You are on page 1of 41

I/I in Public Sewer Systems

Results From a Statewide Study

George Kurz, P.E., DEE


George.kurz@comcast.net
615-714-6120
www.sewercapacitymanagement.weebly.com

Outline

Impact of I/I
Study to Measure I/I in Tennessee
3 Methods
Results
Economics: Costs and cost recovery
Rehabilitation example - Brentwood

#1 Problem is I/I (Leaking Sewers)

Impact of I/I in Tennessee


Overloaded treatment plants

Overflows & SSOs


~111,300 million gallons / year (305 mgd)
$200 million/year in O&M (@$1.80/K gallons)
Additional costs in new facilities & O&M

The Effect of I/I May Depend on the Capacity of the Collection System
Limited Capacity
Excess Capacity
HIGH

> SSOs

> deterioration of pipes due


to movement of soil fines

> backups

> wasted money for


treatment

> wasted money for new


facilities
> deterioration of pipes due to
movement of soil fines
I/I

> wasted money for treatment

> SSOs

LOW

> backups
> deterioration of pipes due to
movement of soil fines

> deposition due to low


velocity
> deterioration of pipes due
to movement of soil fines

Common Factor in all I/I Problem


Categories
Deterioration of pipes due
to movement of soil fines!
The best time to address this long-term problem is
during the planning and engineering for the sewer
rehabilitation work grouting or other means to
stabilize soil and isolate ground water movement.

I/I Can Be Reduced !


50% is a realistic target for reduction *
Rehab cost for 50% reduction
~ $ 1.05 billion statewide in Tennessee
Payoff in ~ 10 to 13 years
* Kurz, et al, (2004), Nashvilles Program Removes
3.2 Billion Gallons of I/I

EPA & TDEC collect


huge amounts of data on
treatment plants -

How can we use this data to measure I/I ?


Could this help improve our state (and
national) control strategy?

Tennessee Study Outline


Phase 1: Evaluate all 235 Municipal System
DMRs (one year) - completed
Phase 2: Evaluate 227 Municipal MORs
(one year) 187 completed
Begun in 2013
Use Public information (paper copies)
3 Methods
Compare 7-day low flow to annual average (EPA)
BOD dilution caused by I/I
Project Peak-Day RDI/I by regression

Study Purposes
Provide reliable I/I data to policymakers (hoping) to
stimulate a new statewide I/I control strategy
Demonstrate simple, inexpensive techniques
Value of existing data sources
BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) dilution as an
I/I indicator
Develop a tool for operators to calculate I/I

This study does not replace engineering analysis!

Public Resources
DMRs (discharge monitoring reports)
monthly average information
State MORs (monthly operating reports)
daily information

Existing data
Operators collect daily!

I/I Estimates from Tennessee DMRs


Collection Systems (Number)

235

Sum of Average Daily Flows

685 mgd

Influent BOD Concentrations

3 898 mg/l

Estimated Annual I/I by Flow

62,353 MG

Annual I/I ~ 25% annual


Influent
Estimate is low because
of monthly averages

Range of Domestic BOD Levels


600

EPA Selected 350 mg/l


BOD Concentration (mg/l)

500

400

300

200

100

Data points from T.R. Bounds, 1997

Average Municipal BOD Concentrations in


187 Tennessee MORs (mg/l)
900

Influent Concentration (mg/l)

800
700

Most BOD Variation


Results From I/I Dilution

600
500
400
300
200
100
0

52% plants have >2:1


dilution

Average Domestic
BOD ~ 350 mg/l

Typical MOR input

Missing

0.5

No BOD

Transcribed by hand into Excel Spreadsheet


(about 103,000 entries so far)

22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0 1/1/12

Daily Influent Flow & Rain - Bristol


(Jan - Dec 2012)

5
4.5
4

3.5
3
2.5

2
1.5
1
0.5
2/1/12

3/1/12

4/1/12

5/1/12

6/1/12

7/1/12

rain

8/1/12

flow

9/1/12 10/1/12 11/1/12 12/1/12

Day Rain (in)

