How do Gravity Grease Interceptors Work and How Efficient are they?

Many jurisdictions across the United States either favor exterior gravity interceptors or outright mandate them, some going as far as disallowing hydromechanical grease interceptors altogether.  

I get it.  I understand why.  Jurisdictions are frustrated!

For many decades grease traps (now called hydromechanical grease interceptors - HGI) have been the primary pretreatment device prescribed by plumbing codes to be installed in commercial food service establishments to prevent grease from entering the collection system.

If they work so well, why have jurisdictions been having so many issues with the buildup of FOG in collection systems?  

A simple inspection of the restaurants in a lot of jurisdictions will reveal a significant number of undersized indoor grease interceptors that are connected only to a multi-compartment sink and are not being maintained frequently enough.  

Hey, Americans are some of the best ditch divers (going from one extreme to another) in the world.  If the problem is allowing restaurants to install undersized grease interceptors inside the kitchen, then the "fix" is only allowing swimming pool sized gravity interceptors outside, right?!

How efficient are these giant interceptors?  How much grease will they hold?

I have asked jurisdictions across the country from sea to shining sea these same questions for the past 5 years, and you know what the answer always is?  "I don't know" - that's the answer. No one knows.  

How is it possible that we have jurisdictions mandating and in some cases only allowing the installation of interceptors whose efficiency and grease storage capacities are unknown?

I suppose the most common argument I hear is that basic physics justify their approval.  Okay, what physics are we talking about?  Stokes law.  The universally accepted answer as to why gravity interceptors work is because of Stokes law and retention time.

Really?  Okay, so what is Stokes law and how does it work?

Stokes law explained
The American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE), Plumbing Engineering Design Handbook 4, Plumbing Components and Equipment, covers grease interceptors in chapter 8. Regarding Stokes law it has this to say on page 153: 

"An examination of this equation shows that the vertical velocity of a grease globule in water depends on the density and diameter of the globule, the density and viscosity of the water, and the temperature of the water and FOG material. Specifically, the grease globule's vertical velocity is highly dependent on the globule's diameter, with small globules rising much more slowly than larger ones. Thus, the larger the globule, the faster the rate of separation."


Table 8-1 Droplet Rise Time

Travel Time for 3" Distance at   68 deg F (hr:min:sec)			Travel Time for 3" Distance at   68 deg F (hr:min:sec)
Droplet Diameter (microns)	Oil (rise time) SG 0.85		Droplet Diameter (microns)	Oil (rise time) SG 0.90
300	0:00:12		300	0:00:15
150	0:00:42		150	0:01:03
125	0:01:00		125	0:01:27
90	0:01:54		90	0:02:54
60	0:04:12		60	0:06:36
50	0:06:18		50	0:09:18
40	0:09:36		40	0:14:24
30	0:17:24		30	0:25:48
20	0:38:46		20	0:58:08
15	1:08:54		15	1:43:22
10	2:35:02		10	3:52:33
5	10:02:09		5	15:30:14
1	258:23:53		1	387:35:49

In the table above ASPE calculated the different rise rates of grease globules based on size in microns, and two different specific gravities (SG) - 0.85 and 0.90, showing how long it would take them to rise 3 inches at 68 deg. F.

Quoting ASPE again:

"Due to reliance on gravity differential phenomena, there is a practical limitation to interceptor effectiveness. In terms of grease/oil globule size, an interceptor will be effective over a globule diameter range having a lower limit of 0.015 centimeter (150 microns)."

Stokes law is fairly straight forward with one catch; it calculates the rate of rise of a grease globule in static (not moving) water. Does a grease interceptor, whether HGI or gravity, contain static water? Obviously not.  Either type of interceptor will have fixtures draining waste water into them at some flow rate.  How does this flow of waste water affect the calculation of Stokes law?

We need to understand the difference between laminar and turbulent flow before attempting to ascertain their affect on the calculation of Stokes law.

