Sanitary Sewer Overflow Report Side a Category 1: Discharge of Untreated Or Partially Treated Wastewater of Any Volume Resulting
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Infiltration/Inflow Task Force Report
INFILTRATION/INFLOW TASK FORCE REPORT A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR MWRA MEMBER SEWER COMMUNITIES AND REGIONAL STAKEHOLDERS MARCH 2001 INFILTRATION/INFLOW TASK FORCE REPORT A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT FOR MWRA MEMBER SEWER COMMUNITIES AND REGIONAL STAKEHOLDERS MARCH 2001 Executive Summary This report is the product of the Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) Task Force. It has been developed through the cooperative efforts of the 43 Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) member sewer communities, MWRA Advisory Board, The Wastewater Advisory Committee (WAC) to the MWRA, Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA), Fore River Watershed Association (FRWA), Mystic River Watershed Association (MRWA), Neponset River Watershed Association (NRWA), South Shore Chamber of Commerce (SSCC), Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and MWRA. The I/I Task Force recommends implementation of the regional I/I reduction goals and implementation strategies detailed in this report. The report outlines a regional I/I reduction plan with appropriate burdens and benefits for stakeholders. The report is intended to be a guidance document for use by local sewer communities, as well as other regional stakeholders, who may tailor appropriate aspects of the report recommendations to their unique situations. Severe storms in October 1996 and June 1998 led to the unusual circumstance of numerous sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs) from local and MWRA collection systems. In the aftermath of these events, EPA and DEP began an aggressive effort to make MWRA regulate flows from community sewer systems. MWRA recommended cooperative efforts by local collection system operators, as well as regulators and environmental advocates, would be more effective than a prescriptive, enforcement based approach. -
Ssos and Csos What Are They and What Are We Doing About Them?
SSOs and CSOs What are they and what are we doing about them? Don Kennedy – Training Coordinator James LaLiberte – Training Coordinator Combined sewers were introduced to the larger American cities in the mid-19th century. They were designed to dry out streets by collecting rainwater runoff, domestic sewage from newly invented flush toilets, and industrial wastewaters all in the same pipe. In dry weather, a combined sewer system sends a town’s entire volume of wastewater to a treatment plant, which treats and discharges to a waterway. The problems, generally, arise during heavy or extended rain events which can overload the system and seek relief. Such events can result in either a Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO), a Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO), or both. While both situations act as a relief for the system, one is intentional and the other is not. An SSO is an unintentional discharge of wastewater to the environment or personal property. SSOs are, generally, the result of poor sewer management and maintenance. Flow through sewer lines can be restricted by fats, oils and greases (FOG) or by tree roots. The system then does not have the capacity to handle a significant rain event, resulting in wastewater escaping through manholes, residences or businesses. TREE ROOTS IN SEWER Other contributors to the system are Inflow and Infiltration. These situations allow stormwater to enter the sewer system which shouldn’t. Infiltration - through bad joint or cracked pipes. Inflow – through illegal or unapproved connections, such as roof gutters, yard -
Inflow and Infiltration Reduction in Sanitary Sewers
Appendix E-4 – Inflow and Infiltration Reduction in Sanitary Sewers INFLOW AND INFILTRATION REDUCTION IN SANITARY SEWERS D.1 Introduction to RDII in Sanitary Sewers A properly designed, operated and maintained sanitary sewer system is meant to collect and convey all of the sewage that flows into it to a wastewater treatment plant. Rainfall dependent infiltration and inflow (RDII) into sanitary sewer systems has long been recognized as a major source of operating problems that cause poor performance of many sewer systems including system overflows. The extent of infiltration also correlates with the condition of aging sewers. The three major components of wet-weather wastewater flow into a sanitary system – base wastewater flow (BWWF), groundwater infiltration (GWI), and RDII are illustrated in Figure D-1 and are discussed below. Figure D-1: Three components of wet-weather wastewater flow BWWF, often called base sanitary flow, is the residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial flow discharged to a sanitary sewer system for collection and treatment. BWWF normally varies with water use patterns within a service area throughout a 24-hour period with higher flows during the morning period and lower during the night. In most cases, the average daily BWWF is more or less constant during a given day, but varies monthly and seasonally. BWWF often represents a significant portion of the flows treated at wastewater treatment facilities. GWI represents the infiltration of groundwater that enters the collection system through leaking pipes, pipe joints, and manhole walls. GWI varies throughout the year, often trending higher in late winter and spring as groundwater levels and soil moisture levels rise, and subsiding in late summer or after an extended dry period. -
