HomeMy WebLinkAboutWastewater Facility Plan - Revised - 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
REVISED JULY 1982
RECEIVE~
JUL 2.31982
Town Clerk South'old
HOLZMACHER,McLENDON andMURRELL, P.C.
N.Y. FacmingOale, N Y Riverl3eacl. N.Y
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL, P.C. · CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRO~
125 BAYLIS ROAD, SUITE 140, MELVILLE, N.Y. 11747 · 516-752.9060
JUL 2 3 1982 !,
July 23, 1982
Supervisor William R. Pell, III
and Members of the Town Board
Town of Southold
Town Hall, Main Road
Southold, New York 11971
Oril~.
Copies
Adg, Date
File
Mayor George W. Hubbard
and Members of the Board of Trustees
Inc. Village of Greenport
Village Hall
236 Third Street
Greenport, New York 11944
Re:
Greenport-Southold Selected Plan Report
GRSO 81-01
Gentlemen:
We are enclosing two copies of the Revised Selected Plan for
the Greenport-Southold 201 Study area. As explained in the
cover letter, this report differs from the previously submitted
report in that the effluent reuse system has been deleted.
The cost estimates and data relating to the proposed scavenger
waste/sludge treatment and disposal facilities are the same as
those that appeared in the May, 1982 report.
By copy of this letter, we are transmitting copies to the
Town and Village Clerks which should be made available to the
public rather than the May, 1982 Report. Hopefully, this will
result in less confusion as to the status of the effluent reuse
system. If any questions arise, please contact Dennis Kelleher
or myself at 752-9060.
Loesch, P.E.
Eric.
cc:
Very truly yours,
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
GEL/mf
Superintendent James I. Monsell
Judith Terry, Town Clerk
Nancy Cook, Village Clerk
Melville, NeW York * Farmlngdale, New York * fliverhead, New York
I
I
I
I Supervisor William R. Pell, III
and Members of the Town Board
Town of Southold
Town Hall, Main Road
I Southold, New York 11971
Mayor George W. Hubbard
I and Members of the Board of Tru
Inc. Village of Greenport
Village Hall
I 236 Third Street
Greenport, New York 11944
Gentlemen:
I On May 4, 1982, we submitt
titled, "Selected Plan Report."
I Town of Southold, Village of Gr
agencies including NYSDEC, SCDH
mended construction of a ~caven
Idisposal facility. In ad(ition
presented for an effluent reuse
to the potential Energy D~
I plex'NYSDEC requested tha'
town did not have a ".soli~
I solid waste incineration
not been made, we have re'
ent reuse system from the
I contains the same data n~
get was e/sludge treat n
peared n the report d e~
I In ormational mee n~
scheduled during July d
tunity o comment on t
I discuss any aspects of h
HOLZMACHER, McLENDON and MURRELL. P.C. * CONSULTING ENGINEERS. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS
125 BAYLIS ROAD, SUITE 140, MELVILLE, N.Y, 11747 ,,. 516-752-9060 July 19, 1 98 :g
of Trustees
we submitted Volume III of three volumes en-
This report was reviewed by the
Town of Southold, Village of Greenport and various regulatory
SCDHS and USEPA. The report recom-
mended construction of a scavenger waste/sludge treatment and
In addition, data and cost estimates were
system to supply treated effluent
to the potential Energy Development Corp. (EDC) incinerator com-
that the Selected Plan be revised if the
a ".solid commitment" with EDC to construct the
solid waste incineration complex. Since such a commitment has
have revised the report by deleting the efflu-
Selected Plan. This revised report
data and cost estimates for the proposed scaven-
ger waste/sludge treatment and disposal system as those that ap-
in the report dated May 4, 1982.
Informational meetings and a Public Hearing have been
scheduled during July and August to provide the public an oppor-
to comment on the Selected Plan. We would be pleased to
this report at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
HOLZMACHER, M~cLENI~ON & MURRELL,
Gary E. Loesch, P.E.
Ero3e~t Director~ ,
Dennis M. Kelleher
Project Manager
P.Co
GEL:vm
Inc. Village of Greenport
and
Town of Southold
Suffolk County, New York
Section 201
Wastewater Facility Plan
C- 36 - 1120
Selected Plan
Report
MAY 1982
HOLZMACHER,McLENDON andMURRELL, P.C.
~ HOLZMACHER, McI.ENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
AND
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
2.0
3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
SELECTED FACILITY PLAN - STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS
PLANNING PERIOD
NEEDS OF STUDY AREA
WASTE FLOW AND CHARACTERISTICS
DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
COST ESTIMATES FOR STRUCTURAL RECOMMENDATIONS
4.0 CESSPOOL/SEPTIC TANK MANAGEMENT PLAN (CSTMP)
4.1 GENERAL
4.2 DISTRICT MANAGEMENT
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.2.4
4.3
4.4
4.5
TOTAL MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
ON-SITE SYSTEM MAINTENANCE
ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING
PROBLEM CORRECTION
FEE 'STRUCTURE
STAFFING REQUIREMENTS
MODEL SCAVENGER WASTE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
AND CESSPOOL/SEPTIC TANK MAINTENANCE PERMIT
ORDINANCES
PAGE NO.
1.1
2.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.4
3.6
3.20
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.4
4.5
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
I
I
I
~ HOLZMACHER. McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C,
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D.)
5.0 STAFFING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TREATMENT
FACILITIES
6.0 NON-STRUCTURAL ALTERNATIVES
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SELECTED PLAN
7.1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE SCAVENGER
WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
8.0 ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
9.0
IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION
FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS
PROJECT COSTS
PROJECT SCNEDULE
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE 201 FACILITY
PLANNING PROCESS
ii
PAGE
NO.
5.1
6.1
7.1
7.1
8.1
8.1
8.5
8.6
8.9
8.13
9.1
~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE
NO.
1
2
3
4
10
11
LIST OF TABLES
TITLE
SERVICE AREA POPULATION PROJECTIONS
FUTURE WASTE LOADINGS (YEAR 2005)
FUTURE SLUDGE QUANTITIES
SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY -
ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL -
ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
SELECTED PLAN COST SUMMARY
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE FUNDING OF PROJECT
ESTIMATED O & M COST FOR THE SCAVENGER
WASTE/SLUDGE TREATMENT FACILITY
ANNUAL BUDGET DATA FOR CSTMP
(1983 DOLLARS)
BUDGET AND TAX RATE FOR IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT
PRoPOsED PROJECT SCHEDULE
iii
PAGE
NO.
3.4
3.5
'3.16
3.21
3.23
3.24
8.8
8.10
8.11
8.12
8.15
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~/~ HOLZMACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, P.C.
FIGURE
NO.
LIST OF FIGURES
TITLE
PROPOSED SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY -
FLOW SCHEMATIC
HYDRAULIC PROFILES
PROPOSED SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL METHOD
APPENDIX "A"
APPENDIX "B"
"B-I"
"B-2"
"8-3"
APPENDIX "D"
APPENDIX
APPENDIX "F"
LIST OF APPENDICES
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF SCAVENGER
WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF EFFECT OF
SCAVENGER WASTE ON EXISTING
GREENPORT STP
PRELIMINARY DESIGN OF SLUDGE
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
SAMPLE ORDINANCE FOR ESTABLISHING
FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE PROPOSED
SCAVENGER WASTE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
MODEL ORDINANCE REQUIRING A CESSPOOL/
SEPTIC TANK PERMIT
JOB DESCRIPTIONS
iv
PAGE
NO.
