← Back to the list of projects

City of Ann Arbor SSWWEP - Citizens Advisory Committee Coordination — City of Ann Arbor

Check Valve Correction

Posted by Nick Hutchinson on 11 Mar, 2014
Category: No category

All,
Further research on the topic of check valves has indicated that we made a mistake at the recent public meeting, and perhaps at a previous CAC meeting, as to the prevalence of check valves installed as part of the FDD program.
 
 
 
 
It was the intention of the original FDD Program to install check valves for all homes in Phase 1A and Phase 1B. (Note: Phase 1A included homes within the 5 study areas that had experienced basement backups or were identified as being at high risk for basement backups.  Phase 1B consisted of homes outside of the 5 study areas that had experienced basement backups or were adjacent to those homes and had potential for basement backups to occur.) Very roughly, this amounts to about 450-500 homes in phase 1A, and 200-250 in phase 1B. The rationale for installing check valves during phase 1 was that it was realized that sewer surcharging would only be partially addressed by the FDD work at these homes and that they would still be at risk for basement backups until the City also completed phase 2 homes (those in the same sanitary tributary area as the phase 1). The check valves were intended to provide temporary protection to high risk homes until the wet weather flows could be reduced to a point where the basement backup risk was essentially gone.
 
 
It should also be noted that the flow metering data collected in the priority districts during 2013 shows that the flow depths were contained within the pipes at these locations during all of the storm events. This means that the water did not reach a level where the check valves would activate. Therefore, the presence of check valves is not relevant to the evaluation of flows from the 2013 metering data.

Comments

Judy Hanway on 11 Mar, 2014:

Thanks Nick.

One comment I have is: in your last paragraph, when you say "water" you mean sewage water, not stormwater, correct?  Just trying to make sure I understand.

Also--since the flows in the storms of 2013 didn't even activate the check valves, wouldn't that mean that no more FDDs are necessary?

Robert Czachorski on 11 Mar, 2014:

Judy - you are correct.  The last paragraph is stating that the level of the sanitary sewage in the sanitary sewer pipe did not get high enough to activate the check valves in the houses.

To your second point, that indeed might be the case, but we do not know for sure.....yet.  We have to remember that that observation was for some actual storm events that occurred in 2013.  That does not mean that the sewer levels will never get that high - in fact, there is very likely a larger storm that could occur that would activate the check valves and / or flood basements.  Figuring out how often that might happen is what we are looking at with the risk assessment, which we will present next week.  One of the judgments or recommendations that the CAC might make, is what level of service should the system be designed for?  

In other words, recognizing that there is always a bigger storm, and that costs go up for handling larger and larger storms (as do potential inconveniences to residents due to construction or further FDDs), what is an acceptable frequency for sanitary sewer backups to occur?  Once every 10 years?  Once every 50 years?  Once every 100 years? Etc. This is an important question to start contemplating, and we will start the discussion with on this topic at the March 20 CAC meeting, when we present the results of the frequency analysis, risk assessment and draft hydraulic capacity evaluation results.

Hope this helps!

Take care,
Robert

Nick Hutchinson on 11 Mar, 2014:

Thanks, Robert.  You beat me to the response!  Good questions, Judy.