ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

7,

1993

RESIDENTS

OF

CEDARVILLE,

)

)

Complainant,

PCB 91—194

V.

)

(Enforcement)

)

VILLAGE OF CEDARVILLE,

)

)

Respondent.

ORDER

OF THE BOARD

(by B.

Forcade):

On

September

3,

1992,

the Board issued an interim opinion

and order in this matter.

The Board found that the Village of

Cedarville

(Cedarville) had violated 35 Ill. Adm. Code

306.102(a),

306.303 and 306.304.

The Board noted that Cedarville

had taken some measures in response to the sewer overflows and

had plans for additional actions.

However, the Board concluded

that a finding of violation combined with the potential health

risk resulting from future violations required that a more formal

program be mandatorily implemented.

The Board directed

Cedarville to develop a compliance plan to be submitted to the

Board by October 13,

1992.

The compliance plan was to detail the

steps necessary for Cedarville to aàhieve and maintain compliance

with Sections 306.102,

306.303 and 306.304.

The Board received a compliance plan from Cedarville on

October 14,

1992.

Because there was no indication that

Cedarville had sent of copy of the compliance plan to the

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency), the Board

forwarded

a

copy

of

the

compliance

plan

to

the

Agency

and

extended the time in which the complainants and the Agency could

comment on the compliance plan until November 20,

1992.

The

complainants did not file a response to the compliance plan.

The

Agency filed its response on November 19,

1992.

As part of the compliance plan, Cedarville reports that the

following activities have occurred in relation to the sanitary

sewer system:

1.

The village has surveyed and observed several manholes

in low lying areas.

Some manholes have been raised to

prevent storm water inflow from entering.

2.

Dye testing was conducted in September,

1992 at suspect

locations.

No dye was detected in the sanitary sewer

system downstream of th~observed areas.

3.

A door to door inspection was conducted for illegal

storm

water

connections.

0138-0227

---

2

4.

Smoke testing was conducted for the area contributing

to Key Manhole No.

19.

The compliance plan discusses the option of installing a

relief sewer to correct the overflow problem.

The village board

would rather expend funds to solve the source of the problem than

to spend the funds to alleviate the problem.

The village board

believes that the overflow conditions can be alleviated by

attacking the source of the excess inflow.

The proposed compliance plan submitted by Cedarville

involves follow-up of the testing and inspections already done on

the sewer system.

The plan also requires monitoring of the

manholes near Cedar Court for potential surcharging during heavy

rains for a six month period from December 15,

1992 through June

15,

1993.

If surcharging is observed, Cedarville will proceed

with additional SSES activities and/or consideration of a relief

sewer.

As part of the compliance plan,

all new construction will

be inspected to assure that there are no illegal connections.

Monthly tabulation of totalized flow from the sewage treatment

plant will be kept to compare over time.

If a comparison of the

flows indicates an increase in flow,

an inflow/infiltration

assessment will be performed and the appropriate means to correct

the problem will be pursued.

The Agency in its comment states that a program of locating

and eliminating the sources of infiltration and inflow is not

effective for solving the type of problem that exists in

Cedarville.

The Agency contends that when such programs are

instituted,

the sources of the infiltration and inflow are too

numerous to effectively eliminate and solve the problem.

In

support of its conclusion the Agency references a July 1980

Technical Report issued by the United States Environmental

Protection Agency

(USEPA) entitled Evaluation of

Infiltration/Inflow Program.1

The Agency believes that to solve

the problem Cedarville must provide a means of delivering sewage

out of Cedar Court.

The Agency recommends that Cedarville

construct a relief sewer or a pumping station to serve the area.

While the Agency’s comment raises a genuine concern on the

adequacy of the compliance plan, the Board does not find that the

concerns of the Agency warrant altering the compliance plan as

submitted by Cedarville.

Cedarville has already completed many

of the activities contained in the compliance plan.

The results

o~.the inflow/infiltration assessm~.t performed in 1979 showed

inflow/infiltration levels below the USEPA level which would have

required additional studies.

