Richmond City Council
August 19, 2025

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 65 of 126 1402
x Prepare protocols, metrics, and site selection criteria for field demonstration of selected innovative condition assessment technologies and decision-support systems.

To meet these project objectives, a stakeholder group was established to review all task products, and a technology forum was convened to help compile and assess the current state-of-the-art and evolving technologies including any critical gaps in performance, affordability or applicability to wastewater collection systems. During the literature review for the White Paper, internal camera inspection technologies were researched and evaluated for immediate transfer to utilities at large; advanced integrity assessment technologies that apply non-contact, remote sensing approaches were also reviewed. In the main portion of the project, protocols/metrics for field demonstration of selected technologies will be developed, as will criteria for selecting demonstration sites. Finally, field demonstrations of select technologies will be conducted.

The work products resulting from the project will include:
x White paper summarizing current state of the technology. x Summary of technology forum discussions and findings. x Comprehensive inventory of condition assessment technologies. x Information transfer document on internal camera inspection technologies. x Information transfer document on advanced integrity monitoring technologies. x Quality assurance project plan for conducting field demonstrations and data analysis. x Technical memoranda summarizing each task.
x Final project report.

A draft white paper was prepared and used as a basis for discussion at the project’s Technology Forum held in Edison, NJ on September 11 and 12, 2008. It was distributed to the expert panel, stakeholders and other participants in advance of the meeting. This final white paper incorporates feedback received at the Technology Forum.

1.3 Definition of Terms
A wastewater collection system or sanitary sewer system is defined as the network of pipes and pumping systems used to convey sanitary flow to a wastewater treatment facility for treatment prior to discharge to the environment. A wastewater collection system is designed to convey only sanitary flow, whereas a combined system is designed to convey sanitary and stormwater flows.

A gravity line is a sewer pipe that is sloped to convey flow via gravitational forces. Typical design standards are based on open channel flow equations under normal flow conditions utilizing Manning’s equation. Design criteria for a gravity line generally take into consideration anticipated defects as a pipe remains in service. An allowable rate of inflow and infiltration expressed in terms of gallons per minute per in. diameter per mile length (gpm/in-mile) is included in hydraulic design of gravity lines. It is also typical to select a frictional coefficient that is based upon a sediment accumulation at the invert of the pipe. The minimum diameter of a gravity line (excluding service laterals) is typically 8 inches (in.); however, large interceptors can have diameters in excess of 12 feet (ft). Older systems may contain 6-in. gravity lines.

Service laterals are the gravity lines that convey wastewater from a building’s foundation to the sanitary line, or main, in the street. The ownership of the service lateral varies widely from area to area. It may be defined by property line limits, with the private sewer lateral extending from the house or building foundation to the property line and the municipal or public lateral located within the public right of way.

In other cases, the property owner may own the service lateral all the way to the main.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 66 of 126 1403
A force main is a pressure line used to convey pumped sewage. The Water Environment Research Federation (WERF) 2004 survey indicated that force mains comprise, on average, 7.5% of a collection system. This percentage does vary considerably depending on the region and the topography.

Approximately 46% of the force mains have diameters less than 12-in. and 20% are greater than 36-in.

The most common pipe materials for force mains are cast iron and ductile iron.

Asset Management - The primary components of any asset management program include the identification, location, and condition of assets; the determination of their useful life and their valuation.

The key to asset management is to understand the types, frequency, and costs of failure. Asset management often employs a risk-based management approach that utilizes information on asset failures as part of a decision making model to manage funding and maintenance priorities. One risk model often employed is Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA). FMEA analyzes a system’s potential failure modes so they can be classified by severity or determination of the effect upon the system. It is widely used in manufacturing as a risk mitigation tool in various phases of product life cycle and product quality planning.

The Water Research Foundation (formerly the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AwwaRF)) and the Water Environment Federation (WEF) have both produced guidance documents on asset management and risk-based analysis of assets. The Capacity, Management, Operation and Maintenance (CMOM) program also outlines the framework necessary to develop an information-based strategy on managing assets. Such approaches are not unique to the wastewater industry. Developing an understanding of the risks and potential costs of system failure can aid in the decision making process.

Condition assessment is one of the core components of an asset management program. It provides the critical information needed to assess the condition and remaining useful life and long-term performance of a piping system. Condition assessment can also be used to determine the functionality of the pipes in meeting their design criteria. USEPA has defined “condition assessment” as the collection of data and information through the direct inspection, observation, and investigation and in-direct monitoring and reporting, and the analysis of the data and information to make a determination of the structural, operational and performance status of capital infrastructure assets (USEPA, 2007).

The type of pipe defect varies depending on the pipe material and pipe diameter, as discussed in Section

3.2. The most prevalent defects are as follows: cracks/broken pipe, root intrusion, sediment, grease build-up, off-set joints, corrosion, manhole frame and cover leaks, and pipe sags.

Pipe failure includes collapse, which may cause extensive property damage and/or discharge of untreated sewage, severe hydraulic restrictions, and severe decrease in hydraulic capacity. Other less severe pipe conditions could also be considered “failure” depending on the performance standards set for the system.

The term inspection technologies in this white paper refers to the various methods used for detecting pipe defects, structural and operational condition, and environmental conditions that could potentially impact pipe condition. These technologies, discussed in Section 4.0, have varying abilities for detecting and quantifying specific types of pipe defects. Inspection technologies may have limited applications depending on pipe material and/or pipe diameter. A robust condition assessment method would likely include a variety of inspection technologies, based on the specific characteristics of a utility’s sewer network.

1.4 Critical Gaps in Inspection Technologies and Condition Assessment A previous research project (Thomson et al., 2004) surveyed large wastewater utility districts to determine critical gaps in condition assessment of gravity pipelines and force mains. The survey found that 100% of the 31 survey respondents relied almost exclusively on CCTV as the primary means to inspect pipes. The general limitations of current CCTV technology were the focus of the identification of critical gaps. There were also several respondents who expressed concerns with the inability to measure

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 67 of 126 1404
the structural integrity of the pipe wall and the inability to measure crown corrosion of concrete pipe and internal corrosion for ferrous pipes.

1.4.1 Gravity Line Inspection
The majority of sewer pipeline inspection activities performed by utilities involve gravity pipelines. In the 2004 utility survey (Thomson et al. 2004), critical gaps for inspection technologies for gravity lines were defined as follows:
x The needs for improvements to CCTV - higher resolution cameras with better lighting; improvements in crawler technology to negotiate obstructions, grease, offset-joints; and cameras for inspection of laterals.
x Ability to monitor in surcharged (i.e., flooded) conditions. x Inability to obtain information on pipe wall thickness. x Inability to measure slope.
x Inability to locate manholes1.
x Inability to locate soil voids above or below a pipe segment. x Inability to quantify corrosion (e.g., internal, external).

1.4.2 Pressure Line/Force Main Inspection
Inspection of force mains is currently limited to pipelines that are taken out of service. For this reason, force mains are infrequently inspected by utilities, primarily because of the inability to take the line out of service without costly by-pass pumping. Other critical gaps in inspection of force mains include the limited number of inspection technologies suitable for use in force mains; and the inability to determine wall thickness, cracking, and pitting with currently available inspection technologies (Thomson et al. 2004).

1.4.3 Condition Assessment Protocols
Based on a survey of twenty-four Canadian sewer agencies using condition assessment protocols, Rahman and Vanier (2004) identified the lack of consistent, standard condition assessment protocols as a critical gap. The survey results showed 68% of the respondents used a protocol based on that of the National Water Research Council. The biggest gaps identified were systematic collection of data and use of formal risk assessment methods to prioritize resources for maintenance and rehabilitation activities.

Research has focused on the use of models to standardize the risk-based decision-making process.

1.5 Research Questions
The following key research questions relating to sewer inspection and condition assessment have emerged from EPA research (USEPA, 2007). These questions reflect critical gaps in our knowledge of the performance of innovative inspection technologies, our understanding of proven condition assessment techniques, and our ability to diagnose and predict infrastructure failures. x Can emerging and innovative inspection technologies be identified and demonstrated in field settings to improve our understanding of their cost-effectiveness, technical performance, and reliability?
1 Other sources indicate that manholes can be located via CCTV inspection. CCTV crawlers can be equipped with radio transponders to aid in manhole location.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 68 of 126 1405
x Can advances in remote monitoring and wireless technologies be applied to reduce confinedspace entry requirements for sewer system inspection and investigation? x What measurements or operational data can be used to determine and track the condition of assets over time?
x Can standard technical guidelines, uniform data requirements, and indicators be developed for condition assessment of sewers and non-sewer assets, including manholes, service laterals, and pipe joints?
x Can technical guidance be developed for establishing an overall wastewater infrastructure inspection program, including inspection prioritization, inspection frequency, inspection type (physical vs. visual, maintenance vs. structural), inspection by asset type, and inspection costeffectiveness? x How can a municipality determine the impact of deteriorating collection systems on their financial budgets?
x Can infrastructure failure mechanisms be better characterized to improve risk assessment models?

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 69 of 126 1406

2.0 Condition Assessment
Condition assessment has gained considerable attention in recent years amongst municipalities and utility districts as a component of an asset management program. It can be used to prioritize infrastructure projects based on relative risk, thereby easing the financial burden on wastewater utilities and their customers. WERF estimates that wastewater utility purveyors spend approximately $4.2 billion annually to rehabilitate sanitary pipelines. Local and state governments are required to tabulate the value of their public assets (i.e., buildings, roads, utilities, etc.) to support the development of a unified cost accounting system, per the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Bulletin 34. This program requires detailed financial accounting of all assets, however, the level of detail to which it is implemented can vary from city to city. Condition assessment can also assist utilities in implementing USEPA’s proposed guidance for evaluating the Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance (CMOM) program for sanitary sewer collection systems (USEPA, 2005). The CMOM program requires a municipality that operates a sanitary sewer system to provide adequate conveyance capacity for all parts of the system and to take all feasible steps to stop and mitigate the impacts of sanitary sewer overflows.

A variety of processes have been developed for performing condition assessments, ranging from simple to complex. They generally follow a similar progression of steps: setting objectives for the condition assessment, identification of assets and available data, asset inspection, data analysis, and decision making. Specific condition assessment processes are described in the WERF publication “Condition Assessment Strategies and Protocols for Water and Wastewater Utilities” (Marlow et al., 2007) and in the National Research Council’s “Guidelines for Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation of Large Sewers” (McDonald and Zhao, 2001). Figure 2-1 illustrates the steps in the condition assessment process.

Inventory database
Impact assessment
Prioritization
Frequency of
next inspection Inspection
Rehabilitation
Condition
Assessment
Decision- making on
rehabilitation actions
Source: McDonald and Zhao, 2001
Figure 2-1: Condition Assessment

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 70 of 126 1407

2.1 Program Development
The development of a condition assessment program must first consider the program drivers and objectives. The drivers may include regulatory compliance, operation and maintenance efficiency, risk management, and/or financial budgeting forecast. Often, the primary driver for wastewater utilities is investigation of sources of infiltration/inflow (I/I) that would require a system-wide condition assessment program. Other utilities are more concerned with identifying high risk pipes for which a catastrophic failure could lead to extensive service disruptions and environmental damage. A risk-based condition assessment program would focus on specific pipes that present these types of risk.

Objectives for performing the condition assessment should be explicitly stated, so that the program’s effectiveness can be evaluated. The objectives will also establish how the results of the condition assessment will be used in the decision making process, the final step of condition assessment. Key performance indicators (KPIs), metrics used to determine the utility’s progress to defined goals, would be defined at this step. Objectives for performing a condition assessment could be to understand the structural condition, performance, and/or progression of deterioration (i.e. remaining service life) of the asset.

The costs of conducting condition assessment must be documented and compared to the anticipated benefits in order to justify the program. The costs are typically easier to quantify but should include both the direct costs of inspection and the indirect costs to the utility and other parties of carrying out the inspection work and collecting and analyzing the data. The benefits are more difficult to quantify and derive mainly from the reduction in the risk of failure (likelihood times consequences of failure) and from the knowledge that allows maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement to be carried out on the most cost effective schedule. More specifically, the costs of condition assessment include:
x Equipment and labor costs to conduct field inspections including excavation, traffic control, road surface restoration, monitoring equipment and data collection. x Labor costs before and after field work for planning, data analysis and reporting. x Cost of service disruptions due to inspection work.

Specific benefits of a condition assessment program may include:
x Avoided emergency repair costs.
x Avoided costs of extended service disruptions due to a catastrophic failure. x Avoided restoration costs due to environmental and property damage from a catastrophic failure.
x Avoided public health costs (i.e. injury, death, disease transmission) from catastrophic failure.
x Improved planning and prioritization of rehabilitation and replacement projects due to condition assessment information and improved estimates of service life. x Avoided costs of premature pipe replacement or rehabilitation.

Comparing the costs to benefits for gravity sewers and force mains, it has been reported (Thomson 2008) that:
x The cost of inspection of gravity sewers is typically low with respect to the value of the asset (e.g. the cost of inspection of a 12-in diameter sewer at 13-ft depth is less than 1% of the asset value) and the proportion decreases with increasing depth and diameter of sewer. x The benefits from inspection of gravity sewers are likely to exceed costs for all but small diameter sewers at shallow depths.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 71 of 126 1408
x The cost of inspection of force mains is high with indirect costs often exceeding the direct costs of inspection (emptying the line, providing temporary bypass, accessing the line). x The monetary benefits of inspection may be less than the cost of inspection for smaller lines in less populated areas (fail and fix approach may be chosen) although this ratio may change in environmentally sensitive areas. The benefits increase greatly for larger diameter force mains and urban areas due to the increased risk of major consequences.

When performing condition assessment, it is essential to compile an inventory of assets and existing system data (i.e. pipe material, size, age, maintenance history, inspection records). The utility should understand the content and form of existing data, and should identify data gaps at this step. System maps and geographic information system (GIS) databases are good information resources. Inspection and testing records may include I/I studies: flow data, smoke testing, flow isolation studies, and/or dye tracer studies. Failure data from within the system or from research on similar conditions (e.g., soil bedding type, material, age) in utility districts can be used to define risk of failure. Data gaps identified in this step are used to plan the inspection program.

A key difficulty in developing a rational inspection, condition assessment, and asset management program is that some of the most critical elements of the sewer infrastructure are the most difficult and expensive to inspect. For example, large diameter sewers have continuous and high levels of flow that make bypassing the sewer difficult or impossible. They may contain large debris that hinder inspections unless the pipes are cleaned first, and they may not have been inspected for decades. Similar conditions exist for force mains in terms of the consequences of failure vs. the ability to inspect.

2.2 Asset Inspection
The primary purpose of an inspection is to define the current condition of an asset, in order to detect and evaluate the progression of deterioration and to make informed decisions on asset management. A well developed inspection plan will maximize the value of the program, while minimizing the cost of inspection. A detailed work plan and quality assurance project plan should also be established at this step to outline how the proposed inspection program would meet the program objectives. The inspection plan should focus on what assets to inspect, when they should be inspected, and what technologies will be used for inspection. Ideally, an inspection would occur at a point prior to failure where an intervention could effectively renew the asset. For a buried pipeline, there is limited ability to obtain a warning indicator as to the appropriate time and location to perform an inspection. It is this unknown state that is the inherent risk in managing buried assets.

2.2.1 Selection of Assets for Inspection
It may be considered cost prohibitive to inspect every linear foot of a wastewater collection system especially when confronting the need to inspect a large system with little prior inspection history. It is for this reason that condition assessment programs generally use a planned approach to focus on high consequence/high risk pipes or to utilize statistical sampling to select assets for inspection. Decisions on which assets to inspect should be related to the objectives and KPIs defined in the program development phase of the condition assessment process. For example, if the objective or KPI is to reduce SSOs, then a utility may focus on service lateral, which are often a large source of I/I. If the objective or KPI is to reduce risk of failure of high consequence pipes, then a utility may focus on pipes with higher impact and probability of failure, and not inspect service laterals, as they are not high risk or high consequence.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 72 of 126 1409

2.2.2 Prioritization of Assets
Two models for prioritizing assets for inspection are described below:
x The National Research Council’s approach (McDonald and Zhao, 2001) utilizes an “impact assessment” to prioritize assets for inspection. Impact assessment is a weighted average of six separate impact factors: location, soil support, size, depth, sewer function, and seismic factors. Impact assessment can then be directly calculated in a uniform approach based on a weighted average.
x SCRAPS (Sewer Cataloging, Retrieval, and Prioritization System) is based on the general approach of defining risk factors based on consequence of failure and likelihood of failure (Merrill et al., 2004). The term “Consequence of Failure” is defined as the impact of a failure in terms of repair cost, disruption to the public and economy, impairment of system operation, regulatory compliance, public health and safety, and damages to the environment.

The same terminology can also be applied to the decision making process used in applying condition assessment to asset management. The impact of a failure must be understood and quantified. If the impact can be quantified in dollars, then it can be compared to both the cost of condition assessment and the cost of replacement and/or rehabilitation.

2.2.3 Asset Inspection
The type of inspection performed depends on the objective of the condition assessment program. The selected inspection technique needs to be consistent with the type of asset to be inspected and provide the information and data required to support decision making. Flow monitoring is usually utilized when conducting I/I studies, to evaluate hydraulic capacity and determine hydraulic restrictions. CCTV is the most commonly used method of inspecting sewers for structural defects; however, there are a variety of technologies available for this type of inspection; these technologies are discussed in-depth in Section 4.0.

A detailed work plan and quality assurance project plan should be established; these documents ideally would outline how the proposed inspection program would meet the program objectives.

2.3 Data Management
A successful condition assessment program as part of an asset management program requires that the data collected are organized, analyzed, and maintained in a database system. This important step allows a utility to develop an understanding of trends. There are three general approaches to database management that have varying degrees of cost and complexity but all of which use commercially available software:

1. Software specifically designed for condition assessment and asset management.

2. Database software that is not specifically designed for condition assessment.

3. Spreadsheet software.

2.3.1 Condition Assessment/Asset Management Software
There are numerous commercially available data management programs for condition assessment that range in level of complexity and cost. The primary component is a database to store defect coding on pipe segments both spatially and over time. The commercially available systems can also incorporate additional elements such as cost accounting, develop work orders for maintenance calls, and order parts to maintain required spare parts. Another useful feature is the incorporation of GIS functionality into the system. The GIS component highlights the geo-spatial distribution of the data, and can provide a very effective tool for the utility to plan subsequent inspections and/or rehabilitation activities. The benefit of

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 73 of 126 1410
the commercially available programs is that they are designed specifically for the intended purpose.

However, the cost of system maintenance can be significant, as can licensing costs, depending upon system complexity.

Another type of commercially available software is designed to summarize the results of a CCTV inspection and the resulting defect code data. This has become standard practice in the industry. The National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) licenses software programs to be consistent using the PACP and Manhole Assessment Certification Program (MACP) rating systems, which are discussed in Section 2.4.2. The certification programs allow commercial providers to submit their pipe assessment software for evaluation and certification to ensure that their software adheres to NASSCO standards. It is important to verify the software has been approved to decrease the set-up time required to enter ranking and coding information. Pipeline inspection software is used simultaneously with pipeline inspection hardware to accurately document the status of sewer pipe, storm drains, or water pipelines. The software gives access to text data, video, and still photos all of which help the user identify the condition of the pipe and precisely complete a pipeline inspection. Defects can be quickly categorized by location, type, and severity. The software compiles this data into a searchable database which can be distributed into printed reports.

2.3.2 General Database Management Software
Utilization of commercially available database software requires a utility to design a database specific to their needs. The benefit would be the reduced initial licensing cost of the software. Most utilities would have database software as part of their professional software packages licensed for their operating system.

Another benefit is that it may cost less to maintain than the condition assessment software described above. A drawback to this approach is the significant up-front work and required expertise to design a database system for the intended purpose.

2.3.3 Spreadsheet Software
Spreadsheet software is the least costly of the three systems; however, it also has the most limitations.

This type of software is readily available and likely exists at each of the utilities. A simple yet effective system can be designed to collect and store data. However, spreadsheets are a flat file system and are very limited in usefulness as the database expands. It can become overly cumbersome if multiple spread sheets are required.

2.4 Data Analysis
The data resulting from inspection may quantify the level of service and/or structural defects. It does not, however, provide any ability to reduce risk or define the significance of the finding. The follow-up step is to process and analyze the inspection data. There are two general analysis methods used, based on the type of inspection performed. If flow monitoring was employed as the inspection technology, an analysis of hydraulic capacity is performed, using hydraulic modeling techniques. If an inspection of structural defects utilizing CCTV or one of the other non-destructive technologies was performed, analysis is generally performed by coding defects in accordance with one of the various methods available, such as the Water Research Centre (WRc)’s system or NASCCO’s PACP and MACP programs

2.4.1 Hydraulic Capacity/Hydraulic Restrictions
Hydraulic capacity is the primary performance measure for a wastewater collection system. Flow data gathered by flow meters has been used to guide sewer system management for at least three decades.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 74 of 126 1411
Advancements in technology and software have brought a new level of condition assessment information to utility managers. The purpose of this section is to discuss the use of flow data as a tool in condition assessment. A description of improvements in flow meter technology is discussed in Section 4.5.

Historically, flow data have been used in Sewer System Evaluation Survey (SSES) as a screening tool to prioritize areas for further study. Flow data presented over a period of time are useful in demonstrating the system impacts due to rainfall or elevated groundwater. It provides the required information to calibrate a hydraulic model or conduct I/I studies. The hydraulic model can then be used as a predictive tool to project overflow and/or surcharged conditions for various design storms.

The following is a list of the most common indirect measurements that allow an operator to assess the general condition or rate of I/I:
x Average Daily Dry Weather Flow includes the average flow from a sewershed, which is composed of the wastewater production rate and base infiltration of the system. x Base Wastewater Flow is estimated on the number and type of sewer users, domestic water usage records, and predicted diurnal flow variations. It equates to the anticipated flow rate of only wastewater in the system.
x Groundwater infiltration is determined by subtracting the estimated Base Wastewater Flow from the Average Daily Dry Weather Flow.
x Capture coefficient or percentage of rainfall that enters the sewer. x Relationship between rainfall and peak flow rate.

The I/I values are valuable for planning purposes, providing a good indicator of pipe conditions upstream of a flow meter. As the sub-areas for which data are collected increase in size, flow data are less useful as a predictive tool for condition assessment. It does, however, provide the data to quantify groundwater infiltration and wet weather derived flow for the area tributary to the metering location.

The real value of flow monitoring data of sewers is developing a database on long-term historic trends in order to determine seasonal variations and impacts of wet weather. Flow data provide the direct correlation needed to determine if performance measures are being attained. Flow data are also useful as a screening tool to determine problems areas of a system that require further study by other means.

The traditional method of viewing flow data is hydrographs, which reveal information on condition upstream of flow meters. Alternatively, flow data can be viewed as scattergraphs, which provide information on hydraulic conditions downstream, or in the vicinity of, a flow meter. Scattergraphs are created by plotting flow depth versus flow velocity data. When flow meters are working correctly, a normal pipe curve is plotted unless normal open channel flow is not occurring. In these cases, the scattergraph data can be used to identify such hydraulic restrictions as silt or obstacles, bottlenecks, and negative grade pipe, as well as surcharged conditions.

2.4.2 Structural Condition
For wastewater collection systems, analysis of inspection data generally involves coding the defects based on both the type and severity of defects. Structural pipe defects and hydraulic restrictions encountered during the inspection need to be ranked by severity level based on the potential to negatively impact the system’s hydraulic capacity.

The WRc, located in the United Kingdom, developed a set of standards to rank the severity of pipe defects found in an inspection. European authorities adopted these standards as their benchmark pipe defect coding standard. In 2001, NASSCO developed a set of coding standards based on the WRc system (NAASCO, 2001). The NASSCO PACP standards have successfully become the industry standard for coding pipe defects. NASSCO has also developed the MACP, which is similar to PACP but applies to manholes instead of pipelines. NASSCO has training programs to certify and train inspection

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 75 of 126 1412
professionals in PACP and MACP. NASSCO has begun work on developing a coding system for service laterals.

The PACP coding system categorizes defects and features into five sections: continuous defect coding, structural defect coding, operational and maintenance coding, construction features coding, and miscellaneous features coding. For each type of defect, the PACP uses a combination of capital letters to describe the type of defect and a number to rank the severity of the defect. An example is “FL” for a longitudinal fracture. Defect codes are recorded on a standardized form along with pertinent system data including defect type, continuous distance of the defect, severity, size, circumferential location (clock location), joint number, image/video reference number, and comments.

A brief description of the PACP defect coding system is described below:
x Continuous Defect Coding: Continuous defect coding is made up of two separate coding classifications. The first is called “Truly”. Truly continuous defects are defects that run along the sewer for a minimum distance of three ft. These defects include longitudinal fractures and cracks. “Repeated” continuous defect coding defects are continuous defects that occur at regular intervals along the pipe. These usually occur at pipe joints and include encrustation, open joints, and circumferential fractures. Continuous defect coding can be used in conjunction with other types of coding to accurately describe defects on the PACP form.
x Structural Defect Coding: Structural defect coding is made up of a number of separate coding classifications. This section uses coding to define the type of defects that are related to structural degradation of the pipe due to various reasons. The coding under structural defects are as follows: crack (C), fracture (F), broken (B), hole (H), deformed (D), collapse (X), joint (J), surface damage (S), lining failure (LF), weld failure (WF), point repair (PR), and brick work (BW). Under each of these subtitles there are also other letters to further define the type of defect. For example: HSV is for a hole with visible soil. x Operational and Maintenance Defect Coding: This section uses coding to define the type of defects that are related to lack of maintenance on the pipe system. Operational and maintenance defect coding is made up of a number of separate coding classifications as follows: deposits (D), roots (R), infiltration (I), obstacles (OB), and vermin (V). Under each of these subtitles there are also other letters to further define the type of defect. For example:

VR designates that there are vermin, specifically, rats in the pipe. x Construction Features Coding: This section uses coding to define construction features located in or around the pipe system. Construction features coding is made up of a number of separate coding classifications as follows: tap (T), intruding seal material (IS), line (L), and access point (A). Under each of these subtitles there are also other letters to further define the type of defect. For example: AMH designates that there is an access point in the line that is a manhole.
x Miscellaneous Features Coding: Miscellaneous features coding is made up of a number of separate subcoding classifications. This section uses coding to define miscellaneous (M) features in the pipe system. Under this subtitle there are also other letters to further define the type of defect. For example: MCU designates that the camera is underwater.

The PACP uses a numerical grading system to define the severity of pipe defects. Condition grades for structural defects and operation and maintenance (O&M) defects are assigned based on the risk of further deterioration or failure. The numerical system uses numbers ranging from 1 to 5 with 1 being the best

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 76 of 126 1413
and 5 being the worst. The severity ranking considers the immediate defect, risk of failure, and rate of deterioration.
x Grade 5 – Pipe segment has failed or will likely fail within the next five years. Pipe segment requires immediate attention.
x Grade 4 – Pipe segment has severe defects with the risk of failure within the next five to ten years.
x Grade 3 – Pipe segment has moderate defects. Deterioration may continue, but not for ten to twenty years.
x Grade 2 – Pipe segment has minor defects. Pipe is unlikely to fail for at least 20 years. x Grade 1 – Pipe segment has minor defects. Failure is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

Pipe ratings are based on the number of occurrences for each condition grade and are calculated separately for both structural and O&M defects for each pipe segment. Each pipe segment will be assigned a segment grade based on the number of occurrences of each graded defect. The graded defect is multiplied by the number of occurrences, and this equals the segment grade. The overall pipe rating is calculated by adding all of the segment grades per pipeline. The structural defects are added separately from the O&M grades, so each pipeline receives two separate grades.

The PACP also uses a quick grading system, which is a shorthand method of expressing the number of occurrences for the 2 highest grade levels. The quick grading system uses four characters:

1. The first character is the highest severity grade occurring along the pipe length.

2. The second character is the total number of occurrences of the highest severity grade. If the total number exceeds 9, then alphabetic characters are used as follows: 10 to 14-A, 15-19-B, 20 to 24-C and so on.

3. The third character is the next highest severity grade occurring along the pipe length.

4. The fourth character is the total number of the second highest severity grade occurrences, which is formatted the same way as the second character.

For example, a code of 3224 would equate to two grade 3 defects and four grade 2 defects in a pipe segment. This also shows that no grade 4 or 5 defects were found. The quick grading system allows the pipe defects to be summarized in an efficient manner. As with the longhand method, structural defects are graded separately from O&M defects.

2.5 Decision Making
Decision making for condition assessment of a wastewater collection system entails understanding the possible risks and determining at what point a utility should intervene to avoid a failed condition with an unacceptable cost and/or consequence. It is important to note that condition assessment alone does not provide any benefit in risk reduction. The follow-up decision making process that leads to prioritization ranking and rehabilitation ranking followed by action to fix problems and upgrade the system is what leads to risk reduction.

The purpose of this section is to highlight and summarize the decision making process, the final step in the condition assessment process. In addition to inspection data, the utility requires supplemental data on long-term asset performance to aid in the decision making process.

Marlow et al. (2007) posed the following questions that need to be addressed to provide the required information for decision making:
x What are the consequences of asset failure?

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 77 of 126 1414
x What are the costs to replace/rehabilitate the assets? x What alternatives exist, given the results of the condition and performance assessment (e.g., replacement, deferment, rehabilitation, non-structural maintenance)? Important definitions to consider are failed condition and service life. The American Concrete Institute defines service life as the period of time following installation during which all properties exceed minimum accepted standards when routinely maintained.
x Technical service life – period of time until an unacceptable condition is reached. x Functional service life – period of time until the system element no longer provides functional service.
x Economic service life – period of time until it becomes economically more effective to replace or rehab than to continue to operate in its current condition.

The objective for the decision making model is to understand risk and to determine when to intervene to avoid unacceptable consequences (e.g., economic, socio-economic, environmental). However, it is not possible to have a robust decision making model without obtaining sufficient condition data to track pipe deterioration and to understand the pipe or system failure modes.

