ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS FOR NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, NEW YORK
Prepared by:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
26 Federal Plaza
New York City, New York 10007
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Title
I SUMMARY vii
II OVERVIEW 1
III DESCRIPTION OF THE PERTINENT PROJECTS 19
Nassau County 19
Suffolk County 24
IV BACKGROUND 30
Geographic area 30
Population, land use and industry 31
Water pollution control programs 33
Nassau County 33
Suffolk County 35
Federal water pollution control programs 36
Construction grants 36
General description of "secondary" 37
treatment plants
Federal wastewater research and 39
development projects
Water resources planning and management 45
agencies
Water resources 50
Precipitation 50
Fresh surface water 51
Ocean water off the south shore 53
Long Island Sound and its bays and harbors ... 62
South shore bays 73
Subsurface water 87
V ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECTS 93
Sewering 93
Treatment plants 100
Ocean outfall 103
Discharge of treated effluents 110
VI ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED 120
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section
VII
VIII
IX
XI
XII
XIII
XIV
Title
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECTS
Alternate methods of disposal and
their environmental effects
Discharge of treated effluent into . . .
the ocean (Long Island Sound)
Discharge of treated effluent into . . .
the bays of the north and south shores
Ground-water recharge
Direct reuse
Wastewater treatment process alternatives .
Nitrogen removal .
Phosphorus removal
Virus removal ,
Activated carbon adsorption ,
Sludge disposal ,
Cost of alternative treatment processes . .
Desalination
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
INVOLVED IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERTINENT
PROJECTS
DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS RAISED BY
ALL REVIEWERS
Introduction
List of reviewers of the draft EIS
Comments and responses
Land treatment, spray irrigation, "living filter"
Water-budget for Nassau and Suffolk Counties . .
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ABBREVIATIONS USED
BIBLIOGRAPHY
APPENDICES
Page
123
138
138
139
143
158
159
159
173
175
177
178
182
185
189
191
193
193
196
202
213
237
254
257
259
283
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Following
Number Page No.
1 Population projections for New York City, 32
Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
2 Population density projections for New York City, 32
Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
3 Selected land use by county and municipality 32
during 1968.
4 Land use by county and type of use during 1968. 32
5 Plating and polishing, coating, anodizing and 33
engraving industries in Nassau and Suffolk
Counties.
6 Food processing industries in Nassau and Suffolk 33
Counties.
7 Wastewater treatment plants in existence prior to 33
1956, Nassau County.
8 Federal grants for the construction of water 34
pollution control facilities, Nassau County,
New York.
9 Wastewater treatment plants in existence prior to 35
1956, Suffolk County.
10 Federal grants for the construction of water 35
pollution control facilities, Suffolk County,
New York.
11 Potential future water pollution control projects. 37
12 Drainage areas and average flow of streams on 51
Long Island.
13 Total numbers of aerobic heterotrophic bacteria. 61
14 Water quality in Long Island Sound. 67
15 Selected water quality data for Long Island Sound 67
and its bays and harbors.
iii
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Following
Number Page No.
16 Parameters necessary to determine environmental 72
quality of Manhasset Bay, Hempstead Harbor,
and Port Jefferson Harbor as outlined by the
Marine Sciences Research Center.
17 Environmental quality indicators. 72
18 Characteristics of Hempstead Bay waters (1968). 77
19 Characteristics of Hempstead Bay waters (1970). 78
20 Daily contributions to Bellport Bay and Moriches 79
Bay by Long Island duck farms.
21 Bacteriological data for Hempstead Bay. 81
22 Major hydrogeologic units of the ground-water 87
reservoir.
23 Estimated or computed average annual recharge on 89
Long Island, N.Y.
24 Typical characteristics of Bay Park, Nassau County, 111
New York, wastewater discharge after having
received secondary treatment.
25 Alternatives to water supply situation for Nassau 128
and Suffolk Counties on Long Island.
26 Treatment requirements for selected discharge 137
methods.
27 Computed spreading and investment costs for basin 145
recharge of 1 mgd.
28 Performance of furrow, spray irrigation and flood 151
irrigation lysimeters for long-term operation.
29 Nitrogen removal processes. 160
30 Treatment system performance and cost estimates. 182
iv
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd)
Following
Number Page No.
31 Additional treatment system performance and 182
cost estimates.
32 Local short-term uses of or effects on the 189
environment during construction.
33 Major areas of concern in comments on the 201
draft EIS.
34 Estimated volume of fresh ground-water beneath 239
parts of Long Island, New York.
35 Water-budget of the entire water-budget area of 241
Long Island, New York for water years 1940-65.
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
Number Page No.
1 Location map of Long Island, New York 30
2 Map of Nassau County 37
3 Map of Suffolk County 37
4 Annual phytoplankton successions in the ocean 59
5 Commercial fish catch in 1965 and 1966 61
6 Surface currents (average knots) of Long Island 63
Sound
7 Areas closed to shellfishing 82
8 Major hydrogeologic units of the ground-water 87
reservoir of Long Island, New York
9 Productivity pattern in area of bay outfall 139
10 Total nitrogen in sewage effluent and nitrate and 231
ammonium nitrogen in reclaimed water from east
center well in relation to inundation schedule
(July-December 1968)
11 Location of the water-budget area 238
12 Flow diagram of the hydrologic system under 239
natural conditions
13 Status of water development in 1966 243
14 Flow diagram of the hydrologic system, Nassau and 243
Suffolk Counties, in the 1960's
vi
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION
GRANTS FOR NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, NEW YORK
SUMMARY
DATE: May 1972
TYPE OF STATEMENT:
Final
RESPONSIBLE FEDERAL AGENCY:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region II
TYPE OF ACTION:
Administrative
DESCRIPTION OF ACTION INDICATING STATES AND COUNTIES AFFECTED:
Funds have been requested from the Environmental Protection Agency
by representatives of Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island in the
State of New York. Under consideration are projects which involve sewers,
additions and alterations to existing sewage treatment plants, construc-
tion of new sewage treatment plants, and construction of outfalls.
The waters of Long Island Sound will be affected. These waters are
contiguous to the States of Connecticut and Rhode Island. The Atlantic
Ocean will be affected in the areas south and west of Long Island.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The impact of these projects will be to reduce the quantity of water
in the Long Island aquifers while improving the ground-water quality. The
highly treated effluent will be introduced into the marine environment.
vii
-------
There will also be a waste sludge produced at the treatment plants which
will require disposal in a manner that will not significantly disrupt
the environment.
The Suffolk County area has previously been serviced almost entirely
by private septic systems. This has brought about pollution of the ground-
water resources. Sewage collection and treatment will tend to alleviate
this problem. The sewage projects in Nassau County will serve approxi-
mately 95% of the population.
Should the proposals be implemented, some adverse effects might be
expected. They are: lowering of ground-water levels, increased salt
water encroachment, and possible contamination of marine areas at the
sites of effluent and sludge disposal.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED;
Sewering:
Do nothing.
Employ non-structural controls.
Employ regional collection systems.
Treatment Plant Construction, Alterations, and Additions:
Do nothing.
Employ various treatment processes to obtain secondary treatment
effluent quality.
Employ advanced waste treatment processes to produce an effluent
suitable for domestic reuse.
viii
-------
Effluent Disposal:
Effect ground-water recharge by water spreading methods and well
injection to retard salt water intrusion and to replenish ground-
water supplies.
Directly reuse adequately treated wastewater.
Employ bay disposal.
Employ ocean disposal.
Employ Long Island Sound disposal.
Sludge Disposal:
Use sludge for soil conditioning or fertilization.
Use sludge for land fill.
Incinerate.
Employ wet oxidation.
Employ open water disposal.
FEDERAL. STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES FROM WHICH
COMMENTS HAVE BEEN REQUESTED;
Federal Agencies:
Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Stabilization and Research Service
Agricultural Research Service
Forest Service
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service
ix
-------
Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers (New York, Philadelphia and Waltham,
Mass. Dists.)
Office of the Oceanographer of the Navy
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
National Park Service
Office of Saline Water
U.S. Geological Survey
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Protection Agency - Region I
United States Senate
from Connecticut - Senator Abraham A. Ribicoff
Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr.
from New Jersey - Senator Clifford P. Case
Senator Harrison A. Williams
from New York - Senator Jacob K. Javits
Senator James L. Buckley
-------
from Rhode Island - Senator John 0. Pastore
Senator Claiborne Pell
United States House of Representatives
from Connecticut - Mr. Robert H. Steele
Mr. Robert N. Giaimo
Mr. Steward B. McKinney
from New Jersey - Mr. James J. Howard
from New York - Mr. Otis G. Pike
Mr. James R. Grover, Jr.
Mr. Lester L. Wolff
Mr. John W. Wydler
Mr. Norman F. Lent
Mr. Seymour Halpern
Mr. Joseph P. Addabbo
Mr. Mario Biaggi
Mr. Ogden Rogers Reid
from Rhode Island - Mr. Fernand Joseph St. Germaine
Interstate Agencies:
Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Interstate Sanitation Commission
New England River Basins Commission
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
Regional Plan Association
Tri-State Regional Planning Commission
xi
-------
State Agencies:
Connecticut - Board of Fisheries and Game
Shell Fish Commission
Water Resources Commission
New Jersey - Department of Environmental Protection
New York - Department of Environmental Conservation
Department of Health
Marine Sciences Research Center, State University,
Stony Brook
New York Ocean Science Laboratory
Temporary State Commission on the Water Supply
Needs of Southeastern New York
Rhode Island - Department of Health
County Agencies:
Nassau County Planning Commission
Nassau County Department of Health
Nassau County Department of Public Works
Nassau-Suffolk County Regional Planning Board
Suffolk County Council on Environmental Quality
Suffolk County Department of Environmental Control
Suffolk County Department of Health
Suffolk County Planning Board
Suffolk County Water Authority
Regional Marine Resources Council
xii
-------
Local Agencies and Citizens Groups:
Executive Officers -
Town of North Hempstead
Town of Hempstead
Town of Oyster Bay
Town of Babylon
Town of Brookhaven
Town of East Hampton
Town of Huntington
Town of Islip
Town of Riverhead
Town of Smithtown
Town of Southampton
Town of Southold
ACTION for Preservation and Conservation of the North Shore of
L. I., Inc.
Citizens for Clean Environment
East End Council of Organizations
Environmental Defense Fund
Environmental Technology Seminar
Great South Bay Baymen's Association Inc.
League of Women Voters - Tri-State Committee
Long Island Baymen's Association
Long Island Environmental Council
New York Water Pollution Control Association - Long Island Section
Save Our Bays Association
Suffolk American Legion
The Center for the Environment and Man, Inc.
xiii
-------
-------
OVERVIEW
DESCRIPTION OF THE PERTINENT PROJECTS
Federal construction grants have recently been awarded for five
wastewater treatment projects in Nassau County. The five projects,
all of which are under construction, are:
WPC-NY-361 - Nassau County S.D. No. 3,
WPC-NY-628 - Nassau County S.D. No. 3, Phase II,
WPC-NY-559 - West Long Beach S.D.,
WPC-NY-609 - Town of North Hempstead,
WPC-NY-629 - Great Neck Sewer District.
Federal construction grants have recently been awarded for five
wastewater treatment projects in Suffolk County. The five projects,
all of which are under construction, are:
WPC-NY-355 - Suffolk County Community College,
WPC-NY-536 - Riverhead,
WPC-NY-577 - Northport (Village),
WPC-NY-669 - Huntington Sewer District,
WPC-NY-624 - Suffolk County Southwest Sewer District.
Requests for Federal construction grants are anticipated for two
projects in Suffolk County. The two projects are:
WPC-NY-621 - Village of Greenport,
WPC-NY-709 - Port Jefferson.
The projects range from additions and alterations to existing facil-
ities to construction of new treatment plants and related facilities.
- 1 -
-------
The projects will employ various treatment processes and wastewater
effluent and sludge disposal methods. The projects have been designed
to serve specific areas and population levels. Therefore, they have
differing capacities.
BACKGROUND
Long Island is a large detached segment of the Atlantic Coastal
Plain. The Island is separated from the mainland by the Long Island
Sound on the north and by the East River and New York Harbor on the
west. The Atlantic Ocean borders the Island on the south and east.
There are many bays along the shores of Long Island. Long Island's
two easternmost counties, Nassau and Suffolk, comprise the geogranhic
area of concern in this impact statement.
Long Island's population has increased dramatically since the mid-
19401 s. Nassau County's present population is approximately 1.4 million.
Suffolk County's present population is approximately 1.1 million. Pro-
jections indicate substantial population increases in both Counties by
2020. Nassau County has a relatively small amount of vacant land for
residential development. Consequently, most future residential and popu-
lation advances are expected to take place in Suffolk County which has
roughly 272,000 vacant acres.
Most industries in Nassau and Suffolk Counties are "dry;" they con-
tribute sanitary wastewater and some warmed water from air conditioning
systems rather than process wastewater. However, there are some indus-
tries which produce process wastewater, and these could cause severe
problems at the local treatment plant.
- 2 -
-------
For the past two decades, Nassau County has been engaged in an ac-
celerated sewering program. Sewer service had been extended to more
than half the population by 1970. The rest of Nassau County's residents
must rely on individual disposal systems. In Suffolk County, there is
an overall dependence on cesspools and septic tanks. As of 1970, only
7% of the population was served by sewers. Suffolk County is studying
the various sewer districts to ascertain their pollution abatement
needs.
The Federal Construction Grants Program was initiated to help muni-
cipalities to meet the high cost of adequate wastewater treatment facili-
ties. Federal construction grants have been authorized for some nineteen
projects in Nassau County. Federal construction grants have been author-
ized for nine projects in Suffolk County.
Three wastewater research and development projects on Long Island
have received Federal funds. At the Bay Park Treatment Plant in south-
western Nassau County, a study is being conducted to determine the feasi-
bility of injecting advanced-treated sewage into the deep (Magothy)
aquifer. The study consists of two major phases: (1) the effluent-
treatment phase and (2) the experimental injection phase. The Bay Park
experiments so far have shown that it is possible to recharge the Magothy
aquifer with reclaimed sewage through the use of injection wells. However,
the assessment of economic practicality must await better definition of
(1) the rates and causes of injection-well clogging, and (2) the geochem-
ical stability and long-term character of the injected water.
— 3 —
-------
A project was initiated at Riverhead in Suffolk County to study the
clogging aspects of injection wells. The purpose of the study was to
determine the optimum treatment required to permit injection of treated
sewage into shallow aquifers. The work, which was limited to shallow
wells in a water table aquifer, showed that periodic redevelopment of
the injection wells was required.
There are several State, County and quasi-governmental agencies
involved in water resources planning and management relative to Nassau
and Suffolk Counties. Some of these are: the New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, the New York State Water Resources
Commission, the Interstate Sanitation Commission, the Tri-State Regional
Planning Commission, the Suffolk County Water Authority, the Suffolk
County Department of Environmental Control, the Nassau County Planning
Commission, and the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board.
The water resources of Long Island include: precipitation, fresh
surface water, ocean water off the south shore, Long Island Sound and
its bays and harbors, south shore bays and subsurface water. Under pre-
development conditions, precipitation was the sole source of all the
fresh water on and beneath Long Island. Precipitation is still the pri-
mary source of fresh water in Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
There are more than 100 streams on Long Island. Virtually all those
of significance discharge directly into the bodies of salty surface
water that border the Island. Ground-water inflow probably constitutes
90 percent or more of the measured streamflow on Long Island.
-------
There are two types of natural lakes and ponds on Long Island, water-
table and perched. Most of the water-table lakes are in close hydraulic
continuity with the adjacent and underlying ground-water reservoir; fluc-
tuations in the levels of these lakes correspond very closely to fluctua-
tions of the water table. Only insignificant quantities of surface water
are used for water supply. However, Long Island's surface-water bodies
are used extensively for recreation.
The south shore of Nassau and Suffolk Counties is protected from
the Atlantic Ocean by a series of barrier bars and shallow bays.
According to Ryther and Dunstan (1971), the oceanic currents just off
the south shore of Long Island are parallel to the barrier beaches and
are from east to west. The surface temperature of the ocean waters
varies seasonally. The temperature of the bottom water is related to
salinity and depth.
The salinity of the offshore waters is a function of the rate at
which fresh water is added to the system. The dissolved oxygen content
varies with the season and with ocean depth. Silicate concentrations are
fairly constant throughout the water column. The pH ranges from 8.30 to
7.93. Generally, the phosphate concentrations of deep ocean water are
slightly higher than those at the surface. During seasons of high primary
productivity, nitrate concentrations are negligible: however, when primary
productivity decreases, there is a buildup of nitrate.
Several hundred grams of bio-detritus, an important link in the ma-
rine food chain, are below each square meter of the ocean surface.
Carbonaceous organic material, oxidizable forms of nitrogen and reducing
- 5 -
-------
compounds exert an oxygen demand on water. The BOD for ocean water in
this area (Jones Beach) is approximately 2 mg/1. Heavy pollution with
organic material is not a problem at this time. (Manganaro et al., 1966).
Chlorophyll a_ content, a useful index of the biomass of chlorophyll bear-
ing plants, varies seasonally.
The area south of Long Island is popular for commercial and sports
fishing. In addition to surf clams, fluke, porgv, bluefish, lobster
and mackerel can be found there.
In general, the bacterial counts for open ocean water are low, but
variable while those for bottom sediments are higher. Generally, the
closer to shore, the greater the number of bacteria present in the bot-
tom sediments. The offshore waters in the area of the Wantagh Water
Pollution Control Plant outfall are relatively free of human waste pol-
lution.
Long Island Sound is a shallow, semi-enclosed body of brackish water.
The Sound has moderate tidal currents that permit a small seasonal thermo-
cline and slight vertical gradients in salinity, oxygen, and nutrient
salts. Little Neck Bay, Manhasset Bay, Northport Harbor, Northport Bay,
Huntington Bay and Port Jefferson Harbor are all connected with Long
Island Sound.
The water quality of Long Island Sound and its bays and harbors
varies considerably. The poorest quality is found at Throgs Neck in
the western terminus. A slight, gradual improvement can be traced east-
ward to Hempstead Harbor. From Hempstead Harbor eastward, the waters
of the Sound are generally good, with the exception of localized areas.
- 6 -
-------
The south shore of Long Island is flanked by a bay, which is pro-
tected from the ocean by a barrier bar. The bar is intermittently
broken by inlets which allow communication between the bay and ocean.
The sources of water in the south shore bays include: direct rainfall,
ground-water flows at the headlands and underflow, tributaries, ocean
water and wastewater. Conditions in the bays are influenced by the
season, tidal cycle, diurnal cycle, human activity and many other
factors. The south shore bays are popular with sports fishing enthu-
siasts.
Fresh ground water represents by far the largest percentage of sub-
surface water on Long Island. The landward movement of salty ground
water is of major concern to Long Island's water managers. Infiltration
of precipitation is the primary source of ground-water recharge on Long
Island. Under predevelopment conditions, discharge to streams, subsurface
outflow, evapotranspiration of ground water and springflow were the major
mechanisms of ground-water discharge on Long Island. Ground-water recharge
and discharge have been markedly altered by human activity.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECTS
The following projects involve sewering:
WPC-NY-361 - Nassau S.D. #3
WPC-NY-355 - Suffolk County Community College
WPC-NY-669 - Huntington (T)
Centerport S.D.
WPC-NY-624 - Suffolk County S.W.S.D.
WPC-NY-709 - Port Jefferson
- 7 -
-------
Each of these sewering projects will prevent contaminated wastevater
from being discharged into the ground water, the only source of potable
water in the area. With the exception of WPC-NY-355, Suffolk County
Community College, each of the projects will serve to divert sewage which
is potentially ground-water recharge out of the recharge area. When pro-
jects WPC-NY-361, Nassau S.D. #3, WPC-NY-624, Suffolk County S.W.S.D. #3
and WPC-NY-709, Port Jefferson were conceived, the effects of the diver-
sion of large amounts of sewage from the recharge area was a matter of
concern to local, state and federal officials. Therefore, additional
land has been provided to accommodate treatment facility expansion which
will be necessary to implement recharge goals.
At WPC-NY-355, Suffolk County Community College, the sewered waste-
water is collected, treated by the contact stabilization process and
discharged into a recharge basin. This disposal process counteracts the
loss of ground water from the recharge area and helps to alleviate lower-
ing of ground-water heads. However, this recharging of 15,000 gallons
per day of treated chlorinated effluent adds nutrients and dissolved
solids to the ground-water system.
The sewer lines for these projects are almost all within the trav-
elled way of paved streets. With the exception of some streams crossed
by the main tie line of the Southwest S.D., the lines to be constructed
in this district will not cross any wetlands or classified streams.
Both Nassau and Suffolk County sanitary sewer specifications are
"tight". There are unit items in all contracts which cover replacement
of trees and grass and there is a dust palliative item to aid in keeping
- 8 -
-------
the air pure. The growing use of vibratory sheeting hammers and the
shielding of pumps and other equipment make a substantial contribution
to noise abatement.
Three of the projects under consideration require new land sites for
the construction of new sewage treatment plant facilities. The Wantagh
treatment plant was sited and constructed on reclaimed land that was, at
one time, part of a tidal marsh in Hempstead Bay. The Suffolk County
S.W.S.D. #3 facility is being constructed on a reclaimed tidal marsh land
known as Fleet Point. The loss of coastal wetlands and shallow water
habitat is a serious national environmental problem. Therefore, future
wastewater treatment facilities should not be constructed on "reclaimed"
land or on tidal marsh wetlands unless there is absolutely no alternative.
The construction of the outfall from the Wantagh treatment plant to
the terminal point will cause an 84 inch sewer pipe to cross a natural
estuary, Great South Bay, and a barrier beach, Jones Beach State Park.
Unless construction is carried out with extreme care, there could be
serious and enduring environmental consequences.
The two major areas of concern involving the physical effects of dis-
charging treated wastewater to the ocean are aesthetics and ocean produc-
tivity. Inasmuch as these treatment plants will provide secondary treat-
ment, there should be no discharge of floatable materials or suspended
solids.
The sewage effluent should have little effect on the pH characteris-
tics of the sewage-seawater mixture or on salinity. Silicate concentra-
tions may increase slightly in the area of the boil, but they should not
- 9 -
-------
affect the diatom population. The dissolved oxygen may be reduced at
the surface of the boil. Trace elements and trace organic compounds
are important. However, there has been no evaluation of the total ef-
fect of large inputs of trace materials from sewage effluents on coastal
waters.
Sewage that has been adequately chlorinated at the treatment plant
will have an E. coli count less than the MPN of 70 established by
federally approved water quality standards. The time and direction of
travel of the treated diluted effluent from the sewage outfall depends
on tidal conditions, wind and distance from shore. Based on the pro-
posed treatment methods, the depth of the outfall sewer, the distance
from shore and meteorological conditions, none of the applicable Water
Quality Standards will be contravened.
The continuous discharge of treated effluent, which is essentially
fresh water, into Long Island Sound or the Atlantic Ocean would prevent
this fresh water from flowing into the north shore and the south shore
bays. The effects of this by-pass on bay waters could be:
A. Change in Salinity - The salinities of the bays are complex
phenomena influenced by (a) surface water runoff, (b) direct
discharges into each bay, (c) ground-water underflow and
(d) the circulation patterns in each bay. If the amount of
fresh water discharged into the bay system is radically reduced,
the bays will gradually become more saline. Since salt concen-
tration is one of the most critical factors governing this eco-
system, an increase in salinity could alter the ecosystem of
the bay.
- 10 -
-------
B. Change in nutrient input - If overland runoff, sewage treatment
plant effluent and ground-water underflow are directed away
from the bay, the amount of nutrients and other biostimulants
and bioinhibitors entering the bay would be reduced. The bay
productivity would be reduced if extra biostimulants needed
to maintain high productivity were no longer available. If
bioinhibitors present in the fresh water input were no longer
available, productivity could increase.
C. Change in bottom characteristics - The diversion of sewage
effluent from the bays would protect the bottoms from becom-
ing muddy or silty in areas of present outfalls. The clear
sand or hard sand bottom community is far more productive and
desirable than the overly muddy or silty bottom community.
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
See section beginning on p. 120.
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECTS
Certain "non-structural" alternatives have been proposed to deal
with the water supply situation in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. In
a written communication (1971), Dr. Zane Spiegel listed some of these
"non-structural" approaches:
"Primary
(a) Low-density zoning;
(b) Reservation of lands for recreational or
agricultural purposes; and
- 11 -
-------
(c) Restriction of building permits.
"Secondary
(a) Strict application of existing or new
administrative procedures on issuance of
water permits;
(b) New legislation on water diversion and use;
(c) Limitations on type or amount of water use: and
(d) Increase of rates or restructure of water
rate schedules to reduce use."
These methods are not, in themselves, alternative solutions; they
merely decrease the rate at which the situation worsens. Population
control methods are not alternative solutions either. However, they
are essential to the success of any solution.
The following table lists alternatives proposed to deal with the
water supply situation in Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
Alternative 1 is unacceptable for the following reasons:
a. The present and designed discharge of secondary treated waste-
water effluent to bays, Long Island Sound and the Ocean will
be considerable in heavily populated Nassau County. This will
result in the eventual depletion of Nassau's potable water sup-
ply. Excessive depletion could result in the destruction of the
water supply due to salt water intrusion. Depletion could also
cause the disappearance of streams and water table lakes due to
lowering of the ground-water table.
- 12 -
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
Q
r^l
^J
^~j
^
W
Cfl X-N
< -0
^j
pfi C
C O
fn CJ
SM/
K
C f"*i
W O
S^
>-j O
£
£D O
to
CO
&. K.
W M
H H
< 55
C
C U
H
CO »J
W O
HH p*4
•< CO
W
H
^J
J^
0)
4-1
«
(U
rH
^
tfl
4-1
O
PH
U-
O
CU
u
S-i
3
o
CO
eu
00
I-l
tfl
CJ
CO
•H
Q
U-J
O
C
O
tH
1 i
tfl
CJ
w
C
0)
E
3
M T3
H O
M AJ
(U 03
ff)
ft)
4J
03
3
i
S 0)
}-! >
CU -r-S
AJ -4J
e
S O
U «tH
o
T3
TJ CU
C to
te 3
4J T3
C C
tfl tfl
P.*O
0)
4J iH
C U
0) r»>
6 0
4-1 0)
tfl r*
CD
4J CU
4-1
C to
4-J J5
CU X
4J CO
CO CO
tfl 3
S
• »\
^i rH
J-i tfl
(8 CO
4J O
•H P,
C to
CO «rl
CO 13
E£
O
fj
to
01
o
co
KS
S
CO
to
rH
CO
O
*
00
Wi
0) .
4-» CO
$8
4-1
*O CO
c >•>
3 CO
O
I-l 4-1
00 C
CU
o E
4J 4J
tfl
T3 CU
0) (-1
OC 4-1
1-1
tfl *—*
,fi CJ
0 -H
CU 4J
I-l P
01
M CO
c *****
••^
T3 rH
C to
« D
•o
4-1 *H
0) >
CO «rl
O TJ
r—1 C!
CJ -H
l-i l-i
0) CU
i 1 1 A
fO »IH
& cfl
*
V^
CU
4-»
a
*c
c
3
O
OC
CU
en
3
O
4-1
CU
3
n
•H
4-1
C
O
O
•
I-l
CU
4-1
to
[5
•a
c
3
O
00
CU
en
3
O
4-1
QJ
3
C
iH
4J
(3
TJ
§
O
W
J_(
o
&~t
fd
tf?
4*
(3
CO
0)
S
CU
00 4J
to c
& t(t
01 rH
tO PH
CO C
P. CU
•H S
0 4J
•H tfl
C CU
£Z
*
o>
0)
4-1 0
CO 4J
>
CO
rH 0)
rH 0
tfl -H
>
t^. cu
O T3
1-1
P, (0
£ tO
o
»•£
• " {j
IT*^ J3
rH CO
O"
P, CO
•3 ^3
CO O
tf]
I-l 4J
CU CU
4J E
ffl
IS C
1 0
•a -H
C AJ
3 re
0 >
£_| 1-4
00 CU
CO
0) C
CO O
:=> o
TU
§
o
CO
VJ
o
J>^
«
m
r.
c
CO
01
8
cu
OC *J
tfl (3
& (0
0! H
CO (3
•iH £5
a *J
•H cfl
C 0)
=g£
*
0
1-1
O)
oc
ret
t-<
3
O
O
CO
•rH
T3
O
4-1
C
0
•H
4-1
CO
r-H
3
OC
CJ
^«l
(JJ
4J
O
la
«\
CU
4J •
to o
<0 4-1
f CU
-l
tfl
Jj 3
0)
CU g_
J2
tO TJ
4-1 (2
O tfl
P,rH
CO
4-1 H
^4
O CU
P. C
E Q
M >J
T3
§
O
to
I-l
o
fx>
nj
p5
»s
c
0)
3
CU
00 4J
tfl C
S tfl
CU rH
CO PH
tfl C
P. CU
U 4-1
££
•
rH
rH
CU
•a
•H
^»
o
p.
o
^4
CU
4-1
to
to
CO
CO
^4
o
JS
CO
•H
,x
U •
V4 rH'
^P) C-
C«-
0) 3
4-J CO
Cfl
C
o
c
CU
i-l
4-1
c
0)
P
00
3
to
0
4J
^H
CU
4J
^
X)
c
3
o
OC k
CU
0) 4-1
5 §
CU
CO
3
CU
(£
4-1
o
CO
^J
iH
o
0)
ec 4J
tfl C
£ co
0) rH
CO PH
CO C
p. ft)
iH E
U 4J
pj fl}
^^
•
^>
TH
- 14 -
-------
b. In densely populated areas of Suffolk County, failure to collect
wastewater, treat it by secondary treatment and dispose of it
outside effective recharge areas will result in contamination
of the ground water, making the ground water unsuitable as a pot-
able water supply. It will also adversely affect the fresh and
estuarine surface water ecosystems into which the contaminated
ground water flows. However, if collection, treatment and disposal
operations are instituted as in (a) above, the available quantity
of ground water will be reduced. This would lower the water table,
causing the reduction or disappearance of streams and water table
lakes and an increase in salt water intrusion.
c. In sufficiently sparsely populated areas of Suffolk County,
individual treatment (septic) systems might suffice for the
present. However, it is expected that such sparsely populated
areas will be greatly diminished by the year 2020.
Alternatives 2 through 7 are all unacceptable. They would employ
individual disposal (septic) systems for the treatment and disposal of
wastes to the ground water. At the same time, various conservation
procedures would be used to provide a potable water supply.
Without community sewering, the wastewaters from individual disposal
systems would be permitted to recharge the aquifer. This would prevent
lowering of the ground-water heads. However, it would allow the pollu-
tion of the ground water by sewage from cesspool and septic tank systems
to continue.
- 15 -
-------
Alternative 8, the dual system alternative, offers an interesting
approach. Sanitary wastes (toilet and garbage disposal grinding®)
would be collected and treated at a wastewater treatment plant and
would be disposed of at sea. Other water (bath, laundry, etc.) would
be partially recycled to assist conveyance of sanitary wastes. The re-
mainder would be treated by individual (septic) subsurface disposal
systems and discharged to the ground water. This alternative would be
unacceptable because of its excessive cost in densely populated areas
with established waste treatment systems. However, it should be thor-
oughly evaluated to examine its feasibility in sparsely populated areas.
Alternatives 9 through 14 would employ municipal collection and
treatment of wastewater. This is essential to safeguard the public's
health and to protect the fresh water and estuarine ecosystems on Long
Island through the maintenance of ground-xrater quality.
Alternative 9 is unacceptable because its implementation would cause
a net loss in ground-water quantity, resulting in the decline of water
table levels. This, in turn, would cause: the eventual disappearance
of streams and water table lakes, increased salinity in the estuaries
and ultimate loss of the potable ground-water supply due to depletion
and saline contamination.
Alternative 10 would ultimately have the same effect as Alternative 9.
Alternative 11 is unacceptable because of the unavailability of an out-
side water supply. Alternative 12, desalination, might be an acceptable
solution, provided that the treated effluent is discharged at sea and
- 16 -
-------
the quantity of ground water is maintained such that no adverse hydro-
logic or ecologic effects would be experienced.
Alternatives 13 and 14 would involve the collection and treatment
of wastewaters such that the effluent could be safely recycled to the
potable water supply. Alternative 14 would require the most extensive
waste treatment since the renovated effluent would be immediately returned
for human consumption. The inadequacies which exist in viral detection
and quantitation techniques render monitoring impossible at this time.
Questions exist concerning the potential long-term medical effects of
ingesting compounds present in sewage. These factors make direct reuse
unacceptable at this time.
If certain technological developments can be made in the near future,
Alternative 13 will emerge as the most acceptable solution to the Nassau-
Suffolk water supply situation. Ground-water quality will be protected
through municipal collection and treatment of wastewater and ground-water
quantity will be maintained through recharge to the aquifer.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S ENVIRONMENT
AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
See section beginning on p. 189.
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES INVOLVED
IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERTINENT PROJECTS
See section beginning on p. 191.
DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ALL REVIEWERS
See section beginning on p. 193.
- 17 -
-------
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
See section beginning on p. 254.
- 18 -
-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE PERTINENT PROJECTS
NASSAU COUNTY
WPC-NY-361 _- Nassau County S.D. No.^3
Status - Under construction
Nassau County Sewage Disposal District #3 encompasses an area of
approximately 105 square miles. It includes the entire incorporated
villages of Farmingdale, Massapequa Park and Westbury, portions of
Brookvllle, East Hills, Muttontown, Old Westbury and Oyster Bay Cove,
and unincorporated areas of the Towns of Hempstead, North Hetnpstead and
Oyster Bay. The present population of the District is about 662,000 per-
sons with a projected 2010 population of 1,080,000 persons.
The wastewater treatment plant is nearing completion. It is sized
for a design average flow of 45 million gallons per day (mgd). Studies
indicate that by the year 2010, the plant, will have to be expanded to
120 mgd. The rate of expansion will depend on the progress of the
District's sewer construction program and on population increases in
the sewered areas.
The project provides for the construction of interceptors, pumping
stations, force mains, a secondary sewage treatment plant at Wantagh and
an outfall to the Atlantic Ocean. Pumping stations and interceptors con-
structed as part of this project will serve a portion of District No. 3.
Additional areas will be served under WPC-NY-628.
The Plant will utilize the step aeration modification to the activated
sludge process. The treatment is as follows:
- 19 -
-------
The sewage enters the plant through a motor operated sluice gate
and passes through self-cleaning heavy duty bar screens. The bar screens
are equipped with automatic heavy duty grinders which grind the screen-
ings and then return them to the raw sewage flow.
The sewage flows into a wet well where the flow is controlled and
sampled; then it is pumped to two aerated type sewage degritting tanks.
Here sand and other heavy inorganic solids are removed. The grit cham-
bers are covered with a superstructure and all ventilation air is deodor-
ized prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
The sewage then flows to six primary settling tanks which are equipped
to scrape the settled solids into sludge hoppers at the influent end of
the tanks and to skim floating materials into revolving type scum troughs
near the outlet end of the tanks. The entire primary settling installa-
tion is covered and all air required for ventilation is deodorized before
being emitted.
The settled sewage flows by gravity from the primary settling tanks
to three four-pass aeration tanks. Here it mixes with return activated
sludge from the final clarifiers. Air is introduced through diffuser
units located near the bottom of the tanks.
The mixed liquor effluent from the aeration tanks flows into six
final settling tanks. The settled activated sludge is taken from the
bottom of the tanks and deposited in two sludge distribution wells.
The effluent from the six tanks flows to the effluent screening cham-
ber where it passes through traveling water screens which remove the
residual solids. Screenings are pumped to the thickening tanks. The
- 20 -
-------
screen chamber is combined with the chlorine feeding and storage facil-
ity, the spray water pumping system and the plant irrigation water pump-
ing systems. The combined installation is in an enclosed building.
Chlorination facilities for effluent disinfection, influent odor
control and prevention of sludge bulking are provided.
Maximum flows from the final settling tanks are discharged by gravity
through the outfall sewer, except during maximum tide levels. Pumping
capacity is provided to discharge at 90 mgd during maximum tides.
Sludge thickening facilities are provided to decrease the capacity
required in the sludge digesters. The sludge thickening tanks and thick-
ener control areas are covered with a superstructure. Ventilation air
is deodorized prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
The digested sludge is then pumped to the Bay Park Treatment Plant
where it is loaded on barges for disposal at sea. However, by agree-
ment with the County of Nassau,
"In the event the present site is declared unsat-
isfactory from a viewpoint of water quality stand-
ards, and the dumping site is moved to a different
area, the County of Nassau will relocate [its dump-
ing activities]. In further event that no sea
disposal area is acceptable to the FWPCA [U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency], then alternate land
methods will be instituted, provided such abandon-
ment and relocation is economically and technically
feasible in a manner which does not present major
problems of air, ground and water pollution."
(Nickerson, 1968a).
Pending federal laws banning the ocean disposal of sewage sludge may
force Nassau County to relocate the dumping area. Both the Bay Park and
Wantagh plants would be affected.
- 21 -
-------
The treated effluent will be conveyed 13,287 feet offshore from the
mean high water line at Jones Beach via an 84" ocean outfall. A diffuser
line 204 ft. in length will be placed at the offshore end perpendicular
to the outfall line. The diffuser line will be approximately 2.5 feet
above the ocean floor and 48.5 feet below the ocean surface.
WPC-NY-628 - Nassau County S.D. No. 3, Phase II
Status - Under construction
This project provides for the construction of interceptors to serve
the southeastern portion of Nassau County. The interceptors will convey
domestic wastes to the water pollution control plant at Wantagh. The
Wantagh plant is nearing completion (WPC-NY-361).
WPC-NY-559 - West Long Beach S.D.
Status - Under construction
This project is located at Atlantic Beach in the Town of Hetnpstead,
Nassau County. The project will serve the Long Beach Sewer District with
a present equivalent population of 10,400 and an estimated design maximum
equivalent population of 17,800. The project provides for additions and
alterations to an existing sludge handling facility. In the past, the
sludge was trucked off for use as fertilizer at a local golf course. The
course is now closed, but another disposal site has been found. The thick-
ened sludge will be disposed of at sea at the designated sludge dumping
grounds. At present, biological treatment using the trickling filter pro-
cess (85-90% removal biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) and suspended solids)
and chlorination is employed. The flow is approximately 1.1 mgd with
- 22 -
-------
an estimated 1990 design average flow of 1.8 tngd. The plant effluent
is discharged into Reynolds Channel.
WPC-NY-609 - Town of North Hempstead
Status - Under construction
This project is located in the Town of North Hempstead, Nassau County.
It will serve the Belgrave Sewer District. This District includes the
Village of Russell Gardens, portions of Great Neck Plaza and the Village
of Thomaston and unincorporated areas of the Town of North Hempstead.
The present population to be served is 15,000 persons with a design popu-
lation of 20,000 in 1985.
This project provides for additions and alterations to an existing
water pollution control plant. The improvements will consist of a new
primary sludge digester, conversion of an existing sludge digester to a
secondary sludge digester, the construction of a grit washer and build-
ing, and necessary niping revisions. The sludge must be adequately
digested before it is transported by truck to the Nassau County Water
Pollution Control Plant at Bay Park for ocean disposal. The plant
employs biological treatment and chlorination. The biological treat-
ment is provided by a trickling filter. The present average flow is
1.35 mgd while the design year (1985) flow is estimated at 2.0 mgd. ;
The effluent is discharged to Little Neck Bay.
WPC-NY-629 - Great Neck Sewer District
Status - Under construction
This project will serve Nassau County's Great Neck Sewer District
and Kings Point, Manhasset, Strathmore, Harbor Hills, a portion of Great
- 23 -
-------
Keck Fstatfis and the Whitney Estate area,. The current and design vear
'"'•"'O) pop;; 1 at: OP F of the area are estimated at 32,800 and 52,300, respec-
tive I.,1,- 'M:e ["'eject provides for improvements and additions to the ex-
! tn« Eas ~, S\)te Road Sewage- Treatment T-'!,int,. The Plant now provides
eecom'arv "rea'ni'e.nt anJ cMorinetl on, It has a design capacity of 2,7 mgd
FveseT-t plrnt -:r, \t.g consist of a coraminutor chamber, primary settling
L.-rkj-:,, hlf;>> t**f Trickling filters, a secondary settling f..=mV, a chlorine
cc-ntart taai- rj. settling tank, a sludge thickener,
additional sludge <'f,-s. jnp, '' ""'-• a new sludge incinerator and a
nev chlorine crr-vct f;ink T"esent plans are to Qiac •, 'r;^f the plant
effluent to ti>t-> t-?f'A'! • r of 'ianhasset Bay. Hox^ever, tlte discharge
:?T' •!?•-•,'•£! ;JD ••'}•'' '.-us of 6300 (lci?'"f) and
7550 (1974), respectively. The plant - ,-i estimated design flov of
151,000 gallons per day (gpd).
-------
The project provides for the construction of interceptor severs and
a water pollution control plant. The contact stabilization process, a
modification of the activated sludge process, will be utilized to achieve
removal rates of 90% BOD and suspended solids. The chlorinated effluent
will be discharged into a recharge basin at a rate of 7 gallons per day
per square foot of bottom basin area.
WPC-NY-536 - Riverhead
Status - Under construction
The Town of Riverhead is located approximately 65 miles east of New
York City. In the design year of 1985, an estimated 12,000 persons in
the Riverhead Sewer District will be served by this project. The pro-
ject, which is presently under construction, provides for additions and
alterations to an existing pump station and secondary sewage treatment
plant. The existing plant was converted from the activated sludge pro-
cess to a.trickling filter under WPC-NY-57 in 1957. It now has primarv
and secondary settling tanks, two biofilters, sludge digestion facilities,
a chlorine contact tank and an outfall to the Peconic River.
The current grant provides for the construction of a new grit chamber
and the installation of an additional sludge pump and an emergency engine
generator. The DeFries Avenue Pumping Station will also be improved.
Average flow is approximately one-half the design year (1985) average of
1.25 mgd and is domestic in nature. The Peconic River will continue to
receive the chlorinated effluent.
- 25 -
-------
WPC-NY-577 - Northport (Village)
Status - Under construction
Northport is located in the northwest corner of Suffolk County. Con-
struction -as begun on this project to upgrade a primary treatment plant
to provide secondary treatment. Additions to the plant will be located
on the same site, about 300 feet south of the existing facility. The
project will serve a present population of 1700, and a design year popu-
lation of 3000 in 1985.
The plant will use the extended aeration modification to the acti-
vated sludge process with anticipated removal rates of 90% BOD and
suspended solids. The design year average flow to the plant will be
0.30 mgd. The chlorinated, clarified effluent will be discharged via
an outfall into Nortbport Harbor.
WPC-NY-669 - Huntington Sewer District
Status - JJndern const ruet ion
This project will serve the Centerport Sewer District in the Town of
Huntington. The Centerport Sewer District is adjacent to Mill Pond x^hich
is located at the southern end of Centerport Harbor.
The project provides for the construction of a pumping station and
a force main to convey essentially domestic wastewater to the Village of
Northport sewer system, The sewage will then be conveyed to the Village
of Northport sewage treatment plant (WPC-NY-577) where it will receive
secondary treatment. The design year (1985) flow will be 50,000 gpd.
- 26 -
-------
WPC-NY-624 - Suffolk County Southwest Sewer District
Status - Under construction
This treatment plant will be located in the Town of Babylon on re-
claimed land south of and adjacent to Bergen Point. This is in the
southwestern portion of Suffolk County. The project will serve an area
of more than 36,000 acres with a current population of 240,000.
At this time, no municipal facilities exist for the treatment of sew-
age in the Southwest Sewer District No. 3. This project will be a major
undertaking, providing service for all or parts of 3 towns and 4 villages.
It will provide for construction of lateral sewers (which are ineligible
for Federal construction grant aid under Public Law 84-660), intercept-
ing sewers, a 30 mgd (1985 design year) secondary wastewater treatment
plant and a 66" outfall sewer that will convey the chlorinated effluent
approximately 2-1/2 miles into the Atlantic Ocean.
Ninety-five percent of the influent to the treatment plant will be
domestic flow. The activated sludge process will remove an estimated
90 percent of the BOD and suspended solids. Treatment plant construc-
tion will include comminuting chambers, two aerated grit chambers,
four primary settling tanks, four aeration tanks, six final settling
tanks, four chlorine contact tanks, a plant pumping station and sludge
digestion facilities. The digested sludge will be dewatered and dis-
posed of as landfill.
- 27 -
-------
WPC-NY-621 - Village of Greenport
Status^ ~_ Application_ withdrawn
Tha ViJJ.-^e of Greenport in Suffolk County is located approximately
85 mile-*; c s of New York City. The proposed project will serve the
Incorporate;; Village of Greenport with an estimated design population
of 5,000 for the year 2000. This project will provide for additions and
alterations to an existing pump station and primary water pollution con-
trol plant. The improvements will consist of two new aerated lagoons,
a secondary settling tank, chlorination facilities and modifications to
the existing Imhoff tanks and raw sewage pumps. The present and design
flows are estimated at 0.3 mgd and 0.5 mgd, respectively. The flow is
and will continue to h° exclusively domestic. The proposed secondarv
facilities are designed to remove 85% of the BOD and suspended solids.
The plant effluent wil ' be discharged to Long Island Sound.
WPC-NY-709 - Pr>rjt_ Jefferson
App11.Caticm noc received
The following preliminary information regards the proposed Port Jef-
ferson project.
The existing sewage treatment plant, which was built in the 1950's,
provides primary treatment. The effluent is discharged to Port Jeffer-
son Harbor. The State of New York has ordered that the effluent meet
secondary treatment criteria and that the discharge point be moved
several miles further from shore into Long Island Sound. The average
plant capacity will be increased from 1.1 mgd to 5.0 mgd (year 1990).
The expanded facility will include 5.0 acres of presently owned-used
- 28 -
-------
BACKGROUND
GEOGRAPHIC AREA
Long Island is "a portion of a complex of glacial moraine and out-
wash deposits which has been isolated from similar features extending
northeast to Cape Cod by post-glacial sea level rise and shore processes.
The glacial deposits generally overlie cretaceous rocks except on the
extreme western part of Long Island." (Spiegel, written communication,
1972). This segment of the Atlantic Coastal Plain is separated from the
mainland on the north by the broad but shallow trough of Long Island
Sound and on the west by the narrow East River and by the New York Harbor.
The salt water encirclement of Long Island is completed by the Atlantic
Ocean on the south and east. (See Figure 1).
Long Island has a total land area of approximately 1373 square miles,
an overall length of about 120 miles and a maximum width of about 20
miles.
A series of barrier beaches parallels the south shore of Long Island.
From west to east, Jamaica Bay, South Oyster Bay, Great South Bay, Moriches
Bay and Shinnecock Bay separate the barrier beaches from the south shore
of the Island. Breaks in these barrier beaches allov the ebb and flow of
ocean water into the bays. The eastern end of the Island is divided by
the Great Peconic Bay and Little Peconic Bay into peninsulas known as the
"North Fork" and the "South Fork". The northern coast of Long Island has
many excellent bays and harbors which are used for commercial and recrea-
tional purposes.
- 30 -
-------
property and 8.0 acres of presently owned-unused property. Present in-
dications are that the proposed project will employ a physical-chemical
treatment process.
The physical-chemical process will attain up to 957 removal of BOD
and suspended solids with overall phosphate reduction to less than 2.0
milligrams per liter (mg/1). The units which will be used are: two
rapid mix tanks, three coagulation basins, three sedimentation basins,
eight carbon adsorption units and ten rapid sand filters. In addition
to pumping stations, force mains and interceptors, there will be:
carbon storage, handling and regeneration facilities, sludge handling
and disposal equipment, and aeration and chlorination facilities.
The plant outfall will be located in the Long Island Sound about a
mile or more offshore in waters approximately 60-80 feet deep.
- 29 -
-------
Figure 1
-------
The Island is divided into Kings (Brooklyn), Queens, Nassau and
Suffolk Counties. However, this impact statement deals only with the
geographic area of Nassau and Suffolk Counties and with the projects
in this area.
POPULATION, LAND USE AND INDUSTRY
Prior to World War II, Nassau and Suffolk Counties were essentially
rural in nature. In the 1940's and 1950's many single and multi-family
dwellings were built in Nassau County. As the population increased in
number and density, there was an eastward expansion into Suffolk County.
Table 1 illustrates the dramatic population increases in Nassau and
Suffolk Counties between 1950 and 1970, as well as the anticipated grovrth
through 2020.
Between 1950 and 1960, Nassau's population almost doubled, growing
from 673,000 to 1,300,000. During the same time span, Suffolk County's
population nearly tripled, rising from 276,000 to 667,000. From 1960 to
1970, Nassau's population increased by only 10 percent to 1.4 million;
Suffolk's population increased by 69 percent to 1.1 million. By 1980,
the population of Nassau County is expected to reach 1.6 million, an
increase of 12 percent. During the same time period, Suffolk County's
population is expected to reach 1.7 million, an increase of 48 percent
(New York State Office of Planning Coordination, 1968). By 2020, the
population of Nassau County is expected to reach 2.0 million and the pop-
ulation of Suffolk County is expected to reach 4.7 million. Dr. Sidney
R. Caller, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs, U.S.
- 31 -
-------
Department of Commerce, in a comment on the draft environmental impact
statement, takes exception to the high population projection for Suffolk
County in the year 2020. Dr. Caller states: "The Department of Commerce's
Bureau of Economic Analysis (formerly Office of Business Economics) pro-
jections indicate about one-half the population of that cited for the
year 2020." (Caller, written communication, 1972).
Table 2 summarizes the population densities (persons per square mile)
of Nassau and Suffolk Counties from 1950 to 2020. The Table illustrates
the actual and projected increases in population concentration over this
70 year period.
Table 3 summarizes the amounts of either vacant or agriculturally
developed land in Nassau and Suffolk Counties in 1968. Nassau County
has a relatively small amount of vacant land for residential development.
Consequently, most future residential and population advances are expected
to take place in Suffolk County which has roughly 272,000 vacant acres.
Suffolk County has 425 square miles of vacant land, an area larger than
the whole of Nassau County.
Table 4 illustrates the 1968 distribution of land according to usage
in both counties. In Suffolk County, 20 percent of the land was classi-
fied as residential, commercial and industrial. Nassau Countv had
50 percent of its land in these categories.
Most industries in Nassau and Suffolk Counties are "dry". They con-
tribute only sanitary wastewater and some warmed water from air condition-
ing systems. They do not produce process wastewater which is generally
associated with heavy loads of unusual contaminants.
- 32 -
-------
0)
CO
«
CU
M
U
c
M
4J
a
a)
o
M
CD
PL,
1
0 O
f-» CM
o\ o
rH CM
00 -3" 00
• • •
Cr> rH 00
-* rH
CO
1
C O
vo r>.
CTi
rH rH
•
oo
o
o
ro
vO
VO
VO
r^
CM
U-l
O
0)
u
U-l
o
(I)
4-1
TO
4J
to
4-1 CO
•H .C
U 00
C
o
I
I
d
to
co
>4-l
3
a
4J
cd
O
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
TABLE 3
SELECTED LAND USE BY COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITY
DURING 1968
Nassau County
Hempstead
No. Hempstead
Oyster Bay
Suffolk County
Babylon
Brookhaven
E. Hampton
Huntington
Islip
Riverhead
Shelter Island
Smithtown
Southampton
Southold
Vacant Land
(acres)
15,281
4,971
2,555
7,755
271,820
8,820
92,210
30,850
21,420
24,240
10,200
3,680
14 , 760
51,710
13,930
Percent
Total of
Vacant Land
100.0%
32.5
16.7
50.7
100.0%
3.2
33.9
11.3
7.9
8.9
3.8
1.4
5.4
19.0
5.1
Agriculture
(acres)
2,056
209
179
1,668
64,400
370
11,560
2,420
4,170
640
19,550
80
1,240
12,450
11,920
Percent
Total of
Agriculture
100.0%
10.2
8.7
81.1
100.0%
0.6
18.0
3.8
6.5
1.0
30.4
0.1
1.9
19.3
18.5
Data from Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1968.
-------
TABLE 4
LAND USE BY COUNTY AND TYPE OF USE
DURING 1968
Type of Land
Residential
Commercial
Industrial &
Utilities
Institutional
Recreation
Agriculture
Roadways
Vacant
Water
Total
Nassau
County
(acres)
89,701
4,831
6,591
9,460
16,464
2,056
30,134
15,281
26,431
200,949
Percent of
Nassau
Total
45
2
3
5
8
1
15
8
13
100%
Suffolk
County
(acres)
91,790
6,139
29,310
25,450
49,200
64,400
41,110
271,820
97,650
676,860
Percent of
Suffolk
Total
14
1
5
4
7
9
6
40
14
100%
Data from Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 1968.
-------
There are some wet industries in the Counties which do produce pro-
cess wastewater. Of major consequence are the food processing and
plating industries. Table 5 lists the plating and polishing, coating,
anodizing and engraving industries and Table 6 lists the food processing
industries as given in the New York State Industrial Directory. There
are fewer plating industries now on Long Island than there were in years
past. No attempt has been made to investigate the location of businesses
which have closed. As pointed out by Spiegel (written communication,
1972), both the plating and the food processing industries in this area
could cause problems at the local treatment plant.
In terms of employment distribution, Nassau County had more than
twice as many job opportunities as Suffolk County in 1968. However,
the percentages of people employed (percent of total county employment)
in the various business classifications was almost identical in both
counties.
WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
Nassau County
The sewage treatment plants in existence prior to 1956 are listed in
Table 7. The flow, the type of treatment process and the receiving water
of the treated effluent for each facility are also given. As indicated,
some of these facilities have been abandoned.
Over the past four decades, the percentage of Nassau County's popula-
tion served by sewers has increased as follows:
- 33 -
-------
TABLE 5
PLATING AND POLISHING, COATING, ANODIZING AND ENGRAVING
INDUSTRIES IN NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES--'
Industry
Anode Company
Broomer Research Corp.
M. Genzale Plating Co.
Husslein Plating Corp.
Liberty Industrial Finishing
Corp.
M C P Facilities Corp.
Metal Etching Corp.
National Metal Coating Corp.
Patchogue Plating Works
Photo Chemical Products Inc.
Precision Metal Finishing Corp.
Preferred Plating Corp.
Production Spraying and
Manufacturing Corp.
E. C. Sumereau & Sons Inc.
TEK Deburr Inc.
Ultrasonic Deburring Co. Inc.
Ultrasonic Devices Inc.
United Finishing Service Corp.
Location
Oyster Bay
Plainview
Franklin Square
Mineola
Farmingdale
Glen Head
Freeport
Deer Park
Patchogue
Garden City
Freeport
Farmingdale
Deer Park
Huntington Station
Farmingdale
New Hyde Park
Deer Park
Mineola
County
Nassau
Nassau
Nassau
Nassau
Suffolk
Nassau
Nassau
Suffolk
Suffolk
Nassau
Nassau
Suffolk
Suffolk
Suffolk
Suffolk
Nassau
Suffolk
Nassau
I/ New York State Industrial Directory.
-------
TABLE 6
FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES IN
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES^
Industry
Atlantic Processing Co.
Beacon Feeds
Blue Points Company
Robert T. Cooper Inc.
Greenport Sea Products Inc.
Hanan Products Co. Inc.
V. La Rosa & Sons Inc.
Long Island Sea Clam Corp.
Port Clyde Packing Co.
Protein Derivates Inc.
Ronzoni Foods Inc.
Shelter Island Oyster Co.
Louis Sherry
Southland Frozen Foods Inc.
Location
Amagansett
Eastport
West Sayville
Greenport
East Marion
Hicksville
West bury
Point Lookout
Hicksville
Farmingdale
Hicksville
Greenport
New Hyde Park
Great Neck
County
Suffolk
Suffolk
Suffolk
Suffolk
Suffolk
Nassau
Nassau
Nassau
Nassau
Suffolk
Nassau
Suffolk
Nassau
Nassau
I/ New York State Industrial Directory.
-------
*TABLE 7
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS IN
EXISTENCE PRIOR TO 1956
NASSAU COUNTY
Location
Present
Flow
MGD
Treatment Process
Receiving
Water
Farmingdale 0.5
Meadowbrook 0.2
Mitchell Field 1.0
Oyster Bay 1.0
Belgrave S.D. 0.5
Cedarhurst 0.7
Freeport 2.0
Great Neck - E. Shore Rd. 1.0
Great Neck - Village 1.0
Great Neck - Bayview Ave. 0.5
Lawrence Village 0.5
Long Beach 7.5
West Long Beach 1.0
Morgan Island
Port Washington 2.0
Roslyn 0.4
Jones Beach 0.4
Garden City 2.0
Intermediate-Imhoft Tank and
Chemical Flocculation and
Sedimentation
Secondary - Trickling Filter
Intermediate - Chemical Addi-
tion and Sedimentation
Primary - Septic Tank
Primary
Primary
Primary
Primary - Imhoff Tank
Secondary Trickling Filter
Primary (abandoned to
E. Shore Rd.)
Primary
Secondary Trickling Filter
Secondary Trickling Filter
Septic Tank
Secondary Trickling Filter
Secondary Trickling Filter
(Seasonal) Secondary
Trickling Filter
Primary (abandoned '52)
Groundwater
Groundwater
Groundwater
Oyster Bay
Little Neck Bay
Jamaica Bay
Freeport Creek
Manhasset Bay
Manhasset Bay
Little Neck Bay
Benisten Creek to
Reynolds Channel
Reynolds Channel
Reynolds Channel
Long Island Sound
Manhasset Bay
Hempstead Bay
East Bay
Groundwater
*Does not include any facilities in existence prior to 1956 but abandoned before '56.
-------
1940 - 8% 1960 - 46%
1950 - 12% 1970 - 54%.
For the past two decades, the County has been engaged In an accelerated
program of sewering.
Present planning calls for the extension of service to 98 percent of
the population by 1983.
Nassau County is comprised of two cities, three towns, sixty-three
incorporated villages and a number of unincorporated areas. At present,
only the southern and western sections of the County (Districts 1 and 2)
are served by sewers. The northern and eastern sections (Districts 3
and 4) must rely on individual disposal systems. The largest single
system now in operation in Nassau County is Sewage Disposal District
No. 2. This District covers the western portion of the County extending
from Albertson and Williston in the north to Woodmere and Hewlett in the
southwest and Oceanside in the southeast. The District also includes the
villages of Hempstead, Garden City and Mineola. These towns had sewerage
systems and treatment plants prior to the creation of District 2. These
treatment plants have been abandoned and their sewage now flows through
to the District treatment plant at Bay Park.
Parts of District No. 3, which covers the eastern half of Nassau
County, are in the process of being sewered. (See WPC-NY-361 and
WPC-NY-628 - Table 8). The rate of sewering will depend on the rate of
growth in the District. A sewage treatment plant is being constructed
at Wantagh to serve this District, (WPC-NY-361).
- 34 -
-------
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
District No. 4 consists of County areas draining northward into Long
Island Sound. Studies are being conducted on this area, which is proposed
to be the last one completely sewered.
Suffolk County
Table 9 summarizes the treatment facilities in existence prior to
1956. The Table lists the location, the present flow, the type of treat-
ment process and the receiving water of the effluent for each facility.
The percentage of Suffolk County's population served by sewers has in-
creased over the past four decades as follows:
1940 - 3% 1960 - 5%
1950 - 4% 1970 - 7%.
At present, there is an overall dependence upon cesspools and septic
tanks for the disposal of sewage. In 1965, the discharge from thousands
of individual subsurface waste disposal systems introduced some 59 mgd of
highly polluted wastewater (domestic and industrial) into the ground-water
systems. (Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, 1970a). Suffolk County is
studying the various sewer districts to ascertain their needs with regard
to pollution abatement. Some of the completed studies have resulted in
the submittal of applications to the State of New York and the Federal
Construction Grant program as listed in Table 10.
- 35 -
-------
TABLE 9
I/
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS IN EXISTENCE PRIOR TO 1956^-
SUFFOLK COUNTY
Location
Present
Flow
MGD
Treatment Process
Receiving
Water
Babylon 0.5
Huntington 2.0
Northport 0.02
State Univ. of Farmingdale 0.30
Northport, V.A. Hospital 0.5
Islip-Central Islip 1.5
State Hospital
Ocean Beach - Fire Island 0.5
Pilgrim State Hospital 2.4
Smithtown - State Hosnital 2.0
Brookhaven National Lab - 1.0
Town of Brookhaven
Village of Patchoque 0.5
Port Jefferson 1.4
Riverhead S.D. 1.2
Village of Greenport 0.5
Bio Filter
Trickling Filter
Itnhoff Tanks
Imhoff Tanks
Trickling Filter
Primary Settling
Primary Settling
Imhoff Tanks
Activated Sludge
Primary Settling
Primary Settling
Primary Settling
Activated Sludge
Imhoff Tanks
Groundwater
Huntington Harbor
Northport Harbor
Groundwater
Long Island Sound
Groundwater
Great South Bay
Groundwater
Long Island Sound
Under drain re-
moval filter to
Peconic River
Great South Bay
Port Jefferson
Harbor
Flanders Bay
Long Island Sound
I/ Data supplied by Suffolk County Department of Public Works.
-------
H
M
,J
M
S
(i-
O
•z,
c
u
z
c
M
H
£>
iJ ^
i-J K
O O
Pi >i
e: s
K &
i-l &
$ ,
fefc
§1
SU
U X
& iJ
Pi O
H PL,
CO [n
Z S
O CO
CJ
u
X
H
B2
O
PL,
W
O
U
PL,
•••.
(N
oo
•5
^
0)
u
s
,_,
CO
O
e
4)
B
tl
Vi
4J
B
01
S
4J
CO
01
Vl
H
U
01
1-1
o
£
c
o
S
o
I-l
PL.
Vi
CO C
01 -H
01
CO o
Q
4J
B
3 >H
O O
<2
0)
,Q
•H
00
•H
iH
H
U Vl
01 01
0 |
s
10
to
^
41
U
•0
01
4J
o
D.
s
c
00
1-1
01
0)
in
01
o
o
Vi
PI
o
1-1
4J
P.