3.11
3.12
3.18
A-1
B-1
B-5
B-6
D-1
E-1
F-1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ HO~ 7MACHER, 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 Tceatment
Capital Cost
Construction
Engineering, Legal, Admin.,
and Contingencies
Interest During Constru6tion
= $837,000.
= 176,000.
= 100,000.
$1,113,000.
1.1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I'-I~ HO~ 7MACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
II'. Sludge Treatment and Dis-
posal Capital Cost
Construction = $475,000.
Engineering, Legal, Admin.,
and Contingencies = 100,000.
Interest During Construction = 57,000.
III. Total Capital Costs (I & II
$ 632,000.
.$i,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
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 Dalance
of the annual costs. The resultant annual tax is estimated at
$7.26/unit, or $0.085/$100. Assessed Valuation (A.V.).
We believe that the approach utilized in this analysis is
conservative. The following factors will all influence the costs
shown in this report. Ail of the factors will tend to decrease
the annual cost.
1.2
!
!
~ HOI 7MACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, P.C.
1. Zero percent N.Y. State aid for O & 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. All Of
the non-structural controls should be Given further consideration
with regard to their implementation.
1.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~'~t HOI 7MACHER. McLENDON & MURRELL,
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 - Engineerin~ and Environmental Data Re~ort
This volUme provided a description of the existing situation
and requirements prerequisite to detailed planning for wastewater
t~eatment 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.
V61ume II - Alternatives Evaluation and Environmental Assessment
Report
This document f6cused 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~"~ HOLZMACHER. McLENDON & 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
~nvironmental impact and implementation.feasibility.
Volume III - Selected Plan Re~ort
This document deals primarily with the development of a
wastewater management plan recommended for the Inc. village of
Greenport, Town of Southold D~ainage 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 sewe~ed area management plan will only pertain to the
existing Inc. Villag~ of Greenport sewage collection and treat-
ment system. Expansion of the collection system is not recom-
mended at this time. Based On ou{ 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 govecnmental 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 re~val. Therefore, this change in effluent limitatipns re-
sults in the Greenport facility consistently meeting its SPDES
2.2
I-I~/~ 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
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 operatfon of on-site systems.
After scavenger waste has been partially treated, the ef-
fluent from the system will be ad4ed 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 iplant,
Greenport .can. defray portions of their capital and operating costs
by charging the town an appropriate user's fee.
2.3
I
I
I'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~"~ 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
plan was cost effective, environmentally sound
feasible.
The preliminary design elements of the sub-regional
that the above
and impleme'ntally
system,
cost estimates,
recommendations
report.
environmental
are described
assessment and implementation
in the following sections of this
2.4
~.,'~ HO~MACHER. McLENDON & 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 Gree~port 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.
treatment, scavenger waste
treatment and disposal and
These are divided into wastewater
treatment, effluent disposal, sludge
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
I--I(~/~ HO!..ZMACHER, McLENDON & 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 coatamination have already been de-
tected throughout the town and village. Major contaminatfon
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 onrsite septic systems for sanitary waste disposal.
These individual systems, typically cesspools and septic tanks,
p~ovide marginal treatment of wastewater in terms of nitrogen
~emoval. with nitrate contamination a major concern in terms
of groundwater quality within the study a~ea, the need for al-
ternative wastewater treatment was evaluated in the Alternatives
4ocument. Due to the fact that on-site subsurface disposal
systems comtribute only a minor percentage of the total nitro-
gen loading, and that the associated costs of alternative waste-
water treatment a~e excessive, the expansion of the Greenport
sewage collection system has been eliminated from further con-
sideration.
3.2
!
!
~'-~ HOI 7MACHER. McLENDON & MURRELL. P.C.
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 (N¥SDEC), due to the many environmental problems
associated with this practice. The most critical environmental
p~oblem 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
details and the basis of design of the se-
will provide further
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.
3.3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
I
I
I
I
~-/~ HO~ 7MACHER, 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
2005 POPULATION
Greenport Collection System 4,023 4,400
Remaining Town of Southold 21~172 34t658
TOTAL 25,195 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
I
I
~ HOI~MACHER. McLENDON & MURRELI~ P.C.
TABLE 2
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
FUTURE WASTE LOADINGS
(YEAR '2005)
1. Raw Wastewater
Greenport Collection
System
- Projected (for
Year 2005)
Des ig n
2. Scavenger Waste
Town of Southold
3. Scavenger Waste
Town of Shelter
Island
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
BOD- 5
CONCEN- CONCEN-
FLOW TRATION LOADING TRATION
(GPD) (mg/1) Lbs/Day (m~/1)
286,000 200 477 200 477
500,000 200 834 200 834
19,700 4,150 682 4,770 784
3,100 4,150 107 4,77U 123
3.5
LOADING
Lbs/Day
~.j~ HOI..ZMACHER, McLENOON & MURRELI., P.C.
reached, the Greenport/Southold facility would De designed to
handle this additional loading.
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 and increased operation and maintenance
costs.
Both towns will be required to implement a scavenger waste
management plan.
3.4 DESCRIPTION OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES
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-
Dended 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, NYD~C
3.6
!-~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & 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
rew~val requirement for suspended solids to reflect the in=
crease in the suspended solids effluent limitation, which was
20, 1981. The revised effluent limitations
Solids
(30 day mean)
granted on October
are as follows:
a. Suspended
b. Suspended Solids (7 day mean)
70 rog/1
292 lbs/day
105 mg/1
438 lbs/day
Ail 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
p~eliminary treatment, primary treatment and the rotating bio-
logical disc (RBD) process to separately treat septic (scavenger)
waste, in o~der to reduce the BOD strength to that comparable
3.7
~-~.J~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
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 ~o
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.
3.8
~/~ HO~ 7MACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
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 weekenas.
This will allow for a five-day operation for receiving scaven-
ger waste, although the plant will be capable of receiving it
six or seven days/week should the town/village select this
operation. 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 im-
prove settling characteristics. Research has shown that ferric
chloride in dosages of 400 to 600 mg/1 has achieved consistent
settling results in pilot study tests. The flow will continue
to a flocculation tank, and then to a primary settlin9 tank
for solids separation.
and BOD-5 removals of
obtained with primary
Additional BOD-5
It is anticipated that suspended solids
70 and 50 percent respectively, can be
settling.
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 De
designed to achieve a BOD-5 effluent quality of 300 mg/l, after
3.9
~.~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
secondary clarification. The clarification process will reduce
the suspended soliGs 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
collection system. The combined flows will be treated Dy the
existing Greenport sewage treatment plant. The treated e.ffluent
will be required to meet the effluent limitations set Dy the
SPDES permit.
A superstructure (Mechanical Buiidiny) 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
sign data for these facilities are provide~ in Appendix A and B.