Cedarville realizes that the

addition of a relief sewer may be~necessary if the proposed

The Agency did not supply of copy of this report with its

comments and the Board has not obtained a copy of the report.

0138-0228:

---

3

actions do not reduce the excess flow in the sewer system.

The

Board has not been presented with sufficient factual information

to determine if the magnitude of the inflow/infiltration is such

that a relief sewer is required.

Cedarville has already made

some progress in reducing the number of illegal connections to

the sewer system.

There is no indication that additional sewer

ovèrflows have been experienced by the residents.

The last

reported sewer overflow occurred on August 19,

1990.

The Board accepts the compliance plan as submitted and

directs Cedarville to adhere to the provisions of the compliance

plan.

The Board directs Cedarville to continue to monitor its

progress in eliminating excess flow in the sewer system.

The

Board further instructs Cedarville to examine the possibility of

installing a relief sewer system or pumping station in the area

of Cedar Court if it becomes apparent that the inflow/

infiltration problem is too expansive to eliminate at the source.

The Board notes that the complainants have the right to

petition this Board for relief if Cedarville fails to follow the

compliance plan or overflow from the sewers reoccurs.

ORDER

1.

The Board hereby accepts the compliance plan submitted by

Cedarville.

A copy of the compliance plan is attached to

this order and incorporated by reference as though fully set

forth herein.

2.

Cedarville shall implement the provisions of the compliance

plan.

3.

Cedarville shall cease and desists from further violations

of 35

Ill. Adm. Code 306.102, 306.303 and 306.304.

4.

This docket is hereby closed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act

(Ill.

Rev.Stat.

1991,

ch.

111 1/2, par 1041) provides for appeal of

final orders of the Board within 35 days.

The Rules of the

Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.

(But see

also 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 101.246, Motions for Reconsideration,

and

Castenada

V.

Illinois Human Rights Commission

(1989),

132

Ill. 2d

304, 547 N.E.2d 437.)

0l38-Q229

---

4

I, Dorothy N. Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois. Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that

e above order was adopted on the

_____________day of

,5~t~_iti~~

,

1993,

by a vote of

Dorothy N. ~nn,

Clerk

Illinois Pd)/lution Control Board

0138-0230

---

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

RESIDENTS OF

CEDARVILLE,

)

)

Complainant,

)

VILLAGE

OF CEDARVILLE,

Respondent.

PCB

NO.

91-194

(Enforcement)

)

)

)

)

)

ft~

aCTI49921

1:11

9

L~

NOTICE

OF FiLiNG

TO:

(See attached

Service List)

Please

be advised

that

on October

13,

1992,

the attached

Village of Cedarville Sewer

System

Compliance

Plan

was filed

with

the

illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

by

Federal

Express

mailing,

in

accordance

with

the

Interim

Opinion

and

Order of

the Board

dated

September

3,

1992.

Dated:

October

13,

1992

HINSHAW

&

CULBERTSON

220 East

State

Street

P.O.

Box

1389

Rockford,

IL

61105

(815) 963-8488

HARRISNOF/pjd

VILLAGE

OF CEDARVILLE, Respondent

BY

HINSHAW

&

CIJLBERTSON

PRiNTED

ON RECYCLABLE PAPER

0138 O23~

vs.

~ST~’7E

t~

HJJNC:S

Pn!

Iirno;~

£flNTROL

Bn~PJ!

---

SERVICE

LIST

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution

Control Board

Suite

11-500

100 West

Randolph Street

Chicago, IL

60601

Kenneth Anspach,

Esq.

200

West Adams Street, Suite

1700

Chicago,

IL

60606

John H.

Vogt,

Esq.

1002 State

Bank Center

Freeport, IL

61032

Mr.

Scott

Harris

130

Cedar Court

Cedarville,

IL

61013

Mr.

Robert

E. Stewart

Ms. Marlene

L. Stewart

115 Cedar Court

Cedarville,

IL

61013

Mr. Tim Hoefle

Ms. Cathy Hoefle

120

Cedar Court

Cedarville, IL

61013

Mr. Francis McAuiiffe

Ms.

