i
     _'	ASSESSMENT OF SEWER SEALANTS
                           by

                  Richard H. Sullivan

                  William B. Thompson
                             t


            American Public Works Association
       	 K.-./2-- ._C.hi.?ago,._Illinois_606.37	
                   Grant No.  R806567               \
                             j
                             j
                             i             ,s
                   Project Officer

                   Richard  P.  Traver     \

      j      Storm  and Combined  Sewer  Section
              Wastewater Research Division
Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory  (Cincinnati)
                Edison, New Jersey  08837       I
      • MUNICIPAL ENVIRONMENTAL  RESEARCH  LABORATORY
            OFFICE OF RESEARCH  AND  DEVELOPMENT
      i     U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                  CINCINNATI, OHIO   45268

-------
                              --DISCLAIMER	
      This report has been reviewed by the Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion.  Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the
views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendation for use.              j
                                     11

-------
                                ...FOREWORD ..
     The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency was created because of in-   j
creasing public and governmental concern about the dangers of pollution to  j
the health and welfare of the American people.  Noxious air, foul water, and
spoiled land are tragic testimony to the deterioration of our natural en-
vironment.  The complexity.of that environment and the interplay between    i
its components require a concentrated and integrated attack on the .problem. •
               1                                                             <
     Research and development is that necessary first step in problem solu- ;
tion and it involves defining the problem, measuring its impact, and        j
searching for solutions.  The Municipal Environmental Research Laboratory   i
develops new and improved technology and systems for the prevention, treat-' ,
ment, and management of wastewater and solid hazardous waste pollutant
discharges from municipal and community sources, for the preservation and
treatment of public drinking water supplies and to minimize the adverse
economic, social, health, and aesthetic effects of pollution.  This pub-    I
lication is one of the products of that research; a most vital communica-   . j
tions link between the researcher and the user community.                   !

     This report describes performance attributes for a sewer sealant.  In
addition, tests for use by the manufacturer and user are provided to allow
insight to be gained as to what application and use characteristics a new
sewer sealant might exhibit.  It is hoped that several products will be made
available from the private sector which will be usable for infiltration     i
control.  Hopefully, such new products will be capable of being applied     j
without the need for major retrofitting of the estimated 800 sewer sealant  ,
units now owned by sewer service contractors and local governmental agencies.
                                      :                                      j
     An investigation was also conducted to determine possible methods  to   j
improve systems to seal house service lines.  Cost effective technology is  ',
needed in this area.                  .                                      i
                                      Francis  T.  Mayo
                                      Director
                                      Municipal Environmental
                                        Research Laboratory
                                     111  .	

-------
                                  ABSTRACT
       The  control of  infiltration  into  sanitary  sewers  is a major  element  of
  local governmental agencies' pollution  control program.  In 1978 the major  •
  product used  for small diameter  sewers  was withdrawn  from production.  A     .
  study was  conducted to develop performance attributes of a sewer sealant     i
  which could be used with existing  sewer sealing  equipment.                   ]

       A series of laboratory, soil box,  and  field evaluation  studies were
  also devised  to assist in  the testing of new products.
       Manufacturers .in  the United  States jand  throughout  the world were  con-  ,
;  tacted  to  determine  if  there were  additional  chemical  formulations which
,  could be used or  if  there was  interest  in  developing a product.

       Present methods for sealing  building sewers were also investigated
•  and  suggestions ..for  new methods  developed.

i       This report is in partial  fulfillment of  the  U.  S.  Environmental  Pro-
!  tection Agency Grant No. R806567-.   Work was completed  in August,  1980.
                                      IV

-------
                               ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The American Public Works Association  (APWA)  conducted  this  study with the
assistance of  the National Association of  Sewer  Service Companies (NASSCO).
Project Director  for APWA was:
                                Richard H.  Sullivan
                                Associate Executive  Director
Director  for NASSCO was:
'-•«• — — —	^ —  J-1/i"	"William B.-Thompson	
:                !                Executive  Director

Consultant  - Testing:                  j

              c:-1-•'"•>"             Reuben H.  Karol (Ph.D)
;                '                Consulting Engineer

Members of  the  project  steering committee  were:

    A.  B. Colthorp                     :R.  L.  Nolte
    Penetryn System,  Inc.                Metro  Sewer  District
    Knoxville, Tennessee               :St.  Louis, Missouri

    James Conklin                      'Elton  Smith
•    NASSCO       ,                        Department of Sanitary Sewers
:    Winter  Park,  Florida               ,Tampa,  Florida
    (Chairman, Safety Committee)

    Kenneth  Guthrie                     William B. Thompson
    Cues, Inc.                          'NASSCO
    Orlando, Florida                    .Winter Park, Florida

    Lonnie  McCain                       Richard P. Traver,  USEPA
    Cherne  Industries,  Inc.             'Municipal Env'l Research Lab
    Edina,  Minnesota                     Edison, New  Jersey

    James Monaghan                      James  Witt
    Gelco Grouting Service               Naylor Industries
    Salem,  Oregon                       Baton  Rouge, Louisiana
                                        (Chairman, Equipment Committee)

-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS (continued)
For their assistance to the study, we would also like to thank -
  Richard M. Berry
  Penetryn System, Inc.
  Knoxville, Tennessee

  Will Jacques
  Avanti International
  Houston, Texas
  (Chairman, Testing Committee)
 James  W.  Johnson
 3M,  Chemical  Resources
 St.  Paul,  Minnesota

 Patsy  Sherman
 3M Chemical Resources
;St.  Paul,  Minnesota
                              William J. Clark
                           Geochemical Corporation
                            Ridgewood, New Jersey
                                      VI

-------
                                  CONTENTS
                                                                       Page

SECTION I      Overview and Recommendations	    1

SECTION II     Performance Specifications - Sewer Sealants 	    4

SECTION III    Testing of Potential Sewer Sealants 	   13
                                      i
SECTION IV     Sewer Pipe Joint Grouting Equipment 	   22
                                      i
SECTION V      Building Sewer (House Lateral) Repairs	31

SECTION" vi"     Glossary'.' .~" T 7~Y".~ 7 ~. T 7~. T"." T ~ T".". T 7~.~4i

SECTION VII    References;	42

SECTION VIII -. Appendix	,	43
               i                       ;
               !                    FIGURES
 NO.

  1.   Attributes of Specifications for Chemical Sewer
         Sealant Systems 	    6 j
  2.   Gradation of Sand for Test Cylinders	15
  3.   Closed Circuit TV Equipment . .'	24
  4.   Remote Sealing Equipment. . .	24 j
  5.   Packer Devices	25 j
  6.   Preinspection of Sewer	26 |
  1.   Sewer Joint Sealing	27
  8.   Building Sewer Joint Sealing	38 ,
  9.   Building Sewer Exfiltration Sealing 	   38;



               '                    TABLES

  1.   Steps in Life of Chemical Sealant	    5
  2.   Limits and Measures  of Sewer Sealant Characteristics. ........ 7
  3.   Sealing of Building  Sewers	33,:34,35'   .
  4.   Range of Costs for Repair of Building  Sewers	[.  . . .   36    j
  5.   Insituform Method ,	40    j
                                                                        \     !
                                     Vll

-------
                                  SECTION I
                        OVERVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS                         !
                                                                             i
                                                                             j
       In recent years the need to reduce infiltration from sanitary sewer   j
systems has become recognized as one of the means available to reduce the    \
hydraulic loading of wastewater treatment facilities.  Without infiltration,
treatment plants may serve additional customers without expansion or allow   ;
construction of smaller facilities.  In addition untreated overflow of
infiltrated flow and sewage are also minimized.
                ;                      t             '                          ; -
       Sealing of defective joints in sewers has been a recognized method Jto J
reduce or eliminate infiltration for many years.  Where the pipe is struc-   ;
turally sound and equipment can be inserted into the pipe, sealant materials
can be injected into a joint and a seal achieved.

       Although many types of chemicals have been used for grouting, the
major material used in this country and throughout the world was an acrylamide
monomer manufactured by American Cyanamid.  In 1978, production of this pro- .
duct was discontinued.  By 1979 a similar product was available from Japan.  !
The price has almost tripled.                                                j

       In recent years a urethane foam grout sealant was .developed by the    \
3M Company.  Though the product is used in small diameter sewers, its major
use has been in sewers where physical access by workers can be obtained.

       Concern was expressed by the USEPA, local government, and sewer
service contractors over the high cost and dependence upon a single foreign
manufacturer.  A study was therefore undertaken  to determine if there were
alternative products available; to develop performance specifications for a
sewer sealant; to assist manufacturers considering entering the market;  to
develop a series of tests to evaluate new products;  and to evaluate methods
available or which appeared possible for sealing building sewers.  Building
sewers have not generally been rehabilitated because of the high cost of
current technology.
                                                                             1  ,
       The American Public Works Association (APWA)  in conjunction with  the
National Association of Sewer Service Companies  (NASSCO) established an
advisory committee of local governmental and Federal and  industry officials.
The committee reviewed products and made recommendations  throughout this
study.

      During the course of the study, several manufacturers announced new          i-
products of their intention to do so in  the near  future.  A list of all           I.
currently available products is contained in Section VIII.                        I

-------
 —    In an effort to broaden the search,letter contact was made to major  —••
United States chemical companies and nations with domestic chemical
•industries.  This search proved futile.  As a result of the letter inquiry
no new chemical products were suggested for use as a sewer sealant.

