EVALUATION
OF
INFILTRATION/INFLOW PROGRAM
FINAL REPORT
BY
GERARD F. CONKLIN
AND
PAUL W. LEWIS
EPA PROJECT NO. 68-01-4913
PROJECT OFFICER
LAM LIM
•
MUNICIPAL CONSTRUCTION DIVISION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF WATER PROGRAM OPERATIONS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
February 1981
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
Title Page i
Table of Contents ii
List of Tables iii
List of Figui-es iv
1 Overview 1-1
Purpose and Scope i«,i
History 1-2
Need for Study 1-3
Methodology 1*3
2 Findings . 2-1
3 Summary of Findings 3«1
4 Reccrrjr.er.dat ions 4_1
ii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
SSji. FACE
3-1 Infiltration/Inflow Data-Bell Buckle, TN 3-2
3-2 Infiltration/Inflow Data-CMSD, NC 3-3
3-3 Infiltration/Inflow Data-Mt. Holly, PA 3-4
3*4 Infiltration/Inflow Data-Castle Ro-eJcf WA 3-S
f
3-S Infiltration/Inflow Data-cfentralia, w& . • 3-$
3-6 Infiltration/Inflow Data-Dian»muir r C& 3-7
3-7 Infiltration/Inflow Data-Willits, CA 3-1
3-8 Infiltration/Inflow Data-Shelton, WA 3-5
3-9 Infiltration/Inflow Data-New Buffalo, MI 3-10
3-10 Infiltratior./lnflow Data-Amity, PA 3-11
3-11 Infiltration/Inflow Data-Sussex, WI 3-12
*
3-12 Infiltration/Inflow Daita-Conyngham, PA 3-13
3-13 Infiltration/Inflow Data-Mason, MI 3-14
3-14 Infiltration/Inflow Data-Salem, NH . 3-15
3-15 Infiltration/Inflow Data-Veirgennes, V? . 3-16
t
3-16 Infiltration/Inflow Data-Cortland, NY ; 3-17
iv
-------
CHAPTER 1
OVERVIEW
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been funding
through Construction Grants, Sewer System Evaluations and
Rehabilitation for approximately seven (7) years. The
specific intent of these studies and construction is to
eliminate and/or reduce Infiltration/Inflow (I/I) that would
be more costly to transport and treat. In general, the I/I
Program would result in rehabilitated sewers and smaller
treatment plants.
EPA and others involved in the Construction Gr&nts Program
have become increasingly concerned about the extensive tine
required to analyze sewer systems, the costs of these analyses,
the costs of rehabilitating sowers and the lack of results
in eliminating and/or reducing extraneous water.
EPA has taken the initiative to evalu?,te on a broad base
the effectiveness of Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilita-
tion. This report summarizes the findings of sixteen (16)
months of investigative work in evaluating the I/I Program.
The project has been funded by EPA Headquartars Office of
Water Programs, .Municipal Construction Division and is in-
tended as an "inhouse" report.
1-1
-------
HISTORY
Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation has been an im-
portant component of the EPA Construction Grants Program,
since its inception in ,1972- The intent of Sewer System
Evaluation and Rehabilitation was to eliminate excessive
infiltration/inflow from sewer systems. This would allow
for the construction of smaller wasitewater treatment fac-
ilities, thereby saving millions of dollars in funds allocj
by Congress for municipal pollution abatement facilities.
The procedures for conducting Sewer System Evaluation and
Rehabilitation were outlined in the EPA final Construction
Grant Regulations, dated February 11, 1974* EPA also
published, in March 1974, Guidance for Sewer System Evalua-
tion. This brief program outline was followed by a tech-
nical bulletin entitled, "Handbook for Sewer System Evalua-
tion and Rehabilitation", dated December 1975. The Hand-
book provided detailed methodology for conducting Infiltra-
tion/Inflow Analyses and Sewer System Evaluation Surveys.
In addition, information on sewer line rehabilitation and
costs for performing studies and rehabilitation were pre-
sented.
Daring the period between 1973 and 1978, Ei?A received evid«
from field experience that certain modifications to the
Sewer System Evaluation Program would be beneficial. In
March 1978, EPA published the, "Construction Grants Prograa
Requirements Memorandum 78-10". This memorandum provided a
technique for rapidly screening out non-excessive I/I, a
simplified scope of work for A/I investigations, and a mecfc
anism for performing sewer testing and repair eoncurrently.
In addition to these documents, EPA published supplemental
information relating to the Infiltration/Inflow Program as
follows:
Sewer Plow Measurement-A State-of-the-Art Assessment
1975
Economic Analysis, Root Control and Backwater Plow
Control as Related to Infiltration/Inflow-197?
Sewer Infiltration and Inflow Control Product and
Equipment Guide-1977,
Sewer System Evaluation, Rehabilitation and New Con-
struction-A Manual of Practice-1977.
1-2
-------
NEED FOR STUDY
The Infiltration/Inflow Program has been controversial since
first implemented. In the early years, much confusion re-
sulted from the procedures in conducting Infiltration/Inflow
Analyses and Sewer System Evaluation Surveys. The general
use and longevity of chemical grout for sealing sewer line
joints was questioned. Many municipalities, consulting
engineers and contractors indicated that the I/I Program
was a principle factor in delaying the construction of
sewerage works. As time progressed and projects were com-
pleted, EPA began receiving feed-back that indicated un-
acceptable levels of I/I were returning after sewer line re-
habilitation work was completed.
As a result of these concerns, EPA has undertaken this study
to evaluate the effectiveness of the Infiltration/Inflow
Program.
METHODOLOGY
Information £r>ur ce s
Only sewer systems in which sewer system evaluation and
rehabilitation had been completed, and had been funded
through the EPA Construction Grants Program, were considered
for evaluation under this study. Eighteen (18) such sewer
systems were selected. Reports, field data, and Plans and
Specifications were available for review. These documents
and other pertinent information were gathered from the fol-
lowing sources:
EPA Headquarters-Names of contacts at EPA Regional
Offices and general guidance,
* EPA Regional offices-I/I Analysis Reports, Sewer
System Evaluation Survey Reports, and Plane ancl
Specifications.
State Offices-I/I Analysis Reports, Sewer System
Evaluation Survey Reports, and Plans and Specifications,
Municipalities-Population, plant base flow, total
plant flow data, rainfall data and general informa-
tion concerning the stwer system,
1-3
-------
APPROACH TO STUDY
Screening of Candidate Projects
All EPA Regional offices were contacted and asked to provide
a list of projects in that respective region that had com-
pleted Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation. Those
regional offices which reported candidate projects were
visited and the plans and files of each potential syeteia
were reviev/ed. Systems in which sewer line rehabilitation
had been completed, and in which rehabilitation incl> ded
chemical grouting of joints, were given further considera-
tion. During the visit, EPA filet were searched for pro-
jects which had completed sewer line rehabilitation includ-
ing chemical grouting of joints.
The I/I Analysis Reports for these systems were -munarized
to include the following:
Consulting Engineer
Population
Length and Size of Sewers
Ease Flow
Infiltration
Inflow
Rainfall Data
Amount of I/I to be Removed
The SSES Reports were summarized to include th« following:
Consulting Engineer
I/I to be Removed
Outline of Proposed Rehabilitation
The Pl&ns and Specifications were summarized to include the
followingj
Consulting Engineer
Outline of Rehabilitation.
TABLE 1-1
NUMBER OF PROJECTS! REVIEWED
EPA Region
III
IV
V
IX
X
AT ISP A REGIONAL OR STATE OFFICES
No. of Projects
7
8
5
2
4
-------
Criteria for Project Selections
During the initial stages of this study, it was anticipat*
that at least ont> sewer system from each EPA Keg ion would
be selected and that the sewer systems would be represent.
tive of small, medium and larga communities, However, du:
ing the examination of EPA files it became apparent that
some Regions had no completed projects involving sewer lii
rehabilitation using chemical grouting of joints. Also,
the distribution of projects tributary to various sizea 01
treatment plants was limited to small plants, with a few
medium size plants,
The selection of projects for this study was, therefore,
limited to the following criteria:
Separate sanitary sewer systems,
Sewer systems that were rehabilitated by chemical
grouting of joints with possibly other forms of
sewer line rehabilitation including slip lining
and sewer replacement, and
» Sewer systems that reported to remove significant
amounts of infiltration/inflow,
Each of the selected communities werii visited prior to flc
monitoring. During these visits the following was accompl
Establish a working rapport with the personnel
responsible for the sewer sys.tem and/or treatment
plant,
Obtain total treatment plant flow data, to the exti
practicable, before and aft«»r rehabilitation,
Establish any changes in the sowjir system that woul
affect the base flow,
Locate and observe potential Key flow monitoring
points ,
Determine the flow measuring technique to be used a
each key flow monitoring 'points*
Determine the high grcundwater period* and,
-------
Contact the community during the high groundwater
period and arrange for a visit to monitor flow at
the selected monitoring points,
Monitor Flows
Manhole Selection-The general approach to selection
of flow monitoring manholes was to obtain as much
flow data on rehabilitated sewer reaches as possible.
The basic objective was to select an adequate number
of manholes for flow monitoring that would permit a
comparison of flows on a reach by reach basis before
and after rehabilitation. The pre-rehabilitation
flow data would be that used in the SSES Report.
The manhole selection process involved the following
procedure:
1. Sewer Reach Selection-Manholes were selected that
would allow isolation of specific rehabilitated sewer
reaches. In some instances rehabilitation on several
sewer reaches was performed. In these instances,
an attempt was made to select manholes that would
isolate these reaches.
2. Subsystem Selection-An attempt was made to select
key manholes in the sewer system that would isolate
each subsystem. Included in the Subsystem may be
all rehabilitated sewers or a portion thereof.
These xay manholes provide a check on data obtained
from manholes in (1) above and also delineate where
the infiltration/inflow in the sewer system was
located.
3, Total System-The total system flow was monitored at
the treatment plant or at the nearest accessible
manhole to the plant. This data provided a check on
the treatment plant flow meter and a record of the
diurnal flow in the entire system for the monitoring
period.
FlowMeasuring Technique
The flows at each selected manhole were measured by one of
two techniques. First, calibrated V-notch weirs were used*
The flow was allowed to stabilize upstream of the weir prioxr
to taking a direct flow reading. Generally, two to ten
minutes were needed to allow stable condition to exist. In
1-6
-------
cases where flow in a sewer surcharged the weir, measure-
ments were taken of the depth of water in the pipe and the
velocity of flow. Velocity readings were taken using a
mechanical-electronic velocity meter. Flows were determined
in these sewers by utilizing measured data and hydraulic
elements and charts.
