Sewer Odor Control: Master Plan

CITY OF LOS ANGELES
SEWER ODOR CONTROL

MASTER PLAN
Wastewater Engineering Services Division

Bureau of Sanitation
AUGUST 2011
2011 Odor Control Master Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Title Page

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................... 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................. 5
INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 5
EVALUATION OF THE COLLECTION SYSTEM................................................................................. 6
RECOMMENDATIONS/CONSIDERATIONS ....................................................................................... 7
1.0 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................. 9
1.1 HISTORY OF THE SEWER SYSTEM ................................................................................................. 9
1.2 ODOR GENERATION ..................................................................................................................... 9
1.3 HISTORY OF ODOR CONTROL ..................................................................................................... 10
1.4 COLLECTION SYSTEM SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND ORIGIN OF THE MASTER PLAN .............. 13
1.5 PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................... 13
1.6 TASK DESCRIPTIONS .................................................................................................................. 15
2.0 EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM ............................................................. 17
2.1 HYPERION SERVICE AREA INTERCEPTOR AND OUTFALL SEWERS .............................................. 17
2.2 TERMINAL ISLAND SERVICE AREA INTERCEPTOR SEWERS AND FORCE MAINS ......................... 20
3.0 OUTREACH ....................................................................................................... 23
3.1 ODOR ADVISORY BOARD ........................................................................................................... 23
3.2 ODOR EXPERT AND COMMUNITY LIAISON ................................................................................. 24
3.3 ODOR OUTREACH PROGRAM...................................................................................................... 24
4.0 SEWER ODOR GENERATION AND EMMISION....................................... 27
4.1 ODOR (H2S) GENERATION.......................................................................................................... 27
4.2 THE PHENOMENON OF SEWER PRESSURIZATION ........................................................................ 27
5.0 ODOR CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES............................................................ 31
5.1 LIQUID PHASE TREATMENT........................................................................................................ 31
5.2 VAPOR PHASE TREATMENT........................................................................................................ 33
5.3 HYDRAULIC DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................ 35
6.0 ODOR CONTROL MEASURES ...................................................................... 37
6.1 ODOR COMPLAINT RESPONSE AND INVESTIGATION ................................................................... 37
6.2 ROUTINE SEWER MAINTENANCE................................................................................................ 40
6.3 CHEMICAL CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES ........................................................................................ 42
6.4 AIR TREATMENT ........................................................................................................................ 46
6.5 FLOW MANAGEMENT ................................................................................................................. 50
6.6 AIR CURTAINS............................................................................................................................ 51
6.7 SEWER CONSTRUCTION AND REPAIR ......................................................................................... 51
6.8 MONITORING.............................................................................................................................. 53
7.0 STUDIED AREAS .............................................................................................. 57
7.1 AOC - AREAS OF CONCERN ....................................................................................................... 57
7.2 AOS - AREAS OF STUDY ............................................................................................................ 57
8.0 AREAS OF CONCERN ..................................................................................... 61
1 August 2011
8.1 AOC1 - EAST NOS CORRIDOR................................................................................................... 61

8.2 AOC2 - LA CIENEGA/SAN FERNANDO CORRIDOR ..................................................................... 69
8.3 AOC3 - BALDWIN HILLS/CULVER CITY AREA........................................................................... 87
8.4 AOC4 - EAST VALLEY AREA ................................................................................................... 113
9.0 AREAS OF STUDY.......................................................................................... 121
9.1 AOS1 - SOUTH LOS ANGELES .................................................................................................. 121
9.2 AOS2 - COASTAL INTERCEPTOR SEWER (CIS)......................................................................... 127
9.3 AOS3 - HARBOR AREA ............................................................................................................ 131
9.4 AOS4 - WEST VALLEY AREA .................................................................................................. 135
10.0 AIR TREATMENT FACILITY (ATF) REVIEW STUDY .......................... 137
11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS/CONSIDERATIONS ............................................ 139
APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................ 143
2 August 2011
ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS
ATF Air Treatment Facility

AVORS Additional Valley Outfall Relief Sewer
BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand
BOS Bureau of Sanitation
CBD Central Business District (Sewer)
CFM Cubic Feet per Minute
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CIS Coastal Interceptor Sewer
CSSA Collection System Settlement Agreement
ECIS East Central Interceptor Sewer
EVIS East Valley Interceptor Sewer
EVRS East Valley Relief Sewer
GBIS Glendale-Burbank Interceptor Sewer
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
HSA Hyperion Service Area
HTP Hyperion Treatment Plant
LAGWRP L.A.-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant
LARWQCB L.A. Regional Water Quality Control Board
LCIS La Cienega Interceptor Sewer
LCSFVRS La Cienega-San Fernando Valley Relief Sewer
MH Maintenance Hole
NCOS North Central Outfall Sewer
NEIS North-East Interceptor Sewer
NHIS North Hollywood Interceptor Sewer
NORS North Outfall Replacement Sewer
NOS North Outfall Sewer
NOTF North Outfall Treatment Facility
NPDES National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System
OAB Odor Advisory Board
PPM Parts per Million
SLA South Los Angeles
SSO Sanitary Sewer Overflow
TISA Terminal Island Service Area
TIWRP Terminal Island Water Reclamation Plant
TWRP Tillman Water Reclamation Plant
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
VORS Valley Outfall Relief Sewer
VSF Valley Spring (Lane) – Forman (Ave) Intersection
WCED Wastewater Collection Engineering Division
WCSD Wastewater Collection Services Division
WHIS West Hollywood Interceptor Sewer
3 August 2011
WLAIS West L.A. Interceptor Sewer

WRS Westwood Relief Sewer
4 August 2011
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
The City of Los Angeles operates a wastewater collection system that consists of
approximately 6,700 miles of sewers, 47 pumping plants, diversion structures, and
various support facilities. This system collects sewage from 550 square miles and
transports it to one of four sewage treatment plants operated by the City.
A natural phenomenon within any wastewater collection system is the production of

odorous gases especially hydrogen sulfide (H2S), the ventilation of sewers, and the
consequential release of that H2S. The City has been working diligently to address these
odor issues and has made significant progress in controlling odors within its sewer
system.
Many odor control measures are being implemented. The use of air scrubbers at various
problem locations in the collection system has significantly reduced gas pressure in the
sewer system and two state-of-the art Air Treatment Facilities (ATFs) utilizing
biotrickling filters have recently been constructed and went into operation this past year.
The City has also been installing “air curtains” at strategic points in the sewer system to
block the unwanted movement of gas within the sewers. The City installed an air curtain
near the drop structure at 23rd & San Pedro with very good results. Air curtains were
recently installed at each of the three diversion structures that used to divert flow away
from the NOS and into the NORS during the NOS rehabilitation. Furthermore, the City
continues to apply odor control chemicals to sewage which has reduced hydrogen sulfide
levels in treated sewers by up to 90 percent.
The City’s on-going operation and maintenance efforts have also provided significant
benefits to the odor control program. The trap maintenance hole modification and
upgrade project, and construction of local sewers has alleviated the migration of odors
from large diameter sewers into residential sewer systems while perpetual sewer cleaning
has decreased the potential for septic conditions to occur. The multi-year rehabilitation
of the lower NOS is complete and flow has been routed back into the NOS away from the
North Outfall Replacement Sewer (NORS). This has greatly reduced the flow in the
NORS, resulting in a noticeable reduction in gas pressure in the NORS and at the NORS
siphon. This, in combination with the new ATFs, has greatly reduced gas pressure within
sewers in the Crenshaw/Baldwin Hills/Culver City areas, reducing odor complaints and
improving the quality of life for the residents.
The $2 million, two-year ATF Review Study that started in 2008 is complete and has
proposed a variety of solutions. Regarding the five proposed ATFs placed on hold
pending the results of the study, the report concluded that the City needs only one
strategically placed ATF at Mission and Jesse. In lieu of the other ATFs, the study
proposed the use of air curtains, air dampers in drop structures, and flow management as
5 August 2011
methods to control sewer gas. This study has proved to be invaluable in increasing our
knowledge of sewer odors and gas movement in the collection system.
These odor control measures have produced a successful odor control program in the City
of Los Angeles and odor complaints continue to decline steadily. The City continues to
operate an odor complaint hotline, which allows for a more timely response and a quick
resolution to sewer-related odor complaints.
This Master Plan evaluates the current odor control program, conducts studies in strategic
areas throughout the city, identifies causes of odors, and provides recommendations for
improvements. It will be updated on an annual basis to assure that odor control
strategies/measures are periodically challenged, solutions remain proactive, and
technologies are current and effective.
EVALUATION OF THE COLLECTION SYSTEM

Through analysis of odor complaints and spot testing of sewer pressure, the City
identified several key areas to study. Specific sewers in these areas were targeted for
detailed testing and analysis based on the location of odor complaints as well as the
physical characteristics of the sewers such as insufficient pipe slope, severe slope
reductions, and the proximity of problematic structures such as inverted siphons, drop
structures, and junction structures.
Four areas with pockets of unusually high levels of complaints have been identified as
“Areas of Concern” (AOC) and the sewers in these areas received the most investigation.
They are:
• AOC1 - East NOS Corridor – NOS

• AOC2 - La Cienega/San Fernando Corridor – LCSFVRS/WHIS/LCIS
• AOC3 - Baldwin Hills/Culver City Area –
NORS/ECIS/NOS/WLAIS/WRS/NCOS
• AOC4 - East Valley Area – AVORS/EVRS/VORS/NHIS/NOS
In order to gain a more complete and accurate overview of the collection system, four
additional areas have been identified as “Areas of Study” (AOS) and were analyzed as
well. They are:
• AOS1 - South Los Angeles Area – NOS

• AOS2 - Coastal Interceptor Sewer – CIS
• AOS3 - Harbor Area
• AOS4 - West Valley Area – VORS/AVORS/EVIS
Air pressure and hydrogen sulfide (H2S) levels in the sewers in each area are monitored
in order to qualify and quantify the odors, help identify the causes of odor complaints,
and help determine the optimum solutions.
6 August 2011
RECOMMENDATIONS/CONSIDERATIONS
For the Areas of Concern, the following options are being considered:
AOC1 - East NOS Corridor

Recommendations made by the ATF Review Study
• Construct an ATF at the Mission & Jesse Drop Structure. (Currently in design)
• Install adjustable air dampers in the air return line of drop structures
• Install air curtains at the Mission & Jesse Drop Structure to block the movement
of gas.
• Manipulate flows at the diversion structures leading into the drop structures in
order to better control gas movement within the sewer system.
• The system is dynamic therefore the City needs to be flexible to optimize the
system
Other Recommendations (not from the ATF Review Study)

• Direct more flow down the NOS towards the Enterprise Siphon to achieve
scouring velocity and minimize debris build up in the siphon.
• Place a scrubber upstream of the Gilroy Street Siphon.
AOC2 - La Cienega/San Fernando Corridor

• Control gas pressures using sewer flow management by manipulating sewage
flow at various diversion structures
Consider re-routing more flow away from the LCSFVRS and into the NOS
toward LAG
• Continue chemical injection at the Tillman Treatment Plant
• Unplug the Genesee Siphon’s airline to allow air to move across the siphon
• After the airline is unplugged, evaluate the need to increase the capacity of the
Genesee Scrubber
AOC3 - Baldwin Hills/Culver City Area

• Continue monitoring the NOS and NCOS in the vicinity of the previous airline
connection between these two sewers near the Fox Hills Mall.
• Continue monitoring the WLAIS and WRS for any increase in pressure
• Continue to monitor the effectiveness of the Jefferson and La Cienega ATF and
the 6000 Jefferson ATF
7 August 2011
• Analyze any change in gas pressures resulting from the construction of air
curtains at NORS Diversions 1, 2, and 3
AOC4 - East Valley Area

• Continue monitoring pressures on the EVRS, NHIS, and VORS, and seal
maintenance holes where necessary
o Conduct flow gauging on the NHIS
o Conduct focused pressure testing on the EVRS downstream of the NHIS
For the Areas of Study, the following options are being considered:
AOS1 - South Los Angeles Area

• Pressures have dropped significantly since the last test due largely to the NCOS ATF
which is strategically located to pull gas from the upper and lower NOS in the Maze
area and the new air curtains which prevent backpressure from downstream.
• Re-test for pressure and/or H2S periodically to allow adequate time to address any
odor issues that may occur in the future
AOS2 - Coastal Interceptor Sewer

AOS3 - Harbor Area

AOS4 - West Valley Area

To meet the immediate needs of the collection system, the City will continue all odor
control activities including odor complaint response and investigation, routine sewer
maintenance, chemical addition, air withdraw1 and treatment using scrubbers, sewer
construction and repair, and on-going monitoring of sewer air pressure and odor
concentration.
8 August 2011
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 History of the Sewer System
The City of Los Angeles operates and maintains a complex wastewater collection
system that serves a 550 square mile area with a network of pipes that range in size
from 6-inches to 150-inches in diameter. The pipes running beneath the City total
approximately 6,700 linear miles. This does not include the hundreds of miles of
privately owned sewer laterals which connect private residences and industrial
clients to the City’s sewers. Although the City of Los Angeles has had some type
of sewer conveyance system since the late 1800’s, it consisted of transporting the
sewage in pipes to the edge of town or low population areas and discharging it into
a field or ditch. The system expanded and by 1908 could accommodate a
population of 750,000 and discharged into the ocean at the present location of the
Hyperion Treatment Plant. However, the sewage was not being treated at all. It
was not until 1920 that the residents voted to begin sewage treatment, beginning
our modern sewage conveyance and treatment system. Odors have always been an
issue with residents from the very beginnings of the sewer system and as the City
has enlarged its sewer system, odor control has become a larger area of concern.
The City of Los Angeles is expanding and will continue to expand in the future.
Upgrading the sewer system and the treatment plants has been and will continue to
be an on-going process in order to handle the anticipated increase in sewage that
accompanies an increasing population and to address the aging infrastructure. This
will need to be accompanied by a continuous and increasingly sophisticated effort
to control sewer odors.
A key part of the City’s odor control efforts is the formulation of this Odor Control
Master Plan which evaluates the current odor control program and provides
recommendations for future efforts. As part of the evaluation process, the City
reviewed its existing odor complaint procedures, investigation and cleaning
practices, preventive maintenance schedules, operation and maintenance policies
and practices, and mitigation measures including manhole sealing, trap
maintenance hole repair, and chemical treatment. This Master Plan presents the
results of this evaluation along with the recommendations.
1.2 Odor Generation

Prior to 1923, very little was known about the generation and release of sewer
odors in Los Angeles or elsewhere. It was generally known that air ventilating
from sewers could be offensive at times, but little was known about the specific
odor compounds or how they were formed. Sewer gases can include nitrogen,
oxygen, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, ammonia, and methane. Organic gases
such as volatile organic compounds (VOCs) contribute to the nuisance odors but
the major cause of odors in wastewater is hydrogen sulfide (H2S), an inorganic gas
that is detectable even in very low concentrations. Hydrogen sulfide has a rotten
egg smell and is heavier than air, so it does not disperse into the atmosphere.
9 August 2011
A natural phenomenon within any wastewater collection system is the production

of odorous gases. Over the last decade the potential for odorous air release from
the sewer system has increased due to the effectiveness of the City’s industrial
pretreatment program, which includes the removal of heavy metals that would
otherwise precipitate dissolved sulfide from solution. The City has been working
diligently to address these odor issues and has made significant progress in
controlling odors within its sewer system.
Hydrogen sulfide is generated within sewage when sulfates, naturally present in
wastewater, are converted to hydrogen sulfide by bacteria residing in the slime
layer on the pipe walls, or on debris in the wastewater. This activity increases
when certain conditions exist in the collection system such as low dissolved oxygen
content, high-strength wastewater, long detention times, and elevated wastewater
temperatures. For example, low sloping sewers cause the flow to slow down,
resulting in the increased settling of organic solids and grit in the sewer. This
debris deposition further slows down the flow. Consequently, this condition
increases sewage detention times in the sewer, allowing the sewage to become
oxygen deficient or septic.
Hydrogen sulfide and other dissolved gases are released in areas of turbulent flow.
For that reason, higher hydrogen sulfide concentrations are generally found near
line bends, pipe size changes, areas of dynamic slope changes, junction structures,
diversion structure, siphons, etc. This gas will typically escape the sewer system
through maintenance holes as part of the natural movement of air in and out of the
sewer system caused by the daily rise and fall of flow levels in the sewers.
However, constrictions in the sewer or reduced sewer headspace due to continuous
high flows can result in venting of gases from the sewers.
1.3 History of Odor Control

During the design and construction of the North Outfall Sewer (NOS) in the mid
1920s, it was recognized that settled debris in the bottom of sewers can increase
odor production. Therefore, the NOS was designed with a slope which would
provide the highest possible water velocity to prevent debris deposition.
Furthermore, the NOS was constructed with a semi-elliptical cross section and
lined with corrosion-resistant clay tiles above the spring line. However, an
inspection in 1936 found that large portions of the sewer were missing tiles, mortar
joints between the tiles were reduced to mushy gypsum, and the concrete behind
the tiles was found to be soft and porous. Engineers realized that the solution to
preventing damage and deterioration of the sewer pipes was to prevent the
formation of hydrogen sulfide gas and its oxidation to sulfuric acid, thus reducing
the accumulation of acid on the pipe walls.
On February 24, 1937, the Board of Public Works adopted the Board report
recommending that the City conduct an experiment to ventilate a portion of the
NOS to reduce the formation of acid producing gas. The experiment used a fan to
evacuate air at one location and admitted fresh air at various intervals along the
10 August 2011
sewer. Ventilation started on January 3, 1938. Daily records were kept of the
following items: fan speed, quantity of exhausted air, temperatures of the exhaust
air and atmosphere, H2S content of the exhaust air, amount of vacuum in suction
line, and quantity of air admitted at the various openings in the sewer. At the end
of the experiment in November 1938, the condition of the entire outfall was so
greatly improved that the City Engineer recommended that a permanent ventilation
station be built at the test site. More ventilation stations were constructed to
ventilate other sections of the NOS and the Central Outfall sewer as well. In the
1940s, it was discovered that inverted siphons were a significant cause of gas
ventilating from the NOS due to the blockage of the sewer’s headspace caused by
the siphon. Ventilation and deodorization systems were installed on the upstream
side of the siphons to prevent odors releasing into the atmosphere.
In the 1950s and 60s the City of Los Angeles grew considerably and the volume of
wastewater had subsequently increased. As existing collection systems began to
reach capacity, additional sewers were constructed to carry the increased flow.
This increased flow and its gas ended up in the NOS and other outfall sewers,
increasing the ventilation of gas from these outfalls. Since the principles of natural
sewer ventilation were not understood at this time, it was decided to seal the
offending maintenance holes with tar and sand, and occasionally, insert trays filled
with activated charcoal to adsorb the odor compounds.
Unknown at the time, sealing maintenance holes to prevent the release of gas
resulted in increased pressure in the sewer. With no pathway for release, the
pressure increased at those locations, causing sewer odors to vent through other
maintenance holes nearby and in many cases, be forced up house connections and
released through the roof vents of homes. The City began installing “gas traps” on
tributary sewers to prevent the upstream migration of sewer pressure. In some
cases, new sewers were built to intercept tributary sewers and route the flow to a
location where air pressure could be controlled.
The increase in sewage and subsequent increase in pressure led to more odor
complaints and the City began an aggressive program of chemical addition in the
early 1990s. Chemicals are commonly used today to react with or remove
dissolved sulfide and hydrogen sulfide from wastewater. Since hydrogen sulfide
gas is the main compound responsible for odor complaints, chemical addition
strategies for eliminating it were developed as far back as the early 1940s when the
City was adding chemicals to control odors from sewers on an as-needed basis.
Chlorine or hypochlorite solutions were used due to availability and effectiveness.
In the 1950s, iron-containing solutions such as ferrous chloride and ferric chloride
dominated as supplies increased and costs became more reasonable. Iron solutions
are still a very common chemical used for sulfide control in sewers and have a high
degree of effectiveness; however, due to their rising cost, the City of Los Angeles
has shifted to magnesium hydroxide, which is less costly and more effective. The
City also utilizes sodium hydroxide to shock dose sewers with high sulfide
generation. The chemical addition program targeted those locations most
11 August 2011
susceptible to generating sewer odors and therefore, where it would have the
greatest benefit for the entire system.
It was not until the mid-1990s that the dynamics of natural sewer pressurization
were identified and better understood by scientists and engineers. Many large-
diameter sewer depressurization projects were designed and installed in various
parts of the country based on the new natural pressurization dynamics research.
These successful projects demonstrated that the pressure effect in sewers could be
calculated to a high degree of certainty and that control measures could be
successfully designed, installed and operated.
The odor control program consists of systematic monitoring of the wastewater
system, an effective operation and maintenance program, effective response
procedures, adequate design standards, construction of relief sewers, construction
of new odor control facilities, and implementation of new technologies.
Additionally, in an on-going effort to better understand the nature of sewer odors
and provide for continued improvements, the odor control program includes field
investigations and analysis to identify the character of odors throughout the
collection system.
The odor-control measures employed/planned by the City all work in concert with
each other. It is these elements, when put together, that make the City’s wastewater
collection odor control program effective. The City has developed an odor
complaint hotline, which allows for a more timely response, and quicker resolution
of sewer-related odor complaints. The application of odor control chemicals has
reduced hydrogen sulfide concentration in treated sewers by up to 90%. The use of
air scrubbers at various hotspot locations in the collection system has contributed to
a reduction in the release of odors in known venting areas. The construction of
relief sewers such as East Central Interceptor Sewer and North East Interceptor
Sewer Phase I have provided relief and reduced the high air pressures occurring in
the sewer due to hydraulically overloaded pipes. The on-going repair of trap
maintenance holes and construction of local sewers has alleviated the migration of
odors from large-diameter sewers into neighborhoods and properties. The on-going
maintenance program has decreased the potential for septic conditions. These odor
control measures have led to a successful odor control program. While it is
impossible to completely eliminate odor complaints, the City has and will continue
to mitigate sewer odors through monitoring, complaint response, and effective
implementation of odor control technologies.
The City’s overall goal is to implement a cost effective and community-supported
odor control program that will mitigate and control sewer odors, effectively inform
the neighborhood councils, community groups and the Odor Advisory Board of the
odor issues, and inform and advise the Board of Public Works and the City Council
on the odor control program.
12 August 2011
1.4 Collection System Settlement Agreement and Origin of the Master Plan
The City was required to develop an Odor Control Master Plan as part of the
Collection System Settlement Agreement (CSSA). The CSSA is a settlement
between the City and several organizations including the USEPA, the LARWQCB,
the Santa Monica Baykeeper, and community groups representing residents in
South Los Angeles. In January 2001, the parties filed a lawsuit against the City of
Los Angeles which alleged that the City’s Sanitary Sewer Overflows (SSOs) and
odor problems violated the Clean Water Act and the terms and conditions of the
National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for the
Hyperion Treatment Plant and the Terminal Island Water Reclamation Plant for the
operation and maintenance of the City’s sewer system. In October 29, 2004, the
Court officially approved and implemented the Collection System Settlement
Agreement (CSSA) between the City of Los Angeles and the EPA.
Sewer odor was a major and pervasive issue in some South Los Angeles areas. The
CSSA addressed the odor problems by requiring the City to complete and institute
numerous studies, projects, programs and capital improvement projects. One of the
major requirements was the preparation of a City-wide odor control master plan.
The master plan was to include an assessment of known problem areas, additional
testing and monitoring, and recommended actions. The City was to develop the
plan in consultation with the Odor Advisory Board. The first Odor Control Master
Plan was issued in 2006 and was the first comprehensive odor control master plan
produced by the City. Prior to this, there were standard operating procedures and
measures in place to control odors, but no detailed plan on how to systematically
reduce odors throughout the collection system.
In November 2009, a Modification to the Settlement Agreement was entered by the
Court. The modification contained additional measures that the City needed to
address including updating the Odor Master Plan annually.
1.5 Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of the Odor Control Master Plan is to be both educational and
functional. This document will provide a history of the odor issues in the City’s
wastewater collection system, establish an understanding of the science of sewer
odor production and the technologies available, and present a proactive plan to
manage and address the sewer odors.
The general objectives of the Odor Control Master Plan are:
• Provide an overview of odor issues associated with the wastewater
collection system.
• Document and evaluate the current odor control program.
• Document the effort to characterize odors and identify their causes within
the collection system.
• Provide recommendations to effectively manage odors in the collection
system.
13 August 2011
• Provide a proactive systematic approach to odor prevention and control.
The objective of the City’s wastewater collection system odor control program is
to proactively address sewer odor issues in the wastewater collection system by
performing the following activities:
• Monitoring the wastewater collection system;
• Documenting and respond to odor complaints;
• Improving the design of the sewer system;
• Installing/building odor-control units/facilities;
• Dosing selected pipelines with chemicals to eliminate components that
lead to odors and;
• Investigating new technologies to identify better materials or processes to
control odors.
Additionally, in an on-going effort to better understand the nature of sewer odors,

