Orange County Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Control Study

1. Orange CountyFats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Control Study Phase II FOG Control Technology Field Testing Evaluations JOHN SHAFFER ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING AND CONTRACTING, INC.

2. Orange County FOG Control Study Phase II – Study Format • EEC Field Tested Four Relatively New FOG Control Technologies Under Closely Monitored Conditions for Approximately 6 Months • Sewer Line-Applied Additives • FSE*-Applied Additives • Non-conventional Grease Traps (Grease Removal Devices) • Interceptor Monitoring Devices • 50+ Manufacturers/Suppliers Invited, 17 Participated • Evaluated as Alternatives to Current Technologies and Approaches • Reported the Findings and Made Recommendations * FSE = Food Service Establishment

3. Conditional Variance Concept • Potential sewering agency tool for approving the use of any product/technology that may be used by an FSE as an alternative to a proven product/technology • Approval based on the FSE meeting certain conditions that are monitored by the sewering agency • Variance can be revoked due to failure to meet the conditions of the variance • Potentially applicable to: • FSE-applied Additives • Grease Removal Devices • Interceptor Monitoring Devices

4. Additives Additives • Sewer Line-Applied (Seven Products/Hot Spots) • Typical Addition at Manholes in a Sewer Line Hot Spot • No Lift Station Applications • Evaluated as an Alternative to Frequent Line Cleaning • FSE-Applied (Five Products/FSEs) • Typical Addition in the Kitchen Drains • No Grease Interceptor Applications • Evaluated as an Alternative to Installing Grease Interceptors • Features: • All Categorized as Biological (Bacteria or Stimulants of Native Bacteria) • Dry Products and Liquids • No Emulsification Properties Based on Bench Scale Tests

5. Sewer Line-Applied Additives • Dispenser (Feeder) Technologies Dry product in a bag slowly dispensed over time Liquid product dispensed with a metering pump

6. Sewer Line-AppliedAdditives • Pre-Clean Baseline Condition

7. Sewer Line-AppliedAdditives • Post Clean Baseline Condition

8. Sewer Line-AppliedAdditives • FOG Accumulation After 2 Months of Treatment Untreated segment Treated segment

9. Sewer Line-AppliedAdditives • FOG Accumulation After 4 Months of Treatment Untreated segment Treated segment

10. Sewer Line-AppliedAdditives • Conclusions (Based on 7 Evaluations): • No home runs: None of the products removed the need for sewer line cleaning • One evaluation showed the potential to reduce line cleaning frequencies by approximately 40% • The average use cost of the additives was much greater then the potential savings in line cleaning • Improvements in sewer line cleaning methods utilizing post-cleaning CCTV monitoring is a more logical approach than using sewer line-applied additives • Comparing untreated vs. treated sewer line segments, after confirmed thorough cleaning, is critical to properly determine future additive’s effectiveness

11. FSE-Applied Additives • Pre Clean Baseline Condition

12. FSE-Applied Additives • Post Clean Baseline Condition

13. FSE-Applied Additives • FOG Accumulation After 3 Months of Treatment

14. FSE-Applied Additives • FOG Accumulation After 4 Months of Treatment

15. FSE-AppliedAdditives • Conclusions (Based on 5 Evaluations): • No home runs, but perhaps 4 triples: Less FOG accumulation than anticipated • Improved Kitchen Best Management Practices (BMPs) may have contributed to the positive results • As a group, probably not equivalent to a well maintained grease interceptor, but may be an alternative for FSEs that cannot install a grease interceptor • Sewering agencies may allow the use of these additives through a conditional variance, but must be prepared to monitor the results using CCTV as conducted in the Study • Must conduct a more extensive study without the variable of Kitchen BMPs to learn more about the true effect of these additives

16. Grease Removal Devices Grease Removal Devices • Grease Traps/Small Capacity Grease Interceptors with Automatic FOG Removal and Easy Solids Removal Inlet Outlet

17. Grease Removal Device Design Grease Level Monitor and Pump Style Grease Level Monitor and Pump Control Strainer Access Cover Latched Access Cover Removable Solids Strainer Basket Waste Grease Pumped to Drum(s) or Container(s) Pump Suction Tube Inlet Outlet Waste Grease Pump Outlet Baffle Inlet Baffle Termostatically Controlled Heater

18. Grease Removal Device Design Grease Skimmer Style Strainer Access Cover Wiper Blade Grease Outlet Trough Latched Access Cover Removable Solids Strainer Basket Waste Grease Collected in a Removable Plastic Container Inlet Outlet Outlet Baffle Inlet Baffle Skimmer Wheel Termostatically Controlled Heater

