DOCSLIB.ORG

Glencoe Rain Garden Flow Test – Staff Time and Costs # of Total Task Rate Est

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Glencoe Rain Garden Flow Test – Staff Time and Costs # of Total Task Rate Est C ITY OF P ORTLAND - BUREAU OF E NVIRONMENTAL S ERVICES Planning Group Sustainable Stormwater Management FLOW TEST MEMORANDUM GLENCOE RAIN GARDEN A UGUST 12TH, 2004 Executive Summary Overview The Glencoe Rain Garden is a vegetated infiltration basin designed to store, infiltrate, and filter street runoff. Because of their ability to control peak flows, flow volume, and pollutants, infiltration basins are a versatile option in efforts to control basement sewer backups, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), open channel erosion, and effluent water quality. This type of low-impact approach is proving to be a valuable development strategy in Portland’s urban environments. Glencoe Rain Garden Gathering performance data is critical to quantify the benefit of the facilities, improve overall design and function, and lower maintenance costs. Flow testing provides a relatively inexpensive and accurate method to gather this data for various design storms. Using a fire hydrant and a very accurate flow meter, almost any storm event can be simulated with regards to flow rates and volumes. In combination with accurate outflow monitoring and field observations, reliable performance data can be compiled in a relatively short period of time. The Glencoe Rain Garden, located at Glencoe Elementary School (SE 51st & Morrison), was completed in Rain Garden Location Map September 2003 in response to a severe basement sewer backup problem in the area. Performance data is necessary to verify how well this Glencoe Rain Garden 10/20/2004 - 1 - particular facility protects basements from sewer backups, and to evaluate the general ability of vegetated infiltration basins to be a viable sustainable stormwater strategy helping to control combined sewer overflows. Flow tests performed on August 12th, 2004 assessed the facility’s performance during the basement sewer backup (25-Year1) design storm and the combined sewer overflow (CSO) design storm, also referred to as the ASFO2 design storm. Results The table below summarizes the results of the flow test: 25-yr Simulation1 ASFO2 Simulation 15,600 gallons 29,350 gallons* Total Volume In (2,080 ft3) (3,870 ft3) 2,950 gallons 5,930 gallons* Total Volume Out (395 ft3) (790 ft3) Volume Reduction 81 % 80% 1,010 gpm 620 gpm Peak Flow In (2.25 cfs) (1.38 cfs) 210 gpm 200 gpm Peak Flow Out (0.46 cfs) (0.45 cfs) Peak Flow Reduction 79% 67% Peak Flow Delay 28 minutes N/A3 *Includes 25_Year volumes, which approximately equal the volume of water seen by the facility during the first 9.5 hours of the true 24-Hour event. Basement Sewer Backup Protection The Rain Garden reduced the peak flow by 79% and delayed it for 28 minutes. In fact, no outflow was recorded for the first 16 minutes, which represents the critical period of peak intensity rainfall. However, because of equipment limitations, the maximum runoff intensity could not be achieved and was closer to a 10-year peak flow. The remainder of the storm was simulated as planned. Combined Sewer Overflow Benefits Time constraints did not allow the simulation of the entire 24-hour storm. The 25-Year test provided an equivalent runoff volume for the first 9 hours of the event, and the tenth hour, which contains the peak intensities of the storm event, was simulated during the ASFO test. For the 10 hours of runoff simulated, the facility captured 80% of the runoff volume. The remaining 14 hours were not simulated, but given the relatively low rainfall intensities during this period, it is unlikely that there would have been any significant overflow. 1 The 25-Year storm (1.89 inches in 6 hours, with a peak intensity of 3.32 inches / hour) represents an intense thunderstorm with the heaviest rainfall in the first 15-minutes. 2 The ASFO storm represents a 3-year, 24-hour summer storm (1.41 inches in 24 hours, with a peak intensity of 0.92 inches / hour). It is the most rigorous protection standard in the Amended Stipulation and Final Order (ASFO) – a legal document specifying the regulatory CSO requirements. 3 CSO events are driven by volume over an extended period of time; peak flow is typically not an issue. Glencoe Rain Garden 10/20/2004 - 2 - Infiltration Rates Infiltration rates within the facility varied with the depth of standing water and the degree of soil saturation. Average rates varied from 1.2 to 1.8 inches per hour under saturated conditions. Conclusions Facilities like the Glencoe Rain Garden show considerable promise as a sustainable stormwater management strategy and further evaluation is recommended. Performance is summarized below for each of the test objectives: Peak Flow Reduction: The facility is effective at reducing basement sewer backup risk. The simulated peak flow was lower than the 25-Year peak flow, but a comparison of runoff and facility volumes shows the facility would have prevented any overflow to the combined sewer during the first 5-10 minutes of the design storm. Capturing this portion of the storm guarantees at least a 60% A full Glencoe Rain Garden during flow testing peak flow reduction, which is adequate to protect local basements. Flow Volume Reduction: Use of these facilities