the odor control program includes an effort to investigate the character of odors
throughout the collection system and evaluate the current operation and
maintenance policies and practices.
The effort to monitor the sewer system will involve developing and implementing
a city-wide odor and ventilation monitoring system including installing hydrogen
sulfide gas monitors (data loggers) in sewer maintenance holes, installing sewer
air pressure monitors to measure pressure differences in key locations to detect
the potential for off-gassing to the atmosphere, and collecting data to determine
the odor-causing characteristics of sewage. After sufficient amounts of this data
have been collected, it will be analyzed along with the sewer system’s physical
characteristics including the location of system restrictions and sewer gas
constrictions such as siphons, in order to identify and prioritize potential causes
and sources of odors. The City will also conduct various innovative tests such as
concurrent air withdrawal and air pressure measurement tests (fan tests) to verify
the cause of venting gasses from the sewer system and to help identify and
validate appropriate solutions.
The City already has a system in place for documenting and responding to odor
complaints. The City will continue this effort and will work with the residents to
promptly and effectively address their concerns.
The City has developed and implemented an extensive system of capital
improvement projects to reduce odors and improve the overall operation of the
collection system. These projects include the reconstruction of major sewers
which reduce the system’s off-gassing by increasing sewer headspace, the
construction of permanent gas/odor removal and filtering facilities, and chemical
injection systems that will inhibit the generation of hydrogen sulfide gas within
the sewage.
The City has also embarked on an effort to identify and evaluate new technologies
to mitigate and resolve odor issues. The City will implement the new
14 August 2011
technologies, where appropriate, through either the operation and maintenance

program or the capital improvement program. The City will also optimize the
operation of this technology, monitoring and adjusting the systems to ensure
maximum effectiveness.
The overall strategy and goal is to implement a community-supported odor
control program that will keep the public informed at various levels and to inform
and advise the Board of Public Works and the City Council at every stage of the
program.
1.6 Task Descriptions

The following general tasks are the basis of the odor control program:
• Monitor and respond to odor complaints.
• Measure hydrogen sulfide levels and air pressure in sewers to determine
the quantity and quality of sewer venting gas.
• Collect and test samples to determine the characteristics of the sewage
• Research physical characteristics of the sewer system including the
location of restriction and sewer gas constrictions such as siphons and
slope reductions.
• Analyze all data and information collected and determine the causes of the
odors.
• Identify available, appropriate solutions and any technology available to
help manage, mitigate, or eliminate odors.
• Evaluate the various alternatives and technologies.
• Recommend cost effective alternatives that are supported by the
community.
• Keep the community informed through meetings with the Odor Advisory
Board and public outreach efforts such as attending community meetings
and distributing informative literature.
• Implement the recommendations through the operation and maintenance
program or the capital improvement program.
• Monitor the performance of new applied technologies and make
improvements as necessary.
• Summarize all of the findings, requirements, recommendations, and
results in this master plan so that it becomes the blue print for mitigating
sewer odors in our neighborhoods.
• Manage the odor control program and monitor its effectiveness. Make
adjustments and improvements to the system as necessary to maximize
performance.
15 August 2011
16 August 2011
2.0 EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM

The City’s wastewater collection system is comprised of a network of underground pipes that
extend throughout the city, conveying wastewater to one of four treatment plants for processing.
The City-owned and operated system consists of approximately 6,700 miles of major interceptor
and mainline sewers. Approximately 650 miles of these sewers are primary sewers, which range
in size from 16 inches to over 12 feet in diameter. Approximately 170 miles of the primary
sewers are major interceptor and outfall sewers. The rest of the sewers (approx. 5,850 miles) are
smaller secondary sewers that range in diameter from 6 inches to 15 inches. The system also
includes 47 pumping plants, diversion structures, and various other support facilities such as
maintenance yards.
The City owns and operates four major wastewater treatment facilities: Hyperion Treatment Plant
(HTP) in Playa del Rey, the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant (TWRP) in the
Sepulveda Basin, Los Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant (LAGWRP) across the
freeway from Griffith Park, and the Terminal Island Water Reclamation Plant (TIWRP) near the
Los Angeles Harbor.
The system provides service to approximately 600,000 private residences, commercial
establishments and industries within the City. The private sewer laterals, which connect
buildings to the City’s mainline sewers, are privately owned and maintained, and their total length
is approximately 11,000 miles. The City also has contracts to provide waste water services to 29
satellite agencies. The agencies contracting with the City operate their own collection systems,
which discharge into the City’s system. Payment is based on the amount and volume of flow
measured at their connection to the City’s system.
The City’s wastewater service area consists of two distinct drainage basin areas: the Hyperion
Service Area (HSA) and the Terminal Island Service Area (TISA). The HSA covers over 500
square miles (mi2) and serves the majority of the Los Angeles population. In addition, this service
area includes several non-City agencies that contract with the City for wastewater service. The
TISA is approximately 18 mi2 and serves the Los Angeles Harbor area.
2.1 Hyperion Service Area Interceptor and Outfall Sewers
The following sixteen sewers comprise the major interceptor and outfall system for the HSA:
2.1.1 Coastal Interceptor Sewer (CIS)

The CIS serves the coastal area of the Santa Monica Bay north of the Hyperion Treatment Plant
(HTP) to Topanga State Beach near Malibu. This sewer conveys wastewater directly to the HTP
from Pacific Palisades, Venice, Mar Vista, the City of Santa Monica, and adjacent areas served
by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District (such as Marina Del Rey).
The CIS is a circular pipe that ranges in diameter from 24 to 72 inches and is approximately 9.4
miles in length. Some parts are constructed of vitrified clay and other parts are reinforced
concrete pipe. The concrete pipe is lined with polyvinyl chloride (PVC) to prevent corrosion of
the concrete by sewer gasses.
2.1.2
Central Outfall Sewer (COS)
The COS was constructed in 1907 and originally conveyed wastewater directly to the Pacific
Ocean. Now it conveys wastewater to the HTP. The COS is about 10 miles long and is, for the
17 August 2011
most part, elliptical in shape measuring 60 inches wide by 73 inches high, although some portions
are 57-inch and 69-inch-diameter circular sections. Its original construction was brick and
mortar. It was rehabilitated in the 1940s by replacing some of the brick and mortar, and
subsequently lining the sewer with steel mesh and gunite. Currently the COS is undergoing
rehabilitation to be completed by 2017.
2.1.3 North Outfall Sewer (NOS)

The NOS is one of the primary outfall sewers used to convey wastewater to the HTP. The NOS
extends upstream from the HTP through Culver City, into downtown Los Angeles, continuing
east of the Elysian Hills, turning north to travel around the Santa Monica Mountains, and then
west through the southern portion of the San Fernando Valley (approximately 58 miles in length).
The NOS was constructed from the mid 1920s to the early 1930s. It is a combination circular and
semi-elliptical sewer constructed of concrete, reinforced concrete, and vitrified clay. The
portions of the NOS constructed of concrete are lined with clay tiles to resist corrosion. The
downstream portion of the NOS (from the HTP to the intersection of La Cienega Boulevard and
Rodeo Road) has been rehabilitated and therefore, flow is being diverted back to this section
relieving the NORS.
2.1.4 North Central Outfall Sewer (NCOS)

The North Central Outfall Sewer (NCOS) was constructed in 1957 to provide additional capacity
to the system between the Baldwin Hills area and the HTP. This sewer relieves the lower portion
of the NOS. The NCOS is a circular sewer with a maximum diameter of 114 inches and is close
to 8 miles long. It is constructed of reinforced concrete pipe lined with PVC.
2.1.5 North Outfall Replacement Sewer (NORS)

The North Outfall Replacement Sewer (NORS) was completed in 1993. The NORS is a circular
pipe, which ranges in diameter from 96 to 150 inches. The NORS is constructed from reinforced
concrete pipe lined with PVC.
2.1.6 West Los Angeles Interceptor Sewer (WLAIS)

The WLAIS primarily serves the West Los Angeles area by conveying wastewater to the NOS.
The upstream portion of the WLAIS varies in size from 33 to 60 inches and is comprised of
circular and semi-elliptical segments constructed in the 1920s. The lower section was constructed
in 1950 with circular, reinforced concrete pipe lined with PVC, and includes an elevated box
section (4’ H x 6’ W) crossing over Ballona Creek in Culver City. The entire WLAIS is
approximately 4 miles long.
2.1.7 Westwood Relief Sewer (WRS)

The WRS was constructed in 1962 to provide additional capacity for overloaded sewers in the
Westwood area. It also accepts some wastewater from Beverly Hills. The WRS is about 4.5
miles long, is circular in shape, varies in size from 33 inches to 60 inches, and is constructed of
vitrified clay pipe and reinforced concrete pipe. The sewer crosses the creek using a concrete box
similar to that used by the WLAIS, discharging into the NOS in Culver City.
2.1.8 Wilshire-Hollywood Interceptor Sewer (WHIS)

The WHIS was constructed in the early to mid 1970s in order to intercept wastewater from trunk
sewers in the Hollywood area and convey this flow to the La Cienega-San Fernando Valley
18 August 2011
Relief Sewer. This sewer ranges in diameter from 24 to 69 inches and is constructed of vitrified
clay pipe and reinforced concrete pipe lined with PVC.
2.1.9 La Cienega Interceptor Sewer (LCIS)

The LCIS serves West Hollywood and the area that lies roughly between West Hollywood and
Baldwin Hills. It was constructed in the 1920s with circular and semi-elliptical reinforced
concrete pipe ranging in size from 27 inch diameter circular pipe to 63 inch-tall elliptical pipe.
The LCIS is slightly over 6 miles long and outlets into the NOS at Jefferson and Rodeo. The
LCIS has been undergoing rehabilitation in various phases to be completed by 2015.
2.1.10 La Cienega-San Fernando Valley Relief Sewer (LCSFVRS)

The LCSFVRS was constructed in 1955 to relieve the NOS at the downstream (east) end of the
San Fernando Valley near Toluca Lake. The LCSFVRS routes sewage directly through the Santa
Monica Mountains and to the West Hollywood area. At Sierra Bonita Avenue, it splits into twin
42-inch pipes that join back into one 60-inch pipe downstream. The sewer travels through the
Genesee Siphon near Venice Boulevard and along Genesee Avenue before reconnecting with the
NOS near the intersection of Rodeo Road and Jefferson Boulevard. The LCSFVRS is
approximately 11 miles long and is primarily constructed of reinforced concrete pipe lined with
PVC, and ranges in diameter from 48 to 84 inches. The downstream portion of the LCSFVRS is
a combination of 99-inch semi-elliptical and 99-inch by 115-inch rectangular sections.
2.1.11 Valley Outfall Relief Sewer (VORS)

The VORS was constructed between 1953 and 1962 to relieve the NOS in the San Fernando
Valley and essentially parallels the NOS for much of the Valley (approximately 16 miles). The
VORS is constructed of PVC-lined, reinforced concrete pipe and ranges in diameter from 24 to
66 inches.
2.1.12 Additional Valley Outfall Relief Sewer (AVORS)

The AVORS was installed in the late 1960s to provide additional hydraulic relief to the NOS and
the VORS in the western portion of the San Fernando Valley. This sewer is one of the major
pipelines conveying flow to the Tillman Water Reclamation Plant. The AVORS also parallels the
NOS. It is constructed of vitrified clay pipe and PVC-lined reinforced concrete pipe ranging in
diameter from 48 to 96 inches, and is over 10 miles long.
2.1.13 East Valley Relief Sewer (EVRS)

The EVRS was constructed in the early 1980s to relieve the AVORS and the NOS near Kester
Avenue and Magnolia Boulevard. Wastewater within this relief sewer can be routed through the
NOS towards either the LA/Glendale Water Reclamation Plant or through the Santa Monica
Mountains via the LCSFVRS to the HTP. The EVRS is almost 7 miles long. It varies in
diameter from 39 inches to 51 inches, and is constructed of vitrified clay pipe and reinforced
concrete pipe lined with PVC.
2.1.14 East Valley Interceptor Sewer (EVIS)

The EVIS was constructed in 1987 and routes wastewater from the northeastern areas of the San
Fernando Valley (City of San Fernando, Sylmar, Pacoima, Mission Hills, Panorama City, etc.) to
the Tillman Plant. This sewer is constructed of vitrified clay pipe and PVC lined-reinforced
concrete pipe. It varies in diameter from 36 inches to 84 inches, and is close to 9 miles long.
19 August 2011
2.1.15 East Central Interceptor Sewer (ECIS)

The ECIS was constructed in 2004. It relieves the east-west segment of the NOS, from its outlet
connection to the NCOS to the vicinity of Mission Road and Jesse Street near the Los Angeles
River. The ECIS is approximately 11.5 miles long and 11 feet in diameter.
2.1.16 Northeast Interceptor Sewer (NEIS)

The NEIS is approximately 10 miles in length extending from Mission Road and Jesse Street to
Pecan Grove where the future Glendale Burbank Interceptor will be connected. The NEIS is
being constructed in two phases. Construction of Phase I was completed in 2005. The NEIS
Phase II has been combined with the GBIS and both are now in the pre-construction phase.
Construction is scheduled to be completed by 2020.
2.1.17 Eagle Rock Interceptor Sewer (ERIS)

The ERIS was constructed in 2006. ERIS is a circular lined clay pipe, 12 to 48-inch in diameter
that was micro-tunneled and trenched. It runs northward from San Fernando Road and Eagle
Rock Boulevard then branches into two lines, ending at Eagle Rock Boulevard and Fairpark
Avenue and the vicinity of Avenue 51 and York Boulevard. ERIS intercepts flow in the Eagle
Rock and Highland Park area and conveys it to NEIS.
2.2 Terminal Island Service Area Interceptor Sewers and Force Mains
The TISA collection system consists of a network of major interceptor sewers and force mains
that ultimately discharge into TITP for treatment and disposal. TISA collection system is
comprised of four interceptor sewer systems. The four interceptor sewer systems are named after
the respective force main through which their flow is pumped to the TITP. The following
sections discuss the four interceptor sewer systems further.
2.2.1 Fries Avenue Interceptor Sewer System (FISS)

Wastewater collected from the Wilmington Basin is discharged into the Fries Avenue Interceptor
Sewer System (FISS). The FISS also serves various industrial dischargers, some of which are on
Harbor Department property. The FISS consists of four major pumping plants serving their
respective interceptor (primary) sewers. The first three major pumping plants are Hawaiian and
B Pumping Plant (No. 677), East Wilmington Pumping Plant (No. 676), and Fries Avenue
Pumping Plant (No. 666). These three major pumping plants discharge directly to TITP via a
common 30-inch force main known as the Fries Avenue Force Main. The Fries Avenue Force
Main receives additional flow from a connecting pumping plant located in the northern portion of
Terminal Island. This fourth pumping plant is the Harris Avenue Pumping Plant (No. 669) and is
tributary to only the TITP via the Fries Avenue Force Main. The 30-inch Fries Avenue Force
Main is the single major means of wastewater conveyance from the Wilmington Basin to
Terminal Island, and crosses under the East Basin Channel of the Los Angeles Harbor.
2.2.2 San Pedro Interceptor Sewer System (SPISS)

The San Pedro Interceptor Sewer System (SPISS) serves most of the residential areas of San
Pedro, the industrial area consisting primarily of the Phillips Conoco Refinery, and some
industrial facilities located on Harbor Department property. The SPISS contains one major
pumping plant serving its respective primary sewers. The major pumping plant is San Pedro
Pumping Plant (No. 691). This pumping plant discharges directly to TITP via a 30-inch force
20 August 2011
main, the principle means of wastewater conveyance from San Pedro Basin. The 30-inch San
Pedro force main traverses the Los Angeles Harbor Main Channel near the Vincent Thomas
Memorial Bridge. A supplement to the SPISS system allows all flows from the Wilmington
Basin into FISS to be diverted to the San Pedro Pumping Plant.
2.2.3 Terminal Way Interceptor Sewer System (TISS)

Terminal Way Interceptor Sewer System (TISS) collects wastewater from the residential areas of
the Coastal Zone of San Pedro Basin, the land use areas along Harbor Boulevard, the heavy
industrial area south of 22nd Street, and Terminal Island not tributary to Harris Avenue Pumping
Plant. Wastewater collected by the TISS from the Coastal Zone and industrial area south of 22nd
Street is conveyed by means of a double-barrel siphon traversing the Main Channel of Los
Angeles Harbor toward the sole major pumping plant of the TISS: the Terminal Way Pumping
Plant (No. 671). This pumping plant is connected to TITP via a dual force main system (24-inch
and 20-inch) that provides system redundancy.
2.2.4 Former U.S. Navy Sewer System and Facility

The former “U.S. Navy Sewer System and Facility” consists of four separate force mains (two 6-
inch, one 12-inch, and one 20-inch), a pumping plant, and collector sewers that previously served
the U.S. Naval Reservation on Terminal Island. After the decommissioning of the U.S. Navy
facilities, the City of Long Beach took over the assets of the U.S. Navy Sewer System and
Facility that continues to deliver wastewater to the TITP.
21 August 2011
FIG. 2.1
22 August 2011
3.0 OUTREACH
The City has been actively engaged in outreach activities for the residents of Los Angeles
regarding the Bureau’s Sewer Odor Control Program. The outreach has multiple purposes. The
first is to educate the public about the City’s efforts to control odors and about tools the City has
made available to the public to facilitate their communication with the City. The other goal is to
gather feedback from the public about the City’s odor control efforts in order to measure the
effectiveness of our programs and re-evaluate and modify them if necessary.
The odor control outreach program can be divided into three principal components:
1. Communication and coordination with the community-based Odor Control Advisory

Board,
2. Distribution of flyers and refrigerator magnets containing odor control information and
means of contacting the City for sewer odor issues,
3. Conducting an annual survey of the public in those areas where odors are the worst in order
to gather feedback.
3.1 Odor Advisory Board

As part of the CSSA, the City was also required to create an Odor Advisory Board with members
representing South Los Angeles communities to help assess the odor issues and review the City’s
mitigation efforts CSSA authorized the Odor Advisory Board to work closely with the City in its
effort to resolve and mitigate sewer odors to the maximum extent practicable. The CSSA states
that the Odor Advisory Board’s role will last for the term of the Settlement Agreement (10 yr-
term), unless it is terminated by mutual consent of all the parties. The Board serves as the City’s
primary point-of-contact with residents of south Los Angeles regarding sewer odor control issues.
The Odor Advisory Board interest focuses mostly in the south Los Angeles communities (mainly
around MLK/Rodeo between La Cienega and Arlington) which fall within the 8th, 9th and 10th
Council Districts. The Odor Advisory Board was formed in September 2002 and began meeting
on a monthly basis. Odor complaints, odor investigation procedure, the mitigation measures and
the long-term odor control efforts underway by the City were provided to the Odor Advisory
Board for review and input.
The Air Treatment Facilities (ATFs) were to be placed at strategic points throughout the City,
concentrated in those areas with the most odor complaints, many of which were in South Los
Angeles. The original locations of the ATFs were presented to the OAB and subsequently, when
the construction of five of the ATFs were placed on hold until the outcome of the ATF Review
Study, the City again approached the Board for input and comments. The City reported to the
OAB on the progress of the study. The Board members have attended several field trips
including a fan test, a tour of the Hyperion Treatment Plant, the East Central Interceptor Sewer
(ECIS) construction site, and the ATF at Jefferson & La Cienega. The Odor Advisory Board also
met with the independent odor expert to provide input for the independent review of the odor
control report called for in the CSSA.
The Board members made several recommendations for improving both the City’s odor hotline
and the outreach effort to inform residents about the hotline, and assisted in the Odor Hotline
public outreach by distributing the flyers. The City, along with the Community Liaison, has
attempted to recruit new members. As part of the Modification to the Settlement Agreement, the
23 August 2011
OAB was expanded. The OAB meets now on an as-needed basis and continues to communicate
with the Community Liaison.
The Odor Advisory Board continues to provide valuable input in the City’s odor control effort
including outreach efforts and providing feedback regarding the effectiveness of the odor control
facilities and concerns of the community.
3.2 Odor Expert and Community Liaison

