Thomas R. Suozzi County Executive

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

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

3. Project Approach

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

5. Plant Capacities Total Plant Permitted Capacity: 72.0 mgd

6. Asset Condition Assessment sample review sheet

7. Asset Assessment Asset Classes Asset Condition Grade 1 - Poor Asset will require replacement, refurbishment, or other remedial action within 5 years • Class A Examples (High Criticality & High Value) • Large process equipment, large motors & pumps, engines, boilers, large butterfly and gate valves, gantries • Class B Examples (High Criticality & Medium Value) • Sluice gates, odor control units, mid-sized valves, mid-sized motors & pumps, life safety systems, control systems • Class C Examples (Low Criticality & High Value) • Roof systems, major architectural elements Grade 2 - Fair Asset has experienced noticeable deterioration but will remain functioning for another 5 to 10 years with regular maintenance and component replacement Grade 3 - Good Asset has experienced little to no deterioration and will remain functional for 10 to 20 years with regular maintenance  Over 400 pieces of plant equipment were evaluated

8. Asset Assessment Cedar Creek (350 pcs.) Pump station assessments were also conducted @ 37 pump stations and costs included in each service area

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

10. Effluent Performance (Cedar Creek)

11. Regulatory Forecasting – Cedar Creek • Total Residual Chlorine • Limit reduced from3.0 mg/L to 2.0 mg/L (date currently being discussed) • Plant doesn’t anticipate any modifications to process to meet new limits • Dissolved Oxygen • Future limit of 2.0 mg/L • Plant currently meets proposed limit • Enterococci • New effluent limit is currently being proposed by DEC • Plant doesn’t anticipate any modifications to process to meet new limits • Storm Water Discharges within Plant • Required to implement pollution prevention plans and manage runoff to the maximum extent practicable on the Plant property • County’s Storm Water Management Program included the development of Pollution Prevention Plans for various operations. In addition, Capital Project 31150 will be in construction Summer 2009. This project includes storm water treatment devices

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

13. Summary Cedar Creek

14. Total Budget Estimates for Improvements Cedar Creek

15. Plant-Wide Odor Control Improvements (Cedar Creek) • Technology Overview • Liquid Phase Treatment • Oxygen, chlorine, nitrate, iron / ferric salts, hydrogen peroxide • Vapor Phase Treatment • Wet Scrubbers • Biofilters • Biotrickling filters • Activated carbon

16. Technology • Technology Comparison (new 6,000 scfm) Ops Cost Cost $1,500,000 $150,000 $2,250,000 - $3,750,000 $75,000 $1,500,000 - $3,000,000 $112,500 $1,000,000 - $1,500,000 $150,000 –$225,000

17. Wet Scrubbers • Most demonstrated technology • Physical-chemical reactions • Highly effective at removing H2S (99%) • Less effective at removing other sulfurous compounds (40 – 60 %)

18. Biofilters • Newer technology • Biological process • Similar effectiveness as wet scrubbers • Low operating costs due to no chemical addition and no waste stream • Greater footprint requirements Loading rates (cfm/sf) Organic media: 2 – 5 Inorganic media: 10 – 20 Image by Envirogen

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

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

21. Questions and Discussion