could greatly reduce the amount of stormwater volume reaching the CSO tunnel system. The combination of facility storage and infiltration was able to capture 80% of the total inflow volume through the first 10 hours of the storm. This would represent a dramatic reduction in flow volume to the Eastside CSO Tunnel. Infiltration: Infiltration rates were more than adequate to drain the facility within 6 hours. This ensures capacity for subsequent storms and eliminates the need for vector control. This is an excellent result given that the site’s silt soils would not be considered good for infiltration. Design Issues / Modifications: The drainfield only passed half of its design flow, causing water levels to rise faster and higher than anticipated. Modifications to the flow restrictor or removal of the flow restrictor from the drainfield would be the easiest solution, while modifications to the drainfield itself may also be an option. Clogging caused by bark mulch contributes to this problem (see Maintenance Issues below). Maintenance Issues: Large quantities of bark mulch were pushed into the drainfield during both simulations. This has also been an issue during some of the larger storm events over the past year. Because the accumulating mulch can partially clog the drainfield, it would need to be periodically removed. Bark mulch floating into the drainfield The installation of a skimmer at the drainfield weir would help Glencoe Rain Garden 10/20/2004 - 3 - keep the mulch in the landscaped bays. Another option is to replace the bark mulch with another material such as pea gravel. The pea gravel has performed well in the forebay, and is too heavy to be pushed into the drainfield. Facility Sizing: The facility footprint is 4-6% of the drainage area, and did a good job of both peak flow reduction and volume retention. Overflow to the sewer never exceeded the design outflow and an adequate freeboard was maintained at all times. This, coupled with low infiltration rates, suggests that the 9% sizing factor recommended in the “Simplified Approach” of the City of Portland’s 2004 Stormwater Management Manual (SWMM)4 may be high – at least for providing combined sewer benefits. Results and conclusions for any facility are dependent on local conditions. Local soil texture, construction practices, inflow sediment loads, planting varieties and planting densities are among the many variables that will impact the performance of each facility both now and in the future. However, this site has silt soils extending at least 6 feet below the facility, and even with a relatively low infiltration rate, the facility performed well. Despite these results, additional testing is critical to provide confidence and to identify performance trends. Particular issues for future tests: Higher peak flows: Because we were unable to reach the 25-Year peak flow during this test, it is important that we reach the desired flow rate in subsequent tests. This will provide confidence in the facilities performance for basement sewer backup protection. More detailed CSO benefits: Specific testing should be done to better determine the ability of the facility to reduce volumes from the ASFO storm. The result of this test may be a conservative estimate because actual intensities during the first 9 hours are much less than those simulated. The lower intensities may allow infiltration to keep up with inflow and provide greater retention. Though it will not be possible to simulate the entire 24-hour event in a single day, an abbreviated inflow pattern could be generated that is more representative of the volumes and intensities of the entire storm. This information would better inform CSO control efforts throughout the City. Different antecedent conditions: Conditions in the facility were relatively dry for this test. Other than 0.6 inches of rain that fell one week prior to the tests, there had been no other rainfall of note for 63 days. These antecedent conditions are not unusual for the summer months, during which ASFO compliance is most important (May – Oct) and most basement sewer backup events occur (May, Aug – Oct). However, it is intended that further tests be carried out during the wet winter months to compare with these results. Performance over time: It is likely that the facility’s performance will change with time due to sediment accumulation, deeper root establishment, and other factors. It is intended that testing will continue to be performed over the next 5 years to document any significant changes. For more information about the City of Portland’s Sustainable Stormwater Program, as well as further details about this and other flow tests of sustainable stormwater facilities, see the City’s Clean Rivers website at: http://www.cleanrivers-pdx.org/clean_rivers/sustainable_stormwater.htm 4 See SWMM, section 2.2.1 at http://www.portlandonline.com/bes/index.cfm?c=35122 Glencoe Rain Garden 10/20/2004 - 4 - Overview Homes along SE 52nd between Stark and Morrison have experienced a large number of basement sewer backup events in the last 20 years.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recommended Standards for Wastewater Facilities