Section 9 Sewer Collection Systems
SECTION 9 SEWER COLLECTION SYSTEMS TABLE OF CONTENTS 9.1 PURPOSE AND DEFINITIONS .......................................................................................... 1 9.1.1 Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 1 9.1.2 DOU Sewer System ...................................................................................................... 1 9.1.3 Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 2 9.2 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................... 11 9.2.1 Authority and Responsibility ....................................................................................... 11 9.2.2 Disclaimer ................................................................................................................... 11 9.2.3 Acceptance ................................................................................................................. 12 9.2.4 Variances .................................................................................................................... 12 9.2.5 Gravity vs. Pumped Systems ...................................................................................... 12 9.2.6 New Sewer Systems ................................................................................................... 13 9.2.7 Diversion of Flows ..................................................................................................... -
A Case Study of a Small Diameter Gravity Sewerage System in Zolkiewka Commune, Poland
water Article A Case Study of a Small Diameter Gravity Sewerage System in Zolkiewka Commune, Poland Tadeusz Nawrot *, Radosław Matz, Ryszard Błazejewski˙ and Marcin Spychała Department of Hydraulic and Sanitary Engineering, Poznan University of Life Sciences, Pi ˛atkowskaSt. 94A, 60-649 Pozna´n,Poland; [email protected] (R.M.); [email protected] (R.B.); [email protected] (M.S.) * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +48-61-848-77-29 Received: 31 July 2018; Accepted: 27 September 2018; Published: 29 September 2018 Abstract: This article presents a small diameter gravity sewerage system in a rural area. In this system, domestic wastewater was preliminarily treated in septic tanks equipped with outlet filters, so the effluent features were similar to those of clear water. Additionally, some outlets were equipped with floating-ball check valves to avoid backflow. One of the pressure mains was used as a gravity collector conveying septic tank effluent in the direction of the pumping station during pump idle time. The operation of the system was simulated using SWMM computer code. The simulation results were validated for data obtained from part of a sewerage system in Kolonia Zolkiew and Rozki village consisting of two pumping stations and 86 serviced households using polyethylene pipes of outer diameter 50–63 mm. The results of the measurement of the outflows from one pumping station are presented. The simulation results showed good agreement with the empirical data, especially after several simulation days. The greatest discrepancy during the start-up period was the consequence of the initial conditions describing the empty pipework. -
PART VI - SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA (Public & Private)
PART VI - SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA (Public & Private) A. Definitions a Main - is that portion of the sewer system between manholes, or between manhole and the end of the main line provided with a lamphole. b Lateral - is that portion of the sewer system which is connected to the main and which serves one parcel or building. B. Size Criteria 1. The gravity sewer main lines shall be a minimum of eight inch (8") in diameter except that dead end lines of less than 300 feet can be 6 inches in diameter. Laterals shall be a minimum of 4" in diameter for single family residences and 6" for commercial, duplex and multi-family lots. 2. Laterals shall be placed at least 3' below top of curb grade elevation with 2% minimum slope and with a cleanout located per City Standard Detail S-1. 3. Minimum slopes for various pipe diameters shall be as shown in the following table. Pipe slopes less than those listed shall not be used without the approval from the City. Pipe Diameter (in) Slope (%) Slope ft/ft 6 0.50 0.0050 8 0.35 0.0035 10 0.25 0.0025 12 0.20 0.0020 15 0.15 0.0015 18 0.12 0.0012 4. The sewer mains shall be designed with the sewer flowing 3/4 full at peak flow condition or d/D = 0.75 where d is the depth of flow and D is the diameter of sewer pipe. 5. For gravity flow, use the Manning formula. The minimum design velocity shall be 2 fps for the design flow, and the design "n" factor shall be 0.013. -
