SEWER LATERAL RENEWAL PROGRAMS Private Property Inflow and Infiltration

1. SEWER LATERAL RENEWAL PROGRAMSPrivate Property Inflow and Infiltration Henry R. (Kelly) Derr, Hazen and Sawyer Richard (Dick) Eubank, Baltimore County For the: Chesapeake Water Environment Association Collection Systems Committee Luncheon Seminar May 4, 2007

2. Sewer Lateral Renewal Programs Sewer laterals have been called the �Final Frontier� of sewerage system renewal Laterals have been given less attention in the past due to: Lack of consistently effective and affordable inspection and renewal methods for small diameter lines Complex issues of ownership and maintenance responsibilities Sheer number of laterals The situation is changing!

3. Recent Studies of Laterals US Census Bureau National Census - 2001 WERF Studies Survey of Public Works Agencies � 2004 Methods for Cost-Effective Rehabilitation of Private Lateral Sewers � 2006 Miami-Dade Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Lateral Investigation Program - 2007

4. Number of Sewer Laterals Over 76 million sewer laterals in U.S. (U.S. Census Bureau 2001) Estimated 3.8 billion feet of lateral piping Municipal survey responses for number of laterals: Per mile of mainline: 30-300; on average 75-85. Total per agency: 2,000-1,000,000 (WERF 2004 survey of public works agencies)

5. Sewer Laterals Are Often in Poor Condition Range of defects: From minor (cracks allowing infiltration) to severe requiring immediate attention (collapsed pipes) Main causes of defects: Soil movements, ground settlement over time Corrosion or encrustration Tree root intrusion into pipe Improper lateral construction practices (�break-ins�) Improper excavation of other utilities (open cut, HDD installations) Lack of maintenance

6. Typical Defects in Sewer Laterals Cracks and voids in pipe walls Connections with mainline: �Break-in� (�hammer tap�) and/or protruding laterals Defective pipe joints: Misaligned or open joints, cracked or displaced bells Obstructions: Tree roots, debris, encrustation Collapsed pipes

7. Typical Results of Defective Laterals � I/I Inflow and infiltration enters the system : Along the length of the lateral Open joints Cracked pipe At the cleanout cap At the �hammer tap� connection

8. WERF 2004 Survey Estimated I/I from Laterals 45% of participating agencies had estimated how much laterals contribute to total I/I Estimates are in the range of 7-80%, with an average of 40%

9. WERF 2004 SURVEY Materials Used for Sewer Laterals: Interestingly, a survey conducted in 1981 by OWASA of NC Utilities found that all used either CI or VCP with only a small percentage of ABS or PVC.Interestingly, a survey conducted in 1981 by OWASA of NC Utilities found that all used either CI or VCP with only a small percentage of ABS or PVC.

10. WERF 2004 SURVEY Definition of �private� sewer lateral varies

11. WERF 2004 SURVEY 58.4% of private laterals are at front of house, 31% at back 80% of utilities require cleanouts but only 29% are at the ROW / property line 75% of utilities record lateral locations but only 59% actively field locate Only 38% of utilities have quantified lateral I/I separately 54% of utilities have allowed some type of drain connection in the past 21% still allow garage and basement drains to be connected 54% of utilities use some form of defect coding but less than 10% use PACP

12. WERF 2004 SURVEY Legal Issues Entering private property - private property right issues: Fourth amendment �right-to-privacy� considerations/administrative search warrants The emergency exception 29% require signed permit from homeowner 11% have municipal code allowing entry 39% do not enter private property`

13. WERF 2004 SURVEY Liability Issues Damages or injuries 25% will reimburse for damages 7% have disclaimer on right of entry permit 7% hire third party 77% reported no legal cases Spending public funds on private properties Enforcement measures for homeowners

14. WERF 2004 SURVEY Financing Issues: 41% of participating agencies may use public funds on private sewer laterals

15. WERF 2004 SURVEY Sources of Funds: Public sector funding: User fees � 34% (water supply, wastewater collection/ treatment) Local funds � 13% (property taxes, special assessments on the property) Federal and state funds � 10% (general obligation bonds)

16. WERF 2004 SURVEY Sources of Funds: Financial assistance to homeowners: As partial or full funding, or as a loan to the homeowners � provided by 32% of utilities Various payment options possible Partial payments � 4% Hardship cases � 11% Loans � 16% Payment plans � 7% Insurance � 2%

17. WERF 2004 SURVEY Who pays: For maintenance: 66% require homeowner to arrange for maintenance and 59% require homeowner to pay for maintenance For inspection: 55% require homeowner to arrange for and pay for inspection For renewal: 57% require homeowner to arrange for and pay for lateral repairs or rehabilitation