The flow at or just prior to the treatment plant was measured
using a continuous recording depth of flow measuring de--
vice in conjunction with a flume or velocity data.
COLLECT FLOW DATA
Selected^ Manhole Flows
The flow monitoring for each community was conducted at *
time when the groundwater was normally at its seasonal high
level. This, of course, varies from year to year as a dir-
ect function of the weather conditions. Flow measurements
were taken during early morning hours from 1 to 6 AM depend-
ing on the normal diurnal variation of flow to the treatment
plant. The flows were measured over 1 to 3 days depending
on the reliability of the data collected.
Total System Flow
A flow meter was installed at or near the treatment plant in
each coiwr.unity. The flow was continuously recorded for a
1 to 3 day period. The data was generally correlated with
the treatment plant flow meter, if possible.
flow Data Before Rehabilitation
Total Flow and rainfall data was obtained, whenever pos-
sible, from treatment plant records. Flows for each re-
habilitated sewer reach were obtained from the SSES Reports.
Flow Data After Rehabilitation
Flow data was obtained, whenever possible, from treatment
plant records after rehabilitation was completed. Rainfall
data was also obtained.
Analyse Data
Flow data obtained during this study was analysed to det*
ermine the quantity of I/I returning in terms of high day,
high week and high month. Additional flow parameters were
developed to approximate infiltration and inflow.
1-7
-------
RE-TELEVISION INSPECTION
Project Selection
An attempt was made to schedule retelevising during high
groundwater conditions in as many of the study communities
as was practically possible. Retelevising was performed in
twelve (12) communities. .The record dry winter-spring of
•1S79-1980 *nd/or short-duration, weather dependent high
groundwater conditions precluded televising six (6) communities,
Two systems were retelevised twice'Once at normal wet season
flow and then at peak flow conditions.
Sewer Reach Selection
Approximately 1,000-4,000 feet were retelevised in each
system. Rehabilitated sewer reaches were selected for r«-
televising based on the quantity of I/I identified during
the SSES. Generally, the sewer reaches with the highest I/I
were selected. In some cases, adjacent non-rehabilitated
sewer sections were also televised,
Total System
Total system flow during retelevising was monitored using
treatment plant flow records. These were available in all
except one community, where system flow was measured at a
manhole adjacent to the treatment plant.
Television Inspection Data Before Rehabilitation
Television inspection data generated during the SSES phase
was secured, when available, from SSES reports, TV contractors,
and consulting engineers.
ANALYSIS CF COST-EFFECTIVENESS
Cost effective analyses in the SSES Reports for the study
communities were summarized to include the following:
Estimated Rehabilitation Costs
Cost and Transporting and Treating I/I
Least Cost Solution
The actual rehabilitation construction costs for each com-
munity were divided by the SSES T 6 T unit cost ($/gpd)
to obtain a (gpdj minimum system .I/1 flow reduction neces-
sary to cest effectively justify 'the rehabilitation work.
This figure was compared with actual system I/I reductions
achieved, based on analysis of treatment plant flow records.
l-a
-------
CHAPTER 2
FINDINGS
FINDING 11
THE EPA INFILTRATION/INFLOW PR06RAN WAS IMPLEMENTED TO
ELIMINATE EXCESSIVE I/I - GENERALLY THIS HAS NOT BEEN
ACCOMPLSIHED,
BACKGROUND
Eighteen (18) municipal sewer systems that had completed
EPA Step 3 Construction Grants on sewer line rehabilitation
were analyzed. Sixteen (16) of the eighteen (18) sewer
systems were tributary to new and/or expanded wastewater treat* ..
tnent facilities. The remaining two (2) communities intended
to reduce I/I flows to existing secondary treatment facilities.
The Sewer System Evaluation Survey Reports for each of the
sewer systems were reviewed,, The Infiltration/Inflow pre-
dicted to remain in the respective sewer systems after re-
habilitation were analyzed for effectiveness by three
methods 2
1.' Comparison of the predicted I/I to remain in the
entire system with the post rehabilitation high week
I/I.
Plant flow records after sewer line rehabilitation were
analy2ed to determine the average daily flow for the
highest seven (7) consecutive days in a calendar year,
The present base flow was subtracted and the difference
was considered the I/I component.
Table 2-1 lists each of the communities, the I/I
predicted to remain and the high week I/I as det-
ermined above, Also «hown is the % I/I reduction
predicted in the SSES versus the % reduction achieved
in high week I/I flow, The results indicate that in
no community was the I/I reduced to the extent predicted,
2» Comparison of the predicted I/I to remain in rehab-
ilitated subsystems with post rehabilitation flow
monitoring.
Flow monitoring was conducted on each of the eighteen
(18) sewer systems. The flow monitoring was performed
during the early morning hours and during the period
of the year when previous plant flow records in-
dicated the highest flows to the treatment plants*
In fourteen (14) of the eighteen (IS) systems ground-
water was observed, either by groundwater gages or
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1
SUMMARY OF SYSTEM INFILTRATION/INFLOW
(1) (2) (3) (4)
I/I Predicted I/I Remaining % Reduction % Reduction
Community
Bell Buckle, TN
CMSD, NC
Mt. Holly, PA
Castle Rock, WA
Centralia, WA
Dunsmuir, CA
Willits, CA
Shelton, WA
New Buffalo, MI
Amity, PA
Sussex, Wl
Conyngham, PA
Mason, MI
Salem, NH
Vergennes, VT
Cor t land, NY
Notes: 1. I/I
(gpd)
158,000
350,000
491,000
185,000
1,830,000
71,000
688,000
1,360,000
45,000
116,000
85,000
230,000
950,000
240,000
124,000
7,000,000
predicted
?t . Average daily
Igpd)
280,000
2,100,000
1,010,000
400,000
3,710,000
449,000
3,430,000
2,930,000
336,000
742,000
899,000
418,000
1,340,000
890,000
440,000
8,370,000
to be remaining;
I/I flow for high
Predicted
711
83%
60S
82%
60%
99%
45%
70%
85%
85%
92%
92%
52%
63%
79%
35%
Achieved
N/A
Increase
23%
60%
3%
0%
N/A
Increase
1%
24%
7%
17%
N/A
N/A
N/A
Increase
from SSES reports.
week, after
rehabilitation?
analysis of treatment plant flow records.
3. % Reduction predicted; taken from SSES report,
4. % Reduction achieved in hiqh week I/I flow; from analysis of
treatment plant flow records.
5. N/A-Not Available
-------
leaks in manholes , to be above the sewer lines. lr.
the remaining four (4) systems it was not clearly
established if groundwater was above the monitored
sewer lines.
Table 2-2 lists each of the communities, the I/I
predicted to be remaining in selected subsystems
and I/I measured in the same subsystems during this
study. The data for the "SSES Predicted" column was
obtained from the corresponding SSES reports for
each community and in some instances, represents 1001
of the rehabilitated sewer lines, while in other
instances represents a major portion of the rehabili-
tated sewers. The "EPA Measured" -column represents,
in each instance, the quantity of I/I actually
measured during this study and corresponds to the
same sewer sections as the "Predicted" column. Also
shown is the SSES "Before Rehabilitation" flow
measurement for the same sewer sections and the %
reduction achieved in the system high Week I/I (front
analysis of treatment plant flow records)« The re-
sults indicate that in no community was the I/I re-
duced on a subsystem bssis to the extent predicted.
3. Comparison, by television inspection of predicted
I/I to remain in selected sewer reaches with post
rehabilitation flows.
Twelve (12) rehabilitated sewer systems were re-
televised. Approximately 1,000 to 4,000 feet were
retelevised in each system. Specific sewer reaches
were selected for retelevising based on the quantity
of I/I identAfed during SSES. Generally, the sewer
reaches with the highest I/I were selected. These
sewer systems were TV inspected during the period o*
the year when treatment pl:tnt flows were generally
at the highest levels. Tftjie 2-3 lists each of the
communities, the I/I estimated or measured during
SSES-TV work, the I/I to be remaining after rehabil-
itation and the I/I measured or estimated during
this study, Also shown is the system high week I/I
% reduction achieved (from analysis of plant flow
records).
The I/I in the column labeled (1) SSES-TV was either
measured or estimated froir, a TV screen. The measured
flows were generally on sewer reaches that were tested
and sealed;'estimated flows were derived by observ-
ing leaking joints, manholes and running service con-
nections and estimating these flows. In many of
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-2
SUMMARY OF FLOW MONITORING
Community
Bell Buck
Grifton.
Winters? il
Aydstn, NC
Mt. Ho
Cattle
Centra
Dunsmu
Willit
Shelto
New Bu
Amity, PA
Sussex, WI
Cony rtg ham
Mason, MI
Salem, NH
NfOteS:
y
kle, TN
NC
lie, NC
1C
y, PA
:ock, WA
a, W&
, CA
CA
WA
alo, MI
'A
WI
,m, PA
il
IH
:S, VT
., NY
1. I/ 1
(1)
SSES
Predicted
(gpd)
130,850
3,372
5,790
16,232
491,076
20,200
1,52 2 ,,000
70*510
249,000
386,100
32,500
20,000
17,000
45,000
N/A
34,000
69,000
2,810
predicted to
(2)
EPA
Measured
(gpd)
272,700
19,500
25,200
165,800
645,500
88,200
3,640,000
125,000
600,500
1,378,000
121,000
35,000
227,500
62,000
215,000
230,000
208,000
43,000
be remaining
2. Returning I/I measured under
3, SSES
(3)
SSES
Before
391,850
11,240
19,300
54,105.
1,247,208
803,300
4,352,000
6,712,420
829,000
1,280,200
216,800
132,000
239,000
564,000
N/A
470,000
315,100
284,800
(4)
System I/I %
Reduction Achieved
N/A
)
/ Increase
)
23%
60%
3%
0%
N/A
Increase
1%
24%
7%
17%
N/A
Increase
N/A
N/A
in study reaches; from SSES repo
this study
; I/I measured or estimated before
4. % reduction achieved in syste
m I/I flow
*
rehabilitation.
for High Week flow
parameter-from analysis of -plant flow records.