Inflow & Infiltration
Inflow & Public Education Infiltration Committee This municipal water quality educational material was sponsored by the Public Municipal Water Quality Education Committee of the Public Educational Information Pennsylvania Water Environment Association (PWEA). PWEA is a Member Association of the Water Environment Federation (WEF). Please visit our Public Education Toolbox on PWEA’s website for other public educational material for the municipal water quality industry. PO Box 3367 Gettysburg, PA 17325 www.pwea.org www.pwea.org Inflow & Infiltration “I&I” is a short acronym for a huge problem most sewer communities face, Inflow and Infiltration. Inflow occurs when rainwater is misdirected into the sanitary sewer system instead of storm sewers. Examples are: roof leaders, footer drains, sump pumps, manhole covers, and cross connections from storm drains. The remedy for inflow is to remove improper connections to the sanitary sewer system. Infiltration occurs when ground water seeps into the sanitary The worst impact of I&I is the likelihood You, as a homeowner, can reduce I&I sewer system through cracks or that the sewage can overflow out of the from your property. leaks in sewer pipes. The cracks sewer pipe and into our environment. This • Check that gutters and outside drains or leaks may be caused by age yucky, gross runoff of untreated sewage, are not connected to sanitary sewers. related deterioration, loose joints, contaminated with fecal matter, urine, and • Avoid planting trees and shrubs over damage or root infiltration. The toilet paper, is often referred to as SSO building sewers. The roots can remedy for infiltration is repairing (Sanitary Sewer Overflow). -
State of Technology for Rehabilitation of Wastewater Collection Systems
EPA/600/R-10/078 | July 2010 | www.epa.gov /nrmrl State of Technology for Rehabilitation of Wastewater Collection Systems Office of Research and Development National Risk Management Research Laboratory - Water Supply and Water Resources Division United States Office of Research EPA/600/R-10/078 Environmental Protection and Development July 2010 Agency Washington, DC 20460 State of Technology for Rehabilitation of Wastewater Collection Systems State of Technology for Rehabilitation of Wastewater Collection Systems by Dr. Ray Sterling, P.E., Jadranka Simicevic, Dr. Erez Allouche, P.E. Trenchless Technology Center at Louisiana Tech University Wendy Condit, P.E. Battelle Memorial Institute Lili Wang, P.E. ALSA Tech, LLC Contract No. EP-C-05-057 Task Order No. 58 Ariamalar Selvakumar, Ph.D., P.E. Task Order Manager U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Urban Watershed Branch National Risk Management Research Laboratory Water Supply and Water Resources Division 2890 Woodbridge Avenue (MS-104) Edison, NJ 08837 National Risk Management Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Cincinnati, Ohio 45268 July 2010 DISCLAIMER The work reported in this document was funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Task Order (TO) 58 of Contract No. EP-C-05-057 to Battelle. Through its Office of Research and Development, EPA funded and managed, or partially funded and collaborated in, the research described herein. This document has been subjected to the Agency’s peer and administrative reviews and has been approved for publication. Any opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency; therefore, no official endorsement should be inferred. -
Sanitary Sewer Overflow Response Plan
CITY OF HEMET WASTEWATER DIVISION SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW RESPONSE PLAN Appendix D of the City of Hemet Sewer System Management Plan Updated February 2016 City of Hemet Wastewater Department SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW RESPONSE PLAN Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 4 1.1 Regulatory Requirements ................................................................................................. 4 1.1.1 Statewide General Waste Discharge Requirements (GWDR) .................................. 4 CHAPTER 2 SPILL CATEGORIES AND REQUIREMENTS ........................................ 5 2.1 Summary of MRP Requirements ..................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Spill Category 1 Discharges...................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Spill Category 2 Discharges...................................................................................... 6 2.1.3 Spill Category 3 Discharges...................................................................................... 6 2.1.4 No Spill Certification ................................................................................................ 7 2.1.5 Private Lateral Sewage Discharge ............................................................................ 7 CHAPTER 3 RESPONSE TO NOTIFICATION OF SPILL ............................................. 8 3.1 Public Report of SSOs..................................................................................................... -