As part of the Modification to the CSSA that was entered into in November 2009, the City hired
an Independent Odor Expert (Expert) and a Community Liaison. The role of the Independent
Odor Expert was to review ATF Review Study reports and provide comments and
recommendations. The Expert also attended OAB meetings where he discussed any material he
received from the City and answered questions from the OAB. The Odor Expert worked closely
with the City and served through the completion of the study. The Community Liaison facilitates
information exchange and discussion between the community and the City regarding odor
conditions, sewer odor control activities, and the ATF Review Study. The Community Liaison
will serve until June 30, 2014, which is the completion date for the CSSA.
3.3 Odor Outreach Program
3.3.1 Annual Survey

Since June 2006, the City has conducted annual feedback interviews to measure the
effectiveness of the Sewer Odor Hotline. The interview process includes
conducting street interviews at problematic locations throughout the City, mailing
questionnaires to residents that complained through the Odor Hotline, and
distributing surveys to community groups. All of the results are compiled and the
survey results are reported in the CSSA Annual Report.
The 2011 odor survey was conducted by mail focusing on residents who called the
City with sewer odor issues. Overall, the community feedback regarding the City’s
level of service was outstanding as opposed to last year’s survey. The majority of
the respondents were satisfied with the City’s Odor Reporting Hotline. Many
commented on how quickly; usually within the same day, City crew responded
after they made the call. Most odor issues were resolved and even if not
immediately; they were encouraged that the City is working on it. Some of the
suggestions made regarding the improvement of the hotline were to advertise it
more and to create better communication between the call center and the
Department in charge.
3.3.2 Newspaper Advertising

The City has advertised the hotline in community-based newspapers in the South
Los Angeles area in previous years. The odor issues in the area have become less
frequent to non existent. The Bureau may continue to use this method as a tool to
inform residents about the hotline as needed.
3.3.3 Flyer Distribution

Odor control hotline flyers and magnets are distributed at community fairs, BOS
Open Houses, neighborhood council presentations, and any other community
meeting. The City distributes educational flyers that explain the City’s odor
24 August 2011
control program and advertise the odor control hotline and a web site which the
City operates as well. A sample of the odor control outreach flyer is attached at the
end of this section.
25 August 2011
26 August 2011
4.0 SEWER ODOR GENERATION AND EMMISION

4.1 Odor (H2S) Generation
Hydrogen sulfide is generated within sewage when sulfates, naturally present in
wastewater, are converted to hydrogen sulfide by bacteria residing in the slime layer on the
pipe walls, or on debris in the wastewater. This activity increases when certain conditions
exist in the collection system such as low dissolved oxygen content, high-strength
wastewater, long detention times, and elevated wastewater temperatures. For example, low
sloping sewers cause the flow to slow down, resulting in the increased settling of organic
solids and grit in the sewer. This debris deposition further slows down the flow.
Consequently, this condition increases sewage detention times in the sewer, allowing the
sewage to become oxygen deficient or septic.
4.2 The Phenomenon of Sewer Pressurization

Studies of air flow in the City’s sewer system, especially in those areas that are
experiencing strong and frequent sewer odors, show that the primary cause of odor release
is pressurization of the sewer headspace.
Pressurization of the headspace is directly related to the following:
• Friction drag, influenced by wastewater velocity
• Change in wastewater velocity, influenced by change in slopes
• Physical characteristics of the system which influence airflow, such as:
a- Depth of flow (d/D) and headspace constriction

b- Diameter changes in downstream direction
c- Inverted siphons
d- Confluence of major tributary sewers
e- Negative slope change
Friction Drag and Air Movement in Conduits

The driving force which moves air within sewer pipes is friction between the sewer
headspace air and the moving wastewater. For most of the sewer system, the only
resistance to air movement in a sewer pipe is friction between the air and the walls
of the pipe. Given these two principals, it is possible to generate a velocity
gradient profile for air movement in sewers (Fig. 4.2.1). As might be anticipated,
the velocity of the air is at a maximum near the surface of the water and decreases
rapidly with increasing distance from the sewage. It is important to note that there
are no stagnant air zones and that virtually all air in a sewer is moving with the
wastewater.
There are many minor factors which act to enhance or diminish this friction and
therefore the velocity and pressure of air in sewers. The friction factor between the
water and air increases when the surface of the water is “roughened” by the
generation of waves and “whitecaps” through turbulence or water velocities in
excess of 5-feet-per-second (fps). This type of turbulence can be generated by
steep slopes or drops.
27 August 2011
Strong turbulence, such as that generated by large hydraulic jumps, long gravity
drops, or a spraying force main, increases friction dramatically since the water is
churned into individual droplets. The droplets have many times the surface area of
smooth water flow and therefore generate increased friction with the air. This high
friction added to the effects of increased sewage velocity can move high volumes
of air down sewers. To make matters worse, turbulence in wastewater also
increases the release of odors and corrosion-causing compounds from wastewater,
such as hydrogen sulfide gas.
FIGURE 4.2.1
IDEALIZED AIR VELOCITY CONTOURS
IN PERCENT OF WASTEWATER VELOCITY
28 August 2011
FIGURE 4.2.2
PRESSURIZATION DUE TO SLOPE CHANGE
4.2.1 Pressurization Due to Slope Reduction

Just as fast-moving wastewater can accelerate air movement; conversely, a slow-
moving, calm water surface will exert minimal drag on the air and move relatively
small volumes of air. Additionally, if the wastewater flow decelerates, then the
friction between the fast-moving air and the slow-moving sewage will slow the air
movement. Therefore, when the velocity of wastewater decreases due to a
flattening of sewer slopes, the fast-moving air from upstream collides into the
slower air in the flatter segment, generating high gas pressure. This high pressure
pushes sewer gasses through the nearest openings and into the atmosphere, causing
complaints (Fig. 4.2.2).
4.2.2 Pressurization Due to Air Headspace Constriction

The ratio of wastewater flow depth to the pipe diameter is expressed as d/D. When
the pipe is half full, this ratio equals 0.5 and it equals 1 when the pipe is running
full. Since the headspace above the wastewater conveys moving air, a constriction
in this space will “squeeze” this air and it will become pressurized. Headspace
constriction is one of the main causes of pressurization in the collection system. As
the wastewater flow increases, it takes up more space in the pipe (the d/D
increases) and the gasses are forced out and escape through any available routes
such as house connections or vent holes.
4.2.3 Reducing Pipe Diameter in the Downstream Direction

A pipe’s diameter is sometimes reduced in the downstream direction in order to
“squeeze” past an existing underground structure. This creates a choke point in the
pipe. The surface of the flow approaching this bottleneck tends to rise, forcing the
29 August 2011
air above into wave fronts that are pushed backwards. When these air waves
collide with the air traveling downstream, pressurization occurs, forcing the gasses
out of the sewer system.
4.2.4 Inverted Siphons

Any extensive sewage collection system in a metropolitan area is usually designed
with inverted siphons due to the abundance of interfering structures. Inverted
siphons are pipes or other conduits that dips down in order to pass under a structure
blocking the path of the pipe. Because they have to dip down, they are always full
of water and have no headspace in the pipe available for the movement of air.
They therefore block the flow of any air that is traveling down the pipe towards
them. Alternate air pipes called “air jumpers” are built for the air movement past
the siphon and they join with the sewer once the siphon ends. Some jumpers are
undersized and have become a source of gas pressurization.
4.2.5 Confluence of Major Tributary Sewers

Turbulence in wastewater flow not only leads to higher gas pressures in the sewers
but also facilitates the release of hydrogen sulfide gas from the sewage into the
headspace. When gas vents from a sewer into the atmosphere, it is the hydrogen
sulfide gas that people smell and find so offensive. When one flow stream enters
into another at a strong angle (i.e. perpendicular), it generates significant turbulence
and leads to pressure and strong odor releases.
30 August 2011
5.0 ODOR CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES
There are many technologies and strategies available to address odors in the collection system
including liquid phase treatment, vapor phase treatment, and hydraulic improvements.
5.1 Liquid Phase Treatment
Liquid Phase Treatment is the addition of chemicals into the sewage in order to limit the
generation of hydrogen sulfide (H2S). Various chemicals can be employed for this purpose.
The most common chemicals used are discussed below.
5.1.1 Calcium Nitrate (BIOXIDE)

Adding nitrates reduces sulfide generation in the sewage by replacing sulfates as the source
of oxygen for the bacteria. This reduces the conversion of sulfates to sulfides. Calcium
nitrate can affect sewage plant operations if overdosed. The increased nitrate levels in the
sewage may result in the formation of nitrogen gas bubbles that inhibit settling in the
treatment plant’s primary clarifiers. But, when properly dosed, calcium nitrate will not
have any negative impact on either pump station or treatment plant operations. As a
benefit, the addition of calcium nitrate may result in a small reduction of BOD5 in the plant
influent, and furthermore, calcium is a required micro-nutrient for biomass growth.
5.1.2 Iron Salt

Ferrous chloride is an iron salt that reacts with sulfides and precipitates them out of the
liquid. When this salt is added to wastewater, it immediately separates into ferrous iron and
chloride. The ferrous iron then reacts with the sulfides to form ferrous sulfide, an iron-
bound sulfide molecule that cannot dissolve in the wastewater. The subsequent decrease in
dissolved sulfides reduces vapor phase H2S concentrations, reducing odor emissions. Its
disadvantages include its proclivity, depending on the relative solubility of the potential
resultant compounds, to react with negatively charged ions in the wastewater other than
sulfide.
5.1.3 Metal Salts

Metal salts, such as ferrous sulfate, react with hydrogen sulfide and precipitate it out of
solution by forming an insoluble metallic sulfide. The dose is 4.5 grams of ferrous sulfate
for each gram of sulfide to be oxidized. This is less expensive than peroxide or chlorine.
The primary disadvantage of the above products is that they may contain a high free acid
content which will increase the pH of the sewage. This can interfere with biodegradation
of the waste.
5.1.4 Potassium Permanganate

This is a strong oxidizing agent that reacts with hydrogen sulfide in a variety of ways,
depending on whether the stream is acidic or alkaline. In waste streams in which the pH is
neutral, a variety of reactions occur, yielding elemental sulfur, sulfate, thionates,
dithionates, and manganese sulfide end products. Potassium permanganate has been fairly
effective when added to sludge dewatering operations, where it is added to the suction side
of the sludge pumps feeding the dewatering unit. It has a few disadvantages. Dosages are
31 August 2011
difficult to predict and control in most liquid applications. The high cost and high dose, 6
or 7 parts of potassium permanganate are needed for each part of hydrogen sulfide, are
discouraging. Safety precautions are required for handling and storage.
5.1.5 Chlorine and Sodium Hypochlorite

Chlorine combines with water to form hypochlorous and hydrochloric acid which kills the
bacteria that produce hydrogen sulfide. It also oxidizes the sewage, which helps prevent
the production of hydrogen sulfide. There are several disadvantages associated with
chlorine. Chlorine also kills the beneficial, waste-degrading bacteria used to treat sewage.
It also combines with urine in the waste stream to form chloramines, which are difficult to
remove. Toxic or carcinogenic chlorinated hydrocarbons may form during treatment of
chlorinated sewage. Additionally, chlorine is a hazardous material, requiring special safety
precautions.
5.1.6 Hydrogen Peroxide

Hydrogen peroxide reacts with hydrogen sulfide, forming sulfur and water (see the
chemical equation below). The reaction occurs quickly. Generally, 90% of the reaction
occurs within 10 to 15 minutes and is completed within 20 to 30 minutes. For this reason,
it is used to treat local problems only, since it doesn’t have long-lasting or far-reaching
effects. Any excess hydrogen peroxide decomposes, releasing oxygen and water, thereby
increasing the dissolved oxygen in the stream. There are some disadvantages. It is
relatively expensive and dangerous. It requires special safety procedures when handling,
including the use of protective clothing. Face shields must be worn during bulk storage
loading, repair, and maintenance of the facility. Spontaneous combustion is possible.
5.1.7 Oxygen/Air Injection

Oxygenation helps beneficial aerobic and facultative anaerobic bacteria reproduce faster
than undesirable anaerobes. This allows the beneficial bacteria to consume more of the
available nutrients. Its beneficial use is typically limited to force main applications due to
its low saturation characteristics under atmospheric conditions.
32 August 2011
5.1.8 Caustic Shock Dosing

Sodium hydroxide is added directly to the sewage through a maintenance hole upstream of
the sulfide producing zone. It is added at a volume and rate to elevate and pH above 12.5
for at least 30 minutes to inactivate or kill the sulfate reducing bacteria. Periodic caustic
shock dosing can effectively remove all sulfide forms.
5.1.9 Magnesium Hydroxide

Continuous Addition – As the pH of wastewater rises, the natural state of sulfides in the
wastewater shifts away from offensive H2S gas and towards dissolved sulfides in solution.
Magnesium hydroxide raises the pH of wastewater and has a residual buffering capacity
that maintains an elevated pH for a significant distance downstream of the application
point. For this reason, magnesium hydroxide is continuously added to wastewater to raise
and buffer it pH to within a range of 7.5 to 8.6. At a pH of 8.6, only 3% of sulfides exists
as H2S gas while the vast majority of sulfides are held in solution in the form of disulfide
and dissolved sulfide. Consequently, maintaining a high pH provides effective odor
control.
5.2 Vapor Phase Treatment

Another strategy is Vapor Phase Treatment, which involves containing or treating the
gasses and odors directly. Treatment methods involve either containing the gasses or
filtering odors from gasses escaping from the collection system. Applications include
sealing maintenance holes, inserting devices into maintenance holes, or constructing large
facilities such as carbon scrubbers, biofilters, or biotrickling filters, the technology that the
ATFs employ.
5.2.1 Sealing Maintenance holes

The most straightforward method to treat odors in the vapor phase is to contain the vapors.
The simplest solution is to simply prevent the gas from venting from the sewer system
through the maintenance holes by sealing the maintenance hole lid with a mixture of
roofing tar and sand. Sealing of maintenance holes is performed mostly on maintenance
holes located on the large diameter sewers that experience headspace pressurization.
5.2.2 Gas Trap Maintenance Hole

Another solution to trapping the gas is to construct a gas trap maintenance hole. A gas trap
maintenance hole forms a water seal similar to a p-trap, which blocks sewer gasses from
traveling upstream past the structure. They are constructed at locations where small
diameter sewers discharge into large outfall sewers and they prevent pressurized sewer
gases from being forced from the large sewer into the smaller sewers.
5.2.3 Maintenance Hole Inserts

Inserts (e.g. Bioteg MH Biofilter) filter odors from sewer gases traveling up maintenance
holes and are used at several locations throughout the city. Microorganisms in the filter
media oxidize and remove odors from the gas before it exits the maintenance hole lid.
33 August 2011
5.2.4 Large Air Treatment Facilities

Large air treatment facilities can be constructed to reduce the air pressure in sewers and
remove the odors from large volumes of sewer gases before releasing it into the
atmosphere. These facilities include carbon scrubbers, biofilters, and biotrickling filters.
5.2.4.1 Carbon scrubbers
Carbon scrubbers use activated carbon to adsorb H2S as it passes through the
media. Advantages of carbon scrubbers include having a small footprint and
a H2S removal rate of up to 99.5%. Scrubbers have several disadvantages
including:
Can only handle small flow rates (typically less than 20,000-CFM)
Carbon media can require frequent replacement, depending on loadings
Significant O&M cost
Upgrading is difficult if flows increase due to process expansion
Can let other odorous compounds pass through when media becomes
“spent”
Requires frequent operator attention to check state of media
5.2.4.2 Biofilters
Biofilters have proven to be an effective technology for removing VOC-type
odors, hydrogen sulfide, and ammonia from air exhausted from livestock
facilities. Biofilters are used quite frequently in waste water treatment
systems. Proper biofilter design is critical for providing effective and
economical treatment. To ensure proper performance, information regarding
the relationship between unit flow rate through the biofilter media and the
unit pressure drop across the media is needed. A biofilter uses
microorganisms supported on organic media (bark, wood chips, compost) to
convert odorous gases into non-odorous compounds. An organic media
biofilter can destroy up to 90% of the VOCs in a foul air stream.
Contaminated air passes through the filter where the microorganisms
consume the organic carbon and produce CO2, water, and biomass. The
bacteria residing in the water film on the media oxidize hydrogen sulfide to
sulfuric acid, much of which is washed out of the bed as a result of the
irrigation process or during wet weather events.
Organic media biofilters uses non-hazardous compounds, employ a relatively

simple concept and require little maintenance, however they do have several
disadvantages which include the following:
Large footprint required (up to 2,500 sq ft. for 30,000 CFM @ 20 PPM
H2S)
Large capital cost
Difficult to upgrade for increased air flows
Settling of biofilter media can cause air channels to form in the media
bed, reducing performance over time
Organic media needs to be replaced after 3-5 years
5.2.4.3 Biotrickling Filter

Biotricking filters use the most current technology available. Water trickles
over the filters, which are columns filled with inert packing media and a
34 August 2011
biofilm develops on the surface of the media. The biofilm is nourished by

nutrients fed into the trickling stream to support biofilm growth. Most
of the pollutant degradation occurs in the biofilm by a mass transfer
and biological process. Natural media used in the filters can include soil,
peat, compost, or bark, however, most biotrickling filters use engineered
media which provide the advantages of natural media with a lower rate of
fouling and longer life. The water is recycled over the media and the system
is also supplied with essential nutrients for the biological organisms, which
are the primary method in which contaminants are removed from the air. The
organisms responsible for odor removal are usually aerobic since the system
is well aerated. Contaminated gas is supplied either co-current or
countercurrent to the water’s direction. Biotrickling filters operate similar to
biofilters with a more complex removal system that is suited to treat
compounds that when degraded, produce an acidic by-product such as H2S.
5.3 Hydraulic Design Improvements

In some cases odors vent from the sewer due to poor or inadequate hydraulic design.
Another strategy for reducing odors venting from the collection system is implementing the
adequate sewer design criteria to avoid hydraulic and geometric characteristics that either
increase the production of odors or constrict the flow of gas in the sewer headspace, forcing
it out of the sewer.
5.3.1 Low Flow Velocity

If sewage flows too slowly, sediment within the sewage settles out and deposits within the
pipe. These deposits provide an ideal environment for an anaerobic slime layer where
hydrogen sulfide is produced. Sewers should be designed to provide an adequate flow
velocity to reduce the deposition of solids within the sewage and help eliminate the
development of H2S.
5.3.2 Inverted Siphons

Significant odor issues have been associated with air pressure build-up on the upstream side
of inverted siphons. It lies with the fact that the sewer pipe in a siphon flows completely
full with no headspace within the pipe to convey the gas. Therefore, air ducts or “air
jumpers” are needed to transport the gases across the siphon. These air jumpers have
historically been undersized. Air jumper should be designed to provide sufficient
headspace to convey the air across.
35 August 2011
36 August 2011
6.0 ODOR CONTROL MEASURES
Municipalities face daily challenges in their effort to control and mitigate sewer-related
odors. The City has implemented a successful program to control and reduce odors
within its collection system which has made significant improvements. Various measures
are employed to reduce the generation and release of odors from the sewer system. They
include:
• odor complaint response and investigation;
• routine sewer maintenance;
• chemical addition;
• air withdrawal and treatment from the collection system;
• sewer construction and repair; and
• on-going monitoring of sewer air pressure and odor concentration.
This section discusses these various odor control measures and procedures the City uses
as part of the Odor Control Program.
6.1 Odor Complaint Response and Investigation
The Bureau of Sanitation, Wastewater
Collection Systems Division (WCSD)
responds to various odor complaints from
the public. However, complaint
investigation is geared toward identifying
and mitigating sewer-related odors. Non-
sewer issues are referred to other city
departments or outside agencies for follow-
up investigation and mitigation efforts.
The public can file an odor complaint
through a 24-hour, operator-assisted odor
complaint hotline (1-866-44SEWER) or use the City’s website at www.lasewers.org.
The City is trying to emphasize the 3-1-1 phone number for government services and
information as the best way to file an odor complaint. Additional complaints are received
through direct contact from the public and referrals from council offices other city
departments.
The odor complaint response and investigation involves the following process:
1. The complaint is directed to the appropriate maintenance yard
2. A field crew investigates the complaint, identifies the source and
determines/implements necessary actions to mitigate the odor such as cleaning the
sewer, sealing maintenance holes, inspecting trap maintenance holes for structural
integrity and function, or referring the matter to other city departments or outside
agencies if it is not related to sewers.
3. The crew documents its findings and actions on an Odor Complaint Response Form
and submits document for review and data entry.
37 August 2011
4. For hotline complaints, WCSD informs the complainant within 7 days of the
complaint about the findings, actions, and/or status of investigation and also gathers
feedback. A 30-day callback is conducted if the complainant so requests.
5. Follow-up inspections are conducted if necessary
6. Problems not correctable by maintenance staff are referred to WCSD’s Engineering
Section for further investigation and possible solution. Typical engineering activities
include:
• reviewing sewer plans
• conducting on-site field visits
• reviewing odor complaints in the surrounding area
• reviewing available flow monitoring data
• monitoring pressure and H2S levels and evaluating the data
• requesting repair of trap maintenance holes or other sewer structures by an on-call
contractor
• proposing a capital improvement project (CIP) such as hydraulic relief pipes, air
treatment facilities, chemical addition systems, etc.
Sewer related complaints are caused by sewer ventilation in which foul air is forced out
and released from maintenance holes and trap maintenance holes or other sewer
structures or facilities such as pump plant and treatment plants; by sewers that have
become septic due to debris build-up causing a surcharged or hydraulically loaded
system; or by properties with house connection laterals directly connected to large
diameter sewers. Sewer related odors account for 22% of the complaints received or
106 complaints. Compared to last fiscal year 2009/10, sewer related complaints were
reduced by 21%. Projects performed over the past year have significantly contributed to
the lower number of complaints in comparison to last year. The reduction is due to the
completion of the rehabilitation and commissioning of the lower portion of the North
Outfall Sewer, the completion of the Phase 1 and 2 Trap Maintenance Hole Upgrade and
Rehabilitation Project, the La Cienega/Rodeo Maintenance hole upgrade and air curtain
installation on the NOS/LCSFVRS diversion structure, the installation of air curtains on
the three main NORS diversion structures, and the commissioning and full activation of
new Air Treatment Facilities on ECIS/LCSFVRS and NCOS. The combination of all
these projects have allowed a greater zone of negative pressure to be achieved from the
ATFs and the existing carbon scrubbers. Overall, the completion of the projects
mentioned above and continued maintenance has made a marked improvement to the
reduction of the sewer related odor complaints. This year’s total number of sewer related
complaints is the lowest since we have been collecting information for the CSSA. The
City continues to pursue odor remediation measures to reduce complaints when possible.
The remaining 78% of odor complaints investigated were non-sewer related. They
include odors from standing water, dirty alley, stormwater catch basin sources, owner
plumbing trouble, etc. All sewer related odor complaints were properly investigated and
addressed, while non-sewer related odors were referred to the appropriate City
department or other government agencies. For the break down of odor complaints please
see table 6.1.1, and figure 6.1.2.
38 August 2011
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total
Trap MH 1 2 0 1 4
Sewer Ventilation 32 4 5 13 54
HC to Lines >18" 4 4 0 1 9
Septic Condition 11 8 4 2 25
Construction Related 3 1 4 2 10
Pump Plant Odor 1 1 0 0 2
Treatment Plant Odor 0 2 0 0 2
106
TABLE 6.1.1
FY 10/11 Sewer Related Odor Complaints