18. WERF 2004 SURVEY Enforcement: 29% do nothing 11% place a lien against property 29% apply fines 14% discontinue water service 17% do combination of methods Discontinuing water service is most effective approach followed by fines and liens

19. WERF 2004 SURVEY CASE STUDIES Tacoma, Washington Prince William County, Virginia Sarasota, Florida Lafayette, Louisiana

20. Tacoma, WA: July 2003 Relined 69 upper laterals using CIPP (Perma-Lateral�) Cost $1,025/lateral (includes cleaning, pre & post CCTV) Peak RDI/I reduction 18-39% (depends on size of storm) Paid by the city Access to private property with signed release agreement

21. Prince William Service Authority, Virginia Mar/Apr 2004 Relined 20 entire laterals (?85�) (LMK T-Liner�) Cost $5,921/lateral (includes cleaning, pre & post CCTV) Effectiveness not quantified yet (but visible) Paid by the agency Access agreement to enter the private property

22. Sarasota, Florida May 2001-May 2002 Replaced 297 upper laterals by pipe bursting (Tric Trenchless�) Cost $2,450/lateral (with COs) Reduction in pumped volumes in LS�s on extreme wet days: 178,000 gal (33%) in LS-1 63,500 gal (73%) in LS-5 Paid by the agency Access agreement to enter the private property

23. Lafayette, Louisiana April 2003 Sealed 26 entire laterals, plus 5 mainlines and 7 manholes by flood grouting (Sanipor�) Cost $580/lateral (approx) Fluid exfiltration test to assess effectiveness: immediately and 21 months after Paid by the agency Access agreement to enter the private property

24. H&S Recent Experience Research Programs: WERF Studies Methods for Cost-Effective Rehabilitation of Private Lateral Sewers � 2006 Miami-Dade Water and Sewer District Comprehensive Lateral Investigation Program Field Experience: National experience replacing or renewing over 50,000 laterals

25. MDWASD Lateral Programs Extensive I/I Removal Program Since 1994 Completed in 2002 Corrected over 32,000 defects Removed about 130 MGD of ADF from WWTP RDI/I Continued to be excessive Determined to be from above the GWT � Laterals! Initiated Lateral Program Initial Lateral Pilot Program Comprehensive Lateral Investigation Program CLIP � Funded in 2002 as part of Consent Decree In 1994 measured 325 MGD ADF to WWTP of which 40 to 50% was I/I. By 2002 removed about 130 MGD of ADF or almost 80% of ADF I/I.In 1994 measured 325 MGD ADF to WWTP of which 40 to 50% was I/I. By 2002 removed about 130 MGD of ADF or almost 80% of ADF I/I.

26. MDWASD CLIP Comprehensive Lateral Investigation Program (CLIP) Investigated: Lateral ownership and management practices Lateral renewal financial arrangements Legal and regulatory issues Renewal methods and materials Literature survey and questionnaire Review of renewal methods and costs

27. MDWASD CLIP National Survey Questionnaires sent to over 50 utilities In depth interviews with 12 utilities Interviews with contractors Pilot Program Selected 52 basins for Pilot Program Main line sewers repaired in pilot basins Public Outreach Program to gain access to private laterals Proceeding with 5 Step Peak Flow Master Plan MDWASD has 976 PS�s of which 500 contributed excess RDII of over 250 MGD. The 52 basins were selected for optimal size (15000 feet), terminal location, constant speed pumps and discharge to gravity system.MDWASD has 976 PS�s of which 500 contributed excess RDII of over 250 MGD. The 52 basins were selected for optimal size (15000 feet), terminal location, constant speed pumps and discharge to gravity system.

28. Lateral Management MDWASD CLIP Survey Results Ownership Majority owned from main to property line Cleanout at property line Several cases � customer owned entire lateral to main New construction All utilities responsible for tap on main Most utilities responsible for lateral to property line One utility responsible for entire lateral to building

29. Lateral Management MDWASD CLIP Survey Results Renewal financing policy options (private side) No action None Voluntary participation by customer 7% Customer funded 11% Utility funded 11% Shared Funding Grants or low interest loans 44% Lateral Insurance programs 20% Fixed price contracts 7% A total of 28 utilities provided information on financingA total of 28 utilities provided information on financing

30. Lateral Management MDWASD CLIP Survey Results Legal issues Enforceable ordinance 25% Customer application for lateral renewal 50% Customer indemnification of utility 25% Certifies right of utility access Report on lateral condition included in sale of 3% building No clear action 10%

