1. Collaborative Study on Fats, Oil and Greases in Drain and Sewer Systems Water Services National Training Group Outcome Awareness Day 24 th March 2009

2. Collaborative Study on Fats, Oil and Greases in Drain and Sewer Systems Midleton FOG Project Sam Crowley B.E. (Civil) Project Engineer, Response Engineering M. Eng. Sc. Student Civil & Env. Eng. UCC (Prof. G. Kiely, Supervisor)

3. Midleton FOG Project Midleton, Co. Cork  History of FOG related problems.  Population: 9,019  There are 63 FOG generators in Midleton.  €68,372 spent in 2005 including cleaning of pumping stations €39,687 of this for FOG related work.  Approximately 58% of total spent on drain cleaning.

4. Methodology FOG Hotspots 1. Identified 2. Analysed 3. Evaluated (Baseline)  CCTV surveys  Inspection of existing Grease Removal Unit (GRU)  GRU maintenance procedures investigated  Staff interviews  Blockage history  Kitchen practices  Awareness  Site survey

5. Methodology (Continued) FOG Hotspots 4. Potential solutions selected and installed. 5. Minimum of 6 month trial 6. Difficulties 7. Information Evening

6. Midleton FOG Project System Types Tested:No. of Installations Passive Interceptor (Untreated)3 Passive Interceptor(with Biological Treatment)3 Active/Mechanical Interceptor5 Biological Treatment System2

7. Site Type:Quantity: Fast Food Takeaway s2 Restaurants2 Laundrettes1 Butcher Shops1 Convenience Shops3 Fish Retailer & Manufacturers1 Hotels1 Bar/ Restaurants1 Chinese Restaurants1 Hospitals1 Supermarkets1 Pumping Stations4 Sewer Hotspots2 Wastewater Treatment Plants1 Café Bakeries1 Sandwich Shops1 Midleton FOG Project

8. Methodology (Continued) Trial Period 1. Monitoring 2. Observing 3. Recording 4. Maintaining 5. Sampling Programme 6. Final CCTV Survey

9. Active/Automatic vs. Passive Systems

10. Automatic/Active vs. Passive Systems ActivePassive Moving Parts, power, water  Volume CompactLarge Location At SourceAt or away from source Maintenance Interval 1 Day2 Weeks (depending on storage and load) Waste FOG CleanDirty, Contaminated Waste Food Not decayingDecaying Biological Dosing  Occasionally

11. Portable Interceptor  Similar to passive interceptor  Maintained by contractor  Unit swapped with clean unit every two weeks.  Full unit is removed from site and cleaned at contractors premises  Removes need for maintaining unit within kitchen – hygiene and odour issues

12. Aluline - BioBlock  Biological treatment for use in sewer network  Installed in manhole at FOG Hotspot 1  Replaced each month  Build up still occurred  Blockage rate significantly decreased

13. Cleveland Biotech - Bactaerator  Biological treatment for use in pumping stations  Water is aerated continuously  Bacteria and nutrient solutions are dosed into water at times of low flow  Build up of FOG on walls decreased  Cleaning interval increased

14. Cleveland Biotech - Bactaerator 1 week since previous cleaning 15 weeks since previous cleaning

15. Root Cutting Root intrusions shown in initial survey (24/07/06) Re-growth of roots 8 months after cutting (31/03/08)

16. System Performance Summary SiteCustomers/ Meals per Day Existing Grease Management System Grease Management System Installed No. of samples analysed: Lowest Result (mg/l): Highest Result (mg/l): Average Result (mg/l): % < 50 mg/l: % < 100 mg/l: Fast Food Takeaway 1 60 (Weekday); 200 (Weekend) 200 litre JFC passive interceptor None1120 00 Restaurant 1 Up to 50 at weekend None Aluline AG2 300 litre passive interceptor with treatment. 319188964275.700 Butcher Shop 1150 - 500None 2no. 21 litre PVC Fabrications Passive Interceptors 211481498132300 Fish Retailer & Manufacturer 1 70 approx.None 3no. 50 litre Miskin mobile passive interceptors 1) Shop 1147 00 2) Kitchen 6731977729.3016.7 3) Oven 5<124594.660 Hotel 1up to 1200220 litre grease trap 3270 litre Kent Stainless passive interceptor with treatment 815799175.42550 Convenience Shop 2 100 to 200 from deli Domestic model JFC underground passive interceptor JFC GT02 200 litre underground passive interceptor downstream of existing trap 838105632712.537.5 Fast Food Takeaway 2 400 to 600NoneFatstrippa interceptor62052521216.733.3 Hospital 1 Up to 290 400 litre Blucher passive interceptor Service Package with biological treatment 934813245.211.144.4 Café/Bakery 1Not knownNone FS05 Fatstrippa Active Interceptor 1331 00 Restaurant 2Not knownNone FS10 Fatstrippa Active Interceptor 22920511750 Sandwich Shop 1Not known GreaseShield Mechanical Interceptor None4129982632.300

