, it is recommended that the Village
of Greenport be responsible for operating and managing these
two systems. The management task should include complete oper-
ation and maintenance of both plants, retaining professional
8.5
' ■ IL/�\ HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C,
nance costs associated with each system.
' The Town of Southold will have the responsibility of manag-
ing the Cesspool/Septic Tank Management Plan, as discussed in
' Section 4.1. It is recommended that the town appoint a part
time Administrator who will be responsible for implementing the
monitoring program, enforcing the CSTMP ordinance and act as a
' general liaison between the Southold Town Board and the Village
of Greenport with regard to scavenger waste treatment and Scaven-
ger Waste Improvement District operations.
8.3 FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended in 1972
' (PL 92-500), the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) and the
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of
1981 (PL 97-117), provide 75 percent of the cost of eligible
wastewater treatment and collection projects. The percentage
decreases after October 1, 1984 to 55 percent, if construction
' has not commenced. Further, PL 97-117 provides up to an ad-
ditional 20 percent bonus (total percent may not exceed 85 per-
cent) for wastewater management projects which use innovative
and alternative wastewater treatment technologies, provided that
' life cycle cost does not exceed that of the most cost-effective
' alternative by more than 15 percent. The New York State Environ-
mental Quality Bond Act provides for up to one-half the remaining
MM
personnel
to operate
these plants and maintain financial records
for each
facility, in
order to document the operation and mainte-
nance costs associated with each system.
' The Town of Southold will have the responsibility of manag-
ing the Cesspool/Septic Tank Management Plan, as discussed in
' Section 4.1. It is recommended that the town appoint a part
time Administrator who will be responsible for implementing the
monitoring program, enforcing the CSTMP ordinance and act as a
' general liaison between the Southold Town Board and the Village
of Greenport with regard to scavenger waste treatment and Scaven-
ger Waste Improvement District operations.
8.3 FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended in 1972
' (PL 92-500), the Clean Water Act of 1977 (PL 95-217) and the
Municipal Wastewater Treatment Construction Grant Amendments of
1981 (PL 97-117), provide 75 percent of the cost of eligible
wastewater treatment and collection projects. The percentage
decreases after October 1, 1984 to 55 percent, if construction
' has not commenced. Further, PL 97-117 provides up to an ad-
ditional 20 percent bonus (total percent may not exceed 85 per-
cent) for wastewater management projects which use innovative
and alternative wastewater treatment technologies, provided that
' life cycle cost does not exceed that of the most cost-effective
' alternative by more than 15 percent. The New York State Environ-
mental Quality Bond Act provides for up to one-half the remaining
MM
F12N HOLZMACHER, WLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
share (maximum of 12.5 percent) of the cost of eligible waste-
water treatment and collection projects. These percentages are
to be maintained through FY 1984, which ends September 30, 1984.
A community is, therefore, eligible at the present time to re-
ceive financial assistance of 87-1/2 to 92-1/2 percent of the
eligible project costs of treatment works.
In the past, USEPA has classified treatment of scavenger
waste as Innovative and Alternative Technology, thereby enabling
additional funding to be received by the local community. There-
fore, the scavenger waste/sludge treatment project should be eli-
gible for up to 85 percent federal, and 7.5 percent New York State
aid, reducing the local share to a minimum percentage of 7.5, if
I & A bonus money is available. Only the selected plan elements
involving.scavenger waste treatment and sludge treatment qualify
for I & A funding, according to NYSDEC. The effluent force main
will not qualify as an I/A project, but will be eligible for 75
percent federal and 12.5 percent state funding. Recent communi-
cations with state officials have indicated that the force main
and pump station, which we feel will be classified as eligible
for state aid, will not be rated as high as the scavenger waste
plant on the State Priority List. Therefore, it is possible that
the scavenger waste project could receive funding and the force
main and pump station be denied funding due to a lower priority.
Available funding for the Greenport/Southold selected plan and
the resultant local costs have been summarized on Table 8. The
8.7
H114 HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL. P.C.
TABLE 8
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE FUNDING OF PROJECT
CASE I (All Phases - 758 Federal Funding, 12.5% N.Y.S. Funding)
'
A.
Total Project Cost
$4,905,000.
B.
Eligible Project Cost
(excludes interest during
'
construction)
$4,463,000.
Federal - 758
3,347,250.
'
N.Y.S. - 12.5$
557,875.
Less Sub -Total Aid
$3,905,125.
C.
Local Share
$ 999,875.
CASE II
(Scavenger Waste/Sludge Treatment
- 878 Federal Funding,
'
7.58 N.Y.S. Funding; Effluent
Reuse - 758
Federal Funding,
12-1/28 N.Y.S. Funding)
'
A.
Total Project Cost
$4,905,000.
B.
Eligible Project Cost
(excludes interest during
'
construction)
$4,463,000.
'
Federal - 858
N.Y.S. - 7.58
1,349,800.
119,100.
Federal - 758
2,156,250.
N.Y.S. - 12.58
359,375.
'
Less Sub -Total Aid
$3,984,525.
'
C.
Local Share
$ 920,475.
CASE III
(Scavenger Waste/Sludge Treatment
- 758 Federal
Funding,
'
12.58 N.Y.S. Funding; Effluent
Reuse not
funded)
A.
Total Project Cost
$4,905,000.
'
B.
Eligible Project Cost
(excludes interest during
construction)
$1,588,000.
1 8.9
H%N HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.G.
TABLE 8 (CONT'D.)
8.10
Scay. Waste & Sludge Only
Federal - 758 $1,191,000.
N.Y.S. - 12.58 198,500.
Less Sub -Total Aid $1,389,500.
C.
Local Share
$3,515,500.
D.
If Effluent Reuse Not Implemented,
Local Share reduces to:
355,500.
CASE IV
(Scavenger Waste/Sludge Treatment - 858 Federal Funding,
758 N.Y.S. Funding; Effluent Reuse not funded)
A.
Total Project Cost
$4,905,000.
B.