35
30
No. of Complaints
25 Qtr 1
20 Qtr 2
15 Qtr 3
10 Qtr 4
5
0
r
r
ed
n
8"
do
H
do
n
ti o
M
io
>1
at
tO
O
at
di
ap
el
s
on
nt
til
an
R
ne
Tr
en
la
C
Pl
n
Li
tP
io
V
ic
p
to
ct
er
pt
en
m
ru
Se
C
w
Pu
tm
st
H
Se
ea
on
Tr
C
Sewer Source
FIG. 6.1.2
39 August 2011
WCSD - Sewer Odor Related Complaints

300
Number of Complaints
250
200
150
100
50
0
04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11
0 3/ 0 4/ 0 5/ 0 6/ 0 7/ 0 8/ 0 9/ 1 0/
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Fiscal Year
FIG. 6.1.3
6.2 Routine Sewer Maintenance

Routine sewer maintenance is necessary to
allow the wastewater to flow freely and
unimpeded in the sewer pipe. Obstructions in
the sewer slow the sewage and cause debris to
settle. As discussed earlier, this promotes the
generation of hydrogen sulfide. Preventive
maintenance includes sewer cleaning, root
control, and trap inspection and/or
maintenance. Other maintenance includes
sealing sewer maintenance holes or other
access points, where needed, to prevent the
release of foul odors.
• Sewer Cleaning and Root Control
Sewer pipes are inspected and cleaned periodically to prevent conditions that
exacerbate hydrogen sulfide generation. There are several traditional cleaning
techniques used to clear blockages. They include hydroflushing, rodding, and
bucketing.
Hydroflushing – Directs a high-velocity stream of water against the pipe wall.
This process removes debris and grease build-up and clears blockages within
small-diameter pipes.
Rodding – A continuous or sectional rod with a blade at the end is inserted into
the pipe and rotated. This action breaks-up grease deposits, cuts roots, and
loosens debris.
Bucketing – A cylindrical “bucket” with one closed end is pulled through the line,
removing sediment and other material. This process partially removes large
deposits of silt, sand, gravel, and some types of solid waste.
40 August 2011
All sewers are cleaned at least once every five years and more frequently in known
“hot spots”. Approximately 65,000 pipe segments (2800 miles) are cleaned annually.
In addition to hydraulic and mechanical cleaning, chemicals are applied into root
infested sewers to clear the roots from the pipe. Approximately 400 miles of sewers
are treated annually.
• Trap Maintenance Hole Inspection and Cleaning
Trap maintenance holes are inspected and
cleaned on a quarterly basis. These
structures are used to prevent the migration
of sewer gases throughout the collection
system. They are typically located where
small sewers, 6-inches to 15-inches, connect
to large interceptor and outfall sewers since
high gas pressures are more prevalent in
large sewers. Trap maintenance holes act
similarly to p-traps used in residential
plumbing by creating a water seal that
blocks the sewer gases.
• Siphon Inspection and Cleaning
Sewer siphons descend to carry sewage under obstructions such as rivers, storm
drains, or other utilities, and then regain elevation after passing the obstruction. The
siphon always remains full of water, causing the sewage to move very slowly through
a siphon during periods of low flow. For this reason, siphons and other submerged
lines are prone to debris deposition and are likely sources of high H2S generation. To
prevent this, siphons are cleaned quarterly.
Siphons are also noted for releasing venting odors at the inlet structure because the
Air Flow
Wastewater Flow
full pipe blocks the air flowing downstream with the sewage. High turbulence at the
siphon inlet aggravates this problem by stripping H2S out of solution and sending it
airborne, adding to the odor. An air duct called an “air jumper” conveys the airflow
past the siphon from the inlet to the outlet structure. Air jumpers often follow the
sunken (inverted) path of the siphon line, allowing condensate to collect and impede
the air movement unless it is drained. To prevent this, inverted airlines either drain
automatically with pump systems or are dewatered manually using a vacuum truck.
The pump systems are inspected periodically and manual vacuuming is performed on
an as-needed basis.
41 August 2011
• Sealing Maintenance Holes

Sewer maintenance holes provide access for maintenance crews. However, they also
provide a route for sewer gases to escape when pressures build up. Sewer gasses can
become pressurized for multiple reasons. At times of high sewage flow, the sewage
occupies a greater proportion of sewer
volume than at times of low flow. As a
consequence, some air in the sewer is
displaced and finds its way out through
maintenance holes or other access
structures. Conversely, as flows
decrease, fresh air is drawn into the
sewers. This is a natural ventilation
process that occurs in the collection
system. As sewage flows, air in the
pipe’s headspace is dragged with it.
Higher velocity flows will tend to pull in
and drag more air down the pipes. When this air is blocked by an obstruction, it will vent
through any relief available such as nearby maintenance holes. In areas where odors
continuously vent, maintenance holes are sealed. Typically, this is done as part of regular
maintenance activities or in response to odor complaints.
6.3 Chemical Control Technologies
Chemical or “liquid phase” control technologies limit the production of hydrogen sulfide
by preventing sulfides from forming in sewage. There are numerous chemicals and
methods employed for controlling sulfides, depending on the conditions under which they
are being employed. For example, chemicals can halt new sulfide production or
neutralize existing sulfides. The Bureau of Sanitation has researched and tested many
types of liquid phase treatment since the early 1990s. Pilot studies were conducted to
measure the performance of various chemical applications such as sodium hydroxide
(caustic soda), ferric chloride addition, ferrous chloride, hydrogen peroxide, calcium
nitrate (Bioxide), and magnesium hydroxide (Thioguard). The City began routine
application of odor control chemicals in 1997.
Developing a chemical control program requires an extensive survey of the collection

system in order to accurately choose a chemical and locate an injection point that will be
effective. This process is described below.
1. Review odor complaint history – Look for repeat odor complaints in a community.
2. Review collection system maps - Check size and type of nearby sewers (local sewer,
interceptor sewer, or outfall sewer), pipe slope, flow rates and levels, locations of
maintenance holes, junctions or tributary structures, and any pump plants or siphons.
3. Preliminary sampling – Sample the wastewater for total and dissolved sulfides, pH,
and temperature. Hydrogen sulfide is measured using hand held meters and/or
continuous data logging monitors. Sample all major tributary points to the problem
42 August 2011
area and proceed toward the upstream reaches. This is a quick and effective method
to isolate problem areas requiring further investigation.
4. Determine baseline H2S profile and sulfide mass loading – Once a problem area is
isolated, additional samples are taken to develop the baseline data profile which
includes maximum, minimum, and average H2S levels over a period of 24-hours or
more. This will be compared with data taken during the trial-and-error applications to
measure effectiveness. Analysis of dissolved sulfide concentrations in samples along
with known flow information helps determine the amount of sulfide present and
where it is coming from.
5. Determine location for chemical injection – The monitoring data will identify the area
generating sulfide. The injection point will be located at the most upstream reach of
the generation zone to ensure adequate treatment.
Although there are theoretical formulas and rules regarding the dosing requirements for
each liquid phase treatment process, it is not an exact science. Field analysis of the
results and subsequent adjustments are required. Therefore, trial and error applications
are common until an adequate dose level is achieved. Continuous monitoring is
necessary to determine a cause-and-effect relationship of each treatment. Monitoring for
H2S is typically performed inside the maintenance holes because hydrogen sulfide dilutes
immediately after exhausting into ambient air making concentrations much lower in the
air outside the maintenance hole. Along with monitoring, each application should be
correlated with the corresponding number of odor complaints in the affected area. A
reduction in the number of odor complaints is an indication that the dosing levels are
working.
Currently the Bureau of Sanitation is using a 50% sodium hydroxide solution called
caustic soda and continuous Thioguard (magnesium hydroxide) addition to chemically
control odors in the collection system.
• Caustic Shock Dosing Application
The Bureau of Sanitation has been

using caustic soda in a process called
“caustic shock dosing” routinely since
1997 to control sulfide generation.
The selection of this treatment was
based on positive past experiences and
its success in neighboring
municipalities such as Los Angeles
County and Orange County.
Additionally, this treatment is ideal for
the sewers targeted due to their long
detention times which allow adequate contact time for treatment. Furthermore,
caustic shock dosing is a very flexible process and can be mobilized quickly to treat
any area of the collection system.
43 August 2011
Periodic caustic shock dosing can effectively remove all sulfide forms. It inactivates,
or kills, the biological slime layer where sulfates are transformed to sulfides.
Monitoring has shown that the slime layer requires 3 to 5 days to re-form and reach
full sulfide production again, depending upon pH, temperature, and contact time of
the caustic soda. It rebounds more quickly in warmer weather. Therefore, the
frequency of the shock dosing schedule varies with the seasons so as to prevent a
complete rebound of hydrogen sulfide production.
FIG. 6.3.1
Caustic soda is added directly to the wastewater stream through a maintenance hole
upstream of the area to be treated and at the sulfide-producing zone. It is added at a
volume and rate sufficient to elevate the pH above 12.5 for at least 30 minutes to
inactivate or kill the sulfate-reducing bacteria. Continuous pH monitors are placed
downstream of the application point to confirm that adequate treatment levels are
attained. Caustic soda is applied upstream of the sulfide-generating area 1 to 3 times
per week, depending on the generation rate and time of year. It is currently being
applied to sewer reaches upstream of the Maze area which accounts for
approximately 46% of the sulfide loading to the Maze Area Sewer System. The
caustic injection in the South Los Angeles area is conducted on the Florence Ave
Sewer and 74th Street Sewer. Both sewers are tributary to the South Branch of the
44 August 2011
Maze. Caustic shock dose application continues in the WLAIS due to higher H2S
concentrations as a result of high dissolved sulfide generation caused by solids
deposition in the large diameter sewer. See figure 6.3.1 for the chemical flow path.
As a safety precaution, all chemical applications are scheduled in advance and

announced to all collection system personnel to avoid accidental contact with the
chemical as it passes down the sewer system. Additionally, the treatment plant is
notified prior to application. A shock dose schedule bulletin is distributed to
wastewater collection system personnel, including those at treatment plants and the
Bureaus of Engineering and Contract Administration. The bulletin includes location,
date, time and volume of caustic soda to be added to the collection system.
• Magnesium Hydroxide Continuous Addition
As the pH of wastewater rises, the

natural state of sulfides in the
wastewater shifts away from
offensive H2S gas and towards
dissolved sulfides in solution.
Magnesium hydroxide raises the pH
of wastewater and has a residual
buffering capacity that maintains an
elevated pH for a significant distance
downstream of the application point.
For this reason, magnesium
hydroxide is continuously added to
wastewater to raise and buffer its pH
to within a range of 7.5 and 8.6. As the graph shows, at a pH of 7, approximately
50% of all sulfides exist as H2S gas. At pH 8, that number falls to 10% and at pH 8.6,
only 3% of sulfides exist as H2S gas while the vast majority of sulfides are held in
solution in the form of disulfide and dissolved sulfide. A slight drop in pH results in
a significant increase in H2S produced and thus emitted into the atmosphere.
Consequently, maintaining a high pH provides effective odor control.
The City has been using a 65% magnesium hydroxide slurry as a non-hazardous
means to regulate the pH of its wastewater since September 2003 as the result of a
successful pilot testing. This application requires 20 to 25 gallons of magnesium
hydroxide per million gallons of wastewater to control odors. Currently, magnesium
hydroxide is injected from the Tillman Water Reclamation Plant and is introduced to
AVORS to raise the pH of the downstream sewers in the NOS, EVRS, and the
LCSFVRS. See figure 6.3.2 for the chemical flow path. This benefits both the
Studio City area, Hollywood and Mid-City areas. The magnesium hydroxide addition
in the Boyle Heights area was replaced by caustic shock dose treatment as described
earlier.
45 August 2011
FIG. 6.3.2
6.4 Air Treatment
The City has conducted multiple studies of sewer gas pressure and odors. The studies
have identified distinct high pressure zones in sewers around the South LA area
including:
• North Outfall Sewer (NOS)

• Maze Area Sewer System (Maze)
• La Cienega San Fernando Valley Relief Sewer (LCSFVRS)
• North Outfall Replacement Sewer (NORS)
• West Los Angeles Interceptor Sewer (WLAIS)
• Westwood Relief Sewer (WRS)
To address the high pressure zones and localize odor hot spots in the collection system,
carbon scrubbers were constructed and permanent air treatment facilities were
constructed to alleviate and mitigate the odor emissions from the collection system (see
figure 6.1)
46 August 2011
Figure 6.4
Figure 6.4 shows locations and information on the existing Odor Control units and the
planned ATF.
47 August 2011
6.4.1 Carbon Adsorption
Conventional carbon adsorption systems offer an effective approach to controlling odors

in many situations. In municipal installations, odorous air is typically directed through a
vessel containing adsorption media such as activated carbon. Odorous compounds in
sewer gases are adsorbed onto the media. Adsorption systems in the City’s wastewater
collection system are generally configured as single media bed system. Activated carbons
are highly porous materials. Due to large surface areas, activated carbon is able to adsorb
hydrogen sulfide, other reduced sulfur compounds and volatile organic compounds
(VOC). These odor-causing compounds are
attracted to and adhere to the carbon’s pore
structure. This process relieves the air pressure in
the system while preventing the release of odors.
There are currently thirteen carbon scrubbers
operating in the wastewater collection system.
Scrubbers are operated under a permit issued by

the South Coast Air Quality Management District
(SCAQMD). As required by the permit, an
operations staff monitors the hydrogen sulfide
concentration of the influent air and the treated emissions in order to gage the
performance of the scrubber. The typical hydrogen sulfide removal rate is 99%. These
readings are posted on a quarterly basis on the City’s odor website at www.lasewers.org.
Carbon media in each unit is replaced periodically before expected odor contaminant
breakthrough. The frequency of change-out, range from monthly to quarterly to bi-
annually depending on the contaminant loadings to the carbon scrubber. Interim carbon
scrubbers have been installed with plans to replace these units, if necessary, with
permanent air treatment facilities (ATFs). They include:
1. ECIS Drop Structure - Mission and Jesse

2. NORS/ECIS Junction
48 August 2011
3. NEIS Drop Structure - Humboldt and San Fernando Rd

4. NEIS - Richmond
Seven additional carbon scrubbers are installed at other sites to address localized odor
hotspots within the collection system. They include:
1. LCSFVRS – Sierra Bonita

2. LCSFVRS Siphon – Genesee
3. NOS Siphon – Radford
4. Maze/NOS Junction – Rodeo and Martin Luther King
5. WLAIS/NOS Junction – North Outfall Treatment Facility (NOTF)
6. Ballona Pump Plant
7. Dakotah Pump Plant
6.4.2 Air Treatment Facilities (ATF)
Since the study in 2001 has been completed, additional sewers have been constructed,
and other sewer repair and replacement projects have been completed. Due to these
changes in the collection system, the City has come to question some of the assumptions
that led to the recommendation for scrubbers and ultimately the ATFs at several of the
proposed locations. The City conducted the ATF Review Study. As part of the
Modification to the Collection System Settlement Agreement which was entered by the
Court in November 2009, the City was required to hire an Independent Odor Expert to
review the City’s interim and final findings from the ATF Review Study (Study).
Consequently construction of 5 ATFs was placed on hold. The Study was completed in
November of 2010.
The City has elected to use Air Treatment Facilities (ATF) using a 2-stage odor control
system employing biotrickling filtration technology followed by a carbon adsorption
polishing step.
49 August 2011
Biotrickling filter technology utilizes microbial cells that are attached to a medium inside
the reactor, which then oxidize the odorous constituents to odorless compounds. The
odor contaminants transfer from the gas to the liquid phase and subsequently to the
microbial biofilm, or it is transferred directly from the gas to the biofilm, where it is
oxidized biologically to odorless compounds. The oxidative by-products, namely sulfuric
acid, are the removed through the trickling effluent. The treated effluent is then polished
by carbon adsorption.
Two ATFs have been constructed and are in operation. One is the ATF at East Central
Interceptor Sewer Siphon and LCSFVRS (Jefferson & La Cienega) and the other is the
ATF at North Central Outfall Sewer Siphon (NCOS). The ATFs were strategically placed
to reduce the long standing odor issues in the South Los Angeles/Baldwin Hills area. The
ATF at ECIS is designed to ventilate and treat the ECIS at the siphon and the LCSFVRS
to mitigate sewer gas emissions. The facility will be treating 20,000 cfm of foul air. The
ATF located at 6000 Jefferson Blvd is designed to ventilate the pressurized North Central
Outfall Sewer (NCOS) in order to mitigate emission of sewer gas. The facility will treat
12,000 cfm of foul air.
6.5 Flow Management
Flow management plays a major role in odor control, especially in the area of air
dynamics and ventilation. Hydraulic flow has an influence on air movement. It is well
documented that on major interceptor and outfall sewers, hydraulic flow will drag the air
above it. As a result, air moves within the pipe. Throughout the day, as part of the
diurnal pattern of flow, the wastewater flow will rise and fall. When flows rise, air is
pushed out the system. Conversely, when flows fall, air is pulled into the system. The
air pressure is significant especially in sewers that are at or reaching capacity, meaning
50 August 2011
the hydraulic flow levels are high. Balancing flows in the system will relieve air pressure
in the system.
6.6 Air Curtains
Air curtains play a vital role in controlling the air movement in the sewers. The purpose
of the air curtain is to isolate the air movement in the interceptor sewer and control
movement of sewer air from entering other portions of the collections system.
6.7 Sewer Construction and Repair
Sewer construction and repair play an important role in the City’s odor control effort.
Some odor problems are inherent in a given sewer’s design and require auxiliary sewers
to be built. Some problems are the result of failing components which need repair or
replacement. Additionally, the City has been engaged in a large capital improvement
program constructing new, major sewers which have multiple benefits for the collection
system as a whole, one of which is odor control.
The City is continuously identifying locations where house connection laterals from
private properties tie directly into a large outfall sewer instead of a small, local sewer.
This is a direct source of odors since large sewers are much more likely to have high odor
levels and high gas pressures. A direct connection allows odors from the large line to
escape up the house connection and into the house or property. To address this issue, the
City constructs local sewers adjacent to the large sewer to which the house connections
will be reconnected in order to isolate the properties from the odor source. A trap
maintenance hole is constructed at the end of the local line before connecting back to the
large diameter sewer.
Trap maintenance holes are inspected quarterly and as part of an odor complaint
investigation. As previously stated, there are instances when the integrity of these
structures is compromised, in which case, the defective trap is repaired. The Bureau has
identified all known problematic trap maintenance holes and has begun a program of
repairing them on a systematic basis. This fiscal year, the City approved a new standard
design of a trap maintenance hole. The new design will ensure a continuous seal and
allow crews better accessibility to maintain the trap maintenance hole without
compromising the seal. As a result of the modified Collection System Settlement
Agreement, a project to upgrade 300 trap maintenance holes using the new trap design
standard will be implemented in the upcoming fiscal years (see FIG. 6.5). Phase 1 and 2
of the trap maintenance hole upgrade have been completed. 73 priority 1 trap
maintenance holes were constructed. This construction met the June 30, 2011 CSSA
deadline for replacement of all high priority traps in South Los Angeles. The major focus
of trap repairs will be performed in the South Los Angeles area. It is expected that these
upgrades will significantly improve sewer odor releases where trap maintenance holes are
located.
51 August 2011
FIG. 6.5
52 August 2011
The City’s program of constructing new, major sewers has many benefits, including odor
control. The new sewers provide much-needed additional capacity to the collection
system and relieve the existing sewers, which are carrying flows over their intended
capacity. This not only improves the hydraulic capacity of the system, but also decreases
the air pressures in the pipe’s headspace above the flow. As flow is diverted from the
existing sewers, the air space in these pipes increases and the air pressure therefore
decreases. This reduces the likelihood of sewer gases venting out of the sewer system.
The City continues to assess the hydraulic needs of the wastewater collection system and
provide hydraulic relief where needed, reducing air pressure in the system. Flow
diversion from NORS to Lower NOS in March 2010 has caused pressure reduction in the
NORS siphon at the 405 Freeway. See Table 9.3 for more information.
6.8 Monitoring
The collection system is regularly monitored in order to identify the source and cause of
sewer related odors. A number of monitoring stations have been established at strategic
locations in order to measure the parameter associated with odors (See Fig 6.6).
These locations include known odor hot spots, outfall and interceptor sewers, pressure
zones, areas of turbulence, sharp slope change in sewer pipes (grade breaks), and sewer
pipes with long detention times such as flat, low-velocity sewers. Parameters evaluated
are:
a. Wastewater Characteristics – includes total and dissolved sulfides, pH, and

temperature. These characteristics determine the potential for H2S formation.
b. H2S Gas Concentration – determines potential for odor complaints if released.
c. Air Pressure – determines potential sites of odor release
d. Sewer Odor Complaints – helps evaluate effectiveness of odor control measures
and helps identify potential hot spots in the collection system
Monitoring is conducted at least semi-annually at designated points to gage the seasonal

variation in odor generation and to monitor the adequacy and effectiveness of any
chemical treatment. It is also used to confirm the location and potential of odor hotspots
locations. This information is used as part of the odor master planning efforts.
53 August 2011
FIG. 6.6
54 August 2011
FIG. 6.7
55 August 2011
56 August 2011
7.0 STUDIED AREAS
This section will provide a technical document for each of the four locations identified as
Areas of Concern (AOC) and four locations identified as Areas of Study (AOS) (see Fig.
7.2). Testing locations within these areas were selected based on a detailed study of the
physical characteristics of the collection system in the area as well as history of odor
complaints (see Fig. 7.1). Each document contains an introduction, test results, data
analysis, conclusion and recommendation.
7.1 AOC - Areas of Concern
• East NOS Corridor

• La Cienega/San Fernando Corridor
• Baldwin Hills/Culver City Area
• East Valley Area
7.2 AOS - Areas of Study
• South Los Angeles Area