Joyce McAuliffe

110 Cedar Court

Cedarville, IL

61013

Mr. Allen Schlueter

Ms.

Sandra Schlueter

140

Cedar Court

Cedarville, IL

61013

Mr. Robert

Crouse

Ms.

Sylvia Crouse

135

Cedar Court

Cedarville, IL

61013

Mr.

Larry

Weilman

Ms. Holly Weliman

125 Cedar Court

Cedarville, IL

61013

0138-0232

---

Mr.

Edward H.

Brackemyer

Ms.

Cathy Brackemyer

112 Cedar Court

Cedarvilte,

IL,

61013

Ms.

Karen

M.

Homer

100 Cedar Court

CedarvUle, IL

61013

Mr.

Larry

Lawson

Ms. Sandra Lawson

55

Cedar Street

Cedarville, IL

61013

01

3Th-0233

---

VILLAGE

OF

CEDARVILLE

SEWER

SYSTEM

COMPLIANCE

PLAN

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOAR!)

PCB 91—194

October

13, 1992

0138~023.5

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS

HISTORICAL

INFILTRATION/INFLOW REPORTS

AND

DISCUSSION

SEWER

SYSTEM EVALUATION SURVEY

ACTIVITIES

CONSIDERATION OF RELIEF

SEWER

PROPOSED COMPLIANCE

PROGRAM

Evaluation of

the

Source

of. Sewer

Overflows

and

Assessment of Present State

of

the

Sewerage

System

Specific Steps to Eliminate

the

Specific Dates for Completion of Remedial Actions

Long

Term Monitoring Methods

MTACJ*(ENTS

Attachment A

-

Infiltration/Inflow Assessment

Attachment B

—

Cedarville Sewer System Map

0138-0236

---

Infiltration/Inflow

Assessment

of

the Cedarvillo

SSVSX

System was conducted and

reported

as

part

~t

us

C.darVill

Facility Plan dated October

1,

1979.

Att*chment

A

pcSS*I~~

Section III

-

Infiltration/Inf~iovAssessment

as presented

1*

the

referenced

Facility

Plan.

£tta~aent

s

presents

~ithIbit

B from that report, ccaprtsing the

Cedarvill. sanitary

S~

System

and

shoving the

Key

Manholes

refarenoed In the

Infiltration/Inflow

Assessment.

The

results

of

that

assesaa.nt indicate that ?r~mkLIme

D (flow entering

Key

Manhole

Mo. 19 tram

the

out)

has

a

high percentage increase

inflow

during

both

infiltratios

6

inflow conditions, while Trunk Line C (flaW entering Z.y

Manhole

No. 19

from

the north)

has

a

hish Perc.ntaae

increase

during

inflow

conditions.

All

other

trunk

liii..

indicated increases, from 65 to 197 .peroent, with resulting

overall

system

estimated

increases

of six percent and .i~t

percent of tb. annual dry weather

flow

for

infiltratime

esS

inflow,

respectively.

The

conclusion

of

the

asgesament

was,

that

the total

system I/I

was

below

th*

USEPA

criteria,

such

that

a

Sower

System Evaluation

Survey

was

not

rquir.d..

The Cedarville Sanitary Sewer System was constructed in

1972, a relatively young

system

in relation to the age

or

many municipal

systems

which

era

now requiring major

infrastructure rehabilitation.

Furthermore,

the

system

La

constructed with

Armco

Truss Pipe, a composite pipe

1.

0138-0237

---

Consisting of

an ABS plastic honeycomb structur, tilled vi

lightweight concrete, which is installed

in

ten

foot

lengtI

vith solvent welded joint

couplings.

This piping

system

minimizes the

number

of

joint.

in

comparison with typical

clay sever pipe

systems.

Television

inspection

of

the.

system

conducted for the

Village

of C.darvilla ha. not

determined

any

obvious structural defects such

as

cracked

pipe,

separated

joints,

or

root

intrusion.

Thus,

the

sanitary

sewer

main piping

is

relatively

non-suspect

of

being

a major infiltration

source.