Eligible Project Cost
(excludes interest during
construction) $1,588,000.
Federal - 85% 1,349,800.
N.Y.S. - 7.5% 119,100.
Less Sub -Total Aid $1,468,900.
C.
Local Share
$3,436,100.
D.
If Effluent Reuse Not Implemented,
Local Share reduces to:
276,100.
8.10
■ I2,44 HOLZMACHER, WLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 9
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
ESTIMATED O & M COST FOR THE
SCAVENGER WASTE/SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITY
1. Scavenger Waste Treatment Facility
a. Labor, Utilities, Chemicals & Supplies
b. Greenport STP User Charge (Approx.
$2.05/1000 Gallons)
C. Effluent Reuse (pump station & force main)
(Estimated Operation & Maintenance Cost =
$20,000. Based on 365 days/year - 286,000
GPD sewage flow + 23,000 GPD scavenger
waste flow, the cost per 1,000 gallons =
17.70
d. Annual Lease Charge for Land
(Equal to and cancels outfall
easement tax paid to town by
village)
Sub -Total
2. Additional Sludge Treatment and Disposal
a. Labor, Utilities, Supplies for
Digester and Drying Beds
b. Labor, Fuel, Repairs for Transport
to Landfill (only portion due to
$40,000.
17,000.
1,500.
0.
$58,500.
$30,000.
Scavenger Waste) 7,000.
Sub -Total $37,000.
3. TOTAL ESTIMATED 0 & M COSTS. . . . . . . . . . . . $95,500-
4. Cost per 1,000 gallons of scavenger
water based on 23,000 gallons per
day, 365 days/yr. $11.38
8.11
' ■ 2U HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 10
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
ANNUAL BUDGET DATA FOR CSTMP
(1983 DOLLARS)
' PLAN "A"
' Capital
Principal and Interest
' Implementation of Selected Plan
(Assumes 20 year, $925,000 Bond
Issue at 118)
$116,245.
TOTAL CAPITAL COST
$116,300.
' Operation & Maintenance Cost
- Treatment Facility
$ 95,500.
- Administration of CSTMP (includes testing)
20,000.
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET - PLAN "A".
.$231,800.
' PLAN "B"*
Capital
'
Principal and Interest
Implementation of Selected Plan
'
(Assumes 20 year, $280,000 Bond
Issue at 118)
$ 35,188.
' TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL COST
$ 35,200.
Operation & Maintenance Cost
- Treatment Facility ($95,500. - $1,500.)
$ 94,000.
- Administration of CSTMP (includes testing)
20,000.
' TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET - PLAN "B". . . . . . .
. .$149,200.
*Effluent Reuse System Not Implemented
1 8.12
' ■ 2U HOLZMACHER. MCLENDON & MURRELL. P.C.
TABLE 11
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
' BUDGET AND TAX RATE FOR IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
' PLAN "A"
' - Annual Amortization and
Interest for Plan "A"
- CSTMP Administration & Testing
TOTAL BUDGET
Estimated Service Area Assessment*
Tax Rate
PLAN "B"**
- Annual Amortization and
Interest for Plan "B"
- CSTMP Administration & Testing
TOTAL BUDGET
Estimated Service Area Assessment*
Tax Rate
*1981-82 Assessed Valuation (A.V.).
Valuation of town, excluding Inc. Village
of Greenport and Fishers Island
**Effluent Reuse System Not Implemented
8.13
$116,300.
20,000.
$136,300.
$64,743,257.
$0.211/$100. A.V.
$ 35,200.
20,000.
$ 55,200.
$64,743,257.
$0.085/$100. A.V.
' ■ IL/� HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
' Based on the calculations indicated on Table 9, we recom-
mend that the district establish a rate of $12.50/1000 gallons.
This rate is similar to that charged by other scavenger waste
1 treatment facilities on Long Island and allows for under utili-
zation of the facilities during the earlier year of operation.
As indicated on Table 11, the resultant cost per $100. As-
sessed Valuation (A.V.) is $0.211 based on implementation of
Plan A. Implementing Plan B, the cost per $100. A.V. reduces
' to $0.085. The difference between the two is the costs associ-
ated with construction of an effluent reuse system for the pro-
posed incinerator complex. This system consists of a pump
station and force main to transport treated effluent from the
Greenport S.T.P. to the Cutchogue landfill site.
' Using the same budgets listed in Table 11, we have calcu-
lated the costs per establishment. As shown below, the esti-
mated number of establishments (less those areas served by sani-
tary sewers) is approximately 7,600 units.
Plan A Plan B
$136,300. $55,200.
7,600 units - $17.93/unit 7,600 units - $7.26/unit
The projected number of future dwelling units is 13,000.
The resultant annual user costs for Plans A and B are $10.48 and
$4.25. In either of the above tabulations (cost per $100. A.V. or
cost per user), the costs shown would decrease by Shelter Island's
share, should they decide to join
be approximately 10-15 percent.
8.14
We estimate this reduction to
■ Z*#t HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
8.4 PROJECT COSTS
Project costs include, in addition to construction costs,
allowances for engineering, legal, administrative, contingencies
and interest during construction. All these additional costs
are generally estimated as a percentage of construction costs.
An estimate of 33 percent has been used in this report and is
composed of the following:
Engineering and Contingencies - includes fees for design,
preparation of contract drawings, preparation of specifications,
field surveys, soil borings, historical and archaeological sur-
veys, grant administration, construction management and inspec-
tion, and minor unanticipated costs.
Legal and Administration - includes costs for legal services
connected with construction, fees for bonding, attorney and ad-
ministrative charges associated with project grant.
Interest During Construction - includes the interest pay-
ments on bonds or bond anticipation notes until construction is
completed. Based on current economic conditions, 12 percent
interest rate was selected.
Construction cost to be paid for by the Town of Southold
will be financed over a 20 -year period. Under the present bond
market conditions, it is difficult to determine the interest
rate the town will pay. However, considering the present rate
received by other municipalities, an interest rate of 11 percent
has been estimated to calculate amortization costs.