According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Turbulent Flow

• Turbulent flow is fluid flow in which the fluid undergoes irregular fluctuations, or mixing. The speed of the fluid at a point is continuously undergoing changes in magnitude and direction, which results in swirling and eddying as the bulk of the fluid moves in a specific direction.
• Laminar flow is fluid flow in which the fluid travels smoothly or in regular paths. The velocity, pressure, and other flow properties at each point in the fluid remain constant. Laminar flow over a horizontal surface may be thought of as consisting of thin layers, all parallel to each other, that slide over each other. 

It is impossible to accurately predict the rise rate of a globule of grease in a turbulent flow environment because the turbulent flow acts to re-entrain the grease into the flow path negating the buoyant forces that are acting to lift the grease globule to the surface (depending on its size of course).

The advantage of a laminar flow environment is that the flow has very little effect (adding drag) on the buoyant forces acting on a grease globule.

Quoting again from page 155 of the same ASPE handbook:

"The ability of an interceptor to perform its primary function depends on a number of factors. These include the type and state of FOG in the waste flow, the characteristics of the carrier stream [turbulent vs. laminar], and the design and size of the unit."

Quoting from a paper published in 1944 titled Symposium on Grease Removal, Design and Operation of Grease Interceptors, by F.M. Dawson and A.A. Kalinske: 

"For simplicity let us assume that pure grease and water enter near the bottom of a rectangular-shaped interceptor L feet long, B feet wide, and with a water depth of D feet. The interceptor will do a good job of separation if, as the flow goes through the interceptor, the mean velocity of the flow is such as to permit a grease globule to rise a vertical distance D in a length of L feet."

Let's go back to our ASPE handbook:

"The ideal separation basin is one that has no turbulence, short-circuiting, or eddies.  The flow through the interceptor is laminar and distributed uniformly throughout the basin's cross-sectional area."

Distributing the flow uniformly throughout the basin's cross-sectional area reduces velocity which allows more time for a grease globule to separate inside the interceptor before reaching the outlet and escaping.  The velocity of the flow is reduced proportional to the extent to which it is uniformly distributed throughout the basin's cross-sectional area. 

The question is; do gravity interceptors have a laminar flow path and do they uniformly distribute the flow throughout their cross-sectional areas?

IAPMO/ANSI Z1001 Gravity Grease Interceptor

Here is what the standard gravity interceptor design looks like; the design that is mandated by IAPMO/ANSI Z1001 (formerly PS-80) and approved by model plumbing codes and most jurisdictions:

According to the Water Environment Research Foundations' 2008 report Assessment of Grease Interceptor Performance:  

Figure 5-18

"The standard configuration [IAPMO/ANSI Z1001] displayed substantially poorer performance than any of the other simulations (56.7%). Close observation of the velocity contours (Figure 5-18) of the cross-section within the reactor suggests that the cause for this reduced performance may be due to higher local velocities near the inlet, baffle, and outlet pipes, all contributing non-quiescent (turbulent) flow conditions...Further examination of the velocity contours in the direction of flow (Figure 5-19) suggests several regions of high velocity along the bottom of the tank and along the side walls."


WERF is essentially saying that at higher flow rates the lack of any control over the flow in gravity interceptors exacerbates turbulence and horizontal velocity leading to short-circuiting.

Figure 5-19

The simulations and bench tests pictured in Figure 5-18 and 5-19 represent a 20 minute retention time, which would be 50 gpm entering a 1000 gallon gravity interceptor. That is obviously a significant amount of flow and in fairness is higher than the average flow rate from most FSEs.

WERF's 2008 report also documented Grease Interceptor Influent Fluid Flow Analysis conducted on several different food service establishments (FSE) in Table 4-3 page 4-8.  The data collected included the total flow to the grease interceptor, the maximum flow-rate measured, the average flow-rate for the measurement period, and the size of the interceptor, among other things.

The outlier on maximum flow-rate across all restaurants was 45 GPM at a ‘full service steak house’. The average flow-rate at this same restaurant was 9.8 GPM.  The second highest flow-rate recorded was 35 GPM at a ‘full fare – Italian’ restaurant and the average flow-rate for this FSE was 9.4 GPM. The average flow rate for all restaurants was 2.8 gpm.