• Coastal Interceptor Sewer
• Harbor
• West Valley Area
57 August 2011
FIG. 7.1
58 August 2011
FIG. 7.2
59 August 2011
60 August 2011
8.0 AREAS OF CONCERN
8.1 AOC1 - East NOS Corridor
INTRODUCTION
This report provides a discussion and analysis of the sewer air pressure test conducted for
the East North Outfall Sewer Corridor Sewer System on April 2011. This area of
concern covers the NOS, starting upstream at the Los Angeles Glendale Water
Reclamation Plant (LAGWRP) and moving southerly to the Enterprise Siphon located at
Mission and Enterprise in the Boyle Heights area. The NOS receives returned biosolids
from LAG which makes it more susceptible to venting odorous gas, which could lead to
odor complaints. The entire area was first monitored by instantaneous air pressure
readings with a handheld digital manometer. Then more focused testing took place with
continuous pressure monitors installed at those locations showing high pressures.
MONITORING LOCATIONS
Table 8.1 is a list of the monitoring locations in the East NOS Corridor between the LAG
Treatment Plant and the Enterprise Siphon at the Los Angeles River. Figure 8.1 displays
a map of these locations. There are several sewer structures and pipeline conditions
along this segment that may increase sewer gas pressure and cause odor complaints.
These include the Gilroy Siphon and the Enterprise Siphon. Also included are junction
structures, diversion structures, and drop structures. The reason each monitoring location
was chosen is stated in Table 8.1.
61 August 2011
TEST RESULTS
Table 8.1
2011 2010 2006 H2S

PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE AVG/MAX FLOW
ID LOCATION MH NO. SEWER JUSTIFICATION (in/w.c.) (in/w.c.) (in/w.c.) (ppm) (CFS)
1 GLENFELIZ & 46802060 NOS Siphon Pressure -0.08 - - 6.8/88 57
HOLLYPARK Effect
2 HOLLYDALE & 46811026 NOS Siphon Pressure 0.19 0.19 0.01 9/60 62
PETITE CT Effect
3 FLETCHER/2 46811045 NOS Siphon Pressure 0.17 - - 8.5/40 62
FRWY Effect
4 BLAKE & OROS 49505024 NOS Slope Reduction 0.05 0 0.04 - 67
(Alternate for Blake &
Barclay)
5 HUMBOLDT 49509121 NOS NOS to NEIS -0.03 - - - 74
DIVERSION Diversion
6 BARRANCA & 49509097 NOS D/S of Humboldt -0.21 - - - 17
18TH Diversion
7 MISSION RD 51509154 NOS Drop Structure Effect 0.31 0.24 0.02 10/111 36
N/O 6TH ST
8 MISSION & 7TH 51513001 NOS D/S of Mission & 0.28 - - - 43
(Meyer’s Building) Jesse Drop Structure
1
9 MISSION RD U/S 51513003 NOS Siphon Pressure 0.37 0.05 0.12 - 48
2
SIPHON Effect 0.35
1
Instantaneous pressure taken April 21st, 2011
2
Instantaneous pressure taken May 2nd, 2011
62 August 2011
TESTING LOCATIONS
FIG. 8.1
63 August 2011
DATA ANALYSIS
The pressure in the NOS along the eastern corridor ranges between pockets of very
negative pressure to pockets of high pressure at various locations. Similar to last year,
the average pressures upstream of the Gilroy Street Siphon is 0.19 in.-wc. The average
pressures around the Humboldt drop structure is 0.05 in.-wc upstream of the drop
structure to -0.21in.-wc downstream of the drop structure. Moving southerly on the
NOS, the pressures increase. The average pressure upstream of the Mission and Jesse
Drop Structure is 0.31inches, increasing from 0.24 recorded in 2010. The average
pressure downstream of the Mission and Jesse drop was 0.28 in.-wc. The instantaneous
pressure upstream of the Enterprise Siphon was recorded at 0.35 in.-wc. In 2007, flow
entering the Mission & Jesse drop structure was significantly reduced by diverting more
flow from the NOS to the NEIS at the upstream Humboldt drop structure. The reduced
flow at the Mission and Jesse drop allowed more air to escape up the drop structure and
hence, into the NOS. In 2010, following the ATF Review Study, wastewater flow in the
NOS was altered to achieve a more balanced airflow downstream of the Humboldt drop
structure. As a result, more flow remained in the NOS, sending more wastewater to the
Mission & Jesse and 23rd & San Pedro drops.
CONCLUSIONS
The positive pressure at Hollydale and Petite is a result of the Gilroy Siphon’s back
pressure. In addition, continued discharge of biosolids from the upstream LA-Glendale
Water Reclamation Plant is contributing to the hydrogen sulfide concentration spikes
along this alignment.
The positive pressure along the NOS near Mission and Jesse may be a result of pressure
escaping from the ECIS up the Mission and Jesse (NOS-to-ECIS) drop structure. The
pressure at Mission and 7th may be due to this pressure from the Mission and Jesse Drop
Structure and/or the Enterprise Siphon’s back pressure.
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS
Placing a scrubber near the Gilroy Siphon’s inlet will relieve pressure building up behind
the siphon.
Providing local sewers for residential sewer connections rather than direct connections to
the NOS will isolate these homes from the high gas pressure in the NOS.
More studies are needed to better understand the hydrogen sulfide levels caused by the
LAGWRP discharges and any odor ventilation this may cause.
As part of the ATF Review Study (completed November of 2010), a consulting firm
hired by the City performed a more detailed study to understand gas movement around
64 August 2011
drop structures together with flow management scenarios that could potentially improve
conditions in the NOS. Their observations and recommendations are as follows:
OBSERVATIONS
• The existing air scrubbers generally reduce pressures along the NEIS and ECIS.
This appears to be especially the case with the Mission and Jesse interim
scrubber. Measurable pressure reductions occur in the NEIS and ECIS when this
scrubber is turned on.
• The Humboldt scrubber only appears to affect pressure in its immediate vicinity
• Plugging the air return lines at drop structures generally resulted in increasing
pressures within the NEIS and ECIS, but created favorable conditions within the
NOS.
• In general, decreasing the flow down the Humboldt drop and increasing it down
the Mission & Jesse drop decreased pressures in the NOS. Those locations where
the pressures didn’t decrease remained at atmospheric levels.
Fig. 8.1.1 shows the area studied by the ATF Review Study.
65 August 2011
ATF Review Study – Drop Structure Study Area
FIG. 8.1.1
RECOMMENDATIONS
ATFs
• No forced air treatment systems (ATFs) are recommended for the following
locations:
o Humboldt Drop Structure

o Richmond Drop Structure
o 23rd & San Pedro Drop Structure
66 August 2011
• An ATF is recommended at the Mission & Jesse Drop Structure. (Currently in

design)
ATF-Related Work
• To pinpoint the air removal rates necessary to achieve the desired impact at
Mission & Jesse, a fan test is warranted.
Other Construction Projects
• There is evidence that the installation of a flow regulation device, such as an

adjustable damper, in the air return line of the following drop structures may be
beneficial:
o Division Drop Structure

o Humboldt Drop Structure
o Mission & Jesse Drop Structure
o 23rd & San Pedro Drop Structure
However, it is recommended that the drop structure model (hydrolab) testing be

completed before finalizing the damper concept.
Flow Diversions
• It is recommended that the stop logs at Humboldt be configured in such a manner

that a minimum amount of flow is directed into the NEIS. (Completed following
the Flow Management Study of the drop structures as part of the ATF Review
Study)
• The flow diversion recommendations must be revisited following the completion

of the physical model (hydrolab) testing.
Follow-up Testing
• The effects of the recommendations for the Mission & Jesse drop structure should
be verified with a full-scale fan test field study aimed at verifying the combined
effect of the air plugging devices (damper and curtains) and the ATF.
• The system is dynamic therefore the City needs to be flexible to optimize the
system.
67 August 2011
EXISTING/PLANNED PROJECTS
• Plan to direct more flow towards the Enterprise Siphon to achieve scouring
velocity and minimize debris build up in the siphon
• Install an air curtain at the Mission and Jesse diversion structure to control back
flow from the drop structure into the NOS
• Continue to monitor this area for pressure and hydrogen sulfide levels
• Control air flow dynamics through sewer flow management by manipulating
sewage flow through various sewers
• Place scrubber upstream of the Gilroy Street Siphon
68 August 2011
8.2 AOC2 - La Cienega/San Fernando Corridor

LCSFVRS-WHIS-LCIS
INTRODUCTION
The 11-mile La Cienega San Fernando Valley Relief Sewer (LCSFVRS) was constructed
in the mid 1950s to relieve the NOS in the Toluca Lake area in the southeast San
Fernando Valley. The upper reach of the LCSFVRS starts at the intersection of Valley
Spring Lane and Forman Avenue and travels south through the Santa Monica Mountains
to Sierra Bonita Avenue where it splits into twin 42-inch diameter pipes at Sierra Bonita
Avenue and Hollywood Boulevard. It becomes a single 60-inch diameter pipe at the
intersection of Martel Avenue and Clinton Street. The sewer continues south and travels
through the Genesee Siphon situated just south of Venice Boulevard and Genesee
Avenue and eventually reconnects with the NOS near the intersection of Rodeo Road and
Jefferson Boulevard in Baldwin Park.
The upper reach of the LCSFVRS, which travels between the Hollywood Hills and the
Fairfax District, has a history of high gas pressure due to the combined effect of a high
approach velocity and geometric slope reduction downstream of Sierra Bonita and
Hollywood Boulevard. Odor complaints along the LCSFVRS prompted the City to
investigate the causes and determine appropriate measures to alleviate the odor
emissions. Two carbon scrubbers were constructed along the LCSFVRS. The 5,000 cfm
Genesee Scrubber was constructed at the lower reach of the LCSFVRS at the Genesee
Siphon and the 10,000 cfm Sierra Bonita Scrubber was constructed at the upper reach of
the LCSFVRS at De Longpre Street and Gardner Avenue. Furthermore, a chemical
addition program, utilizing a continuous addition of magnesium hydroxide, was
implemented for this area in September 2005. Since the completion of the Sierra Bonita
Scrubber, the sewer gas pressure has decreased to below atmospheric levels, in most
cases.
For this year’s test, the area of concern along the LCSFVRS corridor was expanded to
incorporate tributary sewers including the West Hollywood Interceptor Sewer (WHIS),
and the La Cienega Interceptor Sewer (LCIS). This test primarily utilized instantaneous
pressure samples taken between 11:00 am and noon. The diurnal pressure patterns
showed that this time period best represented the sewer’s average pressure.
Due to a recent increase in odor complaints in the vicinity of Genesee siphon along the
LCSFVRS, a sub-study was conducted earlier in the year focusing only on this siphon, its
airline, the active scrubber and their combined effects. This report is attached at the end
of this section for a more in-depth look. See sub-section 8.2.1.
69 August 2011
70 August 2011
TEST RESULTS
Table 8.2
Monitoring Locations and Results
2011 H2S
STRUCT. 2010 2006 FLOW
ID LOCATION SEWER PRESSURE AVG/MAX
NO. PRESSURE PRESSURE (CFS)
(ppm)
1 SIERRA BONITA 47015212 LCSFVRS Not -0.38 0.45 4/29 56
S/O accessible
HOLLYWOOD
2 SIERRA BONITA 47015001 LCSFVRS -0.01 - - 19/63 56
N/O DE
LONGPRE
3 GARDNER AT DE 47016185 LCSFVRS -0.03 - - 1/10 56
LONGPRE
4 GARDNER & 49204108 LCSFVRS 0.05 -0.72 0.46 - 56
HAMPTON
5 GARDNER N/O 49204109 LCSFVRS 0.15 -0.12 -0.24 - 56
SANTA MONICA
BL
6 ROSEWOOD E/O 49208189 Primary 0.01 0.01 0.12 - 13
POINSETTIA PL Sewer
Confluence
to the
LCSFVRS
7 300 HAUSER ST 49216010 LCSFVRS 0.19 0.05 0.13 - 132
8 700 8TH ST 51803209 LCSFVRS 0.30 0.1 0.08 - 148
9 1500 GENESEE 51807165 LCSFVRS 0.47 0.18 0.18 - 148
10 5900 GENESEE 51810137 LCSFVRS 0.75 0.32 0.3 - 164
N/O SIPHON
11 LA CIENEGA @ 53502024 LCSFVRS -0.03 - - - 192
KLOS
71 August 2011
2011 H2S
STRUCT. 2010 2006 FLOW
ID LOCATION SEWER PRESSURE AVG/MAX
NO. PRESSURE PRESSURE (CFS)
(ppm)
12 LA CIENEGA @ 53502052 LCSFVRS -0.1 - - - 192
SEE’S CANDY
13 RODEO RD & 53502089 LCSFVRS 0.04 -0.01 0 - 192
KALSMAN & NOS
WHIS
14 840 NORTON 51702134 WHIS 0.00 0.04 - - 4
AVE
15 VENICE & SAN 51705210 WHIS 0.05 0.1 0.01 - 25
VICENTE
LCIS
16 MELROSE & 49208066 LCIS 0.01 -0.02 0.07 - 5
DETROIT
17 BURCHARD & 51810199 LCIS 0.01 0.07 0.01 - 21
VENICE
18 FAIRFAX & LA 51814122 LCIS -0.05 - - - 24
CIENEGA
19 BY SEE'S CANDY 53502116 LCIS -0.03 0.04 - - 24
20 RODEO & 53502081 LCIS TO -0.05 -0.14 0.01 - 24
JEFFERSON BL NOS
72 August 2011
TESTING LOCATIONS
FIG. 8.2
73 August 2011
DATA ANALYSIS
The recorded air pressure at Sierra Bonita north of De Longpre was -0.01 inches of water
column (in.-wc). Further downstream, directly south of the Sierra Bonita scrubber, the
pressure was -0.03. Even further downstream, the pressure increases to 0.05. Although
most pressure readings were low or even negative, they have increased since last year.
For instance, the pressure at Gardner north of Santa Monica was 0.15, compared to -0.12
last year.
The lower reach of the corridor, which extends from Martel Avenue to Genesee Street, is
still pressurized due to the Genesee siphon that is located at Genesee Street and Cologne
south east of Venice Boulevard. This siphon has a 36” above-ground airline that has
been blocked (possibly to allow all sewer gas to be extraced by the scrubber upstream of
the siphon. The pressures recorded during the latest round of testing were 0.75 in.-wc at
the siphon. The three succesive pressure readings moving upstream away from the
siphon were 0.47, 0.30, and 0.19. This shows that back pressure from the Genesee
siphon may be affecting the pressure as far upstream as the Sierra Bonita scrubber. The
data from the 2010 testing followed the same pattern but the pressures were significantly
less. The Genesee Siphon Scrubber is relatively old and probably in need of an upgrade
to a higher rate of air withdrawal such as 7,500 CFM.
Downstream of the Genesee Siphon, the pressure in the LCSFVRS is negative or zero
which may be due to the benefits of the Jefferson/La Cienega Air Treatment Facility.
Currently this ATF is pulling 6,700 cfm from the LCSFVRS.
The other two major sewers in this study; the WHIS and the LCIS, are not problematic
and have remained relatively unchanged since 2006.
CONCLUSION
The upper section of LCSFVRS is currently depressurized but this may change if
pressure building up behind the Genesee Siphon is not relieved. The back pressure from
this siphon is the most likely cause of the positive gas pressures measured in the lower
reachs of this sewer. The 36” airline may need to be unblocked so that some gas can
travel downstream past the siphon where it can be removed by the Jefferson & La
Cienega ATF. The Genesee scrubber may also need to be upsized.
The LCIS and the WHIS showed no real pressure problems.
• Continue to monitor this area for pressure and hydrogen sulfide
74 August 2011
o Consider re-routing flow away from the LCSFVRS to the NOS to LAG
• Continue chemical injection at the Tillman Treatment Plant
• Unblock the Genesee Siphon’s airline to allow air to move across the siphon
• After the airline is unblocked, evaluate the need to increase the capacity of the
Genesee Scrubber
75 August 2011
76 August 2011
8.2.1 Genesee Scrubber Study – January 2011
BACKGROUND
The La Cienega-San Fernando Valley Relief Sewer (LCSFVRS) runs through the
Hollywood and Fairfax areas on the way down towards Baldwin Village where it
connects to the North Outfall Sewer (NOS). Shortly before it reaches the NOS, the
LCSFVRS has to pass under the Ballona Channel. To get under the channel, the sewer
forms an inverted siphon referred to as the Genesee Siphon. The lower portion of the
LCSFVRS has historically had consistently high gas pressures within the sewer. Much of
this pressure is probably due to gas getting blocked at the Genesee Siphon. High gas
pressures exist as far as five miles upstream of the siphon.
In order to relieve some of this pressure, a carbon scrubber (Genesee Scrubber) was
placed immediately upstream of the Genesee Siphon and is rated to remove air from the
sewer at the rate of 5,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm). The scrubber was commissioned
in February of 2005 and is located within the Department of Water & Power property on
the corner of Fairfax Avenue and Venice Boulevard. See Figure 8.2.1a.
74
FFAAII
1 29
VVEE
RRFF
02 0
24 1 02
/2 73
EE AA
AAXX
DD 30
LLV 02 0
26
E BB EESSEE
AAVV
02 0
30 02 0
ICC 72 21
EE
NN 31
VEE
GEEN
02 0
34
71
G
02 0
05
25
32
89
FFAAI
02 0
2
AAVVEE
02 0 7
LT 70 31
RRFF
1
AAXX
02 0
G
33
NG
02 0
69 35
DIIN
AAVV
D
EE
68
02 0
39AAULL
SPP
67 SST
FFAA
05
705
NEE
IIRFF
O
OGG
OLL
CO
AXX
AAVV
Scrubber
EE
02 1
00
TT
E SS 98
OGGNN 02 1
04
OLL
CCO 02 1
07
02 1
99
66 08
10 0
AAVVE
02 1 0
0221112
65 11 1
-4 14 1
/4 1
10 1/2
NGG
05
39 02 1
720
DIN
64
02 1 16
17
AAVVE
ULLD
02 2
00 10 2
40 02 1
U
63 02 2 22
SSPPAA
01
1
EEEE
02 2
06
10 3
NNEESS
02 2
41
02 2
62
11 02 2 00
05
02 2
10 12
10 4
GEE
42 02 2
1
02 2
U0 2 61 09 1
-4
04
21 2 12 4
10 5
43 02 2
13
02 2
10 1
4
Figure 8.2.1a
77 August 2011
OBJECTIVE
The objective of the study is to assess the current effectiveness of the scrubber and to
evaluate the possibility of rehabilitating or upsizing it in order to reduce the high gas
pressure within the LCSFVRS.
PROCEDURE
The pressure test was conducted twice. The first test was from September 30th, 2010 to
October 14th, and the second test was from October 21st to October 27th. Differential
Data Loggers were used to measure pressure. The data was downloaded from the data
loggers after each test. The scrubber was turned off for 48 hours during both tests to
measure the pressure difference with the units on and off.
TESTING LOCATIONS
Location Structure Pipe Size

No. No. Street Intersection Comments (in.)
1 49216010 3rd St. Hauser U/S of Siphon 72
2 51803209 8th St. Alandele Av. U/S of Siphon 78
3 51807165 Genesee Av. S/o Saturn U/S of Siphon 78
4 51810137 Genesee Av. At Terminus U/S of Siphon 84
5 51810200 Fairfax Av. Genesee D/S of Siphon 84
78 August 2011
FIG. 8.2.1b
79 August 2011
RESULTS
The following tables summarize the maximum, minimum, and average pressures at all
tested locations.
First Test
September 30, 2010 – October 4, 2010
Pressure (in.‐wc) with Scrubber ON
Location # Max. Pressure Min. Pressure Average
1 Equip. Failed
2 Equip. Failed
3 0.86 0.03 0.35
4 0.99 0.09 0.66
5 0.15 -0.05 0.03
Pressure (in.‐wc) with Scrubber OFF
4 1.34 0.11 0.85
Second Test
October 21, 2010 – October 27, 2010
Pressure (in.‐wc) with Scrubber ON
1 0.24 -0.09 0.08
2 0.35 -0.08 0.15
3 0.5 -0.09 0.24
4 0.51 -0.39 0.13
5 0.14 -0.06 0.04
Pressure (in.‐wc) with Scrubber OFF
1 Equip. failed
2 0.70 0.02 0.40
3 0.78 -0.12 0.32
4 1.01 -0.15 0.48
5 0.21 -0.09 0.07
80 August 2011
The following graphs show the varying pressure at each location tested during the second
test.
Location 4
Genesee @ terminus U/S of Siphon

Pressure (in-wc)
1.1
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.1
-0.1
-0.3
-0.5
10 10 10 10 10 10
Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct- Oct-
- - - - - -
22 23 24 25 26 27
Time (Days)
Location 3
81 August 2011
Location 2
Location 1
82 August 2011
Location 5
83 August 2011
84 August 2011
RESULTS
• Location 4 exhibited highest recorded pressure during the first test at 1.34 in.-
wc on October 4th while the scrubber was turned off.
• The highest recorded pressure during the second test was 0.78 in.-wc on
October 25th while the scrubber was turned off. The lower pressures during
the 2nd test may be due to the beneficial effect of the new ATF at Jefferson
and La Cienega which removes gas from the LCSFVRS. It was beginning its
start-up phase and increasing its air removal rate during this pressure test. It
reached its 100% removal rate during the second test.
• The highest recorded pressure downstream of the siphon was 0.20 in.-wc at
Location 5.
• When comparing all five test locations, the diurnal pressure patterns for all
locations during both tests were synchronized, with and without the scrubber
running.
• The zone of influence of the siphon was noticed as far back as 3rd and Hauser
(approximately 5 miles).
• The gas pressure was highest just upstream of the siphon and gradually
decreases upstream.
• The average sewage flow depth is 34 inches resulting in a d/D of 0.40 for a
pipe diameter of 84 inches.
• The calculated air flow rate within the LCSFVRS is approximately 3,500
CFM.
• A CCTV was conducted January 4th, 2011. The test showed that the air line
was blocked by a concrete bulkhead which forced the foul air back to the
scrubber.
CONCLUSION
As a result of blocked airline, the effectiveness assessment of the scrubber cannot be
accurately determined at this time. A thorough investigation is underway to
determine the circumstances of which the bulkhead was constructed under.
Once the blocked airline is reopened which allows the air to flow through, then a
follow-up pressure test will be conducted to accurately assess the scrubber’s capacity
to alleviate the air pressure.
85 August 2011
86 August 2011
8.3 AOC3 - Baldwin Hills/Culver City Area