8.15
H2M HOLZMACHER, WLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
8.5 PROJECT SCHEDULE
To ensure the implementation of the selected facility plan,
the Town of Southold and Inc. Village of Greenport, upon ac-
ceptance of the conclusions and recommendations contained in
this report, should retain a Consulting Environmental Engi-
neering firm to furnish professional services. Upon approval
of the Selected Plan by NYSDEC and SCDHS, the Town/Village
should submit a Step 2 + 3 grant application for federal and
New York State financial assistance. Table 12 indicates a pro-
posed timetable for performing the various tasks required for
completion of Steps 2 and 3 of this project.
8.16
U244 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 12
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
8.17
TASK
DATE
1.
Hold Public Hearing on Selected Plan
June 1982
2.
Approval of Selected Plan by Southold,
Greenport and NYSDEC
July 1982
3.
Submit Step 2 + 3 Grant Application
to NYSDEC
July 1982
4.
Receive Grant and Commence Design
September 1982
5.
Plans and Specifications Completed.
Submit same to NYSDEC
January 1983
6.
Approval of Plans and Specifications
by NYSDEC
March 1983
7.
Advertisement for Bids
April 1983
8.
Bid Opening
May 1983
9.
Contracts Awarded
June 1983
10.
Construction Begins
July 1983
11.
Project Completed
July 1984
8.17
U2A HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
9.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE 201 FACILITY PLANNING PROCESS
The intent of public participation in the 201 facility
planning process is to ensure that the community's goals are
incorporated into the final selected plan and such a plan is
accepted by the general public.
To achieve this public input, several informal presen-
tations were conducted at Town Meetings throughout the project.
A formal public meeting was held on July 14, 1961 at 7:30 P.M.
at the Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. The purpose
of this meeting was to present the Alternatives Evaluation and
Environmental Assessment Report. The public was invited and re-
quested to offer comments, suggestions and recommendations re-
garding the alternatives and the conclusions of the Alternatives
Report.
A formal public hearing will be scheduled in late June,
early July, to present the recommended selected plan for the
study area, and present the associated capital, 0 & M and user
cost estimates. This hearing will provide the opportunity for
additional public input into the study.
9.1
' ■ I�"t HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
1
I
APPENDIX_A
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
' ■ IIJ�4 HOLZMACHER, M,LENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
I
APPENDIX "B"
B-1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN
OF
SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
I. Design Information
a. Population(unsewered)- See Table 1
b. Design Flow Rates
1. Equalized = 23,000 gpd = 16 gPm
2. Peak (front-end facilities only) = 800 gpm
C. Waste Strength - BOD -5 4770 mg/l
Suspended Solids 4150 mg/l
d. Discharge Requirements - Not applicable since
discharging to Greenport
STP Imhoff Tank Influent Chamber
II. Preliminary Design
a. Average Daily Flow
Peak Flow - rate at which two haulers will be
discharging simultaneously
Peak Flow per Truck = 400 gpm
Total Peak Flow = 800 gpm
Peak Flow will be used to size bar screen and aerated
grit chamber
b. Head End Facility
1. Two Portals
2. Influent Channel sized at 24 -inch diameter
to permit ease in cleaning.
3. Bar Screen is 2 feet wide with 1 -inch spacing.
It is to be manually cleaned.
4. Aerated Grit Chamber
Max. Design Flow = 800 gpm
C. Equalization Tank
1. Volume = 2.5 x 23,000 gpd = 57,500 gallons/day
= 7,688 c.f.
2. Air Requirements = 25 cfm/1,000 c.f. of volume
25 cfm x 7.69 = 192 cfm
use 200 cfm
H1/4 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Appendix B-1 - Preliminary Design of Scavenger Waste Treatment Facility
II. 3. Pumps = 2 at 41 gpm at 21 ft. of head
4. Equalization Tank will be enclosed, and equipped
with an odor control unit providing 5 air changes
per hour.
d. Flash Mix Tank
1.
Tank Volume
(10
min.
detention time)
Vol. = 16
gpm
x 10
min. = 160 gallons = 21.4 c.f.
2.
Mixer Size
- 1/2
hp
3.
FeCl2 feed
rate
(use
400 mg/l - 45% solution)
= 77 lbs/day
'
15.47 lbs/gal = 5.0 gallons/day
4.
Pump Size =
1.5
gph
(diaphragm pump)
5.
Tank Volume
= 40,000
lbs — 15.47 lbs/gal =
' 2586 gallons
A Solution
feed
system
with a day tank will be
provided to
further
dilute ferric chloride.
e. Flocculation Tank
1. Tank Volume = 30 min. detention time
16 gpm x 30 min. = 480 gallons = 64.2 cf
f. Primary Settling Tank
1. Tank Size (use 200 gpd/sf)
23,000 gpd 200 gal/sf = 115 sf
SWD = 8 ft.
2. Tank Volume
115 s.f. x 8 ft. = 920 cf = 6882 gallons
3. Detention Time
6882 gal. T 23,000 gpd = 7.18 hours
4. Assumed Removal Rates
- BOD = 50 percent of influent value
- SS = 70 percent of influent value
g. Rotating Biological Disc
1. Influent BOD conc. to RBD after 50% removal
in primary settling tank is equal to 4770 x 0.5
= 2385 mg/l BOD.
RM
'
■ II/4 HOLZMACHER,
MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
'
Appendix
B-1 - Preliminary Design of Scavenger Waste Treatment Facility
II. g.
2. BOD to be removed by RBD (2385 mg/l inf. to
300 mg/1 eff. after secondary clarifier)
(2385 - 300) x 8.34 x 0.023 = 400 lbs/day
3. Sizing of RBD units
(Manufacturer's recommended loading 2.5 lbs/day/
1000 sf of media)
400 lbs/day 2.5 lbs/1000 sf = 160,000 sf of
media
4. Temperature correction factor (assume 47°F =
'
0.80, See Table 13)
160,000 sf ' 0.8 = 200,000 sf of media
h.