Daily Influent Flow (mgd) daily load

Typical Daily Rainfall & Influent Hydrograph from MOR

I/I from Flow


Assume main sources of
daily flow variation are
seasonal, and due to rainfall
events

If true, then any flow greater than dry weather,


dry season is due to I/I
Also assumes that the dry weather, dry season flow is from users

Daily Influent Flow & Rain - Bristol (Jan - Dec 2012)


5

Average = 9.8 mgd

20

4.5

18

16

3.5

14

3
12
2.5
10
2
8

Wet I/I = 3.2 mgd


1.5

7-day avg. low


6.63 mgd

1
0.5

0
1/1/12

0
2/1/12

3/1/12

4/1/12

5/1/12

rain

6/1/12

7/1/12

flow

8/1/12

9/1/12

10/1/12

avg 7 day low

11/1/12 12/1/12

Day Rain (in)

Daily Influent Flow (mgd) daily load

22

I/I from Flow (cont.)


Example Bristol for year 2012:
Total Year Flow = 3,590 MG
Lowest (Dry) 7-Day Flow Average = 6.63 mgd
I/I = 3,590 MG - (6.63 mgd x 366 days) = 1,164 MG I/I
BUT! the 7-day low flow is still much
greater than expected from the
population of Bristol (~ 50,000)

Does this measured 6.63 mgd Low Flow


include significant infiltration ?

I/I from BOD Dilution


What is the quantity
of flow without I/I?

Use influent BOD mass load to calculate.


Assume undiluted BOD = 300 mg/l
(conservative! EPA used 350 mg/l)

Improve estimate of base flow


Calculate the daily amount of I/I
to dilute full strength BOD from
300 mg/l down to the actual
concentration measured in the
influent.
For Bristol, the average dilution I/I flow was
5.87 mgd (wet I/I plus dry infiltration)!
So: dry infiltration was 2.7 mgd

Daily Influent Flow & Rain - Bristol (Jan - Dec 2012)

Typical Daily Rainfall & Influent Hydrograph from MOR


10

7-day avg. low


6.6 mgd

20
18

9
8

16

14

6
12
5
10
8

Wet I/I=3.2 mgd

Dry Infiltration = 2.7 mgd

Mass-population Base = 3.9 mgd

0
1/1/12

0
2/1/12

3/1/12

4/1/12

5/1/12

rain

6/1/12

7/1/12

flow

8/1/12

9/1/12

10/1/12

avg 7 day low

11/1/12 12/1/12

Day Rain (in)

Daily Influent Flow (mgd) daily load

22

Annual % I/I in 187 POTW's Influent


100%

90%
80%

68% > 50%


Annual I/I

70%
60%
50%

Bristol

40%
30%
20%
10%

0%

ANNUAL AVERAGE
44.5% I/I

OK for Annual I/I

What about Peak I/I?

Transformation Procedure
KT-WPC July 2009
Water Environment & Technology, Sep 2009

3x-4x improvement in regression correlation


Estimate within ~ 12% of projected peak from
hourly flow data

Daily Flow/Rain Transformation


RULES FOR DATA
TRANSFORMATION
Original
Each new rain entry will be
the sum of the rain that day
plus the previous actual day.
Each new flow entry will be
the actual day flow minus the
actual flow two days
previously.
Use peak flow entry for a
given rain event.

Transformation

Influent

2-day
rain

12/23

0.036

12/24

0.035

0.038

1.05

0.002

12/26

0.2

1.05

0.165

12/27

0.128

12/28

0.086

Date

12/25

Rain

1.05

2nd day
RDII

Bristol POTW Peak Day RDI/I Analysis


(Jan 2012-Dec 2012)

25

2nd Day I/I (MG)

20

ONLY WET
SEASON
EVENTS!