The resultant effluent quality of the scavenger waste treat-
ment system is estimated to De 250 mg/1 of suspended solids an~
300 mg/1 of BOD-5. The effect of these loadings on
plant from scavenger waste should be minimal, since
lar to medium to high strength sanitary wastewater.
the scavenger waste facility will operate under the existing
Greenport STP discharge p~rmit, it is recommended that effluent
monitoring be conducted to ensure proper treatment Dy the scaven-
ger waste treatment facility. Scavenger waste effluent quality
the Greenport
they are simi-
Even though
3.10
FIGURE I
PROPOSED
SCAVENGER WASTE Ferric Chloride
TREATMENT SYSTEM Storage Tank pH Adjustment
Grit to Contro I P rim ary
S e t t ling Secondary
Landfill ~ Chemical TankSett/~ngTa~k . Intermediate
~ ~ '~ Exhaust, , Additioning
~ Bar ~__ ~ ~PumPS
Screen ~ I , ~ --
i ~..~ v , J~. ~Y _~' - _ I--~'-- '~ ' ~r'' i Air ~ F/ash Mix Flocculation; Tank
~eceiving ~ ~ ~ ~ Tank ~ Biological Disc
Chamber
Aerated Equalization
(Two Portals) Grit Cham~ Tank
lair I Sludge Rdm~al
Head~rs Sludge Bemoval
(See Flow Schematic (See F~w Schematic
Figure 5 ) Figure ~ )
Blowers
Scavenger ~mhoff Metering
Waste Tan~ Pit
A~rated Final ~ ~ Outfall Force Ma/~
Effluent ~ ~ ~ agoons ~ Clarih~r ~
~ ~ ~ To Sound
~aw Wastewater --~ ~-' Chlorin~ Effluent
From Central ~--~ ; ~ Contac1 Wet
~ ~ ~ Tank We II
~ump
Stat z~n
~ ~ Sludge ~emoval
Sludg~ Removal
(Se~ Flow Schematic
Figure ~ ) ~~
EXISTING
GR~ENPORT SEWAGE
TREATMENT SYSTEM
~- SECTION 201
WAS~'EWATER FACILITY PLAN STUOY
C-~-1120
SI_ECTED PLAN REPORT
~~ HO~MACHER~ MGLBNOON
~NSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and P~NNERS RIVERH~D,N.Y.
3.11
FIGURE 2
~ Imhoff Tank
In fluent Channel
20i ~ .Fw.u /9.0 . .weir £/ov.
v, ' I I o,7~ - e/o,./o.o-Q~_ chon,e/.\Ma/hOopla/Itc
· . Actor '
chamber ' ~ Iogoons ]~- i oar/f/or .4Inv. IP.96;
~ . ~ MotorIng Gnv.~
,0 irorco MaIn, "~ X Pi, /LoS fill/oeo,
fram Control"~ ~' '"~..~ ~ Pumps
pump Stop/on~ Ch/or/ne
5 Contact
Tank
0
Zmhoff Tank &
Sludge Oi~osPor EXISTING GREENPORT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
25
Road Surface To Imhoff TaMe
E/ev. ~00 Eauo/izaHon Head W.L ff.O WI. I~.§ Influent Channe/-~
20 0,~ Tan# Box ~ I
InHuenP ~ ~- .... ~ ~ ~ ~ Pr/mbry
Ports Bar Screen Flash SoPPling
Mix Flo¢¢uloP/on Ponk
~ (~ Tank Tank R o Po t/ng Se~o~O~ry ~
-OverHow Bio Disc $~
Return ~ ~ Un/Ps T(]nk ;covonger
Aoroped
Grip chombor
PROPOSED SCAVENGER.WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
~ HYDRAULIC PROFILES
~ ~,~ I / ,~!, ~,o,./o.o~..~_ chon,e/.\
' Well
Oistri u ~ ~ ~o eons OoriHer ~In~lP.9~
from Control Pumps
~ump Stotion Chlorine
Conto~t
. Tonk
TOWN 0~' ~0UTHOLD- ~ VILLAGE OF
SECTION
WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN STUDY
C-~6*IIZO
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
HOLZMACHER~ M'"I-EN;~'GRI ~' MURRELL, P.e. F~A~ii~"~LF..~N.y.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS and PLANNERS RIVERHEAO. N.Y.
3.12
~ HO. LZMACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, P.C.
should meet the design criteria of 250 mg/1 anG 300 mg/1 for SS
and BOO-5, respectively. Therefore, the scavenger waste facility
will only utilize less than 7 percent of the Greenport STP'S or-
ganic treatment capacity.
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 utiliz,es 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.
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 p{7ovided, the effluent quality of the combined waste
stream will conform to the effluent limitations indicated in
the existing Greenport STP SPDES permit. SJLnce the pro3ected
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
3.13
I-'f¢~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELI., P.C.
o,f the chlorination equipment at the sewage treatment/scavenger
w~aste treatment facility.
D. Sludge Treatment and Disposal
Sludge volumes from the Imhoff tanK, s~:ondary settling
tank and scavenger waste treatment system will equal more than
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 adOed
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 cortsist 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 f~)m the scavenger
waste primary and secondary settling tanks. The digester
3.14
~[~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TAB LE 3
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
FUTURE SLUDGE QUANTITIES
Greenport Sewage
Treatment Plant
(actual)
Southold Scaven-
ger Waste
Shelter Island
Scavenger Waste
TOTAL of 1, 2 &~.3
Greenpor t S.T.P.
Des ign
INFLUENT SLUDGE
FLOW CONCEN. QUANTITIES
(GPD) (mg/1)_ (Lbs/Day)*
~86,000 200 406
19,700 4,15U. 677
3,100 4,15~1 1U7
1,190
500,000 20U 7U9
in effluent of treat-
*Assumes 30 mg/1 suspended solids remains
merit process (in dry solids)
3.15
I'J~/~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
system will be equipped with external mixing and heating systems.
~rovisions will De made to the fuel feed equipment to utilize
methane gas for heating. Excess methane gas will be Durned on
site. A floating cover will De utilized and equipped with ap-
propriate safety equipment, including flame check and arrester,
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 58U0
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 l/4-inch pea gravel, with a ~inal layer
of 8-inches of coarse sand.
After drying, the sludge is
on site. This current method of
currently :stored or landfilled
ultimate sludge disposal utilized
by the Inc. Village of Gr~enport can not De continued without the
village obtaining a NYSDEC Part 360 permit. Sludge disposal at
the existing Town of Southold sanitary landfill at CutchoGue is
3.16
~,~ HO~ 7MACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, P.C.
recommended. The Alternatives document stated that the land-
fill would require a liner. However, NYSDEC is permitting
sludge disposal at unlined sanitary landfills if certain con-
ditions are met. These include, (1) sludge must De digested,
(2) greater than 20 percent solids, and (3) amount o[ sludge
must be less than 25 percent of total volume being landfilled.
Since disposal of treated/digested sludge to an unlined 1End-
fill is cost effective and environmentally acceptable, dried
sludge will be transported from the wastewater treatment site
at GreenpOrt to the Cutchogue landfill site..
Additional equipment required for implementation o£ this
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 existing .sludge scraper was purcl~ased in 1975 and is
not expected to remain in operation through the year 2UU5 with
the expected large increase in sludge volume. The new front
end loader shall only be utilized for sludge removal operations.
The entire sludge treatment and disposal flow schematic
is shown on Figure 3.
found in Appendix B.
E. Miscellaneous
Preliminary design calculations can be
Design and Construction Characteristics
Design. and construction of the selected plan will De in
accordance with the provisions of N¥SDEC - "GLUMRB - RecommendeG
Standards for Sewage Works", 1978 edition or the latest addenda.
3.17
Primary Supernatant to Head End
& of Greenport Plant Proposed
~CAV£NGER -~ondary ~ ~ Cnvered
Sludge
TREATMENT I
SYSTEM ~
. ~ Proposed
Sludge ~ ~ ~_ Uncovered
Pump High Rate Sludge
Anaerobic Drying Beds
Digester Dried Sludge
Trucked to
~Sanitary LandHII
at Cutchogue.