Secondary Settling Tank
1. Tank Size (use 400 gpd/sf overflow rate)
23,000 gpd 400 gpd/sf = 58 sf
Use 10 ft. diameter tank
2. Tank Volume
SWD = 8 ft.
'
58 sf x 8 ft. deep = 464 cf = 3471 gallons
3. Detention Time
3471 gallons, 23,000 gpd = 3.62 hours
'
4. Assumed Removal Rates
Suspended Solids Inf. = 1245 mg/l
80% Removal in Secondary Clarifier/RBD Process
'
Suspended Solids Remaining = 1245 x .20 =
249 mg/l say 250 mg/l
'
i.
Quality of effluent from Scavenger
Waste Treatment System
BOD -5 = 300 mg/l
'
Suspended Solids = 250 mg/l
1
1
B-3
CE: AUTOTROL CORPORATION
w
O
U
Q
LL
2
O
U
w
a[
2
O
U
TEMPERATURE
CORRECTION FOR BOD REMOVAL
1.0
W
lu
.7
0 L
35
1AbLG 13
40 45 50 55 60
TEMPERATURE °F
RBD UNIT
TEMPERATURE CORRECTION
FACTOR GRAPH
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD — INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
SECTION 201
WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN STUDY
C-36-1120
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
■N�"1 HOLZMACHER MoLENDON 6 MURRELL, P.C. FARMINGDA E
MELVIE. N.Y.
N.Y.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVERHEAD.NY.
a
' ■ IM HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.0
eAn L.LP1llVl l UBJ ix
OF
EFFECT OF SCAVENGER WASTE
ON EXISTING GREENPORT STP
I. Design Information
a. Greenport STP Design Flow 0.5 mgd
b. Projected Future Wastewater Flow 0.286 mgd
(year 2005)
'
C. Projected Future Scavenger Waste .023 mgd
Flow (year 2005)
II. Hydraulic Loading
A. Total projected future flow to Greenport STP
Wastewater + Scavenger Waste = .309 mgd
' 0.309 mgd <0.5 mgd. Therefore, plant's hydraulic
design capacity is sufficient.
' III. Solids Loading
A. Imhoff Tank
' 1. Solids Capacity = (200 mg/l - 30 mg/1) x 8.34
x.5 mgd = 70.9 lbs /day
2. Future Solids Loading
' a. Scay. Waste = (250-30) x 8.34 x .023 mgd = 42.2 lbs/day
b. Sewage = (200 - 30) x 8.34 x .286 mgd = 405.5 lbs/day
C. Total Solids Loading = 447.7 = 448
3. Since Total Solids Loading of 448 lbs/day is less
than the Solids Capacity (709 lbs/day), plant's
organic design capacity is sufficient
B-5
' ■ I HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
B-3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN
OF
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
I. Design Information
a. Volumes of Sludge (dry lbs/day)
1. From scavenger waste facility
(4150 mg/l x .94) x 8.34 x .023 MGD = 748 lbs/day
2. From Greenport STP (Imhoff Tank and Final Clarifier)
(200 - 30) x 8.74 x .500 mgd = 709 lbs/day
The sludge treatment processes will be designed on the
assumed effluent quality of 30 mg/l of suspended solids,
even though the discharge permit was recently changed
to a more relaxed limitation.
II. Digester Preliminary Design
a. Sizing Criteria
- > 10 day solids retention time during most critical
expected condition to prevent process failure
2!:50 percent volatile solids reduction to minimize
odors at sludge drying beds.
b. Volume of sludge to digester (sludge from scavenger
waste settling tanks only)
748 lbs/day 400 cf/day
(38 solids) (62.4 lbs cf)
Peak Factor = 1.5
(This factor will protect against low solids concen-
trations from settling tank)
Design Volume 400 cf x 1.5 = 600 cf/day
C. Tank Volume
Active volume = 600 cf/day x 10 days = 6000 cf
Assume: 2 ft. grit deposit
2 ft. slum blanket
2 ft. cover below max.
6 ft. total displaced height
Use 20 ft. depth (14 effective feet in depth)
6000 cf _
T4_7 _E_ 429 sq. ft.
-
a
' ■ 2 -At HOLZMACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, P.C.
' B-3 Preliminary Design of Sludge Treatment and Disposal (cont.)
' II. d. Tank Dimension (depth = 20 feet)
D = 2R = 2 ( F429 — TT ) = 23.4 ft.
Therefore, use 25 ft. diameter
III. Additional Sludge Drying Beds
a. Solids Loading = 748 lbs/day
b. Assume 30 percent solids reduction from digestion process
Solids = 748 lbs/day (.7) = 524 lbs/day
C. Solids to Sludge Drying Beds per year = 524 x 365 days/yr
191,260 lbs/year
d. Covered Beds (4 months max.)
(191,260)(12 )
— 30 lbs/sf =
2125
sq.
ft.
say
2200
sq.
ft.
e. Uncovered Beds
(8 months)
(191,260)(i2 )
= 22 lbs/sf =
5796
sq.
ft.
say
5800
sq.
ft.
IV. Sludge Landfilling Requirements
a. Solids loading to Beds = (709 + 748) (.70) = 1457 lbs/day
b. Assume 35% solids to landfill
1457 Dry Solids = 4163 lbs/day
.35
C. 4163 lbs/da = 66.7 cu ft/day
62.4 lbs cf
66.7 cu ft x 365 days/yr = 24,350 cf/year
d. Volume of landfill to be utilized over 20 year life.
Assume Sludge to Cover Material Ratio 4:1
Total volume of landfill required for sludge disposal
= 20 x (24,350) x 1.25 = 608,750 cf/year
Based on a 30 foot depth, the area requirements are
estimated at .47 acres. This area is available at the
Southold Landfill.