5. N/A- Not Available
-------
TABLE 2-3
SUMMARY OF TELEVISION INSPECTION
Community
Bell Buckle, TN
Grifton, NC
Wintervilie, NC
Ay cj en, NC
Mt. Holly Springs
Centralia, WA
Willits, CA
Shelton, WA
New Buffalo, MI
Sussex, WI
Salem, NH
Cortland, NY
Notes: 1. flow
2 . Flow
3. Flow
4 , % Bed
(1)
SSES-TV
Flow, gpd
93,500
7,870
6,800
13,770
, PA 145,000
16,500
15,600
101,600
89,100
157,637
31,340
151,125
(2)
SSES-TV
Flow, gpd
39,500
1,900
2,000
0
22,500
4,000
4,700
20,320
5,700
?92
0
1,739
estimated or measured duri
predicted to be
estimated during
uction achieved
remaining
Re-TV.
in system
(3)
Re-TV
Flow (qpd)
60,500
14,500
6,900
4,500
55,000
78,400
21,375
100,900
63,675
119,800
18,500
27,000
ng SSES-TV.
(4)
System I/]
t Reductic
N/A
•\
\ Increase
J .
23%
3%
N/A
Increase
It
7%
!I/A
Increase
after rehabilitation
high wee.k I/I;
from analysis
of plant flow records.
5. N/A-Kot Available
-------
these instances, the estimated flows were increased
to match flows measured at a different period during
the SSES work.
The I/I in the colomn labeled (2) SSES-TV represents
the predicted I/I to be remaininf in the same sewer
reaches as column (i), after sew«r line rehabilita-
tion. In most instances chemical grouting of joints
and tnanholes or replacement of sections of sewers
was to remove 100% of the Infiltration arid the re-
maining I/I was attributed to service connections
that were not rehabilitated*
The I/I in the* column labeled (3) RE-TV represents
the flow in the same sewer reaches a* column (1)
and (2) and was estimated from joints, manholes and
service connections. The flow «stimat*s us.** the
actual estimates observed by thtt same individual on
all twelve (12) sewer systems,
The results indicate that in all instances I/I on a
reach by reach basis has not been reduced to- the
extent predicted.
FINDING *2
'POST-REHABILITATION INFILTRATION/INFLOW ARE EXCEEDING
MENT PLANT DESIGN I/I FLOW COMPONENTS,
BACKGROUND
Seventeen (17) of the eighteen (18) sewer systems studied
are tributary to treatment plants that have been constructed
or designed under the present Construction Grants Program*
The design I/I flow component represents the non-excessive
I/I, and in most cases an allowance for future additional
I/I as the plant approaches its design lift.
Table 2-4 lists the communities, design I/I flow component
and post-rehabilitatioa high day, high week and high month
1/1, The design 1/3 flow component was obtained from the
actual treatment plant design criteria. The post-rehabilita-
tion high'day I/I was obtained from treatment plant, flow
records and is the highest daily flow recorded minus the
present base flow. The high week I/I A-epresents the average
of the highest seven consecutive days flows minu» the pre-
sent base flow. The high month I/I represents the highest
average monthly flows minus the present base flow.
-------
TABLE 2-4
SUMMARY OF PLANT FLOW DATA
Community
Bell Buckle, TN
Grifton, NC
Wint'erville, NC
Ayden, NC
Mt. Holly, PA
Castle Rock, HA
Centralia, WA
('
Dunsrhiiir, CA
Willits, CA
She 1 ton, WA
New Buffalo, MI
Amity, PA
Sussex, WI
Conyngham, PA
Mason, Ml
Salem, NH
Vergennes, VT
Cortland, NY
Design I/I Flow
(gpd)
Post Rehabilitation I/I (gpd)
High Day High Week High Month
158,
> 350,
506,
290,
2,
500,
71,
1,
2,
7
60,
38
4
11
2
9
4
7
3
0,
5,
6,
2,
0,
50,
5
23
1,
00
0,
9,
0,
000
000
000
000
000
000
coo
000
000 '
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
N/A
3,260,
1,731,
583,
4,800,
748,
4,760,
3,930,
342,
1,050,
1,167,
656,
2,584,
1,110,
>750,
9,290,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
ooc
CC'O
000
000
000
000
000
000
N/A
2,100,
1,010,
400,
3,710,
44
3,43
9,
0,
2,930,
33
74
6.
*,
899,
418,
1,34
890,
944
8,37
0,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
o,
0,
000
000
N/A
1,010,000
520,000
178,
2,450,
162,
1,890,
2,050,
273,
470,
588,
222,
804,
480,
N/A
7,380,
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
000
1, N/A-Not Available
-------
The results indicate that in all cases the high day and
high week I/I flows exceed the design I/I flow component.
The data further shows that the high month I/I exceeds or
is almost equivalent to the design I/I.
Two additional analyses were performed in order to compare
the significance of the remaining I/I.
1. Determine the rate of the remaining I/I.
Table 2-5 lists each of the communities, the rernain-
1/1 in terms of high week ',nd the corresponding I/I
as a rate, expressed in gallons per day per inch-mile
(gpd/ia-mile). The high week I/I as & rate was
determined by dividing the high week I/I by the actual
inch-miles of sewer pipe in the respective systems,
not including service laterals. Infiltration, ex*
pressed as a rate, on newly constructed sewer lines,
is generally specified not to exceed from less than
100 to 500 gpd/in-mile". EPA, in its program guidance
Memorandum 78-10 specified as a rapid check on
determing non-excessive I/I that infiltration, as a
rate, less than 1,500 gpd/in-mile includino service
laterals would be considered non-excessive,
Without service laterals this rate would be more
like 2,000 to 2,500 gpd/in-mile.
* _
2. Determine the remaining I/I as a percent of the pre-
sent base flow.
Table 2-6 lists each of the communities, the present
base flow, the remaining high week I/I and the re-
maining high week I/I as a percent of the base flow.
The base flow was determined by an analysis of water
use data, population data and dry weather flows to
the treatment plant. The remaining high week I/I
was derived previously, and the remaining I/I as a
percent of base flow was obtained by dividing the
high week I/I by the base flow.
Many sewer and sewerage works design handbooks sug-
gest that 100 gallons per day per capita be used for
design purposes including Infiltration/Inflow. As-
suming that the per capita flow component is 70 gal-
lons per cay, thus 30 gallons per day would be at-
tributable to I/I. This recommended I/I represents
approximately 43% of the base flow. Thus, the re-
turning I/I as a percent of base flow as shown in
the Table is substantially greater for all studied
sewer systems, than me recommended design figure.
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-5
REMAINING INFILTRATION/INFLOW AS A RATE
Community
Bell Buckle, TN
Grifton, NC
Winterville, NC
Ayden, NC
Mt. Holly Springs, PA
Castle Reck, WA
Centralj.a, WA
Dunsmuir, CA
Will its, CA
Shelton, V,'A
New Buffalo, MI
Amity, PA
Sussex, wi
Conyncham, PA
Mason, MI
Salem, KH
Vergennes, VT
Cortland, NY
1. N/A-Not Available
Remaining I/I
High Week, gpd
N/A
2,100,000
1,010,000
400,000
3,710,000
449,000
3,430,000
2,930,000
336,000
742,000
899,000
418,000
1,340,000
890,000
>440,000
8,370,000
Remaining I/I
gpd/In-M.lle
N/A
5,300
10,600
4,300
9,800
3,000
21,300
8,900
4,000
7,700
7,000
6,500
5,400
2,900
>4,000
15,100
-------
TABLE 2-6
REMAINING INFILTRATION/INFLOW AS % OF BASE FLOW
Remaining I/I
Remaining I/I «» % of B*M
Community
Bell Buckle, TN
Grifton, NC
winterville, NC
Ayden, NC
Mt. Holly Springs, PA
Cattle Rock, WA
Central ia, WA
Dunsmuir, CA
Willits, CA
Shelton, WA
New Buffalo, M!
Amity, PA
Sussex, WI
Cor.ynchair, , PA
Mason, Ml
salem, NH
Vergennes:, VT
Cor t land, M *
Base Flow, gpd
50,000
217,000 -,
200,000 f
320,000 )
280,000
212,000
1,000,000
192,000
425,000
1,250,000
200,000
150,000
250,000
125,000
550,000
850,000
400,000
3,000,000
High Week, gpd
N/A
2,100,000
1,010,000
400,000
3,710,000
449,000
3,430,000
2,930,000
336,000
742,000
899,000
418,000
1,340,000
890,000
>440,000
8,370,000
Flow
N/A
-
285
360
189
371
234
807
234
168
495
360
334
244
105
>110
279
1, N/A-Not Available
-------
FINDING »3
HOUSE SERVICE CONNECTIONS AND NON-REHABILITATED PIPE JON
ARE THE MAJOR SOURCES OF RETURNING I/I FROM REHABILITATE
SEWER REACHES,
Background
Table 2-7 lists the communities, the source breakdown of
sewer joints, service connections and manhole* during the
SSES-TV work and the source breakdown of sewer joints, ••
vice connections and manholes from re-televising the same
sewers during this fttudy. The SSES-TV column, when only
one number is shown, represents a measured flow from
sever reaches. In all other instances, the number of joli
service connections and/or manholes yiecede the flow.
Table 2-8 shows the totals of Table 2*7 where direct com-
parisons can be made. Not included in the table were flot
that were measured during test and sealing because no usa!
documentation was available.
The results indicate that flow and/or number of leaks
as coining from pipe line joints were generally reduced as
result of chemical grouting or pipe line replacement. T*3
vision inspection during this study revealed that chemicaJ
grouting of joints was generally successful in sealing out
groundwater, and most of the remaining infiltration was
entering through joints that were not grouted.
The overall television inspection results indicate that pi
line joint lea.ks were reduced in number and in flow? ser-
vice connection flows increased in number and in flow and
manhole leaks decreased in number yet increased in flow,
House service; connections are contributing the largest
amounts o£ returning I/I, followed by pipe line joints tha
were not rehabilitated^
FINDING.,* 4
REHQVAL OF EXCESSIVE INFLOW WAS APPARENTLY NOT ANY MORE
SUCCESSFUL THAN INFILTRATION REMOVAL,
BACKGROUND
Table 2- 9 lists each community, the inflow predicted to *•*
main and the inflow remaining after rehabilitation. Th*
inflow predicted to remain was obtained from the SSES r«po*
2-11
-------
TABLE 2-7
SUMMARY OF TELEVISION INSPECTION
SOURCE IDENTIFICATION
Jo 1 n L :>
9,. 500
20- 4,600
9- 4,800
21- 6, 570
345,000
11- 8,600
15,600
101,600
97- 47,250
20- 57,456
6- 6,000
62-132,405
SSES-TV
No. - qpd
Serv i re
Connect ions
Flow Gnrjed
7- 2,910
6- 2,000
2- 4,500
(None)
13- 5,900
Flow Gaged
Flow Gaged
25-33,600
25-88,704
20-20,000
4-18,720
Manholes
0
1- 300
0
2- 2,700
0
2- 2,000
11- 8,250
2-11,477
3- 1,800
0
!