In general terms, decisions on pipe rehabilitation/replacement can be made based on one or more of the following: engineering calculations, probability of failure, and remaining life estimation. x Engineering Calculations: Inspection data are interpreted deterministically. An example would be to calculate structural condition of a pipe segment directly based on measured minimum wall thickness, actual loading conditions, and existing soil bedding. A second example of this methodology is the calculation of hydraulic capacity. Flow data can provide direct measurement of actual flow conditions; and then be interpolated using a hydraulic model to calculate hydraulic capacity of a pipe segment under current or projected conditions.

Both of these examples illustrate a direct calculation of the condition or performance of the pipe segment. If it does not meet the required design conditions or performance conditions, then replacement or rehabilitation is required.
x Probability of Failure: This type of output would ideally provide a direct forecast of pipe deterioration over time. If a utility have the data to support this type of forecast, then an intervention could be implemented before an unacceptable level of service occurred. In practice, it is difficult and potentially costly to directly determine the probability of failure.

However, the American Concrete Institute (2000) did reference studies and models to predict failure rate in reinforced concrete pipe. Regression forecasts and models were developed to predict failure of reinforced concrete pipe (RCP) based on chloride concentrations, extent of spalling and mechanical loading conditions, and sulfate concentration. Repeated data collection and analysis over time are required to obtain the decay curves based on the different paths to failure and the system or environmental conditions that exacerbate each failure mode.
x Remaining Life Estimation: Remaining life estimation is commonly used to characterize condition of buried assets. Remaining life is defined as the duration of time until an unacceptable condition exists or an asset no longer meets its primary function. Standard coding systems are used to define condition and performance. NASSCO’s PACP system, discussed in Section 2.4.2, has become the standard to follow in the United States for wastewater pipe systems.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 78 of 126 1415
A variety of decision making models have been developed for sewer assets. WERF is developing a webbased model based on remaining economic life of water and wastewater pipes. T-WARP is a software program that uses fuzzy logic to analyze the possibilities of pipe failure. The European Union’s Computer-Aided Rehabilitation Program for Sewers (CARE-S) is a software program that supports efficiency in rehabilitation decisions. McDonald and Zhao (2001) propose a matrix approach for decision making based on asset condition grades and an impact assessment rating as summarized in Table 2-1.

The term impact assessment is defined by the authors as a weighted average of six separate impact factors: location, soil support, size, depth, sewer function, and seismic factors.

Table 2-1: Condition Assessment Matrix
Asset condition
grade*
Implication of asset
condition
Impact assessment Action Inspection
frequency
5 Failed or imminent failure 1 to 5 Immediate NA
4 Condition poor, high risk of
structural failure
5 Immediate NA
1 to 4 High 2 to 6 years
3 Condition poor, moderate
structural risk
4 to 5 Medium 3 yrs
1 to 3 Low 5 to 10 years
2 Fair condition, minimal
structural risk
5 Medium 5 years
1 to 4 Low 10 to 15 years
0 to 1 Good condition 5Not required 10 years
1 to 4 15 to 25 years
* Condition grade is based on WRc coding system (Manual of Sewer Condition Assessment, WRc 2003).

NA – Not Applicable
Source: McDonald and Zhao, 2001

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 79 of 126 1416

3.0 Dynamics of Wastewater Collection System Failure
In conducting condition assessment, it is important to understand the dynamics of pipe failure including the level, type, and severity of a failure mechanism. Failure modes can include sudden, catastrophic collapse of a pipe or restricted hydraulic capacity. The purpose of condition assessment is to detect pipe defects which indicate the likelihood of pipe failure, as well as to assess the collection system’s performance. This section discusses the mechanisms of pipe failure, the various types of pipe defects, and the relationship between the condition of a pipe and its performance. It is important to understand that pipe failure and defects are highly dependent upon the pipe material, diameter, and type of sewer (e.g. force main, gravity line).

3.1 Failure Mechanisms
Pipe failures can be grouped into three general categories according to the cause of failure: hydraulic restrictions (e.g. blockage), hydraulic capacity, and structural condition. The following sections provide additional details on these failure mechanisms.

3.1.1 Hydraulic Restrictions
The primary function of a wastewater collection system is to convey wastewater; therefore, hydraulic capacity and factors that limit it are of paramount concern. Hydraulic restrictions are the most prevalent condition encountered in wastewater collection systems. The characteristics of untreated wastewater are such that accumulation of sediment, grease, and rags is a constant maintenance item. There are situations in larger diameter sewers, especially combined sewers, when large items create obstructions and rapid hydraulic restrictions. This can lead to street and basement flooding.

Standards used for hydraulic design mandate minimum slopes for various pipe diameters to achieve scouring velocities that minimize debris accumulation. However, there are many external conditions that encourage debris accumulation (e.g. root intrusion, grease, pipe sags).

Blockages are easily detected by visual inspection. The direct cause of a blockage sometimes is not evident. For most conditions, the failure rate is slow over time. A standard maintenance program for cleaning and flushing sewers is typically adequate to control blockages. The types of defects that fall within the category of hydraulic restrictions are as follows: root intrusion, sediment accumulation, and grease build-up. It should be noted that off-set joints and pipe sags can directly impact pipe flow thereby creating low velocity conditions that are conducive to solids deposition.

3.1.2 Hydraulic Capacity
Failure due to hydraulic capacity is defined as a pipe segment not having adequate, available capacity for the designed conditions. The failure condition may be caused by excessive I/I, pipe deformation, and/or inadequate slope.

I/I have a direct impact on the capacity available to convey wastewater. The groundwater and storm water enter the collection system through direct connections or indirectly via cracks and defects. Zero I/I is not a realistic design objective. The hydraulic design of new sewers considers an anticipated level of I/I in determining pipe size.

Pipe deformation and inadequate slope directly impact the hydraulic capacity of the pipe. Flow can be calculated based on the Manning’s equation for normal flow conditions:

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 80 of 126 1417
2/3*S1/2 Q = 1/n *A* Rh
Whereas
Q = Flow2
(volume per time).

A = Cross-sectional flow area (area).
n = Manning’s roughness coefficient.

Rh = Hydraulic radius (length).

S = Pipe slope.

The mathematical relationship of change in area due to pipe deformation or inadequate slope is selfevident. A decrease in flow area and/or pipe slope will result in a proportional decrease in flow capacity.

Failure due to hydraulic capacity is often a sign of other types of defects such as structural defects. Major sources of I/I can be cracks, broken pipes, leaks from manhole frames and covers, and off-set joints. Pipe sags and areas of inadequate pipe slope can be due to loss of pipe bedding or inadequate construction controls.

3.1.3 Structural Failure
Structural failure is caused by defects of the pipe wall and/or the soil envelope used to support the pipe.

In general, the types of defects that are associated with structural failure include cracks, misaligned or offset joints, pipe deflection, cracked manhole frames and covers, and internal and external corrosion.

Internal corrosion is caused by hydrogen sulfide formation, and external corrosion is due to soil corrosivity.

The pipe is supported by a soil envelope that consists of the soil bedding and the cover soil. The soil bedding acts as the foundation for the pipe and distributes the vertical load around the exterior of the pipe wall. The pipe is subjected to live loads and earth loads. The goal of the bedding design is to transmit this load to the bedding and avoid point loads on the pipe. Loss of bedding can result in the pipe bridging areas of reduced bedding. This can lead to pipe deflection, pipe deformation, and longitudinal cracking.

Increased traffic load or loss of soil cover is another cause of structural failure.

The type and degree of failure differ by pipe material. Some pipe material (e.g. PCCP) is susceptible to sudden failure while others fail gradually and are easily detected by visual inspections. Typical failure modes for various types of pipe material used in sewer collection systems include:
x Ferrous Pipe (Ductile Iron, Cast Iron, Steel) - The primary failure mode for metal pipes is internal or external corrosion, which leads to breaks or holes in the pipe wall. Cast iron in particular is brittle, making these pipes prone to cracking. Large diameter steel pipes are susceptible to collapse as well as corrosion.
x Concrete Pipe (RCP, PCCP) - Corrosion is often a major factor in the structural failure of concrete pipe. RCP typically fails after the interior surface of the pipe wall has deteriorated to such a degree that the reinforcing steel is exposed. As the reinforcing steel corrodes, it swells, beginning to break up the surrounding concrete and causing failure. PCCP has a distinctive failure mechanism as failure occurs when the pre-stressed wires break, generally as a result of corrosion or direct physical damage to the pipe. x Ceramic-based pipe (Brick, Vitrified Clay Pipe (VCP)) - Brick pipes generally fail by collapse, often caused by weakened mortar. VCP fails when external loads create cracks in 2 Please note a factor of 1.49 is used when utilizing British Units.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 81 of 126 1418
the material. Failure is often exacerbated by the loss of surrounding soil into the pipe after initial fracture leading to void formation and loss of soil support to the pipe. x Plastic Pipe (Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), High-density Polyethylene (HDPE)) - The primary failure mode of plastic pipe is environmental stress cracking, which occurs from stress developed in a deflected pipe or due to slow crack growth, a phenomenon that occurs when a pipe is subjected to long duration tensile stress. Leaking joints can also contribute to plastic pipe failure.

3.2 Pipe Defects
Sewer defects are generally categorized as service or structural. Structural defects include cracks, fractures, breaks, deformations, collapses, joint displacements, and open joints. Service defects include tree roots, obstructions, debris, and encrustation. Pipe defects can also be classified by whether they are defects of the internal pipe surface, a pipe wall defect, a leak, or an alignment defect. Thomson et al. (2004) classify defects as internal pipe surface (sediment, debris, and roots), pipe wall (pipe sags and deflections, pits and voids, corrosion and metal loss, off-set joints, pipe cracks, broken pre-stressed wires, wall thickness, service connections and deteriorated insulation), leakage, and pipe support (bedding condition and voids).

The most prevalent defects in wastewater collection systems are cracks/broken pipe, root intrusion, sediment, grease build-up, off-set joints, corrosion, frame and cover leaks, and pipe sags. However, pipe defects vary with the pipe material and pipe diameter. Because gravity lines and force mains are generally constructed of different materials, they are susceptible to different types of defects.

Gravity pipes are usually constructed of VCP or PVC which are prone to grease build-up and joint misalignment/leakage. However, VCP is likely to experience cracks/breaks and root intrusion, whereas PVC is more likely to have excessive deflection, grade and/or alignment issues, and lateral connection defects.

Unlike gravity pipes, most force mains are constructed of ferrous materials (i.e., welded steel, ductile iron, or cast iron) or plastic (PVC, HDPE). Large diameter force mains have also been constructed of PCCP. While ferrous pipes tend to experience defects similar to VCP and PVC, internal and external corrosion are the primary defects. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the most common pipe defects by pipe material from a recent utility survey (Thomson et al., 2004).

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 82 of 126 1419
Table 3-1: Most Common Pipe Defects Identified
Defect
Concrete Ferrous Ceramic Plastic Concrete pipe Asbestos cement PCCP/ CCP Cast iron/ ductile iron Steel VCP Brick PVC HDPE
Internal pipe surface
Root intrusion x x x x x x x x
Grease build-up x x x x x x x x
Pipe wall condition
Cracks/ broken pipe x x x
Internal corrosion x x x x
External corrosion x x x
Leakage
General x x x x x
Joint leakage x x
Leaking laterals x x
Alignment/grade
Alignment x x x
Joint misalignment x x x x
Excessive deflection x x x
Grade x x
Other 1 2 3 4
1 – Liner separation, weld failure 3 – Lateral connections 2 – Missing bricks, soft mortar, vertical deflection, collapse 4 – Pressure capacity (force mains only) Source: Thomson et al. (2004). Reprinted with permission from WERF.

3.3 Correlations between Assessed Conditions and Performance Measures The measure of performance for a wastewater collection system can be based on four critical areas:
service level, regulatory compliance, public health and safety, and environmental protection (Fleury and Warner, 2007). The subsections below describe how these performance measures can be correlated to pipe condition.
x Service Level: Wastewater utilities strive to provide continuous, efficient service for their customers. Pipe conditions that affect service level include defects or conditions that affect the available hydraulic capacity to convey current and future planned wastewater flows.

Excess hydraulic capacity in a newly constructed piping system can diminish over time due to many types of defects: corrosion, I/I, sediment accumulation, pipe deflections, and crossconnections. x Regulatory Compliance: Wastewater utilities must comply with existing regulations. The Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibits discharges of pollutants to waters of the U.S., unless authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. Unpermitted discharges from the sanitary sewer system constitute a violation of the CWA. Noncompliance with the SSO regulations, specifically the CMOM provisions, will result in enforcement actions including mandated O&M programs and fines. Pipe conditions that affect regulatory compliance may include defects or conditions that cause sewage overflows or back-ups.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 83 of 126 1420
x Public Health and Safety: Wastewater utilities protect public health and safety by minimizing conditions where the public can be exposed to untreated sewage such as receiving waters used for drinking water sources, fishing, and/or contact recreation such as swimming.

Pipe conditions that affect protection of public health include defects or conditions that cause sewage overflows, back-ups or catastrophic pipe failure. x Environmental Protection: Pipe failure may cause extensive property damage and/or discharge of untreated sewage. Failures of large diameter pipes and force mains contribute to the formation of sinkholes that may lead to damage and/or disruption to roadways and utilities, as well as the creation of hydraulic restrictions. Pipe conditions that affect environmental protection efforts are similar to those listed above—defects or conditions that cause sewage overflows, back-ups, or catastrophic pipe failure.

Utilities use pipe condition information to assess how well they are meeting each of these performance measures and to identify and prioritize system needs. The goal is to provide the best possible service in a cost-effective manner. Utilities need to know what is an acceptable level of performance that can provide regulatory compliance, environmentally acceptable performance, and operational effectiveness at the lowest possible life cycle cost? Inspection and condition assessment provide key information for helping the utility address these questions and balance system needs and costs.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 84 of 126 1421

4.0 Inspection Technologies
Inspection technologies and their use in condition assessment for wastewater collection systems are presented in this section. Each technology is briefly described, and commercially available and emerging products utilizing the technology are discussed. Table 4-1 provides a summary of typical applications for each technology.

Table 4-1: Inspection Technology Overview
Technology Sewer type
Pipe materialPipe diameter
Defects detected
GravityForce main Lateral Internalcondition Pipe wall Leakage Pipe support Camera
Digital cameras x Any 6-in.-
60-in. x x x
Zoom cameras x Any >6-in. x x x
Push-camera x Any 1-in.-
12-in.
x x x
Acoustic
In-line leak detectors x x Any >4-in. x
Acoustic monitoring
systems
x PCCP >18-in. x
Sonar/ultrasonic x x Any >2-in. x x
Electrical/electromagnetic
Electrical leak location x x x
Nonferrous >3-in. x
Remote field eddy current x x x
Ferrous,
PCCP >2-in. x x
Magnetic flux leakage x x x Ferrous 2-in.-
56-in. x
Laser
Laser
profiling
x x Any 4-in.-
160-in. x x
Innovative technologies
Gamma-gamma logging x x x Concrete Not yet
defined x
Ground penetrating radar x x x Any Not yet
defined x x
Infrared thermograph x x x Any Not yet
defined x x
Micro-deflection x Brick Not yet
defined
x x
Impact echo/SASW x
Brick/
Concrete >6-ft. x

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 85 of 126 1422

4.1 Camera Inspection
CCTV inspection is a very effective method of evaluating and creating a permanent video record of underground pipe conditions. The visual inspection of sanitary sewer lines enables a CCTV operator to locate and identify specific defects that contribute to the infiltration of groundwater into the collection system and exfiltration of sewage into the substrate surrounding a pipeline. This is a well established and common industry method for pipeline assessment. In a recent survey report (Thomson et al., 2004), 100% of survey respondents from large wastewater utility districts relied on CCTV as their primary method of collection system inspections; hence, it is not surprising that the critical gaps identified in this survey parallel the limitations of CCTV inspection. CCTV provides a means to inspect a pipeline that is either too small or hazardous for direct human entry inspection. The primary disadvantages to the technology are that it only provides a view of the pipe surface above the waterline and does not provide any structural data on the pipe wall integrity or a view of the soil envelope supporting the pipe.

The technology and level of ancillary equipment used for CCTV inspection of sewer systems varies significantly based on the diameter of the line being inspected. In general, CCTV technology uses a video camera with lighting to provide a visual recording of the inside condition of a pipeline. The means to convey the camera through the pipeline vary in complexity from simple pushrod cameras (pushcams) to complex remote controlled robot crawlers. The level of optical control on the camera also varies in complexity. The ability to pan, tilt, and zoom has become the industry standard for sewer inspection because it allows the operator to gain a full circumferential view of the pipe.

Data obtained from CCTV inspection include:
x Evidence of sediment, debris, roots, etc.
x Evidence of pipe sags and deflections.
x Off-set joints.
x Pipe cracks.
x Leaks.
x Location and condition of service connections.

As noted above, CCTV technology does have limitations due to its ability to only provide a visual representation of the inside surface of a pipe above the waterline. Additionally, the quality of defect identification and pipe condition assessment using CCTV is highly dependent on many factors including operator interpretation, picture quality, and flow level. In terms of benefits, it is a cost-effective technology providing the broadest base level of data used in condition assessment. For example, many technologies exist (as described in later section) that provide data on the structural condition of the pipe wall, and other technologies exist that can determine the condition of the soil surrounding the pipe.

However, these technologies are unable to provide visual data on leaks, location of service laterals, and sediment and debris accumulation. It is for this reason that CCTV will remain an important inspection tool in any condition assessment program for wastewater collection systems.

The following sections present innovative technologies specific to CCTV and its use in condition assessment for wastewater collection systems. Each technology will be briefly described, noting manufacturers and/or providers of the technology and typical applications. The technologies described in this section include:
x Zoom Camera Inspection.
x Digital Scanning.
x Camera Deployment.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 86 of 126 1423

4.1.1 Zoom Camera Inspection
Like traditional CCTV inspection, zoom camera inspection technology involves the generation of still imagery and/or recorded video imagery of a pipe. The key difference is that in zoom camera inspection, the camera mount is stationary. The technology does not require the camera equipment to pass though the entire length of the pipe segments being inspected. Instead, the camera is mounted either on a truck, crane, pole, or a tripod. The equipment is then lowered into a manhole to perform the inspection and the camera “zooms” down any pipe entering or exiting the manhole.

Historically, zoom cameras have been utilized to perform manhole inspection and inspect a few ft down the pipe utilizing a camera mounted on the end of a telescopic pole. This technology is commonly referred to as a down look camera. Newer zoom cameras can pan 360 degrees and zoom up to 100-ft. in 6-in. diameter pipe and up to 700-ft. for larger pipe diameters.

This technology involves setting up the zoom camera at each manhole and inspecting the manhole and pipes. Potentially, the technology could allow for the inspection of an entire section of pipe from one manhole to the next. Zoom camera inspection has some of the same limitations as traditional CCTV pipe inspection in that it cannot inspect what is beneath the fluid being conveyed through the pipe. It is not designed to replace conventional CCTV systems, but rather to screen and prioritize pipes for further conventional CCTV work and/or cleaning pipelines. The technology does not provide the detailed visual evaluation of conventional CCTV. The primary advantage to the technology is improved production rate.

The set-up eliminates the need for cleaning prior to the inspection, as well as the inevitable down-time associated with an obstruction to a crawler mounted camera. An inspection crew can move through a service area in an expeditious manner and highlight segments requiring a more detailed inspection.

Zoom camera inspection is a very efficient, cost-effective method of performing manhole inspections, which has been its primary use. It is, however, limited in its ability to inspect pipe segments. Image resolution, lighting, and limitation in optical zoom are the primary disadvantages of this technology. The technologies described below attempt to overcome these limitations with improvements to lighting and zoom ability. This technology also increases the production rate of sewer inspections, as it collects data at a speed several times faster than traditional CCTV inspection. This is in part because pipes generally do not have to be flushed and cleaned prior to inspection.

Zoom camera inspection is only useful for inspecting gravity sewers because its access to the sewer is via a manhole. Force mains and/or service laterals do not have the required access points to deploy this technology. As with all camera inspection technologies, zoom camera inspection can be used with any pipe material.

Zoom camera inspection services are available from a variety of service providers. Both regional and national service providers have the ability to provide this service. It is not known if the use of the longer range cameras with increased zoom capabilities is a commonly used inspection tool in the industry.

Provided below is a description of four manufacturers of zoom cameras used for the inspection of gravity sewers.

No new zoom camera technologies under development have been specifically identified as emerging technologies. Likely, the identified manufacturers will continue product development and increase optical and digital zooming capabilities. It is also likely that the technology will be equipped with a digital inspection system as described in Section 4.1.2. Table 4-2 provides a summary description of the zoom camera technology.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 87 of 126 1424
Table 4-2: Zoom Camera Inspection Summary

SUMMARY
Sewer type Gravity sewers only
Material Any
Pipe size > 6-in.

Defects detected Cracks, leaks, root intrusion, overall surface condition of pipe/manholes Original application Manhole inspection
Status Commercially available
Advantages High production rate, effective/efficient at prioritizing segments requiring more detailed inspection/maintenance
Disadvantages Inability to inspect manhole to manhole for average diameter lines, potential to miss significant defects
CUES IMX - Truck Mounted Zoom Camera
The CUES-IMX truck-mounted zoom camera provides video inspection for manholes and pipelines. The CUES-IMX camera offers imaging technology with a 25:1 optical zoom that is stabilized and remotely controlled by a telescopic boom. The camera can record images from up to 300’ into the pipeline. The camera mounting fork is designed to pan the camera head 360° continuously, tilt mechanically 45° up or 90° down, and tilt optically 166°. The camera imager, optics, mechanics and electronics are housed in a damage resistant, waterproof, rugged enclosure that is 7-in. in diameter and 16-in. in length. The CUESIMX system includes the camera, high intensity discharge lighting heads, mast system and controller.

The manufacturer indicates that the system can be mounted within an inspection van, all-terrain vehicle, or a trailer.

The system is equipped with data collection, GIS software and global positioning system (GPS) equipment. The GIS software and GPS equipment are used to create sewer maps in the field and create an asset management database for the system. Defects detected during the inspection can be stored in a database along with photos and video clips. All data is geo-referenced to the field collected GPS coordinates. This is common to the industry and the subject of further discussion in a later section.

The objective of the CUES-IMX camera system is to increase the production rate of the inspection process, as compared to traditional CCTV. The manufacturer indicates that an inspection process using zoom technology has a production rate of five to eight times higher than traditional CCTV and is a useful tool to efficiently characterize a collection system and prioritize segments for further inspection and/or cleaning. Inspections using the CUES-IMX camera provides mapping, inventory and condition information that can be used immediately to reduce system operation and maintenance issues by quickly identifying areas of high-risk due to blockage or structural defects. The risk of backups or overflows can be assessed and addressed rapidly.

GE Technologies - Ca-Zoom PTZ and QuickView
GE Technologies offers three truck-mounted Everest Ca-Zoom Pan-Tilt Zoom (PTZ) cameras for sewer inspection. Each camera has a different PTZ camera head. The PTZ 140 has a 300:1 zoom capability (optical 25:1, digital 12:1) and is equipped with two high-power 35-watt lights. The camera has the ability to record imagery up to 250 ft down a pipe segment with diameters between 15 in. and 60 in. The PTZ100 has 40:1 zoom capability (10:1 optical, 4:1 digital), and four 5-watt light-emitting diode (LED) lights. The PTZ270 also has a 40:1 zoom capacity, but has eight 5-watt LED lights.

The smaller hand-held QuickView unit is a pole mounted camera with a total zoom capability of 216:1 (18:1 optical, 12:1 digital). It has the ability to zoom to between 75 and 250 ft within pipe diameters of 6 in. to 60 in. The unit is mounted on an 18 foot telescoping pole.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 88 of 126 1425
The benefits and limitations of these cameras are similar to those of the CUES-IMX camera system as described above.

CTZoom Technologies - PortaZoom
Innovative Technology Products, Inc. offers sewer inspection with the PortaZoom camera, manufactured by CTZoom Technologies. The PortaZoom is housed in a compact enclosure, just 6 in. in diameter. The camera pans more than 350° and has a 312:1 zoom capability (26:1 optical, 12:1 digital). The camera has full-circumference integrated lighting, including peripheral lighting to reduce shadows. The PortaZoom is operated by a computer, joystick and keyboard. The PortaZoom can be mounted to any vehicle or hand-held pole, and can zoom approximately 100 ft to 200 ft into pipes.

AquaData, Inc. - AquaZoom
AquaData Inc. also manufacturers zoom camera inspection equipment. They manufacture the AquaZoom system though it is not commercially available. The AquaZoom can be used on pipes with diameters of 6 in. or larger and can inspect pipelines for approximately 100 ft. It is normally mounted on either a truck or tripod, which is claimed to provide better stability compared to pole mounted devices. It also utilizes a built-in control center and video recording equipment to perform pipe inspections.

Aries Industries – HC3000 Zoom Pole Camera
The Aries HC3000 Zoom camera has a 432:1 zoom ratio (36:1 optical, 12:1 digital). The camera has two LED lights, and is mounted on a 6-foot to 18-foot telescoping pole. The camera can view up to 100 ft into the pipeline being inspected. The image is transmitted via radio frequency technology to a media case, which houses a radio frequency receiver and monitor. A small portable monitor is also available for viewing the images as the camera zooms down the pipe. The pole mounted device provides easy portability and rapid setup.

4.1.2 Digital Scanning
Digital scanning is a state-of-the-art technology within the camera inspection industry. Like conventional CCTV, digital cameras are transported through sewer lines using self-propelled crawlers. Unlike conventional CCTV systems, digital scanning uses one or two high-resolution digital cameras with wideangle lenses in the front, or front and rear, section of the housing. During pipe inspections, parallel mounted lights are triggered at the same position in the pipe. The hemispherical pictures scanned are put together to form 360° spherical images. There is one specific manufacturer that utilizes a single camera with a wide angle lens to accomplish the same result.

During the scanning process, data are transmitted to a surface viewing station where it can be viewed in real-time and recorded for later evaluation. The major advantage to digital scanning technology is that it is possible for the data to be assessed independently of the real-time sewer inspection. By comparison, conventional CCTV relies on a camera operator to pan, tilt, and zoom into critical areas for further review. The image, as controlled by the operator, is stored. Therefore, if the operator does not see a defect, the camera is not stopped for further investigation.

Digital scanning develops a full digital image of the pipe segment. This allows the individual reviewing the images to control the direction of the PTZ features and to stop the image at any point to capture video clips and images. The inner pipe surface can be “unfolded” providing a view of pipe conditions, which permits computer-aided measurement of defects and objects. Digital scanning provides a more consistent and complete assessment of pipe condition. It provides a second level of quality control in the review

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 89 of 126 1426
process and allows other individual(s) involved in the process to gain insight into the pipe condition (e.g., designers, rehabilitation contractors, and utility owners).

Digital scanning technology is primarily used for gravity lines in the 6-in. to 60-in. diameter range. Its applicability for use in inspecting sewer laterals is limited since laterals are typically less than 6 in. in diameter and access is generally through a small diameter clean-out. It is also limited in its ability to inspect force mains. Like conventional CCTV technology, digital scanning is only able to provide useful images above the waterline; force mains would have to be taken out of service and drained before digital recording. Access to force mains also typically restricts the use of digital and CCTV technology. Force mains are pressurized and do not have access manholes to insert CCTV equipment. Digital scanning can be used with any pipe material. Table 4-3 provides a summary description of the digital camera scanning technology.

Table 4-3: Digital Camera Scanning Inspection Summary

SUMMARY
Sewer type Gravity sewers, limited applicability for force mains and service laterals Material Any
Pipe size 6-in. to 60-in.

Defects detected Cracks, leaks, root intrusion, overall condition of pipe Original application Inspection of piping
Status Commercially available, new applications under development Advantages Increased QA/QC control, additional project personnel able to review/control data imagery, able to make digital measurements of defects, can compare data directly from one inspection to the next
Disadvantages More costly then CCTV, lower production rate compared to traditional CCTV, only works above waterline.

Digital scanning camera systems are available from a variety of vendors. Several commercial applications are specifically designed for the investigation of water, storm drain, and sewer pipelines.

The following are descriptions of some of the products available from several vendors.

Blackhawk-PAS - Sewer Scanning Evaluation Technology (SSET) SSET was developed in Japan in 1994, and introduced through field trials in the United States in 1997.

The third-generation SSET was refined by Blackhawk-PAS for commercial marketing. SSET uses two digital image capture devices mounted on a remotely controlled tractor. One of the cameras records a forward view of the pipeline while the other camera scans the side of the pipe to create a spiral, perpendicular view. SSET can be used in pipes ranging from 8-in. to 36-in. diameter, operating at a rate of approximately 13 ft per minute.

RapidView – IBAK, USA - Panoramo
The RapidView-IBAK, USA Panoramo system was developed by IBAK Helmut Hunger GmbH & Co.

KG of Kiel Germany in partnership with RapidView, LLC. The application was first developed and used in 2002. The first application in the United States was in 2007.

The Panoramo system uses two high-resolution digital photo cameras with 186° wide-angle lenses fit into the front and rear section of the housing. During pipe inspections, parallel mounted xenon flashlights are triggered at the same position in the pipe. The hemispherical pictures scanned are put together to form 360° spherical images. The Panoramo can scan 8-in. to 48-in. diameter pipes at a speed of up to 70 ft per minute in forward or reverse motion.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 90 of 126 1427
During the Panoramo scanning process, the data are transmitted digitally to the inspection vehicle and are at the operator's disposal. The scans can be viewed as live pictures for orientation purposes and for locating any obstructions. In addition, the data are stored in the form of "PANORAMO films", on removable hard disks or digital video discs (DVDs).

This image scanning method makes it possible for the pipe inspection to be assessed by personnel away from the field. The reviewer has the ability to pan, tilt, or zoom in on potential defects as if in the truck with the field crew. The reviewer can stop at any position, turn a full circle, zoom, and complete the data analysis. An unfolded view of the inner pipe surface which is available simultaneously gives the reviewer a rapid view of the state of the pipe and permits computer-aided measurement of the position and size of objects. The Panoramo system works in conjunction with WinCan Scan Explorer Software Version 8.