Existing
Uncovered
~' Sludge
GREENPORT Imhoff ~ Drying Beds
SEWAGE Tank
TREATMENT Seco~ary Sludge
- from
Fingl Clgrifier
Exisfing
~ Cover'ed
~ Di~ested Sludge ~ ~ Sludge
O rying Beds.
PR~P0SED SLUDGE TEEATMENT
AND D~SPeSAL ME. OD
SECTION 2OI
WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN STUDY
~NS~T~ ENGINEERS, ENVI~NMENTAL SClE~ISTS a~ P~NNERS
I'~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
In addition, it will comply with USEPA "Design Criteria kor Me-
chanical, 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 proDosed scavenger waste
s~stem layout. Relocation of fencing will be required to enclose
tihe additions to the combined treatment systems. AOditiowai in-
ternal road work will be required to permit easy entrance and
exit of the scavenger waste haulers.
Construction of superstructures will im=lude the Scavenger
Waste Pretreatment Building, Scavenger Waste Mechanical Building
and the Effluent Pump Station. The Mechanical Building will
house aeration equipment, chemical feed pumps, electrical control
~oom and an equipment storage room. The Pretreatment Building
will house the grit .~emoval 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.
3.19
I'-I~;~1~ HOI. ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Ail gratings, railings and slide gates will be o~ 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 Dlend with
the existing'background. Tank interiors shall be coated
rosion protection.
The entire a~ea within the site that is disturbed due to
construction shall be finished, seeded and otherwise landscaped
to present a pleasing appearance.
B.5 COST ESTIMATES FOR STRUCTURAL RECOMMEN£~TIONS
£or cot-
Cost estimates have been prepared for the various elements
of the selected plan, including scavenger waste treatment and
additional sludge treatment and disposal. TaDles 4 and 5 pro-
vide the cost opinions for construction, engineering, legal,
administration, interest costs during construction, and con-
tin~encies associated with the implementation o[ each of these
elements of the selected plan. The construction costs are pre-
sented in 1982 dollars and then p~o3ected to the anticipated
time of construction. This is based on an pro3ected annual 8
percent inflation rate for 1982-83.
The constructio~ cost for scavenger waste treatment and ad-
ditional sludge t~eatment and disposal is estimated at $1,312,O00.
in 1983 dollars. Engineering (including plans and specifications,
~ominal contractor observation services, survey and topographic
services), administration and legal fees were estimated at 21
3.20
~'-~[ HOI.ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 4
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
Construction Cost
A. Pretreatment
Receiving Station, Bar Screen,
Aerated Grit Chamber, Super-
structu{e, Odor Control System
B. Equalization Tank & Associated
Equipment
C. Chemical Additioning
Flash Mix Tank, Chemical Feed
Equipment, Chemical Storage Tank
and Vault, Flocculation Tank
D. Primary/Secondary Settling Tanks
E. Rotating Biological Discs
Mechanical Building
G. Plant Piping
H. Site Work
I. Excavation
J. Electrical & Instrumentation
K. Mobilization & Miscellaneous
Sub-Total (Construction - 1982 $)
Allowance for Inflation to 1983
(8% per year) ~
Sub-Total (Construction - 1983 $)
3.21
$120,000.
105,000.
45,000.
75,000.
200,000.
75,000.
20,000.
30,000.
25,000.
50,000.
30tO00.
$775,000.
62~000.
$837,000.
I'-~("~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
**
TABLE 4 (CONT'D.)
Engineering, Legal, Administration
and Contingencies
Engineering, Legal, Administration
and Contingencies (21%)
Interest During Construction
(12% 'of Total Construction Cost)
ESTIMATE BASED ON 1983 DOLLARS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
3.22
$176,000.
100~000.
$1,113,000.
~1~ HOI_ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C,
TABLE 5
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
ENGINEERING COST ESTIMATE
Construction Cost
A. Anaerobic Digester with
Associated Equipment
B. Additional Sludge Drying Beds
(Covered and Uncovered)
C. Plant Piping
D. Site work
E. Electrical & Instrumentation
F. Mobilization & Miscellaneous
G. Sludge Transport Vehicle
H. Front-End Loader (Scraper)
Sub-Totai'(Construction - 1982 $)
Allowance for Inflation (8% per year)
Sub-Total (Cons~{uction - 1983 $)
Engineering, Legal, Administration
and Contingencies
Bngineering, Legal, Administration
and Contingencies (21%)
Interest During Construction (12% of
Total Construction Cost)
ESTIMATE BASED ON 1983 DOLLARS
3.23
$250,060.
70,000.
10,000.
15,000.
10,000.
15,000.
50,000.
20fO00.
$440,000.
35,000.
$475,000.
$100,000-
57f000.
$632,000.
~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
percent, resulting in a cost of $276,000. Act~ing interest dur-
ing construction, estimated at 12 percent ($157,000), the total
c!apital cost for scavenger waste and sludge treatment and dis-
posal is estimated at $1,745,000.
A summary of the total project costs is presented on TaDle
e
TAB LE 6
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
SELECTED PLAN COST SUMMARY
1. Construction Cost (1983 $)
A. Scavenger Waste
B. Sludge
Sub-Total
2. Engineering, Legal, Administration
& Contingencies (21% of Construction)
3. Interest During Construction
(12% of Total Construction Cost)
$ 837,00U.
475,000.
TOTAL PLAN COST.
$1,312,000.
276,000.
157,000.
· $1,745,000.
3.24
I'-1~;~ 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-sJLte 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
a~d include poor soils, poor system design, improper installation,
It is recommended that the Town of Southold
a cesspool/septic tank management program that
aged systems, etc.
p~opose and adopt
will:
1. Provide for the protection of the environment by proper
installation and management of septic and cesspool systems.
2. PrOvi4e for periodic maintenance of septic tanks and
cesspools in or4er to prolong the life of leaching systems and
the atten4ant 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 p{oper disposal of septic and cesspool wastes in
o{der to safeguard the groundwater and surface waters from con-
tamimation, and prevent public health and nuisance problems as-
sociated with improper septage disposal.
4.1
~'-~ HOLZMACHER, 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-
I ~osed
I
I
I
I
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
I The'following sections will expand on these elements.
4.2 DISTRICT MANAGEMENT
I 4.2.1 Total Management Responsibilities
I The Scavenger Waste Improvement District should have the
authority to:
I -'Tax, collect service charges, or in some other way,
raise revenues to finance district operations.
I - Authorize construction of the scavenger waste treat-
I merit facility.
- Negotiate a bontract with the Inc. Village of Green-
I port for the operation of the scavenger waste treat-
ment facility.
I 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.
- ~evy 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
~./~ HOI..ZMACHER, McLENDON & 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 De 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 f~om 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. All new septic tank and cesspool systems
should be designed and constructed in such a manner that would
facilitate maintenance (pump out). This will require the town
to have the authority to:
1. Issue maintenance permits for individual sites in the
town and inspect them periodically or as otherwise determined.
2. Require that each residence or commercial establish-
ment have their septic tank or cesspool pumped once every three
(3) years of use or as operating experience dictates. The
4.4
~.,~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
septage must be transported to the scavenger waste treatment
f.acility.
3. Maintain adequate records.
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 ~epresentative number o~ 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 ad3acent 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-
rectio~ of the malfunctioning system are at hand and applied.