21. Grease Removal Devices • Located Under the Counter or In a Vault in the Kitchen or Outside • Features: • Small Capacity • Short Retention Time (0.5 – 3 minutes) • Automatic Skimming or Pumping of Floating FOG • Manual Solids Basket Removal • Heating Elements • Evaluated as an Alternative to a Conventional Grease Interceptor

22. Grease Removal Devices • 21 Initial Installation Evaluations • 9 were connected to one grease waste drain • 12 were connected to all the grease waste drains • 10 had significant cleaning/maintenance issues • 8 had installation issues or significant grease waste drains were not connected • 9 Installations Selected for 6-month Evaluation • 7 to 8 Well Maintained Units • Effective separation and capture of floating FOG • 1 to 2 Poorly Maintained Units • Not full capture of floating FOG = FOG Pass Through

23. Grease Removal Devices • Finding #1: • If the GRD(s) is connected to the significant grease waste drains (e.g., pre-rinse sink, pot sink) and is maintained properly, the GRD will be effective in removing a vast majority of the floating FOG • Examples of proper maintenance: • Solids basket is removed daily • Skimmer blades are cleaned regularly • Skimmer blades are replaced before wearing down • Waste grease containers or drums are emptied regularly • Timer is set correctly • Entire GRD is cleaned out and inspected once/quarter

24. Grease Removal Devices Floating FOG Test - Well Maintained GRD Influent Sample Effluent Sample

25. Grease Removal Devices • Finding #2: • If the GRD is not connected to all the significant grease waste drains or is not maintained properly, much of the floating FOG will not be collected by the GRD = FOG pass through. • Examples of poor maintenance: • Solids basket is removed only when the drain is slowed • Skimmer blades are never cleaned • Skimmer blades are worn down and removing very little FOG • Waste grease containers or drums are overflowing • Timer is set incorrectly • Unit is unplugged • GRD is never cleaned out or inspected

26. Grease Removal Devices Floating FOG Test - Poorly Maintained GRD Influent Sample Effluent Sample

27. Grease Removal Devices • Conclusions: • If properly maintained, they can be effective on the fixtures they are connected to, despite the short retention times • Higher risk than a conventional grease interceptor due to dependence on FSE cleaning/maintenance and common failure to connect to all grease waste drains • Many potential installation issues, but they can be mitigated through strict and logical plumbing requirements • Many potential maintenance issues, but they can be mitigated if there are frequent inspections and meaningful enforcement • A conditional variance is a very logical approval method for GRDs, particularly for existing FSE retrofits • Primary condition of the variance is proper maintenance verified by a FOG inspector

28. Interceptor Monitoring Device Interceptor MonitoringDevices • Monitors the Floating FOG Layer and Settled Solids Layer Continuously and Automatically in a Conventional Grease Interceptor Interceptor Monitoring Device Probe (Potential Locations)

29. Interceptor Monitoring Devices

30. Interceptor MonitoringDevices • Features: • Installed in the second chamber of the interceptor in most cases • Wired to a datalogger or controller in the kitchen • Telemetry and web access is available • 2 participants • One product continuously measures floating FOG and settleable solids layer • The other product continuously measures floating FOG only • EEC compared the datalogger measurements against core sampler measurements • Accuracy was judged over time • Evaluated as an alternative to manual grease interceptor inspections

31. Core Sampler Verification FOG Layer = 12” Settled Solids Layer = 11”

33. Interceptor MonitoringDevices • Findings and Recommendations • Accurate if installed and calibrated correctly • Agencies should not discourage FSEs from using them if the agency is prepared to verify the accuracy after installation and at least once/year • Conditional variance is an option for sewering agencies if an FSE wants to reduce their pumping frequency • Possible benefit for agencies to track large grease producing FSEs and non-compliant FSEs • Possible future replacement for manual measurement and reporting, similar to current pH meters and stripcharts

34. Resources • OCSD Website • FOG Control Study - Phase I & Phase II Reports • Other SSO Reduction Work Products • www.ocsd.com/services/city/wdr/resources.asp • Cal FOG • www.calfog.org

35. Speaker Contact Information Environmental Engineering & Contracting, Inc. John Shaffer, President e-mail: jshaffer@eecworld.com Stan Steinbach, P.E., Sr. Project Engineer II e-mail: ssteinbach@eecworld.com Santa Ana, CA Office 501 Parkcenter Drive, Santa Ana, CA 92705 Ph: (714) 667-2300