 	    A one-day meeting was held to brief representatives of chemical     	
companies as to what was needed and the environment in which a_sealant _   _ /
system must function.  Several companies were present, and some have indi-
cated that they are developing and testing products to be introduced to the   ;
market.                                :                                       ;
                                       '                                       i
                " •                                                            I
       A set of sewer sealant performance attributes was developed as ex-     i
plained in Section II.  In conjunction with the limitations of existing       i
equipment used for sewer sealing described in Section IV manufacturers now    ;
have an overview of what characteristics a product should have to be con-
sidered for sewer sealing.                         .                           I

       Section III sets forth a series of tests by the manufacturer and tests
which might be conducted by a user to evaluate a product.  To speed the       j
evaluation and possible acceptance of new products^ a framework for"field   ' "*
evaluation of new products also was developed.                                '•

       Section IV provides an overview of the existing equipment and its
delivery capabilities and limitations.

       Existing and proposed methods of sealing building sewers are des-      ;
cribed in Section V.  Existing methods are very costly and generally not
cost effective.  Difficulties of access to the small pipe used makes sealing
of this portion of the sewer system very difficult.

 RECOMMENDATIONS               "  \, ..''.,.

 1.   The study has made it clear that several manufacturers have
     developed chemical sealing systems which may be used in
     sanitary sewers.  Acceptance by consulting engineers, local
     government, and sewer service companies of such new sealants
     would be stimulated if a controlled field demonstration were
     conducted.  The availability of an unbiased, third party
     report on the performance of the sewer sealant products is
     desirable to allow consideration by local governmental
     agencies, sewer service  companies, and consulting engineers  and
     would allow a broader understanding of conditions specific  to the
     use of each sealant  tested.
      It  is  recommended  that  USEPA sponsor  a field demonstration program
      for at least four  of  the  sealants  deemed  to have the characteristics
      most likely to  provide  a  superior  product with minimum retrofit of
      existing equipment, or  a  probable  low cost product compared to
      others available,  if  such a product has also developed usable
      application equipment.  The field  demonstrations should be conducted
      in  various climates under various  soil and groundwater conditions,
      types  of pipe materials,  and size  of  pipe.  The evaluation should
      include observations  and  testing over at  least a one year period.
                                      2                         	

-------
2.     The importance of economically and effectively eliminating
       infiltration from building sewers has become apparent in recent
       years. (2,4)  Present methods, depending upon access from a
       surface excavation,  are costly.   There has been relatively little
       private research and development effort reported.

      . It is recommended that USEPA sponsor a symposium to be attended by
       other Federal agencies, consultants, local government, sewer service
       contractors, and industry to review the findings and suggestions of
       this report and such other work as may be available, and suggest to
       USEPA what technologies are available from other areas to provide a
       sealant system for the building sewer and the direction that USEPA's
       Research and Development effort should take.

-------
                ;                  SECTION  II                                   '.

                 PERFORMANCE  SPECIFICATIONS -  SEWER SEALANT
                                                                              j
  .•- —To assist users  of  sewer grouting materials  and manufacturers  who  are   s=i
considering  the development of new  products, a performance  specification has
been developed.  The  performance  attributes of a  sealant  have  been  detailed.
These attributes may  or  may not be  applicable  to  a  particular  chemical  system
due to the chemistry  of  the particular system  used.                           !
                                                                              i
     Experience with  sealing  sewers over  a 20-year  period has  indicated many ;
desirable features of a  system depending  upon  how the  sealant  is  to accomplish
its primary  task of not  allowing  infiltration  into  the pipe.   In  addition,    i
there are several requirements which must be met  due to the normal  processes [
of  shipping, handling and work safety.                                        i
                                                                              i
     At the  beginning of this study two methods were in use for sealing a
sewer joint:  1) form a  new gasket  in the joint,  and 2) build  up  an imperme-
able band of material around  the  outside  of the joint.  The nature  and
quantity of  material  is  generally different for the two methods.        %      ;
      A third method,  bonding the pipes together (3),  was tried several years
 ago.   However,  due to trench conditions,  loadings and placement problems,
 the  concept does  not  appear workable.

      Two major" constraints  adopted  by  this  study were:   1)  the sealant must
 be capable  of being applied internally with remote controlled equipment in   '
 small diameter  pipes,  15 cm (6 in.) to 76 cm (2.5 ft);  and 2) the application
 of the sealant  should be accomplished  with  existing equipment in use by local
.governmental agencies and sewer service companies or  with only minor retro-
 fit  costs.   Existing  equipment for  the purpose of this  study has been defined
 as that sewer sealing equipment presently in use by the public and private   :
 sectors to  internally seal  small diameter sewers.  Minor retrofit cost has
 been defined as the cost which,  when capitalized over the remaining life of  : -,••'..'.! C
 the  equipment and if  used with a particular product,  would be cost effective.  ' '*:""- ""''
 Thus  the cost would vary with the ultimate  cost of the  installed joint and   . ~ -  '^''~J'C
 would be influenced by both the cost of the material  and the cost of applica-" '^ '^\^'~'':.
 tion.	  	      	           •                                ^A,';..,',/):;:


      Table  1 lists the steps in the life  of a chemical  sealant from manu-
 facture to  conditions which may be  found  at the site  of placement.  These
 steps provide a quick screening of  the major conditions which dictate the
 necessary  specifications for a sealant.

-------
     BY

Manufacturer

Manufacturer

Common carrier

Distributor

Common Carrier

Applicator

Applicator

Applicator

Applicator

Applicator

Applicator

Applicator

Applicator
Applicator

Applicator

Applicator
             TABLE 1

STEPS IN LIFE OF CHEMICAL SEALANT

               STEP

 1.   Formulate components and package

 2.   Warehouse storage

 3.   Transport to distributor

 4.   Warehouse storage

 5.   Transport to applicator

 6.   Warehouse storage*

 7.   Transport to field

 8.   Field storage*

 9.   Transport to job site

10.   Mix batch*

11.   Pump to application

12.   Mix with catalyst/activator

13.   Force into/through joint
     a.  sand    c.  water     e.  voids
     b.  grease  c.  bedding

14.   Remove excess grout from pipe barrel*

15.   Clean equipment
! OUTSIDE
16.  Subject grout to
     a.  freeze-thaw*
     b.  submergence
     c.  wet-dry*
                                              d.  chemicals*
                                              e.  flexure
                                              f.  pressure head
*may not always be required

-------

J
1 1. Flexible
I
4. impervious

I
B. Not rendered
ineffective by
pipe cleaning


I
..Low viscosity

I
3. Variable react*
lime



1 PREVENT INFILTRATION WHEN PROPERLY APPLIED ;(


A. Have Desirable Physical B. Applied by c. Hut Acceptable
Characteristics in Place Enisling Equipment • Sa'ety and Health


| 2. Non shrinking


5. Compression
Strength





1 1
3. Nogroundwiter 	
contamination

1 1
6 Non-soluble 7. Long-term
in place chemical stability

1
9. Resist rodent 10. Durable
and roach attacks

" ' 1 i.Acceotabie
1. Special Handling 2. Shipped by ' Toxicology
""""""' "*"""
1 2. Acceptable
	 1 Handling
1 Properties

11 3. Acceptable
I Salety
_ll Properties
3. Long shell lile 4. Immune to olfocl
ol outdoor
.

1 1 1
[ (.Bacteria | B Scour/Abrasion | c. Acid-Base


d.Freeze/Thaw | e. Dry/Saturation j

i
D Have Desirable E. Easily shipped f other
Application Characteristics . end handled


on
I
5. Easily rerm
equipment


i
2. Controlled
variable viscosity
•II sealant goesbeyc
1
4. Predictable viscosity
until gelation begins
i
, '
1 1 I
. . .. 1. II mixed 2. Low I.Noelleclon 2. Noellecl
.id pipe wall ( 	 ( retrofit cost w.W. Treatment on pumping
1a) Low precision 1B> Form 'rue
required soiuiion/stable
II biological effect
1 n cl Resist hiah sheet lri)Lonatnt lelfinartm.* • — -
wed from 6. Excess easily removed 7. Full reaction
(clean-up) from barrel In moving water
1 mixing equipment lile time

	 	 	 . 	 	 	 	 r- 	 	

Figure 1 Attributes of Specifications for Chemical Sewer Sealant Systems

-------
—    The  performance  specifications  are  intended  to  develop a  "picture" of ••-•
-.the  desirable.characteristics  and  the  physical, conditions  and  restraints by  ]
which the sealant's performance  will be  evaluated.

      A variety of materials  with regard  to  performance  and manufacture  is
desirable to  allow competition,  meet the needs  of specific application
problems,  and decrease  dependence  upon only one or two  sources.   Described
is what is  necessary, rather than  how  to obtain the  desired objective.   This
is particularly important  as systems based  upon several families  of  chemi-
cals  may  be found to  be usable.

      Although any given chemical sealant may not  meet all  of the  performance
specifications  and physical  standards, it may still  be  a viable material.
The  applicator  would  "trade  off" advantages,  total _cost, or_superior per-_ ..
formance  for  deficiencies.   Thus the specifications  developed  are for
general guidance and  in most instances are  not  absolute.
                                      i
      Both functional  and physical  characteristics of sewer sealants  must be
considered.   Figure 1 is a chart which arrays the various  attributes re-
quired of a sealant.  Those  in the "A" and  "B"  groups are  thought to be of
primary importance to the  grouting application  and rely upon the  inherent
characteristics of the  material.  Other  groups  are dependent upon the
manufacturers or the  application system  developed to use the product.

      Table  2  lists the  limits  for  the  various factors shown in Figure 1.
                                   TABLE 2                                  "

                 ATTRIBUTES OF SEWER SEALANT CHARACTERISTICS

                 (amplifies information  outlined in Figure 1)    \

 A.      Have Desirable Physical Characteristics in Place

        1.    Flexible;  deflect pipe 1° to 5° without cracking or losing seal
             through temperature range of -7° to 38°  C (20°  to 100° F.)