1-1
v<
o
to
o
4J
C
01
to
01
PH
c
00
01
Q
1
CO
01
5.
O
4J
CO
M
o
4-»
CO
VI
O
01
4-1
1
S
o
01
s
CO
z
4J
Cl
01
•f-
o
V
41
41
U
^
O
3
4J
8
CO
B
i-l 41
CO
Is
m
en
00
c
*H
i— I
4J
4J
0)
W
^
W* A*
tO C
E ft
-H H
*j
P-
^
^
H
W
C
.H
-3-
,-H
Q>
m
r^
I
c
m
r*
o
0
oT
CM
~
00
p
B
o
(X
E
3
O
Vi
41
•H
OS
U
«H
B
0
U
01
PU
00
CO
m
00
i
o
1-1
H 4)
1 4J
>. i-H
CO PL,
*T3
B OC
0 C
U i-l
41
<£
^
H
W
tn
o
CN
i-H
i-H
i°
CO
m
I
CO
C
,_(
m
o
fO
o"
m
in
fH
t)
1
01
trf
f«^
m
1
£
y
s
1
1
E
VI
P-i
E"
M
1
1
1
-3-
1
in
C
00
•H
CM
I—I
0
O
o\
in"
m
en
CM
£>
x^
4J
Vl
0
0.
4J
Vl
B
O
00
c vt
1-4 O
§ 3
*
f^.
00
in
r*.
00
1
O
1-1
H S
1 4J
>-, rH
U iH
eci PL,
•O
C 00
0 B
O i-l
41
CO
^
~-^
&
CO
00
,-4
O
C^
vO
1^
I
C
in
en
en
00
O
o
0
m
o^
rH
-3-
en
O
CO
B
O
00
G
•H
4J
1
CM
l-l
0)
JJ
*j
1
3
2
o
1
o
Ot
4-1
O
co a
4J O
S «
1 N
Vl i— 1
CO 1-1
"0 £.
B Q
0 4J
(J CO
01
to
^_t
to
H"
M
in
c
o
CM
-d-
CM
O
1
00
1
c
c
in
\D
0
C
-a-
oT
m
in
m
tn
>•, 0)
4J OC
B o>
O i— 1
iH •
o e
-.
•H
erf m
V4
O 01
0 r-l
01 Pu
1
r-.
00
I
r-l
Cl
•H
Vi Vi
H 4)
1 4J
^t I—I
Vi -rl
CO PL,
•o
B 00
0 C
0 i-l
01
to
^
•-•
H
CO
^-,
<,
t/:
Pi
CM
in
o
o
CM
iH
1
O^
1
CM
O
in
in
i —
i —
o
c
0
m
CM
CM
en
in
Q
CO
n
41
Vi
01
T«
i-i
4J
Vl
0 Vl
!•£
0 S
55
i
0
1
•o
B
01
S -3
1 4J
fs co
Vi Vi
CO 01
•0 <
c
o -a
U 01
01
to
^j
^
H
CO
^
i-H
0
O
en
o
1
0
1
c
in
[•^
VO
iH
O
C
o
CO
o
m
i —
m
£>
**^
4J
Vi
o
a
4J
Vi
S
rH
ro
en
1
g
1
u
o
H
1
1
1
E
CO
pi
1
1
1
0
r-.
1
iH
•H
C
in
00
en
o
o
CO
vD
i-l
,H
VO
vD
E-l
B
O
4J
OC
B
i-l
4J
B
a
co'
4J
Vl
O
CL.
Vl
01
4J
B
01
U
I-l
t£
Vi 5
41 3
SCO
T3 4J
B CO
OMB
vi o n
o
1
1
1
•H 41
4J 00
O "C
< 3
1 i-l
>, CO
Vi
n -o
•o o
B 4J
O CO
0 >
41
CO
to
o
k.
CO
p-
H
53
M
&
CO
1
C
c
en
1
iH
1
en
o
c
o
o
c
o
o
*H
0
O
0
o
c
c
r-l
CM
CM
*°
4J
B
3
iH CO
O
U-l «
3 to
to
1-1 41
4J -O
§ §
Vl
4J T3 B
41 tC 01 O
T3 B 4J 1-1
CO O Cl 4J
S tJ 3 CO
V. U
Vl Vl 4J 1-1
01 01 01 i-l
IH "e o °"
O » O <
Vi
o
^
T)
B
CO
«
B
O
B
CO
CO r-l
Vl Pi
01
S 4J
01 B B
CO o 4)
•H e vi
00 *J *J 4)
B to <0 S
41 S
B -H 4J
i-l 4J CO
l CO
.
0) 00 rH
O C 41 iH
01 Vl 1-1 00 CO
u ai o. eg IH
VI 4J E ^ 4J
o B 3 o) 3
In M P-, CO O
I I I I I
0) < E fe
Q v-' fr, M
H rx,
fe CO H
-------
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAMS IN
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES
Construction Grants
Prior to 1956, many communities were unable to keep pace with the
sewage problems created by their rapidly increasing populations. Large
volumes of wastes were introduced into ground-water supplies via septic
tanks; similarly, surface waters received large amounts of untreated or
inadequately treated wastewater. Most communities found the cost of
suitable treatment facilities prohibitive. Consequently, pollution of
the ground and surface water resources became a serious problem.
This financial inability of local governments to curb pollution was
a national problem and it received national attention in 1956 when Con-
gress enacted the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. This Act author-
ized financial grants to municipalities for the construction of sewage
treatment facilities. It has been amended over the years to increase
the size of the grants. The latest of these amendments was passed in
1966.
At present, the Federal Construction Grants program can be applied
to construction of the following types of waste treatment facilities:
1. Construction of interceptors, force mains and pumping stations
which are required to convey sewage from various internal col-
lection systems to the sewage treatment plant,
2. Construction of new treatment plants and enlargement and/or
upgrading of existing plants to meet water quality standards,
- 36 -
-------
3. Construction of outfall facilities necessary to dispose of
treated plant effluent into bodies of water without contraven-
ing thu water quality standards of the receiving waters.
Tables 8 and 10 summarize the Federal construction grant activities
in Nassau and Suffolk Counties from 1956 to the present. Figures 2 and
3 illustrate the location of Federal construction grant treatment facil-
ities. Federal construction grants have been authorized for some 19 pro-
jects in Nassau County. Twelve are completed and eight are under construc-
tion. Federal construction grants have been authorized for nine projects
in Suffolk County. Four are completed and five are under construction.
One application has been withdrawn.
Those projects which have received offers must submit detailed plans
and specifications to the regional office. The regional office must give
its approval before construction can begin. Only limited information is
available on the proposed future projects listed in Table 11 since appli-
cations and supporting documents have not yet been submitted to the regional
office.
General Description of "Secondary"
Treatment Plants
The following section briefly describes treatment facilities exist-
ing or envisioned which are expected to produce effluent of "secondary"
quality. The table below lists the two conventional secondary treatment
schemes in use today, along with the resurrected physical-chemical ap-
proach, and describes the approximate contaminant removals attainable
for each.
- 37 -
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
Figure 3
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
Percent Removal
Treatment Scheme BOD SS P__
Activated sludge^' 85-95 85-95 10-20
Trickling filtration-/ 80-90 70-92 10-20
Physical-chemical-/ 89 99 90
Bar screening or comminution (to remove or shred large materials
that could damage pumps or otherwise impair plant operation), grit
removal (to prevent these materials from abrading pumps, etc., and re-
ducing sludge treatment capacity), and primary sedimentation (to remove
readily settleable solids and floating scum) precede the "secondary"
steps of conventional treatment. Activated sludge employs aerated sus-
pended microbial floes to further remove carbonaceous materials from
the wastewater. Trickling filtration makes use of a biological slime
encrusted on an inert material (usually traprock) to enhance carbona-
ceous removals.
The physical-chemical approach employs preliminary treatment con-
sisting of bar screening or comminution and grit removal, but primary
sedimentation may be unnecessary. Chemical coagulation, sedimentation,
filtration, and carbon adsorption comprise the proposed procedure for
this type of wastewater treatment. Carbon adsorption is discussed
later.
Sludge obtained by conventional treatment is commonly thickened by
gravity or flotation, and anaerobically digested. Digestion accomplishes
T/Black and Veatch (1971).
2/ Villiers et al., (1971).
- 38 -
-------
a stabilization of putrescible organic matter and a reduction of solids.
The gas produced in the process can be used as fuel for plant operation.
The digested sludge may be dewatered by vacuum filtration or on sand
beds, and/or is generally disposed of in the cheapest mode available on
land or at sea. Incineration is also used for sludge disposal. Sludge
disposal is discussed in greater detail in a subsequent section.
When lime is used in the physical-chemical scheme, sludge incinera-
tion with recalcination can be used to enable partial lime recycling.
Nitrogen removal data is not given because the references cited did
not contain it. We know, however, that none of the processes described
removes more than 30-50% of the influent nitrogen. (Eliassen and
Tchobanoglous, 1969). The figures cited are for conventional biological
treatment and may be for processes that do not recycle digested sludge
supernatant. Hence, the values cited may be greater than those commonly
achieved. (See nitrogen removal processes in section on Alternatives).
While the physical-chemical scheme described removes more phosphorus
than conventional secondary treatment, it removes less nitrogen since
biological growth which assimilates soluble nitrogen is not promoted.
Federal Wastewater Research and Development
Projects on Long Island
Bay Park
One of the water-conservation methods being considered by Nassau
County involves the reclamation of wastewater and its return to the
ground-water reservoir. Return might be through coastal injection wells
intended to create a hydraulic head ridge and, thus, to stabilize or to
- 39 -
-------
retard the landward movement of the salty water: or it might be through
Inland recharge basins or wells intended to augment natural recharge to
the aquifers. (Peters and Rose, 1968, p. 625). Exoerimental wastewater
reclamation and deep-well injection are being studied at the Bay Park sew-
age treatment plant in southwestern Nassau County. The purpose of these
studies is to determine the feasibility of injecting advanced-treated sew-
age into the deep (Magothy) aquifer. The study consists of two major phases:
(a) the effluent-treatment phase and (b) the experimental-injection phase.
The specific objective of the effluent-treatment phase is to deter-
mine the types and degrees of advanced waste treatment necessary to pro-
duce reclaimed water suitable for deep-well injection. According to
Peters and Rose (1968, p. 632):
"If deep-well injection is to be economically feas-
ible, it must be possible to Inject into one well
for extended periods of time without decline of
injection capacity. The injection water must there-
fore be sufficiently free from particulate matter
to prevent clogging at the well screen. It must
also be of such chemical and biological quality
that it will cause neither physical changes within
the aquifer nor provide nutrients which would
allow slimes or bacteria to form at the point
of injection."
The effluent-treatment phase of the study is being done by the Nassau
County Department of Public Works and the engineering consulting firm
of Burns and Roe, Inc. It has been funded partly by grants from EPA
and its predecessors and partly by Nassau County.
After various unit processes were reviewed and studied, the process
sequence of coagulation, rapid sand filtration, and activated-carbon
adsorption was selected to upgrade the effluent from the Bay Park sewage
- 40 -
-------
treatment plant to tentative "injectability" standards. This procedure
was tested on a 30 gallons per minute (gpm) scale in pilot-plant opera-
tions for 1 year. During these operations, criteria were developed for
the design of a demonstration plant with a capacity of 400 gpm. (Peters
and Rose, 1968, p. 633). The demonstration plant has been operated inter-
mittently since the summer of 1968 and, in general, the reclaimed water
has met the tentatively established "injectability" standards. These
standards are more stringent in some respects than U.S. Public Health
Service (1962) standards for drinking water.
Chlorine is added to the reclaimed water as it leaves the plant
enroute to the injection facilities. The chlorine dosing generally is
maintained at a level that results in coliform counts of virtually 0 per
100 milliliter (ml). (Vecchioli, 1970).
Additional chemical dosing of the reclaimed water can be done at the
injection site. For example, acid can be added to adjust the pH and
sodium sulfite can be added to adjust the redox potential. Facilities
at the injection site also permit degasification of the water before
injection.
The specific objectives of the experimental-injection phase are
"...to provide information regarding (a) the
physical and chemical factors that control
the injection pressures at which treated
sewage-plant effluent can be injected into
deep artesian aquifers, and (b) the hydraulic
and geochemical effects of such injection."
(Cohen and Durfor, 1967, p. 195). This phase is being studied by the
U.S. Geological Survey of the Department of the Interior in cooperation
with the Nassau County Department of Public Works.
- 41 -
-------
An experimental injection well and 14 observation wells were con-
structed on a site adjacent to the Bay Park sewage treatment plant in
order to investigate the Magothy aquifer's ability to accept advanced-
treated wastewater. The injection well is screened at a depth of 418
to 480 feet below land surface. The observation wells are arrayed at
radial distances of from a few inches to 200 feet from the injection
well; they range from 10 to 726 feet in depth.
As of September 1971, nine injection tests, from 2 to 33 days dura-
tion, had been made. Water generally was injected at a rate of 350 gpm,
and the maximum volume injected in any one test was 14 million gallons.
The quality of the reclaimed water varied from test to test as a result
of intentional changes in treatment or uncontrollable conditions. Clog-
ging of the injection well, as measured by excessive head buildup result-
ing in a reduction in the recharging specific capacity, occurred to some
degree in each test.
The rate of clogging of the injection well mainly depended on the
turbidity of the recharge water, despite the fact that turbidity levels
rarely exceeded a few milligrams per liter as SiO . For example, the
highest rate of clogging, an average of 5 feet of excessive head buildup
per day, occurred during a 5-day period when observed turbidity levels
were generally greater than 2 and as much as 7.5 milligrams per liter
(mg/1) as SiO_. Conversely, the lowest rate of clogging, 0.5 feet of
excessive head buildup per day, occurred during a 4-day period when
observed turbidity levels averaged only 0.1 mg/1 as SiO . However,
even at the lowest rate of clogging, periods of injection extending for
- 42 -
-------
1 year would result in an excessive head buildup of 183 feet, or about
80 pounds per square inch (psi).
Because it would be expensive and might not be feasible to have
distribution-line pressures exceed 100 psi, the injection well would
have to be redeveloped at least once a year to avoid any reduction in
the rate of injection. Moreover, the minimum rate of head buildup of
0.5 feet per day was observed over only a 4-day period. It may not be
possible to maintain a linear rate of excessive head buildup over longer
periods even though the quality of the injected water remains optimum.
Also, other clogging agents not recognizable from the short testing mav
become important over extended periods of injection. Frequent well re-
development would add appreciably to the cost of injection.
In addition to clogging of the injection well, other problems are
posed by changes in the chemical quality of the injected water. Prelim-
inary results show that objectionable amounts of iron and hydrogen sul-
fide are acquired by the injected water as it moves through the aquifer.
The Bay Park experiments so far have shown that it is possible to
recharge the Magothy aquifer with reclaimed sewage through the. use of
injection wells. However, the assessment of economic practicality must
await better definition of (1) the rates and causes of injection-well
clogging, and (2) the geochemical stability and long-term character of
the injected water.
- 43 -
-------
Wantagh Feasibility Study
A study is now being conducted to determine the procedures for
modifying Nassau County's new Water Pollution Control Plant to provide
advanced waste treatment in conjunction with the development and evalu-
ation of various techniques for recharging the treated water.
The initial phase of the study involves: (1) the evaluation of dif-
ferent methods of ground-water recharge that are suitable for use on
Long Island (such as shallow glacial well injection, deep well injection,
stream flow augmentation and open basin recharge), and (2) the definition
of water quality criteria for each of the desired recharge methods. The
second phase of the study concerns the development of treatment systems
capable of producing the desired effluent quality for the selected re-
charge schemes. Finally, a detailed investigation of necessary treat-
ment plant modifications will be carried out. Required treatment units
that are not available at the plant site will be designed on a preliminary
basis. Time schedules and cost estimates for the construction of such
units will be drawn up. A report summarizing the results of the study
and procedures to implement the program will be prepared around January
1973.
Nassau County has commissioned the engineering consulting firm of
Consoer, Townsend & Associates to conduct the study.
Riverhead Project
Under the auspices of the State of New York, the Federal Water Pol-
lution Control Administration (a predecessor of EPA) and the Suffolk
- 44 -
-------
County Department of Health, a project was initiated at Riverhead to
study the clogging aspects of injection wells. The purpose of the study
was to determine the optimum treatment required to permit injection of
treated sewage into shallow aquifers. The work was limited to shallow
wells in a water table aquifer and was accomplished through the use of
a demonstration pilot plant. Injection of fresh potable water and
reclaimed wastewater injection were studied. The reclaimed wastevrater
was trickling filter effluent that had been chlorinated and filtered
through a rapid sand filter employing anthracite media. Injection was
accomplished in two ground wells of different design and in two wells
contained in a ground simulator tank.
According to Baffa (1970), during the injection of these liquids
clogging will occur at the aquifer interface of the injection well.
The tests at Riverhead showed that even for fresh water with little
organic content, a thin membrane will be built up at the interface im-
peding injection flow. Surging with a surge block and subsequent puttm-
ing was found to be the most effective means of redeveloping the test
wells. An injection well may require this treatment two or more times
per year, as opposed to a pumping well which only requires initial treat-
ment.
WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT AGENCIES
There are several State, County and quasi-governmental agencies that
are involved in water resources planning and management relative to Nassau
and Suffolk Counties.
- 45 -
-------
The State of New York on April 22, 1970 formally created the Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation by passage and approval of the Environ-
mental Conservation Law. One of the primary functions of this Department
and its Commissioner is to coordinate and develop policies, planning and
programs related to the environment of the State and Regions thereof.
Another of the Department's functions is to promote and coordinate manage-
ment of water, land and air resources to assure their protection, enhance-
ment, provision, allocation and balanced utilization consistent with the
environmental policy of the State.
The law further stipulates that this Department advise and cooperate
with municipal, county, regional and other local agencies and officials
within the State to carry out the purposes of Chapter 140 of the Environ-
mental Conservation Law. Section 30 of Chapter 140 states that the Depart-
ment shall formulate and from time to time revise a statewide environmental
plan for the management and protection of the quality of the environment
and the natural resources of the State. In formulating such plans and mak-
ing revisions, the Department shall consult with and cooperate with:
(1) Officials of departments and agencies of the State; and
(2) Officials and representatives of local governments in the State.
In addition, Chapter 140 of the 1970 Environmental Conservation Law
provides for the transfer to the Department and its Commissioner of all
executive authority provided previously under Articles IV and V of the
1911 Conservation Law, as amended, and also under Article 12 of the 1953
Public Health Law, as amended.
- 46 -
-------
The New York State Water Resources Commission, as previously estab-
lished under Article V of the 1911 Conservation I^w, as amended, had
certain delegated powers and responsibilities with respect to water pol-
lution control. In 1962, the Water Resources Commission assumed all of
the functions, powers, duties and obligations exercised by the Water
Pollution Control Board under Article 12 of the 1953 Public Health Law,
as amended. One of the responsibilities of the Commission was to review,
at the request of any aggrieved person, determinations or orders of the
Commissioner of Health. Based upon the provisions of the 1953 Public
Health Law, as amended, the Commission assumed the responsibilitv for the
classification of the waters of the State theretofore adopted or established
by the Water Pollution Control Board. All standards of quality and purity
of waters theretofore adopted by the Water Pollution Control Board should
continue in force and effect as the standards of quality and purity of
waters applicable or assigned to the several classifications of waters,
unless or until modified or abrogated by the Water Resources Commission.
The board of supervisors of Suffolk County, on March 29, 1937, pursu-
ant to Chapter 847 of the laws of 1934, as amended, created the Suffolk
County Water Authority. The Suffolk County Water Authority has the power
to construct, develop and operate a water supply and distribution system,
purchase water, charge for the use of water, sell water, and enter into
cooperative agreements with other water authorities, municipalities, or
utility companies. The powers vested in the Water Authority by the
Suffolk County Board of Supervisors allow the Authority considerable
flexibility and latitude with respect to water resource management.
- 47 -
-------
The Interstate Sanitation Commission and the creation of the Inter-
state Sanitation Districts wers formally authorized under Article 12 (b),
Public Health Law, Chapter 476(L), 1961 to control future pollution and
abate existing pollution in the tidal and coastal waters of the adjacent
portions of the signatory States. The Commission consists of representa-
tives from the States of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut. The
Interstate Sanitation District extends from Sandv Hook on the New Jersey
coast to include all of the New York Harbor and north on the Hudson River
to northerly boundaries of Westchester and Rockland Counties. It extends
eastward into Long Island Sound to New Haven on the Connecticut shore to
Port Jefferson on the north shore of Long Island. Along the south shore
of Long Island the district extends eastward to Fire Island Inlet.
The Tri-State Transportation Commission, an interstate planning agencv,
was established by legislative action of the States of Connecticut, New
Jersey and New York in 1965. In May 1971, all three States acted to renew
and revise the Tri-State compact legislation. Besides changing the Commis-
sion's name to the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission and generally
expanding its role to perform comprehensive planning, the legislatures ap-
proved the following to become officially effective when the Commission
adopted its by-laws in June 1971:
"The Commission shall conduct surveys, make
studies, submit recommendations, and prepare
plans designed to aide in solving immediate
arid long-range problems, including but not
limited to plans for development of land,
housing, transportation and other public
facilities. It shall report to the party
States on the regional implications of de-
velopment plans or purposes."
- 48 -
-------
The Commission's geographic area of concern is the New York Metropol-
itan region which consists of 21 counties in New Jersey and New York,
including Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
On January 4, 1971, the Suffolk County Legislature adopted by unani-
mous vote Local Law No. 3, which formally created the Suffolk County
Department of Environmental Control. This department is the first of
its kind in the State of New York. As presently constituted, the Suffolk
County Department of Environmental Control is responsible for:
(1) Jurisdiction over water pollution; and
(2) The operation of County Sewer Districts.
Pursuant to Section 220 of Article 5 under the New York State County
Law, the County Board of Supervisors is empowered to establish a county
planning board, vis-a-vis the Nassau County Planning Commission, the
Suffolk County Planning Board and the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning
Board.
The Nassau County Planning Commission offers technical advice and
service to county agencies, local planning boards and other officials
and agencies of cities, villages and towns in order to achieve and main-
tain a character of development within the County that is physically
harmonious, economically sound and beneficial to all. The Planning
Commission is a partner in the Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board.
The Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board was established by and
with the consent of the Nassau and Suffolk County Boards of Supervisors.
The main purpose of the Regional Planning Board is to combine the expert-
ise and knowledge of the individual county planning boards into a regional
-------
planning unit. In addition, the Regional Planning Board is assisted bv
various consultants and the New York State Office of Planning Coordina-
tion. Since 1966, the Regional Planning Board has completed and published
several economic, fiscal, land use, marine environment and transportation
studies relative to Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
WATER RESOURCES OF LONG ISLAND
Precipitation
Under predevelopment conditions, precipitation was the sole source of
all the fresh water on and beneath Long Island. At present (1971), roughly
600 mgd of fresh water is imported by Kings and Queens Counties (the two
westernmost counties on the Island) from surface-water sources on the main-
land. However, fresh water is not imported by Nassau and Suffolk Counties
and local precipitation is still the primary source of fresh water.
According to Miller and Frederick (1969), average annual precipitation
on Long Island from 1951 to 1965 ranged from 40 to 50 inches; the average
was about 43 inches. Long-term records at Setauket, which is in Suffolk
County and near the north shore of the Island, indicate that the annual
precipitation at that station from 1888 to 1965 ranged from a high of
56.4 inches in water year 1898 to a low of 31.9 inches in water year 1965:
the average was slightly less than 45 inches.
Long-term average precipitation values are of major hydrologic con-
cern in estimating values of long-term average annual ground-water
recharge. However, short-term trends, especially those that result in
severe shortages or excesses, are also significant. This is especially
- 50 -
-------
true with regard to changes In ground-water levels and rates of stream-
flow. For example, according to Cohen et al., (1969, p. 1):
"The hydrologic system of Long Island, N.Y.,
showed a marked response to deficient precipi-
tation in the years 1962-66. By 1966, stream-
flow was the lowest of record in many Long
Island streams, and ground-water levels had de-
clined a maximum of about 10 feet in the central
part of the island. Although the drought appar-
ently ended in the early months of 1967 and
ground-water levels and streamflow recovered
somewhat since then, ground-water levels and
streamflow were still considerably below long-
term average values in September 1968."
Fresh jjurface Water
There are more than 100 streams on Long Island. Virtually all those
of significance discharge directly into the bodies of salty surface water
that border the Island; these streams are all estuarine in their lower
reaches. Surface drainage areas and long-term average flows for 19 ma^or
streams are listed in Table 12.
Under predevelopment conditions, about 95 percent of the streamflow
on Long Island was derived from the ground-water reservoir. (Pluhowski
and Kantrowitz, 1964, p. 35). Locally, several factors related to urban-
ization have caused an increase in the percentage of precipitation that
runs off directly into streams. For example, Seaburn (1969, p. 12)
showed that for equal amounts of rainfall on the drainage basin of East
Meadow Brook in Nassau County, urban development resulted in average
increases in the ratio of runoff to rainfall of from 0.06 to 0.09 for
a 1-inch storm and from 0.05 to 0.23 for a 6-inch storm.
- 51 -
-------
TABLE 12
DRAINAGE AREAS AND AVERAGE FLOW OF
STREAMS ON LONG ISLAND
Name of Stream
Glen Cove Creek
Mill Neck Creek
Cold Spring Brook
Nissequogue River
Peconic River
Carmans River
Swan River
Patchogue River
Connetquot River
Champlin Creek
Penataquit Creek
Sampawams Creek
Carlls River
Santapogue Creek
Massapequa Creek
Bellmore Creek
East Meadow Brook
Pines Brook
Valley Stream
Surface
Drainage Area
(square miles)
11
12
7
27
75
71
9
14
24
7
5
23
35
7
38
17
31
10
4
Period of
Record
1939-70
1938-70
1951-70
1944-70
1943-70
1943-70
1947-70
1946-69
1943-70
1949-69
1946-70
1945-70
1945-70
1948-69
1938-70
1938-70
1938-70
1938-70
1955-70
Average
Flow
(cfsi/)
6.8
9.0
4.2
40
34
23
12
20
38
7.0
6.2
9.4
26
4.2
11
10
16
4.5
3.6
I/ Cubic feet per second: data from open-file reports of the U.S.
Geological Survey,
-------
Despite local increases in the amounts of direct runoff to streams
on Long Island, ground-water inflow probably still constitutes 90 per-
cent or more of the measured streamflow on Long Island. (D. E. Vaupel,
written communication, 1971).
All the streams listed in Table 12 and most of the smaller streams
on the Island are perennial in their lower reaches. The headwaters of
the streams (the points where the streams begin to flow) shift landward
or seaward in response to rising or falling of the water table. Simi-
larly, fluctuations in the rates of flow of the streams closely corre-
spond to fluctuations in the water table.
Two distinctly different types of natural lakes and ponds are found
on Long Island, water-table and perched lakes and ponds. Lake Ronkonkoma
is probably the best known water-table lake. Its bottom extends to a
depth of about 60 feet below the water table. Lake Success is one of the
better known perched lakes on Long Island. Numerous artificial lakes and
ponds have been built on Long Island. The larger ones were formed by the
construction of low dams across streams. Hempstead and Belmont Lakes are
well known examples of this type.
Inasmuch as most of the water-table lakes on Long Island are in close
hydraulic continuity with the adjacent and underlying ground-water reser-
voir, fluctuations in the levels of these lakes correspond very closely
to fluctuations of the water table. Since many of Long Island's lakes
are shallow, "...declines of only a few feet, such as those that occurred
in water years 1962-66, caused large parts of many of Long Island's
lakes to become dry " (Cohen et al., 1969, p. 14).
- 52 -
-------
During the 19th and the early part of the 20th centuries, Long Island's
streams, lakes and ponds were used extensively as sources of water sunply
and power to operate sawmills and gristmills. Only insignificant quanti-
ties of surface water are now used for water supply and all the mills
have been abandoned. However, the surface-water bodies of Long Island
are used extensively for recreation.
Ocean Water off the South Shore
Physical Characteristics
The south shore of Nassau and Suffolk Counties is protected from the
Atlantic Ocean by a series of barrier bars and shallow bays. From the
eastern end of the Island to its center, the sixty-foot depth contour
occurs about two miles off the barrier. From the center of the Island
westward, the slope of the ocean floor becomes more gradual until the
sixty-foot depth contour occurs about six miles off the barrier. (Army
Corps of Engineers Map NI 18-12.)
According to Ryther and Dunstan (1971), the oceanic currents just off
the south shore of Long Island are parallel to the barrier beaches and
are from east to west (as illustrated below). In summer when stratifica-
tion occurs, the Hudson River flow moves in an east-southeasterlv direc-
tion along the surface and remains recognizable for many miles. However,
it is seldom found east of Jones Inlet or closer than 2 to 4 kilometers
to Jones Beach. A large clockwise surface eddy is found off Long Beach
and Jones Beach.
- 53 -
-------
/ f\ CONNECTICUT
NEW YORK IX
DIRECTION OF PREVAILING CURRENTS ALONG SOUTH SHORE OF LONG ISLAND
Variations in the amounts of offshore and mixed waters entering the
area on the bottom are characteristic of the region. A shoreward moving
current brings a continual supply of good offshore water along the bottom
underneath the river discharge into the area. The current also causes
upwelling in the northwest between East Rockaway Inlet and Rockaway Point.
This same relatively high quality bottom water provides much of the deep
inflow to the inlets. (Manganaro et al., 1966).
Water Quality
When considering possible locations for a. discharge outfall for the
Wantagh treatment plant, Nassau County commissioned the consulting firm
of Manganaro, Martin and Lincoln to investigate the effects of discharge
from the proposed treatment plant on the quality of the ocean water.
.. 54 „
-------
This multi-volume document and other cited documents have been liberally
drawn upon to describe the quality of the oceanic waters offshore of
the barrier beaches.
Physical Characteristics
The surface temperature of the ocean waters decreases from September
until March. Thereafter it begins to increase (see text table of ocean
temperature). From April on, the surface temperature increases at a
faster rate than that of the bottom water with the maximum surface temper-
ature occurring in September. During September mixing starts to break
the summer stratification. Front October to March, the temperature of the.
water column from top to bottom is relatively constant.
Mean Surface Temperature of Ocean Water off
South Shore of Long Island
(Data from Schroeder, 1966)
Temperature Temnerature
Month (°C) Month (°C)
January
February
March
April
May
June
4
4-5
3-4
6
10
15
July
August
September
October
November
December
9
19
20-21
15
12-13
7-8
The temperature of the bottom water is closely related to salinitv;
the temoerature exhibits small seasonal ranges which decrease with in-
creasing depth. The maximum bottom temperature is about 18°C. (Manganaro
et al., 1966).
- 55 -
-------
Secchi values decrease with increasing turbidity or color and in-
crease with increasing light penetration. The mean Secchi values showed
a monthly increase from March to August. Thereafter the values became
variable and started to decrease. The readings varied from a low of 1.0
meters to a high of 7.2 meters. (Manganaro et al., 1966). These changes
indicate a trend toward reducing the turbidity of the water during the
summer months by either exchange of cleaner offshore water or cleaning up
of the waters themselves, by decreased biological activity or precipitation
with no introduction of new material. (Manganaro et al., 1966).
In near-shore waters, the depth of the euphotic zone, the level at
which at least 1% of surface illumination still exists, was between
9 and 10 meters. This indicates that the entire water column was within
the zone. At the offshore stations, the average depth of the euphotic
zone was between 12 and 13 meters. (Manganaro et al., 1966).
Chemical Characteristics
The salinity of offshore coastal area waters is a function of the rate
at which fresh water is added to the system. (Ketchum and Keen, 1955).
The salinity of these ocean waters ranges from a low of 23.9 parts per
thousands (ppt) to a high of 33.3 ppt. In the region directly south of
Jones Beach, the salinity ranges from a low of 28.9 ppt at the surface
to a high of 32.8 ppt on the bottom.
The dissolved oxygen content varies with the season and with ocean
depth. Manganaro (1966) observed the highest value of 8.89 milligrams
per liter (mg/1) on the surface during March and the lowest value of
- 56 -
-------
3.° ng/1 at 5 meters depth in Julv. The dissolved oxygen concentration
is also a function of the temperature and salinity. Generally, a decrease
in dissolved oxygen concentration starts in February and ends in September.
From September to February as the water cools, the oxygen concentration
again increases. In mixed waters, the percent saturation values of dis-
solved oxygen remain fairly constant, between 90% and 105% for the year,
except during the fall. In inshore waters, the percent saturation of
dissolved oxygen at the bottom ranges from 90%-105%; however, during
April the surface values increase to 118% and remain high through August.
Clanganaro et al., 1966).
The silicate concentrations range from about .086 parts per million
(ppm) to .52 ppm with little difference between surface and bottom values,
except during the summer when the differences average .14 ppm. The pll
ranges from 8.30 to 7.c
-------
months. Generally, the phosphate concentrations of deep ocean water are
slightly higher than those at the surface.
Nitrate concentrations are very close to the lower limit of detecta-
bility; off Jones Beach they range from 0 to a high of .64 ppm. The
difference between top and bottom concentrations is negligible, except
during the fall. During seasons of high primary productivity, the con-
centrations of nitrate are negligible; however, when priirary productivity
decreases, there is a buildup of nitrate. In these oceanic waters, the
nitrate concentrations show a seasonal change similar to that of phos-
phates.
The range of nitrite in these waters is from 0 ppm to .29 ppm; closer
to the shoreline of Jones Beach, the range is from 0.00 to .066 ppm.
Nitrite concentration remains about .014 ppm from December to May; then
it decreases to about .0057 ppm. From May to November, the nitrite in-
creases to about .031 ppm. (Manganaro et al., 1966).
Several hundred grams of particulate suspended organic matter are be-
low each square meter of the ocean surface. This amount of bio-detritus
is much greater than the standing crop in the unper bays. It plays an im-
portant role in the survival of wintering zoonlankton and other animals
that live in the deeper parts of the ocean. In some areas, the bio-
detritus is introduced as a result of human activities. Both shoreline
profiles and offshore profiles have values ranging from 300-1000 milli-
grams of carbon per cubic meter (mgC/m ).
Carbonaceous organic material, a source of food for aerobic micro-
organisms, exerts an oxygen demand on water. Oxidizable forms of nitrogen
- 58 -
-------
and reducing compounds, such as ferrous sulfides, also exert an oxygen
demand. The chief source of oxidizable substances is believed to be
organic matter from plankton and wastewaters. The BOD for ocean water
in this area is approximately 2 mg/1. This is low enough to indicate
that heavy pollution with organic material is not a problem at this time.
(Manganaro et al., 1966).
Biological Conditions
Chlorophyll a_ content is a useful index of the biomass of chlorophyll
bearing plants. In offshore areas, there is a decline of chlorophyll a_
after the April bloom. Chlorophyll a_ continues to decline until mid summer,
Generally, autumnal bloom starts in September with its maxima in October
followed by homogeneously low valaes in November and December. For shore-
line areas, the bloom pattern is similar, except for an additional minor
midsummer bloom.
Primary productivity is the amount of inorganic carbon converted to
organic carbon by organisms and is reported in units of milligrams of
3
carbon per cubic meter per hour (mgC/m /hour). The shoreline profile
for the minor midsummer bloom shows a ranp,a of maximum values of 26-30
3
mgC/m /hour. There are three periods of low productivity — ?tarch,
August and November. At the surface, levels of primary productivity
gradually decrease with increasing distance from shorp. Of all the
areas studied, the carbon fixation was lowest in the offshore waters.
Offshore, as indicated in Figure 4, the late winter-early spring diatom
bloom is followed by a secondary spring bloom of dinoflagellates. A
- 59 -
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
period of non-productivity exists during the summer when nutrients fixed
in cell matter during the preceding blooms become mineralized and avail-
able for incorporation in new cell material. Productivity during the
summer is about 5 mgC/m /hour. Following the summer low is a second
period of high productivity starting in the fall and continuing through
December. This bloom, like the one in spring, is two-staged with a dino-
flagellate population succeeding a diatom population. Productivity during
the spring and fall bloom is 17-22 mgC/m /hour.
The best productivity period of zooplankton occurs in February with
a considerable increase in volume in March due to copepods. The copepods
remain abundant through October. A second large increase in volume occurs
in May when tremendous numbers of crab larvae and fish eggs first appear.
The crab larvae numbers remain high through July when juvenile Cancer
irroratus appears. The fish egg maximum in May remains through July. In
June and July fish larvae are most abundant. The primary cold water zoo-
plankters are the chaetognaths. (Manganaro et al., 1966).
Benthic fauna sampling along a transect to the west of the proposed
Nassau County outfall revealed sediments of the medium sand category indi-
cative of broadly defined Echinarachnius parma, Tellina agilis, Haustoriidae,
Nephtys picta community. The greatest diversity of species was found fur-
ther offshore. The peak population was collected in midwinter rather than
midsummer as might be expected.
Sampling along a transect to the east of the proposed Nassau County
outfall area in a uniform sediment of a medium sand found the fauna to
be correspondingly uniform. The dominants were Unciola irrorata,
- 60 -
-------
ECh 1 narachn ius parma and Haustoriidae. The surf c.lam Sjiifmla soltdissima
and the small clams TelUna agllis and Astarte castanea were also abun-
dant. (Manganaro et al., 1966).
At the proposed outfall where the sediment usually was a medium sand,
the fauna was moderately diverse with Haustoriidae dominating and Ecninar/-
achnius parma and Tellina agilis in abundance.
Epi-fauna examined by divers in May indicated the presence of large
shell fragments, bryozoans, hydroids and scale worms and an absence of
burrowing amphipods. Specimens characteristic of finer sediments, such
as Siliqua costata, Pherusa affines and the blood worm, Glycera, were
also found. (Manganaro et al., 1966).
The area south of Long Island is well known for its commercial and
sports fisheries. Sports fisheries are a major industry of the area and
surf clam production is exceedingly important.
Figure 5 illustrates the size of the monthly catches during 1965 and
1966 in the ocean south and west of Jones Inlet. In addition to the kinds
of fish shown on the illustration, striped bass, sea bass, ling and menhaden
were taken in significant quantities. (Manf;anaro et al., 1966).
An analysis of aerobic heterotrophic bacteria in open ocean water and
in bottom sediments is shown in Table 13. (In order to determine the total
number of viable bacteria present in the water column and bottom sediments,
1 gram samples were diluted and aliquots were incubated for i week at 25 C
on agar pour plates). In general, the counts for open ocean water are low
but variable while those for bottom sediments are higher,. Of further
interest is the decrease in numbers of bacteria in the bottom sediments
- 61 -
-------
o
Q
Z
I
u
u
X
to
U
Qi
o
u
o
SONHOd JO SQNVSnOHl
Figure 5
-------
-------
TABLE 13
TOTAL NUMBERS OF AEROBIC
HETEROTROPHIC BACTERIA
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Ocean Water at
10 Meter Denth
#/ml
-
-
3,240
-
4,980
210
3,420
TMTC-
2,860
640
5,700
-
Bottom
Onshore
10 /g Wet Weight
-
-
0.5
-
0.6
0.2
0.2
1.6
0.2
1.2
0.3
-
Sediments-
Offshore
10 /g Wet Weight
-
-
0
-
0.6
0.0
0.5
0.6
0.4
1.1
0.0
-
I/ These values were obtained using a 10 dilution,
2J TMTC - too many to count.
Data from Manganaro 1966.
-------
of offshore samples as compared with the numbers of bacteria in onshore
sediment samples. Generally, the closer to shore, the greater the number
of bacteria present in the bottom sediments.
In addition to the total number of viable bacteria present, the num-
bers of Escherichia coli and Streptococcus faecalis present are important
because they signal the possible presence of human waste in an environment.
The numbers of E. coli and S. faecalis per offshore sample were zero per
100 ml, except during September, October and November when they were 8 or
less. Onshore E. coli values ranged from 2 to 8 per 100 ml. S. faecalis
values were zero per 100 ml from March to July. From August through
November, S. faecalis values ranged from 2 to 33 per 100 ml. These values
indicate that the offshore waters in the area of the outfall are relatively
free of human waste pollution.
Long Island Sound and its bays and harbors
Physical Characteristics
Long Island Sound has a length of more than 90 nautical miles and an
average width of about 10 nautical miles. The maximum width of about 20
nautical miles occurs opposite New Haven Harbor. The depths of the near-
shore waters (less than a mile offshore) are generally less than 25 feet.
Offshore waters range in depth from 25 to more than 100 feet with some
pockets having depths of 125 to 150 feet. The volume of the Sound is es-
timated to be about 2,200 billion cubic feet (63 billion cubic meters).
Long Island Sound has an eastern entrance to the Atlantic Ocean through
Block Island Sound and The Race. The western entrance is by way of the
East River at Throgs Neck.
- 62 -
-------
Movement of water in Long Island Sound is complex and is influenced
by: inflows of salty Block Island Sound water; density differences be-
tween bottom and surface waters; inflows of fresh water from streams and
ground water; and by tides, the earth's rotation and the wind. Studies
by Larkin (1967) indicated that transient currents set up by winds are
more important than tidal effects in determining surface water movement.
The tidal currents in the Sound commonly average about 0.7 knots and
generally move parallel to the coast. Figure 6 (from EPA, 1971) shows
the average surface velocities in the Sound. The fresher water entering
the Sound at Throgs Neck tends to keep to the Long Island shore. Surface
transport which is generally composed of mixed bottom water, surface
runoff and ground-water seepage increases from west to east.
The Sound is a shallow, semi-enclosed body of brackish water (2.3-3.1%)
with moderate tidal currents that permit a small seasonal thermocline
and slight vertical gradients in salinity, oxygen, and nutrient salts.
The major feature of non-tidal circulation is a two-layered transport
system in which a freshened surface layer moves eastward out of the Sound
and is replaced by a more saline inflow along the bottom. (Riley, 1956).
A brief description of the hydrologic characteristics of the bays and
harbors that receive or potentially could receive treated wastewater
effluent follows.
Little Neck Bay is approximately 2.5 square miles in area with the
inner portion averaging about 8 feet deep at mean low water (mlw) and the
northern section averaging about 9 feet deep. This bay connects with
the Sound through a mouth about one mile wide and from 14 to 50 feet deep.
- 63 -
-------
-------
Figure 6
-------
The shoreline is mainly soft, sometimes sticky mud while center portions
are hard mud. Tidal currents at the mouth are about 0.3 knots ebb and
flow.
Manhasset Bay is approximately 3.4 square miles in area with an average
depth of 12 feet (mlw). The mouth of the bay is less than one mile wide
and an obstruction, Plum Point, constricts the passage to a width of one
half mile. The bay empties into the Sound at depths of 15 to 40 feet.
Here maximum tidal currents flow at 0.5 knots and ebb at 0.4 knots.
Northport Harbor is a narrow extension of Northport Bay. It has an
average depth of about 8 feet. The harbor is about .,4 square miles in
area and has no defined channel. The harbor is about one third of a
mile wide and about one mile long.
Northport Bay is about 3 square miles in area with an average depth
of 15 feet (sloping west towards Huntington Bay). The opening to
Huntington Bay is restricted by West Beach to a width of about 1/2 mile.
Between Northport and Huntington Bays the maximum tidal currents are
1.1 knots flow, 1.8 knots ebb. There is no defined channel. The bottom
of Northport Bay is soft mud.
Huntington Bay is 3.9 square miles in area with an average depth of
25 feet. The bay has a wide mouth about 1-1/2 miles from the Sound.
Here the maximum tidal currents flow at 0.4 knots and ebb at 0.6 knots.
Port Jefferson Harbor has an area of about 1.3 square miles with
its mouth restricted to about 400 yards. The harbor has a mud bottom.
The average depth of the harbor is 18 feet. A 25 foot deep channel which
is 300 feet wide extends the entire length (2 miles) of the harbor. This
- 64 -
-------
channel is periodically dredged to facilitate navigation. The maximum
tidal currents at the mouth flow at 2.6 knots and ebb at 1.9 knots.
Water Quality of Long Island Sound and Its Bays and Harbors
The water quality of Long Island Sound and its bays and harbors varies
considerably. The poorest quality is found at Throgs Neck in the western
terminus. A slight, gradual improvement in quality can be traced eastward
to Hempstead Harbor. From Hempstead Harbor eastward, the waters of the
Sound are generally good, with the exception of localized areas.
The poor water quality in the western portion of the Sound can be
attributed to two major sources of pollution. The New York Harbor with
its load of sewage and water-borne sediments from various waste disposal
activities is the largest source of low salinity water entering from the
East River. (Riley, 1956; Gross, 1970). A second source of pollution,
waste solids dumping, has added millions of tons of sludge, mud and cellar
dirt to the western Sound. The average tonnage of waste solids dumped in
the western Sound was 0.4 million per annum for the years 1960-1963 and
1.8 million per annum for the years 1964-1968. (Gross, 1969). The large
amounts of wastes entering the western Sound exert a significant effect
on the water quality of the area.
Work at the Marine Sciences Research Center at the State University
of New York at Stony Brook has mainly dealt with the characterization of
these wastes and their impact on the western Sound. "Thirteen sites are
actively used for the disposal of waste solids in Long Island Sound."
(Gross et al., 1971). These thirteen sites are not confined to the western
- 65 -
-------
reaches of the Sound, but are distributed rather evenly from west to east
along an axis parallel to the North Shore. Several are adjacent to north
shore harbors of Long Island. These harbors must be dredged periodically.
(Gross, et al., 1971).
The bottom of Long Island Sound in the western portion is fairly flat.
It is covered with carbon-rich silt which has a grain diameter of about
30 microns and typically contains less than 25 percent sand. Testing
revealed that total carbon in surficial deposits in the Sound opposite
Little Neck Bay was greater than 5 percent. From Little Neck Bay to
Hempstead Harbor, the total carbon in surficial deposits of the Sound was
2-5 percent. Based on the assumption "...that sediments containing 2 per-
cent total carbon (ten times the background total carbon concentrations)
contain waste solids," (Gross, 1971), the area previously described has
definitely received significant amounts of waste solids. Areas of Throgs
Neck are characterized as low carbon sands; the Little Neck Bay and Great
Neck Bay areas are characterized as carbon-rich silts. (Gross, 1971).
Kalin (in Gross, 1971) has attempted to relate foraminifera to waste dis-
posal operations. Foraminifera are valuable indicators because of their
small size, large numbers and limited mobility. Moreover, their skeletons
resist decay in sediments making it possible to monitor changes in popula-
tions over time. Unfortunately, due to the relatively small number of
samples analyzed, there was no significant difference betweesn populations
of the western portion of the Sound and those of the central portion.
The Marine Sciences Research Center has also conducted several hydro-
graphic studies in Long Island Sound. The data collected during these
- 66 -
-------
studies have been compiled and published in a Technical Report Series as
a means of making preliminary technical data available. These reports
contain little or no interpretation of the data. However, an examination
of Reports 4, 6, 11 and 13 led to the following generalizations.
As has been indicated, water quality varies considerably. The major
contributing factors are the waters entering the western Sound from New
York Harbor and the Ocean waters entering the eastern Sound. All param-
eters monitored indicated that the poor water entering at Throgs Neck
significantly degrades the Sound water eastward to Hempstead Harbor.
From Hempstead Harbor eastward to the area opposite the Connecticut River,
the water quality is fairly uniform and of intermediate quality. From
the Connecticut River eastward, the water quality is good. The discharge
from the Connecticut River and discharges from other populated areas locally
degrades the water quality. The isolated dumping grounds also contribute
to local degradation of the Sound. See Table 14 for general values of
parameters along a west-east transect of Long Island Sound as monitored by
the Marine Sciences Research Center. Table 15 contains similar data as
collected by EPA,
Chlorophyll a_ levels, a measure of the concentration of phytoplankton,
vary greatly depending upon the season of the year and position in the
Sound. The phytoplankton concentrations are large but of limited species
composition. Diatom flowering occurs in late winter folloired by a mininum
production and by minor fluctuations thereafter. A pronounced diatom bloom
does not occur after the thermocline is destroyed because insufficient
nutrients accumulate below the thermocline during the summer. However,
- 67 -
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
rH
H i --. e
01 •rl B
U rH U O
HI 0 O 0
[K O U-i rH
rH
0
0 O 0 0
H CJ UH rH
1 C0|
O ^
Mr-IB
O i-H — .
rH >s 01
6££
P* rH
1 ~~.
-a- 01
0 e
OH •£•
1 rH
CO — .
o tx
1
•a *~.
•rl B
J3 >* D
3 -rt *-•
H
rH
rH
Q ~-
§01
,e
1 4J
M B
rl C 01
9 O 0
4J -rt 1-1
eg *J 01
C/5 CM
• rH
O \
• M
Q ^
1 ^
O OJ r-
rH 'rj ^^
6UJ
i ^
C rH
rH W*~0
&•*&
O >% CO
Sue
•a -H f
S*6
O u 3
1
M ti 0)
t3 C
4JO
H "
o
o
CM
-a-
o
o
0
CN
rH
tO
-*
rH
rH
O
CM
O
o
rH
•3-
1
<^
-i
VO
rH
O
O
-a-
rH
^
^
CM
O
O
a*
-n
er<
rH
1
1
•z
tJ
4J
•H
O
O
0
if\
0
in
o
o
0
yrj
rH
O
O
CM
in
^
0
rH
CM
CM
O
O
rH
•a-
I
•3-
m
vO
CO
m
o
o
rH
c*
sr
o
o
CM
in
00
o»
rH
UH
O
•o
B ^
«
"a oi
a ss
rH
CO 01
U
00 4J
C iH
CN
rH
0
CO
rH
~a
^
^
o
0
CN
6
O
rH
in
0
CM
O
£
CM
VO
§
CM
rH
0
in
CN
O
o
C*1
«
00
o^
rH
^
4J
0)
CO
CO
m
x
I
lO
f*»
vO
CM
-«•
iH
H
CN
O
rH
O
O
r-t
-
rH
CO
CN
CN
00
in
to
0
o
-a-
i-H
-sT
m
CM
o
o
r^
in
CO
o^
rH
U-l
o
1
<*£
•a
§4J
01
rH CO
CO CO
M C8
oo e
II
CM
O4
CN
to
^
to
o
rH
O
o
rH
in
O
CN
CO
tO
in
p^
o
0
o
in
rH
O
to
CM
8
m
to
CO
^
a^
rH
X
§
4J
bo
W
I
CN
C°*4
1
in
O
rH
O
0
i-H
m
i
CO
o
0
r^.
o
o
rH
in
rH
^r
to
CM
O
O
o
CO
^
o^
I-)
U-(
IM
O
1
1
CD
rH
CO
M
00
3
I"
§
U
00
a
•H
a
m
*a°
CO
tO
00
rH
-a-
0
00
0
o
o
rH
-
CO
CM
>0
rH
CM
rH
CO
o%
0
o
a\
m
rH
^
to
CM
o
0
rH
CO
rH
O
CN
O
JQ
S
§
CO
14
CD
UH
UH
V
4J
(2
CM
CM
tO
CO
m
CO
o
CO
o
o
rH
-
rH
rH
m
00
^
tO
0
o
r*
in
rH
C*
-3-
CM
O
O
r^
CO
0
0
CM
r>
£.8
O rl
i!
Q o
en co
rl
1 £
Cd UH
rH 01
CO <->
rH
JJ
00 M
q Pu
Ot
rH
rH
r-
0
o
o
o
o
rH
CO
CM
i-H
rH
£
tO
r^
o
in
CO
in
rH
Ot
r-!
CM
o
m
i-H
00
CO
Ot
00
rH
UH
0
1
CO
H
00
1
4-1
IH
0
P.
HI
U
-------
excessive blooms were noted in the summer of 1971. (Juczak, oral con-
munication, 1972). The growth of algae is limited by light in the autumn
and winter and by nutrients in the spring and summer. Zooplankton consists
of large numbers of a few species of small animals. The copepod Acartia
is the major species. The biomass is large and primarily composed of
small animals. Long Island Sound may be an important spawning and nursery
ground; however, there is no indication of a population of mature fish.
(Riley, 1956).
"Cobalamin occurs in surface waters of Long Island Sound
at high levels (to 16 uug/ml) during the winter, falling
markedly with the late winter diatom bloom and rising dur-
ing the summer with temperature. The pattern of cobala-
min and PO^-P concentrations are similar, both nutrients
reflecting but not limiting phytoplankton growth. Thiamine
is present only in barely detectable amounts in the main
body of the Sound. Data suggests that thiamine but not
cobalamin, may be mainly derived from land drainage."
(Vishniac and Riley, 1961).
It is important to realize that the variable conditions in the Sound
can produce an inaccurate over-view of water quality. At certain times
and places there may appear to be nc water quality problems in the Sound
while at other times the quality may be disastrously poor. An example
of how all the environmental factors interact to create a critical situa-
tion in the Sound was documented by Hardy and Weyl (1971) and is described
below:
"Field Observations
The weather during late July, 1970 was dominated by a
high pressure, stationary air mass. This air mass was
characterized by minimal winds, solar heating of the
surface waters and the formation of an atmospheric
inversion layer over a wide area of the northeast. On
1 August, intense local rainstorms occurred, followed
by a resumption of the stable air condition.
- 68 -
-------
"Mass mortalities of adult menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus)
were reported in Newsday and Long Island Press, begin-
ning 2 August and sightings continued during the follow-
ing week. The fish kills were reported in Hempstead
Harbor and in the area adjoining Execution Rock. Many
thousands of dead menhaden were observed on cruise 7011.
These were seen on 8 August between City Island and
Execution Rock and on 9 August were sighted east of
Execution Rock.
"The dead menhaden were adults, 10 to 12 inches in length,
and had been dead for an undetermined period. A common
pathological feature of these fish was an inflammation
of the circulatory system, including the choriod plexus,
and a paleness of the gills. Mortalities of lobsters,
hauled up in pots, in the area of Davids Island were
reported during the period of this survey (J. Miller,
commercial fisherman, Port Jefferson, New York,
personal communication).
"On 11 August, between cruises 7011 and 7012, a vigorous
windstorm developed with winds, from the northeast,
achieving velocities of 15 to 20 knots (Central Park)
for a period of over a.5 hours. The energy of the wind
disrupted the thermal sciaiification of the water
column and induced vertical stirring to depths of
12 meters."
The effluents from the construction grant facilities will directly
affect Manhasset Bay, Hempstead Harbor, Northport Harbor and Port Jefferson
Harbor. The following section deals with these four bodies of water in
greater detail.
The Marine Sciences Research Center of the State University of New
York at Stony Brook recently released a Technical Report on the character-
istics and environmental quality of these bays and harbors. (Gross et al.,
1972). Except as indicated, the bulk of the material contained in this
section was drawn from that report.
Manhasset Bay. The protected waters of Manhasset Bay are considered
one of the best pleasure boat harbors on Long Island Sound. Manhasset
- 69 -
-------
Bay Is an anchorage for thousands of boats. In addition, many industrial
and commercial operations are located along the shores of the bay. The
bay is also used for the discharge of wastewater at Tom Point by Port
Washington; Great Neck Village and Great Neck Sewer District both dis-
charge wastewater into the southern end of the harbor.
Northport Harbor. The Marine Sciences Research Center has compiled
a series of reports on the effects of thermal pollution in Northport
Harbor. Northport Harbor has probably been more intensely studied than
any of the other bays and harbors under consideration. However, the
nature of the studies emphasizes specific aspects of the water quality
problem rather than overall water quality. Therefore, the results of
these studies are not included.
Hempstead Harbor. Commercial and industrial activities have severely
altered the shoreline of this water body. Hempstead Harbor is the busiest
commercial port. A power plant is located on the east side and the west
side is dominated by a mining operation. Land fill operations from the
North Hempstead Town incinerator and Industrial plants and dredging opera-
tions by marinas have altered the harbor bottom. The harbor also serves
as a receiving body for discharged wastewater. The Glen Cove outfall
is located in Glen Cove Creek and the Roslyn outfall is at the southern
end of the harbor.
Port Jefferson Harbor. Port Jefferson Harbor has a deep navigation
channel that runs the entire length of the harbor. At the southern end
is a collection of marinas and commercial docking facilities as well as
- 70 -
-------
gravel operations and a power plant. The harbor is the discharge point
for the Port Jefferson sewage treatment plant.
The tidal characteristics of the bays are basically the tidal patterns
of the Sound. However, the geometry of the individual bay will modify the
pattern. Bays with wide entrances will have tides that coincide in time
with those of the Sound and the tidal currents will tend to be weak. Bays
with narrow entrances and large surface areas will have stronger tidal
currents and high and low tides will tend to occur later than in the open
Sound. Storm winds will also modify the basic tidal patterns.
Water circulation is dominated by the tides. Fresh water discharges
are small compared with the total volume of the harbors and bays. The
circulation is essentially an exchange of water between bay and Sound.
The tidal residence times of the bays range from 0.7 to 1.4 days. This
suggests that there is good communication between the non-isolated portions
of the bays and the Sound,
When the fresh water flow into salt water exceeds evaporation, it
produces a two-layered flow system called an estuarine circulation system.
The less dense fresh water tends to remain on top. The flow of the sur-
face layers dragging on the layers beneath causes some salt water to move
upward. This salt water then mixes with the surface waters causing them
to become more saline. The volume of salt water which moves up into the
seaward flowing surface is compensated for by a landward flow of denser
salt water which moves along the bottom of the bay. The flow of these
bottom waters is controlled by the fresh water discharge and mixing.
(Cameron and Pritchard, 1963).
- 71 -
-------
When tidal currents are averaged, the estuarine circulation is usually
a net seaward movement near the surface and a net landward movement near
the bottom. As a consequence, materials dissolved in water have a tendency
to leave the bay if they are not biologically fixed. Nutrients and other
substances which undergo biological fixation tend to sink to the bottom
where they undergo mineralization. They then re-enter the near bottom
waters and move landward where they return to the surface layers and the
cycle begins anew. This estuarine circulation tends to concentrate nutri-
ent elements.
The Marine Sciences Research Center team has developed a concept
which when applied will provide an evaluation of the environmental qual-
ity of a bay based upon a specific group of parameters. Essentially, the
parameters to be measured fall into three groups:
present indicators - dissolved oxygen and ammonia concentra-
tion,
integrative indicators - character of bottom deposits and the
interstitial waters of these deposits, and
predictive indicators - present nitrogen inputs and fresh water
flushing rates.
The present indicators are the most traditional; they determine the
environmental quality of the bay at the time of sampling. The integra-
tive indicators or sediments represent accumulated "environmental debts."
The predictive indicators can be used to assess the probable impact of
nutrient-rich sources. Table 16 indicates the type of data from which
Table 17 is derived.
- 72 -
-------
fn erf
o o
cQ
HM
>> erf
H < erf
M S3 W
1 r .
rH M
< 5S 53
ta O W
O* W vU
i+jl
P"l
,-: W S3
< fn u
r, f_ /y*
r— * (£4 MH
z w W
5s O U /-N
W 25 S3 CM
<
co 0 M
CO 32
W O
CJ « W
W f* S3
IS < H
PS r4
CO H
Crf H !3
W W O
H CO
W C/3 CO
2 <; <:
<1 3^
P5 13
^ 2
P-< 'K
cs
O
CO
rl
-5 ^
K
4J
»|
M
O
p-l
tJ
R) rl
CU O
j i rj
*J »AJ
co )-i
& jg
1 *
&
4J
CU
co
CO >>
frt fft
ra *o
J2 BQ
C
rt
s
V4
0)
IJ
s
0
«!
M
rt
P-I
m
o o o
•H rH O
iH
rH
m
m
vr co o
tH vo O
Ol
o
C1 CM n)
tH rH fl
3 0 fl
CJ CO O
rH CO §
tfl fl B
O Q •<
CM ff>
m co ^ co vo cr> oo
r-^rHtH co voaovo ~y co cr>vocy>
-* CM CM vo m
CM cocMm vocM o^m
rH tHOO CMHCOOCO
CM rH
CO
4-1
c
CO CU
cu cu e
SS tH ?• tH
4J p_ CO T!
a e -c 4J CO
flojflii C « t^C
4J t-l tH CU S CO fl
to o 4-i o *a S TJ
VI4JCJCOCU fl rH tJ
4J Q> 4J TD tO 1 CO
c 1-1 a> o cu iHrH cu
CUOMrHCU CO 4-1 — . 01 >. ^
ouao-HD, -H oo s *~~ «d
CI-irQ4JX 43 4-1 6 -H >^ 0)
o ra (j to cu 4J co 4Jco>~.
CJ4=tOrH f) rll rQ-^
43 O C 1? CU 4-1 CM
<4-iri >m ^cocoes
OOJ4J 43(313 S 3 CUC'^-
CtO J34JO CUCOCOCO fl O 6-HU
OS 4-1 fl K'O'O'O H CUH60
•rH *rH 4J *rH ^ 4J w *rH *rH *r^ M^ O O Qi
,4J CO. S«3 >tHrHrH O 43 C94JC
fl}4J43 4JrH OOOO rH& tHCO
hc04-i cotOrH a co co co 4J ~^- co ex S -H
1 i f fll (11 C"t |~" TiO |~ rn j 1
•— — — ^— — • V V U pj OO \J UJ 4J
>> con. >c>>
f)4J430tflO CUrJCfl >-l
qton. BmT3 pa^«^5^^ -H4JO 43tHtg
Or.VI 4J2:e-, 014J-H
•Hjca) tom 3 V4OU
isp-icn pa ss tuHCw
-------
c
o
co
0) U
o;
o
Pu
•o
(3 ^
eg o
4J &
CO
jg
ffl
EC
CNJ
w
.J
M
CO
o
H
Q
25 ^
M CM
M
t-3 *
•< CO
o-q
erf
H
W
g
(U
CO
M >i
<3 (3
i-H rH i-H
cs
"O
•H
O
CO
0)
rH
CO
o
4J
c3
U
•H
T3
5
B
HI
H
!
OC
C
3
CO
TJ
•rl
rH
CU
5
rt
M
bo
4J
a
0
CO
(U
rH
•H
4J
C3
0
4-J
JZ S3
4J ?
*H
»S rH
CO
su
)-i iH
(3 4-1
CO
ts M
« M
s
0)
4!
4J
U
•H
•a
-------
Although this environmental quality index is relative and is still
rather experimental, it does give one some idea of the conditions in
the water bodies indexed.