EM
I■ Z" HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
B-4 PRELIMINARY DESIGN
OF
EFFLUENT FORCE MAIN AND PUMP STATION
I. Design Information
a. Flow required by Incineration Facility
(Based on maximum per day)
1985 - 125,000 gpd
2005 - 195,000 gpd
b. Distance between Greenport STP and Cutchogue landfill
site - 9 miles
II. Preliminary Design
a, Sizing of Force Main.
Assume: - Ductile Iron Pipe
- C = 120
- Design Flow ?195,000 gpd = 0.3018 cfs
- minimum velocity = 2.5 fps
A = Q/V = .3018 cfs/2.5 fps = 0.1207 sf
Min. diameter = 4.7 inches
b, Pump Station Design
Head loss in Pipe C = 120
Min Q = 200,000 gpd
Min V = 2.5 fps
Due to excessive length of pipe, design force main to
reduce total head loss. Limiting factor is minimum
velocity 2.5 fps. Therefore use 8 -inch diam pipe.
Using 8 -inch diam. pipe, Q = 575,000 gpd
V = 2.55 fps and Head Loss = 3.87 ft/1,000 ft.
Length of Force Main = 9 miles x 5280 ft/m = 47,520 ft.
Total Head Loss = 47.52 x 3.87 ft/1,000 = 183.9 ft.
Since head loss is significant, preliminary design
indicates pump configuration should be tandem, that is
two pumps installed in series.
Size of Pumps (Total of four pumps required - Two sets
of two pumps in series)
Q = 400 gpm at 100 ft. of head/each
ME
APPENDIX_D
Sample Ordinance for Establishing Fees
' and Charges for the Proposed Scavenger Waste
Improvement District
',I
' ■ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C. APPENDIX "D"
SAMPLE ORDINANCE FOR ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES
FOR THE PROPOSED SCAVENGER WASTE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
I 1
ORDINANCE NO.
' AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING RATES AND CHARGES FOR SCAVENGER
WASTE DISPOSAL SERVICE AND PROVIDING PROCEDURES
FOR ITS ENFORCEMENT
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board, Town of Southold, Suffolk
County, New York, as follows:
ARTICLE 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
1.1 Short Title. This ordinance may be cited as "Southold
Scavenger Waste Improvement District Ordinance".
1.2 Definitions. Unless the context otherwise indicates, terms
used herein have the following meanings:
(a) "District" means the Southold Scavenger Waste
Improvement District.
(b) "Board" means the Southold Town Board.
(c) "Sewage Disposal Charges" means fees, tolls, rates,
rentals or other charges for services and facilities
furnished by District in connection with septic
tank or other on-site disposal systems.
(d) "Sewage Disposal System" means a septic tank or any
other facility designed and constructed for the purpose
of receiving and disposing of sewage.
(e) "Sewage" means any combination of water -carried wastes
discharged from buildings in the District.
1.3 Need for Regulation. The Southold Scavenger Waste Improve-
ment District, heretofore formed pursuant to Resolution Nos.
and adopted by the Town Board on 19 and
19 , respectively for the purposes of protection
of the ground and surface waters from the disposition of sewage
from private sewage disposal systems within said area, without
which regulation will create a hazard to health, water quality
and danger of contamination of the water supply of the District.
D-1
' ■ I HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
1.4 Separability. The Board hereby declares that it would have
passed this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence,
' clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one
or more of the sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or
phrases be declared unconstitutional.
' 1.5 Posting. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days
after its passage. At least one (1) week before the expiration
of the said thirty (30) days, copies of the ordinance shall be
' posted at three (3) public places in the District and published
once in the (Local Newspaper).
ARTICLE 2. SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
' D-2
2.1 Permit Required. A permit shall be required for each and
'
every septic tank disposal system or other on-site sewage dis-
posal facility. Such permit shall be in accordance with Resolu-
tion No._, adopted by the Town Board on 19_.
'
2.2 Inspection Required. A permit for a new sewage disposal
system shall not become effective until the installation is com-
pleted to the satisfaction of the District Administration or his
authorized representative. He shall be allowed to inspect the
work at any stage of construction and, in any event, the appli-
cant for the permit shall notify the District Administrator or
his authorized representative when the work is ready for final
inspection, and before any underground portions are covered.
The inspection shall be made within forty-eight (48) hours,
Sundays and holidays excluded, of the receipt of the notice.
Installation shall conform to the plans and specifications fur-
nished by the District pursuant to the permit application.
'
2.3 Abandonment of Facilities. At such time as a public sewer
becomes available to a property served by a sewage disposal
system, a direct connection shall be made to the public sewer in
'
compliance with the ordinances, rules and regulations of the
District, and any septic tanks, cesspools, and similar private
sewage disposal facilities shall be abandoned and filled with
suitable material as determined by the District Administrator
or his authorized representative.
1
2.4 Maintenance and Monitoring by District. The District shall
operate and maintain the scavenger waste disposal facilities
constructed pursuant to this ordinance in a sanitary manner at
all times. To assure protection of surface and subsurface waters
'
the District will maintain a watershed monitoring program through-
out said areas of the District, such program to be in conformance
with standards determined in conjunction with the Suffolk County
Department of Health Services and the NYSDEC. The District
Administrator shall prepare, and from time to time as necessary
amend, rules and regulations governing said operation and main-
tenance of sewage disposal facilities and said monitoring program,
subject to approval thereof by resolution of the Board.
' D-2
IHIM
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
2.5 Additional Requirements. No statement contained in this
Article shall be construed to interfere with any additional re-
quirements that may be imposed by any law, ordinance, rule or
regulation or by the Health Officer of the County. In the event
any sewage disposal system installed pursuant to this ordinance
requires modification by reason of conditions below ground level
which were not apparent on the surface, and which become apparent
during construction of said system or as a result of the monitor-
ing program specified in Section 2.4 of this ordinance, the
owner of the lot shall make such modification at his expense.
In the event of failure of such owner to do so, within thirty
(30) days after written notice, mailed to his address as shown
on the last County equalized assessment roll or as filed with
the Clerk of District, then District shall make such modifica-
tion and the lot shall be subject to a service charge therefor
pursuant to Section 3.1 (c) of this ordinance.