This

does

not preclude

the

individual

house

services

from

being

potential

infiltration sources.

Inflow

sources

into

the

system could

includi

such

things as the following:

1.

Manholes

in

low

lying

areas

or

ditches

which

could

become

su~a.rged.

2.

Direct

connections

from

storm

sewers or inlets.

3

Illegal private

connections

from

roof

drAin.,

foundation

drains,

and

storm water

cusp

pumps.

SEWER

SYSTEM

EVALUATION

SURVEY

ACTIVITIES

In

regard

to

th.

above

inflow

sources,

the

following

activities have occurred:

2.

•

The

Village

has surveyei and

observe4

.

.ev.ral

manholes

in low lying areas.

Th.s. t~ave

been

raised

to

prevent

storm

water inflow from

entering.

2.

0138-0238

---

2.

Table

1 presents a summary of

dye testing

conducted in September,

1992 at suspect

locations.

The results indicate no dye was detected in the

sanitary sewer system downstream of

the

areas.

3.

The village personnel have conducted

door

to door

surveys

to

inspect

homes for illegal storm water

connections.

The

results of the survey completed

through October

7, 1992 are

as

follows:

Surveys completed

24~

Total homes to survey

312

Percent of surveys coapisted

Illegal connections found

34

Percent illegal connections of

completed surveys

13.0

Estimated number

of

illegal

connections

disconnected’ prior

to survey

20

Estimated total number of illegal

Estimated percentage of illegal

connections of survey to date

22

Table

2 presents a

summary

of smoke testing

conducted

for the area contributing to

Key

Manhole

No.

D).

The results indicate the following:

1.

Two

homes

at

which

the

house

service

connections

indicate poor

joints

or

cracked

piping

allowing

smoke to emit from the ground.

3.

0138-0239

---

2.

The tour inch cast iron service entering Manhole

No.

25 should be grouted to eliminate seepage.

3.

Follow-up observations must be conducted at thre

homes to determine

the

cause

of smoke entering the

basement.

This

could’

be

from

dry

traps

in

the

plumbing

allowing smoke to pass

through,

or

from

illegal storm water connections.

CONSIDERATION

OF

RELIEF SEWER

The

Village

Board

understands

the

concept

of

a

relief

sewer to relieve surcharging conditions near

Cedar

Court.

However, this remedy would not solve the

source of the

problem, but ‘rather would expend

funds

to alleviate ‘the

resulting

condition.

The

Board

vouj.d

rather

expend

funds

to

solve the source of the problem, unless it is ‘determined

that the source

is

wide

spread

throughout

the

system

such

that

major ‘rehabilitation

or

replacement

of

sAnitary

sewer

mains would be required.

However, at this time this does

not appear to be the case.

The

results of

the activities

conducted to date have

shown

illegal storm

water

connections

to

be a

known

major

source.

The

results

of

disconnecting

these sources should

first be monitored to determine if this

will alleviate the

problem.

This

can be determined

throucth

a program to monito. flows md surcharging during various

x~infa11events.

It i. impossible to predict the effect of

disconnecting the illegal qonnections on possible future

surcharging at Cedar Court should another rainfall of the

4.

O138~o24Q

---

magnitude previousiy

~

~

backwater valves on service connections along Cedar Court

will provide protection in that event.

PROPOSED

COMPLIANCE

PROGRAII

I.

Evaluation of the Source of Sewer Overflows

and

Assessment of

Present

State of the

Sewerage

System

Dye testing,

sewer televising,

and

manhole survey.

have found no

méjor

sources of extraneous

infiltration/inflow.

Sack.

testing

has determined

several

possible

sources to be

checked

further.

The

door

to

door

survey

has

determined

a

number

of illegal

connections which in aggregate could greatly

increase

extraneous storm water flow into

the

system

II.

Specific Steps to Eliminate the Identified Problems,

and,

III.

Specific

Dates

for

Completion

of

Remedial

Actions

II. Remedial Action

III. Completion

Date

A.

Complete door-to-door survey

for illegal stormwater

October

31, 1992

:

B.