        2.    Non-shrinking:  no adverse shrinkage  that could cause loss of
             seal.

        3.    No groundwater contamination .

        4.    Impervious:   not allow infiltration of groundwater or roots
             through the material.

        5.    Compression strength;   withstand a 2.1 kg/sq cm (30 psi)
             hydraulic pressure without damage to  or  loss of seal in place.
        6.    Non-soluble in place:    will not dissolve in ambient groundwater  \
             or sewage flow over the life of the material.

-------
liable 2 continued                                                            j


        7.   Long-term chemical stability;  no loss of desirable character-   j
             istics due to long term chemical change in place.                j

—      8.   Not rendered ineffective by pipe cleaning;  in place the      	:
1	materials or.seal will not be rendered ineffective by sewer     ,j
             cleaning equipment.      ;                                        |
                                      '                                        i
        9.   Resist rodent and roach attacks:  material will not be affected  :
             by roaches and rodents.                                          j
                                      ;                                        l
       10.   Durable:                 i                                        1
             a.  bacteria:  non-biodegradable.                                j
             b.  scour/abrasion:  1.5 m/sec (5 ft/sec) of flow in pipe with   '
                • grit load.           ;                                        j
             c.  acid/base:  not rendered ineffective by acid/base in normal
                I concentrations.      :
   	 __d.' freeze/thaw:_ not rendered ineffective by repeated freeze-
                , thaw cycles.         :                                     """"j
             e.: dry/saturation:  not rendered ineffective by repeated        '
                ;' cycles of dry and saturated environment.                     j
             f.  organic solvents:  not rendered ineffective by repeated
             ~.-,-exposure to organic solvents.

       11.   Long life;  material in place, should have a useful life of 20
             years.

 B.      Applied by Existing Equipment .

        If mixed:                     ;
                •                      i
        1.   Low precision required;  no special equipment or precise
             measurements required for mixing of 'components and/or additives.

        2.   Form true solution/stable dispersion:  once mixed, the materials
             shall not settle out or separate from solution for a minimum of
             24 hours.

        3.   Resist high sheer mixing equipment:  material will be unaffected
             when mixed with blades or paddles.

        4.   Long pot life:  minimum 5 days.

        5.   Short mix time:  maximum 15 minutes.

 C.      Have Acceptable Safety and Health Properties

        1.   Acceptable toxicology:  material should not be harmful or
             cumulatively toxic in amounts likely to be  transmitted by
—           finger-to-mouth contact or by smoking.  Skin contact absorp-  	
  			...tion should not be toxic or..cumulatively  toxic.  Components	

             	__   ..._..       8 ''•  ' '    ._.

-------
 "Table  2  continued                                                         "—•

                                                                              j
             of  spills or unreacted components drained  from equipment         j
             should not  cause damaging effects to wastewater  treatment        '
             plants or receiving waters when washed  into  sanitary or
 J~"          storm sewers at a dilution of 1,000/1.  Unreacted  components
             ^n  smaii amounts~diluted by groundwater-1000/1  should "not       ;
             form an identifiable pollutant with a life of more than 48       |
             hours.  Manufacturers Material Safety Data Sheets  (MSDS)         i
             OSHA Form-20 and Standard Ratings for Toxic  Substances           :
              (LD 50|)lreports should be available.

        2.   Acceptable  handling properties:  skin contact, as  well as        i
;             dust or fumes, should not cause burns,  blisters, peeling,        ;
             dermatitis, or allergic reaction.  Accidental eye  contact
             should not  cause permanent eye damage.  Concentrated and         ;
             unreacted components should have a solvent for cleaning          :
             the materials from skin and/or equipment.  The solvent should    i
  .;. —	   have acceptable toxicology, handling, and  safety properties. ~  -'^
                •                       ;                                       I
                                                                              }
        3.   Acceptable  safety properties;  the materials should not be       1
             so  corrosive as to require special packaging and plumbing.       i
             The material, as well as dust or vapor, should not be            ,
             dangerously combustible.  Flash point should be  above            '•
             working temperature 40° C (100° F), and preferably above
;             a possible  storage temperature of 60° C (140° F).   The           ;'
             sealant components should not be hypergolic, i.e., (ignite       :
             spontaneously) with common materials, e.g.,  rags,  oil,
             gasoline.                 •;                                       •

 D.     Have Desirable Application Characteristics                            ;
                                       '                                       i
        1.   Low viscosity at point of application:  materials  which          i
             perform by  grouting of the soil generally must have a            i
             viscosity of 1 to 30 cps over temperature  range  of from          •
             -1° to 50°  C (300 F to 120° F).  Materials must  be              }
             capable of  being pumped 150 m (500 ft)  in  hoses  of              j
             1.2 to 1.9  cm (0.5 to 0.75 in.)      /                            j
                                       :                                       I
        2.   Controlled  variable viscosity:  with additives,  increase
             the viscosity from 1 to 10 times.

        3.   Controlled  variable reaction time:  from 5 seconds to
             15  minutes.

        4.   Predictable viscosity until gelation begins:  once
             mixed and during placement the viscosity remains
             essentially constant until gelation begins.
                                      ' 9 \

-------
       3.   No long-term biological effects;  will not break down,
            leach, or release any toxic materials.

       Additional background information concerning safety criteria and
existing equipment should be considered by the manufacturers of grouts.,
Table 2 continued                                                        -•


       5.   Easily removed from equipment;  clean equipment in 30
            minutes or less without special equipment or toxic,
            flammable solvents.

       6."   Excess easily removed from pipe barrel';  excess "material
            removed with the packer.

       7.   Full reaction in moving water;  unconfined groundwater
            flowing at 2.5 cm (1 in.) per second.

E.     Easily Shipped and Handled

       1.   Special handling not required;  meet DOT regulations. \
                                                                            i
       2.   Shipped by common carrier;  meet  DOT regulations.  \             \

 .;. —.— 3., —-Long shelf life;--Minimum of 6 months; 1 year desired.      I" -"'1
                                                                            i
                                                                            i
       4.   Immune to effect of temperature over normal range;  un-         !
            affected in temperature ranges of -1° to 50°C (3Qo F to         !
            120° F).                 i                                      !

       5.   No danger if mixed with other chemicals, etc.;  will not        >
            cause explosion, fire, or poisonous  gases or fumes if          | i
            accidentally mixed with other chemicals that might      \        :
            commonly be found at a sewer line rehabilitation site.  \       '
                                                                            i
       6.   Labeling;
            a.  labeling should be easy to read.
            b.  contain instructions  for handling  damaged materials.
            c.  contain instructions  for cleanup of spillage and
                disposal of excess materials  and packaging.
F.     Other                          ;                                      )

       1.   No effect on wastewater treatment plant;  excess material       ;•
            or material's components will have no negative effects on
            the performance of wastewater  treatment  plant  operations.   \    !

       2.   No effect on pumping;  excess materials will not clog or        j
            damage pumps used  for the transportation of sewage.             !
                                     10  ;

-------
".Table 2 continued


 Safety                               '•

      Sewer sealants are handled and applied by construction-type
—    workers using truck-mounted equipment.  Operations are per-
'	formed in the field (away from warehouse or yard) under all	
      weather conditions.  Sewer sealant materials are carried on
      the truck in concentrated form (powder or liquid) and the
      components may be dissolved/diluted/mixed/blended, as required,
      at the work site.  The components, in liquid form,are then
      pumped through 155 to 215 m (500 to 700 ft) of hose to the point   \
      of application in the sewer where final mixing/catalyzation/       \
      reaction of the components takes place and affects seal.

      Worker Exposure - Regardless of preferred procedures for
      handling, mixing, and applying chemical sealants, workers
      can (and will) occasionally be exposed to the sealant com-
   	 ponents.   	

      For example;                    i
      	                        ,

      -   Containers (bags, drums, pails) will receive rough hand-
          ling in the field.  There will be breakage and spills from
          time to time.        .       '
                                      !
      -   Equipment and plumbing (tanks, pumps, hoses, fittings)
          will be disassembled for repair/replacement.

          Diluting/mixing, blending of the concentrated components
          may 'cause airborne dust, mist, or vapor.  There may be
          spills and residuals.

      -   Manual access sealing of large pipes and manholes will
          expose workers to the components at the point of applica-
          tion.

 Safety Equipment

      Workers will have and use approved respirators,  gloves,  goggles,
      aprons, and such  for protection when mixing and  handling  the
      chemicals.  Use of such  personnel protection  gear  cannot  be
      assured at all times.

 Wash Facilities

      Workers will not generally have shower, hand wash, or eye wash
      facilities available at  the job site.
                                      11 ',

-------
 Table 2  continued


 Desired  Safety and  Health  Properties

      It  would  be ideal  to  have  a chemical  sealant  system which was
      non-combustible, non-corrosive,  non-toxic, non-irritating,
1.	non-allergic,  etc. —In -all-probability,  however,- it would	
      also be non-effective.

      Moderate  and tolerable levels  of undesirable  properties
      may exist.   The important  thing  is  to rule out  materials
      having highly  dangerous and cumulatively toxic  properties.
                                      12,

-------
                                SECTION III

                     TESTING OF POTENTIAL SEWER SEALANTS

     To evaluate the potential usefulness of a material proposed for use as
a sewer sealant, at least four levels of testing appear needed. "These are: ^
1) basic tests by manufacturer and bench tests to determine essential
characteristics of the material as related to the desired performance
attributes; 2) soil box tests to evaluate the application characteristics of
the material and its potential ability to seal the sewer under various con-
ditions; 3) controlled field applications to determine long-term stability
and application factors; and 4) examination of sealed joints after a period
of service.