During the short period that Gross et al., (1972) studied the bays
and harbors of the Sound, two specific indices of poor water quality
occurred. These indices were fish kills and "red-tide." Neither of
these phenomena are new or unique to Long Island Sound waters. However,
in spite of general awareness of these occurrences, little documentation
exists.
South Shore Bays
Physical Characteristics
The south shore of Long Island is flanked by a bay, which is protected
from the ocean by a barrier bar. The bar is intermittently broken by in-
lets which allow communication between the bay and ocean. The bay is
arbitrarily divided into smaller units, A description of these waters
proceeding from west to east follows.
Hempstead Bay, which is composed of Brosewere Bay, Hewlett Bay, Broad
Channel and a portion of Reynolds Channel, communicates with the ocean
through East Rockaway Inlet and with the eastern bays via Reynolds Channel.
The tidal divide within Hempstead Bay lies east of Island Park and west
of Ingraham Hassock. The depth of Hempstead Bay ranges from 1/2 to 9 feet
in the undredged areas. Dredged channels are, on the average, about 15
feet deep. Reynolds Channel averages 30 feet in depth. Middle Bay contains
Garrett's Lead, Baldwin Bay and the Eastern portion of Reynolds Channel.
- 73 -
-------
Middle Bay is extremely shallow, averaging 1 foot in non~c!redged areas.
There is major flushing along Reynolds Channel and through Long Creek.
East Bay contains Merrick Bay and Sloop Channel. The depth of East
Bay is greatest at the mouths of creeks feeding into it, with the excep-
tion of dredged channels. Like Middle Bay, a large portion of the Bay is
only 1-2 feet deep. Communication with the ocean is through Jones Inlet
and Sloop Channel. These bays are crossed by a series of man-made chan-
nels separated by tidal marshes and mud flats.
South Oyster Bay, which includes Amity Channel and the State Boat
Channel, is deeper than the bays to the west and contains more open
water. South Oyster Bay is influenced by waters entering Jones Inlet
to the west and Great South Bay to the east.
Great South Bay, which includes Babylon Cove, Great Cove, Nicoll Bay,
Patchogue Bay and Bellport Bay, is a large open body of water. Though
somewhat shallow at its western terminus, it becomes deeper towards the
center, averaging about 10 feet. The southeastern section and Bellport
Bay are considerably more shallow, about 1/2 foot in depth.
Narrow Bay connects Great South Bay with Moriches Bay. Moriches Bay
includes Hart Cove and Seatuck Cove. Moriches Bay has an average depth
of 3 feet. It is in direct communication with ocean waters; via Moriches
Inlet which exhibits rapidly changing shoaling conditions. It also com-
municates with Quantuck Bay via Quantuck Canal to the east.
Quantuck Bay is a small shallow isolated body of water interconnected
with adjacent water bodies by narrow canals.
- 74 -
-------
To the east of Quantuck Bay is Shinnecock Bey which Is divided into
an eastern and a western section by Ponquogue Point. The western portion
is approximately 3 feet deep, the eastern portion somewhat deeper. This
bay is connected to the ocean to the south by Shinnecock Inlet. It is
connected to Great Peconic Bay to the north by Shinnecock Canal.
The sources of water in the bays along the south shore of Long Island
include: direct rainfall, land runoff, ground-water flows at the head lands,
tributaries, ocean water and wastewater. In general, the flushing of the
bays and the dilution of wastes in the bays result from the tidal action
of ocean water. The bays are shallow with considerable tidal flats and
wetlands. The impediments to flow, shallowness and land masses, reduce
circulation within the bays.
Flows through East Rockaway Inlet, Jones Inlet, Fire Island Inlet and
Shinnecock Inlet generally range between 2 and 3 knots on the flood cycle.
Thus, the coastal estuaries are greatly influenced by tidal currents which
flow through the Inlets at appreciable velocities.
"The shallow wetlands region lying inside the barrier
islands is flooded and drained by the tides flowing
rapidly through deeper main channels. Thus, the pro-
perties of the estuaries are largely regulated by the
general circulation of offshore ocean water that flows
in from the outside."
(Manganaro et al., 1966). Circulation through East Rockaway Inlet and
Reynolds Channel is good with excellent mixing. Hempstead Bay also
appears to be well flushed.
"Bottom waters enter the inner estuary at Point Lookout
with the flooding tide. The flushing action of the
tidal flow through Jones Inlet is manifest throughout
the eastern part of Reynolds Channel, Long Creek, Neds
- 75 -
-------
Creek, and Sloop Channel. Exchanges of water between
the estuary and ocean through Jones Inlet can be ob-
served as far as South Oyster Bay and to Biltmore Shores,"
(Manganaro et al., 1966).
At Fire Island Inlet, the ocean waters enter Great South Bay and
spread out with the rising tide toward South Oyster Bay. Great South
Bay is characterized by a small inflow of tidal waters and poor circula-
tion. Wind direction often governs circulation. Tidal circulation is
sufficient to prevent stratification in the open bay but not near the
inlets and rivers. (USDI-1966). Foehrenbach (1969) suggests a 48-day
flushing rate for Great South Bay. This lengthy flushing period is
attributable to the small amount of water entering the bay and confine-
ment of the water to the deeper channels.
Ground-water flow is estimated at 28 million cubic feet per day.
Creek flows are estimated at 24 million cubic feet per day during a year
of high rainfall.
Communication with adjacent waters is extremely limited for Moriches
Bay, Quantuck Bay and Shinnecock Bay.
The only generalization that can be made regarding bottom character-
istics is that they are highly variable. The bottom material ranges from
hard sand to sticky organic matter. (Army Corps of Engineers' Map
NK 18-12).
Illumination of the bay waters is good. There is excellent penetra-
tion throughout the water column, except where turbidity is high due to
disturbed sediments, excessive plankton growth, wastewater discharges or
land runoff.
- 76 -
-------
Chemical Characteristics
Because of the extreme variability of estuaries, or parts of the
same estuary, no general statements can be made regarding the chemical
parameters as they occur in the bays of the south shore. The values
for the parameters are exceedingly variable because of the many external
influences which affect the bays. Conditions are influenced by the
season, tidal cycle, diurnal cycle, human activity and many other factors.
Bays, such as Hempstead Bay, with extensive tidal flats and wetlands
serve as nutrient traps or sediment traps because of their circulation
patterns. Bays with confined inlets at their mouths are also poorly
flushed and tend to act as traps.
Unlike the ocean, the south shore bays are all influenced to some
degree by wastewater effluents (effluents from sewage treatment plants,
cesspools and septic tanks, recreation vessels and duck farms). The
concentrations of biostimulants - nitrogen, phosphorus, organic carbon
compounds and vitamin B's - are all present in high concentrations.
The concentrations are much greater than those found in the ocean
and/or required by plants for good growth. Table 18, Characteristics
of Hempstead Bay Waters, quantifies some of the physical and chemical
characteristics of the waters of Hempstead Bay at the outfalls: of Bay
Park and 300 feet to the east and west of the outfall; of Freeport and
approximately 1-1/2 miles to the south of the outfall at Long's Creek
and Narrows; of Jones Beach, 1/4 of a mile to the east of the outfall
between Snipe and Green Island and 1-1/2 miles to the west of the out-
fall at the Meadowbrook Parkway. (Nassau County Dept. of Health 1968).
- 77 -
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
From these data and from the preceding discussion on Reynolds Channel,
it can be seen that the water quality at the Bay Park outfall does not dif-
fer significantly from the surrounding waters, in spite of the excellent
currents and flushing in Reynolds Channel. At Freeport, the water enter-
ing Freeport Creek does not vary appreciably from that approximately
1-1/2 miles to the south in a main channel. However, a decrease in phos-
phorus and an increase in dissolved oxygen indicate some improvements.
Jones Beach has the best quality of water of the three sites. The coli-
forra count is low and the dissolved oxygen concentration is good. The
phosphorus concentration is uniform and relatively low. However, it
should be pointed out that this fact does not preclude wastewater dis-
charge as a source of pollution in the area. The Jones Beach sewage
plant treats primarily human wastes rather than typical domestic waste,
which includes laundry and other wash waters.
In commenting on the draft Environmental Impact Statement, Stanley
Juczak of the Nassau County Department of Health remarked that the data
in Table 18 (1968 data) had been superseded by a more recent study.
Juczak suggested that the later study be incorporated in the final
Environmental Impact Statement. (Oral communication, 1972). Conse-
quently, Table 19 (1970 data) has been added. Comparison of Table 18
with Table 19 reveals several major differences. The median E. coli
counts for 1970 are all significantly higher than those for 1968. Simi-
larly, the total phosphate values for 1970 are greater than those for
1968. The increases in these parameters would seem to indicate an in-
crease in wastewater entering the Bay waters. However, Table 19 also
- 78 -
-------
I
H
(A
O
W
W
&4
pr,
*
04
^4
PH
^
«
^ CO CO
01 & rH
0) O 0) iH
M rl 0) Cfl
U TJ rl rH M-l
C Cfl iH 4J
00 Cfl ^ S 3
60 O
C o) m
O J3 • <*-i
rJ H rH 0
rH O
cfl m
4J rl C
O .C
4J
4J O >4-l
t2 - 4J
in 3
r- 6
rH O
cfl m
*J rl C
3 O *rl
4J
ij 3
SO CO I 1 1 1 1 1 1
rH C7^
r«>
•
\O O O rH r* «N f-»
rH M O 1 C >* «* CM
co in
rH •
VO
oo
•
r«. o O CN f^ m t~»
rH m o i rH -a- I-H r^
•* rH rH 1 • •
. fO vO
m o
rH
1^
0
•
m o o •* oo o rH *O
rH •
•"-
O
1 ro 1 1 I 1 I I 1
rH
rH
O <*1 rH — rH
o o *^« P-» *^
rH U 60 60
C Cfl B 00 B
& U B
g rH t) 0> 01
O rH --~ -H 4J 60
O -H — 60 rH CO >>
H 00 B 0 JS, X
4) O B CO (X O
K U >, CO
j) (0 *J *l3 Q *X3
4J M Q) rH *r4 4) 0) rC 4)
crt Tl **^. 0 60 'O P-4 ^
§*r4 00 *r4 (2 0 F~4
M B r-l 14 Q) rH O
Q« fH O (Q ^ ^ ^ ^
B T3 i— 1 Q ^6 ED *J CO
5) fl) r* o |»J p2 3 Q »H
HSUO< CuWHO
•
O
^•k
o\
rH
9)
Q
B
0)
*j
CL
(U
CO
r3
(1C
3
O
£
4J
>>
1
B
0)
4^
cfl
4J
00
0)
™H
(X
CO
^
O
C
0
•H
CO
CO
M
0)
(X
-o
0)
•H
CO
W
O
w
o
3
rH
CO
0>
00
cfl
rl
0)
>
<
*
TJ JS
3 •*•>
4J rH
CO M
0)
Cfl
P3 IM
O
J?
CO
3
O
co
w cfl
C 4J
01 C
e 5
o
4J
o
u
c
o
•H
3
rH
Cfl O
P. M
al
>,w
4J
§U-I
o
o
0 g
3 TH
cfl oo
m >H
co >
CO -H
U-l
O
01
rl
«
-------
shows a decrease in suspended solids values and an increase in dissolved
oxygen values. These changes would seem to indicate an improvement in
water quality. No explanation for this apparent divergence was offered.
The open waters and the western section of Great South Bay are of good
quality. However the eastern section, Bellport Bay and Moriches Bay, is
not. Pollution enters these areas as sewage treatment plant effluent,
septic tank and cesspool effluent, duck farm runoff and sanitary waste
from recreation vessels. Furthermore, the pollution is confined to the
area by prevailing winds and currents. The most significant contributions
are made by the duck farms and septic tanks and cesspools. Table 20 shows
the duck farm contributions to Bellport and Moriches Bays as recently as
1966.
The continuous contribution of such quantities of materials has created
a sludge blanket on the floor of the bays and in the channels. The blanket
ranges from six inches to four feet in depth. This sludge will continue
to be mineralized and nitrogen and phosphorus will be high for many years
to come, even if the pollution load from existing duck farms, septic tanks,
and cesspools is abated. (USDI, 1968; and Mansueti, 1961).
Plant activity is the major cause of pH variations in shallow bay
waters. During sunny periods when CC>2 fixation is at a maximum, the pH
of the water is inclined to become alkaline. During dark periods, the pH
will gradually return to background values.
The salinity of the bays varies with the relative influence of fresh
or salt water. In the past, bay salinities have varied drastically in
response to natural changes in the barrier beach inlets. (Flynn, oral
- 79 -
-------
TABLE 20
DAILY CONTRIBUTIONS TO BELLPORT BAY AND
MORICHES BAY BY LONG ISLAND DUCK FARMS
(USDI, 1966)
Bellport
Bay
70
5 x 1015
2,920
18,670
11,670
700
930
1,170
Moriches
Bay
264
20 x 1015
10,990
70,370
43,980
2,640
3,520
4,390
Flow MG
MPN Coliform
BOD Ibs.
Total Solids Ibs.
Suspended Solids Ibs.
Total Nitrogen (sic) Ibs.
Kjeldahl (sic) Ibs.
Total Phosphate Ibs.
communication, 1972). In Great South Bay, the western and eastern extrem-
ities have salinities of 25 to 30 ppt. The central portion, under the
influence of waters entering Fire Island Inlet, has a salinity range be-
tween 32 and 35 ppt. In areas under the Influence of streams or ground-
water flow from the headlands, values decrease to 3 or 4 ppt. (U.S. Dept.
of the Interior et al., 1970).
Estuaries are generally extremely productive because of the great
diversity of highly specialized and widely adaptable species which thrive
in these rich dynamic regimes. (Manganaro et al., 1966). The inhabitants
of the estuaries are mainly adaptable marine species with a few truly
estuarine species. The marine species favor inlets and the typically
- 80 -
-------
marine niches while the fresh water species favor mouths of streams and
creeks and niches that are similar to fresh water. These populations
can generally inhabit adjacent waters but cannot co-exist in the same
waters. (U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 1970). In addition to being ex-
tremely productive, the estuary plays an important role in the life cycle
of marine organisms by serving as a feeding ground and shelter area, and
as an acclimatization area between salt water and fresh water.
High concentrations of mineral and organic matter derived from the
coastal sea, runoff and human contributions cause high productivity.
This fertility is distributed throughout the estuary by tidal and wind
mixing which effectively dilutes the materials to non-toxic concentrations.
The shallow sun-bathed waters„ protected from severe tidal and wave stress,
provide an ideal habitat for many species. With regard to temperature and
salinity, the estuaries exhibit greater stresses than do fresh waters, but
estuarine organisms are able to cope with these changes. (Shuster, 1966).
Biological Characteristics
The numbers of aerobic heterotrophic bacteria found in bay waters and
sediments is much higher than that in open ocean water and ocean sediments.
Representative data for Hempstead Bay were obtained for a point west of
Seamans Island. The procedures were similar to those previously described
for the testing of ocean samples. Values were determined for coliform
organisms and fecal coliforms. The results are shown in Table 21.
As was shown in Tables 18, 20 and 21, significant numbers of coli-
form are present in these waters. Coliform bacteria are indicators of
- 81 -
-------
TABLE 21
BACTERIOLOGICAL DATA FOR HEMPSTEAD BAY
Month
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Number of
Aerobic Heterotrophic Bacteria
per ml
Surface
Water
4700
1300
240
310
120
1950
2290
2300
6270
per g Wet
Sediment
(at 104 dilution)
1.60
1.10
1.30
.800
8.90
15.80
3.10
.30
3.10
Total Col i form
MPN per 100 ml
Surface Water
172
14
34
5
33
79
348
70
6
Fecal Coliform
MPN per 100 ml
Surface Water
5
0
8
0
23
8
!
33
8
-
Data from Manganaro, 1966.
-------
pollution and as such should not be found in numbers greater than 70/100
ml of sample in SA classified waters — waters for shellfishing. Coli-
form counts of more than 70/100 ml (Appendix E) have caused Hempstead
Bay west of Hay Island Channel, Garret Lead, the north shore of East Bay
from Merrick to Massapequa, Zachs Bay (Nassau County Dept. of Health,
1968), Great South Bay on the north shore from Blue Point to Bellport,
Heliport Bay from Bellport to Mastic Beach, and the entire northern half
of Moriches Bay to be closed to shellfishing. (USDI 1966). The areas
closed to shellfishing are shown in Figure 7.
High numbers of bacteria indicate a potentially active population by
means of extra cellular enzymes. Bacteria break down complex organic
molecules to simpler ones which can be transported across the cell mem-
brane and utilized as food. The breakdown of complex molecules makes
simpler molecules available to other unicellular organisms in the
community, such as algae. Bacteria are also the primary synthesizers
of B vitamins which are required by many algal species for growth. In
addition, bacterial populations are responsible for the mineralization
of nitrogen and phosphorus from dead cell material. Without this miner-
alization, nitrogen and phosphorus would remain tied in an organic form,
unavailable for incorporation into new cellular material.
In shallow bays, there is extensive phytoplankton growth from March
through August and again in October. High productivity is indicated by
3 3
65.04 mg/m of chlorophyll a_. Values of 100-116 mg C fixed/m /hour are
not uncommon in the bays. During the less productive seasons, the ranges
3 3
are 1.2-3 mg/m of chlorophyll a_ and 3 to 25 mg C fixed/m /hour. In
- 82 -
-------
X
CO
to
o
_J
U
in
Figure 7
-------
general, primary organic production is most intense in estuarine areas.
(Manganaro et al., 1966),
Lackey (1967) and Riley (1967) discuss the various species that are
found in the bays of the south shore. It is important to realize that
these species are representative of a wide range of ecological niches and
nutritional types. In general, there is an extensive diatom bloom in the
spring followed by a secondary dinoflagellate bloom. During the summer,
growth is normally conspicuous but not excessive. In the fall, there is
a second diatom bloom. During the rest of the year, algal activity is low.
Of significance are the blooms of Nannochloris, a small green algae, and
dinoflagellates, flagellated red algae, which occur in quiet warm waters
where nutrient substances are abundant. These organisms are extremely
detrimental to shellfishing because of their ill effects on the bottom
feeders.
If the algal blooms are sufficiently large, the nutrient level will
reach a point that can no longer support the population and a die off
will occur. This, in turn, will stimulate bacterial decomposition and
cause an immediate and large consumption of oxygen. The oxygen deficient
environment will be detrimental to all oxygen dependent organisms.
In addition to the microscopic algae, macroscopic algae and vascular
plants are important producers in an estuarine environment. Eelgrass
(Zostera marina) is a particularly abundant species favored by shallow
transparent water, strong sunlight, rich bay bottoms, an absence of
strong current and its own tolerance of brackish to saline water. The
- 83 -
-------
standing crop of eelgrass can reach 11 T/A (tons per acre) in the shallow
waters of the bays. (Manganaro et al., 1966).
Eelgrass is a mixed blessing. It provides food and shelter for estua-
rine species and water fowl (it is the major food of the brant, a type of
goose). However, it creates difficulties with regard to shellfish harvest-
ing and the use of waters for recreation (both swimming and boating).
Furthermore, when it becomes uprooted and accumulates in channels or on
the beach it rots, producing hydrogen sulfide gas (which defaces buildings
protected by lead pigmented paints) and other odiferous gases. The decom-
position depletes the oxygen in the channels and oxygen dependent organisms
are forced to leave or die. The macroalgae are dominant over the eelgrass
during mid-summer. Macroalgae common to the south shore bays are Ulya
lactuca, Cladophora gracilis, Polysiphonia harveyi, Champia parvula,
Agardhiella tenera, and Chaetomorpha linum. (Manganaro et al., 1966).
The productivity of the plants produces detritus, dead organic matter
which is a food source for other members of the community. Detritus is a
food source for bacteria, benthic filter feeders and even zooplankters
when the plant crop is sparse. Concentrations of detritus may reach 1000
milligrams per cubic meter (mg/m ) dry weight where human activities have
contributed to favorable growth conditions. (Manganaro et al., 1966).
The organic matter supports a large population of diverse species,
amphipods, decapods, copepods, ostracods, esopods and polychaetes among
others. The clams, Mercenaria mercenaria and Mya arenaria, breed in the
sediments of the estuaries. The oyster, Ostrea virgenica, bay scallop
and mussel, Mytilus edulus, also inhabit the bay waters. To date, approx-
- 84
-------
iraately 10 percent of the shellfish beds have been closed to shellfish-
ing as a result of direct pollution. (MacMillan, oral communication,
1972). (See Figure 7). The oyster harvest has been particularly hard
hit in recent years by the secondary effects of pollution. Nannochloris
blooms have severely hurt nursery reared oysters transplanted to the bays
for growth to harvestable size. (USDI, 1968).
Hempstead, South Oyster and Great South Bays provide feeding, breed-
ing or nursery habitat for winter flounder, summer flounder, bluefish,
striped bass and other fin-fish. According to Reese, the tidal ponds
and channels provide a habitat for bait fish. (Written communication,
1971). The value of the commercial and sports fishing attributable to
the bays is difficult to determine because of the important influence
of the bay on the immature stages of oceanic species. Species of import-
ance are: flounder, snapper, kingfish, striped bass, black fish, blow
fish and porgy. (Manganaro et al., 1966).
Sports fishing is a major recreational activity in these waters. In
connection with Great South Bay, sports fishing expenditures exceeded
$5 million in 1968. Although comparable data are not available for the
entire project area, the impact of sports fishing expenditures on the
economy of Long Island is currently estimated to be in excess of $100
million annually.
The fishing methods used include surf casting, jetty fishing and
private and party boat fishing.
The marsh and water areas of the bays are an important feeding and
resting habitat for migrating and wintering waterfowl and shore birds.
- 85 -
-------
The 1961 report of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the New York
State Conservation Department indicated that more than 80 species of
these birds used Hempstead and South Oyster Bays. Since the channels
in these bays are sometimes the only ice free waters to be found, large
numbers of scaup, brant, black ducks, mallards, shovelers, goldeneyes,
teal, mergansers and Canada geese congregate in these areas during the
coldest days of the year. (Reese, written communication, 1971). Follow-
ing the disappearance of eelgrass, brant were rare on the east coast for
many years. They are returning in high numbers now that the eelgrass
has returned to these bays. However, brant seem to be threatened again.
Few have been seen at Brigantine this year (1972).
Thousands of shorebirds and songbirds depend on the shallow waters
and associated marsh habitat for food, nesting cover and shelter. Of
special importance are the Tobay Sanctuary, Captree Islands, John Boyles
Island, the islands west of Moriches Inlet and the Shinnecock Inlet loca-
tions. Here nesting colonies of terns, skimmers, ibises, egrets and numer-
ous species of herons return each year during the nesting season. The
isolated cordgrass marshes extending west from Captree Bridge are considered
important clapper rail habitat. It is estimated that more than two million
bird watchers and wildlife photographers visit this five-bay locality each
year to observe the wildlife in its natural habitat.
In addition to wild waterfowl, the domestic varieties have exerted a
significant impact on the eastern reaches of the bay system. The duck
farmers have placed penned areas on existing streams to raise ducks for
market. Over the years, the solid and liquid wastes of the duck farms
- 86 -
-------
have run into Bellport and Moriches Bay and have built up a significant
storehouse of nutrients in organic forms. Recent attempts to remove this
sediment have been associated with blooms of Nannochloris. These blooms
had an ill effect on the establishment of nursery reared oysters which
had been transplanted to the bay for growth to harvestable size. (USDI,
1968).
Subsurface Water
Description and Boundaries of
the Ground-Water Reservoir
Fresh ground water (water in the zone of saturation) represents by
far the largest percentage of subsurface water on Long Island. It is
the subsurface water of principal concern in this environmental impact
statement.
Virtually all the ground water of economic and hydrologic significance
on Long Island occurs in a wedge-shaped mass of unconsolidated materials
that rests on bedrock. The bedrock has little or no interstitial hydraulic
conductivity, outcrops in northern Queens County and dips toward the south-
east to a depth of about 2,000 feet in south-central Suffolk County.
The materials that constitute Long Island's ground-water reservoir
include deposits of gravel, sand, silt, clay and mixtures thereof. These
materials can be classified into several hydrogeologic units on the basis
of hydraulic properties, relative position, composition, geologic age
and other characteristics. Pertinent characteristics of the major hydro-
geologic units on Long Island are listed in Table 22. (See also Figure 8
which is adapted, in a slightly modified form, from a table in a report
by Cohen et al., 1968, p. 18).
- 87 -
-------
CM
CM
W
rJ
ea
^
H
Pi
M
O
£>
pi
w
to
w
Pi
Pi
w
H
<£
^
1
p
S3
O
Pi
0
PC
52
H
fn
O
to
H
M
£2
| )
U
(H
8
hJ
O
w
o
o
Pi
Q
Pi
O
60
C
•H S-i
>-i 01
01
4->
tfl
M •-
i
TJ 4-1
O T-I
s >
•H
U-l 4-1
O O
3
0
tfl 4J CO O
01 0 M
x> to
1 r-l
S.S
4-1 CJ
5
co
en
cu
S.S
CO O
E T-I *"**
•H X! 4-1
X H 0
O O)
M E M-i
p. 3 "-'
Q. E
j** , 1
^^ *rt
X
1!
o
•H
60 0)
o E
rH tO
O 2
01
O
o
•H
M
O
rH
O 4J
01 -H
60 a
0 O
M
TJ
W
60 O
•H
C 3
ffl tfl
TJ TJ
rt X?
en
ri
^ 60
rH T-I
C XI
•H
TJ
1-1
0)
U-l
-.. *
•n
3
CT
CS
rH
CO
•H
0
to
60
r-l
0)
p.
ED
1
a
U-l O
o o
co o
4J T-I
•H rH
CO 3
O CO
&3
TJ ^»
,1^
^
01 U
>* o
rH
o
CO
CU rH
*"O t~H
3 -H '
0 4J
C rH -H
•H ffl J>
•H T-I
O 0 4J
CO CO O
rH rH 3
CO 60 TJ
CU
C
•H O
U-l T-I
rH
CU 3
rH tfl
4J )-l
4-1 TJ
•H t*.
•H XI
CO 5
O
TJ rH
C
tfl r^i
9> CU
r^> ^
rH O
U 4-J •
^,
>. > 4J
4-1 O -H
rH rH >
•H T-I
CO U-l 4-1
O 0
3
f^ TJ TJ
tfl C C
rH tfl O
CJ CO O
O
to
rH
^
cfl
rH
CO
0)
^
TJ
O
?*.
CO
rH
CJ
en
r-l
01
pj
•H
TJ
1-1
CO
CJ
1
o
3
U-l T)
0 C
o
TJ O
C
CO O
en -H
rH
0) 3
co to
r-l r-l
CO T)
O >>
0 X!
O XI
4J 6C
•H
E x;
3
•H O
TJ 4J
cu
E 01
4-> •
^i cO ^-,
rH )-l 4J
C CU -H
•H TJ >
S E W
O
t/-J
rH
rH
CU
CO
S-i
O
O
o
cu
E
tfl
»-i
CU
U-l
•H
3
cr
ta
o
o
cu
E
tfl
o
•H
01 >s rH
4J rH 3
CO rH tfl
rJ Cfl (-1
0) 0 TJ
TJ O r^
O
•H O tfl
U-l U M
60
O O
4-> -H CO
rH C
CU 3 -H
en co cfl
H M 4J
tfl TJ C
O r*> O
CJ rC O
O
o
o
4*
r-t
C
o
•H
4-1
§
O
/^>,
C*"
N^X
^
i-f
O
W5
1
^
cu
U-l
•H
3
cr
tfl
^
^
4J
o
60
frt
IS
1
3
tO
M
TJ
rH XI
•H
CO >
0
4-1 rH
C
tfl ^i
'B cu
3 >
X)
tfl O
4J •
TJ >i
C 5 4J
Cfl O -H
rH >
4-1 U-l 4J
•H O 0
> 3
•H t^, TJ
4J CO C
O rH O
300
T)
C TJ 0
O C3 -H
O CO rH
1
O
3
'c "c •
O tfl f^
o en 4J
•H
0 0) >
•H C T-I
rH -H *J
3 U-< 0
cfl 3
t-> T) TJ
T) C C
>* tfl O
XI O
S rH O
O T-I -H
rH CO rH
3
>-i B M
0) O TJ
> CO >>
U-l •»
o >, S
4-> O
>, T-I rH
cfl >
rH T-I U-J
U 4J O
O
o
CO
01
X! C
4J O
•H
U-l 4-J
O CO
£3
^4 )-l
0) O
X) P^
E
01 a
E to
4-J
^ "H
CO M
O S
^
tO
rH
O
C
to
4-1
•H
^
to.
<2
i
3
tfl 1
M O
TJ 3
>\ TJ
XI ^i £3
CU O
0) >~. O
4-1 CO
CO rH O
l-l O T-I
01 rH
TJ 01 3
§E to
0 P
W T)
U-l !>-i
0 •'• XI
rH 4->* 5
CU T-I O
> > rH
tO -H
M 4J U-l
60 O O
3
TJ TJ rH
c c to •
CO O -H >,
O M 4J
T) CU -H
C 0 4-1 >
tfl »H tfl T-4
tO rH E -I-1
0
O
O")
c
u-i o
0 T-I
4J
M tfl
01 E
XI r-l
B o
0) b
^- f
c
TJ tfl
C 4-*
tfl T-I
W M
TJ Pi
^*»
O 01
d-S
J_J
0)
U-l
•H
3
cr
cfl
""O
»^*»
o
rH
•
CO
rH
•
cx
r<
oo
vD
ON
«k
CO
M
CU
rC
4-J
o
rQ
B
tfl
C
CU
XI
cS
^j
0)
4J
U-l
-------
O O
CO OC
t O
l£
UJ
cc
o£ £
UJ I— UJ
O < Z
o: o:
O O o
~> LU Z
^ x Q
Z
o
Q-
X
•a
c
(0
•a
c
JS
u
•o
c
Figure 8
-------
Fresh ground water on Long Island is bounded laterally and underlain
locally by salty ground water that is hydraulically connected to the sea.
Where the fresh ground water is in contact with the salty ground water,
mixing occurs and a so-called zone of diffusion forms. Under predevelop-
ment steady-state conditions, the positions of the zones of diffusion
bordering the fresh ground-water reservoir of Long Island reflected a
delicate balance. This balance was mainly related to the altitudes of
the fresh-water heads (which in turn were approximately proportional to
rates of ground-water flow) and the differences in density between fresh
and salty ground water.
The landward movement of salty ground water—so called salt-water
intrusion—is of major concern to Long Island's water managers. Accord-
ingly, salty ground water on Long Island, (especially in southeastern
Queens and southern Nassau Counties where salty ground water locally
underlies the main part of the island), has been studied intensively for
several decades. Among the more recent studies are those reported by
Cohen and Kimmel (1970), Lusczynski (1961), Lusczynski and Swarzenski
(1960, 1962, 1966), Perlmutter and Crandell (1959), Perlmutter and
Geraghty (1963), Perlmutter, Geraghty and Upson (1959), Soren (1970),
and Swarzenski (1959). Predictions of rates of salt-water intrusion in
parts of Suffolk County were made by Collins and Gehlar (1970) with the
aid of a Hele-Shaw viscous fluid model, and by Fetter (unpublished Ph.D.
thesis, Indiana University, 1971) with the aid of a digital model.
- 88 -
-------
Estimates of Ground-Water
Recharge and Discharge
As implied previously in this report, under predevelopment natural
conditions, infiltration of precipitation was the sole source of ground-
water recharge on Long Island. Many writers have estimated the rate of
natural recharge on Long Island. Most, but not all, of the estimates
are in reasonably close agreement. Some recharge estimates are listed
in Table 23, Estimated or Computed Average Annual Recharge on Long Island,
N.Y. Some writers reported the recharge estimates in inches per year,
others in millions of gallons per day per square mile, and still others
used both sets of units interchangeably. Where only one set of units was
used in the cited reference, the equivalent in the other set of units is
listed in the table for the purpose of comparison. In addition, values
are rounded to the nearest inch and the nearest tenth of a million gallons
per day even though the values may have been reported to more significant
places in some of the references cited. Moreover, each of the writers
used different or unspecified lengths of time for which the averages were
developed, and most of the writers used slightly different values for long-
term precipitation.
The correct value for long-term average annual recharge and the accu-
racy of past recharge estimates have recently become a matter of consider-
able interest, especially to those individuals and agencies concerned
with issues directly and indirectly related to this impact statement.
An understanding of the degree of accuracy attributed to the estimates
by some of the writers who developed them can be obtained from the follow-
ing quoted material:
- 89 -
-------
-------
CO
CM
w
rJ
S3
O
w
3
:S
r-U
a
^
»—i
<; x
P a;
g o
o
Q co
W rH
H
gg
S3
u
S
H
3
H
to
w
ill
^i
w
cd
(2
cu
t£
o>
o
C!
O>
P
Ol
M-l
CU
&
1
CD iH
M CX
cd in a
•w u o
P 0) -H
0! VJ 4J
o a co
^4 1
0) u-<
ex, o
G
O
t-l 0)
fa 43
4J
• M
Q) £
W 0
cd *H
£3 ^ *
•H Cd
w a
CO -H
0) rH
43
0) 3
•n a
•H
& CO
1 -H
•a .d
C w
ed
rH C!
CO ft
t-i
«
rH 4J
Cd id
M T3
01
C cu
eu 42
O u
*
^
O
C-i
rH
»
CO
VJ
o
r*
4J
O
•o
c
CS CT>
CM
i-l 00
}~l
3 •
M ti,
<•
-*
<4H M CU
O 4) rH
CX >-l -H
M CU g
C co ex
O C OJ
•H O >> r-
rH rH « ea
rH rH T3 3
cu -H ed cr
oe 6 M ca
u ^
03
O (-1
01 O>
Pi O.
x"s
CO M
o> ca
A 0)
0 >1
q
-r\
^s
rH
O
CM
CM
C •
e w
3 C
iH 01
O 0
0 M
01
c a
•H
\D
T3 <•
CU
4J 41
0) 43
•H
tH TJ
rH
CU 3
D O
rH 42
CO IX)
>
X
"U rH
CU fcU
U G
3 -H
CX K
E cu
0 0)
u ca
0)
rH CO
•H CU
e -o
3
0) tH
I-i 0
cd c
3 -H
V
CO 42
1 U
O -H
^0 42
f» >
a} _ •
M w
O '3)
VI M
«rf
01
t3 U
RJ 0)
B bC
T3
CO 3
O 43
4J 1
es M
S 0)
•H iJ
W RJ
CO &
w :
*t
co
VO
cr>
rH
A
CO
M
CU
42
4-1
O
T3
C
CS
C sr
cu .
A 4J
4-1 G
3 3
O O
CO CJ
13 ^
C •-<
cd o
U-l
42 IH
w 3
i* in
§ *
H
t> e)
42 iJ
4J Cfl
CC
CO CU
01
T3 fJ
3 -H
rH
U :
X W
01 ,ii
s-i
w o
3 »w
43 r
3
cd
CO
CO
cd
S3
4J
CO
cd
cu
4J
rJ
O
a
»-i
o
tij
01
-a
ca
0)
4J •
ed >,
& *J
•H e
*-> 3
co o
W CJ
CO
tH
r>
)-i
cu
u
w
•H
-Q
CO
M
O
u-i
rH
CS!
CM
•
01
4-1
cd
e
•H
4-1
W
cu
0)
13
'H
s
1
c
cd
i— i
en
•H
rH
ffl
14
O
C!
CU
o
00
CO
CTi
•
(X
VI
in
rH
•v
43
O
U
cd
<~)
o
vO
CM
•
rH
vO
CM
I
0)
CO
O *»-i
u o
o
,4 ii
O V)
U-i O
U-I
t3 -
a
4J X
3 iJ
C. 3
6 O
o ca
y
cu
w .e
4) 4->
4J
CS fS X!
^ O G
C3
0) W tH
&D C CO
!-l O M
Cfl -H
^ 1-1 fcC
o c; e
CU 0) Q
oi co iJ
r~-
rH
60
• G
CX -iH
4J
•> rH
CO 3
^o cn
a\ c
rH O
U
M
• 73
w a*
• x
U C!)
•H •
- rH 4->
,n ,a fc
O 3 O
o o. rx
«j a cu
*"} 3 ^4
1
VD
•
•Q
P!
cd
«*
•
CM
rH
T3
C
cd
CO
£X
•H
rH
CO
M
1
C3
O
rH
>•>
ft
CJ
ca •
p->
ffi 4J
42 C
w 3
O
M 0
o
«M ^i
rH
Q) O
•X3 <4-i
«j y-i
6 S
w
0)
w C
cd -H
6
•H «
4J CU
CO r-i
W ctj
N
4J
•H
S
b
M
4-1
e
ca
(2
•u
s
cd oo
ro
ft
^ •
ca sx
3
O •
A ,
4-1
0) C
42 3
4J O
U
r-l
o J^
«*-! tH
O
o i*-;
^ <*-(
ttj 7
g C/!
CU C
4-J -H
& C
•H CU
4J >
co cd
W 42
ri
co
\D
CTi
rH
•H
CO
)-l
OS
42
4-i
O
Ti
C
ed
d
G) CM
!-l CO
(-<
a •
S rx
o
m
rH
CM
CM
14-1
o
>-,
4J
•H
4-1
a
cd
3
cr
•o
0)
•H
li-.
•H
O
-------
Jacob (1945, p. 938) stated: "The effective average
precipitation-rate is about 43 in/yr (average for the
Battery and Setauket), or R - 0.0098 foot/day. This
would indicate that the average rate of accretion to
the water-table is about 60 percent of the average
rate, of precipitation. An earlier estimate placed
this ratio for the island as a whole at about 44 per-
cent (Burr et al., 1904, p. 829). However, there is
sufficient leeway in both estimates that the differ-
ence need not be considered significant."
In commenting on estimates they developed, Cohen and others (1968,
p. 49) said:
"Accordingly, it is possible that the individual
estimates of annual recharge may be in error by
as much as 25-50 percent, but it is believed that
the estimate of average annual recharge probably
is accurate at least within plus or minus 25
percent."
The word percent is used in a somewhat different context by Jacob
(1945) and by Cohen et al., (1968). Jacob referred to the percentage of
total precipitation that recharged the ground-water reservoir. Cohen and
others implied that their estimates of recharge (in inches) were probably
accurate within plus or minus the cited percentage values (for example,
within plus or minus 4 to 5 inches for average annual recharge).
Under predevelopment conditions, average annual ground-water recharge
and discharge were equal and the long-term average amount of ground water
in storage was constant. Cohen et al., (1970, p. 18) estimated that the
total amount of saturated material beneath a 760-square mile "water-budget
area" in Nassau and Suffolk Counties was about 180 cubic miles. Theoreti-
cally, about 10-20 trillion gallons of water could be obtained from these
deposits if they were drained. The "water-budget area" includes most of
Nassau and Suffolk Counties but excludes the north and the south "forks"
in eastern Suffolk County.
- 90 -
-------
The major mechanisms of ground-water discharge on Long Island under
predevelopment conditions and quantitative estimates of the amounts of
water involved for the 760-square mile water-budget area are listed in
the following text table (after Cohen et al., 1968, p. 58):
Major Elements of Ground-water Discharge in the
"Water-budget Area" on Long Island Under Predevelopment Conditions
Discharge to streams . . „ . . ..... ..... 320
Subsurface outflow ............... , 470
Evapotranspiration of ground water ....... . 15
Springflow ......... . .......... 15
I/ Million gallons per day.
Ground-water recharge and discharge have been altered markedly as a
result of man's activities. In 1965, gross pumpage on Long Island
averaged more than 400 mgd. (Cohen et al,, 1968, fig. 5). Of this
amount, about 150-200 mgd was discharged to the sea by way of large-scale
sewage treatment facilities. (Cohen et al., 1968, p. 72-73). Additional
large quantities of pumpage were consumed by evapotranspiration. Accord-
ing to data given by Franke and McClymonds (1971, p. 44), evapotranspira-
tion of ground-water pumpage may have been as much as 40 mgd in Nassau
and Suffolk Counties during the 1950 "s and the 1960's.
The activities of man have also resulted in large amounts of artifi-
cial recharge to the ground-water reservoir of Long Island. The estimated
artificial recharge on Long Island in 1966 is summarized as follows (after
Parker and others, 1967, p. 208):
- 91 -
-------
Amount
Source of recharge (mgd)
Cesspools and septic tanks 120
Recharge basins:
Storm runoff 100
Wastewater 30
Injection wells 50
Leaking water pipes— 100
Total 400
_!/ In Kings and Queens Counties, includes leakage of
water imported from the mainland.
The preceding values do not include possible artificial recharge from
leaky sanitary sewers. In this regard, Parker et al., (1967, p. 204)
state:
"Lacking valid knowledge of the actual situation, it
is impossible to estimate the overall sewer effect."
- 92 -
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE PROJECTS
The environmental impact of each project will depend upon the type
of construction involved. However, all sewering projects tend to have
the same type of environmental impact; similarly, the construction of
and addition to sewage treatment plants tend to have another type of
environmental impact; and, of course, the construction of outfalls gen-
erally produces a third type of environmental impact. This section will
review the environmental impacts caused by these three general classes
of construction activity (i.e., sewering, construction of treatment plants,
and construction of outfalls). Following this general discussion there
will be comments pertaining to specific projects.
SEWERING
In the late 1960's, more than 95 percent of the sewage in Suffolk County
was discharged into the ground through cesspools, septic tanks, disposal
basins and similar structures. (Nassau-Suffolk Research Task Group, 1969,
p. 3-8). In Nassau County, several hundred thousand cesspools and septic
tanks were being used to dispose of domestic sewage during this same
period. (Perlmutter and Koch, 1971a, p. 171).
Several reports that describe the effects of these methods of waste-
water disposal on the quality of Long Island's ground water have been pre-
pared. Recent representative published reports include Cohen and others
(1971), Harr (1971), Nassau-Suffolk Research Task Group (1969), Perlmutter
and Guerrera (1970), Perlmutter and Koch (1971a and 1971b), and Smith and
Baier (1969).
- 93 -
-------
Constituents of sewage origin in the ground water of Long Island
that are of special concern are methylene blue active substances (MBAS).
These substances indicate the presence of detergents and the compounds
of nitrogen, especially the nitrate ion.
Some insight into the spatial and the temporal distribution of MBAS
in the ground water of the southern two-thirds of Nassau County in the
late 1960's and early 1970's can be gained from the following passage.
"Although MBAS was widely distributed in water in the
upper glacial aquifer, concentrations greater than the
recommended limit of 0.5 mg/1 were generally restricted
to water in the southern part of two adjoining sewered
and unsewered areas. Presumably the relatively high
MBAS content of ground water in both areas will de-
crease substantially in future years as a result: of
the beneficial effects of present and proposed sewer
construction and of dilution by natural recharge from
precipitation." (Perlmutter and Koch, 1971a,
p. 176-177).
Cohen et al., (1971) studied the detergent and chloride content of
streamflow in Suffolk County, and they found in part that:
"The average MBAS content of all streams sampled in
Suffolk County increased very slightly (by about
0.05 mg/1), and the MBAS load of the 11 principal
streams remained virtually unchanged from 1962 to
1969. However, the average chloride content of all
streams sampled increased from about 10 mg/1 to
18 mg/1, and the average chloride load of 11 princi-
pal streams increased significantly during the same
period. The overall increase in chloride content
and load is attributed mainly to increased contamin-
ation of the ground water.
"Plans have been developed, and initial efforts pre-
sently are underway to construct widespread sanitary-
sewer facilties in Suffolk County. When these facili-
ties are completed and fully operational, the source
of virtually all the MBAS contamination in the ground
and surface water of Suffolk County will be eliminated.
Shortly thereafter, the MBAS content of both the ground
- 94 -
-------
and surface water and the load of MBAS in Long Island's
streams probably will begin to decrease. The time re-
quired to fully flush the MBAS from the groundwater
reservoir is uncertain, but it may be on the order of
several decades or more."
The nitrate content of the ground water in parts of Nassau and Suffolk
Counties approaches or exceeds the recommended limit of 10 mg/1 (milli-
grams per liter expressed as elemental nitrogen) for drinking water, as
established by the U. S. Public Health Service (1962, p. 7) and by local
and State agencies in New York. According to Smith and Baier of the
Nassau County Department of Health (1969, p. 30-31):
"Health Department records indicate that groundwater
quality in the glacial and Magothy formations is
changing and that increasing nitrates is one of the
major problems. Analysis of data indicates that over
24 percent of the public water supply wells for which
sufficient data is available, show increasing nitrate
trends. Computer projections indicate that at present
rates a minimum of 16 percent of the public supply
wells will exceed the New York State drinking water
limit within the next 50 years, at the rate of almost
one well per year.
"Sewage from cesspool discharges is pointed out as the
primary source of nitrates in Nassau County's water
supply. Therefore, installation of sewers in Nassau
County should be expedited. Other significant sources
may include fertilizers, surface runoff, and refuse
landfills."
Perlmutter and Koch (1971b) intensively studied the nitrate content
of ground water in Nassau County and they concluded:
"1. Substantial quantities of water in the upper
glacial aquifer, both in sewered and unsewered
areas, have a nitrate content that approaches
or exceeds the recommended limit of 45 mg/1—'
for drinking water. The chief sources of the
T7In 'their report, Perlmutter and Koch (1971b) report nitrate content
in milligrams per liter as nitrate rather than as elemental nitrogen.
Thus, the cited value is equivalent to 10 mg/1 as NO -N.
- 95 -
-------
nitrate are infiltrated sewage effluent, mostly
from domestic waste-disposal systems, and leachate
from chemical fertilizers.
"2. Nitrate-enriched water from the upper glacial
aquifer has seeped down through the full thickness
of the Magothy aquifer in parts of central Nassau
County where it forms a major water body having
a nitrate content ranging from 1 to 94 mg/1.
"3. Streams whose discharge is supported largely by
ground-water inflow had average nitrate contents
of 11 and 25 mg/1 in the sewered and unsewered
areas, respectively.
"4. Improvement in the quality of chemically deterio-
rated groundwater after construction of sanitary
sewers is a slow process that may require at: least
several decades for effective natural dilution and
discharge of most of the residual nitrate.
"5. Even after the construction of sanitary sewers,
reduction in nitrate content of ground water and
streams in sewered areas may be retarded if other
potential sources of nitrate enrichment such as
leakage of effluent from abandoned cesspools and
septic tank-systems, sanitary landfills, inland
serfage-treatment plants, industrial and storm-
water discharge into ground water, excessive use
cf chemical fertilizers on lawns, and scattered
leakage from public-sewer systems are not elimin-
ated or controlled."
In Nassau and Suffolk Counties, most communal sanitary-sewer collec-
tion and treatment facilities discharge their treated effluent into the
Atlantic Ocean, Long Island Sound, or into the salty estuaries and bays
adjacent to the Island. As indicated in Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10, only a
few communal systems discharge to the ground-water system.
This ultimate discharge of water to tidewaters or to the ocean con-
stitutes a net draft on the ground-water system. To the extent that the
net draft is not counterbalanced by artificial recharge or induced addi-
- 96 -
-------
tional natural recharge, It causes ground-water levels to decline. Declin-
ing ground-water levels result in ;r.) decreased ground-water inflow to
streams, (b) declining levels of "water-table" lakes, (c) decreased sub-
surface ground-water outflow to the bavr-.s Long Island Sound and the ocean,
and (d) salt-water intrusion into the aquifers. These four consequences
of declining ground-water levels can lead to other consequences. Some of
these are fairly evident (such as decreased streamflow and increased salin-
ity of some of Long Island's estuaries) and some are subtle or highly
speculative.
The effects of a net draft on the ground-water system in southwest
Nassau County associated wit!- .: Bay Park sewage-collection and treat-
ment system are describee -port, by Franke (1968, p. 209). The
conclusions of that renoct art- . '
"The results of T.ic do-vble-mass-curve analyses in-
dicate that an .-vorage water-level decline of 10
feet for the - .-square-mile area under investigation
is the maxin'T' that eo';ld be attributed to the sewer-
ing if no tinner facto?s were involved. If it is assumed
that 3 feet of the decline resulted from pumping in
Queens County, the estimated wate.:-lc:vel decline result-
ing from sewerinj; in the area averaged about 7 feet.
However, the water-level decline at specific locations
within the study area chat i:i ,-tf visitable to sewering
ranged from about 1 to -1 " f*-of~,
"If the specific yield o" th< .. : LOW aquifer is assumed
to be 20 percent, the c-vt'ir i *> average loss of ground-
water from storage in trw bcv-red area as a result of
sewering is on the or..er "f ^ nu]d since 1953.
"The losses of flow in the two gaged streams within the
sewered area (Pines Err ok and Valley Stream), in rela-
tion to streamflow in tne unsevr-red area, correspond
to an average of about 5.7 cr.i , . , c.c.i per second since
1958 and about 3.3 cfs (2 mgu} for the period since
1953. As with the associated declines of groundwater
levels, most of that decrease in streamflow is attri-
buted to the sewering."
-------
The magnitude and extent of salt-water intrusion into Long Island's
aquifers have been the subjects of considerable research. Two recently
completed studies (Cohen and Kimmel, 1970; and Collins and Gelhar, 1970)
support the observations and interpretations of Lusczynski and Swarzenski
(1966) with regard to the slowness of the regional landward movement of
salty ground water on Long Island, even in response to severe stresses.
Cohen and Kimmel (1970, p. 286) concluded that despite the effects
of the severe 1962-66 drought and the effects of sewering in southwestern
Nassau County:
"The positions of the landward limits of the inter-
mediate and deep wedges of salty groundwater ...are
those given by Lusczynski and Swarzenski (1966, p. 5,
and fig. 12), and none of the presently available data
can be used as a basis for shifting these positions either
landward or seaward. In other words, if the toes of the
wedges have moved landward since 1960, as they probably
have locally, the coarseness of the network of available
sampling points presently precludes a more exact delinea-
tion of the positions of the toes of the wedges and a
clear recognition of movement of the wedges since
1960.
"Finally, the data obtained since 1960 do not contradict
the conclusions of Lusczynski and Swarzenski (1966,
p. F56 and ¥71-72) that: (1) 'The present (1961)
occurrence, position, alignment, and even the sizable
thickness and width of the zone of diffusion of the deep
wedge of salt water as well as the intermediate wedge,
therefore, are phenomena attributable mainly to natural
conditions that prevailed long before the start of ground-
water development in the report area;' (2) regionally,
the deep wedge of salty ground water, '...is apparently
moving no faster than 10 feet a year;' and (3) the inter-
mediate wedge of salty ground water, '...is apparently
moving landward at less than 10 to 20 feet a year.'"
- 98 -
-------
Collins and Gelhar (1970, p. 3) demonstrated that:
"The response of the salt water to hydrologic transients
on the island is slow; typically the lower of the two
salt water wedges, the deep Magothy wedge, south of the
island advances landward at 0.004 miles/year under the
influence of 100 years of Magothy formation well pumpage
equivalent to the surface accretion. Recharge is effective
in arresting or reversing salt water movement."
As indicated previously, the following projects involve sewering:
WPC-NY-361 - Nassau S.D. #3
WPC-NY-355 - Suffolk County Community College
WPC-NY-669 - Huntington (T)
Centerport S.D.
WPC-NY-624 - Suffolk County S.W.S.D.
WPC-NY-709 - Port Jefferson
Each of these sewering projects will prevent contaminated wastewater
from being discharged into the ground water, the only source of potable
water in the area. With the exception of WPC-NY-355, Suffolk County
Community College, each of the projects will serve to divert sewage which
is potentially ground-water recharge out of the recharge area. When pro-
jects WPC-NY-361, Nassau S.D. #3, WPC-NY-624, Suffolk County S.W.S.D. #3,
and WPC-NY-709, Port Jefferson were conceived, the effects of the diversion
of large amounts of sewage from the recharge area was a matter of concern
to local, state and federal officials. Therefore, additional land has
been provided to accommodate treatment facility expansion which will be
necessary to implement recharge goals.
At WPC-NY-355, Suffolk County Community College, the sewered waste-
water is collected, treated by the contact stabilization process and
- 99 -
-------
discharged into a recharge basin. This disposal process counteracts the \
loss of ground water from the recharge area and helps to alleviate lower-
ing of ground-water heads. However, this recharging of 15,000 gallons
per day of treated chlorinated effluent adds nutrients to the ground-water
system.
The sewer lines for these projects are almost all within the trav-
elled way of paved streets. With the exception of some streams crossed
by the main tie line of the Southwest S.D., the lines to be constructed
in this district will not cross any wetlands or classified streams.
Both Nassau and Suffolk County sanitary sewer specifications are
"tight". There are unit items in all contracts which cover replacement
of trees and grass and there is a dust palliative item to aid in keeping
the air pure. The growing use of vibratory sheeting hammers and the
shielding of pumps and other equipment make a substantial contribution
to noise abatement.
TREATMENT PLANTS
Construction Site
The section entitled "Description of the Pertinent Projects" discussed
in detail the type of construction grants activity being funded. The
monies to be allotted for sewage treatment plant construction involve
additions or alterations to an existing treatment plant or construction
of new treatment plants where none exist. Those projects described as
"under construction" or "anticipated" which involve additions and/or
alterations to existing facilities include:
- 100 -
-------
WPC-NY-341 - Great Neck WPC-NY-536 - Riverhead
WPONY-559 - West Long Beach WPC-NY-577 - Northport
WPC-NY-609 - North Herapstead WPC-NY-621 - Greenport
WPC-NY-629 - Great Neck S.D. WPC-NY-709 - Port Jefferson.
Construction on most projects involving additions or alterations will
be located at the site of the existing facility. The proposed Port Jefferson
Project, enlargement of a treatment plant, will require 5.0 acres of pre-
sently owned property and 8.0 acres of presently owned-unused land, except
for one house. According to Havens and Emerson (1971):
"The enlarged site as envisioned above may still be
characterized as disadvantageous in regard to topog-
raphy and configuration. By careful expensive land
development it is possible to regrade a sufficient
section to accomodate present and future facilities
and still provide sufficient buffer between structures
and homes along Shelldrake Avenue, the only boundary
of concern. The process is such that a minimum amount
of tankage will be exposed."
Of the construction grant projects listed in Tables 8 and 10, only
three required new land sites for the construction of new sewage treat-
ment plant facilities. Those projects which are "under construction" or
"anticipated" include:
WPC-NY-361 - Nassau S.D. #3
WPC-NY-355 - Suffolk County Community College
WPC-NY-624 - Suffolk County S.W.S.D.
Project WPC-NY-355 is located on the campus of Suffolk County Community
College and will serve the needs of the college. The Wantagh sewage
treatment plant, WPC-NY-361, was sited and constructed on reclaimed land
that was, at one time, part of a tidal marsh in Hempstead Bay. The
- 101 -
-------
Suffolk County Southwest Sewer District #3 facility is to be constructed
on a reclaimed tidal marsh land known as Fleet Point.
In many areas of the United States, the loss of coastal wetlands and
shallow water habitat resulting from hydraulic dredging, landfill opera-
tions and marsh ditching has seriously reduced the estuarine habitat.
This reduction has become so acute nation-wide that the United States
Congress recently passed PL 90-454. This bill provides a means for con-
sideration of the need to protect, conserve and restore these estuaries
in a manner that adequately and reasonably maintains a balance between
the national need for such protection in the interest of conserving the
natural resources and natural beauty of the Nation and the need to de-
velop these estuaries to further the growth and development of the Nation.
Coastal wetland losses have adversely affected the biota, ranging
from plankton to pelagic and migratory birds to shellfish and finfish,
by removing large areas of biologically productive habitat. In its ori-
ginal state, this habitat not only enhanced the quality of the ecological
community, but served to lessen the impact of severe storms.
At one time, vast segments of cordgrass marsh could be found through-
out the bay areas of the south shore of Long Island. Landfills and dredg-
ing activities have seriously reduced the original acreages. However,
there is still a sizable amount of saltwater marsh acreage scattered around
the bay areas. These areas, where tide and fresh water meet, are considered
some of the world's most fertile grounds. Every effort should be made to
preserve the remaining marshlands by depositing materials on existing spoil
sites or on the ocean side of the barrier beach. In order to prevent the
- 102 -
-------
loss of remaining marsh areas, new wastewater treatment facilities should
not be constructed on "reclaimed" land or on tidal marsh wetlands unless
there is absolutely no alternative.
OCEAN OUTFALL
The construction of the outfall from the Wantagh sewage plant to the
terminal point will cause an 84 inch sewer pipe to cross a natural estuary,
known as the Great South Bay, and a barrier beach, known as Jones Beach
State Park. These respective biomes are extremely sensitive to man's in-
trusion and must be handled with the greatest care both during and after
construction.
To shed some light on this little understood subject, a general de-
scription of the area concerned and its ability to cope with interference
by man follows.
Perhaps the most reasonable approach would be to investigate the toler-
ance or intolerance of the various environments to human use in general and
to some specific uses. The first zone is the beach which is astonishingly
tolerant. It is cleaned of debris twice a day by the tides. The creatures
common to this area dwell mainly in the sand, protected from human inter-
ference. The beach can tolerate a great deal of human activity — swimming,
picnicking, the making of sand beaches, fishing and sunbathing, to name a
few.
The next zone, the primary dune, is absolutely intolerant. It cannot
stand any trampling. However, to reach the beach one must cross the pri-
mary dune. Bridges would allow access to the beach without disturbance
- 103 -
-------
of the primary dune. If the dune is to offer defense against storms and
floods, it must not be breached. Therefore, no development should be
permitted on the primary dune, no walking should be allowed, and the
dune should not be breached at any point.
The trough is much more tolerant; development can occur here. The
trough is better protected than the dune from storm, wind and blowing
sand. The problem here is ground water. The vegetation that occupies
this zone exists only because of the relative abundance of fresh water.
Should this water level be lowered, the plants would die.
The inland dune is the second line of defense, and it is as vulner-
able as the primary dune. It too is intolerant and should not be de-
veloped. The backdune, however, is a more permissive location and is
perhaps the most suitable environment on the sandbar for man. Normally
this area supports woody vegetation, red cedar and pine. The shade of
these trees offers a welcome relief from the blinding light, glare and
heat which characterize the other zones. Fresh water is more abundant
in this environment than in any of the others, an important considera-
tion for development. (McHarg, 1969).
The final zone is the bay. Estuarine and bayshore environments are
among the most productive in the world, surpassing even those better
publicized examples of rice paddies and sugarcane farms. It is in these
nutrient-rich locations that the infantile stage of most of the important
fish takes place and where the most valuable shellfish dwell. These
areas are also the breeding grounds and homes of the most important wild-
fowl.
- 104 -
-------
The 84 inch sewer outfall pipe for the Nassau County project will re-
quire the stock piling of 970,000 cubic yards of soil material. In addi-
tion, there will be a maximum construction easement of 150 ft. in width
across the bays and upland areas. The pipeline will be placed in a
hydraulically dredged trench; the trench and pipeline will be built in
segments. When a segment of the pipe has been placed, material dredged
from the next segment will be backfilled over the installed pipe, except
for the northern 4000 ft. of pipeline which will pass from the sewage
treatment plant under Island Channel and through Seamans Island. All
material dredged to form that portion of the trench will be pumped to
a diked 12-acre spoil area located at the sewage treatment plant site.
Later, the spoil area will be used in conjunction with extensive mounds,
aesthetically arranged and planted to lessen the visual impact of the
facility.
After placement of the northern 4000 ft. of pipe, that portion of the
trench will be filled with sand from the nearby sewage treatment plant
site to a height of nine inches above the adjacent ground. This initial
backfilling will be done with trucks using the filled area as a road bed,
but the channel will be restored after completion of this part of the
project.
Dredge material from the 4000 ft. of trench between Seamans Island and
North Line Island will be pumped to the upland spoil area, located at the
plant. Extreme care will have to be taken to minimize the potential for
offensive odors due to the high organic content of the material. This
material will be vegetated at once. Backfill for this second 4000 ft.
- 105 -
-------
segment of trench will come from material dredged during subsequent
trench construction.
Where the pipeline crosses islands and upland southeast of Seamans
Island, the trench will be backfilled to an elevation sufficient to allow
for settling and a subsequent return to natural bottom elevation. The
proposed fill heights across the marsh islands and upland are designed
to allow for settlement so that, ultimately, the fill surface will closely
approximate the level of the adjacent ground. Preparation for the back-
filling operation across an island will include using a dragline to con-
struct dikes along both sides of the trench, and a dike and spillway across
the section at which the trench both enters and leaves an island. In this
way, most of the backfilled spoil will be retained on the islands. The
dikes parallel to the trench will be removed after project construction.
All drains, tidal slough and mosquito control ditches existing in the ease-
ment area before construction will be reopened after backfilling is com-
pleted.
Construction of the pipeline across Jones Beach State Park will include
the cutting of about 10 mature Japanese black pine trees. Brush clearing
will be only down to the ground line. This will allow the brush to re-
sprout after project completion. Sod disturbed by construction on the
slopes of Ocean Parkway will be replaced.
The Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of
Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Division of River Basin Studies and the
New York State Division of Fish and Wildlife will be invited to partici-
pate in pre-construction meetings between the applicant and the project's
- 106 -
-------
low responsible bidder. Biologists from the Bureau and the New York State
Division of Fish and Wildlife will be allowed to inspect all aspects of
the proposed project both during and after construction.
Prior to completion of the outfall, no segment of the pipeline or
outfall will be used to transport any raw sewage or treated effluent to
the bay or ocean. Only upon completion of the outfall will any treated
water be allowed to pass through the pipe into the ocean.
The marsh islands in the path of the sewer line are remnants of the
formerly abundant wetlands. The surface of these islands is a combina-
tion of marsh vegetation, shallow tidal channels and tidal ponds. This
combination has produced valuable fish and wildlife habitat.
At present, Hempstead and South Oyster Bays in the vicinity of the
project provide feeding, breeding or nursery habitat for winter flounder,
summer flounder, bluefish, striped bass and other finfish. The tidal
ponds and channels on the marsh islands in the project area provide habi-
tat for bait fish and many invertebrates, including some soft-shelled
clams. Moderate numbers of hard-shelled clams are found in the bottom
of the two bays. Water pollution is not now a serious problem in the
vicinity of the project. The only areas intersected by the right-of-way
of the pipeline which are closed to clamming because of pollution are
Cedar and Island Creeks on the north edge of the project area. Insigni-
ficant numbers of surf clams are found on the ocean floor near the con-
struction area.