2.6 Registration of Scavenger Trucks. All scavenger trucks
which utilize the District's scavenger waste pretreatment facility
shall obtain a permit for the operation thereof and a fee for such
permit. The permit shall be renewable annually. The District
shall provide a registered numbered decal for each truck which
shall be placed in plain view on the driver's door. The District
shall measure and record the capacity of each truck, such record
shall be written on the permit decal and in the District's
files. The capacity shall be full capacity rounded to the next
100 gallons.
ARTICLE 3. RATES AND CHARGES
3.1 Charges. Charges for the services of the District rendered
pursuant to this ordinance are hereby established as follows:
(a) An annual tax established each year by the District.
Said tax shall be utilized to provide for the amorti-
zation and interest charges for the scavenger waste
pretreatment facility, District administration, in-
spections, etc. However, it shall not include any
costs of operation and maintenance of the scavenger
waste pretreatment facility. The tax shall be assess-
ed against all real property within the Scavenger
Waste Improvement District.
(b) A charge rate per 1,000 gallons of scavenger waste
treated (based on scavenger waste tank truck full
capacity, not the volume delivered). Such rate
shall be established to provide for the operation
and maintenance of the scavenger waste pretreatment
facility.
(c) An annual fee of $100. per year for each scavenger
waste truck which utilizes the District's pretreat-
ment facility for disposal.
D-3
r)�♦
HOLZMACHER, MCLENOON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
' 3.2 Effective Date. Said charges shall become effective on the
first day of the month succeeding the effective date of this
ordinance.
3.3 Amendment. Any or all of the rates and charges established
' by this Article may be amended by resolution of the Board duly
adopted and filed in the office of the Town Clerk, copies of
which shall be available on request.
ARTICLE 4. BILLING AND CHARGES
' 4.1 Billing. The regular billing period will be for each calen-
dar month, or such other period as may be determined by the
Board.
' 4.2 Opening and Closing Bills. Opening and closing bills for
less than normal billing period shall be for not less than one
month.
4.3 Billing Time. Bills for scavenger treatment service shall
be rendered at the beginning of each billing period and are pay-
able upon presentation except as otherwise provided.
4.4 Bond Required. The Board may require the posting of a
' surety bond by each permitted scavenger waste truck. The amount
of said bond shall be determined by the District but shall not
be less than three (3) months revenue from said truck.
' 4.5 Collection by Suit. As an alternative to any of the other
procedures her provided, the District may collect said unpaid
charges by suit, in which event it shall have judgment for the
' cost of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees.
ARTICLE 5. USE OF TAX ROLL
5.1 Billie and Collectingon Tax Roll. District may provide
for the collection of current and or delinquent charges upon the
' tax roll upon which District taxes are collected, in the manner
provided by law therefor.
5.2 Procedure. When the District elects to use the tax roll on
' which general District taxes are collected for the collection of
current and/or delinquent scavenger waste treatment service
charges,
' 5.3 Report. A written report shall be prepared and filed with
the Town. Clerk, which shall contain a description of each parcel
' of real property receiving such services and facilities and the
amount of the charge for each parcel for the forthcoming year,
computed in conformity with the charges prescribed by this
ordinance.
1 D-4
U1/4 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
5.4 Notice. The Town Clerk shall cause notice of the filing of
the report and of the time and place of hearing thereon to be
published once a week for two successive weeks prior to the date
set for hearing, in the , a newspaper of general
circulation, printed and published in the District. Prior to
such election for the first time, the Town Clerk shall mail a
notice in writing of the filing of said first report proposing
to have such charges for the forthcoming fiscal year collected on
the tax roll, and of the time and place of hearing thereon, to
be mailed to each person to whom any part or parcel of real
property described in the report is assessed in the last equalized
assessment roll on which general district taxes are collected,
at the address shown on said roll or as known to the Town Clerk.
5.5 Hearing. At the time of said hearing, the Board shall hear
and consider all objections or protests, if any, to said report
referred to in said notice and may continue the hearing from
time to time.
5.6 Final Determination ofCharges. Upon the conclusion of the
hearing on the report, the Board will adopt, revise, change, re-
duce or modify any charge or overrule any or all objections and
shall make its determination upon each charge as described in
said report, which determination shall be final.
5.7 Filing of Report with County Auditor. On or before the
day of in each year following the final deter-
mination of the Board, the Town Clerk shall file with the Auditor
a copy of said report with a statement endorsed thereon over his
signature, that it has been finally adopted by the Board of the
District, and the Auditor shall enter the amounts of the charges
against the respective lots or parcels of land as they appear on
the current assessment roll.
5.8 Parcels Not on Roll. If the property is not described on
the roll, the Auditor shall enter the description thereon together
with the amounts of the charges as shown on the report.
5.9 Lien. The amount of the charges shall constitute a lien
against the lot or parcel of land against which the charge has
been imposed as of noon on the first Monday in of
each year. The Tax Collector shall include the amount of the
charges on bills for taxes levied against the respective lots
and parcels of land.
5.10 Tax Bill. Thereafter, the amount of the charges shall be
collected at the same time and in the same manner and by the
same persons as, together with and not separately from the
general taxes for the District, and shall be delinquent at the
same time and thereafter be subject to the same penalties for
delinquency.
D-5
H/J�\ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
5.11 Collection. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and
enforcement of general taxes of the District, including but not
limited to those pertaining to the matters of delinquency, correc-
tion, cancellation, refund and redemption, are applicable to such
charges.
ARTICLE 6. USE OF REVENUES
6.1 Use of Revenues. Revenues derived under this ordinance shall
' be used only to defray the costs and expenses of performing the
services to be provided by District pursuant to this ordinance.
ARTICLE 7. RELIEF FROM INEQUITY
7.1 Relief on Application. When any person by reason of special
circumstances, is of the opinion that any provision of this
ordinance is unjust or inequitable as applied to his premises,
he may make written application to the Board, stating the special
circumstances, citing the provision complained of, and request-
ing suspension or modification of that provision as applied to
his premises.
