09.01.2013 Views

Retrospective Evaluation of Cured-in-Place Pipe - (NEPIS)(EPA ...

Retrospective Evaluation of Cured-in-Place Pipe - (NEPIS)(EPA ...

Retrospective Evaluation of Cured-in-Place Pipe - (NEPIS)(EPA ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

8.0: REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL SCAN ACTIVITIES AND FINDINGS<br />

8.1 Introduction<br />

An <strong>in</strong>ternational review was undertaken to better understand the experiences <strong>of</strong> a wide range <strong>of</strong> utilities<br />

that have embarked on significant CIPP rehabilitation programs over past decades. The purpose was to<br />

assess <strong>in</strong>ternationally-based utilities’ views on the effectiveness <strong>of</strong> CIPP rehabilitation and to document<br />

any efforts to evaluate and/or monitor the <strong>in</strong>stalled quality <strong>of</strong> their CIPP <strong>in</strong>stallations over the long term.<br />

Face-to-face <strong>in</strong>terviews were held with n<strong>in</strong>e wastewater utilities located <strong>in</strong> the U.K., France, Germany,<br />

S<strong>in</strong>gapore, and Australia as shown <strong>in</strong> Table 8-1. The <strong>in</strong>terviews were conducted between March and<br />

October 2010. Appendix C conta<strong>in</strong>s a detailed <strong>in</strong>terview report for each utility based upon their<br />

experience with the performance <strong>of</strong> CIPP <strong>in</strong>stallations. In addition, the research team collected<br />

<strong>in</strong>formation on CIPP use and quality control <strong>in</strong> Japan and contacted the Centre d’Expertise et de<br />

Recherche en Infrastructures Urba<strong>in</strong>es (CERIU) <strong>in</strong> Montréal regard<strong>in</strong>g a retrospective evaluation effort<br />

that was underway for prior rehabilitation efforts <strong>in</strong> the Montréal region. These are discussed separately<br />

<strong>in</strong> Sections 8.7 and 8.8.<br />

Table 8-1. Utilities or Organizations Participat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> this Review<br />

First use <strong>of</strong> Total Network<br />

Utility/Organization Country<br />

CIPP Length (km)<br />

Thames Water U.K. 1971 69,600<br />

Severn Trent Water U.K. 1975 54,045<br />

Agglomeration de Chartres France 2000 325<br />

Agglomeration des Hauts-de-Bièvre France 1996 450<br />

Gött<strong>in</strong>gen Stadtentwässerung Germany 1992 375<br />

Technische Betriebe der Stadt<br />

Germany 1994 660<br />

Leverkusen<br />

Public Utilities Board S<strong>in</strong>gapore S<strong>in</strong>gapore 1997 3,660<br />

Queensland Urban Utilities Australia 1979 6,844<br />

Sydney Water Australia 1986 22,000<br />

Japan <strong>Pipe</strong> Rehabilitation Quality<br />

Assurance Association<br />

Japan 1986 380,000<br />

CERIU Canada N/A N/A<br />

8.2 Rehabilitation Experience<br />

Three <strong>of</strong> the participants first used CIPP <strong>in</strong> the 1970s, and may be considered early adopters <strong>of</strong> the<br />

technology. The first CIPP was <strong>in</strong>stalled <strong>in</strong> London <strong>in</strong> 1971 for the Greater London Council’s<br />

Metropolitan Water Board, now Thames Water Utilities, Ltd. A 70-m (230 ft) length <strong>of</strong> the Brick Lane<br />

Sewer, a century old brick 1,170 × 850 mm (46 × 33 <strong>in</strong>.) egg shaped sewer located at Riverside Close,<br />

Hackney, was l<strong>in</strong>ed with a 6 mm (0.24 <strong>in</strong>.) thick l<strong>in</strong>er. Many <strong>of</strong> the first CIPP contracts <strong>in</strong> the U.K. were<br />

undertaken for Thames Water and its agent authorities and by 1981 over a hundred successful<br />

<strong>in</strong>stallations had been undertaken <strong>in</strong> the U.K. <strong>in</strong> sizes from 4 to 108 <strong>in</strong>. (200 to 2,740 mm). Much <strong>of</strong> the<br />

early experience with CIPP was <strong>in</strong> Europe as Insituform, then the only player <strong>in</strong> the market, expanded its<br />

coverage from the U.K. by licens<strong>in</strong>g the technology to <strong>in</strong>dependent contractors. The Public Utilities<br />

Board (PUB) S<strong>in</strong>gapore did not use CIPP until 1994, but s<strong>in</strong>ce then has been the biggest user among the<br />

participants. Most <strong>of</strong> the participants also use other rehabilitation methods. Table 8-2 shows the relative<br />

use <strong>of</strong> different methods at each utility.<br />

108

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!