The construction of this project would alter about 26 acres of marsh,
about 26 acres of shoal area, three feet or less in depth at mean low
- 107 -
-------
water, and about eight acres of channel, i.e., areas greater than three
feet in depth at mean low water. If the proposed height for the sand
fill on Seamans Island and for the backfill on the other marsh islands
is excessive, the material may not settle sufficiently to approximate
the adjacent ground level. Consequently, the reed grass, Phragmites
maximus, could quickly become dominant over all other vegetation which
might volunteer onto the filled island areas. The conversion of the
island construction areas from rich marsh habitat to relatively unproduc-
tive strips of Phragmites would be a definite degradation of fish and
wildlife habitat in the bays.
The dredged backfill would be confined on the marsh islands between
dikes. This would aid in reducing the flow of sediments from the back-
filled island areas into the viable adjacent shallow water areas.
The level of backfilling proposed for the area where the trench would
cross channels and shallow areas in the bays would not result in signifi-
cant damage to fish and wildlife habitat. The placement of hydraulically-
dredged backfill material, however, would cause considerable turbidity in
adjacent waters. Subsequently, much of the silt and fine sand causing the
turbidity would settle out over bottom organisms used by fish and wildlife
for food. Many of these food organisms would be smothered to death under
the sediment.
Careless backfilling within the vital waterfowl wintering area around
Great Island Channel could seriously degrade the channel and the adjacent
shallow area for a number of years.
- 108 -
-------
The organic matter, which reaches depths of 20 ft. at points, in the
right-of-way of the outfall would be dredged. Provisions are being made
to backfill dredged material. However, most of the organic matter in
this form would remain in suspension indefinitely. If suspended, this
organic material could cause a depletion of dissolved oxygen in the water,
possibly resulting in the death of some fish. The amount and extent of
this depletion would depend on water temperature, tidal flushing and the
amount of dredged material.
On Jones Beach State Park land, the proposed pipeline easement would
cross a wild shrubby area, go under Ocean Parkway, pass through the corner
of a small grove of pine trees, and cross the open beach. The spoil area
and the staging area on park property are also covered with wild shrubs.
These three brushy areas provide habitat for cottontail rabbits and song-
birds, but the abundance of poison ivy excludes most people. The pine
grove is not a dense stand and is little used by birds.
The upland at Jones Beach State Park could be degraded by the dredg-
ing which would disrupt a corridor of shrubs and herb growth. The back-
filling of the trench to two feet or more above adjacent areas could
result in the degradation of wildlife habitat.
On the upland spoil disposal site, a brushy area would be covered
with dredged material. However, when planted to beach grass, the spoil
site might be used for nesting habitat by gulls and terns.
At the proposed staging area, the shrub roots preserved during the
clearing operation should resprout, resulting in the complete re-estab-
lishment of this brushy area.
- 109 -
-------
The actual breaching or crossing of Jones Beach State Park will be
carried out with extreme caution. The 150 foot right-of-way must be
observed; the contractor must be held financially responsible for any
damage incurred as a result of impinging in any way, shape or form beyond
the 150 feet.
In re-establishing the area after construction, established and in-
digenous plant material will be replanted by the contractor. This will
be done after consultation with, and under the supervision of the Bureau
of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and the State Department of Environmental
Conservation.
Throughout the planning and construction stages, the contractor will
consult regularly with biologists of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and
Wildlife and of the New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion. These consultations will be held with a view toward carrying out
the project construction in a manner that will result in the least possible
harm to fish and wildlife habitats.
The similarity of these ecosystems, and their proximity to one another,
suggests that the environmental effects of the Suffolk County outfall on
each of the ecosystems will be similar.
DISCHARGE OF TREATED EFFLUENTS
The effects of wastewater discharge on the aquatic environment will
be discussed for each type of receiving water. For each water type,
there will be a general discussion of the water quality parameters af-
fected by wastewater discharges. This will be followed, where necessary,
- 110 -
-------
by a more detailed analysis of the effects of discharges from specific
treatment plants. Since the secondary treated effluent from Bay Park is
representative of the treated wastewater being discharged from the majority
of treatment plants under consideration, it will be used as a model in
the general discussions. See Table 24.
Ocean and Sound Waters
The treated effluent from projects WPC-NY-361, Nassau County S.D.
#3, and WPC-NY-624, Suffolk County, S.W.S.D., will be discharged into
the Atlantic Ocean. The treated effluent from WPC-NY-709, Port Jefferson,
will be discharged into Long Island Sound. The effects of discharging
treated effluent into these salty waters follows.
Physical Effects
The temperature of the sewage effluent is significant only in the
immediate vicinity of the submerged outfall. Because temperature has
an influence upon density, its effect is most significant during the
colder winter months. The density of the sewage-seawater mixture rising
from the sewage outfall is important in determining the rate of rise and
the concentration of sewage-seawater at the surface. Using a computer
model of an outfall plume by Baumgartner et al., (1971), the effluent
from the Wantagh plant will be diluted 32.5:1 at a flow rate of 120 mgd
and more than 62:1 at a flow rate of 45 mgd. The dilutions are calcu-
lated for the center of the plume at the surface.
At present, there is no information available on the designs of the
diffusers for the Suffolk County S.W.S.D. or the Port Jefferson outfalls.
- Ill -
-------
TABLE 24
TYPICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF BAY PARK, NASSAU COUNTY,
NEW YORK, WASTEWATER DISCHARGE AFTER HAVING
RECEIVED SECONDARY TREATMENT-'
Concentration
Constituent (mg/1)
Total Solids 384.0
Chlorides 101.0
Sulfates 496
Fluorides (by distillation) 0.48
Nickel 0.25
Total Chromium 0.97
Hexvalent Chromium 0.03
Total Iron 0.22
Copper 0.02
Manganese 0.03
Cadmium 0.005
pH 7.5
Total Hardness (CaCo3> 70.0
Alkalinity (CaCo3) 204.0
Free C02 11.5
Calcium 11.2
COD by Dichromate 69.90
Oxygen Consumed 25.0
Total Kjelkahl-N 35.28
Free Ammonia-N (NH3) 34.00
Albuminoid-N 0.96
Nitrite-N (N02) 0.045
Nitrate-N (N03) 0.06
Total-Phosphates 18.6
Ortho-Phosphates 18.6
Detergents 0.77
Color 55.0
Turbidity 5.5
Temperature 50° - 75°F
Density 1
Suspended Solids 5-20 ppra
I/ Data from Manganaro et al., 1966.
-------
Therefore, no predictions can be made about the dilutions at these two
sites.
Materials which rise to the surface and stay there, such as oil, grease
and particulate matter, are of the utmost concern because they tend to be
returned shoreward by wind action and waves. These materials, if present
in sufficient amounts, can decrease the light penetration and inhibit
oxygen transfer. The treated effluent from a properly operated second-
ary wastewater treatment facility will have a negligible amount of float-
able materials.
Deposits of sediments on the bottom can increase the amount of or-
ganic solids for detritus feeders. However, if the amount deposited
exceeds the amount assimilated, a buildup will occur which will change
the nature of the bottom surface. If buildups occur, an accumulation
of toxicants, such as pesticides or heavy metals, could occur if these
materials were present in the untreated sewage. (Ludwig, 1970). Such
sediment deposits could present a problem in the outfall area.
There is already a slight shift in the benthos community from that of
a medium sand bottom to that of a more silty nature. Such a shift may
mean the loss of an important food source for fluke and flounder. (Miner,
1950). However, the Allan Hancock Foundation (1965) has indicated that
increased churning in the boil area raises the level of dissolved oxygen
and promotes rapid oxidation of readily oxidizable materials. Consequently,
there should be no accumulation of sediments in static beds. As Spiegel
(1972) pointed out, if there are materials present which resist oxidation,
there will be an accumulation of sediments. The suspended solids in the
- 112 -
-------
Bay Park effluent range from 5 to 20 ppm. When diluted in the rising
plumes from the proposed project, the effect of sediments from a properly
operated plant should be negligible.
The transparency and extinction coefficients of the water column in
the vicinity of the boil will be attenuated by suspended solids and color
in sewage-seawater mixtures. At the Orange County, California outfall
the transparency recovered within two hours of downstream travel from
the boil.
The two major areas of concern involving the physical effects of
discharging treated wastewater to the ocean are aesthetics and ocean
productivity. A dye study, made by Manganaro in 1966, for the Wantagh
outfall indicated that the effluent "...probably will not create a vis-
ible field with relation to the bathing area of Jones Beach." As indi-
cated previously, the effluent from a properly operated treatment plant
should have negligible amounts of floatable and suspended solids. (See
Table 10 for an analysis of the effluent from the Bay Park treatment
plant).
Chemical Effects
Since both the seawater and the wastewaters have the same pH range,
and since seawater is a well buffered medium, the sewage effluent should
have no effect on the pH characteristics of the sewage-seawater mixture.
In oceanic water, there will be no significant effects on salinity outside
the immediate discharge area. (Ludwig, 1970). Silicate concentrations
may increase slightly in the area of the boil, but they should not affect
the diatom population. (Ludwig, 1970).
- 113 -
-------
The dissolved oxygen may be reduced at the surface of the boil for
two reasons. The first reason is bio-oxidation of organic matter within
the boil which will consume existing dissolved oxygen. The second reason
is upwelling of bottom waters which are normally deficient in dissolved
oxygen. Any oxygen deficient ocean water will become reaerated at the
air-water interface as the diluted mixture moves away from the boil.
Organic compounds will stimulate bacteriological growth. Bacteria are
the primary producers of vitamin B compounds upon which algae thrive.
Thus, an increase in organic compounds will increase the vitamin content
which could, in turn, stimulate the algal population.
There has been a great deal of controversy concerning the relative
importance of nitrogen and phosphorous as bio-stimulants in inland,
estuarine and coastal waters. Ryther and Dunstait (1971) have conclu-
sively shown that in estuarine and coastal marine environments nitrogen
is more critically limiting to biological activity. Using the Great
South Bay and contiguous bays and the New York Bight as examples, they
have shown that when the available forms of nitrogen are completely tied
up in organic material, one-half of the phosphorous originally present
in solution will still remain in solution. The limiting (critical) con-
centrations of nitrogen and phosphorous have not yet been determined with
any degree of certainty.
Nitrogen is mainly present in sewage effluent as ammonia, amino acids,
nitrate and nitrite. The majority of cellular organisms will prefer am-
monia to nitrate or nitrite.
- 114 -
-------
Traditionally, carbon, nitrogen and phosphorous have been the sewage
components of greatest concern. More recently, the total composition has
been the subject of investigation. Results indicate that a greater knowl-
edge of the composition of sewage is needed before its potential environ-
mental impact can be fully understood. (Feldman, 1970). The trace elements
and the trace organic compounds are of major importance. Trace elements
are important because they are readily bound to particulates and to chelate
systems. Trace elements may be concentrated by metabolic processes. They
may change organic linkages, coordinate complexes with amino acids and alter
the effect of surfactants.
Trace organic compounds, such as the vitamin B's cobalamin, biotin
and thiamin, can be used by some algae to accelerate their growth; they
are required by others for growth. Lower forms are capable of ingesting
significant amounts of their food as dissolved organics. Clark and North
have shown that hydrolysis of proteins to free amino acids will stimulate
the growth of sea urchins which use them as a food source. (Feldman,
1970).
Materials such as DDT, selenium and many others can serve to completely
inhibit some species. In blue-green algae, nitrate-nitrogen will inhibit
growth. Thus, a compound may be biostimulatory or bioinhibitory depending
upon the species under consideration.
Productivity around an ocean outfall generally follows a pattern of
decreasing in the boil area, then gradually rising to a maximum downstream
(see illustration below). Further downstream there is a gradual return
to background conditions.
- 115 -
-------
>-
£
>
u
O
O
t
PREVAILING CURRENT
PRODUCTIVITY IN THE VICINITY OF AN OCEAN OUTFALL BOIL
Overall productivity may remain constant, but a shift in kinds and
numbers of organisms may occur. A widely diversified population may
succumb to a single dominant species which may not support the upper
levels of the food chain. The timing of maximum productivity may be
altered so that an organism's food supply may not be available at a
critical stage in its life cycle. In some discharge areas, productivity
may increase.
The fertilizing effects of the discharge of sewage effluent may stim-
ulate productivity of the primary producers to an extent that will allow
a greater fisheries harvest. However, a great deal of research will be
necessary to achieve a manageable program that goes beyond chance improve-
ment.
- 116 -
-------
There has been no evaluation of the total effect of large inputs of
trace materials from sewage effluents on coastal waters. No one has
fully investigated the impact of certain constituents on the environment,
such as the concentration possibilities or the stimulation or inhibition
of metabolic changes which such materials might cause. According to
Feldman (1970), "The xrorld wide subtle effects from trace compounds in
sewage may as in the case of DDT, affect the world ocean even where the
local dramatic effect does not occur."
Feldman rejects the concept of the oceans as an infinite sink for
the following reasons :
(a) lack of detailed knowledge of input inventory, and
removal of materials;
(b) lack of detailed knowledge of the interactions of the
material with biota; and
(c) the incorrect assumption that the materials placed into
meritic and estuarine waters will be mixed quickly and
removed permanently to the sediment or the deep ocean.
Bacteriological Effects
Sewage that has been adequately chlorinated at the treatment plant will
have an E. coli count less than the MPN of 70 established by federally
approved water quality standards. The time and direction of travel of the
treated diluted effluent from the sewage outfall depends on tidal condi-
tions, wind and distance from shore.
- 117 -
-------
Commercial Shellfish Effects
The harvesting of surf clams would be prohibited in an area surround-
ing the outfall terminus. This area would have a radius of 1/4 mile.
(MacMillan, oral communication, 1972).
Water Quality Standards
Based on the proposed methods of wastewater treatment, the depth of
the outfall sewer, the distance from shore and meteorological conditions,
none of the applicable Water Quality Standards will be contravened.
Possible Effects on Other Aquatic Environments Caused by the Dis-
charge of Treated Sewage into Long Island Sound or into the Ocean
The continuous discharge of treated effluent, which is essentially
fresh water, into Long Island Sound or the Atlantic Ocean would prevent
this fresh water from flowing into the north shore and the south shore
bays. The effects of this by-pass on bay waters could be:
A. Change in Salinity - The salinities of the bays are complex phe-
nomena influenced by (a) surface water runoff, (b) direct dis-
charges into each bay, (c) ground-water underflow and (d) the
circulation patterns in each bay. If the amount of fresh water
discharged into the bay system is radically reduced, the bays
will gradually become more saline. Since salt concentration is
one of the most critical factors governing this ecosystem, an
increase in salinity could alter the ecosystem of the bay.
- 118 -
-------
B. Change in nutrient input - If overland runoff, sewage treatment
plant effluent and ground-water underflow are directed away from
the bay, the amount of nutrients and other biostimulants and
bioinhibitors entering the bay would be reduced. The bay pro-
ductivity would be reduced if extra biostimulants needed to main-
tain high productivity were no longer available. If bioinhibitors
present in the existing water input were no longer available, then
productivity could increase.
C. Change in bottom characteristics - The diversion of sewage ef-
fluent from the bays would protect the bottoms from becoming
muddy or silty in areas of present outfalls. The clear sand or
hard sand bottom community is far more productive and desirable
than the overly muddy or silty bottom community.
- 119 -
-------
ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
The actual construction of the sewers, treatment plants and outfalls
will cause some unavoidable environmental effects. These include noise,
odors, dust and other unpleasant side-effects. The specifications in the
contractors' "invitation to bid" are designed to minimize these effects.
Without proper planning, the use of land for the construction and
operation of sewage treatment facilities could cause deterioration of the
environment. The Nassau County SD #3 treatment plant is designed for
maximum integration into the Seaford Park complex. There will be a dis-
tance of 2,000 feet between the existing Seaford Harbor Elementary School
and tank structures on the plant site. Sewer construction will cause the
unavoidable loss of some shade trees.
Unappealing sights and odors will be minimized. All odor producing
facilities at the Nassau County SD #3 plant will be enclosed, and their
ventilation air will be ozonated.
The construction of ocean outfalls will require dredging and filling
in the bays, excavation across the barrier beach and some dredging and
filling in the ocean off the barrier beach. The dredging arid filling
operations and the placement of hydraulically-dredged backfill could
cause turbidity, siltation and loss of bottom life. Careless backfill-
ing within vital waterfowl wintering areas could cause degradation of
channels and adjacent shallow areas for a number of years. The follow-
ing conditions were added to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit
for the construction of the outfall at the request of the United States
- 120 -
-------
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport
Fisheries and Wildlife, Boston, Massachusetts (Richard E. Griffith,
Regional Director, July 22, 1971):
1. The three temporary spoil sites designated on the public
notice should be suitably diked with sand to contain spoil
material and prevent siltation of adjacent shoals and
marshes.
2. Spoil sites should be restored to pre-project grades im-
mediately after completion of work.
3. The applicant should be required to closely monitor the
effect of operations of the Wantagh Water Pollution
Control Plant on ground-water levels in the area affected
by the plant. This should be done in cooperation with
the U.S. Geological Survey.
The discharge of treated sewage effluent into Long Island Sound and
into the Atlantic Ocean could cause ground-water levels to decline, unless
the draft is counterbalanced by ground-water recharge. The declining
ground-water levels could result in (a) decreased ground-water inflow to
streams, (b) declining levels of "water-table" lakes, (c) decreased sub-
surface ground-water outflow to the bays, Long Island Sound and the ocean,
and (d) salt-water intrusion into the aquifers. These declining ground-
water levels could cause increased salinity in some of Long Island's estu-
aries and bays, and could thus alter the ecosystem of these salty water
bodies. When the technology of advanced waste treatment becomes an opera-
tional procedure for newly-constructed facilities, and when ground-water
- 121 -
-------
recharge becomes a practice, some of the adequately treated sewage can
be diverted to the recharge area to counterbalance the declining ground-
water heads.
An operating treatment facility must dispose of sludge. The rela-
tively high nutrient load and other contaminants in sludge, such as
heavy metals, could make disposal a serious problem. The sludge from
the Nassau County SD #3 facility will be pumped to the Bay Park Treat-
ment Plant and then barged to sea. This method of sludge disposal will
cause no environmental deterioration in the vicinity of the treatment
plant. However, the effect of sludge disposal at sea has been and is
being studied. If new legislation establishes this method as unaccept-
able, the sludge from Bay Park, Nassau County SD #3 and other facilities
will have to be disposed of in another manner.
Suffolk County SWSD will not barge its sludge to sea. This District
plans to utilize the wet-air oxidation method of burning sludge. The
East Shore Road Plant, which will serve the Great Neck S.D., proposes
to incinerate its sludge.
- 122 -
-------
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECTS
About eight percent of the land in Nassau County is classified as
"vacant". Approximately forty percent of Suffolk County's land is clas-
sified as "vacant". The latter figure indicates Suffolk County's
potential to absorb a great influx of industry and population. In the
two counties combined, industries employ 700,000 people, with an anti-
cipated two-thirds increase by 1985. These industries are indirectly
responsible, through high employment and industrial expansion, for plac-
ing an increased load on land and water resources.
In addition, the population in these counties is expected to greatly
increase in the coming years. By 1985, this population will require an
additional 400,000 housing units, of which 128,500 will be apartments
and 76,000 will be publicly assisted housing. When community sewering
is installed, land once zoned for single residential use with a septic
system will be capable of supporting a much higher density. These
density increases must be limited to those areas that can best support
the additional strain on land and water resources while maintaining a
balance between the natural systems on a steady state renewable basis.
In view of the water supply situation, it might be necessary to abso-
lutely prohibit such density increases.
The Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board (1970) has recommended
that a restudy be made of land uses and types in these counties. This
inventory of land, based on natural parameters, could then be applied
to a human use index to determine both the kinds and extent of develop-
- 123 -
-------
ment potential. This inventory would be a valuable tool in determining
how much of the available vacant land is suitable for development and
the probable extent of that development.
The "Tipping Point" or "Population Saturation Points" could be de-
termined for the counties as a whole and for specific critical areas
identified by the land inventory. This would permit the environmental
balancing out of the projected population. This would, in turn, allow
optimum population levels in all environmentally tolerant areas. It
would also protect the biomes of concern and sensitive areas not natur-
ally adaptable to heavy population loads. The inventory and population
density studies and projections may show that the counties cannot accom-
modate the additional 1,000,000 people expected by 1985. Should this be
the case, methods of discouraging and/or controlling development and
population increases should be formulated and implemented. Growth must
not exceed the "Carrying Capacity" of the land or, as the comprehensive
master plan noted, "without sharp departures from past development pat-
terns Long Island will become in the next 15 years an overcrowded,
unappealing place to live and an environmental disaster." (Nassau-Suffolk
Regional Planning Board, 1970).
Objective planning is necessary to accommodate the projected popula-
tion increases and the Federal Regulation 18CFR 601.32 and .33 effective
July 1, 1973, which requires fully developed water quality management
plans for all projects to be funded under the EPA Wastewater Treatment
Works Construction Grant Program and HUD Water and Sewage Facilities
Grant Program. These plans must contain (1) a description of the physical
- 124 -
-------
system, (2) a social and economic analysis, (3) an identification of
waste sources, (4) a discussion of water uses, water quality levels
and quantity criteria, (5) a description of the treatment required
and a thorough discussion of the alternatives for meeting water qual-
ity objectives.
Federal Regulation 18CFR 601.32 and .33, in concert with pending
Federal legislation (HR 11896, Land and Water Conservation Acts,
Estuarine Preservation Bill and the Land Use Bill S-632, etc.,), indi-
cates the need for a more comprehensive environmental understanding
and approach to insure both quality and quantity in our environment.
This approach calls for the development of a land suitability study
and plan based on both water quality and quantity as part of a Basin
Plan for Water Quality Management Planning. This study could be com-
bined with the revised or existing land use plan to project resource
needs into the future and thus establish a dynamic understanding and
use of carrying capacity for the two counties.
Certain "non-structural" alternatives have been proposed to deal
with the water supply situation in Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long
Island. These proposals would attempt a solution by population control
and/or water use regulation methods. In a written communication (1971),
Dr. Zane Spiegel listed some of these "non-structural" approaches:
"(1) Primary
(a) Low-density zoning;
(b) Reservation of lands for recreational or
agricultural purposes; and
(c) Restriction of building permits.
- 125 -
-------
"(2) Secondary
(a) Strict application of existing or new
administrative procedures on issuance
of water permits;
(b) New legislation on water diversion and use;
(c) Limitations on type or amount of water use; and
(d) Increase of rates or restructure of water rate
schedules to reduce use."
The above proposals relating to water use regulation and all methods
resulting in water conservation are highly recommended. However, these
methods are not in themselves alternative solutions; they merely decrease
the rate at which the situation worsens.
Population control methods outlined above are not alternative solu-
tions to the problem either. However, they are essential to the success
of any solution.
"It is almost impossible to discuss the projected de-
cline in fresh water resources without discussing the
ultimate causes. Increased population, increased per
capita consumption, and decreased natural recharge due
to land development constitute the principal components
of this seemingly inexorable trend.
"While it is perhaps beyond the bounds of the conven-
tional meaning of environmental control to discuss
matters such as zoning and population limitation, it
appears clear that these factors must eventually enter
into any calculation of the prospects for sufficient
water supply and satisfactory environment.
"Without intelligent and foresighted control over zon-
ing practices to relate them to the capacity of the
area's resources, recharge programs of any nature may
be futile. Clearly the relation of land use practices
to resource capabilities deserves careful scientific
investigation. Just as clearly, the results of such
investigation will need to be faced, and appropriate
measures implemented in timely fashion.
- 126 -
-------
"It would, however, be as improper to exaggerate the
limitations of water supply in justification of up-
zoning as to allow unregulated growth beyond sustain-
able limits. Decisions on resource limitations and
their effect on public policy must represent a balance
between honorable social goals and the rights of all
citizens to the best attainable environment."
(Fischer et al., written communication, 1972).
Yet, according to Koppleman (oral communication, 1972), very little
of the zoning for Nassau and Suffolk Counties is based on water resources.
It would be naive to employ zoning as the major preventative to over-
development. The intent of a master plan with a prescribed zoning ordin-
ance may be circumvented through zoning by variance or simply by rezoning
an entire area. Further, a new master plan may be developed which com-
pletely alters the preceding zoning ordinance. As it now exists, zoning
cannot assure permanent development patterns because it is subject to
change.
Any solution to the Long Island water supply situation must consider
both water quality and water quantity. To consider one and not the other
is to ignore reality.
Continued use of individual waste disposal systems which discharge
to the ground water (Nassau and Suffolk Counties' sole potable water
source both at present and in the foreseeable future) will result in
increased pollution of the aquifer. This practice sacrifices quality
to quantity. It tends to preserve the water table level and thus the
length of streams. It also tends to preserve the water level in water
table dependent lakes. Since the fresh water input to estuaries is not
drastically reduced, no alteration of salinity in the estuaries results.
- 127 -
-------
However, public health risks increase in the use of ground water for
potable water supply and also in the use of lakes, streams and estuaries
for body contact recreation and food supply. Polluted fresh water input
also has a negative impact on the estuarine ecosystem.
Collection and treatment of wastewater by a system of sewers and
treatment plants will help to preserve ground-water quality. However,
"secondary" treated wastewater cannot be discharged to the ground water
or to fresh or estuarine surface waters without adversely affecting the
quality of these water bodies. Ocean disposal of secondary treated
wastewater is the only discharge method that can insure against detri-
mental effects on ground water or fresh-estuarine surface water systems.
Ocean or estuary discharge of treated wastewater would cause a lowering
of the water table. This would result in: increases in water supply
costs; salt water intrusion; an increase in bay salinity; and a decrease
in stream flow and water table lake levels to the extent of shortened
stream length or disappearance of lakes. Thus, water quantity would be
sacrificed to water quality.
Table 25 lists alternatives proposed to answer the water supply
situation in Nassau and Suffolk Counties on Long Island.
Alternative 1, the "No Change" alternative, is unacceptable for
various reasons:
a. The present and designed discharge of secondary treated waste-
water effluent to bays, Long Island Sound and the Ocean will be
considerable in heavily populated Nassau County. This will
result in the eventual depletion of Nassau's potable water sup-
- 128 -
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
x^
T3
4J
C
O
^x
lO
CN
W
es
^1
H
O
55
f~i
<^
to
Jg
Pi O
O 2
Pn <
S3 CO
O M
M
H O
< S3
£3
M
W 2
o
,J CO
p , fjj
P-. M
CO 53
^"1
Pi O
W U
H
12 rJ
O
0 fa
H fa
3
co co
M
M
H
W
H
^
Vi
OI
4-1
«d
0)
rH
,0
cd
4-1
O
Hi
O
01
u
Vi
3
O
CO
CU
60
Vi
S
(J
m
tH
O
IH
O
e
o
•rl
4-1
cd
u
4-1
C
CU
E
4-1
ft"§
£
4-» s
cd
0)
4-1
CO
1
§ 01
Vl >
01 -H
4J 4J
c
cd Vi
01 O
U «*-!
0
•o
C CO
cd 3
4J T3
e c
cd td
rH
(^ TJ
CU
4J rH
C O
01 >,
E O
4J 01
cd vi
CU
Vl Vl
4J 01
4-1
4J 3
a) .e
4-> CO
3 ...
£*"» ^~l
M (0
CO CO
•M O
(3 03
CO -rj
*5
o
c
cd
CU
Q
co
e
0)
CO
^^
CO
rH
3
Q
•
00
0) •
4J en
id e
3 5
4J
TJ CO
C t*
3 CO
0
Vl 4-1
60 C
CU
o e
4J £j
cd
•O 0)
CU Vi
6C 4J
M
ft) ^^
Xi U
O iH
CU 4->
Vl Ot
CU
Vl CO
o ^
•d H
cd 3
•o
4-1 -H
0) >
to -H
o -a
O •rl
Vl Vl
4J 4J
& cd
•
0)
^J
fd
3
•a
C
3
O
Vi
60
0>
CO
3
O
4J
01
3
C
•H
4-1
C
S
•
Vl
CU
4J
03
*
^O
C!
3
O
Vi
60
01
CO
3
0
4J
01
3
a
•H
4-1
C
cS
•o
§
o
CD
14
O
t^
M
n
*
(-3
{Q
a)
^
01
60 4J
3 cd
01 rH
CO D-,
cd c
(X CU
•H B
U 4J
•H Cd
Is
•
CU
Vi 60
oi «d
4-1 Vl
cd O 3
34-10
u
rH CO CO
rH CU -rl
cd o TJ
•H
>-, > 0
o a> 4-1
r-4 T3
tx C
g w o
at ft IH
4J
•- x cd
>> CJ rH
rH 3 3
CX CO 60
a cu
3 CO Vi
co -a
O CU
Vl .'"t 4J
oi 4J cd
4J OI Vl
M Vl CU *
60 0) U 0)
CO 3 4J
0) C "O CO
CO O 0) CtJ
P 0 M 3
*T3
c
o
CO
Vi
o
£X|
(rt
w
•*
c
•H e
U 4J
•H cd
e cu
Ift
•
o
U-l
o
01
•H
co
4-1
3
o
0)
o
Vi
3 •
o *•»
co a)
4-1
e id
0 4J
Vi CO
(4-1
^
Vi Vi
(Q
^ 3t
0)
CU S
rH ^
Cd T3
o cd
n
4-1 M
Vi
O 60
(X C
M iJ
•a
c
o
co
Vi
o
^
(M
w
*
q
(d
01
s
CU
60 4J
cd c
§,3
CO P-i
cd C
IX 01
•H S
U 4J
•H CC5
C 01
•
rH
CU
•a
•rl
^
o
VI
tx
o
4-1
Vl
CU
4-1
cd
cd
o>
CO
Vi
0
CO
•rl
v^
c •
« r^
H r-l
p.
CU 3
4J m
a cu
•rl rH
rH J3
cd cd
CO 4J
0) O
Q (X
•rJ
C!
3
o
CO
Vi
0
J-*^
cd
03
»
fj
(0
CU
s
0)
60 4J
cd c
3 cd
0) rH
CO P*
cd c
tx cu
•H 3
U 4-1
•H cd
C at
Ift
•
CN
r-l
*
Vi
01
4-1
cd
*T3
£J
jj
0
Vi
61)
CU
to
3
0
4-1
01
p
ft
4-1'
c
s
V<
V
§
•a
c
0
Vi
60
01
60
Vl
rj
u
a}
o
60 4J
cd C
£t cd
0) rH
en P.,
cd C
(X 0)
•H E
O 4J
*M (Q
C 01
Ift
•
z
1
01
CO
a)
•a
0)
4J
cd
o
c
01
Vi
4-1
0
0)
ft
3
cd
o
4J
Vi
0)
4J
cd
"c
3
o
Vl •
60 Vi
01
01 4J
& §
01
CO
3
p£
4-1
u
01
Vi
•rl
o
0)
60 4-1
0) rH
CA P-i
cd c
tx a)
•H a
U 4J
•rl cd
!£
*
rH
5
-------
ply. Excessive depletion could result in the destruction of the
water supply due to salt water intrusion. It will also cause
the disappearance of streams and water table lakes due to lower-
ing of the ground-water table.
b. In densely populated areas of Suffolk County, failure to collect
wastewater, treat it by secondary treatment and dispose of it
outside effective recharge areas will result in contamination of
the ground water, making it unsuitable as a potable water supply.
It will also adversely affect the fresh and estuarine surface
water ecosystems into which this ground water flows. However,
if collection, treatment and disposal operations are instituted
as in (a) above, the available quantity of ground water will be
reduced. This would lower the water table, causing the reduction
or disappearance of streams and water table lakes and an increase
in salt water intrusion.
c. In sufficiently sparsely populated areas of Suffolk County,
individual treatment (septic) systems might suffice for the pre-
sent. However, it is expected that such sparsely populated areas
will be greatly diminished by the year 2020.
Concerning population density and municipal sewering, Fischer et al.,
(written communication, 1972) stated:
"A 1970 Suffolk County Health Department regulation
addressed itself to localized contamination of pri-
vate water supplies by requiring a minimum lot size
of 40,000 square feet in cases where public water
supply or a community sewage disposal system is not
used. The corresponding population density of
- 129 -
-------
approximately 3.5 persons/acre(53*) is close to the
figure of 5 persons/acre traditionally quoted(20,21)
as an empirical criterion for the feasibility and
advisability of sewer construction.
"Calculations of the minimum plot site required to
avoid nitrate concentrations in excess of drinking
water standards in areas without municipal water
and sewer service indicate a lower acceptable popu-
lation density. A figure of 2.2 persons/acre has
been estimated(54) when the potential contribution
of domestic lawn and garden fertilization is
included. On the basis of residential area popula-
tion, four of Suffolk's ten towns exceeded the lower
figure in 1965(55); even on the basis of total town
area, all but three eastern towns are projected to
approach or exceed 5 persons/acre in 2020(55)."
Alternatives 2 through 7 would employ individual disposal (septic)
systems to treat wastes and to discharge them to the ground water while
using various conservation procedures or alternatives to provide a potable
water supply. They are all unacceptable. Without community sewering,
the wastewaters from individual disposal systems would be permitted to
recharge the aquifer. This would prevent lowering of the ground-water
heads. However, it would allow the continued pollution of the ground
water by sewage from cesspool or septic tank systems.
These systems, regarded as the primary contributors of nitrates to
Nassau County's ground water, are responsible for an estimated 80 mgd
of sewage discharged to the aquifer. In many areas, this private dis-
charge has resulted in pollution of the glacial aquifer to such an extent
that nitrate and detergent levels contravene standards. Nitrate levels
are also increasing in the Magothy aquifer. Once a contaminant is intro-
duced into the aquifer, it could take 300 to 500 years to flush it out.
*A11 parenthetical references cited in passage are given under Fischer et
al., written communication, 1972 in bibliography.
- 130 -
-------
In order to prevent the deterioration of the sole fresh water source, an
aggressive sewerage construction program is necessary. (Smith and Baler,
1969).
In addition to nitrate contamination of ground water from septic
system subsurface discharge, certain public health and ecological con-
siderations contraindicate the above alternatives regardless of potable
water supply. Certain water and waste management policy proposals ad-
vocate the continuance of individual (septic) waste disposal methods
coupled with specialized methods for water supply (specifically water
purification at wellhead or tap or the maintenance of a limited unpopu-
lated watershed area (as in alternatives 4 and 5 above)). Commenting
on the advisability of implementing such proposals, Fischer et al.,
(written communication, 1972) state:
"Any uncertainty over the long-term protection against
disease organisms afforded by ground filtration would
become particularly acute if unlimited cesspool-type
waste disposal were contemplated. High densities of
individual subsurface disposal systems may impose an
overly large demand on the purifying capacity of the
soil for pathogens. Further, under unsewered condi-
tions, a considerable volume of virtually untreated
wastes is discharged to streams, either directly or
through local short-circuiting of flow paths through
the soil.
"If such conditions were accepted as a matter of policy,
the danger of accidental infection, particularly to
children could become substantial, irrespective of the
quality of drinking water supplies. Quite aside from
serious questions about the practicality of water
supply mechanisms as well as possible ecological effects,
these proposed schemes entail a potentially large risk
to public health."
- 131 -
-------
Moreover, Alternative 7 would Involve additional expense and would
create a brine waste disposal problem. The possibility of acquiring
potable water from sources outside Long Island (Alternative 6) should
not be considered since there is no known source willing to export water
to Nassau and Suffolk Counties. All water use conservation methods
are heartily recommended and encouraged (Alternative 2). However,
while these measures would result in a lessening of adverse impacts,
they do not constitute a solution to the problem.
The dual system alternative (Alternative 8) offers an interesting
approach. Sanitary wastes (toilet and garbage disposal grindings)
would be collected and treated at a wastewater treatment plant and would
be disposed of at sea. The concentrated nature of this material would
favor more efficient treatment and reduced treatment costs. Other water
(bath, laundry, etc.) would be partially recycled to assist the convey-
ance of sanitary wastes. The remainder would be treated by individual
(septic) subsurface disposal systems and discharged to the ground water.
This alternative would involve extensive modification of both existing
municipal sewerage systems and home plumbing systems. This alternative
would be unacceptable because of its excessive cost in densely populated
areas with established waste treatment systems. However, it should be
thoroughly evaluated to examine its feasibility for less densely populated
areas. Considerations assessed should include:
1. Water quality of the treated washwater discharged to the ground
water; potable supply aspects; and public health aspects.
- 132 -
-------
2. The cost to the individual for plumbing modifications and main-
tenance versus the cost for construction and operation of a
conventional sewerage system.
The remaining alternatives (9 through 14) would employ municipal
collection and treatment of wastewater. Municipal collection and treat-
ment of sanitary waste is essential to the protection of the public's
health and the fresh water and estuarine ecosystems on Long Island
through the maintenance of ground-water quality.
The ocean cannot be considered an ultimate sink. However, ocean
discharge is less undesirable than effluent disposal in Long Island
Sound or, especially, discharge to north and south shore bays. Second-
ary treated wastewater is considered unsuitable for discharge to north
or south shore bays or to the ground water by recharge. This is pri-
marily because of its nitrogen content.
Accordingly, Alternative 9 is unacceptable because its implementa-
tion would cause a net loss in ground-water quantity and would result
in the lowering of water table levels. This would cause: the eventual
disappearance of streams and water table lakes, increased salinity in the
estuaries and ultimate loss of the potable ground-water supply due to de-
pletion and saline contamination.
Alternative 10 would cause an ultimate result identical to that of
Alternative 9; the effects would merely be realized in an extended time
frame. Alternative 10 is, therefore, unacceptable.
Alternative 11 is unacceptable (as was Alternative 6) because of
the unavailability of an outside water supply.
- 133 -
-------
Alternative 12 might be an acceptable solution, provided the treated
effluent is discharged at sea and the quantity of ground water is main-
tained such that no adverse hydrologic or ecologic effects (see state-
ment on Alternative 9 above) would be experienced. Desalination could
be utilized to provide the major portion of the potable water supply,
if not the entire supply. The cost of desalination is directly influ-
enced by salt concentration. (See discussion on Desalination, p. 185).
It would be more economical to treat brackish water than sea water, and
still more economical to treat wastewater effluent.
The problem of brine disposal cannot be dismissed. Ocean disposal
of the brine that would be generated by a desalination operation sufficient
to supply the greater portion of Nassau and Suffolk's potable water would
pose serious ecological problems. Wastewater would be collected, subjected
to the equivalent of secondary treatment and discharged to the ocean. At
the present time, the costs of such an alternative would be prohibitive.
However, future advances may result in reduced costs.
Alternatives 13 and 14 would involve collection and treatment of
wastewaters suqh that the effluent could be safely recycled to the
potable water supply. Alternative 14 would require the most extensive
waste treatment since the renovated effluent would be immediately re-
turned for human consumption. Treatment would have to remove all
substances that might be deleterious to man. These substances would
include: bacterial and viral organisms, heavy metals and other toxic
elements, and organic toxicants such as pesticides. Dissolved solids
- 134 -
-------
would tend to cumulatively increase with each successive recycle. A
periodic reduction irt dissolved solids would be required.
At this time, the inadequacies which exist in viral detection and
quantitation techniques make monitoring unreliable as a safeguard.
Questions exist concerning the potential long-term medical effects of
ingesting compounds present in sewage. Although it is technically
possible to renovate wastewater for any use, the American Water Works
Association (AWWA) recommends against direct reuse until the above men-
tioned inadequacies are rectified. The AWWA recommends a "natural"
separation in time and space between wastewater treatment discharge and
potable supply intake. We concur with the AWWA in not recommending
direct reuse at this time.
We feel that if certain technological developments are made in the
near future, Alternative 13 will emerge as the most acceptable solution
to the Nassau-Suffolk water supply situation. Ground-water quality will
be protected through municipal collection and treatment of wastewater,
yet ground-water quantity will be maintained through recharge to the aqui-
fer.
The degree of treatment required would depend on the method of re-
charge chosen. In any case, nitrogen should be removed prior to appli-
cation or injection into the ground. Of the nitrogen removal processes
available, biological nitrification-denitrification is considered the
best alternative. Nitrogen in the wastewater is converted to nitrogen
gas and harmlessly released to the atmosphere. Breakpoint chlorination
would introduce 200-300 mg/1 of chloride into the water. Ammonia re-
- 135 -
-------
leased to the atmosphere through the ammonia stripping process does not
disappear. It returns to land or surface waters where it may subsequently
cause nitrate contamination of ground water or dissolved oxygen deficien-
cies, and depressive and/or biostimulatory effects in fresh or estuarine
surface waters. The luxury of dilution is past. Our waste treatment
systems must be synoptic in scope.
Waste treatment processes providing biological nitrification-deni-
trification followed by multi-media filtration and disinfection should
provide an effluent quality suitable for recharge via surface applica-
tion. Additional chemical and physical processes would improve the
water quality. Optimal recharge-treatment schemes should be developed
and land should be allocated and acquired as soon as possible.
The capability to produce treated wastewater effluent of an accept-
able quality for ground-water recharge on Long Island does not now exist.
Therefore, the prudent course is to proceed with ocean or Sound disposal
of secondary treated wastewater while making provisions to implement
ground-water recharge as soon as it becomes feasible. Ground-water re-
charge of treated wastewater effluent should commence as soon as recharge
goals have been delineated and optimal methods of wastewater treatment
and recharge have been developed and implemented.
However, even after ground-water recharge has been instituted, outfall
capacity will still be required as a safeguard against contamination of
the ground water and adverse effects on north and south shore bays during
times of wastewater treatment plant disruption.
- 136 -
-------
The following material describes the reasoning process behind EPA's
just stated position. Given the type of wastewater and the hydrologic
realities on Long Island, discharge of treated wastewater was taken as
the starting point. Community sewage collection and wastewater treat-
ment were considered vital to the preservation of ground-water quality.
Alternate methods of wastewater discharge were examined along with
the effects of these discharge methods. As a result of these considera-
tions, Table 26 was developed. The Table is an attempt to coordinate a
discharge alternative with an effluent quality such that the combination
will be environmentally acceptable. Qualitative in scope, the Table
served as a framework from which complete alternative courses of action
could be developed. (Comments received concerning the draft EIS resulted
in the consideration of other alternatives and the addition of a discus-
sion on desalination).
A brief explanation of Table 26 is necessary. Long Island Sound
discharge was considered analogous to ocean discharge (although we are
cognizant of the Sound's lesser capacity to absorb wastewater inputs).
For bay disposal (north and south shores), effluent quality should be
comparable to that suitable for ground-water recharge. This is mandatory
if adverse effects on public health, ecology and recreation are to be
avoided. Except where recharge is utilized to prevent salt water intru-
sion and where isolation from potable supply wells can be maintained,
injection methods require an effluent of potable quality. Extensive
treatment may be necessary to overcome technological difficulties com-
monly encountered during injection (e.g., plugging).
- 137 -
-------
TABLE 26
TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECTED
DISCHARGE METHODS
Discharge
Method
Ocean disposal
Bay disposal
Deep well injection
Shallow well injection
Recharge basins
Spray irrigation
Flow augmentation
Direct reuse
Replenishes
Aquifer
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No*
Removal Required
N
No
Yes
Yes**
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
P
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
BOD
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SS
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
Yes
Yes
Residual
Soluble
Organic
Carbon
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Virus
No
Yes
Yes**
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
*Conserves aquifer,
**Not required for salt
water intrusion barriers.
-------
Potability was considered a prerequisite for recharge to the ground
water. Hence, the restriction of nitrogen to prevent nitrate contamin-
ation. Phosphorus could precipitate in the aquifer. Since phosphorus
is easily removed by certain wastewater treatment processes, its removal
was considered desirable in conjunction with recharge via recharge basins.
However, in conjunction with spray irrigation, a portion of the phosphorus
would be removed by the cover crop. (The removal of phosphorus from waste-
water used for spray irrigation could conceivably necessitate phosphorus
addition to meet plant nutrient requirements).
The need to prevent nitrogen contamination of the ground water coupled
with a review of the technical literature led to the conclusion that spray
irrigation of secondary treated effluent could not, by itself, guarantee
against nitrogen contamination of the aquifer. Therefore, nitrogen removal
prior to recharge by spray irrigation was recommended.
Flow augmentation could result in a combination of recharge to the
ground water and discharge to the bay. Wastewater effluent standards
were designated accordingly.
A review of the technical literature was undertaken to evaluate the
available waste treatment process alternatives.
ALTERNATE METHODS OF DISPOSAL AND THEIR
ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Discharge of Treated. Effluent Into the Ocean
(Long Island Sound)
Since ocean (Sound) disposal constitutes the proposed action its im-
pact is described elsewhere (page 110).
- 138 -
-------
Discharge of Treated Effluent Into the Bays of the
North and the South Shores of Long Island
The placement of a sewage treatment plant outfall within a bay (or
in an inlet or main channel of the bay) will add biostimulants, fresh
water, bacteria and other constituents which will disperse throughout
the bay. Any materials discharged into waters passing through the inlet
will be carried back into the bay on the flood stage of the tide. These
materials will be held by beds of vegetation and sands, especially in
the shallower confines of the bay.
Cronin (1967) has shown that the influence of a bay outfall is
generally circular in pattern unless there is a strong current within
the area. This influence is readily observable in terms of biological
activity. In the area of the boil, the growth is severely restricted.
Middlebrooks (1971) states: "All types of wastewater effluents are
toxic to algal growth." This supports Cronin's concept of no produc-
tivity or growth in the diffuser area. In the first concentric band,
where the effluent is diluted by the surrounding water, the biological
activity returns, but the organisms are stunted. In the second concen-
tric band, the productivity increases to a relatively rich zone with
heavy populations of molluscs, worms, diatoms and other species. The
third band or zone of transition lies between high productivity and
background values. (See Figure 9).
The use of a bay outfall would hopefully preserve the current
salinity ranges in order that the estuarine population, so dependent
upon the existing narrow range of salinity, would not be altered.
- 139 -
-------
ZONE OF STUNTED GROWTH
MAXIMUM PRODUCTIVITY
ZONE OF TRANSITION
PRODUCTIVITY PATTERN IN AREA OF BAY OUTFALL
Figure 9
-------
(U.S. Dept. of the Interior et al., 1970). Taormina and Wallace (1970)
state that the fresh water flow into the marine environment is extremely
important to the estuarine productivity; the addition of these fresh
waters to the bay cannot be considered a waste.
The bays have already been significantly affected by human activity.
A bay outfall would change the bacteriological quality of areas of the
bays. In areas where the ground water entering from the headlands has
been polluted by cesspools and septic tanks, the waters could improve in
quality with respect to coliform numbers. In other areas, the bacterio-
logical contribution of the effluent could cause the total number of
bacteria to increase, especially coliforms. With a bay discharge, an
increase in total numbers of bacteria would speed up the mineralization
process already in progress in the estuary. If the numbers of coliform
bacteria increased sufficiently, the water would not meet the water
quality standards (See Appendix A) and additional valuable shellfish
areas would be closed. (Sillman, written communication, 1972).
Various opinions have been expressed concerning the ability of the
large volumes of water involved to act as buffer systems against degrada-
tion. (U.S. Dept. of the Interior et al., 1970). Increases: in biostim-
ulant concentrations and availability are inevitable. The effects of
these changes have, in general, been extremely minimized or maximized.
In a middle of the road opinion, Foehrenbach (1969) states that the large
assimilative capacity (of the bay) for some forms of pollution is reach-
ing a point where additional loads will adversely affect: its ecology,
and its economic and recreational value. Lackey, in a communication to
- 140 -
-------
Foehrenbach, states that the results in the bay will be catastrophic if
only primary and secondary treatment are given to wastewater prior to
bay discharge. Both of these opinions were concerned with conditions at
Great South Bay.
As has been shown, present conditions in the bays reflect man's
activity. Ketchum (1967) indicated that the effects of local pollution
within the estuary are diverse and generally deleterious in the case
of excess pollution. The algal populations undergo changes in numbers
and kinds. Diatoms are often used as biological indicators of pollution.
Patrick (1967) indicates that diatoms in an eutrophic environment (with
a balance of nutrients present in good concentration) will have a high
biomass that is relatively evenly represented by several species. Under
dystrophic or polluted conditions (with an imbalance of nutrients pre-
sent in high concentrations), the biomass will be large, but one or two
species will be dominant. Such is the case with the Nannochloris epi-
demics in the areas of the oyster beds.
Odum (1961) has indicated that large amounts of organic matter in
natural water produce a new ecosystem. Holm-Hansen (1969) stresses the
significance of the fact that algae run the gamut, from a nutritional
point of view, from holozoic micro-organisms to heterotrophic, to facul-
tative heterotrophic, autotrophic or obligate photoautotrophic organisms;
and that sewage treatment plant discharges can favor heterotrophic organisms.
Scher (1969) states that external carbon compounds exert control over the
rates of biochemical synthesis through repression of enzyme formation or
through feedback inhibition of enzyme function. The ability to utilize
- 141 -
-------
available carbon compounds to regulate cell metabolism may provide a
selective advantage for heterotrophs over strict autotrophic strains.
Blue-green algae, the dominant algal form of tidal mud flats, are
capable of converting nitrogen gas from the atmosphere to nitrate and
other cellular forms of nitrogen. (Shapiro and Ribeiro, 1965). Even
if the nitrogen and phosphorus are removed from the effluents entering
the bays, the remaining trace nutrients and organics may promote addi-
tional growths of micro-organisms.
In general, these last few paragraphs support the statement of
Ketchum (1967) that the "...entire ecological cycle drastically changes.
The 'weed' species which grow so prolifically in this estuary are not
themselves good food for many of the normal populations but their growth
excludes the normal phytoplankton species." These growths lead to unde-
sirable conditions, such as higher temperatures due to light absorption
and lower dissolved oxygen due to decomposing organic matter. They also
produce unsightly and odiferous conditions. They exclude the desired
fish species and zooplankton by making conditions unfavorable for growth.
Ultimately, they turn the bay into an anaerobic ooze of no benefit to
fish, fowl or man. The bays are already severely eutrophicated in many
areas; additional inputs of biostimulatory material will turn them
dystrophic. This is the major difficulty in pouring additional waste-
water into the bays.
- 142 -
-------
Ground-Water Recharge
Ultimate disposal of treated wastewater effluents may be accomplished
hy artificial recharge of ground water. Artificial recharge wilJ be con-
sidered "...as augmenting the natural replenishment of ground water
storage by some method of construction, spreading of water, or by arti-
ficially changing conditions." (Todd, 1964). On Long Island, recharge
could be used to achieve protection or conservation of existing aquifers.
In order to protect the existing aquifers, a system of recharge could
be developed along the shores to prevent further salt water intrusion.
In order to conserve existing aquifers, a system of recharge could be
developed along the Ronkonkoma moraine (Upson, 1955) or some other
easily recharged area. In time, this latter method would also prevent
salt water intrusion.
Recharge could be accomplished by water spreading or by injection.
Water spreading is the more widely practiced and "...involves the release
of water over the ground surface, thereby increasing the wetted area over
which infiltration into the ground can occur." (Todd, 1964). There are
four types of water spreading - basin, modified streambed, ditch or furrow,
and flooding. A short description, an evaluation and comments regarding
actual installations of each of these types and their appropriateness for
use on Long Island follow.
Basin
In the basin method, a common means of recharge, the water for recharge
is contained in basins formed by dikes or levees. These are generally
constructed to take maximum advantage of local topography.
- 143 -
-------
The advantages of the basin method are: (1) the efficient use of
space, (2) the adaptability to irregular terrain, (3) the ease of con-
struction and maintenance, (4) the financial practicality in areas of
high infiltration rates, and (5) the general feasibility.
The disadvantages are: (1) the need for the effluent to be silt
free because silt clogs the surface causing a decrease in infiltration,
(2) the decrease in the rate of infiltration over a period of time, gen-
erally due to microbial growth clogging pores (see figure below), and
(3) the high cost of land in the metropolitan area.
SOIL DEPLETED
OF AIR
MICROBIAL
CLOGGING
CLAY FRACTION
EXPANDS
40
TIME, DAYS
TYPICAL RECHARGE RATE VARIATION WITH TIME FOR WATER SPREADING ON UNDISTURBED SOIL
(Todd, 1959 and 1964)
The parameters affecting the infiltration rate are: the depth of the
water table, the standing head of water above the surface, the type of
surface treatment, the time in spreading cycle, the quality of the water
being applied and the nature of the material below the basin.
- 144 -
-------
As of 1968, there were more than 2000 recharge basins on Long Island.
Practically all of the basins are unlined excavations in upper glacial
deposits, ranging from 10 to 20 feet in depth and 1 to 30 acres in area.
These basins dispose of direct runoff from urban areas in an efficient
and economical manner. Recharge basins are generally used only where
the water table is deep enough to remain below the floors of the basins
most of the time.
'tost of the water entering these recharge basins infiltrates the
ground fairly rapidly. (Cohen et al., 1968, N.Y. Bulletin 62). Seaburn
(1970) indicates that the average infiltration rate in a basin built in
a coarse gravel was three feet per hour. Infiltration rates as great
as this may be possible in the morainal areas, but they would be consider-
ably lower in other areas. According to a classification of soils by
hydrologic soil groups (Ogrosky and Mockus, 1964), most of the Long Island
soils fall into Category B. This category includes sandy loams. The mini-
mum infiltration rate for this category is between 4 and 8 inches per day.
(Musgrove and Holton, 1964).
Using the computation equations developed by Louis Koenig Research
(1964), the cost per million gallons at infiltration rates of .7 and
75 feet per day and land values of $50,000 and $100,000 per acre appears
in Table 27. These values are exclusive of the transportation rate.
Recharge basins are used extensively throughout Europe and the United
States. In most cases, stormwater overflow or diverted river water is
used as the water source. The objective of these recharge projects is
to insure or to protect a source of water. (Barksdale and Debuchananne,
- 145 -
-------
TABLE 27
COMPUTED SPREADING AND INVESTMENT COSTS FOR
BASIN RECHARGE OF 1 MGD
Land Cost
$/acre
50,000
100,000
Infiltra-
tion Rate
feet/day
.7
75
.7
75
Spreading Costs
$/l MGD
Fixed
Land
72
.67
140
1.3
Fixed Con-
struction
.26
.078
.26
.78
Mainten-
ance
.22
.021
.22
.021
Unit Investment
$/l MGD
Land
440,000
4,000
880,000
8,000
Construc-
tion
1,500
440
1,500
440
Pond
Bottom Area
Acres
66
.06
66
.06
Using the equations of Louis Koenig Research (1964).
1946: Muckel, 1959; and Baffa and Bartilucci, 1967). In most instances,
the use of treated wastewater has been confined to creating barriers to
salt water intrusion. Treated wastewaters have not generally been used
to recharge aquifers from which water supplies are drawn, in spite of
the generally accepted idea that soils further purify the effluent. A
discussion of the problems associated with the use of treated wastewater
and a discussion of the effect of the use of treated wastewater on ground-
water quality follow this section on methods.
Modified Streambed
The modified streambed method extends the time and area over which
water is recharged from a naturally influent channel. The advantages
of this method are: (1) that it makes use of the absorptive capacity
- 146 -
-------
of the natural channel, and (2) that low dams can be placed to improve
infiltration. The disadvantages of this method are: (1) that periodic
silt removal from upper layers of the stream is required, and (2) that
periodic scouring to prevent clogging is required. (Todd, 1959; Todd,
1964).
In 1964, the city of Tucson, Arizona was forced to divert its sewage
effluent to the Santa Cruz River. The Santa Cruz River is an ephemeral
stream. In a 6.3 mile reach, two-thirds of the total flow infiltrated
at a rate of about 6 acre-feet per mile. (Matlock, 1966; Matlock, 1971).
On Long Island, the streams are generally fed by ground water. If
effluent was added at the heads of streams, the upper reaches would re-
main flowing the entire year and a certain amount of recharge would
occur. Downstream, where the stream passes through the existing ground-
water table, the flow of ground water into the stream would be lessened.
Ditch or Furrow
The ditch or furrow method consists of a series of shallow, flat-
bottomed and closely spaced ditches into which the water for recharge
is channeled. The advantage of this method is that it can be used on
irregular terrain. The disadvantages are: (1) the need for periodic
reditching to maintain the flat bottom necessary for optimum infiltra-
tion and (2) the poor use made of available land.
Schraufnagel (1962) reported year-round operations in a number of
northern states. The City of Westby, Wisconsin had been operating a
ridge and furrow system for six years as of 1964. This was done in
- 147 -
-------
order to prevent further degradation of the stream into which the city
had been discharging its effluent. Reed canary grass was maintained
on the ridges and was not cut. Loadings were approximately 1 gpd per
square foot. During these years of operation, it was observed that
the system could be operated at a satisfactory level year-round in
northern altitudes. (Bendixen et al., 1968). Work at Newark, Delaware
by Boggess and Rima (1962) indicated that a deep ditch, almost a pit,
could be effectively used to increase infiltration into the aquifer
when storm water overflow was used.
Flooding
The flooding method involves the diversion of water to form a thin
sheet which flows over relatively flat land. This method has the advan-
tage of requiring little land preparation. It has the disadvantages of:
(1) requiring uniform and continuous flow over the entire area and
(2) requiring more attention than other methods in terms of man-hours.
(Todd, 1959; Todd, 1964).
Flood or spray irrigation has traditionally been associated with
seasonal wastes generated by food processing organizations. More re-
cently, effluents from sewage treatment plants have been flooded to
recharge the aquifer or to prevent further degradation of the receiv-
ing body.
Since 1950, Seabrook Farms Company of Bridgeton, New Jersey has been
disposing of one billion gallons of wastewater from vegetable processing
units during the spreading season, April to mid-December. Following
- 148 -
-------
screening and chlorination, the effluent is carried 1.7 miles by canal
to the spreading area, a 260-acre woodland tract. The effluent is dis-
tributed by large rotating irrigation sprinklers which distribute about
one inch per hour or 22,000 gallons per hour per acre during times of
maximum use. The average annual rate of irrigation is 10 feet per year
over the entire tract. In reality, some areas receive more than 83 feet
per year while others receive none.
The natural features of the spreading area are largely responsible
for the success of Seabrook's operation. Land slopes are gentle so that
runoff is decreased. There are steep ground-water gradients. The spread-
ing area is underlain by large beds of unconsolidated sand and lenses
of clays and gravels. The forest floor resembles a moor with a high de-
gree of permeability. The underlying soils are likewise permeable.
The original plants of the spreading area consisted of a mixed oak
assemblage and a ground cover of mountain laurel, low bush blueberry,
black huckleberry, dogwood and holly. Over seven years of spreading,
the ground cover community shifted from woody understory species to per-
ennial and annual herbaceous species. These are commonly referred to
as weeds, such as smart weed, poke weed, climbing hemp weed and lambs-
quarters. There was also extensive tree-kill as a result of root drown-
ing by water perched on near-surface clay lenses. In other instances,
tree-kill was related to crown and bark damage resulting from the physi-
cal impact of the spray. Subsequent changes in the flora have been minor,
There has been no need for soil management since the start of the
operation. The organic matter in the effluent does not clog the soil.
- 149 -
-------
The soil structure in the area has gradually changed, but the change
favors infiltration. Organic matter, calcium, magnesium, phosphorus,
potassium and soluble nitrogen concentrations in the soil have increased
while soil acidity has decreased. (Barksdale and Remson, no date;
Little et al., 1959; and Remson and Fox, 1959).
The Campbell Soup Company at Paris, Texas uses a spray runoff system
for cannery wastes. In this method, a spray field is set up on a slightly
sloped piece of land sown to grasses. Terraces are set at Intervals to
catch the sprayed waste after it has run over the grass on Chat terrace.
The renovated wastes may then be directed to another terrace or to a
stream. This particular operation is geared toward using spray-runoff
as a treatment method, as well as an ultimate disposal method. (Law et al.,
1969). The grass is a supportive media for a biological slime, which is
analogous to the trickling filter slime that acts to purify wastewater.
Soluble nutrients penetrate the root zone and are readily taken up by the
grass crop. In this instance, the grass was periodically harvested to
provide ultimate disposal. A large portion of the moisture evaporates or
is transpired by the grass and is thereby ultimately removed. The remain-
ing renovated water either enters the stream at the base of the slope or
penetrates the soil and enters into the appropriate role in the water
system. Ground-water recharge can be obtained by this method if the soil
and subsurface conditions are amenable to recharge.
More recently, Muskegon County, Michigan and Pennsylvania State
University at State College, Pennsylvania have been working with do-
mestic wastewater-irrigation systems. Muskegon County, Michigan has
- 150 -
-------
recently completed an engineering feasibility study on wastewater ef-
fluent disposal by land irrigation. (Muskegon County Board, 1970).
"The discharge from the drainage network of the irrigation field can
be used as a new water supply for the County, to recharge aquifers, to
expand their sustained yields or to augment flow in surface streams."
(Office of Water Programs, Region V, 1971). The Muskegon River and
Black Creek are to receive the excess water from the irrigation field.
Pennsylvania State University, finding its water supply dwindling,
undertook the project of determining: (1) the year-round feasibility
of sewage treatment plant effluent disposal on land, (2) the possibility
of ground-water recharge, (3) the effect of effluent on the environment,
and (4) the degree of renovation of effluent by the soil. Since the
Pennsylvania study was on a year-round basis, problems arose with freez-
ing of sprinkler nozzles. At the time of the report (Parizek et al.,
1967), the problem had not been resolved. In general 60-80% of the ef-
fluent applied to the research area found its way into the ground-water
reservoir. "Water quality measurements in deep wells showed that quality
in wells at the irrigated site was as good or better than in off-site
wells." (Parizek et al., 1967). This apparent benefit may be due more
to improper well construction off-site than to the land treatment on-site.
(See section on land treatment, p. 213 for greater detail).
The preceding discussion shows that, when conditions are optimal,
water spreading is an attractive method of ground-water recharge.
Todd (1964) indicates that in California the optimum land use is gained
with the basin method of recharge followed by modified stream bed and
- 151 -
-------
ditch-furrow. The rates obtained at the Seabrook Farms Company's site
were more favorable, but the conditions existing in this area were ideal
for spray irrigation.