     Many testing requirements for new chemical formulations have been im-
posed by the Federal government.  Such tests are not discussed in this
report.  Rather, tests which will allow a user to evaluate a product for
particular applications are outlined.  Inasmuch as the tests were not de-
veloped for a specific sealant, they must be evaluated for applicability to
a specific product considered.  Manufacturer tests have not been developed
in detail by the project inasmuch as material specific tests should be
provided and these may vary widely, based upon product base materials.

     This chapter sets forth a series of simple specific measurements or
bench tests. ,. These may be made of candidate materials for sewer grouting
work by the manufacturer and individuals interested in using these
materials for sewer sealing.

     It is important to keep in mind that sewer joint sealing is only a
segment of the overall pressure grouting field in its broadest sense.
Pressure grouting might be defined as the introduction of material into
remote areas to obtain a changed condition.  Over the years pressure         :
grouters have probably worked with almost every material which may be made
to flow.  Under ordinary conditions pressure grouters are working through
pumps, pipes, and hoses, and injecting liquified materials into below-
ground structures.  In addition to sewer lines, pressure grouting techniques
are commonly applied in mines, tunnels, dams, shafts, and foundation soils	
primarily to control the movement of water.

     The tests described herein enumerate the characteristics of an "ideal
sewer sealant."  Several materials in common use today for sewer sealing do
not pass all of these tests at their maximum or most ideal levels.  There is
no "pass or fail" for a sealing material.  It is entirely possible, and
perhaps even to be expected, that some new sealant would earn itself a very
comfortable place in some of the market for which it was not originally
intended but was ideally suited.  Acceptance by the end-user is, after
all, the ultimate test.
                                     13,    •  _..  ....__.		  __

-------
MANUFACTURER TESTS
     The manufacturer should provide detailed test results and product com-
position information.  Depending upon the method by which the product       j
effects a seal, the following types of tests should be reported.  By 1981,  ;
it is expected that ASTM Committee D-18 on Soil and Rock for Engineering
purposes will promulgate various standards, some of which may be appropriate
for sewer sealants.                  .                                       ;
                                                                            j
     It is important that grouts be stable.  The use of a suitable unconfined
compressive strength test before and after the various tests will indicate  .
if stability is being maintained.    :                                       ]

Unconfined     :      For sealants to be used in cohesive soils, ASTM
Compressive    '      D-21.66 can be used with low strength chemical
Strength       '      grouts.  A standard filler of #5 silica sand can
                     be used.  This sand has a DJQ of 0.39 mm.  Figure
                     2 is a plot of the percent of the sand mixture by
                   "  size.  A minimum sample appears to be a 5 cm
                     (2 in.) - diameter/cylinder, 10 cm (4 in.) long.
                     ASTM D 1056 might be adapted for use with flexible
                     cellular materials such as urethane foam grouts.

                     Identify all known toxic components of the grouting
                     materials together with their individual and com-
                     bined toxicity, flammability, and/or other hazards
                     prior to, during and after placement.  From these
                     statements extrapolate the potential for:

                     1.  Groundwater contamination.
                     2.  Personnel hazards.
                     3.  General environmental hazards.

                     If chemicals not supplied by the manufacturer are   'I
                     needed, similar information should be provided.
                     USEPA toxic material register numbers or status
                     of listing should be provided.   j

                     Mix and react the product in all of the configurations
                     which may be recommended for field use including ad-
                     mixtures or additives which might be employed to
                     change the characteristics of the product.  Report
                     and comment on the minimum, average, and maximum
                     product reaction times (gel times) and report the
Toxicology
Product Reaction
Characteristics
Variability
                                     14

-------
0.01!
0.1
0.2;      0.3[   0.4',  0.5 0.6
       Particle size (mm)
1.0
                       Figure 2 Gradation of Sand for Test Cylinders
                                            15

-------
Predictable
Viscosity
Adhesion
Solubility and
Chemical
Reaction
Biodegradation
Flammability
Acid/Base
Reactions
 results,  including physical  appearance or perfor-
 mance characteristics  over the gel  time range.
 Report all physical properties of the cured
 material.

 React five samples of  the product at a minimum of
 each of the minimum, average,  and maximum gel times.	
 Measure,  by any appropriate  standard viscosity
 measurement technique,  the viscosity of the pro-
 duct (and particularly changes in the viscosity
 of the product) between the  time of product
 mixing and product gelation.   Draw the viscos-
 ity curve for the product from the  time of
 product mixing to product set  for gelation.

 If the seal depends primarily  upon adhesion, tests
 results should be provided to  demonstrate the
 ability of the product to adhere to the various
 pipe materials under conditions of  cleanliness
"which can be expected  within a sewer. ~ 	"'

 Solubility tests should be made on the cured material
 for reaction in or with alcohol, ketones, hydro-
 carbons,  and metal salts.  Response of the cured
 material to solutions  up to  10 percent strength of
 sulfuric acid and caustic sodium hydroxide should
 be determined.  Compression  tests should be made
 after these tests.

 Report on the constituents of  the cured grout material
 both separately and in combination and extrapolate
 from the information the possibilities of decompo-
 sition of the cured grout from:
                  1.   Bacterial activity.
                  2.   Consumption by rodents and/or insects.
 Flash point information in accordance with DOT regu-
 lations for shipping.

 Components.        ;

 Comment on the effects of and the range of acid- or \
 base-mix waters.]  Comment on the effects of the
 cured grout sample (the mixed product) in place or
 during placement as to toleration of acids/base
 contact with in-place solutions prior to final
 product reaction.   Prepare cured samples of grout  i
 with standard buffer solutions of pH 5 and pH 9.
 Compare physical properties of the cured grout
 made with pH 5 and pH 9 buffer solutions with those
 of cured grout prepared with distilled water (control),
                                     16

-------
Permeability
Final Product.

Prepare 27 cured samples.  Precisely weigh and
measure each sample and record these measurements
along with the physical appearance of each sample.
Then immerse three of the samples in separate
containers of pH levels of 4, 7, 10.  Let all
samples stand for 24 hours at ambient temperature.
Remove the samples.  Measure and weigh each and
report their physical appearances and conditions.

Compression tests should be made after these tests.

Report on the permeability of the product under
varying pressure heads of up to  2.1 kg/sq cm
(30
BENCH LEVEL TESTING
     The following tests are also suggested for initial product testing by  i
the manufacturer.  Product users and applicators may wish to use bench level
testing to confirm reported test results by conducting their own analyses.
           Note:
Flexibility
For all tests except flexibility and permeability
samples to be 5 cm (2 in)-diameter cylinders,
10 cm (4 in.) long.  As an alternate, samples     |
5 x 2.5 x 2.5 cm (2 x 1 x 1 in) may be used.
Samples to be mixed with proportions specified
by manufacturer.  Samples should be cast with
and without the #5 silica sand and the test re-
sults reported separately.

Cast a sample of grout material 30.5 x 2.5 x 2.5  cm
(12 x 1 x 1 in.)

Take an object with a smooth curved surface and a
radius of 10 cm (4 in).  Place one end of the
sample against the curved surface and gently se-
cure the end against any movement.  Grasp the
opposite (unsupported) end of the sample and
deflect it around the mandrel toward a maximum of
180° at a rate of not less than 1° per minute.
Record:      \
1.  Degree of deflection at formation of first
noticeable surface crack.
2.  Degree of deflection when material ceases to
conform fully to the mandrel surface curvature.
3.  Degree of deflection when crack  formation in
the material extends one-half the way through
sample.
4.  Degree of deflection when material fails
                                     17 •

-------
Shrinkage
Permeability
Environmental
Cycling
 completely,  as evidenced primarily by extension of
 the crack more than 90 percent through the sample.

 Prepare a minimum of five cured samples.   Weigh each
 sample carefully and record the weight.  Place all
 samples in 50 percent relative humidity at 38° C
.,(100° .F) for 24 hours. ..Remove.the samples .and	
 after allowing them to cool to ambient temperature
 and report their physical appearance.  Then weigh
 and measure each sample and report before and
 after test results.  Repeat test using the standard
 sand filler.  Observe cracking.  Immerse dried
 samples in water at room temperature, 18 to 23° C
 (65  to 75  F),  for 48 hours  and observe condition of
 samples and measure reswelled weight and dimen-
 sions.  Compare with original weight and dimen-
 sions.             :

 Cover one end of a 5 cm (2 in.)-diameter cylinder^ _
 38 cm (15 in.) long with a small mesh screen.  Cast
 a 2.5 cm (1 in.)-thick sample of cured grout in the
 bottom (screened) end of the cylinder wall.  Add
 water to the cylinder to a height of 30.5 cm (12 in.)
 above the cured grout.  Collect and measure the
 amount of water permeating through the cured grout.
 Although permeability is not desired, rates of
 10~8 cm/sec would indicate a very impervious
 material for use as a sewer sealant.

 Freeze/Thaw
                  Use 50 cured samples.  Precisely measure and record
                  the weight and volume of each sample, then freeze
                  all samples so that each sample reaches a temperature
                  of -18°C (0° F) for 24 hours.  Then remove and let
                  stand and allow the samples to thaw gradually to
                  room temperature.  Repeat this series for five com-
                  plete cycles.

                  Select five samples  from the group after each
                  cycle and report  their physical appearance.  Then    \
                  precisely measure  the weight and volume of each
                  sample and report  that data in comparison to their
                  original weights  and volumes.