Follow-up observations to

determine

reason

for

smoke

entering basements of three

homes

‘

October 31, 1992

C.

Provide 30 day notice for

residents with identified

illegal storewater connections

to

have

corrections

made.

Also

provide

30

day

notice

to

residents

in

violation

of

backwater valve ordinance

November 1, 1992

‘

5.

0138-02~.i

---

II. Remedial Action

III. Completion ‘Date

D.

Grout

c.I.

service

entering

)~

No.

25.

Smoke

test

Trunk

Line

C.

November i,

1992

E.

Re-inspect

residences

which

received 30 day notices for

compliance.

December 15,

1992

IV.

Long Term Monitoring Methods

A.

Short term monitoring

for

potential surcharging

in

manholes

near

Cedar Court.

During

a

six

month

period

commencing

December

3.5,

1992

and

running

through June 15,

1993,

whenever

local

rainfall

in

excess

of

15

inches

in

24 hours is

forecast

or

appears

imminent, Village

personnel

will observe for

any

surcharge

conditions in Manhole No.

12

where

Cedar

Court

enters the main 12 inch trunk line

Observations

will be made at

four

home intervals until two

hours after cessation of

heavy

observations will be recorded.

If

no

surcharge

is

observed,’

euture

observations

will

only

be

conducted

during

periods

of highly intensive rain fall, to determine

whether any surcharging

occurs.

observed, additional SSES activities and/or

~nsiderationof a relief sewer will be

‘und

and reported ~

Board, by September 15,

1993.

6.

01 38-02I~2

---

B.

Program

to

eliminate

new

sources

of

excess

infiltration/inflow

in

the

future.

New sources of excess iflfiltratjon/jflflOW

would most likely be created

from new building

construction where illegal storawater

connections

could be made.

This will

be policed by

having

all

new building permits require a

final

inspection in

the presence of the Superintendent of Public Works

and

the

‘liOensed plumber in

which

connectiOns must be demonstrated.

C.

Program to detect

increases

of flow in

the

•evaqs

system due to rain, and

frequency

of

inspections

Monthly tabulation of totalized flow from ~s

sewage treatment

plant

will be kept to compare

flows over time.

In addition, daily

flows

on day.

when rainfall in excóss of 1.5 inches

is

r.ceiw.d

in 24 hours, will be

tabulated

for comparison

~

time.

These comparisons will

take

into account

any

known

increase in

dry

weather’ flows due to

increased population

served

or

new

commercial/industrial

sources

of

flow.

If comparisons

indicate an obvious

increase

in flows during rainfall or

snow melt,’ new

extraneous

will be re-implemented.

7.

0138-02143

---

TABLE

1

SUMMARY

OF DYE

TESTING

RESULTS

VILLAGE

OF

CEDARV1LLE,

ILLINOIS

SEPTEMBER

1992

Observation

‘

‘

Location

No Dye

No

Dye

Dyed nk

west & soitheast corners of

Washington

&‘MIll Streets.

Checked

MH-6.

Dyed inlet

e

aoithwest

corner of C~kRidge Drive

&

Mill Street

and inlet across from (~k

Ridge

Drive on

Mi

Street.

Chec’~d110-67.

No

Dye

‘

Dyed inlet

‘~th~

southeast

corner of Oak

& Mill

Streets.

Checked M0-67.

No

Dye

Dyed

inlet at U~

southwest

corner of Second

Street &

Mill

Street, mid bilets on both sides

of Mill Street

across

from

lift

Station

A. (1ic~krd

MR north of Lift

Station

AN.

0138

---

TABLE

2

SUMMARY

OF

SMOKE

TESTING

RESULTS

VILLAGE

OF

CEDARVILLE,

ILLINOIS

SEPTEMBER

1992

NO.

LOCATION

OBSERVATIONS

‘

1

•

30 Adams Street

Smoke came out

of qround around

sidewalk

&t

back

of

house.

2

•

50

Adams

Street

.

Smoke

cams

out

of ground west

side

of

concrete

patio

at back

of house.

3.