NORS-ECIS-NOS-WLAIS-WRS-NCOS
INTRODUCTION
The Baldwin Hills/Culver City Area includes outfall and interceptor sewers servicing the
West Los Angeles/Culver City and Baldwin Hills areas bounded by Jefferson Boulevard
to the north, San Diego Freeway to the south, La Cienega Boulevard to the east, and
Palms to the west. The sewers include the North Outfall Replacement Sewer (NORS),
East Central Interceptor Sewer (ECIS), North Outfall Sewer (NOS), West Los Angeles
Interceptor Sewer (WLAIS), Westwood Relief Sewer (WRS), and North Central Outfall
Sewer (NCOS). The area covered is presented in Figure 8.3.
The West Los Angeles/Culver City/Baldwin Hills areas are currently experiencing
negative to low gas pressure partly because of the existing Air Treatment Facilities
(ATFs) and also because of flow diversions that took place in 2009 and 2010, from the
NORS to the NOS.
The NORS has been highly pressurized for many years and was the source of significant
sewer gas ventilation, due to the large volume of gas traveling into the NORS headspace
from upstream sewers, its limited headspace resulting from the excess flow being
diverted from the NOS, and the undersized air jumper at the NORS siphon. The gas that
pressurized the NORS was from the confluence of flow routed to the NORS from the
outfalls connected to it including the ECIS, the LCIS, the LCSFVRS, the WLAIS and the
WRS.
The lower reach of the North Outfall Sewer (NOS) had been closed and under
rehabilitation for several years. During the rehabilitation, sewage from the West LA
Interceptor Sewer (WLAIS) and Westwood Relief Sewer (WRS) traditionally carried by
the NOS was being diverted into the NORS via Diversion 3. With the rehabilitation of
the lower portion complete, that flow was returned to the NOS on December 18, 2009. It
is estimated that 76 cfs of West Los Angeles sewage is being diverted to the lower NOS
instead of the NORS.
Additionally, in January 2010 another section of the NOS rehabilitation, from Diversion
3 to the upper reach at Jefferson and Rodeo, was completed, allowing more flow to return
to the NOS at Diversion 2. The combined result of both diversions has reduced flow in
NORS, therefore increasing headspace and reducing pressure.
Currently two permanent Air Treatment Facilities (ATFs) are in operation. One facility
is at Jefferson and La Cienega at the ECIS siphon and the other is at 6000 Jefferson at the
NCOS siphon. Their influence on the various outfalls will be discussed in this Tech
Memo. For the full report on the Post ATF Baldwin Hills Sewer Pressure Study from
March 2011, see Appendix A.
87 August 2011
For more detail on the NORS Post-NOS Rehab Pressure Test conducted in January of
2011 ater flow was returned to the NORS from the NOS, please see Sub-section 9.3.1
attached to this Tech Memo.
For the Air Curtain Assessment Pressure Test, please see Sub-Section 8.3.2.
This tech memo will analyze the pressure data taken for the Post ATF Baldwin Hills
Sewer Pressure Study conducted in March of 2011. Some of the locations addressed are
not normally part of the Baldwin Hills/Culver City Area Tech Memo, but since they may
or may not be part of the ATF zone of influence, it makes sense to include them to create
a more complete picture. This report will extract data taken only during those days where
both ATFs and scrubbers were operating in order to define a baseline pressure during
normal operating conditions.
88 August 2011
TEST RESULTS
Table 9.3
POST H2S
STRUCT. ATF 2011 POST PRE AVG/ FLOW
ID LOCATION DESCRIPTION SEWER
NO. NOS DIV NOS DIV MAX (CFS)
(ppm)
1 35TH & GRAND U/S of USC Drop 53705181 ECIS 0.24 - - - 142
2 EXPOSITION & POTOMAC U/S of ECIS ATF 53504216 ECIS 0.20 - - - 172
3 JEFFERSON W/O Directly U/S of ATF 53503213 ECIS 0.05 - - - 172
COCHRAN
4 LACIENEGA & ALADDIN U/S Junction 53506116 ECIS 0.04 0.02 0.28 - 172
Structure
5 9940 JEFFERSON/JXN Junction Structure 53509022 ECIS/NORS 0.00 -0.01 0.26 - 172
6 LA CIENEGA @ KLOS ATF Effect 53502024 LCSFVRS 0.00 - - - 192

7 LA CIENEGA @ SEE’S ATF Effect 53502052 LCSFVRS -0.1 - - - 192
CANDY
8 KALSMAN & RODEO ATF Effect 53502089 LCSFVRS 0.04 - - - 192
9 RODEO & COCHRAN ATF Effect 53503156 NOS 0.05 - - 9/37 134
* JEFFERSON & U/S Diversion 53506091 NOS - -0.38 - - 210
HOLDREGE U/S DIV2 Structure
* 9310 JEFFERSON Between Diversion 53505028 NOS - 0.07 - - 80
Structures
10 LEAHY & JEFFERSON U/S Diversion 53505029 NOS 0.01 0.05 0.33 - -
Structure
* WLA COLLEGE Flow Div. Effect 53513013 NOS - -0.06 - - -
* BERNARDO & EVEWARD Flow Div. Effect 55901009 NOS - 0.03 - - -
11 FOX HILLS MALL U/S Siphon 55905008 NOS -0.03 0.05 - - -
SIPHON
12 AIRLINE BTWN NOS & Airline 56008055 NOS/NCOS 0.01 -0.01 - - -
NCOS
89 August 2011
POST H2S
STRUCT. ATF 2011 POST PRE AVG/ FLOW
ID LOCATION DESCRIPTION SEWER
NO. NOS DIV NOS DIV MAX (CFS)
(ppm)
13 LA CIENEGA & RODEO ATF Effect 53502090 NCOS 0.18 - - - 134
* 6050 JEFFERSON Siphon Outlet 53505007 NCOS - - -0.33 - 134
14 PXP OIL FIELD NR. WLA ATF Effect 53505016 NCOS -0.94 - - - 135
COLLEGE
15 GREENVALLEY CIR & Siphon Inlet 55905005 NCOS -0.81 -0.17 - - 135
BRISTOL PKWY
* 6000 BLK JEFFERSON Diversion Structure 53505018 NORS - - 0.16 - 211

(DIV. 2)
16 IVY & PERHAM U/S Junction 53506132 NORS 0 -0.02 0.04 - 0.05
Structure
17 CULVER CITY PARK U/S Junction 53505021 NORS 0.07 0.02 0.05 - 131
Structure
18 DIVERSION 3 (TO NORS) ATF Effect 53509006 NORS 0.00 - - - 1
19 WLA COLLEGE BY WALL D/S Junction 53513007 NORS 0.06 0.05 0.27 - 301
Structure
20 HANNUM & BRISTOL U/S Siphon 55905006 NORS 0.02 0.19 0.29 - 301
PKWY
* VENICE & OVERLAND Flow Div. Effect 53407074 WLAIS - 0.10 - - 33

21 FARRAGUT & LE ATF Effect 53408044 WLAIS 0.01 - - - 36
BOURGET
* FARRAGUT & LE U/S Diversion 53412003 WLAIS - -0.04 -0.03 - 41
BOURGET Structure
* 3726 JASMINE U/S Diversion 53404122 WRS - 0.18 - - 21

Structure
22 JACKSON NW/O ATF Effect 53408040 WRS 0.00 - - - 43
BRADDOCK
* 2010 Odor Master Plan Sampling Location
90 August 2011
TESTING LOCATIONS
FIG. 8.3
91 August 2011
DATA ANALYSIS
The average pressure within the ECIS was low in the vicinity of the Jefferson & La
Cienega ATF. Pressures as high as 0.24 in.-wc were measured within the ECIS at the
most upstream end of the test.
The Jefferson & La Cienega ATF is also pulling air from the lower section of the
LCSFVRS, and the locations tested were monitored between -0.1 and 0.04 in.-wc.
The pressure in the NOS was between -0.03 in.-wc just upstream of the NOS Siphon
under the 405 Freeway and 0.05 in.-wc at Location 9 near the intersection of Rodeo and
Cochran. The average pressure at the location of the airline that connects the NOS
headspace to the NCOS headspace was 0.01 in.-wc.
The pressure within the NCOS was -0.01 upstream of the 6000 Jefferson ATF to -0.94
downstream of the ATF. Further downstream, near the siphon inlet under the 405
Freeway, the average pressure was recorded at -0.94 in.-wc.
In west LA, the WLAIS and the WRS were measured at 0.01 and 0.0 in.-wc respectively.
The NORS has shown the greatest improvement since the flow diversion and the start-up
of the ATFs. After the NOS diversion, the NORS pressure decreased notably. After the
ATF start-up, pressure was reduced even further. Pressure within most of the NORS is
now negative
Table 8.3.1
ECIS/NORS Avg Pressure (in H2O) Description
Pre NOS Post NOS Post ATF
MH No.
Diversion Diversion Start-up
ECIS U/S of ECIS/NORS
535-06-116 0.28 0.02 0.04
Junction
535-09-022 0.26 -0.01 0.00 ECIS/NORS Junction
NORS D/S of ECIS/NORS
535-13-007 0.27 0.05 0.06
Junction
NORS U/S of NORS
559-05-006 0.29 0.19 0.02
Siphon
92 August 2011
CONCLUSION
Currently, gas pressure within the entire NCOS is negative.
The pressure in the West LA sewers is generally low.
There are definitive changes in the NORS and the downstream end of the ECIS due to the
NOS diversion and the presence of the ATFs. Pressure has fallen dramatically and there
have been no odor issues since this return of flow to the NOS. The average pressures are
negative or very low. Flow management, both air and wastewater, will be an integral part
of balancing gas pressure throughout the sewer system.
The ECIS has improved significantly in and around the vicinity of the Jefferson & La
Cienega ATF. However, further upstream away from the ATF’s zone of influence, the
sewer remains pressurized with average pressures of 0.20 to 0.24 in.-wc.
• Continue monitoring the NOS and NCOS in the vicinity of the airline connection
between these two sewers near the Fox Hills Mall.
• Continue monitoring the WLAIS and WRS for any increase in pressure
• Continue to monitor the effectiveness of the Jefferson & La Cienega ATF and the
6000 Jefferson ATF
• Analyze any change in airflow dynamics that result from the construction of
sewer air curtains at NORS Diversions 1, 2, and 3.
93 August 2011
94 August 2011
8.3.1 NORS Post-NOS Rehab Pressure Test – January 2011
History
The North Outfall Replacement Sewer (NORS) was constructed in 1993. Immediately
following the completion of the NORS, the City began rehabilitating the lower portion of
the North Outfall Sewer (NOS) running from the Hyperion Treatment Plant north through
the Culver City and Baldwin Village areas. In order to allow the rehabilitation work, all
flow normally carried by the NOS was diverted to the newly commissioned NORS
through a series of three diversion structures. As a result, the NORS has been carrying
this excess flow with high gas pressure since it was put into service.
The City has attributed the high gas pressure to a combination of problems. First, many
large sewers converge and delivered high volumes of gas into the NORS. Secondly, the
NORS headspace was very small due to the high flow levels. This reduced headspace
restricted the sewer’s capacity for gas movement. Lastly, the airlines at the NORS
Siphon under the 405 Freeway are undersized and were inadequate for the amount of gas
traveling within the NORS. This caused gas to back up behind the siphon instead of
traveling through it. The result was unusually high gas pressure within all of the NORS.
However, the rehabilitation of the NOS was recently completed and flow was gradually
returned to the NOS, reducing the flow levels in the NORS. Furthermore, two Air
Treatment Facilities (ATFs) have recently been constructed which vacuum gas from the
East Central Interceptor Sewer (ECIS) and the North Central Outfall Sewer (NCOS)
immediately upstream of the NORS. The new ATF at the intersection of Jefferson
Boulevard and La Cienega Boulevard removes gas from the ECIS at a rate of 20,000
cubic feet per minute (cfm) which is double the removal rate of the carbon scrubber it
replaced.
The City expected gas pressure within the NORS to fall as a result of returning flow to
the NOS and began monitoring pressure once flow to the NOS began. The rehabilitation
work on the NOS was performed in two stages and as each stage was completed, some
flow was returned to the NOS. The first stage of rehabilitation work from Hyperion to
Diversion 3 was completed in 2009. As a result, flow from the Westwood Relief Sewer
and the West LA Interceptor Sewer was returned to the NOS in December of that year.
That same month, the City performed a pressure test in the NORS as flow was returned to
the NOS and the results showed significantly lower pressures than the historical average.
Instantaneous “spot testing” after the new ATFs were running at 100 percent capacity in
October of 2010 showed even lower pressure that was often negative. This testing
convinced the City to conduct a long-term pressure test of the NORS to verify the low
pressures.
95 August 2011
Objective
On January 6, 2011, the City placed eight pressure monitors on or near the NORS in
order to continuously record gas pressures for one week. Analysis of the results was
expected to provide a good picture of the new diurnal pressure patterns and the new
average daily gas pressures within the NORS and help determine whether any additional
remedial action was necessary to solve pressure issues within the NORS and if so, then
what solutions would have been most appropriate.
Scope
The pressure test was conducted using continuous pressure data loggers that recorded gas
pressure every two minutes. Eight locations were monitored beginning on January 6,
2011 and ending January 13, 2011. The scrubber at the NORS/ECIS junction
(NORS/ECIS scrubber) was intentionally turned off for 48 hours from January 10
through January 12 for analysis purposes. The eight monitoring locations are listed
below in Figure 1 and their locations are shown in Figure 2 on the following page.
Sampling Locations
Location MH Number
1 Hannum Av. nr. Bristol Pkwy 559-05-006
NORS
2 Sophomore Dr. (WLA College) 535-09-011
NORS
3 ECIS/NORS Junction 535-09-022
ECIS/NORS
4 Culver City Park 535-05-021
NORS
5 Ivy & Perham 535-06-132
NORS
6 La Cienega & Aladdin 535-06-116
ECIS
7 Jefferson & Leahy Diversion 3 to NORS 535-09-006
8 Jefferson w/o Cochran ECIS u/s of 535-03-213
siphon
Figure 1
96 August 2011
Figure 2
Thomas Bros. Data reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAP
97 August 2011
Results
The following tables (Figures 3 and 4) summarize the test results with the NORS/ECIS
scrubber in active mode (ON) and in passive mode (OFF). The average temperature
within the sewer system during the test ranged between 62-64 degrees Fahrenheit.
Pressure Summary Table, with scrubber ON

Location High/Low Pressure
1 Hannum Av. nr. Bristol Pkwy 0.03/-0.22 in-wc
NORS
2 Sophomore Dr. (WLA College) 0.01/-0.21 in-wc
NORS
3 ECIS/NORS Junction 0.04/-0.28 in-wc
ECIS/NORS
4 Culver City Park -0.04/-0.30 in-wc
NORS
5 Ivy & Perham -0.01/-0.17 in-wc
NORS
6 La Cienega & Aladdin 0.07/-0.26 in-wc
ECIS
7 Jefferson & Leahy Divr. 3 to 0.04/-0.21 in-wc
NORS
8 Jefferson w/o Cochran ECIS u/s of 0.13/-0.08 in-wc
siphon
Figure 3
98 August 2011
Pressure Summary Table, with scrubber OFF

Location High/Low Pressure
1 Hannum Av. nr. Bristol Pkwy 0.26/-0.17 in-wc
NORS
2 Sophomore Dr. (WLA College) 0.17/-0.18 in-wc
NORS
3 ECIS/NORS Junction 0.15/-0.25 in-wc
ECIS/NORS
4 Culver City Park 0.04/-0.30 in-wc
NORS
5 Ivy & Perham 0.08/-0.17 in-wc
NORS
6 La Cienega & Aladdin 0.10/-0.15 in-wc
ECIS
7 Jefferson & Leahy Divr. 3 to 0.15/-0.19 in-wc
NORS
8 Jefferson w/o Cochran ECIS u/s of 0.13/-0.08 in-wc
siphon
Figure 4
The followings charts show the gas pressure at each location during the testing period.
99 August 2011
100 August 2011

101 August 2011

102 August 2011

103 August 2011

Analysis
The test data revealed record low pressures in the NORS. When the NORS/ECIS
scrubber was ON, the daily peak pressure within the NORS averaged 0.03 to 0.04 in.-wc.
while pressures were at or below atmospheric pressure for the majority of this time
period. The monitoring location at Jefferson Boulevard w/o Cochran recorded higher
pressure than the other locations during this period. This location is the furthest upstream
and is located on the ECIS upstream of an inverted siphon in Jefferson Boulevard near La
Cienega Boulevard. The siphon isolates this portion of the ECIS from gas pressures
within the NORS and therefore, this location was expected to be less affected by the flow
changes than the other monitoring locations within the NORS.
The pressure at all locations within the NORS rose noticeably when the NORS/ECIS
scrubber was turned OFF. The only location that did not react to the scrubber’s operation
was the location at Jefferson and Cochran. With the new, lower pressures, the scrubber’s
zone of influence extends throughout the NORS from the NORS siphon under the 405
Freeway upstream into the ECIS, up to the ECIS siphon on Jefferson Boulevard. The
highest recorded pressure when the scrubber was off was 0.26 in.-wc at Hannum Avenue
near Bristol Parkway immediately upstream of the NORS siphon. This was expected
since this location has historically been the worst portion of the NORS and will always
have some gas pressure as gas builds up behind the siphon before pushing itself through
the airline.
What is striking is the low pressures within the NORS compared to gas pressures at the
same locations before the recent changes. In order to illustrate the difference in gas
pressures within the NORS before and after these changes, Figure 5 below shows the
diurnal pressure for the monitoring point at Hannum Avenue near Bristol Parkway in
May 2009 and in January 2011.
104 August 2011

Hannum and Bristol Pkwy.

Comparison btwn May 2009 and January 2011
0.8
0.6
Pressure in-wc
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-0.4
January 2011-bottom. May 2009-top
Figure 5
Both graphs show pressure with the NORS/ECIS scrubber on and show pressure for
similar times of day so that the diurnal patterns match up. The graphs show that the
pressure has dropped from an average of .24 in.-wc in 2009 to the point that it rarely rose
above atmospheric pressure during the recent test. Similar reductions can be seen at all
monitoring locations on the NORS.
Conclusion
With the NORS/ECIS Scrubber on, gas pressure within the NORS is at a level that will
not cause ventilation of sewer gas into the atmosphere. At almost all locations along the
NORS, sewer gas pressure is below atmospheric levels and will actually pull air into the
sewer. The only location with positive pressure is near the NORS siphon. Since there
are no locations for gas to escape from the sewer in this area, this location has not been
subject to odor complaints, even during very high gas pressures. There is only one
maintenance hole and it has a gasketed and bolted lid designed to prevent gas ventilation.
Since pressure in the NORS is already negative and therefore, should not cause odor
ventilation, any further remedial action to lower gas pressure within the NORS may
generate additional negative pressures but a further reduction in odor complaint would be
unlikely. The benefit of the NORS/ECIS scrubber is very visible from these results, and
this scrubber should remain in operation. The City will continue investigating any odor
complaints and will monitor the gas pressure at the NORS siphon and will report on it
regularly in the annual Odor Control Master Plan as an “Area of Concern.”
105 August 2011

106 August 2011

8.3.2 POST AIR-CURTAIN PRESSURE TEST

NORS-NOS-NCOS-ECIS-LCIS-LCSFVRS-WRS-WLAIS-CBD
JULY 2011
107 August 2011

Objective
Several past pressure tests along the NORS have shown a trend of high pressure from the
upper-most reach of the NORS downstream to the NORS siphon that affected all sewers
tributary to the NORS. The goal of the air curtains is to block and control the pressure
within the NORS and thus lower pressure in the tributary sewers.
Scope
The air curtains were inserted into the following four diversion structures:
• Diversion 1 which diverts sewage flow from the NCOS to the NORS located at
Rodeo Road and Kalsman Avenue.
• Diversion 2 which diverts sewage flow from the LCSFVRS and the LCIS to the
NORS located just west of the ATF at 6000 Jefferson Blvd.
• Diversion 3 which diverts sewage flow from the WLAIS and the WRS to the
NORS located inside the NOTF in Culver City.
• Diversion 11 (CBD/NOS Diversion to ECIS) which diverts sewage flow from the
NOS and the CBD (Central Business District) Sewer to the ECIS located on
Trinity Street just south of 23rd Street near downtown.
The installation began the first week of May 2011 and concluded the first week of June
2011.
A pressure test was conducted prior to the air curtain installation in order to determine the
pre-curtain pressure. The Post Air Curtain Pressure Test began on July 11 and ended on
July 19, 2011.
108 August 2011

The following table shows the tested locations.
MH # Location Sewer
Diversion 1
535-02-090 Rodeo Rd at La Cienega NCOS us of Div 1
535-03-156 Rodeo & Cochran NOS us of Div 1
535-06-132 Ivy & Perham NORS ds of Div 1
535-05-016 PXP Oil Field NCOS ds of Div 1
Diversion 2
535-02-116 Corbett @ Jefferson LCIS by see's candy
535-05-026 9500 Jefferson Blvd NOS ds of Div 2
535-05-021 Culver City Park NORS ds of Div 2
535-02-089 Kalsman & Rodeo Rd. LCSFVRS us of Div 2
Diversion 3
534-12-010 Overland and Farragut WLAIS us of Div 3
534-08-040 Jackson nw/o Braddock WRS us of Div 3
535-05-029 Leahy @ Pearson NOS us of Div 3
535-09-006 Jefferson Blvd/Olive Tree Div 3 to NORS pipe
535-09-022 NORS/ECIS Junction NORS/ECIS ds of Div 3
535-13-007 WLA Campus Sound Wall NORS ds of Div 3
535-13-013 WLA Campus NOS ds of Div 3
559-05-006 Bristol Pkwy @ Hannum NORS ds of Div 3
Diversion 11
537-02-211 Trinity s/o 23rd u/s of Div 4 NOS diversion to ECIS
537-03-199 Alley approach to NOS NOS approach to ECIS
537-02-175 23rd at Maple 57 " CBD to NOS
109 August 2011

Baldwin Hills Outfall Sewer System
Blackwelder
Diversion
LCIS LCSFVRS
Diversion
ECIS
NORS Diversion 2
LCSFVRS
NORS Diversion 1
NOS
NCOS Diversion
NCOS
Structure
NCOS NORS
WRS
WLAIS
N
NORS/ECIS
NORS Junction
Diversion 3
ECIS
NORS
Diversion NORS
Structure Hannum
Siphon NORS Culver