    RECOMMENDED STANDARDS for WASTEWATER FACILITIES POLICIES FOR THE DESIGN, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES 2014 EDITION A REPORT OF THE WASTEWATER COMMITTEE OF THE GREAT LAKES - UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BOARD OF STATE AND PROVINCIAL PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERS MEMBER STATES AND PROVINCE ILLINOIS NEW YORK INDIANA OHIO IOWA ONTARIO MICHIGAN PENNSYLVANIA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN MISSOURI PUBLISHED BY: Health Research, Inc., Health Education Services Division P.O. Box 7126 Albany, N.Y. 12224 Phone: (518) 439-7286 Visit Our Web Site http://www.healthresearch.org/store/ten-state-standards Copyright © 2014 by the Great Lakes - Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers This document, or portions thereof, may be reproduced without permission if credit is given to the Board and to this publication as a source. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE FOREWORD ..................................................................................................................................... v 10 ENGINEERING REPORTS AND FACILITY PLANS 10. General ............................................................................................................................. 10-1 11. Engineering Report Or Facility Plan ................................................................................ 10-1 12. Pre-Design Meeting ....................................................................................................... 10-12
    [Show full text]
  • Irrigation Return Flow Or Discrete Discharge? Why Water Pollution from Cranberry Bogs Should Fall Within the Clean Water Act’S Npdes Program
    GAL.HANSON.DOC 4/30/2007 10:08:35 AM IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW OR DISCRETE DISCHARGE? WHY WATER POLLUTION FROM CRANBERRY BOGS SHOULD FALL WITHIN THE CLEAN WATER ACT’S NPDES PROGRAM BY * ** ANDREW C. HANSON & DAVID C. BENDER Despite license plates proclaiming it as the “dairy state,” Wisconsin is the top cranberry producing state in the nation. Cranberry operations are unique in that they are agricultural operations that require vast quantities of water. Water discharged to lakes, wetlands, and rivers through ditches and canals during the production process can contain the phosphorus fertilizers and residues of pesticides that were applied during the growing season, which can cause serious water quality problems. Although the cranberry industry has not historically been subject to the Clean Water Act, cranberry bog discharges appear to fit squarely within the purview of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program under that statute. In 2004, the Wisconsin attorney general filed a public nuisance lawsuit against a cranberry grower, alleging that the grower discharged bog water laced with phosphorus to the lake. However, provided that cranberry bog discharges do not fall within the “irrigation return flow” exemption from the Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program may be a more cost-effective approach to addressing the water quality problems that can be caused by cranberry bog discharges. I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 340 II. POLLUTANT DISCHARGES FROM COMMERCIAL CRANBERRY PRODUCTION ...................... 342 III. STATE V. ZAWISTOWSKI AND THE ATTEMPT TO USE PUBLIC NUISANCE AUTHORITY TO CONTROL POLLUTANT DISCHARGES FROM CRANBERRY BOGS ................................... 345 IV. OVERVIEW OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT ........................................................................... 347 V.
    [Show full text]
  • Troubleshooting Activated Sludge Processes Introduction
    Troubleshooting Activated Sludge Processes Introduction Excess Foam High Effluent Suspended Solids High Effluent Soluble BOD or Ammonia Low effluent pH Introduction Review of the literature shows that the activated sludge process has experienced operational problems since its inception. Although they did not experience settling problems with their activated sludge, Ardern and Lockett (Ardern and Lockett, 1914a) did note increased turbidity and reduced nitrification with reduced temperatures. By the early 1920s continuous-flow systems were having to deal with the scourge of activated sludge, bulking (Ardem and Lockett, 1914b, Martin 1927) and effluent suspended solids problems. Martin (1927) also describes effluent quality problems due to toxic and/or high-organic- strength industrial wastes. Oxygen demanding materials would bleedthrough the process. More recently, Jenkins, Richard and Daigger (1993) discussed severe foaming problems in activated sludge systems. Experience shows that controlling the activated sludge process is still difficult for many plants in the United States. However, improved process control can be obtained by systematically looking at the problems and their potential causes. Once the cause is defined, control actions can be initiated to eliminate the problem. Problems associated with the activated sludge process can usually be related to four conditions (Schuyler, 1995). Any of these can occur by themselves or with any of the other conditions. The first is foam. So much foam can accumulate that it becomes a safety problem by spilling out onto walkways. It becomes a regulatory problem as it spills from clarifier surfaces into the effluent. The second, high effluent suspended solids, can be caused by many things. It is the most common problem found in activated sludge systems.