                  Wet/Dry

                  Take a minimum of  30 cured samples and precisely
                  measure their weights and volumes.  Place the
                  samples in a 50 percent relative humidity environ-
                  ment at approximately  21   C
                              (70° F)
for 24 hours.
                                     IS'

-------
Organic
Solvents
Component
Storage
Pot Life
                  Remove the samples and immerse them in water at
                  21
                  for three complete cycles.   \
  ° C  (70° F)  for 24 hours. \Repeat the procedure
At  the end of each  cycle  interval  of  1)  50  percent
relative humidity and  2)  immersion, remove  five  of
the samples_and report their physical appearance; _
then precisely measure their weights and volumes
and report that information as compared  to  the
original weight and volume for each sample.

Prepare a minimum of 15 cured samples  and precisely
measure their weights and volumes.   Immerse five
samples in separate containers containing a minimum
of 165 ml (6 oz) acetone in closed cups.  Let all
samples stand for 24 hours at about 21° C (70° F).
Remove the samples and clean off any liquid ob-
viously clinging to the sample.  Dry the samples
in a dessicator for 30 minutes and report their
physical appearances and precisely measure  and
report their weights and volumes.  Repeat the test
with 165 ml (6 oz) of methyl alcohol.   Repeat
the test with 165 ml (6 oz) of toluene.
Take  a minimum of  six  samples of each  component of
the chemical  grout system  to be used in  the  field.
Place each  sample  in a container which most  closely
approximates  the probable  shipping  container for
each  component.  React two of the samples  to obtain
the grout end product  and  set aside for  comparison.
Freeze the  remaining samples to a sample temperature
of -18°  C \(0° F) for 24 hours.  Remove the samples.
Let them stand and allow them to thaw  to ambient
temperature,  than  heat samples  to 49°  C  (120° F)  \
for 24 hours.  Remove  the  samples,  let stand,  and
allow to cool to ambient temperature.

At each  interval of 1) ambient  temperature after  ,
-18°  C 1(0°  F), 2)  ambient  temperature  after  49°  C
(120° F); react  two samples of  the  product.   Record
the reaction  characteristics as compared to  the
original controls  and  report the product appear-
ance  prior  to each test and after each test..

For materials which must be mixed with other mater-
ials  prior  to placement, prepare a  minimum of twelve
samples  of  each  grout  component in  a container which
most  closely  resembles the probable on-job container
for each component immediately  prior to  grout place-
ment. Allow  these samples to stand for  24 hours.
                                     19'

-------
—              •   Then  take  two  samples,  open  their  containers,  mix
                   the product  and  take  a  gel  time  test.   Repeat  the
                   test  each  day  for  five  days.

                   Compare  the  results of  the  daily tests  for con-
	             .    sistency.

 Viscosity          Measure  the  viscosity of  the  components in their
                   form  immediately prior  to pumping  to  the point of
                   application  at temperatures  of -1° to 40° C
                   (30 to 100°  F).

 SOIL  BOX TESTING                                       \

      Any sealant material  which  emerges from  bench testing with  acceptable
 characteristics  would be further evaluated  under simulated use conditions
 to  obtain  some  knowledge and understanding  of  the  material's more subjec-
 tive  characteristics.   Such  tests  would be  performed in a "soil  box" and
 behavior of the  material would be  reported  for  the following condition- —
 variables  as follows:

      1.    concrete and  clay  pipe 20  cm  (8 in.)

      2.    hydrostatic pressure 9 m (30  ft)

      3.    large  and small  joint  leaks

      4.    laminar  water flow outside of pipe

      5.    fine  sand, pea gravel, 5 cm  (2  in.)  stone, and  cohesive soils

      6.    joint deflection           :

      7.    "pumpability"

      8.    compatability with existing  equipment

      9.    ease  of  excess material  removal from pipe  barrel

     10.    resistance to cleaning equipment

     11.    resistance to scour  and  abrasion

     12.    ease  of  product  handling   :

     13.    batch time preparations

      Proper conduct of  these tests would  require  construction of at least
 two well-built  soil boxes  capable  of full closure  and pressurization to
 achieve  a  9 m (30  ft) head pressure.  Each  sealant material would require
 approximately one  week  of  such soil box testing.


                           	20  \     ... ._..	„  .... ._-   -

-------
—    Due to the subjective nature of this  phase of testing,  actual test  —•
 work on all sealant material  should be performed at the same location and
 under the same supervision.   Careful documentation by written records,  audio
 visual equipment,  and photographic equipment would be necessary.

_..„    Major items of equipment required for such tests might  be listed as
-follows:  soil box quantity -_two at $5,000 each;  packer .or  grout ejection  .....
 system; pump system; hose; mix tanks;  agitators; miscellaneous;  total cost     \
 $25,000.  (1980 price estimate)                                             i

      In addition it would be  desirable to  employ an outside  testing labora-
 tory during this phase of test work.  Such a lab could perform independent
 tests of such variables as unconfined compression, cohesion, extrusion, and
 other variables as applicable.  A final report and synopsis  would also be
 necessary.  The total variable cost for such soil  box testing might approxi-
 mate $15,000 per sealant tested.


 FIELD APPLICATION '                   \                  \                    \

      Following these soil box tests, actual field application could be      .'
 recommended for a sealant showing an acceptable mix of characteristics.     !
 Ideally, four locations would be selected  from separate areas of the United
 States and test sections in each area would be tested and  sealed for each
 of two pipe size diameters -  20 cm (8 in.), and 61 cm (24  in.).

      The test sections would  be critical to the proper evaluation of the
 material handling characteristics for the  following variables:  clay pipe,
 concrete pipe, hot climates,  wet conditions, dry conditions, sandy soil,    j
 silty soil, clayey soil, northern winter climates, southern  summer climates,
 rock backfill,- sealing above  the groundwater table, sealing  below the ground-
 water table, "salt water in the soil, large leaks,  small leaks.              ;
                                                                             t
       A sealant, such as acrylamide grout  which has given  satisfactory service
 over a long period of time, should be used for reference purposes.  After
 application, the joints should be tested as well as visually inspected.
                                                                             i
                                                                             i
                                                                             i
 EXCAVATION OF JOINTS      '           '                         \  -         !
                                                                             i
      After at least one year  in place, representative joints should be      !
 excavated for physical inspection.  Such inspection should include a visual
 inspection for cracks and failures as well as evidence of  root attack,      ;
 biodegradation, or solubility problems.                                     !
                                      21

-------
       	SECTION. IV,.,,			,-	

                    SEWER PIPE JOINT GROUTING EQUIPMENT                     ;

     Initially sewer pipe joint grouting equipment were products of spec-   \
ialty contracting firms building and using such equipment within their own
organizations.  Equipment configurations varied widely depending upon the
specific process and needs of the individual contractor.  It wasn't until
the early sixties that the sewer grouting process had developed suffic-
iently to attract manufacturers to build equipment for use with the various
sealant materials available.  Through the years, equipment manufacturers
have refined the technology and equipment that is in use today.             ;
                                                                            i
     During"the' early sixties " commercial ~equipme"nt~was" designed and manu-   1
factured for the placement of an acrylamide base grouting material (low     <
viscosity) as acceptable alternative grouting materials were not available.
When urethane foam grout was introduced in the early 1970's, suitable       ;
equipment was likewise developed.

     At the present time there are two distinct types of grouting equipment
being manufactured:  that for placing an acrylamide base material; and that
for an urethane grouting compound.  It is anticipated, however, that equip-
ment of the future may be designed to accommodate placement of a variety of
grouting materials.

PRESENT DAY SEWER GROUTING EQUIPMENT \                                      :

     In an effort to review existing sewer grouting equipment, the following
two categories have been established based upon the viscosity of the chemi-
cals as they are pumped to the packer:

            Category "A" - Equipment designed for the placement of
                           1 to 50 centipoise materials  (low viscosity     \
                           delivery system)

            Category "B" - Equipment designed for the placement of
               ;            1 to 700 centipoise materials  (high viscosity
                           delivery system)

     These two categories will encompass 95 percent, if not all, of the
equipment available for the placement of sewer sealants at  the present time.
All of the equipment is designed  to functicn effectively  in a minimum of
sewer line sizes ranging from 15  to 76 cm (6 to 30 in.) diameter.  In all
cases the "in-line" equipment is manufactured with sufficient  tolerances
to accommodate the normal deviations of size, alignment and obstructions   —
normally found in a sewer pipe.        ._	.

                                     22

-------
'.—    From a process point of view,  there is little difference between the  ....
 two equipment systems.   Each system utilizes closed circuit t.v.  equipment
 as  shown in Figure 3 for visual monitoring of the remote sealing process.
 A hose and reel combination as shown in Firgure 4 for transporting the sealant
 material from above ground to the point of placement is included.  A packer
 device shown in Figure  5 is utilized for controlling the injection of sealant
 j-ntp the sewej|^jDipe__J:ault.        		

      The basic process  steps may be described as  follows:

      1.   Precleaning of the sewer line from manhole to manhole
           to remove debris that could interfere with the move-              !
           ment of the television and grouting equipment
           through the line.

      2.   Preinspect the sewer line by pulling closed circuit
           television equipment from manhole to manhole to de-
           termine the general condition of the sewer line and
           if it is groutable as shown in Figure 6.

      3.   Place the joint sealing packer equipment into the
           sewer line with the closed circuit television
           equipment.                 ;

      4.   Move the combined equipment through the line to each
           joint.                     ;

      5.   Using the closed circuit television equipment, posi-
           tion the center of the packer adjacent  to the joint
           to be tested.        .              \

      6.   Inflate the packer to isolate the joint to be tested
           from the remainder of the sewer line as shown in
           Figure  7.       |

      7.   Test  the  joint  in accordance with  the equipment  and
           medium  available.   If it holds water or  air  pressure,
         j  move  to  the next  joint and repeat  steps  4, 5  and 6
           until a  joint  is  reached which will not  hold  pressure.
      8.   For joints which fail the pressure test, inject  the
           sealing materials into the joint until  a successful
           seal is achieved.