Envirosight - DigiSewer
The Envirosight DigiSewer system was originally developed by DigiSewer and manufactured by IPEK (provider of crawlers and cameras to Envirosight). The DigiSewer was originally designed to be used for borehole inspection and was first used in Europe in 2003. It was officially released to the North American market in April 2007.

The DigiSewer uses one high-resolution photo cameras with 180° wide-angle fisheye lens, integrated into the front of the rover crawler. The DigiSewer can scan pipes from 6-in. to 60-in. diameter at a scan speed of 70 ft per minute. The DigiSewer can scan pipes over a length of approximately 650 ft.

Emerging Technologies
No digital scanning applications have been specifically identified as emerging technologies. Likely, the identified manufacturers will continue product development and increase optical and digital zoom capabilities. The technology is four to five years old in Europe and Asia; however it has a limited history in North America. The manufacturers and users listed above are constantly developing new ways to use these products. Our research indicates that future research will focus on enhancements to the software used for defect recognition and digital defect measurements. RapidView and Envirosight are developing manhole inspection capabilities with the use of the digital scan cameras. Envirosight is also planning to increase the scan distance to approximately 1,650 ft by fall 2008 and provide improved scanning rates.

4.1.3 Camera Deployment
In a CCTV inspection, cameras are deployed into pipelines in a variety of ways. Mobile robots called crawlers or tractors are available in a variety of sizes and configurations, thus enabling their use in a host of pipes sizes. These are typically introduced into the sewer via a manhole. Cameras can also be mounted to float rigs for inspecting large diameter pipes partially filled with water. Pushrod cameras are typically used in smaller diameter pipes (6 in. and less) such as service laterals and are typically introduced into the sewer through a cleanout.

This section describes innovations to vehicles used to carry CCTV cameras as well as technologies that can be added to the conventional camera vehicles to further assist in CCTV inspection.

A variety of innovations have been applied to the tractors or crawlers which carry CCTV cameras. These innovations include extra long range tractors/floats compared to the typical applications in use, smaller than typical tractors that can be used for some laterals, tractors that are able to dispatch smaller lateral cameras from the main line, and segmented robots that can bend around odd angles in small diameter pipes.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 91 of 126 1428
Different camera tractor innovations are available from a variety of vendors. Several commercial applications are specifically designed for the investigation of water, storm drain, and sewer pipelines.

Pushcams are used almost exclusively in smaller diameter sewers such as service laterals. Tractor innovations have been broken down into four groups: small diameter tractors, long range tractors, segmented tractors, and lateral launchers - tractors that can launch lateral cameras off of the main inspection vehicle.

Pushcams
Pushrod camera, or pushcam, technology involves the inspection of pipeline via a small diameter camera mounted to a pushrod and reel setup which produces video of the pipeline. This technology is primarily designed for laterals and small diameter force main applications. Conventional pushcams use straight view cameras capable of inspecting pipes of 2-in. or greater. Advancements include pushcams capable of inspecting pipes smaller than 2-in. as well as steerable and pan/tilt pushcams.

Pushcams are typically used in an environment where it is otherwise impossible to get photographs or video footage such as a small diameter water, sewer, or drain pipes. Typically, they are used in applications where crawlers/robotic camera vehicles are unable to function due to their larger size.

Conventional pushcams systems are comprised of a camera/probe, cable/reel, and computer/recorder/controller. The probe used to advance the camera is usually a semi-rigid rod, constructed of fiberglass. The primary limitations are image quality, lighting, and ability to move past obstructions. Table 4-4 summarizes a variety of commercially available pushcams.

Table 4-4: Pushcam Product Comparison

PRODUCT
(VENDOR)
PIPE

DIAMETER

INSPECTION
LENGTH
NOTES
CrystalCam Push Camera
(Inuktun)
>2-in. High resolution low lux camera – highly
effective in low light environments. Can be
tractor mounted, can be used as a reverse
camera
Flexiprobe
(Pearpoint)
1-in. to 8-in. 500-ft
Hydrus
(Rapidview-IBAK, USA)
>2-in. Straight view camera only
Orion
(Rapidview-IBAK, USA)
>4-in. Pan and tilt functions
Orion L
(Rapidview-IBAK, USA)
>4-in. Pan and tilt, includes “steer stick” allowing
device to be steered around bends or turns
Push Camera
(Insight Vision)
1-in. to 12-in. 300-ft Uses Clearview line of camera heads, large

10.4 in. LCD monitor
Tractors/Crawlers
Tractors and crawlers are mobile robots used to deploy CCTV through a pipeline. Most are wheeled or tracked, and are tethered via a cable to a controller unit located near the point of entry to the sewer system. Conventional CCTV inspection tractors are larger vehicles that are not able to get into smaller pipes or laterals. Many of the tractors are not steerable and can only inspect pipe runs of 300 to 500 ft.

Advancements in technologies now include lateral launchers that are able to deploy smaller diameter pushcams into laterals; small diameter tractors that can be deployed in pipes as small as 4 in. in diameter; long range tractors that can inspect pipes at great distances from the point of entry; and segmented robots that can bend around odd bends or angles in small diameter pipes. Tables 4-5, 4-6, and 4-7 summarize a selection of commercially available innovative tractor and crawler technologies.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 92 of 126 1429
Table 4-5: Lateral Launcher Product Comparison

PRODUCT
(VENDOR)

MAINLINE LATERAL
Pipe NOTES
diameter
Inspection
length
Pipe
diameter
Inspection
length
IBAK LISY 150-M
(RapidView-IBAK, USA)
>6-in. Tungsten carbide
wheel for grip
LAMP 6-in. to 24- 2-in. to 6- >80-ft
(CUES) in. in.

Lateral Evaluation Television
System
(Aries Industries)
>8-in. 800-ft 3-in. to 6-
in.
80-ft Can ID pipe locations
with locator beacon
Lateral Inspection System (RS
Technical Services)
8-in. to 24-
in.
1,000-ft 4-in. to 8-
in.
100-ft
Table 4-6: Small Diameter Tractor Product Comparison

PRODUCT
(VENDOR)
PIPE

DIAMETER

INSPECTION
LENGTH
NOTES
ELK T100 Mini
(Pearpoint)
4-in. to 10-in. 500-ft
KRA 65
(RapidView – IBAK, USA)
>4-in. Steerable, electric stabilizing function
Mighty Mini Transporter
(RS Technical Services)
4-in. to 12-in. 500-ft
Rovver 100
(Environsight-IPEK)
4-in. to 12-in. 660-ft Steerable, PVC wheel with titanium spikes for traction
Versatrax 100
(Inuktun)
>4-in. 600-ft Tracked crawler
Xpress Silver-Bullet Crawler
(Insight Vision)
4-in. to 15-in. 600-ft 4-wheel drive crawler
Table 4-7: Long Range Tractor Product Comparison

PRODUCT
(VENDOR)
PIPE

DIAMETER

INSPECTION
LENGTH
NOTES
Versatrax 300 VLR
(Inuktun)
>12-in. 6,000-ft Modular construction for onsite customization, optional reverse camera can be mounted on
crawler
Responder
(RedZone)
>36-in. 5,280-ft Skid steer enabled tractor, Kevlar reinforced buoyant cable, submersible to 500-ft
Segmented Robots
Electromechanica, Inc. designs custom inspection robotics and other applications on an as needed basis.

For example, the client may have a specific type of small diameter pipe system containing tees or wyes, or other angles that a typical tractor or crawler would not be able to navigate. One such development is the Internal Pipe Inspection Robot. This design uses a unique “inchworm” movement which optimizes movement within the pipe. The robot itself consists of three arm linkages that expand radially to force the different segments to grip the inside of the pipe and move it along. The multiple segments also can be useful in overcoming obstacles or looking down laterals. The robot uses pneumatic cylinders to provide force to move the robot through the pipe. The robot can be outfitted with cameras, sensors or tools to achieve many different types of jobs in pipes including pipe inspection. As stated above, this is not a commercial product, but one that must be custom ordered for the client’s specialized needs.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 93 of 126 1430
Emerging Technologies
x Pushcams - The IPEK Agilios pushcam system was developed for small diameter pipes and has pan/tilt capability. It works in conjunction with the vision control unit and is battery powered.
x Autonomous Crawlers - An autonomous crawler does not require a real-time remote operator. The crawler’s behavior is programmed in advance of deployment. The vehicle is programmed to cue off of particular environmental landmarks. For instance, RedZone Robotics, a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania based company, has designed a robot that constantly monitors the diameter of the pipe as the robot progresses through the pipe. Infrared sensors atop the vehicle sense when the distance to the roof of the pipe alters radically, which the robot then interprets as a manhole. The vehicle may be programmed to stop at the first manhole it encounters, or stop after encountering some specified number of manholes.

Autonomous crawlers are beginning to enter the marketplace. x Autonomous Floaters - Automatika, Inc. based in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is developing the prototype of a neutrally buoyant, untethered pipe inspection robot called PipeEye. The robot is a 12-in. sphere designed to float in pipes greater than 24 in. in diameter. Cameras and lights will operate above the waterline, and ultrasonic transducers will operate below the waterline. The PipeEye system is derived from an oil/gas pipeline inspection module codeveloped by Automatika and Shell Oil. Currently, the system does not yet have a product status.

4.2 Acoustic Technologies
Acoustic technology in general terms uses measuring devices to detect vibrations and/or sound waves. In pipeline assessment, acoustic sensors are used to detect signals emitted by defects and are utilized by a variety of commercially available products. Acoustic technologies are used extensively for inspection of water mains; therefore, this category of inspection technology can also be used for force main inspection.

There are three distinct classifications of acoustic technologies:
x Leak detectors, which are used to detect the acoustic signals emitted by pipeline leaks. x Acoustic monitoring systems, which are used to evaluate the condition of PCCP. x Sonar, or ultrasonic, systems, which emit high frequency sound waves and measure their reflection off the pipe wall in order to detect a variety of pipe defects.

Table 4-8 summarizes these classifications of acoustic technologies.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 94 of 126 1431
Table 4-8: Acoustic Technology Summary

SUMMARY IN-LINE LEAK

DETECTORS

ACOUSTIC MONITORING

SYSTEMS SONAR/ ULTRASONIC
Sewer type Force mains, gravity
sewers
Force mains Force mains, gravity sewers
Material Any PCCP Any
Pipe size >4-in. >18-in. >4-in.

Defects detected Leaks Broken pre-stressed wires Pipe wall deflections, corrosion, pits, voids, and
cracks, debris
Original application Leak detection in
pressurized water lines
Monitoring PCCP water lines Maritime use
Status Commercially available
for sewer inspection
Commercially available for
sewer inspection
Commercially available for
sewer inspection
Advantages Can detect very small
leaks.

Useful as a screening
technique prior to more
detailed inspection
Suitable for pipes of any
material and a wide range of
diameters
Disadvantages Requires minimum flow to
be carried through pipe
Only detects general distress Only inspects pipe below
the waterline

4.2.1 Leak Detectors
Leak detectors are devices used to detect the sound or vibration produced by leaks in pressurized waterlines or in sewers. These include hand-held listening devices such as listening rods, underwater microphones (also known as aqua phones, sonoscopes, water phones or hydrophones), and geophones (ground microphones); leak noise correlators; and in-line devices which collect information on leaks remotely. Listening devices and leak noise correlators are widely available, and have been used for leak detection for decades. In-line leak detectors are a more recent advancement in the use of acoustic technology for condition assessment of pipes.

The simplest forms of leak detector are mechanical listening devices. These include listening rods and aquaphones, which are both metallic rods fitted with an earpiece. These devices are operated by placing the rod in direct contact with pipes, allowing the device operator to hear leaks through the earpiece.

Geophones are another type of listening device; these are placed on soil or pavement above a pipe, allowing the operator to hear the sound from leaks as it is transmitted through the soil. Listening rod and aquaphones may also be electronic, these are similar to the mechanical devices described above but also include special elements such as noise filters, adjustable amplifiers, and sensing elements such as piezoelectric materials; leaks can be detected either by operators listening through headphones or in some cases by soundmeters that can store the sound levels emitted by leaking pipes.

Leak-noise correlators are a more complex and accurate type of leak detector, which have been used for leak detection since the 1980s. These are computer-based devices which are used to measure sound or vibration at two points on a pipe, on either side of a suspected leak. Depending on the device, the measurements are made by a vibration sensor such as an accelerometer attached to pipe contact points or an underwater microphone which is inserted into the pipe itself. Signals detected by the sensor are wirelessly transmitted to the correlator, which pinpoints the location of leaks based on the time lag between the leak signals measured from the two points.

The most complex forms of leak detectors are in-line systems, which are deployed in a pipeline and continuously monitor leakage. The rest of this section focuses on these systems. There are several

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 95 of 126 1432
commercially available in-line leak detectors which utilize acoustic technologies for pipe condition assessment. Both regional and national service providers have the ability to evaluate wastewater systems, although the technology is far more prevalent in its use for condition assessment of water distribution systems. Provided below is a description of several of these products.

Sahara£ – Pressure Pipe Inspection Company
The Sahara system was originally developed by WRc for detecting leaks in pressurized water lines, and is a proven technology for that application. In the United States, the Sahara system has begun to be used for wastewater collection systems. A series of pilot studies using the Sahara for wastewater pipeline leak detection were conducted in the United Kingdom in 2005 and North America in 2006. The system is now available in the United States from the Pressure Pipe Inspection Company.

The Sahara system consists of a sensor head and a hydrophone, which is an electrical instrument used to detect or monitor sound under water. The sensor head is inserted into a pipe through any access point greater than three inches in diameter. As the sensor head is transported through the pipe line by product flow, acoustic signals are picked up at the surface by the hydrophone. The signal is then fed through a cable, and from there to processing equipment. The system operator is able to hear signals from the system directly as well as view the signal on a computer with spectrogram software. The system locates leaks by identifying acoustic signals; the size of leaks can be estimated based on the acoustic signal recorded by the device.

The Sahara system can be used in pipelines of any material to detect leaks as slow as approximately 0.25 gallons/hour. It can be used to inspect force mains 4-in. in diameter and larger. The system requires a minimum flow velocity of approximately 3 ft/s to ensure the device can move though the pipe.

Additionally, pressure within the pipe must be between 10 and 150 psi in order for the system to recognize leaks.

Smartball£ - Pure Technologies
The Smartball£ leak detector was made commercially available by Pure Technologies in 2005. It is a proprietary system maintained by Pure Technologies. The technology is only used for inspections of pressure pipelines. It can be used for any pipeline material.

The Smartball£ consists of a neutrally buoyant, foam ball equipped with an instrumented aluminum inner core. The aluminum inner core contains several sensors including an acoustic sensor, accelerometer, magnetometer, temperature gauge, and pressure gauge. The inner core also contains a microprocessor with an ultrasonic transmitter. The system is powered by a DC battery and contains a data logger. The Smartball£ can be inserted into a pipeline and travel with the water flow for more than twelve hours, collecting data on the collection system with a single deployment. The Smartball£ has a diameter of 2.6- in. and can be used on a pipe with 10-in. or greater in diameter. A minimum flow velocity of 1.64 ft/sec is required to convey the sensor.

The system can be inserted into a full or partially full pipe, and is carried along by the flow of water or wastewater. The Smartball£ is silent; therefore its acoustic sensor can detect the sound of very small leaks in the pipeline. As the Smartball£ passes through the pipe its progress can be tracked by a variety of methods, allowing for leak location to be determined within one meter of accuracy. The system can operate for up to twelve hours before it is retrieved and data downloaded.

LxSentry – LxSix Photonics, Inc.

The LxSentry pipeline monitoring system was recently introduced by LxSix, Photonics Inc. LxSentry is a highly sensitive fiber optic system designed to detect leaks in gas pipelines. Acoustical sounds are

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 96 of 126 1433
classified by the proprietary Red Alert software, which is capable of distinguishing between pipeline leaks, tampering, intrusions, and machinery and vehicles operating in the pipeline vicinity. Minimal information on the details of the operation and use of this product is currently available. No information was available on the use of the technology for water and/or wastewater systems.

4.2.2 Acoustic Monitoring Systems
Acoustic monitoring systems are installed along PCCP to provide continuous monitoring of the general condition of the pipe. PCCP has been used historically for large diameter force mains, and has been subject to failure due to internal or external corrosion. The systems work by detecting the acoustic signal produced by breaking or broken prestressed wire within pipes. While the systems do not identify individual defects, they are useful as screening techniques to determine if further condition assessment should be performed. There are currently two technologies available that provide continuous acoustic monitoring of PCCP. These products are described below.

Acoustic Emission Testing (AET) – Pressure Pipe Inspection Company Acoustic Emission Testing (AET) is as an acoustic monitoring system used primarily to monitor the deterioration of PCCP water mains. It has also been used to evaluate sewage force mains. AET is based on the detection of the acoustic energy released when prestressed wire breaks or deflects. The system detects general distress in the pipeline by determining the frequency and number of wire breaks, or wire related events, over a period of time. The AET system determines the location of the wire related events based on the arrival time of the acoustic signals at a series of sensors within the pipe. Since the technique does not detect the number of broken wires, but rather general distress in a given section of pipeline, it is best used as a screening technique prior to utilizing other methods to pinpoint defects.

The AET system is made up of a series of units located along the pipeline. Each unit contains a sensor (either a hydrophone or an accelerometer) and a signal processor, a base station, and a precision timing device. The hydrophones are inserted into the pipeline through taps at a spacing of approximately 500 to 3,000 ft; spacing is largely dependent on pipeline diameter (smaller pipes require closer spacing than larger ones). The accelerometers are surface mounted; spacing is more flexible when this type of sensor is employed. The signal processor is a small mobile computer that is located close to the hydrophone. It monitors the signals detected by the hydrophone and transmits signals that indicate wire related events to the base station. The base station consists of a personal computer, a wireless communication module, and an internet communication module. The precision timing device, a GPS antenna and processor, provides location information on each sensor and determines the timing of acoustic events.

AET can be used to monitor active distress in PCCP 18-in. or greater in diameter. The system works while pipelines are fully operational. The technique is valuable for providing advanced warning of pipe failure, and for screening pipe networks to determine which pipes are deteriorating. However, the technique cannot detect individual defects within a pipe.

SoundPrint£ - Pure Technologies
SoundPrint£ is a patented acoustic monitoring technology used to provide continuous, non-destructive remote monitoring of water and wastewater pipelines, storage tanks and other structures. Introduced in 1993, the original version of SoundPrint£ used hydrophones to detect breaks in prestressed wire in PCCP. The newer SoundPrint£ AFO system, introduced in 2005, uses acoustic fiber-optic cable for detecting acoustic signals.

Soundprint£ AFO monitoring of PCCP involves the deployment of fiber-optic cable into the pipeline.

The cable is inserted into pipelines through new valves installed in manholes. Because the entire fiberPage 4-33 Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 97 of 126 1434
optic cable acts as a sensor, up to 12,000 ft of pipeline can be monitored from a single access point. The sensor does not contain any electronics, therefore there is little to no background noise created by the device.

4.2.3 Sonar and Ultrasonic Testing
Sonar, an acronym for Sound Navigation and Ranging, was developed in 1906, and is widely used for maritime use. The first use of sonar for inspection of pipelines was carried out by WRc in 1987. Sonar testing involves very high frequency ultrasonic sound waves that reflect off the material being inspected, allowing for the detection of defects.

Sonar/ultrasonic inspections of pipelines are accomplished by passing a sonar head through the pipe being inspected. Depending on the size and flow conditions of a pipe, the sonar head is deployed into the pipeline on a raft, skid, or robotic tractor. As the sonar head moves through the pipeline, it sends out very high frequency ultrasonic signals, which are reflected by the pipe walls and then received by the sonar head. The reflection of the signals changes when there is a change in the material it is being reflected by, allowing for the detection of defects. The time between when the signal is sent and received can be used to determine the distance between the sonar head and the pipe wall, as well as to determine the internal profile of the pipe.

Sonar inspection results in a detailed profile of the pipe wall below the water surface, which can be analyzed by a variety of methods. Sonar can detect pipe wall deflections, corrosion, pits, voids, and cracks. Sonar inspection can also detect and quantify debris, grease, and silt, and can distinguish between hard and soft debris; however, defects in the pipe wall can sometimes be obscured by grease and debris.

According to Thomson et al. (2004), defects greater than 1/8 inch (3 mm) can be detected. This applies to pipe wall pitting and cracks as well as debris accumulation. Sonar does not require bypass pumping or pipe cleaning. Sonar inspection can be used in areas of poor visibility where it is difficult to use CCTV inspection. It is a versatile inspection method and can be used for inspecting gravity sewers and force mains.

One drawback to sonar is that it can only be operated in air or in water, not in both simultaneously. In some cases, a sonar system is utilized with a CCTV system, so that inspection of pipes both above and below the waterline can be accomplished simultaneously. In order to overcome this limitation, research is being done into development of systems with separate transducers, one for use in air and one in water, so that inspection of partially filled pipes can be accomplished. Additionally, longitudinal cracks in pipes can be difficult to detect.

Commercial sonar pipe inspection tools typically consist of an underwater scanning transducer, a sonar processor, and a color monitor. Table 4-9 highlights a selection of sonar-based pipe inspection products.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 98 of 126 1435
Table 4-9: Sonar Product Comparison
DEVICE:

VENDOR

SEWER TYPE/

PIPE SIZE

DEFECTS

DETECTED NOTES
Amtec Sonar:

Amtec Surveying, Ltd.

Force mains
>21 in.

Deformations, holes, breaks,
and pipe wall loss.

A-SIS
Aquacoustic
>12 in. Pipe size & distortion,
holes, debris, scour, erosion
Combines sonar and
CCTV
Envirosight Gravity
>4 in.

Pipe diameter, shape
capacity, corrosion, cracks,
debris
Attachment for CCTV
PipeEye:

PipeEye International
Force mains, gravity
>10 in.

Build-up, deformities, flow
restriction, water level
RVS2:

R&R Visual
>10 in. Open cracks, debris,
sediment
Sonar Profiler System
(submerged): CUES
Force mains
>12 in.

Defects, blockage, debris
Sonar Profiler System
(semi-submerged): CUES
>12 in. Defects, blockage, debris Combines sonar and
CCTV
Sonar Sewer Profiling
Attachment: Redzone
Force mains, gravity
>36 in.

Blockages, deformations,
capacity, sediment
Attachment for the
Responder platform
Sonar Sweep Attachment
Redzone:

Force mains, gravity
>36 in.

Blockages, deformations,
capacity, sediment
Attachment for the
Responder platform
TISCIT:

Amtec Surveying, Ltd.

Gravity
>21 in.

Deformations, holes, breaks,
and pipe wall loss
Combines sonar and
CCTV
Ultrascan CD:

GE Oil & Gas
Force mains, gravity Axial cracks
Ultrascan DUO:

GE Oil & Gas
Force mains, gravity
>24 in.

Wall loss and cracks
Ultrascan WM:

GE Oil & Gas
Force mains, gravity Wall loss
Ultrasonic Inspection Robot
Inspector Systems
Force mains
12 -20 in.

Wall loss (measures wall
thickness)
Incorporates highresolution CCTV
Wavemaker:

Guided Ultrasonics
Force mains, gravity
>2 in.

Wall loss Uses guided waves
(Lamb wave), mounted
to outer surface of pipe.

4.3 Electrical and Electromagnetic Methods
Several sewer evaluation techniques utilize electrical or electromagnetic currents. The electrical leak location method is used to detect leaks in surcharged non-ferrous pipes. Eddy current testing (ECT) and remote field eddy current (RFEC) technology identify defects in ferrous pipes. Magnetic flux leakage (MFL) inspection is widely used in the oil and gas industry to measure metal loss and detect cracks in ferrous pipelines. Table 4-10 summarizes these technologies.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 99 of 126 1436
Table 4-10: Electrical and Electromagnetic Methods Summary

SUMMARY ELECTRICAL LEAK

LOCATION ECT/RFEC MFL
Sewer type Force main, gravity
sewers, service laterals
Force main, gravity sewers,
service laterals
Force main, gravity sewers,
service laterals
Material Non-ferrous Ferrous Ferrous
Pipe size >3-in. >2-in. 2-in. to 56-in.

Defects detected Cracks, leaks Metal loss, cracks, leaks, broken wire, graphitization,
wall thickness
Metal loss, circumferential
and longitudinal cracks
Original application Leak potential in
geomembrane liners
Inspection of piping and
tubing including boilers, heat
exchangers, cast iron pipes,
and gas pipelines.

Petrochemical industry
Status Commercially available
for wastewater pipes
Commercially available for
wastewater pipes
Commercially available,
limited use in wastewater
applications
Advantages Available for service
laterals
Can be used on pipes of most
diameters, can be used to
locate a variety of defects.

Extensive experience with
method in the oil and gas
sector
Disadvantages Gravity pipes must be
filled prior to inspection
Limited to ferrous pipes,
typically requires postprocessing of data by vendor.

Has not been extensively
used for assessment of
sewer pipes.

4.3.1 Electrical Leak Location Method
The Electrical Leak Location Method was first developed in 1981 for the inspection of geomembrane liners. The method became commercially available in 1985, and is one of the most widely used techniques for detecting leaks in geomembrane liners. The technique involves placing an electrode on either side of the material being tested, and connecting voltage to each electrode. Because the material being tested is an electrical insulator, voltage only flows through holes in the material. The area of defects in the material has high current density, which can be detected by measuring electrical potential in the survey area. Although primarily used for geomembrane liner inspection, the technique is also applicable to pipe inspection.

As this technology relies on the pipe material being an electrical insulator, it can only be used on nonferrous pipes. The technology is useful for inspecting force mains, service laterals, and smaller gravity lines. While it is possible to inspect larger diameter gravity lines, since the technology requires gravity lines to be surcharged, the time and effort required to fill larger pipes might make this inspection method infeasible.

Although there are more than twenty commercial providers of electrical leak location services for integrity monitoring of geomembrane liners, the Focused Electrode Leak Location (FELL) is the only application developed specifically for detecting leaks in pipelines. FELL, also referred to as Electro-Scan technology, and was developed in Germany by Seba Dynatronic in 1999. GRW Engineers, Inc. has introduced the FELL system in the US. The FELL system identifies leak potential in non-conductive (i.e. non-ferrous) sanitary sewer mains, gravity lines, and service laterals using electrical continuity technology. The original application, FELL-41, was designed for use in force mains. A technique has been devised to allow for the inspection of gravity sewers by this method as well. The corporation later developed FELL-21 for inspection of service laterals. As of 2004, there were three electro-scan devices located in the United States, two of which are owned by GRW Engineering in Louisville, KY.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 100 of 126 1437
FELL 41– Seba Dynatronic/Metrotech
FELL, or Electro-Scan, inspection is accomplished by feeding a mobile electrode, called a sonde, through the pipe of interest. Simultaneously, a fixed surface electrode, usually a metal stake, is placed in the ground. Electrical current is generated by the sonde and flows through the water within the pipe, through the pipe wall and earth surrounding the pipe, and to the surface electrode. As water, earth, and the connecting cables have a low electrical resistance and the pipe material has a high electrical resistance, very little current flows between the two electrodes. However, if a leak exists in the pipe, the electrical current passes through it easily; the larger the defect, the greater the current that flows through. The electrical current flowing between the two electrodes is measured by the sonde; this data is then transmitted to a laptop computer, which records data and displays graphically the current flowing through the pipe.

The technique only detects defects in surcharged portions of a pipe; to inspect the entire circumference of pipes that are typically not surcharged, such as gravity sewers, the pipe must first be prepared by completely filling it with water. Two techniques are used to fill pipes in preparation for FELL-41 investigation. The first involves plugging the downstream manhole and then filling the pipe with enough water that the pipe is covered at the upstream manhole; this method can be quite time-consuming and may result in back-up of service laterals. The alternative method involves the use of a sliding pipe plug. The sonde is attached to the upstream side of the plug, which is manually pulled a short distance down the pipe. The upstream portion of the pipe is filled so that the sonde is submerged, and then the plug and attached sonde is pulled through the pipe, so that the entire pipe wall can be assessed.

FELL-41 is suitable for inspecting force mains ranging from 6-in. to 60-in. in diameter. The system only works on non-conductive pipes and lined metallic pipes, and can only detect defects below the water line.

Although gravity sewers can be manually filled to allow for a complete inspection; the process of surcharging large diameter pipes requires extensive time and preparation. The product can be used to detect leaks caused by radial and longitudinal cracks, as well as faulty joints.

FELL 21 – Seba Dynatronic/Metrotech
The FELL-21works on the same principle as FELL-41, but is designed for use in 3-in. to 6-in. diameter service laterals. Rather than being deployed through the pipeline via a haul line, this device is inserted via a cleanout and moved through the pipe with a push rod. Like FELL-41, the device can only be used for the inspection of non-conductive pipes or non-ferrous pipes. FELL-21 detects leaks caused by radial and longitudinal cracks, as well as faulty joints.

4.3.2 Eddy Current Testing and Remote Field Eddy Current Technology ECT and RFEC technology involve the generation of electric currents and magnetic fields to investigate the condition of ferrous material. ECT pipe inspection involves the use of an alternating current magnetic coil to induce an electric current in conductive pipes. In turn, the electric current generates small magnetic fields or eddy currents in opposition to the coil’s magnetic field, which results in a change in the impedance of the coil. As the magnetic coil transverses the pipeline, the change in impedance is measured, allowing for the identification of defects. The effectiveness of ECT for pipeline inspection is limited by an electromagnetic phenomenon termed “skin effect”. The density of eddy currents decreases exponentially with depth. This limits the detection of defects to those located on the surface of the pipe nearest the magnetic coil, because defects located deeper within the pipeline cannot be measured.

The RFEC method was developed to surmount the limitations of standard eddy current testing. This method can detect both internal and external defects in pipelines. RFEC involves the deployment of a probe consisting of multiple magnetic coils, an exciter coil and one or more detector coils, through the pipeline. As in standard eddy current testing, eddy currents are induced in the pipe wall. These direct

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 101 of 126 1438
currents quickly attenuate as they flow along the pipe wall towards the detector coil that is typically located approximately two pipe-diameters apart from the exciter. A second magnetic field passes from the exciter to the outside of the pipe and flows along the outer pipe wall, then back into the interior of the pipe to reach the detector. This remote field attenuates very slowly along the outer pipe wall, and is therefore much stronger then the direct field when it reaches the detector. Pipeline defects and pipe wall thickness affect the propagation of the magnetic fields along the pipe walls, thereby altering the signal received by the detector. This allows for the identification of pipeline defects.