17. System Performance Summary SiteExisting Grease Management System Grease Management System Installed Average Result (mg/l): % < 50 mg/l:% < 100 mg/l: Fast Food Takeaway 1 200 litre JFC passive interceptor None12000 Restaurant 1None Aluline AG2 300 litre passive interceptor with treatment. 4275.700 Butcher Shop 1None 2no. 21 litre PVC Fabrications Passive Interceptors 132300 Fish Retailer & Manufacturer 1 None 3no. 50 litre Miskin mobile passive interceptors 1) Shop 14700 2) Kitchen 729.3016.7 3) Oven 94.660 Hotel 1220 litre grease trap 3270 litre Kent Stainless passive interceptor with treatment 175.42550 Convenience Shop 2 Domestic model JFC underground passive Interceptor JFC GT02 200 litre underground passive interceptor downstream of existing trap 32712.537.5 Fast Food Takeaway 2NoneFatstrippa interceptor21216.733.3 Hospital 1 400 litre Blucher passive Interceptor Service Package with biological treatment 245.211.144.4 Café/Bakery 1NoneFS05 Fatstrippa Active Interceptor33100 Restaurant 2NoneFS10 Fatstrippa Active Interceptor11750 Sandwich Shop 1 GreaseShield Mechanical Interceptor None632.300

18. Comparison of systems  Design  Conformity to I.S. EN 1825 Standards  User Satisfaction  Reliability  Maintenance - User Friendliness  Ease of access  Hygiene  Odours  Maintenance interval  Contractor or in-house cleaning  Waste

19. Comparison of systems  Performance  Effluent sample analysis  CCTV surveys (before and after)  Blockage History (before and after)  Level of Confidence  Cost  To purchase  To install  To maintain

20. Outputs of Midleton Case Study  Statistics were compiled regarding the waste being removed from the systems  Better understanding of systems on the market in Ireland  Supplier/manufacturer procedures observed  Compliance with I.S. EN 1825 standards  Results of sample analysis

21. Outputs of Midleton Case Study  Maintenance procedures observed and rated  Contractor behaviour observed  Greater appreciation of all points of view  User  Supplier  Contractor

22. Outputs of Midleton Case Study  Greater understanding of kitchen practices  Where most FOG is generated in different types of FSE  Wok cooker, combination oven etc.  Tools for handling FOG related issues  Ireland specific FOG letters  Grease Trap Guidance sheets  Kitchen Practice Guidance sheets  Grease Trap Maintenance Record sheets

25. Observations - Licensing Applications  Site inspections  Co-operation  Planning Department  Environmental Department  Environmental Health Officers  Guidance not available.  Confusion caused by application form and process.  Resources

26. Observations - Licensing Enforcement & Monitoring  Site inspections required  Kitchen practices  Maintenance practices  Co-operation  Records  Disposal  Blockages  Resources  Method based consent

27. Observations - Disposal of waste  Cost  Traceability  Large quantities vs. Small quantities  Facilities  Clarity  Lack of disposal records for waste FOG (both by contractors and business owners).  Contractors must be monitored

28. Observations - GRUs Specification  Sizing  Operation & Maintenance  IS EN 1825 Installation  Incorrectly installed or situated traps.  Appliances passing through grease trap.

29. Observations - GRUs Maintenance  Traps maintained incorrectly or not at all.  Lack of knowledge of existence of GRU (Grease Removal Unit).  Forgery of grease trap maintenance records by staff to avoid doing the work.  Poor kitchen practices negating grease trap maintenance.

30. Conclusions  Disposal of grease trap waste is a significant issue  Waste stream is dramatically increasing  Removal at source is most economical solution  Enforcement is necessary  Maintenance is vital  Education & Awareness

31. Conclusions (continued)  No one system is suitable for all sites  Challenge  Cost – Benefit  Cork County Council Report  WRc Reports  MEng Sc Thesis: “Recovery of Waste FOG for use as a Biofuel in Ireland”

32. Acknowledgments  Noel O’Keeffe - County Engineer, Cork Co. Co.  Matt Shortt - WSNTG  Tadgh O’Connor -DEHLG  Shane Kennedy -Cork Co. Co.  WRc  Midleton Town Council  Cork Co. Co. Environmental Section