    [Show full text]
  • A Method for Estimating Ground-Water Return Flow
    A METHOD FOR ESTIMATING GROUND-WATER RETURN FLOW TO THE COLORADO RIVER IN THE PARKER AREA, ARIZONA AND* CALIFORNIA By S. A. Leake U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Water-Resources Investigations Report 84-4229 Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Tucson, Arizona September 1984 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR WILLIAM P. CLARK, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Dallas L. Peck, Director For additional information Copies of this report can be write to: purchased from: District Chief Open-File Services Section U.S. Geological Survey Western Distribution Branch Box FB-44 U.S. Geological Survey Federal Building Box 25425, Federal Center 301 West Congress Street Denver, Colorado 80225 Tucson, Arizona 85701 Telephone: (303) 236-7476 CONTENTS Page Abstract ........................................................... 1 I introduction ........................................................ 1 Purpose and scope ............................................ 2 Relation to other reports ...................................... 2 Acknowledgments .............................................. 6 Hydrology.......................................................... 6 The Colorado River ........................................... 6 The flood plain and underlying alluvial aquifer ................ 8 Method ............................................................. 14 Step 1 Delineate subareas of ground-water drainage .......... 14 Step 2 Estimate diversions to irrigated land .................. 18 Step 3 Estimate consumptive use .............................
    [Show full text]
  • 10 States Standards
    RECOMMENDED STANDARDS for WASTEWATER FACILITIES POLICIES FOR THE DESIGN, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT FACILITIES 2014 EDITION A REPORT OF THE WASTEWATER COMMITTEE OF THE GREAT LAKES - UPPER MISSISSIPPI RIVER BOARD OF STATE AND PROVINCIAL PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGERS MEMBER STATES AND PROVINCE ILLINOIS NEW YORK INDIANA OHIO IOWA ONTARIO MICHIGAN PENNSYLVANIA MINNESOTA WISCONSIN MISSOURI PUBLISHED BY: Health Research, Inc., Health Education Services Division P.O. Box 7126 Albany, N.Y. 12224 Phone: (518) 439-7286 Visit Our Web Site http://www.healthresearch.org/store/ten-state-standards Copyright © 2014 by the Great Lakes - Upper Mississippi River Board of State and Provincial Public Health and Environmental Managers This document, or portions thereof, may be reproduced without permission if credit is given to the Board and to this publication as a source. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE FOREWORD ..................................................................................................................................... v 10 ENGINEERING REPORTS AND FACILITY PLANS 10. General ............................................................................................................................. 10-1 11. Engineering Report Or Facility Plan ................................................................................ 10-1 12. Pre-Design Meeting ....................................................................................................... 10-12
    [Show full text]
  • Npdes Permit No
    NPDES PERMIT NO. NM0030848 FACT SHEET FOR THE DRAFT NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES APPLICANT City of Santa Fe Buckman Direct Diversion 341 Caja del Rio Road Santa Fe, NM 87506 ISSUING OFFICE U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500 Dallas, TX 75270 PREPARED BY Ruben Alayon-Gonzalez Environmental Engineer Permitting Section (WDPE) Water Division VOICE: 214-665-2718 EMAIL: [email protected] DATE PREPARED May 29, 2019 PERMIT ACTION Proposed reissuance of the current NPDES permit issued July 29, 2014, with an effective date of September 1, 2014, and an expiration date of August 31, 2019. RECEIVING WATER – BASIN Rio Grande Permit No. NM0030848 Fact Sheet Page 2 of 16 DOCUMENT ABBREVIATIONS In the document that follows, various abbreviations are used. They are as follows: 4Q3 Lowest four-day average flow rate expected to occur once every three years BAT Best available technology economically achievable BCT Best conventional pollutant control technology BPT Best practicable control technology currently available BMP Best management plan BOD Biochemical oxygen demand (five-day unless noted otherwise) BPJ Best professional judgment CBOD Carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (five-day unless noted otherwise) CD Critical dilution CFR Code of Federal Regulations Cfs Cubic feet per second COD Chemical oxygen demand COE United States Corp of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act DMR Discharge monitoring report ELG Effluent limitations guidelines