City Park
Outfall
Sewer ECIS
Aladdin
No Flow
Figure 1
0 0 525
0 0 52
00
7
52
00
2233R 1
0
51
DD SS 2
00
TT
/2
3
41
60
6
53702082
00
53702082
53702082
53702082
51
51
Maintenance
Maintenance Hole
Maintenance Hole
Maintenance Hole
Hole 4
00
00
00 60 5
0
9
52
5
60
53702083
53702083
53702083
/2
0
00
21
U0
00 1
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance Hole
Hole
Hole
4
Div. 11
5
61
4
52
6
61
52
00
00
53702084
53702084
53702084
00
3
9
7
61
Maintenance
Maintenance Hole
Maintenance Hole
Maintenance Hole
Hole
00
SSTT
2
1
02
62
30
/2
TTY
2233
41 2
00
5
0 0 00 1
62
1 RRDD
0 0 02 1/
/2
IINII
STT
00
81 2
9
6
0 0 06 1/
TTRR
62
/2
00
6
60
00
0 0 /2
6
1
60
01
53702211
53702211
53702211
00
61
Maintenance
Maintenance
Maintenance Hole
Hole
Hole
61
02 2
8
00
30
61
61 53702085
53702085
53702085
3
00
20 -5 Maintenanc
Maintenance
Maintenanc
0
62
02
32
4
00
/2
1 53702102
53702102
53702102
0 2 Maintenance
61
Terminal
Terminal
Terminal3 1 Maintenance Structure
Maintenance Structure
Structure
8
5
62
61
19
62
/2
63
00
00
6
00
02
63
32
16 0
00
7
8
63
18 15 8
00
AL
LE
5
02 14 Y
1
0
32
06
4
13
U0
2
9
/2
60
12
31
/2
00
51
61
SSTT
2244 11
61
TTHH
00
7
TTYY
STT
61
00
10
IINNII
02
00
0 2 4 00 53702103
53702103
53702103
62
53702103
TTR
40 Terminal
Terminal Maintenance
Terminal Maintenance Structure
Maintenance Structure
Structure 9
00
2
7
02 1
62
40
8
00
Figure 2
110 August 2011

Data Presentation and Analysis

The following table shows a comparison between the pre and post air curtain pressure
readings.
Pre Post
Air Air
MH # Location Sewer Curtains Curtains
Avg in.-wc Avg in.-wc
Diversion 1
535-02-090 Rodeo Rd at La Cienega NCOS u/s of Div 1 -0.02 -0.05
535-03-156 Rodeo & Cochran NOS u/s of Div 1 -0.02 -0.08
535-06-132 Ivy & Perham NORS d/s of Div 1 0 0.01
535-05-016 PXP Oil field NCOS d/s of Div 1 -0.90 -0.90
Diversion 2
535-02-116 Corbett @ Jefferson LCIS by See's Candy 0.09 -0.01
535-05-026 9500 Jefferson Blvd NOS d/s of Div 2 0.15 -0.02
535-05-021 Culver City Park NORS d/s of Div 2 0.07 0.03
535-02-089 Kalsman &Rodeo Rd. LCSFVRS u/s of Div 2 0.04 -0.01
Diversion 3
534-12-010 Overland and Farragut WLAIS u/s of Div 3 0.01 -0.02
534-08-040 Jackson nw/o Braddock WRS u/s of Div 3 -0.01 0.01
535-05-029 Leahy @ Pearson NOS u/s of Div 3 0 -0.04
535-09-006 Jefferson Blvd/Olive tree Div 3 to NORS pipe -0.01 -0.02
535-09-022 NORS/ECIS junction NORS/ECIS d/s of Div 3 -0.01 -0.05
535-13-007 W LA campus sound wall NORS d/s of Div 3 0.05 -0.02
535-13-013 W LA campus NOS d/s of Div 3 0.02 -0.06
559-05-006 Bristol Pkwy @ Hannum NORS d/s of Div 3 0.02 -0.02
Diversion 11
Trinity s/o 23rd u/s of
NOS diversion to ECIS
537-02-211 Div 4 0.04 -0.01
537-03-199 Alley approach to NOS NOS approach to ECIS 0.05 -0.05
537-02-175 23rd at Maple 57 " CBD to NOS 0 -0.04
111 August 2011

Diversion 1
The data shows no change in diurnal pressure at the four locations except for Rodeo and
Cochran upstream of Diversion 1 which became more negative.
Diversion 2
The data revealed that the diurnal pressure was reduced nearly by half. Most of the locations
showed negative pressure. The combined effect of the flow diversion from the NORS back
to the NOS, the ATF at Jefferson and La Cienega, and the air curtain at Diversion 2
contributed to this reduction.
Diversion 3
The data revealed that the diurnal pressure has decreased. This decrease is probably the
result of the two air curtains at Diversions 2 and 3 as well as the flow diversion from the
NORS back to the NOS.
Diversion 11
The pressure data revealed that the air curtains installed at Diversion 11 had decreased the
back pressurization of the two conduits, the CBD Sewer, and the NOS approach to the ECIS.
Conclusion
The addition of the air curtains to the sewer system as a means of controlling back pressurization
is successful in achieving measurable results. As more testing in and around the affected areas
is conducted on a regular basis, the continued effect of the air curtains on pressures will be
assessed.
112 August 2011

8.4 AOC4 - East Valley Area

AVORS-EVRS-VORS-NHIS-NOS
INTRODUCTION
The significant sewers in the East Valley Area are the Additional Valley Outfall Relief
Sewer (AVORS), the East Valley Relief Sewer (EVRS), and portions of the North
Outfall Sewer (NOS) and the Valley Outfall Relief Sewer (VORS). The North
Hollywood Interceptor Sewer (NHIS), and the Forman Avenue Sewer from Camarillo
Street to Valley Spring Lane is also included in this study area. These outfall sewers
were tested to locate any high gas pressure and evaluated to determine the cause.
Effluent from the Tillman Water Reclamation Plant (TWRP) flows through these sewers.
The TWRP does not treat biosolids but instead returns them to the sewer system to be
conveyed to the Hyperion Treatment Plant. These concentrated biosolids initially travel
through AVORS, then through the EVRS and the NOS to the Toluca Lake area. At the
intersection of Valley Spring Lane and Forman Avenue, this flow is split between the La
Cienega/San Fernando Valley Relief Sewer (LCSFVRS) and the NOS on its way to
Hyperion. This high concentration of biosolids causes the sewage to produce excessive
H2S, leading to odor problems.
Several previous recommendations have been implemented that have reduced gas
pressure and hydrogen sulfide concentrations in this area’s sewers. The construction of a
carbon scrubber at the Radford Siphon in Studio City and the addition of magnesium
hydroxide to the sewer system at the TWRP are two measures that have had a significant
benefit. Diverting flow from the Forman Avenue Sewer to the NOS lowered gas pressure
in the Forman Avenue Sewer, reducing odor complaints in this area. Furthermore, a trap
maintenance hole on the Forman Ave Sewer was removed, allowing backed-up gas to
flow downstream, greatly reducing gas pressure.
This report discusses the gas pressure testing performed on sewers in this area in May
2011. This report discusses the analysis of the data, and provides some conclusions and
recommendations. Table 8.4 provides a list of the monitoring locations and Figure 8.4
shows these locations on a map.
113 August 2011

114 August 2011

TEST RESULTS
Table 8.4
2011 H2S
2010 2006 FLOW
No. LOCATION STRUCT. NO. SEWER PRESSURE AVG/MAX
PRESSURE PRESSURE (cfs)
(ppm)
1 BURBANK BL E/O 42911079 VORS 0.13 0.08 0.15 - 12
SEPULVEDA
2 BURBANK @ KESTER 42912083 VORS 0.11 0.07 0.05 - 17
3 RIVERSIDE @ 44203170 EVRS 0.11 - - 15/39 57
WHITSETT (SIPHON)
4 RIVERSIDE & 44204168 EVRS - 0.00 - - 57
WHITSETT (SIPHON)
5 RIVERSIDE & 44306176 EVRS 0.24 0.22 0.02 - 57
LANKERSHIM
6 BURBANK E/O 42911080 NOS 0.05 - - - 6
SEPULVEDA
7 MOORPARK @ 44207032 NOS 0.07 - - - 25
BELLAIR
8 WOODBRIDGE & 44208092 NOS - 0.00 - - 25
WHITSETT
9 WOODBRIDGE @ 44208090 NOS 0.04 - - - 25
LAUREL
10 WOODBRIDGE & 44305072 NOS - 0.03 - - 27
RADFORD
11 BECK N/O CHIQUITA 44305253 NOS -0.13 0.00 - - 26
12 CAHUENGA & 44303148 NHIS 0.15 0.18 0.05 - 5
HUSTON
13 CAHUENGA & 44303147 NHIS - 0.25 - - 5
CAMARILLO
14 FORMAN & 44303071 PRIMARY -0.02 0.04 - - 11
CAMARILLO
*15 FORMAN S/O 44307055 PRIMARY -0.3 0.04 - 1/6 11
RIVERSIDE
*16 VALLEY SPRING 44307158 VSF -0.3 0.02 0.05 2/12 12
& FORMAN
* Instantaneous pressure reading between 8 to 9 am.
115 August 2011

116 August 2011

TESTING LOCATIONS
FIG. 8.4
117 August 2011

DATA ANALYSIS
Historically, the VORS has not had odor problems except for one area near the intersection
of Burbank Boulevard and Sepulveda Boulevard. Locations 1 & 2 tested gas pressures
near this intersection. Location 1 at Burbank Boulevard east of Sepulveda had an average
pressure of 0.13 inches of water, compared to 0.08 in 2010. Downstream on the VORS at
Location 2, the average pressure was 0.11, up from 0.07 in 2010.
Not to scale
VORS 42” D 0.0356 S
6 NOS 24” D 0.001 S
NOS 24” D 0.0097 S VORS 42” D 0.0023 S
VORS 48” D 0.0012 S

1 2
Primary 30” D 0.1388 S
NOS 45” D 0.0049 S
Testing locations (see Table 9.4)
Diversion structure at Burbank & Kester

FIG. 8.4.1
Locations 7 through 11 monitored several locations on the NOS with histories of high gas
pressure. The average pressures at these locations were between -0.13 downstream of the
Woodbridge Siphon to 0.05 in the upstream sections of NOS. The NOS has shown
significant improvements in the last few years, mainly due to the scrubber at the
Woodbridge Siphon.
Two locations on the EVRS with moderate-to-high pressure readings last year were
selected for monitoring this year. The first location (Location 3), upstream of the Riverside
and Whitsett Siphon, had an average pressure of 0.11. The second location (Location 5)
approximately 3 miles downstream at Riverside and Lankershim had an average pressure
of 0.24.
The NHIS collects sewage from the east valley and flows into the EVRS near the
intersection of Cahuenga and Riverside. Location 12 measured pressure in in the EVRS at
Cahuenga and Huston. The average pressure was 0.15, which is similar to 2010 data.
118 August 2011

Locations 14 &15 measured pressure on the Forman Avenue Sewer, a 30” primary sewer
along Forman Avenue that empties into the LCSFVRS. The average pressure in this sewer
was -0.02.
CONCLUSION
AVORS: This sewer was not monitored for this reporting period since it did not exibit
higher than normal gas pressure or odor complaints.
VORS: The average pressure in the VORS is positive between the Tillman Treatment
Plant and the Kester and Burbank diversion structure. Turbulence created by the diversion
structure, together with hydraulic jumps, restricts the movement of gas, causing back
pressure in this section of VORS (see Fig. 8.4.1). Additionaly, the internal average
temperature in this section of the VORS was 86oF compared to 81o in 2010, which may
explain why the pressures are higher this year.
NOS: On average, the pressure in the NOS was generally negative to slightly positive. The
5,000 cfm scrubber at Woodbridge and Radford is effectively maintaining negative
pressure in the NOS upstream of the Radford siphon.
EVRS: Gas pressure in the EVRS was positive at tested locations with pressure increasing
in the downstream direction. Real time flow gauging on the EVRS showed flows peaking
at about 60% with velocities of 5 to 6 ft/s. There may be some turbulence at the junction
with the NHIS. The EVRS also carries the concentrated biosolids from the DCTWRP.
The combination of concentrated biosolids and pockets of turbulence in the system could
create excessive gas in the headspace, pressurizing the EVRS and the connecting lines.
NHIS: Positive pressures were recorded on the NHIS and are mainly attributed to physical
characteristics of the sewer line and back pressure from the junction with the EVRS. The
NHIS sewer is comprised of relatively large diameter pipes (60” to 78”) with minimal flow
(approx. 5 cfs and velocities less than 3 fps per the 2010 Mike Urban model). The large
available headspace becomes an escape route for pressurized gas in the EVRS.

sewage flow within the sewer system
• Continue monitoring pressures on the EVRS, NHIS, VORS, and seal maintenance
hole lids where necessary
o Conduct flow gauging on the NHIS
o Conduct focused pressure testing on the EVRS downstream of the NHIS
119 August 2011

120 August 2011

9.0 AREAS OF STUDY
9.1 AOS1 - South Los Angeles
INTRODUCTION
In South Los Angeles, the alignment of the NOS, known as the Maze area, has historically
been an area of high odor emissions and frequent odor complaints. Currently the majority
of the wastewater that flows into the Maze sewer system is from various tributaries that
service the South Los Angeles areas. All other flows have been diverted to NEIS and
ECIS. Since these major diversions, pressures in the Maze system have been reduced.
The South Branch of the NOS picks up flow from the Florence Avenue Sewer, the 74th
Street Sewer, and the Slauson Avenue Sewer. The South Branch runs along Martin Luther
King Boulevard to Rodeo Road where it intersects the North Branch of the NOS. The
North Branch mainly receives flow from the NOS along 41st Place with most of the flow
coming from the Boyle Heights area and local flow from the 23rd and Trinity area. Most
sewers that feed into the South Branch have very flat slopes so the minimum scouring
velocity of 3 ft/sec. is rarely acheived. As a result, debris builds up in the sewer and the
system becomes anaerobic, causing H2S production to increase. Several projects are
planned to address this in the near future. Meanwhile, the City monitors the sewers
continuously for H2S, pressure, and wastewater pH. There is a 5,000 CFM scrubber that
operates at the intersection of MLK and Rodeo to clean sewer gases before it is vented into
the atmosphere. Caustic shock dosing is conducted to control the generation of hydrogen
sulfide along the tributary sewers to the Maze.
This area was sampled at key locations on July 6th, 2011 from 10:00 AM to noon, to look
for any major changes in pressure since the last time it was tested.
121 August 2011

122 August 2011

TEST RESULTS
Table 9.1
ID LOCATION STRUCT. SEWER 2011 2010 2006 H2S FLOW

NO. PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE AVG/MAX (cfs)
(ppm)
1 San Pedro St 53703199 NOS -0.22 0.04 - - 81
Alley w/o San
Pedro
2 Trinity s/o 23rd St 53702211 NOS -0.14 0.05 - - 81
3 33rd & Trinity 53706186 NOS -0.07 0.05 - - 0.4
4 41st Pl & Trinity 53710078 NOS -0.07 -0.05 -0.04 74/282 9
5 Hyde Park e/o 55806092 FLORENCE -0.01 0.00 - 11/60 2
AV
Haas
6 62nd e/o Wilton 55806216 74th St -0.02 0.00 - 3/17 22
7 4th Ave n/o 55802143 South -0.08 -0.02 - - 50
Slauson Branch
Primary
8 4th Ave s/o Vernon 53614020 South Not 0.00 - - 51
Branch Accessible
Primary
9 MLK & Somerset 53605165 NOS/Maze -0.04 0.02 0.00 29/139 62
South
Branch
10 Rodeo & 53605166 NOS/Maze -0.13 0.00 - - -
Grayburn North
Branch
11 Cochran & Rodeo 53503156 NOS D/S -0.12 0.01 -0.09 9/37 133
Maze
123 August 2011

124 August 2011

FIG. 9.1
125 August 2011

DATA ANALYSIS
Average pressure at the most upstream section located at 23rd and San Pedro just upstream
of the drop structure, is -0.22 in-wc. At Trinity south of 23rd Street, the average pressure is
-0.14 in-wc. Continuing downstream, at 33rd and Trinity, pressure is -0.07 in/wc. At
Location 4 at 41st Place and Trinity, pressure continues to be negative at -.07.in-wc. Next,
the Florence Ave Sewer and 74th Street Sewer were monitored upstream of their diversion
into the south branch of the NOS. Pressures were negative or zero at both locations.
Pressures at Locations 7, 9, and 10 varied between -0.13 and -0.04 in-wc. The average
pressure at Cochran and Rodeo on the NOS was -0.12 in-wc.
CONCLUSION
Pressures have dropped significantly since the last test. This drop is mainly attributed to
the NCOS ATF, which is strategically located to pull air from the upper and lower NOS in
the Maze area.
• Continue to monitor this area for pressure and hydrogen sulfide levels
• Control air flow dynamics through sewer flow management by manipulating sewage
flow through various sewers
126 August 2011

9.2 AOS2 - Coastal Interceptor Sewer (CIS)
INTRODUCTION
The Coastal Interceptor Sewer (CIS) is the major outfall serving Venice Westchester area.
This area is relatively mountainous in the north, around Pacific Palisades, and relatively
flat through Santa Monica and Venice to the south.
The CIS originates at Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 27. It then follows the
coastline along the Pacific Coast Highway, south easterly through Pacific Palisades, to a
siphon just upstream of the City of Santa Monica. The CIS serves the coastal area of the
Santa Monica Bay north of the HTP to Topanga State Beach near Malibu. This sewer
conveys wastewater directly to the HTP from Pacific Palisades, Venice, Mar Vista, the City
of Santa Monica, and adjacent areas (such as Marina Del Rey) served by the Los Angeles
County Sanitation District no. 27. The CIS is a circular pipeline that ranges in diameter
from 24 to 72 inches and is approximately 9.4 miles in length. It is constructed of vitrified
clay pipe and reinforced concrete lined with polyvinyl chloride (PVC).
The Venice Pumping Plant is the largest pumping plant in the wastewater collection
system, and the only pumping plant located on one of the wastewater collection system
outfalls. The Venice Pumping Plant is located at the south end of Venice on the CIS, at
Hurricane Street and the Grand Canal. The pumping plant was constructed in 1958, and
modified in 1987 and again in 1997 to increase its capacity and reliability. The pumping
plant currently has a theoretical capacity of 99 cfs with four pumps operating and one
pump on standby. The pumping plant discharges into the CIS through a 48-inch-diameter
force main extending south across the Marina Del Rey harbor entrance channel.
127 August 2011

TEST RESULTS
Table 9.2
I LOCATION STRUCT. SEWER 2011 2010 2006 FLO

D NO. PRESSUR PRESSUR PRESSUR W
E E E (cfs)
1 PCH 52115303 CIS - -0.09 - 6
2 PCH 53203005 CIS -0.05 -0.02 0.01 5
3 PCH & 53203016 CIS - - 0.01 5
ENTRADA
4 PCH 53203029 CIS -0.01 -0.03 0 10
5 MAIN ST 53314073 CIS -0.02 0.00 0 -
(SANTA MONICA)
6 MAIN ST 53314072 CIS - 0.00 - -
(SANTA MONICA)
7 VIA DOLCE 56111066 CIS 0.01 0.00 0 -
R/W
8 VISTA DEL 56208041 CIS -0.67 -0.82 0.03 55
MAR
9 VISTA DEL 56313039 CIS -0.67 -0.73 0.03 55
MAR
DATA ANALYSIS
Instantaneous pressure readings were taken along CIS in May 19th, 2011 between 11:00
AM to noon. Pressures were generally negative on the upstream to very negative in the
downstream part of CIS.
CONCLUSION
The test indicated that sewer gas pressure in this area is not a problem.

128 August 2011

TESTING LOCATIONS
FIG. 9.2
129 August 2011

130 August 2011

9.3 AOS3 - Harbor Area
INTRODUCTION
This section discusses the pressure test conducted in the Harbor Area Primary Sewer
System in April of 2010. There are four interceptor sewer systems in the Harbor area that
convey the wastewater generated in this area to the Terminal Island Treatment Plant. The
interceptor sewer systems are named after their respective force mains through which their
flow is pumped to the TITP.
Fries Avenue Interceptor Sewer System (FISS), consists of three major pumping plants and
their respective interceptor sewers, all of which serve the community of Wilmington. The
FISS also serves various industrial dischargers, some of which are on Harbor Department
property.
Terminal Way Interceptor Sewer System (TISS) collects and transports wastewater from
the San Pedro area to the TITP. The TISS also serves the industrial area south of 22nd
Street and Terminal Island. The main pumping plant on this system is the Terminal Way
Pumping Plant.
San Pedro Interceptor Sewer System (SPISS) serves the residential areas of San Pedro and
Wilmington and the industrial area consisting primarily of the Phillips Conoco Refinery. It
also serves some industrial discharges located on Harbor Department property.
A supplement to this system allows all flows from the FISS to be diverted to the San Pedro
Pumping Plant. The only exception to this is that the flow from the Harris Avenue
Pumping Plant remains tributary to TITP via the Fries Avenue Force Main.
The “U.S. Navy Sewer System and Facility” consists of four separate force mains (two 6”,
one 12”, and one 20”), a pumping plant, and collector sewers that used to serve the U.S.
Naval Reservation on Terminal Island. After the decommissioning of the U.S. Navy, the
City of Long Beach took over the assets of the US Navy Sewer System and Facility that
deliver the wastewater to the TITP.
131 August 2011

TEST RESULTS
Table 9.3
ID LOCATION STRUCT. SEWER 2011 2010 2006 FLOW

NO. PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE (cfs)
1 ALAMEDA N/O 61311139 HARBOR 0.012 -0.01 0 -
F ST
2 MCFARLAND 61311112 HARBOR 0.015 0.00 0.002 -
AV R/W
3 B ST 61313048 HARBOR NO 0.00 0 -
ACCESS
4 WILMINGTON 61908038 HARBOR -0.01 -0.09 0.001 -
& SAN PEDRO
5 CHANNEL ST 61908083 HARBOR 0.00 0.00 -0.004 -
6 PACIFIC AV 62005014 HARBOR 0.033 0.02 - -
7 HARBOR BL 62009041 HARBOR 0.02 0.02 0 2.17
8 PACIFIC AV 62516010 HARBOR 0.00 -0.02 0 0.5
9 CRESCENT AV 62401114 HARBOR 0.012 0.01 -0.001 0.5
R/W
10 HARBOR BL 62013030 HARBOR 0.01 0.01 0 -
R/W
DATA ANALYSIS
Instantaneous pressures were taken on June 8th, 2011 between 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM.
Pressures varied between -0.01 and 0.03. Fairly similar to previous years where pressure
hovers close to atmospheric level.
CONCLUSION
The test indicated that sewer air pressure in this area is generally near atmospheric level
therefore it is not a problem.