Joints
12-34,500
4- 6,800
4- 2,300
8- 4,500
8-50,000
60-45,700
1- 1,500
91-42,800
40-11,775
10-23,000
4- 3,800
2-3,000
Re-TV
No. - gpd
Service
Connections
6-25,500
5- 7,700
4- 4,600
0- 0
0- 0
39-32,700
13-19,875
40-55,100
45-51,150
11-66,800
10-12,450
12-12,000
Manholes
1-
0
0
0
1- 5
0
n
2- 3
"1 w
2-30
1- 2
500
,000
,000
750
,000
,250
1-12*000
-------
TABLE 2-8
SUMMARY OF TELEVISION INSPECTION TOTALS
Joints Services
No. - gpci No. - gpd
Before After
246-267,681 132-100,875
Before
1C2-176.334
After
126-187,400
Manhoi
HO. -
Before
21-26,527
-------
Community
Bell Buckle, TN
Grifton, NC
Winterville, NC
Ayden, NC
Mt. Holly, PA
Castle itock, WA
Centralia, WA
Dunsrouir, CA
Willits, CA '
Shelton, WA
New Buffalo, MA
.Amity, FA
Sussex, wi
Conyngham, PA
Mason, MI
Salem, NFI
Vergennes, VT
Cortland, NY
TABLE 2-9
INFLOW SUMMARY
SSES-Inflow
Predicted, gpd
Inflow Remaining, gpd
18,000
12,000
13,000
40,000
16,000
62,000
500,000
0
150,000
100,000
9,000
68,000
15,000
183,000
4950,000
100,000
024,000
200,000
N/A
\
> 1,160,000
J
721,000
183,000
1,090,000
299,000
l,3iO.,000
1,000,000
6,000
308,000
268,000
232,000
1,244,000
220,000
310,000
920,000
1. N/A-Not Available
-------
TABLE 2-10
COMPARISON OP TELEVISION INSPECTION
DURING DIFFERENT GRQUNDWATER CONDITIONS
Community
A
B
(1)
Joints
No— crod
1- 800
23-2,600
Services
1- 200
15-5,000
12)
Joints
33-31,300
91-42,800
Services
No-qpd
4- 1,900
40-55,100
1, System I/I Rate at:
2. System I/I Rate at;
2,600 in Community A
2,300 in Community S
10,500 in Community A
10,000 in Community 8
-------
TABLE 2-11
SUMMARY OF COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSES
Community
Bell Buckle, TN
Grifton, NC
Winterville, NC
Ayden, NC
Mt. Holly, PA
Castle Rock, WA
Centralia, WA
Shelton, WA
Dunsmuir, CA
Willits, CA
New Buffalo, MI
Sussex, WI
Amity, PA
Conyngham, PA
Mason, MI
Cortland, NY
vercennes, VT
Salem, NH
1. N/A-Not Available
(1)
T & T
S/9P4
1.31
y 3.04
1.35
2.00
0.67
2.63
1.50
3.30
2.20
1.10
2.60
1.27
0.50
0.85
2.50
1.36
(2)
Construction
Cost, $
69,731
351,034
45,378
125,994
459,000
180,844
673,000
505,040
62,523
281,500
145,958
580,000
721,000
869,000
700,000
57,113
(2) I (1)
gpd
53,000
115,000
34,000
63,000
685,000
69,000
448,000
153,000
28,000
256,000
56,000
457,000
1,442,000
1,022,000
280,000
42,000
(4)
SSES
Predicted
Reduction
390,000
1,730,000
750,000
817,000
2,770,000
3,150,000
7,829,000
563,000
255,000
919,000
654,000
2,649,000
1,550,000
4,500,000
460,000
410,000
-------
The inflow remaining is a calculated value. The value
derived by subtracting the average daily flow for the high
week I/I from the high day I/I flow.
The derivation of the remaining inflow as described above
is the only rational method that would provide a reasonable
value. The methods utilized to determine inflow in all the
SSES reports reviewed during this study, were based on
estimates. Methods used for estimating inflow included
calculating inflow to catch basins based on the area tributary
to each source, estimating inflow entering holes in manhole
covers, estimating inflow from illegal connections as » re-
sult of smoke testing and estimating inflow from illegal
connections as a result of dye water flooding.
The methods used to estimate inflow during the SSES work
were inexact and the method used to calculate inflow during
this study may be questionable. Thus, it is scientifically
unsound to state that inflow removal on the eighteen (J.8')
sewer systems that were studied was or was not effective.
What can be stated and documented is that in all cases,
during high intensity rainfalls, that flows to the treat-
ment plants increase dramatically in relatively short times.
Thus, wet weather flows are present and at rates substantially
greater than predicted to remain after rehabilitation.
More inflow than infiltration was quantified in six (6) of
the eighteen (18) communities. Of these six (6) communities,
calculated inflow from public inflow sources documented
during SSES rainfall simulation accounted for a majority
of the inflow in only three (3) communities. High day and
high week flows from these three communities, which comprise
one metropolitan sewer district, did not decrease after
rehabilitation.
FINDING E5
THE MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE I/I METHODOLOGY ARE IMPRECISE,
BACKGROUND
The pitfalls that have prevented successful completion of
eliminating excessive I/I are as follows:
l.> Flow measurements and estimates for determining I/I
during the I/I Analysis and SSES work can give mis-
leading results.
-------
Flow gaging techniques utilized during the conduct
of the above studies often are inaccurate. A host
of problems are inherent in sewer systems that may
result in errors up.to 200% in flow determinations.
These include grit and debris in sewers that affect
depth of flow, cross-sectional areas of flow and
velocity determinations.
Measurement of sewer flows during early morning hours
is considered the best time to establish I/I flows.
Caution must be taken when relying on these flow
data to determine I/I. Normal domestic wastewater
could be present if there is a long lag tine in the
sewer sn especially in larger sewer systems. Thus*
all the measured flow may not be I/I.
Intermittent sources that discharge to the sewers
could affect flov measurements. These could include
pump stations and house sump pumps.
2. Flow estimates made during television inspection can
give erroneous results.
The EPa publication, "Sewer System Evaluation Rehab-
ilitation and K&v Construction"? - a Manual of Prac-
tice, dated December 1977 states, "Estimates within
50% represents a handle on infiltration poxnt quan-
tification which can be used to establish the desir-
ability of rehabilitation". Experience during the
conduct oil this study indicates that flow estimates
made at point sources from a TV screen can vary by at
least a factor of four.
Television inspection work is not always performed
during the high groundwater periods. Complete er-
roneous data will be generated if this is done. Dur-
ing the conduct of this study two (2) communities
were televised at two different psriods during what
is normally considered the high groundwater period.
Table 2-10 summarizes the results during these dif-
ferent conditions. There was a substantial difference
in the number of I/I sources and flow,
3. Normalizing or pro-rating measured or estimated flows
to a peak or design condition can result in erroneous
data,
4. Flow measurements or estimates made during the I/I
Analysis and SSES work could be dramatically different
if performed in a different year as a result of
chances in wet weather conditions.
2-16
-------
5. The estimated I/I reductions made during SSES work
are not realistic. They generally range from 70 to
1001 and in reality achieve 0 to say 40% reductions.
6. During SSES work, the transport and treatment Gouts
utilized in the cost effectiveness analyses are gea-
erally rough estimates.
7. Cost effectiveness analyses performed during SSES
work is of questionable value, due to the impreci-
sion that exists in quantifying the cost effective
elements.
Table 2-11 Summary of Cost Effectiveness Analysis lists th«
following information:
Column (1) lists the Transport and Treatment (T & T)
cost per gallons per day for I/I. These .costs were*
obtained from SSES reports and are cost estimates.
Column (2) lists the actual rehabilitation construc-
tion costs for each project.
Cclur.n (3; represents the gallons per day of I/I
that haa to be removed based on the T & T cost and
actual construction costs on a direct relationship
ba s i s »
Column (4) lists the I/I predicted to be removed
as obtained from the SSES reports. These data are
estimated predictions.
Column (5) lists the high week I/I that was reduced.
These data were obtained from plant flow records
when available.
The data presented in this Table indicate that, in all cases,
the predicted l/l reductions were not achieved. Using the
"predicted" I/I it can be said that none of the cases proved
cost effective. Another way of analyzing the data would be
to compare Column (3) with Column (5) . This comparison re-
veals that of the eleven (11) cases with available data,
eight (8) cases were not cost effective, and three (3) cases
were cost effective.
In summary/ the cost effectiveness analysis utilizes esti-
mated T & T cost, estimated I/I quantification and estimated
percent I/I reductions after rehabilitation. The results
can only provide ambiguous results as Table 2-11 shows.
2-18
-------
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS
THE EXCEPTION
!<£MM^BKir.£-A, ~MKHMI«NI^BIBM*MMIIIMWMB
Documented system I/I reductions achieved in one »tx
conmunity were significantly higher than reductions
achieved in any of the other study communities. Thi
project was distinguished chiefly by its high % of
leaking joints (versus I/I from services) documented
during televising, and its high t of the system to b
rehabilitated. Also, a high t of the joint* took
grout, and the relatively few leaking services were
repaired or replaced. (See Table 2-12).
SSES DETERMINATIONS ON I/I FROM PRIVATE SOURCES
Private inflow sources were noted as a "substantial"
problem in one study community, "undetermined" in
two communities, and "minor" in four communities.
Only one study community undertook a thorough home
plumbing inspection/illegal I/I source disconnection
program. A large number of samp pumps were discon-
nected (fall 1S79), but unusually low groundwater coi
ditions this spring prohibited any determination of
peak flow reduction attributable to the disconnectioi
program.
Infiltration from' service lateral sewers was specific
quantified as a non-removable % of the system infil-
tration (varing from 151 to 30%) in 4 communities,,
Replacement of service laterals on private property,
at community expense, wns done in 3 communities.
LEAKING SERVICE CONNECTIONS
Services leaking at the connection to the main sswer
were identified as significant sources of I/I in
6 communities. Except for communities that did m&jor
amounts of replacement or slip-lining (which includes
service connection replacement), the highest rate of
service connection repair done in the «tudy communiti
was 8% of the services in the system (See Table 2-12)
JOINTS REQUIRING GROUTING
Available test and seal records for the study com-
munities showed that the % of joints to require grout
ing (that is, the I of joints that failed the air
test), varied widely; from over 90% to under 4%.
(See Table 2-12) .
-------
CHAPTER 3
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
The expectations of the I/I Program to eliminate excessive
I/I were not achieved in any of the sewer systems evaluated
during this study. The upper portions of Figures 3-1 to
3-16 graphically display the following information on the
.systems included in this study.