ECT and RFEC testing are primarily used to detect defects in ferrous pipe walls, such as pitting, corrosion, leaks and cracks. These testing methods can be used for the inspection of small-diameter pipes, in some cases as small as two inches in diameter, as well as very large diameter pipelines.

ECT/RFEC can be used in empty, full, and partially full pipelines. Devices utilizing ECT and RFEC technology can be used to inspect force mains and gravity sewers. However, since most gravity sewers are not constructed of ferrous materials, the technology has limited use for this application.

ECT and RFEC testing services for ferrous structures are available from a variety of vendors. Several commercial applications are specifically designed for the investigation of gas, water, and sewer pipelines.

The following are descriptions of some of these applications; as these technologies use the same basic principal, the summaries focus primarily on the differences between the various applications.

Broadband Electromagnetic Methodology (BEM) – Rock Solid Proprietary Limited (Pty. Ltd), Australia
BEM was originally developed by Rock Solid Pty. Ltd for use in the Australian mineral exploration industry. The technology has since been modified for use in pipeline inspection, and has been used for this purpose in both the United States and Europe. Unlike other RFEC applications, BEM is frequency independent, allowing operation of the device to be modified based on the material being investigated and site conditions. This reduces the likelihood that the device will be affected by electromagnetic noise, which can occur with the use of other ECT/RFEC applications.

BEM has primarily been used for condition assessment of water mains. The technology can only be used on ferrous pipes, but does work through thick coatings and linings. This technology can be used to detect a variety of pipe defects including cracks and anomalies in the pipe wall. Thomson et al. (2004) conducted field demonstrations of this method, and they state it is able to detect metal loss to 0.04 inch (1mm). BEM can also be used to measure wall thickness, quantify graphitization, and locate broken wires in PCCP.

BEM pipeline inspection can either be accomplished internally or externally. Internal pipeline inspection generally requires the pipeline to be taken out of service and emptied prior to deployment of the BEM device. As an alternative, the BEM device can be waterproofed. Internal inspection of pipelines can be accomplished in large diameter pipes by either pulling or pushing the device through the pipeline. A robotic version of the application is available for smaller pipelines (less than 36-in. in diameter). Results of pipeline inspections using BEM cannot be analyzed on-site; rather, results must be post processed.

Special software is used to create a topographic map of the pipeline which can then be analyzed to detect pipe defects.

Hydroscope – Hydroscope, Inc.

The Hydroscope was developed as a collaborative effort between Hydroscope, Canada and EPCOR Water Services (Edmonton, Canada’s privatized water utility). The application was first used in 1995 in Canada and became commercially available in the United States in 1996. However, the U.S. licensee for Hydroscope is currently in bankruptcy. Therefore, the technology may not be available in the U.S.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 102 of 126 1439
Originally developed for inspection of waterlines, the technology has since been used for the inspection of sewer mains.

The Hydroscope consists of a series of stainless steel modules embedded with circuitry, creating a flexible probe which can travel through pipelines. The probe is connected to a computer in a service vehicle by a tether and data cable. Data cannot be analyzed in the field; rather, data are analyzed at the Hydroscope Analysis Center with a proprietary software package called HYDA or the more advanced HYREL.

Like all ECT/RFEC-based pipeline inspection applications, the Hydroscope can only be used in pipes composed of ferrous material. One advantage of the Hydroscope system is that it functions in both dry and submerged conditions. Probes are available for pipe diameters in the range of 6-in. to 15-in. The technology can detect pitting, corrosion, graphitization and wall thinning in pipes.

See Snake Tool – Russell NDE Systems, Inc.

Russell NDE System’s, Inc.’s See Snake is a small, flexible device which uses RFEC technology to detect corrosion and pitting in pipelines and to measure wall thickness and surface area. The tool can also detect areas of pipe under external stress such as movement of soil, poor support, rippling, bridging and denting.

This technology is primarily intended for inspection of pipes before purchase or after construction to ensure pipeline integrity, and after a pipeline failure to determine if there are additional defects in the vicinity of the break.

Unlike most RFEC devices, which pass signals through a data cable, signals from the See Snake are detected from above ground. This allows for tracking the tool as it passes through the pipeline. Another distinguishing feature of the See Snake is that data analysis can be performed on site during the inspection, unlike other technologies which require off-site analysis.

The See Snake is primarily used in the oil and gas industry. Currently, the tool is only available for small pipes, ranging in size from 2-in. to 8-in. in diameter. Given the small size of the device, and its ability to be pushed through pipelines by liquid, the See Snake is potentially viable for inspection of force mains.

P-Wave£ - Pure Technologies
Pure Technologies’ P-Wave3
system generates an electromagnetic field and detects changes induced in the field by broken wires in PCCP. Results of P-Wave inspection include an estimate of the number of broken wires, as well as their location. The technology allows for the evaluation of a pipe’s current condition and the identification of distressed areas. The system is available for use in sewer pipes; however, the pipe must be empty to use the product. P-Wave inspection is often followed up with the use of an acoustic monitoring technology, such as Soundprint“, also available from Pure Technologies.

Remote Field Eddy Current/Transformer Coupling (RFEC/TC) – Pressure Pipe Inspection Company Pressure Pipe Inspection Company’s patented RFEC/TC is specifically designed for use in pre-stressed concrete pipe, including embedded Concrete Pipe, lined cylinder pipe, and bar-wrapped pipe. Rather than detecting defects such as corrosion, pitting, and leaks, this technology is primarily used to detect and quantify broken wires within the concrete pipe to determine whether pipe segments need further monitoring, repair, or replacement. In this application, the electromagnetic field generated by the exciter is amplified by the pre-stressed wires within the pipe. Signals generated by broken wires can be differentiated from those generated by intact wires.

RFEC/TC is effective for inspecting pipes 25-in. in diameter and larger. The largest pipe inspected to date is 252-in. In addition to broken wires, RFEC/TC can detect manholes, blow-offs, short pipe lengths, 3 P-Wave stands for Polar Wave

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 103 of 126 1440
cylinder thickness, cylinder composition, wire pitch, diameter and wraps (Pressure Pipe Inspection Company, n.d.). RFEC/TC can be used for the investigation of both force mains and gravity sewers.

Emerging Technology
Due to the versatility of RFEC testing for the inspection of pipelines, several institutions are working on the development of new applications. The Gas Technology Institute is currently developing a tool for the inspection of gas pipelines of a variety of diameters, including ones with valve and bore restrictions and tight bends. The Southwest Research Institute has recently developed an inspection technology for 6-in. to 8-in. diameter gas pipelines that couples an RFEC system to a robotic transport tool, the Explorer II, developed by Carnegie Mellon University’s Robotics Engineering Consortium. Monash University in Australia has developed a RFEC tool called TESTAU. This instrument provides an improvement to the quality of visual data over other RFEC tools.

4.3.3 Magnetic Flux Leakage Detection
MFL is a widely used inspection technique for oil and gas pipelines. The MFL technique was first developed in the 1920s and 30s for materials testing. The Tuboscope, which became commercially available in 1965, was the first tool specifically developed for pipeline inspection.

MFL detection involves the placement of one or more magnets near a pipe wall, leading to the inducement of a direct current magnetic field in the pipe wall. The strength and direction of magnetic fields are represented by flux lines. When a magnet is near a conductive pipe wall, the majority of flux lines pass through the pipe wall. However, in areas of metal loss, less flux can be carried than the intact, full wall sections of pipe. This leads to leakage of flux from pipe areas which have undergone metal loss, as well as a change in the shape of the induced magnetic field. Flux leakage is detected by sensors; computer software is then used to determine the type and size of anomalies detected by the sensor.

MFL devices consist of several systems packaged into a single tool. At a minimum, an MFL tool contains a magnetizing element, sensor, data recording, and power systems. MFL tools are usually categorized as single piece or segmented. Single piece MFL tools contain all system components in a single rigid tool while segmented tools consist of multiple pieces joined to one another with flexible connectors.

Inspection of pipelines via MFL detection involves the deployment of an MFL device through the pipeline. As the device moves through the pipeline, usually pushed by the product flowing through the pipeline, the tool detects and records changes in magnetic flux. Traditional MFL devices, also called axial MFL, produce a magnetic field oriented along the axis of the pipe. More recently, circumferential MFL has been developed whereby the magnetic field is oriented around the pipe, allowing for better detection of axial defects such as cracks, seam weld defects, and groove corrosion.

MFL inspection only works on conductive cast iron or steel pipelines. Most MFL applications are large, and therefore only suited to larger diameter pipelines; however, some commercial applications have been developed for use in smaller diameter pipelines. Although MFL is most commonly used to detect metal loss, the technique can detect a variety of pipeline anomalies, including circumferential and longitudinal cracks. Newer, advanced MFL tools are additionally capable of producing accurate measurements of pipe defects.

Given the widespread use of MFL technology in the oil and gas industry, there are a variety of commercial MFL products available. However, the technology has yet to gain acceptance in condition assessment for wastewater collection systems. The majority of MFL tools operate on the basic principles outlined in the previous section. The primary distinction between them is whether they use axial or

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 104 of 126 1441
circumferential MFL, and the applicable diameter range. Table 4-11 provides basic specifications on available MFL tools.

Table 4-11: MFL Product Comparison

DEVICE VENDOR TYPE PIPE SIZE NOTE
AES 19 Advanced Engineering
Services
Circumferential 3-in. to 12-in.

AES ECAT Advanced Engineering
Services
Axial >12-in. Works externally
Axial Flaw Detection
(AFD) Tool
Rosen Inspection Circumferential 6-in. to 56-in.

Corrosion Detection
Pig (CDP)
Rosen Inspection Axial 6-in. to 56-in.

CPIG Baker Hughes Axial 4-in. to 48-in.

LINSCAN Lin Scan Axial 6-in. to 56-in.

MagneScan GE Energy Axial 6-in. to 56-in.

MAGPIE TDW Services, Inc. Axial 4-in. to 42-in.

MFL Inspection Tool NGKS Axial 8-in. to 56-in.

Pipesurvey MFL Pipesurvey
International
Axial Bidirectional
TranScan GE Energy Circumferential 12-in. to 36-in.

VECTRA BJ Services Company Circumferential Inertial navigation Vertiline /V-Line* Baker Hughes Axial 2-in. to 36-in. Bidirectional *According to Baker Hughes, the Vertiline/V-line system is applicable for use in sewer lines.

4.4 Laser Profiling
Laser profiling generates a profile of a pipe’s interior wall. The technique involves using a laser to create a line of light around the pipe wall. For this reason, it is also called the lightline method. The laser light highlights the shape of the sewer, allowing for the detection of changes to the pipe’s shape, which may be caused by deformation, corrosion, or siltation. Laser inspection can only be used to inspect dry portions of a pipe. To assess the entire internal surface of a pipeline requires the pipe to be taken out of service.

Lasers are often used in combination with other inspection methods, most commonly CCTV and/or sonar.

Table 4-12 provides a summary description of the laser profiling technology.

Table 4-12: Laser Profiling Summary

SUMMARY
Sewer type Gravity sewers, force mains.

Material Any
Pipe size Product dependent
Defects detected Deformations, siltation, corrosion,
Original application Earlier use in large diameter tunnels and caverns Status Commercially available
Advantages Provides better data quality then CCTV alone, can be used to create 3D models of pipelines.

Disadvantages Can only detect defects above the water line.

Specific examples of laser profiling technologies are presented in the following section.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 105 of 126 1442
Active 3D Laser Scanning – Redzone Robotics
RedZone Robotics offers the Active 3D Laser Scanning Attachment for its Responder Robotic platform.

This attachment creates a three dimensional model of the pipe, which allows for visualization of features not visible by CCTV inspection. The attachment can be used to assess pipes ranging from 48-in. to 100- in. in diameter, and requires a minimum 24-in. diameter manhole for deployment. Inspections up to 5,500-ft. are standard while specialized configurations enable custom inspections of up to 14,000-ft.

Coolvision – Sima Environmental
Coolvision is an attachment for traditional CCTV systems. The laser system results in reports which detail pipe grade and deflection. The system allows for the detection and measurement of cracks, as well as the measurement of sediment, water depth, and service locations.

Laser Profiler – CUES
CUES offers the Laser Profiler as an attachment to the CUES CCTV system. The attachment easily snaps on to the system, and allows for the creation of reports which include measurements of sewer defects.

The attachment works by projecting a ring of light on the pipe’s surface. The light is recorded by the CCTV camera as the inspection is conducted. Software is used to analyze the laser ring and create a 3D digital profile of the pipe. This can be done either from live or recorded video. The profiler can be used to detect and measure pipe size, ovality and capacity, laterals, water levels, and off-set joints, as well as to collect survey data. The CUES laser attachment can be used to inspect pipes ranging from 6-in. to 72-in. in diameter.

Laser Profiling Tool - Envirosight
Envirosight provides a laser profiling tool which can be used with either the ROVVER or SuperVision crawlers and a CCTV camera. The device can detect corrosion, cracks, debris, pipe deformation, and incorrect installation of liner. The tool can be used individually, or in combination with a sonar profiler to inspect the pipe surface below the flow line. The tool can be used in pipes ranging from 4-in. to 160-in. in diameter. The tool is used with machine vision software, which uses data gathered from the CCTV video to create a variety of reports, statistical analyses, and 2D or 3D models of the pipe.

Laser Profiler – R&R Visual
R&R Visual offers the Laser Profiler for inspection of dry gravity sewers. The tool works on pipes ranging in sizes from 6-in. to 160-in. in diameter. The device allows for accurate pipeline measurement, measurement of sediment depth and volume. R&R Visual suggests utilizing this technology to assist in soliciting accurate price quotes for pipeline cleaning in order to create cost savings for the utility owner.

The system works with R&R Visual proprietary software and Clearline software for 3D modeling.

4.5 Flow Meters
Flow meters (area-velocity meters) typically operate by direct measurement of depth and velocity. Flow is then calculated based on the continuity equation. Metering devices referred to as “depth-only” or “primary” metering devices calculate flow using weirs or flumes based on flow discharge relationship equations. These metering devices are limited for pipe reaches that do not surcharge. Other “velocityonly” metering devices function by measuring velocity in pipe sections that continually operate under full flow conditions.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 106 of 126 1443
Communication with a flow meter can be achieved in the following manners: direct connection by laptop in the field, telephone land lines, wireless digital telephone or internet technology, or radio frequency networks. This includes communication through such technologies as general packet radio service/enhanced data rates for global evolution (GPRS/EDGE); code division multiple access (CDMA); mobile digital radio technology, including CDMA-1XRTT and CDMA-EVDO (evolution data optimized). Although most meter data are collected with laptops in the field, wireless communication is becoming the most popular method for new meters. Most wireless communication uses internet technology. A major distinction between the communication approaches is whether each meter is assigned a fixed internet protocol (IP) address or a floating IP address. The floating IP address is the easiest and least costly to deploy, but it also allows only one-way communication from the meter to the host. Communication with a fixed IP address occurs only when initiated by the meter. Fixed IP addresses allow the user to communicate with the meter for altering set up features, changing alarm setup features and downloading new software. Many wireless carriers do not offer fixed IP addresses.

Real time communication is a very popular concept and is becoming widely used in wastewater treatment plants. Implementing real time communication in sewers is more difficult for two reasons. Most meters operate by battery and frequent communication uses more energy than data collection does. Energy use for communication is high both for operating a modem with land lines and operating the radio frequency equipment for wireless communication. Additionally, the term “real-time” in sewers is actually “near time”, because most meter measurements are in 5-minute or 15-minute collection frequencies, as many operators prefer lower collection frequencies to achieve longer battery life. Most metering technologies relying on wireless communication operate in a one-way mode from the meter to the host. This strategy is dictated primarily by the energy cost to “stay awake” for incoming communication.

The traditional view of real time data is from a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) perspective in which data are collected at a high frequency from many “dumb” sensors and a central computer sorts and archives the data. This approach works well for process control. An operator is alerted to problems by the use of “set points”, such as a drop in dissolved oxygen level below a specified concentration. This may trigger an alarm condition requiring an operator response. Real time data in sewers have less value because there rarely are controllable processes in sewers, except for pump stations and perhaps diversion gates.

Software for collecting and reporting flow monitoring data has evolved along with improvements in communication protocols. Desk-top programs for analyzing flow data, performance monitoring, and project reporting are being replaced with web-based applications, which connect wirelessly to flow monitors. These software applications automate time-consuming tasks; making them more reliable and cost-effective than traditional software programs. Additionally, some of the programs incorporate GIS functionality, allowing users to integrate flow data with GIS models of the sewer system.

4.6 Innovative Technologies
Besides the range of commercially available technologies for evaluation of wastewater systems and other underground pipes, several other innovative technologies are currently under development. While the following technologies are not currently commercially available for condition assessment of wastewater systems, they may be feasible methods of sewer assessment in the future.

4.6.1 Gamma-Gamma Logging
Gamma-gamma logging is a technique used primarily to evaluate cast-in-place concrete pilings and for vertical borehole investigation in the mining and oil and gas industries. The technique involves the use of a gamma-gamma probe, which consists of a source of gamma radiation such as cesium-137 and one or

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 107 of 126 1444
more gamma detectors. The detectors are shielded from direct radiation by a heavy metal such as lead.

The gamma-gamma probe emits photons which react to surrounding material based on density. The photons are backscattered by the surrounding material, and data are recorded as a density log. Inspection using this technique is accomplished by raising and lowering the probe within a PVC inspection tube that is inserted into the concrete piling or borehole. Results of the inspection yield information on the average bulk density of the concrete. Properly constructed structures will have a consistent density. The technique can also be used to locate voids.

To date, gamma-gamma logging has not been used in pipeline inspection. However, researchers at Karlsruhe University in Germany performed laboratory tests that indicated a gamma-gamma probe could be used to locate lateral connections and locate and measure the size of cavities in the bedding surrounding a pipe. The technology may be applicable for evaluating the overall condition of concrete pipe or for detecting voids in bedding surrounding pipes. However, significant application issues would exist in terms of training requirements and the tracking of the nuclear materials. These issues are faced by the users of nuclear density gauges for soil compaction control.

4.6.2 Ground Penetrating Radar
The U.S. military originally developed ground penetrating radar (GPR) to locate underground tunnels and mines. GPR operates on the same principle as radar. A transmitting antenna emits high-frequency radio waves into the ground. The waves travel through the ground until they reach a material which has a different conductivity and dielectric constant than the earth. The signal is reflected and recorded by a separate receiving antenna. The amount of time it takes for the electromagnetic radio waves to be reflected by subsurface materials can be analyzed to determine the position and depth of features below the earth’s surface.

There are a number of commercially available GPR systems. While some are designed to be used to locate underground utilities, none is significantly used at present for pipeline inspection. GPR systems that have been used to date in North America for internal pipe inspection could be considered more in the prototype stage than in commercial use. However, since GPR can detect underground voids, it is potentially useful for examination of pipe bedding. GPR can also potentially be used to locate leaks, since saturated soil slows radio waves, resulting in a GPR profile showing a pipe deeper then would be expected. Research into using GPR for sewer and bedding condition inspections is ongoing. Research has already been conducted on its use for small diameter sewer lines and brick sewers.

4.6.3 Infrared Thermography
Infrared thermography (IRT) involves the use of an infrared camera to measure the temperature differential across the surface of an object. Software can then be used to create an image displaying different temperatures as different colors. This allows for the detection of the surface expression of thermal conditions beneath the surface. In this regard, it is a potential method of detecting sewer defects such as leaks and voids, both of which can result in surface temperature variations when a sufficient internal/external temperature difference exists.

Two basic methods of IRT are generally employed: passive IRT, which requires no external heat source; and active IRT, which requires the use of a heat source such as an infrared tube light. Research into the use of passive IRT to detect defects in and around subsurface pipelines has been conducted. The method has been demonstrated to be capable of detecting subsurface defects such as leaks, voids, and deteriorated insulation. Because the process is carried out from the surface, and the equipment used can scan a large area quickly, the technology can be an efficient method for detecting pipe defects. Active IRT has been proposed as a method for pipeline assessment, but has not yet been evaluated.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 108 of 126 1445

4.6.4 Micro-Deflection
Micro-deflection is a nondestructive technology used to evaluate brick, concrete, and clay structures. The method involves the use of a load to create slight deformation, termed a micro-deflection, in the test material. The change in position of the structure is measured, and a graph of load versus deflection is created. Structurally sound test materials would be expected to have a consistent load versus deflection graph, while deteriorated sections of the material would have a different value on the graph.

Although not a widespread method of evaluating wastewater pipes, micro-deflection has been used to evaluate brick sewers. However, the usefulness of micro-deflection is limited, because the process can only give a general understanding of pipe condition, such as the integrity of joints, rather than identifying individual defects. In addition, plastics such as PVC and HDPE cannot be inspected using this method.

4.6.5 Impact Echo/Spectral Analysis of Surface Waves (SASW) Impact Echo and SASW are two related techniques for evaluation of concrete and masonry. Both work by subjecting a pipe to an elastic impact, produced by a device such as a pneumatic hammer, which then propagates through the pipe. The waves are reflected by internal flaws, as well as the surface of the material, and the reflected waves are detected by an acoustic transducer such as a geophone located on the exterior of the pipe. The technique can locate and measure cracks, delaminations, voids, and honeycombing.

Impact Echo testing services are provided by several companies and its applicability for pipelines has been researched. The Acoustic Impact Hammer, developed by the University of Karlsruhe in Germany, uses a hammer to tap the inner surface of a pipe; laboratory trials resulted in the detection of cracks and cavities around the pipe. A German technology which uses lasers to scan the response to impacts and analyze them via SASW is available for tunnels and large pipes; however, this system requires entry into the pipe and is therefore only suitable for very large pipes.

4.6.6 Ultrasonic Testing Systems
Several new ultrasonic-based testing systems are currently under development. Researchers at King’s College in London are developing a multi-sensor system termed the Ultrasonic-Based Inspection System that can be integrated into existing CCTV inspection systems. This system automatically classifies data based on an artificial neural network, and can detect very small cracks in the millimeter range. Research into use of ultrasonic pulse velocity for the evaluation of concrete is being carried out at the University of Waterloo in Canada. Researchers at Pennsylvania State University are working to develop a sensor using No-Contact Ultrasonic technology, which would be deployed into pipelines on a wheeled carriage.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 109 of 126 1446

5.0 Technology Forum Summary

5.1 Background
A technology forum was held on September 11 and 12, 2008 in Edison, New Jersey to discuss the state of the science for condition assessment of wastewater collection systems and to identify critical gaps in current knowledge. The white paper was distributed to participants in advance of the meeting and served as a basis for forum discussions. The objective of the forum was to present the findings of the research and obtain direction for additional research and further evaluation during the field demonstration tasks. Figure 5-1 lists the presenters and attendees at the Technology Forum.

WERF and other research institutions expressed interest in collaboration and sharing of research findings. WERF has completed twelve research projects related to condition assessment and rehabilitation of wastewater infrastructure in the last ten years; these research reports can be found at www.werf.org. WERF’s Condition Assessment Protocols project, completed in 2007, provides guidance on developing and implementing a condition assessment program, and includes an inventory of condition assessment tools and techniques. On-going WERF research includes development of decision support tools and implementation guidance for risk analysis, costbenefit, and estimation of residual life. Virginia Tech is working on a WERF project to create the National Database for Sustainable Water Infrastructure Management, with the objective of creating a web-based model that can be used by utilities to determine information requirements for asset management decisions and support the formal specification of data requirements.

5.2 General Discussion
The primary components of any asset management program include the identification, location and condition of assets; the determination of their useful life, and their valuation. Condition assessment provides the critical information needed to determine the condition of each pipe within the system and its estimated time to failure or remaining useful life. Critical gaps in the use of condition assessment as an asset management tool include lack of consistent, standard condition assessment protocols; methods for the systematic collection of data; and formal risk assessment methods to prioritize resources for maintenance and or/rehabilitation activities.

Data needs for conducting condition assessment and making asset management decisions were discussed at the Forum. It is important to define data needs so resources are spent wisely. The level of data needed for day-to-day management is different than what is needed for making decisions on major rehabilitation. Some meeting participants suggested that simple rules of thumb are adequate for making rehabilitation decisions (i.e., three or more major defects per 250-300 foot pipe segment triggers rehab or replacement). It was agreed by the participants that very detailed information is needed for CMOM. Better data including historical information are required for modeling. There is a concern that creating large databases for condition assessment data would be overwhelming to utilities. There is added value from gathering extra data. Information from a variety of inspection tools should be used to make better decisions; CCTV is only one aspect of assessment and should not be used in isolation.

Flow monitoring is an important tool in asset management. In one case, pipes were going to be replaced at tremendous cost, but flow monitoring data showed a restriction at a stream crossing was causing a backup; the restriction was fixed, and overflows were reduced dramatically at a much lower cost. Flow assessment data can be used to assess sewer condition and long-term system performance and to help calibrate models. Flow metering data is traditionally used to generate hydrographs which provide information about water upstream of the meter.

Scattergraphs (displays of paired depth and velocity readings that look like a pipe curve under normal flow conditions), can reveal both upstream and downstream conditions, and can be used as verification of other inspection data. Flow metering data may not be useful for predicting pipe failure.

The development and implementation of condition assessment programs was a topic of discussion. Most condition assessment programs are currently focused on identifying and correcting I/I problems. A question was raised as to whether condition assessment should focus on other sewer defects in the future. Some utilities focus on coding defects, but may not spend enough time on identifying and correcting problems. The condition

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 110 of 126 1447
assessment program should have a system-wide focus and not be limited to one aspect of the collection system such as laterals or manholes.

An understanding of pipe failure mechanisms is needed to tailor a condition assessment program to the utility’s high priority needs and also to improve use of predictive models. The United Kingdom has developed a comprehensive database on wastewater utility assets and pipe failures that can be used to study pipe failure mechanisms. Pipe failure is dependent on many factors including the system design, installation, operation, maintenance and inspection. For example, system operating conditions (i.e. hydraulics, I/I) together with poor maintenance practices may cause accumulation of sediment and other debris, resulting in sewage blockages, overflows, increased hydrogen sulfide production and/or increased corrosion. The main cause of failure in ferrous force mains is internal corrosion whereas PCCP fails most often due to external corrosion. Rehabilitated pipe may fail at an accelerated rate depending on contractor experience, selection of rehab technology and the understanding of baseline conditions. Many failures can be traced to human error.

There are many tools and risk assessment models for decision making related to asset management, ranging from simple to complex. A question was raised as to whether utilities should use simple vs. complex tools. A one-size fits all approach does not seem appropriate. One tool that is needed is a branched decision-making tree based on defect coding that can help prioritize areas for inspection. Decision making models are used to assess the probability of failure and the consequences of failure. With accurate assessments of the probability of failure and the consequences of failure, cost-effective decisions can be made on risk mitigation. While the physical science is good, the decision sciences are lagging. Utilities often lack the input data for pipe failure prediction models.

There is a need for better decision making, and to improve on the general rules-of-thumb to make decision making more cost effective.

A number of models related to risk-based pipe performance and condition assessment were presented and discussed at the Forum:
x An on-going WERF project is developing a web-based model that can be used by utilities to determine information requirements for asset management decisions and support the formal specification of data requirements. The project is developing protocols and methods for predicting the remaining economic life of water and wastewater pipes, and developing a condition/performance index.
x Fuzzy logic can be used for modeling pipe deterioration and to help make decisions on pipe renewal.

Fuzzy mathematics provides an alternative in cases where pipe condition data are lacking. It analyzes possibilities rather than probabilities of failure. The method was applied to large water transmission mains as part of an AwwaRF project. Prototype software T-WARP is available on AwwaRF’s website (AwwaRF Project No. 2883).
x CARE-S, funded by the European Union, was designed as a proactive approach to develop methods and software that support efficient rehabilitation decisions. Failure codes developed as part of this project have been adopted by six European countries to date. CARE-S can be used for failure forecasting, assessments of hydraulic performance and environmental impacts, and selection of rehabilitation technologies.
x A simple approach for condition assessment presented at the Forum taps into the utility’s extensive knowledge of the piping network rather than a comprehensive database of pipe information. The approach uses the utility’s “beliefs” or observations about pipe condition to develop a criticality rating of likelihood and consequences of failure. The approach is user friendly and does not require expert input. It can be applied using a simple computer program by utilities and their consultants.

The approach was developed by a WERF-funded project, SCRAPS.

5.3 Critical Gaps Identified in State of the Science
Critical gaps in our knowledge of inspection technologies, and our ability to diagnose and predict infrastructure failures were identified at the Technology Forum and are summarized below.

1. Research is needed to further define the costs and benefits of pipe inspection and rehabilitation as part of a utility’s condition assessment program. Methods of determining the impact of deteriorating collection systems on municipal budgets are needed.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 111 of 126 1448

2. Inspection technologies need to be identified for the following applications:
a. Reduce use of confined space entry during sewer system inspections and investigations. b. Affordable inspection technology that utilizes multi-sensor devices on a small transportable package.
c. Inspecting pipes below the waterline.
d. Inspecting force mains that are in service.
e. Inspecting laterals.

3. Data management methods and models are available but a lack of standardization makes it difficult to compare historical data collected with different inspection technologies that have proprietary data structures.

4. Research is needed to improve how asset condition is tracked over time. Geospatial information (with a high degree of accuracy) needs to be collected along with pipe condition data in order to link historical inspection data with an exact physical location.

5. Information transfer to practitioners was identified as a critical industry need. Practitioners need training on topics such as infrastructure failure mechanisms; using historical inspection data for condition assessment applications; applying the PACP coding system to characterize pipe defects; developing a condition assessment program; and preparing accurate record drawings for new and rehabilitated pipe. Practitioners need simple condition assessment tools (i.e. scattergraphs for analyzing flow data, decision trees, and rules of thumb).