      9.   Retest  the joint to determine if it will pass a
           pressure  test.

     10.   Deflate the packer and move to the next joint or
           remove  the equipment from the sewer line, which-
           ever is appropriate.                              j

      Differences  that do  exist between the two defined  categories of equip-
 ment result  from  the materials they are designed to handle.  As previously
                                     23

-------
Figure 3  Closed Circuit TV Equipment -courtesycue™.me
  Figure 4  Remote Sealing Equipment -courtesycheme, me.




                    24

-------
Packer Device (for 10 to 61 cm (4 to 24 in.) diameter) -courtesycues,me
Sleeve Packer (for 10 to 30 cm (4 to 12 in.) diameter) - courtesy cheme, inc.





                  Figure 5 Packer Devices    \




                              25

-------
                   .<4ir  000
Figure 6 Preinspection of Sewer - courtesy cues, i
                    26

-------
to
                                                                                                           AIR LINE-
                                                                                                      (FRONt SEALING'
                                                                                                           UNIT) / '
                                                                                                               //
                                                                                         CHEMICAL LINES
                                                                                      (FROM SCALING UNIT)
                                                                                                           •''/
                                                                                                  STAINLESS STEEL CABLE
                                                                                           RUPTURED SEWER LINE BELL
                                       Figure 7  Sewer Joint Sealing — Positioning of Packer - courtesy Peneiryn systems,
Inc.

-------
described, Category  "A"  equipment  generally  is designed  to  pump  low
viscosity (1  to 50 cps)\materials,  which, when injected pass through the
faulty  sewer  joint into  the  surrounding soil to  form  a watertight  barrier.
High viscosity (1 to  700 cps) [materials pumped by Category "B"  equipment
when injected,  form  a new  joint  gasket and may or may not penetrate into
..the surrounding soil areas.
     Basic  characteristics of  the  two  categories  of  equipment  are  detailed
as  follows:

     Category  "A"  (low Viscosity Delivery  Systems)
                                                                             i
          1.    Chemical  Pumping System:  Most  of  the equipment in
                this  category are equipped  with pressure  tanks  used
               ;to  pump the sealant from  the  grouting unit  to  the
                point of  repair and are commonly referred to as the
                "air  over" system.   In  practice, the  chemical  con-            ;
                stituents are mixed in  two  pressure tanks.  Once             ;
                mixed, the tanks are closed and compressed  air  is             *
 r  .._       _ .... £ntro  .•-^•'                    •                                        '.
                Alternate to the "air over" method is a dual 1  to 1
                positive  displacement pump  system  where the chemical  -       :
                constituents are mixed  in two non-pressure  vessels            !
               . and are pumped  to the point of  repair.  This method "        '
                would also allow placement  of category "B"  materials.         :
                                                                             \

                With  both systems,  the  chemical fluids are pumped             '
                through a dual  hose system  to the  packer  where they          ;
                are mixed at the point  of injection.

          2.    Operating Pressures: The "air  over"  system operates
                at  a  maximum of 8.8 kg/sq cm I(125  psi) tank pressure
                and is thus  limited in  its  pumping capability.   The
                pump  systems, by  contrast,  have the  capacity  of devel-
                oping pump  pressures in the range  of  35.15 to  70.30
                kg/sq cm!(500  to  1,000  psi) and therefore have the
                ability  of  pumping  a broader spectrum of  materials.

          3.    Chemical  Delivery System:  The  chemicals  are pumped,
                with  either of  the  two  systems  described, to a grout
                control panel where the flow  rate  of  each material
                may be varied as required and monitored by flow rate
                gauges.   From the control panel the  fluids are pumped
                through  150 m  (500  ft)  of a 1.2 to 1.9 cm (0.5 to
                0.75  in.) diameter  dual hose  system  to the packer in
                the sewer line. At the point of injection, the two
                materials are combined  for  placement.  In line check
                                     28  .

-------
               valves located at the packer are used to avoid
               combining of the chemicals other than at the point
               of injection.

     Category "B" (High Viscosity Delivery Systems)

           .	Chemical Pumping System:   .All of the.__equipment .in   	
               this category  are equipped with pumps.   None of the
               systems are of the "air over" type.  The dual pump            ;
               system is of a positive displacement type and pumps
               in a ratio of  1/1 to 1.  With some modification the
               pump ratios may be changed. -Chemical concentrate is          i
               either pumped  directly from the shipping containers
               or from non-pressurized storage vessels through a             :
               clual hose system to the point of repair in the
               sewer line.
                                                                             i
          2.    Operating Pressures:  Normal pump operating pressures         j
               are in the area of 42.18 kg/sqjcm (600 psi);/however,         ;
           "~ ""the pump system has the "capacity to pump a~t pressures      "" .
               in the range of 70.30 kg/sq'|Cm (1,000 psi).  Generally,       i
               with the type  of material being pumped, pressures of
               a 70.30 kg/sq cm\(l,000 psi) are not reached.

          3.    Chemical Delivery System:  Unlike the low viscosity           ,
               equipment, this system pumps the sealant materials
               directly from containers, through 150 m (500 ft) of
               1.2 to 1.9 cm (0.5 to 0.75 in.) diameter dual hose
               to the packer in the line where mixing occurs at the
               point of injection.  The ratio of fluid pumped is             '
             .  fixed with only the flow rate being variable based
               on the operating speed of the pumps.  Check valves            :
               incorporated in the packer device are used to avoid           j
               contamination of the separated materials in  the hose          ;
               line.                                                         \

     It is obvious that there are differences between the two categories of
equipment.  However, there are similarities as well: in packaging and        :
auxiliary equipment.  Both types of equipment are mounted in van trucks or
trailers.  One hundred and ten (110) VAC power is available from either self-
contained power supply units or from 5,000 to 6,500 watt generators mounted
within the vehicle.  Small air compressors are also standard equipment.

COMPONENT SYSTEMS   \                                                        :

     Generalized description of three portions of the sealant delivery sys-
tem are provided for general information.  Each is essential to an operating
system but may need modification to accept the use of a new product.
                                     29 -.-

-------
Flow Control Systems     \                                                 -~

     About 50 percent of the systems route the chemical through a
     panel that contains flow meters with flotation device to measure
     flow rates.   The panels are also equipped with flow control valves to
     activate chemical movement and pressure gauges to monitor back pressure.
     Other gauges monitor packer inflation pressure and compressor receiver
     pressure.   Most of the remaining systems do not use flow meters.  However,
     they do incorporate pump pressure gauges, pump .controls, packer inflation
     pressure gauges, and compressor receiver gauges.
Reels and Hoses         \

     Virtually all of the systems  incorporate a hose reel with
     rotary passage joints.  The reels allow for passage of  two  to
     three fluids and one or two air lines.  About half of the hoses
   ~ are triline "systems with two  chemical and one air line.

     Quad line systems have two chemical, and two air lines.  The
     chemical hose sizes range from 1.2 to 1.9 cm (0.5 to 0.75 in.)
     and the air lines range 0.95  to 1.2 cm (0.375 to 0.5 in.).  The
     hose lengths normally range from 122 to 183 m (400 to 600 ft)
     with the standard being 150 m (500 ft).  Over 50 percent of the
     hose ends are equipped with quick disconnects.  About the same
     percentage of hose ends are fitted with check valves.

Packers

     Some are equipped with two inflatable rubber elements stretched
     over a cylinder, and fitted into a center casting.  The center
     casting contains two openings to exit the chemical into the void
     areas after element inflation.  Mixing chamber may or may not be
     incorporated into these packers.

     Other packers are' equipped with three inflatable elements
     stretched over mandrels.  Chemical exits from the openings
     between the elements after the end elements are inflated.
     The center element can be inflated to extrude most of the
     remaining chemical from the void.  Some mixing occurs prior
     to exit from the portal.  Some other packers are used incor-
     porating a long or single sleeve stretched over a cylinder
     or pipe.  The chemical exits  from one or two openings passing
     through the rubber sleeve.  Some of these packers are equipped
     with a mixing chamber.
                                     30

-------
                                .SECTION V       .	

                    BUILDING SEWER (HOUSE LATERAL) REPAIR


     For many years, the effect of leaking building sewers on the collection
system and treatment facilities was considered insignificant.  This theory
was built around the concept that most of the building sewer would be above .
the water table and therefore would only be subject to leakage during per-
iods of excessive rainfall or exceedingly high groundwater levels. These
sporadic conditions were not viewed as "serious" when compared to other     j
collection system problems.

   ...Therefore, during the early development of internal pipe-joint grouting
processes, little attention was given to the building sewer.  It wasn't
until the late 1960's that serious attempts were made to repair building
sewers by a means other than by excavation and replacement.  Shortly, three
primary processes emerged and were used in varying degrees throughout the
country.  Each of these processes required some excavation and proved to be
cumbersome and expensive.  Therefore, wide acceptance and use of these' pro-
cesses was never achieved.                                                  \

     Today, however, the recognition of the need to repair building sewers
is much greater.  Expanded awareness of the impact of building sewers on
the collection system and treatment facilities has developed from the current
on-going I/I program.  Research studies sponsored by the USEPA (4) indicate /
that a significant percent of the infiltration found in many collection
systems is being contributed by the building sewers.  In addition, it is now
realized that building sewers that are left unattended may become a major
source of renewed  infiltration, through water migration, after the street
sewers have been repaired.                                                  ,

     Current technology is not considered to be generally effective or      '
economical in addressing the building sewer infiltration problem.  The
industry is left usually with only one remedy, the expensive and sometimes
impossible task of building sewer excavation and replacement.  The need to   ;
develop new and more effective processes is well known.  The following will
provide further understanding of the current processes available for the
repair of building sewers.  In addition, two new concepts have been developed
and are presented.  These concepts, though untried, are felt to be sound
with each having the potential of being developed into successful and
economical processes.