The I/I before and after rehabilitation as presented
in the SSES reports,
The high day I/I, before and after rehabilitation,
obtained from the plant flow records, when available,
The average daily flow for the high week I/I, before
and after rehabilitation, obtained from the plant
flew records, when available, and
The average daily flow for the high month I/I, before
and after rehabilitation, from plant records, when
available.
SSES before and after figures for infiltration and inflow
are summarized in Table 3-1,
These data illustrate that the I/I reductions predicted
versus that attained were seriously misjudged.
INFIL75ATION/INTLOW DESIGN COMPONENT
The treatment plants encountered in this study were designed
to accommodate non-excessive I/I, Thus, a specific I/I
design flow was used. The findings of this study indicate
that in all cases, the design I/I flow component has been
exceeded by returning I/I.
HOUSE SERVICE CONNECTIONS AND NON-REHABILITATED SEWER JOXOT8
Television inspection of rehabilitated sewer lines was per-
formed during this study, The lower left portions of Figures
3-1 through 3-16 compares the pre and post rehabilitation
flows and sources. The data indicate that in all cases
post rehabilitation flows exceed that predicted to remain.
House service connections and non-rehabilitated joints ere
the major sources of returning I/I.
-------
PERCENT OF COLLECTION SYSTEM REHABILITATED
The percent of sewers in the study communities that
was rehabilitated varied widely? from 6% to 70%.
(See Table 2-13). .
SSES TV DOCUMENTATION OF I/I
TV leakage documented during SSES televising reasonably
accounted for measured I/I flows in only four of the
18 study communities.
. The % of I/I coming from main barrel leaks (versus
I/I from services) varied from a high of 93% to a low
of 20% (See Table 2-12). .
SSES TV flow estimates were used directly in the
cost-effective analysis in 5 communities.
I/I RETURNING VIA NON-REHABILITATED JOINTS
Retelevisino during this study found I/I returning
through non-rehabilitated joints (that had passed the
air test during test and seal) to be a significant
source of returning I/I (see Table 2-7) .
The joint immediately adjacent to a service connection
cannot be tested or sealed internally - a heavy con-
centra cion of leaking joints adjacent to services
was observed in only one of the .communities retelevised
under this study.
TELEVISING UNDER THIS STUDY OF NON-REHABILITATED REACHES
Televising during this study of a total of 3,761* of
selected non-rehabilitated sewers adjacent to rehab-
ilitated sewers found a total of 78 main barrel leaks
(32,775 gpd TOTAL} and 36 leaking services (O,7Q0
gpd TOTAL).
AM9 VERSUS 3M GROUTING
. AM9 was used in all of the study communities except
one. Retelevising under this study found joints
grouted with AM9 to be generally sound. In the one
3M community, what leaking joints were found (10
joints leaking a total of 28,500 gpd in 2,092* of
2-22
-------
fABLE 2-13
REHABILITATION TECHNIQUES
% SYSfEM REHABILITATED
Community
Bell Buckle, TN
Grifton, NC
Winterville, NC
Ayden, NC
Mt. Holly, PA
Castle Rock, WA
Central ii, WA
Dunsmuir, CA
Willits, CA
Shelton, KA
New Buffalo, MA
Ariuty, PA
Sussex, wi
Conyjighafis, PA
Mason, MI
Voraennes, VT
Saleto, NH
Cortland, NY
(1)
Ft. of
Sewers
18,400
40,000
61,500
107,000
50,500
50,000
200,000
80,000
85,000
l"*3 , 000
44,500
51 ,000
68,000
34,000
130,000
51,000
160,000
293,000
Grout
63%
10%
13%
26%
38%
6S%
36%
4%
22%
15%
20*
10%
7%
231
11%
41
19%
1%
Reglace
2*
.
-
2%
i
11
-
33%
3%
-
~
2%
4%
44%
12%
33%
,
i
Line Total
651
10%
13% .
28%
38%
70%
36%
2% 39%
34% 591
1% 16%
20%
12*
11%
67%
23%
\ 11 38%
19%
1% 6%
Notesj (1) Not including service laterals.
-------
retelevised test and seal sewers) were either at or
near joints that had been grouted,- footage differences
between the test and seal logs and the EPA TV logs
made positive identification difficult.,
TEST AND SEAL QUALITY CONTROL
As stated throughout this report, retelevising found
grouted joints to be generally sound. In one community,
a large number of leaking joints (91 joints leaking a
total of 42,800 gpd in 2,733' of tetelevised test and
seal sewers) were found; no:footage logs showing which
joints had been grouted were available. In another
community, one heavily leaking reach (26 joints leak-
ing a total of 26,300 gpd in 302* of retelevised 12*
test and seal sewer) was attributed to an equipment
problem or operator error during the grouting operation.
MANHOLE REHABILITATION
Manhole infiltration and/or inflow was quantified in
the study community SSES reports at an average of
6,3t of the system I/I. The maximum SSES manhole
I/I was 14r« of the system I/I.
Based on ranholes observed in retelevising areas,
chemical grouting appears to be an effective rehabili-
tation measure. Repair by cement grouting appears to
be not as effective,
FREQUENCY OF .PEAK FLOWS
Analysis of before and after rehabilitation plant flow
records for flow "spikes" found a wide range of peak
flow frequencies in the 18 study communities,
"Sharp" spikes associated with rainstorms were found
in 8 communities. The annual frequency of rainfall
associated "sharp" spikes exceeding twice the study
community's base flow ranged from 3-6 per year to
about 15, These spikes were generally associated with
daily rainfall totals exceeding 1 inch.
Peaks that rose and fell gradually with rainstorms
were -found in 3 communities.
Peaks primarily associated with snowmelt were found in
5 communities.
2-24
-------
Peak flows in 1 community were more responsive to t',
rise and fall of a nearby river than directly with
rainfall.
REHABILITATION
There is a possibility that the replacement or renal
ilitation of old, leaky trunk sewers may actually ii
crease peak flows,, by eliminating exfiltration durii
surcharged conditions and loss of dampening via bad
up sewers. In one study community, a large amount c
undersized, heavily leaking trunk sewers was replace
in 1976. A 40% reduction of system I/I was expected
but high week I/I increased.
REDUCTION OF LONG-TERM I/I
Based on analysis of plant flow records, % reduction
achieved in long-term system I/I flow parameters (Hi
6-Months, Annual Average) were not significantly dif
ferent from % reductions achieved in short term syst
I/I How parameters (High Day, High Week, High Month)
See Table 2-14,
2-25
-------
TABLE 2-14
% REDUCTION OF SYSTEM I/I FLOWS
FOR SELECTED FLOW PARAMETERS (l)
Community
Bell Buckle, TN
CMSD,NC
Mt. Holly, PA
Castle Rock, WA
Centralia, WA
Shelton, WA
Dunsrnuir, CA
Will its, CA
New Buffalo, MA
Sussex, WI
Ami ty , PA
Mason, WA
Cor tl ana, NY
Vergennes, VT
Salem, NH
Conyncham, PA
Notes: (1) From
High
Day u
N/A
Increase
N/A
51%
Increase
Increase
1%
N/A
' 2%
IT. c r s 2 s e
421
N/A
1%
N/A
N/A
28%
analysis
High
Week
N/A
Increase
23%
60%
3%
Increase
0%
N/A
1%
7%
24%
N/A
Increase
N/A
N/A
T "* e
.i. i '€
of available
High
Month
N/A
28%
37%
N/A
23%
Increase
19%
N/A
Increase
7%
33%
N/A
Increase
N/A
N/A
22%
plant flow
High
6 Months
N/A
N/A
30%
N/A
9%
Increase
50%
N/A
3%
14%
N/A
'N/A
1%
N/A
N/A
25%
records
Annual
N/A
N/A
16%
N/A
Incr
Incr
50%
N/A
10%
1%
N/A
N/A
4%
N/A
N/A
12%
before an
rehabilitation, through March 1980,
(2) N/A-Not Applicable
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
£
o
k
a
1
"3
<9
JO
2
o
o
o
M
>.
s
1
*
.2
o
w
% REDUCED
0 «MO«OaQK)0
0.6
O.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
O.I
0
1 "•"'" 1
"X
^
\.
^
s^
^X.
^
X.
cN
[_^r^
flBHL__
99ES
% HEOUCEO % REDUCED % REDUCED
0 M 40 CO BO 100 0 » 4O «O »0 100 O2O4O6O0O100
1 III !
LEGEND
t. I I/I P«fof^
No trtalm*nl flow recordt are kepi at L:* '
Btll Bueklt. A syit«m I/I flow of 0.28 mgd t r_ , -
was meoeured on 1/17/79, under thli tiudy. LL-:^''g !/l Af(*r
High Day Hiah Week High Month
TELEVISION INSPECTION -
100
80
ec
40
20
.^SSES Flow Gaging
1 j S
gH-
Kw j
0 1 • •
S f/1 From S«rvic«
j f^oift Barrel! I/I
{ J Before Rehab.
£J2S frrt'cfed After
I 1 EPA.R«-TV
> ••IIII.IIHilM. ilil^ll*
COST -EFFECTIVENESS
| 70,OOO(n | 1 .3ltt) = 53,000 gpd(31
til n«hcbllllollon Construction Colt (2) 3SE3 TftT Catl
(3) Minimum Syiltm I/I Rtductlon R«qul(»4
System I/I Reduction Achieved
0.2
E Ol
O» *-*-• I
6
bDVMM N/A N/A N/A
(3) Hic»h Day Hioh Week H!«»! Montli
FIGURE 3-1= INFILT RAT (ON/INFLOW DATA; BELL BUCKLE, TENNESSEE
-------
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% REDUCED
20 40 tO «0100
2-0
I °8
o 0.4
i -
SSE9
% REDUCED % REDUCED
OZO 4060*0 100 020406080100
High Doy
High W««tc
% REDUCED
0 20 4O W 00 100
LEGEND
L 1 I/1 Be for*
B&3I I/I Afftr
High Month
gieo
CO
i80
o 0
TELEVISION INSPECTION
LEGEND
S I/I From
J Main Barrel! l/i
Btfort Rthob.
f^S Pr«
-------
M
l
% itefiucee
i«o
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% itcouccD
O 80 4O«0 MIOO
% REOJCtO
0 20 40WTOKW
N/A
LEGEND
R«hafoliltat
l/i After R«habilitall
SSE3
High Day
High W*«k
High Month
s
o
5
"3
TELEVISION INSPECTION
LEOEHO
S l/f From 3«rvic»»
J Main Barrel) I/I
ft if art Rthab.