Lot

285 Walnut Street

Smoke cams

out

of

uncapped

cleanout east sid. of house.

4.

MM #25

Water

leaking in

around 4”C.l.

service

5.

45 Stephenson Street

Smoke

cue in basement.

6.

65 Stephenson Street

Dark brown

house

east

side

of

Lafayette

“~reet.Second house

~h of Washington

Smoke

cam.

in

basement.

Smoke

came out

of

chimney. B,...

like

there

is

smoke

in

basnt.

I:~WPffl.ES\rr~~Q3l27O&~

‘.~J

0138-02145

---

A7TAcRME~A

INFTLTRXI1ON/INPLOW ASSESSM~’r

(EXCERp’r~

FROM

CEDARvru~

FAcILiTY PLAN, OCTOBER

1, 1979’

0138-0246

---

III.

INFILTRATION/Ii4FLOW ASSESSMENT

Introduction

Under the current requirements of the Federal

Water po13utio

Control

Act,

construction

grants

for

treatment

works say

not be

awarded

unless

itis

established

that the wastewater

collection

system discharging into the treatment works

is not

subject t’

Nexcessivew

infiltration/inflow.

Sewer system inflow occurs when

systems

collecting storvatel

runoff are directly connected to the sewer

system.

Inflow

can

be

detected and estimated by

measuring

flows

at

key

points in the

sewer

system during rainfall, and calculating

any

increase in

flow

over

normal

dry

weather

flows.

Sewer system infiltration

occurs when soil conditions

and

groundwater levels are such that

they

enhance

the

conveyance

of

surface water seepage

and

groundwaters into

the system

through

poor joints

and

cracks in the seWer pipes

and

maitholes.

Normal

procedures

for

determining

the possible existence of excessive

infiltration

are

to

determine

wastéwater flowrates during

periods

when groundwater tables are high

and

soils

are

saturated but no

inflow producing

storm

event is present,

and

comparing them with

normal dry weather flows.

Determination of possible excessive infiltration/inflow in

the sanitary sewer system is required prior

to release of

Federal

grant funds

for construction of treatment plant improvements.

Sources of information used

in determining infiltration/

inflow

are treatment plant flow records,

water pufltpage.record5,

reports of

sewage backups

j

~Ose~e~~sor

streets, and field

---

flow measurements at key points in the system for various

climatological conditions.

Since there is no continuous flow recording equipment at

the

treatment

plant,

this

data

was

~

available

for

study

of

past

flow

patterns.

In

order

to

obtain information for this

study, elapsed

time

meters

on

a

lift

station

which serves

approximately

one

third of the village were utilized

to~gather

representative information of daily~flows

over a

3

month period.

Charts were ~ireparedto assist village personnel

in keeping

daily records.

Flow Measurements

Key manholes for flow measurements were selected from

available sewer system maps.

The key manholes selected divide

the total system into 5 major sub—systems in order to help

pinpoint any problem areas.

A field ‘inspection of these select

manholes

was

made

on February 28, 1979,

at

which

time ‘flow

measurements for average dry weather

conditions

were

collected.

The

numbers

of

the

key

manholes.

are as

shown

on

the

map in

Exhibit S of the Appendix.

The conditions of

manholes which

were entered were recorded.

Both depth of flow and weir

measure-

ments

were

taken.

These

results

are

su~narizedin Table 2.

On

April 16,

1979

a second set of flow

measurements

were taken for

high groundwater conditions.

These results are also su”~marized

in Table

2

Storm inflow flow xneasurem~nts

were

taken

on

June

18,

1979.

A storm front moved through the area beginning at 7:30 A.M.

continuing until 1:30

P.M. producing a steady rainfall for the

Dl 38-Q2148

---

TABLE

2

VILLAGE OF CEDARVILLE

INFILTRATION/INFLOW STUDY

FLOW

MEASUREMENTS

Depth

of

Weir

Line

MN

Dia.

Date

Time

Plow(Ft.)

RatCtCPD!