It is important to understand that the flow rates from these FSEs have low averages because restaurants don't typically fill up all their sinks and dump them repeatedly all day long.  Normal kitchen operations have some flow associated with both cooking and cleaning throughout the day, however, when they pull the drain plugs at the end of a meal period or the end of the day - this is when they will have a significant amount of flow at higher temperatures.

Based on all of the factors that effect grease interceptor performance, we would expect that a gravity grease interceptor would perform well at the average flow rates of most restaurants. However, we should also expect them to have problems with short circuiting at higher flow rates, and this is in fact what WERF reported finding in their analysis of interceptors in real world installations.  

Conclusion
On page 156 of the handbook we've been referring to here, ASPE explains:

"you can improve the grease interceptor by increasing the interceptor volume or reducing flow and subsequently lowering horizontal velocity and increasing retention time within the interceptor."

Therefore, gravity interceptors will actually need to be bigger in order to prevent short circuiting at higher flow rates - a decision that has consequences both positive and negative (i.e. better efficiencies but H2S gas generation).

Hydromechanical interceptors, though smaller in size and volume, have the advantage of being able to control the entering waste stream creating a laminar flow environment and distributing that flow more or less uniformly throughout their cross-sectional area, thereby reducing horizontal velocity and increasing flow through time.  This is why they are a viable alternative to larger gravity interceptors.

The challenge is to ensure that they are sized to have all of the kitchen fixtures routed to them, in order to avoid inadvertent bypass, and then to make sure they are maintained properly -(both subjects of another post).

Grease Interceptors; whats wrong with the plumbing code?

Jurisdictions across the country rely on the Uniform Plumbing Code to help them solve their local grease related problems.  It is becoming increasingly clear that the "code" is not providing adequate solutions in fats, oils, and grease (FOG) abatement efforts.

So what is the problem?  Simply put when it comes to grease interceptors the plumbing code seems more interested in the design of the interceptor and the amount of waste water that can flow through it or be stored in it than the amount of grease it should be expected to efficiently separate and store.

Vague language for specifiers
From the 2009 Uniform Plumbing Code Chapter 10 Paragraph 1014.1:  “…an approved type of grease interceptor(s)… shall be correctly sized and properly installed in grease waste line(s) leading from sinks and drains, such as floor drains and floor sinks and other fixtures or equipment …where grease is introduced into the drainage or sewage system in quantities that can effect line stoppage or hinder sewage treatment or private sewage disposal.” (2009 UPC 1014.1)

Where grease is introduced

The problem with the way this is phrased is that it assumes that all FSE's handle greasy waste the same.  This is absolutely not correct.  Best Management Practices (BMPs) vary dramatically from one kitchen to another.  I have heard countless stories of kitchen staff dumping pots of soup down hand wash sinks, or staff using the grinder sink (food prep) to rinse dirty dishes before loading them into the dishwasher.  A specifier has no control over which fixtures get greasy waste dumped into them.  If the fixture isn't connected to a grease interceptor you can be sure that someone is going to be using it for greasy waste.

In quantities than can effect line stoppage

How is the specifier to know whether the kitchen staff are using the fixtures that are connected to the interceptor and none of the other fixtures?  The specifier has no way of knowing how much greasy waste is being put into any specific fixture.  

Drainage Fixture Units and Gravity Flow Rates only calculate water loading

What is a Drainage Fixture Unit (DFU)?

“A quantity in terms of which the load-producing effects on the plumbing system of different kinds of plumbing fixtures are expressed on some arbitrarily chosen scale.”  The code assigns a numerical value to fixtures installed in a plumbing system that accounts for the amount of waste water the fixture is likely to produce.