5.4 Recommended Next Steps
Based on the Technology Forum discussions and findings, the project team has identified the following technologies for possible inclusion in the project’s field demonstrations:

1. Focused Electrode Leak Location System FELLS 41.

2. Ultra-wide band (UWB).

3. Laser (2D/3D).

4. Autonomous crawler technology.

5. Zoom Camera.

6. Digital scanning vs. CCTV.

7. Flow metering analysis as input to decision making tools to prioritize need for inspection.

8. Embedded sensors to monitor deflection, corrosion potential, and pressure.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 112 of 126 1449

PROJECT TEAM
The Cadmus Group
*Katherine Martel
Ralph Jones
Chi Ho Sham
The Louis Berger Group
Lou Ragozzino
*Christopher Feeney
Samantha Hogan
ADS
Pat Stevens
Michael Bonomo
RedZone Robotics
*Scott Thayer
Brian Bannon
*John Fortin-Independent Consultant

TECHNOLOGY EXPERTS
*D. Thomas Iseley - Purdue University *Lucio Soibelman - Carnegie Mellon University Jeff Plymale – RJN Group *Raymond L. Sterling - Louisiana Tech *Dan Murray - USEPA ORD *Tony Urquhart – MWH Global
*Roy Ramani – WERF *James Thomson - Consultant
*Duncan Rose – GHD Consulting Inc. *Annie Vanrenterghem-Raven - NYU Polytechnic *Sunil K. Sinha - Virginia Tech *Zack Zhao - Ultraliner, Inc.

US EPA PARTICIPANTS
Steve Allbee *Dennis Lai Ari Selvakumar
Richard Field *Dan Murray Anthony Tafuri
Evelyn Huertas Michael Royer Carlos Villafañe

STAKEHOLDERS
Steve Allbee – USEPA Office of Water
*Yehuda Kleiner – NRC Canada
Troy Norris – ASCE Pipeline Division
*Roy Ramani - Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) *Rod Thornhill – National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NASSCO) Marty Umberg - National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) Robert A. Villee – WEF Collection System Committee

ADDITIONAL ATTENDEES
Wendy Condit – Battelle
George Kurz - Barge Waggoner Sumner & Cannon
Robert Pennington - Camp Dresser & McKee Inc.

Lily Wang - Battelle
Dan Watts - New Jersey Institute of Technology
*Technology Forum Presenter
Figure 5-1: Technology Forum Attendees

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 113 of 126 1450

6.0 References
American Concrete Institute. (2000). Service-Life Prediction: State- of-the-Art Report. American Concrete Institute: Framington Hills, MI.

American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AwwaRF). (2005). Risk Management of Large-Diameter Water Transmission Mains. AwwaRF Project No. 2883. AwwaRF: Denver, CO.

Fleury, M.A. and Warner, J. (2007). Arizona’s Largest Condition Assessment. Proceedings of WEF Collection Systems Specialty Conference, May 13-16, Portland, OR.

Marlow, D., Heart, S., Burn, S., Urquhart, A., Gould, S., Anderson, M., Cook, S., Ambrose, M., Madin, B., and Fitzgerald, A. (2007). Condition Assessment Strategies and Protocols for Water and Wastewater Utility Assets. Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF): Alexandria, VA and IWA Publishing: London, United Kingdom.

McDonald, S.E. and Zhao, J.Q. 2001. Condition Assessment and Rehabilitation of Large Sewers. Report No. NRCC-44696. Institute for Research in Construction, National Research Council Canada:

Ottawa, Canada
Merrill, M.S., Lukas, A., Palmer, R.N., and Hahn, M.A. (2004). Development of a Tool to Prioritize Sewer Inspections. WERF: Alexandria, VA.

National Association of Sewer Service Companies (NAASCO). (2001). Pipeline Assessment And Certificate Program (PACP),v. 3.0. NASSCO: Owings Mills, MD.

Pressure Pipe Inspection Company, The. (n.d.). The Remote Field Eddy Current / Transformer Coupling Technology (RFEC/TC). Retrieved December 10, 2008 from
http://www.ppic.com/home/download.html
Rahman, S. and Vanier, D.J. (2004). Municipal Infrastructure Investment Planning. MIIP Report: An Evaluation of Condition Assessment Protocols for Sewer Management. Report No. B-5123.6, Institute for Research in Construction: Ottawa, Canada.

Thomson, J.C. (2008). The Value of Inspection. Presented at: STREAMS Task Order 59 Condition Assessment of Collection Systems Technology Forum. Sept. 11-12, 2008. Edison, NJ.

Thomson, J.C., Hayward, P., Hazelden, G. Morrison, R.S., Sangster, T., Williams, D.S., Kopchynkski, R.K. (2004). An Examination of Innovative Methods used in the Inspection of Wastewater Systems.

WERF: Alexandria, VA and IWA Publishing: London, United Kingdom.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). (2002). Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure Gap Analysis. Report No. USEPA-816-R-02-020, USEPA, Office of Water:

Washington, District of Columbia.

USEPA. (2005). Guide for Evaluating Capacity, Management, Operation, and Maintenance (CMOM) Programs at Sanitary Sewer Collection Systems. Report No. EPA-305-B-05-002, USEPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance: Washington, District of Columbia.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 114 of 126 1451
USEPA. (2007). Innovation and Research for Water Infrastructure for the 21st Century Research Plan.

Report No. EPA-ORD-NRMRL-CI-08-03-02, USEPA: Washington, District of Columbia.

Water Research Centre (WRc). (2003). Manual of Sewer Condition Assessment, 4th edition. WRc:

Swindon, Wiltshire, United Kingdom.

Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 115 of 126 1452
Appendix A
Technology Vendors
Page A-1
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 116 of 126 1453
Camera Technologies
Digital Camera Inspection
Product(s) Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
DigiSewer Envirosight
111 Canfield Ave.

Randolph, NJ 07869
Tel: (866) 936-8476
Fax: (973) 252-1176
Email: through website
URL: http://www.envirosight.com
Panoramo Rapidview-IBAK USA
1828 West Olson Road
Rochester, IN 46975
Tel: (800) 656-4225
Fax: (574) 224-5426
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.rapidview.com
Sewer Scanning
Evaluation
Technology (SSET)
Hydromax USA, LLC
1766 Brent Drive
Newburgh, IN 47630
Tel: (812) 925-3930
Fax: (812) 925-3911
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.hydromaxusa.com
Zoom Cameras
Product Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
AquaZoom Aquadata, Inc.
95 5th Avenue
Pincourt, Quebec
Canada J7V 5K8
Tel: (800) 567-9003
Fax: (514) 425-3506
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.aquadata.com
Aries HC3000 Zoom Aries Industries Tel: (800) 234-7205
Pole Camera 550 Elizabeth St.

Waukesha, WI 53186
Fax: (262) 896-7099
Email: through website
URL: http://www.ariesind.com
Ca-Zoom PTZ GE Sensing & Inspection
Technologies
Tel: (888) 332-3848
Fax: (866) 899-4184
Quickview 721 Visions Drive
Skaneateles, NY 13152
Email: through website
URL:
http://www.geinspectiontechnologies.com
CUES IMX Truck
Mounted Zoom
Camera
CUES IMX Corporate Office
3600 Rio Vista Ave.

Orlando, FL 32805
Tel: (800) 327-7791
Fax: (407) 425-1569
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.cuesinc.com
Page A-2
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 117 of 126 1454
PortaZoom CTZoom Technologies Tel: (888) 965-8987
2500 Boul. Des Enteprises #104
Terrebonne (Quebec)
Canada J6X 4J8
Fax: (450) 965-8987
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.ctzoom.com
Push Cameras
Product(s) Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
Insight Vision Push
Camera
Insight Vision
600 Dekora Woods Boulevard
Saukville, WI 53080
Tel: (800) 488-8177
Fax: (262) 268-9952
URL: http://insightvisioncameras.com
CrystalCam Push
Camera
Inuktun Services Ltd.
2569 Kenworth Road, Ste. C
Nanaimo, BC
Canada, V9T 3M4
Tel: (877) 468-5886
Fax: (250) 729-8080
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.inuktun.com/headoffice.htm
Flexiprobe Pearpoint/RADIODETECTION
154 Portland Road
Bridgton, ME 04000
Tel: (877) 247-3797
Fax: (207) 647-9495
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.pearpoint.com
Hydrus, Orion,
Orion L
Rapidview-IBAK USA
1828 West Olson Road
Rochester, IN 46975
Tel: (800) 656-4225
Fax: (574) 224-5426
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.rapidview.com
Lateral Launchers
Product(s) Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
LAMP CUES IMX Corporate Office
3600 Rio Vista Ave.

Orlando, FL 32805
Tel: (800) 327-7791
Fax: (407) 425-1569
Email: [email protected]
URL: www.cuesinc.com
Lateral Evaluation
Television System
Aries Industries
550 Elizabeth St.

Waukesha, WI 53186
Tel: (800) 234-7205
Fax: (262) 896-7099
URL: http://www.ariesind.com
Lateral Inspection
System
RS Technical Services
1327 Clegg St.

Petaluma, CA 94954
Tel: (800) 767-1974
Fax: (707) 778-1974
URL: http://www.rstechserv.com
Page A-3
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 118 of 126 1455
IBAK LISY 150-M Rapidview-IBAK USA Tel: (800) 656-4225
1828 West Olson Road
Rochester, IN 46975
Fax: (574) 224-5426
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.rapidview.com
Small Diameter Tractors
Product(s) Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
ELKT100 Mini Pearpoint/RADIODETECTION
154 Portland Road
Bridgton, ME 04000
Tel: (877) 247-3797
Fax: (207) 647-9495
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.pearpoint.com
KRA 65 Rapidview-IBAK USA
1828 West Olson Road
Rochester, IN 46975
Tel: (800) 656-4225
Fax: (574) 224-5426
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.rapidview.com
Mighty Mini
Transporter
RS Technical Services
1327 Clegg St.

Petaluma, CA 94954
Tel: (800) 767-1974
Fax: (707) 778-1974
URL: http://www.rstechserv.com
Rovver 100 Envirosight
111 Canfield Ave.

Randolph, NJ 07869
Tel: (866) 936-8476
Fax: (973) 252-1176
Email: through website
URL: http://www.envirosight.com
Versatrax 100 Inuktun Services Ltd.
2569 Kenworth Road, Ste. C
Nanaimo, BC
Canada, V9T 3M4
Tel: (877) 468-5886
Fax: (250) 729-8080
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.inuktun.com/headoffice.htm
Xpress Silver-Bullet
Crawler
Insight Vision
600 Dekora Woods Boulevard
Saukville, WI 53080
Tel: (800) 488-8177
Fax: (262) 268-9952
URL: http://insightvisioncameras.com
Long Range Tractors
Product Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
Versatrax 300 VLR Inuktun Services Ltd.
2569 Kenworth Road, Ste. C
Nanaimo, BC
Canada, V9T 3M4
Tel: (877) 468-5886
Fax: (250) 729-8080
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.inuktun.com/headoffice.htm
Page A-4
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 119 of 126 1456
Responder Redzone Robotics Fax: (412) 476-8981
91 43rd St., Ste.250 Email: through website
Pittsburgh, PA 15201 URL: http://www.redzone.com
Acoustic Technologies
In-Line Leak Detectors
Product Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
LxSentry LxSix Photonics
520 McCaffrey St.

St-Laurent, Quebec
Canada H4T 1N1
Tel: (514) 599-5714
Fax: (514) 599-5729
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.lxsix.com
Sahara Pressure Pipe Inspection
Company
1930 West Qual Avenue, Suite
A
Phenix, AZ 85027
Tel: (866)-990-2466
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.ppic.com
Smartball Pure Technologies
Suite A, 9130 Red Branch Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
Tel:1-800-537-2806
Fax: (443) 766-7877
Email: through website
URL: http://www.puretechnologiesltd.com
Acoustic Monitoring Systems
Product Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
AET Pressure Pipe Inspection
Company
1930 West Qual Avenue, Suite
A
Phenix, AZ 85027
Tel: (866)-990-2466
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.ppic.com
Soundprint AFO Pure Technologies
Suite A, 9130 Red Branch Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
Tel:1-800-537-2806
Fax: (443) 766-7877
Email: through website
URL: http://www.puretechnologiesltd.com
Sonar/Ultrasonic
Product Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
Amtec Sonar
TISCIT
Amtec Surveying Inc.
3355 Lenox Rd. Ste. 750
Atlanta, GA 30326
Tel: (404) 504-7044
Fax: (404) 504-7004
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.amtecsurveying.com
Page A-5
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 120 of 126 1457
A-SIS AquaCoustic Remote Tel: (888) 3749-7601
AquaCoustic Technologies, Inc.
3339 West 8th Ave.

Vancouver, BC
V6R 1Y3 Canada
Fax: (604) 730-8771
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.aquacoustic.com
Envirosight Envirosight
111 Canfield Ave.

Randolph, NJ 07869
Tel: (866) 936-8476
Fax: (973) 252-1176
Email: through website
URL: http://www.envirosight.com
PipeEye PipeEye International
Unit 28 – 6275 Harrison Dr.,
Park 2000
Las Vegas, NV 89120
Tel: (888) 756-2033
Fax: (250) 753-2642
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://pipe-eye-int.com
RVS2 R&R Visual, Inc.
1828 West Olson Rd.

Rochester, In 46975
Tel: (800) 776-5653
Fax: (574)-223-7953
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.expipeinspection.com
Sonar Profiler System CUES Corporate Office Tel: (800) 327-7791 (submerged/semi- 3600 Rio Vista Ave. Fax: (407) 425-1569 submerged) Orlando, FL 32805 Email: [email protected] URL: www.cuesinc.com
Sonar Sewer Profiling
Attachment
Sonar Sweep
Attachment
Redzone Robotics
91 43rd St., Ste.250
Pittsburgh, PA 15201
Fax: (412) 476-8981
Email – through website
URL: http://www.redzone.com
Ultrascan CD GE Inspection Technologies Tel: (866) 243-2638 Ultrascan DUO 50 Industrial Park Road Fax: (717) 242-2606 Ultrascan WM Lewistown, PA 17044 URL:
http://www.geinspectiontecnologies.com
Inspector Systems
Ultrasonic Inspection
Robot
Aqua Drill International Inc.
1300 FM 545 East
Dickinson, TX 77539
Tel: (281) 337-0900
Fax: (281) 337-7270
URL: http://www.inspector-systtems.com
Wavemaker Guided Ultrasonics Ltd.
30 Saville Road
Chiswick, London
W4 5HG
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0) 20 8991 3771
Fax: +44 (0) 20 8987 0558
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.guided-ultrasonics.com
Page A-6
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 121 of 126 1458
Electrical and Electromagnetic Products
Electrical Leak Location Method
Product Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
FELL-21
FELL-41
Metrotech Corporation
3251 Olcott St.

Santa Clara, CA 95054
Tel: (800) 446-3392
Fax: (408) 734-1415
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.fell21.com
Eddy Current and Remote Field Eddy Current
Product Vendor/Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
BEM Rock Solid Pty, Ltd.
11 Evans Str.

Burwood Vic 3124
Australia
Tel: (+613) 9335-6122
Fax: (613) 9335-6733
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.rocksolidgroup.com.au
Hydroscope Hydroscope Canada, Inc
8170 50 St. NW Suite 260
Edmonton, AB, T6B 1E6
Tel: (780)-450-6224
Fax: (780) 450-6224
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.hydroscope.com
See Snake Tool CHECK IF VENDOR
Russel NDE Systems, Inc.
4909 75th Avenue
Edmonton, AB, Canada T6B
2S3
Tel: (780) 468-6800
Fax: (780) 462-9378
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.russeltech.com
P-Wave Pure Technologies
Suite A, 9130 Red Branch Road
Columbia, Maryland 21045
Tel:1-800-537-2806
Fax: (443) 766-7877
Email: through website
URL: http://www.puretechnologiesltd.com
RFEC/TC Pressure Pipe Investigation
Company
[email protected]
http://www.ppic.com/home/index.asp
Page A-7
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 122 of 126 1459
Magnetic Flux Leakage
Product Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
AES 19

AES ECAT
Advanced Engineering
Solutions, LTD
South Nelson Road
South Nelson Industrial Estate
Cramlington, Northumberland
NE23 1WF
United Kingdom
Tel: +41 41 618 0 300
Fax: +41 41 618 0 319
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.aesengs.co.uk
Axial Flaw Detection
(AFD)
Corrosion Detection
Pig (CDP)
Rosen Inspection
Obere Spichermatt 14
6370 Stans
Switzerland
Tel: +41 41 618 0 300
Fax: +41 41 618 0 319
Email: [email protected]
URL: www.RosenInspection.net
CPIG
Vertiline/V-line, CPIG
Baker Hughes
12645 West Airport Blvd.

Sugar Land, TX 77478
Tel: (281) 276-5400
Email:

[email protected]
URL: http://www.bakerhughesdirect.com

LINSCAN LIN SCAN
205/206
Al Zahra Shopping Complex
U.A.E.

Tel: +9716-7473600
Fax: : +9716-7473800
Email: [email protected],
URL: http://www.linscan.biz
MagneScan
TranScan
GE Energy URL:
http://www.gepower.com/contact/index.ht
m
MAGPIE TDW Services, Inc
4220 World Houston Pkwy,
Ste. 100
Houston, Texas 77032
Tel: (832) 448-7221
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.magpiesystems.com
MFL Inspection Tool NGKS
7, Guilyarovsky St.

Moscow, Russia 129090
Tel: + 7 495 937 86 36/26
Fax: + 7 495 937 86 35/31
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.ngksint.com
Page A-8
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 123 of 126 1460
Pipesurvey MFL Pipesurvey International
Schrijnwerkersstraat 13
3334 KH Zwijndrecht
P.O. BOX 117
3330 AC Zwijndrecht
the Netherlands
Tel + 31 78 610 1428
Fax + 31 78 610 2128
Email: [email protected]
URL:
http://www.pipesurveyinternational.com
VECTRA BJ Services Company
414 Pinckney
Houston, TX 77009
Tel: (713) 224-1105
Fax: (713) 229-0541
URL: http://www.bjservices.com/
Laser Products
Product Address Phone/Fax/Email/URL
Active 3D Laser
Scanning
Redzone Robotics
91 43rd St., Ste.250
Pittsburgh, PA 15201
Fax: (412) 476-8981
Email: through website
URL: http://www.redzone.com
Coolvision Sima Environmental
1153 E Ogden, # 705-135
Naperville, IL 60563
Phone: (630) 327-8503
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.simaenvironmental.com
Laser Profiler CUES IMX Corporate Office
3600 Rio Vista Ave.

Orlando, FL 32805
Tel: (800) 327-7791
Fax: (407) 425-1569
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.cuesinc.com
Laser Profiling Tool Envirosight
111 Canfield Ave.

Randolph, NJ 07869
Tel: (866) 936-8476
Fax: (973) 252-1176
Email: through website
URL: http://www.envirosight.com
Laser Profiler R&R Visual, Inc.
1828 West Olson Rd.

Rochester, In 46975
Tel: (800) 776-5653
Fax: (574)-223-7953
Email: [email protected]
URL: http://www.expipeinspection.com
Page A-9
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 124 of 126 1461

ATTACHMENT F
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 125 of 126 1462
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
(
(
(
(
( ((
(
(
(
(
(
(
( (
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
( ((
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
( (
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
( (
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
T 23RD S

CUTTING BLVD

SAN PABLO AVE

AST C RO ST

CARLSON BLVD

RE GATT A VLB D

GARRARD BLVD

MACDONALD AVE
TS HT73 S
22ND ST

POTRERO AVE

MARKET AVE

MEADE ST

Y W PK D N MO HCI R

ARLINGTON B LVD

BARRETT AVE

W CUTTING BLVD
23RD ST S
MRILL BLVD RU T H S 13T

MARIN A BAY PKWY

LVD B ANAL C

CHURCH LN

SAN PAB OL D MA RD

Y WA UR O RB AH

MCBRYDE AVE

HOFFMAN BLV D

KEARN YE TS

S YA WANI RA M
51ST S ST

JULIGA WOODS ST

TEWKSBURY AVE

PARK PL

W MACDONALD AVE

DV HORE BL S AST E
23RD ST

RICHMOND PKWY

GARRARD BLVD

CASTRO ST

BARRETT AVE
80 §¨¦
580 §¨¦
580 §¨¦
80 §¨¦
Castro
Canal
Wright
Coalinga
33rd Street
23rd Street
1st Street
North Harbor
Marine
South Harbor
West Cutting
47th Street
Harbor Minor Richmond
San Pablo
El Cerrito
Unincorporated County
1 inch = 2,000 feet
0 2,000 4,000
Feet
I
MAR 2018
City LimitGrade 5 Pipes Addressed with Projects
2012-2017 SSOsCount
!( 1
!( 2 - 4
!( 5 - 7
!( 8 - 11
!( 12 - 13
Capacity Projects
13th & DunnFirst StreetMacdonaldVirginiaHoffmanCutting Carlson Basins
1st23rd33rd47thCanalCastroCoalingaHarbor MinorMarineNorth HarborSouth HarborWest CuttingWright

WATER RESOURCERECOVERYDEPARTMENT
Case 3:05-cv-03829-MMC Document 57 Filed 06/04/18 Page 126 of 126 1463
1464
1465
1466
Santa Rosa | Auburn | Pleasant Hill | Fairfield
www.coastlandcivil.com
Date: January 3, 2022
To: Andre Jadkowski, P.E., NCE
From: Jenny Melman, P.E.,
NASSCO PACP Cert. U-0819-70306761
Subject: City of Richmond
Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer CCTV Review
and Assessment Report
At the City’s request, Coastland has reviewed CCTV video of the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer and conducted an assessment of observed pipe conditions. The CCTV video, dated 3/22/2021 – 8/16/2021, was provided by the City of Richmond’s Contractor, Bayhawk, Inc., and Subcontractor Express Sewer on August 17, 2021. This report presents our findings. Based on these findings and our understanding of site conditions, we also offer preliminary recommendations for a full pipe replacement in a new alignment outside of the bay.

BACKGROUND
Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer
The Keller Beach sanitary sewer, as shown in City of Richmond Line ‘Q’ Shoreline Interceptor asbuilts, consists of 5,392 linear feet of 8- to 12-inch concrete-encased cast iron pipe. The pipeline, constructed in 1959, is located off Keller Beach in the San Francisco Bay and is submerged during average tides. The location of the sewer is indicated by a red line in the image below and extends from sanitary sewer manhole MH Q-1 (adjacent to the Keller Beach sanitary sewer pump station) to sanitary sewer manhole MH Q-25. See Appendix A for an exhibit of sewer main locations and manhole numbering.

EXHIBIT A
1467

Access to the sanitary sewer pipeline for maintenance or repair is extremely difficult because the manholes are submerged during high tides, and vehicles cannot get within fifty feet of the pipeline due to the cliffs and private property. Access for foot traffic is also limited to public beach access and through private properties.

Existing Facilities
According to the 1959 Shoreline Interceptor as-builts, the Keller Beach sanitary sewer pipe is shown to be cast iron pipe encased in concrete. The Class-B concrete encasement is shown with a typical outer dimension of D+12 inches, where D = pipe diameter.

The sanitary sewer is shallowly buried on the beach in sand (per as-builts, most segments have 2-4 feet of cover). Some segments of the concrete-encased sewer are exposed on the beach.

Some manholes were buried at the time of inspection, indicating sand elevations and depth of cover have shifted and varied over time.

Based on the as-builts of the twenty-five (25) sewer structures located within this Shoreline Interceptor pipeline, seventeen (17) are manholes and eight (8) are cleanouts, which the as-builts show to be tees with a plug. There are fifteen (15) bends (fittings) in the sewer main between manhole structures, eight (8) of which are greater than 30 degrees. Four (4) of these bends are greater than 45 degrees.

According to the as-builts, at the time of construction there were the following connections to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer: twenty-two (22) sewer laterals, twenty-nine (29) capped tees (future lateral connection points), a 12-inch branch sewer entering at MH Q-9, and two 8-inch branch sewers entering at Hartnett Street (MH Q-15) and at Marine Street (MH Q-19).

OBSERVATIONS OF SEWER MAIN PRIOR TO CLEANING
Express Sewer provided the following general observations of pipe conditions prior to cleaning.  Severe internal pipe corrosion was observed throughout the pipeline length. Water jetting was insufficient to remove the corrosion and clean the pipe. Express Sewer used a chain flail to descale the pipes, which was effective to descale the upper sections of pipeline (MH Q-17 to MH Q-25), but was less effective for the downstream sections (MH Q-1 to MH Q-17).
 Pipes Full of Water: The pipeline wouldn’t drain when plugged upstream and was holding full of water through most of its length. Standing water appeared to be caused by pipeline sags, the presence of heavy corrosion and deposits that obstructed flows, and possibly infiltration. Standing water was removed during pipe inspections by operating a hydronozzle in the downstream direction in advance of the camera.  Sand Deposits: Much of the pipeline was observed to have substantial sand deposits.

Several pipe segments, particularly between MH Q-14 and MH Q-16, were essentially choked full of sand. Considerable effort was required to remove sand and clean the pipe prior to performing a video inspection. Some segments of pipe refilled with sand within the two-week period between the time of cleaning and the next suitable tide condition when crews returned to complete the video inspection, and needed to be cleaned again. The presence of sand in the sewer main is evidence of the presence of holes or defects in the upstream collection system (either the sewer main, laterals, manholes or cleanouts).

Another contributing source of sand and I&I was MH Q-14 which was discovered to have no manhole cover (the manhole cover has since been replaced). 1468

 Defective Laterals: Several laterals were observable from the beach, either encased in concrete or as exposed cast iron pipe. Some of these laterals have visible breaks or other defects. Broken and defective laterals are considered to be major sources of sand and infiltration in the sewer main s well as possible spills on the bluff and beach. Express Sewer observed pieces of small diameter pipe (broken lateral pipe) in the sewer main, which is further evidence of the presence of defective laterals upstream. We understand that the City is in the process of inspecting and making repairs of these laterals.  Limited Maintenance Access: The cleanout structures (capped tee fittings described as lampholes in Appendix A, Sewer Express Notes) were too small to allow for use of the preferred cleaning and CCTV inspection equipment. The tighter bends in the pipe also limited camera access.
 Buried Manholes: At the time of inspection, MH Q-4 and MH Q-5 were buried. They were uncovered and extended to the surface with ABS pipe for the purpose of the inspection efforts.
 Work Hours Limited due to Tide Constraints: Cleaning and CCTV inspection work periods were limited to 3-4 hours during negative/low tide conditions. This necessarily resulted in video inspections being rushed.

SEWER CLEANING
Express Sewer conducted pipe cleaning prior to CCTV inspection of the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer. Prior to cleaning, most segments were impassable to camera equipment due to high levels of sand and deposits and tuberculated pipe corrosion.

Extensive pipe cleaning was conducted, including high-pressure water jetting with a hydronozzle, chain flailing to break off (descale) corroded tubercules, and removal of sand and deposits.

According to Express Sewer, pipe cleaning took many hours for most segments due to the high levels of accumulated sand and deposits (particularly near MHs Q-9, Q-14 and Q-15) and/or pipe corrosion that was resistant to descaling.

Figure 1. View of Keller Beach sewer pipe prior to cleaning. Hydro nozzle is in use. Chain flail is in view. 1469

CCTV INSPECTION
At the time of Coastland’s review of the CCTV videos, Express Sewer’s CCTV inspections had been conducted between MH Q-1 and MH Q-9, and between MH Q-13 and MH Q-25. No inspections have yet been conducted of the 1,144 feet of sanitary sewer between MH Q-9 and MH Q-13.

Express Sewer prepared an exhibit of sewer video locations and a spreadsheet with inspection notes (attached as Appendix A). The exhibit and spreadsheet have color coding for each sewer segment indicating various inspection results. Green colored segments indicate segments where the video captured clear visual images of the pipe interior. Yellow colored sewer segments indicate partial or limited visual images of the pipe interior. CCTV inspection of the remaining sewer segments (red-colored in spreadsheet, not colored on exhibit) did not obtain a clear visual image of the pipe or video inspection was not completed.

The CCTV video inspections conducted to date consist of 4,221 feet of pipe (out of the 5,392 linear feet of sewer per the as-builts). According to Sewer Express, the videos had the following characteristics:
 2,735 feet of clear visual inspection (green coded)
 1,108 feet of limited clear visual inspection (yellow coded)  379 feet of incomplete or not completed video (red coded) Eight of the videos were incomplete. Five of the incomplete videos recorded inspections for less than 50% of the pipe length. Three of the incomplete videos did not have distances measured so their lengths are unknown. Incomplete videos were generally caused by pipe obstructions, impassable bends, poor access which prevented the inspectors from using the equipment needed to drawdown the water level in the pipe, or for unknown reasons.

REVIEW OF CCTV INSPECTION
Coastland reviewed CCTV videos and prepared inspection reports for each segment as discussed in the section above. All comments are based on NASSCO PACP standards and guidelines. The CCTV inspection reports are attached as Appendix B. A summary table of CCTV inspection observations is included as Table 1.

CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT
Our assessment of pipe conditions was limited to the portions of the pipe that were observable on the inspection video. Most of the CCTV inspection videos are of poor quality in terms of presenting a complete view of wall conditions throughout the entire length of pipe. The CCTV inspections were conducted under extremely difficult site limitations and time restraints (due to tide) so the resulting poor video quality is expected and understandable. Several inspections were incomplete due to obstructions or camera being underwater. Other inspections were blurry or shaky and taken at high speed. Often there were significant periods where the camera was underwater (with zero visibility) or the camera was pointed at the soffit and only portions of the pipe were visible.

A general assessment of pipe deficiencies are summarized below. 1470

Interior Pipe Wall Conditions
According to Express Sewer, the entire reach of Keller Beach sanitary sewer was extremely corroded prior to cleaning. As shown in the post-cleaning images below, the upstream reach of pipe (MH Q-17 to MH Q-25) was generally descaled, while further downstream (MH Q-1 to MHQ17) extensive turberculation and wall roughness remains.