31. Lateral Management MDWASD CLIP Survey Results Inspection Methods CCTV inspection As part of sewer main inspection After lateral problem identified Smoke testing Dye testing (potty test) Air testing FELL � 41 Focused Electrode Leak Locator

32. Lateral Management MDWASD CLIP Survey Results Renewal Methods Open cut replacement Cured in place lining Full lining Segmental lining Full lining with �Tophat� Full lining with �T-Liner� Pipe Bursting Grouting

33. MDWASD CLIP RESULTS Public Outreach Program 9,202 Letters sent Responses � 6,543 (71%) �Yes� Responses � 6,291 (96% of responders) Lateral Inspection Program Public Side � 4,341 passed Private Side � 3,768 passed Total of 1,376 repairs identified To date, 1,222 repairs completed MDWASD has 976 PS�s of which 500 contributed excess RDII of over 250 MGD. The 52 basins were selected for optimal size (15000 feet), terminal location, constant speed pumps and discharge to gravity system.MDWASD has 976 PS�s of which 500 contributed excess RDII of over 250 MGD. The 52 basins were selected for optimal size (15000 feet), terminal location, constant speed pumps and discharge to gravity system.

34. MDWASD CLIP RESULTS Costs Mainline inspection/repair $4,171,214 Lateral inspection $4,241,327 Lateral repairs $4,518,235 Admin costs $ 493,118 Total Program Costs $13,423,894 Unit Costs Mainline inspection/repair $8.68/L.F. Lateral inspection $550/Lateral Lateral repair $801/Lateral MDWASD has 976 PS�s of which 500 contributed excess RDII of over 250 MGD. The 52 basins were selected for optimal size (15000 feet), terminal location, constant speed pumps and discharge to gravity system.MDWASD has 976 PS�s of which 500 contributed excess RDII of over 250 MGD. The 52 basins were selected for optimal size (15000 feet), terminal location, constant speed pumps and discharge to gravity system.

35. MDWASD CLIP RESULTS Cost Effective Analysis Estimated cost to pump and treat $6 per Gallon per day = $8,645/GPM Mainline inspection/repair 0.024 GPM/LF = $362/GPM removed 23 times more cost-effective than pump and treat Lateral inspection/repair $2,308/GPM removed About 3.7 times more cost effective than pump and treat Total Program - $1,011/GPM removed Flow reduction based on pre and post flow monitoring. For peak hourly flow. Flow reduction based on pre and post flow monitoring. For peak hourly flow.

36. MDWASD CLIP RECOMMENDATIONS Public Outreach Program was successful Public readily gave permission for entry Lateral renewal program was cost effective Proposed to expand program to all 500 critical basins with excessive RDII Flow reduction based on pre and post flow monitoring. For peak hourly flow. Flow reduction based on pre and post flow monitoring. For peak hourly flow.

37. Baltimore County Cleanout Repair Program Broken or missing cleanout caps identified as problem �Standard Approach� would be: Identify problem lateral (Smoke test) Memo to plumbing inspection with copy to homeowner Inspector visits site and citing homeowner Return inspection Log to database with hard copy to homeowner Flow reduction based on pre and post flow monitoring. For peak hourly flow. Flow reduction based on pre and post flow monitoring. For peak hourly flow.

38. Baltimore County Cleanout Repair Program Problems with �Standard Approach� are: Time consuming and labor intensive Can �fall through the cracks� Costly at about $74 in costs to utility for each homeowner with defective lateral Results in poor customer relations Improved Approach Following smoke test, go directly to homeowners and request entry permission Repair using County resources Flow reduction based on pre and post flow monitoring. For peak hourly flow. Flow reduction based on pre and post flow monitoring. For peak hourly flow.

39. Baltimore County Cleanout Repair Program Results Reduced number and volume of SSO�s Flooded basements reduced by 50% According to insurance department Previously cleaning 30 to 35 basements, now only 8 to 14 per event Better customer relations Fewer insurance claims Only one homeowner refused entry Relented when told of $300 cost of being cited for leaking cleanout Flow reduction based on pre and post flow monitoring. For peak hourly flow. Flow reduction based on pre and post flow monitoring. For peak hourly flow.

40. SEWER LATERAL RENEWAL PROGRAMSPrivate Property Inflow and Infiltration Henry R. (Kelly) Derr, Hazen and Sawyer Richard Eubank, Baltimore County For the: Chesapeake Water Environment Association Collection Systems Committee Luncheon Seminar May 4, 2007