A

62 £

2/22/79

1:50

,05

3,750

4/16/79

1:15

.06

9,495

6/18/79

2:20

.06

8,100

B

62

S

8”

2/28/79

2:10

.07

4/16/79

1:35

.14

6/18/79

2:30

.10

C

19

N

8”

2/28/79

3:00

.03

1,600

4/16/79

2:20

.04

2,796

6/18/79

2:45

.03

12.075

D

19 £

8”

2/28/79

3:15

.05

3,360

4/16/79

2:00

.10

10.000

6/18/79

2:55

.10

*

12

E

12”

2/28/79

3:50

.10

10,000

4/16/79

2:35

.17

—

6/18/79

3:05

.14

28,495

E

4

N

8”

2/28/79

4:15

.08

1,500

4/16/79

2:55

.19

14,450

6/18/79

3:55

.20

13,990

1 a

12”

2/28/79

.28

4/16/79

3:10

.28

6/18/79

4:10

.32

61.500

Overflows Weir

No Measurement Taken

0138-0249

6.

---

duration, with a total rainfall accumulation of 0.5

inches.

Flow measurements were taken between 2:20 P.M.

and 4:10 P.M.

beginning at the upstream

key

manholes and continuing toward tt

treatment plant.

‘The results of these flow

measurements are

summarized in Table

2

Analysis of Flow Measurement Data

Tables 3 and

4

present

s~~aries

~fthe

infiltration and

inflow quantities indicated from the instantaneous flow measurei

where “instantaneousTM refers to non-continuous flow measurement.

Infiltration

-

Table

3 presents the measured instantaneous

infiltration for each of the trunk sewers.

The resulting total

infiltration flowrate is 37,546

gpd.

Trunk line D indicates a

436

increase over the measured dry weather flow, while all othe

lines increased by ‘less than

200.

TABLE

3

Instantaneous Infiltration into

Trunk

Sewers

4/16/79

Trunk

Wet Weather

Dry Weather

Instantaneous

Line

Flow

(gpd)

Flow

(gpd)

Infitration(gpd)

Remarks

A

9,495

3,750

5,745

153

Increa~

B

15,100

5,085

10,015

197

C

2,796

1,600

1,196

75

Increas

D

18,000

3,360

14,640

436

Inr’eas.

E

4,450

8,500

5,950

70

Increas~

Total

37,546

gpd

a

f38-o’25o

---

Inflow

-

Table

4 presents the measured inflow quantities fo11~

ing the rain event.

The resulting total instantaneous inflow

rate is 44,870 gpd, or 1870 gallons

per

hour.

Assuming

that

tb~

duration of this flowrate is

4

hours results in an inflow per

event

of

approximately

7,500

gallons.

TABLE

4

Instantaneous milow into

Trunk

Sewers

Trunk

Storm Inflow Dry Weather

Instantaneous

Line

Flow

(gpd)

Flow

(qpd)

Inflow

(gpd)

Remarks

A

8,100

3,750

4~,350

116SIncrease

B

15,000

.+

5,085

9,915

+

195

Increase

C

12,075

1,600

10,475

655

Increase

D

18,000

+

3,360

.

14,640

±

436

Increase

E

13,990

?,500

5,490

65

increase

Total

44,870

gpd

*

1,870

gph

Instantaneous ?lowrate x Estimated Duration

—

Total’ Inflow per *wa

.1,870 gph x

4

hours

7,500 gallons

Analysis of Lift Station Results

Table

5 presents the average daily pumpage through the

lift station

in 15

day time increments for the 3 month

period

of March through May.

Flows are based upon the pump design

ratings of 150 gpm at 70’ TDH although actual flows may vary

slightly.

During the first

15’ days of March the ground was

frozen and snow covered, so that the average daily pumpage of

12,910 gallons represents dry weather flows.

Thawing began ~

0138-025

I

8.

---

TABLE

5

VILLAGE OF CEDARVILLE

LIFT STATION

PUNpA~

Pumpage

~LnGPD

Month

Period

!!~gh

Avera~

Marc)~1979

1

—

15

9,900

16,650

12,910

16

—

30

18,450

47,475

27,091

I

-

15

12,825

26,325

17,283

16

-

3O

11,025

20,925

14,254

I

-

ii

7,650

22,882

12,78’

O138~O252

9.