MH Q-1 to MH Q-2 MH Q-2 to MH Q-3
MH Q-3 to MH Q-4 MH Q-4 to MH Q-5
MH Q-5 to CO Q-6 CO Q-6 to CO Q-8
(MH Q-7 was not constructed)
1471

CO Q-8 to MH Q-9
No CCTV provided between
MH Q-9 and MH Q-13
MH Q-13 to MH Q-14 MH Q-14 to MH Q-15
MH Q-15 to CO Q-16 CO Q-16 to MH Q-17
MH Q-17 to CO Q-18 CO Q-18 to MH Q-19
1472

MH Q-19 to CO Q-20 CO Q-20 to CO Q-22
CO Q-22 to CO Q-24
(blurry – poor visual)
CO Q-24 to MH Q-25
No holes or cracks were observed in any segment (that was visible) of the Keller Beach sanitary sewer main, though the pipe walls show extensive evidence of pipe corrosion. Corrosion of the pipe walls (with a decrease of the pipe’s structural integrity) has resulted over time due to the presence of corrosive hydrogen sulfide gas, a natural sewer gas, in the unlined pipe. The presence of extensive sags and pipe obstructions further exacerbate the problem by causing organic solids to settle and increases localized hydrogen sulfide gas production in the pipe.

Corrosion will continue to deteriorate the pipe’s structural integrity as long as the pipe remains exposed to sewage gases.

Sags in Pipe Profile
In the Keller Beach sanitary sewer, most segments were observed to remain full of water after cleaning, even after the upstream flow has been plugged. Non-draining gravity pipes are generally caused by sags in the pipe profile or obstructions/pipe roughness. All of these conditions are present in the Keller Beach sanitary sewer to varying degrees.

When water levels are high enough for the camera to be submerged underwater, that is generally an indication of a severe sag in the pipe. Moderate to severe sags were present in twelve (12) of the seventeen (17) inspected pipe segments.

Sags in the pipe profile have likely resulted from inconsistent pipe support from the subgrade due to shifting sand under and around the pipe. Sags are expected to worsen as the pipe’s structural integrity weakens.

Broken Laterals and Missing MH cover
Prior to cleaning, several segments of the pipe were choked with sand, which is evidence of breaks in the collection system, which allows inflow of seawater and sand into the sewer collection 1473

system. Some segments reportably refilled with sand in two weeks, suggesting the defects are extensive. Recent inspection by Bayhawk of sewer laterals on the beach has shown evidence of cracks and breaks. The City is currently undergoing the assessment and repair of these laterals which should significantly reduce the inflow of seawater and sand into Keller Beach sanitary sewer.

CONCLUSIONS
Coastland draws the following conclusions based on our CCTV assessment and understanding of the site conditions.

Poor Pipe Conditions
The Keller Beach sanitary sewer has been in service for approximately 62 years and has reached the end of its useful design life. The pipe that is visible and CCTV inspected is highly corroded and the remaining wall thickness and structural strength is unknown, but clearly compromised.

The sewer main has been partially descaled but remains weakened and increasingly prone to cracks and breaks. The pipe’s profile has extensive sags, and will continue to sag and adjust due to its location in the surf zone under the force of shifting sand and wave action. Laterals are in poor condition with known and suspected defects which the City/Homeowners are obligated to correct.

Poor Access Conditions
Access is poor to the Keller Beach Sewer which makes repair and maintenance difficult and expensive. Access issues include:
 Lack of vehicle access to the sewer main on the beach.  Limited foot traffic access due to private property and cliffs.  Work periods that are restricted to negative/low tide conditions (often 3-4 hours). The sewer pipe is underwater and inaccessible during normal tide conditions.  Lack of manholes at sharp bends in the sewer alignment. Bends greater than 30 degrees can block equipment access for maintenance and inspection.  Cleanout structures are too small to allow equipment access for maintenance and inspection.
 Manhole lids are corroded shut and must be replaced whenever they are opened.  Beach access is slippery and creates a hazardous work condition.

High Risk of Environmental Impacts in the Event of Pipe Failure Due to the sewer main’s location in the bay, a pipe failure would cause significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

Environmental Permitting
Environmental permits will most likely be required for improvements to the sanitary sewer system and may be very difficult to obtain.
1474

RECOMMENDATIONS
Coastland recommends that the City take immediate action to address the following deficiencies in the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer:
 Poor conditions of the sewer main pipe, access points, and laterals;  Poor access conditions for repair and maintenance; and  High risks and costly environmental impacts in the event of a pipe failure.

For the City’s consideration, Coastland offers two options for making the needed improvements:
repair of the existing system in place, and replacing the sewer main in a new location.

Option 1: Repair of the Existing Sewer Main
The preferred method of repairing the sewer main in place would be Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) lining, which is a completely trenchless repair method which involves a heat or UV-cured resinimpregnated “sock” liner that can be installed through manholes. Express Sewer, a CIPP contractor, evaluated the possibility of CIPP-lining the sewer main and considered the project doable but expensive. The following tasks would likely be required:
 Repair the sewer laterals that are causing the sewer main to fill with sand (in progress).

Sewer laterals that are broken or crushed will need to be replaced and reconnected to the sewer main.
 Descale the pipe walls of the lower portion of the sewer main and remaining pipe segments not yet cleaned or CCTV inspected using robotic equipment to remove tuberculation and roughness. It should be verified that descaling can be done to the degree that CIPP lining can be applied.
 Install manholes at tight bends and as needed for equipment access. This task would require open cut excavation and a system to dewater/dam the excavation area.

Environmental permitting may not allow for open cut excavation in the bay.  CIPP-line the sewer mains.
 CIPP-line the sewer laterals (if possible) and seal the lateral/main connection with a tophat.

The benefits of CIPP-lining the sewer main would be to prevent further corrosion and extend the design life of the sewer main. The CIPP-liner would provide some minimal structural wall strength, but would not fully recover the lost pipe strength and ductility which is unknown.

Additional assessment of the existing cast iron pipe thickness and strength would be needed to evaluate whether the CIPP-lined sanitary sewer main would provide sufficient strength to withstand site conditions. The extended design life of the CIPP-lined pipe is difficult to predict.

The drawbacks of the CIPP liner option are that the repair:
 Does not provide a full new construction design life to the sewer main facilities,  Does not correct sags, and the pipe profile will continue to adjust and degrade,  Does not address the poor maintenance access, and
 Does not address the high-risk and cost of sanitary sewer overflows into the bay in the event of a pipe break,
1475

 Is an extremely costly repair.
 Environmental permits will most likely be required for improvements to the sanitary sewer system and may be very difficult to obtain.

Option 2: Replacement of the Keller Beach Sewer in a New Location The replacement of the Keller Beach Sewer in a new location would involve the following tasks:
 Conceptual design of lift stations and alignment options,  Alternative Analysis,
 Survey,
 Land or Easement Acquisition,
 Detailed Design,
 Permitting,
 Funding Acquisition,
 Construction of new sewer main and lift stations/Abandonment or removal of existing facilities, and
 Installation of residential lift stations in houses below the proposed sewer main.

The benefits of this option is that it is capable of addressing all the deficiencies of the existing Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer, and providing a full design life for the new facilities.

The major drawbacks of the sanitary sewer main replacement options are that it:
 Is an extremely costly project,
 Would take years to implement, and
 Would need numerous Homeowners’ participation.

Coastland’s preliminary assessment is that Option 1: CIPP-lining the Keller Beach sewer main may be constructable with additional study (additional CCTV, descaling and pipe material thickness study), but is an expensive repair that does not sufficiently address the deficiencies of the system to render it a cost-effective solution. In addition, environmental permits will most likely be required for improvements to the sanitary sewer system and may be very difficult to obtain. Option 2: Replacement of the Keller Beach Sewer is an expensive solution but it addresses all the system deficiencies. Coastland considers the high cost of replacement to be a necessary expense to avoid the high risk of pipe failure due to aged sanitary sewer system that is difficult to maintain.

Coastland advises the City to conduct its own assessment and take immediate action to address the Keller Beach sanitary sewer deficiencies.

In the short term, Coastland supports the City’s in-progress efforts to CCTV inspect and repair or replace the sewer laterals connecting to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer. 1476
11/17/2021 3:52 PM Page 1 of 3
Coastland/NCE/City of Richmond
Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Table 1. Summary Table of CCTV Inspection Observations
Downstream
MH
Upstream
MH
Direction
of Survey
Pipe
Length
Inspection
Length
% of Pipe
Inspected
Pipe
Size (in)
Pipe
Material Interior Pipe Wall Condition Water Level Conditionduring Inspection Pipe Features Observed General Inspection Notes MH Q-1 MH Q-2 DS 393 153 39% 12 CI
Severe roughness remains after
descaling efforts, especially on
top half of pipe.

Pipe holding full of water; Water
surface pulled down by
hydronozzle, even so pipe was
typically 20-50% full; Moderate
to severe sags
Start at MH Q-2;
Did not reach MH Q-1;
No laterals observed
Distance indicated on camera was
not accurate; Forward progress in
camera stopped due to obstruction
MH Q-2 MH Q-3 DS 139 139 100% 12 CI
Severe roughness remains after
descaling efforts, especially on
top half of pipe.

Pipe holding full of water; Water
surface pulled down by
hydronozzle, even so pipe was
typically 20-50% full; Moderate
to severe sags
Start at MH Q-3;
Inspection ended at MH Q-2;
No laterals
Complete inspection
MH Q-3 MH Q-4 DS 242 242 100% 12 CI
Severe roughness remains after
descaling efforts, especially on
top half of pipe.

Pipe holding full of water; Water
surface pulled down by
hydronozzle. Water level
5-10% during inspection
Start at MH Q-4;
Inspection ended at MH Q-3;
2 laterals observed
Complete inspection
MH Q-4 MH Q-5 DS 219 Unknown Unknown 12 CI
Severe roughness remains after
descaling efforts. Infiltration
runner observed (at 21:20
minutes)
Pipe holding full of water; Water
surface pulled down by
hydronozzle. Water level
5-10% during inspection
Start at MH Q-5;
Did not reach MH Q-4;
No laterals observed
Distance indicated on camera was
not accurate; Camera stopped due
to unknown impediment
MH Q-4 MH Q-5 US 219 96 44% 12 CI
Severe roughness remains after
descaling efforts, especially top
half of pipe.

Pipe holding full of water; Water
surface pulled down by
hydronozzle, even so pipe was
typically 5-40% full; Moderate
sags
Start at MH Q-4;
Did not reach MH Q-5;
6" sewer connected at
MH Q-4
Distance indicator working;
Inspection abandoned by debris in
pipe.

MH Q-5 CO Q-6
DS
(reverse) 305 291 95% 12 CI
Significant/Severe roughness
remains after descaling efforts.

Pipe holding almost full of water;
Camera underwater; Severe sags
Start at CO Q-6;
Did not reach MH Q-5;
No laterals observed
Inspected in reverse. Distance
indicator not working. Poor visual -
view obscured by pull-rope. No
survey from CO-6 for 14.3'.

Inspection abandoned at sharp 30-
degree bend.

CO Q-6
CO Q-8
(MH Q-7
was not
constructed)
DS
(reverse) 357 Unknown Unknown 12 CI
Unknown: Pipe wall visible for
only 11 seconds of video. Severe
roughness remains after
descaling efforts.

Pipe full of water during survey:

Camera underwater; Severe sags
Start at CO Q-8;
Did not reach CO Q-6;
No laterals observed
Pull back with push camera;
Unusable footage due to equipment
limitations because of poor access;
Only visual was 11 seconds on
partial pipe wall (16:08 - 16:19)
CO Q-8 MH Q-9 DS 182 21.7 12% 12 CI
Significant/Severe roughness
remains after descaling efforts.

Only 22' of pipe was observed.

Inspectors unable to plug off
flows for TV inspection due to
large line coming in from
neighborhood. Pipe at start
flowing 40-50%. Camera
underwater; Severe sags
Start at MH Q-9;
Did not reach CO Q-8;
No laterals observed
Camera blocked by tuburculated
corrosion at 22'
MH Q-9 MH Q-10 257 0 0% 12 CI No CCTV provided
MH Q-10 CO Q-11 166 0 0% 12 CI No CCTV provided
CO Q-11 MH Q-12 393 0 0% 12 CI No CCTV provided
MH Q-12 MH Q-13 328 0 0% 12 CI No CCTV provided
1477
11/17/2021 3:52 PM Page 2 of 3
MH Q-13 MH Q-14 DS 261 261 100% 12 CI
Significant/severe roughness
observed, expecially top half of
pipe; Grease observed
Pipe was empty during
inspection. Water surface pulled
down by hydronozzle. Camera
underwater
Start at MH Q-14;
Intruding lateral at 161.1';
Inspection ended at MH Q-13
Complete inspection
MH Q-14 MH Q-15 DS 173 Unknown Unknown 12 CI
Severe roughness observed,
expecially top half of pipe; Deep
sags present throughout pipe
Water level 25-100%; Camera
underwater; Severe sags
Start at MH Q-15;
Did not reach MH Q-14;
High-flowing lateral into MH Q-15;
Visual poor due to high water level
MH Q-15 CO Q-16 DS 252 45 18% 10 CI
Severe roughness observed,
especially top half of pipe.

Water level 15-50%; Moderate to
severe sags
Start at CO Q-16;
Did not reach MH Q-15
Camera blocked by tuburculated
corrosion at 45'
MH Q-15 CO Q-16 US 252 15 6% 10 CI
Unknown:

No pipe visual
Inspectors unable to drawdown
water due to reverse setup;
Camera underwater 0-15'+;
Severe sag
Start at MH Q-15;
Did not reach CO Q-16;
No visual due to high water;
Inspection abandoned at 15'; Could
not drawdown water due to poor
access conditions from CO;
CO Q-16 MH Q-17 DS 207 208 100% 10 CI
Significant/Severe roughness
observed
Water level 5-50%; Moderate to
severe sags
Start at MH Q-17;
Lateral at 188.1';
Bend at 206';
Ended at CO Q-16
Good pipe visual; Difficulty passing
bend in pipe
MH Q-17 CO Q-18
DS
(reverse) 246 246 100% 10 CI
Pipe visual is poor; Where pipe is
clear, pipe appears to be fully
descaled. Evidence of significant
pipe corrosion, especially top half
of pipe.

Water level 5-100%
Severe sags (camera underwater)
last third of pipe up to MH Q-17
Start at MH Q-17;
Push cam to CO Q-18;
Pull back with hydronozzle;
Ended at CO Q-18
Poor pipe visual; rapid/shaky
footage; only one side of pipe in
view; no stills to inspect pipe
condition; distance meter not
working
CO Q-18 MH Q-19
US
(reverse) 185 185 100% 10 CI
Pipe walls are fully descaled after
cleaning. Rough wall surface.

Pipe holds water, may be due to
sags. Water level 10-20% in
reverse footage
Start at MH Q-19;
Push cam to CO Q-18;
Pull back with hydronozzle;
2 laterals observed;
Ended at MH Q-19
Pipe inspected in reverse. MH Q-19
appears to be possible source of I/I
and should be inspected.

MH Q-19 CO Q-20 DS 201 201 100% 8 CI
Pipe walls are fully descaled after
cleaning. Rough wall surface.

Water level 5-100%
Severe sags (camera underwater)
Start at CO Q-20;
Push cam to MH Q-19;
Pull back with hydronozzle;
1 lateral observed at 5';
Ended at CO Q-20
Push cam operated in reverse. Poor
visual: rapid/shaky footage; no stills
to inspect wall condition
CO Q-20 CO Q-22
US
(reverse) 273 273 100% 8 CI
Rough wall surface. Pipe walls
are fully descaled after cleaning.

Poor visual (blurry and rapid
return footage)
Low water level in most of
reverse footage due to
hydronozzle. Severe sags; Camera
underwater 206'-226'
Start at CO Q-22;
Ended at CO Q-20;
Pull back with hydronozzle;
Ended at CO Q-22
Push cam operated in reverse. Poor
visual: rapid/shaky footage; no stills
to inspect wall condition
CO Q-22 CO Q-24
DS
(reverse) 344 344 100% 8 CI
Very poor visual (blurry and
rapid). Rough wall surface. Pipe
walls appear to be fully descaled
after cleaning.

Low water level in footage due to
hydronozzle.

Start at CO Q-24;
End at CO Q-22
Push cam operated in reverse. Poor
visual: rapid/shaky footage; no stills
to inspect wall condition
CO Q-24 MH Q-25 DS 307 274 89% 8 CI
Rough wall surface. Pipe walls
are fully descaled after cleaning.

Poor visual (blurry and rapid
return footage)
Water level 5-25%
Start at MH Q-25;
2 laterals observed;
Did not reach CO Q-24
Push cam operated in reverse. Poor
visual: rapid/shaky footage; no stills
to inspect wall condition; complete
inspection (including US footage)
Coastland/NCE/City of Richmond
Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Table 1. Summary Table of CCTV Inspection Observations
Downstream
MH
Upstream
MH
Direction
of Survey
Pipe
Length
Inspection
Length
% of Pipe
Inspected
Pipe
Size (in)
Pipe
Material Interior Pipe Wall Condition Water Level Conditionduring Inspection Pipe Features Observed General Inspection Notes 1478
11/17/2021 3:52 PM Page 3 of 3
CO Q-24 MH Q-25 US 307 70 23% 8 CI
Rough wall surface. Pipe walls
are fully descaled after cleaning.

Poor visual (rapid footage)
Water level 5-10%
Start at CO Q-24;
1 lateral observed (overlapping
DS inspection);
Did not reach MH Q-25
Push cam operated in reverse. Poor
visual: rapid/shaky footage; no stills
to inspect wall condition; complete
inspection (including DS footage)
Coastland/NCE/City of Richmond
Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Table 1. Summary Table of CCTV Inspection Observations
Downstream
MH
Upstream
MH
Direction
of Survey
Pipe
Length
Inspection
Length
% of Pipe
Inspected
Pipe
Size (in)
Pipe
Material Interior Pipe Wall Condition Water Level Conditionduring Inspection Pipe Features Observed General Inspection Notes 1479
APPENDIX A:

EXPRESS SEWER NOTES AND EXHIBIT
1480
City of Richmond
Keller Beach Sewer Video Notes
Start Node End Node Distance Notes
MH 4 MH 3 237.0
Left Tap @ 78.8'
Left Tap @ 210.3'
Clear visual
MH 3 MH 2 137.0 Pipe holding full pipe water, used Vaccon to pull water down for TV inspection MH 2 MH 1 393.0 Pipe holding full pipe water, used Vaccon to pull water down for TV inspection MH 5 MH 4 233.0 Pipe holding full pipe water, used Vaccon to pull water down for TV inspection Part 1 MH 4 MH 5 96.0 Pipe holding full pipe water, used Vaccon to pull water down for TV inspection Part 2 CO 6 MH 5 320.0
Pipe holding almost full pipe water, no acces with mainline TV camera from US CO. Inspected from downstream to upstream CO-06. Pulled back camera while recording to capture visual of pipe. Operator wheel rolled distance and made it to MH 5 Clear visual from 319.8' - 203.8'
Belly from 203.8' (Approximately 3 - 5 ft no clear visual) hard to determine due to distance staying at 203.8' on pull back.

Clear visual approximately from 198.8' - 58.1'
Belly approximately from 58.1' - 14.3', TV truck got a visual up to the bend There is still an unclear visual from CO 6 up to 14.3'
CO 8 CO 6 357.0
Pipe holding full pipe water, no accress thru lamphole for mainline TV camera, camerad with push camera and pulled back live.Clear visual @ 16:08 - 16:19 from video (Distance stayed at

0.0 Ft throughout video, couldn't determine distance).

Operator wheeled rolled distance from CO 8 to CO 6. 357' MH 9 CO 8 21.7
Unable to plug off flows for TV inspection due to large line coming in from neighborhood.

Pipe at start flowing 40-50%. Clear visual up to 21.7'
Unable to pass corrosion in pipe at 21.7'. Pipe has severe scaling that camera could not pass and cleaning crew could not remove with chain flail.

Line is incomplete
MH 17 CO 16 208.0
Pipe is in fair condition, some areas of moderate to severe scaling. Left Tap @ 188.1' 45 bend in pipe 3' from CO 16
CO 16 MH 15 45.0
Attempted to Tv inspect pipe from MH15 reverse but too much water to get visual. Set up from MH 17, ran camera down to CO16. Started TV inspection, Clear visual to 45 ft.

Severe corrosion @ 45.3', unable to pass
Did not meet up, line is incomplete Part 1
MH 15 CO 16 153.0
Belly from 0.0' - 15.3'
Unable to Camera due to line holding water and reverse setup Did not meet up, line is incomplete Part 2
MH 19 CO 18 189.0
Mainline holds water, Tv insopected while Jetting to pull water out of pipe. Captured clear video of pipe during pull back with footage. Left Tap @ 42.5' Left Tap @ 94.4'
Clear visual from pull back
CO 18 MH 17 246.0
Unable to access with main line camera, unable to push with push camera, operator had to pull push camera in with hydro nozzle and then video while pulling camera back. There are sections in the video that have clear and not clear visual.

Operator made it to MH 17. Footage distance shows 0.0 throughtout due to process.

Operator verifies footage with wheel roller.

CO 20 MH 19 201.0 Clear visual
CO 22 CO 20 275.0
Unable to access with main line camera, unable to push with push camera, operator had to pull push camera in with hydro nozzle and then video while pulling camera back, 7:08 mark CO 24 CO 22 344.0
Unable to access with main line camera, unable to push with push camera, operator had to pull push camera in with hydro nozzle and then video while pulling camera back with hydro running to capture video. Footage distance shows 0.0 throughtout due to process. operator verifies footage with wheel roller.

MH 25 CO 24 274.0
Left Tap @ 232'10"
Left Tap @ 177'4"
No clear visual from 0'0" - 13'0"
Line is incomplete
Overlapped with inspection #2, confirmed by locating Part 1 CO 24 MH 25 70.0
Right Tap @ 58'7"
Right Tap @ 67'5"
Overlapped with inspection #1, confirmed by locating Part 2 MH 15 MH 14 162.0
Pipe Has poor grade , crew fighting water and areas of corrosion in pipe. Crew had to follow hydro nozzle close for visual. Close to nozzle video 0 - 162' then debris, unable to pass end of video
MH 14 MH 13 260.0
Left Tap @ 161.2'
Clear Visual
Segment of belly @ 232.0' - 242.4' 1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
APPENDIX B:

CCTV INSPECTION REPORTS
1490
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 3/22/2021 Length: 152.8' inspected out of 393' (incomplete) Street: 3+92.95 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-2 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-1 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/
Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-2
MWL
>50%
Only top of pipe
visible

0.5 Severe internal
corrosion

16.2 Severe internal
corrosion

16.2 MWL
20%
Severe internal
corrosion

16.2 MGO
cam in pipe view
17m44s, mostly under
water
1491

16.2 MWL 20% with vac wash

16.2 MGP 09 unk, possible tap?
(18:32)

16.2 SCP 08-03 S01 (18:34)
1492

16.2 MGP 09 unk, unsure if void
(18:41)

43.5 MCU cam tilted & aimed to
soffit right after

64.0 MCU Camera underwater

66.4 MGO cam stationary 26m to
40m,

77.1 MGO cam in motion but
choppy video
131.2 MWL 35%
131.2 MGO cam stationary,
difficulty moving
forward
152.8 OBZ 03-09
no forward progress
from here (51:30 to
end of video)
152.8 MSA Survey abandoned
1493
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 3/22/2021 Total Length: 139' - complete inspection Street: 5+29.63 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-3 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-2 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Positi
on
Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-3

0.0 MWL 20% with power wash

0.0 SZ 09-04 S01, is this SCP?

15.1 SZ F01

15.1 SZ 07-05 S02, throughout line

99.5 OBR 04-08 20%, removed by jet wash
105.3 DAZ 05, 07 S03
122.7 DAZ F03
123.9 MWL(S) 40%, S04
130.8 MGO cam rotated 90 degrees
132.1 MGO
equip issue, cam has no
traction
1494
140.4 AMH Q-2, adjusted from 137.3
1495
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 3/22/2021 Total Length: 242' - complete inspection Street: 7+71.85 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-4 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-3 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-4

0.0 MWL 10%

0.0 SCP 07-04 S01

6.0 OBZ 04-08

21.9 MGP 10 possible TFC

46.0 MWL 5%

78.8 TFA 09 adjusted distance, was 82.5
on approach
101.3 OBZ 04-08 S02 repetitive
210.3 TFA 09 adjusted distance, was 212.3
on approach
237.4 AMH Q-3, dist adjusted from 239.4
1496
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 3/23/2021 Total Length: Unknown distance inspected out of 219' (incomplete) Street: 9+90.03 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-5 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-4 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image
0*
Minutes of video
because distance
indicator was not
working
AMH Q-5

0.0 MWL 20%

0.0 SCP 07-05 S01
16:12 MGP dist adjusted to 232.8 prior to
start of survey
17:00 MGO distance remains 232.8 during
survey
17:59 OBZ 04-08
18:09 MWL 5%
21:20 IR 2:00 Infiltration runner
46:47 OBZ 03-09 30% blocked
47:33 to end MGO-MSA
no progress, would eventually
lose visibility (possibly MCU),
not completed
1497
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 3/24/2021 Total Length: 96' out of 219' (incomplete) Street: 9+90.03 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-5 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-4 Direction of Video: Upstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-4:

0.0 MWL 20% Lateral at manhole

0.0 SCP 07-05 S01

17.6 MGO cam unsteady

20.7 SCP

22.3 MWL 40%

88.9 MGP debris

96.1 MWL 5%

96.1 MSA Abandoned, 2 of 2
1498
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/2/2021 Total Length: 319.8'
Street: 12+95.89 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-6 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-5 Direction of Video: Downstream (reverse) Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH At MH Q-5

0.0 MCU S01 Camera underwater (no image)
319.8 MCU F01 Camera underwater (no image)
319.8 ACO At MH Q-6
319.8 MGO
camera on grade, in reverse
(pulled); distance remains
319.8
10:56 SCP 07-05 S02
11:47 MWL 20%
12:11 MCU S03 Camera underwater (no image)
20:53 MCU F03 Camera underwater (no image)
23:03 MCU S04 Camera underwater (no image)
34:03 MGO camera stopped, 14.3'
distance; possibly at bend
34:24 MGO end of survey
1499
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/5/2021 Total Length: Unknown distance out of 357' Street: 16+52.06 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-8 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: CO Q-6 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.00 ACO At CO Q-8
MGP
16:08 - 16:19 per survey, 6
seconds:

Camera in reverse, mostly
MCU, DAE/DAGS 08-09

0.00 MSA no usable footage
1500

CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/7/2021 Total Length: 21.7' inspected out of 182' (incomplete) Street: 18+08.07 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-9 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: CO Q-8 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-9

0.0 MWL

4.9 SCP 03

5.9 MWL 50%

6.5 MCU Camera underwater

7.3 MGP out of MCU

8.9 MGP possible RMB

9.0 MCU Camera underwater (no images)

11.7 DAE 09-03 S01

13.9 DAE 09-03 S01, distance adjusted

6.0 MGP distance adjusted from 13.9

6.0 MCU Camera underwater (no images)

10.9 MGP out of MCU, distance
adjusted

13.1 MCU S02 Camera underwater (no images)
Camera underwater (no images)

21.7 MCU F02 Camera underwater (no images)

21.7 MSA no forward progress Camera underwater (no images) 1501

CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 7/14/2021 Total Length: 260 - complete inspection Street: 32+05.23 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-14 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-13 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-14

0.0 MWL 20%

0.0 MGP prewash, MWL to 5%

0.0 SRI 09-03 S01

10.3 SCP 08-05 at joint

28.7 SCP 08-04

71.3 SCP 08-02

78.1 SSS 02 S01

85.4 SSS F01
102.5 SSS 10 S02
109.4 SSS F02
109.4 SCP 07-05 at joint
1502

111.3 SSS 11-01
116.1 SSS 02
123.4 SSS 10-03
126.6 SCP 09-05 at joint
136.9 SSS 10-03 S03
154.4 MWL 20%
161.1 TBI 11 1-inch intrusion
197.0 MWLS 50%, S04
203.8 SCP 09-04
210.0 SCP 09-04 at joint
215.3 MGP 03
232.2 H or SCP 01
231.2 MGO-MCU cam aimed at soffit Camera underwater (no image) 255.5 MCU Camera underwater (no image)
260.0 AMH Q-13
1503
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 5/28/2021 Total Length: Unknown distance out of 173' - incomplete Street: 33+78.23 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-15 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-14 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-15

0.0 MWL 25%

0.0 SSS 09-03 S01

7.3 MGO cam titled 90 deg left

15.8 SSS F01

15.8 SCP 09-03 S02

19.7 MCU Camera underwater (no image)

53.8 54.4 MCU Camera underwater (no image)

74.6 OBZ 02-09
- MGO-MSA
poor visibility, multiple
blackouts/MCU thorughout
remainder of video (from 44-
min mark to end)
1504
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/21/2021 Total Length: 45' out of 252' (incomplete) Street: 36+30.20 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-16 Pipe Diameter: 10"
Downstream MH: MH Q-15 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 ACO At CO Q-16

0.0 MWL 50%

0.0 DAE 09-03 S01

3.9 MCU Camera underwater (no image)

5.6 DAE F01

5.6 MWL 25%

6.0 SSC 10-02 S02

40.2 SSC F02

41.4 SCP 12-12 at/near joint

44.3 to 45.2 MGP 12-03

45.3 MSA Abandoned, equipment
retrieved Inspection incomplete due to severe corrosion obstruction 1505
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/22/2021 Total Length: 15.3' out of 252' (incomplete) Street: 36+30.20 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-16 Pipe Diameter: 10"
Downstream MH: MH Q-15 Direction of Video: Upstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.00 AMH Q-15

0.00 MWL 100%

0.00 MGP Surcharged up the structure

0.00 MCU Camera underwater (no image)

6.00 MGP will attempt vac behind cam

15.30 MSA Abandoned
1506

CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/21/2021 Total Length: 207.9 - complete inspection Street: 38+37.70 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-17 Pipe Diameter: 10"
Downstream MH: CO Q-16 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH

0.0 MWL

9.4 SSS 08-12 S01, repetitive throughout

11.7 SRI 09-03 S02
111.2 MWL 40%
141.3 SCP 08-04
147.4 SCP 08-04
148.1 MGP cam mostly submerged,
difficulty with forward motion
163.9 SCP 08-04
184.2 SCP 08-04
1507

188.1 TF 09, w/ OBZ 03-09, 50%
188.3 MWL 40%, submerged
195.6 MGP used VAC to drop MWL,
unsure if there's MWLS
203.0 MGO cam stationary for minutes,
no forward progress
Difficulty passing bend in pipe
207.9 ACO Q-16; mid-line, looks more
like TFC 11 o'clock
1508
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/30/2021 Total Length: 246 - complete inspection Street: 40+83.63 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-18 Pipe Diameter: 10"
Downstream MH: MH Q-17 Direction of Video: Downstream (Push camera with hydronozzle in reverse) Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 ACO At CO Q-18

0.0 MWL surcharged at structure

0.0 MGO
footage out of focus, appears
to be pushing cam on
grade/invert; distance
remains 0.0' throughout
06:51 MGP-AMH
At MH Q-17 per survey note;
cam on grade (not
centered/elevated); blurred,
out of focus; footage by video
timestamp, not by distance,
cam in reverse
07:49 MGO start of reverse footage
07:57 MWL 40%, out of focus
07:58 MCU Camera underwater (no image)
08:05 OBZ 05-07 S01, debris
08:47 MGO cam unstable
09:23 MGO cam unstable
14:05 ACO At CO Q-18, end of reverse
footage
1509

CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/29/2021 Total Length: 185 - complete inspection Street: 42+68.13 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-19 Pipe Diameter: 10"
Downstream MH: CO Q-18 Direction of Video: Upstream (Push camera with hydronozzle in reverse) Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-19

0.2 MWL 20% (20:53)

0.5 SSS 10-02 S01, throughout pipe

24.9 MGP abrupt drop

29.3 MWL 10%

42.5 TBI 11 4" lat, 2" intrusion

91.9 obz 04-08

94.4 TF 09 4" lat
134.6 OBZ 03-09 50% blocked, chain flailed
140.7 MGO blackout, no actrivity 10:35 -
42:00

94.8 MGP
42:00 resumed, dist from
140.7, may have been
retrieved
119.1 MGO turbulent footage (44:39)
124.9 MCU (46:07) Camera underwater (no image)
1510

131.5 MGO cam tilted 90d
counterclockwise
132.7 MCU Camera underwater (no image)
156.5 MGO blacked out approx 5min
159.7 MGO cam too close to cleaning
equip, very poor visibility
173.4 MGO-MCU blackout, no visibility (1:01:13
to 1:44:05) Camera underwater (no image)
173.7 MGO turbulent footage, cam very
close to cleaning equip
189.2 ACO Q-18
189.2 MGO reverse survey, no new
findings

0.0 AMH Q-19
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/29/2021 Total Length: 185 - complete inspection Street: 42+68.13 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-19 Pipe Diameter: 10"
Downstream MH: CO Q-18 Direction of Video: Upstream (Push camera with hydronozzle in reverse) Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image
1511
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 5/4/2021 Total Length: 201' - inspection complete Street: 44+69.26 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-20 Pipe Diameter: 8"
Downstream MH: MH Q-19 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.00 ACO At CO Q-20

0.00 MWL
12' 11" DAGS 03-06 at joint maybe
16' 0" MGO cam unsteady
73' 10" MCU Camera underwater (no image)
111' 10" MWL 10%
112' 7" MCU S01 Camera underwater (no image)
200' 5" MCU F01 Camera underwater (no image)
201' 1" MGO-MCU no visibility Camera underwater (no image) 200' 8" MGO retrieved, reverse
185' 2" SSS-SCP 03-09 unclear
154' 5" MGO turbulent, cam unsteady
5' 3" TB 10 not panned, no other info
-0' 1" MGP
-0' 5" MGP
-0' 5" ACO Q-20
1512
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 5/4/2021 Total Length: 273' - complete inspection Street: 47+42.13 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-22 Pipe Diameter: 8"
Downstream MH: CO Q-20 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image
0' 0" ACO Q-22; turbulent & very poor
visibility throughout
2' 6" MWL 20%
2' 6" TF 09 not panned, other info
8' 9" DAZ 04-08 S01
197' 4 " MGO no visibility 04:41 to 06:16
275' 0" ACO Q-20, start of backwards
survey
273' 7' MCU Camera underwater (no image)
262' 7" MGO
poor visibility throughout,
unable to perform
assessment
1513
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 3/22/2021 Total Length: 344' - complete inspection but low value due to blurry image Street: 58+86.31 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-24 Pipe Diameter: 8"
Downstream MH: CO Q-22 Direction of Video: DS per header Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 ACO At CO Q-24

0.0 MWL 15%

0.0 MGO pushed on grade, 0.0' throughout; footage out of focus 17:05 MGP-ACO
cam on grade (not
centered/elevated); blurred,
out of focus; footage by video
timestamp, not by distance,
cam in reverse
17:19 MCU S01 Camera underwater (no image)
18:47 MCU F01 Camera underwater (no image)
18:54 MWL 15%
18:59 MGO cam out of focus, poor video
quality, unable to review
24:07 DAGS 04-07 S02
24:25 DAGS F02
26:54 ACO
1514
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 5/14/2021 Total Length: 70' out of 307' - incomplete Street: 53+93.25 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-25 Pipe Diameter: 8"
Downstream MH: CO Q-24 Direction of Video: Upstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 ACO Q-24
2' 1" MGP Start of survey
2' 1" MGO
push cam very unsteady; poor
image quality; splashback at
forward motion, frequent
MCU
3' 9" MWS 30%
57' 9" DZ or RBB 03-05
58' 9" T 03 no other info
67' 5" T 03 no other info
70' 0" MSA Abandoned, 2 of 2
1515
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 5/14/2021 Total Length: 274' out of 307' - incomplete Street: 53+93.25 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-25 Pipe Diameter: 8"
Downstream MH: CO Q-24 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image
0' 0" AMH Q-25
1' 3" MCU-MGO turbulent, poor visibility
15' 4" MWL 5%
25' 8" SSS 11-05 at joint
36' 1" MGO cam aimed at 3 o'cl barrel
62' 10" SCP 02-04
78' 6" MGP debris
203' 0" MGP in reverse, general condition
ok
257' 10" MGP in reverse, general condition
ok
274' 0" MSA 11:13, will continue from CO
Q-24 per survey
1516
Santa Rosa | Auburn | Pleasant Hill | Fairfield
www.coastlandcivil.com
Date: January 3, 2022
To: Andre Jadkowski, P.E., NCE
From: Jenny Melman, P.E.,
NASSCO PACP Cert. U-0819-70306761
Subject: City of Richmond
Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer CCTV Review
and Assessment Report
At the City’s request, Coastland has reviewed CCTV video of the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer and conducted an assessment of observed pipe conditions. The CCTV video, dated 3/22/2021 – 8/16/2021, was provided by the City of Richmond’s Contractor, Bayhawk, Inc., and Subcontractor Express Sewer on August 17, 2021. This report presents our findings. Based on these findings and our understanding of site conditions, we also offer preliminary recommendations for a full pipe replacement in a new alignment outside of the bay.

BACKGROUND
Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer
The Keller Beach sanitary sewer, as shown in City of Richmond Line ‘Q’ Shoreline Interceptor asbuilts, consists of 5,392 linear feet of 8- to 12-inch concrete-encased cast iron pipe. The pipeline, constructed in 1959, is located off Keller Beach in the San Francisco Bay and is submerged during average tides. The location of the sewer is indicated by a red line in the image below and extends from sanitary sewer manhole MH Q-1 (adjacent to the Keller Beach sanitary sewer pump station) to sanitary sewer manhole MH Q-25. See Appendix A for an exhibit of sewer main locations and manhole numbering.
1517

Access to the sanitary sewer pipeline for maintenance or repair is extremely difficult because the manholes are submerged during high tides, and vehicles cannot get within fifty feet of the pipeline due to the cliffs and private property. Access for foot traffic is also limited to public beach access and through private properties.

Existing Facilities
According to the 1959 Shoreline Interceptor as-builts, the Keller Beach sanitary sewer pipe is shown to be cast iron pipe encased in concrete. The Class-B concrete encasement is shown with a typical outer dimension of D+12 inches, where D = pipe diameter.

The sanitary sewer is shallowly buried on the beach in sand (per as-builts, most segments have 2-4 feet of cover). Some segments of the concrete-encased sewer are exposed on the beach.

Some manholes were buried at the time of inspection, indicating sand elevations and depth of cover have shifted and varied over time.

Based on the as-builts of the twenty-five (25) sewer structures located within this Shoreline Interceptor pipeline, seventeen (17) are manholes and eight (8) are cleanouts, which the as-builts show to be tees with a plug. There are fifteen (15) bends (fittings) in the sewer main between manhole structures, eight (8) of which are greater than 30 degrees. Four (4) of these bends are greater than 45 degrees.

According to the as-builts, at the time of construction there were the following connections to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer: twenty-two (22) sewer laterals, twenty-nine (29) capped tees (future lateral connection points), a 12-inch branch sewer entering at MH Q-9, and two 8-inch branch sewers entering at Hartnett Street (MH Q-15) and at Marine Street (MH Q-19).

OBSERVATIONS OF SEWER MAIN PRIOR TO CLEANING
Express Sewer provided the following general observations of pipe conditions prior to cleaning.  Severe internal pipe corrosion was observed throughout the pipeline length. Water jetting was insufficient to remove the corrosion and clean the pipe. Express Sewer used a chain flail to descale the pipes, which was effective to descale the upper sections of pipeline (MH Q-17 to MH Q-25), but was less effective for the downstream sections (MH Q-1 to MH Q-17).
 Pipes Full of Water: The pipeline wouldn’t drain when plugged upstream and was holding full of water through most of its length. Standing water appeared to be caused by pipeline sags, the presence of heavy corrosion and deposits that obstructed flows, and possibly infiltration. Standing water was removed during pipe inspections by operating a hydronozzle in the downstream direction in advance of the camera.  Sand Deposits: Much of the pipeline was observed to have substantial sand deposits.

Several pipe segments, particularly between MH Q-14 and MH Q-16, were essentially choked full of sand. Considerable effort was required to remove sand and clean the pipe prior to performing a video inspection. Some segments of pipe refilled with sand within the two-week period between the time of cleaning and the next suitable tide condition when crews returned to complete the video inspection, and needed to be cleaned again. The presence of sand in the sewer main is evidence of the presence of holes or defects in the upstream collection system (either the sewer main, laterals, manholes or cleanouts).

Another contributing source of sand and I&I was MH Q-14 which was discovered to have no manhole cover (the manhole cover has since been replaced). 1518

 Defective Laterals: Several laterals were observable from the beach, either encased in concrete or as exposed cast iron pipe. Some of these laterals have visible breaks or other defects. Broken and defective laterals are considered to be major sources of sand and infiltration in the sewer main s well as possible spills on the bluff and beach. Express Sewer observed pieces of small diameter pipe (broken lateral pipe) in the sewer main, which is further evidence of the presence of defective laterals upstream. We understand that the City is in the process of inspecting and making repairs of these laterals.  Limited Maintenance Access: The cleanout structures (capped tee fittings described as lampholes in Appendix A, Sewer Express Notes) were too small to allow for use of the preferred cleaning and CCTV inspection equipment. The tighter bends in the pipe also limited camera access.
 Buried Manholes: At the time of inspection, MH Q-4 and MH Q-5 were buried. They were uncovered and extended to the surface with ABS pipe for the purpose of the inspection efforts.
 Work Hours Limited due to Tide Constraints: Cleaning and CCTV inspection work periods were limited to 3-4 hours during negative/low tide conditions. This necessarily resulted in video inspections being rushed.

SEWER CLEANING
Express Sewer conducted pipe cleaning prior to CCTV inspection of the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer. Prior to cleaning, most segments were impassable to camera equipment due to high levels of sand and deposits and tuberculated pipe corrosion.

Extensive pipe cleaning was conducted, including high-pressure water jetting with a hydronozzle, chain flailing to break off (descale) corroded tubercules, and removal of sand and deposits.

According to Express Sewer, pipe cleaning took many hours for most segments due to the high levels of accumulated sand and deposits (particularly near MHs Q-9, Q-14 and Q-15) and/or pipe corrosion that was resistant to descaling.

Figure 1. View of Keller Beach sewer pipe prior to cleaning. Hydro nozzle is in use. Chain flail is in view. 1519

CCTV INSPECTION
At the time of Coastland’s review of the CCTV videos, Express Sewer’s CCTV inspections had been conducted between MH Q-1 and MH Q-9, and between MH Q-13 and MH Q-25. No inspections have yet been conducted of the 1,144 feet of sanitary sewer between MH Q-9 and MH Q-13.

Express Sewer prepared an exhibit of sewer video locations and a spreadsheet with inspection notes (attached as Appendix A). The exhibit and spreadsheet have color coding for each sewer segment indicating various inspection results. Green colored segments indicate segments where the video captured clear visual images of the pipe interior. Yellow colored sewer segments indicate partial or limited visual images of the pipe interior. CCTV inspection of the remaining sewer segments (red-colored in spreadsheet, not colored on exhibit) did not obtain a clear visual image of the pipe or video inspection was not completed.

The CCTV video inspections conducted to date consist of 4,221 feet of pipe (out of the 5,392 linear feet of sewer per the as-builts). According to Sewer Express, the videos had the following characteristics:
 2,735 feet of clear visual inspection (green coded)
 1,108 feet of limited clear visual inspection (yellow coded)  379 feet of incomplete or not completed video (red coded) Eight of the videos were incomplete. Five of the incomplete videos recorded inspections for less than 50% of the pipe length. Three of the incomplete videos did not have distances measured so their lengths are unknown. Incomplete videos were generally caused by pipe obstructions, impassable bends, poor access which prevented the inspectors from using the equipment needed to drawdown the water level in the pipe, or for unknown reasons.

REVIEW OF CCTV INSPECTION
Coastland reviewed CCTV videos and prepared inspection reports for each segment as discussed in the section above. All comments are based on NASSCO PACP standards and guidelines. The CCTV inspection reports are attached as Appendix B. A summary table of CCTV inspection observations is included as Table 1.

CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT
Our assessment of pipe conditions was limited to the portions of the pipe that were observable on the inspection video. Most of the CCTV inspection videos are of poor quality in terms of presenting a complete view of wall conditions throughout the entire length of pipe. The CCTV inspections were conducted under extremely difficult site limitations and time restraints (due to tide) so the resulting poor video quality is expected and understandable. Several inspections were incomplete due to obstructions or camera being underwater. Other inspections were blurry or shaky and taken at high speed. Often there were significant periods where the camera was underwater (with zero visibility) or the camera was pointed at the soffit and only portions of the pipe were visible.

A general assessment of pipe deficiencies are summarized below. 1520

Interior Pipe Wall Conditions
According to Express Sewer, the entire reach of Keller Beach sanitary sewer was extremely corroded prior to cleaning. As shown in the post-cleaning images below, the upstream reach of pipe (MH Q-17 to MH Q-25) was generally descaled, while further downstream (MH Q-1 to MHQ17) extensive turberculation and wall roughness remains.

MH Q-1 to MH Q-2 MH Q-2 to MH Q-3
MH Q-3 to MH Q-4 MH Q-4 to MH Q-5
MH Q-5 to CO Q-6 CO Q-6 to CO Q-8
(MH Q-7 was not constructed)
1521

CO Q-8 to MH Q-9
No CCTV provided between
MH Q-9 and MH Q-13
MH Q-13 to MH Q-14 MH Q-14 to MH Q-15
MH Q-15 to CO Q-16 CO Q-16 to MH Q-17
MH Q-17 to CO Q-18 CO Q-18 to MH Q-19
1522

MH Q-19 to CO Q-20 CO Q-20 to CO Q-22
CO Q-22 to CO Q-24
(blurry – poor visual)
CO Q-24 to MH Q-25
No holes or cracks were observed in any segment (that was visible) of the Keller Beach sanitary sewer main, though the pipe walls show extensive evidence of pipe corrosion. Corrosion of the pipe walls (with a decrease of the pipe’s structural integrity) has resulted over time due to the presence of corrosive hydrogen sulfide gas, a natural sewer gas, in the unlined pipe. The presence of extensive sags and pipe obstructions further exacerbate the problem by causing organic solids to settle and increases localized hydrogen sulfide gas production in the pipe.

Corrosion will continue to deteriorate the pipe’s structural integrity as long as the pipe remains exposed to sewage gases.

Sags in Pipe Profile
In the Keller Beach sanitary sewer, most segments were observed to remain full of water after cleaning, even after the upstream flow has been plugged. Non-draining gravity pipes are generally caused by sags in the pipe profile or obstructions/pipe roughness. All of these conditions are present in the Keller Beach sanitary sewer to varying degrees.

When water levels are high enough for the camera to be submerged underwater, that is generally an indication of a severe sag in the pipe. Moderate to severe sags were present in twelve (12) of the seventeen (17) inspected pipe segments.

Sags in the pipe profile have likely resulted from inconsistent pipe support from the subgrade due to shifting sand under and around the pipe. Sags are expected to worsen as the pipe’s structural integrity weakens.

Broken Laterals and Missing MH cover
Prior to cleaning, several segments of the pipe were choked with sand, which is evidence of breaks in the collection system, which allows inflow of seawater and sand into the sewer collection 1523

system. Some segments reportably refilled with sand in two weeks, suggesting the defects are extensive. Recent inspection by Bayhawk of sewer laterals on the beach has shown evidence of cracks and breaks. The City is currently undergoing the assessment and repair of these laterals which should significantly reduce the inflow of seawater and sand into Keller Beach sanitary sewer.

CONCLUSIONS
Coastland draws the following conclusions based on our CCTV assessment and understanding of the site conditions.

Poor Pipe Conditions
The Keller Beach sanitary sewer has been in service for approximately 62 years and has reached the end of its useful design life. The pipe that is visible and CCTV inspected is highly corroded and the remaining wall thickness and structural strength is unknown, but clearly compromised.

The sewer main has been partially descaled but remains weakened and increasingly prone to cracks and breaks. The pipe’s profile has extensive sags, and will continue to sag and adjust due to its location in the surf zone under the force of shifting sand and wave action. Laterals are in poor condition with known and suspected defects which the City/Homeowners are obligated to correct.

Poor Access Conditions
Access is poor to the Keller Beach Sewer which makes repair and maintenance difficult and expensive. Access issues include:
 Lack of vehicle access to the sewer main on the beach.  Limited foot traffic access due to private property and cliffs.  Work periods that are restricted to negative/low tide conditions (often 3-4 hours). The sewer pipe is underwater and inaccessible during normal tide conditions.  Lack of manholes at sharp bends in the sewer alignment. Bends greater than 30 degrees can block equipment access for maintenance and inspection.  Cleanout structures are too small to allow equipment access for maintenance and inspection.
 Manhole lids are corroded shut and must be replaced whenever they are opened.  Beach access is slippery and creates a hazardous work condition.

High Risk of Environmental Impacts in the Event of Pipe Failure Due to the sewer main’s location in the bay, a pipe failure would cause significant and unavoidable environmental impacts.

Environmental Permitting
Environmental permits will most likely be required for improvements to the sanitary sewer system and may be very difficult to obtain.
1524

RECOMMENDATIONS
Coastland recommends that the City take immediate action to address the following deficiencies in the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer:
 Poor conditions of the sewer main pipe, access points, and laterals;  Poor access conditions for repair and maintenance; and  High risks and costly environmental impacts in the event of a pipe failure.

For the City’s consideration, Coastland offers two options for making the needed improvements:
repair of the existing system in place, and replacing the sewer main in a new location.

Option 1: Repair of the Existing Sewer Main
The preferred method of repairing the sewer main in place would be Cured-in-Place Pipe (CIPP) lining, which is a completely trenchless repair method which involves a heat or UV-cured resinimpregnated “sock” liner that can be installed through manholes. Express Sewer, a CIPP contractor, evaluated the possibility of CIPP-lining the sewer main and considered the project doable but expensive. The following tasks would likely be required:
 Repair the sewer laterals that are causing the sewer main to fill with sand (in progress).

Sewer laterals that are broken or crushed will need to be replaced and reconnected to the sewer main.
 Descale the pipe walls of the lower portion of the sewer main and remaining pipe segments not yet cleaned or CCTV inspected using robotic equipment to remove tuberculation and roughness. It should be verified that descaling can be done to the degree that CIPP lining can be applied.
 Install manholes at tight bends and as needed for equipment access. This task would require open cut excavation and a system to dewater/dam the excavation area.

Environmental permitting may not allow for open cut excavation in the bay.  CIPP-line the sewer mains.
 CIPP-line the sewer laterals (if possible) and seal the lateral/main connection with a tophat.

The benefits of CIPP-lining the sewer main would be to prevent further corrosion and extend the design life of the sewer main. The CIPP-liner would provide some minimal structural wall strength, but would not fully recover the lost pipe strength and ductility which is unknown.

Additional assessment of the existing cast iron pipe thickness and strength would be needed to evaluate whether the CIPP-lined sanitary sewer main would provide sufficient strength to withstand site conditions. The extended design life of the CIPP-lined pipe is difficult to predict.

The drawbacks of the CIPP liner option are that the repair:
 Does not provide a full new construction design life to the sewer main facilities,  Does not correct sags, and the pipe profile will continue to adjust and degrade,  Does not address the poor maintenance access, and
 Does not address the high-risk and cost of sanitary sewer overflows into the bay in the event of a pipe break,
1525

 Is an extremely costly repair.
 Environmental permits will most likely be required for improvements to the sanitary sewer system and may be very difficult to obtain.

Option 2: Replacement of the Keller Beach Sewer in a New Location The replacement of the Keller Beach Sewer in a new location would involve the following tasks:
 Conceptual design of lift stations and alignment options,  Alternative Analysis,
 Survey,
 Land or Easement Acquisition,
 Detailed Design,
 Permitting,
 Funding Acquisition,
 Construction of new sewer main and lift stations/Abandonment or removal of existing facilities, and
 Installation of residential lift stations in houses below the proposed sewer main.

The benefits of this option is that it is capable of addressing all the deficiencies of the existing Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer, and providing a full design life for the new facilities.

The major drawbacks of the sanitary sewer main replacement options are that it:
 Is an extremely costly project,
 Would take years to implement, and
 Would need numerous Homeowners’ participation.

Coastland’s preliminary assessment is that Option 1: CIPP-lining the Keller Beach sewer main may be constructable with additional study (additional CCTV, descaling and pipe material thickness study), but is an expensive repair that does not sufficiently address the deficiencies of the system to render it a cost-effective solution. In addition, environmental permits will most likely be required for improvements to the sanitary sewer system and may be very difficult to obtain. Option 2: Replacement of the Keller Beach Sewer is an expensive solution but it addresses all the system deficiencies. Coastland considers the high cost of replacement to be a necessary expense to avoid the high risk of pipe failure due to aged sanitary sewer system that is difficult to maintain.

Coastland advises the City to conduct its own assessment and take immediate action to address the Keller Beach sanitary sewer deficiencies.

In the short term, Coastland supports the City’s in-progress efforts to CCTV inspect and repair or replace the sewer laterals connecting to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer. 1526
11/17/2021 3:52 PM Page 1 of 3
Coastland/NCE/City of Richmond
Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Table 1. Summary Table of CCTV Inspection Observations
Downstream
MH
Upstream
MH
Direction
of Survey
Pipe
Length
Inspection
Length
% of Pipe
Inspected
Pipe
Size (in)
Pipe
Material Interior Pipe Wall Condition Water Level Conditionduring Inspection Pipe Features Observed General Inspection Notes MH Q-1 MH Q-2 DS 393 153 39% 12 CI
Severe roughness remains after
descaling efforts, especially on
top half of pipe.

Pipe holding full of water; Water
surface pulled down by
hydronozzle, even so pipe was
typically 20-50% full; Moderate
to severe sags
Start at MH Q-2;
Did not reach MH Q-1;
No laterals observed
Distance indicated on camera was
not accurate; Forward progress in
camera stopped due to obstruction
MH Q-2 MH Q-3 DS 139 139 100% 12 CI
Severe roughness remains after
descaling efforts, especially on
top half of pipe.

Pipe holding full of water; Water
surface pulled down by
hydronozzle, even so pipe was
typically 20-50% full; Moderate
to severe sags
Start at MH Q-3;
Inspection ended at MH Q-2;
No laterals
Complete inspection
MH Q-3 MH Q-4 DS 242 242 100% 12 CI
Severe roughness remains after
descaling efforts, especially on
top half of pipe.

Pipe holding full of water; Water
surface pulled down by
hydronozzle. Water level
5-10% during inspection
Start at MH Q-4;
Inspection ended at MH Q-3;
2 laterals observed
Complete inspection
MH Q-4 MH Q-5 DS 219 Unknown Unknown 12 CI
Severe roughness remains after
descaling efforts. Infiltration
runner observed (at 21:20
minutes)
Pipe holding full of water; Water
surface pulled down by
hydronozzle. Water level
5-10% during inspection
Start at MH Q-5;
Did not reach MH Q-4;
No laterals observed
Distance indicated on camera was
not accurate; Camera stopped due
to unknown impediment
MH Q-4 MH Q-5 US 219 96 44% 12 CI
Severe roughness remains after
descaling efforts, especially top
half of pipe.

Pipe holding full of water; Water
surface pulled down by
hydronozzle, even so pipe was
typically 5-40% full; Moderate
sags
Start at MH Q-4;
Did not reach MH Q-5;
6" sewer connected at
MH Q-4
Distance indicator working;
Inspection abandoned by debris in
pipe.

MH Q-5 CO Q-6
DS
(reverse) 305 291 95% 12 CI
Significant/Severe roughness
remains after descaling efforts.

Pipe holding almost full of water;
Camera underwater; Severe sags
Start at CO Q-6;
Did not reach MH Q-5;
No laterals observed
Inspected in reverse. Distance
indicator not working. Poor visual -
view obscured by pull-rope. No
survey from CO-6 for 14.3'.

Inspection abandoned at sharp 30-
degree bend.

CO Q-6
CO Q-8
(MH Q-7
was not
constructed)
DS
(reverse) 357 Unknown Unknown 12 CI
Unknown: Pipe wall visible for
only 11 seconds of video. Severe
roughness remains after
descaling efforts.

Pipe full of water during survey:

Camera underwater; Severe sags
Start at CO Q-8;
Did not reach CO Q-6;
No laterals observed
Pull back with push camera;
Unusable footage due to equipment
limitations because of poor access;
Only visual was 11 seconds on
partial pipe wall (16:08 - 16:19)
CO Q-8 MH Q-9 DS 182 21.7 12% 12 CI
Significant/Severe roughness
remains after descaling efforts.

Only 22' of pipe was observed.

Inspectors unable to plug off
flows for TV inspection due to
large line coming in from
neighborhood. Pipe at start
flowing 40-50%. Camera
underwater; Severe sags
Start at MH Q-9;
Did not reach CO Q-8;
No laterals observed
Camera blocked by tuburculated
corrosion at 22'
MH Q-9 MH Q-10 257 0 0% 12 CI No CCTV provided
MH Q-10 CO Q-11 166 0 0% 12 CI No CCTV provided
CO Q-11 MH Q-12 393 0 0% 12 CI No CCTV provided
MH Q-12 MH Q-13 328 0 0% 12 CI No CCTV provided
1527
11/17/2021 3:52 PM Page 2 of 3
MH Q-13 MH Q-14 DS 261 261 100% 12 CI
Significant/severe roughness
observed, expecially top half of
pipe; Grease observed
Pipe was empty during
inspection. Water surface pulled
down by hydronozzle. Camera
underwater
Start at MH Q-14;
Intruding lateral at 161.1';
Inspection ended at MH Q-13
Complete inspection
MH Q-14 MH Q-15 DS 173 Unknown Unknown 12 CI
Severe roughness observed,
expecially top half of pipe; Deep
sags present throughout pipe
Water level 25-100%; Camera
underwater; Severe sags
Start at MH Q-15;
Did not reach MH Q-14;
High-flowing lateral into MH Q-15;
Visual poor due to high water level
MH Q-15 CO Q-16 DS 252 45 18% 10 CI
Severe roughness observed,
especially top half of pipe.

Water level 15-50%; Moderate to
severe sags
Start at CO Q-16;
Did not reach MH Q-15
Camera blocked by tuburculated
corrosion at 45'
MH Q-15 CO Q-16 US 252 15 6% 10 CI
Unknown:

No pipe visual
Inspectors unable to drawdown
water due to reverse setup;
Camera underwater 0-15'+;
Severe sag
Start at MH Q-15;
Did not reach CO Q-16;
No visual due to high water;
Inspection abandoned at 15'; Could
not drawdown water due to poor
access conditions from CO;
CO Q-16 MH Q-17 DS 207 208 100% 10 CI
Significant/Severe roughness
observed
Water level 5-50%; Moderate to
severe sags
Start at MH Q-17;
Lateral at 188.1';
Bend at 206';
Ended at CO Q-16
Good pipe visual; Difficulty passing
bend in pipe
MH Q-17 CO Q-18
DS
(reverse) 246 246 100% 10 CI
Pipe visual is poor; Where pipe is
clear, pipe appears to be fully
descaled. Evidence of significant
pipe corrosion, especially top half
of pipe.

Water level 5-100%
Severe sags (camera underwater)
last third of pipe up to MH Q-17
Start at MH Q-17;
Push cam to CO Q-18;
Pull back with hydronozzle;
Ended at CO Q-18
Poor pipe visual; rapid/shaky
footage; only one side of pipe in
view; no stills to inspect pipe
condition; distance meter not
working
CO Q-18 MH Q-19
US
(reverse) 185 185 100% 10 CI
Pipe walls are fully descaled after
cleaning. Rough wall surface.

Pipe holds water, may be due to
sags. Water level 10-20% in
reverse footage
Start at MH Q-19;
Push cam to CO Q-18;
Pull back with hydronozzle;
2 laterals observed;
Ended at MH Q-19
Pipe inspected in reverse. MH Q-19
appears to be possible source of I/I
and should be inspected.