Table 28, which is taken from Bendixen et al., (1968), gives the
removal efficiencies for the ditch or furrow method and the flooding
methods. Two types of flooding, spray and flood irrigation, are in-
cluded.
TABLE 28
PERFORMANCE OF FURROW, SPRAY IRRIGATION AND FLOOD
IRRIGATION LYSIIIETERS FOR LONG-TERM OPERATION
Char ac ter is t ic
COD
ABS
N03-N
N02-N
Organic N
NH3-N
Total N
PERCENT REMOVAL
Furrow
82
69
*
*
79
78
14
Spray Irrigation
80
60
*
A
81
78
30
Flood Irrigation
79
65
*
*
75
79
17
*There was a net increase of these materials,
(Data from Bendixen et al., 1968).
- 152 -
-------
The results indicate that all three methods produce a comparable pro-
duct effluent. Note the absence of nitrate determinations. (See section
on land treatment, p. 213). The value of this data is in determining the
amount of land required for each method.
Recharge can also be accomplished by injection wells. Injection
wells should only be used where aquacludes prevent percolation from the
surface to a suitable aquifer. (McKee, 1971). The advantages of injec-
tion wells are that they: (1) require minimal surface area, (2) require
minimal grading and earth moving, (3) produce no odors, (4) require no
obtrusive above-ground structures, and (5) recharge aquifers covered by
aquacludes. The disadvantage of injection wells is that they require
extensive pre-treatment of water to prevent rapid clogging of the wells.
They require: (1) the removal of organic matter, suspended solids and
ions which could precipitate in the ground water, (2) chlorination to
prevent buildup of biological slime in the area of the well head, (3) the
absence of oxygen to prevent oxidation of materials, and (4) periodic
cleaning and redevelopment. (McKee, 1971).
There are more than 1000 wells on Long Island which are used to re-
turn cooling waters to the aquifers from which they were drawn. Even
when used with these relatively clean waters, the wells require periodic
maintenance. (Cohen et al., 1968).
Hyperion and the University of California pioneered the use of the
injection well for recharge of aquifers with wastewater effluent. In
aquifers of coarse sand and scattered gravel, with effluents receiving
tertiary treatment, redevelopment of the wells was required twice a year.
- 153 -
-------
(Laverty et al., 1961; Krone et al., 1957; and Barp,man et al . , 1962).
Such redevelopment was necessary because of clogging in the area of the
well screen interface. Clogging may be caused by: (a) suspended solids,
(b) chemical precipation, and (c) bacterial slime. Organic material may
serve as a food source for micro-organisms which build up a slime; oxygen
and carbon dioxide can aggravate corrosion and the development of corro-
sion products. (Louis Koenig Research, 1964). Tofflemire aind Brezner
(1971) state, "The cost of reworking a well several times can equal the
initial construction cost and could increase significantly the total cost
of this method of disposal."
The engineering feasibility of the water spreading methods on Long
Island does not appear to be in question. However, the feasibility of
the injection well method is questionable at present.
Two problems associated with the recharge of a water supply aquifer
with reclaimed wastewater must be considered. The first des.ls with public
acceptance of treatment facilities. The experiences of Nassau County
officials have shown that residents become extremely vociferous when the
proposed projects are sited near their homes. Such was the case in the
siting of the Wantagh sewage treatment plant. The plant, x^hich resembles
a college campus, is surrounded by a recreation park. This park acts as
a buffer between the plant and the homes in the area. Furthermore, all
odor-producing processes in the plant take place underground. The odors
are eliminated by ozonation. Still, area residents were strongly opposed
to the plant.
-------
Mr. Eugene Nickerson, Nassau County Executive (in a letter to the
Regional Director of the FWPCA, Mr. Lester M. Klashman, 1968) indicated
that sludge disposal at Wantagh, and the public nuisance associated with
it, could cause a major problem in Nassau County. This example illus-
trates the need for a public education program on the subject of waste-
water treatment. The individual must be made aware of the wastewater
treatment problem and his role in satisfactorily resolving it.
The second problem is the effect of recharged water on the quality
of water supply sources. The purification capacity of soils has been
utilized extensively by man, yet its actual capacity for purification
is not predictable at this time. In many cases, researchers have over-
rated the purifying capacity of the soil. Purification in the soil is
accomplished by filtration, sorption, ion exchange, dilution and disper-
sion, as well as by chemical and biological oxidation. Unfortunately,
in areas conducive to water spreading, the organic matter - clay fraction
is low and little sorption or ion exchange occurs. (Deutsch, 1965).
Generally, the public health aspects of wastewater reclamation via
spreading which cause concern are:
1. The chemical quality of the reclaimed water and the resultant
water quality of the water supply after having been mixed
with treated sewage effluent.
2. The bacteriological quality of the reclaimed water and the
effects of ground-water travel on bacteriological quality.
3. The virus content of the reclaimed water and the effects of
ground-water travel on virus content. (Baffa, 1965; and
Gauhey, 1968).
- 155 -
-------
4. The attitudes of Public Health agencies having jurisdic-
tion. (Baffa, 1965).
With minor exceptions, the chemical quality of the reclaimed water
can meet USPHS standards for drinking water supply. (Parkhurst, no date).
However, care must be taken to insure that, in addition to toxic elements
and compounds containing toxic elements, the detergent and pesticide levels
are acceptable. In New York, reclaimed water must also meet the criteria
for discharge into ground water under classes and standards for ground
water, as shown in Appendix F.
The bacteriological standards for drinking water, as required by the
USPHS, must be met. These values appear in Appendix A. Almost all inves-
tigators determined that within 100 feet of the recharge site, coliform
counts were reduced to 10/100 ml. No coliforms appeared at: a distance
greater than 100 feet. However, at Hyperion and Riverside the distance
of travel needed to reduce the coliform count to acceptable levels ranged
between 10 and 800 feet. (Roebeck, 1969).
With respect to virus, the USPHS Standards state:
"Enteric viruses (infectious hepatitis, poliomyelitis,
Coxsackie and ECHO) should be considered as waterborne
infectious agents. Kelly and Sanderson showed in 1958
that inactivation of enteric viruses (Polio virus I:
MK500 and Mahoney and Coxsackie B5) in water at pH 7
and 25 C requires a minimum free residual chlorine of
0.3 mg/1 for at least 30 minutes. At higher pH levels
or lower temperatures either more chlorine or longer
contact time is required. The same authors (1960)
showed that for the same viruses in water at 25 C and
a pH of 7, a concentration of at least 9 mg/1 combined
residual chlorine is necessary to inactivate with a
contact period of 30 minutes, of 6 mg/1 with a 1 hour
contact time; 0.5 mg/1 with a contact period of more
than 7 hours.
- 156 -
-------
"... Because nearly all feces contain coliform organisms
and only a relatively small portion (2 to 20 percent)
contribute pathogenic virus domestic sewage normally
contains approximately 10,000 times as many coliforms
as virus. Virus populations in sewage and polluted
waters are subject to die-aways due to aging, adsorp-
tion and sedimentation, dilution and various undeter-
mined causes. It is likely, therefore, that the virus
content of polluted surface waters, wells, etc., is
quite low when judged on the basis of the coliform virus
ratio....
"Virology techniques have not yet been developed to a
point where virus enumerations can be recommended as a
routine procedure in microbiological examination of
drinking water."
Clarke et al., (1962) have computed the enteric virus density in
feces at 200 virus units per gram and the ratio of virus density to
coliform density at 1 to 65,000. Kelly and Sanderson's (1960) data
estimate the maximum virus density in raw sewage to be 5 virus units
per 100 ml in cold weather and 100 virus units per 100 ml in the warmer
months. The length of virus survival depends upon the media and the
temperature. However, "Data would seem to indicate that virus survi-
val in general is longer in treated or clean water or in grossly pol-
luted water than in moderately polluted water." (Clarke et al., 1962).
Activated sludge, chemical treatment and disinfection are shown to
remove 90-99% of the virus present. (Clarke et al., 1961; Clarke et al.,
1962; Kelly et al., 1961; Kelly and Sanderson, 1958 and 1960). Chemical
flocculation accomplishes 95-99% removal. (Clarke et al., 1962; Clarke
and Charge, 1959). Slow sand filtration (1 mgd/a) produces substantially
complete removal. (Roebeck et al., 1962). Research in California appears
to support the opinion that virus organisms entering the aquifer are un-
- 157 -
-------
likely. At the Hyperion recharge wells, no viruses were detected in the
observation wells 20, 50 and 70 feet from the injection well. (Bergman
et al., 1962).
Nitrogen levels, more specifically nitrate nitrogen, are of concern
in the recharge of aquifers used for water supply. Nitrate levels in
Long Island's water supplies have been increasing to levels which exceed
those approved by the USPHS for drinking water (45 ppm nitrate). Any
method of recharge should either remove nitrogen or employ prior removal.
This should be done to prevent nitrification in the zone of aeration,
which would increase the nitrate level in the aquifer. Dilution with
already existing ground water should not be counted upon to obtain accept-
able nitrate levels.
Direct Reuse
In the future, direct domestic reuse of properly treated (domestic)
wastewater will be practiced in the United States. Direct domestic reuse
is practiced today at Windhoek, Southwest Africa. (Nupen, 1970). With
more stringent requirements for pollution control, advanced wastewater
treatment effluents "...literally become too good to throvr away.
...Technology is now available to assure that reuse for any purpose can
be accomplished." (Middleton, 1971).
At this time, the American Water Works Association (See Appendix B)
recommends against direct reuse because of uncertainty about the possible
long-term adverse effects. The Association calls for research in this
regard and recommends a natural separation in time and space between
- 158 -
-------
the wastewater treatment plant outfall and the wastewater treatment
plant.
Eventual domestic reuse of treated wastewater on Long Island appears
to be inevitable. Direct reuse is not recommended at this time. However,
with adequate treatment, indirect reuse via recharge to the water supply
aquifer may be possible.
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
The method of disposing of the treated wastewater dictates the treat-
ment alternatives available. Table 26 lists available discharge alterna-
tives, their hydrologic effect on the aquifer and the treatment required
for effective implementation. In some methods, the indicated removals are
to prevent contravention of water quality standards. In other methods,
the removals are needed to make the disposal method effective.
Nitrogen Removal
With the exception of ocean disposal, most of the discharge alter-
natives under consideration require nitrogen removal. Many discussions
of nitrogen removal processes can be found in technical literature.
However, most of these processes fall short of successfully solving the
nitrogen disposal problem. A distinction must be made between (a) those
processes that separate nitrogen from a given waste stream to purify
the effluent, but simultaneously create a new waste source containing
nitrogen or release the nitrogen in a form detrimental to the environment,
and (b) those processes that remove nitrogen from the waste stream and
- 159 -
-------
release it in a form which is not detrimental to the environment. Fail-
ure to effectively dispose of nitrogen immediately brings the practical-
ity of the former processes into serious question.
Methods for the removal of nitrogen from wastewater are outlined in
Table 29. The outline is divided into two parts. The first part lists
those methods which either concentrate nitrogen in the wastewater to a
solid or liquid waste (which still requires ultimate disposal) or release
nitrogen in a deleterious form to the environment. The second part
lists those methods that result in nitrogen removal and innocuous re-
lease to the environment. Subsequently, each of the methods listed
is briefly discussed.*
Nitrogen Removal Processes That Concentrate Nitrogen in a Solid or Liquid
Waste or Release Nitrogen in a Deleterious Form to the Environment
Biological
The biological methods for nitrogen separation by incorporation into
cell protein cannot assure sufficient nitrogen separation from a waste-
water such that the product water would be suitable for domestic reuse.
Domestic sewage contains about 20-40 mg/1 of total nitrogen. Ninety
percent of this nitrogen is or can easily be converted to ammonia.
(Eliassen and Tchobanoglous, 1969). While there is no drinking water
standard for ammonia, ammonia increases disinfection costs and can be
biologically converted to nitrate. The USPHS drinking water standard
for nitrate nitrogen is 10 mg/1.
*A discussion of nitrogen, its forms and impact on the environment is
contained in the Appendices.
- 160 -
-------
TABLE 29
NITROGEN REMOVAL PROCESSES
A. Methods which concentrate nitrogen in a solid or liquid waste or
release nitrogen in a deleterious form to the environment.
1. Biological - nitrogen is incorporated into cell protein
a. Conventional biological treatment
b. Algae harvesting
c. Irrigation of plant communities
2. Physical-Chemical
a. Ammonia stripping
b. Ion exchange
c. Electrodialysis
d. Reverse osmosis
e. Pervaporation by hollow fibers
3. Physical
a. Distillation
B. Methods that release nitrogen in a non-deleterious form to the
environment.
1. Chemical
a. Nitrate reduction by ferrous sulfate
b. Chlorination of ammonia
2. Biological
a. Denitrification
-------
Conventional biological treatment is capable of about 30-50% nitro-
gen separation from a wastewater. (Eliassen and Tchobanoglous, 1969).
In many areas, this would be insufficient to permit the effluent's use
for ground-water recharge. Moreover, where anaerobic digestion of solids
with digester supernatant recycling is utilized (a common practice), the
separated nitrogen is solublized and reintroduced to the plant, chiefly
as ammonia. The result is only a temporary holding of the nitrogen be-
fore its ultimate release in the effluent.
Algae can separate from 40 to 90% of the nitrogen in wastewater
(Eliassen and Tchobanoglous, 1969), but efficiency of removal is sub-
ject to wide fluctuations due to diurnal and seasonal variations in
light intensity and temperature. Algae produce substances which can
be toxic to man and have been implicated in outbreaks of gastroenteritis.
They can serve as a substrate for Pseudomonas, a bacterial pathogen
capable of causing ear and urinary infections in man. Algae are notor-
ious for imparting tastes and odors to potable water supplies. (Wolf,
1971). The use of algae to remove nitrogen from wastewater would re-
quire large land areas for the shallow ponds that are used and an
extensive algae removal facility. Finally, the nitrogenous algal waste
would still require disposal.
The irrigation of plant communities with wastewater, after various
degrees of treatment, has been investigated as a means of water pollution
control (Law et al., 1969; Foster et al., 1965; and Little et al., 1959),
and as a potential means of wastewater renovation and water conservation.
(Parizek et al., 1967). Ammonia separation from water by soil is accom-
- 161 -
-------
plished principally by the adsorption of the ammonium ion on clay parti-
cles. The nitrate ion, however, is poorly held by soil and is vulnerable
to leaching. (Eliassen and Tchobanoglous, 1969). Thus, nitrate that is
applied to soil and ammonia that is biologically oxidized to nitrate are
potential sources of ground-water pollution.
Foster et al., (1965) found that the application of secondary ef-
fluent to a hillside which was sparsely populated with pine resulted in
nitrification of the effluent and a nitrogen disappearance of 54-68%
under favorable loading conditions. However, both processes were atten-
uated during winter operation. Nitrogen removal was attributed to bio-
logical denitrification. Small amounts of nitrate were found in the
soil at all depths sampled (up to 24 inches). Law et al., (1969) and
Little et al., (1959) investigated irrigation with untreated cannery
waste and vegetable washings, respectively. The nitrogen content of
these wastes was almost exclusively in the form of organic nitrogen.
Both studies reported that below 12 inches of soil there was little
or no increase of nitrate nitrogen above control levels. Little et al.,
(1959) made no attempt to evaluate nitrogen removal; Law et al., (1969)
reported 86-93% nitrogen removal. The reported reduction of nitrogen
was attributed to biological denitrification.
Parizek et al., (1967) studied the application of a 2-stage second-
ary treated domestic waste effluent to woodland and agricultural crop
communities. The study reported reductions in the upper 12 inches of
soil to be 68-82% of influent nitrate and 75-86% of influent organic
nitrogen plus ammonia nitrogen. After one year of operation, however,
- 162 -
-------
there was a significant increase in the nitrate nitrogen concentration
of the percolates below the upper foot of soil. These concentrations
ranged from 0.9-1.6 mg/1 in 1963, but had increased to 5.3 to 13.1 mg/1
in 1964. Furthermore, the values reported described results for the
woodland irrigation study; no nitrogen concentration values for perco-
late beneath the agronomic area were reported. (See section on land
treatment, p. 213).
In summary, nitrogen removal resulting from the irrigation of plant
communities is attributable to assimilation by plant cover and to spon-
taneous biological denitrification in the soil. Seasonal variations in
removal efficiencies can be expected, with lower removals during months
when cold temperatures are encountered. Theoretically, it should be
possible to remove nitrogen from an irrigant by balancing nitrogen ap-
plication with the nitrogen assimilative capacity of a cover community.
(L.T. Kardos, oral communication, 1971). However, it would seem desir-
able to have more positive control over the selected process in order
to insure protection of ground-water supplies from nitrogen contamination,
especially when influent nitrogen concentrations are more than twice the
maximum permitted by the USPHS standards for potable water.
Physical-Chemical
All of the physical-chemical processes, except ammonia stripping,
create a new nitrogenous waste which requires disposal. Ammonia strip-
ping releases ammonia gas (NH^) to the atmosphere.
- 163 -
-------
Ammonia stripping is a process whereby the pll of an ammonia-contain-
ing waste is raised and the waste is contacted by volumes of air that
strip out the volatile NH_. One difficulty with this process is that
the NH3 released to the atmosphere eventually returns to the earth's
surface where it enters the soil or surface water, thereby circumventing
the treatment process. (R.B. Dean, 1970a).
In this process, only NH-j is separated: hence, a maximum of only
90 percent of the total influent nitrogen in the sewage can be removed.
In practice, NH, separations of more than 90% have been difficult to
achieve. Large volumes of air (300-500 cubic ft./gallon) are required.
As the air temperature drops, ammonia becomes more soluble and even
greater quantities of air are required to maintain separation efficiency.
The formation of CaCO^ scale in the stripping tower has been a problem
at pilot facilities in Washington, D.C. (Blue Plains), New England and
at Lake Tahoe. Finally, when freezing air temperatures are encountered,
the tower becomes inoperable. (J.B. Farrell, 1970).
It is unknown whether any attempts have been made to trap ammonia in
the stripping air by passage through an acid bath. It was not attempted
at Lake Tahoe or at Blue Plains. Theoretically feasible, it was considered
at Blue Plains, but was not attempted. Additional power would be required
to force the stripping air through an acid scrubber. Regardless of the
increased power requirement, ammonia stripping's temperature and scale
formation limitations were considered overriding shortcomings. (0*Farrell,
oral communication, 1972).
- 164 -
-------
The practicality of nitrate nitrogen separation by ion exchange
awaits: (1) the development of resins that can be effectively regener-
ated and that are selective for nitrate over other anions, and (2) the
development of suitable methods to treat nitrate laden regenerants.
(R.A. Dobbs, 1970). However, the separation of ammonia nitrogen by
selective ion exchange has been shown to be feasible. (R.B. Dean, 1970a
and Cassel et al., 1971). Certain zeolites, including the mineral clin-
optilolite, have shown high selectivity for the ammonium ion in natural
wastewaters. The exchange medium is regenerated with lime water contain-
ing sodium chloride.
The process has two major disadvantages. The first drawback is its
expense. At IOC/1000 gal. (R.B. Dean, 1970b), it would double the cost
of secondary treatment, assuming the cost given by R. Smith (1968) at
7.5C/1000 gal. for primary and activated sludge treatment and 8.15C/1000 gal
for primary and trickling filtration (total cost for 100 mgd capacity).
The second drawback is the disposal of the ammonia laden brine. Research
is continuing in an effort to find alternative disposal methods for the
waste.
Deionizing processes, such as electrodialysis and reverse osmosis,
do not selectively separate nitrogen from a waste stream. Instead,
they separate nitrogen along with other ions from a wastewater. These
processes have the advantage of reducing the total dissolved solids, a
beneficial feature where domestic reuse is anticipated. However, there
are many disadvantages. Both processes encounter difficulties with mem-
brane fouling caused by colloidal organic matter. This necessitates
- 165 -
-------
elaborate pretreatment, including sand filtration and activated carbon
adsorption when wastewater is treated. Electrodialysis can be compli-
cated by chemical precipitation at the membrane surface. Nitrate has
been shown to be capable of passing through reverse osmosis membranes.
The processes would cost 2 to 5 times more than secondary treatment.
Finally both processes merely separate nitrogen, thus necessitating
further treatment and disposal of the concentrated nitrogenous waste
produced. (Eliassen and Tchobanoglous, 1969).
Pervaporation, a recent concept for wastewater purification, re-
sembles reverse osmosis in that both employ semipermeable membranes
and pressure to effect contaminant removal. Pervaporation differs in
that the contaminant rather than the purified waste stream permeates
the membrane. Cole and Genetelli (1970) reported that ammonia separa-
tion by permeation through hollow fiber membranes is feasible. Cole
conducted fundamental research using 25-55u inside diameter fibers to
test ammonia separation from a distilled water - reagent grade chemical
waste stream. It would seem that extensive pretreatment of wastewater
would be necessary to avoid membrane clogging. After further research,
the process may merit consideration.
Physical
The estimated cost of distillation is A to 10 times that of secondary
treatment. (Eliassen and Tchobanoglous, 1969). The distillate will con-
tain ammonia unless the pH of the pot is kept below 3. In this case,
- 166 -
-------
nitrate as HN03 will be selectively distilled. (O'Conner et al., 1967).
Once again, any nitrogen separated will still require disposal.
Nitrogen Removal Processes that Release Nitrogen
in a Non-Deleterious Form to the Environment
Unlike the processes previously discussed, the following are capable
of ultimate nitrogen removal from wastewater. That is, they convert
the nitrogen to nitrogen gas (N2), a form which can be discharged into
the atmosphere without detriment to the environment.
Chemical
Nitrate reduction to N2 has been shown to be feasible, but wide ap-
plication is doubtful. (R.B. Dean, 1970b). Laboratory research has
indicated (Gunderloy et al., 1968) that dilute solutions of nitrate can
be reduced to nitrogen gas by ferrous sulfate in the presence of a
catalyst. However, the process introduced undesirable sulfate into the
product water, produced a voluminous sludge that was difficult to handle
and was only 50% effective. Roughly 50% of the nitrate was reduced to
nitrogen gas, but another 34-46% of the nitrate was converted to ammonia.
Ammonia can be oxidized to nitrogen gas by chlorine gas or by sodium
or calcium hypochlorite. (R.B. Dean, 1970b; Pressley et al., 1970; and
Cassel et al., 1971). The chlorine must be supplied until the ammonia
nitrogen concentration is reduced to zero and free available chlorine can
be detected. The point at which this occurs is defined as the "breakpoint".
The theoretical breakpoint chlorination equation is:
(1) 3 C12 + 2 NH3 > N2 + 6 HC1.
- 167 -
-------
The oxidation proceeds stepwise according to the following reactions:
(2) C12 4- H20- > HOC1 + HC1
(3) NH* + HOC1 » NH2C1 + H^ 4- H+
(4) 2NH Cl 4- HOC1 >N 4- HC1 4- HO.
However, undesirable side reactions may occur such as NCI formation by:
(5) NH2C1 + HOC1 » NHC12 4- H,,0
(6) NHC12 + HOC1 > NC13 4- H20
and NO production by:
(7) NH* 4- 4 C12 4- 4 H20-—> HN03 4- H20 4- 8 HC1 4- H*.
In a laboratory study, Pressley et al., (1970) found that NC13 for-
mation was favored when chlorine was in excess and at lower pH's. More
NO-j was produced as the pH increased. Chlorine dosage was minimized be-
tween pH 6.0 and 7.0. The total chlorine dosage required for breakpoint
of wastewater varied with the extent of pretreatment, decreasing as pre-
treatment increased. A chlorine dosage equivalent to a chlorine to nitro-
gen weight ratio of 10:1 was required to reach the breakpoint in raw
wastewater; a 9:1 ratio was necessary for secondary effluent; and lime
clarified and filtered secondary effluent required only an 8:1 ratio.
Successful operation depended upon proper control of mixing, pH and chlor-
ine dose rate. A 95-99% conversion of ammonia to nitrogen gas was attained.
- 168 -
-------
Cassel et al., (1971) examined breakpoint chlorination in a 38,000-
50,400 gal./day pilot study. Using filtered secondary effluent containing
from 12.9-21.0 mg/1 ammonia as feed, they repeatedly produced effluents
containing less than .1 mg/1 ammonia. However, only about 95% of the
ammonia was converted to nitrogen gas. The Cl:N weight ratio was between
8:1 and 9:1.
Breakpoint chlorination may be capable of reducing total nitrogen by
roughly 85%. But, the process does have disadvantages. The great quan-
tities of chlorine required would constitute a serious hazard. For
example, assuming an 8.5:1 Cl:N weight ratio, a 10 Ib. yearly contribu-
tion of ammonia per person (R.B. Dean, 1970b) and a daily per capita
wastewater contribution of 100 gal. (Imhoff and Fair, 1956), a 50 mgd
treatment plant would require roughly 21,250 tons of chlorine yearly.
At $75/ton (Bishop et al., 1971), yearly chlorine cost alone would be
$1.59 million. Also, the use of chlorine gas would produce excess acid,
creating the need for caustic addition to maintain a proper pH. At large
plants, on-site-chlorine generation, which produces NaOH in the process,
might reduce the cost. The use of sodium or calcium hypochlorite would
reduce the safety hazard and eliminate the need for caustic addition.
However, costs would be increased by about 3.5 times. (Jacobson, oral
communication, 1971).
The use of either chlorine or hypochlorite would result in the addi-
tion of 200-300 mg/1 of chloride to the product water, thus prohibiting
domestic reuse. However, the process may have application where discharge
into estuarine receiving waters is possible.
- 169 -
-------
Biological
Certain bacteria, including a number that are associated with waste-
water treatment, can reduce nitrate to nitrogen gas in a process known
as denitrification. In the absence of oxygen, these bacteria use nitrate
as the terminal electron acceptor of their respiratory metabolism. Deni-
trification sometimes occurs during the normal operation of conventional
secondary treatment plants. It is usually the result of anaerobiosis
in the final clarifiers and is manifested as rising nitrogen gas bubbles
in the clarifers. (Smith et al., 1970).
Most of the nitrogen in sewage is present as ammonia. However, for
denitrification, nitrogen must be present as nitrate. Two genera of
aerobic autotrophic bacteria convert ammonia to nitrate in a process
known as nitrification, Nitrqsomonas oxidizes ammonia to nitrite, and
Nitrobacter oxidizes nitrite to nitrate.
For efficient nitrification, a sufficient population of the nitri-
fiers must be maintained, a goal hampered by their slow reproduction
rate. The generation time for the nitrifying bacteria is usually 12 to
24 hours or more. This is quite slow compared with the 20 to 30 minute
generation time required by other bacteria associated with wastewater
treatment. The rate of nitrifier regeneration must be greater than the
rate at which these organisms are removed from the system. Therefore,
sludge retention time becomes an important parameter for achieving con-
sistent nitrification in a wastewater treatment plant. (Smith et al.,
1970).
- 170 -
-------
Consistent nitrification is difficult to accomplish in the presence
of high organic loading. This is so because the sludge wasting necessary
to control the cellular synthesis produced in carbon oxidation may result
in sludge retention times inadequate for nitrifier population maintenance.
This obstacle has been overcome by a method (Barth et al., 1968) that pro-
vides separate unit processes for carbon oxidation, nitrification and
denitrification.
The first stage of this "Three Sludge System" is a roughing stage
where most of the influent carbonaceous material is oxidized. Nitrifica-
tion is accomplished in the second stage. The remaining carbon benefits
nitrifying sludge settleability. Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter are poor
bioflocculators. Therefore, some heterotrophic bacterial synthesis is
required to promote good settling, whereby efficient solids capture is
enhanced. (Stamberg, oral communication, 1971). The presence of ammonia
and long sludge retention times, made possible by sludge recirculation,
favor the development and maintenance of a nitrifier population sufficient
to oxidize influent ammonia to nitrate.
In the third stage, the nitrate is reduced to nitrogen gas. Aeration
is discontinued. Since most of the readily oxidizable material has already
been removed, an additional non-nitrogenous carbon source (such as methanol)
is added to provide energy in the form of an easily oxidizable substrate.
This allows the ultimate reduction of the nitrate ion to efficiently pro-
ceed. A slight carbon source excess with rapid mix is provided.
A flash aeration is applied before termination of the denitrification
stage, just prior to final settling. This enhances settleability by purg-
- 171 -
-------
ing bacterial floe of entrained nitrogen pas, provides an opportunity for
aerobic oxidation of any residual added carbon and replenishes dissolved
oxygen. A final sand filtration is recommended (Barth, 1970) to provide
positive control over effluent solids. The process is believed to be
capable of producing effluents containing less than 2 mg/1 total nitrogen.
(Barth, 1970).
The process has been demonstrated in the laboratory and at pilot
scale with 2 years operating experience in Manassas, Virginia at .2 mgd.
After an 8 month (November through June) study at Manassas to establish
criteria for full scale design, Mulbarger (oral communication, 1971)
reported the following average results. The values given in mg/1 are for
final clarifier effluent and, in parentheses, for the same effluent after
mixed media filtration.
Concentration mg/1 in
Effluent From
BOD
COD ,
Suspended Solids ....
Final
Clarifier
, . . . 1.8
. . . . 0.6
, . . . 5.4
. . . . 21
, . . . 2.0
Mixed Media
Filtration
(1.5)
(0.3)
(0.8)
(16)
(0.0)
*Phosphorus removal was accomplished by alum addition. Increased
dosage would result in greater removals. (Mulbarger, 1971).
- 172 -
-------
Although no full scale plant Is operational, there are currently at
least 3 plants in the active design stage which will remove nitrogen
and phosphorus utilizing the three sludge process. (Barth, 1971).
They are:
Hobbs, New Mexico (5 mgd)
Tampa, Florida (50 mgd)
Washington, B.C., Blue Plains (309 mgd).
The Blue Plains plant is scheduled to commence operation in late 1974.
Certain compounds can inhibit nitrification, notably halogenated
phenols and hydrocarbons, thiourea, cyanide and heavy metals. The
Manassas pilot plant experienced nitrification inhibition due to indus-
trial inputs of perchlorethylene, abietic acid and heavy metals.
(Mulbarger, oral communication, 1971). These materials are not found
in domestic wastewater in significant concentrations, but they could
be the result of industrial waste input. Care should be taken to pre-
vent the entrance of such materials into the plant, as it is in England.
(Whipple, 1971). The roughing stage of the three sludge system should
provide a buffer to protect against toxic upset of the nitrifying stage.
Phosphorus Removal
Phosphorus can be removed from wastewater by biological, chemical
and biological-chemical methods. (Nesbltt, 1969; Eliassen and Tchobanog-
lous 1969). Conventional biological treatment will remove phosphate
through insolubilization by incorporation into cell constituents, but
maximum removal would be about 20-40%. Research has indicated high po-
- 173 -
-------
tential phosphorus removals through modification of the activated sludge
process. (Levin and Shapiro, 1965). However, a 1 mgd plant, so designed,
experienced serious difficulties. (Mulbarger et al., 1971).
Mulbarger et al., concluded that phosphorus removal by chemical addi-
tion is both more controllable and more dependable. They recommended that
specialized design of activated sludge processes to biologically remove
phosphorus be avoided. Presently, lime, aluminum salts, iron salts and
polyelectrolytes are used either alone or in combination to remove phos-
phorus from wastewater. The removal of phosphorus is inherent in waste-
water treatment plants of chemical design. Phosphorus is also removed
through chemical dosing in existing biological treatment facilities or
as an isolated "tertiary" procedure. Total phosphorus effluent concentra-
tions of less than 1 mg/1 are attainable when filtration ±s employed in
conjunction with chemical precipitation and sedimentation.
Several full-scale plants which remove phosphorus are now operational
and many others are in the design or construction stage. (Swanson, 1971).
In addition to those plants previously cited to remove nitrogen and phos-
phorus, some of these include:
Capacity
Municipality (mgd) Status
South Lake Tahoe, Calif. 7.5 In operation
Colorado Springs, Colo. 2 In operation
Santee, Calif. 2 In operation
Rochester, N.Y. 100 Construction
Detroit, Mich. 600 Design
Chicago, 111. 30 Design.
- 174 -
-------
Virus Removal
If wastewater is to be domestically reused, there must be an effec-
tive means of virus removal. Enteric viruses have been detected in
domestic sewage and in all phases of sewage treatment including final
effluent. (Wolf, 1971). Infection via the water route must be considered
if viruses isolated from water are capable of infection when ingested.
Although waterborne infectious hepatitis and viral gastroenteritis have
not been conclusively proven, much evidence exists to suggest that water
can be a vehicle for viral infection. Closely, 1967 as cited by Wolf,
1971).
The lack of suitable techniques for detection, identification and
enumeration of viruses in water prohibits a direct approach to water
quality control. (Berger et al., 1970). At this time, the agent respons-
ible for infectious hepatitis cannot be isolated in the laboratory; and
present methods for quantifying viruses are very inefficient. (Wolf, 1971),
Although present viral detection and monitoring methods are deficient,
experience indicates that adequate protection is possible through compli-
ance with recommended water sanitation precautions. (Berger et al., 1970).
In most reported outbreaks of suspected waterborne viral infections, the
water has been untreated or inadequately treated. Even where adequate
treatment has been reported, serious doubt exists as to whether the water
has actually been so treated. (Clarke et al., 1969). Sufficient eoi-
demiological evidence exists to link a significant number of infectious
hepatitis outbreaks with consumption of shellfish from polluted waters.
(Sillman, written communication, 1972).
- 175 -
-------
Wastewater treatment processes do reduce viral concentrations.
Activated sludge is reported to remove approximately 90 percent of vi-
ruses. (Sproul, O.J., as cited by Berger et al., 1970). Brunner and
Sproul (1970) suggest that virus removal is more effective concomitant
with alum precipitation of phosphate than it is with lime precipitation
of phosphate. They predict removals on the order of 98% and 91%,
respectively. They note that the sludge produced may present a hazard.
Recalcination of a lime sludge should destroy any virus present. Chlo-
rination is effective in inactivating viruses; however, the enteric
viruses differ in their susceptibility to free chlorine. This suscepti-
bility varies with pH, water temperature, chlorine residual and contact
time.
Nevertheless, a 1 mg/1 free chlorine residual after 30 minutes con-
tact should attain better than a 99.999% reduction of viruses in water
where the pH is below 8.5 and the temperature is above freezing. Where
the water temperature is above 4 C and the pH is less than 8.0, a chlo-
rine residual of 0.3 to 0.4 mg/1 should achieve a 99.999% reduction.
(Chang as cited by Berger et al., 1970). A slight increase in the stated
residual was recommended to provide a margin of safety against infectious
hepatitis virus, which might have greater tolerance for chlorination than
other hardy enteroviruses.
The 1969 report of the committee on viruses in water to the American
Water Works Association (Clarke et al., Oct. 1969) stated, "There is no
doubt that water can be treated so that it is always free from infectious
micro-organisms...it will be biologically safe." They conclude that
- 176 -
-------
there is no cause for panic over the problem of viruses in water.
However, they warn against complacency or smugness in this regard and
call for continued methodological and epidemiological research.
Activated Carbon Adsorption
Activated carbon is noted for its ability to remove dissolved or-
ganic materials from water. It can adsorb relatively large quantities
of material per unit weight due to its extremely large surface area.
The highly porous structure of activated carbon affords a total surface
area of approximately 1000 square meters per gram. (Swindell-Dressier
Co., 1971).
Activated carbon adsorption might find application in a polishing
step, after extensive pretreatment, to remove residual soluble organic
carbon. It might be useful in upgrading overloaded or existing bio-
logical treatment plants to meet present or more stringent effluent
standards. Finally, activated carbon adsorption might find applica-
tion in conjunction with chemical clarification, the so-called physical-
chemical process, as an alternative to biological secondary treatment.
(Swanson, 1971; Villiers et al., 1971).
Activated carbon is expensive and represents the greatest cost within
the carbon treatment system. (Swindell-Dressier Co., 1971). Regeneration
of spent carbon is essential to the economic feasibility of carbon treat-
ment. The carbon can be regenerated in a multiple hearth furnace with
estimated losses of between 5 and 10%. (Swanson, 1971). There are about
ten full scale plants in the design or the construction stage. There are
- 177 -
-------
at least two operational plants (South Lake Tahoe (7.5 mgd) and Colorado
Springs, Colo. (3 mgd)) which employ an activated carbon treatment step.
(Swindell-Dressier Co., 1971; Swanson, 1971). As operational experience
is gained, more definitive projections can be made concerning the economic
viability of the activated carbon treatment. Comparing the economics of
physical-chemical treatment (5% carbon loss upon regeneration) with those
of conventional biological secondary treatment, Villiers et al., (1971)
conclude:
"Estimated capital and operating costs for different size
physical and chemical treatment plants when compared to
conventional treatment plants show that a physical and
chemical treatment plant will cost less to build but
slightly more to operate at plant sizes above 10 mgd.
At smaller plant sizes both capital and operating costs
are less favorable."
While physical-chemical treatment of wastewater would result in phos-
phorus removal, nitrogen would not be removed. Therefore, the effluent
would be unsuitable for domestic reuse.
SLUDGE DISPOSAL
Modern waste treatment systems require total management of the sludge
handling phase. Treatment and ultimate disposal of the sludp.e must re-
sult in the least detrimental impact upon the environment. The manage-
ment alternative chosen must not create an air pollution problem,
contravene surface or ground-water quality standards or result in damage
to the soil structure.
The discharge of industrial wastes into the regional systems must be
carefully regulated. This must be done to protect the treatment process
- 178 -
-------
and to prevent the concentration of toxic materials or heavy metals in
the sludge. Effective industrial waste ordinances must be enforced.
Elimination of the toxic materials or heavy metals from the sludge is
necessary: (1) to prevent eventual discharge to the atmosphere through
incineration, (2) to prevent accumulation in the soil and possible con-
tamination of surface or ground waters through land disposal, and (3) to
prevent discharge to the marine environment through ocean disposal.
Where feasible, conservation of resources urges the recycling of
sludge for reclamation of marginal lands (not wetlands) or upgrading
of other land areas. The availability of land is a major factor in
determining the applicability of this technique.
Demonstration projects for the recycling of sludge should be initiated
as soon as possible in the proposed disposal areas. These projects
would aid in establishing application rates and techniques for transport
and distribution. They would also be helpful in evaluating the effects
upon surface and ground-water quality, vegetation and soil structure.
Where sludge recycling is not a feasible alternative, one of the
many combustion or oxidation techniques must be considered. Such in-
stallations must not create an air pollution problem. The following
measures will minimize the potential for air pollution: proper design
of the facility to insure adequate combustion temperatures and retention
times, use of efficient air pollution control devices, and effective
operation and maintenance. A recent EPA Task Force report covers these
considerations in detail. The selection of this alternative must be
supported by a detailed economic analysis that clearly indicates the
- 179 -
-------
total annual cost of the facility. The annual budget of the operating
agency must allocate sufficient funds to provide for the most efficient
operation of the complete sludge system.
Interim EPA policy regulating the Federal construction grants pro-
gram states that no grant can be made if the sludge is to be discharged
to the ocean. This policy applies to grants for new waste treatment
plants and for expansion of existing plants. These projects can be
approved only on the basis of other acceptable sludge management prac-
tices, such as recycling or incineration. However, installations in
the New York metropolitan area generally have one of two sludge manage-
ment alternatives available. The available alternatives are incinera-
tion and ocean disposal of sludge. The prohibition of ocean disposal
of sludge would force all of these plants to use one of the available
combustion techniques.
The commitment of resources required for these combustion methods
would be enormous. The cumulative impact of many large facilities upon
air quality would be a greater environmental hazard than the effects of
controlled ocean disposal of the sludge. Incineration may prove to be
the least desirable long-term solution for sludge management. However,
this may not become apparent before a substantial investment in incin-
eration has been made at all governmental levels. The obligation to
meet air quality standards for the area makes the avoidance of addi-
tional and unnecessary combustion even more Important.
- 180 -
-------
Therefore, the Environmental Protection Agency is working to imple-
ment the following policy for waste treatment facilities in the New York
Metropolitan area:
1. Approval of continued ocean disposal of sludge provided:
(a) Sludge is adequately treated.
(b) Industrial waste ordinances regulate the discharge of
heavy metals or other toxic materials into the system.
This is to be accomplished in compliance with EPA or
State requirements.
(c) Ocean dumping from the New York metropolitan area is
to be abandoned when a more effective environmental
alternative becomes available through the efforts and
requirements of EPA, the States and regional authorities.
2. EPA is to embark upon a program to assess the impact of non-toxic
municipal sludge dumping in new open sea areas. This effort is
to mesh with existing on-going studies of the marine environment.
3. EPA would support the formation and operation of a regional
(intrastate or interstate) solid waste disposal authority.
This authority would develop acceptable long-term alternatives
for the management of the sludge problem. The authority would
implement the most effective alternative to permit eventual
abandonment of ocean disposal.
- 181 -
-------
COSTS OF ALTERNATIVE TREATMENT PROCESSES
Table 30 describes performance and cost estimates for six wastevater
treatment schemes as found in Swanson (1971). It must be observed that
Note C can only refer to systems 1, 2 and 5 since there are no full scale
municipal plants currently operating that employ the three stage activated
sludge (three sludge) design. However, there has been extensive pilot
plant experience (see system 16 below) which may warrant these predictions.
Other performance estimates are likely to be more accurate than the cost
predictions. (Swanson, oral communication, 1971).
Table 31 describes additional treatment schemes in a format after
Swanson (1971), using information found in Bishop et al., (1971). The
cost estimates contained therein were developed by Bechtel Corporation;
the estimates were based on conservative design criteria supplied by the
Environmental Protection Agency. They were based on June 1970 price
levels for the Washington, D.C. area (chemicals, utilities, labor) and
computed capital charges at an annual rate of 8 percent (interest and
amortization). An engineering allowance of 10 percent and a contingency
allowance of 20 percent were provided. Land costs were not included.
"These cost estimates were conceptual in nature and did
not involve extensive investigation of site, construc-
tion, or hydraulic details. They were prepared primarily
for purposes of comparison of alternative processes, not
for use in budgetary decisions.
"In addition the costs presented for carbon treatment and
for ion exchange for ammonia removal are based upon con-
cepts which have yet to be demonstrated but which offer
substantial capital and operating cost savings. First,
the carbon and ion exchange capital costs are based on
anticipated use of 100 ft. diameter beds, which would
- 182 -
-------
TABLE 30
TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE AND COST ESTIMATES
(Swanson, 1971)
System
1
2
3
4
5
6
Effluent — mg/1
BOD
20
20
7
4
1
1
COD
50
50
20
15
8
8
SS
20
20
10
2
1
1
P
10.0
2.0
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
N
20
20
3
2
18
2
Capital Costs-$ Million, Total
Annual Costs-C/1000 gal.
1 mgd
Cap.
1.0
1.1
1.5
1.6
1.8
2.2
c/iooo
42
48
74
82
108
123
10 mgd
Cap.
5.2
5.3
7.4
8.0
9.7
10.2
c/iooo
19
23
33
37
49
53
100 mgd
Cap.
27
27
39
42
55
58
c/iooo
10
13
20
21
27
30
A.
B.
System Description Notes
1. Single-stage activated sludge
(A.S.)
2. Single-stage A.S. and phos-
phorus (P) removal
3. Three-stage A.S. and P re-
moval
Costs are average for U.S. (May 1971)
Total annual costs include opera-
tion, maintenance, and amortized
capital costs (6%—25 years)
4. Three-stage A.S., P removal
and filtration D.
5. Single-stage A.S., two-stage
lime, filtration and acti-
vated carbon
6. Three~stage A.S., P removal,
filtration and activated
carbon
C. Performance estimates are based
on well operated municipal plants
with normal strength wastewater
Abbrev.: BOD—5 day biochemical
oxygen demand,
COD—chemical oxygen
demand
SS—suspended solids
P—phosphorus as P,
N—nitrogen as N
Sludge disposal by sludge drying
beds for 1 mgd and vacuum filtra-
tion and incineration for 10 and
100 mgd
-------
TABLE 31
ADDITIONAL TREATMENT SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
AND COST ESTI1IATES
Total Cost c/1000 gal
System
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
BOD COD
-
-
5
3.3 21.7
6.2 15.5
5.0
3.3 21.7
3.3 21.7
6.2 15.5
P
-
-
.6
.14
.13
.6
.14
.14
.13
N
2
2
-y
ll.l*i'
--'
2
2
2
2
300 HGD Design
6.7
11.5
19.4
21.2
22.5
31.4
32.7
33.6
34.0
*High nitrogen removal (50%) due to spontaneous nitrification-denitrifi-
cation during summer months.
17 No nitrogen removal is planned.
System description
7 breakpoint chlorination to remove nitrogen
8 ion exchange + breakpoint Cl to remove nitrogen
9 step aeration, alum, filtration
10 step aeration, 2 stage lime, filtration
11 (Phys.-Chetn.) 2 stage lime, filtration, carbon adsorption
12 3 sludge, alum, filtration, Cl
13 step aeration, 2 stage lime, filtration, ion ex. + Cl
14 3 sludge, 2 stage lime, filtration, Cl?
15 (Phys.-Chem.) 2 stage lime, filtration, carbon ad., ion ex. + Cl
-------
reduce capital costs by about one-third as compared to
conventional column diameters. Secondly, operating costs
for ion exchange are based upon the use of the waste heat
from sludge incineration to supply the heat required for
efficient regenerant air stripping. The process also
includes unpiloted removal of the ammonia from the strip-
ping air with an acid adsorption step." (Bishop et al.,
(1971).
All filtration was dual media and consisted of coal and sand. The
performance estimates were based on pilot experience (carbon, phosphorus,
three sludge nitrogen), laboratory and pilot experience (breakpoint chlo-
rination for nitrogen) and pilot experience plus projection (ion exchange
for nitrogen). Missing data were either not applicable (Systems 7 and 8)
or not given.
Performance and cost estimates for another advanced treatment scheme
(Number 16) were provided by M.C. Mulbarger (oral communication, 1971).
The scheme consists of the three sludge process, with alum addition fol-
lowed by multi-media filtration (coal, sand, garnet). Estimated costs
were given relative to conventional secondary treatment. Capital, power
and maintenance costs were estimated at 35 to 60 percent above conven-
tional treatment; operation and personnel requirements were estimated
at 10 to 20 percent higher. Performance was based on 8 months pilot
experience (.2 mgd) at Manassas, Va. The following average effluent
concentrations (mg/1) were given:
BOD 0.8 mg/1
COD 16 mg/1
SS 0 mg/1
P 0.3 mg/1
N 1.5 mg/1
- 183 -
-------
An Environmental Protection Agency report on advanced wastewater
treatment as practiced at South Tahoe (1971) provided an additional es-
timate of cost and performance of an advanced waste treatment scheme.
The treatment scheme (Number 17) was essentially the fsame as System 5,
but multi-media (coal, sand, garnet) filtration was employed. Also,
an ammonia stripping facility was available to treat 3.75 mgd of the
7.5 mgd design flow. Actual flows ranged from 3.13 to 5.22 mgd.
Operating costs were projected for a 7.5 mgd flow and included inter-
mittent ammonia stripping. Capital costs were corrected to the 1969
national average, assuming amortization at 5 percent for 25 years.
Total capital and operating costs were estimated at 39.43 C/1000 gal.
treated. A typical effluent contained the following contaminant concen-
trations (mg/1):
BOD 0.7 mg/1
COD 9 mg/1
SS 0 mg/1
P 0.06 mg/1
NH -N* 15 mg/1
*Ammonia nitrogen not total nitrogen
In many cases, extensive full scale operating experience is lacking.
In addition, the particular location and waste source significantly affect
the actual cost. Therefore, these cost estimates for advanced waste
treatment systems must be viewed as approximations.
- 184 -
-------
Waste treatment facilities must be designed with a view towards the
future. Economy is important, but it must not be the primary considera-
tion. The ultimate environmental consequences of any scheme are of
paramount importance.
The following is a hypothetical example of the possible incompati-
bility of short-term economy and long-range environmental good. The
capital cost of a plant using alum (to remove phosphorus and increase
organic removal rates) would be less than that of a plant using lime
since the use of lime requires greater hydraulic holding capacity.
However, the world's supply of bauxite ore, from which alum is obtained,
is more limited than the world's supply of lime. Perhaps the bauxite
might be better used to produce aluminum than alum. At this time, there
is no practical way to recycle alum, whereas lime can be reclaimed and
partially reused. Furthermore, phosphate-rich lime sludge can be used
to boost soil productivity.
Thus, an initial economic gain may eventually prove to be an en-
vironmental liability. Obviously, future facilities must be designed
for maximum environmental benefit rather than maximum convenience
and/or minimum cost.
Desalination
Desalination or demineralization of water can be accomplished by
several methods. These include distillation, reverse osmosis, electro-
dialysis and ion exchange. These methods were previously discussed
relative to their merits as treatment processes to remove nitrogen from
- 185 -
-------
wastewater. They must now be evaluated on the basis of their ability
to remove dissolved inorganic materials (positive and negative ions such
as Ca , K , NH,, Na, S0~ HPO* N0~ Cl~, etc., collectively termed total
dissolved solids (IDS)) from water.
Desalination is commonly associated with the production of potable
water from sea or brackish waters. However, where reuse of wastewater
is desired, a demineralization process may eventually be required to
prevent excessive buildup of IDS in the product water. Each water use
cycle results in the addition of 100-500 mg/1 IDS. (Cohen, 1971). Thus,
domestic reuse of treated wastewater might require at least a partial
demineralization if the USPHS drinking water standard of 500 mg/1 TDS
is to be maintained.
In general, cost is related to the dissolved solids content of the
processed water. This is particularly true of the ion exchange method
where regenerants constitute the major cost component and the quantity
of regenerant is directly related to the quantity of ions removed.
Ion exchange, reverse osmosis and electrodialysis were compared at
the Pomona Water Renovation Plant in a joint study conducted by the
Los Angeles Sanitation Districts and Federal Water Quality Administra-
tion. (Dryden, 1971). Feed water consisted of carbon treated secondary
effluent from a .3 mgd granular carbon pilot facility.
From an influent water containing 700 mg/1 TDS, the processes pro-
duced product waters containing 100 mg/1 TDS (reverse osmosis), 75 mg/1
TDS (ion exchange) and 450 mg/1 TDS (electrodialysis). Costs for a
10 mgd facility were estimated at 41.6, 22.0 and 17.0 c/1000 gal. for
- 186 -
-------
reverse osmosis, ion exchange and electrodialysis, respectively (carbon
pretreatment and brine disposal not included). However, electrodialysis
removes only about 33% incoming IDS while reverse osmosis and ion exchange-
are capable of a 90% removal. The cost of reverse osmosis or ion exchange
can be reduced by blending the product water with non-demineralized water.
The data below, extracted from Dryden (1971), present the cost es-
timates for a 20 tngd blended product water output such that a 33% reduc-
tion in influent TDS is achieved. The estimates include the cost of
carbon pretreatment, but not the cost of brine disposal.
TOTAL COST, CENTS/1000 GAL. FOR
33% REDUCTION TDS
Reverse Osmosis 25.0 25.6 26.2
Electrodialysis 22.5 24 25.6
Ion Exchange 15.3 19.8 23.7
500 1000 1500
Influent TDS, mg/1
Dryden considered the 22c/1000 gal. ion exchange cost estimate to
be the most reliable. He indicated that although the cost estimate for
reverse osmosis was the highest, it could be significantly reduced when
technological advances make increased membrane life and flux rate pos-
sible.
Electrodialysis can be a useful process when the TDS content of the
water to be treated does not exceed 2000 mg/1. (Cohen, 1971). However,
this process and the ion exchange process (the cost of which is directly
related to the ionic concentration) become less desirable as the TDS
- 187 -
-------
content of the water to be renovated increases. This is especially the
case when desalination of sea water is considered.
Basically, present technology for sea water desalination utilizes
distillation processes. However, some facilities utilize electrodialysis
and freezing techniques. There are numerous desalination plants through-
out the world which produce fresh water in excess of 1 mgd and several
which produce 3 to 5 mgd. (Gillam and McCoy, 1966).
Since the inception of the Saline Water Conservation Program in 1952,
the cost of producing potable water from sea water has been reduced from
about $4/1000 gal. of product water to about $1/1000 gal. This is pri-
marily the result of improvements in knoxm conversion processes. (Gillam
and McCoy, 1966). In 1967, a 2.6 mgd desalination facility at Key West,
Florida began producing potable water at a cost of 85 cents/1000 gal.
A 100 mgd plant, planned for Israel on the Mediterranean, is estimated
to be able to produce fresh water for 24-28 cents/1000 gal. (Popkin,
1968). Combination nuclear power generation-desalination facilities
that will further reduce costs are envisioned. Improvements in reverse
osmosis technology could lead to cost reductions for small capacity de-
salination plants. (Popkin, 1968).
All desalination methods produce a brine waste that must be disposed
of in an environmentally compatible manner. For coastal locations, the
obvious choice is to discharge to the sea. However, these disposal prac-
tices must be designed to minimize their potential for severe localized
ecological effect.
- 188 -
-------
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT
OF LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Local Short-term Uses of or Effects onthe Environment Which are
Associated With the Long-term Benefits to be Derived From the Projects
During construction, all of the various types of projects being funded
will exert a local short-terra influence on the environment. These influ-
ences are listed in Table 32.
The long-term benefits to be derived from the completed projects are
presented below:
1. Sewage will be carried from individual generation sites to com-
munity treatment plants. The resulting effluent will be dis-
posed of in a manner which will not impair ground-water quality.
2. The quality of local public water supplies will improve after
pollution from individual treatment systems is abated. There
will also be a gradual improvement as a result of dilution
with subsequent ground-water recharge from precipitation.
3. Bay water quality should gradually improve as a result of the
reduction in local ground-water pollution from individual treat-
ment systems. Further improvement in water quality may result
from continued dilution of polluted bay water by circulating
ocean waters.
4. Improved bay water quality could potentially permit the opening
of more shellfish beds and more sites for primary and secondary
contact recreation.
- 189 -
-------
5. Certain projects will convert sludge, which is currently being
dumped into the ocean, to inert ash. Subsequent ocean disposal
of the ash will exert a lesser effect on the ocean. As an alter-
native to ocean disposal, the ashes could be applied to the land
as landfill.
TABLE 32
LOCAL SHORT-TERN USES OF OR EFFECTS ON THE
ENVIRONMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION
Uses or Effects/Type of Project
Caused by Project
Sewering STP-Upgrade STP-New Outfall
Air pollution
Dust
Smoke
Noise
X
X
X
X XX
X XX
X XX
Disruption of streets
Increased traffic
Diverted traffic
Disruption of existing vegetation
Disruption of adjacent areas
Disruption of barrier bars
Disruption of streams
Disruption of bay and ocean
Disruption of Jones Beach Recreation Area
x
x
X
X
X
X'
X
- 190 -
-------
IRREVERSIBLE OR IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RKSOURCKS
WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVE!) IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
THE PERTINENT PROJECTS
In addition to the local short-term inconveniences and insults to
the environment that are associated with these projects, there will be
some local long-term effects. These effects are listed below:
1. Until ground-water recharge is available to Nassau and Suffolk
Counties, the projects will lower the water table in these areas.
Associated with a lowering of the water table are: a decrease
in lake depths and areas, an increase in well depths required
for public water supply, an increase in bay salinity, an increase
in the rate of salt water intrusion into the fresh water aquifers,
and the possibility of land subsidence.
2. Marsh habitat is rapidly disappearing along the entire eastern
seaboard. The siting of wastewater treatment plants on reclaimed
marshland further reduces the remaining marshland acreage.
3. There will be destruction of habitat. Sewer construction will
necessitate the loss of some shade trees. Plant construction,
whether on "reclaimed" marshland or not, will remove open land
areas from wildlife habitat.
4. Unless the utmost care is taken, short-term insults to the environ-
ment could become long-term ones. The barrier bar could be per-
manently breached if proper methods are not used to re-establish
the dune vegetation. Marsh areas, if not backfilled to the proper
grades, could be converted to less productive "upland-type" habitats,
Spoils must be confined and ultimately removed.
- 191 -
-------
5. The increased capacity of these combined projects will produce
a net increase in the amount of digested sludge being dumped at
sea. The effects of this practice on the receiving body have
not been determined. However, they are generally considered to
be undesirable. Large quantities of "strange" or foreign sub-
stances, such as pesticides, residual carbon compounds and heavy
metals, are being dumped into the ocean with little knowledge of
the consequences. However, in the metropolitan area, sludge
dumping will probably cause less harm to the environment than
incineration. Sufficient land is not available for land dis-
posal.
6. Materials dumped at sea will not be available for conservative
uses.
7. Regionalization of sewage treatment will encourage increases in
industrialization and population density in areas which are al-
ready considered fully developed, unless adequate measures are
taken.
- 192 -
-------
DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS AND OBJECTIONS RAISED BY ALL REVIEWERS
INTRODUCTION
According to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy
Act of 1969, as stated in the Environmental Protection Agency's
"Guidelines for the Preparation of Environmental Impact Statements"
(9 November 1971):
"Final statements shall summarize the comments and
suggestions made by reviewing organizations and
shall describe the disposition of issues surfaced
(e.g., revisions to the proposed action to miti-
gate anticipated impacts or objections). In
particular, they shall address in detail the major
issues raised when the Agency position is at vari-
ance with recommendations and objections (e.g.,
reasons why specific comments and suggestions
could not be accepted, and factors of overriding
importance prohibiting the incorporation of sug-
gestions). Reviewer's statements should be set
forth in a Comment and discussed in a Response.
In addition, the source of all comments should
be clearly identified."
Immediately following the Introduction is a list of the reviewers of
the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This list includes both
those who participated in the public hearing at the Suffolk County Center
in Hauppauge, Long Island on January 3, 1972 and those who submitted writ-
ten comments.
Wherever possible, comments suggesting valid alterations or correc-
tions have been inserted into the text. Nevertheless, a sizeable number
of comments had to be addressed in a separate section. The volume of
comments received on the draft EIS has made it utterly impossible to
answer each comment individually. With respect to the major issues
- 193 -
-------
involved, most reviewers had similar comments or questions; only the
wording and emphasis varied.
Accordingly, we have drawn up a table of comments (Table 33) indicat-
ing the most frequently asked questions, the most important criticisms
and the most relevant issues. There are twenty-four categories, each
represented by a key word or phrase.
Following the table is a section entitled COMMENTS AND RESPONSES.
The general comments describe, in typical comment form, the subjects
to be dealt with in the corresponding responses. Each comment is
matched with the EPA's response to it. The response portion either
directly answers the comment or refers the reader to the appropriate
section in the text. In addition, each response addresses itself to
the major points raised by reviewers.
It is important to realize that only significant negative comments
have been considered. Compliments have been disregarded. There has
been substantial modification of the text as a result of comments re-
ceived on the draft EIS. Reviewers have been given credit for signifi-
cant textual entries. However, comments that corrected minor or obvious
errors have been incorporated into the text without acknowledgment to
the reviewer.
Comments and questions resulting from the public hearing on Janu-
ary 3, 1972 have been treated in this section as well as in the text.
This is the most concise and coherent approach. We believe this format
will satisfy the requirements of the National Environmentalal Policy
Act of 1969.
- 194 -
-------
We take this opportunity to sincerely thank all those who commented
on the draft EIS, especially those who submitted detailed criticisms
which indicated a thorough analysis of the text. Their efforts have
greatly assisted our evaluation and revision of the draft EIS.
- 195 -
-------
LIST OF REVIEWERS OF THE DRAFT
"ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ON WASTE WATER
TREATMENT FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION GRANTS FOR
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES, NEW YORK"
The following participated in the public hearing on January 3, 1972 at
the Suffolk County Center in Hauppauge, Long Island:
ACTION
For Preservation And Conservation Of
The North Shore of L.I., Inc.
18 West Carver Street
Huntington, New York 11743
(Telegram)
Davis, Dr. Stanley N.
Hydrogeologist
Department of Geology
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, Missouri 65201
(Environmental Defense Fund)
Erickson, Dr. Nils E.
Chemist
Environmental Defense Fund
Washington Grove, Maryland 20080
Feindler, Klaus
Environmental Engineer
Grumman Corporation
31 Beaumont Drive
Melville, New York 11746
(Environmental Technology Seminar)
Flynn, John M.
Commissioner
Suffolk County Department of
Environmental Control
1324 Motor Parkway
Hauppauge, New York 11787
Friou, George Dyson
1603 Union Boulevard
Bay Shore, New York 11706
(Ltr. dtd December 27, 1971)
Gillen, James F.
Deputy Commissioner of Public Works
Nassau County
1 West Street
Mineola, New York 11501
Hellegers, John
Environmental Defense Fund
162 Old Town Road
East Setauket, New York 11733
Hershaft, Dr. Alex
Executive Vice President
Environmental Technology Seminar
P.O. Box 391
Bethpage, New York 11714
Holzmacher, Robert G.
President
Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrel, P.C.
Consulting Engineers
500 Broad Hollow Road
Melville, New York 11746
Humphreys, George W.
Regional Director, Long Island Region
N.Y.S. Department of Environmental
Conservation
4175 Veterans Memorial Highway
Ronkonkoma, New York 11779
King, George A.
Chairman
Long Island Daymen's Association
P.O. Box 265
Islip, New York 11751
- 196 -
-------
Levine, Henry
Research and Project Coordinator For
Congressman Lester Wolff
156a Main Street
Port Washington, New York 11050
Porter, L. Ruggles
Supervisor, Long Island Area Office
Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
50 Maple Avenue
Patchogue, New York 11772
Pulaski, Charles
Conservation Chairman
Suffolk American Legion
55 Lake Street
Islip, New York 11751
Quinn, Sue T.
Citizens For Clean Environment
61 Brook Street
Sayville, New York 11782
Schickler, William J.