---

March 16, with the following 15 day period having an

average

daily infiltration/inflow of 14,181 gallons through the

lift

station.

Assuming that this is representative of one—third of

the total

system

results

in

a

total

system

jnfjjtratjon,FjnfIow~

of 14,181 x 3

42,543 gallons

per

day which compares quite

well with the average

instantaneous

infiltration for

that per~

of

37,546

gpd.

As

can

be

seen

froaTable

6

,

the

average

infiltration/inflow was reduced to 13,119 gpd

during

the

first

part of April,

and

daily

flows were

back to normal dry

weather flows by the month

of May.

The

last column in

Tab1e~

indicates

the

estimated

total

system

I/I for each

period, ~

has

a

result

of

approximately

0.9

million

gallons

of

infi1tratio~

inflow due to anowmelt

and

high groundwater ‘conditions.

Estimated Total Annual Infiltration/Inflow

The results of the previous’

sections

indicate quantitl

~

infiltration/inflow.due

to

various

sources

as

I~i~”rizedbe1~

Estimated

Annual

Source

Amount

(Million Gallons)

General Infiltration

0.9’

Stormwater Inflow

1.2

Total

.2.1

These results indicate

essentially

equal

amounts

of infil-

tration and inflow.

The present average wastewater flow of

40,000 gpd results in

a total annual dry weather

flow of

14.6

million gallons.

Thus the estimated infiltration and

inflow

quantities amount

to

6

and

8

respectively, for a total

of 14t

of the annual dry weather flow.

Dl

38-0253

---

TABLE

6

VILLAGE OF CEDARVILLE

Ik~FIL?RATION/INFLOWMALYSIS

Lift

Station

Pumpage

in

GPD

Lift

Station

Total

System.

Estimated

Month

Period

Low

High

Average

Ave. I/I

Ave.

I/I

Total

I/I

~rch

1—15

9,900.

16,650

12,910

0

0

0

C..,

16—30

18,450

47,475

27,091

14,181

42,543

630,145

a,

I

c~

~ri1

1—15

12,025

26,325

17,283

4,373

13,1.9

196,785

16—30

11,025

20,925

14,254

1,344

4,032

60,480

895,410

gal.

---

The small amount of estimated stormwater inflow indicates

that there are no major storrnwater drainage system connections

to the sanitary sewer system.

The possible sources of the estimated quantity of general

infiltration include

poor

pipe joints, cracked or broken $ewer

pipe, seepage into manholes, poorly installed house service

lines, root intrusion,

and

other

effects of age and

dsterior*ti~

of the sewer system.

The locations of these

various

sources are

most likely scattered throughout the

system.

Infiltration/Inflow per Inch

—

Mile

Table

7 presents a suituary of the

size

and’ length of

sanitary sewer mains from the J~4Aand estimated

length

of

house

services in the Village of Cedarville.

TABLE

7

Description

Length

Inch Die. x

Mile

8” Sewer Main

16,664

25.25

12” Sewer Main

4,050

9.20

4” House Service

11,400

8.64

Total

43.09 Inch—Nil.

The highest weekly average infiltration/inflow through the

lift station occurred from March 29—April

4,

with an average

daily I/I as follows:

Ave.

Daily Punipage

~

29,886 gal.

Dry Weather Pun*page

F

12,910

I/I

through lift station

16,976

gpd

X

3

I/I

f.or

Total

System

=

.50,928 gpd/43.O9

1182 gpd/j

.0138-0255

12.

---

Per

PRM

78-10 issued by the

USEPA,

a

maximum

jnfiltrat

rate

of

less

than

1500

gpd/in.—mi.

can be considered as

flOfl

excessive, and a cost-effective

analysis

comparing

rehabilit

versus transporting

and

treating is not required.

0$ 38-0256

---

ATTAQIMENT

B

0138-0257

---

C’,

a,

I

Ui