If such application be approved, the Board may, by resolution,
suspend or modify the provision complained of, as applied to
such premises, to be effective as of the date of the application
and coninuing during the period of the special circumstances.
7.2 Relief on Own Motion. The Board may, on its own motion,
find that by reason of special circumstances any provision of
this regulation and ordinance should be suspended or modified
as applied to a particular premises and may, by resolution,
order such suspension or modification of such premises during
the period of such special circumstances, or any part thereof.
ATTESTED:
Town Clerk
APPENDIX_E
Sample Ordinance Requiring a Cesspool/
Septic Tank Permit
HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
APPENDIX "E"
SAMPLE ORDINANCE REQUIRING A CESSPOOL
SEPTIC TANK PERMIT
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING PERMITS TO
CONSTRUCT OR OPERATE CESSPOOL SEPTIC TANKS
OR ON-SITE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS IN THE
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
' BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board, Town of Southold,
Suffolk County, New York, as follows:
Section 1. Purpose
2.2 Exceptions to paragraph (1) previous, are granted to all
existing owners, dwellings, private domestic sewage treatment
and disposal systems in extence on the date of adoption of
this ordinance provided that such private domestic sewage treat-
ment and disposal system is in no way altered, reconstructed,
pumped or requiring maintenance. At such time as the private
sewage treatment and disposal system requires alteration, re-
construction, pumping or maintenance the owner shall be required
to obtain the permit described in paragraph (1) previous.
Section 3. Fee
a fee of $1X shall accompany each application for the septic
tank maintenance permit for residential areas and a fee of $2X
for commercial areas.
E-1
It is recognized that proper maintenance of septic tanks will
increase the useful life of all on-site sewage disposal systems
which rely on soil absorption of septic tank effluent. To further
the purpose of increased life of such on-site disposal sys-
tems, and to protect the health, safety and welfare of the in-
habitants of the Town of Southold, the District hereby
establishes a septic tank maintenance permit program.
'
Section 2. Permit Required
2.1 No owner may occupy, rent, lease, live-in or reside in,
either seasonally or permanently, any building, residence, or
other structure serviced by a private domestic sewage treatment
and disposal system; unless the owner has a valid septic tank
maintenance permit for that system issued in his name by the
(District Administrator or his authorized agent). Owner
is defined to mean "a natural person, corporation, the State
or any subdivision thereof".
2.2 Exceptions to paragraph (1) previous, are granted to all
existing owners, dwellings, private domestic sewage treatment
and disposal systems in extence on the date of adoption of
this ordinance provided that such private domestic sewage treat-
ment and disposal system is in no way altered, reconstructed,
pumped or requiring maintenance. At such time as the private
sewage treatment and disposal system requires alteration, re-
construction, pumping or maintenance the owner shall be required
to obtain the permit described in paragraph (1) previous.
Section 3. Fee
a fee of $1X shall accompany each application for the septic
tank maintenance permit for residential areas and a fee of $2X
for commercial areas.
E-1
HZ*4 HOLZMACHER, MCLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
Section 4. Permit Application
4.1 Application for a septic tank maintenance permit shall be
made to the (District Administrator or his authorized
agent) on forms supplied by him. All applications shall state
the owner's name and address, the address or location of the pri-
vate sewage system and shall contain the following statement:
"I certify that on day of , 19 , I inspected
the septic tank located at the address stated on this
application, and I (check one):
-- required pumping all sludge and scum out of the
septic tank, or
-- found that the volume of sludge and scum was less than
1/3 of the tank volume, and did not require pumping of
the septic tank, or
-- collected water and wastewater samples.
Signature (District Administrator
or authorized agent)"
4.2 The form of application for permit shall include a grant to
the District of the right to maintain, operate and repair the
facility, upon its completion to the District's satisfaction,
and an agreement to observe all District rules, regulations and
ordinances and to pay all District charges.
Section 5. Issuance
' The (District Administrator or his authorized agent)
shall issue a permit to the applicant upon receipt of the fee
and a completed application.
The permit shall include on its face all information contained
in the application and shall contain the date of issuance and
date of expiration.
' Section 6. Validity
The permit issued under this section shall be valid for as long
as the owner of the property remains the same or until expiration
of same.
1
' E-2
■ 2AA HOLZMACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, P.C.
Section 7. Sale of Property
When property containing a private domestic sewage system is
sold the new owner, prior to occupying, renting, leasing, or
residing in the building, residence of structure served by the
system, shall make application for and receive a septic tank
maintenance permit; however, the system may be used for a period
not to exceed 30 days after making application for a permit.
E-3
APPENDIX_F
Job Descriptions
■ ILJj HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
APPENDIX "F"
JOB DESCRIPTIONS
1. SUPERINTENDENT
' (As previously explained, the Inc. Village of Greenport's
Superintendent of Utilities will continue to supervise the plant).
General. Statement of Duties. Directs the operation, mainte-
nance and construction of the wastewater treatment, collection
and pumping facilities. Supervises workmen, fulfills all admin-
istrative requirements of State Pollution Discharge Elimination
System Permits.
' Distinguishing Features of the Class. This is responsible
work requiring administrative and supervisory skills. Good com-
munication skills are required. Supervisory ability and dele-
gation of work assignments is required. Ability to plan future
' work, budgets and needs, is required.
Examples of Work. Develops weekly work assignments. Moni-
tors operating performance of the waste treatment plants. Makes
necessary decisions to adjust plant operation to improve per-
formance. Completes regulatory permits and reports. Reviews
' preventative and routine maintenance. Prepares budgets.
Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities. Knowledge of
wastewater treatment plant operations and laboratory procedures
' is required. A Class III -A or higher (as required by the regu-
latory authority) is required. Good written and oral communi-
cation skills are required. Knowledge of routine and preventa-
tive maintenance of mechanical, electrical and fluid systems is
required. Ability to plan work schedules and future budgets and
needs. Ability to organize and supervise the work of others.