MH Q-19 CO Q-20 DS 201 201 100% 8 CI
Pipe walls are fully descaled after
cleaning. Rough wall surface.

Water level 5-100%
Severe sags (camera underwater)
Start at CO Q-20;
Push cam to MH Q-19;
Pull back with hydronozzle;
1 lateral observed at 5';
Ended at CO Q-20
Push cam operated in reverse. Poor
visual: rapid/shaky footage; no stills
to inspect wall condition
CO Q-20 CO Q-22
US
(reverse) 273 273 100% 8 CI
Rough wall surface. Pipe walls
are fully descaled after cleaning.

Poor visual (blurry and rapid
return footage)
Low water level in most of
reverse footage due to
hydronozzle. Severe sags; Camera
underwater 206'-226'
Start at CO Q-22;
Ended at CO Q-20;
Pull back with hydronozzle;
Ended at CO Q-22
Push cam operated in reverse. Poor
visual: rapid/shaky footage; no stills
to inspect wall condition
CO Q-22 CO Q-24
DS
(reverse) 344 344 100% 8 CI
Very poor visual (blurry and
rapid). Rough wall surface. Pipe
walls appear to be fully descaled
after cleaning.

Low water level in footage due to
hydronozzle.

Start at CO Q-24;
End at CO Q-22
Push cam operated in reverse. Poor
visual: rapid/shaky footage; no stills
to inspect wall condition
CO Q-24 MH Q-25 DS 307 274 89% 8 CI
Rough wall surface. Pipe walls
are fully descaled after cleaning.

Poor visual (blurry and rapid
return footage)
Water level 5-25%
Start at MH Q-25;
2 laterals observed;
Did not reach CO Q-24
Push cam operated in reverse. Poor
visual: rapid/shaky footage; no stills
to inspect wall condition; complete
inspection (including US footage)
Coastland/NCE/City of Richmond
Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Table 1. Summary Table of CCTV Inspection Observations
Downstream
MH
Upstream
MH
Direction
of Survey
Pipe
Length
Inspection
Length
% of Pipe
Inspected
Pipe
Size (in)
Pipe
Material Interior Pipe Wall Condition Water Level Conditionduring Inspection Pipe Features Observed General Inspection Notes 1528
11/17/2021 3:52 PM Page 3 of 3
CO Q-24 MH Q-25 US 307 70 23% 8 CI
Rough wall surface. Pipe walls
are fully descaled after cleaning.

Poor visual (rapid footage)
Water level 5-10%
Start at CO Q-24;
1 lateral observed (overlapping
DS inspection);
Did not reach MH Q-25
Push cam operated in reverse. Poor
visual: rapid/shaky footage; no stills
to inspect wall condition; complete
inspection (including DS footage)
Coastland/NCE/City of Richmond
Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Table 1. Summary Table of CCTV Inspection Observations
Downstream
MH
Upstream
MH
Direction
of Survey
Pipe
Length
Inspection
Length
% of Pipe
Inspected
Pipe
Size (in)
Pipe
Material Interior Pipe Wall Condition Water Level Conditionduring Inspection Pipe Features Observed General Inspection Notes 1529
APPENDIX A:

EXPRESS SEWER NOTES AND EXHIBIT
1530
City of Richmond
Keller Beach Sewer Video Notes
Start Node End Node Distance Notes
MH 4 MH 3 237.0
Left Tap @ 78.8'
Left Tap @ 210.3'
Clear visual
MH 3 MH 2 137.0 Pipe holding full pipe water, used Vaccon to pull water down for TV inspection MH 2 MH 1 393.0 Pipe holding full pipe water, used Vaccon to pull water down for TV inspection MH 5 MH 4 233.0 Pipe holding full pipe water, used Vaccon to pull water down for TV inspection Part 1 MH 4 MH 5 96.0 Pipe holding full pipe water, used Vaccon to pull water down for TV inspection Part 2 CO 6 MH 5 320.0
Pipe holding almost full pipe water, no acces with mainline TV camera from US CO. Inspected from downstream to upstream CO-06. Pulled back camera while recording to capture visual of pipe. Operator wheel rolled distance and made it to MH 5 Clear visual from 319.8' - 203.8'
Belly from 203.8' (Approximately 3 - 5 ft no clear visual) hard to determine due to distance staying at 203.8' on pull back.

Clear visual approximately from 198.8' - 58.1'
Belly approximately from 58.1' - 14.3', TV truck got a visual up to the bend There is still an unclear visual from CO 6 up to 14.3'
CO 8 CO 6 357.0
Pipe holding full pipe water, no accress thru lamphole for mainline TV camera, camerad with push camera and pulled back live.Clear visual @ 16:08 - 16:19 from video (Distance stayed at

0.0 Ft throughout video, couldn't determine distance).

Operator wheeled rolled distance from CO 8 to CO 6. 357' MH 9 CO 8 21.7
Unable to plug off flows for TV inspection due to large line coming in from neighborhood.

Pipe at start flowing 40-50%. Clear visual up to 21.7'
Unable to pass corrosion in pipe at 21.7'. Pipe has severe scaling that camera could not pass and cleaning crew could not remove with chain flail.

Line is incomplete
MH 17 CO 16 208.0
Pipe is in fair condition, some areas of moderate to severe scaling. Left Tap @ 188.1' 45 bend in pipe 3' from CO 16
CO 16 MH 15 45.0
Attempted to Tv inspect pipe from MH15 reverse but too much water to get visual. Set up from MH 17, ran camera down to CO16. Started TV inspection, Clear visual to 45 ft.

Severe corrosion @ 45.3', unable to pass
Did not meet up, line is incomplete Part 1
MH 15 CO 16 153.0
Belly from 0.0' - 15.3'
Unable to Camera due to line holding water and reverse setup Did not meet up, line is incomplete Part 2
MH 19 CO 18 189.0
Mainline holds water, Tv insopected while Jetting to pull water out of pipe. Captured clear video of pipe during pull back with footage. Left Tap @ 42.5' Left Tap @ 94.4'
Clear visual from pull back
CO 18 MH 17 246.0
Unable to access with main line camera, unable to push with push camera, operator had to pull push camera in with hydro nozzle and then video while pulling camera back. There are sections in the video that have clear and not clear visual.

Operator made it to MH 17. Footage distance shows 0.0 throughtout due to process.

Operator verifies footage with wheel roller.

CO 20 MH 19 201.0 Clear visual
CO 22 CO 20 275.0
Unable to access with main line camera, unable to push with push camera, operator had to pull push camera in with hydro nozzle and then video while pulling camera back, 7:08 mark CO 24 CO 22 344.0
Unable to access with main line camera, unable to push with push camera, operator had to pull push camera in with hydro nozzle and then video while pulling camera back with hydro running to capture video. Footage distance shows 0.0 throughtout due to process. operator verifies footage with wheel roller.

MH 25 CO 24 274.0
Left Tap @ 232'10"
Left Tap @ 177'4"
No clear visual from 0'0" - 13'0"
Line is incomplete
Overlapped with inspection #2, confirmed by locating Part 1 CO 24 MH 25 70.0
Right Tap @ 58'7"
Right Tap @ 67'5"
Overlapped with inspection #1, confirmed by locating Part 2 MH 15 MH 14 162.0
Pipe Has poor grade , crew fighting water and areas of corrosion in pipe. Crew had to follow hydro nozzle close for visual. Close to nozzle video 0 - 162' then debris, unable to pass end of video
MH 14 MH 13 260.0
Left Tap @ 161.2'
Clear Visual
Segment of belly @ 232.0' - 242.4' 1531
1532
1533
1534
1535
1536
1537
1538
1539
APPENDIX B:

CCTV INSPECTION REPORTS
1540
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 3/22/2021 Length: 152.8' inspected out of 393' (incomplete) Street: 3+92.95 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-2 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-1 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/
Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-2
MWL
>50%
Only top of pipe
visible

0.5 Severe internal
corrosion

16.2 Severe internal
corrosion

16.2 MWL
20%
Severe internal
corrosion

16.2 MGO
cam in pipe view
17m44s, mostly under
water
1541

16.2 MWL 20% with vac wash

16.2 MGP 09 unk, possible tap?
(18:32)

16.2 SCP 08-03 S01 (18:34)
1542

16.2 MGP 09 unk, unsure if void
(18:41)

43.5 MCU cam tilted & aimed to
soffit right after

64.0 MCU Camera underwater

66.4 MGO cam stationary 26m to
40m,

77.1 MGO cam in motion but
choppy video
131.2 MWL 35%
131.2 MGO cam stationary,
difficulty moving
forward
152.8 OBZ 03-09
no forward progress
from here (51:30 to
end of video)
152.8 MSA Survey abandoned
1543
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 3/22/2021 Total Length: 139' - complete inspection Street: 5+29.63 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-3 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-2 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Positi
on
Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-3

0.0 MWL 20% with power wash

0.0 SZ 09-04 S01, is this SCP?

15.1 SZ F01

15.1 SZ 07-05 S02, throughout line

99.5 OBR 04-08 20%, removed by jet wash
105.3 DAZ 05, 07 S03
122.7 DAZ F03
123.9 MWL(S) 40%, S04
130.8 MGO cam rotated 90 degrees
132.1 MGO
equip issue, cam has no
traction
1544
140.4 AMH Q-2, adjusted from 137.3
1545
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 3/22/2021 Total Length: 242' - complete inspection Street: 7+71.85 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-4 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-3 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-4

0.0 MWL 10%

0.0 SCP 07-04 S01

6.0 OBZ 04-08

21.9 MGP 10 possible TFC

46.0 MWL 5%

78.8 TFA 09 adjusted distance, was 82.5
on approach
101.3 OBZ 04-08 S02 repetitive
210.3 TFA 09 adjusted distance, was 212.3
on approach
237.4 AMH Q-3, dist adjusted from 239.4
1546
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 3/23/2021 Total Length: Unknown distance inspected out of 219' (incomplete) Street: 9+90.03 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-5 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-4 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image
0*
Minutes of video
because distance
indicator was not
working
AMH Q-5

0.0 MWL 20%

0.0 SCP 07-05 S01
16:12 MGP dist adjusted to 232.8 prior to
start of survey
17:00 MGO distance remains 232.8 during
survey
17:59 OBZ 04-08
18:09 MWL 5%
21:20 IR 2:00 Infiltration runner
46:47 OBZ 03-09 30% blocked
47:33 to end MGO-MSA
no progress, would eventually
lose visibility (possibly MCU),
not completed
1547
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 3/24/2021 Total Length: 96' out of 219' (incomplete) Street: 9+90.03 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-5 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-4 Direction of Video: Upstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-4:

0.0 MWL 20% Lateral at manhole

0.0 SCP 07-05 S01

17.6 MGO cam unsteady

20.7 SCP

22.3 MWL 40%

88.9 MGP debris

96.1 MWL 5%

96.1 MSA Abandoned, 2 of 2
1548
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/2/2021 Total Length: 319.8'
Street: 12+95.89 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-6 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-5 Direction of Video: Downstream (reverse) Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH At MH Q-5

0.0 MCU S01 Camera underwater (no image)
319.8 MCU F01 Camera underwater (no image)
319.8 ACO At MH Q-6
319.8 MGO
camera on grade, in reverse
(pulled); distance remains
319.8
10:56 SCP 07-05 S02
11:47 MWL 20%
12:11 MCU S03 Camera underwater (no image)
20:53 MCU F03 Camera underwater (no image)
23:03 MCU S04 Camera underwater (no image)
34:03 MGO camera stopped, 14.3'
distance; possibly at bend
34:24 MGO end of survey
1549
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/5/2021 Total Length: Unknown distance out of 357' Street: 16+52.06 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-8 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: CO Q-6 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.00 ACO At CO Q-8
MGP
16:08 - 16:19 per survey, 6
seconds:

Camera in reverse, mostly
MCU, DAE/DAGS 08-09

0.00 MSA no usable footage
1550

CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/7/2021 Total Length: 21.7' inspected out of 182' (incomplete) Street: 18+08.07 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-9 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: CO Q-8 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-9

0.0 MWL

4.9 SCP 03

5.9 MWL 50%

6.5 MCU Camera underwater

7.3 MGP out of MCU

8.9 MGP possible RMB

9.0 MCU Camera underwater (no images)

11.7 DAE 09-03 S01

13.9 DAE 09-03 S01, distance adjusted

6.0 MGP distance adjusted from 13.9

6.0 MCU Camera underwater (no images)

10.9 MGP out of MCU, distance
adjusted

13.1 MCU S02 Camera underwater (no images)
Camera underwater (no images)

21.7 MCU F02 Camera underwater (no images)

21.7 MSA no forward progress Camera underwater (no images) 1551

CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 7/14/2021 Total Length: 260 - complete inspection Street: 32+05.23 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-14 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-13 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-14

0.0 MWL 20%

0.0 MGP prewash, MWL to 5%

0.0 SRI 09-03 S01

10.3 SCP 08-05 at joint

28.7 SCP 08-04

71.3 SCP 08-02

78.1 SSS 02 S01

85.4 SSS F01
102.5 SSS 10 S02
109.4 SSS F02
109.4 SCP 07-05 at joint
1552

111.3 SSS 11-01
116.1 SSS 02
123.4 SSS 10-03
126.6 SCP 09-05 at joint
136.9 SSS 10-03 S03
154.4 MWL 20%
161.1 TBI 11 1-inch intrusion
197.0 MWLS 50%, S04
203.8 SCP 09-04
210.0 SCP 09-04 at joint
215.3 MGP 03
232.2 H or SCP 01
231.2 MGO-MCU cam aimed at soffit Camera underwater (no image) 255.5 MCU Camera underwater (no image)
260.0 AMH Q-13
1553
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 5/28/2021 Total Length: Unknown distance out of 173' - incomplete Street: 33+78.23 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-15 Pipe Diameter: 12"
Downstream MH: MH Q-14 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-15

0.0 MWL 25%

0.0 SSS 09-03 S01

7.3 MGO cam titled 90 deg left

15.8 SSS F01

15.8 SCP 09-03 S02

19.7 MCU Camera underwater (no image)

53.8 54.4 MCU Camera underwater (no image)

74.6 OBZ 02-09
- MGO-MSA
poor visibility, multiple
blackouts/MCU thorughout
remainder of video (from 44-
min mark to end)
1554
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/21/2021 Total Length: 45' out of 252' (incomplete) Street: 36+30.20 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-16 Pipe Diameter: 10"
Downstream MH: MH Q-15 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 ACO At CO Q-16

0.0 MWL 50%

0.0 DAE 09-03 S01

3.9 MCU Camera underwater (no image)

5.6 DAE F01

5.6 MWL 25%

6.0 SSC 10-02 S02

40.2 SSC F02

41.4 SCP 12-12 at/near joint

44.3 to 45.2 MGP 12-03

45.3 MSA Abandoned, equipment
retrieved Inspection incomplete due to severe corrosion obstruction 1555
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/22/2021 Total Length: 15.3' out of 252' (incomplete) Street: 36+30.20 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-16 Pipe Diameter: 10"
Downstream MH: MH Q-15 Direction of Video: Upstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.00 AMH Q-15

0.00 MWL 100%

0.00 MGP Surcharged up the structure

0.00 MCU Camera underwater (no image)

6.00 MGP will attempt vac behind cam

15.30 MSA Abandoned
1556

CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/21/2021 Total Length: 207.9 - complete inspection Street: 38+37.70 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-17 Pipe Diameter: 10"
Downstream MH: CO Q-16 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH

0.0 MWL

9.4 SSS 08-12 S01, repetitive throughout

11.7 SRI 09-03 S02
111.2 MWL 40%
141.3 SCP 08-04
147.4 SCP 08-04
148.1 MGP cam mostly submerged,
difficulty with forward motion
163.9 SCP 08-04
184.2 SCP 08-04
1557

188.1 TF 09, w/ OBZ 03-09, 50%
188.3 MWL 40%, submerged
195.6 MGP used VAC to drop MWL,
unsure if there's MWLS
203.0 MGO cam stationary for minutes,
no forward progress
Difficulty passing bend in pipe
207.9 ACO Q-16; mid-line, looks more
like TFC 11 o'clock
1558
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/30/2021 Total Length: 246 - complete inspection Street: 40+83.63 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-18 Pipe Diameter: 10"
Downstream MH: MH Q-17 Direction of Video: Downstream (Push camera with hydronozzle in reverse) Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 ACO At CO Q-18

0.0 MWL surcharged at structure

0.0 MGO
footage out of focus, appears
to be pushing cam on
grade/invert; distance
remains 0.0' throughout
06:51 MGP-AMH
At MH Q-17 per survey note;
cam on grade (not
centered/elevated); blurred,
out of focus; footage by video
timestamp, not by distance,
cam in reverse
07:49 MGO start of reverse footage
07:57 MWL 40%, out of focus
07:58 MCU Camera underwater (no image)
08:05 OBZ 05-07 S01, debris
08:47 MGO cam unstable
09:23 MGO cam unstable
14:05 ACO At CO Q-18, end of reverse
footage
1559

CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/29/2021 Total Length: 185 - complete inspection Street: 42+68.13 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-19 Pipe Diameter: 10"
Downstream MH: CO Q-18 Direction of Video: Upstream (Push camera with hydronozzle in reverse) Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 AMH Q-19

0.2 MWL 20% (20:53)

0.5 SSS 10-02 S01, throughout pipe

24.9 MGP abrupt drop

29.3 MWL 10%

42.5 TBI 11 4" lat, 2" intrusion

91.9 obz 04-08

94.4 TF 09 4" lat
134.6 OBZ 03-09 50% blocked, chain flailed
140.7 MGO blackout, no actrivity 10:35 -
42:00

94.8 MGP
42:00 resumed, dist from
140.7, may have been
retrieved
119.1 MGO turbulent footage (44:39)
124.9 MCU (46:07) Camera underwater (no image)
1560

131.5 MGO cam tilted 90d
counterclockwise
132.7 MCU Camera underwater (no image)
156.5 MGO blacked out approx 5min
159.7 MGO cam too close to cleaning
equip, very poor visibility
173.4 MGO-MCU blackout, no visibility (1:01:13
to 1:44:05) Camera underwater (no image)
173.7 MGO turbulent footage, cam very
close to cleaning equip
189.2 ACO Q-18
189.2 MGO reverse survey, no new
findings

0.0 AMH Q-19
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 4/29/2021 Total Length: 185 - complete inspection Street: 42+68.13 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-19 Pipe Diameter: 10"
Downstream MH: CO Q-18 Direction of Video: Upstream (Push camera with hydronozzle in reverse) Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image
1561
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 5/4/2021 Total Length: 201' - inspection complete Street: 44+69.26 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-20 Pipe Diameter: 8"
Downstream MH: MH Q-19 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.00 ACO At CO Q-20

0.00 MWL
12' 11" DAGS 03-06 at joint maybe
16' 0" MGO cam unsteady
73' 10" MCU Camera underwater (no image)
111' 10" MWL 10%
112' 7" MCU S01 Camera underwater (no image)
200' 5" MCU F01 Camera underwater (no image)
201' 1" MGO-MCU no visibility Camera underwater (no image) 200' 8" MGO retrieved, reverse
185' 2" SSS-SCP 03-09 unclear
154' 5" MGO turbulent, cam unsteady
5' 3" TB 10 not panned, no other info
-0' 1" MGP
-0' 5" MGP
-0' 5" ACO Q-20
1562
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 5/4/2021 Total Length: 273' - complete inspection Street: 47+42.13 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-22 Pipe Diameter: 8"
Downstream MH: CO Q-20 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image
0' 0" ACO Q-22; turbulent & very poor
visibility throughout
2' 6" MWL 20%
2' 6" TF 09 not panned, other info
8' 9" DAZ 04-08 S01
197' 4 " MGO no visibility 04:41 to 06:16
275' 0" ACO Q-20, start of backwards
survey
273' 7' MCU Camera underwater (no image)
262' 7" MGO
poor visibility throughout,
unable to perform
assessment
1563
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 3/22/2021 Total Length: 344' - complete inspection but low value due to blurry image Street: 58+86.31 Material: CI
Upstream MH: CO Q-24 Pipe Diameter: 8"
Downstream MH: CO Q-22 Direction of Video: DS per header Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 ACO At CO Q-24

0.0 MWL 15%

0.0 MGO pushed on grade, 0.0' throughout; footage out of focus 17:05 MGP-ACO
cam on grade (not
centered/elevated); blurred,
out of focus; footage by video
timestamp, not by distance,
cam in reverse
17:19 MCU S01 Camera underwater (no image)
18:47 MCU F01 Camera underwater (no image)
18:54 MWL 15%
18:59 MGO cam out of focus, poor video
quality, unable to review
24:07 DAGS 04-07 S02
24:25 DAGS F02
26:54 ACO
1564
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 5/14/2021 Total Length: 70' out of 307' - incomplete Street: 53+93.25 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-25 Pipe Diameter: 8"
Downstream MH: CO Q-24 Direction of Video: Upstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image

0.0 ACO Q-24
2' 1" MGP Start of survey
2' 1" MGO
push cam very unsteady; poor
image quality; splashback at
forward motion, frequent
MCU
3' 9" MWS 30%
57' 9" DZ or RBB 03-05
58' 9" T 03 no other info
67' 5" T 03 no other info
70' 0" MSA Abandoned, 2 of 2
1565
CCTV Observation Report
Client: NCE/City of Richmond
Project Name: Keller Beach Sewer CCTV Assessment
Date of CCTV: 5/14/2021 Total Length: 274' out of 307' - incomplete Street: 53+93.25 Material: CI
Upstream MH: MH Q-25 Pipe Diameter: 8"
Downstream MH: CO Q-24 Direction of Video: Downstream
Distance (feet) Code Clock/Position Comment Image
0' 0" AMH Q-25
1' 3" MCU-MGO turbulent, poor visibility
15' 4" MWL 5%
25' 8" SSS 11-05 at joint
36' 1" MGO cam aimed at 3 o'cl barrel
62' 10" SCP 02-04
78' 6" MGP debris
203' 0" MGP in reverse, general condition
ok
257' 10" MGP in reverse, general condition
ok
274' 0" MSA 11:13, will continue from CO
Q-24 per survey
1566
1567
1568
1569
ORDINANCE NO. 06-25 N.S.

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, ESTABLISHING A

TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS

REQUIRING A NEW SEWER CONNECTION TO THE KELLERBEACH SANITARY SEWER; AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEROF
WHEREAS, the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer was constructed in 1959 and consists of 5,392 linear feet of 8 to 12 inch concrete-encased cast iron interceptor pipe and twenty five (25) sewer structures located within the pipeline, consisting of seventeen (17) manholes and eight (8) cleanouts ("KBSS"); and
WHEREAS, KBSS is located off of Keller Beach in the San Francisco Bay, and remains submerged during ordinary tides, making repair and maintenance of the sewer very difficult due to the limited hours where the sewer can be reached and hazardous conditions; and WHEREAS, given the location ofthe KBSS, pipe failure and/or sewage leaks would result in significant environmental harm with the limited ability to quickly remediate the damage and/or leaks due to limited accessibility; and
WHEREAS, additional development requiring sewer connections to KBSS poses an immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, as these new sewer flows could exacerbate the potential for a catastrophic failure which could cause a significant public health and safety threat to existing residences; and
WHEREAS, on November 17, 2021, the City received a commissioned assessment and CCTV analysis regarding KBSS. The report recommended performing immediate repairs to the KBSS and potential removal and replacement of portions ofKBSS to a different location; and WHEREAS, on January 18, 2022, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 01- 22 N.S., establishing a temporary moratorium on the issuance of building permits requiring new sewer connections to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS) due to concerns about system capacity, structural integrity, and regulatory compliance; and WHEREAS, on March 1, 2022, the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 05-22 N.S., to extend Urgency Ordinance No. 01-22 N.S. in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 for an additional 10 months and 15 days, expiring on January 17, 2023; WHEREAS, on February 21, 2023, in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 the City Council adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 02-23 N.S., establishing a 45-day moratorium on the issuance of building permits requiring new sewer connections to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS) due to concerns about system capacity, structural integrity, and regulatory compliance;
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2023, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 03-23 N.S. to extend Urgency Ordinance No. 02-23 N.S. in accordance with Government Code Section 65858 for an additional 22 months and 15 days, expiring on February 19, 2025; and WHEREAS, since the adoption of the moratorium, the City has worked with consultants and engaged in community outreach to explore long-term solutions for rehabilitating or replacing the KBSS; and
WHEREAS, a study initiated under a contract with Coastland Engineers was disrupted when the firm withdrew in March 2024, citing concerns about public engagement and project direction following City Council action on December 19, 2023, that mandated further review of alternatives under the Baykeeper Settlement Agreement; and WHEREAS, following the withdrawal ofCoastland Engineers, City staffhas been working to identify a new consultant to conduct a peer review and develop an actionable replacement plan, Ord. No. 06-25 N.S.

Page I of 5
1570
but delays have resulted due to extensive public and political engagement, as well as the need to secure qualified facilitation and engineering expertise; and WHEREAS, on July 31, 2024, the City hosted a public outreach meeting facilitated by Kearns and West to provide updates and gather feedback, but additional focus group meetings and coordination efforts remain ongoing; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that a final scope of design and construction for the KBSS replacement or rehabilitation is currently undetermined, and the estimated completion of the replacement project will take multiple additional years beyond the current moratorium expiration date; and
WHEREAS, City staff is in the process of developing an interim solution in the form of sewage holding tanks that could allow affected property owners to proceed with development, but this solution requires technical standards, regulatory approvals, and implementation planning, which is expected to take six to nine months before it is brought to City Council for approval; and may also explore other options to ·ensure that new sewer connections do not increase the sewage load in the KBSS; and
WHEREAS, allowing new connections to the KBSS, which are not authorized by this Ordinance and which increase sewage flow to the KBSS, before it is repaired or replaced could result in further deterioration, potential system failures, and environmental risks, as well as noncompliance with regulatory requirements, including those enforced by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and US Army Corps of Engineers; and
WHEREAS, these issues constitute a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, within the meaning of Government Code Section 65858; and WHEREAS, on February 18, 2025 the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider adoption of this Ordinance, including providing a public notice pursuant to Government Code § 65090; and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858 authorizes the City Council to adopt an urgency ordinance by a four-fifths vote to temporarily prevent development and/or construction that threatens the public health, safety, and welfare of citizens residing in the Sewer Moratorium Area (attached and incorporated as Exhibit A); and
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 66300 authorizes a moratorium impacting housing development only where such a moratorium would protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of person residing in, or within the immediate vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium and after the Department of Housing and Community Development has reviewed said moratorium; and
WHEREAS, the City has consulted with and submitted this Ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development for review and approval pursuant to Government Code Section 66300, and this Ordinance shall not be enforceable against housing development until the City has received said approval of this moratorium; and WHEREAS, the Richmond City Council has determined that a temporary moratorium on the issuance of building permits requiring a new sewer connection to KBSS is necessary to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare, and to protect against the imminent threat to the health and safety of person residing in the Sewer Moratorium Area, and the "Whereas" clauses above taken together constitute the City Council's statements and reasons constituting such necessity and urgency.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richmond does ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds and determines the foregoing recitals to be true and correct are incorporated herein by reference as it set forth in full.

Ord. No. 06-25 N.S.

1571
SECTION 2. The City Council finds and determines the Ordinance is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), in that it maintains the existing physical environment and prevents changes in the environment and so does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a)). It is also exempt under Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), as the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and Section 15061 (b )(3 ), as there is no possibility that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment because it maintains the existing condition of the environment.

SECTION 3. Moratorium. A 45-day moratorium is hereby imposed on the issuance and approval of all building permits that would require a new sewer connection to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer, further identified in the attached and incorporated Exhibit A. Accordingly, no such permit may be issued or approved while this moratorium, as it may be extended, is in effect. For the purposes of this Ordinance, "sewer connection" means connecting a building's drainage system which conveys the discharge from soil, waste, and other drainage pipes of a business or residence, to the City's sewer main or other applicable sewer infrastructure.

SECTION 4. Term of Moratorium. In accordance with Government Code Section 65858, this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect for a period of 45 days from the date of its adoption, i.e., from February 18, 2025 through and including April 4, 2025, or, for housing developments, from the date when the Department of Housing and Community Development approves this moratorium, whichever occurs later. This 45-day period may be extended by the City Council in accordance with the provisions in Government Code Section 65858.

SECTION 5. Exceptions. The following development activities within the City limits requiring a sewer connection to Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer identified in Exhibit A are exempt from the moratorium established in Sections 3 and 4:
a. Any projects that have vested rights to a new sewer connection because of previously issued building permits; and
b. Projects ordinarily requiring a connection to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer for which an application is submitted that proposes a design for the extension of a sewer main to an alternative segment, or which proposes a temporary or permanent solution that meets health & safety standards and creates no more sewage into the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer than existing development on the site, the design which is approved by the City Engineer or Public Works Director, and the applicant agrees to be solely responsible for all costs and expenses of installing and maintaining said sewer main or temporary or permanent solution, among other terms and conditions provided by the City in an executed and recorded written agreement between the City and property owner/developer to this effect.

SECTION 6. During the term of this moratorium, the Department of Public Works is hereby directed to prepare a scope of work for a feasibility study to determine if the existing sewage flow into the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer may be reduced, through measures including but not limited to rerouting sewage flow from homes located on Golden Gate A venue, Bishop Avenue, Bishop Aly, and Washington Ct.; and to report to the City Council prior to the expiration of the moratorium on actions needed to complete the feasibility study.

SECTION 7. A development application for which a sewer connection to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer is required may be processed during the moratorium and any extension of the moratorium. However, the application shall be processed at the applicant's sole cost and expense and with the understanding that no building permit shall be issued until the moratorium, including any extension of the moratorium, has expired and that such permit may not be issued if it is inconsistent with any amendments to the municipal code, ordinances, or regulations that are amended by reason of the review that occurs during the moratorium. During the effective period of this moratorium, time periods requiring the commencement of a proposed use or construction shall be tolled for existing entitlements and for entitlements approved during the effective period of the moratorium, for the duration of time that the moratorium is in effect.

Ord. No. 06-25 N.S.