To accomplish problem correction, the town must be able
1. Declare and abate a nuisance.
2. Recommend Correction procedures.
to:
4.5
~ HOI..ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
3. Correct a malfunctioning system and bill the owner, i~
the homeowner fails to repair the system within a reasonble time
set by the town.
4. Take other measures necessary to resolve problems that
concern an area as a whole, rather than an individual malfunction-
ing system. For instance, establish alternate on-site or com-
munity sewage systems in areas that have f~equent pumpouts, aue
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 CSTM~:
1. A one-time Cesspool/Septic Tank Maintenance Permit ~ee
of $25. for residential users, and a fee o£ $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 Dy
a resident located within the scavenger waste district, the
maintenance permit form would be issued and the fee collectea
prio~ to acceptance of the waste at the t~eatment facility.
For new dwelling units/establishments constructed in the
scavenger waste improvement district, the developer/owner will
~e requi~ed to obtain the maintenance permit.
2. An annual tax or fee to provide t~e necessary funds for:
(a) Administration, period inspections, collection
and analysis of water and wastewater samples.
4.6
I-t('~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
(b) Capital and interest costs associate~ with
construction of the scavenger waste treatment
facility, including land requirements.
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 o~f-
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
~e 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 p~epare an operating budget on an a~nual 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 De ap-
Dointed by the Town Board to supervise the operations o~ the
management plan. Since total effort on a we~kly basis is not ex-
ipected to exceed 20 hours, the Administrator Should be a full
time employee with other town-related responsibilities, or a
~part time employee.
4.7
~"~ HO~ 7MACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, P.C.
41.5 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 ~6 examine these sample o~dinances and modify
~hem as required.
4.8
~ HO~ 7MACHER, McLENOON & 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 t~eatment arrangement, it is anti-
Cipated that in addition to the existing staff, a maximum o£
two additional attendants will be required, plus a part time
Administrator, as indicated in Section 4.4. AccordinG to NYSDEC,
the new scavenger waste pretreatment plant will require a yra~e
III-B operator. This is the same grade requirement of the
existing Greenport sewage treatment plant.
5.1
I-t~_J~ HOI 7MACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
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
willage 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
~ FfOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P,C.
be imposed to further reduce excessive development. The Town
and Village Zoning Boards should carefully review zoning vari-
ances and special exception permit requests, so that they are
g~anted 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
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
velopment of areas that have soil,
practiced[ to p~event the de-
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 o~dinances 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
~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & 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
o~dinance which would restrict land use in the overlay district
with the intention ~f 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-
~ative 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 4evelopment would
maintain overall desired densities while preserving more open
space. They also co~form 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 4esign to control stormwater runoff.i This
~on-structu~al alternative will minimize the transport of sedi-
ments, nutrients, metals, organic chemicals and bacteria to sur-
face waters and groundwaters. Included in the implemen~atio~ are
reduction of paved areas, provisions of retention basins and
~ncreased landscaping requirements. Alternative landscape
6.3
I-[;;~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
t~eatments 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 bui].dings 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
900 gpd/ac~e) 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
~ontiguous 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 tceatment facility.
These guidelines should be,strictly enforced in order to
preserve the water quality of t~e study area. In particularly
sensitive groundwater areas which are not within Zones III and
6.4
~J~ HOt 7MACHER, McLENDON & MURREL/, P.C.
VI, large developments should be carefully scrutinized to ensure
that significant impacts to the groundwater will not result.
Another preventative measure,
of the local shellfishing industry,
of existing ordinances prohibiting
important for the protection
is the strict implementation
the discharge of untreated
wastes from boats. It should be noted that deodorized wastes
a~re 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 i~aediately adjacent
to surface water bodies which retain stormwater runoff from di-
r~ectly 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
prior to entering the receiving
significantly reduced.
(i.e., filtration, oxidation, etc.)
surface water and its impact is
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
~equired 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
!-~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & 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 g~oundwater. Consequently, implemen-
tation of fertilizer controls will reduce the amount of nitrogen
leaching to the groundwater and will help to minimize fulture
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
6.6
~l'~ HIOI..ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
required. Tests have determined that nitrogen uptake by a ma-
ture turf is relatively constant over the growing season. Since
t~he majority of the study area turf is mature, most of the de-
~eloped 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
~emoves nitrogen only if the clippings are collected and either
removed from the area or composted on site. If the clippings
are nog removed and yolatilization, 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. ~olatilization will greatly increase if composting
is employed. It is therefore recommended that composting of grass
clippings be implemented on an individual or town-widelbasis to
~reduce nitro~en 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. The grass clippings of sod farms
should also be composted.
6.7
~'-~ HOI..ZMACHER, 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 Couhty
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 a~ranged and attended by the farming sector and repre-
!sentatives of Cornell Cooperative Extension, in order to discuss
these findings.
6.8
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ HOI-ZMACHER, McLENDON & MI.JRFIELI.., P.C.
7i. 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.S 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
eaisting situation, as previously addressed in the Alternatives
Report, has a major adverse impact on the groundwater and public
health.
Although the p~esent method of raw
to open lagoons is the least expensive,
scavenger waste disposal
it results in an unac-
ceptable pcim~ry environmental impact by contaminating ground-
Wate~ 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,
r~itrate, organics, metals
All of these constituents
Water.
and other nutrients and pathogens.
have an adverse impact on the ground-
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE SCAVENGER WASTE T~EATMENT
FACILITY
Implementation of the recommended scavenger waste treatment
alte~native will eliminate the adverse environmental impacts as-
eociated 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 smspended solids, BOD, nitrates, organics and inor-
qanic 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.
~ HOI 7MACHER, McLENOON & 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 constructio~ 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 gene{ated by construction activities.. However, the
wOeded 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.
~ong-term primary ~enefits to public health will be realize4
by the construction, of a scavenger waete treatment system at the
G~eenDOrt site. The =ecommended 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-
lens.
7.2
I-'1~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
No adverse long-term noise, air quality., Or transportation
impacts a{e expected from the proposed treatment facilities. By
r,elocating the disposal site from Cutchogue to Greenport, there
will be an estimated average of fifteen scavenger waste trucks
~oming 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 treatmen£'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
~rom 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
7.3
I-~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELI., P.C.
emphasis on developing environmentally sound sep~age management
techniques. The upgrading of scavenger waste handling ~rom
land disposal of raw septage to the treatment facility will
g~eatly 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 De 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
Hill be discharged via the existing outfall to Long Island
S~und. This discharge will still comply with the existing
e~ffluent standard. The increase in flow by ]Z3,000 GPD is less
bhan 10 percent of the total discharge volume. The excellent
tidal flushing within the Long Island SounG will mitigate the
i~pact on the receiving wate{s.
The implementation of the scavenger waste treatment fa-
cility will have beneficial effects to the groundwater in the
Study area. The Selected Plan will p~ovide beneficial effects
to groundwate~ by removing a potential source of nutrients and
~ther 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
~V~ HOLZMACHEEI, McLENDON & 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 measureaDle.
Lastly, the proposed scavenger waste treatment facility will
require space adjacent to the existing sewage treatment plant.
Since this required space currently is the ].and ad3acent to the
access road to the sewage treatment plant, a significant impact
~o the surrounding environment is not antici!pated. The prelimi-
nary layout of the proposed scavenger waste facility indicates a
land requirement of approximately .8 acre. As per NYSDEC recom-
mended standards presented in Technical Information Pamphlet No.