THE BUILDING SEWER

     The building sewer is the extension of the waste drain system of a


                                     31  ,                 	_	

-------
'building or  other  waste  producing  facility which  is  extended  to  the  public
 right  of way for conveyance  in  the collection  sewer  to  the  wastewater  treat-
 ment facility.  The  building sewer may  be as small as 10  to 15 cm (4 to 6 in.)
 diameter and varies  in length from 4.5  m (15 ft)  to  30  m  (100 ft) or more.
 The  line is  usually  laid at  a minimum self-cleansing grade  from  the  build-
 ing  to the immediate vicinity of the  collection or street sewer.   At this  -•-.
.'location there  may be an abrupt change  in grade in order  for  .the  flow  to 	
 descend to the  collection sewer.   The building sewer may  enter  the collection
 sewer  at an  angle  of 30  to 90 degrees from  the axial5, flow direction and at a
 verticle angle  of  0  to 90 degrees.

     The building  sewer  may have been built  with  any one  of several common  ;
 products including clay, plastic,  concrete,  asphalt  impregnated  paper, or
 cast iron.   Inspection of the construction has generally  been described as .'.
 minimal.  The trench for the pipe  and the backfill used may act  as a french
 drain  and allow more rapid movement of  groundwater  than would be typical of
 undisturbed  ground.                   ;                                       i
                                      i                                       ;
     Few systems provide for access at  the  property  line.  Some  systems
 where  basement  flooding  has been prevalent have required  a  relief overflow  '.
 point  outside of the foundation.draining to  the surface.   Overall, such points
 for  access must be considered as the exception.  Access from within the
 building for sealing equipment  is  not considered  feasible due to the problems
 of access to the pipe and the type of equipment required  as well as the
 incovenience to the  occupants.
 EXISTING PROCESSES
\
      As a requirement of this study, current methods for the sealing of
 building sewers were identified and evaluated.  Incremental costs have
 been developed and are presented for each method.

      •   Pump full method

      •   Sewer sausage method

      •   Camera-packer method

      Each is discussed in detailed step procedures that must be accomplished
 for a successful application.  Costs associated with each step of the pro-
 cedure is also given.  Note that the cost of excavation has not been given
 in the tables.  Rather, excavation costs have been included in a cost range.The
 The sewer sausage and camera-packer methods are both patented processes. \  ;
 A fourth method, in-situ lining has been used to a limited extent in some1  :  .)
 foreign countries and work has been initiated in this country to determine  .  •••>'
 the cost and applicability to conditions of United States practice.  Generally,
 the street sewer must be cleaned for access of equipment.  Cost of cleaning has
 not been included in the price estimate.
                                     32 \i

-------
;Pump  Full  Method
      This  concept  is  one  of injecting a chemical  sealant through a conven-
 tional  sealing packer from the  street sewer up the building sewer to a
 point where access has been gained through excavation and plug installed.
 As  the  sealant is  pumped  under  pressure,  it is forced through the pipe
.faults  into the surrounding soil  area where a seal is effected after gela-
 tion of the sealant occurs."""After the sealing has been accomplished, the
 excess  sealing material is removed from the building sewer and it is re-
 turned  to  service. The steps; required to accomplish the work are listed
 in  Table 3 A.
                                   Table 3  '

                        (SEALING OF BUILDING SEWERS)
                            A  Pump Full Method
 1.    Locate building sewer at property line.
 2.    Clean street sewer.              \
 3.    Set-up and move camera/packer unit
      into position in the street sewer
 4.    Install pipe plug in the downstream
      end of the building  sewer at a point  \
      of access.
 5.    Inflate packer in street sewer and
      inject sealing materials.       :
 6.    Remove camera/packer from the street
      sewer and the plug from the building
      sewer.    :                      <
 7.    Remove excess sealing materials from
      the building sewer.
 8.    Re-clean the street  sewer to remove
      excess sealing materials.
                                                       COSTS ($)
                                                          Equip-
                                               - Labor — —ment
                     Mater-
                    ials •"
 20
 90

 40
 40


 40

150

 30
45

20
20


20

50

50
150
      Subtotal                                 $410      $205        $150

      TOTAL COSTS
          • a. without excavation                                     $765
           b. if excavation required                         Up to  $1615

 Note:  Cost estimated as $6.60/kg ($3/lb) material
        Average labor cost $20/hr (includes supervision)
                                      33

-------
Sewer Sausage Method

      This method is similar to the pump full method in that it requires
access to the building sewer, the use of a camera/packer unit in the street
sewer and the injection of a sealant from the street sewer up the building
sewer to effect a repair.  The primary difference is the use of a tube in-
serted into the building sewer prior to sealing to reduce the quantity of
sealant used and minimize"the cleaning requirement~after the sealing has been
completed.  The sealant is pumped under pressure around the tube, up the
building sewer and through any pipe faults into the surrounding soil areas
where the seals are effected after gelation of the materials occurs.
Table 3 B lists the steps and estimated costs to accomplish the sealing of
a building sewer.

                                  Table 3
                             B  Sausage Method
Steps

1.
2.
3.
9.

10.
Locate building sewer at property line.
Clean the street sewer.

Set up and move camera/packer unit
into position in the street sewer

Install tube from the point of
excavation down to the street
sewer. ..  .

Install pipe plug in the downstream
end of the building sewer at the
point of excavation
Inflate packer in the street sewer and
inject sealing materials.

Remove camera/packer unit from the
street sewer

Remove plug and tube from the build-
ing sewer.
Remove excess sealing materials  from
the building sewer.

Reclean street sewer to remove any
excess sealing materials

Subtotal
Labor

 20
 90

 20
                                                60
 40

 40

 40

 30
                                                  COSTS($)

                                                    Equip-
                                                    ment
45

20


20
          Mater-
          •  -,
          xals
                                                          20


                                                          20
            50
10
                                                                     $ 55
                                    '34  '

-------
Steps continued
     TOTAL COSTS

          a. without excavation                                    $610

          b. if excavation required                        Up to  $1510

Note:  Cost estimated as $6.60/kg ($3/lb) material 		-	_		
       Average labor cost $20/hr (includes supervision)                     '

Camera-Packer Method                 '                                       :

     Unlike the other methods described this method does not require the
placement of equipment in the street sewer.  It also differs in concept, as
only faults discovered by the television camera would be repaired.  This
process also requires access to the building sewer.  Through the access,
a miniature television camera and specialized sealing packer are inserted.
Using a tow line, previously floated from the building sewer access to
the downstream manhole of the street sewer, the camera packer unit is
pulled into the building sewer.  The camera/packer unit is then slowly
pulled back out, making repairs to faults that are discovered by the
television camera.  Thus, the deepest leaking joints are sealed first.
The repairs are made similarly to the conventional methods used for sealing '
joints in street sewers.  Once the repairs have been completed, the equip-  ;
ment is removed and the building sewer returned to service.  The steps and
costs are described in Table 3 C.  .

               :                   Table 3

                       C  Camera - Packer Method                            !
Steps                                          Labor

1.   Locate building sewer at the property
     line.                                      20

2.   Clean the building sewer                   30

3.   Clean the street sewer.                    90

4.   Float line from access in the building
     sewer to the downstream manhole of
     the street sewer.                          20
5.   Insert special camera/packer unit
     into the building sewer                    40

6.   Pull camera/packer unit down to the
     street sewer.                              30

7.   Retrieve camera/packer unit, making
     repairs as detected by the tele-
     vision camera.                            110
COSTS ($)

  Equip-
  ment
   10
   45
Mater-
ials
   15
   55
 120
                                     35

-------
      continued
                                                       COSTS ($)

                                                         Equip-
                                               Labor     ment

 8. - Remove equipment from the building sewer. ...40 	
 9.  Flush the building sewer to remove
     excess sealing materials.        .          20         5

10.  Remove the tow line from the down-
     stream manhole of the street sewer.    "    10

11.  Reclean the street sewer.                  30

     Subtotal  ;                       :        $440   \   $145        $120

     TOTAL COSTS                      i

       _ _ a._without excavation	_'	 		$_^Q5;	..
          b. if excavation required   •                      Up to  $1615

Note:  Cost estimated as $6.60/kg ($3/lb) material
       Average labor cost $20/hr (includes supervision)

     The costs shown above do not reflect many of the difficulty factors
that can be encountered when repairing building sewers.  As an example, there
are no allowances for difficult site access and excavation dewatering, etc. •,
It is also assumed that the street sewer size would range from 20 to 30 cm   !
(8 to 12 in.).  Shown in Table 4 is a range of costs that could be en-
countered when repairing building sewers with the methods described.

                                   Table 4

                Range of Costs for Repair of Building Sewers                 :

                Method                      Cost Range (1980)                !

                Pump Full Method             $765  -  $1615                  :
                Sewer Sausage Method         $610  -  $1510

                Camera Packer Method         $705  -  $1615


NEW CONCEPTS                                            \

     Two concepts for the sealing of building sewers are presented, each
concept is different with regards to the development required.  One concept
utilizes existing sealing materials, but requires the development of mechani-
cal capability.  The other concept is based on the use of existing mechani-
cal equipment, but requires the development of suitable  sealing material.
Both concepts have the singular objective of avoiding the primary disadvant-
age, of existing methods for sealing of building sewers;  namely, the necessity

                                     36  ,

-------
of gaining access to the building sewer by excavation either at the property  .
line or at the structure being served.  The following describes these two
concepts in general terms as specific details would be determined during
development.