In the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri Western Division
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 4:10-cv-0497-GAF Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) THE CITY OF KANSAS CITY, ) MISSOURI ) ) Defendant. ) ) THE STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) Non-aligned Party, ) Joined pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1319(e) ) ) ) ) THIRD AMENDED CONSENT DECREE Case 4:10-cv-00497-GAF Document 22 Filed 01/15/21 Page 4 of 107 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. JURISDICTION ........................................................................................................... 6 II. VENUE .......................................................................................................................... 6 III. BINDING EFFECT ...................................................................................................... 6 IV. PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................... 7 V. DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................................. 8 VI. SUBMISSIONS REQUIRING EPA AND STATE APPROVAL .......................... 16 VII. IMPLEMENTATION OF SEWER SYSTEM REMEDIAL MEASURES AND POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING ............................................................. 19 VIII. FUNDING ................................................................................................................... 29 IX. REPORTING ............................................................................................................. -
Low Pressure Sewer a Proven Technology
Low Pressure Sewer Solutions to Wet Weather Problems Michigan Water Environment Association WWAdCon 2014 Keith J McHale, P.E. Environment One Corporation Principles of Low Pressure Sewer ◦ What is a Low Pressure Sewer System ◦ Advantages of Low Pressure Sewer LPS Solutions to Wet Weather Problems ◦ Infiltration and Inflow (I&I) ◦ Basement flooding solution Agenda Wastewater collection systems that use individual residential pumps to convey the flow to a central treatment system, lift station, gravity sewer, or force main System consists of: ◦ Grinder pumps ◦ Small diameter pressure pipe Sewer main follows the natural contour of the land What is a LPS System First used in the early 1970’s Provides daily service to millions of users worldwide Demonstrated performance, high reliability, and low operating and maintenance costs Low Pressure Sewer A Proven Technology Gained popularity due to the ability to provide central sewer service to areas with gravity sewer could not be installed or the cost to do so was cost prohibitive ◦ High ground water ◦ Lake communities ◦ Rural areas ◦ Flat terrain ◦ Undulating terrain ◦ Rocky ground conditions Early Development Experience and demonstrated advantages have expanded the use of low pressure sewer Competitive alternative to convention gravity sewer ◦ Flexibility ◦ Lower capital cost ◦ Construction phasing ◦ Increased construction schedule ◦ Lower environment impact and social costs Wider Acceptance The System • Grinder pump unit is located in the yard or basement of each home The System • -
Sewer Odor Control Master Plan
CITY OF LOS ANGELES SEWER ODOR CONTROL MASTER PLAN Wastewater Engineering Services Division Bureau of Sanitation AUGUST 2011 2011 Odor Control Master Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Title Page ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 5 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 5 EVALUATION OF THE COLLECTION SYSTEM................................................................................. 6 RECOMMENDATIONS/CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................... 7 1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 9 1.1 HISTORY OF THE SEWER SYSTEM................................................................................................. 9 1.2 ODOR GENERATION ..................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 HISTORY OF ODOR CONTROL..................................................................................................... 10 1.4 COLLECTION SYSTEM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORIGIN OF THE MASTER PLAN .............. 13 1.5 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES......................................................................................................... 13 1.6 TASK DESCRIPTIONS