19, a minimum buffer distance of at least 500 feet will be Kept
between the treatment units and habitation of areas of suD-
stantial use by the public.
In conclusion,..the proposed scavenger waste/sludge treat-
ment and disposal project will have a beneficial impact on the
environment.
7.5
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~d~, t-iOLZMACHER, McLENCION & MUf~RELL, P.C
8.0 ARRANGEMENTS FOR IMPLEMENTATION
8,1 IMPLEMENTATION STEPS
Under Chapter 62, Articles 12, 12A or 12C of the Town Law,
State of New York, towns may construct and maintain wastewater
facilities in accordance with special district requirements. The
formation of a Scavenger Waste Improvement District, as previously
described, falls within the special district category.
Under Article 12, a special district may be established by
petition signed by property owners
assessed valuation of the proposed
12A, by action of the Town Board.
of at least one-half of the
district, or under Article
In addition, towns may es-
t!ablish special districts in accordance with Article 12C by
action of the Town Board or by petition of resident taxpayers.
The powers granted town boards in Articles 12 and~12A
limit the methods of .financing special district improvements
to charges against properties benefited. Under Article 12C,
town boards are granted wider powers in that charges for dis-
trict improvements may
by the benefited area,
by the town.
be borne partly by the town and partly
wholly by the benefited area, or wholly
In ocder to provide for scavenger waste treatment and dis-
posal needs and obtain federal and state funding for this
project, a Scavenger Waste Improvement District must be formed
to serve those unsewered areas on the mainland of Southold. State
law does not provide for the formation of districts by villages.
8.1
~ H~)I.ZMACHER. McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Accordingly, the
town or county.
that the Town of
improvement district must be formed by the
To simplify implementation, it is recommended
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 re[x)rts for the pro-
posed district are filed with Southold Town Board and Inc.
~illage of Greenport village Board of Trustees, accepted there-
by, and are available for public inspection.
Ste__~_~. Southold Town Board to negotiate agreement with
the Inc. village of Greenport Board of Trustees on the conceptual
'n
plan of constructl g the scavenger waste treatment facilities
adjacent to the Greenport Sewage Treatment Plant on village-owned
property, as well as utilizing the Greenpo£t plant fo~ 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 tlhe establishment of
the district. This resolution is subject to permissive referen-
dum or'may be submitted at a special election.
8.2
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~f~l~ HOI..ZMACHER, NIcLENDON & 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 5% 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 I__V. within 10 days following adoption by the Town
Board of the resolution approving district establishment, appli-
cation to the Department of Audit & ~ontrol 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
~ HGLZMACHI:R. 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
~n village property. A lease agreement or similar arrangement will
hlave to be negotiated.
2. It is recommended that the
waste facility due to the potential
village ,operate the scavenger
impact it can have on the sewage
treatment plant. A~ 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-
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
~,~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Step VII. After formation of the district, the Town Board
should begin the implementation of the Selected Plan. This will
r~quire:
(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 bondirg 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).
B.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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~-~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
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 res~)nsibility of manag-
i,ng the Cesspool/Septic Tank Management Plan, as discussed in
~ection 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 (PI. 95-217) and the
municipal Wastewate~ 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 onerhalf the remaining
8.6
I'-Id~ HOI 7MACHER, McLENDON & MURRI=LL, P.C.
share (maximum of 12.5 percent) of the Cost of eligible waste-
water treatment and collection pro3ects. These percentages are
to be maintained through FY 1984, which ends September 3U, 1984.
A community is, therefore, eligible at the present time to re-
ceive financial assistance ~f 87-1/2 to 92-1/2 percent o~ the
eligible project costs of treatment works.
In the past, USEPA has classified treatment of scavenger
waste as Innovative and Alternative Technology, thereby enaDliny
additional funding to be received by the local community. There-
fore, the scavenger waste/sludge treatment pro3ect 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. Available funding for the Green-
port/Southold selected plan and the resultant local costs have
been summarized on Table 7. The extent of available aid has
been computed for the two cases that might occur,
below:
as tabulated
Percent Aid
N.Y.
Case Option Federal State
I Scavenger Waste/Sludge Treatment 75 12.5
II Scavenger Waste/Sludge Treatment 85 7.5
Of the two (2) cases presented, the most likely candidate
for implementation is Case II.
8.7
~-~/~ HOI ~MACHER, McL£NDON & MURRELL, P.C. :
TABLE 7
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
SUMMARY OF AVAILABLE FUNDING OF PROJECT
CASE I (Ail Phases - 75% Federal Funding, 12.5% N.Y.S.
A. Total Project Cost
Eligible Project Cost
(excludes interest during
construction)
$1,588,000.
Federal - 75%
N.Y.S. - 12.5%
1,191,000.
198,500.
Less Sub-Total Aid
$1,389,500.
C. Local Share
Funding)
$1,745,U00.
CASE II (Ail Phases - 85% Federal Funding, 12.5% N.Y.S.
A. Total Project Cost
Eligible Project Cost
(excludes interest during
construction)
$1,588,000.
Federal - 85%
N.Y.S. - 7.5%
1,349,800.
119,100.
Less Sub-Total Aid
$1,468,900.
C. Local Share
8.8
$ 355,500.
Funding)
$1,745,OUU.
$ 276,100.
~-~t HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Tables 8, 9 and 10 contain information regardiny the esti-
mated 0 & M cost, annual budget and user charges ~or those resi-
dents located within the Scavenger Waste Improvement District.
Based on the calculations indicated on Table 8, we recom-
mend that the district establish a rate o~ $12.50/1000 gallons.
This rate is similar to that charged by other scavenger waste
treatment facilities on Long Island and allows for un~er utili-
zation of the facilities during the earlier year of operation.
As indicated on Table 10, the resultant cost per $100. As-
sessed Valuation (A.V.) is $0.085.
Using the same budgets listed in Table 1U, 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.
$55,200.
'7,600 units = $7.26/unit
The projected number of future dwel.ling units is 13,000.
The resultant annual user cost is $4.25. In both, the user
cost analysis and the cost per $100. A.V. calculations (Table
10), the local costs shown would decrease by Shelter Island's
share, should they decide to join.
to be approximately 10-15 percent.
8.4 PROJECT COSTS
Project costs include,
allowances for engineering,
and
in addition
legal,
interest during construction.
We estimate this reduction
to constructiOn costs,
administrative, contingencies
All these additional costs
8.9
~ HO~ 7MACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 8
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)
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
Labor, Fuel, Repairs for Transport
to Landfill (only portion due to
Scavenger Waste)
Sub-Total
TOTAL ESTIMATED O & M COSTS.
Cost per 1,000 gallons of scavenger
waste based on 23,000 gallons per
day, 365 days/yr.
$11.20
8.10
$40,000.
17,000.
$57,000.
$30,000.
7,000.
$37,000.
$94,000.
~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRI=LL, P.C.
TABLE 9
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
ANNUAL BUDGET DATA FOR CSTMP
(1983 DOLLARS)
Capital
Principal and Interest
Implementation of Selected Plan
(Assumes 20 year, $280,000 Bond
Issue at 11%)
TOTAL ANNUAL CAPITAL COST
-Operation & Maintenance Cost
- Treatment Facility
- Administration of CSTMP (includes testinG)
TOTAL ESTIMATED BUDGET.
8.11
$ 35,188.
$ 35,200.
$ 94,000.
20,000.
$149,200.