Pr«4icl«d After
NO Tf LCVIttNO WAS
DONE IN CASTLC KOCK
UNDCH THIS ITUOT.
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
J»
$I26,000 -r ^2.00/gpd « 63,000 gpd
(I) H*MMIH*tl«i C*ft»1rucflOB Coil (2) I3ES TttT Coil
(3) Minimum Sytttm I/ 1 ft«4Matl«n
,13)
Syittm I/I Reduction Achl»vtd
High Day High WM* High Month
FIGURE 3-4« INFSLTRATION/INFLOW DATA, CASTLE ROCK, WASHINGTON
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% ftEMCCI
SSES
% UDUCI9
f~"
>*
40 MM )00
Htgh Ooy
High W«*K
% ftCOUCED
-TV
COST -EFFECTIVENESS
459»000 -r $ 0.67/«pd « 665,000gpd
(I) ft«t»i«fc3ma(l«n CDn«lnicl{«n Co»t (2) 39CS T»T Colt
Ol Minimum 9y*t^m l/t Ntduellen ft»qulr*4
I/I Reduction AchUvad
High Day High W««fc High Month
FIGURE 3-5= INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA, CENTRAL! A, WASHINGTON
-------
PLANT PLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% REDUCED
1.0
0 §
o
I
-5
o
§ at
S3E8
% REOUCCO
ofiJlBAJP*
% MEOUC80
Day
Mlfih W«ek
% REDUCED
40 10 >0100
High Month
LEGEND
J !/l 8«for»
t/i AfUr RthabIM
S
I
!
i
Nt
tMt
TELEVISION INSPECTION
LEGEND
S !/l From
J Main Borrtll I/I
| | Btfor* Rthak.
Aft*
EPS*. ft»-TY
COST - EFFECTIVENESS
673,000(l1 -r ^1.50/gp^1 - 448,000 gp
10 ReMkllltfltlOfl C«nitrgell«i» C«*t (2) 35E3 TftT Coit
(31 Minimum 9y*t«n i/l
9y«t>m I/I Raductton AchUvtd
HI0h Day High W*tk HToft Mom
FIGURE 3-6= INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA, DUNSMWR, CALIFORNIA
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% MCQUCEO
0 M 40 MM WO
FNA I
% niouceo
0 «P40<0«OK)0
I NM [
% ftCOUCeO
<|_2O 4O CO •$ IOO
j "~NM1
LEGEND
L 1 '/I Befori Rihobili
I/I Afftr Rthobili
SSES
High D«y
Hlflh W*«k
High Month
1.
25
0 2O
o
" 55
9%
£f %V
i o
TEL£VIS:DN SMSPECTION
I ™ ww
f ^
s -
......
LEGEND
S i/l From 3»rvic«t
J Moin Sorr all I/I
gfmi Pr9dicl«d Afi«r
i --••. 1 crri* n^_-r\/
- -.1 . -. { . : ; tr"**, fr» i y
COST
-EFFECTIVENESS
$ 505,000(l)-r ^330(2) = 153,000 gpd(3)
(1) Rehabilitation Construction C«»t U) 33E3 TUT Coil
(3) Minimum SyiUm I/I Rtduotlan Required
Sy«l«m I/I Rftducflon Achltved
04
•o
w O.2
6o.i|pi|
HbuM
^J ™B^^^^^^^" •••fa
0)
High Day High W«k High Mor
FIGURE
!NFlLTRA.TtQN/!NFLOW DATA, WSLLITS, CALIFORNIA
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
%
0 20
3SE3
% AltWCED
0 30 4080 SO 100
High Day
High W»*k
% AEDUCED
0 M 40 <0 80 100
High M
LEGEND
Befort R«habiliraf
Afftr Rthdbilifotl
INSPECTION
LEGEND
S l/t From Str'vicM
J MoiR Borr*ll I/I
B«for« R*hob.
Prtdicftd Affor
R«-TV
COST -EFFECTIVENESS
|l8t,000(l> -r $2.63/gpd<21 *
(l|R*h«blllt
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% ftCOUCCB
0 tO 4O « «0 )00
% MEDUCCD
O 20 40 tCW 100
% REDUCED
O 20 4O 6O 10100
% REDUCED
o 20 40 so so loo
r
LEQENO
l/[ B«fort
I/I Afl«r
3SES
High Doy
High
High Month
TELEVISION INSPECTtON
LEGEND
S (/I From Strvic*i
J Main Borr.ll I/I
S«for» R*hob.
Prvdicltd W!«r
EPA R.-TV
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
$S3,000UV$2.20/apd(ZI = 28,000 gpd
Is?
(I)
4O
3O
IO
>;»ort Cotl (2
Minimum SyiUm I/1 R»4ueH0n
Sytlsm l/t Raductton
TST
o
v
(3)
High Doy High Week High Month
FIGURE 3-9' INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA, NEW BUFFALO, MICHIGAN
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% wouceo
O 2040*0 •0100
0 2Q40JO 10(C?
% HfDUCtD
4h AM A**. 4k4h M A, *** J»
v gg -^py %rif wiw
39E3
High Day
High W««k
% REDUCED
5 EG 5O io SO ipo
High Month
LEGEND
I I/I Before RehabilH
I/1 A(f*r Rthabllit
o
o
o
^*^
3
I
•
o
i
TELEVISION INSPECTION
S
J
[^ |
LEGEND
I/I From Services
Mam Borrtll l/i
Before Rthofa.
Predicted After
EPA* He
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
(li , (21 (3)
146.0OO -T $2.60/gpd = 56,000 gpd
(l)R«h«t>iwcnon Coil (2) 39ES TftT Co«l
(3) Minimum Sy*t§m I/I Rtductlon R«qulr»(J
Syiteai 1/1 Reduction Achieved
077
(3) High Day High W*ek High Won
FIGURF 3-K> INFILTRAT^4/INFLOW DATA, AMITY TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% REDUCED
0 tO 40 » W100
% MOUCS&
0 10 40 W SO 100
% MIOUCE0
SSES
High Day
High Witk
% REDUCED
0 20 40 W *0 100
LEGEND
£7 "1 I/I Befor* Rehabililal
171 Aft»r Rehobilifot
Hi ah Month
ISO
O
g IZO
^ 90i
S
I ">
o
i
90
0
s
J
y
J
TELEVISION INSPECTION
LEGEND
S I/I From S«rvic«
J Main Barrvlt I/I
Btfort Rthab.
CZJ
Prtdicttd Afrtr
EPA' Rt-TV
COST -EFFECTIVENESS
2B2.OOO'— fil.lO/gpd ' = 256.OOO gpd
(l| RthObUltaHon Conitrucllon Colt (Z) SSES TAT Cotr
(3) Minimum Syittm I/I Reduction R»qulr*d
System l/i Reducl(on Achieved
High Day High Week Mlflh Month
FIGURE 3-1^ fNFILTRATJON/lNFLOW DATA, SUSSEX, WISCONSIN
-------
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% REDUCED
O tt> 40 «0 90 00
%
0 10 40 «Q to (00
SSES
% REDUCED
0 20 40 «O 80 JOO
I NM I
High Coy
High Wt»k
% REDUCED
0 20 40 60 «0 100
I N/A
High Month
LEGEND
I/I Aft«r
O
O
O
M
>%
n
O
TELEVISION INSPECTION
LEGEND
S t/1 From S»fvic«
J Main Borr«ll'l/i
B*fort Rthob.
»•*- «»••
Pr«diet*d
R«-TV
COST -EFFECHVENESS
- I.442.0OO
(Oa«hoblttla)ion Conilrucilon Co»t (2) 33E3
13} Minimum SytUiti I/I R*duello»
Syttem I/I flccijcfion Achlovad
N/A
N/A
N/A
High Do/ High VVsafc Mgh Mon
FIBURE3-I3"- (NFtLTRATION /INFLOW DATA, MASON, MICHIGAN
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% ficauceo
% RCOUCID
O <0 40 1010
I N/A
% ftcouceo
AJSJAjS^o
ti/A!
% REDUCED
I N/A
LEGEND
L 1 VI
I/ 1 After Rihobili
TELEVISION INSPECTION
§
p
M
40
SO
S to
«
I
f99
J. ,
3SCS Fkw
J-'
LEGEND
S I/) From Strvic*!
J Main Borr«il I/I
| 1 S*for* flthab.
Pr«d)ct*d
EPA- R«-TV
COST -EFFECTIVENESS
57,000° -r fl.36/gpd2 * 42,000 gpd
/| Rtducflon Achloygd
N/A
N/A
N/A
High Day High W««k High Mo
FIGURE 3-14= INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA, SALEM, NEW HAMPSHIRE
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% REDUCED % REDUCED % REDUCED
0 20 40 80 80.100 0 » 408080100 0 20
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% acouceo
0 20 40•ON 100
KXO
a
o SO
o
o
sses
% Kcouceo
0 20 40 tO W WO
% MCOUCEO
0 20 40 «0 *0100
High Wt«K
% DEDUCED
0 20 40 «0 CO 100
High Month
LEGEND
Before RehablW<
I/I After Rehobilifc
O 160
o
a
I
£
a
o
120
80
40
0
TELEVISION INSPECTION
LEGEND
S I/I From Services
J Main Barrel! I/I
f j B»for» R»hab.
After
EPA Rt-TV
£°-!LLlAF F E_?TJ V e,NE ss
,«>. * « ~-. .«>
$ 869,000- $ 0. 85/gpd
(11 Rehabilitation Con*truc!(on Cotl
O) Minimum Sy*'"11 '/'
' l,022,000gpd
(21 SSES TUT Co*l
H»quir*d
(3
Sys1«m I/I Reduction Achieved
1.0
tncreose
ncr
High Day High Week High Mont
FIGURE 3-16= INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA, CORTLAND, NEW YORK
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
w
<
& 0.6
a
5 0.5
a,
« 0.4
1 0,3
S 0.2
e
£ 0.1
So
no
O
o 80
i'°
JP 4 0
£ 20
o
% REDUCED % REDUCED % « EDUCED % REDUCED
9204O«OaOKX> OM40«O«OKX> O 80 40 «O •<> IQO O 20 40 «0 *X> IOO
•••
X
"II II
1 ! 1
LEGEND
L ^ I/I Bsfor* n«hntti!itfi
No treatment flow record* oro kept at ^ '
Bell 8uckl«. A syefem I/I flow of 0.28 mad lu,^-.
wat meoeured on 1/17/79, under thli etudy . ^-^j l/l Aft»r *»*abl\i\a\
^K •• ^ "' ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Lfl
2v>
|yE9
39ES High Day High We»K High Month
^" &••
TELEVISION INSPECTION .