Acceptable Experience and Training. Five (5) years of ex-
perience in wastewater treatment plant operation and/or accept-
able education beyond high school, or any equivalent combination
tof experience and training.
' 2. CHIEF OPERATOR
(The existing S.T.P. operator will continue to operate this
' plant).
General Statement of Duties. Performs routine mechanical
work in the operation of a water pollution control plant; does
' related work as required.
F-1
' ■ IL/� HOLZMACHER, McLENDON 8 MURRELL, P.C.
APPENDIX "F" (CONT -D.)
' Distinguishing Features of the Class. Duties are of a
routine mechanical nature involving responsibility for ef-
' ficient operation of plant and for assisting in the mainte-
nance of equipment at the plant. The work is performed under
the immediate supervision of a superior and requires strict
adherence to established procedures. Supervison may be exer-
cised over the work of water pollution control plant attendant(s)
Examples of Work. Starts and stops pumps, motors, air com-
pressors and other machinery and equipment; operates, maintains
and lubricates comminutor, mixers, floating aerators, pumps and
similar equipment; takes samples of water and makes simple physi-
cal tests, makes minor repairs to machinery and equipment; moni-
tors meters, gauges and control pumps; keeps records and makes
reports of plant operations; performs a variety of custodian
duties; observes variations in operating conditions and makes
' appropriate equipment adjustments; and adjusts and lubricates
pump packings.
Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities. Some knowledge
' of and skill in the operation of pumps, motors and other me-
chanical equipment; ability to make simple mechanical repairs,
aptitude for mechanical work; ability to understand and carry
' out oral and written directions; dependability; alertness and
good physical condition.
' Acceptable Experience and Training. One year of satis-
factory experience in a water pollution control treatment plant;
or three months of satsifactory experience in a water pollution
control treatment plant and completion of a course of instruction
in wastewater treatment approved by the public health council;
or any equivalent combination of experience and training.
' 3. ATTENDANT
' (Up to two additional attendants will be required to operate
this plant).
General Statement of Duties. Performs manual work at the
water pollution control plant; does related work as required.
Distinguishing Features of the Class. This is routine
manual work requiring no previous training or experience, but
requiring physical endurance and a willingness to perform
various tasks.. The work is performed under immediate supervision.
F-2
' UZA#A HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
1
Examples of Work. Starts and stops pumps, motors, air com-
pressors and other machinery and equipment, as directed; cleans,
flushes and maintains equipment, as directed; adds lime into
tanks; transfers chlorine cylinders and does other assists in
operation of comminutor, mixers, screening, settling tanks and
pumps; removes snow; assists in maintaining pump stations; per-
forms a variety of custodial duties; cleans drains, ditches and
culverts; mows lawn and maintains landscaping; collects and dis-
poses of trash and garbage; washes and cleans vehicles; drives
Bobcat used for sludge removal; rough paints; lubricates machinery
and unloads materials.
Required Knowledge, Skills and Abilities. Willingness to per-
form routine manual work; ability to lift heavy weights; physical
endurance, and good physical condition.
Acceptable Experience and Training. None required.
F-3
EXISTING GREENPORT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
PROPOSED SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM
n
I Pt '4 \
, l bond
'COUNTY
PARK
ro Pv4n Ro[Y u p�;a
r M
R. t
- Znl,a wnN.i/ l
P'
I
P
e
C
i o
L
P ,
.� PI
Pipes
SITE MAP
SCALE :1`=2000'
i
i
UNCOVERED SLUDGE DRYING BED
/r
EXISTING UNCOVERED
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
OVERED SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
�i x fx
EXISTING
GARAGE ��
-, ADDIT,IONAL SLUDGE DISTRIBUTION PIPING, \t
EXISTING CHEMICAL
EXISTING COVERED STORAGE BUILDING-
LUDGE DRYING BEDS
::L
EXISTIING SECONDARY SLUDGE PUMP ROOM L� -*SEE
NOTE
1 _
EXISTING FINAL CLARIFIER EXISTING'
IMH.OFF
I
TANK'
I
EXISTING CHLORINE CONTACT TANK EXISTING FUEL TANF
EXISTING AERATED LAGOON',
II
EXISTING AERATED LAGOON.
ANAERIOBIC pIGESTER
CHEMICAL STORAGE VAULT
EXISTING P MP'STATIO'N +2?:1"' !>:i`, ii <JiEis i•:;;,a
EFFLUENT REU$C*;.,
W
PUMP STATION
Sr,<
Z
EXISTING GENERAATO,
R Q
sl x _ ` i ilii, ;77tivil
MNG PHOT0CI,RG111T'S WASTE .FEM7,TA- NK' L
I
SLUDGE WELL AND PUMPS; y
Lu1
SCAVENGER WASTEi' MECHANICAL BUILDING
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION-- �*
SECONDARY SETTLING TAN♦ I PRETRE'ATM NT BUILDING 0
SCUM WELL -AN'D .PUMIPS: " rr
ROTATING BIO DISC UNITS EOUTANKTIONI
ANK !!I -
»--.�_-
PRIMARY' ;SETTLING TANK FLASH MIX TANK
FLOCCULATION TANK
PROPOSED SCAVENGER, WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM
*NOTE,: SCAVENGER WASTE SLUDGE PIPJNG TO BE
CONNEG'Ti=p`TO EXISTING 8''SLUDGE DRAWOPF LINE,
1 I KEY
Y ":
1 I PROPOSED, UNIT PROCESS
'SCAVENGER WASTE PIPING
SCAVENGER WASTE SLUDGE PIPING
luI, x— EXISTING FENCE
1 —x— PROPOSED: FENCE
x
PWOPOOED PAVING_
EXISTING GREENPORT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
'Alr6llArlan of THlp 000uMlNr E%cEPf PYA - "Ut'UJ¢u' 31Ir IHrrcrvuln H .I
LIGEN l IONAL MINEIA IBILLlMt-