     1.  Building Sewer Joint Sealing (Figure 8) - This method is based on   __
     using existing sealing materials to seal faulty pipe joints within the
     building sewer and without the need for surface access to the building
     sewer.  Envisioned with this method is a device of a cylindrical shape
     (1) that could be pulled through the existing street sewer (6) to the
     location of the building sewer connection (7) as viewed by a television
     camera.  Once in place, shoes (2) on either end of the device would
     expand to the wall of the pipe (6) to hold the device in place.  The
     center barrel of the device (1) would be rotated to orient the chute (3)
     for the self-powered tractor (4) and sealing packer (5) opposite the
     building sewer opening.  The tractor (4) would travel along the chute (3)
     and into the building sewer (7) pulling the sealing packer (5) with it.
     Once in the building sewer, the sealing packer (5) would be stopped at
     predetermined intervals and the pipe tested and sealed if necessary.

     2.  Building Sewer Exfiltrtetion Sealing (Figure 9) - Based on the use of
     existing equipment, this concept also does not require excavations to be
     made for the purpose of providing access into the building sewer.
     Rather, it would involve the pulling of a standard sealing packer device
     (1) into the street sewer (3) and locating it so that the center is ad-
     jacent to the building sewer opening (4) as viewed by a television cam-
     era.  Once in place, the end elements (5) of the packer would be in-
     flated to isolate the building sewer (4) from the remainder of the street
     sewer (3).  Then the first component of a staged chemical sealant would
     be injected through the injection ports (2) and up the building sewer (4).
     After sufficient time to allow the sealant to migrate through each of the
     pipe faults into the surrounding soil areas had elapsed, the packer and
     elements (5) would be deflated and the excess material allowed to flow
     out of the building sewer (4).  The end elements (5) would be reinflated
     and the second stage of the chemical system would be injected in the
     same manner as the first stage.  The second stage material would be held
     in place for sufficient time to insure proper chemical curing.  After
     cure the packer end elements (5) would be deflated and the sealing
     operation would be complete.

     An estimate of the developmental cost of either system is beyond the
resources of this study.  The key elements of a cost effective system appear
to be:

1     1.  Use of minimum amount of material.

     2.  Achieve access to  the building sewer from street sewer for a
         distance of 20 to  60 m  (60 to 180 ft).

     3.  Equipment able to  rise  almost vertically and make a 90  bend.

     4.  Equipment able to  enter building sewer from any angle from  the
         vertical and  from  flow  direction.

                                     37

-------
                         Cylindirical  shaped device
                         Shoes
                         Chute/
                         Self-powered  tractor!
                         Sealing packer
                         Pipe wall
                         Building  sewer connection
 Figure 8 Building Sewer Joint Sealing — Concept    |"
                         Standard sealing packer device
                         Injection ports
                         Street sewer
                         Building sewer opening
                         Packer end elements
                                                    (§>
Figure 9 Building Sewer Exfiltration Sealing — Concept
                      38

-------
      5.   Equipment  able to go from 20  cm (8  in.)  street  sewer  to 10  to 15 cm
          (4 to 6  in.)  diameter building sewer.

      Television cameras have  been developed  of  a  diameter small  enough to
 enter a  building  sewer.  However,  their length  may preclude  traversing the
 abrupt vertical angle  in the  pipe.  Radar technology is  available for in-  •
"specting water coolant pipes  in nuclear reactors,  and the use.of such equip-
 ment might provide  a suitable alternate for  visual inspection.               ;

 The Insituform Method                .                                       :

      Limited experience has recently been gained  with a building sewer lining
 method to eliminate infiltration.  The Insituform method of lining building
 sewers not only eliminates infiltration, but provides a degree of renewed
 structural integrity to the existing pipe.  The Insituform method introduces,
 via inversion, a  3  mm thick polyurethane coated polyester liner which is
 saturated with &  thermal setting, dual catalyzed  isothalic resin.  This     •
 method requires an  entry point at the property line.  The liner is then     i
 inverted through  the building sewer and is terminated.upon .its. entry .into the
 the main line.  The water used for inversion is then connected to a heat    ;
 exchange unit which will heat the water in the liner to approximately 71  C
 (160  F).  The thermal setting resin cures and the once pliable liner be-   ;
 comes a structurally sound continuous, i.e., no joints, pipe.  The end of     \
 the liner is opened by excavation or via a remotely controlled cutting device
 placed in the main  line; the hookup at the property line is completed;
 the excavation pit  backfilled and service to the  building sewer is restored.

      The Insituform method has been used on main line sewers in Europe for
 the last 10 years.   Now the same principles are being applied to rehab-
 ilitation of small  diameter building sewers.
      The steps and costs are described in Table 5.
                                     39 ''•

-------
                                  Table 5

                            Insituform Method  •
                                                                    Costs
1.   Locate building sewer at the property line                   $   10
2.   Remove one length of pipe from building sewer                    10
3.   Clean the building sewer                                         30
4.   Televise the building sewer           -                           30
5.   Materials:  chemicals, liner material, special equipment      1,250
6.   Cut open liner at main sewer via remote control cutter          150
7.   Labor:  TV, cleaning, liner saturation and lining^'            300
8.   Replace section of building sewer                                30 i
                                      .Total Costs:                     , .
                                       a. Without excavation      $1,810  '
                                       b. If excavation required  $2,710
     All costs based on a 10 cm (4 in.) diameter line, 12 m (40 ft) long and
     located 1.5 to 2.1 m (5 to 7ft) below a grassy surface at the property
     line.  Also, the main line and the building sewer to be lined has no
     sharp turns nor does it enter the main line via a stack.

(2)
     This price is based on Insituform's best estimates.  Insituform is
     presently entering into a building sewer lining program and feels this
     price can be lowered with on-job experience; also daily production
     volume will lower the price as well.  The above price is based on a
     one line a day production.

(3)
     Average labor cost $20/hr (includes supervision).
                                      40

-------
			SECTION VI	

                        GLOSSARY OF PERTINENT TERMS


Bench Level Testing - A series of tests which might be conducted by the
     manufacturer, applicator or owner to screen or evaluate the character-
     istics of a product prior to additional testing.
Building Sewer - also house lateral, house connection, or house service
     line.  The portion of the sewer system which connects the building
     to the collector sewer in the public right-of-way.  The building
     sewer is usually of small diameter, on both public and private
     property and may be laid with rather abrupt changes in grade.
     Access to the bulidng sewer from the overlaying ground surface
     usually is not available without excavation.

Existing Equipment - All equipment owned by the private and public sector   '.
     used  for the internal sealing of small diameter sewers.  Such equip-
     ment may have been fabricated by a major manufacturer of equipment or
     assembled from separately purchased components by the owner.  The
     equipment may or may not be in regular use at this time and may be     >
     limited to use with only one type of chemical system.

Infiltration - The flow of groundwater into a sewer through open joints,
     cracks or other defects in the sewer pipe or its appurtenances.
             • ,                       .          '
Retrofit  Cost - A cost to convert an existing internal sewer sealing equip-
     ment  unit to allow the use of a different chemical system.  The minimum
     retrofit cost becomes the cost of such retrofitting with consideration
     of the cost of the amount of chemical required to effect a seal, and
     the  cost of manpower and equipment to achieve the seal, all compared to
     the  cost of sealing with the chemical system for which the equipment
     was  designed.

Sewer  Sealant -  A chemical system which can be applied with appropriate
     equipment to internally stop the infiltration of  groundwater  into
     joints of sewers.

Soil Box  Tests -  A series of tests conducted to evaluate a sewer  sealant
     under controlled laboratory tests prior to field  testing.  Such tests
     allow rapid evaluation of its ability to handle the chemicals and  to
     effect a seal under various soil bedding and hydrostatic head
     conditions.

-------
                           	SECTION .VII  ...__

                               REFERENCES
1.   American Public Works Association,  "Control of Infiltration and Inflow
     into Sewer Systems," 11022EFF12/70, U.S. Environmental Protection       \
     Agency, NTIS PB 200 827, 1970.

2.   Sullivan, R., et al, "Sewer System Evaluation, Rehabilitation and New
     Construction," EPA-600/2-77-017d, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, '.
     NTIS PB 279 248, 1978.           \

3.   The Western Company, "Improved Sealants for Infiltration Control,"      :
     11020D.IH06/69, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, NTIS PB 185 951,
     1969.X

4.   Conklin, Gerard F., "Evaluation of Infiltration/Inflow Program -
     EPA Project 68-01-4913, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Municipal Construction Division, Washington, D.C., July 1980.           '•
                                     42

-------
    Trade Name
                	SECTION VIII 	

                                 APPENDIX

                       List of Presently Available or
                       Announced Chemical Systems of
                 Internal Sealing of Small Diameter Sewers
1.  AV-100


2.  AC-400


3.  Chem G-9


4.  CR-202


5.  CR-250


6.  Injectite-80


7.  Q-Seal
   Base    •         Manufacturer/Supplier

acrylamide       Avanti, International            ]
monomer    _    _Houston,_Texas		...^

organic    •      Geochemical Corporation
monomer    ;      Ridgewood, New Jersey            ;

acrylamide       Polymer Corporation              <
monomer    :      Ft. Lauderdale, Florida

urethane         Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
foam             (3M) St. Paul, Minnesota

urethane         Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
                 3M) St. Paul, Minnesota

poly-            Cues, Incorporated               ;
acrylamide       Orlando, Florida

acrylamide       Cues, Incorporated
monomer          Orlando, Florida                 :
                                     43

-------