    [Show full text]
  • Reuse of Treated Waste Water in Irrigated Agriculture
    Arab Countries Water Utilities Association 1 Safe Use of Treated Wastewater in Agriculture Jordan Case Study Prepared for ACWUA by Eng. Nayef Seder (JVA) Eng. Sameer Abdel-Jabbar(GIZ) December 2011 Arab Countries Water Utilities Association 2 Table of Content 1 INTRODUCTION 3 2 WATER BUDGET 3 2.1 Current Water Resources 4 2.2 Additional Future Water Resources 4 3 LAWS AND REGULATIONS CONCERNING WASTEWATER AND WATER REUSE 5 3.1 Summary 5 3.2 Overview of Jordanian Policies and Laws 6 3.3 Jordanian Standards 7 3.4 The future of laws and standards 9 4 WASTE WATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY 9 4.1.1 Influents and Effluents of WWTP 10 4.1.2 Existing Wastewater Treatment Plants 11 4.1.3 Planned Future Wastewater Treatment Plants 12 5 REUSE TECHNOLOGY 14 5.1 Treated Domestic Wastewater 14 5.1.1 Irrigated area in Jordan 14 5.1.2 Consumption of water at premises and vicinities of WWTP 15 5.1.3 Crop pattern irrigated with treated water 16 5.1.4 Irrigation Technologies 16 6 ACTORS AND STAKEHOLDERS 16 7. JORDANIAN NATIONAL PLAN FOR RISK MONITORING AND RISK MANAGMENT FOR THE USE OF TREATED WASTEWATER 18 8 FUTURE PERSPECTIVES AND CHALLENGES 25 9 LIST OF REFERENCES 26 Arab Countries Water Utilities Association 3 1 Introduction The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is an arid to semi-arid country, with a land area of approximately 90,000 km2. The population is 6 million with a recent average growth rate of about 2.2% due to natural and non-voluntary migration.
    [Show full text]
  • Surface Irrigation Return Flows Vary
    flooded throughout the growing season; 2.36 ac-ftlac were lost by seepage.) Surface irrigation the major crops in PDD are tomato, cot- Although the concentration of TDS ton, and other row and field crops, which in the spill water increased 1.7-foId, the return flowsvary are normally furrow irrigated. unit mass emission rate (Iblac) was only GCID captures and reuses about 44 44 percent of that brought in by the sup- percent of its drain waters within the dis- ply water, which is in line with the dis- trict and discharges the rest into the trict-wide 61 percent mass emission of Kenneth K. Tanji Colusa Basin Drain (CBD), where it is re- salts. Note that concentration of sus- Muhammad M. lqbal used downstream before final discharge pended solids was reduced by about one- Ann F. Quek back into the Sacramento River. PDD half, and the mass by nearly one-tenth. Ronald M.Van De Pol and the neighboring Central California As for nutrients, the nitrogen con- Linda P. Wagenet Irrigation District capture and reuse centration in the drain water was about Roger Fujii about 20 percent of PDDs surface drain- 1% times greater, but only 38 percent of Rudy J. Schnagl age (not counting reuse at farm levels) the nitrogen brought in by the water was Dave A. Prewitt and discharge the remainder into the discharged. It should be noted that about Grasslands Water District, where it is re- 90 percent of the total nitrogen was in uch attention is being focused on used in irrigated pastures and waterfowl the form of organic nitrogen, which im- M irrigation return flows as a result habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Annual Report of Water Use, Water Diversion and Return Flow for the City of New Berlin, Wisconsin
    2018 ANNUAL REPORT OF WATER USE, WATER DIVERSION AND RETURN FLOW FOR THE CITY OF NEW BERLIN, WISCONSIN CITY OF NEW BERLIN WAUKESHA COUNTY, WISCONSIN MARCH 2019 Prepared By: City of New Berlin Utility 3805 S Casper Drive New Berlin, Wisconsin 53151 Submitted: February 19, 2019 © 2010 Copyright Ruekert & Mielke, Inc. 2018 Annual Diversion Report, New Berlin, WI TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 3 SECTION 1 - THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF WATER PURCHASED FROM THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE ................................................................................................... 3 SECTION 2 -THE AMOUNT OF WATER SOLD TO EACH CATEGORY AND SUBCATEGORY OF CUSTOMER ON A QUARTERLY BASIS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS ................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 3 -THE AMOUNT OF WATER SOLD TO EACH CATEGORY AND SUBCATEGORY OF CUSTOMER ON A QUARTERLY BASIS WITHIN THE APPROVED DIVERSION AREA .................................................................................... 4 SECTION 4 - THE AMOUNT OF WATER DIVERTED TO THE APPROVED DIVERSION AREA ON A MONTHLY BASIS (TO BE ESTIMATED BY THE CITY) ............................................................................................................................... 4 SECTION 5 -THE AMOUNT OF WATER PUMPED FROM EACH MUNICIPAL WELL WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS ON A QUARTERLY BASIS, NOTING THE BASIN IN WHICH EACH WELL IS LOCATED .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 9F Sanitary Sewer Overflow Level of Protection Definitions And