The problem with using this method for sizing interceptors is that it doesn't tell us anything about how much grease we can expect from those given fixtures.  This has led to thousands of grease traps to be installed under multi-compartment sinks that are too small in capacity and not being maintained often enough.  More importantly a lot of the grease being produced by the food service establishment is not being routed through the interceptor at all as kitchen staff use fixtures and drains that are not connected to the interceptor to dump greasy waste.

NO consideration given to FOG loading in sizing protocols

The primary function of any grease interceptor is to efficiently separate and store fats, oils, and grease (FOG).  It makes sense that you should size a device to accommodate its primary function.  Unfortunately the plumbing code does not do that.  There are some jurisdictions that have created their own sizing method that attempts to do this because they are frustrated with the lack of effective sizing in the plumbing code.

There is a better way
Schier recommends that you connect as many of the fixtures in the kitchen as possible to the grease interceptor.  This guarantees that kitchen staff will not be circumventing the grease interceptor by using unconnected fixtures for greasy waste.  Schier also recommends using a FOG production sizing method in conjunction with the plumbing code as a two-step process. See the website at www.schierproducts.com.

Grease Interceptors; 2009 UPC vs 2006 UPC

In the 2006 Uniform Plumbing Code the term 'Grease Trap' was replaced by a new term 'Hydromechanical Grease Interceptor' which is defined as:  "A plumbing appurtenance or appliance that is installed in a sanitary drainage system to intercept nonpetroleum fats, oil, and greases (FOG) from a wastewater discharge and is identified by flow rate, and separation and retention efficiency.  The design incorporates air entrainment, hydromechanical separation, interior baffling, and / or barriers in combination or separately..."  Hydromechanical Grease Interceptors are required to control the flow rate entering the device with either an external flow control or a built-in flow control (non-external), either directly connected or indirectly connected to the sewer system.  These devices are allowed a maximum of 720 drainage fixture units (DFU) according to Table 10-2 of the code.

The 2009 Uniform Plumbing Code revised the sizing requirements for Hydromechanical grease interceptors and eliminated the application of Drainage Fixture Units in sizing considerations.  In chapter 10 Table 10-2 was revised to size these devices by either using Gravity Flow Rates or Fixture Capacity.

2009 Uniform Plumbing Code, Table 10-2

There is some confusion about whether to use the One-Minute Drainage Period or the Two-Minute Drainage Period.  Lets clear that up.

Plumbing Engineers (specifiers) rely on the American Society of Plumbing Engineers (ASPE) for instruction and guidance on industry best practices for sizing plumbing piping systems.  In the Plumbing Engineering Design Handbook 2, chapter 1 Sanitary Drainage Systems, ASPE instructs engineers to size their gravity flow waste piping systems at half-full capacity to minimize the generation of pneumatic pressure fluctuations, to prevent self-siphonage of traps, and reduce noise, while providing enough flow to rapidly carry away the soiled water without clogging the pipes or leaving solids in the pipes.

Bearing in mind the instruction to engineers to design their gravity flow sanitary drainage systems at half-full capacity, we can easily see that the Two-Minute Drainage Period more closely reflects the actual flow rates the piping system was designed to deliver.  Thus when sizing an interceptor using the pipe size exiting the building you should use the Two-Minute Drainage Period.

When using Fixture Capacity the same rule applies.  Notice the total load in gallons in the example given is 49.9 gpm.  The One-Minute Drainage time assumes that the tail piece at the bottom of each compartment will allow the full contents of the sink to empty in one minute.  In reality this is not the case.  Most of the multi-compartment sinks either use a 1-1/2" or 2" tail piece.  The maximum flow rate of a 2" tail piece is 24 gpm.  Therefore you should use the Two-Minute Drainage Period which more closely reflects the actual flow rate coming from the fixture.

Whether it takes the sinks a minute or two to drain into the sanitary system makes little difference in the normal operation of a commercial kitchen.  The more important issue to consider when sizing grease interceptors is how much grease they should be expected to separate and store.  The plumbing code makes no allowance for determining this "FOG loading" and as such has done a poor job of correctly sizing grease interceptors.  For information on grease production sizing please see Schier Product's website at www.schierproducts.com.