S I/I From Service*
J Main Barrel* t/(
( 1
1 s [ | Before Rthab.
BSJB1 Ee«3 Pr^'Ct^d After
Bgfafl ! \ EPA. Re-TV
COST -EFFECTIVENESS
| 70,000(lt |l.3fttl = 53,000 gpd131
(l)n*lidbi!lle!lon Contfrucllon Co»( (2) 33ES T6T Coil
(9) Minimum Ay*l«m I/I R*ducHon R«qulrttf
System I/I Reduction Achieved
0.2
§1 O.I
El
tarm N/A * N/A N/A
(3) High Day High Ws«k High Month
FIGURE 3-h INFfLT RATION/INFLOW DATA ; BELL BUCKLE, TENNESSEE
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
I
X
% ftCouceo
O M 40 00 tO K>O
% REDUCED
0 20 *00
% KCDUCCO
0 10 40 90 90100
% REDUCED
0 20 40 60 60 100
LEGEND
I/I Before RehobilitaM
I/I Afttr Rehabilitolli
3SE3
High Day
High W**k
High Month
O
O
B 2»
«
S 15
A! 10
S
5 5
^5
0 0
S
J
TELEVISION INSPECTION
/-S
S
J
LEGEND'.
S I/I From Services
J
1 I
Main Barrel! I/I
Before Rehab.
1 I
EPA R«-TV
COST-
•EFFECTIVENESS
. (1) , (25
1 351,000 -r 1 3.04/gpd
(1) Rtbobd Motion Contlructlon Co»f
(5) Minimum Sy»t«m I/I
Syirem I/I
04
0.3
T?
E O.I m M^.J
(3)
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
-C
In
% REDUCED
0 *0 40 «0 60 100
% E1DUCED
0 » 40 «0 10100
% «EDUCED
0 20 40 60 00100
% REDUCED
0 20 40 10 6O 100
L
LEGEND
I/I B«fors nehohilil
l/t After R*habili1
S3ES
High Day
High W«k
High Month
TELEVISION INSPECTION
LEGEND
S I/I From Services
J Main Barrel) I/I
Before Rehab.
After
[ J EPA R«-TV
COST -EFFECTIVENCSS
(I) n«h«bJIII«tlan Comlrucflon Co»r (Z) 33ES TOT Co*t
(3) Minimum Syiltat I/I B#duct|on
0.4
0,3
0.2
0.1
O
Syitom I/I Reduction Achieved
N/A
NOTEi Till* TV data i» from or>* h«avily-|*akinQ (TO-foot tccllon
of cross-country
(3)
High Day High Week High Mon
-tr*i tni
r»w nATA MT HOI t V «iPRINfi.q PFNNSYLVANIA
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% HEDUCEO
40WWIOO
% MEDUCEO
ft 10 4O«0
% MEOUCfO
0 aO 4000*0100
99£S
High Dsy
High Wttk
% REDUCEO
0 20 4O CO CO ICQ
I N/A
High Month
LEGEND
I/I Btfor* RthobllitoHi
i/l After
TELEVISION INSPECTION
o
o
o
NO TELCVISWO WAS
DOME IN CASTLl NOCK
THW
LE3£ND
I/I From 5Urvic«
Wain Barrtfl l/t
B«fort Rthab,
Pr*tfict*d Aft*r
CM R»-TV
COST -EFFECTIVENESS
« 63,000 gpd
(DfUhabllltctlM Cwttlruc*l*A C«*t (2) I3E5 T6T Co.I
(3) Minimum 3y*!*«i I/I RMuoHon
0.6
I/I Reduction Achitvtd
High Day High W«cK High Month
FIGURE 3-4* INBLTRATION/INFLOW DATA, CASTLE ROCK, WASHINGTON
-------
% MEOUCCO
SSE3
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
High Doy
High W*«k
% MEOUCtO
0 10 40 to «0100
r- i
LEGEND
L 1 I/' B«for« Rthobllifa
!/! After Rthabllilol
High Month
I
" «0
>»
**.
I
O
i
£0
TgUVISiON INSPECTION
LEGEND
S I/I From 9«rvic«
J Main Barrtll I/I
J Be for* R«hab,
Prtdictcd Aft»r
EPA,R»-TV
COST -EFFECTIVENESS
i 0) i (2)
$459,000 -r$0.67/gpd « 665,OCQgpe
(I) ft«hablMt«li*fl Connection Coll (2) 3SES TftT Coil
(3) Minimum Sfiitm I/1 N*4uctlon
Sy«t>m t/{ Reduction AchUv«d
9
o
V
i
High Doy High W«fc Hlg)> Wonlti
FIGURE3-5^ INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA, CENTRAL!A,WASHINGTON
-------
sse*
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
ftEMJCCO
Rtmicto
o mmmmm o mmmiam
Htflh D«y
Hi«h
% NEOUCED
High Month
LEGEND
1
I/I Af*»r
TELEVISION mSPECTtON
LCOENO
S I/I From Strvicw
Moln Mrr... I/}
»«j»r t«» i I Bofert Rthob.
' " <•
Pr«dtet»d Afl*r
EPA, «t-TV
COST 'EFFECTIVENESS
$ 6T3,OQOW 4- $lv50/gpo?i Achltvtd
High Day High Wwk Meh Month
FIGURE 3-6= INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA, DUNSMUIR, CALIFORNIA
-------
PLAKT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% ftCOUCllft
OJOW6O 100
% ttcftuceo
0 » 40 •010100
N/A
% weouceo
o_» 40
-------
R.QW R£COK&
% REDUCED
0 20 4v»0»0»0e
39E3
% fit$££0
0 ?0 40 » «9
| ™
%
a ao 49
High Day
High W*«k
High
L
LEGEND
J/l 8«for«
O
o
&
1
•*
c
o
I
JOG
75
90
25
O
/-33C
I
TELEVISION INSPECTION
t rim*
•
•«inf
S
J
UM«M»—
LEGEND
S I/I From S*r'vic»t
J Main Borrttl I/I
f """' | B«for» R«hob.
BH9 Pr»dict»d Aft»r
WHHIB
I'^'i'i'l EFW Bi-TV
*
(II*
04
0.3
"0.2
O.I
O
COST
181,000*"
IsbabHtloiloa
(3) Mini
mam^_
(3)
-EFFECTtVENESS '
-T $?.63
CoA»iraeti$n
SysUm
Incftias*
/gp
Cotl
1/1
i/i
High Day
dc% ~ 69,000 gpi
12} 3SES TftT C»«.:
R«duc?lon K9(jt)lr«d ,
Reduction Achieved
V Cf
8 |
u <5
c ' jc
High W»*K High
Me
FIGURE 3~8= INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA, SHELTON, WASHINGTON
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% HEOUCEO
O M 40ttK>K>0
% AEOUCEO
0 10 40 tO 10 MO
% HEDUCED
o ao 4O6Oeoioo
% REDUCED
0 20 40 60 8O 100
LEGEND
L "1 \/\ B«for«
i/i Aftir Rthabiht
SSES
High Day
Higfc W«tk
High Month
TELEVISION INSPECTION
LEGEND
S i/J From Strvictr
J Main Barrtlt l/i
Btfor* R*nab,
After
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
rR
l3>
• til 121
$ 63.OOO 4- $ 2.EO/gp
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% HCOUCEP
3SE3
% ftffDUCtO
Ot04QJOJOjpO
% niouceo
0 » 40 «0 90100
Hl«h Bay
High W»«k
% REDUCED
0 2O 4010 tO tOO
High Month
LEGEND
I/I B«fort Rthabilf
I/I AfUr Rthabliil
o
o
o
8
£
«t
o
i
M» t«f*tf*l*f
TELEVISION INSPECTION
LEGEND
S I/I From S«rvic*»
J Main Barrtll l/|
B«for« ftthab.
f«
tw«
L
Prtdicttd Afltr
EPA* Rt-TV
COST -EFFECTIVENESS
146,000 - $2.60/gpd * 56,000 gpd 5
(1) FUhabttitoHon Conduction Cott (2) 33£3 T 5T Coil
(3) Minimum 9ytl*m l/t R«ductlon R«qu!r«ir> I/I Rtductlon Achldvcd
0.77
(3) High Day High W»«k High Mon
F1GURF3-|0= INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA, AMITY TOWNSHIP, PENNSYLVANIA
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% nxoucto
O 2040tO«0 100
% ftcoucEo
% ftKDUCCD
0 » 46 «O tO IOO
SSES
High Ooy
High W«tk
% REDUCED
0 214010 §0 100
Higi* Month
LEGEND
[y__J '/I Bafor« Rehobllit<
I/I Aff«r Rehobilifc
ISO
0
8 »»
X
fc 90
£ W
I »
1 0
S
j
TELEVISION INSPECTION
^
J
LEGEND
S I/I From Service*
J Main Barrel! I/I
j J Befort Rehob,
mi Predicted After
pCT] ERA' Rt-TV
COST -EFFECTIVENESS
di i (2>
$ 262.OOO ~r p 1,10/gpd =
(!) R«habitlla(lo!i Conitrucllen Cotl (Z)
(3) Minimum 9y«t*m I/I fitducrl
Sy*fem I/I R«duc
0.4
0.3 «»
1 ° 2 •• s
(3) High Day High
256.0OO gpd
39E3 TST Co»l
on fl*quir*d
flon Achieved
Week High Monll
FIGURE 3"W' INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA, SUSSEX, WISCONSIN
-------
PLANT PLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% fCDUCCD
o to 40to
1.0
o
»
o.
I O,
SSES
ftEDUCtt
flCDUCCO
Hl«h Day
Htgh WM)I
% REDUCED
O 20 4Q«QiSfelOO
0»«0«>0>|10 OW40JOJOIOO 020 40*0^01C
High Month
LEGEND
1 I/! B«for« Rehobi
I/I After R»habil
TELEVISION INSPECTION
8
o
I
I*
LEGEND
t/l From Sirvic**
Moin BorrelJ t/l
j Btfort R«hob.
Pr«tftctt
-------
< PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% REDUCED
O 80 4O«0«OIOO
% REDUCED
0 20 40 fO *0 »0
% REDUCED
0 20 4O«0 tO tOO
SSES
H«cti Day
High W«»k
% REDUCED
0 20 40 60 «0 100
N/A
High Month
LEGEND
J I/I B«for» Rvhobtlit
I/1 Afttr R*habUU(
0
o
o
X
>>
1
•*
o
a
(9
TELEVSSJON INSPECTION
LEGEND
S I/I From Stryicti
j Main 8acr«llVl
I 1 Rflf&ri ft*bab
Ito t*i**Ul*f ;»«•• «»iw 1 1 •••»•» n*ww».