Assistant General Manager and
Chief Engineer
Suffolk County Water Authority
Oakdale, New York 11769
Schiller, Herbert
4 Waterford Drive
Wheatley Heights, New York 11798
Spiegel, Dr. Zane
Ground Water Hydrologist
P.O. Box 1541
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
(Environmental Defense Fund)
Squires, Dr. Donald
Director
Marine Sciences Research Center
State University of New York
Stony Brook, New York 11790
Yannacone, Victor John
Special Attorney
Trustees of the Freeholders and
Commonalty of the Town of Huntington
227 Main Street
Huntington, New York 11743
- 197 -
-------
The following submitted reviews of the draft EIS:
ACTION
For Preservation And Conservation Of
The North Shore of L.I., Inc.
18 West Carver Street
Huntingtons New York 11743
(January 14, 1972)*
Baldwin & Cornelius Co.
101 South Bergen Place
Freeport, New York 11520
Joseph M, Dawson, P.E.
(January 14, 1972)*
Bauer Engineering, Inc.
Consulting Engineers Land and
Water Resources
20 North Wacker Drive
Chicago, Illinois 60606
W.J. Bauer, President
(January 12, 1972)*
Belt, Edward S.
Chairman
Department of Geology
Amherst College
Amherst, Massachusetts 01002
(1. December 9, 1971)*
(2. January 31, 1972)*
Center for the Environment and
Man, Inc.
275 Windsor Street
Hartford, Connecticut 06120
R. Pitchai, Ph.D.
(January 13, 1972)*
Davis, Dr. Stanley N.
Hydrogeologist
Department of Geology
University of Missouri-Columbia
Columbia, Missouri 65201
(Environmental Defense Fund)
(January 4, 1972)*
East End Council of Organizations
Water Resources Committee
Box 696
East Hampton, New York 11937
Herbert C. Grover, Chairman
(January 11, 1972)*
Environmental Technology Seminar
P.O. Box 391
Bethpage, New York 11714
D. M. Graham and R. Dickinson Roop
(January 14, 1972)*
Friou, George Dyson
Counsellor at Law
1603 Union Boulevard
Say Shore, New York 11706
(January 6, 1972)*
Great South Bay Baymen's
Association Inc.
51 Brook Street
West Sayville, New York 11796
George King
(Submitted statement written
November 3, 1969 and amended
March 12, 1971)*
John P. Mahoney
Consulting Engineers
3 Lazare Lane
Islip, New York 11751
John P. llahoney, P.E.
Consulting Engineer
(January 12, 1972)*
Lednum, J. Maynard
72 Maple Street
Sayville, New York 11782
(1. December 22, 1971)*
(2. January 17, 1972)*
*Letter dated.
- 198 -
-------
Long Island Environmental Council Inc.
1 Main Street
Roslyn, New York 11576
Richard Roberts, President
Claire Stern, Executive Director
(January 26, 1972)*
Nassau, County of
Department of Health
240 Old Country Road
Mineola, New York 11501
Mr. Burger
(January 26, 1972)*
Nassau, County of
Department of Health
240 Old Country Road
Mineola, New York 11501
Stanley Juczak, P.E.
Director - Bureau of Water
Pollution Control
(January 5, 1972)*
Nassau, County of
Department of Public Works
Mineola, New York 11501
John H. Peters, Commissioner
(January 14, 1972)*
New England River Basins Commission
Long Island Sound Regional Study
408 Atlantic Avenue
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
David Burack, Study Manager
(1. January 13, 1972)*
(2. January 28, 1972)*
New York, State of
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Albany, New York
Anthony Taormina
(December 21, 1971)*
New York, State of
Department of Environmental
Conservation
Albany, New York
Ronald Pedersen
First Deputy Commissioner
(January 14, 1972)*
New York, State of
Department of Health
Division of Sanitary Engineering
845 Central Avenue
Albany, New York 11206
Meredith H. Thompson, D. Eng.
Assistant Commissioner
(January 12, 1972)*
New York Water Pollution Control
Association
c/o Robert D. Hennigan
SUNY Water Resources Center
College of Forestry
c/o Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York 13210
Long Island Section
Joji Takagi, Chairman
Frank Flood, President Elect, NYWPCA
Nicholas Bartilucci
Executive Committee Representative, NYWPCA
Regional Marine Resources Council
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, New York 11787
Clark Williams, Research Administrator
(January 10, 1972)*
Regional Marine Resources Council
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, New York 11787
Edward C. Stephan, Chairman
(January 27, 1972)*
*Letter dated.
- 199 -
-------
Save Our Bays Association
2348 Maple Street
Seaford, New York 11783
George Wilde, President
(1. January 4, 1972 - telegram)*
(2. January 5, 1972)*
Schiller, Herbert
4 Waterford Drive
Wheatley Heights, New York 11798
(January 7, 1972)*
Spiegel, Dr. Zane
Ground Water Hydrologist
P.O. Box 1541
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
(Environmental Defense Fund)
(January 12, 1972)*
Suffolk, County of
Department of Health
Suffolk County Center
Riverhead, New York 11901
George E. Leone, Commissioner
(January 6, 1972)*
Suffolk, County of
Council on Environmental Quality
Planning Building
Veterans Memorial Highway
Hauppauge, New York 11787
George M. Woodwell, Chairman
(January 11, 1972)*
Suffolk, County of
Department of Environmental Control
1324 Motor Parkway
Hauppauge, New York 11787
Harris Fischer
Environmental Physicist
(January 28, 1972)*
Suffolk, County of
Department of Environmental Control
1324 Motor Parkway
Hauppauge, New York 11787
John M. Flynn, Commissioner
(January 14, 1972)*
Tri-State Regional Planning
Commission
100 Church Street
New York, New York 10007
Gerhart A. Dunkel, PNRS Coordinator
(January 12, 1972)*
U.S. Department of the Army
N.Y. District Corps of Engineers
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
F. R. Pagano
Chief, Engineering Division
(January 13, 1972)*
U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
National Marine Fisheries Service,
Northeast Region
Federal Building
14 Elm Street
Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930
Russell T. Norris, Regional Director
(January 20, 1972)*
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20230
Dr. Sidney R. Galler
Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Health and Scientific Affairs
(1. February 9,, 1972)*
(2. March 1, 1972)*
U.S. Department: of Health,
Education and Welfare
Region II
850 Third Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 11232
Frederick Sillman, M.D.
Assistant Regional Director for
Health and Scientific Affairs
(January 12, 1972)*
*Letter dated.
- 200 -
-------
U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare
Washington, D.C. 20201
Merlin K. DuVal, M.D.
Assistant Secretary for Health and
Scientific Affairs
(February 3, 1972)*
U.S. Department of the Interior
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
U.S. Post Office and Courthouse
Boston, Massachusetts 02109
Richard Griffith
Regional Director
(January 25, 1972)*
U.S. Department of the Interior
National Park Service
Northeast Region
143 South Third Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106
Chester Brooks, Director,
Northeast Region
(January 11, 1972)*
U.S. Department of the Navy
Office of the Oceanographer of
the Navy
The Madison Building
732 N. Washington Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314
W. F. Reed, Jr.
(January 12, 1972)*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Activities
Washington, D.C. 20460
Sheldon Meyers, Director
(January 28, 1972)*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Environmental Research Center
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
F. M. Middleton, Director of Research
Advanced Waste Treatment Research
Laboratory
(January 14, 1972)*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
National Environmental Research Center
200 Southwest 35th Street
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
A. F. Bartsch, Director
D. J. Baumgartner, Chief, National
Coastal Pollution Research Program
Charles F. Powers, Chief, Technology
Development Section, NERP
(January 14, 1972)*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, New York 10007
C. F. Paul, Acting Chief, Environmental
Impact Coordination Branch
Jan Pawlak, Office of Noise Programs
Conrad Simon, Chief, Air Programs Br.
John A. Ruf, Solid Waste Program Br.
Michael D. Dworsky, Water Supply Br.
(February 10, 1972)*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
Eugene Jensen
Deputy Assistant Administrator for
Water Programs
(January 14, 1972)*
*Letter dated.
- 201 -
-------
w
H
Q
H
z
o
CQ 7:
< IK
H W
u
O
u
•^OBmzToI
sia - XSTV '*a
iaa - ui[or
•UBgjQ JO
Tfounoo
pug 3SE3
(Sura) 'oossy
s , uauiABg Xsg
ipnos jBaao
sia - dootf
•,i'f 'uaxfio
•Q aSjoao
'no-fa.*
Daa
X3uno3 ^fojjns
aauof ssfmuioQ
S13 - snBix
' aatpujaa
acia - SITN '^a
aa-Xa-[UBas -aa
^3TT°D 3saat[uiv
'XSo^oao
o 'jdag '-auio
.3,aua ,anB3
rss^s
uo-p^BAjasaj^
JOJ UOJ3DV
XXX XX
XX XX X
X X XXX XXX
XXXX XX
XXXX X
XXXXX XX X X
X
X XX
XXXX XX XX
XXX X
XX XX XXX
XXXX X X
XX XXX X X
XX X XX
XXXX X
X
01
c
o
10 -H
oc u
B ma
•H ,* -a «-i
U C B 0
a n 41
o -HO f-( a B c
-H 4J 41 ffl E 01 41
.a 4i no o 4-1 S 41
3 tOt^JO D.»H -HBO "O
a*H tno ,t-HI-i
4-lh CUtHMiH 3V on
B -HZ
O 4J
1 -HMO
00 <-l rH
3 S N S S S
41
•H
3
0
U-<
-------
i
B
§ £
<-^ u
to 2
64 2
J Pi
a!
o
•8a8ua
^iBtiTues jo
•Am 'M3TB3H
jo -adaa
33B3S "A'N
(BUfuif aoBl)
uofqEAjasuoo
-[B^uauiuoajAaa
jo -jdaa
33B5S 'A'N
(uosjapaj)
UOT3BAJ9SUOO
JBJUSUIUOafAUa
jo -ndaa
33B3S 'A'N
uofssjmuioo
sujsBg
JBATH '3'N
S^JOM OTiqnj
jo -adaa
Xsunoo RESSBN
(^Bzonf)
H3JB3H jo -3daa
Ajunoo nBssefj
(aaSang)
H3TB3H jo -adaa
Xqunoo HBSSBN
• J§ua
8uf 3fnsuoo
'dT 'AauotjBH
Ifounoo xBjuatu
-uoj^fAUa 'i'T
(JJTOM 'T 'das)
AJU3H ' 3UTA3T
•KT 'uinupai
(VH8SO)
•y ' 38.ioao
'Sura
( puouiBTa
aauofssfiuiuog)
33 a 083
' SA3 jqdmnH
X
X X
X XXXXXX X X X X
XXX XX X XXX X
X X
X X
X
XXXXXXX XX X
XX XXX XX
XXX XXX X X
XXX X X XXXX X
XX XXXX XX X XXXX
XXXX X
to
c
o
M -H
00 U 'O
c » «
•H A! T> <" 3
t, c e o a
ft (0 O f
3 H a u en
as o *-> o a
OO BBU O -HZM
0 -HO 1HO.BC O -5
•H UU tO S 10 01 E 3M-H
rH O.OS P.W1-1 -H e -00 ^HO)0*J
ja u mo out! «)oo i-HrH>wC
3 co >a u 0.1-1 -HCO -oid oras
PL,» (0(0 udlH UC P..H.UO
0) i«(0 X-H" -H 6 -H aid nou
iH> C w oen n u > z S i^uitiD
M-H 0)0 -H S U U t8 C 00 OUT).*
on o(0 -H cca)|jt-*M -Hoc m^cQo
^((3 OS Jl So*->O«H4l >. i-l h b n « 01 «n
4JM O. tH 0) -H 3 IJ O CX M B OOnja^MOUK.1"
Tiai BouTjai-f-HMaioiTS-H^i^i^uoOTju-HiMa
T>uM«icoiai<->iM>£>ic3c:bBji-iuti)ia^3 sxuin
TlrH^ZOJOObtdU-lC UQ)rt(QUOQ)a)a)V^OO(0
•553ouOuQU« £uJgzcuoia!a!tntn«H3
iH(NfO^J-iAvOr«.OOONO rHCsin^u^^Of^OOONOiHo^rO^f
r-l ^^^(^r-l^l^r-I^ICMCSrvltsltsl
-------
(•IB
Ajunoo
jo '
jo -
ao jjounoo
-id
jaa -
w
a
Ajunoo
'•OH '
•3O8SV '
SABS
SB
O
1
tq W
S
'1 3nS '
1107897
•my
•oossy
X
XXXXX
XXX
XX
X X X X
XX
XX
XXX
XXXXX
X X
00
a
« «
^ -a
c c
o>
rH>
4-1
CL
91
W
o
tg
O.
O
(XH
QBU
m
S
to
-rl
O
OOO
O3
C
41
u §
I s
3 £
X
01 oo
•8 §
Q> Jd
00 *
a J= «
•H O O
a
cw
o to
i-izog
4JU
3 M -H
r-(«O4J
rHrHU-lC
0«3
PuT4UO
V4tiO
M-IUCO
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
1. Additional Public Hearings
Comment; EPA's public hearing in Hauppauge, L.I. on January 3,
1972 should have been supplemented by additional
public hearings in different parts of L.I.
Response: The purpose of the public hearing was to encourage
public participation in the preparation of a final
Environmental Impact Statement. We believe that
this hearing gave the public ample opportunity to
participate.
2. Alternatives
Comments; The draft EIS did not explore the full range of avail-
able alternatives.
The draft EIS did not adequately assess stated alterna-
tives .
The draft EIS left the task of combining treatment
alternatives with discharge alternatives to the
reader.
Response; The section entitled ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECTS has
been rewritten to include complete waste treatment-
discharge schemes. Significant alternatives suggested
by reviewers of the draft EIS have been added. There
is also a more comprehensive evaluation of the impacts
of all proposed alternatives. See ALTERNATIVES TO THE
PROJECTS, p. 123.
3. AWT (advanced waste treatment)
Comment: The technology is now available for implementation
of AWT in conjunction with recharge.
Response; The technology for nitrogen removal from wastewater
is available for large-scale demonstration. However,
no facilities of this size are currently operational.
Technology for the recharge of renovated wastewater
on Long Island is available for some methods (flooding
and flow augmentation), but is not well-developed for
other methods (injection wells).
- 202 -
-------
4. Cesspools and Septic Tanks
Comments: Cesspools and septic tanks are largely responsible
for pollution of the ground water.
The projects are unnecessary because individual dis-
posal systems are adequate.
Response; Individual disposal systems pollute the ground water,
rendering it unfit for human consumption. They are,
therefore, unacceptable. Pollution of the glacial
aquifer by individual disposal systems has contrib-
uted to the ground-water quality problems as they
now exist in Nassau and Suffolk Counties. See
ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECTS, p. 123 and Water-Budget
for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, p. 237.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
Comments; The Conclusions and Recommendations in the draft EIS
did not reflect the gravity of the situation on Long
Island.
Some of the Conclusions and Recommendations seemed
at variance with statements in the body of the
draft EIS; others were not adequately substantiated
in the text-
The EPA should have recommended a specific course
of action.
Response: The Conclusions and Recommendations have been re-
written based on the material in the final EIS.
See CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, P. 254.
6. Costs
Comments; The draft EIS should have included detailed cost
analyses of both the proposed projects and alterna-
tive approaches.
The cost estimates given in the draft EIS are not
relevant for the New York metropolitan area.
Response: Generalized cost data are presented for waste treat-
ment, desalination and basin recharge processes.
Detailed cost estimates are not available because
- 203 -
-------
there are too many variables to accurately determine
the cost of every conceivable waste treatment and
disposal option. These detailed cost estimates should
be developed by the appropriate planning organizations
in Nassau and Suffolk Counties as part of the program
that will determine optimal treatment-recharge methods.
See CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, p. 254.
7. Credibility Gap
Comments: Conflicting expert testimony about the projects has
caused a great deal of confusion. One group of
experts insists that sewering is necessary to pro-
tect ground-water quality. Other experts predict
disastrous effects on the water supply, ecology
and recreation if sewering, waste treatment: and
ocean discharge are implemented.
The tactics used to drum up public support for the
Southwest Sewer District were deplorable. Such
tactics only serve to alienate the people and make
them skeptical of future projects.
In some areas, there seems to be a discrepancy be-
tween EPA policies and EPA actions (e.g., omission
of the Freeport project in the draft EIS).
Response: Whenever two or more viable alternatives are avail-
able, the selection, to some extent, will be based
on value judgments. Personal bias will understand-
ably be a factor. Thus, different experts,, analyzing
the same situation and weighing the same facts, may
develop opposing recommendations.
The proponents of the Suffolk County Southwest Sewer
District project have been accused of employing scare
tactics to force public acceptance of the project.
If such tactics were employed, we can only register
our firm disapproval.
A description of the Village of Freeport treatment
plant expansion project (WPC-NY-564) was not included
in the draft EIS. EPA records indicated that the
Interim Basin Plan had not been approved prior to
finalization of the draft statement. The proposed
Freeport project involved expansion and upgrading of
an existing plant to provide advanced waste treatment.
204 -
-------
8. Data
Comments:
Response:
The proposed treatment process included phosphorous
removal through chemical treatment (lime) followed by
biological nitrification-denitrification to remove
nitrogen.
A final course of action has not yet been determined.
Some of the sources of information used in preparing
the draft EIS are inaccurate or incorrect.
The EPA should explain the lack of data on some
subjects.
Wherever possible, specific data corrections were
made in the text. The most sizeable revision was
in the section dealing with Long Island Sound and
adjacent waters. This revision was based on newly-
acquired information. See Water Quality of Long
Island Sound and Its Bays and Harbors, p. 65.
Despite numerous offers of assistance from persons
dissatisfied with the draft EIS, little new or use-
ful information was contributed. In fact, certain
of the draft statement's more loquacious critics
seemed overly-reluctant to volunteer their expertise.
A sincere attempt was made to accurately reflect the
present situation on Long Island. We realize that
more recent and more complete data may exist.
However, the final EIS represents the best informa-
tion available or contributed by concerned organiza-
tions.
9. Effluent Disposal (Bay, Ocean, Recharge, Direct Reuse)
Comments; Ocean discharge of treated effluent is an environ-
mentally unacceptable means of disposal.
If ocean disposal is employed, some sort of fresh
water recycling must be implemented to prevent
depletion of the potable water supply and to avoid
any adverse ecological or recreational effects.
Response: The EPA is in full agreement with these comments.
See ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECTS, p. 123, and
Water-Budget for Nassau and Suffolk Counties,
p. 237.
- 205 -
-------
10. Environmental Impact of Projects
Comments:
Response:
11.
Freeport
Comment;
Response;
The draft EIS did not thoroughly evaluate the pos-
sible impacts of the projects or the consequent
effects on fish, wildlife, etc.
The draft EIS did not provide an adequate assess-
ment of the environmental effects that construc-
tion or operation of the facilities might cause.
Both the draft and final impact statements were
based on the best available information. In many
cases, the required information was simply not
available. It should be pointed out that research
remains to be done in many areas. For example,
the Fish and Wildlife experts requested a detailed
analysis which they themselves would be unable to
develop because of a lack of certain hydrologic
data. (Porter, oral communication, 1972). This
data, which regards the rate and extent of changes
in fresh water flow to the bays and the salinity
of the bays as a result of extensive sewering and
ocean disposal of treated wastewater without re-
charge to the ground water, is not now available.
The draft EIS should have included a discussion
of WPC-NY-564, Village of Freeport Sewage
Treatment Plant Expansion.
See the response to Credibility Gap, Comment
number 7.
12. General Criticisms
Comments; The amount of time allotted for review of the
draft EIS was insufficient.
The format of the draft EIS was confusing and
unsatisfactory.
Response: The deadline for commencement of construction on
the projects was March 31, 1972. New York State
funds were contingent upon meeting this deadline.
Consequently, the EPA was forced to adopt the
following schedule:
- 206 -
-------
Dec. 15, 1971 - Draft completed, printed, re-
ceived by CEQ, and distributed
to agencies and public.
Jan. 3, 1972 - Public hearing to insure public
participation in EIS preparation
held.
Jan. 14, 1972 - End 30 day draft review period.
Jan. 31, 1972 - All comments received (after
possible 15 day extension).
Feb. 10, 1972 - Final EIS completed and mailed.
Feb. 14, 1972 - Final EIS received by CEQ.
Mar. 15, 1972 - End 30 day - 90 day review by
CEQ.
Mar. 31, 1972 - Deadline for beginning of con-
struction with New York State
aid.
Despite the closeness of this schedule, it had to be
attempted. EIS guidelines designate thirty days for
the review of draft statements. Except for those
statements made at the public hearing, no detailed
comments were received prior to the January 14, 1972
deadline.
However, in a letter dated January 20, 1972, New York
State withdrew approval of the forty-five applications
for Federal grants for sewage treatment projects which
were pending in this office. The March 31, 1972 dead-
line became Inconsequential.
Accordingly, the EPA granted a fifteen day extension
of the review period. The EPA accepted and evaluated
all significant comments regardless of the date
received. The last of these comments arrived on
March 8, 1972.
In short, the EPA welcomed extra-agency participation
in the formulation of an accurate and complete final
EIS and went to great lengths to facilitate this
process.
- 207 -
-------
The format employed in both the draft and final
statements is that required by the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as specified
in EPA guidelines for the preparation of
Environmental Impact Statements.
13. Land Treatment
Comments; Spray irrigation of secondary effluent is a viable
alternative to ocean disposal.
Spray irrigation technology is an established reality.
It is apparent from statements made in the; draft EIS
that EPA personnel do not understand the mechanics of
purification in land disposal systems.
Response: A careful examination of the comments dealing with
land treatment revealed widespread confusion about
the capabilities of spray irrigation as well as an
inability to critically evaluate the spray irrigation
experiments cited. For instance, none of the examples
referred to as proof of the spray irrigation tech-
nique's capabilities involved domestic wastewater
that had received secondary treatment. Industrial
wastewaters from food processing plants are not
comparable to secondary treatment plant effluents,
especially with respect to nitrogen content. A
more detailed discussion of land treatment is
included in the hope that some of the misconcep-
tions pertaining to spray irrigation and its
"universal applicability" will be clarified. See
Land Treatment, Spray Irrigation, "Living Filter",
p. 213.
14. Marine Environment
Comment; The discussion of marine life in the draft EIS was
totally inadequate.
Response: The discussion of marine life in the draft EIS
reflected the best information available to the
authors. The authors requested additional infor-
mation from responsible agencies. However, no
material that would have significantly altered
or improved the original section was discovered.
- 208 -
-------
15. NEPA (National Environmental Policy Act)
Comment:
Response;
16. Policy
Comments:
Response;
17. Recycling
Comment:
Response:
The draft EIS did not conform to the guidelines
set down by the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969.
Given the information and the resources available,
the authors attempted to comply with the guidelines
set down in the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969.
The EPA should have made a firm policy statement
in the draft EIS regarding the Long Island
situation.
The EPA should force local governments to adopt
environmentally sound resource management
programs.
The EPA's position on the Long Island situation
is set forth in ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECTS,
p. 123, and CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS,
p. 254.
It is the responsibility of local government to
develop and implement environmentally sound
resource management programs. Wherever possible,
the EPA should lend assistance, but should not
pre-empt local efforts. The EPA is charged with
the protection of the environment for the people
of the United States. If a municipality should
choose to ignore its role in protecting the
environment, the EPA would be obliged to assume
this responsibility according to its stated
objective.
An attempt should be made to recycle any salvage-
able materials with a view towards eventual total
recycling of "pollutants."
The EPA supports the concept of resource recycling.
Indeed, recycling will be a necessity in the future.
However, recycling methods must be designed and im-
plemented in a manner that does not cause further
environmental harm.
- 209 -
-------
18. Research Needed
Comment; There is a pressing need for research in many areas
related to the projects, e.g., recharge and nitrate
removal.
Response; There is a definite need for research in many sub-
ject areas discussed in the EIS. Nitrogen removal
has been demonstrated at the pilot scale and is being
implemented. Recharge goals must be delineated.
Optimal wastewater treatment and recharge systems
must be designed and implemented. Detailed cost in-
formation for new waste treatment systems must be
developed.
Improved detection and quantitation techniques for
viral and bacterial pathogens must be developed.
The effects of long-term exposure to low levels of
the materials present in wastewater effluents must
be determined for all organisms and all environments.
Also, the costs of these effects must be defined and
then compared with the benefits derived from waste-
water treatment. Although this is only a partial
list of research needs, it does indicate the great
number and kinds of questions that remain to be
answered.
19. Resource Management
Comment; Effective resource management requires an inter-
disciplinary approach, that is, not only technology
but conservation, planning, zoning, etc.
20.
Response
Sewers
Comments:
The EPA concurs with this comment.
TO THE PROJECTS, p. 123.
See ALTERNATIVES
There is no need for large scale sewering on Long
Island.
The leakage from sewers should be quantified.
Response; The need to prevent polluted wastewater from enter-
ing the ground water and the use of waste treatment
plants toward this end are discussed in ALTERNATIVES
TO THE PROJECTS, p. 123.
- 210 -
-------
21.
Sludge
Comment:
Response:
Specifications for the construction of sewer lines
limit the amount of infiltration or exfiltration.
The specifications permit 100-120 gal./inch
diameter/mile/day of infiltration. Infiltration
is likely to occur only where the sewer line is
below the water table. Where the line is above
the water table, exfiltration can occur. However,
there is no quantitative data available for exfil-
tration.
The discussion of sludge disposal in the draft EIS
was inadequate. The potential uses for sludge, the
problems associated with sludge dumping, possible
air pollution as a result of sludge incineration,
etc., should have been discussed in greater detail.
The discussion of sludge disposal has been rewritten
on the basis of additional data. See ALTERNATIVES
TO THE PROJECTS, p. 123.
22. Sources of Pollution
Comments; The draft EIS failed to identify certain significant
sources of pollution, such as industrial wastes,
fertilizers and pesticides.
The EPA should put pressure on local governments to
enforce existing laws and to pass stricter laws to
curb pollution.
Response: A list of plating industries and food processing
industries has been included in the section
entitled BACKGROUND, p. 30. An estimate of
non-point sources, such as fertilizers and pesti-
cides, on Long Island is not currently available.
These pollutants should not enter the wastewater
treatment systems. Non-point sources must be
considered and evaluated in the final Basin Plan
for this area. This final Basin Plan must be
approved by the EPA prior to July 1, 1973, as
required by 18CFR 601.32 and .33.
The EPA is charged with protecting the quality of
interstate waters. Only in certain cases can the
EPA become involved in the enforcement of intra-
state water quality. Individuals, through their
- 211 -
-------
local governmental bodies, must assume their rights,
privileges and responsibilities regarding the en-
forcement of anti-pollution laws. The EPA will
step in where it has the authority to do so under
the law and when the local authority abdicates its
responsibility.
23. Toxic Materials
Comment; The draft EIS should have identified any toxic
materials that might be released into the ocean
in the treatment plant effluent. The draft EIS
should have discussed any effects that these
materials might produce.
Response; Other than the plating industries, which contribute
heavy metals to the wastewater, there are no known
present or projected sources of toxic materials.
24. Water Budget for Nassau and Suffolk Counties
Comments; The natural recharge and discharge estimates given
in the draft EIS are incorrect.
The draft EIS should have predicted the rate of
reduction of the ground-water table.
The draft EIS should have delineated the time frame
in which adverse impacts as a result of ocean dis-
posal would occur. In conjunction with this, the
draft EIS should have stated the point at which re-
charge would become necessary to avoid adverse
impacts.
Response: See Water-Budget for Nassau and Suffolk Counties,
p. 237.
- 212 -
-------
Land Treatment. Spray Irrigation. "Living Filter"
Recently, much interest has been expressed regarding wastewater
treatment schemes involving the application of wastewater to soil on
which certain plant communities are supported. A number of comments
on the draft EIS urged the use of spray irrigation of secondary efflu-
ent to solve the water supply dilemma facing Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
A syndicated newspaper column, co-authored by a former Secretary of the
Interior (Udall and Stansbury, 1972a), asserts that land disposal of
partially treated sewage is the long sought answer to our wastewater
treatment problems; that it would cause "no water pollution, no air pol-
lution, (and would result in) the conversion of sewage into a resource
(fertilizer), increased crop yields.... It throws off no "wastes"...
(the) approach achieves zero water pollution."
Obviously, the land treatment controversy is charged with emotion.
However, certain facts cannot be denied:
1. There is no one treatment method that is ideal for all situa-
tions. This is primarily due to the diverse composition of
various wastes and the particular circumstances pertaining to
each effluent discharge.
2. In our attempts to abate pollution of one type, we often cre-
ate pollution of another. Thus air pollution is controlled
by precipitators and scrubbers, but in turn a water pollution
problem is generated. In removing pollutants from water, we
create a solids disposal problem.
- 213 -
-------
Proponents of land disposal methods often fail to realize that, in
time, the processes they advocate may cause other pollution problems.
In particular, the land and water resources associated with such dis-
posal methods may be adversely affected. The water resources may be
contaminated with nitrate and other undesirable materials. Heavy metals
may be adsorbed in the soil and become concentrated to the extent that
plant life will be severely inhibited. The land may also tend to con-
centrate additional undesirable substances.
The fact is, no matter how we attempt to treat our wastes, a portion
remains that must be disposed of in some manner. Our goal must be to
place these "remains" either where they will be beneficial or where they
will cause the least environmental harm.
Let us consider land disposal of secondary effluent with respect to
its ability to remove nitrogen. Being familiar with the nitrogen cycle
(see Appendix H), we can see that the nitrogen in wastewater treatment
effluent is removed by land disposal in one of two possible ways. It is
either incorporated into cell protein and physically removed, as in the
harvesting of a cover crop, or it is microbiologically converted to
nitrogen gas and released to the atmosphere. Any organic or ammonia
nitrogen that remains in or on the soil is subject to conversion to ni-
trate. Thus, it is capable of nitrate contamination of the water into
which the land treated effluent flows.
A plant community has a nitrogen requirement. Additional nitrogen
can help to increase plant growth. There is, however, a limit to the
amount of nitrogen that a plant community can assimilate. To exceed
- 214 -
-------
this limit or to apply nitrogen at periods when growth is attenuated
can result in increased nitrate concentrations in the soil below the
plant community. (EPA, 1971b). The amount of nitrogen assimilated
is influenced by the nature of the plant community and the environmental
conditions. The volume of nitrogen applied can be controlled by adjust-
ing the amount of the nitrogen containing irrigant (wastewater). This
variable is the only positive control we have over the process.
Nitrogen added to the soil in excess of that removed by harvested
plants may be denitrified and released to the atmosphere. However,
"The extent of this process (denitrification) and the factors affecting
it under field conditions are not well understood." (EPA, 1971b).
Attempts to control denitrification by periodic wetting and drying,
thereby creating anaerobic and aerobic conditions in the soil, in a
land disposal project using secondary treated wastewater effluent have
been less than successful. (See High Rate Systems, p. 229). The pre-
sent state-of-the-art is such that we have little or no positive control
over denitrification in land disposal systems.
Land disposal systems for ground-water recharge of wastewater can
be classified as low rate systems (over-irrigation of agricultural crops)
or high rate systems (those employing basins, ditches, furrows, or
sprinklers for infiltration only). (Bouwer, 1970a). Low rate systems
utilize wastewater applications of approximately 2 to 10 ft./yr. while
high rate systems achieve wastewater applications of 150 to 350 ft./yr.
or more. (Bouwer et al., 1971).
- 215 -
-------
Low Rate Systems
If a product water of low nitrogen content were required, a low
rate system would be the obvious choice since the cover crop could be
expected to remove a portion of the nitrogen applied.
Accumulator is a term applied to a crop which accomplishes a luxury
consumption of nutrients, i.e., N, P, K, etc. Grasses are excellent
accumulators because: (1) the physical aspects of their root systems
enable rapid uptake of nutrients, (2) they have a capacity for rapid
growth, and (3) they have the capacity to convert nutrients to plant pro
tein. The best grass scrubbers of nitrogen from soil are the sorghums.
Under ideal conditions, the best scrubbing of nitrogen that can be ex-
pected is approximately 200 Ibs./acre. Other good nitrogen scrubbers
are corn, orchard grass, brome and timothy. (Sprague, oral communica-
tion, 1972).
Denitrification does occur in soil. Although we have little or no
positive control over the process at this time, some of the nitrogen
added to the soil will be removed by this process. Hinesly (oral com-
munication, 1972), indicated that under normal field conditions, approxi
mately 30% of the applied nitrogen is lost through denitrification.
That land disposal of treated wastewater in lot* rate application to
agricultural crops constitutes normal field conditions is questionable.
Some denitrification will no doubt occur. However, one designs for un-
controllable processes at a great risk.
The amount of treated wastewater that can safely be applied to land
without excessive nitrogen contamination of the ground water depends
- 216 -
-------
on many factors: climate, the nature of the soil, the amount of back-
ground nitrogen present, the nature of the crop used to scrub nitrogen,
crop management, and the timing of irrigation.
Nitrogen applied at times of attenuated or no plant growth can re-
sult in nitrate contamination of the ground water. Therefore, a hold-
ing capacity is needed for storing wastewater during the colder months
in temperate climates, such as those experienced in much of the northern
United States.
It should be emphasized that the nitrogen scrubbing crop must be har-
vested in order that the nitrogen be removed. Unharvested material will
be recycled according to the nitrogen cycle. The result will be no net
nitrogen removal for the unharvested portion.
In 1963, a study at Penn State University (Parizek et al., 1967) was
undertaken to evaluate the feasibility of applying secondary treated
wastewater effluent to higher plant communities to accomplish utilization
of the nutrients present in the wastewater, renovation of that wastewater
by passage through the soil (with its associated plant communities) and
recharge of the renovated effluent to the ground water. The wastewater
was applied to both forest and agricultural plant communities at rates
of 1, 2 and, in some cases, 4 inches per week.
The study is often cited as an example of effective implementation
of the "Living Filter" technique of secondary effluent disposal to the
ground water. Questions exist, however, concerning the efficacy of this
process in removing sufficient nitrogen from the wastewater to insure
that nitrate contamination of the augmented ground water will not occur.
- 217 -
-------
Results reported by Sopper (1971) indicate that nitrate contamina-
tion may occur in ground water beneath irrigated woodland communities.
"Nitrogen, like phosphorus, is one of the elements!
responsible for eutrophication and profuse growth
of aquatic plants in streams. The concentration
of nitrate nitrogen which was reduced by 68 to 82%
at the 30 cm (12 inch) soil depth during the first
year (1963) gradually diminished (renovation dimin-
ished) during the six years until renovation at the
120 cm (48 inch) soil depth only ranged from 27 to
70%. At this depth nitrate nitrogen concentrations
ranged from 1.5 to 19.9 mg/1 and except for the red
pine 5 cm (2 inch application) plot were below the
allowable maximum drinking water limit of 10 mg/1.
In comparison, concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen
in percolating water at the 120 cm (48 inch) depth
on the control plots ranged from 0.1 to 1.6 mg/1.
Nitrate nitrogen concentration, of the groundwater
as measured at wells on the site remained below
3 mg/1.
"Increasing concentrations of nitrate-nitrogen in
the afforested areas receiving continued irrigation
with sewage effluent could become a major problem
and a deterrent to long-term use of afforested areas
for disposal sites." (Sopper, 1971).
From Parizek et al., (1967), the conclusion is inferred that it is
perfectly safe to apply wastewater effluent to forest and agronomic
areas (during months April-December).
"3) Effluent was renovated when applied at rates of
one, two, or four inches per week from April to
December on agronomic and forested areas. Ninety
to 95 per cent of the surfactants were removed
during passage through one foot of soil. Phos-
phorus concentration was reduced by 99 per cent
and nitrate by 68-82 per cent."
and
"6) The harvesting of agronomic crops contributed to
the renovation of the effluent through removal
of nutrient constituents. Agronomic crops, be-
- 218 -
-------
cause harvesting each year removes nutrients
from the fields are superior to forest crops
which recycle some of the nutrients by redeposi-
tlon of leaf and stem litter. At the same time,
economic benefits were obtained in the form of
increased yields ranging from 17 to 300 per cent
in various crops." (Conclusions, Parizek et al.,
1967).
Conclusion (3) is misleading. The nitrate renovation stated is that
presented for the forested test plots during the 1963 operation. However,
1964 results showed otherwise.
"There was, however, a significant increase in the
concentration of nitrate nitrogen in the 1964 per-
colates. After passing through the upper foot of
soil, for example, concentrations varied from
0.9 to 1.6 ppm (mg/1) in 1963 and from 5.3 to
13.1 ppm (mg/1) in 1964. This increase was due to
the higher concentration of nitrate nitrogen in the
effluent applied in 1964, to nitrification of organic
nitrogen added in 1961;, and to recycling of nitrogen
in the vegetative litter." (Parizek et al., 1967).
Six deep wells were installed in the agronomy area:
"To increase the probability of obtaining representa-
tive samples of ground water leaving the irrigation
sites." (Parizek et al., 1967)
and
"To obtain additional information about renovation,
suction lysimeters were installed in each cropping
strip in the Agronomy Area at 6, 24, and 48 inches
below the surface late in the summer of 1964. The
first samples from these lysimeters were secured
on October 8." (Parizek et al., 1967).
Subsequent lysimeter data was reported, but this referred only to sur-
factant and phosphorus concentrations.
With the possible exception of well F4, Parizek et al., (1967) do
not report a single nitrogen concentration value for percolated water
- 219 -
-------
beneath the agronomic area; that is, they give no values which would in-
dicate whether or not nitrogen contamination of ground water occurs be-
neath crops irrigated with secondary treated wastewater effluent. The
monitoring well F4 was located in a forest adjacent to the red pine
plantation approximately 1/3 mile from the agronomy area. Nitrate nitro-
gen values for samples taken from this well were reported for 9 months
prior to the commencement of irrigation in May 1963; however, nitrate
values were not reported after July 1963 (2 months after irrigation had
commenced).
A report by Kardos (1967) provides additional information concerning
the agronomic phase of the study. Kardos stated that from 1963 through
1967, a severe drought
"...drastically decreased crop yields on the un-
treated control area. Crop yields on the waste-
water-treated areas, which have received no commer-
cial fertilizer except a small amount (200 pounds
of 5-10-10 per acre) of starter fertilizer on corn,
have been above average."
The table below illustrates the pounds of nitrogen (in the effluent)
added per acre to the agronomy area for the years 1963, 1964 and 1965.
POUNDS OF NITROGEN IN WASTEWATER ADDED
PER ACRE TO CROPS AT PENN STATE
Wastewater
Application
Rate
1'Vwk.
2"/wk.
1963
69.4
138.8
1964
135.9
271.8
1965
53.25
106.5
- 220 -
-------
The 2"/wk. application rate (the highest used) resulted in a total
application of A8, 66, and 58 Inches for the three years, respectively.
Kardos (1967) reported the crop yields at various levels of appli-
cation of wastewater in 1965 stating, "The yields in 1965...are typical
of the response being obtained from the water and nutrients in the waste
water." These 1965 yields are given below:
0"/wk. l"/wk. 2"/wk.
Alfalfa hay, tons/acre 2.27 4.67 5.42
Corn, bu./acre 63.3 114.4 110.8
Corn silage, tons/acre 3.11 3.93 4.32
Oats, bu./acre 45.2 80.1 72.6
Keep in mind that the drought conditions seriously bias the experi-
ment in favor of the irrigated crop yields (i.e., they tend to exaggerate
the increase in crop yields). Let us consider the fate of nitrogen.
Note that at an application of 53# nitrogen/acre (1'Vweek), the yields
for corn and oats were almost double that of the control. But, when an
additional 53# nitrogen/acre (2"/week) were added, the yields were less
than those obtained at the l"/week application.
The amount of nitrogen removed in harvested corn silage in 1965 was
reported as 90.2#/acre, 106.90/acre and 111.5///acre at 0"/wk., l"/wk. and
2"/wk. wastewater applications, respectively. Thus, when no nitrogen was
added the corn silage removed 90.2# nitrogen/acre. When 53# nitrogen/acre
(l"/wk. application) were added, the silage contained 106.9#/acre, an
increase of only 17.1 Ibs./acre over the control. Indeed, when 106#
- 221 -
-------
nitrogen/acre were added (2"/wk. application), the silage contained only
111.5#/acre. This represents an increase in nitrogen removal of a mere
4.6#/acre over that obtained when 53# nitrogen/acre less was applied
(the l"/wk. application). The fate of the extra nitrogen is not explained,
Yet, Kardos (1967) makes the following statement:
"The data indicate that the living crop can contri-
bute substantially to the life of the renovation
system in the living filter if the crop is harvested
and utilized. At the 1-inch-per-week level of appli-
cation of the waste water, corn silage removed nutri-
ents approximately equivalent to 200% of the total
applied nitrogen (nitrate and organic), 39% of the
applied phosphorus, and 62% of the applied potassium.
Even at the 2-inch-per-week level corn silage removed
the equivalent of 104% of the applied nitrogen.
"Thus the two nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, .. .are
substantially removed by the harvested crop before the
recharging wastewater leaves the root zone."
Kardos refers to a parameter he terms "renovation efficiency."
Kardos defines "renovation efficiency" as "pounds of nutrients removed
in harvested crop/pounds of nutrients added in the waste water, times
100." (Kardos, 1967).
In 1965, the nitrogen removed in corn silage was equal to 106.9///acre
for the 1" wastewater application of 53.25# nitrogen/acre and 111.5#/acre
for the wastewater application of 106. 5# nitrogen/acre. Thus, the "reno-
vation efficiency" for nitrogen by corn silage was:
x 100 = 200.5% for the 1" application, and
jj •
x 100 - 104.8% for the 2" application.
- 222 -
-------
The parameter is not valid because it fails to consider the back-
ground nitrogen present in the soil. Thus, if a pound of nitrogen per
acre had been accidently applied to the control for corn silage, the
crop would have a "renovation efficiency" of:
x 100 - 902%
The amount of background nitrogen present in the soil was not re-
ported.
Nitrogen data were reported for water that had percolated through
the soil of the cropped plots. Tha data represented the average concen-
tration of nitrate nitrogen during October 1965 in suction lysimeter
(which had been installed late in the summer of 1964) samples at several
depths. (The data are from Table 7, Kardos, 1967):
Application
Level
in
inches /wk.
0
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
Depth
in
feet
0.5
2
4
0.5
2
4
0.5
2
4
N03-N
Concentration
in
mg/1
10.06
9.15
6.26
0.83
2.73
5.20
3.03
3.79
5.97.
Nevertheless,
"The average composition of water samples obtained at
various depths by means of suction lysimeters
(Table 7 (NO-j-N values just given above)) indicates
- 223 -
-------
that after 3 years of operation, in which approximately
170 inches of waste water had been applied, the reno-
vation capacity of the soil profile was still excellent....
Nitrate nitrogen concentrations at the 4-foot depth
were leas than those found in the control area
(6.3 rag/1) and about equal to the average concentration
(5.5 mg/1) of nitrate nitrogen in the applied waste
water."(Kardos, 1967).[Emphasis added].
One would certainly expect the nitrogen levels to be lower in the
control area than in the treated area, not higher.
The case for low rate land disposal of secondary treated effluent
("living filter," spray irrigation, etc.) as a means of providing addi-
tional ground water free from nitrogen contamination is clearly not
demonstrated in reports describing the research conducted at Perm State.
When considering the "Perm State Studies," one should also note that
the total nitrogen concentration in the effluent used for irrigation was
lower than that normally expected in a "typical" secondary effluent.
The nitrogen concentration was reported as 12.7, 18.2 and 8.1 mg/1 for
1963, 1964 and 1965, respectively (Kardos, 1967) as opposed to the
20-40 mg/1 one commonly encounters.
Despite the uncertainties of land treatment, proponents of these
methods insist they have found the answer to the wastewater treatment
problem:
"Old Guard conservationists ... have hysterically mis-
construed a promising alternative to AWT - the land
treatment sewerage ideas now being pioneered at
Muskegon Mich., Penn State University, Melbourne,,
Australia, and scorts (sic) of other sites.
"...Because this controversy may flare up in other
cities, its myths must be dispelled.
Myth 1: Land treatment works only on sandy soils,
not the finely packed clays of the upper Potomac
- 224 -
-------
basin. Fact: It can be adapted to nearly all soils.
In Melbourne, where clays's predominate, splendidly
fat cattle have been raised on pastures sprayed
with sewage wastewater.
Myth 3: Land treatment removes only 70 percent
of the biological oxygen demand (BOD) in sewage.
Fact: It removes 99 percent of the BOD. Furthermore
it removes at least 99 percent of the viruses, bacteria,
organic compounds, heavy metals, phosphorus, and sus-
pended solids and 80 to 90 percent of the nitrogen.
These accomplishments make AWT look like a comparative
disaster which It is." (Udall and Stansbury, 1972b).
When one reads such statements, it is easy to understand the public's
confusion concerning land treatment. These statements imply that land
treatment has been demonstrated capable of the removals stated. Unfor-
tunately, this is not the case. Land treatment may be capable of excel-
lent removals of BOD, bacteria, phosphorus, organic compounds (although
not all organic compounds), heavy metals (consider the consequences of
concentration in the soil) and suspended solids. In view of present
inadequacies relating to virus detection and quantitation methodology,
however, the statement concerning virus removals is unfounded. In addi-
tion, the nitrogen removals claimed have not to date been demonstrated.
We have seen that the fate of nitrogen at the Penn State Study was not
sufficiently determined; and since the Muskegon facility is not yet
completed, it has not demonstrated any removals.
Land treatment can be used on high clay content soils. However,
the amount of land required would be substantially increased. The de-
creased permeability of such soils necessitates reduced application
rates so that aerobic conditions in the root zone will be sufficient to
properly maintain a plant cover community.
- 225 -
-------
It should not be construed that land disposal of secondary effluent
is never a viable alternative to AWT, only that it is not universally
a viable alternative. A closer look must be taken at low rate land dis-
posal systems in connection with the ultimate fate of nitrogen. Also,
serious consideration must be given to potential long-term deleterious
effects which such disposal methods might cause.
The Muskegon County Wastewater Management System (which is presently
under construction) will be the first large-scale low rate wastewater
land disposal system in the country. Some consider it & prototype for
nationwide application of land treatment technology. Therefore, a dis-
cussion of the project is in order.
The Muskegon County wastewater management system (Bauer Engineering
Inc., 1971) is designed to process 43.4 mgd of wastewater. About 24 mgd
of this would be contributed by industrial sources. The wastewater will
be given the equivalent of secondary treatment by a series of aerated
lagoons. The effluent will then be applied to the 6,200 acres of sandy
soil used for the "land treatment." (Provision is made to accommodate a
total of 5 months flow in storage lagoons; no irrigation is planned be-
tween November and April).
The design calls for the application of 2.5 million gal./acre/year
of "secondary" effluent to the land. In the project's early years, the
rate of application will average 2.1"/week. This will be increased to
an average of 3"/week at design. At an influent total nitrogen concen-
tration of 20-40 mg/1, the nitrogen application to the land is calculated
at 292 to 584///acre/year during the early years and 417 to 834#/acre/year
- 226 -
-------
at design. This is in contrast to the design, year nitrogen loading es-
timated at about 150#/acre/year. (Bauer Engineering Inc., 1971).
In a comment on the draft EIS, Bauer (written communication, 1972)
stated:
"With regard to the requirement for the removal of
nitrate nitrogen or ammonia nitrogen prior to land
irrigation, we have found in our project for the
County of Muskegon, Michigan that this nitrogen can
be removed as follows:
"1. About 40% in the sludge resulting from biological
treatment.
"2. ...it is estimated that 75% of the remaining
60% would be utilized by the plants. The
plants will initially be grass, and will be
allowed to decay thus building up the organic
nitrogen and thus the humus content of the
topsoil. Accumulations of up to 10,000 pounds
per acre (or even more) of organic nitrogen
can be achieved without excessive leaching
of nitrates to the ground water."
However, the Muskegon design does not provide for continuous removal
of sludge from the system; rather, sludge will be stored in the main
wastewater storage basins. (Bauer Engineering Inc., 1971). Upon diges-
tion of the sludge in the storage basins, the sludge's nitrogen content
will be resolublized and recycled according to the nitrogen cycle.
Nitrogen is not removed in the sludge because the sludge is not removed
from the system.
It was emphasized earlier in this discussion that for effective
nitrogen removal, cover crops must be removed from the land system.
Failure to harvest the crop will result in recycling of the nitrogen
according to the nitrogen cycle. Since the nitrogen remains in the
- 227 -
-------
system, the potential exists for its conversion to nitrate and leach-
ing to the ground water.
The amount of organic nitrogen that can be accumulated la the soil
without excessive leaching of nitrate to the ground water will depend
on the nature of the organic nitrogen. The organic nitrogen in humus
and digested sludge is very stable, i.e., slowly converted to ammonia.
The organic nitrogen in plant protein is less stable and is more readily
ammonified. The organic nitrogen in algal tissue (algae growths are ex-
pected in the aerated lagoon effluent (FWQA, 1970)) is very readily
ammonified. (Toth, oral communication, 1972).
It would be speculative to venture a comment on whether the <5 mg/1
goal for effluent total nitrogen concentration will be achieved.
Fortunately, the project should enable observation of the fate of
nitrogen. An extensive drainage system, consisting of 35 wells, 70 miles
of perforated drain title, 19 miles of main drain pipe, 10 miles of
drainage ditches and 2 pumping stations, will collect the wastewater
after it has percolated through the "living filter." This drainage
system will make possible: management of the water table level beneath
the "living filter," prevention of ground-water migration beneath the
"living filter" into adjacent ground-water supplies, and discharge of
renovated water (to augment low summer flow in nearby rivers which are
tributary to Lake Michigan) at specified points after careful monitoring.
Three hundred and two observation wells surround the irrigation site.
The wells will be used to monitor ground-water quality at different
depths.
- 228 -
-------
The planned research and development program will include agricul-
tural research. The purpose of the agricultural research is to explore
the performance of a range of crops during the first five years of
operation.
This project will provide a tremendous opportunity to research many
aspects of land treatment processes that have been overlooked or inade-
quately studied in the past. It is hoped that this opportunity will be
fully and objectively utilized.
High Rate Systems
Where large quantities of water must be recharged and where avail-
able land is at a premium, high rate systems afford a distinct advantage.
However, these systems are not effective as nitrogen removal processes.
The high rate application of highly treated secondary effluent to
an infiltration basin at Whittier Narrows in California (McMichael and
McKee, 1965) accomplished hydraulic infiltration rates varying from
.59 ft./day to 5.20 ft./day (the equivalent of approximately 215 to
1900 ft./yr.). However, organic and ammonia-nitrogen in the wastewater
were converted almost quantitatively to nitrate. Thus, the percolated
water exceeded the USPHS drinking water standard for nitrate by a fac-
tor of 2 to 3.
In September 1967, the "Flushing Meadows Project" was initiated.
The project's purpose was to determine the way in which wastewater ef-
fluent could be most effectively reclaimed by ground-water recharge via
infiltration basins. The project receives wastewater effluent from the
- 229 -
-------
main Phoenix, Arizona treatment plant (activated sludge). The treated
wastewater is applied to six parallel 20 x 700 ft. recharge basins,
20 feet apart, that have different cover conditions (bare soil, gravel
and vegetation). The soil profile beneath the basins consists of about
3 ft. of fine loamy sand underlain by coarse sand and gravel layers to
a depth of 250 ft. where a clay deposit is located. The test site is
equipped with 8 test wells 20 to 250 ft. in depth. (Bouwer,, 1970b).
By manipulating the periods of inundation and drying (necessary to
maintain high infiltration rates in the basins), it was thought that the
nitrogen in the wastewater could be removed. After two years of "Flushing
Meadows" operation, Bouwer (1970a), describing the project, stated,
"There is an increasing interest in applying conven-
tionally treated sewage, processing plant effluent,
or similar low quality water to land for ground
water recharge as an effective and economical way
for reclaiming the water, while at the same time
avoiding disposal of the waste water in streams
or lakes. After percolating downward through the
soil to the water table and moving laterally as
ground water for some distance, the waste water has
lost its suspended solids, biodegradable materials,
microorganisms, almost all of its phosphorus, and,
with proper management of the spreading facility,
most of its nitrogen."
and
"High-rate systems are preferable where renovating
waste water is the prirae objective because, among
other reasons, it affords control of the total
nitrogen content in the reclaimed water by the
length of the water-application period. For ex-
ample, at the experimental project west of Phoenix
where secondary sewage effluent is used for ground-
water recharge, sequences of long inundation periods,
(14 days wet-7days dry), yielded about 90% removal
of the nitrogen, whereas with sequences of short
- 230 -
-------
Inundation periods, (2 days wet and 3 days dry)
all the nitrogen in the effluent was converted to
nitrate in the renovated water."
In a later publication (Bouwer, 1970b), nitrogen analyses indicated
that by careful scheduling of inundation and dry-up periods, "consider-
able nitrogen can be removed from the effluent as it moves through the
ground." Bouwer noted that after the start-up of each inundation period,
a high nitrate concentration peak of short duration could be expected
in the reclaimed water. (See Figure 10: after Figure 2, Bouwer, 1970b).
In Figure 10, note the influent total nitrogen concentration of
21-33 rag/1, and the rather constant ammonium-N concentration of 1-4 mg/1
in the reclaimed water. Also note the high nitrate-N concentration for
the short inundation-dry up schedule during July and August and the low
nitrate-N concentrations achieved for the longer inundation-dry up schedule.
Disregarding the high nitrate-N peaks experienced after each resumption
of inundation (a fact which cannot be disregarded when renovated water
is recharged to a potable water supply since it is 2 to 3 or more times
the maximum permissible USPHS limit), the process did seem capable of
removing substantial nitrogen from a wastewater effluent. Bouwer (1970b)
also stated,
"The NH. - N content of the reclaimed water usually
stays around 5 p.p.m. and it is apparently not much
affected by the length of the inundation periods used
at the Flushing Meadows Project. Thus, before and
after the passage of the NO^ - peak, the total nitrogen
in the reclaimed water during long inundation periods
in the vegetated basins is about 80% less than that in
the effluent."
- 231 -
-------
I 1 I I I I I I I I < I 1 1 t
NITROGEN - PPM
-------
Bouwer also cited a laboratory study which showed that if inundation
periods were much longer than 2 weeks, the ammonia content of the re-
claimed water tended to increase; and that after 3 months inundation,
the total nitrogen concentration in the renovated water equalled that
of the influent secondary effluent.
Time has shown that the long inundation period (approx. 2-4 wks.)
basin management is not as effective as was once believed. In late
1970,
"The ammonium - N levels in the water from ECW (a 30 ft
deep observation well in the center of the research
plot) were mostly between 15 and 20 ppm (mg/1), which
is considerably higher than the ammonium - N concentra-
tions observed a few years ago when sequences of long
inundation periods were first started (i.e., approx
5 mg/1 (Bouwer, 1970b)). Thus, continued use of long
inundation periods for removing nitrogen apparently
causes an ammonium buildup in the renovated water.
This buildup is probably due to saturation of the
ammonium adsorption complex in the soil, so that more
ammonium remains in the water after oxygen for nitri-
fication is no longer available."
"Thus long flooding periods to minimize the nitrogen
in the renovated water can not be used indefinitely
because of a gradual buildup of the ammonium levels
in the renovated water. Sequences of long inundations
should therefore be periodically interrupted with
cycles of short, frequent inundations to reduce the
ammonium level in the renovated water." (Bouwer et al.,
Recall the effect of short frequent inundation periods on nitrate
concentration in the renovated water as discussed above and shown in
Figure 10 for July and August 1968.
Reversion to short periods of inundation in 1971 reduced the ammonia
N concentration in the renovated water at the expense of increased
- 232 -
-------
nitrate - N concentrations. Since precise quantitation of renovated
water outflow through the basins was impossible, the percentage of nitro-
gen removed by the system could not be ascertained under field conditions.
However, according to laboratory lysimeter studies (whose behavior had
shown good correlation with observations at the field test facility),
the overall effective nitrogen removal efficiency of land disposal of
secondary effluent as practiced at the "Flushing Meadows" project appears
to be on the order of 30%. Seventy percent of the remaining nitrogen is
contained in the high nitrate peaks. These peaks account for 10% of the
volume applied to the soil. (Bouwer, oral communication, 1972).
Once the ammonia - N adsorptive capacity of the soil in a high rate
land disposal system for ground-water recharge is saturated, only about
a 30% reduction of influent total nitrogen is attainable.
In terms of high rate infiltration, the Flushing Meadows Project in
1971 attained successful accumulated infiltrations of 310 and 396 ft.
in the two basins where long inundation period management was continued.
The project attained successful accumulated infiltrations of 130, 148,
155 and 200 ft. in the four basins that were managed with short frequent
inundations (to reduce the increasing NHg concentration in the renovated
water resulting from previous sustained long inundation period management)
Thus, high rate land disposal systems can result in the recharge of
large volumes of treated wastewater to the ground water, but they appear
to be capable of removing only about 30% of the influent nitrogen.
- 233 -
-------
The work done at "Flushing Meadows" provides valuable insight into
the potential long-term "efficiency" in "removing" nitrogen of land dis-
posal systems for ground-water recharge.
Feasibility of Land Treatment (disposal) and
its Applicability to Long Island
To be feasible a waste treatment system must satisfy two conditions:
(1) Can the system be physically built and mechanically operated success-
fully? (2) Is the system an environmentally acceptable solution?
That land disposal methods can satisfy the first condition is an
established fact. They have been built and operated at various locations
throughout the country.
However, no universal statement can be made concerning the feasibil-
ity of land disposal methods because the second condition must also be
satisfied. To determine whether or not a particular system is an environ-
mentally acceptable solution, the system must be evaluated in terms of
the specific environmental conditions existing at a given location.
What may be acceptable at Penn State, Phoenix, Muskegon, Tahoe and Wind-
hoeck (no judgement on the acceptability of facilities at these locations
is intended), may be very unacceptable on Long Island!
On Long Island, the preservation of both ground-water quality and
quantity is a basic environmental need. Land disposal of secondary
treated effluent must be evaluated in light of this need.
Low rate land recharge is very inefficient as a recharge method
primarily because of its low application rate (2 to 10 ft./yr. compared
with 150 to 400 ft./yr. or more for high rate systems). The land re-
- 234 -
-------
quirement presents a particularly acute problem on Long Island. Fischer
et al., (written communication, 1972) estimated that over 20 square
miles would be required to recharge the wastewater for the 1.1 million
present population of Suffolk County when a 2"/wk. application (as at
Penn State) was used. This estimate does not include the land required
for a buffer zone to protect against the possible spread of water-borne
disease by aerosol drift. The use of small plots of land would be even
more impractical:
"Land use efficiency would be drastically reduced by
the use of small plots, as each would require a
buffer zone with a square 100 acre plot and a 500 ft.
buffer zone, for example, the buffer area would ex-
ceed the irrigated area." (Fischer et al., written
communication, 1972).
Considering the potential for a long-term buildup of toxic materials
in the soil and the fact that even low rate agricultural irrigation can-
not guarantee against nitrogen contamination of the ground water, the
use of this method for recharge on Long Island is not recommended at this
time.
High rate land recharge might be an efficient means of preserving
ground-water quantity. However, it would result in serious nitrogen
contamination of the ground water.
In view of the need to preserve both ground-water quality and quantity,
land disposal systems using "secondary" effluent are deemed environmentally
unacceptable. Therefore, they are not feasible or not applicable on Long
Island in those areas where receiving waters will be adversely affected by
nutrients.
- 235 -
-------
An approach that would successfully address the environmental neces-
sities on Long Island would be the removal of nitrogen from wastewater
at the treatment plant followed by recharge to the ground water via high
rate infiltration basins (as at "Flushing Meadows" and "Whittier Narrows"),
Summary
The general comments received suggesting complete overhaul of the
draft statement's treatment of "Spray Irrigation" have resulted in the
preceding section on land treatment. An understanding of the nitrogen
cycle (Appendix H) and a careful reading of the preceding material
should satisfactorily answer the questions raised concerning spray
irrigation. In order to clarify any remaining uncertainties, the fol-
lowing material is presented.
Spray irrigation of industrial (mostly food processing) wastes is not
comparable to irrigation of secondary treated domestic wastewater. This
is due to the differing nature of the nitrogen content in the wastes.
The industrial wastes contain primarily organic nitrogen while domestic
wastewaters contain primarily inorganic nitrogen (mostly as ammonia).
While the physical feasibility of spray irrigation is widely accepted,
its ability to remove nitrogen has not been conclusively demonstrated.
This is of paramount concern when recharge is to a potable water supply.
For a spray irrigation system to remove sufficient nitrogen from
secondary effluent to permit recharge to a potable water supply, a low
application rate (2-8 ft./year depending on nitrogen content in the
irrigant) is required. Winter storage of the effluent where plant growth
- 236 -
-------
is attenuated in temperate climates is also necessary. Where the avail-
ability of land is a factor, spray irrigation is grossly inadequate as
a recharge method, especially compared to high rate systems.
Finally, where discharge is to a potable water supply, dilution
should not be considered a substitute for adequate treatment.
Water-Budget for Nassau and Suffolk Counties
Of particular concern to many individuals who reviewed the draft
Environmental Impact Statement was the water-budget for Nassau and
Suffolk Counties. The two most prevalent expressions of this concern
were the questions: "When will it be necessary to recharge the ground-
water supply with wastewater effluents in order to maintain specified
stream flow levels, specified lake levels and specified positions of
the fresh-salt water interfaces?" and "When will it be necessary to re-
charge wastewater effluents in order to maintain a supply of potable
ground water?"
Unfortunately, there are no definitive answers to these questions.
This viewpoint is substantiated by the following discussion of the hydro-
logic situation in Nassau and Suffolk Counties as described by Franke
and McClymonds (1972). This discussion is an attempt to describe the
hydrologic situation as it was and as it exists today for the area of
Nassau and Suffolk Counties.
The information upon which this section is based primarily concerns
an area of about 760 square miles. This area is bounded on the west by
the Nassau County-Queens County border. The eastern boundary is along
- 237 -
-------
72°40'W., which is near the stream gaging station on the Peeonic River.
The northern boundary generally follows the northern shoreline. The
southern boundary is a curved line that joins the stream flow-measuring
stations on the major streams that drain into the-bays along the south
shore. This area, which will be referred to as the water-budget area,
is shown in Figure 11.
The water-budget area is separated into two regions by a ground-water
divide. The section to the north of the divide is approximately 310 square
miles and the section to the south is approximately 450 square miles.