~-~./~ HO~MACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 10
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
BUDGET AND TAX RATE FOR IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
- Annual Amortization and
Interest
- 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
8.12
$ 35,200.
20,000.
$ 55,20U.
$64,743,257.
$0.085/$100. A.V.
~-~/~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
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-
grant administration, construction management and inspec-
and minor unanticipated costs.
Legal and Administration - includes costs
fees for bonding,
veys,
tion,
for legal services
connected with construction, 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.
8.5 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
8.13
~'-~ HOI 7MACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
this report,
neering firm to
of the Selected
should submit a
New York State
posed timetable for performing
completion of Steps 2 and 3 of
should retain a Consulting Environmental Engi-
furnish professional services. Upon approval
Plan by NYSDEC and SCDHS, the Town/Village
Step 2 + 3 grant application for federal and
financial assistance. Table 11 indicates a pro-
the various tasks required for
this pro3ect.
8.14
~-~,/~ HOI..ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
TABLE 11
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
PROPOSED PROJECT SCHEDULE
TASK
1. Mold Public Hearing on Selected Plan
2. Approval of Selected Plan Dy Southold,
Greenport and NYSDEC
3. Submit Step 2 + 3 Grant Application
to NYSDEC
4. Receive Grant and Commence Design
5. Plans and Specifications Completed.
SuDmit same to NYSDEC
6. Approval of Plans and Specifications
by NYSDEC
7. Advertisement for Bids
8. Bid Opening
9. Contracts Awarded
10. Construction Begins
11. Project Completed
8.15
DATE
July 1982
August 1982
August 1982
September 1982
January 1983
March 1983
April 1983
May 1983
June 1983
July 1983
July 1984
~ 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 prooect.
A formal public meeting was held on July 14, 1981 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 has been scheduled for July 30,
1982 to present the recommended selected plan for the study
area, and present the associated capital, O & M and user cost
estimates. This hearing will provide the opportunity for ad-
ditional public input into the study.
9.1
~'"~, HO!..ZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
APPENDIX A
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
EXISTING GREENPORT SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
PROPOSED SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM
2,*
Pipes
SITE MAP
SCALE :1"=2000'
ERED SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
UNCOVERED SLUDGE DRYING
/EXISTING UNCOVERED
SLUDGE DRYING BEDS
EXISTING
GARAGE
IAL SLUDGE DISTRIBUTION PIPING
~TING CHEMICAL
EXISTING COVERED STORAGE BUILDING
~LUDGE DRYING BEDS-
EXISTING SECONDARY SLUDGE PUMP ROOM "-
EXISTING CHLORINE CONTACT TANK
-.t4 SEE
I~XISTING
IMHOFF
TANK
EXISTING FUEL TANK
STING PI STATION
EXISTING AERATED LAGOON
EXISTING AERATED LAGOON
=ROBIC
DIGESTER
STORAGE VAULT
EFFLUENT REUSE
PUMP STATION
3 GENERATOR :, PORTSi!
7:'_' ...... 1
PHOTOCIRCUIT'S WASTE FEED TANK ~
SLUDGE WELL AND PUMPS I
SCAVENGER WASTE
EFFLUENT PUMP STATION--
SECONDARY SETTLING
SCUM WELL AND
ROTATING BIO DISC
PRIMARY SETTLING TANK--
:LASH MIX
-MECHANICAL BUILDING
--PRETREATM~NT BUILDING
~L;NZAKTIONl
TANK
FLOCCULATION TANK
PROPOSED SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM
· NOTE: SCAVENGER WASTE SLUDGE PIPING TO BE
CONNECTED TO EXISTING 8" SLUDGE DRAWOFF LINE
KEY
· PROPOSED UNIT PROCESS
SCAVENGER WASTE PIPING
SCAVENGER WASTE SLUDGE
EXISTING FENCE
PROPOSED FENCE
PROPOSED PAVING
PIPING
EXISTING GREENPORT
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
Designed By:
Drawn By:
Checked ~,/¢~/~/
Reviewed
Project No:
Drawing No,
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD- INC. VILLAGE OF GREENPORT
SECTION 201
WASTEWATER FACILITY
C-36-1120
SELECTED PLAN
PLAN STUDY
REPORT
ConsuLting Engineers
Environmental Scientists
Planners
516-752-9060 ·
516-694.3040[~
516-727-3480~]
516-694-3410 []
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
APPENDIX A
Sheet Title:
Melville, N.Y. Riverhead, N,Y. Farmingdale, N.Y.
Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, P.C.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P,C.
Preliminary Design
~'~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C
APPENDIX "B"
B-1 PRELIMINARY DESIGN
OF
SCAVENGER WASTE TREATMENT FACILITY
II.
Design Information
do
Population(unsewered)- See Table 1
Design Flow Rates
1. Equalized = 23,000 gpd = 16 gpm
2. Peak (front-end facilities only) = 800 gpm
Waste Strength - BOD-5 4770 mg/1
Suspended Solids 4150 mg/1
Discharge Requirements - Not applicable since
discharging to Greenport
STP Imhofi Tank Influent Chamber
Preliminary Design
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
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
Equalization Tank
1. Volume = 2.5 x 23,000 gpd = 57,500
gallons/day
= 7,.688 c.f.
Air Requirements = 25 cfm/i,000 c.f. of volume
25 cfm x 7.69 = 192 cfm
use 200 cfm
B-1
~ HOLZMACHER, McLENI3ON & MURRELL, P.C
Appendix B-1 - Preliminary Desiqn of Scavenger Waste Treatment Facility
II.
Pumps = 2 at 41 gpm at 21 ft. of head
Equalization Tank will be enclosed, and equipped
with an odor control unit providing 5 air changes
per hour.
do
Flash
1.
Mix Tank
Tank volume (10 min. detention time)
Vol. = 16 gpm x 10 min. = 160 gallons = 21.4 c.f.
Mixer Size - 1/2 hp
FeC12 feed rate (use 400 mg/1 - 45% solution)
= 77 lbs/day _~: 15.47 lbs/gal = 5.0 gallons/day
Pump Size = 1.5 gph (diaphragm pump)
Tank Volume = 40,000 lbs :. 1.5.47 lbs/gal =
2586 gallons
A Solution feed system with a day tank will be
provided to further dilute ferric chloride.
Flocculation Tank
1. Tank Volume = 30 min. detention time
16 gpm x 30 min. = 480 gallons = 64.2 cf
Primary Settling Tank
1. Tank Size (use 200
gpd/sf)
gpd .__ 200 gal/sf = 115 sf
23,000
SWD =.8 ft.
Tank Volume
115 s.f. x 8 ft.
Detention Time
6882 gal. ~_ 23,000 gpd = 7.18 hours
Assumed Removal Rates
- BOD = 50 percent of influent value
SS = 70 percent of influent value
= 920 cf = 6882 gallons
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/1 BOD.
B-2
~./~ I~OLZMACHE.R, 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/1 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
Secondary Settling Tank
1. Tank Size (use 400
2
gpd/sf overflow rate)
23,000 gpd -~ 400 gpd/$f = 58 sf
Use 10 ft. diameter tank
Tank Volume
SWD = 8 ft.