IB IJMlt »M* tht ,
*N*' WH9l ^ Jt-« j .*.
MSEJM PrtdfeUd AfU'/
WKKHV
(di^fj EfW Rt-TV
COST-EFFECTSVENESS
^721,000 -T- ^0.50/gpd • 1,442,000 gpc
(H ««hcallll^rion Comffucllon Coif <2l 39ES TftT Co»f
(?) Minimum 3yil*m I/I Reduction fl«qu.r*d
System I/I Rftduclion Achlov«d
O 1 HIBI M ft tit ( A N/A
(3) Hi^h Ocy High Wftefc ^h Monl
INFILTRATION /INFLOW DATA, MASON, MICHIGAN
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
ftCDUCCD
o w 44 fete no
% MCOUCtD
% HtDOCCO
% MCDUCCD
0 » 40 «0 10
ft/A
SSES
High W»»k
(•NtathM *w t* raw* *rjr
High Month
LE0END
J/t Btfw*
1/1 AfUr Rihobilitotl
8
O
M
5
40
I 10
i o
TELEVISION INSPECTION
LflQENO
no.
s
J
5/1
| | itfort Rthob.
S
t"1
rTV
COST -EFFECTIVENESS
<(]
O.I
42,000opd
Conitru4«on Co«t (l\ S3C9 TftT Cott
(9) MiAlmwm Sytttm I/I Rtduoitori ««qulf«(J
3y*t>m_|/jI Rtducflon AchKvtd
N/A
N/A
N/A
(3)
High Day High W««k High Month
FIGUftE 3-14= INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA, SALEM, NEW HAMPSHIRE
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% REDUCED
0 20 40 WW KX>
% REDUCE*
0 10 40 10 tO 100
| N/A |
% REDUCED
0 20 40 «0 M iOO
I KV»|
% REDUCED
0 K> 40 60 flK> tOO
LEGEND
j^ ^j I/I Before Rfthobilitoll
i/l AH»r RehabililotU
N/A
High Month
M
£
o
%h
£
«
^
TELEVISION INSPECTION
LEGEND
S I/I From Services
J Main Borr«ll I/I
N* titavliliif HI 4«M 1 1 ••'Of* Rthob.
tm *to*r. E2B Pr»«C^ Afttr
1 :' :;v;' J C|M Ra-TV/
1 '-.".: ::!:^J f-rf\ W9 1 W
COST-EFFECTtVENESS
^ TOO^OOO"' -r ^2.5O/gpd'2' = E80,OOOgpd(3'
(If AfhabMltalloft Conduction Cotl (ZJ 33CS TATCatt
(3) Minimum 9/«t«m t/l Reduction R*quir*d
Sy«r«m I/I Rftducflon AcfiUvad
NOTE* ONLY A SMALL AMOUNT OF THE fRQJECT WAS
JUSTIFIED ' ABIfllMAI 4PtlimC
(3) High Day High W«ok. High Morth
FIGURE 3-15= INFILTRATION/INFLOW DATA, VERGENNES, VERMONT
-------
PLANT FLOW RECORD ANALYSIS
% BEOOCEO
0 20 *0« M100
o.
o 60
o
s
SSES
% ftCDUCCO
0 M40MWIOO
% AfDUCCQ
0 20 40 90 BO 100
High Day
High W«*k
% REDUCED
0 20 40 60 SO 100
Hi Oh Month
LEGEND
1 I/! B»for« RahoblF
I/I Aft«r Rthabil
o ieo
o
i w
S 40
TELEVISION INSPECTION
LEGEND
S I/I From 5trvic0s
J Moin Borrill I/I
j | B«for» Rthob.
Predicted After
EPA R»-TV
CQST-E F F E CJIV E N E SS
JH».
$869,000
= J,022,000 g pc
(Z) 33E3 TftT Cot'
(31 Minimum Syittm I/I Rtducdon R«quir«d
Syetam t/j_Rtd>jctlon Achltvad
tncr«o
crtos*
High Day High Woek High Me
-------
TABLE 3-1
SSES FLOW SUMMARY (1)
SSES Infiltration
SSES Inflow
Community
Bell Buckle, TN
Grifton, NC (3)
Winterville, NC
(3)
Ayden, NC (3)
Mt. Holly, PA
Castle Rock, WA
Central ia, WA
Dunsmuir, CA
Will its, CA
5 he! ton, WA
New Bufflao, MA
Amity, PA
Sussex, WI
Conyngham, PA
.Mason, MI
Vercennes, VT
Salem, NH
Cor t land, MY
Notes: 1. All
Before
Rehab
0.466
0.013
0.032
0.099
1.241
0.847
4.1
6.7
1 .0
4.41
0.240
0.320
0.989
0.564
0.3
0.584(
0.55
11.0
flows in
2. Method used
ill
FM
TV
TV
TV
PM
TV
FM
FM
?M
FM
TV
FM
TV
FM
PR
4 ) FM
FM
PM
itigd.
Estimated Before
After Rehab (2)
0.140
0.004
0.010
0.030
0.491
0.123
1.33
0.071
0.538
1.26
0.036
0.048
0.060
0.045
N/A
0.124(4)
0.140
6.8
to quantify flow:
0.082
0.122
0.128
0.391
0.016
0.155
0.5
1.2
0.25
0.1
0.060
0.450
0.015
2.315
2-3
0.584(4)
0.1
0.5
TV«Televised
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
RS
PR
RS
RS
RS
RS
PM
RS
FM
PR
FM
RS
RS
Estimat
After
0.018
0.012
0.013
0.040
0.016
0.062
0.5
0
0.15
0.1
0.00$'
Q.06II
O.Olfi
0.18'J
o
0.124(4)
0.1
0.2
Inspection, FM»
Flow Measurement, PR-Plant Flow Record Analysis, RS»Rainfall
Simulation.
3. Only p*rt of system studied in SSES.
4,. SSES figures for total I/I only.
-------
INFLOW REMOVAL
Wet weather flows to treatment plants have not been reduced
to the extent predicted following sewer line rehabilitation.
Differentiation between infiltration and inflow to determine
the quantity of each is an inexact exercise. Thus, the
findings of this study simply state that wet weather I/I
flows have not been effectively reduced*
METHODOLOGY
The major elements of the I/I methodology are imprecise.
Each of the elements, namely flow monitoring, flow estimat-
ing, assumed flow reductions after rehabilitation and cost
effectiveness can live erroneous results. Thelow«r right
portion of Figure 3-1 through 3-16 illustrates the amount
of I/I that should have been removed cost effectively versuv
the actual removals.
4*
-------
CHAPTER 4
EECOMMENDATIONS
General
The findings of this study indicate that Sewer System Evalua-
tion and Rehabilitation generally does not result in substantial
system I/I flow reductions. The consequence of this is that
returning I/I has used up all or substantial portions of the
reserve capacity of new and upgraded treatment facilities and
thus, shortened the plants' design lives.
I/I is not going to be removed by ignoring it. Thus, it it
essential that it be evaluated in order that sewerage- *orks
can be designed and operated effectively.
In order to improve the effectiveness of Sewer System Evalua-
tion and Rehabilitation it is necessary to make substantive
changes in technical procedures utilized in evaluating I/I.
These technical procedure changes must incorporate new devel-
opments and the most recent state-of-the-art technology.
The recommendations for improving the I/I Program and detailed
technical procedures for accomplishing this will be presented
in a separated document. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the Scope of Work under this Contract.
3-7,
-------
Reproduced by NTIS
•oES>
00 >?
2. o o
0 o 0)
4- 0 0) 0
— 21 +- +*
M- a1"1"
s
.
0 3 £
0) O OS
ajS>c
j Q.O)n
0£.So
TJ
0 o " (0
T3 C ® C
" 3T3 E
Zo«c
^m \J ,mm tmt
National Technical Information Service
Springfield, VA 22161
TViis report was printed specifically for your order
from nearly 3 million titles available in our collection.
For economy and efficiency, NTIS does not maintain stock of its vast
collection of technical reports. Rather, most documents are printed for
each order. Documents that are not in electronic format are reproduced
from master archival copies and are the best possible reproductions
available. If you have any questions concerning this document or any
order you have placed with NTIS, please call our Customer Service
Department at (703) 487-4660.
About NTIS
NTIS collects scientific, technical, engineering, and business related
information — then organizes, maintains, and disseminates that
information in a variety of formats — from microfiche to online services.
The NTIS collection of nearly 3 million titles includes reports describing
research conducted or sponsored by federal agencies and their
contractors; statistical and business information; U.S. military
publications; audiovisual products; computer software and electronic
databases developed by federal agencies; training tools; and technical
reports prepared by research organizations worldwide. Approximately
100,000 new titles are added and indexed into the NTIS collection
annually.
For more information about NTIS products and services, call NTIS
at (703) 487-4650 and request the free NTIS Catalog of Products
and Services, PR-827LPG, or visit the NTIS Web site
http://www.ntis.gov.
NTIS
Your indispensable resource for government-sponsored
information U.S. and worldwide
-------
-------
-------
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
Form Approved
OMB WO: 0704-01 68
Public reporting burden for this collection of Information is estimated to.avtrsge 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing Instructions, searching existing data sources
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information, Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
rnllK*inn n» infomwtbu. i»-i. »*-- —~-~"~-" 'Or reguclflQ this burden, to Washington Headquarters Service), Directorate For Information Operations and Reports, tin Jefferson
III III! II Illlll II III II III III t302'>^tothe0fficeo'Mana9em'ntdrd8ud^tt'p3^workR^grtionproiM(0704^188''Wavhin9ton.D{: 20503.
Ill Illl II Illlll I ill I Hill I'llll :) 2. REPORT DATE 1 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
PB95-207213 F*b / • .
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
9. SPONSORING/ MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
OP-pfcfc c>r woifef' .
i}0i M Sf.-f5W
JAJasliJnAfw , DC a snrf others involved in the Construction Grants Program \
E ^L™ increasinalv concerned about the extensive tlroe
Thf Project has b4tn funded by EPA Headquarter* Office of
Wate? ?roorams, Municipal Construction DivisxorLand xs in- ^
tended as"an vinhouse" report. ? _ ,',..- '
14, SUBJECT TERMS fti / . . i - "Vp
IS. NUMBER OF PAGES
fcSk
16. PRICE CODE
17, SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20, LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
NSN 7540-0 1'280-S500 Standard form 298 (Rev 2-P'y)
PreWbed by ANSI Sid Zj'J-IS
------- |