The water-budget area represents the major portion of Long Island where
the public-water supply is obtained from the underlying ground-water re-
servoir. Most of Long Island's fresh ground-water reservoir is located
beneath this water-budget area. The Forks have been excluded because,
hydrologically, they are virtually independent of the main part of Long
Island.
According to Franke and McClymonds (1972), "Man's activities have
markedly altered the hydrologic system in some parts of the water-budget
area during the past 50 years, and have affected the hydrologic system
in virtually the entire water-budget area. However, the effects of man's
activities on most of the data presented in the following discussion
are small or negligible, unless otherwise noted."
The zone of aeration is that part of solid earth lying above the
water table. The interstices of this zone are largely filled with atmos-
pheric gases and liquid water. Evapotranspiration occurs primarily on or
within several feet of the upper surface of the zone of aeration. Most
- 238 -
-------
cs
rs
-o
c
o
E
o
5
•o
C
o
0)
_*
c
o
o
0)
O)
TJ
0)
4i-
O
c
o
D
u
O
3
O>
-------
-------
of the water that recharges the ground-water reservoir (zone of saturation)
passes through the zone of aeration.
Ground water in the uppermost part of the zone of saturation on Long
Island is generally under water-table conditions. The boundaries of the
fresh ground-water reservoir are the water table, the fresh-salt water
interfaces and the bedrock surface. The water table, which is the upper
boundary of the ground-water reservoir, is dynamic. The water table is
largely a recharging potential boundary of the ground-water reservoir.
The ground-water reservoir is bounded laterally by a dynamic fresh-salt
water interface. For practical purposes, the bedrock surface is the
lower boundary. Table 34 gives the volumes of the various parts of
the fresh ground-water reservoir.
In Figure 12, the flow diagram under natural conditions delineates
only those paths that represent large quantities of water or those that
are of special significance or interest. The average annual precipitation
of 44 inches is the source of all fresh water in the hydrologic system.
Composite average monthly precipitation for the period 1931-60 indicates
that precipitation is distributed fairly evenly throughout the year.
Precipitation on the land surface follows three main paths: direct runoff
to surface waters, return to the atmosphere by evapotranspiration and
infiltration into the zone of aeration. Once into the zone of aeration,
the precipitation either percolates into the ground-water reservoir or
is transpired by plants.
On the basis of available data, it appears that stream flow is not
appreciably derived from direct runoff. Less than 5 percent of total
- 239 -
-------
c
•s o
•* o
•O •:: «
O ^,/-> O
4J 4J w| O
r', -rt s] m
6 O O(
i-l flj H!
*J (AH
(S tC {J
U U 6d 1
1
o o c o
•H 60 0 0
W -rl 0
CN
W **-*'
*
&s "r»
(!) /->,
iu 4J to
1 o a ej
1 & o! o
CB
H
W
53
W
M
p4 t^ ^™^
W S CN
S ° ^
Z2 iH
f ^
Q W *
§ JZ* 0
tP "T3
So §
o S s
*^ ^ r^*
CO fC r-3 H
cn to u
M W M U
r-3 rtf «EU
M fn U»
J flj
fjj ft4 C}
S O »«^
ps ^j
hJ W td
0 H H
^ ^"^
Q Pn
H
S
a
H
Crt
W
0 1 Hi 0
g T3 HI 0
3 S! «j
H & 01 0
o o o
> S-i C ^3
o os
H -Hj H
•u *q HJ
O ^ *^* i
H sj ^e
?
i
U) p
AJ C
•H J3 *J
Ki 4-i ,-j
O -H 12 -K
P.JS ! '•>
0} Tk3f"J
Q -o ri ca m
61 3 0)
«w W O H
O S3 i-l *rlj
P O 8'
$j g »^l
1 <-" -G i
i~j C.O O
o rn
> fo
t
f
c$
S p;{
»y
4J
A ^
ao
1 *O
es 3
O j r3
•H i S
« 4.J i JM
• C.j 1 O
i^ s ^;
•H ; g
ti ?
s-J C
n -H
O H
?3 f S)
S 1 >
H 6J
O rH
K» '
(3
a
w
i ^
« 0
S ,0
I ^
(
o j «
4J ^
M
O
O
o
A
o
o
o
»
0
CN
1
O
c
o
M
o
o
o
*
o
r^
o
o
o
»t
0
o
o
«
CTi
in
o
00
H
£8
Vi
CO
A.!
J}
eo
*"w
3
}
ij
f§
J^
a'
3^'
•rt
i
r*-<
4J
^
r^
«
^
^x
,. -,
6
o
*
0
o
o
«
H
H
I
O
O
o
»1
o
o
in
*
O
T3 5«i
«i es
u O
as M
a o
CS 1C
?2 »•*
*J ej
K; d
- N— f
1
C
vx
O O O
o o o ;
000
A A » 1
O O O
O O O w
0 rH 0 C
• •»•>! gj
H rH CN i >. g
PO CO ^ r^3 v-i O Gi
I ii) O *J 60
1 1 i I -H > CS
! S r- ',-4 60 fl
O O O I O -^ .j S «j
O O O 1 fi ",-) .0 -H 8) B
o o o i u ,j w j w^:v
A *» *- o w
O in O : CU r-l CJ C *rt fS
•> •> S J -" O 13
m VD jj3 .1 ;.' n o w
rH rH 3 4. 1 »kj vv |S 4_) M
i cj *-> & s -a -H o
!fe' T? S 03 •> • ( 13 5J *J H t)
CNcnmiM n-. «rt os ; o ^ !-i 5s rt -H a)
1-< i-! O >v P.
. ! '-' a o>
' ,J ^3 CJ ^ »-4 O rO
.-JO -r! S3 -H
IH ^i •'} ca a u-, « 4-i .'A O O 3
* & H fl/ 50
, W <*- « -O i & fl
- o o cs» m te a)
I^^ M
' fl .1 O 60 0) O
*.' TJ • a G Ji 60 4J
- A. 3 -O 3 -H s ( tfl
i, «J O H «*-i 4-1 U O
o o o oi'i-o tgtjjto
CO H en , ^ ;^ -H O O rH >
CM CSjj(^tI)l»-l J2 3tS>>
i M O w *J CJ H
, j. g no T-l H G> -H
* ^ $Q *i-4 Cl5 rCri ^1
j o o H -.-> o o u te
1 O J3 H Ji JO
' r- H a o >% >^ a> to
j O IS 4 ^3 *J 0)
'A O S3 GO
* * ««J *J £j *\^ ^'J 0)
;C /-N O 6J 63 fl
^r-4 ^ N ^J *^ *T^| ^i ^
« j C> 13 -S >rs M 4J
0) . i-' «— • 03 ^ flj tj PL, 3
T< t ',', -H ta W Si 43
.%J I ^i £* fj <^-s ,O ^4
fl '^5)»^I^^» O tt)
53 C3 i-' O (^ *!-3 W J>
O 1 s; '-' S 0 o « C3 *J
M _ IS > O & p to
;'i )w «i c J b >^ oj s-t
CJ '•,-! CJ O w 1 • 4-' iX >» -H ta
p i (f, v-i ti a ,u u o c
Cf IO ^!M-H«OHO
SiJ jj as s: « » p. i o
T3 , c.1 w '.i ^o ta m
x-^ e .-«. u eo c o J u o o o r-i
>^ ^-* • rj p U A. 6) X C8
a ! s j ,& !», M ca H
T3 &3 T1 ; ;J S £! "r-i "C! '-: '4 C9
C s P u !>.i *-> c, a 5^ e;
CS «rj fflS ! J 41 «i >. W ,« O • 3
W ! IS •J-3 & , & 4J Cv -H ,S O >
s-' Si V"' ir— I H .JS i3 'O rH
CO Lfl O CS O B '3 81 H &>
ES H co j a .c w ?.i 0) w es vc
£1 C3 ^ '^Q 4^ { ^» (D t'J 60 c~*
(d f! 4t | O .£ ft) > S
W pj w 'MOO C* ,£3 li T< i(-i
M g| M . Ci. W O jJ .'J ^3 U O •
! >j ri •«-' ca M •
iw ,£3 *«-< - •;; ^ Lw £1 !^ V) tfi «ri 63
O W O 'M <3 >H O H CO©
ft ^ , ej V -J •:•_! c«-; ^3 G O > (»
y fi • : «'• ,1 "S J o ^a ?H ej a.
» j ;• -. t-i o es H ta M
w ea OT ^ TJ M u >-, ;-! r > -H 4) 3
t j— ! tw O er' rC j!i, JS E >-* p4
^ VJ r^« ^J
T3 'iJ **"^ f'>^ '.'• *i«
^*^ ^*^ N*-^ i "X -iv
1 •%
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
measured stream flow is direct runoff. This quantity is about 1 percent
of the precipitation.
Total evapotranspiration includes: evapotranspiration from the land
surface and the surface-water bodies, evapotranspiration from the zone
of aeration and evapotranspiration from the ground-water reservoir.
Annual evapotranspiration is the greatest unknown in the disposition of
precipitation on Long Island. Using the methods of Thornthwaite and
Mather, the average annual potential evapotranspiration is 29 inches.
Using Meyer's methods, the average annual potential evapotranspiration
is 32 inches. Using various sets of assumptions, the value can range
from 10 to 35 inches. At present, no data are available to directly es-
timate the quantity of water that infiltrates into the zone of aeration.
Virtually all natural ground-water recharge on Long Island is the result
of precipitation infiltrating the zone of aeration and subsequently per-
colating downward through the zone of aeration to the water table. Cohen,
Franke and Foxworthy (1968) estimated that annual recharge from precipi-
tation ranged from about 10 to 35 inches of water for the years 1940 to
1965. Generally, the estimated average annual recharge is calculated by
subtracting estimates of average annual evapotranspiration from average
annual precipitation.
Once the water enters the ground-water reservoir, it can undergo
further movement. The water can eventually be discharged from the
reservoir through seepage to streams and springs, ground-water evapo-
transpiration and subsurface outflow. The average annual discharge of
all measured streams in the water-budget area for the period 1940-1965
- 240 -
-------
was about 310 mgd. When contributions from small streams and springs
were added, the total was 340 mgd for the period between 1940 and 1965.
Another unmeasured outflow associated with streams and springs is the
water which seeps into the lower tidal reaches of streams in the near
shore areas. On the north shore, the estimated average amount of this
water ranges from 10-15 mgd. On the south shore, the range is from
40-48 mgd.
Using the results of Pluhowski and Kantrowitz (1962) in calculating
the quantity of ground-water evapotranspiration in southwestern Suffolk
County, the estimated average ground-water evapotranspiration from the
water-budget area is on the order of 10-15 mgd in magnitude.
Subsurface outflow is the second largest source of discharge in the
water-budget area. For the purpose of calculating subsurface outflow,
it was assumed that ground water in the topmost 40-50 feet of the upper
glacial aquifer discharged to streams. Therefore, calculations for
underflow were made only for the material below this level. The esti-
mated average subsurface outflow of ground water from the water-budget
area is 450 mgd with a possible error of plus or minus 25 percent.
Table 35 gives the water-budget of the water-budget area for water
years 1940-1965. An indirect estimate of ground-water recharge under
natural conditions can be developed from this data if it assumed that
average annual ground-water recharge and discharge were approximately
equal for the budget period 1940-65. Accordingly, the estimated average
annual natural recharge is equal to the estimated average annual natural
discharge, about 800 mgd.
- 241 -
-------
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
To a large extent, the quantitative response of the hydrologic system
of Long Island to many of the ongoing and proposed water-management acti-
vities can be evaluated with the aid of hydrologic models. The Hele-Shaw
model described by Collins and Gelhar (1970) has provided considerable
insight into some of the problems associated with the hydrologic system
of Long Island, and that insight has been incorporated into two recently
completed major reports by consultants. In addition, the U.S. Geological
Survey, in cooperation with several local and State agencies, is actively
engaged in a comprehensive program of developing and applying various
types of analog and digital models to study certain quantitative and
water-quality problems on Long Island. Definitive quantitative answers
to many of the specific water-related environmental questions considered
in this impact statement will have to await the results of these and
other modeling studies that may be forthcoming.
The following discussion summarizes the effects of man's activities
on the hydrologic system of Long Island. Emphasis will be placed on
the effects on the ground-water reservoir.
Ground-water development was programmed through three major stages.
These are tabulated below. This discussion is particularly relevant
with respect to the situations in Kings and Queens Counties and the situ-
ation in the western third of Nassau County.
- 242 -
-------
Storage # Source of Water Supply Method of Waste Disposal Net Results
1 Shallow dug wells or Cesspools with effluent Quality deteriorated.
public supply wells in to upper glacial deposits. Quantity maintained.
upper glacial deposits.
2 Deep public supply Cesspools with effluent Quality deteriorated,
wells from Magothy and to upper glacial deposits. Quantity maintained.
Jameco aquifers.
3 As in 2. Large scale sewage Quality maintained.
systems with discharge Quantity decreased.
to sea.
At present, all three of these stages of development can be found on Long
Island. Figure 13 shows the status of water development in 1966.
Figure 14 is a flow diagram of the hydrologic system in Nassau and
Suffolk Counties in 1960.
A comparison of this diagram with the diagram showing the flow system
under natural conditions (Figure 12) indicates that a number of "boxes"
have been added. These new boxes and routes represent man-made struc-
tures, including: recharge basins, cesspools and septic tanks, water
pipes, diffusion wells and recharge wells, storm drains and sewer drains.
In addition, the pumping of ground water is shown as is the modified
land surface. The major activities of man in relation to Long Island's
hydrologic system are the development of ground water and the disposal
of used water.
Direct runoff from urban areas on Long Island flows into storm sewers
which generally transmit the runoff to recharge basins or nearby streams.
The average annual recharge to the ground-water reservoir from these
basins is on the order of 80 mgd. Of the precipitation falling on paved
areas that is diverted to a drainage basin, a larger percentage enters
- 243 -
-------
00
O)
c
o
_c
o
U
c
o
X
_c
o
<0
I
k
fl>
<
«o
•o
Q> "~
E «r
a -D
o c
1 1
«_ o
0 o
o E
Z it
CO
0)
^
3
O)
------- An error occurred while trying to OCR this image.
-------
the zone of aeration because a smaller percentage Is lost to evapotrans-
piration than under natural conditions.
Direct runoff to some streams has greatly increased,, The develop-
ment of urban areas is responsible for this increase in direct runoff.
The significant feature of direct runoff to streams is that the streams
rapidly discharge into salty water and the direct runoff is thereby lost
to the fresh water system. Evidence has been found that losss of recharge
resulting from increased direct runoff caused the average ground-water
levels in an urbanized area in southeastern Nassau County to decline
about 1-2 feet.
Large-scale pumping of ground water on Long Island has caused a
regional decline in ground-water levels and an increase in the chloride
content of the water in some wells. In order for these effects to occur,
ground water must be permanently removed from the ground-water reservoir.
Sanitary sewers are the major cause of a permanent loss of water from the
ground-water reservoir.
Not all of the pumpage represents a loss of water from the system.
The amount lost depends upon the type of water use and the type of waste-
water disposal. Of the water pumped, a portion re-enters the reservoir
without loss due to leaky water pipes. About 35 mgd is believed to have
been lost from water distribution systems in Nassau and Suffolk Counties
in 1965. Another 35 mgd of total public pumpage is associated with lawn
sprinkling. Approximately 17 mgd of this is lost to evapotranspiration
and approximately 17 mgd is recharged.
- 244 -
-------
Exported water outflow has a negligible effect on the system at
present.
Used water on Long Island Is disposed of In one of three major ways.
The table below indicates the amount (in tngd) disposed of by each method
in Nassau and Suffolk Counties in 1965.
Recharge wells 55
Cesspools and septic tanks 125
Sanitary sewers 75
As was pointed out in the main body of this impact statement,
310 mgd was artificially recharged in Nassau and Suffolk Counties in
1965.
"The estimated total loss from the hydrologic system in Nassau and
Suffolk Counties in 1965 resulting from the activities of man, about
125 mgd...,is less than 10 percent of the estimated average annual in-
put of water to the hydrologic system within the water-budget area,
and less than 20 percent of the estimated total discharge from the
ground-water reservoir under natural conditions.... However, much of
this loss is concentrated in the 70-square-mile area in southwestern
Nassau County that is sewered, and its effect in this area on ground-
water levels and stream flow has been marked." (Franke and McClymonds,
1972).
The majority of criticisms directed at the portions of the draft
statement dealing with hydrology were of a general nature. The preced-
ing overview either answers these general criticisms or explains why a
specific answer cannot be given. The criticisms offered by Dr. Zane
- 245 -
-------
Spiegel, however, were specific enough and detailed enough to warrant
direct responses.
Criticism;
"...the grossly inadequate discussion of the existing
water supply for Long Island was a shock to me when
I read the subject report. The tendency of this inade-
quate discussion is to give a misleading optimistic
picture of Long Island's water situation. The errors
and omissions uniformly tend to exaggerate the available
water supply and thus to minimize the need for effective
action to protect this supply." (Spiegel, written com-
munication, 1972).
Response;
As was pointed out in Table 35, the possible errors in the amounts
given (mgd) for each water-budget item ranged from ± 2-1/2 to ± 50 per-
cent. There is no reason to believe that all errors uniformly tend to
exaggerate the available water-supply. The causes or reasons for most
of those possible errors were given in the preceding overview. Further-
more, there was no attempt to overestimate the water supply or the amount
of recharge. The impact statement reported the best available data. It
neither assumed nor implied any greater accuracy than the authors whose
work was reported.
Criticisms;
1. The draft Environmental Impact Statement failed to in-
clude in Table 17 one of the most recent estimates made
for western Suffolk County. (Spiegel, written communi-
cation, 1972).
2. A 1943 calculation of recharge by the U.S.G.S. was based
on an assumed value for storage property of the aquifer
that is no longer tenable. (Spiegel, written communica-
tion, 1972).
- 246 -
-------
3. Several other estimates of recharge listed In the draft
have been studied carefully and errors In the computations
have been noted In documents readily available. The draft
has failed to correct these errors, but quotes out of con-
text several sections of the reports In which the errors
were made. (Spiegel, written communication, 1972).
Responses;
Item 1. Omitted from Table 17 (Table 23 in the Final EIS) was a
study run at MIT by Wilson, Collins and Gelhar. This research group
used a tool, the Hele-Shaw model, to study in the laboratory the hydro-
logic system of Long Island. In steady state verification or calibration
runs of the model, approximately 18 inches of recharge was found to
satisfactorily simulate the existing conditions on Long Island. This
model does not take into consideration leakage through the Lloyd aquifer.
As a result of this assumption, the 18 inch recharge value would be
lower than that actually expected to occur on Long Island. (Collins
and Gelhar, 1970; Wilson, 1970). In his Masters Thesis, Wilson reports
that the recharge rates are extremely unreliable in the model because
of poor mechanical control of the discharge from capillaries. In fact,
they are so unreliable that the recharge values should be disregarded.
In test run 4A, a recharge value of 12.5 inches was used in the model
and found to simulate conditions on the north shore of Long Island, but
not those on the south shore. This value appeared nowhere else in the
Thesis or terminal report.
Strangely, in another comment criticizing the use of data derived by
Collins and Gelhar (1970) in a different section of the draft statement,
Speigel says, "The predictions by Collins and Gelhar (1970) were made on
- 247 -
-------
the basis of erroneous model construction and operation, and failure to
completely explain the limitations of the models." (Spiegel, written
communication, 1972).
Items 1, 2, and 3. All further discussion of recharge values becomes
academic when one considers that the table of recharge values (Table 17)
was included as background information and that recharge values were not
used to estimate the water supply. As was previously stated, the degree
of possible error in the estimated values in Table 35 ranges from ± 2-1/2
to ± 50%. With errors of this magnitude, 18 vs. 21 inches of recharge
loses all significance.
Criticism;
"Ground-water recharge is already necessary to offset
declines in water levels, and stream flows and retard
salt-water encroachment on the north shore, particularly
in Suffolk. In eastern Suffolk, most of the population
is in coastal areas with many private wells subject to
salt water invasion by lateral or bottom coning. A
'waiting period1 until the time 'when recharge becomes
necessary1 is possible only for some areas, and even
there only on the discredited premise that we ignore
environmental effects on streams, ponds, and bays.
These environmental effects should be discussed in
detail for each of the projects, giving historic hydro-
graphs and projected additional declines due to sewering
without recharge." (Spiegel, written communication,
1972).
Response;
Unquestionably, certain areas of Nassau and Suffolk Counties could
benefit from immediate implementation of ground-water recharge. The sub-
ject of water-management becomes appropriate at this point in the discus-
sion. One of the primary goals of water-resources planning on Long Island
is to provide sufficient water of suitable quality to meet the needs of
Long Island's residents.
- 248 -
-------
The major features of present water-resources development are:
(1) withdrawal of ground water from both the shallow unconfined aquifers
and from the deeper confined aquifers, (2) artificial recharge of pol-
luted wastewater through cesspools and septic tanks, (3) injection of
relatively uncontaminated wastewater through diffusion wells, (4) arti-
ficial recharge of direct-runoff water through shallow basins, and
(5) discharge of treated wastewater into the sea. As a result of these
water-management practices, total fresh-water outflow from the ground-
water reservoir within the water-budget area is greater than total fresh-
water inflow. Consequently, the amount of fresh ground water in storage
is decreasing.
According to Franke and McClymonds (1972):
"If the present management practices continue, it is
likely that, within the water-budget area, (1) the
hydrologic imbalance will increase, (2) ground-water
levels will continue to decline, and (3) salty
ground water will continue to move inland. Accord-
ingly, the present management practices, including
particularly the seaward discharge of sanitary
sewers, is equivalent to a method of planned over-
development .
"...The hydrologic system of Long Island must respond
to any water-management program in a way that is
consistent with the hydrologic equation [Inflow =
Outflow ± Change in Storage]. If one of the manage-
ment objectives is to use the water in a way that
will not result in a continued decrease in the amount
of fresh ground water in storage, it follows from the
equation that a balance between total ground-water
inflow (recharge) and outflow must be attained.
...A management program that causes a continual
hydrologic imbalance in which the total inflow to
the ground-water reservoir in less than the total
net outflow...necessarily will result in the eventual
depletion of the fresh ground water in storage.
- 249 -
-------
However, if the concept of temporary overdraft of
fresh water from the ground-water reservoir is in-
corporated into a management program, the number
of management choices increases markedly."
Todd (1959) gives the following definition of safe yield: "The
safe yield of a ground-water basin is the amount of ground water which
can be withdrawn from it annually without producing an undesired result."
Thus a quantitative value for safe yield must be determined within the
framework of the hydrologic equation and a precise definition of the ex-
tent to which certain undesirable results will be tolerated,.
Management of the water resources of Long Island involves many com-
plex cause-and-effeet relationships, particularly within the ground-water
reservoir. A diversity of opinion exists regarding which factors involve
exploitation of the water resources, and what is desirable and what is
undesirable with regard to developing and managing the water resources.
Despite this diversity of opinion, most would probably agree that the
"best procedure in planning the water-resources development of Long Island
is to evaluate the various water-management alternatives from as many
valid points of view as possible and then to select the alternative or
combination of alternatives which produces the most desirable, or least
undesirable, results in accordance with the wishes of the citizens of
Long Island." (Franke and McClymonds, 1972).
The wishes of the citizens of Long Island, however, must be consistent
with Title 18 - Conservation of Power and Water Resources, Part 601 - Grants
for Water Pollution Control, 601.33, (A) and (B). These regulations stipu-
late that a grant for a project in a regional or metropolitan plan area
- 250 -
-------
shall not be made unless that project Is included in an effective metro-
politan or regional plan. In determining the adequacy of such a plan,
the following will be taken into account: anticipated growth of popula-
tion and economic activity with reference to time and location; present
and future use and value of the waters within the planning area for water
supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, agri-
cultural, industrial and other legitimate uses. (Federal Register,
July 2, 1970).
Several water-management alternatives which affect the hydrologic
equation are considered below.
Inflow can be increased by importation of water from the mainland,
desalination of sea water or salty ground-water, or the construction
of a fresh water reservoir in Long Island Sound.
Outflow can be reduced by intercepting stream flow before it enters
the saline waters. This water could be salvaged by means of a network
of shallow wells and pumping galleries adjacent to the streams. These
shallow wells would remove the fresh water near the top of the ground-
water reservoir. The result would be a minimal decrease in total storage.
The streams, however, would be severely diminished in flow and the amount
of fresh water entering the bays and estuaries would likewise diminish.
Without pretreatment, the quality of water from most of the streams would
not be suitable for use as a water supply; untreated stream water might
also serve to pollute existing ground water if recharged.
A planned decrease of fresh ground water in storage could be per-
mitted. If the decision is made to maintain the positions of the inter-
- 251 -
-------
faces between fresh and salty ground water that existed under natural
conditions, roughly 400 tngd of fresh ground water must be allowed to
discharge by subsurface outflow from the water-budget area toward the
sea. However, if the salt-water wedges are permitted to move inland,
an additional quantity of fresh ground water could be withdrawn from
the aquifers for consumptive use. "Under conditions of intensive devel-
opment, therefore, extensive and carefully planned lowering of ground-
water levels could result in salvaging on the order of 400 mgd, 200 mgd
of subsurface outflow plus 200 mgd of stream flow." (Franke and McClymonds,
1972).
Such sustained regional draw-downs would ultimately result in the
landward movement of the fresh-salt water interfaces and associated
effects such as shallower lakes and shorter streams. "The principle
of permitting the salt-water wedges to move inland to new stable posi-
tions that require less subsurface outflow of fresh ground water to
to the sea is, in effect, a method of planned overdevelopment. ...In
summary, the safe yield of the ground-water reservoir of Long Island
could be increased substantially if it were deemed tolerable to permit
the salt-water wedges to move inland, and thereby allow some of the
present wells to become contaminated with salty water." (Franke and
McClymonds, 1972).
In order to maintain the salt-water wedges at a given position,
a balance must be struck between total fresh ground-water inflow and
outflow. This may be accomplished by the methods previously described
to increase inflow or by artificially recharging treated wastewater in-
to the ground-water reservoir.
- 252 -
-------
Methods of artificial ground-water recharge are described elsewhere
in this report. An evaluation of each of the methods and their applica-
bility can also be found elsewhere in this report.
In summary, "the citizens and water planners of Long Island are for-
tunate because of the large size of the fresh ground-water reservoir.
This large volume of high-quality fresh water in storage lends time,
which, in turn, provides the opportunity for a careful consideration of
the available alternatives and considerable flexibility to the water
manager. ...Although the fresh ground-water reservoir of Long Island
is very large, the activities of man in one part of the reservoir
ultimately will also affect other parts of the reservoir. For this
reason, the most efficient planning to utilize and manage the ground-
water reservoir can be achieved if the reservoir is developed and
managed as a unit.... Because of the great size of the fresh ground-
water reservoir, adequate time is available for...careful planning."
(Frank and McClymonds, 1972).
- 253 -
-------
CONCLUSIONS AW RECOMMENDATIONS
CONCLUSIONS
1. The construction and operation of collection systems and effective
wastewater treatment facilities are essential to the protection of
Long Island's water supply.
2. As soon as the technology is demonstrated, it would be advantageous
for Long Island to implement ground-water recharge for the optimum
utilization of its water resources.
3. A concerted effort must be made to preserve the remaining marshland
habitat.
4. Water resource planning and management programs for all of Long
Island must be implemented to insure both effective and efficient
utilization of available water resources. At the present time,
the interim metropolitan and basin plans required by Federal regu-
lations are necessarily limited to the effects of specific treat-
ment plants and ancillary equipment. It is imperative that the
planning and management program for all of Long Island be completed
as expeditiously as possible for inclusion in fully developed plans
by July 1, 1973.
5. Maximum utilization of available water resources necessitates the
use of a combined system of ground-water recharge and ocean discharge
of treated wastewater. Ocean outfalls are required backup facilities
for ground-water recharge because of the problems associated with
plant failure. Until such time as the technology for wastewater
- 254 -
-------
treatment and recharge has been both fully developed and implemented,
disposal of all treated effluent to the ocean is the only feasible
alternative.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Proceed, as expeditiously as possible with the construction and
operation of properly designed collection, treatment and disposal
facilities in accordance with the principles embodied in this
environmental impact statement.
2. As soon as the results of the EPA - sponsored Wantagh feasibility
study are known, a full-scale (about 5 mgd) project should be
undertaken to demonstrate the reliability and consistent attainment
of high levels of treatment, including nitrogen removal, and ground-
water recharge of treated wastewater.
3. The construction of wastewater treatment facilities should not
utilize marshlands.
4. To insure that growth is consistent with the maintenance of environ-
mental quality, planning for Nassau and Suffolk Counties should
include:
a) the accurate determination of both the population levels and
the industrial wasteloads that can be supported by available
natural resources, and
b) The development of controls to insure that domestic and indus-
trial wasteloads do not exceed the environment's capacity to
support them.
- 255 -
-------
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation should
exercise its functions on Long Island to promote and coordinate
management of water, land and air resources to assure their protec-
tion, enhancement, provision, allocation and balanced utilization
consistent with the environmental policy of the State.
5. It is recommended that a combined system of ground-water recharge
and ocean discharge be developed for the disposal of treated waste-
water. Investigations to determine which areas require ground-water
recharge and the optium methods of recharge for the affected areas
should be actively pursued. Until such time as the technology has
been fully demonstrated and recharge has been implemented, it is
recommended that ocean outfalls be utilized as the only feasible
alternative.
- 256 -
-------
ABBREVIATIONS USED
BOD - Biochemical oxygen demand
BOD Ibs - Pounds of biochemical oxygen demand
C - Degrees centigrade
cfs - Cubic feet per second
DO - Dissolved oxygen
Flow MG - Flow measured in millions of gallons
g - Grams
gpd - Gallons per day
gpra - Gallons per minute
in/yr - Inches per year
MBAS - Methylene blue active substances
rag C/tn - Milligrams of carbon per cubic meter
3
mg C/m /hr - Milligrams of carbon per cubic meter per hour
mgd - Million gallons per day
mg/1 - Milligrams per liter
mg/m - Milligram per meter
3
mg/m - Milligram per cubic meter
ml - Milliliter
mlw - Mean low water
MPN - Most probable number
ppt - Parts per thousand
ppm - Parts per million
psi - Pounds per square inch
- 257 -
-------
ABBREVIATIONS USED (Cont'd)
S.D. - Sewage disposal district
SS - Suspended Solids
T/A - Tons per acre
TMTC - Too many to count
TOC - Total organic carbon
u mhos - Micro mhos
uug/ml - Micro - micrograms per milliliter
All concentrations for compounds are reported in milligrams per
liter of the element of specific concern, except where otherwise noted,
Examples: NITRATES ARE REPORTED AS NITROGEN
NITRITES ARE REPORTED AS NITROGEN
PHOSPHATES ARE REPORTED AS PHOSPHORUS
SILICATES ARE REPORTED AS SILICON
- 258 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allan Hancock Foundation Study, 1965, An investigation of the fate of
organic and inorganic wastes discharged into the marine environment:
Calif., Allan Hancock Foundation.
Army Corps of Engineers, 1958, Army Corps of Engineers raap-NK 18-12.
28 May 1970, Public notice 6562: New York District, District
of the Army.
21 June 1971, Public notice 6831: New York District of the
Army.
Baffa, J.J., 12 March 1965, Effluent disposal ground water recharge
studies: New York, New York, John J. Baffa, Consulting Engineers.
1965, Recharge Studies: Report comprehensive sewerage
studies, five western towns, Suffolk County, New York; New York, New
York, Bowe, Albertson & Walsh, 92p.
Jan. 1970, Injection well experience at Riverhead, New York:
Jour. AWWA, v. 62, no. 1, p. 41-46.
Baffa, J.J. and Bartilucci, N.J., 1967, Wastewater reclamation by ground-
water recharge on Long Island: Jour. WPCF, v. 39, no. 3, part 1,
p. 431-445.
Balakrishnan, S., Williamson, D.E. and Okey, R.W., April 1970, State-of-
the-art review on sludge incineration practice: Water Pollution Control
Research Series - 17070DIV 04/70; Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, FWQA, Advanced Waste Treatment Research laboratory.
Bargman, R.D., Samples, W.R., and Bruington, A.E., 1962, Recharging of
confined aquifer with polished activated sludge effluent: Unpublished
paper presented at WPCF meeting Toronto, Ontario, October 1962.
Barksdale, H.C.j and Debuchananne, G.D., 1946, Artificial recharge of
productive ground-water aquifers in New Jersey: Economic Geology,
v. 41, no. 7, p. 726-737.
Barksdale, H.C., and Remson, I., (no date), The effect of land management
practices on ground water. Publication no. 37 de 1'Association Inter-
nationale d'Hydrologie (Assetnblee generale de Rome, tome II).
Barth, E.F., Oct. 1970, Nitrogen removal by biological suspended growth
reactors: Nitrogen removal from wastewaters, ORD-17010—10/70, paper
no. 2; Cincinnati, Ohio, FWQA Division of Research and Development,
Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory.
- 259 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
July 1971, Control of nitrogen in wastewater treatment:
Technology Transfer Seminar, Dallas, Texas; Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA,
Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory.
Earth, E.F., Brenner, R.C. and Lewis, R.F., Dec. 68, Chemical - biologi-
cal control of nitrogen and phosphorus in wastewater effluent: pre-
sented at 41st Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Federa-
tion, Chicago, Illinois; Jour, WPCF, v. 40, no. 12, p. 2040-2054.
Bauer Engineering, Inc., July 1971, The Muskegon County wastewater man-
agement system, 16 p.
Bauer, W.J., (written communication), January 1972, written comment on
draft "Environmental Impact Statement on Waste Water Treatment
Facilities Construction Grants for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New
York;" W.J. Bauer, President, Bauer Engineering, Inc., 20 North Wacker
Drive, Chicago, Illinois 60606.
Baumgartner, D.V., Trent, D.S., and Byram, K.V., May 1971, User's guide
and documentation for outfall plume model: Working paper no. 80;
200 S.W. 35th Street, Corvallis, Oregon 97330, EPA, Pacific Northwest
Laboratory.
Bendixen, T.W., Hill, R.D., Schwartz, W.A. and Robeck, G.G., 1968, Ridge
and furrow liquid waste disposal in a northern latitude. Am. Soc.
Civil Eng. Proc., San. Eng. Div. Jour., v. 94, no. SA-1, paper 5819,
lip., tables.
Berger, B.B., Sproul, O.J., Romer, H., Reid, G.W., Nevins, F., Ludwig,
H.F., Lischer, V.C., Dunsmore, H.J., and Butrico, F.A., Feb. 1970,
Engineering evaluation of virus hazard in water by the Committee on
Environmental Quality Management of the Sanitary Engineering Division:
Jour. San. Eng. Div. Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., v. 96, no. SA-1,
p. 111-150.
Bishop, D.F., O'Farrel, T.P., Stamberg, J. and Porter, J.W., March 1971,
Advanced waste treatment systems at the EPA - District of Columbia
pilot plant: Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA, Robert A. Taft Water Research
Center.
Black & Veatch, consulting engineers, Oct. 1971, Process design manual
for phosphorus removal: EPA Technology Transfer; EPA.
Boggess, D.H. and Rima, D.R., 1962, Experiments in water spreading at
Newark, Delaware - artificial recharge of ground water: Geological
Survey water-supply paper 1594-B; Geological Survey.
- 260 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Bouwer, Herman, 1970a, Ground water recharge design for renovating waste
water: Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division, Proceedings of
the American Society of Civil Engineers, p. 59-74.
1970b, Water quality aspects of intermittent systems using
secondary sewage effluent, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory,
Phoenix, Arizona, 19 p.
Bouwer, Herman (oral communication), 13 March 1972, Conversation with
Dr. Herman Bouwer, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Water Conservation
Laboratory, Phoenix, Arizona 85040; and Daniel J. Kraft, Physical
Scientist, EPA-Basin Planning, Edison, New Jersey.
Bouwer, H., Rice, R.C., Escarcega, E.D., and Riggs, M.S., 1971, Waste-
Water renovation by spreading treated sewage for ground-water recharge:
Abstracted from annual report - U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory,
Southwest Branch — USDA ARS SWC, Phoenix, Arizona, 58 p.
Brunner, D.R., and Sproul, O.J., 1970, Virus inactivation during phosphate
precipitation: Jour. San. Eng. Div. Proc. Am. Soc. Civil Eng., v. 96,
no. SA-2, p. 365-379.
Burr, W.H., Bering, Rudolph, and Freeman, J.R., 1904, Report of the Commis-
sion on Additional Water Supply for the City of New York: New York,
Martin B. Brown Co., 980p.
Cain, Stanley A., Jan. 1967, Letter to the editor: Landscape Architecture
Quarterly, v. 57, p. 103.
California Department of Water Resources, 1961, Feasibility of reclamation
of water from wastes in the Los Angeles metropolitan area: California
Dept. Water Resources Bull. 80, 155p.
California Water Pollution Control Board, 1956, An investigation of the
efficacy of submarine outfall disposal of sewage and sludge: California
Water Pollution Control Board, Pub. no. 14; California, California Water
Pollution Control Board.
Cameron, W.M. and Pritchard, D.W., 1963, Estuaries, p. 306-324 in M.H. Hill
(ed.) The Sea: vol. 2, Intersciences Publishers, New York, 554 p.
Caso, Ralph G., 25 Feb. 1972, News release, Nassau County, New York;
Nassau County Executive, Nassau County, New York.
- 261 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Cassel, A.P., Pressley, T.A., Schuk, W.W., and Bishop,, D.F., March 1971,
Physical-chemical nitrogen removal from municipal waste waters: Pre-
sented at the 68th National Meeting of the AICLE, Houston, Texas, Cincin-
nati, Ohio, EPA Advanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory, Robert A.
Taft Water Research Center.
Clarke, N.A. and Chang, S.L., Oct. 1959, Enteric viruses in water: Jour.
AWWA, v. 51, no. 10, p. 1299-1317.
Clarke, N.A., Stevenson, R.E., Chang, S.L., and Kabler, P.W., Aug. 1961,
Removal of enteric viruses from sewage by activated sludge treatment:
American Journal of Public Health, v. 51, no. 8, p. 1118-1129.
Clarke, N.A., Berg, G., Kabler, P.W., and Chang, S.L.,, 1962, Human enteric
viruses in water: Source, Survival and removability: Proceedings of
the first International Conference, London - Advances in water pollution
research, v. 2, p. 523-542; New York, A. Pergamon Press Book - The
Macmillan Company (1964).
Clarke, N.A., Berg, G., Liu, O.C., Metcalf, T., Sullivan, R., and Vlassoff,
L.T., Oct. 1969, Committee report on viruses in water to the American
Water Works Association: Jour. AWWA, v. 61, no. 10, p. 491-494.
Cohen, Jesse M., 1971, Deraineralization of waste water, 27 p.: Advanced
waste treatment and water reuse symposium, Session Five; Dallas, Texas,
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, FWQA.
Cohen, Philip, and Durfor, C.N., 1967, Artificial-recharge experiments
utilizing renovated sewage-plant effluent—a feasibility study at Bay
Park, New York, U.S.A.: Internat. Assoc. Sci. Hydrology Pub. 72,
p. 194-199.
Cohen, Philip, Franke, O.L., and Foxworthy, B.L., 1968, An atlas of Long
Island's water resources: New York Water Resources Comm. Bull. 62,
117 p.
Cohen, Philip, Franke, O.L., and McClymonds, N.E., 1969, Hydrologic effects
of the 1962-66 drought on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-
Supply Paper 1879-F, 18 p.
Cohen, Philip and Kimmel, G.E., 1970, Status of salt-water encroachment in
1969 in southern Nassau and southeastern Queens Counties, Long Island,
New York: Geological Survey Prof. Paper 700-D - Geological Survey Research
1970 Chapter D, p. D281-D286 and Figure 2; U.S. Geological Survey.
- 262 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Cohen, Philip, Vaupel, D.E., and McClymonds, N.E., 1971, Detergents in the
streamflow of Suffolk County, Long Island, N.Y., iri Geological Survey
research, 1971: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 750-C, p. C210-C214.
Cole, C.A. and Genetelli, E.J., Aug. 1970, Pervaporation of volatile
pollutants from water using selective hollow fibers: Jour. WPCF,
v. 42, part 2, p. R290-R298.
Collins, M.A., and Gelhar, L.W., 1970, Ground-water hydrology of the Long
Island aquifer system: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Hydrody-
namics Lab. Rept. No. 122, 185 p.
Consoer, Townsend & Associates, 1966, Proposed water pollution control
plant for sewage disposal, District No. 3, Nassau County, New York -
basic design data for preparation of contract drawings and specifica-
tions; Nassau County, New York, Dept. of Public Works.
Cosulich, W.F., Jan. 1970, Preliminary report East Shore Road Plant,
Great Neck Sewer District: Plainview, New York, William F. Cosulich,
Consulting Engineer.
Council on Environmental Quality, Oct. 1970, Ocean dumping a national policy:
A report to the President; Washington, D.C., Council on Environmental
Quality.
Cronin, L.E., 1967, The role of man in estuarine processes: Estuaries,
edited by G.H. Lauff, Pub. no. 83, p. 667-689; Washington, D.C., American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Dean, R.B., Oct. 1970a, Removal of ammonia nitrogen by selective ion ex-
change: Nitrogen removal from wastewaters, ORD-17010—10/70, paper
no. 5; Cincinnati, Ohio, FWQA Division of Research and Development, Ad-
vanced Waste Treatment Research Laboratory.
Dean, R.B., Oct. 1970b, Other methods for removing nitrogen: Nitrogen re-
moval from wastewaters, ORD-17010—10/70, paper no. 7; Cincinnati, Ohio,
FWQA Division of Research and Development, Advanced Waste Treatment
Research Laboratory.
Deutsch, M., 1965. National controls involved in shallow aquifer contam-
ination: Ground water, v. 3, no. 3, p. 37-40.
Dobbs, R.A., Oct. 1970, Ion exchange for nitrate removal: Nitrogen removal
from wastewaters, ORD-17010—10/70, paper no. 6; Cincinnati, Ohio, FWQA
Division of Research and Development, Advanced Waste Treatment Research
Laboratory.
- 263 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Dryden, Franklin D., January 1971, Mineral removal by ion exchange, re-
verse osmosis and electrodialysis, 31 p. : Advanced Waste Treatment
and Water Reuse Symposium, Session One; Dallas, Texas, Deputy Assist-
ant Chief Engineer, Sanitation District of Los Angeles. N.B.:
Previously presented at the Workshop on Wastewater and Reuse sponsored
by the University of California, Berkeley, held at South Lake Tahoe,
California, June 25-26, 1970.
Eliassen, Rolf and Tchobanoglous, George, June 1969, Removal of nitrogen
and phosphorus from wastewater: Environmental Science & Technology,
v. 3, no. 6, p. 536-541.
Ellis, R.H., Cheney, P.B., Smith, P.A., Davis, R.M., Brush, R.O., Apr. 1969,
The development of a procedure and knowledge requirements for marine re-
source planning functional step 1 - the classification of marine resource
problems of Nassau and Suffolk Counties: The Travelers Research Corpora-
tion Report 7722-347 b; Hartford, Conn. •*
Environmental Protection Agency, 1971, In the matter of pollution of the
interstate waters of Long Island Sound and its tributaries - Conn. - N.Y. :
Proceedings of conference, April 13-14, 1971, New Haven, Conn, v. 1;
Washington, D.C., EPA.
1971b, Agricultural pollution of the Great Lakes basin: Com-
bined report by Canada and the United States; Washington, D.C., EPA
Water Quality Office, 94 p.
Fanning, Richard, 1970, Report on the effects on Manhasset Bay resulting
from increasing treatment capacity of the Great Neck Sewer District:
Preliminary report East Shore Road Plant Great Neck Sewer District:
Plainview, New York, William F. Cosulich.
Farrel, J.B., Oct. 1970, Ammonia nitrogen removal by stripping with air:
Nitrogen removal from wastewaters, ORD-17010—10/70, paper no. 4;
Cincinnati, Ohio, FWQA Division of Research and Development, Advanced
Waste Treatment Research Laboratory.
Federal Register, 2 July 1970: v. 35, no. 128, p. 10756-10757.
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, 1968, Report on the water
quality of Long Island Sound: Washington, D.C., FWPCA.
Feldman, Milton 11., 1970, Trace materials in wastes disposed to coastal
waters - fates mechanisms and ecological guidance and control: Working
paper no. 78; U.S. Dept. of the Interior, FWQA, Northwestern Region.
- 264 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Fetter, C.W., 1971, The hydrology of the South Fork of Long Island, New
York: unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Geology, Indiana Uni-
versity.
Fischer, H., Baier, J., Fisher, E., Frizzola, J., Ginsberg, M.,
Graner, W., Pirn, J., and Risso, J., (written communication), Jan. 1972,
Written comment on draft "Environmental Impact Statement on Waste
Water Treatment Facilities Construction Grants for Nassau and Suffolk
Counties, New York;" Staff, Suffolk County Dept. of Environmental Con-
trol, 1324 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787.
53. After Ref. 21
20a. Bowe, Albertson & Walsh, Comprehensive Sewerage Studies,
Five Western Tpwns_, Suffolk County, New York; Disposal
District No. 1 Engineering Report, 185 pp. (1965).
20b. Disposal District No. 2 Engineering Report, 136 pp.
(1965).
20c. Appendices A-F (1965).
20d. Appendix G_ - Outfall Studies, Disposal Districts
No. i anc^iZ, 58 pp. (1965).
20e. Appendix H - Recharge Studies, 110pp. (1965).
20f. Appendix J_ - Plans and Profiles; Interceptors,
Disposal District No. 1^ (1965).
20g. Disposal Districts No. 4_, 5_, ^ and 7_, Engineering
Report. 248 pp. (1966).
20h. Disposal Districts No. 3^, 9^ and 10, Engineering
Report, 170 pp. (1967).
20i. Appendices L-N (1967).
20j. Bowe, Walsh & Associates, Engineering Report for Proposed
Suffolk County Southwest Sewer District, 146 pp. (1969).
21. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, Utilities
Inventory & Analysis (1969).
54. Ref. 4b, pp. 296-7
4b. Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, Comprehensive
Public Water Supply Study, Suffolk County,
New York, CPWS-24, Vol. II (1970).
55. Ref. 4a, Tables 2-7
4a. Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, Comprehensive
Public Water Supply Study, Suffolk County,
New York, CPWS-24, Vol. I (1968).
- 265 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Flynn, John M., 3 January 1972, Statement made at Public Hearing on
the Draft "Environmental Impact Statement on Waste Water Treatment
Facilities Construction Grants for Nassau and Suffolk Counties,
New York;" Commissioner, Suffolk County Department of Environmental
Control, 1324 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787.
Foehrenbach, J., Aug. 1969, Pollution and eutrophlcation problems of Great
South Bay, Long Island, New York: Jour. WPCF, v. 41, no. 8, p. 1456.
Foster, Herbert B., Jr., Ward, Paul C. and Prucha Arnold A., Dec. 1965,
Nutrient removal by effluent spraying: Jour. San. Eng. Div. Proc. An.
Civil Eng., v. 91, no. SA-6, p. 1-12.
Franke, O.L., 1968, Double-mass-curve analysis of effects of sewering on
groundwater levels on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey Profes-
sional Paper 600-B, p. B205-B209; Geological Survey Research.
Franke, O.L., and McClymonds, N.E., 1972, Summary of the hydrologic situa-
tion on Long Island, New York, as a guide to water-management alternatives:
U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 627-F, 59 p.
Caller, Dr. Sidney R., (written communication), March 1972, Written Com-
ment on Draft "Environmental Impact Statement on Waste Water Treatment
Facilities Construction Grants for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New
York;" Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs, Office of
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. 20230.
Gillam, W.S., and McCoy, W.H., 1966, Desalination research and water
resources: Principles of desalination, edited by K.S. Spiegler,
Academic Press, New York, p. 1-20.
Graduate School of Public Affairs, State University of New York, 1970, 1969
Metropolitan area annual: Albany, N.Y., State University of New York.
Greenburg, A.E. and McGauhey, P.H., 1955, Chemical changes in sewage dur-
ing reclamation by spreading: Soil Sci., v. 79, no. 1, p. 33-39.
Griffith, R.E. (written communication), 22 July 1971, Letter to Corps of
Engineers concerning Public Notice No. 6831, by Richard E. Griffith,
Regional Director of the U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife,
Service, Bur. of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Boston, Mass.
Gross, M.G., 1969, New York City - A major source of marine sediment:
Marine Sciences Research Center - State University of New York:
Technical Report Series no. 2, 24 p.
- 266 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Fetter, C.W., 1971, The hydrology of the South Fork of Long Island, New
York: unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Geology, Indiana Uni-
versity.
Fischer, H., Baier, J., Fisher, E., Frizzola, J., Ginsberg, M.,
Graner, W., Pirn, J., and Risso, J., (written communication), Jan. 1972,
Written comment on draft "Environmental Impact Statement on Waste
Water Treatment Facilities Construction Grants for Nassau and Suffolk
Counties, New York;" Staff, Suffolk County Dept. of Environmental Con-
trol, 1324 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787.
53. After Ref. 21
20a. Bowe, Albertson & Walsh, Comprehensive Sewerage Studies,
Five Western Towns^ Suffolk County, New York; Disposal
District No. 1 Engineering Report, 185 pp. (1965).
20b. Disposal District No. 2 Engineering Report, 136 pp.
(1965).
20c. Appendices A-F (1965).
20d. Appendix G_ - Outfall Studies, Disposal Districts
No. ! and_2^ 58 pp. (1965).
20e. Appendix H - Recharge Studies, 110pp. (1965).
20f. Appendix J_ - Plans and Profiles; Interceptors,
Disposal District No. 1_ (1965).
20g. Disposal Districts No. 4^ _5_, ^ and _7_, Engineering
Report, 248 pp. (1966).
20h. Disposal Districts No. ^, 9_ and 10, Engineering
Report, 170 pp. (1967).
20i. Appendices L-N (1967).
20j. Bowe, Walsh S Associates, Engineering Report for Proposed
Suffolk County Southwest Sewer District, 146 pp. (1969).
21. Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, Utilities
Inventory & Analysis (1969).
54. Ref. 4b, pp. 296-7
4b. Holzraacher, McLendon & Murrell, Comprehensive
Public Water Supply Study, Suffolk County,
New York, CPWS-24, Vol. II (1970).
55. Ref. 4a, Tables 2-7
4a. Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell, Comprehensive
Public Water Supply Study, Suffolk County,
New York, CPWS-24, Vol. I (1968).
- 265 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Flynn, John M., 3 January 1972, Statement made at Public Hearing on
the Draft "Environmental Impact Statement on Waste Water Treatment
Facilities Construction Grants for Nassau and Suffolk Counties,
New York;'1 Commissioner, Suffolk County Department of Environmental
Control, 1324 Motor Parkway, Hauppauge, N.Y. 11787.
Foehrenbach, J., Aug. 1969, Pollution and eutrophication problems of Great
South Bay, Long Island, New York: Jour. WPCF, v. 41, no. 8, p. 1456.
Foster, Herbert B., Jr., Ward, Paul C. and Prucha Arnold A.,, Dec. 1965,
Nutrient removal by effluent spraying: Jour. San. Eng. Div. Proc. Am.
Civil Eng., v. 91, no. SA-6, p. 1-12.
Franks, O.L., 1968, Double-mass-curve analysis of effects of sewering on
groundwater levels on Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey Profes-
sional Paper 600-B, p. B205-B209; Geological Survey Research.
Franke, O.L., and McClymonds, N.E., 1972, Summary of the hydrologic situa-
tion on Long Island, New York, as a guide to water-management alternatives
U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 627-F, 59 p.
Caller, Dr. Sidney R., (written communication), March 1972, Written Com-
ment on Draft "Environmental Impact Statement on Waste Water Treatment
Facilities Construction Grants for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New
York;" Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs, Office of
the Assistant Secretary of Commerce, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D.C. 20230.
Gillam, W.S., and McCoy, W.H., 1966, Desalination research and water
resources: Principles of desalination, edited by K.S. Spiegler,
Academic Press, New York, p. 1-20.
Graduate School of Public Affairs, State University of New York, 1970, 1969
Metropolitan area annual: Albany, N.Y., State University of New York.
Greenburg, A.E. and McGauhey, P.H., 1955, Chemical changes in sewage dur-
ing reclamation by spreading: Soil Sci., v. 79, no. 1, p. 33-39.
Griffith, R.E. (written communication), 22 July 1971, Letter to Corps of
Engineers concerning Public Notice No. 6831, by Richard E. Griffith,
Regional Director of the U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife,
Service, Bur. of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Boston, Mass.
Gross, M.G., 1969, New York City - A major source of marine sediment:
Marine Sciences Research Center - State University of New York:
Technical Report Series no. 2, 24 p.
- 266 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
1970, New York Metropolitan Region - A major sediment source,
Water Resources Research, v. 6, no. 3, p. 927-931.
Gross, M.G., Black, J.A., Kalin, R.J., Schramel, J.R., and Smith, R.N.,
1971, Survey of marine waste deposit, New York Metropolitan Region,
Marine Sciences Research Center - State University of New York, Stony
Brook, New York, Technical Report no. 8, 12 p.
Gross, M.G., Davies, D., Lin, P.M. and Loeffler, W., 1972, Characteris-
tics and environmental quality of six north shore bays, Nassau and
Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York: Marine Sciences Research
Center, Stony Brook, New York, Technical Report no. 14, 98 p.
Gunderloy, F.C., Jr., Fujikawa, C.Y., Dayan, V.H. and Gird, S., Oct. 1968,
Dilute solution reactions of the nitrate ion as applied to water reclama-
tion: Robert A. Taft Water Research Center; Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. Dept.
of Interior, FWQA.
Hardy, C.D., 1969, Hydrographic Data Report: Long Island Sound - 1969,
Marine Sciences Center, Stony Brook, New York, Technical Report no. 4,
129 p.
1972, Hydrolic Data Report: Long Island Sound 1970, Part 2,
Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook, New York, Technical
Project no. 13, 20 p.
Hardy, C.D. and Weyl, P.K., 1970, Hydrographic Data Report: Long Island
Sound - 1970, Part 1, Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook,
New York, Technical Report no. 6, 96 p.
1971, Distribution of dissolved oxygen in the waters of western
Long Island Sound: Marine Sciences Research Center, Stony Brook, New
York, Technical Report no 11, p. 37.
Harr, C.A., 1971, Partial chemical analyses of water from selected sources
in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey
open-file rept., 21 p.
Havens and Emerson, July 1971, Improvements to wastewater treatment facili-
ties: County of Suffolk, Dept. of Environmental Control, Suffolk County
Port Jefferson sewer district no. 1; New York, New York, Havens and
Emerson consulting engineers.
Hinesly, Thomas, (oral communication), 21 January 1972, Conversation with
Dr. Thomas Hinesly, Dept. of Agronomy, University of Illinois; and
Daniel J. Kraft, Physical Scientist, EPA-Basin Planning, Edison, New
Jersey.
- 267 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Holm-Hansen, 0., 1969, Environmental and nutritional requirement for algae:
in proceedings of the eutrophication-biostimulation assessment workshop,
1969, p. 98-108; FWPCA and University of California at Berkeley.
Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell, 1968, Report - comprehensive public water
supply study, Suffolk County, New York: CWPS-24, v. 1; Melville, New
York, Holzmacher, McLendon and Murrell Consulting Engineers.
1970, Report - comprehensive public water supply study, Suffolk
County, New York: CPWS-24, v. 2; Melville, New York, Holzmacher,
McLendon and Murrell Consulting Engineers.
1970, Report - comprehensive public water supply study, Suffolk
County, New York: CPWS-24, v. 3; Melville, New York, Holzmacher, McLendon
and Murrell Consulting Engineers.
Humphreys, George W., 3 January 1972, Statement made at Public Hearing
on the Draft "Environmental Impact Statement on Waste Water Treatment
Facilities Construction Grants for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New
York;" Regional Director, Long Island Region, New York State Depart-
ment of Environmental Conservation, 4175 Veterans Memorial Highway,
Ronkonkoma, N.Y. 11779.
ladavaia, V.A., July 1971, County of Suffolk, Dept. of Environmental
Control, Suffolk County Port Jefferson, Sewer District No. 1, improve-
ments to wastewater treatment facilities: East Paterson, New Jersey,
Havens and Emerson, Consulting Engineers.
Imhoff, K. and Fair, G.M., 1956, Sewage Treatment: 2nd edition; New York,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Interstate Sanitation Commission, 1971, Interstate Sanitation Commission:
water quality regulations; New York, N.Y., Interstate Sanitation Commis-
sion.
Isbister, John, 1966, Geology and hydrology of northeastern Nassau County,
Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1825, 89 p.
Jacob, C.E., 1945, Correlation of ground-water levels and precipitation
on Long Island, New York: New York State Water Power and Control Comm.
Bull. GW-14, 20 p.
Jacobson, Martin, (oral communication), 4 Oct. 1971, Conversation with
Martin Jacobson, EPA - Construction Grants, Edison, New Jersey; and
Daniel J. Kraft, Physical Scientist, EPA-Basin Planning, Edison, New
Jersey.
- 268 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (ContM)
Juczak, Stanley, (oral communication), 13 January 1972, Conversation with
Stanley Juccak, Director, Bureau of Water Pollution Control, Division
of Environmental Health, Nassau County Department of Health, Mineola,
New York; and Douglas Miller, Water Resources Engineer, EPA-Environ-
mental Evaluation, Edison, New Jersey.
Kardos, L.T., 1967, Waste water renovation by the land — a living filter:
Agriculture and the quality of our environment, edited by Nyle C. Brady,
Pub. no. 85, p. 241-250; Washington, D.C., American Association for
the Advancement of Science.
^^ (oral communication), 22 Sept. 1971, Conversation with
Dr. Louis T. Kardos, Director of Waste Water Renovation and Conserva-
tion Research Project, Pennsylvania State University; and Daniel J.
Kraft, Physical Scientist, EPA-Basin Planning, Edison, New Jersey.
Kelly, S.M., and Sanderson, W.W., 1958, The effect of chlorine in water
on enteric viruses: American Jour, of Public Health, v. 48, no. 10,
p. 1323-1334.
Jan. 1960a, The effect of chlorine in water on enteric viruses.
II. The effect of combined chlorine on poliomyelitis and Coxsacki
viruses: American Jour. Public Health, v. 50, no. 1, p. 14-20.
Dec. 1960b, Density of enteric viruses in sewage: Jour. WPCF,
v. 32, no. 12, p. 1269-1274.
Kelly, S.M., Sanderson, W.W. and Neidl, C., Oct. 1961, Removal of entero-
viruses from sewage by activated sludge: Jour. WPCF, v. 33, no. 10,
p. 1056-1062.
Ketchum, B.H., 1967, Phytoplankton nutrients in estuaries: Estuaries,
edited by G.H. Lauff, Pub. no. 83, p. 329-335; Washington, D.C., American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Ketchum, B. and Keen, D., 1955, The accumulation of river water over the
continental shelf between Cape Cod and Chesepeake Bay: Papers Marine
Biol. Ocean...Deep Sea Res., no. 3, suppl., p. 346-357.
Koenig-Research, Louis, 1964, Ultimate disposal of advanced treatment
waste AWTR-8 (999-WP-10): Cincinnati, U.S.D.H.E.&W., P.H.S., Division
of Water Supply and Pollution Control, 146 p.
Koppelman, Lee F., (oral communication), 28 February 1972, Conversation
with Lee F. Koppelman, Executive Director, Nassau-Suffolk Regional
Planning Board, Hauppauge, New York 11787; and Douglas Miller, Water
Resources Engineer, EPA - Environmental Evaluation, Edison, New
Jersey.
- 269 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Krone, R.B., McGauhey, P.H., and Gotaas, H.B., 1957, Direct recharge of
ground water with sewage effluents: Am. Soc. Civil Eng. Proc., San. Eng.
Div. Jour., v. 83, no. SA-4, Paper 1335, 25 p., tables.
Lackey, J.B., 1967, The microbiota of estuaries and their roles: Estuaries,
edited by G.H. Lauff, Pub. no. 83, p. 291-302; Washington, D.C., American
Association for the Advancement of Science.
Larkin, R.R., and Riley, G.A., 1967, A drift bottle study on Long Island
Sound: Bulletin of the Bingham Oceanographic Collection, v. 14,
p. 62-71.
Laverty, F.B., Stone, Ralph, and Meyerson, L.A., 1961, Reclaiming hyperion
effluent: Am. Soc. Civil Eng. Proc., San. Eng. Div. Jour., v. 87,
no. SA-6, Paper 2985, p. 1-40.
Law, J.P., Thomas, R.E., Myers, L.H., and Kerr, R.S., Nov. 1969, Nutrient
removal from cannery wastes by spray irrigation of grassland: Water
Pollution Control Research Series 16080—11/69; U.S. Dept. of Interior,
FWPCA.
Levin, G.V., and Shapiro, J., June 1965, Metabolic uptake of phosphorus by
wastewater organisms: Jour. WPCF, v. 37, no. 6, p. 800-82.1.
Lindsay, N.L., Aug. 1968, Report on additions and alterations to water
pollution control plant, Belgrave sewer district, Town of North Hempstead,
Great Neck, New York: New York City, New York, Thomas M. Riddick & Asso-
ciates, Consulting Engineers.
Little, Silas, Lull, H.W. and Remson, Irwin, 1959, Changes in woodland
vegetation and soils after spraying large amounts of wastewater: Re-
printed from Forest Science, v. 5, no. 1, March 1959.
Ludwig, H.F. and Storrs, P.N., 1970, Effects of waste disposal into marine
waters - a survey of studies carried out in the last ten years: Water
Research, v. 4, no. 11, p. 409-420.
Lusczynski, N.J., 1961, Head and flow of ground water of variable density:
Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 66, no. 12, p. 4247-4256.
Lusczynski, N.J., and Swarzenski, W.V., 1960, Position of the salt-water
body in the Magothy(?) Formation in the Cedarhurst-Woodmere area of
southwestern Nassau County, Long Island, N.Y.: ECon. Geology, v. 55,
no. 8, p. 1739-1750.
