Nassau County DPW Master Planning

1
Cedar Creek Water Pollution Control Plant Master
Plan Community Informational Meeting
Thomas R. Suozzi County Executive
Raymond A. Ribeiro, P.E. Commissioner of Public
Works
June 30th, 2009
2
Wastewater Facilities Master Plan

• County hired outside consulting engineers to
  prepare a Wastewater Facilities Master Plan for
  the next 20 years
• Master Plan evaluates
• Consolidation feasibility
• Glen Cove
• Lawrence/Cedarhurst
• Long Beach
• Potential future increase in wastewater flows
• Condition of existing plant equipment asset
  assessment
• Existing plant process performance
• Potential future EPA and DEC regulations
• Master Plan then proposes new capital projects
  that address modifications identified as
  necessary

3
Project Approach
4
Service Area Flow Projection

• Undeveloped In-District Flow
• Performed survey of all undeveloped (vacant) lots
• Cedar Creek
• Vacant Property
• Flow 2.0 mgd
• Assumes construction of
• Cedar Creek
• Lighthouse
• Old Plainview

5
Plant Capacities
Total Plant Permitted Capacity 72.0 mgd
6
Asset Condition Assessment sample review sheet
7
Asset Assessment
Asset Classes
Asset Condition
Grade 1 - Poor Asset will require replacement,
refurbishment, or other remedial action within 5
years

• Class A Examples (High Criticality High Value)
• Large process equipment, large motors pumps,
  engines, boilers, large butterfly and gate
  valves, gantries
• Class B Examples (High Criticality Medium
  Value)
• Sluice gates, odor control units, mid-sized
  valves, mid-sized motors pumps, life safety
  systems, control systems
• Class C Examples (Low Criticality
• High Value)
• Roof systems, major architectural elements

Grade 2 - Fair Asset has experienced noticeable
deterioration but will remain functioning for
another 5 to 10 years with regular maintenance
and component replacement
Grade 3 - Good Asset has experienced little to
no deterioration and will remain functional for
10 to 20 years with regular maintenance
? Over 400 pieces of plant equipment were
evaluated
8
Asset Assessment

• Pump station assessments were also conducted _at_ 37
  pump stations and costs included in each service
  area

Cedar Creek (350 pcs.)
9
Process Performance Evaluation

• Evaluated plant processes using EPAs
  Comprehensive Performance Evaluation (CPE)
  Methodology
• Compiled monthly historical plant data for 5 year
  period
• Reviewed process unit operation compared to
  multiple industry standards
• Flow and mass balance conducted to confirm
  reported data and estimate data not available
• Finding
• Plant performing well and as-designed
• Demonstrated by SPDES compliance reporting

10
Effluent Performance (Cedar Creek)
11
Regulatory Forecasting Cedar Creek

• Total Residual Chlorine
• Limit reduced from 3.0 mg/L to 2.0 mg/L (date
  currently being discussed)
• Plant doesnt anticipate any modifications to
  process to meet new limits
• Dissolved Oxygen
• Future limit of 2.0 mg/L
• Plant currently meets proposed limit
• Enterococci
• New effluent limit is currently being proposed by
  DEC
• Plant doesnt anticipate any modifications to
  process to meet new limits
• Storm Water Discharges within Plant
• Required to implement pollution prevention plans
  and manage runoff to the maximum extent
  practicable on the Plant property
• Countys Storm Water Management Program included
  the development of Pollution Prevention Plans for
  various operations. In addition, Capital Project
  31150 will be in construction Summer 2009. This
  project includes storm water treatment devices

12
Required Capital Improvements

• Grouped into three categories
• Short-term within next 5 years
• Infrastructure replacement
• Odor control improvements
• Mid-term when required by regulations (5-10
  years)
• Infrastructure replacement
• Enhanced Operations
• Long-term between 10 and 20 years
• Mechanical equipment
• Enhanced Operations

13
Summary
Cedar Creek
14
Total Budget Estimates for Improvements
Cedar Creek
15
Plant-Wide Odor Control Improvements (Cedar Creek)

• Technology Overview
• Liquid Phase Treatment
• Oxygen, chlorine, nitrate, iron / ferric salts,
  hydrogen peroxide
• Vapor Phase Treatment
• Wet Scrubbers
• Biofilters
• Biotrickling filters
• Activated carbon

16
Technology

• Technology Comparison (new 6,000 scfm)

Ops Cost
Cost
1,500,000
150,000
2,250,000 - 3,750,000
75,000
1,500,000 - 3,000,000
112,500
1,000,000 - 1,500,000
150,000 225,000
17
Wet Scrubbers

• Most demonstrated technology
• Physical-chemical reactions
• Highly effective at removing H2S (99)
• Less effective at removing other sulfurous
  compounds (40 60 )

18
Biofilters

• Newer technology
• Biological process
• Similar effectiveness as wet scrubbers
• Low operating costs due to no chemical addition
  and no waste stream
• Greater footprint requirements

Loading rates (cfm/sf) Organic media 2
5 Inorganic media 10 20
Image by Envirogen
19
Biotrickling Filters

• Newer technology
• Biological process
• Similar effectiveness as wet scrubbers
• Can process higher air flows than biofilters
• Can be retrofitted into chemical scrubbers

20
Activated Carbon

• Demonstrated technology
• Chemical process
• Most effective at removing H2S and other
  sulfurous compounds
• Low operating costs
• Spent carbon must be disposed (or regenerated)

21
Questions and Discussion