    2020 Facilities Plan Facilities Plan Report Appendix 9F Sanitary Sewer Overflow Level of Protection Definitions and Recommendation 9F-i 2020 Facilities Plan Facilities Plan Report Table of Contents APPENDIX 9F: SANITARY SEWER OVERFLOW LEVEL OF PROTECTION DEFINITION AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................9F-1 9F.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................9F-2 9F.2 Definitions......................................................................................................................9F-2 9F.2.1 Sanitary Sewer Overflow Definition .............................................................................9F-2 9F.2.2 Level of Protection Definition .......................................................................................9F-3 9F.3 Approaches and Methods for Defining Level of Protection..........................................9F-3 9F.3.1 Approaches ....................................................................................................................9F-3 9F.3.2 Methods..........................................................................................................................9F-5 9F.4 Applicable Law..............................................................................................................9F-8 9F.4.1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Current Federal Rules and Withdrawn Draft of Sanitary Sewer Overflow Rule ......................................................................................9F-8
    [Show full text]
  • Recirculating Gravel Filter Systems
    Recommended Standards and Guidance for Performance, Application, Design, and Operation & Maintenance Recirculating Gravel Filter Systems February 2021 Recommended Standards and Guidance for Performance, Application, Design, and Operation & Maintenance Recirculating Gravel Filter Systems February 2021 For information or additional copies of this report contact: Wastewater Management Program Physical address: 101 Israel Road SE, Tumwater, WA 98501 Mailing Address: PO Box 47824, Olympia, Washington 98504-7824 Phone: (360) 236-3330 FAX: (360) 236-2257 Webpage: www.doh.wa.gov/wastewater Email: [email protected] Umair A. Shah, MD, MPH Secretary of Health To request this document in another format, call 1-800-525-0127. Deaf or hard of hearing customers, please call 711 (Washington Relay) or email [email protected]. Para solicitar este documento en otro formato, llame al 1-800-525-0127. Clientes sordos o con problemas de audición, favor de llamar al 711 (servicio de relé de Washington) o enviar un correo electrónico a [email protected]. DOH 337-011 Recirculating Gravel Filter Systems - Recommended Standards and Guidance Effective Date: February 1, 2021 Contents Page Preface .............................................................................................................................................5 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................7 1. Recirculating Gravel Filter (RFG) ...........................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 33 Groundwater Recharge Chapter 33 Groundwater Recharge Part 631 National Engineering Handbook
    United States Department of Part 631 Agriculture National Engineering Handbook Natural Resources Conservation Service Chapter 33 Groundwater Recharge Chapter 33 Groundwater Recharge Part 631 National Engineering Handbook Issued January 2010 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all pro- grams.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for commu- nication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250–9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. (210–VI–NEH, Amend. 34, January 2010) Preface The NRCS National Engineering Handbook (NEH), Part 631.33, Groundwa- ter Recharge, is derived from the following publication: • Technical Release No. 36, Ground Water Recharge, released by NRCS, June 1967 Note the following changes (canceled documents are replaced by the new documents): Canceled documents • NEH, Section 18, Ground Water (June 1978) • Technical Release No. 36, Ground-Water Recharge (June 1967) • NEH, Part 631, Chapter 33, Investigations for Ground Water Re- sources Development (November 1998) New documents NEH chapters in Part 631: • 631.30, Groundwater Hydrology and Geology • 631.31, Groundwater Investigations • 631.32, Well Design and Spring Development • 631.33, Groundwater Recharge (210–VI–NEH, Amend.
    [Show full text]