15

10

y = 5.5781x - 0.7473
R = 0.655

0
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

2-Day Rain (inches)


2nd Day I/I vs 2-day rain

Linear (2nd Day I/I vs 2-day rain)

4.5

Bristol POTW Peak Day RDI/I Analysis


(Jan 2012-Dec 2012)
95% Confidence
Interval = 31%

30

2nd Day I/I (MG)

25
20

Remaining Plant
Capacity ~ 8.4 mgd

15
10
5
0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2-Day Rain (inches)

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Bristol POTW Peak Day RDI/I Analysis


(Jan 2012-Dec 2012)
95% Confidence
Interval +/- 31%

30

2nd Day I/I (MG)

25
20

Remaining Plant
Capacity ~ 8.4 mgd

15
10
5

2-year storm:
~3.4 inches

0
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

2-Day Rain (inches)

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

2-day Rain That Causes Flow > POTW Capacity


7.0

2-Day Rainfall (inches)

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0

83% Systems Exceed


Plant Capacity for 2-Year
Storm
~ 2-Year Storm = 3.4 inches
Bristol

Number of Days: Flow > Plant Capacity


350
300

250

27% > 2 months


200
150

ANNUAL AVERAGE
47.7 Days

100

50
0

Bristol

I/I Economics
Cost of I/I in Tennessee
Is about $200 million/year

Sewer Rehabilitation & Payback

O&M Cost & Rehab


Tennessee Annual I/I:
45.5% x 685 mgd x 365 days = 111,300 MG/year

Annual cost (based on O&M @ $1.80/1,000 gal):


~ $ 200 million/year
Assume 50% reduction:
55,650 MG/year (saving ~ $100 million/year)

REHAB EFFECTIVENESS I/I REDUCTION


Nashville & Brentwood

ANNUAL I/I REDUCTION (MG)

700

600

MG I/I Reduction = 0.006 x rehab length (ft)

500

(System Approach:
Address PIPES, LATERALS, & MANHOLES!)

400
300
200
100
0
0

10,000

Nashville

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

REHABILITATION LENGTH (FT)


Brentwood

plot

Linear (plot)

60,000

Rehab Cost
55,650 MG / 0.006 MG/ ft = 1,756 miles of
rehab
1,756 miles x $0.6 million/mile* ~ $ 1.05 billion
(* COST INCLUDES LATERALS, MANHOLES, DESIGN, & SSES)

Payback:
$1.05 billion rehab/ $100 million O&M/year
= ~ 10 to 11 years

- Rehabilitation Strategy System Approach Principles *


Focus on Priority basins
Rehab pipes, manholes, and laterals
Halt migration from outside pipe & manholes
(stabilize soil!)
Halt migration (tracking) inside pipe
Provide seal at manhole junction
Renew service laterals
Verify results by monitoring
* Kurz, et al, (2004) Sewer Renewal A Strategic Plan as Part of EPAs CMOM Program

Brentwood Rehabilitation
System (Little Harpeth Sewershed)
155 miles of pipe
4,000 manholes

Rehabilitation
Lined 32 miles of pipe (~21%)
Sealed and lined 1,400 manholes
Rehabilitated 320 laterals

Results
Eliminated 886 MG I/I per year (52%)
Saved $1.3 million annually

2010 Flood

0.75 mgd leak

Conclusions - Management
Paradigm shift is needed to step beyond
compliance monitoring
Implement Life Cycle Analysis
Electronic records
Operator training more on BOD & sampling
Guidance on Rehabilitation Programs
Public education

Acknowledgments
Tennessee Division of Water Resources personnel:
For their daily service, and assistance in
gathering MOR reports for this study
Cartoon illustrations from: Operation & Maintenance
of Wastewater Collection Systems (Ken Kerri
& John Brady Sacramento State course
US EPA)
City of Brentwood, Tennessee
Barge Waggoner Sumner & Cannon

QUESTIONS ?
Narrative results and
list of references
available after webinar.
George Kurz, P.E., DEE
615-714-6120
George.kurz@comcast.net
www.sewercapacitymanagement.weebly.com