58 sf x 8 ft. deep = 464 cf = 3471 gallons
Detention Time
3471 gallons ---~ 23,000 gpd = 3.62 hours
Assumed Removal Rates
Suspended Solids Inf. = 1245 mg/1
80% Removal in Secondary Cl~rifier/RBD Process
Suspended Solids Remaining = 1245 x .20 =
249 mg/1 say 250 mg/1
Quality of effluent from Scavenger
Waste Treatment System
BOD-5 = 300 mg/1
Suspended Solids = 250 mg/1
B-3
REFERENCE: AUTOTROL CORPORATION
TABLE 13
TEMPERATURE
CORRECTION FOR BOD REMOVAL
OO'~ .7 /
.6
35 40 45 50 55 60
TEMPERATURE ° F
TEMPERATURE CORRECTION
FACTOR GRAPH
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD - INC. VII~LASE OF gREENPORT
SECTION 201
WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN STUDY
C-~6-1120
SELECTED PLAN REPORT
HI3LZMACH~=R, MeI,.I;NDQN ~= MURRIi;I.I.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS artd PLANNERS
RIVERHEAD, N.Y.
B-4
~ HOLZMACHER, McLENOON & MURRELL, P,C
B-2 PRELIMINARY DESIGN
O_EF
EFFECT OF SCAVENGER WASTE
ON EXISTING GREENPORT STP
II.
I I I.
Design Information
a. Greenport STP Design Flow
b. Projected Future Wastewater Flow
(year 2005)
c. Projected Future Scavenger Waste
Flow (year 2005)
0.5 mgd
0.286 mgd
.023 mgd
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.
Solids Loading
A. Imhoff Tank
1. Solids Capacity = (200 mg/1 - 30 mg/1) x 8.34
x.5 mgd = 70'9 lbs/day
2. Future Solids Loading
a. Scav. Waste = (250-30) x 8.34 x .023 mgd = 42.2 lbs/dal
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
~_~ ~OLZMACHER, McL£NDON & MURRELL, P.C.
II.
B-3 PRELIMINARY DESIGN
OF
SLUDGE TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL,
Design Information
a. Volumes of Sludge (dry lbs/day)
1. From scavenger waste facility
(4150 mg/1 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/1 of suspended solids,
even though the discharge permit was recently changed
to a more relaxed limitation.
Digester Preliminary Design
a. Sizing Criteria
~ 10 day solids retention time during most critical
expected condition to prevent process failure
~ 50 percent volatile solids reduction to minimize
odors at sludge drying beds.
Volume of sludge to digester
waste settling tanks only)
748 lbs/day
(3% solids) (62.4 lbs/cf)
(sludge from scavenger
= 400 cf/day
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
- 429 sq. ft.
B-6
l-ld'~ HOLZMACHEI~ McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
B-3 Preliminary Design of Sludge Treatment and Disposal (cont.)
II. d.
Tank Dimension (depth = 20 feet)
2 ( ~ 429 1-f ) = 23.4
D
2R
Therefore, use 25 ft. diameter
ft.
III.
IV.
Additional Sludge Drying Beds
a. Solids Loading = 748 lbs/day
be
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
do
Covered Beds (4 months max.)
4
(191,260)(w-~-~) ~ 30 lbs/sf = 21125 sq. ft.
say 2200 sq. ft.
Uncovered Beds (8 months)
8
(191,260) ( ~-6-- ) 22 lbs/s f =
say
5796 sq. ft.
5800 sq. ft.
Sludge Landfilling Requirements
a. Solids loading to Beds = (709 + 748) (.70)
= 1457 lbs/day
Assume 35% solids to landfill
1457 Dry Solids = 4163 lbs/day
.35
4163 lbs/day = 66.7 cu ft/day
62.4 lbs/cf
66.7 cu ft x 365 days/yr = 24,350 cf/year
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.'
B-7
APPENDIX D
Sample Ordinance for Establishing Fees
and Charges for the Proposed Scavenger Waste
Improvement District
~-~ I~OLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C APPENDIX "D"
SAMPLE ORDINANCE FOR ESTABLISHING FEES AND CHARGES
FOR THE PROPOSED SCAVENGER WASTE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
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 $outhold Scavenger Waste Improve-
ment District, heretofore formed pursuant to Resolution Nos.
aRd , 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
~,~J~ HIDLZMACHER, McLIFNDON & MURRI:LL, 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
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.
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
~'~ HO~ 7MACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL. P.C.
2.5 Additional Requirements. No statement: contained in this
Article sh~ll 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 shal~L 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 driw~r'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:
ia)
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 incl%t~e any
costs of operation and maintenance of the scavenger
waste pretreatment facility. The tax shall be assess-
ed against all real property witlhin the Scavenger
Waste Improvement District.
(b)
A charge rate per 1,000 gallons ,of scavenger waste
treated (based on scavenger waste tank tru~k 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-
merit facility for disposal.
D-3
~l, HOI. ZMACHER, McLENDON & 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 ~endment. 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 alternati~ to any of the other
procedures herein 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 Billin~ and Collectin~ on Tax Roi1. District may provide
for the collection of current and/or ~elir~uent charges upon the
tax roll upon which District taxes are co].lected, in the manner
provided by law therefor.
5.2 Procedure. When the District elects tN use the tax roll on
which general District taxes are collected for the collection of
current a~d/or.delinquent scavenger waste treatment service
charges,
5.3 Re~ort. 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 ~nd facilities and the
amount of the charge for each parcel for the forthcoming year,
computed in conformity with the charges prescribed by this
ordinance.
D-4
~[V~ 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 successiv~ 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 of Charges. 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 Re~ort 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 Roi1. 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 tim~ and thereafter be subject to the same penalties for
delinquency.
D-5
~/~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C
5.11 Collection. Ail laws applicable to the levy, collection and
enforcement of general taxes of the District, including but dot
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
D-6
APPENDIX E
Sample Ordinance Requiring a Cesspool/
Septic Tank Permit
~'~ ~OLZMACHER, 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
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, liv~-in or reside in,
either seasonally or permanently, any building, residence, or
other structure serviced by a private domestic sewage treatment
a~d 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 SiX shall accompany each application for the septic
tank maintenance permit for residential areas and a fee of $2X
for commercial areas.
E-1
~-~ Hol 7MACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
Section 4. Permit Application
4.1 Application for a septic tank maintenance permit shall be
made to the (District Administrator o~ 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 ~ight 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.
E-2
~--~li~, t'IOLZMACHER, McLENDON & 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
maihtenance 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
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~'~ I~OLZMACHER, 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 w~stewater treatment, collection
nd 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
ork, budgets and needs, is required.
Examples of Work. Develops weekly work assignments. Moni-
tors operating performance of the waste treatmen~ plants. Makes
~ecessary 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
~astewater treatment plant operations and laboratory procedures
s 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
~equired. Ability to plan work schedules and future budgets and
~eeds. Ability to organize and supervise the work of others.
Acceptable Experience and Tcaining. Five (5) years of ex-
rience in wastewater treatment plant operation and/or accept-
le education beyond high school, or any equlvalent combination
Of experience and training.
2. CHIEF OPERATOR
(The existing S.T.P. operator will continue tq operate this
plant).
General Statement of Duties. Performs routine mechanical
work in the operation of a water pollution control plant; does
~elated work as required.
F-1
~-~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
APPENDIX "F" (CONT'D.)
Distinguishing Features of the Class. Duties are of a
~outine 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
~eports of plant operations; performs a variety of custodian
duties; observes variations in operating conditions and makes
~ppropriate 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
Un 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.
Distinguishin~ 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
I~-~ HOLZMACHER, McLENDON & MURRELL, P.C.
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
c~lverts; 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
e~durance, and good physical condition.
Acceptable Experience and Training. None required.
F-3