132 August 2011

FIG. 9.3
133 August 2011

134 August 2011

9.4 AOS4 - West Valley Area

INTRODUCTION
This section discusses the pressure test conducted in the West San Fernando Valley Area
sewers in April, 2010. Wastewater generated in the west valley is conveyed to four
interceptor sewers: the North Outfall Sewer (NOS), the Valley Outfall Relief Sewer
(VORS), the Additional Valley Outfall Relief Sewer (AVORS), and the East Valley
Interceptor Sewer (EVIS). Most of the wastewater flow is routed to the Tillman Water
Reclamation Plant (TWRP).
TEST RESULTS
Table 9.4
ID LOCATION STRUCT. SEWER 2011 2010 2006 FLOW

NO. PRESSURE PRESSURE PRESSURE (cfs)
1 VANOWEN & 39614176 VORS -0.014 0.00 -0.001 2
MASON
2 VANOWEN & 39714176 VORS -0.01 0.00 - 13
ETIWANDA
3 VICTORY E/O 43002139 AVORS 0.04 0.07 0.04 33
ETIWANDA
4 WOODMAN & 39914195 EVIS 0.02 0.02 - 36
HART
5 VICTORY & 42902209 EVIS 0.04 0.03 0.02 18
HASKELL
DATA ANALYSIS
Instantaneous gas pressure readings were taken on May 11, 2011 between 10:00 AM to
noon in the western part of San Fernando Valley. Pressures were generally around
atmospheric level in the VORS, and EVIS sewers. Location 3 on the AVORS at Victory
Bl. east of Etiwanda had an average pressure of 0.04 in-wc. This MH is upstream of a
siphon.
CONCLUSION
The test indicated that sewer air pressure in this area is generally near atmospheric level;
therefore it is not a problem.
• Continue to monitor this area for pressure and hydrogen sulfide, especially near
Victory and Etiwanda
135 August 2011

FIG. 9.4
136 August 2011

10.0 AIR TREATMENT FACILITY (ATF) REVIEW STUDY

NOVEMBER 2010
The consultant team of HDR Engineering/Malcolm Pirnie conducted a study of the City’s
wastewater collection system in order to evaluate the ability of proposed ATFs to provide
satisfactory odor relief to the collection system.
The study was performed between January 2008 and November 2010 and cost
approximately $2 million. It analyzed the sewer system as a whole, focusing on known
causes of sewer odors and included both current conditions and planned modifications to
the sewer system. The study was divided into multiple sub-components for more effective
analysis.
Two of the study’s components were the analysis of sewer drop structures and the analysis
of inverted sewer siphons. Each were evaluated to better understand their effects on gas
movement and pressurization and to determine solutions to the problems caused by each of
these structures. The analysis involved extensive field testing, model testing, and the
review and consideration of sewer plans, previous testing, and odor complaints. Another
component of the study was the creation of a computer model that uses current flow data
and sewer geometry to predict locations of high gas pressure. A fourth component of the
study was the analysis of total non-methane hydrocarbons associated with sewage, focusing
on how to effectively remove them from sewer gas. The final component was a review of
the proposed ATFs and whether each proposed ATF was the best solution for its
application and if not, identifying alternative solutions. The study’s findings were
presented in a final report.
In order to assure a broad perspective that included input by the community, an

independent sewer odor control expert was hired to observe aspects of the study and
provide a third-party review of the study’s investigations, findings, conclusions, and
recommendations. The expert provided independent input to the consultant team and also
briefed the community regarding aspects of the study including his opinion of the study’s
conclusions and recommendations. This helped the community accept the final outcome of
the study.
At the study’s conclusion, the consultant team recommended only building one of the four
ATFs on hold (Mission and Jesse ATF). A variety of other solutions were proposed for the
various locations. The recommendations of the study are summarized below. Details of
the study are discussed in the final report titled Air Treatment Facility (ATF) Review Study
Final Report dated November 2010.
137 August 2011

ATF Review Study Recommendations/Suggestions

ATFs
Humboldt ATF - Not necessary
Richmond ATF - Not necessary
Mission & Jesse ATF - Construct as planned
23rd and San Pedro ATF - Not necessary
NORS-ECIS ATF - Not necessary
Alternative Solutions (to be constructed)

• The consultant team suggested installing an air flow regulation device, such as
an adjustable damper, in the air return line of the following drop structures:
• Division Drop Structure

• Humboldt Drop Structure
• Richmond Drop Structure
• Mission & Jesse Drop Structure
• 23rd & San Pedro Drop Structure
• The report also recommended installing air curtains at the Mission & Jesse Drop
Structure in order to block the movement of gas.
Flow Diversions
The consultant recommended manipulating flows at the diversion structures leading
into the drop structures in order to better control gas movement within the sewer
system.
Follow-up Testing
The report recommended follow-up testing after the ATFs and other improvements
were in place and operating in order to determine the effectiveness of the
improvements. The system is dynamic therefore the City needs to be flexible to
optimize the system.
Supplemental Report
HDR Engineering is currently preparing a supplemental report for this study in
order to provide some additional information, clarify information presented in their
final report as requested by EPA, as well as incorporate findings learned during
follow-up testing of drop structure models which occurred after the final report was
prepared.
138 August 2011

11.0 RECOMMENDATIONS/CONSIDERATIONS
To meet immediate odor control needs, the City will continue all current odor control
activities including odor complaint response and investigation, routine sewer maintenance,
chemical addition, air withdraw and treatment using scrubbers and ATFs, sewer
construction and repair, trap MH replacement program, and on-going monitoring of sewer
air pressure and H2S concentration.
Continuous pressure testing equipment will be used to perform long-term pressure and H2S
tests through the system in order to gather more accurate and more comprehensive pressure
data of the sewer system. Additionally, pressure testing will be performed wherever
pressure problems arise or where there are special circumstances where valuable
information can be gained. Spot testing will continue as well throughout the system to
allow thorough monitoring of the collection system.
The implementation plan is developed with the intention to provide immediate needs while
satisfying long-term requirements. Table 12.1 presents the implementation plan for the
various odor control projects and programs either already underway or recommended by
this master plan.
Table 12.2 presents project cost data obtained from the WCIP Project Description and 10-
Year Expenditure Plan 2006/07 – 2015/16.
The Sewer Odor Control Master Plan will be updated annually to assure that odor control
strategies/measures are periodically challenged, solutions remain proactive, and
technologies are current and effective.
139 August 2011

TABLE 11.1
ODOR CONTROL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Short-term Plan Intermediate Plan Long-term Plan

East NOS - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor
Corridor - Flow Management - Flow Management - Flow Management
- Install air curtain to - Scrubber @ Gilroy - Mission and Jesse
isolate NOS from Siphon ATF
back flow through - Mission and Jesse
M&J Drop Structure ATF
La Cienega - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor

/ San - Flow Management - Flow Management - Flow Management
Fernando - Alleviate pressure at - Upgrade Trap MHs
Corridor Genesee Siphon –
possible repair work
on siphon
Baldwin - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor
Hills / - Flow Management - Flow Management - Flow Management
Culver City - Analyze airflow - Upgrade Trap MHs - Upgrade Trap MHs
Area dynamics as a result
of NORS Divs. 1, 2
and 3 air curtains
East Valley - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor
Area - Flow Management - Flow Management - Flow Management
- Continue pressure - Upgrade Trap MHs - Upgrade Trap MHs
and H2S monitoring
on EVRS/NHIS
- Seal MHs where
necessary
South Los - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor
Angeles - Flow Management - Flow Management - Flow Management
- Upgrade Trap MHs
Coastal - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor

Interceptor - Flow Management - Flow Management - Flow Management
Sewer (CIS) - Upgrade Trap MHs
Harbor Area - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor

- Flow Management - Flow Management - Flow Management
West Valley - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor - Continue to Monitor

Area - Flow Management - Flow Management - Flow Management
- Upgrade Trap MHs
140 August 2011

Short-term Plan Intermediate Plan Long-term Plan

Odor On-going On-going On-going
Hotline
Outreach
141 August 2011

TABLE 11.2
ODOR CONTROL PROJECT/PROGRAM COST
Estimated
Title Estimated Cost ($)
Completion Date
ATF ECIS – Mission & Jesse 12,000,000 6/2014
Atwater Village Sewer Odor 740,000 1/2014

Mitigation Plan
Chemical Treatment 3,500,000/yr On-going

Application
11 Odor Control Units Carbon 1,600,000/yr On-going

Expense
Trap Maintenance Hole Program 3,100,000 2013
Outreach 50,000/yr On-going
Odor Control – Future 500,000/yr On-going
Source: WCIP Project Description and 10-Year Expenditure Plan 2006/07 – 2015/16
142 August 2011

APPENDIX A
Post ATF Baldwin Hills Sewer Pressure Study

March 2011
Background
The City recently constructed two biotrickling filter Air Treatment Facilities (ATFs) in the
Baldwin Hills area. The two ATFs are the Jefferson/La Cienega ATF and the 6000
Jefferson ATF and both have been in full operation since January of 2011. The
Jefferson/La Cienega ATF extracts gas from East Central Interceptor Sewer (ECIS) and the
La Cienega/San Fernando Valley Relief Sewer (LCSFVRS) at the rate of 13,500 cfm and
6,500 cfm respectively. The 6000 Jefferson ATF extracts gas from the North Central
Outfall Sewer (NCOS) at the rate of 12,000 cfm. Near this same time, the City completed
the rehabilitation of the North Outfall Sewer (NOS) and diverted a significant amount of
flow from the North Outfall Replacement Sewer (NORS) back into the NOS, greatly
reducing the flow in the NORS. The City has suspected that these events would help
reduce sewer gas pressure within the NORS as well as other large sewers. In order to
confirm this, the City recently tested gas pressure within the NORS and found that pressure
did fall dramatically to the point that the upper portion of the NORS upstream of the siphon
under the 405 Freeway has little or no gas pressure.
Purpose
The purpose of this test is to follow up on the recent pressure test of the NORS with a more
comprehensive study of additional sewers within the area in an effort to comprehend the
total positive impact of the ATFs and to assess gas pressure in the sewer network upstream
and downstream of the ATFs.
Scope
This pressure test monitored pressure at twenty two locations on seven major sewers as
shown in Table 1 and Figure 1. All monitoring locations have been tested for pressure in
the past and historically have been a source of sewer odor ventilation. Pressure was
recorded using continuous pressure data loggers that recorded gas pressure every two
minutes. All 22 locations were monitored beginning on March 9, 2011 and ending March
22, 2011.
During this test, two carbon scrubbers in the area were turned off and back on in order to
determine if and how their benefit to the system has changed as a result of the recent
developments. The two scrubbers are the NORS/ECIS Scrubber at the junction of the
NORS and the ECIS and the NOTF Scrubber at the junction of the WLAIS, the WRS, and
the NOS. The following schedule summarizes the on-off operation during the testing.
143 August 2011

Scrubber Operation Schedule
Date NOTF Scrubber NORS/ECIS Scrubber

Monday, March 14 On On
Wednesday, March 16 Off On
Friday, March 18 Off Off
Monday, March 21 On Off
Tuesday, March 22 On On
Monitoring Locations
Location Sewer MH #
1 35th St. & Grand Av. ECIS 537-05-181
2 Exposition Bl. @ Potomac Av. ECIS 535-04-216
3 Jefferson Bl. w/o Cochran Av. ECIS 535-03-213
4 La Cienega Bl. & Aladdin St. ECIS 535-06-116
5 ECIS/NORS Junction ECIS 535-09-022
6 La Cienega Bl. @ KLOS LCSFVRS 535-02-024

7 La Cienega Bl. @ See's Candy LCSFVRS 535-02-052
8 Kalsman Dr. & Rodeo Rd. LCSFVRS 535-02-089
9 Rodeo Rd. & Cochran Av. NOS 535-03-156

10 Leahy/Pearson Parking Lot NOS 535-05-029
11 Fox Hills Dr. u/s of NORS Siphon NOS 559-05-008
12 Special Air Line @ Fox Hills Mall NOS 560-08-055
13 La Cienega Bl. & Rodeo Rd. NCOS 535-02-090

14 PXP Oil Field nr. WLA College NCOS 535-05-016
15 Green Valley Crl. @ Bristol Pkwy. NCOS 559-05-005
16 Ivy Way & Perham Dr. NORS 535-06-132

17 Culver City Park NORS 535-05-021
18 Diversion 3 (to NORS) NORS 535-09-006
19 WLA College (behind sound wall) NORS 535-13-007
20 Hannum Av. & Bristol Pkwy NORS 559-05-006
21 Farragut Dr. & Le Bourget Av. WLAIS 534-08-044
22 Jackson nw/o Braddock WRS 534-08-040
Table 1
144 August 2011

Monitoring Locations
Figure 1
Thomas Bros. Data reproduced with permission granted by THOMAS BROS. MAP
145 August 2011

Testing Results
NORS Locations
146 August 2011

147 August 2011

148 August 2011

ECIS Locations
149 August 2011

150 August 2011

151 August 2011

LCSFVRS Locations
152 August 2011

NOS Locations
153 August 2011

Rodeo and Cochran NOS
0.25
0.2
0.15
Pressure in-wc
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
3/10/2011 3/12/2011 3/14/2011 3/16/2011 3/18/2011 3/20/2011
Time
154 August 2011

NCOS locations
155 August 2011

La Cienega and Rodeo NCOS
0.25
0.2
P ressu re in -w c
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
3/10/2011 3/12/2011 3/14/2011 3/16/2011 3/18/2011 3/20/2011 3/22/2011
Time
156 August 2011

WLAIS location
WRS location
157 August 2011

Analysis
The testing revealed very low pressure throughout the 22 tested locations and significant
pressure reductions at most locations. The only high pressure encountered was in the ECIS
upstream of the siphon on Jefferson Boulevard. The highest recorded pressure was 0.35
in.-wc (inches of water column) at 35th Street & Grand Avenue followed by 0.29 in-wc also
in the ECIS at Exposition & Potomac Avenue. The high pressure in the ECIS is primarily
due to the drag effect from the drop structure at Mission and Jesse and the drop structure at
23rd and San Pedro. The pressure at each location is near or below atmospheric pressure,
except within the ECIS, where the pressure is still approximately 50% lower than historical
pressures (see Table 2).
Table 2 shows the maximum and minimum pressure (with both the NORS and NOTF
scrubbers running) for the March 2011 test and previous pressure readings at the same
locations for comparison reasons.
A heavy rain event (approximately 2 inches) was recorded on March 20th and 21st that
affected the pressure reading. Most locations reflected a drop in pressure as of result the
rain.
158 August 2011

Pressure
March 2011 Previous
Location Sewer MH # Max/Min Max/Min Date
35th St. @ Grand Av. ECIS 537-05-181 0.35/0.07 0.6/0.27 May-08 *

Exposition @ Potomac Av. ECIS 535-04-216 0.29/0.04 0.6/0.25 May-08 *
Jefferson w/o Cochran ECIS 535-03-213 0.13/-0.08 0.24/0.03 May-08 *
La Cienega @ Aladdin ECIS 535-06-116 0.10/-0.09 0.4/0.1 May-09 *
ECIS/NORS Junction ECIS 535-09-022 0.09/-0.12 0.14/0.02 May-10 *
La Cienega @ KLOS LCSFVRS 535-02-024 0.06/-0.09 0.2/-0.01 Oct-09 *

La Cienega @ See's Candy LCSFVRS 535-02-052 -0.05/-0.19 0.18/0.01 Oct-09 *
Kalsman and Rodeo LCSFVRS 535-02-089 0.04/0.03 0.13/0.05 Oct-10 *
Rodeo and Cochran NOS 535-03-156 0.04/-0.01 0.03/0.00 Apr-10
Leahy/Pearson Parking Lot NOS 535-05-029 0.11/-0.1 0.17/-0.08 Oct-10
Fox Hills Dr. u/s of siphon NOS 559-05-008 0.09/-0.09 0.07/-0.08 May-09
Special air line Fox Hills Mall NOS 560-08-055 0.06/-0.13 0.09/-0.05 May-09
La Cienega and Rodeo NCOS 535-02-090 0.05/-0.03 0.06/-0.04 Oct-10
PXP Oil field @ W. LA college NCOS 535-05-016 -0.75/-1.0 0.05/-0.15 Nov-10 *

Green Valley Crl @ Bristol pkwy NCOS 559-05-005 -0.6/-0.9 -0.09/-0.2 Dec-09
Ivy and Perham NORS 535-06-132 0.05/-0.05 0.27/0.08 May-08 *

Culver City park NORS 535-05-021 0.13/0.00 0.22/0.01 Aug-10 *
Div 3 to NORS NORS 535-09-006 0.04/-0.12 0.13/-0.03 Aug-10 *
NORS behind sound wall NORS 535-13-007 0.12/-0.05 0.22/0.00 Dec-09 *
Hannum @ Bristol Pkwy NORS 559-05-006 0.03/-0.09 0.23/-0.02 Aug-10 *
Farragut @ Le Bourget WLAIS 534-08-044 0.07/-0.1 0.09/-0.06 Dec-09
Jackson nw/o Braddock WRS 534-08-040 0.05/-0.1 no data

* Denotes significant reduction in pressure between March 2011 test and tests conducted
prior to the recent changes.
Table 2 – Current vs. Previous Pressure Readings
159 August 2011

Influence of NORS and NOTF Scrubbers
Gas pressure increased significantly when the NOTF scrubber was turned off. However,
when the NORS/ECIS Scrubber was also turned off, the pressure did not increase much
more. This is contrary to the notion that two scrubbers should extract significantly more
gas than just one. This limited impact of the second scrubber is probably due to the
following reasons:
1) The NOTF Scrubber relieves mainly the WRS, WLAIS, and the NOS. It is
connected to the NORS through an empty 54” pipe via Diversion 3 but wouldn’t
have much effect on the NORS.
2) The NORS/ECIS Scrubber relieves mainly the ECIS and NORS
The graph below shows the diurnal pressures during the time when the scrubbers were
turned off and on.
160 August 2011

Figure 2 below shows the influence of the ATFs combined with NOS rehabilitation. The
sampled location was along the NORS at the West LA College which is downstream of the
NORS/ECIS junction and just a few miles upstream of NORS siphon.
NORS at West LA College
0.6
Top: 2010 data
0.5 NOTF and NORS ON Bottom: 2011 data
Pressure
in-wc
0.4 NOTF and NORS OFF
0.3
0.2
0.1
-0.1
Figure 2
Figure 3 below compares maximum and minimum pressure before and after the ATFs and
the NOS rehabilitation.
0.6
0.5
Pressure in-wc
0.4
Max
0.3
Min
0.2
0.1
0
2010 2011
Figure 3
161 August 2011

Conclusion
This pressure test showed the signigicant improvement in sewer gas pressure that resulted
from the rehabilitation of the NOS and the newly-constructed ATFs. The majority of the
22 locations tested showed a significant drop in pressure in comparison to the recorded
pressure prior to January 2011 due to these odor control improvements. The only high
pressure was in the ECIS upstream of the ECIS siphon. Here, the gas pressure was reduced
by half but is still present. However, the planned construction of another ATF at Mission
and Jesse by 2014 is expected to reduce gas pressure within the ECIS even more.
A planned project will soon install rubber curtains in the sewer headspace at the three
diversion structures that diverted flow from the NOS to the NORS during the rehabilitation
of the NOS. The sewer pressures will be measured again after the completion of this
project to determine its impact on gas pressures.
162 August 2011

Sewer Odor Control: Master Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sewer Odor Control: Master Plan

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sewer Odor Control: Master Plan

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CITY OF LOS ANGELES

SEWER ODOR CONTROL

Wastewater Engineering Services Division

Chapter Title Page

8.1 AOC1 - EAST NOS CORRIDOR................................................................................................... 61

ACRONYMS and ABBREVIATIONS

ATF Air Treatment Facility

WLAIS West L.A. Interceptor Sewer

A natural phenomenon within any wastewater collection system is the production of

EVALUATION OF THE COLLECTION SYSTEM

• AOC1 - East NOS Corridor – NOS

• AOS1 - South Los Angeles Area – NOS

AOC1 - East NOS Corridor

Other Recommendations (not from the ATF Review Study)

AOC2 - La Cienega/San Fernando Corridor

AOC3 - Baldwin Hills/Culver City Area

AOC4 - East Valley Area

AOS1 - South Los Angeles Area

AOS2 - Coastal Interceptor Sewer

AOS3 - Harbor Area

AOS4 - West Valley Area

1.2 Odor Generation

A natural phenomenon within any wastewater collection system is the production

1.3 History of Odor Control

1.5 Purpose and Objectives

• Provide a proactive systematic approach to odor prevention and control.

Additionally, in an on-going effort to better understand the nature of sewer odors,

technologies, where appropriate, through either the operation and maintenance

1.6 Task Descriptions

2.0 EXISTING COLLECTION SYSTEM

2.1 Hyperion Service Area Interceptor and Outfall Sewers

2.1.1 Coastal Interceptor Sewer (CIS)

2.1.3 North Outfall Sewer (NOS)

2.1.4 North Central Outfall Sewer (NCOS)

2.1.5 North Outfall Replacement Sewer (NORS)

2.1.6 West Los Angeles Interceptor Sewer (WLAIS)

2.1.7 Westwood Relief Sewer (WRS)

2.1.8 Wilshire-Hollywood Interceptor Sewer (WHIS)

2.1.9 La Cienega Interceptor Sewer (LCIS)

2.1.10 La Cienega-San Fernando Valley Relief Sewer (LCSFVRS)

2.1.11 Valley Outfall Relief Sewer (VORS)

2.1.12 Additional Valley Outfall Relief Sewer (AVORS)

2.1.13 East Valley Relief Sewer (EVRS)

2.1.14 East Valley Interceptor Sewer (EVIS)

2.1.15 East Central Interceptor Sewer (ECIS)

2.1.16 Northeast Interceptor Sewer (NEIS)

2.1.17 Eagle Rock Interceptor Sewer (ERIS)

2.2.1 Fries Avenue Interceptor Sewer System (FISS)

2.2.2 San Pedro Interceptor Sewer System (SPISS)

2.2.3 Terminal Way Interceptor Sewer System (TISS)

2.2.4 Former U.S. Navy Sewer System and Facility

1. Communication and coordination with the community-based Odor Control Advisory

3.1 Odor Advisory Board

3.2 Odor Expert and Community Liaison

3.3 Odor Outreach Program

3.3.1 Annual Survey

3.3.2 Newspaper Advertising

3.3.3 Flyer Distribution