- 270 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
MacMillan, Robert, (oral communication), 29 February 1972, Conversation
with Robert MacMillan, New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation, Ronkonkoma, Long Island, New York; and Douglas Miller,
Water Resources Engineer, EPA, Environmental Evaluation Section,
Edison, New Jersey.
Manganaro, Martin and Lincoln, Nov. 1966, Nassau County Report - outfall
sewer location - sludge disposal district no. 3: 41 p. and 25 plates;
New York, N.Y., Manganaro, Martin and Lincoln Consulting Engineers.
November 1966, Oceanographic studies volume I - Oceanography:
Nassau County Report - outfall sewer location - sludge disposal facili-
ties - disposal district no. 3, appendix A; New York N.Y., Manganaro,
Martin and Lincoln Consulting Engineers.
November 1966, Oceanographic studies volume I - oceanography
tables: Nassau County Report - outfall sewer location - sludge disposal
facilities - disposal district no. 3, appendix A; New York, N.Y.,
Manganaro, Martin and Lincoln Consulting Engineers.
November 1966, Oceanographic studies volume II - currents and
tides: Nassau County Report - outfall sewer location - sludge disposal
facilities - disposal district no. 3, appendix A; New York, N.Y.,
Manganaro, Martin and Lincoln Consulting Engineers.
__ November 1966, Geophysical and geological studies: Nassau
County Report - outfall sewer location - sludge disposal facilities -
disposal district no. 3, appendix B; New York, N.Y., Manganaro, Martin
and Lincoln Consulting Engineers.
November 1966, Biological studies: Nassau County Report -
outfall sewer location - sludge disposal facilities - disposal district
no. 3, appendix C; New York, N.Y., Manganaro, Martin and Lincoln Con-
sulting Engineers.
November 1966, Fish and wildlife studies: Nassau County Report -
outfall sewer location - sludge disposal facilities - disposal district
no. 3, appendix D; New York, N.Y., Manganaro, Martin and Lincoln Consult-
ing Engineers.
Mansueti, R.J., 1961, Effects of civilization on striped bass and other
estuarine biota in Chesapeake Bay and tributaries: Proc. Gulf Caribbean
Fisheries Inst., Nov. 1961, p. 110-136.
Matlock, W.G., 1966, Sewage effluent recharge in an ephemeral channel:
Water and Sewage Works, v. 113, no. 6, p. 224-229.
- 271 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
1971, Technical and institutional aspects of sewage effluent-
irrigation water exchange, Tucson Region: Water Resources Bulletin,
v. 7, no. 4, p. 726.
McGauhey, P.H., 1968, Man-made contamination hazards: Groundwater, v. 6,
no. 3, p. 10-13.
McHarg, Ian L., 1969, Design with nature: The American Museum of Natural
History; Garden City, N.Y., The Natural History Press.
McKee, J.E., 1971, Potential for reuse of wastewater in north-central
Texas: Water Resources Bull., v. 7, no. 4, p. 740-749.
McKlnney, (no date), Conservation Law: McKinney's consolidated laws of
New York - annotated, book 10; Brooklyn, N.Y., Edward Thompson Co.
(no date), County law: McKinney's consolidated laws of New
York - annotated, book 11; Brooklyn, N.Y., Edward Thompson Co.
(no date), General municipal law: McKinney's consolidated laws
of New York - annotated, book 23; Brooklyn, N.Y., Edward Thompson Co.
McMichael, F.C., and McKee, J.E., September 1965, Report of research on
wastewater reclamation at Whittier Narrows: W.M. Keck Laboratory of
Environmental Health Engineering, California Institute of Technology,
230 p.
Middlebrooks, E.J. et al., 1971, Biostimulation and algae growth kinetics
of wastewater: Jour. WPCF, v. 43, no. 3-1, p. 454-473.
Middleton, P.M., 31 Aug. 1971, Concepts of wastewater reuse: Water and
Sewage Works, 1971 Reference Number, p. R-59 - R-62.
Miller, J.F., and Frederick, R.H., 1969, The precipitation regime of Long
Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 627-A, p. A1-A21.
Miner, R.W., 1950, Field book of seashore life: G.P. Patnuns & Sons,
New York, p. 888.
Muckel, D.C., 1959, Replenishment of ground-water supplies by artificial
means: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Tech. Bull. 1195, 51 p.
- 272 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Mulbarger, M.C., (oral communication), 21 Oct. 1971, Conversation with
M.C. Mulbarger, Havens and Emerson, Consulting Engineers, Cleveland
Ohio Office; formerly Engineer-In-Charge, Manassas Field Station, Muni-
cipal Treatment Research Program, Advanced Waste Treatment Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio, FWQA, U.S. Dept. of Interior; and Daniel
J. Kraft, Physical Scientist, EPA-Basin Planning, Edison, New Jersey.
(Data from paper presented at the 44th Annual Conference of the FWPCA
Oct. 7, 1971 entitled "The Three Sludge System for Nitrogen and Phos-
phorus Removal").
Mulbarger, M.C., Shifflet, D.G., Murphy, M.C., and Hoffman, D.D., Aug.
1971, Phosphorus removal by luxury uptake: Jour. WPCF, v. 43, no. 8,
p. 1617-1628.
Musgrave, G.W., and Holtan, H.N., 1964, Infiltration: Chow, V.T. ed
Handbook of applied hydrology sec. 12, p. 1-30; New York, McGraw-Hill
Book Co. Inc.
Muskegon County Board, and Dept. of Public Works, Sept. 1970, Engineer-
ing feasibility demonstration study for Muskegon County, Michigan
wastewater treatment-irrigation system: Water Pollution Control Re-
search Series, 11010 FMY 10/70; Washingcon, D.C., U.S. Dept. of
Interior, FWPCA.
Nassau County Department of Health, 1968, Nassau County South Shore Bay
Study: Report of Nassau County Dept. of Health, Division of Environ-
mental Health, Bureau of Water Pollution Control; Nassau County Dept.
of Health.
Nassau County Department of Health, 1970, Nassau County South Shore Bay
Study: Report of Nassau County Dept. of Health, Division of Environ-
mental Health, Bureau of Water Pollution Control; Nassau County Dept.
of Health.
Nassau County Planning Commission, 1971, 1970 Annual report: Mineola, N.Y.,
Nassau County Planning Commission.
Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board, 29 February 1968, Existing land
use: Hauppauge, L.I., N.Y., Nassau-Suffolk Regional Planning Board.
13 July 1970, Comprehensive master plan for Nassau and Suffolk
Counties: reprint from "Newsday", Monday, July 13, 1970.
Nassau-Suffolk Research Task Group, 1969, The Long Island ground water
pollution study: New York State Dept. of Health, 395 p.
- 273 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Nesbitt, J.B., May 1969, Phosphorus removal - the state-of-the-art: pre-
sented at 40th Annual Conference of the Water Pollution Control Associ-
ation of Penn.; Jour. WPCF, v. 41, no. 5, part 1, p. 702-713.
New York State, 1971, New York Legislative manual 1970: Albany, N.Y.,
New York State.
New York State Dept. of Commerce, 1968, Nassau-Suffolk district, business
fact book: part 1, 1967-1968 edition; Albany, N.Y., New York State
Dept. of Commerce.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 1967, Classifi-
cations and standards governing the quality and purity of waters of New
York State (parts 700-703), Title 6, official compilation of codes,
rules, and regulations: New York, New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation.
New York State, Division of the Budget, Office of Statistical Coordination,
March 1969, New York State statistical yearbook: Albany, N.Y., New York
State, Division of the Budget, Office of Statistical Coordination.
Apr. 1970, New York State statistical yearbook: Albany, N.Y.,
New York State, Division of the Budget, Office of Statistical Coordination.
June 1971, New York State statistical yearbook: Albany, N.Y.,
New York State, Division of the Budget, Office of Statistical Coordination.
New York State Office of Planning Coordination, June 1968, Demographic
projections for New York State Counties to 2020 A.D.: Albany, N.Y.,
New York State Office of Planning Coordination.
January 1970, Long Island water resources: Albany, New York,
New York State Office of Planning Coordination.
1970, 1970-1971 Directory planning and zoning officials in
New York State: Albany, N.Y., New York State Office of Planning
Coordination.
New York State Water Resources Commission, 1968, Atlas of Long Island's
water resources: Bulletin 62; Albany, N.Y., New York State Water Re-
sources Commission.
Nickerson, E.H., (written communication), 28 June 1968a, Letter to U.S.
Dept. of Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, Edison,
New Jersey; letter from Eugene H. Nickerson, County Executive, Nassau
County, Mineola, New York.
- 274 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
_ (written communication), 28 June 1968b, Letter to Lester Klashman,
Regional Director, N.E. Region, J.F.K. Federal Building, Boston, Mass.
02203; Letter from Eugene A. Nicker son, County Executive, Nassau County.
Norman, M.G. , and Hubbell, H.W. , 1963, Treasures of the shore: The Chatham
Conservation Foundation, Inc.
Nupen, E.M. , Oct. 1970, Virus studies on the Windhoek wastewater reclama-
tion plant (Southwest Africa): Water Research, v. 4, no. 10, p. 661-672.
O'Connor, B. , Dobbs, R.A., Villiers, R.V., and Dean, R.B., Oct. 1967, Labora-
tory distillation of municipal waste effluents: Jour WPCF, v. 39, no. 10,
part 2, p. R-25-R31.
Odum, E.P., 1961, Factors which regulate primary productivity and hetero-
trophic utilization in the eco-system: In algae and metropolitan wastes,
Trans. 1960 Seminar, Robert A. Taft Sanitary Eng. Center, Tech. Rept.,
W61-3, p. 203-211.
O'Farrell, Thomas P., (oral communication), 25 January 1972, Conversation
with Thomas P. O'Farrell, Sanitary Engineer, EPA - DC Pilot Plant,
Municipal Treatment Research Program, Advanced Waste Treatment Research
Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226; and Daniel J. Kraft, Physical
Scientist, EPA - Basin Planning, Edison, New Jersey.
Office of Water Programs, Region V, 1971, Environmental impact statement:
Sewerage Project Number WPC-MICH-1503 (Muskegon County Wastewater
Management System Number One); Chicago, Illinois, Federal Environmental
Protection Agency.
Ogrosky, H.D. and Mockus, V., 1964, Hydrology of agricultural lands:
Chow, V. T. ed. Handbook of Applied Hydrology sec. 21, p. 1-97; New York,
McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.
Padar, F.V., 16 Jan. 1969, Ocean versus bay outfall for Nassau County:
Mimeo Copy of Address to New York State Water Pollution Control Asso-
ciation; Nassau County, New York, Nassau County Department of Health.
Parizek, R.R. , Kardos, L.T., Sopper, W.E., Myers, E.A. , Davis, D.E., Farrel,
M.A. , and Nesbitt, J.B., 1967, Wastewater renovation and conservation:
Penn. State Studies no. 23; University Park, Pennsylvania, Administrative
Committee on Research the Pennsylvania State University.
Parker, G.G., Cohen, Philip, and Foxworthy, B.L., 1967, Artificial recharge
and its role in scientific water management, with emphasis on Long Island,
New York: Am. Water Resources Assoc. Natl. Symposium on Ground-Water
Hydrol. San Francisco, Calif., Nov. 6-8, 1967.
- 275 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Parkhurst, J.D., (no date). A plan for water re-use. For the directors
of the County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County, California.
Patrick, R., 1967, Diatom communities in estuaries: Estuaries, edited by
G.H. Lauff, Pub. no. 83, p. 316-328; Washington, D.C., American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science.
Perlmutter, N.M., and Crandell, H.C., 1959, Geology and ground-water sup-
plies of the southshore beaches of Long Island, N.Y.: New York Acad.
Sci. Annals, v. 80, art. 4, p. 1060-1076.
Perlmutter, N.M., and Geraghty, J.J., 1963, Geology and ground-water con-
ditions in southern Nassau and southeastern Queens Counties, Long Island,
N.Y.: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1613-A, 205 p.
Perlmutter, N.M., Geraghty, J.J., and Upson, J.E., 1959, The relation be-
tween fresh and salty ground water in southern Nassau and southeastern
Queens Counties, Long Island, New York: Econ, Geology, v. 54, no. 3,
p. 416-435.
Perlmutter, N.M., and Guerrera, A.A,, 1970, Detergents and associated con-
taminants in ground water at three public-supply well fields in south-
western Suffolk County, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-
Supply Paper 2001-B, 22 p.
Perlmutter, N.M., and Koch, Ellis, 1971a, Preliminary findings on the de-
tergent and phosphate contents of water of southern Nassau County, New
York, in_ Geological Survey research, 1971: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof.
Paper 750-D, p. D171-177.
1971b, Preliminary hydrogeologic appraisal of nitrate in ground
water and streams, southern Nassau County, Long Island, New York: U.S.
Geol. Survey open-file rept., 40 p.
Peters, J.H., and Rose, J.L., 1968, Water conservation by reclamation and
recharge: Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, Sanitary Eng. Div. Jour., v. 94,
no. SA-4, p. 625-639.
Phinney, H.K., 1969, Physiological ecology: in proceedings of the
eutrophication-biostimulation assessment workshop 1969, p. 141-147;
FWPCA and University of California at Berkeley.
Pluhowski, E.J., and Kantrowitz, I.H., 1964, Hydrology of the Babylon-Islip
area, Suffolk County, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-
Supply 1768, 119 p.
- 276 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Popkin, Roy, 1968, Desalination, water for the world's future: Frederick
A. Praeger, Inc., New York, 235 p.
Porter, L. Ruggles Jr., (oral communication), 11 January 1972, Conversa-
tion with L. Ruggles Porter, Supervisor, L.I. Area Office, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Gary Rankel,
Staff biologist with above office; and Daniel J. Kraft, Physical
Scientist, EPA-Basin Planning, Edison, New Jersey at meeting in
Patchogue, L.I.
Pressley, T.A., Bishop, D.F., and Roan, S.G., Sept. 1970, Nitrogen removal
by breakpoint chlorination: Robert A. Taft Water Research Center;
Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. Dept. of Interior, FWQA.
Reese, Don, (written communication), 5 Aug. 1971, Letter to Mr. Mark Ableson,
Regional Coordinator, N.E. Region, Room 2003 - J & K, JFK Federal Building,
Boston, Mass. 02203; letter from Don Reese, Acting Regional Director of
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Bur. of Sport Fisheries
and Wildlife, U.S. Post Office and Courthouse, Boston, Mass. 02109.
Remson, I., and Fox, G.S., 1959, Hydrology of the Seabrook Farms, N.J.
wastewater spreading area: mimeo copy.
Riley, G.A., 1956, Oceanography of Long Island Sound 1952-1954: Bulletin
Bingham Oceanographic Collection, vol. 15, p. 15-46.
1956, Review of oceanography of Long Island Sound: Deep-Sea
Research Suppl. to v. 3, p. 224-238.
1967, The plankton of estuaries: Estuaries, edited by G.H. Lauff,
Pub. no. 83, p. 316-326; Washington, D.C., American Association for the
Advancement of Science.
Robeck, G., 1969, Microbial problems in ground water: Ground water, v. 7,
no. 3, p. 33-35.
Robeck, G.G., Clarke, N.A., and Dostal, K.A., 1962, Effectiveness of
water treatment processes in virus removal: Jour. AWWA, v. 54, no. 10,
p. 1275-1292.
Ryther, J.H. and Dunstan, W., 1971, Nitrogen, phosphorus and eutrophication
in the coastal marine environment: Science, v. 171, no. 3975, p. 1008-1013.
Scher, Stanley, 1969, Physiological and regulatory aspects of heterotrophy
in algae flagellates conditionally expressed characteristics: in pro-
ceedings of the eutrophication-biostimulation assessment workshop, 1969,
p. 117-124; FWPCA and University of California at Berkeley.
- 277 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Schraufnagel, F.H., Nov. 1962, Ridge-and-furrow irrigation for industrial
waste disposal: Jour. WPCF, v. 34, no. 11, p. 1117-1132.
Schroeder, E,H., 1966, Average surface temperature of the western North
Atlantic: Bulletin of Marine Science v. 16, no. 2, p. 302-323.
Seaburn, G.E., 1969, Effects of urban development on direct runoff to East
Meadow Brook, Nassau County, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey
Prof. Paper 627-B, 14 p.
1970, Preliminary analysis of rate of movement of storm
runoff through the zone of aeration beneath a recharge basin on Long
Island, New York: Geological Survey Research, 1970: U.S. Geol. Survey
Prof. Paper 700-B, p. B196-B198.
Shapiro, J., and Ribeiro, Robert, 1965, Algae growth and sewage effluent
in the Potomac Estuary: Jour. WPCFS v. 37, no. 7, p. 1034-1043.
Shuster, C.N., Jr., 1966, The nature of a tidal marsh, this dynamic unit
of nature feeds fish fowl and animal: L-145 N.Y. State Conservation
Dept. Division of Conservation Education; N.Y. State Conservation Dept.
Sillman, Frederick H., (written communication), January 1972, Written
comment on draft "Environmental Impact Statement on Waste Water Treat-
ment Facilities Construction Grants for Nassau and Suffolk Counties,
New York;" Assistant Regional Director for Health and Scientific
Affairs, Regional Director's Office - HEW, 26 Federal Plaza, New York,
New York 10007.
Smith, J.M., Masse, A.N., Feige, W.A., and Kamphake,, L.J., July 1970,
Nitrogen removal from municipal wastewater by columnar denitrification:
Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S. Dept. of Interior, FWQA, Advanced Waste Treatment
Research Laboratory.
Smith, Robert, Sept. 1968, Cost of conventional and advanced treatment of
wastewater: Jour. WPCF v. 40, no. 9, p. 1546-1574.
Smith, S.O., and Baier, J.H., 1969, Report on nitrate pollution of ground
water in Nassau County, Long Island: Nassau County Dept. of Health,
Mineola, N.Y., 49 p.
Sopper, William E., 1971, Disposal of municipal waste water through for-
est irrigation: Environ. Pollut., v. 1, p. 263-284.
- 278 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Soren, Julian, 1970, Ground-water and geohydrologic conditions in Queens
County, Long Island, New York: U.S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper
20001-A, 39p.
Spiegel, Zane, (written Communication), 27 Sept. 1971, Letter to Gerald
Hansler, Regional Administrator, Region II, EPA, Room 847, 26 Federal
Plaza, New York, New York 10007, letter from Zane Spiegel, Ph.D.,
Ground-Water Hydrologist, P.O. Box 1541, Sante Fe, New Mexico 87501.
(written communication), January 1972, Written comment on
draft "Environmental Impact Statement on Waste Water Treatment
Facilities Construction Grants for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New
York;" Ground Water Hydrologist, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Sprague, Milton A., (oral communication), 14 March 1972, Conversation
with Dr. Milton A. Sprague, Professor, Soils and Crops, College of
Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Rutgers the State University,
New Brunswick, New Jersey; and Barbara Metzger, Acting Chief, Environ-
mental Evaluation, EPA, Edison, New Jersey.
Stamberg, John, (oral communication), 6 Oct. 1971, Conversation with
John Stamberg, Sanitary Engineer, EPA-DC Pilot Plant, Municipal
Treatment Research Program, Advanced Waste Treatment Research Labora-
tory, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226; and Daniel J. Kraft, Physical Scientist,
EPA-Basin Planning, Edison, New Jersey.
Suffolk County Dept. of Environmental Control, (no date), Suffolk County
Dept. of Environmental Control information bulletin: (ECDI); N.Y.
Suffolk County Dept. of Environmental Control.
Swanson, Charles L., Sept. 1971, New wastewater treatment processes:
Civil Engineering-ASCE, v. 41, no. 9, p. 49-54.
Swanson, Charles L., (oral communication), 5 Nov. 1971, Conversation with
C. Swanson, Chief, Engineering and Design Branch, Div. of Facilities
Construction and Operation, Office of Water Programs, EPA, Washington,
D.C.; and Daniel J. Kraft, Physical Scientist, EPA-Basin Planning,
Edison, New Jersey.
Swarzenski, W.V., 1959, Determination of chloride in water from core sam-
ples: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull. v. 43, no. 8, p. 1995-1998.
Swindell-Dressier Co., Oct. 1971, Process design manual for carbon adsorp-
tion: EPA Technology Transfer; EPA.
- 279 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Taormina, Anthony S., and Wallace, David H., 1970, Comprehensive public
water supply study, Suffolk County, N.Y., CPWS-24 by Holzmacher, McLendon,
and Murrel: Mimeograph publication sent to appropriate members of Suffolk
County Legislature, Town Boards, and others; N.Y. State Dept. of Environ-
mental Conservation.
Todd, O.K., 1959, Ground-water Hydrology: New York, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc. 336p.
1964, Ground water: Chow, V.T. ed. Handbook of applied hydrol-
ogy sec. 13, p, 1-55; New York, McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc.
Tofflemire, T.J. and Brezner, G.P., 1971, Deep-well injection of waste-
water: Jour. WPCF, v. 43, no. 7, p. 1468-1479.
Toth, Dr. Steven, (oral communication), 21 January 1972, Conversation
with Dr. Steven Toth, Professor, Soils and Crops, College of Agricul-
ture and Environmental Sciences, Rutgers the State University, New
Brunswick, New Jersey 08903; and Daniel J. Kraft, Physical Scientist,
EPA-Basln Planning, Edison, New Jersey.
Tri-State Transportation Commission, 1971, Tri-State Transportation Commis-
sion monthly report May 1971: 100 Church St., N.Y., N.Y., Tri-State
Transportation Commission.
Udall, S., and Stansbury, J., (1972a), 13 Feb. 1972, Pride of sanitary
engineers is a first-rate water polluter: Udall looks at the environ-
ment, "The Trenton Times," Sunday, February 13, 1972.
(1972b), 16 Feb. 1972, An ecological Edsel growing in D.C.:
Udall looks at the environment, "The Trenton Times," Wednesday,
February 16, 1972.
Upson, J.E., 1955, Ground water sources on Long Island: Jour. AWWA, v. 47,
no. 4, p. 341-347.
U.S. Bureau of Census, 1968, County business patterns: (CBP-68-34): N.Y.,
U.S. Bureau of Census.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1970, Nautical chart 120-SC, Shinnecock Bay to
East Rockaway Inlet - South Coast of Long Island, N.Y.: 8th edition;
Washington, D.C., U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Environmental Science Services
Administration, Coast and Geodetic Survey.
- 280 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1970, Staff report, House Document No. 91 286,
Part 1: National estuary study v. 2, appendix A; Washington, D.C., U.S.
Govt. Printing Office.
U.S. Dept. of Interior, Bur. of Sport Fishing and Wildlife and Bur. of
Commercial Fisheries, 1970, Managment studies in specific estuaries
House Document No. 91 286 Part 2: National estuary study v. 3, Appen-
dix B; Washington, D.C. Govt. Printing Office.
U.S. Dept. of Interior, FWPCA, Sept. 1966, Report on pollution of the
navigable waters of Moriches Bay and eastern section of Great South
Bay, Long Island, New York: Hudson-Champlain and Metropolitan Coastal
Comprehensive Water Pollution Project, Metuchen, N.J., FWPCA.
23 Apr. 1968, Proceedings - progress evaluation of Moriches
Bay and the eastern section of Great South Bay and their tributaries;
FWPCA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and New York State Conservation Depart-
ment, 1961, Preservation of Hempstead and South Oyster Bay Wetlands:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and New York State Conservation Dept.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services, June 1965, A supplementary report on the
coastal wetlands inventory of Long Island, New York: U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
U.S. Public Health Service, 1962, Drinking water standards: Public Health
Service Pub. 956, 61 p.
Vaupel, D.E. (written communication), 1971, Inter-office memo from
D.E. Vaupel to Philip Cohen.
Vecchioll, John, 1970, A note on bacterial growth around a recharge well
at Bay Park, Long Island, New York: Water Resources Research, v. 6,
no. 5, p. 1415-1419.
Villiers, R.V., Berg, E.L., Brunner, C.A. and Masse, A.N., 31 Aug. 1971,
Municipal wastewater treatment by physical and chemical methods: Water
and Sewage Works, 1971 Reference Number, p. R62-R81.
Vishniac, H.S. and Riley, G.A., 1961, Cobalamin and thiamine in Long Island
patterns of distribtuion and ecological significance: Limnology and
Oceanography, v. 6, no. 1, p. 36-41.
- 281 -
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
Warren, M.A., De Laguna, Wallace, and Lusczynski, N.J., 1968, Hydrology
of Brookhaven National Laboratory and vicinity, Suffolk County, New
York: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull, 1156-C, 127 p.
Whipple, William, Jr., Sept. 1971, Visit to England, 1971: Water Resources
Research Institute; New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University.
Wilson, J.L., 1970, A Hele-Shaw model for the study of the Long Island
ground water system: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M.S.
thesis, 89 p. +.
Wolf, H.W., March 1971, Biological aspects of water. Biological problems
with reused water: Jour. AWWA, v. 63, no. 3, p. 181-185.
- 282 -
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A - Appendix Table: U.S.P.H.S. Bacteriological standards
for drinking water.
APPENDIX B - AWWA policy statement concerning the use of reclaimed
wastewaters as a public water supply source.
APPENDIX C - FWQA Policy on disposal of wastes by subsurface injec-
tion.
APPENDIX D - Appendix Table: Interstate Sanitation Commission
standards - classification and criteria.
APPENDIX E - Appendix Table: New York State classes and standards
for tidal salt waters.
APPENDIX F - New York State classes and standards for ground waters.
APPENDIX G - Appendix Figures: Maps showing the interstate water
quality classifications of Long Island, New York.
APPENDIX H - Nitrogen in the Environment.
APPENDIX I - Petition of the Environmental Defense Fund for pre-
paration of Environmental Impact Statements.
- 283 -
-------
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX TABLE: U.S.P.H.S. BACTERIOLOGICAL STANDARDS
FOR DRINKING WATER
The United States Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards dated
1962 state:
"3.21 When 10 ml standard portions are examined not more
than 10 percent in any month shall show the presence of
the coliform group. The presence of the coliform group
in three or more 10 ml portions of a standard sample shall
not be allowable if this occurs:
(a.) in two consecutive samples;
(b.) In more than one sample per month when less
than twenty are examined per month; or
(c.) In more than 5 percent of the samples when
twenty or more are examined per month...etc.
3.22 When 100 ml standard portions are examined, not more
than 60 percent in any month shall show the presence of
the coliform group. The presence of the coliform group
in all five of the 100 ml portions of a standard sample
shall not be allowable if this occurs:
(a.) In two consecutive samples;
(b.) In more than one sample per month when less
than five are examined per month; or
(c.) In more than 20 percent of the samples when
five or more are examined per month...etc.
3.23 When the membrane filter technique is used, the arithmetic
mean coliform density of all standard samples examined per
month shall not exceed one per 100 ml. Coliform colonies per
standard sample shall not exceed 3/50 ml, 5/100 ml, 7/200 ml, or
13/500 ml in:
(a.) In two consecutive samples;
(b.) In more than one sample per month when less
than twenty are examined per month; or
(c.) In more than five percent of the samples when
twenty or more are examined per month...etc."
- 284 -
-------
APPENDIX B
AWWA POLICY STATEMENT CONCERNING THE USE OF
RECLAIMED WASTEWATERS AS A PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY SOURCE
The American Water Works Association recognizes that properly treated
wastewaters constitute an increasingly important element of the total
available water resources in many parts of the North American continent
as well as elsewhere in the world.
Historically wastewaters have been reused after discharge of the ef-
fluents to streams and into the ground. This practice has provided dilu-
tion, separation in time and space, and has allowed natural treatment
phenomena to operate before reuse. In contrast to such indirect reuse,
planned direct reuse increasingly is being made of reclaimed waters for
wide varieties of beneficial use such as industrial cooling, certain in-
dustrial processes, irrigation of specific crops and recreational areas.
Moreover, there is increasing use of reclaimed waters for planned ground-
water recharge.
The Association believes that the full potential of reclaimed water
as a resource should be exploited as rapidly as scientific knowledge and
technology will allow, to the maximum degree consistent with the over-
riding imperative of full protection of the health of the public and the
assurance of wholesome and potable water supplied for domestic use. The
Association encourages an increase in the use of reclaimed wastewaters
for beneficial purposes, such as industrial cooling and processing, irri-
gation of crops, recreation and within the limits of historical practice,
- 285 -
-------
groundwater recharge. Further, the Association commends efforts that are
being made to upgrade wastewater treatment, and to improve quality before
discharge into sources of public water supplies.
The Association is of the opinion, however, that current scientific
knowledge and technology in the field of wastewater treatment are not
sufficiently advanced to permit direct use of treated wastewaters as a
source of public water supply and it notes with concern current proposals
to significantly increase both indirect and direct use of treated waste-
waters for such purposes. It urges, therefore, that immediate steps be
taken, through intensive research and development, by the AWWA Research
Foundation and the Water Hygiene Division of the Office of Water Programs
in the Environmental Protection Agency to advance technological capability
to reclaim wastewaters for all beneficial uses. Such research and develop-
ment is considered to be of greater national need than that now being
directed to desalinization. It should:
1. Identify
The full range of contaminants possible present in treated
wastewaters which might affect the safety of public health,
the palatability of the water and the range of concentra-
tions.
2. Determine
The degree to which these contaminants are removed by various
types and levels of treatment.
- 286 -
-------
3. Determine
The long-range physiological effects of continued use of re-
claimed wastewater, with various levels of treatment, as the
partial or sole source of drinking water.
4. Define
The parameters, testing procedures, analytical methodology,
allowable limits, and monitoring systems which should be
employed with respect to the use of reclaimed wastewaters
for public water supply purposes.
5. Develop
Greater capability and reliability of treatment processes
and equipment to produce reclaimed water of reasonably
uniform quality in view of the extreme variability in the
characteristics of untreated wastewaters.
6. Improve
The capabilities of operational personnel.
The Association believes that the use of reclaimed wastewaters for
public water supply purposes should be deferred until research and de-
velopment demonstrates that such use will not be detrimental to the health
of the public and will not adversely affect the wholesomeness and pota-
bility of water supplied for domestic use.
- 287 -
-------
C APPENDIX C
0
P_
Y
FEDERAL WATER QUALITY ADMINISTRATION
Washington, D.C. 20242
ORDER COM 5040.10
October 15, 1970
SUBJECT: Policy on Disposal of Wastes by Subsurface Injection
1. PURPOSE. This order establishes FWQA policy on the disposal of
wastes by subsurface injections.
2. BACKGROUND.
a. The disposal and storage of liquid wastes by subsurface injec-
tions are being increasingly considered, especially by industries facing
enforcement of water quality standards. This is because of the diminish-
ing capabilities of surface waters to receive effluents without violation
of standards, and the apparent lower costs of this method of disposal
over conventional and advanced waste treatment techniques.
b. The effects of underground pollution and the fate of injected
materials are uncertain with today's knowledge. These wastes could well
result in serious pollution damage and require a more complex and costly
solution on a long-term basis.
c. Improper injection of municipal or industrial wastes to the
subsurface could result in serious pollution of water supplies or other
environmental hazards.
3. POLICY.
a. FWQA is opposed to the disposal or storage of wastes by subsur-
face injection without strict controls and a clear demonstration that
such wastes will not interfere with present or potential use of subsurface
water supplies, contaminate interconnected surface waters, or otherwise
damage the environment.
b. All proposals for subsurface injection of wastes shall be
critically evaluated to determine that:
(1) Alternative measures have been explored and found less
satisfactory in terms of environmental protection;
DISTRIBUTION: A; B; C; D; F; G; H; J; K
- 288 -
-------
COM 5040.10 October 15, 1970
(2) Appropriate preinjection tests have been made to allow
prediction of the fate of wastes to be injected;
(3) There is adequate evidence to demonstrate that such in-
jection will not interfere with present or potential use of water resources
nor result in other environmental hazards;
(4) Best practical measures for pretreatment of wastes have
been applied;
(5) The subsurface injection system has been designed and con-
structed using the best available techniques, equipment, and design criteria;
(6) Provisions for adequate and continuous monitoring of the
injection operation and resulting effects of the injection on the environ-
ment have been made; and
(7) Appropriate provision will be made for plugging such
wells at horizons below present or potential sources of water supply
when their use for disposal is discontinued.
c. Where subsurface injection of wastes is practiced, it will be
recognized as a temporary means of ultimate disposal to be discontinued
when alternatives enabling greater environmental protection become avail-
able.
4. IMPLEMENTATION. FWQA will apply this policy to the extent of its
authorities in conducting all program activities, including regulatory
activities, research and development, control of pollution from Federal
Installations, technical assistance to the States, and the administration
of the construction grants, State program grants, and basin planning
grants programs.
David D. Domlnick
Commissioner
- 289 -
-------
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX TABLE: INTERSTATE SANITATION COMMISSION WATER QUALITY
STANDARDS-CLASSIFICATION AND CRITERIA
General
1.01
1.02
Classification
2.01
2.02
2.03
2.05a
2.05b -
2.05c -
2.05d
(I.S.C. 1971.
Free from floating solids, settleable solids, oil, grease,
sludge deposits, color or turbidity to the extent that
none of the foregoing shall be noticeable in the water
or deposited along the shore or on aquatic substrata in
quantities detrimental to the natural biota, nor shall any
of the foregoing be present in quantities that would render
the waters in question unsuitable for use in accordance
with their respective classifications.
No toxic or deleterious substances shall be present, either
alone or in combination with other substances, in such con-
centrations as to be detrimental to fish or inhibit their
natural migration or that will be offensive to humans or
which would produce offensive tastes or odors or be unhealth-
ful in biota used for buran consumption.
Class A water suitable for recreation, shellfish culture
and development of fishlife.
Minimum dissolved oxygen — 5 parts per million.
Suitable for primary contact recreation. Also suitable
in designated areas for shellfish harvesting.
pH 6.5-8.5.
Fecal coliform levels shall not exceed 200 per 100 ml at
any time when disinfection is required to protect the
best intended uses of the waters in question.
BOD removal shall not be less than 80 percent. In addi-
tion, a discharge from an industrial source shall meet
any requirements for effluent quality imposed by permit
or otherwise pursuant to State law.
Settleable solids removal shall be at least 90 percent.
Interstate Sanitation Commission: Water Quality Regulations.)
290 -
-------
APPENDIX E
APPENDIX TABLE:
NEW YORK STATE CLASSES AND STANDARDS FOR
TIDAL SALT WATERS
Best usage of waters. Shellfishing for market purposes and any other
usages. The official SA Classification includes the following quality
standards:
1.
2.
Items
Floating solids, settleable
solids, oil, sludge depos-
its
Garbage, cinders, ashes,
oils, sludge or other
refuse
3. Sewage or waste effluents
4. Dissolved oxygen
5.
Toxic wastes, deleterious
substances, colored or
other wastes or heated
liquids
6.
Organisms of coliform
group
Specifications
None attributable to sewage, industrial
wastes or other wastes.
None in any waters of the marine dis-
trict as defined by State Conservation
Law.
None which are not effectively disin-
fected.
Not less than 5.0 parts per million.
None alone or in combination with other
substances or wastes in sufficient
amounts or at such temperatures as to
be injurious to edible fish or shellfish
or the culture or propagation thereof,
or which in any manner shall adversely
affect the flavor, color, odor or sani-
tary condition thereof or impair the
waters for any other best usage as de-
termined for the specific waters which
are assigned to this class.
The median MPN value in any series of
samples representative of waters in the
shellfish growing area shall not be in
excess of 70 per 100 milliliters.
(Classifications and Standards Governing the Quality and Purity of Waters
of New York State (Parts 700-703), Title 6, Official Compilation of Codes,
Rules, and Regulations.)
- 291 -
-------
APPENDIX F
APPENDIX TABLE:
NEW YORK STATE - 703.4 CLASSES AND STANDARDS
FOR GROUND WATERS CLASS GA
Fresh ground waters which are best used as sources of potable water
supply. (Found in the zone of saturation of unconsolidated deposits and
consolidated rock or bed rock).
Quality Standards for Class GA Waters
Condition I: Fresh waters found where the top of the zone of satura-
tion (water table) is in the unconsolidated deposits and total thickness
of unconsolidated deposit is not less than 15 feet of which not less than
10 feet of unconsolidated deposit is in the zone of saturation at any time.
Items
1. Raw or treated sewage, indus-
trial wastes or ineffectively
treated effluents, taste or odor
producing substances, toxic
wastes, thermo-wastes, radio-
active substances, or other de-
leterious matter.
Spec ificat ions
1. None into the zone of aeration
which may impair the quality of
the ground waters to render them
unsuitable for a potable water
supply. The concentration of
various contaminants shall not
exceed the standard set forth in
schedule I at the point of dis-
charge .
2. None into the zone of saturation
which may impair the quality of
the ground water to render them
unsuitable for a potable water
supply.
(a) Where discharge is in the uncon-
solidated deposits, the concentra-
tion of various contaminants at
the point of discharge shall not
exceed the standards set forth in
schedule I, provided that the
point of discharge is not less
than 10 feet above the consolidated
rock.
(b) Where discharge is in the consoli-
dated rock or within 10 feet of
- 292 -
-------
consolidated deposits, the concen-
tration of various contaminants at
the point of discharge shall not
exceed the standards set forth in
schedule II.
Condition II: Fresh waters found where the top of the zone of satura-
tion (water table) is in the consolidated rocks or where the top of the
zone of saturation is in the unconsolidated deposits and the minimum thick-
ness of the zone of saturation in these deposits is less than 10 feet at
any time.
Items
1. Raw or treated sewage, indus-
trial wastes or ineffectively
treated effluents, taste or odor
producing substances, toxic
wastes, thermo-wastes, radio-
active substances, or other de-
leterious matter.
2.
Specifications
None into the zone of aeration
which may impair the quality of
the ground waters to render them
unsuitable for a potable water
supply. The concentration of
various contaminants shall not
exceed the standard set forth in
schedule II at the point of dis-
charge.
None into the zone of saturation
which may impair the quality of
the ground water to render them
unsuitable for a potable water
supply. The concentration of vari-
ous contaminants shall not exceed
the standards set forth in sched-
ule II at the point of discharge.
Schedule I
Analytical determinations. Conformance with the requirements of these
standards shall be analytically determined on the basis of an accepted
method approved by the New York State Department of Health.
Biological organisms. Biological organisms shall not be allowed in
amounts sufficient to render the water detrimental to public health, safety
and welfare.
Physical characteristics. To conform with these standards, the arith-
metic average of all samples examined in any month shall not exceed the
following:
- 293 -
-------
1. Color--30 units; water, which when compared visually with a sam-
ple of known color concentration or with special calibrated color discs,
matches the known standards of 30 color units.
2. Threshold odor—6: water, a 35 ml sample of which when diluted
with odor free water to a volume of 200 ml has no detectable odor.
Chemical characteristics. To conform with these standards, the fol-
lowing values shall not be exceeded:
Concentration
Substance in mg/1
Alkyl benzene sulfonate (ABS) 1.5
Arsenic (As) 0.1
Barium (Ba) 2.0
Cadmium (Cd) 0.02
Carbon chloroform extract residue (CCE) 0.4
Chloride (Cl) 500
Chromium (hexavalent) (Cr+6) 0.10
Copper (Cu) 0.4
Cyanide (CN) 0.4
Fluoride (F) 3.0
Iron (Fe)* 0.6
Lead (Pb) 0.10
Manganese (Mn)* 0.6
Nitrate (N) 20.0
Phenols 0.002
Selenium (Se) 0.02
Silver (Ag) 0.10
Sulfate (S04) 500
Total dissolved solids 1000
Zinc 0.6
pH** 6.5-8.5
^Combined concentration of iron and manganese shall not exceed 0.6 mg/1.
**When natural groundwaters have a pH outside of range indicated above,
that natural pH may be one extreme of the allowable range.
- 294 -
-------
Schedule II
Analytical determinations. Conformance with the requirements of these
standards shall be analytically determined on the basis of an accepted method
approved by the State Department of Health.
Bacteriological characteristics. To conform with these standards, the
number of organisms of the coliform group shall not exceed the following:
1. An arithmetic average of 50 coliform organisms per 100 milliliter
sample in a series of four or more samples collected during any 30-day
period.
2. A count of 50 coliform organisms per 100 milliliter samples is not
more than 20 percent of the samples collected during the period.
Biological organisms. Biological organisms shall not be allowed in
amounts sufficient to render the water unsafe or otherwise objectionable,
as determined by the State Commissioner of Health.
Physical characteristics. To conform with these standards, the arith-
metic average of all samples examined by any month shall not exceed the
following:
1. Color—15 units; water, which when compared visually with a
sample of known color concentration or with special calibrated color discs,
matches the known standards of 15 color units.
2. Threshold odor—3: water, a 70 ml sample of which when diluted
with odor free water to a volume of 200 ml has no detectable odor.
Concentration
Substance in mg/1
Alkyl benzene sulfonate (ABS) 1.0
Arsenic (As) 0.05
Barium (Ba) 1.0
Cadmium (Cd) 0.01
Carbon chloroform extract residue (CCE) 0.2
Chloride (Cl) 250
Chromium (hexavalent) (Cr+6) 0.05
Copper (Cu) 0.2
Cyanide (CN) 0.2
Fluoride (F) 1.50
- 295 -
-------
Concentration
Substance in me/I
Iron (Fe)* 0.3
Lead (Pb) 0.05
Manganese (Mn)* 0.3
Nitrate (N) 10.0
Phenols 0.001
Selenium (Se) 0.01
Silver (Ag) 0.05
Sulfate (SO^) 250
Total dissolved solids 500
Zinc 0.3
pH** 6.5—8.5
*Combined concentration of iron and manganese shall not exceed 0.3 mg/1,
**When natural ground waters have a pH outside of range indicated above,
that natural pH may be one extreme of the allowable range.
- 296 -
-------
APPENDIX G
APPENDIX FIGURES: MAPS SHOWING THE INTERSTATE WATER QUALITY
CLASSIFICATIONS OF LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK
Title Map
Index map of water quality classifications maps of 1
Long Island basins.
Interstate water quality classifications of the
Long Island basins - Valley Stream to Babylon.
Interstate water quality classifications of the
Long Island basins - Babylon to Riverhead.
Interstate water quality classifications of the
Long Island basins - Great Peconic Bay to Block
Island Sound.
- 297 -
-------
z
175
a
z
0
z
o
o
o_
S
Z
o
t-
u
U
o
Of
O
a.
O
z
L
Ll-l
-------
INTERSTATE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
OF THE LONG ISLAND BASINS
VALLEY STREAM TO BABYLON
LI-2
-------
INTERSTATE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
OF THE LONG ISLAND BASINS
BABYLON TO RIVERHEAD
10 .
LI-3
-------
INTERSTATE WATER QUALITY CLASSIFICATIONS
OF THE LONG ISLAND BASINS
GREAT PECONIC BAY TO BLOCK ISLAND SOUND
LI-4
-------
APPENDIX H
Nitrogen in the Environment
Organic Nitrogen
Assimilation
Assimilation
This simplified representation of the nitrogen cycle serves to illus-
trate the forms in which nitrogen can be found in the environment, and
the interrelations of these forms. Primarily, organic nitrogen is that
contained in living protinaceous material. Upon excretion or death, these
materials are microbially decomposed, and the nitrogen is converted to
ammonia in a process known as ammonification. The ammonium-ammonia equili-
,1
brium (NH.==^NH ) is dependent upon temperature and pH. Ammonium pre-
dominates below pH 7.25 (99%) (Barth and Dean, 1970) and above pH 11.5;
essentially, all ammonia exists as NH.. Ammonia can be converted by certain
- 298 -
-------
plants, algae and bacteria to organic nitrogen. The autotrophic bacteria
of the genera Nitrosomonas and Nitrobacter can convert ammonia to nitrate
(NO,.). In the process (nitrification), Nitrosomonas oxidizes ammonia to
nitrite (N0~), and Nitrobactar oxidizes nitrite to nitrate. Aerobic
conditions are essential. Nitrate can be assimilated by certain plants,
algae and bacteria to form organic nitrogen. Also, in the absence of
oxygen, many heterotrophic bacteria can use nitrate as the terminal elec-
tron acceptor of their respiratory metabolism. As a result of this process
(denitrification), NO. is reduced to nitrogen gas (N_). Finally, certain
bacteria, algae and plants have the ability to fix atmospheric nitrogen
(N ) to form organic nitrogen. Nitrogen gas (N.) comprises some 75-80%
of our atmosphere.
Nitrogen is usually present in wastewater as ammonia and organic ni-
trogen. Much of the nitrogen ±a easily ammonified in the treatment plant.
The main source of ammonia is urea, a by-product of human metabolism.
Nitrite and nitrate are rarely found in raw wastewater. If nitrification
does not occur during wastewater treatment, the ammonia essentially passes
through the plant and is discharged in the effluent. If partial nitrifi-
cation occurs, a mixture of ammonia and nitrate may be discharged or some
denitrification of nitrate may occur, thereby reducing the nitrogen content
of the effluent. Normally nitrite is rapidly oxidized to nitrate or re-
duced to nitrogen gas, so that when detected, it is usually present in
low concentrations.
The nitrogen in wastewater is capable of deleterious environmental
effects. Since both ammonia and nitrate can serve as algal nutrients,
- 299 -
-------
biostimulation and resultant undesirable algal blooms may occur when
these compounds are released to surface waters. Ammonia in combination
with chlorine increases the cost of disinfection. Ammonia is also toxic
to fish. Any discharged ammonia that is not immediately utilized by
plants or algae will be nitrified (i.e., converted to nitrate) if the
water contains dissolved oxygen. This aerobic biological oxidation con-
sumes 4.5 moles of oxygen per mole of ammonia oxidized. Hence a nitro-
genous oxygen demand (NOD) is exerted on the receiving body; this can
result in a reduction of the dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration. This
NOD can represent more than 60% of the total biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) exerted on a receiving water by a biologically treated municipal
wastewater effluent. (Earth and Dean, 1970). In addition to their
capacity for biostimulation, high nitrate concentrations in drinking
water can be fatal to infants. Nitrate is normally reduced to nitrogen
in the intestine by bacterial flora. However, if nitrate is ingested
before the establishment of suitable flora, the reduction may be blocked
after the production of nitrite. The nitrite can combine with hemoglobin
rendering it ineffective for oxygen transport. In severe cases death may
result. The poisoning is known as methemoglobinemia. The U.S. Public
Health Service has set the limit of permissible nitrate in potable water
at 10 mg/1 as N.
While ammonia is adsorbed in many soils, nitrate appears to be poorly
held and is subject to leaching. (Eliassen and Tchobanoglous, 1969). The
adsorbed ammonia may eventually be displaced from the soil colloid and
then either cycled or directly converted to nitrate. It is, therefore,
- 300 -
-------
a potential ground-water pollutant. The application of wastes containing
high levels of ammonia or nitrate to soils in order to recharge ground-
water aquifers is contraindicated because of the potential for nitrate
pollution of the aquifers.
- 301 -
-------
£ APPENDIX I
0
P
BEFORE THE
OFFICE OF WATER QUALITY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PETITION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND
FOR PREPARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS,
AS REQUIRED BY SECTION 102 (C) OF THE
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT,
CONCERNING FEDERAL GRANTS FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITIES IN
NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES. NEW YORK
This Petition of the Environmental Defense Fund (EOF) is sub-
mitted for the purpose of requesting:
First, that the Office of Water Quality prepare and submit to
the President, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the public as
required by Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969, 83 Stat. 852, 42 U.S.C. Sees. 4321 et seq. (NEPA), environmental
impact statements with respect to grants of Federal funds for construction
of sewage treatment facilities in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York,
i.e., the part of Long Island lying east of New York City; and
Second, that the Office of Water Quality prepare and submit to
the President, the Council on Environmental Quality and the public an
environmental impact statement, also as required by Section 102(2)(C) of
NEPA, setting forth the long-range assumptions and policies that govern
the disbursement of Federal funds for construction of sewage treatment
facilities in these two counties.
- 302 -
-------
Petitioner, EDF, is a national organization whose membership of
more than 20,000 persons is composed of scientists, lawyers, educators and
others interested in obtaining and implementing scientifically sound solu-
tions to the many environmental problems confronting our society. EDF
maintains its principal office in the area which this petition concerns,
at 162 Old Town Road, East Setauket, New York, in Suffolk County; and
EDF's scientific staff includes members having specific expertise in the
area of water resources and waste water management.
The situation which leads EDF to submit this petition is as
follows:
Although approximately 30 new sewage treatment plants are now
under Federally aided construction in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, and
although others are now in the late planning stage, no environmental im-
pact statements, as to any of these projects, have been prepared and made
available to the President, the Council on Environmental Quality, and the
public as required by Section 102 of NEPA.
Some of the projects in question, such as the plant now being
built by Nassau County in Wantagh, which will have a final capacity of
about 50 million gallons per day (50 mgd), will clearly have a signifi-
cant effect on the environment by themselves, even without reference to
other sewage treatment plants, present or future, or to other factors.
Others, such as the projected plant for the Port Jefferson area,
which will have a capacity of 5 mgd and an estimated initial load of
2 mgd, will have a considerably smaller individual impact.
- 303 -
-------
All of these plants, however, need to be viewed in the context
of Long Island's current problems with respect to water supply and waste
disposal; the likely intensification of these problems, due to expanding
population and increased water usage; and the likely Impact: of constructing
additional sewage treatment facilities in the future.
When seen in this overall context, it becomes plain that even
the smaller plants now under Federally aided construction in the two
Counties are part of a course of "major Federal Actions significantly
affecting the quality of the human environment," within the meaning of
NEPA, and that NEPA thus requires that their environmental effects be
explored in "a detailed statement by the responsible official." The
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), in its Guidelines for Statements
on Proposed Federal Actions Affecting the Environment, Sec. 5(b)
(April 23, 1971) points out that:
In considering what constitutes major action
significantly affecting the environment,
agencies should bear in mind that the effect
of many Federal decisions about a ...
complex of projects can be individually
limited but cumulatively considerable. . . .
The Guidelines then state that environmental impact statements
should be prepared where "it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively
significant impact on the environment from Federal action." The
Guidelines also state that "to the maximum extent practicable the
Section 102(2)(C) procedure [the preparation of statements} should be
applied to further major Federal actions having a significant effect
on the environment even though they arise from projects or programs
initiated prior to the enactment of the Act on January 1, 1970."
- 304 -
-------
EDF believes not only that the present pattern of building sew-
age treatment plants on Long Island has a "cumulatively significant impact,"
but also that there is a pressing need now to evaluate that impact, as
NEPA requires, even where the proposed construction stems from plans
drafted prior to the adoption of the Act. This is not now being done.
To be sure, local authorities in most cases do compile environmental
assessments of sewage treatment projects within their jurisdiction, and
these assessments are reviewed at the State level and by the Office of
Water Quality. It appears, though, that these assessments do not give
anything like the degree of consideration required by NEPA to basic
technological alternatives to standard secondary methods of waste water
treatment, and to the long-range environmental implications of such
standard methods as against those of the alternatives. This failure
is extremely significant in view of the long-range problems raised by
these standard secondary methods, as discussed below.
At present, roughtly 50 per cent of the homes in Nassau County,
and only about 5 per cent of the homes in Suffolk County, are served by
sewers and sewage treatment plants—despite the fact that all of Nassau
County, and the five western towns of Suffolk County, comprising well
over half of that County's land area, have sufficient population density
even at present to support such facilities.
This suggests that additional sewage treatment plants in these
two counties will have to be built at a rapid rate, as the inadequacies
of septic tanks and cesspools become intolerably apparent. Thus sewage
treatment plants will have an increasingly important effect on the Long
Island environment.
- 305 -
-------
Such plants, If they pump their effluents out to sea (as appar-
ently all of those now planned or under construction will do) will
constitute a net drain on the Island's ground water. A recent study
of the water needs of Suffolk County, prepared for the Suffolk County
Legislature by the engineering firm of Holzmacher, McLendon & Murrell
(the "Holzmacher Report") suggests that full sewering of Suffolk County,
with effluent discharge to salt water, will eventually lead to a reduc-
tion of 75% in ground water levels, measured with reference to mean sea
levels. This in turn will lead to a corresponding reduction in stream
flow and the drying up of ponds.
Indeed, this has been the effect of existing plants. Portions
of the Long Island water table have been falling steadily for at least
twenty-five years. In Nassau County, in the area served by the County's
Bay Park plant (Sewer District No. 2) the water table has fallen more
than 20 feet in less than 20 years.
The reduction in the water table and in stream flow has led,
in turn, to increased salinity in the bays, estuaries, and marshes into
which Long Island's streams empty, as the missing fresh water has been
replaced in these bodies by saline ocean water. Twency-f:Lve years ago
the salinity of the Great South Bay was 13 parts per thousand. Today
the figure is 26 parts per thousand, a level that threatens the continued
existence of shellfish in the bay. According to Dr. Roland Clement,
biologist and vice-president of the National Audubon Society, this in-
creased salinity may also be ruining the bay as a resting place for
- 306 -
-------
migrating waterfowl along the Atlantic Flyway, since the plants these
birds consume have a limited tolerance of salinity for optimum growth.
As the bays have become more saline they have also become more
polluted. Not only is the stream water that empties into them more con-
taminated; its reduced flow means less flushing through tidal exchange.
Should the water table on Long Island continue to drop, as it
will if present sewage disposal practices and population trends continue,
this will naturally have adverse effects as well on the vegetation of
the Island and its various animal populations—and thus on its attrac-
tiveness and ultimate suitability as a place for human habitation.
In addition to being a drain on the water table, the practice
of pumping waste water out to sea constitutes a significant drain on
the public purse. When bids were solicited on construction of the
outfall pipe for the Wantagh plant in October, 1970, for example, the
sole bid came to $74,850,000, or roughly twice the estimated cost, and
far more than the cost of the plant itself. Even in the more modest
case of the Port Jefferson plant, the outfall pipe is expected to cost
more than $2,000,000. As to the Wantagh plant, it appears that the high
cost of the pipe, and delays in constructing it, may well result in a
period (estimated to be as much as one-and-a-half to two years) during
which the plant will dump secondarily treated effluent directly into
the Great South Bay. (No NEPA statement, incidentally, has been pre-
pared as to this environmentally significant possibility, even though
it appears that time still remains in which not only the outfall, but
- 307 -
-------
the design of the plant itself, could feasibly be modified if an NEPA
study concluded that such modifications were desirable.)
Despite the problems and costs involved in pumping effluents
out to sea, and despite the near certainty that increasing population
pressure will intensify the need for solutions to these problems, the
Office of Water Quality has used its power to grant or withhold Federal
construction funds in a way that effectively (if inadvertently) dis-
courages the employment of technologically improved alternatives on
Long Island.
One alternative which might be developed, for example, is ad-
vanced waste water treatment that would produce an effluent pure enough
to be recharged into the ground water, through either deep well or sur-
face recharge. EDF recognizes that problems remain in perfecting this
alternative. There is evidence, though, that solutions to these problems
are within reach. A plant embodying this technology is already in opera-
tion at Lake Tahoe, California. An apparently similar plant has just been
approved for Federally assisted construction at Ely, Minnesota. And in a
50,000,000 gallon per day complex at Waukegan, Illinois, both State and
Federal governments are mandating the installation of such equipment. If
such techniques can be successfully implemented in the climates of the
Sierra Mountains, Minnesota, and Illinois, the latter two, at least, being
colder and thus presumably less favorable than that of Long Island, there
seems little reason to predict that they could not be made to work on Long
Island.
- 308 -
-------
Another alternative, particularly in the less densely populated
portions of Long Island, might be to encourage local governmental units
to acquire and set aside land for the "living filter" technique of spray-
ing sewage on vegetation. This technique has been successfully demonstrated
in experiments at the Pennsylvania State University under climate and soil
conditions at least as severe as those obtaining on Long Island.
EDF believes, then, that the Office of Water Quality should manage
the disbursement of Federal funds for Long Island in a way that will en-
courage full consideration of such alternatives. Not only does EDF believe
this; the law requires it. Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA requires that
"detailed" consideration of "alternatives to the proposed action" be made
whenever Federal money is to be spent in a way significantly affecting the
environment.
The present policy of the Office of Water Quality, though, as
informally expressed to EDF, is routinely to approve Federal funding of
conventional secondary treatment facilities—the kind that contribute
on Lond Island to the continued fall of the water table—but ordinarily
to withhold comment on whether more advanced alternatives may be
eligible until after local officials have "stuck their necks out"
(in the words of an official of the Water Quality Office) and firmly
committed themselves to one of these alternatives. In other words, the
burden of assessing alternatives is not borne by the Office of Water
Quality, as required by NEPA, but shifted to local officials, who can
consider these alternatives only at the substantial risk of losing Federal
funding, and are thus understandably reluctant to do so.
- 309 -
-------
An ironic consequence, in the case of New York State, is that
officials in localities which discharge their effluents into relatively
high quality bodies of water, such as Long Island Sound or the Great South
Bay, are thus discouraged from complying with the Antidegradation Statement
adopted by the State Water Resources Commission, at the behest of the
Federal government, on May 7, 1970. This Statement provides that when
a body of water is better in quality than the classification standards
assigned to it, "all proposed new or increased sources of pollution will
be required to provide the best practical degree of waste treatment to
maintain these waters at this higher quality." (Emphasis supplied.)
Plainly, this is impossible unless the Office of Water Quality is willing
to encourage and approve the adoption of practical improved alternatives
to conventional technology, and willing to express this encouragement and
approval at a stage where it may have some effect.
One official of the Office of Water Quality has commented to
us that Federal reluctance to consider alternatives to conventional
secondary treatment should have negligible impact in deterring local
innovation, since in New York State, at least, Federal funds are
initially available only as to about 7 per cent of the cost of most
sewage treatment plants.
This position, however, overlooks two major factors. The first
is that New York State currently pre-funds the portion of the costs of
such projects for which Federal funds are authorized, but not available.
This generally comes to about 23 per cent of the total cost. For obvious
reasons the State is reluctant to pre-fund construction which may not
310 -
-------
get the Water Quality Office's approval for Federal reimbusement. The
second factor is that New York State law makes eligibility for State
funds conditional on eligibility for Federal funds. Thus the percentage
of total funding which is dependent on approval by the Office of Water
Quality is closer to 60 per cent than to seven. Uncertainty about this
large a percentage of total funding naturally has a substantial effect,
especially when under present practice conventional technology gets
virtually automatic funding.
Another position sometimes expressed to us by officials of the
Office of Water Quality is that it is more important to provide conven-
tional secondary waste water treatment for the maximum possible number
of localities than to upgrade waste water treatment to the advanced level,
and that limited Federal funds should thus be spent for conventional
secondary treatment.
It is by no means clear, though, that the capital cost of build-
ing "from scratch" an advanced treatment plant having effluent recharge
potential is greater than that of building a secondary plant, particularly
when the secondary plant requires an outfall pipe that may cost more than
the plant itself. At the same time, it jls_ clear that continued, and in-
creased, use of secondary plants and ocean outfalls on Long Island will
have severe long-range effects on the water table and the environment,
which will grow increasingly difficult and expensive to cure. Thus a
considerable question exists as to whether secondary plants really do
represent the best allocation of Federal funds, at least on Long Island.
- 311 -
-------
This question should be squarely addressed in the preparation of the
environmental impact statements requested herein.
What we have said thus far weighs in favor of the Office of Water
Quality's accepting its mandate under NEPA for weighing in detail the al-
ternative to individual proposed treatment plants, and submitting the
resulting NEPA statement to the President, the CEQ and the public, at a
point in time when this submission can still make a difference.
This by itself, though, is not enough. NEPA also requires ex-
pression, in the form of a Section 102 Statement, of the premises underly-
ing the long-term policies which the Office of Water Quality through its
control of funding is helping to implement. At present these premises
are highly contradictory. A New York State Department of Environmental
Conservation official with jurisdiction over planning of sewage treatment
plants has informed us that the assumption that underlies his planning is
that Long Island will eventually have to import water from upstate New
York or elsewhere. But an official of the State Water Resources Commission
studying the water supply needs of southeastern New York has stated that
in his judgment there is no possibility of Long Island's obtaining such
water from elsewhere.
Whatever the truth of the matter may be—and EDF remains skeptical
about the availability of outside water for Long Island—it seems plain
that the resolution of contradictions such as this is one of the main
purposes and requirements of NEPA. Long-term environmental needs cannot
be met without adequate, coherent planning; and NEPA puts responsibility
for such planning squarely on the Federal agency or agencies concerned,
in this case the Office of Water Quality.
- 312 -
-------
In submitting this petition, EDF does not wish to imply that
the Office of Water Quality has been wholly unmindful of this responsi-
bility. We recognize that requests similar to our own have been made
from within the Office. Thus, in the Report on the Water Quality of
Long Island Sound, published by the Office of Water Quality, Northeast
Region, in March 1971, "It is recommended that. . . .
The Environmental Protection Agency, the
States, and the Interstate agencies develop
a water quality management program for
Long Island Sound. . . . The program shall
include, but not be limited to. . . deter-
mination of ... "Alternate municipal and
industrial waste collection and treatment
systems. ..." (Emphasis added.)
Nor does EDF wish to imply that the Office of Water Quality alone
is responsible for providing adequate planning. NEPA is explicit on this
point. Section 101(a) states that Federal environmental policy shall be
developed and carried out "in cooperation with State and local governments,
and other concerned public and private organizations."
What we do request, though, is that the Office of Water Quality
take the lead in encouraging, rather than discouraging, innovation and
imaginative planning on all levels. The environmental impact statements
required by NEPA provide the means chosen by Congress for doing this,
particularly insofar as NEPA requires detailed statements of alternatives
to proposed Federal actions.
In addressing ourselves specifically to the situation on Long
Island, of course, we have in mind that what we have said may have con-
siderable relevance to other areas of the country, such as the Florida
- 313 -
-------
and Cape Cod peninsulas, which likewise depend on ground water, and
which likewise have problems with maintaining ground water levels and
preventing salt water intrusion.
It is for these reasons that EDF submits this petition for both
individual and overall NEPA statements with respect to Long Island. The
environmental situation there is too critical to allow for delay in com-
plying with the Act.
Nils E. Erickson, Ph.D.
John F. Hellegers
Attorney for the Environmental
Defense Fund
U S. Environmental Protection Agency,
June 29, 1971 Regfon v LJbrary
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
- 314 -
------- |